DPW-HEMF

DPW-HEMF is a three-facility operation in the municipal and tribal government services sector (NAICS 921190), headquartered in Anaktuvuk Pass, Alaska — a community of roughly 300 residents above the Arctic Circle. EPA ECHO records index three facility IDs (110072029331, 110064467278, 110072029322) under the DPW-HEMF identifier. Zero quarters of non-compliance appear in the trailing 24 months. An imputed penalty total of $2,600,000 is derived from the five-year penalty stream prorated to a 24-month window [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. That figure is arithmetic, not audited. No active NPDES, RCRA, or Title V permits are currently indexed against the DPW-HEMF identifier in the ECHO exporter snapshot dated 2026-05-04 [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. The entity is private. No SEC CIK applies, and no 10-K or 10-Q disclosures exist to cross-reference.

One same-NAICS peer surfaced in the benchmark set: the North Slope Borough Barrow TOS Facility. It shows an identical $2,600,000 imputed 24-month penalty total alongside 8 quarters of non-compliance. That pairing — same dollar figure, sharply different compliance-quarter count — suggests the DPW-HEMF penalty figure likely reflects a shared or cross-attributed North Slope Borough enforcement matter rather than three independent events [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. The implication matters for analysts: the $2.6M should not be read as three separate assessed fines against DPW-HEMF facilities. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation records for the broader North Slope region document legacy petroleum-contaminated soil actions and ongoing PFAS and sulfolane groundwater oversight at sites such as the former North Pole Refinery, establishing the regulatory environment in which small Arctic public-works operators function [source: https://dec.alaska.gov/spar/csp/sites/north-pole-refinery/documents/at-a-glance-fact-sheet-11-2024/]. This briefing carries one standing caveat: ECHO's derivation method — viol_24mo=min(qtrs_with_nc,8); penalty_24mo=total_5yr*(24/60) — produces an imputation, not an audited figure [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

DPW-HEMF's compliance footprint is narrow by national standards but meaningful in a community of roughly 300 residents. ECHO lists three facility IDs under the DPW-HEMF identifier. The exporter snapshot records zero quarters of non-compliance in the trailing 24 months, which mechanically yields a violation_count_24mo of zero under EPA's own derivation rule [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. The $2,600,000 penalty_total_24mo is an arithmetic proration — total five-year penalty multiplied by 24/60 — of whatever historical monetary enforcement is tagged to those three facility IDs. ECHO's methodology note makes that derivation explicit [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. No active permits are listed and no latest_permit_date is populated, pointing to one of three possibilities: lapsed coverage, coverage under general permits not individually indexed, or permitting handled by a parent municipal entity.

The past 24 months, reconstructed from available public records, show no Federal Register enforcement notices, no Department of Justice consent decrees, and no EPA press releases naming DPW-HEMF. EPA archive searches surface historical Clean Water Act settlements against unrelated public-works entities — a December 2005 Connecticut DPW CWA settlement exceeding $38,000 is one example — but nothing tagged to the Anaktuvuk Pass operator [source: https://www.epa.gov/archive/epapages/newsroom_archive/newsreleases/fa5ab5f842efbc65852570eb00523989.html]. DOJ ENRD consent-decree filings indexed via neural search return actions against unrelated defendants in Hawaii and the Central District of California, with no DPW-HEMF defendant record [source: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decree/file/1160367/dl] [source: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decree/file/1345011/dl].

Regional context sharpens the picture. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District has maintained active Formerly Used Defense Site work on the Haines-Fairbanks Pipeline, including a 2020 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for petroleum-contaminated soil removal at Milepost 17.7 [source: https://www.poa.usace.army.mil/Portals/34/HainesFairbanksPipelinePMPF10AK10161401200001a.pdf?ver=2020-09-11-153205-713]. Alaska DEC's North Pole Refinery program continues oversight of a sulfolane plume and an active PFAS investigation as of November 2024 [source: https://dec.alaska.gov/spar/csp/sites/north-pole-refinery/documents/at-a-glance-fact-sheet-11-2024/]. Neither action names DPW-HEMF as a responsible party. Both establish the soil, groundwater, and petroleum-handling regulatory baseline that applies to any North Slope public-works heating and maintenance facility. The single same-NAICS peer in the benchmark — North Slope Borough Barrow TOS Facility — carries an identical $2,600,000 penalty imputation alongside 8 quarters of non-compliance. That disparity raises a question unresolved in the public exporter data: whether DPW-HEMF's penalty figure is an echo of a borough-wide enforcement settlement cross-tagged to affiliated facility IDs [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

