U.S. EPA Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
Materials Management and Remediation Center
Summary of the Stakeholder Committee Teleconference
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The meeting was called to order at 1:05 pm EDT by Amy Dindal, Battelle.
Present at Role Call: Sam Bass (USAGE), Paul Beam (US DOE), Erica Becvar (USAF), Amy
Dindal (Battelle), Kenneth Feathers (CT DEP), Angela Fisher (GE), Tim Franceschini (Shell),
Maria Gordon (Battelle), Jennifer Griffith (NEWMOA), Douglas Grosse (US EPA), Jim
Harrington (NY DEC), Dan Harris (OH EPA), Greg Harvey (WPAFB), Leslie Karr (US Navy),
Brian Lewis (CA DTSC), Peter Lurker (WBAFB), Dan Powell (US EPA), Heather Rectanus
(Battelle), Teri Richardson (US EPA), Ramon Simon (Bayer), Russ Sirabian (Battelle), Michael
Smith (VT DEC), David Wandor (Dow).
Welcome
Since Teri Richardson, EPA, was detained, Doug Grosse, EPA, welcomed the call participants.
Amy Dindal, Battelle, gave a summary of the MMR Center's activities since the first
teleconference. She described what was done to recruit new stakeholders and the various
outreach activities that the staff of the Center have undertaken. She invited suggestions from the
participants as to potential vendors and collaborators. Now that the Quality Management Plan
has been approved by EPA, the MMR Center is ready to proceed with verification testing.
Review of February 18 Telecon Summary Notes
Maria Gordon, Battelle, asked the participants for any comments on the summary notes from the
February 18 teleconference. As there were none, the notes are considered final and will be sent
to EPA for posting on the ETV website.
Introduction of New Participants
Amy Dindal asked the new participants on the call to introduce themselves and describe their
work and interests: Sam Bass, Angela Fisher, Tim Franceschini, Brian Lewis, Greg Harvey, and
Peter Lurker.
Discussion of Potential Remediation Technology Categories
Russ Sirabian, Battelle, led the discussion of potential remediation technology categories.
Sustainability Metrics.
There was lively discussion on sustainability metricswhich should be included, what
boundaries should be set, use some of the metrics developed by others (Leslie Karr, Sam
Bass, Jennifer Griffith, Jim Harrington, Erica Becvar, Ken Feathers). Russ explained that the
Center's role was not to develop sustainability metrics, but to use what is out there and
implement them in verification testing (e.g., include CO2 emissions as well as cost and
performance). Amy added that ETV generates data and lets others interpret them. Jim
-------
Harrington asked whether to consider the emission of CC>2 from the process and/or from the
use of electricity. Ken Feathers said to focus on the technology itself, not the production of
electricity, etc., which would be different at every site. The vendor should document what
gives them a competitive advantage. Amy replied that vendors sometimes make claims and
these can be incorporated into verification testing, but ETV does not do pass/fail evaluation
of vendor claims. Russ stated that the report should include information for users to decide
sustainability (how much energy required, how much material needed to be purchased). Jim
Harrington said it should be done without increasing the cost of testing. Jim Harrington said
metrics should be included, give as much as possible. Jennifer Griffith said to collect as
many parameters as possible, and discuss what's feasible for each technology. Russ
concluded that the issue would be revisited with the first protocol that needs to be developed
but that the basic message from the stakeholders was to report on sustainability metrics
associated with on-site activities and to include other information needed for technology
users to characterize sustainability metrics associated with the technology.
In Situ Groundwater Remediation: Primawave Technology.
