Summary Proceedings West Coast Remediation Marlketplace: Business Opportunities for Innovative Technologies Sponsored by: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Technology Innovation Office Washington, DC 20460 and Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory Cincinnati, OH 45268 and Western Governors' Association and Regional States San Francisco, CA November 15-16, 1994 Printed on Recycled Paper ------- Acknowledgements This conference was conducted under the direction of Ms. Linda Fiedler and Mr. Michael Forlini, work assignment managers for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Technology Innovation Office. Mr. Thomas R. De Kay, Ph.D. is the Project Officer. Special acknowledgement is due the Regional and state staff who assisted with the conference and whose names appear on the List of Speakers. They provided the detailed information in this document. Their cooperation and willingness to share their knowledge and expertise on marketing and business opportunities for innovative treatment technologies encourages the development and application of those technologies. Notice The abstracts contained in this Proceedings do not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency, and no official endorsement should be inferred. Mention of firms, trade names, or commercial products in this document does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. This material has been funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract Number 68-W2-0004. ------- Abstract The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Technology Innovation Office and Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory are co-sponsoring The West Coast Remediation Marketplace conference, with the Western Governors' Association and states in the region to provide an opportunity for developers and vendors of innovative treatment technologies to explore business opportunities and markets for cleaning up waste sites. The information presented includes specific data on the number and types of contaminated sites in each state and nationwide, international markets, pertinent state regulations and contacts, and sources of technology development and commerciali- zation funding and guidance. The conference attendees include vendors of innovative treatment technologies, entrepreneurs, private clean-up contractors, as well as federal and state officials responsible for remediation. This conference is the third in a series of conferences exploring regional markets for remediating contaminated sites. The first conference, entitled Northeast Remediation Marketplace, was held December 7-8, 1993 in Hartford, CT, and the second, entitled Rocky Mountain Remediation Marketplace was held September 27-28, 1994 in Denver, CO. in ------- Table of Contents Page v Agenda List of Speakers List of Exhibitors ............................................. x Keynote Addresses: Perspectives on New Technology Opportunities Peter D. Robertson, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ........................................... 2 Dag M. Syrrist, Manager of Environmental Operations, Technology Funding, Inc ................................ 2 State Markets and Regulations James T. Allen, Ph.D., Chief, Office of Pollution Prevention and Technology Development, Department of Toxic Substances Control, California Environmental Protection Agency .......................... 14 Dru Butler, Manager, Nuclear Waste Program, Washington State Department of Ecology ......................................... 23 Walter B. Parker, Chair, Alaska Hazardous Substance Spill Technology Review Council ..................................... 23 Federal Markets Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D., Director, Technology Innovation Office, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ................................... 26 James T. Davis, Assistant Manager for Environmental Management and Support, Oakland Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy ............ 42 Gerald Katz, Director, Environmental Programs, Western Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command ...................... 42 U.S. Export Strategy James S. Kennedy, Acting Director, San Francisco Office, U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service, U.S. Department of Commerce ...... 44 IV ------- Table of Contents (Continued) Page California Environmental Technology Exports Paul V. Oliva, Senior Policy Analyst, California State World Trade Commission, International Trade and Investment Division, California Trade and Commerce Agency 51 Tim Ogburn, Manager, Environmental Technology Export Program, Office of Pollution Prevention and Technology Development, Department of Toxic Substances Control, California Environmental Protection Agency 51 Small Business Opportunities in Environmental Technologies Allan S. Mandel, Ph.D., Director, Office of Economic Development and Rural Affairs, Small Business Administration 58 Successful Commercialization John T. Schofield, President, Thermatrix Inc. 58 Attracting Financial Backing Max Straube, Principal, Robertson, Stephens & Company 66 Public/Private Partnerships in Washington State Barbara A. Campbell, Director, Northwest Regional Office, NASA Farwest Regional Technology Transfer Center (formerly with the Washington Department of Community Trade and Economic Development) 68 Environmental Technologies and Partnerships Richard Ragaini, Associate Department Head for Research and Development, Environmental Protection Department, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 69 Environmental Technologies: Coupling Economic Development to Environmental Protection Steven L. Jarvis, Director, Office of Strategic Technology, California Trade and Commerce Agency 70 Hanford Site, Washington Robert R. Silva, Jr., Manager, Technology Transfer and Infusion, Westinghouse Hanford Co 72 Joseph F. Nemec, Vice President of Operations, Bechtel Hanford, Inc 72 Naval Air Station North Island, California Morgan Rogers, Remedial Project Manager, Southwest Division, Environmental Department, Naval Facilities Engineering Command 73 ------- v,=| Agenda November 15, 1994 Welcoming Remarks Walter W. Kovallck, Jr., Ph.D. Director, Technology Innovation Office, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 'us. EPA Richard H. Green, Ph.D. Deputy Secretary, California Environmental Protection Agency Plenary Session: Perspectives on New Technology Opportunities _ t . . Peter D. Robertson Deputy-Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. EPA Dag ML Syrrist Manager of Environmental Operations, Technology Funding, Inc. Session 1: State Markets and Regulations , James T. Allen, Ph.D. Chief, Office of Pollution Prevention and Technology Development Department of Toxic Substances Control, California Environmental Protection / Dm Butler Manager, Nuclear Waste Program, Washington State Department of Ecology To be determined Oregon Environmental Quality Department Walter B. Parker Chair, Alaska Hazardous Substance Spill Technology Review Council Session 2: Federal Markets _. . T . , Walter W. Kovallck, Jr., Ph.D. Director, Technology Innovation Office, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. EPA Assistant Manager for Environmental Management and Support, Oakland Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy Gerald Katz Director, Environmental Programs, Western Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Sessions: International Markets U. S. Export Strategy James S. Kennedy Acting Director, San Francisco Office, U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service, U.S. Department of Commerce California Environmental Technology Exports Paul V. Ollva i» .- ,T ^ Senior Policy Analyst, California State World Trade Commission International Trade and Investment Division, California Trade and Commerce Agency Manager, Environmental Technology Export Program, Office of Pollution Prevention and Technology fevetopment Department of Toxic Substances Control, California Environmental Protection Agency VI ------- Agenda (continued) November 16, 1994 Introductory Remarks M Waiter W. Kovallck, Jr., Ph.D. Director, Technology Innovation Office, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. EPA Session 4: Business Planning Small Business Opportunities in Environmental Technologies Allan S. Mandel, Ph.D. Director, Office of Economic Development and Rural Affairs, Small Business Administration Successful Commercialization Attracting Financial Backing John T. Schofield President, Thermatrix Inc. Max Straube Principal, Robertson, Stephens & Company SessionS: Public/Private Partnerships Public/Private Partnerships in Washington State Barbara A. Campbell Director, Northwest Regional Office, NASA Farwest Regional Technology Transfer Center (formerly with the Washington Department of Community Trade and Economic Development) Environmental Technologies and Partnerships RichardI Ragalni Associate Department Head for Research and Development, Environmental Protection Department Lawrence Liverinore National Laboratory Environmental Technologies: Coupling Economic Development to Environmental Protection Steven L. Jan/Is Director, Office of Strategic Technology, Califomia Trade and Commerce Agency Session 6: Cleanup Opportunities at Federal Facilities Hanford Site, Washington ..