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

August 2, 1999
12:00 p.m.-1:30 p.m.

On August 2, 1999, the following members of the Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF)'s Phytoremediation Action Team, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) in Soil Subgroup, met in a conference call:

Lucinda Jackson, Chevron Corporation (RTDF Action Team Co-Chair and Subgroup Co-Chair)
Jim Brown, Roy F. Weston
Evelyn Drake, Exxon Research and Engineering
Steve Geiger, ThermoRetec, Inc.
Peter Kulakow, Kansas State University (KSU)
Bud Prevatt, Phillips Petroleum Company
Steve Rock, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
David Tsao, BP Amoco
Duane Wolf, University of Arkansas

Also present were Andrew White of Microbial Insights, Inc., and Christine Hartnett of Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG).

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. Conference call participants provided the following site reports:

• Site A. Lucinda Jackson said that the phytoremediation study at Site A is well under way. She said that the analytical results for Site A's time zero (T₀) samples recently became available, but that the time one (T₁) samples, which were collected in mid-June, are still being processed by the Arthur D. Little (ADL) laboratory.

• Site B. Steve Rock said that time initial (T_i) and T₀ samples have been collected at Site B. The T_i samples, Rock said, were analyzed by a local laboratory, but the T₀ samples, which were submitted to ADL on May 3, 1999, have not been processed yet. Rock said that many of the trees planted at Site B have died due to inadequate coordination among site management staff. For example, he said, the sapling trees have not been adequately watered during this year of extreme drought. He said that several poplars and willows have died, requiring some replanting to replenish their stocks. Rock said that these trees have been growing better since the last replanting effort, which was conducted in early July.

• Site F. Steve Geiger said that T_i samples were collected from Site F and analyzed by a local laboratory. According to Geiger, the results revealed that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) concentrations were fairly low, thus prompting the site leaders to spread contaminated soils from a nearby stockpile over the top 6 inches of the treatment plots. The plots at Site F were planted in late May to early June, Geiger said, and T₀ samples have been collected and sent to ADL. (Geiger noted that hopane is unlikely to serve as a biomarker at this site, but that ADL's Greg Douglas has agreed to find a refractory PAH to use as a biomarker.) To date, Geiger said, the plants at Site F have thrived. Evelyn Drake asked whether the site has been affected by the drought that is impacting much of the Northeast. Geiger said that drought is not likely to impact the study since supplemental irrigation is available.

• Site G. Peter Kulakow said that he is hoping to establish plants at Site G in September. Before planting can take place, he said, the piles of sediment that are currently located at the site will need to be leveled evenly. Kulakow said that two composite samples were collected in July 1999 and sent to ADL so that investigators could obtain a rough idea of the site's contaminants.

• Sites H and I. David Tsao said that he hopes to initiate field activities at Site H in the near future, but that he is still waiting for official approval from state regulatory agencies. Assuming that the state approves the project, Tsao said, the study will be performed under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) between Amoco and EPA. Efforts are underway to finalize this agreement. Before concluding his site summary report, Tsao identified another site--Site I--as a possible candidate for field study.

• Site J. Duane Wolf said that the University of Arkansas plans to initiate a phytoremediation demonstration project at Site J in the near future. Some greenhouse studies have been performed, he said, to determine how different plants (e.g., rye, fescue, Bermuda grass, crab grass, and alfalfa) will grow in Site J's soils. Wolf said that he hopes to plant his field plots by mid-September, assuming that the area receives some rain before that time. In the meantime, he said, he will try to finalize budgetary agreements and a CRADA. The latter was recently modified to include a statement about insurance liability protection and forwarded to EPA.

SUBGROUP QUESTIONNAIRE

Jackson said that Kulakow will submit a Subgroup summary report in November 1999. She noted that Kulakow distributed a questionnaire to Subgroup members in an attempt to gather information about Sites A through J. Jackson strongly encouraged participants with field sites to complete the questionnaire and to return it to Kulakow promptly.

ANALYTICAL COSTS AND TURN-AROUND TIMES

Drake noted that several Subgroup members are planning to have their samples analyzed by ADL because this laboratory is offering Subgroup members discounted rates. She and Geiger briefly summarized the tests offered by ADL and the costs associated with each. Rock said that ADL informed him that the price for analysis would increase substantially if ADL was expected to adhere to the quality assurance (QA) standards that are typically imposed at EPA sites. Rock said that he is hopeful that this second problem can be resolved easily. He said that he sees no reason for Site B to be subject to more strict QA procedures than any of the other Subgroup sites. He said that he plans to ask ADL to make a list of the QA procedures that must be eliminated to obtain the discounted price. Rock said that he will take that list to EPA representatives and ask them to consider not running these tests at Site B.

Drake said that the Petroleum Environmental Research Forum (PERF) contract will be finalized soon and she asked whether anyone would object to listing ADL as an in-kind contributor. No objections were raised. Drake agreed to contact ADL and to resolve any outstanding questions that remain about price and turn-around times. She said that she will tell ADL that Subgroup members must have results back by mid-September so that Kulakow has time to incorporate the results into his summary report.

COST ESTIMATES FOR PHYTOREMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

Jackson noted the importance of producing cost estimates for phytoremediation technologies and asked conference call participants to comment on the most useful way to report costs. For example, she asked, is it better to report the actual costs associated with demonstration projects or to extrapolate the costs associated with remediating actual sites? Conference call participants agreed that it was more important to give estimates for site cleanups rather than demonstration projects because the latter demand more than would be expected during regular cleanups. For example, Rock said, the analytical parameter list that is required for demonstration projects is longer than that required for cleanup projects.

