U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOregon Department of Agriculture and Oregon OSHAEnd-of-Year Review Report for theFiscal Year 2010Pesticide Cooperative AgreementsFebruary 28, 2011SummaryThis end-of-year evaluation report covers the review of two Oregon state agencies:Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) and Oregon OSHA. This summary providesan overview of major efforts, accomplishments, and suggestions for improvement. Amore detailed discussion of the activities in the Cooperative Agreement work plans isprovided following this summary.ODA has adequate statutory tools, processes, and procedures in place to manage aneffective pesticide program. The Department continued to exceed the number ofinspections that it projected at the beginning of the year. The on-going commitment totraining ensured that the investigators were well-qualified to do their work. Inspectionsconducted were generally thorough, and the enforcement actions issued were consistentwith the enforcement response policy. However, due to limited personnel and resources,ODA did not consistency meet its goal of issuing enforcement actions within 90 days,and on occasion, ODA Laboratory had turn-around time for analytical results of morethan six months. EPA Region 10 recommends that ODA evaluates its resource needs toaddress these two issues.As part of this year’s evaluation, EPA Region 10 also reviewed ODA case files in whichindividuals and/or interest groups questioned the thoroughness and credibility of thecomplaint investigations. This additional review went beyond the standard annual reviewperiod and looked at complaints filed with ODA from August 2004 to June 2010 andwhich generally focused on pesticide drift complaints from the Highway 36 area of theCentral Coastal Range. We found that while ODA had invested a significant amount oftime, effort, and resources in responding to complaints, a number of areas were identifiedfor improvement. For example, we found that ODA does not appear to have a consistentapproach for when and how to collect evidentiary samples during complaint inspections,for determining when samples that were collected should be fully analyzed, or fordocumenting the reasons a particular sampling and analysis approach was used. EPARegion 10 has discussed these findings with ODA and has committed to workcooperatively with the Department to develop improved procedures for inspectionsampling, analysis, and documentation.Oregon OSHA continued to implement an excellent WPS enforcement program. InFY 2010, Oregon OSHA exceeded the projected number of inspections. The complianceofficers were well-trained to do their work, and they conducted detailed and thoroughinspections. The enforcement actions were timely and consistent with the enforcementresponse policy.ODA implemented an excellent certification and training program that addressed theimportant issues and the needs of applicators in Oregon. In FY 2010, 4,716 privateapplicators and 4,828 commercial applicators were certified and licensed in Oregon. Ahighlight in FY 2010 was that ODA worked with Texas A&M University Extension toobtain copyrighted materials for the Demonstration and Research category to improveiODA’s existing examination. ODA also expanded the Demonstration and Researchcategory to public and commercial applicators and trainees.Oregon OSHA participated in numerous education and outreach training activities relatedto the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) in FY 2010: (1) two agriculture classes onWPS, personal protective equipment, and hazard communication; (2) four pesticiderelated conferences and shows; and (3) 19 presentations related to worker safety. OregonOSHA also developed a brochure on selection, care and use of personal protectiveequipment related to pesticides. The work of Oregon OSHA was highlighted at the jointAgricultural Safety and Health Council of America/ National Institute for OccupationalSafety and Health (NIOSH) Conference in Dallas, Texas, through two posterpresentations: “Preventing Pesticide Exposure: The Oregon OSHA Experience”,authored by Oregon OSHA staff, Garnet Cooke, and “Non-Compliance with PersonalProtective Equipment Regulations in Agriculture are Common" by Kim Faulkner ofNIOSH. These two poster presentations were later published in the conferenceproceedings in the summer 2010 issue of Journal of Agromedicine.In FY 2010, ODA continued to work in cooperation with State and local agenciesregarding pesticide management to protect water quality. The Department conductedmeetings and conference calls with them to discuss water quality issues.ODA provided 25 presentations to pesticide applicators on EPA’s Endangered SpeciesProtection Program. The Department also provided comments and solicited stakeholdercomments on EPA’s draft bulletins. Within the Department's registration program, thestaff actively consulted with federal and state fish and wildlife agencies to determinepossible impacts of specific pesticide uses on the listed species.iiI.BACKGROUNDA.General1.HistoryIn Oregon, EPA Region 10 has cooperative agreements with two state agencies: ODAand the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, Occupational Safetyand Health Division (Oregon OSHA). ODA has been the state lead agency for pesticideuse enforcement, certification and training of pesticide applicators, the water qualityprotection program, and the endangered species program. Oregon OSHA has been theprimary state agency for enforcing the employer-employee aspects of the WorkerProtection Standards.Funding of the cooperative agreement with ODA is authorized by FIFRA Section 23.For FY 2010, EPA provided ODA with $445,270 in federal funds through thecooperative agreement. For FY 2010, EPA did not provide Oregon OSHA with anyfederal funds. Oregon OSHA receives federal funding directly from the U.S. Departmentof Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Thus, Oregon OSHA has anun-funded cooperative agreement with EPA Region 10.In FY 1994, Oregon OSHA formally adopted, by reference, EPA's Worker ProtectionStandard for Agricultural Pesticides, 40 C.F.R. Part 170, into its administrative rules atOregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 437, Division 81 - Agricultural Operationsand Farming. As a result of Oregon OSHA’s rule adoption, the enforcement of EPA’sWorker Protection Standard (WPS) is conducted by Oregon OSHA. In FY 2001, EPARegion 10 and Oregon OSHA entered into an unfunded cooperative agreement. Thiscooperative agreement between EPA and Oregon OSHA creates a direct workingrelationship between EPA and Oregon OSHA, with respect to the employer-employeeaspect of WPS. Moreover, during FY 2001, Oregon Department of Agriculture andOregon OSHA finalized an interagency agreement that reflected the on-goingcoordination and implementation of the WPS activities in Oregon.2.Project PeriodThe project period for the cooperative agreement with ODA was from July 1, 2009 toJune 30, 2010, which was ODA's fiscal year 2010. The project period for the OregonOSHA cooperative agreement was from October 1, 2009, to September 30, 2010, whichwas the same as EPA's fiscal year 2010.3.Review Methods and DatesFor the ODA, the end-of-year evaluation for FY 2010 was conducted on-site at ODA’sSalem office on October 14 and 15, 2010.1The end-of-year evaluation for Oregon OSHA was conducted at Oregon OSHA’s Salemoffice on October 14, 2010.4.Review ParticipantsFrom October 12 to October 15, 2010, EPA Region 10 participated in the end-of-yearreview of ODA’s pesticide programs. Participants from EPA Region 10 were as follows:Allan Welch, EPA Region 10 Worker Safety Program Coordinator; Chad Schulze, EPARegion 10 Pesticide Enforcement Team Lead; Erin Halbert, EPA Region 10 PesticideEnforcement Team member, and Linda Liu, EPA Region 10 Endangered SpeciesProtection Program Coordinator and Oregon Project Officer.The ODA participants at the review were Christopher Kirby, Administrator of ODA’sPesticides Division; Ray Jaindl, Administrator of ODA’s Natural Resources Division;Dale Mitchell, Assistant Administrator of ODA’s Pesticides Division; Janet Fults,Program Manager of ODA’s Registration and User Certification Programs, RosemarieKachadoorian, ODA’s Registration and Endangered Species Protection ProgramSpecialist; Roland Maynard, User Certification and Licensing Specialist; and Steve Riley,ODA’s Registration and Water Issues Specialist.On October 14, 2010, Allan Welch and Linda Liu of EPA Region 10 participated in theOregon OSHA end-of-year review.The Oregon OSHA participants during the October 14, 2010, review wereStanton Thomas, Field Enforcement Manager, and Garnet Cooke, Pesticide Coordinator.B.Scope of ReviewsThis report summarizes the results of the end-of-year review for two cooperativeagreements: (1) between EPA and ODA; and (2) between EPA and the Oregon OSHA.Program accomplishments, effectiveness, problem areas, suggestions for improvement,and any resolutions to problems are described in the sections below.II.FINANCIALA.Budget AnalysisThe following table summarizes funding and expenditures for the cooperative agreementwith ODA.Work Plan Component EPA Funding State FundingTotal Funding Un-obligated fundsEnforcementCertificationProgramsTOTAL$290,020$95,250$60,000$445,270$825,518$301,727$34,320$1,161,5652$1,115,538$396,977$94,320$1,606,835$0$0$0$0III.COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENTA.State Reports from ODA1.Pesticide Enforcement Cooperative Agreement Accomplishment Report, EPAForm 5700-33H, is attached as Appendix A.2.ODA's Pesticide Enforcement Outcome Measure Reporting Form, is attached asAppendix B.3.ODA Investigation and Enforcement FY2010 Summary is attached asAppendix C.4.Summary of inspections and enforcement actions. The following tablessummarize inspection and enforcement activities that ODA reported to EPA onForm 5700-33H.Inspections Projected and Completed by ODA. This table compares inspectionprojections as stated in ODA’s work plan and the actual accomplishments.Inspection TypeAgricultural Use ObservationsWPS - operator/growerinformation exchangeFumigant ApplicationsAgricultural Use Follow-upNon-agricultural (ag) UseObservationsNon-ag Use Follow-upExperimental Use PermitsProducing EstablishmentMarketplaceBig box storesImportExportApplicator RecordsRestricted Use Pesticide DealerInspectionsProjectedInspectionsCompleted10211351510541241526203113030TOTAL 148432695291096654413PhysicalSamplesProjected6525PhysicalSamplesAnalyzed126690132Enforcement Actions reported by the ODA in EPA Form 5700-33H. This tablesummarizes the enforcement actions taken by the ODA in FY 2010.Inspection TypeAgriculture (ag) UseObservationsAg. Use Follow-upNon-ag. UseObservationsNon-ag. Use FollowupExperimental UseProducingEstablishmentMarketplaceImportExportApplicator RecordsRestricted UsePesticide DealerWarningsIssuedFineAssessed182151163LicensingActionsCriminalActionsSSUROsOtherActions*624118515TOTAL 83815112600823*Other Actions include cases forwarded to EPA for actionsODA met or exceeded the number of inspections that it projected at the beginning of theyear, except in one category: export. Export inspections are unpredictable and cannot beaccurately projected at the beginning of the year, and ODA did not get any exportinspection request from EPA Region 10. However, ODA was able to substitute othertypes of inspections to make up the difference. At the end of the fiscal year, ODAconducted 293 more inspections than it had originally projected in its work plan. ODAalso analyzed 42 more samples than it had originally projected.B.State Reports from Oregon OSHA1.Pesticide Enforcement Cooperative Agreement Accomplishment Report, EPAForm 5700-33H, from Oregon OSHA is attached as Appendix D.2.Oregon OSHA's Pesticide Enforcement Outcome Measure Reporting Form, isattached as Appendix E.3.Oregon OSHA Pesticide Emphasis Program Annual Report, Federal FiscalYear 2010 is attached as Appendix F.44. Summary of inspections and enforcement actions. The following tablessummarize inspection and enforcement activities that Oregon OSHA reported toEPA on Form 5700-33H.Inspections Projected and Completed by Oregon OSHA.In FY 2010, OSHA conducted 81 WPS inspections, of which 73 were Tier I inspectionsand 8 were Tier II inspections. Oregon OSHA’s projection was 60 inspections.Inspection TypeAgricultural UseTier I WPSTier II WPSAgricultural Use Follow-upTier I WPSTier II WPSInspections Completed55718181TOTALWPS Enforcement Actions reported by Oregon OSHA in EPA Form 5700-33HInspection TypeAg. UseObservationsAg. Use Follow-upFormalActions(Citations)Issued74TOTAL 11Caseswhich hadCilvilPenalties7AdministrativeHearingsCriminalAction00Other Actions(informaladvisoryletters)3741100001047The Oregon OSHA exceeded the number of inspections that it projected at the beginningof the year. At the end of the fiscal year, Oregon OSHA conducted 21 more inspectionsthan it had originally projected. In addition, the enforcement actions taken in the casesthat EPA reviewed were consistent with the state's enforcement response policy (seediscussion on Section D below).5C.Case File and Enforcement Action Evaluation for non-WPS Cases1.ODA Case Review and Enforcement Action EvaluationIn FY 2010, ODA conducted six producer establishment inspections on behalf of EPA.EPA Region 10 is currently reviewing these inspection reports. Preliminary review ofthese reports showed that ODA investigators conducted thorough inspections, draftedwell- written reports, and included appropriate supporting documentation. Reportsreceived included Notice of Inspections, photographs, bin labels, statements, productionand sales records, repackaging agreements, maps, and Receipt for Samples. EPARegion 10 will provide to ODA the individual case summaries evaluations after the casesare closed. EPA appreciates ODA following through with EPA’s previousrecommendation to tab the attachments. Tabs greatly increase the organization of theinspection reports. They allow the case reviewer to seamlessly refer from the narrative tothe corresponding information.EPA Region 10 reviewed 24 randomly selected ODA inspection reports to determine ifODA followed established enforcement guidelines and policies. Based on the review ofthese inspection reports, EPA Region 10 found that the inspections conducted werethorough, the reports were well written, proper documents were attached, and appropriateenforcement actions were taken. EPA Region 10 made two observations: (1) one of thenon-agriculture use observations included a visit to a location that did not use pesticides;and (2) on occasion, the enforcement actions issued took longer than ODA’s target of 90days. EPA Region 10 recommends that ODA does not report visits to locations wherepesticides are not used as an observation. For the inspections during which applicationrecords are reviewed or discussed, ODA may classify them under the applicator recordsinspection category. ODA indicated that enforcement actions took longer to issueprimarily due to a significant number of cases and limited personnel and resources. EPARegion 10 recommends that ODA evaluate its resource needs to address the issue of caseload and limited resources.EPA Region 10 also reviewed ODA’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) end-ofyear report and the ODA Laboratory Services Enforcement Samples Received and ReportList. Based on the review of these two documents, EPA Region 10 observed thefollowing: (1) ODA’s database missed finding a repeat violator because ODA entered thelast name of violator into its database instead of using the company’s name; and (2) onoccasion, ODA’s Laboratory took longer than six months to generate analytical reports.Since the discovery of the repeat violator issue, ODA revised its database entry methodso future repeat violators will not be missed. For the ODA Laboratory, EPA Region 10recommends that ODA evaluates its process so that the turn-around time can beimproved.This year, EPA Region 10 conducted an enhanced review of ODA files related tocomplaints from the general public. This was in response to several complaints that camedirectly to EPA Region 10, expressing dissatisfaction about ODA's response to their6reported alleged pesticide drift violations, alleged adverse effects to property, and allegedhuman exposures and adverse health effects. EPA Region 10 reviewed 78 files:41 Pesticide Complaint Logs (PCLs), one Non-Agricultural Use Follow-up (NUF), 12Agricultural Use Observations (AUOs), seven Agricultural Use Follow-ups (AUFs), fivePARC files and 12 Report of Loses (ROLs). These files mostly focused on Highway 36Investigation Reports from August 30, 2004, to June 17, 2010, PARC/ODA investigationreports from 1997 to 2003, and other investigation reports from the central Coastal Rangeregion of Oregon.From these files, EPA's observations were as follows:a.ODA invested a significant amount of time and resources responding to andcoordinating with the complainants involved in the cases reviewed. Many times,ODA spoke with the complainants and visited the sites multiple times. ODA alsoinvested significant resources in coordinating with other state agencies, theoperators, and applicators involved in the complaints.b.ODA investigation reports were generally adequate and contained documentation,such as notice of inspections, maps, application records, weather data, photos, labels,and witness interviews.c.Most of ODA’s actions seemed reasonable and appropriate for the informationcollected.d.ODA rarely collected physical samples in the cases reviewed. When ODA didcollect samples, not all were analyzed. The lack of comprehensive sampling datamade it difficult to conclude if pesticide drift and/or exposure occurred.Adding more sampling would increase the strength