HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05222012 - D.1RECOMMENDATION(S):
1. RECEIVE staff report regarding proposed revised fees to fund expenses of the Contra Costa County Certified
Unified Program Agency (“CUPA”).
2. OPEN public hearing regarding the proposed CUPA fees and other related fees, receive testimony, and CLOSE the
public hearing.
3. ADOPT Resolution No. 2012/184, adopting the attached Fee Schedule effective immediately upon adoption.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Revenue from the CUPA Fees will fund the Fiscal Year 2011-2012 costs of three CUPA programs and the
Community Warning System, and the Fiscal Year 2010-2011 costs of two other CUPA programs.
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 05/22/2012 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
ABSENT:Gayle B. Uilkema, District II
Supervisor
Contact: Randy Sawyer, (925)
335-3210
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors
on the date shown.
ATTESTED: May 22, 2012
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc: Randy Sawyer, Linda Wilcox, Parna Kamyabfar, Dorothy Sansoe, Elizabeth Verigin
D. 1
To:Board of Supervisors
From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director
Date:May 22, 2012
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Adoption of CUPA Fees
BACKGROUND:
The Hazardous Materials Programs (“HMP”) Division of the Health Services Department administers the Contra
Costa County Certified Unified Program Agency ("CUPA"). The CUPA operates the Hazardous Materials
Business Plan (HMBP) Program, Hazardous Waste Generator (HWG) Program, Underground Storage Tank (UST)
Program, California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program and Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act
(APSA) Program. As directed by the Board in the early 1990s, all of the activities of the CUPA are funded
through fees and penalties. The Staff Report on the Determination and Apportionment of CUPA Fees, dated May
22, 2012 ("Report"), attached, describes the CUPA programs, legal authorities for and standards applicable to the
apportionment of the CUPA Fees, the process used to set the fee amounts and the manner of apportionment.
As can be seen in the proposed fee schedule (attached to Resolution 2012/184) staff has proposed fees that, due to
the methods used, will decrease for many regulated business but increase for others. The only CUPA annual
permit fee categories that will increase this year are HMBP Program fees applicable to some payors. Their fees
will increase by between 0.5 and 12.5 percent. HMBP Program fee categories for other payors will decrease by
up to 18.6 percent.
Annual permit fees charged to fund the other CUPA programs will decrease. Depending on the fee category, HWG
Program fees will decrease by 6.7 to 26.9 percent, UST Program fees will decrease by 10.5 to 24.8 percent and
APSA Program fees will decrease by 15.4 percent. Annual permit fees charged to fund the CalARP Program are
based on the risk presented by each facility, and thus may increase or decrease based on that risk. This year only
one CalARP facility fee was increased due to the change of the potential risk calculated for that facility. The
annual permit fee revenue needed to fund this program, however, has decreased by 21.9 percent.
The overall expenses for the CUPA and the HMP Division have decreased during the last two years. The HMP
Division moved offices in December 2009, and all of the costs of this move have been paid. The costs of the
move reduced the amount of CUPA permit fees that are needed from each of the programs for a total of
approximately $300,000. The Salary and Benefits of the staff also decreased by $10,700, which also decreased the
amount of CUPA permit fees that are needed to fund the programs. There were also statewide settlements for two
large environmental cases that brought $300,000 in penalty money to the CUPA, which decreased the permit fees
needed to fund the UST and HWG Programs by $200,000 for the UST Program and $100,000 for the HWG
Program. The overall amount of CUPA permit fees needed to be assessed for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 has decreased
by 9.7 per cent from the CUPA permit fees charged in Fiscal Year 2010-2011.
The proposed fees include a variety of miscellaneous service fees, charged by the hour for various services that
the CUPA provides to regulated businesses. Among them are a fee of $101 per hour for use of the Community
Warning System, charged to businesses that do not pay for the system as part of their annual permit fee, and a $60
initial permit processing fee to be charged to businesses that become subject to regulation by the CUPA or change
ownership.
Fees are also proposed for services provided by the Hazardous Materials Incident Response Team (IR Team) to
persons and entities that are not regulated by the CUPA. These services are provided county wide by Hazardous
Materials Specialists pursuant to the Hazardous Materials Area Plan. Fees of $175 per hour per specialist during
regular business hours and $199 per specialist for non-business hours remain unchanged from last year and were
calculated based on the salary and benefit rate of a specialist ($122.51 per hour) and proportional amounts
representing other costs of the IR Team (services and supplies, direct administration, indirect administration and
county overhead). These fees are authorized pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 101325.
The Internal Operations Committee of the Board of Supervisors reviewed the fee proposal on May 14, 2012.
There were comments received from gasoline station owners at this meeting. The Internal Operations Committee
requested that Hazardous Materials Programs staff respond to the comments that were raised at this meeting.
Attachment 3 is a list of the comments that were raised and the responses to these comments.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
The current fee schedule for the CUPA would remain in place. If the current fee schedule remains in place,
The current fee schedule for the CUPA would remain in place. If the current fee schedule remains in place,
regulated businesses collectively would be paying more than what is required to operate the CUPA programs. The
CUPA overall would realize a surplus of approximately $800,000, which is roughly 10 percent more than the fee
revenue needed to fund the five programs. The fees that we charge business are to be for covering the reasonable
and necessary costs for the CUPA programs and the CUPA has no authority for charging more than what is
needed to cover these reasonable and necessary costs.
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
Not applicable.
Attachments:
Resolution No. 2012/184
1. Proposed fee schedule, dated May 22, 2012
2. Staff Report on the Determination and Apportionment of CUPA fees, dated May 22, 2012
3. Public Comments at the May 14, 2012 Internal Operations Committee and Responses
CLERK'S ADDENDUM
Staff noted a technical malfunction that resulted in the staff report not being visible in the website version of
the agenda materials. By unanimous vote of all Supervisors present, the Board waived the Better Government
Ordinance 72 hour requirement and accepted the staff report into the record. Speakers: Nick Patel, owner of
gas station in Concord; Rollie Katz, Public Employees' Union Local One. CLOSED the public hearing; and
ADOPTED Resolution No. 2012/184 Fee Schedule.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution No. 2012/184
Final Staff Report
Fee Schedule (Attachment to Resolution)
Exhibits to Staff Report
Comments Received at IOC
Staff Report on the Determination and
Apportionment of CUPA Fees
Contra Costa County
Certified Unified Program Agency
Board of Supervisors
May 22, 2012
Randall L. Sawyer, Director
Hazardous Materials Programs
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
II. OVERVIEW OF CUPA PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
A. Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. Hazardous Waste Generator Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
C. California Accidental Release Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
D. Underground Storage Tank Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
E. Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
III. LEGAL STANDARDS AND AUTHORITY FOR CUPA FEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
A. General Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
B. CUPA Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
IV. PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
V. METHOD USED TO DETERMINE REVISED CUPA FEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A. General Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
B. Expense Projection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
VI. REASONABLENESS AND NECESSITY OF THE CUPA EXPENSES . . . . . . .15
A. Fiscal Year 2010-2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
B. Fiscal Year 2011-2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
VII. PROJECTIONS OF REQUIRED REVENUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
A. Revenue Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
B. Revenue Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
C. Fee Apportionment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
VIII. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
1
I. INTRODUCTION
On January 1, 1997, Contra Costa County (“County) was certified by the
California Environmental Protection Agency (“CalEPA”) to be the Certified Unified
Program Agency (“CUPA”) for all of Contra Costa County. In its capacity as a CUPA,
the County, by and through the Hazardous Materials Programs (“HMP”) Division of the
County Health Services Department, administers the following programs, pursuant to
the authorities granted under Section 25404 of the Health and Safety Code:
● Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) Program1
● Hazardous Waste Generator (HWG) Program2
● California Accidental Release Prevention (Cal/ARP) Program3
● Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program4
● Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA) Program5
As a CUPA, the County is required by statute to establish, and has established, a
“single fee system.”6 Under the single fee system, a single fee is charged by the CUPA
to fund all of its programs. The single fee replaced separate fees formerly charged for
the above programs under separate legal authorities before the County was certified as
a CUPA. The Contra Costa County CUPA is hereafter referred to as the “CUPA.” As
the governing board of the CUPA, the Board of Supervisors is authorized and required
to establish the amount to be paid by each person regulated by the unified program to
pay the “necessary and reasonable costs” incurred by the CUPA.7 The amounts
charged are hereafter collectively referred to as the “CUPA Fees.” CUPA Fees are
imposed as the reasonable regulatory cost of issuing the annual CUPA permits to
1 Health & Saf. Code, § 25404, subdivs. (c)(4) (citing Chapter 6.95, Article 1 of the Health & Safety Code)
and (c)(6) (citing the Uniform Fire Code, § 80.103, subd. (b) and (c), as adopted by the State Fire Marshal
pursuant to Section 13143.9).
2 Health & Saf. Code, § 25404, subd. (c)(1)(A) (citing Chapter 6.5 of the Health & Safety Code).
3 Health & Saf. Code, § 25404, subd. (c)(5) (citing Chapter 6.95, Article 2 of the Health & Safety Code).
4 Health & Saf. Code, § 25404, subd. (c)(3)(A) (citing Chapter 6.7 of the Health & Safety Code).
5 Health & Saf. Code, § 25404, subd. (c)(2) (citing Chapter 6.67 of the Health & Safety Code).
6 Health & Saf. Code, § 25404.5, subd. (a)(1).
7 Health & Saf. Code, § 25404.5, subd. (a)(2)(A).
2
regulated businesses. Businesses that fall within the regulatory ambit of the CUPA are
required to obtain a CUPA permit as a condition of operation in Contra Costa County.
The current CUPA Fees were established by Board Resolution No. 2011/151,
adopted on April 12, 2011. Staff has evaluated the current CUPA Fees, the actual
expenses of the CUPA in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 and the projected expenses in Fiscal
Year 2011-2012, and applicable legal standards pertaining to the apportionment of
regulatory fees. Based on this evaluation, staff recommends revision of the CUPA
Fees, to take effect immediately upon Board approval. This Report serves to explain
the method used in putting together the proposed fee schedule attached as Exhibit A to
this Report, and provide an analysis of how the CUPA Fees satisfy applicable legal
requirements.
II. OVERVIEW OF CUPA PROGRAMS
A. Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program
With certain limited exceptions, every business that handles specified quantities
of hazardous materials is required to certify and submit a hazardous materials business
plan (“HMBP”) to the CUPA.8 The purpose of a HMBP is to give emergency responders
information about the hazardous materials stored at a regulated business facility in the
event of a hazardous materials incident at the site. This information is necessary in
order to prevent or mitigate the damage to the health and safety of persons and the
environment from the release or threatened release of hazardous materials into the
workplace and environment.9
A HMBP includes a list of chemicals and other hazardous materials handled at a
facility, the quantity of hazardous materials handled at any one time by the business
over the course of the year, and the location of the hazardous materials at the facility.10
This information allows emergency responders to prepare adequate emergency
responses to potential releases of these materials. A HMBP also includes information
regarding emergency response plans and procedures and an employee training
8 Health & Saf. Code, § 25505, subd. (a)(1).
9 Health & Saf. Code, § 25500.
10 Health & Saf. Code, §§ 25504, subd. (a), 25509.
3
program.11 In addition to submission of the plan, regulated businesses are required to
submit annual updates of their inventories to the CUPA.12
The CUPA is authorized to implement and enforce the provisions of Chapter 6.95
of the Health and Safety Code pertaining to business and area plans.13 The CUPA is
also authorized to enforce provisions of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the State
Fire Marshal pertaining to the Hazardous Material Management Plan and Hazardous
Material Inventory Statement Program.14 Pursuant to these authorities, HMBP Program
staff reviews the plans submitted by regulated businesses, inspects the business sites
to verify that the businesses have reported the correct information and that the
employees are being properly trained, and takes enforcement actions as needed in the
event of noncompliance. Hazardous material inventories and reported locations of
these hazardous materials are furnished to fire departments in Contra Costa County.
HMBP Program staff also prepares an area plan, describing how the County’s
emergency responders will handle hazardous material incidents. This is done in
cooperation with the multiple emergency response agencies in the County that may
respond to a hazardous materials incident.
In order to carry out the purposes of Chapter 6.95 of the Health and Safety Code,
CUPAs also “may train for, and respond to, the release, or threatened release, of a
hazardous material.”15 Pursuant to this authority, the HMBP Program includes a
Hazardous Materials Incident Response Team (“IR Team”), which responds to reported
hazardous material incidents throughout the County, and a Community Warning
System. The Community Warning System is used to issue warnings to the public via
the National Weather Service NOAA16 All Hazards Radio Network and the Emergency
Alert System on primary radio stations. The Community Warning System also includes
sirens and telephone notifications to alert the CUPA and the general public of
hazardous material releases so that appropriate response efforts can be implemented
efficiently and to provide direction and advice on avoiding exposure.
11 Health & Saf. Code, § 25504, subd. (b)-(c).
12 Health & Saf. Code, § 25505, subd. (d).
13 Health & Saf. Code, § 25501, subd. (g)(3).
14 Health & Saf. Code, § 25404, subd. (c)(6); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 15100, subd. (a)(6).
15 Health & Saf. Code, § 25507.2.
16 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
4
B. Hazardous Waste Generator Program
The California Legislature has found that “[l]ong-term threats to public health and
to air and water quality are posed by the landfill disposal of many types of untreated
hazardous wastes and by the inappropriate handling, storage, use and disposal of
hazardous wastes.”17 In order to protect the public health and the environment and to
conserve natural resources, the Legislature has declared that it is in the public interest
to establish “regulations and incentives which ensure that the generators of hazardous
waste employ technology and management practices for the safe handling, treatment,
recycling, and destruction of their hazardous wastes prior to disposal.”18
Consistent with the Legislature’s intent, regulated business sites that generate
hazardous waste are required to handle and dispose of their waste in accordance with
the standards set forth in the Hazardous Waste Control Law19 and regulations adopted
pursuant thereto.20 Regulated facilities have different requirements depending on the
quantities and types of hazardous wastes generated and the manner in which the
regulated business sites handle their waste.21 The requirements for large-quantity
generators are different from requirements for small-quantity generators.22 The
requirements as to generators that treat their waste onsite differ from those applicable
to generators that dispose of their waste offsite.23
The Hazardous Waste Control Law places particular emphasis on the reduction
of hazardous waste generation. The Legislature has found that “[n]umerous
opportunities exist to reduce the amount of hazardous waste generated in the state and
to conserve resources through the application of existing source reduction and recycling
17 Health & Saf. Code, § 25100, subd. (b).
18 Health & Saf. Code, § 25101, subd. (a).
19 Health & Saf. Code, § 25100 et seq.
20 Health & Saf. Code, § 25150, subd. (a); Cal. Code Regs., tit.. 22, § 66262.10.
21 See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 66262.34.
22 Id.
23 Id.; see also Health & Saf. Code, §§ 25200.3, 25201.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 67450.3; Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 22, div. 4.5, chapter 14-15.
5
technology.”24 The Legislature declared in 1985 that, whenever possible, the
“generation of hazardous waste is to be reduced or eliminated as expeditiously as
possible,” and that waste that is generated should be “recycled, treated, or disposed of
in a manner that minimizes any present or future threats to human health or the
environment.”25 In 1989, the Legislature declared its intent to expand the state’s
hazardous waste source reduction activities beyond those directly associated with
source reduction evaluation reviews and plans.26 The Hazardous Waste Source
Reduction and Management Review Act of 1989 (the “Act”) codified the Legislature’s
intent that the state Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) “maximize the
use of its available resources in implementing the expanded source reduction program
through cooperation with other entities, including, but not limited to, CUPAs. . .”27 The
intent of the Act was to “promote the reduction of hazardous waste at its source, and
wherever source reduction is not feasible or practicable, to encourage recycling.”28
The primary purpose of the CUPA’s Hazardous Waste Generator (“HWG”)
Program is to implement and enforce the Hazardous Waste Control Law as it pertains to
hazardous waste generators and others governed by Chapter 6.5 of the Health & Safety
Code.29 CUPAs are not limited to enforcement of the mandatory elements of Chapter
6.5, however.30 Consistent with the public policy of encouraging the reduction of
hazardous waste generation, CUPAs are also authorized to “integrate optional waste
reduction and pollution prevention programs into the unified inspection and enforcement
program.”31
24 Health & Saf. Code, § 25100, subd. (d).
25 Health & Saf. Code, § 25244.1, subd. (a)
26 Health & Saf. Code, § 25244.13, subd. (c).
27 Health & Saf. Code, § 25244.13, subd. (d).
28 Health & Saf. Code, § 25244.13, subd. (f).
29 Health & Saf. Code, § 25180, subd. (a)(2)(B).
30 See Health & Saf. Code, § 25404.2, subd. (d): “The certified unified program agency. . . may
incorporate, as part of the unified program within its jurisdiction, the implementation and enforcement of
laws which the unified program agencies are authorized to implement and enforce, other than those
specified in subdivision (c) of Section 25404, if that incorporation will not impair the ability of the unified
program agencies to fully implement the requirements of subdivision (a).”
31 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 15200, subd. (d).
6
Based on the above authorities, the CUPA’s HWG Program includes a
Hazardous Waste Reduction element. As part of this element, Hazardous Materials
Specialists inspect regulated facilities to verify their compliance with the requirements
applicable to those facilities32 and bring enforcement actions when sites are found to be
out of compliance. They also review source reduction plans at regulated business sites
and offer instruction in pollution prevention during inspections, at safety fairs and in
publications. As part of this element, the HWG Program also encourages facilities to
reduce their waste generation through the Green Business Program, and through its
HWG Program Fees (“HWG Fees”). Additionally, as discussed infra, a component of
the HWG Fees provides an incentive to generators to maximize source reduction efforts
by charging proportionately lower fees to smaller generators than to larger generators.
C. California Accidental Release Prevention Program
The California Accidental Release Prevention (“CalARP”) Program is designed to
prevent catastrophic accidental releases of highly toxic or flammable chemicals.
Regulated facilities are required to have prevention programs to prevent such releases.
The CalARP Program is a merger of federal and state programs aimed at the
prevention of accidental releases of regulated toxic and flammable substances. Under
the CalARP Program, owners or operators of stationary sources that handle threshold
quantities of specified regulated hazardous materials in any activity involving a
regulated substance (a “process”)33 may be required to submit a risk management plan
(“RMP”) to the CUPA.34 The elements of an RMP include identification of the regulated
substances held onsite at the stationary source, the worst-case scenarios in terms of
offsite consequences of an accidental release, an accidental release prevention
program, an emergency response program, a five-year accident history and proposed
changes to improve safety.35
32 DTSC issues facility permits to some of the regulated facilities that are also inspected by the CUPA. In
these circumstances, the CUPA regulates and inspects the portions of the facility that the CUPA is
required to regulate and inspect. Under some conditions, DTSC may also inspect portions of a regulated
business site that the CUPA is required to inspect. (See Exhibit B.)
33 Health & Saf. Code, § 25532, subd. (e).
34 Health & Saf. Code, §§ 25534, 25535.1.
35 Health & Saf. Code, § 25532, subd. (i); 40 C.F.R. § 68.12.
7
Engineers assigned to the CalARP Program review the RMPs and determine
when the plans are complete. They also conduct regular audits of the stationary source
sites to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and follow up with action items
associated with RMP reviews to verify that potential problems are adequately
addressed. Enforcement action is taken as needed in the event of noncompliance.
D. Underground Storage Tank Program
Businesses that store hazardous materials in underground tanks are required to
have tanks that can safely hold the materials, to ensure the integrity of the tanks and the
associated piping and to have a Designated Operator of the tank system.36 The
purpose of the Underground Storage Tank (“UST”) Program is to inspect tanks for
compliance with statutory and regulatory compliance and take enforcement action in the
event of noncompliance. These inspections are conducted by Hazardous Materials
Specialists who are trained and tested to become certified UST inspectors. In addition
to conducting routine tank inspections, these inspectors perform plan checks, review
and monitor tank removals, inspect new tank installations and monitor the certification of
tank monitoring systems.
E. Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act Program
The implementation, enforcement and administration of the Aboveground
Petroleum Storage Act (“APSA”)37 was transferred to CUPAs effective January 1, 2008,
with the enactment of Assembly Bill 1130. Prior to that date, aboveground storage of
petroleum and petroleum products and byproducts was regulated by the State Water
Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards.
APSA applies to petroleum and petroleum products and byproducts that are
stored in aboveground 55-gallon drums or larger containers. The owners or operators
of these tanks are generally required to prepare a written Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure (“SPCC”) Plan conforming to applicable federal regulations. The
SPCC Plan must include a facility diagram, the type of oil in each container, discharge
prevention measures, secondary containment or other discharge or drainage controls,
36 See Health & Saf. Code, § 25280 et seq.
37 Health & Saf. Code, § 25270 et seq.
8
countermeasures for discharge discovery, response and cleanup, methods of disposal
of recovered materials, and an emergency contact list.38
The APSA Program involves periodic inspections39 by CUPA inspectors of
aboveground storage tanks to determine whether the owner or operator is in
compliance with the SPCC Plan requirements.40 Only specially trained personnel who
have passed a state examination on spill prevention control and countermeasure plan
provisions and safety requirements for aboveground storage tank inspections may
conduct APSA inspections.41 Tank owners or operators who fail to comply with APSA
requirements are subject to civil penalties, recoverable in legal actions brought on
behalf of the CUPA.42
III. LEGAL STANDARDS AND AUTHORITY FOR CUPA FEES
A. General Principles
The police power granted by the California Constitution authorizes a county or
city to “make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances
and regulations not in conflict with general laws.”43 Under its police power, a
municipality may impose a regulatory fee when the fee constitutes an “amount
necessary to carry out the purpose and provisions of the regulation.”44 Regulatory fees
are fees charged in connection with regulatory activities which “do not exceed the
reasonable cost of providing services necessary to the activity for which the fee is
charged and which are not levied for unrelated revenue purposes.”45 The CUPA Fees,
38 See Health & Saf. Code, § 25270.4.5; 40 C.F.R. § 112.7.
39 An aboveground storage tank with the capacity to store 10,000 gallons or more of petroleum is
generally required to be inspected at least once every three years. (See Health & Saf. Code, § 25270.5,
subd. (a).) The state has not set a mandated inspection interval for smaller tanks.
40 Health & Saf. Code, § 25270.5, subd. (a).
41 Health & Saf. Code, § 25270.5, subd. (c)(1)-(2).
42 Health & Saf. Code, § 25270.12.
43 Cal. Const., article XI, § 7.
44 Pennell v. City of San Jose (1986) 42 Cal.3d 365, 375, fn. 11.
45 Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1997) 15 Cal.4th 866, 876.
9
which by statute are established and collected to pay the costs of operating the CUPA
and not for general revenue purposes, are regulatory fees.
B. CUPA Fees
1. Single Fee System
Each CUPA is required to institute a “single fee system,” which replaces fees
levied for individual programs under separate provisions of the Health & Safety Code.46
Pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, the CUPA single fee system may reflect
variations in cost to implement and maintain programs for different regulated
businesses.47 As the governing board of the CUPA, the Board of Supervisors is
required to “establish the amount to be paid by each person regulated by the unified
program under the single fee system at a level sufficient to pay the necessary and
reasonable costs incurred by the certified unified program agency . . . “48
CUPA fee schedules are to be established by the Board49 based on “factors
associated with the cost of implementing and maintaining programs.50 Fees may differ
from one jurisdiction to the next, based on the necessary and reasonable costs to
implement the unified program.51 Provided the single fee system meets the minimum
legal requirements, a CUPA has the authority to determine the level of service it will
provide and to set its fees to fund the necessary and reasonable costs of its program.52
The CUPA may also adjust the fee schedule to reflect changes in reasonable and
necessary costs.53
46 Health & Saf. Code, § 25404.5, subd. (a)(1).
47 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 15210, subd. (c).
48 Health & Saf. Code, § 25404.5, subd. (2)(A).
49 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 15210, subd. (i).
50 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 15210, subd. (c)(1).
51 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 15210, subd. (c)(2).
52 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 15210, subd. (d).
53 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 15210, subd. (c)(3).
10
The CUPA has implemented a single fee system that incorporates fees for all of
the CUPA programs. Under this system, a single invoice is issued annually to each of
the regulated business sites. The single invoice includes line items for each of the
different CUPA programs and State surcharges. The fees that are collected are used to
implement and maintain the CUPA programs, in the form of salaries and benefits,
services and supplies, and overhead costs.
2. Fee Accountability
Each CUPA is required to implement a fee accountability program designed to
encourage efficient and cost-effective operation of the program for which the single fee
and surcharge are assessed.54 The accountability program includes the following
elements:55
1. Accounting for the fee schedule, amount billed and revenue collected;
2. Discrete billable services;
3. Staff work hours required to implement the program;
4. Program expenses (salaries, services, supplies, durable and disposable
equipment, facility costs and administrative costs);
5. The number of businesses in each program;
6. The number of total regulated businesses within the CUPA jurisdiction;
7. The quantity and range of services provided, including the frequency of
inspection.
The Health Services Department (HSD), Finance Division, works with the CUPA
administration to implement the fee accountability program by keeping track of the fees
and other charges that are invoiced, the revenues collected, and the expenses incurred
in each program administered by the CUPA. The CUPA administration is charged with
tracking the number of regulated businesses within the jurisdiction, determining the level
of service to be provided to the businesses in each of the CUPA programs, the staff
levels needed to provide those services and other expenditures necessary to operate
the CUPA. Based on these costs, the CUPA administration works with HSD Finance to
determine what fee revenues are required, and then allocates the fees among the
regulated businesses.
54 Health & Saf. Code, § 25404.5, subd. (c); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 15220, subd. (a).
55 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 15220, subd. (a)(1)(A)-(H).
11
IV. PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
The County conducts a public review process, beyond what is legally required, to
give the regulated community opportunity to review and comment on proposed CUPA
fee schedules, including the release of a proposed fee schedule and a public workshop.
A copy of a public notice and the proposed fee schedule released on March 20, 2012, is
attached as Exhibit C. A public workshop was held on April 9, 2012, during a public
comment period that began on March 20, 2012, and ended on April 19, 2012. Copies of
written comments received before the end of the comment period are attached as
Exhibit D. Staff’s written responses to those comments are attached as Exhibit E.
V. METHOD USED TO DETERMINE REVISED CUPA FEES
A. General Considerations
Determining the amount and allocation of fees required to operate a CUPA is a
complex exercise that requires analysis of the estimated costs of, and revenues needed
to operate, the CUPA, and a reasonable basis for apportionment of the fees among the
regulated businesses in the CUPA’s jurisdiction. There is no express statutory or
regulatory requirement that the revenues and expenses of the individual CUPA
programs be perfectly in balance, or that there be a separate fee to fund each program.
In fact, the regulations indicate that fees for each program are optional.56 The
requirement is simply that the amount to be paid by each person regulated by the CUPA
be set “at a level sufficient to pay the necessary and reasonable costs incurred by the
certified unified program agency. . .”57 Notwithstanding that the CUPA is not required to
do so, staff’s goal in setting revised fees is to balance the revenues and expenses of the
CUPA as a whole, to balance the revenues and expenses for each of the individual
programs, and to set fees to fund each CUPA program.
Staff uses projections of expenses and revenues to set those fees; however,
projections may not match the actual expenses incurred and revenues collected, for a
host of reasons. One reason is that, because the individual CUPA programs do not
function independently but are instead components of a CUPA, adjustments can be and
56 See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 15210, subd. (g): “Each billing statement shall itemize the fees by
program element, if those fee elements are calculated separately.” (Emphasis added.)
57 Health & Saf. Code, § 25404.5, subd. (a)(2)(A).
12
are made during the year that may shift resources from one program to another to meet
the needs of the programs. Another reason is that not all of the revenues that are
projected are actually collected. A percentage of the CUPA’s billings are not paid, more
so in some programs than others. Additionally, the number of regulated businesses
changes every year. New businesses open and others close, resulting in new fee
revenue from some and a loss of revenue from others. Thus, program fee revenue
collected to fund operations of a program for an upcoming fiscal year may turn out to be
greater than the expenses incurred over the course of that year. When that occurs,
excess revenues are carried forward to the following year, and fees adjusted
accordingly. Conversely, expenses may exceed the revenues collected, leaving a
shortfall in funding. When that occurs, revenues to be collected in the following fiscal
year are borrowed to cover the shortfall, and the shortfall becomes an expense to be
funded by the following year’s fees.
B. Expense Projection Process
The first step in the fee setting process is to evaluate expenses of the CUPA,
which include staff salaries and benefits, services and supplies, and overhead costs.
Staff salaries and benefits make up the bulk of those expenses. The fee-setting process
was delayed this year; therefore, rather than project the expenses for Fiscal Year 2010-
2011, staff determined the actual expenses for that year in most categories for the
CUPA as a whole and for the individual CUPA programs. The Fiscal Year 2010-2011
actual expenses were used to set the fees for the HMBP and HWG programs which,
with one exception discussed below, will fund the operations of those programs in Fiscal
Year 2010-2011. The Fiscal Year 2010-2011 expenses were also used in conjunction
with projecting revenues in the CalARP, UST and APSA programs to determine any
shortfalls or carryovers in any of those programs.
The projected Fiscal Year 2011-2012 budgeted expenses were used to set the
fees for the UST, CalARP and APSA programs, which will be collected to fund
operations of those programs in Fiscal Year 2011-2012. The Fiscal Year 2011-2012
budgeted expenses of the Community Warning System (“CWS”) are also used to set
the CWS component of the HMBP Fees, because that component funds the operations
of the CWS for the upcoming fiscal year, as opposed to the preceding fiscal year. The
HMBP Fees are thus a combination of fees needed to fund operations in two separate
fiscal years.
13
The process of making expense projections for the CUPA and each of the CUPA
programs is not an exact science. The CUPA is not an independent agency but,
instead, is operated by the HMP Division, which in turn is one of many divisions of the
Health Services Department. Determining the costs necessary to run the CUPA
requires separating its costs from the other costs required to operate the HMP Division,
including the other programs it operates. While some costs can be attributed directly to
the CUPA or to specific CUPA programs, indirect costs, such as administrative staff
time, office expenses and facility overhead, are incurred by the HMP Division as a
whole, and must be allocated between the CUPA and the rest of the division.
1. Salaries and Benefits
Expenses are computed differently in different expense categories. For Fiscal
Year 2011-2012, projections of salary and benefit expenses of the CUPA as a whole
were based on actual salary and benefit expenses incurred in Fiscal Year 2010-2011.
Adjustments to these projections were then made based on anticipated changes in
personnel and pay rates. As noted supra, the salary and benefit expenses for the
CUPA as a whole in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 that are set forth in this Report were the
actual expenses incurred by the CUPA in that fiscal year.
Determining salaries and benefit expenses in the individual CUPA programs,
however, is a far more complex exercise. Challenges in making these determinations
for the individual CUPA programs arise from the fact that the CUPA programs do not
operate independently of one another. Rather, they are components of a regulatory
agency with multifaceted responsibilities. For example, the CUPA has a single
administrative structure, but the administrative staff oversees multiple programs.
Administrative time may be spent on a single program, on multiple programs or on all of
the CUPA programs simultaneously, depending on the task at hand. Similarly,
hazardous materials specialists employed by the CUPA work within multiple programs,
and may perform inspections for several programs at a single business site all on the
same day. This practice, as opposed to having dedicated personnel assigned to
particular programs, saves money, because it eliminates unnecessary costs, such as
additional travel time and travel expenses that would otherwise be expended if the
specialists took separate trips to perform inspections in separate programs.
The drawback to this efficient structure is the difficulty in pinpointing exactly how
much time is spent in each program. While efforts are under way to change this, the
accounting system is not set up at this time to track the precise times spent on each
14
individual program inspection by a hazardous materials specialist; instead, it tracks the
time spent by a specialist at each regulated facility. For this reason, rough estimates of
inspection times by the specialists are used to allocate salaries and benefits to the
various programs as part of the payroll process. These estimates are then adjusted by
staff to more precisely reflect hours spent in each program. The revised estimates are
then used to allocate salaries and benefits of the specialists among the various
programs for the fiscal year in which the time was spent, and in turn used as the starting
point for allocations of their time in Fiscal Year 2011-2012. The CUPA administrative
staff also does not keep detailed time records tracking the hours or fractions of hours
spent on different programs, and there are no plans to start doing so, because these
efforts would result in additional and unnecessary costs to the CUPA; moreover, the
CUPA’s accounting system is not set up to track administrative staff time per specific
task. These hours must therefore be allocated proportionately to all of the HMP Division
programs according to a specific formula.
2. Services and Supplies
The projection of expenses in the services and supplies category for a fiscal year
is based on an analysis of the service and supply expense budget for the previous year
and the actual expenditures in that year. If actual expenditures are higher than the
budgeted amount, staff first determines the reason for the excess. If staff determines
that higher expenditures are either likely or unlikely to continue in the next fiscal year,
adjustments are made to the projected amount for that year. The projection is then
adjusted a second time to account for any extraordinary expenses anticipated in the
upcoming fiscal year. Such things as increases or decreases in fuel costs and mileage
reimbursements rates, for example, would enter into the equation.
3. Indirect Administration Costs; County Overhead Costs
Projected indirect administration costs attributable to each CUPA Program are
determined based on the total of such costs allocated to the HMP Division by the Health
Services Department. Similarly, projected County overhead costs attributable to each
CUPA program are determined based on the total of such costs allocated by the County
to the HMP Division.
15
4. Uncollected Fees; Other Revenue Shortfalls
Uncollected fees – fees that are billed for not paid – are another expense of the
CUPA. The actual amounts not collected for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 in the HMBP and
HWG programs were used in the calculation of Fiscal Year 2010-2011 expenses.
These amounts are shown as expenses in Table 1 of this Report.
Programs may also experience shortfalls in revenues to cover costs due to
expenses that exceed the projected costs. Revenue shortfalls tend to occur in the
CUPA programs where fees are collected at the beginning of the fiscal year funded by
the fees; namely, the CalARP, UST and APSA programs. Shortfalls are calculated by
subtracting the total expenses incurred in a program by the total revenues collected to
fund the program for the fiscal year. There were shortfalls in the UST, APSA and
CalARP programs in Fiscal Year 2009-2010 and in the UST program in Fiscal Year
2010-2011. Shortfalls are funded by borrowing against revenues anticipated in the
following fiscal year. The Fiscal Year 2009-2010 shortfalls are therefore included in the
expenses projections for Fiscal Year 2010-2011, and the Fiscal Year 2010-2011
shortfalls are an expense in Fiscal Year 2011-2012. The Fiscal Year 2009-2010
shortfalls appear in Table 1 of this Report.
VI. REASONABLENESS AND NECESSITY OF THE CUPA EXPENSES
A. Fiscal Year 2010-2011
Fiscal Year 2010-2011 expenses are shown in Table 1 below, for the CUPA as a
whole and the individual CUPA programs:
16
Table 1
CUPA Expenses Fiscal Year 2010-2011
Description
HMBP
Program
HWG
Program
Cal/ARP
Program
UST
Program
APSA
Program
Total CUPA
Programs
Salaries and Benefits $2,232,344 $1,322,961 $728,017 $ 815,135 $286,583 $5,385,040
Services and Supplies $1,457,782 $ 223,556 $123,021 $ 137,743 $ 48,427 $1,990,529
Indirect Administration $ 167,209 $ 126,719 $ 69,733 $ 78,077 $ 27,450 $ 469,188
County Overhead $ 60,441 $ 45,806 $ 25,207 $ 28,223 $ 9,922 $ 169,599
Uncollected Fees/
Revenue Shortfalls $ 286,809 $ 139,588 $ 42,128 $ 491,645 $ 18,640 $ 978,810
Total $4,204,585 $1,858,630 $988,106 $1,550,823 $391,022 $8,993,166
Each of the functions of the five programs administered by the CUPA is essential
to the operation of the CUPA. The bulk of the expenses of these programs encompass
the salaries and benefits of the personnel who perform the inspections and audits for
those programs and staff the Incident Response (IR) Team. Other personnel costs
include the CUPA’s administrative and clerical staff salaries and benefits and the
salaries and benefits of those who operate the Green Business Program and
Community Warning System. Additional costs include services and supplies for all
programs and indirect administrative overhead. As discussed in detail below, all of
these costs are essential to the operation of the CUPA, and are therefore reasonable
and necessary costs that are appropriately funded by the CUPA Fees.
17
1. Salaries and Benefits
a. HMBP Program
(1) Hazardous Materials Specialists and Technicians
(a) Inspections
Nineteen Hazardous Materials Specialists58 performed inspections for the HMP
Division in Fiscal Year 2010-2011. Hazardous Materials Specialists are not dedicated
to a particular program or dedicated to the CUPA; rather, they perform inspections for
multiple CUPA and non-CUPA programs. A total of 1,502 facilities underwent HMBP
inspections in Fiscal Year 2010-2011. Of those, 1,335 were inspected by Hazardous
Materials Specialists.5960
HMBP inspection times vary significantly based on the complexity and size of the
facilities inspected. Estimated inspection times for businesses in different categories,
and estimated total annual inspection hours, are shown in Table 2.61
58 Eighteen Hazardous Materials Specialists were employed full-time through Fiscal Year 2010-2011.
The nineteenth worked nine months of the year.
59 The remaining 167 facilities were inspected by the Richmond Fire Department, which performs HMBP
inspections for the CUPA under a contract between the County and the City of Richmond.
60 Staff arranged for more inspections to be conducted in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 than average and fewer
the following year, in order to carve out time for the specialists to plan for the replacement of the CUPA’s
data management system.
61 Inspection time estimates shown in Table 2 include the time for preparation for the inspection, travel
time, the onsite inspection of the business, post-inspection filing, receipt and review of additional
information from the business, and one follow-up inspection.
18
Table 2
Estimated HMBP Program Inspection Hours
Fiscal Year 2010-2011
#
Employees Pounds of Material
#
Facilities62
Estimated
Inspection
Hours Per
Facility
Average #
Inspections
Per Category
(2 Years) 63
Inspection Hours
Per Category
(2 Years)
N/A <1K 416 1.50 416 624
0-19 1K≤ x <10K 688 2.00 688 1,376
0-19 10K≤ x <100K 234 3.00 234 702
0-19 100K≤ x <250K 219 4.00 219 876
0-19 250K≤ x <500K 81 5.00 81 405
≥20 1K≤ x <10K 155 5.75 155 891.25
≥20 10K≤ x <100K 159 6.75 159 1,073.25
≥20 100K≤ x <250K 35 7.75 35 271.25
≥20 250K≤ x <500K 13 8.75 13 113.75
N/A 500K≤ x <2.5M 46 11.25 92 1,035
N/A 2.5M≤ x <10M 7 14.50 14 203
N/A 10M≤ x <100M 9 19.00 18 342
N/A 100M≤ x <1B 2 24.00 4 96
N/A 1B≤ x <5B 2 28.00 4 112
N/A ≥5B 0 N/A N/A N/A
Refineries 3 32.00 6 192
Totals 2,069 2,138 8,312.5
Based on these average inspection times, the inspection intervals and the
average number of facilities in each category, an average inspection time of 3.9 hours64
62 The facility numbers shown in Table 2 exclude facilities inspected by the Richmond Fire Department.
63 Businesses that handle 500,000 pounds or more of hazardous materials are generally inspected
annually. Businesses that handle lesser quantities are generally inspected every other year.
64 For greater accuracy, unrounded hourly estimates are used in the calculation of costs in this Report.
Because showing unrounded numbers can be cumbersome, however, some of the hourly estimates
19
can be calculated. Based on this rate and the 1,335 facilities inspected by the
Hazardous Materials Specialists in Fiscal Year 2010-2011, approximately 5,190 of their
30,131 annual working hours65 were spent on HMBP Program inspections. The HMBP
inspection hours equate to $599,549 in salary and benefits.66 This cost is necessary
and reasonable because the associated inspections are necessary to verify that
businesses are complying with HMBP statutes and regulations.
(b) Incident Response Team
The IR Team is the primary hazardous materials response team in the County.
In Fiscal Year 2010-2011, 18.75 specialists served on the team. At least six team
members are available to respond to an incident during business hours, with one of
those members tasked to take telephone calls, follow up on complaints concerning
hazardous materials, receive notifications and call out the team when needed. IR Team
members also represent the CUPA at meetings of the Contra Costa County Community
Awareness and Response Group, Inc. (“CAER”), emergency preparedness, emergency
appearing in this Report have been rounded.
