Alpha Environmental Services Inc

Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to meSincerely, *** ***

December 2223, 2016[redacted]Revdex.com Resolutions ConsultantRe: Services Regarding an underground tank at [redacted]Alpha Project No. [redacted]Revdex.com Reference ID: [redacted]Dear [redacted]:This letter is in response to letter dated Friday, December 16, 2016 regarding a complaint against...

Alpha Environmental Services, Inc (Alpha). The following is a detailed account of our involvement with the property.This occurred during the time of a real estate transaction. As part of the potential buyer’s due-diligence, Alpha Environmental Services, Inc. (Alpha) was asked to investigate whether an underground tank was present at the above-referenced property. This investigation included a physical search of the property using a professional magnetic locator as well as visual means and was conducted on June 15, 2016.A tank was identified as being present and the prospective purchasers originally contracted Alpha to complete soil samples for the property, which is typical in these types of real estate transactions This appointment was later cancelled and instead the property owner, [redacted], who contracted with Alpha to collect soil samples and further assess the tank in endeavor to determine if the tank could be certified as being decommissioned. Underground tanks are heavily regulated by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the client (property owner) was informed that if a leak was found we are legally required to report the leaking tank to the DEQ.As part of the DEQ’s heating oil tank site assessment regulatory requirements (as well as a requirement for decommissioning), Alpha collected two soil samples on June 24, 2016. The samples were collected in labeled 4-ounce glass jars with Teflon-lined caps, delivered to a state licensed laboratory (Apex Labs of Tigard, Oregon), and analyzed by Oregon Method NWTPH-Dx, which tests for diesel and heavy-oil ranges of petroleum hydrocarbons (heating oil). This procedure, methodology, and practice was completed in accordance with DEQ regulations under chain-of-custody protocols.The soil samples were analyzed as 2,580 parts per million (ppm) diesel range hydrocarbons on the north tank end and 4,430 ppm diesel range hydrocarbons on the south tank end. DEQ reportable release level for heating oil is 50 ppm; therefore, according to DEQ regulatory requirements, the tank is considered leaking and Alpha was required to report the Site to the DEQ as a leaking underground storage tank. These levels of diesel in soil are classified by DEQ regulations as contaminated and as requiring some type of cleanup or remediation.All leaking tanks reported to the DEQ become public record. Since the DEQ makes this matter a public record and available to any interested parties, when the prospective buyers contacted Alpha, the leaking tank was already public record.. Any information provided by Alpha was public information.DEQ regulations allow state licensed contractors to make recommendations regarding the different types of cleanup. There are a number of remediation options that may be available for any given site, however, DEQ’s preferred method is the removal of contaminated soil Alpha prepared a proposal which included the excavation and removal of contaminated soil as part of the solution for closing the site with DEQ.The owner, [redacted] contacted Alpha in order to discuss this proposal and Alpha’s plans of contamination removal, at various points during the month of July. These discussions included efforts Alpha would take to minimize “decimation of our landscape, walkways and undue wear on our asphalt driveway.” The discussions included detailing that no removal of contamination would have involved cutting of walkway or driveway, and that restoration of landscaped areas would likely have been close to original conditions. The only landscaped area which would have been impacted was a 3’ by 4’ section of dirt covered with bark dust. No permanent damage was expected to the immediate vicinity of the tank or other parts of the property.It was noted in the complaint that the “contractor included no lab reports to verify his finds or justify his proposal for clean-up.” The owner had not provided payment for the work at the time of the sampling, and once payment was made Alpha issued the lab report to the owner. These laboratory reports verify Alpha’s reported findings under chain of custody procedure as required by the DEQ, and denotes the requirement for cleanup per DEQ regulations. Additionally, the sample findings were referenced in Alpha’s original proposal to the owners. The laboratory reports and information may also be obtained from the DEQ, since they are public record.It is our professional opinion that Alpha was hired by the owner for the investigation of the tank to see if certificate of decommission could be issued for the site. Once a leak was discovered, a proposal was sent to the owner detailing Alpha’s recommendations for closure with DEQ. Further discussions with the owner detail that minimal impact to the property would occur.Alpha completed the requested services per invoiced work on June 30, 2016 which included only sampling the tank and verifying if the tank met DEQ requirements for decommissioning. These services were rendered in accordance with discussions with owner and when sampling of tank indicated leaking of tank occurred, Alpha provided rationale in proposal for cleanup and costs to complete work to DEQ requirements.Alpha performed all the work as per our agreement with the client, a fair price was charged, all work was performed according to regulatory requirements, and all recommendations were in compliance with current DEQ cleanup regulations. As we previously mentioned, underground tanks are heavily regulated and we understand the many regulations and options can by quite confusing. Alpha regrets any misunderstanding on the part of the complainant; however, there does not seem to be cause for return of funds.Sincerely,Zachary J. G[redacted]Heating Oil Tank SupervisorEncl.: Laboratory Analysis and Chain of Custody, Invoice for Work, Original Proposal to Owners