U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Response to Congressional 

Request on EPA Enforcement 

Report No. 13-P-0168 February 28, 2013 

Scan this code to 

learn more about 

the EPA OIG. 
 

 

Report Contributors: Katie Butler

 Dan Engelberg 

 Genevieve Borg Soule 

 Danielle Tesch 

Abbreviations 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(Superfund) 

CWA Clean Water Act 

DOJ U.S. Department of Justice 

ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FTEs Full-Time Equivalents 

FY Fiscal Year 

IR Injunctive Relief 

MERs Monetary Enforcement Results 

NEIs National Enforcement Initiatives 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

SEPs Supplemental Environmental Projects 

Hotline 

To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact us through one of the following methods: 

e-mail: OIG_Hotline@epa.gov write: EPA Inspector General Hotline 

phone: 

fax: 

1-888-546-8740 

202-566-2599 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Mailcode 2431T 

online: http://www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.htm Washington, DC 20460 
 

13-P-0168 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency February 28, 2013 

Office of Inspector General 

At a Glance 

Why We Did This Review Response to Congressional Request on 

We conducted this review in EPA Enforcement

response to a congressional 

request for information about What We Found 

For further information, contact 

our Office of Congressional and 

Public Affairs at (202) 566-2391. 

The full report is at: 

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2013/ 

20130228-13-P-0168.pdf 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) enforcement 

results overall and, specifically, 

for Region 7 in fiscal year (FY) 

2010. 

EPA is responsible for 

enforcing many environmental 

laws across the country. EPA 

directs much of its enforcement 

towards sectors with histories 

of high noncompliance as part 

of its national enforcement 

initiatives. EPA annually reports 

environmental and monetary 

enforcement results to 

Congress and the public. 

This report addresses the 

following EPA Goal or 

Cross-Cutting Strategy: 

	 Enforcing environmental 

laws 

EPA enforcement data show that the amount of monetary results EPA regions 

achieve from concluded enforcement cases varies from year to year and from 

region to region. While the number of enforcement cases concluded for FYs 2006 

through 2011 remained relatively constant, the overall monetary results varied. 

The variations are linked to when and where in the nation a few large cases are 

concluded. These few large cases can result in unusually large monetary results 

in any given year. National Enforcement Initiatives (NEIs) set by EPA’s Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance drove the majority of these large cases. 

In FY 2010, Region 7 concluded two enforcement cases with large monetary 

results. Both cases were pursued under EPA’s NEIs. The two cases accounted 

for 24 percent of all of EPA’s monetary enforcement results for FY 2010 and 

98 percent of Region 7’s monetary results for FY 2010. Region 7’s results 

typically fell in the middle of the 10 regions. We found that from FYs 2006 

through 2011, Region 7’s enforcement results, regulated facilities, and staff 

allocated to enforcement were proportional with each other. Large cases took 

several years to close and relied on coordination with the U.S. Department of 

Justice, companies, and courts, which meant that EPA did not have full control 

over the year in which a case was settled. 

There are no recommendations associated with this report. The Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and Region 7 agreed with the Office of 

Inspector General’s conclusion that enforcement results can vary from year to 

year and from region to region based on when and where large cases are 

concluded. 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

February 28, 2013 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT:	 Response to Congressional Request on EPA Enforcement

 Report No. 13-P-0168 

FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr. 

TO: Cynthia Giles 

Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Karl Brooks 

Regional Administrator, Region 7 

This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains results that describe 

the problems the OIG has identified. This report represents the opinion of the OIG and does not 

necessarily represent the final EPA position. 

Because this report contains no recommendations, you are not required to respond to this report. 

However, if you submit a response, it will be posted on the OIG’s public website, along with our 

memorandum commenting on your response. Your response should be provided as an Adobe 

PDF file that complies with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973, as amended. The final response should not contain data that you do not want to be 

released to the public; if your response contains such data, you should identify the data for 

redaction or removal along with corresponding justification. We have no objections to the further 

release of this report to the public. We will post this report to our website at 

http://www.epa.gov/oig. 

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact Carolyn Copper, 

Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation, at (202) 566-0829 or 

copper.carolyn@epa.gov; or Dan Engelberg, Product Line Director, at (202) 566-0830 or 

engelberg.dan@epa.gov. 
 

 

 

 

 

Response to Congressional Request 13-P-0168 

on EPA Enforcement 

Table of Contents 

Chapters 

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
 

Purpose ....................................................................................................... 1 

Background ................................................................................................. 1 

 Scope and Methodology .............................................................................. 5 

2 Results ................................................................................................................ 7
 

EPA’s Monetary Enforcement Results Varied From FYs 2006 

 Through 2011. ........................................................................................ 7 

Variations in Monetary Enforcement Results Are Linked to When 

 Large Cases Conclude ........................................................................... 8 

The Proportion of Region 7 Enforcement Results, Facility Universe, 

and Enforcement FTEs Are Similar........................................................ 13 

Conclusion ................................................................................................... 16 

Agency Response and OIG Evaluation ....................................................... 16 

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits.............................. 17
 

Appendices 

A Region 7’s 2010 Annual Results News Release, December 6, 2010.............. 18
 

B Summary of Concluded Enforcement Cases With Monetary
 

Enforcement Results Greater Than $1 Billion, FYs 2006-2011 ...................... 19 

C Agency Response to Draft Report ................................................................... 22 

D Distribution ......................................................................................................... 23 
 

 

 

Chapter 1

Introduction 

Purpose 

We conducted this review in response to a congressional request for information 

about U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforcement results. We 

addressed the following questions: 

	 What are the trends in enforcement results stemming from EPA 

enforcement actions (injunctive relief, supplemental environmental 

projects, and penalties) over time [fiscal years (FYs) 2006 through 

2011] and across regions? 

 What are the key factors explaining differences in enforcement results 

stemming from EPA enforcement actions among EPA regions? 

 How do enforcement results stemming from EPA enforcement actions in 

Region 7 compare to those in the rest of the EPA regions? 

Background 

EPA’s mission is to protect human health and the environment, ensuring that all 

Americans are protected from significant risks where they live, learn, and work. 

EPA administers programs under federal environmental statutes.1 Each of these 

programs has specific regulations. EPA is tasked with enforcing these regulations 

at approximately 40 million regulated federal and private entities. EPA’s Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) works with EPA’s 10 regional 

offices, state and tribal governments, and other federal agencies to ensure that 

federal laws and regulations are enforced fairly and effectively. EPA strives for a 

nationally consistent enforcement policy to promote a level playing field among 

regulated entities and to ensure that all Americans live in states that meet 

minimum environmental standards. 

