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 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 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 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 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 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 

# 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report 

# C a l EP A

# 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 ProtectionCal/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). 

### AcknowledgementCal/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..................... 151Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report | Cal/EPA 

# Cal/EPACal/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 | | 1Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report Depa rt ment of P esticide Regulatio n Depa rt ment of To

xic Substances Co ntro l Health Hazards Assessmen t Air Resources Boar d Gov ernor

California Environmental Protec tion Agen cy

State Wa ter Resources Control Boar d and Regional Board s



### 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.

| Cal/EPA 2 |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 | | 3Cal/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

| Cal/EPA 4 |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 | | 5Cal/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

| Cal/EPA 6 |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 | | 7Cal/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.

| Cal/EPA 8 |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 | | 9Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report 10 | | 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 49Cal/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 | | 11Cal/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 BoardCal/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 | | 13Cal/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.

| ARB 14 |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 gaseousparticulate, 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 Gas Enforcement 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 Sour ce Enforcement Branch

Heav y Duty Diesel Enforcement Section On-Road Pr ograms Mobile Sou rc e Enforcement Sectio n

Heav y Duty Diesel Enforcement Section
Mo ve ment P ro gram s

Heav y Duty Diesel Enforcement Section Field Oper ations & Citation Administration Programs Enforcemen t Division

Stationar y Sou rc e Enforcement Branch

Stationar y Sou rc e Enforcement S ec tion

Strategic Environmental Inv estigation & Enforcement S ec tion F uels Enfo rc ement Section

C onsumer Pr oduc ts Enforcement Sec tion Gr eenhouse Gas Enforcement S ec tion Tr aining & C omplianc e Assistance Branch

C ompliance Assistance Sec tion Tr

aining Sec tion 

### 2010 Enforcement Division Organizational Cha rt 

### Organization and Programs

ARB | | 15Cal/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

| ARB 16 |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 | | 17Cal/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

| ARB 18 |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 otherproduct 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 | | 19Cal/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

| ARB 20 |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 | | 21Cal/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.

| ARB 22 |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 | | 23Cal/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.

| ARB 24 |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% Tampering 1 

### 98% Small Off-Road Engine (SORE) 72% Off-Highway Recreational Vehicle (OHVR) 96% Certificate of Noncompliance 2 

### 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 | | 25Cal/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

| ARB 26 |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

PM 10 

### 1857 1889 1971 2215 2112 2174 2134 2139 2202 2275

PM 25 

### 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 | | 27Cal/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.

| ARB 28 |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 | | 29Cal/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

| ARB 30 |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 | | 31Cal/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

.

| ARB 32 |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 DistrictsCal/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 controlor 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 | | 35Cal/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

| Air Districts 36 |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 | | 37Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report 

### C a l i f o r

n i a E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n A g e n c y A i r R e s o u r c e s B o a r d A i r D i s t r i c t s a r e D e l i n e a t e d b y B o l d B l a c k T e x t L a b e l s a n d G r e y B o u n d a r y L i n e s

. C o u n t i e s a r e D e l i n e a t e d b y S m a l l e r T e x t L a b e l s a n d B l a c k B o u n d a r y L i n e s

. 

# C a l i f o r n i a A i r D i s t r i c t s a n d C o u n t i e s

I N Y O

K E R N

S A N B E R N A R D I N O F R E S N O

R I V E R S I D E S I S K I Y O U

T U L A R E L A S S E N M O D O C

M O N O S H A S T A

I M P E R I A L T R I N I T Y

S A N D I E G O T E H A M A H U M B O L D T

P L U M A S

M O N T E R E Y M E N D O C I N O

L O S A N G E L E S L A K E B U T T E

M A D E R A M E R C E D

K I N G S T U O L U M N E

V E N T U R A G L E N N

S A N L U I S O B I S P O P L A C E R

Y O L O S O N O M A

S A N T A B A R B A R A E L D O R A D O
N A P A C O L U S A

M A R I P O S A S I E R R A

S T A N I S L A U S Y U B A N E V A D A

S A N B E N I T O S A N J O A Q U I N A L P I N E

S O L A N O

S A N T A C L A R A

O R A N G E D E L N O R T E

C A L A V E R A S
M A R I N

A L A M E D A S U T T E R

S A C R A

M E N T O A M A D O R

C O N T R A C O S T A

S A N M A

T E O

S A N T A

C R U Z S A N F R

A N C I S C O

M o j a v e D e s e r t S a n J o a q u i n V a l l e y U n i f i e d

S o u t h C o a s t K e r n S i s k i y o u

G r e a t B a s i n U n i f i e d L a s s e n M o d o c

I m p e r i a l S h a s t a

S a n D i e g o N o r t h C o a s t

U n i f i e d

T e h a m a

M e n d o c i n o B u t t e N o r t h e r n S i e r r a

L a k e

B a y A r e a

M o n t e r e y

B a y U n i f i e d P l a c e r

V e n t u r a T

u o l u m

n e G l e n n

S a n L u i s O b i s p o E l D o r a d o

S a n t a B a r b a r a C o l u s a

M a r i p o s a Y o l o S o l a n o C a l a v e r a s F e a t h e r

R i v e r

A n t e l o p e V a l l e y A

m

a d

o

r N o r t h e r n S o n o m a S N

E W

0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0 M i l e s

S C a m p b e l l T

S D

_ 3 9 8 S a c r a m e n t o M e t r o 

### California Air Districts and Counties

| Air Districts 38 |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 | | 39Cal/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

| Air Districts 40 |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 | | 41Cal/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 duringa 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

| Air Districts 42 |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 | | 43Cal/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.

