QUESTIONS​ ​BY​ ​THE​ ​NEW​ ​YORK​ ​TIMES​ ​AND​ ​RESPONSES​ ​FROM​ ​THE​ ​ENVIRONMENTAL​ ​PROTECTION​ ​AGENCY Questions​ ​about​ ​general​ ​policies: --​ ​The​ ​Times​ ​examined​ ​penalties​ ​and​ ​injunctive​ ​relief​ ​stemming​ ​from​ ​cases​ ​filed​ ​under​ ​Mr.​ ​Pruitt’s​ ​tenure​ ​at EPA​ ​(note:​ ​The​ ​Times​ ​looked​ ​at​ ​cases​ ​started​ ​under​ ​Pruitt,​ ​rather​ ​than​ ​cases​ ​concluded.)​ ​The​ ​analysis showed​ ​a​ ​downturn​ ​in​ ​enforcement,​ ​compared​ ​to​ ​the​ ​same​ ​period​ ​under​ ​the​ ​Bush​ ​and​ ​Obama administrations.​ ​We​ ​are​ ​separately​ ​providing​ ​you​ ​a​ ​copy​ ​of​ ​this​ ​database,​ ​which​ ​is​ ​based​ ​on​ ​data​ ​pulled​ ​from ECHO.​ ​We​ ​understand​ ​that​ ​penalties​ ​rise​ ​and​ ​fall​ ​over​ ​any​ ​given​ ​time​ ​based​ ​on​ ​when​ ​cases​ ​happen​ ​to​ ​be settled.​ ​But​ ​overall,​ ​in​ ​both​ ​the​ ​number​ ​of​ ​cases​ ​initiated​ ​and​ ​the​ ​value​ ​of​ ​the​ ​injunctive​ ​relief​ ​and​ ​penalties, there​ ​has​ ​been​ ​a​ ​decline​ ​during​ ​Mr.​ ​Pruitt’s​ ​tenure.​ ​Why​ ​has​ ​there​ ​been​ ​a​ ​downturn​ ​in​ ​enforcement? --​ ​The​ ​Times​ ​has​ ​obtained​ ​a​ ​May​ ​31,​ ​2017​ ​memo​ ​from​ ​EPA​ ​Washington​ ​headquarters,​ ​written​ ​by​ ​Susan Shinkman,​ ​titled​ ​“Interim​ ​Procedures​ ​for​ ​Issuing​ ​Information​ ​Requests”​ ​that​ ​said​ ​enforcement​ ​staff​ ​must seek​ ​approval​ ​from​ ​Washington​ ​before​ ​they​ ​can​ ​order​ ​certain​ ​kinds​ ​of​ ​information​ ​requests,​ ​including​ ​those that​ ​involve​ ​testing​ ​and​ ​monitoring​ ​data​ ​collection.​ ​Who​ ​directed​ ​Ms.​ ​Shinkman​ ​to​ ​write​ ​this​ ​memo​ ​and​ ​why was​ ​this​ ​policy​ ​change​ ​made? --​ ​Representatives​ ​from​ ​the​ ​oil​ ​and​ ​gas​ ​industry,​ ​and​ ​other​ ​industrial​ ​sectors,​ ​had​ ​raised​ ​objections​ ​to​ ​the way​ ​that​ ​CAA​ ​114​ ​information​ ​requests​ ​were​ ​being​ ​made,​ ​as​ ​was​ ​demonstrated​ ​through​ ​a​ ​number​ ​of​ ​written comment​ ​letters​ ​to​ ​the​ ​E.P.A.​ ​and​ ​during​ ​a​ ​June​ ​29,​ ​2016​ ​Senate​ ​hearing​.​ ​This​ ​includes​ ​letters​ ​from representatives​ ​from​ ​North​ ​Dakota​ ​and​ ​Colorado​ ​raised​ ​objections​ ​to​ ​a​ ​series​ ​of​ ​CAA​ ​114a​ ​requests​ ​(see March​ ​31​ ​2017​ ​letter​ ​to​ ​Mr.​ ​Pruitt​ ​from​ ​North​ ​Dakota​ ​Petroleum​ ​Council)​ ​and​ ​Mr.​ ​Pruitt’s​ ​wrote​ ​a​ ​letter​ ​back​ ​to these​ ​groups,​ ​including​ ​the​ ​July​ ​11,​ ​2017​ ​letter​ ​to​ ​the​ ​North​ ​Dakota​ ​Petroleum​ ​Council.​ ​Where​ ​these​ ​voices​ ​a factor​ ​in​ ​the​ ​decision​ ​to​ ​make​ ​the​ ​policy​ ​change​ ​regarding​ ​the​ ​CAA​ ​114a​ ​requests​ ​for​ ​monitoring​ ​or​ ​testing and​ ​CWA​ ​308​ ​requests​ ​for​ ​monitoring​ ​or​ ​testing? --​ ​The​ ​revision​ ​in​ ​policy​ ​related​ ​to​ ​114a​ ​requests​ ​and​ ​308​ ​CWA​ ​requests​ ​has​ ​resulted​ ​in​ ​a​ ​reduction​ ​in​ ​such requests​ ​for​ ​information,​ ​involving​ ​monitoring/emissions​ ​data​ ​and​ ​for​ ​these​ ​requests​ ​overall.​ ​For​ ​example, the​ ​Region​ ​5​ ​office,​ ​in​ ​the​ ​last​ ​two​ ​complete​ ​fiscal​ ​years​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Obama​ ​administration,​ ​sent​ ​out​ ​requests requiring​ ​monitoring​ ​and​ ​testing​ ​to​ ​64​ ​facilities​ ​--​ ​or​ ​about​ ​10​ ​or​ ​11​ ​requests,​ ​on​ ​average,​ ​every​ ​four​ ​months. In​ ​the​ ​four​ ​months​ ​following​ ​the​ ​policy​ ​change​ ​in​ ​May,​ ​the​ ​office​ ​only​ ​sent​ ​out​ ​one​ ​request​ ​for​ ​monitoring and​ ​testing.​ ​And​ ​in​ ​the​ ​last​ ​two​ ​complete​ ​fiscal​ ​years​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Obama​ ​administration,​ ​the​ ​Region​ ​5​ ​office​ ​sent out​ ​requests​ ​to​ ​267​ ​facilities​ ​--​ ​or​ ​about​ ​44​ ​requests​ ​every​ ​four​ ​months,​ ​on​ ​average.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​four​ ​months following​ ​the​ ​policy​ ​change​ ​in​ ​May,​ ​the​ ​office​ ​only​ ​sent​ ​out​ ​requests​ ​to​ ​13​ ​facilities.​ ​Do​ ​you​ ​dispute​ ​that​ ​the policy​ ​change​ ​is​ ​a​ ​factor​ ​in​ ​the​ ​reduction​ ​of​ ​such​ ​requests? --​ ​Has​ ​Washington​ ​rejected​ ​requests​ ​for​ ​monitoring​ ​and​ ​testing​ ​114a​ ​or​ ​equivalent​ ​requests​ ​under​ ​308​ ​CWA, and​ ​if​ ​so,​ ​how​ ​many​ ​times?​ ​Can​ ​you​ ​provide​ ​us​ ​with​ ​a​ ​spreadsheet​ ​of​ ​all​ ​the​ ​requested​ ​and​ ​approved requests? --​ ​Region​ ​5​ ​has​ ​lost​ ​at​ ​least​ ​61​ ​people​ ​since​ ​Jan.​ ​1​ ​2017,​ ​according​ ​to​ ​data​ ​released​ ​via​ ​FOIA.​ ​This​ ​is​ ​about​ ​5 percent​ ​of​ ​the​ ​staff.​ ​The​ ​agency,​ ​overall,​ ​has​ ​lost​ ​more​ ​than​ ​700​ ​people​ ​this​ ​year,​ ​many​ ​via​ ​buyouts.​ ​ ​How have​ ​buy​ ​outs​ ​and​ ​a​ ​hiring​ ​freeze​ ​at​ ​EPA​ ​affected​ ​enforcement,​ ​from​ ​your​ ​perspective? --​ ​Regional​ ​administrators​ ​from​ ​around​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States​ ​were​ ​in​ ​Washington​ ​last​ ​week​ ​and​ ​among​ ​the topics​ ​discussed​ ​was​ ​a​ ​requests​ ​by​ ​these​ ​regional​ ​administrators​ ​to​ ​allow​ ​them​ ​to​ ​fill​ ​certain​ ​critical vacancies​ ​that​ ​are​ ​preventing​ ​from​ ​doing​ ​mission​ ​critical​ ​work,​ ​like​ ​enforcement​ ​efforts.​ ​Will​ ​you​ ​approve these​ ​hires? --​ ​You​ ​have​ ​not​ ​appointed​ ​a​ ​permanent​ ​leader​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Region​ ​5​ ​office.​ ​Why​ ​is​ ​this​ ​job​ ​still​ ​vacant.​ ​The vacancy​ ​has​ ​meant​ ​a​ ​lack​ ​of​ ​leadership​ ​in​ ​this​ ​critical​ ​EPA​ ​office​ ​that​ ​has​ ​left​ ​agency​ ​employees.​ ​Is​ ​this​ ​a matter​ ​that​ ​concerns​ ​you? --​ ​Current​ ​EPA​ ​employees​ ​in​ ​the​ ​region​ ​5​ ​office​ ​told​ ​us​ ​that​ ​they​ ​felt​ ​hampered​ ​and​ ​demoralized​ ​by​ ​orders from​ ​Washington,​ ​particularly​ ​the​ ​memo​ ​that​ ​limited​ ​information​ ​requests.​ ​They​ ​also​ ​said​ ​they​ ​had​ ​been​ ​left without​ ​a​ ​permanent​ ​leader,​ ​resulting​ ​in​ ​a​ ​lack​ ​of​ ​clear​ ​direction​ ​regarding​ ​what​ ​Region​ ​5’s​ ​priorities​ ​should be.​ ​There​ ​is​ ​also​ ​a​ ​fear,​ ​they​ ​said,​ ​that​ ​if​ ​enforcement​ ​officers​ ​moving​ ​too​ ​quickly​ ​to​ ​enforce​ ​environmental laws​ ​that​ ​they​ ​could​ ​be​ ​reprimanded​ ​or​ ​draw​ ​unwanted​ ​scrutiny​ ​from​ ​headquarters.​ ​Do​ ​you​ ​have​ ​any response​ ​to​ ​this? --One​ ​employee​ ​in​ ​Region​ ​5​ ​we​ ​spoke​ ​with​ ​who​ ​work​ ​on​ ​CWA​ ​said​ ​her​ ​efforts​ ​to​ ​collect​ ​information​ ​on​ ​actual health​ ​hazards​ ​in​ ​discharges​ ​coming​ ​from​ ​municipal​ ​storm​ ​water​ ​and​ ​sewage​ ​collection​ ​systems​ ​has​ ​been handicapped​ ​by​ ​the​ ​May​ ​memo.​ ​Do​ ​you​ ​dispute​ ​this?​ ​If​ ​so,​ ​why? --​ ​Mr.​ ​Pruitt​ ​has​ ​argued​ ​that​ ​the​ ​EPA​ ​is​ ​turning​ ​more​ ​to​ ​state​ ​and​ ​local​ ​governments​ ​to​ ​investigate​ ​and​ ​take actions​ ​against​ ​polluters.​ ​But​ ​long-time​ ​agency​ ​employees​ ​have​ ​said​ ​the​ ​emphasis​ ​on​ ​cooperative federalism​ ​is​ ​a​ ​way​ ​to​ ​weaken​ ​enforcement​ ​across​ ​the​ ​board​ ​since​ ​there​ ​are​ ​certain​ ​cases​ ​that​ ​states​ ​cannot pursue,​ ​such​ ​as​ ​multistate​ ​cases,​ ​and​ ​because​ ​states​ ​sometimes​ ​are​ ​reluctant​ ​to​ ​go​ ​after​ ​big​ ​employers​ ​in their​ ​jurisdiction.