65 A Hazardous Materials Specialist worked an average of 1,607 hours in Fiscal Year 2010-2011. This
was determined by starting with the total number of working hours in a year (2,080 hours, based on 52
weeks per year and 40 hours per week) and then subtracting average vacation hours taken (121 hours),
10 paid holidays (80 hours), average personal holiday time taken (19 hours), six furlough days (48 hours),
average overtime comp hours taken (19 hours), average sick leave taken (70 hours), and average flex
time taken (9 hours) to yield 1,714 hours. These averages were based on actual time off taken by all of
the specialists in Fiscal Year 2010-2011. The 1,714 annual hours equates to 214 eight-hour days.
Specialists are allowed two 15-minute breaks per day. Multiplying 30 minutes per day by 214 working
days yields a total of 107 in annual break time hours per specialist. This amount is then subtracted from
1,714 to yield the total of 1,607 working hours per year. Based on this total for one specialist, the 18.75
specialists employed by the HMP Division in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 worked a collective 30,131 regular
hours.
66 A salary and benefit rate of $115.51 per hour is used for Hazardous Materials Specialists. This figure is
calculated by adding the base pay and benefits for all specialists, dividing the total by the number of
specialists, and dividing again by the number of working hours per year (1,607). This rate does not
include overtime. Benefits are projected to be 79.3 percent of salaries. Hazardous Materials Specialists,
who earn an average base salary of $92,807 per year, in addition to differentials, overtime and on-call
pay, are highly compensated because of their high level of education and training and dangers they face
in the course of their duties. The Hazardous Materials Specialists employed by the CUPA all have at
least a bachelor’s degree in science and are specially trained to respond to hazardous materials incidents
and determine the impact of a hazardous materials release. Given the type of services they provide, this
rate of pay is necessary and reasonable for these employees.
20
notification, outreach and regional hazardous materials response actions teams and the
Petrochemical Mutual Aid Organization, all of which are focused on improving
coordination between industry and emergency response agencies in responding to
hazardous materials incidents. Additionally, Hazardous Materials Specialists work with
the Regional Hazardous Materials Response Action Team to develop hazardous
material incident drills, and the IR Team members participate in those drills to improve
their performance in the event of an actual incident.
After business hours, at least six members are on call. Members are paid for
one hour of every four hours on call, and time and a half for overtime when called to
respond to an incident after hours, in addition to their regular salaries. The IR Team
stands ready to deploy 24 hours per day, seven days per week. The team is a
California Emergency Management Agency Type II team.
A Hazardous Materials Technician assists the IR Team and also trains and
responds as a member of the IR Team. The technician keeps the response vehicles
and flatbed, box, and pickup trucks fully equipped and supplied so they are ready for
deployment in the event of an incident. The technician also performs regular
calibrations of instrumentation, trains the team on the use of the instrumentation, keeps
personal protective equipment (such as self-contained breathing apparatus and
response clothing) clean and ready to use and arranges for proper disposal of
hazardous wastes collected from incident sites.
The IR Team includes a team leader, who is responsible for ensuring that the
team members fulfill their training requirements and overseeing the drafting and review
of policies, procedures and standards for responding to incidents. The team leader also
reviews incident response reports, works with the team to determine what worked and
what did not work and takes steps to improve responses where necessary.
The salaries and benefits of the IR Team, including overtime pay and on-call pay,
are allocated to the HMBP Program, and are included in the salary and benefit
estimates for that program. During business hours, one of the IR Team’s Hazardous
Materials Specialists acts as point person for the team; he or she receives calls, deploys
the team when needed and takes complaints regarding hazardous materials incidents.
These efforts take about half of that person’s time, or about 803.5 hours. The
Hazardous Materials Specialists on the IR Team spent an estimated 816 hours
21
responding to incidents during normal business hours in Fiscal Year 2010-201167, and
approximately 858 hours participating in incident response activities, including two
specialized training drills based on specific scenarios involving uncontrolled hazardous
materials releases – situations some of the newer team members had not yet faced in
the field. Each year, the Hazardous Materials Specialists also spend approximately
120 hours working with CAER and other teams and about 50 hours with the California
Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Coast Guard to develop oil spill contingency
plans. The specialist members must also satisfy certain medical requirements,
including periodic recertification training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation and blood
borne pathogens, respiratory fit testing and annual physical examinations, which add
eight hours per specialist per year (a total of 150 hours in Fiscal Year 2010-2011). IR
Team members also meet twice a month to debrief incidents and discuss lessons
learned. At an average of two hours apiece, the meetings took an estimated 900 hours.
One new member spent 240 hours in California Specialized Training Institute (CSTI)
training in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 and approximately 136 hours responding to incidents
during business hours along with the other responding IR Team members. Specialist
members of the IR Team also assisted with First Responder Operations and
decontamination training of Contra Costa County Fire Protection District personnel.
This effort, which took 300 hours in Fiscal Year 2010-2011, is a reasonable and
necessary cost of the CUPA because in the event of large incidents in Contra Costa
County, this District, assists the CUPA with the pre-hospitalization decontamination of
members of the public who come in contact with hazardous materials. Additionally, the
IR Team leader spent about half of his annual working hours (803.5 hours) on his own
IR Team-related duties as discussed above. All of this time adds up to 5,177 hours, at
a cost of $597,995. To this is added the $104,409 in salaries and benefits paid to the
Hazardous Materials Technician who worked for the IR Team in Fiscal Year 2010-2011.
On-call pay, which is 25 percent of regular pay, is given during non-business
hours to IR Team members when they are off duty but must respond in the event of a
callout. The total on-call pay given in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 was $471,537. In addition
to on-call pay, IR Team members who respond to incidents during off-hours are paid
time and a half for the hours they spend responding, plus one extra hour of pay. The
total salary and benefit costs of call-back time in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 totaled
$15,123.
67 These hours are based on an estimated 12-hour response time for each of the 68 incidents in Fiscal
Year 2010-2011.
22
Based on the above estimates, the total salary and benefit costs of the IR Team
were approximately $1,189,064 in Fiscal Year 2010-2011. This was a necessary and
reasonable cost of the HMBP Program because the functions of the IR Team are an
essential part of the HMBP Program with respect to training for and responding to a
release or threatened release of hazardous material.
(c) Other Time
In addition to HMBP inspections and IR Team duties, the Hazardous Materials
Specialists spend time performing other activities. Some of the activities are specific to
the HMBP Program, such as training associated with performing inspections and
assisting businesses in filling out annual forms, and HMBP enforcement actions,
including preparation of administrative enforcement orders and notices of violation.
Training, which is essential to ensure that inspectors are consistent in their inspections
and implement the law as required, took up to approximately six hours of 18.75
Hazardous Materials Specialists’ time in Fiscal Year 2010-2011, or 112.5 hours total.
Enforcement activities such as the preparation of notices and orders, which are
essential to push noncompliant businesses to abide by the requirements of the HMBP
Program, took about 150 hours. Additionally, one Hazardous Materials Specialist
performs duties in his capacity as HMBP Lead, which involves setting standards,
reviewing inspection reports, and working on improvements to the program, such as
developing improved inspection forms and training the staff to perform better
inspections. These duties, which are essential to maintaining the integrity of the HMBP
Program, take approximately 37.5 percent of the HMBP Lead’s time, or 602.625 hours
per year.68 All of this HMBP Program-specific other time adds up to 865.125 hours,
which equates to approximately $99,931.
The Hazardous Materials Specialists also perform a variety of tasks that
generally apply to multiple programs. For example, four Hazardous Materials
Specialists also serve as CUPA coordinators: A Health & Safety coordinator,
Enforcement coordinator, Training coordinator, and Site Mitigation coordinator. The first
68 The HMBP Lead is the lead for the HMBP Program and a non-CUPA program. Half of his annual
working hours are spent on lead functions, of which 75 percent is spent on the HMBP Program and the
remaining 25 percent on the non-CUPA program.
23
three perform tasks that apply to multiple CUPA programs.69 The Enforcement
Coordinator is responsible for establishing enforcement action policies and assisting
staff with enforcement actions. The Health and Safety Coordinator is responsible for
the overall safety of the office, prepares emergency response plans and investigates
injuries. The Training Coordinator works with a training committee to determine the
appropriate training for the different programs, tracks staff training and develops training
policies. These efforts require about 25 percent of each coordinator’s time, which
collectively equates to about 1,205.25 hours per year. Of that, 20 hours of the Health
and Safety Coordinator’s allotted time is attributed to the non-CUPA programs. The
remaining 1,185.25 hours are shared among multiple CUPA programs.
The Hazardous Materials Specialists also perform outreach to businesses to
teach them how to complete forms and comply with the various programs, develop
education materials that address how to comply with the different programs, develop
and perform trainings on how to complete the CUPA forms, and respond to
miscellaneous questions about the programs. In Fiscal Year 2010-2011, this work
required approximately 750 hours.
Other time was spent on special projects. About 186 hours was spent
participating in discussions, meetings and joint inspections with other regulatory
agencies as part of the Hazardous Materials Interagency Task Force. The specialists
also worked approximately 614 hours in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 preparing for the
transition to the new CUPA data management system.70 This work included preparing a
transition plan, applying for a CalEPA grant to pay part of the cost of the transition,
preparing contract documents to design and purchase the system and meetings with
the data management company and other CUPAs that will also be implementing the
system. In total, these special projects took about 800 hours.
69 The Site Mitigation Coordinator oversees site mitigation work performed in the County, reviews land
use permit applications, and works with committees to mitigate contaminated sites as part of the HWG
Program. These hours are allocated solely to the HWG Program.
70 By January 1, 2013, CUPAs throughout the state are required to electronically report program data to
CalEPA, pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 25404, subdivision (e)(4). The CUPA’s new data
management system will incorporate this new reporting system. Staff had anticipated that more hours
would be spent on the data management system project than were actually spent in Fiscal Year 2010-
2011, as the project was delayed. The project is continuing through Fiscal Year 2011-2012 and into
Fiscal Year 2012-2013.
24
In sum, other work performed by the Hazardous Materials Specialists that apply
to multiple CUPA programs totaled 2,735.25 hours in Fiscal Year 2010-2011, at a cost
of approximately $315,949. The cost of this work, which may be referred to in this
Report as “CUPA-wide activities” and in tables as “Other Time/Multi-Programs,” are
allocated among the HWG, UST and APSA programs, the IR Team component of the
HMBP Program, and the rest of the HMBP Program, based on the percentage derived
by dividing the total regular working hour salaries and benefits of the specialists in each
program or component by the total regular working hour salaries and benefits of the
specialists in the four programs collectively (excluding the cost of CUPA-wide activities).
The amount allocated to the IR Team is 19.5 percent of the total, or $61,547, as shown
in Table 3 below. Another 22.8 percent of the total other time cost, which equals
$71,993, is allocated to the balance of the HMBP Program (referred to as “BP” in the
table below). These costs are necessary and reasonable because these efforts are
essential to the operation of the HMBP Program.
Table 3
Allocation of Hazardous Materials Specialist Other Time Expenses
Fiscal Year 2010-201171
Program
Specialist
Regular Hour
Salaries and
Benefits % Allocation Cost Allocation
HMBP
• IR Team
• BP
$ 597,995
$ 699,480
19.5
22.8
$ 61,547
$ 71,993
HWG $ 887,464 28.9 $ 91,341
UST $ 654,653 21.3 $ 67,379
APSA $ 230,161 7.5 $ 23,689
Total $3,069,753 100.0 $315,949
(2) Temporary Workers
The CUPA hired two student temporary workers and one temporary retiree in
Fiscal Year 2010-2011 to perform a variety of tasks. In the HMBP Program, one of the
71 Percentages shown in this and other tables in this Report have been rounded. Unrounded
percentages, however, are used in the calculation of costs, for greater accuracy.
25
students assisted by locating businesses that clearly handled hazardous materials
(such as owners of auto repair shops, dry cleaners, and automobile dismantlers) but
had not been filing Hazardous Materials Business Plans. The temporary retiree
assisted with the transition of the HMBP Program Lead position to a new person. This
work cost an estimated $10,872 out of a total $12,575 paid to these workers this year.
(3) Administrative/Clerical
In Fiscal Year 2010-2011, the administrative/clerical staff of the HMP Division
and the CUPA consisted of a Chief Environmental Health and Hazardous Materials
Officer (Chief Officer)72, full-time Assistant Director and three full-time clerical personnel,
including one clerical supervisor. The Chief Officer bears overall responsibility for
operation of the HMP Division, including the CUPA. The Assistant Director and the
Administrative Assistant Supervisor report to the Chief Officer. The Chief Officer is
responsible for the overall budget of the office, the overall improvement of the office,
setting direction, setting policies, and working with other CUPAs throughout the state,
CalEPA, the State Water Resources Control Board, DTSC, California Emergency
Management Agency, and the State Fire Marshal to ensure consistency in, and set
policy and guidance for, the CUPA programs statewide. The Assistant Director
oversees the operations and staff for the HMBP, HWG, UST and APSA Programs. His
duties include setting policies for the programs and monitoring the performance of
inspections to ensure they meet accepted standards. At the clerical level, an
Administrative Assistant Supervisor acts as the office manager. In this capacity, she
oversees and performs miscellaneous clerical duties along with two Administrative
Assistants.
The administrative and clerical staff time of the HMP Division is not tracked to
specific programs, for the reasons outlined above. Administrative and clerical staff
salaries and benefits are thus allocated to each CUPA program (including a separate
allocation to the IR Team) and the non-CUPA programs based on the percentage
derived by dividing the total regular working hour salaries and benefits of all employees
in each program or component (excluding administrative and clerical salaries and
benefits) by the total regular working hour salaries and benefits all employees (except
for administrative/clerical employees) of the HMP Division. As shown in Table 4 below,
the HMP Division total administrative and clerical costs for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 were
72 The time of the Chief Environmental Health and Hazardous Materials Officer (formerly the HMP
Director) is split between the Environmental Health Division (35%) and the HMP Division (65%).
26
$624,488; of that, the CUPA share is $559,482. The IR Team share is 15.8 percent of
the HMP Division total, or $98,508, and the amount allocated to the balance of the
HMBP Program, (referred to in the table and elsewhere in this Report as the “BP”
component) is 16.2 percent of the total, or $100,880.
Table 4
Administrative and Clerical Salary and Benefit Allocations
Fiscal Year 2010-2011
Program
Total Regular
Working Hour
Salaries and
Benefits % Allocation
Cost Allocation to
Program
HMBP
• IR Team
• BP
$ 763,951
$ 782,345
15.8
16.2
$ 98,508
$100,880
HWG $1,171,855 24.2 $151,106
CalARP $ 644,865 13.3 $ 83,152
UST $ 722,032 14.9 $ 93,103
APSA $ 253,850 5.2 $ 32,733
Total CUPA
Programs $4,338,898 89.6 $559,482
Non-CUPA $ 504,136 10.4 $ 65,006
Total HMP
Division $4,843,034 100.0 $624,488
The $98,508 amount allocated to the IR Team and $100,880 amount allocated to
the rest of the HMBP Program, the On-Call and Call Back salary and benefit amount of
$486,660 and the $10,872 in temporary worker pay are added to the $1,535,424 in
regular working hour salaries and benefits of the hazardous materials specialists and
technicians attributed to the HMBP Program as a whole to yield a total of $2,232,344.
Based on the functions performed and the level of service provided, these were
reasonable and necessary salary and benefit costs to operate the HMBP Program in
Fiscal Year 2010-2011.
27
Table 5 below summarizes the salary and benefit estimates of the HMBP
Program:
Table 5
HMBP Program Salary and Benefit Summary
Fiscal Year 2010-2011
Category Total
HMBP Inspections $ 599,549
IR Team $1,189,064
Other Time $ 99,931
Other Time/Multi-Program
• IR Team (19.5% share)
• BP (22.8% share)
$ 61,547
$ 71,993
Administrative/Clerical
• IR Team (15.8% share)
• BP (16.2% share)
$ 98,508
$ 100,880
Temporary Workers $ 10,872
Total HMBP Program $2,232,344
b. HWG Program
(1) Hazardous Materials Specialists
(a) Inspections
A total of 1,069 facilities out of the 1,634 that are categorized by the tonnage of
waste they generate underwent HWG inspections by Hazardous Materials Specialists in
Fiscal Year 2010-2011.73
HWG inspection times vary significantly based on the tonnage of waste
generated by the facilities. Estimated inspection times for businesses in different
73 Staff arranged for more inspections to be conducted in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 than average and fewer
the following year, in order to carve out time for the specialists to work on the data management system
project in Fiscal Year 2011-2012.
28
tonnage categories are shown below in Table 6. 74 Also shown are estimated times for
additional inspections at businesses that operate under permits by rule, conditional
authorizations and conditional exemptions. These times are also shown in Table 6.
Table 6
Estimated Average HWG Program Inspection Hours
Fiscal Year 2010-2011
Category # Facilities
Estimated
Inspection
Hours/Facility
Average #
Inspections/Category
(2 Years) 75
Inspection Hours/
Category
(2 Years)
<5 tons 1,263 3.00 1,263 3,789
5 tons ≤ x <12 tons 150 3.75 150 562.5
12 tons ≤ x <25 tons 84 5.25 84 441
25 tons ≤ x <50 tons 59 7.50 59 442.5
50 tons ≤ x <250 tons 55 11.25 55 618.75
250 tons ≤ x <500 tons 9 22.50 18 405
500 tons ≤ x <1000 tons 6 30.00 12 360
1000 tons ≤ x <2000 tons 2 40.00 4 160
≤2000 tons 6 60.00 12 720
Subtotal 1,634 1,657 7,498.75
Permit by Rule 16 10 32 320
Conditional Authorization 11 10 22 220
Conditional Exemption 7 4 7 28
Subtotal 34 61 568
Total 1,668 1,718 8,066.75
74 Inspection time estimates shown in Table 6 include the time for preparation for the inspection, travel
time, the onsite inspection of the facility, post-inspection filing, receipt and review of additional information
from the facility, and one follow-up inspection.
75 Businesses that generate 250 or more tons of hazardous waste per year are generally inspected
annually. Businesses that generate lesser quantities are generally inspected every other year. Facilities
operating under a permit by rule or conditional authorization are generally inspected annually.
Conditionally exempt facilities are generally inspected every other year.
29
Based on the above inspection times, the number of facilities in each category
comprising the 1,634 facilities and inspection intervals, it takes an average of about 4.5
hours76 to inspect each of those facilities. The 1,069 inspections conducted in Fiscal
Year 2010-2011 thus took approximately 4,838 hours. As the table also shows, the
Hazardous Materials Specialists also spend approximately 284 hours annually to
inspect facilities that operate under “permits by rule” or are conditionally exempt or
conditionally authorized under the Hazardous Waste Control Law.
Adding up the above hours, the total average annual inspection time comes to
approximately 5,122 hours. At a salary and benefit rate of $115.51, these hours would
cost $591,614. The cost of these inspections is necessary and reasonable because the
inspections are needed to verify compliance by regulated facilities with HWG laws and
regulations.
(b) Other Time
Hazardous Materials Specialists perform additional non-inspection duties for the
HWG Program. Among their duties are site mitigation work, which entails the review of
hazardous waste cleanup plans and efforts by DTSC, the San Francisco Bay Area
Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality
Board within the CUPA jurisdiction (approximately 160 hours per year), tracking work
done at Brownfield and Superfund sites in the jurisdiction (approximately 25 hours
annually), checking to see that sites are clean after minor spills and ordering corrective
action to clean up areas as necessary77 (approximately 75 hours in Fiscal Year 2010-
2011), providing advice on site mitigation as needed (about 150 hours in Fiscal Year
2010-2011), responding to communications from the public regarding hazardous waste
sites in the jurisdiction (approximately 66 hours annually) and reviewing land use permit
applications (about 75 hours in Fiscal Year 2010-2011). The Hazardous Materials
Specialists also review source reduction reports prepared by specified regulated
businesses, pursuant to the Hazardous Waste Source Reduction and Management
Review Act of 198978 (approximately 20 hours every year) and handle enforcement
actions and complaints concerning violations of hazardous waste laws and regulation
76 See footnote 64.
77 Health & Saf. Code, § 25187, subd. (b).
78 Health & Saf. Code, § 25244.18, subd. (c).
30
(approximately 485 hours in Fiscal Year 2010-2011). They also receive training on
HWG regulations and program requirements (about 300 hours in Fiscal Year 2010-
2011).
The Site Mitigation Coordinator spends approximately a quarter of her time
(401.75 hours) reviewing and overseeing site mitigation work and reviewing land use
permit applications. Finally, the HWG Lead spends approximately half of her annual
working time (803.5 hours) setting standards and developing policies for the program,
reviewing inspection reports, developing and presenting training programs to the staff,
setting up training programs for regulated businesses on how to handle hazardous
waste in accordance with the regulations, working with Information Systems to
incorporate electronic inspections into the program, keeping abreast of hazardous
waste reduction options, working with staff on hazardous waste reduction efforts, and
generally making sure that the program remains consistent with applicable laws and
regulations.
In total, this work is estimated to take approximately 2,561.25 hours at a cost of
$295,850. To this amount is added a 28.9 percent share of the CUPA-wide activities
performed by Hazardous Materials Specialists, or $91,341, for a total of $387,191.
These costs are included in the salaries and benefits estimates for the overall HWG
Program. They are necessary and reasonable costs because these services are
essential to the operation of the HWG Program.
(2) Green Business Program Staff
The Hazardous Waste Reduction element of the HWG Program includes the
Green Business Program. The Green Business Program was integrated into the HWG
Program in the mid-1990s because its primary focus is source reduction and pollution
prevention, which are specific goals outlined in the Hazardous Waste Control Law. The
Green Business Program has a number of goals, including the designation of
businesses as “Green Businesses” when they meet set criteria; pollution prevention;
and source reduction.
To meet these goals, the staff works with businesses to help them find ways to
reduce the hazardous waste that they generate, handle the hazardous waste that they
do generate appropriately, use less toxic materials and reduce their consumption of
energy, water and other resources. When a business reaches an established standard,
the business is designated a green business. The staff works with other Green
31
Business Programs in the Bay Area through the Association of Bay Area Governments
to coordinate programs and keep informed as to the effectiveness of their various efforts
to reduce hazardous waste generation. These efforts are all aimed at hazardous waste
reduction. Regulated business sites are inspected by a Hazardous Materials Specialist
to ensure that the business continues to meet the Hazardous Waste Reduction Program
standard of being designated a green business during the regular HWG inspection. If it
does not, the designation is removed.
A Hazardous Waste Reduction Manager and a Pollution Prevention Specialist
are assigned to the Green Business Program. Their combined salaries and benefits will
total $224,986 in Fiscal Year 2010-2011; of that, $191.347 is part of the cost of the
HWG Program. These costs are necessary and reasonable because they fund efforts
to reduce the generation of hazardous waste, consistent with the primary goal of
Chapter 6.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(3) Temporary Student Worker
One of the CUPA’s student workers worked in the HWG Program by assisting
with pollution prevention efforts. Specifically, this individual worked with businesses to
decrease the amount of pollution they produce. This work cost the CUPA
approximately $1,703.
(4) Administrative/Clerical
Of the $559,482 in administrative and clerical salaries and benefits attributed to
the CUPA for Fiscal Year 2010-2011, $151,106 was allocated to the HWG Program.
This amount is added to the $978,805 in estimated salaries and benefits of hazardous
materials specialists, temporary workers and Green Business Program staff to yield a
total of $1,322,961, as shown in Table 7 below. Based on the functions performed and
the level of service provided, these were reasonable and necessary costs to operate the
HWG Program in Fiscal Year 2010-2011.
32
Table 7
HWG Program Salary and Benefit Summary
Fiscal Year 2010-2011
Category Cost
HWG Inspections $ 591,614
Other Time/HWG $ 295,850
Other Time/Multi-Program
(28.9% share) $ 91,341
Green Business Program $ 191,347
Administrative/Clerical
(24.2% share) $ 151,106
Temporary Workers $ 1,703
Total HWG Program $1,322,961
c. CalARP Program
(1) Engineers
(a) Audits
There are 45 regulated business sites in Contra Costa County that are subject to
the CalARP Program, each in one of three program levels.79 The CUPA in this County
performs the most extensive auditing and overview of regulated business sites of any
CalARP Program in California.
79 The Program levels are:
• Program 1 – Regulated business sites that do not impact a public receptor under a
“worst” case scenario
• Program 2 – Regulated businesses sites that are not Program 1 or Program 3 business
sites
• Program 3 – Regulated business sites with a specified North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) classification or subject to the CalOSHA Process Safety
Management Program.
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 19, § 2735.4.)
33
It takes three or four engineers about one month onsite to perform an audit of a
single Program 3 regulated business site. It takes additional time for the audit lead
engineer to prepare the audit plan, perform the quality check of the onsite audit, interact
with the regulated business site to develop a plan of action to address any deficiencies,
and determine the degree that the regulated business site complied with the CalARP
Program requirements. In Fiscal Year 2010-2011, these efforts equaled to a projected
650 staff hours per audit of a Program 3 regulated business site.
The onsite audit of a Program 2 regulated business site takes two to three weeks
for three engineers to complete, plus additional time as outlined above, totaling an
estimated 325 staff hours. Finally, a Program 1 regulated business site takes one
engineer three days to complete, plus additional time as outlined above, which equates
to approximately 35 staff hours per audit. Table 8 below shows total estimated audit
times based on the number of regulated facilities and types of audits performed.
Table 8
CalARP Program Estimated Audit Hours
Program 3
Audits
Program 2
Audits
Program 1
Audits
Inspection hours per
audit 650 325 35
# CalARP regulated
business sites 19 17 5.4*
Total audit hours 12,350 5,525 189
*One of the regulated businesses has five sites with essentially identical policies and
procedures. The time to audit the five sites collectively takes about the time it would take to
audit 1.4 of a Program 1 regulated site. For this reason, the five sites are shown as 1.4 sites in
the table.
During Fiscal Year 2010-2011, six Program 3 audits, six Program 2 audits, and
2.4 Program 1 audits were completed, for a total of 5,934 in audit hours. Of the total
audit hours, approximately 5,517 hours80 were worked by CalARP Engineers in Fiscal
80 A CalARP Engineer worked an average of 1,636 hours in Fiscal Year 2010-2011. This was determined
by starting with the total number of working hours in a year (2,080 hours, based on 52 weeks per year
and 40 hours per week) and then subtracting average vacation hours taken (102 hours), ten paid holidays
(80 hours), average personal holiday time taken (24 hours), six furlough days (48 hours), and average
sick leave taken (81 hours) to yield 1,745 hours. These averages were based on actual time off taken by
all of the engineers in Fiscal Year 2010-2011. The 1,745 annual hours equates to 218 eight-hour days.
34
Year 2010-2011 at their hourly rate of $92.5881, at a salary and benefit cost of
$510,764. The remaining 417 in audit hours were worked by the CalARP Engineering
Supervisor82 at the rate of $106.8683 and cost of $44,561, for a collective total of
$555,325.
(b) Other Time
In addition to audits, the CalARP Program engineers attend numerous meetings,
including monthly staff meeting, CAER meetings, and meetings to discuss the result of
the audits. These meetings took approximately 212 hours of the engineers’ time in
Fiscal Year 2010-2011. Collectively, the CalARP Engineers also underwent
approximately 185 hours of training in chemical process safety. The engineers also
Engineers are allowed two 15-minute breaks per day. Multiplying 30 minutes per day by 218 working
days yields a total of 109 in annual break time hours per engineer. This amount is then subtracted from
1,745 to yield the total of 1,636 working hours per year. Five engineers worked for the HMP Division the
first eight months of Fiscal Year 2010-2011, when one engineer resigned. This computes to an average
of 4.67 engineers that worked for all of Fiscal Year 2010-2011. The 4.67 engineers, one of whom worked
full-time in non-CUPA programs, collectively worked approximately 7,640 regular hours in Fiscal Year
2010-2011.
81 A salary and benefit rate of $92.58 per hour is used for CalARP Engineers. This figure is calculated by
adding the base pay and benefits for all engineers, dividing the total by the number of engineers, and
dividing again by the number of working hours per year (1,636). This rate does not include overtime.
Benefits are projected to be 59.2 percent of salaries. CalARP Engineers, who earn an average base
salary of $94,945 per year, all have at least a bachelor’s degree in Chemical or Mechanical Engineering.
Given the type of services they provide, this rate of pay is necessary and reasonable for these
employees.
82 The CalARP Supervisor worked 1,666 hours in Fiscal Year 2010-2011. This was determined by
starting with the total number of working hours in a year (2,080 hours, based on 52 weeks per year and
40 hours per week) and then subtracting her vacation hours taken (70 hours), ten paid holidays (80
hours), personal holiday time taken (32 hours), 12 furlough days (96 hours), and sick leave taken (25
hours) to yield 1,777 hours. These hours were based on actual time off taken by CalARP Supervisor in
Fiscal Year 2010-2011. The 1,777 annual hours equates to 222 eight-hour days. The supervisor is
allowed two 15-minute breaks per day. Multiplying 30 minutes per day by 222 working days yields a total
of 111 in annual break time hours. This amount is then subtracted from 1,777 to yield the total of 1,666
working hours per year.
83 A salary and benefit rate of $106.86 per hour is used for the CalARP Supervisor. This figure is
calculated by adding the base pay and dividing by the number of working hours per year (1,666).
Benefits are projected to be 61.9 percent of the supervisor’s salary. The CalARP Supervisor earned a
base salary of $109,968 in Fiscal Year 2010-2011.
35
spent 90 hours attending meetings to represent the HMP Division on the hazards that
are present in the CalARP regulated businesses. This other time of the CalARP
Engineers totaled 487 hours, at a cost of $45,086. Each year, the CalARP Engineering
Supervisor completes annual reviews of the staff, performs an annual self audit of the
program, checks audits and documentation for quality and completeness and handles
any personnel issues. This work took about 416 hours of the supervisor’s time in Fiscal
Year 2010-2011, at a cost of $44,454.84 In total, the Other Time worked in this program
cost $89,540 in Fiscal Year 2010-2011.
(2) Administrative/clerical
Of the $559,482 in administrative and clerical salaries and benefits attributed to
the CUPA for Fiscal Year 2010-2011, $83,152 was allocated to the CalARP Program,
based on the formula discussed above. This amount is added to the $644,865 in
estimated CalARP Program engineering salaries and benefits to yield a total of
$728,017 in salary and benefit costs, as shown in Table 9 below. Because these
functions and level of service provided are essential to the operation of the CalARP
Program, these salary and benefit costs were reasonable and necessary costs of the
CalARP Program in Fiscal Year 2010-2011.
Table 9
CalARP Program Salary and Benefit Summary
Fiscal Year 2010-2011
Category Cost
CalARP Program Audits $555,325
Other Time/CalARP $ 89,540
Administration/Clerical
(13.3% share) $ 83,152
Total CalARP Program $728,017
84 The supervisor, who worked approximately 1,666 hours in Fiscal Year 2010-2011, spent the remaining
833 hours in non-CUPA programs.
36
d. UST Program
(1) Hazardous Materials Specialists
(a) Annual inspections
Underground storage tanks are inspected annually. There are 1,115 such tanks
in the CUPA’s jurisdiction.
Tank inspection times vary based on the size of the tank inspected. A residential
tank of less than 1,000 gallons, for example, takes only about 2 hours to inspect,
because they lack the protective equipment and spill buckets required of large
commercial tanks, and fewer regulatory requirements apply. There are currently no
such tanks in the CUPA’s jurisdiction.
Non-residential underground storage tanks of 50,000 gallons or less, including
the tank, associated piping, monitoring equipment, and spill buckets, take an estimated
3.0 hours to inspect. 85 Additionally, there are various records to review to verify
compliance with regard to these tanks, such as designated operator and training
records. This work is required only once per each non-residential tank site, however,
because, whether there are multiple tanks or a single tank at a site, the preparation and
follow-up work needed with respect to underground storage tank inspections is typically
the same. This work takes approximately two hours for each of the 422 sites in the
CUPA’s jurisdiction.
There are currently no underground storage tanks in Contra Costa County with
capacities of greater than 50,000 gallons; however, an inspection time of six hours is
estimated for tanks in that category.
Based on the estimated time to inspect tanks of different sizes, and the estimated
time to complete associated preparation work applicable to each of the 422 non-
residential UST sites in the CUPA’s jurisdiction, set forth in Table 10 below, it took
85 For Fiscal Year 2009-2010, estimates of 3.5 inspection hours per tank and one hour of additional
inspection time per facility were used to calculate costs. Upon review, staff determined that a better
estimation of time spent inspecting an UST facility is 3.0 hours per tank and two hours of additional
inspection time per facility.
37
approximately 4,189 hours to perform the UST annual inspections in Fiscal Year 2010-
2011.
Table 10
UST Program Estimated Inspection Hours
Tank Categories
# Tanks
# Non-
Residential
UST Sites
Inspection
Hours/
Tank or Site
Inspection
Hours/Year
Residential tanks 1,000 gallons or less 0 2.0 N/A
Tanks 50,000 gallons or less 1,115 3.0 3.345
Tanks above 50,000 gallons 0 6.0 N/A
Non-residential UST sites 422 2.0 844
Totals 1,115 422 4,189
The Hazardous Materials Specialists also performed other types of inspections
upon application by tank owners or operators, including inspections of tank lining
upgrades, tank installations, tank and piping removals, field installed cathodic protection
systems, tank linings, piping and tank upgrades, replacements of under dispenser
containers, temporary tank closures and installation of new UST monitoring systems.
The number of such inspections fluctuates from year to year, depending on the activities
of tank owners and operators, projections of the number of these inspections to be
performed are based on revenue received in the previous fiscal year. In Fiscal Year
2010-2011, the Hazardous Materials Specialists spent approximately 375 hours
performing these inspections. The total inspection time in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 thus
totaled approximately 4,564 hours, at a salary and benefit cost of $527,188.
(b) Other Time
All Hazardous Materials Specialists are required to be certified UST inspectors,
and once certified, must undergo a minimum of eight hours of training per year to keep
up their certifications. The 18.75 specialists received a collective 150 hours of
mandatory UST training in Fiscal Year 2010-2011. Miscellaneous other training, such
as advanced UST training, specialized forms training, and other instruction, took
another 150 hours. Additionally, the UST Program Lead spends approximately half of
his time (803.5 hours) developing training, training other specialists, training businesses
on the requirements of the program, reviewing inspection reports, attending UST
38
Technical Advisory Group meetings and keeping abreast of proposed and new
regulations and legislation. In total, this work will require about 1,103.5 hours, at a cost
of $127,465.
To this amount is added 21.3 percent of the CUPA-wide activities performed by
the Hazardous Materials Specialists, which amounts to $67,379. The total other time
attributed to the UST Program thus adds up to approximately $194,844 in salaries and
benefits. Added to the $527,188 amount for inspections, the total salaries and benefits
for Hazardous Materials Specialists working in the UST Program comes to $722,032 in
Fiscal Year 2010-2011.
(2) Administrative/Clerical
Of the $559,482 in administrative and clerical salaries and benefits attributed to
the CUPA for Fiscal Year 2010-2011, $93,103 was allocated to the UST Program. This
amount is added to the $722,032 in estimated salaries and benefits for hazardous
materials specialists to yield a total of $815,135, as shown in Table 11 below. Based on
the functions performed and the level of service provided, these salary and benefit costs
were reasonable and necessary to operate the UST Program in Fiscal Year 2010-2011.
Table 11
UST Program Salary and Benefit Summary
Fiscal Year 2010-2011
Category Cost
UST Inspections $527,188
Other Time/UST $127,465
Other Time/Multi-Program
(21,3% share) $ 67,379
Administrative/Clerical
(14.9% share) $ 93,103
Total UST Program $815,135
39
e. APSA Program
(1) Hazardous Materials Specialists
(a) Inspections
Facilities regulated under the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act are inspected
at different intervals based on the amount of petroleum storage capacity at the business
site. Based on the inspection intervals and the estimated time to inspect tanks of
different sizes in the CUPA’s jurisdiction, set forth in Table 12 below (including the
estimated time to complete associated preparation work), it takes an average of
approximately 7.886 hours to perform an APSA inspection. In Fiscal Year 2010-2011, a
total of 134 inspections were performed under this program. At the average of 7.8
hours per inspection, those inspections took about 1,039 hours, at a salary and benefit
cost of $120,022.
86 See footnote 64.
40
Table 12
Tank Facility Estimated Inspection Hours
Fiscal Year 2010-2011
Tank Facility Category
#
Facilities
Estimated
Inspection
Hours Per
Facility
Average #
Inspections Per
Category (3
Years)
Inspection Hours Per
Category (3 Years)
Storage capacity ≥1,320 and
<10,000 gallons87 211 4 211 844
Storage capacity ≥10,000 and
<100,000 gallons88 52 6 78 468
Storage capacity ≥100,000
and <1,000,000 gallons89 8 12 24 288
Storage capacity ≥1,000,000
and <10,000,000 gallons 6 16 18 288
Storage capacity ≥10,000,000
and <100,000,000 gallons 4 24 12 288
Storage capacity
≥100,000,000 gallons 5 40 15 600
Totals 286 358 2,776
(b) Other Time
The 18.75 Hazardous Materials Specialists underwent a collective 150 hours of
annual APSA Program training in Fiscal Year 2010-2011. Additionally, the APSA
Program Lead spent approximately half of his time (803.5 hours) developing training,
training other specialists, reviewing inspection reports, participating in the CUPA Forum
APSA Working Group meetings and keeping abreast of proposed and new regulations
and legislation. In total, this work took about 953.5 hours, at a cost of $110,139.
87 Facilities with a storage capacity of ≥1,320 and <10,000 gallons are inspected approximately once
every three years.
88 Facilities with a storage capacity of ≥10,000 and <100,000 gallons are inspected approximately once
every two years.
89 Facilities with a storage capacity of ≥100,001 gallons are inspected approximately once every year.
41
To this amount are added 7.5 percent of the CUPA-wide activities performed by
the Hazardous Materials Specialists, which amounts to $23,689. The total other time
attributed to the APSA Program thus adds up to approximately $133,828 in salaries and
benefits. Added to the $120,022 amount for inspections, the total salaries and benefits
for Hazardous Materials Specialists working in the APSA Program comes to $253,850.
(2) Administrative/Clerical
Of the $559,482 in administrative and clerical salaries and benefits attributed to
the CUPA for Fiscal Year 2010-2011, $32,733 was allocated to the APSA Program.
This amount is added to the $253,850 in estimated salaries and benefits for hazardous
materials specialists to yield a total of $286,583 as shown in Table 13 below. Based on
the functions performed and the level of service provided, these salary and benefit costs
were reasonable and necessary to operate the APSA Program in Fiscal Year 2010-
2011.
Table 13
APSA Program Salary and Benefit Summary
Fiscal Year 2010-2011
Category Cost
APSA Inspections $120,022
Other Time APSA $110,139
Other Time/All Programs
(7.5% share) $ 23,689
Administrative/Clerical
(5.2% share) $ 32,733
Total APSA Program $286,583
2. Services and Supplies
Services and supplies required to operate the CUPA are tracked in several
categories. A full breakdown of the projected services and supplies needed to operate
the CUPA in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 is contained in Exhibit F, which indicates a
total of $1,990,529 for the CUPA. These costs were necessary to operate the CUPA
and therefore reasonable expenses to be funded by the CUPA Fees.
42
a. IR Team
Some services and supplies can be and are tracked to specific programs.
Supplies and equipment used by the IR Team, for example, are assigned to the IR
Team account and apportioned 100 percent to the IR Team component of the HMBP
Program. In Fiscal Year 2010-2011, these included the $32,909 cost of vehicles used
by the IR Team. Additionally, costs incurred under the County’s contracts with the City
of Richmond to provide hazardous materials response services in the City of Richmond,
($159,662 in Fiscal Year 2010-2011), were allocated 100 percent to the IR Team.
