The Company That Stored Toxic Waste Without a License and Paid Less Than the Cost of Compliance

What Happened

On June 21-22, 2023, EPA Region 5 conducted a compliance evaluation inspection at 215 North Centennial Street, Zeeland, Michigan. The facility was operated by Aurorium Zeeland, LLC, a limited liability company that used solvents and other chemicals in manufacturing and cleaning processes. What inspectors found was a textbook case of regulatory avoidance: a company storing hazardous waste without the license federal law requires, skipping mandatory safety inspections, and gambling that no one would notice.

The facility generated more than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month, making it a Large Quantity Generator under RCRA. That classification comes with strict requirements. You need either a full RCRA license from the state or interim status while your application is pending. Aurorium Zeeland had neither. The State of Michigan hadn’t issued a license. The company likewise hadn’t applied for interim status. It was operating in a legal no-man’s land where the rules applied but the company simply ignored them.

At the time of the inspection, Aurorium was consolidating small quantities of used and unused chemicals in lab packs. It was rinsing empty containers with water and collecting the resulting wastewater in Tank 23-TK-1101 for phase separation between aqueous and immiscible organic liquids. It was discarding secondary materials including spent manufacturing and cleaning chemicals, lab pack contents, and phase-separated organics from the wastewater. These materials exhibited hazardous waste characteristics for ignitability, reactivity, and toxicity. The EPA codes included D001 (ignitable), D002 (reactive), D021 (chlorobenzene), F003 (spent non-halogenated solvents), and F005 (spent halogenated solvents).

The company stored these materials temporarily in drums, totes, and tank systems in central accumulation areas before shipping them offsite for treatment, storage, disposal, burning, or incineration. Under Michigan law, that activity constituted hazardous waste storage. Storage requires a license. Aurorium didn’t have one.

“At all times relevant to this CAFO, the State of Michigan had not issued a RCRA License to Respondent to treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste at its Facility.”

The consent agreement was signed July 15, 2026, nearly three years after the inspection. The final penalty was $51,514. To put that in perspective, the cost of maintaining full RCRA compliance including engineering assessments, leak detection systems, daily inspection protocols, and employee training programs would likely exceed that amount annually. The message to other companies is clear: non-compliance is cheaper than compliance, even if you get caught.

Count 1: Storage Without a License

Section 3005(a) of RCRA and Michigan regulations prohibit the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste by any person who has not applied for or received a permit. Large Quantity Generators can be exempt from this requirement if they meet specific conditions. Aurorium failed those conditions systematically.

To qualify for the exemption, you must keep containers of hazardous waste closed at all times during storage except when adding or removing waste. Inspectors found one 250-gallon tote labeled “Pic Dryer Solvent” in Drum Lot #4 that was neither being filled nor emptied but was left open anyway. The tote contained spent manufacturing or cleaning chemicals identified as hazardous waste.

You must inspect areas where containers are stored at least weekly, looking for leaking containers and deterioration caused by corrosion or other factors. The facility’s own weekly inspection records showed gaps from February 4 through March 4, 2022 (3 weeks); March 11 through June 10, 2022 (12 weeks); September 12 through September 30, 2022 (1 week); October 28 through November 11, 2022 (1 week); December 16, 2022 through January 6, 2023 (2 weeks); and January 13 through January 27, 2023 (1 week). That is 20 weeks across an 11-month period where no one checked whether drums were leaking or corroding.

You must label or mark each container clearly and visibly with the date accumulation begins. Inspectors found a 250-gallon tote labeled “EMA HW WW Low pH” in Building 31 with no start date marked on it.

You must label tanks storing hazardous waste with the words “Hazardous Waste.” Tank System 23-TK-1101 had no such label.

You must provide an annual review of training that teaches employees to perform their duties in a way that ensures compliance with hazardous waste regulations, and you must maintain documentation of that training. Training documentation was not available for one employee for the years 2021 through 2023. That means for three full years, at least one person working with hazardous materials had no verified training on how to handle them safely or legally.

These are not minor paperwork issues. These are foundational safety requirements designed to prevent chemical releases, worker exposure, and environmental contamination. Aurorium’s failure to meet them meant the company was storing hazardous waste without a license and without the safeguards that justify the exemption from needing one.

“Respondent failed to satisfy the above conditions for maintaining an exemption from the requirement to have a RCRA License. Respondent therefore was storing hazardous waste without a RCRA License and without having interim status.”

Count 2: No Contingency Plan

Large Quantity Generators exempt from the RCRA licensing requirement must still submit copies of their facility contingency plan to all local emergency responders: police, fire, hospitals. The plan tells first responders what hazardous materials are onsite, where they are stored, and what to do if there is a spill, fire, or explosion.