​ ​Also,​ ​critics​ ​of​ ​the​ ​policy​ ​have​ ​pointed​ ​out​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Trump​ ​administration​ ​has​ ​proposed cuts​ ​in​ ​state​ ​grants​ ​that​ ​have​ ​helped​ ​fund​ ​enforcement​ ​efforts.​ ​How​ ​do​ ​you​ ​respond​ ​to​ ​that​ ​criticism?​ ​Please explain​ ​how​ ​cooperative​ ​federalism​ ​can​ ​work,​ ​despite​ ​those​ ​challenges. --​ ​Lawyers​ ​who​ ​work​ ​on​ ​EPA​ ​cases​ ​have​ ​said​ ​that​ ​the​ ​EPA​ ​and​ ​DOJ​ ​have​ ​been​ ​more​ ​willing​ ​to​ ​compromise on​ ​cases​ ​against​ ​cities​ ​who​ ​have​ ​been​ ​targeted​ ​for​ ​Clean​ ​Water​ ​Act​ ​violations.​ ​Why​ ​is​ ​that? Here​ ​are​ ​several​ ​questions​ ​related​ ​to​ ​specific​ ​facilities: --​ ​The​ ​EPA​ ​sent​ ​a​ ​notice​ ​of​ ​violation​ ​to​ ​Heritage​ ​Thermal​ ​Services​ ​in​ ​March​ ​2015​ ​stemming​ ​from​ ​a​ ​plant malfunction​ ​in​ ​2013​ ​that​ ​left​ ​parts​ ​of​ ​the​ ​city​ ​of​ ​East​ ​Liverpool,​ ​Ohio,​ ​covered​ ​in​ ​ash​ ​that​ ​contained​ ​in​ ​some locations​ ​toxic​ ​substances.​ ​The​ ​EPA’s​ ​case​ ​has​ ​not​ ​been​ ​resolved​ ​with​ ​penalties​ ​or​ ​injunctive​ ​relief,​ ​despite evidence​ ​that​ ​Heritage​ ​has​ ​continued​ ​to​ ​violate​ ​environmental​ ​laws​ ​in​ ​the​ ​meantime​ ​--​ ​the​ ​Ohio​ ​EPA​ ​issued another​ ​notice​ ​of​ ​violation​ ​to​ ​the​ ​facility​ ​earlier​ ​this​ ​year.​ ​Why​ ​has​ ​this​ ​case​ ​taken​ ​so​ ​long​ ​to​ ​resolve? --​ ​Many​ ​plants​ ​across​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States​ ​that​ ​have​ ​received​ ​formal​ ​warnings​ ​from​ ​the​ ​U.S.​ ​Environmental Protection​ ​Agency​ ​in​ ​the​ ​past​ ​three​ ​years​ ​without​ ​facing​ ​penalties​ ​or​ ​other​ ​enforcement​ ​actions​ ​from​ ​the agency.​ ​In​ ​particular,​ ​we​ ​are​ ​looking​ ​at​ ​these​ ​specific​ ​cases​ ​with​ ​NOV​ ​but​ ​no​ ​follow-up​ ​enforcement​ ​action, as​ ​examples.​ ​We​ ​have​ ​asked​ ​Region​ ​5​ ​about​ ​these​ ​cases.​ ​Wanted​ ​to​ ​see​ ​if​ ​you​ ​had​ ​anything​ ​else​ ​you​ ​can discuss​ ​related​ ​to​ ​following​ ​up​ ​on​ ​these​ ​notices​ ​of​ ​violations? --​ ​S.H.​ ​Bell​ ​in​ ​East​ ​Liverpool,​ ​Ohio --​ ​Globe​ ​Metallurgical​ ​in​ ​Waterford,​ ​Ohio --​ ​TimkenSteel​ ​in​ ​Canton,​ ​Ohio --​ ​Indiana​ ​Harbor​ ​Coke​ ​in​ ​East​ ​Chicago,​ ​Indiana --​ ​The​ ​E.P.A.​ ​moved​ ​in​ ​the​ ​final​ ​days​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Obama​ ​administration​ ​to​ ​resolve​ ​S.H.​ ​Bell​ ​case​ ​in​ ​East​ ​Liverpool, proposing​ ​a​ ​series​ ​of​ ​improvements​ ​the​ ​company​ ​needed​ ​to​ ​make​ ​to​ ​reduce​ ​the​ ​manganese​ ​dust​ ​and​ ​to enhance​ ​monitoring​ ​to​ ​make​ ​sure​ ​it​ ​had​ ​stopped.​ ​In​ ​March,​ ​the​ ​Trump​ ​administration​ ​asked​ ​a​ ​federal​ ​judge to​ ​delay​ ​the​ ​case,​ ​so​ ​the​ ​E.P.A.​ ​could​ ​“brief​ ​incoming​ ​administration​ ​officials​ ​with​ ​decision-making responsibility​ ​about​ ​this​ ​case,”​ ​given​ ​that​ ​“many​ ​subordinate​ ​political​ ​positions​ ​at​ ​the​ ​agency​ ​remain unfilled.”​ ​The​ ​Justice​ ​Department​ ​has​ ​ultimately​ ​came​ ​back​ ​and​ ​asked​ ​the​ ​court​ ​to​ ​move​ ​ahead,​ ​but​ ​the matter​ ​remains​ ​unresolved,​ ​which​ ​is​ ​rare​ ​for​ ​a​ ​case​ ​that​ ​already​ ​had​ ​a​ ​signed​ ​consent​ ​decree.​ ​Why​ ​has​ ​this matter​ ​remained​ ​unresolved? Thanks​ ​in​ ​advance​ ​for​ ​your​ ​help RESPONSE​ ​FROM​ ​THE​ ​EPA TO​ ​THE​ ​NEW​ ​YORK​ ​TIMES ON​ ​THE​ ​RECORD​ ​STATEMENTS​ ​… “The​ ​last​ ​administration​ ​crippled​ ​EPA’s​ ​criminal​ ​enforcement​ ​program,​ ​as​ ​they​ ​cut​ ​24​ ​percent​ ​of​ ​the​ ​agents​ ​who​ ​pursued environmental​ ​violations.​ ​Administrator​ ​Pruitt​ ​is​ ​highly​ ​supportive​ ​of​ ​our​ ​program,​ ​he​ ​took​ ​the​ ​unprecedented​ ​step​ ​of meeting​ ​with​ ​our​ ​criminal​ ​investigators​ ​and​ ​reaffirmed​ ​that​ ​we’d​ ​have​ ​the​ ​resources​ ​to​ ​carry​ ​out​ ​our​ ​mission.”​ –​ ​Henry Barnet,​ ​director​ ​of​ ​EPA's​ ​Office​ ​of​ ​Criminal​ ​Enforcement,​ ​Forensics,​ ​and​ ​Training. “We​ ​have​ ​not​ ​rejected​ ​any​ ​requests​ ​for​ ​sampling,​ ​monitoring​ ​and​ ​testing​ ​under​ ​114​ ​and​ ​308,” ​-​ ​EPA​ ​spokesperson “There​ ​is​ ​no​ ​reduction​ ​in​ ​EPA’s​ ​commitment​ ​to​ ​ensure​ ​compliance​ ​with​ ​our​ ​nation’s​ ​environmental​ ​laws. ​ ​EPA​ ​and​ ​states​ ​work together​ ​to​ ​find​ ​violators​ ​and​ ​bring​ ​them​ ​back​ ​into​ ​compliance,​ ​and​ ​to​ ​punish​ ​intentional​ ​polluters,” ​–​ ​EPA​ ​Spokesperson “As​ ​part​ ​of​ ​this​ ​effort,​ ​we​ ​are​ ​collaborating​ ​more​ ​with​ ​states​ ​and​ ​we​ ​are​ ​focusing​ ​more​ ​on​ ​outcomes. ​ ​Unless​ ​the​ ​activity​ ​is criminal,​ ​we​ ​focus​ ​more​ ​on​ ​bringing​ ​people​ ​back​ ​into​ ​compliance,​ ​than​ ​bean​ ​counting​. ​ ​This​ ​means​ ​that​ ​it​ ​is​ ​okay​ ​for​ ​EPA Regions​ ​to​ ​share​ ​the​ ​work​ ​with​ ​states,​ ​and​ ​it​ ​is​ ​okay​ ​for​ ​Regions​ ​to​ ​use​ ​informal​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​formal​ ​enforcement​ ​actions,”​ ​– ​EPA Spokesperson RESPONSES​ ​TO​ ​YOUR​ ​QUESTIONS: Penalties​ ​and​ ​Injunctive​ ​Relief:​ This​ ​administration​ ​is​ ​focused​ ​on​ ​achieving​ ​and​ ​maintaining​ ​compliance​ ​with​ ​environmental laws​ ​through​ ​aggressive​ ​enforcement​ ​against​ ​bad​ ​actors​ ​and​ ​compliance​ ​assistance​ ​for​ ​small​ ​businesses.​ ​We​ ​are​ ​focused​ ​on outcomes. For​ ​example,​ ​the​ ​Agency’s​ ​draft​ ​Strategic​ ​Plan​ ​for​ ​FY​ ​2018-2022​ ​includes​ ​two​ ​new​ ​enforcement​ ​measures,​ ​enforcement​ ​of​ ​and compliance​ ​with​ ​environmental​ ​laws:​ ​reducing​ ​the​ ​time​ ​between​ ​identification​ ​and​ ​correction​ ​of​ ​environmental​ ​law​ ​violations and​ ​increasing​ ​the​ ​environmental​ ​law​ ​compliance​ ​rate. ​ ​These​ ​outcomes​ ​can​ ​be​ ​achieved​ ​through​ ​a​ ​variety​ ​of​ ​enforcement tools. With​ ​respect​ ​to​ ​the​ ​data​ ​pull​ ​from​ ​ECHO, ​The​ ​New​ ​York​ ​Times​ only​ ​looked​ ​at​ ​cases​ ​filed​ ​in​ ​the​ ​past​ ​nine​ ​months​. ​ ​It​ ​takes months​ ​or​ ​even​ ​years​ ​to​ ​develop​ ​a​ ​case​ ​to​ ​the​ ​point​ ​that​ ​a​ ​final​ ​order​ ​is​ ​lodged​ ​or​ ​a​ ​case​ ​has​ ​been​ ​filed,​ so​ ​data​ ​from​ ​the​ ​last nine​ ​months​ ​is​ ​not​ ​dependent​ ​solely​ ​on​ ​work​ ​that​ ​has​ ​been​ ​performed​ ​during​ ​this​ ​administration. Memo:​ We​ ​have​ ​not​ ​rejected​ ​any​ ​requests​ ​for​ ​sampling,​ ​testing​ ​or​ ​monitoring​ ​data​ ​collection​ ​under​ ​114​ ​or​ ​308. EPA​ ​has​ ​always​ ​–​ ​throughout​ ​many​ ​administrations​ ​–​ ​had​ ​criteria​ ​for​ ​issuing​ ​information​ ​requests.