EPA v. PRUET PRODUCTION CO (CEDAR CREEK LT 32-1 WELL)

Case summary

MAY 13, 2026 - CONSENT AGREEMENT On March 14, 2023, an inspection was conducted by EPA at the Respondent's Facility to determine compliance with SPCC regulations. a) At the time of the EPA inspection, the SPCC Plan did not include the volume of oil for all containers at the CCLT 32-1 facility (i.e., heater-treaters, separators, etc.) b) At the time of the EPA inspection, the SPCC Plan did not include a prediction of the rate of flow and total quantity of oil that could be discharged from bulk storage containers, flow-through process vessels (i.e., heater-treaters and separators), and flowlines. c) At the time of the EPA inspection, the SPCC Plan did not discuss good engineering practices (i.e., overflow equalizing lines, liquid level sensors, etc) specifically utilized at the CCLT 32-1 tank battery. d) At the time of the EPA inspection, inspections were not conducted in accordance with written procedures. e) At the time of the EPA inspection, no discharge report had been submitted to the Regional Administrator (EPA Region 4) within 60-days of single discharge that exceeds 1,000-gallons. The EPA alleges that respondent failed to prepare and implement an SPCC Plan ( Plan ) in accordance with 40 C.F.R. ? 112.7 and any other applicable sections of 40 C.F.R. Part 112, as required by 40 C.F.R. ? 112.3(a). The EPA also alleges that Respondent failed to meet general requirements for SPCC Plans listed under 40 C.F.R. ? 112.7 and specific discharge prevention and containment procedures listed in 40 C.F.R. ?112.9, as required by 40 C.F.R. ? 112.9. Specifically, the Respondent failed to comply with the following requirements: a) Respondent failed to include the volume of oil for all containers at the CCLT 32-1 facility (i.e., heater-treaters, separators, etc) as required by 40 CFR ? 112.7(a)(3)(i). b) Respondent failed to include a prediction of the rate of flow and total quantity of oil that could be discharged from bulk storage containers, flow-through process vessels (i.e., heater-treaters and separators), and flowlines as required by 40 CFR ? 112.7(b). c) Respondent failed to discuss good engineering practices (i.e., overflow equalizing lines, liquid level sensors, etc) specifically utilized at the CCLT 32-1 tank battery as required by 40 CFR ? 112.9(c)(4). d) Respondent failed to conduct inspections in accordance with written procedures as required by 40 CFR ? 112.7(e). Additionally, Respondent failed to submit reporting information to the Regional Administrator (EPA Region 4) within 60-days of single discharge that exceeds 1,000-gallons as required by 40 CFR ? 112.4(a). The EPA therefore alleges that Respondent violated the regulatory requirements cited in Paragraphs 36 and 37 above, and is therefore in violation of 40 C.F.R. ?? 112.3, 112.4, and 112.9. Respondent consents to the payment of a civil penalty, which was calculated in accordance with the Act, in the amount of $3,600.00, which is to be paid within thirty (30) calendar days of the Effective Date of this CAFO.

Defendants (1)

• PRUET PRODUCTION CO.Named in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (2)

• PRUET PRODUCTION COMPANY, CCLT 32-1 WELL

  COUNTY ROAD 29 SOUTH (BRUNER ROAD), EVERGREEN, AL, 36432

• PRUET PRODUCTION COMPANY, CEDAR CREEK LT 32-1 WELL

  CO. HWY 6, EVERGREEN, AL, 36401

  Registry ID: 110072155167

Statutes cited

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

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• PRUET PRODUCTION CO (CEDAR CREEK LT 32-1 WELL)entered 2026-05-13

  Primary law: CWA

  Federal penalty: $3,600

Timeline (3 milestones)

• 2026-05-13Complaint Filed/Proposed Order
• 2026-05-13Final Order Issued
• 2026-07-15Enforcement Action Data Entered