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

( INTRODUCTION Our state is one of the nation's largest in land area and is the largest in terms of population, government, and economy. California's unique blend of natural resources and beauty, industry, agriculture, and recreational potential, combined with the size, diversity, and awareness of the general population makes our job of protecting the environment we live in particularly challenging. Furthermore, we are often perceived as the leading state in promoting environmental issues, and therefore our actions attract much attention and scrutiny not only from within California, but also from across the nation. Comparative risk projects previously conducted in other states and by the U.S. EPA generally consist of two distinct stages; a priority ranking of ecological, human health and societal risks; and the development of a strategic plan to mitigate these risks. Although the overall problem areas may be perceived by some as nearly the same from one state's environment to another, the priority ranking of the most important risks and the proposed mitigation procedures will vary from state to state. From the results of a priority ranking based on a combination of scientific analysis and value-based opinions, we may conclude that California is not directing its resources to solving the most serious environmental concerns, a determination that was made by other states and the U.S. EPA that conducted compELrative risk projects. With this in mind, we are initiating a comparative risk project in California. This workplan defines the objectives of our project, and describes the organization and methods we will use to achieve these objectives. - As with other states, California has promulgated extensive laws and regulations to address and ensure ecological and human health protection from various environmental, occupational, and societal risks. Each year when lawmakers convene to approve a budget for California, the broad range of priorities are ranked and funded accordingly. In light of the numerous legislative mandates, it may be difficult to assess California's flexibility in its ability to redirect State funds from one priority to another. Of course these priorities not only include ecological and human health protection, but include other societal needs such as education, economic growth, transportation, crime prevention, and other programs directly related to improving our welfare. Consequently, the ever-changing priorities and economic condition within the State influence the appropriation of funds that can be used to address California's environmental problems. It is essential, therefore, that we identify both actual and perceived risks to our ecosystems, to our health, and to our society; and evaluate and rank them accord:;ng to priority. Following this exercise, we can begin to develop and implement an effective and efficient plan to mitigate these risks. Our approach to identifying and ranking ecological, human health, and societal risks will be based, in general, on what has worked for the U.S. EPA and other states that have completed comparative risk projects, with a few exceptions which are discussed in more detail under the Scope of Work. The main Comparative Risk Project Workplan 5

difference is that we will conduct, independently but simultaneously, the two stages of a comparative risk project the identification and ranking of ecological, human health, and societal risks (i.e., risk ranking); and the identification and evaluation of available tools and methods to mitigate risks (i.e., identify management options). From previous experience in other states and U.S. EPA regions, it was found that risk ranking was best conducted using readily available data and standard risk assessment methodology. In addition, we will try to accommodate individuals with educational, industrial, business, residential, pro- environmental, and political interests, who want to participate in these processes. As a team, we will then. begin to shape a strategic plan to mitigate the risks of highest priority during a state-wide symposium. Our combining of efforts in this open forum will help promote equal participation in developing a final strategy. 6 Comparative Risk Project Workplan

( OBJECTIVES The comparative risk project will enable us to rank, in order of priority, the most important environmentally-related threats to the welfare of our ecosystems, our health, and our society. We will then begin to shape a strategic plan to be implemented as part of the State's policy and management agenda to address the most pressing environmental problems as we leave the twentieth and enter the twenty-first centuwr. In carrying out the comparative risk project, however, the process should go beyond a bureaucratic re-shuffling of the presently recognized environmental issues. For the comparative risk project to succeed, we must also provide a means for interaction among the interested particpants, ensuring that commun- ication is two-way. A successful project will address the sometimes parallel but most often contradictory nature of community advocacy, legislation, economics, science, and politics. Success will also be achieved if the process -invokes in us a desire to preserve our natural resources and to protect our health and welfare. O N ~ ~ Comparative Risk Project Workplan 70) 41 Oh UD

fl ~ ~ ~ Comparative Risk Project Workplan ~ 8 GT~ ~ w

t ORGANIZATION A properly designed project organization is a critical component in meeting the objectives of any comparative risk project. The comparative risk project organization should reflect a balance among all interested particpants. Therefore, although the project's direction will originate in Cal-EPA, the project organization is designed to be flexible. Three advisory committees will provide the project's staff with guidance as the project progresses. Each advisory committee will be encouraged, and may choose to issue its own report. However, the final non-technical summary report prepared by the Executive Staff, and based on the technical reports prepared by the project's technical staff, will be the final authoritative document of the comparative risk project. 'The overall project organization is presented in Figure 2. Executive Staff Figure 3 presents the organization of our management team called the Executive' Staff, which indudes a Project Director, a Deputy Project Director, a Project Administrator, a Contract Administrator, and various support staff. Although the Executive Staff will be composed primarily of personnel from Cal- EPA with some technical and administrative support hired under contract, interested volunteers Irom the private sector will be considered. The Project Director develops a workplan, oversees the progress of the project, and provides guidance to the technical research committees. The Director and his staff will remain neutral convenors in this process and will maintain an atmosphere where all points of view will be heard. The Deputy Project Director will have the responsibility for following the progress of the technical subcommittees and substitute for the Project Director when necessary. The Project Administrator will aid the Project Director in convening the various advisory committees as well as contributing to the completion of the final summary report. The Project Administrator will most likely also be the Symposium Coordinator and oversee the publicity of the project. Interested individuals from public groups, industry, or government who want to participate in some of the executive functions of the project should contact the Project Administrator. The Contract Administrator will be the project's liaison for contract negotiations and implementation. Clerical, technical, and administrative support staff are necessary to accomplish specific tasks identified by the project managers. Comparative Risk Project Workplan 9 N O N N Ca .~ ~ ~ N O

( State-wide Community Advisory Cornmittee The successful comparative risk projects completed by other states and the U.S. EPA included some combination of public advisory and steering committees. Our project includes a variation of the public advisory committee which we will call the State-wide Community Advisory Committee (SCAC) (Figure 2). In this context, a community is defined as a group of individuals with educational, industrial, business, residential, pro-environmental, or politcial interests, outside of state government. The charges of this Committee will be defined by the Project Director and vvill include oversight and review functions and networking with local community groups. Furthermore, we will ask the SCAC to participate in some of the technical processes, particularly in the ranking of ecological, human health, and societal risks identified by the technical subcommittees. In some cases, SCAC activities may be performed independent of the technical subcomrnittees. The :results of the SCAC's activities will be used in conjunction with the results of the project's technical research. SCAC will also oversee the development of a survey to be distributed to the general public to identify the most significant environmental problems in the state as perceived by the public. The Executive Staff will consider the problems identified in this survey in developing the list of priority environmental problems in California. Scheduled meetings of SCAC will be open to the public. Membership on SCAC will be flexible and open for expansion, but we will initially include approximately 20 individuals representing diverse interests from around the State. After consulting with the Secretary for Environmental Protection, we will choose SCAC members based on their commitment to meeting the objectives described above. SCAC will not include any members from State government. The Chair(s) of SCAC will be selected and nominated by the Project Director based on the candidate's potential for assuming such a role. Funding permitting, we will hire a facilitator-consultant to help the SCAC Chair(s) moderate the SCAC public meetings. Interage.ncy Management Cooperative The Interagency Management Cooperative (IMC) will consist of Directors or Deputies from several departments (or equivalent) in California government and will be convened by the Project Director (Figure 2). Our state government consists of over 45 agencies, departments, offices, and boards with mandates that influence the State in terms of issues that will be addressed during our comparative risk project. Some or aal of these organizations may choose to play some role in identifying and ranking risks, or identifying and examining management options. The Project Director will consult with the Secretary for Environmental Protection to best identify and select those organizations that would contribute significantly to our comparative Tisk project and make up the core membership of IMC. Invitation for membership in this cooperative will be 10 Comparative Risk Project Workplan

l t broadly extended, and other interested State government organizations may join IMC on a voluntary basis. The primary purpose of I]ViC is to allow for interaction among interested government agencies and to advise the Project Director and the Executive Staff on issues pertaining to the process. IMC will provide a forum in which the results of our comparative risk analysis may be discussed in terms of the implications for the future direction of California government. IMC will also be consulted when selecting representatives to serve on SCAC. Regional Community Advisory Committees In part, the degree of success of our comparative risk project will be measured on the applicability of the findings to the various and diverse ecosystems and localities within our state. One unique aspect of our comparative risk project organization is that we will form Regional Community Advisory Committees (RCACs) (Figure 2;1. The number of RCACs will depend on local interest and need. We will identify potential regional needs and solicit help from local government agencies to form an RCAC. For example, the City of Los Angeles has expressed interest in conducting its own comparative risk project and this may be accomplished in part by participating in the state-wide project as an RCAC. Other RCACs may be identified based on geographical location, population, land use, climate and environment, natural resources, or some other means by which California can be, or has been previously, apportioned into regions. However, the best way for an RCAC to be identified is for local community groups to get together and decide whether they constitute a region with specific or divergent needs, and then notify the Project Director. RCAC meetings will be open to the public and advertised locally. The charges to RCACs will be comparable to the oversight and review functions of SCAC. Active participation in the technical processes and networking with local community groups will be the primary focus. Membership on an RCAC will depend on the needs of the region and include individuals representing diverse interests, and all will be committed to meeting the objectives described above. An RCAC may include representatives from local government as well as offier interested communities and the Chair will be nominated and elected by its members. At the request of an RCAC Chair, the findings of that committee may be presented and discussed at specified SCAC meetings. In addition, we will encourage RCACs to attend and present their findings at the symposium as well as to prepare a written report. N . C N N Comparative Risk Project Workplan 11 0~ ~ N N

Figure 2. Key Organizational Components of the Comparative Risk Project I Executive Staff 11 Regional Community Advisory Committees (RCACs) Interagency Management Cooperative (IMC) State-wide Community Advisory Committee (SCAC) Technical Research Team (TRT) 0 21st Century California: ~ ~ An Environmental ~ Protection Plan 0 x Symposium b ~ Ez~,9.!s~~oz

Figure 3. Organization of Executive Staff SCAC IMC RCACs Deputy Project Director t4yr..94Vm0C.

Technical Research Team t The Technical Research Team (TRT) comprises the information processing component of the comparative risk project. We will divide TRT into the Risk Ranking Team, the Management Options Team, and the Educa,ion Subcommittee (Figure 4). The Risk Ranking and Management Options teams will be further divided into three subcommittees (Figures 5 and 6, respectively). Under these subcommittees there may be workgroups that conduct specific research for the respective subcomm;ittee. Each subcommittee will have a Chair as selected by the Project Director and the Executive Staff. The subcommittee Chairs will most likely be employees of one of the interested State agencies identified by members of IMC. However we will consider all nominations and applications. In order to share information, we will identify liaisons from each subcommittee to attend meetings of other relevant subcommittees. Furthermore, a workshop(s) will be implemented about half-way through the research phase to bring the various subcommittees together to present methods and results and to discuss relevant issues. The Project Director will not dictate the structure of the subcommittee, but will provide guidance. Preliminary methods, information and results obtained from these subcommittees will be presented during meetings of SCAC,. RCACs, and IMC as requested. The following is a brief description of the primary functions of the subcommittees. A more detailed discussion of the process involving TRT will be provided under the Scope of Work. All subcommittees will receive a document prepared by the Executive Staff that describes the objectives of our comparative risk project, defines general problem areas we should consider, and proposes approaches to conducting the research. The risk ranking portion of our comparative risk project will be the primary responsibility of the Human Health, the Ecological Health, and the Social Welfare subcommittees. We anticipate that the subcommittees will work independently of each other while sharing experiences, results, and methods during the process through the liaisons, at the subcommittee workshop(s), and at the state-wide symposium. The Planning, Economic, and Legislative subcommittees comprise the Management Options Team of our comparative risk project. The Planning Subcommittee will primarily focus on past, present, and future plans for protecting the environment and human health and welfare. For example, topics for examination may include urban growth planning, energy conservation, source reduction, recycling, planr,ing for growing transportation needs and for other impacts of the increasing population, and resource conservation. The Economic Subcommittee will examine the factors that drive California's economy, discuss how environmental problems impact those factors and project how the State's economy may help to increase or decrease our ability to address our own environme;ntal problems. The primary focus of these 14 Comparative Risk Project Workplan

l activities will be to identify management options that we can consider during the strategic planning. In addition, the Economic Subcommittee will be asked to prepare an historical account of the State's expenditures and financial commitment in protecting the environment relative to other societal needs. This latter activity will offer a broad perspective on how we have tended to apportion our resources to protecting our environment and our health in the past. The primary responsibility of the Legislative Subcommittee will be to annotate and critique state laws designed to address environmental problems. An historical account of California's legislation may uncover trends in the environmental movement and identify the motivational factors behind those laws. The Legislative Subcommittee will interpret the intent of the State's current laws as well as evaluate the effectiveness of these laws. The results of this analysis will be important in the development of a strategic plan. The Education Subcommittee will play a key role not only in evaluating our environmental health education system, but also to provide the necessary forums to allow for interaction among all participants in the comparative risk project and to provide outreach to the general public. The research component of the subcommittee will collect and share information on the state of our educational system specifically as to whether it accomplishes the needs of California in providing education on environmental issues and propose how environmental health education programs may be improved in the State. In addition, the Education Subcorn.mittee consists of two "programs" which are workgroups taking an independent track from the subcommittee. We will convene a Symposium Planning Program to initiate, organize, and implement a symposium that will bring together all aspects of the comparative risk project teams and committees as well as provide a forum for community participation. We will also initiate an Outreach Program to develop educational materials to aid in distributing information relating to the comparative risk project and the objectives of a strategic plan to interested communities, schools, and organizations. Comparative Risk Project Workplan 15 N O N N ~ ~ 0!

Figure 4. Technical Research Team Risk Ranking Team Deputy Project Director Management Options Team Education Subcommittee i Symposium Planning Program Outreach Program Lz494szzo7

Figure 5. Subcommittees of the Risk Ranking Team I Social Welfare Subcommittee Deputy ProJect Director I Risk Ranking Team Human Health Subcommittee Ecological Health Subcommittee gz4s4szzoz

Figure 6. Subcommittees of the Management Options Team a Legislation Subcommittee Deputy Project Director Management Options Team Economics Subcommittee Planning Subcommittee 6%4946zZ0Z

SCOPE OF WORK 1.0 Project Planning Phase The Executive Staff will be responsible for administering the project based on the finalized workplan and budget. This involves several tasks. A delay in Tasks 1.2, 1.3 or 1.5 will affect the final outcome of the comparative risk project. Therefore, it is imperative that support and commitment for the comparative risk project be broad-based and solid. Task 1.1: Finalize Workplan Revisions will be made in the workplan as required and a final workplan distributed to interested comnmunities. Task 1.2 Identify Funding Sources Task 1.2 includes identifying funding sources and preparing and submitting applications for financial support as appropriate. The U.S. EPA has previously funded state comparative risk projects to various degrees. California state funds as well as other resources will be identified for matching and supplementing federal financial support. 3i3?3~#~3 Task 1.3: Confirm IMC Members Invitations and membership confirmation for IMC will be completed as Task 1.3 of the planning phase. A meeting of IMC will be convened by the Executive Staff immediately following confirmation to provide an overview of the project, discuss the workplan and timeline and to solidify commitment from all interested state government organizations. Task 1.4: Press Release Announcement of the comparative risk project will be made to the press. Task 15: Select Executive Staff During Task 1.5, the Project Director will select the Executive Staff from 0 the departments and boards within Cal-EPA. Task 1.5 also involves selecting and N hiring support staff for the Executive Staff under contract immediately upon the N availability of funds. Defining the responsibilities of the Executive Staff and ~ [~l Comparative Risk Project Workplan 19 "1 W 0

c subsequent training will be accomplished by the Project Director with help from U.S. EPA Region 9 staff, from the Centers for Comparative Risk Projects, and from other participants involved in planning and implementing our comparative risk project. Task 1.6: Finalize Timeline As the final task in the project planning phase, the proposed timeline (see 'IlvfELINE" below) will be finalized based on the status of funding availability and the hiring of support staff, and based on discussions with IMC, Cal-EPA, US. EPA's Region 9 and Headquarters, and the Centers for Comparative Risk Projects. Task 2.0 Selection of Team Leaders Task 2.1: Select and Train SCAC Members The success of our comparative risk project will depend on the commitment and active participaixon of the members of SCAC. The Project Director, upon consulting with the Secretary for Environmental protection, will be primarily responsible for selecting SCAC members. During this process, the Project Director will also look to IMC for guidance in identifying individuals within the interested communities to serve on this committee. The membership of this committee will be flexible to allow for later inclusion and representation of community interests not initially identified in this process. A kickoff and training session for SCAC members will be held soon after the selection and approval of the membership. SCAC training by the Executive Staff would include an orientation to comparative risk projects and some background on risk assessment and risk management principles. The public participation meetings of SCAC will be held at various locations around the State to allow for local participation in the public discussion portion of these meetings. Personnel support for SCAC activiiies will be provided by the Executive Staff. Task 22: Select and Train TRT Subcommittee Chairs The success of our comparative risk project will also depend on the dedication and effectiveness of the TRT subcommittee Chairs. The Project Director and the Executive Staff will be primarily responsible for selecting and training the subcommittee Chairs. During this process, the Project Director and the Executive Staff will look to IMC for guidance on tapping into the State's vast human resources for individuals to serve on these subcommittees. A kickoff and training session for subcomm.ittee Chairs and other key participants will be 20 Comparative Risk Project Workplan

