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

11:00 a.m.­Noon
June 17, 1997

On June 17, 1997, members of the Permeable Reactive Barriers Action Team Steering Committee of the Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF) met in a one-hour conference call. The following members were present:

Bob Puls (Co-chair)
Dale Schultz (Co-chair)
Scott Warner
Tim Sivavec
Bob Gillham
Liyuan Liang
Stan Morrison
Rich Steimle

Also present were Diane Dopkin of Environmental Management Support, Inc. (EMS), and Ben Carlisle of Eastern Research Group, Inc.

UPDATE ON ITRC DOCUMENT

Bob Puls said that he and Dale Schultz attended the annual meeting of the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation (ITRC) Work Group, held in Crystal City, Virginia, several weeks ago. The ITRC is assembling a document on regulatory considerations for permeable reactive barriers (PRBs). Puls has been participating in weekly conference calls with the ITRC, helping the group address the comments it has received on the first draft of the document. Puls said that he has convinced the ITRC to slow down the production process in order to incorporate another round of comments into the document. A new schedule has been established:

• After two more conference calls in the coming weeks, meant to finalize the original round of comments, the ITRC will mail out a revised version of the PRB document on July 1.

• Comments on the revised document are due to the ITRC by July 16.

• In late July, the ITRC will hold two more conference calls to discuss the second round of comments. The group will then complete and mail out a final draft by the end of the month.

Puls said that he provided the ITRC's contractor with the e-mail addresses of all members of the Steering Committee so that they can receive and comment on the July 1 draft. Puls recommended that the Steering Committee coordinate its comments on the draft; he asked that all members e-mail their comments to him several days before the July 16 deadline, leaving him time to synthesize the comments into a single RTDF response.

According to Puls, the ITRC is hoping that the RTDF will "buy off" on the PRB document to some degree. The RTDF is currently producing its own document on PRB technology, and Puls said it is important that the two documents be consistent. A first draft of the RTDF document is scheduled for the end of July, and Puls hopes that all members of the Steering Committee will provide comments on the draft.

Scott Warner asked where the "drive" for the ITRC document originates. Puls said that, up until now, the Department of Energy (DOE) has provided all funding for the group. The stated motivation for the group, Puls said, is to coordinate with state regulators to overcome hurdles preventing implementation of innovative technologies.

Warner suggested that, even after the ITRC document is finalized and mailed out to regulators, RTDF members continue to discuss the document with state agencies and regulators. Warner stated that "a lot of learning will have to be done" concerning the document and the issues contained within it, and he suggested that the Permeable Reactive Barriers Action Team hold a semi-annual meeting to discuss the document.

AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER MEETING

The next Permeable Reactive Barriers Action Team meeting is scheduled for September 18 to 19, in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Puls stated that he and Schultz have received little input about the meeting's agenda. The Steering Committee went on to discuss a number of topics for potential presentations:

• Schultz said he had spoken with Alan Rabideau recently. Rabideau has done some geochemical modeling, Schultz said, and though his work is in an early stage, it gives a good indication of what the major issues are. Schultz asked Rabideau to keep September 18 and 19 open for a possible presentation at the Action Team meeting, and Rabideau agreed.

• Tim Sivavec offered to update the Action Team on DNAPL treatment using zero-valent iron, with a focus on product determination.

• Puls suggested that the meeting could include at least one presentation about the ongoing work at the U.S. Coast Guard Support Center in Elizabeth City, New Jersey. Puls hasn't figured out who would give the presentation(s) yet.

• Stan Morrison talked about a possible presentation concerning the pilot study in Cape Canaveral, Florida. Morrison or Schultz will call Major Marchand.

• Liyuan Liang offered to speak about the Y-12 plant project at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Liang also stated that Jim Paulsen would like to give a presentation about site work and coordination of partners at Rocky Flats Arsenal. Liang will send Paulsen's address and phone number to Puls.

• Rich Steimle suggested asking members of the USGS to speak about a project in which they're involved. The USGS will be electronically monitoring the iron installed by vertical fracturing at the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MRR) to determine the integrity of the walls. Several Steering Committee members pointed out that the USGS may not have data prepared by September. The Committee then decided that it would try to leave room on the agenda for a USGS presentation, should substantive data be ready.

• Bob Gillham agreed to present an overview of analytical results of two cores collected from permeable barriers that have been in the ground for 2 years.

• Schultz suggested a presentation about a high-pressure jetting project that Rich Landis oversaw.

• Bob Gillham suggested that someone contact John Vogen to identify a speaker for a presentation about Moffett Federal Airfield.

Warner then suggested structuring the Virginia meeting around three or four topic areas, including site updates, presentations about regulatory issues, and presentations about the ITRC's PRB document. Liang suggested that hydraulic performance might be one good theme; Puls said that coring might be another.

