SUMMARY OF THE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPMENT FORUM
SEDIMENTS REMEDIATION ACTION TEAM MEETING

Westin Horton Plaza Hotel
San Diego, California
January 13, 2000

WELCOME AND OPENING REMARKS
Richard Jensen, DuPont Corporate Remediation

Richard Jensen, co-chair of the Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF) Sediments Remediation Action Team, opened the meeting by welcoming participants. (Attachment A lists the meeting attendees. Jensen's introductory overheads are presented as Attachment B.) Jensen said that the Action Team has met on six previous occasions: three times in 1996, once in 1998, and twice in 1999. Summaries of each meeting's proceedings are available at http://www.rtdf.org. Jensen provided an overview of goals and agenda items for this meeting. He said that the meeting was being held to maintain the Action Team's momentum; to learn about ongoing, planned, or proposed activities in the areas of sediments assessment, treatment, and capping; to obtain feedback on the Sediment Management Work Group's (SMWG's) white papers; and to identify future Action Team meeting dates.

SEDIMENT CAPPING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ON THE OTTAWA RIVER
Joseph Jersak, Hull & Associates, Inc.

Introduction

Joseph Jersak described the Ottawa River Aquablok^TM demonstration project that is taking place in Toledo, Ohio. (Jersak's presentation materials are included as Attachment C.) This is a City of Toledo project for which Hull & Associates, Inc. (HAI) is serving as the primary environmental/engineering consultant. The cap construction phase of this project was completed in September 1999.

Jersak began his talk by summarizing the demonstration project's primary goals: (1) to assess the relative effectiveness of Aquablok^TM-based caps and to determine their ability to stabilize and isolate sediments in a representative riverine environment; (2) to evaluate the viability of different cap construction methods; (3) to develop generalized unit costs for the different construction methods used in the demonstration project, and (4) to characterize benthic invertebrate colonization of encapsulated areas over time. He said that the project, largely funded by a Lake Erie Protection Fund grant, was not mandated. However, before field work could be initiated, permits had to be obtained and regulatory approval had to be granted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies (e.g., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Ohio EPA).

Jersak described the demonstration area, noting that it stretches over approximately 2.5 acres of the Ottawa River, a tributary that flows into Lake Erie's Maumee Bay. Like many rivers in the area, Jersak said, Ottawa River sediments are contaminated by polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, and metals. Jersak described sediments in the demonstration area as "soupy," silt-rich, sensitive to penetration, and typically characterized by a low-bearing capacity. While the demonstration was being conducted, he said, maximum water depths in the project area were about 4.0 to 5.0 feet. (These depths are lower than those normally recorded for the area.) Also, typical non-storm flow velocities at the site were well under 1 foot per second, Jersak said, although they have, in the past, reached mid-stream, mid-depth velocities up to about 2.5 feet per second. Unusual water flow patterns have been observed in the area, owing to the river's estuarine character and the way that Lake Erie affects river hydrology; for example, water has been observed traveling upstream in many instances.

Deployment Activities

Jersak said that the construction and long-term effectiveness of several different Aquablok^TM-based sediment caps are being demonstrated as part of this project. He said that Aquablok^TM is basically a composite aggregate clay-mineral-based material. When dropped through a water column, Aquablok^TM sinks to the surface of underlying sediments and transforms (over about 7 to 10 days) into a hydrated and physically expanded material that is cohesive, homogeneous, relatively impermeable, and relatively resistant to erosion. Thus, the Aquablok^TM serves as a physical barrier that separates contaminated sediments from overlying water columns. Laboratory tests have shown, Jersak said, that Aquablok^TM-based caps retain their integrity when exposed to fluvial-like water flow velocities as high as 5 to 6 feet per second for a day or more; for many river systems, such velocities are probably higher than peak velocities observed after storm events. Aquablok^TM can probably withstand even higher flow velocities, Jersak said; the current design of laboratory flume-testing equipment limits study at higher flow velocities.

Jersak said that three different Aquablok^TM-based demonstration cap designs--referred to as Sections A, B, and C caps--were deployed at the Ottawa River site. Table 1 describes the materials used in each cap design, total targeted cap thicknesses, and targeted application rates. The target application rates, Jersak explained, were determined during laboratory column studies. They were determined based on the quantities of dry product that are required to develop a 5- to 6-inch hydrated Aquablok^TM cap.

Table 1. AquablokTM-Based Cap Designs
Cap Section	Cap Design	Total Target Cap Thickness (inches)	Target Application Rates (pounds per square foot)
Section A	AquablokTM	~ 5 to 6	~ 8.4
Section B	AquablokTM over a basal geogrid	~ 5 to 6	~ 8.4
Section C	Stone over AquablokTM over geogrid	~ 5 to 8	~ 13.3 ~ 8.4

Jersak said that it took about seven field days to install the three demonstration caps. In total, about 461 tons of Aquablok^TM were deployed into about a 2.47-acre area (not including Aquablok^TM applications--contained within degradable bags--which were made to stabilize the geogrid component of Sections B and C caps). Three different application techniques were demonstrated for applying capping material, including:

• A telescoping articulated conveyor. Of the 461 tons of Aquablok^TM deployed, Jersak said, about 364 tons were applied using a conveyer. This machine, which was used to cover about 1.92 acres of the demonstration site, applied dry Aquablok^TM at an average (site-wide) rate of about 8.7 pounds per square foot. The conveyor has an articulated arm with a reach of about 100 feet. It was operated both from the shore and from a barge. (Portions of the Sections A, B, and C caps were constructed using the barge-based conveyor; a near-shore portion of Section B was capped with the conveyor placed on shore.)
• A helicopter. Jersak said that a helicopter was used to construct about 0.46 acres of the Section C cap; the helicopter was used to apply stone as well as Aquablok^TM. Using the helicopter, about 82 tons of Aquablok^TM were applied at an average rate of about 8.2 pounds per square foot. Capping materials were applied by releasing materials from specially designed "drop bags" that were equipped with a cable release system. Filled bags were lined up in one location, and the helicopter shuttled the bags to the river one at a time. It only took about 3 minutes to drop each bag; thus, this application technique proved to be time-efficient, although some down-time resulted when helicopter pilots had to wait for drop bags to be refilled.
• A dragline. Jersak said that use of a shore-based dragline was also demonstrated for constructing near-bank portions of Sections A and B caps. In total, about 0.09 acres of the demonstration site were capped using this technique; approximately 15 tons of Aquablok^TM was applied using the dragline, at an average application rate of about 7.9 pounds per square foot.

