SUMMARY OF THE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPMENT FORUM
PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIERS ACTION TEAM
STEERING COMMITTEE CONFERENCE CALL

2:00 p.m.-3:30 p.m.
February 4, 1999

On Thursday, February 4, 1999, the following members of the Permeable Reactive Barriers (PRB) Action Team Steering Committee met in a conference call:

Bob Puls (co-chair), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
John Vidumsky (co-chair), DuPont
Dawn Carroll, EPA, Technology Innovation Office (TIO)
Nic Korte, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Bob Gillham, University of Waterloo
Donald Marcus, MacMarcus Resources
Stan Morrison, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Timothy Sivavec, General Electric Corporate Remediation
Matthew Turner, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Scott Warner, Geomatrix Consultants, Inc.
Stephen White, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Also present were Carolyn Perroni of Environmental Management Support, Inc. (EMS), and Christine Hartnett of Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG).

NEXT RTDF MEETING

Bob Puls opened the call by asking whether it is necessary to hold two PRB Action Team meetings per year. Participants agreed it would be better to meet just once. In support of this decision, Bob Gillham noted that PRB technologies are getting significant exposure in several other arenas. Stephen White agreed that fewer meetings are needed, but said that he would like information on new developments more frequently than once a year. Scott Warner recommended holding quarterly update sessions via the Internet. Conference call participants were enthused by this suggestion and envisioned establishing an interactive Web page that could be used to exchange information. Warner and Donald Marcus likened the concept to an electronic poster session or bulletin board. Carolyn Perroni noted that EMS has the capability to set up electronic seminars. Using this approach, she continued, overheads or videos could be posted and Action Team members could discuss the materials via a conference call or electronic responses. Conference call participants agreed to discuss interactive Web pages in further detail during their next conference call.

After deciding that the PRB Action Team should only meet once annually, Puls asked participants for feedback on the date and location for the next meeting. Originally, he noted, the Steering Committee had considered May 1999. Conference call participants agreed that this was much too soon and opted instead for a late-August/early-September or early-November time frame. Puls noted that several meeting locations were recommended during the last Steering Committee meeting. The locations were chosen, he explained, because field trip opportunities are associated with them. Conference call participants debated the importance of holding field trips. Gillham questioned the wisdom of picking a meeting location based on a field trip opportunity, saying that the trips usually take less than an hour. A couple of participants admitted that they do not benefit greatly by attending the field trips. Timothy Sivavec pointed out, however, that polls indicate that Action Team members find the trips highly beneficial. Building on this point, White and Marcus noted that site visits help people get a feeling of scale, serve as social events, allow for networking, and strengthen messages about lessons learned. Given these points, the conference call participants agreed that field trips should continue.

Conference call participants discussed holding their 1999 meeting at:

• The Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR). White said that he recently spoke to an MMR representative and learned that MMR is receptive to hosting a field trip. At this point, White noted, there is not much to view at the site. In the near future, however, additional work is scheduled under the efforts of the University of Waterloo, the United States Geological Survey (USGS), and Golder Sierra. If the meeting is held near MMR, White noted, it would be best to schedule it for the week following Labor Day. White said that hotel rates drop after Labor Day because it marks the end of the tourist season in Cape Cod, Massachusetts. If the meeting were held much later, he warned, traveling could be difficult in the northern climate. White noted that several hotels in Falmouth, Massachusetts, are located near MMR. He said Falmouth is about 1½ hours' driving distance from the nearest airports (i.e., Logan Airport in Boston, Massachusetts, and T.F. Green in Warwick, Rhode Island). In the interest of reducing ground transport charges, Warner recommended holding the PRB Action Team meeting in the suburbs of Boston and then asking people who are interested in an MMR field trip to make their own travel arrangements. White agreed to continue to research opportunities for a MMR field trip.
• A Corps of Engineers Site in Kansas City. White said he recently spoke to a site representative about holding a meeting at a Corps of Engineers site in Kansas City. White said that he asked about May 1999 meeting dates. White learned that construction activities would not be far enough advanced to warrant a field trip by that time. Now that the meeting date has been postponed, White agreed to follow up with the site representative again.
• Cape Canaveral. Puls said that he recently talked to Ed Marchand about holding a PRB Action Team meeting near Cape Canaveral. According to Puls, Marchand did not express much enthusiasm and warned that there is not much to see at Cape Canaveral. Regardless, Puls said that this site might still serve as a good meeting location. He noted that early November would probably be the best time to visit the site.

Puls asked participants what topics should be focused on during the 1999 PRB Action Team meeting. One participant noted that "Barriers to Barriers" had been recommended during the last Steering Committee meeting. Presentations following this theme, he said, would address some of the regulatory and technical barriers that prevent widespread use of PRBs. Conference call participants voiced interest in this topic, but said that they would be interested in learning about other topics as well.. This could be accomplished, conference call participants noted, by holding the PRB meeting in conjunction with:

• A Bioremediation Consortium meeting. Warner expressed strong interest in holding a meeting in conjunction with the Bioremediation Consortium. One conference call participant cautioned that the Consortium's meeting is planned for the late spring or early summer, earlier than the PRB Steering Committee plans to meet. John Vidumsky agreed to discuss options with Dave Ellis, one of the Consortium's co-chairs.
• An Interstate Technology Regulatory Cooperation (ITRC) meeting. Warner expressed interest in holding a meeting in conjunction with the ITRC. Matthew Turner said he did not know what activities the ITRC was planning for fall 1999.
• A National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) meeting. Puls said that NRMRL plans to hold a large conference in September 1999. He said the conference will focus on abiotic in situ ground-water remediation technologies and will likely be held in Dallas, Texas.

