The Department of Justice (DoJ) says the complaint against ATP Infrastructure Partners and affiliate ATP Oil & Gas Corporation (ATP), which filed for bankruptcy last year, is linked to a floating oil and gas production platform that was employed in the Gulf of Mexico.

The agency claims the ATP Innovator (built 2006) was moored some 45 nautical miles off Louisiana when the alleged violations of the Clean Water Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act were discovered by inspectors from a division of the Department of the Interior.

“ATP failed to properly operate and maintain its wastewater treatment system on the ATP Innovator,” the DoJ wrote in a statement Tuesday. “As a result, excess oil was discharged into the ocean, and an unauthorized chemical dispersant was added to the oily wastewater discharge to mask the presence of oil on the ocean’s surface”.

Authorities claim the dispersant, which was used between October 2010 and March 2012, flowed from a storage tank through a concealed metal tube to an outfall pipe that was located downstream of a sample collection point, which made the chemicals undetectable.

In the suit, officials wrote: “On information and belief the Clearton ZB-103 dispersant was injected into the outfall pipe to mask oil sheen on the ocean surface resulting from ATP’s discharge of wastewater containing quantities of oil in excess of its (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit limit.”

ATP, which was backed by GE Financial Services when opened its doors in 2009, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last August. At the time, it said the 2010 Macondo disaster and a subsequent ban on drilling was to blame for “irreparable” damage to its business model.

The company has since lined up the sale of assets including wells and production equipment. At last check, its portfolio included over two dozen unmanned platforms stationed in the US, UK and Medeteranean.

According to the DoJ complaint, ATP may be liable for fines of up to $32,500 per day for each violation through 12 January 2009 and $37,500 for subsequent violations thereafter. Civil penalties can be increased if the alleged crimes were the result of “gross negligence or willful misconduct”.

You can read the complaint in full by clicking on the link located under the Related Media section to the right of this article