Westminster, MD | May 2024 | U.S. EPA Enforcement Action
Toxic Runoff Next Door: How Shifflett’s Used Auto Parts Poisoned a Public River for Years
A forklift was actively leaking hydraulic fluid into the ground with no drip pan, no absorbent, and no one stopping it — while rain washed that fluid toward a river that thousands of Marylanders depend on — and the company running the yard had not bothered to document a single required pollution inspection in over a year.
The Non-Financial Ledger
What No Dollar Amount Can Pay Back
The North Branch Patapsco River is a real waterway. It runs through Carroll County, Maryland, and feeds into a broader watershed that communities have fished, kayaked, and drawn water from for generations. When Shifflett’s Used Auto Parts discharged contaminated industrial stormwater into that river, they did not just break a rule on paper. They put real pollution into a body of water that belongs to the public, not to them.
The facility operated as a salvage yard, which means the ground was covered in the most concentrated forms of automotive chemical waste imaginable: old engine oil, antifreeze containing ethylene glycol, transmission fluid, hydraulic fluid, battery acid, and diesel fuel. Every time it rained, the water that hit that yard picked up whatever was sitting on the ground and carried it somewhere. The EPA’s own permit framework for salvage yards exists specifically because regulators know what happens when that runoff reaches a river. The permit exists because the damage is real and documented across hundreds of similar sites nationwide.
Shifflett’s did not just fail to stop the contamination. The company failed to even know how bad it was. The facility had a stormwater outfall draining directly into the North Branch Patapsco River that the company had never identified, never mapped, and never monitored. That means for years, water flowing through at least one drainage point left the property and entered a public waterway with zero oversight, zero testing, and zero accountability. The people downstream had no idea.
“The facility had an outfall draining into a public river that the company had never identified, never mapped, and never monitored. The people downstream had no idea.”
Consider what the EPA inspectors physically walked up to on February 15, 2022: an unlabeled drum of unknown liquid sitting under a tarp with no lid and no containment, surrounded by the smell of petroleum. Nobody at the facility apparently knew or cared what was in it. That drum, exposed to the elements, represented precisely the kind of uncontrolled chemical storage that the permit was written to prevent. The fact that it existed, unlabeled, lidless, and uncontained, tells you everything about how seriously this operation treated its legal and moral obligations to the surrounding community.
Legal Receipts
Their Own Documents. Their Own Violations. In Their Own Words.
“At the time of the CEI, EPA inspectors observed a 250-gallon, single-walled above-ground storage tank (‘AST’) containing diesel in the yard without secondary containment. Petroleum stains were observed on the ground in the immediate vicinity of the AST.”— U.S. EPA Consent Agreement, Paragraph 50, Count 3: Failure to Ensure Good Housekeeping
“At the time of the CEI, EPA inspectors also identified an unlabeled drum stored at the Facility containing unknown liquid under a tarp with no lid. The drum was not in secondary containment. The area near the unlabeled drum smelled of petroleum products.”— U.S. EPA Consent Agreement, Paragraph 52, Count 3: Failure to Ensure Good Housekeeping
“EPA inspectors also observed a forklift stored north of the Main Building leaking hydraulic fluid during the CEI. No drip pans or absorbents were observed under or around the vehicle.”— U.S. EPA Consent Agreement, Paragraph 54, Count 3: Failure to Ensure Good Housekeeping
“At the time of the Inspection, EPA observed the Facility had no documents identifying any quarterly inspections during stormwater discharge events from 2021 through April 2022.”— U.S. EPA Consent Agreement, Paragraph 44, Count 2: Failure to Document Routine Facility Inspections
“At the time of the CEI, EPA inspectors observed an outfall location near the southwest perimeter of the Facility that was not included in the SWPPP map. Subsequently, the location was added and identified as Outfall 002.”— U.S. EPA Consent Agreement, Paragraph 68, Count 5: Failure to Define All Outfalls
“At the time of the CEI, EPA inspectors also identified multiple vehicles on the lot where batteries and/or fluids had not been fully removed.”— U.S. EPA Consent Agreement, Paragraph 62, Count 4: Failure to Maintain Proper Operation and Maintenance
Shifflett’s: Timeline of Non-Compliance vs. Permit Active Period
Societal Impact Mapping
Environmental Degradation: A River Treated Like a Drain
The North Branch Patapsco River received whatever contaminated runoff Shifflett’s produced every time precipitation hit that yard. This is not a hypothetical: the EPA’s own permit framework classifies automobile salvage yards under Standard Industrial Classification Code 5015 specifically because facilities like this are known to generate stormwater loaded with heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, and battery acid. The permit system exists because regulators have documented the downstream damage from uncontrolled auto salvage runoff in watersheds across the country.
Shifflett’s compounded the environmental damage by failing to maintain a complete Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. The plan was missing nine separate required elements, including the locations of all pollution sources, the locations of all spills and leaks, and the locations of all stormwater monitoring points. Without that map, there was no systematic way to identify where contamination was entering the water system or to stop it. The environment absorbed the consequences of that negligence in silence.
The hidden outfall — Outfall 002, which the company had never identified or monitored — represents the most alarming environmental failure in the document. A drainage point that collects and concentrates runoff from an industrial salvage yard and discharges it into a river is, by definition, a pollution source. Shifflett’s had one they did not even know existed. Every rain event for years sent whatever that drainage carried directly into public waters with zero testing, zero reporting, and zero accountability.
