UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCV
WASHINGTON, D,C, 20460
£PA
OSWER S3SQ.3-2G
-963243
MAY 29
OFS'tCE OF
SOLID rtfJ»STE ASJC 5MCRGENCV HtSPCfv.SC
MEMORANPUM
SUBJECT: Response Actions that Apeet Residential or Commercial Structures
FROM: Timothy Fields, Jr.
Acting Assistant Administrator
TO: Superfutid Program Managers, Regions (-X
Office of Regional Counsels, Regions I-X
We currently are assembling a team that will focus its attention on the development of a
policy on how best to conduct a response action dint affects a residential or commercial structure
(i.e., the response action may result in significant damage or the need for complete demolition of
the structure), As part of this effort, we plan to solicit assistance from a}| ten Regions in follow-
up to (he information that was obtained at the June 1997 Residential Cleanup Workshop, Our
goal is to issue the policy by September 1999.
We recognize the need for a consistent approach in addressing these types of responses.
Therefore-, until a final policy is in place, before making any final decisions regarding this aspect
of a removal or remedial site response, Regions should contact their OERR Regional Accelerated
Response Center, who will coordinate with the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
for formal cotifjltation and approval. We anticipate that the consultation and approval
requirement will affect a very limited number of sites bat the questions raised by several Regions
in carrying out these types of responses coupled with recent GIG reports at the methyl parathion
sites (E1SFB7-06-0020-7400069; "Results of Assessment of Controls over Emergency Removal
Actions at Methyl Pnrathion Sites") and the Austin AYenue Site (ElSFF7-0300017-8100090;
"Replacement Housing at the Austin Avenue Radiation Site," dated March 30, 1998),
emphasized the need for EPA to put this Headquarters consultation requirement in place. We
also are advising tiwse considering these types of responses that it is our policy no( to rebuild
residential or commercial structures, except under (be rarest of circumstances. Additional details
will be fttily expanded upon in the final policy,
Regions should use the established consultation and approval procedures described in
OSWIR Directive 9360.0-19, dated Marcil 3, 1989, "Guidance on Non*NPL Removal Actions
Involving Nationally Significant or Precedent Setting Issues and OSWER Directive 9360.0-12,
-------
dated August 12, 1993, "Response Action at Sites with Contamination Inside Buildings"
(attached).
We appreciate your assistance on this matter. If you have any questions, please contact
Terri Johnson or Jo Ann Griffith, of the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response at
(703) 603-8718 and (703) 603-8774, respectively.
Attachment
cc;
Ear! Sale, OGC
Peggy Schwebke, Reg 5
Steve Herman, OECA
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAR -3 1989
MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF
SOUO WASTE AND EMERGENCY
SUBJECT:
FROM;
TO:
Guidance on Non-NPL Removal Actions Involving Nationally Significant
or Precedent-Setting Issues (OSWER D^rec^ive 9360.0-19J
Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial
Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII. VIII
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions III, VI
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Director, Toxics and Waste Management Division
Region IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division, Region X
Director, Environmental Services Division
Regions I, VI, VII
Purpose:
This memorandum transmits guidance for identifying non-NPL removal actions
that may be nationally significant or precedent-setting and establishes
procedures for requesting Headquarters (HQ) concurrence. The guidance also
outlines procedural requirements for five categories of removals which are of
special interest from a national perspective, but which are .not subject to -uie
HQ concurrence requirement for nationally significant or precedent-setting
removals.
Background:
Delegation 14-1-A (February 1987} and OSWER Directive 9360.0-12
(April 1987) require the concurrence of the Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (AA, OSWER) prior to Initiation of removal actions
taken at non-NPL sites where the proposed action is of national significance
or precedent-setting. Redelegation R-14-1-A transfers authority to concur to
the Director of the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (ODt OERR);
authority to non-concur remains with the AA, OSWER. The purpose of the
concurrence requirement is to promote national consistency in the implementa-
tion of the Superfund removal program.
It is not anticipated that a large number of removal actions will pose
issues requiring HQ concurrence. Assessment of the potential long-term
implications of initiating certain removal actions is largely interpretive,
however, and Regional personnel should consult this guidance whenever
considering a removal action at a non-NPL site.
-------
OSWER Directive 9360.0-19
-2- .
