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

-------

-------