Corporate Misconduct Accountability Project
Venoil, LLC · EPA Consent Agreement and Final Order
Venoil LLC Fined for Failing to Prevent Oil Spills in Washington
EPA found that a bulk oil facility in Anacortes, Washington operated for years with deficient spill prevention plans, exposing waterways and tribal communities to contamination risks.
HIGH SEVERITY
TL;DR
Venoil, LLC operated a bulk used oil storage and processing facility in Anacortes, Washington with a deficient Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure plan for over a decade. EPA inspections in 2018 and 2022 found the company failed to conduct required tank integrity testing, lacked adequate secondary containment for mobile containers, stored oil in corroded tanks, and failed to update its spill prevention plan despite known deficiencies. The facility sits near the Swinomish Channel, Padilla Bay, and Puget Sound, waters critical to tribal fishing rights and marine ecosystems. Venoil agreed to pay $57,800 in penalties without admitting or denying the violations.
This settlement shows how environmental compliance failures place entire ecosystems and communities at risk while companies treat fines as routine business costs.
$57,800
Civil penalty assessed
14
Separate violations alleged
9+ years
Period of alleged noncompliance (2013-2022)
1,320+ gal
Aboveground oil storage capacity threshold requiring SPCC plan
The Allegations: A Breakdown
Core Allegations
What Venoil did wrong · 8 points
| 01 | Venoil failed to conduct required monthly integrity testing and inspections of its aboveground oil storage tanks, violating API 653 industry standards that its own SPCC plan claimed to follow. The company provided no records of formal integrity testing during the 2022 EPA inspection. | high |
| 02 | The company stored bulk oil in multiple tanks showing significant paint chipping and cracking, metal corrosion, and delamination of metal on the sides. These deteriorating conditions violated requirements that tank materials must be compatible with storage conditions. | high |
| 03 | Venoil’s SPCC plans from both 2013 and 2022 failed to describe secondary containment features for areas storing mobile and portable oil containers, leaving no barrier to prevent spills from reaching navigable waters. | high |
| 04 | The company did not conduct the required five-year review of its 2013 SPCC plan, even after EPA provided a list of plan deficiencies following a 2018 inspection. Venoil operated without proper plan updates for years. | medium |
| 05 | Venoil’s SPCC plans lacked required facility diagrams showing connecting piping, and the 2022 plan failed to identify locations for mobile and portable container storage. | medium |
| 06 | The company’s notification procedures incorrectly stated that oil spills must be reported within two hours and set a reportable quantity threshold of 42 gallons, when federal law requires immediate reporting of any discharge causing a sheen or film on water regardless of volume. | medium |
| 07 | The Professional Engineer certification in the 2022 SPCC plan omitted the required attestation that procedures for required inspections and testing had been established. | medium |
| 08 | Venoil’s plans failed to address Washington State Department of Ecology waste oil and hazardous waste regulations applicable to the facility’s operations, as required by federal rules. | low |
Regulatory Failures
How oversight broke down · 4 points
| 01 | EPA conducted an inspection in 2018 and provided Venoil with a list of SPCC plan deficiencies, yet the company continued operating with an inadequate plan until at least the 2022 inspection, demonstrating a four-year gap in enforcement follow-up. | high |
| 02 | The facility operated from at least March 2013 when it developed its first SPCC plan until the 2022 EPA inspection without completing a single required five-year plan review, showing extended periods between regulatory oversight. | medium |
| 03 | Multi-year gaps between EPA inspections gave Venoil a window where enforcement pressures faded, creating opportunities for the company to cut corners on compliance requirements. | medium |
| 04 | The complex intersection of federal Clean Water Act requirements and Washington State regulations created jurisdictional gray zones that allowed deficiencies to persist undetected. | medium |
Profit Over People
Cost-cutting at the expense of safety · 4 points
| 01 | Venoil avoided the ongoing costs of monthly tank inspections, professional engineering consultations, proper secondary containment construction, and regular plan updates for years, externalizing environmental risks onto surrounding communities. | high |
| 02 | The $57,800 penalty represents a fraction of what comprehensive compliance would have cost over the nine-year violation period, making noncompliance economically rational under a profit-maximization framework. | high |
