Summary Sheet on Issue Papers February 1, 1996

Regulatory Improvement Initiative
Governor Wilson's Executive Order W-127-95
 

State of California
Pete Wilson, Governor
California Environmental Protection Agency

INTRODUCTION

The Wilson Administration has made significant strides reforming the environmental regulatory process while safeguarding and better achieving our high environmental standards. Cal/EPA's response to Governor Wilson's Executive Order W-127-95 and the November 1995 meetings chaired by Secretary James Strock throughout the State continues those advances.

An overwhelming number of our stakeholders accepted the invitation, providing Cal/EPA with invaluable insight into addressing current regulatory reform issues. We received public and written testimony from approximately 120 parties who provided more than 500 comments on existing regulatory programs and suggestions for improvement. To date, more than 90 percent of the comments received are now being incorporated into efforts by the Boards, Departments, and Offices within Cal/EPA. More than 170 issues were addressed in individual letter responses to participants -- and more than 325 issues -- were captured under the eight overarching action items in issues papers that follow. Those issues are being tracked until their completion.

Since the statewide meetings were held, Cal/EPA has:

1. Identified regulations for repeal/modification in response to the Governor Wilson's Executive Order scheduled for completion in July 1996.
   
2. Transmitted all remaining responses to Cal/EPA's Regulatory Reform Task Forces that were still outstanding, and adopted a permit applicant's Bill of Rights for Cal/EPA.
   
3. Developed action plans to work with U.S. EPA to reduce duplication and promote California perspectives in environmental protection.
   
4. Completed the SB1082 requirement to eliminate overlapping jurisdiction over water issues at hazardous waste facilities.
   
5. Used the best available science to review the requirement to pump and treat contamination from Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks to provide public participation in   consideration of change in policy.
   
6. Placed several of the over 95 applications received from local agencies on a faster track to become Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs). The first Cal/EPA hearings will occur the week of February 26, 1996, to designate the first CUPA's.
   
7. Committed to performing annual statewide regulatory improvement meetings to continue this successful process.

Regulatory reform has been a high priority for Cal/EPA since its creation in 1991. Cal/EPA continues to seek improvement initiatives which address the concerns of our stakeholders and the needs of the environment. By working together, Cal/EPA will ensure that all Californians benefit from a healthy environment and economy.

If you would like to give Cal/EPA comments on the recommendations that follow each overarching theme, or for more information from Cal/EPA's specific Board/Office/Department, please contact the following individuals:

State Water Resource Board Lead (SWRCB)
Jim Bennett.......................(916) 657-1287

Department of Toxic Substances Control Lead (DTSC)
Joe Irvin..........................(916) 324-3110

Air Resources Board Lead (ARB)
Jim Schoning.......................(916) 323-6791

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Lead (OEHHA)
Chuck Shulock......................(916) 322-6325

California Integrated Waste Management Board Lead (IWMB)
Chris Peck.........................(916) 255-2427

Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR)
Paul Gosselin......................(916) 445-3984

REGULATIONS FOR REPEAL

Based on input from stakeholders who submitted verbal and written comments at the Boards/Offices/Departments' hearings, hundreds of redundant or overly burdensome regulations will be repealed by July 1, 1996, or receive additional review for modification shortly thereafter. Title 26 was universally identified by stakeholders as not providing added value and will be repealed for Cal/EPA Boards/Offices/Departments. A fact sheet summarizing all Boards/Offices/Departments regulations for repeal and modification with dates and contact names will be placed on Cal/EPA's Internet home page access by March 1996.

TASK FORCE RESPONSES

Responses to the Metal Finishers, Aerospace, Gasoline Stations and Power Generator Task Forces have been released and are available. A key finding applicable to all regulatory areas was specifically identified during our responses to the task forces. Cal/EPA is calling it the Cal/EPA permit applicants' "Bill of Rights;" and it is because of all the time and effort that members of the task forces have given us that Cal/EPA adopts and endorses the following:

	Permit applicants have the right to know who will be reviewing their application and the time required to complete the full review process.
	Permit applicants have the right to know the projected fees for review of applications, how any costs will be determined and billed, and procedures for resolving  any disputes over fee billings.
	Permit applicants have the right of access to complete and clearly written guidance documents that explain the regulatory requirements. Agencies must publish  list of all information required in a permit application, and of criteria used to determine whether the submitted information is adequate.
	Permit applicants have the right of timely completeness determinations for their applications. In general, agencies must notify the applicant within 30 days of any deficiencies or determine that the  application is complete.
	Permit applicants have the right to know exactly how their applications are deficient and what further information is needed to make their applications complete. Further information requests from an agency are limited to only those issues identified in the original notice of deficiency.
	Permit applicants have the right of a timely decision on their permit application. The agencies are  required to establish time limits for permit reviews.
	Permit applicants have the right to appeal any permit review time limits that have been violated without good cause. For state environmental agencies, appeals are made directly to the Cal/EPA Secretary. For local environmental agencies, appeals are generally made to the local governing board or, under certain circumstances, to Cal/EPA. Through this appeal, applicants may obtain a set date for a decision on their permit and a refund of all application fees.
	Permit applicants have the right to work with a single lead agency where multiple environmental approvals are needed. For multiple permits, all agency actions can be  consolidated under a lead agency. For site remediation, all applicable laws can be administered through a single lead agency.
	Permit applicants have the right to assistance in explaining regulatory and permit requirements. All Cal/EPA programs maintain an Ombudman to work directly with applicants. Permit Assistance Centers located throughout California have permit specialists from all the State, regional, and local agencies to identify permit specialists and assist in permit processing.

Cal/EPA will be issuing a memo to all Boards/Offices/Departments to adopt the above as policy.

The following are the issue papers developed for each of the eight action items, as Cal/EPA heard them presented, followed by our discussion and recommended actions:

ACTION ITEM: CERTIFIED UNIFIED PROGRAM AGENCY (CUPA)

What Cal/EPA Heard at the Statewide Meetings:

Some of the public comments heard at the statewide meetings were concerns that the CUPA program will not be successfully implemented unless Cal/EPA exercises its review and oversight to ensure CUPAs are cost effective, consistent, and coordinated; and not unless Cal/EPA consolidates all environmental permitting and compliance responsibilities under CUPAs.

It was also mentioned that some California employers are concerned that too many CUPAs will be established, resulting in "Balkanization" and that consistency across CUPAs will not occur. Others are concerned with local capability to deliver the delegated programs through  a single point-of-contact; that CUPA costs may be excessive; and that surveillance and enforcement delivered by CUPAs may be exercised differently and cause compliance inequities for regulated entities with facilities in different jurisdictions. The cost of state oversight and the quality of training and technical assistance to CUPAs are also of concern.

Cal/EPA's Response: Consistency and Consolidation

Cal/EPA is fine-tuning the process to make CUPAs as effective as possible. They need to be given responsibility for the full range of environmental grants of authorization (currently administered by regional and state agencies) and surveillance and compliance for these programs. Cal/EPA will also work with the CUPAs to develop statewide regulatory policies in order to establish consistency and maintain a level playing field for all regulated entities.

The Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Material Management Regulatory Program

("Unified Program") created by SB 1082consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the following six programs:

1. Regulation of hazardous waste generators and hazardous waste on-site treatment;
   
2. Regulation of above-ground storage tanks (spill prevention control and counter-measure plan only);
   
3. Regulation of underground storage tanks;
   
4. Requirements for hazardous material release response plan and inventories;
   
5. Regulation of acutely hazardous materials; and
   
6. Requirements for California fire code hazardous material management plans and inventories.

The program provides for consolidation of permits into a single permit application package, a single point-of-local-contact for permit application, single fee, single inspection, and use  of a statewide contingency plan format. Timely review, decision practices, and an efficient  method of transmitting the permit will be part of the Consolidated Permit Program.

A local (i.e. county, city, or joint power agency) CUPA is given the responsibility for implementing the program within each jurisdiction. Applications were due January 1, 1996, and certifications will be completed by January 1, 1997.

To develop the CUPAs in accordance with the statutory requirements and to meet the concerns of regulatory agencies and regulated entities, Cal/EPA has taken the following steps:

1. Convened a 36-member Advisory Committee consisting of representatives from state and local governments, regulated entities, and interest groups to develop Unified Program regulations.
   
2. Assisted six subcommittees to focus on specific program elements.
   
3. Established a statewide Unified Program Workgroup to develop standards for CUPA application, intended to avoid "Balkanization" and to assure consistency in CUPA implementation statewide.
   
4. Formed a Local Unified Program Implementation Committee (LUPIC) consisting of potential CUPA representatives to address and resolve local issues. This committee is advising Cal/EPA on implementation issues including program consistency, the application process, and cost control.  LUPIC has also formed a training subcommittee to focus on the short-term and long-term training needs of the CUPAs. 
   
5. Formed a statewide policy committee composed of the involved state agencies to resolve policy issues.
   
6. Developed a CUPA Application Guidance Document and provided training sessions across the state for potential CUPAs to assisting them in completing their application packages.
   
7. Identified DTSC regional liaisons to assist applicants in developing their applications.
   
8. Developed Application Reviewer's Guidance to assure statewide consistency in the review of CUPA applications.
   
9. Instituted a State surcharge fee accountability program to insure a fee accountability program prior to the assessment of the State surcharge.
   
