EPA v. QUAKER STATE OIL REF

Case summary

CAUSE OF ACTION/NATURE OF THE CASE: THIS IS TO BE A CIVIL ACTION AGAINST THE QUAKER STA- TE OIL REFINING CORP OF NEWELL, WV, FOR VIOL'S OF SEC 301 (A) OF THE CAA, 33 USC SEC 1311(A). QUAKER STATE OPERATES A PETROLEUM REFINING FACILITY IN NEWELL, WV, ONE OF SEV- ERAL SUCH FACILITIES OWNED BY THE RESPONDENT. THE FACILI- TY PRODUCES AUTOMOTIVE MOTOR OIL & DISCHARGES PROCESS AUTOMOTIVE MOTOR OIL. THE FACILITY DISCHARGES PROCESS WASTES TO THE OHIO RIVER FROM TWO OUTFALLS. CAUSE OF ACTION/NATURE OF THE CASE: THE AGENCY ISSUED A NPDES PERMIT TO QUAKER STATE TO REGULATE ITS DISCHARGES ON 10/27/79. THE PERMIT, SINCE EXPIRED, HAS BEEN CONTINUED INEFFECT PURSUANT TO 40 CFR SEC 122.5(A) & 5 USC 558(C) FOLLOWING QUAKER STATE'S TIM- ELY APPLICATION FOR PERMIT RENEWAL. QUAKER STATE HAS BEEN IN NEARLY CONTINUOUS VIOL OF THE PERMIT'S FINAL EFFUENT LIMITATIONS FOR AT LEAST 30 MONTHS. THE RESPONDENT HAS VIOL'D LIMITATIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING PARAMETERS: TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS(TSS), AMMONIA(NH3), OIL & GREASE, SULFI- DES & BIOLOGICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD5). THE AGENCY ISSUED 5 ADMINISTRATOR ORDERS TO THE RESPONDENT REQUIRING IT TO COME INTO COMPLAINCE W/ PERMIT CONDITIONS DATED 7/14/76; 9/26/77; 6/1/79; 12/20/ 79; & 12/24/80. QUAKER STATE FAILED TO COME INTO CONTIN- UOUS COMPLAINCE DESPITE THESE 5 ORDERS. AN EPA SITE INSP- ECTION CONDUCTED 1/20/82, INDICATED THAT VIOL'S PERSIST 12/24/80. QUAKER HAS FAILED TO COME INTO CONTINUOUS COM- PROPOSED REMEDY: THE AGENCY SHOULD FILE A CIVIL ACTION AGAINST QUAKER STATE SEEKING CIVIL PLTY'S & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF REQUISITE TO BRING THE CO INTO PERMIT COMPLAINCE. RESPONDENT SHOULD BE PUT ON AN EXPEDITED COMPLAINCE SCHED TO HIRE AN ENGIN- EERING CONSULTANT TO STUDY, DESIGN, CONSTRUCT & MAKE OP- ERATIONAL A WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM THAT WILL ACHIEVE & MAINTAIN PERMIT COMPLAINCE. STUDY, DESIGN, CONST & OP- ERATION DEADLINES MUST BE ESTABLISHED BASED ON OUR TECH REVIEW OF THE ENGINEERING WORK SUBMITTED. STIPULATED PLTY'S FOR SCHED DELAYS & EFFLUENT VIOL'S AFTER THE OPER- ATIONAL DEADLINE MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE INCENTIVES FOR COM- PLAINCE GIVEN THIS RESPODENT'S HISTORY OF INTRANSIGENCE & DELAY. IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THE CASE CAN BE STTL'D BY CD AFTER FILING. ISSUES OF NATIONAL OR PRECENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE: THIS CASE PESENTS THE ISSUE OF ENFORCING TECH-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITS W/O PROVABLE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM FOR VIOL- ATIVE DISCHARGES DUE TO LARGE DILUTION CAPACITY OF THE RECEIVING WATER. THE RECEIVING WATER OF THIS DISCHARGE IS THE OHIO RIVER, WHICH HAS AN ENORMOUS VOLUME, & THUS AN ENORMOUS DILUTION OR ASSIMILATIVE CAPACITY & WHICH IS NONTHELESS BADLY POLLUTED. AS A RESULT, WE HAVE NO EVID- ENCE OF MEASURABLE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM THAT CAN BE PROVEN TO BE THE RESULT OF THIS DISCHARGE. HOWEVER, UNLESS EACH DISCHARGEER TO A COMMON RECEIVING WATER IS REQUIRED TO COMPLY W/ITS PERMIT LIMITS, THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF ALL VIOLATING DISCHARGES CAN READILY RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION, HARM OR EVEN HUMAN HEALTH RISK OR DAMAGE. THE VITALITY & MEANING OF THE NPDES TECH-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATION SYSTEM IS AT ISSUE HERE. FAILURE TO ENFORCE CASES SUCH AS THIS, DESPITE THEIR LACK OF OBVIOUS & IMMEDIATE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM, WOULD SET A PRECEDENT DAMAGING TO THE NPDES PROGRAM & TO ALL LARGE RECEIVING WATER BODIES W/MANY DISCHARGERS. THIS CASE RAISES THE ISSUE SQUARELY, BECAUSE OF BOTH THE ABSENCE OF IDENTIFI- ABLE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM, & THE PRESENCE OF NEARLY CONST- ANT, LONG-TERM, & SUBSTANIAL EFFLUENT VIOL'S. ENVIRONMENTAL HARM, & THE PRESENCE

Defendants (1)

• QUAKER STATE OIL REFINERYNamed in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (2)

• ERGON WEST VIRGINIA REFINERY (A.K.A CONGO REFINERY)

  2750 CONGO ROAD, NEWELL, WV, 26050

  Registry ID: 110027982565

• ERGON WEST VIRGINIA REFINERY (A.K.A CONGO REFINERY)

  2750 CONGO ROAD, NEWELL, WV, 26050

  Registry ID: 110027982565

Statutes cited

• CWA CWA — Clean Water Act

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• QUAKER STATE OIL REFINING CORPentered 1983-07-07

  Primary law: CWA

Timeline (8 milestones)

• 1982-04-02Referred To Headquarters
• 1982-06-16Referred To Dept Of Justice
• 1983-04-07Referred TO U.S. Attorney
• 1983-05-05Complaint Filed With Court
• 1983-07-07Final Order Lodged
• 1983-07-07Final Order Entered
• 1983-07-07Concluded
• 1985-06-10Enforcement Action Closed