Environmental Compliance. Simplified.

Tag: Regulations

Regulations are in Effect for Illinois UST Facility Owners and Operators

0 comments
By Posted on December 6, 2018 in Environmental Compliance News, Managing Risk, UST Regulatory Updates

As of October 13th 2018, the Illinois Office of State Fire Marshall (OSFM) requires that all Illinois UST owner and operators  conduct regular operation and maintenance walkthrough inspections. 

The Regulations Explained

The new OSFM regulations require that Class A Operators (who are responsible for operating and maintaining the UST systems) and Class B Operators (who are responsible for daily operation, maintenance, and record keeping for the UST systems) must perform walkthrough inspections of each UST system and must record the results of each inspection on a checklist. These checklists must be maintained with the facility records.  

Monthly Requirements

As a part of the requirements, the walkthrough inspections must be completed at least once every thirty days, now referred to as ‘The 30 Day Rule‘. As a part of the 30 day rule inspections, owner are required to inspect:
  • Release detection methods, monitoring systems and associated sensors
  • Spill and overfill prevention and spill containment equipment and manholes
  • Dispensers, hoses, breakaways and hardware 
  • Operational status of impressed current cathodic protection systems which includes:
    • Checking and recording that the power is on
    • Verifying that the voltage, amps and hour meter have the appropriate readings required under Section 175.510(f)
    • Creating a log entry that shows date of inspection, initials of inspector, hour, volt and amp readings, and power on verification.

Yearly Requirements

Once per year, UST Owners are required to:
  • Inspect all containment sumps
    • Document any visual damage to the sumps, covers and lids
    • Document any presence of regulated substances or any indication that a release may have occurred
    • Inspect sumps and the interstitial areas for any double-walled sumps with interstitial monitoring are free of water, product and debris
  • Inspect all UST equipment including:
    • Emergency stops for the presence or absence of visible damage to any UST component
  • Document  emergency stops and verify that they were tested by the owner/operator or a contractor for interconnection and pump shutdown
  • Document that the shear valves were visually inspected by the owner/operator or a contractor
  • Verify all required signs and ensure they are fully visible and all communication systems are in place and operational
  • Maintain all daily, 30-day, monthly and annual inspections, testing, reporting and records 
  • If applicable, the tank gauge stick or groundwater bailers, for operability and serviceability (manual tank gauging or groundwater monitoring)
We have over 50 years combined experience in the fuel compliance industry – let us take over your walkthrough inspection requirements. Our employees and trainers are Joint B Operators, so we can perform onsite Operator C training to attendees as needed and complete all the new requirements. Email us to get more information or schedule a pilot with us today! Read the original press release here: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/periodic-operation-and-maintenance-83132/

Coleman Oil Faces up to $1 Million in Damages from UST Spill

0 comments
By Posted on December 3, 2018 in Environmental Compliance News

Coleman Oil has been charged over $189,000 in fines for spilling more than 3,840 gallons of biodiesel into the Columbia river and nearby areas.

The cause of the spill was the result of a corroded underground pipe that was laid at Coleman Oil’s oil plant in 1935. Coleman Oil did not complete their regular inventory control procedures or underground piping industry standard inspections which caused the corrosion and leak to go undetected. The biodiesel leaked into the Columbia river which caused an on and off sheen on the rivers surface.

The Department of Ecology Spills Program responded to the site on March 17, 2017 when the visible sheen was first reported. Tests were conducted and lab results identified the pollution as biodiesel. The Department of Ecology was able to trace the leak back to the Coleman Oil facility located near the river. According to Dale Jensen, the manager for the Department of Ecology Spills Program, the spill “could easily have been prevented if the company had been properly monitoring the fuel level in that tank.”

Coleman Oil’s oil plant in Wenatchee is now a toxic cleanup site. According to news sources,  the company has been cooperative and responsive during the investigation and has worked on site cleanup since October 2017. Additionally, groundwater monitoring wells are installed and regularly sample the groundwater to verify how much contamination remains and pump out any remaining toxic contaminants to protect the river. According to the Department of Ecology, the investigation will continue and they will verify whether the river’s sediment or surrounding ground is contaminated from the spill.

Coleman Oil has been charged $189.000 in fines in addition to $213,400 to be paid to the state for spill response costs. The resource damage assessment, environmental restoration costs, enhancement project costs, and additional funding costs are still to be determined. The total state penalty including the cost reimbursement and damage assessment are expected to total more than $1 million. All funds collected from the penalty are to be put towards the state’s Coastal Protection Fund.

If you haven’t been keeping up with your State and Federal compliance requirements or if you’re struggling to understand your requirements, leave us a comment or call us at 888-400-3511.

