Penalties reduction

The total possible penalty reduction is 80 percent, which results in an adjusted penalty of 918,000. 

Note that this penalty reduction is greater than the 75 percent penalty reduction that would have been available under the Audit Policy for a violation that was self-reported but was not discovered as the result of an audit or application of a compliance monitoring program. 

The EPA will either allow a deduction from the gravity based penalty for environmentally beneficial expenditures needed to amehorate the violation or a 15 percent reduction for taking all steps reasonably requested or expected by the EPA to respond to the violation. Industry generally relies on the more assured 15 percent penalty reduction alternative. The most common type of action that quahfies for the 15 percent penalty reduction is quarantining a substance that may have been manufactured or imported in violation of the premanufacture notification requirements of 5. Depending on the size of the penalty and cost of mitigating the effects of the violation, different alternative reductions will be more favorable. In some circumstances where a substance has been completely used and there is no mitigation possible, the EPA may allow the 15 percent penalty reduction. 

The EPA will also take prior violations into account in determining a penalty. Under the ERPs, the EPA will not increase a penalty for a self-reported violation because of prior violations. The EPA will only increase a penalty under an ERP for prior violations if the violation for which it is calculating the penalty is not self-reported. In contrast, if a company has a history of TSCA violations it may not qualify for the penalty reductions under Audit Policy, and should consider self-reporting imder the applicable ERP. 

Staff should cooperate with the inspectors, but they should not volunteer any information that is not specifically requested. Sometimes, in an effort to be cooperative, people will volimteer evidence of previously undetected violations, and this should be avoided. For example, if the inspector uncovers evidence that a particular Notice of Commencement was filed late and explains the issue to the plant employees, it is very tempting to respond that the same thing had happened before without adverse consequences. Everyone should also imderstand that if they volunteer unsolicited information it will not place the fadhty in a better position than if the inspector discovers it for him or herself. The EPA will treat any violations that it learns of during an inspection as if it were discovered by the inspector, even if employees consider them to be voluntarily disclosed, and the EPA will not grant any penalty reductions for self-disclosure. The best course of action is to evaluate self-reporting additional violations that the inspector did not discover after the inspection has concluded. 

A company can only qualify for penalty reductions from self-reporting a violation to the EPA under the Audit PoHcy, an ERP, or the Small Business Comphance Policy if the EPA has not already scheduled an inspection or discovered the violation itself. 

If an employer corrects a violation on the spot while the inspector is there, it can lead to a 15% penalty reduction. This Quick-Fix penalty adjustment does not, however, apply to ... 

Once a base penalty has been calculated using the Gravity-Based Penalty system, OSHA may then assign a reduction based on certain factors, including size of the employer. The size adjustment factor allows for the following maximum penalty reductions ... 

Employers with more than 250 workers will not receive a penalty reduction for size. 

Office of Inspector General, Department of Labor, OSHA Needs to Evaluate the Impact and Use of Hundreds of Millions of Dollars in Penalty Reductions as Incentives for Employers to Improve Workplace Safety and Health r—3 (September 30, 2oro). Toyota s Recall Hearings (Testimony of Clarence M. Ditlow). 

Powder Insulation A method of reahzing some of the benefits of multiple floating shields without incurring the difficulties of awkward structural complexities is to use evacuated powder insulation. The penalty incurred in the use of this type of insulation, however, is a tenfold reduction in the overall thermal effectiveness of the insulation system over that obtained for multilayer insulation. In applications where this is not a serious factor, such as LNG storage facihties, and investment cost is of major concern, even unevacuated powder-insulation systems have found useful apphcations. The variation in apparent mean thermal conductivity of several powders as a function of interstitial gas pressure is shown in the familiar S-shaped curves of Fig. 11-121. ... 

Tolerance The penalty for having an unbalanced wall is the reduction of tolerance control. Tolerance limits are usually at least doubled. Also, with certain plastics it is more difficult to process them, such as those with low melt strength. Although the balanced wall is the ideal, having it is not always possible. Recognize that the unbalanced wall can be extruded with proper die design and control of the extruder line from upstream to downstream equipment. 

The major improvement sought in polymers in terms of their fire behaviour is reduction of flammability. For certain applications, however, reduction in smoke evolution is sought but these two aims tend to be mutually incompatible. Reduction in flammability is brought about by making the combustion process less efficient. A penalty for inefficient combustion is increased smoke production. Similarly a reduction in smoke evolution may be achieved by increasing the efficiency of any accidental combustion that is, by increasing the flammability. 

The reactions that occur to auto-exhaust emissions when exposed to plasma include oxidation of HCs, carbon monoxide, and partially diesel PM also. Nitric oxide (NO) can be oxidized by plasma to N02. Plasma alone, due to its oxidizing character, is not a viable NO control method. However, combinations of plasma with catalysts, referred to as plasma-assisted catalysts or simply plasma catalysts , have been suggested for NO reduction. The plasma is believed to show potential to improve catalyst selectivity and removal efficiency. Current state-of-the-art plasma catalysts have efficiencies comparable to those of active DeNO systems, removing about 50% of NO at a fuel economy penalty of less than 5% [85],... 

The second DeNOx technology, the selective catalytic reduction with ammonia (SCR-NH3) commercially available in heavy-duty vehicles since 2006, seems to present an interesting potential in terms of efficiency, reliability, HC penalties, etc. 

---