​ ​The​ ​memo​ ​is​ ​to​ ​ensure​ ​that the​ ​criteria​ ​that​ ​has​ ​existed​ ​at​ ​EPA​ ​for​ ​years​ ​–​ ​throughout​ ​many​ ​administrations​ ​–​ ​is​ ​being​ ​followed. June​ ​Senate​ ​Hearing:​ ​The​ ​request​ ​for​ ​information​ ​authority​ ​under​ ​the​ ​Clean​ ​Air​ ​Act​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Clean​ ​Water​ ​Act​ ​are​ ​broad​ ​and powerful​ ​tools​ ​that​ ​must​ ​be​ ​used​ ​with​ ​great​ ​prudence. ​ ​For​ ​over​ ​15​ ​years,​ ​EPA​ ​has​ ​maintained​ ​internal​ ​guidance​ ​and​ ​controls on​ ​the​ ​use​ ​of​ ​these​ ​authorities. ​ ​This​ ​administration​ ​has​ ​continued​ ​the​ ​multi-decadal​ ​work​ ​of​ ​the​ ​enforcement​ ​office​ ​to formulate​ ​policies​ ​that​ ​ensure​ ​that​ ​these​ ​information​ ​collection​ ​tools​ ​are​ ​appropriately​ ​tailored​ ​to​ ​gather​ ​the​ ​information required​ ​for​ ​enforcement. 114a​ ​and​ ​308​ ​Requests:​ EPA​ ​is​ ​working​ ​on​ ​enforcement​ ​cases​ ​as​ ​the​ ​Agency​ ​always​ ​has.​ ​Each​ ​information​ ​request​ ​is​ ​issued based​ ​on​ ​a​ ​case-by-case​ ​evaluation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​needs​ ​of​ ​the​ ​particular​ ​investigation.​ ​This​ ​administration​ ​fully​ ​supports​ ​the​ ​prudent, tailored​ ​use​ ​of​ ​requests​ ​for​ ​information. Variations​ ​in​ ​114​ ​numbers​ ​over​ ​time​ ​are​ ​related​ ​to​ ​regional​ ​processes,​ ​cycles​ ​in​ ​securing​ ​information​ ​and​ ​then​ ​working​ ​the cases. We​ ​have​ ​not​ ​rejected​ ​any​ ​requests​ ​for​ ​sampling,​ ​testing​ ​or​ ​monitoring​ ​data​ ​collection​ ​under​ ​114a​ ​or​ ​308. Hiring:​ OECA​ ​has​ ​approval​ ​to​ ​hire​ ​additional​ ​criminal​ ​enforcement​ ​agents. Regional​ ​Administrators:​ We​ ​continue​ ​to​ ​work​ ​on​ ​bringing​ ​our​ ​regional​ ​administrators​ ​on​ ​board,​ ​and​ ​will​ ​continue​ ​to​ ​work with​ ​the​ ​acting​ ​regional​ ​administrators​ ​in​ ​the​ ​meantime. Administrator​ ​Pruitt​ ​strongly​ ​supports​ ​the​ ​enforcement​ ​program. Onsite​ ​Inspections:​ Funds​ ​for​ ​enforcement​ ​personnel​ ​has​ ​decreased​ ​through​ ​a​ ​steady​ ​trend​ ​over​ ​the​ ​last​ ​eight​ ​years. ​ ​This administration​ ​is​ ​accomplishing​ ​vigorous​ ​enforcement​ ​of​ ​our​ ​environmental​ ​laws​ ​through​ ​a​ ​focus​ ​on​ ​violations,​ ​partnerships with​ ​the​ ​states​ ​and​ ​an​ ​increased​ ​use​ ​of​ ​e-reporting,​ ​data​ ​evaluation,​ ​and​ ​other​ ​enforcement​ ​tools​ ​–​ ​in​ ​addition​ ​to​ ​inspections to​ ​monitor​ ​compliance. Cooperative​ ​Federalism:​ Cooperative​ ​federalism​ ​means​ ​cooperation.​ ​As​ ​noted​ ​in​ ​a​ ​recent​ ​letter​ ​from​ ​the​ ​Deputy​ ​Regional Administrator​ ​in​ ​Region​ ​7​ ​to​ ​the​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Missouri,​ ​there​ ​are​ ​a​ ​variety​ ​of​ ​reasons​ ​for​ ​EPA​ ​take​ ​enforcement​ ​action​ ​in​ ​an authorized​ ​state. ​ ​But,​ ​under​ ​cooperative​ ​federalism​ ​EPA​ ​and​ ​state​ ​managers​ ​consult​ ​with​ ​one​ ​another. EPA/DOJ:​ EPA​ ​continues​ ​to​ ​carry​ ​out​ ​the​ ​principles​ ​for​ ​working​ ​with​ ​cities​ ​on​ ​Clean​ ​Water​ ​Act​ ​violations​ ​outlined​ ​in​ ​the Integrated​ ​Planning​ ​Framework​ ​issued​ ​in​ ​June​ ​2012. Specific​ ​Facilities:​ We​ ​agree​ ​that​ ​it​ ​is​ ​important​ ​to​ ​achieve​ ​a​ ​return​ ​to​ ​compliance​ ​as​ ​quickly​ ​as​ ​possible​ ​and​ ​to​ ​not​ ​let​ ​cases languish. ​ ​The​ ​new​ ​enforcement​ ​measures​ ​in​ ​EPA’s​ ​Strategic​ ​Plan​ ​will​ ​bring​ ​management​ ​attention​ ​to​ ​cases​ ​that​ ​are​ ​not progressing​ ​so​ ​issues​ ​can​ ​be​ ​resolved​ ​in​ ​a​ ​short​ ​time​ ​frame. The​ ​motion​ ​to​ ​enter​ ​the​ ​S.H.​ ​Bell​ ​consent​ ​decree​ ​was​ ​filed​ ​on​ ​March​ ​28,​ ​2017. ​ ​We​ ​are​ ​waiting​ ​for​ ​the​ ​court​ ​to​ ​act. ​ ​It​ ​would not​ ​be​ ​appropriate​ ​to​ ​discuss​ ​the​ ​open​ ​enforcement​ ​matters. ADDITIONAL​ ​BACKGROUND: EPA’s​ ​draft​ ​strategic​ ​plan​ ​has​ ​a​ ​new​ ​enforcement​ ​measure​ ​that​ ​will​ ​track​ ​how​ ​quickly​ ​we​ ​can​ ​return​ ​violators​ ​to​ ​compliance. The​ ​Public​ ​Review​ ​Draft​ ​of​ ​the​ ​FY​ ​2018-2022​ ​EPA​ ​Strategic​ ​Plan​ ​proposes​ ​a​ ​new​ ​measure​ ​of:​ ​Reduce​ ​the​ ​time​ ​between​ ​the identification​ ​of​ ​an​ ​environmental​ ​law​ ​violation​ ​and​ ​its​ ​correction. Our​ ​data​ ​tracking​ ​systems​ ​are​ ​still​ ​catching​ ​up​ ​with​ ​this​ ​focus​ ​on​ ​environmental​ ​outcomes. ​ ​So​ ​right​ ​now​ ​we​ ​are​ ​not​ ​recording all​ ​of​ ​the​ ​good​ ​enforcement​ ​work​ ​that​ ​is​ ​being​ ​done​ ​out​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Regions,​ ​but​ ​we​ ​will​ ​do​ ​that​ ​under​ ​our​ ​new​ ​strategic​ ​plan. Trends:​ ​There​ ​is​ ​no​ ​“trend”—the​ ​enforcement​ ​office​ ​remains​ ​focused​ ​on​ ​fostering​ ​compliance​ ​and​ ​correcting​ ​noncompliance, and​ ​as​ ​always,​ ​this​ ​work​ ​is​ ​done​ ​on​ ​a​ ​case-by-case​ ​basis. Data: Since​ ​January​ ​20,​ ​2017,​ ​through​ ​the​ ​end​ ​of​ ​FY​ ​2017,​ ​DOJ’s​ ​Environment​ ​and​ ​Natural​ ​Resources​ ​Division,​ ​in​ ​coordination​ ​with EPA​ ​have​ ​imposed: ∙​ ​More​ ​than​ ​$1.72​ ​billion​ ​in​ ​civil​ ​penalties,​ ​cost​ ​recovery,​ ​natural​ ​resource​ ​damages,​ ​and​ ​other​ ​monetary recoveries; ∙​ ​More​ ​than​ ​$2.91​ ​billion​ ​in​ ​criminal​ ​fines,​ ​restitution,​ ​and​ ​other​ ​assessments;​ ​and ∙​ ​More​ ​than​ ​$3.13​ ​billion​ ​in​ ​injunctive​ ​relief​ ​and​ ​environmental​ ​mitigation​ ​projects. This​ ​administration​ ​is​ ​focused​ ​on​ ​achieving​ ​and​ ​maintaining​ ​compliance​ ​with​ ​environmental​ ​laws. ​ ​That​ ​means​ ​aggressive enforcement​ ​against​ ​bad​ ​actors​,​ ​and​ compliance​ ​assistance​ ​for​ ​small​ ​businesses. ​ ​It​ ​also​ ​means​ ​focusing​ ​on​ ​the​ ​outcome​ ​of compliance. ​ ​For​ ​example,​ ​the​ ​Agency’s ​current ​Strategic​ ​Plan​ ​for​ ​FY​ ​2018-2022​ ​includes​ ​two​ ​new​ ​enforcement​ ​measure​s for ​reducing​ ​the​ ​time​ ​between​ ​identification​ ​and​ ​correction​ ​of​ ​environmental​ ​law​ ​violations​ ​and​ ​increasing​ ​the​ ​environmental law​ ​compliance​ ​rate. ​ ​These​ ​outcomes​ ​can​ ​be​ ​achieved​ ​through​ ​a​ ​variety​ ​of​ ​enforcement​ ​tools. With​ ​respect​ ​to​ ​the​ ​data​ ​pull​ ​from​ ​ECHO,​ ​the ​Times ​only​ ​looked​ ​at​ ​cases​ ​filed​ ​in​ ​the​ ​past​ ​nine​ ​months. ​ ​It​ ​takes​ ​months​ ​or​ ​even years​ ​to​ ​develop​ ​a​ ​case​ ​to​ ​the​ ​point​ ​that​ ​a​ ​final​ ​order​ ​is​ ​lodged​ ​or​ ​a​ ​case​ ​has​ ​been​ ​filed​,​ so​ ​data​ ​from​ ​the​ ​last​ ​nine​ ​months​ ​is​ ​not dependent​ ​solely​ ​on​ ​work​ ​that​ ​has​ ​been​ ​performed​ ​during​ ​this​ ​administration. Additionally, ∙​ ​As​ ​the​ ​recent​ ​report​ ​we​ ​discussed​ ​admits,​ ​“enforcement​ ​results​ ​may​ ​vary​ ​over​ ​the​ ​short​ ​term.”​ ​This​ ​is​ ​nowhere more​ ​true​ ​than​ ​in​ ​judicial​ ​consent​ ​decrees.​ ​These​ ​are​ ​our​ ​most​ ​complex,​ ​significant​ ​cases,​ ​which​ ​take​ ​the​ ​longest​ ​to develop​ ​and​ ​conclude.​ ​Settlements​ ​lodged​ ​during​ ​the​ ​first​ ​nine​ ​months​ ​of​ ​this​ ​administration​ ​therefore​ ​have​ ​much more​ ​to​ ​do​ ​with​ ​the​ ​pace​ ​of​ ​enforcement​ ​near​ ​the​ ​end​ ​of​ ​the​ ​last​ ​administration,​ ​than​ ​the​ ​commitment​ ​to​ ​the​ ​rule​ ​of law​ ​and​ ​enforcement​ ​in​ ​this​ ​administration. ∙​ ​Our​ ​enforcement​ ​data​ ​show​ ​that​ ​there​ ​was​ ​a​ ​drop​ ​in​ ​enforcement​ ​intensity​ ​during​ ​the​ ​first​ ​year​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Obama administration​ ​(measured​ ​by​ ​value​ ​of​ ​injunctive​ ​relief,​ ​penalties​ ​assessed,​ ​and​ ​environmental​ ​benefits). ∙​ ​EPA’s​ ​FY2017​ ​enforcement​ ​accomplishments​ ​were​ ​dominated​ ​by​ ​the​ ​massive​ ​VW​ ​settlements.