These expenses of the IR Team totaled $192,571.
b. Community Warning System
The CUPA also incurs costs for a variety of expenses arising from the
Community Warning System, or CWS. The CWS was designed and built by CAER and
paid for by industry, the largest contributors including the oil refineries in the County and
Dow Chemical. The CWS was donated to the County in June 2001, and at that time the
County took over operations of the system. It was understood at that time by
representatives of the County, the refineries, Dow Chemical, Rhodia and others that,
because the CWS is a response tool used by the CUPA to assist in the mitigation of
hazardous materials incidents, businesses handling hazardous materials would pay to
support the CWS, including the operations, maintenance and upgrades of the system,
through HMBP Program Fees (“HMBP Fees”). Documents evidencing this agreement
are attached as Exhibit G.
The CWS is used to alert and notify the public on the appropriate actions
necessary to protect people from exposure to chemical releases. The CWS also alerts
and notifies the emergency response agencies so that they are able to respond quickly
and effectively. The system was developed in response to a series of releases in
Contra Costa County, some of them with deadly consequences. Just a few of the
incidents that led up to the CWS or occurred while the CWS was being developed are
shown below:
● Chevron Richmond Refinery Reactor fire, 1989: Reactor fell over and smoke
from the fire impacted the neighboring community.
43
● Rhone Poulenc, Martinez, sulfuric acid spill and fire, May 1992: One
employee died, a second was injured, and the smoke from the fire and the
decomposition products from the acid impacted the community.
● General Chemical Richmond oleum release, July 1993: A cloud of sulfuric
acid enveloped a wide swath of the East Bay and caused more than 20,000
people to seek medical attention.
● Unocal Rodeo Refinery Catacarb® release, August- September 1994: More
than 1,000 people sought medical treatment at a clinic set up by Unocal.
● Unocal Rodeo Refinery tank fire, June 1995: Smoke permeated the
community and odors lasted for a week; more than 100 people moved to hotels
to escape the smoke, with the costs paid by Unocal.
● Shell Martinez Refinery fire, April 1996: A major fire erupted in the catalytic
gas unit, creating smoke that required people in parts of the city to shelter in
place to avoid adverse health effects.
● Unocal Rodeo Refinery Coker unit fire, May 1996: Smoke from the fire
required people in the community to shelter in place to avoid adverse health
effects.
● Tosco Avon Refinery, January 1997: A hydrocracker run away reaction caused
the failure of an outlet pipe from a reactor and an explosion and fire; one refinery
employee was killed and 46 contractor workers were injured.
● Tosco Avon Refinery, February 1999: A flash fire broke out in a crude unit
during equipment maintenance, killing four and seriously injury one person.
● Chevron Richmond Refinery, March 1999: After a 6-inch valve failed, a
hydrocarbon release occurred, which ignited and caused severe onsite damage
and smoke impact to the surrounding community, requiring people to shelter in
place to avoid adverse health effects.
The CWS is a service provided by the Office of the Sheriff to the CUPA. The
service expenses include salaries and benefits paid to a full-time manager and two full-
44
time staff90. At least one of these employees is available 24 hours a day, seven days a
week, to activate the system in the case of hazardous material releases at facilities that
cannot activate the system directly. These employees also develop and keep current
community alert protocols; oversee and verify the work of a contractor who maintains
the system and trains system users, keeps the users of the system – including industry
and response agencies – informed regarding changes in operation of the system,
including upgrades; and evaluates new equipment for possible purchase and addition to
the system. Additionally, these workers perform public outreach activities to educate
the community on what to do in the event of an activation, and participate in discussions
and meetings with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and California
Emergency Management Agency regarding the manner in which public warnings should
be given.
The CWS employees also oversee the Telephone Emergency Notification
System contract. The Telephone Emergency Notification system, a component of the
CWS, is used to make automated telephone calls to people in potentially impacted
areas and provide them direction on keeping safe. The Hazardous Materials Specialists
determine areas of the community to be notified in the event of an incident and gives
this information to the CWS staff. The CWS staff also maintain a database of people
who have signed up for warnings via cellular telephone calls and activates the system to
make calls that are in that database when an incident occurs. The staff also keeps
abreast of innovations in warning systems in order to improve the CWS’ alert and
notification capabilities, and meets with stakeholders of the system to determine their
needs with respect to training personnel on the use of the CWS and modifications to the
system.
Other CWS expenses include maintenance of the equipment, which includes 42
sirens, computers and radio equipment located at four refineries, Dow Chemical,
Rhodia, the CUPA headquarters and in IR response vehicles, the Sheriff’s Department
dispatch center, CWS office, Bay Area Quality Management District, Contra Costa
County Fire Protection District dispatch center, San Ramon Valley Fire Protection
District dispatch center, California Highway Patrol dispatch center, television cable head
ends, the nodes of five mountain tops and the Richmond, Pinole, Martinez, and Antioch
police dispatch centers. Expenses also include the cost of training personnel at all of
these locations in the proper use of the CWS. Other expenses of the CWS include
software and hardware costs.
90 In Fiscal Year 2010-2011, one of the staff positions was vacant.
45
In Fiscal Year 2010-2011, the total CWS service and supply costs were
$862,742. This amount was significantly less than projected, because the CWS Offices
were short one personnel than projected and a major project to upgrade the CWS by
replacing existing computer equipment with a web-based system was delayed. The
CWS costs are shown in a separate column on Exhibit F. These expenses were
reasonable and necessary to compensate and train personnel, maintain all of the
equipment and keep the CWS functional so that it is available when needed to warn and
notify the community when a hazardous material incident occurs. As the CWS is a key
component of the HMBP Program, these costs are reasonable and necessary costs of
the HMBP Program.
c. HMBP
The County contracts with the City of Richmond to have its firefighters perform
HMBP inspections in the City of Richmond, where there are approximately 266
businesses regulated under the CUPA’s HMBP Program. The sum of $107,481 was
paid to the City of Richmond for these services in Fiscal Year 2010-2011. This amount
is allocated 100 percent to the HMBP Program and included as a professional/special
service cost on Exhibit F.
d. Other Services and Supplies
Most of the supplies and services required to operate the HMP Division apply to
all of the CUPA programs as well as the non-CUPA programs. Such costs include
office supplies, rent, utilities, janitorial services, building maintenance and computer
hardware and software. These costs are essential to the operation of the HMP Division
office. Auto mileage reimbursements are a necessary travel cost associated with
inspections and training. Communication equipment is needed so that staff can
communicate with each other during emergencies and with staff in the field. Data
imaging equipment is also necessary to make files available to emergency responders
in the field and easier to retrieve. The total of these service and supply costs for the
entire HMP Division was $923,909 in Fiscal Year 2010-2011.
The existing accounting system is not configured to track the portion of the
Division-wide expenses that are used by individual programs. Those service and
supply expenses are instead allocated based on the same percentages used to allocate
administrative and clerical costs (see Table 4 above). The amount allocated to the IR
46
Team for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 was $145,739 and the amount allocated to the rest of
the HMBP Program is $149,249. Table 1 shows the total service and supply costs for
each CUPA program. The CUPA’s total share of these service and supply costs was
$827,735. These costs, as well as the program-specific service and supply costs
detailed above, were a reasonable and necessary expense of the CUPA in Fiscal Year
2010-2011.
3. Indirect Administration
Indirect Administration expenses are Health Services Department overhead
costs. They include the costs of the Office of the Director to oversee the various
divisions within the department, costs of the Contracts and Grants Division to assist in
preparing contracts and grants, costs of the Information Systems Division, which assists
with computer equipment and software, costs of the Payroll and Personnel Division and
costs of the Finance Division. Each division within the Health Services Department is
allocated a portion of these projected costs, based on the percentage derived by
dividing the total division budgeted expenses by the department expense budget.
These services are essential parts of the day to day operations of the department and
its various divisions.
The amount allocated to the HMP Division for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 was
$523,703. This amount was allocated based on the ratio of the projected expenses of
the HMP Division (excluding County overhead and indirect administration allocation
amounts) to the projected expenses of the Health Services Department (also excluding
County overhead and indirect administration amounts). Of the $523,703, a total of
$469,188 was allocated to the CUPA programs based on the allocation percentages set
forth in Table 4 of this Report. The breakdowns of these numbers, by program, are
shown in Table 1. The allocated totals for the IR Team and BP component of the
HMBP Program are shown in Tables 14 and 15 below.
47
4. County Overhead
County overhead costs include those incurred by the County Administrator’s
Office in overseeing the Health Services Department. Included are costs incurred in the
preparation of department or division agenda items for the Board of Supervisors,
development of policies concerning the department or its divisions, labor negotiations,
staffing Board committees to which the CUPA reports and assisting with the CUPA’s
reports to these committees. County overhead also includes costs incurred by other
County departments that perform services for the Health Services Department or its
divisions. They include Human Resources Department costs associated with contract
negotiations with represented personnel, hiring personnel, developing policies, and
handling grievances. Also included are the costs of services provided by the Auditor-
Controller, Public Works Department, General Services, County Counsel and the
Department of Information Technology. As with indirect administration costs, county
overhead costs are essential to the day to day administration of the HMP Division,
including the CUPA, and for that reason are reasonable and necessary.
The allocations of these overhead costs are determined according to an
accounting process approved by the federal Office of Management and Budget and
guidelines on determining best estimates. Amounts are allocated to each division in
proportion to the cost of services received by the department from other County
departments. The manner in which these proportional amounts are tallied varies
depending on the type of services provided. Services provided by the Auditor-
Controller, for example, are allocated based on the number of checks issued to the
receiving department and number of employees in the receiving department. Services
by the General Services Department, on the other hand, are allocated based on the
square footages of the buildings they maintain and number of employees in the
receiving department. For Fiscal Year 2010-2011, a total of $189,305 was allocated to
the HMP Division. This total was then allocated to the CUPA programs by the allocation
percentages set forth in Table 4. The total allocated to the CUPA was $169,599. Table
1 shows the specific amounts allocated to each CUPA program. Tables 14 and 15
show the totals allocated to the IR Team and BP component of the HMBP Program.
5. Uncollected Fees; Revenue Shortfalls
The final expense item includes uncollected fees and shortfall amounts. In Fiscal
Year 2010-2011, the uncollected fee expense consists of revenues that should have
been collected to cover costs in the HMBP Program and HWG Program in Fiscal Year
48
2009-2010 but were not be collected for various reasons. The actual amounts that were
not collected from annual fees in these programs to cover costs in Fiscal Year 2009-
2010 are shown in Table 1. But the expense amount for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 must
be projected, and cannot be the actual amount, because the annual fees to cover costs
of those two programs in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 have not yet been billed. As Table 1
indicates, the expense amounts in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 $286,809, for the HMBP
Program and $139,586 for the HWG Program. The HMBP Program expense was
allocated between the IR Team and BP components based on the percentages derived
by dividing the total expenses of each component (excluding the uncollected fees) by
the total expenses of the two components as a whole (also excluding the uncollected
fees). The allocation amounts are shown in Tables 14 and 15.
Revenue shortfalls in the CalARP, APSA, and UST programs in Fiscal Year
2009-2010 also appear in Table 1, as they are an expense to be covered in Fiscal Year
2010-2011. These shortfalls resulted when the revenues received to cover costs in
Fiscal Year 2009-2010 were insufficient to cover the expenses incurred. Some amount
of these revenue shortfalls stemmed from fees that were not paid, but other amounts
came about because fees were too low to cover the associated costs. The shortfall
amounts were $42,128 in the CalARP Program, $18,640 in the APSA Program and
$491,645 in the UST Program, as shown in Table 1.
6. Expense Summary
Table 1 indicates the total expenses in all categories in each of the CUPA
programs and the CUPA programs as a whole for Fiscal Year 2010-2011. As the
HMBP Program expenses are broken down into separate components (the IR Team,
the BP component and the CWS, which are funded differently, the expenses of those
components must also be calculated. The expenses of the CWS are shown in Exhibit
F. The expenses of the IR Team and BP components are summarized in Tables 14
and 15, respectively. As demonstrated above, the detailed expenses were reasonable
and necessary to operate these programs in Fiscal Year 2010-2011.
49
Table 14
IR Team Expenses
Fiscal Year 2010-2011
Category Cost
Salaries and Benefits $1,349,119
Services and Supplies $ 338,310
Indirect Administration
(15.8% share)
$ 82,610
County Overhead
(15.8% share) $ 29,861
Uncollected Fees
(58.9% of HMBP share)
168,976
Total IR Team $1,968,876
Table 15
BP Component Expenses
Fiscal Year 2010-2011
Category Cost
Salaries and Benefits $ 883,225
Services and Supplies $ 256,730
Indirect Administration
(16.2% share)
$ 84,599
County Overhead
(16.2% share) $ 30,580
Uncollected Fees
(41.1% of HMBP share)
$ 117,833
Total BP Component $1,372,965
50
B. Fiscal Year 2011 - 2012
The expense projections for Fiscal Years 2011-2012 are shown in Table 16
below, for the CUPA as a whole and the individual CUPA programs:
Table 16
CUPA Expense Projections Fiscal Year 2011-2012
Description
HMBP
Program
HWG
Program
Cal/ARP
Program
UST
Program
APSA
Program
Total CUPA
Programs
Salaries and Benefits $2,135,122 $1,309,941 $714,977 $886,869 $327,430 $5,374,339
Services and Supplies $1,751,899 $ 199,849 $104,036 $135,304 $ 49,954 $2,241,042
Indirect Administration $ 155,901 $ 126,888 $ 66,055 $ 85,907 $ 31,717 $ 466,468
County Overhead $ 36,465 $ 29,680 $ 15,451 $ 20,094 $ 7,419 $ 109,109
Uncollected Fees/
Shortfalls $ 286,809 $ 139,588 0 $185,907 0 $ 612,304
Total $4,366,196 $1,805,946 $900,519 $1,314,081 $416,520 $8,803,262
1. Salaries and Benefits
a. HMBP Program
(1) Hazardous Materials Specialists and Technicians
With retirements at the end of November 2011 and February 2012, the CUPA
staff anticipates that a total of 17.083 Hazardous Materials Specialists will work for the
CUPA and non-CUPA programs in Fiscal Year 2011-2012.91 This level of staffing
represents the reduction of 1.67 of one Hazardous Materials Specialist from the
previous fiscal year and a corresponding reduction in the collective number of hours
91 Sixteen Hazardous Materials Specialists have been employed full-time in Fiscal Year 2011-2012 to
date. A seventeenth retired at the end of November 2011 and another retired at the end of February
2012. This computes to an average of 17.083 specialists projected to work for the HMP Division in Fiscal
Year 2011-2012.
51
worked by the specialists. 92 This change, along with other program changes, will result
in revised salary and benefit numbers for Fiscal Year 2011-2012.93
(a) Inspections
CUPA staff estimates that a total of 1,009 facilities will undergo HMBP
inspections by Hazardous Materials Specialists in Fiscal Year 2011-2012.94 Based on
the average inspection time of approximately 4.1 hours,95 calculated based on the
numbers shown in Table 17, this represents approximately 4,151 hours. The inspection
hours, multiplied by the a projected salary and benefit rate of $122.51, will cost an
estimated $508,522.
92 A Hazardous Materials Specialist is projected to work an average of 1,664 hours in Fiscal Year 2011-
2012. This was determined by starting with the total number of working hours in a year (2,080 hours,
based on 52 weeks per year and 40 hours per week) and then subtracting the projected average vacation
hours taken (134 hours), 10 paid holidays (80 hours), average personal holiday time taken (18 hours),
average overtime comp hours taken (19 hours), average sick leave taken (47 hours) and average flex
time taken (7 hours) to yield 1,775 hours. These projected averages were based on actual time off taken
by all of the specialists from July 1, 2011, to January 31, 2012. The 1,775 annual hours equates to 222
eight-hour days. Specialists are allowed two 15-minute breaks per day. Multiplying 30 minutes per day
by 222 working days yields a total of 111 in annual break time hours per specialist. This amount is then
subtracted from 1,775 to yield the total of 1,664 working hours per year. The 17.083 specialists
collectively will work approximately 28,427 regular hours in Fiscal Year 2011-2012.
93 A salary and benefit rate of $122.51 per hour applies to the Hazardous Materials Specialists in Fiscal
Year 2011-2012. This figure is calculated by adding the base pay and benefits for all specialists, dividing
the total by the number of specialists, and dividing again by the number of working hours per year
(1,664). This rate does not include overtime. Benefits are projected to be 78.8 percent of salaries.
94 Based on the current number of regulated facilities and the inspection schedule, the average number of
inspections in the HMBP Program is 1,002.5 per year. The projected number of inspections for Fiscal
Year 2011-2012 is higher than the average because of an unanticipated delay in a project to transition to
a new data management system; i.e., time that staff had intended to devote to that project was instead
spent on inspections. Staff plans to reduce the number of inspections in Fiscal Year 2012-2013 in order
to rebalance the routine inspection schedule.
95 See footnote 64.
52
Table 17
Estimated HMBP Program Inspection Hours
Fiscal Year 2011-2012
#
Employees Pounds of Material
#
Facilities96
Estimated
Inspection
Hours Per
Facility
Average #
Inspections
Per Category
(2 Years)
Inspection Hours
Per Category
(2 Years)
N/A <1K 222 1.50 222 333
0-19 1K≤ x <10K 726 2.00 726 1,452
0-19 10K≤ x <100K 235 3.00 235 705
0-19 100K≤ x <250K 218 4.00 218 872
0-19 250K≤ x <500K 85 5.00 85 425
≥20 1K≤ x <10K 167 5.75 167 960.25
≥20 10K≤ x <100K 164 6.75 164 1,107
≥20 100K≤ x <250K 35 7.75 35 271.25
≥20 250K≤ x <500K 13 8.75 13 113.75
N/A 500K≤ x <2.5M 46 11.25 92 1,035
N/A 2.5M≤ x <10M 8 19.00 16 232
N/A 10M≤ x <100M 9 24.00 18 342
N/A 100M≤ x <1B 2 28.00 4 96
N/A 1B≤ x <5B 2 N/A 4 112
N/A ≥5B 0 32.00 N/A N/A
Refineries 3 6 192
Totals 1,935 2,005 8,248.25
(b) IR Team
IR Team costs will change in Fiscal Year 2011-2012 due to the change in
personnel discussed above and other changes that are discussed below. With a
projected 17.083 members on the IR Team, a decrease in the time needed to satisfy
96 The facility numbers shown in Table 17 exclude facilities inspected by the Richmond Fire Department.
53
certain medical requirements is projected (from 150 hours to approximately 137 hours).
The team’s point person will spend about 832 hours fulfilling those duties (an increase
from 803.5 hours the previous year), and hours spent in incident response training
activities are projected to increase from 858 hours in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 to 888
hours. The hours spent debriefing incidents is expected to decrease from 900 hours to
820 hours in Fiscal Year 2011-2012. As there are no new IR Team members in Fiscal
Year 2011-2012, there is no projected need for the 240 hours of California Specialized
Training Institute (CSTI) training that was required in Fiscal Year 2010-2011; for the
same reason, the 136 hours that a new member spent in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 to
respond to incidents along with the rest of the team will not be needed in Fiscal Year
2011-2012. IR Team time will also be reduced by another 300 hours, as the Contra
Costa County Fire Protection District will not need the IR Team to assist with First
Responder Operations and Decontamination training. However, hours spent by the IR
Team leader are projected to increase to 832 hours in Fiscal Year 2011-2012, an
increase of 28.5 hours from the previous fiscal year.
These changes will decrease the number of IR Team regular hours worked by
the specialists from 5,177 hours in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 to a projected 4,495hours in
Fiscal Year 2011-2012, which will cost an estimated $550,682. Added to this amount
will be the $104,409 in estimated salaries and benefits of the technicians, projected on-
call pay in the amount of $502,941 and projected callback costs of $22,731, resulting in
a salary and benefit cost of the IR Team in the amount of $1,180,763.
(c) Other Time
Other hours spent by the Hazardous Materials Specialists that don’t involve
HMBP inspections or IR Team activities but are specific to the HMBP Program are
projected to increase by a net 11.375 hours from the 865.125 Other Time hours worked
in Fiscal Year 2010-2011. Training hours will decrease by 10 hours to about 102.5
hours total with the reduction in staff to 17.08 Hazardous Material Specialists. However,
time spent by the HMBP Lead is projected to increase by 21.375 hours to 624 hours in
Fiscal Year 2011-2012. These changes will increase these Other Time hours to 876.5
hours. These hours will cost approximately $107,380 in salaries and benefits.
Other specialist time that will apply to multiple to multiple CUPA programs is
projected to increase in Fiscal Year 2011-2012. Time spent by the Enforcement
Coordinator, Health and Safety Coordinator and the Training Coordinator is projected to
increase by a total of 42 hours to 1,228 hours in Fiscal Year 2011-2012 due to their
54
increase in working hours. Business outreach efforts, however, are projected to
decrease by 67 hours to 683 hours in Fiscal Year 2011-2012. Time spent on special
projects, including the transition to the CUPA’s new data management system, is
projected to increase by 600 hours to a total of 1,400 hours Fiscal Year 2011-2012.
Specialist time that will apply to multiple CUPA programs is thus projected to increase
from 2,735.25 hours in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 to 3,310.25 hours in Fiscal Year 2011-
2012, at a cost of $405,539.
As with the cost of CUPA-wide work by the Hazardous Materials Specialists in
Fiscal Year 2010-2011, the cost of this work is allocated among the HWG, UST and
APSA programs, the IR Team component of the HMBP Program, and the rest of the
HMBP Program (“BP”). The amount allocated to the IR Team is 18.5 percent of the
total, or $74,986, as shown in Table 18 below. Another 20.7 percent of the total Other
Time cost ($83,866) is allocated to the balance of the HMBP Program. These costs are
necessary and reasonable because these efforts are essential to the operation of the
HMBP Program in Fiscal Year 2011-2012.
Table 18
Allocation of Hazardous Materials Specialist Other Time Expenses
Fiscal Year 2011-2012
Program
Specialist
Salaries and
Benefits
(Regular Hours) % Allocation Cost Allocation
HMBP
• IR Team
• BP
$ 550,682
$ 615,902
18.5
20.7
$ 74,986
$ 83,866
HWG $ 860,541 28.9 $117,179
UST $ 694,632 23.3 $ 94,587
APSA $ 256,457 8.6 $ 34,921
Total $2,978,214 100.0 $405,539
(2) Temporary Worker
The Fiscal Year 2011-2012 cost of a temporary worker to assist in finding
businesses that are not but should be in the HMBP Program is projected to be $2,393.
55
(3) Administrative/Clerical
Administrative costs will decrease in Fiscal Year 2011-2012 because of two
retirements and a greater percentage of the Chief Officer’s time being allocated to the
Environmental Health Division. The total administrative costs attributable to the HMP
Division in FY 2011-2012 are projected to be $595,289. As shown in Table 19 below,
the CUPA share is $530,231, the IR Team share is $90,333 (15.2 percent) and the
share allocated to the balance of the HMBP Program is $86,879 (14.6 percent).
Table 19
Administrative and Clerical Salary and Benefit Allocations
Fiscal Year 2011-2012
Program
Total Salaries
and Benefits
(Regular
Hours) % Allocation
Cost Allocation to
Program
HMBP
• IR Team
• BP
$ 730,077
$ 702,161
15.2
14.6
$ 90,333
$ 86,879
HWG $1,165,708 24.2 $144,233
CalARP $ 606,838 12.6 $ 75,084
UST $ 789,219 16.4 $ 97,650
APSA $ 291,378 6.1 $ 36,052
Total CUPA
Programs $4,285,381 89.1 $530,231
Non-CUPA $ 525,808 10.9 $ 65,058
Total HMP
Division $4,811,189 100.0 $595,289
The collective $177,212 amount allocated to the HMBP Program, including the IR
Team, is added to the $1,429,845 in estimated regular hour salaries and benefits for
hazardous materials specialists and technicians attributed to the HMBP Program, the
projected on-call and call back costs of $525,672 and the projected temporary worker
costs of $2,393 to yield a total of $2,135,122. Based on the functions performed and
the level of service provided, these salary and benefit costs will be reasonable and
necessary to operate the HMBP Program in Fiscal Year 2011-2012.
56
Table 20 below summarizes the salary and benefit estimates of the HMBP
Program in Fiscal Year 2011-2012:
Table 20
HMBP Program Salary and Benefit Estimate Summary
Fiscal Year 2011-2012
Category Total
HMBP Inspections $ 508,522
IR Team $1,180,763
Other Time/HMBP $ 107,380
Other Time/Multi-Program
• IR Team (18.5% share)
• BP (20.7% share)
$ 74,986
$ 83,866
Administrative/Clerical
• IR Team (15.2% share)
• BP (14.6% share)
$ 90,333
$ 86,879
Temporary Worker $ 2,393
Total HMBP Program $2,135,122
b. HWG Program
(1) Hazardous Materials Specialists
(a) Inspections
CUPA staff projects that 901 facilities will undergo HWG inspections in Fiscal
Year 2011-2012.97 Based on the average inspection time of approximately 4.6 hours,
97 Based on the current number of regulated facilities in the different tonnage categories and the
inspection schedule, the average number of inspections in the HWG Program is 829.5 in Fiscal Year
2011-2012, plus the inspections of facilities operating under permits by rule, conditional exemptions and
conditional authorizations. The projected number of inspections for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 is higher than
the average because of an unanticipated delay in a project to transition to a new data management
system; i.e., time that staff had intended to devote to that project was instead spent on inspections. Staff
plans to reduce the number of inspections in Fiscal Year 2012-2013 in order to rebalance the routine
inspection schedule.
57
calculated based on the numbers shown below in Table 21, these 901 inspections will
take about 4,163 hours. In addition, approximately 284 hours will be spent inspecting
facilities that operate under “permits by rule” or are conditionally exempt or conditionally
authorized under the Hazardous Waste Control Law. These inspection hours total
approximately 4,447 hours, and will cost a projected $544,833 in salaries and benefits.
Table 21
Estimated Average HWG Program Inspection Hours
Fiscal Year 2011-2012
Category # Facilities
Estimated
Inspection
Hours/Facility
Average #
Inspections/Category
(2 Years)
Inspection Hours/
Category
(2 Years)
<5 tons 1,266 3.00 1,266 3,798
5 tons ≤ x <12 tons 146 3.75 146 547.5
12 tons ≤ x <25 tons 81 5.35 81 425.25
25 tons ≤ x <50 tons 56 7.50 56 420
50 tons ≤ x <250 tons 56 11.25 56 630
250 tons ≤ x <500 tons 13 22.50 26 585
500 tons ≤ x <1000 tons 5 30.00 10 300
1000 tons ≤ x <2000 tons 3 40.00 6 240
≤2000 tons 6 60.00 12 720
Subtotal 1,632 1,659 7665.75
Permit by Rule 16 10 32 320
Conditional Authorization 11 10 22 320
Conditional Exemption 7 4 7 28
Subtotal 34 61 568
Total 1,666 1,720 8,233.75
(b) Other Time
Non-inspection time worked by Hazardous Materials Specialists in the HWG
Program in Fiscal Year 2011-2012 is projected to increase by 15.75 hours over the non-
inspection time in Fiscal Year 2010-2011. Training on HWG regulations will decrease
58
by about 27 hours, to a total of 273 hours by the specialists collectively, with the
reduction in staffing. The Site Mitigation Coordinator will spend about 14.25 more hours
on work associated with site mitigation (a total of 416 hours in Fiscal Year 2011-2012).
The HWG Lead’s duties will also require more hours in Fiscal Year 2011-2012 due to
the increase in working hours (832 hours, an increase of 28.5 hours). This will increase
the total Other Time specific to the HWG Program from 2,561.25 hours in Fiscal Year
2010-2011 to a projected 2,577 hours in Fiscal Year 2011-2012, at a salary and benefit
cost of $315,708. To this amount is added a 28.9 percent share of the CUPA-wide
activities to be performed by Hazardous Materials Specialists in Fiscal Year 2011-2012,
or $117,179, for a total of $432,887. These projected salary and benefit costs will be
necessary and reasonable costs in Fiscal Year 2011-2012 because these services are
essential to the operation of the HWG Program.
(2) Green Business Staff
The Hazardous Waste Reduction Manager retired in November 2011 but
continued on in a temporary capacity to transition to her replacement, who was hired in
January 2012. With this change, the salary and benefit total is projected to be $176,754
in Fiscal Year 2011-2012.
(3) Temporary Workers
Based on the first seven months of the year, the projected cost of a temporary
student and retiree in the HWG Program is $11,234 in Fiscal Year 2011-2012.
(4) Administrative/Clerical
Of the $595,289 in administrative and clerical salaries and benefits attributed to
the CUPA for Fiscal Year 2011-2012, $144,233 is allocated to the HWG Program. This
amount is added to the $1,165,708 in estimated salaries and benefits of hazardous
materials specialists, the student worker costs and the Green Business Program staff to
yield a total of $1,309,941, as shown in Table 22 below. Based on the functions
performed and the level of service provided, these will be reasonable and necessary
costs to operate the HWG Program in Fiscal Year 2011-2012.
59
Table 22
HWG Program Salary and Benefit Estimate Summary
Fiscal Year 2011-2012
Category Cost
HWG Inspections $ 544,833
Other Time/HWG $ 315,708
Other Time/Multi-Program
(28.9% share)
$ 117,179
Green Business Program $ 176,754
Administrative/Clerical
(24.2% share)
$ 144,233
Temporary Worker $ 11,234
Total HWG Program $1,309,941
c. CalARP Program
(1) Engineers
(a) Audits
During Fiscal Year 2011-2012, it is estimated that five Program 3 audits, four
Program 2 audits, and two Program 1 audits will be completed, for a total of 4,620 audit
hours. Of the total audit hours, approximately 4,199 are projected to be worked by
CalARP engineers in Fiscal Year 2011-201298 at their hourly rate of $105.5599, resulting
98 A CalARP Engineer will work approximately 1,605 hours in Fiscal Year 2011-2012. This was
determined by starting with the total number of working hours in a year (2,080 hours, based on 52 weeks
per year and 40 hours per week) and then subtracting projected average vacation hours taken (168
hours), ten paid holidays (80 hours), projected average personal holidays taken (30), projected average
comp time taken (13), and projected average sick leave taken 77 hours) to yield 1,712 hours. These
projections were based on actual time taken in the first seven months of Fiscal Year 2011-2012 by all of
the engineers. The 1,712 annual hours equates to 218 eight-hour days. Engineers are allowed two 15-
minute breaks per day. Multiplying 30 minutes per day by 214 working days yields a total of 107 in
annual break time hours per engineer. This amount is then subtracted from 1,712 to yield the total of
1,605 working hours per year. Three engineers are expected to work a collective 4,815 hours for the
CalARP Program in Fiscal Year 2011-2012.
99 A salary and benefit rate of $105.55 per hour is used for CalARP Engineers. This figure is calculated
by adding the base pay and differentials for all engineers, dividing the total by the number of engineers,
60
in a total cost of $443,204 The remaining 421 in audit hours100 are expected to be
worked by the CalARP Engineering Supervisor at the rate of $117.26101 and cost of
$49,366 Together, these audits will cost a projected $492,570 in salaries and benefits.
(b) Other Time
It is projected that CalARP Engineers will work an estimated 129 hours more
performing non-audit functions during regular hours. Additional non-audit hours will be
spent reviewing revised Risk Management Plans, updating CalARP policies and
procedures, reviewing potential CalARP modules to use in the new data management
system, and public outreach regarding the program, audits and the Risk Management
Plans. The CalARP Engineering Supervisor is projected to work 420 non-audit hours.
The total Other Time to be worked in the CalARP Program during regular hours thus
includes 616hours by the engineers, at a cost of $65,019, and 420 hours by the
supervisor, at a cost of $49,249, for a salary and benefit total of $114,268.
In addition to the above, the engineers will earn an estimated $33,055 in on-call
payments in Fiscal Year 2011-2012. These payments compensate the engineers for
being available during off-hours to provide expertise, if needed, to the IR Team during
incidents. One engineer is on call during off-hours and paid one hour of salary for every
four hours on call. This brings the total Other Time salary and benefit cost to $147,323.
and dividing again by the number of working hours per year (1,605). This rate does not include overtime.
Benefits are projected to be 58.3 percent of salaries.
100 The CalARP Supervisor worked 1,682 hours in Fiscal Year 2011-2012. This was determined by
starting with the total number of working hours in a year (2,080 hours, based on 52 weeks per year and
40 hours per week) and then subtracting projected vacation hours taken (98 hours), ten paid holidays (80
hours), personal holiday time taken (31 hours) and sick leave taken (78 hours) to yield 1,794 hours.
These projections were calculated based on actual time off taken by CalARP Supervisor in first seven
months of Fiscal Year 2011-2012. The 1,794 annual hours equates to 224 eight-hour days. The
supervisor is allowed two 15-minute breaks per day. Multiplying 30 minutes per day by 224 working days
yields a total of 112 in annual break time hours. This amount is then subtracted from 1,794 to yield the
total of 1,682 working hours per year.
101 A salary and benefit rate of $117.26 per hour is used for the CalARP Supervisor in Fiscal Year 2011-
2012. This figure is calculated by adding the base pay and dividing by the number of working hours per
year (1,682). Benefits are projected to be 74.0 percent of salaries.
61
(2) Administrative/Clerical
Of the $595,289 in administrative and clerical salaries and benefits attributed to
the CUPA for Fiscal Year 2011-2012, $75,084 is allocated to the CalARP Program,
based on the formula discussed above. This amount is added to the $639,893 in
estimated CalARP Program engineering salaries and benefits to yield a total of
$714,977, as shown in Table 23 below. Because these functions and level of service
provided are essential to the operation of the CalARP Program, these salary and benefit
costs will be reasonable and necessary to operate the CalARP Program in Fiscal Year
2011-2012.
Table 23
CalARP Program Salary and Benefit Estimate Summary
Fiscal Year 2011-2012
Category Cost
CalARP Program Audits $492,570
Other Time/CalARP $147,323
Administration/Clerical
(12.6% share) $ 75,084
Total CalARP Program $714,977
d. UST Program
(1) Hazardous Materials Specialists
(a) Inspections
No changes are projected in the number of tanks to undergo annual inspections
in Fiscal Year 2011-2012 or the average inspection times. These hours are therefore
projected to total 4,189 hours. The same number of hours is also projected to be spent
on other UST inspections in Fiscal Year 2011-2012 as were worked in Fiscal Year
2010-2011 (375 hours). The total projected inspection hours thus adds up to 4,564, and
will cost an estimated $559,136 in salaries and benefits in Fiscal Year 2011-2012.
62
(b) Other Time
The same level of mandatory UST certification training that was required in Fiscal
Year 2010-2011 will also be required in Fiscal Year 2011-2012. The 17.083 Hazardous
Materials Specialists thus are expected to undergo eight hours of mandatory training
apiece, for a total of 137 hours. Miscellaneous other training will take another eight
hours per specialist, bringing the training total to 274 hours. The UST Program Lead’s
time will increase to 832 hoursin Fiscal Year 2011-2012. This brings the total of other
UST Program hours to 1,106 hours, which will cost approximately $135,496 in salary
and benefits.
To this amount is added 23.3 percent of the CUPA-wide activities projected to be
performed by the Hazardous Materials Specialists in Fiscal Year 2011-2012, which
amounts to $94,587. The total other time attributed to the UST Program thus adds up
to approximately $230,083 in salaries and benefits. Added to the amounts for annual
inspections, the total salaries and benefits for Hazardous Materials Specialists working
in the UST Program comes to $789,219.
(2) Administrative/Clerical
Of the $595,289 in administrative and clerical salaries and benefits attributed to
the CUPA for Fiscal Year 2011-2012, $97,650 is allocated to the UST Program. This
amount is added to the $789,219 in estimated salaries and benefits for hazardous
materials specialists to yield a total of $886,869 as shown in Table 24 below. Based on
the functions performed and the level of service provided, these costs are reasonable
and necessary to operate the UST Program in Fiscal Year 2011-2012.
63
Table 24
UST Program Salary and Benefit Estimate Summary
Fiscal Year 2011-2012
Category Cost
UST Inspections $559,136
Other Time/UST $135,496
Other Time/Multi-Program
(23.6% share) $ 94,587
Administrative/Clerical
(16.4% share) $ 97,650
Total UST Program $886,869
e. APSA Program
(1) Hazardous Materials Specialists
(a) Inspections
CUPA staff projects that 145 facilities will undergo APSA inspections in Fiscal
Year 2011-2012.102 The specialists’ time to complete these inspections will total an
estimated 1,124 hours, which adds up to a projected salary and benefit cost of
$137,745.
(b) Other Time
APSA training hours will decrease by a net 13 hours in Fiscal Year 2011-2012 to
137 hours, reflecting the change in the number of Hazardous Materials Specialists from
18.75 to 17.083 for Fiscal Year 2011-2012. In addition, the APSA Lead will spend an
additional 28.5 performing his duties as lead (a total of 832 hours). Other than these
102 The average number of inspections per year, based on the numbers in Table 12, is approximately 119.
A greater than average number of inspections are projected in Fiscal Year 2011-2012 because many of
the inspections will take place at facilities recently added to the program. All facilities are inspected upon
or soon after their entry into the APSA Program.
64
changes, non-inspection hours worked by the Hazardous Materials Specialists in the
APSA Program in Fiscal Year 2011-2012 are projected to remain the same as the non-
inspection hours worked the previous fiscal year. This works out to an increase of 15.5
hours in Other Time from the 953.5 hours worked the previous fiscal year, for a total of
969 hours, at a salary and benefit cost of $118,712.
To this amount is added 8.6 percent of the CUPA-wide activities projected to be
performed by the Hazardous Materials Specialists in Fiscal Year 2011-2012, which
amounts to $34,921. The total other time attributed to the APSA Program thus adds up
to approximately $153,633 in salaries and benefits. Added to the amounts for annual
inspections, the total salaries and benefits for Hazardous Materials Specialists working
in the APSA Program comes to $291,378.
(2) Administrative/Clerical
Of the $595,289 in projected administrative and clerical salaries and benefits
attributed to the CUPA in Fiscal Year 2011-2012, $36,052 is allocated to the APSA
Program for Fiscal Year 2011-2012. This amount is added to the $291,378 in
Hazardous Materials Specialists salaries and benefits to yield a total of $327,430, as
shown in Table 25 below. Based on the functions performed and the level of service
provided, these costs are reasonable and necessary to operate the APSA Program in
Fiscal Year 2011-2012.
Table 25
APSA Program Salary and Benefit Estimate Summary
Fiscal Year 2011-2012
Category Cost
APSA Inspections $137,745
Other Time/APSA $118,712
Other Time/All Programs
(8.6% share) $ 34,921
Administrative/Clerical
(6.1% share) $ 36,052
Total APSA Program $327,430
65
2. Services and Supplies
The service and supply costs to be incurred by the CUPA in Fiscal Year 2011-
2012 are projected to total approximately $2,241,042. These costs are detailed in
Exhibit H attached hereto.
a. IR Team
Service and supply costs of the IR Team are projected to total $312,244 in Fiscal
Year 2011-2012, and are shown in Exhibit H. The CUPA’s cost to pay the City of
Richmond to perform hazardous materials response work is projected at $159,662, the
same as the actual cost incurred in Fiscal Year 2010-2011. The response vehicles that
are attributed to the IR Team costs are projected at $27,418, a decrease from the
previous fiscal year.
To the above costs of $187,080 is added to the IR Team share of the
miscellaneous services and supplies, which will total a projected $125,164 in Fiscal
Year 2011-2012. This adds up to $312,244.
b. Community Warning System
The projected cost of the CWS is budgeted by the Office of the Sheriff, and will
increase to $1,269,277 in Fiscal Year 2011-2012. The increase from Fiscal Year 2010-
2011 is necessary to pay for an upgrade to a web-based interface that will assist in
transmitting hazardous material incidents information more quickly and to more
agencies and businesses, as well as the salary and benefits of a new staff person.
c. BP Component
The County’s cost under its contract with the City of Richmond to perform HMBP
inspections is projected to be $50,000 in Fiscal Year 2011-2012. While this is less than
the maximum payment authorized, it is consistent with actual payments in past years.
The BP component share of the miscellaneous services and supplies, which will be a
projected $120,378 in Fiscal Year 2011-2012, brings the total service and supply costs
of this component of the HMBP Program to $170,378.