and transparency of ODAdecisions and actions. Out of 66 cases (41 PCLs, 20 investigations, and five PARCreviews), ODA only collected samples for four cases and analyzed for three cases.e. It was not clear in many cases why ODA did or did not collect or analyzesamples. EPA Region 10 rarely found the rationale of why samples were or werenot needed. Only in a couple of cases did ODA document that samples were notcollected and/or analyzed because ODA’s plant pathologist determined that thesymptoms were not indicative of pesticides damage. In one case [PCL 082106],when the timber company requested that ODA take samples in response to acomplaint, ODA stated “resource limitations precluded taking [samples] where theredid not appear to be a strong likelihood of finding the compound of interest.”However, ODA did not elaborate more on why samples were not collected; e.g.,application was far away from site of concern. It would be more informative toprovide more detail to why a sample was not taken or analyzed.7f.It was not clear where and how samples were collected once ODA determined thatsamples were needed. The rationale for sample locations and type (composite orindividual) were not found in the case files.g.It was not clear how ODA determined the appropriate level of resources dedicate toPCLs since ODA showed such a wide range of effort throughout the 41 PCLsreviewed.ODA often invested significant resources responding to a compliant and recordedthe activities conducted into PCLs without officially classifying the work as aninspection. Several PCLs contained photos, labels, application records, interviews,and maps collected during several site visits and information requests to other stateagencies, operators and applicators. In some PCLs, State inspection credentials wereeven presented prior to site visits [PCL 082406, PCL 032309, PCL 100108,PCL 060809, and PCL 082106]. This contrasts greatly with a number of PCLs thatcontained limited information or action by ODA. Several PCLs were simplyinquiries from the general public for information on a wide range of pesticide issues[PCL 043010, PCL 112705, PCL 080608, PCL 040210, PCL 082009, andPCL 033007]. These PCLs did not relate to any complaint.h.Not all complaints were followed through with an inspection. Only in some cases,ODA conducted inspections after PCLs were initiated. In addition, not all PCLsincluded a description of why an inspection was or was not conducted after the PCLwas initiated. It was not clear what conditions must be met for ODA to conduct aninspection after a complaint is received.i.It was not clear in the PCLs if ODA’s decisions or outcomes of the investigationsand inspections were communicated back to the complainant. Adding thiscomponent to the PCL would improve the clarity, completeness, and transparency ofthese cases.j.In one case [PCL052307], ODA appeared not to investigate a possible discrepancyuncovered during the initial stages of a PCL. After telephone conversations with theoperator, ODA noticed a significant difference between the rates described by theoperator and those allowed on the pesticide label. The operator stated that he mayhave applied the pesticide at twice the label rate. ODA also discovered that becausethe operator applied a general use pesticide on his own property, he was not requiredto maintain any application records. ODA sent a Letter of Advisement to theoperator but did not conduct any follow-up inspections or request application recordsor written statement to verify if the over application actually occurred or not.k.ODA investigations most often conclude there is no evidence of exposure orviolation. While that may be true, such a statement has been interpreted asconcluding that an exposure or violation did not or could not have occurred.8l.File organization made it difficult to follow the case. Most cases did not have tabbedattachments which made it extremely difficult to refer from the narrative to theattachments. Enforcement actions also appeared randomly in the case file. Thereseemed to be no consistent order to the way files and attachments were compiled.m. When the source of the drift was difficult to isolate (multiple users in the area at thesame time using the same pesticide), ODA issued Letter of Advisement in one casebut did not in the other [PCL 071708].2.Coordinating InspectionsAs a member of the Oregon Pesticide Analytical and Response Center (PARC) Board,ODA continues to coordinate inspections with various state lead agencies. In FY 2010,ODA communicated, coordinated and worked with other Oregon state agencies whenaddressing incidents and cases related to pesticides.3.Oversight Inspections Conducted by EPA Region 10None.4.Joint inspections Conductd by EPA Regioon 10None.5.Coordinating Significant Incidents and SituationsThere were four cases that met the criteria identified as significant incidents inFY 2010. During FY 2010, EPA Region 10 and ODA developed a new procedure soODA can notify EPA Region 10 of significant cases immediately. If a significant case isidentified, ODA’s PARC Board Coordinator will notify EPA Region 10 PesticidesProgram Project Officer. EPA Region 10 would like to be involved through thesignificant case to provide any necessary support and review all proposed enforcementactions.6.State RecommendationsODA’s Pesticides Division has invested a significant amount of time and resourcesresponding to complaints from the public and interested parties who allege violations ofspecific buffers and retail posting requirements related to the July 2003, U.S. DistrictCourt Order to protect listed salmonids. However, ODA does not have the authority, andunderstands that EPA does not have the authority, to enforce these U.S. District Courtmandates. ODA requests assurance from EPA Region 10 that these allegations are notconsidered by EPA to be allegations of FIFRA violations, and EPA does not expect ODAto conduct follow-up inspections or conduct sampling regarding such allegations.Furthermore, ODA requests that EPA provide specific informational documents that may9be provided to the public explaining the lack of ODA authority and responsibilityregarding such allegations.ODA recommends EPA Region 10 conduct joint routine compliance monitoringactivities with ODA compliance monitoring staff. These joint inspection activities wouldprovide EPA staff with first-hand experience and allow observation of the proceduresutilized by ODA in conducting compliance monitoring activities (Complaint Intake, FieldInvestigation, Enforcement Response).In early March of 2010, ODA Pesticides Division was notified of a pesticide productadulteration incident by a regional representative of the U.S. Food and DrugAdministration (FDA). This was an incident in which a pesticide manufacturer becameaware that its product was adulterated, and notified Oregon users of the product (freshfruit packers) of the adulteration. It is ODA’s understanding that EPA (not Region 10)knew about this incident weeks before ODA learned about it, but ODA was not informedby EPA of the possible use of the product in Oregon. ODA requests that EPAHeadquarters develop a specific written procedure for immediate notification to EPAregions, states and tribes on pesticide product adulteration, potential misuse, and overtolerance incidents.ODA recommends EPA Region 10 schedule and perform a more detailed cooperativeagreement midyear review of ODA’s enforcement program. Specifically, ODA wouldlike to have a face-to-face opportunity with EPA Regional staff to discuss progress,output, projections, as well as program updates and changes. Currently, EPA Region 10only performs detailed end-of-year review of ODA’s enforcement program.ODA acknowledges that EPA Region 10’s Pesticide Enforcement staff have madesignificant progress in the tracking of Oregon pesticide case referrals for potential FIFRAviolations. EPA Region 10 had created a specific database to manage the progress ofcases referred to EPA Region 10 from state lead agencies (SLAs). EPA Region 10currently provides ODA periodic case updates as well as enforcement documents andcommunications regarding associated Oregon referrals. Based on EPA Region 10review, referral to another EPA region for follow up of potential FIFRA violation issometimes necessary. Response from other EPA regions to these referrals has not beenconsistent. ODA understands that this concern has been discussed among EPA Region10 staff, EPA Headquarters staff, and regional EPA managers. ODA appreciates EPARegion 10’s attentions to this matter and encourages continued progress to establisheffective timelines and improve communication and feedback to SLAs on case status,findings, and disposition.ODA recommends EPA Region 10 provide annual training to Oregon pesticideinvestigative staff on (1) guidance, policies, authorities, procedures, and objectives forcarrying out standardized environmental sampling; and (2) investigations as follow-up tocomplaints with specific emphases on EPA guidance, policies, authorities, procedures,and objectives for conducting standardized complaint related investigations.10D.Compliance Priority – Worker Protection Standard (WPS)1.Oregon OSHA Case Review and Enforcement Action EvaluationNine Oregon OSHA cases involving the issuance of enforcement actions were reviewedby EPA Region 10, to see if the State followed its enforcement guidelines and policies.EPA Region 10 found that the inspections conducted were thorough, the reports werewell written, proper documents were attached, and enforcement actions were timely andappropriate. Checklists were used during interviews with handlers and workers, and ifphotographs were taken by digital cameras during inspections, the case files had chain ofcustody for these photographs. Furthermore, Oregon OSHA used Letter of CorrectiveAction to ensure and to document that violators came back into compliance.2.Coordinating InspectionsAs a member of the Oregon PARC Board, Oregon OSHA continues to coordinateinspections with various state agencies. Oregon OSHA and ODA have a good workingrelationship when addressing cases involving allegations of adverse health effectsassociated with occupational exposure to pesticides. In FY 2010, Oregon OSHA workedon two cases referred by PARC.3.Oversight inspections Conducted by EPA Region 10None.4.Significant WPS Cases (FIFRA Section 27)There were no WPS cases that met the “significant case criteria” in the cooperativeagreement.5.WPS Compliance AnalysisIn FY 2010, Oregon OSHA identified 385 pesticide-related violations based on theinspections conducted. Of the 385 violations, 294 were handler related: 95 were relatedto personal protective equipment, 22 were related to training, 45 were related to CentralPosting, 25 were related to decontamination, and 45 were related to pesticide storage. Ofthe 385 violations detected, 76 were worker related: 41 were Central Postingdeficiencies, 15 were training related, and eight were related to notification requirements.6.State FeedbackNone.11E.Inspection and Enforcement Support1.Training at ODATo adequately investigate violations of state pesticide laws, a state needs to ensure thatstate inspection and enforcement personnel are trained in such areas as health and safety,violation discovery, obtaining consent, sampling procedures, case developmentprocedures, and maintenance of case files. A continuing education program is alsocrucial so that the State staff can keep abreast of legal developments and technologicaladvances. To provide adequate training for staff, the Pesticides Division providesmonthly health and safety training as well as program specific training. The monthlyhealth and safety training is provided by ODA staff members. These training sessions areattended by all Pesticides Division staff and are highly valuable. ODA investigators alsoattend grower/applicator meetings to enhance the knowledge of the regulated community.On April 21, 2010, EPA provided an eight-hour training session for Oregon inspectors onsoil fumigant uses, mitigation measures, and new label requirements. On June 15, 2010,EPA and ODA organized a Container/Containment training, covering aspects of the newcontainment regulations, for ODA investigators.2.Training at Oregon OSHAEach year, all Oregon OSHA compliance officers attend the Annual Pesticide ProgramMeeting in Salem, Oregon. During these meetings, refresher courses on health and safetyand case development are provided. Lessons learned during the past year are alsodiscussed. The Oregon OSHA FY 2010 annual meeting featured speakers from NIOSH’sPersonal Protective Equipment Technology Laboratory, U.S. EPA Office of PesticidePrograms (OPP), National Pesticide Information Center, Oregon Health and ScienceUniversity’s Center for Research on Occupational and Environmental Toxicology, andOregon State University.3.Quality AssuranceIn April 2010, EPA Region 10's Office of Environmental Assessment conducted aQuality System Review on ODA Pesticides Division’s Quality System. The primaryobjectives of this audit were to ascertain: (1) conformance of the ODA Quality System tothe EPA approved Quality Management Plan (QMP); and (2) the suitability andeffectiveness of the practices implemented by ODA through its QMP.EPA found no deficiencies during this audit. Seven recommendations were made toODA’s Pesticides Program: (1) update the QMP to reflect current data backup anddocument retaining policies; (2) track and maintain all inspectors’ training documents inone place; (3) put in security measure to limit access to enforcement database; (4) use asecond source of standard per method for calibration and quality control checks;(5) update laboratory staffs’ training files on a regular basis; (6) require InitialDemonstration of Capability per method for all laboratory analysts before they analyzesamples and require Continuing Demonstration of Capability for all analysts; and12(7) update Laboratory Information Management System. Detailed description of EPA’saudit can be found in Appendix G.F.Special Activities Conducted by EPAIn addition to EPA Region 10's review of ODA's complaint response, the Office ofPesticide Programs (OPP) at EPA Headquarters opened a docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-20100265) from April 2010 to August 2010, to receive public comments on a petitionsubmitted to the EPA Administrator from a local interest group, The Pitchfork Rebellion,asking EPA to establish pesticide application buffers and investigate pesticide drift fromforest practices in the Oregon Coastal Range. OPP is responsible for reviewing andresponding to the petition, but EPA Region 10 has been providing assistance by engagingwith local stakeholders including state agencies, the forest resource industry, andenvironmental advocacy groups to hear their perspectives and obtain relevant data. OnSeptember 15, 2010, EPA Region 10 also referred the concerns expressed about healtheffects to the regional office of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry(ATSDR) due to their greater expertise in this subject area.G.Performance Measures for EnforcementODA’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) performance measures can be foundin Appendix B. Oregon OSHA’s PART performance measures can be found inAppendix E.H.New Legislation and RegulationsThe 2009 Oregon Legislature enacted requirements for all schools to implementIntegrated Pest Management (IPM) plans by July 1, 2012. Oregon State University, incooperation with the Oregon Department of Human Services, is to develop model IPMplans and to make those plans available to schools. Moreover, the new law requiresschools to have designated IPM coordinators and to notify staff, students and parents ofintended pesticide applications. Any school employee making the application of anypesticide on school property is to be specifically licensed by ODA. Since the enactmentof this law, ODA has been conducting outreach and investigative activities related to IPMin Schools. Four non-agriculture use observation inspections were conducted at schoolsin FY 2010.I.Action Items from FY 2009 End-of-Year ReviewsIn FY 2009, EPA Region 10 recommended that ODA add tabs to attachments in ProducerEstablishment Inspection reports. EPA Region 10 found that ODA’s FY 2010 ProducerEstablishment Inspection reports included tabs for attachments. EPA appreciates ODAfollowing through with these recommendations. Tabs and labels greatly increase the13organization of the inspection reports and allowed the case reviewer to seamlessly referfrom the narrative to the attachments.For many years, EPA Region 10 has recommended that ODA evaluate its resource needsto address the issue of case load and limited resources. ODA attempted to address thisissue by drafting a Program Option Package for consideration by the 2009 OregonLegislature. This Program Option Package requested using General Funds to add twopesticide investigator positions and one additional case reviewer position. Although theOregon Legislature did not approve this Program Option Package, it authorized two newpesticide investigator positions, funded by Other Funds (fees) limited to the 2009 – 2011biennium. ODA filled one of these limited duration positions and placed that position inBaker City, Oregon (starting July 1, 2009). The other limited duration position was filledat the ODA Headquarters in Salem, Oregon (starting October 16, 2009). One pesticideinvestigator in a permanent position, based in Salem, was reassigned to Bend, Oregon(starting November 1, 2009). Moreover, the duties of another pesticide investigator in apermanent position, based in Salem, were changed to case review due to a separateProgram Option Package which allowed a new fertilizer program position in ODA’sPesticides Division. Compared to prior years, ODA