oakland city withdrawal of certification 1-2015

1

Deficiency Overview

City of Oakland Fire Department Certified Unified Program Agency

2012 Program Improvement Agreement December 29, 2014

The state evaluation team has endeavored to assist the City of Oakland Fire Department Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) in correcting deficiencies identified during the September 2012 Evaluation that resulted in the November 2012 Program Improvement Agreement (PIA). This Program Improvement Agreement was the direct result of the CUPA’s continued failure to address the deficiencies found during the December 2008 Evaluation, which resulted in a finding of unsatisfactory program implementation and a PIA in 2010 for failure to correct the deficiencies. The state evaluation team was led by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and included representatives from the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM), and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Each state agency has participated in several group and individual meetings with the CUPA to assist in correcting the identified deficiencies over the past 25 months. Unfortunately, these efforts have not led to satisfactory completion of corrective actions, and implementation of the Unified Program in the City of Oakland has not significantly improved. The PIA set quarterly corrective action updates beginning December 13, 2012. The CUPA has been consistently late in submitting the corrective action updates and often submitted incomplete updates that required an iterative correction process. Additionally, the CUPA failed to submit two of the seven required updates over the past 25 months.

The state evaluation team has provided a detailed summary (enclosure 2) of the City of Oakland CUPA’s actions to attempt to correct deficiencies identified during the September 2012 evaluation.

The following information identifies the major deficiencies in the City of Oakland CUPA’s implementation of the Unified Program in Oakland and the primary reasons why CalEPA is withdrawing the City of Oakland’s certification as a CUPA. 1. Incomplete or Inadequate Facility Inspections.

The CUPA has not conducted routine inspections of businesses in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan, Hazardous Waste Generator and Tiered Permitting, California Accidental Release Prevention, and Underground Storage Tank programs according to statutory and regulatory standards. Moreover, the CUPA has failed to demonstrate that its current program for routine inspections will ensure that these standards are met in the future.

Enclosure 1

2

Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) (Deficiency 14) – The CUPA has not demonstrated that all HMBP businesses have been inspected in the last three years as required by law. Despite repeated requests, the CUPA failed to provide sufficient information to confirm the total number of completed inspections. In fiscal year 2012-2013, CUPA only inspected 255 of its 1,152 hazardous material facilities. For fiscal year 2013-2014, the CUPA has only recorded 85 routine compliance inspections for the HMBP program in the California Environmental Reporting System. Hazardous Waste Generator (HWG) and Onsite Hazardous Waste Treatment (Tiered Permitting) (Deficiency 16) – The CUPA has not demonstrated that all HWG and Tiered Permitting businesses have been adequately inspected in the last three years as required by law. Despite repeated requests, the CUPA failed to provide sufficient information to confirm the total number of businesses and the total number of completed inspections. In fiscal year 2012-2013, CUPA only inspected 184 of its 816 hazardous waste generator facilities. For fiscal year 2013-2014, the CUPA has only recorded 55 routine compliance inspections for the HWG program in the California Environmental Reporting System. The CUPA also failed to fully comply with DTSC’s requests for inspection reports for those facilities that were reported as inspected. Additionally, the inspection reports that were provided revealed that, in some instances, inspectors applied inappropriate standards because they conducted and documented the inspections using the wrong inspection report forms. Recent hazardous waste generator inspections independently conducted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) in the City of Oakland confirm the significant shortcomings in the CUPA’s inspection program. For example, the CUPA informed U.S. EPA that the East Bay Municipal Utility District main waste water treatment plant was in compliance based on the CUPA’s September 13, 2013 inspection. However, a few months later U.S. EPA found numerous violations at this facility and was informed by the facility operator that the CUPA inspector failed to inspect the points of hazardous waste generation. During three additional recent inspections conducted by U.S. EPA, inspectors documented 15 violations that were not identified by the CUPA inspectors. These federal inspections raise questions about whether the CUPA will be able to conduct adequate compliance inspections even if the inspection rate is increased. Additionally, for fiscal year 2012-2013, the CUPA reported that a very low percentage of facilities in Oakland were out of compliance with state requirements. The figure was substantially lower than the statewide average of 29 percent. This significant deviation from the statewide compliance percentage considered together with the deficiencies noted in the CUPA’s inspection reports and the results of the U.S. EPA independent inspections supports the conclusion that the CUPA has not met its requirements to inspect and report on hazardous facilities in the community in a timely and accurate manner.

3

California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP) (Deficiency 13 - corrected) – In past years, the CUPA failed to conduct CalARP inspections every three years as required by law. This failure is not currently identified as a deficiency, however, because two of the three Oakland CalARP facilities are no longer in the program. Although the remaining facility has been inspected, it is not clear that the CUPA has maintained minimum performance standards for its CalARP inspectors. Underground Storage Tanks (UST) (Deficiencies 6, 17) – The CUPA has not demonstrated that it has met the annual inspection requirement for facilities in the UST program and has submitted inspection reports with numerous errors and inconsistencies. An unidentified number of inspections have been performed by an inspector who lacks the necessary state certification, creating an uncertainty as to how many of the completed inspections are valid.

2. Deficient Enforcement Program.

The CUPA has not implemented an effective enforcement program. In particular, the CUPA has not demonstrated the capability to track and follow-up with non-compliant businesses and has not brought enforcement actions to compel compliance in cases where violations were not corrected.

Enforcement (Deficiency 7, 16, 23)

The CUPA has not met minimum standards for effective enforcement of Unified Program requirements and is not implementing its approved Inspection and Enforcement Plan. In particular, the CUPA has not consistently verified whether or not businesses have corrected violations identified during inspections, and, for those facilities that have not corrected violations, the CUPA has not employed appropriate enforcement actions. None of the corrective actions for this deficiency have been adequately addressed. CalEPA never received an acceptable list of facilities with violations, and the CUPA has not demonstrated the capability to track and follow-up with noncompliant businesses.

3. Ineffective Implementation of State Program Requirements.

The CUPA has not instituted a regimented program to ensure that its staff completes all required certifications, audits, and approvals in a timely manner.

Implementing State Program Requirements (Deficiencies 4, 5, 11, 15, 21)

The CUPA has not produced and implemented program procedures to oversee the businesses’ requirement to review and certify their Business Plans as current or to complete the required annual chemical inventory updates and does not have a procedure for ensuring that Business Plan submittals meet state requirements. The CUPA has not completed the mandatory CalARP Performance Audit. The CUPA is not reviewing and approving the required UST monitoring plans.

4

4. Failure to Comply with Fee Accountability Requirements. The CUPA does not have an effective or viable fee accountability program. Overall, the CUPA is running a substantial surplus and cannot account for its program fees. Issues with fees in the earlier CUPA evaluations point to a long-term continuing issue. Under the Unified Program, a fee accountability program must ensure that the CUPA’s fees are set at a level to cover only the necessary and reasonable costs of the program and that the fees are not used for other activities. The CUPA program currently operates with a substantial surplus and reported revenues and expenditures are not consistent. In addition, the CUPA has not verified that it has the appropriate balance between adequate staff to cover program needs and a fee to match the cost needed to adequately implement the program. Since becoming a CUPA, revenues have substantially exceeded expenditures. Information provided by the CUPA also shows that the CUPA personnel are inappropriately performing other non-Unified Program activities.

Fee Accountability (Deficiencies 12) The documentation submitted on February 28, 2014, as a part of the CUPA’s progress report 4, indicates that the fee accountability program is not adequate and has not been reviewed and updated, as required by state law. In fiscal year 2012/2013, the CUPA collected $899,796 in fees and expended $841,337. At the end of the fiscal year, there was a surplus of $1,463,418.20, or 174% of program costs. However, the CUPA reported only $667,768 in revenue on its formal fiscal year 2012/2013 Annual Fee Summary. The CUPA has not explained this reporting discrepancy. As discussed below, the CUPA is not collecting the state electronic reporting surcharge from its regulated facilities. Instead, the CUPA used other Unified Program funds to remit the electronic reporting portion of the "CUPA Oversight" surcharge. At a minimum, this indicates that regulated businesses had been billed more than the necessary and reasonable cost to implement the Unified Program in fiscal years 2010/2011 and 2011/2012, in violation of statute and regulation.

In emails and verbal correspondences, the CUPA stated that the four staff assigned to implement the Unified Program are fully funded by Unified Program fees. However, some CUPA staff members perform activities that are not related to the Unified Program, such as conducting Commercial Stormwater Protection inspections, participating in the Industrial Illicit Discharge Committee for Alameda County, and attending annual Industrial Illicit Discharge training. In fiscal year 2012/2013, records indicate CUPA staff conducted 1,047 Stormwater Protection inspections while conducting only 255 hazardous material business plan facility compliance inspections. These are serious departures from the statutorily required fee accountability program elements. CUPA staff should not be fully

5

funded by Unified Program fees because a significant percentage of their workload is spent doing non-CUPA related job functions.

5. Failure to Comply with State Surcharge Requirements. To-date, the CUPA has not demonstrated that the electronic reporting surcharge has been billed to all of its regulated facilities. Additionally, recently submitted information included a March 2014 invoice showing the CUPA is billing the surcharge at $24 per year when the surcharge was revised to $35 per year effective July 2013.

Surcharge Billing (Deficiency 9) The CUPA collected the underground storage tank and California accidental release prevention surcharge for fiscal years 2008/2009 and 2009/2010, but did not remit it to the state until January 16, 2013 when required to do so under the Program Improvement Agreement. The CUPA has not billed regulated businesses for the electronic reporting surcharge for the required three-year period after the electronic reporting surcharge became effective July 1, 2009. Additionally, since the 2012 agreement, the CUPA has not verified that it has correctly billed regulated businesses for the state surcharge. For fiscal years 2010/2011 and 2011/2012, the CUPA did not bill its regulated businesses for the required electronic reporting surcharge. Per the PIA, the CUPA agreed to bill its regulated facilities for the electronic reporting surcharge by July 1, 2013. By October 14, 2013, the CUPA should have submitted five single fee invoices showing that its regulated businesses were billed the appropriate state surcharge. Neither of these corrective actions was completed. Instead, the CUPA submitted a letter dated March 24, 2014 to CalEPA stating that they would begin billing the electronic reporting surcharge in March 2014.

5

Deficiency Progress Summary Report



The deficiency summaries below provide a synopsis of progress made on each deficiency identified in the September 2012 evaluation of the City of Oakland Fire Department CUPA. The summaries include an overview of the deficiency and the current status, as well as excerpts from periodic state progress reports, which describe the identified corrective actions, the response of the CUPA, and the state review of that response. The summaries are based on information compiled from the following:

Six progress report submissions and supporting documentation received from the CUPA.

Correspondences by telephone and email.

Group and individual meetings.

Deficiency Summaries

Deficiency 1: The Certified Unified Program Agency has not fully developed and

implemented the hazardous waste generator tiered permitting program. During this Certified Unified Program Agency evaluation, the Certified Unified Program Agency staff stated tiered permitting procedures were not in place. The following are instances observed by the Department of Toxic Substances Control where the tiered permitting requirements were not implemented:

The Certified Unified Program Agency does not have procedures for a written acknowledgment of tiered permitting notifications and a method to handle incomplete forms.

The Certified Unified Program Agency does not have a procedure for the receipt of contingency plan activation reports.

The Certified Unified Program Agency does not have a procedure for the receipt of reports documenting releases of reportable quantities from tank systems or secondary containment

The Certified Unified Program Agency has not inspected its tiered permitting facilities at least once every three years. For example, the file review showed that the Alameda County permanent household hazardous waste collection facility was last inspected on 4/21/09 and Gold Seal Plating was last inspected in 12/08.

During the evaluation, the Certified Unified Program Agency provided a draft copy of their hazardous waste generator/tiered permitting inspection checklist to the Department

Enclosure 2

6

of Toxic Substances Control. However, the draft is missing HSC and CCR, title 22 sections for each violation. Corrective Action(s): By November 13, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency will add the regulatory sections to their hazardous waste generator/tiered permitting inspection checklist and submit an electronic copy of this complete document to the California Environmental Protection Agency for further comment. By January 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will develop, implement and submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency procedures for the hazardous waste tiered permitting program. By January 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will revise and submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency its consolidated permit application, tiered permitting forms, and hazardous waste generator inspection report to reflect the Certified Unified Program Agency’s new tiered permitting procedures. By April 15, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will ensure that it provides hazardous waste generator and tiered permitting trainings to its staff, including, but not limited to types of waste treated, tank assessment requirements, treatment technologies, tiered permitting eligibility and administrative and technical reviews. Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency was considered deficient by the Department of Toxic Substances Control because the hazardous waste generator tiered permitting program was not fully developed and implemented. All of the corrective actions have been completed. Status: This deficiency has been corrected. Background Excerpts from Progress Reports

Prior to First Progress Report:

On October 19 and 24, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency requested an extension in a letter and proposed the new due dates to the summary of findings discussed on October 10, 2012. The Certified Unified Program Agency also requested evaluation documents, checklists, etc. that were used in evaluating the Certified Unified Program Agency. The California Environmental Protection Agency responded to the Certified Unified Program Agency’s extension request but no evaluation documents were provided.

On October 30, 2012, the Ms. Perkins sent an email to the Department of Toxic Substances Control requesting hazardous waste generator/tiered permitting trainings from the Department of Toxic Substances Control. The same day on November 30, 2012 the Department of Toxic Substances Control responded to the Certified Unified Program Agency’s email agreeing to provide the trainings and to further discuss possible training dates.

7

The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted the hazardous waste generator/tiered permitting checklists to the California Environmental Protection Agency on November 14, 2012. The Certified Unified Program Agency also stated that staff was scheduled to attend the Certified Unified Program Agency Conference program training in February 2013 and would be required to attend the hazardous waste generator and tiered permitting training at the conference. The Department of Toxic Substances Control reviewed the large quantity generator checklist and found it acceptable since the Department of Toxic Substances Control posted this checklist template on the Department of Toxic Substances Control and the California Environmental Protection Agency websites. A minor comment was made to place the Certified Unified Program Agency’s seal on the top right hand side of the page and to have the checklist fit on ONE page plus additional pages for instructions. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted an older version of the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s small quantity generator checklist as the manifest requirements had changed since September 2006 and there was no more “blue copy of the manifest”. The Department of Toxic Substances Control provided the Certified Unified Program Agency web links to download the small quantity generator checklist from the Department of Toxic Substances Control or the California Environmental Protection Agency websites. The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit a tiered permitting checklist in this package. The Department of Toxic Substances Control submitted responses to the Certified Unified Program Agency via the California Environmental Protection Agency.

On November 15, 2012 the California Environmental Protection Agency responded to the Certified Unified Program Agency’s extension request letter dated October 19, 2012, agreeing to a few dates and other dates were left the same.

On December 6, 2012, the Department of Toxic Substances Control received an email from the California Environmental Protection Agency to contact LeRoy Griffin regarding the tiered permitting checklist (The Certified Unified Program Agency only submitted the permit-by-rule/conditional authorization/conditional exemption forms and not the tiered permitting checklist. The Department of Toxic Substances Control contacted LeRoy Griffin who stated, he wanted to meet with the Department of Toxic Substances Control this same day to discuss the Department of Toxic Substances Control deficiencies. Thus, the Department of Toxic Substances Control met with LeRoy Griffin on December 6, 2012 in the Department of Toxic Substances Control Berkeley office. He brought a package of documents to show to the Department of Toxic Substances Control, but no documents were provided to the Department of Toxic Substances Control.

On December 10, 2012, the Department of Toxic Substances Control sent an electronic copy of a tiered permitting checklist and instructions from the LA County Certified Unified Program Agency as requested by Mr. Griffin on December 6, 2012. Mr. Griffin was told by the Department of Toxic Substances Control to tailor the checklist to their program.

8

On December 10, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted an evaluation pre-update to the California Environmental Protection Agency. The 1st progress report was due by December 13, 2012.

First Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- December 13, 2012. Actual submission date- January 31, 2013 The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its 1st progress report on January 2, 2013 without any supporting documents. The pdf letter that came with the 1st progress report documents did not give the state reviewer any narrative descriptions of what the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted or any written direction on how to interpret the information. In light of this, the Department of Toxic Substances Control attempted to review the report but was not able to provide constructive comments to the Certified Unified Program Agency due to the unorganized fashion of the report. This was relayed to the California Environmental Protection Agency the same day via email.

The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its supporting documents on January 30, 2013 in an email. The Department of Toxic Substances Control provided comments to Certified Unified Program Agency’s 1st progress report to the California Environmental Protection Agency on February 15, 2013.

Second Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- March 14, 2013. Actual submission date- May 15, 2013 The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its 2nd progress report on April 17, 2013 via an email. The California Environmental Protection Agency responded to the Certified Unified Program Agency via email the same day that the Certified Unified Program Agency’s 2nd Program Improvement Agreement progress report appeared to be from the last evaluation period 2008.

The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its 2nd progress report on May 1, 2013 to the California Environmental Protection Agency by email. Although the, Certified Unified Program Agency did not respond to this deficiency, but the small quantity generator and large quantity generator inspection checklists submitted with this progress report were acceptable to the Department of Toxic Substances Control as per the Department of Toxic Substances Control correspondence with the California Environmental Protection Agency and a joint agency conference call with the City of Oakland on March 25, 2013. The Department of Toxic Substances Control did not notice any changes in the hazardous waste generator Reporting Packet revised form received from the City of Oakland - PDF file name hazardous waste Generator Report Packet (3-29-13). The Department of Toxic Substances Control provided comments to the California Environmental Protection Agency for the hazardous waste tiered permitting Checklist Guidance received from the City of Oakland - PDF file name hazardous waste tiered permitting Checklist and Guidance (3-29-13).

9

On June 3-5 2013, the Department of Toxic Substances Control provided hazardous waste generator (small quantity generator/large quantity generator) and tiered permitting trainings to the Certified Unified Program Agency staff, including, but not limited to:

types of waste treated;

tank assessment requirements;

treatment technologies;

tiered permitting eligibility and administrative and technical reviews.

Determining and Citing Violations A face to face meeting was held with the Certified Unified Program Agency along with all agencies (California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, etc.) on October 16, 2013 in Sacramento to discuss compliance issues related to each deficiency. Third Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- July 31, 2013. Actual submission date was on October 29, 2013. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a hard copy of its 3rd progress report on October 29, 2013 to the California Environmental Protection Agency, which was still deficient.

The Department of Toxic Substances Control met with the Certified Unified Program Agency on November 4, 2013 to discuss the outstanding hazardous waste generator/tiered permitting program deficiencies and it was agreed the Certified Unified Program Agency would make the necessary changes and submit an update to the forms/documents to the Department of Toxic Substances Control by November 25, 2013. The Department of Toxic Substances Control summarized meeting notes and email to the Certified Unified Program Agency the same day on November 4, 2013. The attachment in the email from Mr. Griffin on November 25, 2013 did NOT include any corrections.

Fourth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- February 21, 2014. Actual submission date was on February 28, 2014.

The Department of Toxic Substances Control received a hand delivered package from the Certified Unified Program Agency on February 28, 2014. The Department of Toxic Substances Control reviewed the documents submitted and finds this deficiency corrected. The Department of Toxic Substances Control provided comments for this deficiency to the California Environmental Protection Agency on March 12, 2014.

Deficiency 2: Hazardous waste generator inspection reports issued by the Certified

Unified Program Agency do not include observations or other information in enough detail to determine if those items are violations, observations, or suggestions. During

10

the file review the following files were noted as having violations that were not adequately or properly documented:

The 7-6-07 inspection report for Alco Park, 165 13th Street listed the following, which is not a violation “Need to indicate an accumulation date on waste fluid. Due to quantity normally accumulated an exemption beyond 6 months is granted.” The Certified Unified Program Agency did not cite the facility for failure to exceed accumulation time. It must be noted the Certified Unified Program Agency is not authorized to grant such an exemption.

The 6-30-09 inspection report for Advanced Grinding, 812 49th Avenue listed “Any person engaged in activities which will or may result in pollutants entering the city storm sewer systems shall eliminate such pollutants to the maximum extent practical.” This is not a hazardous waste generator violation as explained by the Certified Unified Program Agency. This was storm water discharge violation and there are no violation codes under storm water discharge requirements, the Certified Unified Program Agency cites miscellaneous violation under the hazardous waste generator program.

The 6-21-12 inspection of Oakland Unified School District, 955 High Street listed “Any person engaged in activities which will or may result in pollutants entering the city storm sewer systems shall eliminate such pollutants to the maximum extent practical.

