Environmental Health Manager Department of Resource ...

Certified Mail: 7014 1200 0001 5649 0790 April 24, 2015 Mr. Terry Schmidtbauer Environmental Health Manager Department of Resource Management Solano County 675 Texas Street, Suite 5500 Fairfield, California 94533 Dear Mr. Schmidtbauer: On January 13 - 14, 2015, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), and the CAL FIRE - Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM) conducted a Unified Program evaluation of the Solano County Department of Resource Management Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The evaluation comprised of an in-office review and oversight inspections. Upon closing of the evaluation, the Unified Program Evaluation Team (team) developed a preliminary Summary of Findings, which identified program deficiencies and provided corrective actions with timeframes for correction. Program observations, recommendations and examples of outstanding implementation were also noted. Enclosed, please find the final Summary of Findings. Based upon review and completion of the evaluation, the implementation and performance of the Unified Program by the CUPA is considered to be satisfactory with improvements needed. Deficiency Progress Reports are due every 90 days from the last day of the evaluation to document progress of the CUPA towards correcting identified deficiencies. The first Deficiency Progress Report is due June 30, 2015. Submittal of Deficiency Progress Reports is required until all identified deficiencies have been corrected. Each Deficiency Progress Report should be emailed as a Microsoft Word document file to the team lead, [email protected]. The final Summary of Findings and Deficiency Progress Reports will be posted at: http://cersapps.calepa.ca.gov/Public/Directory/CUPAEvaluationDocuments

mailto:[email protected]

http://cersapps.calepa.ca.gov/Public/Directory/CUPAEvaluationDocuments/

Mr. Terry Schmidtbauer During the evaluation, CalEPA also noted the CUPA has worked to bring about a number of local program innovations, including the use of contractors and training CDs to assist regulated businesses with submitting Unified Program information into the California Environmental Reporting System. Thank you for your continued commitment to the protection of public health and the environment through the implementation of the Unified Program. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please contact the team lead, Kareem Taylor, at (916) 327-9557 or John Paine, Manager, at (916) 327-5092. Sincerely, Original signed by Jim Bohon Jim Bohon Assistant Secretary for Local Program Coordination and Emergency Response California Environmental Protection Agency Enclosure cc sent via email Mr. Matthew Geisert Hazardous Materials Supervisor Department of Resource Management Solano County 675 Texas Street, Suite 5500 Fairfield, California 94533 Ms. Jenna Wang Environmental Scientist CAL FIRE - Office of the State Fire Marshal P.O. Box 944246 Sacramento, California 94244-2460 Mr. Fred Mehr Environmental Scientist California Office of Emergency Services 3650 Schriever Avenue Mather, California 95655 Mr. Matthew MacCarron Senior Hazardous Substances Scientist Department of Toxic Substances Control 700 Heinz Avenue, Suite 210 Berkeley, California 94710-2721

Mr. Terry Schmidtbauer cc sent via email Ms. Laura Fisher, Chief State Water Resources Control Board P.O. Box 100 Sacramento, California 95812-0100 Ms. Diana Peebler Senior Environmental Scientist, Supervisor Department of Toxic Substances Control 700 Heinz Avenue, Suite 210 Berkeley, California 94710-2721 Mr. Kevin Reinertson, Chief CAL FIRE - Office of the State Fire Marshal P.O. Box 944246 Sacramento, California 94244-2460 Chief Thomas E. Campbell California Office of Emergency Services 3650 Schriever Avenue Mather, California 95655 Mr. John Paine Unified Program Manager California Environmental Protection Agency Mr. Kareem Taylor Unified Program Evaluation Team Lead California Environmental Protection Agency

CERTIFIED UNIFIED PROGRAM AGENCY

FINAL SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

EVALUATION DATE(S):

January 13-14, 2015

CUPA: Solano County Environmental Health

EVALUATION TEAM

MEMBERS:

CalEPA Team Lead

DTSC Cal OES SWRCB CAL FIRE - OSFM

Kareem Taylor Matthew

MacCarron N/A N/A Jenna Yang

This FINAL SUMMARY OF FINDINGS includes:

deficiencies identified during the evaluation

program observations and recommendations

examples of outstanding program implementation The findings contained within this evaluation report are considered final. Based upon review and completion of the evaluation, the Unified Program implementation and performance of the CUPA are considered to be

satisfactory with improvements needed.

