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

11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m.
August 18, 1998

On Tuesday, August 18, 1998, the following members of the Permeable Reactive Barriers (PRB) Action Team Steering Committee met in a conference call:

Bob Puls (co-chair), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
John Vidumsky (co-chair), DuPont
Paul Bergman, EnviroSources
Dawn Carroll, EPA, Technology Innovation Office (TIO)
Thomas Early, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)
Bob Gillham, University of Waterloo
Richard Landis, DuPont
Donald Marcus, MacMarcus Resources
Richard Steimle, EPA, TIO
Matthew Turner, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Scott Warner, Geomatrix Consultants, Inc.
David Watson, ORNL

Also present were Susan Brager Murphy and Christine Hartnett of Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG).

PLANS FOR THE NEXT RTDF MEETING

Logistics and Invitations

The November 1998 RTDF PRB meeting is scheduled to take place at the Garden Plaza Hotel in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Susan Brager Murphy noted that invitations and announcements have not yet been distributed. Bob Gillham asked for clarification on who will be invited. He noted that Lynn Roberts, a researcher at Johns Hopkins, wants to attend but thinks the meeting is closed. Bob Puls said all RTDF members (about 275 people) will be invited and that RTDF meetings are open to all interested parties. Gillham agreed to inform Roberts that the meetings are open and to invite her to participate as a presenter.

Format and Agenda

The November 1998 meeting will span three days.

Day 1 (November 17, 1998)

The Steering Committee will meet in the morning, and the official RTDF meeting will begin after lunch. Sessions on the first day will include:

• General introductory talks. The Steering Committee agreed that introductory talks should cover general issues rather than specific research and technical issues. Thomas Early agreed to ask the Department of Energy (DOE)'s Skip Chamberlain to give a general talk. Puls said he would contact Jackie MacDonald, a person who could discuss why innovative technologies have not done better in the market. Puls also agreed to contact people in Europe about giving a talk. (In Europe, Puls and Gillham noted, a parallel RTDF group is being established and PRB technologies are currently being marketed.) Matthew Turner agreed to find a presenter who could provide an update on the Interstate Technology Regulatory Cooperation (ITRC) Work Group's effort to write a document on metals and inorganics.
• Panel discussion. The Steering Committee agreed to include a panel discussion on long-term performance monitoring. Although panel discussions are often placed at the end of meetings, the Committee agreed to hold the panel discussion on the first day in the hopes of stimulating discussion during the poster session and reception (see below). Puls agreed to take the lead on planning the panel discussion.

Richard Steimle asked whether recommendations would be presented during the panel discussion. Puls said the Steering Committee needed to decide whether the panel should have a goal. At this point, Puls said, he envisions the panel serving to provide:

• An opportunity to share available results. Puls said he has some long-term performance data that he could share with the group.
• Feedback. Puls noted that several investigators are ready to initiate long-term performance evaluations. Puls said investigators might benefit by talking about their programs and getting feedback. (Gillham noted that Lynn Roberts has recently acquired funding for a long-term performance evaluation through the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program.)
• An update on activities initiated by federal agencies. In January 1998, Puls noted, federal agencies (e.g., EPA and DOE) decided to initiate long-term performance evaluations. Puls said each agency is responsible for its own funding, but they are working together to ensure that consistent evaluation approaches are used.. At this point, Puls noted, EPA is funded to evaluate the Elizabeth City site and the Denver Federal Center. Early said DOE has almost secured funding to test long-term performance at a couple of sites as well.
• Poster session and reception. The Steering Committee agreed to include a poster session. As noted by Donald Marcus, a poster session allows several people to present their ideas simultaneously. Such an approach, Marcus stressed, streamlines a meeting and allows a large number of people to get feedback.

The Committee agreed that snacks and hors d'oeuvres should be served during the poster session and that a cash bar should be made available. Murphy estimated that the reception could be sponsored for less than $1,000. (Costs would include food, a cashier, and a bartender.) Gillham suggested that he ask EnviroMetal to sponsor the reception. It was agreed that EnviroMetal is a logical possibility because it does not directly compete with other providers of the technology. If EnviroMetal is not interested, Richard Landis recommended that a group of companies sponsor the reception.

Day 2 (November 18, 1998)

Conference call participants agreed that the second day of the meeting would include:

• DOE-related talks. Puls noted that several RTDF members have expressed interest in having meetings that follow general themes. The Steering Committee agreed that DOE issues and activities should be the general theme for the second day of the meeting. Puls said that two-thirds to three-quarters of the day will be allotted to DOE-related talks.

David Watson agreed to work with Gary Jacobs and other DOE staff to coordinate the DOE-related talks. Watson noted that many of the talks will revolve around radionuclide-contaminated and inorganic-contaminated sites. (DOE is using barriers to address uranium-, strontium-, and nitrate-contaminated sites.) Watson recommended having presentations on the two barriers that are currently in place at ORNL. He said talks could address hydraulic issues, treatment issues, and installation issues for these two barriers. Other potential DOE talks could focus on (1) the Portsmouth site, a site contaminated with volatile organic compounds, uranium, and metals; (2) the Kansas City site; (3) the Rocky Flats site; (4) the Paducah site; (5) the Savannah River Project; (6) the Richland site; (7) ORNL's freeze barrier; (9) ORNL's system that collects and treats strontium with zeolites; and (10) S.Y. Lee's electrochemical work. Puls agreed that these talks could be very interesting but encouraged Watson to avoid talks that have been presented at other RTDF meetings.

• Miscellaneous talks. The Steering Committee agreed that the last session should be reserved to update team members on (1) new sites and (2) new developments on older sites. As noted by one participant, investigators could share lessons learned during this session. Based on Gillham's suggestion, the Committee agreed that four or five people should be identified to give 10 to 15 minute presentations and that the remainder of the session should be left open. Gillham agreed to identify presenters for this portion of the meeting.

Day 3 (November 19, 1998)

On the third day of the meeting, attendees will tour ORNL's two barrier systems: a funnel-and-gate type configuration and a trench-type barrier. Participants will meet at the Garden Plaza Hotel at 8:30 a.m. and listen to a short presentation before boarding a bus. (The presentation will be brief because information on the two systems will also be presented during Day 1's poster session and Day 2's DOE-related talks.) After touring the sites, participants will return to the hotel for lunch and a group discussion. According to Paul Bergman, all activities should be completed by 1:00 p.m.

Bergman said that the tour will be small and restricted to meeting attendees. In May 1999, he said, a larger tour will be conducted for regulators and any other interested parties. By this time, Bergman noted, more performance data will be available.

STATUS OF PRB ISSUE PAPER

Puls said the first draft of the PRB Issue Paper was distributed to 16 entities, 14 of which responded with comments. A 46-page document, Puls continued, has been generated to explain how the comments were addressed. In general, Puls said, the reviews were favorable and the comments were very helpful. After considerable discussion, Puls noted, the comments were turned over to Bob Powell, the document's lead editor. Puls said that the rewrite has been completed and the final version is much better than the first draft. Puls agreed to FedEx copies of the revised text to the original authors of the document. He said he must ask for comments to be submitted quickly in order to finalize and print the text for the November 1998 RTDF meeting. Puls said the RTDF logo will be on the document and that it will be published as an EPA report, with EPA and the Office of Research and Development identified as sponsors.

PRB TRAINING

Scott Warner noted that the Steering Committee has been talking about creating a PRB technology training program. The training would be targeted to regulators and other agency representatives but would also be open to implementers and designers. Puls stressed that it is important to target these populations.. At RTDF meetings, Puls said, he sometimes feels he is "preaching to the choir" because most attendees are already convinced of the merits of PRB technologies. Although RTDF meetings offer an opportunity to get updates, he continued, they do not disseminate information to people who are making site decisions. Puls said that the training course should help involved parties feel more comfortable about choosing and approving PRB as a remedial technology. According to Warner's estimations, about 100 to 200 people will attend each training course session. Ideally, Warner said, those who receive the training will spread their knowledge to their colleagues. Turner emphasized the need for the PRB course, noting that several attendees at the natural attenuation course asked that PRB training be offered in the future.

Warner said he has submitted an outline for the training to Puls and Turner. After receiving their comments, Warner continued, he will send a draft to the rest of the Steering Committee. In summary, Warner said, the course will span a day and a half and will consolidate information provided in (1) the RTDF PRB Issue Paper, (2) ITRC's PRB-related document, and (3) Battelle's PRB-related document. Topics will include the remediation process, hydrogeologic conditions, long-term performance monitoring, hydrochemistry, deployment and constructiblity, economic issues, and regulatory issues. Warner said the first day of the training will consist of discussion, classroom activities, and case studies. During the second day, he continued, activities will focus primarily on exercises. Marcus said the outline sounds promising but recommended including a "Lessons Learned" segment.

