Failing an underground Oil Tank Test

Interpretation, next step planning, stoppage & retaining the customer

Fuel oil dealers primarily acknowledge to convert by reacting to competing shop forces. First it was the Cod discounters, then it was the gas companies and we reacted to each in kind. Now with the incommunicable tank field looming, dealers are again buffeted by forces that influence our markets. Will we react as before or will we promote programs to derail threats? In New York and New Jersey, The Homeowner's Environmental Loss safety agenda
set a precedent, becoming a needful tool to thwart gas conversions, but more tools are needed, especially to lug the uncontrollable leak of accounts that occur at the time of a
property transaction.

Water Pressure Sensor Circuit

As vice president and founder of Annis Fuel Oil aid (Afos), in the early 1980's I recognized incommunicable oil tanks as an area of opportunity. With tube of the New Jersey perilous Substance storage Act and amendments to the Spill Act, tank work began to overlap with environmental science. Four years of college chemistry paid off. While spinning off Anco Environmental in 1991, I remained loyal to my oil industry beginnings. As a small oil dealer I am sensitive to the
threat Ust hysteria poses. With diplomacy I shop Ust services to local fuel dealers who otherwise compete with my family's oil company. Instincts say deny or minimize the Ust problem. But the distant environmental storm is looming and must be addressed. Our
customer's financial interests are at stake and they seek leadership. Fuel dealers must address and deflect the social relations damage caused by leaking incommunicable tanks, learn how to plump an accepted tank test, define the true adversary behind the oil tank debacle and finally, find solutions. I hope the material presented herewith will help in these areas, and preclude the loss of oil heat customers to other forms of fuel at the point of real estate transfer. As both of my companies operate primarily in New Jersey, many references are made to New Jersey agency of Environmental safety (Njdep) regulations. These regulations may be mirrored by similar regulations in other states. Check your state Environmental safety agency for specific regulations governing your area.

Misinformation

The gas companies have spearheaded marketing campaigns implying that oil heat causes incommunicable pollution. Our observations reserve the opposite conclusion. Statistically more remediation projects involve abandoned or improperly ended tanks than active tanks. Homeowner assurance policies decline most Ust pollution claims, therefore the leaking tank owner who converted to gas heat finds himself in a greater bind today than he who stayed with oil. But where the gas heated homeowner gets stuck with the remediation bill the oil industry shoulders the negative fallout. To win the social relations game, it behooves the fuel industry to deflect the problem. Redirect the emphasis from 'oil heat' to 'underground tanks,' and take a proactive stand.

A fuel oil catalogue is most vulnerable at the point of a property transaction. Tank testing and site certification is becoming more commonplace. Driven by liability concerns and the 'due diligence' audit requirement defining the innocent purchaser, buyer's attorneys accumulate their client's the right to test nearby an oil tank. Due largely to social misconceptions, this mechanism will continue to bash oil heat far into the future.

Know Your Adversary

Recently a fuel dealer told me "...it's the lawyers. They've blown this out of proportion." Others say it's the gas companies, or the gas heating contractors, or the Realtors, or the yank-a-tankers. All these parties are a vocal reaction to the true, silent adversary; corrosion. Low pH soils coupled with a high water table enable a high ion replacement rate with the tank. Non homogenous backfill concentrates the resulting electrochemical reaction at points of many electrical conductivity. Therefore, soil particles with conducive mineral content or construction debris that touches the tank completes the corrosion circuit. Over time, this reaction dissolves a hole into the tank. Laws of chemistry and physics are accelerated by poor construction practices. This is the underlying force behind the tank problem.

If we look at the history of environmental regulations, the foundation was the 1977 Federal Clean Water Act. This legislation focused on industrial polluters. In 1984 with the tube of the New Jersey Environmental Cleanup responsibility Act (Ecra),
regulation-driven liability made the presence of an Ust a headache for industrial property owners. This was the distant thunder of today's Ust debacle. Stricter industrial environmental regulations have trickled down to residential situations.

