SUMMARY OF THE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPMENT FORUM
IINERT SOIL-METALS ACTION TEAM
CONFERENCE CALL

2:00 p.m.–3:00 p.m.
September 16, 1998

On Wednesday, September 16, 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)
Rufus Chaney, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Mark Doolan, EPA
David Mosby, Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Gary Pierzynski, Kansas State University
Mike Ruby, Exponent Environmental Group

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

OCTOBER 1998 MEETING

Bill Berti noted that a meeting is scheduled in Kansas City on October 7 and 8, 1998. During the last conference call, participants had decided to keep the meeting small (about 10 to 12 attendees) and restrict it to those who have data to present. Several conference call participants (Berti, James Ryan, David Mosby, and Gary Pierzynski) said they would attend. Berti said that John Drexler will come to help the group sort through in vitro data. Berti stressed the importance of having representatives from the University of Missouri (Stan Casteel, Bob Blanchar, and John Yang) in attendance.

Ideally, Ryan noted, it would be best if everyone could attend both days of the meeting. Ryan realized, however, that Drexler and Pierzysnski will have to leave after October 7th and that the representatives from the University of Missouri may also need to leave early. If participants cannot be present for the entire meeting, Ryan noted, topic order will simply be mandated by people’s schedules. For example, Ryan noted, while it is imperative for the University of Missouri representatives to attend discussions on animal dosing studies, their presence is less crucial during discussions on in vitro tests.

Berti and Ryan agreed to call meeting participants to get confirmations and to gather information about schedules. At this point, the group plans to initiate the meeting at 8:00 a.m. on October 7, 1998. Berti said he plans to have an agenda compiled by September 18, 1998.

ACTIVITIES AT THE JOPLIN SITE IN MISSOURI

Conference call participants noted the following:

• Mosby said he plans to collect additional samples from Joplin. Mosby, Berti, and Mark Doolan agreed to collect these samples on October 9th, the day after the group’s Kansas City meeting.
• Berti noted that he and Sally Brown collected soil and plant samples from Joplin in mid-May. He said that he is evaluating the soil samples and Brown has taken charge of the plant analyses. Berti noted that soil data are missing for plots 41, 65, 68, and 75—the 0.5 % phosphorus (P) rototilled plots. He said he does not know whether Brown is missing the corresponding plant samples. Mosby, who has been heavily involved with these plots, said he would try to determine why data are missing.
• During the last conference call, Berti and Mosby offered conflicting information about pig dosing study results. Berti had said that results indicate a 40% reduction in lead bioavailability in the 0.5% P and 1% P field treatments. Mosby, however, had calculated a 26% and 31% reduction in the 0.5% P and the 1% P treatments, respectively. Berti said he and Mosby will have to determine whether they are using the same equation. If they are, Berti stressed, they will have to determine who is making a mathematical error. If they are using different equations, Berti continued, they will need to determine which is more accurate.
• Berti said he has evaluated some of Drexler’s in vitro test results. Some reductions are being observed, Berti continued, particularly in the plots that the University of Missouri established.
• Ruby noted that the in vitro test has been conducted three times for one set of swine study samples. He said the data sets were generated by (1) Exponent Environmental Group, (2) University of Missouri (Blanchar and Yang), and (3) Drexler. Ruby agreed to send Exponent Environmental Group’s data to Berti. Ruby said he has not yet compared all three data sets. Participants agreed that this exercise should be performed at the October 7 and 8, 1998, meeting.

ACTIVITIES AT THE TRAIL SITE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mike Ruby noted that Exponent Environmental Group is conducting a field study at the Trail site, a site impacted by emissions from a lead-zinc smelter. This effort, Ruby noted, is being funded by the Trail Lead Program. Ruby said the study involves one control plot and amended plots treated with:

• 1% P as tricalcium phosphate and 5% Fe as iron filings. This plot, Ruby explained, was amended by Exponent Environmental Group. The amendment was identified through bench-scale laboratory testing. Ruby noted that Sarah Jones, a graduate student for Drexler, assisted with the bench-scale studies.
• MBS. Ruby said the MBS-treated plot was installed by Solucorp.
• EnvironBlend A. Ruby said the EnvironBlend A plot was installed by RMT.

