| Author |
Message |
    
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 3840
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 10:13 am: | 
|
Last year my husband had concerns about our underground tank, not for any specific reason, just because of all the horror stories he heard.
He had called our oil co. to find out about putting a tank in the house or under the deck, but was sort of blown off, meaning the guy he needed to speak with was never able to meet with him — he left work at 3:30 and due to work commitments my husband said he needed to meet after 4pm. I specifically remember this because my husband was ticked off about the whole situation.
Fast forward...we play around with the idea of moving and our RE agent asks about oil tank insurance. We mention it was never presented to us. In order to get insurance, we get the tank tested. (Of course it was tested when we moved in 10 years ago and it was fine.)
So, we now find out the tank is leaking and needs to come out and the DEP or EPA or whomever will have to be involved.
We know it sucks, but it's kind of a kick in the pants that we COULD have had insurance. FWIW, we used this company for boiler maintenance and never had a problem in that regard. That's why it is so odd that this tank insurance was never mentioned.
Any words of advice? |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 2274
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 10:30 am: |
|
Did the previous owners have tank insurance? We knew nothing about it until our attorney mentioned it to us. I thought it was kind of standard around here.
Any way I don't really know what to say except that it sucks. We had it done this past year and it took about three months from start to finish and we still have a large patch in our driveway that is filled in with dirt. Very messy and time consuming. We had tank insurance so thankfully it wasn't a big deal and our leak didn't spill into the ground water or onto a neighbors property. How contaminated is your soil? If the oil leaked into the ground water or onto a neighbor's property your homeowner's policy would kick in. Tank insurance is first party insurance which means that it covers property owned by the policy holder. Homeowner's is third party insurance and covers damage to other's property.
We received a package from the company that did the removal and remdiation and the total that they billed the insurance company was around 11K. Bob M (from the town) told me that the average remediation was around 6K. Of course that doesn't include the cost of a new tank.
Our ordeal started in June and we still haven't received our No Further Action letter from the state which would prove that we are all clear with respect to this whole issue.
|
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 3843
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 10:43 am: |
|
It was not standard when we move in ten years ago. We had it tested but insurance was never mentioned, not by our attorney, our oil company or our insurance agent who handles our homeowners and auto policies.
The contamination doesn't seem absolutely horrific, but bad enough. The testers said there was no water in the tank, which is good.
Of course the tank is in an area where we did a bit of landscaping.
I'm glad we've decided not to move, this would have messed things up, but I am aggravated about the insurance. (Really, the out of pocket cost which really stinks!) |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10375
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 10:51 am: |
|
Some oil companies provide this coverage, others don't. If yours is one that doesn't that is probably why you never heard about it.
OUCH!! |
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 3845
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 10:54 am: |
|
They do Bob...GRRRRRRR!!! But for some reason it's NEVER been in the materials they sent nor was it mentioned when my husband inquired about the tank last year!!!
|
Jennifer
Citizen
Username: Jkohan
Post Number: 40
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 3:31 pm: |
|
Hi There-- I am a realtor in the area and have dealt with oil tanks for a long time. The tank "insurance" is really a maintenance plan and not an insurance plan--managed by your oil company. It's not an "insurance" plan because only insurance brokers can sell insurance--not your oil company.
In any case--there are limits as to what the maintenance plan covers and for what..read the fine print carefully. Depending upon your leak and how much of a leak, it may only cover portions of remediation and removal of your tank. Also, as absurd as it sounds...your homeownwers insurance kicks in to help pay for cost of remediation ONLY when a third party is effected by your tank leak...for example, gets into the ground water, contaminates a neighbor's property, etc. This is almost a scenario that has the best outcome because your homeownwer's insurance will pay for EVERYTHING in that scenario that the maintenance plan does not. In a very small leak situation, you are bound by the maintenance plan and it's limitations.
Sportsnut-- I would check with the contractor that did your removal and sent your soil samples. You should have DEFINATELY received your NFA letter by now. Please note that you need to submit $500 to the State of NJ with your final soil sample report and that they are sent to a processing facility in Montclair that deals with residential tanks...not to Trenton where it can get lost forever. Good Luck. |
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 3847
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 4:01 pm: |
|
Thanks Jennifer, I was just contacted by a claim rep from my homeowners who explained the same thing re: the ground water.
