^tDsrx
i o
_
V pR0^O
-------
Report Contributors: Jaya Brooks
Jeffrey Harris
Kalpana Ramakrishnan
Steve Weber
Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
IDS Incident Data System
NASDA National Association of State Departments of Agriculture
OCSPP Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OIG Office of Inspector General
OPP Office of Pesticide Programs
PERC Pesticide Educational Resources Collaborative
SENSOR Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risk
WPS Worker Protection Standard
Cover photo: Pesticide handler spraying a pesticide. (EPA photo)
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
-------
• B \
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
18-P-0080
February 15, 2018
Why We Did This Review
We conducted this evaluation to
determine the adequacy of the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) management
controls for implementing the
revised Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
Agricultural Worker Protection
Standard (WPS) requirements.
We focused on training
resources, educational materials
and outreach efforts. We also
looked at how the agency plans
to collect and utilize WPS
compliance and enforcement
information to track pesticide
exposures among target
populations.
The WPS is intended to reduce
pesticide exposure incidents
among agricultural farmworkers
and pesticide handlers who use
and have contact with
pesticides. The EPA established
the WPS in 1974, expanded it in
1992, and revised the standard
in late 2015. Compliance with
most of the 2015 revisions was
required on January 2, 2017;
and the final three revisions on
January 2, 2018.
This report addresses the
following:
• Ensuring the safety of
chemicals.
• Compliance with the law.
Send all inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566-2391
or visit www.epa.gov/oiq.
Listing of OIG reports.
EPA Needs to Evaluate the Impact of the
Revised Agricultural Worker Protection
Standard on Pesticide Exposure Incidents
What We Found
The EPA had policies and procedures in
place to implement the revised Agricultural
WPS. Further, the agency provided training
to regional staff, state inspectors and
program leads. However, we found that
management controls to implement the
revised WPS were not fully adequate as of
January 2, 2017, when compliance with
most of the revised rule was required.
Over 2 million agricultural
workers and pesticide handlers
are protected by the WPS.
Revisions to the standard are
intended to reduce exposure to
pesticides and provide
enhanced protection to
agricultural workers, pesticide
handlers and their families.
Essential training and implementation materials were not available by January 2,
2017. In addition, two key documents—the WPS Inspection Manual and the
How to Comply manual—were not available when the EPA conducted the
majority of its training and outreach activities for states and tribes in 2016. As a
result, many state officials said they did not have the time, tools or resources to
successfully implement the revised WPS by the January 2, 2017, compliance
date. EPA granted a state agricultural association's petition to delay the
compliance date until the necessary training resources and educational
materials were made available to state agencies responsible for implementing
the WPS. However, in a December 21, 2017, Federal Register notice, the EPA
rescinded its plan to delay compliance dates. The agency announced that
compliance dates in the revised WPS published on November 2, 2015, remain in
effect and that the agency does not intend to extend them. The EPA also
announced plans to revise certain WPS requirements.
The EPA does not have the ability to collect agricultural pesticide exposure
incident data to measure the impact of the revised WPS rule among target
populations. The agency relies on information assessed during pesticide
re-evaluations and from voluntary reporting databases. The EPA is working on
improving its Incident Data System, but the agency stated that the improvements
will not enable the collection of additional occupational exposure data.
Recommendation and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We initially recommended that the EPA establish new compliance dates for the
revised WPS. However, based on the EPA's December 2017 decision to revert
back to the original compliance dates, we rescinded the recommendation. We
still recommend that the agency develop a methodology to evaluate the impact
of the revised standard on pesticide exposure incidents among the WPS target
populations. The agency disagreed with this recommendation, and resolution
efforts are in progress.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
February 15, 2018
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: EPA Needs to Evaluate the Impact of the Revised Agricultural
Worker Protection Standard on Pesticide Exposure Incidents
Report No. 18-P-008C
FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.
TO:
Charlotte Bertrand, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
Susan Bodine, Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
This is our report on the subject review conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The project number for this review was OPE-FY17-0008.
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, within 30 days, the OIG will meet with the Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention, and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, to discuss
the unresolved recommendation. Final decisions on the unresolved recommendation will be posted on
the OIG's website following the resolution process in EPA Manual 2750.
We will post this report to our website at www.epa.gov/oig.
-------
EPA Needs to Evaluate the Impact of the
Revised Agricultural Worker Protection Standard
on Pesticide Exposure Incidents
18-P-0080
Table of C
Chapters
1 Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Responsible Offices 3
Scope and Methodology 3
Prior Report 5
2 EPA Did Not Have Adequate Management Controls to Implement,
nor a Methodology to Determine Impact of, the Revised WPS Rule 6
EPA Had Processes and Procedures to Implement the Revised WPS,
but Essential Materials Were Not Provided in a Timely Manner 6
Agency Does Not Have a Means to Measure WPS Impact on
Agricultural Pesticide Exposure Incidents 8
Observed Best Practice 10
Conclusion 10
Recommendation 10
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 10
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 12
Appendices
A Agency Response to Draft Report 13
B Distribution 19
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
We conducted this evaluation to determine the adequacy of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) management controls for
implementing the revised Agricultural Worker Protection Standard (WPS)
requirements. Our objectives were to determine the following:
• Whether Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) and Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance (OECA) processes and procedures were
adequate to implement the revised Agricultural WPS.
