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

December 7, 1998
12:00 p.m.-1:30 p.m.

On December 7, 1998, the following members of the Phytoremediation of Organics 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)
Pam Davis, Exxon Product Research
Steve Geiger, RETEC, Inc. (RETEC)
Peter Kulakow, Kansas State University (KSU)
Ernest Lory, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
Ross Smart, Chevron Corporation
Steve Rock, EPA
David Tsao, Amoco Research Center
Duane Wolf, University of Arkansas

Also present were Bill Berti of DuPont and Christine Hartnett of Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG).

SITE PROGRESS REPORTS

Chevron

Lucinda Jackson and Ross Smart provided a brief summary of activities at Chevron's California and Ohio sites. At the California site, several activities were conducted during the first week of December, including delineating 12 plots, collecting time zero (T₀) samples, and planting field plots. Smart noted that some standing water was observed onsite, but that the Chevron team chose their plots in areas with good drainage. Smart said Peter Kulakow participated in the field activities and that his assistance was invaluable to the Chevron team. Steve Rock asked how closely the Chevron team adhered to the protocol and whether they felt that some of the protocol's details and requirements were too cumbersome. Smart said the team adhered closely to the protocol. Although Smart felt that some details were a bit extensive, both he and Jackson thought the protocol was easy to follow and were confident that the field setup would yield high quality data. Smart questioned, however, whether it was really necessary to collect eight cores per plot to generate a composite sample. He said the Chevron team found it difficult to work with so much soil. Kulakow agreed that it had been a bit cumbersome, but said taking eight cores will likely ensure that the composite represents an average across the plot. (Kulakow noted that the plots at the California site were 25 feet by 30 feet in size. He said this was an excellent plot size, and reminded the conference call participants that the 20 foot by 20 foot size listed in the protocol represents the minimum recommended size.)

At the Ohio site, the University of Cincinnati plans to perform some initial sampling (i.e., T_I sampling) in the near future. Jackson said the sampling effort is scheduled for December and will begin as soon as a contract is signed. Jackson said the University plans to conduct greenhouse tests, including treatability and bioavailability studies. Ernest Lory noted that bioavailability tests are also being performed at Port Hueneme under Kathy Banks' directive. He recommended having the University of Cincinnati use Banks' protocols so that the bioavailability data can be correlated between the two sites. Jackson thought this was an excellent idea and asked more about the testing being performed at Port Hueneme. Kulakow said much of the work, such as microtoxicity and earthworm studies, revolves around toxicity issues, but that a study evaluating how aging impacts bioavailability is also being conducted. Lory said the Port Hueneme team is also conducting tests on seed germination. Jackson asked whether standard protocols are available for the bioavailability tests. Kulakow said EPA has standard protocols and he agreed to send them to Jackson.

Amoco

David Tsao said Amoco is interested in initiating field activities at sites in Texas and Rhode Island. He said he would like to initiate field work in spring 1999, but is waiting for the Rhode Island and Texas regulatory commissions to grant approval for the demonstrations. He said he is optimistic that approval will be granted for the Texas site before the end of the year.

Port Hueneme

Lory said the plants at the Port Hueneme demonstration site have almost entered their second year of growth. He said Kulakow visited the site a couple of months ago and that much of the vegetation was harvested during his visit. He told Kulakow that the plants have grown back quickly, already reaching about 1 to 1.5 feet in height.

Site in Kansas

Kulakow said that KSU has been given approval to conduct a phytoremediation field project under the TPH in Soil Subgroup program. The demonstration will be conducted at a military site in Kansas. Kulakow said plants will be established in sediments. Although the sediments are currently located in lagoons, he said they are scheduled to be excavated and moved to a treatment site in January 1999. Although funding issues still need to be resolved, Kulakow said he is optimistic that sufficient funds will be made available and that field activities will be initiated in spring 1999..

Site in Arkansas

Duane Wolf said the University of Arkansas would like to conduct a field demonstration project under the TPH Subgroup program. During the November 9 conference call, Wolf had explained that the proposed test site consists of several small pockets of contaminated soils that surround numerous wellheads. He had noted that the contaminated areas are much too small for 20 foot by 20 foot plots to be established. Since the last conference call, Wolf said, he has investigated the following possibilities: (1) digging up contaminated soil from several small areas and combining them in one large area, and (2) establishing a replicate at each wellhead. (With the latter approach, four wellheads would need to be included in the study to generate four replicates.) Wolf said that the first option, establishing a large composited plot, has been eliminated from consideration. The second option, although not completely eliminated from consideration, presents many obstacles. Using this approach, Wolf warned, logistical and variability issues will be problematic.

