To: Docket # EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2012

- 0194

Author: Nancy Levin

Date: August 10 , 2012 Subject: Summary of July 16, 2012 conference call between EPA, Region 9 a nd California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR )

--------------------------------------------------------------------- This document me morializes the key points of discussion among conference call participants on July 16, 2012 and follow

- up clarifications. The basis for the conversation was a list of questions

that EPA sent to DPR on July 3, 2012 in order to better understand the DPR regu latory and enforcement process for fumigants

. Not all of the questions were discussed on the call.

Participants:

 EPA Region 9 : Frances Wicher, Nancy Levin; Fabiola Estrada, Bill Lee, Katy Wilcoxen

 DPR : Randy Segawa

, Pam Wofford, Joe Ma rade, Regina Sarracino, Jim Shattuck, Ken
Everett, George Farnsworth

1. What data and information on pesticide use and calculations of adjustment factors are
available to the public , when is the data available, and how can public access it?

a. Individual appl icator PURs

– Are the actual reports a vailable to the public ?

Answer: Yes they are. Whoever makes the fumigant application must file P esticide Use Report (PUR) with the County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC). The CAC keeps the submitted copy of the PUR, compile s that data and periodically send s the

data to DPR . DPR enters the PUR data into an annual statewide PUR database

. The farm operator must file the PUR by 10 th day after the beginning of the following

month. P est Control bu si nesse s must file withi n 7 days.

o How and from whom can they request the PUR ?

Answer: A member of the public can request the PUR from the CAC by making a p ublic record request, either in writing or personal visi t. The CAC has 10 days to respond. About 2 million records/re ports come in every year statewide. PUR reports are available for request as soon as they get to the CAC. The public can obtain specific and summary data from DPR ’s free online system ( http://cdpr.ca .gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm ) after CAC submits the

PUR to DPR. DPR can also extract specific records from an electronic

database upon request

. Grower

- specific use reports must be obtained from the

CAC.

o Is there a fee?

A nswer: Possibly for copying/retri eval. If the PUR is electronic , then the CAC

can send it via email with no fee

. There is n o waiver of fees for NGOs. The use of the database is free, but DPR may charge a fee for special queries of the

electronic database.

b. PUR Database

- Is there a dead line for DPR to publish annual PUR ?Answer: There is n o legal deadline, but by policy DPR get s data from counties by August of the following year

. DPR generally publishes the annual database within a year after the growing season end s

. DPR is having s oftware issues for reporting years

2011 and 2012 , so there may be a delay in publishing the annual PUR database for those reporting years

.

c. Emissions Inventory Report

– When is it avail able to public for the 45

- day comment period? How is public noticed? Is there an option to sign up for

notification?

Answer : DPR sends draft Emissions Inventory Report to VOC list server

. If someone is not already on the list, then they can contact DPR and they would send a hard copy

.

d. Are Application Method Adjustment Factors ( AMAF ) available on line? Does DPR notice changes to these factors?

Answer : AMAFs are onl ine. The changes to AMAFs are summarized in annual inventory report . No AMAF changes have been made to date, but there have been

new AMAFs added to refle ct new allowed methods. If changes are made, they are specifically listed in the R eport.

2. Two

- year retention time of PUR

–

a. After PUR form is submitted to CAC or DPR, what happens to the actual PUR

document?

Answer: DPR asked a few CACs what they did with the PURs. One CAC said
they held PURs for 7 year s
, another CAC held PURs for 3 years, but it depends
on the county.

b. Is it submitted electronically? If not, is electronic PUR data submission
anticipated ?

A n swer : Effective January 2012, more than h alf of the PUR data are now
submitted electronically to DPR, with an increase in the use of electronic
submission anticipated over the next year.

3. How is compliance ensured ?

a. Do users have to certify they used an allowed method ?

Answer : PUR does not have requirement for signature , but does have requirements for the name of the applicator, supervisor, or person who prepared the report, depending on the type of submission

. There are s everal types of PUR

forms. Two forms are used for production agriculture. The PUR w ould require identifying information, numbers, etc. but don’t require signature.

b. Are they subject to civil or criminal penalties for violations?Answer: Yes , under state law . FAC 1299 6, Civil 6128, 61 3 0 . L icense could be taken back, DPR/CAC c ould withhold permit

.