| 03 | Rather than invest in emptying and cleaning tanks to prepare them for required API 653 inspections, Venoil operated tanks showing visible corrosion and deterioration, prioritizing short-term operational continuity over long-term safety. | medium |
| 04 | The company treated the required SPCC plan as a paperwork exercise rather than a functional safety program, omitting critical operational details while continuing daily oil handling operations. | medium |
Community Impact
Risks to waterways and tribal rights · 5 points
| 01 | The facility borders a drainage ditch that runs directly into the Swinomish Channel and Padilla Bay, tidal waters used in interstate commerce and critical to marine ecosystems. Any spill from Venoil’s facility could reach these navigable waters within hours. | high |
| 02 | The Swinomish Channel is a relatively permanent tributary of Padilla Bay, which connects to Puget Sound and ultimately the Pacific Ocean via the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Oil contamination could spread through this entire interconnected marine system. | high |
| 03 | Indigenous communities in the Pacific Northwest maintain deep cultural and economic ties to marine life in these waters. A severe spill could degrade fisheries upon which local tribes rely for subsistence and spiritual practices. | high |
| 04 | Local residents in Anacortes and nearby fishing communities depend on pristine coastal ecosystems for tourism and commercial fishing. Industrial contamination could drive away tourists, devastate fisheries, and spawn costly cleanup operations that burden taxpayers. | medium |
| 05 | If oil pollution were to contaminate local soils or the water table, property values in the area would decline and small businesses relying on natural surroundings would suffer, widening wealth disparity as individuals with fewer resources find it harder to relocate. | medium |
Public Health and Safety
Risks to workers and environment · 4 points
| 01 | Workers at Venoil handle oil daily in tanks showing significant corrosion and structural deterioration. The company’s failure to maintain proper tank integrity raises serious questions about overall workplace safety culture. | high |
| 02 | The absence of written inspection procedures beyond basic checklists means workers lacked clear guidance on identifying and responding to oil leaks, increasing risks of uncontrolled releases and worker exposure. | medium |
| 03 | Venoil’s deficient notification procedures could delay emergency response in the event of a spill, extending the duration of environmental contamination and public exposure to oil vapors and residues. | medium |
| 04 | Oil pollution is notorious for far-reaching impacts. Even moderate leaks can contaminate soil and waterways, tainting wildlife habitats and posing health hazards through contaminated fish and shellfish consumption. | medium |
Corporate Accountability Failures
How Venoil avoided responsibility · 5 points
| 01 | Venoil neither admitted nor denied the violations in the consent agreement, allowing the company to settle without formally acknowledging wrongdoing or accepting legal liability. | high |
| 02 | The settlement occurred only after EPA conducted multiple inspections and documented extensive deficiencies. Venoil did not voluntarily come forward to correct its SPCC plan failures. | medium |
| 03 | The consent agreement contains no requirement for independent third-party audits or ongoing monitoring to verify that Venoil actually implements the compliance measures it promises. | medium |
| 04 | Venoil’s representative certified that the company had corrected the violations as of the agreement signing date, but the settlement imposes no specific benchmarks or deadlines for demonstrating sustained compliance. | medium |
| 05 | The final order explicitly states it does not waive EPA’s right to pursue future enforcement for other violations, suggesting the agency expects potential ongoing compliance issues. | low |
Economic Fallout
Who bears the real costs · 4 points
| 01 | The $57,800 penalty must be paid within 30 days, but penalties paid under this settlement are not tax-deductible, preventing Venoil from offsetting the cost through reduced federal tax obligations. | low |
| 02 | If Venoil fails to pay the penalty on time, the company faces additional interest charges at IRS underpayment rates, a 20 percent quarterly non-payment penalty, and potential referral to collection agencies or administrative offset against federal payments. | medium |
| 03 | The consent agreement required EPA to report the settlement to the IRS on Form 1098-F because the total penalty exceeded $50,000, creating a permanent federal record of the violation. | low |
