United States Office of Enforcement EPA 300-N-00-013
Environmental Protection and Compliance
Agency Assurance (2248A)
sQfficelqf Begul§|oryEnforcement;
^September 2000
feSKfeJiiaWmji;«.wfKMi.*:.s^M's:'ft;s^'1
&EPA
Volume 3, NurnberE
U.S. EPA Focusing Enforcement Efforts on
Oil Spill Violations
Companies Required to Take Corrective Measures to Reduce Oil Spills,
Especially From Pipeline and Tank Corrosion Problems
Oil spills can pose a serious
threat to human health and of-
ten have a long-lasting impact on "the
environment. It may take years for an
About
Enforcement Alert
Enforcement Alertis published
periodically by the Office of
Regulatory Enforcement to
inform and educate the public
and regulated community of
important environmental
enforcement issues, recent
trends and significant
enforcement actions.
This information should help
the regulated community
anticipate and prevent
violations of federal
environmental law that could
otherwise lead to enforcement
action. Reproduction arid wide
dissemination of this
publication are encouraged.
For information on obtaining
additional copies of this
publication, contact the editor
listed below.
Eric V. Schaeffer
Director, Office of
Reguiatory Enforcement
Editor: Virginia Bueno
(202) 564-8684
bueno.virginia@epa.gov
(Please email address and
name changes or subscription
requests for this newsletter)
ecosystem to recover from damage
caused by an oil or hazardous sub-
stance 'spill. Even one pint of oil re-
leased into the water can spread and
cover one acre of water surface area
and can seriously damage an aquatic
habitat.
Recent EPA investigations are re-
vealing large scale compliance prob-
lems, such as pipeline breaks, leaking
tanks, faulty valves, overturned trucks,
leaking ships, and illegal dumping.
Earlier this year, a major company
resolved claims related to several hun-
dred oil spills from its pipelines and
oil facilities in a number of states (see
page 3 for more on this settlement).
Federal law and regulations re-
quires companies that handle oil prod-
ucts to establish and maintain spill pre-
vention and cleanup programs. Com-
plying with these requirements, as ex-
plained further in this issue, will reduce
the likelihood of a spill and minimize
damage when accidents occur.
Environmental Hazards of
Oil Spills
Oil spills can significantly reduce
the amount of oxygen available for fish
and aquatic life. Oil that is spilled in
inland waters, such as small rivers and
Continued on page 2
Federal law requires companies that handle oil products to establish and maintain
spill prevention and cleanup programs (U.S. EPA photograph).
-------
Enforcement Alert
Continued from page 1
streams, may be especially harmful if
there are limited oxygen resources in
the water body and little dispersal of
the oil. Oil emulsions can injure or kill
fish and aquatic life by suffocating
them, and can kill birds as a result of
potential hypothermia and drowning.
The long-term effects of spills may
continue for years even if the oil spill
is cleaned up in a relatively short peri-
od of time. These long term effects in-
clude the contamination of food
sources and nesting habitats; thereduc-
tion of breeding anjmals_andjp]antetiia^
provide future food; and the reduction
of reproductive success through con-
tamination and reduced hatchability of
eggs.
Law Prohibits
Discharging, Requires
Prevention Plans
Clean Water Act: Section 311 of the
Clean Water Act addresses pollution
from oil and hazardous substance re-
leases and authorizes EPA to establish
Corrosive pipes can severe environmental damage to the environment that may take
years to clean up. (U.S. EPA photograph).
a program for preventing, preparing
for, and responding to oil spills that oc-
cur in navigable waters of the United
States. Section 311 prohibits discharges
of oil in such quantities that may be
Train Derailments in Utah, Colorado Lead to
Fuel Spills
On June 6,2000, in a settlement
%vith EPA and the Justice Dept.,
Union Pacific Railroad agreed to pay"
an $800,000 fine to resolve environ-
| mental claims associated with seven
I train derailments that spilled oil and
I .other hazardous pollutants into Colo-
I lado and Utah waterways. The settle-
pment requires the Omaha, Neb.-
I based railroad to take specific mea-
| mures to avert environmental damage
j Jil the future.
| The United States in 1997 sued
! the Southern Pacific Transportation
i Co, and the Denver & Rio Grande
,Western Railroad Co. for Clean Wa-
ter Act violations related to fuel and
hazardous substance spills. These
raffioaW'suBseqUenffy rhergecT with"
Union Pacific.
