Sayers Prosecution Sentencing Memorandum

Case 2:19-cr-20016-SJM-DRG ECF No. 19 filed 10/11/19 PageID.
79 Page 1 of 21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, Case No. 2:19-20016
V. Hon. Stephen J. Murphy, III
D-1 GARY SAYERS, and

D-2 ELECTRO-PLATING
SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
The United States of America respectfully submits this sentencing
memorandum in this case where the defendants illegally stored
hazardous waste. The Government recommends that the Court impose
a guidelines sentence in the middle of the applicable range for
Defendant Gary Alfred Sayers, impose a criminal fine on Defendants
Sayers and Electro-Plating Services, Inc. (EPS), and order restitution to
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its costs
in cleaning up the hazardous wastes from the defendants’ property.
1
Case 2:19-cr-20016-SJM-DRG ECF No. 19 filed 10/11/19 PageID.80 Page 2 of 21
I. PRELIMINARY MATTERS
1. Presentence Investigation Reports (PSR). The Probation
Department issued a PSR for Defendant Gary Sayers on August 16,
2019, and for Defendant Electro-Plating Services, Inc. (EPS), on August
22, 2019.
2. Acceptance of Responsibility. The PSR for Defendant Sayers
calculates a deduction of three points from the offense level for
acceptance of responsibility pursuant to section 3E1.1 of the Sentencing
Guidelines and as reflected in the Plea Agreement.
II. INTRODUCTION
On January 10, 2019, the government filed a one-count
Information charging Defendant Sayers and his company, Defendant
EPS, with Illegal Storage of Hazardous Waste, in violation of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 42 U.S.C. §
6928(d)(2)(A). The offense occurred from on or about May 13, 2016,
through April 17, 2017. Forfeiture Allegations, 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C)
and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), also were included in the Information.
On February 14, 2019, Sayers and EPS each entered pleas of
guilty to Count 1 of the Information. The Court accepted their guilty
2
pleas and written Rule 11 Plea Agreements. The offense calls for no
more than 5 years imprisonment and/or a $250,000 fine (Class D
Felony). Sentencing is scheduled for October 28, 2019.
III. HISTORY OF SAYERS’ AND EPS’ CONDUCT
EPS was in the business of plating metals to other surfaces using
electric currents and electrolyte solutions. By no later than 1996, Sayers
had acquired EPS from his father, and became both its president and
owner. The business operated at 945 East 10 Mile Road in Madison
Heights, Michigan. There, EPS conducted various types of electro-
plating operations, which resulted in the generation and storage of
large quantities of hazardous waste including cyanide, chromium,
nickel, chloride, trichloroethylene and various acids and bases. In 2002,
Sayers bought the real estate of Commonwealth Heat Treat, at 5900
Commonwealth Street in Detroit.
On December 20, 1996, the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ) began its efforts to bring EPS into
compliance with environmental requirements concerning hazardous
waste when it issued a Letter of Warning (LOW) to EPS following an
inspection of the Madison Heights location. The LOW identified various
3
violations of hazardous waste laws including failure to conduct
hazardous waste characterization analyses, failure to properly label
containers, and failure to close containers.
On October 25, 2004, the MDEQ issued a LOW to EPS following
another inspection of the Madison Heights location, citing the company
for illegal storage of hazardous waste, and other violations including
those that raised the risk of fire, explosion, and release of hazardous
waste. The MDEQ issued another LOW on June 30, 2005, after it
inspected the Detroit facility and found EPS was not conducting
hazardous waste characterization analyses, not providing hazardous
waste manifests, and not properly labeling hazardous waste containers.
After the MDEQ issued another LOW to EPS on June 7, 2005, for
illegally transporting 535 55-gallon drums of hazardous waste from the
Madison Heights location to the Detroit location, which were then
illegally stored at the Detroit location, Defendant Sayers was charged
criminally in 36th District Court, State of Michigan, with the illegal
transportation. He pleaded guilty on November 14, 2005.
Two months later, on January 26, 2006, the MDEQ issued another
LOW to EPS for failing to correct the violations cited in the June 7 and
4
June 30, 2005, LOWs. Correction of those violations was a condition of
Sayers’ plea agreement. Subsequently, on March 21, 2007, the MDEQ
identified the following violations at the Detroit location, among others:
ongoing illegal storage of hazardous waste, failure to conduct hazardous
waste characterization analyses, and failure to properly label hazardous
waste containers. On March 22, 2007, the 36th District Court Judge
ordered Sayers to complete removal of cyanide and hydrochloric acid
(HCL) containers from the Detroit location.1
On August 20, 2007, the MDEQ issued a LOW to EPS after again
inspecting the Madison Heights location. This LOW identified the
following violations, among others: illegal storage of hazardous waste,
failure to conduct hazardous waste characteristic analyses, and failure
to properly label hazardous waste containers. On June 6, 2008, the
MDEQ issued another LOW to EPS following another inspection, for
failure to provide documentation of hazardous waste characterization
analyses.
1
On June 14, 2007, the MDEQ determined that Sayers had removed the cyanide
and HCL from the Detroit location, which was a condition of his plea agreement.
The 36th District Court Judge subsequently discharged Sayers from probation.
5
On April 13, 2010, the MDEQ and Sayers on behalf of EPS
entered into a Consent Order in which EPS agreed not to store
hazardous waste more than 90 days, to analyze all waste generated for
hazardous characteristics, to maintain all waste characterization
analysis documents, and to properly label all containers with hazardous
waste. These were existing legal requirements for hazardous waste
generators under RCRA.
IV. THE OFFENSE CONDUCT
On June 6, 2016, the MDEQ sent a Violation Notice to EPS after
it conducted an inspection the previous month of the Madison Heights
location. The violations included: illegal storage of hazardous waste,
failure to provide documentation of hazardous waste characterization
analysis, and failure to store hazardous waste safely. Exhibit A, June 6,
2016 Violation Notice.
The MDEQ performed another inspection of the Madison Heights
location on November 16, 2016, during which Sayers admitted to the
MDEQ that:
 He had not removed any hazardous waste since at least May

