Week of April 11-17, 2026 — A weekly roundup of federal and state environmental enforcement activity, compiled from EPA press releases, Justice Department filings, the Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database, and the Federal Register.
The Week in Enforcement
Public records filed over the past week show a continuation of the measured enforcement posture that has defined the Environmental Protection Agency’s first year under Administrator Lee Zeldin’s “Compliance First” framework. The Department of Justice lodged a multi-site Superfund consent decree tied to a long-running bankruptcy case, the Federal Register posted a Clean Water Act consent decree modification, and first-quarter data released this month shows the agency finalized 91 settlement agreements totaling roughly $3.37 million in civil penalties — a slight uptick over the prior quarter even as the administration signals a leaner enforcement footprint.
The pattern emerging from the docket: fewer headline-grabbing mega-settlements, more consent decrees negotiated through bankruptcy and insurance channels, and a growing caseload being carried by state attorneys general. Twelve state attorneys general, led by Connecticut’s William Tong, this week renewed their call for EPA to rescind the December 2025 “Compliance First” memorandum that prioritizes voluntary compliance over civil penalties, according to filings from the Connecticut Attorney General’s office. Records suggest that tension between federal posture and state enforcement appetite will shape the enforcement landscape for the balance of fiscal year 2026.
1. Whittaker, Clark & Daniels Bankruptcy — Three-Site CERCLA Consent Decree
The Justice Department on April 3 lodged a proposed consent decree in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey resolving government objections to the bankruptcy settlement of Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc., a former talc and industrial minerals supplier that filed for Chapter 11 protection on April 26, 2023. The decree, published in the Federal Register on April 10, 2026, resolves federal claims tied to three Superfund sites: the Lockwood Solvent Groundwater Plume site in Yellowstone County, Montana; the Omega Chemical site in Whittier, California; and the Cooper Drum site in South Gate, California.
Filings indicate the United States had objected to the earlier proposed bankruptcy settlement between the debtors and alleged successors in liability — DB US Holding Corporation, Brenntag North America, and Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary National Indemnity Company (NICO) — on the grounds that it underestimated environmental liabilities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Under the new decree, NICO will make a cash payment for environmental cleanup costs and fund an environmental response trust, in addition to the allowed general unsecured bankruptcy claim for the United States.
The significance here extends beyond the three sites. Records indicate a growing pattern of polluters using Chapter 11 and insurance-backed successor arrangements to cap environmental liability. The Whittaker decree illustrates the federal government’s response: using bankruptcy court objections to unlock insurance assets that might otherwise sit outside the estate. Penalty amount has not been disclosed in the lodging notice; public comments on the proposed decree are being accepted for 30 days.
2. EPA Q1 2026 Enforcement Snapshot — $3.37M in 91 Settlements
An industry data compilation released this month reports that EPA finalized 91 settlement agreements in the first quarter of 2026, totaling approximately $3,369,398 in civil penalties — a modest increase over the 74 settlements recorded in the fourth quarter of 2025. Data shows the largest single penalty went to a Kansas building-materials manufacturer, which agreed to pay $781,175 for Clean Air Act violations including breaches of its Title V operating permit and hazardous air pollutant (MACT) standards at an insulation plant.
Other notable Q1 actions: a Georgia pest-control firm paid $106,110 for Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act violations involving unregistered pesticides and disinfectants; a Hawaii-based environmental services company paid $165,000 for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) violations at a hazardous materials facility; an Illinois safety-equipment firm paid $100,675 for operating without a RCRA permit; and a California chemical manufacturer paid $108,853 for Section 12 Toxic Substances Control Act export violations.
The Clean Water Act column accounted for 16 entities and $488,781 in penalties — including a New Mexico municipal wastewater treatment plant and a Kansas subdivision, both cited for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit exceedances. The quarter’s aggregate figures are below the historical run rate: EDGI (the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative) reported in March that seven of 24 enforcement metrics tracked hit their worst levels in two decades during the first ten months of the current administration, according to EDGI’s annotated enforcement report. Readers should note the distinction between a slower federal docket and a reduced volume of enforceable conduct in the regulated universe; the two are not equivalent.
