On May 16, 2001, 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:
Lucinda Jackson, Chevron Corporation (Subgroup Co‑Chair)
Marcos Alvarez, Environment Canada
Rich Farrell, University of Saskatchewan
Steve Geiger, ThermoRetec, Inc.
Peter Kulakow, Kansas State University
Steve Rock, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Duane Wolf, University of Arkansas
Christine Hartnett of Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), was also present.
Existing Sites
The TPH in Soil Subgroup has created a field study program to evaluate how effectively plants degrade petroleum hydrocarbons. Call participants provided updates on sites that are participating in the program.
Site A. Peter Kulakow said that site managers have decided to leave
the treatment plots at Site A in place for another year. He also said that
he recently visited Site A to perform a plant survey, collect biomass samples,
and gather plant shoot and root samples. The latter samples, he said, have
been sent to the Arthur D. Little (ADL) laboratories for hydrocarbon uptake
analysis. (Site managers are particularly interested in evaluating polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons and TPH fractions using the TPH Criteria Working Group
[TPHCWG] method.) Kulakow said that varying opinions have been expressed
regarding whether plant and shoot samples should be washed before being
analyzed. He said that Site A’s managers made some decisions about this
and went forth with the sampling. It will be interesting to see the results,
he said, noting that it would be useful to receive results before the other
Subgroup sites move forth with plant uptake analyses.
Site B. Steve Rock said that ADL recently released results from
Site B’s fall 2000 sampling effort. He also said that Site B’s trees were
adversely impacted by a tent caterpillar infestation. The pests defoliated
much of the spring growth on the willows, and then moved on to the cottonwoods.
Site B’s managers were initially reluctant to apply chemical pesticides
to the site, but eventually agreed to use BT, an organic pesticide, to control
the infestation. Rock said that the BT, which is applied once a week, is
successfully controlling the caterpillars. The site’s trees are starting
to bud again.
Sites C, D, and E. Call participants did not have any new information
on Sites C, D, and E. Kulakow said that he hopes Mike Reynolds will send
him data on these sites for inclusion in the Subgroup’s annual report.
Site F. Steve Geiger had no news to report at Site F; he is still
waiting for ADL to release the fall 2000 sampling results. Kulakow noted
that a thesis has been written about Site F, and asked whether the thesis
abstract could be included in the Subgroup’s annual report. Geiger agreed
to contact a representative from Syracuse University to ask about this;
he also advised Kulakow to contact Sam Jackson, the thesis’ author, to obtain
a copy of the abstract.
Site G. Kulakow said that the plants at Site G are growing well,
and that he has received results from the site’s time two (T2)
samples. The results indicate that contaminant concentrations have decreased
significantly. Kulakow said that this did not surprise him: the sediments
being treated have a high potential for rapid bioremediation. (The sediments
were under water for years; they are not highly weathered and have a high
proportion of aliphatic fractions.) Kulakow agreed to send the T2
results to Geiger so that he can run the TPHCWG method on the results. Geiger
will summarize his analysis and send it to Kulakow for inclusion in the
Subgroup’s annual report.
Sites H and I. Call participants had no new information on these
sites.
Site J. Duane Wolf said that samples will be collected from Site
J before the end of May 2001. As part of this effort, soil samples will
be collected and biomass and root coverage will be analyzed. Once this is
completed, the research team will mow the site. Wolf asked whether this
plan was acceptable. Kulakow said that mowing is considered an acceptable
management practice. Wolf also spoke briefly about microbial analyses, noting
that he plans to submit some samples for phospholipid fatty acid analysis.
He agreed to write a short summary about the microbial analyses and the
root and biomass assessments that are being performed for Site J. Wolf will
send the summary to Kulakow so that it can be included in the Subgroup’s
annual report.
Site K. Rock said that spring 2001 samples were recently collected from Site K. The site’s trees are growing well; they are about 30 feet tall, straight, and spaced close together. If the demonstration project continues for another couple of years, Rock said, the trees will need to be thinned. Even if half of the trees were removed, he speculated, the canopy would still probably offer full coverage. Rock asked Geiger whether any efforts had been made to thin trees at Site F. Geiger said he thinks site managers plan to harvest all of Site F’s trees at the end of this year, but he was not sure of this. Kulakow advised contacting a site representative from Syracuse University to obtain additional information about what is planned for Site F. Kulakow noted that a thesis has been written about Site K, and asked Rock whether the thesis abstract can be included in the Subgroup’s annual report. Rock advised Kulakow to contact Tom Spriggs, the thesis’ author, to ask about this.
New Sites
During a previous conference call, Subgroup members talked about adding Canadian sites to the Subgroup’s field study program. Marcos Alvarez (of Environment Canada) and Rich Farrell (of the University of Saskatchewan) provided background information about these sites.