10. Convened a Forms and Data Subcommittee of the LUPIC to develop proposals to simplify and standardize applications, reporting, and other paper work. 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

To increase coordination and communication with stakeholders and CUPA applicants, DTSC on behalf of Cal/EPA, will complete the following:

1. Provide Internet access to all guidance documents and training materials developed to date by March 1996.
   
2. With LUPIC and other interested parties and committees, identify and resolve issues of concern. Make available on the Internet by March 1996, minutes and schedules for LUPIC and other public meetings concerning CUPA, and update on a monthly basis.
   
3. Develop a process for identifying, monitoring, prioritizing, and resolving in a timely manner any issues, concerns and needs for additional information to make the Unified   Program more effective. Provide proposals through the Internet by August 1996.
   
4. Through the Pilot Permit Consolidation Zones (SB 1299), evaluate whether there are additional programs that can be placed under CUPAs, such as corrective action. Provide through the Internet a framework for the pilot program by December 1996.
   
5. In concert with LUPIC, develop necessary training programs to ensure successful implementation of the CUPA program.  Provide a draft outline of training needs on the Internet by June 1996.

ACTION ITEM: SINGLE POINT-OF-CONTACT

What Cal/EPA Heard at the Statewide Meetings:

Public comments also indicated concerns that the myriad of statutes and regulations administered by federal, state, regional, and local environmental agencies overlap and lead to uneven application of regulations and standards.

A major concern of commentors was the lack of a single point-of-contact for environmental permitting and compliance needs. The often labyrinth permit approval process for manufacturing facilities or those in the business of handling hazardous waste has been labeled as confusing, and contradictory. Likewise, compliance efforts and pollution prevention actions may be stalled due to a simple lack of understanding about all that is required.

Another concern addressed at the public meetings was that California's state, regional, and local environmental regulatory agencies are not organized, nor are regulatory processes established in such as way as to create a single point-of-contact for a regulated entity seeking a grant of authorization. 

Multiple environmental permits and grants of authorization exist and apply to any given activity or facility. Agencies have overlapping authority, and the regulatory processes currently in place require submittal of multiple applications for the authorization/permitting of a specific facility or activity.

Agencies also carry out independent surveillance and enforcement programs. Cal/EPA's Response - Permitting and Compliance Cal/EPA continues to focus on the issue of a single point-of-contact for the regulated community, from removing areas of overlap in permit determinations and inspection patterns, to resolving regulatory interpretations and working with permit applicants to achieve consistency in the process.

Below are the major programs already under way and a description of their present status. All of these programs have the objective of establishing a single point-of-contact. 

Regulatory Assistance

In order to assist permit applicants in dealing with the multitude of regulatory requirements, Governor Wilson has established, and for several years has operated, Permit Assistance Centers (PACs) in major metropolitan areas of California. The PACs bring together state, county, and local regulatory agencies so that permitting information for regulated entities seeking to open or expand their operations is available in one place. The PAC concept is expected to continue to grow so that all regions of the state are served. The PACs are also expected to play a role in the development and implementation of SB 1299, leading to facility permitting through facility compliance plans.

Consolidated Environmental Permit Process (SB 1185)

In September 1995, Cal/EPA established the Consolidated Permit Process regulations pursuant to SB 1185. The Consolidated Permit Process is a voluntary process that an applicant can use to request the Secretary for Environmental Protection to select a consolidated permit agency to help facilitate the issuance of environmental permits required for the applicant's project.

Designation of Principal State Agency (SB 297)

Provides that if a principal agency is not designated by statute, one shall be by the Governor for coordination of procedures, permits, forms, and deadlines. 

Alternatives to Individual Permits

Cal/EPA is initiating a pilot program for facility permitting (SB 1299) that replaces individual permits with a single comprehensive compliance assurance plan.   Regulations are being developed for this program in coordination with State agencies and in consultation with representatives of cities, counties, local environmental agencies, and regulated community and environmental groups.

Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Material Management

Regulatory Program (SB 1082)

This program, carried out by the Certified Unified Program Agencies, is on schedule to transition the coordination and consolidation of six hazardous waste and material\ management functions by January 1, 1997. (See the overarching theme,"Certified Unified Program Agency").

Consistency for Air Pollution Control and Related

Permitting ARB does not issue permits; rather ARB efforts to streamline the permitting   process includes its involvement with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and its active participation in CAPCOA's Permit Streamlining Subcommittee. To date, the Subcommittee has established training for consultants and a draft statewide permit application form.

The Subcommittee has distributed this application form to districts for testing and is considering developing supplemental forms. ARB also responds to requests from regulated entities that must obtain permits in more than one air district. Ultimately, ARB hopes that the common or more consistent statewide application form being developed in CAPCOA would allow all regulated entities to file permit applications electronically.

In addition, ARB is developing a statewide equipment pre-certification program. This program will allow equipment manufacturers to have their equipment's performance pre- certified by the individual air districts.

Public Participation and Permitting Decisions

DTSC's Public Participation office released its Policies and Procedures Manual in July 1994 to clarify the objective of public participation policy in the facility permit process. The manual went through extensive internal as well as public review and comment. DTSC continues to find that the most effective manner of ensuring consistent application of state and federal public participation requirements is with a single program providing management and expertise in coordination with the permitting function. SB 1299 also requires Cal/EPA to work with local agencies to ensure full public participation in the new facility compliance plan process.

Response - Interagency Duplication Review and Elimination

Duplicative and overlapping regulations are undergoing a steady review and streamlining process in order to better serve the goals of environmental protection and the needs of the regulated community. In recent months, several key initiatives to reduce interagency duplication have been achieved:

DTSC and Water Resources Control Board Overlap Reduction

Framework

SB 1082 required Cal/EPA to develop a process to eliminate duplication between DTSC and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) at certain hazardous waste facilities. DTSC and SWRCB/RWQCB have recently developed a framework that provides for implementation of RWQCB waste discharge requirements through the hazardous waste facility permit. DTSC will perform the inspection and enforcement  of all permit requirements. For facilities where the RWQCB is exercising significant oversight of corrective action, the framework proposes that the RWQCB continues its oversight as long as it is RCRA-equivalent work. For other facilities, DTSC will be the lead. Additionally, the framework allows the Cal/EPA designation of oversight agency to be appealed. This framework is now being implemented.

Solid Waste Disposal Regulation Consistency Between the IWMB and SWRCB

This regulatory overlap was resolved with the passage of AB 1220. The goal of AB 1220 is to improve the regulation of solid waste disposal in the following ways:

1. By maintaining a clear and concise division of authority and responsibility to remove all areas of overlap, duplication, and conflict between the IWMB and the SWRCB without reducing current state minimum standards for environmental protection;
   
2. By consolidating regulations for these sites;
   
3. By streamlining the process for obtaining a full solid waste facilities permit, including consolidating the required technical reports;
   
4. By clarifying and removing overlap in the roles of the local enforcement agency and the   IWMB; and,
   
5. By studying the feasibility of combining financial assurance mechanisms for operating liability and corrective action.

IWMB and SWRCB have developed draft regulations implementing AB 1220 and have facilitated interagency coordination. The draft regulations are now being reviewed   internally, and an informal external review is planned prior to the formal notice of the rulemaking.

Other Examples

Another example of efforts by DPR to eliminate interagency overlap is the Management Agency Agreement with the SWRCB.  (See overarching theme," Consistency.")

DPR and the Department of Health Services (DHS) have both regulated the use of copper sulfate. DPR has the statutory authority to regulate copper sulfate as a pesticide, and recently filed an emergency regulation in order to require additional labeling requirements. DPR can be considered the single point-of-contact in such instances.

The "Regulatory Structure Update" (RSU) project was initiated in Summer 1995 by DTSC. The RSU project evaluates all aspects of California's hazardous waste management regulatory program which differ from the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program.

Evaluations will be made for each area where California exceeds or differs from the federal program to either retain, modify, or eliminate the State requirement/standard. Any changes in the California regulatory program will be based on thorough review and assessment of the need of that element of the program to the Department's mission of protection of public health and environment, any duplication with other federal, state and local agencies, and its effectiveness. The RSU project and its tasks will be completed by June 1997 with many areas being addressed much earlier. The RSU project will address many specific issues raised by commentors, including regulation of low-risk facilities and waste streams, the permitting program, the role of cost-benefit analysis, duplicative requirements, and the role of Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW).

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Work with U.S. EPA to minimize overlap of RCRA Subtitle C and Clean Water Act NPDES program, SWRCB lead.
   
2. Continue to identify overlapping local permits and resolve though the consolidated permit program of the SB 1082 Unified Program, DTSC lead.
   
3. Expand the number of Permit Assistance Centers (PAC's) and ensure that they continue to provide service information and direction covering a multitude of environmental and permitting programs. Two new PAC's will open in Kern and Contra Costa Counties in the first quarter of 1996.
   
4. Cal/EPA Boards and Departments will continue their commitment to the implementation of existing efforts to streamline and reduce duplication among programs. It shall be an ongoing priority of each Board and Department to identify new initiatives that will provide more coordinated delivery of services to the regulated community.

