Submitted by littlelaws232 t3_10cloq5 in newjersey
boomboomroomroom t1_j4irlfy wrote
In order for it to be considered decommissioned by the state, the seller should have a No Further Action Letter (NFA). Basically, this document proves that the tank was taken out of use and there are no contaminants in the soil. And if there was contamination, the NFA indicates that those contaminants were successfully remediated.
I used to work for the Department of Environmental Protection years ago and these oil tanks were always a huge hassle. And like everyone is saying, it wasn’t uncommon to see people spending $200-300k to remediate. That’s why when I looked for a house I was adamant with my realtor that I wouldn’t consider anything with an oil tank.
cmetzjr t1_j4j31nu wrote
>Basically, this document proves that the tank was taken out of use and there are no contaminants in the soil.
I know what you mean, but to clarify for others: You can't get a NFA for removing a tank that didn't leak. Only if it leaked and was cleaned up.
boomboomroomroom t1_j4jh7eu wrote
Tbh, especially with the underground tanks, I’ve never once heard of one that hasn’t leaked.
cmetzjr t1_j4ji4g0 wrote
Oh I've been on lots that didn't leak (usually when business was slow, per Murphy's law). Well drained soil, newer tanks, old thick ones. They were out there.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments