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

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

INTRODUCTION

Ralph Stahl, the Assessment Subgroup's co-chair, opened the meeting by welcoming participants and asking them to introduce themselves. (A list of meeting attendees is included as Attachment A.) Stahl said that the Assessment Subgroup--part of the Remediation Technologies Development Forum's (RTDF's) Sediments Remediation Action Team--identified Subgroup goals during meeting sessions that were held in 1996, 1998, and 1999. Stahl said that this meeting was being held to revisit some of these goals, identify new ones, set a structured schedule for 2000, and assign concrete action items.

This report provides a detailed summary of the meeting's proceedings. Working together, meeting attendees agreed to do the following in 2000: (1) develop white papers, (2) develop and test a sediments assessment game, (3) improve Subgroup communication by meeting face-to-face and via conference call, and (4) make a presentation at the November 2000 Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) meeting. For several of these planned activities, specific deadlines and dates were set; these are listed in Attachment B. Several other goals were identified and discussed during the meeting, but Subgroup members did not make a decision about whether to pursue them in the immediate future.


WHITE PAPERS

About one year ago, Stahl said, the Assessment Subgroup agreed to produce a series of short white papers to address a variety of sediments assessment issues. Stahl said that no progress has been made on the papers, but that he hopes to have them all completed by the end of 2000. Meeting attendees talked briefly about what they hope to accomplish by writing the papers. Each paper should be two to three pages long, Stahl said; each should capture a particular issue, serve as a springboard for additional Subgroup discussion, and help address issues that could arise at field sites. While the papers are in draft form, meeting attendees agreed, only RTDF members should use them. Once the papers are finalized, however, Subgroup members said, it might be useful to distribute them to a wider audience via a variety of avenues (e.g., the RTDF Web site). Stahl said that the papers will serve as useful educational tools for those who do not have extensive experience in the sediments assessment field. Stahl said that he hopes eventually to compile the papers into one booklet and to release the booklet as a tangible Subgroup work product. Having such a product available, he said, may help raise awareness about Subgroup activities and recruit new members.

Identifying White Paper Topics and Assigning Lead Authors

Stahl said that the Subgroup first talked about writing white papers during their January 1999 meeting that was held in Washington, D.C. At this meeting, he said, 13 white paper topics were identified. Stahl presented this list (see Attachment C) and asked Subgroup members whether any of the topics should be added, deleted, or combined. After a long discussion, meeting attendees agreed that 12 white papers, not 13, should be written. The topics for each paper are as follows:

Evaluating Background/Reference Area Condition

Stahl said that he will ask Jim Clark to write a white paper on evaluating background/reference area conditions. David Moore said that this topic is of interest to several people, noting that background concentrations can impact remedial action goals and cleanup objectives.

Sediment Sampling and Analytical Issues

Julie Fields agreed to write a white paper that summarizes the best approaches for setting up sampling plans and the importance of analytical approaches. Meeting attendees said that several documents have already been created to address these topics. (Moore knew of four documents, one of which was written by the Puget Sound Organization, that discuss sampling plan design. In addition, Fields knew of a document that focuses on statistical sampling, analytical procedures, and data quality objectives.) Stahl suggested using the following approach to create the white paper: (1) identify available documents that discuss the topic, (2) peruse these materials to determine what has already been written, (3) determine how to go forth with the white paper, (4) present a suggested approach to the larger Subgroup for comment, and (5) write the white paper after receiving input. Stahl stressed that this approach is just one of many that can be used; he will leave it to Fields to determine the best way to proceed.

Meeting attendees talked about this white paper in detail. Cornell Rosiu, Dick Jensen, and Dick Peddicord said that investigators must obtain a clear understanding of a site's goals and its position along the investigation/remediation spectrum before developing a sampling plan. For example, Jensen said, using an assessment plan that slices sediments into 2-centimeter segments makes little sense at a site where dredging has already been chosen as a remedial option. On the other hand, he noted, gaining this type of detailed sampling information may be very useful at a site where a remedial decision is still pending. Stahl summarized the attendees' points by noting that sampling plans created for site characterization purposes are often dramatically different from those created to monitor the effectiveness of a remedial action. Stahl said that both sampling stages (pre-remedial decision and post-remedial decision) are of interest to the Subgroup. Jensen agreed, noting that there is currently a disparity in the amount of work that has been performed for each stage--less work has been performed for the pre-remedial-decision stage.