EPA’s goal is to direct its core enforcement activities so that the Agency may 

achieve the highest environmental benefits and reductions in risks to human 

health and the environment. 

1

 Federal environmental statutes include the Clean Air Act (CAA); Clean Water Act (CWA); Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund); Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; Marine Protection, Research 

and Sanctuaries Act; National Environmental Policy Act; Oil Pollution Act; Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act; Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); and Toxic Substances Control Act. 

13-P-0168 1 
 

 

EPA Can Take Enforcement Actions When Violations Are Found 

When EPA finds that facilities have violated the law, it may take enforcement 

actions to correct any environmental damage and to deter future violations. These 

actions may be informal, such as notices of violation; or formal, such as 

administrative orders and seeking judicial orders or consent decrees. Depending 

on the severity of the violation, and on whether the violation was willfully or 

knowingly committed, EPA may also pursue criminal charges against an 

individual or corporate defendant. 

For each concluded enforcement case, EPA typically tracks two categories of 

results: 

	 Environmental results. These include environmental improvements 

achieved through returning to compliance. OECA typically reports these 

as “pounds of pollution reduced,” or a similar environmental or human 

health improvement. 

	 Monetary enforcement results (MERs). These include financial costs to 

the violator. OECA reports these in three ways: (1) injunctive relief (IR), 

(2) supplemental environmental projects (SEPs), and (3) penalties (see 

table 1). EPA considers money the violator agrees to spend on IR as 

money the company should have spent complying with the law. IR makes 

up the vast majority of MERs. Both IR and SEPs are investments made by 

the company, which often result in an improvement to the environment. 

For example, the violator agrees to decontaminate soil or reduce the 

pollution produced by installing technology. Penalties are money paid 

directly to the government. EPA also reports MERs associated with 

criminal enforcement actions and violations of administrative and judicial 

orders. 

13-P-0168 2 
 

   

                     

       

             

       

       

           

           

             

     

           

           

         

     

       

         

           

       

   

   

               

         

       

         

       

         

         

                 

           

     

       

         

           

             

         

           

       

       

         

         

         

         

         

             

              

         

           

   

         

           

       

         

 

Table 1: Types of monetary results associated with concluded enforcement cases 

Monetary

enforcement results Description Examples

Injunctive relief (IR) The action that EPA orders a violator to

take, through court or administrative

order,2 in order to achieve and maintain

compliance with environmental laws.

Facilities typically make these

investments over several years or even

decades, even though EPA reports the

total investment amount in the year the

case was concluded.

 An energy company must install a

new cooling system to comply with

thermal discharge requirements in a

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

 A petroleum refinery must install

controls to reduce emissions of air

pollutants to permitted levels.

Supplemental

environmental projects

(SEPs)

Environmental improvement projects

that a violator agrees to perform as part

of an enforcement settlement. These

projects supplement the projects

required to correct the violations

(injunctive relief), and produce

environmental or public health and

safety benefits beyond those required

by law. EPA may grant a credit to the

violator to partially offset the penalty

imposed during settlement.

 A wastewater treatment plant

connects low‐income residents to its

system.

 A company restores a section of

stream impacted by a release of a

toxic substance from its facility.

Penalties The money the violator pays in

connection with noncompliance or

violation. Penalty amounts are

established by criteria from relevant

environmental law or agency policy.

Criteria affecting penalty amounts may

include prior knowledge of regulations,

monetary benefits the violator received

by not complying and severity of the

violation.

 A company must pay a penalty of

$1 million for NPDES permit

violations at 61 of its wastewater

treatment plants.

 An energy company must pay

$13 million in penalties for illegally

discharging harmful substances to

surface waters without a permit.

Source: Office of Inspector General (OIG) summary based on OECA website and enforcement case summaries. 

EPA Reports Annual Enforcement Results to the Public and Congress 

Each fiscal year, EPA reports its enforcement results to the public and Congress 

through its annual results process. Prior to releasing national year-end results, 

OECA collects and validates data from the regions about their enforcement 

activities. OECA refers to the final data as “certified data.” The annual results 

provide overviews of the enforcement program, details about annual results (both 

monetary and environmental), and year-to-year enforcement trends. The annual 

2

 Technically, only courts can issue “injunctions.” However, EPA uses the term “injunctive relief” to refer to activity 

required by both courts and administrative orders. 

13-P-0168 3 
 

 

 

   

     

     

  

           

   

   

     

 

 

 

 

reports often highlight specific accomplishments, like cases that resulted in large 

MERs and/or environmental results.3 

In addition to OECA’s annual reporting, individual EPA regions may describe 

their year-end results to the public in press releases. For example, Region 7 issued 

a press release on December 6, 2010, describing its enforcement results in 

FY 2010. The press release stated that in FY 2010 Region 7 concluded cases 

resulting in over $3 billion in IR. The press release also said this dollar amount 

accounted for 31 percent of the total for EPA in FY 2010 (see appendix A). 

Table 2 summarizes EPA’s monetary enforcement results for FYs 2006-2011.4 

Table 2: EPA annual monetary enforcement results for all regions by year, FYs 2006-2011 

Fiscal

Year

Number of

concluded

enforcement

cases

Injunctive

relief

($ in

millions)

Supplemental

environmental

projects

($ in millions)

Total

administrative

and judicial

penalties

($ in millions)

Enforcement

total

($ in millions)

Average

monetary

commitment per

concluded case

($ in millions)

2006 3,593 $4,801 $69 $103 $4,973 $1.38

2007 3,403 $10,538 $30 $62 $10,631 $3.12

2008 3,541 $11,706 $39 $122 $11,866 $3.35

2009 3,670 $5,319 $41 $87 $5,447 $1.48

2010 3,292 $12,111 $24 $92 $12,227 $3.71

2011 3,206 $19,050 $25 $140 $19,215 $5.99

Source: OIG summary of OECA’s certified annual results by fiscal year. 

EPA Sets National Priorities for Its Enforcement Activities 

Every 3 years, EPA sets national enforcement initiatives (NEIs) to focus civil and 

criminal enforcement resources and expertise on serious environmental problems. 

