itrc 2013 spring meeting · itrc 2013 spring meeting — page 5 monday, april 29 program room 7:00...

ITRC 2013 Spring Meeting Montgomery, Alabama

April 29 – May 3, 2013

Advancing Environmental Solutions | www.itrcweb.org

Welcome

Welcome to the ITRC 2013 Spring Meeting in Montgomery, Alabama! On behalf of

the ITRC Board of Advisors, we salute your continued dedication to ITRC. As expert

practitioners on the front lines of today’s complex environmental challenges, we

hope this meeting will provide the type of valuable resources and insights that

drive ITRC’s core purpose: to advance innovative environmental decision making.

ITRC members participating in this week’s meeting represent a wide variety of

technical knowledge from around the country. We hope you will take full advan-

tage of this unique gathering of expertise by:

Discussing ITRC's direction with ITRC's Board of Advisors and Director

Expanding your network in the environmental community through interacting

with other ITRC members

Engaging with ITRC project teams during Technical and Implementation Ses-

sions to discover more about innovative strategies that teams are pursuing

for 2013 and beyond

Working productively with your own project team to continue the excellence

of ITRC guidance development

Several ITRC project teams are moving into implementation, a critical phase dur-

ing which ITRC promotes the use of its products and encourages innovative envi-

ronmental solutions. It is important for all of us to remember that ITRC success is

measured not only by the development of high-quality products, but also by the

degree to which these products are deployed by ITRC customers. ITRC members

play a key role in this process by communicating the benefits of ITRC products

among colleagues and peers.

As with many organizations, ITRC is a reflection of its members. Thanks to your

dedication, ITRC will continue to provide organizations with the resources they

need as they seek higher quality and more efficient methods and strategies for

solving today’s complex environmental challenges.

Thank you and have a great meeting,

Michael Murphy Tom Schneider

ITRC 2013 Spring Meeting —

Meeting Exhibitors .............................................................................. 4

Agenda ................................................................................................ 5

Session Descriptions ............................................................................ 9

ITRC 2013 Project Team Leaders/Team Descriptions ......................... 11

Implementation Overview

Environmental Molecular Diagnostics............................................. 15

Technical Overviews

DNAPL Site Characterization ........................................................... 16

Geophysical Classification for Munitions Response ......................... 17

Risk Assessment ............................................................................. 18

ITRC Fact Sheet.................................................................................. 21

IAP Members ..................................................................................... 23

Local Area Information / Map ............................................................ 25

2013 Spring Meeting Evaluation Form ............................................... 27

Renaissance Montgomery Floor Plans ............................................... 29

Table of Contents

2013 Spring Meeting Exhibitors

JRW

BIOREMEDIATION, LLC

www.jrwbioremediation.com

JRW is a leading supplier of biore-

mediation products such as WIL-

CLEAR® sodium lactate and Lac-

tOil® soy microemulsion, for the

enhanced in-situ remediation of

chlorinated solvents, metals, and

perchlorate.

W.L. GORE &

ASSOCIATES, INC.

www.gore.com/surveys

The GORE® Survey utilizes a pat-

ented, passive, sorbent-based

sampler, constructed of water-

proof, vapor-permeable GORE-

TEX® membrane & adsorbents.

Gore's lab recently received

ISO17025 DoD ELAP accred. by

A2LA.