Objective:
The objective of this guidance is to ensure Regional compliance with HQ
concurrence requirement for non-NPL removal actions involving nationally
significant or precedent-setting issues. This document identifies categories
of potential removal situations which have been determined to be of national
significance or precedent-setting and specifies procedures for requesting HQ
concurrence on these actions. The guidance also identifies categories of
removals subject to special procedural requirements but not to the HQ
concurrence requirement.
The types of removals subject to the concurrence requirement are not
limited to those categories identified in the guidance. These categories are
to be used by the Regions as a guide for screening proposed removals at" non-NPL
sites that may require HQ concurrence. Since evaluation of these sites is
largely interpretive, final determinations regarding removals of a nationally
significant or precedent-setting nature should involve consultation with
Emergency Response Division (ERD) Regional Coordinators.
This interim final guidance is effective immediately. Additional revisions
to the guidance will be considered as experience is gained and/or further
policies are established that may affect the established categories and the HQ
concurrence mechanisms.
Implementation:
J. NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT OR PRECEDENT-SETTING CATEGORIES
Six categories of removals have been designated as nationally significant
or precedent-setting. The list is not exhaustive and early consultation with
the Emergency Response Di"is ion (ERD) is recommended where there are questions.
In making the determination, the key considerations are:
(a) whether Fund-financed response to a particular incident will establish
a precedent for when or how future response actions must be taken; or
(b) whether a response will commit EPA to a course of action that could
have a significant impact on future resources, due to the widespread
occurrence of a particular problem.
The categories identified and the rationale for identification are as
follows:
1. Removal actions at sites within the United States or Its territories
Involving contamination or response actions that My affect other sovereign
nations, Including Indian tribes.
-------
OSWER Directive 9360.0-19
-3- -
Rationale: HQ concurrence will facilitate the execution of proper
diplomatic protocol by the Department of State, and proper coordination
with Indian tribes, the Bureau.of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health
Service, and other appropriate organizations, where applicable.
2. Removals involving pesticide contamination arising from:
- improper storage of pesticide products awaiting indemnification
- lawful application of pesticides, including special local use
pesticides
- grain fumigation operations.
Rationale: HQ concurrence will ensure that the Agency avoids commitment
tocleanup of widespread contamination beyond the intended scope of
CERCLA.
3. Removal actions at sites involving any form of dioxin when it is one of
the principal contaminants of concern.
Rationale: HQ concurrence will ensure national consistency in dioxin
cleanup. The Dioxin Disposal Advisory Group (DOAG) in HQ must review all
dioxin removal actions to verify that the proposed action will provide an
acceptable level of protection from dioxin exposure.
4. Removal actions at sites involving releases from consumer products in
consumer use (e.g., lead-contaminated soil resulting from peeling lead-
based paint on houses).
Rationale: HQ concurrence will ensure that the Agency avoids a commitment
toThe cleanup of widespread non-point source contamination that is beyond
the intended scope of CERCLA. -;>
5. Removals involving asbestos when it is the principal contaminant of
concern.
Rationale: HQ concurrence remains necessary because action levels for
response have not yet been set and these determinations are being made.on
a case-by-case basis.
6. Removal actions involving substances or releases which may be subject to
statutory exclusions or limitations In CERCLA. These include:
-------
OSWER Directive 9360.0-19
'-4-
substances excluded from Fund-financed response under the SARA
section 101(14] definition of "hazardous substance" (e.g.,
petroleum products including crude oil, and natural gas or
synthetic gas usable for fuel);
releases excluded from Fund-financed response under the SARA
section 101(22) definition of "release" (e.g., emissions from the
engine exhaust of motor vehicles; releases of radioactive material
from a nuclear incident; and releases caused by normally applied
fertilizer);
releases excluded from Fund-financed response under SARA section
104(a)(3) including releases of a naturally occurring substances;
releases from products that are part of a structure and result in
exposures within the structure; and releases in public or private
drinking water supplies due to system deterioration from ordinary
use.
Specific examples of substances or releases that have raised statutory
interpretation or related policy issues with respect to their eligibility
for CERCLA removal action include radon contamination in building
structures, pentachlorophenol (PCP) contamination in log cabins, releases
from coal gasification facilities, methane gas releases, and asbestos in
building materials in homes,
Rationale: HQ concurrence will ensure that statutory exclusions and
limitat ions are interpreted in a consistent manner. HQ concurrence will
also ensure consistent application of EPA's authority under CERCLA section
104(a)(4) to respond to any release or threat of release if it constitutes
a public health or environmental emergency and no other person wl1!
respond in a timely manner.
Concurrence Procedures
Early screening for issues of a nationally significant or precedent-
setting nature is essential to ensure timely HQ concurrence when necessary.
OSCs should contact the appropriate ER0 Regional Coordinator when a possible
nationally significant or precedent-setting removal action is first identified,
to alert the Regional Coordinator that a recjuest for HQ concurrence will be
forthcoming. OSCs should also call the Regional Coordinator for advice on
actions that are not specifically listed in the guidance, but *rfiich may be
nationally significant or precedent-setting. Some nationally significant
removal actions may require special coordination and oversight by the National
Incident Coordination Team (NICT). These types of removal actions are
discussed in a November 10, 1986, memorandum from the AA, OSWER entitled
"Relationship between Preparedness Staff and Office of Emergency and Remedial
-------
OSWER Directive 9360.0-19
-5- .
Response during a Nationally Significant Incident," which states that OSCs
should inform the Regional Coordinator when these types of incidents occur.
For those removal actions where HQ concurrence is required, written
concurrence must be received prior to the Regional Administrator's {RA) formal
approval of the Action Memorandum, except in cases of emergencies (i.e.,
situations where a response must be initiated within hours after completion of
a site evaluation). HQ concurrence procedures for non-emergency removal
actions at dioxin sites have been modified to streamline procedures. These
non-emergency, emergency, and special dioxin concurrence procedures are
discussed below.
Non-Emergency Removal Concurrence Procedures
All non-emergency concurrences must be requested through an Action
Memorandum with a Request for Concurrence form attached. The Action Memorandum
should be in final draft form, except that it should not be signed by the RA.
The request form must be addressed from the RA to theOD, QERR and should
describe the nationally significant or precedent-setting issue. This form has
been developed in an effort to minimize the additional paperwork associated
with obtaining HQ concurrence. A copy of the form is attached.
The RA may approve the Action Memorandum for a nationally significant or
precedent-setting removal action once the action has been concurred upon by HQ.
Additional HQ concurrence is required only if the scope of work described
within the Action Memorandum changes significantly. In this case, HQ
concurrence on the amended Action Memorandum is required, as discussed above,
prior to any additional actions at the site. HQ concurrence is not required
on requests for ceiling increases or time exemptions, unless the scope of work
changes significantly. Most $2 million exemption requests'require approval by
the AA, OSWER, unless "the consistency exemption authority for that site has
been delegated to the RA.
Emergency Removal Concurrence Procedures
In cases where emergency removal actions, as defined above, involve
nationally significant or precedent-setting issues, Regions may initiate a
removal action without HQ concurrence. In these cases, however, OSCs must take
only those actions necessary to mitigate the emergency or stabilize the site,
and then inform the appropriate ERD Regional Coordinator on the next working
day after the removal action was initiated.
If the response is determined to be nationally significant or precedent-
setting but no further actions are required beyond the emergency mitigation,
the Regions must send to the Director, OERR a copy of the Action Memorandum
-------
OSWER Directive 9360.0-19
'-6-
submitted to the RA for that removal. The Action Memorandum should clearly
describe the nationally significant or precedent-setting issues involved, A
request for HQ concurrence is not necessary when the incident does not require
actions beyond the initial emergency measures.
For those nationally significant or precedent-setting sites where further
response is required beyond the emergency measures, HQ concurrence must be
obtained before taking any further action. These concurrence requests are
subject to the non-emergency procedural requirements described above. HQ will
expedite the review of these requests to avoid delaying on-going removal
actions.
Special Dioxin Concurrence Procedures
To reduce the administrative burden that the HQ concurrence procedures
place on Regions with large numbers of dioxin sites, the non-emergency
concurrence procedures have been modified. This modification permits the
concurrence on a single dioxin site Action Memorandum to be used for multiple
dioxin sites in the same Region. To qualify for this special concurrence
procedure, the additional dioxin sites must have identical forms of dioxin
present, and identical cleanup measures must be employed to achieve identical
cleanup goals. Regions with multiple dioxin sites meeting these criteria may
obtain concurrence for them all on a single Action Memorandum if supplementary
information is supplied as described below.
