Air Resources Board • Department of Pesticide Regulation • Department of Toxic Substances Control • Office of Environmental Health Hazard 

Assessment Water Resources Control Board • Air Resources Board • Department of Pesticide Regulation • Department of Toxic Substance

Control • Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Water Resources Control Board • Air Resources Board • Department of Pesticide 

Regulation • Department of Toxic Substances Control • Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Water Resources Control Board 

Air Resources Board • Department of Pesticide Regulation • Department of Toxic Substances Control • Office of Environmental Health Hazard 

Assessment Water Resources Control Board • Air Resources Board • Department of Pesticide Regulation • Department of Toxic Substance

Control • Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Water Resources Control Board • Air Resources Board • Department of Pesticide 

Regulation • Department of Toxic Substances Control • Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Water Resources Control Board 

Air Resources Board • Department of Pesticide Regulation • Department of Toxic Substances Control • Office of Environmental Health Hazard 

Assessment Water Resources Control Board • Air Resources Board • Department of Pesticide Regulation • Department of Toxic Substance

Control • Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Water Resources Control Board • Air Resources Board • Department of Pesticide 

Regulation • Department of Toxic Substances Control • Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Water Resources Control Board 

Air Resources Board • Department of Pesticide Regulation • Department of Toxic Substances Control • Office of Environmental Health Hazard 

Assessment Water Resources Control Board • Air Resources Board • Department of Toxic Substances Control • Office of Environmental Healt

Hazard Assessment Water Resources Control Board • Air Resources Board • Department of Pesticide Regulation • Department of Toxic 

Substances Control • Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Water Resources Control Board • Air Resources Board • Departme

2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Cal EPA

2010 Environmental Compliance & Enforcement Report

Office of the Secretary • Air Resources Board

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association

Department of Pesticide Regulation

Department of Toxic Substances Control

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 

State Water Resources Control Board

Cal/EPA

Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor

Matthew Rodriquez, Secretary for Environmental Protection
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

The following organizations and individuals are recognized for their valuable contribution to the 

California Environmental Protection Agency’s 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report.

• California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA)

Don Johnson, Assistant Secretary

• Air Resources Board (ARB) 

James Ryden, Division Chief, Enforcement Division

• California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA)

Kenneth Koyama, Executive Director

• Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR)

Nan Gorder, Branch Chief, Enforcement Branch

• Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)

Sue Laney, Acting Deputy Director, Enforcement and Emergency Response Program

• State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) 

Reed Sato, Director, Office of Enforcement

• Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)

George Alexeeff, Acting Director

• Unified Hazardous Materials Program (Cal/EPA)

Jim Bohon, Manager of the Unified Hazardous Materials Program

Many thanks for their valuable contribution and dedication to the fruition of this annual report project 

is given to the 2010 Enforcement Report Steering Committee members: Larry Woodson, Committee 

Chair (Cal/EPA), Carmen Milanes (OEHHA), Diane Trujillo (Cal/EPA), Joe Marade (DPR), Lisa 

Brown (Cal/EPA), Mike Villegas (Ventura County APCD) Farida Islam (Cal/EPA), Rafael Maestu 

(SWRCB), Rick Robison (DTSC), Linnah Marlow (DTSC) and Ryman Simangan (ARB).

Acknowledgement
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Introduction ...................................................... 1

California’s Environmental Law 

Enforcement System .................................. 1

The Need for Accurate and Timely 

Information ................................................ 2

Program Report Development

Process ........................................................ 2

Performance Measures ............................ 3 

Background Perspective .......................... 3

Report Overview ...................................... 4

Table of Contents

Enforcement Program Reports

Office of the Secretary ..................................... 5

Air:

Air Resources Board ....................................... 13

Air Pollution Control Districts ................... 35

Hazardous Waste and Materials:

Department of Toxic Substances Control 51

Unified Hazardous Materials Program ..... 65

Pesticides:

Department of Pesticide Regulation .......... 91

Water:

State Water Resources Control Board .... 107

Risk Assessment:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard 

Assessment ...................................................... 121

Appendices:

Appendix A - Driving Forces ...................... 133

Appendix B - Cal/EPA Enforcement

Program Update ............................................. 143

Appendix C- Acronym Listing..................... 151
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report | Cal/EPA

Cal/EPA
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

This report was prepared by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), its underlying 

Boards, Departments, Office, and local government enforcement partners. This report supports the 

reporting requirements of California Government Code section 12812.2 and provides its readers an 

overview of enforcement program activities during the 2010 calendar year.

California’s Environmental Law Enforcement System

In California, government programs for the protection of health and the environment are implemented in 

a decentralized system by a combination of local, state and federal agencies. 

Cal/EPA is a single state agency comprised of the Office of the Secretary and five Boards, Departments 

and Offices (BDOs). These BDOs consist of the Air Resources Board, the Department of Pesticide 

Regulation, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the Office of Environmental Health Hazards 

Assessment and the State Water Resources Control Board and nine Regional Boards (often referred to as 

the Waterboards). 

Legislation effective on January 1, 2010 eliminated the Integrated Waste Management Board (IWMB) and 

Board Member structure under Cal/EPA, and moved all existing solid waste responsibilities and functions 

to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Therefore, their accomplishments 

are no longer included in this report. For information on CalRecycle, see www.calrecycle.ca.gov. 

It is important to understand that Cal/EPA does not have direct management authority over all the BDOs 

within Cal/EPA or their local and regional government partners. These state, regional and local agencies 

have responsibilities that are outlined in law and, in most cases, they are not obligated to report directly 

to the Secretary of Cal/EPA. For example, Air Pollution Control Districts and County Agricultural 

Commissioners generally report to elected county officials.

Introduction

Cal/EPA | | 1
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Department of 

Pesticide Regulation Department of Toxic Substances Control Health Hazards 

Assessment

Air Resources

Board

Governor

California Environmental

Protection Agency

State Water Resources 

Control Board and 

Regional Boards

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) is Cal/EPA’s federal environmental 

enforcement partner. While federal law provides the baseline for environmental protection in 

California, state, regional and local requirements may be, and often are, broader in scope with higher 

standards thereby creating a level of protection in California greater than provided by federal law. 

Cal/EPA’s local and regional enforcement agency partners include: the 35 Air Pollution Control and 

Air Quality Management Districts (air districts) that regulate stationary sources of air pollution, 58 

County Agricultural Commissioners that regulate pesticide use, and 83 Certified Unified Programs 

Agencies (CUPAs) that implement hazardous waste and hazardous materials programs. 

The Need for Accurate and Timely Information

Accurate and timely information is essential to environmental enforcers to protect public health, 

to deter and prosecute those that violate environmental laws and regulations, and to create a level 

playing field for business competition. Public transparency has been identified to promote efficiency 

and effectiveness in government. With examination of how to improve data collection and integrate 

its access to the public, our enforcement partners and the public should have greater confidence that 

the targeted areas of enforcement and the resources we expend are fruitful.

Program Report Development Process

This report is comprised of standardized individual reports from each of Cal/EPA’s BDOs and the local 

Air Quality Management Districts (Air Districts) and describes their environmental law enforcement 

activities. To prepare and refine this report, an annual collaborative effort is undertaken by a dedicated 

team of enforcement, research and scientific program staff, who meet regularly throughout the year. 

2 | | Cal/EPA
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Performance Measures

A main objective of this report is to provide agency-wide information on enforcement and compliance 

programs and performance measurements for program activities.

There are two types of performance measures, those that measure outputs and those that measure 

outcomes.

• Examples of outputs include the numbers of inspections and enforcement actions taken. 

• Outcomes try to measure the impact the program has on the protection of public health 

and the environment. (An example of an outcome is the number of days that an air quality 

standard is exceeded each year. A general decline in the number of days of exceeded air quality 

standards would show a positive outcome). Indicators reflecting trends in pollutant releases, 

environmental conditions, and human and ecological health are examples of outcomes in the 

environmental protection area. 

While measurements that capture outputs are important, outcomes provide a better picture of the 

success of a program in meeting its intended mission. Outcomes are also more difficult to directly 

correlate with enforcement and other regulatory actions. The challenges associated with defining 

and measuring outcomes account, in part, for the lack of a fully developed performance management 

system. Each BDO has progressed toward that goal and this report includes reporting of that progress.

Background Perspective

The California Environmental Protection Agency is challenged in its mission to restore, protect 

and enhance the environment to ensure public health, environmental quality and economic vitality 

by the ever-increasing pressures associated with, among other things, a growing population and a 

high level of economic activity. In carrying out its mission, the Agency needs to be mindful of the 

underlying forces that can stress the environment and influence the effectiveness of environmental 

regulation, enforcement, and policies. Appendix A is intended to provide additional perspective 

for interpreting the potential impacts of California’s environmental regulation and enforcement 

programs. It discusses some of the major drivers of environmental change and cites examples of 

environmental successes. It also reports on trends in the health status of California’s population and 

in some health outcomes influenced by exposures to environmental contaminants. For example, in 

spite of tremendous population growth in the state since 1950, Californians today breathe the cleanest 

air since measurements have been recorded.

Cal/EPA | | 3
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Report Overview

The 2010 report is considerably shorter than the 2009 report. The Report Team focused this report on 

highlights and provided web links at the end of each chapter for the reader to access information in 

greater detail. This year’s report includes:

• Each BDO’s mission

• An overview of BDO program organization and function

• 2010 highlights

• Multi-year summaries of enforcement action and penalties

• Specific enforcement case successes

• Status updates on performance indicator development

• Training efforts

• Where to find additional information

4 | | Cal/EPA
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

The Office of the Secretary

The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) was created in 1991 through a Governor’s 

Reorganization Plan – Governor’s Executive Order W-14-91. The Boards, Departments and Office 

were placed within Cal/EPA in order to create a cabinet-level voice for the protection of human health 

and the environment and to assure the coordinated deployment of State resources against the most 

serious environmental risks. 

The Secretary of Environmental Protection is the head of the California Environmental Protection 

Agency (Cal/EPA). The Secretary is responsible for overseeing and coordinating the activities of the 

Air Resources Board, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, the Department of Toxic Substances 

Control, the Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment and the State Water Resources 

Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards.

The specific functions to be performed within the Office of the Secretary of Cal/EPA include: budget 

review, review of personnel management, enforcement coordination, information management 

coordination, strategic planning and pollution prevention. 

In addition, sections 12850 through 12856 of the Government Code define general authorities for each 

agency secretary over the departments, offices, and other organizational units that comprise them, as 

follows:

• The secretary of each agency has the power of general supervision over, and is directly 

responsible to the Governor for, the operations of each department, office, and unit within 

the agency. (§ 12850)

• The secretary of each agency shall advise the Governor on, and assist him in establishing, 

major policy and program matters affecting each department, office, or other unit within the 

agency, and shall serve as the principal communication link for the effective transmission of 

policy problems and decisions between the Governor and each such department, office, or 

other unit. (§ 12850.2).

• The secretary of each agency shall exercise the authority vested in the Governor in respect 

to the functions of each department, office, or other unit within the agency, including the 

adjudication of conflicts between or among the departments, offices, or other units; and shall 

represent the Governor in coordinating the activities of each such department, office, or other 

unit with those of other agencies, federal, state, or local. (§ 12850.4).

Cal/EPA | | 5
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

• The secretary of each agency shall be generally responsible for the sound fiscal management 

of each department, office, or other unit within his agency. He shall review and approve the 

proposed budget of each such department, office, or other unit. He shall hold the head of 

each such department, office, or other unit responsible for management control over the 

administrative, fiscal, and program performance of his department, office, or other unit. He 

shall review the operations and evaluate the performance at appropriate intervals of each 

such department, office, or other unit. He shall seek continually to improve the organization 

structure, the operating policies, and the management information systems of each such 

department, office, or other unit. (§ 12850.6).

The Legislature has also given the Office of the Secretary several specific programmatic responsibilities.

1. Border Program

2. Brownfields

3. Children’s Environmental Health

4. Coordination of the State’s climate change activities

5. Enforcement

6. Environmental Justice

7. Quality Improvement

8. Unified Hazardous Materials Program and Emergency Response

6 | | Cal/EPA
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Cal/EPA’s Role in Enforcement

Government Code Section 12812.2 specifies the enforcement duties of the Deputy Secretary for Law 

Enforcement and Counsel: 

1. To develop a program to ensure that the BDOs and other agencies that implement laws or 

regulations within the jurisdiction of Cal/EPA take consistent, effective, and coordinated 

compliance and enforcement actions; 

2. To establish a cross media enforcement unit to assist BDOs and other agencies that implement 

a law or regulation within the jurisdiction of Cal/EPA, to investigate and prepare matters for 

enforcement action; 

3. To refer a violation of a law or regulation within the jurisdiction of a BDO or other agency that 

implements a law or regulation within the jurisdiction of Cal/EPA to the Attorney General, a 

district attorney, or city attorney for the filing of a civil or criminal action.

Accomplishments 

In 2010, the Office of the Secretary:

• Continued to chair the Enforcement Chiefs Steering Committee. This committee consists 

of the Chiefs of Enforcement within the Agency. The Steering Committee works on various 

issues related to increased coordination of Cal/EPA’s enforcement and compliance activities.

• Prepared a report entitled Cal/EPA Enforcement Program Update which details actions 

taken in 2010 to implement Government Code Section 12812.2 ensuring consistent, effective, 

and coordinated enforcement actions. The Update is included as Appendix B of this report 

and may also be found at: www.calepa.ca.gov/Enforcement/Publications/2010/EnfUpdateRpt.pdf

Single Complaint Tracking Steering Committee 

The Single Complaint Tracking Steering Committee (SCTS) was established to create a Cal/EPAwide, single complaint tracking system to receive, track, and respond to environmental complaints 

reported to Cal/EPA Boards, Departments and Offices. This project resulted in a web-based system 

that provides a consistent, single point of contact for the public via Internet access through the various 

Cal/EPA web pages. The online complaint form is used to collect information about environmental 

complaints and/or violations. The system was designed as a tool used to relay complaint information 

Cal/EPA | | 7
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

directly to the appropriate Cal/EPA Boards, Departments and Offices for action, coordination with 

local government agencies, and to track follow-up. 

Citizen complaints are an important source of information about potential non-compliance with 

environmental laws. Program managers have found that citizen complaints are usually made to 

a specific Cal/EPA Board, Department and Office, but also may need to be addressed by multiple 

programs. In order to provide a complete response to environmental complaints, a coordinated 

approach is needed to address the possible cross-program responses as well as assure that complaints 

are investigated and prosecuted properly. The SCTS was designed with this purpose in mind. 

Single Complaint Tracking Steering Committee Accomplishments in 2010

The Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC) programming staff moved the SCTS 

into the new secured system format and tested the complaints staff log-in function, the Central/

Supervisor/Staff permission levels, the identity tracking function, password maintenance, and 

other related functions. The security function was moved out of the test mode and into production 

in September 2010. 

The SCTS programmer also created and tested a new system function that will allow citizen 

complainants and complaints staff to upload attachments to the online complaints files that are created 

when a complainant originally files the online complaint. A virus scan process will be incorporated 

into the system in the coming year that will scan attachments prior to upload that will be part of 

the attachment function and will complement system security features. The new attachment upload 

function is expected to go online in test mode and move into production sometime in 2011. 

The SCTS programmer also worked with the SWRCB/RWQCB staff to adjust their BDO’s complaint 

assignments function to more closely match their business processes. Additional lists of SWRCB 

Complaints Centrals/Supervisors/Staff as well as RWQCB Districts were included in the system 

database tables and system log-ins were established for those staff. The system programmer expects 

to notify SWRCB/RWQCB staff of their new system access and provide system training in early 2011.

8 | | Cal/EPA
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Calendar Year 2011 Objectives

Establish system protocols that will allow complainants to upload attachments to their online 

complaints.

Implement a Complaint Disposition form for local government agencies to enter their final disposition 

of a complaint and close it out.

Provide system training to Cal/EPA Complaints staff.

Data Reporting:

Total Complaints Received by the Single Complaint Tracking System

2007 2008 2009 2010

Total Number 

of Complaints 553 981 860 841

Complaints Received by BDO by Year

2007 2008 2009 2010

BDO Total Complaints Total Complaints Total Complaints Total Complaints

ARB 203 303 281 312

CalRecycle 92 162 130 109

DPR 60 78 103 104

DTSC 321 537 476 413

OEHHA 48 60 62 40

SWRCB 210 375 380 346

Cal/EPA | | 9
10 | Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report | Cal/EPA

Complaints by County by Year

County Code County Name 2007 2008 2009 2010

Unknown 98 148 133 4

1 Alameda 20 35 28 30

2 Alpine 0 1 0 1

3 Amador 2 3 3 4

4 Butte 5 9 16 9

5 Calaveras 4 5 2 6

6 Colusa 0 7 1 4

7 Contra Costa 9 14 20 39

8 Del Norte 0 1 1 0

9 El Dorado 3 9 16 7

10 Fresno 7 7 16 24

11 Glenn 1 0 0 5

12 Humboldt 5 6 4 7

13 Imperial 2 4 8 3

14 Inyo 1 1 1 5

15 Kern 11 15 19 21

16 Kings 2 2 4 1

17 Lake 0 4 4 1

18 Lassen 1 4 3 1

19 Los Angeles 69 157 142 171

20 Madera 4 4 6 2

21 Marin 4 13 12 11

22 Mariposa 0 1 2 0

23 Mendocino 2 5 7 6

24 Merced 3 4 7 8

25 Modoc 0 2 1 0

26 Mono 0 1 1 0

27 Monterey 1 9 8 17

28 Napa 3 4 6 3

29 Nevada 3 2 13 8

30 Orange 40 63 49 49
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

County Code County Name 2007 2008 2009 2010

31 Placer 19 22 12 9

32 Plumas 0 3 1 1

33 Riverside 17 47 39 29

34 Sacramento 30 53 41 50

35 San Benito 3 3 1 1

36 San Bernardino 29 35 36 28

37 San Diego 31 51 44 72

38 San Francisco 6 6 8 21

39 San Joaquin 9 65 18 14

40 San Luis Obispo 7 13 5 10

41 San Mateo 8 9 10 11

42 Santa Barbara 6 8 7 11

43 Santa Clara 18 15 29 21

44 Santa Cruz 13 7 3 5

45 Shasta 3 15 7 11

46 Sierra 1 1 1 2

47 Siskiyou 2 4 2 7

48 Solano 7 16 3 8

49 Sonoma 10 18 5 23

50 Stanislaus 7 13 4 9

51 Sutter 3 5 1 5

52 Tehama 2 3 3 3

53 Trinity 1 1 6 2

54 Tulare 4 2 9 11

55 Tuolumne 0 3 3 7

56 Ventura 10 14 23 17

57 Yolo 4 8 4 3

58 Yuba 3 1 2 3

Total 553 981 860 841

Cal/EPA | | 11
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

ARB Mission:

To promote and protect public health, welfare 

and ecological resources through the effective 

and efficient reduction of air pollutants while 

recognizing and considering the effects on the 

economy of the state.

Enforcement Division’s Mission Statement:

“The Enforcement Division seeks to protect the 

environment and public health and provide 

safe, clean air to all Californians by reducing 

emissions of air contaminants through the fair, 

consistent and comprehensive enforcement of 

air pollution laws, and by providing training 

and compliance assistance.”

| ARB

Air Resources Board
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

For over forty years, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) has made great strides to improve 

California’s air quality. For all its clean-air successes, California still faces many challenges, ranging 

from diesel pollution to climate change. The Board regulates a growing universe of sources in its fight 

for clean air. ARB coordinates California’s efforts to reach and maintain the health-based federal 

and state air quality standards, and to protect the public from exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants 

(TACs). ARB is responsible for overseeing the efforts of the local air pollution control and air quality 

management districts (Air Districts) in controlling air pollution caused by stationary sources.

ARB is also mandated to address the serious problems caused by large mobile sources – cars, motorcycles, 

trucks and buses, off-road vehicles and equipment, and the fuels that power them – major sources of 

air pollution in the most populous parts of the state. 

ARB is also responsible for controlling emissions from smaller but more numerous sources of air 

pollution, including consumer products, other types of mobile sources like lawn and garden equipment 

and utility engines, and any sources of toxic air pollutants. To carry out these responsibilities, ARB has 

a multifaceted program of planning, regulation development, implementation, compliance assistance 

and training, and enforcement. 

Vigorous enforcement ensures that these efforts achieve the anticipated emissions reductions and 

provides a level playing field for all the regulated community. Violations of California’s air quality laws 

and regulations span a wide spectrum that extends from minor breaches of regulations to deliberate 

criminal actions. 

Enforcement Division Overview

ARB | | 13
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

ARB Enforcement Division (ED) is focused on helping California’s regulated communities understand 

and comply with statutory and regulatory requirements. ED staff conducts numerous workshops and 

training programs, produces many publications, and works with the regulated community in order to 

make sure that stakeholders are aware of the requirements that may affect them. When ED discovers 

violations, it works closely with ARB attorneys and local and state prosecutors to prepare strong and 

effective cases. And, through ARB’s Public Information Office, ED provides a summary of completed 

enforcement cases to the public to discourage others from breaking the law.

Upon case resolution, monies collected from penalties go into the Air Pollution Control Fund as 

required under state law. Up to 25 percent of the penalty monies can go to Supplemental Environmental 

Projects (SEPs).* A common SEP recipient in 2010 was the California Council on Diesel Education 

and Technology (CCDET) where monies are distributed to California Community College Diesel 

Technology Programs to educate the diesel industry on ARB’s regulations using hands on training in 

a classroom and shop environment. The money also enables the colleges to purchase equipment to 

ensure that students are learning with current technology.

Finally, in the face of the last two years’ fiscal challenges and the Governor’s mandated furlough 

program, the enforcement program has not experienced growth in the last year. Enforcement program 

staff has worked hard to keep up with the new regulations implemented in 2010 and the added 

operational demands placed on the limited available resources. 

This report provides summary overview of ARB’s enforcement programs, 2010 highlights, summary 

of ARB’s first criminal case, ED program outcomes, public health indicators, and a summary of our 

compliance assistance programs and trainings. For more details on ARB Enforcement Division 

programs, please refer to the 2010 Annual Enforcement Report, www.arb.ca.gov/enf/reports/2010_enf_rpt.pdf.

*SEPs are projects or payments that violators undertake to benefit the environment in the community 

in which the facility may be located.

14 | | ARB
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

The Division’s three branches are responsible for a variety of enforcement activities: 

• The Mobile Source Enforcement Branch (MSEB) enforces programs to reduce gaseous 

particulate, and visible exhaust emissions from Heavy Duty Diesel (HDD) and gasolinepowered commercial trucks and buses, passenger vehicles and other light-duty on-road 

vehicles, off-highway vehicles, off-road engines like lawn and garden equipment, and 

aftermarket parts for on and off-road vehicles.

• The Stationary Source Enforcement Branch (SSEB) investigates and develops cases related 

to motor vehicle fuels and consumer products, provides oversight and assistance to local 

air district enforcement programs, conducts a number of major inspection programs, and 

provides investigative and surveillance services to assist in the development of air quality, 

toxic exposure, and multi-media cases.

• The Training and Compliance Assistance Branch (TCAB) provides training and informative 

materials to ARB staff, air districts, and regulated industry personnel for improving 

enforcement and promoting compliance.

• The Greenhouse GasEnforcement Section (GHGS) remains organizationally independent of a 

branch and provides an enforcement perspective and specific language to the ARB divisions 

involved in rule development in furtherance of the California Global Warming Act of 2006 

(AB 32) climate change effort. 

Mobile Source

Enforcement Branch

Heavy Duty Diesel 

Enforcement Section 

On-Road Programs

Mobile Source

Enforcement Section

Heavy Duty Diesel 

Enforcement Section 

Movement Programs

Heavy Duty Diesel 

Enforcement Section 

Field Operations &

Citation Administration 

Programs

Enforcement

Division

Stationary Source 

Enforcement Branch

Stationary Source 

Enforcement Section

Strategic 

Environmental 

Investigation & 

Enforcement Section

Fuels Enforcement

Section

Consumer Products 

Enforcement Section

Greenhouse Gas 

Enforcement Section

Training & Compliance

Assistance Branch

Compliance

Assistance Section

Training Section

2010 Enforcement Division Organizational Chart

Organization and Programs

ARB | | 15
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Mobile Source Enforcement Branch

California has long been a world leader in combating air pollution emitted from motor vehicles and 

other mobile sources. Because of the state’s severe air quality problem, California is the only state 

authorized under the federal Clean Air Act to set its own mobile source emissions and fuel standards. 

The Board has used this authority to establish an aggressive program to reduce emissions from many 

sources ranging from heavy-duty diesel trucks, passenger cars, and motorcycles to jet skis, lawn 

mowers, and chain saws. Because of the complexity and diversity of its regulated universe, the Mobile 

Source Enforcement Branch is further divided into sections that specialize in implementing different 

regulations and programs. 

Mobile Source Enforcement Section

The Mobile Source Enforcement Section (MSES) is responsible for ensuring all regulated mobile 

sources, on and off-road, comply with ARB certification requirements. ARB’s enforcement program 

vigorously enforces these laws through inspections and investigations that can result in corrective 

actions and substantial civil and/or criminal penalties.

Inspecting Emmision Labels

16 | | ARB
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

For on-road sources, the primary focus of enforcement is to ensure that all new vehicles sold, offered 

for sale, or used in the state are certified for sale in California. Under California’s regulations, a new 

vehicle (defined as a vehicle that has fewer than 7,500 odometer miles) not certified to California’s 

standards cannot be sold within or imported into the state by a California resident or business. If 

such a vehicle visits a Smog Check station, the owner is issued a Certificate of Noncompliance (CNC), 

and a copy of the CNC is sent to ARB. When a violation has occurred, a Notice of Violation (NOV) is 

issued. The NOV requires that the vehicle(s) be removed from the state, and payment of a civil penalty 

of up to $5,000 per vehicle, as authorized under H&SC §43151 et seq. 