The government alleged that the
derailments, occurring from 1992 to
1998, caused the discharge of diesel
fuel from ruptured or leaking loco-
motive fuel-tanks. The derailments
released more than 14,000 gallons of
fuel, 5,000 tons of taconite, and
800,000 pounds of sulfuric acid, (see
story, June 6, 2000, located at http:/
Avww.epa.gov/ under "EPA Head-
quarters Press Releases").
harmful to the public health or the en-
vironment, including discharges of oil
that:
• Violate applicable water qual-
ity standards; or
• Cause a film or sheen upon, or
discoloration of, the surface of the wa-
ter or adjoining shorelines; or
• Cause a sludge or emulsion to
be deposited beneath the surface of the
water or upon adjoining shorelines.
Owners or operators of facilities
from which oil is discharged are strictly
liable for violations. Absent gross neg-
ligence, Section 31 l(b)(7) of the CWA
and the regulations at 40 CFR Part 19
impose a maximum penalty of $1,100
per barrel of oil discharged for events
occurring after Jan. 30, 1997. Events
before that date can result in the assess-
ment, under the statute alone, of civil
penalties of up to $1,000 per ban-el of
oil discharged.
Continued on page 3
September 2000
-------
Enforcement Alt
Koch Industries Inc. Settlement
In a settlement entered on March •?,.Koch Industries will
pay the largest civil fine ever Imposed on,a company
under a federal environmental law to resolve-claims r&*
lated to more than 300 oil spills from its pipelines and oil
facilities in sixxstates. The,settlement requires Koeh, the
second-largest privately held company 'in the United
States, to pay a $30 million civil penalty, improve its leak-'
prevention programs, and spend $5 million on environ-
mental projects". -J ' "; ' -
' Koch Industries, headquartered iii^Wichita, Kan,* owns
and operates extensive underground and above ground"
pipelines that transport crude oil and related products in
"the Midwest. Most of the" spills at issue In the settlement
/ „ occurred in Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas. In one instance,
/ almost lOdjdOO gallons of oil was spilled in Texas and
'. cause,d a 12-mile roil slick on Nueces Bay and Corpus
' Christi Bay.' \ . - - - "' ^ ' , ,.,1
''' -Coniplaints filed in 1995 and 1'997 allege that Koch
, •" unlawflilly allowed some three million" gallons of crude
oil and, related products to leak from its pipelines into
1 ,-ponds, lakes, rivers and streams, or .onto adjacent, shore-
; lines,'from 19fO to 1997. Most of the-spills were caused'
by corrosion of pipelines in rural areas. The government
•„ alleges that Koch could have prevented the corrosion by,
,*„' proper operation and maintenance" {see Office df&egula*
t$ry Enforcements Kocfi ^Industries Civil Settlement
website at http://wyvw.epa.gov/oeca/ore/water/koch/).
Continued from page 2
Additionally Section 301(a) of the
CWA prohibits the discharge of pol-
lutants from a point source into waters
of the U.S., except as authorized by an
NPDES permit. 33 U.S.C. §1311(a). A
violation of Section 301 occurs when a
person discharges from a point source,
a pollutant into a water of the United
States without authorization.
In such cases, Section 309(b) of the
CWA authorizes EPA to "commence
a civil action for appropriate relief, in-
cluding a permanent or temporary in-
junction . . . ." and Section 309(d) of
~~THe~A"crand~40""CFR"iParTl9 authorize'"
the district courts to assess a civil pen-
alty of up to $27,500 per day for each
violation for events occurring after Jan.