The additional sites should be listed on the concurrence form if they are
known at the time the original Action Memorandum is submitted. It should be
specifically stated that the sites are identical in nature and that identical
cleanup measures will be employed. If additional dioxin sites meeting the
above criteria are discovered after receipt of the original HQ concurrence the
Regions are required te inform the appropriate ER0 Regional Coordinator o," the
location of the additional removal actions. The Regions must also note within
the Action Memorandum that previous concurrence on the cleanup approach has
been provided.
II. REMOVAL ACTIONS SUBJECT TO SPECIAL PROCEDURAL REQUIROCNTS
The requirements established below apply to five removal categories that
do not present nationally significant or precedent-setting Issues requiring HQ
concurrence, but instead involve issues that require special Regional
procedures.
-------
OSWER Directive 9360.0-19
-7- -
The five categories of removal actions and the policy for handling each
are as follows:
1. Removals involving mining sites.
Procedures: OSCs must consult with their ERO Regional Coordinator and
demonstrate within the Action Memorandum that they have investigated other
potential cleanup authorities (e.g., the Surface Mining Act) but found
that a response could not be initiated under such authorities within the
time frame required to protect human health, welfare, or the environment,
or that these authorities do not apply to the particular response
situation.
2. Removals involving Federal facilities.
Procedures: Guidance on conducting removals at Federal facilities is
under development. Until this guidance is effective, OSCs must confer
with the ERQ Regional Coordinators to ensure that the roles and responsi-
bilities of the various agencies are assigned appropriately.
3. Removals involving site-specific contracts.
Procedures: OSCs must coordinate with the HO Procurement and Contracts
Management Division (PCMD) to confirm that the contract Statement of Work
(SOW) is consistent with the Action Memorandum and the SOW conforms with
CERCU and the NCP.
4. Removals involving radiation sites.
Procedures: OSCs must contact the HQ Office of Radiation Programs for
guidance"on healt.', and safety in conducting radiation cleanup activities.
5, Removals involving business relocations,
Procedures: Action Memoranda for removals involving business relocations
may beapproved by the Regional Administrators, and other response
activities comprising the removal may be initiated; however, until
specific guidance is developed, OSCs must confer with ERO Regional
Coordinators on business relocations prior to initiating the specific
business relocation activities. This is to ensure national consistency in
the criteria used to determine the need for business relocations, and the
specific expenses incurred.
-------
OSWER Directive 9360.0-19
-8-
Comments and questions on this guidance should be directed to Betty Zeller
in the Emergency Response Division, FTS 382-7735.
Attachment
cc: Superfund Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
OHM Coordinators, Regions I-X
Betti Van Epps 4-*-
Tim Fields
Betty Zelle.
-------
Subjecr: Request for Concurrence on Proposed Nationally Significant or
Precedent-Setting Removal
From: Regional Administrator
To: Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
The purpose of this memorandum is to request your concurrence on the proposed removal
action at the site in • Redelegation of
Authority R-J4-1-A gives you the authority to concur on nationally significant or precedent-
setting removals.
The OSC has discussed this proposed removal with staff of the HQ Emergency Response
Division. ERD has advised the OSC that this removal is considered nationally significant or
precedent-setting because
The action memorandum is attached for your review. My approval awaits your concurrence,
Concur
Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Date
According to the redelegatioo, authority to non-concur remains with the Assistant Administrator.
If you choose not to concur on this action, please forward this memo to the Assistant
Administrator.
Non-Concun
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste Date
and Emergency Response
Concur:
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste Date
and Emergency Response
-------
-------
.*« *'-,,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
AUG 1 2 ]993
o*
OSWER Directive 9360.3-12
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response Actions at Sites with Corjtamjjnation Inside
Buildings
FROM: Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remed
TO: Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII, VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions III, VI, IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region X
Director, Environmental Services Division
Regions I, VI, VII
PURPOSE
This directive transmits guidance on the use of authority
under §104 (a) of t_ie Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, to conduct
response actions to address releases of hazardous substances,
pollutasiiis, or contaminants that are found within buildings. Use
of this guidance may assist Regional Decision Teams (RDTs) in
implementing early actions under the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM).