t held soon after the selection and approval of the membership. It will be the responsibility of the Chairs to identify and select the participants in their respective subcommittees with help from the Executive Staff. if7~`t~1E~i Task 23: Identify RCACs The Executive Staff, with help from IMC, SCAC, U.S. EPA Region 9, and the Centers for Comparative Risk Projects will work toward identifying localities (e.g., cities, counties, local governments) within the State that desire to participate via RCACs. As regions are identified and interest is expressed by the localities, the Executive Staff will meet with key personnel in the region to provide training and guidance. Members of SCAC will also participate in these activities and meetings. Partial personnel support for RCAC activities will be provided by the Executive Staff if resources allow. 3.0 Research Phase The research phase constitutes the majority of effort in researching spe 'c~f'ic areas important in the risk ranking and management options analyses and drawing conclusions to be shared among other subcommittees as the strategic plan is developed. The independence of each subcommittee in achieving its objectives will be offset in four -ways. First, the Executive Staff will be available to provide guidance and oversee the process to ensure that each subcommittee is making progress. Second, liaisons will be appointed by subcommittee chairs to participate in distributing information to and receiving information from other relevant subcommittees during the research phase. Third, several months into the process, a workshop will be held to facilitate interaction among workgroups. And fourth, a state-wide symposium will be held near the end of the research phase in which final presentations of the subcommittees will be made and workshops will be held to bring together all components of the project into one general strategic plan. Task 3.1: Prepare Comparative Risk Guidance Document The Executive Staff will prepare and issue an information document to be used by each subcommittee in developing a process to address its charges. The criteria presented in the information document will ensure that the subcommittees will focus on common issues. The procedures used in previous analyses conducted by the U.S. EPA and other states, will be summarized in this report. In addition, staff of the Centers for Comparative Risk will also be consulted. For example, the quantitative procedures used previously to identify N and rank human health and environmental risks will be considered. However, Q since much of our assessment will be based on issues specific to the State and not N ~ ~ Comparative Risk Project Workplan 21 ~ W N

addressed previously, it will probably be necessary for us to consider new processes or amend existing ones. Task 3.2: Research Process Following staffing of the TRT subcommittees under Task 2.2, the various subcommittees will meet as many times as necessary to agree on a process to address the charges of the subcommittee and conduct the necessary research. We expect the subcommittee to reach consensus in its methodology and the results of its analysis. However, it is possible that the final report issued by each subcommittee may reflect differences in opinion with regard to how the results should be interpreted. The process ivill be developed under the guidance of the Executive Staff via the written guidelines and oversight. Task 3.3: TRT Workshop Several months into the research phase of the project, a one-day workshop will be held in which subcommittee participants will meet to discuss progress and preliminary results. The workshop will be facilitated under the guidance of the Education Subcommittee. Other workshops may be implemented as needed and if resources allow. Task 3.4: Progress Updates Each subcommittee will be expected to provide brief and intermittent written or verbal progress reports to the Executive Staff during the research phase of the project. In addition, each subcommittee Chair will present the process and methods adopted by the subcommittee and preliminary results to SCAC and RCAC (at their request) for review and comments. This will allow the Executive Staff and the advisory committees to track the progress of the research teams as well as to offer guidance. 4.0 Symposium Under the guidance of the Symposium Planning Program in the Education Subcommittee, we will irdtiate, organize and implement a three-day, state-wide symposium. There are several objectives of this symposium. The first is to allow for each technical subcommittee to present its findings to an audience consisting of active participants as well as other interested individuals. The second objective is to facilitate discussions of all symposium participants in the development of a strategic plan to address the emerging priorities for environmental protection. The third objective of the symposium is to provide a forum for, and outreach to, all interested community participants and to allow 22 Comparative Risk Project Workplan

