On the surface, the small town of Conway, North Carolina, might seem like just another quiet stop along the highways of the American South. Surrounded by farmland and overshadowed by the more populous metropolitan areas of the state, it is not generally on the public’s radar.

Yet, as is the case with many lightly policed industrial zones across the country, what happens in Conway’s industrial park can have profound, long-lasting effects on local residents, the environment, and regional workers.

Bakelite operates a chemical manufacturing site there where it produces thermosetting resins, powdered resins, and formaldehyde solutions for use in other industries (including the protective coatings and laminate sectors). Formaldehyde is itself recognized for its potential toxicity and irritant properties, so the safe handling of byproducts and wastes generated from such operations is a critical priority under environmental regulations.

Given these potential hazards, it may come as a surprise to read the EPA’s allegations:

• Hazardous waste containers allegedly missing required labeling for hazard warnings.
• Used oil drain pans left unlabeled.
• Daily inspections of the hazardous waste storage tank not done, with a “closed” manway cover left open except for a single bolt and rope.
• Accumulated liquids and debris in the secondary containment area for more than 24 hours.

Although each violation might look minor in isolation, such missteps collectively undermine the entire premise of the RCRA: a legislative framework designed to ensure that companies storing and disposing of potentially hazardous substances do so responsibly. According to the EPA’s CAFO (a type of legal document), these environmental mismanagement practices amount to “storing hazardous waste without a permit or interim status,” because the facility had not fulfilled the required “permit exemptions” that are conditional upon meeting strict guidelines—guidelines that inspectors say Bakelite violated.

This set of allegations intersects with many of the core themes that define corporate ethics (or lack thereof) in the modern era. Corporations are incentivized to weigh compliance costs against the risk of enforcement, often to the detriment of the environment and local communities. Skeptics see the modest penalty—$130,000 in this case—as hardly enough to deter a global or multinational corporation generating tens or hundreds of millions in annual revenues. The relatively small dollar figure is emblematic, they say, of how the regulatory system at times fails to protect public health fully.

In the sections that follow, we will examine how these alleged violations reflect broader systemic failures. We will dissect the corporate motivations behind such behavior, the “playbook” that corporations allegedly use to mask or minimize wrongdoing, and the regulatory environment that often struggles to keep pace. This single case highlights the tension that arises when governments attempt to enforce laws that are meant to protect the environment, only to see those mandates contorted or skirted. Ultimately, the question becomes: Are these “accidents” or “slip-ups” simply standard operational oversights, or do they reflect a deeper corporate culture of neglect in favor of profit?

---

2. Corporate Intent Exposed

A theme underscored by the complaint is the idea that Bakelite as a corporation, had the means and expertise to comply with hazardous waste regulations but allegedly chose not to meet those standards. Federal and state rules are neither obscure nor novel; the RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) has been in effect since 1976, and specific hazardous-waste labeling and container requirements have been standard practice for decades.

Alleged Lapses in Basic Protocol

• Failure to Label Hazardous Waste: Inspectors found a container of hydranal (a solution used in chemical analysis, typically flammable or corrosive) that lacked even the most basic hazard indication. If the container had spilled or if an employee unfamiliar with hydranal handled it, the risk of chemical burns, fire, or other hazards would rise exponentially.
• Keeping a Hazardous Waste Tank Partially Open: Inspectors discovered that the large hazardous waste tank used for storing o-cresol- and barium-containing wastes was not sealed. This is particularly alarming because certain volatile organic compounds can easily evaporate, become airborne, and expose workers or local communities to chemical vapors.

In regulatory language, these oversights translate to failing “permit exemptions” that require precise labeling, sealed storage, daily inspections, and prompt management of any leaks, spills, or precipitation in containment areas. The result is the same: The facility is considered to be storing hazardous waste without a permit.

Corporate Intent vs. ‘Accidental’ Oversight
The source document does not include explicit statements of corporate intent, nor does it provide internal memos or confessions that might prove a willful strategy to disregard the rules. Nevertheless, in the broader context of corporate accountability, these repeated “lapses” are often viewed by critics as anything but accidental. It is basic knowledge in the chemical industry that unlabeled hazardous containers and partially sealed tanks are noncompliant. If a Fortune 500 chemical producer repeatedly fails to label or seal its containers, that is likely not due to a lack of awareness but rather a cost-benefit analysis.