„«,., Robert R. Silva, Jr. Manager, Technology Transfer and Infusion, Westinghouse Hanford Co. Joseph F. Nemec Vice President of Operations, Bechtel Hanford, Inc. Naval Air Station North Island, California Morgan Rogers Remedial Project Manager, Southwest Division, Environmental Department, Naval Facilities Engineering Command VII ------- List of Speakers James T. Allen, Ph.D. Chief Office of Pollution Prevention & Technology Development Department of Toxic Substances Control California Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, CA 95812-0806 916-322-2822 916-327-4494 (Fax) Dm Butler Manager Nuclear Waste Program Washington State Department of Ecology Olymp!a,WA 98503 206-407-7150 206-407-7151 (Fax) James T. Davis Assistant Manager for Environmental Management and Support Oakland Operations Office U.S. Department of Energy 1301 day Street, 700 N Oakland, CA 94612-5208 510-637-1587 510-637-2001 (Fax) Barbara A. Campbell Director, Northwest Regional Office NASA Farwest Regional Technology Transfer Center 12318 N.E. 100th Place Klrkland, WA 98033 206-827-5136 206-827-5430 (Fax) Richard H. Green, Ph.D. Deputy Secretary California Environmental Protection Agency 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 235 Sacramento, CA 95814 916-323-2516 916-445^401 (Fax) Steven L. Jarvis Director, Office of Strategic Technology California Trade and Commerce Agency 200 East Del Mar Blvd. Suite 204 Pasadena, CA 91105 818-568-9437 818-568-9962 (Fax) Gerald Katz Director, Environmental Programs Western Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command 900 Commodore Drive San Bruno, CA 94066-2402 415-244-2501 415-244-2567 (Fax) James S. Kennedy Acting Director, San Francisco Office U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service U.S. Department of Commerce 250 Montgomery St., 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415-705-2301 415-705-2297 (Fax) '* Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D. Director Technology Innovation Office Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response U.S. EPA MC 5102 W 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 703-308-8800 703-308-8528 (Fax) Allan S. Mandel, Ph.D. Director, Office of Economic Development and Rural Affairs Small Business Administration 409 Third Street, SW Washington, DC 20416 202-205-6485 202-205-7519 (Fax) Joseph F. Nemec Vice President of Operations Bechtel Hanford, Inc. P.O. Box 969 Richland, WA 99352 509-372-9050 509-372-9051 (Fax) Vlll ------- Tim Ogburn Manager, Environmental Technology Export Program Office of Pollution Prevention & Technology Development Department of Toxic Substances Control California Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, CA 95812-0806 916-445-2966 ' 916-327-4494 (Fax) PaulV.Oliva Senior Policy Analyst California State World Trade Commission International Trade and Investment Division California Trade and Commerce Agency 801 K Street, Suite 1700 Sacramento, CA 95814-3520 916-324-5511 916-324-5791 (Fax) Walter B. Parker Chair Alaska Hazardous Substance Spill Technology Review Council 3724 Campbell Air Strip Anchorage, AK 99504 907-333-5189 (Phone & Fax) Richard Ragaini Associate Department Head for Research and Development Environmental Protection Department Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808, L-626 Uvermore, CA 94550 510-4234877 510-423-9987 (Fax) Peter D. Robertson Deputy Assistant Administrator Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response U.S. EPA Mail Code 5101 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 202-260-4610 202-260-3527 (Fax) Morgan Rogers Remedial Project Manager Southwest Division Environmental Department Naval Facilities Engineering Command MG 1821-MFI 1220 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92132-5181 619-532-3866 61SJ-532-1242 (Fax) John T. Schofield President Thermatrix Inc. 3590 N. First Street Suite 310 San Jose, CA 95134 408-944-0222 408-944-0292 (Fax) Robert R. Silva, Jr. Manager of Technology Transfer and Infusion Westinghouse Hanford Co. P.O. Box 1970 Richland, WA 99352 509-372-0206 509-372-2454 (Fax) Max Straube Principal Robertson, Stephens & Company 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415-781-9700 415-693-3393 (Fax) Dag M. Syrrist Manager of Environmental Operations Technology Funding, Inc. 2000 Alameda De Las Pulgas, Suite 250 San Mateo, CA 94403 415-345-2200 415-345-1797 (Fax) IX ------- List of Exhibitors STATE OF ALASKA OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE Department of Commerce and Economic Development 3601 C Street, Suite 798 Anchorage, AK 99503 907-561-5585 907-561-4577 (Fax) Contact: Donna Logan BECHTELHANFORD, INC. P.O. 969 Richland, WA 99352 509-375-4670 509-372-9049 (Fax) Contact: Darrell von d Ler Linden CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL BUSINESS COUNCIL 1855 Diamond St., Ste. 5-306 San Diego, CA 92109 619-581-0713 619-581-1280 (Fax) Contact: Brian Runkel CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 301 Capitol Mall 1st Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Contacts: James Wesnousky (Technology Demonstration) 916-322-2543 916-327-4494 (Fax) Greg Williams (Technology Certification) 916-322-0453 Tim Ogburn (Technology Exports) 916-445-2966 ENVIRONMENTAL BUSINESS CLUSTER 1830 Bering Drive - #3 San Jose, CA 95112 408-437-5677 408-437-5670 (Fax) Contact: James Robbins LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY P.O. Box 808, L-591 Livermore, CA 94550 510-423-7677 510-423-9987 (Fax) Contact: Hallie Gibson 510-422-2646 510-423-8988 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES 750 First Street, NE Suite 710 Washington, DC 20002 202-898-1302 202-898-1312 (Fax) Contact: Julie Pike NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION State Environmental Technology Strategies and Programs 444 North Capitol Street Washington, DC 20001 202-624-5822 202-624-5313 (Fax) Contact: Barbara Wells 202-624-5357 202-624-5313 (Fax) NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY Advanced Technology Program Building 101, Room A402 Gaithersburg, MD 20899 301-975-3975 or 2162 301-869-1150 (Fax) Contacts: Marc Stanley or Joyce Loewe NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND: ENGINEERING SERVICE CENTER NFESC 414RB 560 Center Drive Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4328 805-982-2640 805-982-4304 (Fax) Contacts: Rebecca Biggers ------- NORTHERN CALIFORNIA BUSINESS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE CENTER University of California Extension 3120 De la Cruz Blvd. Santa Clara, CA 95054 408-748-2179 408-748-7388 (Fax) Contact: Donna Zetterquist STATE OF OREGON Oregon Economic Development Dept. 775 Summer St. N.E. Salem, OR 97310 503-986-0201 503-581-5115 (Fax) Contact: Gabriella Lang SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION U.S. Environmental Protection Agency RREL/STDD (MS-215) 26 W. Martin Luther King Drive Cincinnati, OH 45268 Contact: Cindy Loney c/o PRC Environmental Management, Inc. 644 Linn Street, Suite 719 Cincinnati, OH 45203 513-241-0149 513-241-0354 (Fax) TECHNOLOGY FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE Global Environmental Technology Foundation 7010 Little River Turnpike Suite 300 Annandale, VA 22003 703-750-6401 703-750-6506 (Fax) Contact: Rich Cooper TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION OFFICE U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code 5102 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 703-308-8845 703-308-8528 (Fax) Contact: John Quander U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS HTRW Center of Expertise Atta: CEMPRO-ED-HS P.O. Box 103 Downtown Station Omaha, NE 68101-0103 402-221-7408 402-221-7561 (Fax) Contacts: Don Ohnstad and Roger Hager U.S. ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER Atta: SFIM-AEC-IRD, Bldg. E4480 Aberdeen Proving Grounds, EA, MD 21010 410-671-1531 410-671-1548 (Fax) Contact: Harry R. Kleiser U.S. AND FOREIGN COMMERCIAL SERVICE 250 Montgomery Street 14th Floor Sam Francisco, CA 94104 415-705-2304 415-705-2299 (Fax) Contact: Moira Jacobs U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 211 Main Street San Francisco, CA 94105-1988 415-744-8489 415-744-6812 (Fax) Contact: Larry Pier UCLA CENTER FOR CLEAN TECHNOLOGY 7440 Boelter Hall 405 Hilgaird Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90024 310-206-3071 310-206-3906 (Fax) Contact: Dan Wahlman WESTERN REGION HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE RESEARCH CENTER Department of Civil Engineering Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-4020 415-723-8574 415-725-8662 (Fax) Contact: Mark Goltz WESTINGHOUSE HANFORD COMPANY P.O Box 1970, MS-B2-24 Richland, WA 99352 509-372-1353 509-372-2454 (Fax) Contact: Cecil Kindle XI ------- ------- Plenary Session: Perspectives on New Technology Opportunities ------- IfeMaii l^fcjiipipiiiiiaiiluiiaijiMiS'iamjabiiidi^WfjjiJiJo II::'" """ Keynote Addresses Peter D. Robertson JD<2ptt0> Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The successful future of the U.S. EPA's cleanup programs will be heavily dependent updn the development and use of innovative regulatory and technological approaches. EPA's commitment to cleaning up contaminated sites must be.combined with an aggressive search for technologies that are more cost-effective, help us reach an endpoint faster, are acceptable to the public, and provide answers where today there are no clear technical solutions. The goal of more cost-effective, improved environmental protection can only strengthen U.S. businesses as they expand into global environmental markets. Some important changes have been made or are underway at EPA that are meant to speed up and reduce the cost with which innovative environmental technologies are introduced and accepted in the marketplace. The goals of the new Environmental Technology Initiative are: to support technology commercialization; break down regulatory barriers to technology development and use; provide third party evaluations of the performance and cost of innovative technologies; and, diffuse commercial innovative technologies here and abroad. Other recent Agency actions have made it easier to test technologies on hazardous waste, and to use innovative technologies to meet restrictions on land disposal of hazardous waste. The EPA also has promulgated a permanent exemption of underground storage tank petroleum-contaminated media and debris from designation as RCRA hazardous waste. Lastly, two bills being considered by Congress will give the Agency new tools to use to promote environmental technology. Under the new Superfund bill, the government would share with private parties the risk of employing innovative technology to cleanup sites. And the National Environmental Technology Act is designed to better focus federal government efforts to promote environmental technology. Dag M. Syrrist Manager of Environmental Operations Technology Funding, Inc. Speaker Slides/Overheads follow. ------- The f Ventu re Venture b^pital s proprietary technolo Profits are generated ifsuccessfi commercialization of technologies, npi from R&D and development Technology Funding 1994 Our s Simple hl ?U*I5fjtWi::Ti*i: Venture"fliMestors least resi Technology Funding 1994 ------- hd Drayer itllliirt •fPi •; i -EC enfo -Full cost »iintms requirements w,.! acce :oncerns ifient as th Technology Funding 1994 Markil increase effectiv expendit Technology Funding 1994 ------- nd Drivers - Innovativeitachnolo new. scPilibns is onorni -Technologies will lower costs, Hong term liabilities, Ind add directly to earnings » Technology Funding 1994 How hofegjgc ^.technology B A New technology Environmental Exposure Technology Funding 1994 ------- % of Sates %ofR&D 21 % of Earnings Est 1993 Est 1993-94 Est 1993-98 1,03 PRPSItos TRW, G.E., Allied Signal, Chevron, Texaco, Amoco, Unocal, Du Pont, Dow Chemcial, Monsanto, Union Carbide, G.M., Ford, Chrysler Source: 1992 Annual Reports and Form 10K Technology Funding 1994 Interes 1993 Micro ' sir .7 Billion Technology Funding 1994 ------- The tes' lie »f Tpii true c anage • Do environmenta perform/natechnolo savings a takes to c fess/i thiss Technology Funding 1994 maitsjorfirpwth 3. Pilot 4. Prototyptf* 5. Applicatic^ Demonstraf' 6 Commercillfales R&D Growth Technology Funding 1994 ------- Capita! profitiapto do sa R&D Growth Technology Funding 1994 tionChali j j and dei Unpre^ietable p Lack of referenc Unproveh col^pame No commercialization mode. Technology Funding 1994 ------- Cons Technology Funding 1994 The to - Lower risk for the - Predictable permij - Appropriate liabilh . SIC codes and comm, . Accounting and SEC standards • Technologjfrprotection abroad Technology Funding 1994 ------- eeds HiBliPbl Hav Prese public te cos tech n ata eable technical ngro capita regulatory A credible jiness ml Very professional management Technology Funding 1994 The i 10 Technology Funding 1994 ------- Techirf nding ° lion u Wttiippjlf pF' . i! Leading U.S. enviro ventutekapital fi Proactive^llprnm • spM^lrtit!