U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General Oversight of EPA FIFRA Implementation June 2, 2015 SFIREG Meeting

2 Agenda OIG: Background & Mission OIG work on Pesticides Recent Work on FIFRA Implementation Contacts

3 OIG Background The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is an independent office within EPA created pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended to: Conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of their agencies Provide a means for keeping the head of the establishment and Congress fully and currently informed about problems and deficiencies, and the necessity for and progress of corrective actions

4 OIG Organization Inspector General Deputy Inspector General Office of Audit Office of Investigations Office of Program Evaluation Office of Mission Systems Office of Counsel/ Congressional & Public Affairs Office of Chief of Staff

5 OIG/OPE Background In 2000 Congress funded the establishment of OPE within the OIG to: analyze environmental outcomes more effectively answer questions about how well a program or activity is designed, implemented or operating in achieving EPA goals produce conclusions about the value, merits or worth of programs or activities improve the operations of EPA programs and activities, identify deficiencies, sustain best practices and effective operations, and facilitate accomplishment of EPA goals

6 OPE Organization Assistant Inspector General Deputy Assistant Inspector General Toxics, Chemical Management and Pollution Prevention (TCMPP) Special Program Reviews Science Research and Management Integrity Land Cleanup and Waste Management Water Air

7 TCMPP (Toxics) Coverage EPA Goal 4: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution – OCSPP Program design, implementation, efficiency, effectiveness, – OECA programs/activities in support of OCSPP Enforcement – ORD programs/activities in support of OCSPP Research, science

8 Sources of OPE Work Legislative mandate Congressional inquiries Hotline complaints Agency requests OIG self-initiated, based on: Potential environmental risk or benefit Risk of fraud, waste, or abuse Expected return on investment from improved business systems EPA dollar/FTE investment/Financial impact Prior audit/Evaluation results Stakeholder or public interest

9 OIG Pesticide Evaluations Oversight of State FIFRA Program Inspections (2015) EPA Pesticide Inspections North Dakota (2015) Outreach About NPIC's Role and Services (2015) Conventional Reduced Risk Pesticide Program (2014) Pesticide and Chemical Enforcement Penalty Policies and Practices (2013) Managing Nanomaterial Risks (2011) Antimicrobial Testing Program (2009 & 2010) Oversight of Exported Never-Registered Pesticides (2009) Strategic Agricultural Initiative (2007) Measuring the Impact of the FQPA (2006) Data Quality and Children’s Health, FQPA (2006) Public Confidence in the Implementation of FQPA (2005)

10 EPA’s Oversight of State Pesticide Inspections Evaluation question: Determine how EPA oversight of state pesticide inspections ensures the quality of state-performed WPS and certification inspections. Type of inspection reviewed EPA Region StateWPSUse Market- placeFor Cause Certified ApplicatorRestricted-UseTotal 1MA GA NC21 3 7MO CO ND TOTAL

11 EPA’s Oversight of State Pesticide Inspections Specifically we evaluated how the EPA selects inspection reports for oversight, documents its reviews, and conducts follow ‑ up on oversight findings. Sources of information and criteria: – Interviews at EPA HQ (OPP, OECA), 4 EPA Regions, 6 States – Guidance: OPP/OECA 2011–2013 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance, 2002 FIFRA PO Manual, 2013 FIFRA Inspection Manual, 2013 and 2014 OCSPP NPM Guidance, and the 2012 WPS Agricultural Inspection Guidance. – FIFRA inspection case files

12 EPA’s Oversight of State Pesticide Inspections Findings: The EPA regions we reviewed did not consistently document or retain evidence of the quality of state-performed FIFRA WPS and certification inspections. It was difficult to analyze EPA PO oversight reviews for adequacy because of an overall lack of records and transparency on how issues associated with state inspections are addressed. Specifically: – EPA reviewers did not consistently document, report or retain records of issues found during reviews. – EPA files did not provide specific documentation on how state enforcement actions were consistent with state enforcement policies and procedures. – EPA often relied on the state agency to select inspection reports for review, which may introduce bias. – Most EPA regions reviewed did not provide or document formal feedback on issues found during reviews so that states could improve their inspections.

13 EPA’s Oversight of State Pesticide Inspections We recommended that: EPA revise the FIFRA Project Officer Manual to include specific requirements for selecting inspections; reporting, documenting and retaining inspection review records; documenting states’ consistency with enforcement policies; and communicating results of regional inspection reviews, and the agency require periodic project officer training and ensure the above requirements are included in the training.

14 Quick Reaction Report: EPA Pesticide Inspections in North Dakota This issue came to our attention during the course of ongoing work to assess the EPA’s oversight of state inspections required FIFRA. A quick reaction report (QRR) may be needed as early as preliminary research that will include recommendations that the reviewed entity needs to address immediately. A quick reaction report may be needed when the OIG identifies a pending or imminent expenditure of funds or a potentially serious health risk to the public. For these reports, the team has the option not to issue a formal draft report. Instead, the team will meet with EPA to discuss the issues identified.

15 Quick Reaction Report: EPA Pesticide Inspections in North Dakota EPA Region 8 is not conducting Federal FIFRA inspections at establishments that produce pesticides in North Dakota. North Dakota does not have a state inspector with qualifications equivalent to a federal inspector to conduct inspections on the EPA’s behalf. Federal inspections of establishments that produce pesticides in North Dakota have not occurred for 14 years. So What?: The failure to conduct Federal FIFRA inspections increases the risk that pesticides are not in compliance with federal law, which could result in potential risks from toxics being undetected and adverse human health and environmental impacts occurring.

16 On-Going OIG Pesticides Evaluations Evaluation of EPA Policies and Responsiveness to Public Petitions on Pesticide Issues Do EPA policies and procedures ensure consistency and transparency when responding to pesticide related public petitions. EPA’s Regional Negotiated Commitments with States for Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Compliance Inspections 1. What are EPA’s procedures for determining and periodically reviewing state commitments for FIFRA compliance inspections? 2. What criteria does EPA use to determine that the negotiated commitments meet EPA goals? 3. Does EPA have opportunities to modify state commitments and better use resources dedicated for these efforts? 16

17 OPE Contacts Web Addresses: EPA Office of Inspector General: EPA Office of Inspector General / Toxics: POC: Jeffrey Harris, PhD Director, Toxics, Chemical Management, and Pollution Prevention