​ ​However,​ ​even backing​ ​out​ ​settlements​ ​like​ ​VW​ ​with​ ​penalties​ ​greater​ ​than​ ​$1​ ​billion, ​civil​ ​penalties​ ​collected​ ​in​ ​FY2017​ ​($175 million)​ ​compare​ ​favorably​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Obama​ ​administration​ ​average​ ​of​ ​$165​ ​million. Cooperative​ ​Federalism:​ Cooperative​ ​federalism​ ​in​ ​enforcement​ ​means​ ​looking​ ​to​ ​states​ ​to​ ​enforce​ ​environmental​ ​laws​ ​where they​ ​have​ ​the​ ​capability.​ ​If​ ​a​ ​state​ ​lacks​ ​capability​ ​(for​ ​example,​ ​a​ ​state​ ​might​ ​not​ ​have​ ​deep​ ​technical​ ​resources​ ​or​ ​a​ ​public health​ ​crisis​ ​overwhelms​ ​the​ ​ability​ ​of​ ​a​ ​state​ ​to​ ​respond),​ ​then​ ​EPA​ ​will​ ​be​ ​there​ ​in​ ​partnership​ ​with​ ​the​ ​state​ ​to​ ​enforce​ ​the law.​ ​For​ ​example,​ ​Pennsylvania​ ​Department​ ​of​ ​Environmental​ ​Protection​ ​and​ ​EPA​ ​worked​ ​together​ ​to​ ​perform​ ​a comprehensive​ ​performance​ ​evaluation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Pittsburg​ ​Water​ ​and​ ​Sewer​ ​Authority​ ​(PWSA)​ ​distribution​ ​system​ ​(​PDEP​ ​Press Release​,​ ​10/25/17) Example​ ​Enforcement​ ​Actions​ ​Announced​ ​Since​ ​Close​ ​of​ ​FY17: ∙​ ​ExxonMobil:​ $300M​ ​air​ ​pollution​ ​settlement​ ​with​ ​Exxon,​ ​10/31/17 ∙​ ​PDC​ ​Energy​:​ ​EPA,​ ​Colorado​ ​reach​ ​$21​ ​million-plus​ ​settlement​ ​with​ ​PDC​ ​10/31/17 ∙​ ​Macy’s:​ EPA​ ​Settled​ ​with​ ​Macy’s​ ​over​ ​Hazardous​ ​Waste​ ​Violations​ ​10/25/17 ∙​ ​RIN​ ​Fraud:​ This​ ​individual​ ​defendant​ ​purchased​ ​renewable​ ​fuel​ ​with​ ​attached​ ​RINs,​ ​sold​ ​the​ ​fuel,​ ​and​ ​instead​ ​of retiring​ ​the​ ​RINs​ ​as​ ​required,​ ​sold​ ​the​ ​RINs​ ​separately​ ​and​ ​illegally​ ​for​ ​$31.8​ ​million.​ ​He​ ​also​ ​committed​ ​tax​ ​fraud​ ​to the​ ​tune​ ​of​ ​$1.2​ ​million​ ​by​ ​claiming​ ​renewable​ ​fuel​ ​tax​ ​credits​ ​to​ ​which​ ​he​ ​was​ ​not​ ​entitled,​ ​10,23/17 ∙​ ​Superfunds:​ For​ ​one​ ​example,​ ​EPA​ ​held​ ​40​ ​parties​ ​responsible​ ​to​ ​finance​ ​and​ ​perform​ ​a​ ​$51.5​ ​million EPA-approved​ ​cleanup​ ​10/13/17 EPA​ ​Enforcement​ ​Actions​ ​Help​ ​Protect​ ​Vulnerable​ ​Communities​ ​Across​ ​the​ ​Country​ ​from​ ​Lead-Based​ ​Paint​ ​Health​ ​Hazards ∙​ ​127​ ​Federal​ ​Enforcement​ ​Actions​ ​on​ ​Lead​ ​(up​ ​from​ ​previous​ ​year):​ ​From​ ​October​ ​2016​ ​through​ ​September 2017,​ ​EPA​ ​finalized​ ​121​ ​civil​ ​settlements​ ​for​ ​alleged​ ​violations​ ​of​ ​one​ ​or​ ​more​ ​of​ ​the​ ​three​ ​lead-based​ ​paint​ ​rule​ ​--and filed​ ​three​ ​complaints​ ​for​ ​ongoing​ ​actions.​ ​(​EPA​ ​press​ ​release​,​ ​10/27/17) ∙​ ​In​ ​seven​ ​settlements​ ​this​ ​year,​ ​the​ ​alleged​ ​violator​ ​agreed​ ​to​ ​fund​ ​a​ ​community-based​ ​lead​ ​paint​ ​abatement project,​ ​like​ ​window​ ​replacements,​ ​to​ ​eliminate​ ​risks.​ ​Collectively,​ ​the​ ​projects​ ​are​ ​valued​ ​at​$2,406,734.​ The settlements​ ​require​ ​the​ ​alleged​ ​violator​ ​to​ ​come​ ​into​ ​compliance​ ​with​ ​the​ ​law​ ​and,​ ​in​ ​most​ ​cases,​ ​to​ ​pay​ ​a​ ​civil penalty.​ ​Collectively,​ ​the​ ​settlements​ ​require​ ​alleged​ ​violators​ ​to​ ​pay ​$1,046,891​ ​in​ ​penalties. ∙​ ​From​ ​October​ ​2015​ ​through​ ​September​ ​2016​,​ ​EPA​ ​entered​ ​into​ ​123​ ​settlements​ ​for​ ​alleged​ ​violations​ ​of​ ​one​ ​or more​ ​of​ ​the​ ​three​ ​lead-based​ ​paint​ ​rules.​ ​Each​ ​settlement​ ​requires​ ​that​ ​the​ ​alleged​ ​violator​ ​return​ ​to​ ​compliance​ ​and, in​ ​most​ ​cases,​ ​pay​ ​civil​ ​penalties.​ ​Collectively,​ ​the​ ​settlements​ ​require​ ​violators​ ​to​ ​pay ​$1,046,655​ ​in​ ​penalties ​(​EPA Press​ ​Release​,​ ​11/03/16) EPA​ ​Forces​ ​ExxonMobil​ ​to​ ​Pay​ ​$2.5​ ​Civil​ ​Penalty​ ​&​ ​$300​ ​Million​ ​On​ ​Pollution-Control​ ​Technology​ ​Plants​ ​… Under​ ​Agreement​ ​with​ ​the​ ​Justice​ ​Department​ ​and​ ​Environmental​ ​Protection​ ​Agency,​ ​ExxonMobil​ ​to​ ​Reduce​ ​Harmful​ ​Air Pollution​ ​at​ ​Eight​ ​U.S.​ ​Chemical​ ​Plants. ​“The​ ​Department​ ​of​ ​Justice,​ ​the​ ​U.S.​ ​Environmental​ ​Protection​ ​Agency​ ​(EPA),​ ​and​ ​the Louisiana​ ​Department​ ​of​ ​Environmental​ ​Quality​ ​(LDEQ)​ ​announced​ ​a​ ​settlement​ ​today​ ​with​ ​Exxon​ ​Mobil​ ​Corp.​ ​and​ ​ExxonMobil Oil​ ​Corp.,​ ​(ExxonMobil)​ ​that​ ​will​ ​eliminate​ ​thousands​ ​of​ ​tons​ ​of​ ​harmful​ ​air​ ​pollution​ ​from​ ​eight​ ​of​ ​Exxon’s​ ​petrochemical manufacturing​ ​facilities​ ​in​ ​Texas​ ​and​ ​Louisiana.​ ​The​ ​settlement​ ​resolves​ ​allegations​ ​that​ ​ExxonMobil​ ​violated​ ​the​ ​Clean​ ​Air​ ​Act by​ ​failing​ ​to​ ​properly​ ​operate​ ​and​ ​monitor​ ​industrial​ ​flares​ ​at​ ​their​ ​petrochemical​ ​facilities,​ ​which​ ​resulted​ ​in​ ​excess​ ​emissions of​ ​harmful​ ​air​ ​pollution.​ ​ExxonMobil​ ​will​ ​spend​ ​approximately​ ​$300​ ​million​ ​to​ ​install​ ​and​ ​operate​ ​air​ ​pollution​ ​control​ ​and monitoring​ ​technology​ ​to​ ​reduce​ ​harmful​ ​air​ ​pollution​ ​from​ ​26​ ​industrial​ ​flares​ ​at​ ​five​ ​ExxonMobil​ ​facilities​ ​in​ ​Texas—located near​ ​Baytown,​ ​Beaumont,​ ​and​ ​Mont​ ​Belvieu—and​ ​three​ ​of​ ​the​ ​company’s​ ​facilities​ ​in​ ​Baton​ ​Rouge,​ ​Louisiana.​ ​Once​ ​fully implemented,​ ​the​ ​pollution​ ​controls​ ​required​ ​by​ ​the​ ​settlement​ ​are​ ​estimated​ ​to​ ​reduce​ ​harmful​ ​air​ ​emissions​ ​of​ ​volatile organic​ ​compounds​ ​(VOCs)​ ​by​ ​more​ ​than​ ​7,000​ ​tons​ ​per​ ​year.​ ​The​ ​settlement​ ​is​ ​also​ ​expected​ ​to​ ​reduce​ ​toxic​ ​air​ ​pollutants, including​ ​benzene,​ ​by​ ​more​ ​than​ ​1,500​ ​tons​ ​per​ ​year.​ ​The​ ​Louisiana​ ​Department​ ​of​ ​Environmental​ ​Quality​ ​is​ ​also​ ​a​ ​signatory​ ​of today’s​ ​settlement,​ ​which​ ​resolves​ ​alleged​ ​violations​ ​of​ ​Louisiana​ ​law​ ​at​ ​ExxonMobil’s​ ​three​ ​plants​ ​in​ ​Baton​ ​Rouge,​ ​Louisiana. ‘This​ ​settlement​ ​means​ ​cleaner​ ​air​ ​for​ ​communities​ ​across​ ​Texas​ ​and​ ​Louisiana,​ ​and​ ​reinforces​ ​EPA’s​ ​commitment​ ​to​ ​enforce the​ ​law​ ​and​ ​hold​ ​those​ ​who​ ​violate​ ​it​ ​accountable,’​ ​said​ ​EPA​ ​Administrator​ ​Scott​ ​Pruitt.​ ​‘As​ ​this​ ​agreement​ ​shows,​ ​EPA​ ​is dedicated​ ​to​ ​partnering​ ​with​ ​states​ ​to​ ​address​ ​critical​ ​environmental​ ​issues​ ​and​ ​improving​ ​compliance​ ​in​ ​the​ ​regulated community​ ​to​ ​prevent​ ​future​ ​violations​ ​of​ ​the​ ​law.’”​ ​(​EPA​ ​Press​ ​Release​,​ ​10/31/17) Trump​ ​admin​ ​inks​ ​$300M​ ​air​ ​pollution​ ​settlement​ ​with​ ​Exxon​ ​“​The​ ​Trump​ ​administration​ ​has​ ​reached​ ​a​ ​deal​ ​worth​ ​more​ ​than $300​ ​million​ ​with​ ​Exxon​ ​Mobil​ ​Corp.