Once again, the RCRA sets the ground rules, but compliance may involve ongoing expenditures for employee training, frequent site inspections, specialized labeling materials, robust secondary containment systems, and more thorough oversight. Under neoliberal capitalism, so the argument goes, corporations are structured to minimize or externalize these costs. One might imagine the internal dialogue: “Will an open tank manway or a missing label truly cause a big penalty or immediate closure? Probably not. Let’s keep production going.”

Profit-Driven Culture
Environmental violations can come from higher-level corporate decisions that either starve compliance budgets or define success solely by throughput and profit margins. That does not automatically mean a board of directors made an explicit decision to break the law. However, it can mean that the organizational culture prizes production speed and cost savings over “non-revenue-generating” tasks such as thorough labeling or daily perimeter checks. In industries where thin margins and intense competition exist, any corner left cut can seem beneficial to short-term profits—albeit at the risk of harming local populations or the environment.

Damage to Local Communities
This pattern of mismanagement has real consequences. Conway, North Carolina, is home to families living near farmland, reliant on local groundwater, breathing the local air, and seeking stable employment. If hazardous waste is mismanaged over the long term, the risk of infiltration to soil and water could imperil farmland yields, potentially impacting the local economy. For workers, consistent exposure to chemical vapors or accidental spills can result in acute and chronic health problems—particularly if workers are not fully aware of the hazards due to insufficient labeling.

The broader system under neoliberal capitalism can mask or minimize these risks because direct, immediate harm is not always visible or proven until years later. Thus, the potential economic fallout (lower property values, healthcare expenses, a tarnished local environment) is often borne by the community, while the company reaps the profits.

---

3. The Corporate Playbook / How They Got Away with It

How do companies manage to continue such practices when the regulations are so explicit? The RCRA outlines a thorough system of checks and balances, from the moment hazardous waste is generated to when it is ultimately disposed. Bakelite used some typical tools from what might be called the corporate playbook to skirt or delay full compliance:

3.1. Understaffing Environmental Compliance

As is often seen in industries with hazardous waste, compliance requires a dedicated staff capable of performing daily checks, maintaining accurate labeling, and training other employees on hazardous-waste management. A single or under-resourced compliance officer, stretched thin over multiple responsibilities, can easily miss the daily tank inspections or fail to police the consistent labeling of containers. If higher management does not adequately budget for compliance staff, oversights multiply.

3.2. Treating Minor Infractions as Acceptable Risk

Many corporations perform internal cost-benefit analyses. They weigh the expense of a robust compliance plan against the likelihood and magnitude of regulatory fines. Because RCRA-related penalties can sometimes be dwarfed by a corporation’s overall revenue, it may be more tempting to risk noncompliance. Indeed, the settlement in this instance was $130,000—substantial for many small businesses but potentially a mere fraction of the revenues for a chemical company with multiple national or global clients. While we do not know the exact corporate financials of Bakelite, historically, many corporations find that occasional fines can still be cheaper than building top-tier compliance programs.

3.3. Delays and Dilution in Regulatory Follow-up

Regulatory agencies are frequently overworked, overseeing hundreds or even thousands of facilities. Regulatory capture—where agencies become beholden to the industries they regulate—can be subtle, and budget cuts or political pressures reduce the frequency of inspections. In the simplest scenario, minimal or infrequent inspections allow small oversights to become ingrained corporate habits. If an EPA or state official visits only every few years, that is ample time to cut corners without immediate consequence.

3.4. Using Complex Organizational Structures

A hallmark of corporate corruption is the ability to hide accountability behind subsidiaries, shell companies, and labyrinthine corporate structures. While the CAFO clearly identifies Bakelite as the responsible party, many corporations are shielded from more severe legal repercussions because liability can be diffuse. Even if fines occur, they might fall on a smaller subsidiary, insulating the parent firm from reputational damage or from paying more than is absolutely necessary. Although the public CAFO does not specify such structures at Bakelite, it remains a commonplace tactic in the broader industry.

3.5. Minimal Internal Enforcement Culture

A robust compliance culture would require detailed logs of daily inspections, thorough staff training, ready signage, and a zero-tolerance approach to leaving hazardous containers unlabeled. If employees sense that management does not prioritize these tasks, they might not approach them with vigilance. As a result, minimal compliance can slip into noncompliance—and ultimately lead to the alleged situation seen at Bakelite.