was able to investigate moreincidents and process more cases due to the additional staff in FY 2010.There was no action item from the previous Oregon OSHA end-of-year review.J.Conclusions and Recommendations for Compliance/Enforcement1.ODAODA has the adequate statutory tools, processes, and procedures in place to manage aneffective pesticide program. Inspections conducted were generally thorough, withnarrative reports and supporting documents, and enforcement actions issued wereappropriate. When agricultural use inspections were conducted, the investigatorsinterviewed both complainants and the applicators, inspection reports were written,proper supporting documents were attached in case files, and the enforcement actionsissued were consistent with the enforcement response policy. The on-going commitmentto training ensures investigators are well-qualified to do their work. In FY 2010, ODAexceeded the number of inspections and the number of samples analyzed that it projectedat the beginning of the year.Due to limited personnel and resources, ODA did not consistency meet its goal of issuingenforcement actions within 90 days. On occasion, ODA Laboratory had turn-around timefor analytical results of more than six months. For pesticide complaints, ODA’s limitedresources can affect the decision to open a formal investigation of the complaint. ODA’sresource limitations force them to prioritize which concerns warrant sending aninvestigator to view the situation first-hand. The lack of resources and comprehensivesampling data made it difficult to conclude if pesticide drift and/or exposure occurred.14EPA’s observations and recommendations are listed below:a.ODA was counting a visit to a facility that does not use pesticides as a nonagricultural use observation inspection.Recommendation: EPA recommends that ODA does not report visits to facilitiesthat do not use pesticide as a use observation inspection and if ODA reviewsapplication records and discuss pesticide applications with an applicator, theinspection should be an applicator record inspection category.b.On occasion, the enforcement actions issued took longer than ODA’s target of 90days.Recommendation: EPA recommends that ODA evaluates its resource needs so thatthe turn-around time for the issuance of enforcement actions can be improved.c.On occasion, the turn-around time for analytical reports from ODA Laboratory tooklonger than six months.Recommendation: EPA recommends that ODA evaluates its resource needs andimprove the turn-around time for laboratory analytical reports.d.ODA collected limited amount of samples. When samples were collected, they werenot always analyzed.Recommendation: EPA recommends that ODA evaluates its resource needs so moresamples could be taken and analyzed.e.In most cases, it was not clear why ODA did or did not collect or analyze samples.Recommendation: EPA recommends ODA documents the rationale of why sampleswere or were not collected and analyzed in its inspection reports.f.It was not clear where and how samples (composite or individual) were to becollected once ODA determined that samples were needed.Recommendation: EPA recommends the rationale for sample locations and type beincluded in the case files.g.It was not clear how ODA determined the appropriate level of resources to dedicateto PCLs. ODA had such a wide range of effort ranging from telephone calls to sitevisit, involving interviews, obtaining application records, or taking photographs.Recommendation: EPA recommends the rationale for why no further action wasnecessary be recorded in the case file. We understand that ODA has changed thestructure and process by which they record, categorize, and document PCLs and15investigations. EPA recommends that in the new system, ODA not record generalinquiries or questions from the public in the PCL system. These seem to dilute thepurpose of the PCL, which is to record and follow-up on pesticide complaints.h. Very few complaints were followed through with an inspection. In addition, not allPCLs included a description of why an inspection was or was not conducted after thePCL was initiated. It was not clear what conditions must be met for ODA to conductan inspection after a complaint.Recommendation: For cases involving complaints, EPA recommends that ODAprovide the rationale for why an inspection was or was not conducted after the PCLwas initiated.i.It was not clear in the PCLs if ODA’s decisions or outcomes of the investigationsand inspections were communicated back to the complainant.Recommendation: EPA recommends that ODA clearly documents any follow-upactions and outcomes. Adding these components to the case files would improve theclarity, completeness and transparency of these cases.j.In one case, ODA appeared not to investigate further a possible over applicationbecause the operator applied a general use pesticide on his own property. Prior tosending the operator a Letter of Advisement, ODA did not conduct any follow-upinspections or request written application record or statement, to verify whether anover application occurred or not.Recommendation: EPA recommends that ODA further investigates these incidents,by conducting inspections or requesting written application records wheninformation shows possible misuse of pesticides. If an inspection is not conducted,state the rationale for such a decision in the case file.k.ODA investigations most often conclude there is no evidence of exposure orviolation. While that may be true, such a statement has been interpreted by asconcluding that an exposure or violation did not or could not have occurred.Recommendation: EPA recommends characterizing such statements about “noevidence” as insufficient or inconclusive to prove or disprove the allegation.l.File organization made it difficult to follow the case. Most cases did not have tabbedattachments which made it extremely difficult to refer from the narrative to theattachments.Recommendation: EPA recommends that ODA develop a standard case filestructure and organization, so case reviewers can easily refer to all supportingdocumentation and enforcement actions.16m. When the source of the drift was difficult to isolate (multiple users in the area at thesame time using the same pesticide), ODA issued Letter of Advisement in one casebut did not in the other.Recommendation: EPA recommends that ODA consistently issue Letters ofAdvisement to the surrounding applicators who possibly drifted to let them know ifpesticides were found off-target in the area and that they should review theirpractices to ensure the pesticide they apply remain on the target site.2.Oregon OSHAOregon OSHA continues to implement an excellent WPS enforcement program. The ongoing commitment to training ensures compliance officers are well-qualified to do theirwork. In FY 2010, Oregon OSHA exceeded the projected number of inspections.Compliance officers conducted thorough and well-documented inspections. Theenforcement actions were timely and consistent with the enforcement response policy.L.Non-Inspection ActivitiesODA continued to provide outreach to the regulated community. Investigative staffprovided many presentations on topics related to pesticide enforcement. In addition, theDepartment continued to distribute its enforcement related pamphlets: Pesticides Investigations and Enforcement, Oregon Public Applicator Responsibilities - What YouNeed to Know Before You Apply Pesticides, and Oregon Pesticide ConsultantResponsibilities - What You Need to Know Before You Apply Pesticides. The Departmentalso posted its Pesticides - Investigations and Enforcement pamphlet on its website.Oregon OSHA conducted many compliance assistance activities in FY 2010. SeeSection IV.A.2 below for more details.17IV.PROGRAMSA.Worker Safety1.Certification and Training of Pesticide Applicatorsa.Previous RecommendationsThere were no formal recommendations in the prior assessment of the Oregon PesticideApplicator Certification and Training (C&T) Program.b.Workplan Commitments and AccomplishmentsODA met its Applicator Certification and Training Program commitments in FY 2010.Accomplishments in FY 2010 are listed below. A detailed description of the OregonDepartment of Agriculture’s C&T program can be found in Appendix H. In addition,ODA entered Oregon's certification and training information into the Certification Planand Reporting Database (CPARD). CARD provides a universal format for EPA tomaintain information for each state in regards to pesticide certification activities.Oregon's 2009 information may be accessed at http://cpard.wsu.edu.c.Program Accomplishments(1)ODA met all certification and training program projections in FY 2010. A totalof 4,716 private applicators and 4,828 commercial applicators were certified and licensedin Oregon.(2)ODA reviews its certification examinations for updates every year. ODA added anew Demonstration and Research examination and category for commercial and publicpesticide applicators and consultants. Moreover, two examinations were revised toinclude new information, products, and application techniques. They were the OregonLaws and Safety examination and Marine Antifouling examination.(3)Since FY 2001, ODA has been implementing a program to track every examgiven in the State. Testing centers are audited a minimum of once every year to confirmthe presence of all exams. In FY 2010, ODA staff audited all 18 Oregon testing centers.(4)ODA certification staff continued to ensure that up-to-datetesting and licensing information was posted on its pesticides program website athttp://www.oregon.gov/ODA/PEST/index.shtml. Some of the topics found on thiswebsite include test scores, pesticide examination study materials, testing centerlocations, on-line registration for examinations, licensing database, license applicationforms, and links to the Oregon pesticide laws and regulations, Integrated PestManagement educational resources, and much more.18(5)In FY 2010, ODA worked with Texas A & M University Extension (TAMU) toobtain the authorities to use TAMU’s copyrighted study manual for Demonstration andResearch. ODA modified TAMU’s manual and developed its own Demonstration andResearch manual. ODA’s manual is available online through ODA’s website.(6)In FY 2010, ODA added and amended Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) addDemonstration and Research category.ODA participated as presenters in 101 recertification training sessions at grower,(7)consultant, and dealer meetings, Oregon State University Extension Service sponsoredevents, and many others. The presentation topics primarily focused on labelinterpretations, drift label language, the proposed National Pollutant DischargeElimination System (NPDES) general permit, endangered species bulletins, soil fumigantlabel changes, Restricted Use Pesticides (RUP), pesticide regulations, guidance, andviolations.ODA evaluated recertification courses provided to applicators and consultants.(8)ODA accredited 1,085 continuing education classes in FY 2010.(9)ODA updated the Oregon Pesticide Recertification Course Accreditation Guide.This document is posted on ODA’s web site.(10)ODA awarded a contract to Metro Institute for designing a computer basedtesting process related to pesticide applicator certification. The new process will allowapplicators to receive test results immediately, minimizing the time required to becomelicensed. This new process is scheduled to start in FY 2011.(11) In FY 2011, ODA was active in the Certification and Training Assessment Group(CTAG). A priority of CTAG was identifying the key elements of a defensiblerecertification program.(12) ODA provided comments to EPA regarding the implementation of the soilfumigant label changes and participated on many conference calls with EPA.ODA participated in numerous meetings related to the NPDES general permit for(13)pesticide applicators and provided outreach to pesticide user groups regarding theproposed permit.(14)ODA developed and disseminated a brochure on Marketplace Inspections.d.State FeedbackODA appreciated EPA Region 10 putting on the regional C&T meeting. ODA found theinformation exchange at the meeting to be positive and beneficial. ODA requested thatEPA Region 10 have a regional C&T meeting every other year.19e.C&T Program RecommendationsEPA appreciated that ODA’s on-going effort to improve its C&T program. EPARegion 10 appreciated ODA’s participation at the regional C&T meeting.202.Worker Protection Programa.Previous RecommendationsNone.b.Work Plan Commitments and Accomplishments(1)Oregon OSHA participated in numerous education and outreach training activitiesrelated to WPS in FY 2010: two agriculture classes on WPS, personal protectiveequipment and hazard communication; nine presentations related to worker safety; andfour pesticide related conferences and shows. For more details, see Oregon OSHAPesticide Emphasis Program Annual Report, Federal Fiscal Year 2010 (Appendix F).(2)ODA and Oregon OSHA continued to coordinate with the Oregon StateUniversity-Extension Service (OSU-ES) to help ensure that WPS information and safetytraining were provided to employers, trainers, workers, handlers, and other affectedindividuals and groups.(3)Oregon OSHA developed a brochure on selection, care and use of personalprotective equipment related to pesticides.(4)The work of Oregon OSHA was highlighted at the joint Agricultural Safety andHealth Council of America/ NIOSH Conference in Dallas, Texas, through two posterpresentations: “Preventing Pesticide Exposure: The Oregon OSHA Experience”, authoredby Oregon OSHA Pesticide Coordinator, Garnet Cooke, and “Non-Compliance withPersonal Protective Equipment Regulations in Agriculture are Common" by Kim Faulknerof NIOSH’s National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory. These two posterpresentations were later published in the conference proceedings in the summer 2010 issueof Journal of Agromedicine.(5)Oregon OSHA distributed compliance assistance materials through OregonOSHA's Resource Center. Materials included but were not limited to the EPA "How ToComply with the Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides – WhatEmployers Need to Know" and pesticide related videos. A list of all publications andvideos available can be found at the following web page:http://www.cbs.state.or.us/external/osha/standards/resource_center.html.c.State FeedbackNone.d.Worker Protection Program RecommendationsNone.21B.Water Quality Program1.Previous RecommendationsNone.2.Workplan Commitments and AccomplishmentsODA’s accomplishments in FY 2010 are summarized below. A detailed description ofODA's water quality program can be found in the ODA's report (Appendix I).ODA evaluated available pesticide data, identified pesticides of interest and pesticides ofconcern, and managed pesticides of concern. In FY 2010, ODA added 16 additionalactive ingredients to the original list of 57 pesticides of interest. ODA currently has eightactive ingredients listed as pesticides of concern for water quality in the State and twoactive ingredients under active management. A summary of ODA's pesticide-specificand program management activities can be found in EPA's Pesticides of Interest TrackingSystem (POINTS) database at http://www.points.wsu.edu/reports/fullReport.aspx.In FY 2008, the Oregon Water Quality Pesticide Management Team (WQPMT) wasformed to coordinate monitoring plans, resources, and activities to improve water qualityrelated to pesticides. Team members consist of representatives from ODA, OregonDepartment of Forestry, Oregon Human Services, and Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality (DEQ). In FY 2010, ODA conducted meetings with the WQPMTmembers to discuss water quality and monitoring issues.In early FY 2010, ODA submitted to EPA Region 10 a revised draft of the Oregon WaterQuality Pesticide Management Plan. Comments from EPA were provided to ODA onthis revised draft. As of the conclusion of FY 2010, resubmission of this document toEPA was pending due to further review and revisions by the WQPMT.3.State FeedbackODA appreciated EPA Region 10 putting on the regional Water Quality meeting. ODAfound the information exchange at the meeting to be beneficial.ODA requested that EPA provide more money to ODA for conducting outreach andeducation related to pesticides and water issues. Specifically, ODA noted that outreachwould be necessary after the issuance of the National Pollutant Discharge EliminationSystem permits for application of pesticides into waters.4.EPA RecommendationsEPA Region 10 appreciates ODA hosting the regional Water Quality meeting.22C.Endangered Species Protection Program1.Previous RecommendationsNone.2.Workplan Commitments and AccomplishmentsODA met its Endangered Species Protection Program commitments in FY 2010. Adetailed description of the ODA's ESPP can be found in Appendix J. The OPP FieldProgram for Endangered Species Data Collection Sheet for FY 2010 End-of-Year Reportis attached in Appendix K. Accomplishments in FY 2010 are listed below:a.ODA provided comments to EPA on the draft bulletins for chlorpyrifos, diazinon,malathion, carbaryl, carbofuran, and methomyl;b.ODA informed stakeholders of the opportunity to comment and sought theircomments to EPA’s draft bulletins and the Reasonable and Prudent Alternativesand Measures in Biological Opinions by the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries);c.ODA participated in numerous conference calls related to EPA’s implementationof the NOAA Fisheries’ Biological Opinions;d.ODA provided outreach and education to pesticide applicators. 