BP America
Naperville, Illinois
June 26–27, 2001

INTRODUCTION

Vic Kremesec, as the meeting's BP America host, welcomed participants to the meeting facility. Randall Breeden and Mark Lyverse, co-chairs of the Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF) Nonaqueous-Phase Liquid (NAPL) Cleanup Alliance, opened the meeting by welcoming participants and congratulating them on their progress as a fully functioning RTDF group with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), a Web page, active working groups, and good progress on the action items from their last meeting in San Luis Obispo. Breeden initiated introductions around the table and thanked old and new members for attending (see Attachment A for list of attendees). Lyverse said he was optimistic about the prospect of the Alliance putting substance behind its MOU.

DISCUSSION OF THE STRAWMAN

Breeden began by thanking Kremesec for sharing two internal BP America documents, which discuss using weight of evidence to determine justifications for NAPL removal. As a regulator, he commented that the documents provide a very interesting perspective on questions one needs to ask when addressing NAPL management; hence, the documents helped him generate the strawman. Kremesec pointed out that NAPL management steps include identifying the extent of the problem, selecting a remediation technology (a step in which stakeholder aspirations are considered and they are involved as needed), designing the chosen solution, executing the design, and operating the remediation system. The documents include local governments and communities, as well as regulatory entities, as part of the NAPL management process.

Breeden, noting that every company probably has internal guidance documents similar to BP America's, asked that other Alliance members share what they can with others in their subgroups. They should also share information with him—perhaps more extensively—to help him prepare chapters of the Alliance's guidance document.

Before the group began discussing the strawman, Breeden clarified the role the Alliance's document will take in relation to regulations. He stated that there is already a regulatory process for NAPL cleanup. This is not within the Alliance's control, but regulatory agencies are open to changing the way they look at things: they realize that the regulatory process is sometimes cumbersome and prohibitive to achieving appropriate goals. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters, said Breeden, has given the Alliance the flexibility to come up with a methodology that will work better. Kremesec, David Zabcik, and Ali Tavelli all pointed out that some states and regions appear to be dealing with NAPL problems and Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) reform with a similar results-oriented approach, so the proposed NAPL Alliance document would probably be accepted fairly well in this new context. Zabcik said that the Texas Risk Reduction Program, agencies in Louisiana and Arkansas, and EPA Region 6 (through the Region 6 Corrective Action Strategy) are all working on how to get work done faster. Some attendees thought that documentation from some of these groups could help the Alliance avoid "re-inventing the wheel" in developing its own guidelines.

• Explain how to build an objective case to get to some endpoint for NAPL recovery at primarily large-scale sites.
• Try to define what is "reasonable and practical," or provide a framework for defining those terms on a site-by-site basis. Kremesec suggested that reviewing internal documents is a first step toward that determination. Attendees also agreed that they need to work out how that determination fits within the regulator's thinking process.
• Include evaluation of innovative technologies.
• Develop the process as a "road map," involving deliverables along the line.
• Include regulatory drivers—consent decree, amount of free product that can be left on site, etc. The level of cleanup necessary at any given point in time will vary from state to state, and from site to site. (At some sites, for example, the degree or robustness of the boundary system determines cleanup goals to some extent.) This means that the document needs spaces into which site-specific information can be plugged.
• Acknowledge that cleanup necessities are extremely dependent on future land use.
• Develop a framework that helps one identify the point at which one can discontinue active remediation at the site because natural processes will take it the rest of the way. Again, incorporate site use.
• Answer some questions about community relations: How and when do you incorporate community concerns? How and when should the public participate and how do you consider their point of view? At some sites, the community's feelings differ greatly from regulatory agencies' feelings. Kremesec said BP America has been trying to understand the needs of different groups (state government, local government, community groups, etc.) and what needs to happen along the way in relation to them.
• Give guidance on looking at site conditions and regulatory, community, and local concerns and finding a solution to address most of those concerns. In any situation, someone will be upset, but site teams need to be able to have community members look at the framework and see the logic of whatever steps are taken.
• Sometimes, Breeden said, remediation at a site can reach a point at which there are still NAPL sources but regulatory agencies decide that there is no risk. This decision can come from the fact that there are no receptors near the location, there is no risk that material will work its way off site, etc. Under such circumstances, a site would not be cleaned up for 30 or 40 years or more. It must be clear to a broad audience (i.e., whoever reads the results of the decision-making framework process) that this is not a problem.
  

Once the document has been developed, participants agreed, they will be able to better discuss where it fits in the RCRA process and how much weight it should hold.

