2010 Spring Meeting Booklet

ITRC SPRING MEETING April 19—23, 2010 Austin, Texas

B S I

ite d S ate ler on LTT cce ti D A riza cte ara Ch

MA AS PL

“ITRC Membership 1995”

Welcome From Co-Chairs Hotel Facility Floor Plans

elcome to the ITRC 2010 Spring Meeting in beautiful Austin, Texas! As ITRC W Board of Advisors Co-Chairs, we thank you for your commitment to ITRC. This commitment is demonstrated by the fact that over 275 ITRC Members from across the country are gathered here to collaborate on innovative approaches to solving environmental challenges. This year ITRC celebrates 15 Years Advancing Environmental Solutions. It is remarkable to see our progress since 1995 and exciting to envision our achievements to come!

This meeting’s primary focus continues to be on our members so we encourage you to take advantage of this, by: • Capitalizing on opportunities to network and gain professional development through participation in round-robin technical sessions, • Being involved in the selection of 2011 project proposals by interacting with proposal leaders during the poster session reception, and • Working with your current team members on solutions for your respective project(s).

We hope each of you use this meeting as an opportunity to expand your own network and discover what innovative strategies other teams are pursuing for 2010 and beyond—the strategies that will make our next 15 years even more successful than the last!

Thank you and have a great meeting,

Christine Costopoulos and George Nicholas

We need your help to celebrate 15 Years Advancing Environmental Solutions at this year’s fall meeting in St. Louis, MO. As part of the celebrations, we'd like to invite ITRC Members to showcase their talent during the Fall Reception when we host an ITRC Talent Show.

We invite both individuals and groups of team members to perform and enter- tain everyone in a way that highlights ITRC impact over the years. Perhaps you would like to share a song, a poem, or even a dance--the stage is yours!

You may sign up to perform during the online fall meeting registration process. Please be sure that all acts are respectful and in the cooperative spirit of ITRC. If you have any questions, please contact George Nicholas ([email protected]), Christine Costopoulos ([email protected]) or Denise Calore ([email protected]).

2 55

Evaluation Form, Continued Table of Contents

Agenda ...... 5 E VALUATION, CONTINUED ITRC 2010 Project Team Leaders/Team Descriptions ...... 9 Yes No Somewhat Comments ITRC 2011 Project Proposal Contacts...... 13 Project Technical Round Robin Ses- ITRC 2011 Project Proposals sions were informa- tive and a good use Biochemical Reactors to Treat Metals in Mining-Influenced of full membership Water ...... 15 time? Strategy for Remedial Decision-Making at Contaminated

Sediment Sites ...... 23 Groundwater Statistics & Monitoring Compliance ...... 29 Your Project Team Meeting was effec- Project Technical Session Overview...... 33 tive? Project Technical Session Breakouts—Sign-Up Lists Session 1 RRM Implementa- Environmental Impacts of Ethanol & Bio-Based Fuels ...... 37 tion Presentation

Green & Sustainable Remediation...... 38 provided you enough information Incremental Sampling Methodology ...... 39 to assist ITRC with In Situ Stabilization & Solidification ...... 40 forwarding use of Permeable Reactive Barriers: Technology Update...... 41 this document? Session 2 Environmental Impacts of Ethanol & Bio-Based Fuels ...... 43 Green & Sustainable Remediation...... 44 Incremental Sampling Methodology ...... 45 What other suggestions do In Situ Stabilization & Solidification ...... 46 you have for future ITRC Permeable Reactive Barriers: Technology Update...... 47

Spring Membership Meet- ings? Remediation Risk Management (RRM) Information for Implementation Session...... 49

Local Area Information/Map...... 51

Evaluation Form...... 53

Hotel Facility Floor Plans ...... 55

54 3

Agenda Evaluation Form

A FFILIATION Page left blank intentionally □ Federal □Team Leader/Member—Which Team(s)? □ IAP □Board of Advisors □ Sate POC □Other

EVALUATION Great Satisfactory Poor Comments

Please rate Austin, TX meeting location

Please rate hotel facility, meeting space, etc

Yes No Somewhat Comments

Combining the Pro- posal Poster Pres- entation and the

Reception was an effective use of time?

Director update covered informa-

tion you wanted to hear?

Co-Chair updates covered informa-

tion you wanted to hear?

4 53

Local Information Agenda

MONDAY, APRIL 19 MEETINGS ROOM 7:00 AM – 5:00 PM Registration Ballroom Foyer 7:00 AM – 8:30 AM Breakfast Capitol E 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM Project Team Meetings • Contaminated Sediments Capitol View Terrace North • Environmental Molecular Diagnostics Capitol View Terrace South

• Green & Sustainable Remediation Capitol A, B, & C • In Situ Stabilization & Solidification Capitol G & H • Mining Waste Jesse Tannehill • Permeable Reactive Barriers (PRB): Creekside II Technology Update • Unexploded Ordnance: Wide Area Jacob Bickler Assessment Other Meetings • LNAPL Classroom Training Planning Capitol F Meeting 10:00 AM – 10:30 AM AM Break Capitol E 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM Lunch on Your Own 2:30 PM – 3:00 PM PM Break Capitol E

TUESDAY, APRIL 20 MEETINGS ROOM 7:00 AM – 7:00 PM Registration Ballroom Foyer 7:00 AM – 8:30 AM Breakfast Capitol E 8:30 AM – 4:00 PM Project Team Meetings • Contaminated Sediments Capitol View Terrace North

• Environmental Molecular Diagnostics Capitol View Terrace South

• Green & Sustainable Remediation Capitol A, B, & C • In Situ Stabilization & Solidification Capitol G & H • Mining Waste Jesse Tannehill • Permeable Reactive Barriers (PRB): Creekside II Technology Update • Unexploded Ordnance: Wide Area Jacob Bickler Assessment Other Meetings • State Engagement (POC) Meeting Creekside I • LNAPL Classroom Training Planning Capitol F Meeting 10:00 AM – 10:30 AM AM Break Capitol E 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM Lunch on Your Own 2:30 PM – 3:00 PM PM Break Capitol E 52 5

Agenda Local Information

TUESDAY, APRIL 20 MEETINGS ROOM Restaurants within 1-3 blocks of the Sheraton Restaurants within 3-6 blocks of the Sheraton Austin Hotel Austin Hotel 4:30 PM – 7:00 PM Plenary Opening & Networking Reception Featuring Capitol E 2011 Project Proposal Introductions and Poster Stubbs BBQ 801 Red River St 512-480-8341 Hickory Street Grill American 800 Congress Ave 512-477-8968 Session Brick Oven Italian 1209 Red River St 512-477-7006 Scholz Garten German 1607 San Jacinto Blvd 512-474-1958 • Biochemical Reactors to Treat Metals in Mining- Jaime’s Spanish Village 802 Red River St 512-476-5149 Influenced Waters Old Pecan Street American 310 E 6th St 512-478-2491 Serrano’s Tex Mex 1111 Red River St 512-322-9080 Paul Eger, Minnesota Department of Natural Paradise Café Southwestern 401 E 6th St 512-476-5667 Resources Ms. B’s Authentic Creole Restaurant 1050 E 11th St 512-542-9143 Silhouette Sushi Sushi 718 Congress Ave 512-478-8899 Cherri Baysinger, Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services Primizie Osteria Italian 1000 E 11th St 512-542-9542 Thai Passion Thai 620 Congress Ave 512-472-1244 • Groundwater Statistics and Monitoring Compliance Blue Dahlia Bistro 1115 E 11th St 512-542-9542 Wiki Wiki Teriyaki Chinese 609 Congress Ave 512-472-9454

Ning-Wu Chang, California Environmental Victory Grill Southern Cooking 1104 E 11th St 512-472-3700 Boiling Pot Cajun 700 E 6th St 512-472-0985 Protection Agency / Department of Toxic Substance Control Uncorked Wine Bar 900 E 7th St 512-524-2809 Habana Mexican 709 E 6th St 512-443-4252 • Strategy for Remedial Decision-Making at J Kelly’s BBQ 900 E 11th St 512-499-0910 Chez Nous French 510 Neches St 512-473-2413 Contaminated Sediment Sites th Carmelo’s Italian 504 E 5 St 512-477-7497 John Cargill, Delaware Department of Natural Louie’s 106 Tapas 106 E 6th St 512-476-1998 Resources and Environmental Control / Site Investigation and Restoration Branch Iron Cactus Tex Mex 606 Trinity St 512-472-9240

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21 MEETINGS ROOM Eddie V’s Steakhouse 301 E 5th St 512-472-1860

7:00 AM – 9:45 AM Breakfast & Plenary Session Capitol E B.D Riley’s Irish 204 E 6th St 512-494-1335

7:00 AM – 8:00 AM Registration & Breakfast Capitol E Parkside American 301 E 6th St 512-474-9898 Jezebel Continental 914 Congress Ave 512-499-3999 8:00 AM – 8:30 AM ITRC Co-Chairs Address Capitol E Mike’s Pub Hamburgers 108 E 7th St 512-479-6424