Another area of focus for enforcement resources has been in the off-road categories. This includes offroad motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles commonly referred to as Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles 

(OHRVs); Small Off-Road Engines (SOREs) such as lawn and garden equipment, scooters; large spark 

ignited (LSI) engines which include fork lifts, sweepers, quads, and generators; and compression 

ignition diesel engines over 175 bhp, which include generators and construction equipment. 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Enforcement 

Heavy-Duty Diesel enforcement is divided into three program sections: (1) On-Road Programs; 

(2) Off-Road and Good Movement Program; and (3) Field Operation and Citation Administration 

Programs. Key programs include:

• Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection Program 

• Periodic Smoke Inspection Program

• Solid Waste Collection Program

• Public Agency Unity Program

• Transit Fleet Vehicle/Urban Bus Program

• Engine Certification Label Program (AB 1009)

• Commercial Vehicle Idling Program

• Smoking Vehicle Complaint Program

• Transport Refrigeration Unit 

• Drayage Truck Regulation

• Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas/Smart Way Regulation

• Truck and Bus Regulation.

ARB | | 17
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

The Heavy-Duty Diesel enforcement includes inspecting heavy-duty trucks and buses for excessive 

smoke emissions, tampering of emission control systems, and idling. Currently more than 440,000 

heavy-duty diesel vehicles are registered in California. Each of these heavy-duty vehicles, as well 

as an estimated over one million heavy-duty vehicles registered in other states or foreign countries 

(i.e., Mexico or Canada) are subject to inspection and testing when they come to California. Vehicles 

in fleets, such as transit buses, solid waste collection vehicles, delivery service vehicles, off-road 

construction vehicles, drayage port trucks, and others are also required to comply with ARB fleet 

rules and regulations. 

Stationary Source Enforcement Branch

The Board’s Stationary Source Enforcement Branch includes four sections focused on Fuels, Consumer 

Products, Stationary Sources, and Strategic Investigations. 

The Stationary Source Enforcement Branch conducts oversight and enforcement activities in 

conjunction with the 35 local air districts. Stationary sources include “point” or fixed sources 

ARB inspector performing a diesel inspection

18 | | ARB
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

such as petroleum refineries and factories, and “area” sources which individually emit small 

quantities of pollutants but collectively emit significant emissions, such as consumer products 

and residential chimneys.

Fuels Enforcement

The Fuels Enforcement Program (Fuels) regulates the composition of motor vehicle fuels and 

ensures compliance with motor vehicle fuels regulations, including California reformulated gasoline 

regulations, diesel fuel regulations, and cargo tank vapor recovery regulations.

The enforcement of the fuels program includes field investigations, inspection and certification of 

cargo tank vapor recovery on gasoline cargo tank trucks, and evaluation of alternative compliance data.

Fuels also provides outreach and support to clarify complex aspects of the regulations in the form of 

training seminars, individual company meetings, web pages, and ongoing telephone support to the 

regulated industry and the public.

Consumer Products Enforcement 

Consumer products such as deodorants, hair sprays, cleaning solvents, spray paint and insecticides 

are examples of common everyday products that are made with ozone-forming volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs). Although each consumer product contains only a small amount of VOCs, 

Californians use over half a billion of these products every year, which cumulatively contributes to the 

formation of ground level ozone, which is a major part of California’s smog problem. ARB regulates 

the amount of VOCs, toxics, and global warming compounds permissible in approximately 129 

categories of consumer products in order to reduce smog and public exposure. Consumer Product 

Enforcement Section (CPES) investigators are increasingly responsible for the enforcement of other 

product regulations adopted to reduce emissions into the air, including portable fuel containers, outboard marine tanks, and indoor air cleaners.

CPES staff conducts inspections throughout California and collects consumer product samples for 

laboratory analysis, as well as purchases samples online and through mail order outlets. After receipt 

of laboratory analysis or performance testing, CPES staff works with the manufacturers or retailers to 

reach a mutual settlement agreement, or refers the case to the Office of Legal Affairs (OLA). In 2010, 

CPES staff settled 72 consumer products cases and 2 portable fuel container cases, collecting penalties 

totaling $2,948,005 for consumer products and $93,000 for portable fuel container cases. 

ARB | | 19
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Stationary Source Enforcement

The Stationary Source Enforcement Section (SSES) is responsible for overseeing several enforcement 

programs and activities established to ensure compliance with air pollution rules and regulations. 

Key programs and activities that the section is responsible for include:

• Complaint hotline and the online Cal/EPA Environmental Complaint System

• Complaint Investigation

• Variances

• Air Facility System

• Continuous Emission Monitoring Program

• Rule Review

Strategic Environmental Investigations and Enforcement 

The Strategic Environmental Investigations and Enforcement Section (SEIES) conducts special and 

joint investigations of “cross media” environmental cases. Cross media cases involve multiple areas of 

environmental regulation governing air, water, soil, toxic waste, regular waste, or pesticides. SEIES 

Stationary source emissions

20 | | ARB
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

investigations may also include coordination with enforcement jurisdictions that fall outside the 

environmental field. SEIES works under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Cal/EPA to 

provide the investigative services necessary to fulfill Cal/EPA’s statutory enforcement responsibilities. 

SEIS also assist in enforcement with the good movement regulations and Asbesto NESHAP program.

SEIES is also tasked with providing enforcement assistance to local air districts and other environmental 

agencies. This assistance includes facility inspections, complex investigations, surveillance technology, 

and case preparation. SEIES staff also actively participates in a number of environmental task forces 

throughout the state.

ARB recently adopted an Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions 

from Composite Wood Products. SEIES staff have been actively implementing this regulation 

during 2010.

Greenhouse Gas Enforcement Section

The Greenhouse Gas Enforcement Section (GHGES) remain organizationally independent of a branch 

and was formed in December 2007, as a result of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 

(AB 32), which mandates that ARB monitor compliance with and enforce all regulations developed 

under this law.

The primary mission of GHGES is to ensure maximum emission reductions through effective 

enforcement of AB 32 regulations utilizing a four-pronged approach: regulation development, 

implementation support, enforcement, and development of a case tracking database. These four core 

functions are summarized below.

1. Regulation Development

• Collaborate with regulation writers from other ARB Divisions to strengthen enforceability of 

new GHG-related regulations.

• Conduct in-depth regulation analysis resulting in written input that improves and harmonizes 

regulatory language.

• Estimate resources needed to enforce new regulations.

2. Regulation Implementation Support

• Ensure continuity between regulatory development, implementation and enforcement by 

participating in ARB workshops and training sessions.

ARB | | 21
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

• Advise on and produce documents related to enforcement and compliance processes. These 

processes include public advisories and workshops, guidance documents, compliance 

monitoring plans, inspections, audits, and complaint procedures.

3. Regulation Enforcement

• Develop enforcement strategies and options with ARB program and legal staff to shape 

effective enforcement plans, inspection protocols, and penalty assessment.

4. Case Tracking Database Development 

• Develop a division-wide modular case tracking database that will interface with other 

ARB divisions and the public. This database will aid GHGES in measuring enforcement 

effectiveness.

Enforcement Program Highlights for 2010

ED staff inspects and investigates places and situations throughout California where non-compliance 

is most likely, as well as those areas where excess emissions have the largest adverse impact on 

public health. Recently added to these responsibilities is the challenge to implement climate-change 

regulations. Even with last year’s fiscal challenges and the Governor’s mandated furlough program, 

the enforcement program experienced moderate growth in an effort to keep pace with its operational 

demands. This growth helped enable an increase in the number of enforcement actions closed and 

penalties assessed and collected in 2010. 

The following statistics highlight the achievements of ARB’s Enforcement Program in 2010. 

• In 2010, the ED closed 3,701 enforcement actions and collected over $12.8 million in penalties;

• 3,677 of these enforcement actions were closed administratively with penalties of over $8.7 

million;

• 23 were closed via civil litigation for over $2.8 million in penalties; 1 was closed via criminal 

prosecution for $1.2 million in penalties/restitution; Enforcement actions funded 141 

Supplemental Environmental Programs (SEP) totaling over $330,000 from penalties collected;

• ARB implemented a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Bay Area Air Quality 

Management District (BAAQMD) whereunder the BAAQMD conducts inspections of 

diesel engines and vehicles at the ports and other environmental justice (EJ) areas in its nine 

county jurisdiction.

22 | | ARB
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Highlighted Enforcement Cases for 2010

In a majority of our enforcement actions, ARB is able to reach a mutual settlement agreement with air 

quality violators. Generally, this settlement includes a monetary penalty, a corrective action, and in 

some cases, funds for a SEP that improves air quality.

In 2010, ARB referred its first criminal case for prosecution against Goldenvale, Inc. which resulted in 

a felony conviction.

A five year investigation into illegal activity on the part Goldenvale Inc., Kenning Ma, President and 

Owner and his wife Shirley Ji, Vice President, came to a successful completion on April 28, 2010. 

Goldenvale is one of the largest importers of Chinese on and off-road motorcycles and recreational 

vehicles in the U.S. located in Ontario, California. They sold thousands of vehicles that were not 

certified by the ARB for import, sale or use in California. The ARB worked with the Office of the 

District Attorney, San Bernardino who charged the company President and Vice President with 70 

felony counts including conspiracy, grand theft, possession of false documents and money laundering. 

Ma and Ji were arrested on March 11, 2010 and held in county jail on $150 million and $75 million 

bail, respectively. They were released April 28, 2010, when Kenning Ma pleaded guilty to four felony 

counts of grand theft and was ordered to provide restitution to all victims in the case. Vice President 

Shirley Ji, pleaded no contest to one felony count of conspiracy to commit grand theft and one felony 

count of grand theft. They are paying $1.2 million in restitution to the victims in this case. The San 

Bernardino District Attorney’s office is overseeing the restitution program.

The felony pleas, sentencing and the amount of time in custody are significant for a case which had its 

beginnings in an investigation over air quality issues. 

The Goldenvale case is one of the first criminal case investigated by ARB, and prosecuted based on air 

quality violations. The results of this case reverberated throughout the import industry and served as 

a significant deterrent to similar violations. 

Another significant case in 2010 was a consumer products case against Pro’s Choice. In March 2010, 

a Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction was issued by the Stanislaus County Superior Court 

in People of the State of California v. Pro’s Choice Beauty Care. The litigation involved violations of 

the California Consumer Products regulations with 15 separate NOVs issued to seven defendants 

for diverted non-compliant hair care products. Pro’s Choice obtained hair care products that were 

ARB | | 23
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

manufactured for sale in hair salons and resold the products to “mass market” retailers including Rite 

Aid, Ralphs, Long’s, Walgreens, K-Mart, and Target, all of whom were defendants in this action. The 

defendants paid a total of $1,250,000 in penalties, attorney’s fees and costs to resolve this case. ARB 

will be monitoring sales of hair care products by the defendants to ensure compliance with the terms 

of the permanent injunction.

For a list of all the significant case settlements in 2010, please refer Appendix B of the 2010 Enforcement 

Report, www.arb.ca.gov/enf/reports/2010_enf_rpt.pdf.

Environmental Justice

The ARB is committed to making the achievement of Environmental Justice (EJ) an integral part of 

its activities. State law defines EJ as the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes 

with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.

The Board’s “Environmental Justice Policies and Actions” have established a framework for 

incorporating EJ into ARB’s programs consistent with the directives of state law. These policies apply 

to all communities in California, but recognize that EJ issues have been raised more in the context of 

low-income and minority communities. These policies are intended to promote the fair treatment of all 

Californians and cover the full spectrum of ARB activities. Underlying these policies is a recognition 

that we need to engage community members in a meaningful way as we carry out our activities. People 

should have the best information possible about the air they breathe and what is being done to reduce 

unhealthful air pollution in their communities. Finally, we recognize our obligation to work closely 

with all stakeholders, communities, environmental and public health organizations, industry, business 

owners, other agencies, and all other interested parties to successfully implement these policies.

Over the last year, ED has increased its coordinated effort with federal, state and local enforcement 

agencies such as U.S. EPA, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the California Water 

Resource Control Board, local air districts, local law enforcement, city leaders and local community 

groups throughout the state, especially in areas that have been identified as EJ areas. Staff has worked 

with environmental collaborative groups in the cities of Maywood, Oakland, Pacoima, Riverside, San 

Bernardino, and Wilmington.

24 | | ARB
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Performance Measures/Environmental and Public Health Indicators

Mobile Source Enforcement Branch Program Outcomes

Compliance rates for MSEB programs where these rates can be calculated are listed in the table below:

Program Compliance Rate

Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection 99%

Solid Waste Collection Vehicles 90%

Public Agency Utility (PAU) Enforcement 71%

Engine Certification Labels (AB1009) 94%

Commercial Vehicle Idling 86%

Drayage Truck 88%

In-Use Off-Road 78%*

TRU Truck/Trailer 62%

49 state 99%

Tampering1 98%

Small Off-Road Engine (SORE) 72%

Off-Highway Recreational Vehicle (OHVR) 96%

Certificate of Noncompliance2 77%

*Limited sample size-not statistically representative of fleet’s overall compliance rate.

1

Tampering – Vehicle Code section 27156 prohibits the tampering or removal of a motor vehicle pollution control device. 

2

Illegal Non – California Certified Vehicles - Health and Safety Code Section 43151 et seq. states a new vehicle – 

defined as a vehicle that has fewer than 7,500 odometer miles, that is not certified to California’s standards cannot be sold 

within or imported into the state. If such a vehicle enters California, the Smog Check issues a Certificate of NonCompliance 

(CofNC) to the vehicle owner. The CofNC is mailed to Air Resources Board (ARB) and staff verifies the certification and 

mileage. A Notice of Violation (NOV) is issued which requires that the vehicle be removed from the state along with a civil 

penalty of up to $5,000 per vehicle.

ARB | | 25
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Stationary Source Enforcement Branch Program Outcomes

Compliance rates for SSEB programs where the rates can be calculated are listed in the table below. 

The Consumer Products and Portable Fuel Container programs do not calculate compliance rates 

due to the targeted focus of the sampling programs (new categories, revised limits, or similar 

violations) and the limited analysis capacity relative to the number of regulated products. Also, the 

Fuels Enforcement program does not calculate compliance rates because the sampling is not random. 

Many of the investigations and inspections are targeted at specific facilities and industries based on 

compliance history and market share. Compliance rates are also not calculated for many investigations 

and inspection programs due to the unique nature of each stationary source investigation and case.

Public Health Indicators

For over 40 years, the ARB has worked aggressively to improve California’s air quality. Airborne 

pollutants result in large part from human activities, and growth generally has a negative impact on 

air quality. Through its multifaceted programs of planning, research, air monitoring, regulation, and 

enforcement, the ARB, in collaboration with the state’s 35 air districts, has succeeded in significantly 

reducing Californians’ exposure to air pollution. This progress has been dramatic despite considerable 

growth in population, motor vehicles, and vehicle miles travelled as shown in the following charts 

(future year data is based on modeled trend projections):

Program Compliance Rate

Railroad MOU 99%

(Source: ARB 2009 California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality)

PM10 - Annual Avg 

CO - 8-Hour Max

Ozone - 8-Hour Max

Population

Vehicle Miles Traveled

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Change 1989-2008

26 | | ARB
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Metrics 

In 2010, ED’s program activities such as number of inspections and number of violations are located on 

Appendix C, D and E of the 2010 Annual Enforcement Report. The report is located at the following 

link, www.arb.ca.gov/enf/reports/2010_enf_rpt.pdf.

The Enforcement Action table shows the number of cases closed, cases referred, and penalties collected 

from 2007-2010.

Statewide Emissions (tons/day, annual average)

Pollutant 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

NOX 4886 4898 4744 4940 4387 3972 3513 2981 2476 2173

ROG 7058 6566 5990 4733 3803 3141 2455 2127 1993 1950

PM10 1857 1889 1971 2215 2112 2174 2134 2139 2202 2275

PM25 713 687 685 751 686 693 686 682 690 707

SOX 1277 953 534 511 303 297 301 294 337 394

CO 42175 37958 35270 30084 22405 17203 13127 10543 9134 8369

(Source: ARB 2009 California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality

Statewide Population and VMT Trends

Parameter 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Population 23782000 26402401 29828496 31711849 34095209 36896218 39135677 41635800 44135923

Avg. Daily 

VMT/1000 403567 538319 691049 733629 799848 955234 958079 1033400 1104522

(Source: ARB 2009 California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality)

ARB | | 27
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Training Compliance Assistance Branch

The Training and Compliance Assistance Branch is divided in two sections the Compliance Assistance 

Program Section and the Compliance Training Sections. This Branch provides nationally recognized 

and award-winning training courses to encourage communication and networking between 

environmental personnel, with the goal of achieving emission reductions and solving compliance 

problems through professionalism and teamwork. 

Compliance Assistance

ED provides compliance assistance to regulated entities through posting and distribution of compliance 

advisories, field outreach in conjunction with enforcement activities, participation in outreach and 

educational events in conjunction with other divisions at ARB, and classroom and web-based training. 

ED also houses the Compliance Assistance Program or CAP, which for over 20 years has developed 

and distributed a variety of practical, rule-specific publications, technical manuals, and web-based 

information. This information is aimed at a diverse audience, including process operators, air quality 

specialists in small and large businesses, inspectors, and the public. One-page outreach flyers and 

pamphlets explain key elements of compliance with new air quality regulations. Self-inspection 

handbooks go into more detail and provide checklists so operators can be proactive in compliance. 

Formal Enforcement Actions 2007 2008 2009 2010

Civil Cases Closed 6 4 13 23

Administrative Actions Closed 3,436 2,593 4,041 3,677

Civil Cases Referred/Pending 1 11 38 39 16

Criminal Cases Referred/Pending 3 3 1 0

Cases Closed 3,442 2,597 4,054 252

Penalties $20,470,975 $9,379,476 $14,461,974 $12,450,560

SEPs $9,379,500 $2,600,336 $1,919,184 $336,672

1 Civil cases pending: pending litigation or settlement with the attorney general or various district and city attorneys statewide. 

28 | | ARB
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Technical manuals provide in-depth, source-specific information. Traditionally the program has 

focused on stationary sources and district assistance. In 2011, the focus will shift to mobile sources 

regulated by the ARB to help meet the formidable task of reaching out to the many affected businesses, 

both large and small. 

In 2010, the CAP distributed nearly 5,000 hard copies of publications, 3,880 of which were 

handbooks. This was a 40% decrease in hard copy distribution from the previous year. This decrease 

has been a trend for several years as many more people view publications on-line. Web page views 

for CAP publications were just over 217,000, with handbooks again making up the majority at just 

over 148,500. (The number of webpage views is not a precise number, because a certain percentage 

of web views are from “robot” search engines.) CAP publications can be found on the webpage: 

www.arb.ca.gov/html/tca.htm. 

The ED also provides Visible Emissions Evaluation (VEE) training and certification services throughout 

California. Most stationary and many mobile sources in the state are required by law to meet state and 

local limits for visible emissions. Compliance with these limits is evaluated by industry and air district 

staff certified to read visible emissions quantitatively. Re-certification is required every six months. 

Businesses with VEE-certified staff can proactively identify operations that do or do not meet VEE 

Training inspectors

ARB | | 29
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

limits. In 2010, 1,250 persons successfully certified or recertified out of nearly 2,000 who took the 

certification tests. 

Compliance Training

In 2010, the Compliance Training Section (CTS) increased the compliance training activities in order 

to meet increasing requests from the CAPCOA districts, state and federal agencies and the regulated 

communities. CTS also took on various enforcement outreach activities and expanded and revised 

the compliance training curriculum. CTS provide a valuable service to ED, other divisions within the 

ARB, Cal/EPA, and U.S. EPA. The continuous growth of, and demand for training on, the Compliance 

Training Program over the years reflects its value. 

CTS continues to emphasize program enhancement through the development of new courses and 

continual updating of existing courses. Its instructors are continuously updated and trained on the 

emerging issues in the air quality field. Over the years, ARB has trained thousands of people from 

industry, academia, government agencies, other organizations, and members of the public on how to 

comply with ARB requirements. ARB training is, and continues to be, a model for other states, the 

nation and other countries.

Training Program Statistics for 2010

Over 312 classes or multi-day training programs were offered, representing over 8220 students;

January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010

Total Students Taught in CA 6,783

Total Courses Taught in CA 250

Total Students Taught in the National Program (outside CA) 1,435

Total Courses Taught in the National Program (outside CA) 61

Webcast Capable Courses 26

Webcast Students 611

Average Webcast Students per Course 22

Overall Totals 337 Courses

8829 Students

30 | | ARB
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

The CTS offers courses on inspections and courses on case development for inspectors. The Uniform 

Air Quality Training Program is a series of 14 courses providing an introduction to air pollution 

control and enforcement. The program is intended for new, entry-level stationary source inspectors, 

regulatory agency staff, and environmental specialists in business and government. CTS is currently 

developing an on-line module of this Uniform Air Quality Training Program.

The 200 series courses are designed for the semi-experienced air quality professional. They contain 

a higher level of technical information offering first-hand application of topics addressed in the 

classroom study portion of the class by including field visits to regulated commercial and industrial 

sites. Examples of 200 courses include: In-Station Diagnostics; Permitting Under New Source Review 

and Course 298 (Overview of the Title V Permitting Program);

The 300 and 400 series courses are comprised of workshops, seminars, and symposiums that address 

current, and sometimes controversial, environmental issues such as cross media training, legal issues, 

Visible emissions smoke test generator

ARB | | 31
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

case development and variance/hearing board requirements. This series of training was designed for 

experienced environmental professionals.

The 500 Series courses are focused primarily on mobile source emissions. Over the past couple of years, 

there have been numerous mobile source regulations introduced, therefore, demand for training and 

knowledge in this arena, specifically diesel regulation outreach, is at an all-time high. The demand 

for this training is apparent from the numerous classes required throughout 2010. Several new and 

revamped mobile source training and outreach courses are in development stages for 2011 to keep 

up with this growing demand. A representative sample of the 500 series courses include: Portable 

Equipment Registration Program; Diesel Exhaust After-Treatment Device Training, and Diesel 

Vehicle Regulation Overview Outreach.

Additional Information:

The following web links provide additional detailed information regarding ARB’s Enforcement Programs: 

The 2010 Annual Enforcement Report includes a more in-depth discussion of the enforcement 

programs currently administered by ARB, as well as some summary statistics relating to inspections, 

investigations, and activities in each of the programs. More detailed information relating to case status, 

local air district enforcement activities and other relevant information is included in the appendices. 

Please also note that it is ARB’s practice to keep confidential the names of entities involved in 

pending enforcement actions, and that this convention will be observed in any pending case summary 

information. Specific case settlement summaries can be viewed at ARB’s Enforcement Program web 

site located at: www.arb.ca.gov/enf/casesett/casesett.htm. The 2010 Annual Enforcement Report is located 

at: www.arb.ca.gov/enf/reports/2010_enf_rpt.pdf.

32 | | ARB

Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Air Districts

Air District Mission:

It is the mission of California air districts to attain 

and maintain both federal and State air quality 

standards and to protect the public from the 

adverse health effects of air pollution.

Air District Enforcement Program Mission:

Air district enforcement programs strive to 

ensure that both permitted and non-permitted 

air pollutant emitting facilities comply with 

all State, federal, and local air pollution rules 

and regulations. The overarching goal of the 

program is to ensure compliance with emission 

standards in order to protect public health and 

welfare. Enforcement programs also investigate 

citizen complaints to determine the source of 

odors, dust, fumes, or other pollutants that may 

cause harm or discomfort to the public.

| Air Districts
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Enforcement Program Overview

There are 35 local air pollution control and air quality management districts in California. The earliest 

local air districts were created in response to urban air pollution problems, notably in San Diego, Los 

Angeles, and the San Francisco Bay Area. In 1970, legislation established a local air pollution control 

or air quality management district in every county in California. State law recognizes existing multicounty districts, and provides for districts to unify into regional agencies.

Local air districts run monitoring networks to measure pollution in ambient air. They develop 

plans to attain State and federal health-based ambient standards, and adopt regulations and other 

measures that codify the plans. Districts issue construction and operating permits or registrations for 

stationary and portable equipment or activities that emit air pollution, and inspect these equipment 

and activities to ensure compliance with applicable requirements. These permits require utilization of 

best pollution control technology for criteria pollutants and a risk-based review of toxic air pollutants 

for applicable new and modified sources of air pollution.

Districts review the toxic emissions from facilities and the associated impacts on the public, and 

require facilities that pose significant risks to inform the public and implement risk reduction plans. 

Districts also regulate activities such as open burning on agricultural or forested lands and activities 

that cause a public nuisance. Local districts regulate agricultural sources of air pollution, including 

livestock operations, field operations that generate dust, and certain agricultural engines. They also 

review the air pollution impacts of projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Compliance with air pollution control requirements is determined and achieved thru a variety of 

activities, approaches, and tools. This report includes findings of a review of selected compliance 

program elements and associated data. Overall, the data reveal a robust enforcement and compliance 

Air Districts | | 35
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

assistance program with substantial funding and staff resources that achieve a high degree of 

compliance with applicable requirements. Compliance assistance and outreach programs proactively 

prevent violations from occurring, but when violations do occur, enforcement actions bring about a 

prompt return to compliance.

In addition to programs mandated by federal and state law, local air districts develop programs to 

respond to specific local air pollution problems and concerns. These can include measures to reduce 

emissions from indirect sources of air pollution, such as residential or commercial development, 

programs to support development of new, low or zero emission technologies, efforts to address global 

warming, and work to reduce impacts on communities, especially low-income communities and 

environmental justice areas. Districts collaborate with local governments, business and the public to 

reduce transportation-related air pollution through better planning and infrastructure, and voluntary 

programs to reduce motor vehicle trips. They also implement financial incentive programs to reduce 

emissions from motor vehicles and heavy-duty diesel engines, lawn mowers, fireplaces, woodstoves, 

and other sources. 

