SUMMARY OF THE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPMENT FORUM
SEDIMENTS REMEDIATION ACTION TEAM
NATURAL RECOVERY SUBGROUP CONFERENCE CALL

March 6, 2001
1:30 p.m–3:00 p.m.

On March 6, 2001, the following members of the Remediation Technologies Development Forum’s (RTDF’s) Sediments Remediation Action Team, Natural Recovery Subgroup, met in a conference call:

John Davis, The Dow Chemical Company (Subgroup co-chair)
Richard Jensen, DuPont Corporate Remediation
Victor Magar, Battelle Memorial Institute
Paul Mudroch, Environment Canada

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

OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES AT THE ANACOSTIA RIVER

John Davis said that the Subgroup had scheduled the conference call to talk about natural recovery projects at the Anacostia River site. Before delving into this topic, he asked Richard Jensen to provide an overview of the river’s history.

Jensen said that the Anacostia River, which flows from Washington D.C. and empties into the Potomac River, has been contaminated by industrial, utility, and municipal operations. Several entities have been identified as potential polluters, and a coalition has formed to address contamination in the river. This coalition, called the Anacostia Watershed Toxics Alliance (AWTA), is represented by the Navy, the City of Washington D.C., Washington Gas, the State of Maryland, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and several municipal entities. Under AWTA’s initiative, Jensen said, a significant amount of data have been collected. Most of the data are available via CD-ROM. In addition, GeoSea Consulting recently released a report on sediment transport activities.

Jensen said that the river is contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and metals. While many of the contamination sources have been shut down, some sources are still active in the lower portion of the river. In that area, combined sewer overflows (CSOs) dump raw sewage into the river at times when stormwater flow overwhelms holding capacity at treatment facilities. Jensen said that he would find out whether maps exist that depict the CSO locations.

Even though much information has already been collected from the river, Jensen said, there is still not enough to determine how to segment the river and identify remediation approaches. He said that AWTA has expressed strong interest in having the RTDF provide input on remedial alternatives and perform pilot demonstration studies. Thus, a relationship is being forged between the groups. Jensen has been attending AWTA meetings for the last several months, and the Sediments Remediation Action Team has already prepared a capping proposal for the Anacostia River. Judging from his understanding of AWTA’s objectives, Jensen thought that AWTA would be interested in a natural recovery study. Conference call participants spent the remainder of the call discussing this possibility.

PERFORMING A NATURAL RECOVERY PROJECT AT THE ANACOSTIA RIVER

Call participants expressed great enthusiasm about pursuing a natural recovery project at the Anacostia River. They agreed that the following steps should be taken as a beginning:

• Step #1: Determine where natural recovery is viable. In order for natural recovery to be successful, Paul Mudroch and Victor Magar noted, sediment transport conditions must be depositional and ongoing sources must be absent. Thus, they said, two steps must be taken to determine whether portions of the Anacostia River are suitable for natural recovery studies: (1) analyze GeoSea Consulting’s sediment transport report, and (2) determine where CSOs and other point sources are located. The Subgroup, said Magar, may conclude that no suitable natural recovery sites exist in the river at this time. If this is the case, he continued, the Subgroup could inform AWTA that point sources must be brought under control before natural recovery can succeed as a remedial approach. The Subgroup could then supply technical information explaining the actions necessary to make natural recovery a viable alternative. On the other hand, Magar said, after analyzing depositional rates and point sources, the Subgroup may conclude that locations do exist where natural recovery is possible. If this is the case, the Subgroup will move on to Step #2.
  
  
• Step #2: Analyze available data. Once potential natural recovery sites are identified, call participants agreed, available data should be evaluated to determine whether there is any evidence that recovery is actually occurring. Call participants described this part of the process as a “paper exercise.”
  
  
• Step #3: Perform detailed field evaluation. Call participants agreed that the only way to determine the efficacy of natural recovery is to perform detailed field evaluations.

Jensen thought that AWTA would be quite excited about the proposal outlined above. He advised having Magar attend one of AWTA’s meetings to present information about: (1) natural recovery projects at two EPA sites and (2) opportunities for natural recovery in the Anacostia River. Magar was amenable to the idea. Call participants agreed that Magar should deliver the presentation in late May or early June 2001. This will allow the Subgroup enough time to obtain the reports and maps they need to assess the river.

Jensen asked call participants to think about the following: will the Subgroup recommend testing new technologies or assessment approaches for natural recovery? Davis said that it might be interesting to test new methodologies for assessing bioavailability. Magar said that GeoSea Consulting’s approach to sediment transport evaluation might also be interesting to test at a natural recovery site. Davis said that Mike Erickson, of Limno-Tech, Inc., might have useful suggestions. In fact, he said, Erickson is considering writing a paper on the kinds of data that are needed to assess natural recovery.

ACTION ITEMS

• Davis and Jensen agreed to collect information on the river and to distribute the information to Subgroup members.

—         Davis agreed to ask Patrick McLaren for a copy of GeoSea Consulting’s report on the Anacostia River. He will also contact Michael Buchman to ask for the CD-ROM that summarizes the river’s data.

—         Jensen will ask AWTA representatives for a copy of GeoSea Consulting’s report and for a map depicting point sources.

•  Davis agreed to send ERG contact information for all of the Natural Recovery Subgroup members. ERG will distribute this information to all Subgroup members.
  
  
•   Davis agreed to set up another conference call once Subgroup members have had a chance to review information about the Anacostia River.            
  
  
•   Jensen said that he would be attending an AWTA meeting on March 7, 2001. He agreed to send an e-mail to Subgroup members reporting what he learns during the meeting.