SUMMARY OF THE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPMENT FORUM
NON-AQUEOUS PHASE LIQUID CLEANUP ALLIANCE MEETING

Quality Suites
San Luis Obispo, California
February 28, 2001

INTRODUCTION

Randall Breeden and Mark Lyverse, the two co-chairs of the Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF) Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (NAPL) Cleanup Alliance, opened the meeting by welcoming participants and thanking them for attending. (See Attachment A for a list of attendees.) The co-chairs said that they hoped the meeting would serve to solidify the Alliance’s goals, define its future direction, and propel activities forward. Before launching into the agenda items, the co-chairs agreed that it would be valuable for attendees to summarize what they hoped to gain from the meeting. Attendees expressed the following expectations:

• Depart with a signed memorandum of understanding (MOU). Dawn Kaback and several other attendees said that they hoped to come to closure on the MOU, a document that provides a broad description of the Alliance’s overarching goals.
  
  
• Identify a set of deliverables and a schedule for completing them. Greg Fletcher asked whether the Alliance planned to generate deliverables or just share existing information. If deliverables are expected, he said, a schedule for completing them should be established.
  
  
• Discuss whether the Alliance will develop a decision-making process that can be used to address contaminated refinery sites. According to the MOU, Lyverse said, the Alliance is expected to develop a framework that can help people make remedial decisions for contaminated refinery sites. He and others agreed that this was a vague task, and one that needed to be discussed in more detail.
  
  
• Summarize the goals of the Alliance’s newly formed Casper Refinery Working Group. Ali Tavelli, Jeff Hostetler, and Randy Jewett said that a workgroup has formed to address contamination at a refinery site in Wyoming. They said that they looked forward to presenting information on the workgroup’s goals and activities.
  
  
• Determine if other workgroups should be formed under the Alliance. Attendees expressed interest in forming multiple workgroups, noting that each workgroup could focus on a specific issue or site.
  
  
• Discuss the relationship that should exist between the Alliance, as a whole, and the workgroups. Kathleen Yager said that she wanted to discuss how the workgroups could contribute to the Alliance’s overarching goals, and vice versa.
  
  
• Discuss how to leverage work. Lyverse, Dick Woodward, and Al Liguori expressed an interest in talking about ways in which Alliance members could leverage their work.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Kaback said that an MOU has been prepared for the NAPL Cleanup Alliance. It is intended to serve as an umbrella document, providing a broad overview of the Alliance's goals and the relationships that will exist between Alliance members. Draft versions of the MOU were circulated, Kaback said, and comments have been incorporated. A final version was distributed to potential alliance members on February 22, 2001. Kaback asked meeting attendees whether the entities they represented planned to sign the MOU. Their responses revealed that:

• Nine entities have already signed the MOU. The MOU has been signed by BP Amoco, the Defense Energy Support Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Headquarters, Equiva Services LLC, the Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, Sierra Environmental Services, ThermoRetec Consulting Corporation, TriHydro Corporation, and Texaco Group, Inc.
  
  
• Three entities plan to sign the MOU. According to Breeden, Liguori, and Tavelli, EPA Region 8, ExxonMobil, and the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) will sign the MOU very soon.
  
  
• Two entities are still reviewing the MOU. As Fletcher and Lyverse explained, attorneys representing Conoco and Chevron are still reviewing the MOU. Lyverse said that Chevron's attorneys want to change the word "release" to "indemnification." Attendees said that the modification cannot be made at this point. Fletcher and Lyverse agreed to encourage their colleagues to accept the MOU as it is currently written.

Kaback thanked the group for working diligently to get the MOU signed. She agreed to collect and collate original copies of the signatory pages, distribute copies of the signed MOU to participating entities, and forward the originals to the U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office (TIO).

