In 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) filed a legal complaint against Berg Brothers Recycling, Inc., a scrap metal recycling facility located on 1401 West Hamburg Street in Baltimore, Maryland. In that complaint, the EPA alleges a pattern of noncompliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA) and associated National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. According to the EPA’s findings, Berg Brothers Recycling failed to implement mandatory stormwater pollution controls, record benchmark-exceeding pollutant levels, and fulfill employee training requirements, among other oversights. The allegations culminated in a Consent Agreement and a civil penalty of $22,000.

The most damning evidence includes repeated exceedances of industrial pollutant “benchmarks” for iron, copper, lead, and other toxic substances; all of which can have dire consequences for waterways such as the nearby Gwynns Falls and the broader Patapsco River watershed.

The case is notable because it exemplifies how modern corporations might navigate a complex tapestry of environmental regulation, sometimes avoiding or delaying necessary cleanups and repairs—even when facing documented chemical pollution. On paper, there are laws and permits designed to protect public health and ecosystems; in practice, these safeguards can be undermined by cost-cutting, weak oversight, and a general unwillingness to invest in corporate social responsibility beyond what is absolutely mandated.

Over the next eleven sections, this long-form investigative piece digs into the allegations, their local impact, and the global resonance of such environmental challenges. Each section highlights a different angle of the broader theme: how a single instance of alleged wrongdoing resonates throughout a community and an economy, ultimately illustrating broader systemic issues under neoliberal capitalism.

---

Corporate Intent Exposed

Any investigative spotlight should first clarify what exactly the EPA’s legal complaint uncovered. The alleged corporate intent behind Berg Brothers Recycling’s operational choices comes into sharp focus once we examine the individual violations cited in the official documents. Far from minor technicalities, these lapses speak to a deeper pattern of inadequate controls and incomplete follow-through.

Documented Benchmark Exceedances

Between 2018 and 2022, Berg Brothers Recycling allegedly racked up a substantial number of “benchmark exceedances”—a term used in stormwater permits to define upper limits for certain pollutants in a facility’s runoff. According to the EPA, at least 29 benchmark exceedances were recorded for substances such as iron, copper, zinc, lead, and others. Stormwater that contacts scrap metal, machinery, or wastes at the site can carry these pollutants directly into local waterways.

• Iron (Fe): Data shows repeated exceedances, meaning the amounts of dissolved or suspended iron in water samples greatly surpassed permit benchmarks on multiple quarters.
• Copper (Cu) and Lead (Pb): These heavy metals are highly toxic to aquatic life, especially in elevated concentrations. The complaint shows the facility’s discharge monitoring indicated copper and lead in amounts far above permissible levels.
• Zinc (Zn): Frequently used as an industrial coating, zinc is also a common byproduct in scrap metal operations. Excess zinc can harm fish populations and disrupt local ecosystems.

What makes these exceedances “damning evidence” is not just their frequency but the pattern of repeated failure to correct them promptly. Instead of documenting corrective actions and ensuring future compliance, the complaint alleges that Berg Brothers Recycling omitted key steps required by the state’s NPDES General Permit, such as installing proper stormwater controls and cleaning up significant pollution hotspots.

Failure to Implement Basic Control Measures

According to the EPA, one of the major revelations is that Berg Brothers Recycling lacked even the most basic best management practices (BMPs) for controlling stormwater contamination. For instance, the facility is said to have been operating large scrap piles in uncovered areas, allowing rain and runoff to sweep away metals and toxins directly into local drains.

Even more fucky dark staining and visible debris allegedly remained in places where the company knew runoff would collect—key signs of pollution that were never comprehensively remediated. These are not obscure technicalities but essential, foundational housekeeping requirements designed to protect people living near the facility and the larger environment.

Inadequate Training and Oversight

Beyond tangible control measures like covered stockpiles or containment trenches, the complaint also highlights a glaring lack of employee training. According to the documentation, the facility ran multiple years—2019 and 2020—without any record of annual training sessions for staff who routinely handle pollutant materials or operate in areas exposed to stormwater. Since employees are usually the first line of defense against leaks, spills, and improper disposal, training deficits can produce systemic neglect.

