U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 6 Offices
Dallas, Texas
May 21–22, 2003

Mark Lyverse, ChevronTexaco Energy Research and Technology Company

Mark Lyverse, co-chair of the 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 (PDF, 39KB).) Lyverse noted that Randy Breeden, who has served as the Alliance’s other co-chair for several years, has temporarily stepped away from his position to accept a new assignment. Christine Lehnertz, representing Region 8 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), will serve as a co-chair in Breeden’s absence. Unfortunately, Lyverse said, Lehnertz was unable to attend this meeting.

Lyverse provided background information on the NAPL Cleanup Alliance. The group is one of six active teams participating in the Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF). This forum, which is supported by EPA’s Technology Innovation Office (TIO), fosters collaboration between the public and private sectors in developing innovative solutions to hazardous waste problems. The Alliance’s roots stretch back to 1998, when a meeting was held in Region 8 to discuss challenges associated with sites contaminated with light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL). During the meeting, much interest was expressed in identifying better ways to manage and remediate LNAPL sites. This interest gave birth to the NAPL Cleanup Alliance, a partnership that has been formalized with a memorandum of understanding. The Alliance has worked on several projects since its inception, Lyverse said, noting that the status of each would be discussed during the meeting.


Background Information

The NAPL Cleanup Alliance is developing a NAPL Management Decision Framework (NMDF) document in an effort to help people identify practicable and reasonable approaches for cleanup and long-term management of LNAPL sites. One of the document’s major themes is the importance of fostering collaboration and consensus-building approaches among diverse stakeholders.

Dawn Kaback, of Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC), is preparing the document with support from Sage Risk Solutions, Inc., and Paulson & Cooper, Inc. Over the last year, Alliance members have reviewed several versions of the document’s outline. The review process sparked debate and prompted several members to submit comments about the document’s scope, flow, and content. These comments were carefully considered, and in late March 2003, the Alliance leadership finalized the outline and asked Kaback to develop the first full draft of the NMDF document. The draft was distributed to Alliance members on May 13, 2003.

Overview of the NMDF Draft Document
Dawn Kaback, CTC

Kaback provided a brief overview of the draft NMDF document’s content and organization. In summary, she said, the document includes the following major sections:

See Kaback’s presentation (included as Attachment B (PDF, 54KB)) for additional information about the subtopics in each major section.

Group Discussion on the Draft NMDF Document
Facilitated by Dawn Kaback (CTC) and David Zabcik (Shell Oil Products US Company & Motiva Enterprises)

Kaback and David Zabcik, co-chairs of the Alliance’s NMDF Subgroup, asked attendees to comment on the NMDF document. The attendees obliged, recommending the following:

Path Forward

Attendees decided that the following steps should be taken to move forward with the development of the NMDF document:


Background Information

The RTDF NAPL Cleanup Alliance plans to release a series of training modules to (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. An Alliance Training Workgroup has been created to help guide the development of the training program, which will consist of four modules: Module 1 (The Basics), Module 2 (NAPL Management), Module 3 (Advanced Topics), and Module 4 (Modeling). For now, the Alliance is only focusing on Modules 1 and 2.

The Alliance hopes to obtain the RTDF stamp of approval on the training modules. In order to obtain this stamp, the modules must be subjected to a broad EPA review. The review process will mirror the process described above for the NMDF document.

Module 1 (The Basics)
Vic Kremesec, BP America, Inc.
David Ariail, EPA, Region 4

EPA Region 4 provided the impetus for Module 1’s development, Kremesec said, when it asked BP America to develop online training programs on several topics, including LNAPL behavior. Before moving forth with a full report on Module 1’s status, Kremesec asked David Ariail to provide a more thorough description of the training initiatives that Region 4 is undertaking. In response to this request, Ariail presented an overview of the training programs that are being developed to support the region’s UST program.

Ariail said that employees who work under the UST program have extensive training needs. Providing training to all of them is a costly endeavor, especially if they are expected to travel to training events. To alleviate this problem, he said, Region 4 is committed to developing a series of online trainings. Toward this end, the region has pooled resources, hired contractors, and is working with BP America and university personnel to develop training programs. In addition, Ariail said, the Region 4 states have created a Region 4 Innovative Training Workgroup and are working with the Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) to obtain funding to develop additional training modules. Spurred on by the Region 4 efforts, he said, OUST has created a UST/LUST National Training Workgroup and is now evaluating what must be done to implement a national program to address the training needs of UST/LUST professionals.

Kremesec thanked Ariail for the overview, then resumed his status report on Module 1’s development. He said that this module has almost been completed: 66 slides have been created, a script has been created, and audio has been generated for each of the slides. Additional site characterization information will be incorporated into the training program over the next couple of weeks. Once completed, the module will be sent to Region 4 and the NAPL Cleanup Alliance membership. Kremesec said that NAPL Cleanup Alliance members will be asked to review the module and submit written comments. BP America will revise the module based on the comments and rerelease the training package. This revised version will be sent to the broad list of EPA reviewers that Yager has identified (see the discussion above on the NMDF document).

Module 2 (NAPL Management)
Mark Adamski, BP America, Inc.

