A signed consent agreement calls for the Seaside, Oregon petroleum distributor to pay over an alleged failure to prepare and implement a required spill-control plan.
Clean Water ActTL;DR
- The Environmental Protection Agency inspected Jackson & Son Oil’s petroleum storage and distribution facility in Seaside, Oregon, on September 21, 2021.
- EPA later alleged that the company failed to prepare and implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure plan required by federal regulation.
- The company began corrective work after a November 2022 enforcement notice and submitted a professionally certified plan on December 19, 2024.
- A consent agreement signed by owner Casey Jackson calls for a $47,000 civil penalty, paid in three installments with 7 percent interest.
- Jackson & Son Oil admitted EPA’s jurisdiction but neither admitted nor denied the specific factual allegations. It also waived its right to contest them in this proceeding.
- The supplied record does not document an oil spill, a quantity released, a damaged waterway, or harm to residents or ecosystems. It also does not state when the attached Final Order was filed and became effective.
The evidence supports a preventive-planning enforcement case and a negotiated penalty—not a finding that Jackson & Son Oil caused a spill.
Transparency notice: This article relies on the supplied EPA Consent Agreement, its attached Final Order, and an electronic-signature audit report. The EPA’s Second Amended Complaint is incorporated into the agreement by reference but was not included in the supplied material. Jackson & Son Oil neither admitted nor denied the complaint’s specific factual allegations. The audit report records Casey Jackson’s electronic signature on August 7, 2026; the supplied text does not identify a filing date for the Final Order.
The Facts
The case began with an EPA inspection of Jackson & Son Oil’s Seaside petroleum storage and distribution facility on September 21, 2021. More than a year later, on November 15, 2022, EPA notified the company that it intended to file a Clean Water Act complaint based on alleged violations found during that inspection.
The agreement says the company entered negotiations and performed work intended to address the allegations. On December 19, 2024—the same date EPA issued its initial complaint—Jackson & Son Oil transmitted a signed plan certified by a professional engineer under federal oil-spill prevention regulations.
EPA amended its complaint on October 7, 2025, and filed a Second Amended Complaint on December 17, 2025. That version alleged that the company had failed to prepare and implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure plan, commonly called an SPCC plan, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 112.3.
EPA inspects the Seaside petroleum storage and distribution facility.
EPA issues notice that it intends to file a complaint over alleged Clean Water Act violations.
EPA issues its complaint. Jackson & Son Oil transmits a professionally certified SPCC plan.
EPA files an Amended Complaint.
EPA files the Second Amended Complaint alleging failure to prepare and implement the plan.
The electronic audit report records owner Casey Jackson signing the consent agreement.
What EPA Alleged
EPA’s stated allegation is specific: Jackson & Son Oil failed to prepare and implement the spill-prevention plan required by the regulation. An SPCC plan is a facility’s written framework for preventing, controlling, and responding to oil releases. In this case, the agreement says the replacement or corrective plan was prepared under 40 C.F.R. Part 112 and certified by a professional engineer.
The distinction between a missing plan and an actual spill matters. Section 311 of the Clean Water Act permits EPA to seek penalties both for prohibited oil discharges and for failures to comply with oil-spill regulations. The violation identified in this agreement concerns the regulatory planning requirement.
The supplied record establishes a dispute over preventive compliance. It does not establish that oil entered the environment.
The complete factual basis sits in the Second Amended Complaint, which the agreement incorporates but the supplied source does not reproduce. The available document therefore does not reveal what equipment, storage capacity, operating conditions, or inspection observations led EPA to conclude that the facility needed the plan.
What the Record Says About Harm
The consent agreement identifies no spill date, amount of oil released, affected waterway, cleanup, injury, property damage, or disruption to residents or businesses. It also contains no measurement of environmental damage and names no affected community or ecosystem.
That absence limits what can responsibly be said. The documented consequence is regulatory and financial: EPA alleged that a petroleum facility lacked a required prevention plan, the company undertook corrective work, and the parties negotiated a $47,000 penalty. The material does not support a claim that Jackson & Son Oil caused a spill or that anyone experienced direct harm.
Nor does the agreement state how long the alleged noncompliance continued. EPA said it considered the seriousness of the allegation, any economic benefit from noncompliance, culpability, prior violations, mitigation efforts, the penalty’s economic impact, and other statutory factors. It did not disclose how much weight it assigned to any one factor.
What Jackson & Son Oil Did Next
After EPA’s November 2022 notice, the company entered negotiations and performed work described as addressing and correcting the alleged violations. Its professionally certified SPCC plan reached EPA on December 19, 2024.
When Casey Jackson signed the agreement in August 2026, the company’s representative certified that the alleged violation had been corrected. That is a certification by the respondent, not a separate finding in the supplied material that EPA independently verified every element of the plan.
What the Agreement Actually Says
“Respondent neither admits nor denies the specific factual allegations contained in the Second Amended Complaint.”
Consent Agreement, paragraph 3.2
“Respondent has corrected the violation alleged in the Second Amended Complaint.”
Certification by the respondent’s representative, paragraph 3.11
The $47,000 Settlement Terms
The agreement calls for Jackson & Son Oil to pay the assessed penalty to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund in three installments. Every deadline is measured from the Final Order’s effective date:
- $15,667Within 30 days
- $15,667Within 105 days
- $15,666Within 180 days
The installment arrangement carries interest at the stated Internal Revenue Service underpayment rate of 7 percent. The company may pay the remaining balance early, but the agreement says the payment must include applicable interest on that balance.
Late payment has sharper consequences. The entire unpaid balance can become due immediately, with continuing interest, federal collection expenses, and a 20 percent quarterly nonpayment penalty. EPA may also refer the debt for collection, use money otherwise payable by the federal government to offset it, suspend certain licenses or federal-program privileges, or ask the Attorney General to sue for the balance.
Payments are applied first to handling charges, then late penalties, accrued interest, and finally the underlying $47,000 principal. The agreement also says the penalty, interest, and related charges are not deductible for federal tax purposes.
What the Agreement and Final Order Decide
Jackson & Son Oil admitted the jurisdictional allegations, consented to the penalty, and waived its defenses, its right to contest the allegations in this proceeding, and its right to appeal the Final Order. Those waivers make the settlement binding without converting the disputed factual allegations into admissions.
The attached Final Order ratifies and incorporates the agreement. It says the documents settle EPA’s Clean Water Act civil-penalty claims for the violation alleged in the Second Amended Complaint. Compliance with the agreement resolves the company’s civil-penalty liability for those alleged facts.
The order does not announce that EPA proved the underlying allegation at a contested hearing. Jackson & Son Oil expressly neither admitted nor denied the specific facts, and the dispute ended through consent rather than an adjudicated liability finding.
The Final Order also preserves the government’s ability to pursue appropriate injunctive or equitable relief or criminal sanctions for violations of law. It does not excuse the company from complying with the Clean Water Act, its regulations, or applicable permits.
The source document for this investigation is attached below.
The address for Jackson Oil is 84721 Happel Ln, Seaside, OR 97138
