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

December 16, 1999
12:00-1:00 p.m.

On December 16, 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)
Kathy Banks, Purdue University
Evelyn Drake, Exxon Research and Engineering
Steve Geiger, ThermoRetec, Inc.
Peter Kulakow, Kansas State University (KSU)
Steve Rock, EPA
Tom Spriggs, Purdue University

Also present was 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. Subgroup members provided site updates for:

• Site B. Steve Rock said that he has received the results for Site B's time zero (T₀) sampling event.

• Sites H and I. Evelyn Drake said that David Tsao sent her an e-mail updating the status of Sites H and I. According to the e-mail, she said, contractors are designing a final work plan for Site H. This work plan, which will incorporate the requirements of the RTDF protocol, will be reviewed by Tsao before being forwarded to regulatory agencies. Drake said that Tsao plans to collect initial samples at Site H before the next growing season starts. At Site I, facility managers are enthusiastic about initiating phytoremediation studies. Drake said that three distinct areas with different types of contaminated soil are present at this site. It is possible, therefore, that three demonstration projects--each using the full design replicates specified in the Subgroup's protocol--could be established at the site. Setting up multiple studies at the same site could be useful, Drake noted, because it would provide information about phytoremediation's efficacy in different soils under identical climatic conditions. Drake said that Tsao also wants to perform microbial investigations at Site I. If funding is limited, she said, Tsao will ask the Subgroup to give him input on which is more important: (1) testing one site and including microbial studies in the test design, or (2) testing multiple sites under the same climatic conditions but eliminating microbial studies from the test design.

FACE-TO-FACE MEETING

Rock said that a three-day phytoremediation conference is tentatively scheduled for early May 2000. The third day of the conference, he said, will be dedicated to RTDF Subgroups; the TPH in Soil Subgroup will meet in the morning and the Alternative Cover Assessment Program Subgroup will meet in the afternoon. Rock said that the meeting will probably take place near Boston, Massachusetts.

COST TRACKING SPREADSHEETS

Steve Geiger said that he, Peter Kulakow, and Phil Sayre have been working together to create a cost-tracking spreadsheet. He said that the threesome identified two spreadsheets that served as useful templates; one was developed for the Craney Island project, and the other was created by the Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable (FRTR). Geiger said that he tried to meld the two spreadsheets together to create something that would be useful for the TPH in Soil Subgroup. He said that he distributed a generic spreadsheet to Subgroup members prior to the conference call. This spreadsheet, he said, retains the cost categories that are used in the FRTR spreadsheet. These categories are broad, he explained, and are used to characterize costs for several types of technology. Thus, using these categories to estimate phytoremediation costs will allow investigators to compare this technology's costs with costs incurred by other technologies. Geiger recommended adding cost subcategories under each broad category. This, he said, will tailor the spreadsheets to track phytoremediation costs. For example, he said, costs associated with irrigation equipment, fencing, seed bed preparation, plant selection studies, and planting activities would be good subcategories to include in the spreadsheet. (Conference call participants talked briefly about where to list planting costs; they agreed that the costs for initial planting should be captured under capital costs, but that the costs associated with replanting should be listed under operation and maintenance.) Geiger said that he attached a table to his e-mail, the third column of which--entitled Phytoremediation-Specific Costs--has been left blank. He asked conference call participants to identify items for this column and to forward suggestions to him. He will use these suggestions to revise his spreadsheet; he will distribute the new version before the Subgroup's next call.

Conference call participants noted the importance of differentiating between demonstration projects and actual field remediation projects when costs are being calculated. The former, they said, often require more replications and longer analytical parameter lists. The Subgroup, Geiger noted, is performing demonstration projects. He said that it is important to track the costs that are incurred at each demonstration site, but he also stressed the importance of eliminating research costs when trying to figure out exactly how much it costs to apply phytoremediation as a remedial approach. Conference call participants said that there are two ways to accomplish this:

• Use one spreadsheet and then make adjustments. Rock suggested tracking all of the costs associated with demonstration projects. After the costs are tallied for each site, he said, the Subgroup could determine which costs are attributable to research and simply subtract these from the totals.

• Create two spreadsheets. Geiger said that two spreadsheets could be created. One would track research costs and only be shared internally among Subgroup members. The other, which would be distributed publicly, would provide estimates for actual costs in a field implementation situation.

ANNUAL REPORT

Kulakow said that he plans to complete an annual report for the Subgroup in February 2000. He said that Phil Sayre advised him to use the FRTR's Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and Performance Information for Remediation Projects as a template for organizing the annual report. Following this suggestion, Kulakow plans to split the report into five sections:

• Description of Sites. Kulakow said that this section will summarize the information that has been collected in site questionnaires.

• Matrix Description. Kulakow said that this section will summarize the results from T₀ sampling events. (Detailed analytical summaries will be provided in one version of the annual report; this version will only be distributed to Subgroup members. Less-specific information will be presented in the version posted on the RTDF Web site.)

• Technology System Description. Kulakow said that this section will describe the Subgroup's protocol and any site-specific adjustments that have been made to the protocol.

• Technology System Performance. Kulakow said that this section will discuss the sites in more detail and will include a description of the first year's plant growth.

• Issues/Discussion/Lessons Learned. Kulakow said that this section will feature some of the hot topics that the Subgroup has debated and discussed. It will include a discussion on fertilizer and explain how the Subgroup decided to address this issue. Kulakow also plans to include a discussion on biomarkers. He agreed to review the Subgroup's conference call and meeting summaries to identify other issues for this section. Conference call participants agreed to contact him with suggested topics.

Conference call participants generally approved of Kulakow's proposed outline, but Lucinda Jackson advised (1) reordering the topics, and (2) incorporating information on the Subgroup's cost-tracking efforts. Kulakow thought these were good suggestions; in fact, he plans to include the Subgroup's cost-tracking spreadsheet as an attachment to the annual report.

ACTION ITEMS

• Conference call participants agreed to send Geiger suggestions for cost subcategories for the cost-tracking spreadsheet. (These costs should be specific to phytoremediation technologies; conference call participants were asked to fill in the third column of a table that Geiger distributed.) Geiger said that he will use these suggestions to revise his spreadsheet; the revised version will be distributed before the Subgroup's next conference call.

• Kulakow said that one of the sections listed in the Subgroup's annual report will be entitled "Issues/Discussion/Lessons Learned." Kulakow agreed to review the Subgroup's conference call and meeting summaries to identify topics for this section. In addition, conference call participants agreed to contact him with suggested topics.

• Mike Reynolds will be asked to send Kulakow a list of sampling dates for Sites C, D, and E.

• Kathy Banks agreed to fill out a site questionnaire for Site K and to send it to Kulakow.

• Tom Spriggs said that he will re-send Drake a list of the target polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that are being evaluated at Site K.

• Kulakow said that he will call Duane Wolf to get an update on activities at Site J.

• ERG agreed to set up the next conference call for January 20, 1999, between 12:00 and 1:30 EST.