Oakland City Withdrawal of Certification 1-2015

Enclosure 1
Deficiency Overview
City of Oakland Fire Department
Certified Unified Program Agency
2012 Program Improvement Agreement
December 29, 2014
The state evaluation team has endeavored to assist the City of Oakland Fire
Department Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) in correcting deficiencies
identified during the September 2012 Evaluation that resulted in the November 2012
Program Improvement Agreement (PIA). This Program Improvement Agreement was
the direct result of the CUPAs continued failure to address the deficiencies found during
the December 2008 Evaluation, which resulted in a finding of unsatisfactory program
implementation and a PIA in 2010 for failure to correct the deficiencies. The state
evaluation team was led by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA)
and included representatives from the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal
OES), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the Office of the State Fire
Marshal (OSFM), and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Each state
agency has participated in several group and individual meetings with the CUPA to
assist in correcting the identified deficiencies over the past 25 months. Unfortunately,
these efforts have not led to satisfactory completion of corrective actions, and
implementation of the Unified Program in the City of Oakland has not significantly
improved. The PIA set quarterly corrective action updates beginning December 13,
2012. The CUPA has been consistently late in submitting the corrective action updates
and often submitted incomplete updates that required an iterative correction process.
Additionally, the CUPA failed to submit two of the seven required updates over the past
25 months.
The state evaluation team has provided a detailed summary (enclosure 2) of the City of
Oakland CUPAs actions to attempt to correct deficiencies identified during the
September 2012 evaluation.
The following information identifies the major deficiencies in the City of Oakland CUPAs
implementation of the Unified Program in Oakland and the primary reasons why
CalEPA is withdrawing the City of Oaklands certification as a CUPA.
1. Incomplete or Inadequate Facility Inspections.
The CUPA has not conducted routine inspections of businesses in the Hazardous
Materials Business Plan, Hazardous Waste Generator and Tiered Permitting, California
Accidental Release Prevention, and Underground Storage Tank programs according to
statutory and regulatory standards. Moreover, the CUPA has failed to demonstrate that
its current program for routine inspections will ensure that these standards are met in
the future.
Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) (Deficiency 14) The CUPA has
not demonstrated that all HMBP businesses have been inspected in the last three
years as required by law. Despite repeated requests, the CUPA failed to provide
sufficient information to confirm the total number of completed inspections. In
fiscal year 2012-2013, CUPA only inspected 255 of its 1,152 hazardous material
facilities. For fiscal year 2013-2014, the CUPA has only recorded 85 routine
compliance inspections for the HMBP program in the California Environmental
Reporting System.
Hazardous Waste Generator (HWG) and Onsite Hazardous Waste Treatment
(Tiered Permitting) (Deficiency 16) The CUPA has not demonstrated that all
HWG and Tiered Permitting businesses have been adequately inspected in the
last three years as required by law. Despite repeated requests, the CUPA failed
to provide sufficient information to confirm the total number of businesses and the
total number of completed inspections. In fiscal year 2012-2013, CUPA only
inspected 184 of its 816 hazardous waste generator facilities. For fiscal year
2013-2014, the CUPA has only recorded 55 routine compliance inspections for
the HWG program in the California Environmental Reporting System. The CUPA
also failed to fully comply with DTSCs requests for inspection reports for those
facilities that were reported as inspected. Additionally, the inspection reports that
were provided revealed that, in some instances, inspectors applied inappropriate
standards because they conducted and documented the inspections using the
wrong inspection report forms.
Recent hazardous waste generator inspections independently conducted by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) in the City of Oakland
confirm the significant shortcomings in the CUPAs inspection program. For
example, the CUPA informed U.S. EPA that the East Bay Municipal Utility District
main waste water treatment plant was in compliance based on the CUPAs
September 13, 2013 inspection. However, a few months later U.S. EPA found
numerous violations at this facility and was informed by the facility operator that
the CUPA inspector failed to inspect the points of hazardous waste generation.
During three additional recent inspections conducted by U.S. EPA, inspectors
documented 15 violations that were not identified by the CUPA inspectors. These
federal inspections raise questions about whether the CUPA will be able to
conduct adequate compliance inspections even if the inspection rate is increased.
Additionally, for fiscal year 2012-2013, the CUPA reported that a very low
percentage of facilities in Oakland were out of compliance with state
requirements. The figure was substantially lower than the statewide average of
29 percent. This significant deviation from the statewide compliance percentage
considered together with the deficiencies noted in the CUPAs inspection reports
and the results of the U.S. EPA independent inspections supports the conclusion
that the CUPA has not met its requirements to inspect and report on hazardous
facilities in the community in a timely and accurate manner.
California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP) (Deficiency 13 corrected) In past years, the CUPA failed to conduct CalARP inspections every
three years as required by law. This failure is not currently identified as a
deficiency, however, because two of the three Oakland CalARP facilities are no
longer in the program. Although the remaining facility has been inspected, it is not
clear that the CUPA has maintained minimum performance standards for its
CalARP inspectors.
Underground Storage Tanks (UST) (Deficiencies 6, 17) The CUPA has not
demonstrated that it has met the annual inspection requirement for facilities in the
UST program and has submitted inspection reports with numerous errors and
inconsistencies. An unidentified number of inspections have been performed by
an inspector who lacks the necessary state certification, creating an uncertainty
as to how many of the completed inspections are valid.
2. Deficient Enforcement Program.
The CUPA has not implemented an effective enforcement program. In particular, the
CUPA has not demonstrated the capability to track and follow-up with non-compliant
businesses and has not brought enforcement actions to compel compliance in cases
where violations were not corrected.
Enforcement (Deficiency 7, 16, 23)
The CUPA has not met minimum standards for effective enforcement of Unified
Program requirements and is not implementing its approved Inspection and
Enforcement Plan. In particular, the CUPA has not consistently verified whether
or not businesses have corrected violations identified during inspections, and, for
those facilities that have not corrected violations, the CUPA has not employed
appropriate enforcement actions. None of the corrective actions for this
deficiency have been adequately addressed. CalEPA never received an
acceptable list of facilities with violations, and the CUPA has not demonstrated the
capability to track and follow-up with noncompliant businesses.
3. Ineffective Implementation of State Program Requirements.
The CUPA has not instituted a regimented program to ensure that its staff completes all
required certifications, audits, and approvals in a timely manner.
Implementing State Program Requirements (Deficiencies 4, 5, 11, 15, 21)
The CUPA has not produced and implemented program procedures to oversee
the businesses requirement to review and certify their Business Plans as current
or to complete the required annual chemical inventory updates and does not have
a procedure for ensuring that Business Plan submittals meet state requirements.
The CUPA has not completed the mandatory CalARP Performance Audit. The
CUPA is not reviewing and approving the required UST monitoring plans.
3
4. Failure to Comply with Fee Accountability Requirements.

The CUPA does not have an effective or viable fee accountability program. Overall, the
CUPA is running a substantial surplus and cannot account for its program fees. Issues
with fees in the earlier CUPA evaluations point to a long-term continuing issue. Under
the Unified Program, a fee accountability program must ensure that the CUPAs fees
are set at a level to cover only the necessary and reasonable costs of the program and
that the fees are not used for other activities. The CUPA program currently operates
with a substantial surplus and reported revenues and expenditures are not consistent.
In addition, the CUPA has not verified that it has the appropriate balance between
adequate staff to cover program needs and a fee to match the cost needed to
adequately implement the program. Since becoming a CUPA, revenues have
substantially exceeded expenditures. Information provided by the CUPA also shows
that the CUPA personnel are inappropriately performing other non-Unified Program
activities.
Fee Accountability (Deficiencies 12)
The documentation submitted on February 28, 2014, as a part of the CUPAs
progress report 4, indicates that the fee accountability program is not adequate
and has not been reviewed and updated, as required by state law. In fiscal year
2012/2013, the CUPA collected $899,796 in fees and expended $841,337. At the
end of the fiscal year, there was a surplus of $1,463,418.20, or 174% of program
costs. However, the CUPA reported only $667,768 in revenue on its formal fiscal
year 2012/2013 Annual Fee Summary. The CUPA has not explained this
reporting discrepancy.
As discussed below, the CUPA is not collecting the state electronic reporting
surcharge from its regulated facilities. Instead, the CUPA used other Unified
Program funds to remit the electronic reporting portion of the "CUPA Oversight"
surcharge. At a minimum, this indicates that regulated businesses had been
billed more than the necessary and reasonable cost to implement the Unified
Program in fiscal years 2010/2011 and 2011/2012, in violation of statute and
regulation.
In emails and verbal correspondences, the CUPA stated that the four staff
assigned to implement the Unified Program are fully funded by Unified Program
fees. However, some CUPA staff members perform activities that are not related
to the Unified Program, such as conducting Commercial Stormwater Protection
inspections, participating in the Industrial Illicit Discharge Committee for Alameda
County, and attending annual Industrial Illicit Discharge training. In fiscal year
2012/2013, records indicate CUPA staff conducted 1,047 Stormwater Protection
inspections while conducting only 255 hazardous material business plan facility
compliance inspections. These are serious departures from the statutorily
required fee accountability program elements. CUPA staff should not be fully
4
funded by Unified Program fees because a significant percentage of their

workload is spent doing non-CUPA related job functions.
5. Failure to Comply with State Surcharge Requirements.
To-date, the CUPA has not demonstrated that the electronic reporting surcharge has
been billed to all of its regulated facilities. Additionally, recently submitted information
included a March 2014 invoice showing the CUPA is billing the surcharge at $24 per
year when the surcharge was revised to $35 per year effective July 2013.
Surcharge Billing (Deficiency 9)
The CUPA collected the underground storage tank and California accidental
release prevention surcharge for fiscal years 2008/2009 and 2009/2010, but did
not remit it to the state until January 16, 2013 when required to do so under the
Program Improvement Agreement. The CUPA has not billed regulated
businesses for the electronic reporting surcharge for the required three-year
period after the electronic reporting surcharge became effective July 1, 2009.
Additionally, since the 2012 agreement, the CUPA has not verified that it has
correctly billed regulated businesses for the state surcharge. For fiscal years
2010/2011 and 2011/2012, the CUPA did not bill its regulated businesses for the
required electronic reporting surcharge. Per the PIA, the CUPA agreed to bill its
regulated facilities for the electronic reporting surcharge by July 1, 2013. By
October 14, 2013, the CUPA should have submitted five single fee invoices
showing that its regulated businesses were billed the appropriate state surcharge.
Neither of these corrective actions was completed. Instead, the CUPA submitted
a letter dated March 24, 2014 to CalEPA stating that they would begin billing the
electronic reporting surcharge in March 2014.
Enclosure 2
Deficiency Progress Summary Report

December 29, 2014
The deficiency summaries below provide a synopsis of progress made on each

deficiency identified in the September 2012 evaluation of the City of Oakland Fire
Department CUPA. The summaries include an overview of the deficiency and the
current status, as well as excerpts from periodic state progress reports, which describe
the identified corrective actions, the response of the CUPA, and the state review of that
response. The summaries are based on information compiled from the following:
Six progress report submissions and supporting documentation received from the
CUPA.
Correspondences by telephone and email.
Group and individual meetings.
Deficiency Summaries
Deficiency 1: The Certified Unified Program Agency has not fully developed and
implemented the hazardous waste generator tiered permitting program. During this
Certified Unified Program Agency evaluation, the Certified Unified Program Agency staff
stated tiered permitting procedures were not in place. The following are instances
observed by the Department of Toxic Substances Control where the tiered permitting
requirements were not implemented:
The Certified Unified Program Agency does not have procedures for a written
acknowledgment of tiered permitting notifications and a method to handle
incomplete forms.
The Certified Unified Program Agency does not have a procedure for the receipt of
contingency plan activation reports.
reports documenting releases of reportable quantities from tank systems or
secondary containment
The Certified Unified Program Agency has not inspected its tiered permitting
facilities at least once every three years. For example, the file review showed that
the Alameda County permanent household hazardous waste collection facility was
last inspected on 4/21/09 and Gold Seal Plating was last inspected in 12/08.
During the evaluation, the Certified Unified Program Agency provided a draft copy of
their hazardous waste generator/tiered permitting inspection checklist to the Department
5
of Toxic Substances Control. However, the draft is missing HSC and CCR, title 22
sections for each violation.
Corrective Action(s): By November 13, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency
will add the regulatory sections to their hazardous waste generator/tiered permitting
inspection checklist and submit an electronic copy of this complete document to the
California Environmental Protection Agency for further comment.
By January 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will develop, implement and
submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency procedures for the hazardous
waste tiered permitting program.
By January 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will revise and submit to the
California Environmental Protection Agency its consolidated permit application, tiered
permitting forms, and hazardous waste generator inspection report to reflect the
Certified Unified Program Agencys new tiered permitting procedures.
By April 15, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will ensure that it provides
hazardous waste generator and tiered permitting trainings to its staff, including, but not
limited to types of waste treated, tank assessment requirements, treatment
technologies, tiered permitting eligibility and administrative and technical reviews.
Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency was considered deficient
by the Department of Toxic Substances Control because the hazardous waste
generator tiered permitting program was not fully developed and implemented. All of
the corrective actions have been completed.
Status: This deficiency has been corrected.
Background Excerpts from Progress Reports
Prior to First Progress Report:
On October 19 and 24, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency requested an
extension in a letter and proposed the new due dates to the summary of findings
discussed on October 10, 2012. The Certified Unified Program Agency also
requested evaluation documents, checklists, etc. that were used in evaluating the
Certified Unified Program Agency. The California Environmental Protection Agency
responded to the Certified Unified Program Agencys extension request but no
evaluation documents were provided.
On October 30, 2012, the Ms. Perkins sent an email to the Department of Toxic
Substances Control requesting hazardous waste generator/tiered permitting
trainings from the Department of Toxic Substances Control. The same day on
November 30, 2012 the Department of Toxic Substances Control responded to the
Certified Unified Program Agencys email agreeing to provide the trainings and to
further discuss possible training dates.
6
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted the hazardous waste

generator/tiered permitting checklists to the California Environmental Protection
Agency on November 14, 2012. The Certified Unified Program Agency also stated
that staff was scheduled to attend the Certified Unified Program Agency Conference
program training in February 2013 and would be required to attend the hazardous
waste generator and tiered permitting training at the conference.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control reviewed the large quantity generator
checklist and found it acceptable since the Department of Toxic Substances Control
posted this checklist template on the Department of Toxic Substances Control and
the California Environmental Protection Agency websites. A minor comment was
made to place the Certified Unified Program Agencys seal on the top right hand side
of the page and to have the checklist fit on ONE page plus additional pages for
instructions. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted an older version of the
Department of Toxic Substances Controls small quantity generator checklist as the
manifest requirements had changed since September 2006 and there was no more
blue copy of the manifest. The Department of Toxic Substances Control provided
the Certified Unified Program Agency web links to download the small quantity
generator checklist from the Department of Toxic Substances Control or the
California Environmental Protection Agency websites. The Certified Unified
Program Agency did not submit a tiered permitting checklist in this package. The
Department of Toxic Substances Control submitted responses to the Certified
Unified Program Agency via the California Environmental Protection Agency.
On November 15, 2012 the California Environmental Protection Agency responded
to the Certified Unified Program Agencys extension request letter dated October 19,
2012, agreeing to a few dates and other dates were left the same.
On December 6, 2012, the Department of Toxic Substances Control received an
email from the California Environmental Protection Agency to contact LeRoy Griffin
regarding the tiered permitting checklist (The Certified Unified Program Agency only
submitted the permit-by-rule/conditional authorization/conditional exemption forms
and not the tiered permitting checklist. The Department of Toxic Substances Control
contacted LeRoy Griffin who stated, he wanted to meet with the Department of Toxic
Substances Control this same day to discuss the Department of Toxic Substances
Control deficiencies. Thus, the Department of Toxic Substances Control met with
LeRoy Griffin on December 6, 2012 in the Department of Toxic Substances Control
Berkeley office. He brought a package of documents to show to the Department of
Toxic Substances Control, but no documents were provided to the Department of
Toxic Substances Control.
On December 10, 2012, the Department of Toxic Substances Control sent an
electronic copy of a tiered permitting checklist and instructions from the LA County
Certified Unified Program Agency as requested by Mr. Griffin on December 6, 2012.
Mr. Griffin was told by the Department of Toxic Substances Control to tailor the
checklist to their program.
7
On December 10, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted an

evaluation pre-update to the California Environmental Protection Agency. The 1st
progress report was due by December 13, 2012.
First Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- December 13, 2012. Actual submission
date- January 31, 2013
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its 1st progress report on January 2,
2013 without any supporting documents. The pdf letter that came with the 1 st
progress report documents did not give the state reviewer any narrative descriptions
of what the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted or any written direction on
how to interpret the information. In light of this, the Department of Toxic Substances
Control attempted to review the report but was not able to provide constructive
comments to the Certified Unified Program Agency due to the unorganized fashion
of the report. This was relayed to the California Environmental Protection Agency
the same day via email.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its supporting documents on
January 30, 2013 in an email. The Department of Toxic Substances Control
provided comments to Certified Unified Program Agencys 1st progress report to the
California Environmental Protection Agency on February 15, 2013.
Second Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- March 14, 2013.
Actual submission date- May 15, 2013
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its 2nd progress report on April 17,
2013 via an email. The California Environmental Protection Agency responded to
the Certified Unified Program Agency via email the same day that the Certified
Unified Program Agencys 2nd Program Improvement Agreement progress report
appeared to be from the last evaluation period 2008.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its 2nd progress report on May 1,
2013 to the California Environmental Protection Agency by email. Although the,
Certified Unified Program Agency did not respond to this deficiency, but the small
quantity generator and large quantity generator inspection checklists submitted with
this progress report were acceptable to the Department of Toxic Substances Control
as per the Department of Toxic Substances Control correspondence with the
California Environmental Protection Agency and a joint agency conference call with
the City of Oakland on March 25, 2013.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control did not notice any changes in the
hazardous waste generator Reporting Packet revised form received from the City of
Oakland - PDF file name hazardous waste Generator Report Packet (3-29-13). The
Department of Toxic Substances Control provided comments to the California
Environmental Protection Agency for the hazardous waste tiered permitting
Checklist Guidance received from the City of Oakland - PDF file name hazardous
waste tiered permitting Checklist and Guidance (3-29-13).
8
On June 3-5 2013, the Department of Toxic Substances Control provided hazardous
waste generator (small quantity generator/large quantity generator) and tiered
permitting trainings to the Certified Unified Program Agency staff, including, but not
limited to:
types of waste treated;
tank assessment requirements;
treatment technologies;
tiered permitting eligibility and administrative and technical reviews.
Determining and Citing Violations
A face to face meeting was held with the Certified Unified Program Agency along
with all agencies (California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic
Substances Control, etc.) on October 16, 2013 in Sacramento to discuss compliance
issues related to each deficiency.
Third Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- July 31, 2013. Actual submission date
was on October 29, 2013.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a hard copy of its 3rd progress
report on October 29, 2013 to the California Environmental Protection Agency, which
was still deficient.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control met with the Certified Unified Program
Agency on November 4, 2013 to discuss the outstanding hazardous waste
generator/tiered permitting program deficiencies and it was agreed the Certified
Unified Program Agency would make the necessary changes and submit an update
to the forms/documents to the Department of Toxic Substances Control by
November 25, 2013. The Department of Toxic Substances Control summarized
meeting notes and email to the Certified Unified Program Agency the same day on
November 4, 2013. The attachment in the email from Mr. Griffin on November 25,
2013 did NOT include any corrections.
Fourth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- February 21, 2014. Actual submission
date was on February 28, 2014.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control received a hand delivered package
from the Certified Unified Program Agency on February 28, 2014. The Department
of Toxic Substances Control reviewed the documents submitted and finds this
deficiency corrected. The Department of Toxic Substances Control provided
comments for this deficiency to the California Environmental Protection Agency on
March 12, 2014.
Deficiency 2: Hazardous waste generator inspection reports issued by the Certified

Unified Program Agency do not include observations or other information in enough
detail to determine if those items are violations, observations, or suggestions. During
the file review the following files were noted as having violations that were not
adequately or properly documented:
The 7-6-07 inspection report for Alco Park, 165 13th Street listed the following, which
is not a violation Need to indicate an accumulation date on waste fluid. Due to
quantity normally accumulated an exemption beyond 6 months is granted. The
Certified Unified Program Agency did not cite the facility for failure to exceed
accumulation time. It must be noted the Certified Unified Program Agency is not
authorized to grant such an exemption.
The 6-30-09 inspection report for Advanced Grinding, 812 49th Avenue listed Any
person engaged in activities which will or may result in pollutants entering the city
storm sewer systems shall eliminate such pollutants to the maximum extent
practical. This is not a hazardous waste generator violation as explained by the
Certified Unified Program Agency. This was storm water discharge violation and
there are no violation codes under storm water discharge requirements, the Certified
Unified Program Agency cites miscellaneous violation under the hazardous waste
generator program.
The 6-21-12 inspection of Oakland Unified School District, 955 High Street listed
Any person engaged in activities which will or may result in pollutants entering the
city storm sewer systems shall eliminate such pollutants to the maximum extent
practical.
The Certified Unified Program Agency did inform the Oakland Unified School
District that it needed to submit the Schools Hazardous Waste Collection,
Consolidation, and Accumulation Facilities notification to the Department of
Corrective Action(s): By December 13, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency
will develop a procedure to ensure that all violations cited in inspection reports are
clearly documented as violations and include the factual basis for violations, as well as
the corrective actions to be taken.
Along with the second progress report, due March 13, 2013, the Certified Unified
Program Agency will submit five inspection reports for hazardous waste generator
inspections completed within the last six months that contain the factual basis for
violations, corrective actions to be taken and observations. Each of the five inspection
reports will have at least one hazardous waste generator violation identified.
By April 15, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will provide refresher
hazardous waste/tiered permitting training to staff that covers the identification and
citation of hazardous waste violations.
by the Department of Toxic Substances Control because the Certified Unified Program
Agencys hazardous waste generator inspection reports did not contain enough detail
for a reviewer to distinguish between violations, observations, or suggestions. All of the
corrective actions have been completed.
10

First Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- December 13, 2012
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted the 1st progress report on January
2, 2013 without any supporting documents. PDF letter that came with the 1st
the same day via email. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its
supporting documents on January 30, 2013 in an email. The Department of Toxic
Substances Control provided comments to the Certified Unified Program Agencys
1st progress report to the California Environmental Protection Agency on February
15, 2013.
Second Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- March 14, 2013
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted the 2nd progress report on May 1,
2013. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted five inspection reports with
hazardous waste generator violations. The Department of Toxic Substances Control
noted that observations and factual basis of violations were missing for some of the
violations noted and for those that were included they were not legible. One
inspection report did not contain any hazardous waste generator violations and
should not have been included as part of the five inspection reports. The Certified
Unified Program Agency used the appropriate checklist but didnt use the
accompanying pages for the observations for all of the inspection reports submitted.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control requested on to the Certified Unified
Program Agency via the California Environmental Protection Agency that they
submit five additional hazardous waste generator inspection reports from hazardous
waste generator facilities with at least one hazardous waste generator violation
cited.
On June 4, 2013, the Department of Toxic Substances Control provided training to
the Certified Unified Program Agency staff on Determining and Citing Violations.
11
On October 16, 2013, a face to face meeting was held with the Certified Unified
Program Agency along with all agencies (California Environmental Protection
Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, etc.) to discuss compliance
issues related for each deficiency. The Certified Unified Program Agency agreed to
send copies of inspection reports to the Department of Toxic Substances Control as
required in the corrective action for this deficiency.
report on October 29, 2013. The Certified Unified Program Agency did not include
copies of inspection reports in this progress report.
Agency on November 4, 2013. At this meeting, the Certified Unified Program Agency
submitted hard copies of four (4) new hazardous waste generator inspection reports
to the Department of Toxic Substances Control. The Department of Toxic
Substances Control requested the Certified Unified Program Agency to submit an
inspection report for an inspection that was conducted after April 2013. It was
agreed the Certified Unified Program Agency would submit the inspection report to
the Department of Toxic Substances Control by November 25, 2013 and the
Department of Toxic Substances Control agreed to review the inspection reports by
January 10, 2014. The Department of Toxic Substances Control met with the
Certified Unified Program Agency on November 25, 2013 and also reviewed the
additional inspection report received from the Certified Unified Program Agency and
found it acceptable and this was conveyed to the Certified Unified Program Agency
and the California Environmental Protection Agency in an email of January 6, 2014.
Deficiency 3: The Certified Unified Program Agency did not conduct a complete
hazardous waste generator inspection.
During the hazardous waste generator oversight inspection of Owens Illinois

Containers located at 3600 Alameda Avenue on 7/30/12, the Certified Unified
Program Agency inspector missed many components of the hazardous waste
generator regulations, including the following violations observed by the Department
of Toxic Substances Control evaluator: Failure to have a daily inspection schedule
and a log of daily inspections for the 4,000 gallon used oil tank, an inspection log for
the emergency equipment; and, failure to make a hazardous waste determination for
the influent to the oil/water separator. In addition, the inspector was not familiar with
the biennial report format.
This was the inspectors third visit to this facility. During previous inspections, the
inspector never inspected all of the hazardous waste areas, including the oil/water
separator and did not assess if the oil/water separator was subject to the tiered
permitting program.
During the facility file review at the Certified Unified Program Agencys office for this
hazardous waste generator oversight inspection, the Department of Toxic
12
Substances Control evaluator noted that the facility obtained a tank assessment for
the 4,000 gallon used oil tank in March 2005. The professional engineer that
peformed the tank assessment stated that the tank assessment was valid for one
year. The Certified Unified Program Agency never cited this facility for failure to
obtain a tank reassessment for the used oil tank during the last two annual
inspections.
The Certified Unified Program Agency inspector did not classify violations in the
notice to comply provided to the facility at the conclusion of the oversight inspection,
as depicted in the Certified Unified Program Agencys inspection and enforcement
plan, but an inspection report sent to the facility on 8/14/12 included classes of the
violations.
During the hazardous waste generator oversight inspection of Shape Products

located at 1127 57th Avenue on 8/2/12, the Certified Unified Program Agency
inspector incorrectly applied large quantity generator rules for a small quantity
generator. The inspector was not aware that the facility was a small quantity
generator and was not familiar with all of the small quantity generator requirements.
For example, training and contingency plan violations were cited but these violations
apply to the large quantity generators.
plan, but an inspection report sent to the facility on 8/28/12 included classes of
violations.
Corrective Action(s): Immediately, the Certified Unified Program Agency will ensure
that inspections are conducted in a manner consistent with state statute or regulation for
businesses subject to the tiered permitting program.
By April 15, 2013, or sooner, the Certified Unified Program Agency will provide
hazardous waste generator (small quantity generator/large quantity generator), tiered
permitting, violation classification, and tank assessment requirements training to
Certified Unified Program Agency staff. The Certified Unified Program Agency will
submit training documentation to the California Environmental Protection Agency. The
documentation will include: the date of the training, the training materials covered in the
training and an attendance sheet signed by all staff who participated in the training.
by the Department of Toxic Substances Control because the evaluator observed the
inspector not adequately performing hazardous waste generator inspections in
accordance with the law and the Certified Unified Program Agencys inspection and
enforcement plan. All of the corrective actions have been completed.
13

2, 2013 and did not respond to this deficiency.
2013 and did not respond to this deficiency.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control provided the Certified Unified Program
Agency staff hazardous waste (small quantity generator/large quantity
generator)/tiered permitting training on June 3-5, 2013 that covered the identification
and citation of hazardous waste violations. In addition, the Department of Toxic
Substances Control provided training on Determining and Citing violations.
Deficiency 4: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not ensuring that businesses,
subject to the hazardous materials reporting requirements, annually submit their
hazardous materials inventory or no change certification statement. Out of the 24 files
reviewed only seven had annual inventories up-to-date with either no change
certifications or updated inventory forms. The list of noncompliant facility files reviewed
by the California Office of Emergency Services was sent to the Certified Unified
Program Agency.
will submit a procedure to the California Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that
businesses will annually submit their inventories into the California Environmental
Reporting System. As part of the approval process, the Certified Unified Program
Agency will ensure that these inventories are complete and correct.
By February 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit ten updated
and complete business plans, from the list provided by the California Office of
Emergency Services, to the California Environmental Protection Agency. In addition,
the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit five current and complete business
plans from facilities not on the list.
Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency is deficient because it has
not established that all business plan files contain a current hazardous materials
inventory or no change certification statement. Although the Certified Unified Program
Agency submitted all the individual business plans required as a part of the corrective
action, the Agency has not shown that it has a procedure that ensures that all regulated
businesses complete their inventory submittals in the California Environmental
Reporting System each year.
14
Status: This deficiency has not been corrected.

Remaining Action Items: The Certified Unified Program Agency must submit a
revised procedure to ensure that businesses annually submit their inventories into the
California Environmental Reporting System. The following items must be addressed:
Provide an explanation of how the procedure reflects current requirements,

including the title of the procedure;
If verification inspections are deemed to be necessary and retained as part of the
process, provide an explanation of how the CUPA will conduct these inspections
with existing or new staff resources;
Remove references to no change certifications in the procedure; and,
Revise the procedures to reflect the annual business plan submission
requirement effective January 1, 2015.

Despite forwarding a stack of documents approximately three inches thick, the
Certified Unified Program Agency did not address this deficiency.
Five business plans were submitted by the Certified Unified Program Agency. All five
were on the list provided to the Certified Unified Program Agency by the California
Emergency Management Agency. All five submitted have current Hazardous
Materials inventories. Upon review of these business plans by the California
Emergency Management Agency, two of the business plans (Asbestos Management
Company and Walgreens #10526) did not included a seismic vulnerability
preparedness plan. Please be aware of all aspects of the business plan when they
are submitted. The deficiency remains in the progress of being corrected. Please
continue to provide updates for the total number of complete and current business
plans.
Third Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- July 31, 2013
Certified Unified Program Agency forwarded 10 business plans from the list of
businesses provided at the time of the evaluation and 5 that were not on the list.
Included with the on list business plans was a second location for Oakland Unified
School District (both maintenance yard and warehouse were included). All 15 of
these files contained current inventories. However, it was not the intention that files
from multiple sites for one handler be counted. Please forward one more business
plan file with a current inventory from the list of businesses provided at the time of
the evaluation. This deficiency remains in the process of being corrected.
15
Fourth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- February 21, 2014

The corrective action from the third update was to include one more complete
business plan from the list of facilities provided at the time of the evaluation. The
information included with Update 4 was for Dreisbach Enterprises, a California
accidental release prevention facility that was not one of the 17 facilities listed in the
left-hand column of incomplete business plan files. The other two business plans
that were included as corrective actions for deficiencies #5, 14 and 15, Peralta
Community College and Oakland Auto Body and Frame, were part of the original 10
files. Certified Unified Program Agency has not supplied an additional business plan
from the list, and the deficiency remains uncorrected.
Fifth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- May 28, 2014
California Environmental Protection Agency
The California Environmental Protection Agency received the final business plan
from the original 2012 request. The final business plan deliverable (Downtown
Oakland YMCA) was submitted and accepted in the California Environmental
Reporting System on July 28, 2014, which was the same day that the 5th progress
report was emailed to California Environmental Protection Agency.
The Certified Unified Program Agency has not shown that it has a procedure to
ensure that all businesses are annually submitting their inventories into the
California Environmental Reporting System.
California Office of Emergency Services
The California Office of Emergency Services reviewed the submitted Downtown
Oakland YMCA business plan for deficiencies 4, 5, and 15. (California
Environmental Reporting System Identification Number - 10501354). The data was
submitted and accepted in the California Environmental Reporting System on July
28, 2014.
Sixth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- October 28, 2014
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted the CERS Reporting Inventory and
No Change Certification Procedures that includes a procedure to ensure that
businesses annually submit their inventories into the California Environmental
Reporting System. The title of the procedure does not reflect all of the content. The
verification inspections referred in the procedure will require additional staff
resources. The Certified Unified Program Agency must provide an explanation of
how they will support the additional staff resources required to perform verification
inspections. The language regarding the submittal of no change should be
removed because handlers are required to submit their chemical inventory into the
California Environmental Reporting System annually. The submittal of no change
is now moot because of the annual electronic submission requirement.
16
subject to the hazardous materials business plan requirements, certify to the Certified
Unified Program Agency that they have reviewed their business plan every three years
and made necessary changes. Out of the 24 files reviewed, only seven had complete
and current files including certifications that the business plan was reviewed. Some of
the files reviewed, not including the seven indicated above, were incomplete or missing
the hazardous materials business plans all together, yet had a current certification in the
file. These were not counted as certifications.
businesses will annually submit their business plans into the California Environmental
Agency will ensure that these business plans are complete and correct.
Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency is considered deficient
because it has not established that all business plan files are complete and contain
certifications that business plans were reviewed. The Certified Unified Program Agency
submitted all of the individual business plans required as a part of the corrective action.
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit an adequate procedure to ensure
that businesses annually submit their business plan into the California Environmental
Reporting System.
revised procedure to ensure that businesses submit their business plans into the
California Environmental Reporting System. The following items must be revised in the
procedure:
Remove language regarding the submittal of required certifications in the

California Environmental Reporting System;
Revise the name of the procedure to reflect the content;
Revise the procedure to address all parts of the business plan;
Revise the procedure to reflect the annual business plan submission requirement
effective January 1, 2015; and,
Complete the missing components of the business plan procedure.
17

Five business plans were submitted by the Certified Unified Program Agency. None
were on the list California Emergency Management Agency provided, therefore
these were considered and assumed these were the five stated not on the list
outlined in the corrective action final evaluation summary. These were current and
complete business plans from facilities not on the list. This part of the corrective
action is corrected; however, the California Emergency Management Agency is
requesting that the Certified Unified Program Agency sends only the business plan
file and not the underground storage tank etc. along with it for deficiencies
addressed to California Emergency Management Agency. The deficiency remains in
the progress of being corrected. Please continue to provide updates for the total
number of complete and current business plans.
Again, the Certified Unified Program Agency forwarded a total of 15 business plans.
The five off list business plans were complete and current. Of the ten on list
business plans, one really wasnt from the list, as noted in #4 above (one of the two
Oakland Unified School District files), and two (Oakland Auto Body and Frame, and
Peralta Community College) contained inventories and inspections, but no other
business plan elements. Please forward three more complete and current business
plans from the list provided at the time of the evaluation. Oakland Auto Body and
Frame, and Peralta Community College can be two of these, if complete business
plans are forwarded. This deficiency remains in the process of being corrected.
Two of the three business plans supplied as part of the corrective action for
deficiency #5, were indeed complete and correctly certified (Peralta CC and Oakland
Auto Body, but see deficiency #15, below). However, again, Dreisbach Industries
was not on the list of businesses supplied at the time of the evaluation. To correct
the deficiency, the Certified Unified Program Agency must supply one more
complete and up-to-date business plan from the list supplied. The deficiency
remains uncorrected.
18
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit a procedure to ensure that
businesses will submit their business plans into the California Environmental
Reporting System. Please submit this procedure to the California Environmental
Protection Agency.
28, 2014.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a narrative of a procedure to
ensure that businesses submit their business plan into the California Environmental
Reporting System. The language regarding the submittal of required certifications in
the California Environmental Reporting System should be removed because the
California Environmental Reporting System does not collect certifications. The
procedure does not address the staff completeness review of all parts of the
business plan. The procedure did not reflect the annual business plan submittal
requirement effective January 1, 2015. The triennial review and certification of the
business plan will be moot because of the annual electronic submission requirement
effective January 1, 2015.
Deficiency 6: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not inspecting each

underground storage tank facility annually.
For the last three fiscal years, the Certified Unified Program Agency reported in its
Report 3s that all underground storage tanks have been inspected annually; however,
the file review by the State Water Resources Control Board indicates that annual
compliance inspections have not been performed.
The Certified Unified Program Agency could not produce documentation showing that
all inspections had occurred. The following are underground storage tank facilities that
were missing records to document that they had been inspected annually:
19
401 Kennedy St
2 Webster St
5425 Martin Luther King Jr. Way
5500 Telegraph Ave
1107 5th St
165 98th Ave
955 High St
3130 35th Ave
165 13th St
6211 San Pablo Ave
Additionally, a Certified Unified Program Agency database query on underground

storage tank facilities identified in the 2008 Program Improvement Agreement indicated
that not all of the annual underground storage tank inspections are occurring. Either the
underground storage tank inspection information was not entered into the Certified
Unified Program Agency data management system and/or documentation confirming
that all underground storage tank inspections had occurred was not found.
The query for the following facilities showed that inspections were not conducted
annually:
2142 E. 12th St was not inspected in 2009, 2010, and 2012; and
6600 Foothill BLVD was not inspected in 2009 and 2012;
Corrective Action(s): Effective immediately and each subsequent year, the Certified
Unified Program Agency will inspect every underground storage tank facility within its
jurisdiction at least once every 12 months.
By November 13, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency will provide the California
Environmental Protection Agency a comprehensive list of all underground storage tank
facilities in their jurisdiction. This list will include the last inspection date for each
underground storage tank facility.
Beginning with the first progress report on December 13, 2012, and each quarterly
progress report thereafter, the Certified Unified Program Agency will provide copies of
the previous quarters underground storage tank file review inspection checklists and
underground storage tank inspection reports.
By February 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will develop and submit to
the California Environmental Protection Agency an underground storage tank inspection
procedure to be included in its Inspection and Enforcement plan that describes how the
Certified Unified Program Agency will schedule, conduct and document its inspections of
all underground storage tank facilities annually. The Certified Unified Program Agency
should consider the California Environmental Reporting System and the database that
they will be transitioning to.
20
By March 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will incorporate and implement
the underground storage tank inspection procedure as described above.
Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency is deficient because the
Certified Unified Program Agency did not adequately inspect each underground storage
tank facility annually. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a list of their
underground storage tank facilities, some of their completed underground storage tank
file review checklists and inspection reports, and inspection procedures within the
Inspection and Enforcement plan. The list of underground storage tank facilities and the
underground storage tank inspection procedures (submitted with progress report 5)
were acceptable. However, the other corrective action submittals were problematic.
Underground storage tank file review checklists and inspection reports were not always
submitted in a timely manner and there have been problems with the ones submitted.
One significant problem is that Mr. Leroy Griffin completed file review checklists and
performed underground storage tank inspections without the required International
Code Council (ICC) certification. As a result, any underground storage tank information
approvals, file review checklists, and inspections completed by Mr. Griffin are
considered invalid.
Remaining Action Items:
The Certified Unified Program Agency must submit next quarters (October
December 2014) inspection reports and file review checklists according to the
agreed upon Program Improvement Agreement.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must adequately inspect all regulated
underground storage tank facilities by December 31, 2014.

