WELCOME AND OPENING REMARKS
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:
Developing a training program. Alliance members have started developing a light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) training program.
Developing a NAPL Management Decision Framework (NMDF). The Alliance is creating a document that is designed to help regulators and industry members think through the steps that should be taken (and the data that should be collected) to reach meaningful decisions about NAPL management issues. A draft annotated outline has been prepared for the document.
Evaluating innovative technologies. The Alliance hopes to identify innovative remediation technologies that can be used to address NAPL-contaminated sites. Toward this end, the Alliance hopes to participate in and develop case studies of cleanup projects at several sites. The first of these is a project at a former Texaco refinery in Casper, Wyoming. Work on the project is being guided by a Subgroup, which is made up of Alliance Core Team members.
Sharing information about NAPL issues. The Alliance plans to launch the Ground Water Central Web site in February 2003. This Web site will direct users to documents, policy statements, and technical resources that relate to LNAPL and dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) issues.
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:
Form an official Alliance Training Workgroup. Attendees agreed that a broader group of Alliance Core Team members should become involved with the training program’s development. Toward this end, a formal Alliance Training Workgroup was established. The Workgroup, which Adamski will chair, will include (1) all of the people who have been involved with the training program’s development to date and (2) Yager, Ali Tavelli, Jerry Breed, Brian Smith, Westbrook, Dan Irvin, and Dawn Kaback. Attendees agreed to set up a conference call on January 28, 2003, to get the new Core Team participants up to speed on the training program’s status. On January 30, 2003, Adamski said, the entire Alliance Training Workgroup will meet via conference call.
Ask more EPA and state regulators to review the training program. Yager said that EPA is unlikely to endorse the training program unless several regulators approve it. Therefore, she said, efforts should be made to recruit more state and federal regulators into the Alliance. (This topic is discussed in greater detail in the “Recruiting More Regulators To Participate in the Alliance” section of this report.)
Deliver a live presentation of Modules 1 and 2 at the next Alliance meeting. To determine whether the training program merits endorsement, attendees agreed, reviewers should be able to view a live presentation of Module 1 and 2. This will allow them to determine whether the training program meets its objectives and strikes an acceptable tone. Attendees recommended performing a trial run of Modules 1 and 2 at the next NAPL Cleanup Alliance meeting. Yager said that an effort will be made to invite regional and state regulators to the meeting. Noting that travel could be problematic for regulators, Tavelli recommended making the trial run available through WebEx so that regulators who are unable to attend the meeting can view the trial run from their own offices. Several attendees expressed enthusiasm for this idea.
Determine what steps need to be taken to obtain EPA’s endorsement. Yager said that she would determine what needs to be done to obtain EPA’s approval on the training program. For starters, Yager said, she will pull together a small team of people from EPA’s laboratories (perhaps Eva Davis, already an Alliance Associate member), EPA’s RCRA Corrective Action Program (perhaps Guy Tomassoni), EPA’s regional offices (perhaps Breeden and Westbrook), and the Ground Water Forum. This team of four or five people, Yager said, will help determine how EPA’s review process will work.
TCEQ GUIDANCE ON NAPL MANAGEMENT
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:
Source area abatement should be encouraged and NAPL should be recovered to the “extent practicable.” Clarke said that TCEQ’s TRPP guidance does not define NAPL recovery as an absolute goal that must be pursued at each and every NAPL-contaminated site. If it is technically feasible to recover product, however, site managers will be encouraged to do so. Clarke said that the TRPP indicates that NAPL should be recovered to the “extent practicable.” The NAPL Evaluation and Recovery Guidance (RG-366/TRPP-32) aims to remove some of the vagueness from this goal and to establish a decision-making framework that regulators and site managers can use to determine what is indeed practicable. He said that the document lists the following as important elements to consider when deciding what is practicable at an individual site: (1) identifying site-specific remedial objectives, (2) analyzing the environmental benefits associated with NAPL recovery, and (3) assessing the technical and financial feasibility of NAPL recovery. When analyzing the latter, Clarke said, one must consider innovative technologies. When analyzing the environmental benefits of NAPL recovery, meanwhile, one must ask the following questions: Will removing NAPL have a measurable impact on dissolved-phase contaminant concentrations? Will removing NAPL make the site more appealing for reuse? Will money be left over for other site remedial objectives if a high-priced NAPL recovery effort is undertaken? If physical controls are chosen as an alternative to recovery, what will happen if the control strategy fails? In a nutshell, Clarke said, a site manager in Texas will be expected to recover substantial NAPL quantities if either NAPL contamination poses a high environmental risk or the site’s conditions are such that recovery efforts are likely to be successful.