Site Characterization--Sediments, Statistics, Use of Data, Etc.

Picking up on the points discussed in the previous paragraph, Joseph Jersak offered to write a white paper on site characterization issues. Jersak, who stressed the importance of addressing spatial distribution when characterizing a site, said that a statistically defensible plan must be developed to support site characterization efforts; if it is not, there may be significant error in calculated risk estimates. Moore said that he recently addressed site characterization issues by writing a 15-page sediment sampling plan for the Portland Harbor Sediment Management Plan. Much of what appears in this document, Moore said, came from other documents that address site characterization issues in greater detail. Jersak agreed to review available documents and to integrate some of the information into his white paper. Jersak also agreed to communicate with Fields (who will write the Subgroup's Sediment Sampling and Analytical Issues white paper) to make sure that he and Fields write compatible papers that do not present redundant information.

Measures of Success--Mass Removal, Ecological Improvement

Stahl said that people have varying ideas about how to measure the success of remedial actions; the validity of different approaches must be investigated further. For example, Stahl said, if a team's goal is to remove 100,000 cubic yards of sediment, should they consider their project a success if they remove the specified volume? Or do they need to measure success by comparing ecological conditions before and after a remedial action? Kenneth Finkelstein agreed to write a white paper that discusses measures of success.

Monitoring Remedial Effectiveness

At any given site, Stahl said, once investigators decide on a measure of success, they must then decide which techniques to use to measure the chosen parameter. Danny Reible agreed to write a white paper on monitoring remedial effectiveness. Meeting attendees said that the Sediment Management Work Group (SMWG) has written some papers to address this topic; Reible agreed to review these.

Equilibrium Partitioning-Based Sediment Criteria and Effects-Based Sediment Criteria

"Equilibrium Partitioning-Based Sediment Criteria" and "Effects-Based Sediment Criteria" were originally listed as two separate white paper topics (see Attachment C), but Peddicord persuaded the Subgroup to address these criteria in one paper. He agreed to write this paper's first draft, noting that he has already spent time looking at the strengths and weaknesses associated with both classes of criterion. Dennis Timberlake and Finkelstein questioned the necessity of writing a white paper on these criteria, noting that several other agencies and organizations are already addressing the topic. Meeting attendees successfully argued, however, that it would be helpful to distill available information into one concise white paper. Subgroup members suggested focusing the paper on application rather than letting it devolve into a detailed discussion on criterion derivation. Rosiu said that the paper should clearly state that criteria are intended to serve as screening values, not as accurate risk value numbers. Stressing this point, he said, may help cut down on the number of people who abuse criteria and take them out of context.

Meeting attendees said that several documents have already been written about sediment criteria and their application; they encouraged Peddicord to include a list of available references in his paper. (Andrew Green said that a document has been written about criteria to use for metals. Finkelstein said that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to release an Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines (ESG) document in the near future. Jensen said that one of SMWG's white papers includes a discussion, written by Robert Hoke, on using criteria as screening levels rather than action levels. Sabine Apitz said that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Waterways Experiment Station has released a pamphlet that discusses criteria, guidelines, and benchmarks.)

Application of Sediment Toxicity Testing

Moore agreed to write a white paper on the application of sediment toxicity testing. He said that the paper will discuss how and when to use different tools and how to interpret results.

Ecological Assessment Tools

Stahl said that it would be beneficial to compile a list of available ecological assessment tools (e.g., benthic community analysis) and to provide information about how to apply these tools. Finkelstein agreed to write a white paper on this topic; he will indicate which tool to use to assess different chemical classes (e.g., volatile organic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls).

