Oil tank removal

If you're having an oil tank removed, have them remove the pipes also. If your removal is covered by insurance and they say they don't cover the pipes, then do you best to come up with the cash and have them removed.

My grandmother's oil tank was removed, soil cleaned up, NFA letter issued. Pipes were left in place, this is stated on the paperwork. We're selling the house. Potential buyer was doing their due diligence and had a sweep performed. They had a hit near where the tank used to be. Paperwork from the removal states that the pipes were left in place, but potential buyer isn't satisfied with that and wants a hole dug to make sure it isn't a second tank. The problem is, the area in question is paved over, this isn't going to be cheap. Second sweep by a different company comes up clean except for a few minor blips near where the pipes are. Maybe the first guy's equipment was too sensitive, who knows. We know there is no tank, and that the hit from the first sweep was due to the pipes, but obviously we can't expect potential buyers to just take us at our word (if I was a buyer I wouldn't).

So learn from our misfortune, if you are having your in ground oil tank removed, also have them remove all the pipes so you don't get a false positive on a sweep.

Refuse and get another buyer. I agree about removing the pipes,but you have the paperwork and there was a second sweep. You've done enough.

FilmCarp said:

Refuse and get another buyer. I agree about removing the pipes,but you have the paperwork and there was a second sweep. You've done enough.

Long story, but due to peculiarities with the property we don't exactly have buyers banging down our door.

And to be fair, if I were buying a property I'd also have a sweep done, and hoping that the hit is just pipes and not a second tank is a big risk. If you buy a property and later discover that there WAS a second tank you're looking at tens, if not hundreds, of thousands in removal and clean up costs. I have a relative who has two in ground tanks, so I know these buyers are justified in being worried about the positive sweep.

And the point isn't whether or not the buyers looking at our house are justified in their fear, the point I'm trying to make is that if you are going to tear up your yard anyway to remove an in ground oil tank, take the extra step of also removing the pipes to avoid a potential false positive down the road. Pulling out the pipes while you already have a huge hole in the ground is easier than having to dig at a later date to prove those pipes aren't a tank. Buyers are right to be scared, the costs associated with in ground tanks are astronomical, most homeowner's insurance policies don't cover the costs, and if you don't have an active tank you can't buy one of the few policies that do cover it. There was a state fund, but that dried up long ago.

Sellers need to start standing up to these people.

Sellers don't often have a choice. Agents ensure buyers purchase a tank free home. Even closed out tanks with EPA certs are being removed. The biggest factor is the banks and mortgage companies, most, if not all will not underwrite a loan if there's a tank of the property. I was looking to purchase a house to renovate that had a closed out tank. My bank would have loaned me the money, but I would have had to pay for the tank to be removed and the site remediated, all before I even purchased the house. It's really a no win situation.

Red_Barchetta said:

Sellers need to start standing up to these people.

It really was a massive corporate giveaway when NJ passed legislation in 2005 that allowed insurance companies to drop coverage for oil tanks.

We need change at the state govt level that gives homeowners a way out without going bankrupt.

Where is the liability of the oil companies that installed the tanks?

yahooyahoo said:

It really was a massive corporate giveaway when NJ passed legislation in 2005 that allowed insurance companies to drop coverage for oil tanks.

We need change at the state govt level that gives homeowners a way out without going bankrupt.


Where is the liability of the oil companies that installed the tanks?

The tank at my grandmother's house was installed in the 1950's, who knows who installed it. Some tanks were installed in the 30's or even the 20's. Who would you go after? The whole situation is f*cked up. I agree that something needs to be done on the state level, these tanks need to be removed, leaving them to leak oil into the ground is bad for the environment, but making a homeowner risk bankruptcy if something they didn't know about is found on their property is cruelly unfair.

I have a 1000 gallon oil tank under my driveway it is the original tank from when the house was built in 1923. I had filled and officially "decommissioned" back in 2006. I also have the Maplewood Township certificate of occupancy stating so, as well as all the other necessary paperwork. I am now retired and certainty do not have the funds to have it pulled, and probably re-mediated by the state of NJ. This whole situation just ticks me off to no end!!

