1. Stakeholder Interest and Involvement in Technology Verification Programs Karen Riggs U.S. EPA ETV Program Advanced Monitoring Systems Center Battelle (Columbus, Ohio USA)

2. Stakeholders in U.S. EPAs 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 Battelles 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

3. 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

4. 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 EPAs 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.

5. 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

6. 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 contributions More 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. Collaboration in ballast water exchange screening technology verification: Cofunding from U.S. Coast Guard No in-kind support from collaborator (other than vendor)

10. Collaboration in verification of ammonia and H 2 S 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

11. 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

12. 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 Riggs Battelle 505 King Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43201-2693 USA (614) 424-7379 riggsk@battelle.org Karen Riggs | Manager, Environmental Assessment and Exposure Battelle | Columbus, Ohio USA