Wolf said he will continue to work on finding a solution to the plot size problem and noted that he is scheduled to speak to someone about additional options on December 8, 1998. Kulakow suggested using two treatments rather than three. Jackson strongly encouraged Wolf to keep working on this issue. She said Chevron has sites that are similar to the one Wolf described. Wolf said he will try to generate a protocol that adheres closely enough to the TPH in Soil Subgroup's protocol. Ideally, he said, he plans to conduct greenhouse studies in the winter and initiate field activities in spring 1999. He said the University of Arkansas will conduct the greenhouse studies.

Sites in Alaska

Mike Reynolds is leading phytoremediation projects at three sites in Alaska. Although Reynolds could not attend the conference call, Wolf was able to provide an update on the Alaskan sites. Wolf said plants have been established at two of Reynolds' sites. Although growth looks promising at one of the sites, it is unclear how the plants will fare at the second site. Wolf said the weather prevented Reynolds from establishing plants at the third site, but that planting is scheduled for summer 1999.

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

During the November 9 conference call, conference call participants expressed interest in using the TPHCWG methodology to develop risk-based cleanup levels at petroleum-contaminated sites. This methodology is not currently included in the Subgroup's protocol. On December 2, 1998, Steve Geiger distributed a memorandum that explained how using this methodology might enhance the results of field demonstrations. Geiger received no questions pertaining to the memorandum..

Jackson and Kulakow briefly summarized the advantages of using the TPHCWG methodology for hydrocarbon analysis. These include allowing investigators to:

• Perform a risk analysis of data. Kulakow noted that phytoremediation should reduce risk as well as total hydrocarbon concentrations. He said using the TPHCWG methodology will allow investigators to prove whether the technology has reduced risk.
• Predict success. Jackson noted that the TPHCWG allows for better characterization of the petroleum because it provides information about aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbon fractions. She said using the methodology to analyze initial soil samples will allow investigators to determine how extensively oils have biodegraded. At sites where a significant amount of biodegradation has already occurred, she and Kulakow noted, phytoremediation is less likely to have dramatic impacts. In the event that a phytoremediation project fails to generate effective results, knowing how much biodegradation occurred prior to the experiment could help explain the failure.

During previous conversations, the TPH in Soil Subgroup had discussed having a subset of soil samples (e.g., the T₀ and T_Final samples) analyzed using the TPHCWG methodology. Kulakow noted that analyzing hydrocarbons using the TPHCWG methodology requires a pentane extraction rather than a methylene chloride extraction. Some confusion was generated about some recommendations that Arthur D. Little's (ADL's) Greg Douglas made regarding the extraction. Kulakow thought Douglas recommended using a pentane extraction on all of the soil samples so that the TPHCWG criteria could be applied to samples from all sites. Making a uniform change across the board, however, raised some concern among conference call participants. Phil Sayre said he was under the impression that the TPHCWG methodology would simply be included in the protocol as an optional add-on. He raised some objections to making a blanket change in the protocol that would call for a pentane extraction for all hydrocarbon analysis procedures. He questioned the wisdom of making fundamental changes to the protocol at this stage of protocol development. He also asked whether using a pentane extraction procedure has gained widespread acceptance. Geiger said he was not sure how widely accepted it has become, but noted that RETEC has found that the pentane extraction method correlates well with the IR method, EPA's method, and the American Petroleum Institute (API)'s method. Sayre asked whether the TPHCWG has gained widespread regulatory acceptance. Geiger said Michigan used the methodology to generate a TPH cleanup standard, adding that Massachusetts uses a risk assessment procedure that is similar to the TPHCWG methodology. In addition, Geiger continued, several states (e.g., Texas) have started evaluating the TPHCWG methodology.

Conference call participants agreed that the TPHCWG methodology should be an optional add-on. Geiger said some stakeholders will be less interested in using the methodology than others. He said he did not think the pentane extraction would need to be applied to all samples, just those that are chosen to receive the TPHCWG methodology.

Sayre asked how much it will cost to have hydrocarbons analyzed using the TPHCWG methodology. Geiger said he talked to Evelyn Drake and learned that ADL agreed to charge the same rate that they do to analyze hydrocarbons using more conventional methods. Kulakow said he wasn't sure that this was true and recommended calling ADL for clarification. Jackson asked whether anyone knew how much it typically costs to have hydrocarbons analyzed using the TPHCWG methodology. Geiger said he has had them analyzed for $285 per sample. He said it would cost about $6,480 to analyze all four replicates of the three treatments during T₀ and T_Final. He stressed, however, that useful information can be gathered by collecting data for fewer samples. If cost is an issue, he noted, investigators might want to consider performing the TPHCWG methodology on just one of two treatments.

In addition to costs associated with hydrocarbon analysis, Geiger said it will cost about $3,000 to analyze the data and to perform the risk assessment. He said the Subgroup may want to consider collecting the data now and holding off on the risk assessment until after the field demonstrations are over. By that time, investigators will have a better idea of the usefulness of the TPHCWG methodology. Assuming that ADL will analyze the hydrocarbons at no extra charge, Geiger stressed that investigators have nothing to lose by using this approach.

