SUMMARY OF THE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPMENT FORUM
PHYTOREMEDIATION OF ORGANICS ACTION TEAM
TCE IN GROUND WATER SUBGROUP
CONFERENCE CALL

March 5, 1998
1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.

On March 5, 1998, members of the Phytoremediation of Organics Action Team, TCE in Ground Water Subgroup, met via a conference call. The following members participated:

Greg Harvey, U.S. Air Force (Subgroup Co-Chair)
Harry Compton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Subgroup Co-Chair)
James Duffy, Occidental Chemical Corporation
Robert Tossell, Beak International, Inc.
Sankar Venkatraman, McLaren Hart Environmental Engineering Corporation
Ray Hinchman, Argonne National Laboratory (representing himself and Cristina Negri)
Steve Rock, EPA

Also present was Christine Hartnett of Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG).

UPDATE ON AVAILABLE DOCUMENTS

Greg Harvey told participants that a summary of the December 10, 1997, conference call is available. Harvey agreed to send copies to James Duffy and Sankar Venkatraman.

Harvey informed the group that Jonathan Chappell’s paper, “Phytoremediation of TCE in Ground Water Using Populus,” is available in hard copy and on the Internet (http://clu-in.com/phytotce.htm).

Ray Hinchman noted that the latest issue of Soil and Ground-Water Cleanup contains five articles about phytoremediation. None of the articles deal with chlorinated solvents, however.

Hinchman noted that a “well done” article has been posted on the Internet (http://www.gwrtac.org). The article is entitled “Phytoremediation—Technical Evaluation Report TD-98-01" and is written by Jerald Schnoor.

EFFORTS TO GENERATE ADDITIONAL PUBLICITY FOR PHYTOREMEDIATION

During the last conference call, Dawn Carroll—from EPA’s Technology Innovation Office (TIO)—had agreed to set up a Web site that would refer users to other trichloroethylene (TCE)/phytoremediation Web pages. Harvey said that he had hoped to get an update of her progress during this conference call. Harvey said that his group is developing a Web page, and he asked Duffy whether Occidental Chemical Corporation is developing a Web page for the company’s project with the University of Washington. Duffy said that the information will probably be posted under the environmental section of Occidental’s general Web page.

Harvey and Compton said they hope to get additional visibility with their projects at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Carswell Air Force Base (AFB), and the Edward Sears property. Compton suggested hooking information about these projects to TIO documents or the Chappell document.

Harvey plans to submit a paragraph for the April edition of the RTDF newsletter, describing potential applications and opportunities for phytoremediation in halogenated organics.

Harvey said that he has never had problems getting publicity for his projects because people like writing about trees. Steve Rock agreed that phytoremediation is easy to “sell.” Robert Tossell said that the technology is easy to sell to the general public (because the technology is more tangible than other remedial options), but hard to sell to the scientific community. He has found that many engineers and microbiologists regard phytoremediation as “nonsense.” Tossell said that he is unsure whether scientists resist the technology because they have blinders on or because they are trying to protect their turf. Though phytoremediation could never replace other technologies, Tossell thinks it could shift focus away from some remedial technologies. For this reason, he said, proponents of other technologies are trying to find “chinks” in the logic behind using phytoremediation.

SITE UPDATES

Carswell AFB

Harvey gave a brief update on activities at Carswell AFB, where some interesting geochemical results are being recorded (e.g., decreasing dissolved oxygen and increasing bicarbonate). Harvey noted that the phytoremedial system is converting the aerobic aquifer into an anaerobic environment.

Harvey’s group has started expanding its investigations beyond TCE remediation. The group is finding that the site’s trees have the enzymatic machinery to “chew up” a variety of ground-water contaminants.

Milan Army Ammunition Site

Hinchman told participants that a demonstration project is ongoing at the Milan Army Ammunition site in Tennessee. The project is being led by Darlene Bader and is using some of the data collected by Steve McCutcheon’s group.

POTENTIAL NEW SITES

According to Rock, few sites have been identified as candidates for phytoremediation technologies. Duffy said he suspects that a number of demonstrations are underway, but are not being publicized. Duffy doesn’t think such projects are being conducted “under the table” because regulators need to be involved; rather, he thinks the lack of shared information results because many facility owners do not want to generate publicity regarding their remedial activities.

The group went on to discuss a number of potential sites.

Occidental Chemical Corporation’s site

Duffy told participants that Occidental Chemical Corporation is considering using phytoremediation at one of its lesser-known sites. Due to the site’s location, poplars are not an appropriate remedial candidate, but Duffy thinks other tree species could prove beneficial.