BACKGROUND
CERCLA $104 (a) provides EPA with the authority to conduct
response actions whenever there is a release or threat of release
of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant into the
environment. Section 101(22) of CERCLA defines "release" to
include "any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting...or
disposing into the environment..." CERCLA §101(8) defines
"environment" to include "navigable waters,...any surface water,
ground water, drinking water supply, land surface or subsurface
-------
strata, or ambient air," A discharge of a hazardous substance,
pollutant, or contaminant that remains entirely contained within
a building is not a "release" under CERCLA unless it subsequently
enters the environment. It may be a threatened release and,
thus, subject to CERCLA response authority (50 FR 13462, April 4,
1985).
There are currently a number of sites throughout the nation
where buildings are contaminated with hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants, and where the release or threat of
release of these substances may pose a substantial threat to
human health. However, CERCLA expressly limits, under
§104(a)(3), any response actions taken in response to a release
or threat of. release:
• of a naturally occurring substance in its unaltered
fora, or altered solely through naturally occurring
processes or phenomena, from a location where it is
naturally found;
* from products which are part of the structure of, and
result in exposure within, residential buildings or
business or community structures; or
* into public or private drinking water supplies due to
deterioration of the system through ordinary use.
CERCLA §104(a)(3) therefore limits responses in certain
situations, such as releases of radon or asbestos from building
products or from in situ natural sources, but §104(a)(4),
entitled Exception to Limitations, identifies specific circum-
stances that, if present, would allow CERCLA response in such
situations.
Removal actions involving substances or releases that are
subject to statutory exclusions or limitations in CERCLA are
explicitly listed in OSWER Directive 9360.0-19, "Guidance on
Non-NPL Removal Actions Involving Nationally significant or
Precedent-Setting Issues" (Marco 3, 1989). A copy of the
Guidance i* attached to this directive. As noted in the
Guidance, written concurrence must be received from Headquarters
prj.or to formal approval of the Action Memorandum by the Regional
Administrator (RA), except in situations where a response oust be
initiated within hours (i.e., except in true emergency
situations).
Vote that the statute def inas the term "release" to mean
release of a substance "into the environment." However, for
purposes of clarity, this memorandum distinguishes between a
"release," which may be indoors or. into the environment, and a
"Release into the environment
"
-------
Responses to indoor releases, such as at a contaminated
chemical processing facility, are not expressly limited in
CERCLA, and response actions may be appropriate in such
situations where .there is a release or threat of release into the
environment. Such responses, however, have the potential of
being nationally significant or precedent-setting because
response to indoor contamination is not the primary focus of
CERCLA, and because it may be difficult to show that a release or
threat of release from indoor contamination poses a threat to
public health or welfare or the environment.
OBJECTIVE
This directive clarifies that CERCLA §104 authority should
be used only when there is a release or threat of release of a
hazardous substance (and, if there is also a finding of imminent
and substantial endangement, of a pollutant or contaminant) into
the environment, and only when such a release or threat of
release poses a hazard to public health or welfare or the
envirpnment„ If it can be shown that there is a release or
threat of release into the environment, a SACM early action
responding to indoor contamination related to that: release or
threat of release may be taken under certain circumstances as
defined below. Of course, any early actions undertaken pursuant
to this directive must be conducted in accordance with the NCP.
IJJPLJMENTATION
If the indoor contamination involves one of the three
scenarios specified in CERCLA §104(a)(3), as identified above, a
response action may be taken pursuant to the exceptions of
S104(a)(4) only if all of the following three criteria are met:
* there must be a release or threat: of release' of a
hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminar*: into the
environment;
It should be clarified that in CERCLA. §101(22) the phrase
"release into the environment* refers to the location of the
release itself; the phrase does riot address the location of the
hazard that the release poses. Thus, response actions under the
national Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP) to remedy, for example, radium wastes that have been
disposed of in subsoil, which may in turn cause indoor hazards
from migration and accumulation of radon gas in nearby homes, are
not excluded under CERCLA. S104(a)(3), whereas radium wastes
incorporated into building materials and used in a structure may
be excluded.
