SUMMARY OF THE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPMENT FORUM
ACTION TEAM CO-CHAIRS CONFERENCE CALL

June 30, 1998
3:00 p.m.­4:30 p.m. (EST)

On Tuesday, June 30, 1998, Walter Kovalick, co-chair of the Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF), met with co-chairs from four of the seven RTDF Action Teams in a conference call. The following co-chairs were present:

Bob Puls, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Permeable Reactive Barriers [PRB] Action Team)
Steven Rock, EPA (Phytoremediation of Organics Action Team)
Greg Sayles, EPA (Bioremediation Consortium)
Dennis Timberlake, EPA (Sediments Remediation Action Team)

Also present were Greg Harvey of the U.S. Air Force; Dawn Carroll, Linda Fiedler, and Richard Steimle from EPA's Technology Innovation Office (TIO); Carolyn Perroni of Environmental Management System, Inc. (EMS); and Christine Hartnett of Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG). Co-chairs from the In Situ Flushing Action Team, the IINERT Soil-Metals Action Team, and the Lasagna™ Partnership could not participate.

OPENING REMARKS AND WELCOME TO NEW ACTION TEAM CO-CHAIRS

Walter Kovalick welcomed conference call participants and said he was pleased that DuPont's John Vidumsky and Dick Jensen have accepted co-chair positions for the PRB and Sediments Remediation Action Teams, respectively. With these additions, Kovalick noted, all seven Action Teams now have two co-chairs.

Kovalick said that Vidumsky and Jensen should be made aware of EPA's peer review procedures (see Attachment A). Kovalick reminded the group that the RTDF stamp cannot be placed on a report until the EPA Office of Research and Development's (ORD's) peer review process is complete.

UPDATE ON ACTION TEAM ACTIVITIES

Bioremediation Consortium

Greg Sayles, a co-chair for the Bioremediation Consortium, provided a brief overview of the Consortium's goals and an activities update. Sayles said the Consortium is developing three chlorinated solvent remediation technologies. Each technology, he continued, will be field tested in at least two demonstration sites. The three technologies are:

• Cometabolic bioventing. Sayles noted that cometabolic bioventing is designed to remediate the vadose zone. Sayles said a test demonstration has been operating at Dover Air Force Base (AFB) for a few months. So far, he continued, the system is performing well. Sayles said the Consortium plans to install a demonstration project at Hill AFB in late summer or early fall 1998. Laboratory results indicate that Hill AFB's vadose-zone soils, which are contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE) and trichloroethane (TCA), are amenable to cometabolic bioventing.

Aside from demonstration projects, Sayles noted, the Consortium is developing a user-friendly flow reaction model that will produce quick designs of cometabolic bioventing systems. In his opinion, the model is progressing nicely.

• Accelerated anaerobic biodegradation. Sayles explained that accelerated anaerobic biodegradation is designed to remediate ground water. A test demonstration has been established at Dover AFB, and the Consortium is currently searching for a second demonstration site. At Dover AFB, Sayles reported, tetrachloroethylene (PCE) is being dechlorinated to dichloroethylene (DCE). Sayles noted that microbes were added to the subsurface to determine whether bioaugmentation can hasten remedial efforts. The microbes, he noted, were native to Florida but adjusted to conditions at Dover AFB in Delaware and successfully augmented remedial efforts. Environmental Science and Technology, Sayles said, is eager to print the results of the bioaugmentation success story. Members of the Consortium, Kovalick reported, are drafting a peer reviewed paper on this topic. Additionally, Kovalick added, the results from the Dover AFB bioaugmentation project were recently presented at a conference in Scotland. Kovalick stressed that the success story at Dover AFB is momentous because it is the first recorded case of successful bioaugmentation.
• Natural attenuation. Sayles explained that natural attenuation is designed to remediate ground water. He said the Consortium is searching for a demonstration site for this technology and is still trying to clarify the goal for the demonstration. As noted by Sayles, earlier evaluations focused solely on how natural attenuation impacted the fringe areas of a plume. Now, Sayles said, some Consortium members have recommended evaluating the natural transformations that occur farther upstream and closer to contaminant sources.

Sediments Remediation Action Team

Dennis Timberlake said that he is glad to be sharing co-chair duties with Jensen and that he is thankful for the knowledge and enthusiasm Jensen has brought to the Team. Timberlake said that he and Jensen have drafted an outline for a group meeting to be held in Cincinnati, Ohio, on September 16 and 17, 1998. One meeting objective, he said, will be to identify subgroups for addressing specific tasks.

Timberlake suspected that the Cincinnati meeting will be well attended. In May 1998, Timberlake noted, interest in the RTDF was generated at a National Research Council meeting. Additionally, Timberlake said, Jensen is a member of an industry group that is mobilizing to evaluate sediment remediation issues. According to Timberlake, this industry group expressed strong interest when Jensen informed it of the resource leveraging that occurs within the RTDF.