25 presentationswere made during pesticide certification and training courses;e.ODA continued to work with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA Fisheries,and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife on registrations issued foremergency exemptions (FIFRA Section 18) and special local needs (FIFRASection 24(c)); andf.ODA’s web site has a link to EPA’s Endangered Species Protection Program website. Since FY 2008, ODA has expanded the number of web links that areconnected to its web page. Now ODA’s web page has links to NOAA Fisheries,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Natural Heritage Program, and OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife Program web pages. ODA routinely reviewsadditional links and monitors and updates information on its web site.3.State FeedbackODA requests that EPA provide more time for review and comment on future draftbulletins and draft Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives and Measures in BiologicalOpinions.23ODA indicated that growers have a difficult time finding buffer information on pesticidelabels. Depending on the product, the buffer information may be located in various areason the label. ODA requests that EPA develop a consistent location on the label toprovide information regarding buffers (similar to WPS).ODA informed EPA Region 10 that the word “buffer” is sometimes not used on productlabels. This makes it difficult to search electronic labels. ODA requests that EPA useconsistent language regarding buffers on labels.For the first two biological opinions issued by NOAA Fisheries, the Reasonable andPrudent Alternatives included the use of specific buffer widths. ODA recognizes that incontrast, EPA is attempting to make the buffer width a function of active ingredient,application rate, droplet size, type of application method (ground or aerial), and waterbody type and size. ODA believes that more options should be included under types ofapplication methods, and that a buffer credit should be given for growers with wellmaintained riparian areas, and application equipment in good functioning condition. Thethird biological opinion did not specify the use of buffers; ODA hopes that EPA will usethe buffer zone calculator concept in order to insure that salmonids are not in a jeopardysituation.4.EPA RecommendationsEPA appreciates ODA’s comments on the draft bulletins. Comments provided showedthat ODA did a thorough review of the draft bulletins. Draft bulletins were revised toreflect some of the comments made by ODA.EPA Region 10 would like to have an advanced notice of any future correspondencebetween ODA upper management and EPA upper management related to pesticideissues. In FY 2010, a letter was sent by ODA Director to the EPA Administrator,expressing concerns regarding EPA’s implementation of NOAA Fisheries’ BiologicalOpinions. EPA Region 10 was not aware of ODA’s concerns until EPA Headquartersforwarded the letter to EPA Region 10. By getting an advanced notice, EPA Region 10hopes that communication will improve between the two agencies.24--------------------~--.-------- --------------------- - -------------------------- - - --- ----------------------United StatesEnvironmental Protection AgencyWashington, DC 20460Pesticdes Enforcement Cooperative Agreement Accomplishment ReportStateffribeloregon-IEnforcement AccomplishmentsThis Reporting Year~Totallnspeaions ConductedFederal FacilitiesSamplesCollectedPhysicalOGlE *DocumentaryCivil Complaints IssuedCriminal Actions ReferredAdministrative Hearings ConductedLicense/Certificate Suspension (5)License/Certificate RevocationLicenSe/Certificate Conditioning orModificationNumber of Warnings Issued(1) NOVStop.-ialt SeizWe, Quaratine or Embargo'**3&Cases Fowarded to EPA for Action(7) Includes PLR ***Other Enforcement ActionsNumber of casfitssessed FinesEPA Form S700-33HAgriculturalUseFor Causers­NonagriculturalUse~I I II f,86 III II rs­ pI I II I III II I II I I~*1PIIIII IIIIIP18151IReporting PeriodFiscal Year 12010Experimental UseFor CausePermitrs­1211ru-III~IIIIIIIIIIIV-IIII I­II~IlEND OF YEAR 2010ProducingEstablishment61IIIIIMarketplacer;­l~ImportsTotal ProgromAccommplishmentsExports~I11II15130TOTAL13911I1I)199113I1115126IIIIIIIII1511186• OnlyI!3011ce Work Plan ActivitiedCertified Restricted UseApplicatorPesticideRecordsDealersI 11I IIIII II I III I III I III I III I II~IIra- I I I~II I III IIII111II1318381I1II15123I111126»"CS1=­.... ~»-.d StatesEnvironmental Protection AgencyWashington, DC 20460Pesticdes Enforcement Cooperative Agreement Accomplishment ReportState/Tribelo~eg~~ .'IFiscal YearEnforcement AccomplishmentsThis Reporting Year!Total Inspections ConductedFederal FacilitiesSamplesCollectedPhysicalDocumentaryCivil Complaints IssuedAgriculturalUseFor Cause1~?10,I Reporting Period IEnd~fYear2010 .NonagriculturalUseExperimental UseFor CausePermitr' E E pa-IIr--. ~. r----:II Ir--, r- r--:II Ir--' r- r--: r-il!r--' L CJ IIII:III;IL,~.i!Administrative Hearings ConductedLicense/Certificate SuspensionLicense/Certificate RevocationLicense/Certificate Conditioning orModificationNumber of Warnings IssuedStop-Sale, Seizure, Quaratine or EmbargoCases Fowarded to EPA for ActionOther Enforcement ActionsNumber of Cases Assessed FinesEPA Form S700-33HC· ~ CII IC: C L C] II!C C CI .1 LCj C C J J .IC· r- CIC: r- C r-:IIC r-­ C· r-lljC r- C r-ilC, r- C e,1r-­ e CII ilMarketplaceImportsirs­ r-. r­...r r-I'IC'' I . . . j r,.lil . . . . . . . . IIIiL. . . . . ..''I'I'I'I:II661,r---I 'IIIrC; r-' r-I,~Exportsr-Ir-I!r­ r- r-I:r-' r-! r-Ir-,I I II!r­ r-' r-IIe e ellr-IIel.... .....!,!.'.. OnlyCertified Restricted UsePesticideApplicatorRecordsDealers' .1ccIc Work Plan ActivitiedTotal ProgramAccommplishments!r-II .I Iir­'. .....'I Ir-I,r-: r-Ii.. 'Criminal Actions ReferredProducingEstablishment. >\c-­TOTAL2551.......II'I:I. .II'IIIII....'t'IIII'III......~.1IIIII.... ....•II ...................)­"CIIIIII~)­. ........ ".....---Appendix BPesticide Enforcement Outcome Measure Reporting FormGranteeODAFiscal Year2010Measure No. 1 - Repeat ViolatorA. Total # of RegulatedEntities Receiving PriorEnforcement Actions1B. Total # of EntitiesReceiving EnforcementActions in the CurrentReporting YearC. Repeat ViolatorMeasure-AlB1650.01Measure No.2 - Complying ActionsD. Total # of Enforcement Actions Resulting in Verified Compliance: _7_0_ __E. Total # of Enforcement Actions (from EPA Form 5700-33H): _1_6_6_ _F. Complying Actions Measure-DIE: _0_.4_2_ _ _ __Measure No.3 - EfficiencyG. Grantee Pesticide Enforcement Funding: $ $825,518.00(include staff, overhead1 state pesticide lab costs, etc.)H. EPA Pesticide Enforcement Funding: $ ___3_0_0_4_20_ _ __Base Enforcement$290,020.00Worker ProtectionEnforcement DiscretionaryLab Equipment (1,14 oftotal amount)$10,400.001. Efficiency Measure-(G+H)/E: 6,782.76(Revised 8/2007)IReset Form]- -- -~~-----,-----AppendixCCONSOLIDATED PESTICIDE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT END OF YEAR SUMMARY FOR FY201 0 - OREGON CHAPTER I ENFORCEMENT A. WORK ACTIVITIESPRIORITIES1.TOSUPPORTPESTICIDECOMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENTWorker Protection Compliance & Enforcement ActivitiesThe Department continued to use the opportunity of inspections conductedunder the cooperative agreement to notify constituents of the provisions of therule and to ensure compliance with the current worker protection requirements.The Department maintains a Memorandum of Agreement with OROSHA tocoordinate regulatory activities. Specific situations of compliance are evaluatedjointly by the Department and OR-OSHA to determine the primary agency forresponse. OR-OSHA has also entered in a Cooperative Agreement with EPARegion 10, for WPS compliance monitoring activities as well as enforcement ofWPS in Oregon.a. Product ComplianceODA continues to review of product labeling was conducted as acomponent of annual product registration. This annual registration isrequired by Oregon statutes. While labeling review can result ininvestigative activities, no EPA funding is utilized for labeling reviewconducted during the registration process.b. Use InspectionsThe Department used the Agricultural Use Follow-up investigations (AUF)and Agricultural Use Observation investigations (AUO) to determinecompliance with the WPS. Furthermore, The Department used theOperator/Applicator Record Review Investigations (ARI) to monitorcompliance with WPS Operator/Grower Information Exchange (WPS-OGIE).These investigations will use the WPS Operator/Grower InformationExchange checklist to determine if information had been exchangedbetween the commercial operator and grower regarding the WPS labelrequirements. This checklist will determine if the commercial operatorhad made available required WPS label information to the grower prior tothe application being performed. Furthermore, The Department will followup with the grower to confirm if the commercial operator had made theWPS label information available. During FY2010 the Departmentconducted (1 3) focused compliance monitoring WPS-OGIE investigations.Table 2: Total Investigations CompletedYearInvestigation Completed386200520062972007217200824820093292010435Listed below is a brief description of specific investigative activities and the number ofinvestigations conducted.Operator/Applicator Record Inspection (ARIl - During FY 2010, Pesticide Divisioncompleted (96) Operator/Applicator Record Review inspections. Commercial PesticideOperators and Public Pesticide Applicators are required to maintain specific recordinformation as identified in ORS 634.146 and Oregon Administrative Rule, Division 57,Pesticide Control (OAR 603-57-0130). These inspection activities also include a reviewof license status, recordkeeping requirements and label review for compliance.Dealer Record Review (DRI)- During FY 2010, Pesticide Division completed (65)Pesticide Dealer Record Review inspections. Pesticide Dealers are required to maintainspecific record information for each sales or distribution of Restricted Use Pesticides(RUP), as identified in Oregon Administrative Rule, Division 57, Pesticide Control (OAR603-57-0140). These inspection activities also include a review of license status of thepesticide purchaserMarket Place Inspection (MPI)- During FY 2010, Pesticide Division completed (82) MarketPlace Inspections. All pesticide products being delivered, distributed, sold, offered forsale, in Oregon shall be registered on an annual basis (ORS 634.016). These inspectionactivities include a review of pesticide product registration status, product labelcompliance and product integrity.Agricultural Use Follow Up/ Observation (AUF/AUO)- During FY 2010, Pesticide Divisioncompleted (62) Agricultural Use/ Observation ,inspections. These investigative activitiesare associated with agricultural production or forestry use and are based oncomplaint/concerns that ODA receives from various sources alleging misuse or violationof ORS 634 & FIFRA. Investigation activities include site visits, interviews, environmentalsampling and the collection of documentation and evidence to support or deny thealleged violation. These inspection activities also include a review of license status andlabel review for compliance.Non-Agricultural Use Follow Up/Observation - During FY 2010, Pesticide Divisioncompleted (67) Non-Agricultural Use/ Observation inspections. These investigativeactivities are associated with non- agricultural use practices such as pesticide use in andaround structures, right of way and public health vectors and are based oncomplaint/concerns that ODA receives from various sources alleging misuse or violationof ORS 634 & FIFRA. Investigation activities include site visits, interviews, environmentalsampling and the collection of documentation and evidence to support or deny thealleged violation. These inspection activities also include a review of license status andlabel review for compliance.Producer Establishment Inspection - During FY 2010, Pesticide Division completed (6)Producer Establishment inspections. These investigative activities are associated withthe manufacture and production of pesticide products to ensure industry compliancewith product registration, formulation, packaging, and labeling before and while productsare distributed into the channels of trade. These activities are conducted under theauthority of ORS 634 and FIFRA. Investigation activities include site visits, interviews,product sampling and the collection of documentation and evidence to documentcompliance.Experjmental Use Inspection (EUP)- During FY 2010, Pesticide Division completed (2)Experimental Use Inspections. These investigative activities are associated with thecompliance monitoring of experimental use permits issued by ODA and EPA. These areconducted under the authority of ORS 634 and FIFRA. Investigation activities include sitevisits, interviews, license and permit review and the collection of documentation andevidence to support compliance with ORS 634 and FIFRA. These inspection activitiesinclude a review of license verification and status and product label and permit review forcompliance.Import/Export Inspections OMP/EXP) - During FY 2010, Pesticide Division completed (0)Import/Export inspections. The objective of these investigative activities is to ensurethat pesticide product imported into or exported from the United States comply with therequirement of FIFRA. These activities are conducted under the authority of FIFRA.Investigation activities include site visits, interviews, product sampling and the collectionof documentation and evidence to document compliance.Enforcement Response: During FY 2010, Pesticides Division Issued 140 separateenforcement actions (NOV, CP, Lic Action, SSURO, Refer to EPA, Embargo/Detainment). associated with violation of ORS 634.(Refer to EPA End of Year Form 5700). Someinvestigations result in multiple enforcement actions being issued to several parties. Thespecific enforcement response issued by ODA is based on several factors includingmagnitude of the violation, gravity of effect and violation history. See table 3 for alisting of specific enforcement responses issued (CP & NOV) for the past five years.Table 3: Enforcement Responses Issued ( CP & NOV only)FY YearCivil Penalties (CP)Notice of Violations (NOV)20052006200720089792011408440782009201016267083During FY 2010, aDA referred (23) investigations to EPA Region 10 Seattle forpotential violations of FIFRA. These cases are identified as action code #7, EPA Form5700-33H, and are further identified in the aDA Pesticide Enforcement Action SummaryLog, End of Year FY 2010. EPA Region 10 is currently tracking these cases and providesaDA periodic case status and enforcement action updates. This information is of criticalbusiness need to ensure aDA staff and our customers that the alleged FIFRA violationsare being addressed.MisuseDuring FY201 0, The Department continued to address pesticide misuse, particularly as itrelates to high risk and food safety issues. The Department Pesticides Division, incooperation with The Department Food Safety Division, EPA and the U.S. Food and DrugAdministration, place special emphasis on investigating pesticide residue and misuseincidents.e-CommerceAs previously mentioned, ODA conducted some monitoring (PLR's) of E-commerce salesand advertising for violation of ORS 634 and FIFRA. Cases were referred to EPA Region10.Pesticide InfrastructureDuring FY2010 the Department, with the assistance of EPA Region 10, continued toidentify and evaluate the infrastructures needs associated in this area.Pesticide Inspector Residential Training (PIRT)During FY2010 the Department made efforts to incorporate participation in thesecourses or any case development courses into our work plan whenever possible. DuringFY2010 the participation of department staff in trainings conducted outside Oregon hadbeen severely limited due to the availability of state funds, spending authority and statefiscal policies. ODA staff had participated in regional EPA fumig~tion and ContainerContainment training in Washington and Idaho State.Pesticide Regulatory Education Program {PREP}The Department made significant efforts to incorporate participation in PREP courses orany case development courses into our work plan whenever possible. During FY2010ODA staff participative in Laboratory Issues, Comprehensive Combo Course andPesticide and Water Quality.Other Training OpportunitiesEPA Region 10 continued to work with the department to sponsor training opportunities,particularly for investigative staff. During FY2010, ODA staff participated in InvestigatorFumigation Training, Container Containment and Producer Establishment Inspection.EPA Inspector CredentialsDuring FY 2010 ODA staff maintain state/tribal Credential Training Certification. ODAtechnical/field staff have met or exceeded each applicable training requirement.Furthermore, ODA implemented a monthly health and safety program that meets orexceeds EPA's credential requirements for ongoing training.Enforcement ReportingEPA credentials are provided to state lead agencies with delegated programs to allowthem: 1) to inspector federal provisions not covered by state law; 2) to conductinspections at EPA's request when EPA plans to take the enforcement action; 3) to allowthem to inspect across state/tribal boundaries at EPA's request. ODA has provided EPAall inspection reports conducted using EPA credentials.Groundwater/Surface Water Protection EnforcementDuring FY2010, the Department continued to monitor compliance with and enforcelabeling as part of use, producing establishment, market place and dealer inspections.Enforcement activities involving groundwater protection will also be addressed throughfollow-up, applicator licenSing/record and dealer record investigations, and throughreview of pesticide product labels. Particular emphasis was placed upon compliance withstatements required to be contained in labeling.Compliance AssistanceDuring FY2010, The Department evaluated compliance assistance activities to beconducted in cooperation with EPA Region 10. If new EPA policies are issued, TheDepartment will evaluate and reflect the new policies as warranted.Section 19(f) Compliance and Enforcement Activities (Container - Containment)ODA has reviewed the container-containment regulations and had submitteddocumentation to EPA Region 10 that the ODA's Pesticides Division has adequateauthority to ensure compliance with the residue removal requirements in the rule.Currently, ODA has no intention of implementing state pesticide containment regulationsin lieu of the federal containment regulations. These federal rules address requirementsfor containment structures to intercept spills and leaks. EPA will enforce the federalregulations in states that do not have regulations deemed equivalent to the federalregulations. The federal regulations specific to containment become effective August17, 2009. During FY 2010 aDA continued to conduct outreach and education relatedto the pesticide container and containment regulations. Compliance assistance will focuson providing information to covered businesses to ensure that they are aware of therequirements and to facilitate compliance. As identified in the cooperative agreement,upon delivery of EPA developed fact sheets, standard presentations, How to ComplyGuides, checklists, Q & A's, trainings and a compliance strategy regarding this program,aDA will make these tools available to regulated parties and have materials upon whichto base further compliance assistance activities.Furthermore, aDA will continue to utilize the state pesticide product registrationprocess, Use Inspections (AUF, NUF), Market Place Inspections (MPI), Dealer Inspectionsand Producer Establishment Inspections (PEl) to ensure compliance with the residueremoval and containment regulations. aDA will evaluate compliance specific to thecontainment regulations utilizing inspections conducted with federal credentials. aDA willinspect and document compliance and will refer investigation findings to EPA Region 10.EPA Region 10, will pursue enforcement if violation of EPA containment regulations aredocumented.Special Action Chemicals. Cancellations. Suspensions. ather Major Regulatory Actionsand National High Risk InitiativesDuring FY2010, The Department responded to the identification by EPA of special actionchemicals such as through cancellations, suspensio'ns and special initiatives (Le.,disinfectants and others). This information was provided to industry as well as pesticideusers through education and outreach activities.Section 18 Monitoring. 