SUMMARY OF THE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPMENT FORUM PHYTOREMEDIATION OF ORGANICS ACTION TEAM MEETING

New Orleans Marriott
New Orleans, Louisiana
April 30, 1997

WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

Dr. Evelyn Drake (Exxon Research and Engineering) and Mr. Steve Rock (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Risk Management Research Laboratory), co-chairs of the new Phytoremediation of Organics Action Team, welcomed the participants and thanked them for attending. Drake asked the participants to introduce themselves and state the nature of their interest in phytoremediation.

Drake stated that the new Phytoremediation Action Team is a group of people interested in developing phytoremediation of organics as a viable technology. She explained that the Action Team's purpose is to join together interests--technological, environmental, and regulatory--to enable all phytoremediation projects to benefit from a larger knowledge base. Drake reminded the attendees of the two previous Action Team meetings (the initial meeting in Fort Worth, Texas, and the subsequent conference call) and said that minutes are still available from both. Drake said that she has championed a joint industry project in phytoremediation for the past three years and brings a knowledge of industry interests to the discussion.

Rock said that the purpose of this new Phytoremediation Action Team meeting was to:

• Understand where current research stands and discuss where phytoremediation should be in five years
• 
  
  
• Determine why phytoremediation is not a mainstream technology
• 
  
  
• Figure out ways to fill in some of the research gaps
• 
  
  
• Share information

BACKGROUND ON RTDF AND EPA'S TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION OFFICE

Dr. Phil Sayre (EPA's Technology Innovation Office (TIO)) provided a brief history of RTDF. In 1992, several industry representatives asked EPA for a way to work together to solve complex remediation problems. EPA responded with RTDF, under which people with common interests form "Action Teams" facilitated by TIO, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and the Office of Research and Development (ORD). Sayre highlighted what a RTDF provides:

• Ability to set collaborative goals and conduct collaborative research
• 
  
  
• Validation -- efforts undertaken by RTDF bear EPA's stamp of approval, which helps convince the regulatory community that technologies (i.e., phytoremediation) are valid
• 
  
  
• Meeting facilitation (TIO)
• 
  
  
• Possibility of funding (ORD)
• 
  
  
• Way for companies to avoid some anti-trust issues
• 
  
  
• Forum to address regulatory barriers on a science and a policy level

Sayre also provided a brief overview of the six other RTDF Action Teams and how they operate. He said that if participants want to know more about these Action Teams, they can access the RTDF homepage (http://www.rtdf.org).

PETROLEUM ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH FORUM -- PHYTOREMEDIATION PROJECTS

Drake gave a brief overview of the Petroleum Environmental Research Forum's (PERF's) work on phytoremediation. PERF is an oil company consortium under which companies conduct collaborative research projects and share research information. Eleven companies (Amoco, Arco, BP, Chevron, Conoco, Elf Aquitaine, Exxon, GRI, Mobil, Phillips, and Texaco) currently participate in PERF's phytoremediation project (PERF 94-13). PERF 94-13 began three years ago, with a $152,000 budget, as a greenhouse study of crude oil-contaminated soil and gas pit sludge-contaminated soil (which was also salt-impacted). The objective was to compare the use of phytoremediation, bioremediation (nutrient addition and tilling), and control treatments; the study showed that bioremediation and phytoremediation are similarly successful at removing contaminants, but that phytoremediation offered some advantages such as lower dust emissions (due to lack of tilling). PERF is in the process of writing the final report.

Based on the study's success, PERF wants to conduct a jointly funded field project (contractor/PERF) studying three sites (petroleum-contaminated soil, gas pit sludge-contaminated soil, and refinery soil), over three years, at a budget of $70,000 per site. PERF has not yet determined specifically how it will operate this field project and is open to suggestions.

GENERAL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

Mr. Tom Wong (Union Carbide) stated that Union Carbide is interested in the whole sludge waste, not in contaminated soil.

Dr. John Fletcher (University of Oklahoma) said that recording the plant and tree species used in studies is crucial, because not all species yield the same results (e.g., U.S. Army research shows different outcomes for different grasses). Fletcher questioned whether enough basic research on phytoremediation has been completed to justify field studies. Drake responded that lab studies often cannot predict field results, making both types of research necessary.

Ms. Sara McMillen (Chevron) expressed concern that research has gone to the field too quickly and that hydrocarbon monitoring has not been adequate to determine whether phytoremediation is working at the field sites. McMillen is concerned that we lack basic understanding of site preparation and the germination of and outcomes generated by different plant species. Field tests conducted without such basic understanding usually result in failure, McMillen said, as seen in several studies to date. Drake replied that PERF is using the field as a research information source, enabling scientists to better interpret the lab work.

Mr. Greg Harvey (U.S. Air Force) stated that he feels a sense of urgency and wants to get out into the field and demonstrate what phytoremediation can do. Good field tests will convince Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) that phytoremediation works. He added that lab work can be done concurrently, but that we need to keep field work moving forward. Wong agreed and added that Union Carbide is testing phytoremediation on two, 17-acre voluntary cleanup sites using eight different plant species. Fletcher added that the work Union Carbide is doing in the field cannot be duplicated in the lab -- field experiments are expensive, but very desirable.

Rock said that at this stage he is more concerned with determining whether or not phytoremediaiton works, not how it works. Once we know that it works, then we can focus on understanding how and why, and use this information to try and improve on it. Rock stated that people are eager to use phytoremediation now.

Wong stated that the RTDF should explore highly cost-effective applications of phytoremediation such as the use of plants to form a final cap to prevent water infiltration and contaminant movement. This technology could offer an order of magnitude savings as compared to traditional caps used on sites such as landfills. One participant added that phytoremediation is an intermediate in terms of time and cost between natural attenuation and bioremediation.