ACTION ITEM: FEES

What Cal/EPA Heard at the Statewide Meetings:

Public comments also indicated that the multiplicity of fees and the unclear basis of their amounts render the regulated community confused as to what services they are paying for and why. Comments took aim at the perceptions held of the state's environmental fees -- that the fees are too compartmentalized among the environmental agencies, that fee levels are too high, that fee rules are too complex, and that the fees seem to be tied to perpetuating programs for the programs' sake instead of achieving environmental protection or regulatory compliance.

Concerns were expressed over the complexity of the fee system's rules and terminology combined with frequent changes to the system is confusing to fee payers. In developing environmental laws and regulations, the Legislature has taken a piecemeal approach to funding various programs, without incorporating a systematic review to identify confusing or duplicative fees. In recent years, and as with other governmental initiatives, the Legislature has chosen to fund environmental programs through special taxes and user fees and has reduced or eliminated other funding sources, such as bonds and General Fund. (For example, DTSC is funded by 28 different fees.) In spite of attempts to simplify the fee system through efforts such as AB 1906 (Chapter 637, Statutes of 1995) which addresses consolidated fee billings, environmental fees have become increasingly complex.   Cal/EPA's Response -- Fee Structure Complexity During the last legislative session, SB 1222 (Chapter 638, Statutes of 1995) was passed which offers a new attempt to simplify the fee system.

SB 1222 requires that the Secretary for Environmental Protection establish a task force to review the existing hazardous waste fee structure of DTSC and recommend a new streamlined fee system by January 1, 1997. The bill also created a small but significant structural change for disposal fees by directing that the fee be paid at the waste facility, and allowing DTSC to contract with other agencies to collect fees other than only through the Board of Equalization.

Fee Incentives

Another message conveyed through comments to Cal/EPA concerned the public's conviction that government should not have a financial incentive to enhance its revenues by assessing penalties. When revenues decline, government should reduce programs, or find more efficient processes rather than increase fee rates. Similarly, fees should decline or be eliminated as program goals are achieved.

Specific concerns were voiced over ARB's Air Toxic Hot Spots and source testing program; solid waste operations fees going to correct shortcomings in industry programs; the use of closure funds in bankruptcy cases; promptness with "Hot Spots" risk assessment guideline development; and public access to records reflecting fee accountability requirements. 

Response - Fee Incentives

Commentors expressed the desire to see program reductions if revenues decline and when program goals have been achieved.  Cal/EPA and its boards and departments have worked to identify activities of limited duration which were suitable candidates for funding through activity fees, fee-for-service, or cost reimbursement programs. The key characteristics of those new funding mechanisms is that funding is only provided in the amount necessary and for the time period necessary to accomplish a specific objective. In recent years, DTSC has eliminated most Site Mitigation fees and replaced them with reimbursement agreements or cost recovery. DTSC Permitting activities are now funded through either fee-for-service agreements or activity fees at the discretion of the regulated community.

DTSC also reduced staff positions as a result of fee revenue declines in its HWCA fund. Commentors also expressed concerns regarding the Air Toxic Hot Spots Program's requirements including fees, emissions inventory and source testing. ARB staff have proposed a two-phased approach to further streamline the Hot Spots Program. Phase I is a proposal for fiscal year 1995-96 in which the State fees will be cut by about one-third from last year and a 50 percent reduction from two years ago. Many lower risk facilities will be exempted from paying any fee this year; those facilities remaining in the program will realize a 20 percent reduction in state fees. ARB approved this staff recommendation at its January 25, 1996 hearing. Phase II of the streamlined effort to be considered by ARB in June 1996, will be aimed at both further fee exemptions and reductions as well as streamlining of the emissions inventory reporting requirements.

The expressed concern over source testing requirements is being addressed by ARB. Currently, most regulated entities only need to perform source testing once. However, ARB has hired a contractor to develop emission factors based on current source testing data. The goal of this contract is to develop emission factors that can be used by most regulated entities and thereby eliminate the need for further source testing to determine emissions.

To keep costs to employers as low as possible, this contract is not being funded through program fees. The contract work has been completed and is scheduled to go before the Research Screening Committee in February 1996. Solid waste disposal fees currently support a broad variety of programs to benefit both industry and local governments, and are obligated to meet specific requirements under the Integrated Waste Management Act. The programs include funds to remediate closed, illegal and abandoned solid waste sites; funds to support employer activities through low-interest loans and grants; funds to support local programs to address oversight of solid waste issues; funds to support the establishment or expansion of Household Hazardous Waste Programs. Funding also currently supports local government efforts to meet statutory mandates to divert 25 percent of solid waste stream from landfilling and transformation by 1995 (which was achieved), and 50 percent by the year 2000.

With respect to the effect of bankruptcy on a closure fund at a hazardous waste facility, the closure fund is one method for a permitted facility to provide financial assurance that when it closes all necessary actions will be taken to safeguard the environment and public health. If that facility enters bankruptcy and no other funds are available for proper closure, the money in the closure fund will be used. If a closure fund is not fully funded at the time of bankruptcy, additional funds may be sought through the bankruptcy proceedings.

Another comment expressed concern that SB 1731 is not being implemented on schedule. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has expedited this process. Exposure assessment and uncertainty analysis guidelines are being developed with an external advisory group. Staff anticipate release for public comment by September 1996. 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. As part of the State budget process and the CUPA process for setting the Single Fee Surcharge, all Cal/EPA agencies receiving Single Fee Surcharge funds are required to annually submit information to the Secretary and to the Legislature regarding proposed expenditures. The tentative total State Surcharge for CUPA oversight will be available to the public for review through the Internet by March 1996, DTSC lead.
   
2. In accordance with SB 1469, DTSC has completed its fee accountability report which is available for public review and will be placed on the Internet February 1996, DTSC lead.
   
3. Pursuant to SB 1082, a Cal/EPA directed fee accountability review of specified board and department fees is currently in process and will be issued as a public report on the Internet in May 1996, SWRCB lead.
   
4. Cal/EPA and its Boards and Departments should develop strategies to better communicate to stakeholders the disposition of fee structures and program, including but not limited to providing a fee-related special publication, to be completed by June 1996, DTSC lead.
   
5. By June 1996, staff training will be designed that educates staff about the various fees, and the distinction between fees and the program fulfillment for which it is generated, ARB lead.
   
6. ARB exempted lower risk facilities from the Hot Spots Program in January 1996, and by June 1996, will streamline reporting requirements for remaining facilities in the Hot Spots Program. OEHHA will provide for public comment exposure assessment and uncertainty assessment guidelines for the Hot Spots Programs by September 1996. These actions will result in cost-saving measures for facilities in the program.

ACTION ITEM: CONSISTENCY

What Cal/EPA Heard at the Statewide Meetings:

Other public commentors were concerned that there is inconsistency of regulation, policy, procedure, guidance, approach and/or terminology associated with Cal/EPA agency activities. Consistency and coordination need to be increased. 

Commentors focused on several different areas of inconsistency that were problematic to them. First, there were issues of inconsistency between Federal/State, State/State and State/local agencies. Different agencies regulating the same discharger approached regulation and enforcement in different ways resulting in conflict, confusion or extra cost.

Some of these issues directly related to overlap between agencies (see "Single   Point-of-Contact" paper for more detail), but many cited inconsistency among activities that were performed by only one agency, but related to another. Second, were issues of consistent data submittal; many want to explore single permit, monitoring or background data submittal to State agencies.

Closer coordination between agencies was widely cited as a way to reduce inconsistency, as was clearer role definition, additional guidance, centralization, regulatory structure reform, and training.

Cal/EPA Response:

Since its creation in 1991, Cal/EPA has been aggressively reducing areas of inconsistency between its Boards and Departments. Substantial progress towards identification and resolution of inconsistencies has been made through efforts such as the Regulatory Reform workshops and by initiating external reviews of the Boards and Departments. These efforts, which include DTSC's 90-day Review and the SWRCB's External Program Review, DPR registration and Proposition 65 reviews resulted or are resulting in changes in legislation, regulation, policy and procedures.

SWRCB External Program Review and DTSC 90-day Review both highlighted areas of interagency inconsistency that needed to be addressed. Specific to these were areas of inconsistency as a result of (1) overlap and (2) differing interpretations, mandates or procedures. Particular focusses were inconsistency between DTSC/SWRCB, IWMB/SWRCB, SWRCB/DHS. As a result, numerous changes have been made to (1) identify a single point-of-contact focus in order to reduce the numbers of reviewed and reviews which might lead to inconsistency (see "Single Point-of-Contact" issue paper) and (2) increase the clarity and coordination of regulatory responsibilities and procedures.

Discussions and appropriate documentation to clarify roles has led to closer coordination of agencies. A number of significant improvements to regulatory and procedural processes have been made or are under way.

These include:

	Additional Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) or
	Management Agency Agreements (MAAs) between agencies clarifying responsibilities and procedures (e.g., DHS and SWRCB MOU on reclaimed water guidelines, dated January 1996 and the DPR and SWRCB MAA regarding pesticide responsibilities, in draft review).
	Contractual agreements between agencies, e.g., changes to the process for Department of Defense (DOD) site review initiated August 9, 1993; DTSC lead on one-voice resolution of DOD issues and much closer coordination and formalized process of interagency site review and mitigation requirements); and SWRCB as lead   on San Francisco Bay Dredging.
	Changes in regulatory requirements, e.g., coordinated AB 1220 (Chapter 656, Statutes of 1993) regulation revisions of SWRCB and IWMB, draft public review scheduled July 1996; revisions to SWRCB Chapter 15 regulations to clarify designated waste disposal, expected July 1997.
	Changes in permits, e.g., water suppliers statewide general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to (1) consistently regulate numerous similar types of discharges and (2) clarify responsibilities of water suppliers for intermittent discharges to surface waters from normal day to day operations (SWRCB public hearings on May 3, 1995 and August 31, 1995; SWRCB Workshop January 3, 1996).
	Increased joint agency guidance documents, e.g., DTSC/SWRCB/RWQCB prepared Cal/EPA guidance manuals for ground water investigations (July 1995).