13, 2016, the date of the MDEQ’s last inspection.
6
 He could not identify the contents of numerous liquid waste

containers with no or unclear labels.
 He had an uncovered metal bin containing cyanide waste.
 He stored electroplating waste in an open pit in the

basement.
On December 2, 2016, the MDEQ issued a Violation Notice to
EPS, which identified the following:
 Over 5,000 containers of liquid and solid waste.
 Unlabeled, open and improperly stored containers.
 Hazardous waste stored without a permit.
Exhibit B, December 2, 2016 Violation Notice.
In January 2017, the EPA’s Emergency Response Branch initiated
a Superfund removal action after its own inspection of the Madison
Heights location had determined that time-critical action was required
due to the nature and threats imposed by the hazardous wastes stored
there.
The EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division executed a search
warrant on August 1 and 2, 2017, which included sampling of wastes.
Exhibit C, Photographs from Search. Representative samples from 12
drums stored at the facility tested positive for the RCRA hazardous
7
waste characteristic of corrosivity (pH of 2 or lower, or pH of 12.5 or
higher); representative samples from one drum and one tank stored at
the facility contained concentrations of chromium greater than the
RCRA regulatory level for toxicity of 5 mg/l; a sample collected from a
pit in the basement contained concentrations of chromium greater than
the RCRA regulatory level for toxicity; and four representative samples
from containers stored at the facility contained cyanide that exhibited
the RCRA waste characteristic of reactivity.2
The EPA removal action at the Madison Heights facility began in
April 2017. The EPA removed thousands of pounds of hazardous wastes
offsite for treatment and disposal at a direct cost to the government of
approximately $1,449,963.94. The removal action was completed on or
about January 4, 2018. Exhibit D, EPA Report.
At no point in time relevant to this plea, did Sayers or EPS have a
permit to store hazardous waste at EPS.
V. SENTENCING GUIDELINES
A. SUMMARY
2
“Reactivity”
means the material, under certain conditions, can react violently or
generate toxic gases, vapors, or fumes in a quantity that presents a present danger
to human health or the environment. See 40 C.F.R. § 261.23(a).
8
There are no sentencing guideline disputes.3 The PSR calculated
the applicable advisory sentencing guidelines range at 12-18 months,
which is consistent with the guidelines range agreed to by the parties in
the plea agreement. The breakdown under U.S.S.G. § 2Q1.2, which
covers the mishandling of hazardous pollutants under RCRA, is as
follows:
Base offense level: 8

