SUMMARY OF THE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPMENT FORUM
IN-PLACE INACTIVATION AND NATURAL ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION
TECHNOLOGIES SOIL-METALS ACTION TEAM
CONFERENCE CALL

April 24, 2000
4:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.

On Monday, April 24, 2000, the following members of the In-Place Inactivation and Natural Ecological Restoration Technologies (IINERT) Soil-Metals Action Team met in a conference call:

Bill Berti, DuPont Central Research and Development (Action Team Co-Chair)
James Ryan, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Action Team Co-Chair)
Sally Brown, University of Washington
David Mosby, Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Gary Pierzynski, Kansas State University
Sebastien Sauve, NRS-Institut Armand-Frappier-Santé
Qi Xue, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Sarah Dun of Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), was also present.

REPORTS

Conference call participants discussed reports that Action Team members plan to write.

Master's Thesis

Dave Mosby plans to submit his Master's thesis on Wednesday, April 26, 2000. Before finalizing it, he hopes to obtain several specific pieces of information from Action Team members. (Call participants discussed the best way to provide Mosby with this information.) Mosby said that he will send a copy of his Master's thesis to EPA's Mark Doolan.

Publications Written by Individual Investigators

John Yang, Sally Brown, and Gary Pierzynski all plan to summarize their work and to publish it in the peer-reviewed literature. According to Bill Berti, Yang has already written a paper and it is undergoing final review. Brown said that she is compiling plant and in vitro data for inclusion in a paper. She expects to distribute a draft version to Action Team members in about a month for an internal review. Pierzynski said that he has written three papers, which he plans to publish in the Journal of Environmental Quality (JEQ) and Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T). These papers have not been reviewed by EPA, Pierzynski said, because he did not think it was necessary. He will determine whether he needs to add a disclaimer stating that these papers have not undergone EPA review.

Summary Reports

In past meetings and during this conference call, Action Team members agreed that they should submit a comprehensive report to EPA that summarizes the studies performed by IINERT Action Team members. Some conference call participants expressed an interest in doing this soon, but James Ryan cautioned that the results are not ready for synthesis or detailed evaluation and interpretation. In addition, he said, the data must undergo review before they are released. Conference call participants agreed that an internal EPA review and an external peer review should be conducted before the data are released. Mosby agreed to contact Doolan to clarify the review process and determine if the internal and external reviews may be conducted concurrently.

Conference call participants discussed the format of the summary report. Mosby suggested using the text from his Master's thesis as a shell, and having individual Action Team members add text that summarizes their work. Mosby offered to compile the text and write an introduction for the EPA report package. Call participants were amenable to this idea, agreeing that Mosby should be the point of contact for gathering information. Mosby said that he is willing to serve as the point of contact, but cautioned that he would be unable to interpret the data. Before initiating the summary effort, Mosby said, he will contact Doolan to determine what he would like. Mosby will ask Doolan whether he wants (1) a summary of the University of Missouri studies, which would be available in about 2 weeks, or (2) a more comprehensive report, which would require more time to compile. If Doolan just wants the former at this point, Mosby will make sure that he receives a copy of the University's report.

In addition to the report for EPA, Brown suggested compiling all of the Action Team's papers in one location or journal. Mosby suggested writing a brief summary, with individual papers attached as appendices. Berti suggested having the papers presented as part of a symposium. The proceedings from the symposium, he said, could be published in JEQ as a comprehensive summary of the Action Team's efforts. Berti noted that an appropriate forum for this symposium might be the Soil Science Society meeting scheduled for 2001. Individual papers could be published concurrent with, or just before, the symposium. To Pierzynski, who has three papers ready for publication, Ryan suggested summarizing the three papers in a fourth paper and presenting that paper at the symposium. Brown noted that others in the IINERT Action Team may be able to contribute study results, since the Soil Science Society meeting is 18 months away. Representatives of other disciplines, such as members of the Society of Toxicology, could also be asked to participate.

Call participants agreed that compiling results in a symposium was a good idea. Berti, however, noted that the Action Team should consider their obligations to their funding source and provide a report to EPA in a timely manner, before the symposium proceedings would be available. He suggested that this report should include a summary of results available up to, but not including, October 1999. This report could be an internal draft submitted to EPA alone and not intended for publication.

Before leaving this topic, call participants decided the following: (1) an interim report summarizing current results should be submitted to EPA in a month or so, (2) individuals should continue to publish papers in peer-reviewed literature, and (3) eventually, the Action Team should publish a comprehensive report, perhaps in the form of symposium proceedings, that summarizes the results of the Action Team's efforts.

MISCELLANEOUS

• During the March 2000 conference call, Berti asked Sebastien Sauve to perform an extraction on soils samples that were collected in October 1999. After reviewing the sampling log, however, Berti determined that there is not enough sample to perform extractions and in vitro tests. Thus, Berti and Sauve agreed that the extraction should be postponed until additional samples are collected in September or October 2000.

• EPA plans to complete excavations at the Joplin site this summer. (This activity is being conducted as part of a selected remedial action.) Mosby stated that, pending regulatory approval, phosphate treatment could be used to address nearby residential yards that have low lead concentrations (i.e., 500 to 800 parts per million). He was not sure whether this approach would work, he said, questioning whether sufficient contact between lead and phosphorous would be achieved. If this approach is selected, Mosby said, roto-tilling and hydroseeding will be conducted. Ryan and Brown questioned whether dust generated during roto-tilling would pose a health risk to residents. Brown suggested considering a different approach, such as applying a surface application of fertilizer over several years. Mosby replied that the local health department has a lead standard of 260 parts per million for residential yards. Thus, it becomes a political and real-estate issue for homeowners to receive a notice that EPA has remediated lead contamination on their properties.

• Mosby asked Yang to send samples (from the November 1999 sampling event at Joplin) to Rufus Chaney and Mike Ruby. Mosby thinks Yang has already done this. He said that he would ask Yang to send any remaining sample to Ryan for storage.

• During the March 2000 conference call, Brown asked Berti to send her information on the analyses that had been performed on a bucket of soil. Berti said that he would send this information to Brown.

• Berti stated that DuPont can use different methods of extraction and different voltametry techniques. Berti said that Action Team members may want to consider taking advantage of DuPont's capabilities for research at Joplin or other sites.

ACTION ITEMS

• Mosby will send a copy of his Master's thesis to Doolan.

• Pierzynski plans to have papers published in JEQ and ES&T. He will determine whether he needs to add a disclaimer stating that the papers have not undergone EPA review.

• Ryan asked what the data review requirements are for general release of study results. Mosby will contact Doolan to clarify the data review process and determine whether the internal EPA review and external peer review may be conducted concurrently.

• Mosby will contact Doolan to ask if he would rather receive the summary of the University of Missouri studies, which would be available in approximately 2 weeks, or a more comprehensive report, which would require more time to compile. Mosby will send Doolan the University's report or serve as the contact point for gathering information depending on Doolan's preference.

• Mosby will ask Yang to send the remaining portions of the November 1999 sample to Ryan.

• Berti will send Brown information on analyses that were performed on a bucket of soil.

• ERG agreed to set up the next conference call for May 19, 2000, between 4:00 and 5:00 EDT.