At the time of the inspection, Aurorium had not submitted its contingency plan to the local police department or hospital. If there had been an emergency, first responders would have arrived without critical information about what chemicals they were facing and how to protect themselves and the surrounding community. This is not a hypothetical concern. Chemical facilities catch fire. Tanks rupture. Workers get injured. Contingency plans exist because disasters happen.

The failure to submit the plan was a violation of 40 CFR § 262.262(a). It was also a failure to satisfy a condition for maintaining the exemption from the RCRA licensing requirement. That meant once again, Aurorium was storing hazardous waste without a license.

Count 3: Tank System 23-TK-1101

This is where the technical violations become a story about calculated risk. Tank System 23-TK-1101 was used to separate hazardous waste from wastewater through phase separation between aqueous and immiscible organic liquids. This is a treatment process. It is also a storage process because the waste is held in the tank during separation. Federal regulations under 40 CFR Part 265 Subparts J, BB, and CC govern how such tank systems must be designed, installed, operated, and maintained.

No Design Assessment

40 CFR § 265.192 requires owners or operators to conduct a design and installation assessment for new hazardous waste tank systems. This assessment verifies that the tank system has sufficient structural integrity and is compatible with the waste it will store. It checks for corrosion protection, proper ancillary equipment, and that the installation was done correctly according to engineering specifications.

At the time of the inspection, Aurorium had not produced documentation showing a design and installation assessment had been conducted for Tank 23-TK-1101. The company could not demonstrate that the tank was engineered appropriately for the chemicals it was holding or that it was installed correctly. This is foundational. You do not put hazardous waste into a tank without verifying the tank can handle it.

No Leak Detection

40 CFR § 265.193(c)(3) requires tank systems to be provided with leak detection systems. These systems catch releases early before they contaminate soil and groundwater. They are the first line of defense against environmental damage.

Tank 23-TK-1101 had no leak detection system. If the tank had developed a crack, if a weld had failed, if a fitting had corroded through, there was no system in place to detect the release. The waste would have leaked into the ground unnoticed until someone happened to see it pooling on the surface or until contamination showed up in monitoring wells, if any existed.

No Daily Inspections

40 CFR § 265.195(b) requires owners or operators to conduct inspections of tank systems each operating day. These inspections look for leaks, corrosion, and other signs of failure. Daily inspections are how you catch problems before they become disasters.

Aurorium was not conducting daily inspections of Tank 23-TK-1101. The tank was operating without anyone checking it every day to see if it was leaking or deteriorating. This is not an oversight. This is a decision to skip a mandatory safety check.

Unmarked Equipment

40 CFR § 265.1050(c) requires that each piece of equipment to which 40 CFR Part 265 Subpart BB applies be marked in such a manner that it can be distinguished readily from other pieces of equipment. Tank 23-TK-1101 and its associated equipment were not marked in a way that distinguished them from other equipment at the facility.

This matters during inspections and emergencies. If equipment is not clearly labeled, workers and inspectors cannot quickly identify what they are dealing with. If there is a release, first responders need to know immediately which tank or pipe is involved. Unmarked equipment slows response time and increases risk.

No Volatile Organic Concentration Determination

40 CFR § 265.1084(a) requires a waste determination procedure to determine the average volatile organic concentration of a hazardous waste at the point of waste origination. This measurement is necessary to determine what emission controls are required under Subpart CC.

Aurorium failed to determine the average volatile organic concentration of the hazardous waste stored in Tank 23-TK-1101. Without this determination, the company did not know what air emission controls were legally required. It could not demonstrate compliance with air emission standards because it had not measured what it was emitting.

No Maximum Vapor Pressure Determination

40 CFR § 265.1084(c)(1) requires an owner or operator to determine the maximum organic vapor pressure for each hazardous waste placed in a tank using Tank Level 1 controls. This determines whether more stringent controls are required.

Aurorium failed to determine the maximum organic vapor pressure of hazardous waste stored in Tank 23-TK-1101. Again, without this measurement, the company could not determine what level of emission controls applied. It was operating the tank blind.

No Compliance Records

40 CFR § 265.1090(a) requires owners or operators to maintain records of compliance with 40 CFR Part 265 Subpart CC. Aurorium failed to maintain those records.

Every one of these violations was a failure to satisfy a condition for maintaining an exemption from the RCRA licensing requirement. Taken together, they demonstrate that Tank 23-TK-1101 was a hazardous waste treatment and storage system operating without proper engineering documentation, without leak detection, without daily oversight, and without air emission controls. It was a regulatory ghost: physically present, legally invisible, and entirely unsafe.

“Respondent’s failure to maintain the conditions for an exemption from the requirement to have a RCRA License, as described above, resulted in Respondent storing hazardous waste without a RCRA License or interim status.”

Count 4: The Missing Exception Report

When you ship hazardous waste offsite, federal law requires you to track it using a manifest system. The receiving facility signs the manifest when the waste arrives. They send a copy back to you. If you do not receive that signed manifest within 45 days, you must submit an exception report to state and federal regulators. This system ensures waste does not vanish in transit.

