“At the time of the inspection, the inspector observed Respondent’s Container Bulk Processing Building. Noncontainerized hazardous waste was observed stored atop two dispersion tanks.”

💡 This shows Systech stored dangerous materials in areas not designed or permitted for waste containment, creating immediate spill and exposure risks.

“The inspector observed several of the elastomeric straps used to secure the cover on the open end of the roll-off container were broken, and thus, were not securing the tarpaulin cover on that end of roll-off container number RB250708.”

💡 Failed basic equipment maintenance allowed hazardous vapors to escape into the air workers and neighbors breathe.

“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.”

💡 This emission level was roughly four times the 500 ppmv legal threshold, exposing workers to dangerous concentrations of volatile organic compounds.

“At the time of the inspection, the inspector observed that the conservation vent on Tank 10 was emitting volatile organic emissions from the pressure side of the conservation vent of 1,851 ppmv (approximately 1,848 ppmv above background). The inspector measured the background concentration at the conservation vent as 2.5 ppmv.”

💡 A second storage tank showed the same pattern of failed emission controls, indicating systemic rather than isolated problems.

“One container held laboratory debris (gloves, wipes, glassware, etc.) which did not include a label or marking as ‘hazardous waste.’ The second container held laboratory liquids (waste samples, solvents, etc.) which also did not include a label or marking as ‘hazardous waste.'”

💡 Workers and emergency responders couldn’t identify the hazards in these containers, endangering anyone who might handle them.

“The inspector did not observe an accumulation start date on either container or other information posted in the area which would indicate an accumulation start date.”

💡 Without start dates, regulators and facility staff cannot verify that toxic battery waste is being removed within legal time limits.

“Pursuant to Permit Condition III.D, Respondent is ‘not authorized for storage of hazardous waste in the receiving steel pan of this unit.’ The unit in question is the hydraulic knuckle boom crane in the Bulk Container Processing Area.”

💡 Systech knowingly violated explicit permit terms, showing deliberate disregard for the conditions under which it was allowed to operate.

“40 C.F.R. § 265.1084(d) defines ‘no detectable organic emissions’ as when the arithmetic difference between the maximum organic concentration measured at a leak interface with EPA Method 21 and the background organic concentration is less than 500 parts per million volume (‘ppmv’).”

💡 This regulation sets the safety threshold that Systech exceeded by up to four times, demonstrating the severity of the health risks created.

“For the purpose of this proceeding, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 22.18(b)(2), Respondent… neither admits nor denies the specific factual allegations stated herein.”

💡 This standard settlement language lets Systech avoid acknowledging the violations while paying a penalty, limiting legal liability and reputational damage.

“Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 264.1086(c)(2)… a container used to meet the requirements… shall be equipped with covers and closure devices, as applicable to the container, that are composed of suitable materials to minimize exposure of the hazardous waste to the atmosphere and to maintain the equipment integrity, for as long as the container is in service.”

💡 The law explicitly required durable closures, but Systech used cheap straps that broke, prioritizing cost savings over environmental protection.

“Based on a review of the inspection report and the information provided during the inspection by facility personnel, it was determined that Respondent was operating as a permitted treatment, storage, disposal facility, large quantity generator, used oil generator, and small quantity handler of universal waste.”

💡 Systech operated under the strictest regulatory category but still violated rules across multiple operational areas, showing systematic failures.

“The State of Kansas has been notified of this action in accordance with Section 3008(a)(2) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6928(a)(2).”

💡 Kansas had regulatory authority but the violations were discovered by federal inspectors, raising questions about state oversight effectiveness.

“The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, 28 U.S.C. § 2461, and implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 19, increased these statutory maximum penalties to $37,500 for violations that occurred before November 2, 2015, and to $121,275 for violations that occur after November 2, 2015.”

💡 The law allowed penalties up to $121,275 per day per violation, but Systech paid less than $100,000 total for five violation categories.

“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.”

💡 Systech gets to certify compliance only after violations were found and corrected, receiving credit for fixing problems it created.

“Full payment of the penalty proposed in this Consent Agreement shall only resolve Respondent’s liability for federal civil penalties for the violations alleged herein. Complainant reserves the right to take any enforcement action with respect to any other violations of RCRA or any other applicable law.”

💡 EPA explicitly notes this settlement doesn’t address other potential violations, suggesting the inspection may have uncovered only a portion of problems at the facility.