In June of 1993 Ecra was amended and renamed Isra, industrial Site rescue Act. Many inevitable changes made the regulations more "user friendly", and even generous with the creation of a spill fund. Virtually unnoticed in these amendments, however, was a companion convert to the Spill compensation and operate Act (Spill Act), introducing a principle significantly affecting all current and future owners of real property in New Jersey. The new principle promulgates that future owners of polluted property are liable for contamination they did not cause. The potentially devastating language of this amendment makes buyers responsible for any discharge of a perilous substance unless they can satisfy inevitable criteria:

1. That they acquired the property straight through an inheritance;
2. That they acquired the property after the discharge occurred;
3. Lack of knowledge at the time of acquisition that any perilous materials had leaked;
4. Lack of involvement in the supervision of the leaked perilous substances before acquisition;
5. Notice to the Njdep upon actual discovery of the discharge.

In order to demonstrate that a new owner did not know and had no speculate to know of the discharge of perilous substances at the property, the acquiring party "must have undertaken, at the time of acquisition, all accepted inquiry into the previous rights and uses of the property." "All accepted inquiry" requires the execution of a first assessment, and if necessary, a site investigation. In the case of an incommunicable storage tank, nothing short of soil testing meets the accepted inquiry" threshold, qualifying a damaged buyer as an "innocent purchaser." This concept is the cornerstone of the "innocent purchaser offense" used by buyers in pursuance of responsible or
contributory negligent parties to the property transaction. Driven by regulation and just old fashion 'let the buyer beware', tank testing is here to stay.

Choosing The Right Tank Test

The accepted test is a function of tank status, site conditions and comprehensive objective. Verifiability and timeliness of results are supplementary test selection criteria. Test limitations, inherent false inevitable and false negative conditions are discussed following the introduction of each technique.

An overview of tank testing methodology is reprinted from Anco's Ust Line*, Issue #4. It poses the request "which tank testing formula is best?" The purpose of a tank test is two-fold: to safe the buyer from a past leak and to safe the wholesaler from being blamed for a qoute that did not exist when he sold his house. To perform these objectives, we seek one answer: has the tank in request leaked and created an environmental problem? In short, is the site contaminated?

In selecting a test to acknowledge this question, the first concerns will be spoton results and verifiability. Ease of scheduling, quick results and cost are foremost as well. Finally, a test is needed that is applicable to the right situation that takes into notice soil stratigraphy and compensates for site conditions.

The best testing selection will meet all or most of the accuracy, verifiability, speed and cost objectives.

There are three major categories of tank tests: liquid, air and soil tests. The first two are in-tank test entertaining delicate computer based instrumentation that measures the loss rate of a reagent, liquid or gas, as it leaks out of the tank. This is well the drawback of in-tank tests. Will a buyer find any rate of leaking acceptable? Probably not. But the Njdep does. To help compensate for inevitable limitations of these tests, the Njdep
has instituted a pass/fail leak threshold of .05 gallons per hour, below which the tank will legally "pass" the test. But this "acceptable" leak rate is 1.2 gallons per day, or 438 gallons per year. This will not be accepted to most buyers.

For liquid tests, or volumetric tests, the tank must be filled with oil up into the neck of the fill pipe. Diminutive volume changes are observed and the tank fails only if the oil level decreases at a rate surpassing .05 gallons per hour.

• Benefits: This test entails no covering disturbance.
• Drawbacks: False inevitable results, indicating a leak, are not uncommon for conditions as benign as lose threads on the fill pipe. A fuel delivery must be tightly coordinated with the execution of the tank test itself. This involves supplementary expense. Worse still, if the tank does have a leak the test itself will discharge more contamination into the soil.
• Verifiability: Beyond test data review, verification is impossible without faultless retesting.

Air Tests come in three types: pressure testing, vacuum testing and tracer testing. Pressure testing involves applying air pressure to the tank and watching for pressure drops. This is an outdated test which can blow out a weak spot in the tank and generate a needful leak.

Vacuum testing involves plugging all pipes to the tank applying a vacuum, then listening straight through a hydrophone for leak sounds.

Tracer testing involves injecting an isotope of a rare gas into the tank and using sensors settled covering of the tank to sense a the leak of the rare gas. Results can take up to 10 days to process due to the gas migration period: i.e.: clayey soils slow down the migration rate.

