What happens when your fueling systems are out of compliance? Sometimes they leak. Often Notices of Violations (NOVs) will be given and fines may be assessed. Below are two examples recently shared by the Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI), one from Texas – regulated by the TCEQ and one from California – regulated by the California State Resources Board (and individual CUPAs throughout the state). The PEI Convention at the NACS Show is coming up this October in Las Vegas, NV. TAIT will be there and will have a booth #7012 . Stop by and see us or contact us to learn more about keeping your fuel system in compliance. We have been working with fueling systems for over 50 years as a consultant and contractor and can answer questions and offer trusted advice on your particular situation.
From PEI’s Newsletter:
IN THE COURTS
Nicholas Petroleum, Inc. learned of a possible leak in 2006, when the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) asked the company to inspect its underground gasoline tanks (USTs) after reports of subsurface contamination. The company conducted the initial environmental investigation—but not the subsurface assessment TCEQ requested—and it ignored further inquiries by the agency until 2008, when a TCEQ inspector located a leak in an unleaded gasoline line. At the agency’s direction, Nicholas then hired a licensed contractor to investigate the release, and well water samples confirmed the contamination. TCEQ formally advised Nicholas on February 5, 2009, that it was a potential responsible party (PRP). Nicholas filed a claim with its insurance company, Mid-Continent Casualty. Co., Inc., on April 10, 2009, and the insurer denied it. Mid-Continent cited a provision in its policy stating that the insured had 30 days after receipt of the claim from TCEQ for filing a written claim with Mid-Continent, and that Nicholas had failed to do so.A Texas appeals court held that contracts must be enforced as written, and the notice requirement in the policy trumped the fact that Mid-Continent admittedly suffered no prejudice by the late filing.
The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency negotiated a $1.35 million agreement to resolve alleged UST violations at four facilities, the California State Water Resources Board said July 27. Specific allegations accused the transportation agency of failing to ensure monthly inspections and testing of various equipment; recordkeeping failures; failure to adequately maintain spill containment systems and equip USTs with overfill protection; and making false statements to authorities. The settlement requires the agency to pay $425,000 in penalties and $100,000 for reimbursement of enforcement costs. State officials agreed to suspend $850,000 in penalties and other payments if, over the next five years, the agency completes several enhanced compliance projects and remains in compliance with the laws and terms of the final consent judgment.