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

April 19, 2000
1:30 p.m.-2:30 p.m.

On April 19, 2000, the following members of the Remediation Technologies Development Forum's (RTDF's) Phytoremediation Action Team, Chlorinated Solvents Subgroup, met in a conference call:

Milton Gordon, University of Washington (Subgroup Co-chair)
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) (Subgroup Co-chair)
Steve Rock, EPA (Subgroup Co-chair)
Frank Beck, EPA

Also present was Michelle Arbogast of Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG).

BOSTON MEETING

Bob Tossell will give a presentation at the RTDF meeting on Wednesday, May 3, 2000, at the Omni-Parker hotel in Boston, Massachusetts. (Tossell's presentation is scheduled for 11:30 a.m.). Prior to this conference call, Tossell distributed his draft presentation slides (in PowerPoint) to other Subgroup members for their review. Some call participants said that they already reviewed Tossell's draft presentation. They agreed that the presentation was good and that there were no glaring omissions. One participant, however, suggested not using "uptake" as a noun. Another reminded Tossell that the presentation is designed to be brief and to provide a general overview of the RTDF and phytoremediation. (More detailed technical information will be offered when Tossell and Gordon present papers during other portions of the meeting.)

Those Subgroup members who have not reviewed Tossell's presentation agreed to do so by April 26, 2000. Before finalizing the presentation, Tossell will (1) make sure that the RTDF logo appears on the presentation slides, (2) edit the last slide so that it explains how interested people can participate in the Subgroup, and (3) incorporate three or four photos that Lee Newman and Milton Gordon provided.

THE SUBGROUP'S GUIDE

The Chlorinated Solvents Subgroup is writing a document (A Guide for the Evaluation of Phytoremediation of Chlorinated Solvents in Soil and Groundwater) that will provide background for people who want to examine phytoremediation technology as a potential way to manage chlorinated solvents. Prior to this conference call, sections of the document were assigned to call participants. They agreed that Sections 1 and 2 should be written within the next month or so. Tossell is to receive all drafts from the call participants.

Introduction Section

Introduction. Rock agreed to write 1 to 1½ pages explaining the broad scope and capabilities of phytoremediation.

Purpose and scope. Keith Rose was tasked with writing the "Purpose and Scope" section of the document. He introduced five purposes to the call participants:

—	To identify the potential benefits of using phytoremediation at chlorinated solvent sites.
—	To identify potential applications of phytoremediation.
—	To provide general guidance on conducting a preliminary assessment to determine if a site is a potential candidate for phytoremediation.
—	To provide guidance on assessing the effectiveness of phytoremediation in a full-scale field implementation.
—	To provide guidance on assessing the fate and transport of chlorinated solvents in laboratory-scale research in which data quality and quantity must meet certain requirements for publication in scientific journals.

Roadmap. Rose will prepare the road map for the document.

Background Section

Benefits. Tossell will discuss the advantages to using phytoremediation. He will highlight the fact that it can be used on its own or in conjunction with other treatments (e.g., pump and treat), as a secondary or tertiary application.

Properties and problems. Tossell will discuss the properties of chlorinated solvents and how they react in the subsurface.

Literature review. Call participants discussed what kind of literature review should be included in the Guide.

 

—	Tossell suggested including an extensive but concise literature review on phytoremediation's potential to remediate chlorinated solvents; the review would piece together the literature that has been presented in various journals.
—	Another participant suggested including a list of relevant articles, with some annotation for each. This list should tell readers what information is available in each article and (in case they need more details) tell them how to get the articles themselves.

The Subgroup agreed that the literature review should be 1 to 4 pages long (depending on the number of good articles) and should highlight the prominent literature on chlorinated solvents and phytoremediation. Tossell also suggested including articles on bioremediation in the literature review. Call participants decided that the articles should cover a wide spectrum of the type of studies that are out there, and not endorse any one person's work. The number of articles that will be discussed in depth has yet to be determined. Suggestions ranged from 10 to 30 key papers. They discussed how this was to be accomplished:



—	Fiedler suggested updating the existing bibliographies, then deciding which articles should be discussed in more depth. Two bibliographies are available as a starting point for the literature review: a more inclusive RTDF bibliography that was updated about a year ago and a select list of annotated references in the Phytoremediation Resource Guide that was published about two years ago.
—	Fiedler offered contractor assistance under a quick-response task. She suggested having a contractor update the two available literature reviews. One participant said that he would like annotations on certain manuscripts. Fielder asked the call participants to send her any suggested references (citations and/or actual articles) they currently have.
—	Call participants decided that the Subgroup members (rather than the contractor) will select which articles to discuss in more detail. Newman and Gordon agreed to write the more detailed part of the literature review section after the contractor compiles an updated bibliographical list. Tossell agreed to add one page that will include bioremediation documents.
—	Call participants agreed that this effort should also be used to update the currently existing bibliographies (the RTDF bibliography and the Phytoremediation Resource Guide).

