“Respondent admits the jurisdictional allegations in this CAFO and neither admits nor denies the factual allegations and alleged violations in this CAFO.”

💡 Standard legal language allows the company to settle without publicly acknowledging wrongdoing, avoiding reputational damage while paying a penalty.

“Respondent’s January 2015 SPCC Plan failed to adequately and accurately discuss provisions for appropriate containment and/or diversionary structures or equipment to prevent a discharge from the Facility as described in 40 C.F.R. § 112.1(b). Specifically, the Plan did not address the containment for the railcar storage spur, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 112.7(c).”

💡 The facility operated for years without addressing a critical spill prevention requirement for railcars that can hold up to 30,000 gallons of oil near public waterways.

“Respondent’s January 2015 SPCC Plan did not address that all bulk storage container installations are provided with a secondary means of containment for the entire capacity of the largest single container and sufficient freeboard to contain precipitation, and ensure that diked areas are sufficiently impervious to contain discharged oil as required by 40 C.F.R. § 112.8(c)(2).”

💡 The plan lacked fundamental requirements for containing spills and preventing oil from reaching the Illinois River in the event of an accident or equipment failure.

“From January 2015 to February 2023, Respondent’s 2015 SPCC Plan failed to adequately and accurately discuss provisions for appropriate containment and/or diversionary structures or equipment to prevent a discharge from the Facility as described in §112.1(b). Specifically, the Plan did not discuss the containment for the railcar storage spur as required by 40 C.F.R. § 112.7(c).”

💡 For over eight years, the facility’s spill prevention plan remained deficient in addressing a high-risk area where large-volume oil spills could occur.

“From January 2015 to the present, Respondent’s failed to provide that all bulk storage container installations are provided with a secondary means of containment for the entire capacity of the largest single container and sufficient freeboard to contain precipitation, and ensure that diked areas are sufficiently impervious to contain discharged oil as required by 40 C.F.R. § 112.8(c)(2). In particular, Respondent failed to provide a secondary means of containment for its railcar storage spur.”

💡 Even as of the settlement date in September 2024, the actual physical infrastructure required by law had not been installed, meaning the violation continues.

“Respondent failed to complete the railcar storage containment project discussed in Paragraph 43 by the December 31, 2023 deadline.”

💡 The company broke its own commitment to complete required safety improvements, demonstrating a pattern of delays and broken promises over compliance timelines.

“On October 25, 2023, EPA, Region 5, filed a Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) commencing and concluding a matter under Section 311of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1321 with Respondent.”

💡 This is Evonik’s second enforcement settlement for Clean Water Act violations at the Mapleton facility, indicating systemic compliance problems rather than isolated incidents.

“For violations of Section 311(j) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1321(j), EPA has authority, under Section 311(b)(6) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(6), as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, and implemented by 40 C.F.R. Part 19, Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation, to file an Administrative Complaint seeking a civil penalty of $23,048 per violation, or seeking $23,048 per day for each day during which a violation continues, up to a maximum of $288,080 for violations occurring after November 2, 2015 and penalties assessed on or after December 27, 2023.”

💡 EPA had authority to assess up to $288,080 but settled for $149,849, roughly half the maximum, despite years of violations and prior enforcement at this facility.

“Based on analysis of the factors specified in Section 311(b)(8) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(8), the facts of this case, and the Civil Penalty Policy for Section 311(b)(3) and Section 311(j) of the Clean Water Act, dated August 1998, Complainant has determined that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $149,849.”

💡 EPA applied its penalty policy but the resulting fine represents a modest sanction for nearly a decade of non-compliance at a facility storing millions of gallons of oil.

“The oil that Respondent stores, handles, processes, distributes and/or consumes at the Facility could reasonably be expected to discharge to the Illinois River.”

💡 The facility’s location means that any spill from inadequately contained railcars could directly threaten a major public waterway used for drinking water, fishing, and recreation.

“The Facility has an aggregate above-ground storage capacity of greater than 2 million gallons of oil in tanks and containers.”

💡 With over 2 million gallons of oil on site, any major containment failure could result in a catastrophic environmental disaster affecting communities downstream.

“The area that would contain the discharge is large enough to contain the largest capacity of a railcar containing oil or hazardous substances, which is 30,000 gallons, plus sufficient freeboard.”

💡 A single railcar holding 30,000 gallons of oil represents an enormous spill risk that went uncontained for nearly a decade despite federal regulations requiring secondary containment.

“Respondent will add a liner to the containment area for the railcar storage spur, which will be constructed of concrete that is sufficiently impervious by December 31, 2024.”

💡 After missing the December 2023 deadline, the company received yet another year-long extension, meaning full compliance will not occur until nearly ten years after the original deficiency.

“This CAFO constitutes a ‘prior violation’ as that term is used in EPA’s Civil Penalty Policy for Section 311(b)(3) and Section 311(j) of the Clean Water Act to determine Respondent’s ‘history of prior violations’ under Section 311(b)(8) of the CWA 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(8).”

💡 Future violations at this facility should result in higher penalties, though Evonik already had a prior violation and still received a relatively modest settlement in this case.

“Respondent certifies that it is complying with Section 311 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1321, and the implementing oil pollution prevention regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 112.”

💡 The company now certifies compliance only after years of documented violations and regulatory enforcement, raising questions about the credibility of such certifications.