Barrow Logo Barrow EP Handbook

Spill report at or near the subject property

A spill or release was reported at the subject property or near it, and the records show no cleanup case that followed. A report is a notice someone gave. Whether it marks a release, and which class any release falls in, depends on four things: whether the report belongs to the subject property, what was reported and whether it reached the environment, what followed the report, and, for a report off the subject property, where it lies and what lies between.

What the answer turns on

  • Whose report it is. Record information is often inaccurate or incomplete (E1527-21, 8.1.3). The National Contingency Plan (40 CFR part 300) says reporting to the National Response Center "shall not be delayed due to incomplete notification information" (40 CFR 300.405(d)). Check the report's address, party and date against the history and occupants of the subject property.
  • What was reported, and whether it reached the environment. The recognized environmental condition (REC) and de minimis definitions are built on a release to the environment, with release and environment as the federal cleanup law defines them (E1527-21, 3.2.20, 3.2.27, 3.2.73, 3.2.75). The standard's appendixes are nonmandatory. The legal background appendix says a release under that law has no minimum quantity, and reports the federal agency's reading that tank or valve spills kept on plant grounds, on concrete pads or in lined ditches open to the air, are releases into the environment (E1527-21, X1.1.1.1, footnote 21). The federal duty to report attaches to an oil discharge or hazardous substance release "in an amount equal to or greater than the reportable quantity" (40 CFR 300.125(c)). The standard ties neither de minimis test to a reportable quantity: a de minimis condition generally poses no threat to human health or the environment and generally would not draw enforcement if the agencies knew of it (E1527-21, 3.2.20).
  • What followed the report. For a hazardous substance release, a notice under that plan may lead to a removal site evaluation (40 CFR 300.405(f)). Grounds for ending one include "There is no release", an amount that "does not warrant federal response", and a responsible party or other person who "is providing appropriate response, and on-scene monitoring by the government is not required"; its results "shall be documented" (40 CFR 300.410(f), (g)). For oil, the plan covers discharges, or substantial threats of them, to navigable waters, adjoining shorelines and the other waters and resources it names; there the coordinator may, with conditions, let the responsible party do the removal (40 CFR 300.3(a)(1), 300.5, 300.305(d)). The absence of a federal cleanup file fits each of these, and no evaluation at all. A past release, closed or not, is historical only where documents and data show it was addressed to the regulatory authority's satisfaction and meets unrestricted use criteria with no control (E1527-21, 3.2.39, 3.2.39.1).
  • Where it lies, and what lies between. For a report off the subject property, Appendix X4's factors for likely presence include where the source lies and the topography, geology and hydrogeology (E1527-21, X4.1). In the body of the standard, where the site visit points to a likely release at a nearby property that may migrate, the setting is evaluated for whether a REC at the subject property likely results (E1527-21, 9.4.6).

The records that bear on it

  • The federal list. The federal emergency response list (ERNS) is a standard source searched for the subject property only (E1527-21, 8.2.2, Table 2).
  • State and local records. State spill lists are not named among the standard sources. The standard's table of additional record types names records of emergency release reports, and additional records are checked when the professional judges them reasonably ascertainable, useful enough, and generally obtained in local practice (E1527-21, 8.2.4, Table 3). The Texas and Colorado pages each say a spill report can be the only record of a release that never became a cleanup case (Texas, Colorado).
  • The file. Where the subject property or an adjoining property is on a standard source, the file should be reviewed, or the report explains why not. Other records, or interviews with regulatory officials, may stand in (E1527-21, 8.2.3.1, 8.2.3.2).
  • Site visit and interviews. The site visit looks for stained soil or pavement, stressed vegetation and odors (E1527-21, 9.4.13, 9.4.23, 9.4.24). The owner, key site manager and user are asked for reports of cleanups and for agency notices of violations (E1527-21, 10.8.1).

What the federal rule says

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), edition revised as of July 1, 2025

Releases and threatened releases the inquiry identifies should be noted in its report. The rule is not intended to require the report to identify quantities, individually or in the aggregate, that "generally would not pose a threat to human health or the environment" (40 CFR 312.20(h)).

How it is written up

A report becomes a finding when the professional judges it may indicate presence or likely presence at the subject property, and the opinion gives the reasons why it does or does not fall in each class it pertains to (E1527-21, 12.5, 12.6).

Where the professional concludes a release left hazardous substances or petroleum products present or likely present at the subject property, the opinion gives the grounds: what was released, where, and what was done about it. 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, if any (E1527-21, 3.2.20, 3.2.39, 12.7, 12.8).

Where the professional judges both de minimis tests met, the opinion says why. The Conclusions list RECs, controlled RECs and significant data gaps, so a de minimis condition need not appear in them (E1527-21, 3.2.20, 12.7).

Where the professional concludes the report is not the subject property's, or that nothing was released to the environment, or that nothing reached the subject property, the significance judgment says so with its reasons (E1527-21, 8.1.10, 12.6).

Where follow-up records are not reasonably ascertainable, the professional may use another source and, failing that, attempts the practice's other means; the report documents the sources checked (E1527-21, 8.1.6, 8.1.7, 8.1.9).

An interview with the key site manager, or with a state or local agency official, 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).

Related

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.

Maintained by Barrow. General reference only, not legal or professional advice. Barrow is not affiliated with or endorsed by any government agency. See how Barrow drafts the report