Corporate Misconduct Accountability Project
Metalico Youngstown, Inc. · Consent Agreement and Final Order (EPA Administrative Settlement)
EPA Fines Metalico $25K for Operating Shredder Without Air Permits
The EPA alleges Metalico Youngstown operated a metal shredder with potential to emit over 100 tons of VOCs per year without required pollution controls or permits, risking nearby community air quality. The company settled without admitting wrongdoing.
HIGH SEVERITY
TL;DR
The EPA alleges that Metalico Youngstown operated a metal shredder at its Girard, Ohio facility with the potential to release over 100 tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) annually without obtaining required air permits or installing pollution control technology. Permit applications from 2019 claimed zero VOC emissions from the shredder, but EPA analysis later found potential emissions far exceeding major source thresholds. The company settled in May 2025 for a $25,000 civil penalty without admitting to the violations, despite operating under an inadequate permit since 2020.
Learn how a $25,000 fine compares to years of alleged non-compliance and what it means for enforcement.
100+ tons/year
Potential VOC emissions EPA alleges shredder could release
$25,000
Civil penalty paid by Metalico to settle EPA allegations
0 tons
VOC emissions claimed in 2019 permit applications for the shredder
16 years
Time from shredder installation (2009) to settlement (2025)
The Allegations: A Breakdown
Core Allegations
What the EPA says Metalico did wrong · 8 points
| 01 | The EPA alleges Metalico operated a metal shredder with the potential to emit over 100 tons of VOCs per year without obtaining a Title V operating permit required for major air pollution sources. The shredder was installed in April 2009 and has processed scrap automobiles and sheet metal continuously. | high |
| 02 | The company failed to obtain a permit requiring Best Available Technology (BAT) for controlling VOC emissions, as mandated by Ohio’s State Implementation Plan for sources potentially emitting more than 10 tons per year. The facility operated without any VOC control device, production limits, or emission limits for the shredder. | high |
| 03 | Permit applications submitted in July 2019 identified the shredder’s potential to emit VOCs as zero tons per year. The EPA’s later analysis, based on emission test results from similar shredders and the facility’s maximum infeed rate of 108 gross tons per hour, showed potential emissions exceeding 100 tons annually. | high |
| 04 | Ohio EPA issued a permit in June 2020 that remains active until 2030, but this permit does not include any production limit, requirement to operate any VOC control device, or any VOC emission limit. No new permit applications have been submitted since 2020. | high |
| 05 | The facility’s shredder processes a mixture containing 30-50% scrap automobiles, which contain materials like foam, plastics, and residual fuels that generate VOCs when shredded. The EPA published an enforcement alert in July 2021 specifically notifying metal recycling facilities that VOC emissions from their shredders may trigger regulatory requirements. | medium |
| 06 | Metalico purchased the Girard facility from Liberty Iron & Metal in December 2020, inheriting the shredder and its permit status. The EPA did not inspect the facility until October 2023, more than two years after issuing its industry-wide enforcement alert. | medium |
| 07 | The EPA computed that actual VOC emissions did not exceed 100 tons per year from 2021 to 2024 based on actual scrap infeed rates. However, the legal requirement for Title V and BAT permits is based on potential to emit, not actual emissions, reflecting a preventative approach to air quality management. | medium |
| 08 | The settlement allows Metalico to resolve EPA allegations without admitting to violations of law. The company paid a $25,000 civil penalty and agreed to comply with an administrative compliance order issued in April 2025, but did not acknowledge wrongdoing. | medium |
Regulatory Failures
How the system allowed this to continue · 6 points
| 01 | The shredder was installed in April 2009, but the discrepancy between zero emissions claimed in 2019 permit applications and EPA’s finding of 100+ tons potential was not caught until an October 2023 inspection. This represents a gap of at least four years after the applications and fourteen years after installation. | high |
| 02 | Ohio EPA issued a permit in June 2020 that lacked specific VOC controls or limits for the shredder, despite the machine’s inherent potential to generate emissions from materials like foam, plastics, and residual fuels in scrapped cars. The permit remains active until 2030. | high |
| 03 | The EPA relied significantly on company-supplied data for permit applications. The fact that applications could claim zero VOC emissions from a shredder processing 30-50% automobiles suggests inadequate initial review or verification of self-reported information. | high |
| 04 | The EPA’s enforcement alert about metal recycling shredder violations was published in July 2021, explicitly notifying facilities that VOC emissions may trigger regulatory applicability. Despite this alert, Metalico was not inspected until October 2023, more than two years later. | medium |
