SUMMARY OF THE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPMENT FORUM
SEDIMENTS REMEDIATION ACTION TEAM MEETING
Holiday Inn—Inner Harbor
Baltimore, Maryland
March 11-13, 2002

GENERAL SESSION

Introduction

Nancy Grosso, co-chair of the Remediation Technologies Development Forum's (RTDF's) Sediments Remediation Action Team, welcomed meeting attendees (see Attachment A) and reviewed the conference agenda. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss general business items, review rapid assessment technologies for characterizing contaminated sediment sites, and evaluate approaches to treat contaminated dredged material in confined disposal facilities.

Navy White Papers
Ralph Stahl, DuPont

Ralph Stahl announced that the Sediment White Papers have been completed. He said that these papers, which cover 11 different issues related to sediments, will be posted in two places: (1) Navy's Web site, and (2) Louisiana State University's Hazardous Substance Research Center (HSRC) Web site. Stahl said that he will ask Eastern Research Group (ERG) to e-mail the papers to RTDF Action Team members once the papers have been posted on the Web sites. Meeting participants engaged in a brief discussion about options for more widespread dissemination. One option, Stahl said, would be to present the papers at the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) meeting's interactive poster session. He will find out whether this is possible and report his findings to RTDF Action Team members.

Upcoming EPA/American Chemical Council Workshop: Issues In Assessing and Managing Ecological Risks at Contaminated Sediment Sites
Ralph Stahl, DuPont

Stahl told attendees that an EPA/American Chemical Council Workshop is tentatively scheduled for June 4-5, 2002, at EPA Region 5 offices in Chicago, Illinois. The workshop, entitled Issues in Assessing and Managing Ecological Risks at Contaminated Sediment Sites, will focus on exposure, hazard assessment, and risk characterization. Presentations and panel discussions might be held, Stahl noted, but the focus will be on group discussion. The workshop's results will be posted on EPA's Superfund Web site.

Use of Sediment Quality Goals and Related Tools For the Assessment of Contaminated Sediments
Rick Wenning, Environ

Rick Wenning told attendees about a SETAC-sponsored Pellston sediment workshop, which will be held in August 2002. The workshop will explore the scientific credibility of different sediments evaluation approaches. For example, workshop participants will discuss attempts to apply sediment quality goals (SQGs), and will determine whether this technique is being used more broadly than is currently defensible. Five technical subgroups will be formed at the workshop:

• Review of the Science Underpinnings of SQGs.
  
  
• Use of SQGs to Estimate the Potential for Effects/No Effects to Sediment-Associated Contaminants.
  
  
• Role of SQGs in Different Assessment Frameworks.
  
  
• Other Assessment Tools for Evaluating Sediment Quality.
  
  
• Considerations for Addressing Particularly Complex Sediment Systems.

Three deliverables will result from the workshop: (1) a Web site; (2) an executive summary booklet to accompany SETAC's journal; and (3) a technical book of the workshop goals and objectives, workshop findings, position papers from each working group, supplemental technical papers, selected case studies, and recommendations. Wenning's presentation is included as Attachment B.

Evaluation of the Long-Term Effectiveness of "Monitored Natural Restoration" as a Contaminated Sediment Management Option
John Davis, The Dow Chemical Company
Clay Patmont, Anchor Environmental
Mike Swindoll, ExxonMobil

John Davis, Clay Patmont, and Mike Swindoll described a monitored natural restoration (MNR) project currently underway. Their presentations are provided as Attachments C, D, and E. Davis said that the project was conceived at the last Sediment Remediation Action Team meeting in Seattle, Washington. The project involves compiling and evaluating historical site data from contaminated sediment sites where MNR has been active. Some of the sites being evaluated, Davis noted, are purposely designed to promote MNR. At other sites, MNR is occurring by default.

Swindoll outlined the criteria the group used to select sites for further evaluation. Sites needed to have the following items available: (1) characterization of historical contaminant sources and controls; (2) characterization of fate and transport processes; (3) compilation of a sufficient historical record for chemicals of interest to evaluate temporal trends; (4) compilation of historical trends in biological endpoint data to corroborate chemical data; and (5) development of an acceptable and defensible predictive tool or tools to allow prediction of future MNR. At this point, Patmont said, three sites-all of which are located in Washington-are being evaluated. He provided a summary of all three.