The Certified Unified Program Agency did inform the Oakland Unified School District that it needed to submit the School’s Hazardous Waste Collection, Consolidation, and Accumulation Facilities notification to the Department of Toxic Substances Control.

Corrective Action(s): By December 13, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency will develop a procedure to ensure that all violations cited in inspection reports are clearly documented as violations and include the factual basis for violations, as well as the corrective actions to be taken. Along with the second progress report, due March 13, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit five inspection reports for hazardous waste generator inspections completed within the last six months that contain the factual basis for violations, corrective actions to be taken and observations. Each of the five inspection reports will have at least one hazardous waste generator violation identified. By April 15, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will provide refresher hazardous waste/tiered permitting training to staff that covers the identification and citation of hazardous waste violations. Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency was considered deficient by the Department of Toxic Substances Control because the Certified Unified Program Agency’s hazardous waste generator inspection reports did not contain enough detail for a reviewer to distinguish between violations, observations, or suggestions. All of the corrective actions have been completed.

11

Status: This deficiency has been corrected. Background Excerpts from Progress Reports

First Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- December 13, 2012 The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted the 1st progress report on January 2, 2013 without any supporting documents. PDF letter that came with the 1st progress report documents did not give the state reviewer any narrative descriptions of what the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted or any written direction on how to interpret the information. In light of this, the Department of Toxic Substances Control attempted to review the report but was not able to provide constructive comments to the Certified Unified Program Agency due to the unorganized fashion of the report. This was relayed to the California Environmental Protection Agency the same day via email. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its supporting documents on January 30, 2013 in an email. The Department of Toxic Substances Control provided comments to the Certified Unified Program Agency’s 1st progress report to the California Environmental Protection Agency on February 15, 2013.

Second Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- March 14, 2013

The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its 2nd progress report on April 17, 2013 via an email. The California Environmental Protection Agency responded to the Certified Unified Program Agency via email the same day that the Certified Unified Program Agency’s 2nd Program Improvement Agreement progress report appeared to be from the last evaluation period 2008.

The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted the 2nd progress report on May 1, 2013. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted five inspection reports with hazardous waste generator violations. The Department of Toxic Substances Control noted that observations and factual basis of violations were missing for some of the violations noted and for those that were included they were not legible. One inspection report did not contain any hazardous waste generator violations and should not have been included as part of the five inspection reports. The Certified Unified Program Agency used the appropriate checklist but didn’t use the accompanying pages for the observations for all of the inspection reports submitted. The Department of Toxic Substances Control requested on to the Certified Unified Program Agency via the California Environmental Protection Agency that they submit five additional hazardous waste generator inspection reports from hazardous waste generator facilities with at least one hazardous waste generator violation cited.

On June 4, 2013, the Department of Toxic Substances Control provided training to the Certified Unified Program Agency staff on Determining and Citing Violations.

12

On October 16, 2013, a face to face meeting was held with the Certified Unified Program Agency along with all agencies (California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, etc.) to discuss compliance issues related for each deficiency. The Certified Unified Program Agency agreed to send copies of inspection reports to the Department of Toxic Substances Control as required in the corrective action for this deficiency.

The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a hard copy of its 3rd progress report on October 29, 2013. The Certified Unified Program Agency did not include copies of inspection reports in this progress report.

The Department of Toxic Substances Control met with the Certified Unified Program Agency on November 4, 2013. At this meeting, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted hard copies of four (4) new hazardous waste generator inspection reports to the Department of Toxic Substances Control. The Department of Toxic Substances Control requested the Certified Unified Program Agency to submit an inspection report for an inspection that was conducted after April 2013. It was agreed the Certified Unified Program Agency would submit the inspection report to the Department of Toxic Substances Control by November 25, 2013 and the Department of Toxic Substances Control agreed to review the inspection reports by January 10, 2014. The Department of Toxic Substances Control met with the Certified Unified Program Agency on November 25, 2013 and also reviewed the additional inspection report received from the Certified Unified Program Agency and found it acceptable and this was conveyed to the Certified Unified Program Agency and the California Environmental Protection Agency in an email of January 6, 2014.

Deficiency 3: The Certified Unified Program Agency did not conduct a complete

hazardous waste generator inspection.

During the hazardous waste generator oversight inspection of Owens Illinois Containers located at 3600 Alameda Avenue on 7/30/12, the Certified Unified Program Agency inspector missed many components of the hazardous waste generator regulations, including the following violations observed by the Department of Toxic Substances Control evaluator: Failure to have a daily inspection schedule and a log of daily inspections for the 4,000 gallon used oil tank, an inspection log for the emergency equipment; and, failure to make a hazardous waste determination for the influent to the oil/water separator. In addition, the inspector was not familiar with the biennial report format. This was the inspector’s third visit to this facility. During previous inspections, the inspector never inspected all of the hazardous waste areas, including the oil/water separator and did not assess if the oil/water separator was subject to the tiered permitting program. During the facility file review at the Certified Unified Program Agency’s office for this hazardous waste generator oversight inspection, the Department of Toxic

13

Substances Control evaluator noted that the facility obtained a tank assessment for the 4,000 gallon used oil tank in March 2005. The professional engineer that peformed the tank assessment stated that the tank assessment was valid for one year. The Certified Unified Program Agency never cited this facility for failure to obtain a tank reassessment for the used oil tank during the last two annual inspections. The Certified Unified Program Agency inspector did not classify violations in the notice to comply provided to the facility at the conclusion of the oversight inspection, as depicted in the Certified Unified Program Agency’s inspection and enforcement plan, but an inspection report sent to the facility on 8/14/12 included classes of the violations.

During the hazardous waste generator oversight inspection of Shape Products located at 1127 57th Avenue on 8/2/12, the Certified Unified Program Agency inspector incorrectly applied large quantity generator rules for a small quantity generator. The inspector was not aware that the facility was a small quantity generator and was not familiar with all of the small quantity generator requirements. For example, training and contingency plan violations were cited but these violations apply to the large quantity generators.

The Certified Unified Program Agency inspector did not classify violations in the notice to comply provided to the facility at the conclusion of the oversight inspection, as depicted in the Certified Unified Program Agency’s inspection and enforcement plan, but an inspection report sent to the facility on 8/28/12 included classes of violations.

Corrective Action(s): Immediately, the Certified Unified Program Agency will ensure that inspections are conducted in a manner consistent with state statute or regulation for businesses subject to the tiered permitting program. By April 15, 2013, or sooner, the Certified Unified Program Agency will provide hazardous waste generator (small quantity generator/large quantity generator), tiered permitting, violation classification, and tank assessment requirements training to Certified Unified Program Agency staff. The Certified Unified Program Agency will submit training documentation to the California Environmental Protection Agency. The documentation will include: the date of the training, the training materials covered in the training and an attendance sheet signed by all staff who participated in the training. Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency was considered deficient by the Department of Toxic Substances Control because the evaluator observed the inspector not adequately performing hazardous waste generator inspections in accordance with the law and the Certified Unified Program Agency’s inspection and enforcement plan. All of the corrective actions have been completed. Status: This deficiency has been corrected.

14

Background Excerpts from Progress Reports

First Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- December 13, 2012 The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted the 1st progress report on January 2, 2013 and did not respond to this deficiency.


The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted the 2nd progress report on May 1, 2013 and did not respond to this deficiency.

The Department of Toxic Substances Control provided the Certified Unified Program Agency staff hazardous waste (small quantity generator/large quantity generator)/tiered permitting training on June 3-5, 2013 that covered the identification and citation of hazardous waste violations. In addition, the Department of Toxic Substances Control provided training on Determining and Citing violations.

Deficiency 4: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not ensuring that businesses,

subject to the hazardous materials reporting requirements, annually submit their hazardous materials inventory or “no change” certification statement. Out of the 24 files reviewed only seven had annual inventories up-to-date with either “no change” certifications or updated inventory forms. The list of noncompliant facility files reviewed by the California Office of Emergency Services was sent to the Certified Unified Program Agency. Corrective Action(s): By December 13, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit a procedure to the California Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that businesses will annually submit their inventories into the California Environmental Reporting System. As part of the approval process, the Certified Unified Program Agency will ensure that these inventories are complete and correct. By February 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit ten updated and complete business plans, from the list provided by the California Office of Emergency Services, to the California Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit five current and complete business plans from facilities not on the list. Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency is deficient because it has not established that all business plan files contain a current hazardous materials inventory or “no change” certification statement. Although the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted all the individual business plans required as a part of the corrective action, the Agency has not shown that it has a procedure that ensures that all regulated businesses complete their inventory submittals in the California Environmental Reporting System each year.

15

Status: This deficiency has not been corrected. Remaining Action Items: The Certified Unified Program Agency must submit a revised procedure to ensure that businesses annually submit their inventories into the California Environmental Reporting System. The following items must be addressed:

Provide an explanation of how the procedure reflects current requirements, including the title of the procedure;

If verification inspections are deemed to be necessary and retained as part of the process, provide an explanation of how the CUPA will conduct these inspections with existing or new staff resources;

Remove references to “no change” certifications in the procedure; and,

Revise the procedures to reflect the annual business plan submission requirement effective January 1, 2015.


First Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- December 13, 2012

Despite forwarding a stack of documents approximately three inches thick, the Certified Unified Program Agency did not address this deficiency.


Five business plans were submitted by the Certified Unified Program Agency. All five were on the list provided to the Certified Unified Program Agency by the California Emergency Management Agency. All five submitted have current Hazardous Materials inventories. Upon review of these business plans by the California Emergency Management Agency, two of the business plans (Asbestos Management Company and Walgreen’s #10526) did not included a seismic vulnerability preparedness plan. Please be aware of all aspects of the business plan when they are submitted. The deficiency remains in the progress of being corrected. Please continue to provide updates for the total number of complete and current business plans.

Third Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- July 31, 2013 Certified Unified Program Agency forwarded 10 business plans from the list of businesses provided at the time of the evaluation and 5 that were not on the list. Included with the “on list” business plans was a second location for Oakland Unified School District (both maintenance yard and warehouse were included). All 15 of these files contained current inventories. However, it was not the intention that files from multiple sites for one handler be counted. Please forward one more business plan file with a current inventory from the list of businesses provided at the time of the evaluation. This deficiency remains in the process of being corrected.

16

Fourth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- February 21, 2014

The corrective action from the third update was to include one more complete business plan from the list of facilities provided at the time of the evaluation. The information included with Update 4 was for Dreisbach Enterprises, a California accidental release prevention facility that was not one of the 17 facilities listed in the left-hand column of incomplete business plan files. The other two business plans that were included as corrective actions for deficiencies #5, 14 and 15, Peralta Community College and Oakland Auto Body and Frame, were part of the original 10 files. Certified Unified Program Agency has not supplied an additional business plan from the list, and the deficiency remains uncorrected.

Fifth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- May 28, 2014 California Environmental Protection Agency The California Environmental Protection Agency received the final business plan from the original 2012 request. The final business plan deliverable (Downtown Oakland YMCA) was submitted and accepted in the California Environmental Reporting System on July 28, 2014, which was the same day that the 5th progress report was emailed to California Environmental Protection Agency. The Certified Unified Program Agency has not shown that it has a procedure to ensure that all businesses are annually submitting their inventories into the California Environmental Reporting System. California Office of Emergency Services The California Office of Emergency Services reviewed the submitted Downtown Oakland YMCA business plan for deficiencies 4, 5, and 15. (California Environmental Reporting System Identification Number - 10501354). The data was submitted and accepted in the California Environmental Reporting System on July 28, 2014. Sixth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- October 28, 2014

The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted the “CERS Reporting Inventory and No Change Certification Procedures” that includes a procedure to ensure that businesses annually submit their inventories into the California Environmental Reporting System. The title of the procedure does not reflect all of the content. The verification inspections referred in the procedure will require additional staff resources. The Certified Unified Program Agency must provide an explanation of how they will support the additional staff resources required to perform verification inspections. The language regarding the submittal of “no change” should be removed because handlers are required to submit their chemical inventory into the California Environmental Reporting System annually. The submittal of “no change” is now moot because of the annual electronic submission requirement.

17


subject to the hazardous materials business plan requirements, certify to the Certified Unified Program Agency that they have reviewed their business plan every three years and made necessary changes. Out of the 24 files reviewed, only seven had complete and current files including certifications that the business plan was reviewed. Some of the files reviewed, not including the seven indicated above, were incomplete or missing the hazardous materials business plans all together, yet had a current certification in the file. These were not counted as certifications.

Corrective Action(s): By December 13, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit a procedure to the California Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that businesses will annually submit their business plans into the California Environmental Reporting System. As part of the approval process, the Certified Unified Program Agency will ensure that these business plans are complete and correct. By February 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit ten updated and complete business plans, from the list provided by the California Office of Emergency Services, to the California Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit five current and complete business plans from facilities not on the list. Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency is considered deficient because it has not established that all business plan files are complete and contain certifications that business plans were reviewed. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted all of the individual business plans required as a part of the corrective action. The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit an adequate procedure to ensure that businesses annually submit their business plan into the California Environmental Reporting System. Status: This deficiency has not been corrected. Remaining Action Items: The Certified Unified Program Agency must submit a revised procedure to ensure that businesses submit their business plans into the California Environmental Reporting System. The following items must be revised in the procedure:

Remove language regarding the submittal of required certifications in the California Environmental Reporting System;

Revise the name of the procedure to reflect the content;

Revise the procedure to address all parts of the business plan;

Revise the procedure to reflect the annual business plan submission requirement effective January 1, 2015; and,

Complete the missing components of the business plan procedure.

18




Second Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- March 14, 2013 Five business plans were submitted by the Certified Unified Program Agency. None were on the list California Emergency Management Agency provided, therefore these were considered and assumed these were the five stated “not on the list” outlined in the corrective action final evaluation summary. These were current and complete business plans from facilities not on the list. This part of the corrective action is corrected; however, the California Emergency Management Agency is requesting that the Certified Unified Program Agency sends only the business plan file and not the underground storage tank etc. along with it for deficiencies addressed to California Emergency Management Agency. The deficiency remains in the progress of being corrected. Please continue to provide updates for the total number of complete and current business plans.

Third Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- July 31, 2013

Again, the Certified Unified Program Agency forwarded a total of 15 business plans. The five “off list” business plans were complete and current. Of the ten “on list” business plans, one really wasn’t from the list, as noted in #4 above (one of the two Oakland Unified School District files), and two (Oakland Auto Body and Frame, and Peralta Community College) contained inventories and inspections, but no other business plan elements. Please forward three more complete and current business plans from the list provided at the time of the evaluation. Oakland Auto Body and Frame, and Peralta Community College can be two of these, if complete business plans are forwarded. This deficiency remains in the process of being corrected.


Two of the three business plans supplied as part of the corrective action for deficiency #5, were indeed complete and correctly certified (Peralta CC and Oakland Auto Body, but see deficiency #15, below). However, again, Dreisbach Industries was not on the list of businesses supplied at the time of the evaluation. To correct the deficiency, the Certified Unified Program Agency must supply one more complete and up-to-date business plan from the list supplied. The deficiency remains uncorrected.

Fifth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- May 28, 2014 California Environmental Protection Agency

19

The California Environmental Protection Agency received the final business plan from the original 2012 request. The final business plan deliverable (Downtown Oakland YMCA) was submitted and accepted in the California Environmental Reporting System on July 28, 2014, which was the same day that the 5th progress report was emailed to California Environmental Protection Agency. The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit a procedure to ensure that businesses will submit their business plans into the California Environmental Reporting System. Please submit this procedure to the California Environmental Protection Agency. California Office of Emergency Services The California Office of Emergency Services reviewed the submitted Downtown Oakland YMCA business plan for deficiencies 4, 5, and 15. (California Environmental Reporting System Identification Number - 10501354). The data was submitted and accepted in the California Environmental Reporting System on July 28, 2014.

Sixth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- October 28, 2014

The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a narrative of a procedure to ensure that businesses submit their business plan into the California Environmental Reporting System. The language regarding the submittal of required certifications in the California Environmental Reporting System should be removed because the California Environmental Reporting System does not collect certifications. The procedure does not address the staff completeness review of all parts of the business plan. The procedure did not reflect the annual business plan submittal requirement effective January 1, 2015. The triennial review and certification of the business plan will be moot because of the annual electronic submission requirement effective January 1, 2015.

Deficiency 6: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not inspecting each

underground storage tank facility annually. For the last three fiscal years, the Certified Unified Program Agency reported in its Report 3s that all underground storage tanks have been inspected annually; however, the file review by the State Water Resources Control Board indicates that annual compliance inspections have not been performed. The Certified Unified Program Agency could not produce documentation showing that all inspections had occurred. The following are underground storage tank facilities that were missing records to document that they had been inspected annually:

20

401 Kennedy St

2 Webster St

5425 Martin Luther King Jr. Way

5500 Telegraph Ave

1107 5th St

165 98th Ave

955 High St

3130 35th Ave

165 13th St

6211 San Pablo Ave Additionally, a Certified Unified Program Agency database query on underground storage tank facilities identified in the 2008 Program Improvement Agreement indicated that not all of the annual underground storage tank inspections are occurring. Either the underground storage tank inspection information was not entered into the Certified Unified Program Agency data management system and/or documentation confirming that all underground storage tank inspections had occurred was not found. The query for the following facilities showed that inspections were not conducted annually:

2142 E. 12th St was not inspected in 2009, 2010, and 2012; and

6600 Foothill BLVD was not inspected in 2009 and 2012;

Corrective Action(s): Effective immediately and each subsequent year, the Certified Unified Program Agency will inspect every underground storage tank facility within its jurisdiction at least once every 12 months. By November 13, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency will provide the California Environmental Protection Agency a comprehensive list of all underground storage tank facilities in their jurisdiction. This list will include the last inspection date for each underground storage tank facility. Beginning with the first progress report on December 13, 2012, and each quarterly progress report thereafter, the Certified Unified Program Agency will provide copies of the previous quarter’s underground storage tank file review inspection checklists and underground storage tank inspection reports. By February 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will develop and submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency an underground storage tank inspection procedure to be included in its Inspection and Enforcement plan that describes how the Certified Unified Program Agency will schedule, conduct and document its inspections of all underground storage tank facilities annually. The Certified Unified Program Agency should consider the California Environmental Reporting System and the database that they will be transitioning to.

21

By March 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will incorporate and implement the underground storage tank inspection procedure as described above. Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency is deficient because the Certified Unified Program Agency did not adequately inspect each underground storage tank facility annually. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a list of their underground storage tank facilities, some of their completed underground storage tank file review checklists and inspection reports, and inspection procedures within the Inspection and Enforcement plan. The list of underground storage tank facilities and the underground storage tank inspection procedures (submitted with progress report 5) were acceptable. However, the other corrective action submittals were problematic. Underground storage tank file review checklists and inspection reports were not always submitted in a timely manner and there have been problems with the ones submitted. One significant problem is that Mr. Leroy Griffin completed file review checklists and performed underground storage tank inspections without the required International Code Council (ICC) certification. As a result, any underground storage tank information approvals, file review checklists, and inspections completed by Mr. Griffin are considered invalid. Status: This deficiency has not been corrected. Remaining Action Items:

The Certified Unified Program Agency must submit next quarters (October – December 2014) inspection reports and file review checklists according to the agreed upon Program Improvement Agreement.

The Certified Unified Program Agency must adequately inspect all regulated underground storage tank facilities by December 31, 2014.