One must address all imminent risks before moving forth with a long-term strategy for NAPL management. Clarke said that the guidance document makes it clear that site regulators and site managers have an obligation to implement interim actions to stop NAPL releases, abate safety hazards, mitigate explosive conditions, and prevent subsurface NAPL from migrating to receptors. One must control and manage risk, he said, before moving on to long-term management strategies.
Assessment and remediation requirements may differ across sites. In Texas, Clarke said, ground water falls into several categories (e.g., Class 1, 2, or 3 and plume management zones [PMZs]) depending on its use. Different assessment and remedial goals apply to the different designations. For example, if a NAPL-contaminated site impacts a Class 1 area, site managers will be required to clean up the site or, if that is not possible, to submit a very well documented technical impracticability report. (Clarke said that TCEQ is still trying to determine what type of documentation is required for this type of report.) If a NAPL-contaminated site impacts a PMZ, however, site managers are simply expected to “recover readily recoverable” NAPL. Clarke said that the NAPL Evaluation and Recovery Guidance (RG-366/TRPP-32) document does provide some tools to assist people in determining what is readily recoverable. More work remains to be performed on this topic, however. For example, he said, TCEQ is still working on determining how the emergence of innovative technologies will impact expectations.
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:
Introduction and Objectives
Determining NAPL Management Goals and Endpoints
Approaches to Long-Term NAPL Management
Long-Term NAPL Management Plan
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:
Collect comments on the current version of the outline. Kaback said that she would e-mail the most recent version of the outline to Alliance members. She encouraged them to review the outline carefully and to submit comments by February 12, 2003.
Discuss the comments via conference call. Kaback suggested holding a conference call on February 17, 2003, to reach consensus on the outline’s content and organizational structure.
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 document’s intent and utility. Attendees discussed the NMDF’s utility and applicability. Speaking from industry’s perspective, Lyverse said that the NMDF will help site managers understand the type of information they must collect to develop a scientifically sound NAPL management plan that is acceptable to regulators. Lyverse said that the document’s utility hinges on the Alliance’s ability to create a document that is short and streamlined. Another attendee said that the NMDF will also be a useful tool for regulators. A representative from TCEQ offered a comment on the NMDF’s “Introduction and Objectives” section. As currently written, he said, this section states that the NMDF has been created to guide decision-making processes at large complex sites. He recommended making it clear that the NMDF can also be used at smaller-scale sites, such as gas stations. Zabcik said that the Alliance did not want to imply that a long, complicated NAPL management plan is required for small service stations. Hay Wilson suggested revisiting the “Introduction and Objectives” section to determine whether the following point can be made: elements of the NMDF document have broad applicability, but the entire NMDF is not necessarily applicable at all small sites.
Structuring the NMDF around the “GITEI” process. Meyers suggested structuring the NMDF’s organizational structure around the “GITEI” concept, an approach that defines the following as steps for NAPL management: Goals, Investigation, Technology, Endpoints, and Implementation. The most recent version of the NMDF’s outline does not follow this organizational flow, Meyers said: the section that addresses investigation is relegated to Appendix B. When reviewing the existing outline, Meyers said, reviewers should ask themselves whether it presents a clear road map.
