One container crossed the limit by 148 days

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act generally prohibits hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal without a permit or interim status. The rules cited in the order allow a generator to accumulate hazardous waste onsite for up to 90 days without that authorization, unless an extension is granted.

EPA’s case turns on a straightforward comparison. The container’s marked age was more than two and a half times the permit-free limit. The order does not identify the waste inside the container, its volume or why it remained at the facility for that long.

The compliance gaps extended beyond storage time

The settlement records two additional failures involving the systems meant to manage hazardous waste before a problem occurs. Facility personnel were supposed to receive instruction relevant to their work, including how to implement a contingency plan, and then complete an annual review. EPA says Astro Pak did not provide the annual training for 2023.

The facility was also required to inspect hazardous waste container areas at least weekly. Those checks are supposed to look for leaking containers and deterioration caused by corrosion or other factors. EPA says Astro Pak either did not conduct or could not document required checks for a total of ten weeks across three years.

The distinction between a missed inspection and missing documentation matters. The settlement groups both possibilities together, so it does not establish which explanation applies to every cited week. Either way, EPA determined that Astro Pak failed to meet the weekly inspection requirement.

This is a record of preventive failures, not a documented spill

The order does not say hazardous waste escaped its container, reached workers or entered the surrounding environment. It identifies no cleanup, medical consequence, property damage or community exposure. Claims that this case caused those outcomes would go beyond the available evidence.

What the document does establish is why the requirements are preventive. Weekly inspections focus on leaks and corrosion. Training is supposed to prepare personnel to handle hazardous waste and implement contingency plans. Time limits restrict how long generators can keep waste without entering a more demanding permitting system.

In this case, EPA says all three safeguards were breached. The public record does not show that those failures produced physical harm, but it does show that required opportunities to identify and manage risk were missed or left undocumented.

From the container date to the final order

$3,750 closed this proceeding, but only on narrow terms

Astro Pak admitted that it is subject to RCRA and that EPA had jurisdiction over the company and the conduct alleged. It did not admit the factual allegations, but it also did not deny them. The company consented to the penalty and waived a hearing, any right to contest the allegations, an appeal and potential federal court defenses.

By signing, Astro Pak certified that the alleged violations have been corrected and that it had paid the civil penalty.

Astro Pak certification in the expedited settlement agreement

The agreement does not describe the corrective work in detail. It does not say when the overdue container left the facility, how the missing training was addressed, whether inspection procedures changed or what records now document compliance.

The settlement resolves only Astro Pak’s liability for federal civil penalties under the cited RCRA provision for the violations listed in the agreement. EPA expressly reserved its ability to pursue other past, present or future violations. The document also does not explain how the agency calculated the $3,750 amount beyond stating that both sides considered the settlement to be in the public interest.

What the six-page order leaves unanswered

The order therefore provides a clear account of EPA’s compliance determinations, but only a limited view of conditions inside the facility. It shows how a dated container, an absent annual training cycle and gaps in weekly inspection records produced a federal enforcement action. It does not show a spill, and it does not give the public enough detail to evaluate the corrections beyond the company’s certification that they were completed.