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

Crowne Plaza Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH
September 16­17, 1998

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

About 40 participants attended the Sediments Remediation Action Team meeting in Cincinnati on September 16 and 17, 1998. This was the group's first meeting since 1996. Action Team Co-chairs Dennis Timberlake (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]) and Richard Jensen (E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Company, Inc. [DuPont]) said that interest in sediments has risen dramatically since 1996 and that industry is placing more resources into sediment remediation efforts. These factors have provided an impetus and opportunity for re-energizing the Action Team's efforts.

Timberlake and Jensen indicated that the goals for this meeting were to:

• Re-define the Action Team's objectives based on the interests of the participating members.
• Encourage active participation by new members.
• Coordinate with other related organizations.
• Launch self-empowered subgroups to formulate and carry out independent sediment remediation strategies.

The meeting featured briefings on ongoing sediment remediation programs by a variety of interests, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Navy, EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory, EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office, and EPA's Hazardous Substance Research Center/South and Southwest (a consortium involving Louisiana State University, Rice University, and Georgia Technical Institute). In addition, program speakers provided participants with an overview of the industry-sponsored Sediment Management Work Group and EPA's Contaminated Aquatic Sediment Remedial Guidance Work Group (CASRGW).

Industry Work Group

The Sediment Management Work Group was formed earlier this year, primarily by representatives of the regulated community with responsibility for remediation of contaminated sediment sites. Participants in the group represent the aerospace, automotive, chemical, paper, petroleum refining, and utilities industries, as well as major industry associations. The group addresses a wide range of contaminants and sediment issues and indicated its interest in coordinating efforts with the Action Team, particularly in the areas of technology transfer and information exchange related to sediments.

Multi-agency Work Group

EPA's CASRGW is a multi-agency work group that currently includes representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and EPA's Office of Water, Office of General Council, Office of Research and Development, and Technology Innovation Office. The group is interested in developing a unified strategy for EPA to use in addressing sites with contaminated aquatic sediments. Because considerable guidance is currently available on sediment remediation, part of CASRGW's goal is to collect, assemble, and integrate existing guidance information developed throughout the English-speaking world.

Subgroups

During its 1996 meetings, the Action Team had formed three subgroups: (1) Assessment, (2) Capping, and (3) Treatment (In Situ/Containment Disposal Facilities). Two of these Subgroups—Assessment and Treatment—met in a breakout session at the 1998 meeting to identify objectives and to develop a work plan for the future. (The Capping Subgroup did not meet because its co-chairs were not able to attend. For the 1998 meeting, therefore, members of the Capping Subgroup temporarily combined efforts with the Treatment Subgroup.)

The Assessment Subgroup, led by Ralph Stahl (DuPont), reported that it has two major roles: (1) to support the Treatment Subgroup, and (2) to "push the envelope" on new techniques and applications. The Subgroup will address both human and ecological issues as they pertain to chemical processes, exposure risk, natural recovery, and system processes. Subgroup members plan to conduct a pilot demonstration and are looking at a range of potential sites. A government co-chair for the Subgroup is being sought.

The Treatment Subgroup, led by Karen Miller (U.S. Navy), reported that it is seeking an industry co-chair. The Subgroup identified the Philadelphia and Charleston Navy Yards as possible investigation sites for natural recovery and natural attenuation. Although the Subgroup did not identify specific locations for testing other remediation methods, members indicated that the ideal would be a well-characterized site at a federal facility that has regulatory and regulated community involvement, a flexible time frame, ongoing initiatives, and high potential for transferability and applicability of data.

Future Activities

Meeting participants made tentative plans for a number of subgroup conference calls and Action Team activities, including an East Coast meeting in January 1999 and a meeting in April 1999 in conjunction with a symposium in San Diego, sponsored by Battelle Memorial Institute ("In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation: The Fifth International Symposium") .

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1998

INTRODUCTION AND WELCOME
Dennis Timberlake, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Richard Jensen, E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Company, Inc. (DuPont)

The co-chairs of the Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF) Sediments Remediation Action Team, Dennis Timberlake and Richard Jensen, jointly welcomed approximately 40 participants (see Appendix A) to the fourth Sediments Remediation Action Team meeting. Timberlake gave a brief overview of the two-day schedule, as outlined in the agenda (see Appendix B).

Timberlake said that the Sediments Remediation Action Team should first review what different organizations are doing in terms of sediment remediation, then address what their primary interests are and start listening for common themes among the various groups. Timberlake indicated that a primary goal of the meeting is to identify Sediments Remediation Action Team objectives based on the interests of participating members. Participants should also consider the Action Team's system of subdivisions. According to the meeting agenda, on the first day of the meeting, the Action Team would receive a brief overview of each Subgroup created in 1996. On day two, the Subgroups would meet in separate breakout sessions. Timberlake emphasized that these Subgroups were not created according to any firmly established plan, so the Sediments Remediation Action Team can decide to add or disband subgroups as is needed to best address participant interests and concerns.

Sediment risk management is a major issue under consideration by EPA and numerous industry groups. Timberlake stated that he would like to see EPA and industry agree on some specific research questions that need to be answered regarding risk management. Hopefully, the regulating and regulated communities will agree to work together, pool resources and energy, and jointly find answers to these questions.

RTDF Background and Other Sediment Focus Groups

RTDF OVERVIEW
Kelly Madalinski, Technology Innovation Office (TIO), Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA

Kelly Madalinski provided an overview of the RTDF. He began by saying that EPA's TIO and Office of Research and Development (ORD) are co-conveners of the RTDF. The entire RTDF program is currently co-chaired by Walt Kovalick (EPA) and Bob Olexsey (EPA). Madalinski then discussed the RTDF's background, Action Teams, available technical support, and benefits.

The RTDF was established in 1992 by EPA after industry representatives met with the Administrator to identify opportunities and ways of working together to solve complex hazardous waste remediation problems. Following that meeting, a group formed to find safer, more effective, and less costly characterization technologies and treatment. The RTDF's mandate is to identify what government and industry can do together to develop and improve the environmental technologies needed to address their mutual cleanup problems in the safest, most cost-effective manner. The RTDF fosters public and private sector partnerships to undertake the research, development, demonstration, and evaluation efforts needed to achieve common cleanup goals. It unites industry, government, and academia to work on common problems that have solutions outside the boundaries of what any one organization can independently accomplish. One collaborative focus of the group has been to conduct applied research projects in the field.

RTDF Action Teams have been formed when EPA, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), and industry joined forces to come together with common goals, research interests, and technology needs. The Sediments Remediation Action Team, established in March 1996, is one of seven ⁽¹⁾ established RTDF Action Teams. Each of these consortiums addresses a specific hazardous waste problem and brings members together to work on common remediation problems. Two co-chairs, one from EPA and one representing stakeholders, lead each Action Team. These consortiums range from informational exchanges to formal partnerships.

Madalinski than discussed some of the work being done by the six other RTDF Action Teams and the various structures of these groups. He began with the Bioremediation Consortium, the "most advanced" of all Action Teams, which has subdivided itself into three groups: (1) Natural Attenuation, (2) Accelerated Biodegradation, and (3) Cometabolic Bioventing. The Lasagna™ Partnership investigates contaminants in low-permeable soils (e.g., clays) and has patented its remediation technology. The In-Place Inactivation and Natural Ecological Restoration Technologies (IINERT) Soil-Metals Action Team investigates the bioavailability and solubility of contaminants in soil. The Permeable Reactive Barriers Action Team examines treatment walls. The In Situ Flushing Action Team addresses co-solvents and surfactants for ground-water source terms. The Phytoremediation of Organics Action Team researches plants and contaminants, with specific focuses on chlorinated solvents in ground water and petroleum hydrocarbons in soil.

Not only do the topics and agendas of each RTDF Action Team differ, but there is no set pattern or model for the structural organization of each consortium. Even though each RTDF Action Team is co-chaired by government and industry leaders, each group has different purposes and each group independently chooses how to address their goals. Some RTDF Action Teams have divided into subgroups and elected sub-co-chairs in order to better distribute the work load among members. Madalinski pointed out that RTDF Action Teams only go as far as the willingness of their participants to contribute to and participate in the consortium.

Madalinski said that based on the developments and interests of the Sediments Remediation Action Team articulated at the 1996 meetings, the group may want to organize its structure to resemble that of the Phytoremediation of Organics Action Team. Madalinski briefly highlighted the strategy of the Phytoremediation of Organics Action Team. It was formulated in 1997 and (like the Sediments Remediation Action Team) divided itself into three Subgroups: (1) Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) in Soil, (2) Trichloroethylene (TCE) in Ground Water, and (3) Alternative Covers. Each of these Subgroups has two co-chairs, one from industry and one from EPA. Each Subgroup has successfully functioned independently with their own conference calls, meetings, and projects. The TPH in Soil Subgroup is currently signing Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) to perform a three-year study on remediating hydrocarbons in soil with different types of plants. The Alternative Covers Subgroup is looking into establishing a nationwide monitoring program to evaluate test facilities of alternative covers (both water-balance and vegetative covers to treat and prevent waste infiltration). The Phytoremediation of Organics Action Team demonstrates the RTDF's strong ability to field-test innovative technologies. Most RTDF field projects have been conducted at federal facilities because of liability issues, but industries are conducting projects for the TPH in Soil Subgroup at their own sites. Madalinski reiterated there is no set pattern or model for the structure of the RTDF Action Teams and that this flexibility is often advantageous for the consortiums.

Support for the RTDF comes from a variety of industry and government sources. Industry supplies much of the in-kind resources for each RTDF Action Team, while EPA's TIO and ORD provide support through government research and contracts for meetings, conference calls, and outreach efforts. Outreach efforts, including Internet Web sites, fact sheets, RTDF updates, and general brochures, inform people about RTDF activities and aims, thereby increasing public awareness. Increased awareness has led to more industry and academic interest in contributing to and/or joining the RTDF.

Highlighting benefits of the RTDF, Madalinski pointed out that the Action Teams are an effective way to share and exchange information. The RTDF's ability to leverage funding and in-kind services from each group is also a major strength because it creates an extensive public/private infrastructure that enables the group to move forward rather quickly. Additionally, the diversity of associated industry, government, and academic groups gives high visibility to environmental technologies and remediation efforts. Another primary advantage of the RTDF is that it facilitates the early regulatory acceptance of innovative technologies because industries and regulators are both in the process of developing and testing innovative technologies. This enables other sites to apply these technologies, thereby turning the entire remediation process into a quicker, less-costly cleanup strategy.