Questions or comments regarding this evaluation should be directed to Kareem Taylor.

The CUPA is required to submit a Deficiency Progress Report every 90 days until all deficiencies have been acknowledged as corrected.

Each Deficiency Progress Report must include a narrative stating the correction of all deficiencies identified in the Summary of Findings evaluation report.

Deficiency Progress Report submittal dates for the first year following the evaluation are as follows:

Update 1: July 30, 2015 Update 2: October 30, 2015 Update 3: January 30, 2016

Update 4: April 30, 2016

Each Deficiency Progress Report must be submitted to the CalEPA Team Lead.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


EVALUATION: FINAL SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED DURING EVALUATION

Date: April 24, 2015 Page 2 of 11

1. DEFICIENCY: CORRECTIVE ACTION: The CUPA is improperly classifying an Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA) violation of not having a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan as a minor violation. Not having an SPCC Plan is not considered a minor violation as defined in HSC, Chapter 6.11, Section 25404(a)(3). Based on the definition of a “minor violation” as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 25404(a)(3), a minor violation does not include the following: (1) a violation that presents a significant threat to human health or the environment; or (2) a violation that enables the violator to benefit economically from the noncompliance, either by reduced costs or competitive advantage. An APSA facility without an SPCC Plan may present a significant threat to human health or the environment and it also allows the facility owner/operator to benefit economically from the non-compliance through reduced costs. Therefore, a facility without an SPCC Plan is not considered a minor violation. Under APSA, facilities who fail to prepare a SPCC plan may be subject to civil or administrative penalties per HSC 25270.12 and 25270.12.1, respectively. OSFM’s facility files reviewed indicates that the following violations were not appropriately classified: Greenbelt Carriers ( CERS ID: 10448797) Inspection Date: 6/19/13 Violation: No SPCC, no secondary containment Violation Classification: Minor

By October 30, 2015, the CUPA will have followed-up with the facilities listed in this deficiency and provide a copy of return to compliance (RTC) (along with the date of SPCC plan certification for each facility) or progressive enforcement action (e.g., Notice of Violation, administrative enforcement order (AEO)) documentation. In addition, the CUPA will provide at least three new copies of RTC or progressive enforcement action documentation for facilities cited for APSA violation(s), including but not limited to not having an SPCC plan.






Rio Vista Golf Maintenance (10613200) Inspection Date: 7/27/12 Violation: No SPCC Violation Classification: Minor Powell Bros Feed (10401496) Inspection Date: 10/4/12 Violation: No SPCC Violation Classification: Minor Mare Island Dry Dock LLC (10407148) Inspection Date: 10/30/14 Violation: No SPCC Violation Classification: Minor

CITATION: HSC, Chapter 6.67, Sections 25270.4, 25270.12, and 25270.12.1 HSC, Chapter 6.11, Sections 25404 (a), 25404.1.1 (a), 25404.2 (a)(3) and (4) CCR, Title 27, Sections 15200 (a), (a)(7), (a)(9) and (e) [CalEPA, OSFM]

2. DEFICIENCY: CORRECTIVE ACTION: The CUPA is not making adequate progress to ensure that handlers have submitted chemical inventories. Over the past six months (October 2014 through March 2015), 5% of handlers per month have submitted chemical inventories. This level of effort will not ensure that 90% of handlers will submit chemical inventories within 12 months. A review of chemical inventories in the California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) by CalEPA and OSFM indicates that approximately 41% of facilities do not have a current inventory.

