Overcoming New Technology Barriers: Technology Acceptance and Reciprocity Partnership (TARP) Arleen O’Donnell, Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection.

Overcoming New Technology Barriers:

Technology Acceptance and Reciprocity Partnership (TARP)Arleen O’Donnell, Mass. Dept. of Environmental ProtectionArleen O’Donnell, Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection

State-EPA Symposium on Environmental Innovation 1/25/2006State-EPA Symposium on Environmental Innovation 1/25/2006

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

Overview

Discuss relevant barriers to adoption of new technologies

Describe TARP and how it reduces these barriers

Provide an example - Stormwater treatment technologies

Invite other states to join

Relevant Technology Barriers

Lack of credible data to allow regulators to make decisions

Uncertain testing requirements Duplicative reviews under traditional state-

by-state permit systemCost of testingAcceptance by Users

What is TARP?

Collaboration of 8 states (CA, IL, MD, MA,NJ, NY, PA, VA)

Led by ECOS and coordinating with relevant EPA programs

Other states are encouraged to join Current TARP priority areas: stormwater,

beneficial use of waste, and alternative septic system designs

Goals of TARP

To maximize innovative approaches to meet states’ environmental goals

To develop common protocols to assess performance claims

To reduce permit review time in deference to a state partner’s review and verification of performance results

To improve information sharing between statesTo increase acceptance of new technologies by

purchasers and reviewers.

How TARP Works

One state is identified as a lead and each interested

state identifies a participant

Administrative support, travel and conference call

funding is provided through ECOS

After a protocol is developed, states define how

they will reciprocate in decision- making

Protocols are frequently updated

Stormwater - Example

Stormwater was selected as one of the first priority areas

Over a hundred new stormwater technologies on the market claiming performance efficiencies, many without good data

6 states developed original protocol

Why is Stormwater a Problem?

Impaired Waters, 2002

Massachusetts Example: Urban runoff and stormwater responsible for 46% of assessed river segments and 48% of assessed marine waters not supporting their designated water quality standard (MassDEP 1995).

Reduced Flow, 2001

High Stress Basin Medium Stress Basin

Stormwater Regulatory Issues

Massachusetts adopted rules in 1996 to regulate stormwater

Rules require 80% TSS Removal for new development and redevelopment in or near Wetlands

Rules assign each traditional stormwater treatment BMP a specific TSS removal credit.

Role for Innovative BMPs

Some traditional stormwater treatment BMPs are land constrained in urban areas

Beyond TSS RemovalGrowing Demand for RechargeNPDES Phase II/TMDL Compliance

TARP Stormwater Status

Protocol available on line NJ and EPA (ETV) actively testing stormwater

technologies – in the lab and in the field MA developed a searchable database (

http://www.mastep.net) to provide one-stop shop for reports, data and evaluations of stormwater technologies

Interstate team being re-activated to update protocol and discuss what reciprocity means

New states invited to join

Summary: How TARP Addresses Barriers

Lack of credible data to allow regulators to make decisions

Uncertain testing requirements

Duplicative reviews under traditional state-by-state permit system

Cost of testing

Acceptance by Users

Understand common and unique data requirements

Develop Protocol and agree to use it

Agree on reciprocity

Accept data from another state

Share information with users

TARP Contacts

Linda Benevides, MassDEP

(617) 626-1197Marybeth Brenner, NJDEP

(609) 292-6877

Website: PADEP hosts -

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/pollprev/techservices/tarp/