 |
Interstate Technology and Regulatory
|
The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation (ITRC) Working Group was officially empaneled by the Committee to Develop On-site Innovative Technologies (DOIT) Coordinating Group in December 1994. A major barrier to technology commercialization identified by the DOIT Committee is the time consuming and expensive process for technology developers to get their technology reviewed and approved in state after state. The ITRC was formed to explore mechanisms for state regulatory agencies to cooperate and collaborate on the demonstration, evaluation, and dissemination of new technologies in order to overcome this barrier.
The ITRC formed four Technology Specific Task Groups. The task groups focussed on in situ bioremediation, low temperature thermal desorption, plasma technologies, and a new screening characterization technology (SCAPS-LIF). The task groups were assigned to develop consensus technology or regulatory protocols for evaluating these technologies.
In addition to these technology task groups, the ITRC also explored the use of case studies of state regulatory approaches for new technologies and the use of an interstate technology circuit rider to help broaden regulators' knowledge of new technologies.
An evaluation of the utility of the ITRC's interstate technology protocols, case studies and circuit rider was conducted in February and March 1996. State regulators participating on the ITRC indicated that the interstate technology protocols developed by the ITRC will save them time and money in evaluating new technologies proposed for use in their state. In addition, state regulators not participating on the ITRC responded that the protocols were either "valuable" or "extremely valuable" to them in getting quickly up to speed on these technologies.
Federal participants on the ITRC also found great benefit in their participation. Primary benefits include the ability to hear state regulators concerns about technologies, to learn about new technologies, and to get technologies they might be proposing at several DoD or DOE sites reviewed by several states at the same time. Other state agencies, industry, environmental, tribal, and community representatives also sit on the ITRC and support its interstate approach.
The primary conclusions of this report are environmental protection can be improved and time and money can be saved by states, federal agencies, and technology developers by:
States taking action to encourage the use of innovative technologies and to facilitate the more efficient review and evaluation of new technologies; and
States cooperating on an interstate basis to develop and implement technology and regulatory protocols and to share information on the cost and performance of new technologies.
Policy Options
Interstate
State regulators can cooperate effectively on an interstate basis to develop consensus procedures for the demonstration and deployment of innovative technologies. The ITRC has proven successful in meeting it's goal to develop consensus documents, and has provided added benefits to participating states through networking, information cross-feed, and the discussions inherent in the consensus building process.
State regulators can facilitate the use of and reduce their review time for permits to deploy innovative technologies and feel more comfortable issuing those permits if they participate or are provided documents which provide multi-state input and experience with the baseline regulatory requirements and technology demonstration protocols for those technologies.
The future success of the ITRC requires the continued high level support of state government and federal agencies. Such support includes:
- Resources (staff funding, travel and contractor support)
- Endorsement by agency heads to evaluate ITRC products
- Commitment to use and expand electronic communications resources such as CLU-IN (established by EPA), GNET (provided by DOE), and Internet.
States found data from California's technology certification of the SCAPS technology useful in evaluating the use of that technology in their state. As such states encourage California to make readily available to other states as needed and appropriate technology certification data for other technologies.
State
States are critical enablers of innovative technologies. Regulatory streamlining, specific policies encouraging innovation, and targeted regulatory reform all can have tremendous impact on the review time and selection rate of innovative technologies. Options include:
State's environmental agencies can facilitate greater use of and speed the review time for new technologies if they ensure that the various divisions (i.e., air, water, etc.) of an agency and separate state agencies which may be issuing permits for different aspects of a project work cooperatively to communicate, share information, and agree on consistent permit requirements.
If a demonstration is done to obtain a state approval or permit for a larger project, then the issuing agency should come to an agreement with the applicant on what type and what quantity of data is necessary to evaluate the approval or permit application wherever possible. Ideally, this agreement should be reached at the beginning of the demonstration, treatability study, or R&D permit application review. Discussions should be held as necessary between an agency and applicant as new information from the R&D changes the scope of the future project.
States can stimulate the use of innovative technologies through policies which address specific technology concerns such as moving toward performance based regulations rather than proscriptive technology specific operation and management standards wherever appropriate and possible, greater use of RCRA subpart X for permitting certain technologies, and specific policies to encourage the use of innovative technologies.
State regulators can enhance their knowledge of new technologies and thereby make better decisions if given access by management to the Internet world wide web where increasing amounts of information are available on new technologies.
States believe a critical component to greater use of innovative technologies is early and meaningful stakeholder involvement in their selection, demonstration and deployment. As such each state has developed public involvement policies and procedures to involve the public and these should be used when demonstrating new technologies. A good source of information to augment those state policies and procedures is A Guide to Tribal and Community Involvement in Innovative Technology Assessment.
Technical
The ITRC advocates the use of its recommended regulatory requirements and technology protocols to help states and other stakeholders make more informed decisions on the application of these technologies.
State agencies should evaluate natural attenuation as a remedy for petroleum contamination in soils and groundwater. The ITRC work product concerning this topic and the various technical guidance documents and references now available in the literature are good resources to aid decisionmaking.
Where remediation of soils is deemed necessary, particularly for leaking underground fuel sites overseen by state agencies, the use of bioventing should be encouraged as a remedial measure.
ITRC members believe that significant cost savings can result from greater use of expedited site characteristic technologies such as the SCAPS and advocate its greater usage in the field.
State regulatory agencies should regulate flameless alternative thermal treatment technologies which require the state equivalent of a RCRA permit under Subpart X regulations.
All cost analysis for the comparison of innovative technologies with others as a remedy selection should take into account life-cycle analysis and the reduction of future liability and environmental impacts.
Federal
Federal agencies can help states and other stakeholders make better decisions on new technologies by providing independently validated cost and performance data easily available on the world wide web and other electronic sources. A centralized web site with links to agencies' technology web pages would save users time in searching for information.
The ITRC supports the use of the Federal Technologies Remediation Roundtable consensus cost and performance guidelines and advocate its use by state, federal, and private entities involved in technology demonstration, validation, and certification. Using this standardized format will allow for better comparisons between technologies and should minimize the need for redundant demonstrations.
EPA should revise the definition of incineration to make it clear that it refers to open flame combustion and to eliminate references to plasma arc incineration.
U.S. EPA should consider inclusion of the SCAPS-LIF technology into their SW-846 document as a site characterization field screening method for real-time detection of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination when used in accordance with the conditions and limitations set forth in the proposed California certification decision.
DoD should continue development of other SCAPS-deployed sensor technologies for accelerated site characterization toward detection of BTEX.