3. ABB Inc. — Henry’s Knob Superfund Consent Decree (South Carolina)
Though formally lodged on March 19, the ABB Inc. consent decree entered its public comment window this month and remains a significant pending action in the federal docket. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina as United States v. ABB, Inc., Civil Action No. 0:26-cv-1144, the decree requires ABB — the U.S. subsidiary of the Swiss-Swedish multinational — to reimburse the government $471,405.16 in unrecovered past response costs plus all future response costs, and to perform the interim remedial action EPA selected for the Henry’s Knob site in Clover, South Carolina.
The site was strip-mined for kyanite, an aluminum silicate mineral, from 1947 to 1970. Acid mine drainage from the abandoned pit has spread cobalt and manganese into groundwater and surface water used by surrounding rural residents, according to EPA’s Superfund site profile. In exchange for the cleanup commitments, the United States agrees not to sue ABB under CERCLA sections 106 and 107. The public comment period on the decree runs for 30 days from the Federal Register notice.
The action is notable as a straightforward cost-recovery case against a solvent corporate defendant — a pattern the current EPA has signaled it favors over broad-sweep enforcement initiatives. The financial exposure is modest by Superfund standards, but the case demonstrates that orphan-mine acid drainage remains an active CERCLA priority even as the administration trims other enforcement lines.
4. Clean Water Act Consent Decree Modification — Federal Register, April 2
The Federal Register on April 2 posted notice of a proposed material modification to a Clean Water Act consent decree, opening a public comment window that remains open. The docket entry (2026-06329) signals that an existing CWA compliance agreement is being renegotiated to account for revised compliance milestones or additional injunctive relief — a mechanism EPA increasingly uses to keep long-tail decrees aligned with operational reality at regulated facilities.
The underlying case details are embedded in the lodging notice and should be reviewed in the Federal Register directly. For TIJ’s purposes, the broader point is that consent decree modifications — often less scrutinized than original settlements — can quietly extend compliance deadlines or reduce the stringency of remedial obligations. Watchdog tracking of these filings is uneven, and the modifications rarely generate press releases.
5. Lower Duwamish Waterway Settlement — Continuing Implementation
The $668 million Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund settlement announced in early March remains the quarter’s largest enforcement action by dollar value. Records indicate the Lower Duwamish Waterway Group — comprising The Boeing Company, the City of Seattle, and King County — will design and perform EPA’s selected cleanup for the in-water portion of the five-mile Seattle river segment. The cleanup addresses roughly 177 acres through dredging, capping, and related measures.
EPA has identified 41 hazardous substances in the waterway sediments, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), arsenic, carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins, and furans. The settlement pulls in more than 100 potentially responsible parties and involves coordination between federal agencies and the State of Washington. Implementation milestones over the coming months will determine whether the decree functions as designed; the site has been in some form of federal oversight since 2001.
TIJ will track whether the cleanup schedule holds. Duwamish-adjacent communities have repeatedly flagged environmental justice concerns, and the decree’s public-participation provisions are a test case for the administration’s approach to community engagement under the revised enforcement framework.
6. Biofuel Fraud Criminal Case — $7M RIN Scheme
On the criminal side, a Florida biofuel company owner pleaded guilty in February 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to conspiracy charges tied to a scheme that generated over $7 million in fraudulent EPA Renewable Identification Number (RIN) credits and sought more than $6 million in fraudulent biodiesel tax credits. According to DOJ filings, the defendant and his company vastly overstated production volumes when reporting to the IRS and EPA to inflate the number of credits generated.
The EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division and IRS Criminal Investigation jointly investigated the case. Sentencing is pending. The case fits an established pattern: federal enforcement of Renewable Fuel Standard marketplace fraud has continued apace, cutting across changes in administration enforcement priorities. For an industry where a single gallon of claimed production can generate multiple credits sold for several dollars each, the incentive structure for fraud is durable — and the criminal enforcement pipeline has kept pace.
7. State Attorneys General Push Back on “Compliance First” Policy
This week, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong led a coalition of 13 state attorneys general in formally calling on EPA to rescind the December 2025 “Compliance First” memorandum, according to a press release from the Connecticut AG’s office. The coalition’s letter argues the policy will significantly weaken federal environmental enforcement and delay action against polluters — with disproportionate harm to low-income and rural communities.
The political mechanics are straightforward: when federal enforcement pulls back, state AGs expand. The Hollingsworth LLP outlook for 2026 explicitly flagged a “responsive uptick” in state AG environmental enforcement to fill the gap. New York’s Environmental Protection Bureau and California’s Bureau of Environmental Justice — the two most active state shops — have signaled aggressive postures through their 2026 agendas. Maryland in April 2026 enacted legislation moving the annual reporting date for the state AG’s Environmental and Natural Resources Crimes Unit earlier, from November 30 to October 1, a signal of heightened legislative interest in state-level environmental prosecution.