| 05 | The settlement in May 2025 came nearly 16 years after the shredder’s installation and more than four years after the industry-wide enforcement alert. This timeline demonstrates the challenge regulators face in proactively ensuring compliance across thousands of industrial sites. | medium |
| 06 | The regulatory framework triggered enforcement based on potential to emit rather than actual emissions, but this preventative approach only became effective after years of operation. The system allowed prolonged operation under a permit that EPA later deemed inadequate. | medium |
Profit Over People
The economics of avoiding compliance · 5 points
| 01 | The $25,000 civil penalty represents a fraction of the potential costs of installing and operating pollution control equipment over the years the shredder operated. Capital expenditures for control technology and ongoing operational costs would likely far exceed this settlement amount. | high |
| 02 | Operating without required permits and Best Available Technology allowed the facility to avoid immediate capital investments in VOC control equipment. These systems require significant upfront costs and ongoing maintenance expenses that directly reduce profitability. | high |
| 03 | The settlement allows Metalico to resolve allegations without admitting violations, a common feature that lets companies avoid formal findings of guilt. This structure can make penalties feel more like negotiated business costs than punishment for environmental harm. | medium |
| 04 | The shredder operated from 2009 through the settlement in 2025 without the alleged required controls. If the financial benefit of 16 years of avoided compliance costs significantly outweighs a $25,000 penalty, the economic incentive to delay compliance remains strong. | medium |
| 05 | The 2019 permit applications claimed zero VOC emissions, potentially allowing the facility to avoid more stringent permitting requirements and associated costs. Whether this was intentional cost avoidance or genuine underestimation, the economic benefit of a less restrictive permit is clear. | medium |
Public Health and Safety
The community impact of VOC emissions · 5 points
| 01 | Volatile Organic Compounds contribute to ground-level ozone formation, which causes respiratory problems, aggravates asthma, and leads to other lung diseases. Some VOCs are known carcinogens, while others damage the liver, kidney, and central nervous system. | high |
| 02 | The EPA’s July 2021 enforcement alert was titled ‘Violations at Metal Recycling Facilities Cause Excess Emissions in Nearby Communities,’ directly linking such facilities with community exposure. The Girard facility’s alleged potential for 100+ tons of uncontrolled VOC emissions carried inherent risk to local air quality. | high |
| 03 | Operating without Title V permits and pollution controls means potential unmonitored and unmitigated release of pollutants into the community. The purpose of stringent permitting for major sources is precisely to prevent these uncontrolled releases and protect public health. | high |
| 04 | The Girard facility is located in a community where residents had no assurance that VOC emissions from the shredder were being measured, limited, or controlled. The absence of required permits meant the community lacked regulatory protections intended for major pollution sources. | medium |
| 05 | The shredder processes materials including scrap automobiles containing foam, plastics, and residual fuels that release VOCs when shredded. At a maximum infeed rate of 108 gross tons per hour with 30-50% automobiles, the volume of potentially emitting material is substantial. | medium |
Corporate Accountability Failures
A $25,000 penalty for 16 years of alleged violations · 6 points
| 01 | The $25,000 civil penalty covers alleged violations spanning from at least 2009 (when the shredder was installed) through 2025. For a corporation operating an industrial facility, this sum represents a minor operational expense compared to years of potential non-compliance. | high |
| 02 | The Consent Agreement explicitly states that Metalico neither admits nor denies the alleged violations of law. This settlement structure allows the company to resolve EPA enforcement without any formal admission of wrongdoing or finding of guilt. | high |
| 03 | The EPA determined the penalty amount based on statutory factors, case facts, and Metalico’s cooperation. However, the settlement does not explain how $25,000 was calculated relative to the economic benefit of avoided compliance costs or the environmental harm from potential uncontrolled emissions. | medium |
| 04 | The enforcement timeline shows significant delays: shredder installed in 2009, enforcement alert in 2021, inspection in 2023, settlement in 2025. These gaps allowed years of operation under allegedly inadequate permits before accountability measures took effect. | medium |
| 05 | An administrative compliance order issued in April 2025 remains in effect, suggesting ongoing requirements beyond the monetary penalty. However, the document does not disclose what corrective actions this order requires or whether pollution controls have been installed. | medium |