66
d. Other Services and Supplies
The miscellaneous service and supply costs budgeted for the HMP Division in
Fiscal Year 2010-2011 were used to project CUPA-wide service and supply costs in
Fiscal Year 2011-2012. No significant changes in these costs are expected in Fiscal
Year 2011-2012.
The projected miscellaneous costs of the CUPA were calculated by first
allocating the miscellaneous costs of the HMP Division as a whole ($824,829, which is
the sum remaining after subtracting the specific costs of the IR Team, BP component of
the HMBP Program and the CWS from the total service and supply costs). This amount
was then allocated to the CUPA and non-CUPA programs by the percentages
calculated in Table 19. The allocation amounts to the IR Team and the BP component
of the HMBP Program are $$125,164 and $$120,378, respectively, as discussed above;
the totals for the other CUPA programs are shown in Table 16 and Exhibit H. The
allocated totals of these service and supply costs for the entire CUPA add up to
$734,685.
3. Indirect Administration
The Indirect Administration costs allocated to the HMP Division for Fiscal Year
2011-2012 total $523,703, which has not changed from Fiscal Year 2010-2011. This
amount has been allocated to CUPA and non-CUPA programs according to the
percentages calculated in Table 19. The CUPA’s total share is $466,468. Table 16
shows the specific amounts allocated to each CUPA program for Fiscal Year 2011-
2012.
4. County Overhead
For Fiscal Year 2011-2012, a total of $122,496 in county overhead costs are
allocated to the HMP Division. The total was allocated to the CUPA and non-CUPA
programs according to the percentages calculated in Table 19. The CUPA’s total share
is $109,109. Table 16 shows the specific amounts allocated to each CUPA program for
Fiscal Year 2011-2012.
67
5. Uncollected Fees; Revenue Shortfalls
Uncollected fee totals projected for the HMBP and HWG programs in Fiscal Year
2011-2012 are the same as the projected totals in Fiscal Year 2010-2011. These
amounts – $286,809 and $139,588, respectively – are shown in Table 16.
The UST program experienced funding shortfalls in Fiscal Year 2010-2011, in the
amount of $185,907. These amounts are also shown in Table 16.
6. Expense Summary
The projected expenses of each CUPA Program and the CUPA as a whole for
Fiscal Year 2011-2012 are shown in Table 16 above. As demonstrated above, these
costs are reasonable and necessary expenses of the CUPA.
VII. PROJECTIONS OF REQUIRED REVENUES
A. Revenue Sources
After expenses for a fiscal year have been projected, the next step is to project
revenues for that fiscal year. The CUPA revenue sources include not only annual fees
but also permit fees, late payment penalties, fines, payments for incident response, and
grants. Annual fee payments are the primary revenue source.
Some revenues are collected on an intermittent basis. These include monies
collected for underground storage tank plan checks and inspections after repairs or
modifications. The same is true of revenues resulting from cost recovery for services
provided by the IR Team (apart from amounts incorporated into the annual HMBP and
HWG fees). Fines, late penalties and grants fall into the same category. The totals of
these revenues received during Fiscal Year 2010-2011 were used to tally actual
revenues required to fund Fiscal Year 2010-2011 costs and projected revenues needed
to fund program expenses in Fiscal Year 2011-2012. To these revenue amounts are
added any other fee payments collected and shown in the revenue column for the fiscal
year in question. These amounts typically consist of late payments of fees for prior
fiscal years or excess revenues collected in the previous fiscal year and carried forward
to the fiscal year in question.
68
The totals of the revenues described above in the various programs are then
subtracted from the total expenses to determine the remaining revenues needed to
operate the programs for the applicable fiscal year. These remaining fees are collected
from regulated businesses in the form of annual permit fees. A single fee is charged to
each regulated business, with the total broken down by program on the annual invoice.
The amount of the fee applicable to a particular facility depends on the type of programs
applicable to that facility, the number of regulated facilities within the jurisdiction of the
CUPA, and numerous other factors that include the size of the regulated business site,
the amount of hazardous waste generated by that regulated business site the previous
calendar year, projected inventories of hazardous materials to be handled in the current
calendar year, and aboveground and underground storage tank capacities.
B. Revenue Projections
1. Fiscal Year 2010-2011
Revenues already collected to fund the CUPA programs in Fiscal Year 2010-
2011, and revenues that are still needed to fund two of those programs in Fiscal Year
2010-2011, are shown in Table 26 below:
69
Table 26
Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Revenues
Description
HMBP
Program
HWG
Program
CalARP
Program
UST
Program
APSA
Program
Total CUPA
Programs
Misc. Permit Fees 0 0 0 $ 111,729 0 $ 111,729
Service Fees $ 92,078 $ 491 $ 270 $ 302 $ 106 $ 93,247
Fines & Penalties $ 24,048 $ 120,248 $ 3,792 $ 32,906 $ 8,497 $ 189,491
Intergovernment
Revenue $ 150,000 0 0 0 0 $ 150,000
Annual Permit
Fees/Collected For FY
10-11 $1,185,435 0 $1,051,235 $1,219,979 $421,434 $3,878,083
Fee Carryovers/To
FY 10-11 $ 59,067 0 0 0 0 $ 59,067
Required Fee Revenue/
For FY 10-11 $3,075,717 $1,737,891 0 0 0 $4,813,608
Borrowed Revenue/
From FY 11-12 0 0 0 $ 185,907 0 $ 185,907
Total Revenues $4,586,345 $1,858,630 $1,055,297 $1,550,823 $430,037 $9,481,132
Total Expenses $4,204,585 $1,858,630 $ 988,106 $1,550,823 $391,022 $8,993,166
Carryovers/To FY 11-
12 $ 381,760 0 $ 67,191 0 $ 39,015 $ 487,966
In the HMBP Program, revenues are further broken down based on the expenses
of the IR Team, CWS and balance of the HMBP Program (“BP”) in Fiscal Year 2010-
2011 to yield the HMBP Fee amounts needed to fund the expenses of two of those
program components in Fiscal Year 2010-2011.103 The line item entitled “Required Fee
Revenue For FY 10-11” is the total that must be funded with the annual fees for Fiscal
Year 2010-2011. The breakdown of these revenues is shown in Table 27 below:
103 The CWS component shown in Table 27 was fully funded with the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 HMBP Fees.
The HMBP Fees for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 will include a component to cover CWS expenses in Fiscal
Year 2011-2012.
70
Table 27
HMBP Program
Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Revenues
Description IR Team CWS BP
Total HMBP
Program
Misc. Permit Fees 000 0
Service Fees $ 91,750 0 $ 328 $ 92,078
Fines and Penalties $ 4,492 0 $19,556 $ 24,048
Intergovernment Revenue $150,000 0 0 $ 150,000
Annual Permit Fees/Collected
For FY 10-11 0 $1,185,435 0 $1,185,435
Fee Carryovers/To FY 10-11 0 $ 59,067 0 $ 59,067
Required Fee Revenue/
For FY 10-11 $1,722,634 0 $1,353,083 $3,075,717
Total Revenues $1,968,876 $1,244,502 $1,372,967 $4,586,345
Total Expenses $1,968,876 $ 862,742 $1,372,967 $4,204,585
Fee Carryovers/To FY 11-12 0 $ 381,760 0 $ 381,760
2. Fiscal Year 2011-2012
The projected revenues needed to fund the CWS component of the HMBP
Program and the CalARP, UST and APSA programs in Fiscal Year 2011-2012 are
shown in Table 28 below.104
104 Projected revenues for the HWG Program and IR Team and BP components of the HMBP Program
are not shown in this table, because those projections will not be made until the end of Fiscal Year 2011-
2012, at which time fees to fund the operations of the HWG Program and IR Team and BP components
of the HMBP Program will be set and billed to regulated facilities.
71
Table 28
Projected Revenues Fiscal Year 2011-2012
Description
HMBP
Program
(CWS only)
CalARP
Program
UST
Program
APSA
Program
Misc. Permit Fees 0 0 $ 90,114 0
Service Fees 0 $ 101 $ 132 $ 49
Fines & Penalties 0 $ 7,949 $ 214,106 $ 3,817
Intergovernment Revenue 0 $ 3,760 $ 4,890 $ 1,805
Fee Carryovers/To FY 11-12 $ 381,760 $ 67,191 0 $ 39,015
Required Fee Revenue/For
FY 11-12 $ 887,517 $821,518 $1,004,839 $371,834
Total Revenues $1,269,277 $900,519 $1,314,081 $416,520
Total Expenses $1,269,277 $900,519 $1,314,081 $416,520
As can be seen in the above table, most of the projected revenues each year are
generated through business fees, through the single fee system. This amount includes
fee revenues carried over from the previous year. Other amounts are generated from
penalties, permit fees, assessment revenues, grants and recovered costs of the IR
Team.105 Fines and penalties attributed to the UST Program in Fiscal Year 2011-2012
include a $200,000 settlement payment awarded in a statewide prosecution against
Equilon for UST violations.
It must be emphasized that, with the exception of fee revenues actually received,
projections of fee revenues are merely estimates. The number of regulated businesses
changes constantly, and the inventories of hazardous materials that they handle and the
amount of hazardous waste that they generate vary from year to year. The revenue
recovered from responding to incidents also fluctuates from year to year. The success
rate in collecting the fee revenues from the businesses that are invoiced is also variable.
105 Recovered costs include hourly fees charged to and collected from known responsible parties that
cause hazardous materials incidents and $150,000 in Measure H funding. Measure H was a Countywide
measure passed by the voters in 1988 to provide for enhancements to the emergency medical system by
imposing assessments on property in County Service Area EM-1. Approximately $150,000 of the annual
assessment revenue is allocated to the CUPA.
72
For these reasons, the actual revenues collected may be less or more than was
projected, and less or more than the actual expenses incurred. If a program
experiences a shortfall, funds are borrowed against that program’s anticipated revenues
the next year in order to cover the shortfall on an interim basis. The shortfall is made up
the next year, in the form of increased fees to cover the increased cost of the program
as well as the shortfall. Conversely, when there are excess revenues in a program,
those revenues are carried forward to and factored in the projection of revenues needed
to operate in the coming fiscal year.
In the past, some have criticized carry-over fee revenues as an “illegal profit,”
but nothing in the Health & Safety Code or the implementing regulations provides any
legal support for this contention, or requires absolute perfection in establishing the
amount of fees required to operate a regulatory program. On the contrary, regulatory
agencies are accorded a great deal of flexibility in doing so because of the inherent
complexity of such programs.106 Because the CUPA operates multiple programs, even
greater flexibility is in order here.
C. Fee Apportionment
The general rule as to the apportionment of regulatory fees is that the charges
allocated to a payor must “bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens
on or benefits from the regulatory activity.”107 However, regulatory fees are valid
despite the absence of any perceived “benefit” accruing to the fee payors.108 The Board
“need only apply sound judgment and consider ‘probabilities according to the best
honest viewpoint of informed officials’ in determining the amount of the regulatory
fee.”109
Because each of the CUPA programs has a different purpose, different allocation
methods have been tailored to each of the programs, as discussed below.
106 Cal. Assn. of Prof. Scientists v. Dept. of Fish and Game (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 935, 950.
107 Cal. Assn. of Prof. Scientists v. Dept. of Fish and Game, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at 945.
108 Pennell v. City of San Jose, supra, 42 Cal.3d at 375.
109 United Business Com. v. City of San Diego (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 156, 166.
73
1. HMBP Fee Allocations
a. Methodology
In Fiscal Year 2010-2011, there were 2,326 facilities regulated by the HMBP
Program within the CUPA jurisdiction. The HMBP Program is thus the largest of the
CUPA programs. Because of the large number of businesses regulated by this
program, their range in size from small establishments that handle only a few pounds of
hazardous materials each year to oil refineries handling billions of pounds of hazardous
materials annually, and the range of activities included in the HMBP Program, the
allocation of these fees is significantly more complex than the allocation of fees for other
CUPA programs.
(1) Fee Components
With the goal of allocating the HMBP Fees to fee payors in rough proportion to
their benefits from or burdens on the CUPA, the total HMBP Fees that must be collected
to fund the operations of the HMBP Program was first divided into three components:
(1) The IR component, representing an estimate of the revenue needed to pay the
unrecovered110 costs of the IR Team in Fiscal Year 2010-2011; (2) the CWS
component, representing an estimate of the revenue needed to pay the cost of the CWS
in Fiscal Year 2011-2012; and (3) the Base component, representing an estimate of the
revenues needed to operate the balance of the HMBP Program in Fiscal Year 2010-
2011. The totals of these three components are as follows:
CWS Component: $ 887,517
IR Component: $1,722,634
Base Component: $1,353,083
TOTAL: $3,963,234
(2) Payor Categories
CUPA staff evaluated the above three fee components to determine the most
equitable way to allocate the fees in these categories to the payors in a proportional
manner. Because all of the businesses regulated by the HMBP Program are required to
110 “Unrecovered” costs of the IR Team are the costs remaining after subtracting the recovered costs from
the total IR Team costs.
74
submit business plans, and all of those businesses are subject to inspection, fees are
properly and fairly allocated to all regulated businesses; however, the business plans of
regulated businesses of different sizes vary in complexity, and the time to inspect their
facilities varies with that complexity. The number of regulated facilities in this program
and limitations imposed by the CUPA’s accounting system, however, make it
administratively infeasible to calculate individualized fees for each business based on
an estimate of the time it may take the CUPA to regulate each business. Such an
approach would also tend to create too much uncertainty within the regulated
community as to the amount of the fees to which they might be subject in coming years,
as these estimates likely would vary widely from year to year.
To avoid these problems, categories of fee payors have been developed, based
on the size of a business’s projected calendar year inventories of hazardous materials
and the number of employees at the business. The inventory and employee factors
were used because they have been shown over the years at this CUPA and CUPAs
around the state to be good indicators of the complexity of a facility, which in turn is
generally indicative of the burden it poses on the HMBP Program.
As a general principle, the more employees that a business has and the larger
the inventory of hazardous materials that a business handles, the more complex the
business plan will be; by extension, the more complex that a business plan is, the more
time it will take for a Hazardous Materials Specialist to inspect the facility. For example,
a regulated business site may have a small total quantity of hazardous materials on
hand, but those materials may be spread over a large campus, such as a community
college. It takes longer to inspect and verify the relatively small inventories of such
facilities simply because the materials are spread throughout a large facility. Other
CUPAs use one or another of these factors to determine their HMBP fees. The Solano
County CUPA, for example, bases its fees on the number of employees at a facility,
while the Marin, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Sonoma CUPAs base their fees on
quantities of hazardous materials. The City of Berkeley uses a combination of the
quantities and number of types of hazardous materials in a business’ inventory in its
HMBP fee schedule.
(3) Fee Component Allocations
With the HMBP Program Fee components and payor categories in place, the
next step was to determine the amount of each fee component to allocate to each payor
category.
75
(a) CWS Component
The CWS was developed in response to incidents at large facilities, as discussed
supra, and is generally activated only in response to hazardous materials incidents at
large facilities, because incidents at large facilities tend to pose a greater threat to the
health and safety of the community. Since the CWS became available for use in
November 1995, there have been 52 activations of the CWS for Level 2 and Level 3
incidents through the end of Fiscal Year 2010-2011.111 Forty-two of those occurred at
oil refineries, seven at facilities handling 2.5 million to 10 million pounds of hazardous
materials, and two at facilities handling 500,000 to 2.5 million pounds of materials. Only
one of those activations occurred because of an incident at a facility handling less than
500,000 pounds, and that particular activation occurred only in response to a special
request from another public entity, and did not meet the standard for activation of the
CWS. Thus, essentially 100 percent of the activations have been prompted by incidents
at facilities that handle 500,000 or more pounds of hazardous material. Because the
activations are a fair representation of the burdens posed by these facilities with respect
to the CWS, staff determined that the cost of the CWS should be borne by the facilities
in the categories where the CWS has historically been used.112 A CWS component of
the HMBP Program annual fee is therefore included in the fees applicable to the
facilities in these categories to collect the funds needed to operate and maintain the
CWS. As well as being a component of the annual CUPA permit cost, the CWS
111 Level 2 activations occur in the event of incidents that will have offsite impact and possible health
impacts, and are characterized by any of the following: (1) Offsite impact where eye, skin, nose and/or
respiratory irritation may be possible for individuals with respiratory sensitivities; (2) explosion with
noise/pressure wave impact off-site; and/or (3) fire/smoke/plume (other than steam) leaving or expected
to leave site.
Level 3 activations occur in the event of incidents that will have offsite impact, and are characterized by
any of the following: (1) Offsite impact that may cause eye, skin, nose and/or respiratory irritation to the
general population; (2) fire, explosion, heat or smoke with an offsite impact (example: on a
process/unit/storage tank where mutual aid is requested to mitigate the event and the fire will last longer
than 15 minutes); or (3) hazardous material or fire incident where the incident commander or unified
command, through consultation with the IR Team, requests that sirens be sounded.
112 Staff considered that the facilities where incidents occur that require CWS activation also derive
benefits from having the CWS available, in the form of decreases in potential liability for personal injuries
and by not having to fund their own individual warning systems. Such benefits are difficult for the CUPA
to quantify; moreover, there is likely to be a direct correlation between burdens and benefits in this
context. For this reason, CUPA staff determined that the CWS component of the HMBP Program annual
fee should be allocated based on burdens and not benefits.
76
component is considered a service fee, inasmuch as the operation of the CWS to warn
of hazardous materials incidents is a service provided to the large facilities that pay for
it.113
When there are large quantities of chemicals in storage, the potential for some of
those chemicals to be released, and for the chemicals released to disperse to the extent
that they impact the surrounding community, is greater than if there are smaller
quantities of chemicals in storage. This is true simply because in the event of a release,
all other things being equal, more chemicals can escape from a large inventory than
could escape from a smaller inventory. The above statistics showing that the greatest
number of incidents occurs at the refineries are consistent with this fact. However, the
potential does not rise linearly with the quantity of hazardous materials, because there
are many other factors at work, including the toxicity or flammability of the chemical(s)
released, the type of processing that occurs at a facility, and the manner in which the
chemical or smoke disperses. To some degree, all of these factors influence the
manner in which chemicals disperse after being released, and whether a release will be
large enough in volume to spread to surrounding neighborhoods.
To account for these different factors, staff considered both the number of
pounds in the hazardous materials inventories and the volume of a potential release.
Specifically, a quantity of hazardous material fills a particular volume. Volume is
calculated by multiplying length by width by height. In the case of a perfect cube, each
dimension would be the cube root of the total volume. Cube roots relate to the
expansion to fill this volume. Staff determined that cube roots were a valid basis for
comparison of inventories of different chemicals because all gasses and liquids will
expand to fill the volume that is contained, or in the case of a release, not contained.
Cube roots were calculated of the hazardous material inventory quantities reported by
the businesses in these categories on their most recent business plans. For example,
the cube root of the largest refinery, which reported a quantity of 7 billion pounds, is
1,913. Staff then added the cube roots of all the facilities to determine the cube root of
all of the facilities combined, which is approximately 22,521. The cube root of each
facility was then divided by the total cube root of all the facilities to determine the
percentage of the total cube root applicable to each facility. These percentages are
shown in Exhibit I attached hereto. The percentages were then multiplied by the
113 In the statistically unlikely event that the CWS needs to be activated because of a hazardous materials
release at a small facility not subject to the CWS component, that facility would be assessed an hourly fee
to cover the cost of using the service.
77
$887,517 in fee revenue needed to fund the CWS in Fiscal Year 2011-2012 to
determine the proportional cost applicable to the individual facilities. In the case of the
above refinery, the percentage of the total cube roots applicable to the above refinery is
approximately 8.49 percent. That percentage was then multiplied by $887,517 to
determine the refinery’s proportional cost share, which is $75,384, as shown in Exhibit I.
Finally, within each category, the proportional costs were added together and then
divided by the number of facilities within the category to calculate the average
proportional cost for each facility in the category. This cost is the CWS component of
the HMBP Program fee in each payor category. A complete breakdown of the CWS
component of this fee is shown in Exhibit I.
(b) IR Component
All businesses that handle hazardous materials benefit by having the IR Team
available to respond in the event of an incident. Businesses that lack the resources to
fund their own response teams benefit by having the IR Team available 24 hours a day,
seven days a week, to respond to a release when needed. When the IR Team
responds to a release at a business that does not have its own team, that business
benefits from the IR Team’s assistance in containing a release and overseeing
cleanups. Businesses that field their own response teams also benefit by the IR Team,
which focuses its efforts at such facilities on coordination of response efforts, gathering
information regarding environmental and public impacts, determining protective actions
necessary, in the case of large-scale incidents, helping to contain releases.
Businesses in some categories benefit more than businesses in other categories,
as indicated by data from calendar year 2003 through June 30, 2011. During that time
period, there were 175 hazardous materials incidents at businesses regulated under the
HMBP Program to which the IR Team responded. One hundred five of those incidents
–60.0 percent of the total – occurred at facilities that handle 500,000 pounds or more of
hazardous materials annually, and the remaining 70 incidents (40.0 percent) happened
at facilities handling less than 500,000 pounds of hazardous materials. Table 29 below
shows the breakdown of incidents:
78
Table 29
Hazardous Materials Incidents
2003-June 2011
# Employees Pounds of Materials # Incidents
N/A <1K 7
0-19 1K≤ x <10K 14
0-19 10K≤ x <100K 9
0-19 100K≤ x <250K 17
0-19 250K≤ x <500K 3
≥20 1K≤ x <10K 4
≥20 10K≤ x <100K 11
≥20 100K≤ x <250K 2
≥20 250K≤ x <500K 3
N/A 500K≤ x <2.5M 25
N/A 2.5M≤ x <10M 8
N/A 10M≤ x <100M 4
N/A 100M≤ x <1B 15
Refineries N/A 53
Totals 175
The facilities handling 500,000 or more pounds of hazardous material received
the services of the IR Team more often than facilities in other categories, and therefore
received more of the benefit provided by the IR Team; specifically, approximately 60.0
percent of the benefit. For this reason, staff determined that these facilities should pay
that percentage of the $1,722,634 unrecovered cost of the IR Team ($1,033,580) and
the facilities handling less than 500,000 pounds should pay the remaining 40.0 percent
of the $1,722,634 cost ($689,054).
The same method used to allocate the CWS component was also used to
allocate the IR component, since the potential for a release is equally relevant to both
fee components. The cube roots of the reported inventories of each of the facilities in
the 60.0 percent group were used to determine fees for those facilities, as set forth in
Exhibit J attached hereto. Given the much larger number of facilities in the 40.0
79
percent group, cube roots were not calculated for each of those facilities. Instead, in
each fee category within that group, average inventories were calculated based on the
low and high ends of the category (for example, an average of 5,500 pounds was
calculated in the category of equal to or less than 1,000 pounds but less than 10,000
pounds) and the averages were multiplied by the number of facilities in the category.
Cube roots were then calculated based on these totals. The fees determined based on
this methodology for this group of facilities is shown in Exhibit K attached hereto.
The IR component of the HMBP Fee is not only part of the cost of issuance of the
annual CUPA permit, but also a service fee, inasmuch as the IR Team is a service
provided to the facilities that pay for it.114
(c) Base Component
The base component of the HMBP fee funds the BP component of the HMBP
Program that is not funded through other sources of revenue. The BP component
expenses include the costs of HMBP inspections, which for purposes of this discussion
includes the initial and follow up inspections, review of the plans themselves, follow-up
paperwork and communications with regulated businesses regarding their plans. The
costs of these inspections include the salaries and benefits of the Hazardous Materials
Specialists in performing the inspections and miscellaneous related duties and
undergoing training, as well as costs of administration and overhead.
In determining how best to allocate these costs among the payor categories, staff
considered such factors as the inspection times applicable to facilities of different sizes
(including the preparation time required prior to inspections, particularly of larger
facilities); the frequency of inspections (businesses must be inspected at least every two
years, but large facilities are inspected annually); and the number of facilities in each
payor category. As noted previously, because of the multi-faceted functions of the
CUPA and limitations of the CUPA’s accounting system, it is impossible to calculate
with mathematical precision the inspection time applicable to each facility in individual
programs. For this reason, pinpoint average inspection times applicable to each
category cannot be computed. It is therefore not possible to allocate the Base
component in exact proportion to the time spent by the CUPA on HMBP inspections in
the different categories. Moreover, even if it were possible, because there are
114 Services the IR Team may provide to entities other than regulated businesses are funded through
recovered costs paid by responsible parties and Measure H revenue.
80
thousands of businesses regulated by the HMBP Program, and because the list of
businesses regulated by the program changes constantly throughout the year, the
administrative time it would take to pull time records, make these computations and
reallocate the base component every year would be impractical, create additional costs
to the CUPA that would need to be recouped through fees on businesses, and result in
no discernible improvement in the regulatory effort. For these reasons, staff instead
worked to develop allocations based on the estimated time it takes to inspect facilities in
each category. This manner of allocation makes the base component of the HMBP
Program Fee proportional to the burdens these facilities place on the HMBP Program in
the form of required inspections.
Inspection times increase with every category, because of the increase in
complexity of the facilities in each category. The times range from 1.5 hours at a facility
that handles less than 1,000 pounds of hazardous materials per year to 32 hours for an
oil refinery. Table 2 of this Report shows the estimated hours for facilities in each payor
category.
The next step was to calculate an hourly cost associated with the inspections.
Based on Table 2 and the estimated inspection time per facility discussed on Pages 18-
19 of this Report, the inspections conducted in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 took about 5,190
hours. However, while this number of hours is based on a precise number of
inspections, and is accurate for the purpose of projecting expenses, staff determined
that this number cannot be used in the fee allocation calculations. The reason it cannot
be used in the fee allocation calculations is because, while the fee will be spread over
all fee categories based on average inspection times, the precise number of inspection
hours worked will not necessarily correlate to the average number of annual inspections
hours that would be required if inspections were conducted precisely on schedule every
year. The number of actual inspection hours may be more than the average annual
total inspection time, or less than that time. The expenses of the HMBP Program,
however, do not rise and fall with the inspection schedule. The result of using the
precise inspection hours thus would yield a sum that is either more or less than the cost
that needs to be funded.
To avoid this problem, staff instead determined that the average number of
annual inspection hours in all categories at all of the 2,326 regulated facilities in the
CUPA’s jurisdiction, including those in the City of Richmond115, should be used in the
115 For purposes of this calculation, it was assumed that inspections of the facilities in the City of
81
calculation. The average annual inspection hours total 4,965, or half of the two-year
total shown in Table 30 below.
Table 30
Estimated HMBP Program Inspection Hours/All Facilities
Fiscal Year 2010-2011
#
Employees Pounds of Material # Facilities
Estimated
Inspection
Hours Per
Facility
Average #
Inspections
Per Category
(2 Years)
Inspection Hours
Per Category
(2 Years)
N/A <1K 466 1.50 466 699
0-19 1K≤ x <10K 740 2.00 740 1,480
0-19 10K≤ x <100K 260 3.00 260 780
0-19 100K≤ x <250K 247 4.00 247 988
0-19 250K≤ x <500K 86 5.00 86 430
≥20 1K≤ x <10K 179 5.75 179 1,029.25
≥20 10K≤ x <100K 194 6.75 194 1,309.5
≥20 100K≤ x <250K 44 7.75 44 341
≥20 250K≤ x <500K 19 8.75 19 166.25
N/A 500K≤ x <2.5M 55 11.25 110 1,237.5
N/A 2.5M≤ x <10M 11 14.50 22 319
N/A 10M≤ x <100M 13 19.00 26 494
N/A 100M≤ x <1B 6 24.00 12 288
N/A 1B≤ x <5B 2 28.00 4 112
N/A ≥5B 0 N/A N/A N/A
Refineries 4 32 8 256
Totals 2,326 2,417 9,929.5
The base component cost of $1,353,083 was then divided by the annual average
inspection hours (half of the two-year total of 9,929.5, or 4,964.75 hours, resulting in a
Richmond take the same number of hours as inspections conducted by the Hazardous Materials
Specialists.
82
cost of approximately $272.54 per inspection hour. This rate was then multiplied by the
average annual inspection hours for each facility in each category to calculate the Base
component of the HMBP fee applicable to each facility. The base components in each
category, along with the other components, are shown in Exhibit L attached hereto.
b. The HMBP Fees Are Set at a Level Sufficient to Fund the
Estimated Costs of the HMBP Program
Collectively, as shown in Exhibit L, the three components of the HMBP Fees are
expected to generate approximately $3,962,982, based on the fees in each category
and number of facilities in each category. Based on the projections and considering
other revenues, the proposed HMBP Fees are thus set at the approximate level
necessary to fund the Fiscal Year 2010-2011 costs of the IR and Base components of
the HMBP Program and the Fiscal Year 2011-2012 cost of the CWS.116 These fee
components constitute the cost of issuance of the HMBP Program portion of the annual
Fiscal Year 2011-2012 CUPA permit that regulated facilities must obtain to legally
operate in Contra Costa County.
c. Other Methods Considered
In determining the method of allocation of the HMBP Fees, CUPA staff
considered but ultimately rejected several other methods, because they did not allow for
a proportional allocation. They are detailed below.
• Flat Fee. A flat fee would apply across the board to all regulated
businesses in the HMBP Program. Although easily calculated and applied, such a fee
would not be proportional, because different sized facilities pose different burdens on
the HMBP Program, as outlined above.
• Fee per pound. A flat fee for each pound of hazardous material in a
business’ inventory, without regard to the number of employees, was also considered.
One problem with this method is that it does not take into account that benefits and
burdens pertaining the CWS and IR Team pertain largely to the larger facilities. An
additional problem is that the burdens on the HMBP Program tied to the HMBP
116 As a result of rounding, revenue amounts that would be derived from the proposed fees in the HMBP,
HWG, UST and APSA programs are slightly different from the required revenue totals. Shortfalls or
carryovers resulting from these minor differences are applied the following fiscal year.
83
inspections are not tied solely to quantities of hazardous material on hand. For
example, two businesses may have the same number of pounds of material in their
inventories, but one business may have multiple containers of different types of material
on hand, and the other may have a single container of only one material. The first
business will have a business plan that is far more complex than the second business,
and past history has demonstrated that the first business will require more employees
for the simple reason that the complexity of the facility requires more work to handle the
materials properly.
Finally, if a flat fee per pound were charged for each pound of hazardous
materials handled, the larger regulated business sites would pay more than 99 percent
of the overall costs. Based on the number of regulated facilities in the CUPA jurisdiction
in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 and their projected inventories (collectively, 17,881,037,216
pounds), and the $3,963,234 in revenues needed to operate all components of the
HMBP Program, the fee per pound would need to be set at approximately $0.00022 per
pound. At that rate, however, a facility with a small inventory such as 500 pounds would
pay only 11 cents, but the largest refinery in the County, which handles an inventory of
about 7 billion pounds, would pay $1,540,000. While sufficient funds to operate the
program could theoretically be raised in this manner, this is not a reasonable basis for
apportionment, because it would allow smaller facilities to avoid paying their fair share
of the cost of inspections and place most of the burden on larger facilities.
2. HWG Fee Allocations
a. Method
In the past, the HWG Fees applicable to most hazardous waste generators117
were set in an amount sufficient to operate the HWG Program and allocated based on
the tonnage of hazardous waste generated. This manner of allocation was modeled on
the allocations of generator fees charged by DTSC pursuant to Health & Safety Code
section 25205.5. Section 25205.5 established categories of waste generators and a
base rate that is adjusted from time to time by the state Board of Equalization to
account for increases or decreases in the cost of living. The 2012 base rate is $4,094
117 Flat fees have historically been charged to facilities that operate under permits by rule, conditional
authorizations or conditional exemptions.
84
and the 2012 current state generator fee schedule, included in Exhibit M attached
hereto, is shown in Table 31 below:
Table 31
DTSC Generator Fees
Generator Size Rate Fee
Less than 5 tons/year 0% base rate 0
5 but less than 25 tons/year 5% base rate $205
25 but less than 50 tons/year 40% base rate $1,638
50 but less than 250 tons/year 100% base rate $4,094
250 but less than 500 tons/year 5 x base rate $20,470
500 but less than 1,000 tons/year 10 x base rate $40,940
1,000 but less than 2,000 tons/year 15 x base rate $61,410
2,000 or more tons/year 20 x base rate $81,880
Generator fees are among the fees charged by DTSC to fund its administration
and implementation of the Hazardous Waste Control Law118, and thus are comparable
to the CUPA’s HWG Fees. Given that the Legislature approved this fee allocation, and
given that the state generator fees are comparable to the CUPA’s HWG Fees, there is a
reasonable basis for using this kind of structure to allocate the HWG Fees. A number of
other CUPAs also use variations of this structure to allocate their HWG fees. For these
reasons, staff concluded that the DTSC structure should continue to be used. The
tonnage ranges for each category in the HWG Fees section of the CUPA’s fee schedule
are for the most part based on the tonnage ranges set by the Legislature as described
above.119 Businesses are placed into the appropriate categories based on the tonnage
118 See Health & Saf. Code, § 25174, subdivs. (a)(1) & (b)(1).
119 One of the categories was split in two in order to separate the smaller generators in this category from
the larger generators in the same category. This category – 5 but less than 25 tons – has been split into
two categories because of the large number of facilities in the category and the fact that 92 of them – 64
percent – generated five to 12 tons per year. These facilities are small quantity generators, and the time
to perform inspections at these facilities is less than the time it takes to perform inspections of facilities
generating 12 to 25 tons per year. CUPA staff determined it was more equitable to place them in a
separate category for this reason.
85
they report to the CUPA, as verified during inspections by the Hazardous Materials
Specialists.
(1) Fee Components
Except for fees charged for inspections of facilities operating under permits by
rule, conditional authorizations and conditional exemptions, which are discussed below,
the HWG Fees charged to generators consists of (1) an inspection component and (2) a
tonnage component, as discussed below.
(a) Inspection Component
The inspection component of the HWG Program Fee is an approximation of the
direct costs of HWG Program inspections of facilities in each category. These costs
include the costs of the initial inspection, follow-up inspection, follow-up paper work and
communications with the facilities, other inspection-related activities described in the
Report, including training of the specialists. The inspection component is allocated
based on a labor standard; i.e., the cost of the inspections conducted under the
program, determined by estimating the time required inspecting facilities in the different
categories, and considering the frequency of inspections in the different categories.
A physically large regulated business site takes longer to inspect than a smaller
regulated business site, for several reasons. First, the hazardous waste may be
handled at different locations throughout a regulated business site. Inspecting multiple
storage containers takes more time than inspecting only one container. Second, at
facilities where large quantities of hazardous waste have been generated, it takes
longer to verify the total tonnage generated, determine how long the waste has been
stored onsite, inspect the storage facilities and labeling for compliance with applicable
regulations, and verify that training requirements have been met. Not only does it take
more time to physically locate the areas on a large site where hazardous wastes are
stored, it also takes more time to view the larger quantity of manifests, labeling and
documentation that such sites generate.
Based on a consideration of these factors, and inspection times reported by
inspectors, staff estimated the inspection times applicable to each of the categories.
The estimates, shown in Table 6, are based on the tonnage of waste generated by
facilities in each category. The tonnage figures provide an indication of the size of the
facilities, the number of shipments of hazardous waste leaving the facility and resulting
86
manifests, and number of employees the facility needs to train and keep trained on how
to handle hazardous waste properly. All of these variables factor into inspection times
that tend to increase with the total of waste generated.
Staff then calculated the cost associated with all inspections, starting with
salaries and benefits. In addition to the $591,614 specialist salary and benefit cost
associated with the inspection hours, the cost includes $164,948 for inspection-related
activities.120 An additional $77,868 – a proportional share of the CUPA-wide Other Time
– is also included in the cost of inspections, bringing the specialist salary and benefit
total to $834,430.121 Proportional shares of other costs attributed to the HWG Program
(administrative and clerical salaries and benefits and temporary worker pay, services
and supplies, indirect administrative costs, county overhead and uncollected fees) were
also calculated122 and added to the above cost, bringing the total cost of the inspections
to $1,323,454. These costs and the remaining costs of the HWG Program (shown as
“Other”) are set forth in Table 32 below:
120 This cost is based on 1,428 hours of the HWG Program Other Time, which includes 485 hours of
enforcement activities, 300 hours of annual specialist training and 643 hours of the HWG Lead’s time.
121 The $77,868 share was calculated by first adding the $591,614 and $164,948 in inspection costs and
dividing the sum ($756,562) by the total salary and benefit costs of the specialists attributed to the HWG
Program inspections and Other Time ($887,464). The resulting percentage (approximately 85.2 percent)
was then multiplied by the CUPA-wide Other Time cost attributed to the HWG Program ($91,341) to yield
the amount of $77,868.
122 The proportional shares were calculated by first dividing the $834,430 in specialist salaries and
benefits attributed to inspections by the total salaries and benefits of the specialists and temporary
workers attributed to the HWG Program, and Green Business Program ($1,171,855), yielding a
percentage of approximately 71.2 percent. This percentage was then applied to the HWG Program
allocations for direct administrative and clerical salaries and benefits, services and supplies, indirect
administration, county overhead and uncollected fees to determine proportional shares to be allocated to
inspections. The remaining percentage, 28.8 percent, was allocated to the balance of the HWG Program.
87
Table 32
HWG Program Expense Allocations
Fiscal Year 2010-2011
Category Inspections Other Total HWG Program
Salaries and Benefits
• Specialists
• Admin/Clerical
• Grn Business
• Temp Worker
$ 834,430
$ 107,596
0
0
Total: $ 942,026
$144,375
$ 43,510
$191,347
$ 1,703
Total: $380,935
$ 978,805
$ 151,106
$ 191,347
$ 1,703
Total: $1,322,961
Services and Supplies $ 159,185 $ 64,371 $ 223,556
Indirect
Administration $ 90,231 $ 36,488 $ 126,719
County Overhead $ 32,617 $ 13,189 $ 45,806
Uncollected Fees $ 99,395 $ 40,193 $ 139,588
Total $1,323,454 $535,176 $1,858,630
The $1,858,630 cost of the HWG Program, however, is not funded entirely by fee
revenue, since $120,739 of these costs will be funded by service fees, fines and
penalties. Of the $120,739, $85,973 is allocated to inspections and $34,766 to other
expenses, based on the same percentages used to calculate the allocations in Table
32. Thus, the cost of the inspections to be funded by fee revenue is $85,973 less than
$1,323,454, or $1,237,481. Based on this cost, and the annual average 4,033.375
inspection hours (see Table 6), the fully burdened hourly rate associated with the
inspections is approximately $306.81.
Of the 4,033.375 average inspection hours, 284 are spent on inspections of
facilities operating pursuant to permits by rule, conditional authorizations and conditional
exemptions. The approximate $87,134 cost of those inspections is funded through flat
fees charged to the facilities, discussed below. The remaining $1,150,347 cost is to be
funded through the inspection component of the HWG Program fee.
The final step was to determine how these costs should be allocated among the
various categories. At the larger facilities, where inspections are generally conducted
annually, staff determined that the annual fee should be based on the cost of one
annual inspection. At facilities slated to be inspected once every other year, however, it
88
was determined that the annual fee should be one-half the cost of an inspection. Based
on the $306.81 hourly rate and inspection times shown in Table 6, the inspection
components of the HWG Fee were calculated for facilities in the different categories.
They are shown in Exhibit N attached hereto.
(b) Tonnage Component
After subtracting the $1,150,347 cost funded by the base component, and the
$87,134 cost of the other HWG Program inspections (discussed below), the remaining
costs of the HWG Program to be funded with fee revenues are $500,410. These costs
are funded by the tonnage component of the annual HWG Program Fee. The tonnage
component funds such costs as site mitigation work, the Green Business Program, land
use application reviews and pollution prevention efforts, all of which are intended to
further the CUPA’s goal of hazardous waste reduction and thus are included in the
overall cost of the HWG Program. The tonnage component also includes a proportional
share of the cost of CUPA-wide Other Time hours worked by the specialists,
administrative and clerical costs, services and supplies, indirect administration, county
overhead and uncollected fees attributed to the HWG Program. These costs are
allocated to payor categories based on the tonnage of hazardous waste generated.
Inasmuch as the generation of hazardous waste is considered pollution even if it is
handled and disposed of properly, this manner of allocation is essentially pollution-
based.
A pollution-based allocation of the balance of the HWG Fees is consistent with
the CUPA’s goal of hazardous waste reduction, which is at the heart of the CUPA’s
pollution prevention efforts and Green Business Program. Such efforts by CUPAs are
authorized by DTSC by regulation, consistent with the Legislature’s intent that
hazardous waste generation be reduced in an effort to preserve the environment.
Incentives were specifically cited by the Legislature as one means of encouraging
generators of hazardous waste to “employ technology and management practices for
the safe handling, treatment, recycling and destruction of their hazardous wastes prior
to disposal.”123 Pursuant to these authorities, the CUPA has incorporated pollution
prevention into the HWG Program. Providing businesses with incentives to reduce their
generation of hazardous waste is one of the tools this CUPA uses to get the job done.
Since the reduction of hazardous waste generation is among the purposes of the
CUPA, it is reasonable to allocate costs based on the premise that the more hazardous
123 Health & Saf. Code, § 25101.
89
waste generated by a regulated business, the greater the job of the CUPA in general
and of the HWG Program in particular.124
Specifically, when more hazardous waste is generated, the job of the HWG
Program increases with it. Experience has shown that inspection times rise along with
a rise in hazardous waste generation. More hazardous waste generally means more
shipping manifests to review, more employee training records to check and larger sites
to inspect. Inspections of large generator sites also involve review of source reduction
plans, which must be prepared only by facilities that generate more than 1,000 tons of
hazardous waste annually. Increases in hazardous waste generation also correspond
to increased efforts by the Green Business Program to reduce hazardous waste
generation, through staff’s work with facilities to find alternative chemicals that can be
used by a business that do not produce as much hazardous waste or produce waste
that is not considered hazardous, and to find ways to reduce hazardous waste reduction
through different forms of handling.
The tonnage component of the HWG Fees is based on a rate of $9.75 per ton,
which was calculated by dividing the costs of the HWG Program to be funded by this
component of the HWG Fees by the total estimated tonnage generated in all categories.
With the exception of the category of the biggest generators (i.e., businesses that
generate more than 2,000 tons of hazardous waste annually), the tonnage generated by
each category was determined based on the average tonnage in each category (for
example, 8.5 tons in the category of greater than 5 but less than 12 tons). Because the
top category is open-ended, and the quantities of hazardous waste actually generated
by businesses in that category vary so broadly that an average would not result in an
equitable fee allocation, the tonnage applied in that category was set at 4,000 tons.125
The tonnage component of the HWG Fee in each category is set forth in Exhibit
N. This component, which provides an incentive to businesses to reduce their
hazardous waste generation, is thus an important tool used to meet the CUPA’s waste
reduction goals, and for that reason is included in the cost of issuance of the annual
CUPA permit.
124 See San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. San Diego County Air Pollution Control Dist. (1988) 203
Cal.App.3d 1132.
125 The reported generation of hazardous waste varies greatly from year to year. For example, the
Tesoro Refinery generated more than 100,000 tons of hazardous waste several years ago, but in 2008
generated only 12,000 tons. The typical range for refineries is 4,000 tons to 12,000 per year.
90
(2) Other HWG Program Fees
Fees for inspections of facilities operating under permits by rule, conditional
authorizations or conditional exemptions are charged based on the hourly estimates of
the inspections of such facilities, as shown in Table 6 of this Report. The hourly
estimates applicable to each type of facility are multiplied by the hourly rate applicable
to inspections, $306.81, discussed above, to yield the fee totals for inspections of each
type of facility, some of which are annual and some of which are biannual. The fees
applicable to each type of facility are shown in Exhibit N.
b. The HWG Fees Are Set at a Level Sufficient to Fund the
Estimated Costs of the HWG Program
Under the current fee structure, the total HWG Fees range from $520 for a
business generating less than 5 tons per year to $78,575 for a business generating
2,000 or more tons per year. The proposed HWG Fees are projected to generate
$1,738,378 in revenue for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 and, based on the expenses incurred
and considering other revenues, are thus set at the approximate level necessary to fund
the HWG Program for Fiscal Year 2010-2011. These fees constitute the cost of
issuance of the HWG Program portion of the 2011-2012 CUPA permit that regulated
facilities must have to legally operate in Contra Costa County.
In determining the fee amounts, CUPA staff considered that the HWG Fees in
some categories exceed those of some other CUPAs and the state’s generator fee.
However, all CUPAs are not alike in terms of the size of their respective jurisdictions,
the number and type of businesses regulated under their HWG programs, salary and
benefit structures or levels of service provided. Because of these differences,
comparing HWG fees from CUPA to CUPA without also comparing their costs of
operation is not a particularly effective way of assessing the reasonableness of their
respective fees. The same can be said of comparing the state generator fee to the
CUPA HWG fee without also analyzing the costs funded by those fees.
c. Other Methods Considered
Other methods of allocating the HWG Fees were also evaluated by the CUPA
staff.
91
• Flat fee. A flat fee would apply across the board to all regulated
businesses in the HWG Program. Although easily calculated and applied, such a fee
would not be proportional, because the burden on the HWG Program varies with the
amount of hazardous waste generated.
• Flat fee per ton. The second method considered was a flat fee per ton of
hazardous waste generated. As an initial matter, this method would be unworkable for
practical reasons, because not all generators are reporting their exact tonnage figures
to the CUPA. Some merely report the category in which they fall. For this reason, the
CUPA does not have exact HWG tonnage data with which to determine a flat fee per
ton. Based on an estimated tonnage of 51,324 tons, however, and the $1,737,891 in
HWG Program fee revenue that would be needed, the fee per ton for most facilities
would come to $32.16.126 If this method were used, a facility generating less than five
tons of hazardous waste a year would pay only $80 per year, which would not fund the
direct costs associated with inspecting those facilities. The largest facilities, on the
other hand, would wind up paying more than their share. Based on the assumption that
a refinery generates about 4,000 tons per year, a refinery would be assessed a fee of
$128,640. Table 33 below shows what the HWG Fees would be in each category using
this methodology.
126 Persons operating facilities pursuant to a permit by rule, conditional authorization or conditional
exemption would still pay fees based on an hourly rate under this alternative scenario, because those
facilities treat waste onsite and therefore are not comparable to facilities generating waste that is shipped
offsite to hazardous waste disposal sites. The $87,134 cost to inspect these facilities was subtracted
from the required fee revenue total of $1,737,891, shown in Table 26, to yield the fee revenue total of
$1,650,757 that was used to calculate the fee per ton under this scenario.
92
Table 33
HWG Fees Based on $32.16 Flat Fee Per Ton
Fiscal Year 2010-2011
Category
#
Facilities
Estimated
Average
Tonnage
Fee/
Facility
Estimated
Total
Tonnage/
Category
Total Fee
Revenue/
Category
< 5 tons 1,263 2.5 $ 80 3,157.5 $ 101,040
5 tons ≤ x <12.5 tons 150 8.5 $ 273 1,275 $ 40,950
12.5 tons ≤ x <25 tons 84 18.5 $ 505 1,554 $ 49,980
25 tons ≤ x <50 tons 59 37.5 $ 1,206 2,213 $ 71,154
50 tons ≤ x <250 tons 55 150 $ 4,824 8,250 $ 265,320
250 tons ≤ x <500 tons 9 375 $ 12,060 3,375 $ 108,540
500 tons ≤ x <1000 tons 6 750 $ 24120 4,500 $ 144,720
1000 tons ≤ x <2000 tons 2 1,500 $ 48,240 3,000 $ 96,480
≥2000 tons 6 4,000 $128,640 24,000 $ 771,840
Totals 1,634 51,324 $1,650,024
Permit By Rule 16 $ 3,068 $ 49,088
Conditional Authorization 11 $ 3,068 $ 33,748
Conditional Exemption 7 $ 614 $ 4,298
Total 1,668 $1,737,158
The disparity would be even more pronounced, as well as unpredictable, if the
CUPA were able to obtain accurate and precise tonnage data from all generators. One
refinery, for example, reported generating 100,000 tons of hazardous waste a couple of
years ago, but only 12,000 tons the following year. Such fluctuations would make it
very difficult for the CUPA to accurately project fee revenues from year to year and set
fee amounts in line with those projections. For these reasons, it was determined that
this method would not result in an appropriate apportionment.
• Fee based on cost of service. Staff also evaluated a method where fees
would be based solely on the cost of the inspections. But this “cost of service” method
pays only for a portion of the program – i.e., the cost of the inspections – and not
93
pollution prevention, the Green Business Program, site mitigation or collection of
abandoned hazardous waste. This method thus would not allow for recovery of all of
the costs of the HWG Program, and would be inconsistent with Health & Safety Code
section 25404.5, which specifically requires the establishment of a single fee to fund the
“necessary and reasonable costs incurred by the certified unified program agency. . . ”
Regulatory fees such as the CUPA single fee fund the cost of the entire agency, not
merely the cost of inspections conducted by the agency. Since the cost of service
method would not satisfy the statutory requirement, this method was rejected by staff.
• Fee based on pure labor standard. Finally, staff evaluated a method
that would allocate all of the unfunded costs of the HWG Program to payors based on
the proportional inspection time for each payor category. In other words, instead of the
two-tiered approach that allocates direct costs by the labor standard and indirect costs
by the pollution-based standard, all costs would be allocated by the labor standard, with
amounts corresponding to the inspection hours in each category. But just as the fee per
tonnage approach would result in a windfall for small facilities, using the labor standard
to allocate all HWG Program costs would result in a windfall for large facilities. As
shown below in Table 34, based on average annual inspection hours (see Table 6), in
order to raise sufficient funds to pay for operations of the program in Fiscal Year 2010-
2011, the hourly rate would need to be set at $430.88. This would result in fees starting
at $646 for small facilities and $25,852 for the largest generators. By removing the
tonnage component, this method would also strip away the incentive the large facilities
otherwise would have had through the HWG Fees to reduce their hazardous waste
generation. Because this method of allocation would be inequitable, it was rejected in
favor of the two-tier approach outlined above.
94
Table 34
HWG Fees Based on Labor Standard
Category
#
Facilities
Inspection
Hours Per
Year/Facility
Inspection
Hours Per
Year/
Category
Annual Fee/
Facility
Annual Fee
Revenue/
Category
<5 tons 1,263 1.50 1894.5 $ 646 $ 815,898
5 tons ≤ x <12.5 tons 150 1.875 281.25 $ 808 $ 121,200
12.5 tons ≤ x <25 tons 84 2.625 220.5 $ 1,131 $ 95,004
25 tons ≤ x <50 tons 59 3.75 221.25 $ 1,616 $ 95,344
50 tons ≤ x <250 tons 55 5.625 309.375 $ 2,424 $ 133,320
250 tons ≤ x <500 tons 9 22.50 202.5 $ 9,695 $ 87,255
500 tons ≤ x <1000 tons 6 30.00 180 $12,926 $ 77,556
1000 tons ≤ x <2000 tons 2 40.00 80 $17,235 $ 34,470
≥2000 tons 6 60.00 360 $25,852 $ 155,112
Totals 1,634 3,749.375 $1,615,159
Permit by Rule 16 10 160.00 $ 4,309 $ 68,944
Conditional Authorization 11 10 110.00 $ 4,309 $ 47,399
Conditional Exemption 7 2 14.00 $ 862 $ 6,034
Total 1,668 4,033.375 $1,737,536
3. CalARP Fee Allocations
a. Methodology
Because the purpose of the CalARP Program is to prevent the catastrophic
accidental release of highly toxic or flammable chemicals, annual fees to fund this
program are allocated based on the potential risk that exists at regulated business sites
that handle a listed chemical above a certain threshold in a “process.” The risk
determination is based on a Chemical Exposure Index developed by Dow Chemical.
The Chemical Exposure Index includes indices for the following:
95
1. Toxicity of the chemical
2. Quantity of the chemical in the largest container
3. Distance between the largest container and the community
4. Volatility of the chemical
This formula has been modified by the addition of the following:
1. An index for flammable chemicals (replacing the above toxicity index for
flammable chemicals)
2. An index based on the accident history of the regulated business site
3. An index based on the complexity of the regulated business site
This Modified Chemical Exposure Index (“MCEI), and explanation of how the various
indices are determined, are described in Exhibit O.
The MCEI is applied as a factor in the following formula to determine the fee for a
stationary source:
Fee = (TC/TRF) x RF
TC = Total cost of the County’s CalARP Program
TRF = “Total Risk Factor,” or the sum of the Stationary Source Modified
Chemical Exposure Indexes (SSMCEI) of all stationary sources in
the County
RF = “Risk Factor,” or a stationary source SSMCEI
The formula is based on the potential risk presented by each facility. The fee
calculation ensures that the higher a regulated site’s MCEI, the higher the associated
fee. Since the higher the MCEI, the greater the risk of a chemical release, it is
reasonable to allocate fees based on the degree of risk posed by each stationary
source, because the degree of risk in most cases fairly represents their burden on the
CalARP Program, the very purpose of which is to minimize that risk.
b. The CalARP Fees Are Set at a Level Sufficient to Fund the
Estimated Cost of the CalARP Program
The proposed CalARP Fees are projected to generate an estimated $821,518 in
revenue and, based on the expense projections, are therefore set at the level necessary
to fund the CalARP Program in Fiscal Year 2011-2012. These fees constitute the cost
96
of issuance of the CalARP Program portion of the Fiscal Year 2011-2012 CUPA permit
that regulated facilities must obtain to legally operate in Contra Costa County. Exhibit
P attached hereto shows the estimated CalARP Fees for each stationary source based
on the above formula.127
c. Other Methods Considered
Fee structures of CalARP Programs operated by other CUPAs were also
considered. Los Angeles County has a fee schedule that is similar to Contra Costa
County. Los Angeles County staff developed risk units to determine the fee that a
regulated business site would pay. Other CUPAs128 determine fee amounts based on
other criteria, including:
1. Flat rates
2. Program levels for the stationary source
3. Types of review or actions by the CUPA at the stationary source
4. Number of employees at the stationary source
5. Number of regulated chemicals at the stationary source
In evaluating these various methods, the CUPA staff determined that the current
formula based on MCEI should remain in place, because the purpose of the CalARP
Program is to reduce the potential of accidents that could impact the public and the
MCEI is a way to measure the potential risk to the public from the chemicals that are
handled.
4. UST Fee Allocations
a. Methodology
As with the vast majority of UST Fees charged by other CUPAs, the UST annual
fees are allocated based on estimated annual tank inspection times. The fees for other
UST Program functions are flat fees, but also based on historical average times
associated with each of these functions.
127 All index numbers are reviewed immediately prior to the issuance of invoices. Invoices may reflect
minor changes from the amounts shown in the exhibit.
128 Other CUPA CalARP program fee structures reviewed were those of Los Angeles, San Mateo,
Sacramento, Solano, Sonoma, Alameda, and Santa Clara counties and the City of Berkeley
97
To determine the amount of the fees required to fund the cost of the UST
Program, the projected Fiscal Year 2011-2012 revenues that will not be funded by
annual fees to be collected this year (i.e., fines and penalties, fees for miscellaneous
inspections and other services and intergovernment revenue, totaling $309,242
collectively) were deducted from the total UST Program cost of $1,314,081, to yield a
subtotal of $1,004,839. This amount was then divided by the number of annual
inspection hours that are projected (4,189) to determine an hourly rate of $239.88.
Annual fees were then calculated by multiplying the estimated tank inspection
times shown in Table 10 of this Report by the $239.88 hourly rate. An additional “first
tank” fee to pay for the approximately two hours of preparation, travel and follow-up
office time applicable to each of the 422 non-residential sites is also based on this
$239.88 hourly rate. This fee is only required on the first tank because, whether there
are multiple tanks or a single tank at a site, the preparation, travel time, and follow-up
office time needed with respect to underground storage tank inspections is typically the
same. The total fees for the first tank thus include the cost of the annual inspection of
that tank as well as all associated preparation and follow-up time, while fees for
additional tanks at a site cover only the cost of the inspection.
Fees for the miscellaneous inspections and plan checks conducted by specialists
in the UST Program are considered fees for services provided to the tank owners or
operators who request these services. These fees are charged at the rate of $257 per
hour -- the fully burdened specialist salary and benefit rate applicable to miscellaneous
services that may be provided by specialists in the HWG, HMBP, UST or APSA
programs (see Miscellaneous Fees discussion, infra). It is projected that the CUPA will
receive $90,114 in revenue from these fees in the UST Program in Fiscal Year 2011-
2012.
Allocating the fees in the above manner ensures that the cost of the annual tank
inspections and other tank-related inspections and plan checks are paid by the owners
or operators of those tanks. The fees are thus allocated to the payors in direct
proportion to the benefits they receive from, and burdens they place on, the UST
Program.
98
b. The UST Fees and Accrued Revenues Are Set at a Level
Sufficient to Fund the Estimated Costs of the UST Program
Based on the number of regulated business sites in the CUPA’s jurisdiction and
the number of additional tanks at these sites, the annual UST Fees set forth in the
CUPA Fee Schedule are projected to generate a total of $1,005,360. These fees,
shown in Exhibit Q attached hereto, constitute the cost of issuance of the UST Program
portion of the Fiscal Year 2011-2012 CUPA permit that regulated facilities must obtain
to legally operate in Contra Costa County. Miscellaneous fees are projected to bring in
an additional $90,114 in fee revenue. Based on the projections these fees are thus set
at approximately the level necessary to fund the UST Program in Fiscal Year 2011-
2012.
5. APSA Fee Allocations
a. Methodology
The APSA Program costs of $371,834 that will be funded by fees129 are allocated
to fee payors in all categories based on estimated inspection times applicable to
facilities in each category and average annual inspections hours in each category. This
is the same method used to allocate the Inspection component of the HWG Program
Fee. This method was used to account for three different inspection intervals and the
fact that the inspection hours that are projected will not always match the average
annual inspection hours.
Based on the 925.33 average annual inspection hours shown in Table 12, the
hourly rate required to raise sufficient revenue to pay the unfunded $371,834 costs of
the APSA Program in Fiscal Year 2011-2012 is $401.84. The associated fee amounts
in each category, based on estimated annual inspection times, are shown in Exhibit R.
The totals range from $536 for the smallest tank facilities to $16,074 at the largest tank
facilities. Allocating the fees in this manner ensures that the cost of the APSA Program
is borne by the tank facilities in proportion to their respective burdens on the program.
129 The remaining $44,686 in costs will be funded by $5,671 in other revenues and $39,015 fee carryover
from Fiscal Year 2010-2011.
99
b. The APSA Fees Are Set at a Level Sufficient to Fund the
Estimated Costs of the APSA Program
The APSA Fees are set at the level necessary to fund the APSA Program, along
with other sources of revenue. Exhibit R shows the fees projected in each tank facility
category and for the program as a whole. The revenues from these fees will total an
estimated $371,904. Based on the projections and considering other revenues, the
annual fees are thus set at the approximate level necessary to fund the costs of the
APSA Program in Fiscal Year 2011-2012 program. These fees constitute the cost of
issuance of the APSA Program portion of the Fiscal Year 2011-2012 CUPA permit that
regulated facilities must obtain to legally operate in Contra Costa County.
6. Miscellaneous CUPA Fees
While the bulk of the CUPA costs are funded through annual fees, a small
amount of revenue is generated from fees that are charged for services performed by
Hazardous Materials Specialists. These services include, but are not limited to, a broad
range of non-annual inspections in the UST Program, services provided by the IR Team
for which costs are recovered from responsible parties, and reviews of exemption
applications pertaining to unstaffed remote facilities regulated under the HMBP
Program. The projections of revenues derived from these types of services in Fiscal
Year 2011-2012 are shown in Table 28.
A proposed hourly rate of $257 would apply to such services provided by the
specialists in the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011-2012. Fees applicable to these
services are shown in the proposed fee schedule attached as Exhibit A. The fees are
based on estimated hourly averages for the various types of inspections or other
services. The hourly rate was calculated by adding to the specialists’ $122.51 hourly
salary and benefit rate the hourly costs associated with the proportional shares of
administrative, clerical and student costs, services and supplies, indirect administration,
county overhead and uncollected fees attributable to the four programs where the
specialists work.130 A breakdown of this rate is shown in Table 35 below:
130 The shares were calculated by dividing the administrative, clerical and student costs, service and supply
costs, indirect administration costs, county overhead and uncollected fee totals allocated to the four CUPA
programs where the specialists work by the regular hour specialist salaries and benefits in those programs
($3,383,753). The results are percentages of the specialists’ $122.51 hourly rate. These percentages were
then multiplied by the $122.51 rate to yield hourly costs associated with each of these expense categories.
The hourly costs were then added together to yield the fully burdened hourly rate of $257.
100
Table 35
CUPA-Wide Fully Burdened Hourly Rate
for Miscellaneous CUPA Services by Hazardous Materials Specialists
Fiscal Year 2011-2012
Category
Expenses in
CUPA Programs
w/ Specialists
% of $122.51
hourly rate Hourly Rate
Specialist Salaries and Benefits
(Regular Hours)
$3,383,753
100.0
$122.51
Administrative/Clerical/Temp $ 468,774 13.9 $ 16.97
Services and Supplies $2,137,006 63.2 $ 77.37
Indirect Administration $ 400,413 11.8 $ 14.50
County Overhead $ 93,658 2.8 $ 3.39
Uncollected Fees $ 612,304 18.1 $ 22.17
Total $7,095,908 $256.91
Miscellaneous CUPA services may also be performed by the CalARP engineers,
such as the review of exemption applications, the annual verification of exemptions that
have been granted, and providing assistance to the IR Team during hazardous
materials incidents involving stationary sources. If such services are performed in the
remainder of Fiscal Year 2011-2012, a new fee based on the fully burdened hourly rate
of $151 would apply, based on the costs attributable to the CalARP Program, calculated
in a similar manner as the fully burdened rate for specialists. The proposed fee
schedule attached as Exhibit A shows the fees for these services. Table 34 below
shows a breakdown of the fee rate:
101
Table 36
CalARP Fully Burdened Hourly Rate
for Miscellaneous CUPA Services by Engineers
Fiscal Year 2011-2012
Category
Expenses in
CalARP
Program
% of $105.55
hourly rate Hourly Rate
Engineer Salaries and Benefits
(Regular Hours) $606,838 100.0 $105.55
Administrative/Clerical $ 75,084 12.4 $ 13.06
Services and Supplies $104,036 17.1 $ 18.10
Indirect Administration $ 66,055 10.9 $ 11.49
County Overhead $ 15,451 2.5 $ 2.69
Uncollected Fees 0 0 0
Total $867,464 $150.89
Miscellaneous CUPA fees include a fee that would be applicable only to the
facilities regulated by the HMBP Program whose annual fees do not include a CWS
component – i.e., businesses that handle hazardous materials and have reported
inventories of less than 500,000 pounds. In the event any of these facilities were to
cause a release that required activation of the CWS, that facility would be charged a fee
of $101 per hour, from activation until the all-clear signal is given, based on the hourly
cost of the CWS.131 Miscellaneous CUPA fees also include a $60 initial permit
processing fee, applicable to businesses that became subject to CUPA regulation or
changed ownership during the permit period (Fiscal Year 2011-2012).
VIII. CONCLUSION
Based on the above analysis, staff has determined that (1) the expenses of the
CUPA for Fiscal Year 2010-2011, as set forth in the Report, were reasonable and
necessary; (2) the projected expenses of the CUPA for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 are a
reasonable estimate of the necessary and reasonable costs the CUPA will actually incur
131 The hourly cost of the CWS for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 is $101.04, calculated by dividing the required
revenue total of $887,517 by the number of hours in that year (8,784).
102
in Fiscal Year 2011-2012; (3) the fees for the five CUPA programs are set at a level
sufficient to fund the necessary and reasonable costs of the respective programs in the
applicable fiscal years; and (4) the proposed CUPA Fees have been reasonably
apportioned based on the payors' benefits from or burdens on the various CUPA
programs.
Staff therefore recommends adoption of Resolution No. 2012/184, adopting
revised fees for the CUPA, effective immediately upon adoption.
RLS/
Exhibit 1
(to Resolution 2012/184)
Page 1 of 7
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CERTIFIED UNIFIED PROGRAM AGENCY
Fee Schedule
Effective May 22, 2012
The following is the schedule of fees applicable to programs administered by the Contra Costa
Certified Unified Program Agency (“CUPA”). Fees to fund the reasonable and necessary costs
incurred by the Contra Costa County CUPA are authorized by California Health & Safety Code
section 25404.5 and Section 15210 of Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations. This fee
schedule will apply to all CUPA invoices issued on or after the Effective Date above.
Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program
Annual Permit Fees
Projected Inventory (Lbs. Of Material) # Employees Fee
Less than 1,000 N/A $254
1,000 or more but less than 10,000 0 to 19 $353
10,000 or more but less than 100,000 0 to 19 $758
100,000 or more but less than 250,000 0 to 19 $1,076
250,000 or more but less than 500,000 0 to 19 $2,065
1,000 or more but less than 10,000 20 or more $991
10,000 or more but less than 100,000 20 or more $1,344
100,000 or more but less than 250,000 20 or more $2,734
250,000 or more but less than 500,000 20 or more $4,979
500,000 or more but less than 2.5 million N/A $11,171
2.5 million or more but less than 10 million N/A $18,721
10 million or more but less than 100 million N/A $31,688
100 million or more but less than 1 billion N/A $58,029
1 billion or more but less than 5 billion N/A $108,056
5 billion or more N/A N/A
Other
All oil refineries and class 1 off-site hazardous waste disposal
sites
N/A $123,342
Miscellaneous Service Fees
Fee
Exemption Application Review
(Per unstaffed remote facility)
$257
Page 2 of 7
Hazardous Waste Generator Program
Annual Permit Fees
Hazardous Waste Generated Fee
Less than 5 tons/year $485
5 tons or more but less than 12 tons/year $658
12 tons or more but less than 25 tons/year $986
25 tons or more but less than 50 tons/year $1,516
50 tons or more but less than 250 tons/year $3,188
250 tons or more but less than 500 tons/year $10,559
500 tons or more but less than 1,000 tons/year $16,517
1,000 tons or more but less than 2,000 tons/year $26,897
2,000 tons or more/year $57,409
Onsite Treatment
• Permit By Rule (Fixed Units) $3,068
• Conditional Authorization $3,068
• Conditional Exemption $614
Underground Storage Tank Program
Underground Storage Tank Annual Permit Fee
Single tank of 1,000 gallons or less used solely in connection with
the occupancy of a residence
$480
First tank of 50,000 gallons or less $480*
Basic fee for tank of 50,000 gallons or less $720
Each tank of 50,000 gallons or more $1,788
* In addition to the basic fee, a surcharge of $480 is applicable to the
tank at each site that has the earliest installation date.
Underground Storage Tank Miscellaneous Inspections & Other Services Fee
Permit Amendment or Transfer $257
Tank or Piping Modification or Repair Plan Review and Inspection
• Base Fee
• Each additional hour or fraction thereof of staff time beyond
3.5 hours
$938
$257
Page 3 of 7
Tank Lining Upgrade Plan Review and Inspection
• First tank
• Each additional tank
• Each additional hour or fraction thereof of staff time beyond
10.5 hours
$2,698
$385
$257
Tank Installation Plan Review and Inspection
• New tank facility, first tank
• New tank facility, each additional tank
$4,753
$514
Tank and Piping Removal Plan Review and Inspection
• First tank
• Each additional tank
$1,798
$385
Field Installed Cathodic Protection Plan Review and Inspection $1,285
Tank Lining Inspection
• First tank
• Each additional tank
$1,798
$257
Piping, Under Dispenser Container and Sump Upgrade Plan Review and Inspection
• First tank
• Each additional tank
$3,211
$385
Under Dispenser Container or Sump Repair (Without Piping) Inspection
(Single Sump or Single Under Dispenser Container Repair)
$899
Phase I EVR Upgrade Plan Review and Inspection
(Upgrade includes installation of Spill Containers)
$642
Existing Under Dispenser Container Replacement Plan Review and Inspection
(Includes Soil Sampling)
$899
Temporary Closure Plan Review and Inspection
• First tank
• Each additional tank
$771
$128
Monitoring System Change Plan Review and Inspection $1,028
Cold Start of Monitoring Panel Inspection $771
Penalty
The following penalty shall be applied and collectible from parties responsible for the
following action, in addition to any penalties that may be imposed under any other
underground tank regulation:
Failure to file and report a change in ownership or operator
of an underground tank.
$500/tank
Page 4 of 7
California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program
Annual Permit
Fees applicable to stationary sources will be determined according to the following formula:
Fee = (TC/TRF) x RF
TC = Total cost of the County’s CalARP program
TRF = “Total Risk Factor,” or the sum of the Stationary Source Modified Chemical
Exposure Indexes (SSMCEI) of all stationary sources in the County
RF = “Risk Factor,” or a stationary source SSMCEI
The TRF for the County and RF of a stationary source (SSMCEI) shall be determined pursuant to the
Contra Costa County Health Services Department’s California Accidental Release Prevention Program
Relative Risk Determination Methodology, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this
reference.
Stationary Source Exemption & Other Fees
Fee
Exemption Application Review
(Per regulated substance per process)
$754
Exemption Application Review
(Per warehouse where regulated substances are stored, if source does not
handle any regulated substance in a process)
$754
Exemption Review Annual Fee
(Assessed on each stationary source that handles regulated substances on site
but is exempt from preparing a Risk Management Plan)
$75
Reduced Fee for Multiple Stationary Sources
• First stationary source
• Each additional substantially identical stationary source
Full fee
10% of full fee
Page 5 of 7
Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act Program
Annual Permit Fees
Tank Facility Description Fee
Facility with storage capacity of 1,320 or more gallons but less than 10,000
gallons
$536
Facility with storage capacity of 10,000 or more gallons but less than
100,000 gallons
$1,206
Facility with storage capacity of 100,000 or more gallons but less than 1
million gallons
$4,822
Facility with storage capacity of 1 million or more gallons but less than 10
million gallons
$6,429
Facility with storage capacity of 10 million or more gallons but less than 100
million gallons
$9,644
Facility with storage capacity of 100 million or more gallons $16,074
Miscellaneous CUPA Fees
Fee
Incident Response Fee
• Each hour or fraction thereof of time spent by a Hazardous Materials Specialist
during regular business hours (Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.) in
connection with the characterization or remediation of site contamination by release
of a hazardous substance, material or waste by a business regulated by the CUPA,
if (1) the owner, operator or other responsible person in charge of the site, or an
emergency services agency, requests assistance from the IR Team and (2) the
Hazardous Materials Programs Director or his designee determines that an
emergency response is necessary to protect the public health and safety and the
environment.
• Each hour or fraction thereof of time spent by a CalARP Program Engineer
during regular business hours (Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.) in
connection with the characterization or remediation of site contamination by release
of a hazardous substance, material or waste by a business regulated by the CUPA,
including technical assistance to the IR Team and follow-up work associated with
incident investigations, if (1) the owner, operator or other responsible person in
charge of the site, or an emergency services agency, requests assistance from the
IR Team and (2) the Hazardous Materials Programs Director or his designee
determines that an emergency response is necessary to protect the public health
and safety and the environment.
$257/hr.
$151/hr.
Overtime Charges
• Each hour or fraction thereof of time spent by a Hazardous Materials Specialist
performing any service at the request of a regulated business on weekdays
between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m., weekends or County holidays.
• Each hour or fraction thereof of time spent by a CalARP Engineer performing
any service at the request of a regulated business on weekdays between 5 p.m.
and 8 a.m., weekends or County holidays.
• Each hour or fraction thereof of time spent by a Hazardous Materials Specialist
on weekdays between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m., weekends or County holidays in
connection with the characterization or remediation of site contamination by release
$280/hr.
$176/hr.
$280/hr.
Page 6 of 7
of a hazardous substance, material or waste, if (1) the owner, operator or other
responsible person in charge of the site, or an emergency services agency,
requests assistance from the IR Team and (2) the Hazardous Materials Programs
Director or his designee determines that an emergency response is necessary to
protect the public health and safety and the environment.
• Each hour or fraction thereof of time spent by a CalARP Program Engineer on
weekdays between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m., weekends or County holidays in connection
with the characterization or remediation of site contamination by release of a
hazardous substance, material or waste, including technical assistance to the IR
Team and follow-up work associated with incident investigations, if (1) the owner,
operator or other responsible person in charge of the site, or an emergency services
agency, requests assistance from the IR Team and (2) the Hazardous Materials
Programs Director or his designee determines that an emergency response is
necessary to protect the public health and safety and the environment.
$176/hr.
Re-Inspection Fee
Each hour or fraction thereof of time spent by a Hazardous Materials Specialist
performing any inspection of a regulated facility beyond the routine or initial
inspection and one follow-up inspection.
$257/hr.
Audit Verification Fee
Each hour or fraction thereof of time spent by a CalARP Engineer following up on
the compliance by a regulated business with an audit action plan pertaining to the
facility, if the business has not complied with more than 50 percent of the items on
the action plan by the stated deadline.
$151/hr.
Community Warning System Fee
Each hour or fraction thereof of CWS use in response to a hazardous materials
release by a regulated business that was not subject to the CWS component of the
HMBP Program Fee on the Effective Date. Such use will be measured from system
activation through the all-clear declaration.
$101/hr.
Initial Permit Processing Fee
For the processing of annual CUPA permits for regulated businesses that
commence operations or change ownership during the permit period.
$60
Page 7 of 7
Other Fees
(Authority: Health & Saf. Code, § 101325)
Incident Response
• Each hour or fraction thereof of time spent by a Hazardous Materials Specialist
during regular business hours (Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.) in
connection with the characterization or remediation of site contamination by release
of a hazardous substance, material or waste, if (1) the owner, operator or other
responsible person in charge of the contaminated site, or an emergency services
agency, requests assistance from the IR Team and (2) the Hazardous Materials
Programs Director or his designee determines that an emergency response is
necessary to protect the public health and safety and the environment. This fee
does not apply to businesses regulated by the CUPA.
• Each hour or fraction thereof of time spent by a Hazardous Materials Specialist
on weekdays between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m., weekends or County holidays in
connection with the characterization or remediation of site contamination by release
of a hazardous substance, material or waste, if (1) the owner, operator or other
responsible person in charge of the site, or an emergency services agency,
requests assistance from the IR Team and (2) the Hazardous Materials Programs
Director or his designee determines that an emergency response is necessary to
protect the public health and safety and the environment. This fee does not apply to
businesses regulated by the CUPA.
Fee
$175/hr.
$199/hr.
5/22/12
EXHIBIT A
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CALIFORNIA ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVENTION PROGRAM
RELATIVE RISK DETERMINATION METHODOLOGY
I. INTRODUCTION. The Contra Costa County Health Services Department uses the
Chemical Exposure Index (CEI)1, as modified, to rank the relative potential of acute health
hazard to people from possible chemical release incidents. The Modified CEI (MCEI) is used by
the Department for the purpose of assessing stationary source fees. The MCEI formula is
intended to provide a relatively simple method for comparing relative chemical toxic hazards,
resulting in fees that fairly reflect the hazard potential of the facilities in the County.
The MCEI accounts for the following six factors that could influence the magnitude of a
potential regulated substance exposure:
1. The potential health hazard posed by the regulated substance measured by the toxic
endpoint and the vapor pressure (volatilization driving force) of the material.
2. The vapor quantity available for dispersion based on the largest single container of
the regulated substance.
3. The distance to the nearest receptor.
4. The degree of dispersivity and vapor density as related to the molecular weight of the
substance.
5. The number of processes using regulated substances at a stationary source.
6. Accident history.
1For information regarding the Chemical Exposure Index, see Dow Chemical’s Chemical Exposure
Guide,published by the Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers,
1994, New York, New York.
CCCHSD CalARP Program Relative Risk Determination Methodology
Page 2
II. MODIFIED CHEMICAL EXPOSURE INDEX (MCEI) DETERMINATION
METHODOLOGY.
A. Regulated Substance MCEI.
A Regulated Substance MCEI is determined for each regulated substance handled at a
stationary source in quantities above the threshold quantities established by the regulations for
the California Accidental Release Prevention Program. The MCEI for a Regulated Substance is
determined by multiplying the applicable scale numbers for the various risk factors (Subsection
B), as follows:
1.
Regulated
Substance x
Scale No.
2.
Largest
Single x
Container
Scale No.
3.
Distance
Scale No. x
4.
Molecular
Weight =
Scale No.
5.
Modified
Chemical Exposure
Index
B. Determination of Risk Factor Scale Numbers.
1. Regulated Substance Scale Number. Both the concentration at which a material is
acutely toxic and the vapor/partial pressure that creates the driving force to volatilize and
maintain the material in the atmosphere affect this scale number. For purposes of this scale
number, the toxic endpoints, in parts per million, are used as the toxicity measurement.
Volatility is measured by the vapor/partial pressure in mm Hg @ 25°C (millimeters of Mercury at
25 degrees Centigrade), up to a maximum of 760mm Hg.
The Regulated Substance Scale factor is determined by multiplying the toxic endpoint
concentration by 760, and dividing that number by the vapor/partial pressure in mm Hg. The
Regulated Substance Scale factors are assigned the following Regulated Substance Scale
Numbers.
Regulated Substance Scale Factor
0 - .99
1.0 - 9.9
10.0 - 99.0
100 - 999
1,000 - 1000,000
>100,000
Regulated Substance Scale Number
5
4
3
2
1
0
For flammable substances and for sulfuric acid in a mixture with a flash point < 73°F,
the Regulated Substances Scale Number of two (2) is assigned.
2. Largest Single Container Scale Number. The Scale Number for the largest single
container is determined by taking the Log10 of the maximum amount of regulated substance, in
CCCHSD CalARP Program Relative Risk Determination Methodology
Page 3
pounds, stored in a single container at the stationary source.
3. Distance Scale Number. This factor quantifies the distance between the point of
release and the public or environmental receptor. The term public receptor means offsite
residences, institutions (e.g., schools, hospitals), industrial, commercial and office buildings,
parks or recreational areas inhabited or occupied by the public at any time without restriction by
the stationary source where members of the public could be exposed to toxic concentrations,
radiant heat or overpressure, as a result of an accidental release. (See Title 19 Cal. Code Regs.
Division 2 Chapt. 4.5) The term environmental receptor means natural areas such as national
or state parks, forests, or monuments, officially designated wildlife sanctuaries, preserves,
refuges or areas, and federal wilderness areas, that could be exposed at any time to toxic
concentrations, radiant heat, or overpressure greater than or equal to the endpoints, as a result
of an accidental release and that can be identified on local U.S. Geological Survey maps. (See
Title 19 Cal. Code Regs. Division 2 Chapt. 4.5)
Distance
<1,000 ft.
1,000 - 5,279 ft.
1 mile - 5 miles
>5 miles - 15 miles
>15 miles
Scale Number
4
3
2
1
0
4. Molecular Weight Scale Number. The density of the vapor is directly related to the
molecular weight and inversely affects the rate of dispersion. Therefore, regulated substances
have been assigned the following scale numbers based upon their molecular weight.
Molecular Weight
>45
34 - 45
23 - 33
15-22
<15
Scale Number
4
3
2
1
0
Exceptions. The above formula does not apply to substances such as ammonia and
hydrogen fluoride, which form heavier-than-air vapor clouds due to the formation of aerosols
(ammonia) and strong intermolecular forces (hydrogen fluoride). These regulated substances
are assigned Scale Number 4.
C. Stationary Source MCEI. A stationary source’s MCEI is obtained by adding the
Regulated Substance MCEI for each regulated substance handled at the stationary source, and
multiplying that number by Process Scale Number for the stationary source. If there has been a
level-three accidents (as defined by the Community Warning System) in the last three years, the
MCEI will be increased by a factor of 10 % for each level-three accident in this time period.
CCCHSD CalARP Program Relative Risk Determination Methodology
Page 4
1. Process Scale Number. The relative risk for an accidental release from a stationary
source is directly related to the amount of handling of regulated substances at the source. A
stationary source’s MCEI uses the number of California Accidental Release Prevention Program
covered processes at a stationary source as a determination of this factor.
