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

September 14, 2000
12:30-2:00 p.m.

On September 14, 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:

Lucinda Jackson, Chevron Corporation (Subgroup Co-Chair)
Phil Sayre, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Subgroup Co-Chair)
Elizabeth Adams, Elf Aquitaine
Steve Geiger, ThermoRetec, Inc.
Peter Kulakow, Kansas State University
Royal Nadeau, EPA
Steve Rock, EPA
David Tsao, BP Amoco
Duane Wolf, University of Arkansas

UPDATE ON FIELD DEMONSTRATION 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 analytical results for Site A's time two (T2) samples should be available by the end of September. Time three (T3) samples will be collected in June 2001. According to the Subgroup's protocol, Kulakow pointed out, Subgroup demonstration projects may be terminated after T3 samples are collected. Thus, Site A's owners must start thinking about whether they plan to conclude their demonstration project or extend it.

Site B

Steve Rock said that five treatments are being tested at Site B: (1) cottonwood/willow/poplar, (2) grass, (3) unvegetated/tilled, (4) natural attenuation, and (5) hackberry. Although growing conditions at Site B were optimal this year and many plants thrived, the hackberry trees did not exhibit health and robust growth. In fact, many of the trees are dying. The reason for this poor outcome is unknown, Rock said, noting that he did not think phytotoxic soil conditions are to blame. (Rock said that the top 2 feet of soil have fairly moderate contaminant levels and are unlikely to adversely affect plants. A more toxic tar layer lies below, but Rock did not think hackberry roots could have penetrated this deeper layer yet. To determine whether this is true, some of the hackberry trees will be exhumed soon and their root depth profiles will be examined.) Rock said that the decision to include hackberries in the demonstration project was made because John Fletcher's studies suggest that these plants promote contaminant degradation.

Rock said that the poplars planted at Site B are growing well. As a result, they have become targets for insect attack and provide havens for tent caterpillars and bagworms. Rock said that he hopes site owners will spray Site B to eliminate the insect problem. Lucinda Jackson agreed to talk to site owners about this.

Sites C, D, and E

Mike Reynolds, the Subgroup member who manages Sites C, D, and E, did not take part in the call. Duane Wolf was able to provide a brief update, however, saying that the sites will be sampled in fall 2000.

Site F

Steve Geiger said that growing conditions at Site F have been favorable this summer. Kulakow said that he would like to visit the site in October 2000 and asked who he should contact to coordinate his visit. Geiger agreed to obtain a contact name and forward this information to Kulakow.

Site G

Kulakow said that Site G has experienced a severe drought this summer; this has curtailed plant growth. Samples will be collected from the site in October 2000.

Site H

Progress at Site H has come to a halt, David Tsao said, noting that state regulators refuse to grant approval for a demonstration project until an agreement is reached on site cleanup goals. At one point, Tsao said, BP Amoco proposed cleanup goals and was led to believe that these goals were acceptable to the state. Over the last few months, however, state regulators have expressed misgivings and have asked BP Amoco to clarify the methodology that was used to calculate cleanup levels. (Tsao said that BP Amoco calculated constituent-specific cleanup values. Criteria levels for gasoline and diesel range organics were derived using a risk-based process similar to the one advocated by the TPH Criteria Working Group.) Tsao was unsure how long it would take to resolve these issues, but expressed little hope of establishing plants at Site H before winter. Thus, planting activities might be postponed to spring 2001.

Site I

Tsao said that time initial (TI) samples were collected from Site I in June 2000. In fall 2000, demonstration plots will be planted and time zero (T0) samples will be collected. Four treatments will be established at the site: (1) unvegetated/fertilized, (2) unvegetated/unfertilized, (3) standard mixture, and (4) prairie mixture. Tsao said that Purdue University will collect microbial data.

Site J

Wolf said that cool weather plants were established at Site J in fall 1999. These plants are still alive, even though Site J experienced extreme drought and severe heat this summer. (Site owners provided supplemental irrigation.) Wolf said that T1 samples will be collected in October 2000 and agreed to talk to Kulakow offline about coordinating the sampling event with Kulakow's upcoming site visit. Kulakow asked some questions about fertilizer usage at Site J. In response, Wolf said that vegetated treatment plots are being fertilized but that unvegetated plots are not.

