SUMMARY OF THE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPMENT
March 7, 2000
On March 7, 2000, the following members of the Remediation Technologies Development Forum's (RTDF's) Refinery Partnership met in a conference call:
Wayne Barnum, Defense Energy Support Center
Randy Breeden, EPA Region 8
Eva Davis, EPA ORD
Kathy Greene, NFESC
Jeff Hostetler, TriHydro Corporation
Randy Jewett, Texaco Group
Victor Kremesec, BP Amoco
Terry Lauck, Conoco, Inc.
Mark Lyverse, Chevron Research and Technology Co.
Alina Martin, SAIC
Randy Parker, EPA SITE Program
Robert Puls, EPA ORD
Henry Richter, TriHydro Corporation
Paul Rogers, Defense Energy Support Center
Steve Schmelling, EPA ORD
Ali Tavelli, Wyoming DEQ
Lynn Wood, EPA ORD
Kathy Yager, EPA TIO
David Zabcik, Equiva Services, LLC
Also present was Lisa Kulujian of Science Applications International Corporation.
Previous Workshops with the American Petroleum Institute (API)
In 1998 there was an EPA/API Conference that discussed enhanced NAPL removal. At that time, it was learned that there is a need for a national dialogue on remediation technologies and for information sharing on the cost effectiveness of NAPL removal. Several companies wanted more information on field studies so that they could be aware of more recent progress with these technologies.
There was a follow-up workshop in September 1999 which focused on the latest developments on enhanced source removal technology and NAPL removal. Chemical oxidation, thermal technologies and chemical flushing were discussed as well as field data, and successes and limitations of technologies.
Major issues discussed at the workshop included the following:
Companies have indicated that they are interested in pursuing aggressive NAPL removal technologies and that they see a value of working collaboratively to better understand the cost and effectiveness of the technologies. In addition, industry environmental staffing has downsized and many organizations do not have the resources to track down this information. Working together and combining resources through a partnership might be a solution to this.
Recommendations from workshop included the following:
Goals of this Conference Call
The main goal of this conference call was to determine if this public/private partnership is an effort your organization would like to commit to. A partnership needs strong industry leadership to be successful. At the in-person meeting legal options for entering into an agreement and specific goals of the partnership will be discussed.
Potential Goals of a Partnership
The goal of the public/private partnership will be to work collaboratively on a mission to tackle specific problems. The problems and goals will be determined by the group. One goal of the Technology Innovation Office is to conduct field demonstrations.
Participation requirements for this partnership are undefined at this point, however they could be substantial. EPA and industry have teamed together to work on the Remediation Technology Division Forum (RTDF). The Bioremediation Consortium required each member of the partnership to have one person per year for three years be committed full-time to the effort. In addition, modest financial contributions were made. The Bioremediation Consortium was able to obtain outside funding from DOD, DOE, and the Chlorine Chemical Council. Some RTDFs have participation requirements that are more loosely defined. Visit www.rtdf.org for more information on RTDFs.
The participation requirements for this partnership will be defined by the group. The in-person meeting will hammer out details. The need for specific goals is a priority.
WHAT CAN EPA BRING TO A PARTNERSHIP?
Technology Innovation Office - Kathy Yager
The Technology Innovation Office will serve as the glue of the partnership. TIO can handle the maintenance of administrative tasks, such as arranging calls, meetings, and note-taking through use of contractor support, such as SAIC. TIO also has technical contractors to gather information, organize data and create reports. Lastly, TIO has many various contacts and would act as a liaison and good resource.
EPA Region VIII - Randy Breeden
Region VIII has taken the lead in evaluating remedial technologies and site characterization activities for petroleum sites. It is trying to obtain as much information as it can on cost and performance evaluation of new technologies. Region VIII has the ability to assist in dispersing information on what technologies are currently being applied, their effectiveness, and information on new innovative technologies. In addition, Region VIII can assist in marketing these technologies and develop guidance on them.