During the inspection, Aurorium produced copies of all requested manifests except one: Manifest 017295257FLE dated December 12, 2022, for a lab pack. That manifest included a signature and date from the designated facility, meaning the waste was delivered. But Aurorium had not submitted an exception report for it.

The company later submitted the exception report on October 21, 2024, during settlement negotiations. It submitted a copy of the manifest to EPA on March 6, 2026, more than three years after the shipment. The failure to timely submit the exception report was a violation of Michigan Admin. Code R. 299.9312(4)(b) and Section 3002 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6922.

This violation is procedural, but it reflects a broader pattern: Aurorium treated regulatory requirements as optional until someone forced compliance.

The Non-Financial Ledger

There are no named victims in this consent decree because the harm is diffuse and invisible. The workers who handled hazardous materials without proper training do not appear in the settlement. The Zeeland residents who lived near a facility storing toxic waste without leak detection are not listed as injured parties. The first responders who would have arrived at an emergency without a contingency plan are not compensated for the risk they faced.

This is how environmental violations work. The damage is not a single catastrophic event that makes the news. It is the slow accumulation of risk. It is the probability that a tank without leak detection will eventually leak. It is the chance that untrained workers will make a mistake. It is the certainty that a facility operating without proper oversight is an accident waiting to happen.

The harm is also administrative. Every day Aurorium operated without a license, it undercut competitors who invested in compliance. Companies that hire environmental engineers, install leak detection systems, train their workers, and submit their paperwork on time pay for those things. They pass those costs on to customers. Aurorium skipped those costs and pocketed the savings. The $51,514 fine did not erase that competitive advantage. It merely clawed back a fraction of it.

The EPA inspection in June 2023 caught Aurorium mid-violation. The consent agreement was not filed until July 2026. For three years, the case sat in negotiation while the company continued operating. The settlement includes no requirement that Aurorium admit wrongdoing. It includes no enhanced monitoring. It includes no community notification. It is a financial transaction that closes a file.

The workers at Aurorium Zeeland do not have the option to close the file. They spent years working in a facility where hazardous waste was stored without the safeguards federal law requires. If Tank 23-TK-1101 leaked during that time, they may not know it. If they were exposed to volatile organic compounds from improperly controlled emissions, they may not know it. The settlement does not answer those questions. It does not require Aurorium to answer them either.

This is the non-financial ledger: the workers who deserved training and did not get it, the community that deserved a contingency plan and did not get it, the ecosystem that deserved leak detection and did not get it. The $51,514 does not compensate them. It does not make them whole. It is a number on a legal document that closes a case without addressing the harm.

Legal Receipts

The consent decree is clinical in its language and devastating in its specificity. These are the verbatim findings from the EPA settlement.

“At the time of the Inspection, Respondent was storing spent manufacturing or cleaning chemicals identified as hazardous waste in one 250-gallon tote labeled as ‘Pic Dryer Solvent’ in Drum Lot #4 of the Facility, and failed to close this tote though it was neither being filled nor emptied at that time.”

“At the time of the Inspection, the Facility’s weekly inspection records showed the following gaps in weekly inspections: from February 4, 2022 through March 4, 2022 (3 weeks); March 11, 2022 through June 10, 2022 (12 weeks); September 12, 2022 through September 30, 2022 (1 week); October 28, 2022 through November 11, 2022 (1 week); December 16, 2022 through January 6, 2023 (2 weeks); and January 13, 2023 through January 27, 2023 (1 week).”

“At the time of the Inspection, training documentation was not available for one employee for the years 2021 through 2023.”

“At the time of the Inspection, Respondent did not produce documentation that it had conducted a design and installation assessment for tank system 23-TK-1101.”

“At the time of the Inspection, Respondent had not provided tank system 23-TK-1101 with a leak detection system.”

“At the time of the Inspection, Respondent was not conducting inspections of tank system 23-TK-1101 each operating day.”

“At the time of the inspection, tank system 23-TK-1101 was not labeled with the words ‘Hazardous Waste.'”

These are not allegations. They are admitted facts in a legally binding settlement. Aurorium Zeeland operated for years in systematic violation of federal hazardous waste law. It was caught. It negotiated. It paid $51,514. The case is closed.

Societal Impact Mapping

Environmental Degradation

Tank 23-TK-1101 had no leak detection. If it leaked, the first sign would have been contamination showing up in soil or groundwater. Hazardous waste codes D001 (ignitable), D002 (reactive), D021 (chlorobenzene), F003 (spent non-halogenated solvents), and F005 (spent halogenated solvents) represent materials that can contaminate aquifers, kill soil microbiota, and persist in the environment for decades.