EPA’s NEIs have focused on pollution problems such as mineral processing, air 

toxics/air pollution, stormwater, and petroleum refineries.5 EPA’s current NEIs 

for FYs 2011-2013 focus on five areas: 

 Reducing air pollution from the largest sources and cutting hazardous air 

pollutants. 

 Keeping raw sewage and contaminated stormwater out of the nation’s 

waters. 

 Preventing animal waste from contaminating surface and groundwater. 

3

 FY 2011 year-end results are reported at 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/reports/endofyear/eoy2011/eoy-data.html. 4

 All of the dollar amounts presented in this report are real dollars (i.e., not adjusted for inflation) as reported in the 

annual results for that given fiscal year. 5

 The petroleum refineries NEI was returned to the core enforcement program after the FY 2005 through
 

FY 2007 cycle, but the others have carried over to the FY 2011 through FY 2013 NEIs.
 

13-P-0168 4 
 

 

 Ensuring energy extraction activities comply with environmental laws. 

 Reducing pollution from mineral processing operations. 

OECA and regions negotiate region-specific enforcement commitments to support 

the goals and measures of the NEIs. Depending on the level of progress, EPA may 

either carry over a NEI to the next cycle, or consider the issue addressed and 

return the program to the core enforcement program. 

Scope and Methodology 

We conducted this evaluation in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

evaluation to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis 

for our findings and conclusions based on our review objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our analysis and results 

based on our evaluation objectives. We performed our review from July to 

December 2012. 

To answer this congressional request, we evaluated EPA enforcement data from 

EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database and 

supplemental region-certified data provided by OECA. We reviewed the MERs 

associated with civil enforcement cases (including Superfund)6 concluded by EPA 

regions. We used the real dollar amounts as reported in the Agency’s annual 

enforcement results reports. The period for our review was from FYs 2006 

through 2011. We selected this timeframe because it gives a sense of the number 

and types of enforcement cases concluded by EPA over different administrations. 

We did not include criminal actions because the request focused on civil 

enforcement results. We also did not include cases taken by EPA headquarters 

since the focus of this review was regional results. 

To examine trends in EPA’s regional MERs, we obtained annual enforcement 

results for all 10 regions over our study period and employed descriptive trend 

analysis techniques. This analysis involved plotting values from year to year and 

describing the shape of the plot. We also calculated the average over the 6-year 

period and compared yearly results by calculating the percent change from the 

average for each year. 

We also analyzed annual enforcement results for IR, SEPs, and penalties for each 

region. We assessed the extent of variability in regional MERs by identifying the 

frequency with which these results exceeded 150 percent of the 6-year average for 

that region. We chose this threshold after an initial assessment of the data 

demonstrated that the threshold captured all years in which a substantial variation 

from the 6-year average occurred. Once we identified years when results 

5

 This includes concluded Superfund cases, which are different from other civil enforcement cases since they focus 

on locating and negotiating with the parties responsible for contamination at a site, and accomplishing site cleanup. 

Further information about Superfund enforcement is at http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/cleanup/superfund/index.html. 

13-P-0168 5 
 

 

 

exceeded 150 percent of the 6-year average, we determined the key factors 

leading to differences in MERs by identifying the cases that contributed to the 

substantial variations from the averages. We interviewed OECA staff and 

managers and reviewed EPA enforcement data to identify the reasons for 

variations over this period. 

To determine whether the enforcement results in Region 7 were different from 

those in other EPA regions, we analyzed the distribution of the region’s MERs 

over the selected time period. We also analyzed the distribution of EPA’s 

regulated facilities and full-time equivalents (FTEs or staff) across the regions. 

We also identified the cases that contributed to Region 7’s FY 2010 enforcement 

results through a review of EPA’s enforcement data and interviews with Region 7 

enforcement personnel. Based on the objectives of the review and the analysis 

performed, the OIG has no recommendations to report. 

Data Limitations 

We obtained our enforcement data from EPA’s publicly available and certified 

enforcement data. There are limitations in using these data to reach conclusions 

about the number of regulated facilities in an EPA region. First, EPA relies on the 

number of permits issued as a proxy for the number of facilities regulated by the 

agency. However, a single facility may have multiple permits, so the permit count 

is higher than the facility count. Second, EPA does not know the location of all 

regulated facilities.7

 This results in underreporting for the facility universe. 

However, EPA has also found that its facility universe includes closed facilities, 

which results in overreporting the facility universe. Third, because facility 

complexity varies and complex facilities require more inspection and enforcement 

resources, the ratio of permits to resources may not provide a precise picture of 

the regions’ requirements and capabilities. A region with a smaller number of 

more complex facilities could have a larger enforcement burden than a region 

with a larger number of less-complex facilities. Facility numbers do not capture 

this nuance. After considering these limitations, we do not believe that any of the 

limitations have material implications for our results. 

7

 For more information, see the OIG reports Limited Knowledge of the Universe of Regulated Entities Impedes 

EPA’s Ability to Demonstrate Changes in Regulatory Compliance (Report No. 2005-P-00024, issued September 19, 

2005) and EPA Needs to Further Improve How It Manages Its Oil Pollution Prevention Program (Report No. 

12-P-0253, issued February 6, 2012). 

13-P-0168 6 
 

 

 

Chapter 2

Results 

EPA regions’ MERs vary from year to year. A few extremely high-value 

enforcement cases that were concluded explain large variations across regions and 

over time. For FYs 2006 through 2011, the annual number of cases EPA regions 

concluded remained relatively constant. However, over the 6 years, the MERs 

stemming from these cases varied. A factor linked to this variation was the timing 

and distribution of a few large cases concluded in a given year. In FY 2010, 

Region 7 results included two large concluded cases that accounted for 24 percent 

of nationwide enforcement results. However, FY 2010 was not an ordinary year in 

Region 7. Over the 6-year period, Region 7 MERs accounted for only 6 percent of 

national results on average. In addition, we found that for FYs 2006 through 2011, 

Region 7 enforcement results were in proportion to both the number of regulated 

facilities and the number of enforcement FTEs in the region. Based on this 

information, the number of concluded cases and associated MERs in Region 7 for 

these years were similar to the level of activity in the other nine regions. 

EPA’s Monetary Enforcement Results Varied From 

FYs 2006 Through 2011 

Although the annual MERs varied from year to year, the number of concluded 

cases remained relatively constant across EPA regions and over our review 

period. Most of EPA’s MERs were in the form of injunctive relief, focused on 

completing tasks that will return and keep facilities in compliance. IR made up 

nearly 99 percent of the $64 billion in MERs assessed in the study period.8 

Penalties and SEPs accounted for under 2 percent of MERs. In addition, MERs 

also varied across regions. 

