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 have an underground storage tank that I'd like to take care of, and it seems there are basically three options:
1. Remove the oil and leave the tank alone.
2. Remove the oil and fill the tank with sand.
3. Remove the oil and the tank.
I don't think option 3 is cost beneficial, but my question is this: if I go with option 1, could that potentially affect the resale value of my house? What about with option 2?
Don't know about NC but in Maryland, it has to be disclosed prior to selling. When I bought my home it had a buried oil tank. I paid to have it removed. It had a slow leak (most do) so, I had to pay for soil remediation and certification that all contaminated soil had been removed. Cost me around 4 thousand for removal and certificate that all surrounding contaminated soil was removed.
A contractor is going to charge you an arm and a leg to remove the whole thing, because the soil has to be aerated, also. I would consider doing it after dark and just never mentioning it. There would be some risk. Environmental quality laws can vary from Sate to State. Talk to some people in your area that have done it. I heard 14,000 mentioned here on C-D. If you know for a fact that it is not leaking (ZERO), then I think you could remove it in good faith with out it being an EPA Superfund kind of thing. Swimming pool removal comes up a lot on the Phoenix forum.
Don't know about NC but in Maryland, it has to be disclosed prior to selling. When I bought my home it had a buried oil tank. I paid to have it removed. It had a slow leak (most do) so, I had to pay for soil remediation and certification that all contaminated soil had been removed. Cost me around 4 thousand for removal and certificate that all surrounding contaminated soil was removed.
Ouch. That's exactly why I want the oil removed sooner, rather than later. But it seems to me that once the oil removed, all else is secondary, if not irrelevant.
A contractor is going to charge you an arm and a leg to remove the whole thing, because the soil has to be aerated, also. I would consider doing it after dark and just never mentioning it. There would be some risk. Environmental quality laws can vary from Sate to State. Talk to some people in your area that have done it. I heard 14,000 mentioned here on C-D. If you know for a fact that it is not leaking (ZERO), then I think you could remove it in good faith with out it being an EPA Superfund kind of thing. Swimming pool removal comes up a lot on the Phoenix forum.
USTs are not regulated in NC . . . it's up to the individual home owner. In either case, I could get it removed altogether for under a grand, but I don't know what that gets me.
It's not leaking. My common sense tells me that removing the oil is removing the potential hazard.
Of course, decades down the road an empty tank may collapse, but I'll probably be long gone.
The last time I spoke with the DENR UST trust fund guy, he told me that any UST for fuel oil will show oil spill, just because of delivery guys overfilling the spout.
Their equipment will register that small amount of soil pollution.
For resale, if you can get a good job for under $1000, and if you can get it removed without breaking it open and spilling oil, I would spend the money and just make it go away.
At that, you would not have to talk about it again.
A property has to have a LOT of appeal to override a fuel oil UST, IMO.
The last time I spoke with the DENR UST trust fund guy, he told me that any UST for fuel oil will show oil spill, just because of delivery guys overfilling the spout.
Their equipment will register that small amount of soil pollution.
For resale, if you can get a good job for under $1000, and if you can get it removed without breaking it open and spilling oil, I would spend the money and just make it go away.
At that, you would not have to talk about it again.
A property has to have a LOT of appeal to override a fuel oil UST, IMO.
Thanks Mike. Even an empty tank or tank filled with sand? What is the concern with that?
Thanks Mike. Even an empty tank or tank filled with sand? What is the concern with that?
If you can get it "certified" (And I don't know exactly what that means) that there is no leakage and that you do not own a subsurface oil plume that runs under your neighbors' houses, or into a stream, or pollutes groundwater, etc, then maybe nothing is wrong with the tank.
But, buyers would wonder why it wasn't just pulled and a good soil check made.
I commonly advise Sellers to eliminate in advance as many "conversations" as possible.
Maybe speak to an oil recycler. You know those people that pay the auto parts stores for their old motor oil and turn it into heating oil. Some States you can't sell motor oil, unless you have the tank to collect it. The new USTs and the ships as well have double steel--they are just so much prone to leaking.
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.