Information Submittal: Due Date- November 13, 2012. Actual submission date was
on November 15, 2012.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a comprehensive list of all
underground storage tanks within their jurisdiction. The list includes the last
inspection date as required in the agreed upon corrective actions. Staff has
implemented the use of the State underground storage tank inspection form. The
update to the inspection and enforcement plan shall be completed with the policy
changes by November 30, 2012. The Certified Unified Program Agency also
included a comment section signaling whether a facility is scheduled for an
inspection or other comments. Do the 11/12 dates in the comment field represent
the month and year (November 2012) or the actual date (November 12) of the
scheduled inspection?
21
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a list of active Underground

Storage Tank site and the inspection data has been submitted to the California
Environmental Protection Agency with the information requested. Oakland Fire
Department staff has provided the supplemental information requested by the State
Water Resources Control Board. Included in this submission are copies of last
quarters underground storage tank file review inspection checklists and
The State Water Resources Control Board received from Oakland Fire Department
three blank Summary of Findings Reports and one blank Oakland Fire Department
underground storage tank Compliance Report.
The second corrective action stated, Beginning with the first progress report on
December 13, 2012, and each quarterly progress report thereafter, the Certified
Unified Program Agency will provide copies of the previous quarters underground
storage tank file review inspection checklists and underground storage tank
inspection reports.
The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to immediately submit, to the
California Environmental Protection Agency, copies of the first quarters
underground storage tank file review inspection checklists and underground storage
tank inspection reports.
They were also requested to, on the next progress report, provide to the California
Environmental Protection Agency, a file review checklist for each facility which
Oakland Fire Department inspected during the second progress reporting period. In
addition to the checklists, Oakland Fire Department was requested to provide to the
California Environmental Protection Agency, a copy of each underground storage
tank facility compliance inspection report for the second progress reporting period.
Second Quarter Progress Report Due Date- March 14, 2013
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted underground storage tank file
review checklists and underground storage tank inspection reports, copies of the first
quarters completed underground storage tank file review inspection checklists and
underground storage tank reports.
The State Water Resources Control Board has reviewed the submitted information
from Oakland Fire Department and has determined it is incomplete. In the received
submittals, Oakland Fire Department indicates that they have inspected only five (5)
underground storage tanks for two (2) quarters.
The revised inspection and enforcement plan shall describe how the Certified
Unified Program Agency will schedule, conduct and document its inspections of all
underground storage tank facilities annually. The Certified Unified Program Agency
22
should consider the California Environmental Reporting System and the database
that they will be transitioning to.
The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to continue to provide the
California Environmental Protection Agency with copies of annual underground
storage tank compliance inspections and underground storage tank file review
inspections on a quarterly basis. In addition, Oakland Fire Department was also
requested provide copies of annual underground storage tank compliance
inspections and underground storage tank file review inspections for the second
quarter which was due in March of 2013.
They were also requested, on the next progress report, to provide to the California
Environmental Protection Agency its revised inspection and enforcement plan or
summarize how its development is ongoing.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a hard copy of the inspection
procedures within its inspection and enforcement plan. The Certified Unified
Program Agency also submitted hard copies of completed underground storage tank
file review checklists and inspection reports for the underground storage tank
facilities inspected.
The State Water Resources Control Board has reviewed the submitted file review
checklists and inspection reports. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted
62 records. Thank you.
The State Water Resources Control Board has reviewed the submitted inspection
and enforcement plan dated October 2013 and has identified areas which need to
be addressed starting with page 6, section C cites the wrong California Code of
Regulation (CCR). Page 6, section III (B) indicates there will be general guideline for
all inspections and then specific instructions for the particular elements which the
State Water Resources Control Board could not find. Page 16 section G- Program
Specific Inspection Procedures lists hazardous materials business plan and tiered
permitting but not the underground storage tank program. Starting on page 55,
enforcement tools are indicated. Within this section Oakland Fire Department states
violations of the underground storage tank and aboveground storage tank programs
may be referred to underground storage tank enforcement unit at the State Water
Resources Control Board. This is an incorrect statement. On page 47, the California
Environmental Reporting System term needs to be modified. Page 71, item 3 In the
Permit Renewal section, what is meant by administrative or on-site inspections? In
addition, please review the submitted Consolidated Permit Program Plan because in
this document, the Certified Unified Program Agency uses administrative and on-site
inspections as well.
The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to, on the next progress
report, please submit the inspection reports and file review checklist for the previous
23
quarter as agreed upon in the corrective actions. The Oakland Fire Department
needs to capture underground storage tank inspection procedures in its inspection
and enforcement plan as agreed upon in the corrective actions. The State Water
Resources Control Board could not find underground storage tank specific
procedures.
The underground storage tank file review and annual compliance inspections were
received March 17, 2014.
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit its underground storage tank
file review checklist and annual compliance inspection reports. The Certified Unified
Program Agency wrote a letter that stated the State Water Resources Control Board
would receive the information by March 10, 2014. Also mentioned in the letter that,
In the future, the State Water Resource Board can view these reports for the City of
Oakland by assessing CERS.
The State Water Resources Control Board finds the attachment submitted for
deficiency 6 unacceptable. The underground storage tank Inspection reports and file
review checklists were to be submitted with this update and not at a later time as
indicated by the Certified Unified Program Agency. In addition, the statement
regarding that State Water Board can view reports in the California Environmental
Reporting System is unacceptable. This deficiency was identified in 2008 and
continues today therefore, we will continue to require Oakland Fire Department to
submit underground storage tank compliance inspections and underground storage
tank file review checklists as agreed upon in the Program Improvement Agreement.
Your submitted screen shots from the California Environmental Reporting System
were not part of the agreed upon corrective actions or the Program Improvement
Agreement.
and enforcement plan and has addressed its concerns in the action plan. The State
Water Resources Control Board received the underground storage tank file review
checklist and annual compliance inspection reports on March 17, 2014. The State
Water Resources Control Board reviewed the submissions and noted that 77
inspections were performed. While reviewing the inspections, a few discrepancies
were noticed. The report for 7225 Bancroft Ave shows an inspection date of
November 20, 2013. However it was signed by the inspector and the facility
representative on November 26, 2013. The inspection at 566 Hegenberger Rd noted
a minor violation but there was no indication that it was corrected on-site. Since
there was no indication of the minor violation being corrected, the inspector should
have written, noted, and left a Summary of Violations for minor violations. The
inspector noted on the Summary of Violations that there were no violations. The
inspection for 3750 International Blvd. occurred on September 4, 2013. The date it
was signed by the inspector was December 10, 2013. The interesting part besides
24
the two different dates is that the inspector noted that violations were to be corrected
by October 5, 2013.
The discrepancies noted above are only for a few of the inspections performed.
There were many more report discrepancies that State Water Resources Control
Board noticed.
Lastly, the State Water Resources Control Board has not received any confirmation
that Mr. Griffin has obtained his International Code Council Underground Storage
Tank Inspectors License.
The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to:
1. On the next progress report, please submit the inspection reports and file review
checklist for the previous quarter (October 2013 February 2014) as agreed upon in
the corrective actions and per the Program Improvement Agreement.
2. As you know the inspection and enforcement plan outlines the inspection
procedures for the Unified Program. The inspection and enforcement plan remains
deficient as there are inconsistencies in the revised and submitted plan.
What is the difference between consolidation of permits on page 9 and

consolidation of Certified Unified Program Agency program permits located on
page 65? In addition on page 9, the underground storage tank permit cycle is 5
years and page 69 shows the permit cycle as 3 years.
3. The plan is still missing the program specific inspection procedures for the
underground storage tank program although it is indicated in the inspection and
enforcement plan as being present.
4. Page 5- the last bullet on the bottom of the page should be revised to read
Provide a compliance report detailing the inspection. The current version reads as
if the Certified Unified Program Agency will only provide a report if there are
violations found during the underground storage tank annual compliance inspection.
5. In update 3, the State Water Resources Control Board indicated that aboveground
storage tank enforcement is not to be referred to the State Water Resources Control
Board. In update 4, the submitted inspection and enforcement plan still has this
reference. The Certified Unified Program Agency shall change this language.
6. Page 15 of the inspection and enforcement plan, the Data Tracking and
Reporting, section C cites the wrong citation. There is no Title 27 section 2713.
The State Water Resources Control Board has reviewed the 27 submitted
underground storage tank file review and inspection checklists. Thank you for the
25
submittals. According to the spreadsheet that State Water Resources Control Board
is using to track underground storage tank compliance inspections, the Certified
Unified Program Agency has inspected approximately 65% of its regulated facilities
since it first started to submit file review and inspection checklist.
and enforcement plan and finds the Certified Unified Program Agency has captured
the agreed upon corrective actions for this document. The Certified Unified Program
Agency specifically addresses underground storage tank scheduling, inspections,
and inspection documentation.
On December 9, 2013, the State Water Resources Control Board sent a letter
addressed to Ms. Perkins and Mr. Griffin regarding International Code Council
certification for staff. Specifically, the International Code Council certification
requires Mr. Griffin, the Certified Unified Program Agency manager, to take the
underground storage tank inspector test and submit certification to Mr. Farrow upon
completion. State Water Resources Control Board required Mr. Griffin to become a
licensed inspector because he had submitted inspection reports indicating that he
had conducted annual compliance inspections on at least two (2) occasions.
According to International Code Council, Mr. Griffin has taken the exam on the
following days: December 13, 2013, March 4, 2014, and March 11, 2014. As of
August 8, 2014, State Water Resources Control Board has not received
documentation indicating that Mr. Griffin has successfully passed his examination. If
Mr. Griffin is to continue to perform underground storage tank activities, he is
required be a licensed inspector.
1. On the next progress report, please submit the next quarters file review and
inspection checklists according to the agreed upon program improvement
agreement.
2. On the next progress report, the Certified Unified Program Agency will update
California Environmental Protection Agency and the State Water Resources Control
Board regarding whether or not Mr. Griffin has taken and passed his exam.
The underground storage tank inspection reports and file review checklists
submitted with progress report #6 and previous progress reports indicate that the
Certified Unified Program Agency has inspected 87 out of 144 facilities thus far in
2014, 129 out of 144 facilities in 2013, and 106 out of 144 facilities in 2012. The
Certified Unified Program Agency has not met the annual underground storage tank
inspection frequency since the initiation of the 2012 Program Improvement
Agreement. Additionally, the State Water Resources Control Board observed that
26
several of the inspection reports submitted did not correctly document compliance
and violations.
In the State Water Resources Control Boards fifth progress report response, the
Certified Unified Program Agency was asked if Mr. Griffin has taken and passed his
International Code Council underground storage tank inspector certification. The
Certified Unified Program Agency responded with Mr. Griffin has not performed an
underground storage tank inspection since 2013 and as outlined in the Program
Improvement Agreement, Mr. Griffin will not perform inspections of underground
storage tank facilities moving forward.
Deficiency 7: In some cases, the Certified Unified Program Agency is not following
up and/or documenting return to compliance for businesses cited for violations in
notices to comply and inspection reports/notices of violation.
will create, and submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency, a list of
facilities with ongoing violations. The list will include the Certified Unified Program
Agencys follow-up actions for each. The Certified Unified Program Agency will followup with businesses cited for violations and document return to compliance actions.
By February 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit to the California
Environmental Protection Agency a procedure to ensure that it will follow-up with
facilities with violations on a more consistent basis. The procedures will include, but will
not be limited to, violation tracking per facility, compliance due dates tracking, and
closeout of minor violations within 30 days. The procedure will consider electronic
reporting.
By March 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit copies of follow-up
return to compliance documentation from five facilities that have been cited for at least
one hazardous waste generator violation within the last six months.
By May 15, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will have followed-up with all
the facilities listed. In addition, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit an
updated list to the California Environmental Protection Agency.
Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency is deficient for not
following-up and/or documenting return to compliance for businesses cited for
violations. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted acceptable follow-up
procedures to the California Environmental Protection Agency. The Certified Unified
Program Agency also submitted a list of facilities, but the list was unacceptable because
it did not include all facilities with ongoing unified program violations. The California
Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Toxic Substances Control
could not monitor the Certified Unified Program Agencys progress with following-up
with noncompliant facilities because an acceptable list was never submitted.
27
Additionally, the California Environmental Protection Agencys review of violation

information submitted in the California Environmental Reporting System showed that
violations remain pending for long periods of time without resolution.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must submit a list of all facilities identified
as having ongoing violations to California Environmental Protection Agency. The
Certified Unified Program Agency must follow-up with all facilities cited for
violations and document return to compliance actions.
Along with subsequent progress reports, the Certified Unified Program Agency
must submit an updated list of facilities to California Environmental Protection
Agency showing follow-up actions or return to compliance for all facilities
previously listed.

The California Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Toxic
Substances Control do not have a list of all regulated facilities with ongoing
violations or One-Step printouts for all of the regulated facilities with ongoing
violations to verify return to compliance. To-date, the California Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of Toxic Substances Control are unclear on
the Certified Unified Program Agencys progress toward following-up with facilities
with ongoing violations.
During the exit briefing with the Certified Unified Program Agency on October 10,
2012, the California Environmental Protection Agency explained that the Certified
Unified Program Agency must create, and submit to the California Environmental
Protection Agency, a list of all regulated facilities with ongoing violations. The list
was to include the Certified Unified Program Agencys follow-up actions for each.
The list would serve two purposes. One, the list would be a tool for the Certified
Unified Program Agency to use to document and ensure return to compliance for all
regulated facilities that require follow-up. Two, the list would provide the California
with a basis for which to evaluate the Certified Unified Program Agency progress of
ensuring that facilities with violations return to compliance. The list would be one
means by which the California Environmental Protection Agency and the
Department of Toxic Substances Control could keep the Certified Unified Program
Agency accountable and ultimately correct the deficiency.
The California Environmental Protection Agency made it clear during the October
10, 2012 exit briefing that the notice of violations list submitted for the December 20,
2010, Program Improvement Agreement (previous Program Improvement
Agreement) was not acceptable because it included facilities without violations and it
28
also included non-Certified Unified Program Agency-related facilities. During the

previous Program Improvement Agreement period, the California Environmental
Protection Agency provided the Certified Unified Program Agency with a
spreadsheet template that included the necessary list criteria, but the Certified
Unified Program Agency did not use it. The Certified Unified Program Agency
expressed some concern about their ability to create a list using their current data
management system because of the way it was set up, but ultimately agreed to
complete the corrective action by November 13, 2012.
The 1st progress report was submitted on January 2, 2013. The pdf letter that came
with the 1st progress report documents did not give the state reviewer any narrative
descriptions of what the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted or any written
direction on how to interpret the information. The list of facilities submitted was of
the same type that was problematic for state evaluators when submitted for the
previous Program Improvement Agreement. The list included facilities without
violations and it also included non-Certified Unified Program Agency-related
facilities. The California Environmental Protection Agency informed the Certified
Unified Program Agency in the 1st progress report response and in the subsequent
face-to-face meeting that their submitted list was not acceptable. The list criteria
were explained again to the Certified Unified Program Agency in the 1st progress
report meeting. Certified Unified Program Agency's procedures for tracking notices
to comply and notices of violations that was due February 14, 2014 were acceptable.
Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its 2nd progress report on April 17, 2013
via an email. The California Environmental Protection Agency responded to the
Certified Unified Program Agency via email the same day that the Certified Unified
Program Agencys 2nd Program Improvement Agreement progress report appeared
to be from the last evaluation period 2008.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its 2nd progress report
documentation on May 1, 2013. There was no narrative descriptions of what the
Certified Unified Program Agency submitted or any written direction on how to
interpret the information. A new spreadsheet was submitted. However, the list
included facilities without violations and it also included non-Certified Unified
Program Agency-related facilities. The list information was very similar to the list
submitted along will the 1st progress report and; therefore, was not acceptable.
Another problem with the list is that it contained a date range of 1/1/2010 through
3/1/2013. The requirement was to list all regulated facilities with ongoing violations,
not just the ones within a certain date range. At this point in the progress reporting
29
process, the California Environmental Protection Agency still does not have a basis
for which to verify the Certified Unified Program Agencys follow-up progress.
In a face-to-face progress report meeting on October 16, 2013, the Certified Unified
Program Agency informed the California Environmental Protection Agency that the
Certified Unified Program Agencys current data system could not produce a list of
Unified Program facilities with ongoing violations. As a workaround, the California
Environmental Protection Agency agreed to accept One Step printouts from the
Certified Unified Program Agency for all of its regulated facilities with ongoing
violations. The printouts would have to include the business name, last inspection
date, violations, return to compliance due date, etc. The Certified Unified Program
Agency suggested if they could work directly with the regulatory agencies to correct
the deficiencies and the California Environmental Protection Agency agreed to their
request.
Department of Toxic Substances Control
With this progress report, the Certified Unified Program Agency also submitted five
inspection reports with hazardous waste generator violations. The Department of
Toxic Substances Control noted that observations and factual basis of violations are
missing for some of the violations noted and not legible (see the Department of
Toxic Substances Controls response for the deficiency #2). In addition, the Certified
Unified Program Agency did not submit copies of follow-up return to compliance
documentation from five facilities that had been cited for at least one hazardous
waste generator violation within the last six months.
The 3rd progress report documents that the Certified Unified Program Agency
provided to the California Environmental Protection Agency on October 29, 2013 did
not contain the One Step facility printouts that the Certified Unified Program Agency
agreed to submit. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a hard copy
invoice of fines and fees and an administrative enforcement order for one facility.
The Certified Unified Program Agency also submitted hard copies of return to
compliance certifications for two facilities. The problem with this submittal was that
not only was there no narrative describing what was done to correct the deficiency,
but the California Environmental Protection Agency still does not have a list of
facilities from which to verify return to compliance documentation. Return to
compliance documentation should only be submitted after the submitted list or OneStep printouts are acceptable to the California Environmental Protection Agency and
the Department of Toxic Substances Control
30
The Department of Toxic Substances Control had two meetings with the Certified
Unified Program Agency on November 4 and 25, 2013 to discuss status of each
deficiency as per their request. On November 4, 2013, the Department of Toxic
Substances Control asked Leroy Griffin to submit return to compliance
documentation reports which would include two extra columns in comparison to the
reports submitted previously. The additional columns would include Inspection Date
and Return to Compliance Date of the facilities. In order to confirm that the Certified
Unified Program Agency was covering all of the requested data in these reports,
Leroy Griffin agreed to prepare a template by Friday, December 6, 2013 and submit
it to the Department of Toxic Substances Control. The Department of Toxic
Substances Control agreed to review the template and respond back to Oakland
either by requesting a change in the template or by confirming that the template was
adequate. Once the template was finalized the Certified Unified Program Agency
would populate the data and submit it to the Department of Toxic Substances
Control for review. The Department of Toxic Substances Control agreed to respond
by January 10, 2014 to this review.
The 4th progress report contained a new spreadsheet. The Certified Unified
Program Agency listed one business (AB Plating) that appears the have return to
compliance as evidenced by the RTC Comply By Date of 4/4/2014. Upon the
California Environmental Protection Agencys review of the inspection and violation
information the Certified Unified Program Agency entered into the California
Environmental Reporting System, it appears that there are many more businesses
The Certified Unified Program Agency hand delivered its 4th progress report to the
Department of Toxic Substances Control on February 28, 2014 which contained a
new Excel template in response to the November 4 and 25 meetings discussions on
list of facilities with outstanding return to compliance. On March 10, 2014, Asha
Arora contacted LeRoy Griffin to get clarification on the template headings and
requested this template be updated by adding the following columns: AEO, Civil
Action, Penalties Assessed/Collected, and SEPs. LeRoy Griffin agreed to email the
Department of Toxic Substances Control the updated template within minutes. The
Department of Toxic Substances Control has not received an updated template.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control provided comments for this deficiency
to the California Environmental Protection Agency on March 12, 2014.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control does not have a list of all regulated
facilities with ongoing violations or One-Step printouts for all of the regulated
facilities with ongoing violations to verify return to compliance. To-date, the
31
Department of Toxic Substances Control is unclear on the Certified Unified Program

Agencys progress toward following-up with facilities with ongoing violations.
The Certified Unified Program Agency has not submitted a list of facilities that
California Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Toxic Substances
Control can use to evaluate Certified Unified Program Agencys progress with
following-up with facilities with ongoing violations. The Certified Unified Program
Agency submitted a hardcopy of a spreadsheet labelled Oakland Fire Department
Unified Program Hazardous Waste Tracking Form. This spreadsheet is the
template the Certified Unified Program Agency will use to list all their facilities (all
unified programs elements) with ongoing violations. The Certified Unified Program
Agency must identify all regulated facilities that have violations cited in an inspection
report. For each violation, the Certified Unified Program Agency must demonstrate
one of the following: (1) the violation has been corrected, (2) return-to-compliance
efforts are ongoing, or (3) an enforcement action has commenced.
The hazardous waste tracking template is acceptable to Department of Toxic
Substances Control. However, deficiency #7 remains as we have not received the
list of facilities (the template populated) that document follow-up actions, i.e. return
to compliance, administrative enforcement orders, etc.
Additionally we still do not have a baseline list of businesses from the Certified
Unified Program Agency that Department of Toxic Substances Control can track to
ensure that the Certified Unified Program Agency is following-up with noncompliant
businesses.
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide an update for this deficiency in
progress report #6. To-date the Certified Unified Program Agency has not provided
California Environmental Protection Agency with a list of facilities with ongoing
violations as agreed upon in the Program Improvement Agreement. California
Environmental Protection Agency does not have any information to verify whether
the Certified Unified Program Agency has been following-up with businesses cited
for violations.
32
Deficiency 8: The Certified Unified Program Agency has not submitted the quarterly
inspection or enforcement reports for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act large
quantity generators since 2005.
The Certified Unified Program Agency stated that they entered the large quantity
generator data for the last three years into the California Environmental Reporting
System in September 2012. However, a review of the California Environmental
Reporting System by the Department of Toxic Substances Control and the California
Environmental Protection Agency revealed that no inspection/enforcement data were
entered into the California Environmental Reporting System for large quantity
generators in the City of Oakland.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator reports must be
submitted to the Department of Toxic Substances Control on a quarterly basis
(February 1, May 1, August 1, and October 1).
Corrective Action(s): By February 1, 2013, and each quarter thereafter, the Certified
Unified Program Agency will enter the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large
Quantity Generator information online using the California Environmental Reporting
System.
If the Certified Unified Program Agency did not perform any inspections or take any
enforcement actions at a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity
Generator facility, it will submit a notice to the Department of Toxic Substances Control
stating that the Certified Unified Program Agency did not perform any activities at
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator facilities. The
Certified Unified Program Agency may send this notice or the quarterly Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator report to Asha Arora at
asha.arora@dtsc.ca.gov.
Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency was deficient because
the Certified Unified Program Agency had not submitted their quarterly inspection or
enforcement reports for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act large quantity
generators since 2005. This deficiency is considered corrected as two Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act large quantity generator inspections were conducted
last week and the California Environmental Reporting System has been updated with
the inspection information.
On October 1, 2012, the Department of Toxic Substances Control received an email
from Sheryl Skillern, a Certified Unified Program Agency inspector, that there was a
problem in entering data into the California Environmental Reporting System and
submitted Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator
reports for 2011-12 in Adobe Acrobat format.
33
On December 6, 2012, Asha Arora called LeRoy Griffin as the California

Environmental Protection Agency said he would like to come to the Department of
Toxic Substances Control Berkeley office at 2 PM to discuss deficiencies. The
Department of Toxic Substances Control had a meeting with LeRoy Griffin who
brought a package with him for discussion. No documents regarding the
outstanding deficiencies were provided to the Department of Toxic Substances
Control at this meeting. He said that Sheryl had entered Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator data in the California Environmental
Reporting System and Asha informed him that she had checked the California
environmental reporting system on this same day and no new Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator data was available. The
Department of Toxic Substances Controls review of the California Environmental
Reporting System also revealed that the Certified Unified Program Agency had not
entered any inspection/enforcement data into the California Environmental Reporting
System for the years 2005 to 2011. Asha showed Mr. Griffin the California
Environmental Reporting System website in her computer and that no data was
available. He called Sheryl and she informed him that she was having a problem in
entering data into the California environmental reporting system.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control has accepted the Certified Unified
Program Agencys previous response of October 1, 2012 for Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator data submittal.
Unified Program Agency on November 4 and 25, 2013 as requested by the Certified
Unified Program Agency. The Department of Toxic Substances Control agreed that
this deficiency was corrected. The Department of Toxic Substances Control clarified
that what is covered under the Department of Toxic Substances Control hazardous
waste tracking system does not necessarily provide accurate data on the number of
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator facilities under
any Certified Unified Program Agencys jurisdiction due to the limitation of the data
entered into the hazardous waste tracking system. The Department of Toxic
Substances Control wanted the Certified Unified Program Agency to be aware of this
limitation and forewarned the Certified Unified Program Agency to use the
hazardous waste tracking system only as a reference to identify potential Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator facilities and verify the
information during field inspections. The Department of Toxic Substances Control
gave an example stating that some facilities may appear as a Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator in the hazardous waste
tracking system in the case of waste generated during a site cleanup, or that they
may have generated more than 1kg of acute hazardous waste at some point during
the year.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control further explained that what the
Department of Toxic Substances Control wanted to be covered under Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generators reporting are facilities
34
that consistently generated over 1000kg of Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act hazardous wastes per month.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control received an email from the Certified
Unified Program Agency on October 15, 2014 that the City of Oakland did not
conduct any large quantity generator inspections in the third quarter of 2014 (this
email was attached with progress report 5). In addition, the Certified Unified
Program Agency submitted a letter dated October 16, 2014, which the Department
of Toxic Substances Control has no record of receiving this letter as all incoming
mail is logged in. Along with progress report 6, the Certified Unified Program
Agency submitted a screen shot from the California Environmental Reporting
System showing that two (2) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act large
quantity generator inspections were conducted on October 20 and 21, 2014. This
deficiency has been corrected as two (2) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
large quantity generator inspections were conducted last week and the California
Environmental Reporting System has been updated.
Deficiency 9: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not billing, collecting, and
remitting state surcharges correctly.
The electronic reporting portion of the "Certified Unified Program Agency Oversight"
surcharge ($25) has not been billed in single fee invoices. The electronic reporting
surcharge remitted was taken from the Certified Unified Program Agencys local
fees.
The Certified Unified Program Agency has only remitted the electronic reporting
surcharge to the state for fiscal years 2010/2011 and 2011/2012. The electronic
reporting surcharge remitted was not collected as an itemized surcharge from
regulated businesses.
The Certified Unified Program Agency has not billed the correct amount of
underground storage tank surcharge for fiscal years 2010/2011 and 2008/2009.
According to the Single Fee Summary Reports, the Certified Unified Program
Agency billed underground storage tank facilities a total of $2,280 in fiscal year
2010/2011 and $2,985 in fiscal year 2008/2009. The amounts should have been
approximately $6,120 in fiscal year 2010/2011 and $6,285 in fiscal year 2008/2009.
Agency billed one out of its three California accidental release prevention facilities
the California accidental release prevention surcharge in fiscal year 2010/2011. In
fiscal year 2009/2010, the Certified Unified Program Agency billed $2,160 when
there were only three California accidental release prevention facilities.
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not remit the surcharge collected for fiscal
years 2009/2010 and 2008/2009 as was reported on the Single Fee Summary
Reports. The Certified Unified Program Agency was unable to provide a copy of the
35
surcharge transmittals with checks to the California Environmental Protection

Agency during the evaluation.
will verify the actual amount of underground storage tank and California accidental
release prevention surcharges billed and collected for fiscal years 2008/2009 through
2010/2011. The Certified Unified Program Agency will report the amounts to the
California Environmental Protection Agency. The Certified Unified Program Agency will
remit any surcharges that were collected, but not remitted to the state.
By December 13, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency will remit the collected
surcharges for fiscal years 2009/2010 and 2008/2009.
By July 1, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will bill its regulated businesses
the appropriate state surcharge for the current fiscal year.
By October 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit to the California
Environmental Protection Agency five single fee invoices showing that its regulated
businesses were billed the appropriate state surcharge.
Certified Unified Program Agency is not billing, collecting, and remitting state
surcharges correctly. Pursuant to the Program Improvement Agreement, the Certified
Unified Program Agency has verified the surcharges billed and collected for fiscal years
2008/2009 through 2010/2011 and remitted all past unremitted surcharges. To date,
however, the Certified Unified Program Agency has not billed the electronic reporting
surcharge of $25 to their regulated businesses or the current Certified Unified Program
Agency oversight surcharge of $35. Therefore, the Certified Unified Program Agency
has been unable to comply with the request to submit five single fee invoices showing
that regulated businesses were billed the appropriate state surcharge.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must bill its regulated businesses the
electronic reporting ($25) and Certified Unified Program Agency oversight ($35)
state surcharges. (While the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act surcharge
was not included in the original corrective action, it should be billed as an
appropriate state surcharge for all Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act facilities
starting in Fiscal Year 2014-2015.)
The Certified Unified Program Agency must submit to the California
Environmental Protection Agency five single fee invoices showing that its
regulated businesses were billed the appropriate state surcharge.

36
Information Submittal: Due Date- November 13, 2012

The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted some information stating that their
staff was working with the City of Oaklands budget office to change the point-of-sale
(POS) surcharge collection system. While this was a good step, the California
Environmental Protection Agency expected the Certified Unified Program Agency to
also change their invoice billing system so that the correct electronic reporting
surcharge of $25 was added to the invoice.
The Certified Unified Program Agency told the California Environmental Protection
Agency by phone that they performed a financial audit to verify the state surcharges
billed each fiscal year. After the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted their 1st
update on January 2, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted two pdf
check copies on February 20, 2013. One was for the surcharge collected in fiscal
year 2008/2009 and the other was for the surcharge collected in fiscal year
2009/2010. Both were date January 16, 2013. The surcharge transmittal reports for
both checks that the Air Resources Board accounting department received
contained the underground storage tank and California accidental release prevention
surcharge amounts. The Certified Unified Program Agencys submittals and
information corrected the December 13, 2012 corrective action items.
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide an update on their progress
addressing the remaining corrective action items.
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide a narrative update on their
progress addressing the remaining corrective action items. The Certified Unified
Program Agency submitted One-Step screenshots showing that the data system can
manage state surcharge information. However, the Certified Unified Program
Agency did not submit five single fee invoices showing that its regulated businesses
were billed the appropriate state surcharges (including the electronic reporting
surcharge). The Certified Unified Program Agency failed the show that they billed
the electronic reporting surcharge by the corrective action due date nor did the
Certified Unified Program Agency submit the five single fee invoices by the
corrective action due date.
37
Program Agency submitted copies of point-of-sale records, receipts, and the checks
of five regulated businesses showing that each business paid the electronic
reporting surcharge along with other Certified Unified Program Agency fees at the
Oakland Fire Prevention office. The Certified Unified Program Agency failed to
address the corrective action which was to submit five single fee invoices showing
that its regulated businesses were billed the appropriate state surcharge.
The California Environmental Protection Agency sent an email on March 10, 2014 to
the Oakland Chief of Staff requesting that the Certified Unified Program Agency
submit five invoices. The Chief of Staff emailed a response stating that the Certified
Unified Program Agency was in the process of transitioning its data management
system from Certified Unified Program Agency data management system to One
Step. The Certified Unified Program Agency data management system currently
manages Certified Unified Program Agency billing. The invoices generated from the
system do not have an electronic reporting line item. The Chief of Staff stated in an
email that One Step would have the electronic reporting line item. Two sample
invoices were emailed to the California Environmental Protection Agency on March
10, 2014, one from the Certified Unified Program Agency data management system
and the other from One Step, showing that the ONE Step billing application could
address the corrective action. The Assistant Fire Marshal told the California
Environmental Protection Agency in a phone conversation that the Certified Unified
Program Agency had not billed the electronic surcharge to all of their regulated
businesses and that the Certified Unified Program Agency would be sending a
notice to the businesses stating that they would be billed the electronic reporting
surcharge. The problem is the Certified Unified Program Agency should have
already billed their regulated businesses the appropriate surcharges by July 1, 2013
per the Program Improvement Agreement.
The Certified Unified Program Agency discontinued their move to One Step and is
now transitioning their data management system to another system. This shift
seriously affects their ability to track business billing. The Certified Unified Program
Agency had not incorporated the electronic reporting surcharge of $25 into their One
Step billing system nor billed the regulated businesses this electronic reporting
surcharge. The electronic reporting surcharge has only been charged and collected
when an owner/operator pays local fees over-the-counter. The electronic reporting
surcharge has not been included in normal single fee invoices. Additionally, the
Certified Unified Program Agency submitted an invoice for Valero dated March 11,
2014 showing an oversight state surcharge of $24 was billed, even though the
oversight state surcharge was updated in July 2013 to $35. Please submit five
single fee invoices to California Environmental Protection Agency showing that
appropriate state surcharges ($25 for electronic reporting; $35 for Certified Unified
Program Agency oversight) were billed.
38
progress report #6. The California Environmental Protection Agency has not
received any documentation to confirm that the Certified Unified Program Agency
has billed the correct surcharges to regulated businesses. The Certified Unified
Program Agency originally planned to revise surcharge amounts in their data
management system One Step. However, the Certified Unified Program Agency
decided to change their data management system to Filemaker Pro. Filemaker Pro
was expected to go live on October 23, 2014. Point-of-sale receipts that were
submitted with a previous progress report are not considered invoices nor are they
sufficient evidence that appropriate surcharges have been billed. Another area of
concern may include the billing of the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act
surcharge adopted in July 2014.
Deficiency 10: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not reporting correct
information on the Annual Summary Reports.
In the fiscal year 2010/2011 Single Fee Summary Report (Report 2), the amount of
surcharge the Certified Unified Program Agency reported that it remitted to the state
was $30,578; however, the fiscal year 2010/2011 Surcharge Transmittal Report with
the check shows the Certified Unified Program Agency remitted $52,065. Also, the
Certified Unified Program Agency reported that it had one California accidental
release prevention stationary source when it actually has three. Also, the numbers
of tiered permitting facilities reported in Report 2 are inconsistent with the numbers
of tiered permitting facilities reported in the Annual Inspection Summary Report
(Report 3). Report 2 lists 48 tiered permitting facilities, whereas Report 3 lists 7
tiered permitting facilities.
In the fiscal year 2010/2011 Inspection Summary Report, the Certified Unified
Program Agency reported that 100% of the California accidental release prevention,
aboveground storage tank, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large
Quantity Generators, and household hazardous waste inspections with class 1 or 2
violations have return to compliance within 90 days when there are no class 1 or 2
violations reported in the Annual Enforcement Summary Report. Also, the Certified
Unified Program Agency reported 20 Resource Conservation and Recovery Large
Quantity Generators, when it has only five or six.
In the fiscal year 2010/2011 Annual Enforcement Summary Report, the Certified
Unified Program Agency reported that it issued local administrative enforcement
orders, but the Certified Unified Program Agency has not included information
regarding issuance of any local administrative enforcement orders in submittals
detailing their enforcement actions related to specific facilities.
Similar problems exist in the fiscal years 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 Summary Reports.
will submit its fiscal year 2011/2012 Annual Summary Reports to the California
Environmental Protection Agency that accurately reports the Unified Program data.
39
Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency was deficient for reporting
correct information on the Annual Summary Reports. The Certified Unified Program
Agency submitted a revision to their fiscal year 2011/2012 Annual Summary Reports on
March 29, 2013 that was acceptable.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted their fiscal year 2011/2012 annual
summary reports along with their other pre-update documents on November 15,
2012. The California Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Toxic
Substances Control found some errors in the reported information. The California
Environmental Protection Agency sent an emailed the states responses in the
progress report form requesting that the errors be corrected.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted their revised the Certified Unified
Program Agency's fiscal year 2011/2012 Annual Summary Reports on January 2,
2014. Some minor corrections were needed and specified in the emailed state
response to the Certified Unified Program Agency. On March 29, 2013, the Certified
Unified Program Agency submitted another revision of their fiscal year 2011/2012
Annual Summary Reports. The final revision was considered corrected.
In fiscal year 2010/2011 Inspection Summary Report, the Certified Unified Program
Agency reported that 100% of the California accidental release prevention,
violations have return to compliance within 90 days. However, the Annual
Enforcement Summary Report for fiscal year 2010/2011 stated there were no class
1 or 2 violations. Also, the Certified Unified Program Agency reported 20 Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act large quantity generators, when it has only five or
six. Similar problems exist in the fiscal years 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 Summary
Reports.
2012, the California Environmental Protection Agency stated the Certified Unified
Program Agency will submit its fiscal year 2011/2012 Annual Summary Reports to
the California Environmental Protection Agency that accurately report the Unified
40
Program data by November 13, 2012. Oakland Fire Department submitted revised
summary reports to the California Environmental Protection Agency on November
16, 2012. The Department of Toxic Substances Control reviewed the document
submitted and finds this deficiency corrected.
Deficiency 11: The Certified Unified Program Agency has not performed a complete
and accurate California accidental release prevention performance audit.
Corrective Action(s): By February 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will
submit a complete and accurate California accidental release prevention performance
audit for fiscal year 2011/2012 to the California Environmental Protection Agency. For
subsequent reporting years and at the Certified Unified Program Agencys discretion,
the elements of the performance audit may be incorporated into the annual Title 27 selfaudit, but all eight elements of the performance audit must be addressed.
Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency is considered deficient by
the California Office of Emergency Services for not performing a complete and accurate
California Accidental Release Prevention annual performance audit. The Certified
Unified Program Agency submitted their annual title 27 self-audit report. However, the
title 27 self-audit report does not include all eight elements of the California Accidental
Release Prevention annual performance audit listed in title 19, section 2780.5.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must submit a complete and accurate
California Accidental Release Prevention performance audit that addresses all
eight elements listed in title 19, section 2780.3.