Substantial expenditure for cleanup 4
Storage without a permit and/or in violation of a permit 4
Subtotal: 16
Acceptance of Responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1: -3
Total: 13
A level 13 calculation calls for a sentence of incarceration of between 12
and 18 months under the Sentencing Guidelines (Sentencing Table).
B. Base Offense Level
The guidelines sentence for Count One, the unpermitted storage of
hazardous waste, a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(2)(A), is determined
3
Corporations convicted of environmental crimes are subject to the provisions of
Chapter 8 of the sentencing guidelines, with one major exception. Environmental
offenses (i.e., offenses subject to Part 2Q of the guidelines) are exempt from the
Chapter 8 provisions relating to fines. See U.S.S.G. § 8C2.1 and comment
(backg’d).
9
using U.S.S.G. § 2Q1.2. Under section 2Q1.2, the applicable base
offense level for an offense that involves the mishandling of hazardous
or toxic substances is 8.
C. Specific Offense Characteristic – Cleanup Requiring

Substantial Expenditure
The government submits and the parties agree that a 4-level
upward adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Q1.2(b)(3) is warranted
because “cleanup required a substantial expenditure.” The Defendants’
RCRA offense of illegally storing hundreds of containers of hazardous
wastes resulted in a Superfund cleanup that required EPA to expend
$1,449,963.94 in direct costs. Courts have generally held that
expenditures in excess of $100,000 are “substantial” for the purpose of
this specific offense characteristic.4 EPA’s direct costs of $1,449,963.94
readily establish that this enhancement is warranted.
D. Specific Offense Characteristic – Storage of Hazardous

