oaj. pue
•I
- ':-
A 6 O I O U U O d I \7rf -I
(•Pl|JBMlW|E':5,^^^K. Be^^^S*«^^P;:iflyB;;'^^B!»5^^^* •^•B W ^hi^H IHI^I
-------
The National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology {KfACEPf) is an '-•
independent federal advisory committee that provides recommendations to the Administrator
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on a broad range of environmental issues.
The Subcommittee on Environmental Technology is an acThoc subcommittee of the Council
and was formed to examine EPA's role in the development, commercialization, and use of
innovative technology in fulfilling its mission to protect human health and the envirc?nrftent
The findings and recommendations of the Subcommittee do not necessarily represent the ^
views of the u.Sr Environmental Protection Agency. V :
EPA100-R-00-021
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Cooperative Environmental Management
http://wwvy.epa.gov/ocem
May 2006
-------
EPA Technology Programs and
Intra-Agency Coordination
May 2006
National Advisory Council for Environmental
Policy and Technology (NACEPT)
r SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL
Vv*: -J1"'! *'
t,
i •-
i^'f ,ff ,t
i*'* ^'v"^f-
Subcommittee Members
Philip Helgerson (Chair) - CSC Advanced Marine Center
Dan Watts (Liaison to the NACEPT Council) - New Jersey Institute of Technology
Linda Benevides - Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
John Crittenden - Arizona State University
David Dzombak - Carnegie Mellon University
Kenneth Geiser - University of Massachusetts at Lowell
John Hornback - Metro 4/Southeastern States Air Resource Managers, Inc. (SESARM)
Kristine Krause - Wisconsin Energy Corporation
JoAnn Slama Lighty - University of Utah
John Lindstedt - Artistic Plating Company
Raymond Lizotte - American Power Conversion Corporation
Oliver Murphy - Lynntech, Inc.
Robin Newmark - Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Patrick O'Hara - Cummings/Riter Consultants
Christine Owen - Tampa Bay Water
Katherine Reed - 3M Environmental, Health and Safety Operations
Norman Richards - First People's Environmental, LLC
Karen Riggs - Battelle
James Robbins - Environmental Business Cluster
Howard Roitman - Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Kent Udell - University of Utah
-------
Chairman's Prologue
o
For the past four decades, significant environmental progress has been made in cleaner air,
cleaner water, and better waste prevention and management. Much of this progress is attribut-
able to the development and use of innovative technologies to address priority environmental
problems. Today, however, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), states, and local
governments, as well as other public and private organizations are thinking much more holistical-
ly about how to achieve sustainability; maintaining or improving the current levels of environ-
mental protection yet striving for higher levels of environmental performance while simultaneous-
ly strengthening U.S. global competitiveness. What is the role of EPA's environmental technology
programs in this new, more sustainable environmental protection paradigm and what can the
Agency do to improve their impact? This is essentially the charge that was posed to the
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT).
The EPA Administrator established the NACEPT Subcommittee on Environmental Technology
in November 2004 to address this charge and make recommendations on the future direction of
EPA's environmental technology programs. The Subcommittee includes knowledgeable repre-
sentatives of the environmental, industrial, public policy, scientific, academic, and government—
state, tribal, and local—communities. We are working with EPA senior managers and subject
matter experts to assess the Agency's current programs and to identify improvements and new
initiatives that would increase their effectiveness.
Opportunities for sustained environmental protection must be addressed today to provide
effective protection in the future and to avoid the higher costs of delayed action. Industry is
responding to an increasing recognition that pollution of all types is appropriately accounted for
as material and energy waste, and waste is an avoidable cost. Fortunately, many responsible
businesses understand that optimizing processes to reduce emissions of all types is not just good
corporate citizenship, but increases productivity and helps their bottom line. Nonetheless, chal-
lenges remain.
Today's technological tools, particularly in the rapidly evolving measurement and monitor-
ing arena, offer real-time, highly accurate information and responsiveness undreamed of in past
years. Innovative environmental technologies in all areas are potentially more effective and less
costly than older methods. The opportunity to move forward on developing technologies to
address the far more complex environmental problems that still confront us appears bright. The
public's demand for accountability and responsibility is rising and expectations of environmental
stewardship are higher than ever before. Our Nation needs affordable, effective technologies
that can be used to solve real problems that impact our health and the world in which we live.
The complex research, development, and marketing road from an innovative idea to an
implemented technology is extremely challenging. Regulatory, institutional, and other barriers
have prevented or slowed many efforts at technology commercialization. EPA's role in this
process must be justified by the extent to which new technologies provide solutions to environ-
mental problems and produce real environmental results. EPA cannot and should not address
technology development and marketing alone, but must remain a leader in that effort. To meet
this challenge, EPA has evolved from an agency that primarily regulates into an agency that
both regulates and facilitates. Agency leaders understand that single-focus regulatory
approaches to complex environmental problems will not assure that pollution is actually
reduced. New technologies are essential—technologies developed and put in place primarily
by private-sector inventors and entrepreneurs.
-------
EPA's role as a facilitative leader in the technology development process is evolving, but it is
clear that the Agency must play a stronger motivating and facilitating role in assisting promising
technologies through the development continuum toward commercialization and use. This help
may take many forms—research grants to small businesses for bench- and pilot-scale investiga-
tion; full-scale demonstration funding for critical problems not being addressed by state or local
government or the private sector; verification of performance for commercial-ready devices to
determine their efficacy and cost so that they will be seriously considered in the marketplace;
regional and multi-state permit assistance for complex new technologies; and readily available,
reliable information on new, cost-effective technologies. The reality of budgetary resources and
the complex environmental marketplace, however, means that EPA cannot be all things to all
technologies and must strive to select its critical roles strategically.
Looking toward the future, it seems obvious that technology will play a critical role in EPA's
ability to meet its core goals while supporting continued economic growth, Regardless of the
approach or motivation—regulatory or voluntary, enforcement or stewardship, prevention or
control—technology is a lynchpin in achieving cost-effective environmental protection. EPA must
confront several upcoming strategic decisions concerning its technology programs. This report
contains recommendations that, if implemented by EPA, would raise the profile of technology
programs across the Agency, make these efforts more strategic, and strengthen their effective-
ness, Clearly, the Agency must make tough decisions about what programs and activities it will
expand, continue, reduce, or eliminate, EPA needs to act promptly to establish resource alloca-
tions that support activities that reflect its unique set of core competencies and regulatory
authority—especially initiatives that others are unable or unwilling to undertake independently.
Implicit in these actions are decisions on activities that the Agency should not carry out because
they are better addressed by others, Limited resources must be focused on programs through
which EPA can effectively apply its specialized knowledge and regulatory authority to facilitate
development and deployment of technologies by others through stronger partnerships and
influence,
Our initial review of EPA's technology programs confirms that the Agency is aware of these
new realities and the additional reality of today's constrained resources. It has been a privilege
to view the accomplishments and challenges of the Agency with the purpose of providing
recommendations that can be both effective and measurable.
This first report and its recommendations address EPA programs and assess infra-Agency
coordination. Additional reports will outline avenues for EPA to strengthen its support for the
discovery, verification, approval, and deployment of new technology, and to create stronger,
more effective programs that will mobilize powerful resources of industry, the scientific and aca-
demic community, federal and state agencies, and other domestic and international partners.
Philip Helgerson, Chairman
Subcommittee on Environmental Technology
National Advisory Council for Environmental
Policy and Technology
-------
o
-------
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
Background and Process 1
Findings and Recommendations 3
Finding 1: The EPA Technology Development Continuum 3
Finding 2: Subcommittee Observations on EPA Technology Programs 4
Finding 3: The Environmental Technology Council Action Teams 6
Future Plans of the Subcommittee 6
II. Introduction.
The EPA Technology Development Continuum.