HISTORY OF THE SEDIMENTS REMEDIATION ACTION TEAM
Richard Jensen, DuPont

Jensen briefly discussed previous actions and efforts of the Sediments Remediation Action Team. Three previous meetings were held in 1996. The first meeting, attended by approximately 25 individuals, took place in Cincinnati, OH, (March 13) in conjunction with the overall RTDF meeting. During this meeting, the Action Team created its mission and formed three Subgroups: (1) In Situ Technologies, (2) Ex Situ Technologies and Assessment, and (3) Natural Attenuation. The second meeting, held in Wilmington, DE, (July 31), had approximately 30 participants and involved overview talks about the activities and interests of EPA, the Navy, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DuPont, General Electric, Monsanto, Chevron, Ciba-Geigy, BBL, Exxon, Dow, and other industries. The third meeting, held in Vicksburg, MS, was smaller than the previous ones, but provided a tour of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Waterways Experiment Station. During the Vicksburg meeting, the Action Team had three Subgroup breakouts: (1) Assessment, (2) Capping, and (3) Treatment—In Situ Treatment/Confined Disposal Facilities (CDFs). More information on these subgroup breakout sessions is provided in the "Introduction of Subgroups" section and Appendix C of this report. Detailed minutes for all three Action Team meetings are available on the RTDF Internet Web site (http://www.rtdf.org).

Even though the Sediments Remediation Action Team has not met since 1996, interest and focus on sediments appear to have risen dramatically. DuPont and other industries have been placing more resources into sediment remediation efforts and a number of agency sediment projects are currently maturing, including EPA's Contaminated Sediments Management Strategy (CSMS) report to Congress. Additionally, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) conducted a study (Contaminated Sediments in Ports and Waterways) and held a conference on sediments this year. Jensen expressed his optimism that this increased interest in sediment remediation can generate and sustain participation within the Action Team so that the group remains active.

Jensen outlined Action Team goals for the meeting:

• Reconvene and re-energize.
• Gain active new members.
• Touch base with other organizations and bring organizations together.
• Set the Action Team's focus and help it to find its place.
• Launch self-empowered Subgroup programs to formulate and carry out independent sediment remediation strategies.
• Agree to meet again soon (hopefully in the next few months).

Jensen said he thought the Action Team had already accomplished its first three goals because of the group's large and diverse attendance at the meeting.

INDUSTRY SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT WORK GROUP
John Smith, Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa)

John Smith provided background information about the Sediment Management Work Group (SMWG). SMWG formed about 6 to 8 months ago due to individuals' shared interests in sediment remediation. Smith hopes that SMWG can contribute to and benefit from RTDF efforts, particularly in terms of technology transfer and information related to sediments. Many SMWG members were in attendance at the RTDF meeting.

The SMWG mission is to advance risk-based, scientifically sound approaches for evaluation of sediment management decisions. SMWG hopes to ensure that when sediments are dealt with and/or remediation dollars are spent, that these efforts are effective. ⁽²⁾ Its objectives are to collect, develop, analyze, and share data and information on the effectiveness of sediment management technologies and approaches.

SMWG is a very diverse group representing a variety of interests. It is primarily composed of the regulated community with responsibility for contaminated sediment management sites (private industry, industry associations, and potentially responsible government entities) and associate members engaged in sediment research. More specifically, SMWG involves industries including aerospace, automotive, chemical, diversified industries, ferrous/non-ferrous metals, paper, petroleum refining, utilities, and industry organizations (e.g., American Petroleum Institute, Gas Research Institute, and the National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.). This diversity enables SMWG to address a wide range of contaminants (including chlorinated hydrocarbons, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, organometallic pesticides/herbicides, and others), as well as a wide range of sediment issues (including those related to streams and rivers, lakes, harbors, intercoastal waterways, ports, bays, estuaries, and lagoons).

Smith paralleled the current attitude toward sediment remediation with the attitude toward underground storage tanks (USTs) about 10 years ago (i.e., dig up everything). As more research went into UST remediation, people realized that it is not necessary to dig up all USTs. Pump-and-treat systems then became the choice for UST remediation, but that method was not entirely effective because it could not remove non-aqueous phase liquids. Then, researchers began exploring in situ processes, so that now (after a 10-year process) USTs are being remediated with intrinsic bioremediation and decision-makers have a range of various site-specific options available.

Smith said that sediment remediation alternatives are beginning to evolve. Review of existing data on sediment remediation suggest that there are key gaps in the knowledge base (just as there were with USTs). Ultimately, however, sediment remediation research should focus on creating a range of remedial options that can be evaluated on a site-by-site basis. Right now, SMWG is finding that the presumptive remedy is mass removal. Smith emphasized that researchers need to determine where and when removal remedies are appropriate and where and when other remedy types are preferable. SMWG's role in this process is to ensure that this research is done with sound science so that alternative sediment remediation technologies are protective (short- and long-term) of human and ecological health.

To successfully create an objective scientific foundation, SMWG believes that sediment remediation efforts must be part of a coordinated effort by agencies, industries, and other interested parties. Significant issues identified thus far by SMWG include:

• Adequacy of data on the effectiveness of active technologies, passive approaches, and natural restoration
• Understanding of contaminant fate/risk assessment as a basis for management strategies
• Understanding of the effects of unique environmental settings
• Transferability of technology, information, and lessons learned within the regulated community
• Sharing of knowledge with regulators and general public
• Opportunities to debate/provide input to national policy
• Significance of ecological risk as a driver for action
• Impact of natural resource damage considerations on management strategies
• Management options for removed sediment
• Understanding of limitations of current removal/containment technologies
• Understanding of the role of ongoing contaminant sources
• Awareness of other groups' activities in sediment management strategy development

Some initiatives already underway with SMWG include monitoring the effectiveness of the Manistique Harbor Remediation, in terms of reducing contaminant levels in fish and in the water column. SMWG is also involved in a complete assembly and quality assurance review of a comprehensive contaminated sediments site data base (i.e., consolidating into one information base what has been done with contaminated sediments in the United States, Canada, and other areas). In conjunction with Danny Reible and Louis Thibodeaux of Louisiana State University (LSU), SMWG is involved in a dredging effectiveness study. The LSU study addresses dredging effectiveness and where and when dredging makes sense (or does not make sense) depending on site-specific characteristics. Lastly, the SMWG plans to provide appropriate input to the upcoming NAS study on Contaminated Sediments in Ports and Waterways. All these initiatives will be completed by 1999.

SMWG has also identified several secondary initiatives that will hopefully be addressed in 1999. SMWG intends to publish a position paper on the role of risk assessment in contaminated sediment remediation strategies. Additionally, SMWG hopes to enhance assessment and sampling techniques and to develop effective communications mechanisms. Developing a sediment remediation technology matrix, decision tree, and/or flowchart is also a goal for SMWG. Such tools will improve decision makers' ability to select remedial approaches based on site-specific conditions. SMWG also recognizes that further work is needed to develop assessment tools for measuring the success of sediment remediation efforts.

Another important objective for SMWG is to develop implementation guidance to support EPA's April 1998 CSMS document. This guidance needs to be based on sound science and technology. Several industry-specific initiatives are already underway. Hopefully, the results of these new technologies can be rapidly integrated into guidance (or at least considered by EPA) in the future.

Smith summarized some main points by outlining that the SMWG is:

• Dedicated to the development of objective, scientifically sound arguments to support cost-effective and environmentally protective sediment management strategies
• A means of technology transfer and sharing of information and experience in development of effective sediment management strategies
• Unified through its respective responsibilities for management of contaminated sediment sites
• Acutely aware of the current window of opportunity to effect positive change in contaminated sediment management policy

A participant asked Smith how the SMWG has addressed making sediment remediation technology and information available in a timely fashion while remaining sensitive to industry needs. Smith responded that this topic will be addressed at the upcoming SMWG meeting, planned for Friday, September 18, 1998. Smith concluded his presentation by asking that if people have suggestions or ideas, or are otherwise interested in SMWG, they should contact him, Richard Jensen, or Steve Nadeau (the SMWG coordinator).

EPA'S CONTAMINATED AQUATIC SEDIMENT REMEDIAL GUIDANCE WORK GROUP (CASRGW)
Ernie Watkins, EPA

Ernie Watkins began his discussion by noting that contaminated aquatic sediments are often the unintended consequences of our nation's industrial economy and our present standard of living. EPA's CSMS document estimates that 10% of the nation's lakes, rivers, bays, and harbors have contaminated sediment that kill fish, harm fish-eating animals, and/or adversely impact human health. If remedial sediment activities are not effective in the long term, the effects from toxic sediment contaminants will last for generations.

Historically, we have located many of our industrial sites along bodies of water and aquatic waterways. This was primarily because industry proximity to water bodies facilitated the transport of raw materials and final products. In addition, water was often necessary for product make-up, and industry wanted to easily dispose of industrial wastes. Consequently, a significant number of contaminated sites nationwide are located adjacent to water bodies. In 1992, the Superfund Program estimated that approximately 51% of National Priorities List (NPL) Superfund sites are adjacent to bodies of water. Of the approximately 5,000 U.S. Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, about half of the sites are adjacent to water bodies. EPA Superfund is currently trying to identify the number of NPL sites contaminated with aquatic sediment in the Superfund program. EPA's concern is that both the Superfund sites and the RCRA sites will create a number of aquatic sediment clean-up sites in the future. These sites may currently be causing long-term impacts on human health and the environment.

Sediments have become impacted over the years by permitted facility discharges, "sloppy house-keeping," pipeline breaks, equipment failures, non-point source runoff, ground-water impacts, and out the back-door discharges. The cumulative effects of this pollution have created the problem we have today of contaminated aquatic sediments.

At the moment, Superfund has no aquatic sediment remediation guidance for its project managers at remedial sites. Superfund addresses each site on an individual basis and decisions are based on best professional judgement. This approach has led to ad hoc decision-making in each EPA regional office, leading to national inconsistencies in the Agency's aquatic sediment remediation approaches.

CASRGW would like to develop a unified strategy for EPA to use in addressing contaminated aquatic sediment sites in the future. As the NAS study (Contaminated Sediments in Ports and Waterways) showed, regulators must consider a myriad of environmental laws when considering aquatic sediment sites. Superfund's first threshold criterion is the protection of human health and the environment. Another threshold criterion for Superfund site decisions is whether the remedial action under consideration is applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). Cost-effectiveness is another of the regulator's nine decision-making criteria, but it is not clear how EPA addresses cost-effectiveness when applied to sediment sites as an agency. Long-term effectiveness and short-term effectiveness are two more of the Superfund Program's nine criteria for choosing remedies. There are many long-term versus short-term trade-offs, but there is presently no Agency-wide process to balance these tradeoffs. CASRGW hopes to answer these questions by creating an Agency-wide strategy.

CASRGW is a multi-agency workgroup, currently containing representatives of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and several EPA offices (including the Office of Water, Office of General Counsel, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Regions, ORD and TIO). Its first workgroup meeting took place in June 1998. The work group is currently scheduled to hold its next meeting on December 8­9, 1998. CASRGW's emphasis is on persistent bioaccumulating chemicals and their impacts on human health and the environment. Because biological uptake from the food chain is their primary exposure pathway of concern, CASRGW will address impacts on humans and animal predators.

Realistically, all contaminated aquatic sediments cannot be extracted from rivers, harbors, streams, and other bodies of water. CASRGW must, therefore, discover ways to combine remedies to ensure effective cleanups without 99.9% sediment removal. Because considerable guidance is currently available on sediment remediation, part of CASRGW's goal is to collect, assemble, and integrate existing guidance information developed throughout the English-speaking world. Much of this information will come from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Great Lakes National Programs Office, and Environment Canada. The ultimate goal of CASRGW is to create a useable guidance document for EPA project managers to help them restore the beneficial uses of surface water.