Finkelstein said that he will try to include some information about food-chain risk assessment techniques in the white paper. (This topic was originally listed as a stand-alone topic--see Attachment C.)

Bioavailability

Reible said that a growing number of research tools are becoming available to measure bioavailability; he suggested summarizing the status of each tool in a white paper. Meeting attendees said that they would like to learn about tools that measure organic bioavailability as well as metal bioavailability in sediments. John Davis agreed to write a white paper on bioavailability. He agreed to contact Reible and Clark to gather useful information. Apitz recommended calling Ohio State University's Pat Hatcher as well.

In Situ Test Methods

David Hohreiter agreed to write a white paper that discusses in situ test methods. Meeting attendees asked him to include discussions on biological methods (e.g., caged mussel studies) and chemical in situ test methods (e.g., flux measurement instruments). Moore suggested contacting Mike Salazar to obtain useful information. In addition, Apitz suggested referring to a particular Navy document to learn more about in situ chemical assessments; she agreed to send a copy of that document to Hohreiter.

Conceptual Model Development

Stahl said that he will ask Hoke to write a white paper on conceptual model development. Meeting attendees said that several other papers have already been written to address this topic. For example, Jensen said, the topic is discussed in three SMWG papers. Stahl said that he will ask Hoke to review existing documents and summarize available materials.

Determining Contaminant and Sediment Fate in a System

Reible agreed to write a white paper that discusses contaminant and sediment fate within a system. This issue has already been addressed in a SMWG paper that Reible wrote with Louis Thibodeaux; this paper will serve as a starting point for the Subgroup's white paper.

Format for White Papers

Stahl reminded Subgroup members that the papers should be about two to three pages in length. He suggested including the following sections in each paper:

Reible agreed that the first two sections should appear in all of the Subgroup's white papers, but noted that the headings for subsequent sections might vary from paper to paper. Also, the tone used may differ, Subgroup members pointed out, depending on which audience is being targeted in each paper.

Apitz recommended including contact names in each white paper so that readers know how to obtain additional information. Meeting attendees thought this was a good idea; one Subgroup member suggested listing a paper's author as the contact. This suggestion sparked a discussion on authorship. While in draft form, Subgroup members agreed, each paper should list a specific author so that people know who to contact with comments. Green suggested, however, releasing the final product under the auspices of the RTDF rather than under one individual's name. Following along the same lines, Stahl said that the Subgroup could consider listing the names of all Subgroup members as the authors.

Proposed Schedule for Completing the Papers

The first drafts of the white papers should be submitted to Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), by April 25, 2000. ERG will collect the drafts and forward them to the entire Subgroup. (ERG will distribute files in Word and WordPerfect.) Meeting attendees agreed to read the drafts before the Subgroup's May 2000 meeting. Stahl said that they should be prepared to offer their overall impressions on the drafts at that time, but that formal written comments will not be expected until later. (Finkelstein encouraged Subgroup members to make their comments as useful as possible; for example, he said, if a Subgroup member realizes that a paper is missing information, the commentor should supply the information rather than just note its absence.) Stahl did not assign a deadline for written comments, but he did say that the papers should be finalized by the Subgroup's September 2000 meeting.


SEDIMENTS ASSESSMENT GAME

Stahl said that a game has been created to teach players about ecological risk assessment. This game, which was developed by a university, is used by a variety of audiences, ranging from undergraduate students to industry representatives. In general, Stahl said, the game has received positive feedback and is regarded as a beneficial teaching tool. Given the positive response, Stahl recommended creating another game--one that addresses sediments assessment--because he feels it could serve as a useful tool for scientists, site managers, and policy makers. Game participants would receive a set of rules, play money, and a description of a problem, Stahl said; players would then be asked to work through the steps that must be taken to assess sediments at a hypothetical site. Players would be required to "purchase" data and to make decisions based on these data. Stahl said that the game could be created in an electronic format, but that he prefers using a paper-based format. Apitz asked if the game could provide feedback to players so that they would know if they were making good decisions. Stahl said that a facilitator would be expected to provide this feedback if the game were being played by people who knew little about sediments assessment.