Christine Costopoulos (NY), George Nicholas (NJ) 8:30 AM – 9:00 AM ITRC Director Update, Anna Willett, ITRC Director Capitol E Pharmacy / Hospital The Good Knight American 1300 E 6th St 512-628-1250 Roux Cajun 214 E 6th St 512-479-0474 9:00 AM – 9:30 AM Remediation Risk Management (RRM) Capitol E CVS Pharmacy Mon.-Fri. 8:00am-10:00pm Implementation: An Introduction to Upcoming 1105 North I-H 35 512-476-2681 Koriente Korean 621 E 7th St 512-275-0852 th Products, Ning-Wu Chang (CA), Team Leader, RRM Brackenridge Hospital 601 East 15th Street 512-324-7000 Casino El Camino Hamburgers 517 E 6 St 512-469-9330 9:30 AM – 9:45 AM Introduction to Project Team Technical Sessions Capitol E Jackalope Hamburgers 404 E 6th St 512-472-3666 George Nicholas (for Brian Espy), Co-Chair, Board of El Chilito Tex Mex 918 Congress Ave 512-291-3120 Advisors 9:45 AM – 10:00 AM AM Break Capitol E Local Areas of Interest Texas State Capitol 10:00 AM – 12:15 PM Plenary Session, Continued With more than 1 million visitors per year, the Texas State Capitol ranks as one of Austin's most popular attractions. Completed 10:00 AM – 11:00 AM Technical Breakout Session #1 in 1886, the Texas State Capitol is the largest in square footage of all state capitols and surpasses the national Capitol in height by 14 feet. 1100 Congress Ave 512-463-0063. • Environmental Impacts of Ethanol & Bio-Based Capitol View Fuels, Bill Gidley (NE) Terrace North University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas at Austin is one of the largest public universities in the United States. Founded in 1883, the university has • Green & Sustainable Remediation Capitol F, G, & H grown from a single building, eight teachers, two departments and 221 students to a 350-acre main campus with 21,000 faculty Tom O’Neill (NJ) and staff, 17 colleges and schools and more than 50,000 students. To reach campus, follow Trinity Street to Martin Luther King • Incremental Sampling Methodology Capitol A, B, & C Jr. Boulevard. Mark Malinowski (CA) & Ligia Mora-Applegate (FL) Warehouse and Sixth Street Entertainment Districts Four blocks of Fourth and Fifth Streets comprise the Warehouse District. The buildings have been renovated from warehouses to • In Situ Stabilization & Solidification Creekside I trendy, distinctive hot spots. Austin's Sixth Street is widely known for its unique blend of dance clubs, live music venues, restau- Wilmer Reyes (DE) rants and bars. The Warehouse District is roughly bounded by 5th Street, 7th Street, Lavaca Street, and Interstate 35. • Permeable Reactive Barriers (PRB): Technology Capitol View Congress Avenue Bats Update Strategy Terrace South Austin boasts the largest urban colony of Mexican free-tail bats in North America with a population of 1.5 million. The sunset John Doyon (NJ) & Kimberly Wilson (SC) exodus of the bats creates a nightly spectacle from March through October with onlookers watching as the nocturnal creatures emerge from beneath the Congress Avenue Bridge. 1st Street & Congress Ave Bat Conservation International 512-327-9721. 6 51 RRM Information for Implementation Session Agenda

Benefits WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21 MEETINGS ROOM RRM will reduce risk in remediation implementation 11:00 AM—11:15 AM Time to Rotate to Next Technical Breakout RRM will reduce uncertainties in remediation decision making Session #2 Same as Session RRM will help to minimize remediation derived wastes 11:15 AM—12:15 PM Technical Breakout Session #2 #1 Waste destruction – not transfer is achieved through RRM 12:15 PM – 1:30 PM Lunch On Your Own RRM will achieve protection of human health and the environment by consid- ering alternative approaches to reduce risk of active remediation while meeting 12:15 PM – 1:30 PM IAP Coordination Lunch Meeting Jacob Bickler the cleanup goals Ryan Wymore, Industry Representative RRM will benefit the environment through successful remediation of contami- 12:15 PM – 1:30 PM Stakeholder Coordination Lunch Meeting Jesse Tannehill nated sites Mary Jo Ondrechen, Public Stakeholder Representative Actions you can take 1:30 PM – 4:00 PM ITRC New State POC Orientation Session Creekside I Here’s what you can do to bring ITRC benefits to your state, or Kathy Brown, State Engagement Coordinator organization or company: 1:30 PM – 5:00 PM Project Team Meetings Promote use of guidance and FREE internet- based training with your staff as • Attenuation Processes for Metals & Creekside II well as with site owners and their consultants Radionuclides Consider using the guidance as a tool to update or augment existing remedial • Environmental Impacts of Ethanol & Bio-Based Capitol View actions with a risk management plan that prepares for the uncontrollable pro- Fuels Terrace North ject activities or circumstances • Incremental Sampling Methodology Capitol A, B & C Provide your state’s concurrence on the guidance document (regulators) • Integrated DNAPL Source Strategy Capitol View Report to ITRC, via your state POC (regulators) or the internet (site owners Terrace South and consultants), any successes or concerns related to this guidance • Remediation Risk Management Capitol F, G & H Resources Documents 2:30 PM – 3:00 PM PM Break Capitol E Remediation Risk Management: An Approach to Effective Remediation Deci- THURSDAY, APRIL 22 MEETINGS ROOM sions and More Protective Cleanups, RRM-1, 2010 7:00 AM – 8:30 AM Registration & Breakfast Capitol E Assessing Alternative Approaches to Address Groundwater Cleanup Limita- tions, RRM-2, 2010 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM Board of Advisors Meeting Creekside I Links 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM Project Team Meetings Go to www.itrcweb.org and click on “Guidance Documents” to order or download • Attenuation Processes for Metals & Creekside II documents. Radionuclides For more information and useful links about LNAPLs, go to http://www.cluin.org/ • Environmental Impacts of Ethanol & Bio-Based Capitol View conf/itrc/RRM/resource.cfm Fuels Terrace North Training • Incremental Sampling Methodology Capitol A, B & C RRM internet based training is scheduled for September 14, 2010 and Novem- • Integrated DNAPL Source Strategy Capitol View ber 2, 2010. Please check: http://www.cluin.org/conf/itrc/RRM/ for details Terrace South

• Remediation Risk Management Capitol F & G

Contact: 10:00 AM – 10:30 AM AM Break Capitol E Ning-Wu Chang California Department of Toxic Substances Control 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM Lunch on Your Own [email protected] 2:30 PM – 3:00 PM PM Break Capitol E (714) 484-5485 ITRC is affiliated with Regulatory Acceptance for New Solutions the Environmental Documents, free Internet-based training, contact information Council of the States

www.itrcweb.org 50 7 RRM Information for Agenda Implementation Session

FRIDAY, APRIL 23 MEETINGS ROOM ITRC Guidance Information for Regulators, 7:00 AM – 8:30 AM Registration & Breakfast Capitol E Site Owners and Consultants 8:30 AM – 12:30 PM Project Team Meetings, Continued Product Announcement (April 2010) • Attenuation Processes for Metals & Creekside II Radionuclides Remediation Risk Management: An Approach to Effective Remediation Decisions and More Protective Cleanups • Environmental Impacts of Ethanol & Bio- Capitol View Terrace

Based Fuels North A new guidance document is available from ITRC to help regula- • Incremental Sampling Methodology Capitol A, B & C tors, site owners, consultants and other stakeholders to understand, identify, evaluate and handle remediation risks that may • Integrated DNAPL Source Strategy Capitol View Terrace directly or indirectly affect the outcome of remediation efforts. South Using a project risk management approach to the Remediation • Remediation Risk Management Capitol F & G Risk Management, one can develop a risk management plan to help identify risk handling actions to ensure remediation success. 10:00 AM—10:30 AM AM Break Capitol E 12:30 PM Meeting Adjourns Background In spite of our best efforts, many remediation risks – those risks beyond human health and ecological risks – are often not properly addressed in the remediation implementation and hence result in schedule delay, cost increase, or not achieving cleanup goals. Remediation Risk Management (RRM) is a critical process for managing uncontrollable project activities or circumstances that may result in negative consequences to remediation performance. The project team evaluates the remediation risk and develops plans to facilitate risk han-

dling. Managing remedy performance should be an integral part of a remediation program’s overall management. Past practices have generally treated performance management solely as a system engineering function, cost-estimating technique, or possibly as an independent function distinct from other program functions. Today, RRM is recognized as a vital integrated program management tool that cuts across the entire program, addressing and interrelating cost, schedule, and performance/operational risks. The goal is to make everyone involved in the program aware that these project-related risks should be consid- ered in the planning, design and execution of all remedial activities. Definition Remediation Risk Management (RRM) is a process through which all risks related to the remediation process – remedy selection, implementation and close out – are holistically addressed in order to maximize decision certainties in the cleanup process.

Remedy Professional System Travel and Selection Liability Failure Transportation and Energy Implementation Consumption

Risk from Human Net Risk Green Remedy Health House Input for Implementation and Threshold Gas Remediation that can effect Ecological Emissions Human Health Risks Decisions and Env.

Unintended Consequences Unintended to the Geographical Political Other Consequences Environment and to Worker Social Safety

8 49

ITRC 2010 Project Team Leaders/ RRM Notes Team Descriptions

Attenuation Processes for Metals and Radionuclides Team Leaders: Dib Goswami (WA) and Carl Spreng (CO) Program Advisor: Daniel Ruedy (EnDyna) Project: Develop a framework to facilitate implementation of the new EPA guidance for monitored natural attenuation of metals and radionuclides. This framework will provide a consistent basis for states, stakeholders, federal agencies, and site owners to evaluate and implement attenuation-based remedies.

Contaminated Sediments Team Leaders: John Cargill (DE) and Kim McEvoy (NJ) Program Advisors: Steve Hill (RegTech) and Judie Kean (RegTech) Project: Develop a Web-based Technical Regulatory Guidance document on the concepts, process, and use of bioavailability in a risk-based decision framework at a contaminated sediment site. The document will provide a common resource for regulators and practitioners to determine the appropriate application of bioavailability tools and considerations within human health and ecological exposure pathways.

Environmental Impacts of Ethanol and Bio-Based Fuels Team Leader: Bill Gidley (NE) Program Advisor: Stacey Kingsbury (HydroGeoLogic, Inc.)

Project: Develop a technical and regulatory guidance document that provides guidance on the environmental impact associated with releases of biofuels to the environment during the transportation, distribution, and storage of these fuels. Topics to be covered in depth include: release scenarios and prevention, site characterization, fate and transport, and remediation strategies. To make the document relevant as new alternative fuels are introduced to the market, the document will describe a process for evaluating alternative fuels that can be applied to new alternative fuels as they are made commercially available.

Environmental Molecular Diagnostics New for 2010

Team Leaders: Bob Mueller (NJ) and Bonnie Pierce (WY) Program Advisor: Lesley Hay Wilson (Sage Risk Solutions LLC)

Project: Collect and summarize the fundamental background and current status of available environmental molecular diagnostic (EMD) tools. The team will provide ob- jective guidance on the best practices for using EMDs; determine appropriate uses of the EMDs, including their strengths and limitations; and provide support evaluating, applying and interpreting the results of EMDs. Technical and regulatory guidance will lead to greater use and confidence in these diagnostic tools, and help site managers faced with major decisions about site design, management and resolution. Molecular biological tools (MBTs) and chemical diagnostic techniques consist of both laboratory and field methods, and some of these techniques have already been adapted for use in environmental restoration. Others are expected to be available for field application in the near future.

