EPA v. NEWPORT STEEL CORP.

Case summary

12/1/03 - CAFO ISSUED, ASSESSING A PENALTY OF$36,000, DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS. EPA INSPECTED THE FACILITY ON JULY 21, 1998, AUGUST 26, 1999, DECEMBER 20, 1999, TO DETERMINE RESPONDENT'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE SPCC REGULATIONS AT 40 CFR PART 112. 40 CFR 112.3 REQUIRES OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF ONSHORE FACILITIES WHICH HAVE DISCHARGED OR COULD REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO DISCHARGE OIL IN HARMFUL QUANTITIES INTO OR UPON NAVIGABLE WATERS TO PREPARE AN SPCC PLAN IN WRITING AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH 40 CFR 112.7. AT THE TIME OF THE INSPECTION, RESPONDENT HAD AN SPCC PLAN, BUT IT WAS INADEQUATE: A. WAS NOT CERTIFIED BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER; B. MANY TANKS WERE NOT LISTED IN RESPONDENT'S 1985 SPCC PLAN, BUT WERE PHYSICALLY IDENTIFIED BY EPA DURING THE JULY 22, 1998, INSPECTION. AT LEAST ONE TANK AT THE FACILITY WAS NOT LISTED ON RESPONDENT'S REVISED SPCC PLAN DURING THE AUGUST 26, 1999, INSPECTION. MANY TANKS AT THE FACILITY WERE NOT LISTED ON RESPONDENT'S REVISED SPCC PLAN, OR NO LONGER EXISTED BUT REMAINED LISTED ON THE PLAN DURING THE DECEMBER 20, 1999 INSPECTION. C. RESPONDENT'S 1985 SPCC PLAN DID NOT CONTAIN DESIGNS FOR ADEQUATE SECONDARY CONTAINMENT OF TANKS; THE PLAN ALLOWED FOR SPILLS TO FLOW OVER LAND TO LOWER GROUND ELEVATIONS. D. RESPONDENT'S REVISED SPCC PLAN DID NOT CONTAIN WRITTEN PROCEDURES FOR INSPECTIONS AND RECORDS. 40 CFR 112.3 REQUIRED OWNERS OR OPERATORS OF ONSHORE FACILITIES WHICH HAVE DISCHARGED OR COULD REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO DISCHARGE OIL IN HARMFUL QUANTITIES INTO OR UPON NAVIGABLE WATERS TO IMPLEMENT ITS SPCC PLAN. RESPONDENT WAS REQUIRED TO HAVE AND IMPLEMENT A SPCC PLAN. AT THE TIME OF THE INSPECTIONS, RESPONDENT DID HAVE AN SPCC PLAN, BUT IT WAS INADEQUATELY IMPLEMENTED: A. THE SPCC PLAN IN USE AT THE FACILITY DURING THE JULY 1998 INSPECTION HAD NOT BEEN REVIEWED OR UPDATED SINCE AUGUST 1985, AND WAS NOT UPDATED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 18, 1999, A PERIOD OF OVER 13 YEARS. B. ON JULY 2, 1998, A DISCHARGE OF OIL FROM THE FACILITY INTO NAVIGABLE WATERS WAS REPORTED; THE FACILITY DID NOT HAVE APPROPRIATE CONTAINMENT STRUCTURES TO PREVENT THE DISCHARGE. C. VERY FEW OF RESPONDENT'S TANKS HAD SECONDARY CONTAINMENT DURING THE JULY 1998 INSPECTION. MANY OF THE TANKS STILL LACKED ADEQUATE SECONDARY CONTAINMENT DURING THE AUGUST 1999 INSPECTION. D. DURING THE AUGUST 1999 INSPECTION, EPA NOTED THAT DRAINAGE OF RAINWATER FROM DIKED AREAS WAS NOT BEING INSPECTED, NOT BEING SUPERVISED TO ENSURE THE BYPASS VALVE WAS OPENED OR CLOSED, AND NO RECORDS WERE BEING KEPT. E. DURING THE INSPECTION IN DECEMBER 1999, RESPONDENT INFORMED EPA THAT NO INTEGRITY TESTING OF ITS ABOVE GROUND TANKS HAD BEEN CONDUCTED. F. DURING THE DECEMBER 1999 INSPECTION, EPA NOTED THAT 28 TANKS DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF 40 CFR 112.7(e)(4). G. DURING THE AUGUST 1999 INSPECTION, RESPONDENT COULD NOT PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION OF TRAINING ON THE PREVENTION OF OIL DISCHARGES. THE SAME VIOLATION WAS NOTED DURING THE DECEMBER 1999 INSPECTION.

Defendants (1)

• NEWPORT STEEL CORP.Named in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (1)

• NEWPORT STEEL CORP WILDER PLAN

  LICKING PIKE & QUEEN CITY AVE, WILDER, KY, 41076

  Registry ID: 110017714375

Statutes cited

• CWA 311J — SPCC and/or Federal Response Plan Violations

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• NEWPORT STEEL CORP.entered 2003-12-01

  Primary law: CWA

  Federal penalty: $36,000

Timeline (3 milestones)

• 2003-12-01Complaint Filed/Proposed Order
• 2003-12-01Final Order Issued
• 2004-04-08Enforcement Action Data Entered