U.S. EPA Contaminated Site Cleanup Information (CLU-IN)


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. EPA Technology Innovation and Field Services Division

Upcoming Live Web Events

More Information
Upcoming Internet Seminars RSS Feed
Participant Comments

CLU-IN's ongoing series of Internet Seminars are free, web-based slide presentations with a companion audio portion. We provide two options for accessing the audio portion of the seminar: by phone line or streaming audio simulcast. More information and registration for all Internet Seminars is available by selecting the individual seminar below. Not able to make one of our live offerings? You may also view archived seminars.

 
 
February 2018
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27
Download seminar information in iCalendar formatSuperfund Redevelopment Initiative ...

28
Download seminar information in iCalendar formatFRTR Presents...Remediation Technol...

 
 
 

ERTP Presents...Pragmatic Approaches to Remedial Investigation, Technology Selection, and Remediation Success

This webinar will discuss high resolution site characterization using direct-sensing and data visualization tools to rapidly build the conceptual site model in an adaptive process. We strive for timeframes of months, not years, by starting with the end in mind and employing a collaborative team approach, including our state, tribal, industrial and community counterparts. Goal one is to gain a confident understanding of the spatial and matrix distribution of contaminants of concern. Goal two is to rapidly gather information essential to informing potential remedy choices focused on root causes. Goal three is to minimize mobilizations and transaction costs by evaluating data and identifying data gaps in real-time while the investigation team is still in the field. By including all project stakeholders in the investigation and decision-making process, the report becomes a reflection of the team's findings, interpretations and decisions, rather than one party's opinion piece subject to debate. This presentation will briefly describe the approach and focus on recent work at sites of different scales to showcase the process and workflows that demonstrate its effectiveness.

FRTR Presents...Remediation Technologies for Radionuclides and Heavy Metals in Soil, Ground Water and Sediments, Session 1

This webinar is part of a series featuring presentations delivered at the November 2017 FRTR Meeting. This meeting focused on remediation technologies for radionuclides and heavy metals in soil, ground water and sediments. More information about the meeting can be found at https://frtr.gov/meetings1.htm. This webinar will provide an overview of the technologies as well as the strategies to implement these technologies in remediation of radionuclides and heavy metals in soil, ground water, and sediments.

FRTR Presents...Remediation Technologies for Radionuclides and Heavy Metals in Soil, Ground Water and Sediments, Session 2

This webinar is part of a series featuring presentations delivered at the November 2017 FRTR Meeting. This meeting focused on remediation technologies for radionuclides and heavy metals in soil, ground water and sediments. More information about the meeting can be found at https://frtr.gov/meetings1.htm. This webinar will discuss incremental sampling methods for remediation of heavy metals. The webinar will also describe the specific application of an in situ activated carbon amendment for sediment and soil mercury remediation.

Comparison Studies on Radiation Risk and Dose Assessment Models for Radioactively Contaminated Soil, Inside Buildings and Outside Surfaces

A participant for the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education Research Participation Program, Nasser Shubayr, while at EPA's Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation has worked on five research projects on risk and dose assessment models recommended by governmental agencies for investigating radioactively contaminated soil, inside buildings and outside surfaces. These research projects studied 17 models that are used nationally and internationally. This webinar presents:

  1. overview for the models,
  2. review of selected default input parameters used by each model,
  3. radiation and chemical assessment methodological consistency between US EPA and UK Environmental Agency,
  4. overview of models used to assess contaminated outdoor surfaces, and
  5. comparison between EPAs models and DOE model for indoor contaminated buildings.

The objective of these research projects is to make recommendations on technical and practical issues to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI), facilitating better understanding of each agency's modeling approach and identifying the similarities and differences between these agencies in the risk and dose assessment of radioactively contaminated sites.

Superfund Redevelopment Initiative Series: Bringing Industrial Reuse to Superfund Sites

From cleanup to final settlement or leasing agreements, EPA plays a central role in facilitating the cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated sites by bringing together key parties. EPA works with stakeholders to negotiate settlement agreements, resolve competing liens and ensure future reuse is compatible with the cleanup. Collaborative work on the Buckbee-Mears site in Cortland, New York, and the Tex Tin Superfund site in Texas City, Texas, positioned sites for successful industrial reuse outcomes, advancing economic development opportunities throughout the community.
Interstate Technology Regulatory Council
Seminars Sponsored by the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council


Integrated DNAPL Site Characterization

Interstate Technology Regulatory Council Sites contaminated with dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) and DNAPL mixtures present significant environmental challenges. Despite the decades spent on characterizing and attempting to remediate DNAPL sites, substantial risk remains. Inadequate characterization of site geology as well as the distribution, characteristics, and behavior of contaminants -- by relying on traditional monitoring well methods rather than more innovative and integrated approaches -- has limited the success of many remediation efforts.

The Integrated DNAPL Site Characterization Team has synthesized the knowledge about DNAPL site characterization and remediation acquired over the past several decades, and has integrated that information into a new document, Integrated DNAPL Site Characterization and Tools Selection (ISC-1, 2015). This guidance is a resource to inform regulators, responsible parties, other problem holders, consultants, community stakeholders, and other interested parties of the critical concepts related to characterization approaches and tools for collecting subsurface data at DNAPL sites. After this associated training, participants will be able to use the ITRC Integrated DNAPL Site Characterization and Tools Selection (ISC-1, 2015) guidance to develop and support an integrated approach to DNAPL site characterization, including:
  • Identify what site conditions must be considered when developing an informative DNAPL conceptual site model (CSM)
  • Define an objectives-based DNAPL characterization strategy
  • Understand what tools and resources are available to improve the identification, collection, and evaluation of appropriate site characterization data
  • Navigate the DNAPL characterization tools table and select appropriate technologies to fill site-specific data gaps
For reference during the training class, participants should have a copy of Figure 4-1, the integrated site characterization flow diagram from the ITRC Technical and Regulatory Guidance document: Integrated DNAPL Site Characterization and Tools Selection (ISC-1, 2015) and available as a PDF at http://www.cluin.org/conf/itrc/IDSC/ITRC-ISC-Figures.pdf
.

Geophysical Classification for Munitions Response

Interstate Technology Regulatory Council For decades, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) has produced and used military munitions for live-fire testing and training to prepare the U.S. military for combat operations. As a result, unexploded ordnance (UXO) and discarded military munitions may be present at over 5,200 former ranges and former munitions operating facilities throughout the United States. With the traditional technique to identify munitions for removal at these sites, DOD and its contractors have used various types of detection instruments to simply detect buried metal objects then excavation and examination of most of the detected items, to determine whether or not they are military munitions. Even highly trained UXO-qualified personnel typically excavate hundreds of metal items for each one munition recovered. Nearly half of these sites require a munitions response, at an estimated cost to complete of $14 billion and with a completion date of 2100. To improve the efficiency of munitions response, DOD’s Environmental Security Technology Certification Program and its research partners in academia and industry have developed a new approach: geophysical classification. Geophysical classification is the process of using advanced data to make principled decisions as to whether buried metal objects are potentially hazardous munitions (that is targets of interest) that should be excavated, or items such as metal clutter and debris (non-targets of interest) that can be left in the ground.

ITRC’s Geophysical Classification for Munitions Response (GCMR-2, 2015) and training class explain the process of geophysical classification, describe its benefits and limitations, and discuss the information and data needed by regulators to monitor and evaluate the use of the technology. This document and training also emphasize using a systematic planning process to develop data acquisition and decision strategies at the outset of a munitions response effort, as well as quality considerations throughout the project. Stakeholder issues that are unique to munitions response are also discussed. After this training class, participants will:
  • Understand the technology and terminology
  • Be ready to engage in the planning process to address quality considerations throughout a project
  • Find tools to transfer knowledge within organizations and to stakeholders
  • Start to transition mindset to decisions that leave non-hazardous items in the ground
An audience who understand current munitions response tools and procedures (for example, geophysical surveys, sensors, data analysis) will benefit most from this document and training. For federal and state environmental regulators, scientists, and engineers, as well as contractors, munitions response managers, technical staff, geophysicists, and stakeholders, this document explains how geophysical classification can be used in munitions response. Stakeholders with an interest in a particular munitions response site (MRS) at which classification has been or may be proposed will also benefit from this document and training.

For use during this training class, we created a reference with the Terminology and Acronyms used in ITRC “Geophysical Classification for Munitions Response” Training.

Groundwater Statistics for Environmental Project Managers

Interstate Technology Regulatory Council Statistical techniques may be used throughout the process of cleaning up contaminated groundwater. It is challenging for practitioners, who are not experts in statistics, to interpret, and use statistical techniques. ITRC developed the Technical and Regulatory Web-based Guidance on Groundwater Statistics and Monitoring Compliance (GSMC-1, 2013, http://www.itrcweb.org/gsmc-1/) and this associated training specifically for environmental project managers who review or use statistical calculations for reports, who make recommendations or decisions based on statistics, or who need to demonstrate compliance for groundwater projects. The training class will encourage and support project managers and others who are not statisticians to:

ITRC's Technical and Regulatory Web-based Guidance on Groundwater Statistics and Monitoring Compliance (GSMC-1, 2013) and this associated training bring clarity to the planning, implementation, and communication of groundwater statistical methods and should lead to greater confidence and transparency in the use of groundwater statistics for site management.

Geospatial Analysis for Optimization at Environmental Sites

Interstate Technology Regulatory Council Optimization activities can improve performance, increase monitoring efficiency, and support contaminated site decisions. Project managers can use geospatial analysis for evaluation of optimization opportunities. Unlike traditional statistical analysis, geospatial methods incorporate the spatial and temporal dependence between nearby data points, which is an important feature of almost all data collected as part of an environmental investigation. The results of geospatial analyses add additional lines of evidence to decision making in optimization opportunities in environmental sites across all project life cycle stages (release detection, site characterization, remediation, monitoring and closure) in soil, groundwater or sediment remediation projects for different sizes and types of sites.

The purpose of ITRC's Geospatial Analysis for Optimization at Environmental Sites (GRO-1) guidance document and this associated training is to explain, educate, and train state regulators and other practitioners in understanding and using geospatial analyses to evaluate optimization opportunities at environmental sites. With the ITRC GRO-1 web-based guidance document and this associated training class, project managers will be able to:
  • Evaluate available data and site needs to determine if geospatial analyses are appropriate for a given site
  • For a project and specific lifecycle stage, identify optimization questions where geospatial methods can contribution to better decision making
  • For a project and optimization question(s), select appropriate geospatial method(s) and software using the geospatial analysis work flow, tables and flow charts in the guidance document
  • With geospatial analyses results (note: some geospatial analyses may be performed by the project manager, but many geospatial analyses will be performed by technical experts), explain what the results mean and appropriately apply in decision making
  • Use the project manager’s tool box, interactive flow charts for choosing geospatial methods and review checklist to use geospatial analyses confidently in decision making