Are you saying the insurance/maintenance is not that beneficial? We DO have a maintenance plan through the oil co. but it's for our burner/furnace.
|
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 6608
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 4:23 pm: |
|
Interesting. I am going to have to take a look at our tank policy, because it is a separate one from our maintenance contract, and underwritten by a different company. I was pretty sure that it is indeed an insurance policy, although I do know that the amount covered is limited. Even so, it mitigates the cost by a few thousand dollars. Everyone I know who has had to use their tank coverage was very glad that they had it. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 2277
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Actually, our tank insurance started out as a maintenance plan but then shifted to real insurance. The plan was administered by Zurich America and they handled the claim.
I got a package in the mail in early December from the contractor. The package had to be notarized and then forwarded on to Trenton (I think). It took a long time for the contractor to get their act together. The remediation was completed in the first week of September. |
Jennifer
Citizen
Username: Jkohan
Post Number: 41
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 4:33 pm: |
|
right--it's a maintenance plan for the TANK..separate from the furnance/boiler. I am familiar with Zurich America--they bought most of the maintenance plans administered by the oil companies around here who didn't want to be involved anymore...but technically it's a maintenance plan. Just as the "insurance" offered by the water company for the water main to your house..it's not really an insurance plan. I just went through this in a transaction and there is alot of confusion with the terms...but the main thing is that make sure you read the fine print. I do think it is worth having because it is the first layer of protection if there is a problem...you just need to be familiar enough with it's coverage and limitations. Also--if you use an independent contractor to test a tank or the soil that is NOT your oil company or a contractor hired by the company that administers the plan, do NOT remove or touch the tank..it may very well void your plan. If a problem is detected with the tank, call the company immediately. There are VERY strict guildelines as to how/when the plan kicks in for removal. |
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 3848
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 5:18 pm: |
|
Well, unfortunately we do not HAVE the tank insurance...for some reason Woolley Fuel never even mentioned it as an option for us even though we've used them and lived in the house for ten years. Specifically last year when my husband expressed concerns to them. You would think instead of blowing off his concerns they would have said " well get the tank tested and get insurance...it will give you peace of mind." NEVER EVEN CAME UP! |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10382
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 5:22 pm: |
|
The plans are actually warranties, similar in concept to extended warranties people buy for their cars, TVs, computers, etc., although even more complex.
Unforutnately none of this helps VIG.
Ten years or so ago the cost of removal was covered by HO-3 (all risk) homeowners policies. Insurers got stuck with so many losses they began to exclude the exposure
|
Hiraeth
Citizen
Username: Hiraeth
Post Number: 9
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 4:50 pm: |
|
VIG do you know that the tank is actually leaking or did it just fail a vacuum test? After problems with our heating, it was recommended we get the oil-tank tested. Fast forward, it failed and the test showed water present in the tank. No worries say the oil tank company, your oil-tank insurance will cover it. So we go ahead and have the tank dug up only to discover it's not leaking. It was in pretty bad shape and the seals were letting in water but it wasn't actually letting out oil. As the tank insurance only covers you if the tank is leaking we were stuck with the total cost of replacing the tank. Anyway, back to my first point. Did your tank fail a vacuum test or have you had soil samples taken that actually show a leak? If it is the former, then there's still always the possibility (like with our tank) that your tank is not yet leaking. |
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 3864
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 10:10 pm: |
|
Hiraeth, they took soil samples from around the tank area. There was no water in the tank, which supposedly is good, but the soil samples came back showing contamintion...
But wait, it gets better and better...
The day AFTER the soil test Woolley comes by and delivers 500 gallons of oil. Upon speaking with them today, they tell my husband they don't even have the machinery to remove 900+ gallons of oil from the tank!!!
Now, they recommended the testing co. and KNEW we were having the tank tested. The whole thing is making me sick.
They are totally giving us the friking runaround with everything.
My husband, the nice guy, speaks w. Mr. Woolley today and asks why our concerns from a year ago were blown off. He gave him some BS answer. I called Monday and spoke with someone there who said they'd put him in contact with ME, but he wouldn't call ME back. I am SO peeved. Meanwhile, my husband is ripping apart basement walls trying to figure out if we can fit a damned oil tank down there.