Before this discussion was closed, Yager highlighted a couple of the points that the MOU makes. First, she said, MOU signatories needed to understand that the Alliance is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Thus, some of the documents shared between group members could be made available to the public under FOIA. Also, Alliance meetings are open to the public. (Meetings do not have to be advertised, but any member of the public who wants to observe an Alliance meeting must be allowed to do so.) Yager's second point addressed the role of the Alliance's co-chairs. She said that the two co-chairs (Breeden and Lyverse) are ultimately responsible for steering the Alliance's activities. For example, if the group fragments and camps with opposing ideas about a situation develop, the co-chairs will be responsible for resolving the conflict.

DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ALLIANCE'S ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL PRACTICES

Sharing Information Through the RTDF Web Site

Carolyn Perroni said that information about the NAPL Cleanup Alliance’s mission, goals, and objectives will be posted on a Web page at www.rtdf.org. This Web page will also feature summaries of all Alliance meetings and conference calls. Useful links will also be made available; for example, a link will be established to direct users to the Guadalupe Oil Fields Web site. Perroni asked attendees to send her information on other useful links. The Alliance’s Web page will also contain a password-protected area where Alliance members can share preliminary reports and sensitive information. User identifications and passwords will be distributed to Alliance members soon, Perroni said, along with instructions on how to post files to the protected area.

Perroni said that there is much that the Alliance can do with their Web page. For example, other RTDF Action Teams have posted bibliographies, created site profiles, and established photo libraries. Some of the meeting attendees suggested posting the MOU on the Web page, but others did not think this was necessary. If it is posted, one attendee noted, Alliance members would need to decide whether it should be posted to the password-protected or the public portion of the Web site. If the latter is chosen, the signatory page should be omitted.

Tiers of Involvement

Attendees said that there are many ways in which people can interact with the Alliance. They defined three tiers of involvement:

• Core members. The core team, attendees agreed, consists of people who represent entities that signed the MOU.
  
  
• Associate members. Attendees said that they envisioned several workgroups forming under the Alliance. People actively contributing to these workgroups will be considered associate members even if they do not work for entities listed in the MOU.
  
  
• Other interested parties. This category, attendees agreed, encompasses all regulators, technology vendors, and industry representatives who are following the Alliance’s progress but are not actively participating in the Alliance’s activities. People who have attended past Alliance meetings or have expressed interest in other ways should be considered part of this group.

Perroni agreed to distribute an e-mail listing people who fall under these three tiers. Alliance members will be asked to review the list and offer feedback.

Attendees agreed that meeting invitations should be distributed to all core members and associate members, but they did not reach consensus on what kinds of information to distribute to those in the “other interested parties” category. While Breeden suggested simply directing these people to the Alliance’s Web page, Yager suggested sending them yearly progress reports.

Yager asked whether a steering committee should be formed. Attendees decided against it. Instead, they agreed, it would be more useful if the Alliance co-chairs formed temporary steering committees whenever they need help developing meeting agendas or performing other tasks.

Organizational Framework

Perroni, observing that the Alliance is a new organization, advised establishing some rules. For example, she said, the group may want to define a process for making decisions about Alliance activities. If the Alliance does decide to outline a framework, Perroni said, the following questions will need to be addressed: (1) What constitutes a quorum? (2) Does each entity get just one vote? and (3) Does the majority rule or is consensus necessary? Attendees agreed to defer this discussion to a later date.

THE CASPER REFINERY WORKING GROUP

As noted above, one workgroup has already formed under the Alliance’s umbrella. This workgroup, which consists of Tavelli, Hostetler, Jewett, Kent Udell, and John Meyers, will address contamination at a refinery site in Casper, Wyoming. This site is owned by Texaco Group, Inc.

An Overview of Texaco’s Philosophy and Stance
Randy Jewett, Texaco Group, Inc.