48 9 ITRC 2010 Project Team Leaders/ Project Technical Session Breakouts Team Descriptions Session 2—Sign-Up List

Green & Sustainable Remediation Permeable Reactive Barriers: Technology Update Team Leader: Tom O’Neill (NJ) Lily Barkau, Senior Project Manager, State of Wyoming Program Advisor: Sriram Madabhushi (Booz Allen Hamilton) Project: Produce a Technology Overview document explaining what Green/ Erica Becvar, Senior Soil Scientist, AFCEE/TDV Sustainable remediation is and how GSR is beginning to be implemented in new Michael Behrens, Environmental Engineer III, Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality state and federal programs. Survey ITRC states, partners, and stakeholders (internal and external) on the interest in and focus of a Technical Regulatory guidance docu- Kathleen Bradley, Lead Hydrogeologist, Noblis ment. Begin work on the Technical Regulatory guidance document based on survey Larry Bryant, Chief, Environmental Services Branch, Alabama Department of Environmental results and building from the Technology Overview effort. Management David Cates, Professional Engineer III, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality Incremental Sampling Methodology Tanwir Chaudhry, Project Manager, Consultant - Navy Team Leaders: Mark Malinowski (CA) and Ligia Mora-Applegate (FL) Jeff Clock, Senior Project Manager, EPRI Program Advisor: Barry Weand (Team LLC) Earl Crapps, Environmental Program Specialist IV, Alaska Department of Environmental Project: Develop a Technical and Regulatory Guidance document for the appropriate Conservation implementation of Incremental Sampling (IS) for soils. The document will provide a sound basis for adapting the IS approach to meet project goals and site-specific ob- Greg Davis, President, Microbial Insights, Inc. jectives. The document includes: overview of IS concepts and principles; IS methods Joseph Dom, Professional Geologist, Kansas Department of Health & Environment and considerations - with an emphasis on clearly articulated and defined decision Doug Downey, Principal Technologist, CH2M HILL units - and sample collection and processing protocols; regulatory considerations John Doyon, Site Remediation Technical Specialist, New Jersey Department of Environmental and issues; and case studies. Protection Sonja Favors, Senior Environmental Engineering Specialist, Alabama Dept of Environmental In Situ Stabilization and Solidification Management

Team Leader: Wilmer Reyes (DE) Mike Fitzpatrick, Environmental Scientist, EPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery Program Advisor: Stacey Kingsbury (HydroGeoLogic, Inc.) Valerie Garrett, Environmental Specialist, Missouri Department of Natural Resources Project: Develop a Technical and Regulatory Guidance document to present meth- odologies for selection of performance criteria and long term monitoring strategies Judie Kean, RegTech, Inc for solidification/stabilization (S/S). Appropriate performance criteria selection will Wahid Khan, Senior Manager, ENVIRON allow practitioners to apply a consistent assessment methodology that considers the Jerry Lisiecki, Ph.D., Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. physical, chemical, and site- or scenario-specific management characteristics of the treated materials to meet remedial action objectives and minimize post-treatment Tamzen Macbeth, Senior Environmental Engineer, CDM (Camp, Dresser, & McKee, Inc.) impacts to groundwater. Considerations for long-term monitoring will be discussed John McVey, Engineering Specialist, SD Petroleum Release Compensation Fund as they relate to demonstrating that the corrective action meets the goals estab- lished for the project. Eric Nuttall, Ph.D., University of New Mexico Nick Petruzzi, Project Engineer/Scientist, Cox-Colvin & Associates Integrated DNAPL Source Strategy Bonnie Pierce, Environmental Program Principal, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Team Leader: Naji Akladiss (ME) Program Advisors: Steve Hill (RegTech) and Judie Kean (RegTech) Pasupathy Ramanan, Project Manager, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection Project: Develop an “Integrated DNAPL Site Strategy (IDSS)” to address the technical Geetha Selvendran, PG, FDEP and regulatory issues involved in an integrated technology DNAPL site remediation Neil Taylor, Environmental Scientist, Utah Department of Environmental Quality strategy. The IDSS will assist decision makers in identifying site conditions that are conducive to source zone clean-up and those where technologies (or combinations Kaneshia Townsend, Environmental Engineering Specialist, Alabama Department of of technologies) will control and remediate DNAPL source and plume. The guidance Environmental Management will also help in establishing realistic expectations and goals for cleanups and a Kimberly Wilson, Hydrogeologist, SC Department of Health & Environmental Control methodology for measuring progress towards achieving those goals.

10 47 Project Technical Session Breakouts ITRC 2010 Project Team Leaders/ Session 2—Sign-Up List Team Descriptions

In Situ Stabilization & Solidification Permeable Reactive Barriers (PRB): Technology Update Kenneth Bowers, Chemist, NAVFAC Atlantic Team Leaders: John Doyon (NJ) and Kimberly Wilson (SC) Program Advisor: Kathleen Bradley (Noblis) Charles Brigance, Project Manager Corrective Action, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Project: Develop technical and regulatory guidance document discussing new Kathy Brown, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality developments and innovative approaches in the applications of PRBs to treat Mark Bruce, Technical Director, TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc. groundwater contaminants. Additional prove-outs and updates since the previ- ous PRB lessons learned document in 2005 will also be included. The document Anna Butler, Geologist/Technical Manager, USACE will emphasize recent advances in biowalls, non-iron reactive media, and newer J.R. Capasso, Brownfields Coordinator, City of Trenton injection methods. Cleet Carlton, Engineering Geologist, Regional Water Quality Control Board Michael Chacon, Technical Reviewer/Quality Assurance Manager, Pueblo de San Ildefonso Mining Waste Team Leaders: Cherri Baysinger (MO) and Paul Eger (MN) Arthur Chin, Ph.D., ExxonMobil Program Advisors: Steve Hill (RegTech) and Judie Kean (RegTech) Rula Deeb, Technology/Applied Research Leader, Sr. Associate, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Project: Use case studies and literature searches to provide data and evaluate Timothy Deignan, Discipline Lead, Geophysics, Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. technologies for treating, stabilizing, reclaiming, and reusing solid mine waste and mining impacted water and evaluate their performance. Develop a guidance Carol Dona, Ph.D., US Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental and Munitions Center of Expertise document that will assist the user to properly evaluate and apply each technol- David Duncklee, Senior Hydrogeologist, Duncklee and Dunham ogy. Identify regulatory barriers or impediments and recommend specific flexibil- ity when there is a net environmental benefit. Nancy Fagan, Environmental Engineer, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division - RCRA Robert Ferry, Principal Hydrogeologist, Brown and Caldwell Remediation Risk Management

Jim Harrington, Chief Technology Section, New York State Dept of Environmental Conservation Team Leader: Ning-Wu Chang (CA) Program Advisor: Sriram Madabhushi (Booz Allen Hamilton) Stacey Kingsbury, Program Advisor, HydroGeoLogic, Inc. Project: Develop document(s) for recognizing the risks inherent in remediation Orphius Mohammad, Engineer Intern II, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Land projects and setting realistic performance goals and expectations. These docu- Protection Division ments will include evaluation of all risks associated with remediation at a site Mark Nielsen, Principal, ENVIRON from the completion of site investigations and contaminant plume assessments Wilmer Reyes, Environmental Engineer, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and and starting of remedy selection process all the way up to conclusion of all reme- Environmental Control diation activities and closure of the release.

Joe Rogers, Geologist, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Unexploded Ordnance – Wide Area Assessment Daniel Ruedy, EnDyna Team Leaders: William Harmon (MI) and Guy Warren (AK) Tom Schneider, Supervisor, Division of Air Pollution Control, Ohio Environmental Protection Program Advisor: Daniel Ruedy (EnDyna) Agency Project: Develop a technology overview document using a Frequently Asked Ed Seger, Principal Environmental Engineer, DuPont Questions format on the potential use of Wide Area Assessment to explain the Jeffrey Short, Col., Stakeholder, ITRC Public Stakeholder technology and its application at munitions response sites. The document will be Rajesh Singh, Senior Project Manager, Langan Engineering & Environmental Services developed jointly with the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP)/Environmental Security Technology Certification Program Larry Syverson, Groundwater Remediation Specialist, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (ESTCP). Rose Weissman, Senior Project Manager, Kleinfelder

Valerie Wilder, Project Manager, Missouri Department of Natural Resources

46 11 ITRC 2010 Project Team Leaders/ Project Technical Session Breakouts Team Descriptions Session 2—Sign-Up List

Page left blank intentionally Incremental Sampling Methodology Jeanne Barnes, Environmental Engineering Specialist, Senior, Alabama Department of Environmental Management Kristin Bell, Senior Associate, ENVIRON Richard (Kirby) Biggs, Project Manager, OSWER/OSRTI/TIFSD/TIIB Kelly Black, Environmental Decision Support Specialist, Neptune and Company, Inc. Samuel L. Brock, Toxicologist, HAQ AFCEE Frank Camera, Research Scientist/Technical Coordinator, NJ DEP Ahad Chowdhury, Professional Geologist, Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection Kevin Collins, Geologist, GA DNR - Environmental Protection Division, Hazardous Waste Management Paul Eger, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Stephanie Fiorenza, Regional Technology Coordinator, BP North America, Inc. Rick Galloway, Environmental Scientist, State of DE - Dept of Nat Res. & Envir. Control Wanda Holmes, Director, Env. Restoration and Range Assessments, Chief of Naval Operations Office Pamela Innis, CHF Project Manager, Department of Interior - Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance (DOI-OEPC)

William McKercher, Environmental Engineer II, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Anita Meyer, US Army Corps of Engineers Beth Moore, Hydrogeologist, EM-32, Office of Groundwater and Soil Remediation Stephen Mueller, Senior Hydrogeologist, Wisconsin Department of Commerce, Environmental & Regulatory Services Division Robert Mueller, Research Scientist, New Jersey DEP George Nicholas, Supervising Geologist, New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection Bruce Robinson, Project Geologist, Public/Tribal Stakeholder Devon Rowe, Senior Manager, ENVIRON Michael Smith, Hydrogeologist, VT Dept Environmental Conservation Carl Spreng, Environmental Protection Specialist, Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment Brian Stonebrink, Project Manager, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Ken Vogler, Engineer, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Robert Weber, Superfund and Technology Liaison, EPA Office of Research and Development Joseph Wellner, Geologist, Registered, KY EEC DEP DWM HWB CA Section Mary Yelken, Principal Consultant, The Yelken Group, Inc. Peter Zawislanski, Principal Geologist, ARCADIS