^ foBig A shamele 5th Annual Technology Funding Environmental Conference (November 10 in San Francisco) Technology Funding 1994 Advisja [6 am Qpmmittees '• • .:W -. on ::aui:>{Kiiiadiu lalizanon and Groups ,/ Committee 0.1 EnvironmMai.Policy & Tech. | 'l>iist!k «! -Technology, Inf—" J * Economics ipn and Regulatory Task Flj " U-S- DOE jtpf? -ER/WWI Executivejjpund Table -Oak Ridge Centertbr Environmental Technologies -Sandia Technology Venture Corporation tern Governors mia Einviroi if Business Council -Environmental Busi of the U.S. -California Environmental Opportunity Project -Joint Venture: Silicon Valley iation :oun$il Technology Funding 1994 11 ------- The Opportunities are Enorra • This is without e « The techn are yet to $jomy •c standards and lea and build > Technology Funding 1994 nmentafte^hi&iogies .it/i. .a ^* 12 ------- Session 1: State Markets and Regulations ------- r JT * 1 I ! i( * V" 11 in ti (ft i" i ^ (i 11 it P a, mil. H, mi JN i . ^i :,::'.L: .: 1 State Markets and Regulations James T. Allen, Ph.D. Chief, Office of Pollution Prevention and Technology Development Department of Toxic Substances Control California Environmental Protection Agency California has a longstanding history of innovation in government and of fostering the entrepreneurial spirit that pervades our high-technology companies. As our country reduces the emphasis on military and weapons-related industries, unique opportunities have emerged for the environmental technology industry. California is taking advantage of these opportunities through regulatory reform and new programs that encourage commercialization of environmental technologies, and through a variety of partnerships, activities and projects aimed at Increasing stakeholder involvement and the opportunities for performance testing and demonstration. Speaker talking points follow. (lint ffi * •P HI IW HWHhl HIV* NI|«H*H'H«W » / f i II I III 11.1 l* pi*"1"'!!1""1'1"1""" 8 ^ 14 ------- WEST COAST REMEDIATION MARKETPLACE TALKING POINTS CALIFORNIA'S PROGRAMS FOR ENCOURAGING INNOVATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES James T. Allen, Ph. D., Chief Office of Pollution Prevention and Technology Development California Department of Toxic Substances Control INTRODUCTION California has a long history of. innovation in many areas. High-technology, biotechnology, electronics and semi-conductors, and agriculture are a few of the areas our state is noted for. California's reputation in the environmental arena is based mostly on the high standards adopted by state and local programs. In recent times we have recognized the needs - and opportunities - presented to California's environmental technology industry. The excellence we have achieved in other areas came with support of California state government. The excellence we seek in environmental technology is receiving similar support. ECONOMIC AND REGULATORY INCENTIVES Historically, government has provided only regulatory incentives. However, to have a viable sector of the economy that develops environmental technologies requires economic incentives as well. Although the state has provided financial support in the form of grants, the role of state government is clearly not to provide economic incentives to the environmental technology industry. Rather, where government can provide certainty to the industry in the form of clearer objectives and standards, a more "bankable" permit process, and can make the path from technology development to commercialization no longer than absolutely necessary, government will improve the climate for developing innovative technologies. Removing barriers equates to reducing overhead and unnecessary costs. 15 ------- Many of the opportunities for lowering barriers to new environmental technologies are tied to permit and regulatory reform. However, many opportunities come through non-traditional mechanisms for accomplishing the work we must do - partnerships between government and industry. Partnerships offer a forum for mutual ownership not of the problem of site cleanup but mutual ownership of the development of solutions. Partnerships create an opportunity for concerns of the regulatory community and the public to be incorporated in the initial designs of equipment and testing protocols. One "vision" for partnerships is to have a clearer identification of regulatory and community requirements not just at a given site but for a host of sites so that testing can meet the requirements of a maximum number of locations and jurisdictions. This is the aim of inter-agency and inter-regional reciprocity, objectives that should be strived for at our National Test Sites not only in California but elsewhere around the country. Partnerships are an important part of the Clinton Administration's Environmental Technology Initiative. PARTNERSHIPS IN CALIFORNIA Environmental Process Improvement Center at McClellan Air Force Base. Members include McClellan, USEPA Region IX and Cal/EPA. Focus areas include site remediation and pollution prevention. Public/Private Partnership with Clean Sites, Inc. Expands the "EPIC" partnership to include 7 Fortune 500 companies (Dow, Monsanto, Xerox, Southern California Edison, DuPont, AT&T and Beazer East). Objective is -to demonstrate site remediation technologies at McClellan. CETP. Initiated in fall of 1992, this partnership represents all sectors of California's environmental technology industry. CETP has produced the Strategic Plan report in January of 1994 which lays out the "roadmap" for what government can do to assist in promoting the environmental technology industry. Task Forces under CETP have provided significant support and input to the AB2060 Certification program, the national labs, export, communications and regulatory reform. 16 ------- Western Governors' Association Project Western Cleanup (DOIT). A partnership among the DOE, DOD, DOI and USEPA with western states. The objective is to demonstrate new restoration technologies at federal facilities and sites throughout the west. Focus areas include mine wastes, mixed wastes, military bases and munitions. Other partnerships formed or being formed: ACET CE-CERT California Enterprise ETI Proposal (RREL, Cal/EPA) CETC (California Environmental Technology Center) A new initiative to encourage and promote research on environmental technology throughout the UC system. Announced by the Governor in May 1994. Network of California Environmental Technology Business Incubators REGULATORY IKCENTIVES Permit Streamlining AB2060 Certification. First such program in the country. Currently this program is managed by DTSC, and is focussed on hazardous waste environmental technologies (loosely defined). This type of program is being spread to other Cal/EPA agencies and now a certification program has been authorized for the Air Resources Board. Military Bases. California's programs for developing innovative cleanup technologies are working closely with the regulatory programs overseeing the cleanup to ensure that "innovative technologies" get fair consideration. 17 ------- MILITARY FACILITIES/NATIONAL TEST SITES The closure of military facilities throughout the country has provided additional motivation for developing new cleanup technologies. We need new technologies for many of the problems at military bases simply because there are not enough established technologies to effect cleanup; There is a high priority placed on returning these bases to productive uses. National Test Sites. California has two National Test Sites: McClellan for chlorinated solvents and Port Hueneme for hydrocarbons. We work closely with both bases in their roles as test sites, in fact Cal/EPA is represented on the advisory panel at Port Hueneme (John Wesnousky is on panel). THE MARKETPLACE The "marketplace" for environmental technologies is difficult to define. However, California certainly has its share of cleanup projects ongoing or planned. The military facilities around the state - particularly the closing bases - are encouraged by DOD and Cal/EPA to demonstrate new cleanup technologies. With CETC, CE-CERT, our national test sites (McClellan and Port Hueneme), ACET, California Enterprise, and other activities California offers the most promising ground for demonstration of new environmental technologies. One objective of the CETP Strategic Plan is to make California "The Place" for commercializing - not just demonstrating - environmental technologies. California is encouraging this with regulatory programs such as permit streamlining and certification, with active participation in partnerships aimed at demonstrating new technologies, and by incorporating innovation into our mainstream cleanup program. 18 ------- SUMMARY The role of government in environmental regulation is changing. Command and control is not being replaced, but it is being augmented with programs that provide opportunity. In the environmental technology area, opportunities are being created in California through regulatory reform, new programs, and through partnerships. Opportunities are also being created at a variety of test sites and facilities - including two of DOD's national test sites - to demonstrate new technologies. We are all pretty new to the game of developing the "Environmental Technology Industry." Time will tell how successful we will be, and we are sure to learn from some mistakes. However, we in California feel that we are going forward with the best input we can get from all stakeholders - particularly from the industry itself - through our various partnerships. 