Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-29-2015, 07:27 AM
 
Location: Randolph, NJ
4,073 posts, read 8,976,235 times
Reputation: 3262

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBoy3 View Post
Just my opinion but I would feel better with a soil test when was tank removed. Why no soil test??
If there is no evidence of leaking, no soil test.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-29-2015, 09:43 AM
 
16 posts, read 16,806 times
Reputation: 10
When the tank was removed in 2003 the removal company found no evidence of leakage and this saw no reason to test the soil. :-/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2016, 06:22 PM
 
21 posts, read 48,019 times
Reputation: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonewawa View Post
Sounds like they just filled the tank with sand. I bet that a tank sweep company would find that the tank is still there. If it is, then a condition of closing would be for the sellers to remove the tank, and have the soil tested. If it comes back clean than great, you are in the clear.

Disposal of bottom tank clean out sounds like that the tank was cut open, cleaned out, and filled with sand. My money is on the tank is still there. Sounds like they got two quotes and went with the cheaper option.
This is my favorite answer here so far. However, I want to add a horror story to this .. =(. We had an oil tank sweep done in CT that came back positive. Got the excavation company to come out, dug it up... hunk of metal in the ground! Was not an oil tank.

AFAIK, oil tank sweeps are still not more scientific than metal detection sweeps. However, a non-detection would be very good news!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2016, 07:13 AM
 
Location: Randolph, NJ
4,073 posts, read 8,976,235 times
Reputation: 3262
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnredcorn7 View Post
This is my favorite answer here so far. However, I want to add a horror story to this .. =(. We had an oil tank sweep done in CT that came back positive. Got the excavation company to come out, dug it up... hunk of metal in the ground! Was not an oil tank.

AFAIK, oil tank sweeps are still not more scientific than metal detection sweeps. However, a non-detection would be very good news!
Sorry, but that is not a horror story -- finding a hunk of metal is a nuisance that cost you a few bucks. A horror story is finding an undisclosed tank with an extensive clean up requirement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:42 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top