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

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Building 9, Conference Room A & B
Sand Point, Seattle, Washington
January 24, 2001

WELCOME AND AGENDA REVIEW
Ralph Stahl, DuPont Corporate Remediation

Ralph Stahl, co-chair of the Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF) Sediments Remediation Action Team, Assessment Subgroup, opened the meeting by welcoming participants. (Attachment A lists the meeting attendees.)

Stahl reviewed the group’s accomplishments in 2000. At the group’s January 2000 meeting, attendees had established a number of goals for the group, including undertaking a demonstration project, writing papers and publications, building a network, having workshops, and developing learning tools. Throughout 2000, the Assessment Subgroup made good progress in reaching many of these goals. The group developed and tested an assessment learning tool, wrote 11 technical papers, had an open-house meeting at the Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) meeting in Nashville, and initiated dialogue with the Anacostia Watershed Toxics Alliance (AWTA).

FINALIZING THE SUBGROUP PAPERS
Kelly Madalinski, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Technology Innovation Office

Kelly Madalinski outlined a plan for finalizing the group’s papers. He began by discussing the original purpose of the papers: to address issues that could arise at field demonstration sites, provide a springboard for additional discussion, and produce a tangible work product for the group. He envisioned the papers published as a "booklet". Others in the group suggested that the papers could be distributed in a three-ring binder, on a CD-ROM, or on the Internet.

Madalinski and Dennis Timberlake have reviewed the papers submitted to date; they have determined that seven are almost final, but four need further work or revision.

The four papers that need further work are:

• Monitoring remedial effectiveness (written by Danny Reible)

• Bioavailability of contamination in soil or sediment systems (written by John Davis)

• Determining contamination and sediment fate (written by Danny Reible)

• Assessment of monitored natural recovery of sediments (written by Dick Jensen)

The seven papers that are almost finalized are:

• Evaluation of reference area conditions in sediment assessments (written by Ralph Stahl)

• Characterizing the spatial extent of sediment contamination at impacted sites (written by Joe Jersak)

• Sediment toxicity tests (written by David Moore)

• Ecological assessment tools (written by Ken Finkelstein)

• In situ bioaccumulation tests (written by David Hohreiter)

• The conceptual site model (written by Robert Hoke)

• The use of field screening or rapid sediment characterization (RSC) tools for sediment assessment (written by Victoria Kirtay and Sabine Apitz)

Madalinski said the papers need to follow a standard format if the group wants to publish them all together. As a result, some papers will need more information to follow this format. All of the papers need to clarify their purpose and intended audience. The standard format could be as follows:

• Statement of issues.

• Importance of the technology.

• Specifics on how the technology works.

• Application of the technology.

• Strengths and limitations (e.g., data gaps).

• List of other useful documents and references.

Madalinski also requested that authors shorten the papers to between three and five pages. To shorten the papers and make them follow the standard format, Madalinski suggested using a technical editor.

Mike Swindoll suggested that an introductory chapter be written to tie the papers together. The chapter would cover the purpose, main areas of focus, and intended audience for the papers. Madalinski will work with Swindoll to write this chapter.

If the papers will bear the RTDF logo, they will need to be reviewed by EPA before they are published. The length of the EPA review process will depend on how long the papers are and whether they steer clear of guidance and policy statements (since that would necessitate further EPA review). Madalinski and Timberlake will work to ensure a thorough review of the papers.

The group decided to get the next round of revisions completed for the first seven papers by March 1, 2001. The group decided that the four papers needing further work should be completed on a different schedule.

FRAMEWORK FOR SEDIMENT ASSESSMENT
Mike Swindoll, ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc.

Mike Swindoll opened a discussion on developing a framework for sediment assessment. As a result of the discussion, the group decided to develop a framework for monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of a remediation technology. The following people were interested in contributing to the development of this framework: Steve Ells, Nancy Grosso, Ed Long, Ralph Stahl, Paul Mudroch, Bob Hoke, Ken Finkelstein, and Mike Swindoll.

AREAS OF WORK—PILOT SITES (ANACOSTIA)
Nick DiNardo, EPA Region III

Before Nick DiNardo began, Stahl noted that the Anacostia River might be the best chance the group has had to work on a site. Stahl said that Dick Jensen and others were already putting together a capping proposal to the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation program for work at the Anacostia River. Stahl suggested that the group develop proposals for pilot projects and give them to AWTA, which is a voluntary group of public and private organizations (including EPA and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) that are remediating the Anacostia River. AWTA has mechanisms for funding projects. Proposals should focus on the assessment of remediation technologies. Stahl suggested any assessment work at the pilot site could also tie into Jensen’s capping proposal. Jensen encouraged interested RTDF members to work with each other to combine their proposals, which will limit the number AWTA will have to consider. He also said that AWTA does not have a huge amount of funding available, so proposals will have to offer in-kind services or laboratory work.

DiNardo said the Anacostia sediments are mostly contaminated with polyaromatic hydrocarbons. Although there are no sites along the Anacostia River that are on the Superfund list—i.e., sites for which EPA oversight is required—EPA has worked to remediate the site since 1996 because it was asked by local, state, and federal government agencies to get involved. EPA is handling the site using a watershed approach rather than using a site-by-site basis. There are a number of reasons for doing so: the large number of contaminant sources, political considerations due to the involvement of multiple parties, and continued subsistence fishing by residents despite health advisories.

