May 2 5, 2012

From: Andrew Steckel Chief, Rules Office EPA Region 9 Air Division

To: Files

Re: Summary of Conference C all Discussion Regarding EPA’s Proposed SIP Approval of California Pesticide Requirements

EPA Participants: Jared Blumenfeld , Kerry Drake, Zoe Heller, Deborah Jordan, Frances Wicher, Mike Bandrowski, Debbie Lowe Liang, Andy Steckel

CVAC Participants: Kevin Hall, Brent Newell, Sarah Sharpe, Paul Cort, Tracey Brieger, Teresa DeAndra, Elizabeth Jonasson and others

Summary of Di scussion

Jared

– Tell us if anything you say on this call was not in your comment letter so we can summarize it in our notes.

Brent

— My remarks are discussed in our comment letter. We hoped EPA’s action on

the pesticide rule would reflect a turning of the page steering us away from conflict and litigation. But EPA ’s proposal appears to continue taking positions in order to not push

the S tate very hard. I will point out a few things in this proposal that strike us as particularly problematic. I know EPA has had less than 24 hours to look at our comment

letter. Three main issues are lack of enforceability, the state’s failure to dem onstrate compliance with Title VI

, and backsliding regarding the 20% reduction requirement.

Brent

– The p esticide element and SIP revision are not enforceable because they rely

on unenforceable inventory calculations and lack commitment to adopt specific

measures

. EPA s ays fumigant regulations in combination with the SIP revision make the pesticide element e nforceable , but SJV fumigants are a small part of the overall pesticides inventor y.

Jared

- We agree fumigants are only 25% of pesticides emissions, but DPR is developing similar regulations for the other 75%.

Brent

– California must demon strate that it s strateg y is not prohibited by Title VI.

Jared

– EJ and Title VI are priorities , b ut we need to better define what is needed. Can you help define what analysis States should perform for EJ and Title VI?Brent

– It is the State’s responsibility to mak e that demonstration

.

Jared

– Yes

, but un til now we have accepted relatively little it s o it would help if we all

work together to figure out something that is practical, implementable and meaningful.

Brent

-- EPA is agreeing with California that the current commitment is a 12% reduction

in SJV, but the historical documentation is clearly 20%. This is a very important issue to

us.

Theresa

– It’s not fair that SJV residents should be subject to lesser control (12%) than

others in the State.

Jared

– I’ve looked at the legal calculus that lead s to 20 % vs. 12 %

, but the main purpose

of these calls is PM2.5.

Tracey

– This is not covered in our comments, but we are f rustrated that it seems like

DPR is playing a shell game and bringing itself in compli ance by changing calculations on paper while n othing on the ground has actually changed

. We don’t have any proof

or confidence that DPR’s rules have done anything to reduce VOCs.

Jared

- Next week Kathleen Johnson and Brian Leahy are meeting with you in the Valley . You should raise these concerns with the m

.

Tracey

– This is also not covered in our comments. Ultimately, it is EPA’s responsibility to ensure that these reductions are achieved, and we want to see stronger commitment

from EPA in its action on DPR’s SIP submittal. EPA need s to take active leadership to

encourage true alternatives to fumigants by joining with California to identify safe, sustainable alternatives to fumigants and by planning to transi tion California off fumigants in the next five years. EPA should also initiate a program to identify and make

field

- ready safe alternatives to high VOC non

- fumigant pesticides. Instead of growers, advocates, and agencies continuing to clash on implementati on of VOC or other regulations, EPA should focus efforts on the true solution that we can all support: safe, least toxic alternatives to high VOC pesticides, and support for growers to adopt them. This would achieve pesticide VOC reduction targets and prev ent Title VI issues.

End of Discussion