Jump to content

fuel oil tank leak , who pays


Recommended Posts

My Daughter lives on Long Island , she had a fuel tank with water in it, so as a good dad, I call a fuel company "Dart Fuel Oil" to have it cleaned out , inspect the tank and run the burn ( wanted to make sure it ran) and then if need be replace the tank, So they clean out the old oil/water and suggest replacing the tank, But before that I wanted to make sure the burner ran. They said they would inspect the tank prior to installing any oil

So  burner guy and an oil truck show up , putting 100gals of oil which proceeds to leak on the ground, so Dart calls the DEC (EPA) to report the spill and refuse to clean it up, saying it's the home owners problem. I get a report and letter saying I have to clean it up or be fined, so I do which cost about $6,000 . So where do I go from here.

- Find a Environmental Lawyer   and sue them ( does any one know any good ones in NY ?

-Forget about it and eat the cost, 

Why is this the Homeowners problem , shouldn't the Oil company be responsible?

WARNING IF YOU LIVE ON THE ISLAND DON"T USE DART FUEL OIL!

Any idea's would be helpful!

Link to post
Share on other sites

In ground tank, or above ground? Leased to your daughter by the oil co. or owned by your daughter?

 Underground residential oil tanks are illegal in CT for just this reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

In ground tank, or above ground? Leased to your daughter by the oil co. or owned by your daughter?

 Underground residential oil tanks are illegal in CT for just this reason.

above ground , not leased

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well.....it’s been a very long time but when I ran our hazardous materials emergency response team we would often respond to abandoned materials (drums etc) on private property often a vacant lot. If it was not an emergency - meaning a spill or dangerous “methyl ethyl bad shit” - we notified the local regulatory agency and they managed/supervised the cleanup. Under then current law, the owner is responsible for the cleanup and proper disposal. Didn’t matter if it was the owners “stuff”. It was on his/her property and therefore his/her responsibility. There was also a concept that responsibility for any spill was “strict and several” which meant your role in the mess whether causative or completely innocent didn’t matter. 
 

I would guess as the property owner you are indeed on the hook to mitigate the spill. You probably have a case for legal action to recover some of the cost from the company since they spilled it. However.......with the amount of $ in play, the cost of the litigation may make the effort not worth it. Environmental law attorneys are not inexpensive.

Caveat is my experience is about 20 years old.......maybe longer.....also each state may have different regulatory structures that add to the federal laws. So take my advice for what it’s worth. Good luck.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say it all depends on what agreement you had with the Dart. If you agreement was to inspect the tank for leaks, and they did not, instead filling the tank with oil that leaked, then it is on them. If you did not insist or contract for a leak test prior to filling, then it would be on you.
Thankfully it is above ground.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I’d want to know how they put 100 gallons into a leaking above ground tank. 

As to spills from a tank you own, clearly your problem, including clean up and mitigation. Disposal of contaminated soil isn’t cheap. 

Some question on what your agreement on checking out the burner and how muck fuel into the tank and their “inspection.” What kind of agreement was signed?   You do need to talk to a local lawyer about suing them for “something” but how. Their out will be that they recommended a tank replacement and you insisted on the current tank and we’re working at your direction. 
 

UG tanks still allowed here. I replaced one 3 years ago. We are allowed to “mitigate” a failed tank by pumping it out, uncovering and removing the tank top and filling with sand then dense fill soil above. Considered less likely to spread any leaked out contamination than a full excavation that requires sampling and mitigation well below the tank bottom. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand how an above ground tank can be full of water, but leak oil.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

I don't understand how an above ground tank can be full of water, but leak oil.

Being in florida and not inspecting the tank my self I trusted them , ( no ones word means shit today) I think there was only about 25 gals of water/oil when they pumped it out,

and they did say they were going to inspect the tank prior to oil delivery which was only suppose to be 20 gallons to run the the burner not the 100 gals they put in,  Luckily a removal company removed around 90- 95 gals , so the spill was little

Link to post
Share on other sites

So they lost 5 gal on the ground, and it is $6k?

Ouch...

It's really discouraging when people try to do the right thing for the environment, yet get slapped for making an effort.  Good deeds and punishment and all that...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Windward said:

So they lost 5 gal on the ground, and it is $6k?

Ouch...

It's really discouraging when people try to do the right thing for the environment, yet get slapped for making an effort.  Good deeds and punishment and all that...

 

True. Once spilled, folks seem to want to “mitigate back to perfect” without regard to cost. The bigger the bureaucracy, the more inspectors and costs. Long Island bureaucracy ISS some of the worst.   Basically dig and test to clean soil and then mitigate the contaminated soil in an incinerator. Digging the cheapest part. 

How old is the place?  Any chance the failed tank replaced an even older UG tank. Discovering that when digging gets you a bonus round of bad things. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The digging problems are spot on! I had a fire station build delayed for 6 months due to soil remediation issues from old underground tanks long gone and our dozer operators dumping oil and diesel on the “back forty” of the lot to kill weeds for a thousand years........even though that practice had stopped some 15 or 20 years before. Had to have the lot over excavated down to clean soil, and the excavated soil taken to a location where it was spread out in the sun for months to off gas the offending petroleum residue. Then brought back and placed back into the excavation and compacted. Believe it or not that was cheaper than disposing of the old soil and bringing in new soil. 
 

