U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOregon Department of Agriculture and Oregon OSHAEnd-of-Year Review Report for theFiscal Year 2013Pesticide Cooperative AgreementsFebruary 28, 2014SummaryThis end-of-year evaluation report covers the review of the pesticide programs of two Oregonstate agencies: the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) and the Oregon OccupationalSafety and Health Administration (OSHA). This summary provides an overview of majorefforts, accomplishments, and suggestions for improvement.In Fiscal Year (FY) 2013, ODA implemented an excellent enforcement program. ODAcontinued to improve its program by implementing new procedures to address EPA’srecommendations in the past few years. ODA greatly improved the time it took to writenarrative reports, issue enforcement actions, and turn-around laboratory analyses. EPAcontinues to be impressed by the number of environmental samples analyzed. ODA exceededthe number of inspections that it projected at the beginning of the year. Utilizing state funding,ODA conducted 361 more inspections than projected in the FY 2013 work plan and analyzed236 more environmental samples than originally projected. EPA found that inspectionsconducted were thorough, and the enforcement actions issued were consistent with theenforcement response policy. Furthermore, the enforcement action number increasedsignificantly in FY 2013.Oregon OSHA continued to implement an excellent Worker Protection Standard (WPS)enforcement program. The compliance officers were well-trained to do their work, and theyconducted detailed and thorough inspections. Checklists were used during interviews withhandlers and workers, and Letters of Corrective Action were used to ensure that violators cameback into compliance. The enforcement actions issued were timely and consistent with theenforcement response policy.ODA implemented an excellent certification and training program that addressed the importantissues and the needs of applicators in Oregon. In FY 2013, 4,290 private applicators and 5,781commercial applicators were certified and licensed in Oregon. ODA was instrumental in theNorthwest regional efforts to develop a regional soil fumigant examination and was part of acommittee to revise the learning objectives for the National Core Manual and examinationquestions. ODA created a new license type called Pesticide Apprentice. These new licenses areissued to individuals who apply pesticides only when supervised by licensed public orcommercial pesticide applicators.Oregon OSHA participated in 45 agricultural classes and workshops and expanded outreach toOregon’s Forestry stakeholders regarding WPS. Oregon OSHA organized the Annual OregonPesticide Symposium and presented at the Oregon Governor’s Occupational Safety and HealthConference. In FY 2013, Oregon OSHA continued to support the National Institute forOccupational Safety and Health on its personal protection equipment surveillance project andpresented at its stakeholder meeting.During FY 2013, ODA continued to work in cooperation with State and local agencies regardingpesticide management to protect water quality. In partnership with the Water Quality PesticideManagement Team, ODA evaluated available monitoring data, identified Pesticides of Interestiand Pesticides of Concern, and managed Pesticides of Concern. Levels of chlorpyrifos, diuron,and malathion were significantly reduced in the fruit growing areas along the Columbia Rivernear Hood River, The Dalles, and Milton-Freewater, Oregon. ODA also conducted outreach andeducation related to pesticides and water quality issues at training courses and at growerassociation and applicator meetings.The protection of endangered salmon remained a significant interest for Oregon growers inFY 2013, and ODA conducted many activities related to the protection of endangered andthreatened species. ODA worked with the National Association of State Departments ofAgriculture and submitted comments on the draft Biological Opinions issued by the NationalMarine Fisheries Service. ODA also commented on EPA’s “Proposal for Enhancing StakeholderInput in the Pesticide Registration Review and Endangered Species Act Consultation Processesand Development of Economically and Technologically Feasible Reasonable and PrudentAlternatives”. ODA continued to provide outreach and education related to endangered speciesprotection to pesticide applicators and interested parties through newsletters and at trainingclasses.iiI. BACKGRONDA. General1. HistoryIn Oregon, EPA Region 10 has cooperative agreements with two state agencies: ODA andOregon OSHA. ODA is the state lead agency for pesticide use enforcement, certificationand training of pesticide applicators, the water quality protection program, and theendangered species program. Oregon OSHA is the primary state agency for enforcing theemployer-employee aspects of WPS.Funding of the cooperative agreement with ODA is authorized by FIFRA Section 23. ForFY 2013, EPA provided ODA with $451,000 in federal funds through the cooperativeagreement. For FY 2013, EPA did not provide Oregon OSHA with any federal funds.Oregon OSHA receives federal funding directly from the U.S. Department of Labor,Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Thus, Oregon OSHA has an un-fundedcooperative agreement with EPA Region 10.In FY 1994, Oregon OSHA formally adopted, by reference, EPA's WPS for AgriculturalPesticides, 40 C.F.R. Part 170, into its administrative rules at Oregon AdministrativeRules, Chapter 437, Division 81 - Agricultural Operations and Farming. As a result ofOregon OSHA’s rule adoption, the enforcement of EPA’s WPS is conducted by OregonOSHA. In FY 2001, EPA Region 10 and Oregon OSHA entered into an unfundedcooperative agreement. This cooperative agreement between EPA and Oregon OSHAcreates a direct, on-going working relationship between EPA and Oregon OSHA, withrespect to the employer-employee aspect of WPS. Moreover, during FY 2001, ODA andOregon OSHA finalized an interagency agreement that reflected the continuouscoordination and implementation of the WPS activities in Oregon.2. Project PeriodThe project period for the cooperative agreement with ODA was from July 1, 2012 toJune 30, 2013, which was ODA's FY 2013.The project period for the Oregon OSHA cooperative agreement was from October 1,2012, to September 30, 2013, which was Oregon OSHA's FY 2013.3. Review Methods and DatesFor the ODA, the end-of-year review for FY 2013 was conducted via a telephone call onNovember 25, 2013.The end-of-year review for Oregon OSHA was conducted via a telephone call onDecember 4, 2013.14. Review ParticipantsOn November 25, 2013, EPA Region 10 participated in the end-of-year review of ODA’spesticide programs. Participants from EPA at the review wereKelly McFadden, Manager of Pesticides and Toxics Unit; Chad Schulze, PesticidesEnforcement Lead; Derrick Terada, Coordinator of Certification and Training and WorkerSafety Programs; Gabriela Carvalho, Coordinator of Pesticides and Water QualityProgram; and Linda Liu, Oregon Project Officer and Coordinator of Endangered SpeciesProtection Program.The ODA participants at the review were Ray Jaindl, Director of Natural Resources PolicyArea; Dale Mitchell, Manager of Pesticides Program; Rose Kachadoorian, Team Leaderfor Certification and Licensing, Registration, Water Quality, and Endangered SpeciesPrograms; Mike Odenthal, Lead Investigator; Sunny Jones, Compliance Specialist; andSteve Riley, Registration and Water Issues Specialist.On December 4, 2013, Kelly McFadden, Derrick Terada, and Linda Liu participated in theOregon OSHA end-of-year review.The Oregon OSHA participants during the review were Stanton Thomas, FieldEnforcement Manager, and Garnet Cooke, Pesticide Coordinator.B. Scope of ReviewsThis report summarizes the results of the end-of-year review for two cooperative agreements:(1) between EPA and ODA; and (2) between EPA and the Oregon OSHA. Programaccomplishments, effectiveness, problem areas, suggestions for improvement, and anyresolutions to problems are described in the sections below.II. FINANCIALSA. Budget AnalysisThe following table summarizes funding and expenditures for the cooperative agreementwith ODA:Work Plan ComponentEnforcementCertificationPrograms*TOTALEPA Funding State Funding$271,000$117,000$63,000$451,000$1,170,021$255,591$41,989$1,467,600Total Funding$1,441,021$372,591$104,989$1,918,601Un-obligated funds$0$0$0$0*Programs included Worker Safety, Pesticides and Water Quality, and Endangered SpeciesProtection.2III. COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENTA. Reports from ODA1. Pesticide Enforcement Cooperative Agreement Accomplishment Reports, EPA Forms5700-33H, are attached as Appendix A.2. Pesticide Enforcement Outcome Measure Reporting Form is attached as Appendix B.3. ODA’s enforcement summary for FY 2013 is attached as Appendix C.4. Summary of inspections and enforcement actions. The following tables summarize theinspection and enforcement activities that ODA reported to EPA.Inspections and Samples Projected and Completed by ODA. This table comparesinspection and sample projections as stated in ODA’s workplan and the actualaccomplishments.Inspection TypeAgricultural (Ag) Use ObservationsWPS - operator/growerinformation exchange (OGIE)Soil Fumigant ApplicationsAg Use Follow-upNon-Ag Use ObservationsNon-Ag Use Follow-upExperimental Use PermitsProducing EstablishmentContainer/ContainmentMarketplaceImportExportApplicator RecordsOGIERestricted Use Pesticide DealerTOTALInspectionsProjectedInspectionsCompleted101905151015163101110010892670267516382201242245450PhysicalSamplesProjected0004001900000000059PhysicalSamplesAnalyzed1500216064000000000295ODA exceeded the total number of inspections that were projected at the beginning of theyear, except in one category: export. Export inspections are dependent on referrals fromEPA Region 10 and cannot be accurately projected at the beginning of the year. InFY 2013, ODA did not receive any export referrals from EPA Region 10. ODA was ableto substitute other types of inspections to make up the difference. At the end of the fiscalyear, ODA conducted 361 more inspections than projected in its workplan.3Although EPA provided ODA with funding to analyze 59 samples, ODA used statefunding and analyzed a total of 295 samples in FY 2013. EPA greatly appreciates ODA’sincrease in samples analyzed over the past three years. Figure 1 below shows theincrease of number of samples analyzed by ODA.Number of Samples Analyzed byODA Laboratory350300250200150100FY 2010FY 2011FY 2012FY 2013Figure 1Enforcement Actions reported by the ODA in EPA Form 5700-33HInspection TypeWarningsIssued020FineAssessed033CivilComplaints033Ag Use ObservationsAg Use Follow-upNon-Ag UseObservations1000Non-ag. Use Follow-up261414Experimental Use000ProducingEstablishment000Market Place1955Import000Export000Applicator Records332929Restricted Use PesticideDealer133TOTAL1098484*Other Actions include cases forwarded to EPA for actions4LicenseActions06SSUROs00OtherActions*000000000100000002600062603006026036In FY 2013, ODA significantly increased the number of enforcement actions issued.Figure 2 below shows ODA’s inspection numbers and enforcement action numbers in thepast four years.500450400350# of Inspections300# of EnforcementActions250200150100FY 2010FY 2011FY 2012Figure 2FY 2013B. Reports from Oregon OSHA1. Pesticide Enforcement Cooperative Agreement Accomplishment Report, EPAWPS Form 5700-33H, 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 Fiscal Year 2013 isattached as Appendix F.4. Summary of inspections and enforcement actions. The following tables summarize theinspection and enforcement activities that ODA reported to EPA on Form 5700-33H.WPS Inspections Completed by Oregon OSHAInspection TypeInspections CompletedAgricultural Use Total51Tier I WPS29Tier II WPS10Agricultural For Cause Total12Tier I WPS22Tier II WPS2TOTAL635In FY 2013, Oregon OSHA exceeded the 60 inspections projected and conducted 63inspections. Of the 63 inspections, 51 were Tier I and 12 were Tier II inspections.WPS Enforcement Actions Reported by Oregon OSHAInspection TypeFormalCasesAdministrative CriminalActionswhich hadHearingsAction(Citations)CivilIssuedPenaltiesAgricultural Use101000ObservationsAgricultural For Cause1100111100TOTALOther Actions(informaladvisoryletters)21728Oregon OSHA addressed the violation trends in the past year and did an excellent job intargeting facilities to inspect. Figure 3 below shows Oregon OSHA’s inspection numbersand enforcement action numbers in the past four years.90807060# of Inspections50# of EnforcementActions403020FY 2010FY 2011FY 2012FY 2013Figure 3C. Case File and Enforcement Action Evaluation for non-WPS Cases1. ODA Case Review, Enforcement Action Evaluation, and Significant CasesEPA Region 10 reviewed 21 randomly selected case files. The evaluation of the casefiles, the enforcement actions, and the significant cases’ coordination are summarized inthe table below.6#12Conduct thorough inspectionsInclude good narrative reportsin the case filesDid ODAmeet EPA’sexpectations?YesNo√CommentThe narratives were well written and thorough.√3Write narrative reports in atimely manner√4Present federal credentials forProducer EstablishmentInspections (PEIs) and followstate policies with regards toidentifying themselves at thestart of the inspections√EPA recommends that in the Sampling Plans, ODA providemore details on how sample locations, sample types, andnumber of samples are chosen.81% of inspection reports were completed within 120 daysof initiations of the inspections. The 120-day time frame isan unwritten goal set by ODA for inspection reports.ODA conducted six PEIs that required inspectors to presenttheir federal credentials, and ODA presented their credentialsfor all six PEIs.ODA indicated that after EPA’s recommendation in theFY 2012 End-of-Year Review, it started a new procedurethat requires inspectors to introduce themselves withidentifications at the start of non-PEI inspections. Somereports reviewed by EPA did not document these acts in theinspection reports. Most of these reports were written beforeODA initiated its new procedure.EPA recommends that the act of introduction withidentifications be documented in inspection reports.56789For Dealer RecordInspections (DRIs), reviewreceipts to ensure that onlylicensed individualspurchased Restricted UsePesticides (RUPs)For DRIs or Market PlaceInspections (MPIs), ensurethat pesticides are labeled inaccordance with lawsFor Applicator RecordsInspections (ARIs), reviewapplication recordsFor ARIs, check if theapplicators were adequatelylicensedFor Use Inspections, check ifthe applicators wereadequately licensed√√√√√7#1011For Use Inspections, gatheradequate application recordsFor Use Follow-upInspections (UFs), respond tocomplaints in a timely mannerDid ODAmeet EPA’sexpectations?Yes No√√CommentResponse times to complaints were excellent. In a fewcases, response times were longer than normal. Afterspeaking with ODA, EPA found that in most cases, ODAhad responded in a timely manner but had just notdocumented the initial response in the inspection reports.EPA recommends that ODA document all communicationsthat ODA has prior to actual inspections.1213141516Include in the case file therationale for not responding tocomplaints in a timely mannerDuring UFs, collect sufficientphysical samplesIf physical samples were notcollected during UFs, includethe rationale in the case filesHave adequate laboratoryturn-around times√ODA collected numerous samples during inspections.√EPA greatly appreciates ODA’s steady increase in samplescollected over the past three years and recommends thatODA continue collecting this increased number of samples.