Jump to main content.


2009 Region 5 Compliance and Enforcement Annual Results

2009 Annual Results Topics

Civil Enforcement Highlights

Criminal Enforcement Highlights

Compliance Assistance Highlights

Where you live

Top of page


Compliance and Enforcement Annual Results
Numbers at a Glance
Region 5

Civil Enforcement
Estimated Environmental Benefits - Commitments to Reduce Pollution & Protect the Environment:  
  Direct Environmental Benefits  
 
  • Pollution Reduced, Treated or Eliminated (Pounds) (1)
82,765,910
 
  • Hazardous Waste Treated, Minimized, or Properly Disposed of (Pounds) (1)  (2)
256,946
 
  • Contaminated Soil to be Cleaned Up (Cubic Yards)
1,084,650
 
  • Contaminated Water to be Cleaned Up (Cubic Yards)
1,930,684
 
  • Stream Miles Protected or Restored (Linear Feet)
0
 
  • Wetlands Protected or Restored (Acres)
150
 
  • People Protected by Safe Drinking Water Act Enforcement (# of People)
1,148,015
Investments in Actions & Equipment to Reduce Pollution & Protect the Environment (Injunctive Relief) $179,532,961
Investments in Projects that Benefit the Environment & Public Health (Supplemental Environmental Projects) $2,613,695
Civil Penalties Assessed  
  Administrative Penalties Assessed $4,125,577
  Judicial Penalties Assessed $5,251,197
  State/Local Judicial Penalties Assessed From Joint Federal-State/Local Enforcement Actions (3) $369,000
  Stipulated Penalties Paid $2,320,002
   
Civil Enforcement and Compliance Activities
Referrals of Civil Judicial Enforcement Cases to Department of Justice (DOJ) 50
Supplemental Referrals of Civil Judicial Enforcement Cases to DOJ 16
Civil Judicial Complaints Filed with Court 21
Civil Judicial Enforcement Case Conclusions 39
Administrative Penalty Order Complaints 146
Final Administrative Penalty Orders 146
Administrative Compliance Orders 168
Cases with Supplemental Environmental Projects 26
   
EPA Compliance Monitoring Activities
Inspections/Evaluations 3774
Civil Investigations 39
Number of Regulated Entities Taking Complying Actions during EPA Inspections/Evaluations 407
 
Superfund Cleanup Enforcement
Amount Committed by Liable Parties to Clean up Superfund Sites $92,358,000
Amount Committed by Liable Parties to Pay for Government Oversight of Superfund Cleanups $20,753.019
Amount Committed by Liable Parties to Reimburse the Government for Money Spent Cleaning up Superfund Sites $11,564,540
   
Voluntary Disclosures
Commitments to Reduce, Treat or Eliminate Pollution as a Result of Voluntary Disclosures (pounds) 140
Voluntary Disclosures Initiated (Facilities) 299
Voluntary Disclosures Resolved (Facilities) 38
Voluntary Disclosures Initiated (Companies) 90
Voluntary Disclosures Resolved (Companies) 33
   
EPA Compliance Assistance
Entities Provided with EPA Compliance Assistance (4) 31,271

Sources for Data displayed in this document: Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Information System (CERCLIS), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information (RCRAInfo), Air Facility System (AFS), and Permit Compliance System (PCS) October 13, 2009

Footnotes:

  1. Projected reductions to be achieved during the one year period after all actions required to attain full compliance have been completed.
  2. In FY 2008, for the first time, OECA initiated a new Environmental Benefits outcome reporting category to count pounds of "Hazardous Waste Treated, Minimized or Properly Disposed Of " from enforcement cases. OECA has determined that none of the previously established outcome categories are appropriate for counting the environmental benefits obtained from EPA's hazardous waste cases. For FY 2008, this new pilot category includes only results from RCRA cases, but, in the future, similar results obtained from enforcement actions under other statutes, particularly CERCLA, may also be included.
  3. This measure generated by a recommendation from the General Accounting Office, requires that EPA now report on penalties assessed in judicial enforcement cases that are awarded to a state/co-plaintiff.
  4. EPA provides assistance using a variety of tools including workshops, facility visits, posting web-based information, responding to specific calls about regulations, etc.

Top of page


Federal Data Presented State-by-state

EPA works in partnership with states in targeting federal enforcement where it produces the most environmental benefit. The data below shows EPA's activities and achievements.

Caveat - A single enforcement case that addresses facilities located in more than one state will be counted in the total for each state with a facility. The results achieved from this enforcement action will also be counted in each state with a facility.

