“Section 3005(a) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6925(a) and OAR 340-105-0001(4)(b)(B), provide that a person owning or operating an existing facility for the treatment, storage, or disposal of characteristic or listed hazardous waste must have a permit or interim status during the active life of the facility.”

💡 Grace operated for years without the federally required permit, a core violation that triggered every downstream compliance failure.

“None of the containers in paragraph 4.12 were labeled with accumulation dates and neither the containers nor the 8 Tanks managing hazardous waste in paragraphs 4.12 and 4.14 were labeled ‘hazardous waste.'”

💡 Workers and emergency responders had no way to identify toxic contents, creating life-threatening risks during routine operations and emergencies.

“During the Relevant Time Period, Respondent did not monitor or keep records of leaks from the pumps and valves identified in paragraph 5.35(a)-(c).”

💡 By ignoring mandatory monthly leak checks, Grace exposed workers and neighbors to invisible toxic vapors for years.

“Respondent did not meet the conditional exemption requirement to conduct inspections of certain containers of hazardous waste described in paragraphs 4.12 and 4.13 in compliance with 40 C.F.R. § 265.174 … at times during the Relevant Time Period.”

💡 Weekly container checks are the first line of defense against leaks and corrosion—Grace skipped them entirely.

“Respondent did not meet the conditional exemption requirements for organic air emissions control when transferring certain solvent hazardous wastes out of certain Tote containers … according to the requirements for Container Level 2 at 40 C.F.R. § 265.1087(d)(2).”

💡 Uncontrolled transfers of high-VOC solvents sent toxic vapors directly into plant air and neighborhood surroundings.

“Respondent did not meet the conditional exemption requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 265 Subpart J at §§ 265.192, 265.193, 265.194 and 265.195 … for the 8 Tanks when used as described in paragraph 4.14.”

💡 The eight tanks lacked proper design, secondary containment, operating protocols, and inspections—every safeguard was missing.

“Respondent did not meet the conditional exemption requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 265 Subpart CC at §§ 265.1085(c)(1), 265.1085(c)(4), and 265.1090(b) for the 8 Level 1 tanks … during the Relevant Time Period.”

💡 Grace never measured organic vapor pressure or inspected roof seals, allowing uncontrolled air emissions from eight tanks.

“The pieces of equipment listed in paragraph 5.35(a)–(c) were not included in Respondent’s list of equipment to be monitored under Subpart BB, or otherwise marked in a manner that they were distinguishable from other pieces of equipment.”

💡 By keeping pumps and valves off the monitoring list, Grace hid equipment that handled toxic waste from regulators and internal audits.

“Under Section 3008(a) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6928(a), EPA may assess a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 per day of noncompliance for each violation of a requirement of Subtitle C of RCRA. This figure has been adjusted for inflation from $25,000 to $121,275 where penalties have been assessed on or after December 27, 2023.”

💡 With ~2,100 days of violations, EPA could have sought over $250 million but settled for $500,000—less than one percent of the maximum.

“Respondent neither admits nor denies specific factual or legal allegations contained in this Consent Agreement.”

💡 This boilerplate clause lets Grace avoid public acknowledgment of wrongdoing while agreeing to pay, shielding its reputation.

“Solely for the purposes of this proceeding, Respondent expressly waives any affirmative defenses and the right to contest the allegations contained in this Consent Agreement and to appeal the Final Order.”

💡 Grace surrendered all legal challenges, but only after securing a settlement that bars injured parties from reopening the case.

“Solely for the purposes of this proceeding, Respondent waives any and all remedies, claims for relief and otherwise available rights to judicial or administrative review that Respondent may have with respect to any issue of fact or law set forth in this Consent Agreement and the Final Order.”

💡 The settlement forecloses any avenue for the community or workers to challenge the penalty amount or demand stronger remedies.

“The provisions of this Consent Agreement and the Final Order shall bind Respondent and its agents, employees, successors, and assigns.”

💡 Grace sold the facility in December 2024; this clause aims to hold future owners accountable, but corporate restructuring often defeats such language.

“This Final Order does not waive, extinguish, or otherwise affect Respondent’s obligations to comply with all applicable provisions of RCRA and regulations promulgated or permits issued thereunder.”

💡 Grace must still follow RCRA going forward, but the order includes no affirmative cleanup or health-monitoring requirements for Albany.

“The Consent Agreement and this Final Order constitute a settlement by EPA of all claims against Respondent for civil penalties under RCRA solely for the violations alleged in the Consent Agreement. … nothing in this Final Order shall affect the right of EPA or the United States to pursue appropriate injunctive or other equitable relief or criminal sanctions for any violations of law.”

💡 EPA reserves the right to pursue criminal charges or injunctions in theory, but the settlement imposes no mandatory cleanup, leaving the community exposed.