http://www.gore.com/surveys


Monday, April 29 Program Room

7:00 AM – 5:00 PM Registration Concourse

7:00 AM – 8:30 AM Breakfast Alabama B

8:30 AM – 5:00 PM Project Team Meetings

Biochemical Reactors for Mining-Influenced Water Montgomery 5

Contaminated Sediments-Remediation Alabama C

Groundwater Statistics and Monitoring Compliance Alabama D

Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Alabama E

10:00 AM – 10:30 AM Morning Break Foyer

12:00 PM – 1:00 PM Lunch on Your Own

3:00 PM – 3:30 PM Afternoon Break Foyer

5:00 PM – 6:00 PM New POC Orientation Meeting Riverview 8

Tuesday, April 30 Program Room


7:00 AM – 8:30 AM Breakfast & Exhibits Alabama B


Biochemical Reactors for Mining-Influenced Water Montgomery 5

Contaminated Sediments-Remediation Alabama C

Groundwater Statistics and Monitoring Compliance Alabama D

Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Alabama E

State Engagement (POC) Meeting Riverview 8




5:00 PM – 7:00 PM Reception & Poster Updates Foyer

Biochemical Reactors for Mining-Influenced Water

Contaminated Sediments-Remediation

Groundwater Statistics and Monitoring Compliance

Agenda

Agenda

Wednesday, May 1 Program Room



7:00 AM – 7:45 AM Team Leader Breakfast Riverview 8

8:00 AM – 9:45 AM Plenary Session Alabama A

8:00 AM – 8:15 AM Opening and Welcome Todd Strange, Mayor of Montgomery

8:15 AM – 8:30 AM The State of Alabama and ITRC Lance LeFleur, Director, Alabama Department of Environmental Management

8:30 AM – 8:45 AM Update on ECOS Policy Issues Mike Linder, Director, Nebraska DEQ and ERIS President

8:45 AM – 9:00 AM Update from ITRC Leadership

Mike Murphy, ITRC Board Co-Chair and Anna Willett, ITRC Director

9:00 AM – 9:15 AM ITRC Board of Advisors 2013 Co-chair Election Tom Schneider, Ohio EPA

9:15 AM – 9:25 AM Introduction to Technical & Implementation Session Round Robins Brian Espy, ITRC Team Leader Liaison


9:40 AM – 10:40 AM Technical & Implementation Sessions Round #1

DNAPL Site Characterization (Technical Session) Alabama C

Geophysical Classification for Munitions Response (Technical Session)

Alabama D

Risk Assessment (Technical Session) Alabama E

Environmental Molecular Diagnostics (Implementation Session) Montgomery 5

10:40 AM – 10:55 AM Break


Agenda

Wednesday, May 1 Program Room

10:55 AM – 12:00 PM Technical & Implementation Sessions Round #2

DNAPL Site Characterization (Technical Session) Alabama C

Geophysical Classification for Munitions Response (Technical Session)

Alabama D

Risk Assessment (Technical Session) Alabama E

Environmental Molecular Diagnostics (Implementation Session)

Montgomery 5

12:00 PM – 1:15 PM IAP Coordination Meeting Riverview 6

12:00 PM – 1:15 PM Stakeholder Coordination Meeting Riverview 8


1:30 PM – 5:00 PM Project Team Meetings

DNAPL Site Characterization Alabama C

Geophysical Classification for Munitions Response Alabama D

Risk Assessment Alabama E

Environmental Molecular Diagnostics Montgomery 5


Agenda

Thursday, May 2 Program Room








8:30 AM – 5:00 PM Board of Advisors Meeting Riverview 8




Friday, May 3 Program Room

7:00 AM – 8:30 AM Breakfast Concourse







12:30 PM Meeting Adjourns


Board of Advisors Meeting

<Open to Board of Advisors members only>

The ITRC Board of Advisors serves the ITRC membership and is responsible

for ITRC leadership and strategic direction. The Board is comprised of 9 vot-

ing members (6 states, 1 private sector, 1 state association, and 1 public

stakeholder), as well as the non-voting Federal Liaisons representing ITRC's

funding partners.

Industry Affiliate Program (IAP) Coordination Meeting

<Open to IAP Members Only>

This is a session for ITRC IAP members to coordinate private sector involve-

ment across ITRC Project Teams.

Plenary Session

This session will offer environmental professionals from across the country

an opportunity to network and collaborate on innovative approaches to solv-

ing environmental challenges. ITRC leadership will brief attendees on the or-

ganization’s outlook for 2013 and beyond.

The plenary will include 3 technical sessions and 1 implementation session.

Information on the implementation session is available on page 15. Informa-

tion on the technical sessions begins on page 16.

ITRC Team Meetings

ITRC Teams consist of environmental professionals with diverse environ-

mental perspectives working to develop guidance documents and associated

training courses to promote better decision-making when considering inno-

vative environmental technologies and approaches. The result of these pro-

jects is broadened technical knowledge and streamlined regulation of new

environmental technologies. These state-led teams consist of members from

state regulatory agencies, federal agencies, academia, public and tribal stake-

holders, and the private sector.

Session Descriptions

Reception

This evening reception is a great chance to network with other profession-

als in the environmental field. There will also be poster updates on the pro-

gress of three ITRC Teams.

Stakeholder Coordination Meeting

<Open to Public/Tribal Stakeholder Members Only>

This is a session for ITRC Stakeholder members to coordinate Stakeholder

member involvement across ITRC Teams.