An important, but non-regulatory component of enforcement and compliance programs is the 

outreach made by the district to the regulated community and to the public in general. The goal of 

outreach is to improve the general and specific knowledge of the people who operate sources that are 

subject to regulation, and to assist them in complying with air quality requirements. It also improves 

the understanding of air quality issues for the general public and allows for accurate reporting of 

concerns about non-compliance. Outreach efforts encompass a number of activities. These include, 

for example, the distribution of printed materials that address air pollution issues broadly, or specific 

regulations and how to comply with them; workshops and community meetings; the staffing of 

public information lines to respond to phone inquiries; the development and maintenance of on-line, 

electronic information; and individual meetings and inspections when appropriate or requested. Data 

on compliance assistance programs are not included in this report.

Organizational Structure 

Local air districts operate at the direction of their Boards of Directors. The Board at each air district 

has, at a minimum, county Supervisors within the jurisdiction of the agency. Many air districts 

also have representation of cities (by city council members) within their jurisdiction, pursuant to 

36 | | Air Districts
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

State Health and Safety Code. A few of 

the larger districts also have members 

appointed by the governor, legislators, or 

a mayor. Other than this small number 

of appointees, all members of district 

governing boards are locally elected 

officials. 

The Air Pollution Control Officer/

Executive Officer of the air district is 

appointed by the governing board. He 

or she directs the district staff. The size 

and organization of air district staff 

varies considerably across the 35 local 

air districts. The largest air district has a 

population exceeding 16 million, and over 

800 full time employees. The smallest 

air district has one employee who also 

performs other functions (such as acting 

as the Agricultural Commissioner, for 

example). The larger air districts have 

full time legal counsel, and in some cases 

full time prosecuting attorneys as well. Smaller air districts contract for legal services, typically with 

counsel for the county or counties within their jurisdiction. Some of the smaller, rural air districts also 

work with the Circuit Prosecutor Program established by Cal/EPA, and consult with legal counsel at 

the Air Resources Board or at other air districts if additional, specific legal expertise when needed.

Each local air district also has a hearing board, established pursuant to the California Health and 

Safety Code, with membership appointed by the governing board and restricted to specified areas of 

expertise. The hearing boards work independently of the district and review petitions for variances 

from local rules and regulations, petitions by the Air Pollution Control Officer for abatement orders 

in cases of non-compliance, and petitions that appeal permitting decisions made by the local district.

Air Districts | | 37
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

California Environmental Protection Agency

Air Resources Board

Air Districts are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labels

and Grey Boundary Lines.

Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labels

and Black Boundary Lines.

California Air Districts and Counties

INYO

KERN

SAN BERNARDINO

FRESNO

RIVERSIDE

SISKIYOU

TULARE

LASSEN

MODOC

MONO

SHASTA

IMPERIAL

TRINITY

SAN DIEGO

TEHAMA

HUMBOLDT

PLUMAS

MONTEREY

MENDOCINO

LOS ANGELES

LAKE

BUTTE

MADERA

MERCED

KINGS

TUOLUMNE

VENTURA

GLENN

SAN

LUIS

OBISPO

PLACER

YOLO SONOMA

SANTA BARBARA

EL DORADO

NAPA

COLUSA

MARIPOSA

SIERRA

STANISLAUS

YUBA

NEVADA

SAN

BENITO

SAN

JOAQUIN

ALPINE

SOLANO

SANTA

CLARA

ORANGE

DEL

NORTE

CALAVERAS

MARIN

ALAMEDA

SUTTER SACRAMENTO

AMADOR CONTRA

COSTA

SAN

MATEO

SANTA

CRUZ

SAN

FRANCISCO

Mojave Desert

San Joaquin Valley

Unified

South Coast

Kern

Siskiyou

Great

Basin

Unified

Lassen

Modoc

Imperial

Shasta

San Diego

North

Coast

Unified

Tehama

Mendocino Butte

Northern

Sierra

Lake

Bay Area

Monterey

Bay Unified

Placer

Ventura

Tuolumne

Glenn

San Luis Obispo

El Dorado

Santa Barbara

Colusa

Mariposa

YoloSolano

Calaveras

Feather

River

Antelope

Valley

No

Amador

rthern

Sonoma

S

N

W E

0 50 100 150 200 Miles

SCampbellTSD_398

Sacramento Metro

California Air Districts and Counties

38 | | Air Districts
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Enforcement Program Components 

There are several important components in a robust enforcement program. This report focuses on field 

enforcement activities, namely inspections and investigations. The data is from a survey of district 

enforcement and compliance statistics conducted by the California Air Pollution Control Officers 

Association (CAPCOA). CAPCOA reviewed and compiled enforcement data from 20 local air districts 

(“the/these districts”) for the Calendar Year 2010. The survey represents data from a large sample of 

the districts in California including large, medium size, and rural districts. These 20 districts represent 

over 96 percent of the population in California. Due to resource constraints, not all districts were able 

to expend the effort to compile and report the data requested in the survey. Since air pollution has a 

direct link to population in terms of causes and impacts, CAPCOA believes that the large sample of 

the survey provides a robust picture of local district activity in California in terms of population and 

air pollution sources.

The 2011 survey covered 21 discrete measures of compliance program performance from each of 

these districts during Calendar Year 2010. These included information such as agency resource 

commitments, total numbers of facilities regulated, enforcement and compliance activity statistics, 

and total civil penalties collected.

Generally, the data reported here concern field inspections and investigations. An inspection entails a 

visit to the actual facility site, and observation of the equipment during operation. The inspector will 

review the operation against the requirements listed in the permit and/or against the requirements 

contained in any applicable federal, state, or local air regulation.

Depending on the type of operation, and the regulations of the air district with jurisdiction, there 

may be a small or large number of individual requirements and limitations, and they may apply across 

the facility, or only to a specified activity or piece of equipment. Requirements and limitations may 

include:

• direct limits on emissions as measured at a specified point; 

• restrictions on throughput, production, hours of operation;

• restrictions on raw materials or fuels used; 

• temperature, pressure, or other operating limitations;

• prohibitions against certain actions;

• requirements to install, operate, and maintain pollution control equipment; 

Air Districts | | 39
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

• requirements to undertake specified mitigation actions; 

• and requirements to measure, record, and/or report emissions or process parameters.

Inspection of a source in the field involves direct verification of compliance with all applicable 

requirements. This may entail observation of emission streams, including visual reading of opacity, 

measurement of emissions content with various analyzers, and observation of emissions monitoring 

data. The inspector will also measure or observe the monitoring of specified operating parameters, 

including mitigation requirements, such as sweeping, watering, and other such actions. He or she 

may also conduct testing of equipment performance using specified test methods. Visual inspection of 

equipment and emissions control devices ensures operations are in proper operating order, and that 

no changes occurred in equipment or operations without agency review and approval. Examination 

and/or sampling of stockpiles or other storage of feed materials occur to verify compliance. Data 

review may include examination of emissions and parametric monitoring records, source testing 

results, operational logs (including production data), mitigation logs, excursion reports, and any 

other relevant information.

1) Major Permitted Source Inspection 

The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) defines major sources based on emission thresholds. The major 

source definition varies according to the attainment status of each air district. All such major sources 

are required to hold permits under Title V of the CAA. These sources are also subject to extensive 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements and they are required to submit annual 

certifications of compliance. Most of these sources have continuous emission or continuous parametric 

monitors. The local air district issues and enforces the terms of these permits.

This inspection category represents the number of periodic Title V facility compliance determinations 

conducted in a given period (as required by EPA). One inspection count would be assigned for each 

Title V facility inspection completed. Some of these facilities are inspected quarterly, and a few, such as 

petroleum refineries, are so large and complex, with thousands of pieces of equipment and/or potential 

emission points, that inspectors are on site almost full time. The CAPCOA survey data show that, on 

average, each major source is inspected over six times each year. It should be noted that, in many 

instances Title V sources not only have routine compliance inspections but other inspections as well, 

including, equipment breakdown investigations, complaint investigations, variance/abatement order 

inspections, enforcement follow up inspections, witnessing or conducting source tests, continuous 

40 | | Air Districts
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

emissions monitors (CEMs) review, and reviewing records/Title V reports. If a certain category of 

equipment is prone to be in non-compliance, it likely will receive additional scrutiny at all applicable 

sources. 

2) Minor Permitted Source Inspection 

Minor Permitted Sources are sources that are not considered “major” according to the CAA definition. 

Many of these are smaller sources, such as gas stations, drycleaners, and auto body shops. Others are 

relatively large, in spite of the title “minor” and may include such operations as aggregate mining, 

combustion equipment, sandblasting, coating operations, printing, and circuit board manufacturing.

Minor sources are not required to have federal Title V permits. They do, however, hold local air 

permits. Some of these sources have continuous monitoring, but most do not. The recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements are typically less extensive as well. Emission levels and other concerns, such as 

public nuisance and compliance history, will determine the frequency of inspections.

Some minor sources may present significant environmental or human health risk due to the toxicity 

of pollutants they emit. These include chrome plating operations, sterilizers that use ethylene oxide, 

drycleaners that use perchloroethylene, gas stations, coating operations with toxic metals in the 

coating, and internal combustion engines that are fueled with diesel. Not only are the emissions 

hazardous, the sources are frequently located close to where the public lives and works. Because of 

this, these sources are typically inspected at least once a year. Minor sources with the potential to emit 

significant or toxic emissions and/or have had a prior history of non-compliance will receive extra 

scrutiny from districts.

3) Non-permitted Source Inspection

Some sources are subject to regulation, but not required to obtain permits. The sources involved here 

will vary somewhat from district to district. In areas that attain most or all standards and there is not a 

significant nonattainment problem, small sources may not require permits where they would in areas 

that have more substantial nonattainment problems. There are also rules that affect many ubiquitous 

sources that are enforced without permits. These may include such regulations as restrictions on 

residential wood combustion, limitations on the content of coatings offered for sale, or limitations 

on idling engines. In some areas, open outdoor burning is regulated but not subject to permits, while 

some districts require permits/approval to conduct burning of agricultural waste, prescribed burning 

Air Districts | | 41
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

of forest land, or hazard reduction burning in remote rural areas. The compliance departments work 

closely with in-house/local/state meteorologists to minimize emissions from such burns.

Some of these inspections involve reviewing shelf-stock at retail operations, while others may involve 

driving around looking for smoke on days when burning has been restricted. Some districts will take 

samples of coatings and other products for analysis by a laboratory to ensure compliance. Enforcement 

of anti-idling rules occurs in places like ports, schools, bus stops, truck stops, and job sites. This 

category includes the “complete inspection” of sources not subject to written permit requirements, 

but where source specific requirements do apply. This category would also include many area source 

categories such as open burning, agricultural operations and excavation/demolition sites.

4) Investigation of Upset/Breakdown Reports 

Local regulations provide for limited protection from enforcement if non-compliance occurs during 

a qualifying upset/breakdown event. In order to qualify, the emissions have to be the result of a nonroutine event, such as the malfunction of a piece of equipment or upset conditions in a process that 

is outside the control of the operator. The facility operator is required to report the event within 

a specified time period and provide a written report documenting the cause of the event and the 

subsequent actions taken. Coverage, or protection from enforcement, may be approved by the Air 

Pollution Control Officer (APCO) for up to 96 hours (for continuous emission monitors) in order to 

allow for repairs and restoration of normal operating conditions. If the repairs will take longer than 

time allows, further protection can only be granted by the hearing board in the form of a variance.

When upset/breakdown reports are received, districts investigate the cause of the event, to ensure 

that it was in fact outside of the operator’s control, and not the result of an error, negligent actions, or 

poorly maintained equipment. Other conditions checked by inspectors include whether or not this is 

a recurring situation and whether this causes a violation of air quality standards or a public nuisance. 

This category would reflect the number of breakdown investigations undertaken and completed by the 

20 districts surveyed. One inspection would be assigned for each breakdown investigation completed, 

although an investigation may require multiple site visits. Reports of breakdowns are tracked by some 

districts in databases which ensure reported events are not recurring. 

5) Investigation of Complaints 

All air districts have programs to receive, log, and respond to complaints from the public about air 

42 | | Air Districts
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

pollution problems. Complaints frequently involve objectionable odors, dust, or smoke, but other 

causes are also seen. The complainant may or may not know the source or location of the problem. 

Sometimes complaints are reports of health symptoms that the complainant attributes to air pollution 

from a known or unknown source.

The air districts, working through CAPCOA and with the ARB, developed and implemented a 

complaint resolution protocol that sets forth appropriate complaint response procedures and outlines 

when and how to refer complaints between the districts and ARB. 

Once a source is located, the inspector will review the operation to determine if it involves the 

violation of any applicable rules, regulations, or permit conditions. Even if there is not a specific 

requirement limiting the activity, there is a general prohibition against creating a public nuisance. 

When investigation of a public nuisance or other air quality violation is triggered by a complaint, the 

inspector documents the results of the investigation, and will report findings to the complainants if 

requested.

6) Verification of Compliance with Variance Terms and Abatement Orders 

When the hearing board issues a variance from a requirement, the source is generally subject to 

alternative limitations and required to document progress towards returning to compliance with the 

otherwise applicable requirement(s). Similarly, an order of abatement contains increments of progress 

that include specific timelines to complete tasks (such as ordering equipment, installation, testing for 

compliance, and status reports). There may be limits on production or hours of operation that apply 

to limit excess emissions or avoid exposing sensitive receptors (e.g., not operating during school hours 

to avoid exposing children).

7) Inspection of Portable Equipment 

The ARB registers and regulates portable engines and equipment, under its Portable Equipment 

Registration Program (PERP). These engines operate for limited periods at any single site and may 

operate more frequently at multiple sites over long distances. Program requirements are enforced by 

local air districts. Initially, the program was voluntary, the enforcement provisions were difficult to 

apply, and the program was under-funded. Statutory and regulatory changes in 2006 significantly 

enhanced the enforcement provisions and funding, and the program is now mandatory for any 

equipment not covered by a valid permit or registration with the air district it operates within.

Air Districts | | 43
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Under the revised program, engines and equipment are assigned to a “home district” and routine 

inspections are required once every three years. Inspections also occur to locate unregistered 

equipment and to verify proper operation in the field. Certain types of equipment are also subject to 

enhanced notification and inspection provisions.

8) Inspections Pursuant to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

for Asbestos and the Air Toxic Control Measure for Naturally Occurring Asbestos 

The US EPA promulgates regulations under Section 112 of the federal CAA called National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). They were historically directed at a specific 

pollutant, although regulations adopted after 1990 generally affect a source category and all of the 

hazardous pollutants emitted by those sources. Implementation and enforcement of these rules are 

delegated by US EPA either to the local air districts or to the ARB.

The NESHAP for Asbestos includes requirements for the renovation or demolition of structures where 

asbestos is present, including notification, testing, containment, and disposal. In California, 16 air 

districts have accepted delegation of the program (remaining areas are delegated to ARB). Inspections 

occur in response to complaints and to verify proper asbestos removal and containment procedures 

during the renovation or demolition activities.

In addition, the ARB has established an Air Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for Naturally Occurring 

Asbestos (NOA) that governs construction and mining in soils where NOA may be found. The ATCM 

specifies testing of the soil and requires enhanced dust mitigation plans where asbestos is present. It 

also prohibits the use of asbestos-containing materials for purposes where exposure could occur (for 

example, NOA-containing gravel on roadways, paths, or parking areas unless fully enclosed within 

concrete or under pavement). Inspections include the review testing records and verify implementation 

of mitigation measures. Surveys may occur periodically in areas of known NOA for signs of activity 

such as residential housing construction. If activity is occurring, an on-site investigation occurs.

This inspection category reflects both NESHAP inspections of renovation/demolitions for those 

delegated districts as well as ATCM inspections for naturally occurring asbestos. 

44 | | Air Districts
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

9) Conducting and Observing Source Tests 

As used here, the term “source test” refers to a formal measurement of source emissions (or the content 

of fuels, raw materials, or product) using methods established by ARB or US EPA, or in some cases, 

an air district. Some district staff performs a variety of source tests. Other air districts require source 

tests to be performed by third parties (or in some cases by the source), and observe the conduct of the 

tests.

Major Program Highlights

The following statistics measure performance of selected enforcement and compliance program 

elements at the twenty local air districts for activities conducted during Calendar Year 2010. These 

districts include within their jurisdictions over 96 percent of California’s residents. As described in 

greater detail below, these data were gathered through an extensive survey process. They describe 

a robust and effective enforcement and compliance program for stationary sources of air pollution. 

Program achievements during Calendar Year 2010 include:

• Over 61,800 inspections at traditional stationary sources;

• Over 6,100 inspections of Major Permitted Sources (a.k.a. Title V Facilities);

• More than $22 million in monetary violation settlements;

• More than $1.2 million in non-monetary violation settlements;

• Over 6,600 inspections for asbestos pursuant to the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Asbestos;

• More than 5,800 inspections of CARB registered portable equipment;

• More than 560 full time employees (FTE) involved primarily in compliance and enforcement 

of air pollution control laws;

• Approximately 24 percent of total district budgets dedicated to enforcement.

What the Reported Data Tells Us 

The reported data show that local air districts dedicate substantial resources to enforcement of 

stationary source requirements, and other special requirements, such as federal standards for 

hazardous air pollutants. The data also show the efficient use of resources to produce measurable 

enforcement and compliance presence to ensure high rates of consistent ongoing compliance.

Air Districts | | 45
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Examples Of Sucessful Enforcement Cases

Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District entered into a Stipulated Order of Abatement with 

the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). This case stemmed from the fact 

that LADWP missed a deadline to complete particulate matter controls on 3.1 square miles on the 

Owens Lake bed. The Stipulated Order of Abatement granted LADWP an additional three years to 

implement the particulate matter controls on the Owens Lake bed. LADWP is required to pay Great 

Basin Unified APCD $6.5 million to offset the excess particulate matter emissions that will occur 

during the three-year extension period. The funds will be utilized for local projects that will reduce 

particulate matter emissions.

As an example of a more typical enforcement action, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District 

issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to an independent oil and gas producer for failure to operate an 

oilfield vapor recovery system in proper condition. The violation was corrected in a timely manner, 

and compliance was verified by a district inspector. The NOV was settled for a fine of $15,000.

Public Health Indicators

One measure of the effectiveness of an air pollution control and enforcement program is air quality 

trends. The graph below presents the number of days over the federal 8-hour ozone standard for the 

time period 1973 through 2010 for Ventura County. While specific to Ventura County, these trends are 

typical for many areas of California. The graph also demonstrates that air quality continues to improve 

even as population continues to grow.

46 | | Air Districts
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1973197519771979198119831985198719891991199319951997199920012003200520072009

Days Exceeding Ozone Standard

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

Fed 8-hr 75 ppb Population

Sources: California Air Resources Board and California Department of Finance.

Days Over Federal Ozone Standards – Ventura County

Enforcement Metrics

Enforcement Actions

2006

(11 of 35 

Districts)

2008

(20 of 35 

Districts)

2010

(20 of 35 

Districts)

Number of Violations Discovered 4,213 13,840 10,113

Cash Value of Violations Settled $24,834,097 $18,897,700 $22,516,712

Non-Cash Settlement Value of Violations* $1,667,600 $6,527,585 $1,223,207

* Non-cash settlements reflect in-kind or other benefits by the violating facility in the community in which the facility is may be located

Air Districts | | 47
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

District Inspector Training

District inspectors are trained to ensure the effectiveness of the inspection program. Inspectors 

complete California Air Resources Board training courses focusing on the fundamentals of 

enforcement, visible emission evaluation, source specific operations, hearing board procedures, and 

source specific regulations. New inspectors also receive district specific training on district software, 

inspection procedures, and participate in ride-along inspections with experienced district staff. 

Inspectors responsible for asbestos related inspections are also provided annual respirator training 

and additional training to implement enforcement of the NESHAP for Asbestos. In Ventura County, 

the local District Attorney provides additional training related to conducting investigations.

Additional Information:

For additional information regarding all 35 local air districts in California, visit www.capcoa.org, the 

website for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association.

48 | | Air Districts

Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Department of Toxic Substances Control

DTSC Mission:

To protect California’s people and environment 

from harmful effects of toxic substances by restoring 

contaminated properties, identifying and promoting 

safer ingredients in consumer products, and ensuring 

stewardship through enforcement, regulation and 

pollution prevention.

Enforcement & Emergency Response Mission:

To promote a healthier environment for all Californians 

through fair, consistent, and timely enforcement. 

The Enforcement Program is comprised of multiple 

program components that conduct inspections and 

take enforcement actions against facilities where DTSC 

has issued permits, against transporters, generators 

of hazardous waste, and against electronic waste 

handlers. The Enforcement Program also leads 

Environmental Justice activities, implements the Toxics 

in Consumer Product Laws, provides compliance 

assistance, has the only sworn peace officer criminal 

investigators in the California Environmental Protection 

Agency (Cal/EPA), and conducts Certified Unified 

Program Agency (CUPA) oversight.

| DTSC
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Enforcement & Emergency Response Program Overview

The universe of businesses in California subject to hazardous waste requirements easily exceeds 120,000 

entities. Thus, the enforcement of hazardous waste requirements in this universe is split among three 

levels of government: federal, state, and local. The United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(US EPA) conducts a limited number of generator and permitted facility inspections, and takes 

enforcement where appropriate. DTSC’s Enforcement Program is responsible for the inspection and 

enforcement of permitted hazardous waste facilities, hazardous waste generators and on-site treaters, 

transportable treatment units, transporters, and electronic waste recyclers, processors, and collectors. 

The CUPAs conduct most of the inspections and enforcement of hazardous waste generators and 

on-site treatment units as provided in SB 1082 (1993) (Chapter 6.11, Health and Safety Code, section 

25404, et seq.). All CUPAs are local entities except for Imperial and Trinity Counties. DTSC is the 

designated CUPA in those two counties.

 

In addition to enforcing hazardous waste requirements, the Enforcement Program is responsible 

for enforcing the Toxics in Packaging Prevention Act and the Lead in Jewelry Act - laws enacted to 

protect consumers from toxics in products. 

The Enforcement Program implements its responsibilities through ten program components: Facility, 

Generator, and Transporter Program; California-Mexico Border 2012 Program; Environmental Justice 

Initiative; Electronic Waste Program; DTSC as the CUPA in Imperial and Trinity Counties; CUPAState Oversight Program; Office of Criminal Investigations; and Toxics in Consumer Products Program. 

In addition to the work of the Compliance Assistance Team, compliance assistance is provided by 

many of the other Enforcement Program components in the form of developing and distributing 

educational materials. The Enforcement Program takes both a proactive as well as a reactive approach 

DTSC | | 51
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

to the enforcement of hazardous waste laws and the toxics in consumer product requirements. The 

proactive approach is applied to the permitted facilities, transportable treatment units, transporters, 

generators, and electronic waste recyclers and collectors. The regulations and requirements for these 

entities have been designed to prevent the release of hazardous waste into the environment, and to 

ensure the safe handling of this waste by employees of hazardous waste handlers. This universe of 

hazardous waste handlers is regularly inspected to ensure they are in compliance with the applicable 

requirements. Entities subject to the toxics in consumer product requirements are also inspected on 

a scheduled basis.

The reactive approach is applied through the investigation of specific public health or environmental 

complaints received from members of the public or another governmental agency concerning any 

entity thought to be violating hazardous waste or toxics in consumer product laws. Complaints may 

be received by telephone, mail, e-mail, or through the Cal/EPA complaint tracking system that allows 

Internet users to file an environmental complaint online. All inspections or criminal investigations are 

conducted on an unannounced basis. 

Additionally, the DTSC Environmental Justice Initiative uniquely promotes proactive enforcement 

through work with affected community organizations whose members identify toxic harm in their 

individual communities. Community members actively participate in targeting polluters in their 

neighborhoods and proactively establish investigation priorities with DTSC’s Enforcement Program 

staff. Potential violators identified may become the subject of public health and environmental 

complaints that are then resolved through investigation. 

52 | | DTSC
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

An organizational chart of the Enforcement Program to the Performance Manager level (second level 

supervisor) is provided below:

DTSC’s Enforcement Program has 152.5 positions of which 141.5 are dedicated to enforcement work 

and 11 are in the Emergency Response. Of the 141.5 in enforcement, 108.5 positions perform inspections/

investigations. The Enforcement Program was budgeted at $13,446,976 for calendar year 2010.

Summary of Major Enforcement Highlights in 2010: 

• 427 core work inspections 

• 3808 Mexican Border truck stops inspections 

• 85 complaint investigations closed 

• 35 enforcement cases settled 

• $2,225,569 total settlement dollars 

• 74 and 49 inspections by DTSC as the CUPA in Imperial and Trinity Counties, respectively 

• 20 training classes provided resulting in more than 360 CUPA inspectors, governmental 

officials, and industry personnel trained 

• 314 total criminal cases currently under investigation 

• 161 new criminal cases initiated 

HQ Enforcement

Administration

SSM I

Deputy Director

Assistant Deputy Director

Associate Editor of 

Publications

DTSC Imperial

CUPA & San Diego 

Enforcement

Sup. HSS I

DTSC Trinity

CUPA

Sup. HSS I

Chatsworth-Cypress

Enforcement

Sup. HSS I

Executive

Assistant

Supervisor

HSS I

Enforcement and Emergency Response Program

State Oversight

and Enforcement

Sup. HSS II

Enforcement 

Environmental 

Justice

Sup. HSS II

Emergency

Response and Spec. 

Projects

Sup. HSS II

CEA Proposed

Investigations Sup.