19 ------- STATE OF CALIFORNIA-CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PETE WILSON. Governor DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL Environmental Technology Certification Program 400 P Street, 4th Floor P.O. Box 806 Sactamenio.CA 05812-0806 . CERTIFICATION PROGRAM (AB 2060) HAZARDOUS WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES FACT SHEET October 1994 INTRODUCTION On January 6,1993, Governor Pete Wilson charged the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/ EPA), working with the Trade and Commerce Agency (TCA), to create the California Environmental Technol- ogy Partnership (CETP). The mission of CETP is to preserve and promote California's high environmental standards, to pursue pollution prevention, and to recognize, assist and pro- mote California-based companies that research, de- velop, produce, market and export environmental tech- nologies, goods and services. To help guide this effort, a Strategic Plan for the CETP was released in January 1994. This Strategic Plan focuses on preserving and enhancing California's $20 billion environmental tech- nology industry. As part of the development of the Strategic Plan, four advisory groups were assembled to identify the most significant challenges to California's environmental technology industry. One of these groups was the Fi- nancing Barriers Technical Working Group. They found that the permitting process in California's environmen- tal laws end regulations is all-too-often unnecessarily complex and cumbersome. Numerous and overlap- ping Jurisdictions, each having their own requirements, make the path from research and development into commercialization uncertain in terms of process, time and cost. In addition, California's patchwork regula- tory framework of multiple jurisdictions has fragmented the potential market for environmental technologies, goods and services. This market fragmentation, combined with the un- certainty of the current regulatory system, often cause investors to perceive that there is too much risk associ- ated with environmental technology companies in pro- portion to their potential rate of return. As a result, many in industry and the financial community in California are reluctant to invest their resources and efforts in the commercialization of environmental technologies. It is, therefore, incumbent upon government and well within its role to provide a maximum level of regu- latory consistency to the regulated community. Ex- amples of actions that provide stability include consis- tent enforcement of regulations, simplified permitting processes, and state-assisted demonstration opportu- nities for technology commercialization. Reforms to address this challenge include consistent statewide requirements, minimum lifetimes for demonstrated tech- nologies and a technology certification program. The California Legislature in Assembly Bill 2060 (AB 2060 by Assemblyman Ted Weggeland) has authorized the Departmentof Toxic Substances Control (Depart- ment) to establish a program to certify hazardous waste environmental technologies. AB 2060 specifies that hazardous waste environ- mental technologies which may be certified shall in- clude, but are not limited to, hazardous waste man- agement technologies, site mitigation technologies, and waste minimization and pollution prevention technolo- gies. Technology types which the Department anticipates will fall within this scope include less-polluting raw ma- terials, processes and products; recycling technologies; analysis, monitoring, and process control technologies; computer models; treatment technologies; and site characterization and remediation technologies. AB 2060 mandates that certified technologies meet certain specified criteria including: • Technology must not pose a significant potential hazard to public health and safety or the environ- ment If operated in compliance with specified con- ditions, • Equipment must be capable of being operated with- out specialized training and with minimal mainte- nance, and (Continued) 20 ------- Page 2 - AB 2060 Fact ShMt • Hazardous waste incineration technologies may not be included in the certification program. TYPES OF CERTIFICATION There are two general purposes for certification- regulatory streamlining and performance evaluation. Regulatory certification - This type of certification streamlines the regulatory requirements associated with use of the technology as well as provides information on the technology's performance. The certification may assist with regulatory requirements in the following ways: • Certification of suitability for Conditional Exemption, • Certification of suitability for Conditional Authoriza- tion, • Certification for Permit-by-Rule (PBR) eligibility and other regulatory requirements within the Department's purview. For technologies potentially eligible for PBR or suit- able for conditional authorization or conditional exemp- tion, AB 2060 mandates that the technology must be as safe and as effective as the processes already sub- ject to regulation under those tiers. Performance certification - Under this type of certi- fication, the State will provide a high-quality evaluation of the efficacy and efficiency of a technology's perfor- mance. This certification can be used by the applicant to support marketing of their hazardous waste environ- mental technology, domestically or abroad. The results of a performance certification may also be used to pro- vide information to regulatory agencies in support of a permit or other activity. Certification may provide esti- mates of performance in areas such as: • Efficacy and efficiency for a specified application, • Percent reductions in constituent/waste concentra- tions, • Reductions in constituent/waste concentrations to specified levels or thresholds, • Accuracy, precision, detection limits for measure- ment of specified constituents (e.g., for monitoring and detection technologies), and • Other performance criteria. PROGRAM COMPONENTS AB 2060 specifies that an application for certifica- tion of a hazardous waste environmental technology must include any information required by the Depart- ment to make a determination on the certification ap- plication. AB 2060 also specifies that all certifications must include: • A statement of the technical specifications appli- cable to the technology, • A determination of the composition of the hazard- ous wastes or chemical constituents for which the technology can appropriately be used, • An estimate of the efficacy and efficiency of the tech- nology in regard to the hazardous wastes or chemi- cal constituents for which it is certified, and • A sjDecification of the minimal operational standards the technology is required to meet to ensure that the certified technology is managed properly and used safely. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES The Department has identified the objectives for the AB 2060 environmental technology certification pro- gram to include: • Protect public health and safety and the environ- ment, • Facilitate and streamline compliance with hazard- ous waste regulations, • Encourage pollution prevention, • Foster growth and stability of California's environ- mental technology industry, • Ensure the safety, efficacy and efficiency of envi- ronmental technologies used in California, • Ensure treatment and recycling technologies are available in California as alternatives to land dis- posal, • Increase acceptance of environmental technologies by regulators, users, responsible parties and the public, and (Continued) 21 ------- P»3» 3 - AB 2050 Fact Shttt • Provide a mechanism to communicate to the pub- lic the safety, efficacy, and efficiency of environmen- tal technologies used in California. PILOT PROGRAM fn the few short months since AB 2060 became ef- fective on January 1,1994, the Department has estab- lished a pilot certification program, and entered into technology evaluatlpn and certification agreements with •thirteen companies. In addition, the Department has completed the re- view of data packages, made preliminary certification determinations, and noticed the proposed certification fn the California Regulatory Notice Register on April 29,1994 for the first five of these companies. The pilot program is providing valuable information for program and regulation development. These first certifications will be limited in scope and are meant to give the Department some quick feedback to develop the regulations. To date, over 300 companies have contacted the Department expressing interest in the certification program. CRITERIA AND PREFERENCES FOR SELECTION OF PILOT PROGRAM TECHNOLOGIES Technologies were selected for the pilot program based on the following criteria and preferences: • Certification determination can be made in-house, • Availability and completeness of high quality data, • Performance-based certification, • High probability of acceptance by all stakeholders, • Contribution to program objectives and implemen- tation, • Limited number of technologies, • Technology/waste/application type and relationship to others selected, * Low resource requirements. CERTIFICATION QUALITY Certifications by the State must be of a quality which will meet standards for peer-review by national and in- ternational organizations. Data quality objectives will be established based on the types of certification and the specifics of the technology and its application. The process used to certify a technology and the information used to support the certification must be documented to meet peer-review standards. Trade secrets will be protected under applicable statutes and regulations. PROGRAM SUPPORT (FEES) AB 2060 specifies that the Department shall charge fees to recover the actual costs of the Department to review and certify the technology. For pilot certifications, initiated prior to promulga- tion of the regulations, fees will be negotiated with the applicant and will likely be based on existing fee-for- service programs already established within the De- partment. GLOSSARY Conditional Authorization - Conditional authoriza- tion is one of the five permitting tiers established by law or regulation (see Health and Safety Code (HSC), Section 25200.3) and was designed to alleviate the administrative and technical requirements of a full haz- ardous wajste facility permit in certain select situations. It authorizes generators or transportable treatment unit operators to perform onsite treatment using some speci- fied technologies and waste streams. For most waste streams, treatment can not exceed 5,000 gallons or 45,000 pounds per month. Conditional Exemption - Conditional Exemption is one of the five permitting tiers established by law or regulation (see HSC, Section 25201.5). It was designed to allow certain businesses to perform onsite treatment without needing to obtain authorization from the De- partment for: 1) small quantities of specified hazard- ous waste streams using specified technologies, or 2) specific waste streams deemed to pose a lower risk. PJ3R - Permit-by-rule is one of five permitting tiers established by law or regulation (see California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 67450.1, et. seq.). This tier is for more hazardous and higher volume waste streams and processes than provided for under Condi- tional Authorization or Conditional Exemption. It au- thorizes generators or transportable treatment unit operators to perform onsite treatment using some speci- fied technologies and waste streams. Tiers • The five permitting tiers established by law or regulation include: 1) Full Permit; 2) Standardized Permit; 3) Permit-by-Rule; 4) Conditional Authorization- and 5) Conditional Exemption. 22 ------- : State Markets and Regulations Drusilla Butler Manager, Nuclear Waste Program Washington State Department of Ecology The State of Washington Department of Ecology plays a lead role in Hanford's cleanup. This cleanup will take decades and cost in excess of $100 billion. Congress and the public demand near term environmental results in order to continue their funding commitment. Contractors must work in close partnership with the regulators to develop needed innovative and cost efficient remediation technologies. Bisk must be shared and regulatory processes must be streamlined. Contractors and regulators should recognize their common interests. Walter B. Parker . . . Chair ' , Alaska Hazardous Substance Spill Technology Review Council (HSSTRC) The HSSTRC is charged with providing advice to the State of Alaska on the best available technology for preventing and responding to hazardous substance spills. In Alaska, oil is by statute a hazardous substance. The paper covers the range of innovative treatment technologies used in Alaska since the wreck of the Exxon Valdez in March 1989 including those used in responding to the Exxon Valdez spill. The paper also addresses remaining remediation problems in Alaska, federal, state and private for marine, riverine, and-terrestrial environments. Logistical problems of remote sites and their remediation problems will be a special focus. The problems of remediation in cold climates will receive special attention also. 23 ------- ------- Session 2: Federal Markets ------- I Federal Markets Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D. Director, Technology Innovation Office Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Speaker Slides/Overheads follow. 26 ------- iEPA Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends Market Study Overview ** Assist developers/investors by characterizing future demand View remediation as an opportunity for new firms Focus on site characteristics rather than costs Use existing information plus an analysis of Superfund 27 ------- Sites/Facilities to be Cleaned Up in the U.S. Program • Superfund • RCRA Corrective Action • Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) • Dept. of Defense (DOD) • Dept. of Energy (DOE) • Other Federal Agencies • States Approximate Number 1,500-2,100 1,500-3,500 295,000 7,300 (at 1,800 installations) 4,000 (at 110 installations) 350 19,000* * Sites needing some further investigation that might lead to cleanup Available Information for Market Analysis ** Cleanup Site Site Technology Program Identification Characterization Analysis Historical Selection Trends Superfund Dept. of Defense UST Dept. of Energy RCRA Other Federal Agencies States O o 28 ------- Treatment and Disposal Decisions for Source Control tt 100. 80- Percent of Source Control 60- Records of Decision 100% a Containment, Containment & Disposal a Some Treatment 11 w 11 Some Innovative Treatment 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 September 9,1994 Superfund Remedial Actions: Summary of Alternative Treatment Technologies Through Fiscal Year 1993 tt (Total Number of Technologies = 666) Established Technoloies 376) 56% Off-Site Incineration (102) 15% \ On-Site Incineration (73)11% Solidification/Stabilization (190) 29% aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aDanaooDoaonaDo aaaaaaDaaaoaaaa DOooananaaaaon aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaoa aanaaoaaaaaaa anaoaaaaaoDoa —aooDaaoaann aaaonaDDaaa onaaooaa Other Established (11) 2% Innovative Technologies (290144% Soil Washing (15) 2% / Solvent Extraction (4) < 1 % Ex Situ Bioremediation (38) 6% In Situ Bioremediation (30) 5% In Situ Flushing (18) 3% Soil Vapor Extraction (121) 18% Dechlorination (5) < 1% In Situ Vitrification (2) < 1% Chemical Treatment (1) < 1% Thermal Desorption (41) 6% Other Innovative (15) 2% September 9,1994 29 ------- Project Status of Innovative Treatment Technologies at NPL Sites as of September 1994 Pr Technology ' Soil Vapor Extraction Thermal Desorption Ex Situ Bioremediation In Situ Bioremediation Soil Washing In Situ Flushing Dechlorination Solvent Extraction In Situ Vitrification Chemical Treatment Other Innovative Treatment Total edesign/ 69 26 24 14 11 14 3 3 1 1 12 178 (61%) Design Complete/ Being Installed/ Operational 42 7 ' 12 14 3 • 3 1 1 1 0 3 87 (30%) Project Completed 10 8 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 25 (9%) Total 121 41 38 30 15 18 5 4 2 1 15 290 September 9,1994 Superfund Remedial Actions: Application of Innovative Treatment Technologies Number 8°- of Applications?0 VOCs CD svocs I I Metals Soil Vapor Extraction Thermal Desorption Bio- remediation In Situ Flushing Solvent Extraction Soil Washing Innovative Technology September 9,1994 30 ------- Frequency of Volatile Organic Compounds, Semi-volatile Organic Compounds, and Metals at IMPL Sites Without RODs ** Number' of Sites s>ou- 150 100- 50 n- 53% I-T- 139 S 110 f 52 / 31% r———-i 107 Total VOCs = 318 Total SVOCs = 143 Total Metals = 277 8% 3% Contaminant Groups Frequency of Contaminant Subgroups Present in all Matrices at NPL Sites Without RODs ** Number of Sites 400 n 300- 200- 277 LEGEND VOCs svocs Metals Contaminant Subgroups 31 ------- Estimated Quantities of Contaminated Material ** Intermediate-Term Market (Total quantity = 26 million cubic yards) 10.000-[x 8.000- 6.000- Cufalc Yards (x 1,000) 4.000- 2.000— * Includes explosives, radon, nitrates, and other organics Findings for Future Superfund Markets The most common contaminants in the intermediate-term market (3-5 years): •VOCs(60%ofsites) • Metals (53% of sites) • SVOCs (27% of sit EPA will select technologies for at least 26 million cubic yards of contaminated material at 523 sites in the intermediate term An additional 400 to 800 sites compose the longer-term demand (to be listed on the NPL by the year 2000) The greatest potential needs for new technology in the Superfund program are for treatment of ground water in place and treatment of metals in soil There is a trend toward more treatment of soil in place 32 ------- RCRATSD Processes ** 5,165 RCRA Corrective Action Facilities Land Disposal Processes (2,381) • Underground Injection (88) • Landfill (531) • Surface Impoundment (1,307) - Treatment (319) - Storage (689) - Disposal (299) . Waste Pile (310) • Land Treatment (145) Incinerator Processes (298) Storage & Treatment Processes (6,468) Tank (2,611) - Treatment (783) - Storage (1,828) Container (3,152) Other (705) Location of RCRA Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities NUMBER OF SITES 301 to 400 H 201 to 300 101 to 200 1 to 100 33 ------- Commonly Managed Wastes in RCRA SWMUs in 1986 ** Ignitable waste Corrosive waste Reactive waste Waste oil Spent halogenated/ nonhalogenated solvents Metals (lead, chromium, silver) Wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating Oil-water separator sludge from petroleum refining SWMU = Solid Waste Management Unit Contents of Federally Regulated Tanks** Hazardous Material (2%) Empty (2%) Heating Oil (3%) \ ^ Kerosine (3%) \ \ ^^. \ _^^ Used Oil (4%) ^ Diesel Fuel (20%) Other (5%) -Gasoline (61%) 34 ------- Cleanup of Petroleum-Contaminated Soils In Situ Treatment (19%) Thermal Treatment (13%) Land Treatment (11%, Landfilling (55%) Other (2%) Cleanup Required at UST Sites Approximately 295,000 sites containing at least 56 million cubic yards of soil and debris require cleanup Although the size of UST sites varies widely, the average site contains about 190 yards of contaminated soil and debris and three tanks 91% of USTs contain petroleum products 35 ------- Number of DOD Sites to be Cleaned Up ** Navy (16%) 1,163 Army (37%) 2,728 Air Force (26%) 1,867 Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) (1%7 80 Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) (20%) 1,475 Top Four Contaminant Groups at DOD Sites Petroleum, oil, lubricants, or sludge are found at 42% of Navy sites, 36% of Air Force sites, and 31% of Army sites Heavy metals are found at 25% of Army sites, 11% of Navy sites, and 2% of Air Force sites Solvents are found at 22% of Navy sites, 14% of Army sites, and 11 % of Air Force sites Pesticides are found at 7% of Army sites, 7% of Navy sites, and 2% of Air Force sites DOD has not identified all contaminants at about half of the sites 36 ------- Examples of DOE Installations To Be Cleaned Up CA Energy Technology Includes A/C Engineering Center D&D Laboratory for Includes A/C Energy-Related D&D Health Research: Lawrence Berkeley A/C Laboratory Lawrence On NPL A/C Uvermore Laboratory Sandia National A/C Laboratory - Uvermore Soil, Ground Low-level Unknown $25.7 Water , Radioactive Waste Soil, Ground, Nitrate, Sr-90, 20,000 , $27.5 Water, Ra-226. VOCs, Masonry, C-14 Metals, Sludge Chlorclane, Cr, H-3 Soil, Ground Unknown Unknown $24.2 Water Soil, Ground Gasoline, ' $353.9 Water Explosives, VOCs Soil, Buried Diesel Fuel OH, Unknown $18.5 Material Benzene, Pb A/C => Assessment and characterization activities in progress D&D = Decontamination and decommissioning Number of Federal Agency Sites Needing Cleanup Department of Agriculture Central Intelligence Agency Department of Commerce Environmental Protection Agency General Services Administration Health and Human Services Department of the Interior Department of Justice National Aeronautics and Space Admin. Postal Service Small Business Administration Tennessee Valley Authority Department of Transportation Department of the Treasury Veterans Administration Total a! Sites Evaluate d Sit 91 1 9 15 18 5 337 9 12 5 1 17 101 2 11 634 58 Needing Cleanup 73 0 2 5 3 1 168 7 10 0 0 3 '.