It's really just ridiculous. If it was JUST the 10 grand, maybe I could deal with it, but the aggravation is mind blowing AND IT HASN'T EVEN STARTED YET!
I am so beat from this. That, and my kid broke her finger so we were at the dr, the ACC and soon the orthopedist...I just can't take another thing. |
Jennifer
Citizen
Username: Jkohan
Post Number: 42
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 10:57 pm: |
|
VIG-- I am not clear on the details BUT you should check to make sure the the levels of oil found in your soil samples are, in fact above the level in which you need to remove the tank. I would like to recommend the name of an independent company that i have used that have, in fact, SAVED homeowners ALOT of money in situations like these. Unfortunately, their name escapes me at the moment and their business card is sitting on my desk at the office. I will get the name tomorrow and post it for you as a second opinion. They are VERY knowledgable as to the limits of contaminiation and the exact steps and options for homeowners BOTH with and without the tank maintenance plan.
Also-- have you considered putting the tank outside the house with some fencing around it? Just check with the town to find out their requirememnts--e.g. distance from the house, etc. |
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 3865
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 7:29 am: |
|
Thank you Jennifer, I would really appreciate that.
We have thought about putting the tank outside, like below our deck, but not sure on town approval. We also heard the oil could be too cold to heat efficiently.
My husband got a few names of tank removal places, but one guy had family emergencies until next week.
Also, our samples supposedly have exceeded the limit. And now with 900 gallons f oil in the tank, I'm sure it's seeping out even more.
I had such a bad, anxiety filled night. Could not sleep at all. I don't know why it's upsetting me so much but never in my life have I felt so anxious about anything. This morning I feel a little more normal, but exhausted about the whole situation. At least I was able to get out of bed. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 2288
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 10:01 am: |
|
VIG - It sucks to go through, no two ways about it. I wish I could recommend the company that did ours but I can't. Our tank was under our driveway and the crew that came in did a number on the belgian block that lined our driveway and wrecked some of the neighbors hedges. We also had a delivery immediately before the tank was pulled. We had over 500 gallons in the tank and since we decided to switch to natural gas they came and took all the oil. We received no credit for any of the oil. Nothing like watching an additional 1K go out the window.
Be prepared for disruption, I couldn't get my car out of the garage for nearly two months because of the gaping hole in the drive way. Then even after they filled in the hole it settled about 18 inches when we had all that rain at the end of August.
If it makes you feel any better the one thing that you don't have to worry about is your home owner's insurance. As a result of our fiasco we found out that we were living in our house without any homeowner's insurance for nearly two years. Then we had to sweat it out while they determined how far the oil had spread underground to see if it impacted the ground water or neighbors property. Fortunately the ground contained a lot of clay and that absorbed a great deal of the oil before it could "bloom" as they call it.
Unless you have a gaping hole in the tank the oil won't be gushing out, don't forget that the ground around the tank acts as a plug and the oil really does seep very slowly because of the pressure applied by the ground.
The bigger question is how soon they can replace everything and how long will you be without heat? |
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 3870
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 10:17 am: |
|
I just spoke to Norm Woolley Jr. and he did seem more helpful. No two ways about it, it sucks. They don't have the capacity to store 900 gallons, but he said they'd help. He does seem like a nice guy, it's just a really bad situation. He said tank insurance is mentioned in their literature, but it was never on our radar. It just sucks.
Luckily the tank is not under out driveway, but rather under a newish planting bed we created over the past few summers. Maybe that's why one of my red twig dogwoods wasn't doing too well.
I assume they could set us up with a temporary tank while this one is being dismantled. Having no heat is really not an option in this weather, is it?
I got a few more names of tank removal cos. but I'd love to hear Jennifer's rec.
Thanks all for allowing me to vent. I am trying really hard to not let this eat my guts up. |
Scully
Citizen
Username: Scully
Post Number: 122
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 11:41 am: |
|
Hi. As a result of this thread (and problems my ex-mother in law is having) I called my oil company (Mitchell Supreme) and asked about tank insurance.
Yes, they have it and, no, I don't.
Apparently to get it you need to have the tank tested. They recommended Accura (sp?) 201-848-8224. The cost is $350 (for the test).