Phytoremediation of Organics Action Team

Steven Rock noted that the Phytoremediation of Organics Action Team met in Houston, Texas, on June 23, 1998. Rock said the Phytoremediation of Organics Action Team has divided into three subgroups:

• Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) in Soil. Rock explained that the TPH in Soil Subgroup plans to test the efficacy of phytoremediation at 6 to 12 TPH-contaminated sites across the country. In an effort to produce comparable data between test sites, the Subgroup has created a standardized field test protocol. According to Rock, the protocol has nearly reached consensus. Rock said that the Subgroup co-chairs, Lucinda Jackson and Phil Sayre, hope to formalize their group over the next few months by having participants sign a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA). (Rock noted that one signatory on the CRADA will be the Petroleum Environmental Research Forum [PERF]). Rock said draft CRADAs were distributed to several potential signatories at the Houston meeting. Kovalick commended the unique approach the Subgroup has taken. He stressed that the Subgroup is the first RTDF group to convince participants to use the same protocol, analytical laboratories, and coordinating center. The latter, Kovalick said, will compile and format data.
• Vegetative Caps/Alternative Cover Assessment. Rock explained that the Vegetative Caps/Alternative Cover Assessment Subgroup plans to evaluate alternative cover performance across a wide range of geographical locations. At the Houston meeting, Rock said, sample CRADAs were distributed to the Subgroup but few potential signatories attended. Compared to the TPH in Soil Subgroup, Rock said, it may take longer to solidify commitments within the Vegetative Caps/Alternative Cover Assessment Subgroup.
• TCE in Ground Water. Greg Harvey, one co-chair for the TCE in Ground Water Subgroup, said that his Subgroup has agreed to try (1) leveraging the Department of Energy's (DOE)'s database to identify a range of plant species that effectively remediate wastes, and (2) working with Richard Steimle to determine whether field tests can be initiated at PCE-contaminated dry-cleaning sites. Harvey stressed that funds are needed to initiate these projects and that the Subgroup is actively recruiting industrial partners with financial backing. Harvey noted that an Eastman Kodak representative recently expressed interest in joining the Subgroup.

PRB Action Team

Bob Puls provided an overview of the PRB Action Team's four major activities:

• Posting information on the Web site. Puls noted that PRB-related information has been posted on the Internet. Summarizing the Web site, Puls said that information is provided for more than 20 sites across the world. For each site, he continued, technological details, cost information, site-specific details (e.g., type of contamination), results, and contact names are provided. Puls said he hopes to eventually add a "Lessons Learned" section to the Web site so that mistakes are not repeated. Puls said the Web site is receiving positive feedback and credited Dawn Carroll with its success.
• Developing a training program. Puls said the PRB Steering Committee has been talking about creating a PRB technology training program. Such a program, he noted, would help ensure that regulators are receptive to PRB technologies and that they have the tools to assess them. He said that the course would likely be targeted to EPA regional staff and state regulators. Ideally, he said, the course would be taught in the 10 major regional cities. Puls said the Steering Committee is eager to participate in the training effort but is unsure of the exact role it will take. He said the Interstate Technology Regulatory Cooperation (ITRC) has expressed interest in cosponsoring the training with the RTDF. Other groups, Puls said, have also expressed interest in becoming involved. Puls said he would like to see the training program start in 6 to 8 months. At this point, the Steering Committee has drafted a 1-day agenda for the training.

Kovalick recommended clearing the PRB training materials through EPA review. Without this review, the EPA co-chair is not able to claim EPA "ownership" (and therefore add the RTDF logo) of the course. Kovalick cited the natural attenuation training program as a course that has not been EPA approved. This course, he said, explicitly states that it is taught by the industrial partners of the RTDF and was not reviewed or endorsed by EPA.

• Finalizing a PRB-issue document. Puls noted that the PRB Action Team worked with EPA and other organizations to generate a document that discusses PRB-related issues. Puls said it was distributed to 15 reviewers, including EPA's ground-water forum, and that he is incorporating comments. In general, he said, comments were very favorable. Puls said he hopes to complete the final draft by the end of July.
• Evaluating long-term performance. Puls said efforts are underway to evaluate long-term performance for six to eight PRB systems. He said the PRB Action Team, Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL), and the Department of Defense (DOD) will be involved with the evaluation. All three groups have agreed to use similar methods to analyze the PRB systems.

Puls noted that the PRB Action Team had a successful meeting in Portland, Oregon, in September 1997. The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for November 1998 at ORNL. ORNL was chosen because it houses several PRB projects that address radionuclide contamination. Radionuclides, Puls stressed, have emerged as an area of interest to some Steering Committee members. In general, Puls said, the Committee has agreed to broaden its focus and to evaluate various contaminants (rather than just chlorinated solvents) and reactive media (rather than just zero valent iron).