Having considered the strawman Breeden presented, attendees decided that:

• The Alliance will produce a NAPL management document that outlines a decision-making framework for NAPL cleanup. The document will need to be dynamic, allowing revisions of results and decisions if circumstances at a site change along the way. Attendees advocated a framework into which one could "plug" site-specific information—a framework whose equations could take into account issues like weight of evidence and long-term vision for the site.
• While preparing the document, or afterwards, the Alliance will compare and contrast their decision framework with similar work performed by others to see if there is anything they would like to include or incorporate from other sources. It was pointed out that the Technical Information Working Group is responsible for gathering information on what other regions have done; this information will be incorporated into the Groundwater Central Web site being prepared by the Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC) through Dawn Kaback. Breeden felt that a guidance document from the RTDF might hold more weight than some of the individual agency documents (since the RTDF is a joint regulatory-industry group), and might thus prove useful to NAPL cleanup activities nationwide.
• The document will generally follow an outline provided by Lyverse and will attempt to incorporate answers, or ways to generate answers, to all of the above-listed concerns.
• The framework will be developed as a general guideline, but will be tested on the Texaco Casper site and possibly another site.
• The final deliverable should be a framework that the Alliance has tested to show that it works.
  

TEXACO (CASPER REFINERY) TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP REPORT
Jeff Hostetler, TriHydro Corporation

Jeff Hostetler began by articulating the working group's goal for the Casper Refinery site: use an aggressive remediation system to remove enough NAPL contaminant so that a passive remediation technology can achieve maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) within about 50 years. The site team is currently in the planning stages of investigation and evaluation, and is scheduled to finish by the end of 2001. Technology selection is still open. The site team is considering both conventional and innovative technologies for further investigation of the site. Conventional investigative technologies used up to this point include simple fluid elevations, hydrocarbon sampling and analysis, and ground-water and soil sampling and analysis. However, conventional investigative techniques are relatively expensive if performed at high-resolution spacing and can provide misleading information. Innovative technologies, on the other hand, can improve understanding of complex NAPL distribution and heterogeneity, and understanding of NAPL mobility and potential solutions for recovery. Some of these new technologies are being considered for use at Casper Refinery: Site Characterization and Analysis Penetrometer System (SCAPS), GORE-SORBER®, and subsurface gas (CO2) probes.

Of these, SCAPS seems best for this site. SCAPS is Navy equipment generally reserved for use on government sites, but it has recently been indicated that the technology may be available for use at the Casper Refinery site. Breeden is going to help the site team negotiate use of SCAPS, but given how recently this option has developed, the site team is just beginning to familiarize itself with the technology.

SCAPS provides in-place measurements. This saves time (because samples do not have to be removed from the ground) and increases accuracy (because fluid and sediment disturbance during measurements is minimized). SCAPS provides real-time evaluation of the subsurface at each measurement location, making it possible to implement a dynamic work plan. The investigator can adjust the scope of work as the investigation proceeds. SCAPS contains the following tools for investigating subsurface hydrocarbons, of which the first three will primarily be used: laser-induced fluorescence (LIF), GeoVIS video imaging system for porosity measurement, high-resolution piezocone, membrane interface probe with direct-sampling ion trap mass spectrometer (primarily used for examining ground-water contamination), micro wells (using geoprobe technology), and ribbon NAPL sampler (which is said to identify free-phase NAPL by identifying dye staining on a ribbon).

Hostetler showed the group that the site area has been overlaid with 100-foot grid spacing with approximately 450 nodes. He said that not all of the technologies being considered would require a 100-foot level of spacing—many recommend 200-foot spacing. However, LIF would be used to sample 100% of the grid nodes (up to 450 points), providing continuous profiling between the ground surface and the bottom of the smear zone of bedrock, as direct push equipment permits. The GeoVIS video imaging system would be conducted at 25% of the grid nodes (up to 113 points), and would provide continuous profiling through NAPL-contaminated zone(s) identified by LIF. The measurements would then need to be validated using conventional coring and lab measurements of porosity at a frequency of 20% (up to 21 points). Images from the GeoVIS soil video would provide high-resolution verification of the presence or absence of NAPL and, combined with a cone penetrometer test (CPT), would show changes in lithology. To estimate soil porosity using GeoVIS images, the site team would adjust the brightness and contrast of the picture and change the images to grayscale. They would then define threshold and calculate a digital porosity estimate based on the refined image. Fuel saturation would be estimated by a similar process, in which one can avoid the problems of collecting inaccurate core samples. The group will evaluate whether both porosity and fuel saturation data collected through SCAPS are at least as accurate as data gathered through conventional methods.