Guess I'm going with it since I don't even know how old the tank is. |
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 3871
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 1:55 pm: |
|
That's exactly how we got into our problems Scully. Not sure if the DEP has to get involved if you remove it before testing, but that's what my husband wishes we did. (He has been talking about pulling the tank out for 2 years.) |
Jennifer
Citizen
Username: Jkohan
Post Number: 43
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 2:21 pm: |
|
VIG-- I Pm'd you. |
Handygirl
Citizen
Username: Handygirl
Post Number: 540
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 2:25 pm: |
|
It is my understanding that you can't just pull the tank without testing. If you so much as open up the ground, even just to fill it with sand, the township requires soil testing. And they are extremely serious about it.
Handygirl
|
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 3874
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 3:46 pm: |
|
Well, I'm certainly not advocating doing anything illegal. I was unaware of the laws/codes/ordinances. At least I can pass this info along to my husband...
Jennifer, I emailed you back. Thank you for that info. I hope it will make things go smoother. |
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 3877
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 7:22 am: |
|
Perhaps we are being neurotic but a few things seem odd.
My husband spoke with a woman from a tank remediation co. who was shocked by the numbers (re: contamination levels) we received, yet the fact that they found NO contamination in ground water nor was there any water in the tank, which would be a sure sign of a leakage. OUr oil usages has been consistent too, no extra oil.
Here's the thing, the testing company also does remediation, and gave us a hefty quote on the job. Not only that, but they charge 99c. per gallon to take the oil out of the tank (plus another charge on top of that). It certainly was in THEIR best interests to have the tank filled the next day, wasn't it?
Also, I heard them out there but didn't see the soil samples. Right off the bat, they told me there was contamination. (They could smell it in the soil.)
Wouldn't that be quite a racket? Unfort. according to the papers my husband read, one the DEP is notified, no matter WHAT the tank has to come out of the ground.
Seems like quite a few people make a lot of money off of this shat. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 2290
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 7:31 am: |
|
VIG - I know it sounds fishy but when our guys came out to pull the tank they knew the ground was contaminated by the smell of it. They were constantly picking up soil in their hands and smelling it. When the open up the ground they can also tell by sight. The ground will have a grey tint to it. Ask to see the final test results on the testing companies letterhead. I actually spoke to the testing company prior to making any decisions. Our first tests came back at some level that was lower than the NJ limits but Bob M. said he still wanted us to pull the tank. We had more tests done to confirm that it wasn't just from an overfill (around the fill tube sometimes oil leaks out) so we had a second test done. This time it came back at 75,000 parts per million, 75 times the NJ limit.
These guys do a lot of tank pulls so I don't think its unreasonable that they could smell it in the soil. I couldn't smell it when I was standing directly above the hole but could detect it when the guy put it under my nose.
Also, I'll check our records to see if they charged us to take the oil out of the tank. I think they did but I'm not sure. |
Daniel M. Jacobs, PP, AICP
Supporter
Username: Conrail
Post Number: 88
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 8:57 am: |
|
I just wanted to mention that we had our underground oil tank removed two years ago (no environmental problem, just paranoia). The company that did it was Sterling Environmental and they were, very, very good and delivered what was promised. Sterling is located in Livingston (or maybe Newark?) and they have good materials describing what they do. They were slightly more expensive than the other two bids, but the others seemed to be fly-by-night operations.
- Daniel |
Jennifer
Citizen
Username: Jkohan
Post Number: 44
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 9:08 am: |
|
VIG-- I emailed you. I've seen the "sniff test" many times--it is part of the "routine" and doesn't mean much without a soil sample AND intrepetation of the results with a clear explanation. |
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 3878
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 12:53 pm: |
|
Jennifer, your help has been invaluable. We certainly will do independent testing. Harry had some interesting things to say, as I'm sure you knew he would.
The saga continues... |
SoOrLady
Citizen
Username: Soorlady
Post Number: 2927
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 6:13 pm: |
|
VIG - it also matter where they got the soil sample (especially since there is not water in the tank and the ground water is not affected). When the men come to fill the tank, they are not always as careful as they should be and often oil will drip from the spout when they're done filling the tank. |
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 3880
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 6:50 pm: |
|
Well, no matter whether the soil sample was accurate, because we now have a DEP File (or case) number, the tank has to be pulled.
SOL, they did test from a variety of areas, but it still seems odd...most independent guys we have spoken to seem shocked at the levels of contamination, saying that it must have occurred over quite some time to permeate the dense soil. |
Scully
Citizen
Username: Scully
Post Number: 132
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 1:05 pm: |
|
Well, had my tank tested (the company's name was Accurate Tank Testing, I misspelled it in an earlier post) and I flunked.
No sign that any oil leaked out, but I failed something called the vacuum pressure test.
This is gonna hurt... |
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 3903
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 2:27 pm: |
|
Oy Sully, I feel for you.
My husband is still reeling from this. He said if we had decided on our own to decomission the tank, YES, the inspector comes, but it's nothing near the expense and hassle you have once the DEP is involved, esp. the tank shows no sign of leakage.
It sucks. Feel free to share, misery loves company . |
Hiraeth
Citizen
Username: Hiraeth
Post Number: 10
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 3:08 pm: |
|
Scully, Accurate Tank Testing were the same company that did our test (recommended by our oil company, Mitchell Supreme). Our tank failed the vacuum test and had an inch of water in the bottom.
As we had the tank insurance, we had to notify Mitchell Supreme immediately that the tank had failed. We asked about taking soil samples etc. to be sure the tank was leaking but the response we got from the guy at Mitchell was that he'd never seen a tank fail the vacuum test and not be leaking. Well, if you read my earlier post on this thread, our tank wasn't actually leaking.
Mitchell Supreme told us that our costs would be covered under the tank insurance but because the tank wasn't actually leaking when they dug it up, we were left footing the entire cost for replacing a tank that didn't need to be pulled. And because we'd gone ahead under the impression we were covered by the insurance, we had to have another tank put in the ground to meet the requirements of the insurance policy!
Scully, it's your call but you might want to think about getting soil samples taken before you pull the tank. And, if you do decide to just be done with it and get it up, take heart that the clay soil in Maplewood means that if there is a leak, it doesn't usually go too far.
|
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 3904
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 3:28 pm: |
|
I disagree. I WOULD NOT DO soil tests. Spend the $2 or 3k and have the tank removed. Once the DEP is notified you are screwed, and you will have to spend 10-20k. |
Hiraeth
Citizen
Username: Hiraeth
Post Number: 11
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 4:06 pm: |
|
VIG, my suggestion was based on our experience of having a tank removed that wasn't actually leaking.
If the soil samples are taken in advance you know whether or not you have a leak. If we'd have done this we'd have avoided digging up a tank that wasn't leaking.
Of course Scully can go ahead and get the tank dug up without having the tests done first. However, to remove an oil tank you have to get a township permit (our removal company arranged all this) and an inspector has to be present.
If there is no leak, you get the paperwork certifying that the oil tank has been removed correctly and there is no contamination. This is what happened in our case.
If there is a leak then the relevant authorities get notified anyway, and you have to go into the whole process of soil remediation and clear up.
|
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 3905
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 4:11 pm: |
|
I understand, but if the soil is tested and the levels of contamination are above 10,000 PPM, the DEP will be notified and that creates a lot more headache.
Maybe someone could tell me otherwise, but from what we've been told, and what my husband understands, removing the tank at your own free will may set you back, but not be nearly the expense, hassle and aggravation that occurs once the DEP is involved. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 2294
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 4:21 pm: |
|
I think the answer to whether you have soil samples taken or not depends on whether you have tank insurance. Also, I'm not sure when a removal becomes "mandatory."
If you pull the tank out and then find problems after the fact your insurance will not cover the damage, then you'd really be screwed. Also, if the tank has failed a pressure test isn't the contractor required to take samples after the tank is out of the ground? And if those samples come back positive for contamination aren't they then required to report it to the DEP?
If you have insurance then spend the money to get the soil samples taken. I'd rather know that the ground is contaminated so that you can file a claim with the insurance company.
Additionally read your policy about the replacement tank BS. I can't believe they actually get away with that. How can the oil companies force you to stay with oil? Our policy's clause contained an exception clause similar to the following:
if the tank is removed as a result of switching to an alternative source of fuel
or something like that. Well we didn't pull the tank because we were switching. We switched after the tank was pulled. Subtle but important difference.