By the way.......there is nothing “fair” about environmental laws regarding mitigation of spills and contaminated anything. Absolutely nothing fair about it at all. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't advise re: cleanup - that's different everywhere. A lawyer will eat 6 grand in no time.

Who the hell can afford to run an oil burner these days? It's like driving a semi for transportation.

We had one in our Okanagan house and it was getting close to a grand a month in winter.

We changed to gas - 96% HE furnace netted out at about 3 grand installed and the line installation from the street cost $150.

Monthly cost in the dead of winter is about $100 now.

Even electric would be vastly cheaper than oil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sort of ironic that the next thread at the time of this post is that Oil if the Future.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, a secure fuel source of sufficient size to be able to operate independent of fuel deliveries or commercial fueling locations is a critical element to a fire departments ability to continue to operate in large scale disasters. The target was generally 72 hours of continuous operations in a fleet of several hundred apparatus that get about 5-7 miles per gallon if you’re lucky. As a result.....hundred or better old single wall in ground tanks. Mitigating that risk by shifting to all above ground tanks and mitigating all the soil contamination from any that had leaked took about a decade and cost a shitload of money we’d rather have used for other things.

Environmental issues suck. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Windward said:

So they lost 5 gal on the ground, and it is $6k?

Ouch...

 

 

That is, in fact, insane.

Oil is organic, the end result of biological decay. Dig and haul under most circumstances is stupid.  Minor spills should be remediated in situ. Dig up the contaminated soil, mix it on a plastic tarp with fertilizer and native soil. Maybe water a little. Stir every couple of weeks. Allow the native soil bacteria to flourish and break down the hydrocarbons. In a few months use it to grow tomatoes, as it will be the best, richest soil you've ever seen. 

That, at least, is what the science says.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Point Break said:

The digging problems are spot on! I had a fire station build delayed for 6 months due to soil remediation issues from old underground tanks long gone and our dozer operators dumping oil and diesel on the “back forty” of the lot to kill weeds for a thousand years........even though that practice had stopped some 15 or 20 years before.

I met a fellow who had spent time at McMurdo early in his career.  In the 60's, when the US signed the Antarctic Treaty, they decided the risk of having a nuclear reactor to power everything at McMurdo was too risky.  So they decommissioned the reactor and started testing the soil and it was showing radioactive, so they dig some more and they're paying metric tons of money to get the tainted soil shipped off to be disposed somewhere.  And they kept digging and digging, finally they consult an expert who laughs and informs them that the entire continent was naturally radioactive.  I have friends who do site testing and remediation and they can essentially just ask for a blank check promising to fill in the amount when they are done.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Cruisin Loser said:

That is, in fact, insane.

Oil is organic, the end result of biological decay. Dig and haul under most circumstances is stupid.  Minor spills should be remediated in situ. Dig up the contaminated soil, mix it on a plastic tarp with fertilizer and native soil. Maybe water a little. Stir every couple of weeks. Allow the native soil bacteria to flourish and break down the hydrocarbons. In a few months use it to grow tomatoes, as it will be the best, richest soil you've ever seen. 

That, at least, is what the science says.

 

I’ve been with several companies stick with u wanted land because of some dumping that some previous owners did long before the current owners even knew that land existed. Policy seems to be that if you own it, you own anything that ever happens in the past. 
 

as I recall, when Cameron Station in Alexandria was closed under base realignment, the worry wa that the environmental remediation meant it would be empty land forever. Then the developers started talking to the county. Developable land inside the core of the county didn’t exist and a deal was cut for the State/county to accept the land as it was and make a deal to hold developers harmless for anything that reached back to the feds. Only took a few years to build all that out with apartments and condos. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Innocent Bystander said:

I’ve been with several companies stick with u wanted land because of some dumping that some previous owners did long before the current owners even knew that land existed. Policy seems to be that if you own it, you own anything that ever happens in the past. 
 

as I recall, when Cameron Station in Alexandria was closed under base realignment, the worry wa that the environmental remediation meant it would be empty land forever. Then the developers started talking to the county. Developable land inside the core of the county didn’t exist and a deal was cut for the State/county to accept the land as it was and make a deal to hold developers harmless for anything that reached back to the feds. Only took a few years to build all that out with apartments and condos. 

And we wonder why there are clusters of cancers in otherwise (relatively) cancer free areas.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you buy land, you often don’t get mineral or water rights.  But you assume all liability for minerals and water issues.  Known and unknown. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So they were engaged to clean, dearer and and inspect tank. Then deliver oil after a second ‘inspection’.  The tank leaks.  AND YOU are liable?    
 

What were the terms of the first visit?  was anything in writing?  What were the means and methods for the initial tank cleaning?  Where was the leak?   How does a tank not leaking at the time of the first visit develop a leak that they do not observe?

