SUMMARY OF THE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPMENT
FORUM
SEDIMENTS REMEDIATION ACTION TEAM
ASSESSMENT SUBGROUP
CONFERENCE CALL
November 10, 1998
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
On Tuesday, November 10, 1998, the following members of the Sediments Remediation Action Team, Assessment Subgroup, met in a conference call:
Ralph Stahl, DuPont Corporate Remediation (Subgroup Co-Chair)
Richard Jensen, E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Company, Inc. (DuPont) (RTDF Action
Team Co-Chair)
Julia Fields, Environmental Quality Management, Inc.
Robert Hoke, DuPont Haskell Lab
John George, Alcoa Technical Center
David Hohreiter, BB&L, Inc.
Also present were James Clark of Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc.; Bill Adams of Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation; and Ben Carlisle of Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG).
FINAL DISCUSSION OF MISSION STATEMENT AND OBJECTIVES
Ralph Stahl opened the conference call by allowing Subgroup members one final opportunity to provide comments on the Subgroup's mission and objectives statements, which Stahl had revised and distributed since the last call. John George had a question about the section of the objectives statement that read: "The goal of the Subgroup is to identify and develop a framework . . . ." George asked whether this "framework" would be a decision-making tool. Stahl replied that the framework would be a tool for making assessment decisions, but not decisions about risk management or technologies. He said that the framework would provide guidance for characterizing the sediments at particular sites.
George then pointed out that the objectives statement discusses measuring the effectiveness of sediment remediation technologies but doesn't discuss the need for criteria that define what "effective" is. George asked whether the Assessment Subgroup intends to establish such criteria. Stahl said that this is one of the objectives of the Assessment Subgroup, but that it is also an objective of the Treatment and Capping subgroups within the overall Sediments Remediation Action Team. George then asked whether anyone would object to the idea of revising the objectives statement to include the development of criteria. There was no objection.
Richard Jensen pointed out that the measurement tools discussed in the objectives could also be used for assessing a site prior to remediation to determine what technologies might be used. In fact, Jensen said, the tools could be used at any point in the assessment/remediation process. Stahl said that he would revise the objectives statement based on Jensen's and George's comments. There were no other comments about the mission and objectives statements.
PILOT PROJECT
Stahl described the Subgroup's plan for designing a pilot project. Stahl said that the plan, as discussed during the Subgroup's previous meeting, in Cincinnati, is to design a pilot project that roughly follows the format of a recent demonstration project put together jointly by EPA and the American Industrial Health Council (AIHC). The AIHC/EPA project (the "Risk Assessment Demonstration Project") was designed to address a human health risk issue at a Superfund site, Stahl said, and was meant to provide a forum for open discussion on risk assessment, interpretation of results, and other issues. During its previous discussions, the Assessment Subgroup had agreed that a similar format could be used in developing a pilot project for a sediment site. Thus, the Subgroup had asked AIHC to distribute information on the AIHC/EPA project to everyone in the Subgroup for use in designing a project that would meet the Subgroup's needs.
David Hohreiter said that AIHC had sent information about the AIHC/EPA project to everyone on the Subgroup's mailing list. Several Subgroup members said they had received it; Stahl had not received the information, nor had others whose names weren't on the mailing list. It was agreed that ERG would send an updated version of the mailing list to Hohreiter, who would pass the list on to AIHC.
Hohreiter went on to detail the background of the AIHC/EPA demonstration project. He said that AIHC and EPA had originally conceived of the demonstration project as an outreach tool for bringing their constituencies (e.g., regional risk assessors, state risk assessors) up to speed on some new techniques in the risk assessment arena. The demonstration project had two parts, Hohreiter said. During phase one, AIHC and EPA representatives jointly drafted four white papers representing the state of the art in human health risk assessment techniques. (The papers' topics were data evaluation, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk characterization.) During phase two, AIHC and EPA convened a demonstration project workshop to bring together risk assessment practitioners from industry and federal and state regulatory agencies.
Hohreiter said that the workshop took place during two 2-day sessions, separated by about 6 weeks. The first 2-day session covered new techniques such as benchmark dose methodologies and probabilistic Monte Carlo techniques for exposure assessment. During the second day of that first session, Hohreiter explained, the students were split into three groups for an exercise in risk assessment. Each group was given a hypothetical site, data and information about the site, and a hypothetical pot of money that it used in applying selected risk assessment techniques at the site. Following the exercise, the committee overseeing the demonstration project spent the next 6 weeks producing a theoretical evaluation of the results of the techniques used at each hypothetical site. When the student groups returned for the second 2-day session, they learned the results: how their selected techniques had fared at their particular site, what information was needed, and how the use of these innovative techniques had improved the quality of the assessment.