Recommendations of the Subcommittee 12
IV. Subcommittee Observations on EPA Technology Programs
Recommendations of the Subcommittee 17
V. The Environmental Technology Council Action Teams
Recommendations of the Subcommittee 26
VI. Future Plans of the Subcommittee
VII. Appendices.
Appendix A: Charge to the Subcommittee on Environmental Technology 31
Appendix B: Subcommittee Members
,.35
Appendix C: EPA Program and Other Issue Presentations
to the Subcommittee
.36
Appendix D: EPA Technology Development Continuum 37
-------
List of Acronyms
o
CATC Clean Air Technology Center
CDC Clean Diesel Combustion
CEIT Center for Environmental Industry and Technology
CLU-IN Clean-Up Information
CRADA Cooperative Research and Development Agreement
CWA Clean Water Act
DfE Design for the Environment
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ETC Environmental Technology Council
ETOP Environmental Technology Opportunities Portal
ETV Environmental Technology Verification
FTTA Federal Technology Transfer Act
IAC Innovation Action Council
ITRC Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation
LQSR3 Laboratory Quality System Requirements 3
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
NACEPT National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology
NCER National Center for Environmental Research
NETC National Environmental Technology Competition
NGO Nongovernmental Organization
NLLAP National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program
NODA Notice of Data Availability
OAR Office of Air and Radiation
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OIA Office of International Affairs
OPPTS Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
ORD Office of Research and Development
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OW Office of Water
QA Quality Assurance
R&D Research and Development
RBLC Reasonably Available Control Technology/Best Available Control Technology/Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate Clearinghouse
RSS Really Simple Syndication
SBIR Small Business Innovation Research
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SEP Supplemental Environmental Project
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
SOP Standard Operating Procedures
SPC Science Policy Council
STAR Science To Achieve Results
TAG Technology Assistance Center
TIP Technology Innovation Program
TTEP Technology Testing and Evaluation Program
ULSD Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel
-------
I. Executiv
Background and Process
The mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to protect human health
and the natural environment. Its strategic goals are Clean Air and Global Climate Change,
Clean and Safe Water, Land Preservation and Restoration, Healthy Communities and
Ecosystems, and Compliance and Environmental Stewardship. The Administrator and other sen-
ior managers have stated that technology is critical in achieving these goals and that it will be
the central driver in moving from the command and control policies of the past to a new, more
sustainable environmental protection paradigm for the future.
The EPA Administrator established the Subcommittee on Environmental Technology of the
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) to evaluate and
make recommendations on EPA's stimulation, facilitation, and use of innovative technology in
carrying out its mission. The charge to this Subcommittee is presented in Appendix A and a list of
the Subcommittee members is provided in Appendix B. The Subcommittee convened its first
meeting in November 2004, and has held quarterly sessions since that time. Numerous presen-
ters from EPA, other government agencies, states, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and
the private sector have briefed the Subcommittee on a broad spectrum of technology issues
(see Appendix C for the list of presenters to date). Working groups comprised of Subcommittee
members have been formed to address specific issues and make preliminary recommendations
to the full Subcommittee.
The Subcommittee is reviewing the Agency's technology programs in the context of the
unique role that EPA plays in the broad spectrum of public and private activities that must occur
to bring increasingly cost-effective technologies into use. In this and subsequent reports, the
Subcommittee seeks to answer the question posed in the Agency's charge: How can EPA
better optimize its environmental technology programs to make them as effective as possible in
promoting the research, development, commercialization, and implementation of sustainable
private-sector technologies, and what other programs and activities should the Agency
undertake to achieve this goal?
In general, the Subcommittee has been most impressed with the broad and effective spec-
trum of programs presented to it by Agency managers and others. The overall pace of environ-
mental progress in recent decades attests to EPA's effectiveness in supporting the legal and
technological changes that have brought it about. EPA is involved in all of the components of
technology research, development, and diffusion, but has more influence and activity in some
areas than in others. Within the last 2 years, two particularly significant overarching events have
-------
taken place to improve information flow and coordination across the Agency and provide
improved transparency to other government agencies and the public:
• Through its many years of technology evaluation, EPA has developed a broad range of
programs and a large store of technology information. Making this information available
to the numerous public and private entities that may wish to use it is an Agency goal, In
its "Report to Congress on a One-Stop-Shop for Coordination of Programs Which Foster
Development of Environmental Technologies," ERA'S Office of Research and
Development (ORD) committed to creating an Environmental Technology Opportunities
Portal1 (ETOP) that would more easily lead users to information on all of the Agency's
technology programs through an integrated "one-stop-shop," This portal became
operational on December 31, 2003.
• In the same report to Congress, EPA committed to implementing the cross-Agency
Environmental Technology Council (ETC) to achieve improved, real world environmental
results through the application of innovative technology. The ETC will achieve this goal by
identifying priority environmental problems that need new technological approaches and
coordinating efforts by EPA and others to identify and implement technology solutions,
Success is attained when identified technologies are adopted for use and environmental
results can be measured, The ETC is now in full operation and has created 11 Action
Teams, which are at work on specific problems that require new technology to achieve
economical environmental solutions.
This first Subcommittee report focuses on the evaluation of EPA's internal technology pro-
grams, the organization of their presentation to the public, and recent efforts to cross organiza-
tional lines to more effectively solve problems that are impeded by the lack of commercially
available technology. In particular, the report contains the EPA Technology Development
Continuum, the entire text of which can be found in Appendix D. The Subcommittee has
reviewed a substantial subset of EPA's many and diverse technology facilitation programs, 24 of
which have been identified to date. These programs reside in the Agency's media program
offices (i.e.. Air and Radiation, Water, Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances), ORD, and one regional office (i.e.. Region 1).
Future reports will focus on the critical area of the Agency's ability to build, join, coordinate,
and sustain partnerships both internally and with key government and private-sector organiza-
tions outside of EPA, on management issues, and on other topics of importance to environmen-
tal technology deployment in the United States and abroad.
1 The Environmental Technology Opportunities Portal (ETOP) is accessible on the Web at www epa gov/etop
My focus is on advancing technologies ana achieving real results.
—Los Angeles Times, June 9, 2005
-------
Findings and Recommendations ••••^^^^•••^^^^•••B
Finding 1: The EPA Technology Development Continuum
The quality and coverage of EPA's technology develop-
ment programs are praiseworthy. The complexity posed to
the public in determining which programs conduct
which kinds of functions on what kinds of particular
pollution problems can be daunting, however. The
recent creation of ETOP, a single Web address
through which EPA technology programs can be
accessed, is a major step forward, but a clearer
presentation or "map" of activities is needed. The
Subcommittee's first finding, reached at its initial
meeting, was that EPA's many and diverse technol-
ogy facilitation programs would benefit from a reor-
ganized presentation to its numerous audiences.
The Subcommittee has worked with the Agency for
the past year to identify and characterize 24 EPA pro-
grams that develop and promote innovative technolo-
gies and to array them across a continuum of research and
development activities.
The EPA Technology Development Continuum (see Appendix D), contains common informa-
tion on all EPA technology programs identified to date, arranged in order of the technology
stage to which they relate, and identifies where in EPA these programs occur and how to access
them. This Continuum starts with programs focused at the earliest stages of technology idea
development; moves through programs focused on bench, pilot, and demonstration stages;
and on to programs that conduct commercial technology performance verification and pro-
vide information diffusion on fully commercial-ready technologies. The Subcommittee believes
that EPA and its many and varied outside constituencies will benefit from this reorganized pres-
entation of the Agency's technology activities.
Recommendation 1.1: Broadly publish the Continuum, in both Web and document
form, to assist information seekers both within the Agency and outside to find the tech-
nology support and data they need to move technology forward. EPA must assure
that the information in the Continuum remains current and up to date.
Recommendation 1.2: Use the Continuum as:
1.2,1 An effectiveness and evaluation tool to determine the metrics and out-
comes of EPA programs;
1.2.2 A prioritization and resource evaluation tool to make cross-Agency resource
decisions; and
1.2.3 An evaluation tool to determine the Agency's effectiveness in working with
the other critical stakeholders in technology development and diffusion,
most particularly state and local government and the private sector.
-------
Finding 2: Subcommittee Observations on EPA Technology Programs
Having completed the Continuum and received briefings on all of the major technology
programs across the Agency, the Subcommittee is impressed by EPA's past and present work on
technology development, Looking toward the future, the Subcommittee believes that EPA must
strategically select and execute its technology programs with an eye to sustaining those that are
core functions in supporting the entire system of technology development both inside and out-
side the Agency. In a time of increasing budget scrutiny and limited resources, the Agency will
need to focus its programs on strategic goals and efforts that can have the greatest impact.
Although the Subcommittee cannot substantively review the goals and performance of all EPA
technology programs, it offers to the Agency the following general recommendations:
Recommendation 2.1: EPA should target its technology support efforts to areas clearly
linked to environmental regulations and other publicly stated environmental goals. In
particular, the Agency should build its strategic plans around the availability of emerg-
ing technology with a clear plan of technology support for those areas it considers to
be critical to its success.
Recommendation 2.2: Improved and coordinated metrics need to be developed, used
across the entire spectrum of EPA technology programs, and publicized. The Agency
has an impressive array of programs but in the absence of consistent and available
metrics, it is difficult to see how effective they are in actually bringing needed tech-
nologies to implementation or to make valid effectiveness comparisons among individ-
ual programs. The Subcommittee understands that the Agency is working on the issue
of metrics within all of its programs and that this kind of outcome measurement,
particularly applied to the broad area of technology development and deployment,
is difficult to construct.