Case studies. Attendees asked for additional information on the case studies that will be included in Appendix C. At this point, Kaback said, CTC is just developing an outline for the case studies’ organizational structure. The content will most likely be developed by EPA, she said, noting that TIO is already developing case studies for NAPL-contaminated sites. Yager confirmed that TIO is involved with such an effort, but said that TIO’s case studies will focus on source removal technologies. Yager said that she did not think that this was the focus that Alliance members had originally envisioned for the NMDF’s case studies. This statement prompted attendees to ask: What type of material should the case studies cover? Attendees agreed that it would be useful to include case studies that explore consensus building, goal setting, and endpoint identification at NAPL-contaminated sites. Kaback asked whether the Casper Refinery Subgroup’s experiences could be used as a case study and whether this Subgroup plans to test the NMDF’s utility in the field. Tavelli said that the Subgroup would like to do both of these things, but that the Subgroup would not be able to prepare a case study for another couple of years. Tavelli recommended writing a case study about a NAPL-contaminated site that has already reached a final remedy agreement. The Alliance could examine the decision-making process used at the site, she said, and determine whether using the NMDF’s decision-making process could have made a difference in the site’s outcome. Following up on Tavelli’s suggestion, Hay Wilson suggested identifying a list of candidate sites and asking site managers to provide information on lessons learned there. Zabcik said that too much attention is being paid to the case studies at this point. He advised developing the main parts of the NMDF’s text as soon as possible and worrying about case study development later. Attendees agreed with Zabcik’s recommendation. Some of them did think it was advisable, however, to start querying site managers for the information that Hay Wilson suggested so that the NMDF’s authors could benefit from the lessons that have been learned at other sites.
Building on other NAPL decision-making frameworks. The Alliance is not the only group developing a decision-making framework; in fact, groups like TCEQ and the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) are currently working on similar efforts. Lyverse recommended contacting these groups to share ideas and learn more about their initiatives. Several attendees recommended building on the ideas presented in TCEQ’ NAPL Evaluation and Recovery Guidance (RG-366/TRPP-32) document and asked whether portions of the document could be incorporated into the NMDF to avoid “recreating the wheel.” Clarke said that the Alliance is welcome to use TCEQ’s concepts and tools, such as flow charts and tables, but said that they need to realize that these concepts and tools are still in draft form. Texas should not be the only state highlighted, Clarke said—it would be useful to reference decision-making frameworks that have been developed in other states as well. One attendee responded by saying that he did not think such frameworks had been developed in other states. Tavelli said that she has performed research on the approaches other states are using. She agreed to compile her findings and to share them with Alliance members at a later date. Lyverse also recommended contacting Tom Sale and the National Research Council for information on the status of other states’ NAPL decision-making frameworks.
Obtaining the RTDF’s stamp of approval. Many attendees said that it would be desirable to obtain the Alliance’s stamp of approval on the NMDF. In order to obtain this, Yager said, EPA must be comfortable with the NMDF’s content and a formal review process must be initiated. Westbrook advised obtaining additional state regulatory input and review on the document. Yager agreed that the Alliance should continue to solicit such input. (This topic is discussed in greater detail in the “Recruiting More Regulators To Participate in the Alliance” section of this report.) Zabcik agreed that it would be useful to have several regulators review the NMDF and that it would be ideal to have the product approved by EPA Headquarters. He asked, however, whether pursuing this path would slow down the NMDF’s development. He advised making haste to complete the NMDF and asking Breeden whether he would be comfortable releasing the NMDF as an EPA Region 8 document, perhaps a Decision Document. Attendees agreed that Zabcik’s idea had merit and should be discussed with Breeden. If the NMDF is completed and released as a Region 8 document by August 2003, Zabcik said, Breeden could present the document at a RCRA National Meeting scheduled to take place on August 12–15, 2003, in Washington, D.C.
