ITRC Success Stories	Featuring benefits to:
Innovative Processes and Technologies at Work
Monitored Natural and Enhanced Attenuation or Cleanup of Chlorinated Solvents (p. 1)	•	•		•	•
Guidance Council: ITRC Offers Free Environmental Tools to Empower Regulators (p. 31)	•	•	•	•
POCs Highlight the Benefits of States’ Participation in ITRC (p. 6)	•	•	•	•
ISCO Success: Sharply Declining Learning Curve in Vermont (p. 3)				•
DOE Embraces Remediation Process Optimization (p. 11)	•	•	•
ITRC Documents Getting Things Moving in Nevada (p. 10)	•	•		•
Success Continues in Chattanooga (p. 5)	•	•	•
ITRC’s Training Reaches Over 25,000 Participants (p. 8)	•	•	•	•	•
Small Arms Team Scores Success in Seattle District (p. 7)	•	•		•
Hats Off to the Diffusion Sampler Team (p. 6)	•	•	•	•	•
Successful Use of Passive/Diffusion Samplers in New Jersey Facility	•	•	•	•
ITRC, DOD and the EPA—Partnering in New Jersey	•	•	•	•	•
Small Arms Guidance Beneficial to Arizona Closures	•	•		•
ITRC Successes on DOD Sites	•	•	•	•	•
Summaries
Potpourri (August 2004)	•	•	•	•	•
Potpourri (May 2004)	•	•	•	•	•
Potpourri (April 2004)	•	•	•	•
State Highlights
Arizona	•	•		•
California	•	•	•	•
Florida	•	•	•	•
Illinois	•		•	•	•
Indiana	•		•	•	•
Minnesota	•	•	•	•
Nevada	•	•		•
New Mexico	•	•		•
Oklahoma	•	•	•	•
Oregon	•	•	•	•
Bringing Success to the States	•	•		•
EPA Regional Summaries
EPA Region I	•	•	•	•
EPA Region IV	•	•		•
EPA Region V	•	•	•	•
EPA Region VII	•	•	•	•
EPA Region X	•	•	•	•

Quite a few groups have stakes in the management of most environmental problems. In general, all are interested in detecting environmental issues; evaluating them thoroughly, accurately, and efficiently; and restoring/protecting human health and the environment quickly and cost-effectively. However, self-interest and legal responsibility create potential conflicts in terms of values and priorities.

• Citizens are interested in health and property values. They may be suspicious of the financial interests of problem owners, what they perceive as bureaucratic “red tape,” and the technical complexity of both problems and potential solutions. They may see themselves as victims or potential victims of problems caused by others’ ignorance, neglect, or greed. They need understandable information and accessible, efficient processes to gain confidence that government(s) and responsible parties are “doing the right thing.”
• Site owners and their consultants are interested in minimizing the cost of satisfying regulatory requirements for environmental restoration to permit continuing or future use and development. Regardless of culpability for existing problems or dedication to environmental excellence, financial pressures drive an interest in minimal, attainable requirements; flexible, efficient regulatory processes; and quick, cost-effective technologies.
• State and federal regulators are interested in restoring/protecting environmental quality through efficient but defensible processes. They must adhere to sound science on behalf of the public, while operating in the public eye with limited resources and permitting industry, agriculture, and national defense to function. Regulators need to maximize information and understanding of the full array of technical options, their efficacy, and their cost-effectiveness, not only for themselves but for problem owners and the interested public as well.
• Technology developers/vendors are interested in the sale, use, and of success for their technologies, processes, and services. They need access to other stakeholders to demonstrate the superior effectiveness and economy of their solution(s). Consensus among state and federal regulators means fewer impediments to acceptance and approval.
• Supporting federal agencies have some interests in common with each of the above groups. DOD and DOE are principally site/problem owners; DOE is also a repository of expertise on its unique problems. As the principal federal regulator in the arena, EPA is the ultimate protector of the public’s environmental interests but is subject to political pressures while trying to arbitrate workable requirements and manage bureaucratic processes and promote good science and technology.

Everybody is happy when cost-efficient processes produce good outcomes. When there is a good outcome from using an improved process or technology on which ITRC has focused work and attention, that’s “success,” even though we generally can’t quantify ITRC’s contribution.

It’s great when an innovative technology solves a thorny problem or provides an affordable path forward on a seemingly insurmountable problem; however, some environmental issues are more regulatory than technological. Perhaps the most prevalent is the question of how clean is “clean.” Citizens concerned about health and property values want standards that provide essentially absolute protection, regardless of cost. Problem owners want cleanup standards and monitoring requirements that provide “adequate” protection at an “affordable cost.” Regulators and technology providers strive for solutions that satisfy both of these groups.

It is ITRC’s great virtue and benefit that it provides a forum for work towards consensus on such controversial issues. Conflicting interests and values create a tough challenge for some teams and products. Reaching sufficient consensus to issue a technical and regulatory guidance document can be a huge success in itself. When multiple states concur with the approaches taken in ITRC documents, that’s even better. But ITRC’s true success is the network of expertise, good will, and momentum borne of the hours of hard work by hundreds of members forging a common understanding of best practices and spreading that knowledge through direct contact, documents, and training.

Support for ITRC

ECOS Resolutions to Promote ITRC - In an August 2003 resolution that was reaffirmed in 2006, the Environmental Council of States praised ITRC achievements, and pledged its support for the continued success of the ITRC mission and promotion of ITRC documents, training, and expertise. Two additional ECOS resolutions, which were originally passed in 2001 and reaffirmed in 2004 and 2007, urge states and federal agencies to expand their support of ITRC.