“Section 3005 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6925(a), and the regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 270 and Minn. R. 7045 prohibit the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste without a permit or interim status. A generator may, however, accumulate hazardous waste on-site for 90 days or less without a permit or interim status, provided that the generator complies with all applicable conditions set forth in Minn. R. 7045.0292, Subpart 2, including, but not limited to, clearly marking each container holding hazardous waste with the date upon which each period of accumulation begins.”

💡 This establishes that Northshore Mining could only store hazardous waste without a permit if it followed strict labeling requirements, which it failed to do.

“On July 31, 2023, two (2) containers were not clearly marked with the date upon which the period of accumulation began, and Respondent had not obtained a permit or interim status. Respondent stored hazardous waste without a permit or without interim status in violation of Section 3005 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6925(a), and the requirements of Minn. R. 7045”

💡 EPA found containers lacking the required start dates, meaning the company was operating illegally without proper permits or exemption compliance.

“On July 31, 2023, two (2) containers were not clearly marked with the words ‘Hazardous Waste’ and Respondent had not obtained a permit or interim status. Respondent stored hazardous waste without a permit or without interim status in violation of Section 3005 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6925(a), and the requirements of Minn. R. 7045, because it failed to comply with the conditions for an exemption as described above.”

💡 Workers and emergency responders had no way to identify which containers held dangerous materials, creating immediate safety risks.

“Under Minn. R. 7045.0214, a generator must accurately determine whether its waste is hazardous. At the time of the inspection, Respondent had not made a determination whether the waste generated as expired liquid material in two containers and multiple smaller waste containers in central accumulation area were hazardous.”

💡 The company never tested or characterized these wastes, leaving everyone exposed to potentially toxic substances of unknown danger.

“Under Minn. R. 7045.0248, Subpart 1(B), large quantity generators must submit a license renewal application containing information required for the biennial report required by the EPA under Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, section 262.41 for each hazardous waste produced during the proceeding calendar year by March 1 of every even-numbered year. At the time of the Inspection, Respondent had not submitted a biennial report for the year 2021.”

💡 The company concealed information about its hazardous waste generation from regulators and the public by failing to file required reports.

“Under Minn. R. 7045.0855, Subpart 2.C., containers and aboveground tanks used to store used oil at generator facilities must be labeled or marked clearly with the words ‘Used Oil.’ On July 31, 2023, 13 containers of used oil were not labeled or marked with the words, ‘Used Oil.'”

💡 Thirteen separate containers of used oil sat improperly labeled, each one a potential source of soil and groundwater contamination.

“Under Minn. R. 7045.0855, Subpart 2.D, upon detection of a release of used oil, a generator must stop the release, contain the released used oil, clean up, and manage properly the released used oil and other materials contaminated with used oil. On July 31, 2023, two (2) releases of used oil were observed and had not been managed properly.”

💡 The company knew about oil spills but failed to clean them up, allowing contamination to persist and potentially spread.

“Under Minn. R. 7045.1400, a large quantity handler of universal waste must label or clearly mark each lamp or a container or package in which such lamps are contained with any one of the following phrases: ‘Universal Waste-Lamps,’ ‘Waste Lamps’ or ‘Used Lamps.’ Respondent is a large quantity handler of universal waste because it accumulates 5,000 kilograms or more of universal waste at any time. On July 31, 2023, 1 container of lamps was not labeled with the phrase ‘Universal Waste-Lamps,’ ‘Waste Lamps’ or ‘Used Lamps.'”

💡 Mercury-containing lamps require special handling; unlabeled containers increase the risk of breakage and worker exposure to toxic heavy metals.

“The EPA and Respondent agree that settlement of this matter for a civil penalty of eight thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars ($8,750) is in the public interest.”

💡 The entire settlement for seven separate violations totaled less than $9,000, an amount unlikely to deter future violations at an industrial mining facility.

“In signing this Agreement, Respondent: (1) admits that Respondent is subject to RCRA and its implementing regulations; (2) admits that EPA has jurisdiction over Respondent and Respondent’s conduct as alleged herein, (3) neither admits nor denies the factual allegations contained herein; (4) consents to the assessment of this penalty”

💡 The company avoided publicly acknowledging wrongdoing by using standard settlement language that preserves deniability.

“By its signature below Respondent certifies, subject to civil and criminal penalties for making a false submission to the United States Government, that: (1) the alleged violations have been corrected, and (2) Respondent has paid the civil penalty in accordance with paragraph 8.”

💡 The company self-certified compliance without any requirement for independent auditing, third-party verification, or ongoing monitoring.

“The civil penalty is not deductible for federal tax purposes.”

💡 While the penalty cannot be written off as a business expense, the small amount still makes it cheaper than proper compliance would have been.

“This Agreement resolves only Respondent’s liability for federal civil penalties under Section 3008(a) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6928(a), for the violations alleged in the Agreement.”

💡 The settlement addresses only these specific violations; it provides no protection for communities and imposes no lasting changes to prevent future misconduct.

“EPA reserves all of its rights to take enforcement action for any other past, present, or future violations by Respondent of RCRA, any other federal statute or regulation, or this Agreement.”

💡 The EPA explicitly acknowledges that other violations may exist and that this settlement does not prevent future enforcement, but imposes no enhanced monitoring to detect such violations.

“This Agreement is binding on the parties signing below, and in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 22.31(b), is effective upon filing.”

💡 The settlement took effect immediately when filed, foreclosing any public comment period or opportunity for affected communities to weigh in.