The lawyer I spoke with said that that clause wouldn't be enforceable. I switched to gas after our fiasco and when the claims person told me that I had to stay with oil I asked him if he knew it wasn't enforceable and he replied, "Well no one from Zurich is going to come to your house and check to see if you stayed with oil if you know what I mean." They paid the claim and we switched to gas. Don't be afraid to challenge things that don't look right or feel right despite what the policy says. What have you got to lose? |
Hiraeth
Citizen
Username: Hiraeth
Post Number: 12
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 4:22 pm: |
|
VIG, we didn't get to that stage because our soil was "clean" but my understanding from talking to our contractors and the inspector was that if a leak had been detected, the clean-up would follow procedures set out by DEP and they have to "sign-off" on the work and certify that the contamination has been removed before an excavation can be back-filled.
If you "remove your tank at your own free will" and its leaking then the DEP still get notified as soil samples have to be sent away for analysis to ensure that all contamination is removed. |
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 3906
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 4:29 pm: |
|
Right, but from what my husband was told, the town's inpector is not quite as demanding as the DEP. For instance, our tank was not found to have water in it, nor did it fail the vacuum test, but for some reason our soil is contaminated.
I'm not trying to argue, but since Sully does NOT have insurance (that's why he was getting it tested) and it is shown to be leaking, I'd take it out!
Not sure why Accurate didn't test the soil and our testers "Preferred" did, even though our tank did not fail any of the tests. (We also paid $350 and were doing the testing to qualify for the insurance.) |
Hiraeth
Citizen
Username: Hiraeth
Post Number: 13
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 4:46 pm: |
|
VIG, going back to your problem, like you I find it difficult to understand how your tank could pass the vacuum test and yet be leaking. Do you know how long your tank has been in the ground? Is there any chance it was put in as a replacement for a previous leaking tank and the proper remediation work might not have been done? This could explain the soil contamination.
As for Scully's issue, my reason for recommending soil samples was specifically because they don't have the insurance. If, like us, their tank fails the vacuum test but is not leaking, they've saved themselves a few thousand by not digging it up if the soil samples come back clear. If it is leaking, well they'll face the same clean-up bill regardless of whether or not they get the samples taken in advance. They just might be better warned about what's coming and the extent (or lack of) contamination.
With regard to the DEP vs the town inspector, from our experience, my understanding is that the town inspector attends the digging up of the tank. If there is no leak, you get the documentation certifying everything was done to code. If there is even a hint of a leak, soil samples have to be taken and the DEP notified. This might explain why your husband was told that the town's inspector is not quite as demanding as the DEP. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 2295
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 4:51 pm: |
|
To Hiraeth's point about failing the pressure test while not leaking oil. Don't forget that if there is no soil contamination you can still "abandon" the tank by filling it with inert material. That is still permissible in Maplewood (at least as far back as September when I spoke to the inspector). That would be a far less expensive option. |
Hiraeth
Citizen
Username: Hiraeth
Post Number: 14
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 5:08 pm: |
|
Sportsnut is right, if Scully has soil samples taken that come back clear then they can "abandon" the tank, which involves having it cleaned out and filled (usually with sand). This only costs a few hundred as opposed to the few thousand for removing it. |
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 3907
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 5:24 pm: |
|
We have the original paperwork from ten years ago just prior to us moving in...soil samples were found to be free from contamination and the tank, although found to have moderate corrosion, was found to be sound and usable. We even have a certificate from an Environmental Agency! |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10487
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 5:43 pm: |
|
If the tank passes a pressure test it is hard to figure out how it is leaking.
Spend another $350 and have a soil test done by another company or better yet an engineer who isn't going to make money pulling out your tank.
When you are faced with a five figure problems a few bucks more isn't going to make any difference. |
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 3908
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 6:08 pm: |
|
Thanks Bob...we will have it tested again, but we've also been told that because of the DEP being notified it has to come out no matter what. I don't understand, but we spoke with a few environmental agencies who told us that.
Perhaps there's something else in the report that we're not quite understanding.
OH MY FREAKING GOD!!! I just realized something CRAZY!!! I was just reading the report about the soil, thinking how we just built the retaining wall 2 summers ago. WE BOUGHT FILL FROM MILLSTONE AND FILLED THE FRONT YARD WITH IT. It probably goes down two feet or so.