This suite of environmental violations—inadequate maintenance, missing BMPs, documented pollutant exceedances, and untrained staff—tells us much about how a corporation’s intent can manifest as a willingness to skirt environmental safeguards. If addressing pollution threatens short-term profits, some businesses will postpone real changes until regulators intervene.

Yet the Berg Brothers Recycling case is more than a local scandal; it epitomizes how, under neoliberal capitalism, corporations can systematically weigh the “cost of compliance” against the risk of regulatory action. In the next section, we’ll examine how such entities “get away with it”—if not legally, then at least financially and structurally.

---

The Corporations Get Away With It

Critics of corporate accountability such as myself often ask how companies are able to operate for years without fully complying with environmental laws like the Clean Water Act. The answer lies partly in a complex interplay of lenient enforcement, corporate lobbying, and incomplete oversight—a phenomenon that some label “regulatory capture.”

Loopholes in the Regulatory Framework

Berg Brothers Recycling, like many industrial facilities, operates under a general stormwater permit. Such permits set sector-specific standards, but enforcement often hinges on self-monitoring and self-reporting. When the facility itself must measure pollutant levels and submit data to authorities, there is an inherent risk of underreporting or insufficient self-auditing, whether intentionally or due to organizational inertia.

The EPA’s legal documents indicates that Berg Brothers did report benchmark exceedances to the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), but then allegedly failed to implement the corrective actions spelled out under the General Permit. One might argue that the repeated exceedances should have triggered deeper scrutiny earlier. The fact that the facility continued in a state of alleged partial noncompliance over multiple years points to a regulatory process that, while well-intentioned, can be slow, reactive, and not sufficiently resourced.

Self-Policing and Understaffed Agencies

Under neoliberal capitalism, the push to minimize government spending has real consequences: environmental agencies often lack the robust staffing and funding required to intensively monitor every industrial site. This environment fosters selective enforcement. A business might go years between inspections, allowing potential pollution hazards to mount until regulators eventually pay attention.

According to the complaint, the EPA inspection that ultimately led to the penalty was conducted on November 16, 2021, after the agency had requested additional information multiple times. One wonders whether more timely site visits or routine enforcement checks would have forced corrections sooner.

Calculating the “Cost of Doing Business”

Companies sometimes perform cost-benefit analyses around environmental compliance. When the civil penalty—here, $22,000—ends up being substantially lower than the expense of comprehensive stormwater management improvements, paying a fine can appear more financially palatable. Even if the official stance is that Berg Brothers Recycling did not act out of malicious intent, the net result can be the same: repeated pollution episodes until regulatory scrutiny forces changes.

The next section delves further into this dynamic, examining how “the cost of doing business” frequently includes a strategic acceptance of fines and citations, rather than prompt and meaningful compliance upgrades.

---

The Cost of Doing Business

Corporate finance often hinges on maximizing shareholder returns, which can incentivize cutting corners. Environmental compliance is notoriously expensive: advanced filtration systems, covered storage, specialized training programs—all of these measures require capital outlay.

Deferred Maintenance as a Strategy

For Berg Brothers Recycling, the official allegations paint a picture of a facility that saw repeated evidence of pollutant exceedances yet struggled—or declined—to make necessary corrections. It’s plausible that each uninstalled stormwater control measure, each delayed housekeeping routine, and each missed staff training session effectively reduced immediate operational costs.

Yet these deferred actions build up environmental debts. Toxic chemicals do not simply vanish; they accumulate in river sediment, seep into soils, and may end up traveling downstream into critical habitats or community water sources. Over the long term, the intangible costs—damage to aquatic life, soil contamination, public health burdens—are far greater. But in a neoliberal system that prizes near-term profitability, those intangible costs become invisible externalities unless regulators or community lawsuits force them into corporate ledgers.

Stormwater Compliance in the Scrap Industry

The scrap metal recycling sector operates on thin margins, often dealing in fluctuating commodity prices. Extra compliance steps, such as building a permanent cover over stockpiles or erecting new containment barriers, can be expensive. If an entire industry is broadly under-regulated, then the enterprise that voluntarily invests in comprehensive protective measures might find itself at a competitive disadvantage—paying more for compliance while others take shortcuts.

In the Berg Brothers Recycling case, the cost of missing these improvements showed up in the form of a $22,000 penalty and potential reputational damage. But from a purely financial standpoint it might still be cheaper than a full-scale overhaul of site design or daily housekeeping protocols, especially if no further enforcement emerges.

Profiting Amid Unclear Regulatory Signals

What underscores the “cost of doing business” mindset is the possibility that Berg Brothers Recycling, or facilities like it, view the risk of sporadic EPA enforcement as a manageable expense. The same principle applies to many sectors: from mining to pharmaceutical manufacturing, managers often ask, “What’s the likelihood of being audited? And if we are, can we handle the fine?”

This is not necessarily a result of maliciousness or personal greed alone; it can be a rational, if ethically questionable, decision-making process embedded in corporate culture under late-stage capitalism. In the next section, we move from corporate finance to the systemic challenges that allow these behaviors to persist—namely, the structural weaknesses in enforcement that mirror a broader unraveling of regulatory safeguards.

---

Systemic Failures

Stories like the one unfolding in Baltimore can sometimes seem like isolated incidents, but these alleged violations reflect a broader tapestry of issues that environmental advocates have flagged for years: deregulation, industry capture of agencies, and persistent underfunding of compliance monitors.

Regulatory Capture and Industry Influence

Under neoliberal capitalism, the drive to “streamline” government processes can morph into deregulation or lax enforcement. Industries may lobby regulators for more lenient permit thresholds or push for minimal oversight. While government agencies like the EPA are tasked with upholding environmental laws, their budgets and authority can be eroded through political pressure, legislation that weakens their mandates, or administrative inertia.

I would like to point to modest penalty amounts—like the $22,000 in this case—as an illustration of broader systemic failures. If fines do not reflect the true economic advantage gained by noncompliance (or the ecological harm inflicted), then the regulatory mechanism fails to serve as a deterrent.

Missing the Human Element in Regulation

Most enforcement frameworks prioritize numeric compliance metrics—benchmarks for iron, copper, lead, etc. While these numbers are essential for measuring pollution, the broader public-health and social-justice dimensions can fall through the cracks. Community members living near industrial areas bear disproportionate health risks: higher rates of respiratory illness, potential lead exposure in water, and more.

In the official complaint, the EPA outlines violations related to uncontained scrap metal piles and inadequate housekeeping. Taken in isolation, these issues might appear simply bureaucratic. Yet they create real-world health threats, especially for neighborhoods near the waterway that might rely on local fishing or suffer from compromised air quality.

A Self-Fulfilling Cycle

When agencies fail to undertake frequent, unannounced inspections or impose meaningful penalties, companies learn that rolling the dice can be profitable. This fosters a cycle: partial compliance, occasional violation, minimal penalty, and continued partial compliance. Over time, repeated “minor” transgressions add up to major ecosystem damage.

At Berg Brothers Recycling, each missed benchmark triggered a requirement for “corrective action,” as spelled out in the state’s permit. That the complaint indicates these corrective measures were never fully or consistently documented—and potentially never fully implemented—shows how easily the regulatory framework can be circumvented.

In the next section, we explore how this phenomenon is not an aberration, but a predictable outgrowth of the profit-maximization strategies widely adopted in corporate boardrooms. The argument here is: this pattern of corporate predation isn’t a bug in the system; it’s a feature of how the system is designed.

---

This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug

Neoliberal capitalism often claims that free markets will self-correct. Yet repeated examples of corporate malfeasance—across sectors as diverse as banking, pharmaceuticals, and waste management—reveal a different dynamic: profit-maximization can create incentives to pollute, exploit labor, and ignore social costs.

Corporate Greed, Wealth Disparity, and the Environment

If a corporation’s primary legal mandate is to maximize shareholder returns, any measure that does not yield immediate profit is often considered expendable. Ensuring full compliance with environmental laws can become an afterthought, particularly if the costs appear higher than the risk of getting caught. This dynamic fosters corporate corruption or, at minimum, a corporate culture where environmental corners are cut until regulators step in.