USING THE WEB SITE FOR RECRUITING

Kovalick noted that the PRB and In Situ Flushing Action Teams have asked whether the Web site can be modified so that it is easier for interested people to contact RTDF Action Team co-chairs. Carolyn Perroni said the Web site can be modified to allow for easier recruiting and asked whether the change should be made for all seven Action Teams. She noted that allowing for easier recruiting could generate huge mailing lists. Kovalick stressed that the RTDF Action Teams should first recruit problem-owners rather than consultants and vendors. He said that he is usually able to discourage vendors and consultants from initially joining the group when he screens them on the telephone. Kovalick said the Internet cannot screen people like a telephone call does. Speaking for the Phytoremediation of Organics Action Team, Rock said that the TCE in Ground Water Subgroup was the only Subgroup that could benefit from active solicitation. Sayles said the Bioremediation Consortium generally only accepts new participants that can add something unique to the Consortium. After discussing the topic at length, the conference call participants and Perroni agreed that a recruiting feature would be added to the Web site only for those Teams and Subgroups who wanted it.

PLANS FOR NEXT ISSUE OF RTDF UPDATE

Harvey said that he had not received a copy of the latest RTDF Update. Carolyn Perroni agreed to send him a copy. Kovalick asked co-chairs to submit articles for the next RTDF Update by October 16, 1998.

MISCELLANEOUS

Kovalick said that the In Situ Flushing Action Team is planning to meet in Dallas, Texas, on September 15 and 16, 1998.

Kovalick recommended holding a large RTDF co-chair meeting in March 1999.

Kovalick said that the Ground-water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center (GWRTAC), a nonprofit organization, is interested in doing analytical work for the RTDF. Kovalick said GWRTAC might contact Action Team co-chairs to offer their services. Kovalick noted that the GWRTAC held conferences in November 1997 and May 1998 and plans to hold another in October or November 1998.

Kovalick noted that the Lasagna™ Partnership has nearly completed its goals. Kovalick said he will discuss how to close an RTDF project during the next conference call.

Kovalick noted that he and Steve James co-chair a NATO group that focuses on emerging innovation technologies. He said the group is planning to post a report on the Internet in the next 4 to 6 weeks. The report will summarize 5 years of data collected from 52 projects across about 18 countries. Kovalick said he will notify conference call participants when the report is posted.

NEXT CO-CHAIRS CONFERENCE CALL

The next co-chair conference call is tentatively scheduled for September 29 or 30, 1998, between 3:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

ATTACHMENT A: RTDF Peer Review Procedures for Work Products

PRODUCT CATEGORY	DESCRIPTION	EXAMPLES	REVIEW	RECORDKEEPING
Category 1: Major Scientific or Technical Work Products b (see MSTWP table attached)	Products having EPA policy implications	1. Guidance documents (i.e., guidance on implementation of technology)	1. Internal EPA expert review (may include experts from ORD, Program, and/or Regional Offices) 2. External panel peer review (including meeting) 3. Review and "sign-off" by AA/ORD and AA\OSWER 4. Workgroup co-chair "sign-off"	1. Copy of draft report submitted for external review 2. Charge to external reviewers 3. List of external reviewers 4. Written comments from external reviewers 5. Report of external panel 6. Response to external review 7. Final work product
Category 2: Important Scientific or Technical Work Products	Work products that are important to EPA decision making and do not fall into Category 1 (e.g., products that may not immediately impact current or pending regulations or policy).	1. Methods manuals 2. Suggested protocols	1. Internal EPA expert review (may include experts from ORD, Program, and/or Regional Offices) 2. External peer review (meeting or written) 3. NRMRL\TIO director "sign-off" 4. Workgroup co-chair "sign-off"	1. Copy of draft report submitted for external review 2. Charge to external reviewers 3. List of external reviewers 4. Written comments from external reviewers (incl. panel report, if one is prepared) 5. Response to external review 6. Final work product
Category 3: General Scientific or Technical Work Products	Publication in recognized peer-reviewed journals or similar publications	1. Journal articles 2. Proceedings of conferences, symposia and so on, that are peer reviewed 3. Book chapters	1. Peer review by journal 2. NRMRL\TIO director "sign-off" 3. Workgroup co-chair "sign- off"	1. Final work product
Category 4: Other scientific or technical work products	Scientific or technical reports published with an EPA or ORD imprimatur that do not fall into categories 1-3 (i.e., printed and issued by CERI or put into NTIS)	1. RTDF bulletins and reports	1. Workgroup co-chair "sign-off" 2. NRMRL\TIO director "sign-off"	1. Draft submitted for internal review 2. Written comments from reviewers 3. Response to reviewers comments 4. Final work product

a	Modified excerpt from Interim Guidance, Peer Reviews, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, May 1996.
b	Criteria for products listed in "Some Criteria for Identifying Major Scientific and Technical Work Products"

Excerpt from Interim Guidance, Peer Reviews, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, May 1996.