Information Submittal: Due Date- November 13, 2012. Actual submission date was on November 15, 2012. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a comprehensive list of all underground storage tanks within their jurisdiction. The list includes the last inspection date as required in the agreed upon corrective actions. Staff has implemented the use of the State underground storage tank inspection form. The update to the inspection and enforcement plan shall be completed with the policy changes by November 30, 2012. The Certified Unified Program Agency also included a comment section signaling whether a facility is scheduled for an inspection or other comments. Do the 11/12 dates in the comment field represent the month and year (November 2012) or the actual date (November 12) of the scheduled inspection? First Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- December 13, 2012

22

The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a list of active Underground Storage Tank site and the inspection data has been submitted to the California Environmental Protection Agency with the information requested. Oakland Fire Department staff has provided the supplemental information requested by the State Water Resources Control Board. Included in this submission are copies of last quarter’s underground storage tank file review inspection checklists and underground storage tank inspection reports. The State Water Resources Control Board received from Oakland Fire Department three blank Summary of Findings Reports and one blank Oakland Fire Department underground storage tank Compliance Report. The second corrective action stated, “Beginning with the first progress report on December 13, 2012, and each quarterly progress report thereafter, the Certified Unified Program Agency will provide copies of the previous quarter’s underground storage tank file review inspection checklists and underground storage tank inspection reports”. The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to immediately submit, to the California Environmental Protection Agency, copies of the first quarter’s underground storage tank file review inspection checklists and underground storage tank inspection reports. They were also requested to, on the next progress report, provide to the California Environmental Protection Agency, a file review checklist for each facility which Oakland Fire Department inspected during the second progress reporting period. In addition to the checklists, Oakland Fire Department was requested to provide to the California Environmental Protection Agency, a copy of each underground storage tank facility compliance inspection report for the second progress reporting period. Second Quarter Progress Report Due Date- March 14, 2013 The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted underground storage tank file review checklists and underground storage tank inspection reports, copies of the first quarters completed underground storage tank file review inspection checklists and underground storage tank reports. The State Water Resources Control Board has reviewed the submitted information from Oakland Fire Department and has determined it is incomplete. In the received submittals, Oakland Fire Department indicates that they have inspected only five (5) underground storage tanks for two (2) quarters. The revised inspection and enforcement plan shall describe how the Certified Unified Program Agency will schedule, conduct and document its inspections of all underground storage tank facilities annually. The Certified Unified Program Agency

23

should consider the California Environmental Reporting System and the database that they will be transitioning to. The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to continue to provide the California Environmental Protection Agency with copies of annual underground storage tank compliance inspections and underground storage tank file review inspections on a quarterly basis. In addition, Oakland Fire Department was also requested provide copies of annual underground storage tank compliance inspections and underground storage tank file review inspections for the second quarter which was due in March of 2013. They were also requested, on the next progress report, to provide to the California Environmental Protection Agency its revised inspection and enforcement plan or summarize how its development is ongoing. Third Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- July 31, 2013 The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a hard copy of the inspection procedures within its inspection and enforcement plan. The Certified Unified Program Agency also submitted hard copies of completed underground storage tank file review checklists and inspection reports for the underground storage tank facilities inspected. The State Water Resources Control Board has reviewed the submitted file review checklists and inspection reports. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted 62 records. Thank you. The State Water Resources Control Board has reviewed the submitted inspection and enforcement plan dated October 2013 and has identified areas which need to be addressed starting with page 6, section C cites the wrong California Code of Regulation (CCR). Page 6, section III (B) indicates there will be general guideline for all inspections and then specific instructions for the particular elements which the State Water Resources Control Board could not find. Page 16 section G- Program Specific Inspection Procedures lists hazardous materials business plan and tiered permitting but not the underground storage tank program. Starting on page 55, enforcement tools are indicated. Within this section Oakland Fire Department states violations of the underground storage tank and aboveground storage tank programs may be referred to underground storage tank enforcement unit at the State Water Resources Control Board. This is an incorrect statement. On page 47, the California Environmental Reporting System term needs to be modified. Page 71, item 3 In the Permit Renewal section, what is meant by administrative or on-site inspections? In addition, please review the submitted Consolidated Permit Program Plan because in this document, the Certified Unified Program Agency uses administrative and on-site inspections as well. The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to, on the next progress report, please submit the inspection reports and file review checklist for the previous

24

quarter as agreed upon in the corrective actions. The Oakland Fire Department needs to capture underground storage tank inspection procedures in its inspection and enforcement plan as agreed upon in the corrective actions. The State Water Resources Control Board could not find underground storage tank specific procedures. Fourth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- February 21, 2014 The underground storage tank file review and annual compliance inspections were received March 17, 2014. The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit its underground storage tank file review checklist and annual compliance inspection reports. The Certified Unified Program Agency wrote a letter that stated the State Water Resources Control Board would receive the information by March 10, 2014. Also mentioned in the letter that, “In the future, the State Water Resource Board can view these reports for the City of Oakland by assessing CERS.” The State Water Resources Control Board finds the attachment submitted for deficiency 6 unacceptable. The underground storage tank Inspection reports and file review checklists were to be submitted with this update and not at a later time as indicated by the Certified Unified Program Agency. In addition, the statement regarding that State Water Board can view reports in the California Environmental Reporting System is unacceptable. This deficiency was identified in 2008 and continues today therefore, we will continue to require Oakland Fire Department to submit underground storage tank compliance inspections and underground storage tank file review checklists as agreed upon in the Program Improvement Agreement. Your submitted screen shots from the California Environmental Reporting System were not part of the agreed upon corrective actions or the Program Improvement Agreement. The State Water Resources Control Board has reviewed the submitted inspection and enforcement plan and has addressed its concerns in the action plan. The State Water Resources Control Board received the underground storage tank file review checklist and annual compliance inspection reports on March 17, 2014. The State Water Resources Control Board reviewed the submissions and noted that 77 inspections were performed. While reviewing the inspections, a few discrepancies were noticed. The report for 7225 Bancroft Ave shows an inspection date of November 20, 2013. However it was signed by the inspector and the facility representative on November 26, 2013. The inspection at 566 Hegenberger Rd noted a minor violation but there was no indication that it was corrected on-site. Since there was no indication of the minor violation being corrected, the inspector should have written, noted, and left a Summary of Violations for minor violations. The inspector noted on the Summary of Violations that there were no violations. The inspection for 3750 International Blvd. occurred on September 4, 2013. The date it was signed by the inspector was December 10, 2013. The interesting part besides

25

the two different dates is that the inspector noted that violations were to be corrected by October 5, 2013. The discrepancies noted above are only for a few of the inspections performed. There were many more report discrepancies that State Water Resources Control Board noticed. Lastly, the State Water Resources Control Board has not received any confirmation that Mr. Griffin has obtained his International Code Council Underground Storage Tank Inspectors License. The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to: 1. On the next progress report, please submit the inspection reports and file review checklist for the previous quarter (October 2013 – February 2014) as agreed upon in the corrective actions and per the Program Improvement Agreement. 2. As you know the inspection and enforcement plan outlines the inspection procedures for the Unified Program. The inspection and enforcement plan remains deficient as there are inconsistencies in the revised and submitted plan.

What is the difference between consolidation of permits on page 9 and consolidation of Certified Unified Program Agency program permits located on page 65? In addition on page 9, the underground storage tank permit cycle is 5 years and page 69 shows the permit cycle as 3 years.

3. The plan is still missing the program specific inspection procedures for the underground storage tank program although it is indicated in the inspection and enforcement plan as being present. 4. Page 5- the last bullet on the bottom of the page should be revised to read “Provide a compliance report detailing the inspection”. The current version reads as if the Certified Unified Program Agency will only provide a report if there are violations found during the underground storage tank annual compliance inspection. 5. In update 3, the State Water Resources Control Board indicated that aboveground storage tank enforcement is not to be referred to the State Water Resources Control Board. In update 4, the submitted inspection and enforcement plan still has this reference. The Certified Unified Program Agency shall change this language. 6. Page 15 of the inspection and enforcement plan, the Data Tracking and Reporting, section C cites the wrong citation. There is no Title 27 section 2713.

Fifth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- May 28, 2014 The State Water Resources Control Board has reviewed the 27 submitted underground storage tank file review and inspection checklists. Thank you for the

26

submittals. According to the spreadsheet that State Water Resources Control Board is using to track underground storage tank compliance inspections, the Certified Unified Program Agency has inspected approximately 65% of its regulated facilities since it first started to submit file review and inspection checklist. The State Water Resources Control Board has reviewed the submitted inspection and enforcement plan and finds the Certified Unified Program Agency has captured the agreed upon corrective actions for this document. The Certified Unified Program Agency specifically addresses underground storage tank scheduling, inspections, and inspection documentation. On December 9, 2013, the State Water Resources Control Board sent a letter addressed to Ms. Perkins and Mr. Griffin regarding International Code Council certification for staff. Specifically, the International Code Council certification requires Mr. Griffin, the Certified Unified Program Agency manager, to take the underground storage tank inspector test and submit certification to Mr. Farrow upon completion. State Water Resources Control Board required Mr. Griffin to become a licensed inspector because he had submitted inspection reports indicating that he had conducted annual compliance inspections on at least two (2) occasions. According to International Code Council, Mr. Griffin has taken the exam on the following days: December 13, 2013, March 4, 2014, and March 11, 2014. As of August 8, 2014, State Water Resources Control Board has not received documentation indicating that Mr. Griffin has successfully passed his examination. If Mr. Griffin is to continue to perform underground storage tank activities, he is required be a licensed inspector. The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to: 1. On the next progress report, please submit the next quarter’s file review and inspection checklists according to the agreed upon program improvement agreement. 2. On the next progress report, the Certified Unified Program Agency will update California Environmental Protection Agency and the State Water Resources Control Board regarding whether or not Mr. Griffin has taken and passed his exam.

Sixth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- October 28, 2014 The underground storage tank inspection reports and file review checklists submitted with progress report #6 and previous progress reports indicate that the Certified Unified Program Agency has inspected 87 out of 144 facilities thus far in 2014, 129 out of 144 facilities in 2013, and 106 out of 144 facilities in 2012. The Certified Unified Program Agency has not met the annual underground storage tank inspection frequency since the initiation of the 2012 Program Improvement Agreement. Additionally, the State Water Resources Control Board observed that

27

several of the inspection reports submitted did not correctly document compliance and violations. In the State Water Resources Control Board’s fifth progress report response, the Certified Unified Program Agency was asked if Mr. Griffin has taken and passed his International Code Council underground storage tank inspector certification. The Certified Unified Program Agency responded with “Mr. Griffin has not performed an underground storage tank inspection since 2013 and as outlined in the Program Improvement Agreement, Mr. Griffin will not perform inspections of underground storage tank facilities moving forward.”

Deficiency 7: In some cases, the Certified Unified Program Agency is not following

up and/or documenting return to compliance for businesses cited for violations in notices to comply and inspection reports/notices of violation. Corrective Action(s): By November 13, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency will create, and submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency, a list of facilities with ongoing violations. The list will include the Certified Unified Program Agency’s follow-up actions for each. The Certified Unified Program Agency will follow-up with businesses cited for violations and document return to compliance actions. By February 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency a procedure to ensure that it will follow-up with facilities with violations on a more consistent basis. The procedures will include, but will not be limited to, violation tracking per facility, compliance due dates tracking, and closeout of minor violations within 30 days. The procedure will consider electronic reporting. By March 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit copies of follow-up return to compliance documentation from five facilities that have been cited for at least one hazardous waste generator violation within the last six months. By May 15, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will have followed-up with all the facilities listed. In addition, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit an updated list to the California Environmental Protection Agency. Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency is deficient for not following-up and/or documenting return to compliance for businesses cited for violations. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted acceptable follow-up procedures to the California Environmental Protection Agency. The Certified Unified Program Agency also submitted a list of facilities, but the list was unacceptable because it did not include all facilities with ongoing unified program violations. The California Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Toxic Substances Control could not monitor the Certified Unified Program Agency’s progress with following-up with noncompliant facilities because an acceptable list was never submitted.

28

Additionally, the California Environmental Protection Agency’s review of violation information submitted in the California Environmental Reporting System showed that violations remain pending for long periods of time without resolution. Status: This deficiency has not been corrected. Remaining Action Items:

The Certified Unified Program Agency must submit a list of all facilities identified as having ongoing violations to California Environmental Protection Agency. The Certified Unified Program Agency must follow-up with all facilities cited for violations and document return to compliance actions.

Along with subsequent progress reports, the Certified Unified Program Agency must submit an updated list of facilities to California Environmental Protection Agency showing follow-up actions or return to compliance for all facilities previously listed.


The California Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Toxic Substances Control do not have a list of all regulated facilities with ongoing violations or One-Step printouts for all of the regulated facilities with ongoing violations to verify return to compliance. To-date, the California Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Toxic Substances Control are unclear on the Certified Unified Program Agency’s progress toward following-up with facilities with ongoing violations. During the exit briefing with the Certified Unified Program Agency on October 10, 2012, the California Environmental Protection Agency explained that the Certified Unified Program Agency must create, and submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency, a list of all regulated facilities with ongoing violations. The list was to include the Certified Unified Program Agency’s follow-up actions for each. The list would serve two purposes. One, the list would be a tool for the Certified Unified Program Agency to use to document and ensure return to compliance for all regulated facilities that require follow-up. Two, the list would provide the California Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Toxic Substances Control with a basis for which to evaluate the Certified Unified Program Agency progress of ensuring that facilities with violations return to compliance. The list would be one means by which the California Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Toxic Substances Control could keep the Certified Unified Program Agency accountable and ultimately correct the deficiency. The California Environmental Protection Agency made it clear during the October 10, 2012 exit briefing that the notice of violations list submitted for the December 20, 2010, Program Improvement Agreement (previous Program Improvement Agreement) was not acceptable because it included facilities without violations and it

29

also included non-Certified Unified Program Agency-related facilities. During the previous Program Improvement Agreement period, the California Environmental Protection Agency provided the Certified Unified Program Agency with a spreadsheet template that included the necessary list criteria, but the Certified Unified Program Agency did not use it. The Certified Unified Program Agency expressed some concern about their ability to create a list using their current data management system because of the way it was set up, but ultimately agreed to complete the corrective action by November 13, 2012. First Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- December 13, 2012 California Environmental Protection Agency The 1st progress report was submitted on January 2, 2013. The pdf letter that came with the 1st progress report documents did not give the state reviewer any narrative descriptions of what the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted or any written direction on how to interpret the information. The list of facilities submitted was of the same type that was problematic for state evaluators when submitted for the previous Program Improvement Agreement. The list included facilities without violations and it also included non-Certified Unified Program Agency-related facilities. The California Environmental Protection Agency informed the Certified Unified Program Agency in the 1st progress report response and in the subsequent face-to-face meeting that their submitted list was not acceptable. The list criteria were explained again to the Certified Unified Program Agency in the 1st progress report meeting. Certified Unified Program Agency's procedures for tracking notices to comply and notices of violations that was due February 14, 2014 were acceptable. Second Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- March 14, 2013 California Environmental Protection Agency Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its 2nd progress report on April 17, 2013 via an email. The California Environmental Protection Agency responded to the Certified Unified Program Agency via email the same day that the Certified Unified Program Agency’s 2nd Program Improvement Agreement progress report appeared to be from the last evaluation period 2008.

The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its 2nd progress report documentation on May 1, 2013. There was no narrative descriptions of what the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted or any written direction on how to interpret the information. A new spreadsheet was submitted. However, the list included facilities without violations and it also included non-Certified Unified Program Agency-related facilities. The list information was very similar to the list submitted along will the 1st progress report and; therefore, was not acceptable. Another problem with the list is that it contained a date range of 1/1/2010 through 3/1/2013. The requirement was to list all regulated facilities with ongoing violations, not just the ones within a certain date range. At this point in the progress reporting

30

process, the California Environmental Protection Agency still does not have a basis for which to verify the Certified Unified Program Agency’s follow-up progress.

In a face-to-face progress report meeting on October 16, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency informed the California Environmental Protection Agency that the Certified Unified Program Agency’s current data system could not produce a list of Unified Program facilities with ongoing violations. As a workaround, the California Environmental Protection Agency agreed to accept One Step printouts from the Certified Unified Program Agency for all of its regulated facilities with ongoing violations. The printouts would have to include the business name, last inspection date, violations, return to compliance due date, etc. The Certified Unified Program Agency suggested if they could work directly with the regulatory agencies to correct the deficiencies and the California Environmental Protection Agency agreed to their request.

Department of Toxic Substances Control With this progress report, the Certified Unified Program Agency also submitted five inspection reports with hazardous waste generator violations. The Department of Toxic Substances Control noted that observations and factual basis of violations are missing for some of the violations noted and not legible (see the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s response for the deficiency #2). In addition, the Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit copies of follow-up return to compliance documentation from five facilities that had been cited for at least one hazardous waste generator violation within the last six months.

Third Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- July 31, 2013 California Environmental Protection Agency The 3rd progress report documents that the Certified Unified Program Agency provided to the California Environmental Protection Agency on October 29, 2013 did not contain the One Step facility printouts that the Certified Unified Program Agency agreed to submit. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a hard copy invoice of fines and fees and an administrative enforcement order for one facility. The Certified Unified Program Agency also submitted hard copies of return to compliance certifications for two facilities. The problem with this submittal was that not only was there no narrative describing what was done to correct the deficiency, but the California Environmental Protection Agency still does not have a list of facilities from which to verify return to compliance documentation. Return to compliance documentation should only be submitted after the submitted list or One-Step printouts are acceptable to the California Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Toxic Substances Control Department of Toxic Substances Control

31

The Department of Toxic Substances Control had two meetings with the Certified Unified Program Agency on November 4 and 25, 2013 to discuss status of each deficiency as per their request. On November 4, 2013, the Department of Toxic Substances Control asked Leroy Griffin to submit return to compliance documentation reports which would include two extra columns in comparison to the reports submitted previously. The additional columns would include Inspection Date and Return to Compliance Date of the facilities. In order to confirm that the Certified Unified Program Agency was covering all of the requested data in these reports, Leroy Griffin agreed to prepare a template by Friday, December 6, 2013 and submit it to the Department of Toxic Substances Control. The Department of Toxic Substances Control agreed to review the template and respond back to Oakland either by requesting a change in the template or by confirming that the template was adequate. Once the template was finalized the Certified Unified Program Agency would populate the data and submit it to the Department of Toxic Substances Control for review. The Department of Toxic Substances Control agreed to respond by January 10, 2014 to this review.

Fourth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- February 21, 2014 California Environmental Protection Agency The 4th progress report contained a new spreadsheet. The Certified Unified Program Agency listed one business (AB Plating) that appears the have return to compliance as evidenced by the “RTC Comply By Date” of 4/4/2014. Upon the California Environmental Protection Agency’s review of the inspection and violation information the Certified Unified Program Agency entered into the California Environmental Reporting System, it appears that there are many more businesses with ongoing violations. Department of Toxic Substances Control The Certified Unified Program Agency hand delivered its 4th progress report to the Department of Toxic Substances Control on February 28, 2014 which contained a new Excel template in response to the November 4 and 25 meetings discussions on list of facilities with outstanding return to compliance. On March 10, 2014, Asha Arora contacted LeRoy Griffin to get clarification on the template headings and requested this template be updated by adding the following columns: AEO, Civil Action, Penalties Assessed/Collected, and SEPs. LeRoy Griffin agreed to email the Department of Toxic Substances Control the updated template within minutes. The Department of Toxic Substances Control has not received an updated template. The Department of Toxic Substances Control provided comments for this deficiency to the California Environmental Protection Agency on March 12, 2014.

The Department of Toxic Substances Control does not have a list of all regulated facilities with ongoing violations or One-Step printouts for all of the regulated facilities with ongoing violations to verify return to compliance. To-date, the

32

Department of Toxic Substances Control is unclear on the Certified Unified Program Agency’s progress toward following-up with facilities with ongoing violations.

Fifth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- May 28, 2014 California Environmental Protection Agency The Certified Unified Program Agency has not submitted a list of facilities that California Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Toxic Substances Control can use to evaluate Certified Unified Program Agency’s progress with following-up with facilities with ongoing violations. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a hardcopy of a spreadsheet labelled “Oakland Fire Department Unified Program Hazardous Waste Tracking Form.” This spreadsheet is the template the Certified Unified Program Agency will use to list all their facilities (all unified programs elements) with ongoing violations. The Certified Unified Program Agency must identify all regulated facilities that have violations cited in an inspection report. For each violation, the Certified Unified Program Agency must demonstrate one of the following: (1) the violation has been corrected, (2) return-to-compliance efforts are ongoing, or (3) an enforcement action has commenced. Department of Toxic Substances Control The hazardous waste tracking template is acceptable to Department of Toxic Substances Control. However, deficiency #7 remains as we have not received the list of facilities (the template populated) that document follow-up actions, i.e. return to compliance, administrative enforcement orders, etc. Additionally we still do not have a baseline list of businesses from the Certified Unified Program Agency that Department of Toxic Substances Control can track to ensure that the Certified Unified Program Agency is following-up with noncompliant businesses.

Sixth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- October 28, 2014 California Environmental Protection Agency

The Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide an update for this deficiency in progress report #6. To-date the Certified Unified Program Agency has not provided California Environmental Protection Agency with a list of facilities with ongoing violations as agreed upon in the Program Improvement Agreement. California Environmental Protection Agency does not have any information to verify whether the Certified Unified Program Agency has been following-up with businesses cited for violations.

