EPA v. Mid-Continent Concrete Company No. 29

Case summary

Summary of Findings: Plan does not follow sequence of the rule and/or cross-reference not provided. Plan does not discuss conformance with SPCC requirement. Plan has inadequate or no description of the physical layout of the facility. Inadequate or no prediction of equipment failure which could result in discharges. Inspections and tests reqired by 40 CFR Part 112 are not in accordance with written procedures developed for the facility. Plan has inadequate or no discussion of personnel and spill prevention procedures. Plan has inadequate or no discussion of facility security. Drainage from undiked areas do not flow into catchment basins ponds, or lagoons, or no diversion systems to retain or return a discharge to the facility. Plan has inadequate or no discussion of facility drainage. Mobile or portable storae containers are not positioned to prevent discharged oil from reaching navigable water. Plan has inadequate or no discussion of bulk storage tanks. Plan has inadequate or no discussion of facility transfer operations, pumping, and facility process.

Defendants (1)

• Mid-Continent Concrete Co., No. 29Named in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (1)

• MID-CONTINENT CONCRETE COMPANY NO. 29

  431 WEST 23RD STREET, TULSA, OK, 74107

  Registry ID: 110022327418

Statutes cited

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

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• Mid-Continent Concrete Company No. 29entered 2005-03-18

  Primary law: CWA

  Federal penalty: $1,150

Timeline (4 milestones)

• 2005-02-01Enforcement Action Data Entered
• 2005-03-18Final Order Issued
• 2005-03-18Enforcement Action Closed
• 2005-03-18Complaint Filed/Proposed Order