SUMMARY OF THE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPMENT FORUM
PHYTOREMEDIATION ACTION TEAM
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON IN SOIL SUBGROUP
CONFERENCE CALL

February 17, 2000
12:00-1:30 p.m.

On February 17, 2000, the following members of the Remediation Technologies Development Forum's (RTDF's) Phytoremediation Action Team, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) in Soil Subgroup, met in a conference call:

Phil Sayre, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Subgroup Co-Chair)
Steve Geiger, ThermoRetec, Inc.
Peter Kulakow, Kansas State University
Tom Spriggs, Purdue University
David Tsao, BP Amoco
Duane Wolf, University of Arkansas

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

UPDATE ON FIELD DEMONSTRATION SITES

The TPH in Soil Subgroup has created a field study program to evaluate how effectively plants degrade petroleum hydrocarbons across a range of test sites. Peter Kulakow, who is tracking the progress of the Subgroup's field test sites, asked whether call participants had any updates to provide. Participants offered information on:

Sites H and I. David Tsao said that field studies at Sites H and I will be conducted under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA). He said that EPA recently sent BP Amoco a revised CRADA; this will be signed and returned if it is acceptable to BP Amoco's lawyers.

Site J. Duane Wolf said that the field study at Site J will also be conducted under a CRADA. He said that Site J's research and sponsoring programs will sign the CRADA and return it to EPA during the week of February 21, 2000. Field activities have been initiated at Site J, Wolf said, noting that time zero (T₀) samples will be sent to the Arthur D. Little (ADL) laboratory for analysis in the near future. (ADL's George Naughton has been notified that the samples are coming, and a purchase order has already been prepared for the analytical work.) Greenhouse studies are being conducted to identify plants that will thrive in Site J's soils. Wolf said that one of the plants being tested--a hybrid crab grass species--is receiving significant press and is being promoted as a remedial species. Phil Sayre was aware of this; in fact, he said, a Canadian reporter called him recently to ask questions about crab grass.

New sites. Sayre said that he wants to talk to Royal Nadeau about sites that Nadeau is working on. At least one of them, Sayre said, could be a candidate for the Subgroup's field study program.

ANNUAL REPORT

Kulakow said that he is writing the Subgroup's annual report. This report will provide T₀ results for eight Subgroup field test sites; thus, it will provide a good summary of site variability and pre-treatment site conditions. (Over the last month, Kulakow has analyzed T₀ results from five sites. He expects to receive T₀ data for Sites C, D, and E in the near future.) Before the annual report can be completed, Kulakow said, additional information must be obtained on:

Regulatory approval. The annual report will explain how Subgroup members obtained regulatory approval at each test demonstration site. Kulakow asked Tsao and Wolf if they could provide this type of information for Sites H, I, and J. Tsao said that he has already started pulling this information together for Site H; he will e-mail a summary of this information to Kulakow. Regulatory approval has not yet been granted at Site I, Tsao continued, but gaining approval is not expected to be a problem. Tsao agreed to send Kulakow information on the regulatory agencies that are involved with Site I. Wolf said that he has asked Site J's industry cooperator for information on the arrangement that exists between Site J's owners and the state Department of Environmental Quality. Wolf will remind the cooperator that he needs this information quickly. Once he receives it, Wolf will forward a brief summary to Kulakow.

TPH Criteria Working Group (TPHCWG) methodology. Kulakow said that the TPHCWG methodology is being used to calculate site-specific cleanup levels at some Subgroup field sites. To date, he said, TPH data have been collected in accordance with the TPHCWG methodology for Sites A, B, F, and G. Kulakow said that he would like to include available data sets in the report along with an explanation of how site-specific cleanup goals can be produced using the Risk-Based Corrective Action (RBCA) framework. Steve Geiger agreed to help Kulakow in this endeavor. Geiger agreed to perform risk assessment analyses on Sites B, F, and G, but said that Ross Smart will be performing the analysis for Site A. For the sake of consistency, Geiger said, he and Smart have been communicating to make sure they are using the same risk assessment spreadsheets and input parameters. Geiger agreed to continue working with Smart on this issue. After he and Smart decide which input parameters to use, Geiger will analyze the data for Site G, summarize the results, and forward the summary to Kulakow. While Kulakow is reviewing the write-up, Geiger will perform the analysis on Sites B and F. Kulakow said that he plans to incorporate information about the TPHCWG methodology by the end of February; Geiger agreed to do his best to help Kulakow meet this deadline.

Cost estimates. The annual report will summarize the costs that have been incurred by Subgroup members during the first year of field activity. Kulakow said that he and Geiger have revised some cost-tracking spreadsheets and that these will be distributed to Subgroup members during the week of February 21, 2000. Kulakow asked Subgroup members to fill out the cost sheets and to return them no later than March 31, 2000.