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program - Randy Parker
The SITE Program is run by the Office of Research and Development and is located in Cincinnati, Ohio. The SITE Demonstration Program is for the demonstration and evaluation of innovative technologies for cleanup of hazardous waste sites, primarily Superfund sites. The program evaluates full scale remediation technologies and works with various types of sites, including federal agencies and privately-owned sites. The program solicits technologies to be evaluated. In many cases, the vendor pays the operating costs but EPA does the evaluation and quality assurance to provide independent evaluation of the technology. The SITE program has demonstrated over 100 technologies for hazardous waste remediation since the late 80s. It has had previous partnerships with both federal facilities and private industry to evaluate technologies.
Office of Research and Development - Steve Schmelling
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory, located in Ada, Oklahoma, is the center of research on subsurface remediation and flushing technologies for NAPLS. It has conducted pilot scale field evaluation efforts where technologies were evaluated for removal of LNAPLs. The office also looks at the bioremediation of residuals and monitors natural attenuation of chlorinated solvents and MTBE. Lastly, ORD has a very active technology support program and an active remediation research team.
Texaco Group Inc. - Randy Jewett
Texaco takes an aggressive position on demolition, removal, and remediation. Its Casper, WY site may be an ideal site to look at some technologies since the refinery and all sources are completely removed. At this site, the company recently completed installation of an impermeable wall between the facility and the river. The barrier wall is 3400 feet long. The site is in a situation where contaminants would not carry off of the property even if a technology was not working. At the Casper site, various types of extraction have been used. The process of NAPL removal has been slow and expensive. In addition, Texaco has other refineries that might have other geologies or different problems than the Casper site.
NFESC - Kathy Greene
NFESC is located in Port Hueneme, California. It is a large organization of 500 people with about 80 people in the environmental department. They have lots of expertise on innovative environmental technologies. NFESC has technology application teams such as phytoremediation, DNAPL, etc. In addition, it has the National Environmental Technology Test Site where projects are demonstrated (such as MTBE projects). Some NFESC staff are involved with RTDFs and ITRC -Interstate Technology Regulatory Cooperation. NFESC is very interested in technology transfer and in partnering with other organizations.
Chevron Research - Mark Lyverse
A Chevron refinery located in Cincinnati, which was a medium/large site, was closed in the mid-80s. It has an LNAPLs focus and is currently undergoing RCRA closure with Region 5. 3 ½ million gallons have been recovered since 1985 of gasoline (mostly leaded). There is a future land use plan for the site. Chevron is evaluating different technologies and ranking those in regard to future land uses. Chevron has used the following technologies: vapor extraction, bioventing, PIT (partitioning interwell tracer) tests. In addition, Chevron is looking at surfactant enhanced aquifer remediation. Chevron assesses all technologies on a cost per removal gallon basis. Chevron is interested in working with EPA on large-scale field tests. The company is also interested in the difference between aggressive or enhanced NAPL removal and reducing NAPL mobility and toxicity. Mark Lyverse raised the following questions: Once a plume is stable, is there flexibility in how it is managed? What are logical endpoints for source removal if natural attenuation may take over?
BP Amoco - Vic Kremesec
BP Amoco has a history of partnerships with EPA. BP Amoco has a few sites with varying problems. Many of their sites are reaching the limits of technical practicability in terms of recovering hydrocarbon NAPL. BP Amoco has begun evaluation of some of the new technologies, however many of them seem to be expensive and difficult to apply. The company is interested in discussing appropriate endpoints and interested in cooperatively assessing new technologies.
PARTNERSHIP KICKOFF MEETING
Randy Breeden discussed the Ashland refinery in St. Paul, MN as a possible location for the in-person meeting. The meeting will be held in May. Randy suggested planning a half-day field trip to a refinery where an innovative technology has been applied. The goal of the in-person meeting will be to clarify objectives and the mission of the partnership. Discussion of the meeting will be continued during the second conference call.