EPA v. HIGHFILL OIL, AN OKLAHOMA FIRM

Case summary

1. SECTIONS 311(B)(6)(A)(II) AND 311(B)(6(B)(I) OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT ( CWA ), 33 U.S.C. SECTIONS 1321(B)(6)(A)(II) AND 1321(B)(6)(B)(I), AS AMENDED BY THE OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990. 2. HIGHFILL OIL, AN OKLAHOMA COMPANY FACILITY: JANE RILEY LEASE SECTION 4, T24 N, R17 E CLAREMORE, ROGERS COUNTY, OKLAHOMA 74017 3. RESPONDENT WAS IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 311(J) OF THE CWA BY: A) SPCC PLAN HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED AND CERTIFIED BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER; B) SPCC PLAN HAS NOT BEEN RE- VIEWED BY THE OWNER/OPERATOR FOR AT LEAST ONCE EVERY 3 YEARS; C) SPCC PLAN HAS NO EVIDENCE OF MANAGEMENT APPROV- AL; D) FIELD DRAINAGE DITCHES, ROAD DITCHES, AND OIL TRAPS, SUMPS OR SKIMMERS ARE NOT REGULARLY INSPECTED FOR ACCUMULATED OIL NOR THE LEAKED OIL IS BEING REMOVED FROM THE GROUND; E) FACILITY HAD NO SECONDARY MEANS OF CON- TAINMENT; F) EVIDENCE OF HEAVY CORROSION AND LEAKING LINES INDICATING THAT THE FACILITY HAS AN INADEQUATE FLOWLINE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM; G) INSPECTION WRITTEN PRO- CEDURES HAVE NOT BEEN MADR PART OF THE SPCC PLAN AND THE INSPECTIONS RECORDS WERE NOT BEING KEPT BY THE FACILITY; AND H) SPCC PLAN DID NOT INDICATE A DESIGNATED PERSON RE- SPONSIBLE FOR SPILL PREVENTION. 4. RELIEF SOUGHT PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 311(B)(6)(A)(II) AND 311(B)(6)(B)(I) OF THE CWA, EPA PROPOSED A CIVIL PENALTY OF $27,500 FOR THE VIOLATIONS CITED.

Defendants (1)

• HIGHFILL OILNamed in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (1)

• HIGHFILL OIL - JANE RILEY LEASE

  SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 17 E, CLAREMORE, OK, 74017

  Registry ID: 110010642322

Statutes cited

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

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• HIGHFILL OILentered 2001-01-04

  Primary law: CWA

  Federal penalty: $2,700

Timeline (5 milestones)

• 2000-08-30Complaint Filed/Proposed Order
• 2000-08-31Enforcement Action Data Entered
• 2001-01-04Final Order Issued
• 2001-01-08Enforcement Action Closed
• 2001-01-08Compliance Achieved