Some Specific Examples of Consistency Efforts at Cal/EPA Boards and Departments:

1. DPR and SWRCB MAA. The MAA is an important interagency agreement that clarifies responsibilities and serves as a public information document. DPR and SWRCB are currently finalizing this document which will outline procedures to ensure that the state response to water quality impacts from pesticides will be handled in a uniform manner.  The two organizations will coordinate their authorities to eliminate overlapping activities, duplication of effort and inconsistent action. The process will ensure that all pesticides registered in California will be used in a manner that will protect water quality and the beneficial uses of water, while at the same time, provide effective, environmentally sound pest management.
   
2. SWRCB External Program Review (EPR) recommendations (June, 1994). The EPR specifically suggested that the SWRCB increase the coordination and consistency of actions within the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The SWRCB is using  several mechanisms to bring about consistency. First, it established an Office of Statewide Consistency to coordinate internal review/analysis of consistency issues, the Ombudsmen function, Strategic Planning, training and quality improvement. Through this combination, the Office receives both Board and stakeholder input as to consistency issues, provides a focal point for consistency evaluation, serves a key coordination and prioritization function, and guides the Boards in training and quality team solutions to consistency issues.
   
   Second, SWRCB is actively pursuing additional policy and guidance to direct consistency. Two current efforts of particular note are: (1) The SWRCB's draft enforcement policy to establish a level playing field for the public and regulated community, and (2) draft proposals to establish a more uniform Regional Board approach to ground water cleanup (Resolution 92-49, public hearing held November 1995). Board adoption scheduled for consideration in April 1996.
   
3. IWMB Local Enforcement Agencies. IWMB deals extensively with local agencies to accomplish their work. These local enforcement agencies (LEAs) are vital to the program. To ensure consistency, IWMB provides training to the LEAs and issues publications as guidance known as "LEA Advisories."
   
4. Electronic Bulletin Boards. Cal/EPA and each of the Boards and Departments have implemented or are in the process of establishing electronic bulletin boards that provide guidance and information to the public. These serve to both increase understanding of the programs and to increase consistency of the entire regulatory  process. DTSC has been aggressive in their efforts to load critical guidance documents and management memoranda on their bulletin boards. The SWRCB and RWQCBs have five electronic bulletin boards which provide timely public access to documents under review and most often requested.
   
5. Local and Wide-area Networks. SWRCB and RWQCBs are also establishing a much more advanced electronic communication system (through Local and Wide-area Networks) to increase the flow of information internally and externally (targeted for Fall/Winter of 1996). This advance should substantially increase consistency through better communication and access to guidance.
   
6. Single Permit, Single Data Submittal. Cal/EPA recently started an effort to identify the types of information requests made to the public with the intent being to identify those that might lend themselves to single submittal or electronic submittal (Governor   Wilson's Council on Information Technology Recommendation #4).  Cal/EPA programs are acting as the pilot with the expectation that the effort will be expanded Statewide. In addition, individual Boards and Departments are attempting to simplify their permitting processes. For example, the SWRCB and a RWQCB are piloting an electronic data submittal process during 1996 and working to standardize common forms for easier use.
   
7. Increased Intra-Cal/EPA Agency Data Access. Cal/EPA has also initiated a contract with a consultant to review the information and data needs of the Cal/EPA agencies (contract completion estimated 1996). As more Cal/EPA agencies co-locate, Cal/EPA is attempting to streamline the data needs and increase communication between agencies electronically.
   
   This increased access will serve to increase coordination and consistency. Findings will be incorporated into the SB 1299 process. (See "Single Point-of-Contact" issue paper).

Many commentors expressed a need for both better coordination of data and agency staff themselves. Inconsistent approaches may be inherent in different statutory goals/missions of the organizations. However, some problematic inconsistency appears to reflect a lack of procedural or different technical understandings by the regulators. While electronic media can increase communication, commentors felt that additional mechanisms needed to be   explored or optimized in order to provide clear direction to the regulated community.

Increased coordination of state-federal, state-state and state-local agencies were all cited. Some of these can be addressed by increased attention to single point-of-contact, but some  will require more focused efforts of Boards and Departments to identify and resolve the problematic areas. Additional specific issues raised by the Regulatory Reform effort have  been referred to the specific agencies for written response.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Continue to identify consistency issues through the Cal/EPA Ombudsmen forums and in the case of SWRCB, through the SWRCB's Office of Statewide Consistency. To ensure interagency issues are jointly addressed, establish a biannual Cal/EPA's Omsbudsmen forum to highlight issues raised by Cal/EPA Boards and Departments, other agencies or stakeholders. Forums to be held in May and October 1996, DTSC lead.
   
2. Put Board/Department/Office strategic plan update schedules on the Internet by March 1996, SWRCB  lead.
   
3. Establish a process and publicize on the Internet to prioritize consistency issues with other resource demands annually in the individual Board or Department Strategic Plan Update process, May 1996, SWRCB lead.
   
4. Through the Cal/EPA training officer forums develop a plan to increase Board and Department focus on technical training and guidance for both staff and the regulated community; work with the Boards and Departments to secure funding to offer more widespread partnership training and videos and to identify electronic means of guidance transfer. Identify appropriate cross training opportunities to increase consistency between Boards and Departments. Detail the plan on the Internet for comments June 1996, ARB lead.
   
5. Increase staff focus on customer service and proactive responses to identified consistency issues, through a plan developed by the Cal/EPA quality coordinators. Plan to be completed by June 1996, ARB lead.
   
6. Regularly report progress to stakeholders on consistency-focused quality team efforts and Cal/EPA efforts to increase electronic submittals of information and to increase information flow between agencies; use Cal/EPA Reports, trade journals, electronic bulletin boards to communicate. Progress reports made in May and December on the Internet, Agency lead.
   
7. Through the enforcement coordination workgroup, review Boards' and Departments' enforcement policies for consistency, with reports annually in June on the Internet. IWMB lead.
   
8. The DPR/SWRCB MAA will be signed and placed on Internet by April 1996, DPR lead.
   
9. Publish the findings of the Intra-Cal/EPA Agency Data Access Study on the Internet by September 1996, DTSC lead.

ACTION ITEM: COMPLIANCE AND REGULATORY PROCESSES

What Cal/EPA Heard at the Statewide Meetings:

Another comment from the public forum was that Cal/EPA should maintain a responsive, proactive relationship with industry that emphasizes public education, compliance assistance, and customer service. Regulatory programs should include market incentives.

Public comments emphasized the need for regulatory agencies to be responsive in a number of ways, including: provide education and accessible information to industry on environmental requirements; provide consistent and accessible guidance on compliance and
assist industry with solutions for compliance; ensure that staff are technically familiar with the industries and are responsive to customer needs; and use market-based incentives and
performance-based standards instead of command and control regulations. Public education was also suggested as a way to address the problem of polarization of employers and public interest groups.

A common theme in the public comments was the need for regulatory agencies to educate and assist regulated entities with environmental requirements. Comments were made regarding fear of regulators, overwhelming regulations, and not treating small employers the same as large employers. There was concern that the agencies do not provide employers easy access to the information they need. Specific suggestions such as publicly accessible tracking systems were mentioned, as was a matrix identifying agencies' personnel by responsibility. Support for Ombudsmen programs was expressed.

Several commentors suggested that regulatory agencies should provide clear and simple explanations of compliance geared toward specific industries. Consistent and accessible guidance is needed for compliance. Post-implementation review of regulations was recommended. Regulatory agencies need to interpret regulations in terms that enable the regulated industry to understand what is required for compliance. Staff should provide regulated entities with solutions for environmental problems rather than just focus on environmental compliance. 

Establishing partnerships between employers and regulators was suggested with the comment that punitive enforcement does not provide better compliance. It was suggested that there is too much emphasis on written process instead of practical applications in the field, and that the differences between urban and rural areas be recognized when setting compliance goals. A refocus of compliance efforts away from enforcement and penalties and towards incentives for voluntary compliance was recommended. Impartial mediation to avoid litigation was recommended.

Cal/EPA was asked to be proactive in pressing U.S. EPA to change federal requirements that place burdens on California regulated entities but do not provide environmental benefits. Comments and questions were raised regarding compliance with specific water quality requirements related to stormwater and flood control facilities. Some commentors proposed that Cal/EPA take certain actions that fall within local, not state (Cal/EPA), jurisdiction.

Several commentors expressed the need for permit reform. Other related comments included the need for deadlines for agency action on permits, alternatives such as permit by rule, and the need for permitting flexibility during natural disasters, the need for waivers for some routine activities involving flood control facilities. A comment was made that hazardous waste compliance activities divert resources from permitting. Comments were made that Proposition 65 encourages a citizen-suit mentality and that there is a problem with frivolous lawsuits.

