Thousands of New Jersey homeowners had their underground oil tanks "filled in place" instead of removed — and many are now discovering that decision can derail a real estate sale, create environmental liability, and cost far more than a proper removal ever would have .
|
~30 Years Performing oil tank removals in NJ |
Every Week We remove previously filled-in-place tanks |
Minimal Documentation most owners have proving no leak occurred |
What Does "Filled in Place" Actually Mean?
When underground oil storage tanks (USTs) were decommissioned in New Jersey, homeowners had two choices: full removal or abandonment in place. "Filling in place" — also called abandonment in place — means the tank was cleaned, purged of vapors, and then filled with an inert material like sand, concrete slurry, or polyurethane foam, all while remaining buried in the ground. Actually - that is what was supposed to happen, not all tanks were cleaned.
Critically, this practice is still legal today. New Jersey's construction code permits a buried oil tank to be filled in place rather than removed. However, legality doesn't mean it's a good idea — especially if you ever plan to sell your home.
|
KEY POINT Filling a tank in place is permitted under NJ construction code — but it leaves no evidence about whether the tank leaked before or during decommissioning. That absence of that evidence is the core problem. |
Why Did So Many Homeowners Choose Fill-in-Place Over Removal?
There were three primary reasons homeowners opted for filling a tank in place rather than removing it entirely:
- They thought it was cheaper. This is the biggest misconception. In most cases — especially when a tank is buried under a lawn or mulch bed — removal and fill-in-place cost roughly the same amount. Both require the same equipment, labor, excavation, and permitting. The cost difference is real only in specific situations, such as a tank beneath a concrete driveway or inside a garage, where excavation itself becomes expensive.
- They thought it would be less disruptive. Partially true. If a tank is in a difficult-to-access location, abandonment can reduce the footprint of disruption. But again, for a typical backyard or side-yard tank, the physical disturbance involved is comparable either way.
- They didn't want to find out if it leaked. This is arguably the most common — and most costly — reason. If you don't remove the tank and test the surrounding soil, you never have to know whether it contaminated the ground. At the time, it felt like a way to avoid a problem. In hindsight, it only delayed one.
How Do Underground Oil Tanks Leak?
Most residential oil storage tanks were made of bare steel — a material that begins corroding the moment it's buried in moist soil. Over time, electrolytic corrosion eats through the tank walls, creating pinholes and cracks. Heating oil (typically #2 fuel oil) then migrates out into the surrounding soil, potentially reaching groundwater.
Even a tank that was "only used for a few years" can leak. Tanks don't need to be old to corrode — acidic soil conditions, fluctuating moisture levels, and poor backfill material can all accelerate the process. A tank filled with residual oil sludge is particularly vulnerable, as the sludge itself can be corrosive.
What makes this especially troubling for fill-in-place tanks is that the filling process doesn't stop ongoing corrosion of the tank shell.
The Real Estate Problem: Why Fill-in-Place Tanks Kill Deals
Here's where the deferred problem becomes an immediate financial crisis - almost every fill-in-place tank we encounter is being addressed because of a looming real estate transaction.
Buyers' attorneys, home inspectors, and lenders are all increasingly sophisticated about environmental risk. A buried oil tank — filled or not — is a red flag. Title insurance companies may refuse to insure, lenders may decline to approve mortgages, and buyers will often walk away unless the seller can demonstrate the tank never leaked.
The only way to demonstrate that is through laboratory soil testing — and the only way to get meaningful soil samples is to remove the tank. Which is exactly why we remove previously filled-in-place tanks every single week.
The absence of documentation is not a neutral starting position. In a real estate transaction, it reads as "unknown liability" — and buyers and their attorneys price unknown liability aggressively. Sellers who filled their tank in place years ago to avoid a short-term cost often end up absorbing a much larger negotiating loss when they sell.
What Happens When a Filled-in-Place Tank Is Removed?
The process mirrors a standard tank removal - excavation, physical extraction of the tank, visual inspection of the pit, and soil sampling. Samples are submitted to a certified laboratory and tested. If the results come back clean, a report is issued confirming no impact — and the real estate transaction can proceed.
If contamination is detected, the next step planning begins. While this is never welcome news, it is far better to know than to transfer the liability unknowingly — or to have it surface after closing, when the legal and financial exposure becomes considerably more complex.
The Bottom Line: Fill-in-Place Created a False Sense of Closure
Filling a tank in place was often presented as the responsible, cost-effective solution. In reality, it simply moved the problem from "visible today" to "invisible until it matters most." Whether you're a homeowner planning to sell, a buyer conducting due diligence, or a real estate professional advising clients, a filled-in-place tank should be treated with the same caution as an unaddressed tank — until soil sampling proves otherwise.
With nearly 30 years of tank work in New Jersey, Curren Environmental has seen this scenario play out countless times. The earlier you address it, the more control you have over the outcome.
|
Have a filled-in-place tank on your property? Contact Curren Environmental to discuss your options before it becomes a transaction problem. www.currenenvironmental.com |