Wastes without a Permit
4
See United States v. Colvin, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 33616 at *3 (9th Cir. Dec.
20, 2000) (applying four-level enhancement where cleanup costs were estimated at
between $600,000 and $1,000,000); United States v. Cunningham, 194 F.3d 1186,
1202 (11th Cir. 1999)(applying enhancement where cleanup costs totaled
$147,716.66); United States v. Bogas, 920 F.2d 363, 369 (6th Cir. 1990)
(expenditure of more than $100,000 substantial).
10
The government submits and the parties agree that a 4-level
upward adjustment should be applied in accordance with U.S.S.G. §
2Q1.2(b)(4) because the RCRA offense conduct involved “storage . . . of
hazardous wastes without a permit.” The defendants stipulated as part
of the factual basis in the plea agreement that as of November 15, 2016,
they had not removed the hazardous they had accumulated at EPS
since the last MDEQ inspection on May 13, 2016. The waste remained
at the facility until January 2017, when the EPA began its cleanup. All
the while, neither Defendant had a permit to store hazardous waste at
the facility under RCRA.
Based on the foregoing calculations, the government submits that
Defendant’s final total offense level, after a reduction of three levels for
acceptance of responsibility, is 13.
VI. SECTION 3553(a) FACTORS
Once the sentencing judge has calculated the guideline range, the
Court next considers the seven factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to
determine the appropriate sentence. Those factors are: “the nature and
circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the
defendant,” id. § 3553(a)(1); “the need for the sentence imposed” in light
11
of four specified purposes of sentencing, id. § 3553(a)(2); “the kinds of
sentences available,” id. § 3553(a)(3); “the kinds of sentence and the
sentencing range” for the offense as established by the Guidelines, id.§
3553(a)(4); “any pertinent policy statement” issued by the U.S.
Sentencing Commission, id. § 3553(a)(5); “the need to avoid
unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar
records who have been found guilty of similar conduct,” id. § 3553(a)(6);
and finally “the need to provide restitution to any victims of the
offense,” id. § 3553(a)(7). See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50 &
n.6 (2007). Section 3553(a) directs judges to “impose a sentence
sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes
set forth in paragraph (2).” Those purposes are “the need for the
sentence imposed –
(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect
for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant;
and
12
(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or
vocational training, medical care, or other correctional
treatment in the most effective manner.”
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).
For the reasons set forth below, in this case a sentence in the
middle of the Guidelines range of 12-18 months’ imprisonment, a fine,
and restitution to the EPA for its direct cleanup costs are warranted to
meet the objectives in section 3553(a).
A. DISCUSSION
1. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense.
The nature of this case is a serious matter involving risks to
human health and the environment from hazardous wastes the
defendants illegally stored in a populated neighborhood in Madison
Heights, Michigan. Exhibit E, Map of Area. The defendants stored used,
waste chemicals with the characteristics for reactivity, corrosivity, and
toxicity, as well as a listed waste (wastewater treatment sludge (F006
listed hazardous waste)) and one acutely hazardous waste (sodium
cyanide (P106)) inside the EPS Madison Heights facility. By stockpiling
these wastes in a dangerous and unlawful manner, Sayers and EPS
13
created serious and unacceptable risks for which a sentence that
includes a term of imprisonment is appropriate.
Sayers and EPS have an extensive criminal and civil enforcement
history involving illegal handling, storage, and transportation of
hazardous wastes generated by EPS. On May 13, 2016, the MDEQ
inspected EPS, and followed up in November 2016, with the Madison
Heights Fire Department (MHFD) and local building inspectors. The
Defendants had filled the facility with thousands of containers
(estimated at over 5,000 containers) of liquid and solid waste,
chemicals, equipment, and debris. The volume and disorganization of
containers, equipment, and debris resulted in blocked exits and
impassible portions of the facility. The state inspectors observed
numerous unlabeled, open, improperly stored, and/or corroded
containers. Waste and chemicals at the facility included acids, bases,
metal oxides, cyanide, and chlorinated solvents. Attachment B.
The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services
determined that the conditions at the EPS facility were an imminent
and substantial hazard to public health, and deemed it unfit to be
occupied. The MHFD ordered all operations inside the facility to cease
14
and instituted a 24-hour Fire Watch. On December 21, 2016, the MDEQ
issued an Order to EPS to “Cease and Desist Operations.”
In December 2016, the EPA’s Superfund team began its own
assessment at the EPS facility. The EPA found that given the facility’s
condition and the nature of the contaminants, actual or threatened
releases of hazardous substances from the facility presented an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare,
and/or the environment. Among other dangers to the public, the EPA
observed sodium cyanide drums located on the same level as the plating
bathes full of acids and exposed to precipitation from the holes in the
roof and windows. The plating baths were uncovered and corroded.
Additionally, EPS and Sayers had stored drums of oxidizers and nitric
acid next to each other near the cyanide drums.5
Sampling under authority of a search warrant, the EPA found
drums with corrosive hazardous wastes, a drum and a tank with
concentrations of chromium greater than the RCRA regulatory level for
5
According the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for sodium cyanide, if it comes into
contact with moisture/water and/or acids, it will react to form hydrogen cyanide
gas: a toxic and flammable gas. Mixtures of metal cyanides with metal chlorates,
perchlorates, or nitrates could cause violent explosions.
15
toxicity, an open pit in the basement with concentrations of chromium
that also exceeded the RCRA regulatory limit, and containers that
contained cyanide that exhibited the RCRA hazardous waste
characteristic of reactivity. At no time did Sayers or EPS have a permit
to store hazardous waste.
2. The History and Characteristics of the Defendant.
Sayers is an experienced businessman who ran EPS as its
President and owner for approximately 23 years. He has had numerous
run-ins with environmental authorities over the years concerning his
repeated violations of hazardous waste laws including a prior criminal
conviction, and knew what was required to comply with the law. In fact,
after his first conviction he entered into a Consent Order where he
agreed to comply with his obligations under RCRA. Despite all this, he
knowingly and persistently violated the law.
3. Need for the Sentence to Reflect the Seriousness of the

