Summary of Stakeholder Comments By Topic 

(Enforcement)

Stakeholder: Private Citizen - Jeff 

Tobergte

Topic: PENALTIES:

Comment: PENALTIES: To make fines more consistent and fair, baseline penalties should be 

established in the regs, like DOT has done in 49 CFR 107 Appendix A. The current penalty policy 

leaves too much room for judgement, and causes inconsistency between different offices. (E.g., 

the penalty for an unlabeled drum should be very similar, regardless of the EPA Region, State 

district or County where it is located.) Too often, different offices assess different penalties for 

essentially the same violation and circumstance. Although guidance and policies have been 

developed to reduce inconsistency, it still occurs. Baseline penalties written directly into the rule, 

like DOT did, would help.

Stakeholder: Lab Corp Topic: Baseline penalties

Comment: We recommend that the EPA issue baseline penalties in the regulations, as DOT’s 

Research and Special Programs Administration (“RSPA”) has done in 49 CFR 107, Appendix A. 

The current penalty policy based on an assessment matrix (nature and degree of harm vs. degree of 

deviation from requirements) leaves too much room for interpretation, and causes inconsistency

between different Regions and/or States. For example, the penalty for failing to label a satellite 

accumulation container with the words “Hazardous Waste” or other words to describe the contents 

should be very similar, regardless of the EPA Region, State, District or County where it is located. 

Too often, different offices assess different penalties for identical violations occurring under the 

same or substantially similar circumstances. Although guidance and policies have been developed 

to reduce inconsistency, it still occurs. Baseline penalties written directly into the rule would help.

Stakeholder: Linden Industrial 

Association

Topic: Enforcement - Inspections

Comment: COURTESY SCHEDULING OF UNANNOUNCED VISITS: It is an excellent 

policy on the part of the Agency to have unannounced visits as part of the program by which 

generators and TSDF’s are motivated to maintain excellence in their RCRA programs. However, it 

is often the case that small facilities (whether a small company or a small site owned by a larger 

organization) have only one individual who is fully cognizant of both the operating elements and 

the recordkeeping program for RCRA compliance at a facility. Many times, inspectors have 

arrived at a facility, asked for the individual in charge of the RCRA program, found them missing 

and had a different person host them for the inspection. This often presents a false picture of the 

compliance status of the facility and results in a great deal of paperwork burden for the inspector 

and the facility in demonstrating the actual program status. If there were a system of notification 

that routine inspections of generators would be occurring in a particular section of a region in a 

given period of time, and that the facilities in that section of the region might or might not be 

subject to inspection, that would help the facilities to maximize the chance that the proper host 
would be present for the inspectors. (In addition, it might motivate facilities to perform internal 

audits more frequently and enhance overall performance. It is not likely that this would impact the 

performance of the truly recalcitrant.) This could be a great savings to the Agency as well as 

industry, and could be done, for example, through the regional website.