Unified Program Regulatory Performance Model

1. Unified Program Regulatory Performance Model Manager’s / Supervisor’s Workshop Unified Program Annual Conference 2006 UPAAG INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT STEERING COMMITTEE UP REGULATORY PERFORMANCE MODEL WORKGROUP

2. UP Regulatory Performance Model • Last year’s Conference Topic - “Risk Based Inspections” • Statutory Inspection Mandates • Inspections every 3 years except • Annually for UST’s. • None for HW typically every 3 years. • More frequent - self imposed

3. UP Regulatory Performance Model Examples – one size fits all • Plating shops or large refineries inspected at the same frequency as printers • Cal ARP facilities at 3 year frequency vs tanks at annual frequency • Facilities with years of compliance at same frequency as one with poor compliance • Low vs High risk facilities at the same frequency

4. UP Regulatory Performance Model What is the problem? • Limited resources to meet inspection and other mandates • Inability to continually ask politicos for higher fees, even when faced with new mandates. • Concern that certain high risk facilities are not being addressed adequately.

5. UP Regulatory Performance Model What is the problem? • No adjustments in inspection frequency for compliant (or problem) businesses • Success measured by number of inspections and enforcement – not improved compliance • Inspection frequency not based on risk

6. UP Regulatory Performance Model Why was the UPRPM Workgroup formed? • Been discussing risk based prioritization for years. • Projects and other demands still happening. • Meeting inspection frequencies even with other recognized demands and projects.

7. UP Regulatory Performance Model What is the UPRPM? • Conceptual model of a good regulatory program. • Way to deal with workload and priority issues. • Local control to address priorities. • Allows for options to more effectively and efficiently: • implement regulatory programs • utilize resources • Not a mandate

8. UP Regulatory Performance Model What are the elements of the UPRPM? • Regulatory universe identification • Standard setting • Education and outreach • Inspection Options • Compliance verification • Enforcement Response • Metrics • Coordination • Implementation

9. UP Regulatory Performance Model Why implement inspection options? • Free up resources to do other things in the UPRPM such as identifying facilities that are not permitted; expanded outreach, etc.

10. UP Regulatory Performance Model Inspection Options – What are they? • Use of appropriate statutory Program Exemptions • Initial notification only – HazMat • Annual self certification – eg ERP • Mandatory State inspection frequency (MSIF) • Inspection at frequencies more or less than the MSIF

11. UP Regulatory Performance Model • Hazardous Waste example: • LQG: must be inspected at least every 3 years or more often if necessary. Self certification not available. • SQG: must be inspected at least every 6 years or more often if necessary. Self certification not available. • CESQG: No inspection mandate but the UPA may use established inspection frequencies. Self certification available.

12. UP Regulatory Performance Model General Criteria • Volume, type and toxicity of hazardous materials and/or waste; • System or facility design and maintenance; • Inadequate compliance history; • The facility’s proximity to sensitive receptors; • The facility’s spill/release history and the type of media(s)/receptor(s) that were impacted; • Federal, State or local initiatives or criteria; and • Industry sector compliance history.

13. UP Regulatory Performance Model Possible UST Candidates For Less Frequent Than MSIF (requires legislation) • Not within 1000 feet of a drinking water well • An emergency generator site • Good compliance history • New designated operator requirements with validated monthly inspections • Good compliance • State of the art technology such as: • Meeting vacuum pressure hydrostatic (VPH) criteria • Enhanced leak detection

14. UP Regulatory Performance Model What might be included as core elements of an alternative program? • Valid way to measure success • Enforcement expectations • Education & assistance • Compliance verification • Coordination with other agencies

15. UP Regulatory Performance Model • What are some of the options being discussed? • Environmental Results Program model where a specific industry self certifies annually with other elements. • Inspect high risk facilities more frequently than the MSIF with enhanced efforts to educate and enforce as appropriate - balanced with ERP?

16. UP Regulatory Performance Model • What are some of the options being discussed? • Focus on a specific geographical area to deal with blight and non-compliance in general – balanced with decreased inspection frequency somewhere. • Allocate resources to non-compliant UST businesses and inspect compliant tank facilities once every 2-3 years instead (requires legislation).

17. UP Regulatory Performance Model How will the UPRPM improve regulatory oversight? • Allows recognition of compliance • Allows resources to be directed to address priorities such as high risk facilities • Allows resources to be focused on problem areas or industries • Allows resources to be directed to problem facilities based on compliance or other specified criteria

18. UP Regulatory Performance Model • Will facilities drop from regulatory oversight? • No • Who will be able to participate? • CUPA’s & PA’s with CUPA concurrence • What is the timeline for implementation? • 2006: further model development • 2007: possible legislation • 2008-09: actual start of implementation • 2010: my retirement

19. UP Regulatory Performance Model • Will implementation require legislation? • Probably under inspection frequencies • How long will this program implement changes? • UPAs might propose alternatives that are for specific projects or long term implementation.