• How the agency plans to collect and utilize the revised Agricultural WPS
compliance and enforcement information to track pesticide exposure
among target populations.
Background
Revised WPS
The EPA originally promulgated the WPS in 1974 under the authority of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and significantly
expanded the WPS in 1992. On November 2, 2015, the EPA issued a final rule that
further revised the WPS. The 2015 rule required agricultural establishments that
employ farmworkers and pesticide handlers to comply with most of the
requirements by January 2, 2017; however, three revisions that necessitated
specialized training were not effective until January 2, 2018.1
The primary objective of the WPS is to reduce
the risk of injury or illness resulting from
agricultural farmworkers' and pesticide
handlers' use of and contact with pesticides on
farms, forests, nurseries and greenhouses.
By better protecting agricultural workers and
pesticide handlers, the agency anticipates
fewer pesticide exposure incidents among
farmworkers, handlers and their family
members. Fewer incidents mean reduced
exposure to pesticides that may contribute to
WPS Target Populations
The WPS primarily seeks to
protect two occupational groups:
• Agricultural workers. Those
who perform hand-labor
tasks in pesticide-treated
crops, such as harvesting,
thinning and pruning.
• Pesticide handlers. Those
who mix, load and apply
pesticides.
1 Federal regulations at 40 CFR Part 170 provide details on WPS requirements, including effective and compliance
dates.
18-P-0080
1
-------
chronic illness and, therefore, a healthier workforce, which helps avoid lost wages
and medical bills. The WPS is expected to protect more than 2 million agricultural
workers and pesticide handlers who work on 600,000 agricultural establishments.
Based on an analysis of occupational pesticide incidents reported to the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, there are an estimated 1,810 to 2,950
pesticide incidents annually on agricultural establishments covered by the WPS that
could be prevented by the WPS revisions.
EPA and State Management of WPS
OPP, within the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP),
and OECA work in collaboration with the states, tribes and territories to manage
enforcement of and compliance with FIFRA, including the WPS. In February
2017, these two EPA offices issued a joint guidance document, 2018-2021
FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance, that defines the roles of EPA offices,
states, tribes and territories regarding pesticide-related programmatic, compliance
assistance and enforcement activities. According to this guidance document, OPP
provides funding to support "education, outreach, training, technical assistance
and evaluation activities" for pesticide program development and implementation.
Requests to Delay WPS Implementation
On December 21, 2016, the National Association of State Departments of
Agriculture (NASDA) and the American Farm Bureau Federation submitted a
petition to delay implementation for all revisions of the WPS until at least
January 2, 2018. The EPA denied this petition on January 13, 2017.
NASDA submitted a subsequent petition on February 21, 2017, to formally
request the extension of all the revised WPS requirements:
... until at least January 2, 2018 or until adequate enforcement
guidance, educational materials, and training resources have been
completed and the state lead agencies have the tools, time, and
resources necessary to effectively implement the rule changes and
assist the regulated community with compliance activities.
On May 11, 2017, the agency announced it would grant NASDA's petition to
extend the implementation date of all revised WPS requirements "until the
necessary guidance and training have been completed which would allow state
lead pesticide agencies to successfully implement the rule changes."
However, EPA reversed this decision and announced in a December 21, 2017,
Federal Register notice that the compliance dates in the November 2, 2015, rule
remain in effect and that the agency does not intent to extend them. Additionally,
the EPA announced that it has initiated a rulemaking process to revise certain
18-P-0080
2
-------
requirements in the Agricultural WPS. The notice stated that the only
requirements in the revised WPS that will not be in effect as of January 2, 2018,
are the requirements that the worker and handler pesticide safety training material
cover the expanded content at 40 CFR 170.401(c)(3) and 170.501(c)(3).
Request to Collect Pesticide Exposure Incident Data
The EPA does not have a comprehensive database that maintains national
pesticide incident data. On November 29, 2016, the EPA Administrator received a
petition for rulemaking from 80 nongovernmental organizations to encourage the
agency to improve its incident data collection. Although registrants are required to
report incidents under FIFRA Section (6)(a)(2),2 the petitioners argued that this
reporting scheme is ineffective because of high reporting triggers and thresholds,
reporting mechanisms that are not user-friendly, minimal public access, and lack
of coordination with other federal agencies.