​ ​to​ ​settle​ ​claims​ ​that​ ​eight​ ​of​ ​its​ ​plants​ ​released​ ​unacceptable​ ​amounts​ ​of​ ​air​ ​pollutants​ ​… Exxon​ ​is​ ​also​ ​paying​ ​$2.5​ ​million​ ​in​ ​civil​ ​penalties​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Environmental​ ​Protection​ ​Agency​ ​(EPA)​ ​and​ ​state​ ​agencies,​ ​and spending​ ​$1​ ​million​ ​to​ ​plant​ ​trees​ ​in​ ​a​ ​city​ ​near​ ​one​ ​plant.The​ ​EPA​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Justice​ ​Department​ ​announced​ ​the settlement Tuesday,​ ​along​ ​with​ ​a​ ​settlement​ ​with​ ​Colorado-based​ ​PDC​ ​Energy​ ​Inc.​ ​to​ ​resolve​ ​claims​ ​that​ ​its​ ​natural​ ​gas condensate​ ​facilities​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Denver​ ​area​ ​exceeded​ ​legal​ ​emissions​ ​limits.​ ​That​ ​agreement​ ​is​ ​worth​ ​more​ ​than​ ​$22​ ​million​ ​…​ ​The settlements​ ​come​ ​amid​ ​accusations​ ​from​ ​environmentalists​ ​and​ ​Democrats​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Trump​ ​administration​ ​is​ ​going​ ​soft​ ​on enforcing​ ​the​ ​law​ ​against​ ​polluters.​ ​Administration​ ​officials​ ​argued​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Exxon​ ​and​ ​PDC​ ​settlements​ ​demonstrate​ ​the opposite.​ ​‘We​ ​will​ ​be​ ​enforcing​ ​environmental​ ​laws​ ​in​ ​this​ ​administration.​ ​That’s​ ​not​ ​just​ ​my​ ​message,​ ​that’s​ ​the​ ​message straight​ ​from​ ​the​ ​top​ ​of​ ​the​ ​organization.​ ​This​ ​administration​ ​is​ ​absolutely​ ​committed​ ​to​ ​the​ ​enforcement​ ​of​ ​the​ ​law,​ ​with prudence​ ​and​ ​with​ ​excellence,’​ ​said​ ​Patrick​ ​Traylor,​ ​the​ ​deputy​ ​head​ ​of​ ​the​ ​EPA’s​ ​law​ ​enforcement​ ​office.​ ​(​The​ ​Hill​,​ ​10/31/17) Exxon​ ​settles​ ​pollution​ ​case​ ​with​ ​US,​ ​will​ ​upgrade​ ​8​ ​plants. ​“Exxon​ ​Mobil​ ​settled​ ​violations​ ​of​ ​the​ ​clean-air​ ​law​ ​with​ ​the​ ​Trump administration​ ​by​ ​agreeing​ ​to​ ​pay​ ​a​ ​$2.5​ ​million​ ​civil​ ​penalty​ ​and​ ​spend​ ​$300​ ​million​ ​on​ ​pollution-control​ ​technology​ ​at​ ​plants along​ ​the​ ​Gulf​ ​Coast.​ ​Federal​ ​officials​ ​said Tuesday that​ ​the​ ​settlement​ ​will​ ​prevent​ ​thousands​ ​of​ ​tons​ ​of​ ​future​ ​pollution, including​ ​cancer-causing​ ​benzene,​ ​from​ ​eight​ ​petrochemical​ ​plants​ ​in​ ​Texas​ ​and​ ​Louisiana.​ ​Some​ ​environmentalists​ ​criticized the​ ​settlement​ ​as​ ​insufficient​ ​punishment​ ​for​ ​years​ ​of​ ​violations​ ​by​ ​the​ ​giant​ ​oil​ ​company,​ ​while​ ​others​ ​said​ ​it​ ​addressed​ ​excess burning​ ​or​ ​flaring​ ​of​ ​gas,​ ​a​ ​major​ ​pollution​ ​problem​ ​at​ ​refineries​ ​and​ ​chemical​ ​plants.​ ​The​ ​deal​ ​with​ ​the​ ​U.S.​ ​and​ ​Louisiana settles​ ​allegations​ ​that​ ​Exxon​ ​violated​ ​the​ ​federal​ ​Clean​ ​Air​ ​Act​ ​by​ ​releasing​ ​excess​ ​harmful​ ​pollution​ ​after​ ​modifying​ ​flaring systems​ ​at​ ​five​ ​plants​ ​in​ ​Texas​ ​and​ ​three​ ​in​ ​Louisiana.​ ​The​ ​allegations​ ​date​ ​back​ ​more​ ​than​ ​a​ ​decade.​ ​Exxon​ ​said​ ​it​ ​will​ ​install and​ ​increase​ ​efficiency​ ​of​ ​the​ ​flaring​ ​systems​ ​and​ ​monitor​ ​for​ ​benzene​ ​outside​ ​four​ ​of​ ​the​ ​plants.​ ​U.S.​ ​officials​ ​said​ ​the​ ​deal​ ​will cut​ ​emissions​ ​of​ ​toxic​ ​pollutants​ ​including​ ​benzene​ ​by​ ​1,500​ ​tons​ ​a​ ​year​ ​and​ ​reduce​ ​release​ ​of​ ​other​ ​chemicals​ ​by​ ​thousands​ ​of tons.”​ ​(​The​ ​Washington​ ​Post​,​ ​10/31/17) EPA​ ​Holds​ ​PDC​ ​Energy​ ​Accountable​ ​… DOJ,​ ​EPA​ ​and​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Colorado​ ​Reach​ ​Agreement​ ​With​ ​PDC​ ​Energy,​ ​Inc.​ ​to​ ​Resolve​ ​Litigation​ ​and​ ​Reduce​ ​Air​ ​Pollution.​ “The Department​ ​of​ ​Justice,​ ​the​ ​U.S.​ ​Environmental​ ​Protection​ ​Agency​ ​(EPA),​ ​and​ ​the​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Colorado​ ​today​ ​announced​ ​a settlement​ ​with​ ​Denver-based​ ​PDC​ ​Energy,​ ​Inc.​ ​resolving​ ​Clean​ ​Air​ ​Act​ ​violations​ ​alleged​ ​in​ ​a​ ​civil​ ​complaint.​ ​The​ ​complaint​ ​filed June​ ​26,​ ​2017​ ​alleged​ ​that​ ​PDC​ ​violated​ ​requirements​ ​to​ ​reduce​ ​volatile​ ​organic​ ​compound​ ​(VOC)​ ​emissions​ ​from​ ​its​ ​oil​ ​and​ ​gas exploration​ ​and​ ​production​ ​activities​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Denver​ ​area.​ ​This​ ​case​ ​arose​ ​from​ ​a​ ​series​ ​of​ ​Colorado​ ​inspections​ ​that​ ​found significant​ ​VOC​ ​emissions​ ​from​ ​PDC’s​ ​condensate​ ​storage​ ​tanks.​ ​Under​ ​the​ ​settlement,​ ​PDC​ ​will​ ​spend​ ​an​ ​estimated​ ​$18​ ​million on​ ​system​ ​upgrades,​ ​improved​ ​operations​ ​and​ ​maintenance​ ​practices,​ ​monitoring,​ ​and​ ​inspections​ ​to​ ​reduce​ ​emissions.​ ​PDC will​ ​also​ ​be​ ​required​ ​to​ ​implement​ ​environmental​ ​mitigation​ ​projects​ ​at​ ​certain​ ​sites​ ​to​ ​further​ ​reduce​ ​VOC​ ​and​ ​nitrogen​ ​oxide (NOx)​ ​emissions​ ​at​ ​a​ ​cost​ ​of​ ​$1.7​ ​million.​ ​The​ ​settlement​ ​includes​ ​a​ ​$2.5​ ​million​ ​civil​ ​penalty,​ ​which​ ​will​ ​be​ ​split​ ​evenly​ ​between the​ ​United​ ​States​ ​and​ ​the​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Colorado.​ ​The​ ​state’s​ ​share​ ​of​ ​the​ ​penalty​ ​may​ ​be​ ​offset​ ​by​ ​up​ ​to​ ​$1​ ​million​ ​by​ ​performing one​ ​or​ ​more​ ​state-only​ ​supplemental​ ​environmental​ ​projects.​ ​EPA​ ​estimates​ ​that​ ​modifications​ ​to​ ​the​ ​vapor​ ​control​ ​systems, along​ ​with​ ​operational​ ​and​ ​maintenance​ ​improvements​ ​and​ ​increased​ ​monitoring,​ ​will​ ​reduce​ ​VOC​ ​emissions​ ​by​ ​more​ ​than 1,600​ ​tons​ ​per​ ​year.​ ​PDC​ ​already​ ​has​ ​begun​ ​this​ ​work,​ ​which​ ​must​ ​be​ ​completed​ ​on​ ​a​ ​phased​ ​schedule​ ​with​ ​a​ ​deadline​ ​of June 30,​ ​2019 for​ ​the​ ​last​ ​phase.​ ​‘This​ ​agreement​ ​will​ ​result​ ​in​ ​cleaner​ ​air​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Denver​ ​area​ ​and​ ​shows​ ​that​ ​EPA​ ​is​ ​committed​ ​to enforcing​ ​the​ ​law​ ​in​ ​order​ ​to​ ​ensure​ ​public​ ​health​ ​is​ ​protected,’​ ​said​ ​EPA​ ​Administrator​ ​Scott​ ​Pruitt.​ ​‘This​ ​case​ ​exemplifies​ ​the strong​ ​partnerships​ ​with​ ​states​ ​that​ ​are​ ​integral​ ​to​ ​delivering​ ​results​ ​for​ ​American​ ​communities​ ​and​ ​finding​ ​solutions​ ​that​ ​build compliance​ ​with​ ​the​ ​law​ ​and​ ​prevent​ ​future​ ​violations.’”​ ​(​EPA​ ​Press​ ​Release​,​ ​10/31/17) EPA,​ ​Colorado​ ​reach​ ​$21​ ​million-plus​ ​settlement​ ​with​ ​Denver-based​ ​oil​ ​and​ ​gas​ ​company​ ​for​ ​smog-causing​ ​pollution.​ “A Denver-based​ ​oil​ ​and​ ​gas​ ​company​ ​has​ ​reached​ ​a​ ​$21​ ​million-plus​ ​settlement​ ​with​ ​the​ ​Environmental​ ​Protection​ ​Agency​ ​and state​ ​regulators​ ​for​ ​leaking​ ​smog-causing​ ​pollutants​ ​into​ ​the​ ​air​ ​from​ ​its​ ​operations​ ​sites​ ​around​ ​the​ ​city​ ​dating​ ​back​ ​roughly four​ ​years.​ ​As​ ​part​ ​of​ ​the​ ​agreement,​ ​PDC​ ​Energy​ ​Inc.​ ​—​ ​one​ ​of​ ​the​ ​largest​ ​oil​ ​and​ ​gas​ ​drillers​ ​along​ ​the​ ​Front​ ​Range​ ​—​ ​has agreed​ ​to​ ​pay​ ​a​ ​$2.5​ ​million​ ​civil​ ​penalty​ ​that​ ​will​ ​be​ ​split​ ​between​ ​the​ ​federal​ ​government​ ​and​ ​Colorado.​ ​It​ ​will​ ​also​ ​spend​ ​$18 million​ ​on​ ​system​ ​upgrades​ ​and​ ​improved​ ​maintenance​ ​practices,​ ​monitoring​ ​and​ ​inspections​ ​to​ ​reduce​ ​emissions,​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as $1.7​ ​million​ ​to​ ​implement​ ​environmental​ ​mitigation​ ​projects.​ ​‘This​ ​agreement​ ​will​ ​result​ ​in​ ​cleaner​ ​air​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Denver​ ​area,’​ ​EPA Administrator​ ​Scott​ ​Pruitt​ ​said​ ​in​ ​a​ ​written​ ​statement.”​ ​(​The​ ​Denver​ ​Post​,​ ​10/31/17) PDC​ ​Energy​ ​settles​ ​federal,​ ​state​ ​lawsuit​ ​over​ ​oil​ ​and​ ​gas​ ​pollution​ ​in​ ​Colorado.​ “PDC​ ​Energy​ ​Inc.​ ​has​ ​agreed​ ​to​ ​a​ ​$22.2​ ​million settlement​ ​to​ ​end​ ​a​ ​lawsuit​ ​field​ ​in​ ​June​ ​by​ ​the​ ​U.S.​ ​Environmental​ ​Protection​ ​Agency,​ ​the​ ​U.S.​ ​Department​ ​of​ ​Justice​ ​and​ ​state air​ ​pollution​ ​officials,​ ​pledging​ ​to​ ​improve​ ​emission​ ​control​ ​systems​ ​on​ ​storage​ ​tanks​ ​in​ ​Colorado’s​ ​Denver-Julesburg​ ​Basin.​ ​The settlement,​ ​announced Tuesday,​ ​comes​ ​about​ ​three​ ​months​ ​after​ ​the​ ​suit​ ​was​ ​filed​ ​accusing​ ​the​ ​Denver​ ​oil​ ​and​ ​gas​ ​company (Nasdaq:​ ​PDCE)​ ​of​ ​violating​ ​state​ ​and​ ​federal​ ​pollution​ ​standards​ ​by​ ​emitting​ ​volatile​ ​organic​ ​compounds​ ​from​ ​its​ ​storage​ ​tanks. The​ ​suit​ ​alleged​ ​the​ ​company​ ​violated​ ​the​ ​federal​ ​Clean​ ​Air​ ​Act​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Colorado​ ​Air​ ​Pollution​ ​Prevention​ ​and​ ​Control​ ​Act,​ ​the state’s​ ​federally​ ​approved​ ​‘State​ ​Implementation​ ​Plan’​ ​designed​ ​to​ ​reduce​ ​pollution​ ​in​ ​Colorado,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​state’s​ ​air​ ​quality regulations.​ ​VOCs​ ​are​ ​chemicals​ ​which​ ​can​ ​‘cook’​ ​on​ ​hot,​ ​sunny​ ​days​ ​to​ ​form​ ​ozone.​ ​Ozone​ ​is​ ​a​ ​pollutant​ ​that​ ​irritates​ ​the​ ​lungs, exacerbates​ ​diseases​ ​such​ ​as​ ​asthma,​ ​and​ ​can​ ​increase​ ​susceptibility​ ​to​ ​respiratory​ ​illnesses,​ ​such​ ​as​ ​pneumonia​ ​and​ ​bronchitis. EPA​ ​Administrator​ ​Scott​ ​Pruitt,​ ​in​ ​a​ ​statement,​ ​said​ ​the​ ​settlement​ ​‘will​ ​result​ ​in​ ​cleaner​ ​air​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Denver​ ​area​ ​and​ ​shows​ ​that EPA​ ​is​ ​committed​ ​to​ ​enforcing​ ​the​ ​law​ ​in​ ​order​ ​to​ ​ensure​ ​public​ ​health​ ​is​ ​protected.’​ ​‘This​ ​case​ ​exemplifies​ ​the​ ​strong partnerships​ ​with​ ​states​ ​that​ ​are​ ​integral​ ​to​ ​delivering​ ​results​ ​for​ ​American​ ​communities​ ​and​ ​finding​ ​solutions​ ​that​ ​build compliance​ ​with​ ​the​ ​law​ ​and​ ​prevent​ ​future​ ​violations,’​ ​Pruitt​ ​said.”​ ​(​Denver​ ​Business​ ​Journal​,​ ​10/31/17) In​ ​October​ ​2017,​ ​Scott​ ​Pruitt​ ​wants​ ​to​ ​end​ ​regulation​ ​through​ ​litigation.​ ​ ​“Environmental​ ​Protection​ ​Agency​ ​Administrator Scott​ ​Pruitt​ ​issued​ ​a​ ​directive on​ ​Monday to​ ​limit​ ​the​ ​extent​ ​to​ ​which​ ​the​ ​EPA​ ​can​ ​reach​ ​legal​ ​agreements​ ​with​ ​groups​ ​suing​ ​to force​ ​it​ ​to​ ​take​ ​regulatory​ ​action.​ ​Ending​ ​the​ ​practice​ ​known​ ​as​ ​‘sue​ ​and​ ​settle’​ ​has​ ​long​ ​been​ ​a​ ​top​ ​priority​ ​for​ ​conservatives and​ ​business​ ​groups.​ ​In​ ​recent​ ​years,​ ​especially​ ​under​ ​the​ ​Obama​ ​administration,​ ​the​ ​EPA​ ​and​ ​other​ ​agencies​ ​resolved​ ​litigation over​ ​delays​ ​in​ ​issuing​ ​rules​ ​by​ ​agreeing​ ​to​ ​specific​ ​timelines​ ​to​ ​act​ ​and​ ​reimbursing​ ​plaintiffs’​ ​attorney​ ​fees.​ ​In​ ​a​ ​news​ ​briefing, Pruitt​ ​said​ ​he​ ​was​ ​taking​ ​action​ ​to​ ​ensure​ ​that​ ​consent​ ​decrees​ ​‘are​ ​not​ ​used​ ​in​ ​an​ ​abusive​ ​fashion​ ​to​ ​subvert​ ​due​ ​process’​ ​and to​ ​exclude​ ​the​ ​public​ ​from​ ​weighing​ ​in.​ ​‘It’s​ ​very​ ​important​ ​that​ ​we​ ​do​ ​not​ ​get​ ​engaged​ ​in​ ​regulation​ ​through​ ​litigation,’​ ​he​ ​said. ‘This​ ​is​ ​something​ ​that​ ​is​ ​a​ ​long​ ​time​ ​coming​ ​with​ ​respect​ ​to​ ​this​ ​agency.’”​ ​(​The​ ​Washington​ ​Post​,​ ​10/16/17) EPA​ ​Announces​ ​Settlement​ ​with​ ​Macy’s​ ​over​ ​Hazardous​ ​Waste​ ​Violations​ ​… EPA​ ​Announces​ ​Settlement​ ​with​ ​Macy’s​ ​over​ ​Hazardous​ ​Waste​ ​Violations.​ “Today,​ ​the​ ​U.S.​ ​Environmental​ ​Protection​ ​Agency (EPA)​ ​announced​ ​a​ ​settlement​ ​with​ ​Macy’s​ ​Retail​ ​Holdings,​ ​Inc.,​ ​(Macy’s)​ ​over​ ​violations​ ​of​ ​hazardous​ ​waste​ ​regulations.​ ​In addition​ ​to​ ​correcting​ ​violations,​ ​Macy’s​ ​will​ ​also​ ​develop​ ​a​ ​program​ ​with​ ​the​ ​capacity​ ​to​ ​train​ ​400​ ​retailers​ ​in​ ​Oklahoma​ ​and Texas,​ ​and​ ​conduct​ ​third-party​ ​audits​ ​at​ ​11​ ​of​ ​its​ ​largest​ ​facilities​ ​within​ ​Texas,​ ​Oklahoma,​ ​Louisiana​ ​and​ ​New​ ​Mexico,​ ​among other​ ​required​ ​actions.​ ​The​ ​company​ ​will​ ​also​ ​pay​ ​a​ ​$375,000​ ​civil​ ​penalty within​ ​30​ ​days of​ ​the​ ​effective​ ​date​ ​of​ ​the settlement,​ ​and​ ​must​ ​comply​ ​with​ ​all​ ​other​ ​requirements​ ​within​ ​one​ ​year…”​ ​(​EPA​ ​Press​ ​Release​,​ ​10/25/17) Macy's​ ​sanctioned​ ​by​ ​EPA,​ ​regulator​ ​announces.​ “Macy's​ ​must​ ​pay​ ​a​ ​$375,000​ ​fine​ ​and​ ​train​ ​its​ ​employees​ ​in​ ​Oklahoma,​ ​Texas and​ ​other​ ​parts​ ​of​ ​the​ ​nation​ ​on​ ​how​ ​to​ ​properly​ ​dispose​ ​of​ ​hazardous​ ​materials,​ ​the​ ​U.S.​ ​Environmental​ ​Protection​ ​Agency announced on​ ​Wednesday.​ ​The​ ​regulatory​ ​action​ ​settles​ ​an​ ​action​ ​the​ ​EPA​ ​took​ ​against​ ​Macy's​ ​Retail​ ​Holdings​ ​Inc.​ ​for violations​ ​it​ ​accused​ ​the​ ​company​ ​of​ ​making​ ​at​ ​44​ ​locations​ ​in​ ​Texas​ ​and​ ​Oklahoma​ ​between​ ​2012​ ​and​ ​2015.​ ​"The​ ​EPA​ ​takes hazardous​ ​waste​ ​regulations​ ​seriously,​ ​and​ ​we​ ​appreciate​ ​companies​ ​taking​ ​responsibility​ ​to​ ​correct​ ​violations,”​ ​EPA Administrator​ ​Scott​ ​Pruitt​ ​said​ ​in​ ​a​ ​statement.​ ​“Appropriately​ ​managing​ ​hazardous​ ​waste​ ​from​ ​‘cradle-to-grave'​ ​is​ ​vital​ ​to protecting​ ​people's​ ​health​ ​and​ ​the​ ​environment.”​ ​State​ ​environmental​ ​regulators​ ​expressed​ ​satisfaction​ ​with​ ​the​ ​agreement, adding​ ​they​ ​also​ ​applauded​ ​the​ ​requirement​ ​that​ ​Macy's​ ​train​ ​its​ ​employees​ ​to​ ​follow​ ​the​ ​law​ ​in​ ​the​ ​future​ ​(​News​ ​OK​, 10/26/17) EPA​ ​&​ ​DOJ​ ​Prosecute​ ​RIN​ ​Fraud​ ​… Renewable​ ​Fuel​ ​Trader​ ​Pleads​ ​Guilty​ ​to​ ​Conspiracy. ​“The​ ​owner​ ​of​ ​a​ ​company​ ​that​ ​buys​ ​and​ ​sells​ ​renewable​ ​fuel​ ​and​ ​fuel credits​ ​pleaded​ ​guilty​ ​in​ ​U.S.​ ​District​ ​Court​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Southern​ ​District​ ​of​ ​Ohio​ ​to​ ​conspiracy​ ​for​ ​his​ ​role​ ​in​ ​a​ ​scheme​ ​that generated​ ​over​ ​$47​ ​million​ ​in​ ​fraudulent​ ​EPA​ ​renewable​ ​fuels​ ​credits,​ ​and​ ​over​ ​$12​ ​million​ ​in​ ​fraudulent​ ​tax​ ​credits​ ​connected to​ ​the​ ​purported​ ​production​ ​of​ ​renewable​ ​fuel.​ ​The​ ​plea​ ​entered​ ​by​ ​the​ ​defendant,​ ​Gregory​ ​Schnabel,​ ​before​ ​U.S.​ ​Magistrate Judge​ ​Norah​ ​King​ ​was​ ​announced​ ​by​ ​Acting​ ​Assistant​ ​Attorney​ ​General​ ​Jeffrey​ ​H.​ ​Wood​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Justice​ ​Department’s Environment​ ​and​ ​Natural​ ​Resources​ ​Division;​ ​U.S.​ ​Attorney​ ​Benjamin​ ​C.​ ​Glassman​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Southern​ ​District​ ​of​ ​Ohio;​ ​Special Agent​ ​in​ ​Charge​ ​Ryan​ ​L.​ ​Korner​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Internal​ ​Revenue​ ​Service​ ​(IRS)​ ​Criminal​ ​Investigation;​ ​Acting​ ​Special​ ​Agent​ ​in​ ​Charge​ ​John K.​ ​Gauthier,​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Environmental​ ​Protection​ ​Agency​ ​(EPA),​ ​criminal​ ​enforcement​ ​program​ ​in​ ​Ohio;​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Special​ ​Agent​ ​in Charge​ ​W.​ ​Jay​ ​Abbott​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Federal​ ​Bureau​ ​of​ ​Investigation’s​ ​Indianapolis​ ​Division.​ ​“The​ ​defendant​ ​helped​ ​orchestrate​ ​a massive​ ​scheme​ ​to​ ​defraud​ ​the​ ​U.S.​ ​government,​ ​American​ ​taxpayers​ ​and​ ​his​ ​company’s​ ​competitors,”​ ​said​ ​EPA​ ​Administrator Scott​ ​Pruitt.​ ​“This​ ​case​ ​shows​ ​that​ ​EPA​ ​and​ ​its​ ​law​ ​enforcement​ ​partners​ ​are​ ​serious​ ​about​ ​ensuring​ ​a​ ​level​ ​playing​ ​field​ ​for businesses​ ​that​ ​follow​ ​the​ ​law​ ​and​ ​punishing​ ​those​ ​who​ ​break​ ​the​ ​rules​ ​in​ ​the​ ​name​ ​of​ ​personal​ ​gain.”​ ​“The​ ​Department​ ​of Justice​ ​vigorously​ ​prosecutes​ ​those​ ​who​ ​defraud​ ​the​ ​federal​ ​government​ ​through​ ​unlawful​ ​RFS​ ​schemes​ ​like​ ​the​ ​one​ ​at​ ​issue​ ​in this​ ​case,”​ ​said​ ​Acting​ ​Assistant​ ​Attorney​ ​General​ ​Wood. ​ ​“We​ ​applaud​ ​the​ ​work​ ​of​ ​the​ ​DOJ​ ​and​ ​EPA​ ​law​ ​enforcement​ ​team​ ​that sought​ ​and​ ​obtained​ ​justice​ ​in​ ​this​ ​case.”​ ​…​ ​“​ ​(​DOJ​ ​Press​ ​Release​,​ ​10/23/17) EPA​ ​Holds​ ​Potentially​ ​Responsible​ ​Parties​ ​Accountable​ ​for​ ​Contaminated​ ​Clean-Ups​ ​… EPA​ ​Settlement​ ​with​ ​UConn​ ​Resolves​ ​Improper​ ​PCB​ ​Disposal​ ​Activity.​ “The​ ​University​ ​of​ ​Connecticut​ ​has​ ​taken​ ​steps​ ​to ensure​ ​its​ ​PCB​ ​waste​ ​is​ ​properly​ ​disposed​ ​of​ ​in​ ​the​ ​future​ ​to​ ​settle​ ​claims​ ​by​ ​the​ ​U.S.​ ​Environmental​ ​Protection​ ​Agency​ ​(EPA) that​ ​it​ ​improperly​ ​disposed​ ​of​ ​PCBs​ ​during​ ​a​ ​2013​ ​renovation​ ​project​ ​at​ ​its​ ​Storrs​ ​campus.​ ​The​ ​university​ ​disposed​ ​of​ ​the​ ​waste containing​ ​polychlorinated​ ​biphenyls​ ​during​ ​a​ ​2013​ ​window​ ​replacement​ ​project​ ​in​ ​violation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​federal​ ​Toxic​ ​Substances Control​ ​Act.​ ​Working​ ​with​ ​its​ ​contractors​ ​and​ ​an​ ​environmental​ ​consultant,​ ​UConn’s​ ​renovation​ ​project​ ​led​ ​to​ ​the​ ​removal​ ​of soils​ ​contaminated​ ​with​ ​PCBs​ ​from​ ​the​ ​window​ ​caulk,​ ​which​ ​are​ ​classified​ ​as​ ​PCB​ ​"remediation​ ​waste."​ ​(​EPA​ ​Press Release,​ 10/31/17) U.S.​ ​EPA​ ​Settles​ ​with​ ​40​ ​PRPs​ ​on​ ​Cleanup​ ​Plan​ ​For​ ​68th​ ​Street​ ​Superfund​ ​“​The​ ​U.S.​ ​Environmental​ ​Protection​ ​Agency announced​ ​a​ ​settlement​ ​today​ ​with​ ​more​ ​than​ ​40​ ​parties​ ​to​ ​clean​ ​up​ ​hazardous​ ​waste​ ​contamination​ ​at​ ​the​ ​68th​ ​Street Dump/Industrial​ ​Enterprises​ ​Superfund​ ​Site​ ​in​ ​Baltimore​ ​County,​ ​Maryland.​ ​Under​ ​terms​ ​of​ ​the​ ​proposed​ ​consent​ ​decree​ ​filed in​ ​federal​ ​court​ ​in​ ​Baltimore,​ ​the​ ​parties​ ​are​ ​responsible​ ​to​ ​finance​ ​and​ ​perform​ ​a​ ​$51.5​ ​million​ ​EPA-approved​ ​cleanup,​ ​perform additional​ ​natural​ ​resources​ ​restoration​ ​work,​ ​and​ ​pay​ ​the​ ​state​ ​and​ ​federal​ ​natural​ ​resource​ ​trustees​ ​$490,000​ ​for​ ​past​ ​and future​ ​costs​ ​related​ ​to​ ​natural​ ​resource​ ​damages.​ ​Defendants​ ​are​ ​also​ ​required​ ​to​ ​pay​ ​$630,000​ ​for​ ​an​ ​off-site​ ​restoration project.​ ​The​ ​12​ ​parties​ ​that​ ​are​ ​responsible​ ​for​ ​performing​ ​the​ ​cleanup​ ​include:​ ​AAI​ ​Corporation;​ ​Acme​ ​Markets​ ​Inc.;​ ​AK​ ​Steel Corporation;​ ​Browning-Ferris,​ ​Inc.;​ ​Black​ ​&​ ​Decker​ ​(U.S.)​ ​Inc.;​ ​Brunswick​ ​Corporation;​ ​ConAgra​ ​Grocery​ ​Products​ ​Company,​ ​LLC; Crown​ ​Cork​ ​&​ ​Seal​ ​Company,​ ​Inc.;​ ​CSX​ ​Realty​ ​Development,​ ​LLC;​ ​CSX​ ​Transportation,​ ​Inc.;​ ​Exxon​ ​Mobil​ ​Corporation​ ​and​ ​Illinois Tool​ ​Works​ ​Inc.​ ​Along​ ​with​ ​these​ ​12​ ​parties,​ ​the​ ​other​ ​remaining​ ​parties​ ​contributed​ ​about​ ​$18.8​ ​million​ ​towards​ ​the settlement. The​ ​68th​ ​Street​ ​Site​ ​encompasses​ ​several​ ​landfills​ ​spread​ ​over​ ​a​ ​239-acre​ ​area​ ​in​ ​Rosedale,​ ​Maryland. ​ ​From​ ​the​ ​1950s​ ​through the​ ​1970s,​ ​these​ ​landfills​ ​accepted​ ​industrial​ ​and​ ​commercial​ ​wastes​ ​containing​ ​hazardous​ ​wastes,​ ​which​ ​contaminated​ ​soil, sediment,​ ​groundwater,​ ​surface​ ​water​ ​and​ ​wetland​ ​areas​ ​(​EPA​ ​Press​ ​Release​,​ ​10/13/2017). XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ADDITIONAL​ ​QUESTIONS​ ​FROM​ ​THE​ ​NEW​ ​YORK​ ​TIMES​ ​ABOUT​ ​AN​ ​ANALYSIS​ ​OF​ ​EPA​ ​ENFORCEMENT​ ​DATA Here​ ​is​ ​an​ ​overview​ ​of​ ​the​ ​data In​ ​the​ ​first​ ​nine​ ​months​ ​of​ ​Mr.​ ​Pruitt’s​ ​tenure​ ​at​ ​EPA,​ ​the​ ​agency​ ​sought​ ​civil​ ​penalties​ ​of​ ​about​ ​$50.4​ ​million​ ​from polluters​ ​stemming​ ​from​ ​new​ ​cases​ ​filed​ ​under​ ​Mr.​ ​Pruitt,​ ​which,​ ​adjusted​ ​for​ ​inflation,​ ​is​ ​about​ ​70​ ​percent​ ​of​ ​what​ ​the Bush​ ​administration​ ​sought​ ​and​ ​about​ ​40​ ​percent​ ​of​ ​what​ ​the​ ​Obama​ ​administration​ ​sought​ ​during​ ​the​ ​first​ ​nine months​ ​after​ ​their​ ​initial​ ​E.P.A.​ ​heads​ ​were​ ​confirmed. Under​ ​Mr.​ ​Pruitt,​ ​the​ ​agency​ ​sought​ ​injunctive​ ​relief​ ​of​ ​about​ ​$1.2​ ​billion​ ​stemming​ ​from​ ​new​ ​cases​ ​filed​ ​under​ ​Mr. Pruitt.​ ​Adjusted​ ​for​ ​inflation,​ ​that’s​ ​about​ ​47​ ​percent​ ​of​ ​what​ ​was​ ​sought​ ​under​ ​Bush​ ​and​ ​about​ ​12​ ​percent​ ​of​ ​what was​ ​sought​ ​under​ ​Obama. Under​ ​Mr.​ ​Pruitt,​ ​the​ ​EPA​ ​has​ ​filed​ ​at​ ​least​ ​1,850​ ​civil​ ​cases​ ​against​ ​polluters.​ ​Comparatively,​ ​the​ ​Bush​ ​and​ ​Obama administrations​ ​each​ ​filed​ ​more​ ​than​ ​2,600​ ​cases.​ ​Some​ ​enforcement​ ​experts​ ​have​ ​suggested​ ​that​ ​the​ ​EPA​ ​might have​ ​filed​ ​fewer​ ​cases​ ​because​ ​it​ ​was​ ​going​ ​after​ ​larger​ ​penalties.​ ​But​ ​most​ ​of​ ​the​ ​top​ ​fines​ ​and​ ​injunctive​ ​relief​ ​were smaller​ ​than​ ​those​ ​in​ ​the​ ​previous​ ​two​ ​administration. The​ ​Times​ ​chose​ ​a​ ​nine-month​ ​window​ ​to​ ​examine​ ​because​ ​it​ ​included​ ​the​ ​single​ ​largest​ ​civil​ ​case​ ​that​ ​the​ ​EPA under​ ​Mr.​ ​Pruitt​ ​has​ ​filed,​ ​seeking​ ​$2​ ​million​ ​in​ ​penalties​ ​and​ ​$300​ ​million​ ​in​ ​injunctive​ ​relief​ ​against​ ​Exxon​ ​Mobil. Because​ ​the​ ​EPA’s​ ​public​ ​database​ ​of​ ​enforcement​ ​cases​ ​is​ ​not​ ​always​ ​updated​ ​in​ ​a​ ​timely​ ​fashion,​ ​The​ ​Times​ ​built its​ ​own​ ​database​ ​that​ ​also​ ​included​ ​Trump-era​ ​cases​ ​found​ ​in​ ​EPA​ ​and​ ​Justice​ ​Department​ ​press​ ​releases,​ ​the federal​ ​register,​ ​news​ ​reports​ ​and​ ​at​ ​other​ ​public​ ​sources.​ ​We​ ​would​ ​welcome​ ​your​ ​input​ ​on​ ​other​ ​cases​ ​that​ ​should be​ ​added. Here’s​ ​our​ ​Methodology Our​ ​goal​ ​was​ ​to​ ​find​ ​a​ ​way​ ​to​ ​look​ ​at​ ​enforcement​ ​patterns​ ​during​ ​the​ ​start​ ​of​ ​the​ ​last​ ​three​ ​administrations. We​ ​started​ ​with​ ​the​ ​assumption​ ​that​ ​Scott​ ​Pruitt​ ​began​ ​his​ ​tenure​ ​at​ ​EPA​ ​on​ ​Feb.​ ​17,​ ​2017.​ ​We​ ​pulled​ ​civil​ ​data through​ ​Nov.​ ​9,​ ​2017.​ ​That​ ​is​ ​266​ ​days,​ ​counting​ ​the​ ​end​ ​date. For​ ​an​ ​apples​ ​to​ ​apples​ ​comparison,​ ​we​ ​pulled​ ​civil​ ​data​ ​from​ ​Lisa​ ​Jackson's​ ​tenure​ ​at​ ​EPA,​ ​which​ ​started​ ​on​ ​Jan. 23,​ ​2009.​ ​We​ ​calculated​ ​266​ ​days​ ​from​ ​that​ ​date​ ​to​ ​be​ ​Oct.​ ​15,​ ​2009. We​ ​also​ ​pulled​ ​civil​ ​data​ ​from​ ​Christine​ ​Todd​ ​Whitman's​ ​tenure​ ​at​ ​EPA,​ ​which​ ​started​ ​on​ ​Jan.​ ​31,​ ​2001.​ ​We calculated​ ​266​ ​days​ ​at​ ​Oct.​ ​23,​ ​2001. We​ ​only​ ​pulled​ ​data​ ​for​ ​cases​ ​filed​ ​(sometimes​ ​referred​ ​to​ ​as​ ​a​ ​"start")​ ​under​ ​Mr.​ ​Pruitt,​ ​Ms.​ ​Jackson​ ​and​ ​Ms. Whitman.​ ​The​ ​analysis​ ​relied​ ​on​ ​cases​ ​started,​ ​rather​ ​than​ ​those​ ​concluded,​ ​because​ ​many​ ​cases​ ​completed​ ​during the​ ​first​ ​year​ ​of​ ​a​ ​new​ ​administration​ ​can​ ​reflect​ ​enforcement​ ​that​ ​started​ ​under​ ​the​ ​previous​ ​administration​ ​and​ ​is​ ​so far​ ​along​ ​that​ ​it​ ​is​ ​difficult​ ​to​ ​stop. For​ ​the​ ​administrative​ ​cases,​ ​we​ ​pulled​ ​cases​ ​with​ ​complaints​ ​or​ ​proposed​ ​orders​ ​in​ ​those​ ​date​ ​ranges.​ ​We​ ​also pulled​ ​cases​ ​with​ ​final​ ​orders​ ​issued​ ​(but​ ​had​ ​no​ ​complaint​ ​or​ ​proposed​ ​order)​ ​in​ ​those​ ​date​ ​ranges. For​ ​judicial​ ​cases,​ ​we​ ​pulled​ ​cases​ ​with​ ​complaints​ ​filed​ ​with​ ​the​ ​court​ ​in​ ​those​ ​date​ ​ranges. We​ ​checked​ ​each​ ​2017​ ​judicial​ ​case's​ ​summary​ ​text​ ​in​ ​ECHO​ ​and​ ​also​ ​in​ ​the​ ​federal​ ​register,​ ​in​ ​EPA​ ​and​ ​DOJ​ ​press releases​ ​and​ ​on​ ​google​ ​to​ ​see​ ​if​ ​any​ ​settlement​ ​amounts​ ​were​ ​missing​ ​from​ ​the​ ​ECHO​ ​data.​ ​We​ ​also​ ​searched​ ​for cases​ ​that​ ​didn't​ ​make​ ​it​ ​into​ ​ECHO​ ​at​ ​all​ ​and​ ​found​ ​some​ ​large​ ​ones,​ ​including​ ​Exxon.​ ​Those​ ​were​ ​added​ ​to​ ​our database. We​ ​checked​ ​every​ ​2017​ ​administrative​ ​case​ ​that​ ​didn't​ ​already​ ​have​ ​a​ ​settlement​ ​amount​ ​listed​ ​in​ ​ECHO​ ​with​ ​the ECHO​ ​text,​ ​which​ ​sometimes​ ​listed​ ​proposed​ ​settlements.​ ​To​ ​be​ ​conservative,​ ​we​ ​added​ ​those​ ​proposed​ ​settlements to​ ​the​ ​database​ ​as​ ​well,​ ​even​ ​though​ ​some​ ​may​ ​not​ ​have​ ​materialized. The​ ​data​ ​for​ ​2017​ ​was​ ​most​ ​recently​ ​pulled​ ​on​ ​Nov.​ ​28,​ ​2017.​ ​We​ ​know​ ​that​ ​ECHO​ ​is​ ​not​ ​always​ ​updated​ ​in​ ​a​ ​timely way,​ ​which​ ​is​ ​why​ ​we​ ​searched​ ​other​ ​public​ ​sources​ ​for​ ​missing​ ​cases​ ​and​ ​settlement​ ​information.​ ​We​ ​ask​ ​that​ ​EPA please​ ​tell​ ​us​ ​if​ ​it​ ​wants​ ​to​ ​add​ ​any​ ​other​ ​cases​ ​to​ ​the​ ​2017​ ​datasets.​ ​We​ ​would​ ​be​ ​happy​ ​to​ ​do​ ​so. We​ ​did​ ​not​ ​add​ ​any​ ​extra​ ​cases​ ​to​ ​the​ ​data​ ​from​ ​2009​ ​and​ ​2001.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​pulled​ ​entirely​ ​from​ ​ECHO.​ ​We​ ​adjusted​ ​the totals​ ​for​ ​2009​ ​and​ ​2001​ ​for​ ​inflation. We​ ​checked​ ​all​ ​of​ ​the​ ​data​ ​for​ ​duplicates​ ​and​ ​removed​ ​those​ ​that​ ​could​ ​be​ ​clearly​ ​identified. XXXXXXX RESPONSE​ ​FROM​ ​THE​ ​EPA​ ​RELATED​ ​TO​ ​THE​ ​NEW​ ​YORK​ ​TIMES​ ​ANALYSIS​ ​OF​ ​EPA​ ​ENFORCEMENT​ ​DATA– Since​ ​January​ ​20,​ ​2017,​ ​through​ ​the​ ​end​ ​of​ ​FY​ ​2017,​ ​DOJ’s​ ​Environment​ ​and​ ​Natural​ ​Resources​ ​Division,​ ​in​ ​coordination​ ​with EPA​ ​have​ ​imposed: ● ● ● More​ ​than​ ​$1.72​ ​billion​ ​in​ ​civil​ ​penalties,​ ​cost​ ​recovery,​ ​natural​ ​resource​ ​damages,​ ​and​ ​other​ ​monetary​ ​recoveries; More​ ​than​ ​$2.91​ ​billion​ ​in​ ​criminal​ ​fines,​ ​restitution,​ ​and​ ​other​ ​assessments;​ ​and More​ ​than​ ​$3.13​ ​billion​ ​in​ ​injunctive​ ​relief​ ​and​ ​environmental​ ​mitigation​ ​projects. This​ ​administration​ ​is​ ​focused​ ​on​ ​achieving​ ​and​ ​maintaining​ ​compliance​ ​with​ ​environmental​ ​laws. ​ ​That​ ​means​ ​aggressive enforcement​ ​against​ ​bad​ ​actors,​ ​and​ ​compliance​ ​assistance​ ​for​ ​small​ ​businesses. ​ ​It​ ​also​ ​means​ ​focusing​ ​on​ ​the​ ​outcome​ ​of compliance. ​ ​For​ ​example,​ ​the​ ​Agency’s​ ​current​ ​Strategic​ ​Plan​ ​for​ ​FY​ ​2018-2022​ ​includes​ ​two​ ​new​ ​enforcement​ ​measures​ ​for reducing​ ​the​ ​time​ ​between​ ​identification​ ​and​ ​correction​ ​of​ ​environmental​ ​law​ ​violations​ ​and​ ​increasing​ ​the​ ​environmental​ ​law compliance​ ​rate. ​ ​These​ ​outcomes​ ​can​ ​be​ ​achieved​ ​through​ ​a​ ​variety​ ​of​ ​enforcement​ ​tools. With​ ​respect​ ​to​ ​the​ ​data​ ​pull​ ​from​ ​ECHO,​ ​the ​Times ​only​ ​looked​ ​at​ ​cases​ ​filed​ ​in​ ​the​ ​past​ ​nine​ ​months. ​ ​It​ ​takes​ ​months​ ​or​ ​even years​ ​to​ ​develop​ ​a​ ​case​ ​to​ ​the​ ​point​ ​that​ ​a​ ​final​ ​order​ ​is​ ​lodged​ ​or​ ​a​ ​case​ ​has​ ​been​ ​filed,​ ​so​ ​data​ ​from​ ​the​ ​last​ ​nine​ ​months​ ​is​ ​not dependent​ ​solely​ ​on​ ​work​ ​that​ ​has​ ​been​ ​performed​ ​during​ ​this​ ​administration. Additionally, ● ● ● As​ ​the​ ​recent​ ​report​ ​we​ ​discussed​ ​admits,​ ​“enforcement​ ​results​ ​may​ ​vary​ ​over​ ​the​ ​short​ ​term.”​ ​This​ ​is​ ​nowhere​ ​more​ ​true than​ ​in​ ​judicial​ ​consent​ ​decrees.​ ​These​ ​are​ ​our​ ​most​ ​complex,​ ​significant​ ​cases,​ ​which​ ​take​ ​the​ ​longest​ ​to​ ​develop​ ​and conclude.​ ​Settlements​ ​lodged​ ​during​ ​the​ ​first​ ​nine​ ​months​ ​of​ ​this​ ​administration​ ​therefore​ ​have​ ​much​ ​more​ ​to​ ​do​ ​with​ ​the pace​ ​of​ ​enforcement​ ​near​ ​the​ ​end​ ​of​ ​the​ ​last​ ​administration,​ ​than​ ​the​ ​commitment​ ​to​ ​the​ ​rule​ ​of​ ​law​ ​and​ ​enforcement​ ​in this​ ​administration. Our​ ​enforcement​ ​data​ ​show​ ​that​ ​there​ ​was​ ​a​ ​drop​ ​in​ ​enforcement​ ​intensity​ ​during​ ​the​ ​first​ ​year​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Obama administration​ ​(measured​ ​by​ ​value​ ​of​ ​injunctive​ ​relief,​ ​penalties​ ​assessed,​ ​and​ ​environmental​ ​benefits). EPA’s​ ​FY2017​ ​enforcement​ ​accomplishments​ ​were​ ​dominated​ ​by​ ​the​ ​massive​ ​VW​ ​settlements.​ ​However,​ ​even​ ​backing​ ​out settlements​ ​like​ ​VW​ ​with​ ​penalties​ ​greater​ ​than​ ​$1​ ​billion, civil​ ​penalties​ ​collected​ ​in​ ​FY2017​ ​($175​ ​million)​ ​compare favorably​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Obama​ ​administration​ ​average​ ​of​ ​$165​ ​million.