RTDF'S ROLE

Rock asked participants to fill in the blank for the following statement: "The RTDF should _________ phytoremediation." Answers included:

• The RTDF should validate phytoremediation.
• 
  
  
• The RTDF should demonstrate phytoremediation.
• 
  
  
• The RTDF should determine what is important to understand further about phytoremediation.
• 
  
  
• The RTDF should vocalize the need for basic research of phytoremediation.
• 
  
  
• The RTDF should look at how phytoremediation can be used to maximize its cost effectiveness.

Rock then reminded participants to give him information on any current projects. He hopes to eventually compile a library of information on how different plants perform under different conditions.

BASIC RESEARCH NEEDS

The co-chairs asked participants to suggest basic phytoremediation research needs. Attendees proposed the following basic research needs:

• Validating the rizosphere effects. Before proper field experiments can be designed, more basic data is needed on the phytoremediation process. The fate of the contaminants in phytoremediation systems is not known.
• 
  
  
• Determining acceptable endpoints for phytoremediation.
• 
  
  
• Selecting a contaminant and a site type and making a convincing case study for regulators.

Focusing on the need for regulatory approval, the co-chairs asked the participants to indicate the media in which their organizations are interested. Based on a show of hands, the results were as follows:

• Ground water: 17
• 
  
  
• Surface water: 3
• 
  
  
• Soil: 25
• 
  
  
• Sediments (dredged): 17
• 
  
  
• Wetlands: 11
• 
  
  
• Landfill caps: 17
• 
  
  
• Sludge: 14

The Action Team then developed the following matrix of contaminants and media, and participants indicated whether research was being conducted in each area.

Drake said companies want to fund those areas of the matrix where there is some proof that phytoremediation works.

Rock asked participants to fill in the blank for the following statement: "The most important part of phytoremediation that we don't know yet is _________." Answers included:

• What regulators need to know to approve phytoremediation.
• 
  
  
• How to get to an acceptable level of risk. This means we need to know the rate and extent of phytoremediation.
• 
  
  
• What research has been/is being performed, so that people do not repeat efforts. Drake added that Chevron is developing an information base on contaminant type and the rate of remediation.
• 
  
  
  
  

REGULATORY APPROVAL

Mr. Jim Duffy (Occidental Chemical Corporation) commented that it is important to get the protocols for RTDF field tests approved by regulators, such as RPMs and state regulators, prior to going into the field (or to even get a generic protocol for phytoremediation on paper that would meet with their approval, apart from a specific field test). McMillen said that regulators need to be involved from the beginning. Sayre commented that TIO's involvement in the Action Team already lends some validation to the work. Sayre said one way to get regulatory approval is to complete one "good" study. Rock asked if there is any contaminant/media that the Action Team feels comfortable asking regulators to validate. Participants agreed that nothing is ready for regulators yet. Rock asked participants to select contaminants and media that, with work, could be used as convincing case studies for regulators. These areas should have available data, a high level of interest, and be close to regulatory acceptance. Participants chose the following:

• TCE and ground water
• 
  
  
• TPH/PAH and soil
• 
  
  
• Vegetative caps

The Action Team decided to organize subgroups to address each area of interest. The following table lists the participants who signed up for each subgroup.

RESOURCES

Rock said that the subgroups should determine how to approach the goal of getting regulatory acceptance. The Action Team created a list of activities that organizations could undertake to support this goal, and resolved that the subgroups should use this list to help determine available resources.

• Share research to date with the group with confidentiality agreements
• 
  
  
• Share research to date without restriction
• 
  
  
• Design and participate in lab and greenhouse studies
• 
  
  
• Design and participate in field studies
• 
  
  
• Develop protocols for lab, greenhouse, and field studies
• 
  
  
• Use protocols developed by the new Phytoremediation Action Team
• 
  
  
• Use their organization's sites for studies
• 
  
  
• Conduct sampling
• 
  
  
• Analyze samples
• 
  
  
• Write reports
• 
  
  
• Provide funding
• 
  
  
• Conduct outreach activities
• 
  
  
• Conduct advocacy activities (public and regulatory)

Rock suggested that the Action Team meet annually or semi-annually and that the subgroups talk more frequently though conference calls (each subgroup leader is responsible for setting up subgroup conference calls). The Action Team decided that each subgroup would hold a conference call in May, during which it would organize its objectives. Each subgroup will then send at least one representative to the next Action Team meeting in Fall 1997. The Action Team meeting will be held at either "The Contaminated Soils and Sediments Conference" in Amherst, Massachusetts, on October 20; "The Fourth International Petroleum Environmental Conference" in San Antonio, Texas, September 9 to 12; or "The Annual General Meeting of the RTDF" in Cincinnati, Ohio, in September or October. The co-chairs will determine where the next Action Team meeting will be held and inform the attendees. The co-chairs will synthesize a mission statement for the new Phytoremediation Action Team from all of the ideas put forward at this meeting.

CLOSING REMARKS

The co-chairs told participants that copies of the attendee sign-up sheets are available and that minutes from the meeting are forthcoming. The co-chairs reminded participants that the proceedings from the Fort Worth meeting are accessible at the Clu-In web site (http://www.clu-in.org -- under "What's Hot and What's New"). Rock also suggested that participants subscribe to the Kansas State University site (majordomo@engg.ksu.edu) and visit the RTDF homepage (http://www.rtdf.org) for current information on phytoremediation. Drake thanked everyone for coming and said that the Action Team welcomes any comments.

First Meeting of the RTDF Action Team for Phytoremediation of Organics

New Orleans Marriott
New Orleans, LA
April 30, 1997

Final Attendee List