The partners who have been through this program have raved about how valuable it was — one that we should have been doing a long time ago. Give your audience specific processes for developing a successful marketing system and increasing sales in their IT services business.
This is a very exclusive option for those who want the maximum support, direction and coaching from Robin. You should be VERY familiar with her style of marketing and have an exceptional product or service to sell before considering this option.
The fee will depend on the length of the presentation and topic covered. Robin can provide an excellent presentation on various topics including:. Below is a short list of decisions that will drive the ultimate fees for this program.
Only a limited number of consulting days are available for purchase. This application fee will be applied to your project should you decide to move forward. You will also be required to submit a detailed questionnaire prior to the call. MSP Marketing Consultant. IT Sales Trainer. Technology Business Builder. Work With Robin. About Robin Robins. Play Video. To date, her organization has coached, trained and consulting with over 10, IT business owners from all over the US and in 37 different countries.
This vast experience has given Robin a broad knowledge of hundreds of marketing and sales tactics used by some of the most successful, sales driven organizations in the world. Jonathan Sandmel Steady Networks. Mike Clemmons ByteCafe Technologies. Eric Townsend Intel. Matt Katzer Kamind IT. Insightful And Practical. How to build a marketing system to generate more qualified leads and customers. How to implement a strategic sales process to close more business. Specific marketing strategies for selling managed IT services, cloud computing, backup and disaster recovery solutions and more.
Time management techniques that increase productivity and improve overall results. Photo Gallery. Peyton Manning. Mike Ditka. Steve Forbes. Offgases would be passed through an afterburner to oxidize the volatilized organic compounds to carbon dioxide and water. The offgases would also pass through pollution control devices for particulate and acid gas removal as needed to meet ARARs before discharge to the' atmosphere. The residual material discharged from the volatilization unit would be solidified to immobilize metals and unvolatized organic compounds.
It is likely that solidification to meet the RCRA land disposal restrictions would be necessary. Solidification is an assumed requirement only for the purpose of estimating the cost for this alternative. A RCRA cell with a design capacity of 25, cubic yards would be constructed to contain the treatment residue. The RCRA cell would be designed to satisfy the EP A's minimum technology guidance requirements for hazardous waste management facilities.
The conceptual design of the RCRA cell would probably consist of a double liner system with primary and secondary leachate detection, collection. This general approach addresses the CERCLA preference for use of treatment to reduce the tOxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous substances.
Incineration of the estimated 15, cubic yards of soil would be performed using a. Incinera-tion is expected to remove more than The residual soils would be solidified to immobilize metals, delisted as a hazardous waste, and replaced at Zone 1. Under Alternative 1, these conditions would remain unchanged. Alternatives 2 and 3 will achieve source control and attain the remedial action objectives for protection of public health and the environment.
Protection of the environment and the ecology in the surrounding wetlands from releases is provided by Alternatives 2 and 3 through Landfill No. Alternative 3 will provide additional prOtection to public health and the environment through two remedial technologies-the multilayer cap and leachate collection. Reliance on monitoring, although still important, is not as great under Alternative 2.
Alternatives 1 or lA will not comply with the chemical-specific ARARs because hazardous substances will continue to be released from the Sludge Lagoon and the landfill.
Renovation of the Landfill No. This action may not produce a cover that is less permeable than the layer below the landfill. Alternative 2 includes a Sludge Lagoon groundwater collection system that would control releases of hazardous substances. The collected water would be treated at Robins AFB. Robins AFB would comply with the conditions of the applicable permits during the treatment of the contaminated groundwater.
Monitoring would be required to protect the nearby wetlands. Alternative 3 includes a Sludge Lagoon groundwater recovery system. The collected water will be treated at Robins AFB. Alternative 3 also includes collection of contaminated leachate in the landfill and treatment at Robins AFB.
Robins AFB will comply with the conditions of applicable permits during the treatment of the contaminated groundwater. This configuration of technologies will provide an increase in the overall reliability of the landfill remediation. Leachate and groundwater would be treated in Alternatives 2 and 3. The treatment would remove 80 to 99 percent of the organic concentrations and betWeen 80 to 90 percent of the metals concentrations.
Release of VOCs during the excavatIon of the leachate collection system is a concern for Alternative 3. Workers would be at risk from inhalation or dermal absorption of hazardous substances during excavation. Alternative 2 will reduce the contaminants leaching to the groundwater. It is estimated that the Sludge Lagoon groundwater collection system would operate for 5 years to remove the majority of the contaminants in the area of the Sludge Lagoon groundwater collection.
The time periods estimated for implementing the alternatives as described in the summary of alternatives are 6 months for Alternative 2 and 18 months for Alternative 3. Cap renovation and groundwater collection technologies are technically and administratively feasible. Commercial services and materials are readily available. The soil-FML cap and the leachate collection systems of Alternative 3 may pose some problems.