 

As an accomplished “dockside” and bar room attorney, you may have a claim against the firm.  At least they should contribute to the fine.  If they balk, who ever licenses them as a fuel company should be made aware of the sequence of events.

 

 

please note although admitted to bars around the world, I am not an attorney,

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Windward said:

So if you buy land, you often don’t get mineral or water rights.  But you assume all liability for minerals and water issues.  Known and unknown. 
 

 

Close.....you assume all liability for soil or groundwater contamination whether it happened yesterday or 100 years ago.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Windward said:

So if you buy land, you often don’t get mineral or water rights.  But you assume all liability for minerals and water issues.  Known and unknown. 
 

 

No. Not unless specifically stated in the deed. If you own land that other entities own the water, or mineral rights to, they are responsible for the water/ mineral content.

In the case of the OP I would say that the oil company was negligent in putting in 100 Gal. of fuel oil into a tank that they said was in need of replacement. Especially if they put in 100 Gal. when they were only supposed to put in 20Gal. to ensure that the furnace was operating properly.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Point Break said:

Close.....you assume all liability for soil or groundwater contamination whether it happened yesterday or 100 years ago.  

I guess it depends on the deed.

 I'd never buy a property that had water or mineral rights deeded to someone else to begin with, but if I did, I'd make sure that those who owned the rights were responsible for the condition of water/minerals.

 If I bought 100 acres outside of Santa Fe, and the water and mineral rights were owned by "Copperhead inc." And the property next door, which was owned by "Slick Cobalt inc." And my well became contaminated, and as such, the crops were contaminated by the water..... Who should be responsible? Certainly not me. I had no control over the water that I got from "Copperhead" or the water flowing onto my property that was owned by "Slick Cobalt".

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mrleft8 said:

I guess it depends on the deed.

 I'd never buy a property that had water or mineral rights deeded to someone else to begin with, but if I did, I'd make sure that those who owned the rights were responsible for the condition of water/minerals.

 If I bought 100 acres outside of Santa Fe, and the water and mineral rights were owned by "Copperhead inc." And the property next door, which was owned by "Slick Cobalt inc." And my well became contaminated, and as such, the crops were contaminated by the water..... Who should be responsible? Certainly not me. I had no control over the water that I got from "Copperhead" or the water flowing onto my property that was owned by "Slick Cobalt".

 

No, it does not depend on the deed. It seems like it should but the federal framework surrounding liability doesn't give a rats ass about deeds. The liability is "strict joint, and several". I am not an attorney but watched some really nasty outcomes to innocent landowners for acts that occurred prior to their ownership. Make no mistake if the guilty party can be found then they are jointly responsible for the full mitigation but if they cannot be found........guess what..............its gonna get cleaned up.........and if you are the current owner.......you're gonna pay.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

From the linked source.


“The primary focus of any real estate due diligence assessment is on the presence or likely presence of contamination. This is because, under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and many analogous state laws, owners of real property generally are strictly liable for the costs to address onsite contamination, regardless of fault. 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq. Most states have adopted similar liability schemes.”

https://sdgresources.relx.com/legal-practical-guidance/environmental-due-diligence-real-estate-transactions

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Point Break said:

No, it does not depend on the deed. It seems like it should but the federal framework surrounding liability doesn't give a rats ass about deeds. The liability is "strict joint, and several". I am not an attorney but watched some really nasty outcomes to innocent landowners for acts that occurred prior to their ownership. Make no mistake if the guilty party can be found then they are jointly responsible for the full mitigation but if they cannot be found........guess what..............its gonna get cleaned up.........and if you are the current owner.......you're gonna pay.

I will bow to your superior knowledge.

 In passing, my parents' had a property which the up hill neighbors had a "sight easement" on, built in to both properties' deeds. When my father went into assisted living, and the rental tenant had been evicted (Major damage, different story), the up hill neighbor, who had always been friends w/ my parents, my sister and me, one day, w/o notification, had a tree service top 2o large Juniper trees on my parents' property. Suddenly using their sight easement after 20 years..... I asked them why they hadn't asked me to have the work done, and to supervise the cutting. They refused to talk to me. I called the police, who went up and talked to them. Yes they had a sight easement, but they had no right to send someone on to my parents' property w/o consent. They were given a warning about trespass on private property. (I chose not to have them given a fine, as long as they had the tree co. pick up and remove all the tops ad branches they just left on the ground.) What had been a great friendship turned into a nasty feud. Good fences make good neighbors. Bad lawyers make really shitty neighbors.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, quod umbra said:

I would say it all depends on what agreement you had with the Dart. If you agreement was to inspect the tank for leaks, and they did not, instead filling the tank with oil that leaked, then it is on them. If you did not insist or contract for a leak test prior to filling, then it would be on you.
Thankfully it is above ground.

In NH the oil delivery company has an inspection they do every x number of years and such inspection has to be kept on file.  If they knew the tank was leaking and still delivered oil it is on them.  Also why did they deliver 100 gallons.  If you wanted the burner tested 1 gallon of kerosone is a lot cheaper. And does the job better.