33

Deficiency 8: The Certified Unified Program Agency has not submitted the quarterly

inspection or enforcement reports for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act large quantity generators since 2005. The Certified Unified Program Agency stated that they entered the large quantity generator data for the last three years into the California Environmental Reporting System in September 2012. However, a review of the California Environmental Reporting System by the Department of Toxic Substances Control and the California Environmental Protection Agency revealed that no inspection/enforcement data were entered into the California Environmental Reporting System for large quantity generators in the City of Oakland. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator reports must be submitted to the Department of Toxic Substances Control on a quarterly basis (February 1, May 1, August 1, and October 1). Corrective Action(s): By February 1, 2013, and each quarter thereafter, the Certified Unified Program Agency will enter the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator information online using the California Environmental Reporting System. If the Certified Unified Program Agency did not perform any inspections or take any enforcement actions at a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator facility, it will submit a notice to the Department of Toxic Substances Control stating that the Certified Unified Program Agency did not perform any activities at Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator facilities. The Certified Unified Program Agency may send this notice or the quarterly Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator report to Asha Arora at [email protected]. Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency was deficient because the Certified Unified Program Agency had not submitted their quarterly inspection or enforcement reports for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act large quantity generators since 2005. This deficiency is considered corrected as two Resource Conservation and Recovery Act large quantity generator inspections were conducted last week and the California Environmental Reporting System has been updated with the inspection information.


On October 1, 2012, the Department of Toxic Substances Control received an email from Sheryl Skillern, a Certified Unified Program Agency inspector, that there was a problem in entering data into the California Environmental Reporting System and submitted Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator reports for 2011-12 in Adobe Acrobat format.

34

On December 6, 2012, Asha Arora called LeRoy Griffin as the California Environmental Protection Agency said he would like to come to the Department of Toxic Substances Control Berkeley office at 2 PM to discuss deficiencies. The Department of Toxic Substances Control had a meeting with LeRoy Griffin who brought a package with him for discussion. No documents regarding the outstanding deficiencies were provided to the Department of Toxic Substances Control at this meeting. He said that Sheryl had entered Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator data in the California Environmental Reporting System and Asha informed him that she had checked the California environmental reporting system on this same day and no new Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator data was available. The Department of Toxic Substances Control’s review of the California Environmental Reporting System also revealed that the Certified Unified Program Agency had not entered any inspection/enforcement data into the California Environmental Reporting System for the years 2005 to 2011. Asha showed Mr. Griffin the California Environmental Reporting System website in her computer and that no data was available. He called Sheryl and she informed him that she was having a problem in entering data into the California environmental reporting system.

The Department of Toxic Substances Control has accepted the Certified Unified Program Agency’s previous response of October 1, 2012 for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator data submittal.

The Department of Toxic Substances Control had two meetings with the Certified Unified Program Agency on November 4 and 25, 2013 as requested by the Certified Unified Program Agency. The Department of Toxic Substances Control agreed that this deficiency was corrected. The Department of Toxic Substances Control clarified that what is covered under the Department of Toxic Substances Control hazardous waste tracking system does not necessarily provide accurate data on the number of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator facilities under any Certified Unified Program Agency’s jurisdiction due to the limitation of the data entered into the hazardous waste tracking system. The Department of Toxic Substances Control wanted the Certified Unified Program Agency to be aware of this limitation and forewarned the Certified Unified Program Agency to use the hazardous waste tracking system only as a reference to identify potential Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator facilities and verify the information during field inspections. The Department of Toxic Substances Control gave an example stating that some facilities may appear as a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator in the hazardous waste tracking system in the case of waste generated during a site cleanup, or that they may have generated more than 1kg of acute hazardous waste at some point during the year.

The Department of Toxic Substances Control further explained that what the Department of Toxic Substances Control wanted to be covered under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generators reporting are facilities

35

that consistently generated over 1000kg of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous wastes per month.


The Department of Toxic Substances Control received an email from the Certified Unified Program Agency on October 15, 2014 that the City of Oakland did not conduct any large quantity generator inspections in the third quarter of 2014 (this email was attached with progress report 5). In addition, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a letter dated October 16, 2014, which the Department of Toxic Substances Control has no record of receiving this letter as all incoming mail is logged in. Along with progress report 6, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a screen shot from the California Environmental Reporting System showing that two (2) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act large quantity generator inspections were conducted on October 20 and 21, 2014. This deficiency has been corrected as two (2) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act large quantity generator inspections were conducted last week and the California Environmental Reporting System has been updated.

Deficiency 9: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not billing, collecting, and

remitting state surcharges correctly.

The electronic reporting portion of the "Certified Unified Program Agency Oversight" surcharge ($25) has not been billed in single fee invoices. The electronic reporting surcharge remitted was taken from the Certified Unified Program Agency’s local fees.

The Certified Unified Program Agency has only remitted the electronic reporting surcharge to the state for fiscal years 2010/2011 and 2011/2012. The electronic reporting surcharge remitted was not collected as an itemized surcharge from regulated businesses.

The Certified Unified Program Agency has not billed the correct amount of underground storage tank surcharge for fiscal years 2010/2011 and 2008/2009. According to the Single Fee Summary Reports, the Certified Unified Program Agency billed underground storage tank facilities a total of $2,280 in fiscal year 2010/2011 and $2,985 in fiscal year 2008/2009. The amounts should have been approximately $6,120 in fiscal year 2010/2011 and $6,285 in fiscal year 2008/2009.

According to the Single Fee Summary Reports, the Certified Unified Program Agency billed one out of its three California accidental release prevention facilities the California accidental release prevention surcharge in fiscal year 2010/2011. In fiscal year 2009/2010, the Certified Unified Program Agency billed $2,160 when there were only three California accidental release prevention facilities.

The Certified Unified Program Agency did not remit the surcharge collected for fiscal years 2009/2010 and 2008/2009 as was reported on the Single Fee Summary Reports. The Certified Unified Program Agency was unable to provide a copy of the

36

surcharge transmittals with checks to the California Environmental Protection Agency during the evaluation.

Corrective Action(s): By December 13, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency will verify the actual amount of underground storage tank and California accidental release prevention surcharges billed and collected for fiscal years 2008/2009 through 2010/2011. The Certified Unified Program Agency will report the amounts to the California Environmental Protection Agency. The Certified Unified Program Agency will remit any surcharges that were collected, but not remitted to the state. By December 13, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency will remit the collected surcharges for fiscal years 2009/2010 and 2008/2009. By July 1, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will bill its regulated businesses the appropriate state surcharge for the current fiscal year. By October 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency five single fee invoices showing that its regulated businesses were billed the appropriate state surcharge. Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency is deficient because the Certified Unified Program Agency is not billing, collecting, and remitting state surcharges correctly. Pursuant to the Program Improvement Agreement, the Certified Unified Program Agency has verified the surcharges billed and collected for fiscal years 2008/2009 through 2010/2011 and remitted all past unremitted surcharges. To date, however, the Certified Unified Program Agency has not billed the electronic reporting surcharge of $25 to their regulated businesses or the current Certified Unified Program Agency oversight surcharge of $35. Therefore, the Certified Unified Program Agency has been unable to comply with the request to submit five single fee invoices showing that regulated businesses were billed the appropriate state surcharge. Status: This deficiency has not been corrected. Remaining Action Items:

The Certified Unified Program Agency must bill its regulated businesses the electronic reporting ($25) and Certified Unified Program Agency oversight ($35) state surcharges. (While the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act surcharge was not included in the original corrective action, it should be billed as an appropriate state surcharge for all Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act facilities starting in Fiscal Year 2014-2015.)

The Certified Unified Program Agency must submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency five single fee invoices showing that its regulated businesses were billed the appropriate state surcharge.


37

Information Submittal: Due Date- November 13, 2012 The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted some information stating that their staff was working with the City of Oakland’s budget office to change the point-of-sale (POS) surcharge collection system. While this was a good step, the California Environmental Protection Agency expected the Certified Unified Program Agency to also change their invoice billing system so that the correct electronic reporting surcharge of $25 was added to the invoice. First Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- December 13, 2012 The Certified Unified Program Agency told the California Environmental Protection Agency by phone that they performed a financial audit to verify the state surcharges billed each fiscal year. After the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted their 1st update on January 2, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted two pdf check copies on February 20, 2013. One was for the surcharge collected in fiscal year 2008/2009 and the other was for the surcharge collected in fiscal year 2009/2010. Both were date January 16, 2013. The surcharge transmittal reports for both checks that the Air Resources Board accounting department received contained the underground storage tank and California accidental release prevention surcharge amounts. The Certified Unified Program Agency’s submittals and information corrected the December 13, 2012 corrective action items. Second Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- March 14, 2013 The Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide an update on their progress addressing the remaining corrective action items. Third Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- July 31, 2013 The Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide a narrative update on their progress addressing the remaining corrective action items. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted One-Step screenshots showing that the data system can manage state surcharge information. However, the Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit five single fee invoices showing that its regulated businesses were billed the appropriate state surcharges (including the electronic reporting surcharge). The Certified Unified Program Agency failed the show that they billed the electronic reporting surcharge by the corrective action due date nor did the Certified Unified Program Agency submit the five single fee invoices by the corrective action due date. Fourth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- February 21, 2014 The Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide a narrative update on their progress addressing the remaining corrective action items. The Certified Unified

38

Program Agency submitted copies of point-of-sale records, receipts, and the checks of five regulated businesses showing that each business paid the electronic reporting surcharge along with other Certified Unified Program Agency fees at the Oakland Fire Prevention office. The Certified Unified Program Agency failed to address the corrective action which was to submit five single fee invoices showing that its regulated businesses were billed the appropriate state surcharge. The California Environmental Protection Agency sent an email on March 10, 2014 to the Oakland Chief of Staff requesting that the Certified Unified Program Agency submit five invoices. The Chief of Staff emailed a response stating that the Certified Unified Program Agency was in the process of transitioning its data management system from Certified Unified Program Agency data management system to One Step. The Certified Unified Program Agency data management system currently manages Certified Unified Program Agency billing. The invoices generated from the system do not have an electronic reporting line item. The Chief of Staff stated in an email that One Step would have the electronic reporting line item. Two sample invoices were emailed to the California Environmental Protection Agency on March 10, 2014, one from the Certified Unified Program Agency data management system and the other from One Step, showing that the ONE Step billing application could address the corrective action. The Assistant Fire Marshal told the California Environmental Protection Agency in a phone conversation that the Certified Unified Program Agency had not billed the electronic surcharge to all of their regulated businesses and that the Certified Unified Program Agency would be sending a notice to the businesses stating that they would be billed the electronic reporting surcharge. The problem is the Certified Unified Program Agency should have already billed their regulated businesses the appropriate surcharges by July 1, 2013 per the Program Improvement Agreement.

Fifth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- May 28, 2014 The Certified Unified Program Agency discontinued their move to One Step and is now transitioning their data management system to another system. This shift seriously affects their ability to track business billing. The Certified Unified Program Agency had not incorporated the electronic reporting surcharge of $25 into their One Step billing system nor billed the regulated businesses this electronic reporting surcharge. The electronic reporting surcharge has only been charged and collected when an owner/operator pays local fees over-the-counter. The electronic reporting surcharge has not been included in normal single fee invoices. Additionally, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted an invoice for Valero dated March 11, 2014 showing an oversight state surcharge of $24 was billed, even though the oversight state surcharge was updated in July 2013 to $35. Please submit five single fee invoices to California Environmental Protection Agency showing that appropriate state surcharges ($25 for electronic reporting; $35 for Certified Unified Program Agency oversight) were billed. Sixth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- October 28, 2014

39

The Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide an update for this deficiency in progress report #6. The California Environmental Protection Agency has not received any documentation to confirm that the Certified Unified Program Agency has billed the correct surcharges to regulated businesses. The Certified Unified Program Agency originally planned to revise surcharge amounts in their data management system One Step. However, the Certified Unified Program Agency decided to change their data management system to Filemaker Pro. Filemaker Pro was expected to go live on October 23, 2014. Point-of-sale receipts that were submitted with a previous progress report are not considered invoices nor are they sufficient evidence that appropriate surcharges have been billed. Another area of concern may include the billing of the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act surcharge adopted in July 2014.

Deficiency 10: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not reporting correct

information on the Annual Summary Reports.

In the fiscal year 2010/2011 Single Fee Summary Report (Report 2), the amount of surcharge the Certified Unified Program Agency reported that it remitted to the state was $30,578; however, the fiscal year 2010/2011 Surcharge Transmittal Report with the check shows the Certified Unified Program Agency remitted $52,065. Also, the Certified Unified Program Agency reported that it had one California accidental release prevention stationary source when it actually has three. Also, the numbers of tiered permitting facilities reported in Report 2 are inconsistent with the numbers of tiered permitting facilities reported in the Annual Inspection Summary Report (Report 3). Report 2 lists 48 tiered permitting facilities, whereas Report 3 lists 7 tiered permitting facilities.

In the fiscal year 2010/2011 Inspection Summary Report, the Certified Unified Program Agency reported that 100% of the California accidental release prevention, aboveground storage tank, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generators, and household hazardous waste inspections with class 1 or 2 violations have return to compliance within 90 days when there are no class 1 or 2 violations reported in the Annual Enforcement Summary Report. Also, the Certified Unified Program Agency reported 20 Resource Conservation and Recovery Large Quantity Generators, when it has only five or six.

In the fiscal year 2010/2011 Annual Enforcement Summary Report, the Certified Unified Program Agency reported that it issued local administrative enforcement orders, but the Certified Unified Program Agency has not included information regarding issuance of any local administrative enforcement orders in submittals detailing their enforcement actions related to specific facilities.

Similar problems exist in the fiscal years 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 Summary Reports. Corrective Action(s): By November 13, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit its fiscal year 2011/2012 Annual Summary Reports to the California Environmental Protection Agency that accurately reports the Unified Program data.

40

Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency was deficient for reporting correct information on the Annual Summary Reports. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a revision to their fiscal year 2011/2012 Annual Summary Reports on March 29, 2013 that was acceptable. Status: This deficiency has been corrected. Background Excerpts from Progress Reports

Information Submittal: Due Date- November 13, 2012 The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted their fiscal year 2011/2012 annual summary reports along with their other pre-update documents on November 15, 2012. The California Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Toxic Substances Control found some errors in the reported information. The California Environmental Protection Agency sent an emailed the state’s responses in the progress report form requesting that the errors be corrected. First Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- December 13, 2012 California Environmental Protection Agency The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted their revised the Certified Unified Program Agency's fiscal year 2011/2012 Annual Summary Reports on January 2, 2014. Some minor corrections were needed and specified in the emailed state response to the Certified Unified Program Agency. On March 29, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted another revision of their fiscal year 2011/2012 Annual Summary Reports. The final revision was considered corrected. Department of Toxic Substances Control In fiscal year 2010/2011 Inspection Summary Report, the Certified Unified Program Agency reported that 100% of the California accidental release prevention, aboveground storage tank, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generators, and household hazardous waste inspections with class 1 or 2 violations have return to compliance within 90 days. However, the Annual Enforcement Summary Report for fiscal year 2010/2011 stated there were no class 1 or 2 violations. Also, the Certified Unified Program Agency reported 20 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act large quantity generators, when it has only five or six. Similar problems exist in the fiscal years 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 Summary Reports.

During the exit briefing with the Certified Unified Program Agency on October 10, 2012, the California Environmental Protection Agency stated the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit its fiscal year 2011/2012 Annual Summary Reports to the California Environmental Protection Agency that accurately report the Unified

41

Program data by November 13, 2012. Oakland Fire Department submitted revised summary reports to the California Environmental Protection Agency on November 16, 2012. The Department of Toxic Substances Control reviewed the document submitted and finds this deficiency corrected.

Deficiency 11: The Certified Unified Program Agency has not performed a complete

and accurate California accidental release prevention performance audit.

Corrective Action(s): By February 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit a complete and accurate California accidental release prevention performance audit for fiscal year 2011/2012 to the California Environmental Protection Agency. For subsequent reporting years and at the Certified Unified Program Agency’s discretion, the elements of the performance audit may be incorporated into the annual Title 27 self-audit, but all eight elements of the performance audit must be addressed. Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency is considered deficient by the California Office of Emergency Services for not performing a complete and accurate California Accidental Release Prevention annual performance audit. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted their annual title 27 self-audit report. However, the title 27 self-audit report does not include all eight elements of the California Accidental Release Prevention annual performance audit listed in title 19, section 2780.5. Status: This deficiency has not been corrected. Remaining Action Items:

The Certified Unified Program Agency must submit a complete and accurate California Accidental Release Prevention performance audit that addresses all eight elements listed in title 19, section 2780.3.





All eight elements of the California accidental release prevention performance audit have not been addressed in the title 27 self-audit submitted with the first progress report. Please review title 19, section 2780.5 and submit the California accidental release prevention performance audit that addresses all eight of the audit criteria. If a criteria item did not apply, address it briefly in one sentence (ex. “No stationary sources have been requested to develop an RMP.”).

42


The Certified Unified Program Agency did not address this deficiency in the binder with approximately 2.5 inch thickness of documents forwarded to the California Office of Emergency Services. This binder was forwarded by the Certified Unified Program Agency following the Certified Unified Program Agency-State Agencies face-to-face meeting at the California Environmental Protection Agency on October 16, 2013.


The 2012-2013 self-audit submitted as corrective action for deficiency 11 may have been accepted as a Title 27 self-audit, but it was not an acceptable Title 19 California accidental release prevention performance audit. To reiterate the California Environmental Protection Agency’s response to the Certified Unified Program Agency’s second update, “All eight elements of the California accidental release prevention performance audit have not been addressed in the title 27 self-audit submitted with the first progress report. Please review title 19, section 2780.5 and submit the California accidental release prevention performance audit that addresses all eight of the audit criteria. If a criteria item did not apply, address it briefly in one sentence (ex. “No stationary sources have been requested to develop an RMP.”).” To refresh the Certified Unified Program Agency’s memory, here are the elements of the California accidental release prevention performance audit, from 19 CCR 2780.5(b):

An audit report shall be compiled annually based upon the previous fiscal year's activities and shall contain an executive summary and a brief description of how the AA is meeting the requirements of the program as listed in Section 2780.3. The audit shall include but is not limited to the following information:

(1) a listing of stationary sources which have been audited. (2) a listing of stationary sources which have been requested to develop RMPs. (3) a listing of stationary sources which have been inspected. (4) a listing of stationary sources which have received public comments on the

RMP. (5) a list of new or modified stationary sources. (6) a summary of enforcement actions initiated by the AA identifying each

stationary source. (7) a summary of the personnel and personnel years necessary to directly

implement, administer, and operate the California accidental release prevention Program.

(8) a list of those stationary sources determined by the AA to be exempt from the chapter pursuant to Section 25534(b)(2).

The document supplied as corrective action identified the facility that had been inspected, but did not address the remainder of the elements. The deficiency remains.

Fifth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- May 28, 2014

43

The Certified Unified Program Agency did not address this deficiency. In this progress report the Certified Unified Program Agency stated that “the next self audit report is due on September 30, 2014 ….. all program elements will be stated in the next self audit report.” The California accidental release prevention dispute resolution procedure was submitted, but the procedure is not an element of the California accidental release prevention performance audit. Please submit a complete and accurate California accidental release prevention annual performance audit to California Environmental Protection Agency and the California Office of Emergency Services that addresses all eight elements listed in title 19, section 2780.3. Sixth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- October 28, 2014

The Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide an update for this deficiency in progress report #6.

Deficiency 12: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not implementing its fee

accountability program correctly. For fiscal years 2010/2011 and 2011/2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency used local fees to remit the electronic reporting portion of the "Certified Unified Program Agency Oversight" surcharge. Regulated businesses were not billed the electronic reporting surcharge. This indicates that regulated businesses have been billed more than the necessary and reasonable cost to implement the Unified Program in fiscal years 2010/2011 and 2011/2012. Corrective Action(s): By January 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will review its fee accountability program and update it to reflect the necessary and reasonable cost to implement the Unified Program. The Certified Unified Program Agency will submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency its previous and updated fee accountability documentation and fee schedule. Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency is considered deficient by the California Environmental Protection Agency for not adequately implementing their fee accountability program. The submitted fee accountability documents did not demonstrate that Certified Unified Program Agency adequately reviewed and updated their fee accountability program to fund the necessary and reasonable cost to implement the Unified Program. The Certified Unified Program Agency is running a substantial surplus of 174% of the fiscal year 2012/2013 expenditures. In addition, it appears that Unified Program fees are used to fund non-Certified Unified Program Agency-related programs. Additionally, Certified Unified Program Agency revenue was transferred to the general fund with no justification. Per title 27, section 15220, assessed fees must only fund the necessary and reasonable cost to implement the Unified Program. Status: This deficiency has not been corrected.

