Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF)
Sediments Remediation Action Team
Meeting Summary
March 13, 1996
Cincinnati, OH
Welcome and Introductions
Dave Mount (EPA/Duluth ERL), co-chair of the Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF) Sediments Remediation Action Team, welcomed the participants to this kick-off meeting. He indicated that a primary goal of the meeting is to identify the objectives of the Action Team, based on the interests of the participating members. Dave mentioned that the agenda has been designed for flexibility and noted that the group is welcome to explore additional topics as they choose.
Overview of the RTDF
Walt Kovalick (EPA/TIO), co-chair of the RTDF, provided an overview of the RTDF and the mechanisms that facilitate public/private partnerships. The RTDF was established in 1992 by EPA after industry representatives met with the Administrator to identify ways of working together to solve complex hazardous waste remediation problems. He indicated that RTDF meetings are open and that all interested organizations are welcome to participate. RTDF members include chemical, petroleum, and pharmaceutical companies, various manufacturers, federal agencies, national laboratories, research centers and institutes, as well as universities. The RTDF forges public-private partnerships to develop and improve hazardous waste remediation technologies. He noted that participating organizations share knowledge, experience, equipment, facilities, and proprietary technology to address mutual remediation problems. The RTDF establishes action teams that bring members together to work on common remediation problems.
Walt reiterated that the RTDF is a flexible mechanism that allows public and private parties to work together. He noted that EPA's role as a regulator/permitter has been re-examined in recent years as innovative technologies have become viable alternatives to conventional treatment technologies. The RTDF is one of the EPA-initiated forums to facilitate the development of innovative technologies. RTDF participants are usually problem holders, primarily interested in developing cost-effective solutions to contaminant problems. Walt mentioned that several of the RTDF Action Teams have signed a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA), a mechanism provided through the Federal Technology Transfer Act (FTTA) of 1986 that allows public and private parties to work together. The FTTA also enables federal employees to receive limited royalties for processes which they invent, which provides a greater inventive for technology development.
Rich Kimerle (Monsanto), co-chair of the Sediments Remediation Action Team, asked how the other Action Teams formed and what mechanisms they used to facilitate the growth of the Action Team. Michael Heitkamp (Monsanto), RTDF Bioremediation Consortium Steering Committee member, mentioned that the other RTDF Action Teams were most successful when they focused on the development of a particular technology. Dave Ellis (DuPont), RTDF Bioremediation Consortium Steering Committee member, indicated that the Bioremediation Consortium held its kick-off meeting in May 1993. The group met every 3-6 months to discuss a path forward for the Action Team; a formal consortium was created in September 1994 when interested parties signed an research and development agreement. Through subsequent meetings and conference calls, the Consortium completed work plans and initiated field work in February 1995. Walt Kovalick noted that there are several other RTDF Action Teams that have chosen not to create a formal consortium. For example, the Surfactants Action Team is currently a network for information sharing. Walt also mentioned that the RTDF is the only forum that brings together "problem owners" and regulators. Rich Kimerle noted that the current Action Team possesses a significant amount of experience, but encouraged participants to inform individuals not at the meeting of the Action Team's efforts. Phil Palmer (DuPont) suggested that the petroleum industry be contacted, because they may be interested in the efforts of the Action Team. Rich mentioned that Monsanto is active in several of the RTDF Action Teams and expressed hope that the Sediments Remediation Action Team would experience similar success.
General Discussion
Rich Kimerle suggested that the Action Team consider a generic river system and identify the primary remediation and assessment considerations. In-situ sediment remediation technologies are still under investigation. To a far greater extent, conventional treatment techniques (such as dredging) have been used to remove sediments for offsite disposal. Several participants expressed an interest in exploring natural attenuation processes as an alternative to conventional techniques. Rich indicated that Monsanto is interested in exploring the accumulation of contaminants in aquatic organisms; particularly the toxic effects of bioaccummulation and the point at which there is a risk to consumers and/or the ecological population. The risk may be reduced appreciably if organic contamination can be removed from the sediments before they partition to the aqueous phase.
Accurate risk assessment was identified as a priority research area—remediation of sediment contamination is germane only after an accurate assessment of the site has been made. It was also noted that appropriate monitoring efforts need to be implemented so that the success of remediation efforts can be determined. A number of participants expressed an interest in pursuing techniques for risk assessment. Bioavailability was also identified as an important issue and a research need—there is poor understanding of the bioavailability of contaminants in sediments. One participant suggested that the RTDF may be a more appropriate forum for development of remediation technologies rather than risk assessment techniques. It was noted that assessment issues could be incorporated in the development of remediation technologies.
Another participant suggested the development of sampling protocols to determine the extent of contamination. A comprehensive understanding of the fundamental process is needed—such an understanding would enable the evaluation of new technologies. Similarly, it was deemed important to improve our understanding of the natural processes. A better appreciation for the types of problems—how to evaluate the effectiveness of the technology—was also identified as an important consideration. Although in-situ technologies are preferred, it may not be feasible to implement these technologies at all sites. Therefore the group agreed that ex-situ technologies should be investigated as well. One participant suggested that ex-situ remediation technologies are appropriate for sediments; however, it was noted that soil remediation technologies do not necessarily translate to sediment remediation. It was suggested that subgroups be developed for the major areas of interest.
