December 9, 1998
2:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m.

On Wednesday, December 9, 1998, the following members of the IINERT Soil-Metals Action Team met in a conference call:

Bill Berti, DuPont Life Sciences (Co-Chair)
James Ryan, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Co-Chair)
Sally Brown, University of Washington
Rufus Chaney, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
David Mosby, Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Mike Ruby, Exponent Environmental Group
Judith Hallfrisch, USDA

Also present was Ben Carlisle of Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG).

DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL ECOSYSTEM STUDIES

Bill Berti said that he had spoken recently with Harry Compton about expanding the IINERT group's work on metals-contaminated sites to include measuring ecosystem impact and recovery. Berti said that he had asked whether Compton wanted to involve people from his office in the IINERT group, and Compton had mentioned that he was sending Mark Springer to one of the group's sites. Berti said he wasn't sure whether this was the Joplin site or another site.

James Ryan said that Joplin might not be an appropriate site for ecosystem studies. He said that Leadville or another site further west might be better. Sally Brown said that Springer had visited Leadville and had started collecting samples there. She said the wetlands in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, might be an appropriate site. Although Springer has not visited the Coeur d'Alene site, Brown explained, another person from Compton's office had visited, as had Dan Audette, a fisheries and wildlife scientist. Brown said that she had been at the Coeur d'Alene wetlands 2 days previously, and had spoken with Audette about the types of studies that could be performed to test the effectiveness of amendments at the compost-amended sites. According to Brown, Audette had spoken about working with Nancy Findlay, who is also based in New Jersey at Compton's office. Apparently, Compton had sent someone out to Coeur d'Alene to collect samples, and Findlay and Springer had both been involved in discussions about the site.

Rufus Chaney said that Compton had taken him to a lead- and zinc-contaminated site at Aberdeen Proving Ground, which is owned by the military. However, Chaney said, the site might not be a good spot for experimental testing, as it is still used for artillery practice.

Discussion of Potential Endpoints and Approaches for Ecosystem Studies

Berti asked what endpoints Mark Springer is measuring. Brown said that Audette had talked about using caged frogs as a quick test at the Coeur d'Alene wetlands, and had mentioned birds as a more expensive approach. There was also discussion at Coeur d'Alene about testing for the presence of benthic organisms, Brown said. She added that she didn't know what endpoints were being considered for Leadville.

Chaney asked whether the frogs would be used for zinc-toxicity tests, rather than for lead risks. Brown said that Audette had talked about using the frogs primarily as a test for lead risk. David Mosby asked whether an ecostudy would be targeted at making comparisons between impacted and reclaimed areas. Brown responded that it might be more appropriate to pose these questions directly to Springer and Compton. She went on to say that Compton had provided her with a list of things for which Springer was testing. The list was very long, including both pre- and post-amendment tests of ecosystem effects, and many of the items were basic soil chemistry tests. Brown said that copies of the list can be obtained from Compton. Berti suggested that the IINERT group should get together with Compton to discuss these issues in more detail.

Berti asked Ruby whether he had given any more thought to incorporating other tests/approaches, such as in vitro tests, into ecostudies. Ruby said that his company (Exponent Environmental Group) has used in vitro tests in the past. He said that certain ecological species have a fairly large component of soil in their diet, and he described several such species: shrews, which may live almost entirely on earthworms and may ingest a fair amount of soil along with the worms; deer, which pull up vegetation by the roots (as opposed to chewing off the shoots) and ingest soil with the vegetation; and other small animals that live in burrows and ingest soil through preening. Ruby said that his company has used in vitro tests to assess the potential absorption of metals among these receptors. Berti asked whether it is assumed that in vitro tests will work for deer and shrews in the same way that the tests work for pigs, rats, and humans, despite the fact that there are major differences in the animals' gastrointestinal tracts. Ruby said that it is important to keep these differences in mind, and that he would not, for instance, use the same in vitro tests for monogastric receptors (e.g., shrews, rats, and humans) and multigastric receptors (e.g., cows and deer).

Judith Hallfrisch asked if any studies have measured lead content in the bones of these free-living animals. Ruby said that studies have been done wherein animals are trapped, and lead content is measured in blood, bone, and soft tissue. He said that his company measured lead tissue concentrations in mice. They made whole body measurements rather than discrete tissue measurements (e.g., blood, bone, and soft tissue), which would be the best approach to determine field bioavailability estimates. He also said that his company has never done field studies to compare absorption rates in a small mammal with in vitro absorption rates.

