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

3:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
June 17, 2002

On June 17, 2002, 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)
Tim Dekker, Limno-Tech, Inc.
Mike Erickson, Blasland, Bouck, and Lee, Inc.
Dick Jensen, Private Consultant
Victor Magar, Battelle Memorial Institute
Douglas McLaughlin, Blasland, Bouck, and Lee, Inc.
Clay Patmont, Anchor Environmental
Mike Swindoll, ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc.
Brett Thomas, Chevron Texaco
John Wolfe, Limno-Tech, Inc.

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

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The Natural Recovery Subgroup is developing an analytical framework that can be used to assess the long-term efficacy of monitored natural recovery (MNR) at contaminated sediment sites. The analytical framework will be structured around five lines of evidence (LOEs). The Subgroup plans to use the framework to evaluate sites where MNR has been an integral component of remediation management strategies. The Subgroup's ultimate goal is to generate a series of case studies.

MEETING IN COLUMBUS, OHIO

The Subgroup will meet at Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio, on June 25, 2002. The primary objective will be to identify sites that should be selected for case studies. If time allows, John Davis said, meeting participants will start applying the Subgroup's five LOEs to selected sites.

CANDIDATE SITES

Conference call participants spent the majority of the call talking about sites that would be good candidates for case study. Davis reminded participants that MNR does not have to be the sole treatment strategy used in order for a site to be selected for case study. Useful information might be gleaned, he said, by studying the efficacy of MNR when it is used as part of a treatment train. For example, it would be interesting to evaluate MNR's efficacy at sites where it is being relied upon to address dredging residuals. Call participants talked briefly about the criteria they will consider when selecting sites for case studies. They identified the following as important points to consider:

• Which contaminants are present? Call participants agreed that it would be beneficial to study the effect MNR has across a variety of contaminants (e.g., polychlorinated biphenyls, metals, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons).



• How much data already exists? Davis said that sites should have a significant amount of historical data available in order for them to be considered as candidates.



• How much effort will be required to complete the case study? The time and effort associated with each case study, Davis noted, will differ depending on the size and complexity of the site. This should be taken into account when choosing sites.



• Is a Subgroup member intimately familiar with the site? Davis said that it would be helpful to target sites that Subgroup members have worked on. This will make data analysis activities smoother, and will allow the Subgroup to gain insight on the reliability of available data.

Tim Dekker provided information about 12 candidate sites: Torch Lake, Waukegan Harbor, Manistique Harbor, Saginaw River/Bay, Sheboygan, Hudson River, Fox River/Green Bay, New Bedford Harbor, Buffalo River, St. Mary, White Lake, and Morrow Lake. Conference call participants expressed interest in Morrow Lake, Buffalo River, White Lake, and the Fox River/Green Bay site. Dekker said that he used Clay Patmont's matrix to organize site information. The matrix calls for information on chemicals of concern, surface chemistry record, sediment core data, sediment transport analysis, natural recovery models, biological trend measures, biological analysis record, and the regulatory status of MNR initiatives.

ACTION ITEMS

• Dekker will distribute the "site matrix" to Subgroup members. The matrix lists information that should be collected for sites that are proposed for Subgroup case studies. Subgroup members who wish to propose sites should fill out the matrix and bring this information to the Subgroup's June 25 meeting. Magar and Patmont agreed to do this for Lake Hartwell and Commencement Bay. They will also come prepared to discuss the Eagle Harbor site.



• Dekker agreed to prioritize his 12 candidate sites before the Subgroup's June 25 meeting.



• Dekker will start collecting information that relates to the five LOEs for three of his sites. Patmont and Magar will do the same for Commencement Bay and Lake Hartwell, respectively.



• Victor Magar will send Subgroup members directions to Battelle Memorial Institute.



• Subgroup members who will not be able to attend the June 25 meeting expressed interest in participating via conference call. Magar will make arrangements to set up phone lines.



• Davis will contact Dale Matey to find out whether she will attend the Subgroup's June 25 meeting.



• Davis will send Thomas the most recent version of the Subgroup's five LOEs.