Steering Committee

During previous calls, the Subgroup discussed forming a Steering Committee. After a brief discussion, the Subgroup decided that 11 people should be the maximum number on the Steering Committee. An odd number is preferred. Currently, there are six members actively participating. Call participants agreed that they do not have to include five more people right away. They will wait and see what happens at the Boston meeting. They also agreed that there should be a "price" for membership on the Steering Committee. This could include some level of commitment (e.g., money, time, or effort). Call participants decided that those who are interested would most likely choose for themselves the level of commitment they are willing to give.

Information Dissemination Techniques and The Three-Tier System

Recently, the Subgroup learned that some people are interested in learning more about the Subgroup's activities. While these people may not be candidates for the Steering Committee, Subgroup members agreed that they should be encouraged to participate on some level and that information about the Subgroup's activities should be made available to interested parties. They discussed two ways to disseminate information:

Conference calls. Subgroup members suggested holding two types of phone calls:

 

—	Informational calls that are open to anyone who wants to express ideas and hear the Subgroup's progress. (Call participants could listen and make comments, but not make decisions. These calls could take place every three or four months.)
—	Biweekly conference calls for those in a core group who actively commit time, resources, money, sites, and/or analyses.

Web site. Call participants agreed that conference call summaries should be posted to the RTDF Web site. (ERG agreed to have the summaries from the past eight calls posted before May 3, 2000. Prior to posting, ERG will remove the names of potential Steering Committee members from the summaries.) In addition, call participants said that the Web site could post contact names and numbers so that interested people would know how to contact Subgroup members directly if they wanted more information on a certain topic.

Rock suggested setting up a three-tier membership system:

The Web site, for anyone who wants to follow the Subgroup's progress. (Web site users could make comments or just read the updates.)

A review circle that the Subgroup would send work to as it is produced. (Reviewers would comment on the drafts through e-mail or direct mail. As noted by one call participant, this would create a feedback loop to keep those who are interested from feeling excluded, and would boost the level of participation.)

A core group that is actively involved and producing work. (This group would be included in the biweekly calls.)

All call participants agreed on this three-tier membership system. Rock will formulate his idea into an official system and introduce it at the Boston meeting.

MISCELLANEOUS

Beck submitted a proposal to the Department of Defense around March 10. Tossell e-mailed this proposal to the group. It was substantial, involving a number of technologies for cleanup at fire training pits. Beck proposed using trees as a final cleansing operation/finishing treatment. Response to the proposal is fairly positive, but Beck will not know the decision until about May 8. He will let everyone know what happens. In case Beck does get the funds, he has earmarked money to go to Rock (as the project manager) to fund travel for the RTDF Subgroup members.

Beck also said that the Navy would like to use phytoremediation in Hawaii and would prefer to use trees endemic to the area that will not cause problems later. Beck asked the group for assistance on this. The Subgroup agreed that they would put it on their "to do" list.

ACTION ITEMS

Tossell will continue to work on his presentation for the RTDF meeting. As part of this effort, he will: (1) make sure that the RTDF logo appears on the presentation slides, (2) edit the last slide so that it explains how interested people can participate in the Subgroup, and (3) incorporate three or four photos that Newman and Gordon provided.

Subgroup members agreed to provide comments on Tossell's presentation by April 26, 2000.

Rock, who suggested having a three-tier membership system, agreed to develop his idea further and to introduce it at the Boston meeting.

Subgroup members agreed to write Sections 1 and 2 of the Guide over the next month or so, and to send their drafts to Tossell. As part of this effort, Subgroup members agreed to do the following:

—	Rock agreed to write 1 to 1½ pages explaining the scope and capabilities of phytoremediation.
—	Rose will prepare the road map for the document.
—	Fiedler will have a contractor compile an updated literature review.
—	Call participants will send Fiedler any suggested references that they already have.
—	Newman and Gordon agreed to write the literature review section.
—	Tossell agreed to add one page to the literature review; this will highlight bioremediation documents.

Call participants agreed that the Subgroup's conference call summaries should be posted on the RTDF Web site before May 3, 2000. ERG agreed to have the summaries from the past eight calls posted. (Prior to posting, ERG will remove the names of potential Steering Committee members.)

Around May 8, 2000, Frank Beck will let the Subgroup know the status of his proposal to the Department of Defense.

Subgroup members agreed to assist Beck in deciding which endemic trees would be the best for cleanup in Hawaii.

ERG agreed to set up the next conference call for Thursday, May 11, 2000, between 1:30 and 3:00 Eastern Daylight Time.