Jersak said that Aquablok^TM and stone capping materials were not simply released at random into the river. Rather, floatable grids or "lanes" were established across the river's surface to establish properly sized target application areas so that known quantities of capping material were deployed in a spatially uniform fashion; this approach was used in an effort to achieve targeted material application rates. To ensure that capping materials were applied properly and uniformly, quality control (QC) personnel were positioned along the river banks and were in direct communication with conveyor, helicopter, and dragline operators.

Jersak said that the three application techniques demonstrated during this project are not the only existing methods worth testing; they are simply some of the most representative. If additional time and funds had been available, Jersak said, HAI would have considered testing other application methods (e.g., slinger, submersed tremie, and/or dry land application approaches). David Moore asked whether Aquablok^TM could be applied hydraulically rather than being released in dry form. Jersak said that it certainly might be possible to apply the product in a slurry form, although considerations would need to be given to time factors; once Aquablok^TM is wetted, it starts forming a cohesive mass that may be less manageable to work with.

Evaluating the Success of Cap Construction

After completing deployment activities, Jersak said, post-capping field activities were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of cap construction. As part of these activities, investigators assessed constructed cap thickness and spatial uniformity of material coverage over the targeted application areas. Through sampling and survey activities, the following data and information were collected:

• Constructed cap thicknesses are within targeted range. Before and after cap construction, Jersak said, the river bottom's elevation was surveyed in 297 locations along 13 cross-river transects. Net cap thickness was estimated in each location, Jersak explained, by calculating the difference between post-capping and pre-capping elevations. The results of this evaluation, presented in slide 15 of Attachment C, indicate that average calculated cap thicknesses generally fell within respective targeted ranges for Sections A, B, and C (within 99% confidence intervals). Calculated thickness typically fell toward the lower end of respective targeted ranges. Jersak offered two explanations for this finding. He said that the developed Aquablok^TM cap likely expanded into the underlying sediments as well as into the overlying water column. Also, he said, lower cap thicknesses may have resulted because the Aquablok^TM was deployed into significantly lower depths (maximum of 4 to 5 feet) than those used during laboratory testing and prototype cap design activities. (The latter activities were conducted assuming depths would be about 8 feet.) Jersak said that he was not exactly certain how depth affects targeted thicknesses, but that interested parties could contact HAI engineers for explanations and details. Jersak also pointed out another factor--applicable to Section C only--that could have caused cap thicknesses to fall toward the lower end of the target range: the stones placed across Section C may have settled somewhat into the underlying Aquablok^TM component. Jersak said that cap thickness data were also being obtained through the collection of river-bottom core samples and direct measurements of cap thickness. Cores have been collected from about 50 locations with customized coring devices, and are being evaluated by HAI and University of Toledo engineers. (The latter are assisting HAI and the City with core collection and evaluation efforts.)
• Good spatial coverage of Aquablok^TM and stone was achieved across the project area. At each of the 297 survey locations described above, Jersak said, qualitative probing was performed to document the presence or absence of Aquablok^TM and stone capping materials. Capping materials were found in the vast majority of the locations that were checked, but it was apparently absent in a handful of isolated locations. One meeting attendee asked whether Aquablok^TM could be applied to dry areas, which would then be flooded. If so, the meeting attendee continued, investigators could ensure complete coverage of an area through simple visual inspection. Jersak agreed that this approach would probably work, but said that it is not always possible or practical to drain targeted areas.
• A discrete boundary exists between sediments and the overlying Aquablok^TM cap. As noted previously, about 50 river-bottom cores have been collected across the site. Jersak said that these cores show that a discrete boundary exists between sediments and overlying Aquablok^TM caps. Jersak said that this is a highly positive attribute of sediment/cap interaction; if there had been a diffuse mixing along this interface, this would have essentially reduced the effective thickness of the capping material. Jersak described the site's core samples, noting that three distinct layers can be seen in most of them. Moving from bottom to top, he said, these layers are sediment, Aquablok^TM cap, and sediment. The topmost layer, which is thin, is simply a sampling artifact, Jersak said, and should not be mistaken as depositional material that has collected on the cap during the interval between cap construction and core sampling activities. Sabine Apitz asked whether another explanation might be possible for the appearance of the topmost layer given the "soupy" nature of the sediment. She asked whether sediments could have (1) been pushed up into the water column when the Aquablok^TM material hit the river bottom, and/or (2) collected on top of the cap as the sediment particles settled back out of the water column. Jersak said that he did not think that either phenomena had occurred. If it had, he explained, some sediments would be mixed into the Aquablok^TM material and diffuse boundaries would probably have been observed; such mixing was not typically detected in the core samples.

Assessing the Cap's Long-Term Impact on Benthic Communities and Its Overall Effectiveness
As part of this demonstration project, Jersak said, long-term studies have been initiated to (1) assess the cap's ability to stabilize and isolate sediments, and (2) characterize invertebrate colonization within capped areas.

Jersak said that encapsulated areas are monitored more-or-less on a monthly basis. Meeting attendees asked whether one cap design is proving to be more effective than another. Jersak said that it is too early to assess differences in long-term effectiveness, although based on results collected immediately after construction, HAI is pleased with the quality of construction of all cap types. Jersak reminded participants that the Ottawa River project is a demonstration project; thus, the objective is simply to demonstrate the construction of different cap designs using a variety of application techniques rather than to identify an optimal site-specific remediation design. If the site were to deploy a full-scale remediation project, he continued, neither the geogrid nor the surficial stone component would probably be needed at this particular site.