CASRGW is looking at how to best balance risk and remediation issues so that regulators have an acceptable endpoint for remedial activities. Ideally, this endpoint will help regulators decide whether to use in situ stabilization, active removal, bio-transformation technologies, or combined remedies. CASRGW's role is to develop the criteria by which regulators reach this endpoint.

Each EPA project manager at a site must deal with balancing the following criteria to reach a decision:

• Dredging: How should regulators address resuspension impacts, exposed hot sediments at the bottom of the streams, over-dredging, potentially increased contaminant bioavailability, and the placement of dredged materials?
• In situ stabilization and control technologies: How should regulators address in situ sediment stabilization remedy's cost advantages over removal technologies?
• Cost-effectiveness: How much money should regulators spend for the effectiveness levels achieved? How should regulators deal with cost projections that are sometimes deliberately skewed and hard to evaluate?
• Implementability: How reasonable is it to implement different remediation technologies?
• Intangible costs: Should regulators address natural resource damages as part of the cost effectiveness calculation?
• Catastrophic failure assumptions: How should regulators decide what assumptions are reasonable in their modeling and design of site remedial projects? For example, should they use a 50-year storm event, a 100-year storm event, or a 500-year storm event?
• Landfill soil versus aquatic sediment containment comparisons: How should regulators compare upland landfill disposal to in situ underwater stabilization and capping?

The goal of CASRGW is to answer these questions and complete their recommendations for remedial project managers within two years' time.

Someone asked if the CASRGW document will be available for public comment. Watkins responded by saying that the group has not yet discussed this issue. The CASRGW document is primarily intended as in-house guidance for EPA managers across the country and although a public comment period is not required, Watkins was confident that the document would be released for public comment. The questioner emphasized that involving the public and community in the CASRGW process should be a priority, preferably to begin before the document's completion and review period.

SESSION SUMMARY
Dennis Timberlake, EPA

Timberlake pointed out that the large amount of overlap between the interests and goals of the regulated community (Smith's talk) and the regulating community (Watkins's talk) involving sediment remediation issues reinforces the need for this group. The presentations helped demonstrate that the RTDF is where collaboration happens, since many Action Team participants identified similar and overlapping problems, questions, interests, and research areas.

R&D UPDATES AND ACTIVITIES

UPDATE FROM THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Tommy Myers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Tommy Myers discussed the Dredging Operations and Environmental Research Program (DOER) at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Waterways Experiment Station. He began with a brief overview, emphasizing that the Corps mission is to maintain waterways, not to clean up the environment. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers often assists in sediment cleanup efforts, but it does not receive Congressional funds for these tasks. They receive funding to maintain Federal navigation channels. This maintenance requires dredging, which often involves contaminated sediments. Currently, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dredges about 300,000,000 cubic meters per year. Approximately 5 to 10% (by volume) of this dredged material is unsuitable for unrestricted, open water disposal. The vast majority of dredged material (mostly uncontaminated sand) can be reused for beneficial purposes or can be disposed of in the oceans.

More details about DOER are available in its brochure and on its Internet Web site (http://www.wes.army.mil/el/dots). Information about DOER can also be obtained by contacting the project managers, Dr. Robert M. Engler (englerr@mail.wes.army.mil) and Mr.. E. Clark McNair (mcnairc@mail.wes.army.mil). Briefly, however, DOER focus areas include:

• Contaminated sediments: Reduce cost and improve the reliability and acceptability of dredging, placing, managing, and controlling contaminated dredged material.
• Environmental windows: Improve dredging operations flexibility through rigorous technical evaluation of restrictions.
• Innovative technologies: Identify and demonstrate emerging dredging and disposal technologies in cooperation with domestic and international field offices.
• Instrumentation: Develop techniques and standards for monitoring dredge operations, compliance, and assessment.
• Nearshore placement: Develop tools for predicting the movement, cost-effectiveness, and beneficial aspects of dredged material placed in the nearshore environment.
• Risk: Develop an approach for characterization and management of risk associated with dredged and disposed contaminated sediments (in collaboration with EPA).

Focusing his discussion on contaminated sediments, Myers stated that DOER's overall purpose and objective is to reduce cost. The DOER program receives Congressional support because it promises to save money. Every year, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has less money to accomplish its dredging mission, thereby forcing DOER to be a research program that makes dredging increasingly cost-effective.

DOER's initial efforts on contaminated sediments emphasized screening tests. Currently, a lot of money is spent to determine if sediments are contaminated and what contamination levels are present. Therefore, there is potential for DOER to reduce costs in these two areas. DOER also addresses assessment and associated decision-making processes. For example, given site-specific physical properties, what alternatives are best to remediate contaminants? DOER does not necessarily treat materials, but it does manage materials. Management strategies include capping, CDFs, and beneficial uses.

To demonstrate improved cost-effectiveness resulting from DOER's research program, Myers discussed dioxin analysis. Dioxin screening assays have traditionally cost $1,000 to $1,500 with gas chromatography/mass spectrography (GCMS) analysis. For a given project, many GCMS analyses may be needed over a two- or three-year period to satisfy regulatory requirements. These research studies can cost several hundred thousand dollars on dioxin analysis alone. Because such types of chemical analysis are so expensive, DOER is developing biomarkers as a new technology for quick screening of dioxins and other toxic agents (e.g., PCBs). Biomarker analysis typically costs about $200, much less than traditional methods. This significant cost reduction has widespread applications for diverse sites.

DOER intends to support work on CDF-based bioremediation in the future.. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers places materials in CDFs designed to store solids. These CDFs usually lie along the shoreline, sometimes completely surrounded by water. Many CDFs are raised dike areas filled with dredged material. The design life of CDFs is usually 20, 30, or 50 years, and it sometimes takes this long for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to fill them. Next the CDFs are de-watered and they become islands or peninsulas. CDF sizes range from 10 acres to 2,000 acres. Average sizes are typically between 50 and 200 hundred acres and contain 10 to 12 million cubic yards of material. Myers showed several overheads with pictures of CDFs to better demonstrate their construction.

One criticism of CDFs is that nothing is done to decontaminate the polluted materials placed in the facilities. CDFs basically serve as indefinite storage facilities and this is potentially problematic. Contaminants can escape from the CDFs through various pathways, including leaking, leaching, and bio-translocation.

Because DOER believes that CDF material should be decontaminated, it has created a work area to investigate using CDFs as bioremediation treatment facilities. Using overhead pictures, Myers showed examples of field equipment used to promote CDF bioremediation. At one site, dredge material is mixed with woodchips to facilitate aerobic biodegradation of PAHs. At a Jones Island Confined Disposal Facility at the Milwaukee Confined Disposal Facility, DOER has explored technology options to turn and mix the dredged material in CDFs. Turning and mixing dredged materials is difficult because the sediment is frequently filled with trash (e.g., car bodies). Some CDFs contain sediment that has remained untouched for years and may be covered with wild vegetation. In these CDFs, the vegetation layer must be permeated to mix underlying material. More information on these technologies and sites are available on the Internet Web site.

DOER is primarily interested in the cost performance of the technology and equipment used to transform strictly-storage CDFs into treatment facilities. To help reduce costs, DOER hopes to change the prevalent mentality that CDF sites are highly contaminated seaside hazardous waste dumps. Sediment contamination in CDFs frequently occurs at low levels and may not pose human or ecological risks. Therefore, DOER is exploring options to remove uncontaminated and minimally contaminated material from CDFs. This removed sediment can have beneficial use (e.g., sanitary landfill cover, road construction, or fill) and would free up space in old CDFs for more sediment. Avoiding the construction of new CDFs saves significant tax payer dollars. New facilities are extremely expensive to construct because they must have better controls and designs than the old CDFs. It is also difficult to obtain approval for new CDF sites. A new facility at the Milwaukee CDF was recently estimated to cost 13 million dollars. If DOER can find technologies that will clean up enough material in old CDFs to match annual dredging quantities, that 13 million dollar cost can be avoided indefinitely.

Someone raised the point that many old CDFs are attached to natural shorelines on very valuable waterfront land and wondered if DOER had any policy to address closures at these sites. Myers responded that closing old CDF sites could create additional costs that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would like to avoid. DOER hopes to put these properties to beneficial use.

UPDATE FROM THE U.S. NAVY
Victoria Kirtay, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, San Diego, CA (SSC-SD)

Victoria Kirtay began with an overview of the Navy's sediment research, development, testing, and evaluation program (RDT&E). There are three main Navy laboratories. The first, SSC-SD houses the Marine Environmental Division, which has addressed sediment and other Navy environmental issues for approximately 30 years. SSC-SD is primarily staffed by marine scientists, chemists, biologists, and oceanographers whose mission is RDT&E. The second laboratory, Naval Facilities Engineering Services Center (NFESC), has done ocean engineering for decades and is developing a marine sediment environmental program. NFESC is primarily staffed by engineers whose mission is T&E. The third laboratory, Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), is the Navy's corporate research lab. NRL has just created an environmental division within itself, primarily consisting of microbiologists whose focus is biodegradation.

Kirtay then discussed funding sources for the Navy. She began with funding from the Office of Naval Research (ONR) for basic and applied research (6.1 and 6.2). Programs are identified at ONR with big funding blocks and Program Officers compete for these programs. Within these programs, principal investigators write proposals and compete for projects. ONR funding primarily supports academic research projects. A second major funding source comes from the Naval Facilities (6.3 and 6.4). Naval Facilities funding supports more applied research and demonstration validation in the field. It supports the Shoreside Environmental Program, including several sediment RDT&E projects. The Naval Facilities requires "customer support" for funding and it emphasizes technology transfer. Other funding sources (such as the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program [SERDP] and the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program [ESTCP]) originate from DOD and are DOD-wide. DOD funding is based on DOD needs and primarily supports technical reviews, field demonstrations, field validation, and other measures to encourage regulatory acceptance. The Navy is also doing a lot more reimbursable work (funded and guided by Remedial Project Managers) by going to specific Navy sites, asking about site-specific problems, and offering direct support and problem solving (e.g., research, dredging, cleanup).

Kirtay briefly described how Navy-funded projects are chosen. All projects must address defined Navy needs, as outlined in the DOD Environmental Strategic Plan (which also divides areas of specialization between the services). All projects require "customer" support and the research must be "vertically integrated" from basic research (6.1) all the way up though applied demonstration and validation. Many projects are chosen because they focus on technology transfer, cost savings, and/or meeting very specific Navy requirements. Other projects are largely driven by staff interests and specializations. Regardless of origin, however, all Navy projects result from proposals which are very often extremely competitive. Most Navy laboratories are heavily project-funded. Some Navy laboratories will cover some costs with other funding sources, but all SSC-SD costs are covered with project money.

