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

Hilton Melbourne Airport
Melbourne, Florida
February 16, 2000

On Wednesday, February 16, 2000, the Remediation Technologies Development Forum's (RTDF's) Permeable Reactive Barriers (PRB) Action Team met at the Hilton Melbourne Airport in Melbourne, Florida. During the meeting's lunch break, the following members of the Action Team's Steering Committee met:

John Vidumsky, DuPont
Robert Gillham, University of Waterloo
Richard Landis, DuPont
Donald Marcus, MacMarcus Resources
Charles Reeter, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
Timothy Sivavec, General Electric Corporate Remediation
Richard Steimle, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Stephen White, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Dominique Sorel of Geomatrix Consultants, Inc., Thomas Krug of GeoSyntec, and Christine Hartnett of Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), also participated in the lunchtime meeting.

John Vidumsky, one of the Action Team's co-chairs, opened the Steering Committee meeting by identifying a discussion topic that must be addressed: identifying the PRB Action Team's future goals and potential activities. He asked Steering Committee members to discuss this topic, saying that the meeting would serve as an initial brainstorming session and that followup discussions would be held via conference call. Following his instructions, the Steering Committee members explored several ideas. They discussed the possibilities of having the Action Team serve as: (1) a "sounding board" for site managers and consultants, (2) an advisory board that identifies areas of additional research, and (3) a group that facilitates outreach, training, and information dissemination.


SERVING AS A "SOUNDING BOARD" FOR SITE MANAGERS AND CONSULTANTS

Timothy Sivavec said that many site managers and engineering consultants who implement PRB technologies need guidance. Without it, he said, they are more likely to use suboptimal designs that leave a "black mark" on the technology's reputation. He asked if Steering Committee members were interested in acting as advisors to site managers and consultants. Vidumsky questioned whether a united advisory committee could be formed. He was not certain that the Steering Committee would be able to reach consensus when reviewing design plans. Also, Vidumsky said, if the Steering Committee did opt to serve an advisory role, liability issues could be a concern.


OFFERING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AREAS OF ADDITIONAL RESEARCH

Charles Reeter said that EPA, the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of Energy (DOE) are currently working together to study the long-term performance of PRBs. He said that members of the RTDF Action Team were instrumental in identifying the need for such a project and in convincing funding agencies to sponsor the study. Richard Landis and Robert Gillham suggested having the Action Team use its influence to advocate projects in other research areas as well. Meeting participants expressed significant enthusiasm for this idea. In fact, during the meeting, they identified a potential area of research that requires additional exploration: addressing hydraulic parameters. Participants suggested approaching funding agencies, convincing them that hydraulic parameters need to be studied, and encouraging them to issue requests for proposals (RFPs) for such studies. Vidumsky agreed to relay this suggestion to Bob Puls.


FACILITATING OUTREACH, TRAINING, AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION

Some participants said that the Action Team should facilitate outreach, compile information, eradicate false perceptions about PRBs, and disseminate information on lessons learned. In many ways, they said, the Action Team is already doing this. Steering Committee members discussed some of the outreach activities that are currently ongoing and talked about initiating new projects.

PRB Training Course

Meeting participants noted that a PRB training course is touring the country. To date, Vidumsky said, the course has attracted mostly regulators. Reeter said that it would be beneficial to attract consultants as well. In too many cases, he said, consultants with little experience design suboptimal PRB systems. Landis suggested changing the way that the course is marketed so that more consultants are attracted to the course.

PRB Action Team Meetings

Steering Committee members noted that the RTDF PRB meetings generally receive positive feedback. Thus, they recommended holding additional meetings in the future. They agreed that meetings should be held on an annual basis and that they should be located, if possible, near major research centers. (It is becoming increasingly difficult for government representatives to obtain travel funds. For this reason, Steering Committee members suggested holding meetings in areas that have high numbers of government researchers nearby. As noted by Landis, the PRB Action Team used this approach in 1998, when it decided to hold a meeting at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Because this location was chosen, several DOE representatives participated and shared information on their research projects.)

Steering Committee members discussed the format for future meetings. They agreed that they should be longer (two and a half to three days in length) and more comprehensive in nature. Many stressed the importance of presenting case studies and information on ongoing research projects. Some Steering Committee members suggested holding a half-day training session prior to RTDF PRB meetings. (Participants said that the training session could be a condensed version of the one-and-a-half-day training session that is currently touring the country. Those who wanted to receive the training could pay a fee for the short course and then attend the RTDF meeting at no additional charge.) Some meeting participants also stressed the benefit of holding field trips; they said that they would like to incorporate these into future meetings if possible. Vidumsky said that RTDF PRB Action Team meetings usually revolve around specific themes. He asked if anyone had suggestions for themes that could be used in future meetings; one participant recommended design philosophy.

RTDF Web Site

Gillham said that the RTDF Web site contains a great deal of information about PRB technologies, noting that the "site updates" are particularly informative and useful. He said that the Web site should be maintained in the future and that efforts should be made to keep the site updates current.

Guidance Documents and Fact Sheets

One meeting participant suggested writing a guidance document on site assessment issues. Other meeting participants recommended creating fact sheets. Landis said that it would be useful to create fact sheets that (1) summarize the current status of PRB technologies, (2) identify research gaps, and (3) discuss why certain PRBs have failed. Another participant suggested including information about the flexibility that PRB technologies offer. (Participants said that PRBs are highly flexible and can be modified substantially after installation, a point, they said, that many people do not understand.)


ACTION ITEMS