With respect to benthic colonization, Jersak said, benthic monitoring efforts will be conducted over a 5-year period, with the assistance of Ohio EPA. Prior to capping, HAI personnel and Ohio EPA biologists collected benthic-related samples across the study area (i.e., within Sections A, B, and C, as well as within an adjacent "control" area). The Ohio EPA is processing these samples to characterize the benthic communities prior to capping so that a baseline characterization is available. These baseline data will then be compared to benthic data collected during following years in order to assess benthic colonization of encapsulated areas over time and across different cap types. Jensen expressed strong interest in the results of the colonization studies; he asked Jersak to consider describing the studies' sampling plans and protocols at the next Action Team meeting.

Costs Associated With Cap Construction

Jersak said that all of the cap construction techniques that were tested proved to be viable and cost-effective. Table 2 summarizes the generalized unit capping costs associated with each. Jersak said that the generalized cost estimates include delivered costs for the Aquablok^TM product. Jersak said that the generalized cost estimates include the costs of the actual Aquablok^TM product--typical formulations cost about $150 per ton--and deployment of a 6-inch hydrated Aquablok^TM cap that does not have geogrid or stone components present. The generalized cost estimates listed below do not include costs associated with other major project components, including: project management, cap design, permitting, maintenance, or long-term performance monitoring. Jersak said that costs listed in Table 2 could be reduced by streamlining QC operations and eliminating the "down times" that are associated with some phases of deployment (e.g., waiting for drop bags to be refilled).

Table 2. Generalized Unit Capping Costs
Helicopter	$1.20 per square foot
Shore-based conveyer	$0.85 per square foot
Barge-based conveyor	$1.00 per square foot
Shore-based dragline	$0.90 per square foot

Jersak cautioned against taking Table 2's figures too far out of context. He said that site-specific factors (e.g., existing access roads or water depths) as well as other deployment-related factors, such as targeted cap thickness, overall project goals, cap design, and QC requirements can all affect capping costs. His comment prompted one audience member to ask if there are limitations to how thin or thick Aquablok^TM-based caps can be. Jersak said that very thin caps can be created if investigators use an Aquablok^TM formulation that has a smaller core/particle size. It is also possible to create thick caps, he said, although the material might have to be applied in lifts; if too much material were applied at once, he explained, water would be very slow to penetrate and hydrate the cap's middle layers. Moore said that this would not be a problem if the cap were installed hydraulically, with water being mixed in with the Aquablok^TM as it was laid in place.

THE ASSESSMENT SUBGROUP'S PROPOSED ACTIVITIES
Richard Jensen, DuPont Corporate Remediation

Jensen said that one of the Action Team's Subgroups, the Assessment Subgroup, met earlier in the day, before the full Action Team convened. During the Subgroup meeting, Jensen said, attendees agreed to:

• Write white papers. Subgroup members agreed to write white papers to address sediments assessment issues. Authors were assigned to the papers; each agreed to submit first drafts to Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), by April 25, 2000.
• Hold two Subgroup meetings. The Subgroup plans to hold meetings on May 9, 2000, in Cincinnati, Ohio, and September 12, 2000, in Wilmington, Delaware.
• Hold conference calls on a regular basis. The Subgroup will meet via conference call between 11:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on February 4, March 3, April 7, June 2, July 14, August 4, and October 6.

Several other important topics were discussed during the Subgroup's meeting. A detailed summary of the proceedings is available at http://www.rtdf.org.

POTENTIAL PROJECTS AND COLLABORATION OPPORTUNITIES

During previous meetings, the Action Team expressed an interest in performing field demonstrations or collaborating with other organizations to promote innovative approaches to sediments assessment or remediation. During this meeting, Jensen and Apitz offered descriptions of potential demonstration sites, and John Davis discussed ways in which the Sediments Remediation Action Team could collaborate with the RTDF's Bioremediation Consortium.

Opportunities at the Brookhaven National Laboratory
Richard Jensen, DuPont Corporate Remediation

Jensen said that Michael Coia, a representative from Phytoworks, Inc., has identified a potential field study site--Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL). BNL plans to test phytoremediation as a cleanup option for sediments. Jensen said that Coia had planned to attend the RTDF Action Team meeting, but that conflicting schedules prevented him from doing so. In Coia's absence, Jensen provided a brief site description and an explanation of the activities proposed at the site. Jensen noted that he had participated in a BNL field trip on January 7, 2000. (Jensen's presentation materials are included as Attachment D. The presentation was a modified version of the talk that Coia prepared for the Sediments Remediation Action Team's May 1999 meeting. Jensen said that he has added some material to the presentation. These modifications are highlighted in green.)

Jensen said that contaminated sediments have been detected at BNL, both in the Peconic River and in wetland areas. He said that radionuclides (e.g., cesium-137 at concentrations of about 13.6 pCi/g), PCBs (concentrations of about 1.5 mg/kg), and mercury (concentrations of about 24.5 mg/kg) are the primary contaminants of concern. BNL site owners are planning to excavate the contaminated materials, Jensen reported, but BNL has also agreed to consider phytoremediation as a remedial option before going forth with full-scale excavation. Jensen said that several activities have been proposed to investigate phytoremediation as a potential cleanup option at BNL. These activities include:

