“Respondent: (a) admits the jurisdictional information set forth herein; (b) neither admits nor denies the specific factual information stated herein; (c) consents to the assessment of a civil penalty, as stated herein”

💡 The company pays the fine but avoids formally acknowledging it broke the law, limiting legal and reputational consequences.

“At the time of the inspection, the inspector observed two roll-off containers labeled with the words ‘Hazardous Waste’ that were not marked or labeled with accumulation start dates.”

💡 Without start dates, regulators cannot verify how long dangerous materials sit on-site, creating indefinite storage risks.

“At the time of the inspection, the inspector observed five (5) 30-yard roll-off containers containing Finish Feed hazardous waste that were not closed.”

💡 Open containers allow toxic vapors to escape and create spill risks, directly violating permit conditions meant to protect workers and the community.

“At the time of the inspection, the inspector observed barrier fluid leaking from the pump in the liquid fuel tanker truck unloading area. Further review of documents entitled ‘Daily Inspection Report,’ ‘Liquid Fuel Storage/Blend Tanks & Containment Areas,’ and ‘Liquid Fuel Tanker Truck Unloading Area’ for February 10–16, 2023, did not identify the pump as leaking.”

💡 The company’s own inspection logs failed to catch or report an active hazardous material leak, showing a breakdown in monitoring systems.

“At the time of the inspection, the inspector observed two white five-gallon polyethylene buckets labeled with the words ‘Universal Waste – Used Bulbs’ and were not labeled with the required phrases, ‘Universal Waste – Lamp(s),’ ‘Waste Lamp(s),’ or ‘Used Lamp(s).'”

💡 Incorrect labels on mercury-containing lamps create risks of improper handling and disposal by workers and contractors.

“Section 3008(a)(3) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6928(a)(3), authorizes a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 per day for each violation. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, 28 U.S.C. § 2461, and implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 19, increased these statutory maximum penalties to $37,500 for violations that occurred before November 2, 2015, and to $121,275 for violations that occur after November 2, 2015”

💡 Federal law allows penalties of up to $121,275 per day per violation, but Green America Recycling paid a total of $28,337 for multiple violations.

“By signing this consent agreement, Respondent waives/Respondents waive any rights or defenses that Respondent has/Respondents have or may have for this matter to be resolved in federal court, including but not limited to any right to a jury trial, and waives any right to challenge the lawfulness of the final order accompanying the consent agreement.”

💡 The settlement requires the company to give up all rights to contest the allegations or the process in court.

“During the RCRA inspection conducted by EPA on February 15 and 16, 2023, EPA identified a potential violation of Respondent’s Part I – Permit Condition V.C.4.b and alleged Respondent was storing hazardous waste at Feed Prep #2 (‘FP#2’) for more than a consecutive 24-hour period allowed by Respondent’s Missouri Hazardous Waste Management Facility Part I Permit”

💡 The company stored hazardous waste longer than its permit allowed, and is now seeking to change the permit retroactively after being caught.

“Respondent certifies by the signing of this Consent Agreement and Final Order that to the best of its knowledge, it is presently in compliance with all requirements of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et. seq., its implementing regulations, and any permit issued pursuant to RCRA.”

💡 After documented violations, the company self-certifies compliance with no requirement for independent verification.

“Full payment of the penalty proposed in this Consent Agreement and compliance with requirements of the Compliance Action section shall only resolve Respondent’s liability for federal civil penalties for the violations and potential violation identified herein. Complainant reserves the right to take any enforcement action with respect to any other violations of RCRA or any other applicable law.”

💡 The company resolves only the specific violations EPA documented, leaving open the possibility of undetected or future violations.

“Respondent has submitted a permit modification to MoDNR to clarify that storage in the SSTU is not limited to a consecutive 24-hour period. Respondent and MoDNR have indicated that they anticipate a permit modification which will allow Respondent to store hazardous waste in SSTU for more than a consecutive 24-hour period.”

💡 Rather than conform to existing permit limits, the company is seeking to change the rules after EPA identified potential violations.

“The penalty specified herein shall represent civil penalties assessed by EPA and shall not be deductible for purposes of Federal, State, and local taxes.”

💡 This clause suggests that without it, companies might treat environmental penalties as ordinary deductible business expenses.

“Respondent operates a hazardous waste fuel blending facility located at 10107 Highway 79, Hannibal, Missouri 63401. The hazardous waste fuel blending facility includes receiving, sampling, off-loading, storing, and processing the waste received at the facility, which is used as fuel for the production of Portland cement at the facility.”

💡 The facility burns hazardous waste as cheap fuel for cement production, creating financial incentives to maximize waste throughput.

“These permits allow GAR to store and treat ‘characteristic’ hazardous waste, as well as various F-, K-, P- and U-listed hazardous wastes; and to burn liquid and solid hazardous waste, as supplemental fuel, in the pre-calciner burner system within the rotary cement kiln system. In addition to hazardous waste codes authorized by the MoDNR Part I Permit, the EPA Part II permit allows GAR to continue to store and treat F032, F034 and F035-listed hazardous waste”

💡 The facility handles a wide variety of listed hazardous wastes, increasing the potential severity of improper storage or leaks.

“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Consent Agreement and Final Order, EPA reserves the right to enforce the terms and conditions of this Consent Agreement and Final Order by initiating a judicial or administrative action under Section 3008 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6928, and to seek penalties against Respondent in an amount not to exceed Seventy Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty-Two Dollars ($70,752) per day, per violation”

💡 If the company violates the settlement terms, EPA can pursue new penalties of up to $70,752 per day, but only if regulators detect and prove the violations.