All eight elements of the California accidental release prevention performance audit
have not been addressed in the title 27 self-audit submitted with the first progress
report. Please review title 19, section 2780.5 and submit the California accidental
release prevention performance audit that addresses all eight of the audit criteria. If
a criteria item did not apply, address it briefly in one sentence (ex. No stationary
sources have been requested to develop an RMP.).
41

The Certified Unified Program Agency did not address this deficiency in the binder
with approximately 2.5 inch thickness of documents forwarded to the California
Office of Emergency Services. This binder was forwarded by the Certified Unified
Program Agency following the Certified Unified Program Agency-State Agencies
face-to-face meeting at the California Environmental Protection Agency on October
16, 2013.
The 2012-2013 self-audit submitted as corrective action for deficiency 11 may have
been accepted as a Title 27 self-audit, but it was not an acceptable Title 19
California accidental release prevention performance audit. To reiterate the
California Environmental Protection Agencys response to the Certified Unified
Program Agencys second update, All eight elements of the California accidental
release prevention performance audit have not been addressed in the title 27 selfaudit submitted with the first progress report. Please review title 19, section 2780.5
and submit the California accidental release prevention performance audit that
addresses all eight of the audit criteria. If a criteria item did not apply, address it
briefly in one sentence (ex. No stationary sources have been requested to develop
an RMP.). To refresh the Certified Unified Program Agencys memory, here are
the elements of the California accidental release prevention performance audit, from
19 CCR 2780.5(b):
An audit report shall be compiled annually based upon the previous fiscal year's
activities and shall contain an executive summary and a brief description of
how the AA is meeting the requirements of the program as listed in Section
2780.3. The audit shall include but is not limited to the following information:
(1) a listing of stationary sources which have been audited.
(2) a listing of stationary sources which have been requested to develop RMPs.
(3) a listing of stationary sources which have been inspected.
(4) a listing of stationary sources which have received public comments on the
RMP.
(5) a list of new or modified stationary sources.
(6) a summary of enforcement actions initiated by the AA identifying each
stationary source.
(7) a summary of the personnel and personnel years necessary to directly
implement, administer, and operate the California accidental release
prevention Program.
(8) a list of those stationary sources determined by the AA to be exempt from
the chapter pursuant to Section 25534(b)(2).
The document supplied as corrective action identified the facility that had been
inspected, but did not address the remainder of the elements. The deficiency
remains.
42
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not address this deficiency. In this
progress report the Certified Unified Program Agency stated that the next self audit
report is due on September 30, 2014 .. all program elements will be stated in the
next self audit report. The California accidental release prevention dispute
resolution procedure was submitted, but the procedure is not an element of the
California accidental release prevention performance audit. Please submit a
complete and accurate California accidental release prevention annual performance
audit to California Environmental Protection Agency and the California Office of
Emergency Services that addresses all eight elements listed in title 19, section
2780.3.
progress report #6.
Deficiency 12: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not implementing its fee
accountability program correctly. For fiscal years 2010/2011 and 2011/2012, the
Certified Unified Program Agency used local fees to remit the electronic reporting
portion of the "Certified Unified Program Agency Oversight" surcharge. Regulated
businesses were not billed the electronic reporting surcharge. This indicates that
regulated businesses have been billed more than the necessary and reasonable cost to
implement the Unified Program in fiscal years 2010/2011 and 2011/2012.
Corrective Action(s): By January 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will
review its fee accountability program and update it to reflect the necessary and
reasonable cost to implement the Unified Program. The Certified Unified Program
Agency will submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency its previous and
updated fee accountability documentation and fee schedule.
the California Environmental Protection Agency for not adequately implementing their
fee accountability program. The submitted fee accountability documents did not
demonstrate that Certified Unified Program Agency adequately reviewed and updated
their fee accountability program to fund the necessary and reasonable cost to
implement the Unified Program. The Certified Unified Program Agency is running a
substantial surplus of 174% of the fiscal year 2012/2013 expenditures. In addition, it
appears that Unified Program fees are used to fund non-Certified Unified Program
Agency-related programs. Additionally, Certified Unified Program Agency revenue was
transferred to the general fund with no justification. Per title 27, section 15220,
assessed fees must only fund the necessary and reasonable cost to implement the
Unified Program.
43
The Certified Unified Program Agency must review and update of its fee
accountability program. Changes are needed because of the rolling annual
surplus and because staff workloads are not all unified program related but are
100% funded by Certified Unified Program Agency fees.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must correct the errors in table 3 observed
by California Environmental Protection Agency and provide a dollar amount per
Certified Unified Program Agency program hour.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must explain the regular annual revenue
surpluses collected including information about the $1,463,418 surplus (recorded
in the fund balance report for fiscal year 2012/2013), how it was accumulated,
and how the surplus issue will be addressed.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must explain why $249,096 in Certified
Unified Program Agency revenue was transferred to the general fund.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must explain the disparity between what
the Certified Unified Program Agency reported to the state in their fiscal year
2012/2013 annual single fee summary report and what their fund balance report
and the fee accountability assessment documented.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must provide California Environmental
Protection Agency each Certified Unified Program Agency staffs workload
percentage that is dedicated to performing Certified Unified Program Agencyrelated job functions.

In the pre-update documentation the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted
November 15, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency stated that a fee
accountability study was in process and would be completed December 19, 2012.
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide an update for this deficiency
on January 2, 2013. On March 29, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency
submitted a revenue report without any information about what fiscal year the report
was for. Other than the revenue report that was unclear as to the time period the
revenues were reported for, the Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit
their previous and updated fee accountability documentation or fee schedule to meet
the corrective action deadline. In a conference call on February 19, 2013, the
California Environmental Protection Agency explained to the Certified Unified
Program Agency that fee accountability documentation should include the criteria in
title 27, section 15220 that would break down the direct and indirect costs and
44
revenues of the Certified Unified Program Agency. The Certified Unified Program
Agency agreed to provide additional information along with the 2 nd update.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a program fee accountability
assessment document as part of their 2nd update on May 1, 2013. Their previous
and updated program fee accountability assessment document was not acceptable
because the Certified Unified Program Agency did not use the criteria in title 27,
section 15220 and break down the direct and indirect costs and revenues of the
Certified Unified Program Agency. Also, the document did not have any dates or
fiscal years for the information submitted. Again, the California Environmental
Protection Agency explained in the states response that the title 27, section 15220
criteria was needed to evidence that an adequate fee accountability review occurred.
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit their previous and updated fee
schedule to meet the corrective action requirement.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a hard copy of its 2011/2012
program fee accountability assessment along with their update document binder on
October 31, 2013. The 3rd update was due July 31, 2013. The assessment included
a general summary about the Certified Unified Program Agencys financial
management, fees collected, personnel/operations and management costs, and
indirect costs from fiscal years 2010/2011 through 2012/2013. This fee
accountability submission was not acceptable because the submission did not show
that the Certified Unified Program Agency performed an adequate review of its
program expenses and revenues. Also, it was unclear whether all Certified Unified
Program Agency staffs total workload was 100% Certified Unified Program Agencyrelated. The Assistant Fire Marshal stated that, other than some minor incidental
instances, all Certified Unified Program Agency staff workload is 100% Certified
Unified Program Agency-related and 100% funded by Certified Unified Program
Agency fees. The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit their fiscal year
2012/2013 fee accountability program review nor did they submit their fee schedules
for fiscal years 2011/2012 or 2012/2013 along with the 3rd update.
On November 19, 2013, the California Environmental Protection Agency emailed the
Oakland Chief of Staff and the Assistant Fire Marshal to inform them that their
deficiency 12 submission was incomplete. The email listed the title 27, section
15220 criteria that the Certified Unified Program Agency needed to use when
reviewing their fee accountability program. On November 20, 2013, the Certified
Unified Program Agency emailed their Revenue Report, fiscal year 2012/2013
Master Fee Study, the master fee schedule effective July 1, 2013, and the City of
Oakland Inter Office Memo (subject: fiscal year 2013-14, September 2013 Financial
Summary) for discussion at a November 21, 2013 conference call between the
Certified Unified Program Agency and the California Environmental Protection
45
Agency. These documents were emailed to the California Environmental Protection

Agency four minutes before the November 21, 2013 conference call was to begin
giving the California Environmental Protection Agency no time to review the
information for discussion. The emailed fee accountability submission was also not
acceptable. The Master Fee Study Fire Prevention Inspection Costs for FY 201213 and the City of Oakland Inter Office Memo incorporated the costs of the entire
fire prevention program of the Oakland Fire Department, not solely the costs of the
Unified Program. The documentation also did not demonstrate that the Certified
Unified Program Agency thoroughly evaluated their resource needs. The California
Environmental Protection Agency emailed the Certified Unified Program Agency a
template to help them document the staff time needed for the Unified Program.
On February 28, 2014, the California Environmental Protection Agency received
fiscal year 12/13 Program Fee Accountability Assessment, master fee schedule
(effective 7-1-13), direct/indirect program expense table, personnel chart with
personnel costs, table 3 time allocation of staff, and the City of Oakland fund
balance report. No narrative descriptions accompanied these documents.
According to fund balance report and the fee accountability assessment, the
Certified Unified Program Agencys total expenditures for fiscal year 2012/2013 were
about 6% higher than the cost to implement the program. Also, that Certified Unified
Program Agency is running a substantial surplus of $1,463,418.20 or 174% of the
fiscal year 2012/2013 expenditures. In addition, the fiscal year 2012/2013 fee
accountability assessment states that the City of Oakland adjusted fees by 5% to
account for cost of living adjustments for program implementation.
There is a large disparity between what the Certified Unified Program Agency
reported to the state in their fiscal year 2012/2013 annual single fee summary report
and what the Certified Unified Program Agencys fund balance report indicates. The
Certified Unified Program Agency reported that they billed $672,486.21 and
collected $667,768.51 in fiscal year 2012/2013. The fund balance report indicates
that the Certified Unified Program Agencys total expenditures were $841,337.16
while the amount of revenues collected was $899,796.45 in fiscal year 2012/2013. It
is unclear which information is accurate.
In emails and verbal correspondences, the Certified Unified Program Agency stated
that staff assigned to implement the Unified Program are 100% funded by collected
Unified Program fees and 100% of their workload is devoted to the Unified Program.
However, the Certified Unified Program Agency performs Commercial Stormwater
Protection inspections along with Certified Unified Program Agency inspections, one
Certified Unified Program Agency staff participates in the Industrial Illicit discharge
committee for Alameda County, and Certified Unified Program Agency staff attend
Industrial Illicit Discharge training annually. The Industrial Illicit Discharge and
Commercial Stormwater Protection programs are non-Certified Unified Program
Agency-related programs. Therefore, all Certified Unified Program Agency staff
46
should not be 100% Certified Unified Program Agency funded because a percentage
of their workload is spent doing non-Certified Unified Program Agency-related job
functions.
Certified Unified Program Agencys review and update of its fee accountability
program is not acceptable.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted their Table 3 Time Allocation of
Staff, personnel cost (direct cost) and indirect cost tables. Table 3 appears to have
some mathematical discrepancies that have skewed the total Certified Unified
Program Agency program hours. These are as follows:
Underground Storage Tank - # of trainings/year (5) * hours/training (40) = total

training hours/year is 200; not 160.
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure/Aboveground Storage Tank
- # of inspections/year (79) * hours/inspection (1.25) = total hours/year is 98.75;
not 77.25.
Hazardous Materials Business Plan - # of trainings/year (5) * hours/training
(16) = total training hours/year 80; not 20.
Permit by Rule - # of trainings/year (5) * hours/training (40) = total training
hours/year is 200; not 160.
Conditional Authorization As of fiscal year 2012/2013, the Certified Unified
Program Agency has 5 conditional authorization businesses with a 3-year
inspection frequency. The Certified Unified Program Agency allocated time for
one conditional authorization inspection per year. This should be increased to
be consistent with the inspection workload.
Conditional Exemption - As of fiscal year 2012/2013, the Certified Unified
Program Agency does not have any conditional exemption businesses. The
Certified Unified Program Agency allocated time for five conditional exemption
inspections per year. This should be reduced to be consistent with the
inspection workload.
Hazardous Waste Generator - As of fiscal year 2012/2013, the Certified Unified
Program Agency has 816 hazardous waste generator businesses with a 3-year
scheduled inspection frequency. The Certified Unified Program Agency
allocated time for 192 hazardous waste generator inspections per year. This
should be increased to be consistent with the inspection workload which should
be approximately 272 hazardous waste generator inspections per year. # of
trainings/year (5) * hours/training (24) = total training hours/year is 120; not 160.
Total training hours per year should be 638; not 402.
The Certified Unified Program Agency needs to provide a dollar amount per Certified
Unified Program Agency program hour.
47
Also, the Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide information clarifying the
following in this progress update:
The regular annual revenue surpluses collected including information about the
$1,463,418 surplus (recorded in the fund balance report for fiscal year
2012/2013), how it was accumulated, and how the surplus issue will be
addressed.
The $249,096 in Certified Unified Program Agency revenue transferred to the
general fund.
The disparity between what the Certified Unified Program Agency reported to the
state in their fiscal year 2012/2013 annual single fee summary report and what
their fund balance report and the fee accountability assessment documented. In
the annual single fee summary report, the Certified Unified Program Agency
reported the total amount of single fee billed was $672,486 and the total single
fee collected was $667,768. The fund balance report and the fee accountability
assessment document the Certified Unified Program Agencys total expenditures
for fiscal year 2012/2013 were $841,337 while the amount of revenues collected
was $899,796.
The percentage of each staffs workload is dedicated to performing Certified
Unified Program Agency related job functions. The each Certified Unified
Program Agency staff should not be 100% funded by Certified Unified Program
Agency fees since staff perform non-Certified Unified Program Agency related
functions such as participating in Industrial Illicit Discharge training and
Commercial Stormwater Protection inspections.
The Certified Unified Program Agencys must correct Table 3 and provide the
information listed above. Please review the Certified Unified Program Agencys fee
accountability program and update it.
progress report #6.
Deficiency 13: The Certified Unified Program Agency did not inspect its three
California accidental release prevention stationary sources once every three years. The
California Office of Emergency Services did not find a California accidental release
prevention inspection report for any of the California accidental release prevention
facilities between fiscal years 2008/2009 through 2010/2011.
Corrective Action(s): By March 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will
develop and submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency a California
accidental release prevention inspection procedure to be included in its inspection and
enforcement plan that describes how the Certified Unified Program Agency will
schedule, conduct and document its triennial California accidental release prevention
48
inspections. The Certified Unified Program Agency will consider the California
Environmental Reporting System and the database that they will be transitioning to.
By March 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will inspect its three California
accidental release prevention facilities and submit the completed inspection reports to
the California Environmental Protection Agency.
by the California Office of Emergency Services for not inspecting its three California
accidental release prevention stationary sources once every three years. Since the
2012 Certified Unified Program Agency evaluation, two of the three facilities are no
longer regulated under the California accidental release prevention program. The last
California accidental release prevention facility was inspected on November 6, 2013.
The California Office of Emergency Services (then the California Emergency
Management Agency) staff met with The Certified Unified Program Agency staff on
November 28, 2012 for the purpose of training Certified Unified Program Agency
staff on California accidental release prevention inspections, and accompanied
Certified Unified Program Agency staff on an oversight inspection at Owens-Illinois
Brockway Glass. The Certified Unified Program Agency arrived with Program 2 and
Program 3 inspection/audit checklists originally designed by Stanislaus County. The
Certified Unified Program Agency staff did not show any familiarity with the contents
of the checklists, and had to have the elements explained to them. At the exit
briefing at the conclusion of the inspection, Certified Unified Program Agency staff
attempted to summarize the violations from the wrong checklist (wrong program
level).
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit a California accidental release
prevention inspection procedure to be included in its inspection and enforcement
plan that describes how the Certified Unified Program Agency will schedule, conduct
and document its triennial California accidental release prevention inspections. Also,
the Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit completed California accidental
release prevention inspection reports.
49
It was difficult to determine from the submitted inspection and enforcement plan
exactly what the inspection plan is for California accidental release prevention
facilities in Oakland. Some of the supplied material applies to audits, but not to
inspections. The California Office of Emergency Services recommends that this
section of the inspection and enforcement plan be revised for clarity. As a further
part of this deficiency, the Certified Unified Program Agency did not supply any
documentation that all three of its California accidental release prevention facilities
have been inspected, on or before March 13, 2013. This deficiency remains in the
process of being corrected.
Of the three California accidental release prevention facilities in Oakland, OwensIllinois Brockaway has reduced inventory to below threshold and has
deregistered. ED Coat has apparently ceased operations and the Certified Unified
Program Agency should pursue a deregistration document from them as well. The
remaining California accidental release prevention stationary source, Dreisback
Industries, was inspected on November 6, 2013, the same day as the business plan
inspection. The inspection form used was a suitably modified Stanislaus County
Program 2 audit/inspection form.
Certified Unified Program Agencys inspection and enforcement plan has been
augmented to indicate the state mandated inspection interval. Scheduling has been
simplified by the reduction of identified California accidental release prevention
facilities to one. This deficiency has been corrected.
Deficiency 14: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not meeting the mandated
triennial inspection frequency for the hazardous material business plan program. Out of
the 24 files reviewed, 21 did not have documentation that demonstrated that the
inspections were completed. Please refer to the California Office of Emergency
Services list of business plan facilities emailed by the California Environmental
Protection Agency.
develop and submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency a business plan
inspection procedure to be included in its inspection and enforcement plan that
describes how the Certified Unified Program Agency will schedule, conduct and
document its triennial business plan inspections. The Certified Unified Program Agency
will consider the California Environmental Reporting System and the database that they
will be transitioning to.
In the first progress report due December 13, 2012, the Certified Unified Program
Agency will provide an update on the total number of business plan facilities that need
to be inspected. Include the number of facilities that have not been inspected in three
years or more.
50
By February 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit ten completed
business plans inspection reports, from the list provided by the California Office of
the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit five completed business plans
inspection reports from facilities not on the list.
by the California Office of Emergency Services for not meeting the mandated triennial
inspection frequency for the Hazardous Material Business Plan program. While this
deficiency was previously considered corrected, the California Environmental Protection
Agency is concerned that this deficiency continues to be ongoing. A search in the
California Environmental Reporting System revealed that only 84 routine compliance
inspections for the Hazardous Material Business Plan program have been recorded by
the CUPA for fiscal year 2013-2014.
Certified Unified Program Agency did not fully address this deficiency. The Certified
Unified Program Agency submitted a business plan inspection procedure. The
Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide an update on the total number of
business plan facilities that need to be inspected including the number of facilities
that have not been inspected in three years or more. The Certified Unified Program
Agency submitted a table that contained annual inspector workload and the number
of hazardous materials business plan facilities it inspected in fiscal year 2011/2012.
Below the table was the number of hazardous materials business plan facilities that
needed to submit a business plan and the number of facilities that have not
submitted their business plans beyond three years. The table does not meet the
intent of the corrective action.
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit a business plan inspection
procedure to be included in its inspection and enforcement plan that describes how
the Certified Unified Program Agency will schedule, conduct and document its
triennial business plan inspections. The list of business plan facilities with overdue
inspections appears to be only from one inspector. Do the other two inspectors have
overdue business plan inspections? Those facilities should also be included with this
list. The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit ten completed business
plans inspection reports from the list provided by the California Emergency
Management Agency to the California Environmental Protection Agency, nor did the
Certified Unified Program Agency submit five completed business plans inspection
reports from facilities not on the list.
51

The submitted inspection and enforcement plan is, in general, adequate with respect
to business plan inspections. The California Office of Emergency Services received
nothing with respect to how many inspections have been conducted. All 15 of the
business plans forwarded had current inspections; however, two of the listed
business plans were from the same handler (Oakland Unified School District).
Please forward one more business plan inspection from the list of businesses
provided at the time of the evaluation. This deficiency remains in the process of
being corrected.
The California Office of Emergency Services evaluator that prepared the list of
business plan facilities which were lacking recent inspections indicated that
Dreisbach Enterprises was to be included with that list. The Certified Unified
Program Agency has supplied a hazardous materials business plan inspection form
for Dreisbach Industries that satisfies the corrective action for this deficiency. This
deficiency has been corrected.
Deficiency 15: The Certified Unified Program Agency has not ensured that
submitted business plans are complete and correct. Of the 24 business plan files
reviewed, 17 files were incomplete or had no business plans at all. Missing elements
included: entire or individual elements of, training plans or emergency response plans
such as the seismic vulnerability element of the emergency response plan.
submit a procedure to the California Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that its
staff reviews each business plans submitted into the California Environmental Reporting
System. As part of the approval process, the Certified Unified Program Agency will
ensure that these business plans are complete and correct.
by the California Office of Emergency Services for not ensuring that submitted business
plans are complete and correct. Although the Certified Unified Program Agency
submitted all of the individual business plans required as a part of the corrective action,
the Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit an adequate procedure to ensure
that its staff reviews each business plan submitted into the California Environmental
Reporting System.
52

revised procedure to ensure that its staff reviews each business plans submitted into
the California Environmental Reporting System. The following items must be revised in
the procedure:

Revise the name of the procedures to reflect the content;

Certified Unified Program Agency did not address this deficiency. The Certified
Unified Program Agency has not submitted ten updated and complete business
plans from the list provided by the California Emergency Management Agency, nor
did the Certified Unified Program Agency submit five current and complete business
The California Emergency Management Agency received seven business plans.
None of these plans are on the list provided to the Certified Unified Program Agency
from California Emergency Management Agency. These will be considered part of
the five current and complete business plans required which are not on the list. Of
these seven, two (Sherwin-Williams #8143 and Walgreens #13595) did not have the
training plan or the seismic vulnerability preparedness plan. The remaining five all
had current and complete business plans, as required. This part of the deficiency is
corrected. Please be aware of all aspects of the business plan when they are
submitted. The deficiency remains in the progress of being corrected. Please
plans. Please submit a procedure to the California Environmental Protection Agency
to ensure that the Certified Unified Program Agency staff reviews each business
plan submitted into the California Environmental Reporting System is complete and
correct.
53
As noted in #5 above, two of the listed business plans forwarded (Oakland Auto
Body and Frame, and Peralta Community College) had inventories and inspections,
but no other parts of the business plan, i.e. emergency response plan or training
program. Additionally, the information supplied in the binder did not contain a
business plan review procedure. This deficiency remains in the process of being
corrected.
Of the two business plans supplied as the corrective action, one (Oakland Auto
Body) was complete and correct, with the slight omission of the telephone number of
the State Warning Center for reporting spills, in the employee training Power Point (it
was, however, correctly included in the emergency response plan.) Additionally, in
the documents supplied with the corrective action, pages 1-3 of the emergency
response plan were basically blank. The same document in the California
Environmental Reporting System is correctly filled out.
The second business plan (Peralta Community College District) had some
issues. First, and arguably most importantly for an emergency response plan, the
nearest medical facility or hospital was not listed (19 CCR 2731 (b)). And secondly,
the site maps were almost worthless from an emergency response standpoint. All of
the maps were evacuation maps. All but the first were intended to be posted on the
wall inside one of the buildings, and had you are here stars on them, but no north
orientation or any other orientation. The first map was an overview, with a north
orientation, but did not identify loading areas, storm or sewer drains, emergency
shutoffs, evacuation staging areas, hazmat handling or storage areas or emergency
response equipment, other than fire extinguishers. The Health & Safety Code gives
the handler until January 1, 2015 to update their maps to meet these criteria (HSC
25505(a)(2)).
With the next update, please forward one more complete and correct business plan
from the left-hand column of the list provided at the time of evaluation. Peralta
Community College District would be all right, if their emergency response plan (not
maps- they have until New Years to fix those) is brought up to compliance. This
deficiency is still in the process of correction.
54
Protection Agency.
28, 2014.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a procedure to ensure that its staff
reviews each business plans submitted into the California Environmental Reporting
System. The procedure does not address the staff completeness review of all parts
of the business plan. The business plan procedure did not reflect the upcoming
requirements effective January 1, 2015.
Deficiency 16: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not conducting hazardous
waste generator and tiered permitting facilities inspections with a frequency that is
consistent with its inspection and enforcement plan.
The last three annual inspection summary reports indicate the following:
During the fiscal year 2008/2009, the Certified Unified Program Agency
inspected 23% of their hazardous waste generators.
The Department of Toxic Substances Controls file review indicates that:
Out of the 30 files reviewed by the Department of Toxic Substances Control, it
appears that 16 facilities have not been inspected within the last three years.
Out of the five tiered permitting files reviewed by the Department of Toxic
Substances Control, none of the facilities were inspected in the last three years.
The Certified Unified Program Agencys only permanent household hazardous
waste collection facility was last inspected over three years ago. The Certified
Unified Program Agencys inspection and enforcement plan states that a
permanent household hazardous waste collection facility has an annual
inspection frequency.
55
In addition, the Certified Unified Program Agency was unable to locate the current files
for the following facilities: Gold Seal Plating, George V Arth & Son, and Seven Eleven
Body.
Corrective Action(s): In the first progress report due December 13, 2012, the Certified
Unified Program Agency will provide an update on the total number of tiered permitting
and hazardous waste generator facilities that need to be inspected and the total number
of tiered permitting and hazardous waste generator facilities inspected to date including
the inspection status of the permanent household hazardous waste collection facility in
the update.
By May 15, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will have inspected all
hazardous waste generators that have not been inspected in the past three years. The
Certified Unified Program Agency will submit ten completed hazardous waste generator
and five tiered permitting inspection reports to the California Environmental Protection
Agency.
the Department of Toxic Substances Control for not conducting hazardous waste
generator and tiered permitting facility inspections with a frequency consistent with their
Inspection and Enforcement plan. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted
some hazardous waste and tiered permitting inspection reports. There were some
problems with some of the inspection reports reviewed by the Department of Toxic
Substances Control. The Certified Unified Program Agency has not provided an update
on their progress of inspecting all hazardous waste generator and tiered permitting
facilities that have not been inspected within the last three years.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must inspect all the hazardous waste
generator and tiered permitting facilities that have not been inspected within the
last three years.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must submit a report that identifies the
total number of hazardous waste generators and total number of tier permitting
facilities regulated by the Certified Unified Program Agency.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must submit a report on the number of
hazardous waste generator and tier permitting inspections that were conducted
each fiscal year since the evaluation date to present.

2013. The pdf letter that came with the 1st progress report documents did not give
56
the state reviewer any narrative descriptions of what the Certified Unified Program
Agency submitted or any written direction on how to interpret the information. The
list of facilities submitted was of the same type that was problematic for the
Department of Toxic Substances Control evaluators when submitted for the previous
Program Improvement Agreement. The list included facilities without violations and
it also included non-Certified Unified Program Agency-related facilities. This was
relayed to the California Environmental Protection Agency the same day via email.
provided comments to the Certified Unified Program Agencys 1st progress report to
the California Environmental Protection Agency on February 15, 2013.
documentation again on May 1, 2013. The Certified Unified Program Agency
submitted a list of facilities but it is unclear to the Department of Toxic Substances
Control if this list is for all hazardous waste generators that have not been inspected
in the past three years since inspection dates are not listed in this list. The Certified
Unified Program Agency will provide an update on the total number of tiered
permitting and hazardous waste generator facilities that need to be inspected and
the total number of tiered permitting and hazardous waste generator facilities
inspected to date including the inspection status of the permanent household
hazardous waste collection facility in the update.
In a face-to-face progress report meeting on October 16, 2013 with the Certified
Unified Program Agency, the Department of Toxic Substances Control explained
again to submit a list of all hazardous waste generator inspections that have not
been inspected in the past three years. In addition, the Department of Toxic
Substances Control asked the Certified Unified Program Agency to provide an
update on the total number of tiered permitting and hazardous waste generator
facilities that need to be inspected and the total number of tiered permitting and
hazardous waste generator facilities inspected to date including the inspection status
of the permanent household hazardous waste collection facility.
report documents to the California Environmental Protection Agency on October 29,
2013. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted hard copies of one
Household Hazardous Waste and four (4) hazardous waste generator inspection
reports. The Certified Unified Program Agency also submitted one additional hard
57
copy hazardous waste generator inspection report during a separate meeting with
the Department of Toxic Substances Control on November 4, 2013.
Agency on November 4 and 25, 2013. The Department of Toxic Substances Control
explained to the Certified Unified Program Agency still needed to submit five (5)
tiered permit inspection reports to the Department of Toxic Substances Control for
review.
1. Gold Seal was identified as one of these tiered permitting facilities. The Certified
Unified Program Agency agreed to submit these inspection reports by December
13, 2013. The Department of Toxic Substances Control agreed to review these
reports by January 10, 2014.
2. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted 4 new generator inspection
reports, and needed to submit one additional report. The Certified Unified
Program Agency agreed to submit this inspection report by November 25, 2013
as a corrective action for deficiency #2. The Department of Toxic Substances
Control agreed to review the inspection reports by January 10, 2014. The
Department of Toxic Substances Control received one additional inspection
report from LeRoy Griffin on November 25, 2013 and the Department of Toxic
Substances Control found this report to be acceptable.
3. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a Household Hazardous Waste
Inspection Report dated 10/23/13 during this meeting as a part of the corrective
action for deficiency #16, however the inspection report was reviewed and
identified to be inadequate due to the fact that a tier permit inspection checklist
was used to conduct this inspection.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control further explained that what is
covered under the tier permit inspection checklist does not apply to household
hazardous waste collection facilities and asked the Certified Unified Program
Agency to use the correct checklist along with the large quantity generator
checklist to re-inspect this facility. The Certified Unified Program Agency agreed
to re-inspect the facility by December 13, 2013.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control further provided website links to
obtain a permanent household hazardous waste collection facility checklist.
http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PublicationsForms/upload/PHHWCF_Insp_Checklist_20
10.pdf
4. The Department of Toxic Substances Control requested the Certified Unified
Program Agency to generate a report which identified the total number of
hazardous waste generators and total number of tier permitting facilities under
the Certified Unified Program Agencys jurisdiction. In addition, the Department of
Toxic Substances Control requested a separate report from the Certified Unified
Program Agency which identified the facilities inspected since the evaluation.
These two reports combined would show what percentage of facilities under the
Certified Unified Program Agencys jurisdiction were inspected since the last
evaluation and in addition would identify the tier permitting facilities under the
Certified Unified Program Agencys jurisdiction.
58
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its 4th progress report on February
28, 2014. The Department of Toxic Substances Control received two hand delivered
packages from the Certified Unified Program Agency on January 14 and February
28, 2014. The Certified Unified Program Agency response stated that they have
only four (4) tiered permitting facilities and submitted the following reports:
Gold Seal Plating The Certified Unified Program Agency inspected the facility on
December 3, 2013 and a minor violation was corrected on December 5, 2013 and
updated in the California Environmental Reporting System. The tiered permitting
inspection checklist (Rev. Date 12/10/2012) was missing the tank integrity
assessment reference. This checklist used was not the same checklist that was
submitted to the Department of Toxic Substances Control for approval on (date).
E-D Coat The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a brief report dated
February 18, 2014 stating that E-D Coat was currently closed and they were not
conducting operations. This facility was a permit-by-rule facility and if they were
closing they had to properly close the permit-by-rule units and submit a P.E.
certification to the Certified Unified Program Agency. If contamination was found
during closure of the treatment units, then the Certified Unified Program Agency had
to refer it back to the Department of Toxic Substances Control for corrective action.
This was explained to Mr. Griffin on November 4, 2013 also.
Aramark Uniform and Career Apparel (this facility was not regulated under the tiered
permitting program at the time of inspection) The Certified Unified Program
Agency submitted a brief inspection report dated December 2, 2013 with minor
violations and no return to compliance documentation was included with the report..
Based on the inspection report, it appeared that this facility was conducting
unauthorized treatment. The Certified Unified Program Agency also noted the
following observation: Analyses is needed of the water prior to treatment. The
facility submitted a tiered permitting notification after the inspection as a
Conditionally Exempt Commercial Laundries on 12/4/13 to the Certified Unified
Program Agency.
Abbe Metal Plating (this facility is not currently regulated under the tiered permitting
program) The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted an inspection report
dated 12/3/13 and no return to compliance documentation was included with the
report. On January 15, 2014, the Certified Unified Program Agency forwarded to the
Department of Toxic Substances Control for review the facilitys claim that they are
exempt from tiered permitting requirements and manage their hazardous waste as
excluded recyclable materials pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC), sections
25143.2 (d)(1) and (d)(6). The Department of Toxic Substances Control conducted
a review of the facilitys assertion and concluded the following:
HSC, section 25143.2 (d) (6) is not the best exclusion for the facility to operate
under. The Department of Toxic Substances Control believes that HSC, section
25143.2 (d) (1) is a better exclusion to utilize given their operations.
59
If the acid rinses are hazardous at the point of generation (POG) for corrosivity,
then the facility can operate under HSC, section 25143.2 (c)(2), which is a permit
exemption to treat hazardous waste onsite if all conditions are met.
If the soap dragout is hazardous at the POG, then evaporation will be subject to
tiered permitting.
In addition, the Certified Unified Program Agency also submitted the following:
Alameda County permanent household hazardous waste collection facility The
Certified Unified Program Agency submitted an inspection report for the reinspection of the permanent household hazardous waste collection facility on
12/23/13 using a correct checklist and cited the facility for failure to submit the
Department of Toxic Substances Control Form 1094B notification.
Certified Unified Program Agency re-submitted a permanent household hazardous
waste collection facility Inspection Report dated 10/23/13 and used an incorrect
tiered permitting checklist to conduct this inspection and no violations were noted.
This was the same information submitted as identified in bullet 3 above for the
November submittals.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control again requested the Certified Unified
Program Agency to generate a report which identifies the total number of hazardous
waste generators and the total number of tier permitting facilities under Oakland
Certified Unified Program Agencys jurisdiction. (See the Department of Toxic
Substances Controls 3rd Response for deficiency #16 item #4). The Certified
Unified Program Agency only responded that they have four (4) tiered permitting
facilities with this response of February 28, 2014.
In addition, the Department of Toxic Substances Control requested a separate report
from the Certified Unified Program Agency which identifies the facilities inspected
since the evaluation. These two reports combined would show what percentage of
facilities under Oakland Certified Unified Program Agencys jurisdiction were
inspected since the last evaluation and in addition would identify the tier permitting
facilities under Oakland Certified Unified Program Agencys jurisdiction. The
Certified Unified Program Agency did not respond to this portion. (See the
Department of Toxic Substances Controls 3rd Response for deficiency #16 item
#4) The Department of Toxic Substances Control provided comments for this
deficiency to the California Environmental Protection Agency on March 12, 2014.
Department of Toxic Substances Control reviewed the Certified Unified Program
Agencys responses and has the following comments:
Gold Seal It is encouraging to see that the Certified Unified Program Agency will
use the correct tiered permitting and large quantity generator checklists.
60
Able Plating We concur that the facility is exempt from obtaining a tiered permit
due to their ability to operate under either a recycling exclusion or permit exemption.
The recent submittal dated July 2, 2014 by Able Platings consultant to the City of
Oakland Certified Unified Program Agency is unclear as to what exclusion or
exemption actually applies to activities conducted at Able Plating. Without that
knowledge, we are unable to conclude the correct regulatory status of operations.
Aramark Department of Toxic Substances Control looks forward to seeing the
administrative enforcement order issued to Aramark.
E-D Coat The Certified Unified Program Agency is responsible for implementing
the tiered permitting program, which includes ensuring that facilities properly close
their tiered permitting treatment units.
Department of Toxic Substances Control understands that E-D Coat is closed. The
Certified Unified Program Agency needs to contact with the facility representatives
and notify them of their responsibility to properly close the permit by rule treatment
unit, including submitting a professional engineer (P.E.) certification.
As Department of Toxic Substances Control stated earlier, if contamination is found
during closure of the treatment units, then please refer it back to Department of
Toxic Substances Control (Karen Toth) for any necessary corrective action.
The Certified Unified Program Agency responded that Additionally, Department of
Toxic Substances Control requested a report outlining inspections conducted since
the evaluation date to present. Attached in this submission is that information. As of
this date California Environmental Protection Agency or Department of Toxic
Substances Control did not receive this information.
Department of Toxic Substances Control had also requested Oakland to generate a
report which identifies the total number of hazardous waste generators and total
number of tier permitting facilities under Oakland Certified Unified Program Agencys
jurisdiction. (See page 13, second to the last paragraph). The Certified Unified
Program Agency did not respond to this portion.
progress report #6.
Deficiency 17: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not preparing a compliance
report for every annual underground storage tank compliance inspection.
The Certified Unified Program Agencys summary report 3 indicates that all
underground storage tanks have been inspected annually for the last three fiscal years.
61
File review on the other hand indicates that compliance inspection reports are not being
prepared for every annual underground storage tank inspection. The Certified Unified
Program Agency could not produce documentation showing that compliance inspection
reports have been filed for every annual compliance inspection.
The following are example facilities that were missing records indicating that a
compliance report had been written:
401 Kennedy St
2 Webster St
5500 Telegraph Ave
1107 5th St
165 98th Ave
955 High St
3130 35th Ave
165 13th St
6211 San Pablo Ave
develop and submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency an underground
storage tank inspection procedure to be included in the inspection and enforcement
plan that describes steps that will be taken to prepare compliance reports for every
annual underground storage tank inspection.
By March 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will incorporate and
implement the underground storage tank inspection procedure as described above.
the State Water Resources Control Board for not preparing a compliance report for
every annual underground storage tank compliance inspection. The Certified Unified
Program Agency submitted an adequate underground storage tank inspection
procedure along with the progress report 5 to prepare a compliance report after every
underground storage tank compliance inspection. However, the Certified Unified
Program Agency is not adequately implementing the procedure.
62
The Certified Unified Program Agency must train inspectors to discontinue

including other code violations as part of the underground storage tank significant
operational compliance count.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must evaluate and implement additional
training needs for underground storage tank field inspectors.