| 04 | Society, local communities, and future generations bear the environmental cleanup costs that inadequate spill prevention creates, paying in time, money, and health to rectify damage that proper compliance would have prevented. | high |
Exploiting Delay
Years of inaction · 4 points
| 01 | Venoil operated under its deficient 2013 SPCC plan for nine years without conducting the mandatory five-year review, effectively extending the plan’s lifespan by 80 percent beyond the legal maximum. | high |
| 02 | After EPA identified plan deficiencies in a 2018 inspection, Venoil waited until April 2022 to develop a new SPCC plan, a delay of nearly four years during which the facility continued handling oil under inadequate safeguards. | high |
| 03 | Even the 2022 SPCC plan that Venoil finally produced still contained multiple violations, including missing procedures, incomplete diagrams, and incorrect notification protocols, showing the company had not used the four-year delay to achieve full compliance. | medium |
| 04 | At the time of the 2022 inspection, Venoil was still in the process of implementing procedures to empty and clean tanks for formal API 653 inspections, meaning the company had not yet completed basic integrity testing more than a decade after establishing the facility. | medium |
The Bottom Line
What this case reveals · 6 points
| 01 | Venoil’s decade of SPCC violations demonstrates how environmental compliance failures function as wealth transfers from vulnerable communities to corporate shareholders, externalizing risks while privatizing profits. | high |
| 02 | The settlement treats systematic noncompliance as a technical paperwork problem rather than a fundamental breach of environmental trust, allowing the company to resolve 14 separate violations with a single payment and no admission of wrongdoing. | high |
| 03 | Multi-year gaps between EPA inspections create windows where profit-driven companies can gamble that violations will go undetected, treating occasional penalties as predictable business costs rather than deterrents. | high |
| 04 | This case exemplifies how the regulatory framework places the burden of environmental protection on under-resourced agencies conducting periodic inspections, rather than requiring continuous compliance verification or meaningful community oversight. | medium |
| 05 | Venoil’s violations occurred in an ecologically sensitive area bordering tribal waters, yet the settlement contains no provisions for community input, restitution to affected populations, or independent monitoring to rebuild public trust. | medium |
| 06 | The pattern revealed in this enforcement action is not an anomaly but a feature of a system that allows corporations to externalize environmental costs while communities bear the health risks, cleanup burdens, and long-term ecological damage. | high |
Timeline of Events
March 2013
Venoil develops first SPCC Plan for Anacortes facility
March 2018
Five-year SPCC plan review deadline passes without Venoil conducting required evaluation
2018
EPA conducts inspection and provides Venoil list of SPCC plan deficiencies
April 2022
Venoil finally develops updated SPCC Plan, nearly four years after EPA identified deficiencies
July 12, 2022
EPA conducts follow-up inspection, finding continued violations in the new 2022 SPCC Plan
July 25, 2024
EPA files Consent Agreement and Final Order assessing $57,800 penalty for 14 violations
Direct Quotes from the Legal Record
QUOTE 1
Tanks showing visible deterioration
allegations
“At the time of the 2022 Inspection, Respondent was storing bulk oil in multiple tanks with significant paint chipping and cracking, metal corrosion, and de-lamination of metal on the sides”
💡 This demonstrates Venoil operated deteriorating equipment that posed immediate spill risks
QUOTE 2
No inspection records provided
allegations
“At the time of the 2022 Inspection, the Facility did not provide any records of formal integrity testing and inspection”
💡 The company failed to document required safety inspections for years
QUOTE 3
Missing secondary containment plans
allegations
“The 2013 and 2022 SPCC Plans do not expressly describe the general secondary containment features for areas used to store mobile and portable oil containers”
💡 Without containment plans, spills could flow directly into navigable waters
QUOTE 4
Failed to conduct five-year review
regulatory
“The Facility does not have any documentation that it has conducted any five-year reviews of the 2013 SPCC Plan. EPA conducted an inspection in 2018 and subsequently provided Respondent with a list of plan deficiencies which should have resulted in Respondent updating its SPCC Plan”
💡 Venoil ignored both legal requirements and direct EPA warnings to fix its plan
QUOTE 5
Proximity to critical waterways
community
