Tobacco Documents Online

( Contents INTRODUCTION .................................. 1 AGENCIES ...................................... 2 MUNICIPALITIFS ................................... 13 AUTHORITY ..................................... 15 PREDICTIONS .................................... 19 Appendix A: The Comparative Risk Project Workplan ............ A-1 Appendix B: The Politics of Local Tobacco Control ............. B-1

INTRODUCTION This document will put into perspective the various California agencies and their staffs that deal with indoor air pollution in general, and Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) in particular. It can only be considered a "snapshot" in time of the dynamic environment of indoor air regulatory activity and future events may make parts of this document obsolete. It is as accurate as possible regarding the state of affairs in California's regulatory community, as of May 1992. The basis for this report is original research into statutory and regulatory authorities, as well as discussions with the principal Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) members of the three California state regulatory agencies: Cal-EPA with its Office of Environmental Health ' Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), California Department of Health Services (DHS), and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Other agencies, such as Cal-OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) were contacted for information, but their programs appear to have little impact in the IAQ arena. Local regulatory agencies, such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (AQMD) for the San Francisco Bay Area and the South Coast AQMD for the Los Angeles Area were also examined, but their focus is strictly on outdoor "ambient" air, for the present time. Besides the state and regional agencies, there are municipalities, such as San Francisco and San Luis Obispo, that have either enacted, are in the process of enacting, or have examined and decided not to enact, smoking restrictions. Though a complete list and discussion of such municipalities and their restrictions is beyond the scope of this report, a few selected samples are presented. This report is organized with this Introduction, followed by a discussion of the three principal IAQ agencies and their personnel in the Agencies section. Local activities and their geographic and socioeconomic matrices are discussed in the Municipalities section. Next, the statutory and regulatory authorities, with specific references and citations are presented in the Authority section followed by the admittedly speculative Predictions section. Two appendices conclude this report; a copy of California's Comparitive Risk Workplan and a reprint of an article describing the "politics of local tobacco control". 92067-1 1

AGENCIFS ~ California Air Resources Board (CARBP f ~ fc, eo_1Fp~ > California Department of Health Services (DHS) - > California Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) The relationship between these three agencies is complex, changing and dependent upon the personalities and backgrounds of the individuals involved. It sometimes bears little resemblance to the statutory authority outlined in the Authority section of this report. These relationships are very importait as they directly affect not only the speed and depth of research on IAQ, but also the regulatory scope and content. There are four principal California State agencies that have responsibility for IAQ, but one, Cal-OSHA (California Occupational Safety and Health Administration) is moribund due to severe budget cuts and manpower shortages (it was eliminated under the previous Administration and only resurrected recently). Discussions with Cal-OSHA lead us to believe that there are no present or paanned activities in indoor air in this agency, other than the traditional "Toxic Chemicals" that are mandated by the Federal OSHA. The other three California State Agencies have active, competitive and cooperative research and regulatory programs in indoor air. They are: The two principal agencies in the 1980's that dealt with IAQ were the DHS and CARB. They had a fairly well defined relationship regarding their interpretation of their respective legislative and regulatory authority. Indoor Air was considered part of the overall "air toxics" problem, where air toxics are everything except those pollutants for which a National Ambient Air Quality Standard has been set. In 1991, Governor Wilson created the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) and subordinated CARB to it, while transferring the Hazard Assessment Branch of DHS to become OEHHA of Cal/EPA. But there still remains DHS (outside Cal/EPA's control) with the discussion of which agency (OEHHA or DHS) will perform the risk assessments discussed below. The remainder of the discussion in this History section has been adapted from various materials supplied by the respective agencies. ~ 92067-1 O 2 N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

( Proposition 65 and Air Toxics : A policy flexible enough to deal with the diverse nature of the problems posed by toxic air contaminants has evolved over a number of years. In 1977, the Air Resources Board (ARB) appointed an independent panel of seven experts to review what was known about carcinogenic air pollutants in California. Based on the panel's recommendations, follow- up research was done to explore further the relationship of cancer and air pollution and to determine the extent of the problem in California. In 1982 the Board conducted a number of public meetings to discuss the science related to testing carcinogenic compounds and possible regulatory approaches to identifying and controlling air toxics. The effort to develop a program to deal with ambient toxics culminated in 1983 when the Legislature adopted and the Governor signed California's air toxics law (AB 1807). This legislation became effective in January 1984 and defines California's air toxics program (Health and Safety Code Sections 39650 et seq., Food and Agriculture Code Sections 14021 et seq. In 1986 California passed, by popular initiative, Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water Act (which also included, despite it's name, air exposures). Proposition 65 requires consumers be warned, if they are "exposed" to "chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer" or "chemicals known to the State of California to cause reproductive toxicity". The exact wording as quoted is required to be made known to any persons "exposed" to such chemicals. The key word is "exposed". Since most carcinogens in the atmosphere are present in very low levels, the "exposure" quotient has been interpreted (by DHS) to mean exposure to any risk greater than 1 in 100,000. The only regulatory requirement is notification. There are no control requirements for this act. Proposition 65 has its own Scientific Review Panel (SRP) that determines what substances are on their list. Tobacco smoke (not distinguishing ETS from mainstream smoke) is on the Prop. 65 list, and all restaurants, etc. in California that permit smoking have (or are supposed to have) the warning shown above. Summary of California's Law With the enactment of AB 1807, the 'Legislature created a statutory mandate for the identification and control of air toxic: in California as a separate and complementary program for the control of traditional air pollutants. The legislative intent of the law states that California's program to control toxic air contaminants should: • identify toxic air contamimmts • determine priorities for control • achieve early control • promote advanced control technologies and alternative processes 92067-1 3 N © N N CJ ~ 09 m ~