12 45

Project Technical Session Breakouts ITRC Project Proposal Contacts Session 2—Sign-Up List

Green & Sustainable Remediation PROPOSALS CONTACTS David Asiello, Program Manager, Department of Defense Douglas Bacon, Environmental Scientist III, State of Utah - Dept. of Environmental Quality/Div. of Biochemical Reactors to Paul Eger Environmental Response & Remediation Treat Metals in Mining- Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Carol Baker, Staff Scientist, Chevron Influenced Water Iona Black, Chemistry Faculty, Yale University Cherri Baysinger John Cargill, Hydrologist III, DNREC-Site Investigation and Restoration Branch Missouri Department of Health and Senior Ning-Wu Chang, Senior Hazardous Substances Engineer, Department of Toxic Substances Control / Services Cal EPA Ann Charles, Research Scientist, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Strategy for Remedial Kim Ward Robert Downer, Environmental Engineer, Burns & McDonnell Engineering Co., Inc. Decision-Making at New Jersey Department of Environmental Tom Ezell, ADEQ Branch Manager, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Contaminated Sediment Protection / Bureau of Environmental Measures Lesley Hay Wilson, Principal, Sage Risk Solutions LLC Sites and Site Assessment (BEMSA) Tom Higgins, Hydrogeologist, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Keith Hoddinott, Senior Risk Assessor, US Army Public Health Command John Cargill Cassandra Jobe, Program Development Supervisor, Kentucky Department of Environmental Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Protection Environmental Control (DNREC) / Site Mavis Kent, Senior Hydrogeologist, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Investigation and Restoration Branch Andrea Leeson, Environmental Restoration Program Manager, SERDP/ESTCP Groundwater Statistics and Ning-Wu Chang Keisha Long, Environmental Engineer Assoc., SC DHEC Monitoring Compliance California Environmental Protection Agency / Mark Malinowski, Senior Engineering Geologist, California Dept of Toxic Substances Control Department of Toxic Substances Control Ligia Mora-Applegate, Environmental Consultant, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Mary Jo Ondrechen, Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Northeastern University Hugh Rieck, Geologist, US Army Corps of Engineers Danielle Sadler, Alternate Army Liaison, U.S. Army ODASA (ESOH) Lenny Siegel, Executive Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight Robert Storms, Environmental Specialist/Geologist, TDEC/DOE-O James Taylor, Engineering Geologist/Remedial Project Manager, CA Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region David Tsao, Technical Specialist, BP North America, Inc. Karen Vangelas, Environmental Engineer, Savannah River National Laboratory Janet Waldron, Environmental Analyst, Massachusetts DEP Guy Warren, Environmental Program Specialist, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Josh Whipple, Hydrogeologist III, NHDES Anna Willett, ITRC Director, ITRC

44 13 Project Technical Session Breakouts BCR Proposal Notes Session 2—Sign-Up List

Environmental Impacts of Ethanol & Bio-Based Fuels

Cherri Baysinger, Chief, Bureau of Environmental Epidemiology, Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services

Washington Braida, Associate Research Professor, Stevens Institute of Technology Denise Calore, President, Opportunity Knocks, Inc.

Michelle Caruso, Project Manager, Tetra Tech, Inc. Aaron Cohen, Contract / Project Manager, Florida Department of Environmental Protection

John Fonk, Unit Coordinator, GA EPD - Land Protection Branch

Bill Gidley, Section Supervisor, Nebraska DEQ Dennis Green, Stakeholder, Public/Tribal Stakeholder

Mike Habeck, Senior Environmental Manager, Indiana Department of Environmental Management Lindsay Hall, Engineer, State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control

Alison Hathcock, Permitting Coordinator-UST Program, SCDHEC

Julie Hoskin, QA/QC and Lab Services Manager, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality J. David Lawson, Senior Environmental Engineer, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality

William Major, Environmental Engineer, NAVFAC ESC Pat McLoughlin, Technical Director, Microseeps, Inc.

Tara Meyers, Physical Scientist, Navfac Engineering Service Center Matt Moran, Environmental Analyst, Vermont DEC Michael Murphy, Division Director, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Dora Ogles, Vice President, Microbial Insights, Inc. Katherine Owens, Stakeholder, Community Stakeholder Ruth Owens, Environmental Engineer, NFESC G. A. (Jim) Shirazi, Hydrologist and Soil Scientist, Oklahoma Dept. of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry Michael Sieczkowski, Technical Sales Director, JRW Bioremediation, LLC Russell Sirabian, Program Manager, Battelle Claudio Sorrentino, Senior Toxicologist, Dept. Toxic Substances Control / Cal EPA Roy Spalding, Professor, Ethanol and Biobased Fuels

Brent Stafford, Environmental Engineer/Hydrogeologist, Shell

Marvin Unger, Support Staff, SERDP/ESTCP Araya Vann, Senior Oil and Gas Specialist - Engineer, Oklahoma Corporation Commission & SPE

Ryan Wymore, Principal Environmental Engineer, CDM (Camp, Dresser, & McKee, Inc.)

14 43 Biochemical Reactors to Treat Metals in Mining-Influenced Water

Page left blank intentionally Proposal Contact:

Paul Eger, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Rd, St. Paul, MN 55155 Tel 651-259-5384 E-mail [email protected]

Cherri Baysinger, Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services 930 Wildwood, P.O. Box 570, Jefferson City, MO 65109 Tel 573-751-6102

e-mail [email protected] Call for Proposals Topical Area: Primary topic area - CONT - Soil and groundwater contamination Technologies and approaches for modeling, treatment, and remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater. Secondary topic area – STORM - Storm water management Impacts, monitoring, and mitigation of point and non-point storm water discharges.

Problem Statement: (why is this project necessary and relevant to ITRC’s purpose & mission?

Mining influenced water (MIW) is a major environmental problem in mining districts throughout the U.S. and around the world. Water quality impacts vary from elevated suspended solids to acid mine drainage. Elevated suspended solids generally occur through erosion of mine wastes, causing increased turbidity and potential aquatic impacts following deposition. Acid mine waters are produced in mined rock masses or mining/milling waste piles containing sulfide minerals with insufficient neutralizing capacity. Oxidation of these sulfide minerals produces acid and releases metals into solution. These problems can persist for tens to hundreds of years. Over 10,000 miles of receiving waters in the United States are affected by MIW. MIW is difficult to treat cost-effectively to levels protective of human health and the environment.

A biochemical reactor (BCR) generically implies a system that cultivates microorganisms that transform contaminants or produce chemicals that can be used for remediation or treatment. The most commonly used BCRs for treating MIW are operated anaerobically, i.e. in the absence of oxygen, require a carbon source and sulfate and are often called sulfate-reducing bioreactors (SRBRs). The microbial process of sulfate reduction produces sulfide and bicarbonate. A number of target metals (e.g., cadmium, copper, nickel, lead, and zinc) in MIW will precipitate as metal sulfides at pH values above 5.0. The bicarbonate promotes an increase in pH and will promote the removal of some metals as car- bonates (e.g., Iron (II) Carbonate (FeCO3) and Zinc Carbonate (ZnCO3)) under the appropriate conditions (e.g., specific pH and carbonate concentration). Additionally, redox active metals and metalloids (e.g., arsenic, chromium, selenium, and uranium) that form stable precipitates under neutral reducing conditions may also be targeted.

Thus, BCRs may be applicable to a broad range of metal and metalloids found in MIW. If space is not a limitation, then BCRs can be designed to address a wide range of flows, acidity and metals loading. BCRs are attractive since they can be built with local materials and often can be designed to operate without any external inputs of energy or material and require minimal maintenance. As a result, BCRs can be built to provide passive treatment and may be particularly suitable for remote and abandoned sites.

42 15 Biochemical Reactors to Treat Metals in Project Technical Session Breakouts Mining-Influenced Water Session 1—Sign-Up List

Problem Statement, Cont.: (why is this project necessary and relevant to ITRC’s Permeable Reactive Barriers: Technology Update purpose & mission)? Erica Becvar, Senior Soil Scientist, AFCEE/TDV During the development of the problem-based technology and regulatory guidance for min- Kenneth Bowers, Chemist, NAVFAC Atlantic ing- waste treatment technology selection, the ITRC Mining Waste Team collected some case studies and prepared a technology overview on BCRs. The technology has been ap- Kathleen Bradley, Lead Hydrogeologist, Noblis plied at mining sites but additional work is continuing to fully evaluate metrics important during deployment. Washington Braida, Associate Research Professor, Stevens Institute of Technology Mark Bruce, Technical Director, TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc. BCR design is affected by the chemistry and flow of the MIW, particularly pH and temperature as well as the kinetics of the desired microbial processes. In addition to passive sys- J.R. Capasso, Brownfields Coordinator, City of Trenton tems, BCRs also include active systems (continuous energy and chemical input). Active Cleet Carlton, Engineering Geologist, Regional Water Quality Control Board BCRs show the capacity to treat relatively high flows in a small areal footprint. However, these systems have only been implemented at active mining and mineral processing sites. Michael Chacon, Technical Reviewer/Quality Assurance Manager, Pueblo de San Ildefonso The active systems typically employ separate tanks or zones for the bioprocesses, chemical reactions, and solids separation. The general differences between active and passive Rula Deeb, Technology/Applied Research Leader, Sr. Associate, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. BCRs are presented below. John Doyon, Site Remediation Technical Specialist, New Jersey Department of Environmental Active BCRs: Protection • accommodate reasonably high flow rates Paul Eger, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources • integrate pH adjustment into the water when needed • allow for recovery of metal sulfides for beneficial reprocessing Nancy Fagan, Environmental Engineer, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division - RCRA In contrast, passive systems utilize designs that incorporate the bioprocesses, chemical Stephanie Fiorenza, Regional Technology Coordinator, BP North America, Inc. reactions and the bulk of solids separation within an organic substrate. John Fonk, Unit Coordinator, GA EPD - Land Protection Branch Passive BCRs: Mike Habeck, Senior Environmental Manager, Indiana Department of Environmental Management • reduce the need for intensive operation and maintenance requirements • facilitate the use of cost-effective materials for construction Lindsay Hall, Engineer, State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental include the use of local materials easily obtainable for substrate media Control • reduce the need for construction practices requiring advanced technologies Jim Harrington, Chief Technology Section, New York State Dept of Environmental Conservation Hybrid systems, or semi-passive systems, have also been built. These usually provide an external carbon source (e.g. ethanol) and may also recirculate water to optimize treatment. Pat McLoughlin, Technical Director, Microseeps, Inc. These systems require some energy to power small chemical feed pumps and possibly recirculating pumps. For systems with just small feed pumps, solar or wind power can be Beth Moore, Hydrogeologist, EM-32, Office of Groundwater and Soil Remediation used. These systems require some weekly and periodic maintenance to insure proper operation. John Muegge, Hazardous Substance Engineer, California Department of Toxic Substances Control Robert Mueller, Research Scientist, New Jersey DEP Based on the initial work of the ITRC Mining Waste Team, BCRs were chosen as a promis- ing technology that needed to be further investigated and developed into a technology- Eric Nuttall, Ph.D., University of New Mexico based guidance. The technology is attractive and EPA has employed systems at several Daniel Ruedy, EnDyna sites. Initial treatment has been effective but long-term performance and costs are important issues particularly since states are generally responsible for the long-term operation Nancy Ruiz, Environmental Engineer, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center and maintenance at abandoned sites. BCRs generally provide treatment and can dramati- cally improve water quality but sometimes do not continuously meet strict numeric criteria G. A. (Jim) Shirazi, Hydrologist and Soil Scientist, Oklahoma Dept. of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry An understanding of how and when bioreactors can be successfully used is critical. States have been reluctant to accept this technology and a guidance document is needed to facili- Leslie Smith, ESIII, Environmental Regulatory tate acceptance and use of this innovative technology. It is important to realize that BCRs are not limited to MIW and the technology can be applied to any metal-contaminated water. Ken Vogler, Engineer, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Valerie Wilder, Project Manager, Missouri Department of Natural Resources Kimberly Wilson, Hydrogeologist, SC Department of Health & Environmental Control

