Tobacco Documents Online

20229'76'706 a a a

( Toward the 21st Century Planning for the Protedion of California's Enviro nm ent Febnuary 1992 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ~ 555 Capttoi Mafl. Sutte 235 . Socrarnento. Callfomla 95814 O N N Cd ~ O ~

( PREFACE Towardd the 21st Century: Planning for the Protection of Calif ornia's Environment The Comparative Risk Workplan At the time he proposed creation of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) in 1991, Governor Wilson stated that one of the key principles of the new organ:ization would be to target our environmental investment toward those activities, processes and substances which pose the greatest risk to public health and the environment. Our comparative risk project will provide the blueprint for meeting that pledge. Environmental law has developed in fits and starts over the years; one observer says it reflects the "catastrophe theory of planning." In California, as elsewhere, new laws and regulations have followed in the wake of new public awareness. Air pollution episodes led to one response. Water pollution led to another. Waste creation and groundwater pollution, often affected by cleanup efforts for the air and surface water, led to yet additional responses. While scientists have long decried the piecemeal legal approach as inconsistent with the need for a "multi-media" approach, investment in the separate areas moves inexorably apace, all but oblivious to the possibilities presented by other, alternative environmental tasks. California's comparative risk project is intended to bring discipline to the debate on environmental investment. We need to bring good scientific minds together to help establish the "best science." The first step is to obtain scientific judgments on the relative value of investments in, say, hazardous waste cleanup vs. wetlands protection. But that is only the first step. We must then stimulate dialogues and seek addition;d input across California in order to apply the science in a way that reflects our values. For example, it is all well and good for a family living far from Superfund site to see toxics as a relatively small risk- but that may not be a view shared in a community scarred by longstanding industrial pollution. Personal values and experience can be every bit as relevant as the "science" - and the application of one's values and experience can be better achieved through decision-making based upon strong scien#.f'ic input In looking at the long term, one can readily see why a comparative risk &I review is important. As investment in environmental protection measures © continues to grow nationally -• heading toward 3% of the gross domestic product jV - people will properly demand a stricter accounting. The day will soon come ~ ~ Comparative Risk Proiect Workplan ~ O Go

when the stress of priority-setting leads to hard questions, not only about the relative risk presented by different aspects of environmental needs (for example, waste cleanup vs. indoor air pollution), but also about the relative risk of environmental problems vis-a-vis other challenges (for example, waste cleanup vs. pre-natal care). It is fitting and necessary that California, with our longstanding commitment to environmental improvement, assume leadership in this debate. As our comparative risk project moves ahead, we need to also move toward better accounting, in dollars and cents, of our environmental investment. The extraordinary truth is that there is no widel -accepted study of the costs of regulation in California. Such a study, which Ca1EPA is now getting underway, is clearly needed to put meat on the otherwise bare bones of a comparative risk project. The fact is that the far greater cost of environmental regulation is not in government budgets, as important and easy to understand as they are. At the national level, the budget of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is well under $10 billion per year but the costs imposed on those complying with environmental regulation nationally are well over $100 billion per year. While traditional budget debates are important, leadership requires that our debate educate the public on the true nature of environmental cost. Further, a better understand'v1g of costs must also include a more accurate rendering of often overlooked economic benefits of environmental regulation. At the present time, four states, as well as the U.S. EPA, have completed comparative risk projects and ten other states are now conducting them. California's unique mix of uniform environmental commitment combined with unparalleled creativity and technical skill makes our project particularly promising. The California project will be funded by the state and by a grant from the U.S. EPA. Dr. Michael DiBartolomeis, a toxicologist in Cal/EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, will serve as Project Director. The Deputy Project Director will be Mr. Stephen Ault of the Integrated Waste Management Board. The attached workplan describes in some detail our effort. We will first identify and conduct rankings of ecological, human health and societal risks, as well as evaluating the tools available to reduce risks. We will then develop a plan to mitigate the highest priority risks. Finally and most importantly, we will present the draft results for consideration in a state-wide symposium. We will seek participation from citizen, educational, industrial, business, and other interested groups and individuals. We are now distributing this workplan to seek public involvement in this effort. For further information, please contact Ms. Julie Christensen, Acting Project Administrator, at (510) 540-3063. James M. Strock Secretary for Environmental Protection ii Comparative Risk Project Workplan

c TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface ...... .......................................................................................... ........................ i ......................................................... ui Table of Contents .................. ~ ~ ~ List of Figures and Tables . ............................................................ i v Background ..... .......... ...................................... ..:................. ........ .... 1 Introduction ............................ ............ ................ ».......................... Objectives ....................... ................ .................. .............. ........... 5 7 Organization .................................................................................. 9 Executive Staf f .................................................................... 9 State-wide Community Advisory Committee............ 10 Interagency Management Cooperation .................... 10 Regional Community Advisory Comaiittee ............... 11 Technical Research Team ................................................ 14 Scope of Work Project Planning Phase ..................................................... 19 Selection of Team Leaders ............................................... 20 Research Phase ................................................................... 21 Symposium ......................................................................... ?2 Reportin g Phas e ................................................................. 23 Tim el in e .......................................................................................... Comparative Risk Project Workplan 25

t LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Figures 1 Organization Units of the California Environmental Protection Agency ................................ 3 2 Key Organizational Components of the Comparative Risk Project ................................................ 12 3 Organization of the Executive Staff ............................... 13 4 Technical Research Team ................................................ 16 5 Subcommittees of the Risk Ranking Team ................. 17 6 Subcommittees of the Management Options Team ...................................................................................... 18 7 Preliminary Timeline for Key Events ........................... 28 Tables 1 Preliminary Timeline for Key Events in the Completion of the Comparative Risk Project ............. 26 ~ ~ ~ ~ LO iv Comparative Risk Project Workplan 0) ~ ~ OA

( 4 BACKGROUND Growing public concern over the general welfare of our environment, the health of the population that inhabits it and the negative impact of environmental pollution on our society reached new heights as the decade of the 1980's came to an end. Addressing the number of environmental issues facing us today is a challenge for each responsible individual and cannot be ignored. California is not exempt from this process. Although it may be relatively straight forward to identify problems, real or perceived, it is more difficult for us to rank environmental concerns in order of priority. It is even more difficult to rank priorities when decision-makers are uninformed. Our current practice of addressing environmental issues may need to be revised to develop a more informed, effective, and efficient approach to environmental protection. Faced with a similar problem, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) recognized the possibility that scarce federal resources were being directed toward less important environmental issues, at the expense of more serious environmental problems. In particular, it was feared that a misdirection of resources may result from our focus on individual environmental risks in isolation, rather than considering all risks collectively. As part of a solution, the U.S. EPA- initiated, in 1986, a relative risk reduction project aimed at setting priorities and developing strategies for environmental protection. Subsequently, similar projects were initiated in the U.S. EPA's regional offices and in several states. These projects have been generally referred to as "comparative risk" projects, combining a science-based and objective approach to ranking risks, with a subjective value system. The intent of a comparative risk project is to challenge the status quo and help focus state and federal policy-makers on issues of the greatest environmental., human health, and societal concern so that available resources may be used most effectively. The concept of the relative ranking environmental risks has received much national attention, and two centers for comparative risk have been established by the U.S. EPA in the Northeast and Western United States. On July 17, 1991, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal- EPA) was formed, ironically the same week that one of California's worse-ever chemical spills occurred, in the Upper Sacramento River. Since the primary mission of our new agency is to protect California's environment, Cal-EPA recognizes the need to develop a strategy for environmental protection as the twentieth century comes to closure. The creation of Cal-EPA offers a unique opportunity to revisit California's current environmental priorities. To this end, Cal-EPA is sponsoring a comparative risk project for California, to evaluate the State's current and future priorities in protecting the environment. Cal-EPA includes three boards and three departments (Figure 1), and all are committed to the preservation of California's environment and the protection of human health and welfare. Cal-EPA KU look to these and other responsible agencies for support and guidance not only throughout the.comparative risk project, but also in meeting its general mandate. Comparative Risk Project Workplan 1

c The responsibility for protecting California's environment applies not only to government, but also depends on the involvement of individuals with academic, industrial, business, activist, residential, and political interests within the State. Consequently, this workplan is being distributed to representatives of interested groups to generate widespread partidpation in developing a strategy to protect our environment and health. We will conduct the comparative risk project in such a way as to allow for all opinions to be accounted for since the project is dedicated to expanding the public's ability to make important decisions about the fate of their environment. For more information on how you can become involved, contact Julie Christensen, Interim Project Administrator, at (510) 540-3063. 2 Comparative Risk Project Workplan

Figure 1. Organization Units of the California Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Secretary I Integrated Waste Management Board Water Resouces Control Board Ak Resources Board w Department ol Toxic Substances Control DeparlmeM ot Pesticide Regulation OHice of Environmental Heahh Hazard Assessment tT4946ZZ0%

c 4 Comparative Risk Project Workplan