A comment was made that through a reform process regulations can be made stronger and more effective as well as easier to understand. Another commentor indicated that process changes already in place have resulted in quicker local review and issuance of environmental permits. A comment was made that process improvements should focus on solid waste regulations, not the underlying waste diversion goals.

Cal/EPA's Response - Compliance Assistance

Cal/EPA strives to achieve compliance with environmental regulations through a strong enforcement program coupled with an active compliance assistance program. Cal/EPA's agencies have increased their business assistance and compliance assistance outreach programs. These efforts are aimed at strengthening the partnership between regulated entities and Cal/EPA Boards and Departments.

Cal/EPA also continues to work closely with the regulated community to find solutions to problems with federal programs that provide no environmental benefit to California. A high priority is to address duplicative federal requirements. One success story is the federal air permitting program (Title V) which has been scaled back dramatically to reduce duplication.

Cal/EPA continues to expand its compliance assistance efforts.  One successful program is ARB's Compliance Assistance Program (CAP), which was initiated in 1988. The CAP program provides assistance and information to regulated entities, the public, and regulatory agency personnel by publishing source-specific technical inspection manuals, self-inspection handbooks, and pamphlets designed to increase understanding of regulations, industrial processes, and air pollution control equipment.

DTSC is engaging in several efforts to reduce compliance barriers and improve voluntary industry compliance. They include implementing the Tiered Permitting Program and the Industry Assistance Program. The efforts are based on sound, scientifically-developed and clearly stated standards, requirements, and guidance.

DTSC is pursuing its goal of fully implementing its "Compliance Continuum." The Compliance Continuum encourages compliance with environmental laws and regulations through education, information, guidance, a variety of compliance inspections, and strong enforcement. Two recent compliance assistance efforts from this continuum are discussed below:

Working closely with facility operators, DTSC revised its self-audit checklist for Permanent Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facilities (PHHWCF's). DTSC first held workshops with PHHWCF owners and operators to get the industry's suggestions for checklist revisions. Over 50 participants submitted verbal and written comments. Using these comments, DTSC published a revised checklist on March 31, 1995. PHHWCF operators have indicated that the resulting checklist is a user-friendly, effective tool for self-audits.

DTSC's "Military Base Closure Compliance Initiative" was developed to help closing military bases identify and correct hazardous waste problems before initiating inspection activities. DTSC provided background information that each Base could use to conduct a self-audit prior to scheduled DTSC inspections. The subsequent inspections found very few violations, the majority of which were minor in nature.

The State and Regional Water Quality Control Board's Strategic Plan, adopted on June 22, 1995, recognizes the need to "promote cooperative relationships and better assist the regulated community and public" as an integral element of its water resource protection mission. A main component of the plan is to increase the amount and quality of guidance available to the regulated community and public.

To reach this goal, the SWRCB has already begun work on the Plan's Compliance Assistance Initiative. Specific activities to be undertaken in this area include: reviewing existing policy descriptions and guidance documents, identifying topics for which new publications or updates are needed, and developing a series of short questions and answer publications in response to needs identified through this review. Regional Boards provide outreach services to assist in compliance, including newsletters.   Most waste management enforcement responsibilities are assigned to local government entities known as "local enforcement agencies" (LEAs). IWMB's compliance assistance activities include providing training to LEAs to ensure consistent enforcement statewide. IWMB also works closely with the regulated community when drafting new regulations. This cooperative process helps produce regulations that protect the environment, and also increases overall regulatory compliance.  IWMB has greatly increased its publication of "LEA Advisories", producing 35 such bulletins in the past two years. These bulletins provide LEAs and facility operators with written explanations and interpretations of IWMB regulations. IWMB does not provide facility operator training directly, but it does work with industry trade associations as they develop training programs for their members.

OEHHA does not have direct enforcement responsibilities, but the office provides information necessary for the implementation of Proposition 65. OEHHA has initiated regulatory reforms to address several aspects of Proposition 65, including mechanisms for   removing listed chemicals, and a clarification of the "citizen suit" provisions (related to lawsuits). The proposed changes are designed improve and clarify the regulations while maintaining the integrity of the Proposition 65 program. As part of its regulatory reform effort, OEHHA is also developing a pamphlet to describe the Proposition 65 program. The guiding idea behind Cal/EPA's compliance assistance efforts is the belief that industry will better comply with environmental regulations if the requirements are clearly understood. The compliance assistance approach, with the backstop of a strong enforcement program, continues to be successful. Civil and criminal penalties serve as a deterrent and Cal/EPA enforces the law equally, without fear or favor, to ensure a level playing field for California regulated entities. 

Timely action on permits is of the highest priority for Cal/EPA Boards and Departments. Cal/EPA's permit assistance centers throughout the state and the ARB's Small Business Assistance Program also provide compliance assistance and permitting information. Other initiatives include development of industry specific permit applications by the SWRCB, added flexibility in IWMB permits to address natural disasters, and joint efforts by ARB and air districts to streamline air permits. 

Staff Training and Customer Service

There were several comments addressing the nature of staff interactions with the public and industry. These include comments that: staff were unresponsive, staff attitudes must change, statewide meetings should be held farther north than the Bay Area, and regulators and inspectors should communicate better with and be more responsive to their clients (customers). There was also concern that staff turnover in agencies caused delays for industry. Mandatory customer service training was recommended for all staff, as was an emphasis on cross-training.

Better public education of both environmentalists and industry was suggested as a way to avoid the polarization of the two groups. Examples included better communication of risk assessment information, putting available Permit Assistance Center information on the Internet, and holding technical conferences regularly in order to educate the public. Several commentators expressed interest in continuing to be involved in the Regulatory Improvement Initiative.  The concept of improved staff training encompassed both technical and customer service training (see "Overarching Theme: Consistency, Recommendations"). Industry was concerned that Cal/EPA staff should have strong qualifications, understand environmental requirements and how they apply to specific facilities, need better education and interagency communication regarding Permit by Rule (PBR), and exhibit greater responsiveness in providing regulated entities with information and solutions to environmental problems. There also were comments that decision-making should be delegated down so that line staff can have the authority to make decisions.  

Related comments addressed staff issues such as interpretation of regulation and impractical approaches to site inspections. Staff should not let personal bias affect interpretations of regulations and should appreciate real world constraints in site inspections. Concern was expressed that staff need better training in order to understand the industries they are inspecting.

Response - Staff and Customer Technical Training

California regulated entities must comply with numerous requirements to protect public health and the environment. It is Cal/EPA's responsibility to ensure that regulated entities have the information needed to effectively and efficiently meet those requirements. Several Cal/EPA initiatives are under way to ensure that information about environmental programs  and requirements is provided to affected regulated entities and the public.

Providing quality service with a focus on customer needs is the key element of Cal/EPA's Quality Improvement Initiative. The goals and commitments of this effort are outlined in Cal/EPA's Quality Implementation Plan. The senior management teams from each Board and Department have committed to carry out Cal/EPA's customer service and quality goals. These goals include more outreach to each agency's customers and staff training to ensure quality improvements.  Technical training for staff is provided by all Cal/EPA Boards and Departments. In almost all cases the primary focus of training is to increase technical competence and ensure that legal requirements are consistently applied. In some cases, such as permitting classes, there is also emphasis on understanding the subtleties of applying legal requirements to different kinds of industries or other source categories.

Courses also include concepts of "professionalism" to ensure staff are well prepared to perform their jobs.  ARB's technical training has grown to include staff of other agencies and an expansive outreach program to industry. ARB actively markets all its courses to industry by announcements through trade groups and associations in areas of the state where such training is planned. Upcoming training plans and schedules are announced in the ARB's quarterly Business Environment Topics Newsletter mailed to over 4000 businesses and associations.  ARB courses are set up at three levels: Series 100 or basic level courses covers basic and general introduction to legal requirements, processes, and techniques.

Examples include basic classes in meteorology, sampling techniques, and air pollution chemistry. Series 200 classes are advanced technical courses geared to specific industries and processes. Examples include courses for open burning activities, surface coating operations and hot mix asphalt plants. In these courses, students - regulators and industry - learn together and work shoulder to shoulder in hands-on projects. Series 300 courses include seminars and workshops addressing current issues and controversies. Recent programs have included cross-media training and mutual settlement seminars. 

IWMB certifies local agencies (county, environmental) as its local enforcement agencies (LEAs), trains the local staff in their duties, and monitors their performance. Basic training of the LEA staff is through an enforcement class which focuses on developing technical skills and consistent application of legal requirements to solid waste disposal facilities.

Supplemental classes are given in specific areas, for example to enhance understanding of CEQA or of composing requirements, or to communicate requirements of new laws or regulations. In addition to IWMB training of LEA staff, the Board sponsors college level training in proper design of landfills. Participants are mainly LEA staff, but industry staff often attend. Board staff also participate as instructors in industry training conducted by the Solid Waste Association of North America.

