Thanks, Artie.



For the O.P., you may want to point out that there are 4 or 5 of the forum's lawyers on page 2 alone saying that it's a bad idea (at least, not without $15,000 or so worth of environmental testing and monitoring before making a decision)!

And, given enough time, I'm confident you'll hear from 2 or 3 more saying much the same, or maybe even raising new issues not yet discussed.


When lawyers start lining up in agreement, it's time to be afraid.

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:
Many, many thanks for the suggestions and recommendations. I'll be seeing my friend today and will try one more time to convince her of the importance of this issue.

I believe at least three of the members offering advice are attorneys. Others appear to have had some personal exposure to these issues. If she disregards this counsel, all I can say is "Good luck!"

quote:

Originally posted by bob ramberg:
I did some work for an oil company on a gas station clean-up program run by the government. It was call the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund, or LUST Fund. Do you remember back in the late 80's when all the gas stations were being remodeled? That is what was driving it.

I remember that.

quote:

Originally posted by bob ramberg:
I have seen the extent of the pollution a leaking underground tank can cause. Depending on the geography and underground water table, it can extend hundreds of yard or more off site.

I live in a area that was very rural, and also very wet. When underground storage tanks leaked, the contamination would go a long ways out and a long ways down. (Ours was [?] one of the most contaminated counties in the country, IIRC.) IIRC our well guy told us, some 20+ years ago, that shallow wells were prohibited throughout the county due to that problem. Couldn't even pull a permit for one any more.

The scopes of the contamination blooms from those LUSTs was unbelievable.

(When I had the well water tested as part of the purchase agreement, and it came back at the minimum detection level for toluene, the County Health Dept. went immediately to Code Red. [Turned out to be a false alarm.])

quote:

Originally posted by bob ramberg:
If you own it you are responsible and clean-up can take years.

And a metric crapload of money.

quote:

Originally posted by bob ramberg:
Most of the sites they ripped out the tanks and excavated the soil until it was clean. Others with off site contamination required other measures.

Such as long-term water extraction, "scrubbing," and re-injection. Long-term as in years.

quote:

Originally posted by bob ramberg:
I would stay the hell away.

Unless the current landowner is willing to have the proper inspections done: Concur.

Back when my wife and I were sailing, and I hung out on sailing-oriented sites, we'd have people occasionally show up saying "So-and-so wants to give me their old sailboat. What am I getting into?" The common recommendation is "Get it surveyed before agreeing to take possession!" What can happen when you don't is you end up with a hull that can cost more than it's worth to make seaworthy, and a lot of money to dispose of, otherwise.

Heck, there's a member that recently posted to The Lounge asking how to dispose of just such a hull. (It was a power boat, but same principles.)

Beware of people bearing gifts like this.

I'm not a lawyer, but I have been managing investigation and remediation of Federal CERCLA & RCRA sites, and others under State programs for 26 years...

Not to quibble, but to make sure the facts here are straight, it is a gas station release at issue. The Federal "Superfund" law ("CERCLA") does not apply, due to the petroleum exclusion in that law and that petroleum spills are covered under the Oil Pollution Prevention Act.

The most likely legal process to apply will be state underground storage tank regs. In Arkansas, those are listed off here: https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/rst/technical/ The upfront investigation requirements are here: https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/r...-site-assessment.pdf

There might, might, be some funding from the State Petroleum Tank Trust Fund - but whatever is provided will not cover all costs. many of those Trusts are essentially empty, so don't count on reimbursement.


And to repeat and emphasize - taking ownership of a contaminated property may expose the new owner to complete and total liability for whatever contamination is present. Investigation, remediation, and legal costs will boggle the mind.

Okay, we have a few issues here to deal with. First we don't know if there are tanks in the ground. Second, is the spot where the tanks are/were covered in concrete/asphalt? After I got out of college my first job was for a groundwater company that did remediation for all the major oil companies. If the tanks are gone and the ground is not covered, chances are that after 30+ years the contamination is most likely flowed away in the ground water, but maybe not. Get an experienced company to test the site by a number of soil borings. The company should know the direction of groundwater flow and will know how many wells to drill to determine if there is contamination.
While there is definitely a reason for concern, it is possible the site is clean.
People panic in situations like this sometimes for no reason.
My wife and I had an older friend who sold his gas station and was concerned about contamination. My wife was at the time a licensed P.E.. We hired a company, got the test reports which showed no contamination. My wife submitted a 75 page report which clearly indicated the site was clean and the Department of Environmental Protection agreed with the findings. Our friend was still worried that in the future something would turn up and agreed with the new owner that instead of receiving $1,000,000 for the station would take $800,000 and set aside $200,000 in case down the road contamination was found.
While it is likely with a single wall tank may have leaked, it also may not have leaked.
Have the soil tested before accepting the property.

quote:

And to repeat and emphasize - taking ownership of a contaminated property may expose the new owner to complete and total liability for whatever contamination is present. Investigation, remediation, and legal costs will boggle the mind.

+++++^^^^^^^+++++++
I have experience from the corporate side of budgeting for costs. Many sites require monitoring essentially forever even after successful clean-up.

