SUMMARY OF THE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPMENT FORUM
PHYTOREMEDIATION ACTION TEAM
CHLORINATED SOLVENTS SUBGROUP
CONFERENCE CALL

February 16, 2000
1:30 p.m.–3:00 p.m.

On February 16, 2000, the following members of the Remediation Technologies Development Forum’s (RTDF’s) Phytoremediation Action Team, Chlorinated Solvents Subgroup, met in a conference call:

Lee Newman, University of Washington (Subgroup Co-chair)
Keith Rose, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Subgroup Co-chair)
Bob Tossell, GeoSyntec Consultants (Subgroup Co-chair)
Linda Fiedler, EPA, Technology Innovation Office (TIO)
Steve Rock, EPA

Also present was Sarah Dun of Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG).

THE SUBGROUP’S PROTOCOL

Bob Tossell is preparing a draft protocol for selecting and using phytoremediation at sites with chlorinated solvents in groundwater. Tossell is using existing proposals and documents to gather information for the protocol. Keith Rose had received a copy of a Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) from Steve Rock as a sample protocol. Rose felt that the QAPP focused on sampling and that the Subgroup’s protocol should be more general and address a wider range of topics. Rose also suggested that the protocol include the decision tree that he distributed to the Subgroup before the January 2000 conference call.

Conference call participants discussed what information should be included in the protocol. They agreed that the protocol should cover the following topics:

• Site selection. This section would provide information about parameters to evaluate when considering phytoremediation as a remedial option for a site. A comparison table listing the pros and cons of phytoremediation and other remedial technologies could be included.

• Design. Lee Newman indicated that the protocol should include a discussion of elements to consider when designing a phytoremediation system. For example, how deep is the ground-water contamination and how fast is ground water moving? Tossell stated that this section should be broad enough to allow consideration of site-specific conditions. This section could also include information about when traditional phytoremediation (simple plantings) is more appropriate than engineered systems (planted wells or pump and irrigation). Rose added that the benefits of using phytoremediation in conjunction with other treatment technologies should be discussed. Plants can be used to reduce aquifer recharge rates and reduce the operating costs of pump and treat systems

• Sampling and analysis requirements. Conference call participants agreed that the protocol should include requirements for sample types, sampling frequency, and sample analysis. Requirements should address ground water, plant tissue, soil, and air sampling and analysis. Information about studies that assess the impact of soil microbes on remediation should also be included. Tossell and Newman proposed that the protocol present a tiered sampling approach, with more intensive sampling required for each successive tier, as described below:

• Tier 1. Tier 1 sampling would determine if phytoremediation were a remedial option for a site. Samples would also establish baseline conditions at the site and evaluate if plants naturally found at the site were contributing to site remediation.

• Tier 2. Tier 2 sampling would meet regulatory requirements and determine if phytoremediation were achieving remediation goals.

• Tier 3. Tier 3 sampling would provide data for studying the fate and transport of a contaminant during phytoremediation. This would include ground water, plant tissue, soil, and/or air sampling and microbial studies

 

Newman is working at a U.S. Navy site where phytoremediation has been selected as the site remedy and a tiered sampling approach has been approved by the regulators. She will obtain a copy of the sampling plan to send to Tossell.

• Cost comparisons and estimates. Tossell proposed to incorporate a table to compare the costs of phytoremediation and other treatment technologies. The protocol can use this information to show the economic benefits of using phytoremediation, either as a primary remedy or as a supplement to pump and treat systems. Operation and maintenance costs are already known for pump and treat technologies; cost information on phytoremediation may be available from existing phytoremediation sites. The Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) in Soil Subgroup (part of RTDF’s Phytoremediation Action Team) produced a cost comparison table that may also provide information.

Tossell agreed to prepare an outline for the protocol and distribute this outline to the Subgroup members for comment. During the next conference call, conference call participants will discuss their availability for writing portions of the protocol.

SUBGROUP ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Conference call participants reviewed the list of potential Steering Committee members that have been identified to date. They reiterated that the Steering Committee should be composed of the Subgroup co-chairs and seven people representing potential technology users, technology "experts," or technology promoters.

Conference call participants decided that they would ask the proposed Steering Committee members to review the draft final protocol when it is ready. The proposed Steering Committee members would be selected for the Committee based on their interest in reviewing the protocol. The conference call participants agreed to continue gathering names of candidates; they will review the names when a draft final protocol is ready for review.