Recommendation 2.3: Although a research focus is consistent with government's tradi-
tional role in funding basic research, it is important that other efforts, further along the
research and development continuum, continue to be supported. Front-loading of
resources on research may be less effective in achieving technology utilization than
actively promoting those technologies that have been shown to work. Many innova-
tions begin in the private sector with little or no government support but require demon-
stration and/or verification by independent entities to determine their effectiveness.
They also may require diffusion activities by the government to achieve regulatory
acceptance and thus commercialization.
Recommendation 2.4: Verification programs need to be expanded. States support the
verification testing of technologies through activities like EPA's Environmental
Technology Verification (ETV) Program rather than leaving this testing for each individ-
ual state to do on its own. The fact that EPA has verified more than 350 innovative
technologies to date and that hundreds more await verification attests to the value of
this activity to commercial developers. The fact that the ETV Web Site containing per-
formance data on all of these technologies is visited more than 1,500,000 times each
year attests to the value of the information it contains on new technologies. Demon-
stration and verification programs are major commercialization facilitation activities
and help assure that effective, rather than ineffective, technologies are deployed.
Recommendation 2.5: For each EPA technology program, the Agency should know
where to direct technologies to the next step in the development process both inside
and outside EPA to assure that promising innovations move through the continuum
toward commercialization. Program interaction, communication, and focus on com-
mercialization requirements need improvement.
-------
Recommendation 2.6: The Agency should address critical diffusion and utilization gaps
that impede new technology from reaching the appropriate markets.
2,6. 1 The Subcommittee recommends that the Agency establish a policy that
each regional office designate a specific technology information coordina-
tor. The regions are the front line of the Agency and a primary source for
state and local decision makers to obtain guidance on technology and
permitting issues, particularly concerning the performance of new tech-
nologies. Developers also come to the regions for help in penetrating EPA's
technology assistance programs. A regional technology information coor-
dinator would serve to connect regional problems to the funding and
resources of EPA headquarters. The effectiveness of this approach has
been demonstrated in Region 1. Headquarters' coordination of these
regional technology information coordinators will be critical to their success.
The Subcommittee will address the management and coordination issues
for EPA's technology programs in future reports.
2.6.2 The Subcommittee recommends that EPA place more emphasis on and
increase public awareness of its programs to create a demand for new
environmental technologies. A review of the scope of programs on the
Continuum reveals an apparent gap in Agency activities that directly
address the creation of markets or market mechanisms for new technolo-
gies. One example of such a program is ENERGY STAR, which encourages
energy conservation by working with corporations to develop conservation
plans. Such "demand-pull" activities can include government policies such
as tax credits and "first purchaser" activities that encourage innovation.
The Subcommittee will seek further information on EPA's past experiences,
both positive and negative, with these types of policies at its upcoming
meetings.
America's Global Leadership Depends on
Technological Advances
"America's economic strength and global leadership depend on con-
tinued technological advances. Federal investment in R&D has proven
critical to keeping America's economy strong by generating knowl-
edge and tools needed to develop new technologies."
—President George W. Bush
State of the Union Address, January 31, 2006
-------
Recommendation 2.7: EPA should devote more attention and resources to those
Agency programs that incorporate and encourage sustainability as one of the goals or
criteria for technology development or implementation assistance. As this subject is
specifically called out for comment in the charge and the Subcommittee considers
that there is an opportunity for the Agency to accomplish important strategic objec-
tives in this area, the Subcommittee will look at the issue of sustainability in more detail
over the coming months and make specific recommendations in a future report. The
Subcommittee hopes to identify and evaluate several EPA programs that are actively
seeking to incorporate this analytically difficult subject into their technology develop-
ment activities and highlight their methodology and successes,
Finding 3: The Environmental Technology Council Action Teams
Under the auspices of the newly created ETC, EPA has conducted a prioritization process to
identify the most serious environmental problems that await technology availability for solution.
Eleven ETC Action Teams, consisting of both headquarters and multi-regional staff, are now
focused on these problems across the Agency and are addressing a diverse array of technologi-
cal challenges. The Subcommittee agrees with the overall objectives of this initiative and has
found several areas of notable strength, At this early stage of its implementation, however, there
are a number of adjustments and changes that the Agency should consider.
Recommendation 3.1: EPA should develop a formal and ongoing public process to
identify the country's most pressing environmental problems needing technological
solutions, assuring that the selection is truly focused on environmental problems and not
simply on technology development.
Recommendation 3.2: EPA should make the ETC Action Team initiative a core program
with high-level Agency support, while streamlining the oversight for both the ETC and
its Action Teams.
Recommendation 3.3: The ETC should develop and institute Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs) for Action Teams and assure that they immediately begin to include
appropriate outside stakeholders in their deliberations and activities. The most success-
ful Team activities should be highlighted.
Future Plans
The NACEPT Subcommittee on Environmental Technology began its work in November 2004,
and has been chartered for 2 years. The Subcommittee expects to meet several times during
2006 and plans to take up and report on the following additional topics:
• National and international technology partnerships
• EPA technology management and strategy
• Encouraging demand (demand-pull programs and opportunities)
• Communications, education, and outreach (internal and external)
• The extent to which current EPA technology programs on the Continuum
address large-scale issues such as sustainability, global climate change, and
catastrophic events.
-------
In October 2004, the Office of Research and Development (ORD) of the U S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) requested that the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy
and Technology (NACEPT) form a broad-based Subcommittee of technology experts to address
issues and advise the EPA Administrator on the present focus and status of environmental tech-
nology programs within the Agency (see Appendix A for the full text of the Subcommittee
charge document). On November 3, 2004, the Subcommittee on Environmental Technology
was formed (see Appendix B for the membership list) and shortly thereafter held its first meeting.
The charge document posited the following core question: How can EPA better optimize its
environmental technology programs to make them as effective as possible in promoting the
research, development, commercialization, and implementation of sustainable private-sector
technologies; and what other programs and activities should it undertake to achieve this goal?
In particular, EPA requested the Subcommittee to review its effectiveness in the following five
areas:
1. Evaluating the existing suite of technology support programs, both individually and
collectively, with particular focus on redundancies or gaps and the extent to which
they are appropriately designed to address technology development barriers.
2. Encouraging demand for innovative technologies through the use of such tools as
direct financial incentives, creative regulatory and policy approaches, preferential
governmental purchasing, the evaluation and elimination of governmental permitting
barriers, or other demand-pull actions,
3. Reaching critical audiences with innovative technology information by organizing (or
reorganizing) the massive amount of information that the Agency possesses on technol-
ogy advances and performance, and by making this material more accessible to the
multiple public and private-sector customers who need it through the use of 21st
century communication tools.
4. Collaborating with states, tribes, and local governments to increase coordination and
cooperation within and across all levels of government in assisting technologies to
move from research to the actual implementation stage of development and
commercialization.
5. Collaborating with other federal agencies and the private sector to assure that all
major stakeholders in the complex process of bringing innovative technology to
market are represented in the consideration and implementation of EPA's technology
programs.
-------
The full Subcommittee has held five meetings to date, Meeting agendas have included
presentations by experts on overview issues, such as the state of the marketplace for environ-
mental technologies both within the United States and abroad, as well as extensive briefings on
the many and varied environmental technology research, development, and proliferation pro-
grams conducted by EPA (see Appendix C for the list of presenters). Working groups comprised
of Subcommittee members have been formed to address specific issues and make preliminary
recommendations to the full Subcommittee.
After 1 year of deliberation, the Subcommittee now issues the first
in a series of reports. This report focuses its evaluation and
recommendations on EPA's broad spectrum of technology
programs and coordination among them. As such, it
addresses primarily the first and third of the charge
topics listed on page 7. Future reports will focus on
the remaining elements of the charge and further
findings and recommendations on the subjects
discussed in this report, if warranted.
EPA's mission is the protection of human
health and the natural environment. Its strategic
goals are Clean Air and Global Climate Change,
Clean and Safe Water, Land Preservation and
Restoration, Healthy Communities and Ecosystems,
and Compliance and Environmental Stewardship.
The EPA Administrator and other senior managers have
stated that the role of technology is critical to achieving
these goals and that it will be the central driver in moving from
the command and control policies of the past to a new, more
sustainable environmental protection paradigm for the future.
In general, the Subcommittee has been most impressed with the broad and effective
spectrum of programs presented by Agency managers and others. The overall pace of environ-
mental progress in recent decades attests to EPA's effectiveness in supporting the legal and
technological changes that have brought it about. EPA is involved in all of the components of
technology research, development, and diffusion, but has more influence and activity in some
areas than in others. Within the last 2 years, two particularly significant overarching events have
taken place to improve information flow and coordination across the Agency and provide
improved transparency to other government agencies and the public:
• Through its many years of technology evaluation, EPA has developed a broad range of
programs and a large store of technology information. Making this information available
to the numerous public and private entities that may wish to use it is an Agency goal. In
its "Report to Congress on a One-Stop-Shop for Coordination of Programs Which Foster
Development of Environmental Technologies," EPA's ORD committed to creating an
Environmental Technology Opportunities Portal1 (ETOP) that would more easily lead users
to information on all of EPA's technology programs through an integrated "one-stop-
shop." This portal became operational on December 31, 2003.