Map of EPA Region 5 Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota Ohio Wisconsin

Region 5, Illinois

Civil Enforcement
Estimated Environmental Benefits - Commitments to Reduce Pollution & Protect the Environment:
    Direct Environmental Benefits  
  • Pollution Reduced, Treated or Eliminated (Pounds) (1)
6,562,110
  • Hazardous Waste Treated, Minimized or Properly Disposed Of (Pounds) (1)  (2)
0
  • Contaminated Soil to be Cleaned Up (Cubic Yards)
937
  • Contaminated Water to be Cleaned Up (Cubic Yards)
0
Investments in Actions & Equipment to Reduce Pollution & Protect the Environment (Injunctive Relief) $54,316,809.00
Investments in Projects that Benefit the Environment & Public Health (Supplemental Environmental Projects) $595,831.00
Civil Penalties Assesssed $2,944,360.00
Civil Enforcement and Compliance Activities
Civil Judicial Enforcement Case Conclusions 10
Final Administrative Penalty Orders 51
Administrative Compliance Orders 23

Top of page

Region 5, Indiana

Civil Enforcement
Estimated Environmental Benefits - Commitments to Reduce Pollution & Protect the Environment:
    Direct Environmental Benefits  
  • Pollution Reduced, Treated or Eliminated (Pounds) (1)
69,725,553
  • Hazardous Waste Treated, Minimized or Properly Disposed Of (Pounds) (1)  (2)
0
  • Contaminated Soil to be Cleaned Up (Cubic Yards)
8,704
  • Contaminated Water to be Cleaned Up (Cubic Yards)
1,926,139
Investments in Actions & Equipment to Reduce Pollution & Protect the Environment (Injunctive Relief) $44,339,382.00
Investments in Projects that Benefit the Environment & Public Health (Supplemental Environmental Projects) $172,895.00
Civil Penalties Assesssed $1,560,646.00
Civil Enforcement and Compliance Activities
Civil Judicial Enforcement Case Conclusions 10
Final Administrative Penalty Orders 15
Administrative Compliance Orders 13

Top of page

Region 5, Michigan

Civil Enforcement
Estimated Environmental Benefits - Commitments to Reduce Pollution & Protect the Environment:
    Direct Environmental Benefits  
  • Pollution Reduced, Treated or Eliminated (Pounds) (1)
2,448,957
  • Hazardous Waste Treated, Minimized or Properly Disposed Of (Pounds) (1)  (2)
256,946
  • Contaminated Soil to be Cleaned Up (Cubic Yards)
711,772
  • Contaminated Water to be Cleaned Up (Cubic Yards)
0
Investments in Actions & Equipment to Reduce Pollution & Protect the Environment (Injunctive Relief) $48,917,512.00
Investments in Projects that Benefit the Environment & Public Health (Supplemental Environmental Projects) $1,294,788.00
Civil Penalties Assesssed $1,983,526.00
Civil Enforcement and Compliance Activities
Civil Judicial Enforcement Case Conclusions 16
Final Administrative Penalty Orders 2
Administrative Compliance Orders 23

Top of page

Region 5, Minnesota

Civil Enforcement
Estimated Environmental Benefits - Commitments to Reduce Pollution & Protect the Environment:
    Direct Environmental Benefits  
  • Pollution Reduced, Treated or Eliminated (Pounds) (1)
21,959
  • Hazardous Waste Treated, Minimized or Properly Disposed Of (Pounds) (1)  (2)
0
  • Contaminated Soil to be Cleaned Up (Cubic Yards)
1,196
  • Contaminated Water to be Cleaned Up (Cubic Yards)
0
Investments in Actions & Equipment to Reduce Pollution & Protect the Environment (Injunctive Relief) $343,774.00
Investments in Projects that Benefit the Environment & Public Health (Supplemental Environmental Projects) $87,264.00
Civil Penalties Assesssed $433,085.00
Civil Enforcement and Compliance Activities
Civil Judicial Enforcement Case Conclusions 2
Final Administrative Penalty Orders 14
Administrative Compliance Orders 9

Top of page

Region 5, Ohio

Civil Enforcement
Estimated Environmental Benefits - Commitments to Reduce Pollution & Protect the Environment:
    Direct Environmental Benefits  
  • Pollution Reduced, Treated or Eliminated (Pounds) (1)
3,808,216
  • Hazardous Waste Treated, Minimized or Properly Disposed Of (Pounds) (1)  (2)
0
  • Contaminated Soil to be Cleaned Up (Cubic Yards)
287,041
  • Contaminated Water to be Cleaned Up (Cubic Yards)
4,545
Investments in Actions & Equipment to Reduce Pollution & Protect the Environment (Injunctive Relief) $30,702,019.00
Investments in Projects that Benefit the Environment & Public Health (Supplemental Environmental Projects) $148,869.00
Civil Penalties Assesssed $1,902,020.00
Civil Enforcement and Compliance Activities
Civil Judicial Enforcement Case Conclusions 14
Final Administrative Penalty Orders 18
Administrative Compliance Orders 85

