1

Summary Notes of Meeting Held at EPA Region 9 Offices 

April 2, 2010

Background

This meeting was held at the request of the Center on Race, Poverty & the 

Environment (CRP&E) on behalf of the Association of Irritated Residents (AIR), an 

environmental group based in San Joaquin Valley. The meeting was held on April 2, 

2010 at EPA Region 9 offices located at 75 Hawthorne, in San Francisco, California. 

The meeting topic was EPA’s January 29, 2010 proposed rule to grant limited 

approval/limited disapproval of San Joaquin Unified APCD’s NSR Rules (i.e., Rules 

2020 and 2201) into the SIP and to correct the previous EPA approval (in May 2004) of 

the current SIP versions of the District’s NSR rules. A list of attendees is included as an 

attachment to this document, as are materials provided to EPA at this meeting. This 

document, along with all attachments is being included in Docket # EPA-R09-OAR2010-0062.

Introductions

The meeting commenced with introductions. Among the visitors was an 

interpreter on behalf of members from CRPE that were not fluent in English.

Summary of Substantive Discussion

Brent Newell began his discussion with Jared Blumenfeld (Regional Administrator), by 

first showing a map of the San Joaquin Valley titled “Dairy Cow Concentration map of 

the San Joaquin Valley.” The map was generated by EPA in 2006. He also provided 

photographs of the valley over a number of dairies when there were violations of the 

standard.

He explained how a 1200 head dairy, that is part of a litigation action, would be not be 

subject to offset requirements if the rulemaking EPA is undertaking is finalized.

He quoted President Obama from Barack Obama’s Rural Plan on the topic of Regulating 

CAFO’s (attachment submitted by Brent).

Reason why he wanted meeting:

- The rule is following the Bush Administration.

- Provided the comment letters he and Paul Cort (Earth Justice) wrote as well as a 

number of tables that listed the dairies that the district had permitted that do not 

require offsets.

- He stated that the rulemaking would exempt basically all dairies from offsets b/c 

all emissions would be fugitive and therefore not part of the applicability 

determination.

- Congress wanted a ceiling on the amount of pollution in areas like the San 

Joaquin Valley. 
2

- Cites study by Jane Hall – price is $5.7 billion dollar/year on health costs for not 

complying with the national standards. The people in the room are incurring 

$1600 each in health costs due to environmental impacts from air.

So Brent made the following points:

1. He believes that EPA doesn’t have the authority to amend the SIP (retro or 

prospectively) on our own as we proposed to do...only states can.

2. He stated that EPA’s rationale that the District did not have authority to 

implement the law and EPA’s claim that the District is unable to enforce the law 

is wrong. He stated that SB 700 gave them that authority. He provided a citation 

in their comment letter to EPA for this authority under SB700.

3. The new administration is a big change. The last 8 years were terrible for the 

environment.

The interpreter summarized the comments made above in Spanish.

A number of people who identified themselves as members of CRPE on the sign in sheet, 

provided the following verbal testimony. The testimony was in Spanish, and translated 

by Gerardo Rios into English for this record. The interpreter translated during the 

meeting and his translation was used by Gerardo Rios to verify the testimony.

Testimony 1:

“He knows many people affected, but is only going to discuss his cousin...she has 

asthma. He thought asthma was something that you are born with, and later found out 

that this was not the case...this made me angry. I have seen my niece many times having 

asthma attacks and saw her lips turn blue and would get very upset...and asked myself 

why is it that it is only here in the valley that this happens.”

Testimony 2:

“I have a daughter that has asthma. She loves sports. But she could not do them b/c she 

has asthma. I also have two other friends with daughters that have asthma and have the 

same problem. It is sad to know that air problems have this impact on health to our 

children.”