• Benefits: Vacuum and tracer tests are straightforward to coordinate, involve no covering disturbance and test the piping as well.
• Drawbacks: False inevitable results from lose fittings are not uncommon and the volumetric quantum of these tests use the .05 gallons/hour standard.
• Verifiability: Other than data review, verifiability is only inherent straight through faultless retesting.

The third category, the soil test, directly measures the number of oil that has already leaked, answering the central request directly, plainly and cost effectively.

In this test, soil samples are retrieved from nearby the tank at depths of 6"-12" deeper than the lowest of the tank. These samples are tested for petroleum hydrocarbons. Results are immediately available. Some methods comprise hand digging to the top of the tank to check visually for signs of corrosion and to well find the edge of the tank. Clearly, the closer the sample's presence to the tank, the more spoton its representation of underlying soil conditions. Analytic results are checked against Njdep operation levels for qoute identification.

• Benefits: This is a straightforward test, not relying on electronic instrumentation. It detects oil spills from any source, including previously removed leaking tanks and overfills. Contamination resulting from overfill is well differentiated from deeper contamination resulting from a tank failure. This formula is applicable to any incommunicable tank, whether it is active (in use) or out of service. Even previously ended tanks can be tested to decree whether the tank leaked before closure and if that leak was not remediated.
• Drawbacks: Soil testing disturbs the soil, as this is an out-of-tank test that seeks the affects of a leak.
• Verifiability: 1 1/2" diameter bored holes can remain open, facilitating independent sample collection.

The Next Step

After receiving test results, what should be done if there is suspicion of a leak or confirmed contamination? The next step is to decree if the test results are valid and if the site is contaminated. Vessel tests alone will not tell you this, so a soil test should be performed. Incorporated into this test can be tank and piping inspections to eliminate those conditions foremost to inherent false inevitable results.

Once it is determined the test is valid, it is now time to perform quantitative analysis, recite the extent of contamination and/or plan for the tank discharge and site remediation.

With the quantitative analysis, levels are compared with applicable operation levels. Where levels exceed state regulations, a tank discharge is well required. But operation levels loose their meaning when the request is asked. Why is there any oil 12" below the tank? It is arguable that small quantities are general however, low levels may be the telltale sign of imminent gross tank failure. Anco recently removed a tank where bored soil sample Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (Tphc) analytic results were at 150 parts per million. The dealer recommended discharge even though results were well below the first Njdep operation level of 1000 ppm. (Njdep allows up to 10,000 ppm Tphc is some cases). This dealer's advice rose above an often displayed instinct to deny the problem. Upon discharge the tank was found to have dozens of pin holes in it. In this case, the dealer's concern for his customer prevented a small qoute from becoming a huge problem. Most significantly, it preserved the account.

Planning

All disposal facilities wish discrete laboratory analyses. accepted turn nearby time for these tests is two to three weeks. This is also the typical lead time between tank discharge contracting and actual mobilization for removal. The job should be coordinated so the testing is completed before mobilization. Such planning will expedite the clean-up and shorten the task period by about three weeks.

Securing contaminated soil clearance at an approved disposal facility ahead of time allows the tank removal, soil digout and disposal to be done as one operation. This eliminates the need to return to the site at a later date to take off the contaminated soil. This is needful for speedy job completion and during the winter months to preclude the dug out soil from freezing into a solid lump. This singular execution arrival should be less costly than the tank discharge - soil digout - stockpile - then return to loadout alternative.

Therefore, the most direct path towards expeditious site remediation requires soil testing.

Prevention

So far we have covered steps that effect a failed tank test. Because tank testing is ordinarily performed by the buyer before a real estate transfer, the oil catalogue is now at risk of being lost. What can be done to preclude an catalogue from being field to a tank test in the first place?

The first proactive selection is to work with the wholesaler before he lists the property and convert the catalogue to gas. This is the poorest selection for our industry. The quick gas conversion sale looses that catalogue forever. Historically, this selection has left our industry with a patrimony of improperly ended tanks. These eventually come to light and by connection tarnish fuel oil's name. Improperly ended tanks will continue to be a more needful social relations qoute than active Ust's as there is no direct financial aid for incommunicable contamination if they leak.

