Federal Remediation Federal Remediation T Technologies - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

l l k l k

Federal Remediation Federal Remediation T h l i T h l i Technologies Technologies Roundtable Roundtable Roundtable Roundtable

The Early Years The Early Years

Walter W. Walter W. Kovalick Kovalick, Jr. , Jr. 8thaveconsulting@gmail.com 8thaveconsulting@gmail.com

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaYXWVUTSRPONMLKJIGFEDCBA Background at EPA Background at EPA Background at EPA Background at EPA

 Superfund Law passed in 1980

Superfund Law passed in 1980

 Superfund Law passed in 1980

Superfund Law passed in 1980

 Superfund Law amended in 1986

Superfund Law amended in 1986— —over

• ver

300 pp 300 pp 300 pp. 300 pp.

 Technology Innovation Office created

Technology Innovation Office created from staff office to advocate for new from staff office to advocate for new from staff office to advocate for new from staff office to advocate for new technologies technologies

• 90 day study to talk to consultants Fed

90 day study to talk to consultants Fed

• 90 day study to talk to consultants, Fed

90 day study to talk to consultants, Fed Agencies, Regions, states, universities Agencies, Regions, states, universities

” f bl f bl c p c p f

Context in 1980s Context in 1980s-

• 1990s

1990s

 June 1988

June 1988

• ”Right Train, Wrong Track: Failed Leadership in

”Right Train, Wrong Track: Failed Leadership in SF Program SF Program”—from public interest groups from public interest groups

• “Are We Cleaning Up? 10 Superfund Case

“Are We Cleaning Up? 10 Superfund Case Studies” Studies”—Office of Technology Assessment Office of Technology Assessment gy gy

• Criticisms: only capping and containing;

Criticisms: only capping and containing; incineration incineration 1989 1989 First U S

• mmercial internet

rovider First U S

• mmercial internet rovider

 1989

1989—First U.S. commercial internet provider First U.S. commercial internet provider— grew in 1990’s grew in 1990’s

• Information sharing with publications and

Information sharing with publications and conferences conferences

• “Bulletin boards” available early 1990s

“Bulletin boards” available early 1990s

• NO Google or Wikipedia!

NO Google or Wikipedia! NO Google or Wikipedia! NO Google or Wikipedia!

t t y fi l i 1990

Context (cont ) Context (cont ) Context (cont.) Context (cont.)

 March 1989—EXXON Valdez spilled ~ 11  March 1989 EXXON Valdez spilled

11 million barrels in Prince William Sound

• Bioremediation “Summit” hosted by EPA

with 60 participants from all sectors

 SITE (demo program at EPA) began in 1986;

first results in 1990s

 Incineration and physical containment were

the only familiar answers the only familiar answers

 The era of “dig and haul” and “pump and

pray” pray

Dynamics of Solving Environmental Dynamics of Solving Environmental P bl P bl Problems Problems

Technology Technology Vendor Vendor I ndustry/ I ndustry/ Problem Problem Federal/ Federal/ State State Vendor Vendor Ow ner Ow ner Project Project Manager Manager Consulting Consulting Engineer Engineer

Barriers to Implementing Innovative Barriers to Implementing Innovative T h l i T h l i Technologies Technologies

Motivational

Institutional/Economic

Education, Training, and Professional Development Development Information Transfer Field Deployment / Cost and Performance Data

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaYXWVUTSRPONMLKJIGFEDCBA

• Federal Agency Situation

Federal Agency Situation Federal Agency Situation Federal Agency Situation

 Relatively new law with need for new

Relatively new law with need for new

 Relatively new law with need for new

Relatively new law with need for new budgets for clean up budgets for clean up

 Sole “face” of EPA was “enforcement”

Sole “face” of EPA was “enforcement”

• No partnerships

No partnerships

• Revitalization and reuse were not even

Revitalization and reuse were not even heard f heard f heard of heard of

• Lack capacity for effective citizen

Lack capacity for effective citizen involvement involvement

 Dependent on same consultants with

Dependent on same consultants with little remediation training/ expertise little remediation training/ expertise