Chlorobenzene (D021) is a volatile organic compound used in industrial solvents. It is toxic to aquatic life and can bioaccumulate in the food chain. Spent halogenated solvents (F005) include chemicals like methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, and perchloroethylene, all of which are probable or known carcinogens. These are not substances you want leaking into the ground undetected.

The consent decree does not require soil or groundwater testing. It does not require Aurorium to investigate whether Tank 23-TK-1101 leaked during the years it operated without leak detection. The settlement closes the case without determining whether environmental damage occurred. If contamination exists, it remains undiscovered and unremediated.

Public Health

The facility is located at 215 North Centennial Street, Zeeland, Michigan, 49464, in a mixed commercial and residential area. Hazardous waste facilities are required to have contingency plans filed with local emergency responders specifically because chemical releases can threaten nearby populations. Aurorium did not file its contingency plan.

Volatile organic compounds from improperly controlled emissions can cause headaches, dizziness, respiratory irritation, and long-term neurological damage. Workers inside the facility faced the highest exposure risk. Residents downwind faced lower but non-zero risk, especially if Tank 23-TK-1101 was emitting vapors without controls.

The consent decree does not require health monitoring for workers or community residents. It does not require Aurorium to notify workers that they may have been exposed to improperly controlled hazardous waste emissions. The public health impact remains unmeasured.

Economic Inequality

Aurorium Zeeland is a limited liability company. If it dissolves, its liabilities do not necessarily transfer to its owners or parent entities depending on the corporate structure. The $51,514 penalty is paid by the LLC. If the company declares bankruptcy or simply shuts down, there is no guarantee that future environmental cleanup costs would be recoverable from the individuals or entities that profited from years of non-compliance.

The competitive advantage Aurorium gained by skipping compliance costs is not clawed back by the settlement. Companies that spent money on leak detection, daily inspections, and employee training paid more to operate than Aurorium did. Aurorium’s lower costs allowed it to underbid compliant competitors or pocket higher margins. The $51,514 fine does not reverse that advantage. It taxes it lightly.

This creates a perverse incentive structure. Compliance is expensive. Non-compliance is cheap. Getting caught is moderately expensive but still cheaper than compliance. The economically rational choice, in the absence of criminal liability or reputational damage, is to skip compliance and budget for an occasional fine.

What Now?

The consent decree identifies Fernanda Beraldi as General Counsel and Vice President of Aurorium Zeeland, LLC. Carolyn Persoon signed the agreement as Division Director of the EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Division, Region 5. Ann L. Coyle signed as Regional Judicial Officer. These are the individuals who negotiated and approved the settlement.

The case is docketed as RCRA-05-2026-0029. It was filed with the Regional Hearing Clerk on July 22, 2026 at 7:13 AM.

Regulatory Watchlist

This case falls under the jurisdiction of the following agencies:

• U.S. EPA Region 5: Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Division. Responsible for RCRA enforcement in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
• Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE): Authorized to administer the RCRA hazardous waste program in Michigan. Responsible for issuing RCRA licenses and enforcing state hazardous waste regulations.
• EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA): National headquarters office that sets enforcement priorities and policy.
• EPA Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM): Manages the national RCRA program and provides technical guidance on hazardous waste regulations.

Direct Action Recommendation

If you are a current or former worker at Aurorium Zeeland, you have a right to know what you were exposed to. Request your workplace exposure records under OSHA regulations. Document any respiratory, neurological, or skin conditions that developed while you worked there. Contact an occupational health attorney if you believe you were harmed by exposure to hazardous waste.

If you are a Zeeland resident, request public records from Michigan EGLE regarding Aurorium’s compliance history. Ask whether soil or groundwater testing has been conducted near the facility. Attend local city council meetings and demand transparency about industrial facilities operating in residential areas.

If you are a competitor in the chemical manufacturing sector, file a complaint with EPA if you believe Aurorium’s non-compliance gave it an unfair competitive advantage. Document your own compliance costs and compare them to Aurorium’s penalty. Make the economic case that weak enforcement undermines businesses that follow the law.

If you are an environmental organizer, use this case as a template. RCRA consent decrees are public records. Every settlement is evidence of a violation. Track them. Map them. Publish them. Build a database of companies that treat environmental law as optional and fines as a cost of doing business. Make non-compliance visible.

Mutual aid and grassroots resistance work because regulatory agencies are understaffed and underfunded. EPA Region 5 covers six states and thousands of facilities. It cannot inspect every site every year. Community monitoring fills the gaps. Organize site visits. Take photographs. File public records requests. Report violations to EPA’s tip line. Regulatory enforcement only happens when someone forces it to happen.

The system is designed to let corporations negotiate their way out of accountability. The only counterweight is organized public pressure that makes non-compliance more expensive than compliance. That pressure does not come from Washington. It comes from the neighborhoods where these facilities operate and the workers who know what is really happening behind the fence.