Farrell said that site managers at two Canadian sites have expressed interest in performing a phytoremediation demonstration project and using the RTDF protocol in the process. He thought that both sites would be ideal candidates for inclusion in the Subgroup’s field demonstration project. Call participants expressed enthusiasm for this suggestion. One of the sites, Farrell said, has a series of production pits. Saskatchewan Energy and Mines, the regulatory agency involved with the site, has granted site owners permission to excavate the pits, homogenize the materials, and spread the material out in raised beds. Landfarming will be used in one bed, and phytoremediation plots will be established in the other beds. Farrell said that the site owners plan to follow the RTDF protocol, and to establish a randomized complete block design. Kulakow asked Farrell to send him a summary of the two proposed phytoremediation projects so that information about them can be included in the Subgroup’s annual report. Farrell agreed to do so. Farrell and Kulakow agreed that they should meet offline, in a separate conference call, to discuss the logistics of the RTDF protocol in further detail. It is crucial to establish communication, they agreed, to ensure that the new sites yield results that are comparable to those generated at the other RTDF Subgroup sites. One topic that they will discuss in greater detail is sample analysis protocols. Farrell said that he plans to send soil samples to Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) rather than the laboratories that other Subgroup members are using. Kulakow asked whether SRC uses the EPA analytical methods listed in the Subgroup’s protocol. Farrell agreed to look into this. To ensure that results are comparable between laboratories, Kulakow said, it would be useful to have SRC analyze the Subgroup’s standard sample. This sample has been analyzed by other laboratories participating in the RTDF Subgroup field study program, Kulakow said, noting that the Subgroup wants to see whether different laboratories generate the same results. Farrell thought SRC would be amenable to analyzing the standard sample.
Alvarez and Farrell said that there are two other phytoremediation projects in Canada that might be of interest to the Subgroup. They were not sure, however, whether either of these sites would make suitable candidates for inclusion under the Subgroup’s field program. In fact, Farrell was quite sure that one of the sites would not: the experimental design departs too dramatically from the Subgroup’s protocol. The other site, he said, is less clear cut. The site uses a complete randomized design rather than the complete block design advocated by the Subgroup’s protocol. This disparity aside, Farrell said, the site shares many features with other RTDF Subgroup sites. For example, as at some other Subgroup sites, willows and poplars are being used to clean up TPH-contaminated soils. (The site is an old bulk storage station; a significant amount of gas was stored there. The site is contaminated with gas and diesels. BTEX is present.) The site experienced a harsh winter, Farrell said—70% of the poplars and 20% of the willows have been killed. Some of the trees will be replanted, and grasses will be planted in the understory. Farrell is writing up a summary report for this site. He will distribute the report to Subgroup members when it is completed. The information in it will help Subgroup members determine whether the site should be included in the Subgroup’s field study program.
Call participants agreed to meet face to face in fall 2001. They discussed meeting in conjunction with one of the following meetings: (1) the annual Petroleum Environmental Research Forum meeting scheduled for October 2001 in Los Angeles, California, and (2) the 17th annual International Conference on Contaminated Soils, Sediments, and Water, which is scheduled for October 2001 in Amherst, Massachusetts. They decided against both of these locations, however. After much discussion, they agreed to hold their meeting on September 10, 2001, in Austin, Texas. This location was chosen because two other relevant meetings are being held in Austin during the same week. These are:
A summit on alternative landfill covers. Rock said that the Air
Force Center for Environmental Excellence plans to hold a landfill summit
on alternative covers in Austin on September 11. Recent research efforts
will be highlighted, and attendees will discuss the current state of alternative
landfill cover technology.
A phytoremediation training session. Rock said that the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation Work Group plans to hold a training session on September 12 and 13. The meeting, which is expected to draw about 200 state regulators and consultants, will highlight decision-making processes that are used to determine whether phytoremediation is appropriate for a site. Rock said that he, Kulakow, and David Tsao will offer presentations during the training sessions.
Kulakow said that he had originally hoped to complete the Subgroup’s annual report by the end of June. If he adheres to this date, however, he will not be able to include as much data as he had hoped. (Sampling results have not yet been released from ADL for several sites.) He asked whether Subgroup members wanted him to postpone the report’s release so that more data can be included. Call participants agreed that the report’s due date should be pushed back.
ACTION ITEMS
Subgroup members will remind Reynolds to send Kulakow sampling and cost
data for Sites C, D, and E so that this information can be included in the
Subgroup’s annual report.
Geiger will ask a representative from Syracuse University for a copy of
the thesis that Sam Jackson wrote on Site F. In addition, Geiger will send
Jackson’s contact information to Kulakow.
Kulakow will send Site G’s data to Geiger so that Geiger can run it through
the TPHCWG method and summarize the findings for the Subgroup’s annual report.
Wolf will send Kulakow a short summary about the microbial analyses and
the root and biomass assessments that are being performed for Site J.
Rock advised Kulakow to contact Spriggs directly to obtain an abstract
of the thesis that was written about Site K.
ERG agreed to distribute information to Subgroup members about the Canadian
sites.
Farrell agreed to send Kulakow summaries on the proposed Canadian sites
so that information about them can be included in the Subgroup’s annual
report.
ERG will make sure that Farrell and Jim Germida are notified of all future
TPH in Soil Subgroup conference calls.
Farrell will work with Kulakow to set up a conference call offline so
that the proposed Canadian sites can be discussed in more detail.
Farrell will find out whether SRC plans to use EPA methods to analyze soil
samples from the proposed Canadian sites.
Farrell is writing a summary report on a phytoremediation site in Canada.
He will distribute this report to Subgroup members when it is completed
so that a decision can be made about whether the site should be included
under the Subgroup’s umbrella.
Kulakow will send Alvarez and Farrell the most recent version of the Subgroup’s
cost spreadsheets. Kulakow asked the researchers to fill out the spreadsheets
and return them to him.
Geiger and Kulakow agreed to format the cost spreadsheets.
ERG will start making preparations for a TPH in Soil Subgroup meeting.
The meeting will be held in Austin, Texas, on September 10, 2001. Rock will
prepare an agenda for the meeting.
ERG will contact the Subgroup’s cochairs to determine whether June 20, 2001, is an acceptable date for the next Subgroup conference call. Assuming that the date is acceptable, ERG will set up the call and notify Subgroup members of the time, phone number, and access code.