The EPA does have access to some sources of incident data collected by the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's Sentinel Event
Notification System for Occupational Risk (SENSOR) Pesticide Program3 and the
National Pesticide Information Center.
Responsible Offices
OPP (within OCSPP) and OECA have the primary responsibility for subjects in
this review.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted our work from March through September 2017. We conducted this
performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained
provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
We met with key OPP and OECA staff to identify the processes and procedures the
EPA had in place to implement the revised WPS and to determine whether the
agency could collect pesticide exposure incident data. We judgmentally selected
regions; interviewed regional staff implementing the revised WPS in Regions 4, 5, 7
and 9; and interviewed state program leads in California, Minnesota and North
Carolina. We also interviewed the following stakeholders about their perspectives on
2 FIFRA Section (6)(a)(2) states, "If at any time after the registration of a pesticide the registrant has additional
factual information regarding unreasonable adverse effects on the environment of the pesticide, the registrant shall
submit such information to the Administrator."
3 SENSOR-Pesticides is a surveillance program that monitors occupational illnesses related to pesticide exposure.
18-P-0080
3
-------
the WPS and the adequacy of the agency's implementation of the revised rule:
Farmworker Justice, Migrant Clinicians Network, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, and Pesticide Educational Resources Collaborative (PERC).
We reviewed whether OPP's and OECA's management controls were adequate to
implement the revised WPS. The team assessed adequacy of implementation based
on whether (1) training and training resources4 were provided to regional staff,
state inspectors and program leads in advance of the January 2, 2017, compliance
date; (2) outreach efforts were conducted with stakeholders on the WPS revision
and implementation timeline; and (3) WPS education materials5 were updated to
incorporate revisions. Additionally, we reviewed the following guidance
documents, policies and procedures, other documents, and online sources:
• Title 40 CFR Part 170, Worker Protection Standard.
• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
• U.S. Government Accountability Office, Standards for Internal Control in
the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G, September 2014.
• Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123, Management's
Responsibility for Enterprise Risk Management and Internal Control.
• The EPA's Economic Analysis of the Agricultural Worker Protection
Standard Revisions, RIN 2070-AJ22 Docket: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0184,
November 2015.
• EPA, 2015-2017 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance, March 6, 2014.
• EPA, 2018-2021 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance, February 14,
2017.
• EPA, Quality Policy, CIO 2106.0, October 2008.
• OPP and OECA documents and activities, including 11 strategic planning
documents, 24 educational resources, 64 training resources, and regional
and state training dates and outreach to stakeholders.
• The EPA's public website on the revised WPS and the PERC public
website.
4 According to OPP, training resources are materials that were provided during training sessions with regions, states
and stakeholders but are not financial resources that would be used to conduct training.
5 According to OPP, educational materials are provided to regions, states and stakeholders to demonstrate how
growers, workers and/or applicators may adhere to specific WPS requirements.
18-P-0080
4
-------
Prior Report
EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report No. 17-P-0053. Additional
Measures Can Be Taken to Prevent Deaths and Serious Injuries From Residential
Fumigations, issued December 12, 2016, recommended that the agency establish
milestone completion dates for the pesticide incident database initiative.
18-P-0080
5
-------
Chapter 2
EPA Did Not Have Adequate Management Controls
to Implement, nor a Methodology to Determine
Impact of, the Revised WPS Rule
We found that OPP and OECA had processes and procedures in place to
implement the revised Agricultural WPS. Further, the agency provided training by
January 2, 2017—the compliance date for most of the revised WPS
requirements—to regional staff, state inspectors and program leads. However, we
found that management controls were not fully adequate. Specifically:
• Essential educational and implementation materials were not available by
January 2, 2017. In addition, the WPS Inspection Manual and the How to
Comply manual were not available when the EPA conducted the majority
of its training and outreach activities for the states and tribes in 2016. As a
result, many state officials said that they did not have the time, tools or
resources to successfully implement the revised WPS.
• As of December 2017, OPP and OECA did not have the ability to collect
comprehensive agricultural pesticide exposure incident data to measure
the impact of the revised WPS rule among target populations. The agency
instead relied on information assessed during pesticide re-evaluations and
from voluntary reporting databases. Although the EPA was working to
improve its Incident Data System (IDS), the agency stated that the
improvements will not increase the capability to collect additional
occupational exposure data.
EPA Had Processes and Procedures to Implement the Revised WPS,
but Essential Materials Were Not Provided in a Timely Manner
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123, Management's Responsibility
for Enterprise Risk Management and Internal Control, directs federal managers to
establish internal controls that help achieve their program objectives. In
compliance with this guidance, the EPA developed processes and procedures to
implement the revised WPS.
