{"id":31029,"date":"2022-05-13T00:12:06","date_gmt":"2022-05-13T04:12:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=31029"},"modified":"2022-05-13T00:12:06","modified_gmt":"2022-05-13T04:12:06","slug":"as-epa-oversight-of-pesticides-shrinks-workload-doubles-raising-safety-concerns","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2022\/05\/as-epa-oversight-of-pesticides-shrinks-workload-doubles-raising-safety-concerns\/","title":{"rendered":"As EPA Oversight of Pesticides Shrinks, Workload Doubles\u2014Raising Safety Concerns"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, May 13, 2022)\u00a0The Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting<\/em><\/a> has covered a report, released days ago by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), that acknowledges the agency\u2019s failures to meet its responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act (ESA<\/a>) and sets out a plan for improving its performance and meeting its obligations. The report, Balancing Wildlife Protection and Responsible Pesticide Use: How EPA\u2019s Pesticide Program Will Meet Its Endangered Species Act Obligations, 2022<\/em><\/a>,<\/em> notes that these failures have resulted \u201cnot only in inadequate protections for listed species, but also, litigation against the Agency that has increased in frequency in recent years\u201d \u2014 to the tune of more than 20 lawsuits covering 1,000+ pesticide products. Beyond Pesticides has covered the many chemical assaults on ESA species<\/a>, as well as a number of lawsuits brought on their behalf \u2014 most recently, the Center for Biological Diversity\u2019s (CBD\u2019s) suit about the threats of synthetic pyrethroid insecticides<\/a> to fragile species.<\/p>\r\n

Beyond Pesticides reported on a 2019 CBD lawsuit<\/a> seeking to force the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to initiate rulemaking to prevent most pesticide use in critical habitat for endangered species \u2014 an aspect of the ESA that is too frequently not protected. Under ESA, federal agencies (such as EPA) are required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service (of which NMFS is an office) to ensure that any agency actions are unlikely to jeopardize the continued existence of any ESA-listed species or result in the destruction of or negative impacts on critical habitat of such species.<\/p>\r\n

The Midwest Center<\/em> extracted<\/a> a startling metric from the recent EPA report: \u201cSince 2005, the number of completed pesticide registrations has more than doubled, while the number of employees overseeing the process has dropped by a quarter.\u201d The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act<\/a> (PRIA) of 2004 (and its subsequent iterations) aimed to expedite the pesticide registration process, and funnel funds to the agency through fees charged to applicant pesticide manufacturers (though with plenty of exemptions). Despite that, the number of applications in the years since then has far outstripped the ability of agency staff to keep up.<\/p>\r\n

According to the report, for example, in 2005 EPA\u2019s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) completed 1,098 PRIA actions (reviews, evaluations, approvals) with 809 staff FTEs (full-time equivalents). With massively reduced staff capacity in 2021 \u2014 603 FTEs \u2014 OPP completed 2,556 actions. But that 2,500+ figure came nowhere near addressing what is now a nearly-20-year backlog of Endangered Species Act decisions. The report\u2019s Executive Summary opens<\/a> with this: \u201cIn past decades, the Agency has met those obligations [under the Endangered Species Act] for less than 5% of the thousands of pesticide actions it completes annually under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA<\/a>),\u201d the federal law that regulates the registration, sale, and use of pesticides in the U.S.<\/p>\r\n

The report also notes that<\/a>, \u201cEPA\u2019s current ESA priorities are driven almost entirely by litigation settlements and other court-enforceable deadlines. Over the next six years [those] deadlines will require EPA to complete ESA reviews for 18 pesticides \u2014 the most the Agency estimates it can handle during this period based on its current capacity and processes. And ongoing litigation and settlement discussions for other lawsuits cover dozens of additional pesticides and will likely fill the Agency\u2019s ESA workload beyond 2030. Even though these litigation deadlines have determined most of the ESA workload for the next decade, that workload is estimated to cover less than 5% of EPA\u2019s future pesticide actions that trigger ESA obligations. Because the Pesticide Program currently lacks the capacity and efficient processes to fully meet its ESA obligations on those remaining pesticide actions, it remains vulnerable to additional lawsuits.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

This May report from EPA follows on a January 2022 EPA announcement of a new \u201cESA protection policy\u201d in the agency\u2019s evaluation of any new pesticides looking to be registered. In its coverage of that policy shift, The Midwest Center<\/em> wrote,<\/a> \u201cThe agency said \u2014 for the first time \u2014 it will take a systematic approach to regulating pesticides’ harmful effects instead of being forced to comply one-by-one by different lawsuits.\u201d In January, EPA said<\/a> that previously, \u201cin most cases, EPA did not consistently assess the potential effects of conventional pesticides on listed species. This resulted in insufficient protections for listed species, as well as resource-intensive litigation against EPA for registering new (pesticides) prior to assessing potential effects on listed species.\u201d This, of course, does nothing to address the legion of currently registered pesticides that are harming species and habitats across the U.S.<\/p>\r\n

That said, of that EPA announcement, CBD\u2019s Governmental Affairs Director Brett Hartl commented in January<\/a>: \u201cIt\u2019s a pretty big sea change. They know they\u2019re violating the law, but here they’re finally saying, \u2018You’re right, we have to impose restrictions when there’s potential for harm.\u2019 That is not nothing.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

An opinion piece in The Revelator<\/em> places<\/a> the identified failings of EPA and other federal agencies in an historical context of failures to protect the public, and environmental justice communities, in particular, from \u201cenvironmental harms caused by corporate polluters, lax oversight, and poor enforcement of existing laws.\u201d It notes broad neglect of monitoring and enforcement activities that are supposed to identify and hold accountable those who perpetrate violations of environmental regulations, and the anemic penalties often meted out to the guilty \u2014 historically, \u201clittle more than a slap on the wrist \u2014 if they\u2019re prosecuted at all.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

Pointedly, John Platt\u2019s editorial<\/a> specifies the need for \u201cmore investigators to detect and stop corporations from poisoning our air, water and bodies,\u201d calls out the Trump administration\u2019s decimation of EPA staff and draconian reductions in enforcement activities, and asserts that all those staff losses at EPA need to be restored ASAP. The \u201ccountry desperately needs new eco-detectives \u2014 trained employees and citizens [sic] who can identify and uncover pollution, poaching and other eco-threats that harm people, wildlife and the planet.\u201d Of EPA\u2019s capacity, and the goals of the new EPA report, he writes, \u201cUnder Trump the EPA shed thousands of staff members and dramatically reduced its enforcement of existing laws. Those people need to be back on the beat. President Biden\u2019s 2023 budget proposal aims to create the equivalent of\u00a0more than 1,900 new full-time positions<\/a>. That\u2019s a start, but it\u00a0barely makes up<\/a>\u00a0for the 1,500 jobs the EPA shed during the first year and a half of the previous administration. Let\u2019s double that number of new hires.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

In the face of threats from corporate malfeasance, climate change, and wildlife poaching, among other factors, The Revelator<\/em> piece also advocates<\/a> for the need for more staffing at a variety of federal agencies. It calls, variously, for more investigators, scientists and researchers, public health specialists, wildlife inspectors (at ports and borders), and environmental prosecutors \u2014 across EPA, FWS, the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Park Police, and the Department of Justice. Mr. Platt does note that President Biden\u2019s 2023 budget proposes increases in staffing for some of these agencies. He also identifies the need for boosts in staffing at the state level, more environmental journalists, and courage among public employees to whistleblow when the public\u2019s needs are not being served.<\/p>\r\n

In the Balancing Wildlife Protection<\/em> report,<\/a> EPA says it is creating a new \u201cvision of success\u201d for its ESA\u2013FIFRA work that would mean the agency \u201cis protecting ESA species and their habitats from pesticide effects to an extent that fulfills its obligations under all federal laws. EPA would be achieving this goal while minimizing impacts to pesticide users, supporting the development of safer technologies to control important public health and agronomic pests, and completing timely pesticide registration decisions. EPA would also become a trusted expert in protecting listed species through its pesticide decisions, using real-world, up-to-date information.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

The agency identifies six challenges to achievement of this vision:<\/p>\r\n