EPA enforcement data for the period reviewed (FYs 2006 through 2011) indicate 

that the number of cases EPA regions concluded remained relatively constant, 

differing by an average of 4 percent from the 6-year average over the study period 

(see table 3). However, the monetary results associated with these cases 

fluctuated widely from year to year, differing by an average of 35 percent from 

the 6-year average. Therefore, an increase in the number of concluded cases does 

not necessarily lead to an increase in MERs (or vice versa). For example, in 

FY 2009 the number of concluded cases increased while the MERs decreased. 

8

 IR is substantially higher than penalties and SEPs because IR reflects long-term investments (e.g., 15-20 years) 

made by companies to correct noncompliance. However, EPA reports the total amount in the year that the case is 

concluded. 

13-P-0168 7 
 

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

       

   

   

                           

 

Table 3: Comparison of the percent change from the 6-year average for concluded 

cases and MERs 

Fiscal Year

Number of

concluded

cases

Percent difference

from 6‐year

average number of

concluded cases*

Total monetary

enforcement

results

($ in billions)

Percent

difference from

6‐year average

MERs*

2006 3,593 4% $4.9 54%

2007 3,403 1% $10.6 1%

2008 3,541 3% $11.9 11%

2009 3,670 6% $5.3 51%

2010 3,292 5% $12.3 15%

2011 3,206 7% $19.1 79%

6‐year

Average 3,451 ‐‐ $10.7 ‐‐

Average

percent

difference

‐‐ 4% ‐‐ 35%

* Above 6‐year average indicated in black text; below 6‐year average indicated in red text.

Source: OIG analysis of OECA’s certified annual results by fiscal year. 

Monetary enforcement results varied across the three categories (IRs, SEPs, and 

penalties) as well. Over the 6-year period we reviewed, IR differed 173 percent 

between the highest and lowest regions. This variation also occurred within 

individual regions. For example, Region 7’s IR amounts differed 191 percent 

from its lowest to highest years. Similar results were also apparent for SEPs. 

Penalties varied 153 percent between the highest and lowest region over the study 

period. For an individual region, Region 10 showed the largest variation, posting 

a 163-percent difference between the highest and lowest year. 

Variations in Monetary Enforcement Results Are Linked to When 

Large Cases Conclude 

For FYs 2006 through 2011, the conclusion of a few cases with large monetary 

results influenced MERs variation. When regions concluded large cases, the 

overall value of these cases increased those regions’ MERs in that year. This led 

to variability in MERs from year to year, both within and across regions. Due to 

multiple stakeholders in these types of cases (e.g., the defendants, the U.S. 

Department of Justice (DOJ), and others), EPA regions had limited control over 

when a large case settled. Additionally, EPA’s NEIs drove the majority of these 

large cases. (These cases are italicized in figures 1 through 3). 

In years when a region reported MERs significantly higher than the 6-year 

average, the region concluded one or more large cases in that year. See figures 1 

through 3 for more information on these cases. 

13-P-0168 8 
 

Figure 1: The value of injunctive relief by region and the contributing cases, FYs 2006-2011 

$5

$4

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
 

Billions of Dollars

$3

$2

$1

$0

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Cases contributing to higher than normal injunctive relief results 

2006 Region 6 - Valero Refining Company, $457 million; ExxonMobil Corporation, $193 million; ConoccoPhillips, 

$192 million; ExxonMobil and Supply Baton Rouge Refinery, $154 million. These four cases accounted for 76% of 

Region 6’s injunctive relief in 2006. 

2007  Region 2 - Prasa V -Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority, $1.7 billion; PSEG Fossil, LLC (CD Amendment), 

$1.1 billion; New York City Department of Environmental Protection, $930 million. These cases accounted for 91% of 

Region 2’s total injunctive relief for 2007. 

2008  Region 1 - Brayton Point, $500 million. This case accounted for 75% of Region 1’s injunctive relief for 2008. 

 Region 3 - American Electric Power Company (national case), $1.9 billion; Allegheny County Sanitary Authority, 

$1.4 billion. These cases accounted for 96% of Region 3’s injunctive relief for 2008. 

 Region 8 - Kennecott South Zone Superfund Site, $197 million; Libby Asbestos Site, $191 million; Atlantic Richfield 

Corporation, $97 million. These three cases accounted for 84% of Region 8’s Injunctive Relief for 2008. 

2009  Region 10 - Asarco Bankruptcy (NC) CDA Basin, $373 million. This case accounted for 77% of Region 10’s 

injunctive relief for 2009. 

2010  Region 5 - Hamilton County, $1.79 billion; Lyondell Chemical Company, Inc, et al. (NC), $983 million; Enbridge 

Energy Partners, L.P. Order (Marshall), $600 million. These three cases accounted for 76% of Region 5’s injunctive 

relief for 2010. 

 Region 7 - City of Kansas City, Missouri, $2.4 billion; Westar Energy Inc, $556 million. These two cases accounted 

for 97% of Region 7’s injunctive relief in 2010. 

2011  Region 2 - General Electric Company, $2.1 billion; Hovensa LLC (Global), $700 million. These two cases accounted 

for 88% of Region 2’s injunctive relief in 2011. 

 Region 4 - Tennessee Valley Authority, $5 billion, This case accounted for 92% of Region 4’s injunctive relief in 

2011. 

 Region 5 - NEORDS-Cleveland, $3 billion; NIPSCO, $609 million; City of Evansville, $500 million. These three 

cases accounted for 86% of Region 5’s injunctive relief for 2011. 

 Region 9 - Honolulu, City and County, $3.7 billion. This case accounted for 94% of Region 9’s injunctive relief for 

2011. 

 Region 10 - Coeur D'Alene Basin Hecla Mining, $114 million; BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc, $60.5 million; EMF J.R. 

Simplot Company, $50 million. These three cases accounted for 65% of Region 10’s injunctive relief for 2011. 

Source: OIG analysis of EPA enforcement data for FYs 2006-2011. Cases in italic print were part of an NEI. 