The “How They Got Away With It” Context

By weaving these strategies together, corporations can effectively carry on for years. In some sense, “getting away with it” does not always mean never paying fines or never facing enforcement; it can also mean continuing profitable operations with only superficial or minimal compliance efforts until an enforcement action—like the one we see here—finally surfaces. Even then, the penalties may be viewed as the cost of doing business.

This repeated pattern among various industrial players is precisely why critics warn of the dangers of under-regulation in a neoliberal capitalist climate. Without robust and frequent enforcement, partial compliance can function as a “savings plan.” The hazard is that those “savings” come at the expense of environmental quality, worker safety, and community health.

---

4. The Corporate Profit Equation

When analyzing the allegations leveled against Bakelite, it is useful to step back and consider the broader corporate profit equation that undergirds these behaviors. Under the standard logic of neoliberal capitalism, corporations exist primarily to maximize shareholder value. Compliance is a cost center that does not inherently generate revenue. This sets the stage for a tension: compliance might be seen as an overhead burden with no direct financial payback—thus prime for cost-cutting.

4.1. Profit Margins vs. Compliance Costs

A facility that produces resin-based products, as Bakelite does, depends on large-scale chemical processes—handling hundreds or thousands of gallons of materials. At each step, safety and labeling measures (such as double-checking container tags, ensuring all hazard warnings are present, cleaning out and properly disposing of hazardous byproducts) require material purchases (labels, signs, spill kits) and labor expenses (employee training, time spent on daily/annual inspections).

From a purely financial perspective, one can see how an open manway might have resulted from skipping the chore of re-bolting the tank or from ignoring a roof seal that should be replaced. Those tasks cost time and money, whereas leaving the manway partially open, especially if there are no immediate accidents or leaks, might appear to save time and money in the short run.

4.2. The Scale of Hazardous Waste Management

Managing hazardous waste properly requires:

• Sufficiently robust containment systems.
• Regular removal of accumulated liquids and debris in the secondary containment area.
• Documented procedures for daily or weekly checks.
• Quick reporting of any leaks or cracks.

Each of these tasks is an expense. For corporations, it’ i’s tempting to do “just enough” to avoid catastrophic issues—but not so much as to cut into corporate earnings.

4.3. Externalizing Environmental Costs

One of the more insidious ways the profit equation manifests in environmental harm is the externalization of costs. That is, the local community, environment, and taxpayers often bear the brunt of environmental cleanup if spills or long-term contamination occur. The lapses at Bakelite’s Conway facility underscore how easy it can be for a company to store wastes in a manner that is borderline or outright noncompliant if it believes the downside (fines or negative publicity) is negligible compared to the upside (avoided expenses).

4.4. Wealth Disparity and Economic Fallout

If the worst-case scenario were to occur—contamination of local farmland, a major spill, or infiltration of chemicals into groundwater—then the costs for remediation might run into the millions. However, historically in neoliberal capitalism, large corporations may declare bankruptcy, rebrand, or shift liabilities to smaller entities. Meanwhile, residents without the means to relocate or fight protracted legal battles are stuck with the aftermath. Even in less dire scenarios, the mere presence of a poorly regulated chemical facility can depress property values and tarnish a community’s public image, compounding wealth disparity.

Conway, North Carolina, is not a wealthy region; many families rely on agricultural or manufacturing jobs. Additional hardships or medical bills arising from potential chemical exposure could create economic fallout that widens the wealth gap. This dynamic ties directly to the interplay of corporate accountability and local-level economic health. If corporations like Bakelite do not strictly follow protocols, local communities bear the risk, but rarely reap commensurate rewards.

4.5. Unintended Consequences for Workers

Inside the facility, an underfunded compliance system can also hurt employees. Workers might become ill or sustain injuries, leading to lost wages or healthcare costs. If a worker is exposed repeatedly to toxic fumes over months or years, proving causation is notoriously difficult, especially when the company can argue that it adhered to minimal compliance standards. Thus, in a corporate environment oriented around immediate profit, the intangible or long-term costs to employees’ health often go undercompensated or wholly unaddressed.