Stahl and Hohreiter said that they are willing to develop the game; in fact they have already developed some draft materials for it. Before progressing further, however, they wanted to make sure the Subgroup thinks the effort is worth pursuing. (Stahl said that creating the game will require significant effort. Materials will not only need to be developed, they also must be tested.) In general, meeting attendees were intrigued by the game and thought it was worth developing, but some participants had trouble understanding the concept. Eager to clear up any ambiguity, Hohreiter, suggested playing an abbreviated version of the game during the lunch break of the Subgroup's May 2000 meeting. Meeting attendees liked this suggestion; therefore, Stahl and Hohreiter will develop the abbreviated version of the game.


SUBGROUP COMMUNICATION: MEETINGS AND CONFERENCE CALLS

Subgroup members agreed to hold two more Assessment Subgroup meetings in 2000:

In addition, Subgroup members agreed to meet regularly via conference call. During these calls, Stahl said, Subgroup members will update each other on their progress and address new developments. ERG agreed to set up conference calls for February 4, March 3, April 7, June 2, July 14, August 4, and October 6. (Fifteen lines will be reserved for each call.) Each call will take place between 11:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). Before each call, ERG will e-mail a reminder to Subgroup members. The e-mail will explain how to participate in the call and will include an agenda.


SUBGROUP OPEN HOUSE AT THE SETAC MEETING

Stahl recommended holding an open house at SETAC's November 2000 meeting. Meeting attendees thought this was a good suggestion; therefore, Stahl agreed to contact SETAC's conference coordinators to determine whether a room can be reserved for the Subgroup. Stahl said that the open house could be used to raise awareness about the Subgroup's activities, to inform a larger audience of the issues being addressed, and to recruit new members. In addition, he said, the Subgroup could obtain useful feedback during the open house because the SETAC meeting typically attracts experts from a variety of disciplines. Stahl said that he would like to have the final versions of all Subgroup white papers and a version of the sediments assessment game available at the SETAC meeting. Meeting attendees brainstormed on the best way to present materials during the open house. One participant recommended delivering informal short presentations for some of the Subgroup's white papers and presenting posters for others. Timberlake suggested setting up debates to address controversial topics. Meeting attendees agreed to discuss the agenda for the open house in more detail via conference call.


OTHER TOPICS AND GOALS

In addition to the topics already discussed in this report, Subgroup members identified other goals that they are interested in pursuing. These include: (1) developing an assessment framework or concept paper, (2) conducting a pilot site evaluation or a demonstration project, (3) creating a tutorial product, and (4) identifying a presumptive remedy for sediments. Subgroup members discussed these goals, but they did not make a final decision about whether to pursue them in the immediate future.

Assessment Framework or Concept Paper

Stahl recommended creating an assessment framework or a concept paper that could be used to help evaluate sites. Reible thought this was a good idea, but advised waiting until the Subgroup's white papers are completed before broaching this goal. Stahl agreed to defer discussion on this task until a later date.

Pilot Site Evaluation or Demonstration Project

During previous Subgroup meetings, Stahl said, Subgroup members expressed interest in performing a pilot site evaluation or a demonstration project. To date, he continued, no sites have been solidly identified for field study.1 Therefore, he recommended deferring discussion on this topic until a later date. Meeting attendees agreed to talk about this topic in detail during a conference call; before leaving the topic, however, they did spend some time talking about:

Sediments Assessment Tutorial Product

Jensen noted that several people have become interested in sediments assessment issues lately. These people, he said, are confronted with a plethora of guidance and could really use a concise tutorial that summarizes sediments assessment issues. He suggested that the Subgroup create a product of this nature. Meeting attendees expressed interest in this idea, noting that there are probably several organizations and agencies that could benefit from a sediments assessment tutorial product. Jensen provided the names of two groups that might be interested in using such a product:

Preferred Remedy (or "Presumptive Remedy") for Addressing Sediments

Green brought up a potential long-term goal for the Subgroup: identifying a preferred remedy for addressing sediments remediation. Green did not know if a preferred remedy can be identified for sediments, but he is willing to think more about the topic, to ask Superfund representatives for information about presumptive remedies, and to present his findings at the Subgroup's May 2000 meeting.


