EPA v. Enertec, Inc., Kaplan Conoco Bulk Plant

Case summary

1. Inspections required by 40 CFR pat 112 are not in accordance with written procedures developed for the facility. 2. Written procedures and a record of inspections are not signed by facility supervisor. 3. Written procedures and a record of inspections are not made part of the plan. 4. Written procedures and a record of inspections are not maintained for three years. 5. No training on the operation and maintenance of equipment ot prevent discharges. 6. No training on the applicable laws, rules, and regulations. 7. Spill prevention briefings are not scheduled and conducted periodically. 8. Adequate records of drainage events are not maintained. 9. Inadequate secondary containment, and/or rack drainage does not flow to catchment basin, treatment system, or quick drainage system. 10. 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 Bulk PlantNamed in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (1)

• ENERTEC, INC.

  P. O. BOX 72, RAYNE, LA, 70548

  Registry ID: 110002129250

Statutes cited

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

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• Enertec, Inc., Kaplan Conoco Bulk Plantentered 2003-03-19

  Primary law: CWA

  Federal penalty: $1,000

Timeline (4 milestones)

• 2003-01-30Complaint Filed/Proposed Order
• 2003-03-19Enforcement Action Closed
• 2003-03-19Final Order Issued
• 2003-03-27Enforcement Action Data Entered