EPA Watch is The Investigative Journal’s weekly digest of federal and state environmental enforcement, compiled from public records including the EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database, Federal Register consent decree notices, and agency press releases.
The enforcement week ending September 4 was defined less by new headline penalties than by paperwork moving through the pipeline: a $1.5 million Clean Air Act consent decree against pulp-and-paper maker Domtar cleared its public comment window and now awaits a federal judge’s signature, a small but unusual Superfund settlement in Oklahoma opened for comment, and EPA Region 10 posted a pair of Clean Water Act penalty settlements in Washington state. The quiet week is itself part of the story — new data analysis published this week indicates federal civil enforcement filings remain near historic lows.
Domtar’s $1.5 million Clean Air Act decree heads to court in Arkansas
The largest current action in the queue involves Domtar A.W., LLC, operator of a kraft paper and pulp mill in Ashdown, Arkansas. According to a Federal Register notice (91 FR 48197), the Justice Department lodged a proposed consent decree on July 24 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas (Case No. 4:26-cv-04059-JTS) in a suit filed jointly with the Arkansas Department of Energy & Environment’s Division of Environmental Quality.
The complaint alleges the Ashdown mill violated the Clean Air Act’s New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, along with the Arkansas Water and Air Pollution Control Act. Under the proposed decree, filings indicate Domtar agreed to pay a $1,500,000 civil penalty and perform injunctive relief, including two mitigation projects. The decree text is available on the Justice Department’s consent decrees page and in the official Federal Register PDF.
The 30-day public comment period that opened with the July 30 notice closed at the end of August, meaning the decree is now positioned for review and possible entry by the court. Consent decrees resolve allegations without a judicial finding of liability, and entry is not automatic — the court must conclude the settlement is fair, reasonable, and consistent with the statute. TIJ will track the docket for entry and for any comments filed by third parties.
A $20,000 Superfund settlement — and a fraudulent transfer claim — in Oklahoma
A more unusual filing landed on August 19, when the Justice Department lodged a proposed partial consent decree in the Northern District of Oklahoma in United States v. Real Estate Remediation, LLC; George Blakeney; GB Services, LLC; and G&H Ventures, LLC (Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-00289). Per the Federal Register notice published August 24 (91 FR 54766), the decree would resolve CERCLA cost-recovery claims EPA brought against Real Estate Remediation, LLC concerning the Goodrich Asbestos Superfund Site in Miami, Oklahoma.
What makes the case notable is not the dollar figure — the settling defendants agree to pay just $20,000 into the Hazardous Substance Superfund — but the legal theory attached to it. The notice states the decree would also resolve claims the government asserted against George Blakeney and GB Services, LLC under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act “for fraudulent transfers each received from RER.” Records indicate the $20,000 figure reflects the government’s analysis of the settling defendants’ limited ability to pay. The allegations in the complaint have not been adjudicated, and the settlement does not constitute a finding of liability.
The comment period is open now: submissions are due within 30 days of the August 24 publication, addressed to the Environment and Natural Resources Division under D.J. Ref. No. 90-11-3-12566. For a program whose recoveries routinely run to the millions, ability-to-pay settlements of this size raise a recurring oversight question — how the government verifies financial hardship claims from parties accused of moving assets — that TIJ intends to examine.
Region 10 posts two Clean Water Act penalty settlements in Washington
EPA Region 10 published notice of a proposed administrative penalty settlement with Mahoney Environmental Solutions, LLC over conditions at its Seattle facility. According to the agency’s public notice, EPA alleges the company’s Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure plan was inadequate — missing complete tank diagrams, secondary containment descriptions, failure prediction scenarios, and integrity testing — in violation of the agency’s Oil Pollution Prevention regulations under 40 CFR Part 112. Under the proposed consent agreement (docket CWA-10-2026-0223, draft document here), the company would pay a civil penalty of $71,940. Comments are due September 16.