State Engagement Meeting

<Open only to ITRC State Points of Contact (POCs)>

This meeting will advance opportunities for states to achieve value through

their ITRC participation. The State Engagement Program promotes the use

of ITRC documents and training within the states; leads efforts to identify

state priorities for future ITRC projects; provides input for increasing the

usability and quality of ITRC products; and identifies implementation re-

sults.

New POC Orientation Meeting

<Open only to ITRC State Points of Contact (POCs)>

This meeting provides orientation for new State Engagement Points of

Contact (POCs).

Session Descriptions


2013 Project Team Leaders/Team Descriptions

Biochemical Reactors for Mining-Influenced Water

Leads: Cherri Baysinger (MO) and David Cates (OK)

Project: Examine the background and current status of using biochemical reac-

tors to treat mining-influenced water. A biochemical reactor (BCR) is an engi-

neered treatment system that uses an organic substrate to drive microbial and

chemical reactions to reduce the concentration of metals, acidity, and sulfate

in mining-influenced water. A BCR is suitable for remote application and can

potentially be implemented with minimal operation and maintenance. This

project will produce a web-based technical and regulatory guidance document

and internet-based training course describing the application, limitations,

regulatory barriers, and best practices for using BCRs.

More information for this team is available on the ITRC website:

http://www.itrcweb.org/Team/Public?teamID=1

Contaminated Sediments—Remediation

Leads: John Cargill (DE) and Greg Neumann (NJ)

Project: Develop a web-based technical and regulatory guidance document

and internet-based training course to assist the user in the identification and

selection of applicable approaches to mitigate exposure to sediment contami-

nation. The guidance document and training course will describe the proper

application of traditional and emerging sediment remediation technologies,

such as monitored natural recovery, in situ remediation, capping

(conventional and amended), and removal (dredging/excavation) to aid the

user in the selection and monitoring of a remedy that is protective of human

health and the environment.






DNAPL Site Characterization

Leads: Naji Akladiss (ME) and Michael Smith (VT)

Project: Revise and expand ITRC’s 2003 “Introduction to Characterizing Sites Con-

taminated with DNAPLs” technology overview. The revised document will be a

technical and regulatory guidance document and incorporate the expanded

dense, non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) site conceptual model that has been

developed over the last ten years. It will also include “next generation” site char-

acterization techniques and a characterization tool box of improved and new

technologies. The revised technical and regulatory guidance document and asso-

ciated internet-based training will provide objective guidance on emerging DNAPL

site characterization methods and their applicability in various geologic settings.

This work will help regulators, project managers, and stakeholders improve their

understanding of these techniques prior to major site characterization decisions.



Environmental Molecular Diagnostics

Lead: Bob Mueller (NJ)

Project: Summarize the fundamental background and current status of available

environmental molecular diagnostics (EMDs) and provide objective guidance on

the best practices for using EMDs, including evaluating, applying, and interpreting

the results of EMDs. EMDs is a collective term that describes a group of advanced

and emerging techniques used to analyze biological and chemical characteristics

of environmental samples. The molecular biology-based EMDs include methods

that can identify and quantify key microorganisms, enzymes, and/or genes in-

volved in specific biodegradation processes. EMDs also include compound specific

isotope analysis (CSIA), a chemical method that measures the relative abundance

of stable isotopes in contaminants to determine the extent of specific chemical

and biochemical reactions impacting the contaminant. These techniques can be

used in site management, for example, to assess when natural attenuation as a

standalone remedy is sufficient or whether enhancements are necessary.







Geophysical Classification for Munitions Response

Leads: Roman Racca (CA) and Tracie White (CO)

Project: Develop a guidance document and internet-based training course that

reflects recent technical and procedural advances in detecting and classifying geo-

physical anomalies for munitions response (MR) projects. Geophysical anomaly

classification is a new, cutting-edge technology, in which geophysical anomalies

(e.g. scrap metal, unexploded ordnance, etc.) are detected on a munitions re-

sponse site, and then, with the use of new instruments and advanced geophysics,

the anomalies are classified underground to determine if the individual items will

be removed. The document and training course will provide guidance to environ-

mental professionals on the design and execution of geophysical classification,

including geophysical detection and classification instruments, processing tech-

niques, and quality control measures to support a successful MR project. This pro-

ject will describe the science behind geophysical classification, the steps to be

taken in the field and during data processing, and provide measures to allow the

quality of the work to be assessed, thereby increasing the scientific defensibility,

effectiveness, and efficiency of MR projects.