Offense, to Promote Respect for the Law, and to
Provide Just Punishment.
To reflect the seriousness of the offense, Sayers should be
sentenced to a term of incarceration. His knowing violations of
hazardous waste laws created a substantial threat to the community
and by avoiding the upfront costs of disposing of the hazardous wastes

16
appropriately, he caused the government to pay for a more costly clean-
up.
To promote respect for the law, the Court should sentence Sayers
to a term of imprisonment. As noted above, he is an environmental
crimes recidivist, having been convicted of violating State of Michigan
hazardous waste laws. His prior sentence of probation failed to deter
him from re-engaging in violating hazardous waste laws.
4. Need for the Sentence to Afford Adequate Deterrence to

Criminal Conduct and to Protect the Public from Further
Crimes of the Defendant.
A sentence of a term of imprisonment is necessary to afford
adequate deterrence to criminal conduct and to protect the public from
further crimes by the defendant. The principle of general deterrence is
especially important in environmental crime cases where the regulatory
scheme routinely relies on regulated parties voluntarily complying with
the applicable legal requirements of hazardous waste laws like RCRA.
Criminal violations of such laws must be dealt with strictly if the
integrity of the environmental regulatory programs are to be respected
and the goals of protecting human health and the environment are to be
achieved.
17
In sentencing defendants in environmental crime cases other
courts have recognized that “Managers of those businesses need to
understand that if they make the choice that [defendant] made – to lie
and cover up the violations on this scale – they face more than fines and
civil penalties as a cost of doing business. They face prison.” United
States v. Hagerman, 525 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1067 (S.D. Ind.
2007)(Defendant sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment for Clean
Water Act false statements).6
5. A Sentence within the Guidelines Range will avoid

Unwarranted Disparities in Sentencing
Imposition of a sentence within the Guidelines range promotes
“the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants
with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.” 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). The government is requesting a sentence in the
middle of the applicable Guidelines range of 12 – 18 months.
6. Provide Restitution to Victims.
6
Defendant Sayers entered into a Consent Decree in 2010 with the MDEQ in
which he committed to complying with legal obligations regarding hazardous
waste at EPS. He failed to do so.
18
The EPA spent $1,449,963.94 in direct costs to remediate the
Defendants’ facility. Restitution is available as a condition of supervised
release or probation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(2) (authorizing
court to order, as a condition of supervised release, “any condition set
forth as a discretionary condition of probation in section 3563(b),” which
includes making restitution to a victim of the offense. 18 U.S.C. §
3563(b)(2)).
A “victim” is defined as a “person directly and proximately harmed
as the result of the commission of an offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(2)
and § 3663A(a)(2). The government qualifies as a victim when, as here,
it has suffered a monetary loss resulting directly from the defendant’s
criminal conduct. See cases cited in United States v. Martin, 128 F.3d
1188, 1190-92 (7th Cir. 1997) and Ratliff v. United States, 999 F.2d
1023, 1027 (6th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Sawyer, 825 F.3d
287, 294-99 (6th Cir. 2016) (affirming restitution to EPA for costs
incurred in cleaning up asbestos contamination under CERCLA);
United States v. Phillips, 367 F.3d 846, 863 (9th Cir. 2004) (government
victim when violation of RCRA causes CERCLA cleanup costs); United
States v. Overholt, 307 F.3d 1231, 1253-54 (10th Cir. 2002).
19
B. FINE
The Court should impose a substantial fine. The statutory
maximum for Sayers is $250,000, and for EPS, $500,000. 18 U.S.C. §
3571. Sayers recently signed an agreement to sell the property located
at 5900 Commonwealth in Detroit for $2,500,000, which he stated he
purchased for $125,000.00. No balance or mortgage exists for the
property.
VII. CONCLUSION
Pursuant to the section 3553(a) factors, the United States
respectfully recommends that the Court sentence Defendant Sayers to a
term of imprisonment, order both Defendants to pay restitution to the
EPA, and impose a substantial fine.
Respectfully submitted,
MATTHEW J. SCHNEIDER JEFFREY B. CLARK