In the Berg Brothers Recycling complaint, repeated pollutant exceedances and housekeeping failures illustrate how quickly protective measures can become mere line items that are “postponed,” even in an industry that handles large volumes of metal—a material known to leach toxins. The pattern here is not unique; it mirrors how large-scale industrial polluters sometimes weigh the cost of fines against the price of environmentally sound infrastructure.

The Normalization of Pollution

In many regions, local communities have grown to expect a certain level of industrial pollution, especially in historically marginalized neighborhoods. Terms like “sacrifice zones” have entered the lexicon, describing places where pollution is concentrated to maintain consumption and profits elsewhere.

When a recycling facility in a heavily industrialized city fails to implement stormwater pollution measures, local residents are often unsurprised. They know the system seldom puts their health above corporate revenues. This sense of futility further reduces public outcry, making it that much easier for companies to continue subpar practices.

Beyond the Single Case

Those who focus exclusively on “bad apples” risk overlooking how the orchard is designed. Regulatory agencies can issue new requirements or ramp up inspections, but so long as the bedrock principle of business remains profit above all else, real accountability can be elusive.

In the next section, we turn from analyzing the allegations and economic underpinnings of this pattern to exploring how corporations tend to respond when their activities finally draw public scrutiny. The “PR Playbook of Damage Control” provides insight into how firms manage reputational threats to minimize costs and legal repercussions.

---

The PR Playbook of Damage Control

When corporations are accused of wrongdoing—be it environmental pollution, labor violations, or consumer harm—there is a typical repertoire of public-relations maneuvers they deploy. Berg Brothers Recycling may or may not have followed these to the letter, but we can glean from the complaint and broader industrial patterns what a standard response often looks like.

Step 1: Minimize and Deny

Initially, companies might downplay the severity of the allegations, framing them as isolated incidents. For instance, statements might characterize repeated pollutant exceedances as “administrative oversights” or “anomalies” in data collection. The point is to diffuse public alarm, suggesting that any issues are already under control or not really harmful.

Step 2: Affirm Commitment to Corporate Social Responsibility

Next, corporations release statements highlighting their supposed dedication to corporate ethics and environmental stewardship. Whether they truly invest in new stormwater management systems or community outreach is often secondary; the main objective is to project compliance and concern.

Step 3: Frame the Fine as Demonstrating Good Faith

When a facility pays a penalty (such as Berg Brothers Recycling’s $22,000), companies sometimes rebrand this outcome: “We cooperated fully with the EPA and resolved the matter amicably,” thereby implying the situation is settled and no further wrongdoing should be inferred.

Step 4: Quietly Return to Business as Usual

After media attention subsides, improvements might stall or proceed at a minimal pace. Because the fundamental incentive structures remain unchanged, many companies simply wait out the storm and revert to old habits, especially if regulators appear unlikely to follow up rigorously.

In the next section, we’ll look at the deeper clash between corporate power and public interest—a dynamic that shapes how effectively communities can protect themselves when pollutants start to leach into their environments.

---

Corporate Power vs. Public Interest

At the heart of this case—and many others—lies the tension between corporate power and public interest. Stormwater runoff loaded with metals like lead, zinc, and copper threatens aquatic ecosystems and potentially local drinking water sources. That’s not just an abstract environmental risk; it’s a tangible threat to public health.

The Tilted Scales of Regulatory Enforcement

Modern corporations often possess vast legal and financial resources. Berg Brothers Recycling, for example, may or may not be a large corporation per se, but it still navigates a system in which standard enforcement processes can take months or years, requiring substantial investigative resources from the EPA and state environmental agencies. When oversight budgets are tight, the advantage often skews in favor of business.

Moreover, the risk of defunding or politically motivated attacks on agencies like the EPA can erode watchdog capabilities. Faced with such headwinds, communities that rely on those agencies for protection may find themselves outmatched by corporate lawyers, consultants, and lobbyists who specialize in maneuvering through or around compliance standards.

The Erosion of Corporate Social Responsibility

When discussing corporate ethics and accountability, it’s crucial to acknowledge that there are indeed firms striving to meet high environmental standards. Yet the neoliberal emphasis on deregulation often undermines even the well-intentioned companies by allowing the less conscientious to gain short-term competitive advantages via noncompliance. In other words, strong or voluntary corporate social responsibility (CSR) can become a liability if rivals cut corners with impunity.

Public Health as a Non-Negotiable Baseline

Advocates argue that no matter where on the political spectrum one resides, certain public-health and safety standards must be non-negotiable. The allegations against Berg Brothers Recycling—failure to implement even basic housekeeping measures, repeated benchmark exceedances for toxic metals—bring into focus the real costs that local communities may bear. Children exposed to lead in runoff, neighborhoods afflicted by contaminated fish stocks or diminished riverbank recreation—these are the hidden tolls that do not show up on a corporate balance sheet.

The next section offers a closer look at how precisely these sorts of alleged violations can harm workers and communities on a personal level, illustrating that environmental litigation has more than financial stakes.

---

The Human Toll on Workers and Communities

Corporate pollution stories often center on data points—parts per million of lead, or average benchmark exceedances for iron. Behind these numbers lies a deeply human dimension, impacting everyone from the workforce tasked with handling potentially hazardous materials to the families living downstream of an industrial facility.

Workers as First in the Firing Line

Employees at Berg Brothers Recycling handle scrap metals and, presumably, any toxic byproducts that result from the recycling process. If the facility’s safety measures were indeed suboptimal, as alleged in the EPA complaint, then staff could be at heightened risk of exposure to contaminated runoff or hazardous substances during daily operations. Inadequate training—also documented in the complaint—amplifies these dangers. Workers without the proper knowledge or protective equipment might inadvertently track contaminants off-site, exposing family members and the broader community.

Vulnerable Neighborhoods and Environmental Injustice

Baltimore, like many industrial cities, has neighborhoods historically zoned or developed around heavy industry. These communities often contend with cumulative impacts of pollution from multiple facilities. Repeated stormwater violations from a single recycling yard can thus contribute to an overall burden that includes air pollution from trucks and other factories, soil contamination from legacy waste sites, and water pollution from combined sewer overflows.

Health disparities, such as higher rates of asthma or other respiratory ailments, often coincide with these industrial corridors. Residents who rely on local fisheries or whose children play in streams become front-line recipients of the pollutants alleged to be discharged.

Economic Fallout and Community Stigma

Small businesses near an environmentally tarnished area can also suffer. Polluted streams or unsightly, trash-littered outfalls discourage tourism and recreation. Property values can stagnate. In this way, the environmental misdeeds of a single company ripple outward, creating a localized economic fallout that fosters wealth disparity. Residents who lack the means to relocate become, effectively, hostages to circumstances they did not create.

Understanding this human toll helps explain why the outcry about corporate misconduct extends beyond activists or regulators—ordinary people feel directly impacted. Whether or not Berg Brothers Recycling is a prime example of such harm, the documented allegations provide a cautionary tale for what can happen when oversight lapses in communities that can least afford the consequences.

In the next section, we pivot from local ramifications to consider global trends in corporate accountability, illustrating how the phenomenon described in this Baltimore case fits into a worldwide pattern of neoliberal deregulation and heightened social activism.

---

Global Trends in Corporate Accountability

What’s happening in Baltimore’s scrap metal scene mirrors broader struggles worldwide. Many nations have environmental laws on the books, but enforcement levels and penalties vary widely. Multinational corporations can exploit these discrepancies, shopping for the most permissive jurisdictions or employing complex supply chains to obscure accountability.

Deregulation in the Global Context

Over the past few decades, global trade agreements and international finance have encouraged nations to compete for investment, sometimes by lowering environmental standards or by failing to enforce those that exist. The underlying logic of neoliberal capitalism—maximizing efficiencies and profits—can override local concerns about water safety, community health, or ecological integrity.

Industries like mining, waste management, and recycling are particularly mobile, capable of relocating or outsourcing components of their operations. A facility might adopt minimal compliance measures in one country while taking advantage of regulatory loopholes in another. The net effect is a race to the bottom, as businesses reward jurisdictions with lax oversight.