44

Remaining Action Items:

The Certified Unified Program Agency must review and update of its fee accountability program. Changes are needed because of the rolling annual surplus and because staff workloads are not all unified program related but are 100% funded by Certified Unified Program Agency fees.

The Certified Unified Program Agency must correct the errors in table 3 observed by California Environmental Protection Agency and provide a dollar amount per Certified Unified Program Agency program hour.

The Certified Unified Program Agency must explain the regular annual revenue surpluses collected including information about the $1,463,418 surplus (recorded in the fund balance report for fiscal year 2012/2013), how it was accumulated, and how the surplus issue will be addressed.

The Certified Unified Program Agency must explain why $249,096 in Certified Unified Program Agency revenue was transferred to the general fund.

The Certified Unified Program Agency must explain the disparity between what the Certified Unified Program Agency reported to the state in their fiscal year 2012/2013 annual single fee summary report and what their fund balance report and the fee accountability assessment documented.

The Certified Unified Program Agency must provide California Environmental Protection Agency each Certified Unified Program Agency staff’s workload percentage that is dedicated to performing Certified Unified Program Agency-related job functions.


Information Submittal: Due Date- November 13, 2012 In the pre-update documentation the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted November 15, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency stated that a fee accountability study was in process and would be completed December 19, 2012. First Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- December 13, 2012 The Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide an update for this deficiency on January 2, 2013. On March 29, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a revenue report without any information about what fiscal year the report was for. Other than the revenue report that was unclear as to the time period the revenues were reported for, the Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit their previous and updated fee accountability documentation or fee schedule to meet the corrective action deadline. In a conference call on February 19, 2013, the California Environmental Protection Agency explained to the Certified Unified Program Agency that fee accountability documentation should include the criteria in title 27, section 15220 that would break down the direct and indirect costs and

45

revenues of the Certified Unified Program Agency. The Certified Unified Program Agency agreed to provide additional information along with the 2nd update. Second Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- March 14, 2013 The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a program fee accountability assessment document as part of their 2nd update on May 1, 2013. Their previous and updated program fee accountability assessment document was not acceptable because the Certified Unified Program Agency did not use the criteria in title 27, section 15220 and break down the direct and indirect costs and revenues of the Certified Unified Program Agency. Also, the document did not have any dates or fiscal years for the information submitted. Again, the California Environmental Protection Agency explained in the state’s response that the title 27, section 15220 criteria was needed to evidence that an adequate fee accountability review occurred. The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit their previous and updated fee schedule to meet the corrective action requirement. Third Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- July 31, 2013 The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a hard copy of its 2011/2012 program fee accountability assessment along with their update document binder on October 31, 2013. The 3rd update was due July 31, 2013. The assessment included a general summary about the Certified Unified Program Agency’s financial management, fees collected, personnel/operations and management costs, and indirect costs from fiscal years 2010/2011 through 2012/2013. This fee accountability submission was not acceptable because the submission did not show that the Certified Unified Program Agency performed an adequate review of its program expenses and revenues. Also, it was unclear whether all Certified Unified Program Agency staffs’ total workload was 100% Certified Unified Program Agency-related. The Assistant Fire Marshal stated that, other than some minor incidental instances, all Certified Unified Program Agency staff workload is 100% Certified Unified Program Agency-related and 100% funded by Certified Unified Program Agency fees. The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit their fiscal year 2012/2013 fee accountability program review nor did they submit their fee schedules for fiscal years 2011/2012 or 2012/2013 along with the 3rd update. On November 19, 2013, the California Environmental Protection Agency emailed the Oakland Chief of Staff and the Assistant Fire Marshal to inform them that their deficiency 12 submission was incomplete. The email listed the title 27, section 15220 criteria that the Certified Unified Program Agency needed to use when reviewing their fee accountability program. On November 20, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency emailed their Revenue Report, fiscal year 2012/2013 Master Fee Study, the master fee schedule effective July 1, 2013, and the “City of Oakland Inter Office Memo” (subject: fiscal year 2013-14, September 2013 Financial Summary) for discussion at a November 21, 2013 conference call between the Certified Unified Program Agency and the California Environmental Protection

46

Agency. These documents were emailed to the California Environmental Protection Agency four minutes before the November 21, 2013 conference call was to begin giving the California Environmental Protection Agency no time to review the information for discussion. The emailed fee accountability submission was also not acceptable. The “Master Fee Study – Fire Prevention Inspection Costs for FY 2012-13” and the “City of Oakland Inter Office Memo” incorporated the costs of the entire fire prevention program of the Oakland Fire Department, not solely the costs of the Unified Program. The documentation also did not demonstrate that the Certified Unified Program Agency thoroughly evaluated their resource needs. The California Environmental Protection Agency emailed the Certified Unified Program Agency a template to help them document the staff time needed for the Unified Program. Fourth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- February 21, 2014 On February 28, 2014, the California Environmental Protection Agency received fiscal year 12/13 “Program Fee Accountability Assessment”, master fee schedule (effective 7-1-13), direct/indirect program expense table, personnel chart with personnel costs, table 3 time allocation of staff, and the City of Oakland fund balance report. No narrative descriptions accompanied these documents. According to fund balance report and the fee accountability assessment, the Certified Unified Program Agency’s total expenditures for fiscal year 2012/2013 were about 6% higher than the cost to implement the program. Also, that Certified Unified Program Agency is running a substantial surplus of $1,463,418.20 or 174% of the fiscal year 2012/2013 expenditures. In addition, the fiscal year 2012/2013 fee accountability assessment states that the City of Oakland adjusted fees by 5% to account for cost of living adjustments for program implementation. There is a large disparity between what the Certified Unified Program Agency reported to the state in their fiscal year 2012/2013 annual single fee summary report and what the Certified Unified Program Agency’s fund balance report indicates. The Certified Unified Program Agency reported that they billed $672,486.21 and collected $667,768.51 in fiscal year 2012/2013. The fund balance report indicates that the Certified Unified Program Agency’s total expenditures were $841,337.16 while the amount of revenues collected was $899,796.45 in fiscal year 2012/2013. It is unclear which information is accurate. In emails and verbal correspondences, the Certified Unified Program Agency stated that staff assigned to implement the Unified Program are 100% funded by collected Unified Program fees and 100% of their workload is devoted to the Unified Program. However, the Certified Unified Program Agency performs Commercial Stormwater Protection inspections along with Certified Unified Program Agency inspections, one Certified Unified Program Agency staff participates in the Industrial Illicit discharge committee for Alameda County, and Certified Unified Program Agency staff attend Industrial Illicit Discharge training annually. The Industrial Illicit Discharge and Commercial Stormwater Protection programs are non-Certified Unified Program Agency-related programs. Therefore, all Certified Unified Program Agency staff

47

should not be 100% Certified Unified Program Agency funded because a percentage of their workload is spent doing non-Certified Unified Program Agency-related job functions. Certified Unified Program Agency’s review and update of its fee accountability program is not acceptable.

Fifth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- May 28, 2014 The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted their “Table 3 Time Allocation of Staff”, personnel cost (direct cost) and indirect cost tables. Table 3 appears to have some mathematical discrepancies that have skewed the total Certified Unified Program Agency program hours. These are as follows:

Underground Storage Tank - # of trainings/year (5) * hours/training (40) = total training hours/year is 200; not 160.

Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure/Aboveground Storage Tank - # of inspections/year (79) * hours/inspection (1.25) = total hours/year is 98.75; not 77.25.

Hazardous Materials Business Plan - # of trainings/year (5) * hours/training (16) = total training hours/year 80; not 20.

Permit by Rule - # of trainings/year (5) * hours/training (40) = total training hours/year is 200; not 160.

Conditional Authorization – As of fiscal year 2012/2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency has 5 conditional authorization businesses with a 3-year inspection frequency. The Certified Unified Program Agency allocated time for one conditional authorization inspection per year. This should be increased to be consistent with the inspection workload.

Conditional Exemption - As of fiscal year 2012/2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency does not have any conditional exemption businesses. The Certified Unified Program Agency allocated time for five conditional exemption inspections per year. This should be reduced to be consistent with the inspection workload.

Hazardous Waste Generator - As of fiscal year 2012/2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency has 816 hazardous waste generator businesses with a 3-year scheduled inspection frequency. The Certified Unified Program Agency allocated time for 192 hazardous waste generator inspections per year. This should be increased to be consistent with the inspection workload which should be approximately 272 hazardous waste generator inspections per year. # of trainings/year (5) * hours/training (24) = total training hours/year is 120; not 160.

Total training hours per year should be 638; not 402. The Certified Unified Program Agency needs to provide a dollar amount per Certified Unified Program Agency program hour.

48

Also, the Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide information clarifying the following in this progress update:

The regular annual revenue surpluses collected including information about the $1,463,418 surplus (recorded in the fund balance report for fiscal year 2012/2013), how it was accumulated, and how the surplus issue will be addressed.

The $249,096 in Certified Unified Program Agency revenue transferred to the general fund.

The disparity between what the Certified Unified Program Agency reported to the state in their fiscal year 2012/2013 annual single fee summary report and what their fund balance report and the fee accountability assessment documented. In the annual single fee summary report, the Certified Unified Program Agency reported the total amount of single fee billed was $672,486 and the total single fee collected was $667,768. The fund balance report and the fee accountability assessment document the Certified Unified Program Agency’s total expenditures for fiscal year 2012/2013 were $841,337 while the amount of revenues collected was $899,796.

The percentage of each staff’s workload is dedicated to performing Certified Unified Program Agency related job functions. The each Certified Unified Program Agency staff should not be 100% funded by Certified Unified Program Agency fees since staff perform non-Certified Unified Program Agency related functions such as participating in Industrial Illicit Discharge training and Commercial Stormwater Protection inspections.

The Certified Unified Program Agency’s must correct Table 3 and provide the information listed above. Please review the Certified Unified Program Agency’s fee accountability program and update it. Sixth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- October 28, 2014


Deficiency 13: The Certified Unified Program Agency did not inspect its three

California accidental release prevention stationary sources once every three years. The California Office of Emergency Services did not find a California accidental release prevention inspection report for any of the California accidental release prevention facilities between fiscal years 2008/2009 through 2010/2011. Corrective Action(s): By March 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will develop and submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency a California accidental release prevention inspection procedure to be included in its inspection and enforcement plan that describes how the Certified Unified Program Agency will schedule, conduct and document its triennial California accidental release prevention

49

inspections. The Certified Unified Program Agency will consider the California Environmental Reporting System and the database that they will be transitioning to. By March 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will inspect its three California accidental release prevention facilities and submit the completed inspection reports to the California Environmental Protection Agency. Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency was considered deficient by the California Office of Emergency Services for not inspecting its three California accidental release prevention stationary sources once every three years. Since the 2012 Certified Unified Program Agency evaluation, two of the three facilities are no longer regulated under the California accidental release prevention program. The last California accidental release prevention facility was inspected on November 6, 2013. Status: This deficiency has been corrected. Background Excerpts from Progress Reports

The California Office of Emergency Services (then the California Emergency Management Agency) staff met with The Certified Unified Program Agency staff on November 28, 2012 for the purpose of training Certified Unified Program Agency staff on California accidental release prevention inspections, and accompanied Certified Unified Program Agency staff on an oversight inspection at Owens-Illinois Brockway Glass. The Certified Unified Program Agency arrived with Program 2 and Program 3 inspection/audit checklists originally designed by Stanislaus County. The Certified Unified Program Agency staff did not show any familiarity with the contents of the checklists, and had to have the elements explained to them. At the exit briefing at the conclusion of the inspection, Certified Unified Program Agency staff attempted to summarize the violations from the wrong checklist (wrong program level).




The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit a California accidental release prevention inspection procedure to be included in its inspection and enforcement plan that describes how the Certified Unified Program Agency will schedule, conduct and document its triennial California accidental release prevention inspections. Also, the Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit completed California accidental release prevention inspection reports.


50

It was difficult to determine from the submitted inspection and enforcement plan exactly what the inspection plan is for California accidental release prevention facilities in Oakland. Some of the supplied material applies to audits, but not to inspections. The California Office of Emergency Services recommends that this section of the inspection and enforcement plan be revised for clarity. As a further part of this deficiency, the Certified Unified Program Agency did not supply any documentation that all three of its California accidental release prevention facilities have been inspected, on or before March 13, 2013. This deficiency remains in the process of being corrected.


Of the three California accidental release prevention facilities in Oakland, Owens-Illinois Brockaway has reduced inventory to below threshold and has deregistered. ED Coat has apparently ceased operations and the Certified Unified Program Agency should pursue a deregistration document from them as well. The remaining California accidental release prevention stationary source, Dreisback Industries, was inspected on November 6, 2013, the same day as the business plan inspection. The inspection form used was a suitably modified Stanislaus County Program 2 audit/inspection form.

Certified Unified Program Agency’s inspection and enforcement plan has been augmented to indicate the state mandated inspection interval. Scheduling has been simplified by the reduction of identified California accidental release prevention facilities to one. This deficiency has been corrected.

Deficiency 14: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not meeting the mandated

triennial inspection frequency for the hazardous material business plan program. Out of the 24 files reviewed, 21 did not have documentation that demonstrated that the inspections were completed. Please refer to the California Office of Emergency Services’ list of business plan facilities emailed by the California Environmental Protection Agency.

Corrective Action(s): By March 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will develop and submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency a business plan inspection procedure to be included in its inspection and enforcement plan that describes how the Certified Unified Program Agency will schedule, conduct and document its triennial business plan inspections. The Certified Unified Program Agency will consider the California Environmental Reporting System and the database that they will be transitioning to. In the first progress report due December 13, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency will provide an update on the total number of business plan facilities that need to be inspected. Include the number of facilities that have not been inspected in three years or more.

51

By February 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit ten completed business plans inspection reports, from the list provided by the California Office of Emergency Services, to the California Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit five completed business plans inspection reports from facilities not on the list. Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency was considered deficient by the California Office of Emergency Services for not meeting the mandated triennial inspection frequency for the Hazardous Material Business Plan program. While this deficiency was previously considered corrected, the California Environmental Protection Agency is concerned that this deficiency continues to be ongoing. A search in the California Environmental Reporting System revealed that only 84 routine compliance inspections for the Hazardous Material Business Plan program have been recorded by the CUPA for fiscal year 2013-2014.


First Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- December 13, 2012 Despite forwarding a stack of documents approximately three inches thick, the Certified Unified Program Agency did not fully address this deficiency. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a business plan inspection procedure. The Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide an update on the total number of business plan facilities that need to be inspected including the number of facilities that have not been inspected in three years or more. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a table that contained annual inspector workload and the number of hazardous materials business plan facilities it inspected in fiscal year 2011/2012. Below the table was the number of hazardous materials business plan facilities that needed to submit a business plan and the number of facilities that have not submitted their business plans beyond three years. The table does not meet the intent of the corrective action.


The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit a business plan inspection procedure to be included in its inspection and enforcement plan that describes how the Certified Unified Program Agency will schedule, conduct and document its triennial business plan inspections. The list of business plan facilities with overdue inspections appears to be only from one inspector. Do the other two inspectors have overdue business plan inspections? Those facilities should also be included with this list. The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit ten completed business plans inspection reports from the list provided by the California Emergency Management Agency to the California Environmental Protection Agency, nor did the Certified Unified Program Agency submit five completed business plans inspection reports from facilities not on the list.

52


The submitted inspection and enforcement plan is, in general, adequate with respect to business plan inspections. The California Office of Emergency Services received nothing with respect to how many inspections have been conducted. All 15 of the business plans forwarded had current inspections; however, two of the listed business plans were from the same handler (Oakland Unified School District). Please forward one more business plan inspection from the list of businesses provided at the time of the evaluation. This deficiency remains in the process of being corrected.


The California Office of Emergency Services evaluator that prepared the list of business plan facilities which were lacking recent inspections indicated that Dreisbach Enterprises was to be included with that list. The Certified Unified Program Agency has supplied a hazardous materials business plan inspection form for Dreisbach Industries that satisfies the corrective action for this deficiency. This deficiency has been corrected.

Deficiency 15: The Certified Unified Program Agency has not ensured that

submitted business plans are complete and correct. Of the 24 business plan files reviewed, 17 files were incomplete or had no business plans at all. Missing elements included: entire or individual elements of, training plans or emergency response plans such as the seismic vulnerability element of the emergency response plan.

Corrective Action(s): By February 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit a procedure to the California Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that its staff reviews each business plans submitted into the California Environmental Reporting System. As part of the approval process, the Certified Unified Program Agency will ensure that these business plans are complete and correct. By February 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit ten updated and complete business plans, from the list provided by the California Office of Emergency Services, to the California Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit five current and complete business plans from facilities not on the list. Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency was considered deficient by the California Office of Emergency Services for not ensuring that submitted business plans are complete and correct. Although the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted all of the individual business plans required as a part of the corrective action, the Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit an adequate procedure to ensure that its staff reviews each business plan submitted into the California Environmental Reporting System.

53

Status: This deficiency has not been corrected. Remaining Action Items: The Certified Unified Program Agency must submit a revised procedure to ensure that its staff reviews each business plans submitted into the California Environmental Reporting System. The following items must be revised in the procedure:


Revise the name of the procedures to reflect the content;



Complete the missing components of the business plan procedure. Background Excerpts from Progress Reports


Despite forwarding a stack of documents approximately three inches thick, the Certified Unified Program Agency did not address this deficiency. The Certified Unified Program Agency has not submitted ten updated and complete business plans from the list provided by the California Emergency Management Agency, nor did the Certified Unified Program Agency submit five current and complete business plans from facilities not on the list.


The California Emergency Management Agency received seven business plans. None of these plans are on the list provided to the Certified Unified Program Agency from California Emergency Management Agency. These will be considered part of the five current and complete business plans required which are not on the list. Of these seven, two (Sherwin-Williams #8143 and Walgreen’s #13595) did not have the training plan or the seismic vulnerability preparedness plan. The remaining five all had current and complete business plans, as required. This part of the deficiency is corrected. Please be aware of all aspects of the business plan when they are submitted. The deficiency remains in the progress of being corrected. Please continue to provide updates for the total number of complete and current business plans. Please submit a procedure to the California Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that the Certified Unified Program Agency staff reviews each business plan submitted into the California Environmental Reporting System is complete and correct.


54

As noted in #5 above, two of the “listed” business plans forwarded (Oakland Auto Body and Frame, and Peralta Community College) had inventories and inspections, but no other parts of the business plan, i.e. emergency response plan or training program. Additionally, the information supplied in the binder did not contain a business plan review procedure. This deficiency remains in the process of being corrected.


Of the two business plans supplied as the corrective action, one (Oakland Auto Body) was complete and correct, with the slight omission of the telephone number of the State Warning Center for reporting spills, in the employee training Power Point (it was, however, correctly included in the emergency response plan.) Additionally, in the documents supplied with the corrective action, pages 1-3 of the emergency response plan were basically blank. The same document in the California Environmental Reporting System is correctly filled out.

The second business plan (Peralta Community College District) had some issues. First, and arguably most importantly for an emergency response plan, the nearest medical facility or hospital was not listed (19 CCR 2731 (b)). And secondly, the site maps were almost worthless from an emergency response standpoint. All of the maps were evacuation maps. All but the first were intended to be posted on the wall inside one of the buildings, and had “you are here” stars on them, but no north orientation or any other orientation. The first map was an overview, with a north orientation, but did not identify loading areas, storm or sewer drains, emergency shutoffs, evacuation staging areas, hazmat handling or storage areas or emergency response equipment, other than fire extinguishers. The Health & Safety Code gives the handler until January 1, 2015 to update their maps to meet these criteria (HSC 25505(a)(2)).

With the next update, please forward one more complete and correct business plan from the left-hand column of the list provided at the time of evaluation. Peralta Community College District would be all right, if their emergency response plan (not maps- they have until New Year’s to fix those) is brought up to compliance. This deficiency is still in the process of correction.

Fifth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- May 28, 2014 California Environmental Protection Agency The California Environmental Protection Agency received the final business plan from the original 2012 request. The final business plan deliverable (Downtown Oakland YMCA) was submitted and accepted in the California Environmental Reporting System on July 28, 2014, which was the same day that the 5th progress report was emailed to California Environmental Protection Agency.

