Environmental Compliance. Simplified.

Category: Environmental Compliance News

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/

Two West Virginia Sites Involved in a Department of Environmental Protection Lawsuit

0 comments
By Posted on November 26, 2018 in Environmental Compliance News, Managing Risk

Cope’s Supermarket Inc. and Norma Jean Cope in Ravenswood, West Virginia are tied up in a non-compliance lawsuit that could cost the companies up to $25,000 per day in damages. The lawsuit is spearheaded by Harold D. Ward, the acting director of the Division of Water and Waste Management of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection.

According to the WV DEP office, the defendants own and operate three underground storage tanks in Ravenswood and have failed to correct documented violations that were reported back in 2016. The consequences of this lawsuit could result in civil penalties of up to “$25,000 per day for continued noncompliance and $10,000 per day all other violations of the USTA, costs, disbursements, attorney, witness and consultant fees, and other relief as the court deems just”.

If you’re struggling to navigate the EPA’s newest regulations, we’d be happy to explain both the federal and state UST requirements. We pride ourselves in covering the entire compliance supply chain from fulfilling your monthly and yearly physical inspection requirements to obtaining valuable data related to your site inefficiencies. More often than not, our services reduce your overhead costs and save you time, money, and stress. For more information or to ask us any compliance-related questions, please contact us at info@7g-enviro.com or call us at 888-400-3511.

To read more and continue to monitor these lawsuits, see the original article here: https://wvrecord.com/stories/511619503-wvdep-director-alleges-ravenswood-underground-tank-owners-failed-to-comply-with-order“

Minnesota Underground Storage Tank Regulations Delayed Due to Public Hearing Requests

0 comments
By Posted on November 8, 2018 in Environmental Compliance News, UST Regulatory Updates

October 25th 2018 – 30 public hearing requests were submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regarding the newest Underground Storage Tank (UST) regulations.

Our in-house Regulatory Specialist, Chrissie Rakowski submitted her own public comment and request for a hearing. Her statement is as follows:

The proposed rule adversely affects the regulated community of tank owners by limiting their options and potentially increasing the cost of the work to be done, while giving preferential treatment unnecessarily to tank testers contrary to industry standards and the EPA rule. There is nothing that states in either the PEI RP-900, or the EPA’s 40 CFR that annual walkthroughs require an agency-certified tester to conduct annual walkthroughs of spill containment and sumps, thereby limiting business at the expense of inspection and maintenance companies, consultants, and experts in the industry while requiring testers to go beyond scope of practice. Industry professionals are certified A/B in multiple states and are knowledgeable of UST regulations, have degrees or years of experience in the field, and can carry ICC certification.

You can review our request in addition to the 29 others here: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/ust-rule1-09.pdf

 

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.

2015 Soil Investigation Settlement Agreement Reached After Finding Contaminated Soil

0 comments
By Posted on November 6, 2018 in Environmental Compliance News, Petroleum Storage Tank Systems

In Fenton, Michigan lied the old Fairbanks gas station that was once a Marathon. It had been in the Fairbanks family for over 55 years when the station closed down in 2003 and was finally demolished in early October 2018.

A petroleum leak was first found at the station’s Underground Storage Tank (UST) site in 2015 after a follow-up investigation years after the station’s closure in 2003. According to investigators and the Tri-County Times press release, the contents in the UST taken after the initial investigation surpassed the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) limits.

The investigation showed the surrounding soil and groundwater was contaminated and had migrated off-site. The settlement agreement concluded in May 2018 with the landowner responsible for resolving the cleanup obligations. Also, the agreement allowed the DEQ to initiate site cleanup and work began in September 2018.

Clean-up and restoration activities include removal of the UST’s and contaminated soil and asbestos building materials. In addition to removal, sheet piling will be installed to ensure that the excavation efforts do not damage roadways or pavement. The total removal, cleanup, and demolition will total $595,000. Once cleanup efforts conclude, the site will continue to be monitored for leak detection and soil contamination for a year after excavation. Once their initial investigation concludes, the DEQ will create a report documenting the release available in January 2019.

Sources: https://www.tctimes.com/news/deq-cleaning-up-leak-at-old-fairbanks-gas-station/article_bf9ef8c2-dec7-11e8-a096-f70ddb84fe93.html http://lindenmi.us/index.php/news/216-remediation-at-former-fairbanks-marathon.html

Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) Proposes Testing Requirements Deadline Extension

0 comments
By Posted on September 10, 2018 in Environmental Compliance News, UST Regulatory Updates

Alabama’s Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) has Proposed to Extend the Current October 13th Testing Requirements Deadline to 2020.

If the proposal is accepted, current UST owners and operators have ‘more time to prepare their equipment to meet these testing requirements and correction of typographical errors.’ You can find the proposal document summary here.

The ADEM’s Summary of Reasons Supporting the Adoption of the Proposed Amendments Chapter 335-6-16 Administrative Guidelines and Procedures for the Alabama Underground and Aboveground Storage Tank Trust Fund.

“A revision to ADEM Admin. Code Chapter 335-6-16 is being proposed to implement an adjustment to the Trust Fund scope of coverage as recommended by the Alabama Underground and Aboveground Storage Tank Trust Fund Management Board in accordance with the Alabama Underground and Aboveground Storage Tank Trust Fund Act, §§ 22-36-1 through 22-36-13, Code of Alabama 1975, as amended (2009 Regular Session). The Alabama Underground and Aboveground Storage Tank Trust Fund Management Board has recommended a change to the Trust Fund scope of coverage to ensure that necessary resources are available to perform required actions at sites impacted by releases of motor fuels. Adoption of the proposed changes will enable the Trust Fund to continue to fulfill its legislative mandate that adequate financial resources be readily available to provide for the expeditious supply of safe and potable water to affected persons and to provide a means for investigation and clean-up at contamination sites without delay. Without adequate resources, delays in response actions can result in the continuation and intensification of the threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, in greater damages to the environment, and in significantly higher costs to contain and remove the contamination. The proposed change is as follows: Rule 335-6-16-.09 “Scope of Tank Trust Fund Coverage” is being amended to increase the indemnification limit for a release from $1.5 million to $1.75 million per occurrence, less the applicable deductible.“

In other words, the ADEM has proposed a delay in order to ensure that the Trust Fund has resources prepared, without delay, in the event that there is contamination found on-site. ADEM fears that the state may not have enough resources prepared for an emergency by the October 13th deadline which could result “in the continuation and intensification of the threat to public health, safety, and welfare” in addition to higher overall containment and contamination costs and environmental damages.

Secondly, there are additional proposed changes to Alabama’s Division 6 Land Division.

This proposal suggests the following:
Revisions to the Division 6 Code are being proposed to amend the implementation date for new testing  requirements to allow UST owners and operators more time to prepare their equipment to meet these  testing requirements and correction of typographical errors.  The phrase [effective date of rule] has been replaced with December 8, 2017 throughout the document.  Additionally, a typo in a rule referenced in rule 335‐6‐15‐.18 has been fixed. Rule 335‐6‐15‐.03 “Applicability” contains the definitions of which UST systems are included under the  regulations and which are exempt or partially exempt. Revisions are being proposed to this rule to  change deadline for UST systems storing fuel solely for emergency power generation to meet release  detection requirements from October 13, 2018 to December 8, 2020.  Rule 335‐6 15‐.09 “Operation, Maintenance, and Testing or Inspection of Spill and Overfill Prevention  Equipment and Containment Systems; and Walkthrough Inspections” contains the requirements for  operation and maintenance of key UST system components, including containment sumps and overfill  prevention devices. Revisions are being proposed to this rule to change the deadline for testing of  containment sumps and overfill prevention devices from October 13, 2018 to December 8, 2020. Rule 335‐6‐15‐.14 “General Release Detection Requirements for All UST Systems” contains the requirements for release detection for all underground tanks and piping. Revisions to this rule are being  proposed alongside the revisions proposed in 335‐615‐.03 to change deadline for UST systems storing  fuel solely for emergency power generation to meet release detection requirements from October 13,  2018 to December 8, 2020.

According to these proposed changes, they also want to extend the October 13th, 2018 deadline to December 8th, 2020 in order to provide UST owners and operators “more time to prepare their equipment to meet these testing requirements.”

There was a hearing on these proposed changes on September 5th, 2018 and we will continue to monitor ADEM’s website for updates.

If you would like to remain informed on all of the latest regulation changes, please contact us using the contact form on our website.

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.

Texas Rules in Effect & Mississippi Posts Drafted Regulations for Public View

1 comments
By Posted on May 21, 2018 in Environmental Compliance News, Featured Content, Managing Risk, UST Regulatory Updates
On May 9th, 2018, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) adopted revisions to their underground and aboveground storage tank regulations. This is part of 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 334. These rules will publish to the Register on May 25th, and will be effective on May 31, 2018. These changes incorporate revisions from the EPA’s 2015 regulation revisions to Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 280. While this is not an exhaustive list, the regulations include the following: – Periodic operation and maintenance requirements for UST systems to conduct walkthrough inspections and test UST system components – Requirements to ensure UST system compatibility before storing certain biofuel blends – New requirements to annually test specific release-detection equipment – Changes to comply with existing EPA release-detection requirements to monitor at least every 30 days (instead of every 35 days), and – Minor rule revisions relating to the fee on delivery of petroleum products to reflect changes that were statutorily implemented in the Texas Water Code in 2015. The state of Mississippi has also posted the redline to their proposed regulations on May 7th and are available for public viewing here. Some proposed regulation changes include the following: – Periodic operation and maintenance requirements both for 30-day and annual inspections – Previously deferred USTs such as airport hydrant systems and emergency generator tanks are now subject to UST regulations. – Updated codes of practice – New Testing requirements and frequencies – Newly added criteria for what can result in the red tagging of your facility – Updates to record retention requirements – 30-day release detection requirements – New criteria and guidelines for planned and unplanned repairs to UST systems and ancillary equipment

Fuel Station Delivery Spills Gasoline in Overfill Accident When Overfill Prevention Ices Over

3 comments
By Posted on March 16, 2018 in Environmental Compliance News, Managing Risk, Petroleum Storage Tank Systems
Overfill prevention and testing of overfill at sites is critical for staying in compliance, and for the protection of the environment. A fuel station in Marquette, Michigan was accidentally overfilled, causing a spill of gasoline into the street and into the storm drain system according to the EPA and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. While the EPA estimated 400-700 gallons, inventory controls and the state determine around 180 gallons were spilled during the incident. Upon review of the site, it was found that the overfill alarm had an intrusion of ice into the system which was a manufacturer defect. Cleanup efforts have taken place at the site, the sewer system, and the nearby river is currently being monitored for potential contamination. As of yet, no contamination in the soil or air has been detected in the surrounding area. More information on this story can be found here.