EPA v. Enertec, Inc. Kaplan Conoco Bulk Plant

Case summary

*Inspections required by 40 CFR part 112 are not in accordance with written procedures developed for the facility. *Written procedures and a record of inspections are not signed by facility supervisor. *Written procedures and a arecord of inspections are not made part of the plan. *Written procedures and a record of inspections are not maintained for three years. *No training on the operation and maintenance of equipment to prevent discharges. *No training on the applicable laws, rules, and regulations. *Spill prevention briefings are not scheduled and conducted periodically. *Walls of containment system are slightly eroded or have low areas. *Adequate records of drainage events are not maintained. *Inadequate secondary containment, and/or rack drainage does not flow to catchment basin, treatment system, or quick drainage system. *Facility not fully fenced and entrance gates are not locked and/or guarded when plant is unattended or not in production.

Defendants (1)

• Enertec, Inc., Kaplan Conoco Bluk PlanNamed in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (1)

• ENERTEC, INC. KAPLAN CONOCO BULK PLANT

  601 WEST FIRST STREET, KAPLAN, VERMILION PARISH, LA, 70548

  Registry ID: 110014411886

Statutes cited

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

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• Enertec, Inc. Kaplan Conoco Bulk Plantentered 2003-01-30

  Primary law: CWA

  Federal penalty: $1,200

Timeline (4 milestones)

• 2002-12-17Complaint Filed/Proposed Order
• 2003-01-28Enforcement Action Data Entered
• 2003-01-30Enforcement Action Closed
• 2003-01-30Final Order Issued