Jared Blumenfeld made the following comments:

Everyone here at the table recognizes that air pollution is a problem and that the Valley is 

the worst in the country. EPA is committed to controlling air pollution, but the question 

is how do we move forward? He stated that the question is how or what we can do to 

improve the air quality problems. We have to recognize that there are many sources that 

have not been required to get permits before that now have to get permitted. We all want 

clean air. 2400 people die a year from PM2.5 in the valley. Four times more people die 

from air pollution in the valley than die from car accidents. So the question is what can 

we do and how do we do it? Which tools do we want to use.
3

Interpreter, summarized Mr.Blumenfeld’s comments.

Paul Cort: Paul Cort stated that he agreed. However, he did not think that it has always 

been true. He asked: “How does fixing the problem retroactively move things forward?” 

He then said that the only thing that the retroactive “fix” does is interfere with the 

ongoing litigation. He stated that he sees signals that Jared is moving in the right 

direction, but this rulemaking seems to be a step backwards. There are too many 

examples of rulemakings like this that don’t seem to serve a broad air quality purpose.

Testimony 3: Rodrigo:

“I have a son and a daughter. They both have asthma. What we want is to reduce air 

pollution. Our intent is not to harm the dairies, but just like we have to do I/M for our 

own cars, the dairies and other industries should do their part to make sure they are 

keeping the air clean. Me, like many other Latinos support Obama and hope that he does 

not do the same thing that some governors do, making promises just to get to the 

presidency and then forget about us...We are hoping, on behalf of my family, that with 

thousands like us that something is done.”

Testimony 4:

“I have a grandson that is now 8 years old. They brought him since he was born to my 

house. And since then, he used to have the little pump to help him breath. Now, at 8, he 

comes to my house and shows up agitated and can’t play outside. I feel so bad for him.”

Testimony 5:

“Refugio: This is my 2nd year living in the valley that is plagued with dairies. Last year 

when the summer was ending, I started to have respiratory problems. The doctor told me 

that I was diagnosed as developing asthma. I can no longer use a/c or heater in my house 

or car b/c I now have to use an inhaler. I am seeing the situation in the Valley and seeing 

how the dairies and the particulate in the valley are affecting us. Mr. Blumenfeld is 

asking what we could do to make a difference. I have two suggestions:

1. Like he said, we have to find a solution together, but we have to do it quickly. So, 

I suggest that there be a suspension of all permits for dairies. In South Kern there 

are about a 12 permits in the process.

2. and, to obligate or make existing dairies to do something to clean the air pollution 

that they have already contributed.”

Testimony 6: Tom Frantz

“Ten years ago, the concentration of dairies was about a 10th of what it is now. They left 

LA as small dairies and bought cheap land in the valley and built large dairies.
4

There are five dairies near schools that were not there before. We begged and asked our 

mayors/supervisors in Wasco to have at least 3 – 10 mile buffers between dairies and 

schools. We did not know that they were coming until they got the permits. We found 

out that they were exempt under the Clean Air Act and we became very concerned.

I was looking at the air pollution levels, and I see that while there are improvements in 

emissions, the levels stay the same b/c new pollution keeps coming in. Others areas seem 

to be making progress, but not the valley.

We filed a lawsuit against the last dairy that did not get their permit. We won under 

federal law, but now EPA is saying that they are changing the rule and going back to 

what the previous administration was doing. This is not right. We were going to regulate 

these dairies and the EPA action would take that away. The dairies are feeding cows 

corn that they should not be eating. This is not sustainable.”

Testimony 7:

“This is a picture of my grandson. He showed a picture of a baby. He was diagnosed 

with asthma and will have to get an inhaler. This will cost $450 which grandma and 

grandpa will have to buy. This is really sad.”

Jared Blumenfeld: Are there any other things that they want to add? I want to make 

sure that everyone has had a chance to speak. If not, there are a few points I want to 

make.

Child: Did they know that this was going to happen 10 years ago? 

Brent: Yes.

Child: So, why haven’t they done something about it?

Brent: Because the last administration did not want to have anything to do with that.

Jared: Also, people did not know the volume of the movement of the dairy industry.