13-P-0168 9 
 

Figure 2: The value of supplemental environmental projects by region and the contributing cases, 

FYs 2006-2011 

$18
 

$16
 

$14
 

2006

Millions of Dollars$12

$10

$8

$6

$4

$2

$0

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
 

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Cases contributing to higher than normal supplemental environmental projects results 

2006  Region 2 - ConocoPhillips, $8 million; Valero Refining Company, New Jersey, $1.2 million. These two cases 

accounted for 72% of Region 2’s total SEP value for 2006. 

 Region 3 - Sunoco Inc., $3.9 million; Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, $4.4 million; Motiva Enterprises 

LLC, $6.4 million. These three cases accounted for 87% of Region 3’s total SEP value in 2006. 

 Region 5 - ExxonMobil Corporation, $2.2 million; Eramet Marietta Inc., $2 million; Archer Daniels Midland, $1 million; 

Conoco Inc. Wood River Products, $900,000. These four cases accounted for 52% of Region 5’s total SEP value for 

2006. 

 Region 6 - Valero Refining, $3 million; ExxonMobil Refining Complex, $1 million; City of Dallas, $1.2 million; 

Oxy Vinyls Limited, $964,000. These four cases accounted for 61% of Region 6’s total SEP value for 2006. 

 Region 7 - Cargill Inc., $2 million. This case accounted for 70% of Region 7’s total SEP value for 2006. 

 Region 8 - ExxonMobil Refining and Supply Company, $1.8 million. This case accounted for 85% of Region 8’s total 

SEP value for 2006. 

2007  Region 9 - Nevada Power Company, $9.7 million. This case accounted for 89% of Region 9’s total SEP value for 

2007. 

2008  Region 3 - Merck and Company, $4.5 million; Allegheny County Sanitary Authority, $3 million; Southeastern 

Transportation Authority, $1.1 million. These cases accounted for 89% of Region 3’s total SEP value for 2008. 

 Region 6 - Equistar Global (National Case), $6 million; Premcor Refining Group (National Case), $2.3 million. These 

two cases accounted for 86% of Region 6’s total SEP value for 2008. 

 Region 10 - USDOE Hanford Facility, $837,000; Thea Foss Settlement, $268,500; ConocoPhillips Company, 

$200,000. These three cases accounted for 77% of Region 10’s total SEP value for 2008. 

2009  Region 1 - Franklin Park Apartments (The Community Builders), $1.9 million. This case accounted for 61% of 

Region 1’s total SEP value in 2009. 

 Region 4 - Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, TN, $2.8 million; Memphis Light, Gas, and 

Water Division, $10 million. These two cases accounted for 92% of Region 4’s total SEP value in 2009. 

 Region 6 - BP North American, $6 million; Shintech Inc, $4.7 million. These cases accounted for 91% of Region 6’s 

total SEP value for 2009. 

2010  Region 7 - City of Kansas City, Missouri, $1.4 million; Kaneb Pipeline Operating Partnership, LP, A Nustar Energy LP 

Company, $762,302. These two cases accounted for 63% of Region 7’s total SEP value for 2010. 

 Region 8 - McWane Inc., $1 million. This case accounted for 81% of Region 8’s total SEP value for 2010. 

2011 None

 Source: OIG analysis of EPA enforcement data for FYs 2006-2011. Cases in italic print were part of an NEI. 

13-P-0168 10 
 

 

Figure 3: Penalty amounts by region and the contributing cases, FYs 2006-2011 

$40
 

$35
 

$30
 

2006

Millions of Dollars$25

$20

$15

$10

$5

$0

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

R1
 R2
 R3
 R4
 R5
 R6
 R7
 R8
 R9
 R10
 

Cases contributing to higher than normal total penalties results 

2006  Region 4 - United Organics Corporation & Malcolm Lieberman, $32.8 million. This case accounted for 84% of 

Region 4’s penalties in 2006. 

2007 None 

2008  Region 3 - Massey Energy Company et al., $13.3 million; American Electric Power Company (National Case), 

$6.2 million; Euclid of Virginia Inc., $3.2 million. These three cases accounted for 76% of Region 3’s penalties in 2008. 

2009  Region 8 - Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, $1.05 million; Colorado Interstate Gas/Natural Buttes, $987,757; 

Citation Oil and Gas Corporation, $280,000; Miller Dyer & Company, $250,000; Frontier Refining, $242,600. 

These cases accounted for 67% of Region 8’s penalties for 2009. 

2010 None 

2011  Region 6 - Citgo Petroleum Corporation, $6 million; BP Texas City, $15 million. These two cases accounted for 72% 

of Region 6’s penalties in 2011. 

 Region 8 - EOG Resources, $411,000; QEP Energy Company, $381,000; Slawson Exploration Company, $372,000; 

Riverbend Compressor Station, $350,000. Alfred Barone-Bar One Ranch, $275,000; Marathon Oil Company, 

$294,000.These cases accounted for 46% of Region 8’s penalties in 2011 

 Region 10 - BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc, $20.5 million. This case accounted for 81% of Region 10’s penalties in 

2011. 

Source: OIG analysis of EPA enforcement data for FYs 2006-2011. Cases in italic print were part of an NEI. 

13-P-0168 11 
 

   

   

Annual MERs had an average percent change of 35 percent from the 6-year 

average. There were 14 cases with MERs greater than $1 billion that accounted 

for 48 percent of all of the MERs during the study period (figure 4). These 

14 cases represent 0.07 percent of all cases concluded during the study period. 

(See appendix B for more information on the individual cases). However, when 

these 14 large cases are excluded, the average percent change is only 9 percent. 

Figure 4: Total monetary enforcement results, FYs 2006-2011 

$25

$20

Billions of Dollars

$10

$15

Cases > $1B

All Other Cases

$5

$‐

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
 

Source: OIG analysis of EPA enforcement data for FYs 2006-2011. 

The year with the largest MERs (FY 2011) included four cases with results over 

$1 billion. These four cases accounted for 72 percent of the national total 

(see figure 4). The largest concluded case addressed violations of the Clean Air 

Act by the Tennessee Valley Authority in Region 4. In this case, EPA and the 

DOJ reached a $5 billion agreement with the Tennessee Valley Authority to build 

new and upgraded state-of-the-art pollution controls. This case represented 

26 percent of that year’s national MERs. 

