Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Austin, Texas
January 23–24, 2003

Mark Lyverse, ChevronTexaco Energy Research and Technology Company
Kathy Yager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Technology Innovation Office (TIO)

Mark Lyverse, co-chair of the Remediation Technologies Development Forum’s (RTDF’s) Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (NAPL) Cleanup Alliance, welcomed meeting participants and asked them to introduce themselves. (Attendees included representatives from petroleum companies, consulting firms, and federal and state regulatory agencies; see Attachment A.) Lyverse noted that the Alliance’s other co-chair, Randy Breeden from EPA Region 8, would not be able to attend the conference. Lyverse thanked representatives from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for hosting the meeting.

Lyverse and EPA’s Kathy Yager provided background information on the RTDF and the NAPL Cleanup Alliance. The RTDF formed in 1992, Yager said, in an effort to bring representatives from industry, government, and academia together to work on hazardous waste problems. Eight RTDF Action Teams have formed since the RTDF’s inception. Six teams—one of which is the NAPL Cleanup Alliance—are currently active. Yager said that there are two tiers of participation within the Alliance. Members of the Core Team, she said, have formalized their commitment to the Alliance by signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Associate Members, who participate in a less formalized fashion, receive regular updates on the Alliance’s activities and progress.

Lyverse and Yager said that the Alliance is now focusing on four projects:

Lyverse and Yager said that the meeting’s goal was fourfold: (1) discuss the status of the abovementioned Alliance activities, (2) establish a path forward for these activities, (3) determine what role the Core Team should have in developing the LNAPL training program, and (4) identify ways to broaden the Alliance’s participation base to include more state and federal regulators.


Background Information and Update on the LNAPL Training Program’s Status
Mark Lyverse, ChevronTexaco Energy Research and Technology Company

During the summer of 2002, some RTDF NAPL Cleanup Alliance team members delivered presentations at a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Refinery conference. Several Region 6 and Region 8 regulators attended the conference. These regulators indicated that there is great need for a training program that addresses LNAPL behavior in the subsurface. After hearing this, Lyverse said, some of the Alliance’s Core Team members established a Training Development Workgroup. The original Workgroup consisted of one regulator (Breeden) and several industry members (Lyverse, Mark Adamski, John Meyers, and Harley Hopkins). Over time, Lyverse said, additional regulators joined the team. (These regulators are not currently Alliance Core Team members or Associates.) Lyverse said that the Workgroup met via conference call on five occasions, and decided that the training program should (1) describe the technical aspects of NAPL distribution and mobility, (2) correct common misconceptions about NAPL, (3) present a NAPL conceptual model, and (4) explore NAPL management issues. The Workgroup also decided that the training program should consist of four modules: Module 1 (The Basics), Module 2 (NAPL Management), Module 3 (Advanced Topics), and Module 4 (Modeling). A draft outline (see Attachment B) has been created for all four modules. Lyverse explained that Modules 3 and 4, although important, will be held in abeyance for the time being. Work will resume on these two modules, he said, after Modules 1 and 2 have been completed.

Module 1 (The Basics)

Module 1’s development is on an accelerated schedule, Lyverse said, because BP America, Inc., has agreed to submit this module to Region 4 in March 2003. (BP America signed an MOU with Region 4, agreeing to deliver training on several topics, including LNAPL behavior in the subsurface, natural attenuation, and site characterization.) Module 1’s outline is in its final stages. (The topics addressed in this module are technical in nature, and are not overly contentious. Thus, Workgroup members were able to reach consensus on the outline with relative ease.) Barbara Padlo (of BP America) is using the outline to create Module 1’s script and presentation slides. Other Workgroup members are identifying references to back up the statements that Module 1 makes about common NAPL misconceptions.

Module 2 (NAPL Management)

Lyverse provided background information on Module 2’s evolution, noting that this module was not included in the training program’s original strawman. The Workgroup decided to add the module to the training program to help trainees understand how the emergence of new NAPL conceptual models (a topic explored in Module 1) impacts NAPL management approaches. At the end of 2002, some of the Workgroup’s industry members prepared a strawman for Module 2. This strawman was reviewed and discussed on January 7, 2003, during a Workgroup conference call. During the call, regulators said that the strawman was slanted toward industry’s perspective and that it failed to address dissolved-phase and vapor issues. In light of these comments, the Workgroup asked Tom Sale (of Colorado State University) to take a fresh look at the module, develop a new strawman, and identify a process that can be used to help stakeholders develop acceptable goals and endpoints. Sale is still formulating his ideas, but he has already submitted preliminary thoughts to the Workgroup. Lyverse provided a brief overview of Sale’s preliminary thoughts and asked attendees to let him know if they have feedback for Tom Sale.

Discussion of Next Steps and Obtaining Endorsement From the RTDF NAPL Cleanup Alliance

In order for the training program to obtain RTDF and Alliance approval, several attendees said, it must be reviewed and approved by a broad group of regulators and efforts must be made to ensure that the training program’s content is consistent with the NMDF’s key philosophical points. Yager said that these tasks cannot be accomplished by the March 2003 deadline that BP America has established for submitting training materials to Region 4. Adamski and Kremesec said that BP America is only committed to submitting Module 1 by March 2003, and that they understand that the RTDF’s stamp of approval cannot be obtained in so short a time. If the RTDF Core Team is not comfortable endorsing the version that BP America submits to Region 4, Adamski said, Module 1 can be revised and re-released later. While most of the attendees were agreeable to the idea of releasing two versions of Module 1, Sue Westbrook cautioned that the training delivered by BP in Region 4 should not be associated with the NAPL Cleanup Alliance, because delivering training before it is officially endorsed can have adverse repercussions. When training materials are presented, she said, they tend to “spread like wildfire” and are often “regarded as the gospel” even if they have not received official endorsement.

Attendees discussed the steps that must be taken to obtain RTDF’s stamp of approval on Modules 1 and 2 and explored the question of timing. Should these two modules be reviewed together and endorsed as one package, Yager asked, or is it acceptable to perform separate reviews and release the modules one at a time? Some attendees advocated the former approach, saying that Modules 1 and 2 “fit together like hand and glove.” Other attendees suggested moving forth quickly with Module 1, but holding Module 2 in abeyance until the NMDF is completed. This topic was debated at length. In the end, attendees decided to assume that the modules would be reviewed and endorsed as one package. The Alliance can always change its mind in the future and endorse Module 1 as a standalone document ahead of Module 2, Lyverse said, if Module 2 proves to be too controversial to finalize in a timely fashion.

Attendees agreed to do the following:

Chet Clarke, TCEQ

Chet Clarke provided information about TCEQ’s NAPL Evaluation and Recovery Guidance (RG-366/TRPP-32), a document that provides guidance on managing NAPL-contaminated sites under the state’s Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRPP). Clark said that the document, which is being developed by a team of regulators, industry members, and consultants, will be finalized and released by the end of the year. Upon its release, TCEQ will initiate a training program to ensure that state regulators are familiar with the document.

The document introduces a new philosophical approach to NAPL management. In the past, Clarke said, the same goal and endpoint were applied to all NAPL-contaminated sites regardless of the actual risk they posed. Experience has shown that such an approach has pitfalls. For example, it can cause a state to invest too heavily in low-risk sites and deplete budgets to the point where there is little left to address high-risk sites. For this reason, Clarke said, TCEQ’s NAPL Evaluation and Recovery Guidance (RG-366/TRPP-32) recognizes that goals and endpoints should be site specific. The document also recognizes that technical limitations hamper the recovery of subsurface NAPL at some sites. In addition, the document provides tools that are designed to help regulators and site managers work together to (1) reduce risks associated with NAPL-contaminated sites and (2) develop scientifically sound long-term NAPL management strategies. Clarke presented an overview (see Attachment C) of the document’s key philosophical points:


As noted above, the NAPL Cleanup Alliance is creating an NMDF. Kaback, who has taken the lead in developing the NMDF, has hired Leslie Hay Wilson and Glenn Paulson to assist in the effort. During the Alliance’s April 2002 meeting, which was held in Sacramento, California, comments were provided on the NMDF’s draft annotated outline. After that meeting, due to a lack of funds, work stopped on the NMDF’s development. Additional funds were allocated to the project in early January 2003. This allowed Kaback and her team to resume work on the outline and incorporate the comments that were submitted during the Sacramento meeting.

Update on the NMDF’s Status and Identifying a Path Forward
Dawn Kaback, Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC)

Kaback distributed the revised version of the outline and presented information about the NMDF’s content and organization. In summary, she said, the NMDF currently includes the following major sections:

See Kaback’s presentation (included as Attachment D) for additional information about the subtopics included under each major section.

Kaback said that she plans to release a full draft of the NMDF document in early May 2003. In order to meet this deadline, she said, the Alliance must reach consensus on the outline soon. She proposed taking the following steps to finalize the outline:

Assuming that consensus is reached during the conference call, Kaback said, she and her team will start developing the NMDF’s full text on February 21, 2003. Efforts will be initiated even earlier, she said, to prepare the document’s graphical components, such as flow charts and tables.

Attendees agreed that Kaback’s proposed schedule was reasonable. Yager asked whether Kaback was funded to work on the NMDF after May 2003. Kaback indicated that she was not. Thus, after the draft NMDF is completed, Kaback will not be able to work on the document again until new funding becomes available. Yager said that she would start looking into this issue immediately. Ideally, she said, a new funding mechanism will be established before May 2003 so that work can proceed on the NMDF without delay.

Yager recommended formalizing the NMDF’s development process by establishing a NMDF Subgroup that will meet regularly (via conference call) to discuss the NMDF’s status. Attendees agreed that this was a good idea. Kaback and David Zabcik will serve as the co-chairs.

Group Discussion on the NMDF

Kaback’s presentation on the NMDF prompted discussion on several topics, including:


The Casper Refinery Subgroup consists of Randy Jewett, Tavelli, Breed, Jeff Hostetler, Smith, and Meyers. This group is using the GITEI process to develop a long-term NAPL management strategy at a former refinery site. The Subgroup hopes to show that good science and technology can be used to make scientifically sound decisions that are acceptable to the regulatory community.

Background Information and Status Report on the Casper Refinery Site
Jeff Hostetler, TriHydro Corporation
Brian Smith, TriHydro Corporation

Hostetler and Smith serve as technical consultants on the Casper Refinery site project, and are working closely with Meyers on site characterization. They described the site and its conceptual model, explained how the GITEI process is being applied to the site, and presented site investigation results. In summary, Hostetler and Smith made the following major points:

The Regulatory Perspective
Ali Tavelli, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ)

The Casper Refinery site falls under the regulatory authority of the WDEQ. Tavelli and Breed are the regulators assigned to the site. Tavelli described Wyoming’s approach toward NAPL remediation, noting that the state is unique in that it allows large RCRA refinery sites to be cleaned up through the state’s voluntary remediation program (VRP). (The Casper Refinery site is participating in this program.) Site owners who participate in the VRP, Tavelli said, receive liability protection.

Tavelli said that the state’s statute mandates a non-degradation policy for ground water. Risk-based methods may be used to identify cleanup levels for soil, but ground water must be cleaned up to MCLs or background levels and may also have to meet aesthetic standards. (Aesthetic standards are set at the WDEQ Director’s discretion and are not required in all cases.) While the non-degradation goal is prescribed as the ultimate goal for Wyoming’s contaminated ground-water sites, Tavelli said, the state does recognize that such a far-reaching goal can be difficult to achieve at some sites. Thus, the state’s statute does not specify a timeframe in which the goal must be met. A site manager who plans to remediate the site over a long timeframe, she said, can sign a long-term Final Remedy Agreement. Managers who take this approach, for example, might agree to return the site to MCLs over a span of 400 years. Tavelli also said that the state’s statute does allow for the concept of technical impracticability.

Roundtable Discussion

Attendees asked the following questions:

John Meyers, RETEC

Meyers delivered a presentation entitled Full-Scale Waterflood Performance Validation of an LNAPL Mobility Analysis. This project, he said, was performed at a ConocoPhillips/Colorado Refining Company site. Meyers presented information about waterflooding theory, described the remedial design that was used at the site, presented results, compared actual to predicted performance, and contrasted pre-startup LNAPL mobility to post-operational conditions and to the recommended endpoint.


For some time, Yager said, the NAPL Cleanup Alliance has been trying to solicit additional participation from state regulators. In 2002, she said, the Alliance asked the Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC) for assistance in identifying state regulators who would be interested in the Alliance’s activities. ITRC did identify some state regulators, and they attended the Alliance’s April 2002 meeting. Although the Alliance was glad to welcome these state regulators to the group and to consider them Associate members, Yager said, Alliance Core Team members agreed that additional efforts should be made to identify more state regulators. Thus, toward the end of 2002, the Alliance started communicating with the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO). Yager said that ASTSWMO’s Training and Information Exchange Subcommittee has agreed to let the Alliance present information about its activities at ASTSWMO’s April 2003 meeting. The Alliance plans to follow through with this invitation, Yager said, and will make a pitch for state regulatory participation at that time. Yager asked attendees to identify additional recruitment strategies. Attendees suggested the following:

Yager thanked the attendees for their suggestions and said that all of these strategies would be pursued. Assuming that new Alliance members are recruited, she asked, what role should they play in the Alliance’s activities? At a minimum, attendees agreed, new members should be invited to review the Alliance’s products. They should be asked to participate in conference calls, attendees agreed, and they should be encouraged to attend future Alliance meetings. The latter request might be difficult to fulfill, Yager said, noting that travel can be difficult for state regulators. If the Alliance wants state regulators to attend meetings, she said, funds must be identified to pay for the travel costs. She said that TIO could probably cover some of the costs and she agreed to explore this possibility.


The next Alliance meeting will be held on May 21–22, 2003, in Dallas, Texas. The Casper Refinery Subgroup might get together a day earlier to meet with remediation technology vendors. (Non-Subgroup members would be welcomed to sit in on the vendors’ presentations.) Attendees agreed that a live presentation of the NAPL training program’s Modules 1 and 2 should be delivered during the meeting.


Before ending the meeting, attendees discussed the following topics:

Attachments A through D

Attachments A through D are available on the Internet. To view these attachments, visit the RTDF home page at, click on the “Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (NAPL) Cleanup Alliance” button, then click on the “Alliance Meetings” button. The attachments will be available as part of the January 2003 meeting summary.

Attachment A: Final Attendee List (45kb PDF)

Attachment B: Draft Outline for LNAPL Training(68kb PDF)

Attachment C: TRPP NAPL Guidance (639kb PDF)

Attachment D: Decision-Making Framework for Cleanup of Sites Contaminated With LNAPLs (279kb PDF)