Beware: Underground Oil Tanks (2009, house, buyers)

[Lusitan]

I've said before (and we've had a few threads on this) that no one should ever buy a house with an underground oil tank, no matter whether it's been "officially decommissioned" or not. Bottom line is that you need to have the seller remove the tank BEFORE you take ownership of the property, or you can be stuck with a potential six-figure liability and a nightmare of an environmental cleanup if contamination is discovered after you take ownership of the house.

If it's "not a problem", then the sellers should take care of it. If they balk, it's because they're afraid there is a problem and they want to stick you with it. Don't fall for it. Insist that the tank is removed, and insist on a large escrow deposit until you get your "no further action" letter from the state showing you're in the clear as far as no contamination.

That said, for any owners out there who are in the process of getting their tank removed and soil tested, I would highly recommend you make sure to deal with a testing company that does not also do soil remediation, nor recommend soil remediation companies. Why? There's an inherent conflict of interest: if the testing service finds contamination, they get business doing the environmental clean up.

There are testing services out there that do not do clean up and do not refer anyone to specific clean up companies (ATS is one of them).

Here's a story about a testing company that was providing false positive test results to drum up costly soil decontamination business.

Always try to spot these conflicts of interest. (Buyers, this is why you should shell out your own money to have the soil tested, so the company is working for you and not the seller, who could pay a little premium for a "clean" test result if you rely on them getting the soil tested ...)

http://dailyrecord.com/article/20090...904080401/1203

[lets_hope_for_newbruns]

no matter what there will always be stupid , ignorant buyers in this country on whom the seller will dump such properties advertently.

[wileynj]

Originally Posted by Lusitan

I've said before (and we've had a few threads on this) that no one should ever buy a house with an underground oil tank, no matter whether it's been "officially decommissioned" or not. Bottom line is that you need to have the seller remove the tank BEFORE you take ownership of the property, or you can be stuck with a potential six-figure liability and a nightmare of an environmental cleanup if contamination is discovered after you take ownership of the house.

If it's "not a problem", then the sellers should take care of it. If they balk, it's because they're afraid there is a problem and they want to stick you with it. Don't fall for it. Insist that the tank is removed, and insist on a large escrow deposit until you get your "no further action" letter from the state showing you're in the clear as far as no contamination.

That said, for any owners out there who are in the process of getting their tank removed and soil tested, I would highly recommend you make sure to deal with a testing company that does not also do soil remediation, nor recommend soil remediation companies. Why? There's an inherent conflict of interest: if the testing service finds contamination, they get business doing the environmental clean up.

There are testing services out there that do not do clean up and do not refer anyone to specific clean up companies (ATS is one of them).

Here's a story about a testing company that was providing false positive test results to drum up costly soil decontamination business.

Always try to spot these conflicts of interest. (Buyers, this is why you should shell out your own money to have the soil tested, so the company is working for you and not the seller, who could pay a little premium for a "clean" test result if you rely on them getting the soil tested ...)

http://dailyrecord.com/article/20090...904080401/1203

They finally got that bastid! I've come across a few questionable findings by others... how do they sleep at night? But then again, perhaps this is why I don't own a mansion on every continent... a few private yachts, etc. . There's a few more out there that I'd like to see put behind bars as well! My advice to homeowners, ALWAYS get a second opinion... just like you would if your doctor told you only had 3 months to live! I always tell my customers to get multiple proposals. They often can't be bothered but thankfully they have me watching their backs and not some scuzball!

I could not agree more with your statement about using a tank testing compnay that only does tank testing! Only thing is, I believe ATS also does tank removals and remediation? I'll have to check their website... maybe they use to but since have stopped due to "conflict of interest"? actank works for ATS..maybe he can clear that up?

[86Sebring]

great advise, thanks for the reminder

[Jayce]

Originally Posted by Lusitan

I've said before (and we've had a few threads on this) that no one should ever buy a house with an underground oil tank, no matter whether it's been "officially decommissioned" or not. Bottom line is that you need to have the seller remove the tank BEFORE you take ownership of the property, or you can be stuck with a potential six-figure liability and a nightmare of an environmental cleanup if contamination is discovered after you take ownership of the house.

If it's "not a problem", then the sellers should take care of it. If they balk, it's because they're afraid there is a problem and they want to stick you with it. Don't fall for it. Insist that the tank is removed, and insist on a large escrow deposit until you get your "no further action" letter from the state showing you're in the clear as far as no contamination.

That said, for any owners out there who are in the process of getting their tank removed and soil tested, I would highly recommend you make sure to deal with a testing company that does not also do soil remediation, nor recommend soil remediation companies. Why? There's an inherent conflict of interest: if the testing service finds contamination, they get business doing the environmental clean up.

There are testing services out there that do not do clean up and do not refer anyone to specific clean up companies (ATS is one of them).

Here's a story about a testing company that was providing false positive test results to drum up costly soil decontamination business.

Always try to spot these conflicts of interest. (Buyers, this is why you should shell out your own money to have the soil tested, so the company is working for you and not the seller, who could pay a little premium for a "clean" test result if you rely on them getting the soil tested ...)

http://dailyrecord.com/article/20090...904080401/1203

IF 1) the NFA letter comes from the NJDEPA, and 2) testing from the company that removed and cleaned up the property I am trying to buy says that the oil levels fall far below the EPA's toxic levels, what are the buyer's labilities? It's improbable that the company would lie about the levels of oil in the ground (they are under penalty of prosecution if they falsify documents/levels). If the company and the government say things are in the clear, does moving ahead with the purchase seem advisable?

Additionally, if the EPA makes their standards more stringent in the future, does anybody know if any levels on previously removed tanks would be "grandfathered"? The authorities wouldn't meddle with a property that has no tank in it anymore, would they?

Thanks,

Jayce

[Lusitan]

Originally Posted by Jayce

If the company and the government say things are in the clear, does moving ahead with the purchase seem advisable?

.....

The authorities wouldn't meddle with a property that has no tank in it anymore, would they?

As to your first question, I think that if you have the NFA letter from the govt, you're OK. Ignore what the testing company says, because even if they are liable for something down the road, who knows if they'll be around (and solvent) if/when you need to sue them. But the letter from the govt is pretty solid; the govt has told you it's OK, so I'd be comfortable.

As to your second question, with govt anything is possible, because they make up whatever rules they want as they go along. But I highly doubt you'd see higher standards in the future, and I doubt even more that anyone from the govt would bother to investigate properties without underground tanks or serious contamination in the future, when they've already given the NFA letter.

Sounds like you're in the clear. Good thing you did your homework, now you can sleep at night.