SUMMARY OF THE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPMENT FORUM
REFINERY PARTNERSHIP
CONFERENCE CALL

March 9, 2000

On March 9, 2000, the following members of the Remediation Technologies Development Forum's (RTDF's) Refinery Partnership met in a conference call:

Wayne Barnum, Defense Energy Support Center
Kathy Greene, NFESC
Randy Jewett, Texaco Group
Ravi Kolhatkar, BP Amoco
Terry Lauck, Conoco, Inc.
Mark Lyverse, Chevron Research and Technology Co.
Randy Parker, EPA SITE Program
Henry Richter, TriHydro Corporation
Paul Rogers, Defense Energy Support Center
Steve Schmelling, EPA ORD
Ali Tavelli, Wyoming DEQ
Dan Welsh, Defense Logistics Agency
Kathy Yager, EPA TIO
David Zabcik, Equiva Services, LLC

Also present was Alina Martin of Science Applications International Corporation.

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS CALL

In the first conference call, the group discussed the idea of a new partnership between EPA, the oil industry and several other federal agencies. One reason EPA is pursuing this partnership is to tackle NAPL management on the large scale and to address what technologies are available for aggressive NAPL removal. EPA is interested in the cost and performance of these technologies and how more information can be dispersed. Also, EPA would like to address the question of how to evaluate the costs and benefits of these innovative technologies over traditional methods, such as pump and treat.

The partnership will give the group the opportunity to leverage resources and to take advantage of collaborative efforts to answer these questions.

The four EPA offices that would be involved in this effort would be the Technology Innovation Office, EPA Region 8, the SITE Program, and the Office of Research and Development.

Potential topics for the group were discussed:

• Partial source removal and how to quantify the benefits of partial source removal. The group discussed possibly having a workshop on Carl Enfield's work on quantifying the benefits.
• Technology evaluation on the large scale.
• Information sharing and possibly developing guidance manuals for technologies.

INDUSTRY/DOD INTRODUCTIONS

Defense Energy Support Center - Paul Rogers

DESC is part of the Defense Logistics Agency. It buys, stores, and distributes all of the petroleum products for military services around the world, making it the single largest buyer of petroleum products in the world. It operates several bulk storage fuel terminals throughout the US and Korea. It funds compliance and cleanup at all of the military bulk storage facilities at military bases throughout the world (about 400 sites).

DESC has not been too involved in innovative technologies, but has looked at some of the following: steam injection systems, barrier walls, slurry trenches, and phytoremediation. Most of the focus has been placed on prevention rather than cleanup, however DESC is very interested in participating in this group.

Equiva Services - David Zabcik

Equiva is a service entity between Equilon and Motiva. It focuses on refineries, terminals, pipelines, and retail locations. It has a wide range of systems installed for remedial operations. Depending on location, it has a full range of focuses, including the following: perimeter control systems, source control, and remediation of broad areas. Equiva has used a variety of technologies ranging from phytoremediation to pump and treat. One interest of Equiva is to look at appropriate endpoints.

Lyondell Chemical - Dick Sloan

Lyondell used to be the petrochemical division of Arco. It spun off a couple of years ago. Lyondell has two broad areas that it is currently involved in:

• responding to spills and leaks at petrochemical plants, terminals, pipelines, etc.
• the impacts of historical disposal

Lyondell has approximately 40 remediation projects worldwide, all in different stages of remediation. The company usually uses a sequenced approach, involving the following steps:

• focusing on pre-phased material and getting it under control (controlling the sources)
• assessing what needs to be done to remediate the affected soils and groundwater

Lyondell is currently using a full list of technologies, including the following: in situ bioremediation, soil vapor extraction, thermal desorption, and thermal oxidation.

Lyondell has found that every site is unique and a specific approach is needed for each site. The most timely cost-effective approach is to do a good job of defining the physical conditions and the chemical conditions up front. The company usually creates the designs, plans, and strategic approaches in-house and uses contractors to implement the approaches.

Lyondell is extremely active in terms of sites and is very interested in the partnership approach and in sharing information.

Conoco Inc. - Terry Lauck

Greg Fletcher is the Remediation Program Manager for the Conoco Denver refinery. Conoco has done a lot of research with a number of universities and used to do a lot of work through Dupont. The central remediation group is in the Houston office.

The Denver refinery is about 280 acres. Refining activities date back to the 1930s. It was the nation's first continuous processing refinery back in 1931. The Conoco refinery processes about 60,000 barrels per day.

