RTDF - Summary of the Remediation Technologies Development Forum Phytoremediation Action Team Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon in Soil Subgroup Conference Call

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

March 18, 1999
12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m.

On March 18, 1999, the following members of the 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)
Pam Davis, Exxon Product Research
Evelyn Drake, Exxon Research and Engineering
Steve Geiger, RETEC, Inc.
Peter Kulakow, Kansas State University (KSU)
Bud Prevatt, Phillips Petroleum Company
Steve Rock, EPA
Ross Smart, Chevron Corporation
David Tsao, Amoco Research Center
Duane Wolf, University of Arkansas

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

UPDATE ON CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS AND POTENTIAL SITES

Petroleum Environmental Research Forum (PERF) Sites

Evelyn Drake noted that PERF, an organization of petroleum companies, has been planning to participate in the TPH Subgroup's field study program. Over the last year, five petroleum companies (i.e., Exxon, Chevron, Amoco, ELF Aquitane, and Phillips Petroleum Company) have expressed interest in participating in PERF. Drake said that she drafted the details of PERF's participation in a contract and circulated it to the five petroleum companies. Assuming that the contract terms are acceptable to all, Drake said, the signed contract will be attached to a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) and forwarded to EPA.

Drake said that she drafted the PERF contract based on the following assumptions: (1) at least four petroleum companies will participate in PERF, (2) each company will contribute $20,000, and (3) PERF will be collectively responsible for field studies at two sites. Due to recent developments, however, there is concern that these assumptions cannot be met. David Tsao said that Amoco will no longer be able to participate in the PERF project. In addition, Drake noted, recent departmental changes have made it unclear as to whether Exxon will participate. Assuming it cannot, only $60,000 will be available to conduct field studies at the PERF sites. (Chevron Corporation, Phillips Petroleum Company and ELF Aquitane have already contributed their $20,000 to the project.) Drake said that at least $80,000 is needed to conduct work at two field sites. She remained optimistic that Exxon will be able to contribute $20,000, noting that several departments within Exxon (e.g., the East Coast Refinery Remediation Organization) have expressed interest in the project.

Drake said that it may be difficult to identify two PERF sites now that Amoco has withdrawn from the program. (Chevron's California site will serve as one site, but Amoco was supposed to provide the other.) Drake was not sure whether ELF Aquitane or Phillips Petroleum Company have potential sites, but said that Exxon does not. Ross Smart said that Chevron may be able to provide the second site, noting that his colleague, Lucinda Jackson, mentioned a site in Cincinnati that might be suitable. Steve Rock expressed some concern, asking whether Smart was referring to the site on which Chevron and EPA are working on together. If so, Rock said, this site cannot be brought in under PERF. Smart was not sure which site Jackson had in mind, but agreed to clarify the issue and to report back to Rock and Drake. Drake expressed relief about the possibility of a second site existing, noting that the assumptions in the draft PERF contract will not need to change if (1) Exxon remains as a participant and (2) a second site is identified.

Amoco's Sites

Tsao expressed regret that Amoco will no longer be participating in PERF. He did note, however, that Amoco might still participate in the field program under a direct Amoco-EPA agreement. Tsao said that Amoco and EPA are trying to establish a CRADA, the latest version of which is being evaluated by Amoco's lawyers. Tsao said that these lawyers have identified some concerns, and he agreed to pass these on to Phil Sayre. Sayre agreed to e-mail Larry Fradkin with an update on Amoco's situation.

Tsao listed two sites, located in Texas and Rhode Island, that might be appropriate for field demonstration project. Tsao said that a creative design would need to be employed if the Texas site is used because contaminants do not appear to be present in the top 18 inches of soil. Tsao said that hydrocarbon contamination is present at depth, however, and that deep-rooted plant species could be used in treatment plots. Sayre expressed enthusiasm for this idea, adding that contaminated subsurface soils could be brought to the surface so that a control grass plot could be established. (Tsao said that he would have to ask facility owners whether they would allow subsurface materials to be brought to the surface.) As for the Rhode Island site, Tsao noted, state regulators are currently evaluating cleanup levels. If site contaminants do not exceed these levels, no demonstration project will be performed. Tsao said that other Amoco sites might be suitable for demonstration projects, but that these sites will not be ready for planting until 2000.