Background
The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation Working Group was officially empaneled by the DOIT Coordinating Group in December 1994. The origins of the working group date back to a roundtable on Technology Commercialization sponsored by the DOIT Committee in September 1993. At that forum, technology developers indicated that one of the greatest barriers to commercializing promising new technologies, especially for small companies, was the time and expense of having to demonstrate the cost and performance of their technology in state after state before it could be used in that state for a full scale cleanup.
The DOIT Commercialization Roundtable participants indicated that what was needed was a mechanism for interstate cooperation on the demonstration, evaluation, and dissemination of new technologies. Based upon that finding, western state regulators convened three times between the end of 1993 and mid 1994 to explore the feasibility of interstate regulatory cooperation for new technologies. The ad hoc group decided the concept was feasible, which lead to broadening the group to include states from outside the region.
In June 1995, western governors officially directed staff to fully test and evaluation interstate regulatory cooperation mechanisms and report back to them in June 1996 which mechanisms were most effective and efficient. This document constitutes that report.
Setting
Successful, new, innovative technologies face significant hurdles before they can be widely used, ranging from market development, attracting capital, lender approval in real estate transactions to regulatory uncertainty. Credibility of new companies and new technologies continues to confound decision-making regarding environmental technology. That is, there is considerable doubt about claims of performance, cost and safety of new technology.
Innovative remediation technologies offer the potential of significant savings over conventional technologies. Recent Navy research at 320 sites found that at the 51 sites where new or innovative technologies were implemented a net savings of 60% were possible when compared to conventional technologies. Total cost savings for the 51 sites was estimated at between $80-90 million. By comparison a recent University of Tennessee study focusing on regulatory and policy options currently in legislative discussion aimed at reducing cleanup costs found savings in the 20-40% range for affected National Priority List sites.
New Jersey reports site specific findings that are even more compelling. In Carteret, NJ, the state and AMAX corporation selected a low temperature thermal technology which cost $2 million dollars. Conventional evacuation and disposal would have cost $7 million. In Wayne, NJ, an innovative treatment well for groundwater was installed for $630,000 instead of the conventional pump and treat remedy which would have cost $2.5 million.
Despite the clear benefits of innovative technologies, they are often not chosen. That is a result of several factors including risk aversion by regulators, lack of comparable cost and performance data, and insufficient signals from the top down to encourage the use of innovative solutions.
As significant as the savings are from using innovative technology, there are strong disincentives to their greater use. Some of the disincentives involve regulatory issues. The primary disincentive for regulators is the fear of making a wrong decision. Therefore they often choose conventional remedies, even if they cost more because of cost and performance uncertainty with innovative technologies. Through interstate collaboration, states can increase their knowledge and comfort level on choosing new technologies. In fact, states indicate that, second only to site specific field demonstration data, they rely on information from each other to help guide cleanup decisions.
Process
The ITRC formed four Technology Specific Task Groups. Members self selected into Task Groups of interest to them. The first two task groups were focussed on in situ bioremediation and on low temperature thermal desorption. Two other groups, organized later, were the plasma technologies group and the cone penetrometer group.
The task groups were assigned to develop consensus technology protocols. Each group took a somewhat different approach to their mission. The in situ bio group and the LTTD group started with surveys of member states on how they currently regulate those technologies. Based upon that information, the in situ bio group decided to develop a technology protocol for in situ bio while the LTTD group decided instead to focus on developing recommended regulatory requirements for permitting the technology. Both of these groups held frequent teleconferences and circulated drafts to develop their documents.
The plasma group held a meeting of six interested states (CA, CO, ID, NM, TX, and WA). The group invited several plasma technology vendors to make presentations on their plasma technologies. A workplan was developed to produce a report on the state of environmental applications of the technology highlighting regulatory experiences and other issues. The subgroup report was developed from a series of meetings and teleconferences.
The Cone Penetrometer Site Characterization Technology Task Group was established to facilitate interstate acceptance of the SCAPS-LIF and other cone-penetrometer-based site characterization technologies. Task Group members participated in Cal/EPA's hazardous waste environmental technology certification evaluation process. The certification evaluation process included examination of the applicable research and technical literature, data from previous field studies and two field demonstrations. The field demonstrations were conducted jointly with the U.S. EPA Consortium for Site Characterization Technology and followed the general performance evaluation protocol guidance established for that program. In addition to witnessing the field demonstrations and reviewing the results, members also had the opportunity to review and effect changes in the proposed workplan for the second field demonstration at Albuquerque. The Cal/EPA certification process and the protocols and results of the field demonstrations were evaluated with regard to potential application and acceptance of the technology in their respective states.
Two other groups were formed, one to look at case studies of successful state approaches to remove regulatory barriers to in situ bioremediation technologies. The other group focused on electronic mechanisms for states to use to get information on new technologies and to share information and exchange files with other ITRC members.
Evaluation
A questionnaire was sent to ITRC participants to evaluate the effectiveness of the ITRC process and products. Thirty two responses were received including twenty two state regulators (representing 16 states), seven federal agency representatives, and three other state agency representatives. The results below focus on state regulators. However, responses from the other state agencies and federal representatives are worth noting here. All respondents in these two categories indicated that `participating in the ITRC is worthwhile for me and my organization'.
Overall evaluation
Of the twenty two state regulators responding to the questionnaire, eight agreed and fourteen strongly agreed with the statement `this type of interstate collaboration could help me make more informed decisions about permitting new technologies in my state'. Further, all twenty two also agreed or strongly agreed that `collaboration can help me make quicker decisions about permitting other new technologies in my state'. Finally, nineteen of the twenty two said that `the state-led consensus documents will lead to faster regulatory acceptance of these technologies in other states'.
Standardized protocols for verifying a technology's cost and performance
There was strong agreement on the value of the state technology regulatory requirement/protocol documents. For the LTTD and in situ bio consensus documents, nearly all of the state regulators agreed with statements that the documents were both `useful in helping me think through how my state permits the technologies' and `helpful to see how other states permit the technologies'. Seventeen of the twenty two regulators said that `the final documents will be useful for faster/easier permitting of these technologies in my state'.
The results were less convincing for the cone penetrometer and plasma protocols. This can probably be attributed to the fact that these groups started later and their documents had not had the same level of review by the time the survey was circulated (e.g. as of the date of the survey, formal documentation of the cone penetrometer task group's findings were not yet available to ITRC members nor was the proposed certification decision noticed). Even so, seventeen state regulators representing 14 states found discussions of the cone penetrometer useful and eleven `felt more comfortable making decisions on the use of the technology' based upon ITRC discussions. For plasma, sixteen states found it useful to see how other states permit the technology and thirteen found ITRC discussions of plasma useful but only nine agreed they felt more comfortable making decisions about the use of the technology.