Let's modify the first selection by limiting the offer of gas conversion services. Furthermore, when conclusion out an incommunicable tank (in conjunction with the gas conversion), rout out incommunicable contamination at that time, by contribution only tank removals or soil investigations in conjunction with in-place closures. If a qoute is discovered the financial hardship becomes an immediate consequence of the decision to convert to gas. This hardship merits less pity than that endured by the innocent property owner who later discovers an inherited problem. This arrival turns the table on gas market's ruthless portrayal of oil heat as a polluter.

My second advice is for oil dealers to selectively encourage their customers to move away from old singular walled steel incommunicable tanks to basement tanks, above ground tanks, or duplicate walled tanks. This must be done with great delicacy and finesse. It requires readdressing the incommunicable tank situation from 'no problem' to 'eventual problem'. It requires operation before the tank starts to leak. This minimizes the inherent for cost overruns and wins many customer appreciation.

One arrival already being implemented by some fuel oil dealers is a selective tank replacement program. An inevitable limitation includes funding, however, where it is physically inherent to install a 275 gallon tank, Ust closure plus 275 facility should be at least 35% less costly than a gas conversation. A dealer offered financing plan makes this arrival affordable and most significantly, retains the oil account. task costs should be in the ,800-,000 range. With an interest free finance plan spread over 12 months, payments of 0-7 per month should be affordable.

In short, preclude your customer's from failing an incommunicable oil tank test by preventing it from happening in the first place. Eliminate the tank, take a proactive stance by replacing it and safe your customer from what the laws of physics inevitably deed him.

By well disclosing the limitations of steel Ust's, then immediately contribution an affordable solution, your customer will believe you care as much for their financial welfare as your own. Liken it to an automobile recall due to a faulty component. It is better to kick off the recall than to defend a lawsuit. In our case, it is better to kick off a proactive clarification than to defend fuel oil's name as a polluter.

Questions & Answers

Question: What is the most accepted tank closure method?

Answer: Regulatory Bulletins 88-3 and 91-4 mandate accepted closure techniques. These techniques fall into two categories: in-place closure (aka abandonment) and faultless removal. Ust Line #5* addresses the selection of discharge vs. In-place closure, recommending the latter as long as soils under the tank are tested. This Ust Line* introduces the "level of completion" concept, a big concern of homebuyers. This concept is applied to each of the closure techniques specified in Bulletin 91-4.

Level of completion is a quantum of job thoroughness in terms of both environmental issues and future liability. This criteria of thoroughness or completeness is becoming a major factor in determining the best arrival for dealing with a singular incommunicable storage tank situation.

In terms of completeness, discharge is best, followed by open tank closure.

Removal vs. In-Place Closure. well the most accepted job is done when the tank is wholly removed. However, tank discharge is equipment-intensive, which makes it costlier than in-place closure. It is also a very invasive procedure, particularly if a ended deck or walkway is over or near the tank area. covering recovery supplementary complicates the job and raises the cost.

With tank removal, cost must be weighed against level of completion. Is the homeowner planning to sell the home? The ended tank left in the ground can be a stumbling block. Gone are the days when one could plainly state that the tank was taken care of... Today, the wholesaler must supply certified evidence that the technique used to close the tank meets the intent of Bulletin 88-3 and, especially critical, that the tank never leaked. Tank discharge offers the highest level of completion because the tank is now entirely eliminated.

In-place closure techniques fall into two categories: injection of concrete slurry or polyurethane foam down the fillpipe and pouring sand or gravel straight through a large opening. The previous is wholly non-disruptive, while the latter requires hand digging to the top of the tank, chance a 2' x 2' hole in the tank and well entering the vessel. The cost of each arrival is approximately the same. In terms of thoroughness, however, entering the tank is a far more faultless arrival because it allows the tank to be wholly cleaned out of all sludge and residue and allows for leak inspection while inside.

*Ust Line is a monthly newsletter written by Mark Annis, President of Anco Environmental Services, Inc. For more information, please visit Anco's website at http://www.ancoenv.com.

Failing an underground Oil Tank Test

Ingersoll Rand Air Compressor Troubleshooting Piezoelectric Pressure Sensors