As mentioned above, SCAPS contains a high-resolution piezocone ground-water mapping tool. This would be used as necessary to fill spatial gaps in potentiometric data focusing on areas where monitoring wells are sparse. Hostetler explained that a piezocone is an in-place, real-time tool that measures pore water pressure; it consists of a porous element connected to a transducer. The tool also has CPT strain gauges to measure soil classification parameters. Hostetler said that a high-resolution system can yield depth to ground water to about 1 inch and would be very beneficial. High-resolution piezocone mapping produces detailed stratigraphic profiles that identify water-bearing formations. It can identify perched, confined, and unconfined zones with one push. It assesses vertical flow and collects data for the generation of flownets, while providing detailed data for more accurate risk assessments and fate and transport models. To do all this, the piezocone uses a custom 50 psi transducer, which collects pore water dissipation data at discrete depths while custom software uses tool depth and final dissipation pressure to calculate depth to ground water.

Additional fluid property data will be obtained from laboratory analysis of site fluid samples including dynamic viscosity (water and NAPL), fluid density (water and NAPL), NAPL-air surface tension, water-air surface tension, water-NAPL interfacial tension, and NAPL simulated distillation after water and NAPL samples as pairs are sent to a lab for the appropriate tests. For the first four tests, a minimum of six water-NAPL sample sets will be needed (two from each of the three lobes of the plume).

After talking about SCAPS, Hostetler discussed the data that will be needed to validate the functionality and performance of passive remediation when it is implemented. Respirometry testing, time series plots of constituent concentrations, GORE-SORBERS®, and CO2 probes, in addition to selective investigation for contaminant half-lives and attenuation rates (to follow the SCAPS investigation), will be needed.

Finally, Hostetler outlined the Casper working group's investigative work products: improved maps showing the characteristics, distribution, and mobility of subsurface NAPLs; identification of NAPL/sediment pairs; evaluation of the mechanisms that can be exploited to remove NAPLs; criteria to select technologies for pilot testing; and criteria to establish endpoints for active systems. The next step for the site team is going to be selecting technologies. Most likely, the team will choose some conventional technologies and some innovative ones. Conventional technologies such as recovery wells, vacuum systems, or waterflooding (cold or hot) may be effective at recovering the mobile NAPL fraction. More aggressive or innovative technologies such as steam flood/steam stripping, surfactant/co-solvent flood, microwaves, ultrasonic/seismic, and six-phase soil heating may be considered if recovery of residual-phase NAPL is required.

Hostetler reiterated that it is always necessary to keep the key "big-picture" questions in mind. First, especially with regard to public expectations, regulatory requirements/limitations, and site-owner business plans/limitations, what is reasonable? Second, taking into account site conditions, contaminant characteristics and distribution, and technology limitations, what is practicable?

Tavelli and Hostetler noted that Wyoming has a non-degradation statute which requires groundwater to be cleaned up below MCLs. Lyverse asked whether, when MCLs are reached, remediation is considered done—otherwise, what endpoint is being used for this site? Tavelli responded that there are aesthetic considerations involved in water quality rules, but once MCLs are reached, the site team can petition for "no further action." The working group will keep the Alliance updated on their progress.

HANDBOOK OF GROUND-WATER PROTECTION AND CLEANUP POLICIES FOR RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION
Guy Tomassoni, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Guy Tomassoni began by stating the purpose of the new Handbook of Ground-Water Protection and Cleanup Policies for RCRA Corrective Action: summarize and clarify key ground-water policies in one guidance document that promotes results-based corrective action. The document emphasizes states' roles as the primary implementers and decision-makers involved in ground-water policy. It has an easy-to-update question-answer format. One of its innovative features is that it contains internal and external hyperlinks throughout, allowing the reader to directly access references and appropriate sections of other policies. The Handbook has already been through the public comment period, which brought out some widely disparate comments from the different interests involved (states, regions, industry, environmental public interest groups). All of these comments contributed to the development of the document in its current form.

Tomassoni began discussion of the substance of the document by outlining the major difference in emphasis between this handbook and former guidance and policy. Now that it advocates a more results-based approach, EPA has decided to expand discussion of the cleanup process for some facilities to include more than just initial short-term goals (i.e., meeting environmental indicators, or EIs) and final cleanup goals. The process will also include intermediate goals when warranted. Tomassoni explained the EIs he had mentioned a moment ago: bringing current human exposures under control and bringing migration of contaminated ground water under control. The intermediate step after accomplishment of EIs would still be consistent with phased approaches and would be used to help focus resources, improve environmental conditions, and enhance performance of cleanups. The intermediate goals could include components of final remedies such as source control, cleanup of off-site plumes, reducing operation and maintenance costs, etc. Setting such intermediate goals would allow remediators to document their progress toward final remediation goals. The new approach also is flexible with regard to tracking progress. Tomassoni said that, on a national level, the process has been distilled to identifying a starting point, setting goals, deciding what information and data are needed, and then getting "from here to there." He said that facilities will not necessarily have to complete a remedial field investigation or corrective measures study if the needed data are being gathered. He recognized that different states have different voluntary mechanisms in place; some work well while others may not, but guidance and goal attainment are fine in whatever form they take, as long as the goals themselves are not ignored. EPA headquarters would very much like a similar transformation in the process on a regional level.

