EPA Watch is The Investigative Journal’s weekly digest of federal and state environmental enforcement, compiled from public court filings, agency press releases, and the Federal Register. Every action below is sourced to a public record; dollar figures and compliance requirements are drawn from consent decrees, complaints, and official settlement summaries. Proposed consent decrees are subject to public comment and final court approval, and criminal indictments are allegations that carry a presumption of innocence unless a conviction is noted.
The headline: a $450 million PFAS reckoning for Chemours
The most consequential federal environmental settlement of the period is the government’s agreement with The Chemours Company, announced June 24, 2026, by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. According to EPA’s official settlement summary, it is the first comprehensive federal settlement with a major manufacturer of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The agency values the total package at more than $450 million.
Records indicate the settlement resolves alleged violations of four separate statutes: the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and the West Virginia Water Pollution Control Act. EPA alleges Chemours released PFAS into the Cape Fear River in North Carolina, the Delaware River in New Jersey, and the Ohio River in West Virginia — in some cases without a required National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, and in others in violation of permit conditions. The facilities named are Chambers Works and Parlin in New Jersey, Fayetteville Works in North Carolina, and Washington Works in West Virginia.
Under the proposed consent decree, Chemours will pay a civil penalty of $22.5 million — set, EPA says, based on the company’s ability to pay — and fund a multi-year, $90 million program to mitigate PFAS discharges. The company will also install PFAS pollution controls for surface-water discharges at its West Virginia facility, supply clean drinking water to communities surrounding its West Virginia and New Jersey plants, and evaluate and implement controls to reduce releases at the North Carolina site. The decree was lodged in the Southern District of West Virginia and carries a 30-day public comment period before it can receive final court approval. The full EPA press release and the consent decree (PDF) are public.
Clean Air Act: Kroger’s nationwide refrigerant settlement
In one of the larger Clean Air Act civil actions on the docket, the Justice Department lodged a proposed consent decree on April 29, 2026, in United States v. The Kroger Co. (Civil Action No. 26-cv-00421, Southern District of Ohio). Filings indicate the government alleged that refrigerant appliances using ozone-depleting substances at Kroger grocery stores nationwide violated the Clean Air Act.
According to the DOJ announcement, the alleged failures included not repairing refrigerant leaks within 30 days of discovery (or preparing a plan to retrofit or retire leaking appliances and completing that work within a year) and not retaining refrigerant-servicing records for the required three years. The proposed decree requires Kroger to pay $2.5 million in civil penalties and to spend an estimated $100 million over three years to reduce coolant leaks and improve company-wide compliance with rules protecting the stratospheric ozone layer. The injunctive spending, not the penalty, is where the compliance burden concentrates — a recurring feature of modern environmental settlements worth flagging for readers.
Superfund and natural-resource damages: two June cost-recovery decrees
Two hazardous-substance settlements lodged in early June illustrate the government’s continued use of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) to recover cleanup and restoration costs. On June 5, 2026, DOJ lodged a proposed consent decree in United States and the State of Missouri v. U.S. Borax, Inc. in the Western District of Missouri, asserting CERCLA claims for response costs tied to releases of hazardous substances at the Armour Road Superfund Site in North Kansas City, Missouri, per the Federal Register notice.
Three days earlier, on June 2, 2026, the department lodged a decree in United States and the State of Georgia Department of Natural Resources v. Gold Creek Foods, LLC (Civil Action No. 2:26-cv-00177-RWS, Northern District of Georgia). According to the lodged consent decree, the case resolves natural-resource-damages claims arising from hazardous-substance releases at a food-processing facility in Dawsonville, Georgia, for a total payment of $356,773. Of that sum, roughly $96,275 reimburses the U.S. Department of the Interior’s assessment costs, about $10,498 reimburses Georgia, and the remainder funds restoration in Flat Creek — including fish-passage improvements. Natural-resource-damages cases like this one rarely make headlines, but they are a useful barometer of how aggressively trustees are pursuing ecological restoration beyond simple cleanup.
Toxic substances and water: mid-tier civil penalties
Two additional civil actions round out the chemical and water enforcement picture. EPA announced a settlement with the agribusiness firm Wilbur-Ellis Company for alleged violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act at facilities in California and Washington; reporting on the action indicates the company agreed to pay a penalty of $630,737 for failing to properly report chemical production. TIJ is seeking the underlying EPA consent agreement to confirm the compliance terms and will update this item accordingly.
On the water side, a proposed consent decree in United States v. Amelia Joyce Inc., which carried a public comment period running from May 8 to June 8, 2026, resolves alleged Clean Water Act violations stemming from the discharge of oily bilge water into Fairhaven Harbor, Massachusetts. Filings indicate the defendant agreed to pay a $200,000 civil penalty. The case is a reminder that maritime and small-vessel discharges remain within EPA’s and DOJ’s enforcement reach, not only large industrial dischargers.
Criminal enforcement: prison time and a pending indictment
EPA’s criminal docket shows continued activity in the water and air arenas. According to EPA’s 2026 criminal press-release log, a Troutdale, Oregon, defendant, Kayla Hartley, was sentenced in late May in connection with discharging more than 500,000 gallons of chemically polluted industrial wastewater into the Hillsboro sanitary sewer, a Clean Water Act matter. Earlier criminal resolutions in the same log include an 18-month prison sentence and a $1.5 million penalty for the owner of Old Dutch Mustard Co. over prolonged wastewater discharges into New Hampshire’s Souhegan River.
Not every criminal matter is resolved. A federal grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico returned an indictment against Mo-Na-Co Biomedical & Environmental Corp. and two individuals, Ramón Plaza-Gregory and Ileana Cortés-González, on Clean Air Act and conspiracy charges tied to an incinerator that allegedly burned unpermitted materials and exceeded emissions limits, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. These are allegations only; the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. TIJ notes the indictment’s claim that operations shifted to weekends and holidays after an EPA inspector flagged violations — a pattern that, if proven, speaks to intent.
Patterns worth watching
Three signals stand out from this period. First, chemical enforcement — PFAS above all — is where the largest dollars are landing; the Chemours package alone dwarfs the combined penalties of every other action in this digest. Second, the compliance-cost structure of civil settlements continues to shift toward injunctive relief: Kroger’s projected $100 million in equipment spending and Chemours’ $90 million mitigation program illustrate that headline “penalties” increasingly understate the true cost of resolution. Third, the institutional architecture around environmental enforcement is changing. The Justice Department announced on June 29, 2026, that it would rename its long-standing Environment and Natural Resources Division the Energy and Natural Resources Division — a nominal change TIJ will watch for any accompanying shift in enforcement priorities. Separately, DOJ recorded defensive courtroom wins on July 1, 2026, including dismissals of suits seeking to force an EPA chemical-ban rulemaking and to block a Michigan nuclear-plant restart.
What warrants deeper TIJ investigation
Several threads merit follow-up reporting. The Chemours drinking-water provisions — who qualifies, on what timeline, and how compliance will be verified across three states — deserve independent scrutiny once the comment period closes and the court rules. The Wilbur-Ellis TSCA agreement should be pulled in full to confirm penalty and reporting terms. And the reorganization of DOJ’s environmental division invites a data-driven look at whether case volume, penalty totals, and referral rates move measurably in the quarters ahead. TIJ will track each of these and report what the records show. Readers with documents relevant to any action above are encouraged to contact our newsroom.
Sources: U.S. EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance; U.S. Department of Justice, Energy and Natural Resources Division; the Federal Register; and EPA’s ECHO enforcement database (echo.epa.gov). This digest summarizes public records and does not constitute legal conclusions about any party.