Adamski said that Module 2 is being developed to help people understand how the emergence of new NAPL conceptual models (a topic explored in Module 1) impacts NAPL management approaches. Module 2 is still in the initial stages of development. Adamski said that some of the Alliance Training Workgroup’s industry members prepared a strawman for the module in late 2002. That version, he said, was viewed as having too strong of an industry bias. In late January 2003, Tavelli agreed to alleviate this problem by revising the strawman to make it more acceptable from a regulator’s perspective and reorganizing the training topics to follow the organizational structure presented in the Alliance’s NMDF document. Tavelli placed her efforts on hold, however, when she heard that the NMDF document’s outline was still undergoing revision. Now that a draft of the NMDF document has been completed, Adamski said, Tavelli should feel free to resume her effort to revise the strawman. Tavelli agreed to do so; she will come to the next Alliance meeting prepared to present and discuss the revised version of the Module 2 strawman. Once the Alliance Training Workgroup agrees on the strawman, Hopkins said, API can ask one of its consultants to start developing slides for the Module 2 training program.

Attendees discussed the scope of the Module 2 training package. Adamski and Hopkins said that they think the training program should provide more detailed information than the NMDF document does. For example, Hopkins recommended including detailed information about what people need to do “to get real about endpoints.” Lyverse asked whether the Module 2 program will include information about how to address and manage imminent risk at sites. As acknowledged earlier in the meeting, he said, the NMDF document does not cover this topic. Lyverse said that the training package’s title—NAPL Management—implies that the package covers all phases of the NAPL management problem, including imminent risk management. His statement prompted some attendees to ask whether the training module should be renamed. Zabcik recommended Implications for LNAPL Management as one possibility. No decision was made about whether the title should be changed.

Dawn Kaback, CTC

Kaback provided information about Groundwater Central©, a multi-component portal that links people to information on ground-water science and technology. (The portal can be accessed by visiting Exit.) Kaback’s PowerPoint presentation, which is included as Attachment C (PDF, 1.6MB), provides detailed information about Groundwater Central©. The highlights of her presentation are presented here. Kaback said that Groundwater Central©has two components:

Kaback said that Groundwater Central© was officially launched on January 31, 2003. She and Yager asked Alliance members to visit the site and explore its features. After doing so, Alliance members should submit comments about the utility of Groundwater Central©and offer recommendations on how to improve it. Kaback agreed to serve as the repository for the comments and to forward them to Yager.

Ariail asked whether the ground-water sites to which Groundwater Central©provides links also link back to Groundwater Central©. Kaback was not sure, but agreed to find out. Perroni advised sending an email to the webmasters who manage the sites to which Groundwater Central©links, and asking them to establish a link to Groundwater Central©. Lyverse asked whether Module 1 of the Alliance training could be made available through the Groundwater Central©portal. Kaback said that this was possible.

Jeff Hostetler, TriHydro Corporation

Hostetler provided information on behalf of the Casper Refinery Subgroup, a group that is using the decision-making process advocated in the NMDF document to develop a long-term NAPL management strategy at a former refinery site that is owned by ChevronTexaco. Hostetler said that the Subgroup recently completed a mobility study. The results indicate that 8 million gallons of NAPL are in the subsurface, and less than 2 percent of that NAPL is mobile and readily recoverable. Given this finding, Hostetler said, the Subgroup is now reexamining the goal that it originally set for the site to evaluate whether the goal is still practical. Now that he has a better understanding of the nature of the NAPL problem, Hostetler said, he doubts that the goal—to remove enough NAPL to enable natural processes to return ground-water quality to background levels or maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) within about 50 years after remedial engineering processes have been discontinued—is practical. As a result, the goal may require reformulation. Hostetler said that the Subgroup is currently working on the following:

Lyverse asked Hostetler to discuss the long-term vision for the Casper Refinery site. Hostetler said that this vision can be separated into two components:

Jim Higinbotham, ExxonMobil

Higinbotham provided information about API’s LNAPL eManual, a diverse set of tools that presents information on a variety of LNAPL topics. He said that the product, which will be available at no cost to the public, will be distributed as a CD-ROM. It will include educational information, checklists, an LNAPL management flowchart, calculation tools, remedial selection tools, assessment tools, and a broad range of other useful tools, including the most recent generation of LNAST.

Higinbotham said that the first draft of the eManual product was completed and presented to API on May 20, 2003. API members have been asked to review the eManual tool and submit comments by July 18, 2003. The final version of the product is scheduled for release on January 4, 2004. Once it is released, training forums will be held to provide additional information on how to use the eManual product.


As noted above, the Alliance plans to hold its next meeting in conjunction with the 2003 RCRA National meeting that is scheduled to take place in Washington, D.C., on August 12–15, 2003. (The NGWA conference that is scheduled to take place in Costa Mesa, California, on August 20–22, 2003, was chosen as a potential backup meeting location.) Attendees agreed that the Alliance’s meeting agenda should include the following topics: (1) EPA’s comments on the NMDF document, (2) the revised Module 2 strawman, and (3) an update on the Casper Refinery site.


Lyverse thanked everyone for their participation and said that he thought the meeting had been productive. He thanked Westbrook, of EPA Region 6, for hosting the meeting.


Several action items were identified during the meeting:


Attachments A through C 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 May 2003 meeting summary.

Attachment A: Final Attendee List (PDF, 39KB)

Attachment B: Dawn Kaback’s presentation entitled Decision-Making Framework for Cleanup of Sites Contaminated With LNAPLs (PDF, 54KB)

Attachment C: Dawn Kaback’s presentation entitled GWRTAC’s Groundwater Central© (PDF, 1.6MB)