• Greenhouse studies. Jensen said that one of BNL's resident scientists, Mark Fuhrmann, has initiated greenhouse studies in an attempt to identify plant species that effectively extract cesium. To date, Fuhrmann has been experimenting with local plants only. In one experiment, Fuhrmann established local plants (of a particular species) in pots that contained BNL's contaminated sediments. After some time, the plants were harvested and assayed and the same species of plant was replanted in the same pots. Analysis indicated that relatively high cesium concentrations were present in the harvested plants. Using these initial data, BNL estimated that phytoremediation could achieve cleanup goals in perhaps five years if a twice-a-year harvesting schedule were established. This optimistic estimate was modified, however, after the second batch of plants was harvested and cesium concentrations in plant tissues proved to be much lower. Soon after the second harvest, volunteer plants began to flourish in the same pots. BNL researchers harvested and analyzed these plants after they had been established for about a year. The results indicated a higher concentration of cesium in plant tissue than had been recorded during the second harvesting event. Jensen said that additional studies have been proposed to further elucidate local plants' ability to extract cesium and to better understand the processes involved. In the near future, BNL also plans to conduct greenhouse studies on genetically engineered plants. These plants have been provided by the University of Georgia's Rich Meagher.
• An ex situ field demonstration project. Jensen said that BNL has a large waste water treatment plant; effluent empties into about 27 sand beds. The beds are used one at a time, and removed from service when they stop draining properly. They become operational again after impermeable layers are broken with a plow, or when new sand is provided. Jensen said that the beds, which are several feet thick, have been used since World War II. BNL plans to use one of the sand beds to conduct an ex situ phytoremediation field experiment. This project will involve excavating sediments from the Peconic River or associated wetland areas, spreading these over one of the sand beds that is not currently being used, splitting the sand bed into test plots, and establishing managed plant communities. In some ways, Jensen said, BNL's ex situ demonstration project will create a confined disposal facility (CDF) reactor.
• An in situ field demonstration project. Jensen said that BNL might also establish a planted test plot directly in the Peconic River bed or in a shallow wetland area. The proposed in situ project, however, has not raised as much excitement among BNL's site owners. To create a test plot in the river or wetland area, Jensen said, investigators might have to plant a rice-like species that can withstand very wet environments. If investigators do not want to use this type of plant, he said, they could consider keeping the test area drained throughout the project.

Jensen said that BNL intends to establish the ex situ demonstration project soon even though greenhouse studies have not yet confirmed plants that effectively extract cesium. If effective genetically engineered plants have not been identified before the first scheduled planting event, local plants will be used in the test plot. Greenhouse studies will continue concurrently with the field study; thus, if a more effective plant is identified later in the project, this can be incorporated during subsequent planting events.

Jensen said that Coia is very excited about BNL's ongoing and proposed activities and that his company, is committed to the project. According to Coia's estimates, about $210,000 in additional cash will be required to perform the activities described above; Coia is actively looking for funding sources, and is quite confident that he will find them. Jensen said that BNL's site owners and Coia have both expressed strong interest in collaborating with the Sediments Remediation Action Team. Jensen pointed out that it is fairly unusual for site owners to initiate relationships with the RTDF. Jensen said that the Action Team could benefit by participating, noting that BNL might serve as a very educational site. He said that he could envision the Action Team becoming involved in a couple ways: (1) providing guidance and input to Coia and BNL researchers on the projects that they are leading, and (2) establishing test plots within BNL's designated demonstration areas to test innovative ideas that are of interest to the RTDF. Jensen said that he is not sure how much longer BNL will be soliciting partners; he warned that the Action Team may have to move quickly on this opportunity if they hope to become involved.

Meeting attendees agreed that the activities at BNL are very interesting and are being led by talented people. They did express some concerns, however, about BNL's study program design. For example, meeting participants questioned the:

• Order of planned events at BNL. Meeting attendees questioned the logic of rushing forth with field studies when so little work has been performed to identify effective plants. Several audience members suggested delaying field activities and focusing efforts on greenhouse studies.
• Usefulness of ex situ experiments. Jersak questioned the logic behind performing ex situ field experiments at BNL. Based on Jensen's presentation, he said, it sounds like BNL hopes to determine whether phytoremediation could serve as a viable alternative to excavation. If BNL chooses phytoremediation as a full-scale remedial action, Jersak said, he would assume that the technology would be applied in situ rather than ex situ. If in situ activities are the ultimate goal, Jersak noted, it is probably important to test plants in the environment in which they will be expected to perform. He said that the sand beds and the river/wetland areas appear to be very different environments. If investigators identify plants that perform well in the sand beds, he said, there is no guarantee that they will also perform effectively in river beds and wetlands.
• Usefulness of in situ experiments. In contrast to Jersak, Mike Palermo questioned the logic behind initiating in situ phytoremediation demonstration projects. According to Palermo, phytoremediation may only really be appropriate for ex situ CDF-type applications. He said that phytoremediation involves extensive operational and management activities; plants must be harvested regularly and areas must be mowed. If these activities are performed in situ, he said, investigators are going to destroy the ecosystem that they were trying to protect in the first place.

Meeting attendees also questioned whether the activities proposed at BNL are relevant to the Sediments Remediation Action Team. Based on Jensen's presentation, Danny Reible said, BNL seems to be focusing its investigatory efforts on cesium remediation. He asked whether BNL has also performed greenhouse studies to evaluate plant uptake of PCBs or mercury from their local soils. Jensen did not think that such studies had been conducted yet, but he did note that Meagher has had experience and success with mercury uptake at other sites, and that he has provided genetically modified seedlings to Fuhrmann for greenhouse testing. Reible said that he does not think too many Action Team members are interested in radionuclides. Agreeing with this, another audience member pointed out that radionuclides were not included on the Action Team's list of contaminants of concern. (This list was created during the Team's 1998 Cincinnati meeting.)

Jensen said that he understands that the Action Team has little interest in radionuclides, but he reminded the audience that BNL is also contaminated with PCBs and mercury, contaminants that are of interest to the Action Team. If the Action Team becomes involved at the site, he said, it may be able to set up its own phytoremediation studies to evaluate uptake of these contaminants. (Ideally, Jensen said, he would like to see the BNL site modeled after the Joplin, Missouri, site. This site, he explained, has several test plots that are operated by a variety of independent organizations.) Several meeting attendees expressed interest in learning whether plants can effectively extract PCBs and mercury from sediment. Davis cautioned against rushing into such a project without first doing the appropriate homework. He suggested finding out whether other groups have already evaluated phytoremediation of PCBs and mercury. If groups have done so and have not experienced success, Davis said, pursuing phytoremedial activities at BNL could be fruitless.

In summary, meeting attendees agreed that interesting opportunities exist at BNL. Before making a decision to get involved with the site, however, the Action Team must learn more about phytoremediation's potential with PCBs and mercury. Meeting attendees identified four organizations to contact for advice and guidance:

• The RTDF's Phytoremediation Action Team. Davis suggested contacting the Phytoremediation Action Team to find out if phytoremedial studies have been performed on PCBs or mercury. Jensen agreed to contact the appropriate Action Team members.
• The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Waterways Experiment Station (WES). Palermo said that WES recently initiated a phytoremediation effort at a dredged site. He agreed to contact project investigators to get their input on the opportunities at BNL.
• Louisiana State University's Hazardous Substance Research Center. Jensen noted that Reible has been thinking about using phytoremediation in CDFs. Jensen said that he would like to learn more about Reible's ideas and to gather his input on the opportunities at BNL.
• The Skidway Institute of Oceanography. Reible agreed to talk with representatives of the Skidway Institute of Oceanography. He noted that this organization has assessed phytoremediation's ability to treat mercury.

Jensen said that he wants to obtain information from these four groups in the near future so that the Action Team is in a better position to decide whether to become involved at BNL.

Seaplane Lagoon--A Potential Study Site in California
Sabine Apitz, Remediation Research Laboratory, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center San Diego

Apitz described the Seaplane Lagoon site, which is located in California. This site, she said, is ideal for demonstrations. The site is well-characterized, is easy to access, is shallow (5 to 15 feet deep), and has no significant wave action. Most importantly, Apitz continued, the site is basically a box that contains a known volume of contaminated sediments. (The site is walled off from the ocean except for a very small opening. Also, a stratigraphically distinct layer underlies contaminated sediments.) The site, which is owned by the Navy, is about 110 acres in size, but high contaminant concentrations are only present in about 8-10 acres. These hot spots are located in the site's corners, Apitz said, around outfalls that discharged a number of industrial products for several years. Apitz said that contaminant concentrations drop off quickly with distance from the outfalls.

About 20 years of Remedial Investigation data have been collected at the site; these data indicate that PCBs, DDT, PAHs, and metals are present in the sediments. Apitz presented data to demonstrate the difference between contaminant concentrations in the site's corners and the site's more central areas. (As an example, she noted, the average per sediment volume concentrations of lead are about 500 parts per million [ppm] near the outfalls, but only about 70 to 80 ppm in the center.) Apitz also noted that contaminant concentrations increase with depth in the hot spots, but that concentrations are fairly constant with depth in the site's central areas.

Apitz described some work that the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center conducted in 1998. Working with Tetra Tech Inc., she said, investigators collected core samples and field tested screening tools. Apitz said that XRF, UVF, and a dinoflagellate bioassay were tested. In addition, a flux sampling device was deployed; this showed that contaminants are fluxing at the site's sediment-sea water interface.

Apitz said that Remedial Investigations are still ongoing at the site, but that a Feasibility Study is scheduled to start in the near future. In recent years, she said, the site has received significant public and political attention. It has been designated a Base Realignment and Closure site, which means that the Navy is required to close it and to transfer it for reuse. Several groups are debating which cleanup criteria to use. Also, several opinions have been put forth about how to deal with the site. While some people are pushing for no further action, others are rallying to have the entire site dredged. Those who are interested in reusing the area hope to utilize it as a marina. Apitz said that a compromise will need to be made between interested parties. She said that she thinks one option for the Navy is to isolate the hotspots (e.g.,construct sheet pilings) and to designate these areas for demonstration projects and eventual remediation. Apitz said that she does not have any decision-making power at the Seaplane Lagoon site, but that she hopes to convince the Navy of the benefits of performing multiple demonstration projects. She asked audience members if the Sediments Remediation Action Team would be interested in conducting projects at the Seaplane Lagoon site. Meeting attendees expressed strong interest.

Apitz said that she has created a draft presentation for the Navy (see Attachment E), but that she is hoping to make it stronger and to create a more detailed proposal. Reible and Palermo said they would help her; in fact, Palermo agreed to send her a capping demonstration proposal so that she could use this as a template.) In addition, audience members agreed to send Apitz the following to use in her proposal:

• Specific examples of what the RTDF can offer. Davis said that it might be useful to include some information about the dramatic influence that the Bioremediation Consortium has had at Dover Air Force Base. (The Consortium's work influenced the Record of Decision at that site.)
• Recommendations for technologies that could be used during the demonstration project.
• Input on how demonstrations can be extrapolated and applied to full-scale scenarios.

Apitz said that she plans to meet with Navy representatives over the next month. She said that she will provide a report on the meeting's outcome during an Action Team conference call.

Potential Collaboration With the RTDF's Bioremediation Consortium
John Davis, The Dow Chemical Company

Davis said that he participates in two RTDF Action Teams: the Sediments Remediation Action Team and the Bioremediation Consortium. Davis described two ways in which the Action Teams might be able to collaborate.

Davis said that the Bioremediation Consortium, active since 1995, is currently completing Phase II activities. Some of the money earmarked for Phase II was not spent. When the Consortium tried to return the money to its original source--the Chlorine Chemistry Council (CCC)--it was told to keep the money and to use it to evaluate persistent organic pollutants (POPs). (Chemicals included in the POP category include PCBs, pesticides, and dioxins.) Davis said that the Bioremediation Consortium has had trouble identifying a project because Consortium members are much more interested in chlorinated solvents than in POPs. Consortium members still plan to talk to the CCC about performing alternate projects that do not focus on POPs. Davis could not predict whether CCC will offer any flexibility. If CCC insists upon evaluating POPs, Davis said, it would probably make sense for the Consortium to collaborate with the Sediments Assessment Action Team since the latter is interested in these chemicals. At this point, Davis said, it is unclear how the two teams would work together and what projects they would pursue. He said that the available money (about $300,000) is not sufficient to initiate new investigation programs. In some ways, he said, it might be wise to give the money to an organization that is already working on a project. Apitz suggested using the money to field test sediments assessment tools. Davis did not think that sediments assessment is of great interest to the Bioremediation Consortium, however. Jensen suggested using the money to assess PCB biodegradation. He said that this is currently a hot topic and one filled with conflicting opinions. Davis said that he must learn more about any restrictions that CCC has placed on the money before meaningful discussions can be held about using it for a collaborative effort between the two RTDF Action Teams. He agreed to gather more information and to report his findings during one of the Assessment Subgroup's conference calls.

