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



October 7, 1999
12:00-1:30 p.m.

On October 7, 1999, 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 (RTDF Action Team Co-Chair and Subgroup Co-Chair)
Phil Sayre, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Subgroup Co-Chair)
Jim Brown, Roy F. Weston
Evelyn Drake, Exxon Research and Engineering
Peter Kulakow, Kansas State University (KSU)
Royal Nadeau, EPA
Bud Prevatt, Phillips Petroleum Company
Steve Rock, EPA
David Tsao, BP Amoco
Duane Wolf, University of Arkansas

Also present were Katherine Iwamasa of Battelle and Ben Carlisle of Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG).


UPDATE ON COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS

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. Most of the Subgroup's field studies will be conducted under Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs). Lucinda Jackson opened the conference call by asking Katherine Iwamasa to update the Subgroup on the status of the CRADAs.

Iwamasa said that she prioritized the CRADAs, and that each is at a different stage of development:

In general, Iwamasa said, a first draft for each of the CRADAs has been submitted to Fradkin, and he has provided comments on changes that need to be made before the signature process can begin. She said that her plan is to address EPA's comments, share the revised drafts with the other partners, then begin getting signatures. Royal Nadeau asked who signs the agreements. Iwamasa said that each agreement is approved first by Fradkin's office, then by a patent attorney in Washington, D.C., then by the director of the laboratory that's involved, and finally by the partner.

Iwamasa said that some Subgroup members did not fill out the checklist that was attached to most of the CRADAs. She said that she will fill those checklists out herself, but that she may have to call some of the Subgroup members for assistance. Iwamasa finished by requesting that she be involved earlier in the CRADA-development process if additional agreements are necessary. This would help speed up the process, she explained. Phil Sayre commented that the CRADA-development process has been moving along well since Iwamasa stepped in, and he thanked her for her work.


UPDATE ON FIELD DEMONSTRATION SITES

Conference call participants provided the following site reports:


DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL INTERNATIONAL SITES FOR THE FIELD STUDY PROGRAM

According to Jackson, Reynolds's e-mail also described the work he has done at two sites that are located outside of the country, which loosely follow the RTDF protocol. Jackson raised the issue of whether the sites should be added to the Subgroup's field study program. Tsao asked if the RTDF is open to non-U.S. sites. He said that BP Amoco has a non-U.S. site that could potentially be added as a study site. Sayre asked whether Tsao would want to go through the CRADA process again to add the non-U.S. site to the Subgroup's field study program. Rock explained that BP Amoco would not have to repeat the CRADA process and could establish a test site anywhere. He said that the only guideline is that either the company or the site has to be U.S.-based. Rock went on to say that Dutch Shell had invited RTDF to do a study at an overseas site, but that he had to decline the offer since there wasn't a close enough connection for EPA to be involved. Sayre said he would send Reynolds an e-mail to ask whether his non-U.S. sites should be part of the Subgroup's field study program. Kulakow said that his opinion is, the more sites the better.


MICROBIAL ANALYSIS AT TEST SITES

Sayre commented that he is encouraged by the fact that Reynolds is doing biomarkers work. He asked if other Subgroup members are doing microbial analyses at their sites. Wolf said that the University of Arkansas has been working with Reynolds on Sites C, D, and E, looking at degrader population numbers. (The team just finished Site D this week, and hopes to do Site E in the next few weeks.) Wolf said that the University also hopes to study degrader populations at Site J. Tsao added that BP Amoco intends to do microbial analysis at Site I, and that he would also like to do it at AP Amoco's potential non-U.S. site. Drake said that there is some interest in doing microbial analysis at Site A. She and Jackson agreed that the PERF group should have a conference call to discuss this issue.


COST TRACKING FOR PHYTOREMEDIATION PROJECTS

Nadeau told the Subgroup about a CD-ROM system that EPA uses to track costs for cleanups. He said that the system, the Removal Cost Management System (RCMS), is used mostly for classic cleanups (e.g., mechanical cleanups), but has all the elements needed for cost tracking and could probably be adapted for phytoremediation. Drake asked if Nadeau would send a copy of the RCMS to Steve Geiger, who is coordinating the Subgroup's efforts to develop a useful cost-tracking tool. Nadeau said he would. He added that EPA has developed a booklet about the RCMS, and also staffs a helpline that people can call if they have questions about the system.

