EPA v. J&M OIL COMPANY

Case summary

THIS ORDER WAS ISSUED BECAUSE 2 OF 3 WELLS LISTED AS INJEC- TION WELLS FAILED THERI MECHANICAL INTEGRITY TESTS IN SEPT. OF 1990. THE THIRD WELL LISTED WAS NEVER TESTED FOR MECHANI CAL INTEGRITY. J&M IS A SMALL COMPANY. THE WELLS WHICH FAILED MIT OR WERE NOT TESTE ARE NOT IN USE AS INJECTION WELLS SO THE VIOLATIONS ONLY OCCURRED FOR ONE DAY. - AFTER THE PROPOSED ORDER WAS SENT, MR. WINDELL CONTACTED C.CINCHELOE ABOUT THE ORDER. HE SAYS THAT HE CALLED THE STATE OF INDIANA ABOUT RESCHEDULING MIT FOR JAN., BUT THE WEATHER WAS BAD, SO HE CALLED AND RECIEVED ANOTHER EXTENSION HE PLANS TO TEST THE TWO WELLS THAT FAILED MIT IN APRIL. HE SAYS THE WELL THAT WE HAVE LISTED AS NEVER BEING TESTED FOR MIT IS A PRODUCING OIL WELL AND THE IN. PERMIT NEVER GOT CHANGED. HE DOES HAVE A THIRD INJECTION WELL WHICH HE PLANS TO PLUG SOON.

Defendants (1)

• J&M OIL COMPANYNamed in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (1)

• J AND M OIL CO INC

  6611 RED HORSE PIKE, NEWBURGH, IN, 476301709

  Registry ID: 110010705736

Statutes cited

• SDWA 1421 — UIC Regulations

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• J&M OIL COMPANYentered 1991-09-03

  Primary law: SDWA

  Federal penalty: $2,000

Timeline (5 milestones)

• 1991-04-05Complaint Filed/Proposed Order
• 1991-05-07Enforcement Action Data Entered
• 1991-09-03Final Order Issued
• 1991-10-03Compliance Achieved
• 1991-10-03Enforcement Action Closed