The current remediation project is a joint effort with the Colorado Refining Company. Any effort that Conoco would get involved with would also involve working with the Colorado Refining Company.

The main concern of the site is NAPLs seeping into the creek. The long-term plan is product recovery using dual-phase recovery with some water flooding to reduce the mobility of the pre-phase hydrocarbons to the maximum extent practicable.

Conoco is going to have some boundary control using physical and/or hydraulic barriers. The main focus right now is physical containment along the creek.

OPEN DISCUSSION

• Dick Sloan mentioned that if the group is going to look at the benefits of partial source removal, maybe it should consider also looking at the benefits of various source control options.
• Kathy Yager discussed how EPA is involved in a couple of projects looking at aggressive source removal technologies, using surfactant flushing, thermal processes and chemical oxidation. EPA is looking at how those technologies affect the natural microorganisms in the subsurface.
• Dick Sloan discussed the question of when it is appropriate to switch technologies. What is the cost effective point at which you switch from source control to in situ remediation? Lyondell Chemical has a number of case studies it would be happy to share with the group. Mr. Sloan emphasized that the overall management of the process is more critical than the technology used.
• Dan Welsh mentioned that he is interested in seeing cost-performance data on various types of cleanup technologies from industry. Also, information on cleanup experiences such as progress and problems.
• Kathy Yager stated that TIO could help out if the group would like to take an initial survey of work that is being done at various sites. The information would give the group a baseline of where it is starting from.
• One attendee mentioned that the concepts in the survey would need to be clearly defined. Clear definitions are needed for source control and source removal. In addition, various organizations handle their accounting differently when trying to calculate the cost of technologies. A standardized approach might be needed.
• Mark Lyverse mentioned that the group needs a more specific definition of mobile versus residual phase hydrocarbons.
• The group shortly discussed the issue of MTBE remediation. However, the group voted not to tackle the MTBE problem.
• The group discussed whether anyone else should be added to the distribution list. It was determined that Harold Vinegar from Shell and Carl Enfield should be added to the group.
• Kathy Yager mentioned that she sent a notice to NICOLE, this group's European counterpart, to see if there is any international interest.

PARTNERSHIP KICKOFF MEETING

The partnership kickoff meeting will most likely take place in May 2000. SAIC will send out a calendar and participants can check off the dates on which they are not available. By scheduling the meeting in the near future, the group hopes to keep momentum and interest in the project.

The meeting will be 1 ½ - 2 days long. The first day will focus on more brainstorming and discussing the scope and purpose of the group. There will probably be several presentations. On Day 2, the group may wish to make a site visit to an oil refinery.

One potential location for the site visit is at the Ashland Refinery in St. Paul, Minnesota. It is an operating refinery that is applying the microwave technology for NAPL removal. The group discussed how the site might not have geology characteristics that are relevant to most organizations. In addition, the group discussed the conflict between focusing on operating or closed refineries.

One attendee suggested sending out a list of possible locations with descriptions of the technologies used. Kathy Yager will come up with a list of potential sites and members of the group will be asked for input on their top choices. Please send any location suggestions to Kathy Yager.

Another possible site may be Cape Canaveral where they are looking at two thermal technologies and oxidation. However, this site is very small-scale.

Ali Tavelli suggested going to a site where there is an existing partnership between EPA and industry. It would provide a concrete example to the group on how a partnership works.

At the meeting, the group would like to give organizations the opportunity to highlight strategies and primary issues they face. Technical as well as financial issues should be addressed. It was suggested that two or three presentations be made. Volunteers interested in presenting should contact Kathy Yager.

Kathy Yager posed the question of whether the group should spend time discussing a legal agreement. The group felt that since this meeting is more of a scoping effort, it does not seem necessary at this time.

Randy Breeden and Kathy Yager will put together a preliminary agenda for the meeting and will send it out to the group for comment.

Kathy Yager emphasized that the partnership meeting is open and that anyone may attend.

ACTION ITEMS

• SAIC will send out a calendar and participants can check off the dates on which they are not available for the partnership kickoff meeting.
• Kathy Yager will come up with a list of potential sites and descriptions of the technologies used. Members of the group will be asked for input on their top choices.
• Group members should send any location suggestions for the site visit to Kathy Yager.
• Volunteers interested in presenting management strategies at the partnership kickoff meeting should contact Kathy Yager.
• Randy Breeden and Kathy Yager will put together a preliminary agenda for the meeting and will send it out to the group for comment.