Information Submittal Due: Date- November 13, 2012
The Certified Unified Program Agency reported that an update to the inspection and
enforcement plan was to be completed December 13, 2012.
The Certified Unified Program Agency referenced their first progress report letter
dated January 1, 2013.
The inspection procedures submitted by the Certified Unified Program Agency did
not address the underground storage tank program. Along with the second progress
report, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit an underground storage
tank inspection procedure that describes the steps that will be taken to prepare
compliance reports for every annual underground storage tank inspection. Please
contact the State Water Resources Control Board for more information.
Second Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- March, 2013
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit an underground storage tank
inspection procedure. The procedure was to be incorporated into their inspection
and enforcement plan describing the steps that will be taken to prepare compliance
reports for every annual underground storage tank inspection.
report, provide, to the California Environmental Protection Agency, its revised
inspection and enforcement plan or summarize how its development is ongoing.
Third Quarter Progress Report Due Date- July 31, 2013
The Certified Unified Program Agency indicated that they believed that the
deficiency was corrected and was waiting to hear from the water board. They also
indicated that their draft I/E was attached and addressed the procedures.
The State Water Resources Control Board reviewed the submitted inspection and
enforcement plan dated October 2013 and has identified areas which need to be
addressed. On page 6, section III (B) indicates there will be general guideline for all
inspections and then specific instructions for the particular elements. On page 16
63
section G- Program Specific Inspection Procedures list hazardous materials

business plan, tiered permitting but no underground storage tank program. The
State Water Resources Control Board could not find underground storage tank
specific procedures.
The Oakland Fire Department was requested to capture underground storage tank
inspection procedures in its inspection and enforcement plan as agreed upon in the
corrective actions.
Fourth Quarter Progress Report Due Date- February 21, 2014
The Certified Unified Program Agency indicated that they were working on
completing the changes to the inspection and enforcement plan, which will be
submitted prior to the February 21st due date.
The deficiency 17 attachment only shows the title page and table of contents for the
inspection and enforcement plan. The State Water Resources Control Board has
reviewed the revised and submitted inspection and enforcement plan. The plan
continues to state that program specific underground storage tank inspection
procedures will be identified. However, the State Water Resources Control Board
cannot find these in the inspection and enforcement plan. The State Water
procedures. Please see deficiency 6 for specifics regarding underground storage
tank specific inspection procedures.
corrective actions.
and enforcement plan and finds the Certified Unified Program Agency has complied
with the agreed upon corrective actions by including steps taken by staff to prepare
compliance reports for every underground storage tank inspection.
The State Water Resources Control Board still requires the Certified Unified
Program Agency to submit inspection reports and file review checklists for the
previous quarters underground storage tank inspections as the agreed upon
corrective actions. In order to correct this deficiency, the Certified Unified Program
Agency must demonstrate to the State Water Resources Control Board that it is
conducting annual underground storage tank compliance inspections in accordance
with statute and regulations.
64
This deficiency is directly tied to deficiency 6. In order to correct this deficiency, the
CUPA must demonstrate to SWRCB that it is conducting annual UST compliance
inspections in accordance with statute and regulations and that the inspector is
preparing an adequate inspection report.
During the State Water Resources Control Boards review of the submitted annual
compliance inspection reports and file review checklists, the State Water Resources
Control Board found that several of the inspections did not correctly document
underground storage tank program compliance and violations. Inspectors are citing
violations that are not part of the underground storage tank program and
incorporating those violations into the significant operational compliance Release
Detection and Release Prevention count. Specifically, when the spill bucket (overfill
protection) is tested during the annual monitoring certification and it fails due to a
cap on the drop tube for fuel, inspectors are citing it as an underground storage tank
violation. The failure of a spill bucket due to a cap is not an underground storage
tank violation and should not be included in the significant operational compliance.
The inspection report dated 9-17-14 for EBMUD, inspector Skillern notes that
compliance for pipe and/or tank integrity testing is conducted within allowable timeframes. Contradictory to that, the inspector then goes on to note that the facility has
double-walled pressurized pipe and that the facility does not need to perform an
annual line tightness testing. Further, the inspector notes that the line leak detectors
are not required when, in fact, they are.
The inspection report dated 7-9-14 for High Street Valero is incomplete. There is no
indication whether or not the tanks and pipes are being monitored in accordance
with the monitoring plan. These sections have not been marked as in compliance or
not applicable in the compliance report. In addition, the under dispenser
containment section of the inspection report is left blank indicating that the
inspection was not complete.
Deficiency 18: The Certified Unified Program Agencys underground storage tank
files are not complete.
All files reviewed were missing one or more of the following documents, which are
required to verify underground storage tank operational compliance:
Annual compliance inspection reports;

Financial responsibility documents;
Secondary containment test reports;
Tank and line integrity test reports;
Annual monitoring certifications;
Designated operator;
Unified Program Consolidated Forms (UPCF) A, B, C and D;
Response plans; and
65
Underground storage tank operating permits.
Corrective Action(s): Effective January 1, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency
will start to collect and retain electronic copies of underground storage tank facility
compliance documents for all facilities for the prescribed time frames.
By January 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will develop and implement
an underground storage tank file review checklist. This file review checklist will be
maintained in the underground storage tank facility file for three years; allowing for
future verification that the deficiency has been corrected. Submit the underground
storage tank file review checklist to the California Environmental Protection Agency.
by the State Water Resources Control Board because the Certified Unified Program
Agencys underground storage tank files were not complete. The Certified Unified
Program Agency collects and retains electronic underground storage tank documents in
the California Environmental Reporting System. The Certified Unified Program Agency
submitted their underground storage tank file review checklist template and also some
completed checklists.
The Certified Unified Program Agency indicated that the staff is conducting
inspection using the state form. The forms will be entered into the California
Environmental Reporting System. Full implementation January 1, 2013.
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide an update to this deficiency.
The Oakland Fire Department has not addressed this deficiency that had a due date
of January 14, 2013. However, the State Water Resources Control Board noticed
that Oakland Fire Department submitted an underground storage tank inspection
checklist (LG 159 appendix A with Oakland Fire Department headings). In this
inspection checklist, there is a file review checklist. However, Oakland Fire
Department has not stated if this is the checklist they plan on using. Please advise.
The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to immediately, respond to the
State Water Resources Control Board comments or submit a file review checklist.
66
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide a narrative response or
update for this deficiency.
underground storage tank for two (2) quarters.
The Oakland Fire Department was requested to continue to provide the California
Environmental Protection Agency with copies of annual underground storage tank
compliance inspection reports and underground storage tank file review checklists
on a quarterly basis per corrective actions for deficiency number six (6). In addition,
Oakland Fire Department was requested to provide copies of the checklists and
inspection reports for the second quarter that were due in March of 2013.
The Certified Unified Program Agency indicated that they believed that this
deficiency is corrected. They also indicated that they were waiting to hear from the
water board about the 5 inspection reports they submitted for facilities that had been
inspected in the second quarter as directed. They felt that this deficiency should not
be ongoing.
The State Water Resources Control Board considers this deficiency corrected.
However, the Certified Unified Program Agency shall continue to submit its file
review checklist as part of deficiency 6 as agreed upon in the corrective actions.
Deficiency 19: The Certified Unified Program Agency is inappropriately issuing

underground storage tank operating permits without verifying operational compliance.
File review indicates that operational compliance is not verified prior to issuing an
operating permit. Upon questioning the Certified Unified Program Agency, it was
confirmed that operating permits are issued based on the active status of an
develop and submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency a procedure to
be included in their Consolidated Permit Program Plan to ensure that an underground
storage tank facility is in compliance before issuing the permit to operate.
By February 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will incorporate and
implement the new underground storage tank permit issuance procedure as described
above.
67
by the State Water Resources Control Board for inappropriately issuing underground
storage tank operating permits without verifying operational compliance.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a Consolidated Permit Program Plan
but, there were some problems noted by the State Water Resources Control Board that
must be addressed. The State Water Resources Control Board reviewed the most
recent version of the Consolidated Permit Program Plan and provided feedback to the
Certified Unified Program Agency. The Certified Unified Program Agency made
additional revisions and the Consolidated Permit Program Plan now meets Unified
Program requirements.
The Certified Unified Program Agency indicated that correction of this deficiency was
in progress, projected completion date December, 13, 2012.
The Certified Unified Program Agency referenced their First Progress Report Letter
of January 14, 2013. Upon further review of Oakland Fire Department submittals, the
State Water Resources Control Board reviewed a Consolidated Permit Policy and
was unclear whether the Oakland Fire Department Unified Program Consolidated
Permit policy and procedures was submitted is to correct this deficiency or another
deficiency.
The State Water Resources Control Board does have some observations and
concerns regarding the submitted document mentioned above. Oakland Fire
Department uses the following terms to describe their staff: Certified Unified
Program Agency Inspector, Assigned Certified Unified Program Agency Staff,
Certified Unified Program Agency Staff, Certified Unified Program Agency Program
Staff, Inspector, and Certified Unified Program Agency Inspection Staff. Are these
all different personnel or are these used to reference the core personnel (i.e. the
three inspector staff and the Certified Unified Program Agency program manager)?
Example- on page two item number two, the application package will be assigned to
the Certified Unified Program Agency inspection staffOn page three item number
three regarding permit review system, the assigned Certified Unified Program
Agency staff willwill be reviewed by the inspectorLastly, on page three item
number four regarding permit review system, on the date of the inspection the
68
inspectorDuring the inspection the assigned Certified Unified Program Agency

staff
The policy seems to be talking about two to three different topics- application
permits, construction permits, and the consolidated operating permit yet the title of
the document is called Oakland Fire Department Unified Program Consolidated
Permit and policy is Consolidation of Certified Unified Program Agency Program
Permits. On page three item number three referring to permit review system, the
State Water Resources Control Board is confused. The first sentence refers to new
applications. Are we talking about new construction? Do facilities have to submit an
application package each time a renewal becomes due? What is the annual recertification form? Is this different form the permit that a facility receives from
Oakland Fire Department? The policy refers to three types of permits: Regular,
Temporary, and Provisional. The State Water Resources Control Board needs to
know which UP programs this applies to. This may or may not be applicable to the
underground storage tank program. On page five item number three, the State
Water Resources Control Board recommends that Water Code be removed. The last
bullet in item number three refers to section 25284(e). The State Water Resources
Control Board is unaware of this citation. Please revise.
In another part of the policy, there is wording that states, the permit package will
containthe board of equalization number What regulation does this come from?
Or are you referring to the UPCF A form?
On page five, why did Oakland Fire Department choose a three year permit cycle for
the tanks program and a one year cycle for tiered permitting permit? If Oakland Fire
Department keeps the three year cycle for the tanks program, Oakland Fire
Department needs to incorporate a permit revocation enforcement option. This is
because a permit is only valid if a system is compliance. Once an inspection is
conducted and a facility is determined to be out of compliance, Oakland Fire
Department will need to revoke the operating permit until such time the facility
comes into compliance. For this reason, the majority of Certified Unified Program
Agencies issue an underground storage tank operating permit annually.
On page six item number three, Oakland Fire Department states that annual permit
renewals will be conducted by administrative or on-site inspections. What does this
mean? An administrative person is renewing permits without an annual compliance
inspection or something else? In addition, Oakland Fire Department states a permit
will be renewed by the computer system once a year to a facility in good standing.
This language needs to be changed. Good standing is different from being in
compliance. As previously mentioned above, the underground storage tank facility
operating permit is listed as being issued once every three. How does this work?
The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to immediately respond to the
State Water Resources Control Board comments or submit a copy of its Consolidate
Permit Program Plan.
69

The Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide an update for this deficiency.
The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to submit a copy of the revise
underground storage tank permit, the most current underground storage tank
inspection report template and return to compliance documentation if applicable.
This deficiency is ongoing. The State Water Resources Control Board has not
received Oakland Fire Departments revised Consolidated Permit Program plan as
discussed on 3-1-2013.
The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to provide, on the next
progress report, a copy of its revised Consolidated Permit Program plan or
The Certified Unified Program Agency referenced the hardcopy document folder.
The Certified Unified Program Agency may want to consider changing its
underground storage tank permit cycle from three years to one year to maintain
consistency with the one-year permit cycles of the other programs. The underground
storage tank law, in particular, requires that an underground storage tank facility be
in compliance with the law before an underground storage tank permit is issued. A
one-year underground storage tank permit cycle may be more effective in
compelling compliance with the law as underground storage tank facilities would
need to correct any ongoing violations before a new permit could be issued. The
State Water Resources Control Board did not receive the Consolidated Permit
Program Plan as a part of the progress report packet sent to the State Water
Resources Control Board from the Certified Unified Program Agency. However, the
California Environmental Protection Agency provided a copy of the plan they
received. With the review, the State Water Resources Control Board has some
comments.
Starting on page 1, Oakland Fire Department indicates that it issues permits for five
permitting activities. However, page 6 indicates permits are issued for two programs
(underground storage tank and tiered permitting). Page 6 also states all program
element activities at a facility will have a common expiration date. In addition, page 6
also states, Based upon the permit activity a permit issued under the consolidated
permit system will be effective for a period of one (1) year. Immediately after this
sentence, the Certified Unified Program Agency states underground storage tank
permits are issued for 3 years and Tiered permits are issued for 1 year. No other
permits are indicated as being issued, although page 1 indicates five permitting
activities.
70
In the Other Permit Procedures Section (see page 6), the Certified Unified Program
Agency talks about annual permit renewals being conducted by administrative and
on-site inspections. Lastly, on page 4, item 4 of the Permit Review System, The
Certified Unified Program Agency states, Underground Storage Tank facilities are
require that the facility is in compliance with all the requirements as defined in the
Health and Safety Code and the three year underground storage tank operating
permit prior to the issuance of the annual permit.
The Certified Unified Program Agency provided an example of its consolidated
permit. However, this permit is different from the underground storage tank permit
although the consolidated permit has a box for the underground storage tank
program. Please explain.
On page 2, item 3 regarding corrections to permit application package. There is
conflict with the statement due to facilities now operating with missing or incomplete
submittals.
The State Water Resources Control Board assumes that on page 3, the first
paragraph is in regards to the initial permit for a facility. This makes sense,
unfortunately, according to the California Environmental Protection Agency, the
proposed language in Title 27, talks about providing directions for the submittal of
permitting information to local agencies through the California Environmental
Reporting System. I would hate to have Oakland Fire Department make changes
and then immediately have to make changes again. Maybe the California
Environmental Protection Agency can shed some light on this. With this said, the
Certified Unified Program Agency may also want to revise items 1-3 on the top of the
page 2 to include electronic submittals of permitting activities and any other
reference to application package. Lets wait and see what the new Title 27
regulations require.
Lastly, item 4 in the Permit Review System section; mirrors the Certified Unified
Program Agencys permit cycles, however, the Certified Unified Program Agency
also states in the Permit Cycle section, Based upon the permit activity a permit
issued under the consolidated permit system will be effective for a period of one (1)
year. In addition, in the Other Permit Procedures (page 6), the Certified Unified
Program Agency talks about annual permit renewals.
The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to take the following actions to
correct this deficiency:
1. Health and Safety Code section 25284(e) does not exist and needs to be
changed.
2. The Certified Unified Program Agency needs to revise language regarding permits
being issued.
3. Is the Certified Unified Program Agency issuing two underground storage tank
permits?
71
4. Why is the Certified Unified Program Agency issuing different permits?

(Consolidated permit has box for underground storage tank but a separate permit
was submitted for deficiency 20).
5. This plan will have a moving target due to the California Environmental Reporting
System and the upcoming changes to Title 27. Because of the California
Environmental Reporting System and the requirement to submit information
electronically, the Certified Unified Program Agency needs (or will need) to identify a
process for electronic submittals. Not just for the underground storage tank program,
but for all programs. We recommend keeping this deficiency active in order to get a
better understanding on how the new regulations are going to affect the permitting
process. NOTE: These new regulations are going to affect all local agencies and
their permitting processes.
The Certified Unified Program Agency requested guidance and clarification on the
requested actions.
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit its Consolidated Permit
Program Plan as it had in previous updates for review. The State Water Resources
Control Board finds this non-response unacceptable.
While reviewing the submitted inspection and enforcement plan, the State Water
Resources Control Board noticed the following that needs some clarification. Item 5
of the Permit Review System states, The Certified Unified Program Agency
manager, who will authorize the issuance of the permit, will review the completed
package and transmittal. (Expected time for completion3 Days). While reviewing
the submitted Consolidated Operating Permits, the State Water Resources Control
Board noticed that the Certified Unified Program Agency managers signature was
not on the permit. However, an inspectors signature block (Avila, Cesar Haz-Mat
Inspector) was on the permit. According to the Certified Unified Program Agencys
inspection and enforcement plan, the Certified Unified Program Agency manager
should be signing and approving the issuance of permits. Please advise.
The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to submit to the California
Environmental Protection Agency its Consolidated Permit Plan as agreed upon in
In the 4th update, the State Water Resources Control Board found that the Certified
Unified Program Agency did not provide a revised Consolidated Permit Program
Plan and again, the Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide information
that was agreed upon in the Program Improvement Agreement corrective actions.
In the 4th update, the State Water Resources Control Board staff found that an
inspection and enforcement plan was submitted and had questions and/or concerns
72
regarding the document. The submitted inspection and enforcement plan with the
revision date of June 16, 2014, has addressed those questions and or concerns.
The State Water Resources Control Board would like to note that during its review of
the submitted file review and inspection checklist, many of the inspections included a
statement from inspection staff that permit issuance had been delayed.
The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to take the following action to
1. The CUPA shall submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency its
Consolidated Permit Plan as agreed upon in the corrective actions and per the
Program Improvement Agreement.
CalEPA Note: The CUPA extracted multiple sections of its Inspection and
Enforcement Plan after submitting Update 5 and created a Consolidated Permit Plan
which was reviewed by the State Water Resources Control Board. The State Water
Resources Control Board has reviewed the consolidated permit plan and found it
acceptable. All corrective actions have been completed.
operating permit does not contain all of the required elements.
File review indicates that the underground storage tank operating permit is missing the
monitoring requirements for the underground storage tank system.
The Certified Unified Program Agencys previously issued underground storage tank
operating permits that contained all of the required elements and expired five years
after its issuance in accordance with title 23 regulations. Recently, the Certified Unified
Program Agency has started to issue a consolidated operating permit and this is when
the problem occurred.
will revise, and submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency, its
underground storage tank operating permit that incorporates the monitoring
requirements.
By December 13, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency will begin using the
revised permit.
because the underground storage tank operating permit is missing the monitoring
requirements for the underground storage tank system.
73

The Certified Unified Program Agency indicated that they submitted the requested
information on 11/14/12 and was waiting for a response from the State.
The Certified Unified Program Agencys Unified Program Consolidated Permit is
acceptable. The submitted permit captures all of the underground storage tank
requirements. Is the Certified Unified Program Agency going to issue the permit
once a year or is it valid for five years? Just asking since the date issuance is 2001
and expiration date is 2006 (submitted permit).
The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to respond to the
Waterboards questions.
The Certified Unified Program Agency indicated that they revised the format for the
underground storage tank permit that is consolidated with the Unified Program
permit and has been created within their One-Step data management system. The
use of the three year underground storage tank permit will start effective January 1,
2013. Each underground storage tank operator will receive a temporary operating
permit until the site is inspected for compliance. Once the site is determined to be
incompliance each site will receive its three year operating permit.
This deficiency remains outstanding. The issuance of a temporary operating permit
is not appropriate. There are no provisions in statute or regulations which allows for
the issuance of temporary operating permits. Permits may only be issued to facilities
that are in compliance (Health & Safety Code, Chapter 6.7, Section 25285(b). The
State Water Resources Control Board has again reviewed the pre-update submittals
and the current first quarter progress report submittals. In its review, the State Water
Resources Control Board noted that in the email labeled as Pre-Update Material
submitted 11-15-2012, Oakland Fire Department submitted a consolidated
underground storage tank operating permit. The State Water Resources Control
Board confirmed in an email dated 12-4-2012, that the submitted permit captures all
of the required underground storage tank elements.
In the email labeled Oakland 1st quarter report, Oakland Fire Department submitted
one permit identified as USTFORM oakland 2012 13lg. The content of this permit
incorporates the monitoring requirements as required by regulations. However, this
submitted permit showed format changes, therefore, the State Water Resources
Control Board is unsure if this permit has been finalized. In addition, this permit is
different from the permit submitted in 11-15-2012 and approved 12-4-2012.
74
In the email labeled Oakland CUPA file Second Set of deliverables, Oakland Fire
Department submitted three permits identified as: Oakland Fire Department
consolidated permit 2013 (lg); USTFORM oakland 2012 13lg; and USTFORM
oakland(LG).
The Oakland Fire Department consolidated permit 2013 (lg) has a check mark
identifying the underground storage tank program and looks to capture the
requirements of Title 27. However, the permit has track changes and the State
Water Resources Control Board in unsure if it has been finalized. The second permit
labeled USTFORM oakland 2012 13lg is identical the submitted permit in the email
labeled Oakland 1st quarter report. The third permit labeled USTFORM oakland
(LG) looks to be finalized (no track changes) and incorporates all required
information regarding Title 23. Again, this permit is different from the permit
submitted 11-15-2012 and approved 12-4-2012.
The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to immediately submit to the
California Environmental Protection Agency a finalized underground storage tank
consolidated permit.
They were also requested to, on the next progress report, submit, to the California
Environmental Protection Agency, the underground storage tank consolidated
operating permits for facilities that have been inspected and determined to be in
compliance with underground storage tank regulations since December 13, 2012.
operating permit that incorporates the monitoring requirements. Please submit a
copy of the revise underground storage tank permit. The Certified Unified Program
Agency was requested to submit, to the California Environmental Protection Agency,
a copy of its finalized (finalized-no tracking) Consolidated Permit to operate
underground storage tanks.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a hard copy of its Consolidated
Permit Program Plan and a hard copy of its underground storage tank permit.
The State Water Resources Control Board considers this deficiency partially
corrected. The submitted permit differs from the permit in the Consolidated Permit
Program Plan. The underground storage tank permit captures all of the required
underground storage tank elements. However, the permit may not contain all of the
Title 27 elements. The permit shows what seems to be issue and expiration dates
but does not directly have this in writing.
75
The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to identify the permit that will
be issued (maybe two permits), either the submitted permit for underground storage
tanks or the permit in its consolidated permit program plan.
The Certified Unified Program Agency indicated that they were awaiting clarification
on the requirement per title 27 on the consolidated permit per California
Environmental Protection Agency. They also requested clarification from the State
Water Resources Control Board on the underground storage tank operating permit.
They indicated that this deficiency is partially corrected.
Again, the Certified Unified Program Agency has changed its permits from what had
been previously submitted to the California Environmental Protection Agency for
review. The submitted permits do not capture the monitoring methods for the
underground storage tank program.
The State Water Resources Control Board has reviewed the deficiency 20
attachment that only shows the title page, table of contents for the inspection and
enforcement plan, and three underground storage tank/Consolidated permits all of
which are for the same facility. These submitted permits differ from what was
submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board in update 3. The submitted
permits in update 4 are missing the monitoring requirements as required in Title 23,
section 2712(c).
The submitted permits are missing the monitoring requirements. The Certified
Unified Program Agency was requested to submit to the California Environmental
Protection Agency the permits (consolidated permit and underground storage tank
permit/addendum) that it plans on issuing to its regulated businesses. The Certified
Unified Program Agency has not indicated if it is issuing one or two permits. One
permit that is the consolidated permit and all requirements including the
underground storage tank program or two separate permits one of which is the
consolidated permit and an addendum that includes the underground storage tank
monitoring requirements.
The State Water Resources Control Board has reviewed the submitted underground
storage tank operating permit and finds it contains the title 23 requirements.
Deficiency 21: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not approving the monitoring
and response plans submitted by underground storage tank owner/operators.
Discussions with the Certified Unified Program Agency and file review indicates that the
Certified Unified Program Agency is not signing the approval/disapproval section of the
underground storage tank monitoring and response plan (form D) for all of its
76
underground storage tank facilities, indicating that the plans/forms have been reviewed
for completeness and accuracy. Upon questioning the Certified Unified Program
Agency, it was confirmed the Certified Unified Program Agency failed to approve or
disapprove the underground storage tank monitoring and response plan.
be included in the inspection and enforcement plan that describes the Certified Unified
Program Agency approval process for underground storage tank owner/operator
submitted monitoring and response plans. This procedure will represent the Certified
Unified Program Agencys process for approving these plans electronically.
By April 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will implement the new
underground storage tank owner/operator submitted monitoring and response plan
procedure as described above.
the State Water Resources Control Board because the Certified Unified Program
Agency was not approving the monitoring and response plans submitted by
underground storage tank owner/operators. The Certified Unified Program Agency
submitted their revised Inspection and Enforcement Plan along with progress report 5.
The Inspection and Enforcement Plan contains a procedure that describes the Certified
Unified Program Agencys approval process for underground storage tank
owner/operator submitted monitoring and response plans. The State Water Resources
Control Board will review the procedure and use the California Environmental Reporting
System submittals over the next 60 days to determine whether the new procedure is
being followed.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must review underground storage tank
submittals in the California Environmental Reporting System for accuracy and
completeness. The Certified Unified Program Agency must update the status of
the submittals as necessary.
As discussed with the Certified Unified Program Agency on November 6, 2014,

the submittals accepted in the California Environmental Reporting System by
Patten Patten shall be reviewed by an ICC Certified Inspector and the Certified
Unified Program Agency will update the status as necessary.

77
in progress, projected completion date December 13, 2012.
In the future, please provide a narrative update on the progress toward correcting
this deficiency.
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit a procedure to be included in
the inspection and enforcement plan that describes the Certified Unified Program
Agency approval process for underground storage tank owner/operator submitted
monitoring and response plans. The Certified Unified Program Agency was advised
that the revised inspection and enforcement plan must describe the Certified Unified
Program Agencys approval process for underground storage tank owner/operator
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a hardcopy if its inspection and
enforcement plan.
and enforcement plan and finds it is lacking the Certified Unified Program Agencys
procedure for approving the owner/operator submitted monitoring and response
plans electronically. Page 41 covers pre-inspections; however the State Water
Resources Control Board could not find anything regarding approval procedures in
the entire inspection and enforcement plan.
The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to revise its inspection and
enforcement plan to include the agreed upon corrective actions.
The Certified Unified Program Agency indicated that they were continuing to make
revisions to the inspection and enforcement plan and will submit prior to February
21st due date.
78
and enforcement plan and finds the Plan does not include procedures for the
approval of submitted monitoring and response plans.
Page 21 Permitting Review System the following is stated, The assigned Certified
Unified Program Agency staff will review the application for completeness and
contact the facility operator to schedule an inspection for new submittals. Annual recertifications will be reviewed by the inspector and the review date will be entered
into the California Environmental Reporting System database.
Reviewing a submittal is not the same as accepting a submittal. The inspection and
enforcement plan does not indicate the California Environmental Reporting System
submittals are being accepted. The Plan only indicates that submittals are being
reviewed.
and enforcement plan and finds that it captures the requirements in the agreed upon
corrective actions. Thank you. However, the Program Improvement Agreement
corrective actions also state the Certified Unified Program Agency will implement the
new underground storage tank owner/operator submitted monitoring and response
plan procedures. Since State Water Resources Control Board has just received and
reviewed the inspection and enforcement plan, it has yet to review the California
Environmental Reporting System submittals to determine if Certified Unified
Program Agency staff are accepting accurate and complete underground storage
tank submittals. State Water Resources Control Board will re-evaluate the California
Environmental Reporting System submittals during the next Certified Unified
Program Agency update.
The State Water Resources Control Board has reviewed 10 underground storage tank
facilities in the California Environmental Reporting System and found that inspectors are
accepting incomplete and or inaccurate underground storage tank submittals. A list of
those facilities and the inaccurate or incomplete information will be provided to the
Certified Unified Program Agency separately as its too lengthy to insert here. Based
on the poor quality of information reviewed and accepted by Certified Unified Program
Agency staff for multiple underground storage tank elements in the California
Environmental Reporting System, simply correcting the California Environmental
Reporting System records reviewed by the State Water Resources Control Board does
not correct this deficiency. In addition, the State Water Resources Control Board
discovered during its review of the California Environmental Reporting System that
multiple facility underground storage tank submittals have not submitted and not
79
accepted statuses while a few have a submitted status since April 2014. On many
occasions, the State Water Resources Control Board sent out Certified Unified Program
Agency guidance prohibiting non-International Code Council certified staff from
accepting/approving underground storage tank submittals and the proper methods for
placing submittals under review in the California Environmental Reporting System.
Despite this, the State Water Resources Control Board discovered that nonInternational Code Council certified staff has approved underground storage tank
underground storage tank submittals in the California Environmental Reporting System.
Deficiency 22: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not collecting, retaining, and
managing information necessary to implement the Unified Program.
Corrective Action(s): Immediately, the Certified Unified Program Agency will correctly
document formal and informal enforcement actions as defined in Title 27, Section 15110
(d).
By December 13, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency will develop and
implement a procedure to ensure that it regularly collects, retains, and manages
information necessary to implement the Unified Program including, but not limited to,
violation classifications, inspection reports, enforcement actions and significant
operational compliance information. Also, the Certified Unified Program Agency will
submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency the following:
Electronic inspection report templates for each program element showing the
drop down menus for violation classifications (minor, Class 2, Class 1) and
formal enforcement actions.
An electronic underground storage tank inspection report template that shows
significant operational compliance criteria.
By March 13, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit to the California
Environmental Protection Agency the following:
A completed electronic inspection report for each program element showing

violation classifications. Include inspection reports that resulted in formal
enforcement, if any.
A completed electronic underground storage tank inspection report that cites
significant operational compliance violations.
by the California Environmental Protection Agency and the State Water Resources
Control Board for not collecting, retaining, and managing information necessary to
implement the Unified Program. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted ONE
STEP data system screenshots and hard copy paper inspection reports that were not
acceptable to correct this deficiency. During a meeting that occurred before the 5th
progress report was submitted, the Certified Unified Program Agency manager stated
80
that the Certified Unified Program Agency could not produce electronic inspection
reports as agreed to in the Program Improvement Agreement and would continue to use
paper-based inspection reports. The California Environmental Protection Agency
accepted the response and the previously submitted hardcopy inspection reports. The
Certified Unified Program Agency is now using the California Environmental Reporting
System to manage inspection, violation, and enforcement information including violation
classifications, enforcement actions, and significant operational compliance violations.
On November 15, 2012, the California Environmental Protection Agency received a
narrative stating that forms (the California Environmental Protection Agency
assumes that the forms were inspection reports.) were provided to One Step as part
of the data transition. The testing was to start November 19, 2012. The California
Environmental Protection Agency is unclear what was tested?
On January 30, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted MS Word
format templates of hard copy inspection reports for hazardous waste generator
(small quantity generator, large quantity generator), tiered permitting, underground
storage tank, California accidental release prevention (Program 2 only), and
hazardous materials business plan programs. Some of these were in "track change"
mode and contained underlines and strikethroughs. The electronic version of these
inspection reports (made for tablet PCs) were not submitted. Also, an electronic
version of an APSA inspection report was not submitted. In the California
Environmental Protection Agencys response, the Certified Unified Program Agency
was asked if they would be using electronic inspection reports. The Certified Unified
Program Agency has maintained, in meetings and phone calls, that they would be
transitioning to electronic inspection reports. During the February 19, 2013
conference call with the Certified Unified Program Agency, the California
Environmental Protection Agency explained to the Certified Unified Program Agency
that they must submit screenshots of electronic versions of the inspection reports
(made for tablet PCs) for each program element. Certified Unified Program Agency
agreed to comply.
On February 20, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted One Step
data management system screenshots showing the system's ability to collect
violation classifications. The California Environmental Protection Agency found that
the screenshots showed that One Step is able to manage violation information for all
of the program elements. However, the Certified Unified Program Agency did not
address the Program Improvement Agreement corrective action that was to submit
81
electronic inspection report templates for each program element showing the drop
down menus for violation classifications (minor, Class 2, Class 1) and formal
enforcement actions. Also, the Certified Unified Program Agency did not address
the Program Improvement Agreement corrective action that was to submit an
electronic underground storage tank inspection report template that showed
On March 29, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted responses to
the states update 1 responses. In the response, the Certified Unified Program
Agency stated that a significant operational compliance screenshot and California
accidental release prevention program 1 and 3 inspection reports were attached to
the response email. They were not. The hazardous waste small quantity generator
inspection report was attached. This response did not address the Program
Improvement Agreement corrective actions.
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit an update for this deficiency
along with their May 1, 2013 update 2 submission. In the California Environmental
Protection Agencys response the Certified Unified Program Agency was asked if
they would be using electronic inspection reports. The Certified Unified Program
Agency has maintained, in meetings and phone calls, that they would be
transitioning to electronic inspection reports.
On October 29, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted hardcopy
One Step screenshots showing violations, the state surcharge management,
hazardous materials information, and underground storage tank information. The
Certified Unified Program Agency also submitted a PDF hardcopy version of a
Notice/Summary of Violations. None the submissions addressed the Program
In a conference call with the Certified Unified Program Agency on November 21,
2013 and in a separate phone call, the California Environmental Protection Agency
explained to the Certified Unified Program Agency that they must submit
screenshots of electronic versions of the inspection reports (made for tablet PCs) for
each program element. The Certified Unified Program Agency asked why
inspection, violation, and enforcement submissions into the California Environmental
Reporting System or One Step were not acceptable as electronic inspection reports
for all of the program elements. The California Environmental Protection Agency
responded by saying that One Step and the California Environmental Reporting
System violation library list many possible violations that the Certified Unified
Program Agency can use to report required inspection, violation, and enforcement
information as a part of the Certified Unified Program Agencys reporting
requirements. The violation lists do not list the specific program criteria the Certified
82
Unified Program Agency will use for inspections. The Oakland City Council and the
Certified Unified Program Agency agreed to the requirements of the Program
Improvement Agreement which included the development and use of electronic
inspection reports templates for each program element. The Certified Unified
Program Agency has not addressed the corrective action requirements of this
deficiency.
On February 28, 2014, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted screenshots
of One Step violation lists for all of the program elements. As stated previously, this
submission did not address the Program Improvement Agreement corrective
actions.
The Certified Unified Program Agency also submitted the California Environmental
Reporting System inspection information screenshots and hardcopies of completed
inspection reports for five businesses. All of the program element inspection reports
were included. The California Environmental Reporting System screenshots and the
completed inspection reports did not address the Program Improvement Agreement
corrective actions.
During a meeting with the Certified Unified Program Agency, Mr. Leroy Griffin said
that the Certified Unified Program Agency would continue to use paper-based
inspection reports and could not use electronic inspection reports at the present
time. California Environmental Protection Agency accepted the response. The
Certified Unified Program Agency has submitted inspection, violation, and
enforcement information into California Environmental Reporting System that
includes violation classifications, enforcement actions, and significant operational
compliance violations.
Deficiency 23: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not implementing some of
the elements in its inspection and enforcement plan. The Certified Unified Program
Agency is not:
classifying violations in the notices to comply provided to the facility at the

conclusion of the inspections.
submitting large quantity generator data on a quarterly basis to the Department
of Toxic Substances Control.
responding to complaints referred by the Department of Toxic Substances
Control.
Comments from the Evaluation Team concerning the contents of the inspection and
enforcement plan were sent to the Certified Unified Program Agency via email.
83
update and submit its revised inspection and enforcement plan to the California
Environmental Protection Agency for review, considering the comments sent by the
California Environmental Protection Agency to the Certified Unified Program
Agency. The Certified Unified Program Agency will implement its updated inspection
and enforcement plan.
By April 15, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit the following data
and documents to the California Environmental Protection Agency that demonstrates
that the Certified Unified Program Agency is adequately implementing their inspection
and enforcement plan: five Notice to Comply documents, with violations classified,
from inspections conducted on or after October 1, 2012; a certification statement that
the Certified Unified Program Agency has entered the large quantity generator into the
California Environmental Reporting System at least quarterly, including the dates the
data was entered into the California Environmental Reporting System; and, the status of
complaints referred by the Department of Toxic Substances Control since September
13, 2012.
the Department of Toxic Substances Control because the Certified Unified Program
Agency is not implementing some of the elements in its Inspection and Enforcement
Plan. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted several Inspection and
Enforcement Plan versions along with previous progress reports. The California
Environmental Protection Agency noted that there continues to be duplicative
information in the current plan. The consolidated permit program plan was recently
removed from the Inspection and Enforcement plan after progress report 5 was
reviewed. The Certified Unified Program Agency has not submitted a status of
13, 2012.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must revise their Inspection and
Enforcement Plan and eliminate any duplicative inspection procedures.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must submit a status of complaints
referred by the Department of Toxic Substances Control since September 13,
2012.

