The Non-Financial Ledger

Fredonia, Kansas has a population of around 2,400 people. It sits in Wilson County, a rural community in the southeastern part of the state. These are not people with lobbyists. They are not people who commission environmental impact studies or retain environmental attorneys on retainer. They are people who live near a facility that accepted the legal responsibility to handle some of the most dangerous industrial waste in the region, and then broke the rules meant to keep that waste from entering their air.

Volatile organic compounds, the class of chemical emissions at the center of this case, are serious. The EPA regulates them precisely because short-term exposure causes headaches, dizziness, and respiratory irritation. Long-term or repeated exposure is linked to liver and kidney damage and, depending on the specific compound, cancer. The regulations violated here were written to prevent exactly the kind of slow, invisible exposure that a rural community near an industrial facility has no practical way to monitor, measure, or fight.

The facility at 1420 S. Cement Plant Road holds a hazardous waste management permit from the State of Kansas. That permit is not a favor. It is a contract with the surrounding community. It says: we are equipped and trained to store this material without endangering you. When the inspector arrived in October 2022 and found broken tarp straps on roll-off containers holding hazardous waste, when they pointed a flame ionizing detector at Tank 3 and read 2,020 parts per million of volatile organics venting into the open air, that contract had been broken. Not in a minor, paperwork-error way. In a way that was physically measurable.

The unlabeled containers in the New Laboratory building compound this. Federal law requires hazardous waste containers to be marked “Hazardous Waste.” That requirement exists so that in an emergency, a first responder, a worker, or a visitor knows what they are dealing with before touching it, before breathing next to it, before making a decision that puts their body at risk. Systech removed that warning. Not with a corporate memo, but with simple neglect. Nobody put the label on. Nobody checked that it was there.

And then there is the question of time. This inspection happened in October 2022. The consent agreement was not filed until February 2024. Fifteen months passed between when federal inspectors stood at this facility and documented the emissions, and when a legal order was signed. There is no indication in the source document of when the violations were corrected. The people of Fredonia do not appear anywhere in this document except as the unnamed community living downwind of the readings.

Legal Receipts

These are the words from the federal consent agreement itself. They are not summaries. They are the government’s documented findings.

“The inspector also monitored container number RB250708 using a calibrated Flame Ionizing Detector (‘FID’) utilizing EPA Method 21 procedures as set forth at 40 C.F.R. Part 60. The inspector observed volatile organic emissions at 784 ppmv with a background level of 8.2 ppmv.”
— Paragraph 39, Consent Agreement and Final Order, Docket No. RCRA-07-2024-0004

• The legal threshold for “no detectable organic emissions” is a difference of less than 500 ppmv between the measured concentration and the background level. Here, that difference is approximately 775.8 ppmv. This is a direct, measured exceedance, not an estimate or projection.
• The container RB250708 had a broken tarpaulin cover with snapped elastomeric straps. The breach was structural, not incidental. The cover was physically incapable of containing the waste inside.

“The inspector observed that the conservation vent on Tank 3 was emitting volatile organic emissions from the pressure side of the conservation vent of 1,620 ppmv (approximately 1,614 ppmv above background). The inspector also observed that Tank 3 was emitting 2,020 ppmv from the seven o’clock position of the conservation vent maintenance cover (approximately 2,014 ppmv above background). The inspector measured the background concentration at the conservation vent location as 5.7 ppmv.”
— Paragraphs 44–45, Consent Agreement and Final Order, Docket No. RCRA-07-2024-0004

• Tank 3 was emitting volatile organics at roughly 403 times the legal limit from one measurement point and at over 324 times the legal limit from another. The legal line is 500 ppmv above background. The readings were 1,614 and 2,014 ppmv above background respectively.
• Two separate locations on Tank 3’s conservation vent were simultaneously exceeding limits. This rules out a single faulty seal and points to a broader failure of the tank’s emission control system.

“The inspector observed two satellite accumulation containers located at the northeast corner of Respondent’s New Laboratory building. Neither of the satellite accumulation containers were marked with the words ‘Hazardous Waste.'”
— Paragraph 79, Consent Agreement and Final Order, Docket No. RCRA-07-2024-0004

• Federal law under 40 C.F.R. § 262.34(c)(1)(ii) makes the “Hazardous Waste” label a baseline requirement for any generator accumulating hazardous waste on-site without a permit. Systech holds a full permit and still failed this most elementary labeling step.
• One container held laboratory debris including gloves, wipes, and glassware. The other held liquid waste including samples and solvents. Both were unmarked. Anyone entering that laboratory had no federally required warning about what they were handling.

“Respondent certifies by the signing of this Consent Agreement and Final Order that 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.”
— Paragraph 96, Consent Agreement and Final Order, Docket No. RCRA-07-2024-0004

• By signing, Systech certified present compliance. The EPA accepted this certification as part of settlement. There is no independent third-party verification of this claim in the source document.
• This certification is the condition under which the settlement resolves Systech’s liability. If it is false, the EPA reserves the right to pursue further enforcement action.

The Timeline: From Permit to Penalty

The gap between when Systech got licensed and when they were caught breaking the rules spans over three years. The gap between the inspection and the signed order is another fifteen months.

Societal Impact Mapping

Environmental Degradation

Five documented violations at a facility whose permitted purpose is environmental protection produced the following direct environmental harms.