Davis, Swindoll, and Patmont concluded by noting that they plan to continue gathering data on the three sites already being assessed, and that they might look at additional sites in the future. A discussion ensued at the end of the presentation in which attendees concurred with the need to find additional examples of long-term MNR projects from which data could be gathered. Attendees noted that they believed this type of information could be used to set performance standards, which could be applicable to other sites and be semi-prescriptive. For example, if tissue lesions tested below a certain level, or body burdens were at a certain level, MNR could be considered as an appropriate remedy. The presenters agreed, but pointed out the need to reach agreement about what parameters should be considered in developing a weight-of-evidence determination of that sort; they noted the need to find balanced alternatives to compare to because different technologies are based on different parameters. Presenters also pointed out that more than just technical factors go into making decisions-public and political factors can also influence outcomes greatly. Attendees suggested that the project also look at sites where MNR is really not occurring, to which the presenters responded that MNR occurs at every site-the question is simply the rate of degradation.

Grasse River Capping Pilot Study
Larry McShea, Alcoa

Larry McShea presented information about a pilot capping study being conducted in upstate New York. The study's goals are to evaluate cap placement techniques, cap coverage effectiveness, the extent of potential entrainment of underlying sediment into cap material, particle size fractionation, water column impacts, cost information, and recolonization by benthic organisms. McShea presented the study's results and described the monitoring efforts planned for 2002. His presentation is included as Attachment F. One meeting participant asked for information on the study's costs. McShea responded by saying that the cost of the project would end up in the range of $4 to $4.5 million. Another participant inquired about the type of regulatory approval needed to initiate the study. McShea responded by saying that the study is considered a short-term test at the moment, since EPA has concerns about the cap staying in place and potential movement of materials through the cap over an extended timeframe.

Anacostia River Activities
Richard Jensen, Consultant

Richard Jensen provided background information about the Anacostia Watershed Toxics Alliance (AWTA) and RTDF's involvement in site evaluation and remediation efforts at the Anacostia River. Jensen presented information about efforts planned for sampling and monitoring of the Anacostia River to better classify pollution sources, cleanup needs, and remedial options. He also presented a timetable that outlines goals for project planning and project implementation. Jensen's presentation is included as Attachment G. When questioned about AWTA's length of involvement, Jensen noted that the group has been working on the Anacostia River for approximately 2 years. Other groups are also working on the river, but AWTA is the first to examine toxic chemical issues.

Recap of Sediment Stability Workshop
Nancy Grosso, DuPont

Nancy Grosso provided an overview of the January 2002 meeting of the Sediment Stability Workshop. She noted that many of the workshop's presentations and summary materials can be obtained on the HSRC Web site. Grosso said that much of the workshop's discussion focused on approaches that can be used to evaluate differences in sediment deposition in a particular environmental setting. For example, she said, discussion was held on the validity of geomorphologic approaches, a presentation that Grosso particularly enjoyed. Grosso said that chemical stability-essentially, the fate and transport of chemicals-interested participants and might be useful to discuss in greater detail at a future workshop. Her presentation is included as Attachment H.

General Business

Grosso said that the next Sediment RTDF meeting has tentatively been scheduled for the week of October 21, 2002, in Portland, Oregon or Los Angeles, California. Sub-groups may have other meetings and/or conference calls before then. Grosso noted that a workshop topic will need to be selected for that meeting. So far, Grosso said, she knows of three topics that might interest Action Team members: (1) in situ analysis of metals (and other contaminants of concern); (2) methods for characterizing bathymetry, bed lithology, and morphology; and (3) geochronology techniques and methods. Grosso said that the co-chairs will poll RTDF members in the near future to gauge their interest in these topics.