Site K

Kulakow and Rock noted the following about Site K: (1) plant growth has been robust except in areas contaminated with cyanide, (2) gamma grass did not compete well at the site, (3) T1 samples will be collected in November 2000, (4) researchers plan to examine root structure by exhuming a tree, and (5) Kulakow plans to visit Site K in October 2000.

SUBGROUP'S ANNUAL REPORT

Call participants agreed that the Subgroup's annual report should be reviewed by Royal Nadeau and Al Venosa. Rock said he would check with Venosa to make sure he is amenable to this suggestion. In addition, Rock will send review forms to Nadeau and Venosa.

During previous conference calls, Kulakow said, Subgroup members agreed to post a modified version of the annual report on the RTDF Web site. Progress is being made on this effort.

PLANT TISSUE ANALYSIS

Jackson reminded Subgroup members that a methodology for analyzing plant tissues must be developed. Kulakow agreed to take responsibility for this. He said that he would collect protocols from Henry Camp, a representative from the Arthur D. Little laboratory, and incorporate protocol information that Nadeau recently distributed. Before the next Subgroup conference call, Kulakow will have this information gathered in a cohesive form so that it can be discussed in more detail.

COST ESTIMATES

The Subgroup plans to track the costs that are associated with demonstration projects and to make predictions on how expensive it would be to perform full-scale projects. Kulakow said that cost data are needed for all of the Subgroup's sites. Jackson has compiled some data on Site B, but needs EPA to fill in some gaps. Rock agreed to talk to Site B's managers to collect the additional data. Geiger said that he would send Kulakow cost data for Site F as soon as he got off the conference call. Wolf said that he will generate cost estimates as soon as possible. Kulakow stressed the importance of receiving the data soon, saying that they will be presented in the Subgroup's next annual report. Once the data are collected, Geiger said, the Subgroup may want to modify the spreadsheets it is using to track the data. Originally, Geiger noted, these spreadsheets were designed using a model provided by the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. It might be useful to tailor the spreadsheets a bit more.

DOCUMENT PRODUCED BY THE INTERSTATE TECHNOLOGY AND REGULATORY COOPERATION (ITRC) WORKING GROUP

Jackson said that she and Kulakow have been asked to review ITRC's regulatory and technical phytoremediation guidance document. She asked when a draft will be ready for review. Rock and Tsao said that the draft will not be completed until October 2000. Call participants asked for information on the topics that are covered in the report. Rock said that the document will serve mostly as an introduction to phytoremediation. The text will address regulatory issues, Rock said, but not in great detail. This is because there are few regulations that address phytoremediation and very few state-centered case studies to draw regulation precedent from.

PRODUCTS RELEASED FROM CANADA

Nadeau and Geiger described a CD-ROM that contains a report (Assessment of Phytoremediation As an In Situ Technique for Cleaning Oil-Contaminated Sites) and a database. The latter, called Phytopet, identified plants that tolerate or remediate soils that are contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons. The plants listed, Geiger noted, grow in the Canadian prairies and Boreal plains, but may have useful applications in other environments as well. Nadeau said that the CD-ROM can be obtained by making a request to germida@sask.usask.ca. Those who just want a copy of the report, can obtain one at http://www.rtdf.org/public/phyto/phyassess.

Call participants expressed strong interest in the Phytopet database and asked whether a similar database is being created for plants that accumulate metals. Geiger said that such a database is being created and that it will be called Phytorem. Jackson said that she would like to obtain Phytorem when it becomes available, noting that Chevron has been focusing on metal contamination recently. In fact, she said, Chevron and Kansas State University are working together on a practical guide that explains how plants can be used to clean up metals.

NEXT RTDF MEETING

Kulakow asked whether Subgroup members were planning to hold a meeting in 2001. If so, he said, it might be useful to hold the meeting in conjunction with a bioremediation conference that is being held in San Diego, California, in April 2001. As an alternative, Rock said, the Subgroup might want to meet in September 2001, in conjunction with a large State-of-the-Science Phytoremediation conference. (Rock said that this meeting has been proposed, but a decision has not yet been made about whether to have it.) Before the next Subgroup conference call, Subgroup members agreed, they would think about when and where they would like to hold the next Subgroup meeting.

A GUIDE FOR CHOOSING NATURAL REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVES

Jackson said that Chevron plans to create a guide to help customers determine when natural remediation alternatives (e.g., phytoremediation, bioremediation, natural attenuation) are appropriate to use. She asked call participants to send her any documents or information that might help her.

ACTION ITEMS