20. UP Regulatory Performance Model How will the UPA be approved to incorporate some of the options? Through an application process to Cal EPA: • Demonstration of capabilities • Track record of good CUPA reviews • Track record of good inspection & enforcement programs • Ability to implement alternative programs • Data to measure success

21. UP Regulatory Performance Model • If the State does not agree to my proposal for whatever reason, will what we are doing now remain required? • YES • Who will ensure the UPA stays on track? • Cal EPA

22. UP Regulatory Performance Model Standards for authorizing CUPA implementation of alternative Inspection options • Compliance with current inspection requirements • Effective and appropriate enforcement and compliance assistance • Appropriate staff training/expertise • Staff have met core curricula requirements and have had basic enforcement training • Other criteria to be developed

23. UP Regulatory Performance Model • Will UPAs be required to implement a UPRPM alternative? • No, the alternatives are not a mandate. • Does the model allow for alternatives within specific program elements? • Yes – alternatives can be proposed for only one program element (or more than one).

24. UP Regulatory Performance Model • Are there areas where minimum inspection standards must always be maintained? • Yes, some facilities within specific program elements will not have alternative options available. • How will success be measured? • Under development but hopefully will go beyond bean counting.

25. UP Regulatory Performance Model • If I do not choose to implement an alternative inspection option, will I be required to implement some of what constitutes a UPRPM – like what I might be required to do for industry outreach? • Encouraged but not required.

26. UP Regulatory Performance Model • How would this affect my staffing? • Idea is that it will not affect staffing • Proposals are to “re-shift” resources to problem areas or projects. • How might this affect my fees? • Fees are a local issue – your decision to re-distribute resources should consider it’s impact on individual fees or across the board fees. • There are many options to consider – some with & some without fee impacts.

27. UP Regulatory Performance Model QUESTIONS? Bill Jones, LACoFD I&E Issue Coordinator bjones@lacofd.org 323-890-4042

28. UP Regulatory Performance Model • How is the UPRPM connected to the statewide EPOP effort? • EPOP is focused on bringing together disparate BDO’s • Spillover may occur in policies and protocols developed in EPOP • EPOP chair is cognizant of UPA concerns • Turn over EPOP discussion to Larry Matz

29. Cal/EPA’s Enforcement Program Operational Plan(EPOP) An element of the Agency’s Enforcement Initiative to implement item 6 of the Governors Environmental Action Plan.

30. Governor’s Action Agenda #6  Protect California's Environment Through Tough Enforcement of Existing Laws Strict law enforcement is vital to assure environmental protection, prevent polluters from achieving unfair competitive advantage against complying competitors, send a message of public values, and establish conditions conducive to creativity and participation in voluntary initiatives.

31. Cal/EPA 2004 Assessment • One year in length • Literature reviewed LAO, State Auditor , USEPA, Academia • 1999 BDO self assessments • 2003 Assessment updates • Interviews throughout California with leaders, managers, prosecutors, and field inspectors • Survey of 192 Cal/EPA enforcement staff

32. Cal/EPA’s Enforcement Initiative Nine teams with specific responsibilities: • Enforceable Permits • Single Complaint Tracking system • Training • Enforcement Intelligence • Data Dictionary • Electronic Data Exchange • GIS • Communications • Enforcement Program Operational Plan (EPOP)

33. EPOP • A comprehensive model intended to enhance consistency between disparate individual BDO’s and our local counterparts, improve enforcement program performance, and serve as a blueprint for future program development

34. EPOP Components • Regulatory Universe Identification • Defining Compliance (standard setting) • Infrastructure (including education and outreach) • Determining Compliance ( inspections and other compliance verification activities) • Enforcement Response • Metrics • Compliance and Beyond Incentives

35. EPOP Current Status • Developed comprehensive program outline • Develop common definition of enforcement (informal and formal) • Identified statutory authority gaps and recommendations • Identified necessary core program policys • Developing key philosophies , concepts and minimum standards for outline elements • Developing Implementation plan • Establishing separate team to focus on metric development

36. EPOP How is EPOP connected to the UPRPM? • Both contain same elements • UP has already addressed many of these core elements • EPOP focused initially on greater consistency between disparate programs • UPRPM focused initially on greater flexibility to make “risk based” resource allocation decisions. • Possible policy and protocols impact • Both efforts are closely coordinated through Forum’s Enforcement IC.

37. Key Elements for Effective Enforcement • Focus on activities that pose the greatest risk to the environment. • Focus efforts on those outside of the regulatory net and chronic violators. • Compliance must be clearly defined in permits with adequate, consistent enforcement.

38. Changing the Way We Measure Enforcement We currently measure activity • Inspections, enforcement actions, penalty dollars • Incorrectly correlate higher enforcement activities (inspections/actions) with greater enforcement success We should measure results • Compliance rates • Environmental effects

39. Action Agenda #6  Protect California's Environment Through Tough Enforcement of Existing Laws My Administration will focus on keeping underlying statutes and regulations simple; simple rules are easiest to follow and comply with; unnecessarily complex rules are hard to comply with, hard to enforce, and encourage evasion.  Particular attention will be given to better use of information technologies with strict, clear and rapid penalties for intentional or negligent misstatements or omissions.

40. Action Agenda #6  Protect California's Environment Through Tough Enforcement of Existing Laws Government should be held accountable for environmental protection to the same extent as private parties and should be held to the same enforcement standards.  To greatest possible extent, environmental enforcement settlements should be used to provide environmental improvement through supervised projects, rather than having all penalties go to government treasuries.

41. 5 Focus Areas Identified 1. Improve information management 2. Organize enforcement personnel to achieve goals of enforcement 3. Develop strong enforcement culture, maximize deterrence 4. Increase field presence 5. Increase prosecutorial outlets

42. EPOP Questions? More information: Larry Matz Cal/EPA lmatz@calepa.ca.gov (916) 327-3442