For the second day of the Virginia meeting, the Action Team has planned a field trip to the U.S. Coast Guard Support Center study site in Elizabeth City. Puls said that he has spoken to Coast Guard personnel, and that they are excited about the upcoming visit. Puls said that there should be sampling going on during the visit.

It was agreed that members of the Steering Committee would gather in Virginia for a meeting on the evening of Wednesday, September 17--the night before the start of the Action Team meeting. Puls asked that EMS send out a general announcement of the Virginia meeting to the approximately 160 people on the Action Team mailing list. The announcement should go out within the next couple of weeks, with an agenda to follow.

UPDATE ON THE ATLANTA MEETING

Steimle updated the Steering Committee about his July 3 trip to Atlanta to discuss PRB technology. Steimle said that DOE and the Department of Defense (DOD) have money that they'd like to devote to a side-by-side comparison of in situ ground-water technologies--particularly abiotic technologies, such as surfactants and hot air/steam. Steimle and RTDF Co-chair Walter Kovalick made a presentation in Atlanta to a group of DOE and DOD personnel on the topic of permeable walls. Steimle said that he pitched to the group the opinion previously expressed by members of the Steering Committee--that a side-by-side comparison may not be the best way to improve technologies. A more important question for study, Steimle suggested, is, What happens to permeable walls after they've been in the ground for two or more years? Is the iron becoming coated? However, Steimle said, the DOD--and the Air Force, in particular--replied that a side-by-side comparison between two or three technologies is precisely the directive they've received, though the Air Force did add that it would consider other options. A total of $4 million may be available, Steimle said, and he's still waiting for a decision from DOE and DOD.

Liang stated her understanding that, once the side-by-side comparison is completed, DOD and DOE actually intend to use one of the ground-water technologies at a remediation site. Steimle agreed, saying that DOD seems already to have chosen a site--an Air Force base in Cape Canaveral, Florida. Steimle said that the Air Force wants a technology that will remove DNAPLs, and that it prefers the idea of steam injection. Steimle summarized the Atlanta meeting by saying that he had not encountered the sort of free-flowing conversation he had expected; instead, the Air Force seemed already to have settled upon a particular site and a particular technology.

The Steering Committee concluded this section of the conference call by discussing a few of the problems associated with side-by-side comparisons, including the difficulties involved with choosing a "winner," and the difficulties of finding vendors willing to have their technologies compared.

UPDATE ON WEB PAGE

Diane Dopkin of EMS said that a memorandum has been sent to all RTDF co-chairs, updating the group about changes EMS is making to the RTDF Web site. Dopkin said that EMS has temporarily relocated the RTDF site to the CLU-IN Web site; for now, users who log on to WWW.RTDF.ORG will have to hit a link to enter the CLU-IN site.

Dopkin said that conference call minutes will be posted at the RTDF site. She encouraged members of the Permeable Reactive Barriers Action Team to post other materials as they are generated. At the moment, the PRB site contains only the PRB Fact Sheet. To post materials at the RTDF site, call Julie Levinson of EMS at 301-589-5318.

OPPORTUNITIES TO FURTHER TECHNOLOGY

Members of the Steering Committee discussed the need for removing permeable walls from the ground after remedial goals have been met. Liang said that Oak Ridge has been struggling with this question with regards to the Y-12 plant. At this point, she said, no one knows what state the materials will be in years from now. Puls said that no one has retrieved the chromium reactive barrier from the North Carolina project. Instead, the argument was made that the chromium would be converted to its immobile and nontoxic chromium III form, and that it would not be reoxidized.

Sivavec suggested a topic for future discussion within the Steering Committee: the interaction between native microorganisms and permeable barriers. Sivavec said that it would be useful to have site data from which researchers could correlate performance not only with the geochemical features of a given site, but also with microbiological features. He suggested that the RTDF (or any individual researchers interested in this topic) may want to look into alternative funding agencies, as opposed to traditional PRB funding agencies.

Schultz closed the conference call with the announcement that he is stepping down as co-chair of the Permeable Reactive Barriers Action Team. Schultz said that he has enjoyed working with the Team and with the members of the Steering Committee, but that his assignment at DuPont has changed. In the future, his work will concentrate less on environmental remeditaion, he said, and more on traditional chemical engineering. Schultz said that the position of co-chair is now open, and he suggested that Puls would appreciate input on the criteria that should be used for recruiting a new co-chair. Puls said that he would welcome nominations and volunteers. Puls, Gillham, and others thanked Schultz for his contributions to the Permeable Reactive Barriers Action Team and wished him well.

Puls announced that the next Steering Committee conference call will take place July 15, from 11 a.m. to noon.