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

1:00 p.m.-2:00 p.m.
September 25, 2002

On Wednesday, September 25, 2002, the following members of the Remediation Technologies Development Forum's (RTDF's) Chlorinated Solvents Subgroup met in a conference call:

Joel Burken, University of Missouri-Rolla
Harry Compton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Linda Fiedler, EPA
Xiujin Qiu, The Dow Chemical Company

Also participating in the call was Christine Hartnett from Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG).

OVERVIEW OF THE SUBGROUP'S PLANS

The Subgroup has been working on a protocol that describes how to assess phytoremediation at chlorinated solvent sites. Once completed, this protocol will be tested in the field at actual sites.

Developing the Protocol

Call participants could not comment on the status of the protocol because Bob Tossell--the person revising the protocol--did not take part in the conference call. Joel Burken said that he is working with Tossell on the protocol's section on sampling techniques. The protocol's current text, said Burken, indicates that site managers are expected to sample for metabolites (e.g., trichloroacetic acid, or TCAA). Burken suggested changing the wording to make it clear that such sampling is optional: while it is advisable to sample for metabolites at sites where regulatory concern has specifically been expressed, it is not necessary to perform such sampling at every site. The protocol should state, Burken said, that controlled studies have been performed to assess the toxicity of metabolites and that the results suggest that contaminant breakdown products, such as TCAA, pose little toxicological concern. Burken said that he has forwarded references to Tossell backing up this claim.

Call participants expressed strong interest in finalizing the protocol and distributing it for outside review. They suggested taking the following steps to achieve this goal:

• Ask Tossell to distribute a list of the assignments he expects Subgroup members to complete.
  
  
• Ask Tossell to distribute the revised version of the protocol once it has been completed.
  
  
• Ask all Subgroup members to submit comments on the revised draft and to recommend content additions and/or modifications.
  
  
• Subject the protocol to editorial review, formatting, and polishing. (The Subgroup is still in the process of assigning this action item. Although Tossell has volunteered to perform this step, Linda Fiedler suggested having Environmental Management Support, Inc., [EMS] perform the editing. ERG will contact EMS to determine whether such activities are within EMS's scope of RTDF support activities.)
  
  
• Distribute the protocol for outside review.

Identifying Demonstration Sites

Fiedler said that Subgroup members originally hoped to complete the protocol before contacting site managers about demonstration projects. During this call, however, call participants decided that site identification activities should not be postponed any longer. Subgroup members recommended identifying potential sites and initiating contact with site managers. They acknowledged that the process of selecting sites raises the following questions:

• How many sites should be tested? Fiedler said that other RTDF Subgroups are testing protocols at several sites.
  
  
• Is it preferable to study sites that are already vegetated? It could take several years, Fiedler noted, to obtain phytoremediation data at sites that are not already vegetated. It might be more productive, she said, to target sites that are already covered with trees. Burken and Harry Compton agreed with Fiedler's point, noting that they knew of a Department of Energy site in Ohio that has already been planted and might serve as a strong candidate for study.
  
  
• Where should sites be located? Compton noted that Subgroup members are dispersed throughout the country. It will be difficult, therefore, to identify a site that is easy for all Subgroup members to visit.
  
  
• What are the characteristics of an ideal test site? Compton recommended creating a list of the characteristics that Subgroup members are looking for in a site.

ACTION ITEMS

• ERG will ask Tossell to put together a list of outstanding activities that must be performed in order for the Subgroup's protocol to be completed. ERG will also ask Tossell to distribute the revised protocol once it has been completed.
  
  
• Once the revised protocol has been distributed, Subgroup members will review the protocol's content and provide comments.
  
  
• ERG will contact EMS to determine whether editorial and formatting support is available for the Subgroup's protocol.
  
  
• Subgroup members will start: (1) identifying potential demonstration sites and (2) asking site managers whether they are interested in testing the Subgroup's protocol.