4. Funding

– How are the fumigant inspections and enforcement funded? Funding

mechanism? MOAs? On

- going source of funds?

5. Answer : DPR collects an assessment

, 21 mills = .0 21 cents per do llar of pesticide sales . Of

that

, 0. 076 goes to CA Cs ( FAC 12841 ) as reimbursement for costs incurred associated with
pesticide enforcement . Funds are allocated to the CACs based on criteria set forth in FAC

Section 12844 and apportioned according to criteria set forth in CCR 6393 which includes #
of insp ections, licenses, PURs, registrations, etc. S pecial funding for N AA counties is
allocated pursuant to FAC 128 4 1. 3.

a. Did DPR use all available studies? Why did they exclude certain studies? What

is the basis for excluding a study ?

Answer: See RACT analysis p.22; Attachment 1A (B arry memo, Sept 29, 2007)

b. Are AMAFs updated? Have there been petitions to update them? Will DPR

consider these? How? What info, if any, is disclosed to the public and when?

A nswer: DPR hasn ’ t updated initial AMAF methods, have looked at data on new

methods. See RACT analysis Attachment 1B

.

c. Are the estimates/studies from Sept 29, 2007 Barry memo are out of date , or still
good? Are there other studies they should consi der, per the commenter?

Answer: See Barry memo Attachment 1E for the stu dies excluded and the

rationale for each exclusion.

d. Calculations of adjustment factors (AMAF’s)

– Are these and the data used to
come up with the AMAF’s available to public?

A nswer: Yes. Most of the data was generated by pesticide registrants and copies
of the original studies can be obtained from DPR through a Public Records Act

request.

6. How were the historical base year MUFs derived

– who was interviewed

, rationale for

choic es of what surveys and studies to use (also see Barry memo )

Answer: Barry 2007 spells out how the data were derived. Since PURs did not track application methods, DPR used a n umber of ways (e.g. Stan g ellhini (2006), Lawson (2006) grower survey of metam sod ium practices. 1,3 D registrant data )

7. Alternatives to fumigants: What is DPR doing?Answer : See website, also RACT analysis p. 20

8. Monitoring

a. What does the CAC do with the reports/data when they get them? Do they check data against the permits they is sue /QA?

Answer: This comes up in phase 2

– observing

– restricted material

. A N otice of Intent (N OI ) is required prior to an application of a permitted restricted material. CAC goes out and does a pre

- site to make a determination whether it’s OK to proc eed with application

– sign simple inspection form, may go back out and inspect actual application to see if it complies with permit/ label DPR does oversight

. Cross checking /error checking of NOIs and PURs done by CAC

– check back with applicant. 5% of NOI s must be inspected

– considered official inspections. Would

report pre

- sites, but not broken down to detail regarding # of presites on fumigations.

Pre

- sites are formal inspections. DPR does evaluation on counties at least every 3

years. Fumigant applicat ions are high priority for counties

– tend to send inspectors

out for them

. The inspection form ENF

- 106 used for field fumigant inspections a data entry field to identify the fumigation method for that application

. Counties

realize this is important. The re is a 48

- hour advance notification requirement for fumigant NOIs; 24

- hour advance notification for other pesticides.

b. When do inspections occur and what type of into do the inspectors check for ?
(See above)

9. Section 6452 ( Directors Discretion ) : How man y times has it been used since 2008? Answer :

4 times

– in 3 requests.

10. Restricted Use Permits Questions

a. Do t hey impose legally binding requirements on pesticide users, violation of which would expose them to civil and criminal penalties ? Answer: Yes. See FAC

14006.5 and sections that follow it

– legally binding requirements, civil and criminal penalties. Also see FAC 11792 and 12991.

b. Is there somewhere in DPR’s regs that state s that applicators have to comply with terms of a permit ? or When CAC’s issue re stricted use permits, can the CAC’s enforce those permit conditions on the recipients of the permits? Yes.

FAC 12973

c. Would c ompliance be monitored and ensured through the existing restricted materials permit program ?

d. Does e xisting law provide access to records ?

e. Does e xisting law require users to comply with all permit conditions ? Yes

f. Do p ermit conditions sp ecify application method that would be used? Yes

11. Are there any readily available statistics on how many PUR are received for the SJV

area? Ventur a area? How many restricted use permits are issued for these areas?