Furthermore, before January 2, 2017, the agency provided training to the regional
staff, state inspectors, program leads and other stakeholders responsible for
compliance with the revised WPS. The agency created most—but not all—of the
educational materials required for successful implementation; these materials
were available online and provided in both English and Spanish. Nonetheless,
18-P-0080
6
-------
many state officials said they were not given the time, tools or resources to
successfully implement the revised WPS.
The implementation schedule for the revised 2015 WPS rule provided agricultural
establishments that employ farmworkers and pesticide handlers 14 months to
implement most of the revised rule and over 2 years to implement the full rule.
Based on this schedule, the initial compliance date was January 2, 2017.
However, on May 11, 2017, the agency announced it would grant NASD A's
petition to extend the implementation date of all revised WPS requirements
"until the necessary guidance and training have been completed which would
allow state lead pesticide agencies to successfully implement the rule changes."
Subsequently, in a December 21, 2017, Federal Register notice, the EPA
rescinded its plan to delay compliance dates. The agency announced that
compliance dates in the revised WPS published on November 2, 2015, remain in
effect and that the agency does not intend to extend them.
Enforcement Guidance, Training Resources and
Educational Materials Were Not Available in a Timely Manner
The WPS Inspection Manual, an enforcement guidance document, was not
published until January 2, 2017, which was the original compliance date for most
of the revised WPS; the document was not available during the EPA's 2016
training sessions. Another guidance document, the How to Comply manual, was
also unavailable during the EPA's early training sessions.
During interviews with EPA staff in Regions 4, 5 and 9, and with state lead
agencies in California, Minnesota and North Carolina, issues related to the
application exclusion zones and the respirator fitness testing were identified as
items that needed clarification. The revised WPS application exclusion zone
requirement6 caused confusion during early WPS training sessions. The EPA
therefore developed additional materials to convey the scope and implication of
the application exclusion zones in April 2016. The EPA advised that PERC,
which has a cooperative agreement with the EPA to create WPS educational
materials, completed the guidance for respirator fitness testing in September 2017.
State Lead WPS Outreach to Stakeholders Incomplete
Pursuant to the EPA's cooperative agreements with states to implement FIFRA,
states are responsible for educating their stakeholders about WPS compliance. As
of June 14, 2017, OPP said that based on its communication with states, only five
or six states had completed revised WPS outreach activities with their regulated
communities (i.e., the agricultural establishments that employ farmworkers and
6 According to the EPA's April 2016 Worker Protection Standard Application Exclusion Zone Requirements:
Question and Answer Fact Sheet, "The 'Application Exclusion Zone' or AEZ is a new term used in the WPS rule
and refers to the area surrounding the pesticide application equipment that must be free of all persons other than
appropriately trained and equipped handlers during pesticide applications."
18-P-0080
7
-------
pesticide handlers). Of the three states for which we interviewed staff, California
and Minnesota conducted outreach with their regulated communities to facilitate
WPS compliance. North Carolina staff said that they were unable to add the WPS
to the agenda for their annual meetings with growers in early 2016 because the
revised WPS was published in late 2015; therefore, they did not begin discussions
with growers until early 2017.
The EPA relied on state lead agencies to provide outreach to their regulated
communities. However, other than use of the state cooperative agreement activity
end-of-year reports,7 there is not a tool for state lead agencies to alert the EPA as to
whether they have or have not initiated outreach activities.
Agency Does Not Have a Means to Measure WPS Impact on
Agricultural Pesticide Exposure Incidents
The EPA does not have a means to collect comprehensive occupational
agricultural pesticide exposure incident data to measure the impact of the revised
WPS rule among target populations. While the main objective of the revised rule
is to reduce pesticide exposure and incidents among farm workers and pesticide
handlers, OPP staff said the agency is not statutorily required to collect
occupational pesticide exposure incident data, nor does the agency receive
funding—either for itself or states—to collect exposure incident data.
The agency relies on information assessed during the re-evaluation of active
ingredients and from voluntary reporting databases. The EPA is also working to
create an improved IDS. According to the EPA's Quality Policy, "EPA has
adopted the philosophy that the quality of environmental data and information
supporting the Agency's decisions must be appropriate for their intended use."
The absence of comprehensive occupational agricultural pesticide exposure
incidents data may result in the agency being unable to determine whether the
revised WPS meets its intended goal of reducing pesticide exposure incidents
among farmworkers and pesticide handlers.
Significant Barriers Exist to Obtaining Incident Data
The EPA indicated that up to 95 percent of pesticide exposure incidents involving
farmworkers or pesticide handlers are not reported. According to the EPA's
Economic Analysis of the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions,
if even just 10 percent of poisonings are reported, the quantifiable benefits of the
revised WPS would be about $2.6 million annually.
7 The FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Work Plan and Report Template was developed by staff from EPA regional
offices, OPP, OECA and several FIFRA state lead agencies to "promote national consistency in grantee work plans,
grantee progress reports and EPA year-end evaluation reports," and "more easily allow for the compilation of data,
both regionally and nationally."
