TL;DR:
Pregis Innovative Packaging LLC violated its Clean Air Act Title V permit by failing to maintain required incinerator temperatures, risking the release of harmful volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the air. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found repeated compliance lapses between 2020 and 2022 at the company’s Plymouth, Indiana facility. Pregis agreed to pay a $92,705 civil penalty.
The case reveals how regulatory leniency, weak oversight, and corporate cost-saving strategies enable environmental harm under a system that prioritizes profit over protection. Continue reading for a detailed look at the case’s timeline, violations, and the structural failures that made it possible.
Inside the Allegations: Corporate Misconduct
The EPA’s enforcement action against Pregis Innovative Packaging LLC centers on clear violations of the Clean Air Act. The Plymouth, Indiana facility was required under its Title V permit to maintain a continuous minimum combustion temperature in its regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs), devices designed to destroy volatile organic compounds before they escape into the atmosphere.
Pregis failed to maintain these temperatures on multiple occasions. From January 1, 2020, to March 20, 2022, the company’s monitoring records revealed that both its CE03 and CE04 oxidizers fell below required limits. These oxidizers are critical to reducing VOC emissions produced during the manufacturing of plastic packaging — emissions that contribute to smog, respiratory illness, and regional air degradation.
The EPA’s review of 273 operational days showed measurable lapses: CE03 operated below its mandated temperature on eight days, while CE04 did so on nine. Though these percentages (2.9% and 3.3% respectively) may seem minor, they represent days when the facility released pollutants at unsafe levels.
Pregis ultimately agreed to pay a $92,705 civil penalty. While the company neither admitted nor denied the allegations, it accepted the EPA’s jurisdiction, waived its right to appeal, and acknowledged the settlement as part of its compliance history — a significant concession that confirms accountability for ongoing violations of environmental law.
Timeline of Events
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| June 29, 2017 | Indiana Department of Environmental Management renews Pregis’s Title V Operating Permit. |
| March 13, 2019 | EPA conducts inspection at Pregis facility. |
| April 7, 2021 | EPA issues Information Request to Pregis. |
| May 24, 2022 | Pregis submits temperature records to EPA. |
| September 28, 2023 | EPA issues Finding of Violation for failure to maintain required temperatures. |
| April 24, 2024 | Pregis conducts compliance stack test for CE04, achieving 98% VOC destruction at 1578°F. |
| November 15, 2024 | CE03 retested, achieving 99.7% VOC destruction at 1639°F. |
| September 30, 2025 | EPA issues final Consent Agreement and Final Order, imposing a $92,705 penalty. |
Regulatory Capture & Loopholes
This case exemplifies how environmental enforcement operates within a structure tilted toward corporate leniency. Under the Clean Air Act, companies are expected to self-monitor emissions and report compliance data. Pregis’s own data revealed violations that persisted for more than two years before enforcement action was finalized.
The delay (from the first violations in 2020 to the final order in 2025) reflects the slow and negotiated nature of environmental oversight under neoliberal governance. Agencies, constrained by limited staffing and political pressure to maintain “business-friendly” operations, often rely on company cooperation rather than immediate penalties. Pregis was allowed multiple opportunities to “confer” with regulators and conduct follow-up tests before facing any meaningful consequence.
Such leniency is systemic, not exceptional. Environmental agencies frequently balance enforcement against economic interests, a reflection of regulatory capture where corporations shape the pace and tone of accountability. In practice, this often transforms environmental regulation into a procedural formality rather than an immediate safeguard for public health.
Profit-Maximization at All Costs
Pregis’s facility operates by injecting 100 percent volatile organic compounds as blowing agents into plastic extrusion — a process inherently pollutive and energy-intensive. Maintaining oxidizer temperatures requires consistent energy consumption, which translates to higher operating costs. Lowering temperatures, even temporarily, reduces natural gas use and costs.
This cost-saving incentive, embedded in a profit-driven corporate structure, encourages minimal compliance rather than rigorous safety. Under neoliberal capitalism, companies are rewarded for cost efficiency, not environmental integrity. Pregis’s lapses, though measured in degrees Fahrenheit, translate directly into profit margins — savings achieved at the expense of community health and atmospheric quality.
The Economic Fallout
The EPA’s $92,705 penalty represents a fraction of the company’s annual revenue and barely dents its financial position. For major industrial producers, such fines function as predictable costs of doing business rather than deterrents.
This economic imbalance perpetuates environmental degradation. When penalties are minor compared to profit margins, companies can externalize costs — polluting the air while leaving communities and taxpayers to bear the health and environmental burden. The fine’s modest scale reveals a broader systemic failure: under neoliberal regimes, the law punishes transgression symbolically, not economically.
Environmental & Public Health Risks
Volatile organic compounds are precursors to ground-level ozone, commonly known as smog, which aggravates asthma, damages lung tissue, and increases susceptibility to infection. The Plymouth facility’s inconsistent incineration temperatures meant VOCs were less effectively destroyed, directly elevating local exposure risks.
Even brief operational lapses can release large volumes of emissions. The company’s own data show days when its oxidizers ran below 1600°F — insufficient to guarantee complete combustion. Each such event releases invisible toxins into the surrounding environment, adding cumulative stress to local ecosystems and air quality.
Exploitation of Workers
Although the case focuses on environmental compliance, it indirectly reflects labor exploitation common to industrial systems prioritizing throughput. When operators are pressured to maintain production schedules while monitoring environmental controls, safety becomes secondary. Temperature deviations in the data likely correspond with production pressures — moments when operational continuity outweighed regulatory precision.
The absence of documented workplace protections in the filing underscores another pattern: labor invisibility in environmental enforcement. In capitalist systems, the same cost-cutting logic that compromises emissions control often undermines worker safety and compensation.