Most technical/scientific training provided by the SWRCB is done to better enhance the ability of State and Regional Water Board staff to administer legal and technical program requirements in a lawful, efficient and consistent manner. The Water Boards' Strategic Plan contains five Initiatives for which training will be essential. Especially critical areas are Watershed Management and Compliance Assistance. Future plans call for training which will go beyond Water Board staff to the stakeholder community. Several Water Boards programs involve an outreach component to stakeholders, including the Underground Storage Tank Program and the Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Program. The Water Board is also a significant contributor to the annual Cross Media Enforcement Symposium sponsored by Cal/EPA. In general, training for stakeholders is provided in response to concerns or interest expressed by the regulated community. Once scheduled, informational letters are mailed to permittees within the regional areas where training is offered.

DTSC training includes a number of courses oriented towards enhanced technical competence of regulatory staff and consistent application of legal requirements, some of which include an outreach element. Significant courses include those of inspector training, permitting, project management for site cleanup and a compliance school.

DTSC inspector training emphasizes laws and regulations and their consistent interpretation. Permitting classes focus more on the need to tailor regulatory requirements in their application to different types of regulated entities, waste streams, process or risk potential. Project Management of Site Cleanups trains managers for oversight of such activities as waste site cleanups or base closures. The Compliance School, a partnership between DTSC and the California Community Colleges, is the major outreach effort of DTSC training. It offers affordable basic training to help regulated entities achieve and maintain compliance with State hazardous waste laws and regulations. Five curriculum modules, including one specifically on "Tiered Permitting", which encompasses Permit by Rule, are currently offered. It is open to the public and is often attended in lieu of a fine by staff of businesses cited for minor violations. DTSC has also held several statewide training sessions on "Permit by Rule" requirements.

Cal/EPA will also ensure that its regulatory process is open and accessible. This includes taking customer needs in account in the selection of locations for future workshops.  Market Incentives Market incentives were suggested as a means for achieving the goals of the SIP (the State Implementation Plan for the federal Clean Air Act). Related comments included:

SIP goals should be met through market incentives to reduce emissions by altering individual driving habits, California should use performance-based rather that prescriptive standards, there should be a shift away from command and control regulations, the South Coast's RECLAIM regulation is unmanageable and costly, a quick and easy way to grant emission reduction credits is needed, and exchangability of credits should be recognized. In addition to the market related comments, there were general comments that regulations should focus on real environmental improvement and that agencies should recognize that economic and environmental goals are not mutually exclusive; clean air and water have important ramifications for business.

Response - Market Incentives

Cal/EPA continues to support the use of market-based incentives and performance based approaches as a way to meet environmental goals. Market incentives allow consumers and businesses greater flexibility in meeting pollution reduction requirements. Most interest in market programs has been in the air quality arena.  The ARB and local air pollution control districts currently employ market-based incentives in the following programs: Low Emission Vehicles, Reduced Certification Testing, New and Modified Sources, Retirement of High-Polluting Vehicles, RECLAIM, and Marketable Permits.

In ARB's Low Emission Vehicle program, manufacturers can comply with ARB standards by selecting a mix of vehicles where the sale of "dirtier" models is offset by the sale of "cleaner" models.  Credits from the sale of "cleaner" vehicles can be traded or sold. With Reduced Certification Testing, auto manufactures that consistently demonstrate compliance with the "off the assembly line" test standards are tested less often, resulting in reduced costs. New and Modified Sources in nonattainment areas can trade emission credits to ensure that expanded operations do not increase emissions. Districts are expanding programs to encourage the retirement of high-polluting vehicles. With Marketable Permits, such as under the South Coast District's RECLAIM program, sources may buy, sell, or trade emission credits from other permitted sources of the same pollutants. In addition to these programs, many of the proposed consumer product and mobile source control measures in California's 1994 Ozone SIP are market-based, including accelerated retirement of light-duty and heavy-duty motor vehicles. Also, in 1995, Governor Wilson signed AB 1777, which requires ARB to adopt a methodology to allow for the interchangeability of emission reduction credits generated from stationary, mobile, indirect, and areawide sources, as well as from market trading programs.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Compliance Assistance

1. Complete guidance on classification of pharmaceutical wastes for disposal as medical waste and pursue necessary actions, due June 1996, DTSC lead.
   
2. Continue to implement the SWRCB's Compliance Assistance Initiative, which increases the amount and quality of guidance available to the regulated community and the public. Specific activities to be undertaken in this area include: reviewing existing policy description and guidance documents (March 1996), identifying topics for which new publications or updates are needed (March 1996), and developing a series of short questions and answer publications in response to needs identified through this review (September 1996), SWRCB. 
   
3. Continue to expand the IWMB's publication of LEA Advisories to provide written explanations and interpretations of IWMB regulations. Propose this system for CUPA oversight with a presentation on usage to the Local Unified Program Implementation Committee (LUPIC) by June 1996, IWMB Lead.
   
4. Develop a "plain English" pamphlet summarizing the requirements of Proposition 65. This pamphlet will better ensure compliance with the requirements. Draft will be available for public review in April 1996, OEHHA lead.
   
5. Establish mechanism for removal of specific listed chemicals, (Proposition 65). Language placed on Internet June 1996, OEHHA lead.
   
6. OEHHA to clarify through rulemaking, the information to be included in the 60 day notice of intent to institute legal proceedings under Proposition 65.  Rulemaking to commence February 1996, draft language to be placed on Internet.

Market Incentives

1. Continue to encourage the use of market incentives as an option for complying with environmental requirements. ARB will hold workshops in May and August 1996 to discuss the proposed adoption of a regulation to carry out AB 1777 (interchangeability  of emission reduction credits). A hearing to adopt the regulation will be held in December 1996, ARB lead.

ACTION ITEM: STANDARDS

What Cal/EPA Heard at the Statewide Meetings:

Other public comments stated that there is no need for separate, California-specific environmental standards and requirements.  California should be consistent with the federal program. California-only regulations should be eliminated.

Public comments stated that differences between federal and state regulatory standards create additional cost, are administratively burdensome, and can be confusing to the regulated community.  Members of the regulated community seek justification of why the differences are necessary, and would prefer federal and state consistency. Comments addressed the general issue of state and federal consistency as well as numerous specific regulations in Cal/EPA Boards and Departments, including state classification of hazardous waste, air toxics, air quality offsets, California Clean Air Act, hazardous materials business plan inventories, and solid waste regulations that exceed federal Subtitle D.

As outlined more completely below, Cal/EPA has actively pursued initiatives and opportunities to harmonize state and federal regulatory standards and reduce the costs and confusion that can result from multiple regulatory requirements.

Cal/EPA's Response:

1. Why are California regulations different from federal regulations?
   
   California has always been a leader in environmental protection. As a leader California has in the past initiated regulations and policies before the federal government. When federal regulations are promulgated they may differ somewhat from in-place California regulations. California regulations also respond to unique or special environmental situations in the state. Typically they allow more flexibility than federal regulations.
   
2. What is being done to harmonize federal and state regulations?
   
   In many cases, greater harmony between federal and state regulations is possible. The following are examples within Cal/EPA where individual boards and departments are working to increase consistency:
   
   a) DPR harmonization with the U.S. EPA. In 1994, Department of Pesticide Regulation began a project called "harmonization" with the U.S. EPA on several regulatory matters. In March of 1995, DPR and U.S. EPA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), pursuant to which the two agencies are now sharing reviews of acute toxicity data with the goal that by mid-1996 that all reviews of toxicology data will be done in the same way by both agencies. This will result in a significant lowering of the lag time between federal and state registration of pesticides. As a result of this effort and other reform efforts within the Department, the lag time has been reduced from 380 days in 1991 to 138 days in 1994. Harmonization not only makes it possible to better protect the environment through the use of technology and products, but also dramatically reduces economic costs. The complete implementation plan addresses harmonization of acute toxicity data review, chronic toxicology data review, risk assessment methodology, toxicology and exposure testing guidelines, the review and interpretation of environmental effects data, and label revision review.
   
   b) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment implementation of SB 1082
   
   Pursuant to the mandates of SB 1082, OEHHA convened the Risk Assessment Advisory Committee (RAAC) in June 1995. The RAAC is to determine if the policies, methods, and guidelines for the identification and assessment of chemical toxicity in Cal/EPA are based upon sound science, and to compare the policies, methods and guidelines for the identification and assessment of chemical toxicity with those of the U.S. EPA and the National Academy of Sciences. The RAAC is expected to make a number of recommendations including some related to formalizing criteria for identifying adverse toxic effects, formalizing a peer review process, expanding cooperation with the U.S. EPA, minimizing duplication of effort, incorporating scientific advances into the risk assessment process, and fostering scientific consistency. The RAAC review will be incorporated into a subsequent harmonization program with U.S. EPA and is expected to be completed during 1996.
   
   c) Regulatory Structure Update in Department of Toxic Substances Control
   
   The "Regulatory Structure Update" (RSU) project was initiated in summer 1995. The RSU project includes evaluation of all aspects of California s hazardous waste management regulatory program which differ from the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program. Evaluations will be made for each area where California exceeds or differs from the federal program to either retain, modify or eliminate the state requirement/standard.
   