18-P-0080
8
-------
The EPA's Economic Analysis of the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard
Revisions cites fear of retaliation as the main reason for unreported pesticide
exposure incidents. This document also references a state of Washington survey,
which identifies another key barrier: Although seeking medical care is one way to
report incidents, agricultural workers may be reluctant to pursue treatment due to
fear of lost wages or loss of a job while seeking care, cost of care, lack of
transportation, and lack of trust in healthcare providers.
Obtaining incident data is also challenging because there is no universal,
consistent way to gather the data. Staff from OPP, OECA, EPA regions and state
pesticide agencies noted that WPS inspections are not used to report pesticide
exposure incidents. State inspectors are not trained to verify a pesticide exposure
incident. In addition, if an incident occurs and medical attention is provided, the
clinician may not correctly identify the illness as related to a pesticide exposure
incident. Even if the clinician does correctly identify the incident as related to
pesticide exposure, there is no national requirement that healthcare practitioners
report the pesticide incidents to their state departments of health. The Migrant
Clinicians Network reports that, as of April 2017, 30 states require clinicians to
report pesticide exposure cases to their state departments of health. However, the
EPA advised that its pesticide cooperative agreements are generally with state
departments of agriculture (and not the state departments of health), which is
where the pesticide regulatory agency normally resides.
The OPP IDS Does Not Capture Occupational Pesticide Exposure
Incidents
OPP said its IDS collects only a fraction of the available pesticide exposure
information. As of December 2017, the system does not collect occupational
agricultural worker incident data, which are generally collected through state-
specific public health requirements. Even if an incident is reported to a state's
department of health, there is no specific requirement that the information is
reported to the EPA. In addition, incidents must be manually entered into the IDS,
the IDS maintains inconsistent information of different levels of quality and
verifiability, and incidents are submitted from various sources. The IDS is also
stand-alone and unable to communicate with other databases.
Since 2014, OPP has been developing an improved pesticide IDS. OPP noted that
progress has been slow and said completion of the IDS could take 3 to 4 years.
When complete, OPP said the IDS will be an electronic incident reporting portal
that will be publicly available. The new IDS aims to improve the quality of the
incident data received and to increase the efficiency, consistency and transparency
regarding the use of incident data in regulatory decisions and rulemaking.
However, OPP said that the improved IDS will not do anything to increase the
amount of occupational pesticide exposure incident data that are collected. As a
result, the EPA needs to develop an alternative means to evaluate the impact of
the rule on occupational pesticide incidents.
18-P-0080
9
-------
Observed Best Practice
California law requires physicians to report any illness known or suspected to be
caused by pesticide exposure. California County Agricultural Commissioners
investigate the exposure circumstances within the state. California's Department
of Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program collects and evaluates incident reports.
The program then reviews the collected information and enters it into a database.
California's program makes illness monitoring a priority. California Department
of Pesticide Regulations officials said they plan to develop a mobile phone
application that will encourage agricultural workers, pesticide handlers and the
general public to report pesticide poisonings and injuries.
Conclusion
Essential WPS educational and implementation materials were not available by
January 2, 2017, the compliance date for most WPS revisions. Subsequently, the
agency granted a request to delay the revised WPS. However, the EPA reversed
this decision and announced in a December 21, 2017 Federal Register notice that
compliance dates in the revised WPS published on November 2, 2015, remain in
effect and that the agency does not intend to extend them. Delays to the WPS
affect more than 2 million agricultural farm workers and pesticide handlers.
Moreover, the agency does not have a method to evaluate the revised rule's
impact on occupational pesticide exposure incidents. The agency's inability to
collect occupational pesticide exposure data among WPS target populations may
impede its ability to determine the impact of the revised WPS.
Recommendation
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention, in coordination with the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance:
1. Develop and implement a methodology to evaluate the impact of the
revised Agricultural Worker Protection Standard on pesticide exposure
incidents among target populations.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
In the EPA's official comments to the draft report (Appendix A), it agreed with
the original Recommendation 1 relating to establishing compliance dates.
However, the EPA reversed this decision and announced in a December 21, 2017,
Federal Register notice that compliance dates in the revised WPS published on
November 2, 2015, remain in effect and that the agency does not intend to extend
them. Therefore, the recommendation is no longer applicable and has been
rescinded from the report, and the remaining recommendation renumbered.
18-P-0080
10
-------
The agency disagreed with the other recommendation (originally
Recommendation 2), and indicated that it would not be taking any corrective
action. As a result of a November 30, 2017, meeting with the agency, the OIG
modified the wording of the recommendation to better clarify the intent of the
recommendation. However, the EPA also disagreed with the revised
recommendation. Therefore, we consider this recommendation unresolved.
The agency provided technical comments on the draft report, which we
incorporated into our final report as appropriate.
18-P-0080
11
-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATION
Potential
Planned
Monetary
Rec.
Page
Completion
Benefits
No.
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Date
(in $000s)
1 10 In coordination with the Office of Enforcement and U Assistant Administrator for
Compliance Assurance, develop and implement a Chemical Safety and
methodology to evaluate the impact of the revised Agricultural Pollution Prevention
Worker Protection Standard on pesticide exposure incidents
among target populations.
1 C = Corrective action completed.
R = Recommendation resolved with corrective action pending.
U = Recommendation unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
18-P-0080
12
-------
Appendix A
Agency Response to Draft Report
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to the Draft Report: "EPA Needs to Establish New Effective Dates for
Revised Worker Protection Standard and Collect Pesticide Exposure Incident Data," Project No.
OPE-FY17-0008.
FROM: Charlotte Bertrand
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator
TO: Arthur A. Elkins
Inspector General
This memorandum is in response to the Office of Inspector General's (OIG's) Draft Report
entitled, "EPA Needs to Establish New Effective Dates for Revised Worker Protection Standard
and Collect Pesticide Exposure Incident Data," dated September 21, 2017.8 OCSPP is also
submitting a separate redline/strikeout document with specific technical comments and
corrections to the Draft Report.
The WPS plays an important role in reducing the risk of pesticide illness and injury among
agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. The WPS offers occupational protections to over 2
million agricultural workers (people involved in the production of agricultural plants) and
pesticide handlers (people who mix, load, or apply crop pesticides) who work at over 600,000
agricultural establishments (farms, forests, nurseries and greenhouses).
On November 2, 2015, EPA revised the WPS to implement stronger protections for agricultural
workers, handlers and their families. Each year, between 1,800 and 3,000 preventable
occupational incidents involving pesticide exposure occur on establishments covered by the
WPS. The WPS revisions are intended to decrease pesticide exposure incidents among
farmworkers and their family members. Fewer incidents means a healthier workforce and
avoiding lost wages, medical bills and absences from work and school.
The Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) appreciates the OIG's effort to
evaluate the Pesticide Program's management controls for implementing the revised Agricultural
WPS requirements.
The Draft Report contains two recommendations. As discussed below, OCSPP agrees with
Recommendation 1 and disagrees with Recommendation 2.
8 Among the technical corrections we propose is a slight change to the Report's title to "EPA Needs to Establish
New Compliance Dates for Revised Worker Protection Standard and Collect Pesticide Exposure Incident Data."
The reason for this change is that there is a difference between "effective dates" and "compliance dates." The
revised WPS became effective on January 1, 2016, which was 60 days after the revised WPS was published in the
Federal Register. However, EPA delayed the compliance dates for one and two years after that. Employers were
required to comply with most of the revised requirements beginning January 2, 2017 (the first "compliance date")
and with the remaining requirements on January 2, 2018 (the second "compliance date.")
18-P-0080
13
-------
OCSPP Responses to OIG's Recommendations
Recommendation 1: The Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention, in coordination with the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
as deemed necessary, should establish compliance dates for the revised Agricultural Worker
Protection Standard based on:
a) Completion of adequate guidance and educational materials necessary for state lead
agencies to assist their regulated communities with compliance activities.
b) Dissemination of, or providing appropriate access to, the guidance documents and
educational materials to the regulated community.
c) Criteria for determining the time and resources necessary for state lead agencies to
effectively implement the revised standard.
OCSPP Response and Proposed Corrective Action: OCSPP agrees with this
recommendation.
OCSPP, in coordination with OECA where appropriate, has already developed meaningful
agricultural worker protection standard guidance and educational materials for state lead
agencies and the regulated community. The following is a list of key WPS educational and
implementation documents, presented by date according to availability:
• December 2015: Overview PowerPoint presentations available (short and long versions)
and Detailed PowerPoint presentations on each topic available (from first WPS PREP
Course)
• April 2016: Interpretive Policy and Q&As on the Application Exclusion Zone (AEZ)
issued by EPA
• August 2016: 2-page Quick Reference Guide developed by Pesticide Educational
Resources Collaborative (PERC) pursuant to an OCSPP cooperative agreement
• September 2016: How to Comply Manual issued by PERC
• December 2016: PERC Train the Trainer PowerPoint issued (new content; worker and
handler; in-person)
• January 2017: WPS Inspector Guidance issued by EPA; and PERC Pesticide Safety
Training PowerPoint issued (new content; worker and handler; in-person)
• July 2017: Pesticide Safety Poster covering the revised content issued by PERC
• September 2017: Respirator Protection Guide issued by PERC
In the coming months, OCSPP will continue to develop additional materials, including the
following:
• Online train-the-trainer program from PERC (new safety training content; for trainers of
workers and handlers)
• Handler training video from PERC (new safety training content for handlers)
Timeframe: OCSPP, in coordination with OECA, will establish compliance dates for the revised
WPS, in accordance with the three subparts of Recommendation 1, as follows:
a) Completion of adequate guidance and educational materials necessary for state lead
agencies to assist their regulated communities with compliance activities: Completed. As
described in OCSPP's response above, numerous materials have already been developed.
