How Miller Waste Mills Hid Toxic Imports from the EPA for Years

📎 Source Note: The legal sources referenced to write this article are attached at the bottom of the page.

Corporate Corruption Case Study: Miller Waste Mills, Inc. (RTP Company) & Its Impact on Chemical Transparency

Introduction: A Failure to Disclose

A global leader in specialty plastics manufacturing, Miller Waste Mills, Inc., operating under the name RTP Company, recently settled allegations of significant failures in chemical reporting required under federal law. This case highlights a breakdown in corporate responsibility, where a company with extensive international operations allegedly failed to inform regulators about substantial volumes of imported chemicals entering the United States, raising questions about the effectiveness of regulations designed to protect public health and the environment within a system often prioritizing profit. The company agreed to pay a substantial civil penalty, yet the settlement allows it to resolve the matter without admitting to the core factual allegations, a common outcome that can obscure the full picture of corporate conduct.  

Inside the Allegations: Corporate Misconduct and Reporting Failures

The core of the administrative action centered on violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and its associated Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rules. Between 2016 and 2019, Miller Waste Mills allegedly imported significant quantities of four specific chemical substances into its Winona, Minnesota facility without submitting the legally required reports known as “Form U” to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  

Federal regulations mandate that companies manufacturing or importing chemicals above certain thresholds must report these activities. This reporting is crucial for maintaining the TSCA Inventory, a vital list of chemicals used in U.S. commerce.  

The specific alleged failures involved the following chemicals and import volumes exceeding reporting thresholds:

Chemical Identifier (CAS Number)Year(s) Exceeding ThresholdApproximate Pounds Imported in Peak Year(s)Reporting Threshold
1317-65-3201935,726 lbs25,000 lbs
1333-86-42016, 2018, 201963,895 lbs (in 2018)25,000 lbs
64742-54-7201939,362 lbs25,000 lbs
1163-19-520175,565 lbs2,500 lbs*

Export to Sheets

*Note: Chemical 1163-19-5 was subject to a lower reporting threshold because it was under regulatory consideration under TSCA Section 6 at the time.  

The company allegedly imported these substances, listed on the EPA’s master inventory file, in amounts triggering the reporting duties for the 2020 submission period (covering years 2016-2019). Despite these obligations, Miller Waste Mills failed to submit the required Form U reports for any of these four chemicals by the January 29, 2021 deadline. Each failure to report constituted a separate violation of federal law.  

The Regulatory Framework: Gaps in Chemical Oversight?

TSCA’s Chemical Data Reporting rule serves a critical function: it provides the EPA and the public with basic information about the identity, quantity, and use of chemicals being produced or imported into the country. This data is fundamental for assessing potential risks, prioritizing chemicals for further review, and implementing necessary regulations to protect human health and the environment.  

When companies fail to comply, as alleged here, significant gaps in knowledge are created. Regulators may be unaware of the scale and scope of certain chemical uses, hindering their ability to perform effective oversight. This lack of transparency can be particularly concerning when dealing with substances that may pose environmental or public health risks, although the specific hazards of the chemicals involved were not detailed in the settlement document. The system relies on self-reporting, and failures undermine the integrity of this regulatory structure.  

Profit-Maximization Incentives vs. Corporate Ethics

The legal document does not delve into the company’s motives for the alleged reporting failures. However, in a broader context shaped by neoliberal capitalism, corporate decision-making often faces pressures that can subordinate regulatory compliance to other concerns. Systems that intensely prioritize quarterly earnings, market share, and minimizing operational costs can create environments where meticulous, non-revenue-generating tasks like regulatory reporting might be overlooked or under-resourced. While RTP Company describes itself as a “world leader” with global operations, the alleged lapses occurred at its Minnesota facility concerning basic reporting obligations. This raises questions about internal controls and the priority placed on fulfilling environmental regulations versus optimizing production and commercial advantage.  

