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

January 12, 1999
12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m.

On January 12, 1999, the following members of the 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
Pam Davis, Exxon Product Research
Steve Geiger, RETEC, Inc.
Jill Kerr, Exxon Product Research
Peter Kulakow, Kansas State University (KSU)
Charlene Owens, Exxon Product Research
C.M. (Mike) Reynolds, U.S. Army Cold Regions
Steve Rock, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Ross Smart, Chevron Corporation
David Tsao, Amoco Research Center

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

SITE PROGRESS REPORTS

Chevron's California Site

Ross Smart provided a brief summary of activities at Chevron's California site. Seeds were planted during the first week of December 1998, Smart said, and shoots have started to emerge. Due to dry and cold weather conditions, however, growth has not been as robust as expected. Smart said that a meeting will be held in mid-January to decide whether the study plots require irrigation. Smart added that the Arthur D. Little (ADL) laboratory is currently analyzing time zero (T₀) samples.

Smart said that he has digital pictures depicting the site's layout. He agreed to send these pictures, along with a plot map indicating plant mixes, to ERG. ERG will distribute these materials to conference call participants. Lucinda Jackson said that the digital pictures clearly delineate where test plots have been established because each plot is surrounded by wooden planks. She said that individual species have been planted in strips behind the main plots to help investigators identify plant species.

The field study at Chevron's California site will be conducted under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) between the Petroleum Environmental Research Forum (PERF) and EPA, Jackson explained. She said that Exxon's Evelyn Drake sent a working draft of the CRADA to participating PERF organizations. After receiving comments, Drake will revise the draft. According to Jackson, Drake hopes to finalize the CRADA before the end of January 1999.

Chevron's Ohio Site

Steve Rock provided a brief summary of activities at Chevron's Ohio site. He said that he is compiling a Quality Assurance Project Plan for the site that expands upon the Subgroup's protocol and offers a detailed outline of quality assurance/quality control measures. The plan must be presented to Ohio's EPA for review before the regulators will grant final permission for site activities. Rock noted that local regulators have been amenable to the field study thus far, and are willing to consider the site closed once seeds are planted. Therefore, the demonstration field study will be considered a post-closure activity. Rock said that Chevron is pleased with this development, noting that it is always best to "close" a site as soon as possible.

Rock said that ample room is available to test treatment plots, so he plans to establish more treatment plots than are specified in the Subgroup's protocol. Pending Chevron's approval, he will establish a grass plot, a grass/willow plot, and a grass/hackberry plot. According to Rock, John Fletcher claims that hackberries are one of the most effective plants for remediating polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

Rock noted that the demonstration project will be performed under an EPA-Chevron CRADA. He said that a signed version of the CRADA will be delivered to Chevron in the near future.

Amoco's Sites

David Tsao said that he hopes to initiate field activities at a site in Texas in spring 1999. The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) recently granted regulatory approval for a phytoremediation study at this site. Tsao said that the TNRCC heard about phytoremediation from other sources and granted approval after reviewing Amoco's Work Plan/Sampling Plan. Jackson said that she would like to talk to Tsao about his experience working with TNRCC because Chevron is also interested in initiating field activities at a Texas site.

Tsao noted that Amoco is also interested in initiating field activities at a Rhode Island site. He said that he has not yet received approval from the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management.

Site in Kansas

Peter Kulakow said that KSU plans to conduct a phytoremediation study in sediments at a military site in Kansas. The sediments are scheduled to be moved from their current location in April 1999, Kulakow said, and he hopes to seed the sediment plots soon after. Kulakow noted that a contractual agreement needs to be established between KSU and EPA. He acknowledged that Rock sent him information on contracts, and he said that he would create an initial draft and send it to Rock for review.

Sites in Alaska

Mike Reynolds said that his group will conduct field studies at three Alaskan sites, located in Barrow, Galena, and Ketchikan. He said that field characterization samples were collected at all three sites and sent to Battelle for analysis. The results indicate that: (1) biomarkers are present at all three sites, (2) contaminants are distributed uniformly at the Barrow and Galena sites, and (3) microbes are distributed uniformly across all three sites. Reynolds said that seeds were planted at the Galena and Ketchikan sites in fall 1998 and that some shoots have emerged. Reynolds agreed to give Kulakow a site description for the Ketchikan site and a copy of the site characterization data for all three sites. Reynolds said that he will investigate the possibility of establishing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between EPA and his team.