Davis identified another way in which the two Action Teams might collaborate. He said that the Bioremediation Consortium hopes to continue its investigation by launching a Phase III study program. Two areas of interest have been identified for this potential program: (1) evaluating source area control, and (2) examining what happens as ground-water contaminants move through the ground-water-sediment interface. This second topic, Davis said, may be of interest to the Sediments Remediation Action Team. If so, it could be beneficial to collaborate on this investigatory topic. Davis said that Savannah River has been identified as a potential test site for Phase III activities. (This site has source area control and seep zones where ground water passes through sediment.) Bioremediation Consortium members will visit the site to determine whether site owners are amenable to the Consortium's proposed activities.

FEEDBACK ON SMWG WHITE PAPERS
Richard Jensen, DuPont Corporate Remediation

Jensen facilitated a discussion session on SMWG's white papers. (His presentation is included as Attachment F.) He opened the session by noting that SMWG--a group of potentially responsible parties (PRPs)--recently released a series of white papers to address different sediments-related topics. These papers, Jensen said, can be accessed on the Internet by visiting http://www.smwg.org, clicking on "Technical Papers," and downloading the papers listed under "Technical Papers" and "Decision Tree for Sediment Management Alternatives." In addition, Jensen said, the papers are available on CD-ROM; information on how to obtain a CD-ROM can be found by clicking on the Web site's "Download/Order" button. Jensen said that there are nine papers in total. (These are listed in slide 5 of Attachment F.) Jensen said that the papers do not present many new concepts, but they do streamline available information and propose a new way of organizing decision-making processes.

Jensen said that one of the papers, written with Limnotech's guidance and participation, contains a decision tree. This tree provides an overview of SMWG's step-by-step approach to sediments management. Jensen presented the decision tree (see Attachment F) and reviewed it with the audience. He said that the first two steps listed--initial analysis and early decision--are included to remind investigators that they should look for simple solutions to problems before launching into more detailed activities. According to the decision tree, if simple solutions do not exist, investigators should do the following simultaneously:

• Evaluate source control issues. Jensen stressed the importance of identifying contaminant source areas, noting that investigators must find out whether still-active sources could recontaminate a site after it has been remediated. If sources prove to be a problem, Jensen said, they should be addressed before remedial activities are initiated.
• Initiate site evaluation. Jensen said that there are two activities involved in site investigation: creating a baseline conceptual model and creating a temporal conceptual model. When creating these models, Jensen said, natural recovery evaluations should be performed.

After completing the steps listed above, Jensen said, the decision tree recommends starting Feasibility Studies. During this stage, investigators are expected to evaluate remedial alternatives and to choose remedial actions. Once this is accomplished, Jensen said, regulatory approval must be obtained before the remedial solution is implemented and monitored. If approval is denied, investigators must return to earlier study phases. Failure to gain approval should be less of a problem, Jensen said, if investigators establish relationships with regulators at the beginning of a project and solicit regulatory input regularly.

In addition to summarizing SMWG's approach to sediments management, the decision tree serves as a framework for the SMWG papers. Five of SMWG's white papers focus on site evaluation steps; one addresses decision-making models, another discusses risk assessment, and three papers address natural recovery (i.e., using natural processes to define exposures, assessing sediment stability, and examining the role of natural attenuation). The remaining SMWG papers focus on the Feasibility Study stage; they deal specifically with the pros and cons of using different remedial technologies, the state of current sediments management practices, and ways to measure the effectiveness of remedial actions. Jensen said that SMWG has not yet identified all of the activities it will pursue in 2000. He said that the group might write additional white papers to address other topics listed on the decision tree.

Jensen said that he wanted to gather the meeting attendees' comments on the papers. Before soliciting these, however, he made sure that audience members understood that the RTDF Action Team will not officially offer an endorsement or a rebuttal of SMWG's white papers. The comments offered by RTDF members will simply be passed on to the papers' authors and the SMWG Steering Committee. If the comments are substantive, Jensen said, SMWG may try to address them by incorporating new material into the CD-ROM and Web versions of the papers. Jensen asked audience members to provide feedback on the logic and technical arguments presented in the papers. Also, he asked participants to comment on the papers' ability to lead users toward optimally protective remedies. He said that SMWG wants to make sure that it has not gone too far in promoting non-dredging techniques. (SMWG admits that it generally prefers not to dredge, Jensen said, but it does not want readers to overlook this technology for sites where dredging truly represents the optimally protective remedial design.)

Jensen opened the floor to comments. In general, attendees responded favorably to the papers, describing them as informative and interesting. More specific comments revolved around the following topics:

• The bias of the papers. Kenneth Finkelstein said that he found the papers to be informative, but that he noticed a bias in favor of the regulated community. He said that the bias is not tremendously overstated, but that it does exist to some extent. Finkelstein said that the papers would have been more useful if they had been created by a more diverse authorship. He said that regulators may show little interest in the papers because they are produced by a group composed of regulated community representatives. Jensen thanked Finkelstein for his comments, and noted that he agrees that some of the most useful products available are those that combine input from multiple sectors and viewpoints. Unfortunately, Jensen said, SMWG is not free to work with government groups to the extent that it would like to. He said that certain limitations exist on the amount of collaboration that can occur between regulators and the regulated community. If relationships became too close, Jensen said, the alliance would probably be criticized by other groups. Although SMWG and government representatives were not able to work together as authors on the papers, Jensen continued, SMWG is seeking regulatory and outside input on the papers; for example, the papers have been submitted to CASGRW--a multi-agency guidance committee--and the National Research Council. Ralph Stahl suggested a way to encourage communication between a small number of stakeholders: he recommended forming a dialogue group. Continuing, Stahl said that a dialogue group was formed about three or four years ago to address ecological risk management issues. Although initial discussions were strained and difficult, he said, representatives eventually identified some common goals and started working together. Jensen said that a dialogue group sounds like an effective forum for communication. In many ways, he said, the RTDF serves as a large dialogue group. If it would be helpful, Jensen said, the RTDF could think about forming a small, but diverse, Subgroup to delve into controversial issues.
• The need to address additional topics. Davis said that he reviewed the paper that SMWG wrote on natural attenuation. He described the paper as being policy-based and focused on technology promotion rather than on fundamental technical questions. Davis said that he created a list of topics that were not included in SMWG's paper, but that do require attention. He said that he does not think it is necessarily SMWG's job to address these topics. Instead, he views SMWG's papers simply as a starting point or a discussion launch pad for the RTDF. He offered the following suggestion to RTDF members: (1) review the SMWG papers, (2) identify holes or topics that were not adequately discussed, and (3) address these topics within the RTDF. Davis said that he plans to use this approach. (Davis has been asked to write a white paper on bioavailability for the Assessment Subgroup. In his paper, he will discuss some of the topics that were not covered in SMWG's paper.) Reible supported Davis' opinions and suggestions, saying that he also thinks that the RTDF should consider the SMWG papers to be a starting point. Reible said that topics can be probed in additional detail in the RTDF Assessment Subgroup's white papers.
• Future steps to increase the usefulness of the papers. Bob Engler asked whether any attempts will be made to put the scientific aspects into perspective with policy issues so that SMWG's papers are useful to decision-makers. Jensen said that SMWG is currently discussing future steps; the group is considering making the documents shorter so that they are easily digestible and appeal to decision-makers. Jensen said that SMWG realizes that concise step-by-step directions for sediments management are currently lacking. Apitz agreed that this was the case and that documents providing such directions are needed. She said that the challenge will be to create documents that are concise enough to be easily understood without making them so non-specific that they become virtually useless.
• The placement of the"source control alternatives" box in SMWG's decision tree. Engler said that he was glad to see that SMWG included source control in its decision tree. He complemented SMWG for choosing to address it so early in the sediments management decision framework.
• The lack of sufficient recycle loops in the decision tree. Stahl provided a comment on SMWG's decision tree (see Attachment F). He recommended adding an arrow connecting the implementation and monitoring stage back to earlier stages of the decision tree. That way, he said, it will be clear that investigators must re-enter the feasibility stage if the remedial option that they implement turns out to be ineffective. Jensen said that the original version of the decision tree had several recycle loops. He had removed some of these to create a more readable presentation. Jensen thanked Stahl for his comment and said that he will think about adding some of the recycle loops back into the simplified version of the decision tree. Jensen said that a more detailed version of the decision tree appears on SMWG's Web site; detailed information about each of the tree's steps can be obtained by clicking on particular boxes.

MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS

Field Trip

Jensen said that meeting attendees would go on a field trip to the San Diego Naval Environmental Research Laboratories on the morning of January 14, 2000.

Next Action Team Meeting

Jensen asked meeting attendees whether the Sediments Remediation Action Team should hold its next meeting in conjunction with one of the Assessment Subgroup's meetings. Participants liked this idea and agreed to meet on May 9, 2000, in Cincinnati, Ohio. Some participants recommended holding the Assessment Subgroup meeting in the morning and the full Action Team meeting in the afternoon.

ACTION ITEMS

• The Action Team's Assessment Subgroup has agreed to (1) create white papers and submit first drafts to ERG by April 25, 2000, (2) hold Subgroup meetings on May 9, 2000, and September 12, 2000, and (3) meet regularly via conference call.
• Jensen expressed strong interest in the colonization studies that are being performed at the Ottawa River site. He asked Jersak to describe the studies' sampling plans and protocols at the next Action Team meeting. Jersak tentatively agreed to do so.
• Action Team members expressed interest in evaluating phytoremediation studies at BNL. Before deciding whether to get involved, however, Action Team members agreed that four organizations should be contacted for advice and guidance: (1) RTDF's Phytoremediation Action Team, (2) WES representatives, (3) Louisiana State University's Hazardous Substance Research Center, and (4) the Skidway Institute of Oceanography. Jensen agreed to contact the first organization, Palermo agreed to contact the second one, and Reible agreed to contact the other two.
• Apitz hopes to convince the Navy to initiate demonstration projects at the Seaplane Lagoon site. She has created a draft presentation, but is hoping to make it stronger and to create a more detailed proposal. Reible and Palermo said they would help her; in fact, Palermo agreed to send her a capping demonstration proposal so that she could use this as a template. In addition, audience members agreed to send Apitz: (1) specific examples of what the RTDF can offer by participating as a partner, (2) recommendations for technologies that could be used during the demonstration project, and (3) input on how demonstrations can be extrapolated and applied to full-scale scenarios. Apitz plans to meet with Navy representatives over the next month. She agreed to report on the meeting's outcome in February or March, during an Action Team conference call.
• Davis said that he has identified some money that might be available for a collaborative effort between the Sediments Remediation Action Team and the Bioremediation Consortium. Davis agreed to learn more about the money's restrictions and availability. He will report his findings during one of the Assessment Subgroup's conference calls.
• ERG will plan the Sediments Remediation Action Team's next meeting, to take place in Cincinnati, Ohio, on May 9, 2000.

