Response from ATS Environmental
To date I have discussed the issue with the member and have begun to put together the time frame of events. We performed a tank test at a discounted rate ($225.00) for him in November of last year. He said the tank was removed in December of the same year. I am researching this for confirmation as well. He said the tank was found to be leaking at the time of removal. He was not upset about this, but he said the fact that when he called in to discuss it, his calls were not returned. I track every call that comes into the office and am trying to confirm his incoming and response calls. The only record of an incoming call that I have found is on 5/31/2011 at 8:48 am. He confirmed that this was about the time he would have called. He also stated he was not looking for reimbursement at that point, just a discussion about the issue, which is very reasonable. He said it was the lack of response that created this complaint and additional ones he has posted/filed. I am in agreement with his issue here if I verify that he was not handled by customer service in a proper manner. So far, my operations manager has stated that she called back and left a message for him the same day he called 5/31/2012 and that her call was not returned. I will try to verify that through outgoing call logs. Certified tank testing is an EPA approved method that has to be able to detect a 0.1gph. leak rate. There is no tank test available that is certified above that limit. The report provided to him makes it very clear that there was a limit to the testing. Below is the paragraph directly from our report to the member: “Advanced Tank Services Co. performed the Mesa 2-D digital nonvolumetric tightness test on the storage tank. The Mesa 2-D is capable of detecting leaks at a rate that meets or exceeds United States Environmental Protection Agency and State regulations for leak detection of storage tanks. These requirements are specified in the U.S. EPA protocol s 40 CFR Part 280, Subpart D entitled "Standard Test Procedure for Evaluating Leak Detection Methods: Nonvolumetric Tank Tightness Tank Testing Methods", EPA/530/UST-005 and Section 6.3.1 "Application of Protocol to Acoustical Methods". According to these regulations, leak detection systems must be capable of detecting leaks of 0.1 gallons per hour with a probability of detection of 0.95 and probability of false alarm of 0.05. The Mesa 2-D test system examines the integrity of the tank and associated piping by digitally monitoring and recording the acoustical profile inside the tank. A computer analyses this data and determines whether detectible leaks exist in the wetted (product filled) and ullage (empty portion) of the tank and tank system. The tank contained 26 inch(es) of product and 0 inch(es) of water. Analysis and Recommendations The evaluation showed that the storage tank did not contain any detectable leaks.” The report makes it very clear there is a limitation to testing and that we did not find any detectable leaks. Typically if we are informed that a tank is being tested because it is being removed, we do not even recommend a tank test. We generally will tell the client to save the money and put it toward the removal, or offer soil sample analysis. Soil samples are much more detailed in determined the presence of hydrocarbons in the soil around the tank. They are also much more expensive than tank testing, more in the 550.00 to 600.00 range. Most people will just opt to save the money and remove the tank. I cannot verify is this discussion occurred with him, as the representative he spoke with in November is not longer with our firm. My concerns about this issue are very basic with respect to this issue: My first concern is with my personnel. I want to be certain he was treated the way all clients are treated, not dismissed or not called back. I am also very concerned that he did not notify us immediately upon discovery of the leak. We have been in this business a long time and one thing I can assure you of is that when there is a problem, the client notifies us immediately. Like any company, we are not 100% perfect and there are occasional mistakes, but when that happens, we know about it immediately. With an issue as expensive and involved as a residential oil discharge that has come in contact with ground water, I do not understand why he would have waited 6 and ½ months to call about this issue. I certainly hope to find this out as well as any other missing pieces of this issue shortly. I will update you with our findings as soon as possible.