The soil-FML cap requires special contractors and careful quality control during installation. Because of the potential for damaging the FML during uncovering for post-installation inspection, maintenance will be limited only to areas of substantial subsidence.
Construction of the leachate collection system in the landfill may pose some problems because of the heterogeneous nature of the solid waste. However, excavators that la: pipe and backfill without the need of an open trench are available from specialty contractors. Table 7. I Table 7! Alternative 2 has also been rejected since it does not comply with the RCRA ARAR requirement for a landfill cover of lower permeability than the underlying layer.
One was in favor of the selected remedy and the other questioned the cost effectiveness of placing a low permeability cover over the landfill since the leachate collection system would capture infiltrating water anyway. Robins AFB believes reduction of infiltration is an important aspect of the selected remedy since the waste will remain onsite and contaminant leaching could continue far into the future.
Judging by the comments received, it is believed that the community is supportive of the Landfill No. It is reasonable to e:l::pect that some ecologicalenvironmental henetits are achieved by controlling the source of contamInation from Zone 1 in Operahk Lmt 1. Alternative 1 provides no protection. Alternative 2 provides for an estimated 75 to 90 percent removal of VOCs and greatly reduces the risk of releases through solidification of residual contaminants. Alternative 4 offers the advantage of more complete organic contaminant destruction-an estimated Alternative 3.
Alternative 2 complies with ARARs includes a cap over the Sludge Lagoon to minimize leaching and meet closure requirements. Once Alternative 2 is completed it should be easier to achieve the chemical-specific ARARs in the groundwater. Alternative 4 complies with the ARARs.
The L TV is estimated to be able to achieve the land disposal restriction requirements. Because the treated waste will be placed in a RCRA permitted landfill. Alternative 2 includes ISVE and in situ solidification of remaining contaminants. In situ techniques cannot guarantee complete mixing of the sludge-contaminated soil mass. Long-term monitoring will be required to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedy. The residual risks from Alternative 3 are expected to be 19wer than Alternative 2 residual risks because the hazardous substances are excavated, treated, and disposed of in an onsite RCRA landfill.
The potential for release of contaminants from a RCRA landfill is considered small, because organic contaminants will have first been reduced by about 90 percent and inorganic contaminants immobilized. The residual risks from Alternative 4 are expected to be somewhat lower than for Alternative 3 because of the greater destruction efficiency of incineration-about The inorganic contaminants will be immobilized through solidification.
It is estimated that Alternative 2 would remove 75 to 80 percent of VOCs; Alternative 3 will remove 80 to 99 percent VOCs and a broader range of semivolatile contaminants and Alternative 4 will destroy more than Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 include solidification intended to render treated contaminants immobile. Workers have a greater potential for exposure to hazardous substances for Alternatives 3 and 4 compared to Alternative 2 because the Sludge Lagoon waste is excavated and handled.
The time periods estimated to implement the alternative are 31 months for Alternative 2, 48 months for Alternative 3, and 48 months for Alternative 4. These technologies require specialized procedures and equipment, but are commercially available. Table 8. CXXJ S 1 -. Concern was expressed over the potential for leaching of contaminants from the solidified waste and for potential air emissions from the treatment process.
The degree of contaminant leaching from the treatment soils will be determined dunng desIgn treatability testing, The selected remedy would be implemented only if the testing showed remedial goals are achievable. Air emission controls will be used in the selected remedy to control volatile organic contaminant emissions to concentrations below those posing risks to human health, Given the treatability test and monitoring that will be performed.
Robins AFB in consultation with U. The complete remedy for Operable Unit 1, Source Control includes:. Surface water run-on diversion Landfill No. Environmental monitoring to determine effectiveness of the remedial action Prior to final design several bench and pilot scale tests will be needed.
Pilot scak leachate collection tests are planned and bench and pilot scale tre. The results of these tests will enable adjustments to the final design, recalculation of implementation costs, and determination of performance criteria to meet the conceptual approach and outlined objectives.
The estimated cost of the selected remedy is presented in Table 9. Significantly reduce surface water run-on to Landfill No. Reduce infiltration through increasing run-off of precipitation from the landfill cover and achieving a landfill cover permeability less than the underlying soils. Reduce the groundwater mound in the landfill to reduce groundwater contact with contaminants in the fill. Clay rhickness 1' vs.
Clay source local clayey sand vs. Cover slope 10 ; vs. Treat Sludge Lagoon contaminants that could cause exceedance of groundwater and surface water goals based on information obtained from. Formally establish institutional controls to eliminate potential exposures to hazardous substances through property restrictions. Contaminant specific remedial goals have not yet been established for the treatment of soils at the Sludge Lagoon since they are dependent on establishment of groundwater goals to be developed in Operable Unit 3 protective of groundwater and surface water receptors.