   These changes in the California regulatory program will be based on thorough review and assessment of the need of that element of the program to the Departments mission of protection of public health and environment, any duplication with other federal, state and local agencies programs, and its effectiveness. The latest scientific information and current regulatory programs of other agencies will be utilized in this assessment. The RSU project and its tasks will be completed in June 1997 with many areas being addressed much earlier. The RSU project will address many specific issues raised by commentors including TTLC testing, Cal/EPA vs TCLP, California-only rules, generator and manifesting requirements, the permitting program, exemption levels, and economic impacts.The Department's focus on public health, and concerns about
   changing or repealing standards and regulations.
   
   d) Air Resources Board
   
   ARB has taken necessary steps to align the State planning process and deadlines with those of the Federal Ozone planning process. In response to the 1994 Federal Ozone State Implementation Plan submittal, ARB took administrative action to align the State ozone planning process with the federal SIP planning process. For PM10, the State s program is driven by the federal planning requirements as the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) does not include specific planning requirements to attain the State's PM10 standard. ARB has also worked aggressively to reduce the new paperwork requirements of the federal Title V air permits, and has initiated a similar effort on the Title III air toxics requirements.
   
3. Do California regulations have an added benefit?
   
   Cal/EPA is committed to ensuring that separate California regulations be retained only when necessary. It should be recognized, however, that in some instances California regulations add benefits for California s environment and Cal/EPA s stakeholders. California regulations are tailored for specific state and local exposures, data and susceptible populations. Some regulations add a greater margin of protection for the environment and human health. Other regulations provide added flexibility so that implementation can be tailored to specific conditions, problems, and solutions in different regions of California. As a result of legislation signed by Governor Wilson, new regulations must specifically identify any differences from comparable federal requirements, and evaluate the need for any additional proposed costs.
   
4. Some federal regulations are duplicative or overbroad.  California should urge U.S. EPA to change them.
   
   Most state programs to protect the environment have an analogue in federal statute. Cal/EPA has vigorously pursued state delegation and authorization of these programs; Cal/EPA are also working closely with U.S. EPA to ensure that no unnecessary duplication or burden results from overlapping or conflicting federal and state requirements. Some of the major results of this effort are:
   
   
   • Under the Clean Air Act, replacement of the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) with a more flexible and less costly State Implementation Plan (SIP) for meeting federal ozone standards.
     
   • Under the Clean Water Act, replacement of federal water quality standards in the San Francisco Bay/Delta with water quality standards adopted by SWRCB.
     
   • Cal/EPA and U.S. EPA are very close to finalizing an agreement that would greatly reduce the duplication of federal Clean Air Act Title V requirements (stationary
     sources) and existing state air requirements. Cal/EPA and U.S. EPA reached an agreement that allowed California to carry out its commitment to clean air through an innovative hybrid smog check inspection and maintenance (I/M) approach, based on consumer convenience and relying on  market competition. California has  steadfastly maintained that U.S. EPA's prescriptive program does not fit California needs and it has the capability and knowledge to design and implement an I/M program which best suits California.
     
   • Cal/EPA is actively engaged in federal legislation to reform Superfund, federal pesticide laws, and the Clean Water Act.
     
   • In addition, Cal/EPA and U.S. EPA have more than 20 ongoing projects to eliminate unnecessary duplicative federal requirements in California.
     
   • Cal/EPA is now completing a work plan with U.S. EPA, Region IX, to eliminate other duplicative oversight and further harmonize state and federal requirements. 

Specific Responses:

The interstate hazardous waste transportation industry has expressed the opinion that California s mandatory hazardous waste transporter inspection program is subject to preemption due to inconsistency with federal law. The California  Highway Patrol (CHP) shares this opinion, and issued a notice on September 22, 1995 withholding enforcement of the inspection and certification requirements for all vehicles and containers in interstate commerce, thus effectively terminating Department of Toxic Substance Controls (DTSC) inspection program. Because DTSC does not have the authority to mitigate this issue by regulation, DTSC
will resolve this conflict with federal law through legislation
repealing the inspection program.

DTSC has been urged to adopt U.S. EPA's Universal Waste Rule which provides streamlined management of product oriented and consumer waste (e.g., batteries) by providing greatly reduced alternative management standards for generation, consolidation, and transportation of hazardous wastes designated as "universal". DTSC will address adopting the Universal Waste Rule through the Regulatory Structure Update program and has completed a scoping paper for this evaluation.

DTSC was also urged to exempt materials applied as fertilizers or for other agricultural purposes from disposal regulations and to urge U.S. EPA to change its interpretation of reclamation exclusion. DTSC has no authority to "reinterpret" federal law to grant RCRA materials that do not meet the federal standards a recycling exclusion; to do so would jeopardize DTSCs authorization to implement the federal program. Regulations addressing the use of non-RCRA hazardous wastes in agricultural applications have already been adopted in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, sections 66266.110-66266.112.  DTSC will consider reviewing its regulations addressing non-RCRA hazardous wastes used in agricultural applications to identify any overly restrictive requirements, repeal unnecessary provisions, and provide any needed clarification.

A problem concerning disposal of computer terminals and components was brought to the attention of DTSC. U.S. EPA Region III has determined that intact computer monitors containing intact CRTs would be considered scrap metal. Furthermore, U.S. EPA Region III believes that the intact monitors would not fail the federal Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test, and thus would not be federal hazardous wastes. Similarly, the DTSC believes that the intact monitors containing intact CRTs would not be characteristically hazardous wastes either and therefore would not be regulated. However, if the monitors were damaged or dismantled, U.S. EPA Region III apparently believes that the damaged monitors could fail the federal TCLP test, presumably due to the presence of lead in the CRT glass at federal hazardous waste concentrations. DTSC can take no action on  this other than to encourage recycling of computer terminals and components.

SWRCB was urged to review the effluent limits and permit conditions for storm water contained in storage ponds and discharged to surface waters. Both DTSC and SWRCB administer regulations governing hazardous substances and storage pond design. SWRCB adopted the existing General Storm Water Permits only after receiving comprehensive public input from numerous stakeholders. A new Industrial Storm Water Permit is scheduled to be adopted in the Fall of 1996, and a new General Construction Storm Water Permit will be adopted in 1996. The Storm Water Permits effluent limits and conditions will be completely reviewed during the adoption process.

IWMB was urged to adopt the federal regulations governing composting in their entirety. Federal regulations concerning composting are limited to specifying appropriate uses and standards when sewage sludge is managed. They do not govern the composting process other than to overlay a set of numerical criteria that must be meet when sewage sludge is incorporated as a feedstock.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Support continued efforts by boards and departments to identify areas in which greater consistency can be achieved between state and federal programs, scientific guidelines and assessments, and regulation. Cal/EPA and U.S. EPA October 17, 1995 Agreement to work on specific issues to be placed on the Internet, February 1996, DTSC lead.
   
2. OEHHA to report the RAAC is draft recommendations findings on the Internet expected in April 1996, with finalization in June 1996. OEHHA lead.
   
3. Support the RSU project and have DTSC report on the completed project in June 1997 and individual issues as they are completed, DTSC lead.
   
4. Industrial Storm Water Permit on the Internet for public comment November 1996, SWRCB lead.
   
5. DTSC draft policy on non-RCRA Hazardous Waste used in agricultural applications to be released on Internet May 1996, DTSC lead.

Action Item: Science

What Cal/EPA Heard at the Statewide Meetings:

Public commentors also stated that standards based on risks to human health and the environment should be founded on strong science. Up-to-date science and information should be used for developing standards, environmental control measures and proposed policies. New scientific findings and directions should be monitored and swiftly incorporated. Good ambient or baseline information should be pursued and used with cleanup and discharge regulations. Risk-based standards and regulations should be consistent across boards and agencies and should have a clear benefit that is worth the cost expended to achieve them.

New advances in science can and should be reflected in regulatory decisions and policies. Continuing developments in science may demonstrate an opportunity to modify standards or utilize emerging cleanup and control measures which may be more efficient or effective.

Although regulatory agencies rely on existing information, they should be prepared to respond to and incorporate continuing advances in a timely manner and must consider the full range of information available in making decisions.

Boards and agencies should ensure that they use current data and information for regulatory decisions. New scientific findings may point to overly stringent regulations or significant environmental or health threats that had not previously been recognized. Both findings deserve an informed timely response by regulatory agencies, based on current scientific developments.

Environmental regulations need to address legitimate health and environmental risks and at the same time should achieve these results in an effective and efficient manner. Cleanup and discharge regulations should take ambient (background) levels into account when setting goals and limits. Risk-based standards should be established and implemented consistently across boards and agencies in Cal/EPA. Economic analysis of alternatives should be performed to ensure that regulatory efforts are cost-effective.

Cal/EPA Response:

Cal/EPA is committed to using up-to-date and emerging science and technology. The California Environmental Technology Project encourages the development and application of improved technology to address environmental needs. The proposed delisting procedure for Proposition 65 is specifically intended to address situations where new scientific information calls into question a previous listing decision. One goal of the Risk Assessment Advisory Committee, formed pursuant to SB 1082, is to ensure that Cal/EPA s risk assessment practices are based on state-of-the-art science and incorporate the best current data.

OEHHA is focusing effort on following new and emerging scientific issues and developments in environmental and health sciences and the Regulatory Structure Update program in DTSC will also utilize the latest science information in its evaluations.   In addition to the RAAC review program, the Standards and Criteria Working Group which includes scientific and technical staff from OEHHA, DPR, SWRCB, DTSC, ARB and Department of Health Services is used to develop consistency on new issues, guidance and specific risk assessment criteria within Cal/EPA boards and departments.

