| Author |
Message |
    
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 4331
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:41 pm: | 
|
Some may remember my oil tank saga from a few months ago.
We had our tank tested in order to get tank insurance. Soil came back contaminated, but all other tank tests were fine.
Tank came out today. IMO, we were SCAMMED. Tank shows no sign of leakage. Soil surrounding tank is clean.
Basically we have no legal recourse (because testing co. sent a sample, probably from right by the fill spout, and we ended up with a DEP file no.) but we will be sending letters to the testing company and our oil company. This is ludicrous.
Do not use Preferred Tank! They lied, hoping to get our business to remove the tank. (Testing Reports came with a bid on the job.) Can we say conflict of interest?
Grrr... |
Former Cowgirl
Citizen
Username: Formercowgirl
Post Number: 45
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:53 pm: |
|
How do you know that tank showed no signs of leakage? Did you use a different company to remove the tank? Their opinion is different from Prefered? |
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 4332
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:54 pm: |
|
The tank is on my front lawn. There are no signs of leakage AT ALL. The soil is clean. |
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 4333
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:58 pm: |
|
Yes, their opinion is that the tank shows no sign of leaking and any slight contamination in the soil was from overflow during 50+ years of the tank being filled. Where they said they tested was basically impossible because the tank was there. They said they went down 94 inches, but the tank was 36 inches below ground. They lied. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11324
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 1:28 pm: |
|
VIG, I don't blame you for being poed to the max about this. However, the tank company probably tested next to the tank, since oil is probably going to sink into the ground. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 2388
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 1:41 pm: |
|
VIG - sorry to hear about that. When I went through our "saga" last summer one of the questions we asked was whether the first sample came from near the fill pipe. When they said yes we had other samples taken to confirm the first. Fortunately for us the first sample taken was borderline and other samples came back much worse. When the tank was sitting on our driveway someone actually crawled inside and looked for holes where sunlight was shining through then another person painted circles around the holes on the outside.
We were also lucky in that the testing company we used was different from the company that pulled our tank.
Again, that sucks.
BTW, We received our quote from Giordano for the driveway and it is at the higher end of the three quotes we've received so far. PL me if you still need his number. |
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 4335
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 1:48 pm: |
|
Bob, Sports...they sent us all this info in a report and where they specifically said they tested from is impossible. They supposedly took 2 other samples, but sent the one from next to the fill. When they told me it was contaminated, I asked them if it oculd be from overflow and they said no because they got it from so deep. But they didn't get it from there because the tank was there!
Our tank is on the lawn now and it's absolutely solid. No pin holes or anything.
Re: the driveway., who else did you get quotes from? Zavocki, Coccuzo? These are names I remember from the first time we looked into it. Thanks.
|
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 2389
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 2:28 pm: |
|
When they took the second, third and fourth samples I was at home and watched them as they bored down at an angle to try and get underneath the tank. It was the samples that came from the side of the tank and the lower portion that were heavily contaminated. In fact I was home when they started digging up the tank and at one point they removed a bucket of dirt and oil started leaking out of the side of the tank. The clay was acting as kind of a plug keeping the oil in the tank.
We received quotes from Cocuzzo, Morris & Essex and Giordano. Cocuzzo was the lowest, but I wasn't home when he came to do the quote so I didn't get a chance to really speak to him about the work I wanted to have done. |
Jennifer
Citizen
Username: Jkohan
Post Number: 87
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 1:30 pm: |
|
VIG--did you ever call Harry for his opinion in this matter? Just curious if he was any help to you. |
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 4342
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 1:47 pm: |
|
Hi Jennifer, Yes, we called him and he was helpful, but I think he was having trouble getting back to us about the equipment. He seemed like a nice, honest guy. |
kevin
Supporter
Username: Kevin
Post Number: 693
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 8:50 pm: |
|
Well, look at the bright side. When you go to sell, you'll be able to show the prospective buyers that the tank is out and that you got a clean bill of health from the DEP. No worried or pain in the butt buyers about the tank...
Underground storage tanks have been a big point of concern with real estate sales the past few years.
|
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 4344
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 9:11 pm: |
|
True, but it's costing us thousands of dollars more than it should to have the tank removed because the DEP is involved.
See, from what I understand, if we decided on our own to pull the tank, we/our contractor would have gotten a permit. Mittermeier would have come by, saw the tank was fine, and we would have proceeded. Approximate cost, $1800.00
OUr scenario is this: call Oil co to find out about tank insurance. They send us a letter recommending one testing company to get the Pro Guard insurance. Test cost, $300. Testing company comes. Vacuum test, all other tank tests are fine. They pull BOGUS CONTAMINATED SOIL SAMPLE. Tell me we do not qualify for insurance because the soil is contaminated and we need to remove the tank. They notify DEP. We go through hours of hassle, stress and aggravation. When they send our BOGUS TEST RESULTS in the mail, they also send us a quote to remove said oil tank.
