INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION
Wants Your Input By Aug. 02, 2017 On:
DTSC Public Workshop
Administrative Penalties Regulations to Evaluate Possible Revisions
The DTSC is holding a public workshop August 7, 2019 to discuss potential changes to how they calculate administrative penalties for violations. The format will include small discussion groups where the DTSC will accept verbal feedback on three topics. The Industrial Environmental Coalition / Orange County (IECOC) is planning to attend the workshop and provide feedback on behalf of our members.
If you are interested in helping to shape the IEC/OC feedback, please provide comments on the following questions to Dave Boggs (firstname.lastname@example.org) by Friday, August 2.
Details about the current penalty determination process and some of the alternative ideas DTSC has identified can be found at:https://dtsc.ca.gov/penalty-regulations-revisions/
Topic 1: Determining the Potential for Harm and Extent of Deviation for Each Violation
- 1) Currently, there are two factors used to determine the initial penalty, namely “potential for harm” and “extent of deviation”. In your opinion, what factors should the initial penalty for each violation be based on?
- 2) What changes should be made to the categories for degree of potential for harm and extent of deviation, and their definitions?
- 3) What are some other ways we might calculate initial penalties?
- 4) Do we need to have more explanations to the initial and base penalty calculation? If so, please specify the nature of what the explanation should include or address.
- 5) Do you understand the categories for degree of potential for harm, and extent of deviation, and are they intuitive? If your answer is no, how should the categories for degree of potential for harm and extent of deviation, and their definitions, be revised?
- 6) What changes can be made to the penalty regulations to enhance fairness and consistency?
- 7) In what ways do you think the current regulations most lead to inconsistent results?
Topic 2: The Penalty Matrix and Initial Penalty Adjustment Factors
- 1) How should the penalty matrix, set forth in 22 CCR 66272.62 (d), be revised?
- 2) The following are some alternatives to the current penalty matrix: (i) set penalties for common violations; (ii) two or more separate penalty matrices; and (iii) penalty matrix that is weighted for potential for harm. See handout of examples of penalty matrix alternatives. Identify the alternative(s) that would be a good replacement for the current penalty matrix? Please describe how the alternative(s) you identified will function?
- 3) How should the regulations for initial penalty adjustment factors [22 CCR 66272.63] be revised?
- 4) Should DTSC continue using one penalty matrix for all violations or would youprefer a system where we establish two or more separate penalty matrices?
- 5) If DTSC had two or more separate penalty matrices, should those matrices be categorized by the type of violation or the type of waste stream involved?
- 6) Do you prefer DTSC to establish set penalties for common violations?
- 7) Do you prefer DTSC to establish set penalties for common violations? Do you think that having set penalties for common violations, in addition to the penalty matrix, will streamline the enforcement process?
- 8) In general, when determining a penalty, should a violation’s potential for harm be considered more than the extent of deviation?
- 9) Are the initial penalty adjustment factor regulations clear or do they need more clarification?
Topic 3: Multiple Violations, Multiday Violations, Base Penalty, and Adjustments to the Total Base Penalty
- 1) How should the regulation sections regarding multiple violations and multiday violations be revised?
- 2) How should the regulations sections regarding base penalty and adjustments to the total base penalty be revised?
- 3) What should DTSC consider when assessing penalties for multiple violations?
- 4) Do you think multiple incidents of the same violation should be weighed more than one incident of a violation that occurred over multiple days, vice versa, or should they be equally weighted?
- 5) If a facility has a history of multiple violations, how can we best address this issue?
- 6) Do you think general adjustments to the base penalty for cooperation, prophylactic effect, and compliance history are appropriate? If not, could these adjustments be reworked to be more appropriate?
- 7) What mitigating factors should be considered when calculating a base penalty?