Ultimately, the corporate profit equation we see at play is not unique to Bakelite. It is widespread wherever corporate responsibilities for safe hazardous waste management conflict with the impetus to keep production costs low and profits high. The allegations in the CAFO illustrate a real-world scenario where that tension appears to tilt in favor of cost savings at the potential expense of regulatory compliance and public health.

---

5. System Failure / Why Regulators Did Nothing

So where were the regulators in all of those? More specifically, people in affected communities, or who read about alleged corporate wrongdoing, often wonder why environmental agencies did not catch or halt the misconduct sooner. In the case of Bakelite, the state of North Carolina has an authorized hazardous-waste program in lieu of the federal RCRA program, but the EPA retains oversight authority and can enforce the law independently.

5.1. Limited Funding and Staff Constraints

Environmental agencies, whether federal or state, commonly operate with tight budgets. Inspectors can be responsible for monitoring hundreds of facilities, each with unique processes and potential violations. The CAFO states that the inspection revealing these violations occurred on March 23, 2023—yet the facility has allegedly been an LQG (Large Quantity Generator) since 2004. What happened in the nearly two decades between? Possibly, the facility passed earlier inspections with no major infractions reported, or previous inspections may have been less thorough or less frequent.

Budgetary shortfalls mean many facilities do not see inspectors at unannounced intervals. Some facilities can prepare for scheduled inspections, “clean up” issues just in time, and revert to subpar practices later. This dynamic leads to a cycle of short-lived compliance.

5.2. Reliance on Self-Reporting

RCRA regulations often hinge on the facility’s own record-keeping. For instance, daily or annual inspections are documented in internal logs. If such logs are incomplete or inaccurate, an inspector might not notice right away, especially if these logs are not scrutinized or if they are kept in a manner that is difficult to parse. Thus, the regulatory framework depends in part on companies acting in good faith—a requirement that can be subverted if a company decides not to maintain thorough records.

5.3. Regulatory Capture or Inertia

While there is no specific allegation of regulatory capture in the CAFO, the broader pattern in many industrial settings is that regulators may be reluctant to impose heavy penalties on major local employers. Fear of “chilling investment,” losing jobs, or driving businesses out of state can lead to a more lenient approach. Political pressures can also discourage aggressive enforcement, especially in regions where local politicians or interest groups champion the chemical or manufacturing sector.

5.4. Delayed Enforcement Mechanisms

The CAFO process itself provides an example of how violators can remain operational for long periods. Enforcement is not swift. Companies are typically allowed time to correct violations, negotiate penalties, and reach a settlement—often without any admission of wrongdoing. This negotiated system might reduce burdens on the court system but can also result in delayed accountability. By the time penalties are assessed, the damage may be done, or the facility may have changed ownership.

5.5. Critiques of Neoliberal Deregulation

The broader ideological framework of neoliberal capitalism emphasizes deregulation, or at least minimal regulatory interference, in order to boost economic growth and let markets function freely. This approach inherently places environmental regulators on the defensive—constantly having to justify their budgets and show that each new regulation is “necessary.” Over time, the scope of their oversight can become narrower.

In the instance of Bakelite, it is quite possible that regulators were doing the best they could under the constraints mentioned: limited staff, reliance on facility-provided data, and broader political or economic pressures. Yet the alleged violations discovered in 2023 raise fundamental questions: Why did it take so long for the open manway, unlabeled containers, or daily inspection omissions to come to light? Did the company fail to self-report these oversights, or were prior checks less thorough?

Regardless of how blame is apportioned, the end result is that regulators “did nothing” significant until they showed up one day in 2023 (at least in the public eye). This can create distrust among community members who see government agencies as complicit or at least ineffectual in controlling corporate misconduct. Meanwhile, the facility’s employees and local environment continued operating under potential exposure risks.

---

6. This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug

One of the most concerning takeaways from this case is that the problems it reveals are neither rare nor anomalous. The alleged behavior of Bakelite fits neatly into a pattern seen across multiple industries: incomplete labeling, slipshod containment practices, sporadic inspections, and an overarching push to “meet the letter of the law” only when necessary. The repeated nature of these findings in different corners of the chemical sector suggests that this pattern of predation is a feature, not a bug, of the current economic system.

6.1. The Systemic Nature of Violations

In the past decades, numerous chemical companies—from the largest multinationals to smaller producers—have been caught in similar RCRA-related lapses. The legal framework is essentially the same across the country, though states can have additional stringencies. The big question is: If compliance is straightforward, why do so many companies fail to meet it?