1 The Environmental Technology Opportunities Portal (ETOP) is accessible on the Web at wv/w epa gov/etop
-------
• In the same report to Congress, EPA committed to implementing the cross-Agency
Environmental Technology Council (ETC) to achieve improved, real world environmental
results through the application of innovative technology. The ETC will achieve this goal by
identifying priority environmental problems needing new approaches and coordinating
efforts by EPA and others to identify and implement technology solutions. Success is
attained when identified technologies are adopted for use and environmental results can
be measured. The ETC is now in full operation and has created 11 Action Teams, which
are at work on specific problems that require new technology to achieve environmental
and economic breakthroughs.
The Subcommittee is reviewing the Agency's technology programs in the context of the
unique role that EPA plays in the broad spectrum of public and private activities that must occur
to bring increasingly cost-effective technologies into use. This first Subcommittee report focuses
on the evaluation of EPA's internal technology programs, the organization of their presentation
to the public, and recent efforts to cross organizational lines to more effectively solve problems
that are impeded by the lack of commercially available technology.
In particular, the report contains the newly developed EPA Technology Development
Continuum, the entire text of which is provided in Appendix D. The Continuum displays, for the
first time, the full range of EPA's many and diverse technology facilitation programs. The
Subcommittee has reviewed a substantial subset of these programs, 24 of which have been
identified to date. They reside in the Agency's media program offices (i.e., Air and Radiation,
Water, Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances),
ORD, and one regional office (i.e., Region 1). Future reports of the Subcommittee will focus on
the critical area of the Agency's ability to build, join, coordinate, and sustain partnerships both
internally and with key organizations outside of EPA, on its ability to work effectively with the pri-
vate sector, and on other topics of importance to technology deployment in the United States
and abroad.
-------
©
-------
The Subcommittee's first finding, reached a! its initia tneetmg, was "lot iPA's many ana
diverse technology facilitation programs would benefit from a reorganized presentation to its
numerous and diverse audiences. The recent creation (December 2003) of a single Web
address through which EPA technology programs can be accessed, ORD's ETOP, is a major step
forward in centralizing access to the Agency's technology information, however, a clearer
presentation or "map" of activities is needed. For example, programs that are designed to assist
technology development in all media areas are largely indistinguishable from those that focus
solely on a single area such as hazardous waste remediation or air pollution monitoring
Programs exclusively focused on technology research may be confused with those that aim only
at information diffusion. For most programs, it is unclear where their activities fit in the continuum
of technology development efforts conducted by the Agency and where they place their pri-
mary emphasis. The definition and scope of EPA technology programs is unknown to many out-
siders wishing to find help or information.
The Subcommittee has worked with EPA staff for the past year to design and execute such
a map. The project has involved the following three major steps:
1. The first step was to create a clearly defined, but relatively simple, continuum of tech-
nology development activities showing where, on the lengthy process from an innova-
tive idea to a commercially available technology, each EPA program places its
emphasis. A key aspect of this task was to clearly articulate how EPA defines the multi-
ple steps in the process of technology development. These steps are:
• Research/Proof of Concept
• Development (pilot-stage activities)
• Demonstration (full-scale challenge testing/debugging)
• Verification (common protocol testing of commercial-ready products)
• Commercialization (private-sector product manufacturing and marketing)
• Diffusion/Utilization (information dissemination to key audiences).
2. The second step was to determine the major programmatic information components
needed by the interested public about each EPA program. What are the factors that
will help people outside EPA (and perhaps inside) find the technology programs of
direct relevance to their needs? These information components are:
• Brief program description
• Areas of primary and secondary focus on the Continuum
• Media focus (e.g., air, drinking water, all media)
• Type of support provided (e.g., research grants, testing cost-share)
• Approximate range of FY2005 funding
• Responsible office
T
-------
o
• Web site address
• Program description.
3, The third step was to pull together the information on each factor for the 24 technology
programs identified to date (additional programs may be identified in the future), and
place it in the report. This work is now completed. Figure I2 (on pages 14-15) presents
an overview of the activity.
The full report entitled EPA Technology Development Continuum, with definitions and program-
matic information, is found in Appendix D. It contains common information on all EPA technolo-
gy programs identified to date, arranged in order of the technology stage to which they relate,
and identifies where in EPA these programs occur and how to access them. This Continuum
starts with programs focused at the earliest stages of technology idea development; moves
through programs focused on bench, pilot, and demonstration stages; and on to programs that
conduct commercial technology performance verification and provide information diffusion on
fully commercial-ready technologies. The Subcommittee believes that EPA and its many and
varied outside constituencies wilt benefit from this reorganized presentation of its technology
activities. To our knowledge, this document is the most fully comprehensive collection and char-
acterization of EPA technology programs produced by the Agency to date.
• Recommendations of the Subcommittee
The Subcommittee offers the following recommendations
pertaining to the Continuum:
• Broadly publish and distribute the Continuum.
The Subcommittee suggests that the Agency
publish the EPA Technology Development
Continuum both as a document and as an
introduction to its ETOP one-stop-shop Web
site. It also should be included, in abbrevi-
ated form, as an appendix to the many
Agency activity overview documents pub-
lished each year as an aid to understanding
the scope and focus of EPA technology pro-
grams. Environmental technology is a fast
moving field, and the Agency is constantly in
the process of evolving its focus to conform to
new circumstances. The Subcommittee believes
that a concerted effort should be maintained to
keep this document current to avoid confusing and misin-
forming the public with out-of-date information and thus lowering its credibility and effi-
cacy as a data and information source.
• Use the Continuum as an effectiveness and evaluation tool. EPA should evaluate the
effectiveness of its technology facilitation efforts across the continuum, including results
such as the market penetration by well-performing technologies supported with Agency
research funding and/or demonstration and verification evaluations and Agency informa-
tion programs. By assessing the market impact of the individual programs, areas of
2 References to the "Continuum" throughout this report refer to the totality of the document found in Appendix D and
not solely to Figure 1.
-------
Example
strengths and weaknesses are revealed and, most importantly, areas in which the process
breaks down are identified.
Use the Continuum as a prioritization and resource evaluation tool. The Subcommittee
further recommends that EPA encourage the members of its cross-Agency ETC and man-
agers at all decision-making levels to use the Continuum as a tool to facilitate candid dis-
cussion of its priorities, gaps, and redundancies. Coordination and evaluation is neces-
sary for a coherent and effective technology development strategy and difficult to
achieve in an agency as "stove-piped" as EPA. The Subcommittee recognizes that the
Agency has limited resources and must make choices to focus its efforts. The Subcom-
mittee further understands that EPA has chosen to devote an increasing portion of its
technology resources to a limited number of high-priority projects (e.g., innovative auto-
motive design, arsenic control in small drinking water systems). Limited resources and
increased focus on certain high-visibility problems will require that very careful prioritiza-
tion, conducted across all EPA programs rather than simply within each program, be car-
ried out to assure that the most critical efforts in assisting high-performing, private-sector
technologies are supported in future years. This may require dropping some programs to
increase support for others—such as performance verification—in which EPA clearly has a
unique or important facilitation function.
I The presence of arsenic in drinking water, particularly In small systems
with limited resources, has been identified as a major technology challenge. This
problem is being addressed by the Agency In a comprehensive manner. EPA
has funded bench- and pilot-scale research in its own laboratories, given Small
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program contracts to developers, funded
numerous technology demonstrations in small communities, verified commercially
available technology performance through the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program, and facilitated state permitting and implementation
of high-performing systems through the Interstate Technology and Regulatory
Cooperation (ITRC) Program.
Evaluate private-sector interface with Agency programs. In light of the Agency's specific
charge to the Subcommittee, the Subcommittee particularly recommends that EPA use
the Continuum to evaluate the extent to which the private sector—researchers, technolo-
gy developers, technology consultants, purchasers, and users—are involved in, communi-
cated with, and aided by the suite of programs displayed. Although some programs
actively involve vendors, technology consultants, and buyers, many do not, making their
outputs less market focused, observable, and useful to these critical audiences.
| A recent independent survey of 120 California environmental start-up
companies in the clean and renewable energy sector requested the prioritized
value of assistance among 10 government agencies, including federal, state,
and local entitles. The categories of impact included research, development
(i.e., SBIR, Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAsD,
demonstration, verification, co-marketing, regulatory assistance, and funding
assistance. EPA ranked last in all areas except regulatory assistance. If EPA
wishes to further the implementation of innovative technology, it must become
visibly effective in aspects other than regulatory assistance across all media.