Multi-state participation in technology demonstrations
Thirteen state regulators from eleven states observed the cone penetrometer technology operating in the field. All thirteen found direct observation of the technology operating in the field was `helpful in learning more about the technology'. Of the thirteen, eight felt that the demonstration `was a critical component' of their understanding and comfort level with using the technology.
Case studies of overcoming regulatory barriers.
Nineteen of the twenty two state regulators responding to the evaluation questionnaire had received the in situ bio case studies report for review. Of those nineteen, all agreed or strongly agreed that the case studies report was "useful to see how other states regulate similar situations in their state". Sixteen of the nineteen found the report `useful in thinking through how to overcome regulatory barriers in my state' and seventeen agreed that they would like to see similar case studies on other technology/regulatory issues. In fact, seven states agreed with the statement that `as a result of the report I will suggest changes to my state's regulatory system.'
Interstate electronic network
During the course of developing its work products, ITRC members were given free access to EPA's CLU-IN bulletin board and to DOE's Global Network for Environmental Technologies (GNET) to help them exchange information. A survey of ITRC members resulted in the following findings.
About two thirds of the state ITRC members used both CLU-IN and GNET
Both systems were used for e-mail to other ITRC members, general information searching, and file exchange.
When asked about how respondents currently found out about technology demonstrations and their results, eleven of the nineteen respondents said word of mouth, ten said conferences, ten newsletters, and ten journals.
When asked about how much information on technology demonstrations they would like to see on electronic networks, of the nineteen respondents, fifteen indicated they would find abstracts of technology demonstrations on these systems useful, fourteen wanted to see demonstration results, eleven detailed results, and nine wanted to see demonstration plans. Other information desired on demonstrations included demonstration points of contact and cost and performance reports from demonstrations in searchable database.
When asked about what other technology information they would find useful on these networks, thirteen respondents said ITRC interstate technology protocols and regulatory requirements, nine said ITRC meeting notes, and nine ITRC conference call notes.PROTOCOLS
In situ bioremediation
In situ bioremediation technologies rely on the capabilities of indigenous or introduced microorganisms to degrade, destroy or otherwise alter objectionable chemicals in soils or ground water. These technologies can be applied to soils or deep sediments and in arid or wet regions. In situ bioremediation is a class of technologies as variable as the subsurface itself. The In Situ Bioremediation Technology Specific Task Group recognized that, given appropriate conditions, in situ technologies can remediate contaminants more cost effectively than conventional technologies.
The group developed a General- Protocol and Outline for the general class of in situ bioremediation technologies plus conducted detailed literature reviews of technology-specific protocols for "Natural Attenuation" and "Bioventing" of petroleum hydrocarbons. These protocols have been developed by Federal agencies, contractors and industry. The protocols are intended to offer the proponent of the demonstration multi-state and tribal (regulatory) acceptance of the data generated during the demonstration project. It also offers an early opportunity for tribal and community stakeholders to understand the intent of the demonstration and discuss their concerns and sensitivities with the proponent before the demonstration is in its final design.
The group is comprised of representatives from 15 states, the Federal government, industry, and representatives from environmental and other non-profit groups. Members of the larger ITRC working group, which include community and tribal representatives, offered comments and guidance throughout the development of the General Protocol. Thus, the "Protocol Binder and Resource Document" reflects the input of many sectors of our society interested in site cleanup.
Through its collective experience, and depth of representation, the group found several issues pertinent to in situ bioremediation. These issues, as summarized by the group, are as follows.
Cleanup levels, and the approaches used by various jurisdictions to derive those numerical criteria, vary among state and federal agencies. Although a single set of concentration based cleanup levels cannot be developed to apply to all jurisdictions, it is recommended that a work group be established to formulate policy recommendations for changes that encourage consistency in approach, if not numerical criteria.
Factors beyond the jurisdiction of the state regulatory agencies often dictate the type of remedial technology that is deployed. These factors include addressing the concerns of participants in real estate transactions and the financial institutions lending on such transactions. These pressures often discourage the deployment of longer term, cost-effective techniques and technologies, particularly natural attenuation and bioventing, and thus reduce the potential market for affordable remedial measures. Policymakers need to consider means of addressing the concerns of these non-regulatory entities in order to broaden market acceptance of many affordable remedial options, as well as encourage the free market to continue to develop remediation techniques and technologies.
Natural attenuation for petroleum hydrocarbons, particularly benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and xylene, is well demonstrated as a remedial option for groundwater. Governors should require that for all sites where remediation is deemed necessary, particularly fuel tank sites, the appropriate agencies should evaluate natural attenuation as a remedy and reference their agencies to consider the ITRC work-product concerning this topic and the various technical guidance documents and references now available in the literature.
Bioventing is a cost-effective in situ technology which reduces petroleum hydrocarbon contamination by accelerating natural biological conversion processes. Where remediation of soils is deemed necessary, particularly for leaking underground fuel sites overseen by state agencies, the use of bioventing should be encouraged as a remedial measure.
Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
Overview
Low Temperature Thermal Desorption (LTTD) is a treatment technology which removes contaminants from solid media (e.g., soils) by volatilizing them with heat, but without combustion of the media . LTTD has been widely used in treating petroleum contaminated wastes and is being used increasingly in the cleanup of manufactured gas plant (MGP) wastes and hazardous constituents, notably chlorinated solvents and pesticides.
The initial work product is a document which blends diverse state technical requirements for a proven technology used for treatment of non-hazardous soils. The LTTD task group considered requirements from nine states to develop their draft document and circulated the document for review and comment to all member states of the ITRC and other non-state stakeholders.
The effort to ascertain ITRC states' level of acceptance for the resulting LTTD work product began during the March through May time frame. States have been asked to indicate their level of acceptance and commitment to implementation (full acceptance, acceptance of indicated sections of the document, acceptance with reservations or noted exceptions, non-acceptance). To date, eleven states already have submitted their letters, indicating their willingness to use the document. The LTTD subgroup plans to continue to work with the remaining ITRC states to determine their level of acceptance of this work product.
The document as a deliverable provides benefits at several levels:
The document provides a baseline of technical requirements for implementation of LTTD for cleanup of petroleum and MGP contaminated soils. While the use of LTTD for petroleum contamination is becoming more routine, the use of LTTD for gas plant sites is less well established.
The document will serve as a template for the group's development of technical requirements for the more challenging case of soils contaminated with chlorinated solvents and pesticides.