Criminal 

Investigator II

DTSC | | 53
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

• 93 criminal cases completed 

• three arrests (eleven arrest-assists with the contractors board)

Highlighted Enforcement Cases in 2010 

The collaborative efforts of DTSC’s 

Enforcement and Emergency Response 

Program (EERP) staff culminated in several 

significant enforcement actions in 2010. 

These actions not only helped stop illegal 

hazardous waste management practices 

throughout California, but they also brought 

numerous companies back into compliance 

with the state’s hazardous waste laws. They 

included the following:

• DTSC imposed a administrative $150,000 penalty on Andrews International, Inc., for violations 

at its privately owned indoor shooting range that included: disposal of lead contaminated 

debris and hazardous waste lead dust in the municipal trash; allowing the transportation 

and disposal off-site of hazardous waste range lead; failure to prepare a manifest for transfer 

of hazardous waste off-site; allowing the transfer of custody and transportation of hazardous 

waste to transporters who did not hold a valid registration issued by DTSC; failure to 

minimize releases; and failure to make hazardous waste determinations.

• The San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office filed a civil complaint and stipulated final 

judgment against Romic Environmental for violations found during the following: DTSC’s 

compliance evaluations of Romic’s East Palo Alto facility in 2005, 2006, and 2007; complaint 

investigations conducted in March 2006 and August 2007; and US EPA’s inspection of August 

2006. The District Attorney’s action was filed under the California Business and Professions 

Code. Violations included in the complaint were: unauthorized storage, treatment, and 

disposal of hazardous waste; false representation in a manifest; mixing incompatible 

hazardous wastes; and operating a facility in an unsafe manner. Romic agreed to pay $275,000 

in civil penalties to San Mateo County. DTSC received $49,964.05 in costs. Other agencies 

| DTSC

DTSC scientists collecting samples of potential corrosive and flammable waste at an

illegal hazardous waste storage facility.

54 |
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

also received reimbursement of their costs. Through a separate administrative action taken 

by DTSC on August 29, 2007, Romic was ordered to notify of their intent to close the Romic 

East Palo Alto facility by September 30, 2007. Closure and corrective action work is currently 

underway under the oversight of DTSC and US EPA. 

• A civil settlement was approved in the San Diego Superior Court that addressed hazardous 

waste violations for over two hundred Wal-Mart Stores in 41 counties of California. 

The violations covered in the settlement were: improper disposal of hazardous waste; 

unauthorized transportation of hazardous waste; failure to meet storage and underground 

tank system requirements; violations of hazardous materials release response plans and 

inventory laws; and unfair competition laws. The civil penalties totaled $20,000,000 for the 

prosecutors and the regulatory enforcement offices. In addition to DTSC’s portion of the 

penalty, Wal-Mart will pay $3,000,000 in SEPs to the following projects: Craig Thompson 

Environmental Protection Fund; the California CUPA Forum Board for the Environmental 

Protection Prosecution Trust Fund; the California Hazardous Materials Investigators 

Association (CHMIA); CHMIA for California Advanced Environmental Criminal Training 

Program; CHMIA for California Specialized Training Institute – Environmental Crimes 

Course; California District Attorneys Association Environmental Projects; California District 

Attorneys Association Environmental Circuit Prosecutor Project; and the Cal/EPA Cross 

Media Enforcement Symposium.

Performance Measures/Environmental, Public Health Indicators:

A. Status of Performance Measurement Development

Performance Management System

DTSC is one of the few departments in California state government to design and implement a 

performance management system. In January 2008 the DTSC Executive Team had a set of outcomes 

and measures for each of the core and shared services programs. A “dashboard” of the critical few 

DTSC outcomes was developed to display and to demonstrate department performance against 

those outcomes.

In July 2009, DTSC began populating and updating an external performance display called 

“EcoTracker.” By December 2009 a committee of program staff and others involved in data 

collection developed a proposal for a change in nomenclature in the core program area and worked 

to finalize the measures for which there was data so that they could be displayed internally 

DTSC | | 55
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

and externally. A “virtual” Office of Performance Management was established to unify the 

strategic planning and performance measurement initiatives as originally proposed in the DTSC 

Performance Management system. Two cross-functional teams were established: the Strategic 

Planning Leadership Team; and the Performance Measurement Utilization Team, through which 

those functions would be enabled and reviewed.

The 2009-14 DTSC Strategic Plan www.dtsc.ca.gov/InformationResources/upload/ESP_REP_StrategicPlan.pdf

calls for development and implementation of a management framework centered on real-time 

performance accountability and integration of change management and performance excellence 

initiatives at DTSC by July 2011 (Goal 09-4; Objective 09-4.1). The Performance Measurement 

Utilization Team (PMUT) was formed to provide cross-program, cross-function leadership to 

the DTSC performance measurement utilization process. Most recently, DTSC redesigned the 

Executive Level of the department’s dashboard to focus on 13 measures arrayed in a “balanced 

scorecard.” The dashboard includes measures in four quadrants – Employee, Financial, Internal 

Processes, and Customer. 

B. Performance Measures

DTSC continues to work on development of performance measures for its core programs. The 

Enforcement Program’s performance measures are also under development. As found in DTSC’s 

Strategic Plan, an objective of EERP is to streamline the inspection process. Consequently, DTSC 

adopted the following Performance Measure: The percentage of inspection reports completed 

within 65 days. Data for 2010 show DTSC meeting the 65-day deadline 93.2 percent of the time.

56 | | DTSC
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Program Outcomes 

Through DTSCs proactive inspections and resulting enforcements, the potential illegal handling and 

release of hazardous waste has been decreased.

Percent Inspection Reports Completed and Sent within 65 Days

DTSC | | 57
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Inspections, Complaints, Violations

2007 2008 2009 2010

Regulated Units* 1,372

Inspections 436 537 399 427

Violations From Inspections** 375 396 288 277

Complaints Received ** 649 764 553 671

Complaints Referred *** 582 775 537 541

Complaints Assigned and Closed 54 71 82 84

Violations from Complaints Investigated ** 28 41 52 54

Complaints No Further Action Required 27 22 20 31

Metrics

Regulated Units in California: 

RCRA Permitted Facilities 66 

Post-Closure Facilities (some permitted) 44

State Standardize Permit Facilities 34

Transporters 950 Number ranges from 850 to 1050

Universal Waste Recyclers/Collectors 280 Approximate number changes yearly

Total 1372 

58 | | DTSC
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Regulated Hazardous Waste Generators:

Generators in California 45,000 to 85,000 

**Note: Inspections/complaints can have multiple areas of violation. This is a count of areas of

 violation and represents a minimum number.

***Note: Some complaints hold over one year to the next before they are closed/referred to DA or AG.

 This includes complaints taken by Office of Criminal Investigation.

Formal Enforcement Actions 2007 2008 2009 2010

Civil Cases Referred to AG 1 0 10 5

Civil Cases Settled AG 6 4 4 3

Criminal Cases Referred 54 9 13 3

Criminal Cases Closed 79 237 195 93

Administrative Actions Initiated 63 41 70 32

Administrative Actions Settled 65 41 69 32

Regulated Business Returned to Compliance 98% 95% 90% 78%

Penalties Amounts from Settled Cases $ 4,539,767 $ 3,396,133 $ 2,202,670 $ 2,225,569

DTSC | | 59
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Training

DTSC training ensures that the mandate of the Secretary of the Cal/EPA, to provide statewide 

coordinated, consolidated and consistent environmental enforcement programs as contained in 

Government Code section 12812.2, is carried out. DTSC committed $136,000 in 2010 in contract funds 

to support the training needs and activities for the Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs), 

DTSC staff, industry, and the regulated community. EERP staff are members of the Unified Program 

Trainers Committee which is composed of state and local training coordinators, and deals with CUPA 

training issues. Through this committee EERP staff worked closely with the CUPAs to assess training 

needs and plan and coordinate CUPA training.

DTSC Enforcement staff took various classes in 2010. The total number of course completions for 

Enforcement staff in 2010 was 734. The chart below shows the percentages for the types of classes 

taken by DTSC Enforcement staff.

DTSC field staff during drum sampling.

60 | | DTSC
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Budget Information 2010: 

From July 1, 2010 to October 8, 2010 there was no budget. Consequently, DTSC enforcement staff 

could not take training that had a cost. Staff were only able to attend free or internal training during 

that time. 

DTSC | | 61
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

The chart below shows the number of DTSC Enforcement staff that took training in each quarter of 

2009 and 2010.

62 | | DTSC
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Class Listing

For titles and descriptions of the classes taken by Enforcement Staff please go to:

http://10.39.0.144/HazardousWaste/upload/EERP_Training_2010.pdf

 

Additional Information:

The following website links provide additional detailed information related to DTSC’s Enforcement 

Program:

DTSC‘s website www.dtsc.ca.gov/EnforcementOrders.cfm

US EPA‘s website entitled Environmental Compliance History Online (ECHO). 

www.epa-echo.gov/echo

The WASTE ALERT HOTLINE, a statewide toll free complaint number 1-800-698-6942. Alternatively 

complaints can be filed online at DTSC‘s website: www.dtsc.ca.gov/database/CalEPA_Complaint/Index.cfm

DTSC general publications information web link: www.dtsc.ca.gov/PublicationsForms/index.cfm

DTSC Strategic Plan for 2009-2014 at: 

www.dtsc.ca.gov/InformationResources/upload/ESP_REP_StrategicPlan.pdf

DTSC 2010 Environmental Justice activities report at a link similar to:

www.dtsc.ca.gov/GetInvolved/upload/EJ_Enf_Initiative_Rprt2009.pdf

Cal/EPA Triennial Evaluations for Trinity and Imperial CUPAs and CUPA enforcement actions taken: 

www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/CertifiedUnifiedProgramAgencies.cfm

DTSC Green Chemistry details at: 

www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/GreenChemistryInitiative/upload/gc_flowchart-final.pdf. 

DTSC | | 63
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Enforcement Program Mission:

To protect public health and safety, and to restore 

and enhance environmental quality, and sustain 

economic vitality through effective and efficient 

implementation of the hazardous material and 

waste programs within the Unified Program.

Unified Program’s Vision:

Is that all participants of the program at the 

federal, state, and local level will continue to 

play an active role in policy oversight and 

implementation of the Unified Program. The vision 

includes that all Unified Program participants at 

the federal, state and local level will engage in 

quality of communication, enhance mutual trust, 

and achieve more effective implementation.

Unified Programs

| Unified Programs
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

California law consolidates some, but not all, hazardous material environmental programs in 

California into one regulatory program referred to as the Unified Program. Under the Unified Program, 

the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) delegates the bulk of inspection and 

enforcement activities for these programs to certified local agencies, called Certified Unified Program 

Agencies (CUPAs). A CUPA is a local agency, generally a local fire department, environmental health 

agency, or a designated state agency, that is responsible for the implementation of all the unified 

program elements within the local jurisdiction. The goal of the Unified Program is to reduce the 

impact of hazardous materials on public health and the environment by achieving greater statewide 

and cross-program consistency for the over 144,000 businesses regulated by 83 CUPAs. The Secretary 

of Cal/EPA is directly responsible for the implementation of the Unified Program. The Secretary 

certifies CUPAs and has oversight of state agency partners who set program element standards and 

ensure program consistency.

The Unified Program consolidates the administration, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities 

of the following six environmental and emergency management programs (www.calepa.ca.gov/CUPA/

About.htm). The state agencies, departments and boards are responsible for overseeing each of the 

following program elements:

• Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories (Business Plans) – California 

Emergency Management Agency (CAL EMA)

• California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program - (CAL EMA)

• Underground Storage Tank Program – State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)

• Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA) Program - (Cal/EPA)

• Hazardous Waste Generator and Onsite Hazardous Waste Treatment (tiered permitting) 

Programs – Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)

Unified Program Overview

Unified Programs | | 65
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

• California Uniform Fire Code: Hazardous Material Management Plans and Hazardous 

Material Inventory Statements – Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM)

A number of CUPAs also work with other local governments that implement only one or more of the 

regulatory program elements. These other local governments are referred to as Participating Agencies. 

There are 83 CUPAs and 33 Participating Agencies (PAs) for 116 reporting entities, known collectively 

as Unified Program Agencies (UPA). In 2010, South Pasadena PA was absorbed by LA County Fire 

Department.

Cal-CUPA Forum

The California CUPA Forum (Cal-CUPA Forum) was formed by the CUPAs to represent all CUPAs 

or Participating Agencies with a single voice. The Cal-CUPA Forum strives to achieve statewide 

consistency, consolidation, and coordination in the implementation of the Unified Program.

The Cal-CUPA Forum has established Technical Advisory Groups and Work Groups, to further 

aid the statewide management of the program. (See http://www.calcupa.net for information on the 

California CUPA Forum). 

Unified Program Administration and Advisory Group

The Unified Program Administration and Advisory Group, commonly referred to as UPAAG, 

was created to foster effective working 

partnerships between CUPAs, state and 

federal agencies. The purpose of the UPAAG 

is to provide a forum to gather, process, 

discuss, refine, and develop policy concerning 

implementation of the statewide Unified 

Program. In the UPAAG, members of the CalCUPA Forum work with state and federal 

agencies on policy decisions, education and 

problem solving. UPAAG has formed various 

Steering Committees and Work Groups to 

aid in achieving its objectives. Photo of AST inspection courtesy of San Leandro County CUPA

66 | | Unified Programs
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Major Program Highlights for 2010

Hazardous Waste Generators

CUPAs implement the hazardous waste generator and onsite tiered permitting program as part 

of the Unified Program. The hazardous waste generator program prevents releases of hazardous 

waste by ensuring that those who generate, handle, transport, store and dispose of wastes do so 

properly. Enforcement actions are taken against those who fail to manage their hazardous wastes 

appropriately. In addition, the program also promotes pollution prevention and reuse and recycling 

of hazardous materials and waste. The key goals and objectives for 2010 were to provide training 

on areas of the regulations that CUPAs have been found to be deficient in regulating businesses, 

to review facility files to ascertain that CUPAs have properly identified and classified violations, 

Unified Programs | | 67
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

to ensure that all violators have returned to compliance, and that appropriate enforcement actions 

were taken. See www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/CertifiedUnifiedProgramAgencies.cfm for more information. 

In 2010, local CUPAs conducted 46,365 hazardous waste generator site inspections. The CUPAs 

continue to improve their inspection and enforcement program as a result of the CUPA oversight 

provided by DTSC. The results of the DTSC CUPA evaluations and the related evaluation data 

indicate that more consistent inspections and more consistent enforcement actions are occurring 

among CUPAs.

California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP)

The California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) program was implemented on January 1, 

1997 and replaced the California Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP). The purpose 

of the Cal ARP program is to prevent accidental releases of substances that can cause serious harm 

to the public and the environment, to minimize the damage if releases do occur, and to satisfy 

community right-to-know laws. This is accomplished by requiring businesses that handle more that 

a threshold quantity of a regulated substance listed in the regulations, to develop a Risk Management 

Plan (RMP). An RMP is a detailed engineering analysis of the potential accident factors present at 

a business and the mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce this accident potential. 

The RMP contains safety information, a hazard review, operating procedures, training requirements, 

maintenance requirements, compliance audits, and incident investigation procedures. The Cal 

ARP program is implemented at the local government level by Certified Unified Program Agencies 

(CUPAs) or Administering Agencies (AAs). The Cal ARP program is designed so these agencies work 

directly with the regulated businesses. The CUPAs or AAs determine the level of detail in the RMPs, 

review the RMPs, conduct facility inspections, and provide public access to most of the information. 

Confidential or trade secret information may be restricted.

Since the inception of the Cal ARP program, extremely hazardous chemicals have been reduced, 

replaced or removed in facilities throughout the state. The best example is the replacement of chlorine 

gas from water treatment facilities and public pools, to a less toxic substance of sodium hypochlorite 

or ozone. Another example is the removal of ammonia from cooling facilities to the less toxic carbon 

dioxide. The Cal ARP program, through continued industry training, has reduced the numbers of 

spills and releases of extremely hazardous chemicals in California. Additionally, the Cal ARP program 

is being used in land use planning and fire suppression to identify toxic facilities, as well as in planning 

68 | | Unified Programs
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

for catastrophic events. The compliance rates for inspections at Cal ARP facilities have risen from 20% 

for those inspected in 2003 to over 75% at inspected facilities in 2010.

Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories (Business Plans and California Fire 

Code)

CUPAs collect and annually update chemical and site information from over 144,000 businesses. The 

information collected is utilized by local, state and federal emergency response agencies in responding 

to hazardous materials spills and natural disasters. Its purpose is to prevent or minimize the damage 

to public health and safety and the environment from a release or threatened release of hazardous 

materials and to satisfy community right-to-know laws. This is accomplished by requiring businesses 

that handle hazardous materials in quantities equal to or greater than 55 gallons, 500 pounds, or 

200 cubic feet of gas, or extremely hazardous substances above the threshold planning quantity, to 

inventory their hazardous materials, develop a site map, develop an emergency plan, and implement 

a training program for employees. Businesses must submit this information to their local CUPAs 

or Administering Agencies (AAs). The CUPA or AA verifies the information and provides it to the 

agencies responsible for protection of public health and safety and the environment. These agencies 

may include fire departments, hazardous materials response teams, and local environmental regulatory 

groups (i.e., Tahoe Regional Planning Agency).

With the continued improvement of CUPA programs, hazardous materials like asphyxiants and 

irritants are now being identified and regulated through the Business Plan Program. The CUPAs have 

formed technical advisory committees to reduce costs to industry by eliminating less harmful chemicals 

from regulation. Additionally, Cal EMA is continually giving free training to federal government, state, 

county, and city government employees, as well as to industry, to harbor an equal understanding of 

the Business Plan Program.

Underground Storage Tanks

CUPAs oversee and regulate state and federal regulations that set operating requirements and technical 

standards for tank design and installation, leak detection, spill and overfill control, corrective action, 

and tank closure. The CUPAs underground storage tank program ensures that the tank contents 

(petroleum or other hazardous substances) do not seep into the soil and contaminate California’s 

groundwater and waterways that are a source of drinking water. There are four program elements 

in the UST Program; (1) The Leak Prevention Unified Program element that includes requirements 

Unified Programs | | 69
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

for tank installation, construction, testing, leak detection, spill containment, and overfill protection. 

It also conducts CUPA evaluations and oversight inspections of UST inspectors. CUPAs administer 

the tank regulations by permitting, inspecting, and taking enforcement; (2) The Cleanup element 

directs leak reporting requirements and includes the cleanup of leaking tanks involving soil and 

groundwater investigation and remediation. This element reviews petitions filed on case closures; 

(3) The Enforcement element supports both the leak prevention and cleanup sides by investigating 

fraud and violations of the UST laws and regulations and provides assistance to local agencies 

enforcing UST requirements; (4) The Licensing element administers the Tank Tester Licensing 

Program by establishing minimum qualifications for those who test underground storage tanks and 

associated piping.

In 2010, State Water Board’s UST program Leak Prevention Unified Program element reports the 

frequency of required annual compliance inspections has decreased from 96% (14,403 inspections 

conducted) to 91% (13,444 inspections conducted). The facility operational compliance percentage 

remained consistent at around 67%. The number of regulated UST facilities decreased by 200 from 

15,000 to 14,800 and the number of UST systems increased by 500 from 40,000 to 40,500. The number 

of regulated tanks increased by 500 mainly due to CUPAs correcting their UST universes with 

previously unaccounted tanks.

Aboveground Storage Tanks

Since January 1, 2008, the CUPAs are responsible for the implementation, enforcement, and 

administration of the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA), regulating tank facilities handling 

1,320 gallons or greater of petroleum in aboveground tanks. Effective January 1, 2008, the responsibility 

for APSA was transferred from the State Water Boards to the CUPAs. Since 2008, Cal/EPA has 

developed APSA training for CUPA staff and an exam for CUPA inspectors conducting inspections at 

APSA regulated tank facilities. To date nearly 650 CUPA staff have completed the training course and 

successfully passed the inspectors exam. Over the past few years, Cal/EPA has administered grants to 

the CUPAs to assist them in covering some of their cost associated with the implementation of APSA. 

The CUPAs were statutorily restricted from assessing and collecting any local fees for APSA from 

their regulated businesses until January 1, 2010.

By 2010, nearly all the CUPAs had established their APSA program fees and are beginning to begin 

to assess and collect these fees from their regulated tank facilities in 2010. Prior to and in 2010, most 

70 | | Unified Programs
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

CUPAs began a robust outreach 

and compliance program for APSA, 

reaching out to regulated tank facilities 

and providing compliance assistance. 

Many CUPAs have also began 

conducting compliance inspections 

in 2010, ensuring APSA compliance at 

tank. In 2010, an online APSA course 

and inspectors exam was developed by 

the County of San Diego CUPA, which 

is based on the training developed and 

approved by Cal/EPA. New CUPA 

inspectors and staff can take the online 

course to fulfill the training and exam requirements of APSA. In 2010, the ASPA workgroup completed 

several documents, including: a Tier 2 Spill Prevention and Countermeasure Control (SPCC) plan 

template for qualified facilities; an updated APSA Frequently Asked Questions document; and, 

an APSA violation dictionary. In addition, USEPA extended the SPCC Plan compliance date from 

November 10, 2010 to November 10, 2011, allowing existing and new tank facilities additional time to 

incorporate all plan requirements promulgated by USEPA since 2002. For more information on APSA, 

visit www.calepa.ca.gov/CUPA/Aboveground.

Electronic Reporting

Assembly Bill 2286 (Health and Safety Code Chapter 571. Section 25404), required 144,000 existing 

businesses and 116 UPAs regulated under the Unified Program to electronically report hazardous 

materials, underground tank, hazardous waste, and inspection and enforcement related information 

to a state system by January 1, 2013. The web based reporting programs will allow the regulated 

community to submit required regulatory information directly to their local UPA who will share it 

with Cal/EPA or to Cal/EPA who will share it the UPAs. Multi-jurisdictional businesses will be able 

to exchange data with Cal/EPA, who will in turn share the data with all of the appropriate UPAs. 

Cal/EPA will serve as a virtual data warehouse and have the ability to exchange data with US EPA 

and create a public access website. These efforts have resulted in the development of the California 

Environmental Reporting System (CERS), launched in 2009 and currently being significantly 

upgraded to CERS2, which is planned to launch in the fall of 2011. 

Photo of Above Ground Storage Tank courtesy of Sonoma County CUPA

Unified Programs | | 71
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

To assist the local agencies to transition to electronic reporting, Cal/EPA will be awarding grants 

to all UPAs amounting to about $9 million during fiscal years 2010/2011 and 2011/12. Local agency 

transition plans are due to Cal/EPA by June 30, 2011. For more information on e-reporting visit: 

www.calepa.ca.gov/CUPA/EReporting.

Inspections and Administrative Enforcement Orders

In state fiscal year 2009/2010 (July 1, 2009 thru June 30, 2010), local field inspectors conducted 

109,697 routine inspections. They also pursued 54,953 informal enforcement actions in 2010 which 

is significantly higher 

than previous years. There 

were over 1,900 formal 

local enforcement actions 

(administrative, civil and/or 

criminal) which resulted in 

the collection of $21,482,682 

in penalties and $2,927,878 in 

Supplemental Environmental 

Projects (SEPs).

In 2010, CUPAs initiated a 

total of 845 administrative 

enforcement orders (AEOs) 

against regulated entities or individuals that were in violation of environmental laws. This is significant 

because the law that provides authority to CUPAs for taking such action was enacted only seven years 

ago. The use of this enforcement tool has increased from less than 200 actions the first year to over 800 

actions in 2010. The total number of AEOs increased in 2010 compared to 2009; the total amount of 

fines collected has also increased. 

In 2009, the California CUPA Forum Board established the CUPA Forum Environmental Protection 

Trust Fund. This Trust Fund was established to manage and disburse monies from enforcement case 

settlements, in the form of grants to enhance the investigation, inspection and enforcement of Unified 

FY 09/10 Administrative

Enforcement Orders by Program

72 | | Unified Programs
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Programs throughout the State of California. In 2010, the CUPA Forum Environmental Protection 

Trust Fund approved 19 grants for a total disbursement of $256,892.

CUPA Evaluation Status

CUPA programs are evaluated at least once every three years by Cal/EPA and authorized state 

agencies. In 2010, the Unified Program conducted program evaluations at 20 of the 83 CUPAs. The 

lower number of evaluations was a direct result of the state employee work furlough program in 2010 

that reduced effective work hours by 15 percent. The CUPA evaluation process consists of: 1) onsite records review for completeness and implementation of their Inspection and Enforcement Plans; 

2) a review of facility enforcement and compliance files and field oversight inspections to evaluate 

their actual field inspection process; and 3) reviews of self-audit reports and annual summary report 

submissions. At the end of the evaluations, which usually take2 days, a final report is prepared 

summarizing the findings of the evaluation, and the CUPA program receives one of the following 

rating: “meets or exceeds program standards,” “satisfactory, with some improvement needed,” or 

“unsatisfactory, with improvement needed.” Results of CUPA evaluations conducted in 2010 show 

that 2 met or exceeded program standards, 17 were considered satisfactory with improvements 

needed, and 1 was unsatisfactory with improvements needed. The evaluation results of CUPAs are 

updated by the evaluators once they determine that the CUPA has corrected all deficiencies and are in 

compliance. This return to compliance typically takes about 18 months. 

At the end 2010, the overall CUPA status indicates that 41 met or exceeded program standards, 38 were 

considered satisfactory with improvements needed, and 4 were unsatisfactory with improvements 

needed. (See Attached map for the 2010 CUPA evaluation status). Cal/EPA Unified program posts the 

updated CUPA evaluation map periodically on www.calepa.ca.gov/CUPA/Evaluations/StatusMap.pdf.