Other sites

Conference call participants discussed the progress of several other potential sites, including:

Chevron's Ohio site. As noted above, Chevron and EPA are working together on a site in Ohio. This work will be conducted under a Chevron-EPA CRADA. This CRADA, Sayre said, should be approved by the end of March and mailed to Chevron for final signatures. Rock said that EPA has drafted the Work Plan for this site and has already ordered trees.

Arkansas site. Duane Wolf said that the University of Arkansas plans to conduct a field study at a crude-oil spill site. He said that the site is located around a well and is only 100 feet by 60 feet in size. The biggest challenge at this site, Wolf explained, will be attaining 20-foot by 20-foot treatment plots. (As specified in the TPH in Soil Subgroup's protocol, this is the minimum plot size required.) Wolf said that the University has signed a CRADA and will forward it to EPA soon.

New York site. Steve Geiger said that he is gearing up for a demonstration project at a coal tar site in New York. He hopes to collect site characterization samples in mid-April and to establish treatment plots in May or June 1999. Geiger said that willow trees have been selected as the local vegetation species and that treatment plots will be 66 feet by 66 feet. Conference call participants agreed that this plot size is acceptable. Geiger noted that the site owners' lawyers are currently reviewing a CRADA.

Kansas site. Peter Kulakow said that KSU plans to conduct a phytoremediation study at a military site in Kansas. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment has granted approval for the project. Field activities will begin, Kulakow said, when contaminated sediments are moved to an appropriate location.

Alaska sites. Conference call participants noted that Mike Reynolds is conducting field studies at three sites in Alaska.

SAMPLE ANALYSIS

Geiger asked several questions regarding soil sample analysis, including:

Should biomarkers be analyzed during site characterization? Conference call participants strongly encouraged analyzing biomarkers during site characterization. Smart said that it was important to know which biomarker to track early on in the investigatory project.

Can polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and TPH analyses be performed internally during site characterization? Geiger acknowledged that the Subgroup has identified Arthur D. Little (ADL) and Battelle as the preferred laboratories for much of the Subgroup's analytical work. Geiger plans to send his T₀, T₁, T₂, and T₃ samples to these laboratories, but asked if he can analyze site characterization samples in-house to save some money. With less money spent per sample, Geiger said, he will be able to collect a larger number of site characterization samples. Collecting more samples, he persuaded, will allow for better assessment of site variability. Initially, Drake frowned on the idea of performing in-house analyses, noting that the Subgroup wants to use the same laboratories throughout to ensure accuracy. Sayre said it could be done, however, if Geiger were willing to test the accuracy of his laboratory by analyzing a standard sample of known contaminant composition. Geiger said that he is willing to do so, and asked how to obtain the standard. Smart agreed to identify the best contact and to forward this information to Geiger (Smart said that the standard had been sent to ADL, but that he had to confirm whether the standard has also been sent to Battelle.) Drake recommended sending at least one sample to ADL or Battelle for biomarker analysis. Kulakow agreed that it would be wise to send at least some of the site characterization samples to one of these laboratories.

Will KSU perform all of the agronomic analyses? Kulakow said that KSU has the capability to perform agronomic analyses, but that these analyses can be performed at other laboratories as well. Geiger said that he will probably use a regional laboratory for these analyses.

Are Battelle and ADL charging the same fee? Drake and Smart agreed to clarify cost issues and circulate information (via ERG) to Subgroup members.

Does the Subgroup prefer to use one laboratory over the other? Conference call participants agreed that ADL and Battelle are both excellent laboratories. Drake noted that the prices quoted to the Subgroup were offered under the assumption that each laboratory will receive samples from at least six sites. Drake recommended conferring with each other before choosing laboratories to ensure that these requirements are met.

THE SUBGROUP'S PROTOCOL

Kulakow said that he has revised the TPH in Soil Subgroup's protocol. This most recent version, dated March 1999, includes sections on plant hydrocarbon analysis and the TPH Criteria Working Group (TPHCWG) methodology. The microbiology section, Kulakow said, will be modified by Mike Reynolds in the near future. Kulakow said that he sent the March 1999 protocol to Sayre, Jackson, Drake, and Rock for review, and that he will forward it to Geiger soon. Kulakow was optimistic that a polished version of the protocol will be available by the April 1999 TPH in Soil Subgroup meeting..