“A drainage ditch borders the northern boundary of the Facility, which drains into road ditches running east to the Swinomish Channel and Padilla Bay. The Swinomish Channel is tidal and was and is used in interstate and foreign commerce. The Swinomish Channel is also a relatively permanent tributary of Padilla Bay”
💡 The facility sits directly adjacent to ecologically and commercially critical marine waters
QUOTE 6
Connection to tribal waters
community
“Indigenous communities in the Pacific Northwest have deep cultural and economic ties to marine life. A severe spill or long-term contamination event might degrade a fishery upon which local tribes rely for both subsistence and spiritual practices”
💡 Venoil’s failures threatened constitutionally protected tribal treaty fishing rights
QUOTE 7
Incorrect notification procedures
health
“The 2022 SPCC Plan, Section 1.4.3, defines ‘immediately’ as, ‘as soon as a person is available to call the National Response Center without further endangering human life or environment; but in no event no longer than two hours after the release has taken place.’ Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 112.7(a)(4) by incorrectly identifying two hours as the time period during which notification can occur”
💡 Venoil’s plan authorized illegal delays in reporting spills, potentially allowing contamination to spread
QUOTE 8
Wrong reportable quantity threshold
health
“The 2022 SPCC Plan, Section 1.4.3, states that ‘reportable quantities for oil and petroleum products typically found at this facility would be 42 gallons.’ 40 C.F.R. § 110.6 requires notification for any reportable discharge of oil. Reportable discharges include oil discharges that, regardless of volume, cause either: (1) a violation of applicable water quality standards; or (2) a film, sheen upon, or discoloration of the surface of the water”
💡 The company’s plan would allow workers to ignore spills creating visible sheens as long as volume stayed below 42 gallons
QUOTE 9
Professional Engineer certification deficiency
accountability
“The PE attestation in the 2022 SPCC Plan does not state that procedures for required inspections and testing have been established”
💡 Even the professional engineer hired to certify the plan failed to confirm basic safety procedures existed
QUOTE 10
No admission of wrongdoing
accountability
“Respondent neither admits nor denies the specific factual allegations contained in this Consent Agreement”
💡 The settlement allows Venoil to pay a fine without accepting legal responsibility for violations
QUOTE 11
Penalty calculation factors
economic
“EPA has taken into account the seriousness of the alleged violations; Respondent’s economic benefit of noncompliance; the degree of culpability involved; any other penalty for the same incident; any history of prior violations; the nature, extent, and degree of success of any efforts of the violator to minimize or mitigate the effects of the discharge; the economic impact of the penalty on the violator; and any other matters as justice may require”
💡 EPA considered the economic benefit Venoil gained from avoiding compliance costs when setting the penalty
QUOTE 12
Penalties not tax deductible
economic
“Penalties, interest, and other charges paid pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deductible for purposes of federal taxes”
💡 Venoil cannot reduce the penalty’s impact by claiming it as a business expense
QUOTE 13
Years without completing tank inspections
delay_tactics
“At the time of the 2022 Inspection, Respondent was in the process of implementing procedures to empty and clean the tanks to prepare them for formal API 653 inspections. Although the procedures were not yet fully operational, the 2022 SPCC Plan failed to discuss the schedule and/or include any related explanatory narrative on how initial API 653 tank integrity testing and inspections would be accomplished”
💡 More than nine years after establishing the facility, Venoil still had not completed basic tank integrity testing
QUOTE 14
Deviation from industry standards without justification
allegations
“The 2022 SPCC Plan and its Appendix F checklists provide for the applicable periodic in-service inspections, but at a quarterly and annual rate, which is not consistent with the routine in-service minimum monthly API 653 requirement. The 2022 SPCC Plan does not account for the deviation in frequency of formal integrity and testing inspections by explaining the reasons for the nonconformance”
💡 Venoil claimed to follow industry safety standards while actually conducting inspections one-third as frequently
QUOTE 15
No provision for mobile container inspections
allegations
“The quarterly checklist also does not include any provisions for routine periodic inspection and documentation for mobile and portable containers”
💡 An entire category of oil storage containers received no regular safety inspections at all
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Venoil do wrong?
