Registered underground storage tank with no reported release

The subject property has a registered underground storage tank (UST), in use or closed, and no release from it has been reported. A registration records a tank, not a release. Whether a recognized environmental condition (REC) goes with the tank depends on four things: whether anything points to a release, what the system is and how old, its condition now, and, for a tank out of use, how it was closed.

What the answer turns on

The REC definition has three parts: hazardous substances or petroleum products at the subject property owing to a release, their likely presence owing to a release or a likely release, and their presence in conditions that amount to a material threat of a future release (E1527-21, 3.2.73). The standard's appendixes are nonmandatory. Appendix X4's illustrations treat product held inside a drum or tank as present but not released; its sound drum is a finding with no REC attached (E1527-21, X4.3).

Anything that points to a release. Appendix X4 lists observations, data, documents and interviews as direct evidence (E1527-21, X4.1). No reported release is the absence of a record, and the standard cautions that records are often wrong or incomplete (E1527-21, 8.1.3). Appendix X4's examples of such observations include stained soil under a tank and stressed vegetation (E1527-21, X4.1).
What the system is, and how old. The report's description of a tank should include its construction, contents, capacity and age (E1527-21, 9.4.12). For a likely release Appendix X4 points to features involving petroleum products, how long they have been in use, and the period. Its note gives a bare steel UST installed decades ago with no leak detection as a possible example, if the environmental professional believes a release has likely occurred (E1527-21, X4.1).
Its condition now. A material threat is a threat that is obvious, that will probably end in a release, and that the professional judges would probably harm public health or the environment (E1527-21, 3.2.52). The definition's own example is an aboveground tank with damage serious enough that it may fail.
How a tank out of use was closed. The registration history shows whether a tank was removed or closed in place, and so what closure paper should exist. Sampling results from the closure are evidence either way. Where no sampling was done, or none can be found, the record is silent: Ohio says closures before a set date generally needed no assessment.

The records that bear on it

The registration. Registered tank records are a standard source; the required search covers the subject property and adjoining properties (E1527-21, 8.2.2, Table 2). Read each tank's status, installation date, construction, contents and capacity. State records: Texas, Florida, Idaho, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Ohio.
Release records and the agency file. Releases are a separate record, the leaking tank list. Because the subject property is on a standard list, its file should be reviewed, or the report explains why not, and the report gives the professional's judgment on what the listing means (E1527-21, 8.2.3.1, 8.1.10). Look for inspection records, closure reports and closure sampling results.
Owner documents and interviews. The owner, key site manager and user are asked for tank registrations, site investigation and cleanup reports, and agency notices (E1527-21, 10.8.1).
Site visit. Tanks, vent pipes, fill pipes and access ways are looked for and described, with odors, stains on floors, and stained soil or pavement (E1527-21, 9.4.12, 9.4.13, 9.4.20, 9.4.23).

What the federal rule says

For the subject property the records review should include

Records of activities, conditions, or incidents likely to cause or contribute to releases or threatened releases

40 CFR 312.26(b)(2)

and the same paragraph names among them

storage tank records and permits

40 CFR 312.26(b)(2)

For a party seeking the liability protections the rule's subject is hazardous substances (40 CFR 312.1(c)(1)); the standard includes petroleum products (E1527-21, 1.1.2).

How it is written up

A tank identified at the subject property is described in the report (E1527-21, 9.4). It becomes a finding when the professional judges it may indicate presence or likely presence at the subject property, and the opinion reasons for or against calling it a REC (E1527-21, 12.5, 12.6).

Where the professional concludes a release has occurred or is likely, the opinion gives the grounds: what was observed, the system's age and construction, what the records show. 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).

Where the professional concludes the tank's condition poses a material threat of a future release, the opinion says what was observed and why. That REC is listed in the Conclusions as well (E1527-21, 3.2.52, 3.2.73, 12.7).

Where the professional concludes neither, the opinion gives its reasoning on the same four facts (E1527-21, 12.6). Whether the tank meets the tank rules is a separate matter, outside the standard's scope unless the user adds it (E1527-21, 13.1.2, 13.1.5.14).

The part of the subject property that holds the tank and its piping may be what could not be observed on the site visit. 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.