To assist CUPAs to meet the state requirements, Cal/EPA Unified Program has finalized the 

CUPA Self-auditing and Reporting Guidance Document which provides CUPAs with guidance on 

completing their annual self-audits, annual summary reporting, annual CalARP performance audit, 

and annual review and update of the Inspection and Enforcement Plan. These items were found to be 

the most frequent CUPA deficiencies during CUPA evaluations. It is believed that the guidance will 

reduce the numbers of deficiencies in these activities. It is too early to tell if it has been effective. The 

Unified Programs | | 73
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

CUPA Self-auditing and Reporting Guidance document is published on the Cal/EPA Unified Program 

web site at www.calepa.ca.gov/CUPA/Documents/SelfAuditing.pdf.

Major Enforcement Cases for 2010

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (Wal-Mart) – A lawsuit was filed and settled against 236 Wal-Mart and 

Sam’s Club stores, distribution and storage facilities in 42 California counties by the state Attorney 

General and 19 district attorneys throughout California on May 3, 2010. Investigations conducted 

by San Joaquin, Orange, Monterey, San Bernardino and Solano Counties and some smaller counties 

determined that Wal-Mart employees were illegally storing and dumping hazardous waste. WalMart was charged with violating Chapters 6.5, 6.7, and 6.95 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety 

Code and regulations promulgated under these chapters; and Business and Professions Code section 

17200, et seq., by its improper storage, handling, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste 

and hazardous materials at and from Wal-Mart’s California facilities from January 15, 2001, through 

February 22, 2010.

The five-year investigation started when an off-duty regulator from the Department of Environmental 

Health saw a Wal-Mart employee in Northern San Diego County dumping bleach down a drain as a 

disposal method. Over time, federal, state and local investigators documented a long list of violations 

at 236 Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club stores, distribution and storage facilities in 42 California counties. 

Wal-Mart employees were caught illegally storing and dumping hazardous waste including pesticides, 

paint, chemicals and acid in violation of the state’s environmental laws and regulations. In Solano 

County, a child was found playing in a mound of fertilizer left near the store’s garden department. In 

the historic settlement, Wal-Mart has agreed to pay total of $27.6 million. The company will pay $20 

million in penalties to the various prosecuting and investigating agencies, more than $1.6 million in 

investigative costs and $3 million for environmental projects. It also will invest $3 million to guarantee 

its stores will remain in compliance. See www.calepa.ca.gov/Enforcement/Orders/2010/WMComplaint.pdf.

Pro’s Choice Beauty Care, Inc. (Pro’s Choice) - On March 16, 2010 a lawsuit was settled against, a 

New York-based hair care product distributor called Pro’s Choice by the Attorney General and the 

District Attorneys in the Counties of Stanislaus, Sacramento, San Bernardino, Solano, and San Joaquin. 

Pro’s Choice is the largest distributor of professional hair cares and nail products in the country. The 

company sold and distributed pollution-causing hair products to consumers who were unaware of the 

adverse effects which the pollutants may have on their health and the environment.

74 | | Unified Programs
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

 Pro’s Choice buys U.S. brand-name products overseas and imports the products to sell them below 

suggested retail value. In late 2006, the California Air Resources Board and several district attorneys 

notified the Attorney General’s office that many products supplied by Pro’s Choice contained air 

contaminants well above the state’s limits on volatile organic compounds (VOCs). VOCs significantly 

contribute to the formation of smog and may cause adverse health effects. Under California law, 

depending on whether the product is a hair spray, mousse, gel, and styling product, each must meet 

California’s stringent standards for VOC content (Health & Safety Code, Section 41712). Despite 

numerous tests and repeated violations and requests for compliance, Pro’s Choice continued to sell 

these products to retailers such as Rite Aid Corporation, Longs Drugs Stores Corporation, Walgreen 

Company, Ralphs Grocery Company, Target Corporation, and Kmart Corporation. The Attorney 

General’s office filed a lawsuit against the company in 2008. The company and the retailers were 

charged with selling, supplying, offering for sale, purchasing, manufacturing , marketing or otherwise 

distributing consumer hair care products that did not comply with California regulations concerning 

the allowable percentages of volatile organic compounds in consumer products. The final judgment 

requires Pro’s Choice to stop selling or distributing products that violate limits of VOCs; pull all of 

the products found in violation; identify and sort products that are non-compliant before distributing 

them for sale in California; obtain written verification from the manufacturer that the product is 

compliant or test representative samples from the batch; and pay $1.5 million in penalties and costs. 

The judgment also required the retailers to remove non-compliant products at all their California 

stores. See www.calepa.ca.gov/Enforcement/Orders/2010/Complaint.pdf.

Big Oil & Tire Company – A Consent Judgment with Civil Penalties and Permanent Injunction 

was recorded in the case of State of California v. Big Oil & Tire Company on March 30, 2010. The 

State Water Resource Control Board staff and Attorney General’s Office (AG) prepared the case, with 

significant supporting documentation from the Humboldt County CUPA.

Big Oil and Tire Company was the subject of an original enforcement action and prosecution stemming 

from underground storage tank (UST) violations dating back from 1990 through 1996. Most violations 

were similar to those cited in the current enforcement, including failure to test and maintain UST 

equipment, failure to keep adequate records inadequate procedures among others. Humboldt County 

Division of Environmental Health (DEH), in conjunction with the Office of the State Attorney General 

enforced and prosecuted Big Oil and Tire, resulting in a $600,000 judgment in 1998. Soon after these 

Unified Programs | | 75
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

fines were levied, DEH began noting additional violations of the same type. Beginning in 2001, DEH 

began working with the local Circuit Prosecutor to bring another enforcement action against Big Oil 

and Tire.

The most recent case stemmed from repeated violations of Health and Safety Code and California 

Code of Regulations from 2000 through 2009 and related to operation and maintenance of USTs. 

Most of the violations involved failure to perform routine testing of release detection and prevention 

systems within the required time period as well as inadequate documentation and hazardous waste 

violations. The total judgment is $1.1 million assessed including $225,000 that will be divided between 

the AG’s office and DEH at $200,000 and $25,000, respectively. See www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/

programs/enforcement/docs/bot_judgement033010.pdf. 

Performance Measures

In 2009, the Unified Program Administration and Advisory Group worked on developing a set of 

outcome measures (metrics) for the Unified Program. Since there are no outcome metrics defined 

across the Unified Program, this limits the state’s ability to only measuring outputs, such as the 

number of facility inspections and the types of violations, rather than compliance improvement 

across the Unified Program. In February 2009, a process was formalized that compares the number 

of businesses without violations from year to year, using the percentage as an outcome measurement. 

This percentage assumes that the compliance rate is equivalent for all businesses as it is for businesses 

inspected during each reporting year. In 2010, Cal/EPA continued meetings of its’ performance 

measures team/steering committee as an effort to develop additional enforcement program outcome 

measures that relate program activities of Cal/EPA, state agencies, and local partner’s progress toward 

program strategic plans.

76 | | Unified Programs
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

FY 2009/2010 Compliance Percentage

Sector, facility type, 

or program focus

Total number of 

regulated facilities

Number of 

regulated facilities 

inspected

Number of 

inspected facilities 

with no violations 

% of total facilities 

in compliance*

% of total 

facilities 

inspected

HMRRP** 124350 54039 37619 69.6 43.5

CalARP** 2384 1097 695 75.5 46.0

UST** 14891 13900 8196 55.4 93.3

AST** 11890 2881 2196 76.2 24.2

HWG** 77803 36695 23747 64.7 47.2

LQG** 1773 854 662 77.5 48.2

HWT** 1356 602 499 82.9 44.4

HHW** 291 149 133 89.3 51.2

*This percentage assumes that the compliance rate is equivalent for the total number of regulated facilities as it is for facilities inspected 

during the reporting year. Also, the compliance rate is calculated by using the number of facilities with Minor violations based on 

the assumption that 99.9% of the time a facility with minor violation is also cited with Class I and Class II violations.

** HMRRP - Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans; CalARP - California Accidental Release Prevention; UST - Underground Storage Tanks

AST - Aboveground Storage Tanks; HWG - Hazardous Waste Generators; LQG - Large Quantity Generators; HWT - Hazardous Waste Transporter; 

HHW - Household Hazardous Waste

Public Health Indicator

Though it is hard to use a Public Health Indicator as a direct reflection of the Enforcement program, 

it is evident that the enforcement program might be one of the contributing factors in protecting, 

and improving public health. In one example, in the graph below, hazardous conditions from 2007 

through 2010 have declined in nearly every category, especially in the most frequent incident or 

category, combustible/flammable spills and leaks. Hazardous conditions (other) and chemical release, 

reaction or toxic condition also showed consistent decline.

Unified Programs | | 77
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

As shown in the following table, four other types of Incident types(Radioactive conditions, Biological 

Hazard, fire service injury, and civilian injury/death ) have also declined for most part over the years 

2007-2010. The most notable trend can be observed in the overall rate of Fire Service Injury and 

Civilian Injury/Death. The count for those incident types have occurred so infrequently that they 

were almost invisible in the trend line compared to other incident types.

Source Data: California State Fire Marshall

78 | | Unified Programs
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Incident Type 2007 2008 2009 2010

Radioactive condition 17 18 10 22

Biological hazard 302 309 249 216

Fire Service Injury(total) 16 5 12 8

Civilian Injury/Death 1 1 1 2

Source Data: California State Fire Marshall

Program Component Metrics

Size of the regulated “universe”

The number of regulated businesses reported by the CUPAs in fiscal year 2009/2010 by program 

element are:

• Total Regulated Businesses - 146,205

• Business Plan Program - 124,350 

• CalARP Program - 2,384

• Hazardous Waste Program - 77,803

• UST Program - 148,91

• AST Program - 11,890

Note: the figures above other than the number of total regulated 

businesses include overlapping program elements, for example, 

businesses with more than one program element.

Unified Programs | | 79
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Program Component Outputs

Data Characteristics

CUPAs conduct inspections of all the programs noted earlier in the report. The number of inspections 

performed is over 110,000 for all programs per year. Many of these inspections are multi-media and 

are combined for efficiency in a consolidated inspection process. When possible, a CUPA’s goal is to 

perform a single inspection that covers the combined program compliance requirements for regulated 

businesses in an attempt to incorporate all of the numerous statutes and regulations.

Outputs measure activities and the following outputs indicate an active and robust program in 2010: 

• Business Plan facility routine inspections and other inspections – 65,293

• CalARP facility routine inspections and other inspections – 4,267

• UST facility routine inspections and other inspections –23,033

• AST facility routine inspections and other inspections – 3,530

• Hazardous Waste Generator routine and other inspections – 46,365

80 | | Unified Programs
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Administrative Enforcements by Program Element

Element

Unified Programs |

Civil enforcement and Criminal Referrals – Total of 1118 actions 

• Business Plan facility - 564

• CalARP facility - 4

• UST facility – 55

• AST facility – 3

• Hazardous Waste Generator facility – 492

Administrative enforcement actions – Total of 845 actions

• Business Plan facility - 365

• CalARP facility - 8

• UST/AST facility – 230

• AST facility – 2

• Hazardous Waste Generator facility –242

| 81
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Inspection, Violation, and Enforcement Summary Data Fiscal Year 2009/2010

Total Count HMRRP CalARP UST AST HWG

(All) LQG HWT HHW Recyclers

No. of Regulated 

Business 124350 2384 14891 11890 77803 1773 1356 291 N/A

No. of Regulated 

Businesses Inspected 54039 1002 13900 2881 36695 854 602 149 N/A

*No. of Routine 

Inspections 52574 3048 14787 2328 35331 894 604 131 N/A

% of Routine 

Inspections w/Class 

I or II violation that 

RTC w/in 90 Days

56.53 44.86 66.47 43.02 60.21 48.75 37.48 23.81 N/A

*No. of Other 

Inspections 12719 1219 8246 1202 11034 386 460 25 N/A

No. of facilities w/

Class I Violation 224 116 762 24 333 18 11 4 5

No. of facilities w/

Class II Violation 4110 183 2689 62 5219 124 92 14 25

No. of facilities w/

Minor Violation 16420 245 5704 685 12948 192 103 16 59

No. of Informal 

Actions 21494 743 11877 1159 18657 441 428 48 106

No. of Formal Actions 780 16 365 8 795 16 10 4 0

No. of Local AEOs 365 8 228 2 242 5 2 0 0

Total Number of AEOs 150 15 134 3 144 13 8 4 0

AEOs Issued 

within 240 Days 137 13 97 3 127 10 4 4 0

Total No. of Civil/

Criminal Referrals 564 4 55 3 492 1 0 0 0

Total No. of Civil/

Criminal Referrals 

Referred within 

360 Days

506 4 52 3 484 1 0 0 0

Cash Fines/Penalties 5,280,325 1,606,68 9,538,161 1,152,97 6,222,031 1,157,07 4,444,7 6,046 0.00

Value of SEP Penalties 4,640,5 0.00 1,411,000 1,543 1,443,930 2,500,0 0.00 0.00 0.00

*Inspections for this chart are defined by the actions described on the following page:

82 | | Unified Programs
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

- Routine Site Inspections are direct facility visits by an inspector to determine compliance.

- Other inspections are defined as facility inspections that are either follow-up inspections, referrals 

 from state or federal agencies, or as a follow-up investigation to a citizen complaint.

Output Trends

1. Formal Enforcement

The number of formal enforcement actions taken by CUPAs throughout the state has steadily 

increased since 2002-03 in all programs except for the CalARP program where very few formal 

enforcement actions are taken. However, this program also has the fewest number of regulated 

businesses of all the program elements. The primary factor in this increase is probably a result 

in an increase in the willingness of the CUPAs to pursue formal enforcement. In the past, there 

has been a general reluctance among local agencies to pursue formal enforcement. Another factor 

that may be contributing to the increase in formal enforcement actions, particularly the relatively 

sharp increase the past two years, is the establishment of, or improvement in, the Administrative 

Enforcement Order process within many CUPAs. In 2009/2010, there is a continuing rise in formal 

enforcement action due to an ongoing increase in the use of local AEO’s as enforcement in the 

Business Plan program, in addition to increased efforts to identify farming facilities that are or 

Inspections and Violation Data Summary Comparison 

FY 2006-2007 to FY 2009-2010

Total Count 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

Regulated Units 135632 139962 143988 146205

Inspections(Routine only) 100495 103394 109445 109697

Violations(Facilities w/

class I violation)** Old form Old form 1183 1497

Civil /Criminal Referrals 502 709 747 1119

Total Number of Administrative 

Actions Issued 584 456 679 845

Penalties $3,180,494.00 $7,623,416.39 $ 9,197,778.00 $21,482,682.00

**Annual Inspection Summary Report and Annual Enforcement Summary Report has been changed since 

 FY 2006-2007. CUPAs were required to submit data using the new form from FY 2008-2009.

Unified Programs | | 83
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

should be in the Business Plan Program. This increased trend in the use of formal enforcement 

actions by the CUPAs is consistent with the Unified Program goal to increase compliance through 

the use of appropriate enforcement actions.

2. Enforcement Actions as a Percentage of Inspections

The percentage of inspections that result in an enforcement action (informal and formal) showed 

an increase over the fiscal years 2004/2005 through 2006/2007 in all of the four program elements. 

This shows that CUPAs were active in finding violations, documenting those violations and taking 

some type of enforcement. More recently, all programs either flattened out or showed a slight 

decrease that may be a result of escalating enforcement numbers from the previous years. Of note is 

the significantly larger percentage of enforcements for the UST program over past years that have 

recently normalized to a ratio similar to other program elements. 

Formal enforcement actions are actions that mandate compliance and initiate a civil, criminal, or 

administrative process which results in an enforceable agreement or order for what are determined 

84 | | Unified Programs
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

to be the most serious types of environmental violations. Informal Enforcement is an action other 

than a formal enforcement action that notifies the regulated business of its non-compliance and 

establishes a date by which that non-compliance is to be corrected. Examples include letters, 

notices of violation and verbal warnings or notices. Informal actions do not impose sanctions and 

are used to address minor violations.

3. Facilities Inspected Without Violations

Cal/EPA collects information on the number of facilities that are inspected each fiscal year and 

the number of facilities with violations. As noted above in the Performance Measures section, one 

measure of program success is the percent of facilities inspected that did not have any violations. 

These facilities would be deemed to be fully in compliance with all applicable laws. Since CUPAs 

track violations that are minor as well as serious violations, there is good reason to believe that this 

is a reasonable indicator.

The compliance rate graph below shows that there has been a generally stable trend for the 

HMRRP, HW Generator, and UST programs. During 2004/2005, CalARP had a significant rise 

as a result of program implementation, then had a slight increase for a couple of years, then a 

significant drop in 2007/2008, with significant increases again in 2008/2009 and 2009/2010.

Unified Programs |

Percent of Facilities 

Inspected without 

Violations

| 85
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

4. CUPA Effective Program Rate

CUPA programs are evaluated at least once every three years by Cal/EPA and authorized state 

agencies. The CUPA evaluation process consists of: 

1) on-site records review for completeness and implementation of their Inspection and 

 Enforcement Plans 

2) a review of facility enforcement and compliance files, field oversight inspections to evaluate 

 their actual field inspection process 

3) reviews of self-audit reports and annual summary report submissions. 

At the end of the evaluations, as part of the evaluation result, CUPAs are indentified with their 

significant Inspection and Enforcement (I &E) deficiencies. One measure of the enforcement 

program success could be the percent of CUPAs who were evaluated and have been determined as 

CUPAs with effective I& E Program (CUPAs with no I & E deficiencies). 

In 2005, Cal/EPA implemented a revised evaluation program and has consistently applied that 

new evaluation program. The graph below shows that since 2005, the percent of CUPA effective 

Program rate has been increasing for the most years.

86 | | Unified Programs
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

5. Penalty Information

In fiscal year 2008/2009, the Unified Program began accounting separately for the monetary value 

of supplemental environmental projects (SEPs). The total amount of penalties assessed across 

all program elements for fiscal year 2009/10 was $21,482,682.00. The significant increase in the 

penalty in 2009/2010 is consistent with the increased number of Administrative Enforcement 

Orders which took place in the same fiscal year. By program element they were:

• Business Plan facilities - $5,280,325.00

• CalARP facilities - $160,668.00

• UST/AST facilities – $9,653,458.00

• Hazardous Waste Generator facilities - $6,222,031.00

• Value of SEP penalties - $2,927,878.00

Training of Inspection and Enforcement Staff:

The 13th Annual California Unified Program Conference was held at the Hyatt Burlingame, San 

Francisco Airport Hotel, February 1-4, 2010. The 13th Annual CUPA Conference hit records this 

year with over 1,200 participants, including 55 exhibitors, 80 students and 200 speakers, offering 100 

technical training sessions in 10 tracks.

Cal/EPA Unified Program is working toward fully implementing e-reporting by 2013. Therefore, 

a significant number of training classes were provided for CERS during 2010. In addition to the 

training provided at the CUPA Conference, the following trainings were also provided by the Unified 

Program staff to outreach to the CUPA community: 

August 31, 2010 CCDEH Data Summit Conference

• Unified Program Manager presented Electronic Reporting AB2886 Implementation to 

CCDEH Directors and their IT staff, State Representatives. 

October 2010 San Diego IEA Conference, CERS Business Users

• The IEA Conference an overview presentation of CERS for Business Users, and hands on 

training. Over 75 local businesses attended the training. 

Unified Programs | | 87
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

November 2010 San Jose PIBA Workshop 

• The PIBA Event an overview presentation of CERS to Local Agencies, and hands on training. 

More than 50 Local Agencies attended the presentation /training.

For more information on CAL/EPA Unified Program training, please visit www.calepa.ca.gov/CUPA/Training.

Additional Information:

Cal/EPA Unified Program Homepage: www.calepa.ca.gov/CUPA

Cal/EPA Publications and Forms: www.calepa.ca.gov/CUPA/Publications

Inspection and Enforcement Resources: www.calepa.ca.gov/CUPA/Resources

Electronic Reporting: www.calepa.ca.gov/CUPA/Resources

Cal/EPA Training Resources: www.calepa.ca.gov/CUPA/Training

88 | | Unified Programs
Unified Programs | Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report | 89
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Pesticide Regulation’s Mission:

The Department of Pesticide Regulation’s (DPR’s) 

mission is to protect human health and the 

environment by regulating pesticide sales and use 

and by fostering reduced-risk pest management. 

Since its creation in 1991, DPR has made 

significant strides to:

- Enhance worker and environmental protection.

- Strengthen uniformity of enforcement in the 

 field while maintaining local discretion and 

 flexibility.

- Streamline the regulatory process to ensure 

 thorough registration of safer materials.

- Encourage the development and use of 

 reduced-risk pest management practices. 

- Use existing and new statutory requirements 

 to ensure the completion of an up-to-date 

 toxicological database for all pesticide active 

 ingredients.

- Strengthen licensing exam and certification 

 processes for commercial pesticide applicators.

| DPR

Department of Pesticide Regulation
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Enforcement Division Overview

DPR’s regulatory control begins with the evaluating and registering of pesticide products and continues 

through statewide licensing of commercial pesticide applicators, dealers and consultants; monitoring 

the environment; testing fresh produce for pesticide residues; verifying that pesticides produced and/

or sold in the state adhere to required standards and practices and investigating possible unintended 

health effects; and enforcing pesticide use laws and regulations through the local County Agricultural 

Commissioners (CACs) serving 58 counties. 

About 340 DPR employees, including scientists from many disciplines, carry out California’s pesticide 

regulatory program. In addition, approximately 280 full-time biologists are dedicated to pesticide use 

enforcement at the local level.

DPR’s annual budget is approximately $73 million of which about $19 million funds local pesticide 

enforcement activities in the counties.

Note: Current-year statistics in this report are preliminary in nature due to inherent lag times in 

regulatory enforcement timelines for completing enforcement actions and subsequent reporting and 

compiling of data. Prior-year statistics have been updated and therefore may not match the statistics 

as reported in previous editions of this report.

DPR | | 91
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Program Structure

DPR uses a “function-based” approach to better manage the performance and costs of its programs. 

Enforcement of statutory and regulatory requirements within this framework allows DPR to 

determine compliance with these requirements and to assess their effectiveness relative to costs, 

workload outputs, and impacts on human health and the environment. Elements of DPR’s planning 

and management system include:

• Cal/EPA’s Strategic Vision that sets forth the Agency’s vision and mission, core values, and 

goals and objectives. 

• DPR’s Strategic Plan that provides department-specific strategies, goals and objectives.

• DPR’s Operational Plan that defines goals and activities it plans to carry out during the fiscal 

year. 

• Performance measures that include DPR’s outputs and environmental indicators. They are 

used to assess the effectiveness of DPR’s program. 

• Function-based accounting that summarizes spending by function category. 

Key DPR workload outputs are compiled annually by fiscal year to track the number of products 

and services that DPR produces, for example, the number of licenses issued or groundwater samples 

collected. These outputs are categorized by DPR’s program functions. The materials are available on 

DPR’s website at: www.cdpr.ca.gov/dept/planning/performance/index.htm.

Since 2002, DPR has implemented several new programs to strengthen its enforcement programs 

to better protect California’s workers and the public, and ensure a safe food supply and a healthy 

environment. At the same time, these programs strive to create an environment in which agriculture 

can be sustained for future generations. 

When taken together, the following new programs and approach to program planning and evaluation 

will lead to improved compliance with pesticide and environmental laws and regulations. 

DPR and CACs spend considerable time evaluating their programs and identifying areas for 

improvement. In late 2004, DPR developed program guidance identifying three core program priorities 

to better target county enforcement efforts:

92 | | DPR
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

• Restricted Material Permitting (An important action in achieving California Environmental 

Quality Act (CEQA) equivalency. CEQA requires state and local agencies to identify the 

significant environmental effects of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those effects, if feasible).

• Compliance monitoring through inspections and investigations.

• Enforcement response to violations.

In 2002, Assembly Bill (AB) 947 became law (FAC §12999.5 (a)), augmenting civil penalty authority 

granted to DPR and CACs by increasing the fine levels from $1,000 to $5,000 per violation. In 2005, 

Senate Bill (SB) 391 became law (FAC §12996.5 (b)), allowing DPR and CACs to levy a penalty for 

each person exposed to pesticides as a result of a violation. 

Also in 2005, DPR and CACs jointly developed the Enforcement Response Policy that laid out a 

standardized approach to classifying violations and taking appropriate enforcement actions. This 

policy was formally adopted into regulations in late 2006. In 2010, regulatory changes were proposed 

to strengthen these regulations. DPR maintains two databases that are used to track (1) county and 

DPR inspections and compliance rates, and (2) final enforcement actions taken by the counties. 

California’s pesticide regulatory program is considered by many to be a model program. DPR’s 

comprehensive system used to track pesticide use has been at the forefront both nationally and 

internationally. Since 1990, growers and applicators must report all agricultural, structural, landscape 

maintenance, and other nonagricultural pest control applications to CACs. DPR compiles and makes 

available statewide pesticide use data on an annual basis. More information about this unique program 

is available on DPR’s website at: www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm.

DPR’s Worker Health and Safety Branch has been collecting and analyzing pesticide illness data for 

decades. In the pesticide use enforcement arena, DPR uses inspection reports to document compliance 

rates and CACs submit annual reports to DPR that document their workload activities and hours, and 

enforcement activities. DPR’s Environmental Monitoring Branch collects and analyzes the results of 

air and ground water monitoring projects.

As with many large regulatory programs, DPR has not yet been able to integrated and analyzed data 

from these various sources to fully assess the impacts of its programs to improve environmental and 

human health. DPR’s Enforcement Branch continues to identify methods and data requirements to 

better analyze our program outputs and outcomes.

DPR | | 93
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

2010 Major Program Highlights and Performance Measures

Food Safety

DPR collected more than 3,000 produce samples for pesticide residue analysis in 2010. Of the total 

3,020 samples collected, 65 percent had no pesticide residues detected and 33 percent had residues 

within legal tolerances. The remaining 2 percent had illegal residues. When illegal residues are found, 

DPR responds immediately to prevent consumption by the public.

California-grown produce continued its excellent safety record. In 2010, more than 110 different 

commodities grown in California were sampled. Of these samples, 96.8 percent (1,118 of 1,134 

samples) either had no pesticide residues detected, or had residues that were in compliance with 

U.S. EPA tolerances.

Produce Residue Samples

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

CY 2008

(3,483 samples)

CY 2009

(3,429 samples)

CY 2010

(3,020 samples)

Percent of the year's samples

No Residues Found

Legal Residues Found

Illegal Residues Found

Source of Data: DPR

This graph indicates the consistently high proportion of produce sold within California that has either no pesticide 

residues detected, or residues that are in compliance with legal limits. CY denotes calendar year.

94 | | DPR
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

In recent years, Mexican fruits and vegetables have accounted for nearly half of all illegal residues 

detected by DPR. This is partly due to the high volume of produce imported from Mexico, but also 

because a relatively high proportion of Mexican imports carries illegal residues. 

In 2010, DPR imposed a $10,000 civil penalty against a California-based produce importer that had 

a documented history of recurring pesticide residue violations, mostly on produce imported from 

Mexico. 

Pesticide Residue Surveillance Program annual reports summarizing the results from samples 

collected during a calendar year, along with the detailed data, are available from DPR’s website at:

www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/enforce/residue/rsmonmnu.htm.

Aeration of Structural Fumigations

Approximately 80,000 structures are tarped and fumigated with each year in California, using over 2 

million pounds of sulfuryl fluoride, for control of dry wood termites, certain beetles and bedbugs. To 

provide an additional margin of safety over fumigant label requirements, DPR has required enhanced 

aeration procedures since 1990. In 2010, to ensure protection of fumigation workers, neighbors and 

bystanders, DPR began requiring structures to be fully aerated before tarps are removed. The procedure 

used, called the California Aeration Procedure (CAP), requires an additional 6 to 16 hours of aeration 

and use of additional equipment to aid aeration. A collateral benefit of CAP is reduced concerns from 

persons who enter the structure after fumigation regarding odors from residual amounts of fumigation 

warning agents.

Agricultural Inspections

California’s CACs together have more than 280 biologists in the field to enforce pesticide laws. No 

other state has a similar system of local enforcement. Counties conducted approximately 12,500 

agricultural inspections in 2010 to assess compliance with state laws and regulations related to field 

worker safety, pesticide use applications, mixing and loading pesticides, and commodity and field 

fumigation. Over 201,000 criteria were assessed with a compliance rate of 97.8 percent.

DPR | | 95
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Structural and Landscape Maintenance Inspections

California’s pesticide enforcement programs oversee more than just production agriculture. They also 

ensure that licensees are using pesticides safely in and around the home and surrounding landscape.

Over 4,000 inspections were performed that evaluated approximately 85,000 criteria. The overall 

compliance rate was 99.2 percent in 2010.

Monitoring the Marketplace 

DPR routinely conducts inspections at hardware stores, home and garden stores, retail and wholesale 

nurseries, landscape material suppliers, pet suppliers, restaurant and hospital suppliers, and pool and 

spa centers to check that pesticide products being offered for sale are registered in California. This is 

to ensure that the products have been evaluated and will not cause health or environmental problems.

In 2010, DPR conducted 180 inspections and 85 audits. Close to 835 unregistered and misbranded 

pesticide products were identified as a result of these investigations and were removed from the 

marketplace. DPR completed legal proceedings on 118 cases, which resulted in over $ 2.7 million in 

penalties to violators. 

96 | | DPR
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Improving Air Quality

DPR implemented stringent volatile organic compound (VOC) fumigant emission controls in areas of 

the state facing air quality challenges and capped pesticide emissions in Ventura County beginning in 

January 2008 to meet State Implementation Plan (SIP) goals under the Federal Clean Air Act. 

Under DPR’s regulations, the Department evaluates fumigant usage from the previous year, prepares 

an annual report, and uses the report findings to set goals for the current year. In 2010, DPR analyzed 

2009 pesticide use report data to evaluate compliance with the allowances and requirements to use 

low-emission methods. DPR released the results in its Annual Report on Volatile Organic Chemical 

Emissions from Pesticides. This comprehensive report is available on DPR’s website at:www.cdpr.ca.gov/

docs/emon/vocs/vocproj/2009annual_rpt.pdf.

Three of the five non-attainment areas (NAAs) were required to use only low-emission methods to 

reduce VOC levels. Use of low-emission methods in the Sacramento Metro and South Coast NAAs 

is voluntary since emissions have been far below the SIP goals for several years. VOC emissions from 

pesticides used in 2009 dropped significantly from 2008 levels in the San Joaquin Valley and Southeast 

Desert NAAs, but increased slightly in the Ventura NAA.

In 2009:

• San Joaquin Valley - declined by 33 percent from 1990 levels and 9 percent from 2008 levels.

• Southeast Desert - declined by 89 percent from 1990 levels and 47 percent from 2008 levels. 

• Ventura County - declined by 52 percent from 1990 levels and increased by 4 percent from 2008.

VOC emissions in the other two NAAs continued to decline as they have since the SIP goals were 

established in 1997.

The 2008 VOC regulations included requirements that pest control businesses performing field soil 

fumigations meet licensing requirements by having a responsible qualified person certified through 

examination to perform or supervise field fumigations. These responsible persons must possess a 

DPR | | 97
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

valid qualified applicator license in the field soil fumigation pest control category. In addition, other 

employees who handle fumigants could become certified through examination to possess a qualified 

applicator certificate in the field soil fumigation pest control category.

To ensure the competency of the individuals, DPR undertook a comprehensive project that included 

the development of core competencies, study materials, examinations, and continuing education 

requirements for the license/certificate. DPR implemented the certification examinations in January 

2009; 500 individuals passed either the qualified applicator license (371) or the qualified applicator 

certificate (129) examination. 

More detailed information about DPR’s program and ongoing efforts to improve air quality in 

the state by controlling the use of smog-producing pesticides is available on the DPR website at: 

www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/airinit/airmenu.htm.

98 | | DPR
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Use Trends of Pesticides on DPR’s Groundwater Protection List

DPR’s system to collect and track pesticide use is recognized as the most comprehensive in the world. 

With the exception of home and most industrial and institutional uses, all pesticide applications have 

been reported to DPR since 1990. DPR uses its pesticide use reports to track use trends for pesticides 

on its groundwater protection list, as well as other categories of pesticides.

In 2004, DPR implemented ground water protection areas (GWPAs) and went from approximately 

300,000 acres under regulation to approximately 2.5 million acres. As can be seen in the charts below, 

use of regulated GWPA chemicals has decreased since the program was adopted in 2004. DPR has 

undertaken an analysis of the pesticide use data to determine what effects the regulatory restrictions 

have on the use of these chemicals and if use of other less-toxic chemicals has changed during this 

time period.

DPR | | 99
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Use Trends of Pesticides on DPR’s Groundwater Protection List

More detailed information about DPR’s ground water program is available on the DPR website at:

www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/grndwtr/index.htm.

Implementing Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Practices in Schools and Child Day Care Facilities

Regional school IPM training workshops for school district employees in 2010 brought DPR’s 

total outreach in this arena up to 697 public school districts. Since the 2000 passage of the Healthy 

Schools Act, personnel from over 75 percent of California’s public school districts have been trained, 

representing nearly 5 million students.

Source of Data: DPR’s Summary of Pesticide Use Data - 2009.

These pesticides are the active ingredients listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, Section 6800(a). Reported 

pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily 

agricultural applications.

100 | | DPR
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

These workshops enable school district IPM coordinators to go back into their districts to train 

school maintenance and operations staff, including groundskeepers and custodians, on reduced-risk 

strategies to control cockroaches, ants, rodents, weeds, and other pests. 

DPR adapted its school IPM Pest Fact Sheets for use in child-care settings, distributed child-care 

oriented IPM publications in English and Spanish to community care licensing offices, and wrote an 

article on the Health Schools Act for the California Childcare Health Program newsletter.

Outreach efforts to farm worker communities and families

State and county compliance activities include participation in over 40 community meetings, health 

conferences, and other events to promote pesticide safety to over 40,000 people; radio and television 

interviews regarding pesticide safety on Spanish-language stations to audiences estimated at 60,000; 

and training county inspectors on techniques to interact in a more positive way with immigrant 

workers (introduction to the Spanish language, Hispanic culture, and social behavior). 

General Outreach

During 2010, DPR staff made approximately 50 presentations to various industry groups to present 

updates on pesticide laws and regulations covering a variety of subject areas including endangered 

species, licensing requirements, VOCs, 

respiratory protection, worker protection, 

pesticide use reporting, registration 

and labeling, rice herbicides, pest 

management practices, drift prevention, 

structural pest control, and enforcement 

response regulations. Attendance at 

each presentation ranged from 50 to 500 

individuals. 

DPR maintains a “compliance assistance” 

website aimed at providing up-to-date 

General Outreach/Training - Field day exercises information for employers and others 

DPR | | 101
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

who are required to comply with pesticide laws and regulations. The site provides a wide range 

of information on worker safety; licensing; pesticides subject to special conditions (i.e., minimal 

exposure, dormant spray, field fumigant, and ground water restrictions; engineering controls; 

restricted entry intervals; and personal protective equipment); state and national pesticide 

databases; and state and national pesticide-related resource centers. On average, DPR’s main 

compliance assistance website receives approximately 10,000 hits annually; this does not include 

the number of times specific documents were viewed or downloaded. The website is available at:

www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/dept/quicklinks/compliance.htm.

Training

The Enforcement Branch plans and conducts training for DPR and county pesticide regulatory 

inspectors and investigators. Some of those training modules are developed with the cooperative 

efforts of other stakeholder groups, including CACs, DPR’s Worker Health and Safety (WHS) Branch, 

the Structural Pest Control Board, and the Department of Fish and Game.

DPR’s Enforcement Branch Liaisons also regularly conduct training for CAC biologists who conduct 

inspections pertaining to pesticide use enforcement. DPR has a number of online training materials 

intended for the use of CAC staff: www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/county/training/trngmenu.htm. 

During 2010, Enforcement Branch staff arranged and conducted 15 training sessions for 709 CAC staff 

in the following areas: 

• Structural pest control enforcement training.

• Field worker notification regulations update – new requirements for notification, hazard 

communication, and application specific information.

• Breaking Barriers – to assist non Spanish-speaking inspectors who interview non Englishspeaking field workers and applicators. 

• Investigative techniques – small group training on regional basis.

• CAC hearing issues.

102 | | DPR
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Cal/EPA Single Complaint Tracking

System - Inputs 2008 2009 2010

Total Complaints Received Cal/EPA Wide for Tracking 981 860 841

Complaints Filed and Marked as Pesticide-Related and Relayed to 

the CACs for Investigation 78 103 104

Complaint Assistance

The Single Complaint Tracking Steering Committee was established to create a Cal/EPAwide, single 

complaint tracking system to receive, track, and respond to environmental complaints reported to 

Cal/EPA Boards, Departments and Offices. This project resulted in a Web-based system that provides 

a consistent, single point of contact for the public via Internet access through the various Cal/EPA 

web pages. The primary point of contact is an online complaint form that is used to collect information 

about environmental complaints and/or violations. The system was designed as a tool used to relay 

complaint information directly to the appropriate Cal/EPA Boards, Departments and Offices for 

action, coordination with local and regional government agencies, and further follow-up.

DPR responds to all complaints, notifications, or reports of episodes that come to DPR or CAC offices 

that allege misuse of pesticides, pesticide exposure (including odor), or pesticide damage or injury to 

crops, property, humans, animals, or the environment, potential illegal sales, or other related events.

When a pesticide use-related complaint is filed through Cal/EPA’s Single Complaint Tracking system, 

DPR staff relays the complaint to the local CAC for investigation. The CAC’s office is the lead agency 

for use-related complaints, in consultation with DPR.

Data Characteristics

DPR develops an annual summary of statewide CAC pesticide enforcement statistics. State and 

individual county profiles are available at: www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/county/enf_stat_profile.htm.

DPR | | 103
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Metrics - Summary of County Statewide Workload Statistics

Preliminary CAC Reported Workload Statistics - Inputs 2008 2009 2010

CAC Licensed Staff Hours 517,000 488,000 448,000

CAC Support Staff Hours 153,200 142,000 127,000

Preliminary CAC Reported Workload Statistics – Outputs

Restricted Materials Permitting

 Restricted Material Permits Issued/Amended 40,000 40,800 38,500

 Restricted Material Permits Denied 410 380 331

 Notices of Intent to Apply a Restricted Material Reviewed 145,000 140,750 140,000

 Restricted Material Notices of Intents Denied 1,700 1,200 1,230

 Pre-Site Application Evaluations/Inspections 9,600 8,150 7,840

Compliance Monitoring

 Inspections*

 Agricultural Use 7,560 6,790 6,654

 Field Worker Safety 1,300 1,080 926

 Commodity Fumigation 350 420 395

 Field Fumigation 800 730 630

 Records Inspections 5,570 5,240 5,096

 Structural Fumigation 1,980 2,040 1,789

 Structural Non-Fumigation 1,940 1,250 1,151

 Investigations 1,600 1,600 1,460

Enforcement Response

 CAC Compliance Actions 3,900 4,200 3,400

 CAC Enforcement Actions

Number of Enforcement Cases Closed 1,000 890 790

Amount of Civil Penalties Assessed $440,200 $367,500 $335,195

 Number of Cases Referred to District Attorney 2 3 0

Compliance Assistance

 Training & Outreach Sessions 1,500 1,610 1,620

 Number of Persons Attending 40,000 42,500 36,850

County Registrations & Certification

 Operator Ids for Non-Restricted Use Issued/Amended 13,500 13,500 14,110

 Private Applicator Certificates Issued 5,700 6,040 6,425

 Pest Control Business/Advisers/Pilots Registered 11,900 12,800 11,865

 Farm Labor Contractor Registered 2,500 2,900 2,800

 Structural Pest Control Business Registered 6,300 7,500 6,750

Preliminary CAC Reported Workload Statistics - Outcomes

Total Inspections Conducted 18,860 17,745 16,643

 Inspections with 1 or More Violations 2,516 2,331 2,053

 Inspections with 100% Compliance Rate 86.7% 86.9% 87.7%

Total Number of Criteria Evaluated 287,189 288,665 290,857

Total Number of Criteria in Compliance 281,112 283,015 285,738

 Compliance Rate for Criteria Inspected 97.9% 98.0% 98.2%

* County inspection data and compliance rates are from DPR’s Inspection Tracking Database. Counties conduct additional inspections (follow-ups, partials, unattended 

tarp/aeration, etc.) that are not currently captured in DPR’s database; thus compliance rates and specific inspection elements cannot be evaluated for these inspections.

104 | | DPR
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Summary of DPR & CAC Enforcement Program – Outcomes 2008 2009 2010

Number of Cases Referred to District Attorney 2 3 0

CAC Enforcement Actions

 Number of Closed Cases 851 767 626

 Number of Violations in Closed Cases 1,216 1,107 890

 Penalties Assessed $440,195 $367,540 $300,735

DPR Penalties for Unregistered & Misbranded Products

 Number of Cases 94 99 118

 Number of Unregistered Products in Case Settlements 583 471 835

 Penalties Collected $1,414,191 $1,118,445 $2,707,880

Enforcement Actions

DPR and CACs take administrative enforcement actions for different types of violations:

• DPR can revoke or suspend the license of companies and individuals who do pest control 

work, sell pesticides, or advise on pest control in California.

• DPR can levy administrative penalties on companies and individuals who sell unregistered 

or misbranded pesticide products, fail to pay required fees on pesticide sales, or pack and sell 

produce with illegal pesticide residue.

• The CAC office, as the primary county agency that enforces pesticide use laws and regulations, 

can levy administrative penalties for those violations. They also have the authority to revoke 

or suspend the registration of companies and individuals who do business in their counties.

DPR can also take civil court enforcement actions through the California Attorney General’s Office 

for any violation of pesticide laws. DPR and commissioners can also refer pesticide use violations for 

criminal prosecution.

Additional Information:

For more information about DPR programs please visit our website at: www.cdpr.ca.gov.

For additional detailed information about our 2010 accomplishments please see: 

www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/enforce/plan_imprv.htm. 

DPR | | 105
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Water Boards

Water Boards Mission

The State Water Board’s Mission is to preserve, 

enhance, and restore the quality of California’s 

water resources and ensure their proper allocation 

and efficient use for the benefit of present and 

future generations.

| Water Boards
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Water Boards Overview

The State Water Resources Control Board and its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards 

(Water Boards) protect the waters of the State by ensuring compliance with clean water laws, issuing 

permits and by taking enforcement actions against illegal discharges of waste in surface and ground 

waters. The Water Boards also regulate and enforce California’s water rights.

Water Boards assessed $13 million in penalties in 2010. The Water Boards have an active enforcement 

program, and work in collaboration with the rest of the enforcement programs at the California 

Environmental Protection Agency and with local regulatory and law enforcement agencies. 

The Water Boards have authority under the California Water Code to regulate and enforce any activity 

or factor that may affect the quality of the waters of the state. The Water Boards are the principal state 

agencies with primary responsibility for the coordination and control of water quality.

The water quality control activities are organized around programs. Each program dedicates resources 

to compliance assurance and enforcement activities. Enforcement is then integrated into program 

activities. In addition, each Regional Board has a dedicated enforcement coordinator that participates 

in regular statewide roundtables to coordinate their respective activities so as to achieve a unified and 

effective enforcement program. 

The Office of Enforcement, at the State Water Board was created in mid-2006 to emphasize 

enforcement as a key component of the Water Boards’ water quality regulatory functions and 

statutory responsibilities. 

Water Boards | | 107
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

The Office of Enforcement role is to ensure that violations of orders and permits result in firm, fair, 

and consistent enforcement through direct actions, the development of policies and guidance, and the 

identification of metrics for decision-making on enforcement issues.

In addition, the Division of Water Rights at the State 

Water Board also has an active Enforcement Program 

responsible for statewide water rights compliance and 

enforcement and implementation of the State Water 

Board’s Water Rights Policy.

The Water Boards are committed to meeting internal 

and external data management needs. During 

2010, the Water Boards launched improvements 

to its water quality database, known as California 

Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS). The 

enhancements improve public access to water quality 

and enforcement data, increasing accountability and 

transparency. Additionally, the Water Boards produce 

7 enforcement reports a year, including the “Baseline 

Enforcement Report” and the “Annual Enforcement 

Report.” These reports and other information regarding the Water Boards is available at the public 

website at www.waterboards.ca.gov.

Program Highlights and Statistics for 2010

This report, covering calendar year 2010, highlights the resources available for core regulatory 

program enforcement and the enforcement actions achieved with those resources. 

The five core regulatory programs are:

• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Wastewater

• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Stormwater

• Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR)

• Land Disposal

• Wetlands and 401 Certification

Sacramento River, Sacramento County

108 | | Water Boards
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

General information on these programs is shown below.

NPDES Wastewater Program

Discharges from specific point sources to surface waters (rivers, lakes, oceans, wetlands, etc.), such 

as municipal waste treatment plants, food processors, etc.

• Facilities regulated: 1,897

• Inspections conducted: 565

• Facilities with one or more violations: 530

• Violations documented: 6,183

• Percentage of violations with enforcement actions: 65%

• Enforcement actions issued: 692

Table 1: 2010 Water Quality Enforcement Highlights

2010 2009 FY 2007-2008 FY 2006-2007

Number of regulated facilities: 28,466 39,704 39,692 41,156

Inspections conducted: 6,255 6,129 3,763 3,839

Violations documented: 13,992 12,378 15,177 9,801

Facilities with one or more violations: 2,742 2,733 2,970 2,527

Informal enforcement actions taken: 4,066 3,001 2,706 1,915

Formal enforcement actions taken: 364 303 283 180

Administrative Civil Liability actions: 226 174 106 107

Penalties assessed1

: $13 million $20 million $19 million $12 million

Violations receiving enforcement: 8,300 6,668 8,643 5,485

1

 Does not include penalties assessed under the Health & Safety Code.

Water Boards | | 109
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

NPDES Stormwater Program

Stormwater discharges generated by runoff from land 

and impervious areas such as paved streets, parking 

lots, industrial and construction sites during rainfall 

events.

• Facilities regulated: 16,741

• Inspections conducted: 3,894 

• Facilities with one or more violations: 1,186 

• Violations documented: 1,460 

• Percentage of violations with enforcement 

actions: 85% 

• Enforcement actions issued: 2,624 

Waste Discharge Requirements Program

Discharges of wastewater from point sources to land and groundwater, waste generated from 

confined animal facilities and all other pollution sources that can affect water quality not covered by 

other programs.

• Facilities regulated: 6,694 

• Inspections conducted: 935 

• Facilities with one or more violations: 918 

• Violations documented: 5,549 

• Percentage of violations with enforcement actions: 46% 

• Enforcement actions issued: 967

Land Disposal Program

Discharges of waste to land that need containment in order to protect water quality, including 

landfills, waste ponds, waste piles, and land treatment units.

• Facilities regulated: 821 

• Inspections conducted: 695 

• Facilities with one or more violations: 116 

110 | | Water Boards

Stormwater discharge, Alameda County
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

• Violations documented: 264 

• Percentage of violations with enforcement actions: 47%

• Enforcement actions issued: 78

401 Certification2/Wetlands Program

Impacts from dredging and disposal of sediments, filling of wetlands or waters, and any other 

modification of a water body.

• Facilities regulated: 1,328

• Inspections conducted: 204

• Facilities with one or more violations: 19

• Violations documented: 27

• Enforcement actions issued: 69

2

 Federal Clean Water Act, section 401

Water Boards | | 111
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

The following table provides information on the compliance rates for each category of dischargers.

Water Boards 

Core Regulatory Programs by 

Category 

YEAR 2010

Number 

of 

Facilities

Facilities 

with one 

or more 

violations 

in the 

period

Percentage 

of 

Facilities 

in 

Violation

Total 

Violations

Total 

Facilities 

With 

Priority 

Violations

Percentage 

of 

Facilities 

with 

priority 

violations

Total 

Priority 

Violations

# of 

Facilities 

with 1-10 

violations

# of 

Facilities 

with 11-25 

violations

# of 

Facilities 

with >25 

violations

Average # 

of 

Violations 

per Facility 

In violation

NPDES Major Facilities 264 141 53% 2,907 90 34% 1,495 97 24 20 20.6

NPDES Minor Facilities 311 141 45% 2,084 86 28% 1,084 101 21 19 14.8

NPDES General 1,322 248 19% 1,192 71 5% 207 216 29 3 4.8

Stormwater Industrial 9,481 801 8% 968 214 2% 248 801 - - 1.2

Stormwater Construction* 2,629 358 14% 449 54 2% 91 358 - - 1.3

Stormwater Municipal I+II 541 27 5% 43 8 1% 12 27 - - 1.6

WDR Large Municipal 423 139 33% 1,968 93 22% 478 99 28 12 14.2

WDR Small Municipal 1,256 233 19% 1,214 74 6% 290 205 22 6 5.2

WDR Industrial 888 51 6% 206 15 2% 39 46 5 - 4.0

WDR Sanitary Sewer Overflow 1,070 197 18% 534 24 2% 43 190 5 2 2.7

WDR CAFO/Dairies 1,524 188 12% 544 94 6% 147 184 4 - 2.9

WDR All Other 1,533 110 7% 1,083 50 3% 307 95 7 8 9.8

Land Disposal Open Landfills 125 32 26% 75 16 13% 24 32 - - 2.3

Land Disposal Closed Landfills 289 28 10% 66 12 4% 15 28 - - 2.4

Land Disposal All Other 407 56 14% 123 19 5% 37 55 1 - 2.2

401 Wetlands/Certifications 1,328 19 1% 27 13 1% 15 19 - - 1.4

TOTAL 23,391 2,769 13,483 933 4,532 2,553 146 70 1.6

*Stormwater Construction number of facilities inspected. There are 6,719 construction facilities regulated under the program.

112 | | Water Boards
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

In addition, we are also including actions taken by the State Water Board’s Office of Enforcement 

and the Division of Water Rights

Office of Enforcement

The Office of Enforcement at the State Water Board provides coordination and oversight of Regional 

Water Board enforcement activities, through policy adoption, training and investigative assistance. 

The Office of Enforcement also takes independent enforcement actions where authorized.

• Cases investigated: 30 

• Cases referred to District Attorney: 1

• Cases referred to Attorney General: 4

• Enforcement actions issued: 13 

• Penalties assessed: $12,011,409

Typical activated sludge basin at a wastewater treatment plant

Water Boards | | 113
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Water Rights

Allocates water rights through a system of permits, licenses and registrations that grant individuals 

and others the right to beneficially use reasonable amounts of water. Water rights permits help to 

protect the environment from impacts that occur as a result of water diversions and include conditions 

to protect other water users and the environment.

• Facilities regulated: 22,962

• Inspections conducted: 83

• Violations documented: 8,377

• Percentage of violations with enforcement actions: 2%

• Enforcement actions issued: 155 

• Cases closed: 184

• Penalties assessed: $183,329

Enforcement Response

The 2009 Water Quality Enforcement Policy 

guides staff in selecting the appropriate 

level of enforcement response that properly 

addresses violations and recommends the 

use of progressive enforcement. The policy 

describes progressive enforcement as “an 

escalating series of actions that allows for 

the efficient and effective use of enforcement 

resources.” Depending on the nature 

and severity of the violation, an informal 

enforcement action such as a warning letter 

to a violator, or a more formal enforcement 

action, including orders requiring corrective action within a particular time frame, may be taken. 

In other instances, enforcement staff may use more informal tools, such as a phone call or a staff 

enforcement letter for compliance assistance.