SEDIMENT ASSESSMENT SUBGROUP'S RAPID ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP

A Tiered, In Situ Approach for Assessing Sediment Contamination
Marc Greenberg, Wright State University

Mark Greenberg presented information about a series of in situ tests used to assess sediment toxicity and ground-water/surface water interactions. The data were obtained using toxicity intoxication evaluation (TIE) chambers, mini-piezometers, and manometers in different test environments. The study's main conclusions were that: (1) mini-piezometer data provide a unique in situ characterization approach-but one must document ground-water and surface water conditions; (2) data from mini-piezometers improved interpretation of exposure-effects relationships; (3) down-welling was shown to reduce exposure in one system while it potentially exposed organisms to surface water contamination in another; (4) in situ TIEs were more sensitive than laboratory TIEs; and (5) integrated approaches are essential in a holistic assessment of sediment toxicity. Greenberg's presentation is included as Attachment I. When asked about the cost of the application, Greenberg responded that the price of the nested piezometers was approximately $20-100 for the hardware and installation; however, analysis of samples from the piezometers costs $200-500 per sample. One participant asked Greenberg to comment on the applicability of his methods for a broader set of sites. Greenberg responded by saying that installing the piezometers in deeper water areas is more difficult.

Applying Decision Techniques Used in the Biomedical Field For Sediment Quality Guidelines: Use of Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves
Jim Shine, Harvard University

Jim Shine's presentation focused on Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves, which are used in the biomedical field to classify people as diseased or not diseased. Shine's talk had two objectives. First, he discussed the applicability of ROC curves to SQGs for metals. Second, he explained how ROC curves can be used to re-analyze the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/BEDS database.

The main conclusions from this work were: (1) ROC curves are applicable to ecological studies, depending on the question being asked; (2) the overall discriminatory power of current models to combine data for different metals do not differ; (3) common values used as thresholds might not provide desired specificity or sensitivity (assuming results for the test organisms sufficiently correlate with ecological endpoints of concern); (4) re-analysis of the BEDS database yielded interesting results for specificity, sensitivity of effects range low (ERL), and effects range median (ERM) values for individual metals; and (5) new quotients combining metals did not provide better discriminatory power in the test database. Shine's presentation is included as Attachment J.

Anacostia Watershed Toxics Alliance Rapid Assessment Efforts
Nick Dinardo, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3

Nick Dinardo provided background on the Anacostia River and the AWTA group, noting that the river's main environmental problems include extensive non-point source runoff, multiple CSOs discharging into the river, contaminated/unhealthy fish, massive losses of wetlands and natural fish habitat, and toxic contamination of sediments. Dinardo also provided a summary of AWTA's efforts to characterize and remediate the river. He said that the group plans to use a three-phased approach to address contamination, and that a variety of rapid assessment techniques are being used to gain a more thorough understanding of the river before moving forward with remediation efforts. Dinardo said that a balance must be achieved between in-field analysis and fixed laboratory analysis. In many ways, he said, the former is preferable because it provides data quickly, is less expensive than laboratory analysis, and helps researchers determine which areas require additional focus. For example, Dinardo said, in-field analysis is a useful screening tool for evaluating suspected sources/releases. His presentation is included as Attachment K.

The Cooperative, Reasonably Conservative Injury Evaluation Approach (RCIE) to Rapid Sediment Natural Resource Restoration
Ron Gouguet, NOAA

Ron Gouguet presented information about the Reasonably Conservative Injury Evaluation (RCIE) approach that NOAA is using to conduct natural resource damage assessments in Louisiana and southeast Texas. The central tenet of RCIE's approach is that sometimes making reasonable, conservative estimates of natural resource injuries/losses using data obtained for other purposes is better than spending additional time and money on injury assessments. Under the RCIE approach, stakeholders take various sediment evaluations/benchmarks and use GIS to calculate, very quickly, what kind of restoration is required by using the data as a screening tool around which negotiations can be conducted. Gouguet's presentation is included as Attachment L. He provided examples of information sources, restoration requirements, natural resource injuries, and projects typically considered under RCIE.

A Fast, User-Friendly Database and Mapping Tool for Planning Sediment Remediation and Monitoring
Kenneth Finkelstein, NOAA

Ken Finkelstein introduced NOAA's new database and mapping tools. He said that these features are designed to make site data more accessible, make better use of available data, improve coordination among partner agencies, and provide easy-to-use tools for public outreach. The database/mapping tool is set up as a "query manager" application with a menu of flexible, pre-programmed database queries and is directly linked to a mapping application (either MARPLOT or ArcView). Finkelstein demonstrated the utility of the database/mapping tool by presenting queries and maps for the Charles River, one of 10 watersheds for which this type of database has been compiled by NOAA. His presentation is included as Attachment M. The database package can be downloaded from <http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/cpr/qm/windowsqm.html>.

