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

December 20, 2000

11:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.

On Wednesday, December 20, 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)
Sally Brown, University of Washington
Rufus Chaney, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Harry Compton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Mark Doolan, EPA
Jim Dwyer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Scott Fredericks, EPA
Frances Klahr, Missouri Department of Natural Resources
David Mosby, Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Gary Pierzynski, Kansas State University

Christine Hartnett of Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), was also present.

THE JASPER COUNTY SITE

David Mosby provided information about a mining site located in Jasper County, Missouri. Tailings and chat, he said, are present and causing harm to the surrounding ecosystem. For example, he said, runoff from the mine waste is contaminating a nearby stream. Also, studies suggest that the chat poses significant ecological risks to terrestrial organisms. The most sensitive receptors, Mosby said, are vermivores, shrews, and woodcocks. Lead, zinc, and cadmium are the main risk drivers, Mosby said, noting that these metals are present in high concentrations in the site's soil and plant tissues. The concentrations documented in plant tissues might be skewed, however, because soil attached to the plants was not washed off prior to analysis. In addition, Mosby said, some of the estimated risks may be overinflated: several conservative assumptions were used to perform the ecological risk assessment. Mark Doolan said that the risk estimates could be refined in the future if more site-specific information becomes available.

Mosby said that a Feasibility Study (FS) is being conducted at the site; the study's goal is to identify remedial options for the nonresidential portion of the site. He said that the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) must identify options, but Doolan (i.e., EPA) will decide which approach to implement. Mosby said that the PRPs plan to propose the following alternatives:

Mosby said that biosolid treatments should also be listed as a viable alternative in the FS, noting that this technology treats contamination and promotes revegetation. He said that the Missouri Department of Natural Resources regards both functions to be important. The Department hopes to go beyond remediation and to promote habitat restoration. The ideal goal, Mosby said, is to maximize the area's future productivity rather than just performing damage control.

In an effort to convince the PRPs of the merits of biosolids, Mosby said, data documenting the technology's success at other sites was provided. The PRPs responded by saying they feared that biosolids would promote revegetation and attract animals to contaminated areas. According to Mosby, the PRPs felt that biosolid technologies are untested and that the data provided to them do not adequately address toxicity issues, prove that biosolids cause a treatment effect, or demonstrate that the technology reduces bioavailability. Conference call participants expressed puzzlement over this last statement. They said that the data do address toxicity and bioavailability issues. To prevent any misunderstandings and to facilitate clear communication, call participants agreed to present the following to Doolan by mid-February 2001:

ACTION ITEMS