WELCOME AND OPENING REMARKS
Walter Kovalick,
Jr., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Technology Innovation
Office (TIO)
Dr. Kovalick explained the structure of the Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF), which includes seven different public-private partnerships, each of which has an industry representative and an EPA person serving as co-chairs. The oldest group has been meeting for three and a half years. The RTDF meetings are held approximately annually and are used as a "progress report" on RTDF activities. Group members are in touch regularly. Fact sheets have been developed for each of the different groups and are included on the RTDF Web home page.
Dr. Kovalick said that RTDF work over the past year has involved partnering and obtaining funding (e.g., through Cooperative Research and Development Agreements, CRADAs) and conducting outreach to 35 to 40 organizations. Another area that RTDF is exploring is how to integrate its efforts with state regulatory officials.
Dr. Kovalick also mentioned that other public-private partnerships exist
in addition to the RTDF. One of the original RTDF interests was in field
analytical screening techniques. A public-private partnership on the
agenda for discussion has begun to deal with verification of these
technologies; it includes some RTDF companies.
STATUS OF INNOVATIVE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES
Jacqueline MacDonald, National Research Council (NRC)
Ms. MacDonald described the NRC as an independent think tank established in 1893 by Congress and President Lincoln but without a Congressional mandate. The NRC is part of the National Academy of Sciences.
Ms. MacDonald discussed the results of a report recently published by the NRC entitled Innovation in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. The report was written by a multidisciplinary committee of national experts (in soil science, geology, hydrogeology, and other fields) with a broad range of political perspectives. The committee, which included industry representatives, venture capitalists, a patent attorney, and environmental activists, reached consensus on the report's recommendations.
Ms. MacDonald described the current report as a followup to a 1994 NRC report entitled Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup, which examined the performance of conventional pump-and-treat systems at 77 sites. Only eight of these sites had reached cleanup goals. So a second study was undertaken to explore alternatives to pump-and-treat systems. This study covered different technologies, barriers to implementation, and included a market review and recommendations for innovative treatments. The study indicated that small remediation technology companies did not fair very well. While stocks for such companies peaked in the early 1990s and the market was promising, the stocks fell in subsequent years. The study also found that in 1996, $9 billion was spent on remediation. While funding from the government is available for basic research, funding is now lacking for research and commercialization.
The NRC study also examined why the market for remediation technologies is weak. The study found that there are not enough incentives for land owners to clean up their sites quickly; more incentives exist to delay cleanups. Another reason is market fragmentation. That is, different programs, such as Superfund, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and Underground Storage Tanks (USTs), have different methods for approving remediation technologies.
Ms. MacDonald also discussed the new NRC report's recommendations for innovative cleanup technologies, which include:
The NRC report also discusses the types of remediation technologies used. For example, conventional pump-and-treat systems are used at 93 percent of Superfund sites and for ground-water cleanup at 30 percent of UST sites. Natural attenuation has been used at almost 48 percent of UST sites for ground-water cleanup. Innovative remediation technologies are sometimes used to clean up contaminated soils at Superfund sites, but there is room for improvement.
Ms. MacDonald also discussed the NRC report's recommended research priorities, which include:
Ms. MacDonald discussed the lack of consistent testing protocols, which makes the testing of technologies difficult. She said a generic approach must cover two basic questions:
Case studies could serve as models for future testing (e.g., in situ co-solvent flushing at Hill Air Force Base), Ms. MacDonald said. In remediating nonaqueous-phase liquids (NAPLs) at the base, conventional pump-and-treat technology was compared to co-solvent flushing.
One of the NRC report's recommendations was to develop a national performance verification program implemented by EPA laboratories and private testing firms. While the EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program partially fills this role, it is underfunded and has other problems.
Another recommendation of the NRC report was that if a technology is tested and found to be effective and cost-competitive, it should be guaranteed for a contract at a government site.
A protocol recommendation of the NRC report was that additional state approvals should not be required once a technology is verified.
Regarding cost comparisons, Ms. MacDonald said that cost data on innovative technologies are uncertain and that the NRC report recommends developing a template table for different site types that can be used in cost estimates. Parameters such as depth to the water table, aquifer thickness, aquifer permeability, and ground-water flow rate would be included.
Ms. MacDonald ended by saying that technical work is needed to compare, validate, and develop costs for innovative remediation technologies.
Discussion
Meeting attendees agreed that innovative remediation technologies must be cost-competitive. One participant asked, if the SEC does not change financial statements, as the NRC report recommends, will implementing the other report recommendations bring results? Ms. MacDonald responded that if the regulatory process is made more consistent, this would probably have a considerable effect.
Another participant questioned use of the Massachusetts program as a possible model. He suggested that the program may not be successful, and that perhaps market forces should determine what is used. Some other participants said that market forces are not working.
A participant said that the NRC report did not address incentives for
the government to conduct remediation work cheaper, faster, and better.
Another questioned how this could be done. Ms. MacDonald said that the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is moving in this direction, for example,
by using fixed-price contractors. Another participant said that the market
can adapt technologies at a quick pace if various factors are lined up
correctly. If this is not the case, then maybe there is a good reason for
it. He said he was not sure that evaluation groups are going to make the
difference. He said that industry will solve remediation problems if they
have the proper incentives, but that there are disincentives.
ACTION TEAM UPDATE: LASAGNA™ PARTNERSHIP
Philip Brodsky, Monsanto Company
Mason Hughes,
Monsanto Company
Christopher Athmer, Monsanto Company
Dr. Brodsky gave a brief history of RTDF and the Lasagna™ Partnership, saying that in 1992, Bill Reilly, then EPA Administrator, invited all sectors to Washington, DC, to discuss whether it was true that remediation technologies were not adequate and that major shortfalls existed in the technologies. The consensus was that yes, this was true. In 1992, the first RTDF meeting was held as a good opportunity to pool resources in noncompetitive projects. Monsanto suggested exploring the "Lasagna" technology, and a consortium consisting of Monsanto, DuPont, and GE was formed. A CRADA was developed between EPA and the consortium, and a DOE grant for Lasagna™ work followed.
Dr. Hughes of Monsanto then informed the group of developments in the Lasagna™ Partnership. He explained that the Lasagna™ technology couples electrokinetics with in situ treatment zones. The basic process involves:
He said the technology is safe to use because there is no exposure to contamination.
