Corporate Misconduct Case Study: The Meyers Printing Companies, Inc. & Its Impact on Environmental Safety
TLDR: The Meyers Printing Companies, Inc., a Minnesota-based printing business, has been cited for multiple violations of hazardous waste regulations, including failing to notify authorities of its status as a large quantity generator of hazardous waste over several years, improper storage of hazardous materials, and failures in biennial reporting and used oil management. The company agreed to a settlement of $18,441 without admitting to the factual allegations. This case raises troubling concerns about corporate responsibility and the effectiveness of regulatory oversight in protecting communities and the environment.
Read on for a detailed breakdown of the allegations and a critique of the systemic issues at play.
Inside the Allegations: A Pattern of Corporate Misconduct
The core of the case against The Meyers Printing Companies, Inc. revolves around its handling of hazardous waste, specifically silver and solvent waste generated from cleaning printing press equipment. The company was accused of multiple violations, indicating a potential systemic breakdown in its environmental compliance procedures.
One of the primary allegations involves the company’s failure to properly notify authorities about its hazardous waste activities. For an extended period, from at least November 2021 until March 11, 2024, Meyers Printing allegedly did not submit a notification of the change of its facility’s type of hazardous waste activity to Large Quantity Generator (LQG) status. This notification is a critical first step in the regulatory process, ensuring that authorities are aware of the extent of hazardous waste being produced and can apply appropriate oversight. The company only fulfilled this notification requirement on March 11, 2024, via a biennial report submission.
Linked to this, the company was also cited for failing to submit a Biennial Report for the reporting year 2021 by the March 1, 2022 deadline. Such reports are essential for tracking the generation, management, and disposal of hazardous waste, providing crucial data for environmental agencies. Meyers Printing submitted the overdue 2021 report on March 11, 2024.
Perhaps the most direct environmental concern stems from allegations of storing hazardous waste without a permit or interim status, and failing to meet the conditions for exemption.
Regulations allow generators to accumulate hazardous waste on-site for 90 days or less without a permit, provided they comply with strict conditions, including keeping containers closed except when adding or removing waste. During a U.S. EPA inspection on January 8, 2024, one container labeled “Hazardous Waste” was allegedly found open when waste was not being added or removed. This single failure, according to the EPA, meant the company did not satisfy a condition for maintaining its exemption, thereby becoming an operator of a hazardous waste storage facility without a permit, a significant violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Further inspections revealed alleged deficiencies in the company’s management of used oil and universal waste. Two containers of used oil were reportedly not labeled with the words “Used Oil,” and one container of used oil filters was labeled “Oil Filters” instead of the required “Used Oil Filters.” Additionally, six boxes of waste lamps (a type of universal waste) were allegedly not managed in closed containers, and three containers of universal waste batteries were not labeled with any of the required phrases such as “Universal Waste—Battery(ies).”
Timeline of Alleged Misconduct and Regulatory Actions
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| November 1980 (on or before) | Facility was generating and managing hazardous waste. |
| November 2021 | Company allegedly generated 1000 kilograms or greater of hazardous waste, becoming a Large Quantity Generator for that month. |
| November 2021 – March 11, 2024 | Alleged failure to submit notification of change to Large Quantity Generator status for relevant months. |
| March 1, 2022 | Deadline for submitting Biennial Report for reporting year 2021; company allegedly failed to meet this. |
| March 2022 | Company allegedly generated 1000 kilograms or greater of hazardous waste, becoming a Large Quantity Generator for that month. |
| October 2022 | Company allegedly generated 1000 kilograms or greater of hazardous waste, becoming a Large Quantity Generator for that month. |
| September 2023 | Company allegedly generated 1000 kilograms or greater of hazardous waste, becoming a Large Quantity Generator for that month. |
| January 8, 2024 | U.S. EPA conducted a Compliance Evaluation Inspection of the Facility. |
| January 8, 2024 | Alleged failure to keep one hazardous waste container closed when not adding or removing waste. |
| January 8, 2024 | Alleged failure to label two used oil containers correctly. |
| January 8, 2024 | Alleged failure to label one used oil filter container correctly. |
| January 8, 2024 | Alleged failure to manage six boxes of waste lamps in closed containers. |
| January 8, 2024 | Alleged failure to correctly label three containers of universal waste batteries. |
| March 11, 2024 | Company submitted notification of Large Quantity Generator status via a biennial report. |
| March 11, 2024 | Company submitted the Biennial Report for the year 2021. |
| October 24, 2024 | U.S. EPA sent Respondent a Notice of Violation. |
| October 29, 2024 | Respondent submitted a written response to the Notice of Violation. |
| April 25, 2025 | Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) filed, with Respondent agreeing to pay a civil penalty of $18,441. |
Regulatory Framework: A System Reliant on Corporate Diligence
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) establishes a comprehensive “cradle-to-grave” system for managing hazardous waste. While the U.S. EPA sets federal standards, it can authorize states to administer their own hazardous waste programs.