16 41 Project Technical Session Breakouts Biochemical Reactors to Treat Metals in Session 1—Sign-Up List Mining-Influenced Water

In Situ Stabilization & Solidification Proposed Scope to Address Problem: (what is the approach for this project?) Douglas Bacon, Environmental Scientist III, State of Utah - Dept. of Environmental Quality/Div. of Environmental Response & Remediation The ITRC Mining Waste Team will build from the existing case studies and literature re- Jeanne Barnes, Environmental Engineering Specialist, Senior, Alabama Department of Environmental search included in the existing BCR Technology Overview. The team will conduct a critical Management review of existing and additional case studies and use new data and research from the U.S. EPA, U.S. Department of the Interior, Colorado School of Mines and the ITRC Industry Michael Behrens, Environmental Engineer III, Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality Affiliates Program (IAP) members to evaluate the following: Kristin Bell, Senior Associate, ENVIRON • the microbial and chemical processes occurring in BCRs, • a detailed comparison of the different types of BCRs Richard (Kirby) Biggs, Project Manager, OSWER/OSRTI/TIFSD/TIIB • the parameters and concentrations that can be treated • required site characteristics Charles Brigance, Project Manager Corrective Action, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality • flow and chemical loading requirements John Cargill, Hydrologist III, DNREC-Site Investigation and Restoration Branch • treatment life • costs David Cates, Professional Engineer III, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality The lessons learned and engineering concerns identified in the BCR Technology Overview will be incorporated and addressed in the Technical and Regulatory Guidance. Some of the Earl Crapps, Environmental Program Specialist IV, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation questions and issues to be addressed include: Robert Downer, Environmental Engineer, Burns & McDonnell Engineering Co., Inc. • Is a BCR appropriate for a given site and how is this determined? • What are the BCR design requirements and what are the constraints? David Duncklee, Senior Hydrogeologist, Duncklee and Dunham • What modifications are needed for treatment during winter months? • How are fluctuating flows and water quality managed? Sonja Favors, Senior Environmental Engineering Specialist, Alabama Dept. of Environmental • What are the requirements to prevent the system flow from short circuiting? Management • How can systems be designed to reduce or minimize maintenance? Mike Fitzpatrick, Environmental Scientist, EPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery • How can treatment be optimized or improved? • How long will treatment last and when will the substrate media need to be replaced or

Valerie Garrett, Environmental Specialist, Missouri Department of Natural Resources replenished? • Where and how is the substrate media from the BCR disposed? Dennis Green, Stakeholder, Public/Tribal Stakeholder Targeted Users: (who will use products generated by this project?) Judie Kean, RegTech, Inc Primary users for BCRs will be practitioners and consultants and state and federal regula- William Major, Environmental Engineer, NAVFAC ESC tors responsible for the remediation of MIW at abandoned or active mining sites. Responsi- Nick Petruzzi, Project Engineer/Scientist, Cox-Colvin & Associates ble parties for MIW include the commercial mining industry, the U.S. Department of the Interior including the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service, EPA Bonnie Pierce, Environmental Program Principal, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Superfund through Fund-lead response actions, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Depart- ment of Energy, and state mined-land and water-resource programs. Universities such as Pasupathy Ramanan, Project Manager, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection the Colorado School of Mines, Pennsylvania State University, the University of Georgia, Wilmer Reyes, Environmental Engineer, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and and the University of Nevada, Reno are currently interested and conducting research on the Environmental Control biochemical treatment of MIW. Devon Rowe, Senior Manager, ENVIRON According to the ITRC SE needs assessment: • Five states have noted that mining related problems are a number-one (#1) state Ed Seger, Principal Environmental Engineer, DuPont priority. These are Missouri, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Wyoming, Alaska, Carl Spreng, Environmental Protection Specialist, Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment • Four states have noted that mining related problems are a number-two (#2)state priority. These are Colorado, Georgia, Missouri, and Wyoming Kaneshia Townsend, Environmental Engineering Specialist, Alabama Department of Environmental Management • Three states have noted that mining related problems are a number-three (#3) state priority. These include Colorado, Maine, Utah, Araya Vann, Senior Oil and Gas Specialist - Engineer, Oklahoma Corporation Commission & SPE • Two states have noted that mining related problems are a number-four (#4) state Janet Waldron, Environmental Analyst, Massachusetts DEP priority. These include Colorado and Pennsylvania.

Rose Weissman, Senior Project Manager, Kleinfelder Peter Zawislanski, Principal Geologist, ARCADIS

40 17 Biochemical Reactors to Treat Metals in Project Technical Session Breakouts Mining-Influenced Water Session 1—Sign-Up List

Targeted Users, Cont.: (who will use products generated by this project?) Incremental Sampling Methodology Lily Barkau, State of Wyoming Please refer to the Mining Specific needs assessment at http://www.itrcweb.org/ planning.asp for further information. Samuel L. Brock, Toxicologist, HAQ AFCEE During preparation of the Mine Waste Issues in the United States: A White Paper and the Kathy Brown, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality guidance, the ITRC Mining Waste Team state members identified Acid Mine Drainage (AMD), which is included in MIW, as a priority. These states include: Anna Butler, Geologist/Technical Manager, USACE • Alaska • Missouri • California • Oklahoma Denise Calore, President, Opportunity Knocks, Inc. • Colorado • Pennsylvania • Idaho • Utah Frank Camera, Research Scientist/Technical Coordinator, NJ DEP • Maine • Vermont Ning-Wu Chang, Senior Hazardous Substances Engineer, Department of Toxic Substances Control / • Minnesota Cal EPA Summary of Deliverables: (primary project product(s)) Tanwir Chaudhry, Project Manager, Consultant - Navy A Technology Overview of Biochemical Reactors has been completed by the ITRC Mining Arthur Chin, Ph.D., ExxonMobil Waste Team and can be found on http://www.itrcweb.org/teamresources_56.asp The Min- ing Waste Team will use the information, case studies and literature referenced in the Tech- Ahad Chowdhury, Professional Geologist, Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection nology Overview of Biochemical Reactors, plus additional information that becomes available, to prepare a Technical and Regulatory Guidance for the application of BCRs to treat Stacey Curtis, Head, Environmental Assessment and Sustainability, SSC San Diego metal-contaminated water. This will be accompanied by the required Internet Based Train- Greg Davis, President, Microbial Insights, Inc. ing. This is the final product development phase in the ITRC Project Lifecycle. This will be followed by Implementation. All products will follow the guidance provided in the ITRC Robert Ferry, Principal Hydrogeologist, Brown and Caldwell Framework for Developing a Quality ITRC Technical and Regulatory Guidance Document. Rick Galloway, Environmental Scientist, State of DE - Dept. of Nat. Res. & Envir. Control

Impact: (how will this project result in more effective environmental decision making?) Lesley Hay Wilson, Principal, Sage Risk Solutions LLC This Technical and Regulatory Guidance will enhance the user’s ability to treat MIW on site and improve the water quality of hundreds of watersheds throughout the U.S. Designed and Keith Hoddinott, Senior Risk Assessor, US Army Public Health Command maintained properly, BCRs can treat nearly any volume of flow and concentration of metals. Mavis Kent, Senior Hydrogeologist, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality BCRs can be sustained over the long term, can achieve passive metal removal, and can be deployed remotely in many instances. Combined with other technologies and applied in Andrea Leeson, Environmental Restoration Program Manager, SERDP/ESTCP tandem, BCRs can improve water quality in watersheds that are ecologically impacted by high metal contamination resulting from current and historic mining practices. Keisha Long, Environmental Engineer Associate, SC DHEC This guidance will support the ITRC mission by offering and information resource in the form Mark Malinowski, Senior Engineering Geologist, California Dept of Toxic Substances Control of a guidance that helps break down barriers to the acceptance and use of a technically sound solution to a widespread environmental challenge through an active and existing Ligia Mora-Applegate, Environmental Consultant, Florida Department of Environmental Protection network of diverse professionals in the mining industry, consulting industry and regulatory community. Hugh Rieck, Geologist, US Army Corps of Engineers Project Schedule: Joe Rogers, Geologist, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Team work will begin in January 2011. Activities to be completed and a timeline are as Danielle Sadler, Alternate Army Liaison, U.S. Army ODASA (ESOH) follows: James Taylor, Engineering Geologist/Remedial Project Manager, CA Regional Water Quality Control 1) Case study review and update, plus collection of addition case examples will be com- Board - Central Valley Region pleted by July 2011. Neil Taylor, Environmental Scientist, Utah Department of Environmental Quality 2) The decision protocol for a BCR Tech-Reg document (active and passive) will be completed by the ITRC Fall 2011 meeting along with the outline and first full draft of the David Tsao, Technical Specialist, BP North America, Inc. guidance. 3) Internet based training development will begin in January 2012. Guy Warren, Environmental Program Specialist, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Josh Whipple, Hydrogeologist III, NHDES