A lot of misc mistakes were made.  Boh on your daughter and the repiar techs and delivery company.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

I will bow to your superior knowledge.

 In passing, my parents' had a property which the up hill neighbors had a "sight easement" on, built in to both properties' deeds. When my father went into assisted living, and the rental tenant had been evicted (Major damage, different story), the up hill neighbor, who had always been friends w/ my parents, my sister and me, one day, w/o notification, had a tree service top 2o large Juniper trees on my parents' property. Suddenly using their sight easement after 20 years..... I asked them why they hadn't asked me to have the work done, and to supervise the cutting. They refused to talk to me. I called the police, who went up and talked to them. Yes they had a sight easement, but they had no right to send someone on to my parents' property w/o consent. They were given a warning about trespass on private property. (I chose not to have them given a fine, as long as they had the tree co. pick up and remove all the tops ad branches they just left on the ground.) What had been a great friendship turned into a nasty feud. Good fences make good neighbors. Bad lawyers make really shitty neighbors.

I don’t claim to be an expert in environmental law, in fact far from it, but I did have to interact with the various regulatory agencies and grabbed a couple environmental regulatory framework courses at a local junior college. I took those to try to get a basic understanding of the very complex legal framework of overlapping federal, state, county, and city requirements. I did that as a recommended short course of study since I was going to manage our hazardous materials emergency response team. The couple courses were suggested to me by our local county’s regulatory guys. I was stunned at how complex that world is. Cruising Loser probably has a better 30,000 foot view than I do but I’m reasonably confident in that liability element. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Detroit, we have our fair share of Brownfields.  Every few months I read about a company that is court ordered to clean up their mess.  This may be due to an endangering the public vs liability after sale, but it's been my impression here that the seller has to do the due diligence and do the studies showing that their property is clean.  Just like in my town, I have to have an inspection done to be able to sell my property.  I don't know anything about this beyond one column articles in the paper.  

I think there's always room for negotiation and the fuel company might split the 6k as putting 100gals in was just wrong.  I would try there.  The environmental clean up place did nothing wrong...other than being overpriced.  A boat I sailed on had a 100gal tank, the previous owner's crew would just fill it up for deliveries.  This works great until a weld lets go...it happened twice.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, peragrin said:

In NH the oil delivery company has an inspection they do every x number of years and such inspection has to be kept on file.  If they knew the tank was leaking and still delivered oil it is on them.  Also why did they deliver 100 gallons.  If you wanted the burner tested 1 gallon of kerosone is a lot cheaper. And does the job better.

A lot of misc mistakes were made.  Boh on your daughter and the repiar techs and delivery company.

Yes I agree , things would have gone differently, I ran many an oil burners from 10 gal diesel can till I got my tank filled, but I'm 1200 miles away and with this stupid bug flying around it was hard to get there from here,  I also was a nuke inspector , so I know a little about inspections 

I just have gotten more things in writing, but I also trust what I thought it was a reliable company and true to their word , not some bitch answering a phone , I tried numerous times to talk to "the Male owner" .I'm still puzzled how an oil company can get away with putting oil in an above ground tank that leaked,  from a management and tech's view point, Now the mess is cleaned up and getting warmer  , I'll be up there in their face, 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a Navy-sponsored experiment literally at the North Pole for five weeks in '87.  We built wood floors (2x4 stringers with a plywood floor), and erected tents above them.  We were heated by a simple gravity-fed diesel burner.  The floor of our tent would be frozen (outside -40), the upper reaches of the tent, maybe 90F.  We would hang our gloves at the tent's ceiling each night but slept in in the same clothes for five weeks.

The cost of having me up there was estimated at 10K/day.  So, why weren't we using a cheaper and more efficient fuel? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

I did a Navy-sponsored experiment literally at the North Pole for five weeks in '87.  We built wood floors (2x4 stringers with a plywood floor), and erected tents above them.  We were heated by a simple gravity-fed diesel burner.  The floor of our tent would be frozen (outside -40), the upper reaches of the tent, maybe 90F.  We would hang our gloves at the tent's ceiling each night but slept in in the same clothes for five weeks.

The cost of having me up there was estimated at 10K/day.  So, why weren't we using a cheaper and more efficient fuel? 

Ignoring the hype of alternate energy, it is really hard to beat the portability, energy density, simple procedures and general safety of petroleum based fuels. We have made significant progress in cleaning up fossil fuels and newer tech and recyclables are growing but all have their downsides as well that we are going to have to deal with, including the life cycle costs of the equipment.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep. Oil packs the most bang per buck in terms of energy per pound or whatever measure you like. It also is the highest amount of energy you get out of the amount of energy input to produce.

Spill cleanup is a PITA and the legal issue will vary tremendously from state to state. I am more than ten years away from dealing with any of this stuff, but here's what I used to know-

A fuel supplier who knowingly pumps fuel into a tank that leaks is asking for a huge Uncle Sam type fucking. Not even the Navy is that goddam stupid and destructive. I can't believe they did that, and then have the balls to say "ha ha on you!" so that makes me think there must be some state law on their side.