Motorola’s site

Duffy told participants that Motorola plans to install a phytoremediation system. Duffy will follow up with Motorola to identify ways for the Subgroup and Motorola to share information. Harvey encouraged this interaction and stressed that the Subgroup’s main objective is to promote technology transfer.

Sites in Chesapeake Bay, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Mississippi watershed

Harvey said that demonstrations could be set up in the Chesapeake Bay area, the Gulf of Mexico area, and the Mississippi watershed. Harvey asked whether the Subgroup can pursue these opportunities rather than sticking strictly to industrial Superfund sites. Rock told the Subgroup to feel free to pursue this route.

Munition sites

Venkatraman asked participants whether they would consider pursuing munition sites. Venkatraman noted that the Army Corp. recently released a document addressing phytoremediation at such sites. (Several participants said that Darlene Bader (with Aberdeen Proving Ground) and Steve McCutcheon may have helped develop this document.) Jerald Schnoor has also been heavily involved with work in this area.

Harvey noted that sites with munitions, fertilizer, and animal wastes all have nitrogenous wastes (e.g., trinitrate toluene and trinitrate phenol). Participants also noted that the majority of phytoremedial work performed at munitions sites has involved wetland areas.

Hinchman told the participants that Juliet Arsenal—a site near Argonne—has TNT contamination in soil and ground water. A couple of years ago, Hinchman said, the Army received a proposal for phytoremedial cleanup at this site. The proposal recommended treating soil contamination with a deep- rooted crop and ground-water contamination with a poplar crop. Although the proposal was not accepted, additional studies are taking place at Juliet. One researcher—Susan Sbercher—is currently investigating the uptake of TNT by cottonwood trees.

NAME AND FOCUS OF THE SUBGROUP

Currently, the Subgroup is named “TCE in Ground Water” and is part of the “Phytoremediation of Organics” RTDF Action Team. Participants noted that these names do not accurately reflect the focus of their Subgroup. Rock said that he is working towards omitting the “Of Organics” portion of the Action Team’s name. Rock also said that the Subgroup’s name is restrictive since TCE is not the only contaminant that can be remediated with phytoremediation. Rock recommended renaming the Subgroup something like “poplar trees in ground water.” Several participants thought Rock’s definition was still too limiting because it excludes non-poplar trees, such as:

• Willows. Argonne and Ed Gatliff—one of Argonne’s CRADA partners—are doing greenhouse experiments with hybrid willows. Their findings indicate that willows perform more efficiently than poplars in some cases.
• Bamboo. Argonne has been talking with people from West Lynn Technologies about using bamboo as a remedial plant, Hinchman said. As a member of the grass family, bamboo spreads out a fibrous root network that “explores” large quantity of soil in short periods of time. Hinchman said that bamboo could be particularly useful in southern states where contamination is not particularly deep. Another attractive feature of bamboo is that it produces a large quantity of biomass that can be used for lumber, food products, and combustion.

Participants were generally excited about expanding the focus of the group. Compton recommended setting up a database so that investigators will be able to keep track of which plants are being used and which are performing effectively. Harvey mentioned that Laura Carreira runs a small business collecting information of this type.

Rock said that the Subgroup is still defining the limits of which contaminants to remediate and which plants to use. He said that the Subgroup should continue to focus on some criteria, such as ground-water remediation instead of soil and wetland remediation. Rock stressed that this was just a suggestion.

UPDATE ON ACTIVITIES BEING PURSUED BY OTHER SUBGROUPS

Venkatraman asked for an update on the activities being pursued by the other two subgroups within the “Phytoremediation of Organics” RTDF Action Team. Rock said that the other subgroups are progressing toward field studies. The “TPH in Soil” Subgroup is analyzing potential test sites and is hoping to use grasses and crop plants to remediate shallow soil contaminants at old refinery waste sites and overland spills. The “Vegetative Cap” Subgroup is concentrating most of its efforts on developing evapo- transpiration/water balance covers. To some extent, the Vegetative Cap Subgroup is straying from a remedial focus.

FUTURE SUBGROUP ACTIVITIES AND OBJECTIVES

Harvey asked participants for a list of Subgroup objectives. In general, the participants agreed that the Subgroup needs to recruit:

• Regulatory involvement. Participants agreed that it is important for scientists and regulators to work together during the early stages of technology development. By forming partnerships early, scientists are able to tailor demonstration projects so that they answer the regulators’ “nagging questions.” Harvey said that the regulators’ “cool, pessimistic” outlook on phytoremediation could serve as a reality check for the Subgroup.
  
  Participants expressed a desire to involve both federal and state regulators. Compton and Hinchman stressed the importance of getting state regulators involved. As Hinchman noted, regulators at Steve Rock’s level already support development. State regulators (or field-level regulators) need to be educated about phytoremediation because they are the people that make decisions on individual projects.
  