EPA’s NEIs drive the majority of these large cases. During our study period, on 

average 64 percent of the top 25 cases in a given year (measured in total MERs) 

were part of a NEI. Additionally, 12 of the 14 cases with results over $1 billion 

were part of a NEI. These cases vary by region mainly due to the geographic 

location of the types of facilities under a given initiative. Geographic variation 

causes variability in results stemming from those cases. For example, Region 6 

has approximately 55 active petroleum refineries while Region 7 only has 3, so 

Region 6 would most likely report more enforcement cases under the petroleum 

refinery initiative. The results from those cases could strongly influence annual 

results. 

13-P-0168 12 
 

Adding to the variability in annual enforcement results is the fact that regions do 

not control the timing of when these large cases reach conclusion. Instead, the 

timing is based on EPA working with outside stakeholders, such as DOJ and 

defendants, to help them reach settlements. This can take several years. For 

example, in FY 2010, Region 7 concluded two large cases that began in FY 2004. 

Additionally, many large MERs, such as multi-billion dollar IR agreements with 

noncompliant facilities, include costs that facilities will incur over many years. 

However, EPA reports the total result in the year the case concludes. For 

example, a settlement with a municipality may require it to install billions of 

dollars of pollution controls over a 25-year period. The municipality may spend 

only a portion of the cost in any single year, but EPA reports the entire amount in 

the year the case concludes. 

The Proportion of Region 7 Enforcement Results, Facility Universe, 

and Enforcement FTEs Are Similar 

When we compared the regions’ enforcement resources, responsibilities, and 

results, Region 7 enforcement results were similar to other regions’ results. 

FY 2010 represented an atypical year for Region 7. During this year, the region 

settled two large NEI cases, which substantially increased the region’s MERs for 

FY 2010. 

Based on estimates of permits that require EPA oversight, Region 7 was 

responsible for close to 8 percent of the EPA regulated universe (see figure 5a). 

Region 7 also employed close to 7 percent of enforcement personnel over the 

6-year study period (see figure 5b). On average, Region 7 concluded almost 

8 percent of the enforcement cases (see figure 5c), and achieved 6.2 percent of the 

national monetary enforcement results over this period (see figure 5d). The 

comparison suggests that the proportion of Region 7’s concluded cases and MERs 

is similar to the proportion of its regulatory responsibilities and enforcement 

resources. 

13-P-0168 13 
 

Figure 5: Region 7 compared with other EPA regions according to: (a) percent of regulated 

facilities, (b) percent of FTEs, (c) percent of total enforcement actions, and (d) percent of total 

enforcement monetary commitments, FYs 2006-2011 

(a) Percent of regulated facilities (b) Percent of FTEs 

6.1%

11.5%

9.1%

18.4%

20.2%

9.6%

7.8%

8.3%

R1
 

R2
 

4.5%
 

R3
 

R4
 

R5
 

R6
 

R7
 

R8
 

R9
 

R10
 

4.5%

6.8%

10.5%

11.1%

14.0%

17.0%

10.7%

6.9%

6.6%

6.6%

9.6%

(c) Percent of total enforcement actions (d) Percent of total monetary commitments 

3.4%

4.9%

13.1%

8.8%

17.3%

9.7%

18.8%

7.6%

5.8%

7.5%

6.5%

16.0%

9.2%

17.3%

24.8%

6.0%

6.2%

2.0% 13.2%

1.8%

Source: OIG analysis of EPA enforcement data for FYs 2006-2011. 

Region 7’s FY 2010 Monetary Enforcement Results Were Atypical 

FY 2010 was an atypical year because it was the only year in our study period 

when Region 7’s results significantly exceeded the 6-year national average. In 

FY 2004, Region 7 began work on two large cases that concluded in FY 2010. 

The results from these cases accounted for over 97 percent of Region 7’s MERs 

for that year. Based on the results from these two cases, Region 7’s IR accounted 

13-P-0168 14 
 

for approximately 24 percent of the national total for that year. However, this was 

atypical of Region 7’s annual results. 

Over the 6-year period, Region 7’s IR on average accounted for slightly more 

than 6 percent of the national total. Region 7’s results typically fell in the middle 

of the 10 EPA regions. It was the sixth highest region for both number of 

concluded cases and monetary results. Region 7 was responsible for close to 

8 percent on average of the concluded cases (see figure 5c) and assessed slightly 

more than 6 percent of the overall monetary enforcement results (see figure 5d). 

By these measures, Region 7’s enforcement results were proportional to its 

resources and regulatory responsibility. 

NEIs Drive Large Cases in Region 7 

As discussed earlier, NEIs frequently drive atypical enforcement results in all 

EPA regions. As also mentioned previously in this report, in FY 2010 Region 7 

settled two large cases that accounted for over 97 percent of its MERs for that 

year. These two cases resulted in Region 7 annual results for IR that were 

substantially greater than any other year between FY 2006 and FY 2010. They 

also resulted in a projected environmental improvement of over 200 million 

pounds of air and water pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated because of the 

enforcement actions. 

Region 7 developed these two cases as part of two EPA NEIs to address 

municipal combined sewer overflows and combined sewer overflows, and coalfired power plants. These cases took several years of research and negotiation to 

reach conclusion. Both cases began in FY 2004 but concluded in FY 2010, so the 

results reported in FY 2010 were the result of EPA, DOJ, and regional activities 

over the previous 6 years. Region 7 was not alone in settling significant cases 

under the NEIs during the study period; other EPA regions participated in the 

initiatives as well (see examples below). 

	 The larger case addressed CWA combined sewer overflows/combined 

sewer overflows violations in the City of Kansas City, Missouri. The region 

developed this case as part of EPA’s NEI to improve compliance with 

combined sewer regulations. This case included IR of approximately 

$2.4 billion, a civil penalty of $600,000, and a SEP of about $1.4 million. 

The IR amount for this case accounted for approximately 79 percent of the 

Region 7 total and 20 percent of the national total for 2010, and consisted 

of projects the municipality would implement over 25 years. EPA has 

concluded several similar cases under this initiative across the United 

States. For example, other significant CWA combined sewer overflows 

cases included a Region 5 case against the City of Cleveland, which was 

concluded in FY 2011 and resulted in over $3 billion in monetary 

enforcement results; and a Region 3 case against the Allegheny County 

Sanitation Authority, which resulted in $1.4 billion in enforcement results. 