For this kind of money, especially because it's public and the alphabet agencies are involved, calling around for a GOOD lawyer to sort this out. Best bet is to see if you can palm it off on the fuel companies insurance.

FB- Doug

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of insurance, boat owners here are required to have spill remediation insurance. Is that available to homeowners?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Speaking of insurance, boat owners here are required to have spill remediation insurance. Is that available to homeowners?

Now you have me thinking. Dangerous. Not sure it’s required or if it’s just practice in the marine insurance field due the the massive potential costs and fines. I have the sailboat and 2 powerboats on a marine policy so they are covered for cleanup. I’m not sure that they would be under a home and auto policy unless specifically called for.  I know when I replaced an old fuel oil tank, testing and any clean up (thankfully not needed) was all on me. I guess similar to insurance doesn’t pay if your deck falls down due to lack of maintenance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Innocent Bystander said:

Now you have me thinking. Dangerous. Not sure it’s required or if it’s just practice in the marine insurance field due the the massive potential costs and fines. I have the sailboat and 2 powerboats on a marine policy so they are covered for cleanup. I’m not sure that they would be under a home and auto policy unless specifically called for.  I know when I replaced an old fuel oil tank, testing and any clean up (thankfully not needed) was all on me. I guess similar to insurance doesn’t pay if your deck falls down due to lack of maintenance. 

"Duty of care"

it's a magic phrase.

FB- Doug

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2021 at 1:16 PM, Cruisin Loser said:

That is, in fact, insane.

Oil is organic, the end result of biological decay. Dig and haul under most circumstances is stupid.  Minor spills should be remediated in situ. Dig up the contaminated soil, mix it on a plastic tarp with fertilizer and native soil. Maybe water a little. Stir every couple of weeks. Allow the native soil bacteria to flourish and break down the hydrocarbons. In a few months use it to grow tomatoes, as it will be the best, richest soil you've ever seen. 

That, at least, is what the science says.

 

something I would expect someone from west texas to say...   I don't recall any of that oil spilled offshore, "broke down" through natural activity ..   how many tomatoes grown in oil contaminated soil have you actually eaten ?

 

i remember the factory rep saying that Roundup was so safe, you could drink it, but declined when offered a glass

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

i remember the factory rep saying that Roundup was so safe, you could drink it, but declined when offered a glass

Samething happende with agent orange, butte the guye training the soildieres woude actiualley drick a glasse fulle to showe howe safe it wase.                             :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Grande Mastere Dreade said:
On 3/6/2021 at 2:16 PM, Cruisin Loser said:

That is, in fact, insane.

something I would expect someone from west texas to say...   

LI is dependentte on aquiferes foire watere...... so they mabey littele overe protectieve and sensitieve to 'contaminientes'                   :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Snaggletooth said:

LI is dependentte on aquiferes foire watere...... so they mabey littele overe protectieve and sensitieve to 'contaminientes'                   :)

LI used to be dependent on potatoes, ducks and insane drunken artists... And insane drunken fishermen/baymen.....

I like the potatoes, ducks, fish/scallops..... The art, OK.... I prefer them all to the gazillionaires that have bought half the island.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

I prefer them all to the gazillionaires that have bought half the island.

I thick we alle do......... I doubte they leaveng annytime soone...........                       :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can find a source for Anne Bell's film "Baymen- Our waters are dying", it's a brilliant film... I think it was 1976.... I'm sure it was produced before that, but I think that's when it was released.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Snaggletooth said:

LI is dependentte on aquiferes foire watere...... so they mabey littele overe protectieve and sensitieve to 'contaminientes'                   :)

I'm aware of that. Nobody is advocating shoddy practice. 

I studied ground water hydrology as an elective in College. A good fit with my other stuff. The protection of groundwater seems incidental to the cost incurred. 

Simply put, dig and haul is wasteful and presents other dangers to public safety. Dig and remediate on site is safer and cheaper.

How much dirt will 5 gallons saturate? It would certainly fit on a large plastic tarp for remediation as I described. If that is not permitted, it is for reasons other than science.  

If they had gotten on a spill that size immediately they probably could have dug it all up with shovels and put it in garbage bags. Waiting just runs up the backhoe bills. 

45 minutes ago, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

something I would expect someone from west texas to say...   I don't recall any of that oil spilled offshore, "broke down" through natural activity ..   how many tomatoes grown in oil contaminated soil have you actually eaten ?

 

i remember the factory rep saying that Roundup was so safe, you could drink it, but declined when offered a glass 

Are ad hominem attacks your norm?

Anyways, I've eaten plenty of watermelons grown in remediated soil. Bioremediation is a well known and accepted technology. I have experience with it over decades. The EPA and every state regulatory aga cry I deal with accept it. To argue otherwise is to make a bragging point of ignorance. 

The question is, where do you do it? On site is cheap. More expensive options are just more expensive, not better.

I offered no opinions about offshore or Roundup. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Oil packs the most bang per buck in terms of energy per pound or whatever measure you like.

not even close.

Uranium. Hydrazine.