No discrete enforcement action against DPW-HEMF is identifiable in the public record covering the trailing 24 months. ECHO's exporter records zero quarters of non-compliance across the three facility IDs (110072029331, 110064467278, 110072029322) under CWA, CAA, and RCRA programs [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. The $2,600,000 penalty_total_24mo is a prorated derivation, not a specific assessed fine. ECHO's own derivation note — penalty_24mo=total_5yr*(24/60) — means the $2.6M figure reflects historical five-year penalty totals scaled to a 24-month window, not a fresh 2024–2026 enforcement event [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. That distinction is material for any analyst treating the figure as a current liability.

DOJ ENRD consent-decree dockets reviewed do not name DPW-HEMF as a defendant. The nearest indexed decrees involve unrelated defendants [source: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decree/file/1160367/dl] [source: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decree/file/1345011/dl]. No state-level Alaska DEC enforcement order naming DPW-HEMF appears in the assembled research bundle. News searches across 30-day and 365-day windows for the company and facility state returned no enforcement-specific coverage. Results were dominated by unrelated municipal public-works operations in Baltimore, Milwaukee, Guam, Indianapolis, Anne Arundel County, and North Attleboro [source: https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/baltimores-dpw-department-of-public-works-plan-cut-jobs-mayor-brandon-scott-office-grows] [source: https://www.wisn.com/article/busting-their-wheels-milwaukee-dpw-has-most-pothole-patch-requests-since-2019/71078594]. The signal-to-noise ratio in those searches is low. In the absence of a specific action, the defensible characterization is straightforward: ECHO data indicates a historical penalty burden prorated into the 24-month window, with no recent quarters of non-compliance logged against the DPW-HEMF facility identifiers.

Facility ID 110072029331 is one of three ECHO-indexed sites tagged to DPW-HEMF at or near Anaktuvuk Pass, Alaska. The exporter snapshot lists zero quarters of non-compliance and no active permits for this ID as of 2026-05-04 [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. The EJ index average across the three DPW-HEMF facilities is recorded as 0.0. In ECHO's schema, that figure typically reflects either unpopulated EJScreen attributes or a remote Arctic location where demographic overlays are sparsely computed. It should not be read as an absence of community exposure: Anaktuvuk Pass is an Alaska Native Village, and subsistence-use pathways create exposure dynamics that EJScreen's standard demographic model does not fully capture [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

Facility ID 110064467278 carries the same zero-NC, zero-active-permit profile in the exporter snapshot. It contributes proportionally to the aggregated $2.6M imputed penalty figure under ECHO's derivation rule [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. Individual facility names are not present in the exporter slice provided, so a one-to-one mapping between this ID and a specific physical asset is not possible from this research bundle alone. That gap is a data limitation, not a finding.

Facility ID 110072029322 completes the three-facility set and shows the same attributes: zero non-compliance quarters, no active permits, and a 0.0 EJ index average. Alaska DEC materials on regional contaminated-site oversight — including the North Pole Refinery sulfolane response — provide regulatory context for heating-and-maintenance infrastructure in the region but do not name this ID specifically [source: https://dec.alaska.gov/spar/csp/sites/north-pole-refinery/documents/at-a-glance-fact-sheet-11-2024/].

The peer benchmark's single entry, North Slope Borough Barrow TOS Facility, is not a DPW-HEMF facility. It is the most directly comparable Arctic NAICS 921190 operator available. Eight quarters of non-compliance and an identical $2,600,000 penalty imputation make it instructive for framing what enforcement exposure looks like at a comparable Arctic public-works site [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. The contrast between the peer's eight non-compliance quarters and DPW-HEMF's zero is the sharpest differentiator in the dataset.

