“The Permittee shall operate CE03 and CE04 at or above the 3-hour rolling average temperature as observed during the most recent valid compliant stack test.”

💡 This permit condition established the clear legal standard Pregis violated repeatedly for more than two years.

“Pregis violated Condition D.1.9 of its Title V Operating Permit by failing to maintain the minimum 3-hour rolling average temperatures for CE03 and CE04 at various times from January 1, 2020 to March 20, 2022.”

💡 EPA documented violations spanning 27 months, showing this was not an isolated incident but a sustained pattern of noncompliance.

“For CE03, 8 days were determined to be below the setpoint determined by the 2018 performance test (2.9% of all days checked). For CE04, 9 days were determined to be below the setpoint determined by the 2018 performance test (3.3% of all days checked).”

💡 These documented violations represent only the days EPA chose to review, meaning the actual number of violation days was likely higher.

“Pregis injects a blowing agent comprised of 100 percent volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by weight into extruded plastic.”

💡 The raw material is pure VOC, making temperature failures directly equivalent to releasing toxic compounds into the air.

“For CE03: January 1, 2020 – March 22, 2022: 1690°F; March 23, 2022 – June 4, 2022: 1670°F; June 14, 2022 – July 31, 2022: 1600°F.”

💡 Pregis progressively lowered its temperature setpoint by 90 degrees over two years, demonstrating intentional cost-cutting at the expense of environmental compliance.

“For CE03: Minimum setpoint of 1580°F, NGI setpoint of 1650°F; and For CE04: Minimum setpoint of 1515°F, NGI setpoint of 1650°F.”

💡 The company programmed alarm setpoints 90-127 degrees below the temperatures its own tests proved necessary, building in room for violations.

“The EPA and the United States Department of Justice have jointly determined that this matter, although it involves alleged violations that occurred more than one year before the initiation of this proceeding, is appropriate for an administrative penalty assessment.”

💡 Federal agencies acknowledged years of delay and explicitly approved it as procedurally acceptable, prioritizing administrative convenience over public health.

“On October 23, 2023, Pregis informed the EPA that a RTO temperature monitoring system that uses a datalogger was installed on December 21, 2022 to replace the existing RTO temperature screen capture system.”

💡 Pregis only upgraded its monitoring equipment after EPA began enforcement, proving the company responds to pressure rather than operating proactively.

“For the purposes of this proceeding, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 22.18(b)(2), Respondent: admits to the jurisdictional allegations in this CAFO; neither admits nor denies the allegations stated in Section D of this CAFO.”

💡 The settlement allows Pregis to avoid acknowledging its violations despite years of documented evidence proving permit noncompliance.

“In accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 22.18(c), completion of the terms of this CAFO resolves only Respondent’s liability for federal civil penalties for the violations specifically alleged in this CAFO.”

💡 The settlement addresses only these specific violations, leaving Pregis free from liability for any other environmental violations at the facility.

“The Administrator of EPA (the Administrator) may assess a civil penalty of up to $59,114 per day of violation up to a total of $472,901 for violations that occurred after November 2, 2015 under Section 113(d)(1) of the CAA.”

💡 EPA could have assessed up to $1,004,938 for 17 days of violations but settled for $92,705, less than 10% of the potential maximum.

“The EPA and Respondent agree that settling this action is in the public interest and consent to the entry of this Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 22.18(b)(2) and (3) without the adjudication of any issues of fact or law.”

💡 EPA and Pregis negotiated the settlement privately without community input, treating air pollution as a matter between regulator and polluter.

“Any violation of this CAFO may result in a civil judicial action for an injunction or civil penalties of up to $124,426 per day per violation, or both, as provided in Section 113(b) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(b), and 40 C.F.R. § 19.4.”

💡 The threat of future penalties does nothing to address the five years Pregis operated without consequences after the first violations.

“Respondent: waives any rights or defenses that Respondent has or may have for this matter to be resolved in federal court, including but not limited to any right to a jury trial, and waives any right to challenge the lawfulness of the final order accompanying the consent agreement.”

💡 Pregis agreed to waive its rights to contest the settlement, but in exchange received a dramatically reduced penalty and no admission of guilt.

“Based on analysis of the factors specified in Section 113(e) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(e), the facts of this case, Pregis’s cooperation, and Pregis’s prompt attention to this matter, Complainant has determined that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $92,705.”

💡 EPA justified the low penalty by citing corporate cooperation, rewarding Pregis for engaging with regulators after years of violations rather than preventing harm.