Mid 80's F1 cars that used fuel that was mostly toluene, benzene and xylene. Very high calorific value. Cool story here:

http://mccabism.blogspot.com/2015/09/bmws-f1-rocket-fuel-and-aromatic.html
 

Ok, for the more common ones see this chart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion#Gross_heating_value

  Natural gas is mostly methane + small amounts of ethane/propane. Easily ahead of heating oil.

image.png.bf7d0403851a1e47b0c15988eab48f9f.png

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They seem like they are a small operator

I'd also try a letter to Dart first, followed by a phone call with the owner or other boss and ask for a contribution to the bill. Use words like "negligence" a lot. Spell out the details clearly in your letter. Try to be non-emotional. Ask for what you want. Name a dollar figure.

You could try small claims court. Point out if they go to small claims court, and you win, they might be on the hook for lots more. A goodwill settlement might be less risky to them

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Zonker said:

not even close.

Uranium. Hydrazine.

Mid 80's F1 cars that used fuel that was mostly toluene, benzene and xylene. Very high calorific value. Cool story here:

http://mccabism.blogspot.com/2015/09/bmws-f1-rocket-fuel-and-aromatic.html
 

Ok, for the more common ones see this chart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion#Gross_heating_value

  Natural gas is mostly methane + small amounts of ethane/propane. Easily ahead of heating oil.

image.png.bf7d0403851a1e47b0c15988eab48f9f.png

 

OK, I knew about hydrogen and uranium.... very capital-intense though... but would never have guessed paraffin.

If propane packs more energy density, then why is it such lousy fuel? Engines converted to burn propane are notorious for losing power and crappy mileage. I shouldn't say "lousy" because in some respects it is a great fuel.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cruisin Loser said:

I'm aware of that. Nobody is advocating shoddy practice. 

I studied ground water hydrology as an elective in College. A good fit with my other stuff. The protection of groundwater seems incidental to the cost incurred. 

Simply put, dig and haul is wasteful and presents other dangers to public safety. Dig and remediate on site is safer and cheaper.

How much dirt will 5 gallons saturate? It would certainly fit on a large plastic tarp for remediation as I described. If that is not permitted, it is for reasons other than science.  

If they had gotten on a spill that size immediately they probably could have dug it all up with shovels and put it in garbage bags. Waiting just runs up the backhoe bills. 

Are ad hominem attacks your norm?

Anyways, I've eaten plenty of watermelons grown in remediated soil. Bioremediation is a well known and accepted technology. I have experience with it over decades. The EPA and every state regulatory aga cry I deal with accept it. To argue otherwise is to make a bragging point of ignorance. 

The question is, where do you do it? On site is cheap. More expensive options are just more expensive, not better.

I offered no opinions about offshore or Roundup. 

 

CL, I’m curious in our case the soil was really contaminated deep, and it was the whole lot.......worse in some spots than others but....nasty nonetheless. This was a knockdown of a really really old firehouse and rebuild a modern one on a lot around 2/3 acre. So the experts recommended (and we did) a dig and haul. In our case would on site remediation have been possible? This was about 15-18 years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Zonker said:

They seem like they are a small operator

I'd also try a letter to Dart first, followed by a phone call with the owner or other boss and ask for a contribution to the bill. Use words like "negligence" a lot. Spell out the details clearly in your letter. Try to be non-emotional. Ask for what you want. Name a dollar figure.

You could try small claims court. Point out if they go to small claims court, and you win, they might be on the hook for lots more. A goodwill settlement might be less risky to them

thanks, kind of  my next thoughts, Dealing for my daughter , I  wanted to get the DEC to give a clean bill of health so no fines would Happen , Will proceed with a letter, Do have some sailing lawyers up there, so maybe even a phone to DART from them  , would get the ball rolling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Snaggletooth said:

LI is dependentte on aquiferes foire watere...... so they mabey littele overe protectieve and sensitieve to 'contaminientes'                   :)

west texas / san antonio  and parts of east texas are dependent on aquifers..   one time they were talking about burying the country's nuclear reactor waste right above the aquifer... ..       they have microbes that can eat oil, but they don't occur naturally...     my wife helped start the household hazardous waste program here in dallas, so you can take anything over to a drop off to dispose of properly.  it's the only way to get rid of the nasty stuff..

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Zonker said:

I suspect "engines DESIGNED to burn gasoline"... are crappy running on propane. 

 

Nope. Duel fuel generators are common though propane does derate them by 10-15%

Going to buy a duel fuel generator and portable propane tanks if I have a long term storm outage I can switch to gas. Other wise I can leave the propane tank hooked up to my grill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Snaggletooth said:

LI is dependentte on aquiferes foire watere...... so they mabey littele overe protectieve and sensitieve to 'contaminientes'                   :)

The land of Robert Moses isn’t sensitive to contaminates.  They are sensitive to how deep into your bank account they can get. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 stories

About 30 years ago a retired couple from Westford Mass lived in Florida in winter to beat the snow and cold.

They come back early April to find their house GONE!.  Nothing but a driveway and a square dirt imprint where the house used to sit.

WTF???