  At this point, participants said, it is unclear how regulators will receive phytoremediation. Harvey said he has found Region VI regulators to be cooperative, but he doesn’t know how the technology has been received by Regions II, III, or X.
  
  Harvey and Compton said they plan to pursue regulatory participation. Harvey mentioned contacting Rafael Cassanova from Region VI. Rock said that regulators will probably show interest in the Subgroup’s activities if they are presented with cleanup proposals rather than demonstration proposals.
  
  If the Subgroup has trouble gaining regulatory interest and approval, it may be able to get help from Clean Sites, an organization aligned with the Environmental Law Institute. Compton recently received a letter from this group and learned that Clean Sites “goes to bat” for emerging technologies, serving as a free negotiating service and fighting against regulatory obstacles that are thrown forth by state or regional regulators. To date, the organization has only been involved in federal sites. Rock and Harvey asked Compton for copies of the letter.
  
  
• Industrial partners. Participants agreed that the Subgroup needs to start “shaking the bushes” for industrial partners that can provide money to the Subgroup. Harvey said that adding industrial partners would expand the range of geographical areas where phytoremedial technologies can be tested. Without industrial partners, Harvey said, he likes to work on Air Force sites in Arizona, California, Ohio, Georgia, New York, and Texas.
  
  Duffy backed the idea of finding industrial partners. In his opinion, the “pie in the sky” would be to identify industry members who are just beginning projects and to convince them to use their money to answer questions about the technology. Such efforts would go a long way to giving the technology credence and soothing the fears of regulators, Duffy said. He added that Occidental Chemical Corporation could potentially act as a partner to the Subgroup, if the company does choose to use phytoremediation at their proposed site.
  
  Tossell said that he has talked to a few industry representatives and has found that they have mixed feelings regarding the technology. Many industrial representatives are adopting a “wait and see” attitude. Even those who are fairly excited about the technology do not think that phytoremediation is high enough on the pecking order to warrant full research and development efforts. Tossell said that the technology is progressing, but thinks that more activity must occur before it attracts the attention of many industrial representatives.
  
  Harvey said that the Subgroup should try to recruit representatives from trade associations, metal finishing industries, or other companies that generate TCE or halogenated hydrocarbon contamination. Dry cleaners may serve as a suitable target. (Harvey said that the Navy has been involved with one dry cleaning site.)
  
  A participant said that Walter Kovalick’s group at TIO has pulled together a list of potential industrial partners. Harvey and Compton said that they plan to use this list as a spring-board to find industrial partners who are interested in the Subgroup’s activities. Harvey plans to contact industrial groups, inform them of the Subgroup’s activities, and let them know that the Subgroup is willing to share information with them. Harvey and Compton agreed to talk to Rock to identify the best approaches for recruiting industrial partners and locating money.

The participants identified a few other objectives, in addition to recruiting regulators and industrial partners:

• Setting up a good demonstration project
• Combining efforts with other disciplines or organizations. Harvey said that the Subgroup should consider collaborating with:
  • Landscape architects. Harvey is trying to gather preliminary information about the enzymatic activities of various trees at Carswell. He said that after combining this information with information regarding rooting behavior, he hopes to combine forces with landscape architects to create something visually interesting.
  • Oak Ridge National Laboratories’ biomass/biofuel group. This group has been involved with projects that use willows to generate electrical power. Harvey suggested that the Subgroup should consider hooking up with Oak Ridge.

Harvey and Compton said they will draft a priority list for the Subgroup, including all of the recommendations put forth.

CONFERENCES

An IBC conference will be held in Houston on June 22-25, 1998. Harvey asked participants whether the conference would serve as a good place to recruit regulator involvement. Although participants agreed that this was a good idea, many will not be able to attend. (Venkatraman, Hinchman, and Duffy are not planning to attend.)

Hinchman asked Rock whether EPA is planning to put together any traveling seminars this year. Hinchman said that the one held last year was “good,” particularly the phytoremediation component. (The seminar’s overall theme was bioremediation.) Rock didn’t know of any seminars being planned, but he said he’d check further with TIO.

A conference will take place in Monterey in May 1998. Harvey, Duffy, and Compton will all be in attendance. (Compton is giving two presentations at the conference.) Hinchman said that he will not be able to attend, but Ed Gatliff will be there to present a paper on TCE uptake in hybrid poplars. Rock will not be able to attend.

DATE FOR NEXT CALL

The next conference call is tentatively scheduled for May 28, 1998, between 1:30 and 2:30 Eastern Standard Time.