114 | | Water Boards
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Formal Enforcement Penalty Actions 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Civil Cases Referred 2 4 9 4 4

Administrative Actions Initiated 64 90 271 171 232

Criminal Cases Referred* 1

*Criminal cases are referred to the Attorney General’s Office. It is the decision of the Attorney General to pursue the case as a civil or criminal matter.

In the Water Quality Enforcement Policy appropriate enforcement response is related to the ranking 

and classification of violations grouped around enforcement cases. The priority enforcement cases are 

then identified and those with class I priority violations are targeted for formal enforcement action. 

Water Boards | | 115
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

The following table shows that the enforcement response varies by program, violations under the 

NPDES wastewater program received the largest percentage of administrative actions and for the 

stormwater program, enforcement is focused on informal enforcement.

Enforcement 

Response 

Core 

Regulatory 

Programs 

2010

Violations 

Receiving 

“All Other 

Enforcement 

Actions”

%

Violations 

Receiving

Compliance

Actions

%

Violations 

Receiving

Penalty

Actions

%

Violations 

With 

Enforcement

%

Violations 

With No 

Enforcement

%

Total 

Number of 

Violations

NPDES 2,740 44% 1,255 20% 958 15% 3,990 65% 2,193 35% 6,183

Stormwater 1,197 84% - 0% 12 1% 1,200 85% 217 15% 1,417

Waste 

Discharge 

Requirements

2,344 41% 314 5% 19 0% 2,660 46% 3,102 54% 5,762

Land 

Disposal 126 47% 3 1% - 0% 126 47% 141 53% 267

Total 6,407 1,572 989 7,976 59% 5,653 41% 13,629

Highlighted Enforcement Cases for 2010 

$1.2 Million Judgment Against E2C Remediation In Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund 

Fraud Case

The Office of the Attorney General, on behalf of the State Water Board, filed a Judgment in Sacramento 

Superior Court on February 26, 2010 to settle allegations that E2C Remediation, Inc. (E2C) submitted 

fraudulent reimbursement requests to the UST Cleanup Fund. The State Water Board alleged that 

E2C submitted inflated invoices while performing investigation and remediation consulting services 

at gas stations related to employee time, equipment costs, water disposal and markup on affiliated 

companies. The total value of the Judgment was just over $1,200,000. The Fund recovered $915,000 

from E2C. In addition, E2C was assessed $50,000 in penalties for engaging in unfair business practices. 

The Judgment suspended an additional $250,000 in penalties for three years, which will become due if 

E2C violates specifically enumerated water quality protection laws, or submits any further fraudulent 

claims to the Fund.

116 | | Water Boards
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

This case lead to the creation of a Fraud, Waste, and Abuse (FWA) Prevention Unit within the Office 

of Enforcement as a one-year pilot project. The mission of the FWA Prevention Unit is to root out, 

investigate, prosecute, and deter fraud, waste, and abuse against the UST Cleanup Fund. The Cleanup 

Fund reimburses up to $1.5 million per claim for corrective action costs incurred in the cleanup of 

petroleum contaminated UST sites. As of October 31, 2010, there were 4,094 active claims and the 

Cleanup Fund had reimbursed $2.748 billion. 

During 2010, the FWA Prevention Unit audited approximately 40 claims for reimbursement to the UST 

Cleanup Fund. Formal enforcement resulting from the audits and investigations will occur in 2011.

Landmark Enforcement Action Taken against the City of Long Beach for Extensive Violations of 

Environmental Protection Standards

The Office of the Attorney General, on behalf of the State Water Board, filed a Consent Judgment 

(Judgment) in Los Angeles County Superior Court on January 21, 2010 to resolve pervasive violations 

of underground storage tank (UST) construction and monitoring requirements by the City of Long 

Beach. The total value of the Judgment is $6,200,000, and requires the City to pay $1,500,000 in civil 

penalties and $200,000 in costs. An additional $2,000,000 in penalties was credited to the City for 

actions it took to enhance compliance at its UST facilities and $2,500,000 was suspended conditioned 

on future compliance. In addition, the City was required to place a full page mea culpa advertisement 

in the January 31, 2010 Sunday edition of the Long Beach Press Telegram.

This case lead to the commencement of the Government-Owned/Operated Underground Storage 

Tank Enforcement Initiative (“GOT Initiative”) which targets noncompliance with state and federal 

leak prevention laws at facilities that are owned and/or operated by government agencies. OE has 

received information regarding the current operations of government owned/operated underground 

storage tank (UST) facilities in 79 different CUPA (certified unified program agency) jurisdictions. 

During 2010, OE performed more than 145 file reviews at 18 of the CUPAs who had submitted their 

information. Actual inspections of the facilities commenced the second week of July and more than 

50 inspections took place. Formal enforcement resulting from the reviews and inspections will occur 

in 2011.

Water Boards | | 117
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Performance Measures

With the adoption of the Strategic Plan Update: 2008-2012, the Water Boards continued the transition 

to becoming performance-based organizations where clear and measurable goals, objectives, and 

targets for improved performance are established and reported. Goal 5 of the Strategic Plan establishes 

that the Water Boards will improve transparency and accountability by ensuring that our goals and 

actions are clear and accessible; by demonstrating and explaining results achieved; and by enhancing 

and improving accessibility to data and information. The Annual Performance Report is part of the 

Water Boards’ efforts toward developing as performance-based organizations. The Performance 

Report is available at: www.waterboards.ca.gov/about_us/performance_report/performance_based.shtml.

Categories of Performance Measures for Enforcement

Measure Name Measure Description

Self-Monitoring Report Evaluation* Number of self-monitoring reports due, received 

and reviewed and percentage of reports reviewed 

Inspection Monitoring* Number of inspections and percentage of facilities 

inspected

Compliance Rates* The percentage of facilities in compliance based on 

the number of facilities evaluated

Enforcement Response* Percentage of facilities in violation receiving an 

enforcement action requiring compliance

Enforcement Activities* Number and type of enforcement actions

Penalties Assessed and Collected* Amount of penalties assessed and collected, SEPs 

approved and injunctive relief

MMP Violations Addressed* Number of facilities with MMP violations receiving 

a penalty at or above the minimum penalty assessed

Recidivism

Number and percentage of facilities returning 

to non-compliance for the same violation(s) 

addressed through an enforcement action 

Environmental Benefits

(as a result of an enforcement action)

Estimated pounds of pollutants reduced/removed 

through cleanup (soil or water), and wetlands/

stream/beach/creek/river miles protected/restored 

(acres, etc.)

Our databases currently supports reporting on seven* of the nine performance measures described 

in the Annual Enforcement Report and in the Enforcement Policy.

118 | | Water Boards
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Additional Information:

For more detailed information on the Water Boards Enforcement Program , the 2010 Annual Enforcement 

Report is available at: www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/enforcement/#reports.

Water Boards | | 119
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

OEHHA Mission

The mission of Office of Environmental Health 

Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is to protect and 

enhance public health and the environment by scientific 

evaluation of risks posed by hazardous substances. 

Enforcement Mission

OEHHA has no enforcement authority. Instead, the 

Office performs the scientific assessments used by 

Cal/EPA boards and departments, the Department 

of Public Health (CDPH) and other regulatory 

agencies as the basis for standards, regulations 

and other risk management decisions. These 

assessments help ensure that state regulations and 

policies focus on the most significant health threats, 

which in turn helps ensure that precious resources 

devoted to the protection of public health and the 

environment are expended in the most effective 

manner. OEHHA’s technical assistance plays a key 

role in shaping enforcement activities conducted 

by Cal/EPA and other agencies.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

| OEHHA
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

OEHHA Overview

The Governor’s Reorganization Plan that established the California Environmental Protection Agency 

(Cal/EPA) in 1991 created OEHHA as a separate and distinct entity from—and at par with—the 

other Cal/EPA boards and departments. This was intended to provide functional and organizational 

separation between scientific “risk assessment” functions and regulatory “risk management” activities. 

OEHHA plays a critical and unique role in environmental protection as the scientific and risk 

assessment arm of Cal/EPA. OEHHA’s assessments support a broad array of environmental programs 

having regulatory enforcement authority to protect human health and the environment, most notably 

those dealing with:

Air quality. OEHHA health risk assessments provide the basis for regulatory actions and control 

measures implemented by the Air Resources Board (ARB) and local air pollution control districts. 

OEHHA’s risk assessment methods ensure that infants and children are explicitly considered in 

evaluating the health risks of air pollutants. These assessments support the designation of air 

pollutants as toxic air contaminants as well as the promulgation of Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for criteria air pollutants. For purposes of the Air Toxic Hotspots Act1

, OEHHA develops and 

updates risk assessment guidance and establishes reference exposure levels and cancer potency 

factors for use in health risk assessments of facility air emissions; OEHHA also reviews the facility 

risk assessments. Other OEHHA evaluations include: epidemiological investigations of the health 

effects of criteria air pollutants, particularly on sensitive subpopulations such as children and the 

elderly, and of the public health impacts of rising temperatures associated with climate change; 

toxicological assessments of common indoor air chemicals; and characterization of the human 

and environmental health risks of air pollution associated with gasoline use.

1

 The Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act (AB 2588, 1987, Connelly) requires stationary sources to report the types and quantities of certain 

 substances routinely released into the air. The goals of the Act are to collect emission data, to identify facilities having localized impacts, to ascertain health risks, 

 to notify nearby residents of significant risks, and to reduce those significant risks to acceptable levels.

OEHHA | | 121
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Drinking water safety. OEHHA develops public health goals (PHGs), health advisories, 

and notification levels for chemicals in drinking water. PHGs are concentrations of chemicals 

in drinking water that are not anticipated to produce adverse health effects following longterm exposures. These levels are used by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) 

as the health basis for the state’s primary drinking water standards (also known as maximum 

contaminant levels, or MCLs). To date, OEHHA has developed PHGs for approximately 85 

chemicals and updated assessments on about 20 of these.

Proposition 65 Implementation. As the lead agency for implementing Proposition 65 (the 

Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986), OEHHA’s responsibilities include 

evaluating and listing chemicals that cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. OEHHA also 

develops “safe harbor” levels that identify levels of exposure to listed chemicals that trigger 

the Proposition 65 warning requirement and prohibition on the discharge of chemicals into 

drinking water sources. These safe harbor numbers are a critical form of compliance assistance 

and often figure prominently in enforcement actions. OEHHA also plays a significant role in 

Proposition 65 enforcement by providing scientific consultation to the Attorney General’s 

office, the primary enforcer.

Pesticides. OEHHA evaluates pesticide toxicity data in support of pesticide use regulation in 

California. Specifically, OEHHA reviews risk characterizations of pesticide active ingredients and 

health assessments used for the registration of pesticides and that identify pesticides as toxic air 

contaminants. These documents are prepared by the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). 

OEHHA has joint and mutual responsibility with DPR in developing worker health and safety 

regulations for pesticide use, handling, notification and enforcement and reviews worker exposure 

protocols. OEHHA also has responsibilities relating to pesticide illness surveillance, including 

training physicians on pesticide illness recognition and reporting, and providing epidemiological 

assistance to local health officers during pesticide poisoning outbreaks. Finally, OEHHA provides 

the California Department of Food and Agriculture with health effects data and toxicological 

evaluations of pesticides and formulation products to combat invasive species. 

Site cleanups. OEHHA develops health-based values for assessing risks at contaminated sites. 

These include child-specific reference levels to assess risks at proposed or existing California 

122 | | OEHHA
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

school sites, soil screening levels for contaminants in soil and soil vapors for use by community 

organizations, property owners, developers, and local government officials in the remediation of 

contaminated properties; and wildlife toxicity values for ecological risk assessments. OEHHA 

also assists the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, the Department of Resources Recycling 

and Recovery or Cal/Recycle and local government entities in assessing health and ecological 

risks at contaminated sites.

Emergency response. During emergencies, OEHHA works directly with agencies such as Cal/

EPA, the California Emergency Management Agency, and the California Department of Public 

Health. OEHHA provides information on the health effects of chemical agents, identifies potential 

exposure scenarios, and assists with decisions about sheltering in-place, evacuation and reentry. Following an oil spill of 42 gallons or more in marine waters, state law (AB 2935, Chapter 

564, Statutes of 2008) requires OEHHA to assess potential health impacts from consuming fish 

and shellfish.

Green Chemistry. Recently enacted legislation created a Green Chemistry program in California. 

Under these laws, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is mandated, among other 

things, to establish the Toxics Information Clearinghouse, a decentralized, web-based system for 

the collection, maintenance, and distribution of specific chemical hazard trait and environmental 

and toxicological end-point data. OEHHA is required to “evaluate and specify the hazard traits 

and environmental and toxicological end-points and other relevant data that are to be included in 

the clearinghouse.” These must be included by DTSC in developing criteria to evaluate chemicals 

and their alternatives. 

Biomonitoring. An important way to determine whether regulations are effective is by evaluating 

the degree to which people are exposed to environmental chemicals. CDPH, OEHHA and 

DTSC collaborate in operating California’s biomonitoring program, which measures chemicals 

in biological samples taken from people and thus provides key information regarding chemical 

exposures. The selection of which chemicals are to be biomonitored follows a process laid out 

in the enabling statute for California’s biomonitoring program. OEHHA does the scientific work 

involving creation of dossiers and conducting other research that underpins the process for 

selecting chemicals for biomonitoring. OEHHA staffs and administers the Scientific Guidance 

OEHHA | | 123
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Panel, which advise the program including regarding which chemicals to biomonitor. OEHHA 

also conducts scientific research on the interpretation of biomonitoring results, including what 

levels of biomonitored chemicals may pose a health concern. OEHHA shares responsibilities with 

CDPH for data analysis, questionnaire design efforts, and public outreach. OEHHA maintains 

the Biomonitoring California website (www.biomonitoring.ca.gov), listserv, and email address 

(biomonitoring@oehha.ca.gov).

In addition to the above, OEHHA develops scientific tools, guidance and information to better 

characterize human health and environmental issues under programs such as those involving 

cumulative impacts, ecotoxicology, sports fish consumption advisories and environmental indicators. 

OEHHA may, as needed, be called upon to conduct special investigations of potential environmental 

causes of illness and deaths.

OEHHA’s responsibilities are fulfilled by a staff of about 117, including toxicologists, physicians, 

research scientists and other public health professionals (see organizational chart, next page). 

OEHHA has an annual budget of approximately $18 million, with offices in Sacramento and Oakland.

124 | | OEHHA
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Summary of Major Program Highlights for 2010

Listed below are those OEHHA accomplishments in 2010 that support standard-setting, provide 

guidance in the evaluation of health risks to inform risk management, or facilitate compliance with 

regulatory requirements. This is not a comprehensive list of OEHHA’s accomplishments for the 

calendar year. 

OEHHA | | 125
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

• Proposed reference exposure levels (RELs) for three chemicals that are emitted by stationary 

sources in California, and for one chemical that is a common indoor air contaminant. RELs are 

airborne levels of a chemical that are not anticipated to present a significant risk of an adverse 

non-cancer health effect.

• Drafted guidelines for exposure assessment under the Air Toxics Hot Spots program. 

• Adopted final public health goals (PHGs) for two contaminants in drinking water and updated 

PHGs for four chemicals, as well as draft PHGs for chromium 6 and for trihlaomethanes. 

PHGs are used by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) as the health basis for 

setting maximum contaminant levels. 

• Published documents describing the evidence for the carcinogenicity of three chemicals: 

1,3 dichloro-2-propanol; 3-monochloropropane-1,2-diol; and 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (“TNT”). 

Documents describing the evidence for the developmental and reproductive toxicity of 

methyl isocyanate were also published. 

• Added thirteen chemicals to the Proposition 65 list, and adopted regulatory “safe harbor” 

levels for four carcinogens and one developmental toxicant

• Developed screening carcinogenicity assessments for 27 chemicals to determine priorities for 

future Proposition 65 listings. 

• Cooperated with DPR staff to develop amendments to regulations pertaining to the use of 

methyl bromide to fumigate soil prior to the planting of agricultural crops (Title 3, California 

Code of Regulations, sections 6447, 6447.2, and 6784). These amendments are intended to 

mitigate potential subchronic health hazards to the public and agricultural employees.

• Completed a human health risk assessment on the use of the Isomate-EGVM device (“twist 

ties”), in support of the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s efforts to control 

and eradicate the European Grape Vine Moth. OEHHA also participated in 24 public 

informational meetings related to the invasive species program.

• Posted web-based training program for physicians who supervise workers involved in the 

application of cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides. Two physician training sessions on the 

recognition and management of pesticide poisoning were also conducted. 

• Adopted California human health screening levels for ethylbenzene and perchlorate. These 

are reference values that may be used by citizen groups, community organizations, property 

owners, developers, and local government officials to estimate the degree of effort that may be 

necessary to remediate a contaminated property.

• Reviewed 55 site-specific health risk assessments for the Regional Water Quality Control 

126 | | OEHHA
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Boards and local governmental agencies.

• Reviewed 21 site-specific risk assessments submitted to OEHHA by the Air Pollution Control 

Districts for the Air Toxics Hot Spots program.

• Established a child -specific reference dose (chRD) for chlorpyrifos. A chRD is a numerical 

health guidance value for use in the assessment of risk at proposed or existing California 

school sites.

• Developed draft clearance values for chemical warfare agents; the values are intended to be 

used in evaluating the risks to the public in the event of a terrorist attack at a major airport. 

• Made recommendations for the closure and subsequent reopening of fisheries following oil 

spills that occurred in Long Beach Harbor, Pillar Point Harbor, and the Petaluma River.

• Proposed regulation specifying hazard traits and environmental and toxicological endpoints 

and other relevant data that are to be included in the Toxics Information Clearinghouse to be 

developed by the Department of Toxic Substances Control. 

• Added three chemicals to Biomonitoring California’s designated chemicals list and five 

chemicals to the priority chemicals list, after creating dossiers to support the action and 

vetting them through the Scientific Guidance Panel.

• Completed a report, “Cumulative Impacts: Building a Scientific Foundation,” that presents 

the first step in developing a screening methodology to evaluate the cumulative impacts of 

multiple sources of pollution in specific communities or geographic areas. The scientific 

screening methodology—intended for eventual use by the boards, departments and office of 

Cal/EPA—will help the Agency incorporate cumulative impact considerations in its work to 

promote environmental justice.

• Published a User’s Guide for the California Impervious Surface Coefficients that presents 

how OEHHA impervious surface coefficient values were derived and describes the use of 

these coefficients in stormwater runoff analysis and watershed assessment and management. 

Impervious surfaces are areas hardened by such structures as houses, patios, driveways, 

and transportation infrastructure. The percentage of the landscape covered by impervious 

surfaces increases with urbanization. This alters the hydrology within a watershed, with 

significant consequences on water quality and aquatic and riparian habitat. 

• Completed a study on the safety of the new generation of artificial turf athletic fields 

containing infill made from recycled tires (Safety Study of Artificial Turf Containing Crumb 

Rubber Infill Made from Recycled Tires). The study sampled and evaluated volatile organic 

chemicals and small particles in air as well as bacteria on turf surfaces. Skin abrasion rates 

OEHHA | | 127
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

on natural and artificial turf were also collected and analyzed. No public health concern was 

identified. 

• Issued final report on the Safety of Consuming Fish and Shellfish from Areas Impacted by the 

T/V Dubai Star Oil Spill in San Francisco Bay and issued a health advisory for fish taken from 

Magic Johnson Lakes, Los Angeles County.

• Reviewed seven worker exposure protocols for pesticide products describing work plans for 

determining occupational exposure to pesticides in commerce, conducted peer reviews of 

pesticide assessments on chlorothalonil and methylparathion, and evaluated the scientific basis 

and made a determination on a data waiver request to waive a cancer bioassay on a pesticide 

product all on conjunction with our ongoing work with the Department of Pesticide Regulation.

Highlighted 2010 Projects

Investigating birth defects in Kettleman City 

On January 29, 2010, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger directed the California Department of Public 

Health (CDPH) and the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA)to conduct an 

investigation of birth defects in children 

born to Kettleman City residents. 

Members of the community had raised 

concerns about an apparent increase in 

the number of infants born with birth 

defects after 2006, questioning whether 

these were linked to a nearby hazardous 

waste landfill or to other environmental 

exposures. CDPH was directed to 

conduct a health investigation of the 

families whose children were born with 

birth defects; Cal/EPA was responsible 

for assessing possible environmental 

contaminants that could potentially 

cause birth defects. Kettleman City is a 

rural community of approximately 1,620 

residents—mostly Hispanic, employed by local farming operations—in southwestern Kings County.

OEHHA led a Cal/EPA team consisting of technical experts from the Department of Toxic Substances 

128 | | OEHHA
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Control, the Air Resources Board, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, and the State Water 

Resources Control Board. In consultation with CDPH and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(U.S. EPA), Cal/EPA tested for chemicals that could cause birth defects and other adverse health 

effects, and estimated potential community exposures to these chemicals. Samples of air, soil and 

water were collected around agricultural operations, the Kettleman Hills Hazardous Waste Facility, 

the Kettleman City Elementary School, illegal dump sites and the community. Meanwhile, CDPH 

conducted in-depth interviews with mothers of infants born with birth defects and reviewed their 

medical records.

OEHHA evaluated possible health 

risks from exposure to environmental 

contaminants at or nearby Kettleman 

City. The levels of environmental 

pollutants in Kettleman City were 

comparable to those found in other San 

Joaquin Valley communities. Extensive 

testing of air, water, soil, and soil gas 

did not find any exposures to hazardous 

chemicals likely to be associated with 

birth defects. Similarly, historical 

records of facilities that operated in the 

area and investigations of possible illegal 

dumping of hazardous materials did not 

find evidence of chemical releases into 

the community that could pose risks 

of birth defects. These findings did not 

reveal anything unique about environmental conditions in Kettleman City that would pose special 

health risks to residents. No specific cause or environmental exposure could explain the increase in 

the number of children born with birth defects in Kettleman City. 

The Kettleman City Investigation represented an unprecedented effort by multiple programs and 

experts from various scientific disciplines within U.S. EPA, Cal/EPA and CDPH to examine specific 

public health concerns within an individual community.

OEHHA | | 129
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Ensuring seafood safety following oil spills

OEHHA is responsible for evaluating the safety of seafood consumption following oil spills in the 

state of California, in partnership with the Department of Fish and Game’s Office of Spill Prevention 

and Response.

OEHHA’s expertise in seafood safety 

was tapped following the blowout at 

the Deepwater Horizon oil well off the 

coast of Louisiana on April 20, 2010. 

Approximately 200 million gallons 

of oil were released into the Gulf of 

Mexico. In May 2010, an OEHHA 

toxicologist was deployed to the 

(Houma) Louisiana Incident Command 

Post to assist with seafood safety issues 

following this incident.

As a consultant to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office of Response 

and Restoration, Emergency Response Division, OEHHA staff provided toxicological information to 

NOAA biologists and preparing seafood safety fact sheets for use in public workshops. Additionally, 

two OEHHA toxicologists contributed advice and support to the Federal/State Fish Consumption 

Advisory Work Group, established to develop a joint protocol for re-opening areas closed to seafood 

harvesting as a result of the spill.

Additional information:

More information about OEHHA and its programs can be found at: www.oehha.ca.gov.

Source: USGS

130 | | OEHHA
Appendices

Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Appendix A: The Driving Forces 

Social, economic and technological forces and their interplay with one another and with natural 

forces are powerful drivers of environmental change. Population characteristics—such as size, rate 

of growth, age structure and spatial distribution—are linked to land use patterns, natural resource 

use, and waste generation. Individual and collective attributes of members of the population—such as 

educational level, health status, attitudes and behaviors, and socio-political structures—can influence 

not only the magnitude and nature of a population’s environmental impacts, but also its economic 

characteristics and ability to develop and use new technologies. 

Since 1940, California’s population has grown from an estimated 7 million residents to today’s 

population of about 38 million. 

About a quarter of the state 

resides in its ten largest cities, 

some of which have seen the 

most population growth: 

Los Angeles, San Jose, San 

Diego and San Francisco. This 

growth created demands for 

housing, resources, energy, and 

goods and services. The pattern 

of land development dictated 

the location of urban centers, 

sprawling suburbs, commercial 

and industrial areas, and agricultural lands—and their resultant transportation, infrastructure, and 

habitat loss or fragmentation. 

Despite the economic downturn in recent years, California remains one of the world’s largest economies. 

Its economic output—or gross domestic product, the total value of final goods and services produced 

in the state—was about $1.9 trillion in 2009, accounting for 13 percent of the United States’ economy. 

Source: DOF, 2011a

Appendix A | | 133
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Texas, the next largest state economy, is 

about 60 percent the size of California’s. 

Economic activity generally leads to 

negative impacts on the environment, 

in terms of emissions of pollutants to air 

and water, consumption of resources, 

and generation of waste.

The state’s growing population and 

economic activity were accompanied by 

a rise in energy consumption. Energy 

consumption influences a wide range of economic and environmental variables, from the price of 

products to the amount of air emissions. Conversely, the state of the economy, changes in demography, 

improved efficiency and environmental conditions—including drought and ambient temperatures—

can affect energy consumption patterns.

Energy consumption in 2009 was twice the level it was in 1960. The transportation sector is the state’s 

largest energy consumer, accounting for about 30 percent of total consumption in 2009. More motor 

vehicles are registered in California than any other state, and worker commute times are among the 

longest in the country. While total energy consumption in California has generally been increasing 

over the past several decades, the state has one of the lowest per capita energy consumption rates in 

the country. The state’s energy-efficiency 

programs, along with the lower heating 

and cooling demands due to its mild 

weather, are factors that influence its 

energy consumption trends.