Sayre commented that EPA's Technology Innovation Office (TIO) looks carefully at the costs of new cleanup technologies and might have information on the RCMS and other cost analysis systems. He said he would contact TIO before the next conference call.

Nadeau stressed that it is important for the Subgroup to make it easy to do cost analyses of phytoremediation projects. He said that cost comparisons will be necessary to justify using phytoremediation over an excavation and removal approach. Nadeau said that he has seen a number of papers that describe the level of savings that can be achieved through phytoremediation.

Drake pointed out that ThermoRetec, Inc., developed a cost tracking program for phytoremediation during the Phase 1 PERF project. She suggested combining that system and the RCMS.


FEBRUARY SUBGROUP MEETING

Jackson and Rock said that the potential exists for a face-to-face Subgroup meeting in February. Rock said he has heard plans for a large-scale phytoremediation conference in Cincinnati that month, offered by EPA and some other collaborators. The TPH in Soil Subgroup could meet before the conference, Rock suggested. He offered to look into the agenda for the conference.


DISCUSSION OF PHYTOREMEDIATION FACT SHEETS AND ITRC DECISION TREE

Tsao said that the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperative (ITRC) is meeting next week to finalize its decision tree for helping site managers decide whether phytoremediation is a viable option. Drake said that she received a letter from an ITRC representative requesting comments on the decision tree. She said that she plans to respond in writing, though she has only minor comments on the document. Drake described three examples of the comments she plans to send to the ITRC.

Jackson said that she likes the two fact sheets that Nadeau and Jim Brown developed and sent to the Subgroup. (The fact sheets are entitled Suggestions for a Phased Approach to Bioremediation and Basis for Plant Material Selections in Phytoremediation Sites.) Sayre asked if the fact sheets had been changed since the last meeting. Brown said that he and Nadeau added a few bullets to the Phased Approach fact sheet in response to a question previously raised by Drake about the timing of initiating a plant-mediated system.

Drake then asked a question about a particular passage in one of the fact sheets, about the use of phytoremediation without prior land treatment. The passage discusses how the competition for nitrogen between plants and microbes may reduce hydrocarbon biodegradation rates. The passage goes on to say that use of phytoremediation in a later stage is preferable because the treatment rate is usually not nitrogen-limited. Drake asked if this has been proven.

Brown replied that they have not proven this, but that the statement is an assumption based on observations they have made about the high level of competition between higher plants and microbes. He said that they confirmed this assumption during a 1998 treatability study, but did not consider the study results suitable for publication. Brown said that they had also found that the competition between plants and microbes ended during the 60-to 90-day period, once the system was no longer nitrogen-limited. He said that TPH levels barely changed during this period, whereas the levels had changed considerably between zero and 60 days.

Drake commented that she has observed the same phenomenon many times. She said that, in both bioremediation and phytoremediation, things tend to start out faster while there is more nitrogen in the nitrogen-limited system. But even in unfertilized systems, she said, you eventually get to the same endpoint.

Brown said he thought that the best thing for a short-term study (28 days or so) is to add as much nitrogen as you estimate the system will require; however, in a longer study, nitrogen is probably cycled through the system several times. Brown said that a researcher at Rutgers who has been studying this question published an article in the early 1980s arguing for carbon-nitrogen ratios of about 80 to 1 or 100 to 1, rather than 20 to 1 or 30 to 1. Drake asked how she could get a copy of the article, and Brown offered to send her the reference.

Tsao asked a question about the Plant Material Selections fact sheet, which lists "suitability for livestock feeding" as a criteria for plant selection. Tsao said he doesn't typically select plants based on their suitability for livestock feeding because of the liability issue. He questioned whether that criteria should be dropped from the list. Sayre pointed out that another listed criteria is "value for wildlife and forage."

Brown agreed that the two criteria are interrelated. He gave an example of a site where site managers are hoping to recover some of their costs by producing saleable crops. Sayre suggested that site managers should be advised to consider additional uses for their plant materials (e.g., use as biofuels). Jackson said that she agreed with Tsao: when considering livestock feeding and wildlife forage as options, site managers should consider the contamination levels and the potential risk.


NEXT CONFERENCE CALL

ERG agreed to set up the next conference call for Friday, November 19, between 12:00 and 1:30 EST.


ACTION ITEMS