vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5102W)
EPA 542-R-94-002
December 1993
Profile of Innovative
Technologies and Vendors
for Waste Site Remediation
-------
Purpose
Over the next 20-30 years, federal, state, and local governments and
private industry will commit billions of dollars annually to clean up
sites contaminated with hazardous waste and petroleum products.
This commitment will result in an increase in the use of all types of
site remediation services. While existing technologies to remediate
contaminated sites have been successful, the investment in site
cleanup offers new opportunities for the development of less
expensive and more effective solutions.
EPA is promoting the development and commercialization of more
effective and less costly technologies to solve the nation's
remediation problems. In addition to improving the quality and
efficiency of the nation's environmental clean-up programs, these
technologies are contributing to the leadership position of U.S. firms
in the international marketplace for waste treatment and site remediation.
This monograph documents the findings of a review of the vendors
who supply innovative technologies. The study was undertaken to
better understand the characteristics of the companies in this field. A
separate study was concurrently conducted by EPA to analyze the
potential demand for remediation services'.
The SITE program was initiated six years ago by EPA's Office of
Research and Development to evaluate new and promising treatment
technologies for cleanup of hazardous waste sites. The SITE program
provides an opportunity for developers to demonstrate their technolo-
gies' capability at hazardous waste sites. The two components of the
SITE program from which vendors were selected for this report are:
1) The Demonstration Program for field-scale and 2) The Emerging
Technologies Program for laboratory or bench-scale units-.
This study utilizes these information sources to assess the characteristics and |
trends of companies that develop and supply innovative technologies.
Background
Prior to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), most hazardous waste was
disposed in landfills. These laws, as amended, require remedies that
treat, rather than dispose of, waste to the "maximum extent practi-
cable." Consequently, EPA defines alternative treatment technolo-
gies as "alternatives" to land disposal. The most frequently used
alternative technologies are incineration and solidification/ stabiliza-
tion. Available cost and performance information on these two
technologies is sufficient to support their routine use.
EPA defines "innovative treatment technologies" as those that lack
the cost and performance data necessary to support their routine use.
In general, a treatment technology is considered innovative if it has
experienced only limited full-scale application. Often, the first-time
application of an existing technology or process to new waste types
is what makes it innovative.
EPA provides two sources of information on innovative treatment
technologies. The Vendor Information System for Innovative
Treatment Technologies (VISITT) database and the Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Technology Profiles*
provided the inventory of vendors and much of the information for this
study.
The VISITT database was developed to improve communication
between technology developers and technology users. It provides
companies the opportunity to describe their capabilities and enables
federal, state, and private sector environmental professionals to
screen technologies for application to specific sites. The database is
available at no cost and has been distributed on request to 9000
users. VISITT contains information on technology capabilities, past
performance, and availability as provided to EPA by the vendors.
The system includes technologies at the bench-, pilot-, and full-scale
that are capable of treating contaminated soils and ground water. The
system was developed by OSWER's Technology Innovation Office.
Methodology
Data on vendors and technology characteristics were developed from
the VISITT database and SITE program. Observations were made in
1992 (the first version of VISITT) and 1993, allowing very prelimi-
nary suggestions of trends. Although VISITT and SITE do not
include all innovative technology applications, they are believed to
be representative. To develop an inventory of technology applica-
tions for the study, the scope of "innovative" technologies consisted
of the more restrictive definition used in VISITT. This definition
eliminates incineration, solidification/ stabilization and above-ground
aqueous treatment technologies from consideration. (Using these two f
criteria, two VISITT technologies and 39 SITE technologies were
eliminated from further review.) This is a definition of convenience,
as there are important technical advancements for these technologies
as well. In addition, the criteria were broadened in 1993 to include
off-gas treatment technologies, delivery excavation systems, and
materials handling technologies. A total of 177 technologies were
selected for analysis from VISITT and SITE in 1992 and 289 were
selected for 1993. Although participation in these programs is not
limited to U.S. companies, the firms are primarily domestic.
Table 1 shows the number of technologies selected for observation in|
the SITE program, in the VISITT database, and in both SITE and
VISITT.
Table 1 Number of Technologies from VISITT and SITE:
Program
EPA
Involvement
SITE Program
VISITT
Database
SITE and
VISITT
# of Technologies in
1992 (177 Total)
34(19%)
107 (61%)
36 (20%)
# of Technologies in
1993 (289 Total)
60 (21%)
189 (65%)
40 (14%)
The following information was compiled from VISITT and SITE
profile information for technologies:
• Company or organization name of the developer
• Number of technologies developed by the same developer
• Media treated (soil or ground water)
• Contaminants treated (organics, inorganics, or both)
• Developmental status (bench-, pilot-, or full-scale)
-------
Figure 5
Vendor Sales Data for Innovative Technology Vendors
(1993)*
>100(20%)
20-100(11%)
<5 (47%)
5-20 (22%)
*Based on available data for 107 companies.