24(c} MonitoringDuring FY2010, the Department continued monitor activities associated with FIFRASection 18 authorizations, and 24(c) registrations, especially when use violations aresuspected.Pesticide RecallsThe Department continued to monitor pesticide product recall information concerningquantities and locations of suspended or canceled pesticide products in aregon. aDAstaff will work with EPA staff to identify and conduct appropriate activities ..Endangered Species EnforcementDuring FY201O, aDA and EPA Region 10 continued to provide the pesticide usercommunity with current information regarding the court mandated buffer restrictions aswell as the status of endangered species product labeling and EPA bulletins. No bulletinshave been issued in Oregon to date.Pesticide Use in Schools (Urban Pesticide Use/lPM)The Department will continued to conduct routine Non-Agricultural Use Observations ofschools I districts pesticide use practices throughout Oregon. The Department willaddress future educational outreach efforts in cooperation with EPA, the PesticideAnalytical and Response Center, Oregon Health Division as well as other resourcesavailable25 (b) PesticidesDuring FY2010, the Department did not require state registration of 25 (b) pesticideproducts for sales, use and distribution in Oregon. However, if a registrant submits alabel of a 25 (b) product, The Department registration staff will review the labeling toassure compliance with U.S. EPA 25 (b) exemption. The Department had forwarded thatinformation to EPA Region 10 for action underFIFRA.Unregistered Sources of Active IngredientsDuring FY2010 the Department continued to assist EPA .Region 10 with reviewing thisconcern. If EPA headquarters adopts this as priority and issues an enforcement strategyduring FY2010, the Department will assist EPA Region 10 with implementation and lorcompliance monitoring.United StatesEnvironmental Protection AgencyWRshinntonIHeDOnlnOEnforcement Accomplishmen~sThis Reporting YearDC 20460Period• 2009 - September 30, 2010WPS Tier I InspectionTotal Program AccomplishmentWPS Tier II Inspectionotallnspections ConductedTotalInspections*Inspectionsat FacilitiesClaimingFamilyExemption817Enforcement Actions740011Violations during WPS InspectionsWPS Violation CategoriesNumber ofViolationsPesticide Safely Training29Central Posting86)0­Complaints ReferredHearings ConductedNotice of Application8Entry Restrictions0Personal ProtectiveEquipmentSuspensionMix/loading, ApplicationEquip & Applicationsof Warnings IssuedUse and Removal Order (SSURO)Decontamination37230IIII0037901477400110I'I6Emergency Assistance0Information Exchange5RetaliationWPS EPA Form 5700-33H* This Column is a subset of the WPS Tier I and WPS Tier II Columns to collect data on inspections conducted at facilities claiming family exemption.0"=1=­...=~Appendix EPesticide Enforcement Outcome Measure Reporting FormGranteeOregon OSHA2010Fiscal YearMeasure No.1 - Repeat ViolatorA. Total # of RegulatedEntities Receiving PriorEnforcement Actions2B. Total # of EntitiesReceiving EnforcementActions in the CurrentReporting YearC. Repeat ViolatorMeasure--AlB670.03Measure No.2 - Complying ActionsD. Total # of Enforcement Actions Resulting in Verified Compliance: _5_9__E. Total # of Enforcement Actions (from EPA Form 5700-33H): _6_9_ __F. Complying Actions Measure--D/E: _0_,8_6_ _ _ __Measure No.3 - EfficiencyG. Grantee Pesticide Enforcement Funding: $$0.00 (include staff, overhead, state pesticide lab costs, etc.) H. EPA Pesticide Enforcement Funding: $ _0_ _ _ __ Base Enforcement Worker Protection Enforcement Discretionary Lab Equipment (Y4 of tota! amount) 1. Efficiency Measure--(G+H)IE: 0.00----(Revised 8/2007) I Reset Form IAppendix FOREGON OSHA PESTICIDE EMPASSIS PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT Federal Fiscal Year 2010 OREGON OSHA PESTICIDE EMPHASIS PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT Federal Fiscal Year 2010Garnet R Cooke, Pesticide Coordinator Stanton E Thomas, Health Enforcement Manager Chris Ottoson, CIH, Health Field Operations Manager Trena VanDeHey, Health Enforcement Analyst Oregon OSHA Pesticide Emphasis Program FFY 2010 Annual Report IntroductionOregon OSHA (OR-OSHA) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10Pesticides and Toxics Unit, have worked together on pesticide safety issues since 1993. OR-OSHA enforcesthe Worker Protection Standard, which is supplemented with a pesticide emphasis program. The PesticideEmphasis Program has been in effect since 2000. This report is the annual review of the pesticide emphasisprogram for federal fiscal year 2010 (FFY 2010). The data elements and analysis are presented, along withrecommendations for program improvements for the coming year.Data ElementsThe data elements examined in this report are based on OR-OSHA's Program Directive A-235, entitled "LocalEmphasis Program for Pesticides." Inspections were completed from a programmed list selected from thefollowing list of North American Industrial Classification System (N'AICS) codes they will be referred to as"selected NAICSs" for the purposes of this report.NAICSNAICSNAICSNAICSNAICS11 1998 General farming, field Crops, except Cash Grains, Not Elsewhere Classified111339 Deciduous Tree Fruits111421 Nursery & Tree Production111422 Floriculture Production115112 Crop preparation including pesticide sprayingOther NAICSs inspected as a result of complaints, referrals or programmed Agricultural Health inspections areincluded in this report if the inspection addressed pesticide-related issues.Data SummaryPesticide exposures occur throughout the handling process, from purchase to disposal. The goal of the PesticideEmphasis Program is to reduce occupational exposures to pesticides in agriculture through enforcing thepesticide- related standards such as the Worker Protection Standard, Hazard Communication, RespiratoryProtection, Pesticide Storage, Fumigation and supervision. Implementation of these requirements can reducethe likelihood of exposures resulting in acute or chronic effects. The Pesticide Emphasis Program continues bean effective tool for disseminating information, education, and compliance assistance and enforcement activitiesto reduce occupational exposures to pesticides in the agriculture industry.The following is a brief summary of the findings resulting from the evaluation of FFY 2010 activity.2Inspection ActivityIn FFY 2010, 86 inspections were completed which identified 385 pesticide-related violations. Shown in thetable below are the inspections attempted, whether they were Complaint, Referral or Program Plannedinspections. A Program Planned inspection means it was a scheduled Pesticide Emphasis inspection from theemphasis list.Summary tables show previous inspection data for 2002 thru 2009 and are included as a reference.181089491178115468111589~I111268552496062- I12~I30221916352707363112211181111Attempted and Completed inspections by inspection typeSource: Information Management Division, Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, January 2011The table below denotes whether the completed inspections were Tier 1* or Tier 2 ** inspections, with furtherdiscussion on the following page.Completed inspections by WPS/emphasis type4622134617893912-­ I-I107556125515-74916771498,5*Tier 1 Inspections: Pesticides used within the preceding 30 days plus the restricted entry interval**Tier 2 Inspections: Pesticides NOT used within the preceding 30 days plus the restricted entry interval.386708_I- I49074118Violation characteristicsOf the 385 pesticide-related violations in FFY 2010, 19% (72/385) were cited as serious. Within the SelectedNArCS, 84% (61172) violations were classified as serious. These included violations of the Worker ProtectionStandard (WPS) and other occupationally-related standards pertaining to pesticides. Pesticide-related violationsinclude the Oregon OSHA standards addressing hazard communication, respiratory protection, emergencyeyewash, supervision, pesticide storage and fumigation . From the previous tables, WPS Tier 1 inspectionsaccounted for 81 % (70/86) of the pesticide emphasis inspections, and 19% (16/86) were Tier 2. Sixty-three ofthe 86 inspections were programmed planned. In FFY 2010, there were 3 repeat violations. A violation istermed a repeat when a specific standard is violated, is corrected, and occurs again within a three-year period.To encourage employers to maintain diligence in preventing the reoccurrence of previously cited violations,repeat violations carry higher penalties. These data support the continued focus of our inspection resourceswithin the Selected NAICS as an effective means to address worker protection and pesticide safety.Pesticide violations and penalties in FFY 201087'I151 '131075I42$36511'1$041$2, '190528$350-37$8404$20034$2,3502$0I$07'I$0622$0-I$0- I$02$064'I$3751'10 '22$ "1654228167$4,47044'143385SO2$0$1 65'I$4 ,250Source: Information Management Division, Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, January 2011 .If a WPS violation is grouped with another violation, the WPS and non-WPS violations are counted separately, btlt thepenalty amount for the whole group is retained with the WPS violation.4Summary of previous years: The tables below summarize inspections, violations and penalties for federal fiscal years 2002 through 2010. Stats for completed inspections1,88446H9'1,92826.23912'102,23580.020.056'1271,561'1579.720.3551542,77966889.210.8499'1,7929987'1287.912.'1771482,36 '19080'1088.911. 'I74'1'152 ,2'1486691780.219.870882,41 '17263987.56'145'1673,87560'157459741-I16 1:1Pesticide violations and penalties, FFY totals3 '15298827'1266232471223 '162212'1240942127149223187448301603852816726=1=1$3,22 538159'1$3 ,580291475$ '1, 57528167$3, 580231444$5,92580131121$4 ,0559817616$5 ,735103 1154$4 ,47044143=t'1Source: Information Management Division, Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, January 2011If a WPS violation is grouped with another violation, the WPS and non-WPS violations are counted separately, but thepenalty amount for the whole group is retained with the WPS violation.5The violations below are divided up into either handler or worker related, showing the categories of issues foreach group.Pesticide violations cited in FFY 2010Violation typeIIViolations~Handler related Central postingDecontaminatIonI25Emergency eyewash5IFumigation7IIHazard communication43ILabel specific2lNotice of app to 8g emps5IPPE - Other36PPE - Respirators59Pesticide storage45Training22Central posting41II~Worker relatedDecontamination\Health haz control measuresII[Other5-Notification to workers8Safe practices6Training15Other15While the violations for many of the above topics have remained relahvely stable, one area has seen asignificant decrease. The requirement for a I5-:-minute emergency eyewash became effective in fall of2006(FFY 2007 Pesticide Emphasis Report) and was cited 23 times that year, and the following year it was cited 25times. In FFY 2010, the lack of a I5-minute emergency eyewash was only cited 5 times.6Inspection History for WPS Inspections: .WPSTIer 1121710160422-I-l--t21223l~I237123227Source: Information Management Division, Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, January 2011 If an employer was inspected more than once in FFY 2010 they were categorized only once based on inspection type in the following order of precedence: WPS tier 1; WPS tier 2; non-WPS. If an employer was inspected more than once in FFY 2010 their current inspection results were categorized based on the following order of precedence: WPS violations; other pesticide violations; non-pesticide violations; Ag Exempt; in compliance. If an employer had more than one inspection prior to FFY 2010 they were categorized based on the following order of precedence: health inspection; other than health inspection; no previous inspections. 7Pesticide Analytical Response Center (PARC) CasesIn FFY 2010, there were two occupationally-related pesticide exposure cases referred to Oregon OSHA fromPARC which represented six symptomatic individuals.The first case involved 5 workers, employees of a seed company, pulling 'off types' of grass in a 5-acre grassseed field . The workers were at the south end of the field when a commercial applicator showed up and beganspraying the same field. The workers ran to the next fie ld, with the applicator spraying 20 feet from them. Fourof the 5 workers experienced symptoms ranging from nose and throat irritation, to nausea, and intenseheadaches which lasted the rest of the day. The active ingredient of the pesticide involved was 2, 4-D amine .The workers' employer failed to make contact with the grower of the fields the workers enter to identify if anypesticide applications had taken place, or were scheduled to take place. The commercial applicator failed tonotify the employer of the workers in the field when he would be making an application. The applicator statedif there were irrigation pipes in the field he would contact the grower; however, he did not follow this sameprotocol if people were present.The second case involved a Christmas tree grower who, together with his son, mixed Warhawk (Chlorpyrifos)without wearing any personal protective equipment, and had two teenage (16 and l7 years old) boys spray thepesticide on the Christmas trees using a backpack power mister. The boys would take turns donning the powermister and would walk down a row of Christmas trees, spraying on either side while walking through the mist,returning by walking and spraying down another row. They continued applying in this manner for three hours.The teens were not provided with any personal protective equipment as required by the pesticide label. Thelabel required: long sleeve shirt, long pants, chemical resistant gloves, coveralls, chemical resistant footwear,chemical resistant headgear and a dust/mist respirator. Upon completion the teenagers were instructed to gohome and shower. There were no decontamination supplies at the applicationirn.ix site. Each drove home in theirpersonal vehicle. The 17 year old took three showers before his skin stopped burning and flushed his eyes withcontact solution before his eyes stopped burning. He indicated he had slight difficulty breathing in addition tothe burning skin and eyes. He threw away his contaminated clothing. The 16 year old took a quick shower andchanged clothes, but wore the same boots and went to work baling straw for another employer. At 7 p.m. hisbreathing was short, his chest felt tight and had stomach cramps. Twenty minutes later the 16 year old wasfeeling dizzy and his employer took him to the emergency room. The 17 year old was notified to report to theemergency room as well. In the emergency room the symptoms the 16 year old experienced progressed toinclude numbness in hands and face, burning eyes, and significant difficulty breathing.8External TrainingExternal training consists of two parts, workshops put on by the OR-OSHA Public Education Section, andspeaking requests perfonned in conjunction with Oregon Department of Agriculture events. External speakingrequests were conducted mostly in conjunction with day long multi-program agendas put on