18 39 Project Technical Session Breakouts Biochemical Reactors to Treat Metals in Session 1—Sign-Up List Mining-Influenced Water

Green & Sustainable Remediation Project Schedule, Cont.: Carol Baker, Staff Scientist, Chevron 4) External review (see ITRC Framework for Developing a Quality ITRC Technical Cherri Baysinger, Chief, Bureau of Environmental Epidemiology, Missouri Department of Health and and Regulatory Guidance Document) will begin in June 2012. Senior Services 5) Final Posting of the Tech-Reg document and delivery of the dry-run internet-based Larry Bryant, Chief, Environmental Services Branch, Alabama Department of Environmental training will be completed in December 2012. Management 6) Implementation will begin in January 2013 and extend through 2014. Michelle Caruso, Project Manager, Tetra Tech, Inc. Proposed Personnel: Jeff Clock, Senior Project Manager, EPRI Potential Team Membership/Needs Aaron Cohen, Contract / Project Manager, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Co-Team Leader: Cherri Baysinger, Missouri Kevin Collins, Geologist, Registered GA DNR - Environmental Protection Division, Hazardous Waste Management Cherri is the Chief of the Bureau of Environmental Epidemiology, Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services. She has worked for Missouri Department of Health and Rebecca Daprato, Ph.D., Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. Senior Services or Missouri Department of Natural Resources for 19 years. Ms. Baysinger has a B.A. in Biology and an M.S. in Forestry, Fisheries, and Wildlife, both Doug Downey, Principal Technologist, CH2M HILL from the University of Missouri-Columbia. Cherri has been the Co-team Leader of the ITRC Mining Waste Team since 2007 and the team received the Team of the Year Richard Galloway, Remediation Manager, Honeywell International award in 2009. Wanda Holmes, Director, Env. Restoration and Range Assessments, Chief of Naval Operations Office Co-Team Leader: Paul Eger, Minnesota Pamela Innis, CHF Project Manager, Department of Interior - Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance (DOI-OEPC) Paul is a principal engineer for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Divi- sion of Lands and Minerals, where for over 30 years he has worked with environmental Matt Moran, Environmental Analyst, Vermont DEC issues related to mining. Much of his work has focused on the development of successful passive systems to control and prevent mine drainage problems. He has also been a

Stephen Mueller, Senior Hydrogeologist, Wisconsin Department of Commerce, Environmental & leader in the development of cost-effective and environmentally safe reclamation using Regulatory Services Division waste products, including biosolids and dredged material. Michael Murphy, Division Director, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Paul was a member and internet instructor for the ITRC Wetlands Team, was a co-team Mark Nielsen, Principal, ENVIRON leader and instructor for the ITRC Mitigation Wetlands Team and has been co-team leader of the ITRC Mining Waste Team since it began in 2007. Dora Ogles, Vice President, Microbial Insights, Inc. Katherine Owens, Stakeholder, Community Stakeholder The proposed team includes some of the leading U.S. researchers, consultants, federal agencies and states in this area and the resulting guidance will draw upon their experi- Cherrie Perkins, Natural Resources Analyst, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality ences and skills. The team will include numerous regulators from a variety of states and from the federal government who bring varying regulator perspectives on this topic Bruce Robinson, Project Geologist, Public/Tribal Stakeholder that are essential to incorporate in any characterization technical regulatory document. Geetha Selvendran, PG, FDEP States interested in participating in this project and why Michael Sieczkowski, Technical Sales Director, JRW Bioremediation, LLC • Alaska • Minnesota • Pennsylvania • Colorado • Missouri • Utah Russell Sirabian, Program Manager, Battelle • Maine • Oklahoma • Vermont Michael Smith, Hydrogeologist, VT Dept Environmental Conservation All have reported to have serious MIW problems resulting from active or historic mining Tamara Sorell, Managing Scientist, Brown and Caldwell practices. Many of these sources of MIW are continuous and require economical methods of water treatment to protect human health and restore stream and watersheds to Peter Strauss, President, PM Strauss & Associates an ecologically healthy condition. Since the states are often responsible for long-term operation and maintenance costs, they are particularly interested in the feasibility of Marvin Unger, Support Staff, SERDP/ESTCP applying innovative passive systems like BCRs. Robert Weber, Superfund and Technology Liaison, EPA Office of Research and Development Ryan Wymore, Principal Environmental Engineer, CDM (Camp, Dresser, & McKee, Inc.) Mary Yelken, Principal Consultant, The Yelken Group, Inc.

38 19 Biochemical Reactors to Treat Metals in Project Technical Session Breakouts Mining-Influenced Water Session 1—Sign-Up List

Environmental Impacts of Ethanol & Bio-Based Fuels Proposed Personnel, Cont.: David Asiello, Program Manager, Department of Defense Other organizations that have expressed interest in participating as team members for Iona Black, Chemistry Faculty, Yale University this project are: Kelly Black, Environmental Decision Support Specialist, Neptune and Company, Inc. Federal Agencies: Rebecca Bourdon, Hydrologist II, MPCA Petroleum Remediation Program • U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD), National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL), Cincinnati, Ohio Ann Charles, Research Scientist, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection • U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) Joseph Dom, Professional Geologist, Kansas Department of Health & Environment • U.S. EPA Regions 8 and 9 Carol Dona, Ph.D., US Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental and Munitions Center of Expertise The U.S. EPA has and continues to conduct research on BCRs in conjunction with prac- Tom Ezell, ADEQ Branch Manager, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality tioners and various universities (e.g. Colorado School of Mines, University of Okla- homa). There are a number of large Superfund sites throughout the United States (e.g. Bill Gidley, Section Supervisor, Nebraska DEQ Bunker Hill, Tar Creek, Standard Mine, etc.) that result from historic mining and where BCRs have been installed. Alison Hathcock, Permitting Coordinator-UST Program, SCDHEC

• The U.S. Department of the Interior Tom Higgins, Hydrogeologist, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency The U.S Department of the Interior administers 253 million acres of land in the US. Julie Hoskin, QA/QC and Lab Services Manager, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Much of this land is in the western US. There are thousand of abandoned mines on or adjacent to Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land that is impacting surface and Cassandra Jobe, Program Development Supervisor, Kentucky Department of Environmental groundwater. The BLM Abandoned Mine Lands program is charged to enhance public Protection safety and improve water quality by reducing or eliminating effects of past hard rock Stacey Kingsbury, Program Advisor, HydroGeoLogic, Inc. mining in the western United States. Currently their inventory includes over 12,000 min-

ing sites; 80% of these still require attention. J. David Lawson, Senior Environmental Engineer, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality • U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service Jerry Lisiecki, Ph.D., Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has responsibility to maintain a healthy environment William McKercher, Environmental Engineer II, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality for aquatic species on and near superfund sites. This agency has a critical interest to see that surface waters are restored to healthy conditions and can support a functional John McVey, Engineering Specialist, SD Petroleum Release Compensation Fund aquatic ecosystem. Orphius Mohammad, Engineer Intern II, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Land • U.S. Department of Defense (including the Air Force Center for Engineering and the Protection Division Environment (AFCEE), the Navy, the Strategic Environmental Research and Devel- opment Program (SERDP) ) George Nicholas, Supervising Geologist, New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection • U.S. Department of Energy Mary Jo Ondrechen, Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Northeastern University • Center for Protection of Sustainable Technologies (CPTS) La Paz Bolivia Ruth Owens, Environmental Engineer, NFESC Christian Romero of CPTS has been an active member of the ITRC Mining Team since it beginning and has been a significant contributor and author of the current web based Tom Schneider, Supervisor, Division of Air Pollution Control, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Tech-Reg. CPTS is funded by USAID and the Denmark Embassy. CPTS has a signed Jeffrey Short, Col., Stakeholder, ITRC Public Stakeholder agreement with “Universidad Mayor de San Andrés” – UMSA (Mayor Saint Andrews University – MSAU) and includes German cooperation through Deutsche Gesellschaft Claudio Sorrentino, Senior Toxicologist, Dept. Toxic Substances Control / Cal EPA für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) in order to conduct research on bioreactor technologies, including high altitude and low temperature operation. Roy Spalding, Professor, Ethanol and Biobased Fuels Robert Storms, Environmental Specialist/Geologist, TDEC/DOE-O Larry Syverson, Groundwater Remediation Specialist, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Joseph Wellner, Geologist, Registered, KY EEC DEP DWM HWB CA Section Anna Willett, ITRC Director, ITRC

20 37 Biochemical Reactors to Treat Metals in Project Technical Session Overview Mining-Influenced Water

Proposed Personnel, Cont.: Permeable Reactive Barriers IAP companies (Environmental Consultants and industry) Arcadis JRW Bioremediation, LLC ERM Kleinfelder PROBLEM Western Research Institute BP Corporation PRBs have been installed throughout the country but advances in PRB approaches - including use of Freeport McMoMoran Shaw Environmental non-iron reactive materials such as biowalls, newer injection methods, and longevity information of older PRBs - need to reach the regulatory and technical communities DOE Run Northwind, Inc. Golder and Associates APPLICABLE REGULATORY PROGRAMS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Cleanup, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Academia Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Colorado School of Mines Pennsylvania State University RCRA-equivalent state programs and state water-quality programs (vary from state to state) University of Georgia University of Nevada Reno Any regulatory program that performs or oversees groundwater remediation DRAFT TEAM SOLUTIONS The team provides a forum in which academics can bring their research and network Provide guidance to help regulators and environmental practitioners implement and evaluate plans for with practitioners from both the private and public sectors. barrier design, placement and reactive materials of PRBs addressing groundwater remediation • The skill mix of team members includes but is not limited to: hydrogeology and OPEN ISSUES water chemistry, environmental, civil, and bioengineering, treatment system de- Lack of data and literature for some of the more novel reactive media such as carbon/iron compounds sign, site characterization, regulatory issues, geology, chemistry, and bioreme- Communicate to regulators and the technical community that PRBs are green and sustainable diation. • For sectors of team members required, this will be the same as the existing ITRC Mining Waste Team which was well represented in all sectors.