The short answer lies in how corporate structures incentivize short-term gains over long-term responsibility. By ignoring or delaying improvements in hazardous waste management, many companies can reduce overhead, pump out more product, and show better quarterly earnings. The only “downside” is the occasional risk of a fine or negative publicity, which may be dwarfed by the cumulative profits. That is the hallmark of corporate greed underpinned by a system that prizes profit over all else.

6.2. Environmental Injustice

Communities like Conway, North Carolina, often do not have the political clout or lobbying power to force immediate improvements. Larger, wealthier communities might have resources to engage in legal battles or attract media attention swiftly. Smaller communities often go unheard, which leads some critics to call these areas “sacrifice zones,” where pollution is tacitly allowed because the population lacks effective recourse. This underscores how wealth disparity and corporate pollution go hand in hand: the environment in marginalized or rural communities ends up shouldering a disproportionate share of industrial risk.

6.3. A Multi-Industry Phenomenon

The resin-manufacturing allegations parallel the controversies we have seen in other sectors, including oil refineries, mining operations, and heavy manufacturing. Repeatedly, the narrative is: a major player has mismanaged hazardous materials, regulators issue fines or partial injunctions, the company vows to do better, then controversies arise anew a few years later—either at the same site or a different one. This cyclical pattern raises the question of whether the system is designed in such a way that predatory practices become the norm.

6.4. Corporate Social Responsibility: Lip Service or Real Commitment?

Corporate boards often tout corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, posting about their community outreach, philanthropic efforts, or internal codes of conduct. While some companies demonstrate real commitment, the repeated nature of these RCRA violations across the chemical industry fosters skepticism. Are such programs simply PR moves aimed at appeasing socially conscious consumers or preempting lawsuits, while the actual day-to-day operations remain dangerously lax?

In the case of Bakelite Chemicals, the public CAFO does not mention any robust CSR program. Indeed, the allegations suggest corners were cut in essential compliance protocols. If the same resources spent on marketing CSR or philanthropic gestures had been channeled into ensuring every container of hazardous material was labeled—would the violations still have occurred?

6.5. Tying It to the Broader Economy

In the current age of neoliberal capitalism, large corporations often exert substantial influence over local governments, especially in rural areas that rely on industrial jobs. When local officials try to impose stricter rules or demand better compliance, companies can threaten to close the plant or downsize, a chilling effect on rigorous environmental enforcement. This dynamic is not unique to the chemicals sector, but the ramifications for public health are especially high when hazardous waste is involved.

Consequently, alleged predatory practices thrive, because the cost of compliance is borne by the company but the cost of noncompliance—polluted water, contaminated soil, health risks—becomes externalized onto society. Until the system addresses that fundamental misalignment of incentives, critics warn, we will continue to see the same storyline: partial compliance, corporate profits, an eventual crackdown, a modest penalty, and a promise to do better next time.

---

7. The PR Playbook of Damage Control

When allegations of corporate misconduct surface, companies typically have a predictable set of responses. Although the CAFO does not include or quote Bakelite own public statements, the corporate PR playbook historically follows certain patterns:

7.1. Minimization

First, the company may emphasize that there was “no immediate threat” to public health or that the potential risk was “contained.” This line is so common that it often appears even before a full environmental assessment is completed. If pressed, a spokesperson might claim that unlabeled containers were discovered in “a limited area,” implying that the scope of wrongdoing is small.

7.2. Technical Justifications

Next, companies sometimes pivot to technical jargon: The tank was left open “for maintenance,” the labeling was absent “due to a supply chain issue,” or employees were “in the process” of re-labeling after a safety audit. While some of these explanations may be accurate in certain cases, repeated or systemic issues suggest deeper problems.

7.3. Pointing to Corrective Actions

Companies often highlight that they have already rectified the alleged violations. They may mention new training programs, updated signage, or capital investments in better equipment. These measures, while potentially beneficial, are sometimes only implemented after a regulatory inspection, raising the question of why they were not initiated sooner.

7.4. Softening with Community Outreach

Another tactic is to release statements about the company’s involvement in local charities or philanthropic endeavors—sponsoring a youth sports league or donating to a local nonprofit. The idea is to remind the public that the company is a “good neighbor,” overshadowing the more troubling revelations about hazardous waste management. Although community outreach can be beneficial, it should not distract from or excuse serious allegations.