APRIL 1999 TPH IN SOIL SUBGROUP MEETING

Sayre noted that a Battelle conference is scheduled in San Diego, California, on April 19-22. He said that the TPH in Soil Subgroup will meet on the afternoon of the 21st, during a lull in Battelle's sessions. Sayre said that a preliminary meeting agenda was distributed prior to the conference call, listing the following agenda items:

Introduction. Sayre said the introduction would be brief because few new members are expected to participate.

Updates on field test projects, problems encountered, and data gathered to date. Sayre said that Rock, Jackson, and Reynolds will likely participate in this part of the discussion, but that slots will be available for others as well.

Protocol review. Kulakow agreed to give an overview of the protocol and to summarize its status. Sayre recommended having state regulators comment on the protocol. Conference call participants agreed that gaining regulatory perspective would be useful. Sayre recommended distributing the protocol in advance so that regulators will be prepared to comment at the meeting. Tsao agreed to send the protocol to some regulators and to relay their comments at the meeting. Tsao asked which version of the protocol he should distribute. Sayre said that the March 1999 version should not be sent out because it has not been reviewed yet. He asked Kulakow to send Tsao a previous version with a note explaining which parts are missing and under revision.

Coordination/Implementation.

TPHCWG methodology. Sayre asked Geiger to give a presentation on the TPHCWG methodology. Geiger said that he had not planned on attending the meeting, but could probably find funding if need be. He asked for more information on who planned to attend. Sayre asked ERG to send an e-mail to Subgroup members to poll them on their attendance. Sayre stressed that this would be an informal poll and asked ERG to request responses within a short period of time.

Biomarkers for petroleum hydrocarbons. Sayre said that ADL's Greg Douglas has been invited to give a presentation on this topic.

Status of CRADAs.

Next Meeting.

MISCELLANEOUS

Sayre said that a Phytoremediation Handbook has been compiled and that he and Rock contributed a chapter on regulatory approval. He agreed to send this chapter to ERG for distribution to other Subgroup members.

Geiger said that he sent the latest version of the TPHCWG methodology to ERG. ERG agreed to send an e-mail to subgroup members, asking them if they would like a copy of the methodology. Geiger asked ERG to inform Subgroup members that the text is a draft and that all comments should be forwarded to him or the author.

NEXT CONFERENCE CALL

The next conference call is scheduled for April 5, 1999, from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). ERG agreed to set up the call and to notify participants of the phone number and access code.

ACTION ITEMS

Smart said that Chevron may be able to provide a second PERF site, noting that his colleague mentioned a site in Cincinnati that might be suitable. He agreed to get more information about exactly which site his colleague was referring to and to forward information to Rock and Drake.

Tsao noted that Amoco's lawyers have identified some concerns with the CRADA. He agreed to pass these on to Sayre.

Sayre agreed to e-mail Fradkin with an update on Amoco's situation.

Geiger said that he wanted to obtain a portion of the standard soil sample that Chevron submitted to other analytical laboratories. Smart agreed to identify the best contact name and to forward this information to Geiger.

Some conference call participants had questions about costs charged by ADL and Battelle. Drake and Smart agreed to clarify cost issues and circulate information (via ERG) to Subgroup members.

Kulakow agreed to send the March 1999 TPH in Soil Subgroup protocol to Geiger for review.

Tsao agreed to send the Subgroup's protocol to some state regulators prior to the April 1999 TPH in Soil Subgroup meeting. Tsao asked whether he should distribute the March 1999 version. Sayre asked Kulakow to send Tsao a previous version with a note explaining which parts are missing and under revision.

Sayre asked ERG to send an e-mail to Subgroup members, asking them whether they plan to attend the April 1999 meeting.

Sayre said that a Phytoremediation Handbook has been compiled and that he and Rock contributed a chapter on regulatory approval. He agreed to send this chapter to ERG for distribution to other Subgroup members.

Geiger said that he sent the latest version of the TPHCWG methodology to ERG. ERG agreed to send an e-mail to subgroup members, asking them if they would like a copy of the methodology. Geiger asked ERG to inform Subgroup members that the text is a draft and that all comments should be forwarded to him or the author.

ERG agreed to set up the next conference call and to notify participants of the phone number and access code. (The call is scheduled for April 5, 1999, from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. EST.)