REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPMENT FORUM
BIOREMEDIATION
CONSORTIUM MEETING SUMMARY
STEERING COMMITTEE
January 13-15, 1997
Ada, 0K
January 13, 1997
Introductions
John Wilson (EPA/NRMRL) welcomed the RTDF Bioremediation Consortium Steering Committee to EPA's Robert S. Kerr Laboratory, and Dave Major (Beak) thanked John for hosting the 3-day meeting. The primary objective of the meeting is to further develop the Consortium's "Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in Groundwater Training Course."
Related Natural Attenuation Training Courses
Participants provided information concerning either existing courses with,
at a minimum, a component on the natural attenuation of chlorinated solvents. or
similar courses in the planning/development stages. The Steering Committee
believed that it would be helpful for these related courses to present a
consistent message regarding the natural attenuation of chlorinated solvents in
groundwater. The various courses include the following:
Many of the fundamental premises concerning the natural attenuation of
chlorinated solvents taught in this course will be similar to those taught in
the Consortium's course. The Steering Committee agreed that coordination between
the two courses is essential.
Approximately 37 Records of Decision (RODs) have been established that identify natural attenuation as the preferred remedy, including RODs establishing natural attenuation as the preferred remedy for metals. Dave Ellis noted that it is often helpful to use real sites, which allows participants to more easily understand the concepts involved. John Wilson and Mary Randolph agreed, and Dave Major noted that case studies enable the attendees to assemble a physical picture of natural attenuation processes
Discussion of the RTDF Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in Groundwater Training Course
Dave Ellis suggested that the Steering Committee identify the technical level of difficulty at which the course should be taught. John Wilson suggested that the course could be developed in modules, such that certain discussions are more complex than others. Dave Major, Dave Ellis, and Leo Lehmicke (Beak) had previously discussed providing precourse materials to participants in preparation for the course. John Wilson suggested that "Fundamentals of Subsurface Microbiology and Microbial Processes," developed by Mary Randolph/JohnWilson, be distributed prior to the course as background information. Dave Major believed that the precourse materials would be helpful- participants could review them before the course and could refer to them during the course if necessary. Dave Ellis mentioned that it also would be helpful to provide participants with a copy of the slides/overheads presented during the course. John Wilson agreed, and added that it would be useful to add an explanatory note to each of the slides/overheads. These measures will create a standardized technical ability from which the Consortium can build.
Coordination Between EPA/ORD and the Consortium
John indicted that EPA/ORD has concerns regarding the perceived scope and
audience of the Consortium's course. He indicated that the two concerns
expressed to him in earlier conversations with Fran Kremer are:
Gary Klecka noted that an ITRC endorsement of se is useful, and Dave Ellis mentioned that the Consortium's Guidance Handbook will be discussed at next week's January 22-23, 1997 ITRC meeting, to be held in Albuquerque, NM. Incorporation of ITRC comments may allow the Handbook to receive an endorsement by the ITRC, which would be very helpful. Dave agreed with Gary that an ITRC endorsement of the training course would be useful; he added that an EPA endorsement would also be beneficial. The RTDF was conceived as a cooperative effort- a partnership to achieve regulatory acceptance. Dave Ellis asked if EPA would like to be involved in the review process for the dry run in March 1997 and Fran responded that it would be helpful to do so. John Wilson stated that the science pertaining to natural attenuation is not controversial, and that the EPA review of such materials should not be time consuming. Dave Ellis noted that the ITRC is expected to discuss regulatory issues, from the ITRC's perspective, and John Wilson added that much of that information would be included in the course under development by EPA/ORD. Fran Kremer agreed to contact EPA Headquarters and relay today's discussion regarding the Consortium's course, and will determine if EPA Headquarters' concerns have been addressed.
John Wilson suggested that the Consortium's course focus on state agencies, and that EPA's focus on the EPA regions. The SteeringCommittee agreed with this suggestion- California, Texas, North Carolina, and Wisconsin were identified as key states. Dave Ellis askedhowuniformly states should be covered. It may be difficult to reach all 50 states. Dave Major reminded the Steering Committee that the intent is to create a standardized course so that other Consortium members, or persons outside of the Consortium, could teach it in the future. It was agreed to first target the key states, and to then identify additional states within which the course should be held. John indicated that many states have travel budgets which may be tapped in order to attend such courses and Mary Randolph added that the majority of participants will be required to travel to attend her course. A Steering Committee member recalled that Nancy Worst (TNRCC) indicated previously that the Texas Natural Restoration and Conservation Commission (TNRCC) may be able to provide travel funds for Consortium members presenting the training course at the March 25-26, 1997 meeting. Dave Ellis concurred, but also noted that the course was expected to be given to 150-250 persons. It was suggested that EPA may be able to provide travel funds to the Consortium members presenting the training course.