2013. PDF letter that came with the 1st progress report documents did not give the
84
state reviewer any narrative descriptions of what the Certified Unified Program
Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit its revised inspection and
enforcement plan.
documentation on May 1, 2013. The Certified Unified Program Agency did not
submit its revised inspection and enforcement plan.
Program Agency said that they were updating the inspection and enforcement plan
and would submit it to the California Environmental Protection Agency.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its 3rd progress report on October
29, 2013. The response included a revised inspection and enforcement plan in
Adobe Acrobat format. The Department of Toxic Substances Control contacted
LeRoy Griffin to get a copy of the inspection and enforcement plan in MS Word and
was informed that they were updating their inspection and enforcement plan and to
ignore the previous submission.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its inspection and enforcement
plan, but the document may be a draft because there are errors and inconsistencies.
Parts of the inspection and enforcement plan guidance document on the California
Environmental Protection Agency website were cut and pasted to create the
Certified Unified Program Agencys inspection and enforcement plan.
Unified Program Consolidated Forms and other forms such as the Business
Activities form are referred to in the inspection and enforcement plan when the
Certified Unified Program Agency and regulated businesses should be reporting
information electronically.
Duplication There are inspection procedures in a couple of places in the inspection

and enforcement plan (pages. 4-6 and pages 40-46). Some of the inspection
procedures are very similar and should be consolidated.
85
Permit Procedures are in two different places in the inspection and enforcement plan
and the information in both is also different. The permit cycle for the underground
storage tank program appears to be annual, three years, or five years. The
consolidated permit should only have one permit cycle, one issuance date, and one
expiration date. The permit procedures do not belong in the inspection and
enforcement plan. It is highly unlikely that the State Water Resources Control Board
will accept the permit procedures in this inspection and enforcement plan as valid
because there are two of them and the information between the two are inconsistent.
A Notice to Comply is issued for minor violations of all program elements, not just
minor hazardous waste violations.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its 4th progress report to the
Department of Toxic Substances Control on February 28, 2014. The Certified
Unified Program Agency submitted its inspection and enforcement plan dated
February 19, 2014 in the package. The Certified Unified Program Agency had not
done the following as per their inspection and enforcement plan:
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not respond to the By April 15, 2013, the
Certified Unified Program Agency will submit the following data and documents to
the California Environmental Protection Agency that demonstrates that the Certified
Unified Program Agency is adequately implementing their inspection and
enforcement plan: five Notice to Comply documents, with violations classified,
from inspections conducted on or after October 1, 2012; a certification statement
that the Certified Unified Program Agency has entered the large quantity generator
into the California Environmental Reporting System at least quarterly, including the
dates the data was entered into the California Environmental Reporting System;
and, the status of complaints referred by the Department of Toxic Substances
Control since September 13, 2012.
A review of the California Environmental Reporting System showed a total of four
data entries for the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity
Generators compliance inspections from 5/2011 to 9/2013 (only one Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator inspected since 9/2012).
One out of these four generator inspections was EBMUD and it was not a Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator; two inspection entries
were for Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc. for 5/2011 and 7/2012. Thus, the
Certified Unified Program Agency had not entered the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator information into the California
Environmental Reporting System at least quarterly.
86
The inspection and enforcement plan addresses most of the problems California
Environmental Protection Agency observed. There continues to be some duplicative
inspection procedures that should be consolidated.
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not discuss deficiency #23 with the
Department of Toxic Substances Control during meetings. This statement was for
the deficiency #7 - Conversations with Asha and Maria took place surrounding the
hazardous materials tracking spreadsheet, they have reviewed accepted the
revisions made to the spreadsheet.
The following statement made by the Certified Unified Program Agency is unclear to
the Department of Toxic Substances Control - They also reviewed the information
within the California Environmental Reporting System. We are waiting to hear back
that the California Environmental Reporting System will serve the purpose instead of
staff conducting double entry on the spreadsheet, however the spreadsheet
template is attached. The inspection and enforcement plan is dated June 16, 2014
Version 1.3
The Department of Toxic Substances Control checked the California Environmental
Reporting System and there is no new Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Large Quantity Generator information in the California Environmental Reporting
System. Therefore, the Certified Unified Program Agency has not entered the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator information into
the California Environmental Reporting System at least quarterly.
The Certified Unified Program Agency is reporting Resource Conservation and
Environmental Reporting System. A California Environmental Reporting System
screenshot was submitted documenting the submissions. The Certified Unified
Program Agency has not submitted a revised Inspection and Enforcement plan or a
status of complaints referred by the Department of Toxic Substances Control since
September 13, 2012.
87

quantity generator inspections were conducted on October 20 and 21, 2014. The
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act large quantity generator reporting portion
of this deficiency has been corrected as two (2) Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act large quantity generator inspections were conducted last week and the
California Environmental Reporting System has been updated.
Deficiency 24: The Certified Unified Program Agencys fiscal year 2009/2010 and
2010/2011 self-audit reports do not adequately assess the performance of the Certified
Unified Program Agency.
will submit its fiscal year 2011/2012 self-audit report to the California Environmental
Protection Agency that adequately assesses the performance of the Certified Unified
Program Agency.
by the California Environmental Protection Agency because reviewed title 27 self-audit
reports did not adequately assess the performance of the Certified Unified Program
Agency. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted their title 27 self-audit with
revisions required by the state agencies.
Status: This deficiency has been corrected. The Certified Unified Program Agency
submitted their annual title 27 self-audit report that incorporated the corrections required
by the state agencies. The submitted title 27 self-audit report was acceptable. The selfaudit report did not include all of the California Accidental Release Prevention annual
performance audit elements. Therefore, deficiency #11 has not been corrected with the
submission of the title 27 self-audit report.
On November 15, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted their fiscal
year 2011/2012 self-audit. The California Environmental Protection Agency, the
Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the OSFM reviewed the self-audit and
found that some revisions were needed. The California Environmental Protection
Agency, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the OSFM noted the
required changes in the Certified Unified Program Agencys self-audit document.
Some suggested changes were also includes to improve the utility of the self-audit.
The California Environmental Protection Agency emailed the self-audit with the
states notes back to the Certified Unified Program Agency for revision.
88
On March 1, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted their revised
their fiscal year 2011/2012 self-audit. The self-audit revision was sufficient to correct
this deficiency. This only applies to the title 27 elements of the self-audit, not the
California accidental release prevention performance audit the Certified Unified
Program Agency has incorporated into their title 27 self-audit.
89
Enclosure 1
Deficiency Overview
December 29, 2014
The state evaluation team has endeavored to assist the City of Oakland Fire
Department Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) in correcting deficiencies
identified during the September 2012 Evaluation that resulted in the November 2012
Program Improvement Agreement (PIA). This Program Improvement Agreement was
the direct result of the CUPAs continued failure to address the deficiencies found during
the December 2008 Evaluation, which resulted in a finding of unsatisfactory program
implementation and a PIA in 2010 for failure to correct the deficiencies. The state
evaluation team was led by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA)
and included representatives from the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal
OES), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the Office of the State Fire
Marshal (OSFM), and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Each state
agency has participated in several group and individual meetings with the CUPA to
assist in correcting the identified deficiencies over the past 25 months. Unfortunately,
these efforts have not led to satisfactory completion of corrective actions, and
implementation of the Unified Program in the City of Oakland has not significantly
improved. The PIA set quarterly corrective action updates beginning December 13,
2012. The CUPA has been consistently late in submitting the corrective action updates
and often submitted incomplete updates that required an iterative correction process.
Additionally, the CUPA failed to submit two of the seven required updates over the past
25 months.
The state evaluation team has provided a detailed summary (enclosure 2) of the City of
Oakland CUPAs actions to attempt to correct deficiencies identified during the
September 2012 evaluation.
The following information identifies the major deficiencies in the City of Oakland CUPAs
implementation of the Unified Program in Oakland and the primary reasons why
CalEPA is withdrawing the City of Oaklands certification as a CUPA.
1. Incomplete or Inadequate Facility Inspections.
The CUPA has not conducted routine inspections of businesses in the Hazardous
Materials Business Plan, Hazardous Waste Generator and Tiered Permitting, California
Accidental Release Prevention, and Underground Storage Tank programs according to
statutory and regulatory standards. Moreover, the CUPA has failed to demonstrate that
its current program for routine inspections will ensure that these standards are met in
the future.
Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) (Deficiency 14) The CUPA has
not demonstrated that all HMBP businesses have been inspected in the last three
years as required by law. Despite repeated requests, the CUPA failed to provide
sufficient information to confirm the total number of completed inspections. In
fiscal year 2012-2013, CUPA only inspected 255 of its 1,152 hazardous material
facilities. For fiscal year 2013-2014, the CUPA has only recorded 85 routine
compliance inspections for the HMBP program in the California Environmental
Reporting System.
Hazardous Waste Generator (HWG) and Onsite Hazardous Waste Treatment
(Tiered Permitting) (Deficiency 16) The CUPA has not demonstrated that all
HWG and Tiered Permitting businesses have been adequately inspected in the
last three years as required by law. Despite repeated requests, the CUPA failed
to provide sufficient information to confirm the total number of businesses and the
total number of completed inspections. In fiscal year 2012-2013, CUPA only
inspected 184 of its 816 hazardous waste generator facilities. For fiscal year
2013-2014, the CUPA has only recorded 55 routine compliance inspections for
the HWG program in the California Environmental Reporting System. The CUPA
also failed to fully comply with DTSCs requests for inspection reports for those
facilities that were reported as inspected. Additionally, the inspection reports that
were provided revealed that, in some instances, inspectors applied inappropriate
standards because they conducted and documented the inspections using the
wrong inspection report forms.
Recent hazardous waste generator inspections independently conducted by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) in the City of Oakland
confirm the significant shortcomings in the CUPAs inspection program. For
example, the CUPA informed U.S. EPA that the East Bay Municipal Utility District
main waste water treatment plant was in compliance based on the CUPAs
September 13, 2013 inspection. However, a few months later U.S. EPA found
numerous violations at this facility and was informed by the facility operator that
the CUPA inspector failed to inspect the points of hazardous waste generation.
During three additional recent inspections conducted by U.S. EPA, inspectors
documented 15 violations that were not identified by the CUPA inspectors. These
federal inspections raise questions about whether the CUPA will be able to
conduct adequate compliance inspections even if the inspection rate is increased.
Additionally, for fiscal year 2012-2013, the CUPA reported that a very low
percentage of facilities in Oakland were out of compliance with state
requirements. The figure was substantially lower than the statewide average of
29 percent. This significant deviation from the statewide compliance percentage
considered together with the deficiencies noted in the CUPAs inspection reports
and the results of the U.S. EPA independent inspections supports the conclusion
that the CUPA has not met its requirements to inspect and report on hazardous
facilities in the community in a timely and accurate manner.
California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP) (Deficiency 13 corrected) In past years, the CUPA failed to conduct CalARP inspections every
three years as required by law. This failure is not currently identified as a
deficiency, however, because two of the three Oakland CalARP facilities are no
longer in the program. Although the remaining facility has been inspected, it is not
clear that the CUPA has maintained minimum performance standards for its
CalARP inspectors.
Underground Storage Tanks (UST) (Deficiencies 6, 17) The CUPA has not
demonstrated that it has met the annual inspection requirement for facilities in the
UST program and has submitted inspection reports with numerous errors and
inconsistencies. An unidentified number of inspections have been performed by
an inspector who lacks the necessary state certification, creating an uncertainty
as to how many of the completed inspections are valid.
2. Deficient Enforcement Program.
The CUPA has not implemented an effective enforcement program. In particular, the
CUPA has not demonstrated the capability to track and follow-up with non-compliant
businesses and has not brought enforcement actions to compel compliance in cases
where violations were not corrected.
Enforcement (Deficiency 7, 16, 23)
The CUPA has not met minimum standards for effective enforcement of Unified
Program requirements and is not implementing its approved Inspection and
Enforcement Plan. In particular, the CUPA has not consistently verified whether
or not businesses have corrected violations identified during inspections, and, for
those facilities that have not corrected violations, the CUPA has not employed
appropriate enforcement actions. None of the corrective actions for this
deficiency have been adequately addressed. CalEPA never received an
acceptable list of facilities with violations, and the CUPA has not demonstrated the
capability to track and follow-up with noncompliant businesses.
3. Ineffective Implementation of State Program Requirements.
The CUPA has not instituted a regimented program to ensure that its staff completes all
required certifications, audits, and approvals in a timely manner.
Implementing State Program Requirements (Deficiencies 4, 5, 11, 15, 21)
The CUPA has not produced and implemented program procedures to oversee
the businesses requirement to review and certify their Business Plans as current
or to complete the required annual chemical inventory updates and does not have
a procedure for ensuring that Business Plan submittals meet state requirements.
The CUPA has not completed the mandatory CalARP Performance Audit. The
CUPA is not reviewing and approving the required UST monitoring plans.
3
4. Failure to Comply with Fee Accountability Requirements.

The CUPA does not have an effective or viable fee accountability program. Overall, the
CUPA is running a substantial surplus and cannot account for its program fees. Issues
with fees in the earlier CUPA evaluations point to a long-term continuing issue. Under
the Unified Program, a fee accountability program must ensure that the CUPAs fees
are set at a level to cover only the necessary and reasonable costs of the program and
that the fees are not used for other activities. The CUPA program currently operates
with a substantial surplus and reported revenues and expenditures are not consistent.
In addition, the CUPA has not verified that it has the appropriate balance between
adequate staff to cover program needs and a fee to match the cost needed to
adequately implement the program. Since becoming a CUPA, revenues have
substantially exceeded expenditures. Information provided by the CUPA also shows
that the CUPA personnel are inappropriately performing other non-Unified Program
activities.
Fee Accountability (Deficiencies 12)
The documentation submitted on February 28, 2014, as a part of the CUPAs
progress report 4, indicates that the fee accountability program is not adequate
and has not been reviewed and updated, as required by state law. In fiscal year
2012/2013, the CUPA collected $899,796 in fees and expended $841,337. At the
end of the fiscal year, there was a surplus of $1,463,418.20, or 174% of program
costs. However, the CUPA reported only $667,768 in revenue on its formal fiscal
year 2012/2013 Annual Fee Summary. The CUPA has not explained this
reporting discrepancy.
As discussed below, the CUPA is not collecting the state electronic reporting
surcharge from its regulated facilities. Instead, the CUPA used other Unified
Program funds to remit the electronic reporting portion of the "CUPA Oversight"
surcharge. At a minimum, this indicates that regulated businesses had been
billed more than the necessary and reasonable cost to implement the Unified
Program in fiscal years 2010/2011 and 2011/2012, in violation of statute and
regulation.
In emails and verbal correspondences, the CUPA stated that the four staff
assigned to implement the Unified Program are fully funded by Unified Program
fees. However, some CUPA staff members perform activities that are not related
to the Unified Program, such as conducting Commercial Stormwater Protection
inspections, participating in the Industrial Illicit Discharge Committee for Alameda
County, and attending annual Industrial Illicit Discharge training. In fiscal year
2012/2013, records indicate CUPA staff conducted 1,047 Stormwater Protection
inspections while conducting only 255 hazardous material business plan facility
compliance inspections. These are serious departures from the statutorily
required fee accountability program elements. CUPA staff should not be fully
4
funded by Unified Program fees because a significant percentage of their

workload is spent doing non-CUPA related job functions.
5. Failure to Comply with State Surcharge Requirements.
To-date, the CUPA has not demonstrated that the electronic reporting surcharge has
been billed to all of its regulated facilities. Additionally, recently submitted information
included a March 2014 invoice showing the CUPA is billing the surcharge at $24 per
year when the surcharge was revised to $35 per year effective July 2013.
Surcharge Billing (Deficiency 9)
The CUPA collected the underground storage tank and California accidental
release prevention surcharge for fiscal years 2008/2009 and 2009/2010, but did
not remit it to the state until January 16, 2013 when required to do so under the
Program Improvement Agreement. The CUPA has not billed regulated
businesses for the electronic reporting surcharge for the required three-year
period after the electronic reporting surcharge became effective July 1, 2009.
Additionally, since the 2012 agreement, the CUPA has not verified that it has
correctly billed regulated businesses for the state surcharge. For fiscal years
2010/2011 and 2011/2012, the CUPA did not bill its regulated businesses for the
required electronic reporting surcharge. Per the PIA, the CUPA agreed to bill its
regulated facilities for the electronic reporting surcharge by July 1, 2013. By
October 14, 2013, the CUPA should have submitted five single fee invoices
showing that its regulated businesses were billed the appropriate state surcharge.
Neither of these corrective actions was completed. Instead, the CUPA submitted
a letter dated March 24, 2014 to CalEPA stating that they would begin billing the
electronic reporting surcharge in March 2014.
Enclosure 2
Deficiency Progress Summary Report

December 29, 2014
The deficiency summaries below provide a synopsis of progress made on each

deficiency identified in the September 2012 evaluation of the City of Oakland Fire
Department CUPA. The summaries include an overview of the deficiency and the
current status, as well as excerpts from periodic state progress reports, which describe
the identified corrective actions, the response of the CUPA, and the state review of that
response. The summaries are based on information compiled from the following:
Six progress report submissions and supporting documentation received from the
CUPA.
Correspondences by telephone and email.
Group and individual meetings.
Deficiency Summaries
Deficiency 1: The Certified Unified Program Agency has not fully developed and
implemented the hazardous waste generator tiered permitting program. During this
Certified Unified Program Agency evaluation, the Certified Unified Program Agency staff
stated tiered permitting procedures were not in place. The following are instances
observed by the Department of Toxic Substances Control where the tiered permitting
requirements were not implemented:
The Certified Unified Program Agency does not have procedures for a written
acknowledgment of tiered permitting notifications and a method to handle
incomplete forms.
contingency plan activation reports.
reports documenting releases of reportable quantities from tank systems or
secondary containment
The Certified Unified Program Agency has not inspected its tiered permitting
facilities at least once every three years. For example, the file review showed that
the Alameda County permanent household hazardous waste collection facility was
last inspected on 4/21/09 and Gold Seal Plating was last inspected in 12/08.
During the evaluation, the Certified Unified Program Agency provided a draft copy of
their hazardous waste generator/tiered permitting inspection checklist to the Department
5
of Toxic Substances Control. However, the draft is missing HSC and CCR, title 22
sections for each violation.
will add the regulatory sections to their hazardous waste generator/tiered permitting
inspection checklist and submit an electronic copy of this complete document to the
California Environmental Protection Agency for further comment.
By January 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will develop, implement and
submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency procedures for the hazardous
waste tiered permitting program.
By January 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will revise and submit to the
California Environmental Protection Agency its consolidated permit application, tiered
permitting forms, and hazardous waste generator inspection report to reflect the
Certified Unified Program Agencys new tiered permitting procedures.
By April 15, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will ensure that it provides
hazardous waste generator and tiered permitting trainings to its staff, including, but not
limited to types of waste treated, tank assessment requirements, treatment
technologies, tiered permitting eligibility and administrative and technical reviews.
by the Department of Toxic Substances Control because the hazardous waste
generator tiered permitting program was not fully developed and implemented. All of
the corrective actions have been completed.
Prior to First Progress Report:
On October 19 and 24, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency requested an
extension in a letter and proposed the new due dates to the summary of findings
discussed on October 10, 2012. The Certified Unified Program Agency also
requested evaluation documents, checklists, etc. that were used in evaluating the
Certified Unified Program Agency. The California Environmental Protection Agency
responded to the Certified Unified Program Agencys extension request but no
evaluation documents were provided.
On October 30, 2012, the Ms. Perkins sent an email to the Department of Toxic
Substances Control requesting hazardous waste generator/tiered permitting
trainings from the Department of Toxic Substances Control. The same day on
November 30, 2012 the Department of Toxic Substances Control responded to the
Certified Unified Program Agencys email agreeing to provide the trainings and to
further discuss possible training dates.
6
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted the hazardous waste

generator/tiered permitting checklists to the California Environmental Protection
Agency on November 14, 2012. The Certified Unified Program Agency also stated
that staff was scheduled to attend the Certified Unified Program Agency Conference
program training in February 2013 and would be required to attend the hazardous
waste generator and tiered permitting training at the conference.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control reviewed the large quantity generator
checklist and found it acceptable since the Department of Toxic Substances Control
posted this checklist template on the Department of Toxic Substances Control and
the California Environmental Protection Agency websites. A minor comment was
made to place the Certified Unified Program Agencys seal on the top right hand side
of the page and to have the checklist fit on ONE page plus additional pages for
instructions. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted an older version of the
Department of Toxic Substances Controls small quantity generator checklist as the
manifest requirements had changed since September 2006 and there was no more
blue copy of the manifest. The Department of Toxic Substances Control provided
the Certified Unified Program Agency web links to download the small quantity
generator checklist from the Department of Toxic Substances Control or the
California Environmental Protection Agency websites. The Certified Unified
Program Agency did not submit a tiered permitting checklist in this package. The
Department of Toxic Substances Control submitted responses to the Certified
Unified Program Agency via the California Environmental Protection Agency.
On November 15, 2012 the California Environmental Protection Agency responded
to the Certified Unified Program Agencys extension request letter dated October 19,
2012, agreeing to a few dates and other dates were left the same.
On December 6, 2012, the Department of Toxic Substances Control received an
email from the California Environmental Protection Agency to contact LeRoy Griffin
regarding the tiered permitting checklist (The Certified Unified Program Agency only
submitted the permit-by-rule/conditional authorization/conditional exemption forms
and not the tiered permitting checklist. The Department of Toxic Substances Control
contacted LeRoy Griffin who stated, he wanted to meet with the Department of Toxic
Substances Control this same day to discuss the Department of Toxic Substances
Control deficiencies. Thus, the Department of Toxic Substances Control met with
LeRoy Griffin on December 6, 2012 in the Department of Toxic Substances Control
Berkeley office. He brought a package of documents to show to the Department of
Toxic Substances Control, but no documents were provided to the Department of
On December 10, 2012, the Department of Toxic Substances Control sent an
electronic copy of a tiered permitting checklist and instructions from the LA County
Certified Unified Program Agency as requested by Mr. Griffin on December 6, 2012.
Mr. Griffin was told by the Department of Toxic Substances Control to tailor the
checklist to their program.
7
On December 10, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted an

evaluation pre-update to the California Environmental Protection Agency. The 1st
progress report was due by December 13, 2012.
First Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- December 13, 2012. Actual submission
date- January 31, 2013
2013 without any supporting documents. The pdf letter that came with the 1 st
the same day via email.
provided comments to Certified Unified Program Agencys 1st progress report to the
California Environmental Protection Agency on February 15, 2013.
Second Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- March 14, 2013.
Actual submission date- May 15, 2013
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its 2nd progress report on May 1,
2013 to the California Environmental Protection Agency by email. Although the,
Certified Unified Program Agency did not respond to this deficiency, but the small
quantity generator and large quantity generator inspection checklists submitted with
this progress report were acceptable to the Department of Toxic Substances Control
as per the Department of Toxic Substances Control correspondence with the
California Environmental Protection Agency and a joint agency conference call with
the City of Oakland on March 25, 2013.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control did not notice any changes in the
hazardous waste generator Reporting Packet revised form received from the City of
Oakland - PDF file name hazardous waste Generator Report Packet (3-29-13). The
Department of Toxic Substances Control provided comments to the California
Environmental Protection Agency for the hazardous waste tiered permitting
Checklist Guidance received from the City of Oakland - PDF file name hazardous
waste tiered permitting Checklist and Guidance (3-29-13).
8
On June 3-5 2013, the Department of Toxic Substances Control provided hazardous
waste generator (small quantity generator/large quantity generator) and tiered
permitting trainings to the Certified Unified Program Agency staff, including, but not
limited to:
types of waste treated;
tank assessment requirements;
treatment technologies;
tiered permitting eligibility and administrative and technical reviews.
Determining and Citing Violations
A face to face meeting was held with the Certified Unified Program Agency along
with all agencies (California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic
Substances Control, etc.) on October 16, 2013 in Sacramento to discuss compliance
issues related to each deficiency.
Third Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- July 31, 2013. Actual submission date
was on October 29, 2013.
report on October 29, 2013 to the California Environmental Protection Agency, which
was still deficient.
Agency on November 4, 2013 to discuss the outstanding hazardous waste
generator/tiered permitting program deficiencies and it was agreed the Certified
Unified Program Agency would make the necessary changes and submit an update
to the forms/documents to the Department of Toxic Substances Control by
November 25, 2013. The Department of Toxic Substances Control summarized
meeting notes and email to the Certified Unified Program Agency the same day on
November 4, 2013. The attachment in the email from Mr. Griffin on November 25,
2013 did NOT include any corrections.
Fourth Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- February 21, 2014. Actual submission
date was on February 28, 2014.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control received a hand delivered package
from the Certified Unified Program Agency on February 28, 2014. The Department
of Toxic Substances Control reviewed the documents submitted and finds this
deficiency corrected. The Department of Toxic Substances Control provided
comments for this deficiency to the California Environmental Protection Agency on
March 12, 2014.
Deficiency 2: Hazardous waste generator inspection reports issued by the Certified

Unified Program Agency do not include observations or other information in enough
detail to determine if those items are violations, observations, or suggestions. During
the file review the following files were noted as having violations that were not
adequately or properly documented:
The 7-6-07 inspection report for Alco Park, 165 13th Street listed the following, which
is not a violation Need to indicate an accumulation date on waste fluid. Due to
quantity normally accumulated an exemption beyond 6 months is granted. The
Certified Unified Program Agency did not cite the facility for failure to exceed
accumulation time. It must be noted the Certified Unified Program Agency is not
authorized to grant such an exemption.
The 6-30-09 inspection report for Advanced Grinding, 812 49th Avenue listed Any
person engaged in activities which will or may result in pollutants entering the city
storm sewer systems shall eliminate such pollutants to the maximum extent
practical. This is not a hazardous waste generator violation as explained by the
Certified Unified Program Agency. This was storm water discharge violation and
there are no violation codes under storm water discharge requirements, the Certified
Unified Program Agency cites miscellaneous violation under the hazardous waste
generator program.
The 6-21-12 inspection of Oakland Unified School District, 955 High Street listed
Any person engaged in activities which will or may result in pollutants entering the
city storm sewer systems shall eliminate such pollutants to the maximum extent
practical.
The Certified Unified Program Agency did inform the Oakland Unified School
District that it needed to submit the Schools Hazardous Waste Collection,
Consolidation, and Accumulation Facilities notification to the Department of
will develop a procedure to ensure that all violations cited in inspection reports are
clearly documented as violations and include the factual basis for violations, as well as
the corrective actions to be taken.
Along with the second progress report, due March 13, 2013, the Certified Unified
Program Agency will submit five inspection reports for hazardous waste generator
inspections completed within the last six months that contain the factual basis for
violations, corrective actions to be taken and observations. Each of the five inspection
reports will have at least one hazardous waste generator violation identified.
By April 15, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will provide refresher
hazardous waste/tiered permitting training to staff that covers the identification and
citation of hazardous waste violations.
by the Department of Toxic Substances Control because the Certified Unified Program
Agencys hazardous waste generator inspection reports did not contain enough detail
for a reviewer to distinguish between violations, observations, or suggestions. All of the
corrective actions have been completed.
10

2, 2013 without any supporting documents. PDF letter that came with the 1st
the same day via email. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its
supporting documents on January 30, 2013 in an email. The Department of Toxic
Substances Control provided comments to the Certified Unified Program Agencys
1st progress report to the California Environmental Protection Agency on February
15, 2013.
2013. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted five inspection reports with
hazardous waste generator violations. The Department of Toxic Substances Control
noted that observations and factual basis of violations were missing for some of the
violations noted and for those that were included they were not legible. One
inspection report did not contain any hazardous waste generator violations and
should not have been included as part of the five inspection reports. The Certified
Unified Program Agency used the appropriate checklist but didnt use the
accompanying pages for the observations for all of the inspection reports submitted.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control requested on to the Certified Unified
Program Agency via the California Environmental Protection Agency that they
submit five additional hazardous waste generator inspection reports from hazardous
waste generator facilities with at least one hazardous waste generator violation
cited.
On June 4, 2013, the Department of Toxic Substances Control provided training to
the Certified Unified Program Agency staff on Determining and Citing Violations.
11
On October 16, 2013, a face to face meeting was held with the Certified Unified
Program Agency along with all agencies (California Environmental Protection
Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, etc.) to discuss compliance
issues related for each deficiency. The Certified Unified Program Agency agreed to
send copies of inspection reports to the Department of Toxic Substances Control as
required in the corrective action for this deficiency.
report on October 29, 2013. The Certified Unified Program Agency did not include
copies of inspection reports in this progress report.
Agency on November 4, 2013. At this meeting, the Certified Unified Program Agency
submitted hard copies of four (4) new hazardous waste generator inspection reports
to the Department of Toxic Substances Control. The Department of Toxic
Substances Control requested the Certified Unified Program Agency to submit an
inspection report for an inspection that was conducted after April 2013. It was
agreed the Certified Unified Program Agency would submit the inspection report to
the Department of Toxic Substances Control by November 25, 2013 and the
Department of Toxic Substances Control agreed to review the inspection reports by
January 10, 2014. The Department of Toxic Substances Control met with the
Certified Unified Program Agency on November 25, 2013 and also reviewed the
additional inspection report received from the Certified Unified Program Agency and
found it acceptable and this was conveyed to the Certified Unified Program Agency
and the California Environmental Protection Agency in an email of January 6, 2014.
Deficiency 3: The Certified Unified Program Agency did not conduct a complete
hazardous waste generator inspection.
During the hazardous waste generator oversight inspection of Owens Illinois

Containers located at 3600 Alameda Avenue on 7/30/12, the Certified Unified
Program Agency inspector missed many components of the hazardous waste
generator regulations, including the following violations observed by the Department
of Toxic Substances Control evaluator: Failure to have a daily inspection schedule
and a log of daily inspections for the 4,000 gallon used oil tank, an inspection log for
the emergency equipment; and, failure to make a hazardous waste determination for
the influent to the oil/water separator. In addition, the inspector was not familiar with
the biennial report format.
This was the inspectors third visit to this facility. During previous inspections, the
inspector never inspected all of the hazardous waste areas, including the oil/water
separator and did not assess if the oil/water separator was subject to the tiered
permitting program.
During the facility file review at the Certified Unified Program Agencys office for this
hazardous waste generator oversight inspection, the Department of Toxic
12
Substances Control evaluator noted that the facility obtained a tank assessment for
the 4,000 gallon used oil tank in March 2005. The professional engineer that
peformed the tank assessment stated that the tank assessment was valid for one
year. The Certified Unified Program Agency never cited this facility for failure to
obtain a tank reassessment for the used oil tank during the last two annual
inspections.
plan, but an inspection report sent to the facility on 8/14/12 included classes of the
violations.
During the hazardous waste generator oversight inspection of Shape Products

located at 1127 57th Avenue on 8/2/12, the Certified Unified Program Agency
inspector incorrectly applied large quantity generator rules for a small quantity
generator. The inspector was not aware that the facility was a small quantity
generator and was not familiar with all of the small quantity generator requirements.
For example, training and contingency plan violations were cited but these violations
apply to the large quantity generators.
plan, but an inspection report sent to the facility on 8/28/12 included classes of
violations.
Corrective Action(s): Immediately, the Certified Unified Program Agency will ensure
that inspections are conducted in a manner consistent with state statute or regulation for
businesses subject to the tiered permitting program.
By April 15, 2013, or sooner, the Certified Unified Program Agency will provide
hazardous waste generator (small quantity generator/large quantity generator), tiered
permitting, violation classification, and tank assessment requirements training to
Certified Unified Program Agency staff. The Certified Unified Program Agency will
submit training documentation to the California Environmental Protection Agency. The
documentation will include: the date of the training, the training materials covered in the
training and an attendance sheet signed by all staff who participated in the training.
by the Department of Toxic Substances Control because the evaluator observed the
inspector not adequately performing hazardous waste generator inspections in
accordance with the law and the Certified Unified Program Agencys inspection and
enforcement plan. All of the corrective actions have been completed.
13

2, 2013 and did not respond to this deficiency.
2013 and did not respond to this deficiency.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control provided the Certified Unified Program
Agency staff hazardous waste (small quantity generator/large quantity
generator)/tiered permitting training on June 3-5, 2013 that covered the identification
and citation of hazardous waste violations. In addition, the Department of Toxic
Substances Control provided training on Determining and Citing violations.
subject to the hazardous materials reporting requirements, annually submit their
hazardous materials inventory or no change certification statement. Out of the 24 files
reviewed only seven had annual inventories up-to-date with either no change
certifications or updated inventory forms. The list of noncompliant facility files reviewed
by the California Office of Emergency Services was sent to the Certified Unified
Program Agency.
businesses will annually submit their inventories into the California Environmental
Agency will ensure that these inventories are complete and correct.
Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency is deficient because it has
not established that all business plan files contain a current hazardous materials
inventory or no change certification statement. Although the Certified Unified Program
Agency submitted all the individual business plans required as a part of the corrective
action, the Agency has not shown that it has a procedure that ensures that all regulated
businesses complete their inventory submittals in the California Environmental
Reporting System each year.
14

revised procedure to ensure that businesses annually submit their inventories into the
California Environmental Reporting System. The following items must be addressed:
Provide an explanation of how the procedure reflects current requirements,

including the title of the procedure;
If verification inspections are deemed to be necessary and retained as part of the
process, provide an explanation of how the CUPA will conduct these inspections
with existing or new staff resources;
Remove references to no change certifications in the procedure; and,
Revise the procedures to reflect the annual business plan submission
requirement effective January 1, 2015.

Five business plans were submitted by the Certified Unified Program Agency. All five
were on the list provided to the Certified Unified Program Agency by the California
Emergency Management Agency. All five submitted have current Hazardous
Materials inventories. Upon review of these business plans by the California
Emergency Management Agency, two of the business plans (Asbestos Management
Company and Walgreens #10526) did not included a seismic vulnerability
preparedness plan. Please be aware of all aspects of the business plan when they
are submitted. The deficiency remains in the progress of being corrected. Please
plans.
Certified Unified Program Agency forwarded 10 business plans from the list of
businesses provided at the time of the evaluation and 5 that were not on the list.
Included with the on list business plans was a second location for Oakland Unified
School District (both maintenance yard and warehouse were included). All 15 of
these files contained current inventories. However, it was not the intention that files
from multiple sites for one handler be counted. Please forward one more business
plan file with a current inventory from the list of businesses provided at the time of
the evaluation. This deficiency remains in the process of being corrected.
15

The corrective action from the third update was to include one more complete
business plan from the list of facilities provided at the time of the evaluation. The
information included with Update 4 was for Dreisbach Enterprises, a California
accidental release prevention facility that was not one of the 17 facilities listed in the
left-hand column of incomplete business plan files. The other two business plans
that were included as corrective actions for deficiencies #5, 14 and 15, Peralta
Community College and Oakland Auto Body and Frame, were part of the original 10
files. Certified Unified Program Agency has not supplied an additional business plan
from the list, and the deficiency remains uncorrected.
The Certified Unified Program Agency has not shown that it has a procedure to
ensure that all businesses are annually submitting their inventories into the
California Environmental Reporting System.
28, 2014.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted the CERS Reporting Inventory and
No Change Certification Procedures that includes a procedure to ensure that
businesses annually submit their inventories into the California Environmental
Reporting System. The title of the procedure does not reflect all of the content. The
verification inspections referred in the procedure will require additional staff
resources. The Certified Unified Program Agency must provide an explanation of
how they will support the additional staff resources required to perform verification
inspections. The language regarding the submittal of no change should be
removed because handlers are required to submit their chemical inventory into the
California Environmental Reporting System annually. The submittal of no change
is now moot because of the annual electronic submission requirement.
16
subject to the hazardous materials business plan requirements, certify to the Certified
Unified Program Agency that they have reviewed their business plan every three years
and made necessary changes. Out of the 24 files reviewed, only seven had complete
and current files including certifications that the business plan was reviewed. Some of
the files reviewed, not including the seven indicated above, were incomplete or missing
the hazardous materials business plans all together, yet had a current certification in the
file. These were not counted as certifications.
businesses will annually submit their business plans into the California Environmental
Agency will ensure that these business plans are complete and correct.
because it has not established that all business plan files are complete and contain
certifications that business plans were reviewed. The Certified Unified Program Agency
submitted all of the individual business plans required as a part of the corrective action.
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit an adequate procedure to ensure
that businesses annually submit their business plan into the California Environmental
Reporting System.
revised procedure to ensure that businesses submit their business plans into the
California Environmental Reporting System. The following items must be revised in the
procedure:

Revise the name of the procedure to reflect the content;
17

Five business plans were submitted by the Certified Unified Program Agency. None
were on the list California Emergency Management Agency provided, therefore
these were considered and assumed these were the five stated not on the list
outlined in the corrective action final evaluation summary. These were current and
complete business plans from facilities not on the list. This part of the corrective
action is corrected; however, the California Emergency Management Agency is
requesting that the Certified Unified Program Agency sends only the business plan
file and not the underground storage tank etc. along with it for deficiencies
addressed to California Emergency Management Agency. The deficiency remains in
the progress of being corrected. Please continue to provide updates for the total
number of complete and current business plans.
Again, the Certified Unified Program Agency forwarded a total of 15 business plans.
The five off list business plans were complete and current. Of the ten on list
business plans, one really wasnt from the list, as noted in #4 above (one of the two
Oakland Unified School District files), and two (Oakland Auto Body and Frame, and
Peralta Community College) contained inventories and inspections, but no other
business plan elements. Please forward three more complete and current business
plans from the list provided at the time of the evaluation. Oakland Auto Body and
Frame, and Peralta Community College can be two of these, if complete business
plans are forwarded. This deficiency remains in the process of being corrected.
Two of the three business plans supplied as part of the corrective action for
deficiency #5, were indeed complete and correctly certified (Peralta CC and Oakland
Auto Body, but see deficiency #15, below). However, again, Dreisbach Industries
was not on the list of businesses supplied at the time of the evaluation. To correct
the deficiency, the Certified Unified Program Agency must supply one more
complete and up-to-date business plan from the list supplied. The deficiency
remains uncorrected.
18
Protection Agency.
28, 2014.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a narrative of a procedure to
ensure that businesses submit their business plan into the California Environmental
Reporting System. The language regarding the submittal of required certifications in
the California Environmental Reporting System should be removed because the
California Environmental Reporting System does not collect certifications. The
procedure does not address the staff completeness review of all parts of the
business plan. The procedure did not reflect the annual business plan submittal
requirement effective January 1, 2015. The triennial review and certification of the
business plan will be moot because of the annual electronic submission requirement
effective January 1, 2015.
Deficiency 6: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not inspecting each

underground storage tank facility annually.
For the last three fiscal years, the Certified Unified Program Agency reported in its
Report 3s that all underground storage tanks have been inspected annually; however,
the file review by the State Water Resources Control Board indicates that annual
compliance inspections have not been performed.
The Certified Unified Program Agency could not produce documentation showing that
all inspections had occurred. The following are underground storage tank facilities that
were missing records to document that they had been inspected annually:
19
401 Kennedy St
2 Webster St
5500 Telegraph Ave
1107 5th St
165 98th Ave
955 High St
3130 35th Ave
165 13th St
6211 San Pablo Ave
Additionally, a Certified Unified Program Agency database query on underground

storage tank facilities identified in the 2008 Program Improvement Agreement indicated
that not all of the annual underground storage tank inspections are occurring. Either the
underground storage tank inspection information was not entered into the Certified
Unified Program Agency data management system and/or documentation confirming
that all underground storage tank inspections had occurred was not found.
The query for the following facilities showed that inspections were not conducted
annually:
2142 E. 12th St was not inspected in 2009, 2010, and 2012; and
6600 Foothill BLVD was not inspected in 2009 and 2012;
Corrective Action(s): Effective immediately and each subsequent year, the Certified
Unified Program Agency will inspect every underground storage tank facility within its
jurisdiction at least once every 12 months.
By November 13, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency will provide the California
Environmental Protection Agency a comprehensive list of all underground storage tank
facilities in their jurisdiction. This list will include the last inspection date for each
Beginning with the first progress report on December 13, 2012, and each quarterly
progress report thereafter, the Certified Unified Program Agency will provide copies of
the previous quarters underground storage tank file review inspection checklists and
By February 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will develop and submit to
the California Environmental Protection Agency an underground storage tank inspection
procedure to be included in its Inspection and Enforcement plan that describes how the
Certified Unified Program Agency will schedule, conduct and document its inspections of
all underground storage tank facilities annually. The Certified Unified Program Agency
should consider the California Environmental Reporting System and the database that
they will be transitioning to.
20
By March 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will incorporate and implement
the underground storage tank inspection procedure as described above.
Certified Unified Program Agency did not adequately inspect each underground storage
tank facility annually. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a list of their
underground storage tank facilities, some of their completed underground storage tank
file review checklists and inspection reports, and inspection procedures within the
Inspection and Enforcement plan. The list of underground storage tank facilities and the
underground storage tank inspection procedures (submitted with progress report 5)
were acceptable. However, the other corrective action submittals were problematic.
Underground storage tank file review checklists and inspection reports were not always
submitted in a timely manner and there have been problems with the ones submitted.
One significant problem is that Mr. Leroy Griffin completed file review checklists and
performed underground storage tank inspections without the required International
Code Council (ICC) certification. As a result, any underground storage tank information
approvals, file review checklists, and inspections completed by Mr. Griffin are
considered invalid.