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 Casper Refinery site has already been stabilized. Before pursuing a long-term NAPL management strategy, Hostetler said, remediators took interim actions to ensure that contaminant sources were removed and contaminant migration was controlled. As part of this effort, the following systems were installed at the site: ground-water interceptor trenches, pump-and-treat, soil vapor extraction, total fluid vacuum extraction, and hydrocarbon recovery wells. Also, a sealed-joint barrier wall was installed to prevent contaminants from impacting a nearby river.
The Subgroup believes that goal setting should be an iterative process. With the GITEI process, Hostetler said, site goals are established up front, even before a detailed site investigation. When setting an initial goal, he said, stakeholders subject the goal to the SMART test to determine whether it is Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Recordable, and Time-predictable. Stakeholders are encouraged to revisit the goal during each major step of the GITEI process. At each point, Hostetler said, stakeholders should ask themselves whether they still believe that the goal is reasonable and practicable, and whether it passes the SMART test. If, as the project advances and new information is gathered, the goal does not seem to meet these criteria, the goal should be modified.
The Subgroup established an initial conceptual goal for the Casper Refinery site. Hostetler said that the Casper Refinery site is located in Wyoming, a state that requires site managers to clean up contaminated water to maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or background levels. Wyoming does not, however, indicate how quickly this goal must be achieved. Working together, Hostetler said, Subgroup members decided that a conceptual starting goal for the Casper Refinery site might be: “remove enough NAPL to enable natural processes to return ground-water quality to background levels or MCLs within about 50 years after remedial engineering processes have been discontinued.” (This goal was established to facilitate the process of using the Casper Refinery site as a model for testing the efficacy of the Alliance’s NMDF. The goal is not linked in any way with current regulatory requirements or decision-making processes that are in effect for the site.)
The Subgroup is performing extensive site investigation efforts. The Subgroup recently performed a mobility study to improve its understanding of the Casper Refinery site’s conceptual model, estimate how much NAPL exists in the subsurface, and estimate what percentage of that NAPL is mobile. Smith provided a detailed description of the techniques and tools (the Site Characterization and Analysis Penetrometer System, Laser-Induced Fluorescence, American Petroleum Institute [API] models, etc.) that the Subgroup used to perform and validate the investigation. The information gleaned, Smith said, provides a more accurate picture of the site’s NAPL distribution pattern and behavior. The results suggest that there are approximately 8 million gallons of NAPL in the subsurface, but that less than 2 percent of that total is mobile. Hostetler said that additional site investigation activities will be initiated in the near future. For example, a natural attenuation study will be performed and NAPL—ground-water partitioning data will be collected.
Subgroup members will develop a short list of candidate remedial technologies within the next 4 months. Hostetler said that the Subgroup has just initiated the “T” step of the GITEI process—selecting remedial technology(ies). The Subgroup will consider several factors when assessing each technology, including design input parameters, mass removal capacity, performance monitoring requirements, and costs. While performing this analysis, he said, Subgroup members must look carefully at the mass removal capacity of each technology and determine whether the conceptual goal still passes the SMART test. Preliminary evaluations of the new investigatory data indicate that the starting conceptual goal now appears highly optimistic. Thus, the Casper Refinery Subgroup will have to revisit and take a hard look at the G part of the GITEI process.
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.
Attendees asked the following questions:
How much has been spent on the site thus far? Jewett said that $20 to $30 million has been spent on the site to date. In addition to site characterization, a significant amount of that total has been spent on interim remedial actions. For example, the sealed-joint barrier wall cost about $5 million.
If Wyoming’s statute implies that ground-water resources have immeasurable value, is it acceptable to give a site manager 400 years to restore water quality to MCLs? Tavelli said that Final Remedy Agreements are negotiated in the public arena. Community members are involved with the decision-making process and are allowed to express their opinions about acceptable timeframes.
What will the property be used for in the future? Jewett said that no decision has been made about reuse. The site might be turned back into open land. A portion of it might be redeveloped into industrial lots.