Breeden and Zabcik asked, with regards to final goals, what the basis of "reasonable" and "practicable" should be—future land use? time frame? They said that protection of human health and the environment (HH&E) will obviously always be foremost, but even after cleanup, some things will usually/always be left behind. Tomassoni responded that though it may make cleanup more involved, one must take into consideration future land use and ground-water use requirements. Though one may be able to achieve appropriate cleanup levels given exposure scenarios for a specific land use, it is still necessary to accommodate ground-water regulations. However, there is the potential for lots of flexibility on time frames for cleanup. Tomassoni reaffirmed the approach, used by regional EPA regulators, of initiating corrective actions in a reasonable time frame (for example, 5 years), but said that accomplishment of final goals may take tens, hundreds, or thousands of years. Around 2005 or 2010, EPA will have developed new measures of final goal attainment (e.g., final ecological indicators, final cleanup measures), which may help answer some of those questions. At the same time, Tomassoni pointed out, it is important to distinguish between completed implementation of a final remedy and absolute conclusion of all work at a site forever. The process that should be used to reach final cleanup and take "reasonable" and "practicable" into account involves considering a few questions. First, what is the site's designated use? Second, what are the appropriate cleanup levels? For contaminants that have MCLs, one should indicate appropriate cleanup levels, but for ones that do not, one cannot use that measure. However, if the desired use is not achievable (e.g., if even after MCLs are met, the water will have odor or color problems that will make it unusable), one needs to say that the goal is not currently practicable. Then one should petition to approach the cleanup in a different way by presenting what would be appropriate using an alternative remedial measure.

Tomassoni continued his presentation by pointing out the new document's additional clarifications over previous guidelines. He discussed points of compliance (POCs) as being specific to a given time frame in the cleanup process (i.e., short-term goals may have different POCs from intermediate or final goals). Goals, he said, are linked to factors such as ground-water use and will be consistent with most ground-water management zone approaches. For final cleanups, POCs may exist throughout the plume/unit boundary if goals involve returning ground water to a particular cleanup level; if goals involve long-term containment (based on formal non-use designation), POCs could be at a facility-specific location (e.g., the plume boundary).

Tomassoni reiterated that cleanup time frames are flexible. He said they should be reasonable given site conditions and should be outlined/hypothesized when different remedial measures are considered (though one must realize that there are uncertainties involved). Tomassoni said that the Handbook's section on source control conveys a general expectation that most facilities should control sources as pollution prevention and to help achieve final ground-water cleanup goals. It also conveys flexibility with regard to facility-specific balances between treatment and containment. EPA prefers that treatment be applied to principal-threat waste, though it does recognize that even treatment of principal-threat waste is not always appropriate. Specifically, if using a certain treatment technology would create another hazard with greater risks to HH&E than not treating the waste, if sheer volume is prohibitive, or if treatment is not feasible with current technology, it would not make sense to treat rather than contain. Participants discussed the fact that NAPL is generally considered principal-threat waste. This means that remediators must remove it, reduce its toxicity, and/or reduce its mobility. In fact, Breeden pointed out, CERCLA pushes one to treat principal-threat waste regardless of how treatment will reduce threat to HH&E, but Tomassoni pointed out that if the principal-threat waste is not mobile, it is not as much of a threat. Breeden agreed, but said that the hard part is getting other regulatory agencies to agree with technical determinations of when something is acceptable because the threats are reduced.

Tomassoni reiterated that ground-water use designations are made by states. The Handbook recognizes that some states designate all ground water as drinking water, while other states designate some ground water as having no beneficial use. The Handbook provides a list of factors (originally from the Office of Water) to consider when determining ground-water use. These take into account more than just the current use guideline used for short-term EIs. Tomassoni said that the Handbook also includes a section on institutional controls (adapted from EPA Region 1), stating that there should be an evaluation phase, a design phase, an implementation phase, etc., to institutional controls of sites. Tomassoni briefly discussed monitored natural attenuation (MNA), saying that the Handbook's section on this topic is essentially the same as the most recent directive identifying factors that make MNA an appropriate candidate. These include:

• When MNA can achieve cleanup objectives consistent with ground-water use.
• When degradation is the dominant natural process.
• When the chosen remedy includes source control.
• When plumes are already stable or shrinking.
• When it is to be used in conjunction with active approaches or as a follow-up measure.
  

Tomassoni pointed out that a designation of technical impracticability (TI) can be appropriate if achieving ground-water cleanup levels for a final remedy is not practicable from an "engineering perspective," but that a TI designation must be technically justified. (The mere presence of NAPL does not constitute justification.) He went on to say that there needs to be an alternative remedial strategy in a TI situation, and that POCs would then apply outside the TI zone. Additionally, sites with TI designations should be revisited if cleanup becomes "technically practicable" in the future. Attendees agreed that regulators should not discard final goals for sites about to receive TI designations, even though goals for such sites will not be attained in the foreseeable future.

Tomassoni told participants that the document's section on re-injection of contaminated ground water (that contains hazardous waste) is less conservative than in the past. It now outlines the exemptions of injecting hazardous wastes into or above a drinking-water aquifer. The caveat, he said, is that regardless of the guidance document, many states have prohibitions that would cancel this out.

At the end of Tomassoni's presentation, attendees further discussed the use of MNA when there is still NAPL in a cleanup area. Breeden suggested that it might be enough to reduce NAPL mobility to the point at which the NAPL cannot impact a boundary control system. If this approach were taken, when pumps are turned down and the boundary control system is in place, anything that moves would be in control phase, and modeling could demonstrate that NAPL would flow along the boundary. If this approach were accepted, a system's goal would be to reduce mobile NAPL. John Meyers pointed out that initially reducing product down to a sheen might be more extreme than necessary if one's goal were to show that one had reduced mobility to an acceptable level. In such a situation, one might reach an endpoint and still have a measurable thickness of NAPL in wells. Lyverse stated that if stakeholders become comfortable with the possibility of leaving some NAPL in wells—as long as it is laterally immobile in the soil—then remediators would probably implement more/better performance monitoring, which is lacking right now.

Tomassoni cautioned that with MNA, in which one is not relying on human or hydraulic barriers, monitoring only looks for obvious contaminants as evidence of degradation. He reminded participants that MTBE was recently discovered at highly stable levels despite degradation of other substances—substances that had been monitored, unlike MTBE. Someone mentioned a recent similar situation involving 1,4-dioxene.

Participants thanked Tomassoni for his presentation, saying they hoped he would continue his involvement in the Alliance.

TECHNICAL INFORMATION WORKING GROUP REPORT
Dawn Kaback, Concurrent Technologies Corporation

Kaback began by telling attendees that her company is developing a Web portal for Internet-based ground-water information. The site, called Groundwater Central, has six main features/areas. It is equipped with a "smart" search engine that browses online publications, bibliographies, case studies, data repositories, etc. The engine provides the user with title, subtitle, abstract information, and the option of viewing detailed hit information along with appropriate links following a search. The site also offers a file exchange for uploading and downloading pertinent files. Additionally, a user can sign up to be notified (via e-mail) any time information is uploaded onto the site. There are also discussion forums, an events calendar, and a chat room for live chats on the site. The Web site's first iteration should be online in December 2001.

Since the Alliance already has a NAPL Web site with file exchange and chat room capabilities, through the RTDF, the Technical Information Working Group has decided to mesh the two sites. They plan to make the two sites indistinguishable to the user without duplicating information. Kaback noted that CTC is already working with International DNAPL and will add a tab to the Groundwater Central home page with a direct link to the RTDF's NAPL homepage.

Prompted by Kaback's urging for members to take advantage of the upload/download capabilities of the Web site, attendees decided that there should be areas of the password-protected NAPL Web site for particular working groups. On these, members will be able to post their work-in-progress documents for comments among themselves. Breeden and Perroni, reminding these attendees that the password area is secure but their e-mail is not, gave them user IDs and passwords.

Perroni reminded everyone that she reports quarterly on the NAPL Alliance's progress and will be posting those reports to the main page, allowing a greater audience to keep abreast of the Alliance's activities. Perroni also let attendees know that she generates monthly reports on the statistics of Web site users and usage. Due to participant interest, she will start sending these reports to the entire core group.

Hostetler and Kremesec volunteered to initiate the new file exchange policy by putting documents from this meeting on the Web site, through Perroni, for easier group perusal.

DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK WORKING GROUP REPORT
Mark Lyverse, Chevron Research & Technology Company

The Decision-Making Framework Working Group held discussions on both days of the conference. Summaries of both discussions are included here together.

After the morning's discussion of the strawman, working group members decided to use Lyverse's basic outline as the discussion point for the decision-making framework. The outline follows:

I. NAPL Documentation
   A. Sources, chemistry, plume extent (NAPL and dissolved NAPL), recovery history
   B. Current management scheme; percent on-site/off-site; GW EI status; hydrogeological setting; regulatory setting; community setting/input

II. Expected Facility Land Use
   A. 0–10 years
   B. 10–30 years
   C. > 30 years

III. Existing and/or Potential Receptors
   A. Well field; river/lake; aquifer migration

IV Proposed Endpoints and How They Result in How Risk Will Be Managed
   A. Plume longevity; mobility evaluation; vapor issues; points of compliance; additional data collection (if any)

V. Technologies Considered and Proposed

VI. Visions of Long-Term Site Management
   A. Monitoring

Lyverse began with several brief points. First, he said, all of the current working group members represent industry, noting that a regulator should be recruited to the group. Second, the working group has decided that each piece of the framework should be written by a different member. Third, the framework will not be able to address the final remedies process, as it would be too much to handle. Lyverse also summarized some of the additions the group deemed necessary for turning the basic outline into a working document.

The framework will need an objectives section, RCRA ground-water policies, and a stakeholder analysis section. (The latter will have to include places for some questions: Who are the stakeholders? How do they influence the process? How are they satisfied?) The working group would like to include a more scheduled time frame in which short-term, intermediate, and long-term goals would be determined, including what happens through each of those steps (e.g., monitoring programs, institutional controls, securing financial assurance/insurance). Members decided it would be a good idea to distill the BP America framework provided by Kremesec into a checklist to be included, in addition to reviewing more NAPL management documents from large-scale sites. They also felt that the framework must explain how to define what is reasonable and practical for a site, which will depend on the definition of endpoints and long-term site management. Members all wish the document to be a "living" document, with the ability to evolve as site specifics change.

During the full core group's discussion, some additional goals for the document evolved. Many envisioned the framework as a checklist, something a site team would get together to go through in determining the steps needed to accomplish their goals. Kaback and Kremesec suggested including a fill-in checklist in an appendix to the full document; this would help users write reports. Attendees envision the document as being a major component of a site team's overall strategic plan.

Lyverse discussed the steps one would need to take in order to use the Alliance's NAPL management document. He stated that the document will assume that the user is confronting free and dissolved site plumes that have been delineated. At the point at which one would be consulting the framework, endpoints would not be known. The document would help a reader figure out how to determine endpoints that might depend on various factors, such as NAPL mobility. The framework would, therefore, also list what information one needs to generate a NAPL mobility estimate. (Breeden suggested that it also include a "road map" showing how to collect the necessary information.) The goal is for the framework to include lists of important elements and formats that are required to make decisions. It will help one decide where one wants to go, provide a checklist to help one get there, help one document weight of evidence, and help one document the process by which one has reached final goals.

Alliance attendees envision a company project team using the framework from a company perspective, then bringing in the major (state/federal) regulatory bodies to review their site plan. The site plan would be a useful tool for this initial negotiation, even though it would probably be changed in the course of the review. After involving regulators, the project team could include other groups and people (including community groups) in a process of momentum building. Tomassoni and Breeden said that there are some regulators in EPA Region 1 who are known for their excellent public interaction and from whom the Alliance might be able to receive guidance on the community involvement process. Zabcik said that the idea was to build a network of agreement on how to run a site. By the time the project team gets to the end result, everyone involved should be on board, and the team should have attempted to please the majority of the people by incorporating their wants and needs.

Participants agreed that the title of their framework would be "NAPL Management Plan." Lyverse volunteered to try to annotate the outline from which they will be working. Breeden and Tavelli both volunteered to take a look at the outline as well; Breeden said they all should send copies of their drafts to Tomassoni. Kaback suggested using the password-protected area of the NAPL Web site for posting and working on revisions.

Zabcik reminded attendees that they should not keep trying to re-invent the wheel. He suggested that, as they look at the outline, they keep in mind what else they might have seen or may know related to it. He proposed that the Technical Information group find additional information that could be brought together and fit into what the group wants for this document. States and regions, Zabcik said, may have information on their Web sites that the working group might want to consider.

Breeden asked participants to send new pertinent information to Perroni, who will review it and inform the appropriate people that new information is available. Dick Woodward suggested that everyone note when they last accessed relevant Web sites in their citations. Perroni told the group that if they want to have the document sent out to invited guests of the next meeting, they must have the document ready by the second week of October.