Sheet. I specifically remember after we got the fill we were not very happy with the quality of it. (Meaning, there were lots of branches and twigs and rocks, and it was supposed to be clean fill.) |
Scully
Citizen
Username: Scully
Post Number: 133
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 8:30 pm: |
|
VIG:
Thanks for the sympathy. I'll let you know how bad it is when stage II takes place (digging up the tank).
By the way, did I read you correctly? You PASSED the
vacuum test, it was only the soil samples? And that the soil was all recently added fill? Maybe you're OK then?
I don't understand why a perfectly good tank would have to come out 'no matter what'.
Good luck, and I'll keep you posted. This is too much to think about all at once... |
Scully
Citizen
Username: Scully
Post Number: 134
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 9:18 pm: |
|
Hiraeth:
We've decided to go the soil sample route you spoke of earlier before commiting to just pulling the tank out. In for a penny in for a pound.
This is all kind of numbing.
|
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 3910
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 9:35 pm: |
|
Yup, passed all the tank tests. There is also an electromagnetic test that somehow indicates corrosion, but the numbers seem to be borderline, although they vary a bit. The areas where we added new fill show higher levels of corrosion. The soil tests do go down much farther than our new soil does, but I would assume planting, rain, etc. shifts it all around.
I'm just trying to make sense of it all, and it's not really working.
Having the tank pass the tests, but the soil is contaminated...I'm sure it must seem like I'm trying to lay blame, first my initial conspiracy theory and now saying the fill we got was bad. If it all added up, I'd understand, but it just doesn't.
Well, good luck with your soil tests, I hope it ends up ok. |
cppkqp
Citizen
Username: Cppkqp
Post Number: 96
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 9:41 am: |
|
FWIW, we removed our tank about three years ago partly b/c my husband was worried about the age of the tank and leakage and partly b/c he wanted to switch to natural gas. We priced both removal and clean/fill with sand options. Given that the price difference was only $200, we decided to remove the tank for peace of mind. |
Handygirl
Citizen
Username: Handygirl
Post Number: 557
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 10:25 am: |
|
Don't forget that if you remove your oil tank (and convert to gas or an above ground oil tank) it will be easier to sell your house down the road. I can't speak for everyone, but when we bought our house 3 years ago, we wouldn't even consider closing on a house that had an underground oil tank. We negotiated with our seller so that he removed the tank prior to closing (and paid for it himself). Even a "decommissioned tank" wouldn't have satisfied us. We would have wanted it out. So, it might cost a little more now to have it completely removed, but consider the long-term marketability of your house as well.
Handygirl
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10493
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 10:43 am: |
|
Handygirl makes a good point. Sooner or later you are going to have to remove it at your expense. Nobody is going to buy a house with an underground oil tank. |
Wendyn
Supporter
Username: Wendyn
Post Number: 2685
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 4:06 pm: |
|
Could be worse...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060201/ap_on_re_us/wrong_oil_delivery |
amandacat
Citizen
Username: Amandacat
Post Number: 990
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Umm, obviously some of us bought houses with underground oil tanks -- they might not exactly be a selling point, but in a sellers market some of us buyers couldn't afford to be too choosy . . . |
Handygirl
Citizen
Username: Handygirl
Post Number: 567
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 1:13 pm: |
|
Yes, but moving forward, and with an eye towards selling your house in the future, if you can remove it now - all the better. Just because some of you bought houses with underground tanks, doesn't mean that home purchasers will be willing to take that risk forever.
If you decide to sell your house in the future it might not be a sellers market (as it was when you purchased). It might be a buyers market - you don't know. Also, as people remove oil tanks more and more houses on the market will no longer have underground oil tanks, so home buyers will have more of a choice - and they likely won't choose a house with a below ground tank if they have another, similar option with an above ground tank. Also, people are becoming more and more informed (and paranoid) about underground oil tanks. More stories like the ones outlined above are coming out. And the underground tanks are getting older...
So, if you have the choice between removing completely or decomissioning or replacing your underground oil tank with another below ground oil tank, it would be useful to take into consideration long term prospects for selling your house. While it may cost a little more now to remove the underground tank completely and replace it with an above-ground version, ultimately it probably be worth doing it now. |
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 3917
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 1:22 pm: |
|
I agree somewhat. It wouldn't stop me, but I'd definitely test the tank and soil prior to moving in and arrange for removal before there were any issues.
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page