Public Health: Communities Downstream Never Got a Warning
Automotive fluids are not benign substances. Antifreeze contains ethylene glycol, which is highly toxic to both humans and wildlife. Hydraulic fluid, transmission fluid, and diesel are petroleum products that persist in aquatic environments, disrupt ecosystems, and can contaminate drinking water sources. Battery acid introduces sulfuric acid and lead compounds. The EPA found spilled antifreeze, spilled transmission fluid, petroleum stains, and an actively leaking forklift all in open conditions at the Shifflett’s yard, all subject to rainfall and runoff.
The facility was permitted to discharge stormwater into the North Branch Patapsco River — but only stormwater that had been managed under a proper pollution prevention plan, with regular inspections, proper containment, and full monitoring. None of those conditions existed in any documented way during 2021 and into 2022. That means whatever washed off that yard went into the river without any of the safeguards the permit required. People who live near, fish in, or otherwise come into contact with the North Branch Patapsco River downstream from Westminster received no notification that this was happening.
Economic Inequality: Who Pays, and Who Profits from Not Paying
The EPA calculated a penalty of $22,750 ($22,750 being approximately what a full-time worker earning Maryland’s minimum wage takes home in a full year of 40-hour weeks). This number represents the entire financial consequence Shifflett’s faces for five counts of Clean Water Act violations across a violation window that stretched from at least 2021 into 2022. The document itself notes that the penalty accounts for “economic benefit or savings resulting from the violation” — meaning the EPA acknowledged that Shifflett’s saved money by skipping compliance. The penalty is supposed to cancel out that savings and add a punitive deterrent on top. Whether $22,750 achieves that for a commercial auto salvage operation is a question the settlement does not answer.
Auto salvage yards disproportionately operate in working-class and rural communities where residents have less political power to demand enforcement and fewer resources to challenge polluters. The North Branch Patapsco River watershed serves communities in Carroll County, Maryland. The families who fish that river, kayak it, or live next to it did not receive a fine. They received the pollution. The company that caused it paid less than a year’s minimum wage salary. That asymmetry is the story of environmental enforcement in America, repeated over and over.
Five Violations: The Penalty vs. What Was Owed
The “Cost of a Life” Metric
What the Math Reveals About Who Matters
The total financial consequence paid by Shifflett’s Used Auto Parts for five counts of Clean Water Act violations, including years of contaminated runoff into a public river.
Equivalent to approximately one year’s gross earnings for a full-time worker at Maryland’s minimum wage. The river does not get paid back at all.
The number of days of facility shutdown, production halt, or operational consequence Shifflett’s faced under this settlement.
The business continues operating. The permit continues running through January 31, 2028. The North Branch Patapsco River continues flowing past their property.
The documented period during which Shifflett’s conducted zero quarterly stormwater inspections during discharge events — from 2021 through at least April 2022 — while the facility’s chemicals sat exposed to rain in an unmonitored yard.
The permit required inspections every quarter. Records showed none existed during that window. Nobody checked. Nobody documented. Water kept flowing.
What Now?
Names, Watchlists, and What You Can Actually Do
Named in the enforcement record: Jeff Shifflett, identified as the primary contact for Shifflett’s Used Auto Parts in the Certificate of Service. The President of Shifflett’s Used Auto Parts signed the Consent Agreement on behalf of the company, binding the organization and all its officers, directors, employees, contractors, successors, and agents to the terms.
Regulatory bodies with ongoing authority over this facility and facilities like it:
- U.S. EPA Region 3 (Philadelphia) — retains enforcement authority over Maryland NPDES permit violations and explicitly reserved the right to act if conditions present imminent danger to public health or the environment.
- Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) — the state agency that issues and administers the NPDES General Permit for industrial stormwater discharges in Maryland; received a copy of this order.
- The EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program — the federal framework governing every industrial discharge permit in the country.
The Permit (Registration No. MDR003328) runs through January 31, 2028. That means Shifflett’s remains an active permitted discharger into the North Branch Patapsco River for years to come. MDE and EPA both have authority to inspect, monitor, and enforce. Whether they do depends partly on whether the public demands it.
“The permit runs through 2028. The river is still there. So is the yard. So is the question of who checks next.”
If you live downstream from 724 Gorsuch Road in Westminster, Maryland, you have standing to contact MDE’s Water Management Administration and demand to see current monitoring data for the North Branch Patapsco River near that facility. You can report suspected violations directly to the EPA’s tips and complaints line. Local watershed organizations in Carroll County and along the Patapsco River basin are doing the work of monitoring and advocacy that government agencies underfund. Find them, fund them, and show up for them. The river does not have a lobbying budget. You do have a voice.
The source document for this investigation is attached below.
Pray visit this following link at the EPA’s website to see the source for the consent agreement used to write this article: https://yosemite.epa.gov/OA/RHC/EPAAdmin.nsf/Filings/08941F669D42521F85258B10007E7CA3/$File/Shiffletts%20Used%20Auto%20Parts_CWA%20CAFO_May%201%202024.pdf
Explore by category
Product Safety Violations
When companies sell dangerous goods, consumers pay the price.
View Cases →Financial Fraud & Corruption
Lies, scams, and executive impunity that distort markets.
View Cases →


