Petroleum Storage Tank
Removal, Assessment, & Cleanup
� 2012 Sensible Solutions Environmental, P.C. All rights reserved.
S
S
E
The goal of removing a leaking UST and performing cleanup activities is to obtain from the State what is referred to as the "Notice of No Further Action" (NFA). All too often, the NFA may be denied due to the presence of oil on the water table (free product), or leakage migrating beneath the house where it cannot be removed, or petroleum residuals remaining at concentrations deemed too high for a property where water supply wells are in use. And if free product is found and cannot be dug out with the soil, then chances are that no one will ever buy the property.
Additional assessment and cleanup activities are likely:
I have heard from many of my clients that the other consultants they had contacted about removing their UST failed to mention the possibility that additional soil and groundwater assessment activities might be required, depending upon the cleanup results, nor did they mention the alternatives to removal. Sensible Solutions always provides complete disclosure of all the tank closure options and the pros and cons of each option. Only then can a tank owner/property seller or buyer make an informed decision on how to proceed with closure.

I don't enjoy having to call a client and tell them that we are preparing to begin the next phase of assessment, and have my client complain, "I thought you were finished. No one told me about additional work being necessary. We got the tank and contaminated soil out of the ground. So what's left to do?" That is why I always inform my clients of all the closure options and possible outcomes.
Removing a UST may cause more problems than leaving leakage in the ground:
I think it is only right to inform my clients of the potential problems that may arise if the UST is removed. Not only is the process of removal very damaging to the landscape, buried utilities may be adversely impacted, the foundation of the house could be compromised, and the brickwork, porch, steps, walkway, driveway, and/or other structures could be damaged.

Removing a UST that is located next to, or close to, a basement wall may result in water damage, as the backfill cannot be adequately compacted without the risk of cracking the wall and foundation. The newly excavated tank pit would very likely act as a sump and collect surface water for years to come.

I have met many property buyers who, upon learning that removal of the UST could lead to water and foundation problems, agree that a little contaminated dirt left in the ground is less of a problem. After all, who would want to have a tank removed before buying the house only to have to make drainage and foundation repairs in the future?
The tank closure option of removal carries the greatest risk:
Oil in the soil and in groundwater is often not a health or environmental problem:
I may catch some flack for this opinion of mine, but I believe it needs to be said. Most of today's environmental "problems" are blown way out of proportion.

Most leakage from a UST occurs at a depth of about 5 feet, or deeper. About the only time oil will appear at the ground's surface is when a significant amount of leakage occurs in clay-rich soil or in areas of a high water table. The risk of exposure to the leakage from most USTs is practically zilch (may not be the case in the Coastal Plain and mountains and areas where groundwater is the primary source of potable water). Contaminated soil and groundwater, in areas served by municipal water systems, will probably never be physically encountered by the public, nor is it likely to migrate very far from the source area of the release (tank location). Most people will encounter more of a health risk when filling their car's gas tank. And in most Piedmont soils, leakage will not migrate more than about 30 feet in our lifetime.

So, if the house is connected to city water and groundwater is not in use, what's the problem? The time to cleanup leakage in such an area is when the impacted soils or groundwater may be encountered. Otherwise, let the "sleeping dog lie."
The tank owner is liable for paying the assessment and cleanup costs if the Trust Fund becomes insolvent, and insolvency may be right around the corner:
The average cost of assessment and cleanup of leakage on a residential property is about $8,000 (that does not include the non-reimbursable cost of tank removal), but can exceed $12,000. It is a good thing the State has a trust fund to help pay those costs.

But as of December 19, 2011, the Trust Fund (noncommercial) had a projected balance of only $116,440. Less obligations, the balance was a big negative $4.9 million!

There may still be some consultants who are willing to remove a leaking oil tank and participate in the Trust Fund's "Co-pay Plan", whereby the reimbursable costs are financed by the consultant so that no money for cleanup comes out of their client's bank account. Reimbursement has taken between 4 and 14 months in the past, when the fund had plenty of money, but will the funds be available much longer? That is the 4.9 million dollar question.

A consultant may have you sign the standard Co-pay Agreement form, as incentive to get the job of removing the UST, but will that consultant also point out that the agreement form stipulates that should the Trust Fund go insolvent, or not pay in a specified amount of time, the client is liable for paying the costs? None of the laboratories, excavation contractors, and soil disposal facilities that I have contacted are willing to wait longer than about 3 months for payment for their services. And payment to those subcontractors must be shown in the claim paperwork. With the reimbursement turnaround time possibly becoming 12 to 18 months (got that from a source within the Trust Fund), there soon won't be many consultants willing to participate in the Co-pay Plan.

Also, the number of consultants charging finance fees and/or requiring deposits is growning. And, there are some consultants who charge more than the Trust Fund-established rates for certain assessment and cleanup tasks. So, a guarantee offer of 100% reimbursement is no longer good, in my opinion, due to the possibility of fund insolvency and finance charges.