Citizen Movements and Class-Action Suits

Countering the sway of corporate power, grassroots organizations around the world are uniting to demand higher accountability. In some regions, class-action lawsuits against polluters have resulted in hefty damages. While the $22,000 penalty in Berg Brothers Recycling’s case seems small, globally, there have been instances of multi-million-dollar settlements. Unfortunately, these remain exceptions rather than the rule.

Still, rising public awareness—thanks in part to social media and the transnational sharing of information—continues to shine a spotlight on corporate misdeeds. In the best cases, this fosters a heightened impetus for regulatory action. In the worst cases, companies simply refine their PR strategies and divert attention from deeper structural problems.

The Shifting Landscape

If there is a silver lining, it’s that more countries are beginning to incorporate robust environmental clauses into trade and investment agreements. Simultaneously, investor-driven initiatives like Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics can incentivize some corporations to do better. Nevertheless, as the Berg Brothers Recycling allegations remind us, systemic change at the global level will require more than surface-level commitments or carefully curated ESG reports.

The final section of this investigative piece offers a suite of practical reforms, urging not only policy change but also consumer advocacy and shareholder activism to prevent another local fiasco from escalating into a community-wide tragedy.

---

Pathways for Reform and Consumer Advocacy

The allegations against Berg Brothers Recycling, if proven valid, paint a picture of an environmental system in urgent need of stronger defenses. While these environmental infractions may not generate the same level of attention as massive oil spills or toxic chemical disasters, their cumulative effect can be deeply corrosive to public health and ecological well-being. Below are some pathways for reform and community engagement that could prevent the repetition of such scenarios.

1. Strengthening Regulatory Frameworks

• Higher Penalties: To function as effective deterrents, fines must significantly exceed any economic gains from skirting compliance. A higher financial risk would compel facility operators to implement robust preventive measures rather than settling for the “pay-the-fine” approach.
• Frequent Inspections: Regulatory bodies at both federal and state levels need resources to conduct unannounced, regular inspections. In an era of budget cuts, restoring adequate funding to agencies like the EPA remains a crucial step.

2. Enhanced Corporate Accountability

• Mandatory Transparency: Requiring facilities to publicly disclose stormwater data and any exceedances can foster peer and community pressure. Transparency can also encourage local stakeholders to hold companies accountable before violations become chronic.
• Executive Liability: Introducing or enhancing policies that hold executives personally liable for severe or repeated environmental violations could radically alter corporate risk calculations.

3. Community Action and Consumer Pressure

• Local Monitoring Groups: Community-based sampling or citizen science projects can quickly spotlight suspicious changes in local waterways. Online platforms now allow residents to share test results and gather evidence—sometimes faster than official channels.
• Boycotts and Advocacy: For businesses that have a public-facing brand, consumer boycotts can be a potent tool. While Berg Brothers Recycling may not be a retail entity, public perception matters for municipalities and industries that choose recycling partners.

4. Scrutinizing “Green” Claims

• ESG Verification: With environmental, social, and governance reporting on the rise, stakeholders should demand third-party verification of any self-proclaimed “green” or “sustainable” operations. This can weed out mere “greenwashing,” ensuring that corporate social responsibility efforts are genuine.

5. Legal Reforms for Systemic Change

• Revisiting Permit Structures: Some experts suggest that generalized permits (like the one covering industrial stormwater discharges) should be reworked to close loopholes. More site-specific permits with enforceable deadlines for corrective actions might improve compliance rates.
• Bolstering Citizen Lawsuits: Strengthening citizen-suit provisions could empower local communities to take direct legal action, circumventing bureaucratic delays.

6. Long-Term Cultural Shifts

• Corporate Ethics and Worker Training: Rather than mere checkboxes, ethics and environmental training should become part of core operational culture, from the boardroom to the shop floor. If employees feel responsible for environmental outcomes, they’re more likely to report issues early.
• Educational Campaigns: Municipalities and NGOs should invest in educating the public about the real-world implications of industrial runoff. When knowledge spreads, complacency fades.

---

EPA’s legal source: https://yosemite.epa.gov/OA/RHC/EPAAdmin.nsf/CAFOs%20and%20ESAs/7F2E3DE356019C0085258AB500634DE3/$File/Berg%20Brothers%20Recycling%20Inc_CWA%20CAFO_Jan%2031%202024.pdf