The document can serve as a template for technical requirements for promising new technologies still in the demonstration and testing phase.
The entire document outline is generally transferable to other "relatively mature" technologies. The following sections of the document may be directly transferrable to other technologies:
-Approach to establish baseline requirements, allowing for flexibility to address site specific and technology specific variables
- Analytical Methods
- Sample QA/QC
- Water Discharge Requirements
- Operations Record Keeping
- General QA/QC
- Health and Safety
Strong lessons were learned in terms of process development. Members of the LTTD task group developed the draft document during weekly facilitated conference calls and during breakout sessions at ITRC meetings.
The iterative process worked well for the LTTD group for their first revisions, because the individual group members were willing and able to invest the effort needed to follow-up with their colleagues.
The LTTD group realized greatest efficiency in having a core group of five to seven experienced people from different states produce the draft product.
A facilitator helped to keep their discussions focused and handled the actual document revision and production work.
Public stakeholder comment was solicited from stakeholder representatives of the ITRC. In concert with the full ITRC, the LTTD group adopted the recommended "A Guide to Tribal and Community Involvement in Innovative Technology Assessment". This guide clearly points out the desire and need for "meaningful community involvement" at the site implementation level .
The members of the group recognized the need for stakeholder involvement but had difficulty with determining the appropriate approach to stakeholder involvement. Their struggle centered around trying to incorporate site-specific stakeholder needs into their generic technical requirements document. The group feels this is a cross cutting issue and recommends that the full ITRC pursue a viable approach.
Additional stakeholder feedback was solicited by sending out the document for full ITRC review and comment, presenting the document at ITRC meetings and asking for feedback during facilitated breakout and full group sessions, and finally by asking for feedback directly from technology vendors. Overall, state representatives who did not respond to the LTTD group's original written request for comments also did not offer much feedback during ITRC meetings. Twelve vendors verbally committed to providing evaluation and feedback, but only a limited number actually provided comments.
In this case, a great deal of effort was expended to generate a marginal amount of feedback. An inherent limitation of the process is the lack of time for participants to provide thorough consideration to the other subgroups' work products, while trying to produce work products of their own. Thus, thoughtful consideration needed to understand all of the implications of these work products, in some cases, apparently has been deferred until individual state "sign off" for the documents is requested.
It is possible that the efficiency of the feedback/revision loop could be improved by taking more time up front to identify stakeholders who are likely to provide the needed feedback and concentrate efforts there. However, the group must still genuinely attempt to give all stakeholders an opportunity to voice their concerns.
Even though existing laws/regulations may make it impossible for some states to accept and implement provisions of the LTTD document in its entirety, the process will provide value in that:
Acceptance to the extent possible will have been documented, bringing a level of consistency and predictability to implementation LTTD in the field
Specific impediments to acceptance and implementation will have been identified for future resolution
Outstanding Issues
How to effectively involve the public in this process
Whether an LTTD unit and/or its afterburner is classified as an incinerator
The number and nature (discrete vs. composite) of verification samples to be collected
Whether field analytical methods can be used in place of offsite laboratory sample analysis
How to deal with time delays and costs associated with permitting requirements for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste sites
Plasma Technologies
Finding: Plasma technology is one of several types of technologies which use heat to dissociate waste into basic molecular components. This group of technologies, which we call alternative thermal technologies, is similar to incineration in that it uses heat to break apart constituent molecules. They are also different from incineration in many ways. They may use temperatures much higher than incineration. They typically do not use an open flame to produce heat, and therefore do not require the high volumes of oxygen or air required by incinerators. Air management systems can be smaller. Air impacts are reduced. Solid residues of these units typically are non-leachable and do not release toxic constituents into the environment.
Despite differences and advantages over incineration technology, frequently there is confusion over whether to regulate these units under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Subpart O, the incineration regulations, or under 40 CFR, Subpart X, for miscellaneous units. There is a need for clarification of the definition of incineration by the U.S. EPA so that state regulatory agencies do not have to spend additional time and resources studying the issue each time an application for an alternative thermal treatment technology is received. The current definition of an incinerator from 40 CFR 260.10 is as follows: "any enclosed device that: (1) uses controlled flame combustion and neither meets the criteria for classification as a boiler, sludge dryer, or carbon regeneration unit, not is listed as an industrial furnace; or (2) meets the definition of infrared incinerator or plasma arc incinerator". A plasma arc is defined in the same citation as " any enclosed device using a high intensity electrical discharge or arc as a source of heat followed by an afterburner using controlled flame combustion and which is not listed as an industrial furnace". The term "controlled flame" is sometimes interpreted as any source of heat to break down wastes, and is other times interpreted more strictly as meaning only a conventional open flame. Tying the inclusion of plasma arc units into the definition of incineration based on the design of a secondary or air pollution control device is confusing and unnecessary. Several states have determined that they should be regulated under 40 CFR, Subpart X. Subpart X regulations still require the states to review and address all technical aspects of a waste treatment unit.
Policy Option: State regulatory agencies should regulate flameless alternative thermal treatment technologies which require the state equivalent of a RCRA permit under Subpart X regulations. EPA should revise the definition of incineration to to make it clear that it refers to open flame combustion and to eliminate references to plasma arc incineration. The reference in 40 CFR 260.10 should be changed to read " Incineration means any enclosed device which uses a stationary open diffusion flame in the primary combustion chamber and neither meets the criteria for classification as a boiler, sludge dryer, or carbon regeneration unit, nor is listed as an industrial furnace." This change would still provide for regulation of all thermal treatment units that is protective of human health and the environment, but would eliminate the expenditure of significant state resources and staff time used to determine which citation applies to these units.
Finding: Environmental use of plasma technology is a new application of a technology which has a long history in the manufacture of metal and chemical products. Recent studies, laboratory trials, and demonstrations have shown that the technology may be effective in treating a wide range of waste materials, including hazardous, non-hazardous, radioactive, mixed, and medical wastes. Waste volumes may be reduced, or waste components may be broken down. Since few commercial waste treatment units are in operation, there is little reliable data on the economic viability of the technology for many possible environmental applications.
Policy Option: Reliable cost information on the technology would provide a basis for evaluating its use in commercial applications. The Subgroup recommends that all future demonstrations and applications keep cost and performance data in a common format to encourage fair comparisons in the market place. The ITRC recommends that this information be kept according to the Federal Remediation Roundtable document, A Guide to Documenting Cost and Performance Data.
Finding: Regulations which proscribe technology specific operation and management standards, rather than performance based standards, are a barrier to the use of new technologies in general, and plasma technologies specifically.