Example
-------
Research/Proof of Concept
1. Science To Achieve Results (STAR)
Program
2. Federal Technology Transfer
Act (FTTA) Activities
3. ORDIn-House Technology
Research
I. Small Business Innovation Research
(SBIR) Program
5. Clean Automotive Technology
Program
6. Water Nonpoint Source Grants
Program
7. Small Drinking Water Systems and
Capacity Development
Development
Demonstration
8. Water Security
o
_. National Environmental Technology
Competition (NETC)
10. Arsenic Demonstration
Program
11. Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) Program
12. Technology Testing and
Evaluation Program (TTEP)
13. Technology Innovation
Program (TIP)
Figure 1. EPA's Environmental Technology
Development Continuum
Note: Lighter shades of color indicate a minor or secondary
emphasis for the listed program.
I = All Media Technologies
I = Water Technologies
I = Air Technologies
I = Hazardous Waste Technologies
= Energy Conservation
-------
Verification
Commercialization
Diffusion/Utilization
-------
The mission of the Technology Innovation Program (TIP) is to advocate for more effective,
less costly approaches (i.e., "smarter solutions") by government and industry to assess and
clean up contaminated waste sites, soil, and groundwater. Working with other federal
agencies, states, consulting engineering firms, responsible parties, technology developers,
and the investment community, TIP provides robust technology and market information
and works to remove policy and institutional impediments related io the deployment of
these technologies. The scope of the mission extends to Superfund sites, corrective action
sites under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, underground storage tank
cleanups, state voluntary cleanup programs, and Brownfields. Innovative technologies of
interest are used for field sampling and analysis and management (both treatment and
containment) of contaminated soil and groundwater.
The program, which was started in the 1980s, carries out a broad variety of activities to
achieve its information diffusion mission ranging from one-on-one technical assistance,
partnership activities, and training programs to use of cutting-edge , high-tech communica
tion tools. TIP works through the application of a number of mutua ly supportive and rein-
forcing tools and effects. Diffusion activities are centered on creating numerous learning
opportunities for practicing remediation professionals. The prograrr focuses on primary cus
tomer groups to make them aware that these resources exist and provide multiple opporti
nities for them to interact with and learn from leading practitioners New information is col
lected and documented in reports and databases that are easily accessible. Some of
these diffusion activities include:
TIP's Clean-Up Information (CLU-IN) family of Web sites is a major repository of
remediation technology information, providing easy access to a wide variety of
resources, including documents, databases, case studies, videos, training, techni-
cal support, live Webcasts, newsletters, and news feeds. CLU-IN also supports RS£
(Really Simple Syndication) feed that automatically sends information about new
Web content.
On the first of every month, TIP'S listserv TechDirect provide:, subscribers immediate
access to new technology and policy reports, Webcasts, solicitations, and sym-
posia free of charge. It currently serves more than 24,000 subscribers interested in
remediation.
In 1998, TIP began a series of live online forums to present and discuss technology
advances and policy directions through live interactive We beast seminars. These
seminars reach geographically diverse audiences with curient and practical infor-
mation on technical advances occurring in the remediaticn field, The format is
flexible and often involves several speakers delivering form 3! presentations fol-
lowed by question-and-answer periods. A supporting page of related download-
able documents is provided to participants. More than 240 sessions on 24 differen
topics have been broadcast, many attracting more than ^00 people per session.
In the last 8 years, these live Webcasts have reached 45.0CO+ participants in more
than 1,500 U.S. cities in 54 states and territories. In addition professionals from mor
than 57 countries on 6 continents have participated in the seminars. The events
also are recorded, archived, and made available in a vari 3ty of formats. Most
recently the presentations have been made available in P Ddcast format, which
allows practitioners to subscribe to the Podcast service and be notified when new
content is available for their portable drive (e.g., iPod, MPc player).
-------
••» -*
1*. - «f"! i •"**•
!H«iygi
EPA's goal across all of its many and varied environmental technology programs is to assure
that a steady stream of innovative and cost-effective technologies continues to be implement-
ed within the United States and abroad. This is a critical environmental protection function
required by the numerous laws that the Agency administers and by its overall responsibility
to ensure appropriate real-world protection from the air, water, and land impacts of human
activity. Over the past 30 years, EPA's regulatory activity has been a major force in bringing new
environmental technologies into being. Because almost all environmental technologies—old
and new, effective and non-effective, cost-effective and costly—ultimately are brought into use
through actions of private-sector developers, the government's role in this area is increasingly
one of support, facilitation, and monitoring rather than prescription and control. To achieve this
goal, the Agency carries out three basic functions, most with the participation of the private sec-
tor, to assure the development and deployment of technologies that address the prevention,
detection, and control of environmental pollutants. EPA programs support:
• Basic research and development as; - .-.•- ,:e for new ideas and innovations by academ-
ics, independent inventors, and researchers working both within the Agency and in large
and small companies.
• Demonstration and verification of near ci fully commercia'-readv technologies to assist
consultants and purchasers in making good choices among competing technologies
based on independent and quality assured performance data.
• Technology information diffusion to targeted audiences, such as states, local govern-
ments, associations, and many private-sector organizations, to facilitate the spread of
information on technologies that are available, proven to be effective, and affordable.
Recommendations of the Subcommittee
The Subcommittee believes that all three aspects of EPA's work are critical and are being
carried out with varying degrees of success in diverse programs across the entire Agency.
Although it is not possible or appropriate for the Subcommittee to evaluate and comment in
detail on the entire suite of EPA's technology activities, the Subcommittee makes the following
recommendations based on its review of many Agency programs. Several examples of Agency
programs that exemplify the recommendations advocated by the Subcommittee are included.
Strategic resource focus is needed. Overall, EPA funding of technology programs is insuffi-
cient to support the development of all environmental technologies. EPA should target its
technology support efforts to areas clearly linked to environmental regulations and other
publicly stated environmental goals. In particular, the Agency should build its strategic
-------
plans around the availability of emerging technology with a clear plan of technology
support for those areas it considers to be critical to its success. The Subcommittee
believes that such a strategic plan process will cause EPA to place more emphasis on the
back or commercial end of the Continuum where technologies are emerging into the
market and their performance characteristics and costs are known.
Improved and coordinated metrics need to be developed. EPA has an impressive array
of programs but in the absence of consistent and available metrics, it is difficult to see
whether or not they are effective in actually bringing needed technologies to implemen-
tation. The Subcommittee understands that EPA is working to develop these effectiveness
measurements on a program by program basis, but suggests that a more holistic metrics
system that takes ultimate environmental goals into consideration may be needed. Are
these programs in their totality actually empowering the private sector to bring new tech-
nologies that improve the environment and reduce costs to communities and industries?
EPA should create tools that measure the effectiveness of all of its programs in working
together with the private sector to solve environmental problems. It then should use
that information in setting program and resource priorities and effectively publicize its
successes.
©
Although a research focus is consistent with government's
traditional role in funding basic research, it is important
that other efforts further along in the development
process continue to be supported. Front-loading
of resources on research may be less effective
than actively promoting those technologies
that have been shown to work. With the
exception of programs focused on specific
problems such as arsenic removal from
small drinking water systems and homeland
security, which appear to be well funded,
most technology resources are front-loaded
in programs at the research end of the
Continuum. Many innovations begin in the
private sector with little or no government sup-
port but require demonstration and/or verifica-
tion of performance by independent entities to
achieve commercialization. Many technologies
require expanded, 21st century diffusion activities (e.g.,
list serves, Podcasts) on the part of independent and trusted institutions to reach informa-
tion customers and overcome the inertia of old systems. EPA has filled these needs in a
number of its programs (see the description of Superfund's Technology Innovation
Program on page 16) and the need for them has not diminished.
Verification programs need expansion. The Subcommittee is concerned that important
technology assistance programs in demonstration and verification of private-sector tech-
nologies continue to be reduced in size or eliminated. Numerous past studies of the envi-
ronmental marketplace have identified the lack of trusted information on near and fully
commercial-ready technologies to be a major barrier to the use of innovative technolo-
gies. State and local governments, technology consultants, and technology purchasers
are known to be risk averse when evaluating the deployment of new technology. This
causes them to "stick with the old," less effective/efficient technology rather than employ
-------
f,i-;if»ii!.; i|jj%|i|!;;n
; !,P ^'i| '-i-;1-; :.!'••='.fifel^i!
l>''-'|j' ;ii ? !;i ^^'iir^l||
iiiMtif^l^i
•I !,{ !•;"..; '-:;"l t.'jt flil
;'-;.!•••!. Itt
, ; -i!i ?|
-------
innovations that could save substantial amounts of money while
improving environmental quality. EPA's role in developing
and disseminating independent, quality assured data and
information on private-sector technology performance
is of ongoing importance in facilitating that process.