The following Action Team subgroups were identified:
|
In-Situ Technologies Ex-Situ Technologies |
Assessment Phil Palmer (Lead) Martin Bell Norman R. Francingues Rich Jacobs Richard Kimerle Dave Mount Natural Attenuation |
Dave Ellis noted that a full understanding of the chemical, physical, and biological processes will facilitate better decisions regarding the severity of contamination. Toxicity and exposure were identified as primary contributors to the "risk" of a system. It was suggested that the group investigate these two aspects of risk to better understand when contaminants are a concern. A participant noted that it is often difficult to characterize toxicity because the perceived contaminant levels may be skewed by the inappropriate inclusion of other substances, including certain nutrients, in the estimate of contaminant levels. Gene Mancini (ARCO) added that sediment remediation is not yet well understood and Rich Kimerle agreed. In some situations, remediation efforts have increased the exposure and therefore enhanced the risk. The Action Team agreed to target innovative technologies that are unlikely to enhance the risk. Natural attenuation, for example, was identified as a passive remediation technique of interest to the group. Regulatory agencies and industrial companies have placed increased importance on sediments remediation in recent years and Rich believes that this importance will continue to increase in the future.
There are currently a number of research efforts underway, within the United States and abroad. However, there is a lack of coordination among these efforts. Although several participants indicated that they have experience in dredging efforts, few participants were able to share experiences pertaining to in-situ or ex-situ remediation efforts. Dennis Timberlake (EPA) indicated that EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is conducting bench-scale research on soil and sediment contamination. EPA/NRMRL is targeting cost-effective technologies, especially in-situ technologies. The Office of Naval Research is funding efforts to investigate natural degradation. The University of Washington is also investigating PCB degradation in sediments. It was noted that both of these efforts are basic research at this time and that papers are expected to be published in the near future. Norman Francingues (USACE) indicated that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has considerable experience with dredge/disposal efforts, including a number of Superfund projects and Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program demonstrations. He indicated that there is an ASACE paper on dredging that summarizes international experience regarding state-of-the-art sediment remediation technologies. He agreed to provide copies of the article to the Action Team members.
Norman noted that sediment contamination is usually a mixture of contaminants—increases the complexity of the system. Although one contaminant may be predominant, other contaminants are usually present and must be accounted for. Norman also noted that the sediments are usually heterogeneous, which also increases the complexity of the system. In addition, sediments are mobile, such that it is difficult to track sampling points. The USACE has focused their efforts on channels, because contamination tends to accumulate in these regions. Estuaries often pose difficulties because of the variable salinity of the water as fresh water and salt water mix. It was noted that phytoremediation has been used as a "low-technology" treatment for estuaries.
It is often difficult to identify sediment contaminant concentrations to determine if an appreciable problem exists. A methodology for relating contaminant concentrations to a Bright Line or an analogous contamination limit could be developed. This methodology would quickly indicate whether a site requires remediation. It was suggested that natural attenuation could be used as a baseline for evaluation purposes—the technology should compare favorably to the natural attenuation process.
The Action Team identified the following key issues:
Action Team members expressed interest in the following areas of technology:
It was suggested that electron acceptors could be added in-situ to facilitate remediation. Norman Francingues agreed, but noted that addition of electron acceptors can be problematic, and can even worsen the situation unless there is a physical barrier to localize bioremediation. It was suggested that limiting the ecological availability may be a worthwhile endeavor. Dave Gannon (Zeneca) indicated that in-situ techniques are of interest to Zeneca and reinforced the preference of the group (stated earlier) that development of conventional treatment technologies should be a lower priority. Michael Heitkamp suggested that the most promising technologies be identified and then the Action Team members can identify the knowledge and resources they can make available to develop such a technology.
It was noted that laboratory studies are useful to investigate indicators of remediation. Malcolm Watts (Zeneca) cautioned that laboratory toxicology studies typically do not necessarily depict field conditions accurately—fish in the laboratory often have no food alternative to the toxins that they are being fed, but in the natural environment, they may exhibit different feeding patterns. It was suggested to look for indicators of bioremediation or abiotic remediation.
Norman Francingues indicated that in some circumstances water treatment chemicals are used to settle sediments when dredging technologies are employed and that these chemicals appear to increase the toxicity of the sediments in some situations. Dave Mount noted that if the cause of toxicity can be established, it may be possible to isolate it so that the cause may be managed. This is a more effective approach than managing the effects. Dave indicated that EPA/Duluth ERL has performed studies using commercially available additives to reduce the bioavailabilty of organic contamination. Rohm and Haas has developed a material used by EPA/Duluth ERL to affect colonization rates. Dave noted that the chemistry information they have received to date is quite promising. These research efforts are an attempt to enhance reduced viability. Although this research is not focused on the development of a remediation technology, it is intended to decrease risk. Dave indicated that EPA/Duluth ERL is also investigating other means to reduce count and bioavailabilty. Rich Kimerle added that Monsanto has investigated similar processes.