7.5. Shifting the Narrative

If a facility is part of a larger corporation or holding company, the parent might frame the local facility as an “isolated case,” attributing the alleged wrongdoing to a singular oversight or local management error. The overarching corporation may disavow direct responsibility, promising to “review internal systems” while continuing business as usual.

Consumer Advocacy and Skepticism

From a consumer advocacy standpoint, the concern is that these standard PR moves do not resolve structural issues. A single infusion of capital might address immediate compliance gaps, but if the corporate culture remains tolerant of short-term gains over best practices, future lapses are likely. Communities subject to such repeated “promises” come to view them as empty unless they are followed by robust, transparent changes in management behavior and corporate policy.

As the allegations in this CAFO show, the dangers to public health can be very real: toxic chemicals that, if mismanaged, can pollute local ecosystems and harm residents. Public relations strategies typically cannot undo environmental damage once it has occurred. Therefore, any claims from the company should ideally be scrutinized in the light of verifiable actions—such as consistent compliance logs, third-party audits, and ongoing open-door policies with local communities.

---

8. Corporate Power vs. Public Interest

Ultimately, the saga at Bakelite highlights the omnipresent tension between corporate power and the public interest. The allegations demonstrate not just a single facility’s failures but also the structural forces that enable them.

8.1. Local Impact, Global Consequences

Even though the facility is in North Carolina, the chemicals produced there may wind up in goods shipped worldwide—possibly in pressed wood products, laminate countertops, or protective coatings on consumer items. If the facility’s hazardous waste is mismanaged, the local community shoulders health and environmental risks. Yet the profits from these chemical sales might be distributed among corporate owners, shareholders, or reinvested in expansions that continue this cycle.

8.2. Legislative and Regulatory Gaps

The RCRA is a powerful mechanism for ensuring corporations properly handle hazardous waste. However, the alleged violations underscore how easy it is for companies to fall short—especially if regulators struggle to keep up or if the corporate culture is not firmly aligned with thorough compliance. Under neoliberal capitalism, the push for deregulation—fewer on-site inspections, reduced administrative “red tape,” fewer reporting requirements—can hamper the RCRA’s effectiveness.

8.3. The Human Face of Regulatory Shortcomings

Workers, many of whom may rely on these industrial jobs, find themselves at the front lines of corporate decisions. If a used-oil drain pan goes unlabeled, or if hazard warnings are omitted, the hazard to them is immediate. For those who live in the community, the potential for groundwater contamination looms. If they suspect the facility is cutting corners, they can file complaints—but that process often entails risks, including possible retaliation or job loss. This dynamic creates an imbalance of power in which a corporation can “get away” with cost-saving tactics at the expense of employees who fear pushing back too hard.

8.4. Toward a More Equitable Corporate Accountability

What does real corporate accountability look like? Simply paying fines is not enough. Indeed, we need an overhaul of the penalty system to ensure that repeated violators face steeper sanctions that are more than just a “slap on the wrist.” Others advocate for mandatory third-party audits or real-time monitoring that’s publicly accessible.

Communities, especially those that are rural or lower-income, are increasingly demanding a seat at the table in negotiations with companies like Bakelite. Some propose local health studies and ongoing groundwater monitoring, funded by the corporation. Another avenue is to tie financial penalties to a percentage of corporate revenue rather than a fixed sum, ensuring that larger or more profitable entities face proportionately greater financial consequences.

8.5. The Role of Public Pressure

While government enforcement is crucial, public and media attention play a significant part in bridging the accountability gap. Citizen groups, environmental NGOs, and labor unions can expose lapses that regulators might miss. Pressure from consumers, for instance demanding responsibly sourced materials, can also alter the cost-benefit calculus for companies. Under neoliberal capitalism, market signals can sometimes push companies toward more ethical behavior if enough consumers or partner industries demand it.

Nevertheless, skepticism remains: Are improvements under a profit-driven model truly sustainable, or do they remain superficial until the next downturn or budget crunch, when corners are cut anew? The allegations at Bakelite highlight the fragility of voluntary or under-enforced compliance.

---

important pls read: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-settlement-bakelite-chemicals-conway-north-carolina-alleged-hazardous