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
-------
------- |