Mosby said that, in Jasper, Missouri, the Missouri DNR has collected samples of soil, plants, and mice tissues. He said that researchers are preparing to do a similar study in southeast Missouri, and that this might be an opportunity to do some in vitro testing as well, if the idea is to get some correlation to ecological systems. Ruby said he thought this would be valuable. He went on to say that it would be best to look at measurements in different tissues in the mice. Instead of throwing the mouse into a blender, Ruby said, it would be useful to compare composite blood and composite bone samples. Mosby said that the people funding the work in southeast Missouri have shown interest in the IINERT group and might be receptive to this idea. Chaney asked whether the Missouri people are studying the effects of remediation through their work (in other words, whether the animals on the treated portions of the site are healthier than those on untreated portions). Mosby said he thought that some areas of the site have been reclaimed, but only through spreading fertilizer and planting grass. He said that the IINERT group might not be able to analyze the effects of these amendments.

Use of Earthworms as Indicators

Brown mentioned her concerns about the absence of earthworms from the Bunker Hill plots. Earthworms are typically a favored indicator of system health, Brown said, but there are no animals anywhere near the Bunker Hill site. She said that she is trying to figure out a way to test earthworms, and has considered introducing some to the site. Chaney said that he knows a researcher who put up 6-inch-deep fences around a test plot to contain worms in the area. Chaney said that he saw no alternative to inoculation if Brown wants to develop an earthworm population at Bunker Hill.

Chaney said that he knows of a company in California that sells compost laden with earthworm eggs. Ruby said that he knows the owner of a company called Smartworm, Inc.. The owner is an expert on using earthworms to bioremediate organics. Mosby said that the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) at a site in Missouri are collecting data on metal toxicity to soil invertebrates, which has been identified as one of the main terrestrial risks. That information should be available soon as a baseline, Mosby said. Berti asked whether the PRPs are also looking at covariants other than total metal concentrations (for example, plant cover). He said that it might be possible to develop a correlation between lack of plant growth and lack of earthworms at these sites. Mosby said that the PRPs are studying worms in soil as opposed to mine wastes (where there wouldn't be any animals). He said that their proposal called for them to screen all the soil in a cubic meter of dirt to locate the worms.

Chaney said that his nickel-contaminated site in Ontario is full of worms. The muck soil is full of plants, Chaney said, and thus the earthworms are thriving. He said that the site's pH is above 6, and that the muck soil makes for good metal binding. He said that it would be good to inoculate Bunker Hill with earthworms; otherwise people will think that the site is not remediated. Brown said that such an inoculation would definitely be possible at Leadville.

Chaney asked if anyone could comment on earthworms' digestive processes. He said that worms' gastrointestinal tracts are not acidic, making them much less susceptible to lead. He also said that people have grown worms in highly lead-contaminated materials with no adverse effect. Ruby agreed that earthworms' gastrointestinal tracts are not acidic. However, he said, because their castings are somewhat acidic, earthworms can decrease soil pH when a large number are present in a small amount of soil. Chaney said that this rarely happens.

Berti said that it might be useful to develop a bibliography on this topic. He asked whether the conference call participants could list any good reports. One participant offered to supply a list of papers on worms and shrews. Ruby said that his company recently wrote a report on earthworm physiology and function, which he would be willing to share. Ruby will send the report to Berti for dissemination to the Action Team.

UPDATE ON ACTIVITIES AT THE JOPLIN, MISSOURI, SITE

Conference call participants discussed the following issues about the Joplin site:

• Berti said that he, Mosby, and Brown had recently exchanged e-mails about activities pertaining to the Joplin site. Brown asked whether Mosby had understood her messages. Mosby said that he needs a key for interpreting the treatment numbers included in the site data. Brown explained that the treatment numbers for her data are listed at the very beginning of the report. She said that Mosby's treatments are referred to by plot number.
• Mosby asked Berti about one value in the 0.5% phosphorus treatment data that appears on Berti's spreadsheet. Berti explained that, during the May soil sampling, he had missed one of Mosby's treatments. The value listed on the spreadsheet is plant data, Berti said, and there is no soil information for that plot, though he thought that the plot had been covered during the October sampling. The October samples will be run through the screening, Berti said, and John Drexler may help with the in vitro analyses. Brown said that she planned to make arrangements to have the September 1997 samples run through the same in vitro analyses.
• Ruby asked whether the 0.5% phosphorus and 1% phosphorus data from the first round of field samples were collected 6 months after the amendment. Mosby said that the soil samples were collected in September 1997, about 6 months after the amendment. Brown thought that the samples were collected even earlier--perhaps as early as June 1997. Mosby thought that she might be right.
• Mosby asked whether the Action Team wanted to agree on a method for reporting plant data. Brown said that she had used metal concentrations as percentage of total lead. Mosby said that he had used the same approach in some graphs, though Berti had reported straight plant concentrations. Berti said that he could make the necessary calculations to make the data consistent.
• Berti said that, from one plot to another, there are considerable differences in total amounts of lead. Brown commented that there are also considerable differences in lead levels between one treatment and the next. Chaney recommended that Mosby look at the literature on lead uptake by plants before drawing any conclusions from these differences. He said that low phosphate status promotes lead translocation; thus investigators might see a very strong phosphorous effect, independent of other variables, on lead in the shoots of those plants. Brown pointed out that the phosphorous levels for all of the treatments (except the control) is more than sufficient. Thus, she said, investigators may not see distinctions between treatments on the basis of phosphorous. Chaney said that the last collection of grass data showed very low lead concentrations and very high concentrations of phosphorous. He said that, in his opinion, these numbers might not be very interpretable. Mosby said that he intended to use the data to compare the treatments relative to each other. Brown thought such comparisons would be valid, because there are significant differences in plant lead uptake, even though the differences in plant phosphorous are small. This could mean that there have been changes in the lead availability, Brown said. Chaney agreed that the comparisons need to be done, but he suggested that Mosby be sensitive to the literature regarding lead translocation.
• Mosby asked whether the rat data have been disseminated and if he could get a copy of the data. Hallfrisch said that most of the data from the last study are complete and were disseminated. Mosby said that he remembers receiving the bone data, but that the group never resolved whether it would compare the bone data from rats with blood data from pigs, or whether it would make a blood-to-blood comparison. Hallfrisch said blood data are available. Chaney said that the data should be disseminated to Mosby, Brown, Ryan, and Berti.
• Ruby said that he is working on a review paper that will discuss the work of the Research Consortium and the difficulties of trying to do research in a group manner. Ruby said that he hoped to present all of the in vivo and in vitro studies that have been done so far. He asked whether the Action Team would approve of his including some of the swine data in the paper. Mosby said that he wouldn't mind if the data went out, but that he'd like to resolve some issues first. Ruby said that he wouldn't be publishing the paper for 9 months or a year. Chaney said that there should be proper attributions to and releases from the parties that paid for and developed the data. Ryan pointed out that Mark Doolan paid for the swine data. Ruby said that he would talk with Mark Doolan.

FUTURE CONFERENCE CALLS AND MEETINGS

Berti said he was thinking that 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time might be a good time for future conference calls. He said that Tuesdays and Wednesdays might be preferable, and that he would set up a call.

Berti also suggested that, during upcoming calls, the Action Team discuss plans for a future meeting--perhaps at one of Brown's sites, though it may be difficult for some Action Team members to travel. He also said that both he and Ryan thought that a followup to the October 7 Kansas City meeting might be necessary, and that such a meeting would give the Action Team another opportunity to bring together all available data. Brown suggested that the Action Team should establish deadlines to guarantee that certain data are available before the meeting. Berti commented that February 1999 might be too soon, and that it would be important to complete the in vitro analyses of the September 1997 samples. He added that the meeting could also be used to discuss potential activities for the Joplin site in 1999.

Brown suggested that April might be a good time. Mosby said that the swine study should be finalized by April. He also suggested that he and other Team members might be more apt to travel if the Action Team could combine its meeting with some other upcoming conference on a related subject matter. Berti said that June might be the best time for a meeting at one of Brown's sites--for example, the Trail site in British Columbia, or the Bunker Hill site. Brown said that the Trail and Bunker Hill sites are about 3 hours apart. Ruby suggested a 2-day meeting, with one day spent at Bunker Hill and one at Trail. Several participants approved of this idea.

MISCELLANEOUS

Brown said that she had recently visited the Coeur d'Alene site. The site had received 10 inches of rain over the past 2 weeks and there was no indication of compost movement. Brown said that she had thrown rye seed on the banks in late October, and that the grass is about 2 inches tall.

Chaney suggested that participants read the December 1998 issue of the Journal of Environmental Quality (JEQ), which contains the Nelson Beyer et al. paper on fecal lead concentrations in Coeur d'Alene birds. Berti mentioned an article about the growing acceptance of soil contaminant bioavailability in the December 1 issue of Environmental Science and Technology.