- ' 74 . . 0 -'3 -•'--'•.' 349 37 ------- State Hazardous Waste Cleanup Programs Of 69,000 sites identified, 19,000 will need some level of action* States with the most sites are: Michigan (2,844), Massachusetts (2,224), and Pennsylvania (1,067) State trust fund balances totaled $2.2 billion at the end of 1991 States with the largest totals were New York ($977 million), New Jersey ($410 million), and Michigan ($398 million) 'Action may range from further investigation to cleanup. Many will not require remedial action. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program i Demonstration Program, in its 9th year, tests technologies almost ready for commercialization i Pilot and full scale demonstrations conducted at contaminated sites i Emerging Technologies Program, in its 7th year, funds evaluation of bench and early pilot scale technologies in the laboratory and field i EPA provides up to $1 SOK/year for up to two years 38 ------- SITE Demonstration Program Technologies (Total>98) Biodegradafion (19) Thermal Desorption (15) Other (2) Materials Handling (4) Radioactive Waste Treatment (2) Thermal Destruction (10) Physical/Chemical (37) Solidification/Stabilization (9) Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies (VISITT) • Automated database on new technologies to treat ground water in place, soils, sludge, & sediments • Used by cleanup professionals to screen technologies for specific sites « Third version (3.0) released August 1994 contains data on 277 technologies offered by 171 vendors • Over 10,000 requests from over 60 countries • Fax orders to (513) 891-6685 39 ------- r SUMMARY OF VISITT 3.0 TECHNOLOGIES Technology Frequency Bioremediation 102 Thermal Desorption 34 Chemical Treatment 22 Soil Washing 19 Acid or Solvent Extraction 17 Soil Vapor or Dual-Phase Extraction 12 Vitrification 11 In situ Thermally Enhanced Recovery 11 Other 49 Total 277 Vendor Sales Data for Innovative Technology Vendors (1993)* >100 (20%) 20-100 (11%) 5-20 (22%) <5 (47%) 'Based on available data for 107 companies Sales are in millions of dollars 40 ------- Vendor Size by Number of Employees for Innovative Technology Developers (1993)* <5 (7%) >500 (24%) 101-500 (18%) 6-50 (44%) 51-100 (7%) "Based on available data for 108 companies ** U.S. EPA, Technology Innovation Office, Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends, PB93-140762, April 1993. Available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) at 703-487-4600. tt U.S. EPA, Technology Innovation Office, Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (Sixth Edition) at printer, EPA-542-R-94-005, September 1994. Available in November 1994 from EPA at 703-308-8800. 41 ------- **B^^ Federal Markets James T. Davis Assistant Manager for Environmental Management and Support, Oakland Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy Abstract not available at this printing. Gerald Katz Director, Environmental Programs Western Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command • Navy's Environmental Program on the West Coast • Fast track cleanup • Incorporation of innovative technologies • California Base Closure Environmental Committee • The future of Navy environmental business Mr. Katz will briefly discuss the Navy's environmental program and its organization for performing environmental remediation work on the West Coast. With the President's Five Point Program for Economic Conversion and Reuse of Closing Military Facilities, fast-track cleanup Initiatives are being Implemented. Reuse committees are looking at opportunities to Integrate new technologies Into cleanup strategies and maximize economic benefits to the community. The efforts of the California Base Closure Environmental Committee, a body comprised of DoD environmental/reuse managers and key regulatory managers will be described. The Navy's environmental program is diverse and continues to grow; where its future lies will be explored. 42 ------- Session 3: International Markets ------- ,,-^r,;,- ,-,;,,,, te^'^f^ij^P^ .hniu.ur li.n'niXl,,, 'lull.i'lii'hLt ' U.S. Export Strategy James S. Kennedy Acting Director, San Francisco Office, U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service U.S. Department of Commerce Speaker Slides/Overheads follow. 44 ------- U. S. & FOREIGN COMMERCIAL SERVICE WHO WE ARE WHAT WE DO MARKET RESEARCH 1. THE NATIONAL TRADE DATA BANK * MARKET RESEARCH * FOREIGN TRADERS INDEX 2. CUSTOMIZED SALES SURVEY *FEE: $500-$3,500 45 ------- CUSTOMIZED SALES SURVEY 1. DOES THE PRODUCT HA VE SALES POTENTIAL IN MARKET? 2. WHO IS SUPPL YING A COMPARABLE PRODUCT LOCALLY? 3. WHA T IS THE USUAL SALES CHANNEL FOR GETTING THIS PRODUCT INTO THE MARKET? 4. WHA T IS THE GOING PRICE FOR A COMPARABLE PRODUCT IN THIS MARKET? 5. ARE PURCHASES OF SUCH PRODUCTS PRIMARIL Y INFLUENCED BY PRICE OR OTHER COMPETITIVE FACTORS, SUCH AS CREDIT, QUALITY, DELIVERY, SERVICE, PROMOTION, BRAND, ETC. ? 6. WHA TIS THE BEST WA Y TO GET SALES EXPOSURE IN THE MARKET FOR THIS TYPE OF PRODUCT? 7. ARE THERE ANY IMPEDIMENTS TO SELLING THIS TYPE OF PRODUCT IN THIS MARKET, SUCH AS QUOTAS, DUTIES, OR LOCAL REGULATIONS THAT MIGHT IMPEDE SALES? 8. WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED AND QUALIFIED TO REPRESENT OR PURCHASE THIS COMPANY'S PRODUCT IN THIS MARKET? 9. IF A LICENSING OR JOINT VENTURE STRATEGY SEEMS DESIRABLE FOR THIS PRODUCT, WHO MIGHT BE AN INTERESTED AND QUALIFIED PARTNER FOR THE U.S. FIRM? 46 ------- TRADE LEADS o FOREIGN TRADERS INDEX -OBTAINED FROM DA TA BASE OF FOREIGN COMMERCIAL SERVICE -A VAILABLE ON NTDB o TRADE LEADS FROM FOREIGN COMMERCIAL SERVICE ~-A VAILABLE ON NTDBf IN JOURNAL OF COMMERCE, AND ON EBB (202-482-1986) AGENT DISTRIBUTOR SERVICE COST EFFECTIVE METHOD FOR U.S. EXPORTERS TO OBTAIN A FOREIGN DISTRIBUTOR. COST: $250. ALSO EFFECTIVE AS A MARKET RESEARCH TOOL. 47 ------- COMMERCIAL NEWS USA MONTHLY ADVERTISING MAGAZINE OF THE US&FCS: -BRIEF DESC. OF PRODUCT -PICTURE OF PRODUCT WORLD WIDE DISTRIBUTION-125, OOO + COPIES COST: $395+. DISTRIBUTION OF CNUSA ADVERTISEMENTS BY EEB ARGENTINA AUSTRALIA AUSTRIA BELGIUM CANADA COSTA RICA EGYPT FINLAND FRANCE GUATEMALA HONG KONG ISRAEL JAPAN KOREA MEXICO NETHERLANDS PANAMA PARAGUAY SAUDI ARABIA SINGAPORE SWITZERLAND UNITED KINGDOM TOTAL SUBSCRIBERS = 659,000 (IN ADDITION TO THE 125,000 HARD COPIES OF CNUSA DISTRIBUTED) 48 ------- WORLD TRADERS DA TA REPORT o EVALUATES POTENTIAL TRADING PARTNERS -BACKGROUND INFORMATION -STANDING IN LOCAL COMMUNITY -CREDIT WORTHINESS -SUITABILITY o COST: $10O. o MOST IMPORTANT, ITEM 28: EVALUATION BY FOREIGN SERVICE: Narrative description of subject firms operations, facilities, and competence of management; historical background, legal status, general reputation, and position in business community. Financial data, assets, liabilities, profits, and sales fin local currency) to the extent these data are readily available. Recommendation of post warning the firm's suitability as a trade contact for U.S. firm. TRADE SHO W RECRUITMENT o CATALOG SHOWS Advantage: Inexpensive but Effective Disadvantage: Physical Product Not Available; Firm Rep. Not On-Site. o MATCHMAKERS Advantage(s): Product Avail. For Demo. By Firm Rep.; Face-to-Face Meetings With Pre-screened buyers. Disadvantage: Expensive. o CALIFORNIA'S OFFICE OF EXPORT DEVELOPMENT 310-590-5958. 49 ------- US&FCS OBJECTIVE IF YOU ARE NOT EXPORTING, TO HELP YOU BECOME AN EXPORTER; IF YOU ARE EXPORTING TO ONE MARKET, TO HELP YOU EXPORT TO MORE THAN ONE MARKET. 50 ------- ,'" <,.,. * - t' " V California Environmental Technology Exports Paul V. Oliva Senior Policy Analyst, California State World Trade Commission International Trade and Investment Division California Trade and Commerce Agency Abstract not available at this printing. Tim Ogburn Manager, Environmental Technology Export Program Office of Pollution Prevention and Technology Development, Department of Toxic Substances Control California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) In September 1992, Governor Wilson charged Cal/EPA, with the assistance of the Trade and Commerce Agency to create the California Environmental Technology Partnership. The purpose of the partnership is to join the public and private sectors in California into a strategic partnership that capitalizes on the complimentary nature of environmental protection and economic progress. The ultimate goal of the partnership is to establish and maintain a balance between environmental protection and the economic prosperity of California. A ten- year Environmental Technology Strategic Plan was completed in January of 1994. One of the major components of the Strategic Plan is the California Environmental Technology Export Program (CETEP). While the Strategic Plan was being developed, legislation was introduced by Assemblyman Sher and subsequently signed by the Governor. This bill, AB 1315, prescribes and empowers Cal/EPA to establish an environmental technology export program and to coordinate this program with the Trade and Commerce Agency. AB 1315 provides for Cal/EPA to make available technical assistance, to organize and lead trade missions, to receive reverse trade missions, to provide trade referral services, and to notify California- based environmental technology companies of export opportunities and trade shows. The legislation provides for Cal/EPA's Environmental Technology Export Program to participate in federal and other non-state funded technical exchange programs, and to increase foreign buyers' Interest in California's environmental technologies. It requires coordination of export activities within state government, with the federal government, and other governments to take advantage of trade promotion assistance for California-based environmental technology companies. Regarding the specifics of the Environmental Technology