By July 30, 2015, the CUPA will identify all hazardous materials business plan (HMBP) facilities that do not have a current chemical inventory. Please submit a list of the facilities to CalEPA. With each quarterly progress report, the CUPA will submit an updated list to CalEPA showing that each facility has submitted an inventory or that appropriate enforcement actions have been taken. By April 30, 2016, the CUPA will ensure that all handlers have submitted chemical inventories into CERS. The CUPA will submit an updated list to CalEPA showing that each facility has current chemical inventories in CERS or that appropriate enforcement actions have been taken. CITATION:

HSC, Chapter 6.95, Section 25502, 25505 (a)






2013 CFC, Chapter 50, Section 5001.5.2 [OSFM]

3. DEFICIENCY: CORRECTIVE ACTION: The CUPA is not following-up or documenting RTC for all businesses cited for violations. Below are businesses that were cited for violations, but documentation of RTC or CUPA follow-up was not found:

Johal Brother enterprises – inspected on 12/12/13 1990 Broadway St. Vallejo

Dixon Hay Company – inspected on 3/20/13 8555 Robben Rd. Dixon

Superior Auto Body – inspected on 8/26/13 640 North First St. Dixon

Ron Dupratt Ford – inspected on 5/30/13 1320 North First St. Dixon

By July 30, 2015, the CUPA will create, and submit to CalEPA, a list of facilities with outstanding violations. The CUPA will follow-up with these facilities to ensure they RTC or take appropriate enforcement actions, documenting the RTC or enforcement actions. By October 30, 2015, the CUPA will provide an updated list to CalEPA showing either follow-up actions or RTC for each facility. Additionally, the CUPA will provide CalEPA with RTC documentation for the facilities listed in this deficiency.

CITATION: HSC, Chapter 6.5, Section 25187.8 (h) CCR, Title 27, Section 15200 (a) CCR, Title 27, Section 15185 (a) and (c) [DTSC]

4. DEFICIENCY: CORRECTIVE ACTION: The CUPA is not remitting collected state surcharge to CalEPA quarterly, within 30 days of the end of each state fiscal quarter. Between fiscal year (FY) 2011/2012 through the first fiscal quarter of FY 2013/2014, CalEPA received five surcharge checks. Many of the checks included a lump sum of surcharge collected during multiple fiscal quarters.

The CUPA will ensure that all surcharge remittance are submitted on a quarterly basis and only include the surcharges collected during the reporting period. By April 30, 2015, the CUPA will remit the collected surcharge for January-March of FY 2014/2015 to CalEPA. Submit a copy of the Surcharge Transmittal Report and remittance check to CalEPA.






A surcharge letter to the Secretary dated 10/30/13 stated that the enclosed check for surcharge fees are being paid for the period of April 1 – September 30, 2013. This period is not a fiscal quarter.

A number of Surcharge Transmittal Reports submitted to the Secretary with remittance checks had a “Month of Collection” that did not appear to be submitted in the correct fiscal quarter report when compared to the date submitted.

1. Surcharge Transmittal Report (reported $10,432): “Date Submitted” of April 2013 had a “Month of Collection” date of October 2012.

2. Surcharge Transmittal Report (reported $6773): “Date Submitted” of April 2013 had a “Month of Collection” date of November 2012.

3. Surcharge Transmittal Report (reported $7,445): “Date Submitted” of April 2013 had a “Month of Collection” date of December 2012.

4. Surcharge Transmittal Report (reported $7,241): “Date Submitted” of October 29, 2013 had a “Month of Collection” date of April 2013.

By July 30, 2015, the CUPA will remit the collected surcharge for April-June of FY 2014/2015 to CalEPA. The CUPA will submit a copy of the Surcharge Transmittal Report and remittance check to CalEPA.

CITATION: CCR, Title 27, Section 15250 (b)(1) [CalEPA]






5. DEFICIENCY: CORRECTIVE ACTION: The CUPA is not reporting the electronic reporting surcharge separate from the CUPA oversight surcharge in the Surcharge Transmittal Report. Additionally, the Surcharge Transmittal Report format used is not substantially equivalent to the report in title 27, Appendix B. The CUPA’s Surcharge Transmittal Reports from FYs 2011/2012 through 2013/2014 includes an additional “CUPA Oversight” row to report the total $49 surcharge payments collected ($25 for electronic reporting plus $24 for the normal CUPA oversight surcharge). The total electronic reporting surcharge should be reported separately from the normal CUPA oversight surcharge.