18-P-0080
14
-------
Most notably, key training and educational materials for the revised WPS were issued in
September 2016 and January 2017.
b) Dissemination of. or providing appropriate access to. the guidance documents and
educational materials to the regulated community: Completed. As described in OCSPP's
response above, many materials have already been disseminated to recipients, and
development of additional materials will continue as needed.
c) Criteria for determining the time and resources necessary for state lead agencies to
effectively implement the revised standard. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee
Act, OCSPP's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) convened a public meeting of the
Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC)9 on November 1 - 2, 2017. There was a
focused session on the WPS. OPP received feedback on potential needs and concerns
about complying with three key areas of the revised WPS:
1. Application Exclusion Zone
2. Minimum Age
3. Designated Representative Requirement.
As a result of the input received at this PPDC meeting, by December 15, 2017, OPP will prepare
an analysis to assess whether additional time for compliance, guidance, outreach, and/or training
materials are needed in these areas and make recommendations to the Deputy Assistant
Administrator.
OIG Response: On May 11, 2017, the EPA announced it would grant NASD A's petition to
extend the implementation date of all revised WPS requirements "until the necessary guidance
and training have been completed which would allow state lead pesticide agencies to
successfully implement the rule changes." In the absence of new compliance dates, or
definitions of "necessary guidance and training," we recommended that compliance dates and
criteria for necessary guidance and training be established. In a December 21, 2017, Federal
Register notice, the agency announced that compliance dates in the revised WPS published on
November 2, 2015, remain in effect and the agency does not intend to extend them. As a result,
this recommendation is rescinded.
Recommendation 2: Establish a system to collect and track pesticide exposure incidents among
Agricultural Worker Protection Standard target populations to enable measurement of the
standard's impact and effect.
OCSPP Response: OCSPP disagrees with this recommendation for the following reasons:
1) No Clear Statutory Authority
The Pesticide Program does not have clear statutory authority to require the submission of
pesticide exposure incident information from states or target populations affected by the WPS
9 EPA established the PPDC in September 1995 to provide advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator
on issues associated with pesticide regulatory development and reform initiatives, evolving public policy and
program implementation issues, and science issues associated with evaluating and reducing risks from use of
pesticides. The following sectors are represented on the PPDC: environmental/public interest and animal rights
groups; farm worker organizations; pesticide industry and trade associations; pesticide user, grower, and commodity
groups; Federal and State/local/tribal governments; the general public; academia; and public health organizations.
18-P-0080
15
-------
rule, and has no statutory authority to compel the submission of pesticide exposure incident
information from states or target populations (even if EPA could issue a rule to compel the
submission of such information, it lacks the authority under Section 12 of FIFRA to prosecute
any failure to comply with such a rule).
OIG Response: The OIG is recommending that OCSPP have the ability to measure the
impact of the revised WPS implementation. In the EPA's official response, there is not a
proposed corrective action that addresses this concern. As a result, this recommendation is
unresolved.
2) Unavailability of Data on Farmworker Incidents
Although there are efforts in a small number of states to collect occupational pesticide incident
data from farmworkers, data on farmworker pesticide exposure incidents is generally
unavailable. OPP collects pesticide incident data from a wide variety of sources, but even in
combination, those sources are neither detailed nor comprehensive enough to provide a
statistically representative picture of farmworker pesticide incidents.
OIG Response: The Migrant Clinician Network advised that 30 states collect pesticide
incident data. OCSPP staff stated that the data exist but that the agency does not have a
mechanism to access the data. OPP said its current IDS collects only a fraction of the available
information. In the EPA's proposal to revise the WPS, the agency justified the revision
because it was intended to reduce the incident rates of occupational pesticide exposure and
related illnesses among pesticide handlers and agricultural workers who are covered by this
rule, as well as to protect any bystanders from exposure to agricultural pesticide use. The
agency needs the ability to collect this available data.
The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health's (NIOSH's) Sentinel Event
Notification System for Occupational Risk (SENSOR) Pesticides database collects occupational
incident data from 9-13 states and provides the best reach into farmworker exposures, in part due
to contributions from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation's (CDPR) unique
surveillance system, the Pesticide Incident Surveillance Program (PISP). The PISP captures
required reporting on pesticide poisoning from physicians and from analyses of workman's
compensation information and provides follow-up investigation of each incident, including
details about the circumstances of the exposure. The PISP is supported by a team at CDPR and
56 county agricultural commissioners who provide the detailed follow up. Without rigorous
investigation and capture of critical details about each incident, a reliable analysis of the impact
of the WPS cannot be made. Even California's data does not provide a complete snapshot of the
impact of the WPS, because California regulates worker safety under separate requirements,
which differ from the revised WPS (but are considered equivalent in protection).