Minnesota received such authorization in 1985. This means companies like Meyers Printing are subject to both state and federal regulations, with state rules often incorporating and sometimes exceeding federal requirements.
The system heavily relies on generators like Meyers Printing to correctly identify, quantify, and report their hazardous waste. The alleged failure to notify authorities of its Large Quantity Generator status for several years highlights a potential flaw: if a company doesn’t self-identify correctly, it may operate under a less stringent regulatory regime than appropriate, potentially bypassing crucial safety and handling requirements. This case underscores the importance of accurate self-reporting and the limitations of a system that can be undermined by corporate non-compliance or ignorance.
The provision allowing 90-day on-site accumulation of hazardous waste without a permit is a practical measure for businesses, but it comes with strict conditions.
The instance of an open hazardous waste container at Meyers Printing demonstrates how even a seemingly minor lapse can trigger a significant violation, reclassifying the company as an unpermitted storage facility. This illustrates that the “privilege” of permit-exempt accumulation is contingent on meticulous adherence to all conditions—a responsibility that rests squarely on the generator.
Profit-Maximization Incentives: A Silent Contributor?
The legal document does not explicitly state the motives behind Meyers Printing’s alleged regulatory shortcomings. However, in a neoliberal capitalist system, the relentless pressure to maximize profits can incentivize behaviors that, intentionally or unintentionally, lead to non-compliance. Proper hazardous waste management—including meticulous record-keeping, training, appropriate containers, timely reporting, and potentially higher disposal costs for larger quantities—incurs expenses.
Delaying notification of LQG status, for example, might defer the implementation of more rigorous (and potentially more costly) waste management practices associated with that status.
Similarly, failures in labeling or container management could stem from inadequate training, insufficient staffing, or a deprioritization of environmental compliance tasks in favor of production-focused activities. While these are general observations about systemic pressures, the pattern of multiple alleged oversights at Meyers Printing warrants consideration of whether cost-saving pressures, however subtle, contributed to the lapses. The drive for efficiency, if not balanced with a robust compliance culture, can lead to corners being cut.
Environmental & Public Health Risks: The Unseen Dangers
The hazardous wastes allegedly mishandled by Meyers Printing—silver and solvent waste (D001 for ignitability, D002 for corrosivity, D011 for silver toxicity, and F003 for certain spent non-halogenated solvents)—are not benign. Solvents can be flammable and pose risks to human health through inhalation or skin contact. Silver, in certain forms and concentrations, can be toxic to aquatic life and potentially harmful to humans.
Improper storage, such as leaving containers open, can lead to the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the atmosphere, contributing to air pollution and potential health issues for workers and the surrounding community.
Unlabeled or mislabeled containers of hazardous waste or used oil increase the risk of improper handling, commingling of incompatible wastes, or accidental exposure. While the document details specific instances of non-compliance rather than documented environmental releases, these regulatory breaches are designed to prevent such occurrences precisely because of the inherent risks. The alleged failures point to an elevated risk profile at the facility.
Corporate Accountability: A Slap on the Wrist?
The Meyers Printing Companies, Inc. agreed to a civil penalty of $18,441 to settle the allegations. The U.S. EPA stated that in determining this penalty, it considered the seriousness of the violations and any good faith efforts to comply, as well as its RCRA Civil Penalty Policy. Importantly, the company consented to the assessment of the penalty and the terms of the Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) but did so “neither admitting nor denying the factual allegations.”