Sales are in millions of dollars.
Figure 6 shows the development status of each technology applica-
tion and the annual sales for the associated developer.
Figure 6
Vendor Sales
35 -f
• Bench-scale
II Pilot-scale
D Full-scale
The data show that a high proportion of innovative remediation
technologies are being developed by small businesses.
• half of the technologies are developed by companies with fewer
than 50 employees
• three-quarters of the technologies are developed by companies
with fewer than 500 employees
• half of the technologies are developed by companies with sales
revenue of less than $5 million
• many of these full-scale technologies are from small companies
Summary and Conclusions
The inventory of technologies and vendors for this analysis comes
from EPA's SITE program and the VISITT database, both of which
are designed to assist the development of new hazardous waste
remediation technologies. While participation in the SITE program is
through an annual solicitation and review process, VISITT is
available to all innovative technology developers. The combined
inventory is believed to be representative of the technology supply.
This is a new business sector which is still small in comparison to the
potential future market of hundreds of billions of dollars.
A wide variety of technologies is included in the analysis. Approxi-
mately one third of the technologies treat soil or ground water in situ,
and the same proportion offer some form of bioremediation. Innova-'
live treatment technologies for soil are far more common than in situ
ground water processes. This illustrates a particularly large opportu-
nity for new technology development due to the pervasiveness of
ground water problems and limitations of conventional pump-and-
treat remedies.
The 1993 inventory shows approximately half of the technologies at
full-scale. This is encouraging for perspective users. However,
vendor data for employment and sales indicate most of the firms are
small and experience a relatively modest volume of business. Most
of the current technology development is occurring in the smallest
firms with annual sales less than $5 million. The review shows most
of the bench- and pilot-scale technologies are being developed by
these small firms.
Footnotes
>$5<$20 >$20<$100 >$100
Sales in millions of dollars
'U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response. Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste
Sites: Markets and Technology Trends. EPA 542-R-92-012
April 1993.
2U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Program: Technology Profiles, Fifth Edition. EPA/ 540/ R-92/
077, November 1992.
-------
Table 3 shows the number of technologies in each of the three
developmental stages. In 1992, there was a relatively even distribu-
tion of these technologies throughout the developmental process. In
1993, there are proportionately more at full-scale.
Table 3 Technology Development Status
Technology
Development
Status
Baneh-ScaJa
Plot-Scab
FuU-Scalo
Sot Technologies in
1992 (177 Total)
47(27%)
68(38%)
62(35%)
it of Technologies in
1993 (289 Total)
49(17%)
91 (36%)
149(47%)
Most of the increase in full-scale units reported can be attributed to
the addition of new technology vendors to the VISITT system. Of the
VISITT technologies present in both 1992 and 1993, over 25%
demonstrate progress towards commercialization by experiencing an
advance in status to pilot- and full-scale.
Table 4 provides a classification of technologies by media treated
and Figure 3 shows the development status of technologies for
ground water and soils.
Table 4 Media Treated
Soil
g>
'ro
.o
o
CD
o>
.a
E
1992
1993
Developers of 31 technologies claim to treat ground water and soil. Soils in this
context also include solids, debris, and sludge.
In addition to a relative increase in the inventory of in situ ground
water technologies in the 1993 data, a substantially greater propor-
tion of the ground water technologies in 1993 are available at full-
scale than were available in 1992. Also, 31 of the technologies
analyzed treat both ground water and soil according to their vendor
claims.
Business Analysis
The 289 technologies in the 1993 inventory are being developed by
189 companies. Data are publicly available on employment and sales!
for approximately half of the companies. Figures 4 and 5 provide
available employment and sales data for companies.
Media
Ground Water— In Situ*
Air/ Off-Gas
Soil"
# of Technologies
in 1992""
16 (9%)
NA"'
162(92%)
# of Technologies
in 1993""
49(17%)
29(10%)
254(88%)
•The Ground Water category in 1992 included in situ and ex situ. In 1993, the
category is in situ only.
**Soil in this context also includes sediments, sludge, and solids.
***0ff-gas technologies were not included in the 1992 survey.
****Totals are greater than the total number of technologies because some technolo-
gies treat more than one media.
Figure 3
Technology Development Status
Ground Water
Figure 4
Vendor Size by Number of Employees for Innovative
Technology Developers (1993)*
<5 (7%)
>500 (24%)
101-500(18%)
6-50 (44%)
51-100(7%)
£
5
CD
.o
3
• Bench
E3 Pilot
D Full
*Based on available data for 108 companies
1992
1993
-------
In addition, the following business information was compiled for the
companies or organizations that developed the technology:
• Sales
• Number of employees
The business data were gathered online from Dun and Bradstreet and
the American Business Directory. When data from more than one
source were found for the same company, the numbers were com-
pared. In nearly all cases, the data were consistent. However, in the
few cases where the numbers were not consistent, they were reconciled.