In Situ Bioaccumulation Tests for Contaminated Sediment Sites
David Hohreiter, BBL

David Hohreiter provided an overview on the use of in situ bioaccumulation tests. The tests were designed, he said, to provide a short-term, location-specific, relative indicator of bioaccumulation. Hohreiter detailed the study design issues and methods. He said that these methods could be used to determine remedial or containment effectiveness or to examine temporal or spatial trends. He did note, however, that the test is primarily a relative indicator and provides little direct value for risk assessment. Hohreiter stated that the test is probably best used to obtain complementary or supplementary resident species data. Hohreiter's presentation is included as Attachment N. When asked about the growth and mortality of the fish in cages, he replied that growth is usually poor, but that mortality rates are not too high. Hohreiter commented that trends were comparable to those found using semipermeable membrane devices (SPMDs) and that problems exist with both protocols.

A Rapid Quick Turnaround Method for Measuring Dioxin and Related Chemicals by an ELISA Ah-immunoassay Method
Amy Lundquist, Paracelsian, Inc.

Amy Lundquist described a new, commercially-available, screening method that can be used to measure dioxin and similar compounds in samples of various media. The method, which employs ELISA Ah-immunoassay, provides highly reproducible, highly sensitive results in approximately five hours. The cost is about $50 to $100 per sample. No cell line maintenance, radiation, or fume hoods are needed. Lundquist said that the bioassay measures the overall toxicity or biological response of contaminants present in the sample and is relatively dioxin-specific. (It will not show as much of a response with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs], however.) Lundquist's presentation is included as Attachment O. When asked about sample preparation, Lundquist said that samples are cleaned with a procedure that involves solvent extraction over multi-layer silica. One day is required for the cleanup process. Lundquist noted that the method must be performed in the laboratory rather than the field because an optical reader is needed to detect color changes.

Development and Use of Screening Methods for Rapid Characterization
Sara Hartwell, Science Applications International Corporation

Sara Hartwell provided background about "first generation" immunoassay methods that can be used to detect compounds in soil and water. She also presented information about newer "second generation" methods that are more selective. These methods include new developments in ELISA screening methods, immunosensors, gross screening method, dioxin and coplanar PCB methods, mercury analysis by immunoassay, and delfia method for dioxins. Hartwell outlined new development projects that are also underway for expanded compound classes and kits. Her presentation is included as Attachment P.

Rapid Screening Test Methods: Characteristics and Limitations
Paul Jackson, Strategic Diagnostics, Inc.

Paul Jackson provided information about SDIQuick, a rapid delineation ELISA immunoassay screening system that tests for PCBs. Four different system kits are available. They vary in the amount of training required to operate them (from none to hands-on), their level of quantitative outputs (quantitative or semi-quantitative), the time required to test samples, and the media for which they may be used (soil, water, wipes, and/or concrete). Jackson discussed system limitations, and applicability. His presentation is included as Attachment Q.

Summary/Questions

Ralph Stahl mediated a discussion on the following topics:

• Conference format and content. Stahl noted that most of the presentations focused on methods that could be used to take samples quickly. Presentations provided little information on where to take the next sample, how to make decisions, or how to analyze the available information, however.

  Attendees said that the questions of where to go next, how much data are enough, and what are the uncertainties are really important. Attendees expressed that those topics are of particular interest, given the increased use of rapid assessment methods and the ability to get more samples quickly.

  Attendees commented that presentations and length of talks were adequate and proper-allowing the group to get a sense of who and what to follow up with-and that having many topics was good. In the future, however, they would like to have more time for discussion. Attendees also said that they would have enjoyed hearing presentations on techniques used at brownfields sites, and habitat assessment techniques.

• Data quality reports. It was noted that EPA recently published a study of differences in data quality-laboratory vs. field quality. Stahl said that he would try to obtain a copy of the study.
  
