DOE/EH/(CERCLA)-003
Expediting Cleanup Through
Contingent Removal Actions
Office of Environmental Management
Office of Environment, Safety & Health
March 1997
This guidance is primarily intended for personnel with line management responsibility for Department of Energy (DOE) environmental restoration projects
conducted pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). It provides a concise description of the
components and application of contingent removal actions to streamline remediation of recurrent site problems. "Contingent Removal" is a DOE-specific
term consistent with the removal action process as defined in the National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR 300. Additional written guidance is
available in DOE's Phased Response/Early Action Guidance, Module 2 (DOE/EH-0256, November 1995).
Although a number of DOE's waste sites are sufficiently
complex and unique to warrant extensive pre-response
characterization, many do not. In fact, the time and costs to
evaluate waste sites and document individual response actions
can be reduced significantly by focusing on the similarities
between sites, and constructing a pre-determined set of
responses based on those similarities. This concept of utilizing
similarities between sites to streamline remedial planning and
implementation is embodied in EPA's presumptive remedy
policy (OSWERFact Sheet 9355.0-47FS, September, 1993,
EPA 540-F-93-047) and serves as the basis for implementing
generic approaches1.
Analogous to this concept of pre-determined responses, the
contingent removal action approach is designed to address
anticipated recurrent site problems more efficiently and
consistently. Contingent removal actions are intended to
streamline the remediation process by establishing a
standardized, pre-approved response strategy (e.g., excavate
and dispose off-site in a permitted cell) for a site-specifically
defined condition (e.g., thorium hot spots above x pCi/g in the
top y inches of soil) thus reducing approval and documentation
delays and expediting response.
Developing Contingent Removal Actions
Close coordination and teamwork between DOE, EPA, and
State RPMs is essential to the development of a contingent
removal approach. This "core" team, with assistance from the
extended project team (e.g., support contractors and technical
experts assisting in the scoping and implementation of the
project) must reach consensus on:
• Appropriate site problems for contingent removals
• Appropriate criteria to trigger removals
• Removal implementation procedures
• Strategy for integrating contingent removals into the
overall site remediation strategy
Generic approaches are facility specific remedial strategies which
use the knowledge gained from previous experience at waste sites within a
facility to serve as the basis and justification for subsequent responses at similar
sites in that facility.
Without this common understanding and consensus, response
times will be lengthened, negating potential gains from the up-
front planning which characterizes this approach.
This approach is potentially applicable to a range of problem
types (e.g., soil hot spots, buried drums/tanks) varying in
potential scope and scale of cleanup (i.e., volumes of materials
addressed). However, as with any innovative approach, the
core team may want to limit initial application to problem types
where response action logistics currently fit within existing
constraints (e.g., necessary equipment and personnel are
available on-site). As experience is gained, broader application
involving additional resources (i.e., placement of new contracts)
can be pursued.
Step One: Identify Appropriate Site Problems for
Contingent Removals
The core team should use their site conceptual model developed
during the scoping phase to identify specific types of problems
amenable to a contingent removal action approach. Factors to
consider when evaluating candidates for contingent removals
are discussed below:
• Frequency of problem type: The greatest potential
savings from this approach will be directly correlated
with the frequency in which conditions triggering the
agreed to response are encountered (i.e., economies of
scale increase each time a problem is more efficiently
addressed through a contingent removal).
• Cost of taking action: Any fiscal constraints on the
scope of a contingent removal should be identified
(e.g., conducting a removal(s) will not exceed
$ADO,000 within the fiscal year or impede progress on
other projects currently scheduled or ongoing and
funded under the existing baseline).
• Health and safety issues: Any health and safety
concerns with implementing a pre-approved response
strategy to ensure protection for workers must be
identified and resolved (e.g., necessary H&S
personnel are available and an adequate H&S plan is
currently in place to address the problem).
-------
• Availability of technology and waste management
capability: Necessary equipment, waste management
facilities, and regulatory approvals (e.g., permits) must
be available to provide a reasonable assurance of
success (e.g., workers trained in emergency response are
on-site and compliant storage capacity is available for
approximately Jf,000 yd3 of material).
