However, the agency did not have an automated system for monitoring data on such incidents until 1992, when it developed the Incident Data System to organize and track data originating from both pesticide registrants and the voluntary sources. FIFRA does not require states or sources other than registrants to collect or submit data on exposures. In this case, EPA issued a data call-in noticerequiring the pesticides’ registrants to submit data from the American Association of Poison Control Centers. EPA Has Taken Initiatives to Improve Collection of Data on Incidents

EPA has recognized that its approach to data collection needs improvement, and in September 1994, its Office of Pesticide Programs established a work group to focus on potential improvements. This work group was established to develop a long-term plan for collecting, storing, manipulating, and using data on incidents. EPA has also proposed a new rule, which it calls the 6(a)(2) rule, aimed at improving the quality of the data on incidents the agency receives from pesticide registrants and making the processing of this information easier for the registrants and the agency. Furthermore, EPA staff have been working with four companies that submit large numbers of reports on incidents of exposure to determine the feasibility of electronic submission of reports. Conclusions

While EPA has a system for collecting, reviewing, and acting on incidents of exposure to pesticides and has taken action on some data on incidents, the system does not currently ensure that EPA always has sufficient information to determine whether action to protect public health is necessary. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to determine whether EPA collects data on incidents of exposure to pesticides and takes action based on these data, and whether such data are sufficient to allow the agency to determine if unacceptable risks to public health are occurring. Table I.1 lists examples of EPA’s use of such data to take actions between 1989 and 1994. Through an increase in the number of incidents reported by the National Pesticide Telecommunications Network,EPA identified a public perception of risk from lawn care pesticides.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) monitoring of human exposures to pesticides, focusing on whether EPA: (1) collects data on exposure arising from the use on nonagricultural pesticides; (2) takes action in response to potential health risks from such exposure; and (3) receives sufficient information to assess whether unacceptable risks are occurring.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) EPA has collected pesticide exposure data from pesticide registrants and public and private entities since the 1970s and, in 1992, it implemented a computerized system to organize and track such data; (2) EPA has not assigned full-time staff to data collection and processing; therefore, the system has a data entry backlog, which limits its effectiveness; (3) EPA acted in 19 instances between 1989 and 1994 to protect the public from pesticide risks; (4) EPA often cannot assess whether a pesticide poses an unacceptable health risk, since incident reports frequently lack key data, may not be representative, or are not submitted; (5) an EPA work group is developing a long-term plan to collect and manage exposure data, but it has yet to develop a plan for putting the most cost-effective improvements into effect; (6) to improve the number and quality of exposure reports, EPA has proposed a rule that requires pesticide registrants to submit more detailed data on exposure incidents and clarifies the registrants' responsibilities; (7) EPA is determining the feasibility of having registrants who submit large numbers of reports to submit them electronically; and (8) the current exposure monitoring system includes data on both agricultural and nonagricultural pesticides, since EPA collects and processes the same information for those chemicals.