Proposed In-Kind/Direct Project Funding • At this time, in-kind or direct project funding has not been identified.

Related Work:

The ITRC Mine Waste Team has prepared the following: • Mine Waste Issues in the United States: A White Paper 2008

• Mining Waste Treatment Technology Selection 2010

36 21

Sediments Proposal Notes Project Technical Session Overview

Incremental Sampling Methodology

PROBLEM Little information and inconsistent understanding of Incremental Sampling Methodology (ISM) Limited regulatory guidance on ISM Inappropriate application of ISM could inhibit use of a valuable tool APPLICABLE REGULATORY PROGRAMS CERCLA RCRA State Sites Petroleum Sites DOD DOE Brownfield Sites DRAFT TEAM SOLUTIONS Build on existing guidance and develop web-based Tech-Reg document that evaluates ISM Identify ISM principles, critical elements, advantages, potential drawbacks and regulatory challenges

Provide guidelines for evaluating ISM and present case studies to demonstrate proper ISM application Conduct IBT to clearly communicate ISM principles and illustrate methodology through case studies OPEN ISSUES Communicate ISM concept to multi-disciplinary stakeholders and address states policies and regulations Use of ISM mean concentration for decisions by Federal/State programs How and when ISM can be applied, and when ISM should not be used ISM results: True mean; all of the time, most of the time? A 95%UCL with just 3 ISM results? Integration of discrete and ISM results Assess the critical nature of sample variability

In-Situ Stabilization Solidification

PROBLEM The use of in situ solidification and stabilization (S/S) technologies is hampered by the lack of criteria to evaluate the success of S/S implementation and information regarding long term monitoring which led to inconsistencies and lack of standard approaches from one EPA region to another and from state to state, resulting in case-by-case development of acceptable criteria. APPLICABLE REGULATORY PROGRAMS

CERCLA Voluntary/Brownfield programs DRAFT TEAM SOLUTIONS Provide guidance on establishing and selecting performance criteria trough the planning, treatability testing, design, full-scale implementation, and post-construction phases of a typical on-site S/S project. Present considerations for long-term monitoring to aide practitioners and regulators in determining site- specific approaches that provide relevant reliable measures of remedy success.

OPEN ISSUES Development of written case studies, including a hypothetical case study to incorporate methods for performance criteria development. The level of detail for addressing stakeholder concerns in the document.

22 35 Strategy for Remedial Decision-Making Project Technical Session Overview at Contaminated Sediment Sites

Proposal Contact: Environmental Impacts of Ethanol & Kim Ward, NJDEP, BEMSA,300 Horizon Center, Robbinsville, NJ 08691 Bio-Based Fuels [email protected], 609-584-4280

PROBLEM Call for Proposals Topical Area: Post-production release scenarios and releases of biofuels to surface water, soil and groundwater differ from those of conventional fuels due to their physical, chemical and biological properties. CHAR/REM – Characterization/Remediation Once released into the environment, the fate and transport of biofuels differs from that of conventional fuels, with implications for investigation, characterization and remediation strategies and methods. APPLICABLE REGULATORY PROGRAMS Problem Statement: (why is this project necessary and relevant to ITRC’s purpose & mission? Renewable Fuels Standards mandates – federal and some states - for biofuels use. State regulatory programs, such as storage tanks; NPDES programs for discharges from remediation systems, and groundwater cleanup programs. Quoting the USEPA Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy: "The U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency estimates that approximately 10 percent of the sediment underly- DRAFT TEAM SOLUTIONS ing our nation’s surface water is sufficiently contaminated with toxic pollutants to pose po- Provide a framework for evaluation of release scenarios and releases of current and future biofuels. tential risks to fish and to humans and wildlife that eat fish. This represents about 1.2 billion Current knowledge of fate and transport of biofuels in the environment and appropriate site investigation, cubic yards of contaminated sediment out of the approximately 12 billion cubic yards of total characterization, and remediation strategies of biofuels releases. surface sediments (upper five centimeters) where many bottom dwelling organisms live, and Case studies of E95 and B100 releases. where the primary exchange processes between the sediment and overlying surface water OPEN ISSUES occur.” Based on current average costs for managing contaminated sediments, this volume of material could cost several trillions dollars. The primary risk pathway at contaminated Incorporation of a multi-media assessment framework and recommendations for biofuels releases. sediment sites are drinking water supplies and the food chain. EPA Regions and states Considerations regarding how much detail to go into for currently available biofuels and blends (such as independently have made decisions in the absence of guidance, which has led to inconsis- E10) while still insuring that the document is written to provide enough guidance for future biofuels. tencies relative to geopolitical boundaries (e.g. state boarders, port authorities). Debate continues regarding the latest and in some cases rapidly evolving sediment quality criteria

and their appropriate application for assessing and remediating contaminated marine and freshwater sediments. Green and Sustainable Remediation The current ITRC sediment team process is tending to the lack of understanding and sometimes the misunderstanding of bioavailability of contaminants in freshwater and marine envi- ronments. Over 25 percent of the contaminated sediment sites addressed to date in the PROBLEM U.S. have had State drivers. As activity accelerates, this percentage is likely to grow. This Current remediation approaches at contaminated sites do not consider green or sustainable approaches proposed guidance will contain the necessary consistency and understanding of the appro- A need to provide guidance and training to state regulators and other stakeholders on implementing green priate, cost effective, and protective elements for optimum remediation at contaminated and sustainable methods in the remediation programs sediment sites. APPLICABLE REGULATORY PROGRAMS There is a major debate in the area of contaminated sediment remediation on the appropri- CERCLA, RCRA, UST, Brownfields, Voluntary Cleanups and other regulatory requirements ateness of mass removal vs. natural recovery or in situ treatment or capping options. The Groundwater, Air Quality, Solid Waste, Hazardous waste programs areas, etc pro-dredging argument focuses on mass removal and permanence; the anti-dredging argu- DRAFT TEAM SOLUTIONS ments focus on the destructive impact on the ecosystems (cure is worse than the disease) and the inability to achieve meaningful risk reduction through costly removal of mass. High An overview document on current GSR practices that are available for practitioners costs may rule out dredging on many contaminated sediment sites. A technical-regulatory guidance document that meets the needs of state regulators in making better management decisions regarding GSR practices The ITRC Contaminated Sediment Team is developing guidance for assessing contaminant A compilation of metrics and tools to evaluate how green and/or sustainable are these remedies risk based upon understanding contaminant bioavailability. Regulatory agencies most often OPEN ISSUES characterize the level of contamination in sediments as a bulk concentration not taking into account the actual levels of contamination that are available to impact ecological or human How to keep the focus specific to the state regulators needs? receptors. The Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and How to help the stakeholders to make better decisions among all the options that are available the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) are developing and Educating/training environmental remediation practitioners for GSR processes transitioning innovative remedial technologies to help the Department of Defense (DoD) perform its mission, cleanup of contaminated sites.

34 23 Strategy for Remedial Decision-Making at Contaminated Sediment Sites Project Technical Session Overview

Problem Statement, Cont.: (why is this project necessary and relevant to ITRC’s purpose & mission? The ESTCP and SERDP 2008 Bioavailability Symposium in Annapolis, Maryland determined two future research and demonstration needs in the area of bioavailability and their use in the risk-based remedial decision-making process at DoD sites. (http://www.serdp.org/Research/upload/Bioavailability_Wkshp_Nov_2008.pdf) 1. In Situ Remedies to Reduce Bioavailability of Contaminants in Sediments; and, 2. Demonstration and Validation of Tools and Techniques to Monitor the Effects of Project Technical Session Overview Remedial Action on Bioavailability. ITRC Spring Membership Meeting

At the 2008 ITRC Fall Meeting, POCs identified the need to understand sediment contami- April 21, 2010 nation through the evaluation and characterization of contaminant bioavailability. In order to reduce risk and equate it with an appropriate site sediment remediation strategy, the Oregon POC identified that evaluation and remediation of sediments has been, and continues to be, a high priority issue for Oregon DEQ’s Water and Land Quality Program.

This proposed Tech-Reg Guidance will logically transition from the current project that focuses on measurement and application of contaminant bioavailability in sediments, to stra- Click add sub-title tegic selection of remedial alternatives and best management practices to mitigate risk at contaminated sediment sites.

• This project supports ITRC’s Missions to develop information resources and help break down barriers to the acceptance and use of technically sound innovative solutions to environmental challenges through an active network of diverse professionals.

• Supports the Strategic Element: “We will continue to develop products that accelerate smart decision-making on remediation sites.” Purpose of Sessions

By developing Tech-Reg documents, environmental customers may properly select and deploy the appropriate and applicable techniques in the following subject areas: Understand technical focus of five current projects • Identify and evaluate appropriate methods, technologies, and techniques to characterize a site containing contaminated sediments. Interact and provide feedback on challenges and solutions • Identify and evaluate the various technologies or techniques, available and emerging, being explored by teams to mitigate exposure to contaminated sediments. Identify implementation issues early • Identify and evaluate performance monitoring techniques to secure long term stewardship.

Proposed Scope to Address Problem: (what is the approach for this project?) Project Focus: Develop a Tech-Reg Guidance document to assist the user in the development of appropriate and effective sediment remedial strategies to mitigate exposure to sediment contamination. This will include emerging and innovative remedial and contaminant management technologies. The Tech-Req will identify and describe the proper application of sediment remediation technologies and best management practices (BMPs) for mitigating exposure to contaminated sediments, including long term monitoring of the site. This will be based upon:

24 33 Strategy for Remedial Decision-Making Plenary Notes at Contaminated Sediment Sites

Proposed Scope to Address Problem, Cont.: (what is the approach for this project?)

• Collection of data and information using surveys, case studies, and literature review to identify and evaluate real site tests of remedial technologies and monitoring methods at contaminated sediment sites.

This information will be used to: • Develop a strategic decision making process for selecting applicable and effective remediation technologies, sediment contaminant management approaches and long term monitoring practices at contaminated sediment sites.

The Contaminated Sediment Remediation Strategy Tech-Reg guidance will include the appropriate use of bioavailability in the establishment of site cleanup criteria and performance metrics in order to establish an effective, achievable, and sustainable remedial strat-

egy for the site. This will assure a net environmental and health benefit to the remedial outcome at the site. This guidance will incorporate:

• Identification and evaluation of appropriate remediation methods, technologies and approaches; • Summarization of existing or emerging tools to remove, contain, or sequester sedi-

ment contamination; • Assessment of the development status of technologies including advantages, limitations, acceptable contaminants, performance expectations and potential monitoring needs; and, • Evaluation of how monitoring the bioavailable contaminants over time may enhance remediation.

