PFAS Experts Symposium 2: PFAS Remediation research – Evolution from past to present, current efforts, and potential futures

TRRP Training: 2022 Program

presented by: GSI Environmetal Inc.

Texas Risk Reduction Program regulations (TRRP; 30 TAC 350) establish consistent risk-based protocols for assessment and response to soil, groundwater, or surface water impacts associated with environmental releases of regulated wastes or substances.

Presented by GSI Environmental Inc., this popular and informative training series is a must for professionals who need a working understanding of TRRP and those needing to stay up-to-date with the latest TCEQ TRRP guidance and policies.

TRRP Training Course (2 Days): Provides an overview of the TRRP framework and step-by-step training on property assessment and response action procedures established under the TRRP rule

Attendees will become acquainted with rules, key guidance and policies covering affected property assessments, protective concentration levels, and response actions. The course material presents strategies for efficient project management in compliance with TRRP and explains the various report forms adopted by TCEQ.

TAEP image

Sponsored by: ​
Texas Association of Environmental Professionals (TAEP) TAEP is the premier organization for environmental professionals in the State of Texas. The goals of TAEP include the advancement of the environmental profession and the establishment of a forum to discuss important environmental issues. TAEP members receive a 10% discount. Please call 713.522.6300 for the code.

Dates and Location

Dates

June 14th and 15th, 2022

Location

Crowne Plaza River Oaks 2712 SW Freeway Houston, Texas 77098 713.523.8448 http://www.crowneplaza.com/

Price and Registration

Early-Bird Price

(Paid by May 1, 2022)
$XXX

Standard Price

(Paid after May 1, 2022)
$XXX

TAEP Membership Price

$XXX

Government Price

$XXX
Lodging and meals are not
included in course cost
REGISTER HERE

Published: 2022

Authors: Charles J. Newell, William H. DiGuiseppi, Daniel P. Cassidy, Craig E. Divine, James M. Fenstermacher, Nathan W. Hagelin, Ryan A. Thomas, Paul Tomiczek III, Scott D. Warner, Zhong John Xiong, Paul B. Hatzinger

Abstract Due to the diverse chemistries of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and their apparent recalcitrance to natural biological and abiotic transformation processes, remediation of this class of compounds in groundwater environments is much more challenging than that of other common contaminants such as chlorinated solvents, hydrocarbons, methyl tert-butyl ether, and 1,4-dioxane. Overall, the groundwater remediation community is faced with substantial challenges that will require both continued enhancement of existing technologies and development of new technologies and strategies to manage PFAS-impacted sites. Fortunately, an extraordinary breadth and depth of ongoing research in PFAS remediation is funded through a variety of different agencies and organizations. This research can be organized into three main categories: (1) nondestructive approaches that remove PFAS from water and other matrices; (2) destructive technologies that break carbon–fluorine and carbon–carbon bonds to create nontoxic products; and (3) coupled systems that concentrate and then destroy PFAS. As with previous groundwater contaminants, an initial focus on ex situ PFAS treatment is now slowly evolving to include more in situ research. However, as of 2021, there are no practical groundwater remediation technologies that have been shown to destroy target PFAS (i.e., mineralize and/or create nontoxic products) in situ at full-scale field application. While the historical goal of in situ treatment for most contaminants has been destruction, practitioners, facility owners, and regulators may need to alter their expectations and objectives for PFAS, at least in the short term, to management strategies that include treatment at receptor locations to avoid exposures and adsorption-based attenuation strategies for some plumes. These approaches can be used as practical alternatives to PFAS destruction or to buy time until promising technologies become both commercially available and accepted by the industry. The success of any remedial effort typically depends upon meeting regulatory criteria, which in the case of PFAS, are currently in flux at the federal level and differ by orders of magnitude among state regulatory bodies. While this is understandable given the uncertainty and complexity of this issue, setting firm, consistent, and attainable regulatory standards is necessary to provide researchers and practitioners with necessary benchmarks for remediation technology development and commercialization.