-------
• the release must constitute a public health or
environmental emergency, and no other person with the
authority and capability to respond to the emergency
will do so in a timely manner; and
* Headquarters must assess the national significance and
precedent-setting nature of the response and concur in
the response action.
Regardless of whether or not a potential response action
involving indoor contamination is addressed explicitly in CERCLA
§104(a)(3), several steps should be followed by Regional response
personnel prior to initiating a response action. These steps are
summarized below and illustrated in Figure 1.
£>e termination of a Release or Threat of Release into the
-SnyjLmnennt
To appropriately use CERCLA authority, there must be
adequate documentation to show that the indoor contamination
results in a release, or a threat of release, of a hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant into the environment. (In
addition, for releases involving pollutants or contaminants,
there Bust also be a determination of an Imminent and substantial
endangement.} The issue of whether a release or threat of
release into the environment exists, however, can be ambiguous
when addressing sites with indoor contamination or where
contamination stems from the structure itself. Regardless of the
nature of the indoor contamination, however, a release or threat
of release must be substantiated prior to taking response action.
In general, authority to respond to a release or threat of
release from a building exists if at least one person or the
environment outside of the building may be exposed to the
release. For example, if the hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant can migrate through a window or through the
foundation or building structure into the soil, creating
exposures to persons or hazards to the environment, a sufficient
basis may exist to show that there is a threat of release into
the environment requiring the cleanup of the interior of the
building. It also may be possible to show that there is a threat
that contaminated articles, clothing, or even part* of the
structure itself may be inadvertently removed from the building
and, thus, a release or threat of release of a hazardous
subetance, pollutant, or contaminant may exist.
Another situation involving Indoor contamination may be
contamination that is the direct result of a release into the
environment from a non-natural source that migrates into a
building or structure. For example, contamination in a yard may
-------
- 5 -
be tracked into a building on the feet of the residents or
workers, or may migrate into the building through an open window
or basement walls. In this situation, a release into the
environment is occurring and has caused a building to become
contaminated with the hazardous substance, pollutant, or contami-
nant.
Determination of Need to Respond
Once it has been determined that there is a release or
threat of release into the environment, the nature of the'public
health or environmental threat resulting from the release should
be established. Depending upon whether the release situation is
expressly limited in CERCLA §104(a)(3), the standard is slightly
different.
» For responses to releases expressly limited in CERCLA
§104(a)(3) (e.g., indoor releases of radon, asbestos,
or a deteriorating drinking water system), there must
be a finding that the release is causing a public
health or environmental emergency and no other person
with the authority and capability to respond to the
emergency will do so in a timely manner.
* For response actions that: are not specifically limited
in CERCLA §104(a)(3), the release should pose a threat
to public health or welfare or the environment; an
emergency situation does not need to exist.
Consultatloa
Once it has been determined that a CERCLA response action
•ay be necessary, in most cases, Regional offices should consult
with Regional Coordinators at Headquarters (pursuant to OSWER
Directive 9360.0-19, March 3, 1989) to determine whether CERCLA
authority can and should be used to respond to the problem.
Headquarters will assist the ROT in considering the national
significance and precedent-setting nature of the problem.
Generally, written concurrence from the Office Director, OERR,
must be received prior to formal approval of the Action
Memorandum by til* RA.
The one exception to this rule is a situation where response
action must be initiated immediately, and there Is no time to
discuss the situation with Headquarters. In such compelling
cases. Regions may Initiate a response action without Head-
quarters concurrence; however, only those actions that are
necessary to mitigate the emergency or stabilise the site should
be taken. The appropriate Regional Coordinator should then be
informed of the response on the next working day following
initiation of the emergency action.
Attachment
-------
Figure 1
INDOOR CONTAMINATION: STEPS FOR ACTION
YES
NO
* Ii there a public health or
envnonmeiilal emergency
AND
* CTpi no other person
respond in a timely way?
YES
Initiate
Is there a release or threatened release
into the environment of a hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant*?
NO
YES
Is the response expressly limited In
CERCLA§104(a)(3)?
(A) Naturally occurring substances in
their unaltered form;
(B) Products that ire part of the
smicrje of a building; or
-------
-------
-------
|