Ruby said pre-amended and time zero soils have already been collected. Samples will also be collected at 6 and 12 months. Ruby said the team will use SPLP to evaluate solubility and in vitro tests to measure bioassessibility of lead, cadmium, and arsenic. Ruby predicted that the results of the 6-month sampling will be available in early 1999. Doolan told Ruby he has heard that the bench-scale studies indicated a 50% reduction. Ruby said this was true.

IN SITU STABILIZATION WORKSHOP

Berti noted that the International Lead Zinc Research Organization (ILZRO) recently sponsored an In Situ Stabilization Workshop in Montpelier, France. The European location, Berti continued, was chosen so that an international group could unite to discuss topics. Berti said the workshop was held as a follow-up to a July 1997 meeting in Berkeley, California. At the Berkeley meeting, Berti said, 25 to 30 people met and decided that a thorough literature review is needed to determine how in situ stabilization, revegetation, and restoration have been applied to mining and smelting sites. Berti said ILZRO showed their commitment to having the review performed by bringing a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) to the workshop. According to Berti, workshop participants agreed that the RFP should specifically outline the type of work needed. Specifically, Berti noted, participants wanted to make sure that reviewers do not restrict themselves to published results. Berti said emphasis will need to be placed on reviewing unpublished data, Master’s theses, and Ph.D. dissertations.

Berti noted that workshop participants talked about establishing better collaboration between European and American investigators. He said some Europeans are trying to reduce phytotoxicity with:

• Beringite. Berti said several European investigators (e.g., Yaco Vangrosveld and Michel Mench) are using beringite quite successfully in their revegetation projects. Beringite, he continued, is an aluminum silicate material that effectively absorbs heavy metals, particularly zinc and copper. Berti said the material was generated as a byproduct of industrial processes, but is no longer being manufactured in Europe. Despite the limited supply, Belgian representatives have agreed to give American researchers a sample of the material. Berti suggested using the beringite in treatability studies to determine its impact on lead-contaminated Joplin samples. Over the next year, Berti said, the IINERT team will need to (1) determine whether beringite can be manufactured on a small scale within the laboratory, and (2) identify a U.S. company that is manufacturing a similar material. Berti noted that there is a company in Pennsylvania that already produces ash-like material waste products.
• Steel shot. Berti noted that several Europeans are using steel shot. He expressed interest in using the material, but said he has not been able to find a supplier. Iron filings, Berti noted, are the most similar material he has been able to find. Chaney said steel shot must be commercially available because several regions require hunters to use steel rather than lead shot. None of the conference call participants could offer additional information, however.

  Ruby said he considered using steel shot at the Trail site. He decided to use iron filings instead, however, after realizing that steel shot was too expensive. Ruby and Berti noted that iron filings can be purchased through:

  • Peerless Metal Powders and Abrasives; 124 South Military; Detroit, MI 48209. Ruby recommended contacting Noreen Warrens (313-841-5400) for additional information.

  Doolan voiced a warning about using iron amendments by relating a story he heard about a landfill. At this landfill, Doolan reported, iron filings were used to reduce toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP). After five years passed, he continued, materials were leaching worse than before treatment. Doolan said he thinks EPA has adopted a policy discouraging or forbidding the use of iron filings as a means to lower TCLP for metal-contaminated materials. Berti said he has heard of this policy as well. Berti said he was not surprised that difficulties arose in the landfill because of the highly reducing conditions that are present in landfills. Doolan said that redox reactions may be to blame for some peculiar results noted in a 1% iron, 1% P treatment at Joplin. According to Doolan, results indicated that lead bioavailability increased rather than decreased after iron was added to it. (approximately 70% bioavailability was detected in the control and approximately 80 to 85% was detected after treatment). Doolan noted that the sample underwent several wet and dry cycles and temperature changes and said that Blanchar believes redox reactions caused the lead mobilization. Berti agreed that they would need to determine why the lead mobilized, especially since wet and dry cycles and temperature changes are expected in the field.

NEXT CONFERENCE CALL

Berti said the next conference call is scheduled for October 14, 1998. He asked participants to review this summary before the next call and let him know if any changes are needed.