3) Database Costs and Data Quality
OPP uses NIOSH's SENSOR Pesticides database of occupational pesticide incidents and other
incident information to help characterize risk, identify problem areas, and to make risk
management decisions on specific pesticides; and to help support rulemaking. SENSOR
18-P-0080
16
-------
currently collects incidents from between 9-13 states, depending on the year, which are the states
where almost 60% of the farmworkers (based on data from 2008 - 2011) work, but does not
represent the full national count of farmworker incidents. For example, about half of the
incidents in SENSOR Pesticides are provided by California. Recently, OPP has contributed
between $100,000 and $175,000 annually to support this data collection. It is unlikely that the
SENSOR-Pesticides database could be expanded to include all states due to competing priorities
and staff constraints at the state level and a limited amount of federal funding to support state
participation.
As explained in the Economic Analysis of the 2015 WPS rule and supported by peer-reviewed
publications10, even where the best incident surveillance systems are in place, underreporting of
pesticide exposure and incidents is a significant concern. Underreporting may occur due to
symptoms that are not easily recognized or diagnosed as pesticide-related and/or due to potential
barriers that exist for farmworkers to seek medical attention.
4) Limitations on the Use of Current Enforcement Data
The Draft Report mentions enforcement data as a potential source of incident data however,
inspections are not a useful vehicle for collection of meaningful incident data for the following
reasons:
• Inspections focus on identifying misuse of a pesticide, and not all misuse results in
pesticide exposure.
• Misuse inspections are conducted by states11 and state reporting to EPA is limited to
minimize the resource burden on the state agencies.
• Data collected through inspections and reported to EPA (other than for "high level
incidents"12) do not contain information on potential pesticide exposure incidents.
• The number of inspections is very small compared to the universe of establishments
covered by WPS, and strategies to select inspection targets vary from state to state and
year to year.
• Increased awareness of the requirement to report or the availability of options to report
incidents can influence the number of incidents reported outside of the impact of the rule.
In California, CDPR has on occasion issued letters to physicians reminding them of their
mandated responsibility to report pesticide incidents, resulting in a significant increase
compared with previous years' data.
10 The discussion of underreporting in Chapter 4 of the Economic Analysis of the Agricultural Worker Protection
Standard Revisions (2015) is based largely on the following publications: (1) Das R, A Steege, S Baron, J Beckman,
R Harrison. 2001. Pesticide-related illness among migrant farm workers in the United States. Int J Occup Environ
Health 7:303-312; (2) Kandel, W. 2008. Profile of Hired Farmworkers, 2008 Update, Economic Research Report
No. 60, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, June; (3) Washington State Department of
Labor & Industries. Farm Worker Health and Safety in Washington State: A Look at Workers' Compensation Data.
Olympia, WA: Safety and Health Assessment and Research for Prevention, Report No. 24-2-1991, 1991.
11 With few exceptions, for example, in Indian Country where EPA provides the inspections.
12 On very rare occasions, states encounter a "high level incident" involving serious adverse effects to human health
or the environment, which may require close cooperation with EPA or other agencies to conduct an investigation or
bring the incident under control or to a resolution. These incidents must be reported to EPA under the FIFRA
cooperative agreements, but are typically not identified through routine inspections.
18-P-0080
17
-------
OIG Response: As reported, the OIG stated that, based on consultation with numerous
stakeholders, WPS inspections are not used to collect occupational pesticide incident
information.
Timeframe: For the reasons stated, no further action or a timetable is proposed for this
recommendation.
OIG Response to Recommendation 2: As a result of a November 30, 2017, meeting with the
agency, the OIG modified the wording of Recommendation 2. The EPA disagreed with the
revised recommendation and provided an alternative, which we have determined does not
address the published intent of the rule. As a result, this recommendation is unresolved.
Conclusion and Contact Information: Overall, the agency is pleased that the Draft Report
recognizes OCSPP's continuing efforts to improve worker safety and protection through the
implementation of the revised Worker Protection Standard. This has been a collaborative audit
process, which has helped the agency to consider potential improvements during the
implementation of the WPS.
If you have technical questions regarding this response, please contact Kevin Keaney,
OCSPP/OPP, Keanev.kevin@epa.gov. If you have other questions, please contact Janet Weiner,
OCSPP's Audit Liaison, at Weiner.ianet@epa.gov.
Attachment
18-P-0080
18
-------
Appendix B
Distribution
The Administrator
Chief of Staff
Chief of Operations
Deputy Chief of Operations
Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
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 Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Deputy Assistant Administrator for 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 Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Pesticide Programs, Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
18-P-0080
19
------- |