Barrow Logo Barrow EP Handbook

Underground storage tank removed with no closure report

An underground storage tank (UST) was taken out of the ground at the subject property, and no record shows what the soil around it held. The missing report is the absence of a record. Whether a recognized environmental condition (REC) goes with the former tank depends on four things: when the tank was closed and whether the federal tank rule reached it, whether anything points to a release, what the tank was and how long it served, and who may still hold the closure record.

What the answer turns on

Unless a release is documented or known, the question is likely presence owing to a release or a likely release, the second part of the REC definition (E1527-21, 3.2.73). The standard's appendixes are nonmandatory. The federal tank rule, 40 CFR part 280, says what closing a covered tank involves and who keeps the results; it classifies nothing under the standard.

  • When the tank was closed, and whether the rule reached it. Under part 280 a tank taken out of service for good is emptied and cleaned and must "be removed from the ground, filled with an inert solid material, or closed in place in a manner approved by the implementing agency" (40 CFR 280.71(b)). Before the closure is complete, owners and operators measure for a release at the place where contamination is most likely; operating vapor or groundwater monitoring that shows none satisfies it (40 CFR 280.72(a)). For a system closed for good before December 22, 1988, the rule calls for an assessment when the implementing agency, judging that releases may pose a threat, directs one (40 CFR 280.73). Without that direction, a closure that old may never have had one. The rule's UST definition also leaves some tanks out, such as a heating oil tank whose oil is burned on the premises (40 CFR 280.12).
  • Whether anything points to a release. Appendix X4's examples of direct evidence include a UST closure inspection form that records an observed leak, and a key site manager with actual knowledge that a tank taken out of the subject property had been leaking (E1527-21, X4.1). Under part 280, contamination found at closure starts corrective action (40 CFR 280.72(b)), so check the leaking tank list.
  • What the tank was, and how long it served. Appendix X4's note gives a bare steel UST installed decades ago with no leak detection as a possible example of a likely release, if the environmental professional believes one has likely occurred (E1527-21, X4.1).
  • Who may hold the closure record. Unless a permanent closure is in response to corrective action, owners and operators notify the agency at least 30 days ahead, or within another period it sets (40 CFR 280.71(a)), so its file may hold a notice and no results. The results of the assessment are kept in one of three ways: "By the owners and operators who took the UST system out of service", "By the current owners and operators of the UST system site", or "By mailing these records to the implementing agency if they cannot be maintained at the closed facility" (40 CFR 280.74). Three years is the only period that section sets, so the closure's age bears on whether a report can still be expected. An assessment may also be older than the removal: one comes before any request to extend a temporary closure past 12 months (40 CFR 280.70(c)).

The records that bear on it

  • The registration and the agency file. Registered tank lists are a standard source, searched for the subject property and adjoining properties (registered storage tanks; E1527-21, 8.2.2, Table 2). For a listed subject property the file should be reviewed, or the report explains why not; the report gives the professional's opinion on whether what was reviewed is enough (E1527-21, 8.2.3.1, 8.2.3.2).
  • Other sources. For a subject property on a list, other sources may stand in for the agency's file: on-site records, records the user provides, local government records, interviews with officials and others who know the matter (E1527-21, 8.2.3.2). For a removed tank on no list, the route is the standard's other means, such as questions to the current owner or occupants, and the interviews (E1527-21, 8.1.7).
  • Documents and interviews. The owner, key site manager and user are asked whether they know of tank registrations, site investigation reports and cleanup reports (E1527-21, 10.8, 10.8.1). Past owners and operators likely to have material information are interviewed where identified (E1527-21, 10.5.4).
  • Site visit. Vent pipes, fill pipes and access ways are looked for (E1527-21, 9.4.12).

What the federal rule says

The tank rule says:

Before permanent closure or a change-in-service is completed, owners and operators must measure for the presence of a release where contamination is most likely to be present at the UST site.

40 CFR 280.72(a)

and that the results of that assessment

must be maintained for at least three years after completion of permanent closure or change-in-service

40 CFR 280.74

The inquiry rule, 40 CFR part 312, lists among the records for the subject property

storage tank records and permits

40 CFR 312.26(b)(2)

How it is written up

A tank that once stood at the subject property is past storage, which the report describes (E1527-21, 9.4, 9.4.2). 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 occurred or is likely, the opinion gives the grounds: the tank, its years of service, what the file and the interviews hold. 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 otherwise, the opinion gives its reasoning on the same four facts (E1527-21, 12.6). Whether the closure met the tank rule is regulatory compliance, outside the standard's scope unless the user adds it (E1527-21, 13.1.2, 13.1.5.14).

The interview with the key site manager, or with a regulatory official, may be what could not be held. 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