Number of Processes
>10
6 - 10
3 - 5
0 - 2
Scale Number
4
3
2
1
2. Accident History Scale Factor. A factor of 1.1 will be used for each level-three
incident occurring in a rolling three-year period. The first accident in this time period will have a
factor of 1.1. If there have been two level three accidents, the factor will be 1.2, etc.
Date: ___________
H:\LFUJI\HAZMAT\CARPMETH.WPD
LIST OF EXHIBITS
TO STAFF REPORT ON THE DETERMINATION AND APPORTIONMENT OF CUPA FEES
EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION
A Fee Comparison – April 12, 2011 to Proposed Fees Effective May 22, 2012
B December 19, 2005 letter from the Department of Toxic Substances Control
C Public Notice of Meeting and Handouts
D Written Comments
E Written Responses to Comments
F Service and Supply Allocations
G CWS Maintenance – July 5, 200 CAER Board of Directors Meeting
H Projected Service and Supply Allocations
I Allocation of CWS Component – HMBP Program Fee
J Allocation of IR Component – 500,000 Pounds or more
K Allocation of IR Component – Less than 500,000 Pounds
L Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program Fee Allocations
M Department of Toxic Substances Control Fee Summary – Effective January 1, 2012
N Hazardous Waste Generator Program Fee Allocations
O CalARP Relative Risk Determination Methodology
P CalARP Program Fee Calculations
Q Underground Storage Tank Projected Fee Revenue
R Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act Program
Page 1 of 7
Exhibit A
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CERTIFIED UNIFIED PROGRAM AGENCY
Proposed Fee Schedule Effective May 22, 2012
and Comparison to April 12, 2011 Fees
The following is the proposed schedule of fees applicable to programs administered by the
Contra Costa Certified Unified Program Agency (“CUPA”). Fees to fund the reasonable and
necessary costs incurred by the Contra Costa County CUPA are authorized by California
Health & Safety Code section 25404.5 and Section 15210 of Title 27 of the California Code of
Regulations. Upon approval by the Board of Supervisors, the proposed fees would apply to
all CUPA invoices issued on or after the Effective Date.
Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program
Annual Permit Fees
Projected Inventory (Lbs. Of Material) # Employees Current Fee Proposed Fee
Less than 1,000 N/A $226 $254
1,000 or more but less than 10,000 0 to 19 $314 $353
10,000 or more but less than 100,000 0 to 19 $702 $758
100,000 or more but less than 250,000 0 to 19 $1,005 $1,076
250,000 or more but less than 500,000 0 to 19 $2,055 $2,065
1,000 or more but less than 10,000 20 or more $899 $991
10,000 or more but less than 100,000 20 or more $1,218 $1,344
100,000 or more but less than 250,000 20 or more $2,481 $2,734
250,000 or more but less than 500,000 20 or more $4,571 $4,979
500,000 or more but less than 2.5 million N/A $11,547 $11,171
2.5 million or more but less than 10 million N/A $20,179 $18,721
10 million or more but less than 100 million N/A $34,922 $31,688
100 million or more but less than 1 billion N/A $67,834 $58,029
1 billion or more but less than 5 billion N/A $114,121 $108,056
5 billion or more N/A N/A N/A
Other
All oil refineries and class 1 off-site hazardous
waste disposal sites
N/A $151,523 $123,342
Miscellaneous Service Fees
Current Fee Proposed Fee
Unstaffed Remote Facilities
• Exemption Application Review
(Per unstaffed remote facility)
$268
$257
Page 2 of 7
Hazardous Waste Generator Program
Annual Permit Fees
Hazardous Waste Generated Current Fee Proposed Fee
Less than 5 tons/year $520 $485
5 or more tons, but less than 12 tons/year $730 $658
12 or more tons, but less than 25 tons/year $1,120 $986
25 or more tons, but less than 50 tons/year $1,763 $1,516
50 or more tons, but less than 250 tons/year $4,034 $3,188
250 or more tons, but less than 500 tons/year $12,803 $10,559
500 or more tons, but less than 1,000 tons/year $20,773 $16,517
1,000 or more tons, but less than 2,000 tons/year $35,103 $26,897
2,000 or more tons/year $78,575 $57,409
Onsite Treatment
• Permit By Rule (Fixed Units) $3,222 $3,068
• Conditional Authorization $3,222 $3,068
• Conditional Exemption $644 $614
Underground Storage Tank Program
Underground Storage Tank Annual Permit Current Fee Proposed Fee
Single tank of 1,000 gallons or less used solely
in connection with the occupancy of a residence
$596 $480
First tank of 50,000 gallons or less $298* $480*
Basic fee for tank of 50,000 gallons or less $1,043 $720
Each tank of 50,000 gallons or more $1,788 $1,788
* In addition to the basic fee, a surcharge of $480 is applicable to the tank
at each site that has the earliest installation date.
Underground Storage Tank Miscellaneous Inspections
& Other Services Current Fee Proposed Fee
Permit Amendment or Transfer $268 $257
Tank or Piping Modification or Repair Plan Review and
Inspection
• Base Fee
• Each additional hour or fraction thereof of staff time
beyond 3.5 hours
$938
$268
$938
$257
Page 3 of 7
Tank Lining Upgrade Plan Review and Inspection
• First tank
• Each additional tank
• Each additional hour or fraction thereof of staff time
beyond 10.5 hours
$2,814
$402
$268
$2,698
$385
$257
Tank Installation Plan Review and Inspection
• New tank facility, first tank
• New tank facility, each additional tank
$4,958
$536
$4,753
$514
Tank and Piping Removal Plan Review and Inspection
• First tank
• Each additional tank
$1,876
$402
$1,798
$385
Field Installed Cathodic Protection Plan Review and
Inspection
$1,340 $1,285
Tank Lining Inspection
• First tank
• Each additional tank
$1,876
$268
$1,798
$257
Piping, Under Dispenser Container and Sump Upgrade
Plan Review and Inspection
• First tank
• Each additional tank
$3,350
$402
$3,211
$385
Under Dispenser Container or Sump Repair (Without
Piping) Inspection
(Single Sump or Single Under Dispenser Container Repair)
$938 $899
Phase I EVR Upgrade Plan Review and Inspection
(Upgrade includes installation of Spill Containers)
$670 $642
Existing Under Dispenser Container Replacement Plan
Review and Inspection
(Includes Soil Sampling)
$938
$899
Temporary Closure Plan Review and Inspection
• First tank
• Each additional tank
$804
$134
$771
$128
Monitoring System Change Plan Review and Inspection $1,072 $1,028
Cold Start of Monitoring Panel Inspection $804 $771
Page 4 of 7
Penalty
The following penalty shall be applied and collectible from
parties responsible for the following action, in addition to any
penalties that may be imposed under any other underground
tank regulation:
Failure to file and report a change in ownership or
operator of an underground tank.
$500/tank $500/tank
California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program
Annual Permit
Fees applicable to stationary sources will be determined according to the following formula:
Fee = (TC/TRF) x RF
TC = Total cost of the County’s CalARP program
TRF = “Total Risk Factor,” or the sum of the Stationary Source Modified Chemical
Exposure Indexes (SSMCEI) of all stationary sources in the County
RF = “Risk Factor,” or a stationary source SSMCEI
The TRF for the County and RF of a stationary source (SSMCEI) shall be determined pursuant to
the Contra Costa County Health Services Department’s California Accidental Release Prevention
Program Relative Risk Determination Methodology, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein
by this reference.
Stationary Source Exemption & Other Fees
Current Fee Proposed Fee
Exemption Application Review
(Per regulated substance per process)
$705 $754
Exemption Application Review
(Per warehouse where regulated substances are stored, if
source does not handle any regulated substance in a process)
$705 $754
Exemption Review Annual Fee
(Assessed on all stationary sources that handle regulated
substances on site but are exempt from preparing a Risk
Management Plan)
$70 $75
Reduced Fee for Multiple Stationary Sources
• First stationary source
• Each additional substantially identical stationary source
Full fee
$10% of full fee
Full fee
10% of full fee
Page 5 of 7
Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act Program
Annual Permit Fees
Tank Facility Description Current Fee Proposed Fee
Facility with storage capacity of 1,320 or more gallons but less
than 10,000 gallons
$633 $536
Facility with storage capacity of 10,000 or more gallons but less
than 100,000 gallons
$1,425 $1,206
Facility with storage capacity of 100,000 or more gallons but
less than 1 million gallons
$5,700 $4,822
Facility with storage capacity of 1 million or more gallons but
less than 10 million gallons
$7,599 $6,429
Facility with storage capacity of 10 million or more gallons but
less than 100 million gallons
$11,399 $9,644
Facility with storage capacity of 100 million or more gallons $18,999 $16,074
Miscellaneous CUPA Fees
Current Fee Proposed Fee
Incident Response Fee
• Each hour or fraction thereof of time spent by a Hazardous
Materials Specialist during regular business hours (Monday
through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.) in connection with the
characterization or remediation of site contamination by the
release of a hazardous substance, material or waste by a
business regulated by the CUPA, if (1) the owner, operator or
other responsible person in charge of the site, or an emergency
services agency, requests assistance from the IR Team and (2)
the Hazardous Materials Programs Director or his designee
determines that an emergency response is necessary to protect
the public health and safety and the environment.
• Each hour or fraction thereof of time spent by a CalARP
Program Engineer during regular business hours (Monday
through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.) in connection with the
characterization or remediation of site contamination by release
of a hazardous substance, material or waste by a regulated
business, including technical assistance to the IR Team and
follow-up work associated with incident investigations, if (1) the
owner, operator or other responsible person in charge of the site,
or an emergency services agency, requests assistance from the
IR Team and (2) the Hazardous Materials Programs Director or
his designee determines that an emergency response is
necessary to protect the public and safety and the environment.
$268/hr.
$141/hr.
$257/hr.
$151/hr.
Page 6 of 7
Overtime Charges
• Each hour or fraction thereof of time spent by a Hazardous
Materials Specialist performing any service at the request of a
regulated business on weekdays between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m.,
weekends or County holidays.
• Each hour or fraction thereof of time spent by a CalARP
Engineer performing any service at the request of a regulated
business on weekdays between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m., weekends or
County holidays.
• Each hour or fraction thereof of time spent by a Hazardous
Materials Specialist on weekdays between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m.,
weekends or County holidays in connection with the
characterization or remediation of site contamination by release
of a hazardous substance, material or waste, if (1) the owner,
operator or other responsible person in charge of the site, or an
emergency services agency, requests assistance from the IR
Team and (2) the Hazardous Materials Programs Director or his
designee determines that an emergency response is necessary
to protect the public health and safety and the environment.
• Each hour or fraction thereof of time spent by a CalARP
Program Engineer on weekdays between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m.,
weekends or County holidays in connection with the
characterization or remediation of site contamination by release
of a hazardous substance, material or waste, including technical
assistance to the IR Team and follow-up work associated with
incident investigations, if (1) the owner, operator or other
responsible person in charge of the site, or an emergency
services agency, requests assistance from the IR Team and (2)
the Hazardous Materials Programs Director or his designee
determines that an emergency response is necessary to protect
the public health and safety and the environment.
$284/hr.
$171/hr.
$284/hr.
$171/hr.
$280/hr.
$176/hr.
$280/hr.
$176/hr.
Re-Inspection Fee
Each hour or fraction thereof of time spent by a Hazardous
Materials Specialist performing any inspection of a regulated
facility regulated by the CUPA beyond the routine or initial
inspection and one follow-up inspection.
$268/hr. $257/hr.
Audit Verification Fee
Each hour or fraction thereof of time spent by a CalARP
Engineer following up on the compliance by a regulated
business regulated with an audit action plan pertaining to the
facility, if the business has not complied with more than 50
percent of the items on the action plan by the stated deadline.
$141/hr.
$151/hr.
Community Warning System Fee
Each hour or fraction thereof of CWS use in response to a
hazardous materials release by a regulated business that was
not subject to the CWS component of the HMBP Program Fee
on the Effective Date. Such use will be measured from system
activation through the all-clear declaration.
$135/hr.
$101/hr.
Initial Permit Processing Fee
For the processing of annual CUPA permits for regulated
businesses that commence operations or change ownership
$60 $60
Page 7 of 7
during the permit period.
Other Fees
(Authority: Health & Saf. Code, § 101325)
Current Fee Proposed Fee
Incident Response
• Each hour or fraction thereof of time spent by a Hazardous
Materials Specialist during regular business hours (Monday
through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.) in connection with the
characterization or remediation of site contamination by release
of a hazardous substance, material or waste, if (1) the owner,
operator or other responsible person in charge of the
contaminated site, or an emergency services agency, requests
assistance from the IR Team and (2) the Hazardous Materials
Programs Director or his designee determines that an
emergency response is necessary to protect the public health
and safety and the environment. This fee does not apply to
businesses regulated by the CUPA.
$175/hr.
$175/hr.
• Each hour or fraction thereof of time spent by a Hazardous
Materials Specialist on weekdays between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m.,
weekends or County holidays in connection with the
characterization or remediation of site contamination by release
of a hazardous substance, material or waste, if (1) the owner,
operator or other responsible person in charge of the site, or an
emergency services agency, requests assistance from the IR
Team and (2) the Hazardous Materials Programs Director or his
designee determines that an emergency response is necessary
to protect the public health and safety and the environment. This
fee does not apply to businesses regulated by the CUPA.
$199/hr. $199/hr.
5/22/12
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
March 20, 2012 1
PROJECTED REVENUES AND EXPENSES
The proposed fee schedule sets forth fees that will fund the costs associated with
annual permits issued by the Contra Costa County CUPA to regulated businesses for
operations in Fiscal Year 2011-2012. These fees are collected in a single fee system
mandated by Health & Safety Code section 25404.5. The governing board of every
CUPA is required to “establish the amount to be paid by each person regulated by the
unified program under the single fee system at a level sufficient to pay the necessary
and reasonable costs incurred by the certified unified program agency. . . “ (Health &
Saf. Code, § 25404.5, subd. (a)(2)A).)
The proposed fees are based on projections of expenses and revenues.
Expense Projections
The first step in the fee-setting process is projecting expenses for the Contra Costa
County CUPA as a whole and for each of the individual CUPA programs. The
expenses of the CUPA include staff salaries and benefits, services and supplies and
overhead. Staff salaries and benefits make up the bulk of the annual expenses of the
CUPA and of each of the CUPA programs. Some expenses are attributable to specific
programs. The salaries and benefits of inspectors of underground storage tanks, for
example, would be attributed directly to the Underground Storage Tank Program. Other
expenses, such as administrative compensation and County overhead, , apply CUPA-
wide. Those expenses are applied to each program proportionately, based on the
percentage derived by dividing the total of each program’s regular hour salary and
benefit expenses by the salary and benefits expenses attributable to regular hours
worked in all of the programs combined.
CUPA permits to operate in Fiscal Year 2011-2012 pertain to multiple programs.
Expenses on which the Fiscal Year 2011-2012 permit fees are based include expenses
in two separate fiscal years. In the case of the Underground Storage Tank (UST),
Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA) and California Accidental Release
Prevention (CalARP) programs, and the Community Warning System component of the
Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) Program, expenses incurred in Fiscal Year
2011-2012 are applicable. But as to the Hazardous Waste Generator (HWG) Program,
and the balance of the HMBP Program, Fiscal Year 2010-2011 expenses are used to
determine fees for the Fiscal Year 2011-2012 permits. This complex process requires a
detailed analysis of expenses and revenues in all of these programs in both fiscal years.
March 20, 2012 2
If a fiscal year has not yet commenced, expenses are projected based on the past
year’s expenses, with adjustments made to reflect extraordinary expenses incurred in
the previous year or anticipated in the upcoming year. Given the timing of this fee-
setting process, however, projections of expenses in Fiscal Year 2011-2012 began with
a tally of the actual expenses incurred in the first seven months of the fiscal year.
These actual expenses were then used to project expenses for the remainder of the
year. The total of the actual and projected expenses became the baseline expense
projection for Fiscal Year 2011-2012.
Extraordinary expenses that occurred in the first seven months of Fiscal Year 2011-
2012 and were not expected in the last five months of the year were subtracted from the
baseline expense projection. Conversely, extraordinary expenses expected to occur in
the last five months of Fiscal Year 2011-2012 were added to the baseline projection.
Projected expenses for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 are set forth below, as are the actual
expenses in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 in all programs. For comparison, the actual
expenses incurred in Fiscal Year 2009-2010 are also shown.
Projected CUPA Expenses Fiscal Year 2011-2012
Description
HMBP
Program
HWG
Program
Cal/ARP
Program
UST
Program
APSA
Program
Total CUPA
Programs
Salaries and Benefits $2,135,122 $1,309,941 $714,977 $ 886,869 $327,430 $5,374,339
Services and Supplies $1,751,899 $ 199,849 $104,036 $ 135,304 $ 49,954 $2,241,042
Indirect Administration $ 155,901 $ 126,888 $ 66,055 $ 85,907 $ 31,717 $ 466,468
County Overhead $ 36,465 $ 29,680 $ 15,451 $ 20,094 $ 7,419 $ 109,109
Uncollected Fees/
Shortfalls $ 286,809 $ 139,588 0 $ 185,907 0 $ 612,304
Total $4,366,196 $1,805,946 $900,519 $1,314,081 $416,520 $8,803,262
March 20, 2012 3
CUPA Expenses Fiscal Year 2010-2011 (Actual)
Description
HMBP
Program
HWG
Program
Cal/ARP
Program
UST
Program
APSA
Program
Total CUPA
Programs
Salaries and Benefits $2,232,344 $1,322,961 $728,017 $ 815,135 $286,583 $5,385,040
Services and Supplies $1,457,782 $ 223,556 $123,021 $ 137,743 $ 48,427 $1,990,529
Indirect Administration $ 167,209 $ 126,719 $ 69,733 $ 78,077 $ 27,450 $ 469,188
County Overhead $ 60,441 $ 45,806 $ 25,207 $ 28,223 $ 9,922 $ 169,599
Uncollected Fees/
Revenue Shortfalls $ 286,809 $ 139,588 $ 42,128 $ 491,645 $ 18,640 $ 978,810
Total $4,204,585 $1,858,630 $988,106 $1,550,823 $391,022 $8,993,166
CUPA Expenses Fiscal Year 2009-2010 (Actual)
Description
HMBP
Program
HWG
Program
Cal/ARP
Program
UST
Program
APSA
Program
Total CUPA
Programs
Salaries and Benefits $2,146,246 $1,307,507 $ 714,685 $ 873,238 $290,693 $5,332,369
Services and Supplies $1,791,385 $ 385,685 $ 210,817 $ 256,700 $ 85,750 $2,730,337
Indirect Administration $ 155,959 $ 122,105 $ 66,743 $ 81,270 $ 27,147 $ 453,224
County Overhead $ 22,571 $ 17,671 $ 9,659 $ 11,761 $ 3,929 $ 65,591
Uncollected Fees/
Revenue Shortfalls $ 148,727 $ 79,104 $ 117,212 $ 216,583 $ 78,452 $ 640,078
Total $4,264,888 $1,912,072 $1,119,116 $1,439,552 $485,971 $9,221,599
Revenue Projections
After expenses for Fiscal Years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 were determined, the next
step was to look at revenues. As the annual permit fees for Fiscal Year 2011-2012
collect revenues to fund expenses incurred in two separate fiscal years, revenues to
fund expenses in each program in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 were
analyzed.
March 20, 2012 4
CUPA revenue sources include not only annual fees but also late payment penalties,
fines, payments for incident response and grants. Annual fee payments are the primary
revenue source. Revenues available for expenditure in a given fiscal year also include
any fee carryovers from the previous fiscal year. Fee carryovers result when revenues
exceed expenses.
Some revenues are collected on an intermittent basis. These include monies collected
for underground storage tank plan checks and inspections after repairs or modifications.
The same is true of revenues resulting from cost recovery for services provided by the
hazardous material response team. Fines, late penalties and grants fall into the same
category. For Fiscal Year 2011-2012, these revenues were projected based on the
actual revenues collected in those categories in the first eight months of Fiscal Year
2011-2012, with adjustments to account for one-time revenues received in that time-
period or anticipated in the last four months of the year. The total of these projected
revenues were then compared to the projected total Fiscal Year 2011-2012 expenses in
the UST, APSA and CalARP programs, and the Community Warning System
component of the HMBP Program, to determine the remaining revenues needed in the
form of annual fees to fund those expenses. Similarly, the actual intermittent revenues
in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 were compared against expenses in the HWG Program and
balance of the HMBP Program in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 to calculate the annual fee
revenues needed to fund those expenses.
Annual fees are charged to each regulated business, with the total broken down by
program on the annual invoice. The amount of the fee paid by a particular business
depends on the type of programs applicable to that business, the number of regulated
businesses within the jurisdiction of the County CUPA, and numerous other factors that
include the size of the business, the amount of hazardous waste generated by that
business the previous year, projected inventories of hazardous materials handled on
site and tank capacities.
Actual and projected revenues for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 and Fiscal Year 2011-2012
for the CUPA as a whole and each CUPA program are set forth below. (It should be
noted that, although revenues for the HWG and balance of the HMBP programs are not
collected as part of the Fiscal Year 2011-2012 fee, preliminary projections have been
calculated for those programs in that year as well. Updated projections will be done in
the next fee setting process.) For comparison, the actual revenues collected in Fiscal
Year 2009-2010 are also shown.
March 20, 2012 5
Projected Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Revenues
Description
HMBP
Program
HWG
Program
CalARP
Program
UST
Program
APSA
Program
Total CUPA
Programs
Misc. Permit Fees 0 0 0 $ 90,114 0 $ 90,114
Service Fees $ 91,444 $ 139 $ 101 $ 132 $ 49 $ 91,865
Fines & Penalties $ 26,786 $ 17,725 $ 7,949 $ 214,106 $ 3,817 $ 270,383
Intergovernment
Revenue $ 8,875 $ 5,169 $ 3,760 $ 4,890 $ 1,805 $ 24,499
Fee Carryovers/To
FY 11-12 $ 381,760 0 $ 67,191 0 $ 39,015 $ 487,966
Required Fee
Revenue/ For FY 11-12 $3,857,331 $1,782,913 $821,518 $1,004,839 $371,834 $7,838,435
Total Revenues $4,366,196 $1,805,946 $900,519 $1,314,081 $416,520 $8,803,262
Projected Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Revenues
Description
HMBP
Program
HWG
Program
CalARP
Program
UST
Program
APSA
Program
Total CUPA
Programs
Misc. Permit Fees 0 0 0 $ 111,729 0 $ 111,729
Service Fees $ 92,078 $ 491 $ 270 $ 302 $ 106 $ 93,247
Fines & Penalties $ 24,048 $ 120,248 $ 3,792 $ 32,906 $ 8,497 $ 189,491
Intergovernment
Revenue $ 150,000 0 0 0 0 $ 150,000
Annual Permit Fees/
Collected For FY 10-11 $1,185,435 0 $1,051,235 $1,219,979 $421,434 $3,878,083
Fee Carryovers/To
FY 10-11 $ 59,067 0 0 0 0 $ 59,067
Required Fee
Revenue/For FY 10-11 $3,075,717 $1,737,891 0 0 0 $4,813,608
Borrowed Revenue/
From FY 11-12 0 0 0 $ 185,907 0 $ 185,907
Total Revenues $4,586,345 $1,858,630 $1,055,297 $1,550,823 $430,037 $9,481,132
March 20, 2012 6
Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Revenues (Actual)
Description
HMBP
Program
HWG
Program
CalARP
Program
UST
Program
APSA
Program
Total CUPA
Programs
Misc. Permit Fees 0 0 0 $ 93,264 0 $ 93,264
Service Fees $ 41,388 0 0 0 0 $ 41,388
Fines & Penalties $ 106,398 $ 37,622 0 $ 28,120 $ 7,004 $ 179,144
Intergovernment
Revenue $ 181,564 0 0 0 $ 19,175 $ 200,739
Annual Permit Fees/
Collected For FY 09-10 $3,270,525 $1,734,862 $1,076,988 $ 826,523 $441,152 $7,350,050
Fee Carryovers/To
FY 09-10 $ 378,204 0 0 0 0 $ 378,204
Borrowed Revenue/
From FY 10-11 $ 286,809 $ 139,588 $ 42,128 $ 491,645 $ 18,640 $ 978,810
Total Revenues $4,323,959 $1,912,072 $1,119,116 $1,439,552 $485,971 $9,221,599
March 20, 2012 7
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CERTIFIED UNIFIED PROGRAM AGENCY
Proposed Fee Schedule
Effective _____________, 2012
The following is the proposed schedule of fees applicable to programs administered by the
Contra Costa Certified Unified Program Agency (“CUPA”). Fees to fund the reasonable and
necessary costs incurred by the Contra Costa County CUPA are authorized by California
Health & Safety Code section 25404.5 and Section 15210 of Title 27 of the California Code of
Regulations. Upon approval by the Board of Supervisors, the proposed fees would apply to
all CUPA invoices issued on or after the Effective Date.
Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program
Annual Permit Fees
Projected Inventory (Lbs. Of Material) # Employees Current Fee Proposed Fee
Less than 1,000 N/A $226 $254
1,000 or more but less than 10,000 0 to 19 $314 $353
10,000 or more but less than 100,000 0 to 19 $702 $758
100,000 or more but less than 250,000 0 to 19 $1,005 $1,076
250,000 or more but less than 500,000 0 to 19 $2,055 $2,065
1,000 or more but less than 10,000 20 or more $899 $991
10,000 or more but less than 100,000 20 or more $1,218 $1,344
100,000 or more but less than 250,000 20 or more $2,481 $2,734
250,000 or more but less than 500,000 20 or more $4,571 $4,979
500,000 or more but less than 2.5 million N/A $11,547 $11,171
2.5 million or more but less than 10 million N/A $20,179 $18,721
10 million or more but less than 100 million N/A $34,922 $31,688
100 million or more but less than 1 billion N/A $67,834 $58,029
1 billion or more but less than 5 billion N/A $114,121 $108,056
5 billion or more N/A N/A N/A
Other
All oil refineries and class 1 off-site hazardous
waste disposal sites
N/A $151,523 $123,342
Miscellaneous Service Fees
Current Fee Proposed Fee
Unstaffed Remote Facilities
• Exemption Application Review
(Per unstaffed remote facility)
• Initial Notification of Inventory Change
Review
N/A
N/A
$268
N/A
$257
$257
March 20, 2012 8
Hazardous Waste Generator Program
Annual Permit Fees
Hazardous Waste Generated Current Fee Proposed Fee
Less than 5 tons/year $520 $485
5 or more tons, but less than 12 tons/year $730 $658
12 or more tons, but less than 25 tons/year $1,120 $986
25 or more tons, but less than 50 tons/year $1,763 $1,516
50 or more tons, but less than 250 tons/year $4,034 $3,188
250 or more tons, but less than 500 tons/year $12,803 $10,559
500 or more tons, but less than 1,000 tons/year $20,773 $16,517
1,000 or more tons, but less than 2,000 tons/year $35,103 $26,897
2,000 or more tons/year $78,575 $57,409
Onsite Treatment
• Permit By Rule (Fixed Units) $3,222 $3,068
• Conditional Authorization $3,222 $3,068
• Conditional Exemption $644 $614
Underground Storage Tank Program
Underground Storage Tank Annual Permit Current Fee Proposed Fee
Single tank of 1,000 gallons or less used solely
in connection with the occupancy of a residence
$596 $480
First tank of 50,000 gallons or less $298* $480*
Basic fee for tank of 50,000 gallons or less $1,043 $720
Each tank of 50,000 gallons or more $1,788 $1,788
* In
addition to the basic fee, a surcharge of $480 is applicable to the tank at
each site that has the earliest installation date.
Underground Storage Tank Miscellaneous Inspections
& Other Services Current Fee Proposed Fee
Permit Amendment or Transfer $268 $257
Tank or Piping Modification or Repair Plan Review and
Inspection
• Base Fee
• Each additional hour or fraction thereof of staff time
beyond 3.5 hours
$938
$268
$938
$257
March 20, 2012 9
Tank Lining Upgrade Plan Review and Inspection
• First tank
• Each additional tank
• Each additional hour or fraction thereof of staff time
beyond 10.5 hours
$2,814
$402
$268
$2,698
$385
$257
Tank Installation Plan Review and Inspection
• New tank facility, first tank
• New tank facility, each additional tank
$4,958
$536
$4,753
$514
Tank and Piping Removal Plan Review and Inspection
• First tank
• Each additional tank
$1,876
$402
$1,798
$385
Field Installed Cathodic Protection Plan Review and
Inspection
$1,340 $1,285
Tank Lining Inspection
• First tank
• Each additional tank
$1,876
$268
$1,798
$257
Piping, Under Dispenser Container and Sump Upgrade
Plan Review and Inspection
• First tank
• Each additional tank
$3,350
$402
$3,211
$385
Under Dispenser Container or Sump Repair (Without
Piping) Inspection
(Single Sump or Single Under Dispenser Container Repair)
$938 $899
Phase I EVR Upgrade Plan Review and Inspection
(Upgrade includes installation of Spill Containers)
$670 $642
Existing Under Dispenser Container Replacement Plan
Review and Inspection
(Includes Soil Sampling)
$938
$899
Temporary Closure Plan Review and Inspection
• First tank
• Each additional tank
$804
$134
$771
$128
Monitoring System Change Plan Review and Inspection $1,072 $1,028
Cold Start of Monitoring Panel Inspection $804 $771
March 20, 2012 10
Penalty
The following penalty shall be applied and collectible from
parties responsible for the following action, in addition to any
penalties that may be imposed under any other underground
tank regulation:
Failure to file and report a change in ownership or
operator of an underground tank.
$500/tank $500/tank
California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program
Annual Permit
Fees applicable to stationary sources will be determined according to the following formula:
Fee = (TC/TRF) x RF
TC = Total cost of the County’s CalARP program
TRF = “Total Risk Factor,” or the sum of the Stationary Source Modified Chemical
Exposure Indexes (SSMCEI) of all stationary sources in the County
RF = “Risk Factor,” or a stationary source SSMCEI
The TRF for the County and RF of a stationary source (SSMCEI) shall be determined pursuant to
the Contra Costa County Health Services Department’s California Accidental Release Prevention
Program Relative Risk Determination Methodology, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein
by this reference.
Stationary Source Exemption & Other Fees
Current Fee Proposed Fee
Exemption Application Review
(Per regulated substance per process)
$705 $754
Exemption Application Review
(Per warehouse where regulated substances are stored, if
source does not handle any regulated substance in a process)
$705 $754
Exemption Review Annual Fee
(Assessed on all stationary sources that handle regulated
substances on site but are exempt from preparing a Risk
Management Plan)
$70 $75
Reduced Fee for Multiple Stationary Sources
• First stationary source
• Each additional substantially identical stationary source
Full fee
$10% of full fee
Full fee
10% of full fee
March 20, 2012 11
Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act Program
Annual Permit Fees
Tank Facility Description Current Fee Proposed Fee
Facility with storage capacity of 1,320 or more gallons but less
than 10,000 gallons
$633 $536
Facility with storage capacity of 10,000 or more gallons but less
than 100,000 gallons
$1,425 $1,206
Facility with storage capacity of 100,000 or more gallons but
less than 1 million gallons
$5,700 $4,822
Facility with storage capacity of 1 million or more gallons but
less than 10 million gallons
$7,599 $6,429
Facility with storage capacity of 10 million or more gallons but
less than 100 million gallons
$11,399 $9,644
Facility with storage capacity of 100 million or more gallons $18,999 $16,074
Miscellaneous CUPA Fees
Current Fee Proposed Fee
Incident Response Fee
• Each hour or fraction thereof of time spent by a Hazardous
Materials Specialist during regular business hours (Monday
through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.) in connection with the
characterization or remediation of site contamination by the
release of a hazardous substance, material or waste by a
business regulated by the CUPA, if (1) the owner, operator or
other responsible person in charge of the site, or an emergency
services agency, requests assistance from the IR Team and (2)
the Hazardous Materials Programs Director or his designee
determines that an emergency response is necessary to protect
the public health and safety and the environment.
• Each hour or fraction thereof of time spent by a CalARP
Program Engineer during regular business hours (Monday
through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.) in connection with the
characterization or remediation of site contamination by release
of a hazardous substance, material or waste by a regulated
business, including technical assistance to the IR Team and
follow-up work associated with incident investigations, if (1) the
owner, operator or other responsible person in charge of the site,
or an emergency services agency, requests assistance from the
IR Team and (2) the Hazardous Materials Programs Director or
his designee determines that an emergency response is
necessary to protect the public and safety and the environment.
$268/hr.
$141/hr.
$257/hr.
$151/hr.
March 20, 2012 12
Overtime Charges
• Each hour or fraction thereof of time spent by a Hazardous
Materials Specialist performing any service at the request of a
regulated business on weekdays between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m.,
weekends or County holidays.
• Each hour or fraction thereof of time spent by a CalARP
Engineer performing any service at the request of a regulated
business on weekdays between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m., weekends or
County holidays.
$284/hr.
$171/hr.
$324/hr.
$176/hr.
Re-Inspection Fee
Each hour or fraction thereof of time spent by a Hazardous
Materials Specialist performing any inspection of a regulated
facility regulated by the CUPA beyond the routine or initial
inspection and one follow-up inspection.
$268/hr. $257/hr.
Audit Verification Fee
Each hour or fraction thereof of time spent by a CalARP
Engineer following up on the compliance by a regulated
business regulated with an audit action plan pertaining to the
facility, if the business has not complied with more than 50
percent of the items on the action plan by the stated deadline.
$141/hr.
$151/hr.
Community Warning System Fee
Each hour or fraction thereof of CWS use in response to a
hazardous materials release by a regulated business that was
not subject to the CWS component of the HMBP Program Fee
on the Effective Date. Such use will be measured from system
activation through the all-clear declaration.
$135/hr.
$101/hr.
Initial Permit Processing Fee
For the processing of annual CUPA permits for regulated
businesses that commence operations or change ownership
during the permit period.
$60 $60
Other Fees
(Authority: Health & Saf. Code, § 101325)
Current Fee Proposed Fee
Incident Response
• Each hour or fraction thereof of time spent by a Hazardous
Materials Specialist during regular business hours (Monday
through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.) in connection with the
characterization or remediation of site contamination by release
of a hazardous substance, material or waste, if (1) the owner,
operator or other responsible person in charge of the
contaminated site, or an emergency services agency, requests
assistance from the IR Team and (2) the Hazardous Materials
Programs Director or his designee determines that an
emergency response is necessary to protect the public health
and safety and the environment. This fee does not apply to
businesses regulated by the CUPA.
$175/hr.
$177/hr.
March 20, 2012 13
• Each hour or fraction thereof of time spent by a Hazardous
Materials Specialist on weekdays between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m.,
weekends or County holidays in connection with the
characterization or remediation of site contamination by release
of a hazardous substance, material or waste, if (1) the owner,
operator or other responsible person in charge of the site, or an
emergency services agency, requests assistance from the IR
Team and (2) the Hazardous Materials Programs Director or his
designee determines that an emergency response is necessary
to protect the public health and safety and the environment. This
fee does not apply to businesses regulated by the CUPA.
$199/hr. $201/hr.
3/20/12
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E
CUPA Fee Proposal Public Meeting Comments and Questions
Questions:
• Can fees be based on volume rather than capacity?
• What are the specific inspection activities by the inspectors?
• How do you determine if the fees are reasonable and necessary and are fairly
allocated?
Comments:
• Consider alternate fee schedule for businesses with multiple sites
• Send out reminder for the Board of Supervisors Meeting using e-mail
• Provide expenses for last seven years
• Consider fees based on incidents or risk
• Identify businesses not in program that should be in the program
EXHIBIT E
Responses to Comments Submitted on Proposed Fee Schedule for
Fiscal Year 2011-2012
Contra Costa Certified Unified Program Agency
The following summarizes written comments received on the proposed Contra Costa
County Certified Unified Program Agency (“CUPA”) Proposed Fee Schedule for Fiscal
Year 2011-2012 during the public comment period ending April 19, 2012.
Comment #1:
Can fees be based on volume rather than capacity?
Response to Comment #1:
The Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) Program requires businesses to report
their inventories of hazardous materials, establish an emergency response plan, and
train their employees on that plan. The fee calculated for this program is based on the
maximum projected inventory at a business, which is not necessarily the capacity of the
storage and equipment at a business.
The Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA) Program requires a tank facility1 to
develop a Spill Prevention Containment and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan per U.S.
EPA requirements and that the tank facility implements their SPCC plan. This program
is to ensure the safe storage of petroleum products and to protect the waters of the
State. The requirements of SPCC plan are based on the total capacities of the facility
and are independent of the volume of products that are contained in the aboveground
containers or the throughput of the hazardous materials through the containers. The
fee for this program is based on the total capacity of the tanks, equipment, and piping
that store petroleum at a facility.
The Hazardous Waste Generation (HWG) Program fee is based on the total tons of
hazardous waste that were generated in the reporting year.
The Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program is based on the number of tanks at a
facility.
Comment #2:
What are the specific inspection activities by the inspectors?
1 Health and Safety Code section 25270.2 (m) "Tank facility" means any one, or combination of,
aboveground storage tanks, including any piping that is integral to the tank, that contains petroleum and
that is used by a single business entity at a single location or site.
EXHIBIT E
Response to Comment #2:
The type of inspection activity depends on the program inspection that is being done
and on the facility that is being inspected. In general, the activities that are related to an
inspection are reviewing the business file prior to inspection, travel time to do the
inspection, the on-site inspection, the filing of information and documentation from the
inspection, and any follow-up actions required from the inspection. Another inspection
activity includes any enforcement actions that are taken against a company. The
inspection may include performing research on possible violations at a facility to
determine if it is or is not a violation.
The State Water Resources and Water Quality Control Board has issued a 71 page
guidance document on performing underground storage tanks inspections. The
guidance document includes 75 items to review as part of the inspections and an
inspection check list.
Comment #3:
How do you determine if the fees are reasonable and necessary and are fairly
allocated?
Response to Comment #3:
The Hazardous Materials Programs staff has prepared a report to determine the
appropriate fees to charge each business for each program that business is subject to.
The “Staff Report on the Determination and Apportionment of CUPA Fees” report can
be found at the following website: http://cchealth.org/groups/hazmat/ or be requested
from the Hazardous Materials Programs by calling (925) 335-3200. This report is the
result of in-depth reviews of all of the activities that are done within each program and
determines the costs to perform all of these activities. The costs include the salaries
and benefits to perform these activities, the direct administration costs that are
associated with these activities, the service and supplies costs for the Certified Unified
Program Agency (CUPA) programs, the indirect administration costs, the County
overhead costs, and any shortages or uncollected fees for each of the programs. All of
these costs are reasonable and necessary to operate the CUPA programs in Contra
Costa County.
Next the staff determines the amount of revenue that is collected for each of the
programs. Revenue streams include penalties from enforcement and late payments
and late filings, intergovernment revenue, payments for services that are provided,
permit fees outside of the CUPA permit fees, and the CUPA permit fee. If there are any
surplus revenues from the previous year, these revenues are also included.
EXHIBIT E
The individual CUPA permit fee that is invoiced for each of the programs is based on
the benefit that the CUPA provides or the burden that is presented on the CUPA. The
individual fees are determined by a specific method for each of the different programs.
Comment #4:
Consider alternate fee schedule for businesses with multiple sites.
Response to Comment #4:
If a company owns multiple business sites, the costs that are associated with each
individual business site are the same as the costs that are associated with a business
that has only one business site. Since the costs are the same, the CUPA Program fee
that is necessary to recover these costs is the same.
Comment #5:
Send out an e-mail reminder to all of the businesses attending the public meeting letting
them know the date of the Board of Supervisors Meeting regarding the CUPA fee
resolution.
Response to Comment #5
On May 4, 2012 an e-mail was sent out to all of the businesses that attended the public
meeting and left their e-mail address to inform the date of the Board of Supervisors
Meeting and when the CUPA fees were to be discussed before the Internal Operations
Committee.
Comment #6:
Consider fees based on incidents or risk.