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaYXWVUTSRPONMLKJIGFEDCBA

c

Environmental Technology (Bazaar) Marketplace (Bazaar) Marketplace

 Traditional commercialization issues

Traditional commercialization issues

 Market is driven and constrained by regulations

Market is driven and constrained by regulations

 Enforcement is critical

Enforcement is critical

 Stakeholder receptivity/ fragmented state

Stakeholder receptivity/ fragmented state markets markets

 Transactions mediated by consulting engineers

Transactions mediated by consulting engineers

 Risk

Risk-laden milieu laden milieu

 Risk

Risk laden milieu laden milieu

 Verification and testing needed

Verification and testing needed

Procurement/ financial

• nsiderations

Procurement/ financial onsiderations

 Procurement/ financial considerations

Procurement/ financial considerations

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaYXWVUTSRPONMLKJIGFEDCBA Convening the Roundtable Convening the Roundtable Convening the Roundtable Convening the Roundtable

 EPA motivation: Public funds were

EPA motivation: Public funds were

 EPA motivation: Public funds were

EPA motivation: Public funds were being spent by Federal agencies and being spent by Federal agencies and experience experience (i e cost and performance

(i e cost and performance

experience experience (i.e. cost and performance

(i.e. cost and performance data) could be gleaned for all to use data) could be gleaned for all to use

 Problems: Distrust of EPA little

Problems: Distrust of EPA little

 Problems: Distrust of EPA, little

Problems: Distrust of EPA, little motivation to “mine” data, no motivation to “mine” data, no efficient way to exchange info efficient way to exchange info efficient way to exchange info efficient way to exchange info

m c m c p ) p )

Covening Covening (cont.) cont.) Covening Covening (cont.) cont.)

 Sent letters/ met with each Agency

Sent letters/ met with each Agency

 “Roundtable” chosen to signify equal

“Roundtable” chosen to signify equal stakes/ participation/ benefits stakes/ participation/ benefits

Proposed rotating eeting hairs Proposed rotating eeting hairs

• Proposed rotating meeting chairs

Proposed rotating meeting chairs

• EPA supplied contractor support

EPA supplied contractor support

 Explained mutual benefits

Explained mutual benefits

 Explained mutual benefits

Explained mutual benefits

• Keep up on current technology (and policy

Keep up on current technology (and policy developments) developments)

• EPA attendees from SF, RCRA, ORD and

EPA attendees from SF, RCRA, ORD and enforcement offices as attraction for enforcement offices as attraction for information gathering information gathering information gathering information gathering

S f F d l D t ti f I ti Sit

m

Early FRTR Developments Early FRTR Developments y p y p



Easy— —Compile existing information

• Bibliography of Federal Reports and Publications

Describing Alternative and Innovative Treatment Technologies For Corrective Action and Site Remediation, 1991

• Synopses of Federal Dem onstrations of Innovative Site

Remediation Technologies, Third Edition, August 1993

• Accessing Federal Data Bases for Contaminated Site

Clean Up Technologies Fourth Edition October 1995 Clean-Up Technologies, Fourth Edition, October 1995

• Federal Publications on Alternative and I nnovative

Treatm ent Technologies for Corrective Action and Site Remediation Fourth Edition October 1995 Remediation, Fourth Edition, October 1995



Focus on building trust, participation, and value N.B. Dec. 1991 decision to follow technologies for site characterization and

• nitoring!

characterization and monitoring!

as c as c

Later FRTR Developments Later FRTR Developments

 Allowed dialogue with Agencies and EPA

Allowed dialogue with Agencies and EPA enforcement on policy for demonstrating enforcement on policy for demonstrating innovative technologies innovative technologies innovative technologies innovative technologies

 Work groups

Work groups— —formed on mutual formed on mutual interests and interests and built on single agency built on single agency efforts efforts

• Jointly

Jointly developed developed cost and performance templates to cost and performance templates to document case studies document case studies--

• -1994

1994

 Allowed Agencies to showcase their work (and build in

Allowed Agencies to showcase their work (and build in templates

• sts to document projects)

templates

• sts to document projects)

templates as costs to document projects) templates as costs to document projects)

 FRTR Remediation

FRTR Remediation Technologies Screening Technologies Screening Matrix Matrix and Reference Guide, and Reference Guide, Version III Version III, No embe No embe 1997 1997 November November 1997 1997

 Internet/ web site allowed widespread document

Internet/ web site allowed widespread document availability and searchable data bases availability and searchable data bases

t t t t t , b t EPA d F d l i f l i b t EPA d F d l i f l i

• wned
• wned

d di i d i i d di i d i i gy, g gy, g

FRTR FRTR—Later (cont ) Later (cont ) FRTR FRTR Later (cont.) Later (cont.)