Information Submittal: Due Date- November 13, 2012. Actual submission date was
on November 15, 2012.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a comprehensive list of all
underground storage tanks within their jurisdiction. The list includes the last
inspection date as required in the agreed upon corrective actions. Staff has
implemented the use of the State underground storage tank inspection form. The
update to the inspection and enforcement plan shall be completed with the policy
changes by November 30, 2012. The Certified Unified Program Agency also
included a comment section signaling whether a facility is scheduled for an
inspection or other comments. Do the 11/12 dates in the comment field represent
the month and year (November 2012) or the actual date (November 12) of the
scheduled inspection?
21
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a list of active Underground

Storage Tank site and the inspection data has been submitted to the California
Environmental Protection Agency with the information requested. Oakland Fire
Department staff has provided the supplemental information requested by the State
Water Resources Control Board. Included in this submission are copies of last
quarters underground storage tank file review inspection checklists and
The State Water Resources Control Board received from Oakland Fire Department
three blank Summary of Findings Reports and one blank Oakland Fire Department
underground storage tank Compliance Report.
The second corrective action stated, Beginning with the first progress report on
December 13, 2012, and each quarterly progress report thereafter, the Certified
Unified Program Agency will provide copies of the previous quarters underground
storage tank file review inspection checklists and underground storage tank
inspection reports.
The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to immediately submit, to the
California Environmental Protection Agency, copies of the first quarters
underground storage tank file review inspection checklists and underground storage
tank inspection reports.
Environmental Protection Agency, a file review checklist for each facility which
Oakland Fire Department inspected during the second progress reporting period. In
addition to the checklists, Oakland Fire Department was requested to provide to the
California Environmental Protection Agency, a copy of each underground storage
tank facility compliance inspection report for the second progress reporting period.
Second Quarter Progress Report Due Date- March 14, 2013
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted underground storage tank file
review checklists and underground storage tank inspection reports, copies of the first
quarters completed underground storage tank file review inspection checklists and
underground storage tank reports.
underground storage tanks for two (2) quarters.
The revised inspection and enforcement plan shall describe how the Certified
Unified Program Agency will schedule, conduct and document its inspections of all
underground storage tank facilities annually. The Certified Unified Program Agency
22
should consider the California Environmental Reporting System and the database
that they will be transitioning to.
The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to continue to provide the
California Environmental Protection Agency with copies of annual underground
storage tank compliance inspections and underground storage tank file review
inspections on a quarterly basis. In addition, Oakland Fire Department was also
requested provide copies of annual underground storage tank compliance
inspections and underground storage tank file review inspections for the second
quarter which was due in March of 2013.
They were also requested, on the next progress report, to provide to the California
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a hard copy of the inspection
procedures within its inspection and enforcement plan. The Certified Unified
Program Agency also submitted hard copies of completed underground storage tank
file review checklists and inspection reports for the underground storage tank
facilities inspected.
The State Water Resources Control Board has reviewed the submitted file review
checklists and inspection reports. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted
62 records. Thank you.
and enforcement plan dated October 2013 and has identified areas which need to
be addressed starting with page 6, section C cites the wrong California Code of
Regulation (CCR). Page 6, section III (B) indicates there will be general guideline for
all inspections and then specific instructions for the particular elements which the
State Water Resources Control Board could not find. Page 16 section G- Program
Specific Inspection Procedures lists hazardous materials business plan and tiered
permitting but not the underground storage tank program. Starting on page 55,
enforcement tools are indicated. Within this section Oakland Fire Department states
violations of the underground storage tank and aboveground storage tank programs
may be referred to underground storage tank enforcement unit at the State Water
Resources Control Board. This is an incorrect statement. On page 47, the California
Environmental Reporting System term needs to be modified. Page 71, item 3 In the
Permit Renewal section, what is meant by administrative or on-site inspections? In
addition, please review the submitted Consolidated Permit Program Plan because in
this document, the Certified Unified Program Agency uses administrative and on-site
inspections as well.
report, please submit the inspection reports and file review checklist for the previous
23
quarter as agreed upon in the corrective actions. The Oakland Fire Department
needs to capture underground storage tank inspection procedures in its inspection
and enforcement plan as agreed upon in the corrective actions. The State Water
procedures.
The underground storage tank file review and annual compliance inspections were
received March 17, 2014.
file review checklist and annual compliance inspection reports. The Certified Unified
Program Agency wrote a letter that stated the State Water Resources Control Board
would receive the information by March 10, 2014. Also mentioned in the letter that,
In the future, the State Water Resource Board can view these reports for the City of
Oakland by assessing CERS.
The State Water Resources Control Board finds the attachment submitted for
deficiency 6 unacceptable. The underground storage tank Inspection reports and file
review checklists were to be submitted with this update and not at a later time as
indicated by the Certified Unified Program Agency. In addition, the statement
regarding that State Water Board can view reports in the California Environmental
Reporting System is unacceptable. This deficiency was identified in 2008 and
continues today therefore, we will continue to require Oakland Fire Department to
submit underground storage tank compliance inspections and underground storage
tank file review checklists as agreed upon in the Program Improvement Agreement.
Your submitted screen shots from the California Environmental Reporting System
were not part of the agreed upon corrective actions or the Program Improvement
Agreement.
and enforcement plan and has addressed its concerns in the action plan. The State
Water Resources Control Board received the underground storage tank file review
checklist and annual compliance inspection reports on March 17, 2014. The State
Water Resources Control Board reviewed the submissions and noted that 77
inspections were performed. While reviewing the inspections, a few discrepancies
were noticed. The report for 7225 Bancroft Ave shows an inspection date of
November 20, 2013. However it was signed by the inspector and the facility
representative on November 26, 2013. The inspection at 566 Hegenberger Rd noted
a minor violation but there was no indication that it was corrected on-site. Since
there was no indication of the minor violation being corrected, the inspector should
have written, noted, and left a Summary of Violations for minor violations. The
inspector noted on the Summary of Violations that there were no violations. The
inspection for 3750 International Blvd. occurred on September 4, 2013. The date it
was signed by the inspector was December 10, 2013. The interesting part besides
24
the two different dates is that the inspector noted that violations were to be corrected
by October 5, 2013.
The discrepancies noted above are only for a few of the inspections performed.
There were many more report discrepancies that State Water Resources Control
Board noticed.
Lastly, the State Water Resources Control Board has not received any confirmation
that Mr. Griffin has obtained his International Code Council Underground Storage
Tank Inspectors License.
1. On the next progress report, please submit the inspection reports and file review
checklist for the previous quarter (October 2013 February 2014) as agreed upon in
2. As you know the inspection and enforcement plan outlines the inspection
procedures for the Unified Program. The inspection and enforcement plan remains
deficient as there are inconsistencies in the revised and submitted plan.
What is the difference between consolidation of permits on page 9 and

consolidation of Certified Unified Program Agency program permits located on
page 65? In addition on page 9, the underground storage tank permit cycle is 5
years and page 69 shows the permit cycle as 3 years.
3. The plan is still missing the program specific inspection procedures for the
underground storage tank program although it is indicated in the inspection and
enforcement plan as being present.
4. Page 5- the last bullet on the bottom of the page should be revised to read
Provide a compliance report detailing the inspection. The current version reads as
if the Certified Unified Program Agency will only provide a report if there are
violations found during the underground storage tank annual compliance inspection.
5. In update 3, the State Water Resources Control Board indicated that aboveground
storage tank enforcement is not to be referred to the State Water Resources Control
Board. In update 4, the submitted inspection and enforcement plan still has this
reference. The Certified Unified Program Agency shall change this language.
6. Page 15 of the inspection and enforcement plan, the Data Tracking and
Reporting, section C cites the wrong citation. There is no Title 27 section 2713.
The State Water Resources Control Board has reviewed the 27 submitted
underground storage tank file review and inspection checklists. Thank you for the
25
submittals. According to the spreadsheet that State Water Resources Control Board
is using to track underground storage tank compliance inspections, the Certified
Unified Program Agency has inspected approximately 65% of its regulated facilities
since it first started to submit file review and inspection checklist.
and enforcement plan and finds the Certified Unified Program Agency has captured
the agreed upon corrective actions for this document. The Certified Unified Program
Agency specifically addresses underground storage tank scheduling, inspections,
and inspection documentation.
On December 9, 2013, the State Water Resources Control Board sent a letter
addressed to Ms. Perkins and Mr. Griffin regarding International Code Council
certification for staff. Specifically, the International Code Council certification
requires Mr. Griffin, the Certified Unified Program Agency manager, to take the
underground storage tank inspector test and submit certification to Mr. Farrow upon
completion. State Water Resources Control Board required Mr. Griffin to become a
licensed inspector because he had submitted inspection reports indicating that he
had conducted annual compliance inspections on at least two (2) occasions.
According to International Code Council, Mr. Griffin has taken the exam on the
following days: December 13, 2013, March 4, 2014, and March 11, 2014. As of
August 8, 2014, State Water Resources Control Board has not received
documentation indicating that Mr. Griffin has successfully passed his examination. If
Mr. Griffin is to continue to perform underground storage tank activities, he is
required be a licensed inspector.
1. On the next progress report, please submit the next quarters file review and
inspection checklists according to the agreed upon program improvement
agreement.
2. On the next progress report, the Certified Unified Program Agency will update
California Environmental Protection Agency and the State Water Resources Control
Board regarding whether or not Mr. Griffin has taken and passed his exam.
The underground storage tank inspection reports and file review checklists
submitted with progress report #6 and previous progress reports indicate that the
Certified Unified Program Agency has inspected 87 out of 144 facilities thus far in
2014, 129 out of 144 facilities in 2013, and 106 out of 144 facilities in 2012. The
Certified Unified Program Agency has not met the annual underground storage tank
inspection frequency since the initiation of the 2012 Program Improvement
Agreement. Additionally, the State Water Resources Control Board observed that
26
several of the inspection reports submitted did not correctly document compliance
and violations.
In the State Water Resources Control Boards fifth progress report response, the
Certified Unified Program Agency was asked if Mr. Griffin has taken and passed his
International Code Council underground storage tank inspector certification. The
Certified Unified Program Agency responded with Mr. Griffin has not performed an
underground storage tank inspection since 2013 and as outlined in the Program
Improvement Agreement, Mr. Griffin will not perform inspections of underground
storage tank facilities moving forward.
Deficiency 7: In some cases, the Certified Unified Program Agency is not following
up and/or documenting return to compliance for businesses cited for violations in
notices to comply and inspection reports/notices of violation.
will create, and submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency, a list of
facilities with ongoing violations. The list will include the Certified Unified Program
Agencys follow-up actions for each. The Certified Unified Program Agency will followup with businesses cited for violations and document return to compliance actions.
By February 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit to the California
Environmental Protection Agency a procedure to ensure that it will follow-up with
facilities with violations on a more consistent basis. The procedures will include, but will
not be limited to, violation tracking per facility, compliance due dates tracking, and
closeout of minor violations within 30 days. The procedure will consider electronic
reporting.
By March 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit copies of follow-up
return to compliance documentation from five facilities that have been cited for at least
one hazardous waste generator violation within the last six months.
By May 15, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will have followed-up with all
the facilities listed. In addition, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit an
updated list to the California Environmental Protection Agency.
Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency is deficient for not
following-up and/or documenting return to compliance for businesses cited for
violations. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted acceptable follow-up
procedures to the California Environmental Protection Agency. The Certified Unified
Program Agency also submitted a list of facilities, but the list was unacceptable because
it did not include all facilities with ongoing unified program violations. The California
could not monitor the Certified Unified Program Agencys progress with following-up
with noncompliant facilities because an acceptable list was never submitted.
27
Additionally, the California Environmental Protection Agencys review of violation

information submitted in the California Environmental Reporting System showed that
violations remain pending for long periods of time without resolution.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must submit a list of all facilities identified
as having ongoing violations to California Environmental Protection Agency. The
Certified Unified Program Agency must follow-up with all facilities cited for
violations and document return to compliance actions.
Along with subsequent progress reports, the Certified Unified Program Agency
must submit an updated list of facilities to California Environmental Protection
Agency showing follow-up actions or return to compliance for all facilities
previously listed.

The California Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Toxic
Substances Control do not have a list of all regulated facilities with ongoing
violations or One-Step printouts for all of the regulated facilities with ongoing
violations to verify return to compliance. To-date, the California Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of Toxic Substances Control are unclear on
the Certified Unified Program Agencys progress toward following-up with facilities
2012, the California Environmental Protection Agency explained that the Certified
Unified Program Agency must create, and submit to the California Environmental
Protection Agency, a list of all regulated facilities with ongoing violations. The list
was to include the Certified Unified Program Agencys follow-up actions for each.
The list would serve two purposes. One, the list would be a tool for the Certified
Unified Program Agency to use to document and ensure return to compliance for all
regulated facilities that require follow-up. Two, the list would provide the California
with a basis for which to evaluate the Certified Unified Program Agency progress of
ensuring that facilities with violations return to compliance. The list would be one
means by which the California Environmental Protection Agency and the
Department of Toxic Substances Control could keep the Certified Unified Program
Agency accountable and ultimately correct the deficiency.
The California Environmental Protection Agency made it clear during the October
10, 2012 exit briefing that the notice of violations list submitted for the December 20,
2010, Program Improvement Agreement (previous Program Improvement
Agreement) was not acceptable because it included facilities without violations and it
28
also included non-Certified Unified Program Agency-related facilities. During the

previous Program Improvement Agreement period, the California Environmental
Protection Agency provided the Certified Unified Program Agency with a
spreadsheet template that included the necessary list criteria, but the Certified
Unified Program Agency did not use it. The Certified Unified Program Agency
expressed some concern about their ability to create a list using their current data
management system because of the way it was set up, but ultimately agreed to
complete the corrective action by November 13, 2012.
The 1st progress report was submitted on January 2, 2013. The pdf letter that came
with the 1st progress report documents did not give the state reviewer any narrative
descriptions of what the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted or any written
direction on how to interpret the information. The list of facilities submitted was of
the same type that was problematic for state evaluators when submitted for the
previous Program Improvement Agreement. The list included facilities without
violations and it also included non-Certified Unified Program Agency-related
facilities. The California Environmental Protection Agency informed the Certified
Unified Program Agency in the 1st progress report response and in the subsequent
face-to-face meeting that their submitted list was not acceptable. The list criteria
were explained again to the Certified Unified Program Agency in the 1st progress
report meeting. Certified Unified Program Agency's procedures for tracking notices
to comply and notices of violations that was due February 14, 2014 were acceptable.
Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its 2nd progress report on April 17, 2013
via an email. The California Environmental Protection Agency responded to the
Certified Unified Program Agency via email the same day that the Certified Unified
Program Agencys 2nd Program Improvement Agreement progress report appeared
to be from the last evaluation period 2008.
documentation on May 1, 2013. There was no narrative descriptions of what the
Certified Unified Program Agency submitted or any written direction on how to
interpret the information. A new spreadsheet was submitted. However, the list
included facilities without violations and it also included non-Certified Unified
Program Agency-related facilities. The list information was very similar to the list
submitted along will the 1st progress report and; therefore, was not acceptable.
Another problem with the list is that it contained a date range of 1/1/2010 through
3/1/2013. The requirement was to list all regulated facilities with ongoing violations,
not just the ones within a certain date range. At this point in the progress reporting
29
process, the California Environmental Protection Agency still does not have a basis
for which to verify the Certified Unified Program Agencys follow-up progress.
Program Agency informed the California Environmental Protection Agency that the
Certified Unified Program Agencys current data system could not produce a list of
Unified Program facilities with ongoing violations. As a workaround, the California
Environmental Protection Agency agreed to accept One Step printouts from the
Certified Unified Program Agency for all of its regulated facilities with ongoing
violations. The printouts would have to include the business name, last inspection
date, violations, return to compliance due date, etc. The Certified Unified Program
Agency suggested if they could work directly with the regulatory agencies to correct
the deficiencies and the California Environmental Protection Agency agreed to their
request.
With this progress report, the Certified Unified Program Agency also submitted five
inspection reports with hazardous waste generator violations. The Department of
Toxic Substances Control noted that observations and factual basis of violations are
missing for some of the violations noted and not legible (see the Department of
Toxic Substances Controls response for the deficiency #2). In addition, the Certified
Unified Program Agency did not submit copies of follow-up return to compliance
documentation from five facilities that had been cited for at least one hazardous
waste generator violation within the last six months.
The 3rd progress report documents that the Certified Unified Program Agency
provided to the California Environmental Protection Agency on October 29, 2013 did
not contain the One Step facility printouts that the Certified Unified Program Agency
agreed to submit. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a hard copy
invoice of fines and fees and an administrative enforcement order for one facility.
The Certified Unified Program Agency also submitted hard copies of return to
compliance certifications for two facilities. The problem with this submittal was that
not only was there no narrative describing what was done to correct the deficiency,
but the California Environmental Protection Agency still does not have a list of
facilities from which to verify return to compliance documentation. Return to
compliance documentation should only be submitted after the submitted list or OneStep printouts are acceptable to the California Environmental Protection Agency and
the Department of Toxic Substances Control
30
Unified Program Agency on November 4 and 25, 2013 to discuss status of each
deficiency as per their request. On November 4, 2013, the Department of Toxic
Substances Control asked Leroy Griffin to submit return to compliance
documentation reports which would include two extra columns in comparison to the
reports submitted previously. The additional columns would include Inspection Date
and Return to Compliance Date of the facilities. In order to confirm that the Certified
Unified Program Agency was covering all of the requested data in these reports,
Leroy Griffin agreed to prepare a template by Friday, December 6, 2013 and submit
it to the Department of Toxic Substances Control. The Department of Toxic
Substances Control agreed to review the template and respond back to Oakland
either by requesting a change in the template or by confirming that the template was
adequate. Once the template was finalized the Certified Unified Program Agency
would populate the data and submit it to the Department of Toxic Substances
Control for review. The Department of Toxic Substances Control agreed to respond
by January 10, 2014 to this review.
The 4th progress report contained a new spreadsheet. The Certified Unified
Program Agency listed one business (AB Plating) that appears the have return to
compliance as evidenced by the RTC Comply By Date of 4/4/2014. Upon the
California Environmental Protection Agencys review of the inspection and violation
information the Certified Unified Program Agency entered into the California
Environmental Reporting System, it appears that there are many more businesses
The Certified Unified Program Agency hand delivered its 4th progress report to the
Department of Toxic Substances Control on February 28, 2014 which contained a
new Excel template in response to the November 4 and 25 meetings discussions on
list of facilities with outstanding return to compliance. On March 10, 2014, Asha
Arora contacted LeRoy Griffin to get clarification on the template headings and
requested this template be updated by adding the following columns: AEO, Civil
Action, Penalties Assessed/Collected, and SEPs. LeRoy Griffin agreed to email the
Department of Toxic Substances Control the updated template within minutes. The
Department of Toxic Substances Control has not received an updated template.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control provided comments for this deficiency
to the California Environmental Protection Agency on March 12, 2014.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control does not have a list of all regulated
facilities with ongoing violations or One-Step printouts for all of the regulated
facilities with ongoing violations to verify return to compliance. To-date, the
31
Department of Toxic Substances Control is unclear on the Certified Unified Program

Agencys progress toward following-up with facilities with ongoing violations.
The Certified Unified Program Agency has not submitted a list of facilities that
California Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Toxic Substances
Control can use to evaluate Certified Unified Program Agencys progress with
following-up with facilities with ongoing violations. The Certified Unified Program
Agency submitted a hardcopy of a spreadsheet labelled Oakland Fire Department
Unified Program Hazardous Waste Tracking Form. This spreadsheet is the
template the Certified Unified Program Agency will use to list all their facilities (all
unified programs elements) with ongoing violations. The Certified Unified Program
Agency must identify all regulated facilities that have violations cited in an inspection
report. For each violation, the Certified Unified Program Agency must demonstrate
one of the following: (1) the violation has been corrected, (2) return-to-compliance
efforts are ongoing, or (3) an enforcement action has commenced.
The hazardous waste tracking template is acceptable to Department of Toxic
Substances Control. However, deficiency #7 remains as we have not received the
list of facilities (the template populated) that document follow-up actions, i.e. return
to compliance, administrative enforcement orders, etc.
Additionally we still do not have a baseline list of businesses from the Certified
Unified Program Agency that Department of Toxic Substances Control can track to
ensure that the Certified Unified Program Agency is following-up with noncompliant
businesses.
progress report #6. To-date the Certified Unified Program Agency has not provided
California Environmental Protection Agency with a list of facilities with ongoing
violations as agreed upon in the Program Improvement Agreement. California
Environmental Protection Agency does not have any information to verify whether
the Certified Unified Program Agency has been following-up with businesses cited
for violations.
32
Deficiency 8: The Certified Unified Program Agency has not submitted the quarterly
inspection or enforcement reports for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act large
quantity generators since 2005.
The Certified Unified Program Agency stated that they entered the large quantity
generator data for the last three years into the California Environmental Reporting
System in September 2012. However, a review of the California Environmental
Reporting System by the Department of Toxic Substances Control and the California
Environmental Protection Agency revealed that no inspection/enforcement data were
entered into the California Environmental Reporting System for large quantity
generators in the City of Oakland.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator reports must be
submitted to the Department of Toxic Substances Control on a quarterly basis
(February 1, May 1, August 1, and October 1).
Corrective Action(s): By February 1, 2013, and each quarter thereafter, the Certified
Unified Program Agency will enter the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large
Quantity Generator information online using the California Environmental Reporting
System.
If the Certified Unified Program Agency did not perform any inspections or take any
enforcement actions at a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity
Generator facility, it will submit a notice to the Department of Toxic Substances Control
stating that the Certified Unified Program Agency did not perform any activities at
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator facilities. The
Certified Unified Program Agency may send this notice or the quarterly Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator report to Asha Arora at
asha.arora@dtsc.ca.gov.
Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency was deficient because
the Certified Unified Program Agency had not submitted their quarterly inspection or
enforcement reports for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act large quantity
generators since 2005. This deficiency is considered corrected as two Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act large quantity generator inspections were conducted
last week and the California Environmental Reporting System has been updated with
the inspection information.
On October 1, 2012, the Department of Toxic Substances Control received an email
from Sheryl Skillern, a Certified Unified Program Agency inspector, that there was a
problem in entering data into the California Environmental Reporting System and
submitted Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator
reports for 2011-12 in Adobe Acrobat format.
33
On December 6, 2012, Asha Arora called LeRoy Griffin as the California

Environmental Protection Agency said he would like to come to the Department of
Toxic Substances Control Berkeley office at 2 PM to discuss deficiencies. The
Department of Toxic Substances Control had a meeting with LeRoy Griffin who
brought a package with him for discussion. No documents regarding the
outstanding deficiencies were provided to the Department of Toxic Substances
Control at this meeting. He said that Sheryl had entered Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator data in the California Environmental
Reporting System and Asha informed him that she had checked the California
environmental reporting system on this same day and no new Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator data was available. The
Department of Toxic Substances Controls review of the California Environmental
Reporting System also revealed that the Certified Unified Program Agency had not
entered any inspection/enforcement data into the California Environmental Reporting
System for the years 2005 to 2011. Asha showed Mr. Griffin the California
Environmental Reporting System website in her computer and that no data was
available. He called Sheryl and she informed him that she was having a problem in
entering data into the California environmental reporting system.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control has accepted the Certified Unified
Program Agencys previous response of October 1, 2012 for Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator data submittal.
Unified Program Agency on November 4 and 25, 2013 as requested by the Certified
Unified Program Agency. The Department of Toxic Substances Control agreed that
this deficiency was corrected. The Department of Toxic Substances Control clarified
that what is covered under the Department of Toxic Substances Control hazardous
waste tracking system does not necessarily provide accurate data on the number of
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator facilities under
any Certified Unified Program Agencys jurisdiction due to the limitation of the data
entered into the hazardous waste tracking system. The Department of Toxic
Substances Control wanted the Certified Unified Program Agency to be aware of this
limitation and forewarned the Certified Unified Program Agency to use the
hazardous waste tracking system only as a reference to identify potential Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator facilities and verify the
information during field inspections. The Department of Toxic Substances Control
gave an example stating that some facilities may appear as a Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator in the hazardous waste
tracking system in the case of waste generated during a site cleanup, or that they
may have generated more than 1kg of acute hazardous waste at some point during
the year.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control further explained that what the
Department of Toxic Substances Control wanted to be covered under Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generators reporting are facilities
34
that consistently generated over 1000kg of Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act hazardous wastes per month.
quantity generator inspections were conducted on October 20 and 21, 2014. This
deficiency has been corrected as two (2) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
large quantity generator inspections were conducted last week and the California
Environmental Reporting System has been updated.
Deficiency 9: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not billing, collecting, and
remitting state surcharges correctly.
The electronic reporting portion of the "Certified Unified Program Agency Oversight"
surcharge ($25) has not been billed in single fee invoices. The electronic reporting
surcharge remitted was taken from the Certified Unified Program Agencys local
fees.
The Certified Unified Program Agency has only remitted the electronic reporting
surcharge to the state for fiscal years 2010/2011 and 2011/2012. The electronic
reporting surcharge remitted was not collected as an itemized surcharge from
regulated businesses.
The Certified Unified Program Agency has not billed the correct amount of
underground storage tank surcharge for fiscal years 2010/2011 and 2008/2009.
Agency billed underground storage tank facilities a total of $2,280 in fiscal year
2010/2011 and $2,985 in fiscal year 2008/2009. The amounts should have been
approximately $6,120 in fiscal year 2010/2011 and $6,285 in fiscal year 2008/2009.
Agency billed one out of its three California accidental release prevention facilities
the California accidental release prevention surcharge in fiscal year 2010/2011. In
fiscal year 2009/2010, the Certified Unified Program Agency billed $2,160 when
there were only three California accidental release prevention facilities.
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not remit the surcharge collected for fiscal
years 2009/2010 and 2008/2009 as was reported on the Single Fee Summary
Reports. The Certified Unified Program Agency was unable to provide a copy of the
35
surcharge transmittals with checks to the California Environmental Protection

Agency during the evaluation.
will verify the actual amount of underground storage tank and California accidental
release prevention surcharges billed and collected for fiscal years 2008/2009 through
2010/2011. The Certified Unified Program Agency will report the amounts to the
California Environmental Protection Agency. The Certified Unified Program Agency will
remit any surcharges that were collected, but not remitted to the state.
By December 13, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency will remit the collected
surcharges for fiscal years 2009/2010 and 2008/2009.
By July 1, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will bill its regulated businesses
the appropriate state surcharge for the current fiscal year.
By October 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit to the California
Environmental Protection Agency five single fee invoices showing that its regulated
businesses were billed the appropriate state surcharge.
Certified Unified Program Agency is not billing, collecting, and remitting state
surcharges correctly. Pursuant to the Program Improvement Agreement, the Certified
Unified Program Agency has verified the surcharges billed and collected for fiscal years
2008/2009 through 2010/2011 and remitted all past unremitted surcharges. To date,
however, the Certified Unified Program Agency has not billed the electronic reporting
surcharge of $25 to their regulated businesses or the current Certified Unified Program
Agency oversight surcharge of $35. Therefore, the Certified Unified Program Agency
has been unable to comply with the request to submit five single fee invoices showing
that regulated businesses were billed the appropriate state surcharge.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must bill its regulated businesses the
electronic reporting ($25) and Certified Unified Program Agency oversight ($35)
state surcharges. (While the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act surcharge
was not included in the original corrective action, it should be billed as an
appropriate state surcharge for all Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act facilities
starting in Fiscal Year 2014-2015.)
The Certified Unified Program Agency must submit to the California
Environmental Protection Agency five single fee invoices showing that its
regulated businesses were billed the appropriate state surcharge.

36

The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted some information stating that their
staff was working with the City of Oaklands budget office to change the point-of-sale
(POS) surcharge collection system. While this was a good step, the California
Environmental Protection Agency expected the Certified Unified Program Agency to
also change their invoice billing system so that the correct electronic reporting
surcharge of $25 was added to the invoice.
The Certified Unified Program Agency told the California Environmental Protection
Agency by phone that they performed a financial audit to verify the state surcharges
billed each fiscal year. After the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted their 1st
update on January 2, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted two pdf
check copies on February 20, 2013. One was for the surcharge collected in fiscal
year 2008/2009 and the other was for the surcharge collected in fiscal year
2009/2010. Both were date January 16, 2013. The surcharge transmittal reports for
both checks that the Air Resources Board accounting department received
contained the underground storage tank and California accidental release prevention
surcharge amounts. The Certified Unified Program Agencys submittals and
information corrected the December 13, 2012 corrective action items.
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide an update on their progress
addressing the remaining corrective action items.
Program Agency submitted One-Step screenshots showing that the data system can
manage state surcharge information. However, the Certified Unified Program
Agency did not submit five single fee invoices showing that its regulated businesses
were billed the appropriate state surcharges (including the electronic reporting
surcharge). The Certified Unified Program Agency failed the show that they billed
the electronic reporting surcharge by the corrective action due date nor did the
Certified Unified Program Agency submit the five single fee invoices by the
corrective action due date.
37
Program Agency submitted copies of point-of-sale records, receipts, and the checks
of five regulated businesses showing that each business paid the electronic
reporting surcharge along with other Certified Unified Program Agency fees at the
Oakland Fire Prevention office. The Certified Unified Program Agency failed to
address the corrective action which was to submit five single fee invoices showing
that its regulated businesses were billed the appropriate state surcharge.
The California Environmental Protection Agency sent an email on March 10, 2014 to
the Oakland Chief of Staff requesting that the Certified Unified Program Agency
submit five invoices. The Chief of Staff emailed a response stating that the Certified
Unified Program Agency was in the process of transitioning its data management
system from Certified Unified Program Agency data management system to One
Step. The Certified Unified Program Agency data management system currently
manages Certified Unified Program Agency billing. The invoices generated from the
system do not have an electronic reporting line item. The Chief of Staff stated in an
email that One Step would have the electronic reporting line item. Two sample
invoices were emailed to the California Environmental Protection Agency on March
10, 2014, one from the Certified Unified Program Agency data management system
and the other from One Step, showing that the ONE Step billing application could
address the corrective action. The Assistant Fire Marshal told the California
Environmental Protection Agency in a phone conversation that the Certified Unified
Program Agency had not billed the electronic surcharge to all of their regulated
businesses and that the Certified Unified Program Agency would be sending a
notice to the businesses stating that they would be billed the electronic reporting
surcharge. The problem is the Certified Unified Program Agency should have
already billed their regulated businesses the appropriate surcharges by July 1, 2013
per the Program Improvement Agreement.
The Certified Unified Program Agency discontinued their move to One Step and is
now transitioning their data management system to another system. This shift
seriously affects their ability to track business billing. The Certified Unified Program
Agency had not incorporated the electronic reporting surcharge of $25 into their One
Step billing system nor billed the regulated businesses this electronic reporting
surcharge. The electronic reporting surcharge has only been charged and collected
when an owner/operator pays local fees over-the-counter. The electronic reporting
surcharge has not been included in normal single fee invoices. Additionally, the
Certified Unified Program Agency submitted an invoice for Valero dated March 11,
2014 showing an oversight state surcharge of $24 was billed, even though the
oversight state surcharge was updated in July 2013 to $35. Please submit five
single fee invoices to California Environmental Protection Agency showing that
appropriate state surcharges ($25 for electronic reporting; $35 for Certified Unified
Program Agency oversight) were billed.
38
progress report #6. The California Environmental Protection Agency has not
received any documentation to confirm that the Certified Unified Program Agency
has billed the correct surcharges to regulated businesses. The Certified Unified
Program Agency originally planned to revise surcharge amounts in their data
management system One Step. However, the Certified Unified Program Agency
decided to change their data management system to Filemaker Pro. Filemaker Pro
was expected to go live on October 23, 2014. Point-of-sale receipts that were
submitted with a previous progress report are not considered invoices nor are they
sufficient evidence that appropriate surcharges have been billed. Another area of
concern may include the billing of the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act
surcharge adopted in July 2014.
Deficiency 10: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not reporting correct
information on the Annual Summary Reports.
In the fiscal year 2010/2011 Single Fee Summary Report (Report 2), the amount of
surcharge the Certified Unified Program Agency reported that it remitted to the state
was $30,578; however, the fiscal year 2010/2011 Surcharge Transmittal Report with
the check shows the Certified Unified Program Agency remitted $52,065. Also, the
Certified Unified Program Agency reported that it had one California accidental
release prevention stationary source when it actually has three. Also, the numbers
of tiered permitting facilities reported in Report 2 are inconsistent with the numbers
of tiered permitting facilities reported in the Annual Inspection Summary Report
(Report 3). Report 2 lists 48 tiered permitting facilities, whereas Report 3 lists 7
tiered permitting facilities.
In the fiscal year 2010/2011 Inspection Summary Report, the Certified Unified
Program Agency reported that 100% of the California accidental release prevention,
violations have return to compliance within 90 days when there are no class 1 or 2
violations reported in the Annual Enforcement Summary Report. Also, the Certified
Unified Program Agency reported 20 Resource Conservation and Recovery Large
Quantity Generators, when it has only five or six.
In the fiscal year 2010/2011 Annual Enforcement Summary Report, the Certified
Unified Program Agency reported that it issued local administrative enforcement
orders, but the Certified Unified Program Agency has not included information
regarding issuance of any local administrative enforcement orders in submittals
detailing their enforcement actions related to specific facilities.
Similar problems exist in the fiscal years 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 Summary Reports.
will submit its fiscal year 2011/2012 Annual Summary Reports to the California
Environmental Protection Agency that accurately reports the Unified Program data.
39
Executive Summary: The Certified Unified Program Agency was deficient for reporting
correct information on the Annual Summary Reports. The Certified Unified Program
Agency submitted a revision to their fiscal year 2011/2012 Annual Summary Reports on
March 29, 2013 that was acceptable.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted their fiscal year 2011/2012 annual
summary reports along with their other pre-update documents on November 15,
2012. The California Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Toxic
Substances Control found some errors in the reported information. The California
Environmental Protection Agency sent an emailed the states responses in the
progress report form requesting that the errors be corrected.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted their revised the Certified Unified
Program Agency's fiscal year 2011/2012 Annual Summary Reports on January 2,
2014. Some minor corrections were needed and specified in the emailed state
response to the Certified Unified Program Agency. On March 29, 2013, the Certified
Unified Program Agency submitted another revision of their fiscal year 2011/2012
Annual Summary Reports. The final revision was considered corrected.
In fiscal year 2010/2011 Inspection Summary Report, the Certified Unified Program
Agency reported that 100% of the California accidental release prevention,
violations have return to compliance within 90 days. However, the Annual
Enforcement Summary Report for fiscal year 2010/2011 stated there were no class
1 or 2 violations. Also, the Certified Unified Program Agency reported 20 Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act large quantity generators, when it has only five or
six. Similar problems exist in the fiscal years 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 Summary
Reports.
2012, the California Environmental Protection Agency stated the Certified Unified
Program Agency will submit its fiscal year 2011/2012 Annual Summary Reports to
the California Environmental Protection Agency that accurately report the Unified
40
Program data by November 13, 2012. Oakland Fire Department submitted revised
summary reports to the California Environmental Protection Agency on November
16, 2012. The Department of Toxic Substances Control reviewed the document
submitted and finds this deficiency corrected.
Deficiency 11: The Certified Unified Program Agency has not performed a complete
and accurate California accidental release prevention performance audit.
submit a complete and accurate California accidental release prevention performance
audit for fiscal year 2011/2012 to the California Environmental Protection Agency. For
subsequent reporting years and at the Certified Unified Program Agencys discretion,
the elements of the performance audit may be incorporated into the annual Title 27 selfaudit, but all eight elements of the performance audit must be addressed.
the California Office of Emergency Services for not performing a complete and accurate
California Accidental Release Prevention annual performance audit. The Certified
Unified Program Agency submitted their annual title 27 self-audit report. However, the
title 27 self-audit report does not include all eight elements of the California Accidental
Release Prevention annual performance audit listed in title 19, section 2780.5.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must submit a complete and accurate
California Accidental Release Prevention performance audit that addresses all
eight elements listed in title 19, section 2780.3.

All eight elements of the California accidental release prevention performance audit
have not been addressed in the title 27 self-audit submitted with the first progress
report. Please review title 19, section 2780.5 and submit the California accidental
release prevention performance audit that addresses all eight of the audit criteria. If
a criteria item did not apply, address it briefly in one sentence (ex. No stationary
sources have been requested to develop an RMP.).
41

The Certified Unified Program Agency did not address this deficiency in the binder
with approximately 2.5 inch thickness of documents forwarded to the California
Office of Emergency Services. This binder was forwarded by the Certified Unified
Program Agency following the Certified Unified Program Agency-State Agencies
face-to-face meeting at the California Environmental Protection Agency on October
16, 2013.
The 2012-2013 self-audit submitted as corrective action for deficiency 11 may have
been accepted as a Title 27 self-audit, but it was not an acceptable Title 19
California accidental release prevention performance audit. To reiterate the
California Environmental Protection Agencys response to the Certified Unified
Program Agencys second update, All eight elements of the California accidental
release prevention performance audit have not been addressed in the title 27 selfaudit submitted with the first progress report. Please review title 19, section 2780.5
and submit the California accidental release prevention performance audit that
addresses all eight of the audit criteria. If a criteria item did not apply, address it
briefly in one sentence (ex. No stationary sources have been requested to develop
an RMP.). To refresh the Certified Unified Program Agencys memory, here are
the elements of the California accidental release prevention performance audit, from
19 CCR 2780.5(b):
An audit report shall be compiled annually based upon the previous fiscal year's
activities and shall contain an executive summary and a brief description of
how the AA is meeting the requirements of the program as listed in Section
2780.3. The audit shall include but is not limited to the following information:
(1) a listing of stationary sources which have been audited.
(2) a listing of stationary sources which have been requested to develop RMPs.
(3) a listing of stationary sources which have been inspected.
(4) a listing of stationary sources which have received public comments on the
RMP.
(5) a list of new or modified stationary sources.
(6) a summary of enforcement actions initiated by the AA identifying each
stationary source.
(7) a summary of the personnel and personnel years necessary to directly
implement, administer, and operate the California accidental release
prevention Program.
(8) a list of those stationary sources determined by the AA to be exempt from
the chapter pursuant to Section 25534(b)(2).
The document supplied as corrective action identified the facility that had been
inspected, but did not address the remainder of the elements. The deficiency
remains.
42
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not address this deficiency. In this
progress report the Certified Unified Program Agency stated that the next self audit
report is due on September 30, 2014 .. all program elements will be stated in the
next self audit report. The California accidental release prevention dispute
resolution procedure was submitted, but the procedure is not an element of the
California accidental release prevention performance audit. Please submit a
complete and accurate California accidental release prevention annual performance
audit to California Environmental Protection Agency and the California Office of
Emergency Services that addresses all eight elements listed in title 19, section
2780.3.
progress report #6.
Deficiency 12: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not implementing its fee
accountability program correctly. For fiscal years 2010/2011 and 2011/2012, the
Certified Unified Program Agency used local fees to remit the electronic reporting
portion of the "Certified Unified Program Agency Oversight" surcharge. Regulated
businesses were not billed the electronic reporting surcharge. This indicates that
regulated businesses have been billed more than the necessary and reasonable cost to
implement the Unified Program in fiscal years 2010/2011 and 2011/2012.
review its fee accountability program and update it to reflect the necessary and
reasonable cost to implement the Unified Program. The Certified Unified Program
Agency will submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency its previous and
updated fee accountability documentation and fee schedule.
the California Environmental Protection Agency for not adequately implementing their
fee accountability program. The submitted fee accountability documents did not
demonstrate that Certified Unified Program Agency adequately reviewed and updated
their fee accountability program to fund the necessary and reasonable cost to
implement the Unified Program. The Certified Unified Program Agency is running a
substantial surplus of 174% of the fiscal year 2012/2013 expenditures. In addition, it
appears that Unified Program fees are used to fund non-Certified Unified Program
Agency-related programs. Additionally, Certified Unified Program Agency revenue was
transferred to the general fund with no justification. Per title 27, section 15220,
assessed fees must only fund the necessary and reasonable cost to implement the
Unified Program.
43
The Certified Unified Program Agency must review and update of its fee
accountability program. Changes are needed because of the rolling annual
surplus and because staff workloads are not all unified program related but are
100% funded by Certified Unified Program Agency fees.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must correct the errors in table 3 observed
by California Environmental Protection Agency and provide a dollar amount per
Certified Unified Program Agency program hour.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must explain the regular annual revenue
surpluses collected including information about the $1,463,418 surplus (recorded
in the fund balance report for fiscal year 2012/2013), how it was accumulated,
and how the surplus issue will be addressed.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must explain why $249,096 in Certified
Unified Program Agency revenue was transferred to the general fund.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must explain the disparity between what
the Certified Unified Program Agency reported to the state in their fiscal year
2012/2013 annual single fee summary report and what their fund balance report
and the fee accountability assessment documented.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must provide California Environmental
Protection Agency each Certified Unified Program Agency staffs workload
percentage that is dedicated to performing Certified Unified Program Agencyrelated job functions.

