On December 4, 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:

Phil Sayre, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Subgroup Co-Chair)
Jim Brown, Lockheed Martin
Steve Geiger, ThermoRetec, Inc.
Peter Kulakow, Kansas State University (KSU)
Kirk O’Reilly, Chevron Corporation
Duane Wolf, University of Arkansas

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

Peter Kulakow advised changing the due date for the Subgroup’s second annual report from March to June 2001. Through conversations with Arthur D. Little’s (ADL’s) Henry Camp, Kulakow has learned that there is almost no possibility that results from recent sampling events will be available by March. Noting that ADL is still waiting to receive samples from some Subgroup sites, Kulakow asked individual Subgroup members to contact Camp directly to let him know when the samples will be sent. When talking with Camp, Phil Sayre said, Subgroup members should remind him that results are needed in a timely fashion.

Kulakow asked call participants whether they were comfortable waiting until June 30 for a draft of the second annual report. Call participants agreed that this was fine, but did ask Kulakow to write an interim report. Kulakow agreed to release an extended progress report in March; this report will incorporate site visit information, plant assessment data, and cost data. Kulakow said that he is still waiting to receive the cost data from the majority of Subgroup members.

FUNDING ISSUES

Sayre said that KSU has been providing support to the Subgroup for more than a year. This support includes processing raw data, tracking the progress of Subgroup field sites, performing site visits and plant assessments, and writing annual reports. Sayre said that funding for KSU’s support will cease in July 2001, but that Kulakow has drafted a proposal to extend services through September 2003. If the proposal is granted, Sayre said, KSU will be able to provide support to Subgroup sites through their third growing season. Call participants expressed enthusiasm about extending KSU’s support. After receiving this input from the group, Sayre agreed to present KSU’s proposal to EPA’s Technology Innovation Office (TIO).

Call participants asked whether support could be extended past September 2003. Sayre said it might be possible, but that the Subgroup should refrain from pursuing this until more is known about phytoremediation’s performance at the different Subgroup sites. If the demonstration projects are successful, he said, it might be possible to obtain additional funds to continue analytical efforts.

GRANTS

Sayre noted that EPA’s Office of Research and Development has issued a request for proposals for phytoremediation research projects. Proposals are due on January 22, 2001. Some of the call participants indicated that they plan to submit proposals, noting that they would like to perform additional work if their proposals are awarded.

Duane Wolf said that he and his colleagues will submit a proposal asking for funds to research phytoremediation’s impact on microbial community structure. Wolf said that some work has already been done in this area, but that more sites must be assessed before general conclusions can be made. He hopes to perform studies on as many sites as possible.

Kulakow too plans to submit a proposal. He has identified a team of researchers who are interested in researching bioavailability at phytoremediation sites. It would be interesting, Kulakow said, to study whether plants reduce contaminant bioavailability. He asked call participants whether site owners would be amenable to having such studies performed at their sites. Steve Geiger thought that many site owners would be. Kirk O’Reilly was not as convinced, however, saying that some site owners might be reluctant to grant permission if toxicity or bioassay tests were used to measure bioavailability. O’Reilly said that such tests have been known to provide confusing results that are difficult to interpret. What kind of regulatory consequences might a site owner face, O’Reilly asked, if such tests reveal a toxicity issue? In some cases, he said, soil conditions might be toxic even in the absence of contamination. If a control area is not available, however, site owners might not be able to prove that they are not responsible for toxic conditions. In general, O’Reilly said, he has more faith in tests that use chemical methods to measure bioavailability.

Call participants talked about different methods that can be used to assess bioavailability. Sayre said that EPA has not approved or endorsed a specific methodology. He listed two biological assessment techniques (Microtox and GRI’s earthworm model), and this prompted other call participants to describe available methodologies. Geiger said that some people use a battery of tests to assess bioavailability. For example, researchers might evaluate earthworm uptake, mortality, and reproduction, and analyze the skin of worm cadavers. Kulakow said that other researchers, like Kathy Banks, have used a combination of earthworm survival, Microtox, and lettuce germinations to assess bioavailability. He also said that some novel molecular approaches are being developed.

If his proposal is approved, Kulakow said, he will not be able to use all of the different methodologies that have been developed to assess bioavailability. He asked whether Subgroup members thought this was a problem. While it would be nice to identify an improved method, Sayre said, it would probably be best at this point to use the most widely accepted methodologies.

Wolf described software that can measure vegetative cover: it estimates ground cover percentages by distinguishing between color differentials in digital photographs. The software is quite useful, Wolf said, but it costs about $1,200. Kulakow expressed interest in the technology, noting that it could be used to track changes in ground cover if pictures were taken from the same locations and elevations over time. Wolf said that he would find references on the technology and forward them to Kulakow. In the meantime, Kulakow will ask KSU’s golf course management staff if they know anything about the software.

ACTION ITEMS

• Subgroup members will contact Camp to let him know when samples will be sent to ADL. Call participants will remind Camp that results are needed in a timely fashion.

• Call participants agreed that it would be useful for KSU to continue supporting the Subgroup through September 2003. Sayre said that he will talk to TIO’s Walter Kovalick about this proposal.

• Kulakow and Wolf plan to submit proposals for grants that are being offered by EPA’s Office of Research and Development. They agreed to continue working on these proposals.

• Wolf described a software program that uses digital photographs to provide information about vegetative cover. He agreed to send Kulakow references for this software. Kulakow said that he would ask KSU’s golf course management crew if they had information on this technology.

• ERG agreed to set up the next TPH in Soil Subgroup conference call for January 16, 2000, between 12:30 and 2:00 Eastern Standard Time.