Under state law, Cal/EPA is required to perform economic analysis of all new regulations. Cal/EPA boards and Departments have been implementing these new requirements in all rulemaking during 1995-96. The 1996-97 Budget proposes a unit at the ARB to coordinate all economic analysis activities within Cal/EPA to assure quality and consistency. This combination of strong science, effective alternatives and cost comparison should provide risk managers with a sound basis for making and communicating regulatory decisions. 

Specific Responses:

Pursuant to SB 1731 OEHHA is reviewing and developing the exposure assumptions and guidelines for the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program. OEHHA will incorporate stochastic methodology and other new developments in risk assessment into the site-specific risk assessment guidelines being developed. 

SB 1082 also requires Cal/EPA to adopt guidelines for use in evaluating alternatives to proposed "major regulations." These guidelines incorporate economic concerns when evaluating alternatives. The Cal/EPA staff developed "Cal/EPA Guidelines for Evaluating  Alternatives to Proposed Major Regulations," and held a public workshop in December 1994. The guidelines are now being revised. ARB has the lead in developing these changes, conducting public workshops, and addressing any concerns with the proposed guidelines. Each individual Cal/EPA agency will have the responsibility to use the guidelines to implement SB 1082 for their specific programs.

When proposed alternatives to major regulations trigger cost analyses requirements of SB 1082, Cal/EPA agencies will perform such cost analysis in accordance with the developed guidelines.  ARB staff continues to work with the public and affected industries to address broad concerns related to implementation of SB 1082 and assist in "fine-tuning" implementation within Cal/EPA.

Some commenters called for cost-benefit analysis of proposed regulations. The Cal/EPA economic analysis unit, proposed by the 1996-97 budget to be located in ARB, will provide a focal point for consideration of the type and scope of economic analysis to be performed.  SWRCB is reviewing and updating its water quality control plans and incorporating up-to-date information and science, and encouraging public participation. In response to its external review recommendations, an AB 1764 Advisory committee was formed. SWRCB and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) recently completed an extensive program to review and update the beneficial use designations for surface and ground waters statewide. These designations are specified in the water quality control plans (Basin Plans) adopted by each RWQCB. The update process involved a thorough public participation process and satisfied CEQA and Administrative Procedures Act requirements.  Each Basin Plan update addresses issues raised by the public and private sector regarding beneficial water use changes and contains revised definitions and designations for that Basin. A draft updated Ocean Plan was also completed in 1995. A series of public workshops were held concerning updating the Inland Surface Waters Plan and the Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Plan.

DPR is encouraging the development and use of reduced risk pesticides and is working toward developing criteria for them.  DPR accepts a determination by U.S. EPA that a pesticide meets criteria for registration as a reduced risk pesticide and will accept registration applications in California for simultaneous review. This facilitates efficient registration of these environmentally favorable products. 

Recommendations:

1. Support the continued application of strong science for risk-based decisions in programs and regulations of all boards and departments. Publicize Standards and Criteria Working Group products quarterly on Internet, effective March 1996, OEHHA lead.
   
2. Provide SB 1731 exposure assessment and uncertainty guidelines for public comment by September 1996, OEHHA lead.
   
3. Support creating an economic analysis unit in ARB to insure consistent implementation of SB 1082. Publish SB 1082 revised guidelines on Internet for public review on March 1996, ARB lead. 

Action Item: Site Remediation

What Cal/EPA Heard at the Statewide Meetings:

There is a need to adjust site remediation goals to more fully balance the burdens imposed with the environmental protection and benefits achievable.

The thrust of the majority of comments received regarding site mitigation was that the SWRCB remediation efforts need to encompass a balancing of environmental protection with technical and economic feasibility. Some of the commentors acknowledged SWRCB was working in this direction through its noticing of amendments to Resolution 92-49 which establishes a procedure for designation of containment zones. Commentors asked that cleanup standards should be risk based and specifically emphasized the Underground Tank Program. Commentors urged SWRCB to pursue a tank cleanup program in accord with the provisions of the recently released Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Report. Other commentors called for continued progress on the issue of placing "Brownfields" properties back into use. Concerns were expressed regarding economic and liability issues attendant with the transfer in ownership of such properties.

Another concern related to activities by DTSC associated with mining waste sites in the Mother Lode. Cal/EPA Response/Status:

In March 1995, SWRCB held its first hearing regarding amending Resolution 92-49 to allow economic and technical feasibility considerations to be considered in establishment of remediation levels. Substantial comment concerning this proposal was received. Each of the comments received were analyzed and appropriate revisions were made to the proposed amendment and its accompanying environmental document. A second public hearing was held November 8 and the SWRCB's staff is currently analyzing and responding to comments received. Additionally, the recently completed Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Report (discussed below) made it necessary to extend the time to amend Resolution 92-49.

A final version of the proposed amendments will be presented to the Board for adoption in early 1996. The proposed amendments will provide the process and procedure for factoring technical and economic feasibility into the regulatory remediation decisions. Furthermore, the process for incorporating these factors will be based upon relative site risk.

In October 1995, the Board received a final report from its contractor, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory regarding the program of remediating underground petroleum tank sites.  That report concluded that much more emphasis should be given to passive bioremediation as opposed to engineered remediation systems and that in the majority of situations passive bioremediation would be equally as effective.

The Board expects to receive a final report on underground tank site remediation from the statutorily created Underground Tank Scientific Advisory Committee in February 1996. It is expected that this report may closely parallel the findings and recommendations contained in the Livermore report. In the interim the Board and the Regional Boards have decided that soil only cases should be closed as rapidly as possible and the regulatory agencies should forego requiring engineered remediation unless a known receptor is in close proximity to the site of an underground tank release.

The recommendations of the Livermore study and the Scientific Advisory Committee will be available and can be included in the final proposal for the amendments to Resolution 92-49. This will formalize the process and make any such recommendations binding on all state agencies. It is anticipated that the study coupled with the ongoing process to revise Resolution 92-49 will result in shortening the time associated with getting regulatory clearances for underground tank cleanups, while still protecting groundwater resources. 

In regard to mine waste sites in the Mother Load, DTSC has not "targeted" these sites for special consideration. However, DTSC does receive inquiries from property owners, concerned citizens, and local agencies regarding abandoned mine sites in Amador and other counties for which they provide support. DTSC has received a grant from the U.S. EPA develop and provide information to local agencies on mining waste issues regarding human health, site investigation, and site remediation. The grant is for a two year period with the final deliverables due in July 1997. In order to secure the highest level of technical expertise and experience for this grant project, DTSC is actively working with other relevant state and federal agencies such as the California Department of Conservation, the U.S. Bureau of Mines, and the U.S. Geological Survey. Cal/EPA believes the guidance that will come out of this project will be of great value to local agencies and communities in making proper planning and land use management decisions relating to mining waste sites.

Brownfields are abandoned properties and facilities located in industrial areas of a city. Revitalizing these depressed areas creates a unique opportunity for business, government, and community leaders by improving the economic and environmental value of properties. DTSC has been an active participant in returning Brownfields into productive use by developing and implementing incentives for removing economic and liability barriers. DTSC is fostering successful partnerships with developers, community groups and other stakeholders to demonstrate how revitalization of these sites is good for the environment and the economy. Two recent examples of successful projects involving DTSC in 1995 included the cleanup of the former Kaiser steel plant in Fontana, which will be the site of a new Penske Brothers Super Speedway, and the former Golden Eagle Refinery site in Carson, which has been developed as the Carson Plaza with the first Super KMart store in Southern California as the anchor tenant.

Both legislative and administrative reforms are the cornerstone of the DTSC's Brownfields program. The DTSC's Voluntary Cleanup Program and the Expedited Remedial Action pilot program provide an opportunity to test a variety of innovative approaches that reduce the  time and costs associated with the investigation and remediation of contaminated properties. Using these programs, remediation strategies are developed based on the ultimate planned use of the property and the cleanup activities are determined on a case-by-case basis premised on cost effectiveness of the remedy. Prospective purchasers are provided liability protection which is essential for attracting new capital for redeveloping sites. DTSC is currently drafting a Policy and Procedure (P&P) to standardize the criteria and elements of using prospective purchaser agreements to facilitate Brownfields redevelopments. The final P&P should be out in April 1996.

Recommendations:

1. By April 1996, SWRCB will hold a public meeting on the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Report recommendations and the Advisory Committee Recommendations and adopt recommendations as will be deemed necessary and desirable, SWRCB lead.
   
2. Consider adoption of amendments to Resolution 92-49 by May 1996, SWRCB lead.
   
3. In the interim, for soil only cases, the SWRCB and the Regional Boards should continue to close cases as rapidly as possible and the regulatory agencies should forego requiring engineered remediation unless a known receptor is in close proximity to the site of an underground tank release per the memorandum dated December 8, 1995 by SWRCB's Executive Director, Walt Pettit.
   
4. DTSC should complete by July 1997 the development and distribution of information to local agencies on mining waste issues regarding human health, site investigation, and site remediation under its grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
   
5. DTSC should continue to draft a Policy and Procedure (P&P) to standardize the criteria and elements of using prospective purchaser agreements to facilitate Brownfields redevelopments. The SWRCB will hold workshops and in May, the Board will co-adopt the P&P. The final P&P should be co-signed in June 1996, DTSC lead.