In the pre-update documentation the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted
November 15, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency stated that a fee
accountability study was in process and would be completed December 19, 2012.
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide an update for this deficiency
on January 2, 2013. On March 29, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency
submitted a revenue report without any information about what fiscal year the report
was for. Other than the revenue report that was unclear as to the time period the
revenues were reported for, the Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit
their previous and updated fee accountability documentation or fee schedule to meet
the corrective action deadline. In a conference call on February 19, 2013, the
California Environmental Protection Agency explained to the Certified Unified
Program Agency that fee accountability documentation should include the criteria in
title 27, section 15220 that would break down the direct and indirect costs and
44
revenues of the Certified Unified Program Agency. The Certified Unified Program
Agency agreed to provide additional information along with the 2 nd update.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a program fee accountability
assessment document as part of their 2nd update on May 1, 2013. Their previous
and updated program fee accountability assessment document was not acceptable
because the Certified Unified Program Agency did not use the criteria in title 27,
section 15220 and break down the direct and indirect costs and revenues of the
Certified Unified Program Agency. Also, the document did not have any dates or
fiscal years for the information submitted. Again, the California Environmental
Protection Agency explained in the states response that the title 27, section 15220
criteria was needed to evidence that an adequate fee accountability review occurred.
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit their previous and updated fee
schedule to meet the corrective action requirement.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a hard copy of its 2011/2012
program fee accountability assessment along with their update document binder on
October 31, 2013. The 3rd update was due July 31, 2013. The assessment included
a general summary about the Certified Unified Program Agencys financial
management, fees collected, personnel/operations and management costs, and
indirect costs from fiscal years 2010/2011 through 2012/2013. This fee
accountability submission was not acceptable because the submission did not show
that the Certified Unified Program Agency performed an adequate review of its
program expenses and revenues. Also, it was unclear whether all Certified Unified
Program Agency staffs total workload was 100% Certified Unified Program Agencyrelated. The Assistant Fire Marshal stated that, other than some minor incidental
instances, all Certified Unified Program Agency staff workload is 100% Certified
Unified Program Agency-related and 100% funded by Certified Unified Program
Agency fees. The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit their fiscal year
2012/2013 fee accountability program review nor did they submit their fee schedules
for fiscal years 2011/2012 or 2012/2013 along with the 3rd update.
On November 19, 2013, the California Environmental Protection Agency emailed the
Oakland Chief of Staff and the Assistant Fire Marshal to inform them that their
deficiency 12 submission was incomplete. The email listed the title 27, section
15220 criteria that the Certified Unified Program Agency needed to use when
reviewing their fee accountability program. On November 20, 2013, the Certified
Unified Program Agency emailed their Revenue Report, fiscal year 2012/2013
Master Fee Study, the master fee schedule effective July 1, 2013, and the City of
Oakland Inter Office Memo (subject: fiscal year 2013-14, September 2013 Financial
Summary) for discussion at a November 21, 2013 conference call between the
Certified Unified Program Agency and the California Environmental Protection
45
Agency. These documents were emailed to the California Environmental Protection

Agency four minutes before the November 21, 2013 conference call was to begin
giving the California Environmental Protection Agency no time to review the
information for discussion. The emailed fee accountability submission was also not
acceptable. The Master Fee Study Fire Prevention Inspection Costs for FY 201213 and the City of Oakland Inter Office Memo incorporated the costs of the entire
fire prevention program of the Oakland Fire Department, not solely the costs of the
Unified Program. The documentation also did not demonstrate that the Certified
Unified Program Agency thoroughly evaluated their resource needs. The California
Environmental Protection Agency emailed the Certified Unified Program Agency a
template to help them document the staff time needed for the Unified Program.
On February 28, 2014, the California Environmental Protection Agency received
fiscal year 12/13 Program Fee Accountability Assessment, master fee schedule
(effective 7-1-13), direct/indirect program expense table, personnel chart with
personnel costs, table 3 time allocation of staff, and the City of Oakland fund
balance report. No narrative descriptions accompanied these documents.
According to fund balance report and the fee accountability assessment, the
Certified Unified Program Agencys total expenditures for fiscal year 2012/2013 were
about 6% higher than the cost to implement the program. Also, that Certified Unified
Program Agency is running a substantial surplus of $1,463,418.20 or 174% of the
fiscal year 2012/2013 expenditures. In addition, the fiscal year 2012/2013 fee
accountability assessment states that the City of Oakland adjusted fees by 5% to
account for cost of living adjustments for program implementation.
There is a large disparity between what the Certified Unified Program Agency
reported to the state in their fiscal year 2012/2013 annual single fee summary report
and what the Certified Unified Program Agencys fund balance report indicates. The
Certified Unified Program Agency reported that they billed $672,486.21 and
collected $667,768.51 in fiscal year 2012/2013. The fund balance report indicates
that the Certified Unified Program Agencys total expenditures were $841,337.16
while the amount of revenues collected was $899,796.45 in fiscal year 2012/2013. It
is unclear which information is accurate.
In emails and verbal correspondences, the Certified Unified Program Agency stated
that staff assigned to implement the Unified Program are 100% funded by collected
Unified Program fees and 100% of their workload is devoted to the Unified Program.
However, the Certified Unified Program Agency performs Commercial Stormwater
Protection inspections along with Certified Unified Program Agency inspections, one
Certified Unified Program Agency staff participates in the Industrial Illicit discharge
committee for Alameda County, and Certified Unified Program Agency staff attend
Industrial Illicit Discharge training annually. The Industrial Illicit Discharge and
Commercial Stormwater Protection programs are non-Certified Unified Program
Agency-related programs. Therefore, all Certified Unified Program Agency staff
46
should not be 100% Certified Unified Program Agency funded because a percentage
of their workload is spent doing non-Certified Unified Program Agency-related job
functions.
Certified Unified Program Agencys review and update of its fee accountability
program is not acceptable.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted their Table 3 Time Allocation of
Staff, personnel cost (direct cost) and indirect cost tables. Table 3 appears to have
some mathematical discrepancies that have skewed the total Certified Unified
Program Agency program hours. These are as follows:
Underground Storage Tank - # of trainings/year (5) * hours/training (40) = total

training hours/year is 200; not 160.
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure/Aboveground Storage Tank
- # of inspections/year (79) * hours/inspection (1.25) = total hours/year is 98.75;
not 77.25.
Hazardous Materials Business Plan - # of trainings/year (5) * hours/training
(16) = total training hours/year 80; not 20.
Permit by Rule - # of trainings/year (5) * hours/training (40) = total training
hours/year is 200; not 160.
Conditional Authorization As of fiscal year 2012/2013, the Certified Unified
Program Agency has 5 conditional authorization businesses with a 3-year
inspection frequency. The Certified Unified Program Agency allocated time for
one conditional authorization inspection per year. This should be increased to
be consistent with the inspection workload.
Conditional Exemption - As of fiscal year 2012/2013, the Certified Unified
Program Agency does not have any conditional exemption businesses. The
Certified Unified Program Agency allocated time for five conditional exemption
inspections per year. This should be reduced to be consistent with the
inspection workload.
Hazardous Waste Generator - As of fiscal year 2012/2013, the Certified Unified
Program Agency has 816 hazardous waste generator businesses with a 3-year
scheduled inspection frequency. The Certified Unified Program Agency
allocated time for 192 hazardous waste generator inspections per year. This
should be increased to be consistent with the inspection workload which should
be approximately 272 hazardous waste generator inspections per year. # of
trainings/year (5) * hours/training (24) = total training hours/year is 120; not 160.
Total training hours per year should be 638; not 402.
The Certified Unified Program Agency needs to provide a dollar amount per Certified
Unified Program Agency program hour.
47
Also, the Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide information clarifying the
following in this progress update:
The regular annual revenue surpluses collected including information about the
$1,463,418 surplus (recorded in the fund balance report for fiscal year
2012/2013), how it was accumulated, and how the surplus issue will be
addressed.
The $249,096 in Certified Unified Program Agency revenue transferred to the
general fund.
The disparity between what the Certified Unified Program Agency reported to the
state in their fiscal year 2012/2013 annual single fee summary report and what
their fund balance report and the fee accountability assessment documented. In
the annual single fee summary report, the Certified Unified Program Agency
reported the total amount of single fee billed was $672,486 and the total single
fee collected was $667,768. The fund balance report and the fee accountability
assessment document the Certified Unified Program Agencys total expenditures
for fiscal year 2012/2013 were $841,337 while the amount of revenues collected
was $899,796.
The percentage of each staffs workload is dedicated to performing Certified
Unified Program Agency related job functions. The each Certified Unified
Program Agency staff should not be 100% funded by Certified Unified Program
Agency fees since staff perform non-Certified Unified Program Agency related
functions such as participating in Industrial Illicit Discharge training and
Commercial Stormwater Protection inspections.
The Certified Unified Program Agencys must correct Table 3 and provide the
information listed above. Please review the Certified Unified Program Agencys fee
accountability program and update it.
progress report #6.
Deficiency 13: The Certified Unified Program Agency did not inspect its three
California accidental release prevention stationary sources once every three years. The
California Office of Emergency Services did not find a California accidental release
prevention inspection report for any of the California accidental release prevention
facilities between fiscal years 2008/2009 through 2010/2011.
develop and submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency a California
accidental release prevention inspection procedure to be included in its inspection and
enforcement plan that describes how the Certified Unified Program Agency will
schedule, conduct and document its triennial California accidental release prevention
48
inspections. The Certified Unified Program Agency will consider the California
Environmental Reporting System and the database that they will be transitioning to.
By March 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will inspect its three California
accidental release prevention facilities and submit the completed inspection reports to
the California Environmental Protection Agency.
by the California Office of Emergency Services for not inspecting its three California
accidental release prevention stationary sources once every three years. Since the
2012 Certified Unified Program Agency evaluation, two of the three facilities are no
longer regulated under the California accidental release prevention program. The last
California accidental release prevention facility was inspected on November 6, 2013.
The California Office of Emergency Services (then the California Emergency
Management Agency) staff met with The Certified Unified Program Agency staff on
November 28, 2012 for the purpose of training Certified Unified Program Agency
staff on California accidental release prevention inspections, and accompanied
Certified Unified Program Agency staff on an oversight inspection at Owens-Illinois
Brockway Glass. The Certified Unified Program Agency arrived with Program 2 and
Program 3 inspection/audit checklists originally designed by Stanislaus County. The
Certified Unified Program Agency staff did not show any familiarity with the contents
of the checklists, and had to have the elements explained to them. At the exit
briefing at the conclusion of the inspection, Certified Unified Program Agency staff
attempted to summarize the violations from the wrong checklist (wrong program
level).
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit a California accidental release
prevention inspection procedure to be included in its inspection and enforcement
plan that describes how the Certified Unified Program Agency will schedule, conduct
and document its triennial California accidental release prevention inspections. Also,
the Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit completed California accidental
release prevention inspection reports.
49
It was difficult to determine from the submitted inspection and enforcement plan
exactly what the inspection plan is for California accidental release prevention
facilities in Oakland. Some of the supplied material applies to audits, but not to
inspections. The California Office of Emergency Services recommends that this
section of the inspection and enforcement plan be revised for clarity. As a further
part of this deficiency, the Certified Unified Program Agency did not supply any
documentation that all three of its California accidental release prevention facilities
have been inspected, on or before March 13, 2013. This deficiency remains in the
process of being corrected.
Of the three California accidental release prevention facilities in Oakland, OwensIllinois Brockaway has reduced inventory to below threshold and has
deregistered. ED Coat has apparently ceased operations and the Certified Unified
Program Agency should pursue a deregistration document from them as well. The
remaining California accidental release prevention stationary source, Dreisback
Industries, was inspected on November 6, 2013, the same day as the business plan
inspection. The inspection form used was a suitably modified Stanislaus County
Program 2 audit/inspection form.
Certified Unified Program Agencys inspection and enforcement plan has been
augmented to indicate the state mandated inspection interval. Scheduling has been
simplified by the reduction of identified California accidental release prevention
facilities to one. This deficiency has been corrected.
Deficiency 14: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not meeting the mandated
triennial inspection frequency for the hazardous material business plan program. Out of
the 24 files reviewed, 21 did not have documentation that demonstrated that the
inspections were completed. Please refer to the California Office of Emergency
Services list of business plan facilities emailed by the California Environmental
Protection Agency.
develop and submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency a business plan
inspection procedure to be included in its inspection and enforcement plan that
describes how the Certified Unified Program Agency will schedule, conduct and
document its triennial business plan inspections. The Certified Unified Program Agency
will consider the California Environmental Reporting System and the database that they
will be transitioning to.
In the first progress report due December 13, 2012, the Certified Unified Program
Agency will provide an update on the total number of business plan facilities that need
to be inspected. Include the number of facilities that have not been inspected in three
years or more.
50
By February 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit ten completed
business plans inspection reports, from the list provided by the California Office of
the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit five completed business plans
inspection reports from facilities not on the list.
by the California Office of Emergency Services for not meeting the mandated triennial
inspection frequency for the Hazardous Material Business Plan program. While this
deficiency was previously considered corrected, the California Environmental Protection
Agency is concerned that this deficiency continues to be ongoing. A search in the
California Environmental Reporting System revealed that only 84 routine compliance
inspections for the Hazardous Material Business Plan program have been recorded by
the CUPA for fiscal year 2013-2014.
Certified Unified Program Agency did not fully address this deficiency. The Certified
Unified Program Agency submitted a business plan inspection procedure. The
Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide an update on the total number of
business plan facilities that need to be inspected including the number of facilities
that have not been inspected in three years or more. The Certified Unified Program
Agency submitted a table that contained annual inspector workload and the number
of hazardous materials business plan facilities it inspected in fiscal year 2011/2012.
Below the table was the number of hazardous materials business plan facilities that
needed to submit a business plan and the number of facilities that have not
submitted their business plans beyond three years. The table does not meet the
intent of the corrective action.
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit a business plan inspection
procedure to be included in its inspection and enforcement plan that describes how
the Certified Unified Program Agency will schedule, conduct and document its
triennial business plan inspections. The list of business plan facilities with overdue
inspections appears to be only from one inspector. Do the other two inspectors have
overdue business plan inspections? Those facilities should also be included with this
list. The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit ten completed business
plans inspection reports from the list provided by the California Emergency
Management Agency to the California Environmental Protection Agency, nor did the
Certified Unified Program Agency submit five completed business plans inspection
reports from facilities not on the list.
51

The submitted inspection and enforcement plan is, in general, adequate with respect
to business plan inspections. The California Office of Emergency Services received
nothing with respect to how many inspections have been conducted. All 15 of the
business plans forwarded had current inspections; however, two of the listed
business plans were from the same handler (Oakland Unified School District).
Please forward one more business plan inspection from the list of businesses
provided at the time of the evaluation. This deficiency remains in the process of
being corrected.
The California Office of Emergency Services evaluator that prepared the list of
business plan facilities which were lacking recent inspections indicated that
Dreisbach Enterprises was to be included with that list. The Certified Unified
Program Agency has supplied a hazardous materials business plan inspection form
for Dreisbach Industries that satisfies the corrective action for this deficiency. This
deficiency has been corrected.
Deficiency 15: The Certified Unified Program Agency has not ensured that
submitted business plans are complete and correct. Of the 24 business plan files
reviewed, 17 files were incomplete or had no business plans at all. Missing elements
included: entire or individual elements of, training plans or emergency response plans
such as the seismic vulnerability element of the emergency response plan.
submit a procedure to the California Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that its
staff reviews each business plans submitted into the California Environmental Reporting
System. As part of the approval process, the Certified Unified Program Agency will
ensure that these business plans are complete and correct.
by the California Office of Emergency Services for not ensuring that submitted business
plans are complete and correct. Although the Certified Unified Program Agency
submitted all of the individual business plans required as a part of the corrective action,
the Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit an adequate procedure to ensure
that its staff reviews each business plan submitted into the California Environmental
Reporting System.
52

revised procedure to ensure that its staff reviews each business plans submitted into
the California Environmental Reporting System. The following items must be revised in
the procedure:

Revise the name of the procedures to reflect the content;

Certified Unified Program Agency did not address this deficiency. The Certified
Unified Program Agency has not submitted ten updated and complete business
plans from the list provided by the California Emergency Management Agency, nor
did the Certified Unified Program Agency submit five current and complete business
The California Emergency Management Agency received seven business plans.
None of these plans are on the list provided to the Certified Unified Program Agency
from California Emergency Management Agency. These will be considered part of
the five current and complete business plans required which are not on the list. Of
these seven, two (Sherwin-Williams #8143 and Walgreens #13595) did not have the
training plan or the seismic vulnerability preparedness plan. The remaining five all
had current and complete business plans, as required. This part of the deficiency is
corrected. Please be aware of all aspects of the business plan when they are
submitted. The deficiency remains in the progress of being corrected. Please
plans. Please submit a procedure to the California Environmental Protection Agency
to ensure that the Certified Unified Program Agency staff reviews each business
plan submitted into the California Environmental Reporting System is complete and
correct.
53
As noted in #5 above, two of the listed business plans forwarded (Oakland Auto
Body and Frame, and Peralta Community College) had inventories and inspections,
but no other parts of the business plan, i.e. emergency response plan or training
program. Additionally, the information supplied in the binder did not contain a
business plan review procedure. This deficiency remains in the process of being
corrected.
Of the two business plans supplied as the corrective action, one (Oakland Auto
Body) was complete and correct, with the slight omission of the telephone number of
the State Warning Center for reporting spills, in the employee training Power Point (it
was, however, correctly included in the emergency response plan.) Additionally, in
the documents supplied with the corrective action, pages 1-3 of the emergency
response plan were basically blank. The same document in the California
Environmental Reporting System is correctly filled out.
The second business plan (Peralta Community College District) had some
issues. First, and arguably most importantly for an emergency response plan, the
nearest medical facility or hospital was not listed (19 CCR 2731 (b)). And secondly,
the site maps were almost worthless from an emergency response standpoint. All of
the maps were evacuation maps. All but the first were intended to be posted on the
wall inside one of the buildings, and had you are here stars on them, but no north
orientation or any other orientation. The first map was an overview, with a north
orientation, but did not identify loading areas, storm or sewer drains, emergency
shutoffs, evacuation staging areas, hazmat handling or storage areas or emergency
response equipment, other than fire extinguishers. The Health & Safety Code gives
the handler until January 1, 2015 to update their maps to meet these criteria (HSC
25505(a)(2)).
With the next update, please forward one more complete and correct business plan
from the left-hand column of the list provided at the time of evaluation. Peralta
Community College District would be all right, if their emergency response plan (not
maps- they have until New Years to fix those) is brought up to compliance. This
deficiency is still in the process of correction.
54
Protection Agency.
28, 2014.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a procedure to ensure that its staff
reviews each business plans submitted into the California Environmental Reporting
System. The procedure does not address the staff completeness review of all parts
of the business plan. The business plan procedure did not reflect the upcoming
requirements effective January 1, 2015.
Deficiency 16: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not conducting hazardous
waste generator and tiered permitting facilities inspections with a frequency that is
consistent with its inspection and enforcement plan.
The last three annual inspection summary reports indicate the following:
The Department of Toxic Substances Controls file review indicates that:
Out of the 30 files reviewed by the Department of Toxic Substances Control, it
appears that 16 facilities have not been inspected within the last three years.
Out of the five tiered permitting files reviewed by the Department of Toxic
Substances Control, none of the facilities were inspected in the last three years.
The Certified Unified Program Agencys only permanent household hazardous
waste collection facility was last inspected over three years ago. The Certified
Unified Program Agencys inspection and enforcement plan states that a
permanent household hazardous waste collection facility has an annual
inspection frequency.
55
In addition, the Certified Unified Program Agency was unable to locate the current files
for the following facilities: Gold Seal Plating, George V Arth & Son, and Seven Eleven
Body.
Corrective Action(s): In the first progress report due December 13, 2012, the Certified
Unified Program Agency will provide an update on the total number of tiered permitting
and hazardous waste generator facilities that need to be inspected and the total number
of tiered permitting and hazardous waste generator facilities inspected to date including
the inspection status of the permanent household hazardous waste collection facility in
the update.
By May 15, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will have inspected all
hazardous waste generators that have not been inspected in the past three years. The
Certified Unified Program Agency will submit ten completed hazardous waste generator
and five tiered permitting inspection reports to the California Environmental Protection
Agency.
the Department of Toxic Substances Control for not conducting hazardous waste
generator and tiered permitting facility inspections with a frequency consistent with their
Inspection and Enforcement plan. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted
some hazardous waste and tiered permitting inspection reports. There were some
problems with some of the inspection reports reviewed by the Department of Toxic
Substances Control. The Certified Unified Program Agency has not provided an update
on their progress of inspecting all hazardous waste generator and tiered permitting
facilities that have not been inspected within the last three years.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must inspect all the hazardous waste
generator and tiered permitting facilities that have not been inspected within the
last three years.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must submit a report that identifies the
total number of hazardous waste generators and total number of tier permitting
facilities regulated by the Certified Unified Program Agency.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must submit a report on the number of
hazardous waste generator and tier permitting inspections that were conducted
each fiscal year since the evaluation date to present.

2013. The pdf letter that came with the 1st progress report documents did not give
56
the state reviewer any narrative descriptions of what the Certified Unified Program
list of facilities submitted was of the same type that was problematic for the
Department of Toxic Substances Control evaluators when submitted for the previous
Program Improvement Agreement. The list included facilities without violations and
it also included non-Certified Unified Program Agency-related facilities. This was
relayed to the California Environmental Protection Agency the same day via email.
provided comments to the Certified Unified Program Agencys 1st progress report to
the California Environmental Protection Agency on February 15, 2013.
documentation again on May 1, 2013. The Certified Unified Program Agency
submitted a list of facilities but it is unclear to the Department of Toxic Substances
Control if this list is for all hazardous waste generators that have not been inspected
in the past three years since inspection dates are not listed in this list. The Certified
Unified Program Agency will provide an update on the total number of tiered
permitting and hazardous waste generator facilities that need to be inspected and
the total number of tiered permitting and hazardous waste generator facilities
inspected to date including the inspection status of the permanent household
hazardous waste collection facility in the update.
In a face-to-face progress report meeting on October 16, 2013 with the Certified
Unified Program Agency, the Department of Toxic Substances Control explained
again to submit a list of all hazardous waste generator inspections that have not
been inspected in the past three years. In addition, the Department of Toxic
Substances Control asked the Certified Unified Program Agency to provide an
update on the total number of tiered permitting and hazardous waste generator
facilities that need to be inspected and the total number of tiered permitting and
hazardous waste generator facilities inspected to date including the inspection status
of the permanent household hazardous waste collection facility.
report documents to the California Environmental Protection Agency on October 29,
2013. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted hard copies of one
Household Hazardous Waste and four (4) hazardous waste generator inspection
reports. The Certified Unified Program Agency also submitted one additional hard
57
copy hazardous waste generator inspection report during a separate meeting with
the Department of Toxic Substances Control on November 4, 2013.
Agency on November 4 and 25, 2013. The Department of Toxic Substances Control
explained to the Certified Unified Program Agency still needed to submit five (5)
tiered permit inspection reports to the Department of Toxic Substances Control for
review.
1. Gold Seal was identified as one of these tiered permitting facilities. The Certified
Unified Program Agency agreed to submit these inspection reports by December
13, 2013. The Department of Toxic Substances Control agreed to review these
reports by January 10, 2014.
2. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted 4 new generator inspection
reports, and needed to submit one additional report. The Certified Unified
Program Agency agreed to submit this inspection report by November 25, 2013
as a corrective action for deficiency #2. The Department of Toxic Substances
Control agreed to review the inspection reports by January 10, 2014. The
Department of Toxic Substances Control received one additional inspection
report from LeRoy Griffin on November 25, 2013 and the Department of Toxic
Substances Control found this report to be acceptable.
3. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a Household Hazardous Waste
Inspection Report dated 10/23/13 during this meeting as a part of the corrective
action for deficiency #16, however the inspection report was reviewed and
identified to be inadequate due to the fact that a tier permit inspection checklist
was used to conduct this inspection.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control further explained that what is
covered under the tier permit inspection checklist does not apply to household
hazardous waste collection facilities and asked the Certified Unified Program
Agency to use the correct checklist along with the large quantity generator
checklist to re-inspect this facility. The Certified Unified Program Agency agreed
to re-inspect the facility by December 13, 2013.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control further provided website links to
obtain a permanent household hazardous waste collection facility checklist.
http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PublicationsForms/upload/PHHWCF_Insp_Checklist_20
10.pdf
4. The Department of Toxic Substances Control requested the Certified Unified
Program Agency to generate a report which identified the total number of
hazardous waste generators and total number of tier permitting facilities under
the Certified Unified Program Agencys jurisdiction. In addition, the Department of
Toxic Substances Control requested a separate report from the Certified Unified
Program Agency which identified the facilities inspected since the evaluation.
These two reports combined would show what percentage of facilities under the
Certified Unified Program Agencys jurisdiction were inspected since the last
evaluation and in addition would identify the tier permitting facilities under the
Certified Unified Program Agencys jurisdiction.
58
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its 4th progress report on February
28, 2014. The Department of Toxic Substances Control received two hand delivered
packages from the Certified Unified Program Agency on January 14 and February
28, 2014. The Certified Unified Program Agency response stated that they have
only four (4) tiered permitting facilities and submitted the following reports:
Gold Seal Plating The Certified Unified Program Agency inspected the facility on
December 3, 2013 and a minor violation was corrected on December 5, 2013 and
updated in the California Environmental Reporting System. The tiered permitting
inspection checklist (Rev. Date 12/10/2012) was missing the tank integrity
assessment reference. This checklist used was not the same checklist that was
submitted to the Department of Toxic Substances Control for approval on (date).
E-D Coat The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a brief report dated
February 18, 2014 stating that E-D Coat was currently closed and they were not
conducting operations. This facility was a permit-by-rule facility and if they were
closing they had to properly close the permit-by-rule units and submit a P.E.
certification to the Certified Unified Program Agency. If contamination was found
during closure of the treatment units, then the Certified Unified Program Agency had
to refer it back to the Department of Toxic Substances Control for corrective action.
This was explained to Mr. Griffin on November 4, 2013 also.
Aramark Uniform and Career Apparel (this facility was not regulated under the tiered
permitting program at the time of inspection) The Certified Unified Program
Agency submitted a brief inspection report dated December 2, 2013 with minor
violations and no return to compliance documentation was included with the report..
Based on the inspection report, it appeared that this facility was conducting
unauthorized treatment. The Certified Unified Program Agency also noted the
following observation: Analyses is needed of the water prior to treatment. The
facility submitted a tiered permitting notification after the inspection as a
Conditionally Exempt Commercial Laundries on 12/4/13 to the Certified Unified
Program Agency.
Abbe Metal Plating (this facility is not currently regulated under the tiered permitting
program) The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted an inspection report
dated 12/3/13 and no return to compliance documentation was included with the
report. On January 15, 2014, the Certified Unified Program Agency forwarded to the
Department of Toxic Substances Control for review the facilitys claim that they are
exempt from tiered permitting requirements and manage their hazardous waste as
excluded recyclable materials pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC), sections
25143.2 (d)(1) and (d)(6). The Department of Toxic Substances Control conducted
a review of the facilitys assertion and concluded the following:
HSC, section 25143.2 (d) (6) is not the best exclusion for the facility to operate
under. The Department of Toxic Substances Control believes that HSC, section
25143.2 (d) (1) is a better exclusion to utilize given their operations.
59
If the acid rinses are hazardous at the point of generation (POG) for corrosivity,
then the facility can operate under HSC, section 25143.2 (c)(2), which is a permit
exemption to treat hazardous waste onsite if all conditions are met.
If the soap dragout is hazardous at the POG, then evaporation will be subject to
tiered permitting.
In addition, the Certified Unified Program Agency also submitted the following:
Certified Unified Program Agency submitted an inspection report for the reinspection of the permanent household hazardous waste collection facility on
12/23/13 using a correct checklist and cited the facility for failure to submit the
Department of Toxic Substances Control Form 1094B notification.
Certified Unified Program Agency re-submitted a permanent household hazardous
waste collection facility Inspection Report dated 10/23/13 and used an incorrect
tiered permitting checklist to conduct this inspection and no violations were noted.
This was the same information submitted as identified in bullet 3 above for the
November submittals.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control again requested the Certified Unified
Program Agency to generate a report which identifies the total number of hazardous
waste generators and the total number of tier permitting facilities under Oakland
Certified Unified Program Agencys jurisdiction. (See the Department of Toxic
Substances Controls 3rd Response for deficiency #16 item #4). The Certified
Unified Program Agency only responded that they have four (4) tiered permitting
facilities with this response of February 28, 2014.
In addition, the Department of Toxic Substances Control requested a separate report
from the Certified Unified Program Agency which identifies the facilities inspected
since the evaluation. These two reports combined would show what percentage of
facilities under Oakland Certified Unified Program Agencys jurisdiction were
inspected since the last evaluation and in addition would identify the tier permitting
facilities under Oakland Certified Unified Program Agencys jurisdiction. The
Certified Unified Program Agency did not respond to this portion. (See the
Department of Toxic Substances Controls 3rd Response for deficiency #16 item
#4) The Department of Toxic Substances Control provided comments for this
deficiency to the California Environmental Protection Agency on March 12, 2014.
Department of Toxic Substances Control reviewed the Certified Unified Program
Agencys responses and has the following comments:
Gold Seal It is encouraging to see that the Certified Unified Program Agency will
use the correct tiered permitting and large quantity generator checklists.
60
Able Plating We concur that the facility is exempt from obtaining a tiered permit
due to their ability to operate under either a recycling exclusion or permit exemption.
The recent submittal dated July 2, 2014 by Able Platings consultant to the City of
Oakland Certified Unified Program Agency is unclear as to what exclusion or
exemption actually applies to activities conducted at Able Plating. Without that
knowledge, we are unable to conclude the correct regulatory status of operations.
Aramark Department of Toxic Substances Control looks forward to seeing the
administrative enforcement order issued to Aramark.
E-D Coat The Certified Unified Program Agency is responsible for implementing
the tiered permitting program, which includes ensuring that facilities properly close
their tiered permitting treatment units.
Department of Toxic Substances Control understands that E-D Coat is closed. The
Certified Unified Program Agency needs to contact with the facility representatives
and notify them of their responsibility to properly close the permit by rule treatment
unit, including submitting a professional engineer (P.E.) certification.
As Department of Toxic Substances Control stated earlier, if contamination is found
during closure of the treatment units, then please refer it back to Department of
Toxic Substances Control (Karen Toth) for any necessary corrective action.
The Certified Unified Program Agency responded that Additionally, Department of
Toxic Substances Control requested a report outlining inspections conducted since
the evaluation date to present. Attached in this submission is that information. As of
this date California Environmental Protection Agency or Department of Toxic
Substances Control did not receive this information.
Department of Toxic Substances Control had also requested Oakland to generate a
report which identifies the total number of hazardous waste generators and total
number of tier permitting facilities under Oakland Certified Unified Program Agencys
jurisdiction. (See page 13, second to the last paragraph). The Certified Unified
Program Agency did not respond to this portion.
progress report #6.
Deficiency 17: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not preparing a compliance
report for every annual underground storage tank compliance inspection.
The Certified Unified Program Agencys summary report 3 indicates that all
underground storage tanks have been inspected annually for the last three fiscal years.
61
File review on the other hand indicates that compliance inspection reports are not being
prepared for every annual underground storage tank inspection. The Certified Unified
Program Agency could not produce documentation showing that compliance inspection
reports have been filed for every annual compliance inspection.
The following are example facilities that were missing records indicating that a
compliance report had been written:
401 Kennedy St
2 Webster St
5500 Telegraph Ave
1107 5th St
165 98th Ave
955 High St
3130 35th Ave
165 13th St
6211 San Pablo Ave
develop and submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency an underground
storage tank inspection procedure to be included in the inspection and enforcement
plan that describes steps that will be taken to prepare compliance reports for every
annual underground storage tank inspection.
By March 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will incorporate and
implement the underground storage tank inspection procedure as described above.
the State Water Resources Control Board for not preparing a compliance report for
every annual underground storage tank compliance inspection. The Certified Unified
Program Agency submitted an adequate underground storage tank inspection
procedure along with the progress report 5 to prepare a compliance report after every
underground storage tank compliance inspection. However, the Certified Unified
Program Agency is not adequately implementing the procedure.
62
The Certified Unified Program Agency must train inspectors to discontinue

including other code violations as part of the underground storage tank significant
operational compliance count.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must evaluate and implement additional
training needs for underground storage tank field inspectors.

Information Submittal Due: Date- November 13, 2012
The Certified Unified Program Agency reported that an update to the inspection and
enforcement plan was to be completed December 13, 2012.
The Certified Unified Program Agency referenced their first progress report letter
The inspection procedures submitted by the Certified Unified Program Agency did
not address the underground storage tank program. Along with the second progress
report, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit an underground storage
tank inspection procedure that describes the steps that will be taken to prepare
compliance reports for every annual underground storage tank inspection. Please
contact the State Water Resources Control Board for more information.
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit an underground storage tank
inspection procedure. The procedure was to be incorporated into their inspection
and enforcement plan describing the steps that will be taken to prepare compliance
reports for every annual underground storage tank inspection.
report, provide, to the California Environmental Protection Agency, its revised
inspection and enforcement plan or summarize how its development is ongoing.
Third Quarter Progress Report Due Date- July 31, 2013
The Certified Unified Program Agency indicated that they believed that the
deficiency was corrected and was waiting to hear from the water board. They also
indicated that their draft I/E was attached and addressed the procedures.
The State Water Resources Control Board reviewed the submitted inspection and
enforcement plan dated October 2013 and has identified areas which need to be
addressed. On page 6, section III (B) indicates there will be general guideline for all
inspections and then specific instructions for the particular elements. On page 16
63
section G- Program Specific Inspection Procedures list hazardous materials

business plan, tiered permitting but no underground storage tank program. The
State Water Resources Control Board could not find underground storage tank
specific procedures.
corrective actions.
Fourth Quarter Progress Report Due Date- February 21, 2014
The Certified Unified Program Agency indicated that they were working on
completing the changes to the inspection and enforcement plan, which will be
submitted prior to the February 21st due date.
The deficiency 17 attachment only shows the title page and table of contents for the
inspection and enforcement plan. The State Water Resources Control Board has
reviewed the revised and submitted inspection and enforcement plan. The plan
continues to state that program specific underground storage tank inspection
procedures will be identified. However, the State Water Resources Control Board
cannot find these in the inspection and enforcement plan. The State Water
procedures. Please see deficiency 6 for specifics regarding underground storage
tank specific inspection procedures.
corrective actions.
and enforcement plan and finds the Certified Unified Program Agency has complied
with the agreed upon corrective actions by including steps taken by staff to prepare
compliance reports for every underground storage tank inspection.
The State Water Resources Control Board still requires the Certified Unified
Program Agency to submit inspection reports and file review checklists for the
previous quarters underground storage tank inspections as the agreed upon
corrective actions. In order to correct this deficiency, the Certified Unified Program
Agency must demonstrate to the State Water Resources Control Board that it is
conducting annual underground storage tank compliance inspections in accordance
with statute and regulations.
64
This deficiency is directly tied to deficiency 6. In order to correct this deficiency, the
CUPA must demonstrate to SWRCB that it is conducting annual UST compliance
inspections in accordance with statute and regulations and that the inspector is
preparing an adequate inspection report.
During the State Water Resources Control Boards review of the submitted annual
compliance inspection reports and file review checklists, the State Water Resources
Control Board found that several of the inspections did not correctly document
underground storage tank program compliance and violations. Inspectors are citing
violations that are not part of the underground storage tank program and
incorporating those violations into the significant operational compliance Release
Detection and Release Prevention count. Specifically, when the spill bucket (overfill
protection) is tested during the annual monitoring certification and it fails due to a
cap on the drop tube for fuel, inspectors are citing it as an underground storage tank
violation. The failure of a spill bucket due to a cap is not an underground storage
tank violation and should not be included in the significant operational compliance.
The inspection report dated 9-17-14 for EBMUD, inspector Skillern notes that
compliance for pipe and/or tank integrity testing is conducted within allowable timeframes. Contradictory to that, the inspector then goes on to note that the facility has
double-walled pressurized pipe and that the facility does not need to perform an
annual line tightness testing. Further, the inspector notes that the line leak detectors
are not required when, in fact, they are.
The inspection report dated 7-9-14 for High Street Valero is incomplete. There is no
indication whether or not the tanks and pipes are being monitored in accordance
with the monitoring plan. These sections have not been marked as in compliance or
not applicable in the compliance report. In addition, the under dispenser
containment section of the inspection report is left blank indicating that the
inspection was not complete.
files are not complete.
All files reviewed were missing one or more of the following documents, which are
required to verify underground storage tank operational compliance:
Annual compliance inspection reports;