55

The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit a procedure to ensure that businesses will submit their business plans into the California Environmental Reporting System. Please submit this procedure to the California Environmental Protection Agency. California Office of Emergency Services The California Office of Emergency Services reviewed the submitted Downtown Oakland YMCA business plan for deficiencies 4, 5, and 15. (California Environmental Reporting System Identification Number - 10501354). The data was submitted and accepted in the California Environmental Reporting System on July 28, 2014. Sixth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- October 28, 2014

The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a procedure to ensure that its staff reviews each business plans submitted into the California Environmental Reporting System. The procedure does not address the staff completeness review of all parts of the business plan. The business plan procedure did not reflect the upcoming requirements effective January 1, 2015.

Deficiency 16: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not conducting hazardous

waste generator and tiered permitting facilities inspections with a frequency that is consistent with its inspection and enforcement plan. The last three annual inspection summary reports indicate the following:

During the fiscal year 2008/2009, the Certified Unified Program Agency inspected 23% of their hazardous waste generators.



The Department of Toxic Substances Control’s file review indicates that:

Out of the 30 files reviewed by the Department of Toxic Substances Control, it appears that 16 facilities have not been inspected within the last three years.

Out of the five tiered permitting files reviewed by the Department of Toxic Substances Control, none of the facilities were inspected in the last three years.

The Certified Unified Program Agency’s only permanent household hazardous waste collection facility was last inspected over three years ago. The Certified Unified Program Agency’s inspection and enforcement plan states that a permanent household hazardous waste collection facility has an annual inspection frequency.

56

In addition, the Certified Unified Program Agency was unable to locate the current files for the following facilities: Gold Seal Plating, George V Arth & Son, and Seven Eleven Body. Corrective Action(s): In the first progress report due December 13, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency will provide an update on the total number of tiered permitting and hazardous waste generator facilities that need to be inspected and the total number of tiered permitting and hazardous waste generator facilities inspected to date including the inspection status of the permanent household hazardous waste collection facility in the update. By May 15, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will have inspected all hazardous waste generators that have not been inspected in the past three years. The Certified Unified Program Agency will submit ten completed hazardous waste generator and five tiered permitting inspection reports to the California Environmental Protection Agency. Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency is considered deficient by the Department of Toxic Substances Control for not conducting hazardous waste generator and tiered permitting facility inspections with a frequency consistent with their Inspection and Enforcement plan. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted some hazardous waste and tiered permitting inspection reports. There were some problems with some of the inspection reports reviewed by the Department of Toxic Substances Control. The Certified Unified Program Agency has not provided an update on their progress of inspecting all hazardous waste generator and tiered permitting facilities that have not been inspected within the last three years. Status: This deficiency has not been corrected. Remaining Action Items:

The Certified Unified Program Agency must inspect all the hazardous waste generator and tiered permitting facilities that have not been inspected within the last three years.

The Certified Unified Program Agency must submit a report that identifies the total number of hazardous waste generators and total number of tier permitting facilities regulated by the Certified Unified Program Agency.

The Certified Unified Program Agency must submit a report on the number of hazardous waste generator and tier permitting inspections that were conducted each fiscal year since the evaluation date to present.



The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its 1st progress report on January 2, 2013. The pdf letter that came with the 1st progress report documents did not give

57

the state reviewer any narrative descriptions of what the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted or any written direction on how to interpret the information. The list of facilities submitted was of the same type that was problematic for the Department of Toxic Substances Control evaluators when submitted for the previous Program Improvement Agreement. The list included facilities without violations and it also included non-Certified Unified Program Agency-related facilities. This was relayed to the California Environmental Protection Agency the same day via email. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its supporting documents on January 30, 2013 in an email. The Department of Toxic Substances Control provided comments to the Certified Unified Program Agency’s 1st progress report to the California Environmental Protection Agency on February 15, 2013.



The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its 2nd progress report documentation again on May 1, 2013. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a list of facilities but it is unclear to the Department of Toxic Substances Control if this list is for all hazardous waste generators that have not been inspected in the past three years since inspection dates are not listed in this list. The Certified Unified Program Agency will provide an update on the total number of tiered permitting and hazardous waste generator facilities that need to be inspected and the total number of tiered permitting and hazardous waste generator facilities inspected to date including the inspection status of the permanent household hazardous waste collection facility in the update.

In a face-to-face progress report meeting on October 16, 2013 with the Certified Unified Program Agency, the Department of Toxic Substances Control explained again to submit a list of all hazardous waste generator inspections that have not been inspected in the past three years. In addition, the Department of Toxic Substances Control asked the Certified Unified Program Agency to provide an update on the total number of tiered permitting and hazardous waste generator facilities that need to be inspected and the total number of tiered permitting and hazardous waste generator facilities inspected to date including the inspection status of the permanent household hazardous waste collection facility.


The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a hard copy of its 3rd progress report documents to the California Environmental Protection Agency on October 29, 2013. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted hard copies of one Household Hazardous Waste and four (4) hazardous waste generator inspection reports. The Certified Unified Program Agency also submitted one additional hard

58

copy hazardous waste generator inspection report during a separate meeting with the Department of Toxic Substances Control on November 4, 2013.

The Department of Toxic Substances Control met with the Certified Unified Program Agency on November 4 and 25, 2013. The Department of Toxic Substances Control explained to the Certified Unified Program Agency still needed to submit five (5) tiered permit inspection reports to the Department of Toxic Substances Control for review. 1. Gold Seal was identified as one of these tiered permitting facilities. The Certified

Unified Program Agency agreed to submit these inspection reports by December 13, 2013. The Department of Toxic Substances Control agreed to review these reports by January 10, 2014.

2. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted 4 new generator inspection reports, and needed to submit one additional report. The Certified Unified Program Agency agreed to submit this inspection report by November 25, 2013 as a corrective action for deficiency #2. The Department of Toxic Substances Control agreed to review the inspection reports by January 10, 2014. The Department of Toxic Substances Control received one additional inspection report from LeRoy Griffin on November 25, 2013 and the Department of Toxic Substances Control found this report to be acceptable.

3. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a Household Hazardous Waste Inspection Report dated 10/23/13 during this meeting as a part of the corrective action for deficiency #16, however the inspection report was reviewed and identified to be inadequate due to the fact that a tier permit inspection checklist was used to conduct this inspection. The Department of Toxic Substances Control further explained that what is covered under the tier permit inspection checklist does not apply to household hazardous waste collection facilities and asked the Certified Unified Program Agency to use the correct checklist along with the large quantity generator checklist to re-inspect this facility. The Certified Unified Program Agency agreed to re-inspect the facility by December 13, 2013. The Department of Toxic Substances Control further provided website links to obtain a permanent household hazardous waste collection facility checklist. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PublicationsForms/upload/PHHWCF_Insp_Checklist_2010.pdf

4. The Department of Toxic Substances Control requested the Certified Unified Program Agency to generate a report which identified the total number of hazardous waste generators and total number of tier permitting facilities under the Certified Unified Program Agency’s jurisdiction. In addition, the Department of Toxic Substances Control requested a separate report from the Certified Unified Program Agency which identified the facilities inspected since the evaluation. These two reports combined would show what percentage of facilities under the Certified Unified Program Agency’s jurisdiction were inspected since the last evaluation and in addition would identify the tier permitting facilities under the Certified Unified Program Agency’s jurisdiction.


59

The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its 4th progress report on February 28, 2014. The Department of Toxic Substances Control received two hand delivered packages from the Certified Unified Program Agency on January 14 and February 28, 2014. The Certified Unified Program Agency response stated that they have only four (4) tiered permitting facilities and submitted the following reports:

Gold Seal Plating – The Certified Unified Program Agency inspected the facility on December 3, 2013 and a minor violation was corrected on December 5, 2013 and updated in the California Environmental Reporting System. The tiered permitting inspection checklist (Rev. Date 12/10/2012) was missing the tank integrity assessment reference. This checklist used was not the same checklist that was submitted to the Department of Toxic Substances Control for approval on (date).

E-D Coat – The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a brief report dated February 18, 2014 stating that E-D Coat was currently closed and they were not conducting operations. This facility was a permit-by-rule facility and if they were closing they had to properly close the permit-by-rule units and submit a P.E. certification to the Certified Unified Program Agency. If contamination was found during closure of the treatment units, then the Certified Unified Program Agency had to refer it back to the Department of Toxic Substances Control for corrective action. This was explained to Mr. Griffin on November 4, 2013 also.

Aramark Uniform and Career Apparel (this facility was not regulated under the tiered permitting program at the time of inspection) – The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a brief inspection report dated December 2, 2013 with minor violations and no return to compliance documentation was included with the report.. Based on the inspection report, it appeared that this facility was conducting unauthorized treatment. The Certified Unified Program Agency also noted the following observation: “Analyses is needed of the water prior to treatment.” The facility submitted a tiered permitting notification after the inspection as a Conditionally Exempt Commercial Laundries on 12/4/13 to the Certified Unified Program Agency.

Abbe Metal Plating (this facility is not currently regulated under the tiered permitting program) – The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted an inspection report dated 12/3/13 and no return to compliance documentation was included with the report. On January 15, 2014, the Certified Unified Program Agency forwarded to the Department of Toxic Substances Control for review the facility’s claim that they are exempt from tiered permitting requirements and manage their hazardous waste as excluded recyclable materials pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC), sections 25143.2 (d)(1) and (d)(6). The Department of Toxic Substances Control conducted a review of the facility’s assertion and concluded the following:

HSC, section 25143.2 (d) (6) is not the best exclusion for the facility to operate under. The Department of Toxic Substances Control believes that HSC, section 25143.2 (d) (1) is a better exclusion to utilize given their operations.

60

If the acid rinses are hazardous at the point of generation (POG) for corrosivity, then the facility can operate under HSC, section 25143.2 (c)(2), which is a permit exemption to treat hazardous waste onsite if all conditions are met.

If the soap dragout is hazardous at the POG, then evaporation will be subject to tiered permitting.

In addition, the Certified Unified Program Agency also submitted the following:

Alameda County permanent household hazardous waste collection facility – The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted an inspection report for the re-inspection of the permanent household hazardous waste collection facility on 12/23/13 using a correct checklist and cited the facility for failure to submit the Department of Toxic Substances Control Form 1094B notification.

Alameda County permanent household hazardous waste collection facility – The Certified Unified Program Agency re-submitted a permanent household hazardous waste collection facility Inspection Report dated 10/23/13 and used an incorrect tiered permitting checklist to conduct this inspection and no violations were noted. This was the same information submitted as identified in bullet 3 above for the November submittals.

The Department of Toxic Substances Control again requested the Certified Unified Program Agency to generate a report which identifies the total number of hazardous waste generators and the total number of tier permitting facilities under Oakland Certified Unified Program Agency’s jurisdiction. (See the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s 3rd Response for deficiency #16 – item #4). The Certified Unified Program Agency only responded that they have four (4) tiered permitting facilities with this response of February 28, 2014.

In addition, the Department of Toxic Substances Control requested a separate report from the Certified Unified Program Agency which identifies the facilities inspected since the evaluation. These two reports combined would show what percentage of facilities under Oakland Certified Unified Program Agency’s jurisdiction were inspected since the last evaluation and in addition would identify the tier permitting facilities under Oakland Certified Unified Program Agency’s jurisdiction. The Certified Unified Program Agency did not respond to this portion. (See the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s 3rd Response for deficiency #16 – item #4) The Department of Toxic Substances Control provided comments for this deficiency to the California Environmental Protection Agency on March 12, 2014.

Fifth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- May 28, 2014 Department of Toxic Substances Control reviewed the Certified Unified Program Agency’s responses and has the following comments: Gold Seal – It is encouraging to see that the Certified Unified Program Agency will use the correct tiered permitting and large quantity generator checklists.

61

Able Plating – We concur that the facility is exempt from obtaining a tiered permit due to their ability to operate under either a recycling exclusion or permit exemption. The recent submittal dated July 2, 2014 by Able Plating’s consultant to the City of Oakland Certified Unified Program Agency is unclear as to what exclusion or exemption actually applies to activities conducted at Able Plating. Without that knowledge, we are unable to conclude the correct regulatory status of operations. Aramark – Department of Toxic Substances Control looks forward to seeing the administrative enforcement order issued to Aramark. E-D Coat – The Certified Unified Program Agency is responsible for implementing the tiered permitting program, which includes ensuring that facilities properly close their tiered permitting treatment units. Department of Toxic Substances Control understands that E-D Coat is closed. The Certified Unified Program Agency needs to contact with the facility representatives and notify them of their responsibility to properly close the permit by rule treatment unit, including submitting a professional engineer (P.E.) certification. As Department of Toxic Substances Control stated earlier, if contamination is found during closure of the treatment units, then please refer it back to Department of Toxic Substances Control (Karen Toth) for any necessary corrective action. The Certified Unified Program Agency responded that “Additionally, Department of Toxic Substances Control requested a report outlining inspections conducted since the evaluation date to present. Attached in this submission is that information.” As of this date California Environmental Protection Agency or Department of Toxic Substances Control did not receive this information. Department of Toxic Substances Control had also requested Oakland to generate a report which identifies the total number of hazardous waste generators and total number of tier permitting facilities under Oakland Certified Unified Program Agency’s jurisdiction. (See page 13, second to the last paragraph). The Certified Unified Program Agency did not respond to this portion.



Deficiency 17: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not preparing a compliance

report for every annual underground storage tank compliance inspection. The Certified Unified Program Agency’s summary report 3 indicates that all underground storage tanks have been inspected annually for the last three fiscal years.

62

File review on the other hand indicates that compliance inspection reports are not being prepared for every annual underground storage tank inspection. The Certified Unified Program Agency could not produce documentation showing that compliance inspection reports have been filed for every annual compliance inspection. The following are example facilities that were missing records indicating that a compliance report had been written:

401 Kennedy St

2 Webster St


5500 Telegraph Ave

1107 5th St

165 98th Ave

955 High St

3130 35th Ave

165 13th St

6211 San Pablo Ave

Corrective Action(s): By March 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will develop and submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency an underground storage tank inspection procedure to be included in the inspection and enforcement plan that describes steps that will be taken to prepare compliance reports for every annual underground storage tank inspection. By March 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will incorporate and implement the underground storage tank inspection procedure as described above. Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency is considered deficient by the State Water Resources Control Board for not preparing a compliance report for every annual underground storage tank compliance inspection. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted an adequate underground storage tank inspection procedure along with the progress report 5 to prepare a compliance report after every underground storage tank compliance inspection. However, the Certified Unified Program Agency is not adequately implementing the procedure. Status: This deficiency has not been corrected. Remaining Action Items:

The Certified Unified Program Agency must submit next quarter’s (October – December 2014) inspection reports and file review checklists according to the agreed upon Program Improvement Agreement.


63

The Certified Unified Program Agency must train inspectors to discontinue including other code violations as part of the underground storage tank significant operational compliance count.

The Certified Unified Program Agency must evaluate and implement additional training needs for underground storage tank field inspectors.


Information Submittal Due: Date- November 13, 2012 The Certified Unified Program Agency reported that an update to the inspection and enforcement plan was to be completed December 13, 2012. First Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- December 13, 2012 The Certified Unified Program Agency referenced their first progress report letter dated January 1, 2013. The inspection procedures submitted by the Certified Unified Program Agency did not address the underground storage tank program. Along with the second progress report, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit an underground storage tank inspection procedure that describes the steps that will be taken to prepare compliance reports for every annual underground storage tank inspection. Please contact the State Water Resources Control Board for more information. Second Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- March, 2013 The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit an underground storage tank inspection procedure. The procedure was to be incorporated into their inspection and enforcement plan describing the steps that will be taken to prepare compliance reports for every annual underground storage tank inspection. The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to, on the next progress report, provide, to the California Environmental Protection Agency, its revised inspection and enforcement plan or summarize how its development is ongoing. Third Quarter Progress Report Due Date- July 31, 2013 The Certified Unified Program Agency indicated that they believed that the deficiency was corrected and was waiting to hear from the water board. They also indicated that their draft I/E was attached and addressed the procedures. The State Water Resources Control Board reviewed the submitted inspection and enforcement plan dated October 2013 and has identified areas which need to be addressed. On page 6, section III (B) indicates there will be general guideline for all inspections and then specific instructions for the particular elements. On page 16

64

section G- Program Specific Inspection Procedures list hazardous materials business plan, tiered permitting but no underground storage tank program. The State Water Resources Control Board could not find underground storage tank specific procedures. The Oakland Fire Department was requested to capture underground storage tank inspection procedures in its inspection and enforcement plan as agreed upon in the corrective actions. Fourth Quarter Progress Report Due Date- February 21, 2014 The Certified Unified Program Agency indicated that they were working on completing the changes to the inspection and enforcement plan, which will be submitted prior to the February 21st due date. The deficiency 17 attachment only shows the title page and table of contents for the inspection and enforcement plan. The State Water Resources Control Board has reviewed the revised and submitted inspection and enforcement plan. The plan continues to state that program specific underground storage tank inspection procedures will be identified. However, the State Water Resources Control Board cannot find these in the inspection and enforcement plan. The State Water Resources Control Board could not find underground storage tank specific procedures. Please see deficiency 6 for specifics regarding underground storage tank specific inspection procedures. The Oakland Fire Department was requested to capture underground storage tank inspection procedures in its inspection and enforcement plan as agreed upon in the corrective actions.

Fifth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- May 28, 2014 The State Water Resources Control Board has reviewed the submitted inspection and enforcement plan and finds the Certified Unified Program Agency has complied with the agreed upon corrective actions by including steps taken by staff to prepare compliance reports for every underground storage tank inspection. The State Water Resources Control Board still requires the Certified Unified Program Agency to submit inspection reports and file review checklists for the previous quarter’s underground storage tank inspections as the agreed upon corrective actions. In order to correct this deficiency, the Certified Unified Program Agency must demonstrate to the State Water Resources Control Board that it is conducting annual underground storage tank compliance inspections in accordance with statute and regulations. Sixth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- October 28, 2014

65

This deficiency is directly tied to deficiency 6. In order to correct this deficiency, the CUPA must demonstrate to SWRCB that it is conducting annual UST compliance inspections in accordance with statute and regulations and that the inspector is preparing an adequate inspection report. During the State Water Resources Control Board’s review of the submitted annual compliance inspection reports and file review checklists, the State Water Resources Control Board found that several of the inspections did not correctly document underground storage tank program compliance and violations. Inspectors are citing violations that are not part of the underground storage tank program and incorporating those violations into the significant operational compliance Release Detection and Release Prevention count. Specifically, when the spill bucket (overfill protection) is tested during the annual monitoring certification and it fails due to a cap on the drop tube for fuel, inspectors are citing it as an underground storage tank violation. The failure of a spill bucket due to a cap is not an underground storage tank violation and should not be included in the significant operational compliance. The inspection report dated 9-17-14 for EBMUD, inspector Skillern notes that compliance for pipe and/or tank integrity testing is conducted within allowable time-frames. Contradictory to that, the inspector then goes on to note that the facility has double-walled pressurized pipe and that the facility does not need to perform an annual line tightness testing. Further, the inspector notes that the line leak detectors are not required when, in fact, they are. The inspection report dated 7-9-14 for High Street Valero is incomplete. There is no indication whether or not the tanks and pipes are being monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan. These sections have not been marked as in compliance or not applicable in the compliance report. In addition, the under dispenser containment section of the inspection report is left blank indicating that the inspection was not complete.

Deficiency 18: The Certified Unified Program Agency’s underground storage tank

files are not complete. All files reviewed were missing one or more of the following documents, which are required to verify underground storage tank operational compliance:

Annual compliance inspection reports;

Financial responsibility documents;

Secondary containment test reports;

Tank and line integrity test reports;

Annual monitoring certifications;

Designated operator;

Unified Program Consolidated Forms (UPCF) A, B, C and D;

Response plans; and

66

Underground storage tank operating permits.

