Inspectors at the company’s Nitro, West Virginia, facility documented overdue hazardous waste, missing emergency-plan details, training gaps, unsigned shipment records and improperly managed fluorescent lamps.
Hazardous wasteTL;DR
- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency alleged that Dana Transport’s Nitro facility failed multiple conditions that allow a large hazardous-waste generator to operate without a storage permit.
- EPA identified two periods when hazardous waste remained on-site beyond 90 days, along with gaps in required weekly container inspections.
- Inspectors said the facility’s emergency plans lacked evacuation instructions, equipment locations and descriptions of coordination with local responders. Facility personnel said the plans hadn’t been sent to all relevant local authorities.
- EPA also cited missing training records, five manifests without required follow-up reports and at least 15 used fluorescent lamps that were uncontained or in open containers, unlabeled and not properly dated.
- Dana consented to a $38,640 civil penalty, waived its right to contest the allegations in this proceeding and certified that it had returned to compliance.
- The company neither admitted nor denied the specific factual allegations. The supplied copy shows blank EPA and final-order signature fields, so it doesn’t establish whether the order was filed and became effective.
The case documents a compliance system in which shipment tracking, inspections, training and emergency preparation failed at the same facility.
Transparency notice: This article relies on EPA’s 24-page consent agreement and attached final order in docket RCRA-03-2026-0229. EPA made the factual allegations and stated its conclusions in the agreement. Dana admitted jurisdiction only, neither admitted nor denied the specific allegations, and waived its right to contest them for this proceeding. The supplied copy includes a respondent signature dated August 5, 2026, but its displayed EPA and final-order signature fields are blank.
At least 15 used fluorescent lamps were lying outside containers or inside open ones when federal inspectors visited Dana Transport’s Nitro facility. According to EPA, they weren’t properly labeled, and the company couldn’t demonstrate how long they had been accumulating.
The lamps were one part of a broader hazardous-waste case. Inspection logs contained gaps. Emergency plans omitted an evacuation plan and the locations of emergency equipment. Some shipment records lacked destination-facility signatures, but the required follow-up reports hadn’t been filed. EPA also said hazardous waste remained at the site beyond the 90-day limit on two occasions.
The agreement doesn’t identify a spill, injury, exposure or off-site contamination. It documents failures in the controls meant to detect deteriorating containers, prepare workers and local responders for emergencies, and account for hazardous waste as it moves off-site.
The Facts
Dana Transport is a New Jersey corporation that owns and operates a facility at 19 Plant Road in Nitro, West Virginia. EPA described the facility’s principal business as leasing transportation equipment and operating a tank wash.
The facility identified itself as a large quantity generator of hazardous waste. It did not have a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA, permit or interim authorization to treat, store or dispose of hazardous waste. EPA inspected the site on July 30 and 31, 2024, under the federal law and West Virginia’s federally authorized hazardous-waste rules.
Large quantity generators can accumulate hazardous waste without a storage permit for up to 90 days, but only if they satisfy a set of operating conditions. Those conditions include container inspections, emergency planning, employee training and recordkeeping. EPA’s central allegation was that Dana failed those conditions and therefore lost the permit exemption.
How a Permit Exemption Became an Unpermitted-Operation Case
The legal mechanism is simpler than the regulation numbers make it appear. Dana’s facility could accumulate hazardous waste for a limited period without obtaining a storage permit. The exemption came with conditions. EPA alleged that breaking those conditions made the facility subject to the permit requirement it had been relying on the exemption to avoid.
The Nitro operation was identified as a large quantity generator.
A generator may accumulate waste for 90 days or less without a storage permit.
Inspections, training, emergency planning and records are part of the exemption.
EPA therefore alleged that Dana operated a hazardous-waste facility without a permit or interim status.
A Record Spanning 2021 to 2026
The alleged violations weren’t confined to the two-day inspection. EPA relied on manifests, inspection logs, plans and training records covering several years.