This “neither admit nor deny” clause is a common feature in such settlements. It allows companies to resolve legal actions without a formal admission of guilt, which can have implications for future litigation or public perception.
However, for the public, it can feel like an insufficient form of accountability, especially when the alleged violations span several years or involve multiple failures. The penalty of $18,441, when set against the potential costs of full compliance over the period of alleged non-compliance or the maximum statutory penalty of up to $124,426 per day for each violation, may be viewed by some as a relatively minor cost of doing business rather than a significant deterrent.
The CAFO resolves the company’s liability for federal civil penalties for the specific violations alleged. It does not, however, affect the right of the U.S. EPA or the United States to pursue injunctive relief or criminal sanctions for any violations of law. The company also certified that it is now fully complying with the provisions it was accused of violating. This corrective action is positive, but the question remains whether the penalty and the settlement structure truly address the underlying causes of the alleged non-compliance and adequately deter future lapses.
This Is the System Working as Intended?
From a critical perspective, cases like The Meyers Printing Companies, Inc. can be seen as predictable outcomes within a capitalist system where regulatory compliance is often weighed against profit margins. While regulations exist, their enforcement can be sporadic, and penalties may not always be stringent enough to outweigh the perceived economic benefits of non-compliance or deferred compliance. The reliance on self-reporting, while necessary, has inherent vulnerabilities.
The outcome—a settlement without admission of factual wrongdoing and a monetary penalty—is typical. It allows the regulatory agency to claim a victory in enforcement and the company to move forward without the full weight of a legal judgment against it. However, it may not fundamentally alter the economic calculus that can lead to such violations in the first place. For meaningful change, there needs to be a systemic shift where the costs of non-compliance (both financial and reputational) are so significant that they invariably outweigh any potential savings from cutting corners on environmental protection.
Conclusion: A Case for Stronger Oversight and Corporate Conscience
The case of The Meyers Printing Companies, Inc. serves as a reminder of the constant vigilance required to protect environmental safety in an industrialized society!
The violations, ranging from failures in notification and reporting to improper handling of hazardous materials, highlight potential weaknesses in corporate environmental management systems. While the company has agreed to a penalty and certified its return to compliance, the episode underscores the importance of robust regulatory oversight, stringent enforcement, and a corporate culture that prioritizes environmental responsibility not just as a legal obligation but as a core ethical commitment.
Without a fundamental shift that makes meticulous environmental care an inviolable aspect of corporate operations, potentially incentivized by far more punitive measures for lapses, the pattern of violations seen here is likely to be repeated elsewhere. Communities and the environment bear the ultimate risk when such systems falter.
Frivolous or Serious Lawsuit?
The action taken by the U.S. EPA against The Meyers Printing Companies, Inc. appears to be a serious and legitimate exercise of regulatory authority.
The allegations, detailed across several counts, point to specific failures to comply with established hazardous waste management regulations under RCRA and corresponding Minnesota state rules. These regulations are in place to prevent harm to human health and the environment from the improper handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances.
The findings of the EPA inspection—such as open hazardous waste containers, unlabeled used oil, and improperly stored universal waste—are factual observations of non-compliance with clear regulatory requirements.
The failure to notify authorities of Large Quantity Generator status for an extended period is a significant oversight that can undermine the entire regulatory framework for that facility. Therefore, the legal action, culminating in a Consent Agreement and Final Order, reflects a meaningful grievance based on documented evidence of regulatory breaches, not a frivolous claim. The settlement, while perhaps debatable in its amount, addresses concrete violations that carry potential risks.
You can read more about this consent agreement between The Meyers Printing Companies and The EPA by visiting this following link: https://yosemite.epa.gov/OA/rhc/EPAAdmin.nsf/Filings/DECFA8C53783EC7E85258C77007114E2/$File/RCRA-05-2025-0002_CAFO_TheMeyersPrintingCompaniesInc_BrooklynParkMinnesota_18PGS.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.