In particular, states support the verification testing of
technologies through programs like ETV rather than
leaving this testing for each individual state to do
on its own. Individual state or vendor testing is
costly, redundant, and produces data that, in the
absence of common protocols and quality assur-
ance procedures, are not comparable. The fact
that EPA has verified more than 350 innovative
technologies to date and that hundreds more await
verification attests to the value of this activity to com-
mercial developers. The fact that the ETV Web Site
containing performance data on all of these technolo-
gies is visited more than 1,500,000 times each year attests to
the value of the information it contains on new technologies.
Demonstration and verification programs are major commercialization activities that help
assure that effective, rather than ineffective, technologies are deployed (see the descrip-
tion of the ETV Program on page 19).
Program interaction, communication, and hand off need improvement as technologies
move toward commercialization. Although some programs closely interact with each
other (e.g., Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program with TIP, SBIR with
ETV) and appear to understand the commercialization objective, others seem to be oper-
ating in a vacuum. There should be a clear hand-off trail from one program to the next
for the most promising technologies. The Subcommittee fully understands that few tech-
nologies enter EPA programs at the research stage and in a tidy fashion move through
the Continuum to diffusion. The technology development process is necessarily some-
what chaotic with private-sector developers moving into and out of government support-
ed programs in an irregular fashion. Nonetheless, for each program, EPA should know
where to direct technologies to the next step both inside and outside the Agency to
assure that promising innovations move through the Continuum toward commercializa-
tion. Closer interaction and coordination is needed across all appropriate programs and
the goal of moving the high-performing, cost-effective technologies on to commercializa-
tion is of the highest importance at all stages of technology development, The SBIR
Program provides a good example of how such integration and coordination can serve
to move a promising technology along the Continuum (see the description of the SBIR
Program on page 21 and the NITON Lead Paint Analyzer example on page 23).
Critical diffusion and utilization gaps exist. Although there are a number of small pro-
grams in the diffusion and utilization area, there appear to be serious gaps. These gaps,
critical to effective technology diffusion, may deter much of the progress that is made at
earlier stages in bringing forward needed technologies to full implementation, These gaps
include:
1. Lack of regional technology focus, There appears to be only one regional program
specifically focused on technology facilitation and that one is very small. The regions
are the front line of the Agency and a primary source for state and local decision
makers to obtain guidance and help on technology and permitting issues, particularly
-------
-------
concerning the performance of new technologies. State and local permitters have
been identified as among those most in need of technology information and most
likely to rely on command and control mechanisms. Developers also are likely to go
to the regions for help and guidance in penetrating EPA's technology assistance pro-
grams. The Subcommittee recommends that the Agency establish a policy that
each regional office will designate a specific technology information coordinator.
This individual should be cognizant of technology developments in all media and
technology programs across the Agency. A regional technology information coordi-
nator would serve to connect regional problems to the funding and resources of EPA
headquarters. The effectiveness of this approach has been demonstrated in Region
1 (see the description of Region 1 's Center for Environment! Industry and
Technology on page 24). Coordination should be supplied by headquarters, per-
haps under the auspices of the ETC. The Subcommittee plans to address the man-
agement and coordination issues for EPA's technology programs in a future report.
2. Lack of "demand-pull" activities. The Subcommittee recommends that the Agency
place more emphasis and increase public awareness of its programs to create a
demand for new environmental technologies. A review of the programs arrayed on
the Continuum, reveals an apparent gap in Agency programs that directly address
the creation of markets or market mechanisms for new technologies. One example
of such a program is ENERGY STAR, which encourages energy conservation by work-
ing with corporations to develop conservation plans. Such "demand-pull" activities
can include government policies such as tax credits and "first purchaser" activities
that encourage innovation. The Subcommittee will seek further information on EPA's
past experiences, both positive and negative, with these types of policies at its
upcoming meetings.
Sustainability focus. The Subcommittee recommends that EPA devote increased atten-
tion to the important area of sustainability. Expanding programs in energy independ-
ence, global climate change, and water infrastructure over the next decade offer oppor-
tunities for broadening the Agency's experience with sustainability concepts. Although
EPA identifies sustainability as a desirable objective of environmental practices, its tech-
nology programs do not appear to consistently require measures of sustainability in the
review or assessment of new technologies Efforts to identify and employ sustainability cri-
teria as a component of technology evaluation may be helpful. In addition, the Agency
should consider the development of programs that introduce an intentional search for
technology and innovation that improve sustainability in problem areas. EPA should
devote more attention and resources to those Agency programs that incorporate and
encourage sustainability as one of the goals or criteria for technology development or
implementation assistance. As this subject is specifically called out for comment in the
charge and the Subcommittee considers that there is an opportunity for the Agency to
accomplish important strategic objectives in this area, the Subcommittee will look at the
issue of sustainability in more detail over the coming months and make specific recom-
mendations in a future report.
-------
i support from EPA's SBIR, ETV, and ETC Programs, NITON LLC (now Thermo Electron
poration NITON Analyzers Business Unit) developed, improved, and commercialized X-
fluorescence (XRF) analyzers to detect leab in paint, soil, and dust.
d has been associated with a number of environmental and health risks. The impor-
ce of this technology is described in ETV's ^006 Case Studies report Demonstrating
jram Outcomes, which estimates that porthble technologies for measuring lead dust
ild be deployed at approximately 16.5 million housing units out of an estimated poten-
market of 66 million that were built before J1978 to: (1) screen for lead hazards and
;ss potential risks; (2) investigate instances pf elevated blood lead levels in children;
dentify lead hazards after renovation and jremodeling; (4) assist prospective purchasers
ientifying lead hazards; and (5) develop ajfocused and cost-effective sampling and
ilysis strategy when combined with confirrrjatory fixed-site laboratory analysis. Ultimately,
information provided by these technologies can assist in the reduction of lead expo-
>, with associated human health and economic benefits, particularly for children. Of the
) million pre-1978 residences where the technologies could be used, an estimated 2,6
on might house young children.
Funding from EPA's SBIR Program assisted NITON in developing and com-
-cializing the first ever one-piece, hand-held analyzer, the NITON XL-309 Lead Paint
]lyzer in 1994, Since then NITON has made various improvements to its technology and
-eloped a number of new lead analyzer prbducts. In 2004, NITON introduced the
•,eries analyzer, the XLp 300 provides fast,
:urate lead analysis for inspections and risk! assessment and screening, it is easy to use,
" " rs advanced reporting and data integration tools. The new hand-held device
matically enhances inspector productivity-^providing dependable results in seconds —
>n at or near action levels. The XLp 300 features an integrated touch-screen display and
-anced, intuitive user interface, along withja built-in barcode scanner, virtual keypad,
2 optional BlueTooth" wireless PC communication. The XLp 300 uses a HVCd source to
asure the concentration of lead in paint, ek/en when covered by 50 or more layers of
Head paint of unknown thickness and conhposition. Positive/negative classifications are
)
-------
-------
As one of EPA's newest efforts to make the adoption of new technology faster and m - c
effective, the Subcommittee has examined the recently created ETC and the operation o* ITS
Action Teams (the ETC was created by EPA in 2004). The ETC is a cross-Agency council chaired
by three senior managers from ORD, a program office (currently the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response), and a region (currently Region 1). Membership consists of Agency man-
agers and staff from each media program office, ORD, the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, and all 10 regions. The ETC's three primary functions are to:
1. Identify the priority environmental problems where technology is a critical factor in pro-
viding a cost-effective solution.
2. Screen the problems using stakeholder input to determine priority for the Council's
attention.
3. Set up temporary Action Teams to address problems. Each team will evaluate the sta-
tus of possible technology solutions and take actions to address the problem,
The ETC conducted the first prioritization process last year. The 11 Action Teams now func-
tioning across the Agency are addressing a diverse array of technological challenges as shown
in Table 1.
Table 1. Environmental Technology Council Action Teams
Arsenic MCL Compliance for Small Drinking Water Systems
Reducing Pollutants from Energy Production Through Coal Gasification
Reducing Pollution from Concentrated Animal Feedlot Operations (CAFOs)
Continuous Monitoring of Fine Particulates
Solving the Lead Paint Problem
Reducing Pesticide Spray Drift
Recovering the Value of Waste for Environmental and Energy Sustainability
Remote Sensing of Pollutants
Rapid Detection of Microbial Contaminants in Drinking Water
Promoting Sustainable Use of Contaminated Sediments
Reducing Urban Runoff
-------
The Subcommittee agrees with the overall objectives of the initiative and has found the fol-
lowing areas of notable strength:
• The elevation of these specific problem areas promotes dialogue and shared ideas to
address the identified issues within existing resources.
• Identification of particular problem areas through this kind of a cross-Agency prioritization
process sends a strong message to the research and development community on the
importance of the selected areas.