Fossil fuel combustion for energy is 

a major source of carbon dioxide and 

other greenhouse gas emissions. Current 

scientific evidence has linked increased 

greenhouse gas concentrations to 

Source: DOF, 2011b

Source: EIA, 2011

134 | | Appendix A
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

increases in global temperatures and climate 

change. Climate change is one of today’s most 

formidable challenges, posing serious threats 

to the health, environment, and economy of 

California and its residents. The state has taken 

a leadership role in addressing climate change 

by establishing an aggressive greenhouse 

gas emission reduction program with the 

enactment of the Global Warming Solutions 

Act of 2006 (commonly known as AB 32). It 

has also developed adaptation strategies to be 

better prepared to address the impacts of climate change.

Restoring, protecting and enhancing California’s environment

Despite the enormity of these driving forces, California’s environmental program efforts, including 

regulatory enforcement, have resulted in successes. Californians today breathe the cleanest air 

since measurements have been recorded, despite massive increases in population, the number of 

motor vehicles and the miles driven. Levels of water pollutants that impair water quality have been 

significantly reduced at Lake Tahoe, along the Klamath River, in the Los Angeles River basin and 

other water bodies. About 125 contaminated sites (known as Brownfields) each year are returned 

to productive use, helping to spur the local economy and create jobs. Since implementation of 

groundwater protection areas for pesticide use in 2004, there has been a significant decrease in pounds 

of regulated pesticide active ingredients applied over a 2.5 million acre area in California. 

Californians derive tremendous benefits from its natural systems. The state is home to one of the most 

diverse assemblage of plants and animals in the United States. The wide range of climates, soils and 

topographies account for the rich and varied ecosystems found in the state. Since the late 18th century, 

the state’s natural landscapes have undergone major transformations, resulting in the loss or severe 

degradation of habitats. To accommodate California’s population growth, formerly natural landscapes 

were transformed into farms and cities. However, during at least the past two decades, the rate of 

urban development has shown a slight downward trend. (CalFire, 2010)

Protecting the health of California’s residents

When interpreting the potential impacts of environmental programs, it is worth noting the health status 

Appendix A |

Source: EIA, 2011

| 135
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

of the population these programs are seeking to protect. This information provides useful context to 

consider in examining health outcomes that may be influenced by exposures to environmental agents. 

A population’s health status reflects the cumulative effects of social and physical environmental 

factors, behavioral and genetic risk factors, and the level and quality of health care. Overall, the 

health of California’s population has been improving. This is evident from measures commonly used 

to describe population health, such as life expectancy and mortality rates (presented below). It is 

important to note that statewide trends for the general population may not be representative 

of certain subpopulations, and 

that disparities by gender, race or 

income level may exist.

California’s mortality rate has 

been declining. In 2009, the state’s 

death rate (629.1 deaths per 100,000 

population) was among the lowest 

in the nation—considerably lower 

than the rate for the United States 

(741.0 per 100, 000). Mortality rates 

for males are higher than for females. 

Blacks and individuals identified as “White/other race/unknown” have higher than the statewide 

mortality rates. In 2009, heart disease and cancer caused approximately half of all deaths, while 

cerebrovascular disease (stroke) and chronic lower respiratory disease each accounted for another 6 

percent.

Infant mortality (deaths among 

infants under age 1) has also been 

declining, although rates during the 

past decade have remained relatively 

stable. California’s infant mortality 

rates have historically been lower than 

the national rates: 5.3 infant deaths per 

1,000 live births in 2007, compared to 

Source: CDPH, 2011a

Source: CDPH, 2011b

136 | | Appendix A
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

6.8 infant deaths per 1,000 live births nationwide. In the past five years, more than twice as many 

deaths occurred among infants born to Black mothers than all races combined; deaths in infants born 

to American Indian and Pacific Islander women have also been high, about 1.5 times higher than all 

races. 

Life expectancy is the average number 

of years at birth a person could expect 

to live if current mortality trends 

were to continue for the rest of that 

person’s life. Life expectancy for 

California continues to increase, from 

69.2 years in 1950 to 81.0 in 2008, with 

females expected to live longer than 

males. Similar trends are occurring 

nationally; additionally, national data 

show that whites continue to have 

longer life expectancy than blacks.

A large body of scientific evidence exists linking certain human diseases to chemical exposures. 

Evidence from human and animal studies serve as the basis for regulatory standards that are 

promulgated to prevent harmful chemical exposures. Over the years, environmental programs have 

achieved significant reductions in the levels of regulated environmental pollutants, resulting in lower 

levels of human exposures. Lower exposures presumably result in reductions in the incidence of certain 

adverse health outcomes. However, establishing the relationships between observed health outcomes 

and levels of environmental pollutants is generally difficult. Environmental exposures are among 

many factors—including genetics, smoking, alcohol consumption, diet, exercise, and socioeconomic 

characteristics—that can affect human health.

Appendix A | | 137

Source: CDPH, 2011c
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Efforts are underway to implement tracking systems that 

integrate data on environmental hazards, exposures, and health 

effects. These systems will help fill critical gaps in knowledge 

about the possible links between environmental hazards 

and chronic diseases. The California Environmental Health 

Tracking Program (CEHTP) in the Department of Public 

Health is part of a larger initiative to establish Environmental 

Public Health Tracking systems at the national and state 

levels. CEHTP has begun implementation of a statewide 

network integrating environmental and health data to produce 

and make available information that will drive action to 

improve the health of communities. More information about 

environmentally related diseases can be found at the CEHTP 

website (see text box).

To supplement data on health outcomes and ambient environmental levels of chemicals, California’s 

Biomonitoring Program—a collaborative effort of the Department of Public Health, the Office of 

Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the Department of Toxic Substances Control—was 

established to monitor chemicals in human biological samples. These measurements will provide key 

information regarding chemical exposures. 

Some examples of health outcomes for which exposures to environmental contaminants have been 

identified as a risk factor are discussed below. The extent by which environmental exposures influence 

these outcomes is difficult to distinguish from the many factors in the development of these diseases 

that can act alone or, more often, in combination.

Cancer refers to a large group of diseases characterized by uncontrolled growth and spread of abnormal 

cells. It is the leading cause of premature deaths and the second leading cause of all deaths in the state. 

138 | | Appendix A
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Many cancers can be cured if detected and treated promptly; many others can be prevented by lifestyle 

changes, such as avoiding the use of tobacco. While exposures to certain environmental contaminants 

have been clearly linked to cancer (e.g., radon and lung cancer; asbestos and mesothelioma; arsenic 

and skin cancer), other factors such as genetics, diet, body weight, inactivity and alcohol consumption 

have also been shown to influence cancer risk. In California, the overall incidence of cancer has 

decreased by about 10 percent over the past two decades. During the same time period, mortality from 

cancer has decreased by about 20 percent (not shown in graph).

Asthma is characterized by inflammation of the airways and lungs. It is the most common chronic 

disease among children in the United States, and its prevalence nationwide has been increasing. In 

California, lifetime asthma prevalence is higher than the national prevalence, with over 5 million 

Trends in cancer incidence and mortality vary by race: African 

American males have the highest overall cancer incidence and 

mortality rates. Among women, white women are most likely 

to be diagnosed with cancer, but African American women are 

more likely to die of the disease. The reasons for these differences 

are not well understood.

Appendix A | | 139

Disparities in the asthma burden exist among different races, 

income levels, gender, age groups, and geographic locations. 

For example, it has been well-established that Blacks bear a 

disproportionate share of the asthma burden: In 2009, Blacks 

were hospitalized at the rate of almost 30 per 10,000, compared 

to the overall rate of 9 per 10,000.

Source: CCR, 2011a, b

Source: CEHTP, 2011a
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Californians affected. The causes of asthma are unknown, although both genetic and environmental 

factors can influence its development. Environmental exposures such as to environmental tobacco 

smoke, dust mites, air pollutants and mold can trigger an asthma attack, during which a multitude 

of symptoms can occur, including wheezing, breathlessness, chest tightness and coughing, ranging 

from mild to life-threatening. Hospitalizations, which represent people with severe symptoms, have 

generally been declining, although rates for the last three years have trended upward.

Heart attacks occur when blood flow to the heart is severely reduced or cut off, most commonly 

due to damaged blood vessels caused by chronic heart disease. Air pollution and environmental 

tobacco smoke are known risk factors for heart disease, in addition to smoking, high blood pressure, 

high blood cholesterol, diabetes, physical inactivity, and poor nutrition. Collective evidence from 

recent studies suggests that an excess risk of hospital admissions or emergency department visits 

for cardiovascular effects has been associated with short-term exposures to particulate matter. In 

California, hospitalizations due to heart attacks have been declining in the past decade.

140 | | Appendix A

Three racial groups had higher hospitalization rates than the 

general population: (a) individuals belonging to “other”—that 

is, other than Black, White, Asian-American/Pacific Islander 

or Hispanic/Latino—had dramatically higher rates, having 

been hospitalized more than 2.5 times more than the general 

population. (2) blacks had about a ten percent higher rate, and 

(3) whites had only slightly (less than 2 per 10,000) higher rates. 

CEHTP, 2011b
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

References:

CalFire, 2010. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Fire and Resource Assessment 

Program. California’s Forests and Rangelands: 2010 Assessment. June 2010. Posted at: 

frap.fire.ca.gov/assessment2010.html 

CCR, 2011a. California Cancer Registry, accessed July 6, 2011. Queried database posted at:

www.cancer-rates.info/ca/index.php.

CCR, 2011b. California Cancer Registry. Cancer Facts and Figures: 2011. Posted at:

www.ccrcal.org/pdf/Reports/ACS_2011.pdf

CDPH, 2011a. California Department of Public Health, Center for Health Statistics, Death Statistical 

Data Tables, Table 5-1. Accessed July 11, 2011. Posted at:

www.cdph.ca.gov/data/statistics/Pages/DeathStatisticalDataTables.aspx 

CDPH, 2011b. California Department of Public Health, Center for Health Statistics, Infant Death 

Statistical Data Tables, Table 4-2. Accessed July 11, 2011. Posted at:

www.cdph.ca.gov/data/statistics/Pages/InfantDeathDataTables.aspx 

CDPH, 2011c. Department of Public Health, Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics and Population 

Summary Table, Table 1-14. Accessed July 11, 2011. Posted at:

www.cdph.ca.gov/data/statistics/Pages/VitalStatisticsandPopulationSummaryTables.aspx 

CEHTP, 2011a. California Environmental Health Tracking Program, California Department of Public 

Health, Asthma Data Query, accessed July 5, 2011. Queried database posted at:

www.ehib.org/page.jsp?page_key=124 

CEHTP, 2011b. California Environmental Health Tracking Program, California Department of Public 

Health, Heart Attack Data Query, accessed July 7, 2011. Queried database posted at:

www.ehib.org/page.jsp?page_key=108 

Appendix A | | 141
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

DOF, 2011a. Department of Finance. California Statistical Abstract, Table B-1. Released January 2009, 

with online updates. Accessed 07/05/2011. Posted at:

www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/STAT-ABS/Toc_xls.htm 

DOF, 2011b. Department of Finance. Miscellaneous Economic Data: Gross Domestic Product, 

California. Released June 7, 2011. Access 08/08/2011. Posted at:

www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/LatestEconData/FS_Misc.htm 

EIA, 2011. U.S. Energy Information Administration, State Energy Data System: California—

Consumption Estimates, Tables CT2-8. Released June 30, 2011. Posted at:

www.eia.gov/state/seds/seds-states.cfm?q_state_a=CA&q_state=California#undefined

142 | | Appendix A
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Appendix B: Cal/EPA Enforcement Program Update

A Report on Actions Taken in 2010 To Implement Government Code Section 12812.2

Government Code section 12812.2(a) gives the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/

EPA) Deputy Secretary for Law Enforcement and Counsel the responsibility and authority to do all 

of the following:

• Develop a program to ensure that Cal/EPA, its entities, and local government take consistent, 

effective, and coordinated enforcement actions. The program shall include training of 

inspection personnel to ensure consistent, effective, and coordinated enforcement. 

• Establish a cross media enforcement unit to assist Cal/EPA, its entities, and local government 

to investigate and prepare matters for enforcement action.

• Refer violations of environmental law or regulation to prosecutors such as the U.S. Attorney, 

Attorney General, or District Attorneys.

As required by 12812.2(c), this report provides an update on actions taken during 2010 to implement 

this section. Cal/EPA’s program to ensure consistent, effective, and coordinated enforcement actions 

has several components:

1. Targeted data improvement

2. Enforcement training for regulators, investigators and prosecutors 

3. Support for the Environmental Circuit Prosecutor Project to address the need for prosecutorial 

resources in rural counties

4. Administration of the Environmental Enforcement and Training Act

5. Supporting environmental enforcement task forces to facilitate communication between 

regulators and prosecutors and to coordinate cross media investigations

6. Coordinating assistance on investigation and enforcement actions

7. Providing assistance on case coordination and referral 

8. Improving transparency by production of an annual Cal/EPA Report on Enforcement

Appendix B | | 143
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Each of these components is described below.

Targeted data improvement

All regulated businesses and local governments are required to submit their Unified Program Agencies 

(CUPAs) regulatory reports electronically by 2013. This includes facility data regarding hazardous 

material regulatory activities, chemical inventories, underground and aboveground storage tanks, 

and hazardous waste generation. This also includes CUPA data such as inspections and enforcement 

actions. The California Environmental Reporting System (CERS), a statewide web-based system to 

support CUPAs in electronically collecting and reporting various hazardous materials-related data, 

went on line in late 2009 and had several improvements made in 2010. CERS also supports electronic 

data exchange among regulated businesses, local governments, and U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). For more information, see the Unified Program section of the Cal/EPA Enforcement 

Report for 2010 at www.calepa.ca.gov/CUPA/.

Enforcement Training

One crucial role Cal/EPA plays in California’s diverse and decentralized network of enforcement is 

coordination and support of training of enforcement personnel. Environmental laws and regulations 

are very technical and require special expertise to enforce. Basic and continuing education for 

environmental regulatory professionals is key. Enforcement requires additional skill sets, such as 

cross media violations awareness, report writing, investigation, and case development. 

Cal/EPA coordinates enforcement training with the California District Attorneys Association, the 

California Hazardous Materials Investigators Association, the Western States Project (a U.S. EPA 

funded training entity) and the Peace Officers Standards Training Commission (POST). Enforcement 

training information is on the web at: www.calepa.ca.gov/Enforcement/Training.

The Cal/EPA Environmental Enforcement Training Team (“Team”) is chaired by the Assistant General 

Counsel for Enforcement from the Office of the Secretary and consists of one representative each from 

the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the Air Resources Board, the State Water Resources 

Control Board and the Department of Pesticide Regulation. In 2010, the focus of the Team’s activities 

were the Cal/EPA Basic Inspector Academy and the Cal/EPA “One Day” Enforcement Training.

The Cal/EPA Basic Inspector Academy (BIA)

144 | | Appendix B
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

The BIA provides baseline knowledge of environmental enforcement and works in conjunction with 

existing program specific training to prepare state and local environmental regulatory staff to conduct 

efficient and professional inspections. Training includes overviews of environmental regulatory 

programs. Students learn to recognize possible violations in other programs and to work with their 

partner agencies. Four hours of this training are available online at: www.calepa.ca.gov/enforcement. The 

complete Academy course includes both the online module and 4 days of classroom training. The 

classroom sessions include a simulated inspection, report writing, case review by prosecutors and 

mock testimony. In 2010, BIA was given at nine locations around the state and 280 students completed 

the course. 

The BIA is certified for continuing education by the Department of Pesticide Regulation. Accreditation 

for Registered Environmental Health Specialists and by the California Water Environmental 

Association are pending. BIA is certified for 1⁄2 unit of college credit. Work has commenced on a 

contract with the Public Safety Training Consortium that would provide approximately $50 to Cal/

EPA for each student who receives college credit. Approval of this contract is pending. When the 

contract is in place, the funds would be used to pay for equipment and material costs.

Cal/EPA “One Day” Enforcement Training

This course is given by the Cal/EPA Enforcement Training Team in conjunction with local investigators 

and prosecutors and is designed to help regulatory and enforcement personnel improve their skills 

in conducting effective and professional environmental inspections and investigations. The course 

is also an opportunity for state, federal and local regulators and investigators to meet with other 

professionals in their local area, providing an opportunity for both horizontal (cross program) and 

vertical (regulator to prosecutor) networking. Six “One Day” courses were given at various locations 

around the state and 185 students attended.

The Cal/EPA Environmental Enforcement Symposium 

This event was not held in 2009 or 2010.

Environmental Enforcement Training Coordination Forum 

The mission of this Forum is to coordinate, consolidate, and improve consistency of environmental 

enforcement training. Forum members consist of CUPA Forum Board, California Hazardous Materials 

Investigators Association, Cal/EPA, Western States Project, EPA National Environmental Training 

Appendix B | | 145
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Institute, California District Attorney Association, California State Parks, Peace Officers Standards 

Training Commission, and California Specialized Training Institute (part of Cal/EMA). 

The Western States Project

The Cal/EPA Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement is a state representative to the Western 

States Project; a U.S. EPA-funded non-profit organization that provides environmental enforcement 

resources, networking and training to the western United States. For more information, see 

www.regionalassociations.org/. 

The Environmental Circuit Prosecutor Project 

The Environmental Circuit Prosecutor Project (ECCP) is a cooperative project of the Cal/EPA and 

the California District Attorneys Association as provided for in Penal Code section 14309. The Project 

fills the gap in the enforcement of environmental laws in California’s small counties by providing 

environmental prosecutors to District Attorneys in rural areas.

In 2010, the ECCP continued to have diminished monetary support and handled fewer civil and 

criminal environmental cases. The decline in cases accepted by this project is largely attributable to 

unstable funding. Cal/EPA’s annual $300,000 contract supporting the project was terminated in 2006 

and has not been renewed since.

For more information on the Environmental Circuit Prosecutor Project, see: www.calepa.ca.gov/

Enforcement/CircuitPros/.

Environmental Circuit Prosecutor Project

Year # of 

Prosecutors

Cases 

Opened

Cases 

Closed

Fines / costs/

SEPs Jail Time Probation

2005 6 222 175 $3,859,866 2 years and 

100 days 11 years

2006 5 176 141 $1,016,626 900 days 9 years

2007 4 173 68 $1,205,470 80 days 27 years

2008 4 50 39 $6,964,400 0 days 8.5 years

2009 3 26 38 $503,295 20 days 21 years

2010 3 18 16 $1,320,054* Not reported Not reported

*This figure does not include the case People v. Wal-Mart, which was a multi jurisdictional civil case.

146 | | Appendix B
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

The Environmental Enforcement and Training Act (Penal Code Section 14300)

The Environmental Enforcement and Training Act (Act) provides a means to supplement funding for 

environmental enforcement and training. The Act provides a method for the distribution of grant funds 

for enforcement, enforcement training, and the Environmental Circuit Prosecutor Project. Funding 

for environmental enforcement and training comes from money designated in civil or administrative 

judgments in environmental enforcement cases and is placed in the Environmental Enforcement and 

Training Act Account (Account) created by the Act. These contributions are often referred to as 

Supplemental Environmental Projects or “SEPs.” No General Fund money is used in the Account. 

Cal/EPA manages the Account and issues annual grants.

The lowest amount of grant funds 

distributed from the Account occurred 

in 2010 (see chart below). The sources 

of funds were contributions directed 

to the fund in enforcement cases 

brought by the Department of Toxic 

Substances Control and local District 

Attorneys.

Each year these funds are apportioned as required by statute:

• 25 percent to the Environmental Circuit Prosecutor Project 

• 25 percent to the California District Attorneys Association for enforcement training for 

investigators, regulators and prosecutors 

• 25 percent (up to $100,000) to the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training 

(POST) for environmental investigation training 

• Remainder to Cal/EPA to award training and enforcement grants.

In 2010, 25 per cent of the account was $17,537. The Cal/EPA portion in the Account ($17,537) 

was awarded to the California District Attorneys Association for additional funds to support the 

Environmental Circuit Prosecutor Project. 

For more information on the Penal Code section 14300 Account, see: www.calepa.ca.gov/Enforcement/

Grants/14300.htm.

Year Penal Code §14300 Funding

2006 $654,081

2007 $503,562

 2008 $138,260

2009 $305,262

2010 $70,149

Appendix B | | 147
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Supporting Environmental Enforcement Task Forces

Since its inception, Cal/EPA has encouraged the creation and support of environmental enforcement 

task forces dedicated to the deterrence, detection, investigation, and prosecution of environmental 

violations. These task forces are comprised of participating federal, state, and local agencies with 

enforcement authority. The members of these task forces generally include local, state or federal 

prosecutors, law enforcement agencies (Sheriff, Fish and Game wardens, California Highway Patrol, 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. EPA Criminal Investigation Division, etc.), investigators and 

technical experts from Cal/EPA’s Boards and Departments, and local environmental agencies (local 

hazardous material control programs, air pollution control districts, sanitation departments, etc.). 

Task forces facilitate the exchange of resources and intelligence between different law enforcement 

and regulatory entities. These cooperative partnerships allow task force member agencies to pursue 

investigations that they would not be able to complete alone. 

In the past, the Cal/EPA’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) had staff whose primary 

duties were to support environmental enforcement task forces. These positions were created to offer 

multimedia, multi program support to local enforcement efforts. They worked closely with local, 

state, and federal environmental regulatory agencies, investigators, and prosecutors to coordinate 

environmental enforcement. In the past 3 years, these DTSC task force support resources were 

redirected to other priorities greatly reducing state participation and support available to local 

environmental enforcement task forces.

Many counties in California are covered by a local environmental enforcement task force. In addition, 

there are some regional and/or single subject task forces. For more information, see: www.calepa.ca.gov/

Enforcement/TaskForce.

The Cal/EPA Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement chairs the State Environmental Enforcement 

Task Force. Attendees include representatives from enforcement programs within Cal/EPA Boards 

and Departments, enforcement liaison attorneys from the Cal/EPA Boards and Departments, the 

Department of Fish and Game, the California District Attorneys Association, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, 

Deputy Attorneys General, and the U.S. EPA Criminal Investigation Division. The purpose of the 

task force is to go over current major cases, discuss enforcement program administrative issues (new 

regulations, legislation, resources), address needs for joint investigations, enforcement training, and 

148 | | Appendix B
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

enforcement projects including the Environmental Circuit Prosecutor Project, and discuss issues 

affecting local agency partners. 

The Cal/EPA Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement participates in the Border Environmental 

Enforcement Task Force, a group of federal, state, and local officials that meet quarterly in the Mexico/

California border area to discuss border-related environmental enforcement issues; and the Border 

2012 California/Baja Waste and Enforcement Task Force, which includes Mexican environmental 

enforcement officials. 

Cal/EPA Assistance on Investigation and Enforcement Actions

Cal/EPA has institutionalized cross media, cross program investigation and enforcement. Cal/EPA 

training is brought to reality by the work of the task forces described above, where inspectors and 

others can request assistance with enforcement investigations. 

Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between the Air Resources Board and Cal/EPA, 

the Strategic Enforcement Investigations (SEI) unit at Air Resources Board has been designated 

as Cal/EPA’s cross media enforcement unit in accordance with Government Code section 12812.2. 

SEI has surveillance equipment and its staff is utilized to assist state, regional and local agencies in 

investigations of environmental crimes. Video evidence is a highly effective tool in environmental 

crime enforcement and its use by state and local agencies continues to grow. 

Other Cal/EPA Boards, Departments, and local agency partners provide enforcement and case 

development assistance on a case-by-case basis.

Case Coordination and Referral 

During 2010, Cal/EPA continued to assist and coordinate regulators, investigators, and prosecutors in 

investigations of violations of environmental laws. Cal/EPA works with US EPA Region 9 enforcement 

officials to coordinate joint state and federal investigations and prosecutions. 

There has been an increase in the number of multi-county and statewide civil cases brought to 

enforce environmental laws. These cases require close cooperation between the regulators in various 

jurisdictions and the local and state prosecutors. Cal/EPA has assisted this effort by providing 

Appendix B | | 149
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

training on this subject at the annual CUPA Training Conference and other venues. Complaints and 

judgments from multi-county and state actions are posted on Cal/EPA’s web pages at: www.calepa.

ca.gov/Enforcement/Orders. 

Improving Transparency by Production of an Annual Cal/EPA Enforcement Report

Cal/EPA, in cooperation with its Boards and Departments, produced an annual Report on Enforcement 

for 2009 that is available on the web at: www.calepa.ca.gov/Enforcement/Publications/2009/default.htm.

150 | | Appendix B
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

Appendix C: Acronym List

ARB Air Resources Board

AQMD Air Quality Management District

AST Above-ground Storage Tank

BDO Boards, Departments and Offices (of Cal/EPA)

CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention Program

CAP California Aeration Procedure

CACs California Agricultural Commissioners

CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association

CDPH California Department of Public Health

Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CERS California Environmental Reporting System

CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency

DPR Department of Pesticide Regulation

DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control

EJ Environmental Justice

GHGES Greenhouse Gas Enforcement Section

HMRRP Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories (Business Plans)

HWG Hazardous Waste Generator

HWT Hazardous Waste Treatment

H&SC (California) Health and Safety Code

HHW Household Hazardous Waste

IPM Integrated Pest Management

LSI Large spark igniter (engines)

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MSED Mobile Source Enforcement Division (ARB)

MMP Mandatory Minimum Penalty

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NOA Naturally Occurring Asbestos

Appendix C | | 151
Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report

NAA Non-attainment areas

NOV Notice of Violation

OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

OHRV Off-road Recreational Vehicle

PHG Public Health Goals

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

SCTSC Single Complaint Tracking Steering Committee

SORE Small Off-road Engines

SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board

SSEB Stationary Source Enforcement Branch (ARB)

SEP Supplemental Environmental Projects

TAC Toxic Air Contaminant

TCAB Training and Compliance Assistance Branch

UST Under-ground Storage Tank

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

WDR Waste Discharge Requirements

152 | | Appendix C

Cal/EPA