Financial responsibility documents;
Secondary containment test reports;
Tank and line integrity test reports;
Annual monitoring certifications;
Designated operator;
Unified Program Consolidated Forms (UPCF) A, B, C and D;
Response plans; and
65
Underground storage tank operating permits.
Corrective Action(s): Effective January 1, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency
will start to collect and retain electronic copies of underground storage tank facility
compliance documents for all facilities for the prescribed time frames.
By January 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will develop and implement
an underground storage tank file review checklist. This file review checklist will be
maintained in the underground storage tank facility file for three years; allowing for
future verification that the deficiency has been corrected. Submit the underground
storage tank file review checklist to the California Environmental Protection Agency.
by the State Water Resources Control Board because the Certified Unified Program
Agencys underground storage tank files were not complete. The Certified Unified
Program Agency collects and retains electronic underground storage tank documents in
the California Environmental Reporting System. The Certified Unified Program Agency
submitted their underground storage tank file review checklist template and also some
completed checklists.
The Certified Unified Program Agency indicated that the staff is conducting
inspection using the state form. The forms will be entered into the California
Environmental Reporting System. Full implementation January 1, 2013.
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide an update to this deficiency.
of January 14, 2013. However, the State Water Resources Control Board noticed
that Oakland Fire Department submitted an underground storage tank inspection
checklist (LG 159 appendix A with Oakland Fire Department headings). In this
inspection checklist, there is a file review checklist. However, Oakland Fire
Department has not stated if this is the checklist they plan on using. Please advise.
The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to immediately, respond to the
State Water Resources Control Board comments or submit a file review checklist.
66
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide a narrative response or
update for this deficiency.
underground storage tank for two (2) quarters.
The Oakland Fire Department was requested to continue to provide the California
Environmental Protection Agency with copies of annual underground storage tank
compliance inspection reports and underground storage tank file review checklists
on a quarterly basis per corrective actions for deficiency number six (6). In addition,
Oakland Fire Department was requested to provide copies of the checklists and
inspection reports for the second quarter that were due in March of 2013.
The Certified Unified Program Agency indicated that they believed that this
deficiency is corrected. They also indicated that they were waiting to hear from the
water board about the 5 inspection reports they submitted for facilities that had been
inspected in the second quarter as directed. They felt that this deficiency should not
be ongoing.
The State Water Resources Control Board considers this deficiency corrected.
However, the Certified Unified Program Agency shall continue to submit its file
review checklist as part of deficiency 6 as agreed upon in the corrective actions.
Deficiency 19: The Certified Unified Program Agency is inappropriately issuing

underground storage tank operating permits without verifying operational compliance.
File review indicates that operational compliance is not verified prior to issuing an
operating permit. Upon questioning the Certified Unified Program Agency, it was
confirmed that operating permits are issued based on the active status of an
be included in their Consolidated Permit Program Plan to ensure that an underground
storage tank facility is in compliance before issuing the permit to operate.
By February 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will incorporate and
implement the new underground storage tank permit issuance procedure as described
above.
67
by the State Water Resources Control Board for inappropriately issuing underground
storage tank operating permits without verifying operational compliance.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a Consolidated Permit Program Plan
but, there were some problems noted by the State Water Resources Control Board that
must be addressed. The State Water Resources Control Board reviewed the most
recent version of the Consolidated Permit Program Plan and provided feedback to the
Certified Unified Program Agency. The Certified Unified Program Agency made
additional revisions and the Consolidated Permit Program Plan now meets Unified
Program requirements.
in progress, projected completion date December, 13, 2012.
The Certified Unified Program Agency referenced their First Progress Report Letter
of January 14, 2013. Upon further review of Oakland Fire Department submittals, the
State Water Resources Control Board reviewed a Consolidated Permit Policy and
was unclear whether the Oakland Fire Department Unified Program Consolidated
Permit policy and procedures was submitted is to correct this deficiency or another
deficiency.
The State Water Resources Control Board does have some observations and
concerns regarding the submitted document mentioned above. Oakland Fire
Department uses the following terms to describe their staff: Certified Unified
Program Agency Inspector, Assigned Certified Unified Program Agency Staff,
Certified Unified Program Agency Staff, Certified Unified Program Agency Program
Staff, Inspector, and Certified Unified Program Agency Inspection Staff. Are these
all different personnel or are these used to reference the core personnel (i.e. the
three inspector staff and the Certified Unified Program Agency program manager)?
Example- on page two item number two, the application package will be assigned to
the Certified Unified Program Agency inspection staffOn page three item number
three regarding permit review system, the assigned Certified Unified Program
Agency staff willwill be reviewed by the inspectorLastly, on page three item
number four regarding permit review system, on the date of the inspection the
68
inspectorDuring the inspection the assigned Certified Unified Program Agency

staff
The policy seems to be talking about two to three different topics- application
permits, construction permits, and the consolidated operating permit yet the title of
the document is called Oakland Fire Department Unified Program Consolidated
Permit and policy is Consolidation of Certified Unified Program Agency Program
Permits. On page three item number three referring to permit review system, the
State Water Resources Control Board is confused. The first sentence refers to new
applications. Are we talking about new construction? Do facilities have to submit an
application package each time a renewal becomes due? What is the annual recertification form? Is this different form the permit that a facility receives from
Oakland Fire Department? The policy refers to three types of permits: Regular,
Temporary, and Provisional. The State Water Resources Control Board needs to
know which UP programs this applies to. This may or may not be applicable to the
underground storage tank program. On page five item number three, the State
Water Resources Control Board recommends that Water Code be removed. The last
bullet in item number three refers to section 25284(e). The State Water Resources
Control Board is unaware of this citation. Please revise.
In another part of the policy, there is wording that states, the permit package will
containthe board of equalization number What regulation does this come from?
Or are you referring to the UPCF A form?
On page five, why did Oakland Fire Department choose a three year permit cycle for
the tanks program and a one year cycle for tiered permitting permit? If Oakland Fire
Department keeps the three year cycle for the tanks program, Oakland Fire
Department needs to incorporate a permit revocation enforcement option. This is
because a permit is only valid if a system is compliance. Once an inspection is
conducted and a facility is determined to be out of compliance, Oakland Fire
Department will need to revoke the operating permit until such time the facility
comes into compliance. For this reason, the majority of Certified Unified Program
Agencies issue an underground storage tank operating permit annually.
On page six item number three, Oakland Fire Department states that annual permit
renewals will be conducted by administrative or on-site inspections. What does this
mean? An administrative person is renewing permits without an annual compliance
inspection or something else? In addition, Oakland Fire Department states a permit
will be renewed by the computer system once a year to a facility in good standing.
This language needs to be changed. Good standing is different from being in
compliance. As previously mentioned above, the underground storage tank facility
operating permit is listed as being issued once every three. How does this work?
The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to immediately respond to the
State Water Resources Control Board comments or submit a copy of its Consolidate
Permit Program Plan.
69

The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to submit a copy of the revise
underground storage tank permit, the most current underground storage tank
inspection report template and return to compliance documentation if applicable.
This deficiency is ongoing. The State Water Resources Control Board has not
received Oakland Fire Departments revised Consolidated Permit Program plan as
discussed on 3-1-2013.
The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to provide, on the next
progress report, a copy of its revised Consolidated Permit Program plan or
The Certified Unified Program Agency referenced the hardcopy document folder.
The Certified Unified Program Agency may want to consider changing its
underground storage tank permit cycle from three years to one year to maintain
consistency with the one-year permit cycles of the other programs. The underground
storage tank law, in particular, requires that an underground storage tank facility be
in compliance with the law before an underground storage tank permit is issued. A
one-year underground storage tank permit cycle may be more effective in
compelling compliance with the law as underground storage tank facilities would
need to correct any ongoing violations before a new permit could be issued. The
State Water Resources Control Board did not receive the Consolidated Permit
Program Plan as a part of the progress report packet sent to the State Water
Resources Control Board from the Certified Unified Program Agency. However, the
California Environmental Protection Agency provided a copy of the plan they
received. With the review, the State Water Resources Control Board has some
comments.
Starting on page 1, Oakland Fire Department indicates that it issues permits for five
permitting activities. However, page 6 indicates permits are issued for two programs
(underground storage tank and tiered permitting). Page 6 also states all program
element activities at a facility will have a common expiration date. In addition, page 6
also states, Based upon the permit activity a permit issued under the consolidated
permit system will be effective for a period of one (1) year. Immediately after this
sentence, the Certified Unified Program Agency states underground storage tank
permits are issued for 3 years and Tiered permits are issued for 1 year. No other
permits are indicated as being issued, although page 1 indicates five permitting
activities.
70
In the Other Permit Procedures Section (see page 6), the Certified Unified Program
Agency talks about annual permit renewals being conducted by administrative and
on-site inspections. Lastly, on page 4, item 4 of the Permit Review System, The
Certified Unified Program Agency states, Underground Storage Tank facilities are
require that the facility is in compliance with all the requirements as defined in the
Health and Safety Code and the three year underground storage tank operating
permit prior to the issuance of the annual permit.
The Certified Unified Program Agency provided an example of its consolidated
permit. However, this permit is different from the underground storage tank permit
although the consolidated permit has a box for the underground storage tank
program. Please explain.
On page 2, item 3 regarding corrections to permit application package. There is
conflict with the statement due to facilities now operating with missing or incomplete
submittals.
The State Water Resources Control Board assumes that on page 3, the first
paragraph is in regards to the initial permit for a facility. This makes sense,
unfortunately, according to the California Environmental Protection Agency, the
proposed language in Title 27, talks about providing directions for the submittal of
permitting information to local agencies through the California Environmental
Reporting System. I would hate to have Oakland Fire Department make changes
and then immediately have to make changes again. Maybe the California
Environmental Protection Agency can shed some light on this. With this said, the
Certified Unified Program Agency may also want to revise items 1-3 on the top of the
page 2 to include electronic submittals of permitting activities and any other
reference to application package. Lets wait and see what the new Title 27
regulations require.
Lastly, item 4 in the Permit Review System section; mirrors the Certified Unified
Program Agencys permit cycles, however, the Certified Unified Program Agency
also states in the Permit Cycle section, Based upon the permit activity a permit
issued under the consolidated permit system will be effective for a period of one (1)
year. In addition, in the Other Permit Procedures (page 6), the Certified Unified
Program Agency talks about annual permit renewals.
The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to take the following actions to
1. Health and Safety Code section 25284(e) does not exist and needs to be
changed.
2. The Certified Unified Program Agency needs to revise language regarding permits
being issued.
3. Is the Certified Unified Program Agency issuing two underground storage tank
permits?
71
4. Why is the Certified Unified Program Agency issuing different permits?

(Consolidated permit has box for underground storage tank but a separate permit
was submitted for deficiency 20).
5. This plan will have a moving target due to the California Environmental Reporting
System and the upcoming changes to Title 27. Because of the California
Environmental Reporting System and the requirement to submit information
electronically, the Certified Unified Program Agency needs (or will need) to identify a
process for electronic submittals. Not just for the underground storage tank program,
but for all programs. We recommend keeping this deficiency active in order to get a
better understanding on how the new regulations are going to affect the permitting
process. NOTE: These new regulations are going to affect all local agencies and
their permitting processes.
The Certified Unified Program Agency requested guidance and clarification on the
requested actions.
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit its Consolidated Permit
Program Plan as it had in previous updates for review. The State Water Resources
Control Board finds this non-response unacceptable.
While reviewing the submitted inspection and enforcement plan, the State Water
Resources Control Board noticed the following that needs some clarification. Item 5
of the Permit Review System states, The Certified Unified Program Agency
manager, who will authorize the issuance of the permit, will review the completed
package and transmittal. (Expected time for completion3 Days). While reviewing
the submitted Consolidated Operating Permits, the State Water Resources Control
Board noticed that the Certified Unified Program Agency managers signature was
not on the permit. However, an inspectors signature block (Avila, Cesar Haz-Mat
Inspector) was on the permit. According to the Certified Unified Program Agencys
inspection and enforcement plan, the Certified Unified Program Agency manager
should be signing and approving the issuance of permits. Please advise.
The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to submit to the California
Environmental Protection Agency its Consolidated Permit Plan as agreed upon in
In the 4th update, the State Water Resources Control Board found that the Certified
Unified Program Agency did not provide a revised Consolidated Permit Program
Plan and again, the Certified Unified Program Agency did not provide information
that was agreed upon in the Program Improvement Agreement corrective actions.
In the 4th update, the State Water Resources Control Board staff found that an
inspection and enforcement plan was submitted and had questions and/or concerns
72
regarding the document. The submitted inspection and enforcement plan with the
revision date of June 16, 2014, has addressed those questions and or concerns.
The State Water Resources Control Board would like to note that during its review of
the submitted file review and inspection checklist, many of the inspections included a
statement from inspection staff that permit issuance had been delayed.
The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to take the following action to
1. The CUPA shall submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency its
Consolidated Permit Plan as agreed upon in the corrective actions and per the
Program Improvement Agreement.
CalEPA Note: The CUPA extracted multiple sections of its Inspection and
Enforcement Plan after submitting Update 5 and created a Consolidated Permit Plan
which was reviewed by the State Water Resources Control Board. The State Water
Resources Control Board has reviewed the consolidated permit plan and found it
acceptable. All corrective actions have been completed.
operating permit does not contain all of the required elements.
File review indicates that the underground storage tank operating permit is missing the
monitoring requirements for the underground storage tank system.
The Certified Unified Program Agencys previously issued underground storage tank
operating permits that contained all of the required elements and expired five years
after its issuance in accordance with title 23 regulations. Recently, the Certified Unified
Program Agency has started to issue a consolidated operating permit and this is when
the problem occurred.
will revise, and submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency, its
underground storage tank operating permit that incorporates the monitoring
requirements.
By December 13, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency will begin using the
revised permit.
because the underground storage tank operating permit is missing the monitoring
requirements for the underground storage tank system.
73

The Certified Unified Program Agency indicated that they submitted the requested
information on 11/14/12 and was waiting for a response from the State.
The Certified Unified Program Agencys Unified Program Consolidated Permit is
acceptable. The submitted permit captures all of the underground storage tank
requirements. Is the Certified Unified Program Agency going to issue the permit
once a year or is it valid for five years? Just asking since the date issuance is 2001
and expiration date is 2006 (submitted permit).
The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to respond to the
Waterboards questions.
The Certified Unified Program Agency indicated that they revised the format for the
underground storage tank permit that is consolidated with the Unified Program
permit and has been created within their One-Step data management system. The
use of the three year underground storage tank permit will start effective January 1,
2013. Each underground storage tank operator will receive a temporary operating
permit until the site is inspected for compliance. Once the site is determined to be
incompliance each site will receive its three year operating permit.
This deficiency remains outstanding. The issuance of a temporary operating permit
is not appropriate. There are no provisions in statute or regulations which allows for
the issuance of temporary operating permits. Permits may only be issued to facilities
that are in compliance (Health & Safety Code, Chapter 6.7, Section 25285(b). The
State Water Resources Control Board has again reviewed the pre-update submittals
and the current first quarter progress report submittals. In its review, the State Water
Resources Control Board noted that in the email labeled as Pre-Update Material
submitted 11-15-2012, Oakland Fire Department submitted a consolidated
underground storage tank operating permit. The State Water Resources Control
Board confirmed in an email dated 12-4-2012, that the submitted permit captures all
of the required underground storage tank elements.
In the email labeled Oakland 1st quarter report, Oakland Fire Department submitted
one permit identified as USTFORM oakland 2012 13lg. The content of this permit
incorporates the monitoring requirements as required by regulations. However, this
submitted permit showed format changes, therefore, the State Water Resources
Control Board is unsure if this permit has been finalized. In addition, this permit is
different from the permit submitted in 11-15-2012 and approved 12-4-2012.
74
In the email labeled Oakland CUPA file Second Set of deliverables, Oakland Fire
Department submitted three permits identified as: Oakland Fire Department
consolidated permit 2013 (lg); USTFORM oakland 2012 13lg; and USTFORM
oakland(LG).
The Oakland Fire Department consolidated permit 2013 (lg) has a check mark
identifying the underground storage tank program and looks to capture the
requirements of Title 27. However, the permit has track changes and the State
Water Resources Control Board in unsure if it has been finalized. The second permit
labeled USTFORM oakland 2012 13lg is identical the submitted permit in the email
labeled Oakland 1st quarter report. The third permit labeled USTFORM oakland
(LG) looks to be finalized (no track changes) and incorporates all required
information regarding Title 23. Again, this permit is different from the permit
submitted 11-15-2012 and approved 12-4-2012.
The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to immediately submit to the
California Environmental Protection Agency a finalized underground storage tank
consolidated permit.
They were also requested to, on the next progress report, submit, to the California
Environmental Protection Agency, the underground storage tank consolidated
operating permits for facilities that have been inspected and determined to be in
compliance with underground storage tank regulations since December 13, 2012.
operating permit that incorporates the monitoring requirements. Please submit a
copy of the revise underground storage tank permit. The Certified Unified Program
Agency was requested to submit, to the California Environmental Protection Agency,
a copy of its finalized (finalized-no tracking) Consolidated Permit to operate
underground storage tanks.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a hard copy of its Consolidated
Permit Program Plan and a hard copy of its underground storage tank permit.
The State Water Resources Control Board considers this deficiency partially
corrected. The submitted permit differs from the permit in the Consolidated Permit
Program Plan. The underground storage tank permit captures all of the required
underground storage tank elements. However, the permit may not contain all of the
Title 27 elements. The permit shows what seems to be issue and expiration dates
but does not directly have this in writing.
75
The Certified Unified Program Agency was requested to identify the permit that will
be issued (maybe two permits), either the submitted permit for underground storage
tanks or the permit in its consolidated permit program plan.
The Certified Unified Program Agency indicated that they were awaiting clarification
on the requirement per title 27 on the consolidated permit per California
Environmental Protection Agency. They also requested clarification from the State
Water Resources Control Board on the underground storage tank operating permit.
They indicated that this deficiency is partially corrected.
Again, the Certified Unified Program Agency has changed its permits from what had
been previously submitted to the California Environmental Protection Agency for
review. The submitted permits do not capture the monitoring methods for the
underground storage tank program.
The State Water Resources Control Board has reviewed the deficiency 20
attachment that only shows the title page, table of contents for the inspection and
enforcement plan, and three underground storage tank/Consolidated permits all of
which are for the same facility. These submitted permits differ from what was
submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board in update 3. The submitted
permits in update 4 are missing the monitoring requirements as required in Title 23,
section 2712(c).
The submitted permits are missing the monitoring requirements. The Certified
Unified Program Agency was requested to submit to the California Environmental
Protection Agency the permits (consolidated permit and underground storage tank
permit/addendum) that it plans on issuing to its regulated businesses. The Certified
Unified Program Agency has not indicated if it is issuing one or two permits. One
permit that is the consolidated permit and all requirements including the
underground storage tank program or two separate permits one of which is the
consolidated permit and an addendum that includes the underground storage tank
monitoring requirements.
The State Water Resources Control Board has reviewed the submitted underground
storage tank operating permit and finds it contains the title 23 requirements.
Deficiency 21: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not approving the monitoring
and response plans submitted by underground storage tank owner/operators.
Discussions with the Certified Unified Program Agency and file review indicates that the
Certified Unified Program Agency is not signing the approval/disapproval section of the
underground storage tank monitoring and response plan (form D) for all of its
76
underground storage tank facilities, indicating that the plans/forms have been reviewed
for completeness and accuracy. Upon questioning the Certified Unified Program
Agency, it was confirmed the Certified Unified Program Agency failed to approve or
disapprove the underground storage tank monitoring and response plan.
be included in the inspection and enforcement plan that describes the Certified Unified
Program Agency approval process for underground storage tank owner/operator
By April 14, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will implement the new
underground storage tank owner/operator submitted monitoring and response plan
procedure as described above.
the State Water Resources Control Board because the Certified Unified Program
Agency was not approving the monitoring and response plans submitted by
underground storage tank owner/operators. The Certified Unified Program Agency
submitted their revised Inspection and Enforcement Plan along with progress report 5.
The Inspection and Enforcement Plan contains a procedure that describes the Certified
Unified Program Agencys approval process for underground storage tank
owner/operator submitted monitoring and response plans. The State Water Resources
Control Board will review the procedure and use the California Environmental Reporting
System submittals over the next 60 days to determine whether the new procedure is
being followed.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must review underground storage tank
submittals in the California Environmental Reporting System for accuracy and
completeness. The Certified Unified Program Agency must update the status of
the submittals as necessary.
As discussed with the Certified Unified Program Agency on November 6, 2014,

the submittals accepted in the California Environmental Reporting System by
Patten Patten shall be reviewed by an ICC Certified Inspector and the Certified
Unified Program Agency will update the status as necessary.

77
in progress, projected completion date December 13, 2012.
In the future, please provide a narrative update on the progress toward correcting
this deficiency.
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit a procedure to be included in
the inspection and enforcement plan that describes the Certified Unified Program
Agency approval process for underground storage tank owner/operator submitted
monitoring and response plans. The Certified Unified Program Agency was advised
that the revised inspection and enforcement plan must describe the Certified Unified
Program Agencys approval process for underground storage tank owner/operator
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a hardcopy if its inspection and
enforcement plan.
and enforcement plan and finds it is lacking the Certified Unified Program Agencys
procedure for approving the owner/operator submitted monitoring and response
plans electronically. Page 41 covers pre-inspections; however the State Water
Resources Control Board could not find anything regarding approval procedures in
the entire inspection and enforcement plan.
The Certified Unified Program Agency indicated that they were continuing to make
revisions to the inspection and enforcement plan and will submit prior to February
21st due date.
78
and enforcement plan and finds the Plan does not include procedures for the
approval of submitted monitoring and response plans.
Page 21 Permitting Review System the following is stated, The assigned Certified
Unified Program Agency staff will review the application for completeness and
contact the facility operator to schedule an inspection for new submittals. Annual recertifications will be reviewed by the inspector and the review date will be entered
into the California Environmental Reporting System database.
Reviewing a submittal is not the same as accepting a submittal. The inspection and
enforcement plan does not indicate the California Environmental Reporting System
submittals are being accepted. The Plan only indicates that submittals are being
reviewed.
and enforcement plan and finds that it captures the requirements in the agreed upon
corrective actions. Thank you. However, the Program Improvement Agreement
corrective actions also state the Certified Unified Program Agency will implement the
new underground storage tank owner/operator submitted monitoring and response
plan procedures. Since State Water Resources Control Board has just received and
reviewed the inspection and enforcement plan, it has yet to review the California
Environmental Reporting System submittals to determine if Certified Unified
Program Agency staff are accepting accurate and complete underground storage
tank submittals. State Water Resources Control Board will re-evaluate the California
Environmental Reporting System submittals during the next Certified Unified
Program Agency update.
The State Water Resources Control Board has reviewed 10 underground storage tank
facilities in the California Environmental Reporting System and found that inspectors are
accepting incomplete and or inaccurate underground storage tank submittals. A list of
those facilities and the inaccurate or incomplete information will be provided to the
Certified Unified Program Agency separately as its too lengthy to insert here. Based
on the poor quality of information reviewed and accepted by Certified Unified Program
Agency staff for multiple underground storage tank elements in the California
Environmental Reporting System, simply correcting the California Environmental
Reporting System records reviewed by the State Water Resources Control Board does
not correct this deficiency. In addition, the State Water Resources Control Board
discovered during its review of the California Environmental Reporting System that
multiple facility underground storage tank submittals have not submitted and not
79
accepted statuses while a few have a submitted status since April 2014. On many
occasions, the State Water Resources Control Board sent out Certified Unified Program
Agency guidance prohibiting non-International Code Council certified staff from
accepting/approving underground storage tank submittals and the proper methods for
placing submittals under review in the California Environmental Reporting System.
Despite this, the State Water Resources Control Board discovered that nonInternational Code Council certified staff has approved underground storage tank
underground storage tank submittals in the California Environmental Reporting System.
Deficiency 22: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not collecting, retaining, and
managing information necessary to implement the Unified Program.
Corrective Action(s): Immediately, the Certified Unified Program Agency will correctly
document formal and informal enforcement actions as defined in Title 27, Section 15110
(d).
By December 13, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency will develop and
implement a procedure to ensure that it regularly collects, retains, and manages
information necessary to implement the Unified Program including, but not limited to,
violation classifications, inspection reports, enforcement actions and significant
operational compliance information. Also, the Certified Unified Program Agency will
submit to the California Environmental Protection Agency the following:
Electronic inspection report templates for each program element showing the
drop down menus for violation classifications (minor, Class 2, Class 1) and
formal enforcement actions.
An electronic underground storage tank inspection report template that shows
By March 13, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit to the California
Environmental Protection Agency the following:
A completed electronic inspection report for each program element showing

violation classifications. Include inspection reports that resulted in formal
enforcement, if any.
A completed electronic underground storage tank inspection report that cites
significant operational compliance violations.
by the California Environmental Protection Agency and the State Water Resources
Control Board for not collecting, retaining, and managing information necessary to
implement the Unified Program. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted ONE
STEP data system screenshots and hard copy paper inspection reports that were not
acceptable to correct this deficiency. During a meeting that occurred before the 5th
progress report was submitted, the Certified Unified Program Agency manager stated
80
that the Certified Unified Program Agency could not produce electronic inspection
reports as agreed to in the Program Improvement Agreement and would continue to use
paper-based inspection reports. The California Environmental Protection Agency
accepted the response and the previously submitted hardcopy inspection reports. The
Certified Unified Program Agency is now using the California Environmental Reporting
System to manage inspection, violation, and enforcement information including violation
classifications, enforcement actions, and significant operational compliance violations.
On November 15, 2012, the California Environmental Protection Agency received a
narrative stating that forms (the California Environmental Protection Agency
assumes that the forms were inspection reports.) were provided to One Step as part
of the data transition. The testing was to start November 19, 2012. The California
Environmental Protection Agency is unclear what was tested?
On January 30, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted MS Word
format templates of hard copy inspection reports for hazardous waste generator
(small quantity generator, large quantity generator), tiered permitting, underground
storage tank, California accidental release prevention (Program 2 only), and
hazardous materials business plan programs. Some of these were in "track change"
mode and contained underlines and strikethroughs. The electronic version of these
inspection reports (made for tablet PCs) were not submitted. Also, an electronic
version of an APSA inspection report was not submitted. In the California
Environmental Protection Agencys response, the Certified Unified Program Agency
was asked if they would be using electronic inspection reports. The Certified Unified
Program Agency has maintained, in meetings and phone calls, that they would be
transitioning to electronic inspection reports. During the February 19, 2013
conference call with the Certified Unified Program Agency, the California
Environmental Protection Agency explained to the Certified Unified Program Agency
that they must submit screenshots of electronic versions of the inspection reports
(made for tablet PCs) for each program element. Certified Unified Program Agency
agreed to comply.
On February 20, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted One Step
data management system screenshots showing the system's ability to collect
violation classifications. The California Environmental Protection Agency found that
the screenshots showed that One Step is able to manage violation information for all
of the program elements. However, the Certified Unified Program Agency did not
address the Program Improvement Agreement corrective action that was to submit
81
electronic inspection report templates for each program element showing the drop
down menus for violation classifications (minor, Class 2, Class 1) and formal
enforcement actions. Also, the Certified Unified Program Agency did not address
the Program Improvement Agreement corrective action that was to submit an
electronic underground storage tank inspection report template that showed
On March 29, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted responses to
the states update 1 responses. In the response, the Certified Unified Program
Agency stated that a significant operational compliance screenshot and California
accidental release prevention program 1 and 3 inspection reports were attached to
the response email. They were not. The hazardous waste small quantity generator
inspection report was attached. This response did not address the Program
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit an update for this deficiency
along with their May 1, 2013 update 2 submission. In the California Environmental
Protection Agencys response the Certified Unified Program Agency was asked if
they would be using electronic inspection reports. The Certified Unified Program
Agency has maintained, in meetings and phone calls, that they would be
transitioning to electronic inspection reports.
On October 29, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted hardcopy
One Step screenshots showing violations, the state surcharge management,
hazardous materials information, and underground storage tank information. The
Certified Unified Program Agency also submitted a PDF hardcopy version of a
Notice/Summary of Violations. None the submissions addressed the Program
In a conference call with the Certified Unified Program Agency on November 21,
2013 and in a separate phone call, the California Environmental Protection Agency
explained to the Certified Unified Program Agency that they must submit
screenshots of electronic versions of the inspection reports (made for tablet PCs) for
each program element. The Certified Unified Program Agency asked why
inspection, violation, and enforcement submissions into the California Environmental
Reporting System or One Step were not acceptable as electronic inspection reports
for all of the program elements. The California Environmental Protection Agency
responded by saying that One Step and the California Environmental Reporting
System violation library list many possible violations that the Certified Unified
Program Agency can use to report required inspection, violation, and enforcement
information as a part of the Certified Unified Program Agencys reporting
requirements. The violation lists do not list the specific program criteria the Certified
82
Unified Program Agency will use for inspections. The Oakland City Council and the
Certified Unified Program Agency agreed to the requirements of the Program
Improvement Agreement which included the development and use of electronic
inspection reports templates for each program element. The Certified Unified
Program Agency has not addressed the corrective action requirements of this
deficiency.
On February 28, 2014, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted screenshots
of One Step violation lists for all of the program elements. As stated previously, this
submission did not address the Program Improvement Agreement corrective
actions.
The Certified Unified Program Agency also submitted the California Environmental
Reporting System inspection information screenshots and hardcopies of completed
inspection reports for five businesses. All of the program element inspection reports
were included. The California Environmental Reporting System screenshots and the
completed inspection reports did not address the Program Improvement Agreement
corrective actions.
During a meeting with the Certified Unified Program Agency, Mr. Leroy Griffin said
that the Certified Unified Program Agency would continue to use paper-based
inspection reports and could not use electronic inspection reports at the present
time. California Environmental Protection Agency accepted the response. The
Certified Unified Program Agency has submitted inspection, violation, and
enforcement information into California Environmental Reporting System that
includes violation classifications, enforcement actions, and significant operational
compliance violations.
Deficiency 23: The Certified Unified Program Agency is not implementing some of
the elements in its inspection and enforcement plan. The Certified Unified Program
Agency is not:
classifying violations in the notices to comply provided to the facility at the

conclusion of the inspections.
submitting large quantity generator data on a quarterly basis to the Department
of Toxic Substances Control.
responding to complaints referred by the Department of Toxic Substances
Control.
Comments from the Evaluation Team concerning the contents of the inspection and
enforcement plan were sent to the Certified Unified Program Agency via email.
83
update and submit its revised inspection and enforcement plan to the California
Environmental Protection Agency for review, considering the comments sent by the
California Environmental Protection Agency to the Certified Unified Program
Agency. The Certified Unified Program Agency will implement its updated inspection
and enforcement plan.
By April 15, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency will submit the following data
and documents to the California Environmental Protection Agency that demonstrates
that the Certified Unified Program Agency is adequately implementing their inspection
and enforcement plan: five Notice to Comply documents, with violations classified,
from inspections conducted on or after October 1, 2012; a certification statement that
the Certified Unified Program Agency has entered the large quantity generator into the
California Environmental Reporting System at least quarterly, including the dates the
data was entered into the California Environmental Reporting System; and, the status of
13, 2012.
the Department of Toxic Substances Control because the Certified Unified Program
Agency is not implementing some of the elements in its Inspection and Enforcement
Plan. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted several Inspection and
Enforcement Plan versions along with previous progress reports. The California
Environmental Protection Agency noted that there continues to be duplicative
information in the current plan. The consolidated permit program plan was recently
removed from the Inspection and Enforcement plan after progress report 5 was
reviewed. The Certified Unified Program Agency has not submitted a status of
13, 2012.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must revise their Inspection and
Enforcement Plan and eliminate any duplicative inspection procedures.
The Certified Unified Program Agency must submit a status of complaints
referred by the Department of Toxic Substances Control since September 13,
2012.

2013. PDF letter that came with the 1st progress report documents did not give the
84
state reviewer any narrative descriptions of what the Certified Unified Program
Certified Unified Program Agency did not submit its revised inspection and
enforcement plan.
documentation on May 1, 2013. The Certified Unified Program Agency did not
submit its revised inspection and enforcement plan.
Program Agency said that they were updating the inspection and enforcement plan
and would submit it to the California Environmental Protection Agency.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its 3rd progress report on October
29, 2013. The response included a revised inspection and enforcement plan in
Adobe Acrobat format. The Department of Toxic Substances Control contacted
LeRoy Griffin to get a copy of the inspection and enforcement plan in MS Word and
was informed that they were updating their inspection and enforcement plan and to
ignore the previous submission.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its inspection and enforcement
plan, but the document may be a draft because there are errors and inconsistencies.
Parts of the inspection and enforcement plan guidance document on the California
Environmental Protection Agency website were cut and pasted to create the
Certified Unified Program Agencys inspection and enforcement plan.
Unified Program Consolidated Forms and other forms such as the Business
Activities form are referred to in the inspection and enforcement plan when the
Certified Unified Program Agency and regulated businesses should be reporting
information electronically.
Duplication There are inspection procedures in a couple of places in the inspection

and enforcement plan (pages. 4-6 and pages 40-46). Some of the inspection
procedures are very similar and should be consolidated.
85
Permit Procedures are in two different places in the inspection and enforcement plan
and the information in both is also different. The permit cycle for the underground
storage tank program appears to be annual, three years, or five years. The
consolidated permit should only have one permit cycle, one issuance date, and one
expiration date. The permit procedures do not belong in the inspection and
enforcement plan. It is highly unlikely that the State Water Resources Control Board
will accept the permit procedures in this inspection and enforcement plan as valid
because there are two of them and the information between the two are inconsistent.
A Notice to Comply is issued for minor violations of all program elements, not just
minor hazardous waste violations.
The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted its 4th progress report to the
Department of Toxic Substances Control on February 28, 2014. The Certified
Unified Program Agency submitted its inspection and enforcement plan dated
February 19, 2014 in the package. The Certified Unified Program Agency had not
done the following as per their inspection and enforcement plan:
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not respond to the By April 15, 2013, the
Certified Unified Program Agency will submit the following data and documents to
the California Environmental Protection Agency that demonstrates that the Certified
Unified Program Agency is adequately implementing their inspection and
enforcement plan: five Notice to Comply documents, with violations classified,
from inspections conducted on or after October 1, 2012; a certification statement
that the Certified Unified Program Agency has entered the large quantity generator
into the California Environmental Reporting System at least quarterly, including the
dates the data was entered into the California Environmental Reporting System;
and, the status of complaints referred by the Department of Toxic Substances
Control since September 13, 2012.
A review of the California Environmental Reporting System showed a total of four
data entries for the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity
Generators compliance inspections from 5/2011 to 9/2013 (only one Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator inspected since 9/2012).
One out of these four generator inspections was EBMUD and it was not a Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator; two inspection entries
were for Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc. for 5/2011 and 7/2012. Thus, the
Certified Unified Program Agency had not entered the Resource Conservation and
Environmental Reporting System at least quarterly.
86
The inspection and enforcement plan addresses most of the problems California
Environmental Protection Agency observed. There continues to be some duplicative
inspection procedures that should be consolidated.
The Certified Unified Program Agency did not discuss deficiency #23 with the
Department of Toxic Substances Control during meetings. This statement was for
the deficiency #7 - Conversations with Asha and Maria took place surrounding the
hazardous materials tracking spreadsheet, they have reviewed accepted the
revisions made to the spreadsheet.
The following statement made by the Certified Unified Program Agency is unclear to
the Department of Toxic Substances Control - They also reviewed the information
within the California Environmental Reporting System. We are waiting to hear back
that the California Environmental Reporting System will serve the purpose instead of
staff conducting double entry on the spreadsheet, however the spreadsheet
template is attached. The inspection and enforcement plan is dated June 16, 2014
Version 1.3
The Department of Toxic Substances Control checked the California Environmental
Reporting System and there is no new Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Large Quantity Generator information in the California Environmental Reporting
System. Therefore, the Certified Unified Program Agency has not entered the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator information into
the California Environmental Reporting System at least quarterly.
The Certified Unified Program Agency is reporting Resource Conservation and
Environmental Reporting System. A California Environmental Reporting System
screenshot was submitted documenting the submissions. The Certified Unified
Program Agency has not submitted a revised Inspection and Enforcement plan or a
status of complaints referred by the Department of Toxic Substances Control since
September 13, 2012.
87

quantity generator inspections were conducted on October 20 and 21, 2014. The
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act large quantity generator reporting portion
of this deficiency has been corrected as two (2) Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act large quantity generator inspections were conducted last week and the
California Environmental Reporting System has been updated.
Deficiency 24: The Certified Unified Program Agencys fiscal year 2009/2010 and
2010/2011 self-audit reports do not adequately assess the performance of the Certified
Unified Program Agency.
will submit its fiscal year 2011/2012 self-audit report to the California Environmental
Protection Agency that adequately assesses the performance of the Certified Unified
Program Agency.
by the California Environmental Protection Agency because reviewed title 27 self-audit
reports did not adequately assess the performance of the Certified Unified Program
Agency. The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted their title 27 self-audit with
revisions required by the state agencies.
Status: This deficiency has been corrected. The Certified Unified Program Agency
submitted their annual title 27 self-audit report that incorporated the corrections required
by the state agencies. The submitted title 27 self-audit report was acceptable. The selfaudit report did not include all of the California Accidental Release Prevention annual
performance audit elements. Therefore, deficiency #11 has not been corrected with the
submission of the title 27 self-audit report.
On November 15, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted their fiscal
year 2011/2012 self-audit. The California Environmental Protection Agency, the
Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the OSFM reviewed the self-audit and
found that some revisions were needed. The California Environmental Protection
Agency, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the OSFM noted the
required changes in the Certified Unified Program Agencys self-audit document.
Some suggested changes were also includes to improve the utility of the self-audit.
The California Environmental Protection Agency emailed the self-audit with the
states notes back to the Certified Unified Program Agency for revision.
88
On March 1, 2013, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted their revised
their fiscal year 2011/2012 self-audit. The self-audit revision was sufficient to correct
this deficiency. This only applies to the title 27 elements of the self-audit, not the
California accidental release prevention performance audit the Certified Unified
Program Agency has incorporated into their title 27 self-audit.
89

Oakland City Withdrawal of Certification 1-2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oakland City Withdrawal of Certification 1-2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Enclosure 1

4. Failure to Comply with Fee Accountability Requirements.

funded by Unified Program fees because a significant percentage of their

Deficiency Progress Summary Report

The deficiency summaries below provide a synopsis of progress made on each

The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted the hazardous waste

On December 10, 2012, the Certified Unified Program Agency submitted an

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

Status: This deficiency has been corrected.

During the hazardous waste generator oversight inspection of Owens Illinois

During the hazardous waste generator oversight inspection of Shape Products

Background Excerpts from Progress Reports

Status: This deficiency has not been corrected.

Provide an explanation of how the procedure reflects current requirements,

Background Excerpts from Progress Reports

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

Remove language regarding the submittal of required certifications in the

Background Excerpts from Progress Reports

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

Additionally, a Certified Unified Program Agency database query on underground

Background Excerpts from Progress Reports

The Certified Unified Program Agency submitted a list of active Underground

What is the difference between consolidation of permits on page 9 and

Additionally, the California Environmental Protection Agencys review of violation

Background Excerpts from Progress Reports

also included non-Certified Unified Program Agency-related facilities. During the

Department of Toxic Substances Control is unclear on the Certified Unified Program

On December 6, 2012, Asha Arora called LeRoy Griffin as the California

that consistently generated over 1000kg of Resource Conservation and Recovery

surcharge transmittals with checks to the California Environmental Protection

Background Excerpts from Progress Reports

Information Submittal: Due Date- November 13, 2012

Background Excerpts from Progress Reports

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

Remaining Action Items:

Background Excerpts from Progress Reports

Agency. These documents were emailed to the California Environmental Protection

Underground Storage Tank - # of trainings/year (5) * hours/training (40) = total

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

Status: This deficiency has not been corrected.

Remove language regarding the submittal of required certifications in the

Background Excerpts from Progress Reports

Background Excerpts from Progress Reports

The Certified Unified Program Agency must train inspectors to discontinue

Background Excerpts from Progress Reports

section G- Program Specific Inspection Procedures list hazardous materials

Annual compliance inspection reports;

Underground storage tank operating permits.

Deficiency 19: The Certified Unified Program Agency is inappropriately issuing

inspectorDuring the inspection the assigned Certified Unified Program Agency

Second Quarter Progress Report: Due Date- March, 2013

4. Why is the Certified Unified Program Agency issuing different permits?

Background Excerpts from Progress Reports

As discussed with the Certified Unified Program Agency on November 6, 2014,

Background Excerpts from Progress Reports

A completed electronic inspection report for each program element showing

classifying violations in the notices to comply provided to the facility at the

Background Excerpts from Progress Reports

Duplication There are inspection procedures in a couple of places in the inspection

Agency submitted a screen shot from the California Environmental Reporting

4. Failure to Comply with Fee Accountability Requirements.

funded by Unified Program fees because a significant percentage of their

Deficiency Progress Summary Report

The deficiency summaries below provide a synopsis of progress made on each