If I were offered such a "gift" I would refuse to even be involved in the site testing. I would not want my name on any paper involved unless and until it was declared squeaky clean.

In my experience, even sites declared squeaky clean to the parts per million standards were declared contaminated when testing was available to the parts per billion. The future of improved testing makes clean a variable term.

quote:

Originally posted by rtquig:
While there is definitely a reason for concern, it is possible the site is clean.
People panic in situations like this sometimes for no reason.

Nobody's panicking. They're suggesting caution.

EPA...leached contaminated soil, underground storage tanks..lots of potential environmental issues unless they were properly addressed when the gas station closed. I would not accept the property without a clean bill of health.

quote:

Originally posted by oldRoger:

quote:

And to repeat and emphasize - taking ownership of a contaminated property may expose the new owner to complete and total liability for whatever contamination is present. Investigation, remediation, and legal costs will boggle the mind.

+++++^^^^^^^+++++++
I have experience from the corporate side of budgeting for costs. Many sites require monitoring essentially forever even after successful clean-up.

If I were offered such a "gift" I would refuse to even be involved in the site testing. I would not want my name on any paper involved unless and until it was declared squeaky clean.

In my experience, even sites declared squeaky clean to the parts per million standards were declared contaminated when testing was available to the parts per billion. The future of improved testing makes clean a variable term.

PPM vs. PPB = soil vs. water.

Well, good news and bad news.

The good news is that the site had above ground tanks that were removed over 20+ years ago. I suggested she still get the soil around the site tested, but here's the bad news - the deal has been done and the property is already in her name. Other than staying quiet about it, I don't know what can be done now without poking the bear.

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:
Well, good news and bad news.

The good news is that the site had above ground tanks that were removed over 20+ years ago. I suggested she still get the soil around the site tested, but here's the bad news - the deal has been done and the property is already in her name. Other than staying quiet about it, I don't know what can be done now without poking the bear.

This is about the time the phone would ring. “I bought this property a couple of weeks ago, and I have a few questions about a potential problem.....”

My location is listed on state of Indiana website underground tank registry as officially closed with tanks removed. Yours may be too. A lot less chance of leaks with above ground tanks. Good Luck.

I’m a retired county purchasing director. We sometimes had to remediate abandoned property that had possible contamination. Old gas stations may become mechanic shops, used car lots or other tricky things. One site had been a repair shop and used car lot and the workers often dumped used oil on the ground. Contaminants washed into the ditches. Extensive contamination of maany yards of ditches and soil. Other than tanks, several feet of soil had to be scraped off and disposed. Burned in a high temp oven if I recall. Not cheap. There may be performance bonds or performance insurance you can require of the pros who do the work.

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:
Well, good news and bad news.

The good news is that the site had above ground tanks that were removed over 20+ years ago. I suggested she still get the soil around the site tested, but here's the bad news - the deal has been done and the property is already in her name. Other than staying quiet about it, I don't know what can be done now without poking the bear.

This has been a very interesting topic with many with knowledge freely sharing it.
So, I am curious as to now what the advice would be for the new owner?

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:
Well, good news and bad news.

The good news is that the site had above ground tanks that were removed over 20+ years ago. I suggested she still get the soil around the site tested, but here's the bad news - the deal has been done and the property is already in her name. Other than staying quiet about it, I don't know what can be done now without poking the bear.

This has been a very interesting topic with many with knowledge freely sharing it.
So, I am curious as to now what the advice would be for the new owner?

I would not do a thing unless demanded by regulatory agency. think hard about financing that requires any testing, as once issues ar3 found, you cannot unring that bell

Above ground tanks removed 20 years ago seem to have little risk and if it's paid for you don't need a loan. Unless there is compelling reason to suspect contamination I'd go about my business as usual.

quote:

Originally posted by doublesharp:
Above ground tanks removed 20 years ago seem to have little risk and if it's paid for you don't need a loan.

Unless she's got a crapload of cash, she's going to need a loan to develop the property. In the meantime they'll be taxes to be paid, liability insurance (at least) on the property, other stuff.

Hope it turns out well for her.

quote:

Originally posted by doublesharp:
Above ground tanks removed 20 years ago seem to have little risk and if it's paid for you don't need a loan. Unless there is compelling reason to suspect contamination I'd go about my business as usual.

Every service station that I can remember with above ground tanks had below ground pipes between the tanks and the dispensers. Below ground pipes of that era were single wall not the double wall pipes used today.

I have seen the Department of Environmental Protection go after the large corporations for ground water contamination claiming that the Mom and Pop gas station owners could never afford to pay for the remediation.

Another major cause of ground water contamination are Dry Cleaners. They now use safer chemicals to clean cloths, but in the past they were very toxic. I had to go to the Department of Environmental Protection with a few Bankers Boxes of ground water data results to show how a Dry Cleaner was contaminating the ground water close to one of our public supply wells that was very shallow at 150' deep. While I felt bad that the cleaner had to close down and clean up the property, it was better than letting the chemicals get into the drinking water.