√√Take adequate photographs√ODA’s laboratory turn-around time was within 120 days inall but one case.ODA has significantly improved the laboratory’s turnaround time.ODA inspectors took photographs in all but one inspection.This inspection was a routine MPI where no violations wereidentified and photographs were inconsequential.That said, EPA recommends that ODA take photographsduring all MPIs. ODA could take set up shots at the front ofthe buildings and some that illustrate the focus of theinspections; e.g., pesticide products offered for sale.1718For inspections, includeadequate copies of the productlabels in the appropriate casefilesInclude maps whenappropriate√√ODA inspectors included maps in all but one case.EPA recommends that ODA strives to include maps in casefiles.8#19202122Include adequate supportingdocumentsFollow its enforcementresponse policyIssue timely enforcementactionsCoordinate significant caseswith EPADid ODAmeet EPA’sexpectations?YesNo√Comment√√√All but two enforcement actions were issued within 365 daysof the initiation dates of the inspections. One of the twoenforcement actions was delayed because of EPA Office ofEnforcement and Compliance Assurance’s long responsetime to an Enforcement Case Review. The otherenforcement action was issued 367 days after the initiationdate of the inspection.2. State RecommendationsODA provided three recommendations to EPA:a. ODA recommends that EPA improve the responsiveness to ODA’s requests onpesticide label reviews and interpretations. For pesticide label reviews, EPA Region10 often forwards them to other EPA Regions for further actions, but ODA does notknow the outcome of these. ODA relies on EPA’s label interpretations for many ofits enforcement actions. EPA Regional Office forwards these requests to EPA’sOffice of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), and sometimes theresponse from OECA can take months;b. ODA recommends that EPA recognize that ODA’s compliance and enforcementprogram includes more activities than those described in the cooperative agreementwith EPA. In addition to the core enforcement activities, ODA’s compliance andenforcement program includes state-only funded compliance assistance activities. InFY 2013, ODA performed compliance assistance at several marketplaces andtraining workshops related to record keeping for commercial applicators; andc. ODA wishes to commend EPA Headquarters and Region 10 for the assistanceprovided during a significant case with national ramifications and recommends thatEPA continue to work as closely and cooperatively with the State Lead Agencies.9D. Compliance Priority – WPS1. Oregon OSHA Case Review, Enforcement Action Evaluation, and Significant CasesEPA Region10 reviewed nine WPS cases. The evaluation of the case files, theenforcement actions, and the significant cases’ coordination are summarized in the tablebelow:#123Conduct thorough inspectionsInclude good narrative reports in the case filesWrite narrative reports in a timely manner4Present credentials at the beginning ofinspectionsFor the use follow-up inspections, respond tothe complaints in a timely mannerInclude photographs in case filesInclude adequate copies of the product labelsInclude documentation that address centrallocation, safety training, decontaminationsupplies, notice of application, posting ofapplication, information exchange, and earlyentry requirementsAddress personal protective equipment, mixingand loading and application equipment,emergency assistance, and retaliationInclude documentation of appropriate workerand handler interviewsIssue enforcement actions in timely mannerFollow enforcement response policyAddress problem areas identified by violationtrendsAdequately coordinate significant cases withEPA567891011121314Did Oregon OSHA meetEPA’s expectations?YesNo√√√Comment√√√√√√√√√√√WPS Compliance AnalysisDuring the inspections conducted in FY 2013, Oregon OSHA identified 126 WPSviolations. Of the 126 violations, 51 were related to central posting, 27 were related totraining, 25 were related to personal protective equipment, 17 were related to10decontamination, five were related to notice of application, and one was related toinformation exchange.2.State FeedbackNone.E. 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 staff can keep abreast of legal developments and technologicaladvances. ODA has four investigators with EPA inspector credentials. Theseinvestigators obtain their eight-hour health and safety refreshers online. In addition, allODA investigators attend grower/applicator meetings to enhance their knowledge of theregulated community. ODA investigators attended EPA’s Pesticide Inspector ResidentialTraining in West Lafayette, Indiana, and in Ashville, North Carolina, both held inSeptember 2012. On March 7, 2013, ODA investigators, , as well as ODA’s registrationand certification/licensing staff, participated in the Oregon Pesticide Symposium inPortland, Oregon. In addition, an ODA investigator participated in EPA’s PesticideRegulatory Education Program in Davis, California, from April 29 to May 3, 2013.2. Training at Oregon OSHAEach year, all Oregon OSHA compliance officers attend the Oregon PesticideSymposium, an annual multi-agency event organized by Oregon OSHA. During thesymposium, refresher courses on health and safety and case development are providedand lessons learned during the past year are discussed. The 2013 Oregon PesticideSymposium featured speakers from the Agrisafe Network, Pacific Northwest AgriculturalSafety and Health Center at University of Washington, National Pesticide InformationCenter, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, ODA, Oregon OSHA, and EPA.F. Special Activities Conducted by ODAIn mid June 2013, ODA started investigating large bee kill incidents in Wilsonville andHillsboro in Oregon. ODA coordinated with the Xerces Society, EPA, and Oregon StateUniversity on the investigations. ODA kept EPA Headquarters and Region 10 well informedof the activities associated with its investigations. To minimize any potential for additionalbee kill incidents, ODA adopted a temporary rule to restrict the use of 18 pesticide productscontaining the active ingredient dinotefuran. The rule went into effect fromJune 27, 2013, to December 24, 2013. At this time, these cases are still open.11G. New Legislation and RegulationsIn June 2013, ODA adopted Oregon Administrative Rule 603-057-0386 for 180 days torestrict the use of pesticides containing the active ingredient dinotefuran. ODA founddinotefuran at the bee kill locations. Failure to comply with the temporary rule may result infines, license suspension, and/or other enforcement actions.H. Action Items from FY 2012 End-of-Year Reviews1. ODAIn FY 2012, EPA Region 10 made eight recommendations to ODA’s enforcementprogram, and ODA addressed them as follows:a. EPA Recommendation: Develop a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to addressfinalizing the narrative portions of the inspection reports and the administrativerecords.ODA Action: ODA indicated that its procedure does not allow the narrative portionof the report to be finalized until the case reviewer provides the enforcement findings.EPA understands this limitation and requests that ODA insert a date within theconclusion write-up.b. EPA Recommendation: When investigators receive inquiries regarding illegalproduction, sale or distribution of pesticides, ensure that the parties fully understandthe definition of pesticide and document such a discussion in the files.ODA Action: ODA addressed this recommendation. Investigators now ensure thatthe inquirers understand the definition for pesticide and document such a discussion.c. EPA Recommendation: Describe in the case file if any documents referred to in anycorrespondence were not received.ODA Action: ODA addressed this recommendation. Most of the case files nowhave such documentations.d. EPA Recommendation: Establish a time frame that the narrative reports should bewritten and a goal (percentage) of reports that meet this time frame.ODA Action: ODA addressed this recommendation by setting a goal to finish thereports in 120 days.e. EPA Recommendation: Develop a policy to address presenting identifications atstate inspections.12ODA Action: ODA addressed this recommendation. ODA developed a newprocedure to ensure identifications are presented at the start of inspections.f. EPA Recommendation: Establish a time frame that analytical reports be produced.ODA Action: ODA addressed this recommendation and in FY 2013, ODAsignificantly improved the laboratory turn-around time. For high priority cases, theturn-around time was less than 30 days. For other priorities, the turn-around time wasless than 120 days. ODA Lead Investigator and ODA Laboratory Manager discussedworkload and priorities on a regular basis.g. EPA Recommendation: Continue to provide complainants updates wheninvestigation takes a long time to conclude.ODA Action: ODA addressed this recommendation. Parties involved got updatesand ODA documents these actions.h. EPA Recommendation: Continue to strive to issue enforcement actions as quickly aspossible.ODA Action: ODA addressed this recommendation. ODA drastically improved thetime it took to issue enforcement actions. ODA indicated that 84% of the FY 2013cases were completed in less than 365 days.2. Oregon OSHAThere was no action item from the previous Oregon OSHA end-of-year review.I. Conclusions and Recommendations for Compliance/Enforcement1. ODAODA has an excellent enforcement program. In FY 2013, ODA continued to improve itspesticide enforcement program by implementing new procedures to address EPA’srecommendations in the past few years. ODA greatly improved the time it took to writenarrative reports, issue enforcement actions, and turn-around laboratory analyses. EPAcontinues to be impressed by the number of samples analyzed. ODA exceeded thenumber of inspections that it projected at the beginning of the year. Utilizing statefunding, ODA conducted 361 more inspections than projected in the FY 2013 work planand analyzed 236 more environmental samples than originally projected. EPA found thatinspections conducted were thorough, and the enforcement actions issued were consistentwith the enforcement response policy. Furthermore, the enforcement action numberincreased significantly in FY 2013.EPA did not identify any deficiencies requiring mitigation measures. EPA has a few13observations and recommendations that can help strengthen ODA’s enforcementprogram:a. For non-PEI inspections, document in the inspection reports the act of presentingstate identifications;b. Document all communications that ODA has prior to actual inspections;c. In the sampling plans, provide more details on how sample locations, sample types,and number of samples are chosen;d. Take some photographs during market place inspections even if no violations arefound;e. Strive to include maps in non-agricultural use observations even if no violations arefound; andf. As described in the Action Items from FY 2012 End-of-Year Reviews section onpage 12, insert a date in the case file that identifies that time that the conclusion wasmade.2. Oregon OSHAOregon OSHA continues to implement an excellent WPS enforcement program. InFY 2013, Oregon OSHA exceeded the projected number of inspections. Complianceofficers conducted thorough and well-documented inspections. Checklists were usedduring interviews with handlers and workers, and Letters of Corrective Action were usedto ensure that violators came back into compliance. Furthermore, the enforcementactions issued were timely and consistent with the enforcement response policy. EPAdoes not have any recommendation for Oregon OSHA’s enforcement program.IV. PROGRAMSA. Worker Safety1. Certification and Training (C&T) of Pesticide Applicators by ODAa. Previous RecommendationsNone.b. AccomplishmentsODA met all the C&T program activities projected in the FY 2013 workplan. Adetailed description of ODA’s C&T program activities can be found in Appendix G.14ODA’s major accomplishments in FY 2013 are listed below:(1) A total of 4,290 private applicators and 5,781 commercial applicators werecertified and licensed in Oregon;(2) ODA staff audited 16 of the 20 testing centers to ensure all examinations areaccounted for and to ensure all security agreements are current;(3) ODA evaluated recertification courses for applicators and consultants. ODAaudited 63 training classes for quality and content and accredited 1,083continuing education classes;(4) ODA participated as presenters in 90 recertification training sessions;(5) For soil fumigants, ODA was instrumental in the Northwest regional efforts todevelop a regional soil fumigant examination. ODA also conducted outreach onthe new Phase 2 soil fumigant labels at pesticide license recertification meetingsand industry stewardship meetings;(6) ODA was part of a committee to revise the learning objectives for the NationalCore Manual and examination questions;(7) ODA created a new license type: Pesticide Apprentice. Pesticide Apprenticesare licensed individuals who can only apply when supervised by licensed publicor commercial applicators. To qualify for a Pesticide Apprentice license, aperson must pass the Laws and Safety examination. ODA no longer issuesDirectly Supervised Trainee licenses;(8) ODA made available the Laws and Safety examination in both English andSpanish, and ODA furnished a list of appropriate pre-examination studymaterials in both languages;(9) ODA added links to educational resources regarding pollinator protection; and(10) ODA was active in the State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group(SFIREG) and the Certification and Training Assessment Group (CTAG). InFY 2013, ODA staff represented Region 10 states at SFIREG’s PesticideOperations and Management Committee, SFIREG’s Environmental QualityIssues Committee, and CTAG’s Board of Directors.c. State FeedbackODA would like to receive funding for translating the existing study materials andother relevant information from English to Spanish.15d. EPA RecommendationsEPA encourages ODA to translate study materials and other relevant informationfrom English to Spanish. EPA will work with ODA in order to find ways to make thispossible.EPA encourages ODA to work with Oregon OSHA and Oregon State University toexplore bilingual farm worker training for pesticide workers and handlers.EPA invites ODA to comment on the proposed revisions to WPS.2. Worker Protection Program by Oregon OSHAa. Previous RecommendationsNone.b. AccomplishmentsIn FY 2013, Oregon OSHA conducted many education and outreach activities relatedto WPS. For more details, see Oregon OSHA Pesticide Emphasis Program AnnualReport Federal Fiscal Year 2013 (Appendix F). Oregon OSHA has the followingmajor accomplishments in FY 2013:(1) Presented at 45 agricultural classes and workshops, with a total of 3,872attendees;(2) Organized the Annual Oregon Pesticide Symposium, to foster agencypartnerships, to focus on enhancing each other’s investigations, and to promotejoint training opportunities. Participants included members from ODA, OregonDepartment of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department of Transportation,Oregon Health Science University, National Pesticide Information Center, OregonOSHA, and EPA Region 10;(3) Provided outreach and education to vineyards and wineries by partnering withOregon Low Input Viticulture and Enology and Oregon OSHA’s ConsultationServices Section;(4) Provided outreach and education to the organic growers through Oregon Tilth, toincrease awareness that the non-conventional pesticides which organic growers usecould be regulated by EPA and the State agencies;(5) Presented at the Oregon Governor’s Occupational Safety and Health Conference;(6) Expanded outreach to Oregon’s Forestry stakeholders regarding WPS; and16(7) Continued to support the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health(NIOSH) on its personal protection equipment surveillance project and presentedat its stakeholder meeting.c.State FeedbackOregon OSHA would like EPA to revise 40 C.F.R. Part 156, as well as the LabelReview Manual, to reflect the current NIOSH language with regards to respiratoryprotection. Currently, pesticide users are hampered when selecting appropriaterespirators due to the presence of severely outdated respirator language. Pesticidelabeling has not kept up with the NIOSH respirator coding, and consequently, manypesticide labels require users to use incorrect and inadequate respirators. WhenNIOSH updated its respirator