Jewett said that Texaco owns several refinery sites that are no longer operational. These sites, which are large, complex, and contaminated, pose a managerial and financial challenge to the company. Texaco’s way of handling such sites, Jewett said, has changed over the years. In the past, the company had no hopes of selling the properties. As a result, they made efforts to prevent contaminant migration, but did not undertake aggressive onsite cleanup. Texaco adopted this approach, Jewett explained, because the company believed it would be more expensive to clean up and sell a site than it would be to simply continue to own the non-remediated site indefinitely. By 1995, however, it had become clear that this strategy had drawbacks. Over time, site managers realized that closed refineries tend to “take on lives of their own.” Jewett explained that more and more staff members were being hired to manage the closed sites and the operating budgets for the sites kept growing. The company decided to embrace a different approach toward closed refineries: dismantle abandoned sites, remove facilities, clean up portions of the site, and sell the property. The company’s new goal, Jewett said, is to remove the closed refineries from the company’s asset base.

Jewett provided information about the Texaco site that the Casper Refinery Working Group will be working on. At one point, he said, ground-water contaminants from the site were discharging to the North Platte River. Not surprisingly, this caused great concern among the public and the regulatory community, the latter of which issued cleanup orders. Thus, Texaco’s first goal was to stop facility-related contaminants from migrating beyond the site’s boundaries. Jewett said that a variety of remedial measures were used to stabilize the site, including ground-water interceptor trenches, pump-and-treat systems, soil vapor extraction, total fluid vacuum extraction, and hydrocarbon recovery wells. In addition, a sealed-joint barrier wall was installed between the site and the North Platte River in December 1999. These measures allowed Texaco to achieve its short-term objective—stabilizing the site.

Jewett said that Texaco will continue to operate the remedial systems it has deployed. Now that the site has been stabilized, the company is ready to pursue the loftier goal of addressing onsite contamination. Over the long term, Jewett said, Texaco hopes to tackle the following question: Is it possible to identify and implement a series of remedies that would work fast enough, effectively enough, and economically enough to reduce contaminant concentrations below risk-based standards so that the site would be considered acceptable for future re-use? Jewett said that Texaco plans to test innovative technologies to determine whether they will compress remediation timeframes. He said that the site is an ideal place to conduct a demonstration because the barrier wall provides a protective cushion. Thus, even if contaminants were mobilized in unanticipated ways, no harm would be done because the sealed-joint barrier wall would prevent contaminants from migrating into the North Platte River.

Reversing the gradient and extracting large quantities of water has caused the water table to drop. Therefore, in a way, installing the remedial systems has created a scenario that mimics a severe drought. As the ground-water table has dropped, Hostetler said, researchers have observed an interesting phenomenon: LNAPL is starting to accumulate and thicken in wells where it has not appeared in years. Hostetler, with help from Meyers, explained why this might be happening. As the water table drops, they said, gravity overcomes capillary pressure and releases NAPL from soil pore spaces. Victor Kremesec said that he has also seen NAPL quantities increase as ground-water levels decrease at other sites. This occurs, he said, even if only a small portion of the pore space is filled with NAPL—for example, at one site, 14 feet of NAPL accumulated even though soil saturation was only about 5%. Kremesec asked whether soil saturation had been measured at the Casper site. Hostetler said that it had not. Both Kremesec and Fletcher agreed that such measurements can be very informative. This sparked a discussion on the best way to measure soil saturation. Kremesec advised collecting capillary pressure measurements from soil cores. He said that saturation predictions obtained with this method correlate well to actual saturation measurements from soil cores. Eva Davis cautioned that error is embedded in methodologies that involve coring: some NAPL drains out as cores are pulled to the surface. Kremesec did not think that this drainage is overly significant. Not all of the attendees agreed with him, however. Meyers did say that oil companies have long recognized that measurements generated in the laboratory differ from those collected in situ. He said that it would be useful if cores could be frozen before being extracted from the ground, and that some groups are trying to develop such technologies.

Overview of the Regulatory Perspective and Outline of the Workgroup’s Goals
Ali Tavelli, Wyoming DEQ

Tavelli said that Wyoming DEQ is the main regulatory agency involved at the Casper site. She described the relationship between DEQ and Texaco as cooperative and productive. In order to successfully address the site, Tavelli said, Texaco will be required to work within the regulatory framework of Wyoming’s statues. Portions of the statute are rigid, she said; for example, the law indicates that ground water must be cleaned up to meet maximum contaminant limit (MCL) standards. It also clearly states that chosen remedies must protect human health and the environment, reduce or eliminate sources, and comply with waste management standards. Although these requirements are rigid, Tavelli said, the statute does offer flexibility in timeframes. For example, the state indicates that goals must be achieved in a “reasonable” timeframe, and that remedial measures must be undertaken to the point “practicable.” The law does not define the terms “reasonable” or “practicable.”

Tavelli said that the Casper Refinery Working Group will work toward defining what is reasonable and practicable for the Casper site. The group will strive to develop a scientific approach that can be used to put shape to these words and substance behind them. She said that the workgroup will focus on portions of the site where surface soil contamination is not a driver of risk. She acknowledged that surface soil will need to be addressed before the property can be reused for other purposes, but said that focusing on the subsurface is also essential if Texaco wants to transfer the property. Even if surface conditions were considered perfectly safe for reuse, she explained, Texaco would continue to be liable for the site as long as subsurface contaminants persisted at levels above MCLs. Tavelli said that she and Hostetler have started drafting a list of factors that must be addressed to define “reasonable” and “practicable.” These are:

Future Activities for the Casper Refinery Working Group

Tavelli said that the workgroup would meet immediately after the Alliance meeting to discuss their goals and scope of work in more detail. Once the scope is more refined, she said, it will be distributed to the Alliance’s core members for comment and review. Hostetler said that the workgroup also plans to establish a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) between Texaco Group, Inc., Trihydro Corporation, Wyoming DEQ, EPA, ThermoRetec Consulting Company, and the University of California. The CRADA, among other things, will specify that Texaco, as the site owner, has the final say in all decisions that impact the site. (Hostetler said that CRADAs were discussed during a conference call; the summary is available at www.rtdf.org/public/napl/minutes/020101.htm.)

Tavelli said that the workgroup hopes to draw upon the expertise and in-kind services of Alliance members and to solicit input and comments from core members. She said that the core team must decide what it expects back from the Casper Refinery Working Group. Does the Alliance want quarterly reports from the workgroup, she asked, or would brief updates posted on the RTDF Web page be more useful?

THE GUADALUPE OIL FIELD

On the day before their meeting, Alliance members went on a field trip to the Guadalupe Oil Field. Breeden asked participants to direct any questions that they had about the site to Udell. Attendees embraced the opportunity and asked:

• Why was steam injection chosen as a remedial approach for the site? Udell said that he believes that 80% of the site’s NAPL can be removed using steam injection. He said that this technology was picked because it is aggressive. If this one does not work, he said, maybe nothing will. If the technology fails, the site managers will at least be able to make some statements about the practicability of achieving cleanup goals at the site. Udell indicated that he does not expect steam injection to serve as a panacea for the site. He acknowledged that, though steam could remove large amounts of mobile product, residual NAPL will likely remain. He is hopeful that microbial activity, perhaps augmented using an inexpensive oxygen-enhancement technology, can be used to degrade any NAPL that remains. He said that an integrated approach, involving multiple remedial steps, will probably be needed for adequate cleanup.
  
  
• What laboratory tests have been performed to determine whether thermal heating technologies will be effective at the site? Udell said that some proof of concept studies were performed; these suggested that steam injection could mobilize significant quantities of NAPL. In addition, a series of one-dimensional laboratory tests have been conducted. These involved performing a cold water flood, a hot water flood, and a steam injection. Udell said that Unocal, the site’s owner, is also conducting laboratory tests before proceeding to full-scale steam injection.
  
