EATON WHITE NO1 BLUFFS STATION

Eaton White No1 Bluffs Station is a single-facility natural gas extraction site (NAICS 211130) operating in the San Juan Basin with a Farmington, New Mexico mailing address. EPA ECHO records attribute $3,760,000 in derived five-year-pro-rated penalty exposure over a 24-month window to facility identifier 110028277852, with zero quarters of non-compliance recorded during that same window and zero active permits logged in the ECHO exporter snapshot dated 2026-05-04 [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. That dollar figure is not a fresh enforcement action. The derivation formula disclosed by the data export — penalty_24mo = total_5yr × (24/60) — indicates the amount reflects historical monetary assessments amortized across the review window rather than a discrete recent docket entry [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

The operator shares a surname with Eaton Corporation plc (NYSE: ETN), a diversified power-management company headquartered in Dublin with $23.2 billion in 2023 net sales [source: https://www.eaton.com/content/dam/eaton/company/inclusion-diversity/eaton-inclusion-diversity-report.pdf]. No public filing reviewed for this briefing establishes a corporate-parent relationship between the Bluffs Station upstream gas asset and Eaton Corporation plc. ETN's sustainability disclosures concern electrical, aerospace, and vehicle-group operations — not upstream gas extraction [source: https://www.eaton.com/content/dam/eaton/company/sustainability/files/eaton-sustainability-report.pdf]. The name coincidence remains unresolved absent a direct corporate-registry tie. Against NAICS 211120/211130 peers, the Bluffs Station penalty total of $3.76M sits well below Greka Bell Compressor Plant ($26.2M), Red Hills Gas Processing Plant ($19.1M), and HP Gas Pad ($16.1M) [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

The ECHO exporter snapshot of 2026-05-04 records a single facility tied to Eaton White No1 Bluffs Station under EPA registry ID 110028277852. Zero violation quarters appear across the prior eight-quarter window. Zero active permits populate the active_permits_count field [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. The $3,760,000 penalty figure is a pro-rated derivation — total_5yr multiplied by (24/60) — meaning the underlying monetary assessment sits in a five-year historical file rather than a current enforcement docket [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. No Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, or RCRA formal action references appear in the top_pollutants array, which is empty in the exporter snapshot.

The 24-month review window running from May 2024 through May 2026 produced no new ECHO quarterly non-compliance flags for the Bluffs Station facility ID [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. That clean recent record exists alongside a broader regional enforcement shift. On March 27, 2024, a settlement in Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, et al. v. Debra Haaland, Case No. 1:19-cv-00703-WJ-JFR, triggered supplemental environmental assessments for multiple Farmington Field Office gas-well projects operated by Dugan Production Corporation [source: https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2033678/200622513/20122821/251022801/DOI-BLM-NM-F010-2015-0222-EA%20SA%20DR%20508%20MJ.pdf]. The Bluffs Station facility is not named in that decision record, but the settlement reshaped the compliance baseline for San Juan Basin gas operators reliant on BLM surface approvals — a practical constraint that extends beyond the named parties.

Separately, on February 28, 2026, the National Law Review published coverage of a settlement requiring Eaton Corporation to address trichloroethylene contamination at a Vehicle Group plant in Kearney, Nebraska [source: https://natlawreview.com/article/settlement-to-require-eaton-corporation-to-address-tce-contamination-vehicle-group-plant-kea]. That action concerns an ETN industrial site. It is not connected in the record to the Bluffs Station upstream gas facility. PollutionScan's aggregation of ECHO data for an Eaton Corp site in Lenoir City, Tennessee shows zero inspections, zero violation quarters, and zero penalties over the three-year review window for that specific facility [source: https://pollutionscan.com/facility/110007844921/eaton-corp-lenoir-city-tn]. A third Eaton Corp entry — the Belmont Plant in Belmond, Iowa (EPA ID IAT200011187) — appears in CERCLIS as NFRAP, meaning the site does not qualify for the National Priorities List based on existing information [source: https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/CurSites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0702211]. None of these three Eaton-branded records shares a facility ID with Bluffs Station.

ECHO exporter data as of 2026-05-04 records zero formal enforcement actions, zero quarters of non-compliance, and zero Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, or RCRA citations against facility ID 110028277852 during the 24-month review window [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. The $3,760,000 penalty figure is a mechanical derivation from a five-year historical total, calculated as total_5yr × (24/60). It does not correspond to a discrete recent docket entry in the exporter fields reviewed [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

Other Eaton-branded enforcement items on the public record concern entirely separate facilities and legal entities. On February 28, 2026, the National Law Review reported that Eaton Corporation entered a settlement requiring remediation of trichloroethylene contamination at its Vehicle Group plant in Kearney, Nebraska [source: https://natlawreview.com/article/settlement-to-require-eaton-corporation-to-address-tce-contamination-vehicle-group-plant-kea]. That is an industrial manufacturing site — geographically and operationally distinct from a San Juan Basin gas extraction well. The Eaton Corp Belmont Plant in Belmond, Iowa carries CERCLIS status NFRAP, meaning existing information does not support NPL listing [source: https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/CurSites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0702211]. The Eaton Corp Lenoir City, Tennessee facility shows a PollutionScan Grade A and zero RCRA formal actions across the three-year review window [source: https://pollutionscan.com/facility/110007844921/eaton-corp-lenoir-city-tn]. None of these actions is cross-referenced in the ECHO exporter to the Bluffs Station facility ID. The public record reviewed does not link the Bluffs Station gas extraction site to the ETN corporate entity named in the Kearney settlement.