Site in Indiana

Rock said that he thinks a phytoremediation demonstration project will be initiated at a town gas site in Indiana. Rock and two representatives of Purdue University (Kathy Banks and Paul Schwab) visited the site in December 1998 and are currently compiling a study plan. Rock said that he would like to perform side-by-side demonstrations of land treatment, bioslurry, composting, natural attenuation, and phytoremediation on a 1.5-acre plot. At this point, it is unclear who will conduct the analytical analyses. Rock said that Battelle or ADL will likely do some of the work, but noted that Purdue University's laboratory may also be used.

Sites in the Northeast

Steve Geiger said that he is working with a client who plans to initiate field demonstration projects at a site in the Northeast. Although the client has drafted a budget for the project, an actual site has not been identified. Assuming that one is found soon, Geiger hopes to establish plots in spring 1999. Rock offered to answer any questions that the client's lawyer might have about CRADAs.

FACE-TO-FACE MEETING

Rock recommended that the Subgroup hold a meeting during spring 1999. He said that the Subgroup could meet on its own, or could coordinate the timing and location with one of the following conferences:

• The Alternative Covers Assessment Program (ACAP) conference. Rock noted that there are three subgroups in the RTDF Phytoremediation Action Team. One of these subgroups, the ACAP Subgroup, is tentatively scheduled to meet in San Francisco, California, on March 22 and 23. (Additional information about this conference will be posted on the RTDF home page once plans are solidified.) Rock suggested that TPH in Soil Subgroup members might be interested in learning more about the ACAP's activities. Unfortunately, he noted, scheduling a TPH in Soil Subgroup meeting for the days following the ACAP meeting might create some scheduling conflicts, especially as Terry McIntyre's Montreal conference is scheduled for March 24-26, 1999. Jackson expressed interest in attending the ACAP meeting and said that she would be willing to host a field trip to Chevron's California site. Tsao also expressed interest in coordinating the TPH in Soil conference with the ACAP conference.
• The Petroleum Contaminated Soil meeting. Rock said that this meeting will be held in Oxnard, California, on March 8 and 9, 1999. Tsao and Reynolds said that they plan to attend, but Kulakow said that he will not attend due to scheduling conflicts.
• The Battelle conference. Battelle is scheduled to hold a conference in San Diego in April 1999. Rock said that the conference will include interesting phytoremediation sessions. Many conference call participants expressed strong interest in attending the conference. Jackson, Tsao, Reynolds, and Brown have already made plans to attend, and Kulakow said that he could arrange to attend as well. Rock noted that the Battelle conference has a full schedule, but that no meetings are planned for the afternoon of April 21, 1999. ERG agreed to contact Battelle's conference coordinators to find out if meeting space is available for a TPH in Soil conference on April 21. Reynolds warned that the Battelle conference's high registration cost might prevent some academic Subgroup members, such as Duane Wolf, from attending. Reynolds agreed to contact Wolf to ask whether he plans to attend. Rock reminded the Subgroup that no registration fee would be charged to attend the TPH in Soil meeting and that attendees would not be required to participate in the Battelle conference.

ANALYZING HYDROCARBONS USING THE TPH CRITERIA WORKING GROUP
(TPHCWG) METHODOLOGY

During previous conference calls, Subgroup members expressed interest in using the TPHCWG methodology to determine risk-based cleanup levels for petroleum-contaminated sites. Kulakow suggested that the TPHCWG methodology would be beneficial because it would allow Subgroup members to (1) perform risk characterizations, and (2) better predict the success that phytoremediation technologies will have at particular sites.

Kulakow said that he, Smart, and Drake contacted ADL and Battelle to ask whether analyzing hydrocarbons using the TPHCWG methodology will cost more than analyzing them with more standard methodologies. The laboratories said it will not. However, Kulakow noted, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) must be evaluated if investigators plan to perform a risk characterization. Past cost estimates did not include BTEX analysis, so investigators will need to consider this additional cost when deciding whether to perform risk characterization. Kulakow said that ADL and Battelle provided BTEX analysis cost estimates. Geiger noted that investigators will need to decide up front whether they want BTEX data for risk characterizations because volatiles only have a 10-day holding period.