coding, NIOSH did not discontinue codes but changedwhat respirator each code referenced. Therefore, two identical NIOSH codes from1990 and 2013 do not refer to the same type of respirator. Pesticide users cannotprotect themselves when they are confused and unable to select the appropriaterespirators. On February 20, 2014, EPA announced the proposed revisions to WPS.Oregon OSHA hopes that the final WPS rule will include updated respirator language.d.EPA RecommendationsEPA encourages Oregon OSHA to work with ODA and Oregon State University toexplore bilingual farm worker training for pesticide workers and handlers.EPA invites Oregon OSHA to comment on the proposed revisions to WPS.B. Water Quality Program1. Previous RecommendationsNone.2. AccomplishmentsODA met the Water Quality Program commitments in the FY 2013 workplan. A detaileddescription of ODA's accomplishments can be found in Appendix H.In Oregon, the Water Quality Pesticide Management Team (WQPMT) coordinatesmonitoring and other activities to improve water quality related to pesticides. Teammembers consist of representatives from ODA, Oregon Department of EnvironmentalQuality, Oregon Health Authority, Oregon Department of Forestry and Oregon StateUniversity. In FY 2013, ODA was an active member of the WQPMT and led the team’seffort to designate the FY 2013 Pesticides of Concern for Oregon.In partnership with the WQPMT, ODA evaluated available monitoring data, identifiedPesticides of Interest and Pesticides of Concern, and managed Pesticides of Concern. In17FY 2013, ODA listed 73 active ingredients as Pesticides of Interest (ODA added 16 to theoriginal list of 57), listed six active ingredients as Pesticides of Concern, actively managedfour active ingredients, and demonstrated progress for three active ingredients(chlorpyrifos, diuron, and malathion) in the fruit growing areas along the Columbia Rivernear Hood River, The Dalles, and Milton-Freewater, Oregon. A summary of ODA'spesticide-specific and program management activities can be found in EPA's Pesticides ofInterest Tracking System (POINTS) database athttp://www.points.wsu.edu/reports/fullReport.aspx.ODA conducted outreach and education related to pesticides and water quality issues attraining courses and at grower association and applicator meetings. At these events, ODApresented information on the risk factors associated with pesticide use and showedexamples of existing pesticide label language that demonstrates how risk factors arecommunicated and mitigated. Mitigation measures may include buffer zones orrestrictions on soil type or climate conditions.ODA’s Agricultural Water Quality Management Program also included pesticide relatedissues in the Agricultural Water Quality Plans (Plans), especially if the watershed is in aPesticide Stewardship Partnerships program’s designated area. Pesticide-related items inthe Plans may include recommended best management practices such as specificapplication practices.In the 2013 legislative session, ODA and Oregon Department of Environmental Qualityreceived new funding to support the Pesticide Stewardship Partnerships program, whichwill allow the program to expand into two new watersheds, implement eight pesticidewaste collection events, and support technical assistance for the overall program. Thisexpansion of the program is quite a notable accomplishment. EPA is eager to supportODA to make this program expansion as successful as possible.3. State FeedbackODA appreciated the excellent support provided by EPA Region 10 during the past year.ODA has two suggestions for EPA:a. Increase funding to the state’s water quality program to support additional waterquality outreach and education efforts and pesticide-related endangered species issues;andb. Help ODA identify management options and escalate concerns with pesticide labellanguage, by connecting ODA’s water quality program staff with technical experts atEPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs and other states that are working on similar waterquality issues and challenges.4. Conclusions and RecommendationsEPA Region 10 appreciates all of ODA’s efforts to improve water quality. EPA is18especially pleased that concentrations and detections of three Pesticides of Concern in thefruit growing areas along the Columbia River have reduced due to change of applicationpractices encouraged by the Pesticide Stewardship Partnership program.EPA greatly appreciates ODA’s lead role in organizing the 2013 annual water qualitymeeting which continually improves the working relationships among Region 10 statewater quality program coordinators. ODA was also a key contributor to helping EPARegion 10’s new Water Quality Program Coordinator get up-to-speed on activities relatedto water quality in Oregon and nationally through ODA’s service as the Region 10representative at the State FIFRA Research and Evaluation Group’s EnvironmentalQuality Issues working commitee. There are no new recommendationsC. Endangered Species Protection Program1. Previous RecommendationsNone.2. AccomplishmentsIn FY 2013, ODA met the Endangered Species Protection Program (ESPP) commitmentsin the workplan. A detailed description of the ODA's ESPP can be found in Appendix I.The OPP Field Program for Endangered Species Data Collection Sheet for FY 2013 Endof-Year Report is attached in Appendix J. Major accomplishments in FY 2013 are listedbelow:a.ODA reviewed and worked with the National Association of State Departments ofAgriculture (NASDA) and submitted comments on the Reasonable and PrudentAlternatives (RPAs) and Reasonable and Prudent Measures (PRMs) included in thedraft Biological Opinions (BiOps) issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS). In these BiOps, NMFS described the impacts to Pacific salmonids fromapplications of pesticides containing the following active ingredients: propargite,fenbutain oxide, and diflubenzuron.b.ODA worked with NASDA to comment on the “Proposal for Enhancing StakeholderInput in the Pesticide Registration Review and Endangered Species Act ConsultationProcesses and Development of Economically and Technologically FeasibleReasonable and Prudent Alternatives”;c. ODA wrote a letter to EPA in support of the collection of information relatingto pesticide drift-reduction technologies;d.ODA informed growers and other pesticide users of the opportunity to comment onNMFS’ draft BiOp;19e.ODA provided outreach and education to pesticide applicators. ODA staff providedinformation related to the protection of threatened and endangered species atapproximately 15 training classes; andf.ODA continued to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NMFS, and OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife on registrations issued for emergency exemptions(FIFRA Section 18) and special local needs (FIFRA Section 24(c)).3. State FeedbackODA has the following recommendations for EPA:a.Have the same language to be used on the pesticide labels - not “no spray zone” onone label, and “buffer” on another;b.Include a box on the label for buffer zone information on the pesticide label; andc.Have buffer widths to be directly on the pesticide label, in a clear, consistent and easyto find location. Instead of going to a computer to calculate a buffer zone, ODAindicated that growers do not want to use a computer to find buffer zone information.4. EPA RecommendationsEPA appreciates ODA work in protecting endangered species and its partnership withNASDA to provide comments on (1) EPA’s proposed new stakeholder input andconsultation process; and (2) the draft reasonable and prudent alternatives and measures.EPA has no recommendations at this time.20Appendix AUnited StatesWashington, DC 20460Environmental Protection AgencyPesticdes Enforcement Cooperative Agreement Accomplishment ReportTotal Progrom Work Plan ActivitiedState/Tribe Oregon Fiscal Year 2013 Reporting Period END OF YEAR REPORT Ga? only. A i Enforcement Accomplishments tuiai 0n39i|CU Experi Producing Market_ Certi?ed Restricted UseTh. t. mental Use Establ1sh? lace Imports Exports Applicator Pesticide TOTAL'5 epor mg ear U59 For Cause U59 For Cause Permit ment Records DealersTotal Inspections Conducted Federal FacilitiesSamples .Couected Physical 15 216 64 295 1OGIES Documentary 2 A 22 24Civil Complaints Issued 33 14 5 29 3 34Criminal Actions ReferredAdministrative Hearings ConductedLicense/Certi?cate Suspension 5) 5 6License/ Certi?cate RevocationLicensef Certi?cate Conditioning orModi?cation(E??ba?9? 26 26Cases Fogar 1 6 I 26 3 - 35.Other Enforcement ActionsNumber of Cases Assessed Fines EPA Form 5700-33HUnited StatesEnviron mental Protection AgencyWashington, DC 20460Pesticdes Enforcement Cooperative Agreement Accomplishment Report. Total Progrom Work Plan ActivitiedState/Tribe Oregon Fiscal Year I203 Reporting Period END OF YEAR 2013 Accommplishments Oniy. A I I I Enforcement Accomplishments TUV3 Experi Producing Market_ Certi?ed Restricted Usementai Use Establish? Imports Exports Applicator Pesticide TOTALTh? Reportmg Year U59 Cause U59 For Came Permit ment mace Records DealersTotal Inspections Conducted 352Federal FacilitiesSamplesCollected PhysicalDocumentaryCivil Complaints issuedCriminal Actions ReferredAdministrative Hearings ConductedLicense/Certi?cate SuspensionLicense/Certi?cate RevocationLicensefCerti?cate Conditioning orModificationNumber of Warnings IssuedStop?Sale, Seizure, Quaratine or EmbargoCases Fowarded to EPA for ActionOther Enforcement ActionsNumber of Cases Assessed FinesEPA Form 5700-33H United StatesENWRONMENTAL AGENCYWashington, DC 20460Pesticide Containerlcontainment Inspection and Enforcement Accomplishment ReportStateffribe Oregon Fiscal Year 1 3 Reporting Period End of ?lean: ems El W0"kPl3" onlyEnhrcemegi?ggpg?ren?mls Total Containerfcontainment ViolationsTotal inspections Conducted 3 3 Re?llable ContainersSamples Collected Physical 1. De?cient labeling cleaning and disposal instructions) Documenta ry 3 0 30 2. De?cient container design (valves, openings)Civil Complaints Issued 3. Producing establishment registration violationsIAdministrative Hearings Conducted 5. De?cient management procedures 8: operation 2Num ber of Warnings Issued 6. Record keepingStop-Sale, Use and Removal Order (SSURO) ContainmentCases Forwarded to EPA for Action 3 3 7. Secondary containment 8: pads capacityldesign Other Enforcement Actions Advisory Letters) 8. Secondary containment 8; pads site managementNumber of Cases Assessed Fines 9. Secondary containment pads record keeping Total Violations 8EPA Container!Containment Form S700-33H com 0)Appendix Pesticide Enforcement Outcome Measure Reporting FormGranteeOregon Department of Agriculture____________________________________________________________Fiscal YearFY 2013_________________________________Measure No. 1 - Repeat ViolatorA. Total # of RegulatedEntities ReceivingEnforcement Actions11B. Total # of EntitiesReceiving SubsequentEnforcement Actions (i.e.subset of column A)C. Repeat ViolatorMeasure—B/A11710.64Measure No. 2 - Complying Actions223D. Total # of Enforcement Actions Resulting in Verified Compliance: ________345E. Total # of Enforcement Actions (from form 5700-33H): _________0.65F. Complying Actions Measure—D/F: ________________Measure No. 3 - Efficiency1,170,021.00G. Grantee Pesticide Enforcement Funding: $______________281,400.00H. EPA Pesticide Enforcement Funding: $ _______________Base Enforcement271,000.00__________Worker Protection__________Enforcement Discretionary__________Lab Equipment10,400.00__________4,176.87I. Efficiency Measure—(G+H)/E: _____________(Revised 10/2005)Appendix CONSOLIDATED PESTICIDE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTEND OF YEAR SUMMARY FOR FY2013OREGON ENFORCEMENTWorker Protection Standards (WPS)The Department continues to use inspections conducted under the cooperative agreement to notify constituents of theprovisions of the rule and to ensure compliance with the current worker protection requirements. The Departmentmaintains a Memorandum of Agreement with OR-OSHA to coordinate regulatory activities. The Department and OROSHA jointly evaluates specific situations of compliance to determine the primary agency for response. OR-OSHAalso has a Cooperative Agreement with EPA Region 10 for WPS compliance-monitoring activities as well asenforcement of WPS in Oregon.•Product compliance – Oregon requires annual pesticide registration. The Department continues to reviewproduct labeling as a component of this annual product registration. While WPS label review can result ininspection activities, no EPA funding was used for label review conducted during the registration process.•Use inspections – The Department uses agricultural use follow-up (AUF) and agricultural use observation (AUO)inspections to determine compliance with WPS. The Department also uses the operator/applicator record review(ARI) inspections to monitor compliance with WPS Operator/Grower Information Exchange (WPS-OGIE)requirements. The WPS-OGIE checklist is used to determine if information regarding the WPS label requirementswas exchanged between the commercial operator and the grower. The Department conducted (24) focusedcompliance monitoring WPS-OGIE inspections.•Tips and complaints – Alleged complaint information as well as alleged WPS pesticide misuse violations aremaintained in an electronic database system (Pesticide Enforcement Database). This database allows theDepartment to track key goals when identified and ensure information is secure, up-to-date, and timely.•State-specific compliance assistance activities – The Department continues to provide WPS outreach andcompliance assistance activities in cooperation with EPA, OR-OSHA, Oregon State University – ExtensionService, Oregon Department of Human Services – Public Health Division, and the Oregon Pesticide AnalyticalResponse Center (PARC).•EPA Agriculture Compliance Assistance Center – The Department continues to work through EPA Region 10and the Ag. Center to identify information and compliance assistance needs.•Reporting – The Department continues to report progress of compliance and enforcement activities related toWPS on the EPA report form. Specific WPS inspection activities (WPS-OGIE) are tracked using the PesticideEnforcement Database.•Training – The Department continues to coordinate with EPA Region 10 staff regarding specific needs for WPStraining and materials. Department staff participated in training with OR-OSHA staff. This joint training regardingWPS regulatory activities was held in Portland, Oregon, March 7, 2013.•WPS enforcement – Enforcement responses are coordinated with OR-OSHA to ensure consistency. TheDepartment addressed enforcement actions as appropriate under ORS 634.Pesticide Compliance/Enforcement Priorities•Assisting EPA in ensuring anti-microbial products are federally registered and efficacious – TheDepartment works with EPA Region 10 when unregistered anti-microbial pesticide products and hospitaldisinfectants were identified. If the Department cannot pursue action under state law, referral is made to EPARegion 10.•Disease vector control –The Department conducted (1) non-agricultural use observation (NUO) and tracked (1)inquiry regarding vector control during FY2013.  1•e-Commerce involving pesticides used to protect human health – It is increasingly common for pesticides thatmake public health claims and products that make claims to control pests to be advertised on the Internet. Formany of these products, it is unclear what their federal registration status is, let alone any efficacy claims. TheDepartment conducted (14) pesticide label reviews (PLRs) specifically associated with e-commerce of productsmaking pesticide or public health claims. These cases were referred to EPA Region 10 for review of potentialviolations of FIFRA.•Fumigation application initiative – The Department conducted (7) focused agricultural use observation (AUO)inspections related to soil fumigant use. Staff provided and discussed EPA’s implementation of risk mitigationmeasures for soil fumigant pesticides. No violations were documented. In addition, the Department conducted (3)agricultural use follow up (AUF) inspections specific to soil fumigation, one of which resulted in a civil penalty.