| Air Districts 44 |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 | | 45Cal/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.

| Air Districts 46 |Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1801973197519771979198119831985198719891991199319951997199920012003200520072009Days 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 | | 47Cal/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.

| Air Districts 48 |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.

| DTSCCal/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 JusticeInitiative; 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 | | 51Cal/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.

| DTSC 52 |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 Enforcemen t Administration SSM I Deputy Dire ct or Assistant Deputy Direc to r

Associate Editor of

Publications

DT SC Imperia l CUP

A & S an Diego Enforcemen t Sup . HSS I DT SC T rinity CU PA Sup . HSS I Chatsw or th-C ypress Enforcemen t Sup . HSS I Ex ecuti ve Assistant Super visor HSS I 

### Enforcement and Emergen cy Response Progra m

State Ov ersight and Enforcement

Sup . HSS II Enforcement Environmental Justice Sup . HSS II Emergen cy Response and Spec. Projec ts Sup . HSS II CEA Proposed
Inv estigations Su p. Criminal Inv estigator II

DTSC | | 53Cal/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 | | 55Cal/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.

| DTSC 56 |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 | | 57Cal/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

| DTSC 58 |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 | | 59Cal/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.

| DTSC 60 |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 | | 61Cal/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.

| DTSC 62 |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 | | 63Cal/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 ProgramsCal/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 | | 65Cal/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 UnifiedProgram. 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

| Unified Programs 66 |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 | | 67Cal/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

| Unified Programs 68 |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 | | 69Cal/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

| Unified Programs 70 |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 | | 71Cal/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 Administrati ve Enforcement Orders by Program

| Unified Programs 72 |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 2010that 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 | | 73Cal/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 countiesdetermined 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.

| Unified Programs 74 |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 | | 75Cal/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.

| Unified Programs 76 |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 | | 77Cal/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

| Unified Programs 78 |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 | | 79Cal/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

| Unified Programs 80 |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

| 81Cal/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:

| Unified Programs 82 |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 | | 83Cal/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

| Unified Programs 84 |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

| 85Cal/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.

| Unified Programs 86 |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 | | 87Cal/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

| Unified Programs 88 |Cal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report Unified Programs | | 89Cal/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 RegulationCal/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 | | 91Cal/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:

| DPR 92 |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 | | 93Cal/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.

| DPR 94 |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 | | 95Cal/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.

| DPR 96 |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 | | 97Cal/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

.

| DPR 98 |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 | | 99Cal/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.

| DPR 100 |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 information for employers and others General Outreach/Training - Field day exercises

DPR | | 101Cal/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.

| DPR 102 |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 | | 103Cal/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.

| DPR 104 |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 | | 105Cal/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 BoardsCal/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 | | 107Cal/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

| Water Boards 108 |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 assessed 1 : $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 | | 109Cal/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

| Water Boards 110 | Stormwater discharge, Alameda CountyCal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report 

### • Violations documented: 264

• Percentage of violations with enforcement actions: 47%

• Enforcement actions issued: 78

401 Certification 2 / 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 | | 111Cal/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.

| Water Boards 112 |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 | | 113Cal/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.

| Water Boards 114 |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 | | 115Cal/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.

| Water Boards 116 |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 | | 117Cal/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.

| Water Boards 118 |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 | | 119Cal/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

| OEHHACal/EPA 2010 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report 

# Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

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 Act 1 

### , 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 | | 121Cal/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 chemicalsin 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

| OEHHA 122 |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 potentialexposure 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 | | 123Cal/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.

| OEHHA 124 |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 | | 125Cal/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

| OEHHA 126 |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 | | 127Cal/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

| OEHHA 128 |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 | | 129Cal/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

| OEHHA 130 |

# AppendicesCal/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 | | 133Cal/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

| Appendix A 134 |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

| 135Cal/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

| Appendix A 136 |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, 2011cCal/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.

| Appendix A 138 |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).

Asthmais 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, 2011aCal/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.

| Appendix A 140 | 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, 2011bCal/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 | | 141Cal/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

| Appendix A 142 |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 | | 143Cal/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)

| Appendix B 144 |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 | | 145Cal/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.

| Appendix B 146 |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 | | 147Cal/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

| Appendix B 148 |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 | | 149Cal/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

.

| Appendix B 150 |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 | | 151Cal/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

| Appendix C 152 |

### Cal/EPA