Hohreiter said that the format developed for the AIHC/EPA demonstration project might or might not work for the Subgroup's own pilot project. As was the case with AIHC/EPA, the Subgroup has a number of different techniques that it might want to feature during a pilot study, Hohreiter said, and a demonstration project like the one described above might be appropriate for investigating techniques.
Stahl said that he saw two potential strategies for proceeding with the Subgroup's pilot project. One option would be for a couple of volunteers from the Subgroup to scope out what the pilot project should look like, using the materials from AIHC as a starting point. The other option would be to devote a significant amount of time during the January meeting to doing this work as a group. Stahl said he thought that the first option would be more efficient.
Hohreiter said that the Subgroup might want to combine the two approaches: First, a small group could create a list of sediment assessment techniques. Then, during the January meeting, the larger group could distill that list down to eight to ten assessment techniques/technologies that would be featured in white papers and/or at a demonstration site.
George pointed out that the pilot project, as described, wouldn't address measurement tools. He asked whether the Subgroup wanted to combine site characterization and evaluation of remedial approaches within a single pilot project. Stahl said that he wasn't sure. George said that it might be possible to separate these issues, but that the Subgroup might end up with a more robust project if the issues were combined. George volunteered to help with this effort. Hohreiter also volunteered.
George also said that much of the information needed to assemble a list of techniques might already exist, and that assembling the list might simply be a matter of pulling the information together. Stahl agreed.
Hohreiter said that the list of techniques need not be specific, but could include very general topics (e.g., sediment toxicity testing). He said that assembling the list need not be an intensive effort. Stahl agreed, though he pointed out that the effort will intensify once the Subgroup reaches the point of developing white papers. After refining the list in January, Stahl said, the Subgroup may want to commission any additional work--either within the Subgroup or through outside support services. Stahl volunteered to work with George and Hohreiter to develop the initial list. Robert Hoke volunteered to help out on a limited basis.
George said that some aspects of the pilot project might fit in well with work currently being done to develop risk assessment guidance for Superfund sites. He suggested that the Subgroup touch base with Ernie Watkins or someone else involved with developing guidance, if only to make EPA aware of the Subgroup's efforts. Jensen pointed out that, because of its connections with EPA, the RTDF does not have complete freedom to work on guidance issues. However, he encouraged the Subgroup to keep channels of communication open with Watkins and others. Stahl volunteered to touch base with Watkins.
PLANS FOR UPCOMING MEETINGS
Jensen said that a final date for the January meeting of the Sediments Remediation Action Team will be chosen within the next two weeks. He explained that ERG is currently processing the results of a ballot that was sent to Action Team members, asking them to identify preferred meeting dates. Once the results of that ballot are known, Jensen said, a final date will be picked. Hohreiter said that he did not receive a copy of the ballot. It was agreed that ERG will forward a ballot to Hohreiter.
Jensen said that the meeting will take place in Washington, D.C., probably at a Naval facility. He added that the meeting will last about a day and a half, and will occur mid-week during one of the 4 weeks in January. Stahl asked how much time will be spent meeting as an Action Team, and how much time will be devoted to meeting in smaller breakout groups. Jensen predicted that the majority of the time will be spent in subgroups, with the entire Action Team meeting for a short time at the beginning, and for a longer period at the end.
Stahl noted that the Sediments Remediation Action Team is also hoping to squeeze in a meeting during Battelle's April 1999 Bioremediation Conference in San Diego, California. Battelle has scheduled a half-day session on sediments for the morning of Thursday, April 22, Stahl said, and the RTDF Action Team is currently hoping to meet as a whole on Wednesday, April 21. Jensen said that individual subgroups may schedule meetings on the evening of Tuesday, April 20, though the details of these plans are still being worked out. RTDF members who wish to attend the Battelle sessions will have to register on their own, Jensen added. He also said that he had spoken with the Navy about the possibility of a base tour in San Diego.
PORE-WATER PROBE
Jensen described an idea that he and others at DuPont have been discussing for some time. The idea, Jensen said, is to develop a probe that would be capable of sampling pore water and measuring metals and organics in pore water in situ. Other technologies (e.g., "peepers") already exist for sampling pore water in the shallow, inhabited layer of sediment, Jensen said. But he and others at DuPont are envisioning a method for measuring concentrations of metals and organics in pore water that is up to 10 feet down in the sediment. The probe would be driven or vibrated into the sediment, Jensen said, and it would have to be robust to protect delicate on-board instrumentation. He said that the probe would carry an electrochemical instrument for measuring metal concentrations in situ, and that it might also carry a membrane for taking in situ pore-water samples for organics.