Potential Environmental & Public Health Risks from Non-Disclosure

Failure to report chemical imports isn’t just a paperwork violation; it carries potential real-world consequences. Without accurate data on the types and volumes of chemicals entering commerce, it becomes significantly harder to track potential exposures, understand environmental releases, or conduct comprehensive risk assessments. One of the chemicals RTP Company failed to report (CAS 1163-19-5) was already under specific regulatory scrutiny, suggesting heightened concern about its properties. The public and downstream users rely on the regulatory system, underpinned by data like the CDR, to ensure chemicals are managed safely. When that data is incomplete due to reporting failures, the system’s ability to protect public health is compromised.  

Corporate Accountability: A Settlement Without Admission

Miller Waste Mills resolved the allegations by agreeing to pay a civil penalty of $112,155. This amount was determined considering factors like the nature and gravity of the violations, the company’s ability to pay, its history (if any) of prior violations, and its degree of culpability.  

Crucially, however, as part of the Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO), the company did not admit to the factual allegations regarding the reporting failures. It admitted only the jurisdictional allegations. This type of settlement is common in regulatory enforcement but presents a challenge for genuine corporate accountability. It allows the company to end the legal proceeding and limit liability without formally acknowledging wrongdoing. While the company certified it is now complying with TSCA, the lack of admission means the public record remains ambiguous about the company’s acceptance of responsibility for the specific past failures alleged by the EPA. Furthermore, the CAFO explicitly states it resolves only the company’s liability for federal civil penalties for these specific violations and does not prevent EPA or the U.S. from pursuing other relief or criminal sanctions, nor does it affect the company’s ongoing responsibility to comply with all applicable laws.  

Legal Minimalism: Compliance as a Cost of Business?

The settlement structure, where a fine is paid but facts are not admitted, can exemplify a pattern sometimes referred to as “legal minimalism”. In economic systems that heavily incentivize profit, some corporations may approach regulation not as a fundamental ethical obligation, but as a cost center to be managed. Paying a fine, even a substantial one, might be viewed internally as more economically efficient than investing in robust, potentially costly compliance systems or challenging the regulator in protracted litigation. This approach fulfills the bare minimum legal requirement (resolving the enforcement action) without embracing the spirit of the law—which, in this case, is ensuring transparency about chemicals in commerce. The $112,155 penalty, while significant, must be viewed in the context of a company describing itself as a “world leader” in its industry.  

Conclusion: Transparency Demanded, Accountability Questioned

The enforcement action against Miller Waste Mills, Inc. underscores the critical importance of accurate and timely chemical reporting under TSCA. The alleged failure to disclose imports of multiple chemicals over several years represents a potential weakening of the regulatory safety net designed to monitor substances entering American communities and workplaces. While the company has paid a penalty and certified its current compliance, the settlement without admission of the alleged facts leaves lingering questions about full accountability. This case serves as a crucial reminder that robust regulatory oversight and corporate commitment to transparency are essential pillars for protecting public health and the environment, particularly within economic structures that can incentivize cutting corners.  

Frivolous or Serious Lawsuit? Assessment

This administrative action was a serious regulatory enforcement matter, not a frivolous lawsuit. It was initiated by the EPA under the authority of a major federal environmental statute, TSCA, to address specific, documented allegations of non-compliance with mandatory reporting rules. The allegations involved exceeding established quantitative import thresholds for multiple chemicals over several years and failing to meet legal reporting deadlines. The detailed citation of regulations and the imposition of a calculated civil penalty further underscore the legitimacy and seriousness of the proceeding.

TSCA-05-2025-0018_CAFO_MillerWasteMillsIncdbaRTPCompany_WinonaMN_17PGSDownload

You can find the CAFO between Miller / RTP Company and the EPA on the Environmental Protection Agency’s website: https://yosemite.epa.gov/OA/RHC/EPAAdmin.nsf/Filings/57670DBA3D72BAD485258C530068EF44/$File/TSCA-05-2025-0018_CAFO_MillerWasteMillsIncdbaRTPCompany_WinonaMN_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.

💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category

Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.