Policy Option: State and federal regulations should be revised to reflect performance based standards rather than proscriptive technology specific operation and management standards wherever appropriate and possible.
Finding: The use of plasma technology may eliminate or reduce long term impacts of a waste due to the destruction or immobilization of that waste and its toxic constituents. Although the technology may have higher costs over the short term, the use of the technology may eliminate or reduce the need for future monitoring, handling, and storage of treatment residues and products.
Policy Option: All cost analysis for the comparison of this technology with others as a remedy selection should take into account life-cycle analysis and the reduction of future liability and environmental impacts. Life-cycle costs for containment of wastes should consider the total cost of containment over the time frame for which the wastes continue to remain toxic or hazardous to the environment. These time frames may range from hundreds to thousands of years.
Finding: The potential for worker exposure and the high cost of laboratory analysis has created pressure for alternative monitoring controls. Continuous air and water monitoring devices are under ongoing development. They may replace the need for up-front waste analysis in part or in total as they are perfected. The National Technical Workgroup (NTW) is studying the issue of regulatory mandates for waste characterization versus process and emissions monitoring for a treatment facility.
Policy Option: The ITRC should not duplicate the NTW study. Once the study is complete , the ITRC should evaluate the applicability of the NTW report and make appropriate recommendations to resolve this issue.
Finding: Demonstrations of a new technology, such as plasma technology, are done for several purposes. They may be done to develop the technology, or they may be done to demonstrate the effectiveness of the technology for a particular waste stream. Sometimes the demonstrations are done via a treatability study or an R&D permit to collect the information necessary for a regulatory agency to issue a permit. It is not always possible for a regulatory agency to know all the questions and information that will be needed to evaluate a new technology. However, a clear understanding of the type and quantity of data that will be needed later to evaluate a permit application at the beginning of this process by both the applicant and the regulatory agency will save time and resources for both parties.
For new technologies, in particular, permitting issues can be resolved and reviewed in a much more timely manner if there is coordination between programs within a permitting agency and among several permitting state agencies. Communication and agreement on the information required and pertinent issues can result in permits which address all potential environmental and public health impacts for the new technology and which require fewer state resources for that evaluation.
Policy Option: If a demonstration is done to obtain a state approval or permit for a larger project, then the issuing agency should come to an agreement with the applicant on what type and what quantity of data is necessary to evaluate the approval or permit application wherever possible. This agreement should be reached at the beginning of the demonstration, treatability study, or R&D permit application review.
Policy Option: The review time can be reduced and the quality of the review can be enhanced for new or innovative technology permits if the various program divisions of an agency and separate state agencies which may be issuing permits for different aspects of a project will work cooperatively to communicate, share information, and agree on consistent permit requirements. Governors should direct their agencies to coordinate review of applications for new or innovative technologies.
Finding: The Plasma Technology Subgroup found this exercise of learning about and considering regulatory issues for a new technology very useful. The ability to discuss and resolve issues with peers from several states has a value beyond that of merely reading a report of the Subgroup's activities. A greater knowledge and comfort level with the technology was gained. Sharing the solutions that several states have used allowed the group to evaluate the merits of each. Each participant felt that the review of future applications for this technology will proceed more quickly, requiring fewer state resources and staff time than they would have if they had not participated in this group.
Policy Option: The ITRC Plasma Subgroup should follow and support the technology demonstrations and permit applications which are scheduled for review in1996 by the states of Washington, Idaho, and Virginia. They should work to educate the regulatory agencies in non-participating states on the past year's work by the Subgroup. They should develop and carry out a communication plan to inform other ITRC states about the regulatory issues regarding this technology and to distribute the report.
Cone Penetrometer
A series of different sensors are currently being developed for deployment with cone penetrometer systems which offer the potential to more rapidly and efficiently characterize hazardous waste sites. One such system, the Site Characterization and Analysis Penetrometer System Laser-Induced Fluorescence (SCAPS-LIF) technology provides real-time in-situ detection of total petroleum hydrocarbon contamination both above and below the water table. The Cone Penetrometer Site Characterization Technology Task Group was established by the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation (ITRC) work group to facilitate interstate acceptance of the SCAPS-LIF and other cone-penetrometer-based site characterization technologies.
Task Group members were given the opportunity participate in Cal/EPA's hazardous waste environmental technology certification evaluation process. The certification evaluation process included examination of the applicable research and technical literature, data from previous field studies and two field demonstrations of the SCAPS-LIF technology. The field demonstrations were conducted jointly with the U.S. EPA Consortium for Site Characterization Technology and followed the general performance evaluation protocol guidance established for that program. In addition to witnessing the field demonstrations and reviewing the results, members also had the opportunity to review and effect changes in the proposed workplan for the second field demonstration at Albuquerque.
The Cal/EPA certification process and the protocols and results of the field demonstrations were investigated by the Cone Penetrometer Site Characterization Technology Task Group with regard to potential application and acceptance of the technology in their respective states. The approaches, policies and practices of state regulatory agencies toward acceptance of the evaluation protocol and data were investigated. Key issues relating to data acceptance and application for the SCAPS-LIF technology in the respective states are discussed.
Findings
1. The ITRC process has increased technology transfer across state lines.
2. California certification can give credibility to a technology and potentially reduces the resource requirements necessary for other states to evaluate the technology for use in their respective states.
3. Task Group members found that the opportunity to observe operation of the technology in the field was virtually essential in gaining confidence in the data and the evaluation process. Additionally, full access to supporting data and information available through the California Certification evaluation process, including input to the development of field demonstration workplans, gave members confidence in the level of evaluation being performed relative to their respective programs' needs and gave members considerable confidence in deferring to the California Certification process for the required detailed evaluation.
4. Data generated through the field demonstrations conducted at two sites as part of the overall technology evaluation process were found to be more than acceptable to states. The fact that the field demonstration workplan and implementation were jointly reviewed, approved, and overseen by the California Certification program and the U.S. EPA Consortium gave a high degree of credibility to data. Task Group members accepted the data as if they had directly overseen the demonstration in their own respective programs.
5. The noticed proposed certification decision for the SCAPS-LIF technology for use as a site characterization field screening technology for real-time detection of subsurface petroleum hydrocarbon contamination was found technically acceptable by Task Group members with some reservations.
6. The majority of states represented in the Task Group do not have a formal mechanism available to "accept" a technology. Typically, the RCRA, CERCLA, and LUST programs are administered by separate divisions or departments within a state. Often, these programs do not communicate with one another and act somewhat autonomously even when organized within the same department. Acceptance by one of these programs therefore does not generally translate into acceptance by the others.
7. Management policies in some states are a barrier to formal acceptance of technologies.
8. For acceptance of new sensors, several Task Group members expressed a critical need in selecting or approving the site where the technology would be demonstrated to ensure results were applicable to conditions and concerns typically encountered in their states, and that direct observation of the technology in operation was essential.
9. Whether or not to consider use of a site characterization field screening technology such as SCAPS-LIF is highly dependent on cost as well as performance. Task Group members expressed a need to have comparative cost data on the use of SCAPS-LIF technology in order to promote its use in their states.
Outcomes/Acceptance
Task Group members have obtained or are pursuing full or partial acceptance of the technology for use in their respective states. "Acceptance" for the SCAPS-LIF technology means endorsing use of the technology within the limitations and conditions set forth in the proposed California certification decision.
California noticed their proposed decision to certify the SCAPS-LIF technology on March 1, 1995;
Idaho has issued a letter from their Division of Environmental Quality LUST program stating their intent to recommend their agency acknowledge the technology as appropriate for field screening of subsurface petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in Idaho;
Utah Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste (DSHW) has issued a letter which states that SCAPS-LIF is a useful technology for in-situ field screening of subsurface POLs containing PAHs and that SCAPS-LIF data will be accepted by Utah (DSHW) provided an appropriate number of confirmatory sample analysis are completed;
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality intends to issue a letter stating their acceptance of technology for application in their state;
Task Group members from New Jersey and Nebraska are pursuing full acceptance of the SCAPS-LIF through their respective agencies, the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; New Mexico currently has resource constraints, and has yet to indicate their position on pursuing acceptance of the SCAPS-LIF for use in New Mexico.
Texas dropped out of the review process because cost estimates for use of the technology greatly exceeded costs for other comparable technologies.
Policy Options
1. Task Group members support continued development of other SCAPS-deployed sensor technologies for accelerated site characterization toward detection of BTEX.
2. The Task Group finds that the U.S. EPA should consider inclusion of the SCAPS-LIF technology into their SW-846 document as a site characterization field screening method for real-time detection of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination when used in accordance with the conditions and limitations set forth in the proposed California certification decision.
Case Studies
Background
In situ bioremediation (ISB) was selected by the Case Studies Task Group as the vehicle for the case studies because many members of the ITRC believe that ISB can provide cost-effective, safe, and successful cleanup, yet the technology is not widely utilized. The Task Group perceived that the major impediments to implementation of ISB were institutional and regulatory -- not technical.
Institutional barriers to implementation of ISB tend to be typical of most innovative technologies. Use of an innovative technology creates uncertainties by virtue of the fact that a technology is innovative. Uncertainties create disincentives to approval, such as risk aversion, desire to expedite cleanup, and desire to maintain the remediation project budget and schedule.
Regulatory barriers to implementation of ISB tend to be unique to ISB. The Task Group further focused on the aspects of ISB that involve injection of additives to ground water, because of the tension commonly found between state agencies responsible for remediation versus agencies responsible for ground water quality. Ground water quality standards can inhibit or prohibit injection of additives that accelerate biodegradation of chemicals in ground water. In some states, the lengthy time required for obtaining a permit for a discharge to ground water discourages use of ISB for non-Superfund cleanups.
Case Study Methodology
Because the objective was to learn from states that successfully overcame institutional and regulatory barriers to ISB (rather than merely to identify the barriers), the Task Group selected a biased and limited sample of states for study. The sample was biased in favor of states with success stories to share, so that other states could gain useful insights. The sample consisted of six states known to the Task Group to have successfully implemented ISB. The states selected for evaluation included Massachusetts, Illinois, New York, South Carolina, Montana, and Oregon. Considered together, these states have had experience with the use of ISB technologies for remediation of petroleum fuel, chlorinated solvents, and wood preservative contaminants.
Overall Findings
In most states, ground water quality standards and permitting procedures were the primary barriers to deployment of ISB. Application of ground water requirements to specific sites was highly variable among the states in which case study analyses were conducted. The degree to which a state maintained a flexible approach to implementation of ground water protection requirements (e.g., using risk-based cleanup levels, downgradient points of compliance, or temporary waivers or variances), was determinative of the degree of implementation and support of ISB in that state. A trend toward flexibility and a relaxation of ground water requirements was observed among the states.
A potential barrier to use of ISB and other innovative technologies is the observed trend among the states to reduce or eliminate a preexisting statutory preference for treatment in favor of containment or institutional controls. However, the case of ISB, containment is often utilized with ISB treatment of ground water to assure no migration of contamination or other additives occurs.
Most states that have approved use of ISB technologies have resolved fundamental differences between the water quality and site cleanup programs regarding injection of additives into ground water. Because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not regulate ground water (except under the Underground Injection Control [UIC] program), each state independently has had to develop its own approach to resolving internal conflicts without any national guidance.
State agency managers determined the degree to which ISB and other innovative technologies, in general, are demonstrated and deployed in their state. In a few of the states, managers were responsive to the regulated community and/or staff requests to do what was necessary to test ISB.
Experience gained through use of ISB has allayed many of the concerns of water quality protection staffs. Also proactive education of regulators by experts has helped gain more ready acceptance by regulators of innovative technologies.
Approaches that States Have Used to Encourage Use of Innovative Technologies
Discrete innovative technology or technical support group formed within state environmental agency to support remedial programs.
Interagency committee created to address specific innovative technology.
Evaluation of dual remedies (conventional and innovative) concurrently during feasibility study phase of Superfund cleanup.
Selection of dual remedies (innovative with backup of conventional remedy or enhancement).
State financial guarantee to cover costs of replacement technology if innovative technology does not meet program goals.
Waiver of permit requirement for injection of additives into ground water.Flexible permits that anticipate occasional amendments to incorporate demonstration and use of innovative technologies.
Recognition that introduction (injection) of "pollutants" to a soil-aquifer system for remedial purposes differs from normal permitted dischargesFlexible regulations that allow for site-specific waiver or variance from ground water quality standards or points of compliance.
Delayed action based on observing how technology works at other sites.
Centralization of cleanup authority into one state agency.
Other Findings
State Programs
States are laboratories for testing new approaches to promote innovative cleanup technologies. Several states have instituted policies or programs that can serve as models for other states.
TEXAS - Innovative Technology Program
History - Established in 1993 by the Board of Commissioners to encourage use of beneficial innovative technologies in Texas. Goals included developing a list of innovative technologies in Texas, reviewing agency rules for barriers to innovative technologies in Texas, supporting agency review of permits related to innovative technologies, and educating agency staff and public on innovative technology.
Benefits - Integrates agency response on innovative technology by acting as a clearinghouse for industry and the agency on new technology. The program has provided a safe harbor for industry and agency to review new ideas and technologies. The program has also provided an important filtering function for the state by allowing a critical review outside of the permit process to discriminate between valid new approaches and potential snake-oil sales pitches. This educational, informational role has been effective in changing the attitude of regulatory staff regarding innovative technology. Industry has benefited from the Texas program. An Environmental Law Institute study found that Texas industry and technology vendors identified the program as a useful way to reduce barriers to innovative technology. State designation was a major factor in Molten Metals, Inc. obtaining a contract with Hoechst-Celanese.
NEVADA - One-Stop Permit Application
The Nevada Department of Environmental Protection is developing procedures for a one-stop permit application. The concept is to develop a questionnaire for a potential permit applicant to use which would guide the Department and the applicant through the various DEP permit programs. In addition, the process would establish a single point-of-contact for the applicant to facilitate the permit process and any follow-up activity. This contact would interface with the ombudsman office to coordinate the permit programs for air, water, waste (solid and hazardous), mining and underground storage tanks. In this manner, the Department would be able to assist an applicant in determining which permits are needed and the data needs of each permit application. This process would eliminate the submission of the same information to separate permit programs and would streamline the time spent by the applicant and Department in the permit review process. The coordinated, one-stop procedures will be beneficial to innovative technologies in particular, as often both the innovative technology user and the Department may not , unlike conventional industry, be familiar with which permit programs are needed.
IOWA - Comprehensive Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Fund
The Iowa program has used a contract administrator to implement the program. The administrator used community-based contracts to group sites in a local area. Grouping sites has resulted in reduced contractor mobilization costs, greater economies of scale, avoided issues related to assessing sites with mingled contamination, and improved contractor reports as the contractor developed expertise in area geology and soils.
- In two communities, the Iowa program, in conjunction with EPA, American Petroleum Institute and major oil companies, issued contracts for remediation targeted for innovative technology versus conventional methods to address difficult cleanup projects, contaminated clay soils.
- Iowa program also introduced a state run insurance fund for owners and operators which was initially state subsidized but is now paid by premiums to the fund. The insurance fund is scheduled to return to private industry. Historical releases were separated into the state funded program.
ILLINOIS - Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Fund
In 1990, the program created an incentive to operators to use innovative technology by agreeing to use the state fund to do the cleanup if the innovative technology was not successful. To implement, the innovative technology project and budget were reviewed by the state. Each of the innovative projects were at least partially successful, with longer remediation time being the most common error in estimation of performance. The successful performance resulted in no charges to the state fund. In addition, from 1990 to 1993 operators were given a $5,000 credit to reduce their deductible if their project used an innovative technology which resulted in a cleanup cost less than using a conventional technology.
Benefits - Encouraged experimentation in approaches for petroleum cleanup in difficult soils, especially clay, including below and above ground bioremediation, low temperature thermal absorption and land farming. Alternative approaches include treating petroleum contaminated soils at landfills when local site conditions indicate removal is preferred.
Federal Programs
Federal agencies have begun various incentives to introduce innovative technology to Federal remediation actions.
Federal Technology Remediation Roundtable - The Roundtable was established as an interagency committee to exchange information and provide a forum for joint action for the development and demonstration of innovative technologies for hazardous waste remediation. The Roundtable members include Department of Defense (Army, Navy, Air Force), DOE, EPA, Department of the Interior, NASA and TVA. A significant product of the Roundtable collaboration was the uniform guide to documenting cost and performance of innovative technologies.
Army Corps of Engineers Innovative Technology Advocate Program - The Corps has established innovative technology advocate positions within each Corps district to facilitate the use of innovative technology. The district advocates network with the other Army advocates to bring information, case histories and experiences to the Army project managers.
Navy Tiger Team Environmental Reviews - the Navy, through the Naval Facilities Engineering Services Center, has initiated a program to bring a team of experts to each Navy division to apply innovative cleanup techniques and technologies to site cleanup plans at Navy bases. The team interacts and provides direct support to individual Navy project managers by bringing expertise on application of new technologies at specific sites. A unique feature of the review is a rigorous evaluation of potential costs of the conventional versus innovative approaches, to date $80 to $90 million of savings have been identified.
Federal-state Partnerships
At the national level, significant resources are allocated to Federal agencies and laboratories which are responsible for developing innovative technologies and also for remediation of Federal sites. Due to the states role in environmental regulation, states are critical players in the national market for environmental technologies. In recognition of these respective responsibilities, there are initiatives which have begun to team Federal and state efforts to produce a greater impact in advancing innovative technology and reducing Federal costs for cleanup actions.
- Rapid Commercialization Initiative (RCI) - This initiative is a collaborative effort among Federal agencies (DOE, DOD, EPA and Department of Commerce) and states to provide performance verification, demonstration sites and permitting assistance to innovative remediation technologies. The RCI recently announced its first set of technologies selected for assistance which includes remediation and characterization technologies.
- EPA Superfund Technologies Evaluation Program (SITE)/State Partnership - To broaden the scope of the SITE program verification of innovative technology, EPA and several state partners will jointly review and develop a site demonstration plan. The principle is to use a single demonstration site in a state as a springboard to other states by including multi-state review of the demonstration. This partnership among states and EPA sites is being piloted by a sprinkler irrigation alternative demonstration in Nebraska. Other projects including reactive barrier walls are in the planning stages.
- Navy Tiger Team/State Participation Pilot - As a pilot approach, the Navy Tiger Team invited the ITRC circuit rider and a state agency permit reviewer, to provide a regulatory perspective to the review of innovative applications at Navy bases. An essential component of the success of the interaction was due to having a state regulatory perspective from an out-of-state source. This produced a safe harbor for a candid exchange of perspectives among the technical experts, Navy project managers and state agency representatives regarding the application of innovative technologies at specific sites.
Technology Circuit Rider
The Circuit rider position provided a unique mechanism to further interstate cooperation by using one position to act as a multi-state catalyst for cooperation. This focused attention has contributed to the success of ITRC. The position allows peer-to-peer support direct to state agencies which validated and strengthened support for ITRC efforts.
The circuit rider position also offered an added dimension to the interstate cooperation effort by allowing a state-regulatory perspective to explore various federal and private innovative technology programs.
Specific experiences:
Supported interstate and intra-state efforts with presentations and one-on-one visits to agencies in Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Louisiana, Utah, Kansas and Nebraska. This visible support from an out of state peer provided state staff a mechanism to gain management participation and/or approval for interstate activities. The involvement of state agency management, in general, resulted in a greater impact in their own state agency in terms of participation, review, production and use of ITRC documents. Similarly, the benefits to these states will also likely be greater as found in reduced time and cost for permit reviews, better informed decisions for cleanups and more favorable business climate for their own state environmental industry.
Interacted with Federal programs to learn about Federal activity, educate Federal agency technology innovation programs on ITRC projects and furthered Federal-State partnership with EPA SITE Program, US Army Corps of Engineers, Navy tiger team environmental review, Federal Remediation Roundtable and IETO.
Specific outcomes related to circuit rider activities include -- consideration and endorsement of Federal Remediation Roundtable guide to cost and performance by the ITRC, expansion of EPA demonstration of sprinkler integration alternative to include multi-state regulatory review and participation by the Army Corps of Engineers and Navy engineering service center for use at cleanups at Navy and Army facilities, highlighted to ITRC states the Navy tiger team environmental reviews as a potential model for implementing and for documenting the cost savings of innovative technology.
Lead the ITRC investigation of electronic communication among states for innovative technology including a survey of state experience and capability.
Lead the diversification of the ITRC to include representatives from industry, public and tribal stakeholders.
Represented WGA as technical reviewer for evaluation of DOE Rapid Commercialization Initiative projects.
Incentives
When state and Federal project managers are held accountable for each individual project's success or failure, they are extremely reluctant to use innovative technology due to its uncertainty of outcome and the risk of poor performance. To overcome this disincentive, senior policymakers should realize that a collective benefit occurs from the use of innovative technologies (which reduces federal costs) as less certain or proven technologies are used. However, all individual projects will not achieve average savings, in fact some may fail and experience greater, not lesser, costs.
Various strategies may be employed to gain the collective, average benefit without impairing the important stewardship of funds for projects by Federal and state managers. One method would be to use a portion of the collective savings to offset the individual losses that will occasionally occur when implementing new technology. Returning a portion of the budget savings from implementing innovative technology to the organization producing the saving would be a powerful incentive. Establishing the amount of the contingency fund available to be used from the savings would enable managers to judge the level and cost of uncertainty available for innovative technology. Therefore, project managers would be able to use prudent management to employ cost- saving innovative solutions, knowing a contingency fund would be available to cover unforeseen failures.
Another method would be to aggregate projects into larger groups with a management policy to review group rather than individual project performance. Thus the average team performance, which would be aided by using innovative technology, would be the criteria rather than individual project performance. This would line up the collective benefit and reward for those groups which prudently managed resources to include cost savings from innovative technology implementation.
These policies would likely have the greatest impact if the policy originated from governor or Federal secretary level with a directive to their respective agencies to develop management policies to create innovative technology contingency funds, team performance criteria and budget funding formulas for transfer and state/Federal partnerships and report the implementation of the and impact of the policies in fiscal funding requests.
- Federal agency initiatives to introduce innovative technology to Federal remediation activities are reducing Federal cleanup costs. Examples suggest the cost savings from the implementation of the new technology versus conventional technology have been substantially greater than the investments in the initiatives. Therefore, to continue to reap the significant cost saving benefits from these innovative technologies, policy makers need to continue or expand support and budgets for the innovative technology programs.
- Linkage of Federal initiatives with state involvement has shown to be a mechanism to leverage greater benefit in stimulating innovative technology implementation. To avoid uncertainty and to gain the benefits in a climate of tight budgets, policymakers could direct that each Federal innovative technology initiative include a set-aside for Federal/state partnerships. At the state level, policy makers need to establish a policy of priority within state regulatory agencies to assure state participation with Federal/state initiatives.
- Stewardship of state and Federal funds is critical to maintaining lean budgets. To ensure accountability for resources, policymakers should require all initiatives (Federal, state or Federal/state partnerships) to develop measures of cost and benefits to provide a method for evaluating different initiatives. One option would be to task the Federal Remediation Round Table, as an entity with Federal interagency representation, in conjunction with the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation Committee, to develop and report a uniform methodology. Once implemented, the uniform methodology would then be a tool for policymakers at the state and Federal levels to evaluate the costs and benefits of the various initiatives in future budget decisions.
- Significant Federal resources are allocated to Federal research and development efforts related to remediation technology at various entities in the Federal system such as DOE National Labs, DOD Research Laboratories, AFCEL, Army Environmental Center, EPA Laboratories. To assure efficient transfer of technology emerging from research into the national environmental marketplace, policymakers need to ensure transfer mechanisms of the new technology are established and maintained to both Federal and state agencies. Policymakers may consider the policy option, as indicated by Congress for the Hazardous Substance Research Centers, which requires 10% of total funding for research facilities be dedicated to transfer/cooperation mechanisms to increase the impact of new technology research on reducing cleanup costs. This would counter a tendency for research laboratories and others from concentrating all resources into narrow research priorities and eliminate "turf" issues.
Conclusion
The ITRC experience has demonstrated that states are willing to cooperate and collaborate because it offers them an opportunity to save individual state resources by working together. This is critical given tight state and Federal budgets. Collaborative approaches such as ITRC and circuit rider programs offer a mechanism to achieve interstate cooperation within limited resources by providing an important link between states on environmental technology issues. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and both the Southern and New England states have each spun off separate efforts based upon the ITRC model.
In addition, Federal agencies are applying the ITRC-generated models in Federal agency actions. For example, DOE/DOD/EPA are using multi-state review of demonstration linked with commercial development of technologies as part of their new Rapid Commercialization Initiative; the DOE Tanks Focus Area is developing a multi-state approach to technologies related to high level radioactive tanks decommissioning; and DOD's ESTCP is using the ITRC generated model demonstration protocol as a source for ESTCP demonstration guide for research demonstration projects.
Although collaboration by the states collectively provides benefits to all states, there could be a temptation for individual agencies to benefit from the collective work of states without providing a share of state staff or support. While each state should participate according to its means, each state should give something to the collective effort. Policy support at the gubernatorial level to reinforce the common benefits and support in priority and state agency budgets could help clarify the notion of equity.
Cooperation and collaboration by the states will save state resources being currently spent for regulatory reviews and state-funded cleanups. These individual state savings will be dwarfed by the savings to the federal government and private industry resulting from interstate collaboration on technologies. Therefore state cooperation is a clear benefit to the federal agencies and as such federal support should continue for interstate efforts. This objective may be accomplished by federally funding a core group of states to help lead development of interstate mechanisms while additional states may contribute by providing in-kind staff time to the interstate efforts.
APPENDIX A