•Return/collection centers initiative – The Department conducted (17) focused marketplace inspections (MPI)related to return and collection of pesticide products. Staff discussed collection and return policies with retailers aswell as Oregon regulation of broken or mislabeled products.Work Activities to Support Core Pesticide Compliance and Enforcement Program•Pesticide enforcement residue sampling and analysis – The Department’s Laboratory Services section has ahistory of participating in quality assurance programs approved by FDA, EPA, and other government agencies andprofessional organizations. This participation continues with particular emphasis in the following areas:o Quality assurance planso Analytical methodso Cross contamination screeningo Check sampleso Check analysis procedureso Training of analytical chemistsLaboratory Services reported analytical results on (295) pesticide residue samples. In addition to the workLaboratory Services does for the Pesticide Program, they also do work for food safety, shellfish, bay waters, dairy,confined animal feed operations, fertilizer, poultry, export and other agencies like OR Department of EnvironmentalQuality. Laboratory Services also conducts an onion market assurance program as a result of previous PesticideProgram significant cases. By no means is this list exhaustive of the work the Department’s Laboratory Servicesconducts.•High profile or significant cases – The Department and EPA Region 10 coordinated significant pesticide casesincluding those referred to the Department by the EPA under FIFRA Section 27. The Department completedcompliance monitoring and enforcement review of (6) cases that met criteria established as significant.1. Case No. 110463 – The Department inspected the death of forty-nine dead geese near Tangent, Linn County,Oregon. The US Fish and Wildlife Service had arranged for analysis of some of the dead geese and detectedzinc phosphide. The Department was unable to identify the source of zinc phosphide or the likely place ofingestion. An advisory letter was sent to private, commercial and public applicators, as well as pesticidedealers in the areas including Marion, Polk, Benton, Line and Lane Counties.2. Case No. 110467 – The Department conducted a joint inspection with OR-OSHA. Two pesticides wereapplied to the crawlspace footing under a medical office on the same property as Tillamook County GeneralHospital on a Sunday. When employees arrived at work the next day (Monday morning), three of theemployees exhibited health concerns that they felt may be related to the pesticide application. This case isrelated to Case No. 110468, which was completed in FY2012. The Department found that the applicatorperformed the pesticide activity in a faulty, careless or negligent manner and failed to prepare and maintainapplication records as required by the State of Oregon.3. Case No. 120285 – Lorenzo Zepeda, applicator for E.Z. Orchards, while applying pesticides to an orchard inMarion County, Oregon did not confine the pesticides to the site of application. Residues from pesticides weredetected on multiple locations on Hazel Green Elementary School's property immediately adjacent to the siteof application. The weather data for that day stated the winds were variable from the north to northwest, butwere also at one point from the south. No other likely sources were seen or reported in the vicinity of the offsite deposition. A video provided to ODA showed the application to peaches on E.Z. Orchard's property withvisible drift blowing onto a neighboring school.  2E.Z. Orchards and Lorenzo Zepeda were both responsible for all pesticide application activities performed byMr. Zepeda in his capacity as an agent or employee of E.Z. Orchards. Through their agent or employee Mr.Zepeda, E.Z. Orchards performed a pesticide application activity in a faulty, careless or negligent manner byspraying the pesticides onto an Oregon peach orchard on February 7, 2012 under wind conditions that led todeposition off of the treatment site. E.Z. Orchards did not exercise reasonable care in performing theapplication activities related to the pesticides, did not exercise the ordinary care of a prudent person inperforming the application activities related to the pesticides, or did not correctly perform the applicationactivities related to the pesticides, because E.Z. Orchards sprayed the pesticides such that some of thisinsecticide/fungicide mixture was deposited onto the grounds, building and playground structures of anelementary school. Children and perhaps other vulnerable people were expected on the school grounds laterthe same morning. This violation was the result of gross negligence and occurred after June 25, 2007. ORS634.900(2) authorizes a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for this violation.4. Case No. 120426 – On or about May 2, 7, 8 and 10, 2012, Mr. Flood, as an agent or employee of ODOT’sHighway Division and Vegetation Management program, used a truck-mounted power sprayer with boomlessspray head to apply a pesticide onto roadside rights-of-way along Oregon State Highways 35, 281, 232 and284 in the Hood River Valley, Oregon (the highways). The pesticide was Payload herbicide, EPA Reg. No.59639-120. The Payload was applied over soils that were dry or soon dried, and dry windy weather persistedin the treatment area until about May 21, 2012. The active ingredient of Payload is flumioxazin, its productlabel states:••Do not apply to areas with adjacent non-dormant pome and stone fruit crops.Treatment of powdery, dry soil or light sandy soil, or light sandy soil where thereis little to no likelihood of rainfall soon after may result in off target movementand possible damage to actively growing susceptible crops when soil particles aremoved by wind or water. Do not apply when these soil and environmentalconditions are present.Weather conditions during the Payload applications do not eliminate the possibility of spray drift. Subsequentto the Payload applications there were weather conditions conducive to windborne soil movement in theapplication area, pear trees on adjacent orchards then developed herbicide-like symptoms and flumioxazinwas detected in eight orchard locations. The only reasonably possible source of the detected flumioxazin wasthe Payload applications. The Payload was applied to the rights-of-way under circumstances that favoredmovement from the rights-of-way onto eight orchard locations. Applying this pesticide product under conditionsprohibited by the label, at or about these eight locations, constituted eight pesticide application activitiesperformed in a faulty, careless or negligent manner, and constituted eight violations of ORS 634.372(4).The Oregon Department of Agriculture asked the Oregon Department of Transportation to describe steps itwas taking to avoid similar incidents in the future. Since ODOT is not a person, as statutorily defined (ORS174.100(5)), ODA could not issue an enforcement action against it for violation of ORS 634.372.5. Case No. 130241 – The Oregon Department of Agriculture was made aware of a situation on Sauvie Island,Multnomah County, Oregon involving the use of bear repellent maliciously by one person against a group ofbicyclists. The Pesticides Program is tracking this information and sharing it with PARC and US EPA Region10.6. Case No. 130375 – This is a tracking case that was originally reported to the Department as a pesticide spill.Ultimately, the case involved disposal of hazardous wastes and was managed under the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) with authority falling to the Oregon Department of EnvironmentalQuality.This case documents information provided to the Oregon Department of Agriculture, by the OregonDepartment of Environmental Quality. DEQ personnel used the Department to verify rules and regulationsunder the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) that might pertain to the issuespresented.•Misuse – The Department continues to address pesticide misuse, particularly, as it relates to high risk and foodsafety issues. Pesticides Program in cooperation with ODA Food Safety Program, US EPA, and US Food andDrug Administration, place special emphasis on inspecting pesticide residue and misuse incidents. There wereapproximately (2) cases during FY13 that involved known pesticide residue issues.  3•E-Commerce – The Department conducted some monitoring (tracked as product label reviews) of e-commercesales and advertising for violation of ORS 634 and FIFRA. Cases were referred to EPA Region 10.•Pesticide inspector residential training (PIRT) – The Department includes participation in these courses or anycase development courses in the work plan whenever possible. The participation of Department staff in trainingsconducted outside Oregon is limited due to the availability of state funds, spending authority, and state fiscalpolicies. Department staff did participate in the US EPA PIRT training course in West Lafayette, Indiana and thePIRT training course in Ashville, North Carolina; both held in September of 2012.•Pesticide regulatory education program (PREP) – Again, the Department includes participation in thesecourses or any case development courses in the work plan whenever possible. Staff attended the ComplianceProgram Management course at UC Davis, California in April 29 to May 3, 2013.•Other training opportunities – EPA Region 10 continues to work with the Department to sponsor trainingopportunities, particularly for investigative staff.•EPA inspector credentials –The Department maintained EPA inspector credentials for four inspectors stationedthroughout the state; applicable training requirements were met or exceeded. One inspector obtained newcredentials, one inspector renewed, and one inspector retired.•Enforcement reporting – EPA credentials allow credentialed Department staff, 1) to conduct inspections underFederal provisions not covered by state law and 2) to conduct inspections at EPA’s request (regardless ofstate/tribal boundaries). The Department provided to EPA Region 10 all inspection reports conducted using EPAcredentials.•Groundwater/surface water protection enforcement – The Department continues to monitor compliance withand enforce labeling as part of use, producer establishment, marketplace, and dealer inspections. Enforcementactivities involving the protection of water are addressed through follow-up, applicator licensing/record, and dealerrecord inspections, and through review of pesticide product labels. Particular emphasis is placed on compliancewith required labeling statements. The Department also added additional tracking of active ingredients of concernand water-related cases.•Compliance assistance – The Department evaluated compliance assistance activities conducted in cooperationwith EPA Region 10. When new EPA policies are issued, the Department evaluates and reflects the new policiesas needed.•Section 19(f) compliance and enforcement activities (container-containment) – The Department does nothave state pesticide containment regulations. Rather, the Department continues to conduct outreach andeducation related to the container-containment regulations. Compliance assistance focused on providinginformation to covered businesses to ensure they were aware of the requirements as well as to facilitatecompliance. Upon delivery of EPA developed fact sheets, standard presentations, How to Comply guides,checklists, Q & A’s, trainings, and a compliance strategy regarding this program, the Department made (or willmake) these tools available to regulated parties.Furthermore, the Department continues to use the state pesticide product registration process, use inspections,marketplace inspections, dealer inspections, and producer establishment inspections to ensure compliance withthe container-containment regulations.The Department evaluated compliance specific to the containment regulations using inspections conducted underfederal credentials. This included (3) targeted inspections relating to container-containment; compliance wasinspected and documented with investigative findings referred to EPA Region 10.•Special action chemicals, cancellations, suspensions, other major regulatory actions and national highrisk initiatives – The Department provided information to industry as well as pesticide users through educationand outreach activities on special action chemicals identified by EPA (through cancellations, suspensions, and/orspecial initiatives).•Section 18 and 24(c) monitoring – The Department continues to monitor activities associated with FIFRASection 18 authorizations and 24(c) registrations, especially when use violations are suspected.4  •Pesticide recalls – The Department continues to monitor pesticide product recall information concerningquantities and locations of suspended or canceled pesticide products in Oregon. The Department worked withEPA staff to identify and conduct appropriate activities.•Endangered species enforcement – EPA has not issued any endangered species protection bulletins in Oregonto date. Therefore, the Department did not collect or report information to EPA regarding endangered species.•Pesticide use in schools (urban pesticide use/IPM) – The Department continues to conduct routine useobservations of schools/districts pesticide use practices throughout Oregon. Future education outreach effortswere addressed in cooperation with EPA, the Pesticide Analytical Response Center, Oregon State University IPMEducation program, Oregon Health Authority, as well as other resources.•25(b) pesticides – Since January 2011, the Department has required state registration of 25(b) pesticide productsfor sale, use, and distribution in Oregon. Department registration staff review labeling to ensure compliance withthe US EPA 25(b) exemption. Concerns found during product registration review or other enforcement activitiesare forwarded to EPA Region 10 for action under FIFRA.•Unregistered sources of active ingredients – The Department continues to assist EPA Region 10 withreviewing this concern.Compliance Enforcement Activities SummaryDue to the complexity of some inspections, an enforcement response is often completed in the fiscal year after theinspection is initiated. Therefore, inspections and enforcement response do not directly correlate with the yearinitiated.•Specific inspection activities– Listed below are brief descriptions of specific inspection activities and the numberconducted. For a graphic representation, refer to Fig. 1 in the Appendix.1. Operator/applicator record inspection (ARI) – (124) completed. Commercial pesticide operators and publicpesticide applicators are required to maintain specific record information (ORS 634.146 and OAR 603-570130). These inspection activities include a review of license status, recordkeeping requirements and labelreview for compliance.In an effort to increase outreach and education, the Department chooses to conduct some of these inspectionsas compliance assistance. Of the 124 total inspections, (7) were Oregon compliance assistance inspections(not work plan activated).2. Dealer record inspection (DRI) – (45) completed. Pesticide dealers are required to maintain specific recordinformation for each sale or distribution of restricted use pesticides (OAR 603-57-0140). These inspectionactivities include a review of the license status of the pesticide purchaser.3. Marketplace inspection (MPI) – (58) total completed. All pesticide products being delivered, distributed, sold,or offered for sale in Oregon are to be registered on an annual basis (ORS 634.016). These inspectionactivities include a review of pesticide product registration status, product label compliance, and productintegrity.In an effort to increase outreach and education, the Department chooses to conduct some of these inspectionsas compliance assistance. During the inspection, staff meet with the manager/owner of the facility, discuss therequirements for pesticide sale or distribution in Oregon, and provide an informational brochure. Of the 58total inspections, (16) were Oregon compliance assistance inspections (not work plan activated).4. Agricultural use follow-up/observation (AUF/AUO) – (88) completed. Of these, (69) were AUFs and (19)were AUOs. (3) of the AUOs were compliance assistance inspections (not work plan activated). Theseinspection activities are associated with agricultural production or forestry use and are based oncomplaint/concerns the Department received from various sources; allegations of misuse or violations of ORS634 and FIFRA. Inspection activities include site visits, interviews, environmental sampling, and the collectionof documentation and evidence to support or deny the alleged violation. These inspection activities include areview of license status and label review for compliance.  