Tobacco Documents Online

( 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