The Zone 1 groundwater operable unit RIIFS currently underway will develop goals for groundwater based on potential receptOr locations and fate and transport analysis. It is anticipated that the Sludge Lagoon remedial goals will be based on meeting the groundwater goals in a TCL? These specify that when complete. The selected remedy also must be cost-effect!
The followmg sections discuss how the selected remedy meets these statutory requirements. Requirements to avoid adverse effects from construction in a vear flood plain under Executive Order Requirements to minimize destruction.
Endangered Species Act. The existance of endangered or threatened species will be investigated in Operable Unit 2.
The selected remedy is protective of public health and the environment and is less expensive than Alternative 3. The selected remedy for the Sludge Lagoon has also been determined to be protective of public health and the environment and is substantially less expensive than low temperature thermal volatilization or incineration. Treatment of the LandfiJI No. Of the alternatives that are protective of human health and the environment and comply with ARARs.
Robins AFB has determined that the selected remedy provides the best balance of tradeoffs in terms of long-term effectiveness and permanence. While the LandfiJI No. The selected remedy for Landfill No. The selected remedy for LandfiJI No. While short-term construction risks to workers are expected during installation of the leachate collection system, it is believed that this risk is outweighed by the need to install the leachate system for the protection of public health and the environment.
Treatabilitv testlnc W1! In general. The selected remedy is the least expensive of the alternatives that are protective of human health and the emlronmem and that meet ARARs.
The majorIty l,t questluns and comments received during the public comment period were received during the public meeting. Interviews of citizens on base and m Warner Robins were conducted in the summer of to identify community concerns.
Rohim Report. One resident asked when was disposal at the landfill stOpped. The state of Georgia has been notified and this area is listed in the base Installatlon Restoration Program IRP and is being evaluated. Two residents questioned whether local drinking water wells would be monitOred,.
Robins AFB tests its water supply routinely and analyzes for a full range of contaminants. Wells west of Highway cannot be contaminated as a result of Robins AFB because groundwater tlow on the base is to the east.
One resident commented that no one from the local community or employee representative of the base was on the panel at the public meeting. Robins ArB Response: While the comment is true for the panel presenting and answering questions at the public meeting.
A resident also commended the base for serving as a leader in the environmental world. The commendations are appreciated. Citizens for Responsible Environmental Planning commented that the reason for lack of public participation may be due to the fact that Robins AFB is the largest employer in the area and that Robins AFB has downplayed the significance of the health risk.
The base has nOt misrepresented the risks to public health. A letter from the Ocmulgee Sierra Club stated that citizen participation was limited due to the inability of the base to incorporate public scrutiny and that the base holds a power over people who work on the base.
A community relations plan was written in March and was used during the process. Several newspaper ariicles and news stations presented information about the site, the remedial alternatives, and risks associated to health and the environment.
The public meeting also provided the community an opportunity to express concerns of the preferred alternative for the remedial action of the source control. G EPO. In addItion. Soil vapor extraction has been used at numerous sites including the Verllnd site in Battle Creek.
A question was asked as to the potential for leaching of contamInants trllm ,he solidified waste. The objective of the tests wIll be!
The' remedy will not be implemented if the testing shows that leaching at concentratIons that could adversely affect groundwater or surface water can occur. One aspect t the remedy. A resident commented that he felt the selected remedy for the landfill IS J good alternative.
Robins AFB Response: Treatability testing of the soil vapor extraction system is also planned prior to implementation. As stated above, the remedy will not be implemented if sufficient organics cannot be removed. Disposal of the treated wastes in a RCRA landfill is not considered cost effective becat1se the potential for leachIng of the solidified wastes at concentrations posing risks is not considered significant.
Just use the button on our profile. Schedule your first session and use the promo code FIT30 at calendly. The problem is most of the new business you generate comes from one-on-one conversations with attendees after your talk. But you only have enough time to talk to a few people before they have to leave, even if everyone is interested in learning more from you. So how can you turn strangers in the audience into warm leads? I want to make sure I address those, so please text this number whenever a question springs to mind.
Then have your number posted on your slides throughout the talk. This helps you identify the person texting in. Then follow up with those attendees as subscribers, or in any other way that may be appropriate for you. We do this at Text Request and it works very well. Have attendees text in a keyword to get a survey, which they will get a reward for completing like free swag or a major discount.
Twilio does this successfully at their events. One way we've found works well is by asking attendees to fill out our survey by text built using Twilio , and in exchange we give them a pair of our branded socks! All of these are simple to start and manage. In-person shopping is very much alive—people want to see and feel things in person.
0コメント