Response to Comment #6:
Please see the Response to Comment #2, above. The method that is used to
determine the fees are based on the potential risk. The HMBP Program fee is based on
the inventory of hazardous materials that are handled at a business. The greater the
quantity of a hazardous material inventory, the greater potential risk of handling that
hazard material. The incident release component of the HMBP is based on the number
of incidents that have occurred in the different fee categories. The facilities that handle
over 500,000 pounds of hazardous materials pay for 60% of this cost. The Community
Warning System (CWS) component of the HMBP Program is based on the past use and
need for the CWS. Only facilities that handle over 500,000 pounds of hazardous
materials pay for these costs.
EXHIBIT E
The HWG Program fee is based on the amount of hazardous waste that is generated.
With a greater amount of hazardous waste that is generated, there is a greater potential
that harm may occur to the environment. A greater potential of harm to the environment
increases the potential risk from a facility.
The UST Program fee is based on the number of tanks that are at a facility. The
number of tanks is directly related to the risk of a release or spill. The greater the
number of tanks thee is a greater risk of a release or a spill. The APSA Program fee is
based on the storage capacity of petroleum products. An increase of petroleum
products being handled increases the potential impact of a release. The greater
potential impact of a release increases the potential risk of the release.
The CalARP Program fee is directly based on the potential impact of a release. The
CalARP Program uses a modified version of Dow’s Chemical Exposure Index. The
factors to determine the potential risk for facilities that are subject to the CalARP
Program include the toxicity or flammability of the hazardous material, the quantity of
the hazardous material stored in the largest single container, the distance that container
is from the community, the volatility of that chemical, the complexity of the facility
handling the chemical, and the accident history of that facility.
Comment #7:
Identify businesses not in the program that should be in the program.
Response to Comment #7:
Each year Hazardous Materials programs staff search for businesses that handle
hazardous material and generate hazardous waste. We have been successful in
finding businesses that are regulated under one or more of the CUPA programs but we
know there are other businesses that should be complying with the requirements of one
or more of the CUPA programs.
The Hazardous Materials Programs staff has worked with the cities in Contra Costa
County to obtain copies of business applications for facilities that handle hazardous
materials. This is an excellent means to identify when a new facility is opening up for
business and we can follow up with that facility to let them know what the reporting
requirements and regulations are when they handle hazardous materials. The
Hazardous Materials Programs staff also reviews hazardous waste manifests on the
Department of Toxic Substance Control website to find businesses that have generated
hazardous waste. Staff will then follow up with these businesses to determine if these
businesses are regulated under the Hazardous Waste Generator Program. This is only
two of the different methods that staff used to find businesses that are subject to the
hazardous materials laws.
EXHIBIT E
The Hazardous Materials Programs staff have also followed up on complaints that a
business is operating without a CUPA permit. Anyone who is aware of a business
operating without a CUPA permit should please contact the Hazardous Materials
Programs and we will follow up with that business.
Comment #8:
Several Counties of Northern California have fees that are one-fifth to one-third of
Contra Costa County fees. This shows this County is doing something more than the
others because there are several refineries and other gigantic businesses in the area.
This requires more staff and services which need the fee directly being paid by them or
if you want to do a favor to them it needs to be paid through General Fund. And
definitely should not be imposed to small businesses like us.
Response to Comment #8:
Below is a table showing the high and low fees that are charged by different CUPAs in
the Bay Area. The Contra Costa County CUPA fees for the smaller facilities are
generally comparable to the same fees that are charged by other agencies. Contra
Costa County CUPA fees for the larger facilities are generally higher than other
agencies. Contra Costa County has facilities that handle more hazardous materials,
generate more hazardous waste, and have more aboveground storage tanks than other
Bay Area agencies. Contra Costa County’s CUPA also has services that are not
provided by other Bay Area CUPAs, such as a Hazardous Materials Response Team
and the Community Warning System. These programs are paid for by the Hazardous
Materials Business Plan Program and that is why the fee for this program is higher than
any other Bay Area agency. This comparison shows that the larger facilities tend to
have higher CUPA fees in Contra Costa County while the smaller facilities’ CUPA fees in
Contra Costa County are comparable to other Bay Area agencies’ CUPA fees.
EXHIBIT E
CUPA Fee Comparison
Agency HMBP Fees HWG Fees UST Fees APSA Fees
Contra Costa
County
$254 -
$123,342
$485 - $57,409 $1,200 - $3,360 $536 - $16,074
San Mateo
County
$358 - $3,172 $896 – $39,583 $839 - $1,451 $206 - $566
Santa Clara
County
$764 - $1,292* $134 - $82,006 $1,394 - $2,789
San Francisco $324 - $4,224 $367 - $6,053 $371 - $2,597 $656 - $1,695
Alameda
County
$215 - $32,209 $309 - $3,210 $479 - $4,379
City of Berkeley $256 - $5,130 $149 - $47,500 $1,770 - $3,048
Solano County $444 - $3,287 $444 - $3,287 $726 - $1,545 $292 – $1,314
Marin County $247.50 - $495 $200 - $600 $1,000 - $4,000
Sonoma
County
$529 - $1,235 $204 - $5,875 $1,100 - $2,900 $190 - $760
* There is an additional charge of $152 for each additional six chemicals that are
handled at a facility
Comment #9:
The report has played with some numbers and again has given more bonus to major
producer of hazardous material and totally overlooked “Reasonable and Fairly
Allocation” of fees.
Response to Comment #9:
The “Staff Report on the Determination and Apportionment of CUPA Fees” goes through
all of the CUPA programs and determines the costs for these programs. When the
costs are determined, the report looks at all of the revenue streams to determine what
the CUPA Permit fee should be to cover the costs that are not already covered by other
revenues. The report goes on and describes how each of the different components of
the different fees is calculated. All of the costs are reasonable and necessary to
address the requirements of the different programs. The fees to pay for these costs are
fairly allocated based on the benefit that the CUPA provides to the business or the
burden that the business places on the CUPA.
Comment #10:
Volume needs to be considered as base for calculation rather than capacity.
Response to Comment #10:
EXHIBIT E
See Response to Comment #1
Comment #11:
As a small business owner “struggling to make ends meet,” I am opposed to any new
fees or any new fee increases. Small businesses are over regulated. We pay an
excessive amount in fees to federal government, state, county, and at the local level.
These fees are in part the reason California is losing business due to closures and
those who choose to no longer to do business in the state of California. Please no new
fees!
Response to Comment #11:
The Hazardous Materials Programs staff recognizes that these are very hard economic
times for many businesses. The fee for the Hazardous Waste Generator Program is not
a new fee but a fee that has been in place for over twenty years. The fee proposal will,
if approved by the Board of Supervisors, will lower the smallest Hazardous Waste
Generator fee category by $35
Comment #12:
We are a very small business in Concord, CA. We have been here for over 30 years.
With the hard times we have had in the last few years, it is becoming harder to survive
in Concord with all the fees you have mandated on us at this time.
Response to Comment #12:
See response to comment #11
Comment #13:
We do not understand the paper work! The paper work is so hard to fill out. We are
afraid we might put the wrong thing down, which would cause more stress in these
times.
Response to Comment #13:
EXHIBIT E
Hazardous Materials staff has workshops annually to assist businesses in filling out
their forms and will work with businesses individually in completing their forms.
The Hazardous Materials Programs and CalEPA are in the process of transitioning from
paper submittals to electronic submittals. The electronic submittals are expected to
assist business in their submittals, especially if there are no or few changes from the
previous year. The Hazardous Materials Programs are expecting to have their new
electronic data management system on line by the end of this year.
Comment #14:
We do not generate large amounts of waste oil per year. You are mandating a fee of
over $700, which most of us cannot afford.
Response to Comment #14:
After reviewing your files, it looks as if you will only be subject to the Hazardous Waste
Generator Program. Last year you were also in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan
Program. With the propose fee schedule, your bill this year will be $485 plus the State
surcharge of $49, instead of the $700 you were bill last year.
Comment #15:
I am a regular customer of Van’s Automotive and since 2006, have taken my
automobiles there for servicing. I understand the cost of performing oil changes is
going up and would cost him $500 per year to do oil changes for customers.
Response to Comment #15:
The Hazardous Waste Generator Program fee is based on the amount of hazardous
waste that is generated at a business during a calendar year. Van’s Automotive
generates waste oil and other solvents that are disposed of as part of doing an
automotive repair business. The proposed fee for the Hazardous Waste Generator
Program for the smallest hazardous waste generators, if approved by the Board of
Supervisors, will decrease this year by $35.
Comment #16:
It is difficult for the small business owner to compete with the large companies since the
small business does not do the volume of a large business, which buys in bulk and
keeps their costs down.
Response to Comment #16:
The Hazardous Materials Programs staff realizes that these are very difficult economic
times and that many large businesses do have some advantages over small businesses
EXHIBIT E
based on the volume of business. Most of the large businesses CUPA Permit fees,
depending on the amount of hazardous waste, will be greater than the amount paid for
by the small businesses.
Comment #17:
Provide expenses since 2005
Response to Comment #17:
See the tables below showing the expenses each fiscal year starting with Fiscal Year
2005-2006. Please note that how expenses are determined for the Hazardous
Materials Programs have changed since Fiscal Year 2008-2009.
CUPA Expenses Fiscal Year 2005-2006 (Actual)
Description
HMBP
Program
HWG
Program
Cal/ARP
Program
UST
Program
APSA
Program
Total CUPA
Programs
Salaries and Benefits $1,934,727 $975,007 $530,581 $800,725 $0 $4,241,040
Services and Supplies $1,703,057 $123,424 $113,576 $86,560 $0 $2,026,435
Indirect Administration $230,266 $116,043 $63,148 $95,300 $0 $504,757
County Overhead $41,143 $20,734 $11,283 $17,028 $0 $90,188
Total $3,909,193 $1,235,025 $718,588 $999,614 $0 $6,862,420
CUPA Expenses Fiscal Year 2006-2007 (Actual)
Description
HMBP
Program
HWG
Program
Cal/ARP
Program
UST
Program
APSA
Program
Total CUPA
Programs
Salaries and Benefits $1,971,158 $1,018,863 $558,610 $929,149 $0 $4,477,781
Services and Supplies $1,697,852 $111,605 $111,012 $88,236 $0 $2,008,704
EXHIBIT E
Indirect Administration $192,406 $99,452 $54,526 $90,695 $0 $437,079
County Overhead $67,813 $35,052 $19,218 $31,965 $0 $154,048
Total $3,918,529 $1,259,440 $740,334 $1,135,001 $0 $7,077,613
CUPA Expenses Fiscal Year 2007-2008 (Actual)
Description
HMBP
Program
HWG
Program
Cal/ARP
Program
UST
Program
APSA
Program
Total CUPA
Programs
Salaries and Benefits $2,067,184 $1,002,439 $560,953 $940,496 $0 $4,571,073
Services and Supplies $1,858,232 $162,875 $109,483 $92,109 $0 $2,222,698
Indirect Administration $199,450 $96,719 $54,123 $90,743 $0 $441,034
County Overhead $57,758 $28,008 $15,673 $26,278 $0 $127,717
Total $4,182,624 $1,290,042 $740,231 $1,149,626 $0 $7,362,523
CUPA Expenses Fiscal Year 2008-2009 (Actual)
Description
HMBP
Program
HWG
Program
Cal/ARP
Program
UST
Program
APSA
Program
Total CUPA
Programs
Salaries and Benefits $2,689,064 $1,191,935 $681,253 $805,687 $119,561 $5,487,480
Services and Supplies $1,560,000 $260,798 $149,068 $176,282 $26,160 $2,172,300
Indirect Administration $131,959 $67,060 $38,328 $45,328 $6,727 $289,402
County Overhead $58,933 $29,949 $17,118 $20,244 $3,004 $129,248
Uncollected Fees $79,840 $19,923 0 0 0 $99,763
Total $4,519,796 $1,569,665 $885,759 $1,047,521 $158,452 $8,178,193
EXHIBIT E
CUPA Expenses Fiscal Year 2009-2010 (Actual)
Description
HMBP
Program
HWG
Program
Cal/ARP
Program
UST
Program
APSA
Program
Total CUPA
Programs
Salaries and Benefits $2,146,246 $1,307,507 $ 714,685 $ 873,238 $290,693 $5,332,369
Services and Supplies $1,791,385 $ 385,685 $ 210,817 $ 256,700 $ 85,750 $2,730,337
Indirect Administration $ 155,959 $ 122,105 $ 66,743 $ 81,270 $ 27,147 $ 453,224
County Overhead $ 22,571 $ 17,671 $ 9,659 $ 11,761 $ 3,929 $ 65,591
Uncollected Fees/
Revenue Shortfalls $ 148,727 $ 79,104 $ 117,212 $ 216,583 $ 78,452 $ 640,078
Total $4,264,888 $1,912,072 $1,119,116 $1,439,552 $485,971 $9,221,599
CUPA Expenses Fiscal Year 2010-2011 (Actual)
Description
HMBP
Program
HWG
Program
Cal/ARP
Program
UST
Program
APSA
Program
Total CUPA
Programs
Salaries and Benefits $2,232,344 $1,322,961 $728,017 $ 815,135 $286,583 $5,385,040
Services and Supplies $1,457,782 $ 223,556 $123,021 $ 137,743 $ 48,427 $1,990,529
Indirect Administration $ 167,209 $ 126,719 $ 69,733 $ 78,077 $ 27,450 $ 469,188
County Overhead $ 60,441 $ 45,806 $ 25,207 $ 28,223 $ 9,922 $ 169,599
Uncollected Fees/
Revenue Shortfalls $ 286,809 $ 139,588 $ 42,128 $ 491,645 $ 18,640 $ 978,810
Total $4,204,585 $1,858,630 $988,106 $1,550,823 $391,022 $8,993,166
EXHIBIT E
Projected CUPA Expenses Fiscal Year 2011-2012
Description
HMBP
Program
HWG
Program
Cal/ARP
Program
UST
Program
APSA
Program
Total CUPA
Programs
Salaries and Benefits $2,135,122 $1,309,941 $714,977 $ 886,869 $327,430 $5,374,339
Services and Supplies $1,751,899 $ 199,849 $104,036 $ 135,304 $ 49,954 $2,241,042
Indirect Administration $ 155,901 $ 126,888 $ 66,055 $ 85,907 $ 31,717 $ 466,468
County Overhead $ 36,465 $ 29,680 $ 15,451 $ 20,094 $ 7,419 $ 109,109
Uncollected Fees/
Shortfalls $ 286,809 $ 139,588 0 $ 185,907 0 $ 612,304
Total $4,366,196 $1,805,946 $900,519 $1,314,081 $416,520 $8,803,262
WILLIAM B. WALKER, M.D.
HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTOR
RANDALL L. SAWYER
CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OFFICER
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAMS
4585 Pacheco Boulevard
Martinez, California
94553-2233
Ph (925) 335-3200
Fax (925) 646-2073
• Contra Costa Alcohol and Other Drugs Abuse Services • Contra Costa Emergency Medical Services • Contra Costa Environmental Health • Contra Costa Health Plan •
• Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs • Contra Costa Mental Health • Contra Costa Public Health • Contra Costa Regional Medical Center • Contra Costa Health Centers •
May 4, 2012
Ahmad Moheb
Mahan Enterprises HP Gasoline
2500 San Pablo Dam Road
San Pablo, CA 94806
Dear Mr. Moheb:
SUBJECT: Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) Fee Proposal
Thank you for your comments on the CUPA Fee Proposal. Please see the responses to your comments. Comment #1: Volume needs to be considered as base for calculation rather than capacity. Response to Comment #1: Some of the program fees are based on volume. Please see the explanation of how fees are determined below. The HMBP Program requires businesses to report their inventories of hazardous materials, establish an emergency response plan, and train their employees on that plan. The fee calculated for this program is based on the maximum projected inventory at a business, which is not necessarily the capacity of the storage and equipment at a business. The Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA) Program requires a tank facility to develop a Spill Prevention Containment and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan per U.S. EPA requirements and that the tank facility implements their SPCC plan. This program is to ensure the safe storage of petroleum products and to protect the waters of the State. The requirements of SPCC plan are based on the total capacities of the facility and are independent of the volume of products that are contained in the aboveground containers or the throughput of the hazardous materials through the containers. The fee for this program is based on the total capacity of the tanks, equipment, and piping that store petroleum at a facility. The HWG Program fee is based on the total tons of hazardous waste that generated in the reporting year. The UST Program is based on the number of tanks at a facility.
2
Comment #2: Several Counties of Northern California have fees that are one-fifth to one-third of Contra Costa County fees. This shows this County is doing something more than the others because there are several refineries and other gigantic businesses in the area. This requires more staff and services which need the fee directly being paid by them or if you want to do a favor to them it needs to be paid through General Fund. And definitely should not be imposed to small businesses like us. Response to Comment #2: Below is a table showing the high and low fees for each CUPA program that are charged by different CUPAs in the Bay Area. The Contra Costa County CUPA fees for the smaller facilities are generally comparable to the same fees that are charged by other agencies. Contra Costa County CUPA fees for the larger facilities are generally higher than other agencies. Contra Costa County has facilities that handle more hazardous materials, generate more hazardous waste, and have more aboveground storage tanks then other Bay Area agencies. Contra Costa County’s CUPA also has services that are not provided by other Bay Area CUPAs, such as a Hazardous Materials Response Team and the Community Warning System. These programs are paid for by the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program and that is why the fee for this program is higher than any other Bay Area agency.
CUPA Fee Comparison
Agency HMBP Fees HWG Fees UST Fees APSA Fees
Contra Costa
County
$254 - $123,342 $485 - $57,409 $1,200 - $3,360 $536 - $16,074
San Mateo
County
$358 - $3,172 $896 – $39,583 $839 - $1,451 $206 - $566
Santa Clara
County
$764 - $1,292* $134 - $82,006 $1,394 - $2,789
San Francisco $324 - $4,224 $367 - $6,053 $371 - $2,597 $656 - $1,695
Alameda County $215 - $32,209 $309 - $3,210 $479 - $4,379
City of Berkeley
$256 - $5,130
$149 - $47,500
$1,770 - $3,048
Solano County $444 - $3,287 $444 - $3,287 $726 - $1,545 $292 – $1,314
Marin County $247.50 - $495 $200 - $600 $1,000 - $4,000
Sonoma County $529 - $1,235 $204 - $5,875 $1,100 - $2,900 $190 - $760 * There is an additional charge of $152 for each additional six chemicals that are handled at a facility Comment #3: The report has played with some numbers and again has given more bonus to major producer of hazardous material and totally overlooked “Reasonable and Fairly Allocation” of fees.
3
Response to Comment #3: The “Staff Report on the Determination and Apportionment of CUPA Fees” goes through all of the CUPA programs and determines the costs for these programs. When the costs are determined, the report looks at all of the revenue streams to determine what the CUPA Permit fee should be to cover the costs that are not already covered by other revenues. The report goes on and describes how each of the different components of the different fees is calculated. All of the costs are reasonable and necessary to address the requirements of the different programs. The fees to pay for these costs are fairly allocated based on the benefit that the CUPA provides the business or the burden that the business places on the CUPA. Please note that the staff’s report and the proposed fees are scheduled to be heard at the Board of Supervisor’s Internal Operations Committee meeting at 9:00 AM on May 14 at 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez. The staff’s report, fee resolution and the proposed fees are scheduled to be heard at the Board of Supervisor meeting at 9:30 AM on May 22 at 651 Pine Street, Room 107, Martinez. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely,
Randall L. Sawyer Chief Environmental Health and Hazardous Materials Officer cc: Steve Morioka, Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs.
WILLIAM B. WALKER, M.D.
HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTOR
RANDALL L. SAWYER
CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OFFICER
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAMS
4585 Pacheco Boulevard
Martinez, California
94553-2233
Ph (925) 335-3200
Fax (925) 646-2073
• Contra Costa Alcohol and Other Drugs Abuse Services • Contra Costa Emergency Medical Services • Contra Costa Environmental Health • Contra Costa Health Plan •
• Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs • Contra Costa Mental Health • Contra Costa Public Health • Contra Costa Regional Medical Center • Contra Costa Health Centers •
May 4, 2012
Shahnam Zomorrodi
Danville Valero
736 San Ramon Valley Blvd.
Danville, CA 94526
Dear Mr. Zomorrodi:
SUBJECT: Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) Fee Proposal
Thank you for your comments on the CUPA Fee Proposal. Please see the responses to
your comments.
Comment #1:
Volume needs to be considered as base for calculation rather than capacity.
Response to Comment #1:
Some of the program fees are based on volume. Please see the explanation of how fees
are determined below.
The HMBP Program requires businesses to report their inventories of hazardous
materials, establish an emergency response plan, and train their employees on that plan.
The fee calculated for this program is based on the maximum projected inventory at a
business, which is not necessarily the capacity of the storage and equipment at a
business.
The Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA) Program requires a tank facility to
develop a Spill Prevention Containment and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan per U.S. EPA
requirements and that the tank facility implements their SPCC plan. This program is to
ensure the safe storage of petroleum products and to protect the waters of the State. The
requirements of SPCC plan are based on the total capacities of the facility and are
independent of the volume of products that are contained in the aboveground containers
or the throughput of the hazardous materials through the containers. The fee for this
program is based on the total capacity of the tanks, equipment, and piping that store
petroleum at a facility.
The HWG Program fee is based on the total tons of hazardous waste that generated in the
reporting year.
The UST Program is based on the number of tanks at a facility.
2
Comment #2:
Several Counties of Northern California have fees that are one‐fifth to one‐third of Contra
Costa County fees. This shows this County is doing something more than the others
because there are several refineries and other gigantic businesses in the area. This
requires more staff and services which need the fee directly being paid by them or if you
want to do a favor to them it needs to be paid through General Fund. And definitely
should not be imposed to small businesses like us.
Response to Comment #2:
Below is a table showing the high and low fees for each CUPA program that are charged
by different CUPAs in the Bay Area. The Contra Costa County CUPA fees for the smaller
facilities are generally comparable to the same fees that are charged by other agencies.
Contra Costa County CUPA fees for the larger facilities are generally higher than other
agencies. Contra Costa County has facilities that handle more hazardous materials,
generate more hazardous waste, and have more aboveground storage tanks then other
Bay Area agencies. Contra Costa County’s CUPA also has services that are not provided by
other Bay Area CUPAs, such as a Hazardous Materials Response Team and the
Community Warning System. These programs are paid for by the Hazardous Materials
Business Plan Program and that is why the fee for this program is higher than any other
Bay Area agency.
CUPA Fee Comparison
Agency HMBP Fees HWG Fees UST Fees APSA Fees
Contra Costa
County
$254 - $123,342 $485 - $57,409 $1,200 - $3,360 $536 - $16,074
San Mateo
County
$358 - $3,172 $896 – $39,583 $839 - $1,451 $206 - $566
Santa Clara
County
$764 - $1,292* $134 - $82,006 $1,394 - $2,789
San Francisco $324 - $4,224 $367 - $6,053 $371 - $2,597 $656 - $1,695
Alameda County $215 - $32,209 $309 - $3,210 $479 - $4,379
City of Berkeley
$256 - $5,130
$149 - $47,500
$1,770 - $3,048
Solano County $444 - $3,287 $444 - $3,287 $726 - $1,545 $292 – $1,314
Marin County $247.50 - $495 $200 - $600 $1,000 - $4,000
Sonoma County $529 - $1,235 $204 - $5,875 $1,100 - $2,900 $190 - $760
* There is an additional charge of $152 for each additional six chemicals that are handled
at a facility
Comment #3:
The report has played with some numbers and again has given more bonus to major
producer of hazardous material and totally overlooked “Reasonable and Fairly Allocation”
of fees.
3
Response to Comment #3:
The “Staff Report on the Determination and Apportionment of CUPA Fees” goes through
all of the CUPA programs and determines the costs for these programs. When the costs
are determined, the report looks at all of the revenue streams to determine what the
CUPA Permit fee should be to cover the costs that are not already covered by other
revenues. The report goes on and describes how each of the different components of the
different fees is calculated. All of the costs are reasonable and necessary to address the
requirements of the different programs. The fees to pay for these costs are fairly
allocated based on the benefit that the CUPA provides the business or the burden that the
business places on the CUPA.
Please note that the staff’s report and the proposed fees are scheduled to be heard at the
Board of Supervisor’s Internal Operations Committee meeting at 9:00 AM on May 14 at
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez. The staff’s report, fee resolution and the proposed
fees are scheduled to be heard at the Board of Supervisor meeting at 9:30 AM on May 22
at 651 Pine Street, Room 107, Martinez.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Randall L. Sawyer
Chief Environmental Health and Hazardous Materials Officer
cc: Steve Morioka, Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs.
WILLIAM B. WALKER, M.D.
HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTOR
RANDALL L. SAWYER
CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OFFICER
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAMS
4585 Pacheco Boulevard
Martinez, California
94553-2233
Ph (925) 335-3200
Fax (925) 646-2073
• Contra Costa Alcohol and Other Drugs Abuse Services • Contra Costa Emergency Medical Services • Contra Costa Environmental Health • Contra Costa Health Plan •
• Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs • Contra Costa Mental Health • Contra Costa Public Health • Contra Costa Regional Medical Center • Contra Costa Health Centers •
May 4, 2012
Kevin Fitzgerald
Economy Auto Painting & Bodywork
1825 West 10th Street
Antioch, CA 94509
Dear Mr. Fitzgerald:
SUBJECT: Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) Fee Proposal
Thank you for your comments on the CUPA Fee Proposal. The Hazardous Materials
Programs staff recognizes that these are very hard economic times for many
businesses. The fee for the Hazardous Waste Generator Program is not a new fee
but a fee that has been in place for over twenty years. The fee being proposed for
the Hazardous Waste Generator Program for the lowest fee category will, if approved
by the Board of Supervisors, lower the Hazardous Waste Generator fee that you will
be subject to this year by $35.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Randall L. Sawyer
Chief Environmental Health and Hazardous Materials Officer
cc: Steve Morioka, Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs.
WILLIAM B. WALKER, M.D.
HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTOR
RANDALL L. SAWYER
CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OFFICER
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAMS
4585 Pacheco Boulevard
Martinez, California
94553-2233
Ph (925) 335-3200
Fax (925) 646-2073
• Contra Costa Alcohol and Other Drugs Abuse Services • Contra Costa Emergency Medical Services • Contra Costa Environmental Health • Contra Costa Health Plan •
• Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs • Contra Costa Mental Health • Contra Costa Public Health • Contra Costa Regional Medical Center • Contra Costa Health Centers •
May 4, 2012
Mr. Rick Luther
R&M Enterprise
1950c Arnold Industrial Way
Concord, CA 94520
Dear Mr. Luther:
SUBJECT: Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) Fee Proposal
Thank you for your comments on the CUPA Fee Proposal. The Hazardous Materials
Programs staff recognizes that these are very hard economic times for many
businesses. The fees do consider the size of a business in determining what a
business is to pay. The Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program considers the
number of employees at a business site and the Hazardous Waste Generator
Program considers the amount of hazardous waste that is generated.
The Hazardous Materials Programs and CalEPA are in the process of transitioning
from paper submittals to electronic submittals. The electronic submittals are
expected to assist businesses in their submittals, especially if there are no or few
changes from the previous year. The Hazardous Materials Programs are expecting
to have their new electronic data management system on line by the end of this year.
Hazardous Materials staff annually has workshops to assist businesses in filling out
their forms and will work with businesses in completing their forms.
After reviewing your files, it looks as if your business will only be in the Hazardous
Waste Generator Program where last year you were also in the Hazardous Materials
Business Plan Program. With the proposed fee schedule, your bill this year will be
$485 plus the State surcharge of $49, instead of over $700 for last bill.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Randall L. Sawyer
Chief Environmental Health and Hazardous Materials Officer
cc: Steve Morioka, Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs
WILLIAM B. WALKER, M.D.
HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTOR
RANDALL L. SAWYER
CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OFFICER
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAMS
4585 Pacheco Boulevard
Martinez, California
94553-2233
Ph (925) 335-3200
Fax (925) 646-2073
• Contra Costa Alcohol and Other Drugs Abuse Services • Contra Costa Emergency Medical Services • Contra Costa Environmental Health • Contra Costa Health Plan •
• Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs • Contra Costa Mental Health • Contra Costa Public Health • Contra Costa Regional Medical Center • Contra Costa Health Centers •
May 4, 2012
Michelle Azimi
3931 Rocky Point Drive
Antioch, CA 94509-6904
Dear Ms. Azimi:
SUBJECT: Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) Fee Proposal
Thank you for your comments on the CUPA Fee Proposal. It sounds like you have
had very good service from Van’s Automotive over the years. The Hazardous
Materials Programs staff realizes that these are very difficult economic times and that
many large businesses do have some advantages over small businesses based on
the volume of business.