To use this technology, there was a need to integrate different areas of expertise (e.g., on aerobic biodegradation, vertical zones, modeling of complex systems, and kinetics of degradation processes), Dr. Hughes said. The RTDF as well as DOE sites and funding mechanisms played a role in integrated in situ remediation technologies. DOE's approach was to use Lasagna™ in the Record of Decision (ROD) at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Kentucky. The organizational structure involved three industry leads, from Monsanto, General Electric (GE), and DuPont; working together saves on remediation costs. The industries developed a CRADA with EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) in Cincinnati and the University of Cincinnati, and also with DOE. The structure also involved a contract with a DOE site and work with EPA's TIO.
Field experiments using Lasagna™ have been used to remove trichloroethylene (TCE) in soil. In Phase I, 98 percent of TCE was removed to a 15-foot depth and material balance was examined. In Phase II, no chlorinated organic materials were found to a depth of 45 feet. The team hopes to get Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) approval for a site. Technical milestones have included:
Mr. Athmer of Monsanto then reported on the Lasagna™ field experiments in more detail. He said that in Phase IIa, which is a demonstration now under way, TCE concentrations of up to 1,500 mg/kg were present, with a negotiated cleanup target of 5.6 mg/kg. There was also evidence of DNAPL. Three treatment zones were used, consisting of iron filings in kaoline-slate slurry. Treatment costs versus operating costs were examined. Electrodes were made of granular carbon and iron filings. Water was recycled, with cathode water used for anode water. Maximum temperature was 83oC. Water was moved 5.5 feet. There was evidence of TCE moving as the dissolved phase and as DNAPL. There was also evidence of TCE degradation to ethane, ethylene, and acetylene. The presence of acetylene indicates that DNAPLs are moving and are being degraded by iron.
The system was set up so that a complete curtain exists across the soil. Twenty-four drives per day was the best that could be achieved, and this is being worked on for possible increased drives.
TCE water sample trends indicated that TCE was taken from the soil. A couple of wells were not cleaned up, but eventually TCE levels did come down in the wells. Soil data showed TCE removal rates ranging from 41.5 to 99.7 percent.
Conclusions
Phase IIa of Lasagna™ is a success. Two pore volumes should clean the site. Under a DOE contract, the site is progressing toward full cleanup. Costs for a generic, large site (45 ft.) are between $50 to $75 per cubic yard. In Phase II, the costs may range from $75 to $100 per cubic yard.
Taras Bryndzia of EPA then discussed the cooperative Lasagna™ agreement with the University of Cincinnati team. This work combines horizontal Lasagna™ with biodegradation. The site was the Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base in Columbus, Ohio, where TCE contamination was present from a leaking drum storage area at 8 to 9 ppm TCE at a depth of 6 to 8 ft. The system consists of a graphite electrode, with anode to cathode flow, and an added layer of granular activated carbon (GAC) between the anode and cathode. The anode is embedded in a stable titanic ceramic-like substance. The team is currently feeding air and methane into the system and observing TCE degradation, which cannot be quantified at this time.
In an adjacent cell, instead of using a GAC layer, five layers of iron are used, and TCE degradation has been observed. A similar system at Offut Air Force Base is progressing well, which uses iron and graphite. This system is fully automated and can be run off site.
Discussion
A participant asked when the Lasagna™ Partnership thought that the
technology would be commercially available. A team member said that he
believes that the technology is viable now but cannot be used yet because
of funding mechanisms that require verification. Another participant asked
how important methane was to the process. A team member said that the
right consortium of organisms are needed, developed to function under
specific conditions. Vertical installation of Lasagna™ is ready to be
scaled up for TCE, and interest has been expressed in licensing this
approach. The team believes that there is now a solution for TCE in clay.
The point was made that industry needs incentives to clean up now rather
than to delay cleanup.
ACTION TEAM UPDATE: BIOREMEDIATION CONSORTIUM
David Ellis, DuPont Specialty Chemicals
Gregory
Sayles, EPA NRMRL
This action team is exploring the degradation of chlorinated solvents by in situ bioremediation. The process involves intrinsic bioremediation, accelerated anaerobic bioremediation, and co-metabolic bioventing. The work involves a steering committee, pilot projects, field work by contractors, and a total budget of $15.2 million. The work is conducted by individual research agreements, a CRADA with EPA's Cincinnati laboratory, and a DOE agreement. The team is also considering a potential project at Cape Canaveral.
The team is exploring:
Lines of evidence that the team is studying include:
A plume at one of the sites has largely been converted to dichloroethyene (DCE) (50 percent higher than TCE), vinyl chloride, and ethylene. Chloride in solution is good evidence of TCE destruction because it shows conversion from organic to inorganic chloride. Dr. Ellis also discussed redox zones involving changing reductive zones to oxidized zones. He said that the process of oxidizing TCE to oxygen and chloride may be an important process at the site for the dechlorination of TCE. Microcosm data are also being studied regarding anaerobic and aerobic biodegradation. Dr. Ellis also described pathways of transformation--e.g., from PCE to TCE to cis-DCE (and CO2) down to ethylene. Dr. Ellis said that there is lab and field evidence that intrinsic biodegradation is working and evidence for multiple pathways of degradation.
Dr. Sayles then discussed the team's bioventing work. The team is studying co-metabolic bioventing in soil to treat residual chlorinated solvents in soil using co-substrates that are biodegradable and produce oxygen, carbon dioxide, and water; TCE happens to be oxidized in the process. The goal is to provide inexpensive in situ bioremediation. The co-substrates that have been used are propane, methane, toluene, and fuels. The co-substrate and air are vented through the soil. Lab and field work has been conducted, modeling is being conducted, and treatment protocols are being evaluated. Mr. Sayles showed slides of microcosm work using different substrates and stochiometrics. The next scale-up will involve in situ soil column reactors in the laboratory at various flow rates and gas chromatography (GC) analysis. First-order reaction rate constants for TCE will be developed and evaluated for different co-substrates. Propane and toluene are effective at about the same rate. Methane did not work very well.
A 30-by-30-foot bioventing field system has been designed for Dover Air Force Base that will be demonstrated next month. A larger plot is being developed for the Hill Air Force Base.