EPA found no off-site shipment manifest between June 21 and September 26. It identified September 18 through September 26 as a period when waste exceeded the 90-day limit.
Container-area inspection logs contained two gaps. EPA identified violations from September 6 through September 12 and November 6 through November 14.
EPA found no off-site shipment manifest between June 2 and September 5. It identified August 30 through September 5 as another period beyond 90 days.
EPA inspected the Nitro facility, reviewed records and emergency plans, interviewed facility personnel and observed the used fluorescent lamps.
Dana supplied job titles and descriptions for employees with hazardous-waste responsibilities. Those records had not been available during the inspection.
The respondent signature page in the supplied agreement is dated August 5, 2026. The displayed EPA and final-order signature fields remain blank.
Where the Safeguards Broke Down
The agreement contains eight formal counts, but they aren’t eight entirely separate factual episodes. Count 1 bundles several deficiencies to support the unpermitted-operation allegation. Counts 3 through 7 allege many of the same deficiencies under hazardous-waste facility standards. The distinct compliance problems are summarized below.
| Safeguard | What the rule required | What EPA documented or alleged |
|---|---|---|
| 90-day accumulation limit | Waste could remain on-site without a permit for no more than 90 days, subject to other conditions. | EPA identified over-limit periods in September 2021 and August–September 2023 using shipment-manifest histories. |
| Weekly container inspections | Storage areas had to be checked at least weekly for leaking or deteriorating containers. | Inspection logs showed gaps during September and November 2022. |
| Emergency planning | The contingency plan had to identify emergency-service arrangements, equipment locations and evacuation procedures. | The plans EPA reviewed omitted all three. Personnel also said the plans and revisions hadn’t been sent to all local police, fire, hospital and emergency-response organizations that might be called. |
| Training and personnel records | Employees needed appropriate initial and annual training, supported by retained records and written job descriptions. | Dana couldn’t provide any training records for three employees listed as emergency contacts, annual-review records for four employees in 2021 and one in 2022, or required job records during the inspection. |
| Shipment follow-up | If a signed destination copy of a manifest wasn’t received within 45 days, an exception report had to go to the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. | Inspectors found five manifests from 2022 through 2024 without handwritten destination signatures. Facility personnel said exception reports hadn’t been submitted. |
| Used fluorescent lamps | Waste lamps had to be in closed, sound containers, properly labeled and tracked by accumulation time. | At least 15 lamps were uncontained or in open containers, lacked the required labeling and had no compliant demonstration of accumulation time. |
The Evidence EPA Used
EPA’s accumulation allegation came from the facility’s entries in the federal electronic manifest system. One manifest showed a shipment on June 20, 2021, and the next showed a shipment on September 27. Another pair showed shipments on June 1 and September 6, 2023. EPA said there were no intervening manifests in either interval.
For inspections, investigators reviewed the facility’s own weekly logs. For emergency preparation, they examined the “Crisis Management Plan” and the “Dana Nitro, WV Contingency Plan Quick Response Guide.” The agency also relied on statements from facility personnel that the plans hadn’t been distributed to all relevant local authorities.
The training allegations came from records Dana produced when asked. EPA’s table identified eight positions with hazardous-waste responsibilities. Three employees—including a regional safety and environmental manager, a senior vice president listed as an emergency contact and the company president, also listed as an emergency contact—had no training dates or records shown in the table.
“At least weekly” a generator “must inspect areas where containers are stored.” The inspection must look for “leaking containers” and deterioration caused by corrosion or other factors. Consent Agreement, paragraph 28(b), quoting 40 C.F.R. § 265.174
“Respondent neither admits nor denies the specific factual allegations set forth in this Consent Agreement.” Consent Agreement, paragraph 7
Dana certified, “upon personal investigation and to the best of its knowledge and belief,” that it was currently in compliance regarding the alleged violations. Consent Agreement, paragraph 80
What the Agreement Does Not Establish
The source doesn’t report that hazardous waste leaked, injured anyone, contaminated nearby property or reached the environment. Apart from the fluorescent lamps, it doesn’t identify the waste types or quantities involved. It also doesn’t quantify the number of containers at the site.
