Information had come back that no permit or a request for a permit was on file for the faulty tank. After further investigation, it was revealed that the documentation provided by Ashland personnel was actually a statement from a different agency acknowledging that construction was underway. Also, a press member was equipped with a copy of the American Petroleum Industry (API) standard 650 (the industry guideline for proper testing of oil tanks), and was inquiring if the tank had been properly tested. This test makes sure that all tanks are filled completely full with water in order to settle their foundations and test the welds for strength. .
Later that day, Hall had discovered that the tank had not been properly tested by the API 650 Standards, but was tested with an alternate method. Oil had been sprayed on the welds inside the tank and vacuum suction was applied from the outside to determine if any oil could be pulled through possible leaks in the welds. Also, the tank had only been filled with only about three feet of water to settle the foundation. This method of testing was specified by the API 650 standards, was intended for uninhabited locations where water was scarce. It was also discovered that while an application for a permit had been made, the construction of the tank had been started, based on a verbal acknowledgement. Also, the permit application didn't mention that the tank would be constructed of used steel. Hall had found out that the tank was constructed from 40-year-old steel, which wasn't uncommon within this industry, because steel did not deteriorate with age. An Ashland spokesman did not mention the age of the tank, until asked by the Pittsburgh Press. Jacobs, Allegheny County Fire Marshall stated that the tank was supposed to be brand new. He also added that the age of the tank was likely to become a factor in a joint local, state and federal investigation into what caused the tank to burst.