“40 C.F.R. § 68.36(a): Failure to review and update the offsite consequence analyses at least once every five years.”

💡 Offsite consequence analyses tell communities and emergency responders what could happen in a chemical accident. Plenco let these critical safety documents go outdated for years.

“40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a): Failure to certify that the owner or operator has evaluated compliance with the provisions of this subpart at least every three years to verify that procedures and practices developed under this subpart are adequate and are being followed.”

💡 This certification requirement ensures owners actually check that their safety procedures work and are being followed. Plenco skipped these mandatory verifications.

“This is an administrative action for the assessment of civil penalties instituted pursuant to the EPA’s authority under Sections 113(a)(3) and (d) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(a)(3) and (d).”

💡 EPA has clear statutory authority to enforce chemical safety rules, yet chose an expedited settlement process that minimized public scrutiny.

“Based on the December 20, 2023, inspection and documents submitted by Respondent, EPA has determined that Respondent violated the following provisions.”

💡 EPA’s determination came from direct inspection and company records, establishing factual basis for the violations beyond reasonable dispute.

“On December 20, 2023, an authorized EPA representative conducted a compliance inspection of Plastics Engineering Company at 1720 North Avenue, Sheboygan, Wisconsin to determine the Facility’s compliance with the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions promulgated pursuant to Section 112(r) of the CAA and set forth at 40 C.F.R. Part 68.”

💡 The regulations exist specifically to prevent chemical accidents that could harm surrounding communities. This was not a minor paperwork violation but a failure of fundamental safety planning.

“In consideration of Respondent’s size of business, its full compliance history, its good faith efforts to comply, other factors as justice may require, and upon consideration of the entire record, the parties enter into this ESA in order to resolve any civil penalties for these alleged violations for the total penalty amount of $1,200.”

💡 The $1,200 penalty for years of safety violations at a chemical facility raises serious questions about whether enforcement adequately deters noncompliance.

“Respondent waives its right to contest the specific factual allegations contained herein, and neither admits nor denies these specific factual allegations.”

💡 The settlement allows Plenco to avoid publicly admitting its safety failures while making the violations disappear with a minimal payment.

“Respondent acknowledges that pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 22.15(c), and Section 113(d)(2)(A) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C § 7413(d)(2)(A), it has the right to request a hearing on any material fact, or on the appropriateness of the penalty, but Respondent waives its rights to such a hearing.”

💡 By waiving hearing rights, Plenco ensured no public forum would examine its safety practices or challenge the adequacy of the minimal penalty.

“Upon Respondent’s submission of the signed original ESA, and the issuance of the Final Order, Respondent’s liability is resolved only for any federal civil penalties due as a result of the facts and violations alleged in this ESA.”

💡 The settlement only resolves civil penalties, explicitly leaving open EPA’s right to pursue other enforcement actions if needed, suggesting ongoing concerns.

“This ESA, the Final Order, and Respondent’s full payment of the civil penalty set forth herein, do not affect the right of EPA to pursue appropriate injunctive, other equitable relief, or criminal sanctions for any violations of law.”

💡 EPA preserved its ability to take additional action, indicating the $1,200 settlement may not fully address the safety risks or company conduct.

“The issuance of the Final Order does not waive, extinguish, or otherwise affect Respondent’s duty to comply with the CAA, the regulations promulgated thereunder, or any other applicable law or requirement.”

💡 Plenco remains obligated to follow all safety laws, but the settlement includes no enhanced monitoring to ensure future compliance after years of violations.

“Respondent certifies, subject to civil and criminal penalties for making a false submission to the United States Government, that Respondent has corrected the violations set forth in this ESA.”

💡 The community must rely on Plenco’s self-certification that problems are fixed, with no third-party verification or ongoing monitoring required by the settlement.

“The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, and Plastics Engineering Company have agreed to the settlement of this action before the filing of a Complaint.”

💡 The expedited settlement allowed violations to be resolved without the public scrutiny and detailed fact-finding that would accompany a formal enforcement case.

“This action is thus simultaneously commenced and concluded by this Expedited Settlement Agreement and Final Order. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 22.13(b) and 22.18(b)(2)-(3).”

💡 The case opened and closed in a single document, maximizing efficiency for the parties while minimizing transparency and accountability to the affected community.

“This ESA is effective upon filing with the Regional Hearing Clerk.”

💡 The agreement became binding immediately upon filing on June 14, 2024, leaving no opportunity for community intervention or demands for stronger protections.