We contract with another company to remove tank. Miraculously, tank is sound. I saw it, my husband saw it, inspector saw it, tank removal guys were walking in it! NO holes, no leaks. Soil is clean. BUT in order to close the DEP file we have to agree to lie and say we remediated soil. Otherwise, the case will remain open, DEP will be on our backs, and we will have a hard time if and when we decide to sell our house. Estimated cost $8-11k.
See where I have a big problem with this? |
Monster©
Supporter
Username: Monster
Post Number: 2905
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 10:48 pm: |
|
It sounds to me like you should not only sue the testing company, but also the oil company, for much-much more than what it is costing you for all this.
Ask the company that removed the tank if they would volunteer to testify in court as to the soundness of your oil tank, or in the very least to furnish certified documents attesting to the fact.
Were you there when the test was done, if not, then ask your neighbors if they observed the test, did they notice how long the people doing the test were there, have this info taken as soon as possible, and written down.
Do some research to see if there are other complaints about the testing company, and make sure to have a third party test the soil to see what results they come up with.
Can't you contact the DEP and suggest that the company that did the testing may have falsified it's reports.
Contact the BBB to see if the testing company has other complaints against it.
The NJ Division Of Consumer Affairs [(973) 504-6200)] will be able to tell you if the testing company has complaints against them.
Make sure to vent to your homeowners insurance company that you think the testing company filed a falsified report.
Contact the Division of Remediation Support, (973) 631-6401 for the Bureau of Northern Field Operations
While the testing of home oil tanks in NJ may not be federally regulated, would the filing of a false environmental report be a federal offense under EPA regulations?
|
Travis
Citizen
Username: Travis
Post Number: 401
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 5:55 am: |
|
I'd be careful about hurling accusations around unless you're sure of your evidence, you might be countersued for defamation. |
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 4345
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 5:57 am: |
|
MOnster, I was there when they did the testing.
It took them abut 2 hours, there was lots of boring & banging. They supposedly took 3 samples but only sent one for testing, it was the one closest to the fill hole. Like I said, when they told me they could tell the soil was contaminated I asked them at the time if it was from spillage when the tank was being filled. They told me they went way below the surface of the fill pipe, to a depth of 94 inches. When the tank was removed we realized that was impossible because the tank was there, it went a few feet farther than their records indicate (it was a 1000 gallon tank for my little house).
I have a big pile of dirt in front of my house I was told they would need to add oil to in order for them to send it off and burn it for the DEP records. This will cost me additional $$$.
I doubt the company who took out the tank, or the inspector would testify. I think the lying thing is nuts, I'm sure it's wrong. My sister is an attorney and first thing she said (as any moral person would) is why are they lying and why are you agreeing to this?
I will contact those 2 organizations. I would love to sue, even just for the extra amount we're paying out of pocket. I knew from the get go something was not right. Unofrtunately, and a few of the tank removal places we contacted said the same thing, once the DEP gets notified you're screwed. You have to go through the motions to move on and get passed it.
I guess at the end of the day it is just money, albeit a lot of it, and it saddens me to think that this $10 grand could have been much better spent or saved for my kids for the future. We were robbed. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13923
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 1:16 pm: |
|
What is the lesson here? How can a homeowner verify that an inspection is done right, other than to pay for two?
|
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 4348
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 3:03 pm: |
|
The lesson...starts here.
Do not get a tank inspected in order to get underground tank insurance.
If you want to inspect it to see if it's leaking, find a reputable testing company. We used a company recommended by our oil company. In hindsight, I can see where a company that also removes tanks would like to see the tank fail. Since we wanted the insurance, and had no fear the tank would fail (it was inspected before we moved in 10 years ago and has shown no signs of leaking), we went ahead with the testing. They immediately notified the DEP which messed things up for us. If they had not, we could have had independent testing done to show their results were inaccurate. Once the DEP was notified of a leaker, the tank essentially has to come out of the ground.
Since tanks will eventually have to come out of the ground anyway, we would have been better off removing it on our own. Yes, it's costly, but what we're going through now will be more expensive.
We will have a conversation with our oil company letting them know we weren't happy with the company they referred us to. |
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 4349
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 3:06 pm: |
|
Oh, to answer your question more simply, we couldn't just have gotten a second test done. Since they notified the DEP the independent testers we contacted said the tank was already flagged and had to come out. Further testing before pulling the tank would have just thrown more money down the tubes. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page