  
• Vendor applications at the Anacostia River site. Richard Jensen offered to organize a conference call related to vendors' applications at the Anacostia River site for anyone who would be interested.

TREATMENT SUBGROUP'S RENEWABLE DISPOSAL WORKSHOP

Introduction

Grosso and Jensen introduced the Treatment Subgroup's renewable disposal workshop, noting that it would focus on ex situ treatment. They said that they hoped the presentations would provide information about low energy treatment approaches.

Contaminant Pathway Evaluation and Control for Confined Disposal Facilities
Paul Schroeder, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Waterways Experiment Station (USACE-WES

Paul Schroeder provided an overview of confined disposal facilities (CDFs), explaining why they are used in navigation and cleanup projects. He discussed CDF design objectives and management options. Schroeder continued with a discussion about contaminant pathways for the three CDF geochemical environments-upland, wetland, and aquatic-describing tests that could be conducted on the CDF material for a pathways evaluation. He finished with a review of CDF containment features and concluded that CDFs can be effective containment options if they are engineered properly using a project-, site-, and material-specific approach. Schroeder's presentation is included as Attachment R. Following Schroeder's presentation, attendees discussed the feasibility of establishing new CDFs, concluding that public and political pressures will largely determine the likelihood of the projects. When asked about local control of CDFs, Schroeder said that most CDFs used by the Navy are locally owned and retain local liability, noting that there is no financial assurance related to closure requirements; often material from CDFs is removed and reused, or reclaimed.

Reduction Dechlorination in Reactive CDFs
Bill Batchelor, Texas A&M University

Bill Batchelor noted that reactive containment/degradative solidification/stabilization (DSS) and biotic and abiotic reductive dechlorination processes remove metals and organics from CDF materials. He said that he has examined a number of these processes and has compared the efficacy and efficiency of different processes. Batchelor concluded that the abiotic additions his laboratory has tested do appear to increase reactivity in sediments. His presentation is included as Attachment S. One participant asked for input on the best time to add degradative components. Batchelor said that it would be ideal to add the degradative components when the sediments are in transport. The natural turbidity during transport would integrate them automatically, though addition once the CDF is already in place should not be a problem.

Recent Developments in CDF Reclamation Research
Tommy Myers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Waterways Experiment Station (USACE-WES)

Tommy Myers presented information about the potential for reusing materials treated in CDFs. He provided details and examples of a number of different reclamation efforts, including: soil separation, bioremediation, phytoreclamation, and debris and trash removal, and the use of transformed CDF material as manufactured soil. Myers' presentation is included as Attachment T. When asked about costs associated with the commercial application of the reclamation options, Myers said that they were unknown at this point. He followed up by noting that currently no state allows for the sale of manufactured soil.

Limnofix In Situ Sediment Treatment Technology-Potential Application to Confined Disposal Facilities
Brian Senefelder, Golder Associates, Inc.

Brian Senefelder discussed the possibility of using limnofix to degrade contaminants in sediment materials. Limnofix treatment involves injection of an oxidant and amendments in situ. Senefelder provided information about Golder Associates' efforts with this emerging technology at various sites throughout the world and postulated that it could be applicable for dealing with CDF material contaminant degradation. He discussed options for limnofix treatment via hydraulic mixing, well injection, mechanical mixing, land farming, and pre-disposal mixing. His presentation is included as Attachment U.

Treatment Selection Process For New York/New Jersey Harbor Sediments
Eric Stern, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2

Eric Stern provided information about the New York/New Jersey harbor and the need for dredging. He explained the history of developing sediment management solutions for the dredged material from the harbor, including laboratory benchmark studies and other projects funded by Congress and the state of New Jersey. He presented information about the bench and pilot scale tests that were conducted, many of which were focused on materials handling, in addition to traditional sediment decontamination. When asked about the reasons for investing in innovative sediment management, rather than using CDFs as in other places, Douglas replied that the situation in New York/New Jersey harbor is one of long-term scale, with constant dredging volumes per year, as opposed to single incident remediation typically conducted elsewhere.