30, 1997, and Section 309(d) alone au-
thorizes a penalty of up to $25,000 per
day for each violation for events oc-
curring before that date.
If a harmful discharge occurs, Sec-
tion 311 requires immediate reporting
of the discharge to avoid criminal pros-
ecution. To report an oil spill or haz-
ardous substance release, facilities
should call National Response Cen-
ter at 1-800-424-8802.
September 2000 , ,
Oil Pollution Act: In August 1990,
Congress amended the Clean Water
Act by the Oil Pollution Act (OPA),
largely enacted in response to rising
public concern following the Exxon
Valdez incident. The OPA improved
the nation's ability to prevent and re-
spond to oil spills by establishing pro-
visions that expand the federal
government's ability, and provides the
money and resources necessary to re-
spond to oil spills.
f
^i^
Finally, the OPA increased penal-
ties for regulatory noncompliance,
broadened the response and enforce-
ment authorities of the federal govern-
ment, and preserved State authority to
establish additional liability or require-
ments pertaining to discharge of oil or
its removal.
Spill Prevention Plans: As a corner-
stone of EPA's strategy to prevent oil
spills from reaching our nation's wa-
ters, EPA requires that certain facili-
ties develop and implement oil spill pre-
vention, control, and countermeasures,
or SPCC Plans.
Unlike oil spill contingency plans
'
measures after a spill has occurred,
SPCC plans ensure that facilities put in
place containment and other counter-
measures that would prevent oil spills
that could reach navigable waters. Fa-
cilities may be subject to this rule if the
facility drills for, produces, gathers,
stores, processes, refines, transfers, dis-
tributes or consumes oil. Under EPA's
Oil Pollution Prevention regulation, fa-
cilities must detail and implement spill
prevention and control measures in
Continued on page 4
3
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
(2248A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
'Enforcement Alert' newsletter
1
One pint of oil released into the water can cover an acre of water surface area and
seriously damage an aquatic habitat (U.S. EPA photograph).
Continued from page 3
their SPCC Plans. A spill contingency
plan is required as part of the SPCC
Plan if a facility is unable to provide
secondary containment (e.g., berms
surrounding the oil storage tank). Each
SPCC plan, while unique to the facil-
ity it covers, must include certain ele-
ments.
To ensure that facilities comply
with the spill prevention regulations,
EPA periodically conducts on-site fa-
cility inspections. EPA also requires
owners and operators of facilities that
experiencetwo or more oil spills within
a 12-month.period to submit their SPCC
plans and other information to EPA for
review.
A copy of the entire SPCC plan
must be maintained at the facility if the
facility is normally attended for at least
eight hours per day. Otherwise, it must
be kept at the nearest field office. The
SPCC plan must be available to EPA
for on-site review and inspection dur-
ing normal working hours.
For more information, contact
Suzanne Childress, Office of Regula-
tory Enforcement, Water Enforcement
Division, at (202) 564-7018; Email:
childress.suzanne@epa.gov.
Useful Corrmliance
Assistance Resources
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance:
http://WWW.epa;goy/oeca
Office of Regulatory Enforcement:
http://www,epa:gov/oeca/ore
Off ice of Water:
http://wWw.epa.gov/ow/
Oil Spill Program:
http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/index.htm
National Response Center:
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/
EPA Emergency Response
Notification System (ERNS):
http://www.epa.gov/ernsacct/
Audit Policy Information:
http://www.epa.gov/oeca/ore/
apolguid.html
Compliance Assistance Centers:
http://www.epa.gov/oeca/mfcac.html
Small Business Gateway:
http://www.epa.gov/smailbusiness
major_environmental_laws.htm
Rocyclod/Rocyclablo. Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that contains at least 30% recycled fiber
-------
|