Attachment A
Final Attendee List

RTDF Sediments Remediation
Action Team Meeting

Westin Horton Plaza Hotel
San Diego, California
January 13, 2000

Final Attendee List

*Sabine Apitz Senior Scientist Remediation Research Laboratory Environmental Sciences Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center San Diego Room 258 (D361) 53475 Strothe Road San Diego, CA 92152 619-553-2810 Fax: 619-553-8773 E-mail: apitz@spawar.navy.mil *John Davis Research Leader The Dow Chemical Company Building 1803 Midland, MI 48674 517-636-8887 Fax: 517-638-9863 E-mail: jwdavis@dow.com Robert M. Engler U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station CEWES-EP-D 3909 Halls Ferry Rd. Vicksburgh, MS 39180 601-634-3624 Fax:601-634-3528 E-mail: englerr@mail.wes.army.mil Julie Fields Director, Technology Research and Evaluation Environmental Quality Management, Inc. 1310 Kemper Meadow Drive Cincinnati, OH 45240 513-825-7500 Fax: 513-825-7495 E-mail: jfields@eqm.com Kenneth Finkelstein Environmental Scientist NOAA c/o EPA Office of Site Remediation & Restoration (HI0) J.F.K. Federal Building 1 Congress Street - Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02114-2023 617-918-1499 Fax: 617-918-1291 E-mail: ken.finkelstein@noaa.gov Stephen Garbaciak Senior Engineer II/Associate Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. 10325 Austen Court Mokena, IL 60448 708-478-5362 Fax: 708-478-5611 E-mail: sdg@bbl-inc.com Andrew Green Assistant Manager Environment and Health International Lead Zinc Research Organization, Inc. 2525 Meridian Parkway - Suite 100 Durham, NC 27713 919-361-4647 Fax: 919-361-1957 E-mail: agreen@ilzro.org David Hohreiter Senior Scientist Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. 6723 Towpath Road P.O. Box 66 Syracuse, NY 13214 315-446-9120 Fax: 315-446-7485 E-mail: dh@bbl-inc.com *Richard Jensen Research Fellow DuPont Corporate Remediation Experimental Station 304 Wilmington, DE 19880 302-695-4685 Fax: 302-695-4414 E-mail: richard.h.jensen@usa.dupont.com *Joseph Jersak Senior Soil Scientist Hull & Associates, Inc. 3401 Glendale Avenue - Suite 300 Toledo, OH 43614 419-385-2018 Fax: 419-385-5487 E-mail: jjersak@hullinc.com Victoria Kirtay Environmental Sciences Remediation Research Laboratory Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center 53475 Strothe Road Room 267D - Code 361 San Diego, CA 92152 619-553-1395 Fax: 619-553-8773 E-mail: kirtay@spawar.navy.mil David Lockert Technical Project Manager Environmental Quality Management, Inc. 25661 Fort Meigs Road - Suite A Perrysburg, OH 43551 419-874-9447 Fax: 419-874-9448 E-mail: dlockert@aol.com Erin Mack Visiting Research Scientist Dupont Corporate Remediation & Development Glasgow Business Community 301 P.O. Box 6101 Newark, DE 19714-6101 302-366-6703 Fax: 302-366-6607 E-mail: elizabeth.e.mack@usa.dupont.com Kelly Madalinski Environmental Engineer Technology Innovation Office Office of Emergency & Remedial Response U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, SW (5102G) Washington, DC 20460 703-603-9901 Fax: 703-603-9135 E-mail: madalinski.kelly@epa.gov Karen Miller Environmental Engineer Restoration Development Branch Environmental Restoration Division Naval Facilities Engineering Services Center 1100 23rd Avenue (411) Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370 805-982-1010 Fax: 805-982-4304 E-mail: millerkd@nfesc.navy.mil

David Moore Laboratory Director MEC Analytical Systems, Inc. 2433 Impala Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 760-931-8081 Fax: 760-931-1580 E-mail: moore@mecanalytical.com Phil Muilenburg Managing Director Cedros LLC 2625 Gobat Avenue San Diego, CA 92122 858-455-7474 E-mail: muilenburg@earthlink.net Robert Olfenbuttel Vice President, Environmental Programs Development Environmental Remediation Systems Battelle Memorial Institute 505 King Avenue (10-1-04) Columbus, OH 43201-2693 614-424-4827 Fax: 614-424-3667 E-mail: olfenbur@battelle.org Michael R. Palermo Research Civil Engineer Environmental Engineer Waterways Experiment Station U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 3909 Halls Ferry Road Vicksburg, MS 39180 601-634-3753 Fax: 601-634-3707 E-mail: palermm@.wes.army.mil Dick Peddicord President Dick Peddicord & Company, Inc. P.O. Box 300 Weems, VA 22576 804-438-5658 Fax: 804-438-6558 E-mail: dp@rivnet.net Danny Reible Director and Professor of Chemical Engineering Hazardous Substance Research Center Louisiana State University 3221 CEBA Baton Rouge, LA 70803 225-388-3070 Fax: 504-388-5043 E-mail: reible@che.lsu.edu Cornell Rosiu Environmental Scientist U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1 Congress Street - Suite 1100 (HB5) Boston, MA 02114-2023 617-918-1345 Fax: 617-918-1291 E-mail: rosiu.cornell@epa.gov Ralph Stahl Senior Consulting Associate DuPont Corporate Remediation Barley Mill Plaza #27 Route 141 and Lancaster Pike Wilmington, DE 19805 302-892-1369 Fax: 302-892-7641 E-mail: ralph.g.stahl-jr@usa.dupont.com Jeff Steevens Research Toxicologist U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CEERD-ES-F 3909 Halls Ferry Road Vicksburg, MS 39180 601-634-4199 Fax: 601-634-3120 E-mail: steevej@wes.army.mil Jennifer Sutter Project Manager Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality 2020 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 400 Portland, OR 97201-4987 503-229-6148 Fax: 503-229-6899 E-mail: sutter.jennifer@deq.state.or.us Dennis Timberlake Chemical Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 26 West Martin Luther King Drive Cincinnati, OH 45268 513-569-7547 Fax: 513-569-7676 E-mail: timberlake.dennis@epa.gov RTDF Technical and Logistical Support Provided by: Christine Hartnett Conference Manager Eastern Research Group, Inc. 5608 Parkcrest Drive - Suite 100 Austin, TX 78731-4947 512-407-1829 Fax: 512-419-0089 E-mail: chartnet@erg.com Carolyn Perroni Senior Project Manager Environmental Management Support, Inc. 8601 Georgia Avenue - Suite 500 Silver Spring, MD 20910 301-589-5318 Fax: 301-589-8487 E-mail: carolyn.perroni@emsus.com Melanie Russo Conference Coordinator Eastern Research Group, Inc. 110 Hartwell Avenue Lexington, MA 02421-3136 781-674-7284 Fax: 781-674-2906 E-mail: mrusso@erg.com Laurie Stamatatos Conference Coordinator Eastern Research Group, Inc. 110 Hartwell Avenue Lexington, MA 02421-3136 781-674-7320 Fax: 781-674-2906 E-mail: lstamata@erg.com * Speaker

Attachments B through F

Attachment B: Welcome and Opening Remarks (Richard Jensen)

Attachment C: Sediment Capping Demonstration Project on the Ottawa River (Joseph Jersak)

Attachment D: Opportunities at the Brookhaven National Laboratory (Michael Coia's slides. Sections depicted in green represent sections added by Dick Jensen.)

Attachment E: Seaplane Lagoon--A Potential Study Site in California (Sabine Apitz)

Attachment F: Feedback on SMWG White Papers (Richard Jensen)