The Environmental Protection Agency said a Bellingham auto recycler stored enough used oil, gasoline and diesel to require a spill-prevention plan.
Clean Water ActTL;DR
- The EPA alleged that Gundies, Inc. operated a Bellingham, Washington, auto-recycling facility with approximately 1,460 gallons of regulated oil-storage capacity.
- Federal rules require a written Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure plan at covered facilities with more than 1,320 gallons of aboveground oil-storage capacity.
- Gundies did not provide such a plan when the EPA requested its compliance documents, according to the consent agreement.
- The company agreed to a $22,900 civil penalty and certified that it had corrected the alleged violation.
- I reached out to Gundie’s for a comment on their website but didn’t get a response back.
This was a case about missing spill-prevention safeguards, not a documented spill.
Transparency Notice
This article relies on the EPA Region 10 consent agreement and final order in In the Matter of Gundies, Inc. The conduct described in Part III of the agreement consists of EPA allegations. Gundies admitted the agency’s jurisdiction, but neither admitted nor denied the specific factual allegations.
The Facts
The case turned on a regulatory threshold. Gundies operated an auto-recycling facility at 3940 East Sunset Drive in Bellingham. Its March 2024 response to an EPA information request indicated that containers holding used oil, gasoline and diesel gave the site approximately 1,460 gallons of relevant storage capacity.
That was above the 1,320-gallon threshold at which a covered onshore facility must prepare and implement a written Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure plan, commonly called an SPCC plan. The plan is intended to establish how a facility will prevent and contain oil discharges.
The EPA’s information request asked for copies of the facility’s SPCC plan documents and approvals. The agency alleged that Gundies provided no plan and therefore had failed to prepare and implement one as required by federal oil-pollution prevention rules.
Why the Facility Fell Under the Rule
Storage capacity alone wasn’t the whole test. The rule also applied because of where the facility was located and where a release could travel.
The consent agreement says one or more discharge points at the site connect to Bellingham’s stormwater system. From there, the EPA identified a route through Toad Creek and Squalicum Creek to Bellingham Bay in the Salish Sea. Based on that route, the agency alleged that the facility could reasonably have been expected to discharge oil into federally regulated waters or adjoining shorelines in harmful quantities.
Potential Route Identified by the EPA
This diagram shows the potential pathway described in the consent agreement. It does not represent a finding that oil actually traveled along that route.
What the Alleged Failure Meant
An SPCC plan is a preventive requirement. Covered facilities must put their spill-control procedures in writing, implement them and, under the rule cited in the agreement, obtain certification from a licensed professional engineer.
The practical issue wasn’t paperwork for its own sake. The plan is the required framework for preventing an oil release and containing one if it occurs. According to the EPA, Gundies had enough oil-storage capacity and a sufficiently direct potential route to nearby waters that the facility was required to have that framework in place.
The enforcement record identifies a missing prevention plan. It does not identify an oil spill.
The distinction matters. The attached source does not say oil escaped the facility. It does not quantify a discharge, identify contaminated water or shoreline, or document injury to residents, workers, wildlife or an ecosystem. The environmental consequence established by the filing is a gap in required preparedness, not proven pollution.
How the Case Developed
The EPA sent Gundies a Clean Water Act information request.
Gundies submitted its response. According to the agreement, that response identified storage capacity above the regulatory threshold but did not include an SPCC plan.
The EPA Region 10 enforcement official signed the consent agreement.
The regional judicial officer signed the final order, and the settlement was filed with the EPA hearing clerk.
What Gundies Agreed To—and What It Did Not Admit
Gundies consented to a $22,900 penalty, payable to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund within 30 days after the final order’s filing date. The agreement provides for interest, collection costs and a quarterly late-payment penalty if the company does not pay on time.
The company admitted the EPA’s jurisdiction over the proceeding. It did not admit the specific factual allegations. For purposes of resolving the matter, however, Gundies waived its right to contest those allegations, seek a jury trial or appeal the final order.
From the Settlement
“Respondent neither admits nor denies the specific factual allegations contained in this Consent Agreement.”
“Respondent did not provide an SPCC Plan.”
“Respondent has corrected the violation(s) alleged in Part III above.”
The second quotation appears in the agreement’s allegations section. The third is a certification by Gundies’ representative, not a detailed EPA account of what corrective work was performed.
What the EPA Actually Decided
The final order ratified the consent agreement and ordered Gundies to comply with the settlement. It resolved the EPA’s claims for civil penalties arising from the violations alleged in the agreement.
It did not establish through a contested hearing that every allegation was true. Nor did it find that a spill occurred. The order also preserved the government’s ability to pursue appropriate injunctive relief, other equitable relief or criminal sanctions for any violations of law, and it did not relieve Gundies of its continuing Clean Water Act obligations.
What a Legitimate Fix Looks Like
Editorial analysisThe source-supported remedy is straightforward: a covered facility must have a written and implemented SPCC plan that meets the cited federal requirements and carries the required professional certification. The plan must function as an operating safeguard, not merely exist as a document produced after an EPA request.
Gundies certified that the alleged violation had been corrected by the time it signed the agreement. The filing does not describe the correction, attach the resulting plan or explain when the facility first came into compliance.
The source document for this investigation is attached below.
