Environmental Technology Resources, Interstate Technology Regulatory Council Guidance Documents: Technology Transfer Challenges and Solutions

Transcription

1 Environmental Technology Resources, Interstate Technology Regulatory Council Guidance Documents: Technology Transfer Challenges and Solutions MISSOURI WASTE CONTROL COALITION CONFERENCE Michael R. Sieczkowski, CHMM JRW Bioremediation, LLC July 18, 2017 Advancing Environmental Solutions

2 What is the Interstate Technology Regulatory Council? ITRC is a state-led coalition working to increase regulatory acceptance of innovative environmental technologies and approaches. At 22-years old, ITRC has grown into a national organization representing all 50 states that broadens and deepens technical knowledge, and expedites regulatory decision-making.

3 ITRC Organization Voting Members ECOS/ERIS Team Leaders/Project Teams Technical Teams State Engagement (POCs) Industry Affiliates Program ITRC Board of Advisors Board of Advisors ITRC Director Training Public and Tribal Stakeholders Non-Voting Federal Liaisons Training

4 ITRC Mission To develop information resources and processes to break down barriers to the use of technically sound innovative solutions for healthy communities, economy, and environment.

5 ITRC Values Facilitate better decision-making by fostering the acceptance and use of innovative solutions Develop solutions by working as a state-led organization in partnership with those affected by the guidance we develop Produce products that are grounded in technical excellence Work with integrity in a culture of collaboration Strive for consensus in decision-making and development of products

6 2017 Membership Composition

7 2017 ITRC Technical Teams Stormwater BMP Performance Team Evaluation of Innovative Methane Detection Technologies Bioavailability in Contaminated Soil Characterization and Remediation in Fractured Rock LNAPL Update Quality Considerations for Multiple Aspects of Munitions Response Sites Remediation Management of Complex Sites TPH Risk Evaluation at Petroleum-Contaminated Sites Key Information Needed to Develop Strategies to Address Environmental Releases of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) NEW

8 PROJECT START PRODUCT END: CONTINUOUS IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTREACH TEAM CLOSURE PRODUCT IMPLEMENTATION: FINAL PHASE PRODUCT IMPLEMENTATION: INITIAL PHASE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TRANSITION TEAM FORMATION PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT TEAM CLOSURE EXCEPTION

9 What Does ITRC Produce Fact Sheets Guidance Documents Printed documents (mostly-pre 2014) Internet based documents Websites Web viewable documents Training In person training sessions Internet sessions

10 Team Activities

11 64 Teams Since 1995

12 Release of two documents Geostatistics Institutional Controls Hits to website 11,000 average monthly unique visitors Implemented social media Current stats: 164 Twitter followers 113 Facebook followers 917 LinkedIn followers 2016 Major Activities

13 2017 MAJOR ACTIVITIES Anticipated completion of 3 teams and release of team products Complex Sites, Fractured Rock, Bioavailability 6 PFAS Factsheets to be released New Governance New Co-Chairs: Cherri Basinger, MO Tom Higgins, MN New Board members: Naji Akladis, ME At Large Sara Pearson, MI - Training

14 Possible New teams for 2018 Minimum of 7 proposals submitted to the Board: Site characterization tools Remediation performance and injection Alternatives to AFFF containing PFAS Drones Environmental Molecular Diagnostics Safe drinking water Shale reservoirs

15 TRAINING

16 2016 Training Activities 10,387 participants in 2016 online training 45 online courses 13 different topics Training classes: 3 PVI classes in CO, NJ, MA attendees LNAPL class in GA 200 attendees

17 ITRC Training Over 130,000 Participants 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Over 5,500 participants trained so far in 2017

18 ITRC Training Participation Sector Breakdown 74 Training Topics 816 Classes 130,516 Participants Located 92% in US 8% in 75 other countries Private Sector 49% All Other 6% State Local Govt 34% Federal Govt 11%

19 Remaining 2017 Training

20 On Line Training Geospatial Analysis for Optimization at Environmental Sites Long-term Contaminant Management Using Institutional Controls Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Remedy Selection for Contaminated Sediments Integrated DNAPL Site Strategy Issues and Options in Human Health Risk Assessment Groundwater Statistics

21 Classroom Training Two-day Classroom Training Petroleum Vapor Intrusion: Fundamentals of Screening, Investigation, and Management

22 Potential New Training Vehicle ITRC partnership with MWCC to continue the semi-annual MWCC seminar series Require approvals from both BODs Potential schedule to start spring 2018

23 Documents: Membership: Teams: Training Schedule: Classes pdf Integrated DNAPL Site Characterization and Tools Selection:

24 Stay Up-To-Date with ITRC facebook.com/itrcweb twitter.com/itrcweb linkedin.com/company/itrc March

25 THANKS TO: Patricia Reyes, Director, Interstate Technology Regulatory Council, Washington, DC Mary Yelken, CPLP, The Yelken Group, Lincoln, NE JRW Bioremediation, LLC, Lenexa, KS

26 Thank you! Advancing Environmental Solutions

27

28 Tech Transfer: A Case Study ITRC s role in implementing Geophysical Classification for Munitions Response Geophysical Classification: Buried metal items can be classified in the ground using data collected by geophysical sensors as either: 1) Potentially hazardous munitions and excavated as required 2) Or non-hazardous metal clutter, debris, or geology that can be left in the ground

29 Tech Transfer: A Case Study ITRC s role in implementing Geophysical Classification for Munitions Response Removal Action Camp Sibert, Alabama, Site 18: Advanced geophysical classification sensor data collected using the MetalMapper system Sensor data were processed and analyzed to categorize the buried metal items to determine 1) which would require excavation and 2) which could be left in the ground

30 Tech Transfer: A Case Study ITRC s role in implementing Geophysical Classification for Munitions Response Benefits: Cost Savings: Comparison between the classification technique and 100% excavation of all detected buried items showed a cost savings of 48% 55% with the classification technique Reduced Onsite Schedule and Land Impact: Site is a hunting preserve with fields planted to attract wildlife. Using classification would allow for less excavations for faster completion and less impact on the land