  
• When will steam injection be tested in the field? Udell said that wells will be installed in fall 2001, a 60-day test will be performed, and data should be available in February 2002. Three pore volumes will be used during the steam injection.
  
  
• Will injecting steam into the subsurface curtail natural attenuation processes that are currently in place? Udell said that efforts are underway to gain a better understanding of the biodegradation processes that are currently taking place in the site’s vadose zone. For example, he said, researchers are trying to determine whether the processes are driven by aerobic or anaerobic conditions. He noted that injecting steam will change the chemistry of the subsurface; the injection will strip the subsurface of its most volatile components, leaving behind the less soluble ones. Udell was not sure how changes in solubility impact microbial processes. Fletcher asked how long it takes for microbial communities to recover from steam injection. Udell said that microbial communities appear to recover as soon as the injected water cools. Injecting steam does not sterilize the subsurface, he said, but it might alter the composition of microbial communities.
  
  
• How much site characterization should be performed before cleanup is begun? Udell said that some researchers get sidetracked by performing too much site characterization. He cautioned that it is easy to spend exorbitant amounts on characterization data at large sites without receiving much payback. He advocated performing enough site characterization to obtain an understanding of a site’s general setting and the location of its hot spots. Attendees noted that determining how much site characterization is “enough” can be a controversial issue.
  
  
• What data are important to collect? Udell said that investigators should collect enough “pre-” and “post-” data to determine the impact that pilot projects have on: (1) mass removal, (2) NAPL composition, (3) soil saturation, (4) mobility, and (5) microbial communities.

THE ALLIANCE’S FUTURE ACTIVITIES AND NEXT STEPS

Identifying Other Sites To Investigate

Hostetler, Tavelli, Kaback, and Jewett said that they envisioned a network of workgroups forming under the Alliance to address contamination at different refinery sites. Kaback said that she hoped that the lessons learned at different sites would be used to address some of the larger issues that the Alliance is tackling. Jewett reminded attendees that the Alliance is supposed to address nationwide issues; therefore, efforts should be initiated to solicit sites from different parts of the country. Other attendees also thought it would be interesting to address multiple sites, noting that cleanup at each site might be motivated by a different set of drivers.

Kremesec asked whether a process had been defined for forming new workgroups. Breeden and Kaback said that the process is informal: once a potential site has been identified, the person proposing the site should solicit volunteers to work on the project, identify the site’s main issues and goals, and propose a new workgroup. Yager said that workgroups should have two co-chairs, one representing industry and the other representing a regulatory agency.

Kremesec asked whether people should get regulatory approval before proposing new sites to the Alliance. Kaback thought this would be useful, pointing out that activities that progress without the blessing of regulators are not likely to succeed.

Fletcher asked whether a workgroup could be formed for a site for which a remedial technology was already chosen. Attendees said that sites fitting this profile are too far along to be considered. Breeden said that an ideal site would be one that: (1) has some site characterization data, (2) is regulated by agencies open to innovative technologies, and (3) has some preliminary environmental indicator goals defined.

Kremesec said he knew of a site that might be a strong candidate. Fletcher said that he knew of another, this one in Billings, Montana. He asked Breeden to contact a Conoco representative to inquire about the latter site. Breeden agreed to do so.

Developing a Decision-Making Framework

Attendees agreed that it would be useful to create a decision-making framework that describes how to address contaminated refinery sites. They agreed that a workgroup should be formed to start developing the framework. Liguori, Kremesec, Woodward, and Lyverse volunteered to spearhead the effort. Lyverse will identify other industry representatives who might be interested in participating. At the same time, Tavelli and Breeden will query the National Refinery Work Group to identify state regulators who are willing to become workgroup members.

While the workgroup will take the lead on developing the framework, attendees agreed, the work produced by other Alliance workgroups will feed into the final product. For example, the Casper Refinery Working Group’s conclusions about how to define “reasonable” and “practicable” will have tremendous relevance.

