SUMMARY OF THE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPMENT FORUM
PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIERS ACTION TEAM
STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING

Marriott Courtyard Hotel
Beaverton, Oregon
4:00 p.m.­6:00 p.m.
April 14, 1998

On April 14, 1998, members of the Permeable Reactive Barriers (PRB) Action Team Steering Committee of the Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF) met in Beaverton, Oregon. The following members were present:

Bob Puls (Co-chair)
Ed Marchand
Rich Steimle
Scott Warner
Steve White

Also present were Dawn Carroll (EPA/TIO); Carolyn Perroni of Environmental Management Systems, Inc. (EMS); and Susan Brager Murphy and Colin Devonshire of Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG).

PURPOSE OF THE PRB ACTION TEAM

Bob Puls opened the meeting by asking the Steering Committee whether the PRB Action Team is still necessary, given the ever-increasing use of PRB technology. Puls said he sees the Action Team as currently performing the three following roles and questioned whether these roles were still necessary:

• The Action Team meets periodically to update interested parties on the state of PRB technology. Puls pointed out that various professional societies and other groups also hold meetings. Given this, he asked whether the RTDF meetings are redundant.

• The Action Team maintains a Web site. Puls asked the committee for ideas to improve it.

• The Action Team acts as a clearinghouse for PRB information. Puls said he sees Action Team members as experts who can coordinate research efforts (e.g., long-term monitoring research) and help leverage research funding.

Scott Warner said that RTDF meetings can be more useful than society meetings because the latter are often biased toward some aspects of the technology. In contrast, Warner said, the RTDF is more open to participants with different viewpoints. Warner pointed out that the RTDF meetings are less expensive to attend than most other meetings and are therefore accessible to a wider audience. Warner said that, to improve, the RTDF can focus its meetings on up-to-date issues and give its meetings useful objectives. Steve White noted that by covering a range of topics and involving participants from various fields, the RTDF meetings offer a breadth of exposure to different areas of work and research that might not be available in other forums. White said that society meetings tend to consist primarily of vendor presentations and may not include input from researchers or regulators.

Rich Steimle said that, so far, the RTDF has functioned like a lobbying or an interest group. Steimle also said that, while PRB technology is being used more widely, the RTDF is still needed to set objectives for research, especially by focusing goals on obtaining government research funding.

Ed Marchand said that the Steering Committee should determine a point after which the Action Team will become obsolete. Steimle responded that technology like PRB is no longer innovative once engineers can design systems using references. Puls said that PRB technology has not yet been developed to that point, but that it is quickly approaching that point for one class of PRBs: zero-valent iron (ZVI) reactive barriers that are used to treat chlorinated solvents. Steimle agreed that the development of non-ZVI media to treat other classes of contaminants is underdeveloped and provides interesting avenues for diversifying more types of sites.

PRB Training Meetings

Puls asked the committee if the Action Team could serve other roles besides the three previously listed. Warner suggested that the PRB Action Team develop a "traveling road show" like that developed by the Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvents Consortium Action Team. The Bioremediation Consortium Action Team has held meetings throughout the country to present the state of bioremediation technology and train participants in its practical applications. Industry representatives and regulators have attended these meetings. Warner said that these meetings have been helpful because they allow regulators, consultants, and industry members to work as teams to solve the problems they will encounter during bioremediation projects. Warner said that such meetings could be very useful because other forums, like society meetings and even RTDF meetings, superficially delve into the practical problems of PRBs.

Puls noted that regulators need more guidance to regulate PRBs. He said that he frequently receives calls from EPA regional offices requesting help in reviewing feasibility studies for PRBs. Puls said that these calls caused Action Team members to produce a PRB issue paper. Puls said that an increasing number of people want this practical information and that training meetings should be tailored to parties involved in PRB installation or regulation. Steimle said that the first step in producing such a series of meetings is to develop a proposal that outlines the meetings and identifies the necessary resources and personnel. Warner said that he would develop this proposal. The Steering Committee will discuss this topic in more detail during the next Steering Committee conference call.

PRB Action Team Web Site

Puls said that last month several Steering Committee members held a conference call to discuss ways to improve the Action Team's homepage on the RTDF Web site. Dawn Carroll is heading this effort to improve the site and will present an update to the Action Team at the full meeting. Puls said that the Web site's framework is in place but needs more content. The first step to improving the Web site is to create a database of PRB sites. The database will focus on sites that are underway and that have the following information: installation type, construction cost, installation method, contaminants present, efficacy of the system, point of contact, etc. Carroll said that she is gathering this information from a number of sources that are willing to provide it. Puls and several other Steering Committee members will act as editors screening the information for accuracy and completeness before it is placed on-line. Puls and Carroll discussed a "Lessons Learned" area for each project that would list the specific problems that were encountered and their solutions. The Web site will hyperlink to other relevant sites. Puls said he would also like to have a "Documents" section in which users can download relevant documents, like the Department of Defense (DOD) PRB design document. Puls asked the committee to suggest hyperlinks and documents for Web site inclusion.