13-P-0168 15 
 

 

	 The smaller of the two cases Region 7 concluded in FY 2010 addressed 

violations of the Clean Air Act at a Westar Energy power plant in Topeka, 

Kansas. The region developed the case as a part of EPA’s NEI to improve 

compliance at coal-fired power plants. The case resulted in $556 million in 

IR and included a $2.75 million penalty. The IR in this case accounted for 

over 18 percent of the Region 7 total and 5 percent of the national total in 

FY 2010. Other EPA regions concluded coal-fired power plant cases during 

the study period, including a 2011 Region 4 case against the Tennessee 

Valley Authority resulting in over $5 billion in MERs. 

In other years, different regions showed larger than typical results for similar 

reasons (see figures 1 through 3). 

Conclusion 

Enforcement is a necessary tool for ensuring that entities regulated under EPA’s 

environmental programs meet their obligations. During our study period, large 

case conclusions determined the size of monetary enforcement results in a given 

year. Due to yearly variations in the MERs of concluded cases, examining results 

for a single region or a single year may be misleading. More than a single year or 

result should be looked at when trying to understand a region’s pattern of 

enforcement activity. For Region 7, two NEI enforcement cases that began in 

2004 and ultimately concluded in FY 2010 drove FY 2010 MERs. Due to the 

variability and timing of large cases, EPA cannot reliably predict when cases will 

contribute to future annual MERs. 

Agency Response and OIG Evaluation 

We received joint comments on the draft report from OECA and Region 7 on 

January 18, 2013 (see appendix C). OECA and Region 7 agreed with the OIG’s 

conclusion that enforcement results can vary from year to year and from region to 

region based on when and where large cases are concluded. We made changes to 

the report where appropriate. 

13-P-0168 16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits 

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $000s) 

Planned 

Rec. 

No. 

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official 

Completion 

Date 

Claimed 

Amount 

Agreed-To 

Amount 

No recommendations 

O = Recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending.
 

C = Recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed.
 

U = Recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
 

13-P-0168 17 

1 
 

 

Appendix A 

Region 7’s 2010 Annual Results News Release, 

December 6, 2010
 

EPA Region 7 Compliance and Enforcement Actions in 2010 Result in Record 

$3 Billion in Pollution Control and Cleanup Release Date: 12/06/2010 

Contact Information: Chris Whitley, 913-551-7394, whitley.christopher@epa.gov 

Environmental News 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

(Kansas City, Kan., Dec. 6, 2010) - Environmental compliance and enforcement activities concluded by 

EPA Region 7 during fiscal year 2010 set a new record, securing more than $3 billion in investments in 

pollution control and cleanup as a result of legal actions taken against polluters. 

Region 7’s total of more than $3 billion in secured injunctive relief accounted for fully 31 percent of EPA’s 

national total for the fiscal year, which ended September 30. 

Region 7’s actions will result in respondents in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and on tribal lands 

eliminating more than 470 million pounds of pollutants, and implementing more than $3 million in 

Supplemental Environmental Projects. 

Region 7’s targeted actions to achieve EPA’s National Priorities – including reducing harmful discharges 

of pollutants into rivers and streams, and reducing air pollution from major industrial sources – will further 

result in the reduction, treatment, minimization or disposal of more than 227 million pounds of pollutants. 

“Region 7’s 15 million people benefited from a remarkable year of progress toward a cleaner and safer 

environment,” Regional Administrator Karl Brooks said. “Our EPA team that links environmental 

professionals in program staff with skilled attorneys in our Office of Regional Counsel worked effectively 

with state and federal partners to gain these important results.” 

A report of Region 7’s Fiscal Year 2010 Compliance and Enforcement Annual Results, including 

statistical summaries and state-by-state highlights, along with links to information about EPA’s national 

environmental enforcement and compliance activity, is available online at: 

www.epa.gov/region07/enforcement_compliance/end_of_year_10_results.htm 

This year’s national reporting of annual results includes an enhanced mapping tool that allows the public 

to view detailed information about enforcement actions taken at more than 4,500 facilities across the U.S. 

and its territories. The mapping tool shows facilities and sites where civil and criminal enforcement actions 

were taken for alleged violations of U.S. environmental laws. The tool also displays community-based 

activities, including locations of environmental justice grants awarded during FY 2010, and Environmental 

Justice Showcase Communities. 

# # # 

For a national summary of EPA’s compliance and enforcement results for fiscal year 2010, go to: 

www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/reports/endofyear/eoy2010/index.html 

Source: EPA Newsroom 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/e77fdd4f5afd88a3852576b3005a604f/418c95dfcd20be418525 

77f100645d27!OpenDocument 

13-P-0168 18 
 

       

          

   

   

       

           

       

     

   

   

           

         

     

     

       

         

                   

   

     

   

   

         

     

       

     

     

   

       

     

   

           

   

      

   

     

   

       

       

     

                   

         

     

   

       

     

   

     

       

   

     

       

       

       

       

     

     

Appendix B 

Summary of Concluded Enforcement Cases With 

Monetary Enforcement Results Greater Than 

$1 Billion, FYs 2006-2011 

Fiscal

Year

Case name

Case

number Case type

Laws and

sections

NEI

(Y/N)

Monetary

enforcement results

(rounded) Case summary

Sanitation District 04‐2005‐ Civil Judicial CWA Y Federal penalty = Civil enforcement violations

No. 1 of Northern

Kentucky

9011 301/402 $138,200

SEP cost = $311,000

Injunctive relief =

$1.1 billion

of Section 301 of CWA by

Sanitation District No. 1 of

Northern Kentucky for

unauthorized discharges of

pollutants into waters of

the U.S. and other NPDES

permit deficiencies.

PSE&G Fossil, LLC 02‐2001‐ Civil Judicial CAA 165, Y Federal penalty = PSE&G made modifications

0020 173, 113A $4.25 million at its Hudson, Mercer, and

Injunctive relief = Bergen facilities without

$1.1 billion obtaining a prevention of

significant deterioration

permit and without

installing best available

2007

control technology.

PRASA V – Puerto

Rico Aqueduct and

Sewer Authority

02‐2004‐

0008

Civil Judicial CWA

301/402,

301

Y Federal penalty =

$1 million

SEP cost =

$2.6 million

Violations of NPDES permits

at 61 wastewater treatment

plants throughout Puerto

Rico.

Injunctive relief =

$1.7 billion

City of Indianapolis 05‐2000‐ Civil Judicial CWA 301, Y Federal penalty = Settlement related to the

0583 301/402 $558,900

SEP cost = $2 million

City of Indianapolis

developing and

Injunctive relief =

$1.9 billion

implementing a long‐term

control plan to eliminate

sanitary overflows,

implement all feasible

alternatives to bypassing at

the city’s two wastewater

treatment plants, and to

ensure the city’s combined

sewer overflows comply

with the CWA.