The Hazardous Waste Generator Program fee is based on the amount of hazardous
waste that is generated at a business during a calendar year. Van’s Automotive
generates waste oil and other solvents that are disposed of as part of doing an
automotive repair business. The proposed fee for the Hazardous Waste Generator
Program for the smallest hazardous waste generators, if approved by the Board of
Supervisors, will decrease this year by $35.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Randall L. Sawyer
Chief Environmental Health and Hazardous Materials Officer
cc: Steve Morioka, Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs
Exhibit F Service and Supply Allocations Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Description CalARP HWG HMBP1 CWS IR Team UST APSA Total CUPA Office Expense $ 4,657 $ 8,463 $ 5,650 $ 829 $ 5,517 $ 5,214 $ 1,833 $ 32,163 Books Periodicals Subscriptions $ 89 $ 161 $ 108 0 $ 105 $ 99 $ 35 $ 597 Communications2 $ 9,078 $ 16,497 $ 11,014 $ 12,089 $ 10,754 $ 10,165 $ 5,374 $ 73,171 Telephone Exchange Service3 $ 970 $ 1,761 $ 1,176 $ 1,195 $ 1,148 $ 1,085 $ 381 $ 7,716 Small Tools and Instruments $ 2,214 $ 4,023 $ 2,686 0 $ 2,623 $ 2,479 $ 872 $ 14,897 Minor Equipment $ 4,326 $ 7,861 $ 5,248 $ 2,132 $ 5,125 $ 4,844 $ 1,703 $ 31,239 Medical & Lab Supplies $ 249 $ 452 $ 301 0 $ 294 $ 278 $ 98 $ 1,672Food4 $ 20 $ 37 $ 24 0 $ 24 $ 23 $ 7 $ 135 Clothing & Personal Supplies $ 1,661 $ 3,019 $ 2,015 $ 727 $ 1,968 $ 1,860 $ 653 $ 11,903 Publications and Legal Notices $ 472 $ 858 $ 573 0 $ 560 $ 529 $ 186 $ 3,178 Memberships $ 2,288 $ 4,158 $ 2,776 $ 199 $ 2,711 $ 2,562 $ 900 $ 15,594 Rents & Lease - Equipment $ 1,259 $ 2,288 $ 1,528 0 $ 1,492 $ 1,410 $ 496 $ 8,473 Software Cost 0 0 0 $ 8,197 0 0 0 $ 8,197 Bldg Occupancy Costs $ 49,414 $ 89,795 $ 59,948 $ 43,990 $ 58,539 $ 55,327 $19,452 $ 376,465 Maintenance - Equipment $ 1,755 $ 3,189 $ 2,129 $482,399 $ 2,079 $ 1,965 $ 691 $ 494,207Maint - Radio Electronic Equipment $ 1,434 $ 2,606 $ 1,740 $ 266 $ 1,699 $ 1,606 $ 565 $ 9,916 Requested Maintenance $ 1,288 $ 2,341 $ 1,563 $ 49,264 $ 1,526 $ 1,442 $ 507 $ 57,931 Auto Mileage $ 6,387 $ 11,607 $ 7,749 0 $ 7,567 $ 7,152 $ 2,514 $ 42,976 Other Travel $ 3,909 $ 7,104 $ 4,742 $ 625 $ 4,631 $ 4,377 $ 1,539 $ 26,927 Prof/Spec Services $ 3,131 $ 5,690 $111,279 $253,887 $163,371 $ 3,505 $ 1,232 $ 542,095
Description CalARP HWG HMBP1 CWS IR Team UST APSA Total CUPA Contracted Temporary Services $ 475 $ 862 $ 576 0 $ 562 $ 531 $ 187 $ 3,193 Ed Supplies and Courses $ 928 $ 1,687 $ 1,127 0 $ 1,100 $ 1,039 $ 366 $ 6,247 Other Special Dept Expense $ 26,654 $ 48,436 $ 32,337 0 $ 31,576 $ 29,844 $10,493 $ 179,340 Misc Services & Supplies $ 5 $ 10 $ 6 $ 584 $ 6 $ 6 $ 3 $ 620 Other Charges $ 358 $ 651 $ 435 0 $ 424 $ 401 $ 140 $ 2,409 Expenditure Transfers 0 0 0 $ 6,359 $ 32,909 0 0 $ 39,268 Totals $123,021 $223,556$256,730 $862,742 $338,310 $137,743 $48,427 $1,990,529 1 Service and Supplies expenses of the HMBP Program are shown allocated to the CWS, IR Team, and the remainder of the HMBP Program (“BP”). 2 Includes monthly charges for telephone, faxes, and pagers. 3 Allocation from the Department of Information Technology for County telephone exchange equipment. 4 Meals while on overtime and during travel
G
Exhibit H Projected Service and Supply Allocations Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Description CalARP HWG HMBP1 CWS IR Team UST APSA Total CUPA Office Expense $ 3,073 $ 5,903 $ 3,555 $ 3,000 $ 3,696 $ 3,997 $ 1,476 $ 24,700 Books Periodicals Subscriptions $ 1,389 $ 2,668 $ 1,607 $ 200 $ 1,671 $ 1,807 $ 668 $ 10,010 Communications2 $ 8,544 $ 16,413 $ 9,886 $ 15,020 $ 10,279 $ 11,112 $ 4,103 $ 75,357 Telephone Exchange Service3 $ 855 $ 1,640 $ 988 $ 4,650 $ 1,027 $ 1,110 $ 410 $ 10,680 Small Tools and Instruments $ 1,821 $ 3,499 $ 2,107 0 $ 2,191 $ 2,369 $ 875 $ 12,862 Minor Equipment $ 2,706 $ 5,197 $ 3,130 $ 5,000 $ 3,255 $ 3,518 $ 1,299 $ 24,105 Minor Computer Equipment 000 $ 75,000 0 0 0 $ 75,000Medical & Lab Supplies $ 358 $ 687 $ 414 0 $ 430 $ 465 $ 172 $ 2,526Food4 $ 13 $ 24 $ 15 0 $ 15 $ 16 $ 6 $ 89 Clothing & Personal Supplies $ 1,269 $ 2,438 $ 1,467 $ 880 $ 1,527 $ 1,650 $ 609 $ 9,840 Publications and Legal Notices $ 888 $ 1,705 $ 1,027 0 $ 1,068 $ 1,155 $ 426 $ 6,269 Memberships $ 2,978 $ 5,722 $ 3,446 $ 500 $ 3,584 $ 3,874 $ 1,430 $ 21,534Rents & Lease - Equipment $ 700 $ 1,345 $ 810 0 $ 842 $ 911 $ 336 $ 4,944 Software Cost 0 0 0 $ 2,000 0 0 0 $ 2,000 Bldg Occupancy Costs $ 45,624 $ 87,641 $ 52,791 $ 45,000 $ 54,892 $ 59,335 $21,906 $ 367,189 Maintenance - Equipment $ 970 $ 1,864 $ 1,123 $ 575,000 $ 1,167 $ 1,262 $ 465 $ 581,851Maint - Radio Electronic Equipment $ 1,688 $ 3,243 $ 1,954 0 $ 2,032 $ 2,196 $ 811 $ 11,924 Requested Maintenance $ 1,474 $ 2,832 $ 1,706 0 $ 1,774 $ 1,917 $ 707 $ 10,410 Travel & Transportation $ 53 $ 104 $ 63 0 $ 65 $ 70 $ 26 $ 381 Auto Mileage $ 5,312 $ 10,204 $ 6,147 $ 500 $ 6,391 $ 6,909 $ 2,551 $ 38,014
Exhibit H Description CalARP HWG HMBP1 CWS IR Team UST APSA Total CUPA Other Travel $ 1,331 $ 2,556 $ 1,540 $ 3,000 $ 1,600 $ 1,730 $ 639 $ 12,396 Prof/Spec Services $ 13,288 $ 25,526 $ 65,375 $ 368,334 $175,649 $ 17,282 $ 6,380 $ 671,834 Contracted Temporary Services $ 211 $ 406 $ 245 $ 150,000 $ 254 $ 275 $ 102 $ 151,493 Ed Supplies and Courses $ 1,061 $ 2,038 $ 1,228 $ 3,000 $ 1,275 $ 1,380 $ 509 $ 10,491 Other Special Dept Expense $ 8,430 $ 16,194 $ 9,754 0 $ 10,142 $ 10,964 $ 4,048 $ 59,532Misc Services & Supplies 0 0 0 $ 1,500 0 0 0 $ 1,500 Expenditure Transfers 0 0 0 $ 16,693 $ 27,418 0 0 $ 44,111 Totals $104,036 $199,849$170,378 $1,269,277 $312,244 $135,304 $49,954 $2,241,042 1 Service and Supplies expenses of the HMBP Program are shown allocated to the CWS, IR Team, and the remainder of the HMBP Program (“BP”). 2 Includes monthly charges for telephone, faxes, and pagers. 3 Allocation from the Department of Information Technology for County telephone exchange equipment. 4 Meals while on overtime and during travel
Exhibit I
Allocation of CWS Component
HMBP Program Fee
Fiscal Year 2010-2011
Category
Facility
Inventories
(Pounds
Cube
Root
Portion of
Cube Root
Proportional
CWS Cost
CWS Fee/
Facility
Refineries
7,000,000,000 1,913 0.08494 $ 75,384
2,661,072,764 1,386 0.06153 $ 54,609
2,190,149,607 1,299 0.05766 $ 51,177
470,084,953 778 0.03452 $ 30,641
Category Totals $ 211,811 $52,952.75
Category
Facility
Inventories
(Pounds
Cube
Root
Portion of
Cube Root
Proportional
CWS Cost
CWS Fee/
Facility
1B≤ x <5B 1,681,416,875 1,189 0.05280 $ 46,861
1,583,115,576 1,165 0.05175 $ 45,929
Category Totals $ 92,790 $46,395.00
Category
Facility
Inventories
(Pounds
Cube
Root
Portion of
Cube Root
Proportional
CWS Cost
CWS Fee/
Facility
100M≤ x <1B
835,714,846 942 0.04182 $ 37,119
198,141,222 583 0.02589 $ 22,974
197,509,306 582 0.02586 $ 22,950
148,476,780 530 0.02351 $ 20,867
140,587,740 520 0.02309 $ 20,491
100,433,104 465 0.02064 $ 18,318
Category Totals $142,719 $23,786.50
Category
Facility
Inventories
(Pounds
Cube
Root
Portion of
Cube Root
Proportional
CWS Cost
CWS Fee/
Facility
10M≤ x <100M
94,467,273 455 0.02022 $ 17,948
75,218,449 422 0.01874 $ 16,635
70,984,117 414 0.01838 $ 16,317
41,517,543 346 0.01538 $ 13,646
33,277,350 322 0.01428 $ 12,675
32,872,308 320 0.01422 $ 12,624
21,895,796 280 0.01242 $ 11,025
19,539,540 269 0.01196 $ 10,614
17,978,014 262 0.01163 $ 10,324
15,293,759 248 0.01102 $ 9,782
14,406,568 243 0.01080 $ 9,589
12,895,551 235 0.01041 $ 9,241
11,113,461 223 0.00991 $ 8,794
Category Totals $159,214 $12,247.23
Exhibit I
Category
Facility
Inventories
(Pounds
Cube
Root
Portion of
Cube Root
Proportional
CWS Cost
CWS Fee/
Facility
2.5M≤ x <10M
9,653,052 213 0.00945 $ 8,391
8,421,756 203 0.00903 $ 8,018
7,555,628 196 0.00871 $ 7,733
5,989,626 182 0.00806 $ 7,157
4,931,322 170 0.00756 $ 6,708
4,656,063 167 0.00741 $ 6,580
4,348,977 163 0.00725 $ 6,432
4,081,530 160 0.00710 $ 6,298
4,055,168 159 0.00708 $ 6,284
3,612,492 153 0.00681 $ 6,047
2,582,409 137 0.00609 $ 5,406
Category Totals $ 75,054 $ 6,823.09
Category
Facility
Inventories
(Pounds
Cube
Root
Portion of
Cube Root
Proportional
CWS Cost
CWS Fee/
Facility
500K≤ x <2.5M
1,935,646 125 0.00553 $ 4,911
1,764,607 121 0.00537 $ 4,762
1,669,549 119 0.00527 $ 4,675
1,634,878 118 0.00523 $ 4,642
1,600,534 117 0.00519 $ 4,610
1,548,687 116 0.00514 $ 4,559
1,474,716 114 0.00505 $ 4,486
1,413,541 112 0.00498 $ 4,423
1,393,041 112 0.00496 $ 4,401
1,359,046 111 0.00492 $ 4,365
1,354,183 111 0.00491 $ 4,360
1,202,155 106 0.00472 $ 4,190
1,148,362 105 0.00465 $ 4,127
1,142,791 105 0.00464 $ 4,120
1,086,944 103 0.00457 $ 4,052
1,063,047 102 0.00453 $ 4,022
988,414 100 0.00442 $ 3,925
968,624 99 0.00439 $ 3,899
967,847 99 0.00439 $ 3,898
947,256 98 0.00436 $ 3,870
946,563 98 0.00436 $ 3,869
914,419 97 0.00431 $ 3,825
892,932 96 0.00428 $ 3,795
867,021 95 0.00423 $ 3,758
852,709 95 0.00421 $ 3,737
843,200 94 0.00419 $ 3,723
Exhibit I
Category
Facility
Inventories
(Pounds
Cube
Root
Portion of
Cube Root
Proportional
CWS Cost
CWS Fee/
Facility
500K≤ x <2.5M
810,660 93 0.00414 $ 3,674
776,290 92 0.00408 $ 3,622
770,800 92 0.00407 $ 3,613
763,901 91 0.00406 $ 3,602
755,282 91 0.00404 $ 3,589
673,058 88 0.00389 $ 3,454
665,227 87 0.00388 $ 3,440
644,841 86 0.00384 $ 3,405
636,064 86 0.00382 $ 3,389
632,968 86 0.00381 $ 3,384
608,953 85 0.00376 $ 3,340
606,178 85 0.00376 $ 3,335
595,047 84 0.00373 $ 3,315
592,627 84 0.00373 $ 3,310
581,227 83 0.00371 $ 3,289
578,635 83 0.00370 $ 3,284
575,780 83 0.00369 $ 3,278
569,047 83 0.00368 $ 3,266
568,064 83 0.00368 $ 3,264
557,701 82 0.00365 $ 3,244
557,267 82 0.00365 $ 3,243
555,866 82 0.00365 $ 3,240
554,060 82 0.00365 $ 3,237
553,000 82 0.00364 $ 3,235
550,000 82 0.00364 $ 3,229
532,563 81 0.00360 $ 3,194
522,130 81 0.00358 $ 3,173
505,557 80 0.00354 $ 3,139
505,079 80 0.00354 $ 3,138
Category Totals $205,929 $ 3,744.16
Totals 17,777,829,109 22,521 $887,517
Exhibit J
Allocation of IR Component
HMBP Program Fee
Fiscal Year 2010-2011
(Facilities Handling 500,000 or More Pounds Annually)
Category
Facility
Inventories
(Pounds)
Cube
Root
Percentage
of Cube
Root
Proportional
IR Cost
IR Fee/
Facility
Refineries
7,000,000,000 1,913 0.08494 $ 87,791
2,661,072,764 1,386 0.06153 $ 63,597
2,190,149,607 1,299 0.05766 $ 59,599
470,084,953 778 0.03452 $ 35,684
Category Totals $ 246,671 $61,667.75
Category
Facility
Inventories
(Pounds)
Cube
Root
Percentage
of Cube
Root
Proportional
IR Cost
IR Fee/
Facility
1B≤ x <5B 1,681,416,875 1,189 0.05280 $ 54,573
1,583,115,576 1,165 0.05175 $ 53,488
Category Totals $ 108,061 $54,030.50
Category
Facility
Inventories
(Pounds)
Cube
Root
Percentage
of Cube
Root
Proportional
IR Cost
IR Fee/
Facility
100M≤ x <1B
835,714,846 942 0.04182 $ 43,228
198,141,222 583 0.02589 $ 26,755
197,509,306 582 0.02586 $ 26,727
148,476,780 530 0.02351 $ 24,302
140,587,740 520 0.02309 $ 23,863
100,433,104 465 0.02064 $ 21,333
Category Totals $ 166,208 $27,701.33
Category
Facility
Inventories
(Pounds)
Cube
Root
Percentage
of Cube
Root
Proportional
IR Cost
IR Fee/
Facility
10M≤ x <100M
94,467,273 455 0.02022 $ 20,901
75,218,449 422 0.01874 $ 19,373
70,984,117 414 0.01838 $ 19,002
41,517,543 346 0.01538 $ 15,891
33,277,350 322 0.01428 $ 14,762
32,872,308 320 0.01422 $ 14,701
21,895,796 280 0.01242 $ 12,839
19,539,540 269 0.01196 $ 12,361
17,978,014 262 0.01163 $ 12,023
15,293,759 248 0.01102 $ 11,392
14,406,568 243 0.01080 $ 11,167
12,895,551 235 0.01041 $ 10,762
11,113,461 223 0.00991 $ 10,242
Category Totals $ 185,416 $14,262.77
Exhibit J
Category
Facility
Inventories
(Pounds)
Cube
Root
Percentage
of Cube
Root
Proportional
IR Cost
IR Fee/
Facility
2.5M≤ x <10M
9,653,052 213 0.00945 $ 9,772
8,421,756 203 0.00903 $ 9,337
7,555,628 196 0.00871 $ 9,005
5,989,626 182 0.00806 $ 8,335
4,931,322 170 0.00756 $ 7,812
4,656,063 167 0.00741 $ 7,663
4,348,977 163 0.00725 $ 7,492
4,081,530 160 0.00710 $ 7,334
4,055,168 159 0.00708 $ 7,318
3,612,492 153 0.00681 $ 7,043
2,582,409 137 0.00609 $ 6,296
Category Totals $ 87,407 $7,946.09
Category
Facility
Inventories
(Pounds)
Cube
Root
Percentage
of Cube
Root
Proportional
IR Cost
IR Fee/
Facility
500K≤ x <2.5M
1,935,646 125 0.00553 $ 5,720
1,764,607 121 0.00537 $ 5,546
1,669,549 119 0.00527 $ 5,444
1,634,878 118 0.00523 $ 5,406
1,600,534 117 0.00519 $ 5,368
1,548,687 116 0.00514 $ 5,310
1,474,716 114 0.00505 $ 5,224
1,413,541 112 0.00498 $ 5,151
1,393,041 112 0.00496 $ 5,125
1,359,046 111 0.00492 $ 5,083
1,354,183 111 0.00491 $ 5,077
1,202,155 106 0.00472 $ 4,880
1,148,362 105 0.00465 $ 4,806
1,142,791 105 0.00464 $ 4,798
1,086,944 103 0.00457 $ 4,719
1,063,047 102 0.00453 $ 4,684
988,414 100 0.00442 $ 4,571
968,624 99 0.00439 $ 4,541
967,847 99 0.00439 $ 4,540
947,256 98 0.00436 $ 4,507
946,563 98 0.00436 $ 4,506
914,419 97 0.00431 $ 4,454
892,932 96 0.00428 $ 4,419
867,021 95 0.00423 $ 4,376
852,709 95 0.00421 $ 4,352
843,200 94 0.00419 $ 4,336
810,660 93 0.00414 $ 4,279
Exhibit J
Category
Facility
Inventories
(Pounds)
Cube
Root
Percentage
of Cube
Root
Proportional
IR Cost
IR Fee/
Facility
500K≤ x <2.5M
776,290 92 0.00408 $ 4,218
770,800 92 0.00407 $ 4,208
763,901 91 0.00406 $ 4,195
755,282 91 0.00404 $ 4,179
673,058 88 0.00389 $ 4,022
665,227 87 0.00388 $ 4,006
644,841 86 0.00384 $ 3,965
636,064 86 0.00382 $ 3,947
632,968 86 0.00381 $ 3,940
608,953 85 0.00376 $ 3,890
606,178 85 0.00376 $ 3,884
595,047 84 0.00373 $ 3,860
592,627 84 0.00373 $ 3,855
581,227 83 0.00371 $ 3,830
578,635 83 0.00370 $ 3,824
575,780 83 0.00369 $ 3,818
569,047 83 0.00368 $ 3,803
568,064 83 0.00368 $ 3,801
557,701 82 0.00365 $ 3,778
557,267 82 0.00365 $ 3,777
555,866 82 0.00365 $ 3,773
554,060 82 0.00365 $ 3,769
553,000 82 0.00364 $ 3,767
550,000 82 0.00364 $ 3,760
532,563 81 0.00360 $ 3,720
522,130 81 0.00358 $ 3,695
505,557 80 0.00354 $ 3,656
505,079 80 0.00354 $ 3,656
Category Totals $ 239,818 $4,360.33
Totals 17,777,829,109 22,521 $1,033,581
Allocation of IR Component HMBP Program Fee Fiscal Year 2010-2011 (Facilities Handling Less than 500,000 Pounds Annually) Exhibit K # Employees Pounds of Material # Facilities Average Quantity/ Facility (Pounds) Estimated Quantity/ Category (Pounds) Cube RootPortion of Cube Root Proportional IR Cost IR Fee/ Facility N/A <1K 466 500 233,000 61.5345 3.34% $ 23,010 $ 490-19 1K≤ x <10K 740 5,500 4,070,000 159.6607 8.66% $ 59,703 $ 810-19 10K≤ x <100K 260 55,000 14,300,000 242.7236 13.17% $ 90,763 $ 3490-19 100K≤ x <250K 247 175,000 43,225,000 350.9498 19.05% $131,233 $ 5310-19 250K≤ x <500K 86 375,000 32,250,000 318.3048 17.27% $119,026 $1,384≥20 1K≤ x <10K 179 5,500 984,000 99.4806 5.40% $ 37,200 $ 208≥20 10K≤ x <100K 194 55,000 10,670,000 220.1514 11.95% $ 82,323 $ 424≥20 100K≤ x <250K 44 175,000 7,700,000 197.4681 10.72% $ 73,841 $1,678≥20 250K≤ x <500K 19 375,000 7,125,000 192.4252 10.44% $ 71,955 $3,787 Totals 1,842.6987 $689,054
Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program Annual Fee Allocations Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Exhibit L # Employees Pounds of Material # FacilitiesCWS Fee CWS Fee Revenue IR Fee IR Fee Revenue Base Fee Base Fee Revenue Total Fee1 Total Fee Revenue N/A <1K 466$ 49 $ 23,010 $ 204 $ 95,252 $ 254 $ 118,3640-19 1K≤ x <10K 740 $ 81 $ 59,703 $ 273 $ 201,678 $ 353 $ 261,2200-19 10K≤ x <100K 260$ 349 $ 90,763 $ 409 $ 106,290 $ 758 $ 197,0800-19 100K≤ x <250K 247 $ 531 $ 131,233 $ 545 $ 134,634 $ 1,076 $ 265,7720-19 250K≤ x <500K 86 $ 1,384 $ 119,026 $ 681 $ 58,596 $ 2,065 $ 177,590≥20 1K≤ x <10K 179 $ 208 $ 37,200 $ 784 $ 140,255 $ 991 $ 177,389≥20 10K≤ x <100K 194 $ 424 $ 82,323 $ 920 $ 178,444 $ 1,344 $ 260,736≥20 100K≤ x <250K 44$ 1,678 $ 73,841 $1,056 $ 46,468 $ 2,734 $ 120,296≥20 250K≤ x <500K 19$ 3,787 $ 71,955 $1,192 $ 22,655 $ 4,979 $ 94,601N/A 500K≤ x <2.5M 55 $ 3,744 $205,929 $ 4,360 $ 239,818 $3,066 $ 168,633 $ 11,171 $ 614,405N/A 2.5M≤ x <10M 11 $ 6,823 $ 75,054 $ 7,946 $ 87,407 $3,952 $ 43,470 $ 18,721 $ 205,931N/A 10M≤ x <100M 13 $12,247 $159,213 $14,263 $ 185,416 $5,178 $ 67,317 $ 31,688 $ 411,944N/A 100M≤ x <1B 6 $23,787 $142,720 $27,701 $ 166,208 $6,541 $ 39,246 $ 58,029 $ 348,174N/A 1B≤ x <5B 2 $46,395 $ 92,789 $54,030 $ 108,061 $7,631 $ 15,262 $108,056 $ 216,112N/A ≥5B 0 N/A N/A N/AN/A N/A N/A N/A N/ARefineries 4 $52,953 $211,812 $61,668 $ 246,671 $8,721 $ 34,885 $123,342 $ 493,368Totals 2326$887,517 $1,722,635 $1,353,083 $3,962,982 1 The fee amounts shown in the Total Fee column were calculated by adding together the unrounded CWS, IR and Base fee components in each category, and then rounding the sum to the nearest dollar. Revenue totals for each component were also calculated based on unrounded CWS, IR and Base fee components. However, the CWS, IR and Base fee components shown in this exhibit in each category, and their corresponding revenues, have been rounded for convenience.
Hazardous Waste Generator Program Annual Fee Allocations Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Exhibit N Categories # Sites Inspection Fee Inspection Fee Revenue Average Tons/ Facility Tonnage Fee Tonnage Fee Revenue Total Fee1 Total Revenue <5 tons 1,263 $ 460 $ 581,252 2.5 $ 24 $ 30,786 $ 485 $ 612,555 5 tons ≤ x <12 tons 150 $ 575 $ 86,290 8.5 $ 83 $ 12,431 $ 658 $ 98,700 12 tons ≤ x <25 tons 84 $ 805 $ 67,652 18.5 $ 180 $ 15,152 $ 986 $ 82,824 25 tons ≤ x <50 tons 59 $ 1,151 $ 67,882 37.5 $ 366 $ 21,572 $ 1,516 $ 89,444 50 tons ≤ x <250 tons 55 $ 1,726 $ 94,919 150 $ 1,463 $ 80,438 $ 3,188 $ 175,340 250 tons ≤ x <500 tons 9 $ 6,903 $ 62,129 375 $ 3,656 $ 32,906 $ 10,559 $ 95,031 500 tons ≤ x <1000 tons 6 $ 9,204 $ 55,226 750 $ 7,313 $ 43,875 $ 16,517 $ 99,102 1000 tons ≤ x <2000 tons 2 $ 12,272 $ 24,545 1,500 $ 14,625 $ 29,250 $ 26,897 $ 53,794 ≥2000 tons 6 $ 18,409 $ 110,452 4,000 $ 39,000 $ 234,000 $ 57,409 $ 344,454 Permit by Rule 16 $ 3,068 $ 49,088 Conditionally Authorized 11 $ 3,068 $ 33,748 Conditionally Exempt 7 $ 614 $ 4,298 Total $1,150,347 $500,410 $1,738,378 1 The fee amounts shown in the Total Fee column were calculated by adding together the unrounded inspection fee and unrounded tonnage fee components in each category, and then rounding the sum to the nearest dollar. Revenue totals for each component were also calculated based on unrounded inspection and tonnage fee components. However, the inspection and tonnage fee components shown in this exhibit in each category, and their corresponding revenues, have been rounded for convenience.
Exhibit O
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CALIFORNIA ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVENTION PROGRAM
RELATIVE RISK DETERMINATION METHODOLOGY
I. INTRODUCTION. The Contra Costa County Health Services Department uses the
Chemical Exposure Index (CEI)1, as modified, to rank the relative potential of acute health
hazard to people from possible chemical release incidents. The Modified CEI (MCEI) is used by
the Department for the purpose of assessing stationary source fees. The MCEI formula is
intended to provide a relatively simple method for comparing relative chemical toxic hazards,
resulting in fees that fairly reflect the hazard potential of the facilities in the County.
The MCEI accounts for the following six factors that could influence the magnitude of a
potential regulated substance exposure:
1. The potential health hazard posed by the regulated substance measured by the toxic
endpoint and the vapor pressure (volatilization driving force) of the material.
2. The vapor quantity available for dispersion based on the largest single container of
the regulated substance.
3. The distance to the nearest receptor.
4. The degree of dispersivity and vapor density as related to the molecular weight of the
substance.
5. The number of processes using regulated substances at a stationary source.
6. Accident history
1For information regarding the Chemical Exposure Index, see Dow Chemical’s Chemical
Exposure Guide, published by the Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical
Engineers, 1994, New York, New York.
Exhibit O
II. MODIFIED CHEMICAL EXPOSURE INDEX (MCEI) DETERMINATION
METHODOLOGY.
A. Regulated Substance MCEI.
A Regulated Substance MCEI is determined for each regulated substance handled at a
stationary source in quantities above the threshold quantities established by the regulations for
the California Accidental Release Prevention Program. The MCEI for a Regulated Substance is
determined by multiplying the applicable scale numbers for the various risk factors (Subsection
B), as follows:
1.
Regulated
Substance x
Scale No.
2.
Largest
Single x
Container
Scale No.
3.
Distance
Scale No. x
4.
Molecular
Weight =
Scale No.
5.
Modified
Chemical Exposure
Index
B. Determination of Risk Factor Scale Numbers.
1. Regulated Substance Scale Number. Both the concentration at which
a material is acutely toxic and the vapor/partial pressure that creates the driving force to
volatilize and maintain the material in the atmosphere affect this scale number. For purposes of
this scale number, the toxic endpoints, in parts per million, are used as the toxicity
measurement. Volatility is measured by the vapor/partial pressure in mm Hg @ 25°C
(millimeters of Mercury at 25 degrees Centigrade), up to a maximum of 760mm Hg.
The Regulated Substance Scale factor is determined by multiplying the toxic endpoint
concentration by 760, and dividing that number by the vapor/partial pressure in mm Hg. The
Regulated Substance Scale factors are assigned the following Regulated Substance Scale
Numbers.
Regulated Substance Scale Factor
0 - .99
1.0 - 9.9
10.0 - 99.0
100 - 999
1,000 - 1000,000
>100,000
Regulated Substance Scale Number
5
4
3
2
1
0
For flammable substances and for sulfuric acid in a mixture with a flash point < 73°F,
the Regulated Substances Scale Number of two (2) is assigned.
Exhibit O
2. Largest Single Container Scale Number. The Scale Number for the
largest single container is determined by taking the Log10 of the maximum amount of regulated
substance, in pounds, stored in a single container at the stationary source.
3. Distance Scale Number. This factor quantifies the distance between the
point of release and the public or environmental receptor. The term public receptor means
offsite residences, institutions (e.g., schools, hospitals), industrial, commercial and office
buildings, parks or recreational areas inhabited or occupied by the public at any time without
restriction by the stationary source where members of the public could be exposed to toxic
concentrations, radiant heat or overpressure, as a result of an accidental release. (See Title 19
Cal. Code Regs. Division 2 Chapt. 4.5) The term environmental receptor means natural areas
such as national or state parks, forests, or monuments, officially designated wildlife sanctuaries,
preserves, refuges or areas, and federal wilderness areas, that could be exposed at any time to
toxic concentrations, radiant heat, or overpressure greater than or equal to the endpoints, as a
result of an accidental release and that can be identified on local U.S. Geological Survey maps.
(See Title 19 Cal. Code Regs. Division 2 Chapt. 4.5)
Distance
<1,000 ft.
1,000 - 5,279 ft.
1 mile - 5 miles
>5 miles - 15 miles
>15 miles
Scale Number
4
3
2
1
0
4. Molecular Weight Scale Number. The density of the vapor is directly
related to the molecular weight and inversely affects the rate of dispersion. Therefore, regulated
substances have been assigned the following scale numbers based upon their molecular
weight.
Molecular Weight
>45
34 - 45
23 - 33
15-22
<15
Scale Number
4
3
2
1
0
Exhibit O
Exceptions. The above formula does not apply to substances such as ammonia and
hydrogen fluoride, which form heavier-than-air vapor clouds due to the formation of aerosols
(ammonia) and strong intermolecular forces (hydrogen fluoride). These regulated substances
are assigned Scale Number 4.
C. Stationary Source MCEI. A stationary source’s MCEI is obtained by adding the
Regulated Substance MCEI for each regulated substance handled at the stationary source, and
multiplying that number by Process Scale Number for the stationary source. If there has been a
level-three accidents (as defined by the Community Warning System) in the last three years, the
MCEI will be increased by a factor of 10 % for each level-three accident in this time period.
1. Process Scale Number. The relative risk for an accidental release from
a stationary source is directly related to the amount of handling of regulated substances at the
source. A stationary source’s MCEI uses the number of California Accidental Release
Prevention Program covered processes at a stationary source as a determination of this factor.
Number of Processes
>10
6 - 10
3 - 5
0 - 2
Scale Number
4
3
2
1
2. Accident History Scale Factor. A factor of 1.1 will be used for each
level-three incident occurring in a rolling three-year period. The first accident in this time period
will have a factor of 1.1. If there have been two level three accidents, the factor will be 1.2, etc.
Date: June 10, 2009
California Accidental Release Prevention Program Annual Fee Calculations Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Exhibit P Business Site Chemical Name Molecular Weight Molecular Weight Index Hazard Index Distance Distance Index Pounds Quantity Index Risk Index # Processes Process Index Accident Index Facility Index Total Fee Air Liquide America Corp Ammonia 17 4 2 500 4 4,300 3.63 116.27 1 1 1 116.27 $5,865 Air Liquide Large Industries Flammable Mixture 3 2 50 4 1,300 3.11 74.73 Air Liquide Large Industries 19% Aqueous Ammonia 17 1 2 20 4 14,820 4.17 33.37 1 1 1 108.10 $5,452 Air Products - At Shell Flammable Mixture 3 2 50 4 4,100 3.61 86.71 1 1 1 86.71 $4,373 Air Products - At Tesoro 30% Aqueous Ammonia 17 1 2 25 4 11,550 4.06 32.50 Air Products - At Tesoro Flammable Mixture 3 2 50 4 1,600 3.20 76.90 1 1 1 109.40 $5,518 Antioch Water Treatment Plant Chlorine 71 4 4 100 4 2,000 3.30 211.27 Antioch Water Treatment Plant Ammonia 17 4 2 100 4 5,200 3.72 118.91 1 1 1 330.18 $16,654 Linde Ammonia 17 4 2 225 4 9,900 4.00 127.86 1 1 1 127.86 $6,449 Bollman WTP 19% Aqueous Ammonia 17 1 2 3,600 3 10,187 4.01 24.05 1 1 1 24.05 $1,213 Calpine Delta Energy Center Ammonia 17 4 2 900 4 65,663 4.82 154.15 1 1 1 154.15 $7,775 Calpine Riverview Energy Center 19% Aqueous Ammonia 17 1 2 150 4 14,547 4.16 33.30 1 1 1 33.30 $1,680 CCWD CBWTP 19% Aqueous Ammonia 17 1 2 150 4 2,077 3.32 26.54 1 1 1 26.54 $1,339 Chevron - Richmond Refinery Flammable 44 3 2 4,700 3 5,900,000 6.77 121.88 Chevron - Richmond Refinery Ammonia 17 4 2 5,120 3 222,000 5.35 128.31 Chevron - Richmond Refinery Sulfuric Acid 98 4 2 4,100 3 570,000 5.76 138.14 Chevron - Richmond Refinery Hydrogen Sulfide 34 3 4 4,700 3 1,500 3.18 114.34 28 4 1 2,010.67 $101,416 Criterion Catalysts 29% Aqueous Ammonia 17 1 2 600 4 42,234 4.63 37.01 2 1 1 37.01 $1,866
Exhibit P Business Site Chemical Name Molecular Weight Molecular Weight Index Hazard Index Distance Distance Index Pounds Quantity Index Risk Index # Processes Process Index Accident Index Facility Index Total Fee Crockett Cogen 19.4% Aqueous Ammonia 17 1 2 195 4 38,554 4.59 36.69 1 1 1 36.69 $1,851 Dow Chemical Co 27% Ammonium Hydroxide 17 1 2 1,300 3 32,940 4.52 27.11 Dow Chemical Co Chlorine 71 4 4 1,200 3 180,000 5.26 252.25 Dow Chemical Co Hydrogen Fluoride 20 4 3 1,146 3 211,000 5.32 191.67 Dow Chemical Co Hydrogen Chloride (Gas Only) 36 3 3 1,579 3 18,000 4.26 114.89 Dow Chemical Co Ammonia 17 4 2 700 4 50,000 4.70 150.37 Dow Chemical Co Sulfur Dioxide 64 4 4 1,042 3 175,000 5.24 251.67 7 3 1 2,882.56 $145,392 Dreisbach Enterprises Ammonia 17 4 2 200 4 12,000 4.08 130.53 1 1 1 130.53 $6,584 EBMUD Walnut Creek WTP 19% Aqueous Ammonia 17 1 2 500 4 8,835 3.95 31.57 1 1 1 31.57 $1,592 EBMUD Orinda WTP 19% Aqueous Ammonia 17 1 2 300 4 9,277 3.97 31.74 1 1 1 31.74 $1,601 EBMUD Lafayette WTP 19% Aqueous Ammonia 17 1 2 900 4 2,945 3.47 27.75 1 1 1 27.75 $1,400 EBMUD Sobrante Filter Plant 19% Aqueous Ammonia 17 1 2 300 4 2,945 3.47 27.75 1 1 1 27.75 $1,400 EBMUD RARE WTP 19% Aqueous Ammonia 17 1 2 400 4 760 2.88 23.05 1 1 1 23.05 $1,162 General Chemical/ Bay Pt Works Ammonia 17 4 2 2,000 3 54,000 4.73 113.58 General Chemical/ Bay Pt Works Hydrogen Fluoride 20 4 3 2,000 3 180,000 5.26 189.19 General Chemical/ Bay Pt Works Hydrochloric Acid 36 3 2 2,000 3 500 2.70 48.58 4 2 1 702.70 $35,443 General Chemical/ Richmond Sulfur Trioxide 80 4 4 500 4 250 2.40 153.47 General Chemical/ Richmond Sulfur Dioxide 64 4 4 500 4 500 2.70 172.73 General Chemical/ Richmond Oleum 98 4 2 500 4 32,915 4.52 144.56 2 1 1 470.76 $23,744 GWF Power Systems/ Loveridge Rd 25.4% Aqueous Ammonia 17 1 2 600 4 19,500 4.29 34.32 1 1 1 34.32 $1,731 GWF Power Systems/ Nichols Rd 25.4% Aqueous Ammonia 17 1 2 600 4 19,500 4.29 34.32 1 1 1 3.43 $173 GWF Power Systems/ Site 1A/Pitt 25.4% Aqueous Ammonia 17 1 2 300 4 19,500 4.29 34.32 1 1 1 3.43 $173
Exhibit P Business Site Chemical Name Molecular Weight Molecular Weight Index Hazard Index Distance Distance Index Pounds Quantity Index Risk Index # Processes Process Index Accident Index Facility Index Total Fee GWF Power Systems/ Wilbur East 25.4% Aqueous Ammonia 17 1 2 300 4 19,500 4.29 34.32 1 1 1 3.43 $173 GWF Power Systems/ Wilbur West 25.4% Aqueous Ammonia 17 1 2 300 4 19,500 4.29 34.32 1 1 1 3.43 $173 HASA Incorporated Chlorine 71 4 4 100 4 180,000 5.26 336.34 1 1 1 336.34 $16,964 Calpine Los Medanos Energy Center 25.4% Aqueous Ammonia 17 1 2 600 4 15,800 4.20 33.59 1 1 1 33.59 $1,694 Shell Martinez Refining Flammable Mixture 72 4 2 1,875 3 10,310,832 7.01 168.32 Shell Martinez Refining Ammonia 17 4 2 1,053 3 5,528 3.74 89.82 Shell Martinez Refining 25% Aqueous Ammonia 17 1 2 632 4 44,000 4.64 37.15 Shell Martinez Refining Hydrogen Sulfide 34 3 4 842 4 760 2.88 138.28 23 4 1 2,295.32 $115,773 Martinez Water Treatment Plant Ammonia 17 4 2 200 4 2,100 3.32 106.31 1 1 1 106.31 $5,362 Gen On - Contra Costa 29.4% Aqueous Ammonia 17 1 2 200 4 43,922 4.64 37.14 1 1 1 37.14 $1,873 Gen On – Pittsburg 29.4% Aqueous Ammonia 17 1 2 1,000 3 43,922 4.64 27.86 1 1 1 27.86 $1,405 MECS, Inc. Vanadium Pentoxide 182 2 2 200 4 7,000 3.85 61.52 MECS, Inc. Oleum 99 4 2 100 4 1 1 1 61.52 $3,103 Airgas Ammonia 17 4 2 200 4 2,506 3.40 108.77 1 1 1 108.77 $5,486 Pacific Gas & Electric Antioch Plant 29.4% Aqueous Ammonia 17 1 2 200 4 43,922 4.64 37.14 Pacific Gas & Electric Antioch Plant Ammonia 17 4 2 800 4 36,500 4.56 145.99 2 1 1 145.99 $7,364 Veolia ES Technical Services 29.4% Aqueous Ammonia 17 1 2 264 4 124 2.09 16.75 Veolia ES Technical Services HF 50% 20 1 2 264 4 267 2.43 19.41 1 1 1 36.16 $1,824 Pittsburg Water Treatment Plnt Chlorine 71 4 4 320 4 2,000 3.30 211.27 Pittsburg Water Treatment Plnt Ammonia 17 4 2 350 4 4,375 3.64 116.51 1 1 1 327.78 $16,533 Ramar Foods Ammonia 17 4 2 100 4 1,000 3.00 96.00 1 1 1 96.00 $4,842 Randal-Bold Water Treatment Chlorine 71 4 4 700 4 2,000 3.30 211.27
Exhibit P Business Site Chemical Name Molecular Weight Molecular Weight Index Hazard Index Distance Distance Index Pounds Quantity Index Risk Index # Processes Process Index Accident Index Facility Index Total Fee Randal-Bold Water Treatment 19% Aqueous Ammonia 17 1 2 700 4 7,900 3.90 31.18 2 1 1 242.45 $12,229 Rhodia Ammonia 17 4 2 480 4 130,540 5.12 163.70 Rhodia Sulfur Trioxide 80 4 4 700 4 262 2.42 154.77 Rhodia Sulfur Dioxide 64 4 4 750 4 990 3.00 191.72 1 1 1 510.20 $25,734 Safeway Beverage Plant Ammonia 17 4 2 300 4 3,956 3.60 115.11 1 1 1 115.11 $5,806 San Ramon Olympic Chlorine 71 4 4 10 4 150 2.18 139.27 1 1 1 139.27 $7,025 Shell Chemical Ethylenediamine 60 4 1 195 4 75,950 4.88 78.09 1 1 1 78.09 $3,939 Sunset Packing & Cooling Ammonia 17 4 2 600 4 2,020 3.31 105.77 1 1 1 105.77 $5,335 Tesoro Golden Eagle Refinery Sulfur Dioxide 64 4 4 6,000 2 2,390 3.38 108.11 Tesoro Golden Eagle Refinery Hydrogen Sulfide 34 3 3 6,000 2 7,932 3.90 70.19 Tesoro Golden Eagle Refinery Ammonia 17 4 2 6,000 2 322,309 5.51 88.13 Tesoro Golden Eagle Refinery Flammable/Butane 58 4 2 6,000 2 52,282,348 7.72 123.49 Tesoro Golden Eagle Refinery Sulfuric Acid 98 4 2 6,000 2 2,623,296 6.42 102.70 35 4 1.1 2,167.55 $109,328 ConocoPhillips - Rodeo Flammable/Butane 58 4 2 1,700 3 9,000,000 6.95 166.90 ConocoPhillips - Rodeo 29% Aqueous Ammonia 17 1 2 400 4 150,000 5.18 41.41 ConocoPhillips - Rodeo Hydrogen Sulfide 34 3 3 1,000 3 5,600 3.75 101.20 15 4 1 1,238.05 $62,445 K2 Pure Chlorine 71 4 4 200 4 400,000 5.60 358.53 1 1 1 358.53 $18,084 USS POSCO Industries Hydrogen 2 0 2 1,500 3 16,000 4.20 0 USS POSCO Industries Ammonia 17 4 2 400 4 28,000 4.45 142 2 1 1 142.31 $7,178 TOTALS 16,287.49 $821,518
Underground Storage Tank Program
Projected Fee Revenue
Fiscal Year 2011-2012
Exhibit Q
Tank Categories # Tanks
Inspection
Hours per
Tank Annual Fee
Total Annual
Fee Revenue
Residential Tank/1,000 gallons or less 0 2 $ 480.00 0
First Tank at non-residential UST1 422 2 $ 480.00 $ 202,560
Tank 50,000 gallons or less 1,115 3 $ 720.00 $ 802,800
Tank Above 50,000 Gallons 0 6 $1,439.00 0
$1,005,360
Miscellaneous Permit Fees $ 90,114
Total UST Program Fee Revenue $1,095,474
1 The “first tank” fee of $480 is applied to the first tank at each non-residential UST site.
Exhibit R
Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act Program
Annual Fee Allocations
Fiscal Year 2011-2012
Categories # Facilities
Annual
Inspection
Hours/ Facility
Total Fee/
Facility
Total
Revenue
Tank facilities w/ storage capacity
≥ 1,320 and <10,000 gallons 211 1.33 $ 536 $113,096
Tank facilities w/ storage capacity
≥ 10,000 and <100,000 gallons 52 3 $ 1,206 $ 62,712
Tank facilities w/ storage capacity
≥ 100,000 and <1,000,000 gallons 8 12 $ 4,822 $ 38,576
Tank facilities w/ storage capacity
≥ 1,000,000 and <10,000,000 gallons 6 16 $ 6,429 $ 38,574
Tank facilities w/ storage capacity
≥ 10,000,000 and <100,000,000 gallons 4 24 $ 9,644 $ 38,576
Tank facilities w/ storage capacity
≥ 100,000,000 gallons 5 40 $ 16,074 $ 80,370
Totals 286 $371,904
Page 1 of 4
Exhibit 3
Public Comments at the May 14, 2012
Internal Operations Committee and Responses
Comment #1:
Contra Costa County’s Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) fees are much higher
than other County CUPA fees.
Response to Comment #1:
Below is a table showing the high and low fees for each CUPA program that are
charged by different CUPAs in the Bay Area. The Contra Costa County CUPA fees for
the smaller facilities are generally comparable to the same fees that are charged by
other agencies. Contra Costa County CUPA fees for the larger facilities are generally
higher than other agencies. Contra Costa County has facilities that handle more
hazardous materials, generate more hazardous waste, and have more aboveground
storage tanks then other Bay Area agencies. Contra Costa County’s CUPA also has
services that are not provided by other Bay Area CUPAs, such as a Hazardous
Materials Response Team and the Community Warning System. These services are
paid for by the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program and that is why the fee for
the larger facilities for this program is higher than other Bay Area CUPAs.
CUPA Fee Comparison
Agency HMBP Fees HWG Fees UST Fees APSA Fees
Contra Costa
County
$254 - $123,342 $485 - $57,409 $1,200 - $3,360 $536 - $16,074
San Mateo
County
$358 - $3,172 $896 – $39,583 $839 - $1,451 $206 - $566
Santa Clara
County
$764 - $1,292* $134 - $82,006 $1,394 - $2,789
San Francisco $324 - $4,224 $367 - $6,053 $371 - $2,597 $656 - $1,695
Alameda County $215 - $32,209 $309 - $3,210 $479 - $4,379
Page 2 of 4
Exhibit 3
Agency HMBP Fees HWG Fees UST Fees APSA Fees
City of Berkeley
$256 - $5,130
$149 - $47,500
$1,770 - $3,048
Solano County $444 - $3,287 $444 - $3,287 $726 - $1,545 $292 – $1,314
Marin County $247.50 - $495 $200 - $600 $1,000 - $4,000
Sonoma County $529 - $1,235 $204 - $5,875 $1,100 - $2,900 $190 - $760
* There is an additional charge of $152 for each additional six chemicals that are handled at a facility
Comment #2:
The Salary and Benefits for the Hazardous Material Specialists indicate that they make
$225,000 per year.
Response to Comment #2:
The Hazardous Material Specialists cost the County an average of approximately
$200,000 per year in salary and benefits, including time paid for being on call and
overtime. Benefits include, but are not limited to health and dental care, pension,
Medicare, Social Security, deferred compensation, unemployment insurance, and
workers compensation. All of the Specialists are on the Hazardous Material Response
Team and receive “Safety” retirement. The retirement benefit costs are approximately
35 percent of the total salary and benefits for the Specialists.
Comment #3:
The gasoline stations owners stated that there are no hazardous material incidents at
their stations and should not have to pay for the Hazardous Material Response Team
costs.
Response to Comment #3:
Since January 1, 2006 there have been at least 25 actions needed by the Hazardous
Material Response team associated with gasoline stations. Some of the actions include
complaints of illegal dumping of solvents and oil from the stations, some have been
notifications of small gasoline spills that were able to be cleaned up by the gasoline
Page 3 of 4
Exhibit 3
stations personnel, some are of unpermitted activities, and some are major incidents
when delivering gasoline to the gasoline stations. One incident was at a gasoline
station when a delivery truck was struck by another vehicle, while unloading gasoline,
which caused a major spill of gasoline in the drainage ditches. This was a major
concern to the public safety, if the gasoline had ignited, and the environment. All of
these caused a cost to the CUPA.
Gasoline stations rely on outside hazardous material response teams when there is a
release that could have an impact to the public’s health and safety or the environment,
since the gasoline station personnel are not trained to respond to hazardous material
incidents. The CUPA does provide this service to the gasoline stations in Contra Costa
County.
Comment #4:
The Hazardous Waste Generator fees were raised.
Response to Comment #4:
The Hazardous Waste Generator (HWG) program proposed fees are lower than last
fiscal year’s by 7 – 27 percent.
Comment #5:
Fees are manipulated and are not correct.
Response to Comment #5:
The “Staff Report on the Determination and Apportionment of CUPA Fees” goes through
all of the CUPA programs and determines the costs for these programs. When the
costs are determined, the report looks at all of the revenue streams to determine what
the CUPA Permit fee should be to cover the costs that are not already covered by other
revenues. The report goes on to describe how each of the different components of the
different fees is calculated. All of the costs are reasonable and necessary to address
the requirements of the different programs. The fees to pay for these costs are fairly
allocated based on the benefit that the CUPA provides to the business or the burden
that the business places on the CUPA.
Page 4 of 4
Exhibit 3
Comment #6:
Gasoline stations pay more in fees than the refineries.
Response to Comment #6:
There are 415 underground storage tank (UST) facilities in the County. Of these, 281
UST facilities are gasoline stations. On an average the refineries pay over $295,000 in
CUPA fees and gasoline stations pay approximately $4,200. The total CUPA fees that
all refineries pay are approximately the same as the total CUPA fees that all 281
gasoline stations pay. The refineries also pay non-CUPA fees to the Hazardous
Materials Programs for the Industrial Safety Ordinance and Unannounced Inspection
programs that are approximately another $500,000. Below is a table showing the fees
that are proposed for the refineries and an average gasoline station, which has three
underground storage tanks, an hazardous materials inventory between 100,000 and
250,000 pounds, an generate less than 5 tons of hazardous waste.
Proposed Fee Comparison of Gasoline Stations and Petroleum Refineries
Facilities HMBP HWG UST APSA CalARP Total
Chevron $123,342 $57,409 $1,200 $16,074 $101,416 $299,441
Phillips 66 $123,342 $57,409 $1,200 $16,074 $62,445 $260,470
Shell $123,342 $57,409 $1,200 $16,074 $115,773 $313,798
Tesoro $123,342 $57,409 $1,200 $16,074 $109,328 $307,353
Total $493,368 $229,636 $4,800 $64,296 $388,962 $1,181,062
Avg Gasoline
Station
$1,076 $485 $2,640 $0 $0 $4,201
Total for 281
Gasoline
Stations
$302,356 $136,285 $741,840 $0 $0 $1,180,481