The Navy has potential sites for testing this technology. Jim Harrington said that New York
was pilot testing the technology. Leslie Karr wanted to know whether documentation was
available on the testing. Jim Harrington said he would share the information. Jennifer
Griffith thought it seemed useful to do testing with Primawave; she thought there was value
in verifying the technology in different geologic settings. Russ suggested using it at multiple
wells: use in half of the wells or use multiple injections; use one time, not the next; change
the speed of injection; use tracer. Jennifer Griffith replied that even wells a few feet apart
may have different geological conditions. Erica Becvar said it was helpful to have this
discussion. Those who have already done the testing can share information. Ken Feathers
said the technology was not used in Connecticut. He was concerned whether it can push
product where it hadn't been before. Jim Harrington said testing produces site-specific
results. Sam Bass commented that well construction may have an effect on the technology,
for instance whether used in filter pack or direct push wells. Erica Becvar said it would be
helpful to get third party testing. Russ summed up by asking Jim Harrington to send
available information to Maria Gordon to send out to everyone. The meeting notes will be
posted on the MMR Center website. Amy said there will be an established area on the
website for ETV MMR information sharing.
In Situ Groundwater Remediation: Pneumatic Fracturing.
Dave Wandor said that Dow did a preliminary evaluation of the technology in Alberta,
Canada, also hydraulic fracturing. What is the correlation between hydraulic and pneumatic
fracturing? A tiltmeter can be deceptive. There also daylighting issues: things go in
unexpected places. Amy asked whether Dow has sites available, and Dave said there was a
possibility. Ken Feathers said that pneumatic fracturing was used at a Superfund site in
Connecticut, where the site was stratified with coarse and fines. Dave Wandor said they had
tested mainly in clays. He will follow up about possible sites and report back to Maria.
In Situ Groundwater Remediation: Anti-Biofouling Agents
Dave Wandor said Dow may have a site interested in testing the use of anti-biofouling
agents. Sam Bass said there are some USAGE sites also interested in testing the technology.
However, they have limited support/funding, and he will have to check. One site is an
extraction well, the other is a post-treatment, gravity injection site; They are at opposite ends
of the country. Russ said that testing of anti-biofouling was more straightforward than with
-------
other technologies. Angela Fisher said that Aquabuff was made by the same company as
EOS; GE had used it in the lab, but not in the field. Sam Bass was not sure where USAGE
was in the evaluation process of Aquabuff. He will check on electron donor injection.
In Situ Groundwater Remediation: Aero-Stream Remediator (remediate septic
systems)
Jim Harrington said it was not used in New York. Ken Feathers said a separate group
handled it in Connecticut. Sam Bass reported that it was not for the USAGE. This
technology will be discussed on the Materials Management call on March 31.
In Situ Groundwater Remediation: XDD, Fenton's
Ken Feathers commented that Verutek is a Connecticut company. Russ asked whether to
pick several vendors and their proprietary mix. Jim Harrington asked, what if you have
multiple similar technology vendors that want to be tested? Amy replied, yes, this is a
voluntary process that is open to all technology vendors. .
In Situ Groundwater Remediation: Chemical Reductants
Jim Harrington said several NY sites were slated to use ZVI, but wasn't sure if it had been
used yet. He'll explore and let us know. Leslie Karr said she would send a notice to their
managers to see if they have a site for this category.
Remediation: Soil and Sediment Remediation
Sam Bass said the USAGE was interested in pore water sampling and AquaBlok. Ken
Feathers said Connecticut has 3 acres of tidal flat (Stratford Army Engine Plant), where they
are still characterizing metals, PCBs, and solvents. The pollution is big enough to allow
comparison of technologies at the site. Sam Bass will follow up on this site. Leslie Karr said
to look at reactive caps side by side; vendor will custom make them.
Remediation: Sediment Dredging
Leslie Karr said the Navy is interested in this technology. It is easier to verify on a non-
contaminated site. Jim Harrington remarked that NY has Onandaga Lake and the Hudson
Rivernot sure what this technology gets you. Dredging projects tend to be bid out. Maybe
this is too ambitious. Ken Feathers concurred. Dredging is mining technology and must be
cost competitive. Jim Harrington said to look at all three dredging approaches to see which
is competitive. Russ said it is not a high priority for our site for reasons brought up. Ken
suggested to pass it on to dredging people if they're interested. Amy said a full presentation
from Damon will be made available electronically to those interested.