Can any technologies achieve a NAPL recovery rate greater than 50 percent? Tavelli said that the Subgroup plans to explore this question in great detail over the next 4 months. Myron Kuhlman said that he believes greater recovery rates can be achieved through innovative technologies.
Will the Subgroup share the information they learn about innovative technologies? Tavelli said that the Subgroup will make its findings known. Yager asked the Subgroup to develop a methodology for cataloging and organizing information so that it can be shared readily with the entire Alliance.
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:
Contact the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS). Tavelli recommended contacting ECOS and asking that organization to review the Alliance’s products. Kaback recommended asking ECOS for permission to deliver a presentation at the next ECOS meeting.
Contact regional EPA representatives for suggestions. Clarke recommended inviting more EPA regional people to participate in the Alliance. He said that such involvement is beneficial for three reasons. First, EPA regional representatives provide useful insight and would provide useful feedback on the Alliance’s projects. Second, EPA regional representatives know who the important “change agents” are within state regulatory agencies and are in a good position to identify state regulators who would be good candidates to participate in the Alliance. Third, Clarke said, state regulators are more likely to be attracted to the Alliance if they perceive it as a group that has broad EPA support and membership. Attendees embraced Clarke’s recommendation to recruit additional EPA regional representatives. Hopkins said that people from Regions 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 have expressed interest in the NAPL training program. These people should be contacted, he said, to determine whether they are willing to help develop or review other Alliance products. The Alliance should also ask these EPA regional representatives for a list of state regulators.
Invite state regulators who are directly involved with refinery sites to participate in the Alliance. Kaback recommended inviting the regulator who is working on the ConocoPhillips site (see the “Waterflood Project” section of this report) to participate in the Alliance’s activities. She also recommended identifying other refinery sites that are formulating long-term NAPL management strategies and inviting the regulators associated with them to participate in the Alliance’s activities.
Continue reaching out to ITRC members. The next ITRC meeting is scheduled to take place in March 2003 in Charlotte, North Carolina. Yager said that it might be useful for the Casper Refinery Subgroup to submit an abstract. If the Subgroup is allowed to give a presentation, she said, it would give ITRC members a concrete idea of what the Alliance hopes to accomplish.
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:
Rotating co-chairs. RTDF Action Teams typically rotate co-chairs on a regular basis, Yager said. She asked whether the Alliance wanted to rotate co-chairs at this time. Attendees agreed to discuss this issue in the future. For now, Lyverse and Breeden will remain the co-chairs.
Solidifying relationships with new Alliance members. Lyverse said that a representative from Ashland, Inc., is interested in signing the Alliance’s MOU. Jim Marsh said that the same is true for the National Energy Technology Laboratory. Clarke said that he would like a copy of the MOU as well, and agreed to talk to his management about signing it.
Reviewing and using new API products. Hopkins said that API is currently working on several LNAPL tools and projects. Some of these projects are nearing completion and will soon be available on API’s Web site (see http://www.api.org/LNAPL). Hopkins said that he might solicit input from Alliance members on some of API’s projects. He encouraged attendees to contact him if they want more information.
Sponsoring Internet seminars. In the past, Yager said, Alliance members expressed interest in Internet seminars that address LNAPL issues. She said that she would like to see TCEQ deliver an Internet-based seminar on its NAPL Evaluation and Recovery Guidance (RG-366/TRPP-32) document. She agreed to discuss this idea in more detail with Clarke.
Gathering information about DNAPL sites. Don Cunningham said that the Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NFESC) has hired a contractor to conduct a Web-based survey of chlorinated solvent DNAPL source removal projects. The goal, he said, is to use the information submitted to generate a decision matrix and a report. He encouraged attendees to submit information to NFESC’s contractor. Those interested should visit https://projects.geosyntec.com/navy_rocs.
