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

April 28, 2004
2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. (EDT)

On Wednesday, April 28, 2004, a conference call was held to discuss the status of the Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF) Action Teams. The following co-chairs from the RTDF Action Teams participated in the call:

Also present from EPA were Walter Kovalick, Annette Gatchett, John Quander, Linda Fiedler, Martha Otto, Ellen Rubin, Rich Steimle, Kelly Madalinski, and Kathy Yager. In addition, Carolyn Perroni and Peter Riddle of Environmental Management Support, Inc., and Christine Hartnett of ERG also participated in the conference call.

PURPOSE OF THE CALL

Walter Kovalick and Annette Gatchett said that the call was being held to revisit the RTDF's principles, obtain a status report on the RTDF Action Teams, discuss future activities, determine whether certain RTDF teams are ready to retire, and decide whether the RTDF is having a positive impact.

HISTORY OF THE RTDF AND DISCUSSION OF PARTNERSHIP PRINCIPLES

Before launching into a group discussion, Kovalick provided background information on the RTDF, noting that the idea for the group took root in the early 1990s during a dinner conversation between the EPA Administrator (Bill Reilly) and Monsanto's Chairman of the Board. At that time, both parties agreed that it would be beneficial for industry and the government to work together to develop innovative solutions to hazardous waste problems. Following up on this suggestion, Reilly set up a meeting and invited representatives from industry, academia, EPA, and other federal agencies to participate. The RTDF was born out of this meeting and Action Teams started forming to tackle specific topics that were of interest to both the government and industry. To date, Kovalick said, there have been eight RTDF Action Teams, two of which–the In Situ Flushing Action Team and the Lasagna™ Partnership–have been archived and are no longer active.

Kovalick reviewed some of the original principles on which the RTDF is founded:

• Mutuality of interest. The topics addressed under the RTDF are of interest to industry, EPA's Office of Research and Development, and EPA Program Offices. The RTDF's goal is to identify innovative solutions and products that benefit all three parties.



• Transparency. RTDF meetings are open to the public, and meeting and conference call summaries are posted on an RTDF Web site.



• Applied work. While it is important to share information and ideas, Kovalick said, EPA expects the RTDF teams to reach beyond the information-sharing stage and to perform actual field work and produce tangible products, such as technology evaluations and peer-reviewed articles.

Kovalick asked the industry co-chairs to express their thoughts on the RTDF's principles and to comment on whether they thought the RTDF has been a success. Lucinda Jackson (representing the Phytoremediation of Organics Action Team) responded by saying that she thinks that the RTDF has been hugely successful, noting that it has given diverse groups a way to come together, perform field work, and generate large data sets. Dave Ellis (representing the Bioremediation Consortium) and John Vidumsky (representing the PRB Action Team) also indicated that they thought that the RTDF has been beneficial. When asked whether the RTDF's principles, policies, and procedures need to be revamped, Ellis and Vidumsky responded by saying that the existing rubric is working well and does not require modification.

GROUP DISCUSSION TOPICS

Gatchett led a group discussion and asked call participants to provide input on the following questions:

• Is the RTDF doing enough outreach and are RTDF activities having a positive impact? If so, how does one document success? Ellis noted that the RTDF serves as an important source of information for the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC), a group that provides extensive outreach services. Given this fact, he said, the RTDF should take partial credit for the training programs (delivered to more than 14,000 people) that ITRC has conducted to raise awareness about innovative remediation technologies. Call participants said that the Bioremediation Consortium, the Phytoremediation of Organics Action Team, and the PRB Action Team have all provided materials for ITRC training programs. In addition, some of these groups have provided information that has been used in ITRC documents and EPA documents. For example, Jackson said, information generated by the RTDF team was recently sent to EPA's Steve McCutcheon for inclusion in a new book. Gatchett asked for input on what could be done to document some of the contributions that the RTDF has made. Two ideas were discussed:



• Add a section to the RTDF Web site called "Success Stories." Bob Puls offered this suggestion.



• Prepare a 1-page fact sheet that summarizes the RTDF's contributions. If such a fact sheet were created, Gatchett said, the Action Team co-chairs could use it to raise awareness about the RTDF and the benefits associated with it. Linda Fiedler said that the fact sheet should provide information on the number of people trained, the number of demonstration projects initiated, and the number of papers that have been written under the auspices of the RTDF. Kovalick recommended collecting this information by culling the RTDF and ITRC Web sites and by asking the RTDF co-chairs to provide a list of accomplishments/publications/products.



• Are there other forums that can be tapped into to generate new partners for the RTDF? Kovalick asked for ideas on how to obtain more participation from industry members. To kick off the conversation, he asked whether any of the call participants had tried soliciting support for the RTDF from the Petroleum Environmental Research Forum (PERF), the American Petroleum Institute (API), or the Information Network for Superfund Settlements group. Jackson said that PERF has been involved with the Phytoremediation of Organics Action Team, but that interactions with API could probably be strengthened. She said that she would be happy to try to solicit additional support for the RTDF if Kovalick and Gatchett provide some ideas on how to accomplish this.



• When is an RTDF Action Team's work complete? When an Action Team's activities are completed, Gatchett said, she and Kovalick will: (1) write a close-out letter thanking the Action Team members for their participation and (2) archive the information that is presented about that Action Team on the RTDF Web site. The question is: How does one determine whether an Action Team's work is complete? Gatchett and Kovalick said that they would allow the Action Team co-chairs to make this determination. If a team is inactive for an extended period, though, Kovalick and Gatchett will prompt its co-chairs to either initiate some new activities or close out the group. In order to justify its continuation, Kovalick said, an Action Team should be willing to undertake some applied work. If the group is simply holding annual meetings to share information, he said, it might be better to support such meetings through another mechanism rather than using funds that are allocated to the RTDF.



• Should new RTDF Action Teams be formed? Kovalick identified one topic--using nanoscale particles to clean up ground water–that might warrant the formation of a new Action Team.

STATUS REPORT ON THE SIX ACTIVE RTDF ACTION TEAMS

Call participants provided information about the short-term goals of each of the following Action Teams:

• The Bioremediation Consortium. This group, which is still very active, is about to launch some work in the area of dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) remediation.



• The IINERT Soil-Metals Action Team. Jim Ryan and Bill Berti agreed to poll the IINERT Action Team members to determine whether it is time to close out this Action Team. To date, the group has focused on scientific research. It would be interesting to know, Berti said, whether any of the team members are interested in assessing field applications or promoting IINERT technologies in the market place.



• The NAPL Alliance. This group, which plans to hold its next meeting in June 2004, is in the process of developing a training program.



• The Phytoremediation of Organics Action Team. This Action Team is still performing field work under the Alternative Cover Assessment Program (ACAP) initiative.



• The PRB Action Team. Vidumsky said that the PRB Action Team has completed its original mission, which was to accelerate the development and acceptance of PRBs. In October 2003, however, interest was expressed in expanding the Action Team's mission and exploring new topics, such as: (1) using zero-valent iron to treat source zones and (2) using nanoscale iron for plume and source-zone treatment. Puls said that field work will be conducted under the auspices of the PRB Action Team in the near future.



• The Sediments Remediation Action Team. Grosso said that the Sediments Remediation Action Team hopes to initiate some field work soon. Once an appropriate site is identified, she said, the team will test different assessment and remediation technologies.

BUDGETARY CONCERNS

EPA's Office of Superfund Remediation Technology Innovation (OSRTI) provides the funds that support RTDF meetings, RTDF conference calls, RTDF summary reports, the RTDF Web site, and other communication materials. Kovalick said that outside groups are performing cost/benefits analyses on OSRTI-funded initiatives and that the Office might be asked to reduce funding in the future. If cuts must be made, Kovalick said, some of the support that the RTDF Action Teams currently enjoy might be reduced. Thus, it is important to determine which activities are the most vital to the RTDF's success, a topic that requires input from the Action Team co-chairs.

Jackson said that it is essential to preserve travel funds for EPA representatives to attend RTDF meetings. Ellis said that EPA should place priority on meeting the obligations that are outlined in Cooperative Research and Development Agreements. Some attendees advised cutting back on the funds that EPA contributes to support RTDF meetings. The following were offered as suggestions for accomplishing this: (1) limiting the number of meetings that each RTDF Action Team holds per year, (2) asking the Action Team members to set aside funds to support the meetings, (3) holding RTDF meetings in conjunction with other meetings, and (4) reducing on-site contractor support. Expanding on the latter, Fiedler proposed asking Action Team members to take the responsibility of providing on-site conference management support and note-taking/report-writing services.

ACTION ITEMS

• Kovalick and Gatchett will let Jackson know if they have any ideas about how to expand collaboration with API and PERF.



• When conducting their next conference calls, the RTDF co-chairs agreed, they will ask for additional suggestions on how the RTDF can improve upon its outreach efforts.



• OSRTI will consider developing a 1-page fact sheet that highlights the RTDF's success. OSRTI will also consider creating a "Success Stories" section on the RTDF Web site.