Corrective Action(s): Effective January 1, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will start to collect and retain electronic copies of underground storage tank facility compliance documents for all facilities for the prescribed time frames. By January 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will develop and implement an underground storage tank file review checklist. This file review checklist will be maintained in the underground storage tank facility file for three years; allowing for future verification that the deficiency has been corrected. Submit the underground storage tank file review checklist to the California Environmental Protection Agency. Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency was considered deficient by the State Water Resources Control Board because the Certified Unified Program Agency’s underground storage tank files were not complete. The Certified Unified Program Agency collects and retains electronic underground storage tank documents in the California Environmental Reporting System. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted their underground storage tank file review checklist template and also some completed checklists. Status: This deficiency has been corrected. Background Excerpts from Progress Reports

Information Submittal: Due Date- November 13, 2012 The Certified Unified Program Agency indicated that the staff is conducting inspection using the state form. The forms will be entered into the California Environmental Reporting System. Full implementation January 1, 2013. First Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- December 13, 2012 The Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide an update to this deficiency. The Oakland Fire Department has not addressed this deficiency that had a due date of January 14, 2013. However, the State Water Resources Control Board noticed that Oakland Fire Department submitted an underground storage tank inspection checklist (LG 159 appendix A with Oakland Fire Department headings). In this inspection checklist, there is a file review checklist. However, Oakland Fire Department has not stated if this is the checklist they plan on using. Please advise. The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to immediately, respond to the State Water Resources Control Board comments or submit a file review checklist. Second Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- March 14, 2013

67

The Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide a narrative response or update for this deficiency. The State Water Resources Control Board has reviewed the submitted information from Oakland Fire Department and has determined it is incomplete. In the received submittals, Oakland Fire Department indicates that they have inspected only five (5) underground storage tank for two (2) quarters. The Oakland Fire Department was requested to continue to provide the California Environmental Protection Agency with copies of annual underground storage tank compliance inspection reports and underground storage tank file review checklists on a quarterly basis per corrective actions for deficiency number six (6). In addition, Oakland Fire Department was requested to provide copies of the checklists and inspection reports for the second quarter that were due in March of 2013. Third Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- July 31, 2013 The Certified Unified Program Agency indicated that they believed that this deficiency is corrected. They also indicated that they were waiting to hear from the water board about the 5 inspection reports they submitted for facilities that had been inspected in the second quarter as directed. They felt that this deficiency should not be ongoing. The State Water Resources Control Board considers this deficiency corrected. However, the Certified Unified Program Agency shall continue to submit its file review checklist as part of deficiency 6 as agreed upon in the corrective actions.

Deficiency 19: The Certified Unified Program Agency is inappropriately issuing

underground storage tank operating permits without verifying operational compliance. File review indicates that operational compliance is not verified prior to issuing an operating permit. Upon questioning the Certified Unified Program Agency, it was confirmed that operating permits are issued based on the active status of an underground storage tank facility. Corrective Action(s): By January 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will develop and submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency a procedure to be included in their Consolidated Permit Program Plan to ensure that an underground storage tank facility is in compliance before issuing the permit to operate. By February 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will incorporate and implement the new underground storage tank permit issuance procedure as described above.

68

Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency was considered deficient by the State Water Resources Control Board for inappropriately issuing underground storage tank operating permits without verifying operational compliance. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a Consolidated Permit Program Plan but, there were some problems noted by the State Water Resources Control Board that must be addressed. The State Water Resources Control Board reviewed the most recent version of the Consolidated Permit Program Plan and provided feedback to the Certified Unified Program Agency. The Certified Unified Program Agency made additional revisions and the Consolidated Permit Program Plan now meets Unified Program requirements. Status: This deficiency has been corrected. Background Excerpts from Progress Reports

Information Submittal: Due Date- November 13, 2012 The Certified Unified Program Agency indicated that correction of this deficiency was in progress, projected completion date December, 13, 2012. First Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- December 13, 2012 The Certified Unified Program Agency referenced their First Progress Report Letter dated January 1, 2013. The Oakland Fire Department has not addressed this deficiency that had a due date of January 14, 2013. Upon further review of Oakland Fire Department submittals, the State Water Resources Control Board reviewed a Consolidated Permit Policy and was unclear whether the Oakland Fire Department Unified Program Consolidated Permit policy and procedures was submitted is to correct this deficiency or another deficiency. The State Water Resources Control Board does have some observations and concerns regarding the submitted document mentioned above. Oakland Fire Department uses the following terms to describe their staff: Certified Unified Program Agency Inspector, Assigned Certified Unified Program Agency Staff, Certified Unified Program Agency Staff, Certified Unified Program Agency Program Staff, Inspector, and Certified Unified Program Agency Inspection Staff. Are these all different personnel or are these used to reference the core personnel (i.e. the three inspector staff and the Certified Unified Program Agency program manager)? Example- on page two item number two, the application package will be assigned to the Certified Unified Program Agency inspection staff…On page three item number three regarding permit review system, the assigned Certified Unified Program Agency staff will…will be reviewed by the inspector…Lastly, on page three item number four regarding permit review system, on the date of the inspection the

69

inspector…During the inspection the assigned Certified Unified Program Agency staff… The policy seems to be talking about two to three different topics- application permits, construction permits, and the consolidated operating permit yet the title of the document is called Oakland Fire Department Unified Program Consolidated Permit and policy is Consolidation of Certified Unified Program Agency Program Permits. On page three item number three referring to permit review system, the State Water Resources Control Board is confused. The first sentence refers to new applications. Are we talking about new construction? Do facilities have to submit an application package each time a renewal becomes due? What is the annual re-certification form? Is this different form the permit that a facility receives from Oakland Fire Department? The policy refers to three types of permits: Regular, Temporary, and Provisional. The State Water Resources Control Board needs to know which UP programs this applies to. This may or may not be applicable to the underground storage tank program. On page five item number three, the State Water Resources Control Board recommends that Water Code be removed. The last bullet in item number three refers to section 25284(e). The State Water Resources Control Board is unaware of this citation. Please revise. In another part of the policy, there is wording that states, “the permit package will contain…the board of equalization number…” What regulation does this come from? Or are you referring to the UPCF A form? On page five, why did Oakland Fire Department choose a three year permit cycle for the tanks program and a one year cycle for tiered permitting permit? If Oakland Fire Department keeps the three year cycle for the tanks program, Oakland Fire Department needs to incorporate a permit revocation enforcement option. This is because a permit is only valid if a system is compliance. Once an inspection is conducted and a facility is determined to be out of compliance, Oakland Fire Department will need to revoke the operating permit until such time the facility comes into compliance. For this reason, the majority of Certified Unified Program Agencies issue an underground storage tank operating permit annually. On page six item number three, Oakland Fire Department states that annual permit renewals will be conducted by administrative or on-site inspections. What does this mean? An administrative person is renewing permits without an annual compliance inspection or something else? In addition, Oakland Fire Department states a permit will be renewed by the computer system once a year to a facility in good standing. This language needs to be changed. Good standing is different from being in compliance. As previously mentioned above, the underground storage tank facility operating permit is listed as being issued once every three. How does this work? The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to immediately respond to the State Water Resources Control Board comments or submit a copy of its Consolidate Permit Program Plan.

70

Second Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- March, 2013 The Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide an update for this deficiency. The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to submit a copy of the revise underground storage tank permit, the most current underground storage tank inspection report template and return to compliance documentation if applicable. This deficiency is ongoing. The State Water Resources Control Board has not received Oakland Fire Departments revised Consolidated Permit Program plan as discussed on 3-1-2013. The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to provide, on the next progress report, a copy of its revised Consolidated Permit Program plan or summarize how its development is ongoing. Third Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- July 31, 2013 The Certified Unified Program Agency referenced the hardcopy document folder. The Certified Unified Program Agency may want to consider changing its underground storage tank permit cycle from three years to one year to maintain consistency with the one-year permit cycles of the other programs. The underground storage tank law, in particular, requires that an underground storage tank facility be in compliance with the law before an underground storage tank permit is issued. A one-year underground storage tank permit cycle may be more effective in compelling compliance with the law as underground storage tank facilities would need to correct any ongoing violations before a new permit could be issued. The State Water Resources Control Board did not receive the Consolidated Permit Program Plan as a part of the progress report packet sent to the State Water Resources Control Board from the Certified Unified Program Agency. However, the California Environmental Protection Agency provided a copy of the plan they received. With the review, the State Water Resources Control Board has some comments. Starting on page 1, Oakland Fire Department indicates that it issues permits for five permitting activities. However, page 6 indicates permits are issued for two programs (underground storage tank and tiered permitting). Page 6 also states all program element activities at a facility will have a common expiration date. In addition, page 6 also states, “Based upon the permit activity a permit issued under the consolidated permit system will be effective for a period of one (1) year.” Immediately after this sentence, the Certified Unified Program Agency states underground storage tank permits are issued for 3 years and Tiered permits are issued for 1 year. No other permits are indicated as being issued, although page 1 indicates five permitting activities.

71

In the Other Permit Procedures Section (see page 6), the Certified Unified Program Agency talks about annual permit renewals being conducted by administrative and on-site inspections. Lastly, on page 4, item 4 of the Permit Review System, The Certified Unified Program Agency states, “Underground Storage Tank facilities are require that the facility is in compliance with all the requirements as defined in the Health and Safety Code and the three year underground storage tank operating permit prior to the issuance of the annual permit”. The Certified Unified Program Agency provided an example of its consolidated permit. However, this permit is different from the underground storage tank permit although the consolidated permit has a box for the underground storage tank program. Please explain. On page 2, item 3 regarding corrections to permit application package. There is conflict with the statement due to facilities now operating with missing or incomplete submittals. The State Water Resources Control Board assumes that on page 3, the first paragraph is in regards to the initial permit for a facility. This makes sense, unfortunately, according to the California Environmental Protection Agency, the proposed language in Title 27, talks about providing directions for the submittal of permitting information to local agencies through the California Environmental Reporting System. I would hate to have Oakland Fire Department make changes and then immediately have to make changes again. Maybe the California Environmental Protection Agency can shed some light on this. With this said, the Certified Unified Program Agency may also want to revise items 1-3 on the top of the page 2 to include electronic submittals of permitting activities and any other reference to application package. Let’s wait and see what the new Title 27 regulations require. Lastly, item 4 in the Permit Review System section; mirrors the Certified Unified Program Agency’s permit cycles, however, the Certified Unified Program Agency also states in the Permit Cycle section, “Based upon the permit activity a permit issued under the consolidated permit system will be effective for a period of one (1) year.” In addition, in the Other Permit Procedures (page 6), the Certified Unified Program Agency talks about annual permit renewals. The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to take the following actions to correct this deficiency: 1. Health and Safety Code section 25284(e) does not exist and needs to be changed.

2. The Certified Unified Program Agency needs to revise language regarding permits being issued.

3. Is the Certified Unified Program Agency issuing two underground storage tank permits?

72

4. Why is the Certified Unified Program Agency issuing different permits? (Consolidated permit has box for underground storage tank but a separate permit was submitted for deficiency 20).

5. This plan will have a moving target due to the California Environmental Reporting System and the upcoming changes to Title 27. Because of the California Environmental Reporting System and the requirement to submit information electronically, the Certified Unified Program Agency needs (or will need) to identify a process for electronic submittals. Not just for the underground storage tank program, but for all programs. We recommend keeping this deficiency active in order to get a better understanding on how the new regulations are going to affect the permitting process. NOTE: These new regulations are going to affect all local agencies and their permitting processes. Fourth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- February 21, 2014 The Certified Unified Program Agency requested guidance and clarification on the requested actions. The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit its Consolidated Permit Program Plan as it had in previous updates for review. The State Water Resources Control Board finds this non-response unacceptable. While reviewing the submitted inspection and enforcement plan, the State Water Resources Control Board noticed the following that needs some clarification. Item 5 of the Permit Review System states, “The Certified Unified Program Agency manager, who will authorize the issuance of the permit, will review the completed package and transmittal. (Expected time for completion—3 Days).” While reviewing the submitted Consolidated Operating Permits, the State Water Resources Control Board noticed that the Certified Unified Program Agency manager’s signature was not on the permit. However, an inspector’s signature block (Avila, Cesar Haz-Mat Inspector) was on the permit. According to the Certified Unified Program Agency’s inspection and enforcement plan, the Certified Unified Program Agency manager should be signing and approving the issuance of permits. Please advise. The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency its Consolidated Permit Plan as agreed upon in the corrective actions and per the Program Improvement Agreement.

Fifth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- May 28, 2014 In the 4th update, the State Water Resources Control Board found that the Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide a revised Consolidated Permit Program Plan and again, the Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide information that was agreed upon in the Program Improvement Agreement corrective actions. In the 4th update, the State Water Resources Control Board staff found that an inspection and enforcement plan was submitted and had questions and/or concerns

73

regarding the document. The submitted inspection and enforcement plan with the revision date of June 16, 2014, has addressed those questions and or concerns. The State Water Resources Control Board would like to note that during its review of the submitted file review and inspection checklist, many of the inspections included a statement from inspection staff that permit issuance had been delayed. The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to take the following action to correct this deficiency: 1. The CUPA shall submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency its Consolidated Permit Plan as agreed upon in the corrective actions and per the Program Improvement Agreement. CalEPA Note: The CUPA extracted multiple sections of its Inspection and Enforcement Plan after submitting Update 5 and created a Consolidated Permit Plan which was reviewed by the State Water Resources Control Board. The State Water Resources Control Board has reviewed the consolidated permit plan and found it acceptable. All corrective actions have been completed.


operating permit does not contain all of the required elements. File review indicates that the underground storage tank operating permit is missing the monitoring requirements for the underground storage tank system. The Certified Unified Program Agency’s previously issued underground storage tank operating permits that contained all of the required elements and expired five years after its issuance in accordance with title 23 regulations. Recently, the Certified Unified Program Agency has started to issue a consolidated operating permit and this is when the problem occurred.

Corrective Action(s): By November 13, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency will revise, and submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency, its underground storage tank operating permit that incorporates the monitoring requirements. By December 13, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency will begin using the revised permit. Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency is considered deficient because the underground storage tank operating permit is missing the monitoring requirements for the underground storage tank system. Status: This deficiency has been corrected.

74


Information Submittal: Due Date- November 13, 2012 The Certified Unified Program Agency indicated that they submitted the requested information on 11/14/12 and was waiting for a response from the State. The Certified Unified Program Agency’s Unified Program Consolidated Permit is acceptable. The submitted permit captures all of the underground storage tank requirements. Is the Certified Unified Program Agency going to issue the permit once a year or is it valid for five years? Just asking since the date issuance is 2001 and expiration date is 2006 (submitted permit). The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to respond to the Waterboard’s questions. First Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- December 13, 2012 The Certified Unified Program Agency indicated that they revised the format for the underground storage tank permit that is consolidated with the Unified Program permit and has been created within their One-Step data management system. The use of the three year underground storage tank permit will start effective January 1, 2013. Each underground storage tank operator will receive a temporary operating permit until the site is inspected for compliance. Once the site is determined to be incompliance each site will receive its three year operating permit. This deficiency remains outstanding. The issuance of a temporary operating permit is not appropriate. There are no provisions in statute or regulations which allows for the issuance of temporary operating permits. Permits may only be issued to facilities that are in compliance (Health & Safety Code, Chapter 6.7, Section 25285(b). The State Water Resources Control Board has again reviewed the pre-update submittals and the current first quarter progress report submittals. In its review, the State Water Resources Control Board noted that in the email labeled as Pre-Update Material submitted 11-15-2012, Oakland Fire Department submitted a consolidated underground storage tank operating permit. The State Water Resources Control Board confirmed in an email dated 12-4-2012, that the submitted permit captures all of the required underground storage tank elements. In the email labeled Oakland 1st quarter report, Oakland Fire Department submitted one permit identified as USTFORM oakland 2012 13lg. The content of this permit incorporates the monitoring requirements as required by regulations. However, this submitted permit showed format changes, therefore, the State Water Resources Control Board is unsure if this permit has been finalized. In addition, this permit is different from the permit submitted in 11-15-2012 and approved 12-4-2012.

75

In the email labeled Oakland CUPA file Second Set of deliverables, Oakland Fire Department submitted three permits identified as: Oakland Fire Department consolidated permit 2013 (lg); USTFORM oakland 2012 13lg; and USTFORM oakland(LG). The Oakland Fire Department consolidated permit 2013 (lg) has a check mark identifying the underground storage tank program and looks to capture the requirements of Title 27. However, the permit has track changes and the State Water Resources Control Board in unsure if it has been finalized. The second permit labeled USTFORM oakland 2012 13lg is identical the submitted permit in the email labeled Oakland 1st quarter report. The third permit labeled USTFORM oakland (LG) looks to be finalized (no track changes) and incorporates all required information regarding Title 23. Again, this permit is different from the permit submitted 11-15-2012 and approved 12-4-2012. The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to immediately submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency a finalized underground storage tank consolidated permit. They were also requested to, on the next progress report, submit, to the California Environmental Protection Agency, the underground storage tank consolidated operating permits for facilities that have been inspected and determined to be in compliance with underground storage tank regulations since December 13, 2012. Second Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- March, 2013 The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit its underground storage tank operating permit that incorporates the monitoring requirements. Please submit a copy of the revise underground storage tank permit. The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to submit, to the California Environmental Protection Agency, a copy of its finalized (finalized-no tracking) Consolidated Permit to operate underground storage tanks. Third Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- July 31, 2013 The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a hard copy of its Consolidated Permit Program Plan and a hard copy of its underground storage tank permit. The State Water Resources Control Board considers this deficiency partially corrected. The submitted permit differs from the permit in the Consolidated Permit Program Plan. The underground storage tank permit captures all of the required underground storage tank elements. However, the permit may not contain all of the Title 27 elements. The permit shows what seems to be issue and expiration dates but does not directly have this in writing.

76

The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to identify the permit that will be issued (maybe two permits), either the submitted permit for underground storage tanks or the permit in its consolidated permit program plan. Fourth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- February 21, 2014 The Certified Unified Program Agency indicated that they were awaiting clarification on the requirement per title 27 on the consolidated permit per California Environmental Protection Agency. They also requested clarification from the State Water Resources Control Board on the underground storage tank operating permit. They indicated that this deficiency is partially corrected. Again, the Certified Unified Program Agency has changed its permits from what had been previously submitted to the California Environmental Protection Agency for review. The submitted permits do not capture the monitoring methods for the underground storage tank program. The State Water Resources Control Board has reviewed the deficiency 20 attachment that only shows the title page, table of contents for the inspection and enforcement plan, and three underground storage tank/Consolidated permits all of which are for the same facility. These submitted permits differ from what was submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board in update 3. The submitted permits in update 4 are missing the monitoring requirements as required in Title 23, section 2712(c). The submitted permits are missing the monitoring requirements. The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency the permits (consolidated permit and underground storage tank permit/addendum) that it plans on issuing to its regulated businesses. The Certified Unified Program Agency has not indicated if it is issuing one or two permits. One permit that is the consolidated permit and all requirements including the underground storage tank program or two separate permits one of which is the consolidated permit and an addendum that includes the underground storage tank monitoring requirements.

Fifth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- May 28, 2014 The State Water Resources Control Board has reviewed the submitted underground storage tank operating permit and finds it contains the title 23 requirements.

Deficiency 21: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not approving the monitoring

and response plans submitted by underground storage tank owner/operators.

Discussions with the Certified Unified Program Agency and file review indicates that the Certified Unified Program Agency is not signing the approval/disapproval section of the underground storage tank monitoring and response plan (form D) for all of its

77

underground storage tank facilities, indicating that the plans/forms have been reviewed for completeness and accuracy. Upon questioning the Certified Unified Program Agency, it was confirmed the Certified Unified Program Agency failed to approve or disapprove the underground storage tank monitoring and response plan.

Corrective Action(s): By March 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will develop and submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency a procedure to be included in the inspection and enforcement plan that describes the Certified Unified Program Agency approval process for underground storage tank owner/operator submitted monitoring and response plans. This procedure will represent the Certified Unified Program Agency’s process for approving these plans electronically. By April 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will implement the new underground storage tank owner/operator submitted monitoring and response plan procedure as described above. Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency is considered deficient by the State Water Resources Control Board because the Certified Unified Program Agency was not approving the monitoring and response plans submitted by underground storage tank owner/operators. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted their revised Inspection and Enforcement Plan along with progress report 5. The Inspection and Enforcement Plan contains a procedure that describes the Certified Unified Program Agency’s approval process for underground storage tank owner/operator submitted monitoring and response plans. The State Water Resources Control Board will review the procedure and use the California Environmental Reporting System submittals over the next 60 days to determine whether the new procedure is being followed. Status: This deficiency has not been corrected. Remaining Action Items:

The Certified Unified Program Agency must review underground storage tank submittals in the California Environmental Reporting System for accuracy and completeness. The Certified Unified Program Agency must update the status of the submittals as necessary.

As discussed with the Certified Unified Program Agency on November 6, 2014, the submittals accepted in the California Environmental Reporting System by Patten Patten shall be reviewed by an ICC Certified Inspector and the Certified Unified Program Agency will update the status as necessary.