They immediately went to the Westford PD who said "We have  been expecting you"

Evidently the house had been converted to gas, but the fill pipe had been left on the house.

Oil company flunky got the house number wrong on a delivery and had pumped about 400 gallons into the basement before they figured "Gee that tank sure is taking a lot of full".

Cops and environmental folks were called and said the house had to be removed to pull the soil from below it.

Nobody had a number for the couple.  So the house was razed, the earth trucked away, and fresh earth filled into the hole.

Couple sued and oil company's insurance paid for the loss.

If this was me, I would have a lawyer call the oil company.  They should have insurance for just such a fuck up.  At that point the oil company may even pay the bill knowing their insurance will soar if they have such a claim against them.

A note to all to always leave a contact number in the back door window so officials can get a hold of you.  And if you convert to gas, remove or weld the fill cap so some flunky does not accidentally dump a load of fuel oil in your basement.

 

 

20 years ago I had a crew member whose parents owned a home with an oil furnace.

Like many at the time, the tank was against a wall, but the furnace was in the middle of the basement. The line connecting the 2 was copper tube and in the poured concrete basement floor.  Evidently the copper had corroded and had been slowly leaking for years into the ground.  When a neighbor found oil in their well water, an investigation found the source pretty quick.  Environmental folks came in hard.  Dug all dirt from all around the foundation to property lines for remediation.   The insurance company tapped out at $600K.  In the end, mom & pop lost the family homestead due to the insane clean up costs.

So if you have oil furnace check if you have copper pipe and if it goes into a concrete floor, cut a groove in the floor to put a new copper line sitting in a plastic tube so it will not corrode.    PIA work, but cheap insurance...

And check if you have copper fuel lines to your boat's diesel.  I did and after 30 years the portion in the bilge were about to let go. replaced with USCG approved rubber so the salt water could not get to it.  If your boat dumps your diesel tank into the bilge and the bilge pump pushes it into the ocean while you are away, you too could have a nasty bill from the environment folks...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2021 at 9:48 AM, Not for nothing said:

above ground , not leased

Aboveground tank outside or in basement? If outside,  then driver had to be standing next it to fill (or in cab staying warm not paying attention). Is the leak point on the tank at the very bottom or is it at an higher point on the tank? And how bad of leak is it ? Dripping out over time or pouring out?

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Innocent Bystander said:
10 hours ago, Snaggletooth said:

LI is dependentte on aquiferes foire watere...... so they mabey littele overe protectieve and sensitieve to 'contaminientes'                   :)

The land of Robert Moses isn’t sensitive to contaminates.  They are sensitive to how deep into your bank account they can get. 

That cane be saide aboute moste govermentalle agencies, localle or ortherwise.  I n certaine arease theire our up to foire aquiferes, the deepeste being prisstine.  Toppmoeste benig  polluted in westerne portion do to industry and manufactiureng, and eastern by agricultiure. 

Werre going aftere Navey and NG foie the Bethpage site cominatione, and thr reason we dointe grow potatoes anymoire is the effectieve pestiside wase showing up in drickeng water.

We our tryeng to protecte what we have lefte.               :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, peragrin said:
8 hours ago, Zonker said:

I suspect "engines DESIGNED to burn gasoline"... are crappy running on propane. 

 

Nope. Duel fuel generators are common though propane does derate them by 10-15%

Going to buy a duel fuel generator and portable propane tanks if I have a long term storm outage I can switch to gas. Other wise I can leave the propane tank hooked up to my grill.

From figures I've seen, it's more like 20% but that's a jumping guesstimate not hard figures. If you're getting a dual fuel genset, oversize it!

I've had a household genset that ran on piped-in gas (methane?). It was great to not have to worry about storing fuel, and I built the enclosure specifically to never trap gas pockets. I did not oversize it enough to run EVERYthing in the house at once, which I did not think was a problem but when I showed the table of loads (which I'd made up for my wife) to the eventual buyer, they were distinctly unhappy with it.

I think the engines RUN just fine, it's the loss of power relative to the engine size. A pre luber is good too (that's probably all engines).

FB- Doug

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read on the internet (so there is that for authority), that salt cooled reactors cannot go into full meltdown in the event of an accident, and do not "blow up" with a water explosion.

Absolutely no idea if this is crap.  Likely is...

But have the scientists figured out a way to make nuclear safer, with no waste?

Perhaps yes?

That said... I do not want my tomatoes grown in the waste storage field. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sailingbeme said:

Aboveground tank outside or in basement? If outside,  then driver had to be standing next it to fill (or in cab staying warm not paying attention). Is the leak point on the tank at the very bottom or is it at an higher point on the tank? And how bad of leak is it ? Dripping out over time or pouring out?

Not being there , The Tank is outside above ground , about 25 gals of water/oil was removed , not leaking,  Delivery guy should have noticed either during or after the delivery of the leak,  Sounds like a heavy leak .The tech that came shortly after noticed the leak and started filling garbage cans with oil till a removal truck showed up . he then called the DEC, best guess is about 90% recovered, remainder either leaked or was left in the tank?