Lead: Ning-Wu Chang (CA)

Project: Develop a web-based technical and regulatory guidance document for the

application of groundwater statistics at all types of sites. The guidance document

will provide information for practitioners who have technical and project manage-

ment experience, but who are challenged with reviewing or implementing statis-

tics. The guidance document will help practitioners understand statistical tech-

niques used for monitoring, evaluation, and optimization throughout the ground-

water remediation project life cycle: release detection, site characterization, reme-

diation, monitoring and closure. The guidance document will bring clarity to the

planning, implementation, and communication of groundwater statistical methods

and lead to proper use of groundwater statistics for site management.






Petroleum Vapor Intrusion

Leads: John Boyer (NJ) and John Menatti (UT)

Project: Produce a technical and regulatory guidance document and an inter-

net-based training course that describe a multiple-lines-of-evidence approach

for evaluating petroleum vapor intrusion. The guidance document and train-

ing course will describe the differences between chlorinated and petroleum

hydrocarbons, particularly the biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbon

vapors in the vadose zone. A comprehensive practical methodology for evalu-

ating and mitigating sites for petroleum vapor intrusion will be developed.



Risk Assessment

Lead: John McVey (SD)

Project: Develop a technical and regulatory guidance document and internet-

based training course focusing on the critical needs and problems faced by

project managers, decision makers and other users of risk assessment in un-

derstanding, interpreting, managing, and communicating human health risk

assessment information. The project will be organized around key topic areas

important to understanding, evaluating, and communicating risk assessments

and leverage existing EPA and other guidance and references. The document

and training will identify and include sources of available information, tools

and other resources, and provide support for users to identify specific ap-

proaches applicable for guidance on interpreting results and managing of

cleanup sites.






Implementation Overview


Background

Environmental molecular diagnostics (EMDs) describes a group of advanced and emerging techniques used to analyze biological and chemical characteristics of soils, sediments, groundwater, and surface water. EMDs can be classified into two major categories of analytical techniques: chemical techniques, specifically compound specific isotope analysis (CSIA), and molecular biology-based techniques. EMDs have application in each phase of environmental site management, including site characterization, remediation, monitoring, and closure activities. EMDs are used to provide additional lines of evidence for making decisions during each phase of a project.

Tech-Reg Purpose

Provide objective guidance on best practices for using EMDs for environmental site management

Discuss appropriate uses of EMDs, including their strengths and limitations

Provide information to support evaluating, applying, and interpreting the results of EMDs

Internet-based Training (IBT) Objectives

Describe the utility of EMDs during site management activities

Define when EMDs can cost effectively augment traditional data sets

Understand when and how to utilize the EMD technical and regulatory guidance document

Implementation Objectives

Introduce EMDs to environmental professionals

Provide IBT to raise awareness and understanding

Raise awareness of ITRC products on EMDs

Discussion Questions

How and where can the EMD products be used?

Can your organization provide a link to the EMD web-based document on your site?

Is there potential for additional web-based training to provide technical content beyond the IBT?

Technical Overview

DNAPL Site Characterization

Problem

Dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) are one of the most persistent, wide spread, and high risk subsurface contaminant types.

Many DNAPL sites have been historically characterized considering the physics of dissolved phase transport using tools and strategies based largely on drilling con-ventional soil borings for soil samples and installing monitoring wells for ground-water and DNAPL sampling.

ITRC’s 2003 “Introduction to Characterizing Sites Contaminated with DNAPLs” overview document is out-of-date and does not include changes in the DNAPL conceptual sit model that have occurred over the last 10 years or the new charac-terization methods and tools now available.

Applicable Regulatory Programs

State and federal Superfund, RCRA, DOD, Brownfields, and potentially local pro-grams

Team Solutions

Revise the overview document and expand it to a technical and regulatory guid-ance document. Introduce new tools and next generation site characterization methods, and provide guidance on using the tools and next generation site char-acterization methods for DNAPL sites

Open Issues

Regulatory and stakeholder acceptance


Technical Overview


Problem

Because funding levels and the length of time required to investigate munitions response (MR) sites using conventional technologies is not adequate to meet cleanup needs, geophysical classification technologies have been developed to classify the large number of anomalies typically detected during geophysical sur-veys. Using conventional technologies, all geophysical anomalies must be exca-vated at a MR site. Using classification technologies, high confidence clutter items, which typically represent the large majority of geophysical anomalies, do not need to be excavated. Because most regulators and many industry profes-sionals are not familiar with geophysical classification technology, an understand-ing of the technology and confidence in the results is needed in order to foster technology adoption and acceptance. By avoiding unnecessary excavation of non-munitions anomalies, use of the technology will provide benefits in terms of time, cost, and effectiveness.


