Penalty System

The Act provides a two-tier penalty system for AHERA violations. The lower tier carries maximum daily penalties of 7,500 for violations as of January 13, 2009, which is one-fifth of the penalties for other TSCA violations.That tier is reserved for enumerated violations by LEAs, and contractors who fail to obtain accreditation. The higher tier carries maximum daily penalties as of January 13,2009 of 37,500, and appHes the penalty provisions in TSCA 16 to all other asbestos-related TSCA violations. The statute also provides for citizens suits, citizens petitions, and injunctive rehef. 

The Act directs the EPA to consider schools primary educational objective when assessing penalties, and requires the EPA to consider the ability of the TEA to continue to provide educational services, the culpabihty of the LEA, its ability to pay, and the significance of the violations. 

The EPA took these mandates into account when it issued its enforcement response policy for AHERA (the AHERA ERP) in 1989, as amended.  

Interim Final Enforcement Response PoUcy for the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (Jan. 31. 1989) [hereinafter AHERA ERP]. 

Memorandum from Jesse Baskerville, Director, Toxics and Pesticides Enforcement Division, Office of Regulatory Enforcement. EPA. Revision of the AHERA Enforcement Response Policy Civil Penalties for Failure to Conduct Reinspections (Aug. 4,1998) EPA, Toxics and Pesticides Enforcement Division. Office of Regulatory Enforcement, Enforcement Response 

---

Pride of Workmanship and Continuous Learning Frequent corrective actions take away the pride of workmanship from production operators and other staff in industrial operations. In addition, FDA s penalty system (e.g., Warning Letters) is often construed to be directed at industrial operations. The ability to distinguish between common cause and special cause variability can be an important element in the FDA s penalty system and facilitate a move towards a continuous improvement approach and help build/improve the pride of workmanship dimension. 

The current penalty system is strict, clear, and straightforward however, it does not allow for minor errors. In fact, minor errors are treated equally to a false negative result, as demonstrated with the following example Laboratory 1 failed to identify one of the spiking chemicals in a test. Laboratory 2 found all spiking chemicals however, it made a minor reporting error in the identification of one of them the evidence provided was adequate to indicate the presence of the particular chemical, however, did not fulfill all the reporting requirements. 

The range for scoring varies from A (i.e. maximum score) to F (i.e. failure of the test). This A, B, C... system allows for comparison of performance in a number of different proficiency tests, in a rather simple and unambiguous way. However, in combination with the previously discussed strict penalty system, the simplicity of this letter system is at the expense of its transparency letter scores below the maximum score A do not reflect the type of error(s) made. 

OSHA Gravity Based Penalty system — Serious violations... 

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 ... 

The gravity-based penalty system establishes the initial penalty based upon the potential severity of loss the hazard poses and the probability that an injury or illness could occur because of the alleged violation. The severity assessment classifies the alleged violations as serious or other-than-serious. The severity assessment is assigned to a hazard to be cited according to the most serious injury or illness which could reasonably be expected to result from an employee s exposure as follows (United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration 2001) ... 

OSHA s Gravity-Based Penalty System establishes the initial penalty based on the potential severity of loss that the hazard poses and the probability that an injury or illness could occur because of the alleged violation. 

Fig. 12.1 Application of the EATOS metric to the preparation of rose oxide 3 from citronellol 1. A penalty system is used for evaluating the environmental performance. Reprinted with permission from [10]...

As an example, the EATOS metric is applied to the production of rose oxide (3) from citronellol in Eig. 12.1. In this approach, the Environmental Index of the process (El-out) is expressed with a penalty system as Potential Environmental Impact per kg of product. As it... 

The political and social context also requires vehicles to become greener. We can see emerging urban use rates like in London, bonus/penalty systems depending on the level of CO2 production and an environmental summit in France. Moreover urban mobility is evolving to become greener, we see emerging opportunities to cycle in urban areas (Velib in Paris). 

---