John Wilson indicated that an EPA memorandum regarding the appropriate use of natural attenuation is under development and should be available in late February 1997. The memorandum will provide EPA's perspective on natural attenuation, and John suggested that it be included in the RTDF's course.
Miscellaneous Issues Pertaining to the Course
A number of miscellaneous administrative issues were touched upon by the
Steering Committee, including:
Methods to calculate various parameters and modeling software (Bioscreen, BioChlor) were identified as tools that should be taught during in the course. It was agreed to use a more simple model than the modeling software RT3D under development by the Consortium. A simpler model is desired to more easily illustrate the utility of modeling software.
In response to Dave Ellis' question, John Wilson suggested that the course should be updated every 12 months- the updated materials also will need to be reviewed by EPA. The Steering Committee agreed that a mechanism should be identified so that "late-breaking news" may be included in the training course prior to the yearly revision of the course.
Discussion of the Course Outline
Course Day 1-Morning. Dave Major initiated a discussion of the course outline. It was suggested to expand upon the overview of natural attenuation, so that it includes an introduction to: chlorinated solvents, natural attenuation, idealized sites, and the Consortium's. Guidance Handbook on the Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in Groundwater. The participant should have an understanding of what questions to ask in order to determine if natural attenuation is appropriate for a site by the end of the morning session on the first day of the course.
Course Day l-Afternoon. Two case studies will be discussedon the afternoon of Day 1. A number of sites were suggested as case studies, to be used during the afternoon of Day l, including: Dover AFB, DE; St. Joseph Superfund Site (St. Joseph), MO; Wurtsmith AFB, MI; Woodlawn Landfill, MD; Plattsburg AFB, NY; Tucson Plant 44, AZ; Picatinny Arsenal, NJ; and INTEL-TAN, ID.
Course Day 2-Morning. It was agreed to identify "prizes" for the winner of the interactive exercise on Day 2. During the exercise, the participants will be provided information as would be found in a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS), and will be asked to determine if natural attenuation is a viable alternative for the site in question. It was suggested that the exercise should be challenging, yet solvable, so that participants do not become frustrated. The winner is the participant(s) who reaches the proper conclusion by spending/using the least amount of (hypothetical) funds/time. It was agreed to structure this exercise towards the thought processes that regulators would need to employ to reach a decision.
January 14, 1997
AFCEE's Draft Protocol on Natural Attenuation
Per John Wilson's request, the Steering Committee agreed to review and comment on the "Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural Attenuationof Chlorinated Solvents in Groundwater," under development by J. Wilson, T. Wiedemeier, J. Hansen (AFCEE), and F. Chapelle (USGS), and others, for the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE). John provided Mark Searles (SCG) with a copy of the document, who agreed to generate and distribute additional copies to Steering Committee members. John asked that comments be provided to him within a reasonable time frame.
Dave Ellis had already reviewed portions of the protocol and noted that it is limited in its coverage of natural attenuation processes. Dave mentioned that it focused too heavily on anaerobic processes. Dave also commented on the scoring system. Using this system, a site manager can determine if natural attenuation is appropriate for a site by assigning a numeric value to certain hydrogeological parameters, which, when totaled, give an indication as to whether or not natural attenuation may be suitable. Dave Major and Dave Ellis expressed concern regarding the scoring system. John Wilson indicated that the scoring system is intended to be a simple expert system of pattern recognition, and agreed to revisit it. Dave Ellis pointed out that Dover AFB would not rate well in terms o£the scoring system. John noted that the Consortium has developed a different evaluation process. He agreed that both have merit and suggested that both be retained. Individuals could use whichever approach most appropriate for the application at hand. A participant noted that if both are used, it would be helpful to compare/contrast them to illustrate their respective strengths and weaknesses. Dave Ellis suggested that the protocol may be appropriate for its target audience, AFCEE, but he expressed his concern that other parties, such as EPA, will use the document as well. John Wilson reminded the Steering Committee that the protocol is intended for use of the Air Force, and as such, should be oriented towards that specific audience.