Jensen said that he has been in touch with a professor at Tufts University in Boston who has developed field techniques for instantaneously measuring metals concentrations in situ. Jensen suggested that the Subgroup might want to talk with this professor, Sam Kounaves, about including his sensors on a pore-water probe. He said that Kounaves has already looked into the idea of mounting his sensors on a geoprobe, so this would not be a new concept for him. Jensen offered the address of Kounaves's Web site (http://electrochem.tufts.edu/), which includes some diagrams of the sensors Kounaves has developed.
Stahl asked how the Subgroup might go about working with Kounaves. Jensen said that he doesn't know what the working relationship would be, though he explained that Kounaves already does some of his research for EPA, through the Northeast Regional Science Center. Jensen will be meeting with Kounaves in a couple of weeks, and he suggested that he could talk to Kounaves about the RTDF and the potential for collaboration. It was agreed that Jensen will speak with Kounaves, then report back to the Subgroup.
FURTHER DISCUSSION OF PILOT PROJECT
Stahl announced that the Subgroup had covered all of the topics on the agenda for the conference call. While some participants hung up, Stahl, Hohreiter, George, Hoke, and Jim Clark agreed to stay on the line to discuss plans for drafting an initial list of technologies and techniques for possible inclusion in the Subgroup's pilot project.
Hohreiter ran through the materials sent by AIHC. He described the white papers that had been written during phase one of the AIHC/EPA demonstration project, emphasizing that the topics were fairly general and that each 2- to 3-page white paper provided only a basic overview of the technique in question. Hohreiter suggested that the topics chosen for the Subgroup's pilot project should be similarly general. He said that, in his opinion, the first step would be to identify roughly 20 hot topics for sediment assessment, which the entire Subgroup could then refine down to eight to ten topics.
George said that the Sediments Management Workgroup, a group in which he participates, is in the process of developing a set of white papers on some principal issues regarding the development of a coherent sediment management strategy. One of these papers, George said, has to do with measuring the success of remedial actions in comparison with remedial action objectives.. He said that he had put together an 8- to 10-page summary of his thoughts on the topic, which he would be willing to share with the Subgroup, pending the agreement of the Sediments Management Workgroup.. Stahl said that this would be helpful.
Stahl asked how the participants wanted to go about compiling the list of hot topics. He suggested that the group might want to examine the AIHC documents, then exchange e-mails to put together the list for presentation during the January meeting. He also suggested that the group might want to prepare a 2- or 3-page write-up on the project, to distribute before the meeting.
Hohreiter said that he saw three steps: First, distribute the AIHC materials to ensure that all Subgroup members feel the AIHC/EPA project format is an appropriate model for the Subgroup's pilot project. Second, develop an annotated "hot topics" list of 10 to 30 techniques/technologies that the Subgroup might want to address as part of the pilot project. And third, refine the list down to roughly 10 topics, based on feedback from the entire Subgroup.
George asked whether the pilot project would present a remediation project that had been completed. Hohreiter said that, once the Subgroup has defined the techniques it wants to address, it might want to go ahead and apply them to a site, then develop an outreach mechanism to demonstrate the uses of the techniques in sediment assessment.
George said that he liked this approach. He suggested that, in preparation for the January meeting, those working on the pilot project might want to assemble a list of objectives and critical questions that the pilot project would help to address. Hoke agreed, saying that this was one of his complaints about the AIHC/EPA project: that it didn't address all of the points it could have addressed. Hohreiter then described the process that AIHC and EPA had gone through to target their demonstration project. According to Hohreiter, the project attempted to address 60 to 70 percent of the hot topics. In general, he said, the project's management committee tried to choose techniques that represented some potential improvement in the risk assessment process, and that interested both industry and EPA scientists. Hohreiter said that some topics were discarded because participants were unwilling to commit time to working on them.
Stahl asked George in what way he'd like to contribute to the work on the pilot project. George said that he would like to contribute information on evaluating appropriate criteria for measuring the success of remedial efforts. He said that risk assessors often spend a great deal of time assessing sites without developing some understanding about how the success of the remedial action will be measured.
Hohreiter said that he feels this is an important area of work. He said that the criteria for sediments are not as well defined as are the criteria for soil and ground water, and that developing criteria for sediments was one of the original goals of the Sediments Remediation Action Team. Stahl agreed.
Stahl said that the Subgroup may eventually be able to locate a site for the pilot project. Clark pointed out that the AIHC demonstration project turned out to be a theoretical site, and he reminded the group that it is possible to have a successful project without having a real site. George suggested that the Subgroup might want to pick more than one site, as the environmental setting can have a profound impact on how a site is assessed.
Stahl close the conference call by suggesting that George and Hohreiter work together to develop a list of topics for the pilot project, with Stahl himself working to collate the list and provide an overview paragraph.
He suggested that the three of them communicate by e-mail and, if necessary, arrange a quick conference call before the winter holidays.
ACTION ITEMS