ACTION ITEMS

The following summarizes the action items from the January 13, 2000, Assessment Subgroup meeting:

White Paper Topic Action Items Associated With Each Paper
Evaluating Background/Reference Area Condition Stahl will ask Jim Clark to write the first draft.
Sediment Sampling and Analytical Issues Fields agreed to write the first draft.
Fields agreed to review available documents.
Site Characterization--Sediments, Statistics, Use of Data, etc. Jersak agreed to write the first draft.
Jersak agreed to review available documents.
Jersak agreed to communicate with Fields.
Measures of Success--Mass Removal, Ecological Improvement Finkelstein agreed to write the first draft.
Monitoring Remedial Effectiveness Reible agreed to write the first draft.
Reible agreed to review SMWG papers.
Equilibrium Partitioning-Based Sediment Criteria and Effects-Based Sediment Criteria Peddicord agreed to write the first draft.
Application of Sediment Toxicity Testing Moore agreed to write the first draft.
Ecological Assessment Tools (Note: This paper will include a discussion on food-chain risk assessment techniques.) Finkelstein agreed to write the first draft.
Bioavailability Davis agreed to write the first draft.
Davis agreed to contact Reible and Clark to gather information on the topic. (In addition, Apitz recommended calling Pat Hatcher.)
In Situ Test Methods Hohreiter agreed to write the first draft.
Hohreiter agreed to contact Mike Salazar.
Apitz agreed to send Hohreiter one of the Navy's documents that discusses in situ chemical assessments.
Conceptual Model Development Stahl will ask Hoke to write the first draft.
Stahl will ask Hoke to review existing documents and summarize available materials.
Determining Contaminant and Sediment Fate in a System Reible agreed to write the first draft.

ATTACHMENT A

Final Attendee List
RTDF Sediments Remediation Action Team
Assessment Subgroup Meeting

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

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 W. Davis
Research Leader
The Dow Chemical Company
Building 1803
Midland, MI 48674
517-636-8887
Fax: 517-638-9863
E-mail: jwdavis@dow.com

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

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

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

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 J. 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

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



ATTACHMENT B

Proposed Schedule for 2000
Assessment Subgroup

Date Event or Activity Due
February 4, 2000 Subgroup conference call
March 3, 2000 Subgroup conference call
April 7, 2000 Subgroup conference call
April 25, 2000 Due date for the first drafts of Subgroup white papers. (Authors should e-mail drafts to ERG.)
May 9, 2000 Meeting in Cincinnati, Ohio
June 2, 2000 Subgroup conference call
July 14, 2000 Subgroup conference call
August 4, 2000 Subgroup conference call
September 12, 2000 Meeting in Wilmington, Delaware
October 6, 2000 Subgroup conference call


ATTACHMENT C

Assessment Subgroup White Papers
Topics Proposed In January 19992

1. Evaluating Background/Reference Area Condition

2. Sediment Sampling and Analytical Issues

3. Measures of Success--Mass Removal, Ecological Improvement

4. Equilibrium Partitioning-Based Sediment Criteria

5. Effects-Based Sediment Criteria

6. Application of Sediment Toxicity Testing

7. Ecological Assessment Tools

8. Bioavailability

9. In Situ Test Methods

10. Conceptual Model Development

11. Determining Sediment Fate in a System

12. Food-chain Risk Assessment Techniques

13. Monitoring Remedial Effectiveness

 

1. Stahl said that some potential sites would be discussed at the Sediments Remediation Action Team's January 13, 2000, meeting. The summary of the Action Team meeting, which took place immediately after the Assessment Subgroup meeting, is available at http://www.rtdf.org.)

2. This list is no longer current. It was modified on January 13, 2000. The revised list appears in the main body of the text.