State and Federal munitions response programs

Team Solutions

In a multi-phase approach, the team has already published introductory materials targeted to state regulators, stakeholders, and contractors unfamiliar with classi-fication technology. This includes training modules and an Introductory fact sheet, available on the ITRC web site. The team is completing a technology over-view fact sheet to be published this spring and will complete a regulatory issues fact sheet later this year. The technical and regulatory guidance document the team is working on will provide a detailed technology overview, an analysis of the advantages/limitation information on the technology, site restrictions to use of the technology, quality control and quality assurance considerations, and case studies.

Open Issues

When in the CERCLA process geophysical classification can be used?

Regulatory acceptance associated with leaving metal in the ground

Technical Overview

Risk Assessment

Problem

Many local and state regulatory agencies responsible for cleanup of chemicals released to the environment have developed regulations and policies defining the use of risk assessment in the cleanup decision-making process. These regulations and policies incorporate risk management decisions that often use default pa-rameters as a starting point for risk assessments. Agencies rely on the professional judgment of the project managers and decision makers when evaluating risk as-sessments using parameters other than the default for more complex and site-specific risk assessments. A critical need and problem that faces these project managers and decision makers throughout the U.S. is having sufficient background and knowledge to evaluate risk assessments and the supporting data and parame-ters beyond the default procedures to support informed decisions concerning risk assessment.


State and federal cleanup programs (e.g., Brownfields, underground storage tanks, voluntary action)

Team Solutions

Develop a technical and regulatory guidance document and internet-based train-ing that:

1. Identifies and highlights key issues and challenges faced by project managers and deci-sion makers, including challenges related to risk management and risk communication, when using risk assessment for making decisions about site cleanup

2. Provides alternatives, best practices, and resources to address these key issues and challenges

3. Provides an overview and emphasizes the role and importance of risk management and risk communication in the risk assessment decision process, as well as, issues and challenges associated with these activities

Open Issues

Multiple state approaches to the use of risk assessment and the default parame-ters applied

Sift through the comprehensive list of key issues and challenges to identify the appropriate ones to include in the document

Maintain focus on addressing key issues and alternatives and not writing guidance on how to do risk assessment

Incorporate a hypothetical case study to provide examples through the document


Notes

ITRC Fact Sheet

ITRC Purpose

To advance innovative environmental decision making

ITRC Mission

To develop information resources and help break down barriers to the use of technically sound innovative solutions to environmental challenges through an active network of environmental professionals

ITRC Role

Increase understanding of and confidence in innovative technologies

Provide a national consensus on approaches to using innovative environmental technologies

Improve the cleanup process by educating state regulators and others on innova-tive environmental technologies

Build a reliable network among members of the environmental community

Foster integration of new technical developments within existing regulations

Create networks of technical experts for use by states and others when making decisions on innovative environmental technologies

ITRC Benefits

Innovative solutions where none existed before

National paradigm shifts for using new technology

Harmonized approaches to using innovative technology across the nation

Reduced review and permitting times for innovative approaches to environ-mental problems

Faster cleanup decisions due to reduction in uncertainty

Decreased compliance costs

Replaces adversarial relationships with collaboration


ITRC Fact Sheet

ITRC Resources

By the end of calendar year 2013, ITRC will have published 109 documents, in-cluding:

59 Technical Regulatory Guidance Documents

36 Technical Overview Documents

14 Case Study Compilations, State Survey Summaries, and Resource Guides

2013 planned guidance documents: (1) Biochemical Reactors, (2) Groundwater Statistics and Monitoring Compliance, and (3) Environmental Molecular Diagnos-tics.

ITRC documents and other resources are available online at: http://www.itrcweb.org/Guidance.

ITRC Training Program Through December 2012, ITRC has trained 90,000 people via its Internet-Based

Training Program (partnered with EPA’s Technology Innovation Program) and at onsite classroom training events. Training attendees are federal and state regula-tors, environmental consultants/vendors/site owners, federal agency personnel, and others.

ITRC has developed and deployed a total of 59 internet-based training courses that are 2-3 hours in length and 9 multi-day classroom training courses. Descrip-tions of the courses can be found at: http://www.itrcweb.org.

ITRC Membership In 2012, ITRC had 629 members from the following sectors:

State and local government (33%)

Private sector (44%)

Federal government (16%)

Public stakeholders and academia (7%)

Active ITRC Technical Teams Biochemical Reactors for Mining-Influenced Water

Contaminated Sediments–Remediation

DNAPL Characterization




Petroleum Vapor Intrusion

Risk Assessment

http://www.itrcweb.org/Guidance

IAP Gold Members


IAP Standard Members

Local Area: Montgomery Dining Guide

BURGERS & FRIES

Baumhower’s

201 Union Street ● 263-8800

Chris’ Hotdogs

138 Dexter Avenue ● 265-6850

Commerce Street Soda Shop

15 Commerce Street ● 262-8282

Flames Grill

142 Montgomery Street ● 264-0010

Hamburger King

547 South Decatur Street ● 262-1798

Wing City

701 Madison Avenue ● 819-4100

LOCAL PUBS

Irish Bred Pub

78 Dexter Avenue ● 245-4532

Railyard Brewing Company

12 West Jefferson Street ● 262-0080

The Exchange

201 Tallapoosa St. ● 481-5165

SOUTHERN CUISINE

Dreamland BBQ

101 Tallapoosa Street ● 273-7427

Isaiah’s Restaurant

135 Mildred Street ● 265-9000

Montgomery Café

300 Tallapoosa St. ● 269-5055

Sophia’s BBQ

1055 Adams Avenue ● 269-1177

Wintzell’s Oyster House


ITALIAN, MEXICAN, INDIAN

Cucos Express

31 South Court Street ● 832-0081

Jalapenos


Lek’s Railroad Thai

300 Water Street ● 269-0708

SaZa


SOUP, SALAD, SANDWICHES

Cool Beans

115 Montgomery Street ● 269-3302

Courthouse Café

100 South Lawrence Street ● 832-1684

Davis Café

518 North Decatur Street ● 264-6015

Farmer’s Market Café

315 North McDonough Street ● 262-1970

House of Bread

317 North Hull Street ● 356-8370

Scott Street Deli

412 Scott Street ● 264-9415

Smoothies and Things

109 South Court Street ● 241-0770

The Deli

130 A Commerce Street ● 264-2922

FINE DINING

Central

129 Coosa Street ● 517-1155

The House

201 Tallapoosa Street ● 481-5166


Local Area: Downtown Montgomery Map

Renaissance Montgomery

201 Tallapoosa Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

*

Hotel Floor Plan


AFFILIATION

EVALUATION - PLEASE CIRCLE APPROPRIATE NUMBER

Poor Excellent Comments

Please rate Montgomery meeting location

1 2 3 4 5

Please rate hotel facility, meeting space, etc

1 2 3 4 5

Please rate overall meet-ing schedule

1 2 3 4 5

No - Somewhat - Yes Comments

Overall, was the meeting worthwhile?

1 2 3 4 5

Was the Plenary Session an effective use of time?

1 2 3 4 5

Did the Co-Chair update cover information you wanted to hear?

1 2 3 4 5

Did the Implementation Session provide enough information to assist ITRC with promoting use of its products?

1 2 3 4 5

Were the project Techni-cal Round Robin Ses-sions informative and a good use of full mem-bership time?

1 2 3 4 5

Attended: □ DNAPL □ Munitions

□ Risk Assessment

□ Federal □ Team Leader/Member—Which Team(s)? ________________

□ IAP □ Board of Advisors

□ State POC □ Other _____________________________________________

2013 Spring Meeting Evaluation Form

2013 Spring Meeting Evaluation Form

EVALUATION - PLEASE CIRCLE APPROPRIATE NUMBER

No - Somewhat - Yes Comments

Did the meeting provide you with opportunities for networking and col-laboration?

1 2 3 4 5

Were the poster presen-tations informative and helpful?

1 2 3 4 5

Do you plan to attend future ITRC meetings?

1 2 3 4 5

What other suggestions do you have for future ITRC Spring Meetings?


Notes