c • assist local air pollution control districts • provide a consistent level of protection throughout the state. In addition, the legislation declares a clear public policy that emissions of toxic air contaminants should be controlled to levels that prevent harm to public health. It also states that while undisputed scientific evidence may not be available to determine the exact nature and extent of risk from toxic air contaminants, it is necessary to take action to protect public health. The framework of the air toxics program is the two-step process which separates the risk assessment decisions needed for the identification of airborne toxics from the regulatory control decisions which are necessary for risk management. This separation allows the risk assessment decisions about the potential adverse health effects to be made without having to take into consideration simultaneously the regulatory decisions that must follow. The separation also allows the risk management decisions regarding the appropriate level of control to be made without becoming immersed in the science-policy decisions which are a part of the toxics identification process. As a basis for the identification proo:ss, toxic air contaminants are defined as those air pollutants which may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or serious illness or which may pose a present or future hazard to human health. Substances identified by EPA as hazardous air pollutants under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act must be included as toxics in the California program. To ensure that those substances of most concern are evaluated first, the toxics law requires that the following criteria be used for prioritizing compounds: • risk of harm to public health • amount or potential amount of emissions • manner of usage • persistence in the atmosphere • ambient concentrations ARB has developed a list of potentially toxic substances to enter the AB 1807 process using these mandated criteria. Another important component of this legislation is the clarification of roles and responsibilities of governmental enfi.ties for identifying and controlling airborne toxics. The key players in the identification phase are the Department of Health Services (DHS), the Air Resources Board (ARB), the Department of Food and Agriculture, and a nine- member independent scientific committee called the Scientific Review Panel (SRP). In the control measure phase the ARB, working closely with local air pollution control districts, is responsible for developing control measures for all identified toxic air 92067-1 4

{ contaminants except those used in pesticides. Pesticides are evaluated in a similar process by the Department of Food and Agriculture. Following the ARB adoption of measures to control a specific toxic cwmpound, the local districts must adopt equal or more stringent regulations for the stationary sources in their jurisdiction. Regulations to control airborne toxic emissions from mobile sources are the responsibility of the ARE. Ranking Compounds In January 1984 the ARB endorsed a prioritization scheme for ranking potentially toxic substances based on the criteria spelled out in the law. This approach placed compounds of concern in California in two categories-one for substances of significant concern and the second for substances of potential concern because of insufficient information. Farly in 1986 ARB staff recommended changes to the ranking system adding a third category. The first category now contains those substances designated by the Board as toxic air contaminants. The second group includes those compounds currently under review or waiting to be reviewed in the toxics identification process. Category three contains compounds of current interest in California which have insufficient data to proceed at this time. Identification Phase Once the ARB and DHS select a compound to enter the toxics identification phase, the ARB circulates a request for relevant information on the health effects of the compound from the public. Approximately two months later the ARB formally requests DHS to evaluate the available health effects information for the candidate compound and to prepare recommendations regarding effects. As a basis for its recommendations, DHS reviews all available scientific data associated with the health effects of the compoind and makes an assessment of the health risks posed by exposure to the substance. This evaluation includes a discussion of whether a threshold exposure level exists below which effects do not occur. Simultaneous with preparation of the DHS health evaluation, ARB prepares a comprehensive exposure assessment including information on the compound's usage, emissions or potential emissions, persistence in the environment, ambient concentrations and present or potential public exposure. These two segments-the exposure assessment and the health effects evaluation- become the risk assessment report which is the technical foundation for determining; if the compound should be listed as a toxic air contaminant in California. The ARB makes copies of the draft report available for public comment before it is submitted to the Scientific Review Panel. 92067-1 5