Dr. Sayles also described the team's accelerated anaerobic reductive work (dehalogenation). This work involves a closed-loop recycling system for mass balance purposes. The tests can be reconfigured by using different valving. Thus far, monitoring well data show that TCE has degraded to DCE, but further degradation has not been achieved. The team is exploring bioaugmentation but does not want to put new chlorinated materials into the environment.
Evidence shows that flow and transport is working well in the system and that the design should be kept simple. Biofouling occurred at injection wells, and hydrogen peroxide was used to recover the system. Routine cleaning is needed at the well screens. Dechlorination has been observed, but, as stated earlier, only degradation from TCE to DCE has been achieved.
Discussion
A participant asked what type of flow and transport model is being used.
Dr. Ellis said the MT3D model is used, which is fully 3D, and that there
is an update to this model, with the net result being the RT3D model.
Another participant asked what tools were used to measure mass change. Dr.
Ellis said that mass balance is being measured in a transect study using
120 samples in the plume. The results of this study will be compared to
the model to determine what monitoring is needed.
BARRIERS TO INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
Gene
Peters, Clean Sites Public-Private Partnerships
The Clean Sites staff act as facilitators in the public-private partnerships, seeking to bring regulators into the process up-front. Clean Sites is a nonprofit public interest and research organization dedicated to accelerating and improving hazardous waste site cleanups through independent policy and technical analyses and the use of innovative technologies. Recent milestones have included working with EPA's TIO to identify facilities that are interested in using innovative technologies, and getting support from regulators for a process.
Mr. Peters identified several barriers to the use of innovative technology implementation and acceptance, including general uncertainty about technology performance, lack of empirically derived cost data, lack of performance data under realistic operating conditions, regulatory and public acceptance, and lack of communication about technologies.
Mr. Peters described some of Clean Sites work under its public-private partnerships at federal facilities. Some partnerships have involved remediating CVOCs in ground water or soil, while others have focused on metals. A wide variety of technologies have been used, including iron reductive dechlorination, vertical hydrofracture emplacement, in situ anaerobic bioremediation, rotary steam drilling, electroosmosis, and photolytic destruction.
At DOE's Pinellas, Florida site, a rotary steam system was used that has shown good mass balance results. Bioremediation has been conducted on a pilot scale; tracer tests have been performed at instrumented sites with horizontal wells. Seventy percent removal efficiency has been found; the data are still being evaluated. Membrane separation, which is good for homogeneous waste streams, is not appropriate for the Pinellas site because of high iron levels. Membrane separation clogged up with heterogeneous streams that included inorganics. This experience provided a valid lesson regarding what did not work.
Some of the reasons for participating in such partnerships that Mr. Peters identified included:
Participation in the Clean Sites partnerships involves participating in meetings and conference calls and contributing expertise to plans and reports.
Discussion
A participant asked, if explosives are used, are residues left behind?
The participant said that this is an important question, for example, for
Native American areas. Mr. Sayles said that nitrates will be well below
the background levels of 500 ppm. There is an extensive pre- and
post-explosive program.
CONSORTIUM FOR SITE CHARACTERIZATION TECHNOLOGY
Dan Powell, EPA TIO
Mr. Powell explained that the Consortium was established to validate the performance of site characterization and monitoring technologies and to speed acceptance of these technologies. The Consortium is a pilot project under EPA's Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program. ETV pilots involve third-party verification. DOE national labs such as Sandia and Oak Ridge have been involved. This is a need-driven program that involves the federal government, states, and the private sector. State participation in ETV includes individual states, the Interstate Technology Regulatory Cooperation (ITRC) Working Group, and associations of state officials, such as the Association of State and Territorial Waste Management Officials. Other ETV pilots have involved drinking water systems and indoor air products. Active outreach to states and EPA regions has been an important component of the program to inform people about what EPA verification means.
Mr. Powell identified several process input points, including:
Regarding technology verification for site characterization, Mr. Powell identified several analytical technologies that are being reviewed, including cone penetrometer/laser induced fluorescence; x-ray fluorescence; gas chromatography/mass spectrography (GC/MS); PCB analysis; and wellhead monitoring (with a focus on in situ techniques for VOCS). He also identified several sampling technologies, including soil/soil gas techniques (direct push and passive sampler); ground-water sampling; field extraction; decision support software to input and collect data; and geophysical techniques.
Technology "tracks" for site characterization include:
Other types of supporting resources include:
An inventory is being developed of sites where field-portable analytical and site characterization technologies are being used so that people know they are not the first to use these techniques. A status report is being developed that includes a matrix of use by performance, cost, etc., and includes contacts.
Outreach has involved a regional network (e.g., the 10 EPA
regions, water and QA programs, and lab services). Mr. Powell also
informed participants of Web sites such as CLU-IN (at
http://www/clu-in.org) and the ETV site (at http://www.epa.gov/etv).
ACTION TEAM UPDATE: IN-PLACE INACTIVATION AND NATURAL
ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION (IINERT)
James Ryan, EPA NRMRL
Dr. Ryan said that 80 people have been involved in this work, which involves measuring risk and altering the form of substances so that they are not of environmental concern. Dr. Ryan presented three hypotheses regarding biological availability:
Focusing on the second hypothesis, the team has collected bulk samples to study soil lead characterization, effects on soil lead, bioavailability versus lead species, and effects of ingestion rates. The work involves field evaluation at $300 million per site, and another $200 million for each technique. The team is studying lead levels in pica children, the relationship between blood lead and soil lead, and how soil (or other sources) of lead influence the absorption of lead.
Bioavailability has been measured in swine, rats, plants, etc., assuming that surrogates model what is in the child. For lead in corn, if phosphorus is added, less lead is absorbed; if phosphorus and iron are added, even less is absorbed. The team studied dose, different exposures, and blood lead. Important factors might include:
Research has cross-correlated bioavailability in swine and in vitro extraction, and has found them to be similar. Swine and rat bioavailability are also similar.
Research has also shown that soil influences adsorption of lead and plant uptake of lead, and soil lead immobilization has been evaluated. For example, phosphorus in the form of pyromorphite is very insoluble and less biologically available than other forms. Adding phosphorus and iron changes solubilities and lead levels drop. The team has also been studying chemistry/dissolution in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and transformation of lead to pyromorphite as a function of pH; would this happen in the child? For example, low pH exists in the stomach, while high pH exists in the intestines.
Treatment in the field (e.g., at a Superfund site) has also been explored. Soil lead can be converted to pyromorphite and can be affected by phosphorus, iron, biosolids, and phosphorus and iron.
An examination of costs revealed:
| Technology | $1,000/ha |
| Solidification and stabilization | 1.6 mil. |
| Soil washing | 790 |
| Phytoextraction | 245 |
| Asphalt capping | 160 |
| Soil capping | 130 |
| In-place inactivation | 60 |
ACTION TEAM UPDATE: PHYTOREMEDIATION OF ORGANICS
Steve Rock, EPA NRMRL
The Phytoremediation of Organics Action Team is one of the newest RTDF groups; it first met 10 months ago. The team is exploring a matrix of contaminants versus media. The action team views phytoremediation as a set of processes. Some things are known; for example, poplar trees can be used for surface runoff. This is becoming commercially acceptable, as is phytoextraction of lead.
The team has identified three subtopic areas:
These three subgroups are developing field research in these areas. Six sites have been offered as demonstration sites for vegetative caps, three of which have funding. Mr. Rock said that phytoremediation cannot be hurried, and that it will be 1 to 2 years before results are available from this research. Ideally, vegetative caps will be studied in all climate zones because phytoremediation is so site-specific. The team has sites and resources and needs to figure out how to meld them together. Thus far the team has two products: a 865-citation bibliography, and proceedings from two technology workshops. Both products are located on the RTDF home page.
Discussion
A participant asked whether wetlands were reviewed. Mr. Rock said no,
that wetlands and some other areas, such as municipal solid waste and
energetics (TNT), were not included in the first set of research
activities. The focus is on phytoremediation for organics in shallow soils
and ground water.
RTDF WEB SITE DEMONSTRATION
Julie Levinson,
Environmental Management Support, Inc.
The RTDF Internet Web site, at http://www.rtdf.org, has recently been
reformatted to add more functions, be more user friendly, and be easier to
navigate. The site includes meeting summaries and online conference
registration. Some of the features include fact sheets on the different
action teams, processes to be studied, members, comments, technical
documents, team meetings, other sources of information, administration,
and a calendar of events into which appointments or free time could be
entered. Files can be uploaded and downloaded to the Web server, and there
are ways to transfer files. Norton provides virus protection. Ms. Levinson
demonstrated several aspects of the Web site to meeting participants.
About 820 people used the RTDF Web site in September 1997.
RECONVENE
Walter Kovalick, Jr., EPA TIO
Trish Erickson, EPA NRMRL
Dr. Kovalick opened the next day's session by discussing the size of the market remaining for remediation technologies based on an EPA report. About 500 Superfund sites do not have signed RODs, and there also are a number of other markets. In the corrective action (RCRA) market, of the 60,000 units that need attention, about 3,000 warrant cleanup such as that conducted at Superfund sites. The United States had a quarter of a million leaking USTs; because of the good work of state cleanups, about 165,000 remain to be cleaned up. DOD and DOE have needs; DOD is well into their 8,300 sites, and DOE is finished characterizing many sites and is well into serious cleaning up of sites. Other federal agency installations include the Department of Interior, which has 21,000 sites to examine. States also have a number of sites in their databases to be examined; this does not include Brownfields sites. The big spenders will be DOE and DOD, as well as corrective action. From a vendors' point of view, it may be difficult for small companies to break into these larger markets. The Superfund program also quantifies the numbers of millions of cubic yards remaining for cleanup involving different contaminants (e.g., volatiles, semi-volatiles, and metals).
Dr. Kovalick also mentioned a widely circulated guide that has developed parameters for cost and performance for 13 technologies. In 1995, the Roundtable put out 37 case studies. In July, another 16 case studies were published. Soon there will be over 100 case studies. We are getting to the point where for different technology types, a consulting engineer can find 6 or 8 case studies, and then get into design information.
Dr. Kovalick also discussed the materials developed by the Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center (GWRTAC) at the University of Pittsburgh (an analysis rather than a research center) for their Web home page on a variety of technologies, including surfactant cosolvent projects, horizontal wells, phytoremediation, treatment walls, air sparging, and others.
There is a new Internet server that broadcasts information regarding new hazardous waste cleanup information on the first day of every month. The site was originally seeded with about 700 names of state regulators and others (now over 3,000 names); contact CLU-IN to subscribe to this information, such as GWRTAC reports, the EPA market study, UST information, and Superfund remedy reports.
Trish Erickson then described the agenda for the day, which included
action team updates interspersed with expanded opportunities for outreach
and involvement from additional parties.
POTENTIAL FOR AN ELECTROKINETICS TEAM
Mason
Hughes, Monsanto Company
Robin Anderson, EPA Office of Air
and Radiation
Brain Sogorka, ITRC
Early on, TCE was viewed as a test compound to evaluate the use of electrokinetics (EK) and the Lasagna™ concept for cleaning up organics. The real carrot, however, would be dealing with radionuclides. Dr. Hughes said that EK has the potential to remediate heavy metals and radionuclides, and possibly for meeting DOE's clean up targets for the year 2006. If we could develop in situ work for radionuclides, without having to truck the soil off site, this would save huge amounts of money, and EK has this potential. Rather than expanding the Lasagna™ Partnership, RTDF members have discussed the possibility of creating a new EK group. Do we have this need for heavy metals and radionuclides? Could we get regulatory acceptance and have the technology used?
Ms. Anderson of EPA's Office of Air and Radiation explained that EPA is examining EK in a three-part study:
One purpose of this work is to bring people in the field together so everyone will not be "reinventing the wheel." Some previous work has involved the use of EK for remediating uranium and chromium. Researchers are interested in finding out whether EK can work at sites with multiple contaminants.
Discussion
A participant said that the issue of interlocking patents would need to be dealt with if this area of research is pursued. Another participant asked what the tradeoff is between immobilization and extraction. Ms. Anderson responded that she believes the answer is political, although personally she prefers immobilization because with extraction one needs a place to put the removed materials.
Brian Sogorka of ITRC briefly described ITRC as a group of 27 states that expedite the use of innovative technologies once they have been tested. He said there is a gap in the availability of cleanup technologies for metals, and that ITRC has formed a Metals Team that is examining soil flushing, EK, bioremediation, and inert processes. He said that EK and electroosmosis are separate, although they have common issues, such as regulatory concerns, soil heating, electrofocusing, verification, strategies, and protocols. This year the group has met with two vendors and several states regarding how EK works, regulatory issues, and the different stages involved from demonstration to licensing to use at the different sites. In this way, the learning curve will be lessened. ITRC is developing a guideline document that can be used at different locations in the future.
One participant asked about barriers to breaking into the market. He said that something will probably be added to the soil using EK; how does one know what is going on in the surface, and how can one assure the public that the site is cleaned up (e.g., the public probably won't accept adding toluene)? Dr. Hughes said that something does not need to be added, for example distilled water can be added. Another participant mentioned adding citrate, which he said is probably better than adding EDTA. If the activity goes away at the end of the technique, then maybe the process would be acceptable.
The issue of patents was raised; currently about 10 to 12 EK patents exist. A participant suggested that researchers do not focus too quickly, and to not just take EK to the lowest bidder. It was said that the group would not be exclusive, but that some companies may not want to share their information or it may have no impact on their business. Does RTDF want to try to form an inclusive group? Another participant said that EK has been used since 1993, but over a dozen projects have stopped in part because each time people have to be re-educated about the process. He thought that an RTDF group would be good for addressing this problem.
Success stories involving EK include Lasagna™. Failures include poor recovery of metals. Good containment at a demonstration site is important, a participant said. A good demonstration of mass balance is harder for metals and for heterogeneous contaminants than for organics, participants agreed. The goal should be toward good ex situ demonstration, containment with different types of contaminants, and also toward in situ electrodes for which verification is needed. EK for metals is very complex, said Dr. Hughes. One participant suggested staying away from uranium because it involves only lab work and no one will sign up for a field site.
Background information on EK may be available. There was a meeting two and a half years ago that all EK players attended, and a report from this meeting may exist, suggested one participant. There also used to be an EK work group.
Clarification of purpose was discussed. Are there ways to pursue EK
other than through RTDF? That is, RTDF would involve an industry co-chair
with a technical problem to be solved. RTDF would not start a group just
for DOE, since they have other mechanisms to use. What might the RTDF role
be? Possibly verification, finding out where the worst sites are, and
promoting acceptance. Dr. Hughes said that he would serve as the focal
point person for discussion, perhaps on the Web site.
TEAM ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OPTIONS: TAKING ADVANTAGE OF
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
Larry
Fradkin, EPA Office of Science Policy
Skip Chamberlain, DOE
Joseph Salvo, General Electric
One of RTDF's jobs is to coordinate CRADAs between government researchers and the private sector, trade associations, nonprofit groups, etc., said Mr. Fradkin. EPA can provide technical assistance and technical transfer, as can industry. No two EPA CRADAs have been alike, said Mr. Fradkin, so no one should feel constrained. An example of an EPA CRADA is the Lasagna™ work, established in 1992. The key industrial players were Monsanto, GE, and DuPont, who Mr. Fradkin said have really stepped forward. This work has expanded with the Lasagna™ Partnership, the Bioremediation Consortium, other companies, seven research consortiums, and demonstrations in concert with EPA, DOE, and the Air Force. These projects are done on federal sites.
Another example of a CRADA is the research consortium formed by 34 pesticide manufacturers with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and EPA labs as a model for re-registration of pesticides that will be proposed to the Science Advisory Panel. The model involves industry-provided data, EPA software, and USDA field validation. Another example of a CRADA is air emissions testing and evaluation being conducted to develop low-level measurement methods for the new Clean Air Act Amendments.
Advantages of CRADAs include:
The goal is to have the CRADA process occur in 3 months' time, provide incentives to get the technology commercialized, and to educate local, state, and regional parties. Early understanding and direction is important because progress will not be exclusive to the research side.
Mr. Chamberlain of DOE said that DOE has undergone a lot of scrutiny from Congress recently, and its remediation budget has been cut 67 percent, from $43 million in 1997 to $15 million in 1998. Mr. Chamberlain described DOE's Technology Deployment Initiative (TDI), which has thus far involved a lot of development with limited use in the field. DOE is under an Accelerated Cleanup Plan to be reached by the year 2006. The TDI program can be accessed on the Internet at http://wastenot.inel.gov/tdi. TDI is an opportunity to get technologies deployed in the field and link people up, and it can be used as a call for industry programs.
TDI screening criteria have been developed. Proposals must provide for multiple applications of technologies or processes; accelerate or reduce baseline work or cost; and involve obtaining commitment from site managers. These criteria are for mature technologies that are ready for deployment, not for demonstrations. Twelve of 50 proposals have been accepted for FY98. DOE EM40 money is available, which does not involve formal RTDF agreements. PURDA money is also available, as is money for verification and monitoring technologies.
Discussion
The discussion clarified that initially Congress did not fund TDI, but later did allocate a TDI budget. It was also clarified that all TDI proposals must be generated by DOE sites, and thus it is important to make contact with people at the sites where the processes are proposed to be used because they need incentives.
Mr. Chamberlain also briefly discussed the Subsurface Focus Group, which provides peer review of work, and said that every co-chair needs to know its agenda; if the work is relevant, there is money. He also said that good ideas have been funded under PURDA. There is still money available in different DOE programs, and industry needs to become aware of the options. DOE resources include the Internet and the Site Technology Coordination Group, which outlines needs and contacts for DOE sites. A participant asked for a characterization of TDI projects; Mr. Chamberlain mentioned a reactive barrier project at Monticello and said that he would get a list together.
Mr. Salvo of General Electric discussed changes in approaches to CVOCs over the last 3 years to a more risk-based approach. Initially, the focus was on science and technology, which may have been a bit naive, he said. The free exchange of information has worked excellently. Innovation, integration, and implementation are all needed. For some technologies, researchers got stuck at one of these stages; some have not gotten near the implementation stage. Often, there is a "missing link," such as the local municipal government, lawyers, or citizens' groups, said Mr. Salvo.
In the past, researchers did not focus on legal/liability issues. It is easier from a liability standpoint to contain liability. The legal community likes conventional rather than innovative technologies. Mr. Salvo also said that more citizen participation is needed and that ITRC has done some grassroots work at the state level.
In terms of funding, Mr. Salvo said that there is a split between technology funding and DOE EM40 funding. He said there is funding available, for example, from EPA and DOE, but it is more selective. The focus should be on how do we get to implementation. Not all the pieces are available yet to answer this. In the last few years, technology has developed very fast, but the transition to implementation in the field has been slow, said Mr. Salvo.
Discussion
A participant asked how RTDF can get more "customers" involved? If there isn't a demand, then it won't matter how cost-effective the technologies are. Another participant responded that there is a misperception that a central system exists, when in reality the focus is on local program managers. Consulting groups may be the "front line troops," and regulators need to be involved. Another participant said that if there are risk and liability issues, and cost-effective technologies, the companies will clean up sites.
Dr. Ellis of DuPont Specialty Chemicals said that aggressive attempts to comply with RCRA have lead to a lot of pump-and-treat systems to contain risks that are already in place. It is at new sites that there is more pressure to look at innovative systems, and there may not be that many new sites out there.
Until there are incentives, bonuses, etc., cleanups will not occur rapidly, emphasized another participant. Currently there are disincentives to cleanup; once a job is done, the job is lost. Mr. Chamberlain of DOE said that incentives are written into more DOE contracts and that TDI cost savings are used for more innovative technology development and implementation.
An EPA Region IX representative said that he finds that lawyers and
citizens are often misinformed, and that it is important to bring valid
information to people who are making decisions. ITRC personnel agreed that
involving citizens groups can be difficult, and that it comes back to
local sites. Some nonprofit community organizations are recognizing
remediation technology as a key issue and are open to the issue.
ACTION TEAM UPDATE: PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIERS
Robert Puls, EPA NRMRL
This technology involves remediating a contaminated plume as it moves passively through a permeable reactive wall. About 175 people have been involved in this team, and the number is increasing. The team structure involves a 12-person steering committee, a design team, a long-term performance team, and a group involved in design, installation, and evaluation. The technology is already being deployed. The team can provide training and technology transfer, and it holds open general meetings (80 people attended the last meeting). The group is interested in conducting workshops for people who are making decisions on implementation. The team has held workshops at several conferences over the past year on topics such as design considerations, site characterization, compliance and performance monitoring, and emplacement. The team also coordinates some activities with ITRC, such as reviews of draft documents on permeable barriers.
Dr. Puls identified long-term performance research on permeable barriers as an important need to determine how long a system will last, how long until media lose reactivity or are clogged and lose flow through the barrier, and to study these geochemical changes in reactive media (e.g., zero-valent iron) under different hydrogeochemical settings. He said that challenges include:
Dr. Kovalick pointed out the cost savings in using permeable barrier systems, with conventional pump-and-treat systems costing $7 million versus $500,000 for permeable barrier wall systems. This provides economic incentives and allows for market force decisions, he said. A participant noted that monitoring costs should be added. Another participant said that permeable barriers can also be followed by natural attenuation.
Dr. Puls mentioned the GWRTAC study begun in the fall of 1995, which noted three full-scale permeable barrier walls, whereas now there are more than 20 pilot and full-scale systems (as of the fall of 1997) and nearly that many planned for 1998.
A participant said that the longevity issue is an economic issue (i.e., how often would the barrier need to be replaced). Another participant mentioned a potential RCRA issue--What needs to be done with the excavated soils? Dr. Puls mentioned that the latter was not an issue at the Elizabeth City, North Carolina site where TCE concentrations exceeded 12 mg/L in the ground water.
Dr. Puls showed slides of sites with permeable reactive barriers and discussed performance monitoring, including physical and chemical monitoring. Change in reactivity and site and wall hydraulics are being studied over time, as well as microbiological changes that occur within and immediately downgradient of iron walls. Data over 2 years shows no reduction in chemical reactivity. Monitoring has included TCE, DCE, vinyl chloride, and hexavalent chromium.
This team has also provided input on other technologies, including vertical hydrofracturing and jetting for installing impermeable funnel and gate systems. The team is also researching thinner walls and studying reactive materials in them; caisson emplacement; deep-soil mixing; and bedrock fracturing.
Dr. Puls presented information on contaminants and reactive materials:
| Contaminant | Remediation Reactive Material |
| Organic solvents | Elemental iron (also looking at palladium/iron bimetal) |
| Dissolved metal (e.g., chromate, acid mine drainage) | Iron, organic carbon |
| Gasoline derivatives | ORC (oxygen reducing compounds) |
In summary, Dr. Puls said that the role of this team involves:
Discussion
A participant said that in a recent Federal Register notice,
it was announced that the use of iron would no longer be allowed in
certain circumstances. Dr. Kovalick reviewed the notice and informed the
group that it pertains to as-generated hazardous waste streams, not
remediation technologies or ground-water treatment. Another participant
asked how organic carbon remediates acid mine drainage; Dr. Puls said it
occurs by biological reduction of sulfate and the formation of metal
sulfides. A third participant asked whether trivalent chromium reverts
back in time to hexavalent chromium. Dr. Puls said that chromium (as Cr
(III)) has low solubility in iron, will not be reoxidized and will not
remobilize, and will maintain its form as an insoluble chromium or mixed
iron-chromium hydroxide.
EXPANDING INDUSTRY INVOLVEMENT IN RTDF: QUESTIONS, ANSWERS, AND
OUTREACH IDEAS
Walter Kovalick, EPA TIO
Dr. Kovalick said that a letter was sent to trade associations inviting them to this meeting, but it turned out that this was not a good week for many trade associations because they already had other meetings scheduled. A participant offered a possible explanation as to why more industries are not joining the RTDF effort, saying that there has been a change whereby businesses are using more of their resources in their core businesses rather than remediation; they are looking to buy rather than develop remediation technologies. Another participant said that RTDF needs to think about what the forum will look like in the future. How might it restructure without the level of commitment it had in the past? Might it become more informal, such as the permeable barrier group structure? Is RTDF evolving into a new organization with a different focus? Perhaps monitoring and evaluation might be the focus, as is being done in the Phytoremediation of Organics and Permeable Reactive Barrier Action Teams.
One participant asked for any ideas for recruiting companies with high metals problems. Another participant thought that industry would be interested, since there is currently no inexpensive technology in sight for DNAPLs, and because metals in soil are an issue at Superfund sites. A participant said that perhaps industry is not interested in coming to "watch" government do its work (e.g., demonstrations). It is hoped that by developing technologies, co-chairs would seek their deployment. Regarding metals, it was noted that many platers and finishers have small operations and thus have more active trade associations than larger companies, which might focus on regulatory information.
Sometimes a proposal needs to be put forth first, said another participant, in order to get involvement. It was suggested that the effort not begin with calling vendors, which could scare off potential partners. Consulting engineers were identified as a missing link, that maybe they are the "users" and could be actively pursued.
A participant noted that in the manufacturing process, it is easier to provide in-kind work rather than funding. She also raised the issue of patents versus collaboration. RTDF members concurred that in many cases industry provides in-kind contributions (e.g., field work) rather than funding, and that a lot of work has been accomplished in this manner.
Regarding patents, Mr. Salvo of GE said that inventors need some incentive to develop the technologies. This might involve having users of the technology incur the costs. Mr. Fradkin of EPA said that patent costs have been relatively insignificant. He also said that a company can keep pre-existing patents and that new patents can be protected as well. Dr. Hughes of Monsanto said that in some cases the company has retained patent rights, and in other cases a company might get free use on outside sites. Another participant said that patents may be an issue for smaller groups that do not have significant resources.
Voluntary cleanups and property transactions were mentioned as important
areas to consider. It was noted that some regulators are nervous about
capping and containment because the new owner may not know what
contamination is there and may proceed with redevelopment.
ACTION TEAM UPDATE: IN SITU
FLUSHING
Lynn Wood, EPA NRMRL
This is the newest RTDF team, having first met in May of 1997. The team will facilitate development and, if appropriate, implementation for source remediation. This technology is not recommended for dissolved plumes or ground water because it can interfere with other technologies, but rather for zones with separate phase organics or high concentrations of absorbed contaminants Fluids are injected to enhance the solubility or mobility of separate-phase or absorbed contaminants.
Dr. Wood said that a lot of in situ flushing has been done at Hill Air Force Base, and that there have been demonstrations for light nonaqueous-phase liquid (LNAPL) sites (e.g., solvents, surfactants, or combinations). There have been some demonstrations at dense nonaqueous-phase liquid (DNAPL) sites (surfactants).
Dr. Wood showed slides of some sites and shared preliminary results. The technology involves enhanced solubilization, using injection wells followed by multiple level samplers (MLSs) in a 3D network, followed by extraction wells. He said that the team was pleasantly surprised at the performance in the field. About 75 to 80 percent NAPL removal was achieved using 5 to 10 core volumes flushed through the system.
Conclusions that might be drawn include:
Focus areas include:
Technology-related issues that the team has identified include:
The first proposed field demonstrations will focus on recovery and reuse.
Discussion
A participant said that it was a myth that state statutes exist that
forbid injection of surfactants. The regulatory climate has changed in the
past 2 to 4 years, and there is a level of acceptance for this and other
innovative technologies. There are case studies available involving the
use of surfactants.
ACTION TEAM UPDATE: SEDIMENTS REMEDIATION
Dennis
Timberlake, EPA NRMRL
This group held its last meeting in October 1996 and has not met since then due to reorganization, losing co-chairs, and getting new co-chairs. Some of the issues for this group include:
Sediments present a difficult problem because they are a good sink for a wide mix and range of contaminants. Onsite technologies need to be developed to achieve recovery of a biological system. Focus areas include:
Three subgroups have been established, including assessment, in situ containment/capping, and in situ treatment. The assessment group is evaluating hazards, stresses, exposures, human and ecological risks, and information on toxicity, transport, and attenuation. The in situ containment/capping group is examining strategies to support containment as a viable option (it has not been well received but it works), enhance cap design, improve predictive tools, and conduct field verification of the long-term effectiveness of capping. The in situ treatment group is focusing on chemical additives and on phytoremediation and electrokinetics in containment situations. Sediments represents such a broad area that the groups will need to decide what they want to focus on.
The next steps will be to identify sites and to use team member
contributions. Mr. Timberlake said that this meeting has been useful to
him because it shows that each team has taken a different approach. He
also mentioned that people working in ports and harbors have expressed
interest and may help rejuvenate membership. A participant mentioned that
New York and New Jersey have an active task force on sediments.
EXPERIENCE WITH THE INTERSTATE TECHNOLOGY REGULATORY
COOPERATION (ITRC) WORKGROUP
Brian Sogorka, ITRC
David Ellis, DuPont Specialty Chemicals
Robert Puls,
EPA NRMRL
Steve Rock, EPA NRMRL
Mr. Sogorka explained that ITRC is a state-led initiative (composed of 27 states) that meets with industries and regulators and works to get innovative technologies developed and implemented. The group also includes representation from EPA, DOE, DOD, the Sierra Club, and local communities. ITRC formed a public-private partnership in 1995 to support environmental technology industries, improve state permitting processes, and speed deployment of technologies through interstate and regulatory collaboration. The group's focus is on implementation on the state (and local) regulatory level. The group works in technical teams and seeks to understand people's questions early and to build trust early on. Mr. Sogorka said that industry representatives from RTDF have been a good addition to the group. State participation is in-kind; state officials agree to provide a point of contact, participate on work teams, and provide some review and consensus on policy or technical guidance. The ITRC Web site is http://www.westgov.org/itrc.
A key problem is the long time required to demonstrate a technology from state to state. The efforts are duplicative and expensive, said Mr. Sogorka. So ITRC would like to develop common guidelines and requirements if possible and have states be more open to new technologies in a faster and more cost-effective manner. Data gaps exist, and it would be good to short-circuit regulators' questions before an application reaches a regulator's desk. Thus, ITRC seeks to develop common protocols, share data, provide QA/QC at the oversight level, and develop trust so that regulators will accept performance data (e.g., so that one state will accept another state's accepted technologies).
ITRC is exploring several technical areas, including:
ITRC is seeking feedback on the best approaches to take in pursuing these technologies.
The group is obtaining concurrence letters from states, generally from environmental commissions, in which states indicate that they agree with a technology assessment (e.g., screening and verification requirements). Once this is obtained, the technology could be used in the seven states that have agreed to this structure. This year, ITRC would like to expand this effort to the other 20 states in the group. In the area of low temperature thermal desorption, ITRC has developed a permitting deployment guide that includes a model permit for all petroleum and coal tar contaminated media, and the group has received written concurrence from 13 states for this approach.
The group has added three technical areas this year, including metals in soil, permeable treatment barriers (working with RTDF), and policy. The group is also exploring soil washing at fixed facilities (e.g., for smaller sites performing voluntary cleanups). The policy group is examining voluntary cleanup standards, Brownfields sites, and performance-based contracting. ITRC expects the state concurrence process to generally take from 2 to 6 months.