Community Impact: Local Lives Undermined
Plymouth, Indiana, a small manufacturing town, absorbs the consequences of industrial pollution without sharing in corporate gains. Airborne pollutants from VOCs accumulate locally, affecting children, seniors, and those with respiratory conditions.
The Clean Air Act was designed to prevent precisely this type of localized harm, yet the structure of enforcement ensures that remediation comes years after exposure. Pregis’s settlement, while final on paper, does little to repair the environmental or health damage already incurred by the community.
The PR Machine: Corporate Spin Tactics
Pregis has emphasized its “sustainability goals” and packaging innovation in public messaging, presenting itself as an environmentally conscious manufacturer. Yet its repeated failure to meet basic emissions controls contradicts that image. This disconnect illustrates a broader corporate strategy — framing compliance as innovation while operational practices lag behind.
Greenwashing thrives when oversight is reactive rather than proactive. Companies like Pregis invest more in sustainability branding than in maintaining the basic equipment performance their permits require. In effect, public relations become a more powerful environmental tool than the regulators tasked with enforcement.
Wealth Disparity & Corporate Greed
Pregis’s penalty exposes how wealth shields corporations from meaningful accountability. While the EPA meticulously outlines payment processes and tax reporting rules, the structure of punishment remains administratively polite. Executives face no personal liability. The company continues operations uninterrupted.
This insulation contrasts sharply with how individuals face the legal system. In a capitalist hierarchy, financial capacity determines the scale of consequence. For corporations, environmental penalties are absorbed as operational expenses — a luxury unavailable to the communities inhaling the resulting pollutants.
Global Parallels: A Pattern of Predation
Across industries, similar violations happen repeatedly. Whether they be oil refineries, chemical plants, and packaging manufacturers repeatedly breach air and water standards, pay nominal fines, and resume operations.
These are not failures of enforcement but symptoms of a shitty global system which values corporate profits above environmental justice.
Neoliberal capitalism disperses accountability through complex ownership structures and deferred settlements. Pregis’s five-year delay from violation to resolution mirrors cases across sectors, where time itself becomes a corporate asset used to outlast regulatory pressure.
Corporate Accountability Fails the Public
The EPA’s administrative process concludes the matter but does not resolve its harm. The $92,705 fine neither compensates affected residents nor funds community health initiatives. There is no requirement for Pregis to invest in local air monitoring or environmental restoration.
This outcome highlights the impotence of administrative enforcement in addressing structural pollution. When settlements lack restitution, they reduce environmental harm to a bookkeeping entry. Corporate accountability becomes a legal ritual, not a moral reckoning.
Legal Minimalism: Doing Just Enough to Stay Plausibly Legal
Pregis’ misconduct fits a broader pattern of legal minimalism: meeting the letter of the law while violating its purpose. The company recorded temperatures “continuously” (every fifteen minutes as required) but the recorded values often showed substandard operation. Compliance became an exercise in data entry, not environmental performance.
Such strategies exploit the narrowness of neoliberal regulation, where laws are designed for interpretability rather than enforceability. The result is a corporate landscape in which appearing compliant replaces being responsible.
How Capitalism Exploits Delay: The Strategic Use of Time
The EPA’s findings span from early 2020 to late 2025. Each procedural step (inspection, notice, conference, testing, and final order) took months or years. During that time, Pregis continued operating, likely under the same conditions that led to the violations.
Time in this system serves as a corporate defense mechanism. By stretching enforcement, companies profit from years of uncorrected operation before penalties are levied. In effect, delay becomes monetized noncompliance.
The Language of Legitimacy: How Courts Frame Harm
The settlement’s tone exemplifies bureaucratic neutrality. Words like “compliance,” “setpoint deviation,” and “administrative penalty” depoliticize the reality of pollution. The legal language transforms toxic emissions into technical discrepancies.
This linguistic framing is central to how neoliberal systems sustain legitimacy. By abstracting harm into administrative categories, they convert environmental injustice into paperwork. The community’s air becomes an entry in a consent decree.
This Is the System Working as Intended
Pregis’s case demonstrates that corporate pollution under neoliberal capitalism is not accidental. It is the predictable product of a system where profit maximization aligns with regulatory leniency. The EPA’s final order represents compliance with procedure, not protection of the public.
Environmental enforcement, stripped of political will, becomes a transactional process. Corporations pollute, regulators negotiate, and communities endure. This is not failure. It is the logical outcome of a system designed to preserve corporate profitability.
Conclusion
Pregis Innovative Packaging LLC’s violations of the Clean Air Act reveal the fragility of environmental protection under a deregulated economic order. The case shows how corporations can breach permits, delay accountability for years, and settle with penalties that barely register financially.
The Plymouth community remains the silent victim of this balance between industrial growth and environmental neglect. The consent decree offers closure on paper but none in practice. Pregis continues operations, and the air remains vulnerable to the same calculus that enabled the harm.
Frivolous or Serious Lawsuit?
The EPA’s case against Pregis represents a serious and well-substantiated enforcement action. The violations were documented through self-reported operational data and confirmed by agency inspection. The lawsuit’s significance lies not in its financial penalty but in its illustration of systemic dysfunction: how corporate environmental negligence persists under weak enforcement.
You can visit this following link to learn more about the specific acts of corporate misconduct in this pollution story: https://yosemite.epa.gov/OA/RHC/EPAAdmin.nsf/Filings/8EFEC387ACB7804A85258D1600170A18/$File/CAA-05-2025-0001_CAFO_PregisInnovativePackagingLLC_PlymouthIndiana_16PGS.pdf
đź’ˇ 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.
