“On March 1, 2023, Respondent operated the Facility without a permit by accepting HW from its Orthodox facility, which is a Large Quantity Generator (LQG) of HW. Consolidation of HW by mutually owned facilities is only allowable, with certain exceptions and requirements, by Very Small Quantity Generators to LQGs. Respondent is an SQG that accepted and stored HW from an LQG without a permit.”

💡 This shows the company knowingly violated permitting rules by accepting hazardous waste it was not authorized to store.

“From March 1, 2020 to at least March 1, 2023, Respondent failed to conduct weekly inspections of its HW accumulation area as required by 25 Pa. Code § 262a.10”

💡 The company skipped mandatory safety inspections for three full years, creating prolonged risk of undetected leaks or releases.

“Facility representatives stated that rejected material is accumulated in the Reject Cage for an unspecified period of time before a HW determination is made. The Inspector observed approximately 200 rejected material containers in the Reject Cage at the time of the Inspection for which a HW determination had not been made.”

💡 This reveals a systematic failure to determine if materials are hazardous before storage, violating a fundamental requirement of waste management.

“Waste Aerosol Cans – the Inspector observed in-use aerosol cans at the Facility at the time of the Inspection. The Facility representatives indicated they were unsure how waste aerosol cans are managed by the Facility and unsure how previously generated waste aerosol cans had been disposed.”

💡 Company representatives admitted they did not know how they manage or dispose of potentially hazardous aerosol cans.

“IPA-contaminated Wipes – At the time of the Inspection, Facility representatives stated that IPA-contaminated wipes are disposed as nonhazardous waste and did not provide any HW determination documentation for the waste stream.”

💡 The company disposed of chemical-contaminated wipes without proper testing, risking improper disposal of hazardous materials.

“From March 1, 2020 to at least March 1, 2023, Respondent failed to document HW shipments on Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifests in violation of 25 Pa Code § 262a.10 which incorporates by reference 40 C.F.R. § 262.20(a)(1). Facility representatives stated that during this time period, HW was shipped from the Facility to the Respondent’s Orthodox facility without documentation on HW manifests.”

💡 The company admitted to three years of shipping hazardous waste without required tracking documents, eliminating accountability for where waste went.

“At the time of the Inspection, the Inspector observed six (6) open containers of UW lamps in violation of 25 Pa. Code § 266b, which incorporates by reference 40 C.F.R. § 273.13(d)(1).”

💡 Open containers of mercury-containing lamps increase breakage risk and potential mercury release, a potent neurotoxin.

“At the time of the Inspection, the Inspector observed six (6) unlabeled containers of UW lamps in violation of 25 Pa. Code § 266b, which incorporates by reference 40 C.F.R. § 273.14(e).”

💡 Unlabeled hazardous waste containers prevent proper identification and emergency response if spills or accidents occur.

“At the time of the Inspection, the Inspector observed six (6) containers of UW lamps and two (2) containers of UW batteries that were not marked with start accumulation dates and the Facility did not have another method to track accumulation time, in violation of 25 Pa. Code § 266b, which incorporates by reference 40 C.F.R. § 273.15(c).”

💡 Without tracking accumulation time, hazardous materials can be stored longer than legally allowed, increasing deterioration and release risks.

“Complainant and Respondent agree that settlement of this matter for a total penalty of THIRTEEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS ($13,750.00) is in the public interest. In calculating this amount, Complainant considered the statutory factors set forth in Section 3008(a)(3) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6928(a)(3), and with specific reference to EPA’s October 1990 RCRA Civil Penalty Policy, as revised in June 2003 (RCRA Penalty Policy), and the 2021 RCRA Expedited Settlement Agreement Pilot.”

💡 The EPA determined this modest penalty was appropriate despite three years of violations, raising questions about deterrent effectiveness.

“In signing this Agreement, Respondent: admits the jurisdictional allegations in this Agreement; neither admits nor denies the specific factual allegations in this Agreement, except as provided in the jurisdictional admission above”

💡 The settlement allowed the company to pay a fine without admitting it actually committed the violations described by EPA inspectors.

“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) any documentation or information provided to EPA was true and accurate.”

💡 The company certified it fixed the problems but faces no documented assessment of harm caused during years of non-compliance.

“EPA reserves the right to commence action against any person, including Respondent, in response to any condition which EPA determines may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health, public welfare, or the environment.”

💡 The EPA kept authority to take further action if serious environmental or health threats are discovered, suggesting ongoing concerns.

“Late payment of the agreed upon penalty may subject Respondent to interest, administrative costs and late payment penalties in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 13.11.”

💡 The agreement includes provisions for late payment penalties, but the base penalty itself remains modest relative to the violations.

“agrees to bear its own costs and attorney’s fees; and agrees not to deduct for federal tax purposes the civil penalty assessed in this Consent Agreement and Final Order.”

💡 The company cannot write off the penalty as a business expense on federal taxes, though the amount is still relatively small.