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

Capital Hilton
Washington, D.C.
November 5, 2002

On Tuesday, November 5, 2002, the following members of the Remediation Technologies Development Forum's (RTDF's) Permeable Reactive Barriers (PRB) Action Team Steering Committee met:

Bob Puls, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
John Vidumsky, DuPont
Richard Landis, DuPont
Matthew Turner, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Stephen White, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Incheol Pang participated in the meeting on Chuck Reeter's behalf. Christine Hartnett of Eastern Research Group, Inc., was also present.

UPDATE ON ACTIVITIES PERFORMED SINCE JUNE 2001

During the last Steering Committee meeting, which was held in June 2001, attendees identified activities that required followup. Bob Puls listed these activities and provided an update on their status:

• Updating the PRB Action Team's Web site. This activity has been completed.



• Strengthening ties with the international community. More could be done to strengthen communication among international researchers who are working on PRBs.



• Performing a long-term monitoring research project. In January 2002, the Steering Committee developed a proposal for a monitoring project and submitted it to the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program. Funding was not provided. No additional efforts have been made to initiate a research project.



• Producing a fact sheet. A fact sheet will be released before the end of the calender year. It will summarize the state of PRB technology and highlight success stories.

REVISITING THE PRB ACTION TEAM'S PURPOSE AND MISSION

The PRB Action Team was created in 1995 to further the acceptance and implementation of PRB technologies. At the time, Puls said, PRB technologies were in their infancy and the Action Team played a vital role in promoting PRB research, supporting PRB training, and disseminating information about case studies. The situation is different now. PRBs have gained a strong foothold, additional forums have been established to explore PRBs, and information about PRBs is shared via a number of avenues. Given this reality, Puls said, the following questions must be asked: Has the Action Team's job been completed? Is it time to disband?

Steering Committee members did not think it was time to sunset the PRB Action Team. They agreed that the Action Team still plays an important role in promoting PRB technologies. In addition, Stephen White noted, the Action Team is distinctive in that it is one of the only forums that facilitates collaboration between the public and private sector. Steering Committee members decided to focus future efforts on the following:

• Adding a new section to the PRB Action Team Web site. Steering Committee members agreed to add a section to the PRB Action Team Web site called "Recommendations" or "Frequently Asked Questions." This section will contain a list of research topics, along with a statement indicating that the PRB Action Team believes these topics warrant further investigation. Because the PRB Action Team has a good reputation, Puls said, researchers who want to research these topics are more likely to have their proposals funded if they are able to say that their work will shed light on issues that the PRB Action Team regards as important. Steering Committee members brainstormed on the topics to list. The following were suggested: (1) obtaining a better understanding of hydraulic issues, (2) determining why certain brands of zero-valent iron perform better than others, (3) improving installation methods, (4) identifying ways to reduce costs, and (5) determining whether downgradient bioremedial activities can be exploited to augment PRBs. Once the topics have been posted, Puls said, links could be added to relevant research papers. Puls also recommended listing the entire Steering Committee as contacts under this section of the Web site. Puls agreed to discuss the format and design for the new Web site section with Environmental Management Support, Inc. (the organization that maintains the Web site). Once more concrete ideas are generated, Puls will send a strawman of the new section to the Steering Committee for their review and comment.



• Holding annual meetings. Steering Committee members agreed that hosting annual meetings is one of the best ways to ensure that technical information on PRBs is shared.



• Offering brief Internet seminars. Steering Committee members talked about hosting 1-hour Internet seminars on new PRB installation techniques, new PRB applications (e.g., using them at old mining sites), and new PRBs that use alternative reactive media. These seminars could also be used to educate people about reasonable expectations. For example, people would be told that it is unreasonable to expect contaminants in downgradient wells to disappear immediately after a PRB is installed. Stephen White expressed interest in coordinating the seminars.

REVIEW OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBER LIST

Over the past several months, Puls said, Steering Committee calls have not been well attended. He suggested inviting new members to the group in an effort to generate additional energy and input. Steering Committee members thought this was an excellent idea. They agreed to follow up on it.

MISCELLANEOUS

EPA, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy have performed a long-term PRB performance study. Puls provided an update of the tri-agency study's status, noting that a 50-page summary report will be released soon. Steering Committee members will be invited to comment on the report. It will probably be published under the auspices of the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable.

Puls asked ERG to prepare a questionnaire and to distribute it during the November 6-7, 2002, PRB Action Team meeting. ERG agreed to do so. Puls said that the questionnaire should ask for input on future meeting locations and for a list of PRB-related issues that warrant additional investigation.