• Volatile organic compounds were released into the open air from two roll-off containers with structurally broken closures. Readings at containers RB250708 and CH250012 both measured 784 ppmv total, with background levels of 8.2 and 4.5 ppmv respectively, producing exceedances of 775.8 and 779.5 ppmv above the 500 ppmv legal maximum.
• Tank 3 released volatile organics at 2,014 ppmv above background from a single vent maintenance cover location, representing a sustained leak from a fixed storage tank containing hazardous waste. This was a measured, uncontrolled atmospheric release.
• Tank 10 released volatile organics at 1,848 ppmv above background from its pressure-side conservation vent. Both Tank 3 and Tank 10 failed simultaneously during the same inspection, suggesting facility-wide maintenance failures rather than isolated incidents.
• Hazardous waste residue was left on the receiving steel pan and the hydraulic knuckle boom crane in the Container Bulk Processing Building, in direct violation of the facility’s own permit, which explicitly prohibited storage in that unit. This constitutes contamination of equipment surfaces within the facility.
• Non-containerized hazardous waste was stored atop two dispersion tanks at the time of the inspection, creating a physical pathway for waste to migrate into equipment, spill to surrounding surfaces, or volatilize into the facility’s interior atmosphere.

Public Health

The community of Fredonia, Kansas and Systech’s own workers faced documented exposure risks from each of the violations above.

• Volatile organic compounds venting from tanks and containers at the levels measured are associated with acute symptoms including headaches, dizziness, and eye and throat irritation at occupational exposure levels. Chronic exposure is linked to damage to the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system, and specific VOCs are classified carcinogens by the EPA and IARC.
• The facility’s workers operating in the Container Bulk Processing Building were in direct proximity to equipment contaminated with hazardous waste residue. The permit specifically prohibits this. The residue was observed directly on the crane operator’s working equipment.
• Laboratory staff in the New Laboratory building were exposed to two containers of hazardous waste, one containing laboratory debris and one containing liquid solvents and samples, without any required warning label. Any employee who handled those containers did so without federally required hazard notification.
• Universal waste batteries in the office building near the visitor entrance were stored in unlabeled containers with no documented accumulation start date. Visitors and administrative staff in this public-facing area of the facility had no indication they were in proximity to regulated waste.

Economic Inequality

The financial structure of this settlement illustrates a system where penalties are calibrated to resolve liability, not to deter behavior.

• The agreed civil penalty is $98,513. The statutory maximum per violation per day under the current inflation-adjusted penalty structure is $121,275. Systech was cited for five separate violation counts. The penalty paid represents a fraction of what the law theoretically authorizes.
• Systech Environmental Corporation’s legal contact in this federal case is Paul DeSantis, listed as “Environmental and Northeast Regional Counsel, Holcim (US) Inc.” Holcim is one of the largest building materials corporations in the world by revenue. The company that hired a law firm to negotiate this settlement has resources that dwarf the penalty imposed.
• The consent agreement explicitly states the penalty “shall not be deductible for purposes of Federal, State, and local taxes.” However, the legal costs incurred to negotiate this settlement are a standard business expense and may carry different tax treatment, meaning the effective net cost of this resolution to Systech could be further reduced.
• Rural communities near industrial hazardous waste facilities have no practical mechanism to independently monitor air quality or enforce permit conditions. The entire enforcement system depends on periodic EPA inspections, which in this case occurred once and covered a two-day window. There is no documentation in this record of any community notification about the violations or the emissions detected.

The “Cost of a Life” Metric

What Now?

Systech signed a consent agreement. They wrote a check. The order is filed. Here is who to hold accountable and what you can do from where you are.

Who Signed This Deal

• Sophie Wu, Head of Geocycle North America, signed the consent agreement on behalf of Systech Environmental Corporation on February 5, 2024. Geocycle is Holcim’s global waste management and co-processing business unit.
• Paul DeSantis, Environmental and Northeast Regional Counsel for Holcim (US) Inc., received the filed copy of the Final Order on behalf of Systech. He is the legal interface between this federal enforcement action and Holcim’s corporate structure.
• On the EPA side: David Cozad, Director of the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Division, Region 7, and Adam Hilbert, Office of Regional Counsel, signed on February 14, 2024. The Final Order was issued by Regional Judicial Officer Karina Borromeo on February 22, 2024.

Watchlist: Who Is Responsible for Oversight

• EPA Region 7: The primary federal enforcement body for this case. Located at 11201 Renner Blvd, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. This office conducted the inspection and filed the consent order. Their continued inspection of this facility is the only federal mechanism for ongoing oversight.
• Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE): Kansas holds authorized state program status under RCRA. Julie Coleman, Director of the Bureau of Waste Management, was copied on the Final Order. KDHE has independent state authority to inspect and enforce at this facility.
• EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA): The national office that sets enforcement priorities for RCRA. Public pressure on this office to increase inspection frequency at hazardous waste facilities is a documented lever for systemic change.

What You Can Do

• Contact KDHE directly: If you live in or near Wilson County, Kansas, you have standing to request information about this facility’s current compliance status. KDHE’s Bureau of Waste Management is the state body authorized to inspect and respond to complaints. Their contact is public record.
• File a public records request: Use the EPA’s FOIA process to request any subsequent inspection reports for Systech’s Fredonia facility after October 2022. The consent agreement certifies compliance as of signing. Verify that claim independently.
• Connect with local organizing: Wilson County, Kansas has a history of industrial land use. Environmental justice organizations operating in rural Kansas, including community groups affiliated with Clean Air Task Force or Earthjustice’s regional offices, can provide legal resources to residents near industrial facilities who believe their health is being impacted.
• Track Holcim’s U.S. operations: Holcim operates through multiple subsidiaries across the United States. Geocycle, the division Sophie Wu heads, operates waste co-processing at cement kiln facilities nationwide. Patterns across facilities matter. Document them.
• Support mutual aid in rural environmental communities: Rural communities near industrial waste facilities have fewer resources to fight environmental violations than urban ones. Donating to or volunteering with rural environmental justice organizations in the Great Plains region directly addresses the resource gap that makes settlements like this one possible.