Region 5, Wisconsin

Civil Enforcement
Estimated Environmental Benefits - Commitments to Reduce Pollution & Protect the Environment:
    Direct Environmental Benefits  
  • Pollution Reduced, Treated or Eliminated (Pounds) (1)
199,115
  • Hazardous Waste Treated, Minimized or Properly Disposed Of (Pounds) (1)  (2)
0
  • Contaminated Soil to be Cleaned Up (Cubic Yards)
75,000
  • Contaminated Water to be Cleaned Up (Cubic Yards)
0
Investments in Actions & Equipment to Reduce Pollution & Protect the Environment (Injunctive Relief) $855,932.00
Investments in Projects that Benefit the Environment & Public Health (Supplemental Environmental Projects) $305,521.00
Civil Penalties Assesssed $546,607.00
Civil Enforcement and Compliance Activities
Civil Judicial Enforcement Case Conclusions 2
Final Administrative Penalty Orders 23
Administrative Compliance Orders 11

Top of page

Sources for Data displayed for Federal Data Presented State-by-State: Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS)

Footnotes:

  1. Projected reductions to be achieved during the one year period after all actions required to attain full compliance have been completed.
  2. In FY 2008, for the first time, OECA initiated a new Environmental Benefits outcome reporting category to count pounds of "Hazardous Waste Treated, Minimized or Properly Disposed Of" from enforcement cases. OECA has determined that none of the previously established outcome categories are appropriate for counting the environmental benefits obtained from EPA's hazardous waste cases. For FY 2008, this new pilot category includes only results from RCRA cases, but, in the future, similar results obtained from enforcement actions under other statutes, particularly CERCLA, may also be included.

Top of page


Federal Case Highlights Presented State-by-state

Illinois: Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) Enforcement

In FY 2009 EPA issued administrative orders to six Illinois concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) resulting in the elimination of 1,380,000 pounds of nitrogen, phosphorus, chemical oxygen demand, biological oxygen demand and potassium pollutants. The orders required the facilities to eliminate uncontrolled waste discharges and to seek a permit.

Illinois CAFOs receiving orders are Schumacher Dairy, Varel Dairy Inc., CD&R Farms Inc., Donald A. Beckman and Sons, Logeman Brothers Farm and Cold Springs Farm. The discharges were confirmed by field investigations of watersheds in northwest and south central Illinois where large numbers of CAFOs might be contributing to water quality problems.

CAFO compliance with the Clean Water Act is a national enforcement priority. Uncontrolled runoff from large open feedlots, manure storage structures and feed storage areas can impair waterways by introducing high levels of pathogens and toxic levels of nutrients.

Indiana: Multi-Media Consent Decree with Friction Holdings LLC

United States v. Friction Holdings LLC consent decree resolved alleged violations of the Clean Water, Resource Conservation and Recovery, Toxic Substances Control, and Clean Air acts in the operation of an automotive parts manufacturing facility in Crawfordsville, Ind.

Under the consent decree the facility, formerly owned by Raybestos Products Co., is required to:

  1. pay a civil penalty of $337,500
  2. implement sampling, monitoring, training, reporting, and operation plans to insure that the facility's wastewater is being handled properly
  3. investigate the facility's ground water to check for PCBs and other hazardous substances, control migration
  4. clean up two contaminated areas
  5. eliminate sources of PCB contamination and study the need for disposal or cleanup.

Estimated cost is $305,000. Friction Holdings has brought the facility into compliance and resolved allegations. Region 5 worked with the Department of Justice in negotiating the settlement.

Michigan: Consent Decree in U.S. and the State of Michigan v. Wallside, Inc.

EPA and the state of Michigan alleged that Wallside, Inc. violated the Residential Property Renovation Rule requiring that lead-based paint renovators distribute an EPA pamphlet to owners and occupants of pre-1978 residential housing before beginning renovations.

Wallside is now in compliance with the federal rule and state law and will pay a penalty of $100,000. The company will perform two environmental projects including $350,000 in replacement windows for owner-occupied target housing in Michigan. It will also offer training and implementation of lead-safe work practices for window installation until EPA's final regulation on renovation and remodeling becomes fully effective and applicable.

Michigan: Wetlands Settlement

In a Region 5 wetlands case, John A. Rapanos and related defendants agreed to pay a civil penalty and recreate approximately 100 acres of wetlands and buffer areas to resolve alleged violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA) at three sites in Midland and Bay counties, Mich. The defendants agreed to pay a $150,000 penalty and spend an estimated $750,000 to mitigate for 54 acres of wetlands that were filled without authorization under the CWA. Rapanos also agreed to preserve an additional 134 acres of wetlands that were unaffected by the unauthorized activity. The original enforcement action was filed against Rapanos in 1994 and the case drew national attention after the District Court ruling was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and subsequently sent back to the U.S. District court for further proceedings.

Top of page


Local Navigation


Jump to main content.