Business Title: Environmental Training Management Specialist

Author: Alan Eckmyre

Key Words: Reactive Barriers, Permeable Barriers, Remedial Technology, Groundwater

Abstract:

Objective and Scope -

Technical uncertainties and lessons learned from engineered barrier installation case studies will be highlighted based upon a January 23-25, 2001, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sponsored permeable reactive barrier workshop in Salt Lake City, Utah. The workshop was by invitation only of national academic, federal agency, and contractor scientific and engineering experts. Their task consisted of developing engineering guidelines based upon their laboratory testing and field installation and operational experience with passive barriers. Conference session participants will gain an overview of lessons learned and installation guidelines for implementation of barriers that will provide valuable characterization-design-construction-monitoring and critical geochemical information that influence design decisions and implementability of these barrier.

Issues - These types of passive remediation systems may enable sites with suitable contaminated plumes to achieve regulatory closure sooner because long pump and treat programs are avoided. Passive reactive barriers are engineered structures emplaced in the subsurface to capture and treat an advancing ground water contamination plume. The natural hydraulic pressure gradient in the aquifer drives the plume through the reactive zone. The technology consists of three elements: impermeable barrier to direct and capture ground water flow (consisting of a variety of installation methods), barrier materials, and configurations. Site-specific geotechnical and hydrogeological conditions dictate the most appropriate approach while site-specific performance requirements guide reactive media selection. Currently, the technology is depth-limited by the ability to install the impermeable wall component and emplace/remove treatment cassettes.

Specifics issues associated with engineered passive/permeable reactive barriers include hydrology, geochemistry, and performance goal considerations. Hydrology issues involve what is the appropriate number of monitoring points and field hydraulic tests to adequately characterize a site where a barrier installation is planned; what new approaches should be employed for hydrologic characterization; how important is it to characterize the spatial variability of the barrier; and what is an appropriate scope for long-term hydraulic monitoring. Geochemical issues involve critical geochemical issues that influence design decisions and implementation (type of laboratory and field testing needed prior to construction); how well do reaction mechanisms need to be determined; what chemical measurements are important prior to and after construction; how useful is geochemical modeling; what reactive materials should be considered (advantages/disadvantages); can accurate predictions of longevity be made; are any harmful byproducts likely; can barriers be rejuvenated with chemical injections; and how groundwater chemistry affect performance. Finally, long-term performance issues involve problems that arise when there are long-term performance problems (heterogeneous conditions, unintended chemical reaction/transport pathways, background concentrations downstream of the barrier that are initially higher than the MCL, or when sampling isn't considered representative).

Developments and Conclusions - The results of the DOE sponsored workshop (design guidance) will provide beneficial innovative and cost effective technology solution information and will be discussed to address specific issues of barrier design and implementation via case study analysis. This session will also afford participants a list of the main points and brief assessment of the current performance goals for these barriers; current analysis and monitoring methods that should be used with existing performance goals; alternative performance goals including risk-based evaluations; highlight research and development needs to better achieve performance goals; and a decision tree for the development of site-specific performance goals.

Title of Presentation: Certification Maintenance Status

Author: Alan Eckmyre

Key Words: Recertification Continuing Education

Abstract:

Objective and Scope - The Institute of Hazardous Materials Management (IHMM) developed the Certified Hazardous Materials Manager (CHMM^®) recertification program in accordance with the Council of Engineering and Scientific Specialty Boards (CESB) guidelines. The CESB is an independent, voluntary membership body created for its member organizations that recognize, through specialty certification, the expertise of individuals practicing in engineering and related fields. IHMM recertification program requirements are intended to ensure that CHMMs maintain the highest professional standards and enhance their continued competence. The program requires that CHMMs participate in professional development activities and submit evidence of these activities on a periodic basis. Meeting these requirements is mandatory to maintain the CHMM certification.

Issues - CESB guidelines require that recertification programs must have a process that has as its goal maintenance and enhancement of professional qualifications. CESB recognition of specialty certification program recertification may be achieved either by examination or by presenting satisfactory evidence of some combination of professional experience, continuing professional development, and professional society activity in a specialty area. In the latter case, while professional experience should receive primary weighting in granting recertification, the requirements must include cumulative continuing professional development in the specialty area at the rate of at least twenty hours per year. Professional society volunteer activity, related professional community volunteer service, authoring of technical papers, and similar activities may be considered by the certifying body in lieu of a portion of the continuing professional development or professional experience requirements. All activities for which recertification credit is granted must have been conducted during the immediately preceding period of certification. No credit may be granted for activities occurring at any prior time.

Developments and Conclusions - IHMM recertification guidelines for continuing education and professional development specify that at least 20 hours (=1.25 CMPs) must be earned annually through participation in any combination of the following three categories and took effect in February 1998.

• College/University Credit Courses - Completion of an accredited, college-level course on hazardous materials management or a related topic. One-half (0.5) CMP per semester credit hour (maximum: Two (2) CMPs per year).

• Professional Development Conferences/Courses/ Seminars - Attendance at conferences, seminars, workshops or in-house contracted training dealing primarily with hazardous materials management or a related topic: One-quarter (0.25) CMP per four (4) hours of actual training time (maximum: Two (2) CMPs per year).

• Continuing Education Courses - Completion of a continuing education course on hazardous materials management or a related topic: One-quarter (0.25) CMP per CEU (maximum: Two (2) CMPs per year).