Polluters: to Fine or Not to Fine - California Grand Jury Reports

Findings and Recommendations 3 findings

F1

All Class 1 violations are not treated the same by a local CUPA official because some violators are administered a formal AEO, while others are cited with an informal NOV.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1

To be fair and ensure compliance with health and safety codes, local CUPA officials should address all Class 1 pollution violations through formal enforcement procedures consistent with Cal/EPA and DTSC policies.

F2

The CUPA director does not administer the process for all Class 1 pollution violations consistent with Cal/EPA and the state Department of Toxic Substance Control policies.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2

The County Board of Supervisors should monitor the local CUPA program on an annual basis to assure the board that fines and permit fees are assessed at a level sufficient to assure that county general funds will not be required to sustain the program.

F3

The result of current enforcement policies suggests the local CUPA program may soon need additional support from the county general fund to continue its enforcement efforts at the current level.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3

If total funds being collected are insufficient to assure that the program is self-supporting, the Board of Supervisors should consider convening a task force to study the appropriate mix of fines and permit fees to assure compliance with hazardous material health and safety regulations. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6

Conclusions 1

CL1

State enforcement policy requires all Class 1 CUPA violations be addressed through formal (AEO) enforcement procedures. In San Luis Obispo County, not all Class 1 environmental violators are being issued a formal AEO enforcement order. Nor are the original fines often as large as the amount suggested by state regulatory formulas. Even when an AEO is issued and violators fined, they may have that fine reduced to a minimal amount or totally eliminated by the local CUPA management. The Grand Jury is not in a position to judge the appropriateness of a fine levied in any individual instance. The local CUPA’s policy of focusing on clean-up and _____________________________________________________________________________ 2008-2009 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury 5 ultimate compliance rather than on fines may be the reason for a dramatic drop in the number of serious Class 1 cases. The total of fines collected is also declining. As a result, a local CUPA official has said that under current policies the cost of enforcement could soon use up the reserve of funds from the larger fines collected in prior years.

Agency Responses 1

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

N1 Polluters To Fine resp SLO BoS

August 18, 2009 • 4 pages • 6 responses • Score: -6 (+0, 0, -6) View Details ▾

PDF

6 responses to findings and recommendations

F1

All Class 1 violations are not treated the same by a local CUPA official because some violators are administered a formal AEO, while others are cited with an informal NOV.

Response: Disagree Score: -1

The Board adopts the response of the Health Agency. The Health Agency disagrees wholly with this Finding. The Agency states that it follows an enforcement policy that offers violators the opportunity to comply willingly, without penalties. If this is unsuccessful, an AEO with penalties is issued. Particularly egregious violations are issued an AEO right away, and may be referred to the District Attorney for criminal prosecution. Grand Jury Finding #2: The CUPA director does not administer the process for all Class 1 pollution violations consistent with Cal/EPA and the state Department of Toxic...

R1

To be fair and ensure compliance with health and safety codes, local CUPA officials should address all Class 1 pollution violations through formal enforcement procedures consistent with Cal/EPA and DTSC policies.

Response: Will Not Implement

Scheduled: FY 2008-2009 Score: -1

</b> The Board adopts the response of the Health Agency. The Health Agency states that the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. The Agency states that there is no basis in law for automatically taking formal A-4 enforcement action (i.e., issuing an AEO), that its current policy is fair, ensures compliance, and protects both the public and the environment. Grand Jury Recommendation #2: The County Board of Supervisors should monitor the local CUPA program on an annual basis to assure the board that fines and permit fees are assessed at a level sufficient to assur...

F2

The CUPA director does not administer the process for all Class 1 pollution violations consistent with Cal/EPA and the state Department of Toxic Substance Control policies.

Response: Disagree Score: -1

The Board adopts the response of the Health Agency. The Health Agency disagrees wholly with this Finding. The Agency states that the CUPA does not agree with the way Cal/EPA interprets the governing law, and this question is currently under review by the State. The Agency points out that, according to state law, issuance of an AEO is at the discretion of the local CUPA, i.e. the County Health Agency. The State Department of Toxic Substance Control policies does not apply to counties. Grand Jury Finding #3: The result of current enforcement policies suggests the local CUPA program may soon need...

R2

The County Board of Supervisors should monitor the local CUPA program on an annual basis to assure the board that fines and permit fees are assessed at a level sufficient to assure that county general funds will not be required to sustain the program.

Response: Will Not Implement

Scheduled: FY 2008-2009 Score: -1

The Board adopts the response of the Health Agency. The Health Agency states that the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. In sum, the purpose of the fines is to drive compliance with the law and deter future violations, not to insure funding for the program. Grand Jury Recommendation #3: If total funds being collected are insufficient to assure that the program is selfsupporting, the Board of Supervisors should consider convening a task force to study the appropriate mix of fines and permit fees to assure compliance with hazardous material health and safety regu...

F3

The result of current enforcement policies suggests the local CUPA program may soon need additional support from the county general fund to continue its enforcement efforts at the current level.

Response: Disagree Score: -1

The Board adopts the response of the Health Agency. The Health Agency disagrees wholly with this Finding. The Agency states that revenue from penalty fines offsets the cost of fees charged to the public for other environmental health activities. If, through successful enforcement, the primary goal of the CUPA program, these fines were to decrease, fees would be increased to make up the difference. This is in keeping with the Board of Supervisors' adopted Budget Policy # 14, which states that, wherever reasonable, County fees should be set at a level that recovers the full cost of doing busines...

R3

If total funds being collected are insufficient to assure that the program is self-supporting, the Board of Supervisors should consider convening a task force to study the appropriate mix of fines and permit fees to assure compliance with hazardous material health and safety regulations. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6

Response: Will Not Implement

Scheduled: FY 2008-2009 Score: -1

The Board adopts the response of the Health Agency. The Health Agency states that the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The Agency states that fees are and will continue to be the primary funding source for the CUPA program. As stated above, fines subsidize the cost of fees charged to the public, but would be adjusted upward if fine revenue were to decline significantly. OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT The Health Agency has contributed to this report. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS There are no financial considerations associated with this item. RESULTS Adoption of the fin...

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

San Luis Obispo County County