for majority and minority groups to voice their support and their concerns with regard to the comparative risk project. Task 4.1 Plan and Organize the Symposium Task 4.1 involves plann:ing and organizing a symposium under the guidance of the Education Subcommittee Chair. Task 4.2 Hold the Symposium A three-day symposium will be held. Task 4.3 Prepare Proceedings Symposium of proceedings will be prepared during Task 4.3. 5.0 Reporting Phase The final phase of our comparative risk project is the Reporting Phase. During this time, each technical subcommittee will prepare a written final report based on the methods, the results, and the conclusions of their activities. In addition, preparation of reports by the advisory committees will be encouraged. The final authoritative document of the comparative risk project will be a summary report prepared by the Executive Staff which will be based on all reports of the various technical and advisory committees. Task 5.1: TRT Report Preparation With guidance from the Executive Staff, the Chair of each subcommittee will be responsible for the production of a report induding the selection of authors, the format of the report and its contents. Technical reports will include the results and conclusions of the risk ranking activities of each subcommittee in the Risk Ranking Team, the findings of the Management Options Team subcommittees and the Education Subcommittee, and the symposium proceedings. The majority of reports will most likely be in written document format, but some reports may take the form of videos, documentaries, informational materials, questionnaires, or other innovative media. A symposium proceedings will be prepared by the Symposium Planning Program (= under the general guidance of the Chair of the Education Subcommittee. jV N td ~ Comparative Risk Project Workplan 23 ~ W ~P

Task 5.2: Nontechnical Summary Report Preparation The Executive Staff will be responsible for prepa=ing the authoritative, nontechnical summary of the comparative risk project based on the reports of each subcommittee, the symposiurn proceedings and discussions with IMC, SCAC and RCAC. The report will also contain information for the general public on how to receive other reports prepared as part of the comparative risk project. In addition, the summary report will include an evaluation of the success of the project, lessons learned, and a plan for follow-up activities. Task 5.3: Issue All Reports Printing and distribution of the final reports marks the end of the comparative risk project. 24 Comparative Risk Project Workplan

TIMELINE Table I and Figure 7 present the preliminary timeline for the completion of the comparative risk project. The date when all reports are ;ssued would be considered the completion date of the comparative risk project. Under Task 1.5, the proposed timeline will be finalized based on the status of funding availability, hiring of support staff and discussions with IMC, Cal-EPA, U.S. EPA's Region 9 and Headquarters, and the Centers for Comparative Risk Projects. Comparative Risk Project Workplan 25

Table 1. Preliminary Timeline f:)r Key Events in the Completion of the Comparative Risk Project• Task Number Description Start Finish 1.0 PROJECT PLANNING PH.kSE 1.1 Finalize Workplan 12/15/91 2/15/92 1.2 Identify Funding Sources 12/15/91 3/1/92 1.3 Confirm IMC Members 1/15/92 2/15/92 1.4 Press Release 2/14/92 1.5 Finalize Timeline 2/15/92 3/1/92 1.6 Select (and. Hire) Executive Staff 1/15/92 4/15/92 2.0 SELECTION OF TEAM LEADERS 2.1 Select and Train SCAC Members 1/15/92 4/15/92 2.2 Select and Train TRT Subcommittee Chairs 1/15/92 4/1/92 2.3 Identify RCACs 3/15/92 5/15/92 3.0 RESEARCH PHASE 3.1 Prepare Comparative Risk Guidance Document 3/15/92 5/1/92 3.2 Research Process 5/1/92 12/1/92 continued... 26 Comparative Risk Project Workplan N O N N ~ ~ 09 W ~

Table 1 (conduded). Preliminary Timeline for Key Events in the Completion of the Comparative Risk Projecta Task Number Description Start Finish 3.3 TRT W'orkshop 8/3/92 3.4 Progress Updates (intermittent) 4.0 SYMI'OSIUM 4.1 Plan and Organize 5/1/92 10/15/92 4.2 Symposium Hold Symposium 10/22/92 10/31/92 4.3 Prepare Proceedings 11/1/92 6/15/93 5.0 REPORTING PHASE 5.1 TRT Report Preparation 12/1/92 5/1/93 5.2 Nontechnical. Summary 1/15/93 6/15/93 Report Prepa.ration 5.3 Issue All Reports 6/1/93 9/15/93 • Dates approximate when an event may occur but do not necessarily represent actual dales of events. Dates are subject to change. Comparative Risk Project Workplan 27

t f 28 z 9 0 a LU ~ N Comparative Risk Project Workplari N N N ~ .~ ~ Ca