NEXT FACE-TO-FACE MEETING

Sayre said that a phytoremediation conference has been scheduled at the Omni-Parker hotel in Boston, Massachusetts. The meeting, which is being hosted by EPA, will attract many consultants, researchers, and regional regulators. It will span three days:

May 1-2, 2000

Sayre said that the first two days of the meeting will cover a broad variety of phytoremediation-related issues. On May 1, 2000, he said, sessions will be held to discuss brownfields, radionuclides, the fate of chlorinated solvents, and the fundamental processes of plants and soil. On May 2, most of the presentations will focus on alternative cap issues. Late in the day, however, a session will be held to discuss the degradation of organic compounds (including petroleum hydrocarbons) in soils. Sayre said that a more detailed meeting agenda is available; ERG agreed to forward this to Subgroup members.

May 3, 2000

On the third day of the meeting, Sayre said, two of the three RTDF Phytoremediation Action Team Subgroups will meet. The TPH in Soil Subgroup will meet between 8:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., and the Alternative Cover Assessment Program Subgroup will meet after lunch.

Sayre asked conference call participants to provide agenda items for the TPH in Soil Subgroup's meeting. Conference call participants suggested splitting the meeting into two sessions:

Presentation of data. Call participants said that they want to discuss the Subgroup's field data at the May 3, 2000, meeting; some participants suggested putting this topic on the agenda and setting aside an hour-and-a half (8:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.) for this topic. Sayre asked Kulakow whether he would be interested in giving a 20-minute presentation that summarizes the Subgroup's data. Kulakow was amenable to the idea; he and Sayre agreed to talk more about this possibility off line. However, some conference call participants said that some Subgroup members may not want their data presented to the public yet. This problem will be discussed further during the next TPH in Soil conference call.

Session targeted to the regulatory community.Conference call participants suggested opening up the meeting to a broader audience between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., agreeing that it would be useful to have regulators participate in this portion of the meeting. Sayre suggested having a regulator (e.g., Felix Flechas or Nadeau) give a formal presentation, and then using the remainder of the session as a communication forum. The goal would be to educate regulators about the Subgroup's activities and to obtain feedback from them on the Subgroup's protocol, the TPHCWG methodology, and biomarkers. Tsao, who expressed interest in Sayre's suggestion, said that the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperative (ITRC) Working Group may hold a meeting in conjunction with the May 1-3, 2000, phytoremediation conference. If they do so, he said, it would be beneficial to invite them to the TPH in Soil Subgroup meeting. (The ITRC consists of a group of state regulators who promote innovative technologies.) Sayre agreed to contact ITRC's Bob Mueller to find out whether the ITRC has decided to meet in Boston. Sayre noted that the ITRC has completed a decision tree for phytoremediation and is working on some other phytoremediation-related documents. He asked Tsao if he would be willing to give a presentation on these documents. Tsao said that he would.

MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS

Tsao brought up an interesting contractual question: what would happen if a site were sold while a Subgroup demonstration project were being conducted on it? Tsao asked whether CRADAs--which bind demonstration teams to finish field studies--can be broken if the demonstration team loses access to the site. Sayre did not know the answer, but said that he would ask EPA's Larry Fradkin and forward Fradkin's response to Tsao.

ACTION ITEMS

Tsao and Wolf agreed to send Kulakow brief summaries explaining how regulatory approval was obtained at Sites H, I, and J.

Kulakow plans to incorporate information on the TPHCWG methodology in the Subgroup's annual report. Geiger agreed to help him in this endeavor. Specifically, Geiger agreed to:



—	Communicate with Ross Smart to make sure that the same spreadsheets and input parameters are used to perform risk assessments at Sites A, B, F, and G.
—	Perform risk assessment analyses on Sites B, F, and G. (Geiger will analyze the data for Site G, summarize the results, and forward the summary to Kulakow. While Kulakow is reviewing the write-up, Geiger will perform analyses on Sites B and F.)

Kulakow plans to complete the section on the TPHCWG methodology by the end of February; Geiger agreed to do his best to help Kulakow meet this deadline.

Kulakow agreed to distribute revised cost-tracking spreadsheets to Subgroup members during the week of February 21, 2000. Subgroup members will be expected to fill out the sheets and return them to Kulakow by March 31, 2000.

A phytoremediation conference has been scheduled in Boston, Massachusetts, on May 1-3, 2000. An agenda has been prepared for the first two days of the meeting; ERG will distribute this to Subgroup members.

A TPH in Soil Subgroup meeting will be held on the morning of May 3, 2000, in Boston. Sayre asked Kulakow whether he would be interested in giving a 20-minute presentation that summarizes the Subgroup's data. Kulakow was amenable to the idea; he and Sayre agreed to talk more about this possibility off line. Also, Sayre said that he would call Bob Mueller to determine whether ITRC representatives would be available to participate in the Subgroup's meeting.

Tsao asked whether CRADAs can be broken if demonstration teams lose access to field study sites through resale. Sayre agreed to ask Larry Fradkin about this and to forward Fradkin's response to Tsao.