UST systems include tanks, piping, fittings and dispensers below and above grade; the source of a release isn’t always obvious when contamination is first discovered.
Are Compliant UST Sites Really Low Risk?
|
|
Georgia EPD also makes an important distinction between passing and non-passing results. Current compliance guidance states that a failed tank or line tightness test is considered a suspected release and must be reported within 24 hours. Failed monthly monitoring, and two consecutive inconclusive SIR results, also trigger suspected-release reporting requirements. The point is not to second-guess a passing result; it is to understand exactly what that result does and does not establish.
|
Free-phase product recovered from a monitoring well following a long-term, low-rate release that went undetected over time.
|
Warning Signs Still Matter
Compliance testing is only one source of information about a UST system. Recurring alarms, repeated inconclusive results, unexplained inventory trends, unexpected water in a tank, petroleum odors, staining around dispenser or fill areas, or product observed in a monitoring well or stormwater structure may all warrant additional attention. Georgia EPD’s own compliance guidance reminds owners to review the test results provided by their tester rather than simply file them away.
The value of these observations is context. An isolated stain does not prove a UST release, and an alarm does not automatically mean a tank or line is leaking. But patterns matter. When the same irregularity keeps occurring, the underlying cause should be understood rather than assumed to be harmless.
A Note About Voluntary Screening
Some owners may choose to obtain additional information about subsurface conditions even when no release has been confirmed. Passive soil-gas sampling is one example of a relatively low-impact screening technique that can indicate whether petroleum vapors may be present beneath portions of a site. Its purpose in that context is screening—not UST compliance testing, and not regulatory release confirmation. Georgia EPD has specific procedures for investigating suspected and confirmed releases, and voluntary screening methods should not be considered as substitutes for those requirements. Owners also should not assume that voluntary screening will be reimbursable through the GUST Trust Fund without prior EPD approval. If voluntary screening identifies a potential concern, any follow-up used for regulatory decision-making should proceed under the applicable EPD requirements.
Final Thoughts
Passing leak-detection tests is good news, and maintaining compliance remains the foundation of responsible UST operation. The caution is simply not to turn “pass” into “proof that nothing could be wrong.” Understanding what each test measures, reviewing abnormal results, and paying attention to changing site conditions can help owners recognize when a closer look may be justified. A compliant site can still experience a release. Knowing that possibility exists is not a reason to distrust compliance testing; it is a reason to use the information those systems provide as effectively as possible.
Author Bio
Tony Rodriguez is a Principal Geologist with Triple Point Engineering. His experience with UST closures, site investigations, and corrective action began in 1993.
Compliance testing is only one source of information about a UST system. Recurring alarms, repeated inconclusive results, unexplained inventory trends, unexpected water in a tank, petroleum odors, staining around dispenser or fill areas, or product observed in a monitoring well or stormwater structure may all warrant additional attention. Georgia EPD’s own compliance guidance reminds owners to review the test results provided by their tester rather than simply file them away.
The value of these observations is context. An isolated stain does not prove a UST release, and an alarm does not automatically mean a tank or line is leaking. But patterns matter. When the same irregularity keeps occurring, the underlying cause should be understood rather than assumed to be harmless.
A Note About Voluntary Screening
Some owners may choose to obtain additional information about subsurface conditions even when no release has been confirmed. Passive soil-gas sampling is one example of a relatively low-impact screening technique that can indicate whether petroleum vapors may be present beneath portions of a site. Its purpose in that context is screening—not UST compliance testing, and not regulatory release confirmation. Georgia EPD has specific procedures for investigating suspected and confirmed releases, and voluntary screening methods should not be considered as substitutes for those requirements. Owners also should not assume that voluntary screening will be reimbursable through the GUST Trust Fund without prior EPD approval. If voluntary screening identifies a potential concern, any follow-up used for regulatory decision-making should proceed under the applicable EPD requirements.
Final Thoughts
Passing leak-detection tests is good news, and maintaining compliance remains the foundation of responsible UST operation. The caution is simply not to turn “pass” into “proof that nothing could be wrong.” Understanding what each test measures, reviewing abnormal results, and paying attention to changing site conditions can help owners recognize when a closer look may be justified. A compliant site can still experience a release. Knowing that possibility exists is not a reason to distrust compliance testing; it is a reason to use the information those systems provide as effectively as possible.
Author Bio
Tony Rodriguez is a Principal Geologist with Triple Point Engineering. His experience with UST closures, site investigations, and corrective action began in 1993.