13-P-0168 19 
 

       

          

   

   

   

           

         

     

   

     

       

         

       

           

           

       

         

       

         

       

       

       

       

       

         

         

       

   

   

   

       

   

     

   

     

   

       

      

   

       

       

       

     

       

   

  

   

   

       

   

     

   

     

   

           

     

   

  

     

     

   

       

      

   

     

   

     

   

     

       

     

     

       

         

     

Fiscal

Year

Case name

Case

number Case type

Laws and

sections

NEI

(Y/N)

Monetary

enforcement results

(rounded) Case summary

2008

Allegheny County

Sanitary Authority

(ALCOSAN)

03‐2000‐

0106

Civil Judicial CWA

301/307,

301/402,

301

Y Federal penalty =

$400,000

SEP cost = $3 million

Injunctive relief =

$1.4 billion

Under certain conditions,

materials are diverted from

the path leading to the

treatment plant and instead

flow out of an outfall into

the waters of the U.S. The

diversion of material from

the sewer system to the

outfall is controlled in

whole or in part by

ALCOSAN. While there are

315 outfalls throughout the

system that carry material

to ALCOSAN, the sanitary

authority is only permitted

in its NPDES permit to

discharge from 3 (out of

315) outfalls under certain

conditions.

American Electric

Power Company

03‐1999‐

0388

Civil Judicial CAA 111,

165, 173,

Y Federal penalty =

$6.2 million

Company did not comply

with prevention of

(National Case) 110 Injunctive relief =

$1.9 billion

significant deterioration

permit requirements when

it implemented at least nine

capital improvement

projects, resulting in a

significant increase in SO2,

NOx, and/or particulate

matter emissions without a

permit.

Muskingum River 05‐1999‐ Civil Judicial CAA 110, Y Federal penalty = AEP failed to apply for a

Station, AEP 0644 111, 165 $8 million permit prior to

(Ohio Power) Injunctive relief = commencing major

(National Case) $2.5 billion modifications under

prevention of significant

deterioration permit and

new source performance

standards, and failed to

install best available

control technology.

New York City 02‐2010‐ Administrative ‐ SDWA N Injunctive relief = Administrative order issued

Department of

Environmental

8027 Formal 1412/141

4

$1.6 billion to establish an enforceable

schedule to achieve

2010

Protection compliance with the

requirements of SDWA and

the Long Term 2 Enhance

Surface Water Treatment

Rule.

13-P-0168 20 
 

       

          

   

               

   

     

     

   

       

       

  

       

       

     

       

   

                   

      

   

     

   

       

               

   

       

       

   

                 

         

     

   

     

           

   

     

     

   

         

       

   

         

     

       

     

               

   

       

       

     

         

       

       

   

Fiscal

Year

Case name

Case

number Case type

Laws and

sections

NEI

(Y/N)

Monetary

enforcement results

(rounded) Case summary

Hamilton County 05‐1998‐

0750

Civil Judicial CWA

301/402,

301

Y Injunctive relief =

$1.79 billion

Hamilton County (Ohio)

owns six municipal

wastewater treatment

plants and the sewer

system that feeds into

these wastewater

treatment plants. For a

number of years, the

defendants have violated

the CWA in several

significant respects.

City of Kansas City,

Missouri

07‐2004‐

0333

Civil Judicial CWA

301/402

Y Federal penalty =

$600,000

SEP cost =

Violation of a permit.

$1.4 million

Injunctive relief =

$2.4 billion

General Electric 02‐2005‐ Civil Judicial CERCLA N Injunctive relief = Consent decree related to

Company 0015 170A, $2.1 billion the Hudson River PCBs

106A Superfund Site.

NEORDS –

Cleveland

05‐2003‐

0627

Civil Judicial CWA 308,

301/402

Y Federal penalty =

$600,000

SEP cost = $1 million

Combined sewer overflow

violations.

2011

Injunctive relief =

$3 billion

Honolulu, City and

County

09‐1991‐

0033

Civil Judicial CWA

301/307,

301/402,

309, 402,

301

Y Federal penalty =

$800,000

Injunctive relief =

$3.7 billion

City and County of Honolulu

failed to develop and

administer a pre‐treatment

program at seven (of eight)

treatment plants. Also,

chronic releases of raw

wastewater to surface

water.

Tennessee Valley

Authority

04‐2010‐

1760

Administrative ‐

Formal

CAA 165 Y Injunctive relief =

$5 billion

Injunctive relief secured at

all of Tennessee Valley

Authority’s coal‐fired power

plants across three states to

resolve alleged violations of

the CAA New Source

Review provisions.

Source: OIG analysis of EPA enforcement case summaries. 

13-P-0168 21 
 

Appendix C 

Agency Response to Draft Report 

January 18, 2013 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report No. FY12-0018: Response 

to Congressional Request on EPA Enforcement, dated December 19, 2012 

FROM: Cynthia Giles. Assistant Administrator 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

TO: Carolyn Copper 

Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation 

The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and Region 7 appreciate the opportunity 

to respond to the draft report Response to Congressional Request on EPA Enforcement, dated 

December 19, 2012. We agree that enforcement results can vary from year to year and from 

region to region based on when and where large cases are concluded. Because there are no 

findings or recommendations in this report, our response only addresses the factual accuracy of 

the draft report. Technical corrections to address factual accuracy are proposed in the attached 

document. 

If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Susan Shinkman, Director, 

Office of Civil Enforcement at (202) 564-2220. 

cc: Karl Brooks, Region 7 

Kathy Finazzo, Region 7 

Lauren Kabler. OECA-OCE 

Stephen Keim, OECA-OSRE 

Lisa Lund, OECA-OC 

Mamie Miller, OECA-OC 

Erin Miles, OECA-AA 

Susan Shinkman, OECA-OCE 

Gwendolyn Spriggs, OECA-OAP 

13-P-0168 22 
 

Appendix D 

Distribution 

Office of the Administrator 

Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Regional Administrator, Region 7 

Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO) 

Agency Follow-Up Coordinator 

General Counsel 

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

Associate Administrator for External Affairs and Environmental Education 

Associate Administrator for Policy 

Deputy Administrator, Region 7 

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Region 7 

13-P-0168 23