55. Non-agricultural use follow-up/observation (NUF/NUO) – (101) completed. Of these, (75) were NUFs and(26) were NUOs. (5) of the NUOs were compliance assistance inspections (not work plan activated). Theseinspection activities are associated with non-agricultural use practices such as pesticide use in and aroundstructures, rights of way, and public health vectors and are based on complaint/concerns the Departmentreceives from various sources; allegations of misuse or violations of ORS 634 and FIFRA. Inspection activitiesincluded site visits, interviews, environmental sampling, and the collection of documentation and evidence tosupport or deny the alleged violation. These inspection activities include a review of license status and labelreview for compliance.6. Producer establishment inspection (PEI) – (6) completed. These inspection activities are associated withthe manufacture and production of pesticide products to ensure industry compliance with product registration,formulation, packaging, and labeling before and while products are distributed in the channels of trade. Theseinspection activities are conducted under the authority of ORS 634 and FIFRA. Inspections include site visits,interviews, product sampling, and the collection of documents and evidence to show compliance.Three (3) of the six PEIs were focused on compliance with pesticide containment requirements. Inspectionsinclude site visits, interviews, and the collection of documents and evidence of container/containment records.7. Experimental use inspection (EUP) – (1) completed. These inspection activities are associated with thecompliance monitoring of experimental use permits issued by the Department and EPA. Inspections includean onsite observation, a review of license status, and product label and permit review for compliance.8. Import/export inspections (IMP/EXP) – (2) completed (both IMP). The objective of these inspections is toensure pesticide products imported into or exported from the United States comply with the requirements ofFIFRA. US EPA directs the Department to conduct these inspections on an as needed basis. Theseinspections are conducted under the authority of FIFRA and include site visits, interviews, product sampling,and the collection of documents and evidence to show compliance.9. Pesticide label review (PLR) – (24) referred to EPA Region 10 for potential violations of FIFRA. EPA Region10 is currently tracking these cases and provides the Department periodic case status and enforcement actionupdates. This information is of critical business need to ensure to Department staff and our customers thatalleged FIFRA violations are being addressed.10. Tracking – (58) completed. Tracking is a case designation for situations/complaints/concerns associated withpesticide use that either do not have sufficient information or do not need to proceed as a follow-up. (Note:The Department previously used Complaint to refer to this case type but it did not accurately reflect the trueuse. For information on how many complaints were received and the number of those that had sufficientinformation to proceed to a follow-up case, please refer to Fig. 2 in the Appendix).•Compliance monitoring - total of (507) cases in FY2013 completed. These cases include each of the inspectiontypes listed in the specific inspection activities section above. For a graph of inspections completed for the pastfive years refer to Fig.3 in the Appendix. NOTE: This number does not match the 5700 because it includesTracking cases which are not reported on the 5700 to the US EPA.•Enforcement response –The Department issued (261) separate enforcement actions associated with violationof ORS 634. Enforcement actions can include notice of violations (NOV), imposition of civil penalties (CP), as wellas license actions, stop, sale, use, or removal orders, and embargo/detainments. Some cases resulted in multipleenforcement actions being issued to several parties. The specific enforcement response was based on severalfactors including magnitude of the violation, gravity of effect, and violation history. The Department uses thisinformation to identify specific areas for future compliance focus and potential outreach opportunities. Refer toFig.4 in the Appendix for a listing of NOVs and CPs issued for the past five years. In addition, Fig. 5 shows thecase type and percentage of associated NOVs and CPS, while Fig 6. shows percentage of NOVs and CPs byviolation type. As the US EPA counts enforcement response, the Department issued (344) enforcement actions.This would include referrals to EPA (PEI, PLR) as well as double counting of civil complaints/penalties.Other Accomplishments/Program Improvements• Case completion rate – The Department uses a 120-day average as the goal for case completion. It is importantto acknowledge that some cases are more complex or parties involved may not be available to promptly participate  6in the case enforcement process. We are pleased that during FY2013 the average for length of case completionwas 84-days.•Compliance assistance pilot project – In order to reach as many of our customers as possible while also dealingwith the reality of reduced resources, the Department began a pilot program of holding compliance assistanceclasses for Commercial Pesticide Operators in FY2012. Operators within specific license categories are invited tothe class along with any licensed pesticide applicators associated with that operator. During the class, theyreceive information on current issues specific to their field as well as a one-on-one review of their pesticideapplication records. The classes are limited to no more than five operators. The feedback was very positive andthe Department continued the project during FY2013 with (2) Compliance Assistance classes conducted for thestructural and the turf and ornamental license categories.•Work initiated in FY2013 – Each of the numbers discussed in previous sections are in regards to inspections orenforcement responses that were completed in FY2013. While some inspections are complex and theenforcement response is completed in subsequent fiscal years, many inspections are completed in the same fiscalyear initiated. Approximately, 84% of the (475) inspections initiated in FY2013 were completed in FY2013. Formore specific information about each of the inspection types, refer to Fig. 7 in the Appendix.•Enforcement actions resulting in verified compliance – Verified compliance remained at approximately 66% inFY2013 (same as FY2012).APPENDIX302524.4%201514.8%13.6%11.4%8.9%1055.1%3.7%4.7%1.2%0.2% 0.4%0Fig. 1 Percentage of inspection by type  11.4%7Total complaintsFormal inspection initiated331262258204 (79%)180183148 (81%)63 (24%)66 (24%)2009201091 (27%)201120122013Fig. 2 Total complaints resulting in a more formal inspection50743546245720112012329200920102013Fig. 3 Total inspections completed in each of the last five fiscal years  8Notice of violations (NOV)Civil penalties (CP)133109968483701620092620102825201120122013Fig. 4 NOVs and CPs enforcement responses issuedNotice of violations (NOV)Civil penalties (CP)4539.3%403534.5%30.1%3023.8%2518.3%2017.4%16.7%159.2%106.0%3.6%0.9%50ARIAUFDRIMPINUFFig. 5 Case type and percentage of associated enforcement action/s  9NUONotice of violations (NOV)Civil penalties (CP)4541.7%40.5%40353026.6%22.9%2520151012.8%11.0%9.5%9.2%6.4%54.8% 4.6%4.6%1.8%2.4%1.2%0Sub 2Sub 3Sub 4Sub 5Sub 8Sub 9Sub 10Sub 17Sub 19Fig. 6 Percentage of enforcement action/s by violation type (please see next page for description ofeach violation type)Inspections initiated140120Inspections completed127110100778060402060 5655533729171644 423526221166110Fig. 7 Inspections initiated vs. inspections completed in FY2013  24 2410Violations referred to in Fig. 6 – A person may not…(2) As a pesticide applicator or operator, intentionally or willfully apply or use a worthless pesticide or any pesticideinconsistent with its labeling, or as a pesticide consultant or dealer, recommend or distribute such pesticides.(3) Operate a faulty or unsafe pesticide spray apparatus, aircraft or other application device or equipment.(4) Perform pesticide application activities in a faulty, careless or negligent manner.(5) Refuse or neglect to prepare and maintain records required to be kept by the provisions of this chapter.(8) As a pesticide applicator, work or en- gage in the application of any classes of pesticides without first obtaining andmaintaining a pesticide applicator′s license, or apply pesticides that are not specifically authorized by such license.(9) As a pesticide operator, engage in the business of, or represent or advertise as being in the business of, applyingpesticides upon the land or property of another, with- out first obtaining and maintaining a pesticide operator′s license.The operator also may not engage in a class of pesticide application business that is not specifically authorized bylicense issued by the State Department of Agriculture. The operator also may not employ or use any person to apply orspray pesticides who is not a licensed pesticide applicator or pesticide trainee.(13) Apply any pesticide classified as a restricted-use or highly toxic pesticide to agricultural, horticultural or forestcrops on land owned or leased by the person without first obtaining and maintaining a private applicator certificate.(17) Formulate, deliver, distribute, sell or offer for sale any pesticide that has not been registered as required by ORS634.016.(19) Distribute, sell or offer for sale any pesticide except in the manufacturer′s original unbroken package.  11Appendix United StatesEnvironmental Protection AgencyWashington, DC 20460Pesticide Worker Protection Standard Inspection and Enforcement Accomplishment ReportStateFiscal YearOregon2013Reporting PeriodOctober 1, 2012 – September 30, 2013Enforcement AccomplishmentsThis Reporting YearTotal Inspections ConductedWPS Tier I InspectionUseFor Cause2922Total Program AccomplishmentWPS Tier II InspectionUse10TotalInspectionsFor Cause2*Inspectionsat FacilitiesClaimingFamilyExemptionViolations during WPS InspectionsWPS Violation Categories63WPS Enforcement ActionsNumber ofViolations1.Pesticide Safety Training2751Civil Complaints Issued4610112.Central PostingCriminal Complaints Referred-----3.Notice of Application5Administrative Hearings Conducted-----4.Entry Restrictions0License/Certification Suspension-----5.Personal ProtectiveEquipmentNumber of Warnings Issued-----6.Mix/Loading, ApplicationEquip & ApplicationsStop-Sale, Use and Removal Order (SSURO)-----7.DecontaminationCases Forwarded to EPA for Action0008.Emergency Assistance0Other Enforcement Actions (e.g. Advisory Letters)Cases with $0 penalty WPS violations19720289.Information Exchange1Number of Cases Assessed Fines46101110.RetaliationWPS 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.250170Appendix Pesticide Enforcement Outcome Measure Reporting FormGranteeOR-OSHA____________________________________________________________Fiscal YearFY 2013_________________________________Measure No. 1 - Repeat ViolatorA. Total # of RegulatedEntities ReceivingEnforcement Actions0B. Total # of EntitiesReceiving SubsequentEnforcement Actions (i.e.subset of column A)C. Repeat ViolatorMeasure—B/A480.00Measure No. 2 - Complying Actions38D. Total # of Enforcement Actions Resulting in Verified Compliance: ________50E. Total # of Enforcement Actions (from form 5700-33H): _________0.76F. Complying Actions Measure—D/F: ________________Measure No. 3 - Efficiency0.00G. Grantee Pesticide Enforcement Funding: $______________0.00H. EPA Pesticide Enforcement Funding: $ _______________Base Enforcement__________Worker Protection__________Enforcement Discretionary__________Lab Equipment__________0.00I. Efficiency Measure—(G+H)/E: _____________(Revised 10/2005)Appendix OREGON OSHAPESTICIDE EMPHASIS PROGRAMANNUAL REPORTFederal Fiscal Year 2013Photo: 2002, M.J. Weaver: www.pesticidepics.orgGarnet R Cooke, Pesticide CoordinatorStanton E Thomas, Health Enforcement ManagerChris Ottoson, CIH, Statewide Health Enforcement ManagerIntroduction:Oregon OSHA and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10 Pesticides and Toxics Unit,collaborate on pesticide safety issues. Oregon OSHA enforces the Worker Protection Standard, which issupplemented with a pesticide emphasis program. This report is the annual review of the pesticide emphasisprogram for federal fiscal year 2013 (FY2013). The data elements and analysis are presented, along withrecommendations for program improvements for the coming year.Data Elements:The data elements examined in this report are based on Oregon OSHA’s Program Directive A-235, entitled “LocalEmphasis Program for Pesticides.” Inspections were completed from a programmed list selected from these NorthAmerican Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes which will be referred to as “selected NAICSs” for thepurposes of this report.NAICS 111998 General farming, field Crops, except Cash Grains, Not Elsewhere ClassifiedNAICS 111339 Deciduous Tree FruitsNAICS 111421 Nurseries & Tree ProductionNAICS 111422 Floriculture ProductionNAICS 115112 Crop preparation including pesticide sprayingNAICS were selected based on the amount and toxicity of pesticides in use, frequency of pesticide applications,the diversity of crops, the number of workers employed, and work practices in use. Other NAICSs inspected as aresult of complaints, referrals or programmed Agricultural Health inspections are included in this report if theinspection addressed pesticide-related issues.Data Summary:Pesticide 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 the pesticiderelated standards such as the Worker Protection Standard, Hazard Communication, Respiratory Protection, PesticideStorage, Fumigation, Thiram, and supervision. Implementation of these requirements can reduce the likelihood ofexposures resulting in acute or chronic effects. The Pesticide Emphasis Program continues to be an effective tool fordisseminating information, education, compliance assistance and enforcement activities to reduce occupationalexposures to pesticides in the agriculture industry.The following is a brief summary of the findings resulting from the evaluation of FY2013 activity. Please see eachsection for tables and explanations of each.Inspection Activity……………………………………………………………………………………page 3Violation characteristics………………………………………………………………………...page 5Pesticide Analytical Response Center (PARC) Cases…………………………………………page 6External Training……………………………………………………………………………………..page 9Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………….