Agency file review

The subject property or an adjoining property appears on one of the standard lists. The standard says the agency's file should then be reviewed, lets other sources stand in for it, and requires an explanation in the report when the professional judges a review not warranted. What is owed depends on four things: whose listing it is, whether the file is reasonably ascertainable, what could stand in for it, and whether what was obtained is enough to judge the listing.

What the answer turns on

Whose listing it is. The step applies when the subject property or any adjoining property is identified on a standard government record source (E1527-21, 8.2.3.1). A property across a street or other public thoroughfare adjoins (E1527-21, 3.2.4). The aim is to learn enough to judge whether the listing means a recognized environmental condition (REC), a controlled or historical REC, or a de minimis condition at the subject property (E1527-21, 8.2.3.1). The step is not written for a listed site that is nearby but not adjoining. Each listing within the search distance still gets the environmental professional's judgment on its significance, which may draw on additional information from the government source (E1527-21, 8.1.10).
Whether the file is reasonably ascertainable. The file review follows the same limits as the rest of the records review (E1527-21, 8.2.3.1). Reasonably ascertainable means publicly available, obtainable within reasonable time and cost, and practically reviewable (E1527-21, 8.1.4): provided within 20 calendar days of a request for no more than a nominal charge, or open to a visit within 20 calendar days (E1527-21, 8.1.5).
What could stand in for it. In place of the agency's file, the professional may review files or records from another source. The standard's examples are records kept on site, records the user provides, local government records, and interviews with regulatory officials or others who know the conditions behind the listing (E1527-21, 8.2.3.2). Information from a prior assessment may be used only alongside a fresh look at conditions likely to bear on RECs (E1527-21, 4.7.1).
Whether what was obtained is enough. The report must give the professional's opinion on whether the information from the file or records review is sufficient to judge whether a REC, a controlled or historical REC, or a de minimis condition exists (E1527-21, 8.2.3.2). The professional may take information provided as given unless the professional actually knows it to be incorrect, or other information makes that obvious (E1527-21, 7.5.2.1).

The records that bear on it

The lists. The step is tied to the standard sources of the standard's Table 2 (search distances). The record-type pages say what a listing does and does not show: leaking tanks, registered tanks, generators.
What a file adds. For a leaking tank case, the file's assessment reports and closure letter are what answer the questions the listing raises (leaking tanks). Site-specific physical setting information found in a file review is to be reviewed as well (E1527-21, 8.2.1).
Other sources. Before the site visit the owner, key site manager and user are asked for site investigation reports, cleanup reports, permits, registrations and agency correspondence (E1527-21, 10.8, 10.8.1). An attempt is made to interview staff of at least one state or local agency of the kinds the standard names (E1527-21, 11.5.1).
Documentation. Each source checked is documented, and supporting documentation is included or referenced so that another professional could reconstruct the assessment (E1527-21, 8.1.9).

What the federal rule says

The rule does not speak of a file review. For the subject property, the records review should include

Records of reported releases or threatened releases, including site investigation reports for the subject property;

40 CFR 312.26(b)(1)

For the nearby and adjoining sites its searches identify:

A review of additional government records with regard to sites identified under paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section may be necessary in the judgment of the environmental professional

40 CFR 312.26(c)(4)

How it is written up

Where the agency's file or another source is reviewed, the report includes a summary of what was obtained and the professional's opinion on whether it is sufficient (E1527-21, 8.2.3.2).

Where the professional's opinion is that a review is not warranted, the report must explain the justification (E1527-21, 8.2.3.1). The standard gives no list of acceptable reasons.

Where the file is not reasonably ascertainable, the professional may use another source, and attempts to get the information by the practice's other means, such as questions to the owner or occupants; the report documents the sources checked (E1527-21, 8.1.7, 8.1.9, 8.2.3.2).

In each case the report gives the professional's judgment on the significance of the listing (E1527-21, 8.1.10).

Where the file shows a release that has left hazardous substances or petroleum products present or likely present at the subject property, the opinion gives the evidence. Unless judged a de minimis condition or a historical REC, the REC is listed in the Conclusions, and the professional should give an opinion on additional investigation (E1527-21, 3.2.20, 3.2.39, 12.7, 12.8).

An interview with a regulatory official, or with the key site manager, may be what cannot be had. Required information that good faith efforts could not obtain is a data gap, significant if it affects the ability to identify a REC: named in the Findings with the sources consulted, discussed in the Opinions and listed in the Conclusions (E1527-21, 3.2.19, 3.2.78, 12.5.1, 12.6.2, 12.7).

This page is general reference for environmental professionals. It does not classify any property. ASTM E1527-21 is the standard and is not reproduced here; the judgment of the environmental professional on the facts governs.