• The ETC will provide a new opportunity for private-sector technologies to be brought to
the attention of managers across EPA, and for collaboration with other federal agencies.
• The ETC can publicly identify technologies and expertise that are useful for stakeholders.
• Most importantly, an expedited and cross-Agency action approach should allow EPA to
solve real environmental problems more quickly than they would otherwise be addressed.
Recommendations of the Subcommittee
At this early stage of its implementation, however, there are a number of adjustments and
changes that the Agency should consider. The Subcommittee offers the following findings and
recommendations concerning the ETC:
• EPA should develop a formal and ongoing public process, including the opportunity for
input from stakeholders, to identify the country's most press-
ing environmental problems needing technological
solutions, assuring that the selection is truly focused
on environmental problems and not simply on
technology development. EPA's periodic public
selection of the environmental problems most
in need of technological innovation for more
rapid and/or cost-effective solutions is a criti-
cal function and should be firmly established
as a regularly scheduled and highly visible
process. Identification of these technology
gaps alone will have an impact on the
direction of technology development in the
private sector and focus developers on future
opportunities rather than those of the past. This
activity must be clearly focused on problems
seeking solutions rather than on technologies seek-
ing commercialization. Several of the first group of 11
Action Teams appear to be in the latter category (e.g.,
"coal gasification" and "remote sensing of pollutants") and should either be refocused on
specific problems or reevaluated for inclusion in the program. Consultation with outside
stakeholders would enrich the selection process, add market credibility, and increase
public understanding of the problems identified.
-------
• EPA should make the Action Team initiative a core
program with high-level Agency support, while
streamlining the management structure for both
the ETC and the Action Teams. The cross-media
and cross-regional ETC Action Team initiative
should be a core function of EPA and a regu-
lar part of Agency operations rather than a
special activity. Matrix-managed efforts of
this type are inherently difficult to sustain
and thus, some management structure
adjustments may be required. EPA needs to
streamline the oversight for the entire pro-
gram. The ETC formally reports to the EPA
Science Policy Council (SPC) and consults
with the EPA Innovation Action Council (IAC),
which have overlapping members, all at the
Deputy Assistant Administrator and Deputy
Regional Administrator levels. The IAC also monitors
the performance of the Action Teams. EPA should evalu-
ate possibilities for simplifying, streamlining, and formalizing the management of the ETC
and its Action Teams (i.e., assess the relative supervision roles of the IAC and SPC). Follow-
through by all managerial participants is important and sometimes difficult to maintain in
a program with few resources. In addition, a high-level (e.g.. Deputy Assistant Admini-
strator or Deputy Regional Administrator) EPA champion should be identified when an
Action Team is established to help provide visibility, motivation, resources, and connec-
tions for the Team.
• The ETC should develop and institute Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Action
Teams and assure that they immediately begin to include appropriate outside stakehold-
ers in their deliberations and activities. The most successful Team activities should be
highlighted. Improvement of the operational framework for Action Teams is necessary to
make them effective in achieving their goals. It does not appear that objectives, deliver-
ables, or metrics of success have been established for each problem. These are impor-
tant for determining what products will result at the end of a team's life and when the
problem has been solved or the effort has failed. There is no defined lifespan for individ-
ual Action Teams, and no defined sunset criteria. The Action Team formation, operation,
communication, and termination processes need to be better defined. For these and
other reasons, an SOP for the ETC Action Teams needs to be developed. Among other
things, the SOP needs to require the establishment of objectives and performance met-
rics, regular meeting schedules, comprehensive meeting minutes, and an ongoing list of
action items. At least a minimal amount of administrative support should be provided to
each Action Team for this purpose.
The SOP also should include a methodology for the selection and participation of outside
stakeholders and organizations. Early stakeholder input would result in better problem definition,
shared action items, better outreach, and a greater likelihood of successful implementation
at the conclusion of the effort. No process appears to exist for seeking the broadest range
of technologies to evaluate for solutions to the identified problems. Connections with other
organizations and practitioners may be particularly helpful in identifying dual-use and cross-over
o
-------
technologies. Communication strategies have not been developed to provide technology
diffusion to stakeholders. To address these and other problems, Action Team membership should
be broadened to include additional stakeholders, such as university researchers, state and local
officials, industry groups, and those who will ultimately benefit from the solved problem—
developers and users.
Finally, the ETC should highlight activities of the most active Action Teams and broadcast
successes both within the Agency, to advance the overall program, and outside EPA, to assure
that implementation occurs. EPA headquarters and regional offices should provide recognition
to the Action Teams and their members through newsletters, stories, awards, and other means.
As in most endeavors, communication is essential.
-------
I -.
-JS8* 1*4
.*
«MSr , - " * T
The NACEPT Subcommittee on Environmental Technology began its work in November 2004,
and has been chartered for 2 years The Subcommittee expects to meet several times during
2006 and plans to take up and report on the following additional topics:
• National and international technology partnerships
• EPA technology management and strategy
• Encouraging demand (demand-pull programs and opportunities)
• Communications, education, and outreach (internal and external)
The extent to which current EPA technology programs on the Continuum address large-
scale issues such as sustainability, global climate change, and catastrophic events.
e
-------
-------
VII. Appendices
EPA Administrator Leavitt has
level of more efficient, Active, and
fied four cornerstones
nisms, collaboration and
together to bring about environmental
ini rale that innovative technc
APPENDIX A: Charge to the Subcommittee on Environmental
Technology
National Advisory Council for Environmenta, Polioy and Technology
Draft Framewo* for Developing Recommendations on U.S. EPA's Environmenta,
Technology Programs
Background
^
eo technology, using market mecha-
results. These elements must work
articular, EPA needs to focus its efforts on
T ^ environmenta, protectton
,opment. which will allow env.ronmen-
mac
Agency to find aoaltvt, way* _» °?g*^ Kf^f<, ,K flange can on» get
o
progress toward sustainable systems.
Technology is undoubtedly a central
environmental protection and economic
parliaent, titled -St.mulat.ng
Technologies Ac.on Plan to, m.
SSjean Union," establishes a useful perspective
rne patent of tec»no,ogyto
fecffon and economic
and less ^source-in .
resources more efficiently (e.g ..water suppy. en yy y
til development ond rapid l^^SSSTtlolSK^encv must support the rote
'
-------
is the task and proper role of the private sector, the EPA plays an important role in facilitating the
creation of sustainable technology in at least the following ways. The Agency:
1. Helps to identify technology gaps in environmental protection through an ongoing
process of problem identification and setting of environmental goals.
2. Provides limited and targeted financial support for needed new technologies through
research grants to universities, funding for small business R&D, and research in EPA's lab-
oratory research facilities.
3. Provides performance verification of new private sector technologies to reduce uncer-
tainty for technology purchasers and protect the public.
4. Provides information to the public (states, communities, industrial and commercial pur-
chasers) on the availability, benefits, and effectiveness of innovative and sustainable
technologies.
5. Encourages design and use of sustainable technologies in various public and private
sectors through voluntary partnerships.
6. Impacts the use of innovative technologies through its policies, regulations, and compli-
ance activities
Charge to the Subcommittee
The Subcommittee is asked to assist the Agency in evaluating its current and potential role
in technology facilitation, bearing in mind two overarching questions as it formulates its recom-
mendations:
• How can EPA better optimize its existing environmental technology programs to make
them as effective as possible in promoting the research, development, commercializa-
tion, and implementation of sustainable private sector technologies; and
• What other environmental technology programs and activities should EPA initiate to
take advantage of opportunities it may be missing to further the effectiveness of its
technology facilitation objectives? (Although EPA is not likely to receive significant
additional funding for any new technology activities, the Subcommittee should not feel
constrained in its thinking.)
There are several specific areas where NACEPT can advise the Agency on its environmental
technology programs. The Subcommittee is asked to consider at least the following types of
actions and programs.
1. Evaluating EPA's Existing Suite of Technology Support Programs. In a Report to Congress
in October 2003, EPA described the current suite of technology support programs carried out by
the Agency's Program Offices, Regional Offices, and the Office of Research and Development.
Using information on the entire range of technology programs conducted by the Agency, all of
which can be accessed through the Environmental Technology Opportunities Portal
(www.epa.gov/etop). the Subcommittee is asked to evaluate the mission and overall approach
of the programs individually and collectively, determine whether there are any redundancies or
gaps, and consider whether they are appropriately designed to address technology develop-
ment barriers. The Subcommittee's views on the coverage and focus placed on various environ-
mental problem areas and the effectiveness of these efforts in supporting private sector devel-
opment and commercialization of the most critically needed new and sustainable technologies
also are sought.
2. Encouraging Demand for Innovative Technology EPA's regulatory requirements for the
attainment of certain levels of pollutant reduction, as well as ongoing or periodic monitoring of
pollutant releases and levels, inherently create a demand for environmental technologies.