The EPA NAPL Conference. Hostetler said that members of TriHydro’s staff recently attended EPA’s NAPL Conference via Webcase. (The conference was held in November 2002 in Chicago, Illinois.) Hostetler said that the conference focused largely on DNAPL issues. Several thermal technologies were highlighted. The overriding message, Hostetler said, was that innovative technologies have the potential to extract much larger quantities of NAPL than conventional technologies do. Hostetler related these findings to the Casper Refinery site. In the case of the Casper Refinery site, he said, the key question is not how much NAPL the newer technologies are capable of removing. Rather, the key questions are: How much NAPL (or NAPL components) will the new technologies leave behind? What impact will that remaining mass have on ground-water quality over the long term? Will application of the technology really achieve significant reductions in overall contaminant source term, timeframe to reach statutory clean-up levels, and/or risk?
Carolyn Perroni agreed to create an e-mail distribution list for the Alliance Training Workgroup. Environmental Management Support, Inc., and Eastern Research Group, Inc., (ERG) will set up calls for the Subgroup, participate in the calls, and summarize the proceedings. ERG will set up a conference call for January 28, 2003, between 3:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time. In addition, Perroni agreed to distribute a reminder to Training Workgroup members about a conference call that has been scheduled for January 30, 2003.
Adamski agreed to send the most recent version of the LNAPL training program’s outline to the Alliance’s Core Team.
The Training Workgroup will try to ensure that Modules 1 and 2 are ready to be presented in time for the NAPL Cleanup Alliance’s May 2003 meeting. Yager will find out whether this live presentation can be made available through WebEx, or another Webcase vehicle.
Dawn Kaback agreed to send the most recent version of the NMDF’s outline to the meeting attendees and to Tom Sale.
Alliance members agreed to send Kaback comments on the NMDF outline by February 12, 2003.
ERG will set up a conference call for the NMDF Subgroup. The call will be scheduled for February 17, 2003, between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
Kaback and her team will start developing the NMDF’s full text on February 21, 2003. Efforts will be initiated even earlier to prepare the document’s graphical components, such as flow charts and tables.
After noting that funds for the NMDF development expire in May 2003, Yager agreed to look into establishing a new funding mechanism so that work can proceed on the NMDF without delay.
Tavelli said that she has performed research on other states’ NAPL decision-making frameworks. She agreed to compile her findings and to share them with Alliance members at a later date. Lyverse recommended contacting Sale and the National Research Council for information on the status of other states’ NAPL decision-making frameworks.
Zabcik recommended asking Breeden whether he would be willing to publish the NMDF as a Region 8 document. Attendees agreed that this idea should be discussed with Breeden.
The Casper Refinery Subgroup will examine several innovative technologies over the next 4 months. They agreed to develop a methodology for cataloging and organizing information so that it can be shared readily with the entire Alliance.
The Core Team will do the following in an effort to recruit more regulators to the Alliance:
— Deliver a presentation at ASTSWMO’s April 2003 meeting.
— Establish contact with ECOS and ask for permission to deliver a presentation at the next ECOS meeting.
— Contact regional EPA representatives from Regions 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 and ask them to (1) participate in the Alliance and (2) provide names of state regulators who might be interested in participating.
— Invite state regulators who are directly involved with refinery sites to participate in the Alliance.
— Continue reaching out to ITRC members and submit an abstract for the ITRC’s March 2003 conference.
— Determine whether funds can be made available to cover state regulators’ travel costs.
Yager will determine what needs to be done to obtain EPA’s endorsement on the LNAPL training program and the NMDF. For starters, she will pull together a small team of people from EPA to help determine how EPA’s review process will work.
Yager will talk to Clarke about delivering an Internet-based seminar on TCEQ’s NAPL Evaluation and Recovery Guidance (RG-366/TRPP-32) document.
Kaback will send the MOU to Clark, Jim Marsh, and a representative from Ashland, Inc.
Kaback will send Alliance members an e-mail letting them know when the Ground Water Central Web site is operational and where it resides on the Internet.
Attachments A through D are available on the Internet. To view these attachments, visit the RTDF home page at http://www.rtdf.org, 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)