While installing a French drain (id you know it was named for a person and not a country?), I dicovered a heating oil tank that was supposed to have been decommissioned before I bought my duplex. I called the company that was to have done the work and they came out and checked and said, “indeed, we only did one of the tanks when we should have done two. We will take care of this for no charge of course.”
Then they called and said, so sorry there has been a leak in one end of the tank. We think it is minor, but we need to auger out a couple more holes to check how extensive it it. We think we can just do that and replace the soil with bentonite and all will be well.
This duplex sits on a courner lot and the ground slopes down from the back yard to the house. It is located on the rainy side of Oregon. The yard is on a gradual slope but I had begun to have probelms with leakage in the basement which is why I dug the French drain. The fuel tanks are between the back yard and the house. So I am worried that the water will come downhill, wash through this soil and leach into the basement.
The contractor says that it could be more dangerous to remove the tank than to do this other method because disturbing the dirt might cause the pollutants to enter the basement at a faster speed.
As a landlord for whom this property is a significant part of my retirement plans, I am nervous about loss of value and potential liability in the future if someone were to say they contracted cancer from the benzene, etc and that I knew there was a problem.
Can anyone advise–quickly–the work is going on now. Thanks much.
Replies
You should insist that the contractor follow through with the tank removal and do any mitigation required.
The problem with trying to gloss over the problem by saying removing it might be worse is that the problem is not being addressed and the liability goes forward with the property as opposed to taking care of it ALL now and getting the area certified clean by Oregon DEQ.
I was involved in a number of UST removals on industrial property in a previous life and, over time, saw the acceptable contaminent levels move lower and lower into microscopic oblivion as time went by. For the sake of your future and piece of mind, insist that this guy complete the work. If he reneges on covering the costs as he has previously agreed to do, you may have to consult with an (ugh!) attorney.
I say this, not to frighten you, but a lot of the environmental laws were written for noble reasons but have dealt a lot of unintended consequences for small businesses and individuals. Sometimes, people at the DEQ will work with you, but sometimes you can get hooked up with the wrong bureaucrat having a bad hair day. Thus, consulting with an attorney is a good, safe, first step.
I wish you well!
I suggest that you not rely on a remediation constractor for consulting advice. Instead, find a good environmental consultant to properly investigate the problem and determine what needs to be done.
Ditto Stephen-
As far as UST removal is concerned, in addition to Environmental Consultant, also consider services by Geotechnical Consultant.
Ken Hill
Consultant and possibly a lawyer. The Fed govt required the remopval and/or cleanup of all these situations with a deadline of not many years back. Sale of property with them still in existence and without notifying buyers is a cause for civil action if not other possible chrages.Excellence is its own reward!