There is a strong foundation in sediment basic research programs, much of which stems from ONR. Over the past several years, ONR has been defining what it considers to be primary sediment issues. Many of these issues and actions overlap with Army, industry, and academic interests and efforts. Over the past three years, ONR has worked with four departments at the University of Washington to examine PAH biodegradation in marine sediments, and has spent five million dollars on this research. ONR also has a four-year old Harbor Processes Program (originally Marine Environmental Quality) which primarily funds basic (6.1) research. The Harbor Processes Program primarily funds university researchers. It is extremely competitive and requires full-length proposals. There have been very few "new starts" since the Harbor Processes Program's first year. For fiscal year 1999 (FY99), approximately 350 new program proposals were submitted and only about 30 received funding.

During FY98, ONR's Harbor Processes Program identified several categories of research of particular interest to the Navy, including (number in parenthesis indicates the number of proposals funded during FY98 for the research area):

• Chemical speciation/phase transfer (5)
• Sediment-water exchange (8)
• Bioavailibility (5)
• Ecotoxicological effects (3)
• Novel Consortia (6)

Kirtay emphasized that all these projects will end in FY98 unless they successfully competed for FY99 funds.

ONR is currently investigating comparative issues between marine sediment systems and soil/ground-water systems (two relatively-well understood types of system). By examining similarities and differences between these systems, ONR hopes to increase knowledge of marine sediments without "re-inventing the wheel." Not everything will be translatable between the different system types, but identifying differences between the systems should help researchers to better understand the complex nature of marine sediment systems.

SSC-SD research addresses how to manage contaminants in the marine environment. SSC-SD work involves numerous aspects (as outlined below), each of which must be addressed and considered together in order to control costs and to minimize the sediment volume that requires management. To really understand and characterize sediment-contamination problems, SSC-SD performs site assessments, field screenings, and historical document reviews. SSC-SD also examines analytical data to determine specific contaminant types present. It then uses this information and other tests (e.g., biomarkers, bioassays, risk assessment, interface exchange flux, and porewater) to determine if the contamination is mobile and/or if there is a contamination problem at the site. SSC-SD also explores management, monitoring, and remediation options to determine what to do about contaminated sites. Finally, SSC-SD is interested in exploring how to prevent sediment contamination problems in the future so project managers do not have to continually go through this whole process. Kirtay reiterated that all the issues are related and must be considered together to control cost and minimize the volume of sediment requiring management.

SSC-SD is involved in the field screening of sediments to determine where contamination occurs. Reiterating points made in Myers's discussion, Kirtay outlined that traditional lab analyses are often very expensive (costing thousands of dollars per sample), require long delays to obtain data results, and often rely on blind sampling techniques which do not adequately/appropriately identify contamination areas. SSC-SD invests much effort to integrate already-available field screening tools into the beginning of the site assessment phase. Field screening helps to delineate the contamination areas of concern so that resources can be better allocated later in the remediation process. Other benefits of field screening include rapid results (which can be used to guide sampling location) and the potential to generate high data density (which can be used for mapping). Field screening limitations are primarily that it is often non-specific, semi-quantitative, and matrix sensitive. SSC-SD, however, hopes to use field screening to determine which sediments may be contaminated, pinpoint hotspots and rank relative contamination levels. If field screening is used successfully, costs can be reduced by using standard laboratory methods more selectively and effectively. SSC-SD has gone to numerous sites to help integrate field screening tools into the Navy's assessment and management processes.

Examples of SSC-SD field screening technologies and tools for better managing contaminants in marine sediments include a field-portable XRF for rapid screening and mapping of metals, an acoustic Doppler current profiler (contaminant dispersal and fate modeling), a benthic flux sampling device to directly measure contaminant mobility from sediments and contaminant fluxes in water (distinguishes and quantifies the re-mobilization for contaminants), the QwikLite Bioluminescence toxicity test system (uses dinoflagellate florescence to map toxicity in sediments), and "Comet" assays (which investigate sublethal effects and DNA damage from a large number of contaminants by measuring initial cellular effects, which occur more rapidly than the growth and mortality endpoints used by other assays). These technologies are used to help assess what potential contaminants are and where they are located; they also determine whether sediment contamination is toxic, if it is mobile and where it moves to, and how it affects organisms.

Kirtay then gave an overview of Navy involvement in sediment remediation management. In the past, there was a push to take a variety of technologies and put them together into "treatment trains." These sediment treatment trains used numerous technologies for decontaminating contaminated sediments, including bioremediation (many lab studies), chemical leaching (market and lab studies), particle separation (ongoing), and stabilization (market and lab studies). After undergoing these numerous sediment tests and treatments, contaminated sediment became clean, but the process was too expensive and proved unfeasible—even pilot-scale projects cost millions of dollars. As these high costs became apparent, regulators started moving toward more cost-effective management approaches and focus shifted away from treatment trains.

SSC-SD is working on performing more detailed and advanced sediment characterization, relative to what has traditionally been done, to minimize the volume of sediments requiring treatment. In order to characterize sediment contamination, researchers must understand that contaminant behavior in sediments is largely dependent on the nature of the sediments (i.e., its biogeochemical characteristics, including grain size, texture, grain type, mineralogy, and source). SSC-SD aims to better understand these biogeochemical processes and ultimately hopes to use this information to determine how well given technologies will work. Understanding processes will help predict what management protocols are reasonable for given sites and allow remediation officers to better choose appropriate technologies and actions.

One idea stemming from the Navy's treatment train experiences is to minimize the volume of sediment requiring disposal or further treatment. At some Navy sites, the bulk of contaminants have been associated with a specific size fraction of the sediment (e.g., associated with fine-grained clay material), while other size fractions (e.g., sand particles) remain relatively uncontaminated. In cases such as these, one cost-effective remedy may be to separate the sediment by particle size (using hydrocyclone methods) and to mitigate only the contaminated sediment. After separation, the noncontaminated sediments can be put to beneficial use. Kirtay pointed out that ex situ studies on grain size and contaminant distribution measurements are extremely laborious. Therefore, SSC-SD hopes to adapt an in situ video microscope to interpolate between measurements made either on site or in situ.

Many Navy researchers are studying intrinsic bioremediation and natural attenuation. Some evidence of natural attenuation of PAHs in sediments has been gathered by Navy researchers, many of whom believe that contaminated sediments will recover by themselves (either left alone or with minimal efforts applied to enhance degradation). Many researchers feel that sediment remediation does not require elaborate engineering techniques, such as slurry reactors or engineered microorganisms.

Before concluding her Navy update, Kirtay announced that ONR has funded SSC-SD to hold a Navy Sediment Management Meeting and Workshop. This contaminated sediment workshop meeting will be held October 14­16, 1998, in San Diego. At the workshop, Navy project managers and other users will be asked what they perceive as the remaining science/technology gaps for effective sediment management. Participants will also be asked what they perceive as barriers to implementing technologies currently available. Results from this Navy workshop will result in recommendations to ONR and the Navy Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) for future sediment RDT&E.

UPDATE FROM EPA
Dennis Timberlake, EPA

Timberlake began his overview of EPA by discussing the National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) Contaminated Sediments Research Program, headquartered in Cincinnati, OH. Less than six months ago, EPA released its CSMS final document, containing four primary sediment management strategy goals:

• Prevent further contamination
• Clean up existing contamination
• Continue sound dredging and disposal practices
• Develop methods to analyze sediments

As a risk management laboratory, NRMRL has responsibilities in all four of these areas. The laboratory addresses issues pertaining to source-control pollution prevention, contamination prevention measures, existing-contamination cleanup, dredging effectiveness, disposal approaches, and sediment analysis. NRMRL's focus is to investigate existing-contamination cleanup sites and to research various disposal scenarios. Only in the last couple of years has NRMRL had a budget to look at risk management of contaminated sediments. Historically, the resources and funding for contaminated sediment research did not include risk management issues, largely because risk management issues were traditionally addressed at the end of the remediation research process. Recently, however, the research trend has apparently reversed. EPA has assessed sediment contamination issues and knows that problems exist at some sites, but does not know how to solve the problems or manage the sediments. Therefore, the risk management portion of sediment remediation is EPA's current interest and focus.

NRMRL accounted for numerous considerations when developing its research program, including:

• Remediation-type activities and navigation material (material that must be dealt with by dredging or other means)
• Low-cost options (plenty of high-cost solutions/remediation options already exist)
• Emphasis on field research (not laboratory work or models)
• Exploration of a variety of options (not only high-tech options, so that decision-makers have many options to help decide what is right for managing their particular site)
• Relationship of NRMRL program to other programs (other EPA programs, as well as other agency, industry, and academic programs).
• Movement beyond engineering toward risk management (NRMRL was originally an engineering lab, but they have to move beyond engineering solutions and bring in economists, ecologists, chemists, etc.).

NRMRL projects are divided into four major work areas:

• Risk management/decision making:
  • Benefits of contaminated sediment risk management—There is value not only in coming up with risk management approaches, but also in addressing the processes of decision- making itself. How decisions are made at sites within certain communities is more than just a technical question.
  • Cost estimation—An attempt to try to standardize the EPA methods of project cost estimates.
  • Cost benefit/cost effectiveness —Consider the benefits of risk management of sediments: cheaper is better, but are there costs besides monetary costs?

• In situ technologies: The regulating community is asking questions about appropriate technology uses.
  • Natural recovery—These projects examine the adaptability of models, isotopic analysis, intrinsic biodegradation, natural attenuation remedies, salt marsh restoration, national attenuation, and contaminant flux in field programs.
  • Capping—To better address the regulated communities' questions about the appropriateness of capping, EPA has just started a project to evaluate capping in the field.
  • Treatment—In situ treatment approaches are a long-term goal for EPA, but most of these ideas are new at a basic research level. Two in situ projects have begun, one on the mobilization of lead and the other on biorestoration of contaminated sediments.

• Removal:
  • Dredging effectiveness evaluation—NRMRL would like to complement the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' dredging expertise by researching dredging effectiveness, dredging- related problems, and site-specific issues as they relate to dredging remediation.
  • Volatilization of contaminants—NRMRL intends to research volatilization factors contributing to contaminant loss and how to control this pathway.

• Ex situ technologies:
  • Containment
  • CDF treatment—A CDF (either with an add-on or other engineering technologies) may be a prime environment to facilitate treatment and reclaim disposal capacity.. Some of EPA's CDF projects involve the use of hydrogen, zero-valent irons, chemical additives, land biotreatment pilot studies, and composting.
  • Non-CDF treatment—This method is more similar to the traditional ex situ treatment. One project currently looks at using chemical amendments to reduce contaminant mobility within a CDF. NRMRL also has a bioslurry treatment project.

Timberlake said that NRMRL agrees with comments made by previous speakers, mainly that high-tech ex situ technologies are not the answer to sediment management problems.. Project managers already have ex situ technology options; they do not need yet another expensive ex situ treatment process. Therefore, NRMRL needs to focus its work on projects that will improve contaminated-sediment treatment costs for remedial managers.

Timberlake briefly discussed EPA's NAS Study. EPA was told by Congress to initiate a study within NAS to look at the assessment of risk from remediation of PCB-contaminated sediments. This project is just getting underway and Timberlake is the project officer. This study will span the four NRMRL work areas and is expected to be completed in about a year and a half.