Those omissions limit what can be said about actual environmental or public-health consequences. The case establishes EPA’s account of missing safeguards and Dana’s agreement to resolve the civil penalty claims; it doesn’t establish a documented release or exposure.
The enforcement record documents failures in prevention and preparedness. It does not document a spill or injury.
Dana’s Response
The agreement contains no separate company explanation for why the violations allegedly occurred. It records that Dana later supplied the missing job titles and descriptions on October 24, 2024, and certified that it was in compliance by the time of the settlement.
For this proceeding, Dana agreed not to contest EPA’s jurisdiction or the allegations, waived an appeal and consented to the civil penalty. That is not the same as admitting the factual allegations: the agreement expressly says the company neither admits nor denies them.
What EPA’s Agreement Actually Does
The consent agreement would resolve EPA’s civil penalty claims for the specific violations listed in the document. Dana consented to a $38,640 assessment, payable within 30 days of the agreement’s effective date. The settlement doesn’t waive the company’s obligation to comply with other laws, and EPA reserved authority to respond to conditions it determines may present an imminent and substantial danger.
This was an administrative settlement, not a court judgment following a trial. EPA stated that its inspection findings and Dana’s submissions supported its conclusion that violations occurred, but Dana did not admit the specific facts.
The attached final order says it becomes effective when filed with the EPA Region 3 Regional Hearing Clerk. In the supplied copy, the regional judicial officer’s signature line and the certificate-of-service signature line are blank. The document therefore doesn’t establish the filing date, the effective date or when the 30-day payment period began.
What Remains Unresolved
The agreement says Dana is currently compliant, but it provides little detail about the corrective work behind that certification. It doesn’t say when the emergency plan was completed and distributed, how the company changed its shipment scheduling or inspection system, whether missing training was delivered, or whether EPA independently verified those changes.
The supplied source also leaves the final order’s status unclear. A signed and filed order would establish the effective date and activate the payment deadline. That filing isn’t shown in the copy reviewed for this article.
What a Legitimate Fix Looks Like
Editorial analysisThe documented failure modes point to a practical compliance system rather than a single corrective document:
- Schedule and verify hazardous-waste shipments before the 90-day limit expires.
- Conduct weekly container-area inspections and retain records that make gaps immediately visible.
- Maintain an emergency plan with responder arrangements, equipment locations, evacuation signals and alternate routes, then distribute revisions to every organization that may be called.
- Match each hazardous-waste role to required initial and annual training, with records retained for current and former employees as required.
- Escalate unsigned manifests at the 45-day deadline and file exception reports with West Virginia regulators.
- Keep used lamps in closed, sound containers with compliant labels and accumulation dates.
Each item corresponds directly to a deficiency EPA identified. The remaining question is whether those controls now operate consistently, not merely whether missing paperwork was assembled after the inspection.
What to Watch
- EPA Region 3 Regional Hearing Clerk: A signed and filed final order would establish the agreement’s effective date.
- Dana Transport: The penalty becomes due 30 days after that effective date under the agreement’s terms.
- EPA and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection: Any published follow-up inspection or enforcement record could show whether the compliance certification was independently verified.
The most immediate unresolved issue is documentary: the supplied record shows Dana’s consent, but not a completed final-order filing that starts the settlement clock.
The source document for this investigation is attached below.
Related posts:
Is a $48,805 Fine Justice When a Community Is Exposed to Asbestos?
JH Motorsports was supposed to be fined $2M for polluting the air. They got away with only paying $10K.
Bradshaw Services Walked Away Scot Free After Endangering Families With Lead.
Khera Petroleum risked a major oil spill into the Gulf of Mexico.