Jackson asked participants to comment on the most useful cost units to report. Conference call participants agreed that it would be useful to express the costs as dollars ($) per ton and $ per area (e.g., $ per acre or $ per ft²). Drake said that calculating the cost per ton of treated soil will help people compare phytoremediation to other cleanup technologies. In addition, she said, it is important to estimate costs by weight rather than area because the latter does not account for the depth of contamination. Geiger agreed, but noted that expressing the cost by area will help end-users who are trying to get a ballpark estimate for the costs associated with cleaning up their sites.

Conference call participants agreed that the costs associated with their demonstrations projects should be tracked carefully. Much of this information, they said, can be used to form a foundation from which extrapolations can be made. Jackson noted that a sample cost-tracking spreadsheet was distributed to conference call participants before the conference call. Conference call participants agreed that the spreadsheet would be a useful cost-tracking tool if it was modified appropriately. Geiger said that the original was developed by ThermoRetec, Inc.'s John Finn. Geiger agreed to ask Finn for an electronic version of the spreadsheet, to modify it to meet the Subgroup's needs, and to forward it to Kulakow so that it can be included in the Subgroup's questionnaire. Conference call participants talked briefly about categories that should be eliminated (i.e., construction) and categories that should be expanded. For example, much discussion revolved on how to best capture project management costs. Geiger recommended obtaining an estimate for the number of hours that would be required for project management and then multiplying this by a set value (e.g., $100 per hour). Jackson and Tsao liked this idea, stating that it would be useful to add a descriptor next to the lump number of hours to describe what activities (e.g., site design and set up, mobilization, regulatory discussions) are included. Also, conference call participants talked about which items (e.g., equipment, labor, health and safety, fertilizer, seeds, hydroseeding, replanting, and irrigation) to list under the "Operations" category. Drake noted that the unit cost for hydroseeding that is currently listed in the spreadsheet is too high. Jim Brown confirmed her claim, noting a case where it only cost between $500 to $1,000 to hydroseed a 3.2-acre site.

NEXT SUBGROUP MEETING

Rock said that EPA had planned to hold a phytoremediation workshop in Cincinnati, Ohio, in September, but that this meeting has been postponed until a later date, possibly early 2000. Rock said that Subgroup members had talked about meeting in conjunction with this EPA-sponsored meeting. Conference call participants expressed enthusiasm for this idea and said that they were not bothered by the postponement. They agreed that a September 1999 meeting would have been too soon to be very useful.

MICROBIAL ANALYSIS

Jackson noted that the Subgroup's protocol lists microbial analyses as optional. She asked conference call participants to indicate whether they plan to perform these analyses. She said that she would like to conduct them at Site A, but was unsure whether the budget would allow for this. Rock said that these analyses will be performed by the University of Cincinnati at Site B. Geiger and Tsao said that these analyses will not be performed at Sites F and H, respectively. They might be included, however, at Site I, Tsao noted. Kulakow and Wolf said that microbial analyses will be performed in house at Sites G and J. If the budget allows, Wolf said, samples from Site J will also be sent to Microbial Insights, Inc., for Phospholipid Fatty Acid Analysis and Denaturing Gradient Gel Electrophoresis. Wolf said that Mike Reynolds--the research leader for Sites C, D, and E--plans to conduct microbial analyses at his sites.

MISCELLANEOUS

Brown said that he has been working with Royal Nadeau to develop a phased approach to bioremediation, where phytoremediation is employed as a second phase. While doing this work, he said, researchers have discussed plant selection in western desert sites. Some fact sheets have been generated, Brown noted, and these will be sent to ERG for distribution to the Subgroup. Brown stressed that one of the fact sheets provides useful information about regional plant specialists.

Jackson said that she has been working with Larry Erickson and Kulakow on a brochure entitled Plant-Systems Technologies for Environmental Management in the Petroleum Industry. She said that the brochure provides a seven-step modeled approach for using plants and that it stresses that plants can be used to remediate and stabilize areas and enhance aesthetics. Kulakow said that the final version of the brochure will be printed this week. It will be used for internal purposes at Chevron and will be posted to the KSU Web site. Kulakow agreed to distribute the brochure to Subgroup members when it is finalized.

ACTION ITEMS

• Conference call participants agreed to complete and return Kulakow's questionnaire promptly.

• Drake agreed to contact ADL and to resolve any outstanding questions that remain about price and turn-around times. She said that she will tell ADL that Subgroup members must have results back by mid-September so that Kulakow has time to incorporate the results into his summary report.

• Geiger agreed to ask Finn for an electronic version of a cost-tracking spreadsheet. In addition, Geiger agreed to modify the spreadsheet and to forward it to Kulakow so that it can be included in the Subgroup's questionnaire.

• Brown agreed to send fact sheets to ERG for distribution to the entire Subgroup.

• Kulakow agreed to distribute the Plant-Systems Technologies for Environmental Management in the Petroleum Industry brochure to Subgroup members after it has been finalized.

• Kulakow agreed to fax Drake a copy of his questionnaire and the July 1999 version of the Subgroup's protocol.

• 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 September 9, 1999, from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. EST.)