United States Attorney Assistant Attorney General
Eastern District of Michigan Environment & Natural Resources
Division
/s/ Sara D. Woodward /s/Krishna S. Dighe

SARA D. WOODWARD KRISHNA S. DIGHE
Assistant United States Attorney Senior Counsel
Eastern District of Michigan Environmental Crimes Section
U.S. Department of Justice
October 11, 2019
20
Certificate of Service
I certify that on October 11, 2019, I electronically filed the above

and foregoing via the Court’s electronic ECF filing system, which will
send notification to all counsel of record via the Notice of Electronic Filing
system.
/s/ Sara D. Woodward

SARA D. WOODWARD
Assistant United States Attorney
Eastern District of Michigan
21

Sayers Prosecution Sentencing Memorandum

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sayers Prosecution Sentencing Memorandum

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sayers Prosecution Sentencing Memorandum

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:19-cr-20016-SJM-DRG ECF No. 19 filed 10/11/19 PageID.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:19-20016

V. Hon. Stephen J. Murphy, III

D-1 GARY SAYERS, and

UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

The United States of America respectfully submits this sentencing

memorandum in this case where the defendants illegally stored

hazardous waste. The Government recommends that the Court impose

a guidelines sentence in the middle of the applicable range for

Defendant Gary Alfred Sayers, impose a criminal fine on Defendants

Sayers and Electro-Plating Services, Inc. (EPS), and order restitution to

in cleaning up the hazardous wastes from the defendants’ property.

1. Presentence Investigation Reports (PSR). The Probation

Department issued a PSR for Defendant Gary Sayers on August 16,

2019, and for Defendant Electro-Plating Services, Inc. (EPS), on August

2. Acceptance of Responsibility. The PSR for Defendant Sayers

calculates a deduction of three points from the offense level for

acceptance of responsibility pursuant to section 3E1.1 of the Sentencing

Guidelines and as reflected in the Plea Agreement.

On January 10, 2019, the government filed a one-count

Information charging Defendant Sayers and his company, Defendant

EPS, with Illegal Storage of Hazardous Waste, in violation of the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 42 U.S.C. §

6928(d)(2)(A). The offense occurred from on or about May 13, 2016,

through April 17, 2017. Forfeiture Allegations, 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C)

and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), also were included in the Information.

On February 14, 2019, Sayers and EPS each entered pleas of

guilty to Count 1 of the Information. The Court accepted their guilty

more than 5 years imprisonment and/or a $250,000 fine (Class D

Felony). Sentencing is scheduled for October 28, 2019.

III. HISTORY OF SAYERS’ AND EPS’ CONDUCT

EPS was in the business of plating metals to other surfaces using

electric currents and electrolyte solutions. By no later than 1996, Sayers

owner. The business operated at 945 East 10 Mile Road in Madison

Heights, Michigan. There, EPS conducted various types of electro-

plating operations, which resulted in the generation and storage of

large quantities of hazardous waste including cyanide, chromium,

nickel, chloride, trichloroethylene and various acids and bases. In 2002,

Sayers bought the real estate of Commonwealth Heat Treat, at 5900

Commonwealth Street in Detroit.

On December 20, 1996, the Michigan Department of

Environmental Quality (MDEQ) began its efforts to bring EPS into

compliance with environmental requirements concerning hazardous

waste when it issued a Letter of Warning (LOW) to EPS following an

inspection of the Madison Heights location. The LOW identified various

violations of hazardous waste laws including failure to conduct

hazardous waste characterization analyses, failure to properly label

containers, and failure to close containers.

On October 25, 2004, the MDEQ issued a LOW to EPS following

another inspection of the Madison Heights location, citing the company

for illegal storage of hazardous waste, and other violations including

hazardous waste characterization analyses, not providing hazardous

waste manifests, and not properly labeling hazardous waste containers.

illegally transporting 535 55-gallon drums of hazardous waste from the

Madison Heights location to the Detroit location, which were then

illegally stored at the Detroit location, Defendant Sayers was charged

criminally in 36th District Court, State of Michigan, with the illegal