A brief discussion of the Steering Committee’s role followed. Rose believes the Steering Committee should identify and evaluate sites that could benefit from phytoremediation, then collaborate with the sites’ owners, contractors, and regulators to study phytoremediation. Tossell feels the Steering Committee should be a working group of owners, consultants, and regulators whose goals should be to improve phytoremediation technology, increase their knowledge about phytoremediation, and share this knowledge with others.

Discussing the protocol and Steering Committee led conference call participants to raise questions about the Subgroup’s goals. Linda Fiedler stated that they should begin evaluating their goals as an RTDF group. Does the Subgroup want to develop a protocol to help them identify research sites or a protocol to help owners, regulators, and consultants evaluate phytoremediation as a site remedy? Rose responded that he would like the protocol to serve both purposes. Tossell added that he would like the protocol to serve as a marketing tool to promote the use of phytoremediation.

FIELD STUDY PROGRAM

Once the protocol is complete, conference call participants agreed, the Subgroup should select three to five sites and apply the protocol at them as a validation process. The selected sites would represent a range of conditions, such as varying contaminant types, hydrology, climate, and geology. Rose suggested that the Subgroup focus only on new sites where phytoremediation has not yet been implemented. Others suggested that the Subgroup select both new sites and established phytoremediation sites: at the established sites, the Subgroup could verify the sampling and analysis portions of the protocol. Data availability would play an important role in selecting study sites. Established sites could provide information about the short-term effects of phytoremediation, whereas long-term effects could be evaluated at the new sites.

Conference call participants expressed concern about finding funding for the study. Tossell mentioned that he had submitted a proposal to the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP). ESTCP turned this proposal down partly because it was similar to another patented phytoremediation technology. Tossell stated that he could follow up with his contact at ESTCP to investigate future funding options. Fiedler suggested that the Subgroup could select a study site and then seek funding partners. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) were suggested as possible collaborators. Both agencies have multiple sites where phytoremediation may be applicable and both agencies may be willing to fund studies that may lead to later remediation cost savings. Rock stated that he could communicate with a DOD contact to investigate that group’s interest. Fiedler stated that private sites’ owners may be hesitant to fund research beyond what is needed to achieve regulatory compliance. If a private site is identified as a potential study site, Fiedler asked whether additional research sampling should be required from the site owner—would sampling for regulatory compliance be sufficient? And if a private owner is contacted for participation, should the Subgroup provide a cost estimate or should the site owner develop a cost estimate using the protocol? Rose suggested that site owners may be able to provide more accurate cost estimates based on their knowledge of site-specific conditions. Rock noted that the TPH in Soil Subgroup developed a cost calculator that could be used to generate general cost information. Rock suggested that the Subgroup continue their discussion of funding and costing during their next conference call.

MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS

Conference call participants provided information on several miscellaneous topics:

• Newman received an e-mail message from an organization in Australia seeking to compile a list of groups involved in researching and promoting innovative technologies for site assessment and remediation. Conference call participants agreed that Newman should forward this message to the RTDF coordinator.

• The Subgroup does not have a scheduled meeting time during the three-day phytoremediation conference being held in Boston in May. Tossell agreed to give a 20- to 30-minute presentation informing conference attendees of the Subgroup’s activities. Conference call participants confirmed that they could meet informally at a lunch or dinner.

• During the January 2000 conference call, Newman brought up rumors about possible budget cuts by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). Newman asked if others had heard anything further about this rumor. None had.

• ERG agreed to set up the next conference call for March 2, 2000, between 1:30 and 3:00 EST.

• Tossell will prepare an outline of the protocol and distribute this outline to the Subgroup members for comment. During the next conference call, Subgroup members will discuss their availability for writing portions of the protocol.

• Conference call participants agreed to continue gathering names of potential candidates for the Subgroup’s Steering Committee. The list of potential candidates will be reviewed when the Subgroup members have completed a draft final protocol.

• Newman received an e-mail message from an organization in Australia seeking to compile a list of groups involved in researching and promoting innovative technologies for site assessment and remediation. Newman will forward this message to the RTDF coordinator.

• Tossell and Rock agreed to investigate potential funding sources for a future field study or demonstration site.