The Use of Sediment Decontamination Technologies for the Management of Navigational Dredged Materials
Scott Douglas, New Jersey Maritime Resources

Scott Douglas provided background about the port of New York/New Jersey and introduced the harbor's regional dredged materials management plan. The goals of the management plan are to reduce the need to dredge, reduce contamination, beneficially use dredged material as much as possible, and dispose of only what cannot be used. Douglas explained that for beneficial use of dredged sediments, effective and efficient sediment decontamination is required. He then presented the various options for sediment decontamination that were considered for the New York/New Jersey port. Douglas explained that a privately-funded soil washing plant is going to be built that meets the success criteria established for this project. His presentation is included as Attachment V.

Confined Disposal Facility Opportunities and Experience
Joseph Porrovecchio, HartCrowser

Joseph Porrovecchio presented information about CDFs and Confined Aquatic Disposal sites (CADs). He discussed HartCrowser's investigation approach for projects and provided numerous examples of work it has evaluated and/or completed. Porrovecchio closed by stating that his experience has shown that solidification and stabilization are popular CDF/CAD options, treatment has not closed the cost gap, confined disposal has gained greater acceptance, and beneficial reuse of CDF/CAD material is coming of age. His presentation is included as Attachment W.

Summary Discussion and Technical Challenges

Grosso and Jensen moderated a discussion of the workshop's presentations and technical challenges, noting that information about both high- and low-energy technologies for dealing with sediment remediation had been presented during the workshop. Jensen noted that opportunities for renewable sediment disposal seem to exist at the low energy end of the scale, similar to the ways in which soil and ground-water remediation have advanced in the last 10 to 15 years. He suggested that whether or not soil washing is currently commercially viable, the technology certainly seems to be viable. Attendees' comments were primarily related to four topics associated with this issue:

Manufactured soil

Attendees asked the Biogenesis representative, who is building a soil washing plant in New Jersey to treat dredged material from the New York/New Jersey harbor, about production costs and feasibility for different projects.

• Costs. During their presentations, Stern and Douglas said that one of the criteria for choosing an appropriate treatment option was keeping costs close to $30 per cubic yard. Attendees questioned what parts of the project that cost included, given that typical project cost factors include dredging, de-watering, separation, treatment, and recovery costs. Douglas replied that the $30 was post-sale cost, separate from dredging costs. For example, if $100 is needed to process the sediment completely, and it is sold for $70, that would meet the $30 cost requirement. Stern pointed out that a large part of the feasibility of the New York/New Jersey harbor project is economy of scale, where 500,000 to 1 million cubic yards of sediment will be processed per year, bringing per unit costs down.

  For the New York/New Jersey project, there will be a very small contribution from resale, however. Since manufactured soil is an innovative and new product, a market for it does not yet exist. Biogenesis has identified more than 20 different construction products that could use decontaminated sediment as fillers, however.

  When attendees asked about costs in Biogenesis's Japanese plant, Wilde replied that costs were not comparable. He said that an equipped plant, without heavily automated machinery, would cost just under $3 million to build. Wilde said that Biogenesis is building another plant in Hong Kong for close to $15 million, with a capacity of 400,000 cubic yards per year that will be used as construction fill.

  Wilde also noted that Biogenesis is exploring the idea of putting the soil cleaning systems on barges so that the barge would pull up next to a CDF that needs to be renewed, or pull up to a river, and process the sediment then and there. He said that it is technically feasible.

• Performance. Attendees asked Wilde about the expected treatment performance of Biogenesis's soil washing at more contaminated sites, such as Superfund sites, versus traditional technologies. He said that the particle size and sediment/soil structure dictate performance much more than contaminant concentrations (e.g., cleaning sediment/soil of various sizes with the structure of clay would be far more difficult than cleaning medium silt soil). The main issue would be diminishing returns on cost. One project in New Bedford called for contaminant cleaning to 50 parts per million, which was no problem, but it would be more expensive to clean to a lower concentration.

Potential uses for manufactured soil

When processing and treating sediment, rather than putting it in a CAD or CDF, it is necessary to have a place for the cleaned soil to go after treatment. It is not possible for dredged material to be put back in the ocean (once anything non-natural has been done to it, it is no longer viable for ocean-disposal), so alternatives were discussed.

• Agricultural uses. Wilde said that manufactured soil is not currently regulated material if it passes all the chemical/contaminant regulations, however, there is still a long road ahead before sediment will be cleared for agricultural uses. Attendees pointed out that developing countries have a huge demand for agricultural soil, noting that agricultural applications may be viable overseas.