One conference call participant asked whether protocols and laboratory practices are consistent between ADL and Battelle. Specifically, the participant asked whether the laboratories use the same column size, and the same length of time for pentane extractions. Rock said that the laboratories interact with each other frequently, and that many staff members have transferred between them. Smart said that a control standard will be used to ensure that the laboratories produce consistent and accurate results. Smart and Kulakow acknowledged that ADL and Battelle have limited experience with the TPHCWG methodology, but said that the laboratories are willing to follow the Subgroup's directions. Smart recently sent a TPHCWG methodology protocol to both laboratories. Jill Kerr asked Smart to specify which TPHCWG methodology he distributed, noting two to choose from: (1) Ileana Rhodes et al.'s protocol, which accounts for fractions up to C21, and (2) the PERF 97-08 protocol, which accounts for higher fractions. Smart said that he distributed a version from Texas's proposed methodologies. This protocol, he explained, accounts for fractions up to C44.

OTHER ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES

Biomarkers

Kulakow said that it is important to identify site-appropriate biomarkers so that investigators can account for spatial variability. Kulakow said that ADL and Battelle will help investigators identify the most appropriate biomarkers for each site. At most sites, Kulakow said, hopane will serve as the biomarker.

PAHs

At Chevron's California site, investigators decided that it would be useful to obtain data for a full set of alkylated PAHs rather than just the 16 priority PAHs. Kulakow said that data for the full set and the priority pollutants are captured electronically and stored in a database. He said that investigators can choose to obtain the full data set if they are willing to pay an extra fee. He said that ADL and Battelle have provided cost estimates for the extended PAH data sets. Because the data are stored electronically, investigators can obtain this data late in the field study program if they decide they want it.

Plant Analysis Protocol

Kulakow noted that plant samples will be collected during T_final and analyzed for hydrocarbon uptake. He said that one shoot and one root sample should be collected from each vegetative treatment plot. He said that ADL and Battelle will need about 100 grams of dried material to perform their analyses. Both laboratories are willing to analyze the plant samples for the same price that is charged for soil samples, and will evaluate TPH and PAHs. Charlene Owens recommended talking to the laboratories about their capabilities. With currently available techniques, she noted, it is often difficult to differentiate hydrocarbons from plant material. She said that it is possible to detect some, but not all, PAH compounds using mass spectrometry. Rock acknowledged the truth in Owen's statement, but added that he hopes better analytical techniques will be available by the time the T_final samples are collected.

UPDATING THE SUBGROUP'S PROTOCOL

Kulakow and Rock suggested making the following changes in the protocol:

• Add information about the TPHCWG methodology. Kulakow said that the analytical work for TPH and the priority PAHs will be performed using dichloromethane or methylene chloride (DCM) extraction. The TPHCWG methodology, which uses a pentane extraction, will be used for reporting TPH fractions.
• Add information about plant uptake analyses.
• Modify microbiology section. Rock said that the microbiology section needs to be improved. Reynolds agreed to send Rock a summary of the methodology that his group uses for microbial analysis.

MISCELLANEOUS

Jackson thanked Reynolds for the site summary map that he generated. Reynolds agreed to forward the map to ERG for distribution to conference call participants.

NEXT CONFERENCE CALL

The next conference call is tentatively scheduled for February 16, 1999, from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST).

ACTION ITEMS

• Kulakow said that he recently sent ERG some information that he would like distributed to the Subgroup. ERG agreed to distribute this information.
• Reynolds agreed to send a site summary map to ERG for distribution to conference call participants.
• Smart agreed to send digital pictures and a plot map to ERG for distribution to conference call participants.
• Kulakow noted that a contractual agreement needs to be established between KSU and EPA. He said that he would create an initial draft and send it to Rock for review.
• Reynolds agreed to send Kulakow a site description for the Ketchikan site and a copy of the site characterization data for all three Alaskan sites.
• Reynolds said that he will investigate the possibility of establishing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between EPA and his group.
• ERG agreed to contact Battelle's conference coordinators to find out if meeting space is available for a TPH in Soil conference on April 21.
• Reynolds agreed to contact Wolf to ask whether he plans to attend the Battelle conference.