1 / 20

Penalty Calculations For Non-Hazardous Waste Administrative Actions

Penalty Calculations For Non-Hazardous Waste Administrative Actions. Vincent Mendes, R.E.H.S. Supervising Environmental Health Specialist Fresno County Environmental Health Division February 15, 2007. New automatic penalty system for violations. Enforcement Philosophy Factors. POLICIES

rosaline
Download Presentation

Penalty Calculations For Non-Hazardous Waste Administrative Actions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Penalty Calculations For Non-Hazardous Waste Administrative Actions Vincent Mendes, R.E.H.S. Supervising Environmental Health Specialist Fresno County Environmental Health Division February 15, 2007

  2. New automatic penalty system for violations

  3. Enforcement Philosophy Factors • POLICIES • PROCEDURES • POLITICS • PERSPECTIVE

  4. Do you have an Enforcement Plan? • What is your enforcement approach? • Notice to comply/violation • Second notice? • Other options – • District Attorney • County Counsel or City Attorney • Red Tags (UST) • Small Claims (past practice) • Goal (s) of enforcement • Compliance • Penalty • Both

  5. Business Plan Enforcement HSC 25514 • “in an amount which shall be set by the governing body of the administering agency,” • Is this an issue for your CUPA? • Each AEO for 6.95 violations must be approved by their governing body • Have the governing body approve a penalty matrix/enforcement plan

  6. Common Business Plan Violation for AEO • Fails to submit or implement a business plan after notice. • Failure to submit or implement a business plan at high volume-high risk facilities. • Knowingly or willfully failing to report a 100% increase in quantities within 30 days. • Failure to report within 30 days a new chemical that poses a significant threat and was not previously disclosed.

  7. Business Plan Penalty Matrix

  8. Common UST Violations for AEO • Tampering with monitoring equipment. • Failure to repair non-functional monitoring equipment. • Failure to report an unauthorized release. • Failure to repair secondary containment. • Failure to complete/pass secondary containment testing. • Failure to properly close a UST. • Operating/Repairing/Removing UST without a permit

  9. UST Penalty Matrix

  10. Common CalARP Violations for AEO • No incident investigation conducted for significant releases. • Failure of the owner or operator to submit an initial RMP after notification from the CUPA. • Failure to update the RMP that requires an revise Offsite Consequence analysis, within 6 months of change. • Owner/Operator did not complete an initial hazard review or initial process hazard analysis. • A certified RMP misrepresents what programs are in place. • Not completing action items from internal and/or external compliance audits, internal hazard reviews or PHAs, incident investigations, etc. • If a facility has an incident that adversely impacts the community, workers, or the environment, and a CalARP program element is found to be inadequate and attributable to the cause of the incident. • Failure to implement a Prevention Program

  11. CalARP Penalty Matrix

  12. Establishing the Initial Penalty • Multiple violations can result in very high penalty amounts • Statue penalties add up quick • Can either set a high one day penalty or a low daily penalty (or justify your penalty by using both methods to determine your number)

  13. HSC Section 25404.1.1(b)When setting an AEO penalty, the UPA shall consider: • Nature, circumstances, extent & gravity of violation • Violator’s past and present efforts to prevent, abate, or clean up • Violator’s ability to pay • The deterrent effect the penalty has on both the violator and the regulated community

  14. Nature, circumstances, extent & gravity of violation Failed to submit a HMBP Who has deviated more? Who has greater potential for harm? Does one HMBP facility deserve a higher penalty than the other?

  15. Penalty Factors: “circumstances of the violation” • Effort to comply before & after violation • Cooperation • Known or should have known • Any previous/current problems with regulatory agencies • Changes/unique circumstances

  16. Adjusted Initial Penalty:The initial penalty may be adjusted based on the violator’s intent in committing the infraction. The following factors will be considered as a basis for adjustment.

  17. Penalty adjustment factors • Violator ability to pay. • How do you determine this? • County/City Auditor. • Revenue/Collection Dept. • Other means? • Economic Benefit – Did the business profit, avoid or delay costs by not being in compliance? • Deterrent effect of the penalty on the regulated community-“The Ripple Affect” • You must be able to articulate and defend this penalty in future AEOs. • Are you being fair to those who are in compliance?

  18. Another factor for the penalty (unwritten factor) • How are you issuing the AEO? • Unilateral • Draft AEO • Stipulation and Order to be offered • Show Cause • Consent order

  19. Remember to KISS the AEO process • KEEP • IT • SOMEWHAT • SIMPLE

  20. Have a plan and you’ll get through it all Any questions?

More Related