Timberlake briefly outlined a collection of EPA programs dealing with sediments, including:

• Contaminated Sediment Risk Management Program—Funds numerous EPA sediment projects.
• Ecosystem Restoration Program—Within ORD.
• Superfund Program—Interest is growing in this area and EPA is doing more with the Superfund program.
• Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program—Contaminated sediment sites have become a priority for the SITE program. In the future, EPA will identify specific field sites to apply certain remedies and to evaluate the performance of these remedies.
• Wet Weather Flow Program—Looks at controlling water flow (mainly from urban areas in times of wet weather) along the lines of source-control pollution-prevention.
• RTDF Program—Important part of how EPA will address risk management issues.

Timberlake said that interested individuals may contact him for more information about these EPA projects.

UPDATE FROM THE GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE
Scott Cieniawski, EPA

Scott Cieniawski, representing EPA's Great Lakes National Programs Office (GLNPO), presented an overview of the GLNPO sediment program. GLNPO is housed with EPA Region V, but is a separate program office under EPA Headquarters. GLNPO works with EPA Regions V, II, and III as well as other state, federal, tribal, and local agencies within the Great Lakes Basin. All GLNPO research focuses on the Great Lakes. This upcoming November, GLNPO is sponsoring a sediment characterization workshop in Chicago. Cieniawski can be contacted for more details about this GLNPO conference.

The GLNPO Sediment Assessment and Remediation Team provides technical, field, and financial support for contaminated sediment work. Approximately 1.5 to 2 million dollars of GLNPO grant money is awarded annually to nonprofit agencies in the Great Lakes Region for work in the contaminated sediments field. The goal of the GLNPO sediment program is to provide technical support to achieve sediment remediation at Great Lakes areas of concern. There are currently 43 areas of concern on the Great Lakes.

To achieve their sediment remediation goals, GLNPO investigates assessment, remediation, and beneficial uses of dredged material. GLNPO views itself as bridging the gap between laboratory demonstration and field demonstration of new technologies, preparing these technologies to be used in the field.

GLNPO assessment efforts include sampling by the research vessel Mudpuppy. The Mudpuppy is a flat-bottom boat, specifically designed to sample in shallow rivers and harbors in the Great Lakes area. At this time, the Mudpuppy has conducted sediment assessments at 28 sites throughout the Great Lakes. This sediment assessment involves collecting surface sample grabs and sediment cores using a vibra-coring unit to obtain sediment cores up to 18 feet in length.

Usually, GLNPO works with states on contaminated sediment remediation, but their remediation approach is open to local, state, federal, and private partnerships. GLNPO remediation efforts are currently underway in the Ottawa River at the Maumee area of concern. This case study, completed earlier this year, was an innovative approach that successfully fast-tracked the remediation of a major source of PCB contamination to the Ottawa River. This project emphasized flexibility, on the private company side and on the federal and state regulatory side, to move the remediation process along much quicker than standard protocol. Twenty months passed between the initiation of discussions and the completion of this remediation project; 10,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediments were removed and 55,000 pounds of PCBs were remediated. The cost share of this project was 10% public (approximately $500,000) and 90% private. GLNPO is currently funding four other projects, similar to the Ottawa River remediation, which will hopefully be completed in the next couple years.

In collaboration with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MI DEQ), GLNPO has been involved in a project that investigates beneficial uses of dredged material in the Trenton Channel (Detroit River area of concern). Providing contaminated sediment grants from FY95 to present, GLNPO has supported a three-tier approach for the Trenton Channel Project: (1) Sediment Assessment and Characterization, (2) Innovative Studies, and (3) Toward Remediation.

Prior to GLNPO's involvement, MI DEQ performed some reconnaissance studies to identify areas of concern and major depositional zones in the Trenton Channel area. With GLNPO, however, some innovative sediment assessment and characterization technologies have been implemented. For example, hydro-acoustical profiling was done from the Mudpuppy. These profiling results appear to be useful in identifying contaminated river sediments. More hydro-acoustical profiling is planned for the summer of 1999 to verify these results. These assessment efforts have helped the Trenton Channel researchers and project managers to focus their efforts on one highly contaminated area, known as Black Lagoon. Black Lagoon contains approximately 20,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment in a 66,250 square-foot area.

The state of Michigan has applied for grant money to treat the contaminated materials at Black Lagoon. GLNPO is currently anticipating an award of about $600,000 from the state to look at innovative treatment technologies for this sediment. GLNPO has already conducted some bench-scale treatability studies to try to identify treatment technologies applicable to the Trenton Channel sediments.

GLNPO would like to see if they can reduce Trenton Channel ex situ treatment costs by producing a useable, marketable product at the end of the sediment treatment process. Therefore, GLNPO put out a request for proposals for a 1996 Trenton Channel Treatability/Feasibility Study. The study's aims were to: (1) identify treatment technologies that would work successfully on Trenton Channel sediments, and (2) emphasize beneficial reuse of dredged material. Five companies responded to this request with a variety of technology methods:

• Envirogen: Solid phase extraction
• Growth Resources-URRICHEM: Solidification
• Biogenesis: Soil washing
• IGT: Thermal desorbtion/cement lock
• Westinghouse: Plasma vitrification

Each company was given a 55-gallon drum of sediments to test their innovative technologies. GLNPO recognized that these preliminary tests may not necessarily translate into field results, but expected them to provide an idea about the effectiveness of the various remediation approaches. These various remediation techniques achieved different levels of treatment effectiveness for removing PAHs, TCLP PAHs, metals, TCLP metals, PCBs, and oil and grease contaminants. Plasma vitrification proved to be an effective treatment technology (>90% reduction) for all tested contaminant types.. Thermal desorbtion/cement lock was an effective treatment for all contaminant types except for metals, for which it served as a partial treatment technology (20­90% reduction). For half of the contaminant types, soil washing was an effective treatment; for the other half, soil washing was a partial treatment. Solid phase extraction and solidification achieved partial treatment for some chemicals and had no significant effect (<20% reduction) on others. In response to a question, Cieniawski said that cost-assessment information for these various treatment technologies is currently unavailable.

In FY1997, GLNPO funded a Marketability/Feasibility Study for soil washing (Biogenesis), thermal desorbtion/cement lock (IGT), and plasma vitrification (Westinghouse) technologies. The Marketability/Feasibility Study will assess the cost-effectiveness of each technology tested at Trenton Channel. GLNPO is currently waiting for these results.

The next step for the Trenton Channel Project will be to build on EPA Region II activities in the New York/New Jersey (NY/NJ) Harbor. Some companies involved with GLNPO are working with EPA Region II to study the marketability of their products in NY/NJ Harbor. The Trenton Channel Project is a smaller-scale effort that the NY/NJ Harbor Project, but hopefully the results of these two studies can be compared. More specifically, the next steps in the Trenton Channel Project include:

• Plan feasibility studies of full-scale remediation.
• Assess the marketability and reuse of the treated sediments ($100,000 FY97 grant).
• Conduct the Black Lagoon treatment technology demonstration project ($600,000 FY98 grant— currently under review, anticipating award).

Cieniawski briefly outlined other beneficial use projects currently supported by GLNPO:

• Brown County Port Authority (Green Bay, WI)—$150,000 FY97 grant for the construction of a de-watering cell to investigate composting with lightly contaminated dredged material that will be used to produce a topsoil material.
• Minnesota Department of Natural Resources— anticipated $125,000 FY98 grant to investigate the use of navigational dredged material (lightly contaminated) for mined land reclamation.
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers— anticipated $400,000 FY 98 joint project to investigate reclaiming some of the coarser material from CDFs and composting some dredged material to create topsoil.

ADDITIONAL UPDATES

Individuals not on the scheduled agenda spoke about specific projects and ideas that were not previously addressed.

Hap Pritchard, NRL

Hap Pritchard, head of the Navy's Environmental Quality Sciences Program (EQSP), said that his division is working to create a fairly significant sediments program. Ultimately, this sediments program should provide some basic research that will be funneled into NRAD and NFS operations. Pritchard highlighted the activities currently underway in this sediments program:

• Natural attenuation—This is primarily a field program..
• PAH degradation mechanisms—Four sites (located in Washington D.C.; Charleston, WV; Philadelphia, PA; and Florida) are monitored for mineralization rates of PAHs in sediments. This process involves sediment sampling and studies with radio-labeled PAH materials. Results of PAH degradation are then coupled with the degradation capabilities (overall) of the microorganisms, focusing primarily on oxygen consumption and productivity. EQSP examines the mechanisms of PAH degradation in three primary areas: (1) pathways involved in how microbial communities work through PAH multiple-ring structures, (2) microorganism co-metabolic capabilities (EQSP thinks that many high-molecular-weight PAHs are only degraded by these co-metabolic processes), and (3) bioavailability problems and associated effects on biodegradation mechanisms.
• Land farming of contaminated sediments—EQSP is trying to push the concept of bioaugmentation in land farming by introducing organisms to provide capabilities for PAH degradation. Concurrently, EQSP is introducing organisms to produce a biosurfactin that improves PAH bioavailability. These experiments are currently conducted in soils, but EQSP's ultimate goal is to work the technologies into CDFs.
• Genetic toxicology—EQSP is looking at DNA adducts to specific chemicals in the environment, specifically to PAHs and PCBs. EQSP is working with a colleague at George Washington University who examines liver tumors (presumably caused by high-molecular-weight PAHs) in fish. EQSP is using a molecular-basis approach to try to detect signals in fish that indicate exposure to contaminants in the sediments.
• Biological-based chemical sensors (biomarkers)—EQSP uses antibody-based systems to detect particular organic chemicals in the environment. Innovative approaches are now available for looking at antibody responses to contaminant contact. EQSP is investigating detectable antibody signals (i.e., actual conformational changes in the protein of the antibody to signal that it has been exposed to a particular contaminant).
• In situ chemical analysis—EQSP is trying to start this program in two areas. The first area uses a solid-phase micro-extraction system. This technology consists of small filaments that absorb porewater contaminants. The filaments are placed in sediment, pulled out, and measured (with an analyzer such as a portable GC mass spectrometer) to determine sediment contaminant concentrations. The second in situ chemical analysis technology uses a system that "slurps" up small amounts of sediments and desorbs the contaminants using lazar technologies. The sediments are then put into a chamber where contaminant concentrations can be measured (with an analyzer such as a portable GC mass spectrometer).
• Remedial carpets—EQSP is trying to get this program started in collaboration with Monsanto but have not gotten very far yet. The concept is to use a technology that Monsanto has developed for nylon, but to incorporate properties into the nylon to adsorb metals and organics. This nylon can be made porous so that microorganisms can be added to the nylon material to enhance contaminant degradation. These carpets could then be used as retrievable materials to put into environmental "hot spots." After sitting in the sediment (all the while promoting biodegradation), carpets can be retrieved and will bring out contaminants.
• Geochemical processes—EQSP is examining oxygen balancing, oxygen cycling, and other processes critical to assessing contaminants impacts to the sediments.

