**Summary of Stakeholder Comments By Topic (Enforcement)** 

**Stakeholder:** Private Citizen

- Jeff Tobergte **Topic:** PENAL TI ES:

**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 circumstan ce. 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 p olicy b ased on an assessment matrix (nature and degree of harm vs. degree of deviati on 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 word s 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 substantiall y s imil ar 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

- In spections

**Comment: COURTESY SCHEDULING OF UNANNOUNCED VISITS:** Itis 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, i t is often the case that small facilities (whether a small company or a small site owned b y a larger organization) have onl y one individual who is fully cognizant of both the operating elements and the recordkeeping program for RCRA compliance at a facility. Man y 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 fa cility and results in a great deal of paperwork burden for the inspector and the facility

in demonstrating the actual program status. I f there were a sy stem of notification that routine inspections of generators would be occurring in a particular section o f 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 hostwould be present for the inspectors. (In addition, it might motivate facilities to perform internal

audits more frequentl y an d enhance overall performance. It is not likely that this would impact the performance of the trul y recalcitrant.) This could be a great savings to the Agency as well as indus try , and could be done, for example, through the regional website.