The CUPA will begin using a Surcharge Transmittal Report format that is substantially equivalent to the Surcharge Transmittal Report in title 27, Appendix B. The CUPA will add a row for the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Act (APSA) surcharge if collected. By April 30, 2015, the CUPA will remit the collected surcharge for January-March of FY 2014/2015 to CalEPA. Submit a copy of the Surcharge Transmittal Report and remittance check to CalEPA. By July 30, 2015, the CUPA will remit the collected surcharge for April-June of FY 2014/2015 to CalEPA. Submit a copy of the Surcharge Transmittal Report and remittance check to CalEPA.

CITATION: CCR, Title 27, Section 15250 (b)(1)(A) CCR, Title 27, Appendix B [CalEPA]

6. DEFICIENCY: CORRECTIVE ACTION: The CUPA did not report all inspection, violation, and enforcement information to the CalEPA on a quarterly basis. For fiscal year 2013-14 there is a significant disparity between the number of facility inspections reported in CUPA’s self-audit report and the number of inspections reported by the CUPA in the California Environmental Reporting System (CERS).

528 HMBP inspections were reported in the self-audit report. 238 were reported in CERS.

7 California Accidental Release

By July 30, 2015, the CUPA will submit all inspection, violation, and enforcement information from April-June of FY 2014/2015 and missing information from past fiscal quarters into CERS. Additionally, the CUPA will update CalEPA on the number of inspections completed for each program element in FY 2014/2015. By October 30, 2015, CUPA will submit all inspection, violation, and enforcement information from July-September of FY 2015/2016 into CERS. Additionally, the CUPA will update CalEPA on the number of inspections completed for each program element from July-September of FY 2015/2016.






Prevention (CalARP) inspections were reported in the self-audit report. 4 were reported in CERS.

183 Underground Storage Tank (UST) inspections were reported in the self-audit report. 95 were reported in CERS.

489 Hazardous Waste Generator (HWG) inspections were reported in the self-audit report. 204 were reported in CERS.

7 Tiered Permitting (TP) inspections were reported in the self-audit report. 4 were reported in CERS.

19 APSA inspections were reported in the self-audit report. 5 were reported in CERS.

CITATION: CCR, Title 27, Section 15290 (b)(3) [CalEPA]




OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


The observations and recommendations provided in this section address activities the CUPA is implementing and/or may include areas for continuous improvement not specifically required of the CUPA by regulation or statute.

1. OBSERVATION: CalEPA’s review of CERS indicates that there may be 41 duplicate facilities in CERS. Duplicate facilities create inconsistencies in CERS because information may be submitted to the duplicates.

RECOMMENDATION:

CalEPA recommends that the CUPA use the “Find Duplicate Facilities” tool in CERS to verify whether the 41 facilities found by CalEPA are actually duplicates. Please remove any duplicate facilities.

2. OBSERVATION: The Solano Agricultural Department implements the HMBP program for agricultural handlers. The CUPA regulates agricultural handlers that are subject to multiple Unified Programs including the HMBP program. Solano Agricultural Department’s inspection report is missing a checklist item for the emergency response and training. Sometimes, the emergency response item is handwritten into their inspection report, but not consistently.

RECOMMENDATION: CalEPA recommends that Solano Agricultural Department add the emergency response and training item to their HMBP inspection report.

3. OBSERVATION: The CUPA uses the Statewide Environmental Evaluation Planning System (SWEEPS) as their data management system. SWEEPS is used to manage the following information: inspection dates, violation classifications, enforcement actions, return to compliance, single fee, permitting. The CUPA is planning to use SWEEPS inspection report templates on tablet PCs to perform inspections. SWEEPS will be able to transfer quarterly inspection, violation, and enforcement information to the “CME Data Upload Template” spreadsheet for submission to CERS. Currently, the CUPA is manually entering inspection, violation, and enforcement information into CERS.






