The ITRC is a state-led coalition that promotes the use of innovative hazardous waste and remediation technologies. To accomplish this, the members of the ITRC:
- Develop guidance documents intended to help regulatory staff and technology vendors in the deployment of innovative technologies.
- Establish a network of technical resources and support for implementing new ideas back in their own organizations.
Through these efforts, states participating in the ITRC have reported a variety of benefits that have resulted from their participation in the ITRC. This document is an overview of these reports. More specifically, it summarizes where we are in the ongoing effort to document how ITRC participation and work products are being used by state environmental agencies.
In May 1998 the ITRC published an interim report "ITRC - Six months of Success" which documented 43 benefit examples. This draft report builds on that earlier work adding 41 new examples and updating information on many of the examples published previously.
The following tables provide summary information on all 84 of the individual examples included in this report. Detailed information on all examples included in this report can be found in the individual state sections which follow this overview.
Examples of States Using ITRC Guidance Documents to Deploy
Permeable Barrier Wall (PBW) Technologies
(Table 1)
| Site Location |
ITRC Document |
Document Use Benefit |
Technology Benefit Compared to Alternative |
Comments |
| Fairfield, NJ |
PBW-1 &2 |
Avoided 1 year delay |
Done in 3 Months; Saved $614,000 |
2nd state use |
| Helena Site, FL |
PBW-1 &2 |
Helped design test |
Better pesticide groundwater remedy |
Pilot study |
| VinylCl Site,FL |
PBW-1 &2 |
Basis to urge PBW use |
More effective cleanup than MNA |
Remedy in dispute |
| Salem, MA |
PBW-1 &2 |
Saved staff 250 hrs/50% |
In situ; no extended O&M costs |
First state use |
| Caldwell, NJ |
PBW-1 &2 |
Saved staff 10 hrs/20% |
Permanent solution vs pump & treat |
First state use |
| Rocky Flats, CO |
PBW-1 &2 |
Saved staff 10 hrs/10% |
$2.2 to 2.7 Million cheaper |
3rd state use |
Examples of States Using ITRC Guidance Documents to Deploy
In Situ Bioremediation (ISB) Technologies
(Table 2)
| Site Location |
ITRC Document |
Document Use Benefit |
Technology Benefit Compared to Alternative |
Comments |
| Jax Pilot, FL |
ISB - All |
Use proposed by regulators |
Co-solvent extraction for DNAPLS |
Pilot study w. EPA |
| Superfund, KS |
ISB - All |
Use proposed by regulators |
Removes chromium in groundwater |
PRP accepted |
| Jax Pilot, FL |
ISB - All |
Use supported by state |
New Separation Technology |
Pilot study w. EPA |
| Ogallala, NE |
ISB–2 |
NE Proposed ISB |
$1.5-2.8 Million cheaper |
EPA NPL Site |
| Miami, FL |
ISB-2 &3 |
Saved staff 50-100 hrs |
Considered more cost effective |
Augmented ISB |
| Dry Cleaner, KS |
ISB–2 |
Expedited Decision |
None/Technology infeasible @ site |
Proposal Rejected |
| Dry Cleaner, KS |
ISB-2 |
KS proposed ISB |
Only option at many state sites |
Joint Pilot with EPA |
| Tampa, FL |
ISB-3 |
Saved staff 20-40 hrs |
Cost savings paid for ISB study |
EPA NPL Site |
| Landfill , KS |
ISB-3 |
Saved staff over 80 hrs |
TBD – Pilot project ongoing |
First state approval |
| Army Base, KS |
ISB-3 |
Expedited Decision |
None/Technology infeasible @ site |
Proposal rejected |
Examples of States Using ITRC Guidance Documents to Deploy
Metals in Soils (MIS) Technologies
(Table 3)
| Site Location |
ITRC Document |
Document Use Benefit |
Technology Benefit Compared to Alternative |
Comments |
| Ft. Dix, NJ |
MIS -1,2,4 |
Expedited Use Approval |
More cost-effective than dig/haul |
Planned in other States |
| Superfund, WA |
MIS - 4 |
Helped Phyto acceptance |
TBD |
|
| San Diego, CA |
MIS - 1,2 |
Stimulated SiteVisit and Regulator Industry dialog |
Encouraged future collaboration |
Involved CA, NJ, NY,WA |
| Tampa, FL |
MIS-All |
Saved staff 20-30 hrs |
TBD – Review is ongoing |
Lead Acid Battery site |
| NPL Site, FL |
MIS-All |
Saved staff 10-20 hrs |
TBD – Review is ongoing |
Lead Acid Battery site |
Examples of States Using ITRC Guidance Documents to Deploy
Accelerated Site Characterization (ASC) Technologies
(Table 4)
| Site Location |
ITRC Document |
Document Use Benefit |
Technology Benefit Compared to Alternative |
Comments |
| Jax Pilot, FL |
ASC-3 |
Used to screen site fast |
Saved time, pilot study expedited |
DOD diverted unit to site to help state |
| MPG Site, FL |
ASC-3 |
Expedited Approval |
Superior Site Characterization possible sooner at lower cost |
Petroleum Plume |
| Houston, TX |
ASC-3 |
Prompted consultant and state to try SCAPS for site re-characterization |
Faster, more complete site profile at lower cost; basis to proceed with remediation |
Creosote Site with DNAPLS |