Meeting attendees agreed to develop an annotated outline of the decision-making framework document before the next Alliance conference call. At that time, conference call participants will hash out details and make changes to the outline. That way, everyone's comments can be incorporated early in the process of development.

Attendees agreed that a regulator needs to join the working group. They will e-mail Breeden with the names of regulators who might be interested in participating. Breeden said that the Alliance is interested in including some regulators from states that are already pursuing innovative approaches to NAPL, in addition to any other state or federal regulators people wanted. Participants were reminded that Missouri, California, Texas, and Kansas were represented at their last meeting.

OPEN DISCUSSIONS

New Sites

Kremesec proposed investigating one of three BP America sites under the Alliance's umbrella. One site is in Florida. Though it is not a RCRA site, and therefore does not strictly fit the group's model, it may provide an opportunity to test innovative technologies. Kremesec said that technology selection would be conducted within the next 4 to 6 months at the site. The other two sites are at closed or partially operating refineries—this provides different challenges, as well as the opportunity to try a mixture of conventional and innovative technologies. Participants expressed interest in including whichever site BP America decides to offer. It was also noted that including the RTDF may help BP America in their community interactions by demonstrating that the company is working with other state and federal agencies in addition to the regulators already involved at the chosen site.

Breeden also mentioned another possible new site at which technical issues are being addressed. He said that he would like to make public the Alliance's thinking process regarding how one determines a site's endpoints and how those endpoints influence commercial and residential communities. Breeden thinks it would be interesting to have the Alliance "step outside their technical box" to help the company involved at this site make the public feel comfortable with the final technical approach that is chosen. He pointed out that this would also allow the group to see how their document aligns within the timing of traditional RCRA stages.

Everyone agreed to be open to the public in support of industry projects on which they have worked. The participants realize that the Alliance is not yet in a position to do so (since things are just beginning to get rolling), but within a year, they will be ready. Jewett pointed out that if the NAPL Alliance as a whole does not advocate on behalf of their industry projects, the individual companies will mention the Alliance in their abstracts anyway. When one is trying to demonstrate credibility to a community, he said, sharing this kind of information is really helpful.

Participants also discussed including associate members in technical working groups for site projects if any site teams included community members. Kremesec pointed out that core members are required to sign the Alliance's MOU, but not associate members. Kaback agreed to look into a standard confidentiality agreement to see if it would be appropriate or useful to include associate members in working groups.

New Working Groups

Attendees decided that there was no need to develop new working groups at this time.

New Alliance Members

Breeden said that Unocal may be interested in joining the Alliance, but that he has not received definite information from them. Diamond Shamrock expressed serious interest in participation, but were then bought out. Breeden has not heard from them since.

At Tavelli's request, Breeden passed out a Unocal document, "Finding Solutions for the Cleanup of the Largest Land-based Oil Spill in the United States: Utilizing a Neutral, Expert, Fact-Finding Panel in the Guadalupe Oil Field Mediation (2001)," which publicized Unocal's cleanup evaluation process. Members thought the paper might be useful or of interest.

Breeden expressed the Alliance's stand on new members: they are open to considering any company that would be interested in beneficial information-sharing and would have sites available for technology-sharing. The group will consider new members who actively seek them out, but they are not interested in soliciting additional participants.

Funding/Pooling Resources

Breeden stated that EPA has committed to supporting the Alliance financially for a period of time. The Technology Innovation Office (TIO) will back the next conference, which will make it possible to bring in more regulators. After the next meeting, it will be necessary to come up with other funding sources for the group if they wish to bring in outside participants. Breeden said that he researched the possibility of pooling money, but found that no other RTDF Action Teams have pools of federal and industry resources. He also checked with an ethics attorney in Washington D.C., who said it was possible but extremely cumbersome to compile a government-industry pool of money.

Participants suggested other possible mechanisms for pooling money, since Breeden's preliminary research had not yielded an obvious solution:

• Work with the Petroleum Environmental Research Forum (PERF). PERF facilitates resource-pooling from different companies that want to try new technology on a project-by-project basis. If someone proposes a technology to which the group would like to devote resources, they could gather the money through PERF.
• Develop a nonprofit foundation into which government and industry monies could be put for Alliance use. CTC could start a foundation which would function as a separate entity into which money would be placed and managed by an independent fund manager. This option has another benefit: contributed money would be tax deductible. Kaback will send out an e-mail regarding costs associated with setting up a nonprofit fund.
• Establish a remediation consortium in which industry would have a buy-in up front and a contract manager who manages the funds, but in which the money is separate from TIO's contributions. Project money would go through Cooperative Research and Development Agreements, which is where the money would get mixed.
• Assign separate tasks within a project to industry and government so that their monetary funds and in-house sources would be used independently.