Warner said the PRB training course will be designed similarly to the natural attenuation course--a course that has been immensely popular. Like the natural attenuation course, the PRB training course will travel. At this point, Warner said, he hopes that the course will be presented in all 10 EPA regions. (Turner said five sessions are planned for 1999 and five are planned for 2000.) Warner said the course will be mostly consistent across locations. He did note, however, that modifications would be made if feedback is offered and that each course might be slightly tailored for different geographical regions. Also, Warner said, course instructors might differ across sessions. Warner recommended having three or four instructors per session. At least two of them, he suggested, should be present at every session. The other one or two instructors could come from a larger pool of trained people. Warner recommended that the instructor pool consist of members from industry, regulatory agencies, and research academies. Also, Warner said, it might be interesting to invite a local person to present a case study.

Turner used figures from the natural attenuation course to estimate the cost associated with the PRB training course. By these estimates, the PRB course will cost about $300,000 (i.e., $30,000 per session) and possibly as much as $400 to $450 per student. Turner said the fee will be waived for state regulators and that some of their travel expenses might be reimbursed. Fees collected from industry members and consultants could be used, he continued, to help defray the cost of the course.

Marcus noted that Paul Tratnyek is producing a CD-ROM that addresses PRB-related issues. He asked whether Warner is coordinating with Tratnyek. Warner said he has talked to Tratnyek but does not think the CD-ROM will prove useful for the training session. While the training is targeted to professionals, the CD-ROM is targeted to community members who have never been exposed to PRB technologies.

Warner said the Steering Committee will need to reach a consensus on course content, instructor lists, and course locations within the next month. Warner, Puls, Turner, Steimle, Dawn Carroll, and John Vidumsky agreed to meet on a conference call to discuss these issues. After a plan is generated, it will be presented at the November 1998 meeting and finalized. While the discussions are ongoing, the Steering Committee will need to:

• Research funding options. Steimle said EPA is interested in funding the PRB training course. Examples of how EPA money could be used, he continued, include payment for hotel arrangements, rental of audiovisual equipment, room rentals, instructors' travel expenses, and instructors' honorariums.
• Identify a management group who can handle the course logistics. Warner said the RTDF group must identify a group who will copy course materials, book hotels, rent rooms, enroll attendees, and collect fees. Turner said that the Southern States Energy Board (SSEB) provided this support role for the natural attenuation course and is interested in doing so for the PRB training course.

MISCELLANEOUS

Bergman noted that the EnviroSources is sponsoring a deployment workshop in conjunction with the SSEB. The workshop will be held in Tennessee on December 2 and 3, 1998, and will focus on the deployment of reactive barriers at DOE sites.

Steimle asked whether Puls has looked at the new Battelle document. Puls said that the document simply presents a previously released document in book format. Puls said that the document can be downloaded from the RTDF Web site. Carroll was not sure whether this was true but agreed to check.

ACTION ITEMS

• Gillham agreed to inform Roberts that RTDF meetings are open and to invite her to participate as a presenter at the November 1998 meeting.
• Several Steering Committee members agreed to help plan the November 1998 meeting. Puls asked the Committee members to submit titles for talks and names of presenters by the end of August. Specifically, conference call participants agreed to do the following:
• Early agreed to ask DOE's Skip Chamberlain to give an introductory talk.
• Puls agreed to ask Jackie MacDonald and a European representative to give an introductory talk. Also, Puls agreed to take the lead on planning the panel discussion.
• Turner agreed to find an ITRC representative to give an introductory talk.
• Watson agreed to work with Gary Jacobs and other DOE staff to coordinate the DOE-related talks. He also agreed to look into having coffee breaks sponsored.
• Gillham agreed to identify presenters for the "Miscellaneous Talks" portion of the meeting. He also agreed to ask EnviroMetal to sponsor the reception that is planned for the evening of November 17.
• Puls agreed to FedEx copies of the revised PRB Issue Paper to the original authors of the document.
• Warner agreed to distribute a copy of the PRB training course outline to all members of the Steering Committee by August 21, 1998.
• Warner, Puls, Turner, Steimle, Carroll, and Vidumsky agreed to meet on a conference call to discuss PRB training issues.
• Carroll agreed to check whether the Battelle document is available through the RTDF Web site.