Underground tank enforcement
EPA Says Required Safeguards Were Missed at Four West Virginia Gasoline Tanks
An EPA settlement identifies repeated gaps in release monitoring, walkthrough inspections, spill prevention equipment and correction records. The tank owner and operator agreed to pay $11,024 and certified that the cited problems had been corrected.
Four underground tanks installed around November 1988 were capable of holding a combined 24,000 gallons of gasoline beneath the Umstott 34915 facility in Petersburg. According to EPA, the systems repeatedly went without required checks or controls during specified periods in 2023 and 2024.
The agency’s account did not begin and end with a paperwork error. It covered the recurring tasks meant to show whether tanks were releasing fuel, whether the facility was being inspected, whether spills could be prevented during operations, and whether identified problems were actually tracked through correction.
The safeguards EPA says went missing
EPA conducted a compliance evaluation inspection on June 27, 2024, then considered additional information supplied by the respondents. The resulting agreement identifies four distinct compliance categories. Each addresses a different point in the system for preventing, detecting or documenting a problem.
Release monitoring
Tank systems had to be monitored for releases every 30 days. EPA identified multiple periods when that monitoring was not performed as required.
Spill prevention equipment
EPA said adequate equipment was not provided for all four tanks on a specified March date and for two tanks during a later period.
Walkthrough inspections
Required operations and maintenance walkthroughs were not conducted every 30 days during two cited periods.
Correction records
EPA said the respondents failed to maintain records describing actions taken to correct issues found during walkthroughs.
The regulatory record
- 40 C.F.R. § 280.41(a)
- EPA cited missed 30-day release monitoring for Tank 1 from at least September 23 through October 22, 2023, and for all four tanks during periods in November 2023 and February 2024.
- 40 C.F.R. § 280.20(c)(1)(i)
- EPA identified inadequate spill prevention equipment for all four tanks on at least March 19, 2024, and for Tanks 2 and 4 from at least June 27 through September 6, 2024.
- 40 C.F.R. § 280.36(a)
- EPA cited missed 30-day walkthrough inspections from at least November 23 through November 26, 2023, and February 12 through February 26, 2024.
- 40 C.F.R. § 280.36(b)
- EPA said correction records were not maintained from at least June 22, 2023, through May 6, 2024.
The record spans months, not one inspection
The cited periods overlap, but they describe different obligations. Their sequence shows that EPA’s case involved recurring compliance duties rather than a single missed task.
-
EPA’s alleged recordkeeping failure spans this period, covering records of actions taken to correct issues found during walkthrough inspections.
-
Tank 1 allegedly went without the required 30-day release monitoring.
-
EPA cited both missed release monitoring and missed walkthrough inspections for all four tanks.
-
EPA again cited both monitoring and walkthrough failures for all four tanks.
-
EPA identified inadequate spill prevention equipment for all four tanks on at least this date.
-
EPA inspected the facility on June 27 and cited inadequate spill prevention equipment for Tanks 2 and 4 through at least September 6.
-
The final order was filed, making the agreement effective and requiring compliance with its terms.
The case documents failed safeguards, not a documented spill
Release monitoring, spill prevention equipment, walkthroughs and correction records form a chain. Monitoring is meant to identify a release. Spill controls are intended to prevent fuel from escaping during operations. Walkthroughs create routine opportunities to find problems. Records show what was done after a problem was identified.
When several links are missing, regulators have less assurance that a tank system is being watched and maintained as required. That is the evidence-supported significance of the case. The agreement does not say gasoline leaked, that soil or water was contaminated, or that anyone suffered an injury or financial loss.
That distinction matters. The $11,024 penalty resolves EPA’s civil penalty claims for the listed compliance violations. It should not be read as a quantified measure of environmental damage, because the order identifies no such damage.
The respondents certified correction without admitting the facts
Woodford Development Co. and Umstott, Inc. accepted the settlement structure, waived a hearing and appeal, and agreed not to contest EPA’s jurisdiction. They also certified, subject to civil and criminal penalties for a false submission, that the alleged violations had been corrected and that information supplied to EPA was true and accurate.
“Neither admit nor deny the specific factual allegations”Expedited Settlement Agreement, paragraph 10
The agreement does not describe a separate factual defense from either company. It also does not detail what equipment was replaced, what monitoring procedures changed, when each correction occurred, or whether EPA conducted a later inspection to verify the work.
The agency identified violations of federal and federally authorized West Virginia underground storage tank requirements.
They admitted jurisdiction, but neither admitted nor denied the specific factual allegations.
A final order incorporated the agreement, required compliance and assessed an $11,024 civil penalty due within 30 days.
What the final order resolves, and what it leaves unseen
The settlement closes EPA’s claims for civil penalties arising from the violations listed in the agreement. It does not convert the respondents’ non-admission into an admission, and it does not establish consequences that the record never documents.
The public record establishes three narrow points
- EPA formally identified recurring compliance failures across four regulatory duties.
- The owner and operator agreed to pay the penalty and certified that the alleged violations were corrected.
- The supplied order provides no technical account of the corrections and no evidence of an actual fuel release or resulting harm.
The case therefore ends with a correction certification, not a public engineering record of the repairs. That gap does not prove the tanks remained unsafe, just as the absence of a documented spill does not erase the importance of the safeguards. It defines the boundary of what this settlement allows the public to know.
Explore by category
Antitrust
Monopolies and anti-competition tactics used to crush rivals.
View Cases →Product Safety Violations
When companies sell dangerous goods, consumers pay the price.
View Cases →Environmental Violations
Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
View Cases →Labor Exploitation
Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
View Cases →Data Breaches & Privacy
Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
View Cases →Financial Fraud & Corruption
Lies, scams, and executive impunity that distort markets.
View Cases →Intellectual Property
IP theft that punishes originality and rewards copying.
View Cases →Misleading Marketing
False claims that waste money and bury critical safety info.
View Cases →Related posts:
How Lima Refining Company’s Alleged Negligence Exposed an Ohio Town to Benzene.
They were only fined $4,500 for dumping 2,300 gallons of oil into local waterways
University of Maryland Hospital Was Only Fined $13.7k For Toxic Waste Mismanagement
The Environmental Impact of Kugler Oil’s Anhydrous Ammonia Leaks