Development of the Course Outline (Continued):
Gary Klecka suggested that the following modules be developed: (1) overview, (2) physical processes, (3) abiotic processes, (4) biological processes. (5) case studies, and (6) guidance processes. The following presentations were used to forte the basis of the modules:
Discussion of the Conceptual Model. The conceptual model should provide a hypothesis of what is occurring at a site (what is happening to the contaminants and why). The physical location of the contaminants, and impact portion of risk analysts, impact upon receptors should be discussed. The conceptual model is used for: prediction, assessment, development of a risk management program, and identification of appropriate data needed. Gary Klecka noted that a conceptual model has not been explicitly developed for the Consortium's projects at Dover AFB. Dave Ellis commented that the Consortium had sufficient data that a codified conceptual model was not necessary. Dave suggested developing a flowchart to represent the conceptual model and noted that DuPont has developed a draft conceptual model. He suggested that it could be adapted, as necessary, and included in the course. It was suggested to develop a conceptual model for eachcase study. The conceptual model should be testable and therefore provable.
January 15, 1997
Demonstration of Bioscreen
John Wilson provided the Steering Committee with a demonstration of Bioscreen. The software is somewhat simplistic and fairly "user friendly." John noted that Bioscreen, or similar software, is helpful to conceptualize the natural attenuation process. Woodlawn Landfill was used as the demonstration site, and a number of parameters, retardation factor, hydroconductivity, estimated width/length of the plume, were varied to illustrate their effect on the plume. Dave Ellis agreed to provide John with comments on the use of Bioscreen as a tool to illustrate the degradation of chlorinated solvents.
Development of the Training Course Outline (Continued)
Dave Ellis noted that pump and treat (P&T) systems are in place at a number of sites where natural attenuation may be a preferable remedy. In some situations, additional data, collected after a Record of Decision identifies P&T as the preferred treatment suggest that other remediation technologies are preferable. Dave Ellis indicated that three DuPont sites, each under different regulatory law, may be able to terminate their P&T systems in favor of natural attenuation. The Steering Committee agreed that although natural attenuation could be used as part of a treatment train, the technology is not sufficiently advanced to accurately allow for this scenario.
Source Term/Duration. It is difficult to determine the duration of a source- presence of small pockets of residual contaminants are often difficult to find. Dave Major noted that an estimate which bounds the source duration can be calculated, and this is often helpful.
Dave Major believed that it is important to illustrate that cometabolic bioventing was initially considered as the remedial technique for St. Joseph, but additional data suggested that natural attenuation was preferable. It was noted that a P&T system was initially planned for Dover AFB, but other technologies appeared to be more cost effective.
John Wilson agreed to develop the module for the Woodlawn Landfill and for Plattsburg AFB. John suggested that overheads be used for the dry run, and that slides/overheads tailored to the course be developed once the materials are better defined. Dave Ellis also agreed to develop the module on Dover AFB. Dave Major volunteered to develop the materials for the Day l-Morning, and Leo Lehmicke will assist in this endeavor. The Steering Committee members agreed that development of case studies for St. Joseph and Dover AFB will aid the development of the Day 2 exercise. St. Joseph and Dover AFB were selected for the 2 case studies. The Steering Committee agreed the additional case studies should be developed so that the same case studies are not used for every training seminar.
Discussion of the Training Course
Nancy Worst, Jim Cummings, (EPA/TIO), Fran Kremer, Greg Sayles (EPA/NRMRL)
joined the meeting via conference call. Dave Major provided a brief recap of the
discussion; he identified the following structure for the 1 1/2-day course:
John Wilson indicated that the Steering Committee was unaware that EPA/ORD was developing a similar course; there was a concern as to overlap of mission among the two courses. It was agreed that the EPA/ORD course will target the EPA regions, and the Consortium course will target state regulatory agencies. Fran Kremer reiterated that EPA would like to review the materials for the Consortium's course prior to use. Jim Cummings and Fran Kremer agreed to expedite the review of the Consortium's materials. Fran indicated that EPA may be able to provide an EPA representative to discuss policy at the Consortium's training course. Dave Ellis indicated that would be helpful. Fran also suggested that it may be difficult for the Consortium to reach all of the state agencies. Dave Major responded that the course will be developed so that persons outside of the Consortium could teach it as well. The Steering Committee agreed to develop materials for review by EPA by the end of March 1997. It was noted that the frequency and localities have not been established for the course. A dry run will be used to identify the best interaction of instructors with participants. It is anticipated that 30 persons will be the maximum number of participants, especially for the Day 2 exercise. The dry run will be held at the March 25-26, 1997 ITRC In Situ Bioremediation Task and Management Conference, to be held in Austin, TX. Approximately 15 persons are expected to participate in the course during this meeting. Jim Cummings, an ITRC In Situ Bioremediation Task Group member, indicated that he will attend the meeting. The Consortium has previously discussed holding the training course in central points convenient to a number of states. For example, persons from Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland may be able to attend a training course offered in Philadelphia, PA. Fran Kremer noted that travel budgets are small, and that out-of-state travel may be difficult for some. Jim Cummings suggested that alternative media should be investigated. John Wilson mentioned that the Steering Committee has considered posting the course on the RTDF Web site. However, Dave Major reminded participants that a number of states do not have access to the Web or to video conferencing capability, which was another alternative that was discussed by the Steering Committee.