by grower groups,the Oregon Department of Agriculture, or the Oregon State University Extension Service for the purpose ofmaintaining credits for pesticide licenses. These multi-program events carried the greatest attendance numbers.Oregon OSHA speaking requests in FFY 2010:bateTopicGroupLocation21-0ctPPE for PestiddesOregon Veg Mgmt Assoc29822-0ctOR-OSHA's PEP prog_NPIC (Nat'! Pestid de Info Center)SeasideAttendeesCorvallis133-NovPesticide StorageOACFAPendleton1104-NovPesticide StorageOACFASpringfield1-155-NovPesticide StorageOACFAWilsonville1981-DecRespiratory Protection/Ag - 4 h oursChemeketa Community CollegeSalemHemliston Fo ml FairHermiston1213&4 WPS1112017-Dec Pestldde StorageOSU Extentionl via PolyComIn Salem tor LaGrande6-JanOSU Chem App Short CourseWilsonvillePestid de Storage26-Jan Pestid de Storage, PPE, Haz Com , PEP inspections -4 hours Horticultural SocietyOSU Ext Weed Day40-110Portland50Douglas County50Redmond912-FebPesticide Storage5-FebPesticide StorageOSU Ext_5-JunPesticide StorageOregon State Fire MarshollCR2K Salem3-AugRespiratory Protection lAg - 4 hoursChemeketo Community CollegeAlbany4-AugFarmiH arvest SafetyNut GrowersMcMinville-18022-Sep Pestidde Sofety for Roadside SprayingOregon Dept of TransportationSalem-10023-Sep Agriculture Health & SofetyStayton High SchoolStoyton36t1421Pesticide Related Interventions - External Training, FFY 2010 l Agriculture classes~Attendees401- - V\forker Protection Standard . Workshops and on site training187203- - Personal Protective Equipment Workshops and onsite training147___334JPesticide Inspectors Forum-Multi-Agency Annual MeetingThe joint Oregon-OSHA - ODA Pesticide Inspectors Forum garnered continuing education units for attendeesin a multi-agency gathering featuring NIOSH Personal Protective Equipment Testing Laboratory, EPA Region10 and EPA Headquarters, the National Pesticide InfOlmation Center (NPIC), CROET/OHSU, Oregon StateUniversity and the Salem-Keizer School District. Topics included an overview ofNIOSH's Personal ProtectiveEquipment Testing Laboratory and their new agriculture initiatives; EPA's container containment regulations;Integrated Pest Management Programs in schools; NPIC initiatives and resources; the new soil fumigationrequirements; and what Oregon OSHA stafflook for during pesticide emphasis inspections for the benefit ofother agencies present to aid their understanding of Oregon OSHA requirements, and to assist them in theiroutreach efforts.9The work of Oregon OSHA's Pesticide Emphasis Program was highlighted in two poster presentations at thejoint Agricultural Safety and Health Council of AmericaINIOSH Conference in Dallas, Texas. Gamet Cooke,Pesticide Coordinator presented: "Preventing Pesticide Exposure: The Oregon OSHA Experience." The second:"Non-Compliance with Personal Protective Equipment Regulations in Agriculture are Common" was presentedby Kim Faulkner, PhD., of the NIOSH National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, et al. The latterused Oregon OSHA data from the Pesticide Emphasis Program inspections. Both abstracts were published inthe conference proceedings in the summer 2010 issue of the Journal of Agromedicine.ConclusionsOR-OSHA enforcement and voluntary compliance activities continue to provide effective means for addressingworker protection and pesticide safety in various ways. The annual meeting among multiple agencies affordsopportunities for developing strategies that enhance and improve worker protection. This collaboration andcoordination makes for more effective use of limited resources towards enhancing pesticide safety.Accomplishments• A brochure was developed by Oregon OSHA on selection, care and use of personal protective equipmentrelated to pesticides. It is available on-line at http://www.oro ha.org/pdf/pubsll 0 18.pdf.• The OR-OSHA poster, "Protect Yourself From Pesticides," targeting pesticide safety in forest activities, hasbeen used by the Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety and Health (PNASH) Center, which is affiliatedwith the University of Washington, in their own outreach activities.• External trainings exceeded last year, even though there were significant reductions within the publiceducation section.• Developed an effective multi agency format for the Pesticide Inspector's forum, which was extremely wellreceived by attendees.Goals for the coming year• Conduct referral inspections where pesticide applications are documented during OR-OSHA silvicultureinspections.• Provide continued assistance to the NIOSH NPPTL program in addressing barriers to the use of personalprotective equipment used by pesticide applicators.10Oregon OSHA publications in FFY 2010 Safe Practices When Handling Agricultural Chemicals (brochure) 1,2009,493Washing pesticide contaminated clothing magnet (Spanish) 75Washing pesticide contaminated cloth ing (English ) 75810Cultivate a Safe Environment 15015The Air You Breathe 85031540038975227100111,125537Field Sanitation Notice------rAgriculture Seasonal Worker Orientation - Discontinued 1/27/10Division 4, AgriculturePesticide Use and Your Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)t­1427Pesticide Related Interventions - Consultative Services - Boothshows, FFY 2010.ShowDate of showNorth West Ag ShowJanuaryWillamette Valley Ag Expo NovemberOregon Landscape ExpoDecemberFar West Ag ShowAugustIIOregon OSHA consultations by NAICS in FFY 2010 2622321911286*Does not include pesticides, but identifies outreach potentialOregon OSHA resource center pesticide related videos, FFY 2010NameEnglish Spanish Requests )464EPA W PS for Orchard Workersxx1465EPA WPS for Pesticide Handlersxx0474Oregon Pesticide Safety Guidex475Oregon Pesticide Safety Guide384Greenhouse Pesticide Safety T raining Workers & Handlers352How to Conduct Worker Protection TraininglTrain the Trainer x3380Pesticide Handlers and the Worker Protection Standard0383Pesticide Handlers and the Worker Protection Standard600Pesticide Safety: Help Workers Protect Themselves608Pesticide Safety: Help Workers Protect Themselves323Pesticide Safety Work er Protection Oregon- DVD # 95392327r#10510x2xx03x4xx4Pesticide Training for Agricultural Employeesxx0Shedding Some light on Pesticide Protectionx2x1Protecting Yourself From Pesticide Hazards446/447 Breathe Easy: Respiratory Protection Program-xxIW orker Protection Standard An Overview332x0-.--..-....12--xx1xx14----35...1-----"'-AppendixGDRAFT QUALITY SYSTEMS ASSESSMENT REPORT for Oregon Department of Agriculture 635 Capitol Street NE Salem, Oregon 97301-2532 &Oregon Department of Agriculture Laboratory 1207 NW Naito Parkway, Ste. 204 Portland, Oregon 97209-2835 ByRaymondWu Quality Staff Office of Environmental Assessment US EPA Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 May 6, 2010 QS Assessment Report for aDA 2010Page 1 of5Table of ContentsI. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 3 II. Objective ........................................................................................................................ 3 III. Approach....................................................................................................................... 3 A. Participating Management & Staff ............................................................................ 3 B. Documents Reviewed .............................................................................................. 3-4 IV. Assessment Results .................................................................................................... 4-5 Observation No.1 - No.3 (ODA Headquarters) ........................................................ .4-5 Observation No.4 - No.7 (ODA Laboratory) ............................................................... 5 V. Completion of the Assessment Process ......................................................................... 5 QS Assessment Report for aDA 2010Page 2 of5I. IntroductionPursuant to U.S. EPA Region lO's responsibility to oversee and assess the implementation ofQuality Systems required of EPA assistance agreement recipients through EPA Grant and CooperativeAgreement regulations (40 CFR Parts 31 and 35), the Office of Environmental Assessment (OEA)Quality Staff conducted a Quality System Review (QSR) of the Oregon Department of Agriculture(ODA) Pesticide Division's Quality System on April 26-27, 2010.II. ObjectiveThe primary objectives of the QSR were to address:• conformance of the ODA quality system to the EPA approved Quality Management Plan(QMP)• suitability and effectiveness of the practices implemented by ODA through its QMPIII. ApproachThe assessment was conducted to review the Quality Assurance (QA) policies and proceduresutilized to ensure that data of known and documented quality are being generated. The QA policies andrequirements set forth in ODA's Quality Management Plan (QMP 07) and other supporting QAdocuments were used as the basis for the assessment. Interviews with program managers and staff wereused to evaluate the implementation and conformance to the QMP.The assessment was conducted by Raymond Wu from the US EPA Region 10 Office ofEnvironmental Assessment.A. Participating Management & StaffLauren Henderson, Assistant Director Christopher Kirby, Administrator, Pesticides Division Dale Mitchell, Assistant Administrator, Pesticides Division Michael Babbitt, Investigations Case Reviewer Michael Odenthal, Pesticides Investigator Kathleen Wickman, ODA Laboratory Manager Virginia Palomo, ODA Laboratory QAlQC Officer B. Documents ReviewedPre-site visit• Quality Management Plan for Oregon State Department of Agriculture PesticideEnforcement Program and United States Environmental Protection Agency CooperativeAgreement (August 10, 2007)• Oregon State Department of Agriculture Pesticide Enforcement Program Generic QualityAssurance Project Plan (August 10, 2007)• Oregon State Department of Agriculture Pesticide Sampling Guidelines (summer, 2004)• Oregon State Department of Agriculture Laboratory Quality Assurance Manual (June 9,2006)• Oregon State Department of Agriculture F500 Report (July 19,2005)• Oregon State Archives Records Retention Schedule (November, 1999)• Consolidated Pesticide Cooperative Agreement (FY07)QS Assessment Report for ODA 2010 Page 3 of5On-site visit• Consolidated F500 Report (June 17, 2009) Investigation Log #094363 Pesticide Licenses Log Applicator Information Product Information Field Notes Laboratory Analytical Request Laboratory Sample History (or Chain of Custody) • Oregon State Department of Agriculture Laboratory Services Quality Assurance Manual(April 13, 2009)• Oregon State Department ofAgriculture Laboratory Services Internal Audit Report(April 9 - 14,2009)• Oregon State Department of Agriculture Laboratory Services Data packet Checklist• Enforcement File (GeeselLawson Creek! Schaaf Alan, Nicholas / AUF (#093190)IV. Assessment ResultsThis report contains the findings offact on the implementation and effectiveness ofODA'sQuality System and the collation of findings of fact on the evaluation ofODA's monitoring activities thatsupport the pesticide programs.This report focuses on those areas in ODA' s program operations that in the opinion of thereviewer merit attention to ensure that ODA continues to generate environmental data of known anddocumented quality. We would also like to acknowledge the cooperation and assistance of the managersand staff who took time from their busy schedules to participate in the assessment.For the purposes of this report, assessment results are classified as follows:• Findings An assessment conclusion that identifies deficiencies in implementing the QualitySystems.• Observations - An opportunityfor operational improvement (a non-critical discrepancy whereno corrective action is required) or a noteworthy practice ofbenefit to the organization.• Recommendations - An opinion expressed by the reviewer that is considered to be a bestpractice. It is usually offered to help the organization address a corrective action and develop aplan for that action.FindingsThere were no findings that identified deficiencies for this report.ObservationsObservation No. 1 - The Quality Management Plan Needs Updating Data backup policy and document retaining policy are inconsistent with ODA's QMP. Recommendation: The QMP needs to be updated to reflect the current practice in the agency. Observation No.2 Inspector Training FilesCurrently the employee training documents are not centrally kept in one place or with one person.Recommendation: For good housekeeping practices, one person (like the QA Manager) shouldtrack and maintain all of the inspectors' training documents (health & safety, inspector credential,QS Assessment Report for ODA 2010 Page 4 of5etc.).Observation No.3 F-500 Report SecuritySecurity in the Enforcement Database (FileMaker Pro 6.0 v4) is very lax. The current systemallows any inspectors or managers who have access to the database to have read and editing rightson all reports.Recommendation: Have the IT contractor put in a security measure to convert the document intoa read-only version so only a manager or the person who work on the project can unlock the file.Observation No.4 Verification ofCalibration StandardsThe ODA lab has been using one source of standard per method for its calibration and QC checks. Recommendation: The use of second source verification standard is highly recommended for QA oversight. Observation No.5 Update Analyst Training FilesOne new analyst, joined the lab 6 months ago, and has not had her training file Documentation updated. Recommendation: All staff training files need to be maintained current by the Lab QA Manager. Observation No.6 - Initial Demonstration ofCapability (IDOC) or Continuing Demonstration ofCapability (CDOC) is not practiced in the labRecommendation: It is a Good Lab Practice (GLP) to require IDOC per method for each of theanalyst before they analyze samples. A CDOC can be conducted by monitoring the analysts'performance using LCS, MS and MSD analyses.Observation No.7 - Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) may need updatingRecommendation: To keep up with times and technology advances, ODA Lab LIMS may need tobe updated.V. Completion of the Assessment ProcessThere were no findings that require a corrective action. No response to this report will berequired.QS Assessment Report for aDA 2010Page 5 of5AppendixHCONSOLIDATED PESTICIDE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND OREGON DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR FY2010 END-OF-YEAR REPORT FOR CERTIFICATION AND TRAINING PROGRAM COMPONENT This end-of-year report describes activities conducted for the work plan of theCertification and Training program component of the Consolidated Pesticide CooperativeAgreement between the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and theOregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) for the period extending from July 1,2009through June 30, 2010.The EPA "Logic Model" approach to assessment of goals and outcomes for programactivities is addressed annually in the EPA Cooperative Agreement. The certification andtraining work plan requirements of the FY2010 cooperative agreement are demonstratedbelow through program accomplishments. These accomplishments will hopefully provideadequate information to meet the "outputs & measures" listed in the logic modelcontained in the Cooperative Agreement Work Plan for FY20 1O.FY2010 Certification and Training Work Plan RequirementsProgram Maintenance and SupportCI Continue to Update Pesticide Certification Examinations and Processes.o ODA administers the pesticide certification examination processthroughout the state in order to ensure a base level of competency ofcertified applicators and to meet federal requirements for pesticidecertification. Certification is required prior to licensing as a pesticideapplicator, pesticide consultant, private pesticide applicator, directlysupervised trainee, in pesticide specific use categories associated withapplicator licenses. Certification is contingent upon taking, and passing,written examinations. Oregon has 22 distinct category exams and onetrainee exam. Updates of pesticide certification examinations andprocesses for FY20 10 include:• The dissemination of a Request For Bid for· establishing ancomputer based testing process in Oregon for pesticide applicatorcertification and recertification. This improvement to our standard"hard-copy" exam process will allow applicators to receive testresults immediately and minimize the time required to becomelicensed. It was made clear to ODA that the costs of employing aperson to wait to learn of exam results far exceeded the costs ofI••••electronic testing. The contract was awarded to Metro Institute andwill be completely functional in FY 2011.A new "Demonstration and Research" category was establishedthrough administrative rule (OAR603-057-160) became final andeffective January 1, 2010. This category allows activitiesassociated with pesticide "Demonstration and Research" to beperformed by Commercial applicators, Public applicators andPesticide Consultants. The Demo and Research category is now aseparate and'distinct certification exam and category.A revised Marine Antifouling exam was completed in FY20 10.The Laws & Safety examination was revised.Exam booklets were reprinted and distributed to all testing centersfor all of the revised examinations. The computer gradingequipment was reprogrammed to accurately record the scores ofthe new exams. All new exams were reprogrammed into the examtracking bar-coding program to ensure ODA can identify whereeach exam is at any given time.of testing centers audited for certification examination security & integrity.o The State of Oregon contracts with a total of 18 community colleges oruniversity facilities as testing centers for administering pesticidecertification examinations. All 18 testing centers were audited by ODACertification & Training staff at least once during FY201O. These auditsare conducted to ensure all security agreements were current, all pesticideexaminations were accounted for and in good condition, and to provideproctor training for consistent and accurate testing procedures.o The Oregon Institute of Technology testing center in Klamath Falls,Oregon discontinued their testing center contract with ODA in FY201O.The satellite educational facility for Treasure Valley Community Collegelocated in Lakeview, Oregon was added. Since the Klamath FallsCommunity College remains a testing center for the Klamath Falls area,the additional testing location in Lakeview will actually serve ODAcustomers more efficiently for those in the southeast portion of the state.CJ NumberPesticide Certification Examination Study Materials Development andIncorporation into ODA website.CJ CJ Coordinated with training providers to assure applicator training materials andprograms are consistent with the certification exams?o Oregon does not require pre-license training, however, pre-licensingtraining is available through independent providers throughout the state.ODA works with these trainers to provide guidance and resources toensure educational information is consistent with ODA certificationexams. When examinations are revised, pre-license educators are notifiedas possible.Efforts made to improve and update study materials for certification examinations2CJ o ODA staff worked with Texas A & M University Extension (TAMU) staffto obtain the authorities to use TAMU copyrighted study manual forDemonstration and Research. EPA headquarters provided minimalfunding directly to T AMU for the release of this document for access byany state. This manual was modified by a team of researchers and ODACertification and Training staff. The resulting manual is the basis for theDemonstration and Research certification examination. This manual isavailable only online through the ODA website.Additional pesticide education website resourceso In FY201O, WSU did not update and expand the scope of the followingweb-based resources due to lack of funding. The WSU contract with ODAfor these services concluded in FY2009.