Read the original story here: http://www.kpq.com/coleman-oil-could-face-1-million-in-fines-and-damages-for-columbia-river-spill/

Warren County, Tennessee Involved in TDEC UST Violation Case

0 comments
By Posted on November 29, 2018 in Uncategorized
The Warren County Airport located in McMinnville, Tennessee was inspected by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) on June 27th, 2018. TDEC found a release detection violation within the airport’s Underground Storage Tank (UST) systems. According to TDEC’s records, the airport “was missing six months of release detection records”. Additionally, the airport was unable to provide records for the Automatic Tank Gauge’s (ATG) alarm history at the time of the inspection – a direct violation of State regulations. While the airport was able to submit documentation of these records, they were received documentation on September 20th, 2018 – after the initial inspection was concluded. TDEC has ordered the Warren County Airport to pay a civil penalty of $3,200, though the airport may make an early payment or undertake UST training to lessen the civil penalty amount. Read the entire news release written by Walter Wright here: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/storage-tank-enforcement-tennessee-91680/

A Philadelphia Sunoco Pays $22,080 in Underground Storage Tank Non-Compliance Fines

0 comments
By Posted on November 15, 2018 in Uncategorized

A Sunoco station in Philadelphia has agreed to pay $22,080 in penalties due to not meeting the UST’s leak detection and recordkeeping compliance requirements between 2015 and 2017. As part of the agreement, the Sunoco is now within the State and Federal compliance requirements.

The EPA’s UST regulations are intended to protect the public from a contaminated or a polluted water supply. If a UST malfunctions and a leak is detected, it endangers the health and safety of surrounding neighborhoods.

For site owners still scrambling after the October 13th deadline, we’re here to help! We complete over 2,000 inspections a month and we have over fifty years combined experience in the fuel compliance industry. Our team of professionals can help you navigate both your federal and state requirements to minimize your site’s non-compliance risk.

To speak to one of our compliance experts, call us at 888-400-3511 or email us at info@7g-enviro.com.

Read the original article here: https://www.petrolplaza.com/news/9635

Update: EPA Proposes Approval of Utah’s Revised UST Program

0 comments
By Posted on November 7, 2018 in Environmental Compliance News, UST Regulatory Updates

Overview: The EPA has determined that the State of Utah’s UST program meets all requirements for the program’s approval and will go into effect on January 4th, 2019.  The rule is subject to withdraw by the EPA prior to December 5, 2018 if implications arise.

 The program approval by the EPA means that now all Utah UST systems must be ‘equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the federal UST program’. Because of the update to the EPA’s federal guidelines, states are required to revise their programs to comply with the federal guidelines and submit their revisions to the EPA for approval. This program approval does not impose additional requirements since these requirements were already in effect in Utah. However, it does make these regulations federally enforceable.

For a full list of questions and responses by the Government Publishing Office, click here.

For a full list of Utah state requirements, click here.

FDEP Broadens Law for Pitting Corrosions – What Does this Mean for You?

0 comments
By Posted on August 28, 2018 in Environmental Compliance News, Managing Risk, UST Regulatory Updates

A Quick Summary of the Legal Changes:

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) published the new changes on August 27th, 2018 based on the June 20th Rule Development Workshops. The new law states that “Any visual inspection of any part of a storage tank system, dispenser, pipe, valve, pump, or other wetted portion of the system containing regulated substances that reveals uncontrolled pitting corrosion, structural damage, leakage, or other similar problems”. In other words, the FDEP has specifically included “pitting corrosion” as an incident under  62-761.430.

What Does that Mean for You and Why Does this Matter Right Now?

For our present and future Florida clients who no longer inspect the inside of their sumps, owners are now required to report pitting corrosion as an incident and investigate it. If pitting corrosion is identified within the sump, the owner is responsible for the repairs.

How Can You Prevent Additional Overhead Costs?

Thankfully, our team is prepared to handle any potential sump corrosion. Out team uses the Zerust (https://www.zerust.com/) product to fix corrosion issues, reducing overhead costs, and enhancing overall customer experience. We foresee this ruling change becoming an issue if sumps are not inspected for pitting corrosion. Our inspectors provides a 5-day notice of an inspection between our sump inspections. When the inspector opens the sumps, there could be an incident for pump head and other components that are pitting from the corrosion. Consequently, a NCL could be issued and the client would have 14 days to have it resolved under the new law.

For Further Reading Taken from the FDEP Website:

Chapter 62-761, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.):

  • Chapter 62-761, F.A.C., August 2018 Coded Draft Rules to be Amended
  • Form 62-761.900(2) Storage Tank Facility Registration Form August 2018
  • Form 62-761.900(3) Financial Mechanisms for Storage Tanks August 2018
  • Instructions for Conducting Sampling During Underground Storage Tank Closure, August 2018

Chapter 62-762, F.A.C., August 2018 Coded Draft Rules to be Amended

  • Form 62-762.901(2) Storage Tank Facility Registration Form August 2018
  • Instructions for Conducting Sampling During Aboveground Storage Tank Closure, August 2018
Additional Rulemaking documents located on the Storage Tank Systems Rulemaking webpage from the June 20, 2018, Rule Development Workshops did not have additional changes after the workshops.