Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't think that gas heat was very common until the 50's or 60's. Without knowledge of the history of a house built in 1950, I would be very suspicious that it could have used oil heat.
$250 is nothing in the scheme of things. I did a tank sweep when I bought my house in August, just to be 100% sure that there is no tank that would be problematic later on.
Make sure the company you choose guarantee their work and file it so you will have it when it is your time to sell the house.
What a pain. If I were in your situation, I'd bite the bullet and get the certification. But this strikes me as yet another form of government sponsored extortion.
What a pain. If I were in your situation, I'd bite the bullet and get the certification. But this strikes me as yet another form of government sponsored extortion.
It's not government sponsored. The government has little to nothing to do with it. Tanks sweeps, and the general concern over underground storage tanks, are becoming more common because consumers have been affected. Home sellers have been forced to deal with leaking oil tanks and contaminated soil and groundwater that they didn't have a hand in creating. They bought a house with an underground tank they didn't even know about, and when they went to sell they found out that they had been leading oil into the ground that seeped into the neighbors well. Tens, even HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars later, they wished fervently that someone had clued them in earlier about this potential disaster. So now buyers are being advised by their attorneys & real estate agents that the best way to avoid being put into such a situation is to be sure the problem doesn't exist BEFORE you buy the house.
I happen to agree that in the OPs particular case, it's unlikely that there is a tank there. But in the scheme of things, a $250 insurance policy doesn't seem like a bad investment.
It's not government sponsored. The government has little to nothing to do with it. Tanks sweeps, and the general concern over underground storage tanks, are becoming more common because consumers have been affected. Home sellers have been forced to deal with leaking oil tanks and contaminated soil and groundwater that they didn't have a hand in creating. They bought a house with an underground tank they didn't even know about, and when they went to sell they found out that they had been leading oil into the ground that seeped into the neighbors well. Tens, even HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars later, they wished fervently that someone had clued them in earlier about this potential disaster. So now buyers are being advised by their attorneys & real estate agents that the best way to avoid being put into such a situation is to be sure the problem doesn't exist BEFORE you buy the house.
I happen to agree that in the OPs particular case, it's unlikely that there is a tank there. But in the scheme of things, a $250 insurance policy doesn't seem like a bad investment.
Well, it is government mandated, through regulation. The fact is that much of the costs required to remidiate do very little to actually protect anyone. If an old abandoned (and thus no longer leaking) tank has leaked, there is usually negligible impact from a modest-sized spill, but it will still cost a lot to replace that soil (and it would naturally remidiate if left untouched over time).
Well, it is government mandated, through regulation. The fact is that much of the costs required to remidiate do very little to actually protect anyone. If an old abandoned (and thus no longer leaking) tank has leaked, there is usually negligible impact from a modest-sized spill, but it will still cost a lot to replace that soil (and it would naturally remidiate if left untouched over time).
Call the impact negligible to the family next door, into whose well water supply that modest sized oil spill has slowly bled over time, contaminating their drinking water.
Agreed, impacting groundwater is a serious matter. If a leak is smallish and borings show it is far from impacting groundwater, there is little benefit (and big cost) in remediating -- but still mandated.
Is it still suggested that I spend $250 and get an oil tank sweep done?
Ask whoever suggested this how much of a kickback they're going to get from the guy doing this "sweep".
The house next to me was just sold and a "sweep" was done. He rolled up just behind the realtor, the realtor left and the guy wasn't there 10 minutes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