Venoil operated a bulk oil facility in Anacortes, Washington with a deficient spill prevention plan for over nine years. The company failed to conduct required monthly tank inspections, stored oil in visibly corroded tanks, lacked adequate secondary containment for portable containers, never completed the mandatory five-year plan review, and provided incorrect spill notification procedures to workers.
Did any actual oil spills occur?
The EPA consent agreement does not allege that a major spill occurred. However, the violations created substantial risk that oil could reach the Swinomish Channel, Padilla Bay, and Puget Sound if equipment failed. SPCC regulations exist specifically to prevent spills before they happen, not just to punish companies after disasters occur.
How much did Venoil pay in penalties?
Venoil agreed to pay $57,800 in civil penalties. This amount is not tax-deductible. If the company fails to pay within 30 days, it faces additional interest charges at IRS rates, a 20 percent quarterly non-payment penalty, and potential referral to collection agencies.
Why does this matter if no spill happened?
Clean Water Act spill prevention requirements exist precisely to avoid catastrophic environmental damage before it occurs. Venoil’s facility sits next to a drainage ditch that flows directly into waters used by tribal fisheries and supporting critical marine ecosystems. The violations meant that if a tank failed or a spill occurred, there were inadequate barriers to prevent oil from reaching these sensitive waterways.
What communities were put at risk?
Residents of Anacortes, Washington and nearby tribal communities with fishing rights in the Swinomish Channel and Padilla Bay faced elevated risks. These waterways connect to Puget Sound, a large inland estuary supporting commercial fisheries, tribal subsistence fishing, tourism, and diverse marine habitats. Oil contamination could devastate shellfish beds, harm migratory birds, and contaminate fish consumed by local populations.
Did Venoil admit wrongdoing?
No. The consent agreement explicitly states that Venoil neither admits nor denies the factual allegations. The company agreed to pay the penalty and certified it had corrected the violations, but did not formally acknowledge legal responsibility for the nine years of alleged noncompliance.
What happens if Venoil violates the law again?
The final order states that the settlement does not waive EPA’s right to pursue future enforcement for other violations. EPA can conduct additional inspections and bring new enforcement actions if it discovers continued or new noncompliance. The settlement only resolves the specific violations alleged through the July 2022 inspection.
How long did these violations continue?
The alleged violations span from at least March 2013 when Venoil developed its first deficient SPCC plan through the July 2022 EPA inspection, a period of over nine years. EPA identified problems in a 2018 inspection, but Venoil continued operating with inadequate safeguards until settlement in 2024.
What should happen to prevent this in the future?
Reforms could include mandatory third-party audits of SPCC plans, unannounced facility inspections, higher financial bonding requirements to cover cleanup costs, community oversight boards with inspection authority, stronger whistleblower protections for workers who report deficiencies, and penalties large enough to exceed the economic benefit companies gain from noncompliance.
What can I do as a concerned citizen?
Contact your congressional representatives to demand stronger environmental enforcement funding and shorter inspection intervals for oil facilities. Support tribal nations advocating for treaty fishing rights and water quality protections. File Freedom of Information Act requests to monitor compliance at industrial facilities near your community. Join or donate to environmental justice organizations working on Clean Water Act enforcement. Pressure businesses that purchase oil products to verify their suppliers maintain robust spill prevention programs.
The EPA’s CAFO can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-05/cwa-10-2024-0048-venoil.pdf
💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.
- 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
- 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
- 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
- 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
- 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.