Examples of States Using ITRC Guidance Documents to Deploy
Thermal Desorption (TD) Technologies
(Table 5)
| Site Location |
ITRC Document |
Document Use Benefit |
Technology Benefit Compared to Alternative |
Comments |
| Site not Disclosed |
TD 1&2 |
Saved time and money |
$100,000 in costs avoided |
Maxymillian Technologies |
| Tampa, FL |
TD-1 &2 |
Saved FL staff 10-40 hrs |
TBD – Review ongoing |
NPL – ACOE /EPA |
| Fort Edward, NY |
TD-1 |
Standardized approach, more rapid reviews, less staff costs, increased incentive to use LTTD |
Full remediation on-site, less disruption/risk to local area, avoids long-term liability of disposal at a landfill |
1,400 TPD Facility |
| New Windsor, NY |
TD-1 |
Same as above |
Same as Fort Edward Example |
525 TPD Facility |
| S. Glens Falls, NY |
TD-2 |
Same as above |
Same as Fort Edward Example |
14,000T with PCBs |
| Nassau Cnty, NY |
TD-2 |
Same as above |
Same as Fort Edward Example |
3,000T with solvents |
| Saratoga Cnty, NY |
TD-2 |
Same as above |
Same as Fort Edward Example |
28,000T w. pesticides |
| Sidney, NY |
TD-2 |
Same as above |
Same as Fort Edward Example |
40,000T w. creosotes |
| Monroe Cnty, NY |
TD-2 |
Same as above |
Same as Fort Edward Example |
15,000 with TCEs |
Examples of ITRC Fostered Interstate &
Multi-Party Institutional Changes
(Table 6)
| State/Organization |
Initiative Area |
Expected Benefits |
| PA, DOD, USN, USAF, USA, |
Multi-site Cleanup Agreement signed to achieve cloture on over 1000 inactive sites using state voluntary cleanup program guidelines. Promotes use of innovative technologies & ITRC documents |
Accelerated cloture on inactive military sites; increased market for new technologies, and application of approach to other states including initially New Jersey and California |
| CA, WA, TX, PA, MA, UT, KS, TN, LA, IL, ITRC, RTDF, DuPont, Peak, and others |
Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in Groundwater Training Course conducted at 12 locations throughout the U.S. during past 24 months. |
Total of 1,586 individuals trained including 881 state and federal regulators. Course evaluation/ student survey responses indicate broad acceptance and significant use of training on site cleanups. Multiple states are reporting increased use of natural attenuation as part of site cleanup remedy selection and implementation. |
| NJ,CO,MA,WA,PA,TX,GA,CA,NY,IL, KS, ITRC, RTDF, & USEPA |
Permeable Reactive Barrier Training Course to be offered at 12 sites between March 1999 and September 2000. |
Benefits anticipated to be similar to results from Natural attenuation Course. |
Examples of ITRC Fostered Institutional Changes Within
States
(Table 7)
| State/Organization |
Initiative Area |
Expected Benefits |
| Florida DEP |
Incorporating ITRC Guidance document elements into revisions to agency rules |
Will make it easier for innovative technologies to be supported by the state regulators |
| Massachusetts DEP |
ITRC MNA training stimulating dialog on possible policy implication for agency and state |
Improved knowledge base for policy analysis and deliberation within regulatory framework |
| Oregon, DEQ |
Established mechanism for internal agency review, discussion, and acceptance of ITRC documents |
Increased use of ITRC guidance documents at remediation sites & improved staff skills |
| Tennessee, DEC |
Established internal process to review ITRC documents, and participated in MNA training |
Increased use of ITRC guidance documents at remediation sites & improved staff skills |
| Utah, DEQ |
ITRC Documents made available to consultants, PRPs; participated in ITRC MNA training/Teams |
Increased use of ITRC guidance documents at remediation sites & improved staff skills |
| Washington, DEC |
Agency using Verification Team study data to screen and evaluate technologies for sites |
Increases knowledge and confidence in new technologies performance capabilities |
| Nebraska DEQ |
Include explicit innovative technology task in all Superfund cooperative agreements with EPA Region 7 |
Provides mechanism & funds for NDEQ to play key role in potential use of innovative technologies at state Superfund sites. |
| Nebraska DEQ |
Promote consideration of innovative characterization technology use in state by including requirement in NDEQ procurement for field investigation services |
Expected to create incentives for use of ASC technologies by 2 contractors covering 20 site evaluations in next 3 years. |
| Nebraska DEQ |
Establishment of NDEQ Innovative Technology Forum which will expose all sections of the NDEQ to ITRC and its products and services. |
Creates the internal networking and information exchange necessary to encourage acceptance of new technologies |
| Pennsylvania DEP |
Develop "Technology Review Network" within agency to process ITRC Guidance Documents |
Improved awareness, access to information, and use of ITRC products |
