“On ten (10) occasions between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2023, Respondent did not submit to EPA a report indicating the nature and concentration of pollutants in the effluent which are limited by the categorical pretreatment standards for the NFMF/MP Point Source Category, in violation of the pretreatment regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 403.12(e)(1).”

💡 This statement establishes the core factual allegation: Elgiloy failed to file required pollution reports ten times over five years.

“The Sycamore POTW does not have an approved pretreatment program. The State of Illinois does not have an approved State pretreatment program. Therefore, EPA is the ‘Control Authority’ as that term is defined in 40 C.F.R. § 403.3(f).”

💡 The absence of local and state oversight left enforcement entirely to the federal EPA, creating a regulatory gap that enabled years of noncompliance.

“The pretreatment regulation at 40 C.F.R § 403.12(e)(1) requires any industrial user subject to a categorical pretreatment standard to submit to the Control Authority during the months of June and December a report indicating the nature and concentration of pollutants in the effluent which are limited by such categorical pretreatment standard.”

💡 This regulation exists to ensure the public and regulators know what pollutants are entering public sewers and waterways.

“At all times relevant to this Order, Respondent introduced pollutants from its wire drawing processes at the Facility into the sewer system that conveys wastewater to the City of Sycamore North Sewage Treatment Plant, a POTW (the ‘Sycamore POTW’).”

💡 Industrial wastewater from Elgiloy flows through the municipal sewer to a public treatment plant, then into the Kishwaukee River, a federally protected waterway.

“Based upon the facts alleged in this CAFO, and upon the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violations alleged, as well as Respondent’s ability to pay, prior history of such violations, degree of culpability, economic benefit or savings (if any) resulting from the violations, and such other matters as justice may require, U.S. EPA has determined that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $ 32,028.32.”

💡 The EPA considered multiple factors but still assessed a penalty amounting to roughly $3,200 per violation, a modest sum for an industrial facility.

“As provided under 40 C.F.R. § 22.18(c), full payment of the penalty as described in paragraphs 32 and 33 and full compliance with this CAFO shall only resolve Respondent’s liability for federal civil penalties under Section 309(g) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(g), for the particular violations alleged in this CAFO.”

💡 This settlement resolves only these specific reporting violations. It does not immunize Elgiloy from future enforcement or address any other potential violations.

“Respondent admits the jurisdictional allegations in this CAFO and neither admits nor denies the factual allegations in this CAFO.”

💡 The company avoids a formal admission of guilt, limiting reputational damage and potential civil liability in related proceedings.

“Respondent waives any right to contest the allegations and its right to appeal the proposed final order accompanying the consent agreement.”

💡 By waiving appeal rights, Elgiloy accepts the penalty and terms without public adjudication, expediting settlement but foreclosing transparency.

“The Final Order will not be issued until after completion of the requirements of Section 309(g)(4) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(g)(4), and 40 C.F.R. § 22.45(b), which require, among other things, public notice and a reasonable opportunity to comment on any proposed penalty order.”

💡 Federal law mandates public notice and comment before Clean Water Act penalties become final, ensuring community input into enforcement decisions.

“This civil penalty is not deductible for federal tax purposes.”

💡 This provision prevents corporations from reducing the effective cost of penalties through tax write-offs, though the modest penalty limits its deterrent effect.

“Respondent must pay a nonpayment penalty each quarter during which the assessed penalty is overdue. This nonpayment penalty will be 20 percent of the aggregate amount of the outstanding penalties and nonpayment penalties accrued from the beginning of the quarter.”

💡 Steep interest and penalties for late payment attempt to ensure compliance, but do not address the underlying incentive to defer environmental monitoring.

“Respondent certifies that it is complying with Section 307(d) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1317(d).”

💡 The company now certifies compliance, but the settlement imposes no enhanced monitoring, audits, or structural reforms to prevent future lapses.

“The terms of this CAFO bind Respondent and its successors and assigns.”

💡 If Elgiloy is sold or restructured, the new owners remain subject to this settlement, ensuring continuity of obligations.

“This CAFO constitutes the entire agreement between the parties.”

💡 No side deals or undisclosed terms exist beyond what appears in the public consent order.

“Respondent produces drawn wire at the Facility, including nickel-cobalt alloy drawn wire.”

💡 Nickel and cobalt are regulated metals that can harm aquatic life and human health if discharged in excessive concentrations.