  Wilde said that there is a market for manufactured soil as topsoil in New York/New Jersey, but that a market does not exist everywhere. In that particular market, traditional topsoil is already selling for $20 to $25 per yard, mostly because of costs associated with transporting it from Virginia.

• Mining fill. One participant suggested that the strip mined areas in Pennsylvania could probably take large volumes of reprocessed soil. Porrovecchio replied that transportation and double handling/processing costs might be prohibitive. (Transportation of soft soil, with minimal fly ash mixed in, would probably be required, then the soft soil would be processed at the site with additional concrete and fly ash.) He said that dredge material was previously treated as solid waste, but that legislation now allows for its direct use.
  
  
• Fish reefs. A participant suggested reusing material to create fish reefs, similar to the way concrete can be used. Another meeting attendee replied that there have been some attempts at creating phosphogypsum stacks for that purpose, and that technically, it worked well, but was not received positively by regulatory agencies.

Soil washing at a site in Chicago

A group of attendees from Chicago participated in the workshop to learn about possible solutions to the problem of their CDF reaching capacity. They said that the CDF's capacity is 1.2 million cubic yards and it is filled with approximately 800,000 cubic yards of material, half of which is water, half of which is sediment. They expect to continue dredging close to 120,000 cubic yards per year, yielding a five-year timeframe before reaching capacity of the current CDF.

• Continual supply. The Chicago group was encouraged by the Biogenesis scenario of soil washing. The group said that it could dredge with small hydraulic dredge continuously to provide supply to a soil washing plant, and/or that Chicago river sediment could possibly be processed as well.
  
  
• Use of manufactured soil. The Illinois International Port owns lots of land, on which it has been building golf courses and conducting other projects, so using the manufactured soil would not be a problem. Additionally, it owns adjacent property to the current CDF, so storing cleaned soil on that property would be easy.
  
  
• Cost prohibitions. The cost of $30 per yard (around $19 million for a five-year plan) seemed high for the group's budget, even compared to building another CDF. Additionally, the Chicago participants were concerned that they are likely to find that this project is not a priority in the budget because the existing CDF has approximately five more years of capacity.

Next steps

Participants discussed what would be necessary for some of the new technologies to advance to a stage of wider application.

• CDF pilot project. For the Chicago site, or others, Wilde said the next step would be to spend $1 to $3 million to initiate a pilot project. Wilde noted that for the Hong Kong site, four drums of material were being brought to the U.S. and analyzed for "everything" for approximately $250,000. It was suggested that the Chicago team could bring some drums of their contaminated sediments to the New York/New Jersey facility once it is set up, to test as their pilot.
  
  
• Superfund applicability. Attendees asked what kinds of opportunities were available to pilot all the technologies in such a way that could be universally applicable to help with decision-making, specifically in relation to Superfund sites. Stern suggested developing a series of small pilot projects during the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) to test treatment technologies.

One attendee noted that if it were possible to show that beneficially reusing sediments was viable and public reluctance could be overcome, a genuine opportunity would exist to apply the technologies and license more of these types of facilities.

ACTION ITEMS

• Stahl agreed to find out if it would be possible to present the Navy White Papers in an interactive poster session at the upcoming SETAC meeting. He will e-mail Action Team members with the results of his inquiry.
  
  
• ERG will e-mail the Navy White Papers to the group once the papers have been posted on the Navy Web site.
  
  
• Stahl said he would obtain a recently published EPA study of differences in data quality between laboratory and field data.
  
  
• Richard Jensen offered to organize a conference call related to vendors' applications at the Anacostia River site for anyone who would be interested.

ATTACHMENT A: Attendee List

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

Holiday Inn—Inner Harbor
Baltimore, Maryland
March 11-13, 2002

RTDF Logistical & Technical Support Provided by:

Attachments B through X

Attachments B through X are available on the Internet. To view these attachments, visit the RTDF home page at http://www.rtdf.org, click on the "Sediments Remediation Action Team" button, then click on the "Team Meetings" button. The attachments will be available as part of the March 2002 meeting summary.