Information Submittal: Due Date- November 13, 2012

78

The Certified Unified Program Agency indicated that correction of this deficiency was in progress, projected completion date December 13, 2012. First Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- December 13, 2012 The Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide an update for this deficiency. In the future, please provide a narrative update on the progress toward correcting this deficiency. Second Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- March, 2013 The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit a procedure to be included in the inspection and enforcement plan that describes the Certified Unified Program Agency approval process for underground storage tank owner/operator submitted monitoring and response plans. The Certified Unified Program Agency was advised that the revised inspection and enforcement plan must describe the Certified Unified Program Agency’s approval process for underground storage tank owner/operator submitted monitoring and response plans. This procedure will represent the Certified Unified Program Agency’s process for approving these plans electronically. They were also requested to, on the next progress report, provide to the California Environmental Protection Agency its revised inspection and enforcement plan or summarize how its development is ongoing. Third Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- July 31, 2013 The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a hardcopy if its inspection and enforcement plan. The State Water Resources Control Board has reviewed the submitted inspection and enforcement plan and finds it is lacking the Certified Unified Program Agency’s procedure for approving the owner/operator submitted monitoring and response plans electronically. Page 41 covers pre-inspections; however the State Water Resources Control Board could not find anything regarding approval procedures in the entire inspection and enforcement plan. The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to revise its inspection and enforcement plan to include the agreed upon corrective actions. Fourth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- February 21, 2014 The Certified Unified Program Agency indicated that they were continuing to make revisions to the inspection and enforcement plan and will submit prior to February 21st due date.

79

The State Water Resources Control Board has reviewed the submitted inspection and enforcement plan and finds the Plan does not include procedures for the approval of submitted monitoring and response plans. Page 21 “Permitting Review System” the following is stated, “The assigned Certified Unified Program Agency staff will review the application for completeness and contact the facility operator to schedule an inspection for new submittals. Annual re-certifications will be reviewed by the inspector and the review date will be entered into the California Environmental Reporting System database.” Reviewing a submittal is not the same as accepting a submittal. The inspection and enforcement plan does not indicate the California Environmental Reporting System submittals are being accepted. The Plan only indicates that submittals are being reviewed. The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to revise its inspection and enforcement plan to include the agreed upon corrective actions.

Fifth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- May 28, 2014 The State Water Resources Control Board has reviewed the submitted inspection and enforcement plan and finds that it captures the requirements in the agreed upon corrective actions. Thank you. However, the Program Improvement Agreement corrective actions also state the Certified Unified Program Agency will implement the new underground storage tank owner/operator submitted monitoring and response plan procedures. Since State Water Resources Control Board has just received and reviewed the inspection and enforcement plan, it has yet to review the California Environmental Reporting System submittals to determine if Certified Unified Program Agency staff are accepting accurate and complete underground storage tank submittals. State Water Resources Control Board will re-evaluate the California Environmental Reporting System submittals during the next Certified Unified Program Agency update. Sixth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- October 28, 2014

The State Water Resources Control Board has reviewed 10 underground storage tank facilities in the California Environmental Reporting System and found that inspectors are accepting incomplete and or inaccurate underground storage tank submittals. A list of those facilities and the inaccurate or incomplete information will be provided to the Certified Unified Program Agency separately as it’s too lengthy to insert here. Based on the poor quality of information reviewed and accepted by Certified Unified Program

Agency staff for multiple underground storage tank elements in the California

Environmental Reporting System, simply correcting the California Environmental

Reporting System records reviewed by the State Water Resources Control Board does not correct this deficiency. In addition, the State Water Resources Control Board discovered during its review of the California Environmental Reporting System that multiple facility underground storage tank submittals have “not submitted” and “not

80

accepted” statuses while a few have a “submitted” status since April 2014. On many occasions, the State Water Resources Control Board sent out Certified Unified Program

Agency guidance prohibiting non-International Code Council certified staff from accepting/approving underground storage tank submittals and the proper methods for placing submittals under review in the California Environmental Reporting System. Despite this, the State Water Resources Control Board discovered that non-International Code Council certified staff has approved underground storage tank underground storage tank submittals in the California Environmental Reporting System.

Deficiency 22: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not collecting, retaining, and

managing information necessary to implement the Unified Program. Corrective Action(s): Immediately, the Certified Unified Program Agency will correctly document formal and informal enforcement actions as defined in Title 27, Section 15110 (d). By December 13, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency will develop and implement a procedure to ensure that it regularly collects, retains, and manages information necessary to implement the Unified Program including, but not limited to, violation classifications, inspection reports, enforcement actions and significant operational compliance information. Also, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency the following:

Electronic inspection report templates for each program element showing the “drop down” menus for violation classifications (minor, Class 2, Class 1) and formal enforcement actions.

An electronic underground storage tank inspection report template that shows significant operational compliance criteria.

By March 13, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency the following:

A completed electronic inspection report for each program element showing violation classifications. Include inspection reports that resulted in formal enforcement, if any.

A completed electronic underground storage tank inspection report that cites significant operational compliance violations.

Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency was considered deficient by the California Environmental Protection Agency and the State Water Resources Control Board for not collecting, retaining, and managing information necessary to implement the Unified Program. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted ONE STEP data system screenshots and hard copy “paper” inspection reports that were not acceptable to correct this deficiency. During a meeting that occurred before the 5th progress report was submitted, the Certified Unified Program Agency manager stated

81

that the Certified Unified Program Agency could not produce electronic inspection reports as agreed to in the Program Improvement Agreement and would continue to use paper-based inspection reports. The California Environmental Protection Agency accepted the response and the previously submitted hardcopy inspection reports. The Certified Unified Program Agency is now using the California Environmental Reporting System to manage inspection, violation, and enforcement information including violation classifications, enforcement actions, and significant operational compliance violations. Status: This deficiency has been corrected. Background Excerpts from Progress Reports

Information Submittal: Due Date- November 13, 2012 On November 15, 2012, the California Environmental Protection Agency received a narrative stating that “forms” (the California Environmental Protection Agency assumes that the forms were inspection reports.) were provided to One Step as part of the data transition. The testing was to start November 19, 2012. The California Environmental Protection Agency is unclear what was tested? First Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- December 13, 2012 On January 30, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted MS Word format templates of hard copy inspection reports for hazardous waste generator (small quantity generator, large quantity generator), tiered permitting, underground storage tank, California accidental release prevention (Program 2 only), and hazardous materials business plan programs. Some of these were in "track change" mode and contained underlines and strikethroughs. The electronic version of these inspection reports (made for tablet PCs) were not submitted. Also, an electronic version of an APSA inspection report was not submitted. In the California Environmental Protection Agency’s response, the Certified Unified Program Agency was asked if they would be using electronic inspection reports. The Certified Unified Program Agency has maintained, in meetings and phone calls, that they would be transitioning to electronic inspection reports. During the February 19, 2013 conference call with the Certified Unified Program Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency explained to the Certified Unified Program Agency that they must submit screenshots of electronic versions of the inspection reports (made for tablet PCs) for each program element. Certified Unified Program Agency agreed to comply. On February 20, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted One Step data management system screenshots showing the system's ability to collect violation classifications. The California Environmental Protection Agency found that the screenshots showed that One Step is able to manage violation information for all of the program elements. However, the Certified Unified Program Agency did not address the Program Improvement Agreement corrective action that was to submit

82

electronic inspection report templates for each program element showing the “drop down” menus for violation classifications (minor, Class 2, Class 1) and formal enforcement actions. Also, the Certified Unified Program Agency did not address the Program Improvement Agreement corrective action that was to submit an electronic underground storage tank inspection report template that showed significant operational compliance criteria. On March 29, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted responses to the state’s update 1 responses. In the response, the Certified Unified Program Agency stated that a significant operational compliance screenshot and California accidental release prevention program 1 and 3 inspection reports were attached to the response email. They were not. The hazardous waste small quantity generator inspection report was attached. This response did not address the Program Improvement Agreement corrective actions. Second Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- March 14, 2013 The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit an update for this deficiency along with their May 1, 2013 update 2 submission. In the California Environmental Protection Agency’s response the Certified Unified Program Agency was asked if they would be using electronic inspection reports. The Certified Unified Program Agency has maintained, in meetings and phone calls, that they would be transitioning to electronic inspection reports. Third Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- July 31, 2013 On October 29, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted hardcopy One Step screenshots showing violations, the state surcharge management, hazardous materials information, and underground storage tank information. The Certified Unified Program Agency also submitted a PDF hardcopy version of a Notice/Summary of Violations. None the submissions addressed the Program Improvement Agreement corrective actions. In a conference call with the Certified Unified Program Agency on November 21, 2013 and in a separate phone call, the California Environmental Protection Agency explained to the Certified Unified Program Agency that they must submit screenshots of electronic versions of the inspection reports (made for tablet PCs) for each program element. The Certified Unified Program Agency asked why inspection, violation, and enforcement submissions into the California Environmental Reporting System or One Step were not acceptable as electronic inspection reports for all of the program elements. The California Environmental Protection Agency responded by saying that One Step and the California Environmental Reporting System violation library list many possible violations that the Certified Unified Program Agency can use to report required inspection, violation, and enforcement information as a part of the Certified Unified Program Agency’s reporting requirements. The violation lists do not list the specific program criteria the Certified

83

Unified Program Agency will use for inspections. The Oakland City Council and the Certified Unified Program Agency agreed to the requirements of the Program Improvement Agreement which included the development and use of electronic inspection reports templates for each program element. The Certified Unified Program Agency has not addressed the corrective action requirements of this deficiency. Fourth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- February 21, 2014 On February 28, 2014, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted screenshots of One Step violation lists for all of the program elements. As stated previously, this submission did not address the Program Improvement Agreement corrective actions. The Certified Unified Program Agency also submitted the California Environmental Reporting System inspection information screenshots and hardcopies of completed inspection reports for five businesses. All of the program element inspection reports were included. The California Environmental Reporting System screenshots and the completed inspection reports did not address the Program Improvement Agreement corrective actions.

Fifth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- May 28, 2014 During a meeting with the Certified Unified Program Agency, Mr. Leroy Griffin said that the Certified Unified Program Agency would continue to use paper-based inspection reports and could not use electronic inspection reports at the present time. California Environmental Protection Agency accepted the response. The Certified Unified Program Agency has submitted inspection, violation, and enforcement information into California Environmental Reporting System that includes violation classifications, enforcement actions, and significant operational compliance violations.

Deficiency 23: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not implementing some of

the elements in its inspection and enforcement plan. The Certified Unified Program Agency is not:

classifying violations in the notices to comply provided to the facility at the conclusion of the inspections.

submitting large quantity generator data on a quarterly basis to the Department of Toxic Substances Control.

responding to complaints referred by the Department of Toxic Substances Control.

Comments from the Evaluation Team concerning the contents of the inspection and enforcement plan were sent to the Certified Unified Program Agency via email.

84

Corrective Action(s): By March 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will update and submit its revised inspection and enforcement plan to the California Environmental Protection Agency for review, considering the comments sent by the California Environmental Protection Agency to the Certified Unified Program Agency. The Certified Unified Program Agency will implement its updated inspection and enforcement plan. By April 15, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit the following data and documents to the California Environmental Protection Agency that demonstrates that the Certified Unified Program Agency is adequately implementing their inspection and enforcement plan: five “Notice to Comply” documents, with violations classified, from inspections conducted on or after October 1, 2012; a certification statement that the Certified Unified Program Agency has entered the large quantity generator into the California Environmental Reporting System at least quarterly, including the dates the data was entered into the California Environmental Reporting System; and, the status of complaints referred by the Department of Toxic Substances Control since September 13, 2012. Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency is considered deficient by the Department of Toxic Substances Control because the Certified Unified Program Agency is not implementing some of the elements in its Inspection and Enforcement Plan. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted several Inspection and Enforcement Plan versions along with previous progress reports. The California Environmental Protection Agency noted that there continues to be duplicative information in the current plan. The consolidated permit program plan was recently removed from the Inspection and Enforcement plan after progress report 5 was reviewed. The Certified Unified Program Agency has not submitted a status of complaints referred by the Department of Toxic Substances Control since September 13, 2012. Status: This deficiency has not been corrected. Remaining Action Items:

The Certified Unified Program Agency must revise their Inspection and Enforcement Plan and eliminate any duplicative inspection procedures.

The Certified Unified Program Agency must submit a status of complaints referred by the Department of Toxic Substances Control since September 13, 2012.



The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its 1st progress report on January 2, 2013. PDF letter that came with the 1st progress report documents did not give the

85

state reviewer any narrative descriptions of what the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted or any written direction on how to interpret the information. The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit its revised inspection and enforcement plan.

Second Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- March, 2013


The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its 2nd progress report documentation on May 1, 2013. The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit its revised inspection and enforcement plan.

In a face-to-face progress report meeting on October 16, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency said that they were updating the inspection and enforcement plan and would submit it to the California Environmental Protection Agency.


The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its 3rd progress report on October 29, 2013. The response included a revised inspection and enforcement plan in Adobe Acrobat format. The Department of Toxic Substances Control contacted LeRoy Griffin to get a copy of the inspection and enforcement plan in MS Word and was informed that they were updating their inspection and enforcement plan and to ignore the previous submission.


California Environmental Protection Agency

The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its inspection and enforcement plan, but the document may be a draft because there are errors and inconsistencies. Parts of the inspection and enforcement plan guidance document on the California Environmental Protection Agency website were cut and pasted to create the Certified Unified Program Agency’s inspection and enforcement plan.

“Unified Program Consolidated Forms” and other forms such as the Business Activities form are referred to in the inspection and enforcement plan when the Certified Unified Program Agency and regulated businesses should be reporting information electronically.

Duplication – There are inspection procedures in a couple of places in the inspection and enforcement plan (pages. 4-6 and pages 40-46). Some of the inspection procedures are very similar and should be consolidated.

86

Permit Procedures are in two different places in the inspection and enforcement plan and the information in both is also different. The permit cycle for the underground storage tank program appears to be annual, three years, or five years. The consolidated permit should only have one permit cycle, one issuance date, and one expiration date. The permit procedures do not belong in the inspection and enforcement plan. It is highly unlikely that the State Water Resources Control Board will accept the permit procedures in this inspection and enforcement plan as valid because there are two of them and the information between the two are inconsistent.

A Notice to Comply is issued for minor violations of all program elements, not just minor hazardous waste violations.

Department of Toxic Substances Control

The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its 4th progress report to the Department of Toxic Substances Control on February 28, 2014. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its inspection and enforcement plan dated February 19, 2014 in the package. The Certified Unified Program Agency had not done the following as per their inspection and enforcement plan:

The Certified Unified Program Agency did not respond to the “By April 15, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit the following data and documents to the California Environmental Protection Agency that demonstrates that the Certified Unified Program Agency is adequately implementing their inspection and enforcement plan: five “Notice to Comply” documents, with violations classified, from inspections conducted on or after October 1, 2012; a certification statement that the Certified Unified Program Agency has entered the large quantity generator into the California Environmental Reporting System at least quarterly, including the dates the data was entered into the California Environmental Reporting System; and, the status of complaints referred by the Department of Toxic Substances Control since September 13, 2012.”

A review of the California Environmental Reporting System showed a total of four data entries for the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generators compliance inspections from 5/2011 to 9/2013 (only one Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator inspected since 9/2012). One out of these four generator inspections was EBMUD and it was not a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator; two inspection entries were for Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc. for 5/2011 and 7/2012. Thus, the Certified Unified Program Agency had not entered the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator information into the California Environmental Reporting System at least quarterly.


87

The inspection and enforcement plan addresses most of the problems California Environmental Protection Agency observed. There continues to be some duplicative inspection procedures that should be consolidated.


The Certified Unified Program Agency did not discuss deficiency #23 with the Department of Toxic Substances Control during meetings. This statement was for the deficiency #7 - “Conversations with Asha and Maria took place surrounding the hazardous materials tracking spreadsheet, they have reviewed accepted the revisions made to the spreadsheet.” The following statement made by the Certified Unified Program Agency is unclear to the Department of Toxic Substances Control - “They also reviewed the information within the California Environmental Reporting System. We are waiting to hear back that the California Environmental Reporting System will serve the purpose instead of staff conducting double entry on the spreadsheet, however the spreadsheet template is attached. The inspection and enforcement plan is dated June 16, 2014 Version 1.3” The Department of Toxic Substances Control checked the California Environmental Reporting System and there is no new Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator information in the California Environmental Reporting System. Therefore, the Certified Unified Program Agency has not entered the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator information into the California Environmental Reporting System at least quarterly.



The Certified Unified Program Agency is reporting Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator information into the California Environmental Reporting System. A California Environmental Reporting System screenshot was submitted documenting the submissions. The Certified Unified Program Agency has not submitted a revised Inspection and Enforcement plan or a status of complaints referred by the Department of Toxic Substances Control since September 13, 2012. Department of Toxic Substances Control

The Department of Toxic Substances Control received an email from the Certified Unified Program Agency on October 15, 2014 that the City of Oakland did not conduct any large quantity generator inspections in the third quarter of 2014 (this email was attached with progress report 5). In addition, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a letter dated October 16, 2014, which the Department of Toxic Substances Control has no record of receiving this letter as all incoming mail is logged in. Along with progress report 6, the Certified Unified Program

88

Agency submitted a screen shot from the California Environmental Reporting System showing that two (2) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act large quantity generator inspections were conducted on October 20 and 21, 2014. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act large quantity generator reporting portion of this deficiency has been corrected as two (2) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act large quantity generator inspections were conducted last week and the California Environmental Reporting System has been updated.

Deficiency 24: The Certified Unified Program Agency’s fiscal year 2009/2010 and

2010/2011 self-audit reports do not adequately assess the performance of the Certified Unified Program Agency. Corrective Action(s): By November 13, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit its fiscal year 2011/2012 self-audit report to the California Environmental Protection Agency that adequately assesses the performance of the Certified Unified Program Agency. Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency was considered deficient by the California Environmental Protection Agency because reviewed title 27 self-audit reports did not adequately assess the performance of the Certified Unified Program Agency. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted their title 27 self-audit with revisions required by the state agencies. Status: This deficiency has been corrected. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted their annual title 27 self-audit report that incorporated the corrections required by the state agencies. The submitted title 27 self-audit report was acceptable. The self-audit report did not include all of the California Accidental Release Prevention annual performance audit elements. Therefore, deficiency #11 has not been corrected with the submission of the title 27 self-audit report. Background Excerpts from Progress Reports

Information Submittal: Due Date- November 13, 2012 On November 15, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted their fiscal year 2011/2012 self-audit. The California Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the OSFM reviewed the self-audit and found that some revisions were needed. The California Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the OSFM noted the required changes in the Certified Unified Program Agency’s self-audit document. Some suggested changes were also includes to improve the utility of the self-audit. The California Environmental Protection Agency emailed the self-audit with the state’s notes back to the Certified Unified Program Agency for revision. First Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- December 13, 2012

89

On March 1, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted their revised their fiscal year 2011/2012 self-audit. The self-audit revision was sufficient to correct this deficiency. This only applies to the title 27 elements of the self-audit, not the California accidental release prevention performance audit the Certified Unified Program Agency has incorporated into their title 27 self-audit.

1

Deficiency Overview



The state evaluation team has endeavored to assist the City of Oakland Fire Department Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) in correcting deficiencies identified during the September 2012 Evaluation that resulted in the November 2012 Program Improvement Agreement (PIA). This Program Improvement Agreement was the direct result of the CUPA’s continued failure to address the deficiencies found during the December 2008 Evaluation, which resulted in a finding of unsatisfactory program implementation and a PIA in 2010 for failure to correct the deficiencies. The state evaluation team was led by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and included representatives from the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM), and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Each state agency has participated in several group and individual meetings with the CUPA to assist in correcting the identified deficiencies over the past 25 months. Unfortunately, these efforts have not led to satisfactory completion of corrective actions, and implementation of the Unified Program in the City of Oakland has not significantly improved. The PIA set quarterly corrective action updates beginning December 13, 2012. The CUPA has been consistently late in submitting the corrective action updates and often submitted incomplete updates that required an iterative correction process. Additionally, the CUPA failed to submit two of the seven required updates over the past 25 months.

The state evaluation team has provided a detailed summary (enclosure 2) of the City of Oakland CUPA’s actions to attempt to correct deficiencies identified during the September 2012 evaluation.

The following information identifies the major deficiencies in the City of Oakland CUPA’s implementation of the Unified Program in Oakland and the primary reasons why CalEPA is withdrawing the City of Oakland’s certification as a CUPA. 1. Incomplete or Inadequate Facility Inspections.

The CUPA has not conducted routine inspections of businesses in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan, Hazardous Waste Generator and Tiered Permitting, California Accidental Release Prevention, and Underground Storage Tank programs according to statutory and regulatory standards. Moreover, the CUPA has failed to demonstrate that its current program for routine inspections will ensure that these standards are met in the future.

Enclosure 1