A participant asked what verification programs already exist, and Mr. Sogorka mentioned programs at DOE and DOD sites, RTDF demonstrations, Clean Sites, and ETV. If these can be automatically endorsed, then one could move to the deployment stage and not worry about the demonstration stage.
The advantages for states in joining ITRC efforts include:
Advantages for industry in joining ITRC efforts include:
Dr. Ellis of DuPont and the RTDF Bioremediation Consortium said that he invited ITRC to attend the Consortium's annual technical review meeting and that good information was shared on the state-of-the-science. He encouraged other RTDF groups to ask ITRC to attend their meetings as well.
ITRC is also focusing on accelerated cost and performance reviews, regulatory reviews (e.g., how does a state structure deal with a certain technology), and a closure criteria survey (e.g., how a cleanup level was established, are criteria being met, contacts). ITRC also has 1-page executive summaries of its projects and a list of what impacts cost and performance for approximately 25 sites that have used bioventing for fuels, solvent vapor extraction (SVE), in situ aerobic treatment, and natural attenuation. ITRC is also developing a number of measurements that could be used as standardized cost and performance results (e.g., cost/kg solvent destroyed).
Guidance documents that ITRC has developed cover protocols, lab methods, bioremediation of hydrocarbons, and bioventing. Guidance documents are planned for accelerated anaerobic treatment, co-metabolic bioventing, and natural attenuation for solvents. ITRC also holds seminars, performs document review, and conducts regulatory surveys to identify any remaining barriers to bioremediation.
Dr. Puls of EPA, who serves as co-chair of the RTDF Permeable Reactive Barriers Action Team, said that his team has worked actively with the ITRC permeable barrier group, reviewing each other's documents, and has encouraged other teams to take advantage of ITRC to assess state regulators and their concerns and to exchange information.
Mr. Rock of EPA and a RTDF Phytoremediation of Organics Action Team co-chair said that he has worked with ITRC to interact with state regulators, for example to consider amending a ROD to suggest that natural attenuation is reducing ground-water risk (although it looks like this site will still require a RCRA cap and that trees will be cut). Thirteen states have signed onto phytoremediation demonstrations.
Discussion
Dr. Hughes of Monsanto asked Mr. Sogorka, once you receive your 6 to 8 letters of concurrence from states, will the other states then be able to use them? Mr. Sogorka said no, this would not be automatic; there is still a state sovereignty issue, but he is encouraging other states to sign up with this program. He said there is a 6-state Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for technical reciprocity that is almost automatic.
ITRC is also exploring a rapid commercialization initiative and is
examining verification programs. It hopes that perhaps within a year, if
all states agree, there would be a de facto approval process
among the 27 ITRC states. While one would still then need to demonstrate
that the technology worked at a site, there would be less sampling and
scrutiny, and guidance documents could be used at later sites.
CONCLUSION: ACTION ITEMS
Walter Kovalick,
Jr., EPA TIO
Dr. Kovalick summarized the action items to result from this meeting, including:
1997 RTDF Meeting
The Evanston Holiday Inn & Conference Center
Evanston, IL
October 15-16, 1997
Final Speaker List
| Philip Brodsky Vice President Corporate Research & Environmental Technology Monsanto Company 800 North Lindbergh Boulevard (MC O2A) St. Louis, MO 63167 314-694-3235 Fax: 314-694-6507 E-mail: philip.h.brodsky@ monsanto.com L. Taras Bryndzia Grover (Skip) Chamberlain David Ellis Trish Erickson Larry Fradkin B. Mason Hughes Walter Kovalick, Jr. Julie Levinson Jacqueline MacDonald Gene Peters |
Dan Powell Environmental Protection Specialist Technology Innovation Office U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, SW (5102G) Washington, DC 20460 703-603-9910 Fax: 703-603-9135 E-mail: powell.dan@epamail.epa.gov Robert Puls Steve Rock James Ryan Joseph Salvo Gregory Sayles Stephen Shoemaker Brian Sogorka Dennis Timberlake A. Lynn Wood |
1997 RTDF Meeting
The Evanston Holiday Inn & Conference Center
Evanston, IL
October 15-16, 1997
Final Attendee List
| George Allen Department Manager Sandia National Laboratories P.O. Box 5800 (MS-0719) Albuquerque, NM 87185-0719 505-844-9769 Fax: 505-844-0543 E-mail: gcallen@sandia.gov Robin Anderson Christopher Athmer Paul Boersma Patrick Brady Daniel Burnell Steven Chisick Joan Colson E. David Daugherty James Duffy Carol English Gerald Eykholt Stephen Garbaciak Jon Ginn Neil Gray Ronald Hess H. Tom Hicks Sa Ho Anthony Holoska Joe Iovenitti Richard Jensen Michael Kosakowski Michael Lewis |
John Licata Director, Environmental Affairs Novartis Crop Protection, Inc. P.O. Box 18300 Greensboro, NC 27419-8300 910-632-2372 Fax: 910-632-2192 E-mail: john.licata@ cp.novartis.com John Martin Charles McPheeters Daniel Moore M. Cristina Negri Philip Palmer Daniel Pardieck Edward Peterson Tom Scott Robert Shelnutt Robert Stone Lane Tickanen Allen Tool Robert Tossell Rich Williams J. Kenneth Wittle Alvin Yorke Pengchu Zhang |
RTDF logistical and technical support provided by:
Susan Brager Murphy
Conference Manager
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
110 Hartwell Avenue
Lexington, MA
02173-3134
781-674-7347
Fax: 781-674-2906
E-mail:
sbmurphy@erg.com
Carolyn Perroni
Environmental
Management
Support, Inc.
8601 Georgia Avenue - Suite 500
Silver Spring, MD
20910
301-589-5318
Fax: 301-589-8487
E-mail:
cperroni@emsus.com
Laurie Stamatatos
Conference Coordinator
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
110 Hartwell Avenue
Lexington, MA
02173-3134
781-674-7320
Fax: 781-674-2906
E-mail:
lstamata@erg.com
Linda Stein
Technical
Communications
Specialist
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
110 Hartwell Avenue
Lexington, MA 02173-3134
781-674-7335
Fax: 781-674-2851
E-mail: lstein@erg.com