That's a toughie, since ASTM doesn't define 'structures.'  A containment basin is a structure, a storm drain catch  basin is a structure, a Butler building housing a kindergarten is a structure....  9.4.1.7 of the standard implies that it's intended to mean buildings, but that's a thin branch on which to hang one's hat. 

A 'latex products' factory (and I use the quotation marks with malice aforethought ;)) I worked on a couple years ago had a release from a fuel oil feed line in their boiler room... it dropped about 900 gallons of #2 oil onto the boiler room floor, ponded to about 2" short of the pilot light, and then went down the drain into the municipal sewer.  Once it got to the sewer plant, it killed off the bacteria in the digesters and shut the WWTP down for two weeks.

That was an extreme example.... more usual would be an insurance office where someone didn't notice the heating oil tank in the basement was leaking for a couple weeks.

Just FWIW, releases to secondary containment structures aren't always exempt from release reporting requirements, depending on jurisdiction.  In MA (where I am) for example, releases to containment aren't discussed in the state contingency plan, but are regulated under the hazardous waste management regs since they're a facility maintenance issue.

From what I understand, asbestos can also be a "release into a structure" if it is disturbed.

Lauren and Larry bring up good points that I’d like to explore a little more.

Once more, the CERCLA definition of "release" means “any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment…”

The phrase “into the environment” is important to consider.  CERCLA defines “environment” to include various waters, land surfaces and subsurface strata, and ambient air (42 USC 9601(8)).  The EPA interprets that a release into the ambient air of a building or structure is not reportable under CERCLA if it does not reach the outside air (50 Fed. Reg. 13462-3 (April 4, 1985).  Therefore, if it remains entirely contained within the building or structure, it is not a "release" under CERCLA unless it subsequently enters the environment.   

When evaluating a “release into a structure” as an REC, we need to think of it in context of the environment.  Therefore, we can look at it in two ways: 1) a release into the structure is an REC if it has migrated into the environment, or 2) an offsite release into the environment is an REC if it has migrated into the structure (vapor intrusion).   

However, I left out the phrase “threat of release into a structure”, which appears to create a gray area.  For example, if asbestos or lead paint has been disturbed in a building, does that qualify as a threat of a release into the environment?  I would think that this would generally not constitute a threat of a release, because abatement under OSHA and/or disposal under RCRA and state/local hazardous materials ordinances should be triggered before a “threat of a release” under CERCLA is considered.

It looks like most (or maybe all) court rulings have denied claims for response costs under CERCLA for asbestos in buildings where the fibers have not migrated into the environment. At the same time, the rulings have been founded based on a wide range of site-specific arguments (i.e., there is no clear precedent-setting condition for interpreting an asbestos release within a building).  In general, my understanding is that the courts are cautiously avoiding setting a national precedent that would include releases of asbestos within buildings under CERCLA liability if the releases remain contained within the building.      

After proposing all of that, I would agree with Lauren and still identify a release of asbestos or lead paint dust into a structure as an REC.  Why?  Well, if I conducted a site visit and saw a sump full of oil, I’d be reluctant to say it’s not an REC just because it hasn’t entered the environment yet.  The presence of oil in a sump would indicate poor management practices, which in my opinion poses an inherent threat of a release into the environment.  Likewise, I would apply this same logic to disturbed hazardous building materials. Regardless, hazardous building materials should always be addressed in some fashion and brought to your client’s full attention. 

Patrick

we are confusing a number of issues.

The reason costs to address "releases" of ACBM within an indoor space are not CERCLA releases is that there is a specific exclusion in section 104 of CERCLA that prohibits EPA from responding to  releases from materials that are part of the building structure. However, if the building is demolished so that only debris piles containing ACM are present, the exclusion no longer applies. Of course, releases of ACM thru broken windows could result in CAA liability, This section also prohibits EPA from responding to releases from naturally-occurring substances (i.e., radon).

A spill within a building or structure within a building could trigger CERCLA liability where the hazardous substances actually gets into the environment or where there is a threat that it could get into the environment. Perhaps the leading case where a threatened release within a building triggered CERCLA liability was the Amland case in NJ where Judge Trump Barry (yes- The Donald's sister) found dripping of PCB-contaminated oil from a condensor onto a bare concrete floor was a threatened release since it could soak thru the concrete into the underlying soil.  

There could be situations where the hazardous substance is released into a sump, elevator pits, floor drain, septic tank or other subsurface striuctures where depending on the integrity of the structures (e.g, cracks in concrete, bare soil, etc) it could be said there has been a threatened or actual release of hazardous substances into the environment.

it may seem strange but that is how the caselaw has intepreted the section 104 exclusions. Technically, these exclusions are prohibitions agst EPA spending $$ to address such releases (and not private parties) but the courts have generally interpreted this prohibition as an exclusion from the definition of release.

That being said, you cannot underestimate the risks posed by asbestos debris, and an EP should not be influenced by the attitude of a local agency. The asbestos can get into the soil (especially if the building was destroyed by fire and the fire fighters used lots of water to put out the fire), and asbestos-contaminated soil can lead to CERCLA liability. ACM is one of those hot-buttom items. we are still seeing criminal convictions for improper asbestos removals and disposal.

Asbestos in soil usually occurs when prior building structures have been demolished and buried. There have been some large recoveries where former army barracks were bulldozed and the asbestos shingles ended up getting crushed and releasing asbestos fibers into the soil. And in Kalamath Falls, a developer was jailed for failing to disclose the presence of asbestos in soil from buried barracks. Some sites have been placed on the NPL.

and of course there are areas in the country where there is naturally-occurring asbestos where grading activities have to observe certain protocols to minimize release of fibers. In fact, there is an outcrop of serpentine on the far west side of Manhattan around 58th street where DEC will not allow any construction that would disturb the bedrock b/c of fears that asbestos fibers will get released. 

Here's a discussion of a court case on the relevance of RCRA/CERCLA to asbestos in structures.

Given that many of the major vapor intrusion cases involve discharges to sewers, I would say yes unless the discharge is permitted and therefore excluded from definition of CERCLA release. Moreover, as we know, sewers are inherently leaky and therefore discharges into sewers are very likely potential releases into the environment.