Export Program, the Program has been operational since February 1994. The mission of the Program is to increase export sales of California environmental technologies, products and services to international markets, and to create jobs in California. The program is housed within the Department of Toxic Substances Control's Office of Pollution Prevention and Technology Development. It is 51, ------- organized as a partnership within Cal/EPA, whereby the Export Program provides the export expertise white each board and department within Cal/EPA has assigned a scientific/ engineering technical liaison to the Export Program to facilitate a problem-solving team approach to the exporting of environmental technologies. One of the primary differences of exporting environmental technologies relative to other types of exports, such as leather, shoes, or equipment, is that environmental technology exports are generally the culmination of a scientific and engineering problem- solving process in which the exported environmental technology is a solution to a specific technical and often complex environmental problem. Furthermore, foreign governments and buyers of environmental technologies are more comfortable dealing with agencies and representatives that have both environmental expertise and capabilities as well as direct access to companies which can provide environmental solutions. A major focus of the Environmental Technology Export Program is to maximize its efforts through partnering with various private, non-profit, and other federal and state agencies. For example, the program is currently working with the Trade and Development Agency in Washington, DC; USAID in Washington, DC; NASDA and USAEP in Washington, DC; and USAEP in Hong Kong, Thailand, Indonesia and Korea. It Is also working with the Southeast Asia Business Council, the Hong Kong Trade Development Office, the Foreign Trade Associations of Southern California, the US Department of Commerce, Foreign Commercial Officers, the new Assistant Secretary for Department of Commerce Environmental Technology Export Program, Ms. Ann Alonzo, and so on. One of the initial significant accomplishments of the program is a directory which contains the names, addresses, and other pertinent information of over 1,400 California environmental technology companies that wish to export their environmental technologies. The Program hosts delegations from various foreign countries and as such is involved in technology transfer. It has recently hosted delegates from Korea, Taiwan, China, and the Hong Kong EPD. These delegates are given presentations on California environmental regulations and also visit sites to view demonstrations of California's environmental technologies. The Program is also working with NASDA to sponsor individual companies for $20,000 Environmental Technology Fund grants. .Each grant generates a minimum of 4 jobs and $250,000 in business. Currently, we have 10 such grants pending with NASDA in Washington, DC which will generate a minimum of 40 jobs and $2.5 million dollars in business. The Export Program recently conducted one-on-one business meetings at the May 1994 Competitive Advantage Through Environmental Technology Conference and Exposition in San Diego. The Export Program was successful in arranging over 125 one-on-one meetings between California Environmental technology companies and buyers from China and Mexico. In summary, the Environmental Technology Export Program sees itself as a catalyst which will ultimately improve California's economy by increasing sales of California's environmental technologies which will therefore create additional jobs in California. Speaker Slides/Overheads follow. 52 ------- Office of Pollution Prevention and Technology Development Environmental Technology PURPOSE: EXPORT PROGRAM To increase California's share of the national and international markets for environmental goods, products and services. EXPORT PROGRAM *• Serve as clearinghouse for collecting and disseminating information to assist California environmental companies in market research, funding opportunities, etc. «> Maintain a directory of California environmental technology companies who wish to receive export information. • Notify California environmental companies of foreign delegations coming to the United States. • Assist California environmental companies in networking with federal, state, and local agencies on commercialization necessary to provide assistance; such as, economic profiles, market research, funding opportunities, etc. 53 ------- Provide a variety of information by country; such as, economic profiles, key contacts in government and trade organizations, trade barriers, regufations, calendar of trade events, import/export data, investment climates, etc. Establish strategic partnerships between technology developers and potential users of those technologies. Partner with other organizations on trade missions. Will co-host the California Environmental Technology Conference and Exhibition in San Diego, California, May 4-6,1994. The Worldwide Market for Environmental Goods and Services Is estimated to be between $200 and $300 Billion And growing at least 6% annually With California's environmental industry capturing an estimated 17% of U.S. revenues 7.5% of worldwide revenues 54 ------- Directory and Database of California Enyironmental Businesses First Edition of the Directory published in January 1994 Database is operational now 55 ------- ------- Session 4: Business Planning ------- SSW'liiiWSS :f-:i?i-!r!l-s;a!~;*s?fl Wi," ::„:•„: i'hivi! 'i'San 'Kft.iMtniil1, IllilW'.^ Sii'l'SiS^fli''!*!^ "•'', ' H" S*"^^'"- H^lilillrjJIiMitaHiiiflliiniiHiSiiJillil.1!;!.!!) Small Business Opportunities in Environmental Technologies Allan S. Mandel, Ph.D. Director, Office of Economic Development and Rural Affairs Small Business Administration Abstract not available at this printing. Successful Commercialization John T. Schofield President, Thermatrix Inc. The start up, early stage development and commercialization phases of an environmental technology company requires careful planning to be successful. In the same way that marketing a product requires knowledge of the marketplace, successful fund raising requires knowledge of funding sources. Practical suggestions will be put forward to improve the success rate and reduce the frustration associated with commercialization. Speaker Slides/Overheads follow. lif ' SiSiiiii'i.S.s.ii'i.lii'i.ijriiiiiii'^iStiiS'.TJlr.riir.ii'.rC.i; 58 ------- 1991-93 Entrepreneurial Investment Private Equity Financings Completed by Venture-backed Companies ($ millions) 1991 1992 1993 irnfl Communications & Networking Electronics & Computer Hardware Software & Information Services Semiconductors & Components Health Care Services Biotech & Pharmaceuticals Medical Devices & Equipment Retailing & Consumer Products Environmental Other Total Investment Source: VentureOne Thermatrix Inc. Comparable Company Analysis Issuer Symbol Molten Metal Technology, Inc. MLTN Catalytica. Inc. CTAL Energy BioSystems Corporation ENBC N-Viro International Company NVIC EnSys Environmental Products ENSY Purus, Inc. . PURS 112 128 148 41 24 126 90 42 11 39 761 Date 2/10/93 2/18/93 3/12/93 10/12/93 10/20/93 11/9/93 $605.9 $415.0 $409.2 $164.5 $90.2 $592.7 $349.1 $239.1 $43.7 $142.4 $3,051.7 Offer Price $14.00 $7.00 $6.00 $9.50 $10.00 $14.00 di«Mua 116 108 182 43 43 139 106 47 18 85 887 Shares (OOP's) 3,000 3,000 2,400 2,000 1,800 1,800 $537.4 $317.1 $482.2 $190.8 $156.1 $725.2 $437.3 $186.6 $77.9 $437.8 $3,547.3 IPO Information Deal Size (000*s) $42,000 $21,000 $14,400 $19,000 $18,000 $25,200 139 83 152 39 44 140 90 65 11 96 859 Total Shares Out. (OOO's) 21,235 14,696 9.373 8,000 5.643 5,968 $698.1 $293.9 $496.1 $189.2 $280.8 $806.5 $392.8 $473.3 $31.0 $546.7 $4,208.3 Market Cap. (OOO's) $297,542 $102,872 $56,238 $76,000 $56,430 $83,552 59 ------- Thermatrix Inc. Comparable Company Analysis Present Value Value Stock Low Issuer Closes @ Shares Out Market Cap. Symbol 9/23/94 (OOffsl (OOffsl Date Market SSL Market Pate Price MolteKiMoJal Technology. Inc. MLTN $23.50 21,870 $513,945 2/23/94 $30.00 $637,590 4/6/93 $10.50 $223,157 Catnlytica, Inc. CTAL $4.50 14,948 $67,266 5/20/94 $8.75 $128,590 9/23/94 $4.00 $59,792 Energy BfoSyslems Corporation ENBC $7.50 9,997 $74,977 8/26/93 $14.25 $133.565 3/25/94 $6.63 $62.096 N-Vtra International Company NV1C $2.75 8,112 $22,308 10/13/93 $9.63 $77,000 5/27/94 $2.50 $20,000 EnSys Environmental Products ENSY $5.50 5.850 $32,175 10/26/94 $10.25 $57,841 8/8/94 $3.25 $18,340 Purus, Inc. PURS $5.00 6,236 $31,180 12093 $14.50 $86.536 7/29/94 $4.13 $24,648 SIX STEPS OF COMMERCIALIZATION 1. Idea Development 2. Proof oY Concept 3. Pilot 4. Prototype 5. Application/Demonstration 6. Commercial Sales 60 ------- CAPITAL AVAILABILITY Stage Technical Phase Steps 1 through 3 Business Focus Technology Technical Leadership 61 ------- Commercial Phase Steps 4 through 6 Business Focus Management Market Proprietary Technology Thermatrix Development Year 1994 -- 1993 -|- 1992 1989 -- 1985 1980 -- Private Placement VC Funding 'Commercialization and Sales VC Funding Commercial Introduction Demonstration Unit VC Funding Prototype Development LLNL Pilot Development LLNL Proof of Concept LLNL Idea Development 25 4 3.55 3.8 15 Total 55.35 Funding SMIIIIons 62 ------- Success Factors Image Management Market Technology Investors Management Competence Clear Strategy Realistic Market Assessment Healthy Balance Sheet Cash Flow 63 ------- Market Size Longevity Global Compliance Driven Technology Strong Patents Unfair Advantage Product Pipeline 64 ------- Investors Access to Money Network of Connection Business Building Experience 65 ------- ft, [H up., *. : *k In i. 1i "^ » « A Ml In * WnG i , Attracting Financial Backing Max Straube Principal Robertson, Stephens & Company Abstract not available at this printing. * nm pd I nil HI in |uiy iip n H 5 f S djyi iSii^ uiipji jf'ip n«« in * , i 66 ------- Session 5: Public/Private Partnerships > v f- ------- :; %l« Public/Private Partnerships in Washington State Barbara A. Campbell Director, Northwest Regional Office NASA Farwest Regional Technology Transfer Center (formerly with the Washington Department of Community Trade and Economic Development) The State of Washington and Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory (Richland, WA) joined together to develop a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement to assist small and medium size environmental companies in the State of Washington. Both the State of Washington and Battelle-PNL are committed to restoring the environment and bringing into compliance, the Hanford site. While at the same time, to partner with industry to transfer technologies from and to the laboratory for the clean up efforts. Therefore the State of Washington and Battelle-PNL joined together to develop a state- wide technology network that would provide information on emerging technologies, referral sources for technical assistance, and provide business support, advice and counseling to strengthen businesses contribution to the development, demonstration, and deployment of environmental technologies. The success of this program has allowed the State and Battelle- PNL to expand this program to the other states in the Northwest and Canada. 