| 06 | The settlement constitutes an enforcement action for purposes of considering Metalico’s compliance history in any subsequent enforcement actions. However, without admitted violations, the precedential value for future accountability is limited. | low |
Exploiting Delay
How time favored the company · 6 points
| 01 | Metalico purchased the Girard facility in December 2020, inheriting a shredder that had operated since 2009 under permits EPA later deemed inadequate. The company operated for more than four years under this inherited permit status before settling with EPA. | high |
| 02 | The EPA issued an industry-wide enforcement alert in July 2021 specifically about metal recycling shredder emissions. Despite this alert putting the industry on notice, Metalico’s facility was not inspected until October 2023, allowing more than two additional years of operation. | high |
| 03 | The Notice of Violation was issued in July 2024, but the final settlement was not reached until May 2025. This ten-month negotiation period allowed continued operation under the allegedly inadequate permit while settlement terms were discussed. | medium |
| 04 | The Ohio EPA’s 2020 permit expires in June 2030. Without the EPA’s intervention, this permit lacking VOC controls or limits would have remained in effect for a full decade, demonstrating how permit duration can lock in inadequate requirements for extended periods. | medium |
| 05 | The settlement explicitly notes that violations occurred more than one year before initiation of the proceeding, yet EPA and DOJ jointly determined administrative penalty assessment was still appropriate. This acknowledges that the statute of limitations could have been an issue but was waived. | medium |
| 06 | Representatives from Metalico and EPA conferred in August 2024 regarding the violation notice, part of a negotiation process that stretched from inspection in October 2023 to final settlement in May 2025. Each step in this 19-month process represented continued operation under the challenged permit. | low |
The Bottom Line
What this case reveals about environmental enforcement · 5 points
| 01 | A metal shredder allegedly operated for 16 years with potential to emit over 100 tons of VOCs annually without required permits or pollution controls, yet resolved EPA enforcement with a $25,000 penalty and no admission of wrongdoing. This disparity between alleged harm and consequences raises questions about deterrent effectiveness. | high |
| 02 | The case demonstrates how industrial facilities can operate in regulatory gray zones for extended periods when permit applications underestimate emissions and state-issued permits lack adequate controls. The system’s reliance on self-reported data and infrequent inspections creates opportunities for non-compliance to persist. | high |
| 03 | EPA’s enforcement alert in 2021 indicated metal recycling shredder violations were a known industry-wide problem, yet individual facility accountability took years to materialize. This pattern suggests systemic enforcement challenges rather than isolated incidents at single facilities. | high |
| 04 | The settlement structure allowing no admission of violations, combined with a penalty that may not exceed avoided compliance costs, creates a framework where environmental violations can be treated as calculated business risks rather than serious legal breaches requiring prevention. | medium |
| 05 | Communities near facilities like the Girard shredder bear the health risks of potential uncontrolled emissions during the years between installation and enforcement. The preventative purpose of Clean Air Act permitting is undermined when accountability comes only after prolonged operation. | medium |
Timeline of Events
April 2009
Shredder installed at the Girard facility by previous owner Liberty Iron & Metal
July 2019
Permit application submitted claiming zero VOC emissions from shredder
June 2020
Ohio EPA issues permit without VOC controls or limits, valid through 2030
December 2020
Metalico purchases the Girard facility from Liberty Iron & Metal
July 2021
EPA publishes enforcement alert on metal recycling facility violations
October 2023
EPA inspects the Girard facility to investigate Clean Air Act compliance
January 2024
Metalico provides EPA with permit renewal applications as follow-up
July 2024
EPA issues Notice of Violation/Finding of Violation to Metalico and Ohio EPA
August 2024
Metalico and EPA representatives confer regarding the violation notice
April 2025
EPA issues administrative compliance order (referenced but not detailed)
May 2025
Consent Agreement and Final Order filed, documenting $25,000 settlement
Direct Quotes from the Legal Record
QUOTE 1
The fundamental allegation
allegations
“Metalico has operated and continues to operate the Facility with an unlimited potential to emit in excess of 100 tons per year of VOC without obtaining a Title V permit in violation of Section 502 of the Act.”
💡 This quote establishes the core EPA claim that Metalico operated a major pollution source without the most stringent federal air permit.
QUOTE 2
The missing pollution controls
allegations
“The 2020 PTIO for the Shredder does not include a production limit, a requirement to operate any VOC control device, a VOC emission limit pursuant to the Ohio BAT Rule, or any other VOC emission limit.”
💡 This confirms the facility operated under a state permit that completely lacked VOC emission restrictions or control requirements.
QUOTE 3
Zero emissions claimed
regulatory
“The 2019 permit applications identified the potential to emit VOC from the Shredder as zero (0) tons per year.”
💡 This shows what the company told regulators, which EPA later found dramatically underestimated the shredder’s pollution potential.
QUOTE 4
EPA’s contrasting analysis
allegations
“Based on an analysis of these test results, the maximum scrap infeed rate and the maximum percentage of automobiles processed, the Shredder at the Girard Facility has the potential to emit over 100 tons of VOC per year.”
💡 EPA’s analysis found potential emissions more than 100 times higher than what permit applications claimed, triggering major source requirements.
QUOTE 5
The community impact warning
health
“On July 1, 2021, EPA published an enforcement alert (Alert) titled ‘Violations at Metal Recycling Facilities Cause Excess Emissions in Nearby Communities.'”
💡 EPA explicitly connected metal recycling violations to harm in surrounding communities, putting the industry on notice.
QUOTE 6
No new permits since inadequate one issued
regulatory
“No air permit applications have been submitted for the Girard Facility since the 2020 PTIO was issued.”
💡 This shows the facility continued operating under the allegedly inadequate 2020 permit without seeking corrective permits for years.
QUOTE 7
Settlement without admission
accountability
“Respondent: admits to the stipulated facts stated above and neither admits nor denies the alleged violations of law stated above; consents to the assessment of a civil penalty as stated below.”
💡 This standard settlement language lets Metalico pay the fine while avoiding any formal admission of wrongdoing.
QUOTE 8
Minimal penalty determination
accountability
“Based on analysis of the factors specified in Section 113(e) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(e), the facts of this case, and Respondent’s cooperation, the EPA has determined that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $25,000.”
💡 This reveals how EPA calculated the penalty amount, though it doesn’t explain why $25,000 was deemed sufficient for 16 years of alleged violations.
QUOTE 9
Potential vs. actual emissions distinction
allegations
“Using an emission factor of 0.39 lbs of VOC per gross ton of scrap processed and actual scrap infeed rates provided by Metalico, EPA computed that actual VOC emissions did not exceed 100 tons of VOC per year from 2021 to 2024.”
💡 This shows actual emissions were below major source thresholds, but legal requirements are based on potential emissions, not just what actually came out.
QUOTE 10
The delayed enforcement timeline
delay_tactics
“On October 25, 2023, EPA inspected the Girard Facility to investigate compliance with the Act (2023 Inspection) and collected information, including information about the Shredder’s operations, emissions, and permit status.”
💡 EPA didn’t inspect until October 2023, more than two years after its July 2021 enforcement alert warned the industry about shredder violations.
QUOTE 11
Long-term permit inadequacy
regulatory
“The 2020 PTIO is currently active and lists an expiration date of June 8, 2030.”
💡 The allegedly inadequate permit was set to remain in effect for a decade, showing how permit duration can lock in insufficient protections for years.
QUOTE 12
What the shredder processes
health
“During the inspection, representatives from the Girard Facility stated that the Shredder processes a mixture of scrap automobiles and sheet metal, and that the percentage of automobiles is 30-50% of the total.”
💡 Scrap automobiles contain foam, plastics, and residual fuels that generate VOCs when shredded, making the composition of processed material directly relevant to emissions.
QUOTE 13
Settlement finality and waiver
accountability
“Respondent: waives any right to contest the alleged violations of law set forth in Section E of this CAFO; and waives its right to appeal this CAFO.”
💡 Metalico gave up all rights to challenge EPA’s allegations or appeal the settlement, making this resolution final despite no admission of wrongdoing.
QUOTE 14
Tax treatment reveals penalty nature
accountability
“Penalties, interest, and other charges paid pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deductible for purposes of federal taxes.”
💡 Federal law treats these payments as non-deductible penalties rather than ordinary business expenses, acknowledging their punitive rather than operational nature.
QUOTE 15
EPA’s reserved enforcement rights
accountability
“The EPA reserves the right to revoke this CAFO and settlement penalty if and to the extent that the EPA finds, after signing this CAFO, that any information provided by Respondent was materially false or inaccurate at the time such information was provided to the EPA.”
💡 EPA retains the ability to void the settlement and pursue full penalties if it discovers Metalico provided false information during negotiations.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly did Metalico Youngstown do wrong according to the EPA?
The EPA alleges Metalico operated a metal shredder with the potential to emit over 100 tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) per year without obtaining a Title V operating permit required for major air pollution sources. The company also allegedly failed to obtain a permit requiring Best Available Technology for controlling VOC emissions, as mandated by Ohio law for sources potentially emitting more than 10 tons per year. The facility operated without any VOC control device, production limits, or emission limits for the shredder.
How much did Metalico pay to settle these allegations?
Metalico agreed to pay a $25,000 civil penalty to settle the EPA’s allegations. The company did not admit to the violations as part of the settlement. This penalty covers alleged violations spanning from at least 2009 when the shredder was installed through 2025 when the settlement was finalized.
What are VOCs and why are they dangerous?
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are chemicals that contribute to ground-level ozone (smog) formation, which causes respiratory problems, aggravates asthma, and leads to other lung diseases. Some VOCs are known carcinogens, while others can damage the liver, kidney, and central nervous system. The EPA’s enforcement alert explicitly linked metal recycling facility violations to excess emissions in nearby communities.
Why did the permit applications claim zero VOC emissions if the EPA says the shredder could emit over 100 tons per year?
Permit applications submitted in July 2019 identified the shredder’s potential to emit VOCs as zero tons per year. The EPA later analyzed emission test results from similar shredders across the country and, based on the Girard facility’s maximum scrap infeed rate and the percentage of automobiles processed, determined the shredder had the potential to emit over 100 tons annually. The document does not explain why the original applications claimed zero emissions.
How long was the facility allegedly operating without proper permits?
The shredder was installed in April 2009 and the settlement was reached in May 2025, a span of 16 years. Metalico purchased the facility in December 2020, inheriting the existing permit situation. The EPA did not inspect the facility until October 2023, and the settlement was not finalized until May 2025.
Did the company actually emit over 100 tons of VOCs per year?
According to the EPA’s analysis using an emission factor and actual scrap infeed rates provided by Metalico, actual VOC emissions did not exceed 100 tons per year from 2021 to 2024. However, Clean Air Act permitting requirements are based on potential to emit, not just actual emissions. This preventative approach means facilities must obtain permits and install controls based on what they could emit under maximum operating conditions, not just what they typically do emit.
Is $25,000 an adequate penalty for 16 years of alleged violations?
The settlement document states the EPA determined $25,000 was appropriate based on statutory factors, case facts, and Metalico’s cooperation. However, pollution control equipment and the ongoing costs of operating such systems typically cost far more than $25,000. Critics argue that if the financial benefit of avoiding compliance for 16 years significantly exceeds a $25,000 penalty, it creates an economic incentive to delay or avoid compliance rather than investing in pollution controls upfront.
What is the Ohio EPA’s role in this case?
Ohio EPA issued the original permit-to-install and operate in June 2020, which is currently active until June 8, 2030. This permit does not include production limits, VOC control requirements, or VOC emission limits for the shredder. The EPA provided a copy of its Notice of Violation to Ohio EPA in July 2024. The case demonstrates how facilities can receive state permits that federal EPA later determines are inadequate under Clean Air Act requirements.
What happens next for Metalico and the Girard facility?
The settlement includes a $25,000 civil penalty that Metalico must pay within 30 days. An administrative compliance order issued in April 2025 remains in effect, suggesting ongoing requirements beyond the monetary penalty. However, the public settlement document does not disclose what corrective actions this order requires or whether pollution controls have been or must be installed. The settlement is final and Metalico waived all rights to contest or appeal.
What can concerned citizens or nearby residents do?
Citizens can request information about the facility’s current permit status and any monitoring data from Ohio EPA. They can also contact the EPA Region 5 Air Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Branch to inquire about the status of the administrative compliance order referenced in the settlement. Community members can organize to advocate for stronger enforcement, more frequent inspections of industrial facilities, and penalties significant enough to deter non-compliance. They can also request that local health departments monitor air quality near the facility and report any concerning health trends.
Metalico can be reached by calling 330-545-5477
The legal agreement between Metalico and the EPA can be read from its original source: https://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/rhc/epaadmin.nsf/Filings/B70D77104353CD6D85258C97006F51CF/$File/CAA-05-2025-0036_CAFO_MetalicoYoungstownInc_GirardOhio_17PGS.pdf
💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.
- 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
- 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
- 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
- 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
- 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.