Kulakow recommended forming a subcommittee to clarify the following issues with ADL: (1) what recommendations did ADL make about extractions? and (2) will the TPHCWG methodology be conducted at no extra cost? Kulakow said it is important to resolve these issues quickly because many sites are scheduled to initiate activities in spring 1999. Jackson recommended that Kulakow, Smart, and Drake comprise the subcommittee. Kulakow and Smart accepted the charge, but Drake was not participating in the call.

OTHER ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES

Biomarkers

Kulakow noted that different sites will have different biomarkers. For example, he noted, hopane was identified at high concentrations at Chevron's California site, but this will not be the case at all sites. Smart and Kulakow stressed the importance of collecting good preliminary data so that investigators know which biomarkers are present at the site. That way, data can be normalized to the biomarker, allowing (1) a better internal estimate of biodegradation to be generated and (2) different sites to be compared to each other.

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Kulakow said it would be useful to evaluate alkylated PAHs at Chevron's California site. He said ADL recommended performing expanded PAH analyses on these samples. Kulakow agreed to find out how much the expanded PAH analyses cost and to report back to the Subgroup during the next conference call.

Plant Analysis Protocol

Jackson noted that plant samples are scheduled to be collected and analyzed during T_Final. Although the Subgroup will not need a plant analysis protocol for a couple of years, she recommended getting started on this activity. She asked whom she should contact about writing the protocol. Conference call participants said that ADL and Kathy Banks' laboratory are capable of performing the analysis, and therefore, would have protocols available. Kulakow agreed to follow up with ADL on this issue. Jackson asked him to have ADL send information on sample collection and storage.

FACE-TO-FACE MEETING

Rock recommended having the Subgroup meet face-to-face in early 1999. He recommended collaborating the timing of the meeting either with:

• The Alternative Covers Assessment Program (ACAP)'s conference. Rock noted that there are three Subgroups in the RTDF Phytoremediation Action Team. Like the TPH in Soil Subgroup, the ACAP Subgroup is also establishing a field program. Rock said the ACAP Subgroup plans to meet in San Francisco in February, March, or April, 1999. He recommended having the TPH in Soil Subgroup hold a conference at the same location and having that meeting immediately precede or follow the ACAP meeting. Rock said many regional representatives are likely to attend the ACAP conference because Region IX has offered to cosponsor the meeting. Jackson noted that the ACAP Subgroup plans to have a field site visit at the end of their conference. She said she would be interested in visiting their demonstration project. In addition, she said the TPH in Soil Subgroup could consider having a field trip to Chevron's California site.
• The Battelle conference. Battelle is scheduled to hold a conference in San Diego in April 1999. Sayre said the Battelle conference will include sessions on phytoremediation of TPH, explosives, and chlorinated solvents. Sayre said that many TPH in Soil Subgroup members may choose to attend the Battelle conference (Jackson warned that the cost per person is $750), as well as several people who are not currently aware of the Subgroup's activities. He said holding the TPH in Soil Subgroup conference immediately before or after the Battelle conference could help broadcast the Subgroup's protocol to a wider audience.
• The Petroleum Contaminated Soil meeting. Rock said this meeting will be held in Oxnard, California, on March 8-10, 1999. Lory said he would be willing to host a field site visit to the Port Hueneme demonstration project if it could be planned for any day except March 8.

Rock said the Subgroup could plan a conference at another time if none of the above options are desirable. He said Cincinnati is always an option because he can get meeting space relatively easily. Sayre agreed to draft a summary of the pros and cons associated with each meeting location and to have ERG distribute it to conference call participants.

MISCELLANEOUS

Rock noted that Kulakow and Reynolds had agreed to generate a site map during the last conference call. Kulakow said he forwarded information to Reynolds, but has not touched base with him since. Rock said he would call Reynolds to find out when the map will be completed.

NEXT CONFERENCE CALL

The next conference call is tentatively scheduled for January 12, 1999, from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST).

ACTION ITEMS

• Kulakow agreed to send Jackson a copy of EPA's standard protocols for bioavailability tests.
• Kulakow and Smart agreed to follow up with ADL on the following questions: (1) what recommendations did ADL make about extractions? and (2) will the TPHCWG methodology be conducted at no extra cost? (Conference call members recommended getting Drake involved as well.)
• Kulakow agreed to find out how much the expanded PAH analyses cost and to report back to the Subgroup during the next conference call.
• Kulakow agreed to ask ADL for plant analysis protocols.
• Conference call participants discussed meeting locations for a face-to-face meeting. Sayre agreed to draft a summary of the pros and cons associated with each meeting location and to have ERG distribute it to conference call participants.
• Rock said he would call Reynolds to find out when the site map will be completed.