The data on company sales and number of employees are for the
entire company, not for the portion of the company responsible for
the innovative technology. Since many companies in the database
have other lines of business in addition to innovative waste treatment
technologies, company sales are-often greater than innovative
technology sales. Company sales are primarily an indication of
company size, rather than a measure of activity in innovative technologies.
Business data were available for approximately half of the compa-
nies. The companies for which there were no business data are
private companies and are believed to be primarily small companies.
Technology Analysis
Table 2 shows the distribution of technologies by type.
Table 2 Number of Technologies by Technology Type
Type of Technology
Soil Washing
Solvent Extraction
Thermal Desorption
Bioventing
Bioremediation— Ex Situ
Bioremediation— In Situ
Vitrification— Ex Situ
Soil Vapor Extraction
Chemical Treatment
Ground Water— In Situ (Bio)
Ground Water— In Situ
(Physical/Chemical)
Other— Ex Situ
Other— In Situ
Delivery/ Extraction Systems
Materials Handling
Vapor Treatment/ Off-Gas
Treatment
# of Technologies in
1992 (177 Total)
27(15%)
10 (6%)
21 (12%)
NA
32 (18%)
23 (13%)
14 (8%)
13 (7%)
20(11%)
6" (4%)
6"
2(1%)
9 (5%)
NA
*
*
# of Technologies
in 1993 (289 Total)
36 (12%)
14(5%)
30(10%)
9(3%)
44(15%)
29(10)
16 (6%)
18 (6%)
25 (9%)
16 (6%)
14(5%)
5(2%)
9 (3%)
4(1%)
5 (2%)
15 (5%)
l hese technologies were not analyzed in 1992
"*Ground Water—In Situ was a single category in 1992 with a total of 6
Figures 1 and 2 are meant to provide illustrative groupings of
technologies. Figure 1 shows that nearly I/ 3 of innovative technolo-
gies treat waste in situ, and Figure 2 shows that biological processes
account for approximately II3 of technologies.
Figure 1
Overview of Innovative Technologies
Below-Ground (In Situ)
Technologies (34%)
• Bioremediation—In Situ (10%)
• Soil Vapor Extraction (6%)
• Ground Water—In Situ, Biological
(6%)
• Ground Water—In Situ, Physical/
Chemical (5%)
• Bioventing (3%)
• Other—In Situ (3%) ;
• Delivery/Extraction Systems (1%)
Above-Ground (Ex Situ)
Technologies (66%)
• Bioremediation—Ex Situ (15%
• Soil Washing (12%)
• Thermal Desorption (10%)
• Chemical Treatment (9%)
• Vitrification—Ex Situ (6%)
• Solvent Extraction (5%)
• Vapor Treatment (5%)
• Materials Handling (2%)
• Other—Ex Situ (2%)
Figure 2
Overview of Bioremediation Technologies
Other Technologies (6(3%)
• Soil Washing (12%)
• Thermal Desorption (10%)
• Chemical Treatment (9%)
• Vitrification—Ex Situ (6%,)
• Soil Vapor Extraction (6%)
• Ground Water—In Situ,
Physical/Chemical (5%)
• Solvent Extraction (5%) j
• Vapor Treatment (5%)
• Other—In Situ (3%)
• Materials Handling (2%)
• Other—Ex Situ (2%)
• Delivery/Extraction Systems (1%)
Biological Technologies
(34%)
• Bioremediation—Ex Situ (15%)
• Bioremediation—In Situ (10%)
• Ground Water—In Situ,
Biological (6%)
• Bioventing (3%)
-------
RelMtdPub!^
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Trends. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. EPA 542-R-92-012, NTIS order number PB93-140762, April 1993.
Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technology Innovation Office.
VISITT Database Version 2.0, June 1993.
The Superfiind Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology Profiles, Sixth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development. EPA/ 5407 R-93/ 526, November 1993.
Selected Alternative and Innovative Treatment Technologies for Corrective Action and Site Remediation (A Bibliography ^^ htfarmation I
Resources), Fall Update. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA/ 542/ B-93/ 010, I
November 1993.
The above publications (other than the market study) can be ordered by fax or mail from:
National Center for Environmental Publications and Information (NCEPI)
11029 Kenwood Road
Cincinnati, OH 45242
513-891-6685 (fax)
When ordering, please cite the title and document or version number.
Notice
This material has been funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under contract number 68-WZ-0004. Mention of
trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office (5102W)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business, Penalty for Private Use
$300
EPA 542-R-94-002
------- |