Attendees cited the following concepts or sources that might serve as useful starting points for developing a decision-making framework:

• Meyers introduced the acronym “GITEI,” which defines steps for addressing cleanup as Goals, Investigation, Technology, Endpoints, and Implementation. Meyers said that goals should be established up front, and that investigations should be tailored to provide information that is pertinent to the goals. For example, if the goal is to reduce mobility at a site, he said, investigations must be performed to determine exactly where mobile products are located. After a targeted investigation is finished, Meyers continued, technologies that are designed specifically to meet the goals should be deployed. Surprisingly enough, he said, many site managers pick technologies without even having a clear idea of what they are trying to achieve. Endpoints must be clearly established so that site managers know when, or if, they reach their goal. How does a manager know when to turn off a remedial system, Meyers asked, if he or she has no idea what endpoints the system is meant to reach? Davis expressed support for the GITEI concept, stressing that the process is iterative rather than linear.
  
  
• Breeden said that EPA plans to release a handbook for ground-water policies in the summer of 2001. This document, which is currently in draft form, will recommend following three steps when addressing contaminated sites: (1) identify environmental indicators, (2) set obtainable intermediate goals, and (3) implement corrective action. The document will stress, Breeden said, that one must be flexible in addressing sites and that timeframes originally regarded as “acceptable” might need to be expanded.
  
  
• Kremesec said that BP Amoco has developed project management guidance that outlines 11 points that one must address to construct arguments about practicability.
  
  
• Lyverse said that modeling systems can be used to assist with decision-making processes. For example, he said, models can be used to determine how many years it will take to remediate a site under different cleanup scenarios.
  
  
• Attendees said that it might be helpful to evaluate sites that have received technical impracticability (TI) designations. Yager agreed to distribute a list of Department of Defense (DOD) sites that have received TIs. Once the workgroup develops a framework, Kremesec said, it would be useful to “truth-test it” against some of the TI examples. Davis cautioned against putting too much stock in what can be learned from sites that have received TI waivers; she said that some sites have received them when they were not warranted. In some cases, she said, site managers and regulators simply do not understand how innovative technologies are making cleanup more practical and possible.

The Technical Information Workgroup

Breeden said that a workgroup has formed to review information on cleanup projects that have already been completed in the United States and Europe. This group will perform a literature review, identify useful text, and make it available to other Alliance members. Breeden said that he, Yager, Woodward, and Kaback have volunteered to participate in the effort. He agreed to search for other state regulators who might be interested in participating as well.

While perusing existing documents, Kaback said, the workgroup members will look for information that might help other Alliance workgroups establish decision-making frameworks and define “practicable” and “reasonable.”

Attendees cited some completed projects that might be interesting to evaluate. These included the steam-enhanced extraction project at Alameda Naval Air Station and projects at DOD base realignment and closure sites.

Pooling Resources

Lyverse asked whether Alliance members would be asked to contribute funds to facilitate workgroup activities. At this point, attendees noted, they hope that Alliance members would offer in-kind services. No mechanism currently exists to collect revenue from team members. Some attendees said that this might change as the Alliance and associated workgroups develop more concrete goals. These particular attendees said that they envisioned the Alliance acting much like the Petroleum Environmental Research Forum, a forum created to allow petroleum companies to pool resources in an effort to answer research questions. If a similar model is adopted for the Alliance, industry members might be asked to make cash contributions and regulatory agencies would be expected to offer in-kind services.

Breeden said that some Alliance members have already expressed interest in creating a small pool of funds to support Alliance activities. He agreed to research mechanisms for establishing such a fund. At this point, he said, it might be useful to use the funds to pay travel expenses for state regulators who are needed at Alliance meetings.