White said he was concerned that many consultants are designing PRBs without RTDF guidance until they are well into their designs. He said that these designers are often "flailing" at the same problems, discovering the RTDF as a resource only when it is "too late." The committee agreed that advertising the RTDF Web site might alleviate this problem. To achieve this, Puls suggested compiling a mailing list of state and EPA regulators, consulting companies, etc., for a mailing that describes the RTDF Web site. Carolyn Perroni said that while the TIO has the "Tech Direct" mailing list of 4,000 people, which the committee could use, the list might not include all relevant state regulators or consulting companies. The committee suggested contacting the Interstate Technology Regulatory Cooperation (ITRC) Workgroup, the DOD, and other organizations for additional contact lists. Warner said that mentioning the Web site in face-to-face contact like the RTDF meetings and other forums is important because other types of advertisements are ineffective unless the audience was told about the product before.

Warner pointed out that, to prevent users from acting on bad information, the Action Team should be careful to include accurate content on the Web site.

Marchand asked if the Web site should include a "chat" area in which users could discuss issues like design problems and regulatory barriers and offer comments and concerns regarding PRB implementation. Perroni said that the Web site has a "Comment" area, but that it could be used more specifically to direct comments and concerns to the Action Team. The committee discussed how it should respond to such queries. Members agreed that some of the queries will be trivial and that the Action Team is not equipped to respond to queries individually. Puls said that the committee may be able to use the comments to plan topics for future RTDF meetings. Perroni said the Web site section could be worded to make it clear that the RTDF is not obligated to respond to each query but that comments may be used to determine future meeting topics, research goals, etc. White suggested that the Web site include a section in which users join the PRB Action Team's mailing list. Perroni said that this can be done.

NEXT PRB ACTION TEAM MEETING

Puls asked the committee to suggest topics and format changes for the next PRB Action Team meeting. Puls said that he had received requests for more open discussion time at the meetings and would like ways to encourage more audience participation. Warner said that the meetings could be group presentations by topic and include question-and-answer sessions with panels of speakers after each group of related presentations. Steimle said that the In Situ Flushing Action Team divided into work groups at its meetings and required each work group to present a written summary of its findings. Steimle said that such assignments encourage the audience to participate more than it would otherwise. Puls asked for a statement of the purpose of such work groups.

White suggested an evaluation questionnaire be distributed at the next day's Action Team meeting. Through the questionnaire, participants could evaluate the meeting, suggest improvements, and list topics for future meetings. The committee suggested the following topics for the questionnaire: long-term monitoring, installation, hydraulics, regulatory issues and implementation, non-ZVI reactive media, site characterization needs, and pilot test needs. Perroni agreed to prepare the questionnaire.

The committee agreed that the next Action Team meeting should be in approximately 6 months. Marchand suggested Orlando as the location for the next meeting. Marchand said that the Action Team could visit the Cape Canaveral PRB Site; Senator Glenn's shuttle launch (scheduled for October) would be an added attraction. Other suggested locations were Kansas City; Salt Lake City; San Antonio/Dallas; Boston; Washington, DC; and Caldwell, New Jersey.

STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Puls said that he would speak to John Vidumsky (DuPont), who volunteered to be the new industry co-chair of the Action Team. Puls said it may be necessary to replace some Steering Committee members who have not participated sufficiently. To involve more people with different types of expertise, Puls suggested that the Steering Committee have a few rotating positions. Members agreed that the Steering Committee could use more representation from both regulatory and research entities and industry stakeholders.

DATA-COLLECTION EFFORTS

Puls said he would brief the Action Team about the ongoing efforts to secure funding for long-term monitoring at multiple Department of Energy (DOE), EPA, and DOD sites. Puls said that the EPA funding is in place and that efforts to collect cores from PRBs at Elizabeth City, North Carolina, and the Somersworth Landfill, New Hampshire, are underway. Puls reported that proposals to the DOE and the DOD have progressed and that sampling should be scheduled at all sites by the end of the year.

ACTION ITEMS

• Warner will prepare a proposal for a series of PRB training meetings. The Steering Committee will discuss this proposal in detail during its next conference call.

• Perroni will prepare an evaluation questionnaire for the Action Team meeting.

• EMS will add a section to the Web site in which users can join the PRB Action Team's mailing list.

• EMS will gear the "Comments" section of the PRB Action Team Web site to generate comments, concerns, and queries the Steering Committee might use to develop meeting topics, research goals, etc.

• Carroll will continue to develop the PRB site database for the Action Team's Web site. Steering Committee members should look for suitable hyperlinks, documents, and other information that can be included on the Web site.

• The Steering Committee will further discuss the location of the next Action Team meeting.

• Puls will speak to Vidumsky to determine if he is still interested in becoming the new industry co-chair for the Action Team. Puls will also consider recruiting new Steering Committee members, perhaps on a rotating basis.