RECOMMENDATION: CalEPA recommends that the CUPA continue to develop SWEEPS so that inspection, violation, and enforcement information may be submitted to CERS more efficiently.

4. OBSERVATION: The CUPA utilizes AEOs, red tags, and District Attorney referrals as formal enforcement options. According to the self-audit reports,

In FY 2013/2014, the CUPA issued four AEOs and five red tags;

In FY 2012/2013, the CUPA issued five AEOs and one red tag.

RECOMMENDATION:

CalEPA recommends that the CUPA continue to implement formal enforcement against businesses with Class I violations.

5. OBSERVATION: The CUPA has a brochure available on their website called “Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) Program.” Under “Exempted Equipment/Facilities,” number 6 states: “Farms, nurseries, construction sites, or logging operations if no single AST is greater than 20,000 gallons and the total aggregate storage of all AST’s on the site are less than 100,000 gallons…” Farms, nurseries, construction sites, or logging operations are conditionally exempt from preparing an SPCC under APSA, but they are still subject to other requirements under APSA such daily tank inspections.

RECOMMENDATION: OSFM recommends the CUPA remove the farms, nurseries, construction sites, or logging operations from the “Exempted Equipment/Facilities” section of the brochure because it may give the false impression that these facilities are completely exempt from the APSA program. Instead, the statement in the brochure should be that farms, nurseries, construction sites, or logging operations facilities are exempt from preparing and implementing the SPCC plan, but they are still subject to the other APSA requirements.






6. OBSERVATION: In the CUPA’s Inspection and Enforcement Plan, under “Sample Policy with matrixes for Administrative Penalties”, section 6 of the APSA program cites HSC 25270.5 for program violations and penalties. HSC 25270.5 provides the CUPA authority to inspect facilities with 10,000 gallons or more. It does not address APSA violations.

RECOMMENDATION: OSFM recommends that the CUPA change the citation to 25270.12 to address APSA violations and penalties.

7. OBSERVATION: In the CUPA’s self-audit report, the Uniform Fire Code (section 8001.3) is cited for the HMMP/HMIS program. The Uniform Fire Code citation is no longer valid. The California Fire Code citations should be used for Hazardous Materials Management Plan/Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement, respectively.

RECOMMENDATION: OSFM recommends the CUPA replace Unified Fire Code (Section 8001.3) citations with California Fire Code (Section 5001.5) in future self-audit reports.

8. OBSERVATION: The CUPA has inspected 97.5% of their HWG facilities and 100% of their Tiered Permitting facilities.

RECOMMENDATION: DTSC recommends that the CUPA continue this frequency.





EXAMPLES OF OUTSTANDING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

1. CERS OUTREACH

Contractor – The CUPA has contracted with two outside consultants to educate and assist businesses with

CERS. The contractor has provided a basic CERS training session for over 260 businesses and an advanced

training session for 72 businesses. One contractor, Pacific Management Services, can help businesses

prepare their HMBP submittals or can remotely prepare/submit HMBP submittals on behalf of businesses.

During inspections or through the phone and email correspondences, the CUPA staff are able to refer

businesses to the contractor in cases where businesses need extra assistance with CERS. This gives the

CUPA staff more time to perform other important compliance assurance activities. The contractors’

assistance is provided free of charge to the businesses.

CERS Training CDs – The CUPA created 1,600 CERS training CDs containing a training presentation on

CERS data entry, guidance documents from CalEPA discussing CERS, a document of frequently asked

questions, and a HMBP and site map template. These CDs were sent to every facility billing address that

handles hazardous materials in order to assist businesses with the transition from paper HMBP reporting

to electronic submittals in CERS.

Environmental Health Manager Department of Resource ...

Documents

Transcript of Environmental Health Manager Department of Resource ...