Eaton White No1 Bluffs Station (Farmington, NM; EPA ID 110028277852) is the sole facility in the ECHO registry match for this slug. The ECHO exporter records zero violation quarters, zero active permits, and an EJ index average of 0.0 in the snapshot dated 2026-05-04, with an empty top_pollutants array [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. That 0.0 EJ index value warrants a methodological note. It reflects either a null or unpopulated field in the exporter rather than a verified demographic score, or a facility-level demographic buffer that did not trigger EJScreen percentile flags. The data point is blank, not confirmed-low — a distinction that matters when using EJ metrics for comparative screening.

No additional facilities are tied to the eaton-white-no1-bluffs-station slug in the research bundle. Comparative context for peer NAICS 211120/211130 sites appears in the peer_comparison section; none of those peers is co-located with or operationally linked to the Bluffs Station facility in the records reviewed [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

The ECHO summary returns facility_count = 1, so placeholder entries for additional ranked facilities are not populated. Readers seeking multi-site portfolio exposure for this operator should consult the New Mexico Oil Conservation Division and BLM Farmington Field Office records directly. The Farmington Field Office Decision Record for the Diné CARE II supplemental environmental assessment, issued in November 2024, illustrates the NEPA-review environment now facing San Juan Basin gas operators following the March 27, 2024 settlement [source: https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2033678/200622513/20122821/251022801/DOI-BLM-NM-F010-2015-0222-EA%20SA%20DR%20508%20MJ.pdf].

The ECHO exporter snapshot for facility 110028277852 returns an empty top_pollutants array. No specific pollutant-by-pollutant emission or discharge totals are available for the Bluffs Station site in the reviewed data [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. That data gap does not mean the site emits nothing — it means the exporter fields are unpopulated for this facility ID. For NAICS 211130 natural gas extraction operations in the San Juan Basin generally, the pollutant categories most commonly scrutinized by EPA and BLM include methane (a greenhouse gas and VOC precursor), benzene and other hazardous air pollutants tied to tank venting and flaring, and produced-water constituents regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act underground injection control program.

Regional environmental-justice context reaches back at least to September 15, 2014, when the SouthWest Organizing Project filed a Title VI complaint against the Albuquerque Air Quality Division and Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board. The complaint alleged a disproportionate air-pollution burden on communities of color and low-income communities in the Albuquerque/Bernalillo area [source: https://cabq.gov/airquality/documents/2014-9-15-swop-civil-rights-complaint-to-epa.pdf]. That complaint concerns the Albuquerque airshed rather than the San Juan Basin where Bluffs Station operates, but it established the New Mexico regulatory environment for civil-rights-framed air-pollution review [source: https://nmelc.org/2014/09/15/burquenos-challenge-discriminatory-air-pollution-practices/].

For San Juan Basin gas operations specifically, the March 27, 2024 settlement in Diné CARE v. Haaland (No. 1:19-cv-00703-WJ-JFR) required BLM to produce supplemental environmental assessments for multiple gas-well projects. The settlement reflects tribal and NGO concern over cumulative air-quality and cultural-resource impacts from Farmington-area gas development [source: https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2033678/200622513/20122821/251022801/DOI-BLM-NM-F010-2015-0222-EA%20SA%20DR%20508%20MJ.pdf]. The Bluffs Station facility is not named in that decision record.

Against the three NAICS 211120/211130 peers with the largest 24-month pro-rated penalty exposure, Eaton White No1 Bluffs Station's $3.76M figure is roughly one-seventh of Greka Bell Compressor Plant's $26.2M, one-fifth of Red Hills Gas Processing Plant's $19.1M, and one-fourth of HP Gas Pad's $16.1M [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. The violation-quarter picture adds a second dimension. Bluffs Station records zero quarters of non-compliance in the 24-month window, matching Greka Bell's zero but contrasting sharply with Red Hills and HP Gas Pad, each of which registered eight quarters of non-compliance — the maximum under the ECHO derivation cap — during the same period [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. All four facilities return an EJ index average of 0.0 in the exporter, reflecting either unpopulated fields or below-threshold demographic scores rather than a verified comparative reading.

No SEC 10-K or 10-Q filings are available in the research bundle for Eaton White No1 Bluffs Station. The CIK field is marked N/A and the ticker is listed as private, consistent with an upstream gas asset held outside the public-reporting perimeter [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. Forward-looking environmental risk for San Juan Basin operators is shaped materially by the March 27, 2024 settlement in Diné CARE v. Haaland (No. 1:19-cv-00703-WJ-JFR). That settlement requires the BLM Farmington Field Office to issue supplemental environmental assessments for gas-well projects and extends review timelines for new surface approvals across the basin — a procedural constraint that applies to operators beyond the named parties in the original litigation [source: https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2033678/200622513/20122821/251022801/DOI-BLM-NM-F010-2015-0222-EA%20SA%20DR%20508%20MJ.pdf].