• Pestsense: Focus on household/common pest problems with anIntegrated Pest Management approach.• Hortsense: Home gardener fact sheets for managing plant problemswith an Integrated Pest Management approach.• Oregon Urban IPM: This site concentrates on Integrated PestManagement principals for schools and homes.o ODA expanded the Pesticides Division website to include resources forIntegrated Pest Management educational resources including:• Integrated Plant Protection Center at Oregon State University• OSU Pesticide Safety Education Program• IPM in Schools as passed by the 2009 Oregon legislature.Adopted or Amended Oregon Administrative Rules Final in FY2010Added and amended state administrative rules to add Demonstration &Research category.o Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 603-057-160 outlined therequirements for state experimental use permits through two distinctprocesses was finalized and adopted in FY20 1O. These two processes are:• Collective EUP: This permit is to be completed by pesticideresearchers conducting small-plot trials (less than one acre) onagriculture or forest lands. The researcher does not have to disclosethe location and specifics of each trial prior to conducting theresearch. The permit is valid until December 31 st of the yearissued. Upon expiration of the permit, a summary report isrequired.• Site-Specific EUP: The permit is to be completed by pesticideresearchers conducting pesticide trials on any agriculture or forestsite over 1 acre or any other site (e.g. aquatic, right of way, turf &ornamental, etc.). Very specific information is required to beapproved by ODA prior to conducting the trial.o Other administrative rule changes made in FY2010 include:• Pesticide application records are required for all pesticides used inresearch projects regardless if they are required to apply for anEUP or are exempt from the EUP requirement.3• Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 603-057-145 & 603-057-11 0)were amended to allow Public Pesticide Applicators andCommercial Pesticide Applicators and trainees to qualify to addthe demonstration and research category to their license.• Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 603-57-180 was added toallow Commercial and Public applicators holding anyone of thecategories of Agricultural-Herbicide, Agricultural­InsecticidelFungicide or Forestry to apply for, and be granted, aPrivate Applicator license without further examination.Certification and Training State Plan Requirements & Reporting DatabaseQ Certification & Training report as required under 40CFR Part 171 (Section171.7(d)).o The C & T report that is required to be entered into the electronic C & TState Plan and Reporting Database (CPARD) will be completed byOctober 11, 2010. The information entered into CPARD is be collectedand reported based on the federal fiscal year (October 1 September 30).Training: Monitoring and Quality AssuranceQ Training sessions evaluated to ensure that they are of adequate quality and areaddressing priority focus areas.o Continuing education sessions accredited by ODA for recertificationpurposes increased from 995 in FY 2009 to 1085 in FY201O. The trendover the last 3 years shows an increase in 50-75 courses available eachyear. Enhancement of the recertification program is based on the premiseof constantly and consistently providing, and improving recertificationtraining and processes. The primary method of evaluating recertificationcourses is through intense review and scrutiny of programs uponapplication for recertification accreditation. The staff person responsiblefor approving, or denying, recertification credits is experienced inpesticide training and investigations. The broad-based experience of C &T staff provides a thorough and competent, in-depth evaluation of courseagendas to ensure quality agendas are accredited. The course topics,presenters, length of presentations, and overall appropriateness of thesubjects are taken into consideration prior to accreditation approval.o The efforts to improve and ensure applicator competency continuedthrough FY2010 and will continue with workgroups and discussionsincluding OSU and other interested parties. Several options wereidentified by OSU and ODA staff as alternative certification programs toalleviate differing interpretations of what constitutes continuing pesticideeducation and how best to improve the current processes. These optionscontinue to be discussed however, significant changes to thecertification/recertification program would most likely require statutorychanges that could only be done through the legislative process.o ODA updates the Recertification Accreditation Guide each year to keepimproving the accreditation approval process to reduce the time necessary4to review each class and to get sponsors to provide accurate information inthe application.Monitor and/or participate in applicator certification training programso ODA participation in recertification training courses conducted to provideoutreach, education, and regulatory updates to licensed applicators.o ODA staff participated as presenters in approximately 101 differenttraining sessions through the entire state. This too, is an increase overFY2009. The presentation topics primarily focused on label interpretation,drift mitigation, the proposed NPDES pesticides general permit,compliance assistance, violations/enforcement, licensing responsibilities,RUP concerns, and providing technical expertise to pesticide users,dealers, consultants, and others. ODAPesticides Division employees areroutinely requested as presenters at numerous sessions throughout the stateevery year. Recertification courses are accredited in different mechanismsof delivery including: live (in person), Spanish language, internet,correspondence, video conference (webinars), and CD classes.o A brief overview of some of the courses and related sponsors include:o ODA staffPresentations/courses101• 2 IPM in schoolso,0ooo• 6 NPDES• 10 Endangered SpeciesOSU-ES staff142.2WPSCommunity Colleges118OR-OSHA42• 21 WPS 4 hour courses• 18 WPS topic presentations116 Total number of CORE classes16 Spanish courseso In review of the recertification courses provided to applicators/consultantsstatewide, it was determined that Oregon State University Extensionpersonnel sponsored 142 sessions of the FY2010 accredited sessions(13.08%).o Auditing of actual training sessions is conducted by certification andtraining staff, program manager, pesticide investigators, and otherPesticides Division representatives. In FY 2010, approximately 58 of the1010 individual training sessions were evaluated by ODA staff for qualityand content. Efforts will be made during FY2011 to increase the auditingrate to validate the recertification review process and make certain thateducation provided to certifiedllicensed applicators is consistent with5ODA accreditation standards and guidelines. It is anticipated that withadditional pesticide investigators in district offices, they will become moreinvolved in training opportunities and auditing of recertification courses.Addressing CompliancelEnforcement Issues Through C & T ProgramClldentified new focus areas and reduced focus areas.o ODA went into the FY2010 training season with several topic focus pointsto deliver to pesticide users. Federal issues such as Endangered Species,proposed EPA drift label language, soil fumigation label changes werepresented at many of the ODA "update" presentations. Label interpretation(focusing on buffers and sites), licensing requirements and responsibilities,recordkeeping requirements (both ODA and USDA), toleranceinformation and other issues were all reinforced. A separate trainingprogram was developed for each segment of applicators (Private,Commercial & Public) and even redeveloped depending on the area ofexpertise of the audience (forestry, vegetation management, urban pestcontrol, etc.). Consultants were also addressed in each program andinformation on the new research and demonstration category wasdisseminated. During the recertification accreditation process, if ODA wasnot on an agenda to address compliance issues, then every effort was madeto have an ODA Pesticides Division staff person included on the agenda.o Oregon's Pesticide Use Reporting System was not a topic addressed byODA to pesticide recertification courses since it was discontinued in 2009due to the lack of funding. The 2011 Oregon legislature will decide thefuture of the Pesticide Use Reporting System.Additional activities.Cl Cooperative Program Sharing and Evaluation ofPesticide Education with OSU-ESCl Oregon State University Extension Service IPM Educator, TimStock, and other Integrated Plant Protection Center staff wasreassigned in FY20 10 to focus on IPM in school due to the passingof the IPM in school law in the 2009 Oregon legislature. Tim'sposition was reassigned to 50% IPM in schools and 50% otherduties including organizing the four primary OSU-ES pesticideeducational seminars given throughout the state. OSU-ES hoststhese major recertification courses during the year where ODAPesticides Division staff are scheduled to share informationregarding pesticide regulations, issues and resources at thesetraining events.Cl ODA also participated in the OSU-ES agent in-service training toprovide the most up-to-date information to Extension Staff for usein their county/district pesticide training events.ClPartnering with C & T representatives at the Western Region Pesticide Meeting6o Dale Mitchell, ODA Pesticides Division Assistant Administrator and Janet·Fults, Pesticides Division Certification & TrainingfRegistrations ProgramManager attended the Western Region Pesticide Meeting in Boise, Idahoin May 2010. This opportunity is beneficial to all ODA Pesticide programsin the variety of topics that are presented and in the networking andresources that are made possible.o.Participation in the Certification and Training Assessment Group (CTAG)o Janet Fults, ODA Pesticides Division Certification &TrainingfRegistrations Program Manager was a member of the board ofdirectors of the Certification and Training Assessment Group (CTAG)until March 2010. After serving four (4) years on this Group, Janetdecided to let another state representative replace her in this position.During FY2010, the priority topic CTAG was addressing was identifyingthe key elements of a defensible recertification program.0. Activities associated with Soil Fumigation Label Changeso ODA has been involved in the EPA changes in label requirements for soilfumigations. These changes are coming at a significant cost in resourcesfor our department with no apparent support from EPA or the registrantsto assist in the implementation of these requirements.o ODA has provided comments to EPA and participated in numerousconference calls with EPA staff regarding this issue.o In April, 20 10, all technical and management ODA Pesticide Divisionstaff participated in an all-day training on the soil fumigation regulationchanges being implemented beginning December 1,2010. EPAheadquarters and Idaho staff provided this training.o Outreach efforts to pesticide users was minimal until actual labels couldbe reviewed and the department had a better understanding of what theneed for outreach would be.0. Activities associated with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) Permito Participated in NPDES discussion meeting in Dallas, Texas and Boise, IDo Participated in numerous meetings with Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality (DEQ) to collectively address the approach andscope of the Pesticide General NPDES Permit.o Participate in the development of a Legislative Concept to authorize ODAto conduct NPDES related activities associated with the PGP.o Provided outreach to certain pesticide user groups regarding the proposedPGP.o Worked with Oregon DEQ to develop comments to EPA on the proposedPGP.o Allocated technical personnel to focus on NPDES; how it will beimplemented in Oregon; provide outreach; be the ODA point-person onthis issue. This resulted in a reduction in technical staff assignments topesticide registrations.0. Othe'r activities related to certification and training outreacho Development and dissemination of a brochure on Marketplace Inspections7o Review and comment on Soil Water Conservation District pesticide/waterquality brochureso Conducted training for dealers, growers, and fieldmen on soil fumigation.o Conducted pesticide outreach to homeowners in Central Oregono Developed official recertification course audit formo Developed new Collective EUP formso Developed annual summary report form for Collective EUP holderso Revised applicator applications and pesticide registration formso Programmed new certification examination scanner (grading program)o Participated in NIOSH PPE evaluationo Conducted in-depth evaluation of Alstar and KRS pesticide registrationprogramso Developed and distributed laminated poster for pesticide dealers toincrease awareness of the hazards associated with zinc phosphide andgeese.o Participated in AAPCO meeting in Washington DC in March 2010.8Appendix ICONSOLIDATED PESTICIDE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND OREGON DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR FY2010 END-OF-YEAR REPORT FOR WATER QUALITY PROTECTION PROGRAM COMPONENT This end-of-year report describes activities conducted for the work plan of the WaterQuality Protection program component of the Consolidated Pesticide CooperativeAgreement between the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and theOregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) for the period extending from July 1, 2009through June 30, 2010.Continue Coordination with other State and Federal Agencies.CJ ODA has a 0.5 FIE technical staff position dedicated to continued developmentand implementation of Oregon's Pesticide Management Plan (PMP). Furtherrevisions of this document are coordinated with member state agencies of theWater Quality Pesticide Management Team (WQPMT), formed in FY2008. Inaddition to ODA Pesticides Division, membership of the WQPMT is composed ofrepresentatives from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) ,ODA Natural Resources Division (non-point source agricultural water quality),Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) and the Oregon Human ServiceslHealthDivision (OHS). The WQPMT operates under a Memorandum of Understanding(MOU) which was approved and signed by each agency director in December,2009. This team approach is the cornerstone for the development ofcomprehensive and efficient solutions to pesticide-related water quality issues.CJ Communication is also established with key program contacts from theGeological Survey (USGS), Oregon State University (OSU), various county Soiland Water Conservation Districts, local watershed councils and other keystakeholders as needed. The team approach to the complex area of pesticide­related water quality issues provides a foundation of cooperation, leveraging ofresources and a progression of efforts towards achieving the common goals ofevaluating identified Pesticides of Interest (POls) and Pesticides of Concern(POCs), knowledge sharing and the implementation of coordinated processes toaddress pesticide detections in surface and groundwater in Oregon.CJ Due to this increased cooperation between state agencies, ODA has becomeintensively involved in water quality programs administered by DEQ, the StateLead Agency for the Clean Water Act.Development of the Pesticide Management Plan for Surface and GroundwaterProtection.