Danny Reible, Hazardous Substance Research Center

Danny Reible is the director of the Hazardous Substance Research Center/South & Southwest (HSRC/S&SW), a consortium of Louisiana State University, Rice University, and Georgia Technical Institute. HSRC/S&SW is one of five centers formed in the mid-1980s under Superfund revisions. It was not actually started until 1992. HSRC/S&SW is the only one of the nationwide centers that focuses specifically on contaminated sediments. More information about HSRC/S&SW is available at the Internet Web site http://www.hsrc.org.

The initial and primary focus of HSRC/S&SW is fate and transport of contaminants in sediments. The group focuses on processes that they have identified as important for assessment and management purposes. Specifically, HSRC/S&SW supports in situ remediation efforts and the development of a risk-based paradigm for remediation decisions and management alternatives. Initially, much of HSRC/S&SW work focused on sediment movement, biodegradation, bioturbidation, sequestration, and desorbtion resistant fraction characterization. From this research base, HSRC/S&SW has begun a major effort on bioavailability that assesses the direct availability of desorbtion resistant fractions. This initiative is primarily investigating two areas: (1) the direct availability of that material which appears not to desorb (since the implications of desorbtion resistant fractions are limited unless there is indeed a reduced availability to microorganisms, plants, and larger organisms), and (2) the interaction of plants and animals with contaminated sediments and the ensuing effects on this fraction influencing bioavailability. (For example, how do benthic deposit-feeding organisms that uptake the sediments process that sediment? Do they make the contaminants more available to higher-trophic organism?) The initial focus of this HSRC/S&SW project was on PAHs, but recent additional funding (Defense Special Weapons Agency) greatly expanded their bioavailability effort.

HSRC/S&SW has also put effort into a second major focus: the science behind management of contaminated sediments. HSRC/S&SW has been involved in a number of technologies, both in situ and ex situ. In situ technology projects have been more of a HSRC/S&SW focus because they have the potential to be more cost-effective and because they better complement HSRC/S&SW's process research. Much work has been completed on biodegradation, capping, and phytoremediation (with focuses on explosive contaminants and wetland systems). Ex situ projects have involved the effectiveness and appropriateness of dredging (in cooperation with Alcoa) and volatile losses of contaminants (primarily PAHs) from dredged material once it is exposed (in collaboration with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). This volatile contaminant work has direct applications to contaminant loss mechanisms from CDFs. Responding to a question, Reible said that the HSRC/S&SW capping projects have primarily focused on the physical and chemical containment properties of caps and how their physical processes influence chemical containment. HSRC/S&SW has not specifically included direct biodegradation within their purview.

Ronald Lewis, EPA

Ronald Lewis works for NRMRL and announced that they are going to be putting out a proposal request for projects and sites in October or November under the SITE program. Proposals will be evaluated in early January, 1999. EPA is hoping for pilot-scale field projects from companies to show that their innovative technologies are viable and can achieve remedial goals. Lewis mentioned that EPA has had excellent past work experiences with the military. Military sites used for technology field testing have resulted in information sharing and lowered remediation costs. EPA can pay for sampling, analytical results, and report writing. They have $6,000,000 to use during this next year for site demonstrations.

Terry Lyons, EPA

Terry Lyons works for NRMRL. His research center is currently doing some biotreatment and zero-valent iron treatability studies. About two months ago they collected sediments, had them characterized, and selected the sediment type to use. As of last week, the Research Center started a full-scale treatability study to see if they could break down DDT and its isomers. Essentially, this is a process developed by Dr. Greg Sayles (EPA) to increase DDT solubility and bioavailability. The Research Center has had some success with this process for some specific polymers. The Research Center is also looking at zero-valent iron to see how it interacts with sediments. They are expecting to get their results in approximately three to four months and will decide where to go from there.

Tommy Myers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Myers gave a brief update on the NY/NJ Harbor site previously mentioned by Cieniawski. He provided pictures of some of the technologies being used at this site to create beneficial uses for sediments that are too contaminated for ocean dumping. Conveyers, backhoes, rotary mixers, and other technologies have been used to mix the contaminated sediment with Portland cement (8 to 12% by weight). To date, 900,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment have been processed (approximately 6,000 to 12,000 cubic yards a day). After mixing and treatment, the sediments are tested to ensure grade and a low water content (water content influences sediment density, which is crucial to some types of beneficial use). Then the sediments are used in abandoned properties, brownfields, roads, and parking lots. Most of these reuses involve covering the sediments with an asphalt cap. A significant portion of the dredged NY/NJ Harbor sediments are currently being used to raise the elevation of a mall parking lot above the 100-year flood plain. The cost of treating NY/NJ sediments for beneficial use is approximately $47 per yard (this includes dredging, mixing, spreading, and compacting costs).

Myers emphasized that these technologies and reuses for dredged material have been tested in laboratory conditions for many years. Two other field projects (involving 4,000,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment each) are also underway. Someone asked whether leaching at these sites was a problem and Myers responded that he did not know. However, New Jersey has been very proactive in the project and has funded the investigation of questions such as this. Some regulatory testing has been done in New York.

INTRODUCTION OF SUBGROUPS

When the Action Team last met (1996) there were three identified subgroups: (1) Assessment, (2) Capping, and (3) Treatment—In Situ/CDFs.

ASSESSMENT
Ralph Stahl, DuPont

Ralph Stahl began by noting that there is more research and interest going into assessment now than there was two years ago. This is true in all areas: biology, chemistry, innovative techniques, and others.

Stahl quickly provided an overview of issues addressed by the Assessment Subgroup during previous RTDF meetings. In the Wilmington, DE, (July 1996) meeting, the Assessment Subgroup collected its thoughts on where the group was and what areas it would like to cover. Stahl showed an overhead of a 1996 outline (see Appendix C) of issues that the Assessment Subgroup hoped to address. In the Vicksburg, MS, (October 1996) meeting, the Assessment Subgroup built upon previously discussed ideas, but primarily focused on what they mean by "assessment." Ultimately, the group decided to define assessment so that it examines both human and ecological risks. Stahl said that at this meeting's Assessment Subgroup breakout meeting (September 17, 1998) he planned to revisit this topic and address whether or not the Subgroup still wants to include both human and ecological risks in its main focus. It was also previously decided that "assessment" should include both the fate and effects of contaminants of concern.

Stahl concluded by highlighting the key issues he would like to see addressed by the Assessment Subgroup during their breakout session:

• The Subgroup needs to identify a site to work on (either a hypothetical site or one that has already been studied).
• The Subgroup needs to develop a decision framework (e.g., these are they types of data that are important, this is how we can interpret these data, these are decisional criteria on how to decide if remediation efforts were successful).
• Subgroup members need to commit to participate in subgroup activities.
• Subgroup members should discuss other topics of interest.

CAPPING
Tommy Myers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Myers discussed the Capping Subgroup, recognizing that many capping projects discussed at the previous RTDF meetings stemmed from research and work by Mike Palermo (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Palermo has been involved in capping projects with Reible and others at HSRC/S&SW. Timberlake, GLNPO researchers, and other EPA staff have also been involved in numerous capping projects with Palermo.

Using overheads, Myers gave an overview of remediation options, as previously determined by the Capping Subgroup in 1996:

• Treatment in place
• Removal and containment
• Removal and treatment
• Containment in place (in situ capping)

Myers emphasized that in-place containment, particularly in situ capping, is extremely cost-effective. For the money spent on in situ capping, the environmental protection return is virtually unbeatable. Myers wanted the participants to note that capping involves no removal of material.

Sites have to be evaluated for acceptability of the capping option. Myers noted that it is also important that resource agencies and the general public accept these capping options. There are many steps to go through in determining the acceptability of capping at a site. EPA has created a detailed In Situ Capping Guidance document (to be officially released in October 1998). This capping guidance document is currently available through GLNPO (Cieniawski) and should soon be available at the Internet Web site http://www.epa.gov/glnpo. Briefly, this EPA document contains step-by-step capping information and guidance. It is divided into the following sections:

• Introduction
• Site Characterization
• In Situ Cap and Design
• Equipment and Placement Techniques
• Monitoring and Management
• Appendix A—Design of Armor Layers
• Appendix B—Model for Contaminant Flux
• Appendix C—Geotechnical Aspects

Myers discussed the primary functions of in situ capping. First, the in situ caps serve to isolate benthic organisms from contaminated material. They also provide physical stabilization and reduce contaminant flux into the environment. If successful, in situ caps provide ecological benefits and risk reductions.

In situ site characterizations are complex. They must address site-specific conditions concerning the physical environment, hydrodynamic conditions, geotechnical conditions, geological conditions, hydrogeological conditions, sediment characterizations, and waterway uses.. These considerations are typically plugged into models designed to assess whether a site-specific cap will erode or successfully stay in place. This modeling process can be extremely complex and many questions about cap-design considerations remain. Some of the open-ended issues previously identified by the Capping Subgroup include:

• What size areas are in situ caps best designed for at specific sites?
• What if capping treatment is preferred but no clean sediments are available at a given site?
• How do we consider multiple layer designs (i.e., multiple media) with different grain sizes, different organic carbon contents, and different absorption properties in order to actually engineer a "smart" cap? For example, how can we best utilize granular and material differences to engineer more stable caps?

One participant asked for more information on a product called AquaBlok™. Jensen at DuPont can be contacted for more detailed information, but participants briefly discussed that AquaBlok™ is designed like a peanut M&M candy. AquaBlok™ is a specially designed clay-covered gravel. The gravel makes the material heavy so that it sinks in water and the clay has sticky polymers that specially trap contaminants. This newly designed material is going to be demonstrated in the Ottawa River this October or November. Some participants expressed interest in this project and agreed to look into arranging a site visit for the AquaBlok™ demonstration.

TREATMENT—IN SITU/CDFs
Karen Miller, Naval Facilities Engineering Services Center

Karen Miller talked about possible approaches identified in the October 1996 Treatment—In Situ/CDFs Subgroup (In Situ/CDFs Subgroup) meeting. These approaches included electrokinetics, phytoremediation, and the introduction of additives into CDFs to initiate or enhance degradation reactions. Also at this 1996 meeting, the In Situ/CDFs Subgroup identified their contaminants of concern: chlorinated solvents, heavy metals, PAHs, and PCBs.

Miller outlined the areas to be addressed by the In Situ/CDFs Subgroup during the breakout group session of the meeting:

• Identify potential field sites.
• Focus on one or more in situ technologies and evaluate them using a set of standard sediments (similar to EPA's "technology cook-off" at NY/NJ Harbor).
• Pursue leveraged funding.
• Possibly issue a request for proposals for innovative approaches.
• Facilitate continued communication between group members—possibly set up a conference call and/or dates for the next In Situ/CDFs Subgroup meeting.

POSSIBLE NEW SUBGROUPS

After Miller's talk, the participants raised several questions about how to best address capping, ex situ, in situ, and CDFs in terms of goals, methods, and treatments Subgroups. Numerous suggestions were proposed, including creating a Natural Attenuation Subgroup and/or a Natural Attenuation and Capping Subgroup. Many participants supported having three subgroups, but to change their names to (1) Assessment, (2) In Situ, and (3) Ex Situ. Interest in ex situ and dredging treatments was relatively low, however, so it was proposed that the three subgroups be classified as (1) Assessment, (2) Passive or Low-Energy Treatment, and (3) Active Treatment. Most participants expressed a desire to keep capping and natural attenuation in the same Subgroup because they share many of the same processes and remediation steps. Agreement was reached to keep the Assessment Subgroup, but participants could not resolve how to further subdivide the breakout groups. Finally, the Action Team decided that the Assessment Subgroup would meet in one location during the breakout session and all other participants would meet in another location to further discuss Subgroup divisions.