John Wilson indicated that an annotated syllabus of slides could be developed by early summer and provided to the states for informational purposes. Dave Ellis noted that the Consortium does not necessarily need to teach the course. He indicated that alternative instructors could be identified as needed, perhaps through the National Groundwater Association. Dave Ellis asked if the training course could, potentially, be used towards a continuing education unit (CEU). Nancy responded that, in the state of Texas, 10 hours of class are equivalent to 1 CEU. The requirements to gain approval for accreditation typically vary from state to state. Often, an agenda and/or course outline may be submitted to gain accreditation.
Path Forward/Action Items
The Steering Committee agreed to continue the development of the training course. Materials will be provided, as soon as they are available, to EPA for review. The course outline, which was revised over the course of the meeting, is attached to this summary. The Steering Committee agreed that the February 4-6, 1997 Bioremediation Consortium Meeting, to be held in Dover, DE, would provide an opportunity for the Steering Committee to further discuss the training course.
The following action items were identified during the meeting:
Working Draft
Last Updated: January 16, 1997
Day 1
8:00 - 8:15 Introduction
Statement of purpose
8:15 - 8:30 Why Natural Attenuation?
Definition of natural attenuation
When is it used and why (natural attenuation occurs all the time - how do you take advantage of it?)
What can be realistically achieved
8:30 - 9:00 Overview of Physical Attenuation
Dispersion and dilution
Sorption
Volatilization and barometric pumping
9:00 - 10:00 Overview of Degradation Mechanisms
Abiotic degradation
Why do bugs do what they do? A simplistic view of microbiology
Brief discussion of each process: aerobic respiration, nitrate reduction, etc.
Cometabolic degradation
Chlorinated solvent degradation pathways under different redox conditions
10:00 - 10:20 BREAK
10:20 - 11:20 Common Patterns of Natural Attenuation and Example Sites
Site l: Physical Natural Attenuation
Site 2: Anaerobic Natural Attenuation
Site 3: Sequential Anaerobic/Aerobic Natural Attenuation
Site 4: Aerobic/Coxidation Natural Attenuation
11:20 -11:45 Activity to be Determined
11:45 -1:00 LUNCH
1:00 - 5:00 Discussion of Data Collection/Site Characterization
(with 20 minute break at 3:00)
Discussion of the "three lines of evidence"
Development of the conceptual model:
Step 1: Review existing data
Step 2: Conceptual model/hypothesis
Step 3: Perform site characterization to assess natural attenuation
Case Study 1: St. Joseph, MI (approximately 90 minutes)
Calculations
Step 1: Screen data for known deficiencies
Step 2: Plot/graph selected data (VOC/inorganics/metals) from selected wells
With the information from the plots:
Case Study 2: Dover AFB, DE (approximately 60 minutes)
5:00 Adjourn
Day 2
8:00 - 9:00 Integration of Regulation
(provided by L. Rogers
(TNRCC) or other Interstate Technology Regulatory Cooperation Work Group [ITRC]
member)
Overview
Where states are at with natural attenuation
9:00 - 12:30 Test of Understanding Based on Example Sites
(15
minute break at 10:15)
Groundwater biogeochemical and site data (e.g., site plan, hydrogeology) are provided for several sites, and the attendees will provide an interpretation
12:30 Adjourn
|
RTDF Bioremediation Consortium Steering Committee and Additional Participants | |
|
Dr. Martin Bell Ms. Beverly Campbell Mr. Skip Champberlain Mr. Jim Cummings Dr. David E. Ellis Dr. David Gannon Dr. Michael A. Heitkamp Mr. Mike Holmes Dr. Gary M. Klecka Ms. Fran Kremer Mr. Ed Lutz Mr. Don T. Maiers Dr. David Major |
Mr. Phil Morgan Mr. Daniel L. Pardieck Dr. Daniel Pope Ms. Mary Randolph Dr. Joseph Salvo Dr. Greg Sayles Mr. Mark Searles Dr. Sam Sury Ms. Cathy Vogel Dr. Malcolm L. Watts Dr. John T. Wilson Ms. Nancy Worst Mr. Richard Woodworth |