My mistakes trusting the company verbally and not getting things in writing ie; tank inspection report, and what exactly they what they were going to do,. Which they later lied about.

my daughter getting all upset of what was going on 

The company not performing a tank inspection ( as they said they would ) prior filling the tank with oil and they should have called a company to clean up the spill ASAP

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's disappointing that you can't really take anyone at their word anymore. I don't know how many jobs I did on a handshake before I got burned the first time, and started getting everything in writing. The second, and last time I got burned everything was in writing, and I still got burned, because they were high powered NYC lawyers, who knew that they could outlast me in a protracted legal battle. They literally told me this on the phone, and were happy about it.

I didn't shed any tears when I heard that the husband died of a massive heart attack a couple of years later.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

It's disappointing that you can't really take anyone at their word anymore. I don't know how many jobs I did on a handshake before I got burned the first time, and started getting everything in writing. The second, and last time I got burned everything was in writing, and I still got burned, because they were high powered NYC lawyers, who knew that they could outlast me in a protracted legal battle. They literally told me this on the phone, and were happy about it.

I didn't shed any tears when I heard that the husband died of a massive heart attack a couple of years later.

That was always the nice thing about software. You could build 'drop dead' code into it and as long as they only had the binary, it was pretty difficult getting past that. Not impossible but difficult.

I had one client, they didn't pay, they were never going to pay and they thought they were so clever. Until their code stopped working. Then the calls started but as I'd written the entire project off, so sad, too bad, you didn't pay dollar one so the contract never came into effect. Bye.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

It's disappointing that you can't really take anyone at their word anymore. I don't know how many jobs I did on a handshake before I got burned the first time, and started getting everything in writing. The second, and last time I got burned everything was in writing, and I still got burned, because they were high powered NYC lawyers, who knew that they could outlast me in a protracted legal battle. They literally told me this on the phone, and were happy about it.

I didn't shed any tears when I heard that the husband died of a massive heart attack a couple of years later.

You never could take people at their word.  Why do you think we have century old laws for fraud , libel, etc.  Why do you think freedom of speech exists?  Because actually trusting someone to keep their word is a long shot at best.

Always in writing.  At my previous job we were continuously adding wording, adjusting phrasing, and forcing the sales people to senthe updated phrasing as part of the contracts.  One bad apple spoiling it for many.  Never got totally burned. But toasted a couple of times a year.

The hardest part was keeping the salesmen updated and to stop promising things that were not part of what we do

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2021 at 8:19 AM, Raz'r said:

Speaking of insurance, boat owners here are required to have spill remediation insurance. Is that available to homeowners?

In WA it is. Before we had ours converted to Gas, our Oil CO maintained the tank. When we bought they inspected the tank determined it was not leaking in or out and since they dipped it 3-5 times a year they were in the best place to manage. Had the tank leaked the state policy paid for remediation up to a certain amount if I recall. But my neighbor was on the same program and when he pulled his tank there were a ~couple gallons in the dirt. He had ceased oil filling for a while so was on the hook himself. We had ours foamed to stay blissfully ignorant. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, peragrin said:

You never could take people at their word.  Why do you think we have century old laws for fraud , libel, etc.  Why do you think freedom of speech exists?  Because actually trusting someone to keep their word is a long shot at best.

Always in writing.  At my previous job we were continuously adding wording, adjusting phrasing, and forcing the sales people to senthe updated phrasing as part of the contracts.  One bad apple spoiling it for many.  Never got totally burned. But toasted a couple of times a year.

The hardest part was keeping the salesmen updated and to stop promising things that were not part of what we do

Mmmm, yes and no.

Dishonesty was invented the first time a caveman traded some flint spear points for fresh mastodon burgers.... well maybe the third or fourth time.

But, the overwhelming majority of people are honest, the overwhelming majority of the time. If we weren't, society simply would not work. That said, almost everybody will be at least slightly dishonest about something (above/beyond little social fibs, for politeness).

Locks keep honest people honest.

Always hold some leverage to keep the other guy honest, if you can. Trust, but verify

- DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Point Break said:

CL, I’m curious in our case the soil was really contaminated deep, and it was the whole lot.......worse in some spots than others but....nasty nonetheless. This was a knockdown of a really really old firehouse and rebuild a modern one on a lot around 2/3 acre. So the experts recommended (and we did) a dig and haul. In our case would on site remediation have been possible? This was about 15-18 years ago.

Short answer, you needed to get the land back to use. The problem with in situ is that it takes time. Especially if it's the whole footprint, you still need a place to turn it, get the bugs to work, and test samples.

in situ takes time. Dig and haul and you sign off and you're done. Fast. To a lot of entities that's more important than price. For a company our size, occasional leaks can be remediated easily on site with equipment we own, working with the landowner for materials, we can make it a profit center for the rancher rather than the landfill. 

In situ is generally only applicable to hydrocarbon spills. The difference is it's organic. Inorganic spills, such as salt water, you dig and haul. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On Long Island the best jobs I have seen done were at Sunoco Stations as they moved around a rotary kiln and remedied the soil on sight which makes much more sense then sending it to a landfill in Ohio 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...