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1998

PATH FORWARD/NEXT MEETING
Dennis Timberlake, EPA

Timberlake re-convened the group and briefly reviewed the previous day's discussions.

EXPECTATIONS FOR SUBGROUP MEETINGS
Richard Jensen, DuPont

Jensen outlined expectations for Subgroup meetings as:

• Subgroups should become self-empowered.
• Subgroups should feel free to form whatever alliances make sense:
  • Formal consortium
  • Cooperative R&D agreements with government
  • Workgroups to coordinate programs
  • Informal sharing groups.
• Subgroups should be "solutions" oriented:
• Field focus is preferable but not essential.

Jensen emphasized that the purpose of the RTDF, to turn good ideas into viable field technologies through private-public partnerships, can be successfully accomplished with a variety of approaches. To emphasize the diversity of successful RTDF approaches, Jensen highlighted several examples:

• The Lasagna™ Partnership uses electrokinetics and treatment zones to deal with contamination in low-permeability soils. It underwent two pilot stages and now is being used full-scale for a treatment plant in Kentucky. The Lasagna™ Partnership currently holds patents and trademarks for its innovative technology.
• The IINERT Soil-Metals Action Team uses in-place inactivation and natural ecological restoration technologies to examine lead in the environment. The IINERT Soil-Metals Action Team has been working closely with the town of Joplin, MO, to field test innovative technologies that transform environmental lead into non-bioavailable forms.
• The Permeable Reactive Barriers Action Team uses zero-valent iron wall technologies to decontaminate ground-water chlorinated solvents, specifically TCE and tetrachloroethylene. Because so many iron wall field tests are currently underway, the Permeable Reactive Barriers Action Team decided to use its resources to complement already-initiated field efforts. It has not started any independent field projects, but has contributed to numerous initiatives in an oversight and assessment role.
• The Bioremediation Consortium has raised approximately 15 million dollars (primarily from DOE) to do pilot work at Dover Air Force Base and other government sites. The Bioremediation Consortium also supports a training program co-sponsored by the Interstate Technology Regulatory Cooperation Working Group. This group is not as open as most of the other RTDF Action Teams: it requires participants to contribute an up-front fee.

Jensen highlighted several basic RTDF premises for the Subgroups to keep in mind during the breakout sessions. First, RTDF programs are typically cost-sharing. In the past, the government has supplied most dollars; industry tends to supply energy and "sweat equity." Government and industry share the lead in managing the RTDF program and providing technical expertise. The Subgroups (as well as the entire RTDF initiative) must maintain scientific and technical quality, potentially by focusing their efforts on a couple of well-defined, broadly accepted technical programs. Subgroups should also keep in mind the potential power that RTDF organizations have in shaping national technical directions. Specific Subgroup expectations were to:

• Revisit proceedings of previous meetings.
• Focus on solutions of broad importance across multiple sites (leverage).
• Focus on programs that can be leveraged.
• Think about programs requiring field sites.
• Try to produce long and short lists of potential programs.

Before breaking into the two Subgroups (the "Assessment Subgroup" and the "Treatment Subgroup"), Timberlake addressed EPA's involvement with RTDF by saying that there are currently some "hot" technical topics at issue between industry and the regulatory agency. He stressed that although these topics must be addressed if RTDF is to be successful, EPA must be very careful to stay away from anything that begins to resemble guidance.

SUBGROUPS' REPORTS

Assessment Subgroup
Ralph Stahl, DuPont

No official attendee list was available for the Assessment Subgroup, but approximately 20 participants attended the breakout session. Led by Stahl, the Assessment Subgroup determined that it had two major roles: (1) to support the Treatment Subgroup, and (2) to "push the envelope" on new techniques and applications (i.e., look at which assessment efforts work best and which efforts are not effective). Appendix D of this report provides a detailed discussion outline, as created by Subgroup members.

At the beginning of its breakout session, the Assessment Subgroup addressed leadership issues. Stahl will remain the industry co-lead, but no government co-lead was identified. Despite its leadership uncertainty, the Subgroup obtained strong commitments from its members. Exxon may be a potentially strong supporter in the future.

The Assessment Subgroup discussed how to define "assessment." They will address both human and ecological issues, specifically as they pertain to chemical processes, exposure risk, natural recovery, and system processes. The Assessment Subgroup decided not to focus on biology or toxicology because significant work has already been done in these areas. Participants noted that since numerous assessment tests already exist, their role should not be to create more test methods.. Rather, the Assessment Subgroup determined that it should examine existing tests to decide which ones are most predictive and can best help decision-makers.

The Assessment Subgroup also discussed "hot areas"—primary issues of member interest and priority. The group talked about how to begin the assessment process, how to better understand system processes, and how to better predict the outcomes of sediment remediation efforts. Participants briefly addressed restoration issues and decided it would like to work closely with the Treatment Subgroup. The Assessment Subgroup listed numerous other organizations that it would like to partner with and/or become more involved with, including academic consortiums, the Army, National Resource Trustees (e.g. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), Navy, SMWG, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Subgroup also identified trade organizations as potential Subgroup supporters. Each Assessment Subgroup member committed to contacting one or more of these organizations.

Hoping to make the Assessment Subgroup more than a discussion group, members wanted to conduct a pilot demonstration project. The Subgroup discussed sites for an assessment demonstration project and decided that a range of sites might be needed to capture everyone's interest. The Assessment Subgroup expressed interest in the American Industrial Health Council's (AIHC) recently completed pilot demonstration project (conducted in collaboration with Superfund). The Assessment Subgroup will examine the AIHC document, which focused primarily on risk assessment, new risk assessment techniques, and new risk assessment applications. From this document, the Assessment Subgroup hopes to explore the AIHC collaboration process between EPA and industry to see if there are any useful strategies for the sediment assessment initiative.

For its future activities, the Assessment Subgroup is going to draft a one-page paper (to be completed in early October, 1998) describing its activities, goals, and members. The subgroup's first conference call (scheduled for October 15, 1998, at 10:00AM Eastern Time) will address: (1) the pilot demonstration document by AIHC, and (2) the Subgroup's demonstration project strategy.

Treatment Subgroup
Karen Miller, NFESC

Participants in the Treatment Subgroup included: Scott Cieniawski, John Davis, Dawn Foster, Richard Jensen, Victoria Kirtay, Rich Landis, Ron Lewis, Terry Lyons, Kelly Madalinski, Karen Miller, Bob Olfenbuttel, Hap Pritchard, Jim Quadrini, Danny Reible, John Smith, Ernie Watkins, and John Wilkens. The government co-lead for the Treatment Subgroup was Karen Miller. No industry co-lead was identified. Appendix E of this report provides a detailed discussion outline, as created by Subgroup members.

The Treatment Subgroup began by identifying its primary contaminants (PAHs, metals, and chlorinated compounds) and various treatment technologies (capping, natural recovery/natural attenuation, in situ treatment, ex situ/CDFs). The Subgroup agreed that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Waterways Experiment Station is the best resource for cap information and technology. It discussed natural recovery/natural attenuation and identified two potential investigation sites (Philadelphia Navy Yard and Charleston). Pritchard will provide more information on these sites during the Subgroup's next conference call (October 28, 1998). Discussion about in situ remediation addressed biological and phytoremediation technologies. Ex situ initiatives were also addressed. During their next conference call, the Treatment Subgroup hopes to have an expert discuss dredging effectiveness and reuse options for dredged materials. The Subgroup also discussed CDF sediment volume minimization and treatment (preferably by mixing remediation additives during the normal sediment handling process) to improve the cost-effectiveness of ex situ technologies.

Members of the Treatment Subgroup tried to identify sites appropriate for various remediation efforts. They could not identify specific locations, but the Subgroup discussed characteristics of an ideal hypothetical site, which include:

• Regulatory and regulated community involvement
• A flexible time frame
• Ongoing initiatives already underway
• A federal facility
• A well characterized site
• High transferability and applicability of data (e.g., marine versus freshwater sediment studies)

The Treatment Subgroup decided that, if possible, it would like to work at Alcoa's Grasse River site.

Lastly, the Subgroup outlined numerous potential funding sources and the timeframe for the upcoming proposal process. Members also discussed future conference calls, meetings, and site visits: the times and dates of these events are outlined in the "Reflections/Discussion" section of this report.

REFLECTIONS/DISCUSSION
Dennis Timberlake, EPA

To ensure that the Action Team continues to move forward, participants decided to generate an Action Team E-mail list, an Assessment Subgroup E-mail list, and a Treatment Subgroup E-mail list. These

E-mail lists will be used to remind people of scheduled events and to distribute other relevant information. The Subgroups agreed to stagger their conference calls and meetings so that interested individuals can participate in both Subgroups' activities. The Action Team also decided that it would like to create a non-public element on their Internet Web site that will be password-protected. A calendar of upcoming events and Internet links will also be added to the Internet Web site. Upcoming events include:

• October 15, 1998—The Assessment Subgroup will hold a conference call, 10:00AM Eastern Time.
• October 28, 1998—The Treatment Subgroup will hold a conference call.
• October or November 1998—Some Action Team members will participate in a Toledo site visit to see the AquaBlok™ demonstration project in the Ottawa River.
• January or February 1999—The Treatment Subgroup is going to try to meet on the East Coast.
• Winter 1998/1999—The Assessment Subgroup will hold a conference call.
• Winter 1998/1999—The Treatment Subgroup will hold a conference call.
• April 1999—The Action Team will meet in San Diego in conjunction with Battelle's bioremediation conference.

Timberlake noted that the Action Team's meetings appear to be scheduled at approximately quarterly intervals. Conference calls for the Action Team, as well as for both Subgroups, are planned between these meetings. Timberlake asked that individuals with ideas for future meeting locations contact him or Jensen.

Timberlake concluded the meeting by saying that both he and Jensen can be contacted with questions or information requests about topics discussed during the meeting. Finally, Timberlake thanked participants for attending and contributing.

