Stakeholder Interest and Involvement in Technology Verification Programs

Karen Riggs

U.S. EPA ETV Program

Advanced Monitoring Systems Center

Battelle (Columbus, Ohio USA)

Stakeholders in U.S. EPA’s Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

• >500 active stakeholders in 21 groups• 160 stakeholder meetings conducted• Many stakeholders involved since

ETV inception (10 years)• Additional stakeholders involved as needed• Battelle’s Advanced Monitoring Systems (AMS) Center air

and water committees each have ~25 members Also technical panels for individual verifications

Karen Riggs | Manager, Environmental Assessment and Exposure Battelle | Columbus, Ohio USA

Who do the ETV stakeholders represent?

• U.S. EPA Program Offices• Other U.S. Federal Agencies• Individual State/Local/Municipal Agencies• Associations of State/Local/Municipal Agencies• Individual Industrial Companies• Industrial Associations• Insurance and Legal Organizations• Academic Researchers• Private Consultants• Subject Matter Experts (technical panels)

Karen Riggs | Manager, Environmental Assessment and Exposure Battelle | Columbus, Ohio USA

Why are stakeholders interested in being involved?

• Need better technologies for their applications• Information valuable in setting

regulations/accepting technologies• Supportive of business/economic

development in region/state/industry sector

• Data quality relevant to liability or compliance issues• Access to new ideas on technologies and applications• Interactions with other stakeholders• Maintain knowledge of new technologies

Karen Riggs | Manager, Environmental Assessment and Exposure Battelle | Columbus, Ohio USA

EPA’s Voluntary Diesel Reduction Program (VDRP) is a stakeholder in the ETV Air Pollution Control Technology Center, and uses ETV results to select technologies for the VDRP-verified list, to reduce state- or program-specific testing and speed the adoption of novel technologies.

How do stakeholders contribute to development of the verification system?

• Identify areas of technology needs• Identify emerging technologies• Prioritize technologies for testing• Represent, and distribute information to,

their constituencies• Identify additional stakeholders and target audiences for

verification information • Can influence vendor or collaborator participation

Karen Riggs | Manager, Environmental Assessment and Exposure Battelle | Columbus, Ohio USA

What do stakeholders contribute to individual verifications?• Guide study design • Review test plan and verification

reports• Provide in-kind support

Test site, test personnel, reference analyses

• Provide co-funding

Test collaborators make substantial contributionsMore than $700,000 U.S. and 6,800 hours of in-kind

support to U.S. ETV program over last three years.

Karen Riggs | Manager, Environmental Assessment and Exposure Battelle | Columbus, Ohio USA

Examples of organizations collaborating on ETV AMS Center verifications• U.S. Department of Agriculture• DuPont Chemical Corporation• U.S. Coast Guard• U.S. Army• U.S. Department of Energy• Illinois Clean Coal Institute• City of Columbus, Ohio• Chlorine Chemistry Council• Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics Research

Center• American Electric Power Company

Karen Riggs | Manager, Environmental Assessment and Exposure Battelle | Columbus, Ohio USA

Collaboration in mercury emission monitor verification: • Cofunding from Illinois Clean Coal Institute

and four vendors• In-kind support from Northern Indiana

Public Service Company Coal-fired power plant as host test facility Facility staff operated mercury technologies during testing Laboratory space provided for reference method preparation

and recovery Access to plant operations and emissions data Review of test plan and reports

• Technology prioritization and peer review of test plan and reports by stakeholders

Karen Riggs | Manager, Environmental Assessment and Exposure Battelle | Columbus, Ohio USA

Karen Riggs | Manager, Environmental Assessment and Exposure Battelle | Columbus, Ohio USA

Collaboration in ballast water exchange screening technology verification:

• Cofunding from U.S. Coast Guard• No in-kind support from collaborator (other than vendor)

Collaboration in verification of ammonia and H2S monitors at animal feeding operations: • Testing of 9 total technologies in 2 verifications• No cofunding other than from vendors• In-kind support from U.S. Department of

Agriculture Swine farm and cattle feedlot as test facilities USDA staff supported daily test activities

including operation of reference method Materials and calibration gases provided Review of test plan and reports Hosted Technology Field Day

Karen Riggs | Manager, Environmental Assessment and Exposure Battelle | Columbus, Ohio USA

Collaboration in dioxin emission monitor verification: • Cofunding from four vendors • Cofunding from:

Chlorine Chemistry Council EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards EPA Office of Research and Development

• In-kind support from EPA Use of controlled combustor as test bed Operation of combustor test facility and oversight

of testing by EPA staff Hosted Technology Field Day

Karen Riggs | Manager, Environmental Assessment and Exposure Battelle | Columbus, Ohio USA

Conclusions on Stakeholder Involvement: • Contribute to system by identifying and

prioritizing technology needs, prioritizing technology verifications, conveying information, and influencing collaborators and vendors

• Contribute to individual verifications by providing in-kind support or cofunding,guiding test design, serving as peer reviewers; start-to-finish involvement based on interest/expertise

Karen RiggsBattelle

505 King AvenueColumbus, Ohio 43201-2693 USA

(614) 424-7379 riggsk@battelle.org

Karen Riggs | Manager, Environmental Assessment and Exposure Battelle | Columbus, Ohio USA