Step Two: Establish Criteria For Triggering Action
Once the core team agrees on which types of site problems will
be addressed through contingent removals, facility specific
criteria to trigger action (and also delineate the boundaries of the
response) must be established. To ensure resources are being
expended on substantive cleanup, specified concentration or
dose levels to trigger response should be set where there is a
clear potential for risk. Setting trigger levels at concentrations
for which an action is clearly needed also allows for a more rapid
response, i.e., sites with concentrations below the trigger levels
can then be assessed on a separate (slower) track to determine
whether a no-further-action finding is appropriate, or whether
additional data are needed to determine if a response is required.
[NOTE: Establishing facility-specific trigger levels as part of a
contingent removal approach does not limit in any way the
agencies' authority to initiate a removal action whenever they
determine it is appropriate to do so (e.g., threat of hazardous
substance release, threat of fire and / or explosion, etc).]
Potential sources for trigger levels include: 1) regulatory
standards, 2) risk-based methodologies, equations, or guidelines,
or 3) exposure levels exceeding health and safely requirements in
DOE Orders2. Use of trigger levels is conceptually consistent
with the use of action levels3 in the RCRA corrective action
program.
Step Three: Establish Removal/Implementation Procedures
Once the core team designates a type of site problem as a
candidate for a contingent removal action (i.e., trigger criteria
have been met), specific implementation procedures must be
developed. Decision rules (see Highlight 1) are useful for linking
the site problem, the criteria used to trigger response, and the
implementing procedures to effectively communicate the basis for
action to the public and the remedial contractor performing the
work. Factors to consider when establishing implementation
procedures include:
• Responsibilities and authorities: The core team needs to
agree on which organizations will conduct the action to
expedite field mobilization and avoid delays.
• Contracting mechanisms: Proposed contracting
mechanisms to conduct the removals should be reviewed
to avoid unforeseen delays and accelerate the start of
DOE Orders are internal established requirements for which foil
compliance is mandated for all affected activities, including CERCLA remedial
and removal actions.
Corrective action for releases from solid waste management units at
hazardous waste management facilities; Proposed rule 61 FR 19432, May 1,
1996.
field activities (e.g., no procurement is required due to
available on-site equipment and labor force).
Monitoring strategy for terminating a removal: A
monitoring plan indicating when action may stop (e.g.,
all soils above x pCi/g have been removed) or scope
limits have been reached should be established before
actual excavation begins.
Generic design and technical procedures: Use of
existing procedures, plans, and design documentation
(e.g., protocols for using radiological detection
instruments) should be emphasized to streamline design
and conserve resources.
HIGHLIGHT 1: Example Decision Rules to Communicate
Facility-Specific Basis for Action
If thorium is found above x pCi/g in the topy inches of soil in any
100 ft2 area measured using the Soil Screening Facility Methodology,
and the total estimated volume is less than 100 yd3, then that volume
will be excavated using onsite personnel and equipment, and stored in
disposal boxes until offsite waste acceptance criteria can be verified.
If concentrations of TCE in any off-site monitoring well exceed twice
the maximum contaminant level in two consecutive quarterly
samples, then alternative drinking water will be supplied to local
residents using potable groundwater supplies within an x mile radius
of the monitoring well.
Step Four: Integrate Contingent Removal Actions Into
Overall Site Remediation Strategy
The objective of an effective site remediation strategy is to
determine which site problems are best addressed through either
removal or remedial action and optimize the sequence and timing
of those actions. Therefore, once a contingent removal action
approach has been proposed and the public has had an
opportunity to comment, it needs to be integrated into the overall
site remediation strategy (e.g., incorporated into the existing
Federal Facility Agreement). Thus, each time a situation is
encountered which meets the trigger criteria, a response can be
implemented immediately. Each time a response is initiated, the
agencies should prepare an information brief to communicate to
the public what remediation has been (or is being) conducted to
keep them informed of the progress being made.
Please refer any questions concerning this material to:
Steve Golian
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Program Initiatives (EM-47)
(301)903-7791
Richard Dailey
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance
RCRA / CERCLA Division (EH-413)
(202)586-7117
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Superfund Hotline
(800) 424-9346
------- |