(J EPA and State Interagency Review ofdraft PMPo Relationships with stakeholders and other state agencies providedenhancements and a broader approach to addressing pesticides in water inthe draft Oregon Water Quality Pesticide Management Plan (WQPMP)which was originally submitted to EPA for comments in FY2009.o Based on comments received from EPA on the original draft in earlyFY201O, ODA resubmitted a revised draft to EPA for review. Additionalcomments from EPA were subsequently provided on this revised draft. Asof the conclusion of FY201O, resubmission of this document to EPA ispending further review and revisions by the WQPMT. EPA continues tobe an involved partner in this process and close collaboration between thestate and EPA will result in a final document that accurately assesses andcommunicates the approach Oregon is taking to address pesticides foundin ground and surface water.Identify and Evaluate Pesticides of Interest and Concern(J (J During FY201O, ODA and the WQPMT agreed in the short-term, when WaterQuality Standards are unavailable, to use the EPA OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarksto evaluate monitoring data for pesticides of interest and pesticides of concernunder the draft WQPMP. Oregon is among many states that are struggling todefine the basis of deciding how active ingredients should be evaluated aspesticides of interest or pesticides of concern. Under the draft WQPMP, Oregonconsiders the detected concentration of an active ingredient in water relative to thepesticide's Aquatic Life Benchmark or Water Quality Standard and the frequencyof its detection in monitoring programs. In addition, Oregon takes a "weight-of­evidence" approach, considering additional factors such as, environmental fate,use patterns, co-occurrence with other pesticides and possible sub-lethal effectsreported in the scientific literature to prioritize the pesticides to be evaluated eachfiscal year.In FY201O, ODA and the WQPMT added 16 additional active ingredients to theoriginal list of 57 pesticides of interest, as a result of consultations with DEQ andtheir toxics reduction programs (see below), making for a total of 73 pesticides onit's master list of pesticides of interest. In FY2010 four (4) pesticide activeingredients were identified as Oregon pesticides of interest to be evaluated basedon existing data and available resources. Also, in FY201O, eight (8) activeingredients were identified as pesticides of concern.Additional State Activities Involving ODA Pesticides & Water QualitylJ The 2007 Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 737, which requires OregonDEQ to consult with all interested parties by June 2009 to develop a list of"Priority Persistent Pollutants" (P3 List) that have a documented effect on humanhealth, wildlife and aquatic life. Senate Bill 737 requires Oregon's 52 largestmunicipal wastewater treatment plants to monitor for P3 pollutants and developprevention and reduction plans for those detected above established trigger levels.ODA reviewed and provided comments regarding the pesticides included on thedraft P3 list.lJ In June 2010, Oregon DEQ submitted their final report to the Legislature. Thisreport included sixteen (16) current-use active ingredients on the P3 List, 9 ofwhich were not on the original list of 57. These nine active ingredients wereadded to the pesticide of interest list.lJ In addition to SB 737, Oregon DEQ has a more global project underwayidentified as the Toxics Reduction Strategy. This program involves pesticidesprimarily detected in the Willamette River Basin with inclusion of other waterbasins as· the program matures. This Toxics Reduction Strategy is acomprehensive, integrated, cross-media, approach designed to address toxicpollutants in the environment. An integrated approach is essential because manypollutants readily transfer from one environmental media to another (e.g.,mercury can be released to the air, deposit on the land, and run off to thewater). The intent of DEQ's Toxics Reduction Strategy is that it will help ensurethat the state is addressing the problem of toxics in the environment in the mosteffective and efficient way. DEQ has formed an external stakeholder group tohelp develop this strategy. ODA-WQ staff and the WQPMT are involved in thisstakeholder group to provide expertise on pesticide technical issues and activities.The WQPMT is also involved with the Oregon DEQ Pesticide StewardshipPartnerships (PSPs) throughout the state. These projects are watershed specificwhere surface water samples are taken, analyzed and evaluated. Sourceidentification and mitigation measures are considered at a grass roots level withinvolvement of OSU-Extension, growers, watershed councils, soil and waterconservation districts, ODA and others. The WQPMT is involved in the planningand implementation of the PSPs. The monitoring data in the PSPs is the primarysource of monitoring data that are evaluated by the WQPMT.EPA Reporting DatabaselJ EPA and the states collaborated to design a database reporting system around thePesticide of Interest/ConcernlManagement concept. The resulting database isreferred to as the Pesticides of Interest Tracking System (POINTS). The POINTSdatabase is used by EPA and the states to evaluate program progress and tocompare information between programs. The FY2010 data for this year end reporthas been entered into the POINTS database as needed to comply with the FY2010EPAlODA Consolidated Cooperative Agreement.ohttp://www.wq.wsu.eduJdefault.aspxYear-end data on the 57 compounds designated by EPA as Pesticides of Interestand the 16 pesticides added by Oregon has been completed. All 73 compoundshave been addressed with the designations as listed below. Since•EPA Pesticide ofInterest Characterizations: 57 + 16 = 73Measure 1- FY2010 Pesticides of Interest Number of pesticides of evaluated vs number of pesticides of interest: 29n3 (39.73%) Measure 2 - FY2010 Pesticides of Concern Number of pesticides of concern under active management vs number of pesticides of concern identified: 2/8 (25%) Measure 3 - FY2010 Active Management Number of AI with demonstrated progress vs number of active ingredients under active management: 212 (100%) IIIPesticides of Interest that ODA committed to evaluate during FY 2010: 4• Clorothalonil• Pendamethalin (under review)• Terbacil (under review)• Triallate (not evaluated)•Pesticides evaluated to be Oregon Pesticides of Concern: 8• Atrazine• Azinphos-methyl• Carbaryl• Chlorpyrifos• Diazinon• Diuron• Ethoprop• Simazine•Additional Pesticides ofInterest evaluated during FY2010: 10• 2,4-D• Acetochlor• Alachlor•••••••DimethenarnidNaproparnideProchlorazPrometonPrometrynTebuthiuronTriclopyr•Pesticides under Active Management: 2• Azinophos-methyl• Chlorpyrifos•Pesticides under Active Management with Demonstrated Progress: 2• Azinphos-methyl• ChlorpyrifosAppendixJCONSOLIDATED PESTICIDE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND OREGON DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR FY2010 END..OF..YEAR REPORT FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION PROGRAM COMPONENT This end-of-year report describes activities conducted for the work plan of theEndangered Species Protection program component of the Consolidated PesticideCooperative Agreement between the United States Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) and the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) for the period extending fromJuly 1,2009 through June 30, 2010.Core Activities:o Provide comment to EPA on proposed Endangered Species Protection Bulletinsand buffer zone calculator.o In November, 2009, ODA provided comment to EPA regarding theproposed Endangered Species Protection Bulletins associated with the useof three organophosphate (OP) pesticides (chlorpyrifos, diazinon andmalathion). Comments pertained to the accuracy and functionality of thecounty maps, and mitigation measures (such as limitations) on thebulletins. The bulletins were part of EPA's approach for implementing theNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 2008 biological opinionaddressing the use of the three OPs relative to 28 Pacific salmon andsteel head species.o Iri January, 2010, EPA provided slightly revised bulletins for the threeOPs to ODA. ODA submitted comments regarding the revised bulletins,and also the prototype Buffer Zone Calculator. Because EPA requestedcomments within a very short time frame, ODA did not solicit writtencomments from Stakeholders. However, eight presentations were made tovarious grower groups through-out the state, and verbal opinions weresolicited and provided to EPA.o In May, 2010, EPA announced plans to place additional limitations on theuse of three N-methyl carbamate pesticides - carbaryl, carbofuran andmethomyl - to protect endangered and threatened salmon and steelhead inCalifornia, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. The limitations (including theuse of buffers) provided in the Endangered Species Protection Bulletinsare a response to NMFS Second Biological Opinion. In June, EPAprovided a link for the Bulletins Live! development site allowing ODAand others to assess the buffer calculator for the draft bulletins. In aneffort to increase stakeholder participation and transparency, ODA wasencouraged by EPA to solicit written comments from Oregonstakeholders, comments received by ODA were forwarded to EPA. ODAalso provided extensive comments to EPA. ODA did provide theopportunity for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and OregonState University to comment.o In June, 2010 EPA sought comments on the draft Reasonable and PrudentMeasures (RPMs) and Alternatives (RPAs) included in a draft BiologicalOpinion received from NMFS. This draft Biological Opinion addresses thepotential effects from 12 pesticides to endangered or threatened Pacificsalmon and steelhead. The 12 pesticides are: Azinphos Methyl, Bensulide,Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Ethoprop, Fenamiphos, Methidathion,Methamidophos, Methyl Parathion, Naled, Phorate, and Phpsmet. ODAparticipated in a phone conference with four other states and EPA, andconveyed EPA's request for comments to Oregon stakeholders. ODA didnot provide comments to EPA regarding the RPMs or RPAs.o Pesticide inspector and pesticide user education ofthe Endangered SpeciesProtection Programo A significant focus of the ESPP program in Oregon has been on providingeducation and outreach activities to pesticide investigators and to pesticideusers. ODA includes information regarding ESPP to pesticide applicatorsas a part of other certification activities, and is part of the continuingeducation required for recertification. There were approximately 25presentations which included ESPP information.o Improve Interagency Cooperationo ODA continues to work cooperatively, share information and meet withother agencies that also have endangered species concerns andresponsibilities. However, the formalized cooperative relationship betweenODA and these other agencies for the purpose of coordinatingdevelopment of the endangered species program for Oregon is stillpending, and contingent on active implementation of the ESPP by EPAand subsequently the states.o Implementation ofthe EPA Strategy for Protecting Endangered Species inOregon.o ODA originally anticipated that the National Endangered SpeciesProtection Program Implementation Plan would be finalized, and theBulletins Live! site would be operational. The Department has not yetbegun implementation strategies for the.ESPP due to the fact that neither"Bulletins Live" or Bulletins Live! Two (BLT) are available. When asystem does become available, ODA will lead a coordinated effort amongagencies to review the program and begin to develop a strategy forprotecting endangered species in Oregon from the potential effects ofpesticides when there are bulletins to follow and an accurate and currentresource database is accessible by pesticide users.a Establish Endangered Species Information Links to Pesticides Division WebPage.o In FY2008, Oregon has expanded the number of web links that areconnected to the Pesticides Division web page. From the ODA PesticidesDivision web page, individuals can reach an "Endangered Species" link.This link takes the user to such sites as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services,the Endangered Species Act, National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA) Fisheries, The Oregon Natural Heritage Program,and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (list of Oregonthreatened and endangered fish and wildlife species). ODA routinelyreviews additional links. These links are monitored and updated asappropriate.o According to EPA, the limitations provided in the proposed bulletins willreplace interim limitations put in place by the U.S. District Court for theWestern District of Washington in 2004. However, until the bulletins arefinal, ODA will continue to provide information on our website regardingthe buffer zones associated with this court ruling.a Review of Specific Pesticide Uses for EndangeredlThreatened SpeciesProtection.o Especially within ODA's special registration program, ODA has beenactively consulting with other agencies to determine the possible impactsof specific pesticide uses on threatened and endangered (Err) species.EPA is requiring ODA to provide endangered species information forspecific areas in Oregon in correlation to Section 18 or Section 24Crequests. In an attempt to determine affected species, ODA contacts theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for a list of endangered speciesin the potential application areas. USFWS has required ODA to fill out anofficial form, and provide certain information, including the activeingredients and purpose of the possible pesticide applications for a formalESA request. According to the USFWS, the lists they provided fulfilledthe requirement of the Service under section 7(c) of the EndangeredSpecies Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Todetermine additional endangered species that could be affected by thepesticide application, ODA also communicates with NOAA Fisheries,specialists with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW),mammal experts with ODFW and fish specialists with Oregon StateUniversity in efforts to provide relevant information to satisfy EPA reviewprocesses.In FY2009, ODA included language on chlorpyrifos 24(C) labels thatrequired 300 foot buffers for aerial applications near waterways. Thisrestriction was required by ODA to protect endangered salmon and wasconsistent with other similar product restrictions.Endangered Species Enforcement.I.JEnforcemento The Department enforces all pesticide product label statements regardingErr species, and investigates allegations of pesticide misuse that mayimpact threatened and/or endangered species. The Department continuesto cooperate with federal and state agencies investigating possible plantand wildlife incidences by providing information and technical expertise.Appendix KField Program for Endangered Species:Data Collection Sheet for FY2010 EOY ReportStatelTribe Contact Name: Janet FultsPhone: 503-986-4652Email: jfults@oda.state.or.usWhat means have you used (e.g., pesticide safety training, continuing educationcredits, pesticide applicator training) to inform current or potential pesticideusers and inspectors about the ESPP, including Endangered Species ProtectionBulletins (Bulletins)?During FY201 0, The Oregon Dept. Of Agriculture (ODA) Pesticides Division providedinformation about the Endangered Species Protection Program and associated bulletinsto current or potential pesticide users through a variety of mechanisms. ESPP was atopic in recertification courses provided by ODA, OSU and other course sponsors,ESPP and EPA's entire program (beyond bulletins) has been linked to the ODAwebsite, and pre-license trainers have been informed to include this subject to makepotential applicators aware of this program. In addition, ODA staff informed growers andother pesticide users about the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) BiologicalOpinions (BiOp); and encouraged stakeholders to comment on draft Reasonable andPrudent Measures (RPMs) and Altematives (RPAs) included in draft Biological Opinionsreceived by EPA. ODA staff informed growers, commodity commissions and otherinteres!ed parties by email and via direct presentations.ODA Pesticides Division has communicated very closely with the Oregon Department ofFish & Wildlife and US Department of Fish and Wildlife on issues concerningendangered or threatened species when determining additional restrictions andlorprecautions that are necessary in the registration of FIFRA Section 24c uses andprocessing of FIFRA Section 18 emergency exemptions.Please provide any additional comments, suggestions or recommendationsregarding field implementation of the ESPP.For the first two BiOps, NMFS's RPAs included the use of specific buffer widths. Werecognize that in contrast, EPA is attempting to make the buffer width a function ofactive ingredient, application rate, droplet size, type of application method (ground oraerial), and water body type and size. We believe that more options should be includedunder types of application methods, and that a buffer credit should be given for growerswith well maintained riparian areas, and application equipment in good functioningcondition. The third BiOp did not specify the use of buffers, but it is assumed that EPAwill use the buffer zone calculator concept in order to insure that salmon ids are not in ajeopardy situation.No further comments.