……… …page 12Accomplishments……………………………………………………………………………………page 12Goals for the coming year………………………………………………………………………….page 13Inspection Activity:In FY2013, 79 inspections were done, with 61 inspections resulting in citations, andcovering 1,699 workers. Citations were issued in 77% of the inspections completed. The Worker Protection Standard(WPS) was applicable in 62 inspections, indicated by either Tier 1 or Tier 2 in the table below. WPS Tier 1 inspectionsaccounted for 64% (50/79) of the pesticide emphasis inspections, and 15% (12/79) were Tier 2. For all WPSinspections, 81% (50/62) were classified as Tier 1. Inspections where pesticides have been used within the preceding30 days plus the restricted entry interval are classified as Tier 1; inspections where pesticides have not been usedwithin the preceding 30 days plus the restricted entry interval are classified as Tier 2.In the selected NAICS, 43 inspections were done, and citations were issued in 32 cases, with 74% (32/43) classifiedas WPS Tier 1 inspections.Statistics for Completed Inspections by Industry (NAICS), FY2013Industry (NAICS)PercentWPS WPS PesticidewithCompleted CitationIncitation Percent in Tier Tier Emphasis, Employeesinspections issued compliance issued compliance12Non-WPScoveredSelected NAICS 1113391610662.537.512311971114211512380.020.0114-22011142222-100.0-2--3611199886275.025.052111011511222-100.0-2--4111114011-100.0-1--6311119111-100.0-1--811121975271.428.66-17311133111-100.0--1-111133222-100.0-2-11711133411-100.0-1--1211133511-100.0--1-81113362-2-100.01-1611212011-100.0-1--401131101-1-100.01--4011511522-100.0-2--21811531011-100.0-1--3042448011-100.0---132542491022-100.0---26544131011-100.0---11544422011-100.0---13045311011-100.0-1--2048412111-100.0---1305613201-1-100.0--1656173055-100.0--14476113101-1-100.0--1662111111-100.0---13579611877.222.85012181,699Other NAICSTotalSource: Information Management Division, Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, December 2013Based on the types of inspections listed below, 44 were programmed planned and 31 of these were completedin the selected NAICS.Attempted and completed inspections by inspection type and industry (NAICS), FY2013OtherNAICSSelected NAICSTotal 111339 111421 111422 111998 115112Total completedinspections79161528236Complaint1642-1-9Referral1512---12Follow-up21--1--Programmed Planned44101126213Programmed Related2-----2Attempted (triple zero)23452710Source: Information Management Division, Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services,December 2013Violation characteristics:The following table highlights the distribution of violations. In FY2013, there were 307 violations cited withpenalties totaling $12,130. In the selected NAICS, 166 violations were cited with penalties totaling $2850.WPS violations accounted for 45% (75/166) of those violations with penalties totaling $990. Pesticiderelated and other violations accounted for 91 violations with penalties totaling $1860. Pesticide–relatedviolations include the Oregon OSHA standards addressing hazard communication, respiratory protection,emergency eyewash, supervision, Thiram, pesticide storage, fumigation, and work-site inspections.Pesticide Violations and Penalties in FY2013 TotalsWPS ViolationsIndustry (NAICS)Pesticide Related / Other ViolationsOtherOtherTotalTotalTotalthanthanviolations Serious serious Repeat penalties Serious serious Repeat penaltiesSelected NAICS 11133947619-$5902182$60011142164225-$100433-$66011142223110-$15075-$3001119982718-$150513-$3001151125-3---2-1661065--$990187121111401-1-----111191413-$100---11121944424-$200511-$72011133163--$2003--$1001113321316-$12042-$1201113341----1--$1001113352----2--$1001121206----6--$6001151153-3-$180----115310521-$360-2--4244806----6--$90042491011----101-$7204413102-----2--4442202----2--$33604531107-4---3--4841211-----1--56173024----420-$2006211113----3--$120014011420$11604642-$8120307211070$2150641132$9980TotalsOther NAICSTotalsGrand Total$1860Source: Information Management Division, Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, December 2013If a WPS violation is grouped with another violation, the WPS and non-WPS violations are counted separately, but the penalty amount for thewhole group is retained with the WPS violation.The violations below are divided up into either handler or worker related, showing the categories of issuesfor each group. The most frequently violated standards were for personal protective equipment (PPERespirators and PPE-Other). Of PPE violations, failure to adequately clean PPE was cited the most often.Of the 12 Thiram related violations, 10 were serious, combined with an additional 4 serious respiratorviolations. Three of these inspections involved seed treatment at seed handling facilities, while the fourthinvolved a nursery. A complaint inspection involving Thiram also resulted in a PARC case, which issummarized later in the report.Pesticide Violations Cited in FY2013Violation typeHandler related PPE RespiratorsWorker relatedOtherViolations37PPE- Other34Hazard communication51Pesticide storage28Central posting24Training21Decontamination14Thiram12Emergency eyewash10Fumigants2Notification to contractors1Central posting28Training15Safe Practices brochure12Notification to workers5Health haz control measures3Decontamination3Other8Source: Information Management Division, Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services,December 2013Pesticide Analytical Response Center (PARC) Cases:The number ofPARC cases in FY2013 was less than half the number in FY2012. Half of the PARC casesinvolved multiple exposures at each site. These occurred at a vineyard, a retail store, a vegetableprocessing plant, and a medical clinic. While the exposure scenarios were highly varied, the lack ofcoordination between staff and notification about the applications remains a continuing problem.6PARC Cases with Oregon OSHA Involvement in FY2013MedicalTreatmentsoughtSourceExposure TypeProductSignal Word#ExpType ofEstablishmentWPSAppliesCitationIssuedCHandling treated object*Vitaflo 280(Thiram)Caution1Seed TreatingnoyesCStructural*Precor 2000 PlusCaution12+Medical ClinicnoyesCSpill of multiple products*Lime sulfur,fertilizers,Weedar 64,CrossbowDanger,Danger,Caution7Retail storenoyesAttempting tomove an entirestocked shelfNoRChemical storage(overheating)Perasan-A(unstable)Danger1+VegetableProcessingPlantnoyesStorage,emergencyresponse,improper PPENoPlantEvacuatedElevate 50 WDGFlintCautionCaution3VineyardyesyesFailure to Inform,no WPS trainingYesLorsban AdvanceN/A0Christmas TreeFarmyesI/CNeighbor conflictNoHartz Flea &Tick PowderCaution1TruckingCompanynoyesLack ofnotificationYesCRRIndirect/NearbyapplicationOdor/no contactAlleged workers in treatedareaCleaning enclosedapplication area (truck cab& sleeper)Primary causeFailure to followlabel/PPE/Lackof trainingLack ofnotificationYesYesSource: C = Complaint filed with Oregon OSHA; R = Referral from PARC; I/C = In-compliance (no citation issued); # exp = the number exposed;* indicates narrative to follow.Three PARC Cases HighlightedThe following narratives (referenced in the previous table with an asterisk) provide a synopsis for threecases.Physician Complaint– Seed treatment: A temporary employee at a seed warehouse was placing bagsunder the hopper to be filled with treated seed, which he then sewed and placed on a pallet. The processwas somewhat dusty but did have a dust collection system. He wore a short sleeved shirt, no coveralls, oreye protection. The work gloves he used had rubberized fingers and palms with stretch fabric on the back.He worked with Vitaflo-280 (Caution –Thiram) treated seeds on Wednesday and with Mertect (Caution – noThiram) treated seeds on Friday. The same station was used for both. After he left work on Friday, hebegan to itch, and after showering noticed welts all over his body including the soles of his feet and scalp.He had not consumed alcohol. He returned to work on Monday and was sent to an immediate care clinic.Investigation revealed the employee had not been trained on the hazards of Thiram, nor was he instructedon the appropriate personal protective equipment to use. He lost 5 days of work, per physicianrestrictions. The employer received numerous serious violations.Complaint – Pesticide Application in a Medical Clinic:A commercial pesticide application for a flea infestation occurred at a low income medical clinic shortlybefore the majority of employees arrived onsite. Some employees were already present. According to theclinic physician, almost 75% of employees were adversely affected to some degree. Symptomsexperienced included vomiting, nausea, headaches, eye tearing, itching and trouble breathing. Theproduct applied was Precor 2000 Plus (Caution). Two complaints were received which had allegedemployees were ill, there was no forewarning/notification of the application, no Material Safety Data Sheetsprovided, and the clinic was not closed when ventilation (opening windows and doors) failed to preventemployee illness. The complaints were found to be valid and the employer was cited for multiple seriousviolations.Complaint – Pesticide spill in a retail setting:A complaint was received that alleged pesticide exposure after a pesticide spill in a retail setting. Threeemployees had jacked up an entire section of retail shelving loaded with pesticides in order to placecasters under the shelf to facilitate moving it. The entire shelving unit then fell over dumping insecticides,fungicides, herbicides and fertilizers in liquid, granular, and powder form together. Products that brokeopen included Lime Sulfur, Crossbow, Weedar 64, Roundup, Miracle Grow granules and Worry Free brandGarden Insecticide. Signal words of the products included Caution and Danger level. All availableemployees were summoned to assist in the cleanup. There was a strong smell of rotten eggs (when LimeSulfur is mixed with phosphate containing fertilizers, or acids, hydrogen sulfide gas is generated.)Employees wore only 6 mil nitrile gloves in addition to their personal clothing during the cleanup process.Three employees experienced headache, nausea and dizziness. The employer was cited for two seriousviolations.External Training:External training consists of two parts, workshops put on by the Oregon OSHA Public Education Section, andspeaking requests performed in conjunction with Oregon Department of Agriculture events. Speaking requestswere conducted mostly in conjunction with day long multi-program agendas put on by grower groups, theOregon Department of Agriculture, or the Oregon State University Extension Service for the purpose ofmaintaining credits for pesticide licensees.Pesticide Related Interventions – External Training, FY2013Classes (Workshop & Internet)Sessions Attendees1240-Hazard Communication Program (Haz Com)105401241-Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)13631410-Worker Protection Standard (WPS)588991Source: Information Management Division, Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services,December 20139Oregon OSHA speaking requests in FY2013DateTopicAttendees10/11/12HazCom and the new GHS10/18/12HazCom and Global Harmonization3910/18/12Pesticide Training1610/26/12WPS1111/5/12Pesticide Safety & Ag Jeopardy (High School Ag Class)5811/6/12Controlling Pesticide Spills13511/7/12Controlling Pesticide Spills12011/8/12Controlling Pesticide Spills25511/13/12Deadly Consequences: Aluminum Phosphide15011/13/12Controlling Pesticide Spills15011/13/12HazCom and the New GHS3011/15/12Deadly Consequences: Aluminum Phosphide12011/15/12Controlling Pesticide Spills12011/27/12WPS for Ag Expo9011/30/12Pesticide Spills5012/5/12GHS Chemical Classification & Labeling System5012/5/12Hazard Communication - Spanish161/3/13Global Harmonization System (GHS)251/15/13PPE for Pesticide Applicators1001/23/13Pesticide Applicators Training2001/30/13Oregon Pesticide Regulators301/30/13What’s New in Ag (PPE Assessment)301/30/13Preventing, Preparing & Managing Pesticide Spills301/30/13WPS & Haz Com: What are They301/30/13What’s Wrong with this Picture (Ag Haz ID)301/30/13Respiratory Protection for Ag301/30/13Pesticide Notification302/1/13Aluminum Phosphide Fumigant Hazards & Management Plans1002/5/13PPE for Ag, Storage & Safe Vehicle Transportation of Pesticides1202/5/13Pesticides, PPE, WPS1452/6/13WPS & HazCom1202/9/13Organic Pesticides & Pesticide Storage302/12/13PPE for Pesticide Applicators752/20/13Hazard Communication Program for Ag162/20/13Respiratory Protection for Ag Operations102/22/13WPS511510DateTopicAttendees4/4/13PPE and Respiratory Protection for Ag204/24/13OSHA Rules for Noxious Weed Staff (ODA)115/2/13Hazard Communication Program255/3/13WPS135/8/13PPE265/23/13HazCom & Global Harmonization802881Public Outreach: Oregon OSHA tracks publication circulation and video requests. The next few tables showactivity for FY2013.Oregon OSHA Publications in FY2013TitlesNumber distributedThe Air you Breathe (respirators, #3654)930EPA quick guide to the WPS (#3924)704Forestry WPS Poster (#4856)2Pesticide use and your PPE (#1018)1,509Safe practices when Handling Agricultural Chemicals (pesticides, #1951)4,535Washing pesticides contaminated clothes (magnet, #2858)264Washing pesticides contaminated clothes - SP (magnet, #2858-S)127Rules. Division 4 Agriculture33Oregon OSHA’s consultations are tracked to include potential outreach of information in the selectedindustries.Oregon OSHA Consultations by NAICS in FY2013Industry(NAICS) HealthSafety111339-12111421211114221-11199819115112-2Total424Source: Information Management Division, Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, December 201311Oregon OSHA Resource Center Pesticide-related Videos, FY2013#NameEnglish SpanishRequests72BREATHE EASY - RESPIRATOR SAFETY (E/S)XX1066/67HAZARD COMMUNICATION - AGRICULTURE SERIESXX6352HOW TO CONDUCT WORKER PROTECTION TRAINING/TRAIN THE TRAINERX2474OREGON PESTICIDE SAFETY GUIDE ( FLIP CHART)X2170/380/38 PESTICIDE HANDLERS AND THE WORKER PROTECTION STANDARDXX6151PESTICIDE PROTECTION TRAINING FOR AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (E/S)XX495/383PESTICIDE SAFETY WORKER PROTECTION (1987. REVISED 1997)XX3600/608PESTICIDE SAFETY: HELP WORKERS PROTECT THEMSELVES (1995)XX3392PESTICIDE TRAINING FOR AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEESX2332WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD: AN OVERVIEWX139Source: Information Management Division, Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services,December 2013Oregon Pesticide Symposium—Multi-Agency Annual Meeting:The annual Oregon Pesticide Symposium was held in March 2013, in conjunction with the Oregon Governor’sOccupational Safety & Health Conference. Attendees included staff from Oregon OSHA, Oregon Departmentof Agriculture (ODA), EPA Region X, AgriSafe, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, the PacificNorthwest Agriculture Safety and Health Center (PNASH), and the National Pesticide Information Center(NPIC).Conclusions:Outreach activities reached an all time high in FY2013. From the PARC cases that Oregon OSHA investigated,it is clear that pesticide safety can be improved through better communication between employers and theirworkers when applications are being planned. Pesticide applicators need to be involved in the planning andcoordination of their activities. Recent PARC cases remind us how the workplace is negatively impacted whenworkers become ill or sickened, often forcing people to leave for the day or seek medical attention in somecircumstances. Oregon OSHA enforcement and voluntary compliance activities provide many opportunities foraddressing worker protection and pesticide safety. The annual meeting among multiple agencies affordsopportunities for developing strategies that enhance and improve worker protection.Accomplishments:oooooooPresented a Pesticide tract at the Governor’s Occupational Safety & Health (GOSH) Conference.The Oregon Pesticide Symposium continues to provide a forum of networking among multipleregulatory and educational agencies to enhance protections to pesticide users.Conducted outreach by partnering with Oregon LIVE and the consultative services section tovineyards and wineries.Conducted outreach to the Organic Growers through Oregon Tilth to increase awareness that theproducts they use are regulated pesticides and that the pesticide regulations do apply to them.Conducted internal field staff training to increase awareness of the prevalence of aluminumphosphide products.External speaking requests increased by 100%, extending pesticide safety outreach opportunitiesto 2,881 attendees.Agriculture and Pesticides were topics featured in Oregon OSHA’s Resource publication.12Goals for the coming yearooooProvide assistance to the NIOSH/NPPTL program in addressing barriers to the use of personalprotective equipment.Expand outreach through Hazard Alerts to employers who use aluminum phosphide products of theneed for structural and burrowing rodent fumigation management plans.Develop a Questions and Answers Guide for Soil Fumigants in partnership with the OregonDepartment of Agriculture.Expand the Oregon Pesticide Symposium to include all Oregon agencies that regulate pesticidesfor better information exchange and to improve communication.13Appendix CONSOLIDATED PESTICIDE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTBETWEENUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYANDOREGON DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREFOR FY2013END-OF-YEAR REPORTFORCERTIFICATION AND TRAINING PROGRAM COMPONENTThis 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, 2012through June 30, 2013.