PRB TRAINING

Warner provided an update on the PRB training program. He said the first official training session will be conducted in June 1999 in Boston, Massachusetts. Prior to that, dry runs will be held in New Jersey (March 30-31, 1999) and Colorado (April 1999). Warner said that training materials will be available for the dry runs, but that they will be modified after he receives feedback and comments. Gillham asked who would be attending the dry runs. In New Jersey, Warner said, most of the trainees will be state regulators. In Colorado, however, the bulk will be federal regulators. Although the training sessions are targeted to regulatory audiences, Warner noted, slots will be kept open for consultants and site owners. Turner said that he would contact local nonregulators and ask them to attend the dry runs.

Warner noted that the first draft of the training materials has been generated. He said the content expands on topics that were summarized in an outline. (This outline was previously reviewed by Steering Committee members.) Warner said that five or six people generated the first draft. Thus far, the materials have not received outside review. In the near future, however, a second draft will be ready for review by (1) Steering Committee members, (2) ITRC members, and (3) other selected people (e..g., EPA forum members). By February 8, 1999, Warner said, he will send Perroni a list of changes that need to be made before the second draft is released. Perroni and Warner agreed that the second draft can be ready for review by February 16, 1999. Perroni agreed to contact reviewers if the draft is ready sooner.

Warner and Perroni agreed to post the second draft on the Internet so that reviewers can access the document electronically. Perroni and Warner decided that the draft will not be posted on the public portion of the PRB's Web page. Instead, EMS will establish a separate Web page for the draft. Once it is posted, potential reviewers will receive an e-mail noting (1) the purpose of the PRB training, (2) the Internet address for the second draft, (3) how to access the file, and (4) the time frame for review.

Turner noted that time is running out before the New Jersey training session, the first dry run. He questioned whether comments on the second draft can be incorporated in time. He said that TIO will need all handouts before the end of February 1999 in order to print materials for the New Jersey session. Warner asked whether TIO could turn the materials around in time if he submitted everything by March 8, 1999. Dawn Carroll said this would not be possible, but noted that this date might be acceptable if EMS took charge of printing the handouts. Perroni said March 8 would be an acceptable deadline and agreed to talk to Carroll about EMS' involvement offline.

Warner recognized that it might not be possible to incorporate all the comments before the New Jersey training session. Reviewers will be told that comments received within 1 week of Internet posting might be incorporated before the New Jersey training session. Comments that are received after that, Warner noted, may have to be incorporated into later drafts.

PRB WEB PAGE UPDATE

Perroni summarized EMS' efforts to update the PRB Web page. In December 1998, EMS sent a request for additional site profile information. Perroni said that she received responses from fewer than a dozen people. She used the responses to make some changes to the profiles. In addition, she restructured some information so that the lessons learned at each site are highlighted.

Perroni said that EMS plans to establish a detailed bibliography on the Web page. The bibliography is in its initial stages and Perroni is awaiting comments from Carroll. Perroni said that Internet users will be able to use the bibliography to search for information by contaminants or construction types. She said that completing the effort will take a substantial amount of time. She said information will be posted in increments.

Puls asked whether a mechanism is in place for Internet users to add their names to the RTDF mailing list. Perroni said names can be added under the "Members" button. Upon Puls' request, she agreed to add a crawler to the PRB Web page that offers a more explicit explanation of how to sign onto the mailing list.

LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE

Puls noted that he, Nic Korte, and Charles Reeter have been assigned as the principal investigators (PIs) for a long-term performance evaluation. He said that each PI is heading the investigation at a different set of sites. Puls said that he is leading efforts at EPA sites. So far, he noted, long-term performance evaluations are underway at the Elizabeth City site. Puls said that he would like to conduct evaluations at the Somersworth Landfill and the Denver Federal Center, but that he has encountered some reluctance at the former and has not heard back from site representatives at the latter.. Korte said that he is leading efforts at Department of Energy sites. He expected to have activities in full swing by March or April 1999, after funding issues are resolved. In the meantime, he said, his team will continue to perform some simple hydraulic comparison measurements. Puls said that Reeter has evaluation e fforts underway at Department of Defense sites.

ACTION ITEMS

• Conference call participants expressed interest in establishing an interactive Web page that could be used to exchange information. They agreed to discuss the matter further during subsequent conference calls.
• White agreed to gather additional information about holding PRB Action Team meetings at MMR and a Corps of Engineers site.
• Vidumsky agreed to talk to David Ellis, a Bioremediation Consortium co-chair, about planning a meeting in conjunction with the PRB Action Team.
• Warner noted that some changes need to be made before the second draft of the PRB training materials can be released. He agreed to forward a list of changes to Perroni by February 8, 1999.
• Perroni and Warner agreed that the second draft of the PRB training materials should not be posted to the public portion of the PRB Web page. Instead, it will be posted to a separate Web page. Perroni agreed to work with Peter Riddle to get the page established.
• Perroni and Warner agreed to have the second draft of the PRB training materials available for review by February 16, 1999. Perroni agreed to notify reviewers if the draft is available sooner.
• Warner said he would have a third draft of the PRB training materials to Perroni by March 8, 1999. (This draft will incorporate comments received on the second draft..)
• Perroni agreed to talk to Carroll about EMS' involvement in printing materials for the first dry run of the PRB training program.
• Perroni said she will continue to update site profiles and create a bibliography on the PRB Web page. She also agreed to add a crawler to the Web page that offers a more explicit explanation of how to sign onto the mailing list.