DPW-HEMF's ECHO footprint is three facilities. No additional sites appear in the research bundle. Analysts should treat the DPW-HEMF facility list as exhaustive per the ECHO snapshot cited [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

ECHO's top_pollutants field for DPW-HEMF is empty. No TRI, DMR, or air-emissions pollutant is currently aggregated to the three facility IDs in the exporter snapshot [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. That absence of tagged pollutants does not mean the facilities handle no regulated substances. The HEMF suffix — heating, engineering, maintenance facility — points directly to the pollutant classes that dominate regulatory oversight at comparable Arctic public-works sites: petroleum hydrocarbons from diesel and heating-fuel storage, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) associated with historical aqueous film-forming foam use, and sulfolane and other refinery-adjacent process chemicals where fuel supply chains intersect.

Petroleum-contaminated soil is the dominant legacy pollutant class in federal Arctic public-works oversight. The Army Corps' 2020 Haines-Fairbanks Pipeline Environmental Assessment addresses petroleum-contaminated soil removal under CERCLA-analogous FUDS authority at Milepost 17.7. The exposure pathway of concern is soil-to-groundwater migration into subsistence-use aquifers [source: https://www.poa.usace.army.mil/Portals/34/HainesFairbanksPipelinePMPF10AK10161401200001a.pdf?ver=2020-09-11-153205-713]. For Alaska Native Village populations, subsistence-use exposure creates a different risk calculus than ordinary groundwater contact — a distinction that standard risk-screening tools frequently underweight.

PFAS and sulfolane anchor the second and third pollutant profiles. Alaska DEC's November 2024 North Pole Refinery fact sheet describes sulfolane as a refinery process chemical whose long-term health effects are under active National Toxicology Program study. The same document identifies PFAS as a chemical class associated with firefighting foams [source: https://dec.alaska.gov/spar/csp/sites/north-pole-refinery/documents/at-a-glance-fact-sheet-11-2024/]. Neither pollutant is tagged to DPW-HEMF in ECHO. Both are the reference exposure profiles analysts should apply when assessing Arctic heating and maintenance facility risk in the absence of facility-specific pollutant data [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

The single identified NAICS 921190 peer, North Slope Borough Barrow TOS Facility, carries an identical $2,600,000 imputed 24-month penalty total but records 8 quarters of non-compliance against DPW-HEMF's zero. Penalty parity with a compliance-quarter disparity that large strongly suggests the DPW-HEMF penalty figure is a statistical artifact of the same underlying borough-level enforcement matter propagated through ECHO's proration derivation rule [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. Both operators show an EJ index average of 0.0, consistent with Arctic remote-site EJScreen sparsity rather than a genuine absence of community exposure [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

DPW-HEMF is private and files no SEC Form 10-K. No Item 1A forward-looking risk factor disclosure exists to quote. The applicable forward-looking regulatory vectors are drawn from public agency records instead. First: ongoing Alaska DEC oversight of petroleum and PFAS contamination across the North Slope region, documented in the November 2024 North Pole Refinery fact sheet, establishes a regulatory posture that is tightening, not relaxing [source: https://dec.alaska.gov/spar/csp/sites/north-pole-refinery/documents/at-a-glance-fact-sheet-11-2024/]. Second: continued Army Corps FUDS removal-action activity affecting petroleum-contaminated soil at regional legacy sites signals that federal remediation authority in the area remains active [source: https://www.poa.usace.army.mil/Portals/34/HainesFairbanksPipelinePMPF10AK10161401200001a.pdf?ver=2020-09-11-153205-713]. Both vectors apply to any Arctic heating and maintenance operator in the North Slope Borough's geographic footprint. Analysts should treat the absence of SEC disclosure as a data limitation and rely on ECHO exporter updates and Alaska DEC site-specific fact sheets for forward monitoring [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].