“Tanks” for Nothing
This June, Town Meeting is asked to approve funding to replace our underground fuel tanks with two above ground 6000-gallon tanks, taking $300,000 from water and sewer Enterprise funds, plus another $200,000 from Belmont Light. According to the Capital Budget Committee Chair, these funds are needed to address a flawed cost estimate for tank replacement. That cost is now estimated at over a million dollars, double the original estimate.
This request for $500,000 must be stopped by Town Meeting voting ‘Yes’ on amendments to reject this funding. Here’s why.
The tanks do not need to be replaced.
Last year, before voting on the initial $500,000 replacement funding, Town Meeting members were told:
1. The current underground tanks must be replaced to comply with Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) regulations;
2. New underground tanks were no longer permitted by the DEP. All new tanks must be above ground.
This was and still is false information.
Town meeting cast their affirmative votes to replace the underground tanks with two 6000-gallon above ground tanks based on that misinformation.
Our current tanks do comply with DEP regulations (more on this below). If and when Belmont needs new fuel tanks, underground tanks are compliant and installed in all Belmont abutting towns - Lexington, Watertown, Waltham, Arlington, and Cambridge.
The head of the Belmont DPW has stated in public meetings that Belmont is under pressure from the Massachusetts DEP to replace the tanks because they are old and non-compliant. This is a complete mischaracterization.
A May 2021 letter from the DEP states the tanks do NOT need replacement if they pass an inspection and are insured. The same letter from the DEP cites assurances from the Belmont DPW that the current tanks passed inspection.
Belmont’s fuel tanks are not compliant because they are not insured.
The current tanks could be insured, but there has been no effort to get alternate coverage.
According to Capital Budget Chair Mahoney, town insurers declined to insure the tanks. Mahoney acknowledged that no attempt was made to see whether insurance could be obtained from other insurance carriers.
Our own independent calls to agents insuring fuel tanks in neighboring towns confirm that coverage is available. The cost to insure Belmont’s fuel tanks is unknown, but that option should be explored.
If the tanks must be replaced, install new underground tanks.
Two 6000-gallon above-ground tanks are open to the elements and a potential hazard for maneuvering vehicles. These tanks will be predominant and visible in a residential neighborhood, potentially devaluing property, and certainly an eyesore.
Above ground tanks carry the obvious risk of accidents, fires, explosions - whether accidental or intentional. Above ground fuel tanks are exposed 24 hours a day. No locked fencing is being suggested, so there is the potential for vandalism.
If the current tanks must be replaced, the choice should be to install underground fuel tanks.
The replacement estimate of over $1,000,000 has not been vetted and is inexplicably high.
The $1 million plus estimate, the basis for the Town Meeting vote, has not been properly vetted.
If two replacement underground tanks for small-town Belmont really cost $1,400,000 as consultants have estimated, no gas station could be in business. Independent research revealed replacement underground tanks cost around $350,000 plus the added cost of removal - much less than $1.4 million. This $350,000 estimate was given to us by commercial gas station operators and confirmed by DPW Heads in other states.
Conclusions: Town Meeting approval in 2020 to replace the current underground fuel tanks with two above ground tanks was based on gross misinformation.
Belmont has not explored alternative insurers for coverage of the current tanks, and so to restore DEP compliance.
Belmont has not explored private-public partnerships with local gas stations to address the needs of fueling town vehicles. Our independent research affirms several owners willing to enter such a partnership.
If it is determined the tanks must be replaced, underground tanks are the best alternative for safety and for tanks abutting a residential neighborhood.
Belmont has far better uses for over a million dollars in Capital Budget, Enterprise and Light Department funds than to pursue a deeply flawed and non-vetted expenditure for above ground fuel tanks. Much more research into requirements, risks, costs and alternatives, plus full transparency in this process is demanded.