A Summary of the Alliance’s Goals

Breeden said that he thought the Alliance’s overarching goals had been clarified during the meeting. He and Lyverse agreed to create a strawman that summarizes the group’s goals and gives some overarching “marching orders” to the Alliance’s workgroups. Once the strawman is completed, it will be e-mailed to Alliance members for comment.

The Next Alliance Meeting

Alliance members decided that their next meeting should be held during the third week of June. They suggested having a 2-day meeting and holding it either in Chicago, Illinois, or in Oakland, California. ERG will start researching the possibility of holding a meeting in one of these cities.

MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS

• Yager said that a group from Europe has expressed interest in the Alliance’s work. She agreed to follow up with the group’s leader to determine whether there is any interest in forming a long-term relationship.
  
  
• Kaback said that some members of the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation (ITRC) Work Group might be interested in participating in the Alliance. Kremesec said that David Tsao, from BP Amoco, is heavily involved with that group.
  
  
• Yager said that one of her colleagues is writing a document on “mothball” sites, and that a workshop has been scheduled to address concerns about such sites. She agreed to send notification of the workshop to Alliance members via e-mail.

CLOSING REMARKS

Breeden and Lyverse thanked the attendees for their participation. They agreed that the meeting had been productive and that progress had been made in refining the Alliance’s goals. Before departing, the attendees revisited the expectations they had listed for the meeting. For the most part, attendees said, the meeting was a success and expectations had been met. They did note, however, that more discussion is still needed on: (1) efforts to leverage funds and technology, (2) how the Alliance’s work will benefit industry, and (3) schedules and deadlines for deliverables.

ACTION ITEMS

The following action items were identified during the meeting:

• Fletcher and Lyverse agreed to talk to their colleagues at Conoco and Chevron about signing the MOU as it is currently written.
  
  
• Kaback agreed to collect and collate original copies of the MOU signatory pages, distribute copies of the signed MOU to participating entities, and forward the originals to TIO.
  
  
• Meeting attendees agreed to send Perroni links that should be added to the Alliance’s Web site.
  
  
• Perroni agreed to send user identifications and passwords to Alliance members. This will allow them to access the password-protected portion of their Web site.
  
  
• Perroni agreed to distribute an e-mail listing core members, associate members, and “other interested parties.” Alliance members agreed to review the list and offer feedback.
  
  
• The Casper Refinery Working Group will develop a scope of work and distribute it to core members for review and comment. In addition, the workgroup will start developing a CRADA.
  
  
• Breeden agreed to contact a Conoco representative to determine whether a particular site in Billings, Montana, might be a good candidate to investigate under the Alliance.
  
  
• Attendees agreed that a workgroup should be formed to start developing a decision-making framework. Liguori, Kremesec, Woodward, and Lyverse volunteered to spearhead the effort. Lyverse will identify other industry representatives who might be interested in participating. Also, Tavelli and Breeden will identify state regulators who are willing to become workgroup members.
  
  
• Yager agreed to distribute a list of DOD sites that have received TIs.
  
  
• The Technical Information Workgroup agreed to review information on cleanup projects that have already been completed in the United States and Europe. Breeden, Yager, Woodward, and Kaback agreed to participate in the effort. Breeden agreed to identify state regulators who are willing to participate.
  
  
• Breeden agreed to research mechanisms for establishing a fund that Alliance members can contribute money to.
  
  
• Breeden and Lyverse agreed to create a strawman that summarizes the Alliance’s goals and gives some overarching “marching orders” to the Alliance’s workgroups. Once the strawman is completed, it will be e-mailed to Alliance members for comment.
  
  
• ERG will start planning the next NAPL Cleanup Alliance meeting.
  
  
• Yager will follow up with a group from Europe to determine whether they are still interested in the Alliance’s activities.
  
  
• Yager will distribute information about a workshop on “mothball” sites.
  
  

Attachment A: Attendee List
Remediation Technologies Development Forum
NAPL Cleanup Alliance     

Quality Suites
San Luis Obispo, California
February 28, 2001