Attendees wished to articulate their ideas on where the pooled money should be spent before committing to raising funds. Reasons for having a joint resource pool included:

• Being able to invite and fund additional state regulators, speakers, and technical help as desired.
• Having the ability to participate in cost-sharing when bringing in a technology. Participants agreed that this is a possibility for the future, but will probably not be possible soon.
  Helping fund the use of SCAPS site remediation at the Casper Refinery site, if necessary.
• Being able to fund CTC's future work on developing the annotated outline decision framework into a deliverable document (for which Kaback will write a short statement of work after the outline is compiled), since EPA is running out of funds under their contract with CTC.
• Availability of general operating funds.
  

Perroni suggested that the NAPL Alliance would probably want to outline provisions for using the money: other RTDF Action Teams try to make sure the money they spend goes toward something that truly propels them forward. Attendees decided that Kaback should research the costs and time frame associated with setting up a nonprofit foundation for pooled resources. Jewett suggested that rather than pursuing the extremes of attempting to raise large amounts of money initially or not raising any money until there is a large project on which participants want to collaborate, the Alliance should begin with a small pool of money and a small project. This would allow time to set up the money pool in whatever form it takes and would also give participants a chance to present the idea to their companies—establishing the avenues that will be necessary to gather funds for larger projects later. As part of that preparation, Jewett requested, Breeden should inform members of the amount of money the EPA has spent toward the formation and administration of the Alliance up to this point. Kaback pointed out that eventually everyone will want an equivalent cost to be able to show their companies and the public.

Next Meeting

Attendees decided the next meeting should be held Wednesday and Thursday, November 7th and 8th, 2001, in Denver, Colorado. The meeting will be held in EPA's conference center or at the new Conoco/Pepsi center. Dan Irvin will look into the possibility of using the Conoco/Pepsi meeting area. Eastern Research Group, Inc., will secure hotel rooms (the Marriot Embassy Suites next to EPA are preferred).

• Possible agenda items for the next meeting include:
  
• Presentation and discussion of an annotated outline.
• Presentation of fieldwork results from the Casper site, if available at that point.
• Presentation of results from Conoco's water flood, if available.
• A tour of the brownfield site with which Breeden is involved.
• If Unocal is on board by then, the Alliance would like to get information from their Guadalupe innovative technology. Breeden will attempt to find out Unocal's time frame.
• Kremesec will try to have one of the three proposed BP America sites picked for inclusion in the Alliance. He believes that the Florida site project may have made some progress by then and the other site teams may have made a decision by that point.
  

Standard Operating Procedures

Participants agreed to accept the standard operating procedures Perroni sent out in the conference packet.

CLOSING

Participants thanked BP America for hosting the meetings and Guy Tomassoni for attending and presenting (and Breeden for inviting him).

ACTION ITEMS

The following action items were identified during the meeting:

• Hostetler agreed to send Perroni the Casper Refinery Working Group's presentation to be posted in the password-protected area of the NAPL Alliance's Web site. The core team will thus be able to use and comment on it.
• Perroni will produce a quarterly report of the Alliance's accomplishments and activities, which will go on the public area of the Alliance's Web site.
• Perroni and Kaback will work on developing appropriate links between the Alliance's Web site and CTC's Groundwater Central.
• Perroni will set up areas for individual working groups in the password-protected area of the Alliance's Web site.
• Perroni will send NAPL Web site usage statistics to all core team members each month.
• Lyverse will prepare the first draft of the Alliance's NAPL Management Plan. The core team will edit and expand the draft, then (by the second week in October) send it out as an external review draft.
• ERG will investigate the availability of hotel accommodations for the Alliance's next meeting on November 7th and 8th in Denver, Colorado, then collect and post meeting plans and notify participants. Kaback offered to help with this.
• Attendees agreed to send Breeden suggestions for regulators they would like to invite to the next meeting.
• Breeden will send information regarding the amount of resources EPA has committed to the Alliance thus far. This includes supporting Ali Tavelli's travel to all the meetings and Casper site–related support.
• Breeden and Kaback agreed to develop a report of projected resource needs for the Alliance.
• Kaback will investigate and inform core members about the costs associated with setting up a NAPL foundation through CTC.
• Breeden agreed to contact Unocal and Diamond Shamrock again to determine their interest in participating in the Alliance.
• Kremesec will discuss participation in the Alliance with site teams from his three proposed sites.
  

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

BP America, Inc.
Naperville, Illinois
June 26–27, 2001