Readers should watch for state AG complaints targeting the same facilities and violation patterns that the federal government has historically pursued. Records suggest that refinery emissions, CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operation) discharges, and landfill gas compliance will be the leading edge of state enforcement activity through the second and third quarters.
8. PFAS Enforcement Framework — RCRA Listing Finalization Imminent
Although not a single enforcement action, EPA is on the cusp of finalizing in April 2026 the proposed rule designating nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) — including PFOA and PFOS — as hazardous constituents under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which will trigger corrective-action obligations for releases. The administration has also confirmed it will retain the Biden-era CERCLA hazardous-substance designation for PFOA and PFOS, rejecting industry calls to reverse the listing.
Under the accompanying PFAS Enforcement Discretion and Settlement Policy, EPA has signaled it will focus recovery actions on parties that significantly contributed to PFAS releases — chemical manufacturers, major industrial users, defense contractors — rather than farmers, municipal landfills, water utilities, local airports, or local fire departments that are “passive receivers” of the contamination. The policy functions as a triage framework: it concentrates enforcement on the deepest pockets most responsible for the pollution while shielding the most sympathetic downstream parties.
For compliance officers and litigation counsel, the operational implication is clear: CERCLA 106 unilateral administrative orders and 107 cost-recovery suits will continue to be filed, but overwhelmingly against upstream manufacturers. TIJ will track the first major PFAS-specific cost-recovery action filed under the new framework.
Patterns Worth Tracking
Several cross-cutting patterns from this week’s filings warrant continued attention. First, bankruptcy-driven consent decrees are increasingly the vehicle by which multi-site Superfund liabilities get resolved. The Whittaker action is the third such bankruptcy-integrated decree in six months. Second, the ratio of administrative settlements to judicial consent decrees is shifting toward the administrative side — consistent with the “Compliance First” policy’s stated goal of faster, less adversarial resolution. Third, state AG activity is rising in volume and ambition, and readers should expect state-led enforcement coverage to become a larger share of environmental news through 2026.
Penalty totals remain below historical norms in absolute dollars. Whether that reflects a reduction in violative conduct, a deliberate policy reorientation toward compliance assistance, or a combination of both is a question the full-year FY2026 enforcement results — typically released in late autumn — will help answer.
Actions Warranting Deeper TIJ Investigation
Three threads from this week’s docket justify independent TIJ reporting: (1) the Whittaker, Clark & Daniels bankruptcy-and-insurance resolution mechanism, with particular focus on how NICO/Berkshire Hathaway’s cash contribution compares to the estimated total cleanup costs across the three Superfund sites; (2) the gap between federal enforcement volume and state AG enforcement pickup, measured at the facility level using ECHO data and state-level complaint filings; and (3) the PFAS framework’s practical application — specifically, whether the “passive receiver” carve-out survives its first litigation test, which is expected in the second or third quarter of 2026.
TIJ will continue to publish this digest weekly, drawn from EPA press releases, DOJ consent decree lodgings, ECHO database queries, and Federal Register notices. Readers with tips on enforcement actions — particularly state-level actions that don’t generate federal press coverage — can reach the investigations desk through the tips page at tij.news.
Sources
- EPA Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO)
- EPA Civil and Cleanup Enforcement Cases and Settlements
- EPA Proposed Consent Decrees and Draft Settlement Agreements
- Federal Register: Whittaker, Clark & Daniels Consent Decree Lodging (April 10, 2026)
- Federal Register: Clean Water Act Consent Decree Modification (April 2, 2026)
- Federal Register: ABB Inc. / Henry’s Knob Consent Decree
- EPA Superfund Site Profile: Henry’s Knob
- DOJ Environment and Natural Resources Division: Proposed Consent Decrees
- DOJ Environmental Crimes Bulletin — February 2026
- EPA PFAS Enforcement Discretion and Settlement Policy Under CERCLA
- Connecticut AG: Call for EPA to Resume Enforcement Activity
Pending cases are noted where applicable. Allegations in consent decrees that have been lodged but not entered remain allegations until court approval. Right of reply has been extended to all named corporate parties through their public counsel of record; any responses received will be appended to this digest or published separately.