Separately, the region noticed an expedited settlement with Swinerton Builders over alleged Construction General Permit violations at the Tulalip Resort Casino Expansion site in Tulalip, Washington. EPA’s allegations run to recordkeeping and oversight failures: an unmodified notice of intent, missing permit postings, skipped site inspections, unsigned inspection reports, no corrective action log, missing training documentation, and a deficient stormwater pollution prevention plan map. The proposed penalty is $12,960 (docket CWA-10-2026-0228, draft agreement here), and the notice states the company has certified the violations are corrected. Comments are due September 12. Neither administrative settlement includes an admission of liability.
Status check: the Chemours PFAS decree, the summer’s benchmark action
The reference point against which this fall’s enforcement will be measured remains the June 24 Chemours agreement — described by EPA as the first comprehensive federal settlement with a major PFAS manufacturer. According to the agency’s announcement, the proposed decree, filed in the Southern District of West Virginia, packages more than $450 million in penalties and relief: over $337 million in injunctive work (including an estimated $280 million for alternative drinking water and $60 million in compliance measures at the company’s West Virginia facility), a $90 million government-supervised PFAS mitigation program, and a $22.5 million civil penalty that EPA says was set “based on ability to pay” after a review of the company’s financial records.
The settlement would resolve alleged violations of the Clean Water Act, RCRA, TSCA, and West Virginia water law tied to PFAS releases into the Cape Fear, Delaware, and Ohio rivers. “This settlement brings Chemours into compliance with the law and holds it fully accountable,” EPA enforcement chief Jeffrey A. Hall said in the release. West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey called it “an encouraging first step” while noting discussions continue over a broader resolution for the Washington Works facility. As of this writing, TIJ has not identified a public record confirming court entry of the decree; the case file remains available via the ENRD consent decree page.
The pattern: fewer lawsuits, smaller penalties, more compliance orders
Two datasets published this week frame the enforcement environment. An Inside Climate News analysis of EPA’s own ECHO enforcement data, published September 1, reports that new civil lawsuits filed on EPA’s behalf have fallen sharply since January 2025, and that the agency’s administrative docket has inverted its historical mix — from roughly 60 percent penalty orders to a majority of compliance orders that impose schedules rather than fines. The analysis found that lead service line inventory orders against public water systems, with a median total cost to respondents under $600, account for more than a third of all administrative orders issued since the start of the current administration, and that EPA’s workforce has declined by more than a quarter since January 2025. EPA did not respond to Inside Climate News’ request for comment.
The agency tells a different story about the same period. EPA’s fiscal year 2025 annual enforcement report counts 2,127 concluded civil enforcement cases, which the agency describes as the highest total in nine years, and enforcement officials have emphasized a “polluter pays” posture in announcements such as Chemours. A December 2025 agency memo directs staff toward a “compliance first” orientation, on the stated rationale that emphasizing compliance over contested penalty findings brings violators into line faster. Independent tallies land in between: a quarterly roundup by EHS Leaders counted 109 finalized settlement agreements totaling roughly $7.07 million in fines in the second quarter of 2026. Readers can weigh the competing characterizations; the underlying case-level data is public in ECHO.
On TIJ’s radar
Three threads from this week’s records warrant deeper reporting. First, the Domtar docket: whether the Western District of Arkansas enters the decree as lodged, and how the two mitigation projects are defined and verified. Second, ability-to-pay settlements: the $20,000 Goodrich Asbestos figure and the $22.5 million Chemours penalty were both set after government review of the defendants’ finances, and the methodology behind those determinations — particularly where fraudulent transfer allegations are also in play — deserves scrutiny. Third, the compliance-order shift: if penalty orders are giving way to schedule-only orders, the practical deterrent effect of federal enforcement becomes an empirical question that ECHO’s public data can answer, and TIJ will run that analysis in a future edition.
Methodology and right of reply: This digest is compiled from public records — Federal Register notices, EPA public notices and press releases, and court filings — linked throughout. Allegations described here are drawn from government complaints and notices; except where a court has entered findings, they remain allegations, and the settlements described do not include admissions of liability unless noted. TIJ did not solicit comment from the companies named for this digest; their settlement filings represent their formal responses on the public record. Any party named who wishes to respond or supplement the record may contact the editors at tij.news.