 Specialty conferences allowed FRTR “brand” to be

Specialty conferences allowed FRTR “brand” to be p y p y more public more public

 Meetings

Meetings opened channels of communication

• pened channels of communication

between EPA and Federal agencies for resolving between EPA and Federal agencies for resolving problems/ enabling technology problems/ enabling technology efforts efforts

 Agencies “owned” meeting chairmanship,

Agencies “owned” meeting chairmanship, Agencies meeting chairmanship, Agencies meeting chairmanship, agendas, and funding of admin. support agendas, and funding of admin. support

 Topics broadened to include

Topics broadened to include groundwater groundwater assessment and remediation, decision assessment and remediation, decision support support tools, cost analysis, systems optimization tools, cost analysis, systems optimization, , nanotechnology, green remediation, and more nanotechnology, green remediation, and more

t f i l i i f i l i i

FRTR and Collaboration FRTR and Collaboration FRTR and Collaboration FRTR and Collaboration

 FRTR

FRTR—forum/ platform to engage forum/ platform to engage

 FRTR

FRTR forum/ platform to engage forum/ platform to engage with other entities with other entities

• Clean Sites

Clean Sites— —private sector PRP private sector PRP p

• rganization
• rganization
• AAEES

AAEES— —Consulting engineers Consulting engineers professional organization professional organization

• ITRC

ITRC— —joint effort of states re: joint effort of states re: contaminated sites contaminated sites contaminated sites contaminated sites

• NATO

NATO— —FRTR projects tapped for FRTR projects tapped for highlighting to other countries highlighting to other countries g g g g g g

1990 1990-

• 2015

2015

25 YEARS AND COUNTING

Environmental Technology Environmental Technology Development Cycle Development Cycle Development Cycle Development Cycle

Proof

• f

Concept Bench Scale Pilot Scale Demon- stration Commer- cialization Concept

Idea

” t

D

Stages of Technology Stages of Technology Commercialization Commercialization Commercialization Commercialization

“Early Optimism” “Value Engineering” “Hard Reality” “Replication” Optimism Engineering” Reality” T t l C

• No. 1

Commercial

Total Costs (Installed)

Bench and POC Pilot Demo

• No. 2

Commercial No 3 Concept (Lab) Bench and POC

• No. 3

Commercial

Time

B k

Technology Innovator’s View of Technology Innovator’s View of C i li ti P C i li ti P Commercialization Process Commercialization Process

Time

Concept (Lab) Bench and POC No 2

• No. 3

Commercial

Technology Innovator’s

Pilot Demo

• No. 2

Commercial

Bank Balance

• No. 1

Commercial

Valley of Death

• National Research Council, 1997

1 1-2 2 2-3 2-3 3 1 1-2 2 2-3 2-3 3 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 4 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 4

Ranking Criteria for Difficulty in Ranking Criteria for Difficulty in Remediating Ground Water Remediating Ground Water

Mobile Strongly Mobile Strongly

TIO Update to NRC Table, October 2002

Hydrogeology

Mobile Dissolved (Degrades/ Volatilizes) Mobile Dissolved Strongly Sorbed, Dissolved Sorbed, Dissolved (Degrades/ Volatilizes) Separate Phase LNAPL Separate Phase DNAPL

Hydrogeology

Mobile Dissolved (Degrades/ Volatilizes) Mobile Dissolved Strongly Sorbed, Dissolved Sorbed, Dissolved (Degrades/ Volatilizes) Separate Phase LNAPL Separate Phase DNAPL

Homogeneous, Single Layer Homogeneous, Homogeneous, Single Layer 1 1-2 2 2-3 2-3 1-2 Homogeneous, 1 1-2 2 2-3 2-3 2 ? Multiple Layers Heterogenous, Single Layer Multiple Layers 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 ? Heterogenous, Single Layer 2 2 3 3 3 3 ? Heterogenous, Multiple Layers F t d Heterogenous, Multiple Layers 2 2 3 3 3 4 F t d Fractured Bedrock

least difficult = 1 / most difficult = 4

Fractured Bedrock 3 3 3 3 4 4