APPENDIX A

FINAL ATTENDEE LIST

RTDF Sediments Remediation Action Team Meeting

Crowne Plaza Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH
September 16­17, 1998

Final Attendee List

APPENDIX B

AGENDA

RTDF Sediments Remediation Action Team Meeting

Crowne Plaza Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH
September 16­17, 1998

Agenda

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1998

APPENDIX C

1996 ASSESSMENT SUBGROUP DISCUSSION OUTLINE

• Develop risk-based goals, cleanup measures
• Develop cleanup goals, numbers—approach?
• Assess tiers, triggers
• Understand impacts (risks) and benefits to the environment (i.e., ecological costs of "active" remediation).
  • Acute recovery
  • Long-term recovery
  • Endangered species
• Determine how to define success
• Identify mechanisms of chemical sequestration
• Determine how a decisional matrix and weight of evidence can be incorporated into an assessment.
• Determine how to define risk.
• Determine test methods.
• Interpret test data—guidance; separate bioaccumulation from toxicity. May be influenced by decision that is needed—influenced by physical characteristics.
• Find little site-specific toxicity data
  • How to use site-specific toxicity data, need guidance
  • Protocols
• Determine how to factor in multiple contaminants into a risk assessment or risk management decision
• Determine how to handle multiple sources of contaminants
• Determine how to determine actual causes of toxicity
  • TIE or other
• Determine how to address when another contaminant is exposed after remediation of a particular contaminant is complied
• Determine whether scale-up of laboratory effects should be used in a field situation?
  • Extrapolation
• Extrapolate the evaluation of toxicity protocol (EqP) to higher level impacts
  • Food chain analysis
• Identify appropriate exposure units for ecological effects
• Determine how to define acceptable risk—no benchmark for ecological
• Determine how to use mitigation options verses on-site remedial actions. Better communication about options with scientists in regulatory and private sectors.
• Determine what an appropriate reference sediment is. What are the positives and negatives? Keep it simple so that it is easy to comprehend and that people can see reasons for sediment assessment. Still need to understand causes where possible.

APPENDIX D

ASSESSMENT SUBGROUP DISCUSSION OUTLINE

1. Leadership
   • Dr. Ralph Stahl will remain the industry co-lead
   • Needs government co-lead, if possible (preferably EPA)
   • Exxon will check on assessment types to help
   • EPA assessment type from ORD labs may be needed
   • Need flexibility, particularly when projects arise because leadership on a project may change
2. Participation/Commitment
   • Members need something to rally around
   • Try to define specific topics or issues and then garner resources
3. Definition of Assessment
   • Those things we need to do to understand whether or not we need to take action
     • Recovery
     • Enhanced effects (make recovery occur faster)
   • Need to understand if we even have an issue
     • Is there an off ramp or do we need to do more?
   • Site-specific parameters that can be evaluated to understand what we might need to do
   • Use of models and validating them (re-suspension of sediments during an action), also to help decide whether there is a problem
   • Assess the system well enough so that we can decide how an action may influence the area, and what actions may not be appropriate (know how the system operates)
   • Evaluate the effectiveness of the action, know when to quit, and how to predict the outcome of a particular action
4. What are the "hot" areas for us to work on?
   • Consistency—adopt an approach that is acceptable among regulatory groups
   • How to integrate risk assessment into the decision process
     • What is the decision-making framework?
     • Where does risk fit?
   • Look at technologies for assessment and make suggestions about which ones work best
   • What (risk, measurement, field) technologies can be brought to bear to make that first step or initial screening assessments?
   • Bioavailibility/bioaccumulation issues, screening tools
   • What "tests" do we really need to help us understand if we have a problem?
     • We have lots of biological and toxicological tests—which ones do we really need to help make a decision?
   • What are the relevant ecological receptors we should be concerned with?—some may or may not be on the site (or used as surrogates in a test system)
   • Restoration or habitat enhancement when a particular technology (capping) is used
   • Assessing the system to understand potential issues related to the remedy
     • Natural recovery
     • Physical characteristics (flow, storms, etc.)
     • Sedimentation, sediment movement
   • How to evaluate if natural recovery is getting the system to where we want it to be—how could this be done consistently?
   • How good/valid are the models used in determining whether there are problems?
5. Who should we be partnering with?
   • The subgroup discussed partnering with numerous organizations, specifically: academia, ACOE (contact: Steve Nadeau), AIHC (contact: Dave Carson), API (contact: Len Racioppi), Army, ASTM, ASTWAMO, CMA (contact: Ralph Stahl), Department of Interior, DOE (contact: Steve Nadeau), EPA BTAG folks (contact: Ralph Stahl), Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, Natural Resource Trustees, Navy, pulp/paper industries (contact: Steve Nadeau), SETAC, SMWG, state governments (contact: Len Racioppi), SWACMO, trade organizations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Geological Service.
6. What kinds of products might we produce?
   • Do not want to be a discussion-only group
   • Support the technology foils (customer)
   • Push the envelope on science/assessment/new technologies (maybe start with a pilot effort)
   • Work on ways to determine remediation effectiveness and predict remediation outcomes
7. Are there sites we could use?
   • Need to use a range of sites to capture everyone's interests (nearshore, rivers, lakes, streams, etc.)
   • Need to be creative to find one, two, or three sites that work for everyone's diverse areas of interests
   • Look at active-operating and under-closure sites
   • Look for a pilot or demonstration project/site we could work on collaboratively (Dave H. will ask AIHC, Annette G)
     • GLNPO may have a site or sites, or may know where to start looking

The Assessment Subgroup identified the following tasks as their next steps:

1. Distribute AIHC documents on their demonstration project.
2. Develop a 1-page paper on the Assessment Subgroup and distribute to AIHC (this paper will deal with risk and risk technique processes).
3. Make follow-up contacts with specific groups.
4. Hold conference call at 10:00 AM Eastern, October 15, 1998 (Assessment Subgroup members only).
5. Hold meeting to plan the demonstration project.

APPENDIX E

TREATMENT SUBGROUP DISCUSSION OUTLINE

1. Identify contaminants of concern
   • Three primary contaminant of concerns were identified
     • PAH*⁽³⁾
     • Chlorinateds*³
     • Metals*³
     • Lead
     • PCBs
     • Dioxin
2. Discuss and list technologies
   • Capping
     • High interest in reactive caps
     • Do not know enough about fate processes
     • Containment
     • Enhance in situ fate processes
     • Different types of caps and their impacts on fate processes
     • Management as a dynamic entity (NY/NJ Harbor work to be addressed next conference call)
     • Depth of contaminant impact (potential exposure, shallow)
     • Understanding what processes to consider in making decisions (bioturbation)
     • Permanence question
     • Stabilization/immobilization (metals)
     • Make habitats better with caps
   • Natural recovery/natural attenuation
     • Define (does the ground-water definition apply to sediments?): Natural processes that mitigate pathways of exposure—balance between input and natural processes (EPA Strategy definition)
     • Enhanced natural recovery
     • Impact of dredge to treatment question
     • Possible sites identified were:
       • Charleston Navy Yard
       • Philadelphia Navy Yard (BRAC site)
       • Anacostia River
       • James River Navy Site
   • In Situ Treatment
     • "Reactive" cap (Smith will address this during the subgroup's conference call)—using caps a permeable reactive barrier types
     • Phytoremediation
     • Nylon carpet
     • AquaBlok™
     • Adsorptive matt that is recovering and magnetic
     • Permeable tubes
     • Biogenesis product
     • TIO summer fellow document on in situ treatment technologies (TIO will distribute this via e-mail or Internet Web site)
     • In situ stabilization (Fox River)
     • Zero-valent iron and metals (Nan Scale—Leigh University)
     • Possible sites identified were:
       • Hamilton Harbor
       • Puget Sound (University of Washington, Eagle Wycoff, DNAPL SEEP)
   • Ex Situ/CDFs
     • Dredging (The Treatment Subgroup is not interested in creating new dredging technologies, but recognized other dredging topics it would like to explore.)
       • Effectiveness
       • "Hot Spot" versus whole
       • Impact overall
       • What to do with sediments?
       • Evaluate field projects (IND GRP project with LSU: effectiveness and where appropriate)
       • Corps experience/change in approach
     • Remediation
       • Phytoremediation (genetically engineered plants to take up mercury, enzyme growth, processes, and life)
       • Mix remediation additives with CDF sediments during the existing material handling process (e.g., when the sediments are put into a CDF)
       • Plasma Torch (IND not INT)
       • Biocomposting
     • Technical trends
       • Link on Internet Web site for NY/NJ Harbor sediment decontamination projects
     • Waste minimization (volume minimization)
     • Reuse (Ann Montague is working in this area)
     • Iron Additives
     • Possible (bioremediation and phytoremediation) sites identified were:
       • NY/NJ technology cook-off
       • Milwaukee (phyto-phased)
       • Hart Miller Island, Baltimore Harbor
3. Identify potential field sites
   • Natural Recovery Field Sites (The subgroup initially approached site identification by talking about known contamination sites appropriate for various remediation efforts.)
     • Evaluation/Assessment
       • Charleston site
     • Demonstrate processes occurring
       • Anacostia
       • Charleston
       • Eagle Harbor
       • AquaBlok™ Ottawa River (contact: Scott Cieniawski)
       • Possible Air Force Sites (contact: Bob Olfenbuttel)
       • Talk to WEB regarding CDFs
     • Remediation
       • Hart Miller, BREMERTON (phytoremediation)
       • CDF bioaugementation site with potential for PAH degradation
     • Constructed Wetlands
       • Navy has sites
       • DuPont is interested in mercury seeping issuesDuPont is interested in mercury seeping issues
     • Acid-mine drainage sites
       • Copper site
     • Reuse
       • Montague (contact: Scott Cieniawski)
   • Field Site Criteria (The subgroup decided that their initial site-identification approach was not efficient so they changed strategies and began discussing characteristics of an ideal hypothetical site.)
     • Involvement of all parties (regulatory and regulated)
     • Ongoing project, preferably with a:
       • Flexible schedule (not a rigid time line)
       • Subgroup can add to existing plan
       • Subgroup can evaluate/assess planned work
     • Federal site
     • Extensively characterized for contaminants of interest
     • Results are transferable/applicable (marine versus freshwater sediment)
     • Willing to contribute money or other resources
4. Discuss funding issues
   • Financial Sources
     • SERDP Program (difficult)—R&D (50% to industry?), due in January
     • ESTP Program (contact: Jeff M)—D&E, due in March
     • EPA SITE Program—due in October, evaluated in January
     • NFESC—due in summer, solve problem of ENG field ACT
   • Sweat Equity
     • GLNPO (contact: Scott Cieniawski)
     • Navy BAA
     • DDE Projects (CK emphasis) (contacts: Bob Olfenbuttel, Skip Chamberlain, Rich Landis)
     • Industry trade groups (ask WES)
5. Discuss issuing RFP for innovative proposals
6. Schedule conference calls/meetings
   • Conference Call
     • October 28, 1998 (open to entire Action Team)
     • Smith will address reactive cap technologies
   • Meetings
     • January
       • Possibly Delaware
       • Maybe Charleston
     • April—San Diego
       • Coincide with the Battelle conference
   • Site Visits
     • Possible visit to Toledo
     • Grasse River (Alcoa) treatability study
       • 1999—enhanced material attenuation with cap to prevent PCB migration and evaluate attenuation over time

ENDNOTES

1. These six other Action Teams are: Bioremediation Consortium, Lasagna™ Partnership, IINERT Soil-Metals Action Team, Phytoremediation of Organics Action Team, Permeable Reactive Barriers Action Team, and In Situ Flushing Action Team. Details about these six action teams can be found on the RTDF Internet Web site (http://www.rtdf.org).
2. Smith emphasized that "effective" can have numerous definitions and that part of the SMWG objective is to determine how to define "effectiveness" for their mission.
3. Identified as primary contaminant of concern.