“Respondent admits the jurisdictional allegations in this CAFO and neither admits nor denies the factual allegations in this CAFO.”

💡 The settlement allows the company to pay a fine without accepting responsibility for years of alleged environmental violations.

“At the time of the Inspection, Respondent failed to keep closed when waste was not being added or removed one (1) container labeled with the words ‘Hazardous Waste’ that was located in the staging area directly outside roll-to-roll Function 47 without obtaining or applying for a permit.”

💡 This single violation transformed the company from an exempt generator into an illegal storage facility under federal law.

“From at least November 2021 until March 11, 2024, Respondent did not submit a notification of the change of the Facility’s type of hazardous waste activity to Large Quantity Generator status in relevant months.”

💡 For over two years, the company avoided stricter regulatory oversight by failing to inform authorities about its hazardous waste generation.

“At all times relevant to this CAFO, Respondent used methyl ester, 2-propenoic acid, 2-phenoxyethyl ester of acrylic acid, ethyl acetate, isopropyl alcohol, and silver to clean printing press equipment, manufacturing equipment, and rags.”

💡 These industrial solvents and metals pose serious fire and toxicity risks when improperly handled or stored.

“Respondent characterized its silver and solvent waste as hazardous waste with hazardous waste codes D001, D002, D011, and F003.”

💡 These codes identify the waste as ignitable, corrosive, toxic for silver, and containing dangerous spent solvents, each posing distinct health and safety threats.

“Respondent’s storage of hazardous waste without a permit or interim status violated Section 3005 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6925(a) and the requirements of Minn R. 7001.0010 to Minn R. 7001.0210, Minn R. 7001.0500 through Minn R. 7001.0730.”

💡 Operating as a hazardous waste storage facility without required permits is a serious federal and state violation with potential criminal implications.

“At the time of the Inspection, two (2) containers of used oil, located in Respondent’s storage areas, were not labeled with the words ‘Used Oil.'”

💡 Unlabeled hazardous materials create serious risks for workers who may not recognize the dangers they are handling.

“At the time of the Inspection, Respondent was not managing six (6) boxes of waste lamps located in the non-hazardous storage room in closed containers.”

💡 Open containers of waste lamps allow potential mercury release, exposing workers and the environment to a dangerous neurotoxin.

“At the time of the Inspection, three (3) containers of universal waste batteries located in the 90-day hazardous waste storage room were not labeled or marked with any of the following phrases: ‘Universal Waste—Battery(ies),’ or ‘Waste Battery(ies),’ or ‘Used Battery(ies).'”

💡 Batteries contain toxic heavy metals and acids that require proper labeling to prevent dangerous mishandling and disposal.

“Pursuant to Section 3008(a)(3) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6928(a)(3), Complainant determined that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $18,441. In determining the penalty amount, Complainant took into account the seriousness of the violation and any good faith efforts to comply with the applicable requirements.”

💡 The EPA provided no detailed public justification for why it accepted a penalty representing a tiny fraction of the maximum possible fine.

“The Administrator of U.S. EPA may assess a civil penalty of up to $124,426 per day for each violation of Subtitle C of RCRA that occurred after November 2, 2015 pursuant to Section 3008(a) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6928(a), and 40 C.F.R. Part 19.”

💡 The settlement penalty of $18,441 represents less than 15 percent of what EPA could have imposed for a single day of violations, raising questions about deterrent effect.

“Respondent certifies that it is complying fully with the statutory and regulatory provisions alleged violated in this CAFO.”

💡 The company now claims full compliance but offers no independent verification or ongoing monitoring to prove it has corrected the problems that persisted for years.

“Pursuant to Section 3010(a) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6930(a), generators are required to file with an authorized State a notification (or if necessary, a subsequent notification) including the types of wastes handled and the type of hazardous waste activity (e.g., change to Large Quantity Generator status).”

💡 The entire regulatory system depends on companies honestly reporting their hazardous waste status, creating opportunities for violations to go undetected.

“Respondent did not prepare and submit a Biennial Report to the commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency or the commissioner’s designee by March 1, 2022 for reporting year 2021, in violation of Minn. R. 7045.0248, Subpart 1.B.”

💡 The two-year delay in reporting deprived regulators of critical data about hazardous waste generation and management at the facility.

“Respondent’s full compliance with this CAFO shall only resolve Respondent’s liability for federal civil penalties under Section 3008(a) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6928(a), for the violations alleged in this CAFO.”

💡 The settlement resolves only these specific charges and does not protect the company from future enforcement actions or prevent criminal prosecution.