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 FY2013 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 FY2013.FY2013 Certification and Training Work Plan RequirementsProgram Maintenance and Support 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 oneapprentice exam. Updates of pesticide certification examinations andprocesses include: Metro Institute implements computer based testing (CBT) inOregon for all pesticide certification exams and one apprenticeexam. Eighteen of the twenty testing centers have been convertedto CBT. There are a total of twenty testing centers in Oregon.1 Numberof testing centers audited for certification examination security & integrity.o The State of Oregon contracts with a total of 20 community colleges oruniversity facilities as testing centers for administering pesticidecertification examinations. Due to reduced staffing and budgetaryconstraints of many of the colleges, 16 of the 20 testing centers wereaudited by ODA Certification & Training staff during FY2013. Theseaudits are conducted to ensure all security agreements were current, allpesticide examinations were accounted for and in good condition, and toprovide proctor training for consistent and accurate testing procedures.o Auditing testing centers for exam security and integrity is anticipated to beless of a burden in FY 2014 with only two testing centers regularlyadministering hard-copy exams. It is a goal to eliminate hard copy examsexcept for special sessions, to accommodate people with learningdisabilities, and test takers who need extra time due to language barrierissues.Pesticide Certification Examination Study Materials Development andIncorporation into ODA website.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.o Special efforts were made in FY 2013 to provide materials for pre-licensetraining of Private Applicators in Spanish and for the new ApprenticeLicense . There are limited instructors for Spanish pre-license courses andODA provided the study materials in Spanish that we had access to, toensure current information was being taught.o The IPM in Schools law went into effect near the end of FY2012. This lawrequired a new audience of exam takers who are not familiar withpesticide regulations. Additional efforts were made to coordinate andcommunicate with OSU and independent consultants around the state whoprovided pre-license training to these potential licensees.Additional pesticide education website resourceso The ODA Pesticides Program website added links to resources for: OSU Integrated Pest Management educational resourcesincluding:• Integrated Plant Protection Center at Oregon StateUniversity• OSU Pesticide Safety Education Program• IPM in Schools as incorporated into ORS Chapter 634. EPA Soil Fumigation Toolbox2Direct link to the Acheiva Soil Fumigant Applicator trainingWater Quality resources including the Oregon NPDES permitLinks to educational resources regarding pollinator protectionCertification and Training State Plan Requirements & Reporting Database Certification & Training report as required under 40CFR Part 171 (Section171.7(d)).o The FY2013 C & T report that is required to be entered into the electronicC & T State Plan and Reporting Database (CPARD) will be completed byOctober 31, 2013. The information entered into CPARD is collected andreported based on the federal fiscal year (October 1 – September 30).Training: Monitoring and Quality Assurance Training sessions evaluated to ensure that they are of adequate quality and areaddressing priority focus areas.o A total of 1,083 continuing education courses were accredited by ODA forrecertification purposes in FY2013. The trend over the last 3 years showsthe number of courses leveling off after a few years of significantincreases. Enhancement of the recertification program is based on thepremise of constantly and consistently providing, and improvingrecertification training and processes. The primary method of evaluatingrecertification courses is through intense review and scrutiny of programsupon application for recertification accreditation. The 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 FY2013 and will continue with workgroups and discussionsincluding OSU and other interested parties.o ODA was instrumental in the design and implementation of soilfumigation training, revision of the National Core Manual learningobjectives and national exam, NPDES and IPM in Schools outreach, andlabel language interpretation information sessions as specific focus areasthat were targeted.o ODA updates the Recertification Accreditation Guide each year to keepimproving the accreditation approval process to reduce the time necessaryto review each class and to get sponsors to provide accurate information inthe application.Monitor and/or participate in applicator certification training programs ODA participation in recertification training courses conducted to provideoutreach, education, and regulatory updates to licensed applicators.3o ODA staff participated as presenters in approximately 90 different trainingsessions through the entire state. Although not an increase over FY2012,the presentations were of significant topics and primarily focused on labelinterpretation, drift mitigation, soil fumigation regulations, endangeredspecies protections, water quality, NPDES pesticides general permit,compliance assistance, violations/enforcement, licensing responsibilities,RUP concerns and label interpretation, and providing technical expertiseto pesticide users, dealers, consultants, and others. ODA PesticidesProgram employees are routinely requested as presenters at numeroussessions throughout the state every year. Recertification courses areaccredited in different mechanisms of 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:ODA staffOSU-ES staffSpanish coursesWPS coursesPresentations/courses90150288o In review of the recertification courses provided to applicators/consultantsstatewide, it was determined that Oregon State University Extensionpersonnel sponsored 150 sessions of the 1,083 FY2013 accredited sessions(13.8%).o Auditing of actual training sessions is conducted by certification andtraining staff, program managers, pesticide investigators, and otherPesticides Program representatives. In FY 2013, approximately 65 of the1,083 individual training sessions were evaluated by ODA staff for qualityand content. Efforts will be made during FY2013 to increase the auditingrate to validate the recertification review process to ensure that educationprovided to certified/licensed applicators is consistent with ODAaccreditation standards and guidelines.Addressing Compliance/Enforcement Issues Through C & T Program Identified focus areas.o ODA went into the FY2013 training season with several topic focus pointsto deliver to pesticide users. Federal issues such as Endangered Species,soil fumigation label changes, and the NPDES permit developed by theOregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) were presented atmany of the ODA “update” presentations. Label interpretation, licensingrequirements and responsibilities, recordkeeping requirements, specialregistrations (Section 24c’s and Section 18’s), crop group changes ontolerance information and other issues were all reinforced as “core” topics.4o Special efforts were additionally made to address pesticides in water withthe development of the Water Quality Pesticides Management Team(ODA, Forestry, Fish and Wildlife, USDA - Aphis, Health Authority andDEQ) and having the ability to interpret surface water sample results touse as a training tool. ODA Pesticides Program and the ODA NaturalResource Program are now under the same administrator and thus, there ismore crossover between the two Programs especially when it comes toaddressing water conditions including sediment, temperature, dissolvedoxygen, and even pesticides. Having valuable information to share withpesticide users with regard to the amounts of pesticides being detected insurface waters is a powerful tool to generate interest in implementingagricultural best management practices.o FIFRA 25(b) products were a focus to some limited audiences, and ofinterest to medical marijuana growers. Of special interest for someaudiences were the non-compliant labels and products which containedingredients allowed to be used in FIFRA 25(b) products; however, did nothave established tolerances.o During the recertification accreditation process, if ODA was not on anagenda to address compliance issues, then every effort was made to havean ODA Pesticides Program staff person from registrations or anotherfocus area included on the agenda.Additional activities. Partnering with C & T representatives at the Pesticide Applicator Certification &Training Workshop (PACT)oLaurie Gordon and Linda White, Pesticides Program Certification &Training staff attended the Pesticide Applicator Certification TrainingWorkshop in August 2013. This opportunity is always beneficial to ODAPesticide programs in the variety of topics that are presented and in thenetworking and resources that are made possible.oLaurie Gordon was a presenter and moderator during the PACTWorkshop. Participation in the Certification and Training Assessment Group (CTAG)oLaurie Gordon, ODA Certification & Training Specialist was elected tothe CTAG Board of Directors representing regional issues. Participation in the State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG)o Steve Riley, ODA Pesticides Water Issues Specialist, was a representativeon the SFIREG Environmental Quality Issues Sub-Committee. Steveattended two meetings of the EQI in FY 2013.o Rose Kachadoorian is a representative on the SFIREG sub-committee onProgram Operations and Management (POM). Rose attended two POMmeetings in FY 2013. Activities associated with Soil Fumigation Label Changeso ODA conducted outreach on the new soil fumigant labeling requirementsto affected parties. Information was included in some of the annualRegulatory Update presentations given at pesticide license recertification5meeting. In addition, ODA staff participated in two large industrystewardship meetings sponsored by soil fumigant registrants. Thesepresentations highlighted the certification, training and other labelingrequirements associated with the new risk mitigation measures. Theannual license renewal mailing provided an update on the changes,especially in regard to the training and certification requirements of thePhase 2 labels. ODA made frequent references to the EPA fumigantoutreach materials found athttp://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/soil_fumigants/.o ODA conducted outreach on the new soil fumigant labeling requirementsto affected parties.o Information was included in some of the annual ODA Regulatory Updatepresentations given at pesticide license recertification meetingshighlighting the certification, training and other labeling requirementsassociated with the new risk mitigation measures.o ODA Pesticides Program C & T Specialist, Laurie Gordon, attended soilfumigation training opportunities in Washington. EPA was involved withthese trainings.o Laurie Gordon also was instrumental in participating in the northwestregional efforts to develop a regional soil fumigation exam which wasapproved by EPA in January 2013.o Pesticides Program investigators have been working closely with growers,custom applicators and agricultural dealers applying soil fumigants.o Activities associated with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) Permit including a separate NPDES permit for irrigation districts–[other NPDES activities included in Water Quality Program report]o Participated in NPDES conference calls with EPA several times during thefiscal year.o Participated in numerous meetings with Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality (DEQ) to address the scope of the PesticideGeneral NPDES Permit.o Provided outreach to many pesticide user groups regarding the PGP.o Worked with Oregon DEQ to develop responses to comments on the PGP.o Allocated technical personnel to focus on NPDES; how it will beimplemented in Oregon; provide outreach; be the ODA point-person onthis issue.o Other activities related to certification and training outreacho Laurie Gordon was part of a committee to revise the learning objectivesand exam questions for the National Core Manual and exam.o Janet Fults participated in AAPCO meeting in Washington DC in March2012.6Changed the name and conditions to be a Directly Supervised Trainee orImmediately Supervised Trainee. The Directly Supervised Trainee license will became the PESTICIDEAPPRENTICE license. Taking, and passing, the Pesticide Laws & Safety exam is a prerequisite. No longer has a “Public” or “Commercial” designation. No longer has license categories specified on license. Supervisor is required to provide training to the Pesticide Apprentice. Pesticide Apprentice must be able to contact their supervisor at any time. Must apply pesticides only in the same category as those authorized bytheir supervisor’s license. ODA no longer tracks and records the supervising applicator. Apprentice and supervisor names and license numbers must be on eachpesticide application record of applications made. Pesticide Apprentice must attend eight (8) hours of continuing educationclasses each year to renew license, four (4) CORE & four (4)OTHER. ODA will track sessions attended. If continuing education requirement is met, the Pesticide Apprenticelicense may be renewed annually. If continuing education requirement is NOT met, the Pesticide Apprenticemust start all over by taking the Laws & Safety exam again.Immediately Supervised Trainee license changes: Immediately Supervised Trainee license name will not change. No longer has a “Public” or “Commercial” specific designation. Are no longer category specific on license. Must apply pesticides only in the same category as those authorized bytheir supervisor’s license. ODA no longer tracks and records the supervising applicator. Trainee and Supervisor names and license numbers must be listed onpesticide application record. No exam required. Supervisor must be on site with the Trainee and be able to reach theirlocation within 5 minutes. License may be renewed indefinitely.7Appendix CONSOLIDATED PESTICIDE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTBETWEENUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYANDOREGON DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREFOR FY2013END-OF-YEAR REPORTFORWATER QUALITY PROTECTION PROGRAM COMPONENTThis 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, 2012through June 30, 2013.Continue Coordination with other State and Federal Agencies.ODA has a 0.5 FTE technical staff position dedicated to continued developmentand implementation of Oregon's Pesticide Management Plan (PMP). Furtherrevisions of this document were coordinated with member state agencies of theWater Quality Pesticide Management Team (WQPMT), formed in FY2008. Inaddition to ODA Pesticide Program, membership of the WQPMT is composed ofrepresentatives from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ),ODA Natural Resources Program (non-point source agricultural water quality),Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) and the Oregon Health Authority (OHA)and Oregon State University (OSU).The WQPMT operates under aMemorandum of Understanding (MOU) which was approved and signed by eachagency director in December, 2009. This team approach is the cornerstone for thedevelopment of comprehensive and efficient solutions to pesticide-related waterquality issues.Communication is also established with key program contacts from theGeological Survey (USGS), various county Soil and Water ConservationDistricts, local watershed councils and other key stakeholders as needed. Theteam approach to the complex area of pesticide-related water quality issuesprovides a foundation of cooperation, leveraging of resources and a progression ofefforts towards achieving the common goals of evaluating identified Pesticides ofInterest (POIs) and Pesticides of Concern (POCs), knowledge sharing and theimplementation of coordinated processes to address pesticide detections in surfaceand groundwater in Oregon.