| Florida DEP |
Encourage DEP staff , vendors, and consultants to use ITRC Website to get documents and assistance. |
More motivated and technically sound performance by all parties in the process |
| Florida DEP |
Use ITRC documents as input to agency rulemaking on soil treatment at fixed facilities |
Saved 100 hrs staff time. Will encourage use of new clean up technology state-wide |
| Florida DEP |
Encourage State Lands Division to participate in EPA SITE Demonstration Program |
Improve state awareness of and receptivity to accepting new innovative technologies |
| Florida DEP |
Promote use of ITRC documents and expert networks by FDEP staff members involved with specific sites to help them consider new remediation technologies. |
Improved chance new technologies will be considered i.e. PBW @ DoD Canaveral and state dry cleaning program; ISB at DOE Pinellas Remediation Site |
Examples of ITRC Fostered Technology Awareness Within
States
(Table 8)
| State/Organization |
Initiative Area |
Expected Benefits |
| Massachusetts DEP |
Through participation in ITRC, MADEP became aware of EPA Information Resource Workshop course and arranged onsite training for staff |
42 agency staff members trained by USEPA/TIO at no cost to the state. |
| Ohio EPA |
Agency is using ITRC tools to evaluate site cleanup, performance requirements |
Expands staff knowledge base, skills, and inclination to consider innovative technology for use at specific sites. |
| Ohio EPA |
ITRC Guidance Documents added to agency list of information resources, encouraging consultants, et al to review. |
Creates the internal networking and information exchange necessary to encourage acceptance of new technologies |
| Oregon DEQ |
Establishment of NDEQ Innovative Technology Forum which will expose all sections of the NDEQ to ITRC and its products and services. |
Creates the internal networking and information exchange necessary to encourage acceptance of new technologies |
| Pennsylvania DEP |
Conducted presentation on PBW technology and overview of ITRC related documents as part of in service education conference for agency |
Expands staff knowledge base, skills, and inclination to consider innovative technology for use at specific sites. |
| Washington DEC |
WDEC member of ITRC PBW Team networking routinely with project managers in state Toxics cleanup Program |
Increased site manager knowledge about PBW technology and enhanced prospects for use at cleanup sites. |
| Washington DEC |
Use of "Bus Stop Tours" to allow ITRC reps to make presentations to and interact with WDEC staff at geographically dispersed and decentralized regional offices |
Greater awareness of technology options available for site remedies, and access to support from ITRC networks |
Examples of Natural Attenuation Training Applied by States
Agencies to Sites
(Table 9)
| State/Organization |
Initiative Area |
Expected Benefits |
| Colorado DH&E |
8 staff attended ITRC training, 13 staff working on over 17 sites where MNA is part of remedy |
Saving staff time and money to deal with large inventory of sites considering MNA |
| Kansas DH&E |
As a result of ITRC training KDHE project manager recognized classic biodegradation pattern in data from Army base chlorinated solvent plume and alerted base staff |
MNA incorporated into remedy saving Army significant expense. |
| Kansas DH&E |
KDHE helped define degradation mechanisms as part of oversight of inactive DOD site planning to use MNA, based on tools from ITRC training. |
Improved potential effectiveness of site remediation |
| Oregon DEQ |
Participation in ITRC MNA training led directly to DEQ first approval of ROD using MNA. MNA status upgraded to "treatment preference" level for use on hot spots. |
Increased understanding of MNA opportunities and limitations by agency. Expanded use at sites when appropriate |
| Florida DEP |
MNA being used at Jacksonville dry cleaner pilot study site following 90% DNAPL removal via co-solvent flushing and extraction with new separation technology. (see Florida ISB examples for Jax pilot) |
Ongoing pilot test expected to verify that natural attenuation process will be enhanced by removal of most DNAPL and continuing presence of residual alcohol co-solubalized with the PCE |
Summary of Benefit Examples By Technology/Category
(Table 10)
| Technology/Category |
May 1998 |
Jan 1999 |
| Permeable Barriers |
3 |
6 |
| Insitu Bioremediation |
7 |
10 |
| Metals in Soils |
2 |
5 |
| Accelerated Site Characterization |
2 |
3 |
| Low Temperature Thermal Desorption |
8 |
9 |
| Interstate & Multi-Party Institutional Change |
12 |
25 |
| Institutional Change within States |
8 |
14 |
| Technology Awareness within States |
1 |
7 |
| Natural Attenuation Training Applied at Sites |
0 |
5 |
| Total Examples |
43 |
84 |
Page last modified: