About

Tag Archive for LUST

May 16th, 2018

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Spotlight: Soil Conditions

Vent stack and fill port for a former fuel oil tank where the building has been converted to natural gas for its heat.

During the course of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ASTM E1527-13), Gabriel attempts to document soil conditions through visual observations, regulatory database review, and historic document review.

Visual observations may include:

  • Above-ground storage tanks
  • Evidence of underground storage tanks (eg: vent stacks or fill ports)
  • Drums
  • Staining or corrosion
  • Stressed vegetation
  • Pools of liquid
  • Hazardous materials
  • Wells
  • Septic systems or cesspools
  • Geological/topographical observations

Regulatory database and historic document review may include:

  • Underground Storage Tank (UST) installation or removal records
  • Leaking USTs
  • Past uses of property
  • Records of hazardous materials usage and/or violations
  • Environmental remediation/clean up
  • Fire insurance maps

If a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) impacting the site’s soil is discovered either through visual observation or a review of regulatory databases or historic documents during a Phase I, Gabriel may recommend soil borings to investigate if there is analytical data showing hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the property.

Contact Natalie Neuman, Group Leader Assessment Services, at nneuman[at]gabenv.com or 773-486-2123 with any questions about how Gabriel assesses soil conditions during a Phase I.

July 29th, 2015

OSFM fines owner record $610,000 for UST violations

Failure to follow underground storage tank (UST) regulations can be osfmcostly, as a gas station owner in Silvis, IL recently discovered.

Baldev Singh was fined $610,000 for multiple violations by the Illinois Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM). This judgment is the largest ever awarded to the OSFM against an individual owner of a UST facility.

The Rock Island County Circuit Court issued a Default Judgment Order on July 14, 2015 after Mr. Singh failed to appear to defend himself against the lawsuit filed by OSFM.

The ‘Jack and Jill’ gas station ceased operations sometime in late 2011.  OSFM first issued a notice of violation in 2012 for regulatory deficiencies regarding the two USTs.  Then in 2013, OSFM ordered the remaining gasoline from its tanks to be emptied and the USTs to be upgraded or removed.  When Mr. Singh did not comply with either notice of violation, OSFM filed a lawsuit against him in May 2014.

“Gasoline tanks left unattended with remaining fuel pose a significant risk to the public,” said Deputy Director Les Albert. “The Office of the State Fire Marshal remains vigilant in its mission to ensure the protection of lives and property.”

In a separate case, OSFM was also recently awarded a $365,000 judgment against another UST owner who did not properly remove their out-of-service USTs in Oakwood, IL.

The State of Illinois has been cracking down on UST violations.  If your facility receives a notice of violation from OSFM, do not ignore it.  Failure to address the violations can result in significant fines and penalties.  While the cases above are among the higher fines assessed, OSFM is more routinely penalizing UST owners $50,000 – $100,000, plus the cost to correct the violations.

If you need assistance with your UST violations, contact Nancy Valenta at nvalenta[at]gabenv.com or 773-486-2123.

http://www3.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=55&RecNum=13189

http://www3.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=55&RecNum=13127

August 6th, 2014

What the heck is a “CREC”?

When the new E1527-13 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment standard was released in late 2013, ASTM included a new term: CREC. ASTMlogo

A CREC is a Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition, a subset of the traditional REC. CREC was developed to address the controlled presence of potential hazardous substances or petroleum products, as defined by the local environmental regulatory agency.

CREC examples:

  • Site A had a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) incident which was cleaned up to the satisfaction of the IEPA, with a land use restriction (eg: could only be used for commercial-industrial use). This would be considered a CREC since there are still hazardous substances and/or petroleum products present on the property, however the property has  been deemed safe for commercial or industrial use (though not residential use).
  • Site B was a former industrial operation that went through the Site Remediation Program (SRP) cleanup process. As part of the No Further Remediation (NFR) letter, the contaminated part of the property must remain capped by an engineered barrier. This would be considered a CREC since there are still hazardous substances present on the property, however they have been controlled by the engineered barrier.

Though the CREC is considered a REC, most CRECs would not be a major concern for a buyer or their lender. This language was developed to clarify situations such as these in order to give purchasers and lenders greater peace of mind about these sites.