68 ------- SJ.% V.S W. f *** f 3fff$v>f*r*tfkffffff Mf * ff \.\? ' •." " "^ Environmental Technologies and Partnerships Richard Ragaini Associate Department Head for Research and Development Environmental Protection Department Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is committed to providing environmental technologies that are safer, more effective, and less costly in meeting the environmental needs of the Department of Energy (DOE) and the country. LLNL conducts research and development to demonstrate, implement, and ultimately commercialize, through public/private partnerships, innovative technologies for solving environmental problems. These technologies include: air pollution control; soil and groundwater remediation; waste treatment; waste minimization, pollution prevention; characterization and monitoring; and environmental computational tools. LLNL is developing partnerships with other DOE Laboratories, the Department of Defense and other federal organizations, universities and industry to accelerate the development of these technologies, carry out field demonstrations, and facilitate the applications of these technologies in the marketplace. There are several mechanisms for implementing these partnerships, including cooperative research and development agreements, licensing arrangements, personnel exchanges, small business programs, work-for-others contracts, and formations of consortia. A new type of partnership is the California Environmental Enterprise (CEE), a DOE- funded joint project of the California DOE Laboratories: LLNL, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories, in coordination with the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). The CEE is envisioned to be a statewide environmental technology services network linking the DOE Laboratories with private industry, state regulatory agencies, universities, and environmental organizations. One key objective of the CEE is to facilitate the remediation, restoration, and reuse of contaminated property. The CEE is collaborating with Cal/EPA and the nonprofit Institute of Environmental Solutions to seek ways of applying DOE innovative technologies to California environmental restoration problems. Examples of innovative environmental technologies under development will be discussed, including demonstrations, and partnerships. 69 ------- ,*$£®r y\^:^.^i Rf»!:%;,SP r:';Tri:i§:|S:|i||| it^-MSii'llil^ ,;'S;:|»|:|1 iE:S31BilIil "' slSill Environmental Technologies: Coupling Economic Development to Environmental Protection Steven L. Jarvis Director, Office of Strategic Technology California Trade and Commerce Agency Environmental technologies are a new industry cluster for defense conversion in California. They provide an important migration pathway for defense conversion activities. Federal funding sources also recognize these technologies as a growing, dynamic business area. The Office of Strategic Technology (OST) of the California Trade and Commerce Agency, uses technology as a tod for economic development in California. OST administers the Defense Conversion Matching Grant Program, as well as the California Manufacturing Excellence Program, the Regional Technology Alliances and the California Information Infrastructure. OST is a partner with the California Environmental Protection Agency in the California Environmental Technology Partnership, a cooperative public and private sector effort providing assistance, guidance and direction to developers of environmental technologies. OST also advises the newly established California Environmental Technology Center in strategic technology areas. OST works closely with Cal/EPA on the establishment of California Environmental Business Incubators statewide. The Office is working on a new project called E-LYNX for Environmental-technology Leveraging Network exchange: A Working Model for a National Domestic Diffusion System of environmental technologies. E-LYNX will service environmental technology producers, users, regulatory community and policymakers. 70 ------- Session 6: Cleanup Opportunities at Federal Facilities ------- .:.^;1>^t^v^>wiiSSl;faMi* Hanford Site, Washington Robert R. Silva, Jr. Manager, Technology Transfer and Infusion Westinghouse Hanford Company The Hanford Site, located in the southeast portion of the state of Washington, is a 1,450- heetare (560 square miles) reservation that was selected by the U.S. Government in 1942 for production of the world's first nuclear weapons materials. For more than 40 years, defense production operations at Hanford generated hazardous and radioactive materials and wastes that for the most part remain there today. Environmental restoration of the Hanford Site is the primary mission of the Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC) and it is also the thrust of the "Tri-Party" agreement among the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Washington State Department of Ecology and the U.S. Department of Energy. ' The Site restoration effort includes management of enormous quantities of highly radioactive waste materials. It is estimated that 440,000 cubic meters (117 million gallons) of high-level liquid/solid waste are contained in 177 underground storage tanks. Current plans call for separation of the high- and low-level constituents from the liquid wastes held in the tanks, and stabilizing them in a fused borosilicate glass for permanent disposal. It has been estimated that the Site cleanup mission will require more than 50 billion dollars and at least 40 years to complete. It is clear that for such a huge task in this modern era of regulatory rigor and public involvement in environmental issues, those estimates are optimistic without significant advances in the technologies that are available for dealing with the cleanup mission at the Hanford Site. Therefore, high priority levels are being assigned to efforts to define needs and obtain innovative solutions that can meet the daunting challenges ahead. The longstanding Hanford culture, established by a defense production mission that required a high level of secrecy, called for developing any needed technologies "behind the fences" or obtaining them outside using specifications that were written so as to reveal nothing of the applications. As the Hanford mission has shifted to site restoration, so too has the role of the private sector changed. The time for secrecy has passed, we now need to get private business involved in dealing with our environmental challenges and clearly, this is a new way of doing business at Hanford. ^--^rapft'osm Joseph F. Nemec itS:lt'::?lfti!S|| Vice President of Operations Bechtel Hanford, Inc. Abstract not available at this printing. P r;.;.- o,,, ;;»!„;,„ ii !¥»»!« ! iiiiKi.illjiiF'.iiii.riiSiijSssiinaiXfrwjiSJS^jifl B^'iS!,,:,,.;,!:!!,,!!:?!'1;,;;!^'.^:-:;.:^;^;;! , _ "!!»»»,['::»,»;,:"iv '•'1'- JSw^^ 72 ------- sttftyuwtvu ',.','' \s &f xSkV "•< *• 4A* %™« %.;• £%^ % ^ v\v.w. Naval Air Station North Island, California Morgan Rogers Remedial Project Manager, Southwest Division Environmental Department, Naval Facilities Engineering Comand Navy Environmental Leadership Program (NELP) Charter - NELP was established by the Chief of Naval Operations Environmental Quality Management Board in May 1993. The NELP Charter outlined Navy roles and responsibilities for NELP implementation. NELP Objective - The objective of NELP is to identify, test, and evaluate new and innovative technologies, management methods applicable to any or all environmental areas of concern, export successes and lessons learned throughout the Navy. NELP Activities - Two Navy activities were selected to implement NELP, Naval Air Station (NAS) North Island in San Diego and Naval Station (NAVSTA) Mayport, Florida. Selection , - " was based on the activities' representative environmental programs to other Navy activities —" " and thus facilitates greater distribution and use of successes and lessons learned. NAS North Island Overview - NAS North Island has 12 Installation Restoration (IR) sites, >^,,- 147 underground storage tanks, 340 air permits, 65 stormwater outfalls, 79 90-day hazwaste <'.. accumulation sites, 8 berthing piers, aircraft operations and maintenance activities, and an .;;^f industrial waste treatment plant. "•f- " < NELP Implementation - NELP addresses all aspects of environmental programs which •""-' are divided into four primary elements; environmental cleanup (IR), compliance, pollution prevention, and natural resources conservation. The NELP approach is to establish partnerships between the Navy, regulators, and the community and identify and implement innovative technologies and focused management within the environmental programs. NELP Strategy - The NELP implementation strategy includes identifying problems, identifying innovative solutions, screening and selecting appropriate solutions, identifying resources requirements, implementing the solution (treatability study, field demonstration, and/or full scale), evaluating and documenting the solution, and exporting the solutions and lessons learned. NELP Initiatives - NELP initiatives pursued include: - EPA SITE Program - Southwest Naval Facility (NAVFAC) New Technologies Solicitation - NAS North Island Bioremediation Treatment Unit - Comprehensive Management Action Plan - Restoration Advisory Board - Pollution Prevention Plan Prototype - 3-d Seismic Modelling - Site Characterization and Analysis Penetrometer System - Misc. NELP Summary - Through the NELP efforts at NAS North Island and NAVSTA Mayport, the Navy will become an environmental leader with Navy environmental actions being accomplished better, faster, and cheaper. 73 ------- ------- |