EPA v. PARMAR OIL COMPANY #36 AND #37

Case summary

DURING THE INSPECTION OF THE TWO PAR MAR FACILITIES, THE EPA INSPECTOR OBSERVED THAT THE TWO FACILITIES HAD USTs THAT REQUIRED CATHODIC PROTECTION. THE USTs’ CHATHODIC PROTECTION SYTEMS WERE LAST TESTED ON OCTOBER 15, 2010. AS THE RESULT OF FOLLOW-UP INFORMATION REQUEST LETTERS, THE REGION CONFIRMED THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD NOT TESTED CATHODICALLY PROTECTED USTs FOR ABOUT FOUR YEARS AT ONE SITE AND ABOUT FIVE YEARS AT THE OTHER. THE RESPONDENT ALSO DID NOT CONTINUOUSLY PROVIDE CATHODIC PROTECTION FOR A TANK AT ONE FACILITY AND FLEX PIPING AT THE OTHER FACILITY. THIS LACK OF CATHODIC PROTECTION OCCURRED FOR ABOUT 3 MONTHS AT ONE FACILITY AND FOR ABOUT ONE AND ONE HALF YEARS AT THE OTHER SITE.

Defendants (1)

• PARMAR OIL COMPANY #36 AND #37 (SB)Named in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (2)

• PARMAR OIL COMPANY #37

  3217 WASHINGTON BLVD, HUNTINGTON, WV, 25701

  Registry ID: 110044874954

• PARMAR OIL COMPANY #36

  2207 8TH AVENUE, HUNTINGTON, WV, 25701

  Registry ID: 110044874945

Statutes cited

• RCRA 9003 — UST Release Detection, Prevention, Correction Regulations

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• PARMAR OIL COMPANY #36 AND #37entered 2013-10-18

  Primary law: RCRA

  Federal penalty: $30,855

Timeline (3 milestones)

• 2013-10-18Complaint Filed/Proposed Order
• 2013-10-18Final Order Issued
• 2013-11-07Enforcement Action Data Entered