Targeted Users: (who will use products generated by this project?)

• Primary audience = State and federal regulators, practitioners, and other environmental professionals engaged in contaminated sediment investigation and remediation. • Secondary audience = community stakeholders and members of the general public concerned with exposure from contaminated sediment, Port operators, water resource agencies, state and federal fish and wildlife agencies, transportation agencies. Resource management agencies (mineral, wildlife and fisheries, forest and rangeland management).

(primary project product(s)) Summary of Deliverables: Product: Tech and Reg Guidance outlining remediation strategies and best management practices (BMPs) for mitigating exposure to contaminated sediments. This will include

long term site monitoring and technology performance monitoring.

32 25 Strategy for Remedial Decision-Making Groundwater Statistics and at Contaminated Sediment Sites Monitoring Compliance

Project Schedule: Impact: (how will this project result in more effective environmental decision making?) Team Formation - January 2011 This guidance will provide: State Survey – June-October 2011 • Streamlined decision-making within the context of a remediation strategy that considers contaminant bioavailability; Tech Reg Development - April '11 thru April '12 • Clarity and defensibility to an approach of strategically selecting remedial technolo- Draft for review - April '12 gies that will achieve a cleanup goal at a contaminated sediment site; and, IBT development – April - October '12 • Improved State technical oversight based on detailed requirements for application of an acceptable remediation strategy. TechReg release October ‘12 First IBT public offering November-December ‘12. Project Schedule:

• 2011 – Team-building, collecting data and information using surveys, case studies, Proposed Personnel: and literature review to identify and evaluate real site practices at contaminated Team Leader: Ning-Wu Chang, Cal EPA / DTSC sediment. The current Sediment Team has a baseline of 40 case studies of ongoing contaminated sediment clean-up projects. Federal Agencies: • 2012 –Use this information and data to evaluate and provide an overview of reme- Beth Moore, US DOE, Washington DC, 202-586-6334 [email protected] diation technologies including but not limited to, capping, in situ bioremediation, and enhanced monitored natural recovery at contaminated sediment sites. Phil Hunter, AFCEE, San Antonio, TX, 210-536-7237 [email protected] • 2013 – Develop a Tech-Reg guidance document and associated Internet-based Dave Becker, USACE, Omaha, NE, 402-697-2613,[email protected] training curriculum that describes a defensible remediation decision-making approach for Contaminated Sediment Sites. Kirby Biggs, USEPA, Alexandria, VA, 703-299-3438, [email protected] Proposed Personnel: David Burden, US EPA R.S. Kerr Laboratory, 580-436-8606 [email protected] Personnel: Team Leaders : Kimberly Ward (NJDEP)/John Cargill (DE-DNREC) IAP Companies: Supporting State Members: Kirk Cameron, MacStat Consulting, Colorado Springs, CO, [email protected] • OR – Jennifer Sutter (Sediment Cleanup Sites PM, helped develop OR Bioac- cumulation evaluation guidance); NJ – Greg Neumann (Research Scientist/Risk Charles Davis, EnviroStat, Las Vegas, NV, 702-456-8994 Assessor and co-author of NJDEP Sediment Evaluation Quality Framework); SC [email protected] – Gregory Simmons (PG, Risk Assessor, Federal Remediation Section); NH – Lori Siegel (PhD, PE, Ecological Risk Assessor, developed NH Guidance on the Potential Team Membership/Needs Evaluation of Sediment Quality); WA – Brad Helland (Lower Duwamish Waterway Project Mgr. Washington State Department of Ecology); Following States have • State and federal regulators with the responsibility of managing projects to possible members if funded: fulfill the groundwater statistics and monitoring requirements • CA, NJ, SC, OH, etc. do have an interest in implementing the guidance • Alabama, Connecticut, New York, Florida document Following States show interest: Alaska, Iowa, Virginia • DOE, DoD, US EPA, consulting companies, IAP members, etc. Skill Mix of Team Members (e.g., regulatory, engineering, scientific, etc.) • Skill mix of Team Members required: Geologists, engineers, statisticians, • Scientific – Biologists (marine, freshwater) , Sedimentary Geologists, Hydrogeolo- risk assessors, etc. gists • Sectors of Team Members required: State, federal, regulated community, • Regulatory – Ecological Risk Assessors, Reviewers of Ecological Evaluation, public, etc.. Brownfield Case Managers, Superfund Site Coordinators, Site Coordinators over- seeing Sediment Dredging Sites Proposed In-Kind/Direct Project Funding • Educational – University of New Hampshire – Institute for Coastal and Estuarine In-kind support for the Program Advisor by DOE, DoD, and EPA partners for two Environmental Technology years.

Related Work: Not Applicable

26 31 Groundwater Statistics and Strategy for Remedial Decision-Making Monitoring Compliance at Contaminated Sediment Sites

Proposed Scope to Address Problem: (what is the approach for this project?) Proposed Personnel, Cont.: In order to accomplish this, the following step-wise process is proposed: Sectors of Team Members (e.g., federal, state, community, regulated, regulator, etc.) • Conduct a survey on what elements the states would like to concentrate on • SERDP and ESTCP Sediment Expert Panel – Industry reps. RETEC, CICEET, and the RCRA Unified Guidance specific to their state needs and requirements. Alcoa; • ITRC Sediment Bioavailability Contaminant Alliance (SCBA), US ACOE – Sedi- • Develop a summary guidance document on the Unified Guidance for ment Experts, EPA Superfund and Brownfield Divisions, EPA Great Lakes Sedi- Groundwater Statistics and Monitoring Compliance ment Committee, NOAA, USGS, Army Corp of Engineers, Navy, GORE, Commu- • Compile basic statistical techniques, methods and tools to manage moni- nity Stakeholders – Great Lakes area, Tribal Communities toring programs Related Work: • Develop an internet based training along with tools and metrics for effective monitoring, reporting, analysis and review The team will integrate with these groups to avoid duplication and explore partnerships. 1. The Great Lakes Dredging Team (GLDT) http://www.glc.org/index.html, • Include modules to navigate through data management software and ana- lytical tools to make better project management decisions. 2. EPA-GLNPO http://www.epa.gov/glnpo: Realizing Remediation, 3. The Sediment Management Work Group http://www.smwg.org Targeted Users: (who will use products generated by this project?) 4. RTDF: Sediments Working Group http://www.rtdf.org/public/sediment/default.htm 5. USACE/EPA Northwest Regional Sediment Evaluation Framework, interim final Sep- Primary targeted users are the state regulators. tember, 2006. http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/ndt/05ndtmeeting/nwregion1.pdf Secondary users are the federal regulators, federal agencies, regulated public, 6. Northeast Waste Management Association NWMOA http://www.newmoa.org/ consultants and contractors. 7. Hazardous Substance Research Center (HSRC): Sediments Research http:// www.hsrc.org/ States: CA, NJ, SC, SD, VA, MO Additionally there are a number of agencies and organizations with information related to

Lastly, include information on how many and which states have this problem as contaminated sediments. These include but are not be limited to: an environmental priority. Information on ITRC gathered State Priorities and 1. The US Army Corps of Engineers. Emerging Issues is located on the ITRC website at http://www.itrcweb.org/ 2. The National Academy of Sciences and the USEPA. 3. The Sediments RTDF Action Team is currently preparing a series of white papers on planning.asp for you to utilize as needed. sediment assessment issues. Summary of Deliverables: (primary project product(s) 4. EPA: The Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States. http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/ State Survey of Interests watewatercontaminatedsediment.html 5. EPA: TMDL Program. http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/tmdl/index.html TechReg document, including case study demonstrations 6. EPA: CASRGW http://www.smwg.org/brochure.htm Internet-based training 7. NAS: Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Sediments. http://www.epa.gov/hudson/ nasstudy.htm 8. USACE: Waterways Experiment Station. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/index.cfm Impact: (how will this project result in more effective environmental decision making?) 9. USACE: Reports Database - Environmental Effects of Dredging and Disposal This will help project managers to make effective decisions based on real field data 10. GE: Major Contaminated Sediments Sites (MCSS) Database. http://www.ge.com/en/ and how to interpret, use and get most of the monitoring data that is gathered at citizenship/ehs/remedial/hudson/mcss/ contaminated sites. 11. Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology (CICEET) http://ciceet.unh.edu/. This will benefit the project managers to follow what is required and help train them 12. State of Washington Sediment Management Standards. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/ in matching their ability to make better management decisions. default.aspx?cite=173-204&full=true

This will certainly help manage, optimize and even close sites with effective tools of proven techniques.

30 27 Groundwater Statistics and GSMC Proposal Notes Monitoring Compliance

Proposal Contact:

Ning-Wu Chang Cal EPA / DTSC 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, CA 90630 714-484-5485 [email protected]

Call for Proposals Topical Area:

CHAR Site characterization, sampling, and monitoring Technologies and approaches for site characterization, soil and groundwater sampling and contaminant monitoring.

CONT Soil and groundwater contamination Technologies and approaches for modeling, treatment, and remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater. Proposals are sought in the specific area of groundwater flow and/or contaminant fate and transport modeling (may cross over with CLIM (1) above). LONG Long term stewardship, land use controls, institutional

controls Systems and approaches for implementing, monitoring, track-

ing, and managing long term stewardship of contaminated sites, including, but not limited to, land use, engineered, and institutional controls.

Problem Statement: (why is this project necessary and relevant to ITRC’s purpose & mission?

To explain, educate and train state regulators and other practitioners in understanding and implementing the Unified Guidance for Groundwater Statistics and Monitoring Compliance, related monitoring evaluation and optimization software (i.e., GTS, Summit, etc.) , as well as new groundwater measurement technology to demonstrate compliance (i.e., groundwater flux and discharge measurement).

Proposed Scope to Address Problem: (what is the approach for this project?)

US EPA recently (March 2009) issued an 800-page Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Unified Guidance document for Groundwater Statistics and Monitoring Compliance. The challenge for practitioners is to understand, interpret

and use the new guidance, which contains significant updates to compliance statistics, in the daily management of their projects. In order to successfully manage groundwater cleanup, resource protection, and demonstrate ongoing compliance, state regulators and project manager require education, training, and practical application of the new RCRA Unified Guidance.

28 29