A participant suggested that the available information be centralized to create a useful resource for the Action Team. Norman Francingues indicated that an overview of lessons learned from an industrial perspective would be of interest—both the successes and failures, especially unpublished experiences. Walt Kovalick suggested that EPA could act as a clearinghouse to organize the existing information that the government possesses (Navy, USACE, SITE, etc.). He noted that there are a number of alternatives for information exchange. He mentioned that EPA/TIO operates a bulletin board for cleanup information and noted that a number of World Wide Web (Web) pages exist, such as Monsanto's Web page describing the RTDF Lasagna™ Consortium. Walt also suggested that a Web page could be established for the Sediment Remediation Action Team. It was noted that the Bioremediation Action Committee (BAC) is another avenue for information sharing regarding bioremediation treatment techniques. The BAC is expected to reconvene in April 1996 to further discuss these topics.
Dave Mount suggested that the Action Team focus on in-situ treatment technologies; technologies that would reduce the volume/toxicity of contaminated sediments. Several participants agreed that in-situ technologies—technologies that will work without dredging—should be targeted. Key components of the Action Team's mission statement should be to develop alternatives to dredge and offsite disposal techniques and to investigate in-situ treatment techniques. However, ex-situ, onsite treatment techniques were also identified as important to the Action Team. Assessment procedures to gauge the success or failure of a remediation technology were also considered important. The Sediments Remediation Action Team agreed to focus on naturally occurring sediments, excluding sediments from wastewater treatment facilities.
The Action Team drafted the following mission statement.
To develop new technical alternatives to removal and offsite disposal of sediments contaminated with chemicals that are cost effective and enable restoration of natural biological communities.
The Action Team will focus initially on:
Norman Francingues agreed to organize information on the in-situ treatment of sediments. He asked that participants send him information, especially information that is not in the public domain. Several participants indicated that it would be helpful to consolidate this information into a single reference. Walt Kovalick offered the services of SCG to assist in collecting and organizing this information.
Concluding Remarks
Rich Kimerle thanked the participants for attending and contributing to the kick-off meeting. A number of key steps were taken during the meeting to enable the Action Team to move forward. Rich and Dave encouraged the participants to discuss the proceedings with colleagues who may have an interest in joining the Action Team. Rich suggested that the next meeting be held in early summer 1996. Beverly Campbell (SCG) agreed to circulate May and June 1996 calendars to Action Team members to help select an appropriate meeting date. One participant suggested scheduling the next meeting in conjunction with a sediments technology conference that will be held this summer in Canada. Rich indicated that during the next meeting, the Action Team will hone its mission statement and clarify its direction. Several participants asked for a list of members of the other RTDF Action Teams and Beverly Campbell agreed to include the lists with the meeting summary.
The following action items were identified during the meeting:
RTDF Sediments Remediation Action Team
Meeting Participants
| Dr. Peter Adriaens Assistant Prof. of Environmental Engineering Environmental and Water Resources Engin. Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2125 Tel: (313) 763-1464 Fax: (313) 763-2275 E-mail: lydie@engin.umich.edu Dr. Sabine Apitz Dr. Martin Bell Ms. Beverly Campbell Mr. David Daugherty Mr. John W. Davis Mr. Bob Edstrom Dr. David E. Ellis Mr. Norman R. Francingues, Jr. Dr. David J. Gannon Dr. Michael A. Heitkamp Dr. Charles A. Horton |
Mr. Richard A. Jacobs Manager of Environmental Operations PPG Industries, Inc. One PPG Place Pittsburgh, PA 15272 Tel: (412) 434-2363 Fax: (412) 434-2137 Dr. Richard Kimerle Ms. Victoria Julio Kirtay Dr. Gene Mancini Ms. Karen Miller Dr. David R. Mount Mr. Philip A. Palmer, P.E. Ms. Jacqueline Peden (HWRIC) Mr. Peter Russell Mr. Jeffrey D. Spencer Mr. Dennis L. Timberlake Dr. Malcolm L. Watts |
Additional Interested Parties
| Dr. Bill Berti DuPont CRD Glasgow Business Community Site 301 P.O. Box 6101 Rt. 896 Newark, DE 19714-6101 Tel: (302) 451-9224 Fax: (302) 451-9138 E-mail: bertiwr@esvax.umc.dupont.com Dr. Phillip Dorn Mr. James Evans Mr. Jerry Hall Dr. Richard Jensen Dr. Gary M. Klecka Mr. Alfred W. Lindsey Dr. Jeff Marqusee |
Mr. Jack Mattice Electronic Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Avenue P.O. Box 10412 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Tel: (415) 855-2763 Fax: (415) 855-1069 Mr. Greg McNelly Dr. Kevin Reinert Capt. Warren W. Schultz Dr. Sam Sury Mr. David Thomas Dr. Kimo Zaiger |