Brent Newell then showed Jared Blumenfeld a number of items from the comment letter 

that he submitted for the proposed rulemaking: 1. Table listing of all dairy permits issued 

by the District since 2004. 2. He noted that not one has been deemed major and therefore 

not subject to LAER or offsets. 3. He concluded that since no offsets were required, then 

there is no economic incentive to add pollution control. 4. Finally he noted that the total 

amount of emissions from the facilities on the table add up to 1,400 tpy of VOCs.

Jared Blumenfeld asked Brent how he thought this should be addressed under the CAA.

Brent Newell stated the following: Right now, the District only counts lagoon emissions 

for emissions. However, not a lot of VOCs come from the lagoons. Lots of methane and 
5

NH3, but right now EPA is not doing anything about these emissions. If they were 

permitted as major sources of NH3, then they would be controlled, but NH3 is currently 

not being controlled.

However, the VOCs are coming from the areas where the cattle is fed (free stall barns) 

and the silage. So, once they cut the corn, it ferments and releases lots of VOCs. It is 

then spread around to the cattle feeding areas and pretty quickly releases all the alcohols. 

The free stall barns emissions should be counted as non-fugitives. In other parts of the 

country, cows are put in barns. Ex. Whiskey warehouses. 

Paul Cort then added the following: Fugitive emissions are emissions that can 

reasonably be made to pass through a stack. There is a choice of whether or not the 

emissions are captured. The emissions are capturable. Whether or not they are doing it, 

is not the issue. 

Brent Newell then followed: Once subject to permitting, then you look at LAER, if not 

doable, then they should be getting offsets. The District is essentially saying, not feasible 

to control therefore all emissions are fugitives.

Brent Newell: 8 years ago, at the close of the previous administration, the district 

submitted the rules in 2004 and EPA approved them w/o exemptions. There is a 

provision that states that the District has the authority to implement any rules adopted 

prior to 2003. The District’s rule was adopted prior to 2003. I wrote that provision into 

that law, so I know it exists and the District should be able to implement that 

requirement. 

Paul Cort: The EPA is interpreting state law. This is unusual. EPA has not asked for an 

AG opinion about this. So, it is concluding that it is only going to keep the requirements 

for major sources, even though state law does not speak to major or minor sources. We 

(when I worked for EPA) approved the District NSR rule as being equivalent even 

though it did not meet all major NSR requirements, because it did some things for minor 

sources. But now the EPA is saying “well the minor source requirements are not 

necessary even though it was relied upon for the prior approval.” We can’t be going back 

and relying on something, and then saying they are not needed in the next approval.

There are new exemptions for certain boilers. The argument being that they are going to 

be subject to requirements under other rules. But, the other rules will not require offsets, 

so this gives you a window into what is happening in the valley. This typifies what is 

going on in the valley: they use old ERCs that are bogus, they do not require LAER, they 

do not require offsets when they should.

Jared: Understanding that the final rule has to be done by April 12th. You are asking for 

big changes. What is your anticipation of what would happen with that deadline? 

Tom Frantz (AIR): Are you asking for extension?
6

Jared: No. I am asking, what is it that you hope we can do in the 10 days that are left to 

make a decision? Do you think that we can make major changes in that time?

Brent Newell: We will go back and have a discussion internally.

Jared Blumenfeld: We will also, and we need to think about what we want to do. By 

next week we want to let you know what we want to do. I would want to have a month, 

but I don’t know what we are going to do yet.

Final question. Tell me about the feed. Has there been a study to reduce the emissions 

coming out of the feed? 

Tom Frantz: The system is based on maximum production, not quality of production. 

More grass provides better quality milk. Feeding the cattle better food actually reduces 

emissions.

Brent: You can enclose feed lots with air vent and then put on a biofilter. Solar panels 

above (on the roofs) can provide power for a/c.

Jared: Do you have any idea of how many facilities we might expect to see in the next 

10 years?

Brent: The tables here give you some estimate.

Closing Remarks: Jared ended the meeting by thanking the participants for attending.

Prepared by: Gerardo Rios, Chief, Air Division Permits Office, EPA Region IX

Date: April 9, 2010