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.Identify and Evaluate Pesticides of Interest and ConcernDuring FY2013, ODA and the WQPMT used the EPA OPP Aquatic LifeBenchmarks to evaluate monitoring data for pesticides of interest and pesticidesof concern under the PMP when aquatic life Water Quality Standards were notavailable. Under the PMP, Oregon considers the detected concentration of anactive ingredient in water relative to the pesticide's Aquatic Life Benchmark orWater Quality Standard and the frequency of its detection in monitoringprograms.In addition, Oregon takes a "weight-of-evidence" approach,considering additional factors such as, environmental fate, potential sources anduse 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 FY2013, ODA and the WQPMT maintained the list of 72 pesticides (includingdegradates) plus the “phenoxy herbicide group” for a total of 73 on its master listof pesticides of interest. Out of this list, forty-three (43) are captured in theanalytical methods currently used by DEQ.Seven (7) pesticides of interest were identified to be further evaluated duringFY2013 (2,4-D, Metsulfuron Methyl. Sulfometuron Methyl. Metolachlor,Propiconazole, Chlorothalonoil and Pendamethalin). All of these were evaluatedas “Not Pesticides of Concern”..Pesticides of Concern that will continue to be evaluated and/or managed inFY2013 are: Atrazine, Carbaryl, Simazine, Chlorpyrifos, Malathion and Diuron.In FY2013, progress was demonstarted reducing concentrations and the numberof detections of the Pesticides of Concern Diuron, Chlorpyrifos and Malathion inthe fruit growing areas along the Columbia River that are active PesticideStewardship Parnerships (PSPs).Due to limited resources and additional work priorities, the document outliningthe factors incorporated into each product evaluation was not completed.However, many of the factors are documented and available in the POINTSdatabase.Additional State Activities Involving ODA Pesticides & Water QualityThe WQPMT is involved with the Oregon Pesticide Stewardship Partnerships(PSPs). There are currently eight (8) PSP projects in seven (7) sub-basinsthroughout the state (Figure 1) that represent different land uses. Four of the PSPs(Hood River, Pudding, Walla Walla and Wasco) represent predominatelyagricultural pesticide use. Two PSPs (Clackamas and Yamhill) represent a mix ofagricultural, forestry and urban/rural residential pesticide use. The Amazon Creekin the Long Tom Watershed, which runs through Eugene, Oregon representspredominantly urban pesticide use. During FY2013, surface water samples weretaken, analyzed and evaluated for 100 pesticide analytes (43 of which are listed asOregon Pesticides of Interest) at various sites in each watershed. Sourceidentification and mitigation measures were 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 planning,implementation, and evaluation of the PSPs. The monitoring data in the PSPs isthe primary source of monitoring data that are evaluated by the WQPMT.Figure 1: Map of PSP Projects in OregonThe Oregon Departments of Agriculture (ODA) and Environmental Quality (DEQ)received funding in the 2013 Legislative Session to support the PesticideStewardship Partnerships (PSP) Program. The funds will be dedicated toenvironmental sampling, sample analysis, and technical and project implementationsupport. Currently, there are eight (8) PSP projects in seven (7) watersheds withplans to expand into two new watersheds during the 2013-15 biennium.Additionally, a portion of the funds will be used to plan, support and implementeight pesticide waste collection events throughout the state. The mechanism forpesticide stewardship activities under the PSP program is established through theOregon Pesticide Management Plan that was developed by the interagency WaterQuality Pesticide Management Team (WQPMT) and approved by theEnvironmental Protection Agency in 2011.Activities conducted by ODA Water Quality program in FY2013:Numerous outreach and education presentations regarding the pesticidemonitoring data were given to various industry stakeholder groups.Discussions continue with USGS regarding the possibility of leveragingmonitoring resources/locations with the USGS NAWQA Cycle 3 monitoringprogram in Oregon.Relevant pesticide monitoring information and descriptions of the PSP effortshave been included in the Natural Resource Program’s Agricultural Water QualityArea Plans for the Pudding and Clackamas watersheds.EPA Reporting DatabaseEPA and the states collaborated to design a database reporting system around thePesticide of Interest/Concern/Management 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 FY2013 data for this year end reporthas been entered into the POINTS database and will be finalized by March 31,2014, as needed to comply with the FY2013 EPA/ODA Consolidated CooperativeAgreement.o http://www.wq.wsu.edu/default.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 compounds(Table 1) have been addressed with the designations as listed below. EPA and Oregon Pesticide of Interests: 57 + 16 = 73Measure 1 – FY2013 Pesticides of InterestNumber of pesticides of evaluated vs number of pesticides of interest:45/73 (61.64%)Measure 2 - FY2013 Pesticides of Concern Actively ManagedNumber of pesticides of concern under active management* vs number ofpesticides of concern identified: 4/6 (67%)* Outreach and education on POCs was considered active management duringFY2013Measure 3 - FY2013 Demonstrated ProgressNumber of AIs with demonstrated progress vs number of active ingredients underactive management: 4/4 (100%)Measure 4 - FY2013 Number of Cumulative Re-evaluations: 7Measure 5 - FY2013 Number of Pesticides of Concern Re-evaluated Not aPesticide of Concern: 5Pesticides of Interest that ODA committed to evaluate during FY 2013: 3• 2,4-D - still under review• Metalochlor - still under review• PropiconazoleAdditional Pesticides of Interest evaluated during FY2013: 4• Metsulfuron Methyl• Sulfometuron methyl – not a POC• Malathion – Chlorothalonil• PendamethalinPesticides evaluated to be Oregon Pesticides of Concern: 6• Atrazine• Carbaryl• Chlorpyrifos• Diuron• Malathion• SimazinePesticides under Active Management:• All POCs under active management in the form of outreach andeducation.Pesticides under Active Management with Demonstrated Progress: 3• Chlorpyrifos• Diuron• MalathionTable 1: 73 US-EPA and Oregon “Pesticides of Interest” & Concern (FY2013)** Red = Evaluated/ a POC; Yellow = Higher Priority POI Under Review; Green = Evaluated/not a POC;No Fill = Under Review or Not Yet EvaluatedAppendix ICONSOLIDATED PESTICIDE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTBETWEENUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYANDOREGON DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREFOR FY2013END-OF-YEAR REPORTFORENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION PROGRAM COMPONENTThis 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, 2012 through June 30, 2013.Core Activities: Provide commento In October 2012, ODA worked with NASDA to comment on the“Proposal for Enhancing Stakeholder Input in the Pesticide RegistrationReview and ESA Consultation Processes and Development ofEconomically and Technologically Feasible Reasonable and PrudentAlternatives” (Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0442)o In January 2013, ODA wrote a letter to EPA in support of the collection ofinformation relating to pesticide drift-reduction technologies (DRT), EPAHQ-OPP-2012-0631-0001o In May 2013, ODA worked with NASDA to comment on the draftReasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs) and Alternatives (RPAs)included in the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) draftBiological Opinion. This particular draft Biological Opinion addressed thepotential effects from three pesticides on Pacific salmon and steelheadlisted as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Thepesticides are: propargite, fenbutatin oxide and diflubenzuron.Staff DevelopmentoNo formal trainings or workshops were attended during the period betweenJuly 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013.Pesticide inspector and pesticide user education of the Endangered SpeciesProtection Programo A significant focus of the ESPP program in Oregon has been onproviding education and outreach activities to pesticideinvestigators, pesticide users, and pesticide consultants. ODAincludes information regarding ESPP to pesticide applicators andconsultants as a part of the continuing education required forrecertification. There were approximately 15 presentations thatspecifically included ESPP information.o ODA continues to update maps and the ODA website based on thestatus of in active ingredients. Currently there are county maps onour website for the following remaining active ingredients: 1,3-D,Bromoxynil, Diflubenzuron, Fenbutatin-oxide, Prometryn,Propargite, and racemic metholachlor. The final BiologicalOpinions were supposed to have been issued by NMFS forDiflubenzuron, Fenbutatin-oxide, and Propargite in June 2013;however, at this time only a draft has been issued. No BiologicalOpinions have been issued for 1,3-D, Bromoxynil or racemicmetholachlor . An opinion was originally suppose to have beenissued for lindane, however because it is no longer registered, itwill not be reviewed by NMFS. There are no maps referencinglindane, on ODA’s website.Improve Interagency Cooperationo ODA continues to work cooperatively, share information and meet withother agencies that also have endangered species concerns andresponsibilities.Implementation of the EPA Strategy for Protecting Endangered Species inOregon.o ODA originally anticipated that the National Endangered SpeciesProtection Program Implementation Plan would be finalized, and the“Bulletins Live!” or the “Bulletins Live! Two (BLT)” site would beoperational. The Department has not yet begun implementation strategiesfor the ESPP due to the fact that neither “Bulletins Live” or “BulletinsLive! Two (BLT)” are available. When a system does become available,ODA will lead a coordinated effort among agencies to review the programand begin to develop a strategy for protecting endangered species inOregon from the potential effects of pesticides when there are bulletins tofollow and an accurate and current resource database is accessible bypesticide users.o ODA will also begin an extensive grower education program once labelshave been appended to reflect changes in buffers, additional restrictions,or the incorporation of pesticide drift-reduction technologies. Currently,the department is educating pesticide applications on the various locationson a pesticide label that a buffer can occur and why a buffer is present onthe label.Establish Endangered Species Information Links to Pesticides Division WebPage.o Oregon has expanded the number of web links that are connected to thePesticides Division web page. From the ODA Pesticides Division webpage, individuals can reach an “Endangered Species” link. This link takesthe user to such sites as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, the EndangeredSpecies Act, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)Fisheries, The Oregon Natural Heritage Program, and the OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife (list of Oregon threatened andendangered fish and wildlife species). ODA routinely reviews additionallinks. These links are monitored and updated as appropriate.Review of Specific Pesticide Uses for Endangered/Threatened 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 (E/T) 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.Endangered Species Enforcement.Enforcemento The Department enforces all pesticide product label statements regardingE/T 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 Field Program for Endangered Species:Data Collection Sheet for FY2013 EOY ReportState/Tribe Contact Name: Roseann KachadoorianPhone: 503-986-4651Email: rkachadoorian@oda.state.or.usWhat means have you used (e.g., pesticide safety training, continuing education credits,pesticide applicator training) to inform current or potential pesticide users andinspectors about the ESPP, including Endangered Species Protection Bulletins(Bulletins)?During FY2013, the Oregon Dept. Of Agriculture (ODA) Pesticides Division providedinformation regarding the Endangered Species Protection Program (ESPP) to growers,potential pesticide users, commercial pesticide applicators, commodity commissions, growerorganizations, Oregon State University (OSU) and other interested parties through a variety ofmechanisms. ODA staff conveyed information by phone, email, e-newsletter and in person.However, most information was disseminated by ODA staff at workshops, field days, andduring formal presentations at recertification courses. There were approx. 15 presentationsmade by ODA staff which heavily focused on ESPP. These events were frequently sponsoredby OSU-Extension or Pesticide Dealers.ESPP and EPA’s entire pesticide program have been linked to the ODA website, and prelicense trainers have been notified to include this subject matter to make potential applicatorsaware of ESPP activities and refer to EPA’s website as a resource.Biological Opinions (BiOps) issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are ofsignificant interest to the growers and other members of the regulated community. ODA hasprovided information, and encouraged stakeholders to comment on draft Reasonable andPrudent Measures (RPMs) and Alternatives (RPAs) included in draft Biological Opinionsreceived by EPA. ODA provided information to NASDA regarding a: draft BiOp, EPA’s“Proposal for Enhancing Stakeholder Input in the Pesticide Registration Review and ESAConsultation Processes and Development of Economically and Technologically FeasibleReasonable and Prudent Alternatives”, and on EPA’s new drift-reduction technologies (DRT)emphasis. The ODA website has been periodically updated, including updating of maps, toreflect the current status of the related interim court ordered buffers from the WashingtonToxics Coalition vs. the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (WTC v. EPA) lawsuit.ODA has communicated very closely with the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife and theUS Fish and Wildlife Service on issues concerning candidate and listed species whendetermining additional restrictions and/or precautions that are necessary in the registration ofFIFRA Section 24c uses and processing of FIFRA Section 18 emergency exemptions. Ofparticular focus was a FIFRA Section 24c for the use of zinc phosphide on cabbage leaves tocontrol Beldings Ground Squirrel in alfalfa, that would be used in the same county as a federalwildlife refuge. Possible E/T species are located periodically in the area.Please provide any additional comments, suggestions or recommendations regardingfield implementation of the ESPP.Many growers would prefer buffer widths to be directly on the label, in a clear, consistent andeasy to find location. They want the same language to be used on the label - not “no sprayzone” on one label, and “buffer” on another. In addition, sometimes application buffers arelocated under mixing/loading or other inappropriate locations, for example EPA Reg. No. 100817. Growers have expressed that they do not want to have to go to a computer to calculate abuffer zone (no spray area). It is suggested that the label or bulletin have an easy to use table.