Remediation: Chemical Recovery
SVE. Leslie Karr said the Navy put together an ESTCP proposal for potential technology
testing that may be able to be piggy-backed with the ETV program. Change out and evaluate
whether the SVE process concentrates VOCs and CCC (cryogenic compression
condensation) process; look at life cycle costs of technology. Jim Harrington said SVE has
potential, a good alternative to oxidation. He has never used vapor instead of carbon as
oxidizer. Leslie will keep the group up to date as to the status of the ESTCP proposal.
Emerging Contaminants Remediation
1-4 Dioxane. Brian Lewis said there are sites in California using 1,4-dioxane
remediation. Tom Moore wrote a paper on it, and is writing a book on it. Ken Feathers
said there is an 1,4-dioxane site in Connecticut. There are some issues related to
discharge water; need to abide by Clean Water Act and its requirements.
NDMA. Erica Becvar said that, depending on the proposals funded, they may have sites
available for NDMA testing.
- Endocrine Disrupters. Leslie Karr said the Navy is very interested in 1,4-dioxane and
NDMA, but not endocrine disrupters.
-------
Munitions Response Remediation. Sam Bass commented that there are dozens of sites
where the USAGE could do demonstrations on munitions response. There are many sites,
but no money to do the demos. USAGE is interested in UXO detection/discrimination.
Leslie Karr concurred that the Navy is interested as well, but likely does not have funding.
Russ said that munitions work must be closely coordinated with ESTCP.
Remediation: Monitoring Techniques
Jim Harrington commented that passive samples have already been done. Amy said that
SNAP sampler has already been tested, but is looking for broader acceptance, including EPA.
There is also international verification being performed currently of passive groundwater
samplers. Paul Beam spoke of geophysical technologies for site investigation for monitoring
at the tail end. Heather Rectanus and Paul Beam gave names of groups doing short courses:
Vironex, Gregg Drilling, Schlumberger. Sam Bass brought up mass flux measuring
devices/techniques with ESTCP. Ken Feathers said there were regulatory hurdles.
A general comment from Brian Lewis was to suggest to the group to look to move forward with
verification testing on sites in particular states where there are representatives on the ETV MMR
stakeholder committee.
Review of Action Items and Next Meeting
Amy Dindal summarized the priority technology categories from the discussion as follows
(bolded are areas which we will pursue first):
Delivery Methods
~ Pneumatic Fracturing
Pressure Pulsing
Biological Processes
~ Electron Donors
Anti Bio-fouling Agents
In Situ Chemical Oxidants
In Situ Chemical Reductants
Soil and Sediment Remediation
~ Reactive Caps
Emerging Contaminant Remediation
1,4 dioxane
N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA)
Chemical Recovery for SVE by Vapor Condensation
Munitions Response Remediation
Geophysical Techniques for NAPL identification
Action items included the following:
Amy Dindal is to establish an "electronic filing cabinet" for information in the form of a
ETV MMR sharepoint site.
Russell Sirabian is to get background information on Wavefront technology and post on
ETV MMR sharepoint site.
Jim Harrington is to send NY-DEC publicly available documents on Wavefront technology,
ZVI sites, and experience with the Verutek technology to Maria Gordon for posting on the
ETV MMR sharepoint site.
-------
David Wandor is to look into potential sites for testing technologies in the areas of
pneumatic fracturing and anti-biofouling and provide suggestions to Maria.
Sam Bass is to look into potential sites and funding sources for testing technologies in the
areas of anti-biofouling, electron donors, reactive caps (including potential opportunities at
Stratford Army Engine Plant in CT), and munitions response, and provide suggestions to
Maria.
Leslie Karr is to look into potential sites and funding sources for testing technologies in the
areas of reactive caps, ZVT, SVE condensation, and munitions response, and provide
suggestions to Maria.
The next stakeholder meeting will take place in June, on a date yet to be determined.
Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 pm EDT.
Respectfully submitted,
Maria Gordon
ETV MMR Center Stakeholder Coordinator
------- |