EPA helped create AWTA to collaborate with other organizations that were already involved in cleaning up the Anacostia River. By doing so, EPA wanted to identify data gaps and avoid duplication of efforts. Many private and public organizations are actively involved in AWTA and contribute money and other resources to the group. These include 23 federal, regional, state, and local government agencies; environmental organizations; and businesses. As a result of this collaboration, EPA has been able to use other groups’ studies to develop a very large database on the site, and has completed a preliminary risk assessment, initiated new studies, and carried out a number of cleanup activities.

RTDF can help AWTA by identifying innovative technologies that could remediate the Anacostia River more quickly, effectively, and cheaply, and by conducting pilot studies of these technologies in the river. Because of its unique nature (especially the very loose regulatory structure under which it operates), AWTA is able to do innovative assessments of technologies for sediment remediation.

AWTA has the opportunity to receive funding from the District of Columbia government as part of a special appropriation by Congress to remediate the river. To receive this funding, AWTA needs to come up with an estimate of the total cost for remediation by August 2001. By helping AWTA identify potential remediation technologies, the RTDF can help the group develop this cost estimate.

The Anacostia River is a good site for RTDF pilot projects due to the large number of studies that have been conducted in the area. These have included 20 studies of surface sediment chemistry (400 stations with more than 400 samples), 9 studies of fish tissue residue (30 stations and almost 300 samples), and some biological assessments (18 stations), including bioassays of three different species and five benthic community analyses. Recently, AWTA funded a sediment transport analysis that provides insight on probable contaminant pathways (see the Sediments Remediation Action Team meeting summary, January 24, 2001, for more details). The database AWTA uses to organize and analyze the studies is sophisticated; it includes queries, reports, and maps, all of which facilitate the identification of data gaps and potential remedial options.

Another benefit of conducting pilot projects at the site is that there has, so far, been strong support from local environmental groups and no negative feedback from the community. Soon AWTA will provide more public outreach by publishing a community newsletter and by meeting with local officials.

Getting work done at the site is made easier by the fact that all of the parties one would need to contact are actively involved with AWTA. In addition, each representative in AWTA is a decision-maker for his or her organization, so actions can happen more quickly.

The group decided to arrange a conference call within the next 2 weeks for individuals interested in developing a proposal to submit to AWTA.

SUPERFUND MAY 2001 SEDIMENT FORUM
Steve Ells, EPA

Steve Ells began his presentation by announcing EPA Superfund’s Sediment Forum, which will be held May 30 to June 1, 2001, in Alexandria, Virginia. The forum is open to all interested parties. (See the EPA Superfund Web site at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/new/events.htm for hotel and registration information.) Ells listed the four main goals of the forum:

• Allow all stakeholders to express their opinions on the adequacy of current guidance and policies.

• Receive input from technical experts on what they believe the minimum data set needs to be to provide for proper decision-making on what remedial option to choose.

• Determine what EPA does not know about, including data gaps and the types of research needed to fill them.

• Share information and lessons learned on what has and has not worked for all aspects of sediment assessment and remediation.

Stakeholder input from the forum will be used to revise the current draft Superfund Contaminated Sediment Remedial Guidance. The guidance should be finalized by early 2002.

After reviewing the forum agenda and format with the group, Ells requested feedback on improvements to the agenda, including ideas for whom to invite to speak. The group discussed the idea of submitting an abstract on the RTDF activities. Abstracts are due February 28.

SCHEDULED ACTIVITIES FOR 2001
Ralph Stahl, DuPont Corporate Remediation

Stahl suggested that the group try a new outreach approach at the SETAC meeting this November in Baltimore, Maryland: an interactive poster session. The session would include 8 to 10 posters on a variety of topics, such as the results of the EPA sediments forum, RTDF’s interaction with AWTA, framework for assessment, or topics from the papers. SETAC meeting participants would ask questions of poster presenters after hearing a five-minute overview of the project, and all presenters would participate in a panel discussion. Magar said the poster session could draw a larger crowd than an open-house meeting. Stahl volunteered to complete the paperwork to make the event happen.

The group decided to meet again September 11 and 12, 2001, in Los Angeles, California. Conference calls will be scheduled bimonthly.

ACTION ITEMS

• Call participants agreed to continue working on the Subgroup’s papers. The following was agreed upon:

• The Assessment Subgroup will hold a conference call to generate and consolidate ideas about what can be done to assess the Anacostia River. Stahl will work with ERG to arrange the call. To prepare for the call, participants should read the capping proposal written by Sabine Apitz, Dennis Timberlake, and Dick Jensen.

• Stahl will complete the necessary paper work to initiate a SETAC interactive poster session. He will also send an e-mail to solicit suggestions for topics.

RTDF Sediment Remediation
Action Team Meeting
Assessment Subgroup Meeting

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Building 9, Conference Room A & B
Sand Point, Seattle, Washington
January 24–25, 2001

Final Attendee List