May 25, 2012

From: Andrew Steckel

Chief, Rules Office

EPA Region 9 Air Division

To: Files

Re: Summary of Conference Call 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 Discussion

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 State 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 demonstrate 

compliance with Title VI, and backsliding regarding the 20% reduction requirement.

Brent – The pesticide element and SIP revision are not enforceable because they rely

on unenforceable inventory calculations and lack commitment to adopt specific 

measures. EPA says fumigant regulations in combination with the SIP revision make 

the pesticide element enforceable, but SJV fumigants are a small part of the overall 

pesticides inventory.

Jared - We agree fumigants are only 25% of pesticides emissions, but DPR is 

developing similar regulations for the other 75%. 

Brent – California must demonstrate that its strategy is not prohibited by Title VI.

Jared – EJ and Title VI are priorities, but 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 make that demonstration.

Jared – Yes, but until now we have accepted relatively little it so 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 leads 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 frustrated that it seems like 

DPR is playing a shell game and bringing itself in compliance by changing calculations 

on paper while nothing 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 them. 

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 needs 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 transition 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 implementation 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 prevent Title VI issues.

End of Discussion