Unfortunately no one will by your house with a tank in the ground. Their agent will advise against and they probably won't be able to get a mortgage.

emmie said:

I have a 1000 gallon oil tank under my driveway it is the original tank from when the house was built in 1923. I had filled and officially "decommissioned" back in 2006. I also have the Maplewood Township certificate of occupancy stating so, as well as all the other necessary paperwork. I am now retired and certainty do not have the funds to have it pulled, and probably re-mediated by the state of NJ. This whole situation just ticks me off to no end!!

this is all drift, however, off of the original post. In this case the tank was removed and the paperwork is there to prove it. A scan beeped on the pipes, and a second scan came up clean. Now the buyer wants exploratory excavation at the homeowners expense. I think that this is too much. The mortgage company should be happy with the paperwork and the second clean scan. This sounds like buyers expecting too much.

FilmCarp said:

this is all drift, however, off of the original post. In this case the tank was removed and the paperwork is there to prove it. A scan beeped on the pipes, and a second scan came up clean. Now the buyer wants exploratory excavation at the homeowners expense. I think that this is too much. The mortgage company should be happy with the paperwork and the second clean scan. This sounds like buyers expecting too much.

Sounds like (rightfully) scared buyers. We've all heard stories of people who did a sweep but a tank was missed entirely, only to be found 5 years later during resale.

Buyers often want too much, but if it's a buyers' market ans Seller wants to sell they have no choice.

When you sell will you be willing to dig up your whole yard just in case? I wont. I have a house I pulled a tank from with paperwork. Buyers are welcome to scan and walk away.

@ yahooyahoo, yes I am well aware of that, no one is more aware of this than me!

FilmCarp said:

When you sell will you be willing to dig up your whole yard just in case? I wont. I have a house I pulled a tank from with paperwork. Buyers are welcome to scan and walk away.

I was sweating bullets when we sold.

If you manage to find a buyer who'll take on a piece of your risk - great.

what risk? If you have a clean letter from the state that a tank has been removed what more can you possibly do, short of digging everywhere. While we are at it let's assume there is nuclear waste, as well.

FilmCarp said:

what risk? If you have a clean letter from the state that a tank has been removed what more can you possibly do, short of digging everywhere. While we are at it let's assume there is nuclear waste, as well.

The risk that the next buyer won't be so understanding, of course.

This is exactly my situation. I had my tank officially decommissioned back in 96- that was the first pile of money. Now I'm Hoping the fact that there has been no oil there since then that the removal process is a little easier.

prisoners_dilemma said:

Sellers don't often have a choice. Agents ensure buyers purchase a tank free home. Even closed out tanks with EPA certs are being removed. The biggest factor is the banks and mortgage companies, most, if not all will not underwrite a loan if there's a tank of the property. I was looking to purchase a house to renovate that had a closed out tank. My bank would have loaned me the money, but I would have had to pay for the tank to be removed and the site remediated, all before I even purchased the house. It's really a no win situation.

Red_Barchetta said:

Sellers need to start standing up to these people.

We ha a similar situation when we sold. All the paperwork indicating tank had been pulled, all the follow up clearing the soil. Buyers scan found "something". I agreed to let them dig it up since it was just lawn and they found just some leftover pipes. But it was still nerve-wracking and it cost us each $500 or so.

In our particular case we seem to have come to an agreement on how to proceed. But I still recommend that anyone who is in the process of removing a tank, or who will be removing one in the future, also have the pipes removed. Why deal with any questions when selling if you don't have to.

I agree with you on that. That's good advice.

agree that this whole thing is a totall ******** racket.

I agree with the points made, but I have to add that these days there seems to be a thin line between what are reasonable vs unreasonable buyer demands. When we sold our 90-year-old house last year, this is what we encountered:

> Oil tank had been decommissioned ages ago, but we had it pulled. No problem found. Buyer did scan anyway. Understandable.

> Asbestos on basement heating pipes had been encapsulated years ago. Buyer wanted it removed. We did.

> Buyer demanded that the lead water pipe connected to the town's main line into the house be replaced with copper. Agent admitted that only one other person in 11 years had demanded this. We went along, very reluctantly.

> Shortly before closing, buyer demanded that an old stone fireplace in the backyard 200 feet back (and barely visible under a shrub) be removed. That was the straw that broke the camel's back. We said we would not spend another penny, even if that meant the deal fell through. The lawyer and agent paid the buyer to save the deal.

There were additional demands as well, but you get the idea. I guess the ultimate message is seller beware, too.

tell the buyer to dig it up and if they find nothing, they pay not you. and they have exactly one week to do it. and to put $1000 in escrow to pay for repairs if the deal falls through.