“On three (3) occasions between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2023, Respondent did not submit a report indicating the nature and concentration of pollutants in the effluent discharged to the City.”

💡 Caterpillar repeatedly failed to provide legally required pollution data, preventing oversight of what was being dumped into the public sewer system.

“On two (2) occasions during the EPA Inspection, Respondent stored chemicals/oils outside of bermed areas, including a 55-gallon drum stored directly on top of a floor drain leading to the wastewater treatment system.”

💡 This reckless storage practice created a direct pathway for chemical spills to bypass all treatment and enter the wastewater system.

“During the EPA Inspection, Respondent did not utilize flow meters within the process and was unable to provide EPA with a historic or current average or daily flow of the discharge.”

💡 Without flow meters, Caterpillar had no way to accurately measure how much polluted wastewater it was sending into Pontiac’s system.

“During the EPA Inspection, Respondent’s record policy indicated records should be shredded after one year of retention.”

💡 By shredding records after just one year instead of the required three, Caterpillar destroyed evidence of violations.

“During the EPA Inspection, Respondent collected samples using a time-proportional composite sampling technique without authorization from the Control Authority.”

💡 Using unauthorized sampling methods allowed Caterpillar to potentially underreport pollutant concentrations during peak discharge periods.

“During the EPA Inspection, Respondent was discharging contaminated flows in four (4) areas of the site, including discolored water to the North Creek from Outfall 002 and Outfall 003, turbid stormwater near the fire suppression system, and stormwater with an oil sheen between the manufacturing and wastewater treatment areas of the Facility.”

💡 EPA inspectors directly witnessed multiple sources of contaminated water flowing from Caterpillar’s facility into the local watershed.

“During the EPA Inspection, Respondent’s SWPPP did not include a topographic map, a legible Facility map, the percent of impervious surfaces at the Facility, pollutants expected to be present in the stormwater discharge, and contact information for the stormwater pollutant prevention team, and did not indicate the Facility discharges to an impaired waterway.”

💡 Caterpillar’s stormwater pollution plan was missing virtually every critical element required to actually prevent pollution.

“During the EPA Inspection, Respondent’s records indicated pH values are analyzed outside of the required 15-minute timeframe.”

💡 Delayed pH testing produces inaccurate data, undermining the reliability of all water quality monitoring.

“On three (3) occasions between November 24, 2020, and October 21, 2021, Respondent did not include corrective actions needed or taken due to sheen observed at Outfall 002, did not document observations in annual inspection reports, and did not document if Outfall 002 or Outfall 003 were discharging at the time of the inspections.”

💡 Even after observing oil pollution, Caterpillar failed to document required corrective measures, allowing the problem to persist.

“Each violation of the conditions of the Permit or Pretreatment Regulations described above in Count 1 is a violation of Section 307 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1317.”

💡 The EPA formally documented that Caterpillar’s actions constituted violations of federal environmental law.

“Respondent’s SWPPP… did not indicate the Facility discharges to an impaired waterway, as required in the Permit.”

💡 Caterpillar failed to even acknowledge in its pollution plan that it was discharging into already-degraded waters.

“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 $64,044.30.”

💡 Despite considering all factors including gravity of harm and economic benefit from noncompliance, EPA settled for barely $64,000.

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

💡 Caterpillar settled without admitting it actually did anything wrong, avoiding accountability while making the case go away.

“The parties agree that settling this action without the filing of a complaint or the adjudication of any issue of fact or law is in their interest and in the public interest.”

💡 The settlement agreement claims that avoiding a public trial somehow serves the public interest despite denying full transparency.

“Full payment of the penalty as described in paragraphs 63 and 64 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.”

💡 The settlement only covers these specific violations, leaving Caterpillar free to continue other forms of noncompliance without cumulative consequences.