t The new step in the process is the submittal of the report including the public comments and staff responses to the SRP. The SRP reviews the scientific procedures and methods used, the health and exposure data, and the report's conclusions. The SRP can request that ARB or DHS staffs correct deficiencies in the report, so that when the report is presented to the ARB for formal identification, the Board can be confident that the information in the report is scientifically sound. At the conclusion of its review, the SRP prepares recommendations for consideration by the Board during its decision-making. The final decision regarding the listing of a candidate substance as a toxic air contaminant is made by the Air Resources Board after a public hearing. If the Board concurs with the findings that a compound is a toxic substance and does pose a health risk, the compound is listed by regulation as a toxic air contaminant in the California Administrative Code. If the scientific evidence indicates a threshold exposure level exists for the compound below which no significant adverse health effects are anticipated, this will also be specified by the ARB as a part of the regulation. The time period for this identification phase is approximately 14 months. Figure 1 graphically presents the formal steps in this phase- Control Measure Phase Once a compound has been listed as a toxic air contaminant, the control decision or risk management phase of the air toxics program begins. With the help of local air pollution control districts and in consultation with affected sources and the interested public, ARB prepares a report on the need and appropriate degree of regulation for an identified toxic air contaminant. Some of the same subjects included in the identification report- emissions, exposure, persistence-will be included in this regulatory needs report in expanded detail plus information on: • numbers and contribution of sources • controls for such sources • effectiveness of measures • substitute compounds • adverse impacts • magnitude of risk This regulatory needs report is the basis for the Air Resources Board decisions on the kinds of toxics control measures needed to reduce emissions of airborne toxics from stationary sources. This report also may serve as the basis for adoption of regulations to control toxic emissions from mobile sources such as setting emission standards for vehicular sources or standards for motor vehicle fuels. 92067-1 6

( Priorit'vation of compounds ARB dcvelops ARB seleces ARE requests r-* exposure data ARB publishes wsdidste DHS health dreftreport compound evelusiion L DHS deveAops + ~ I evaluaiton ARB requests health info from public FIGURE 1. How ARB identifies a toxic air contaminant (TAC). sss/shb2-001 SRP reviews repoIt SRP prepaes findings ARB decision to list as TAC ARB holds public hearing N O N N 7 ~~ W~s~J W N

l As a part of the regulatory decision-making, the law requires the Board to consider whether a threshold for significant effects has been identified for the compound. For substances which have a threshold, sources are required to operate in a manner that ensures the threshold is not exceeded. Where a threshold cannot be demonstrated, control measures are identified that reduce emissions to the lowest achievable level unless an alternative level of emission reduction is necessary to prevent an endangerment of public health. It is expected that the preparation of each regulatory needs report will take an average of twelve months. Depending on the complexity of the investigation on a particular substance, it may be possible to also develop a control measure during this time, if appropriate. Within six months of the ARB decision to adopt a control measure for stationary sources, local air pollution control districts are required to adopt regulations that are at least equally as effective. Local district new source review rules must also include requirements for the control of new or modified sources of toxic air contaminants. Figure 2 graphically presents the sequence of this phase. Table 1 itemizes the procedural steps in both the Identification and Control phase. ACTIONS TAKEN SO FAR The first action the Air Resources Board (ARB) took to establish the program was to create a ranking scheme for prioritizing possible toxic substances. Based on research studies and a review of compounds either listed or under consideration by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the ARB narrowed the field to approximately 50 compounds of concern using the criteria set out in the law: Risk of harm to public health Amount of emissions Manner of usage Persistence in the atmosphere Ambient concentrations in California Substance Selection and Review At its January 1984 meeting, the ARB approved the initial ranking of compounds and endorsed a schedule for starting compounds through the review process. Since then, review of a new substance has been initiated roughly every two months. The substances that are currently formally entered into the risk assessment phase of the air toxics program are: 92oc7•1 8 N C N N CD ~ 09 ~ GD W

c TABLE 1. Key steps in the identification and control of toxic air contaminants. Compounds Identification Phase • Selection of candidate substances. • Request for health effects information from public. • ARB request to DHS for health effects evaluation. • DHS prepares health effects assessment while ARB compiles exposure data. • Publication of the risk assessment report containing exposure and health effects information. • Public review of draft report. • SRP review of the report. Revisions if deficiencies are found. • SRP findings prepared and submitted to ARB. • ARB public hearing and decision on candidate toxic air contaminant. Control Measures Phase • Investigation of control strategies by ARB working with local air districts and the interested public. • ARB prepares draft report on the need and appropriate degree of control. • ARB holds public consultation meeting on draft report. • ARB public meeting or hearing on the regulatory needs report and decision on control strategies. G" • ARB adoption of control measures for stationary sources, if appropriate. • Local air districts propose stationary source regulations based on ARB adopted measures. • Local district public hearing and adoption of equally or more stringent regulations. • ARB development and adoption of mobile source regulations, if appropriate. 9 N O N N GD ~ ~ ~