Other more direct approaches to demand-pull may be needed, however. Specific categories
of innovative technologies may warrant assistance from the EPA or other government programs
because of their efficiency or sustainability factors or their inherent benefit in addressing certain
difficult or intractable environmental problems. Some of the approaches listed below have been
used to further such goals by providing incentives to appropriate places in the technology
development system. Which of these appear to be particularly worthy of expansion?
• Direct financial incentives. Up-front capital costs often deter businesses from installing
greener technologies that may be more environmentally beneficial and in some cases
more cost effective, and thus more sustainable, in the long term. In the past, govern-
ment funding for the construction of wastewater treatment projects included incentives
for purchasing innovative technologies over standard technology. Are new investment
incentives needed for either developers or users of new technologies?
• Creative reguiatory and policy approaches. The way regulations and policies are
designed can provide either incentives or disincentives for technology innovation. For
example, emission trading approaches such as those employed through the Acid Rain
Program and those proposed in the Clear Skies Initiative are generally considered to
provide incentives for innovation. Use of voluntary approaches in lieu of regulations also
may encourage technology innovation. For example, the Toxic Releases Inventory
encourages firms to find innovative ways to reduce their emissions. Voluntary use of
Environmental Management Systems also might encourage firms to find innovative
ways of improving their environmental performance. What types of approaches should
the Agency consider to encourage technology innovation''
-------
• Preferential governmental purchasing that makes the government a first user of innova-
tive technologies is another demand-pull approach that can help move promising
technologies into full commercial use. The Federal program for the "Greening of
Government" encourages the purchase of environmentally preferable products often
produced by innovative technologies. Innovative field monitoring technologies and
continuous monitoring devices have been purchased by Federal and State environ-
mental agencies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their environmental
measurement functions. As "first users" of innovative technologies, government agen-
cies are in an excellent position to demonstrate their benefits. How can government
purchasing best be used for innovative technologies? Should EPA encourage states to
use grant funds for preferential funding of innovative new technologies such as air
monitoring networks and other beneficial uses?
• Permitting barriers. Past EPA and White House reports have highlighted permitting as a
barrier to new technology introduction. Beyond these generic recommendations, what
specifically about the permitting process is the issue that EPA and its partners can deal
with? For example, is technology introduction inhibited by problem owner reluctance
due to the cost of failed technologies, lack of confidence in approaching the state
regulator, lack of authentic, verified information for the user and the regulator on tech-
nology performance in the specific new application, lack of resources by the regulator
to divert to evaluating new technology applications, problem owner concern over
public acceptance, or other issues?
3. Reaching Critical Audiences With Innovative Technology information The commer-
cialization of innovative technologies is frequently stymied because of the lack of current and
accurate information on their availability, applicability, performance, location, and cost. EPA,
through its long years of supporting technology development and evaluation programs, has one
of the largest repositories of environmental technology information in the world. Making this
store of information available to the numerous public and private entities that need it is a daunt-
ing task. In its "Report to Congress on a One-Stop-Shop for Coordination of Programs Which
Foster Development of Environmental Technologies," EPA committed to creating an Environ-
mental Technology Opportunities Portal (ETOP) that would lead users to information on all of
EPA's technology programs through an integrated "one-stop-shop." This portal became
operational on December 31, 2003.
• Information coverage. ETOP consists of 16 independent Web sites created and main-
tained across the Agency. Some of these are particularly suited to the scientific and
engineering community, some to the technology purchasing community and consum-
ing public, some to government entities, some to narrow segments of environmental
interest, and some to broad interests. Is the organization of both the ETOP and its com-
ponent parts adequate in its clarity of purpose, its coverage, and its depth for the vari-
ous audiences that need access to its information? If not, what other information
should be available through this Web portal and how should it be organized? Do these
gaps require the creation of new programs or simply restructuring the site to make it
more user-friendly?
• Accessibility. Web sites created by the Agency have frequently taken years to gain
readership by targeted audiences. How can EPA rapidly inform the numerous and
diverse public and private constituency groups mentioned above that the information
they require is available through ETOP and easily guide these users to the information
they need? What other tools (workshops, conferences, association partnerships,
regional and state technology contacts) should the Agency employ to assure that full,
but targeted, information reaches appropriate audiences in a timely manner? Is EPA's
public recognition of successful new technologies appropriate and effective?
4. Collaborative Approaches With States, Tribes, and Local Governments As the govern-
mental entities most directly proximate to the purchasers of environmental technology, the
states, tribes, and local governments frequently play a pivotal role in encouraging the develop-
ment and implementation of innovative technologies. States also can place barriers to innova-
tion if they do not have the information required to evaluate the applicability and performance
of new technology. Several programs have proved helpful in the past and could be expanded.
• Public assistance programs. U.S. EPA Region I has developed an effective program
called the Center for Environmental Industry and Technology that provides assistance
to both technology developers and technology users seeking solutions to problems. If
this program were to be replicated in other regions, what kinds of assistance should be
available through these Centers? Would a Technology Assistance Center at
Headquarters be valuable as a central EPA point of contact and a formal link to other
Federal, State, and local organizations with environmental technology programs?
What should its functions be?
• Cross-state cooperation. At the State level, differing regulatory requirements and per-
mitting practices may impede the adoption of innovative technologies. The Interstate
Technology Research Council (ITRC) is working with the States to establish common
data requirements for the permitting of remediation technologies. How should this, and
similar programs, such as the Technology Acceptance and Reciprocity Partnership, be
expanded to help remove regulatory impediments to the adoption of sustainable envi-
ronmental technologies?
-------
o
• Enforcement interface. EPA and some State Agencies have had programs offering
incentives to companies not in compliance that encourage them to implement pollu-
tion prevention solutions, which often involves the adoption of innovative technologies.
How can EPA work more effectively with State Agencies to make information on cost-
effective innovative technologies available to firms that are not in compliance, particu-
larly small and medium-sized firms? In addition to the enforcement offices in EPA and
State Agencies, what other offices should be involved? How can information on
enforcement actions and potential customers be effectively conveyed to technology
developers and suppliers?
5, Collaborative Approaches With Others. EPA can be most effective in encouraging
technology innovation if it works collaboratively with numerous and diverse stakeholders. This
includes states (see pages 33-34), other Federal agencies, private sector developers and pur-
chasers, and various interest groups. Many of the programs already discussed require engage-
ment with these organizations. Examples of targeted collaborations might include:
• Working with other federal agencies. Opportunities for collaborative undertakings with
other federal agencies working in the environmental field include preferred purchasing
(see pages 32-33), dual use technologies, joint R&D, providing incentives, and informa-
tion sharing. An example of a successful partnership for sharing information is the 10-
year-old Federal Remediation Roundtable. Another example of cooperation are the
five Federal agencies that have provided test beds for private sector technologies
being verified by the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program, significantly
reducing the testing costs to vendors. How can EPA be more effective in getting other
Federal agencies to serve as demonstrators and first-time purchasers of innovative
technologies?
• Dual use technologies. Because the market for environmental technologies is generally
low growth, the greatest opportunities for the commercialization and adoption of inno-
vative technologies may come through taking advantage of dual use technologies
that are being developed for other markets. How can EPA engage companies and
agencies in defense, energy, health science, food science, and other sectors industries
that are developing technologies that also might have environmental applications?
• Working with the private sector. Many of EPA's programs involve collaboration with the
private sector in the development of technologies, such as the CRADA program. The
ETV program operates within a broad stakeholder structure that includes state and
local permitters, technology testing organizations, and technology vendors and pur-
chasers. Through these programs, EPA provides factual information to states, industry,
and the public but does not advocate for a particular company's product or technolo-
gy. How can EPA best recognize and publicize outstanding new commercially avail-
able technologies without negating its non-advocacy policy?
-------
APPENDIX B: Members of the National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Subcommittee on
Environmental Technology
Chair:
Philip Helgerson
Senior Program Manager
CSC Advanced Marine Center
Liaison to the NACEPT Council:
Dan Watts
Executive Director
York Center for Environmental Engineering
and Science
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Members:
Linda Benevides
Director of Green Business Development
Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection
John Crittenden
Richard Sne/l Presidential Professor of
Civil and Environmental Engineering
Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering
Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering
Arizona State University
David Dzombak
Professor of Civil and Environmental
Engineering
Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering
Carnegie Mellon University
Kenneth Geiser
Co-Director
Lowell Center for Sustainable Production
Work Environment Department
University of Massachusetts-Lowell
John Hprnback
Executive Director
Metro 4/Southeastern States Air Resource
Managers, Inc. (SESARM)
Kristine Krause
Vice President Environmental Group
Wisconsin Energy Corporation
JoAnn Slama Lighty
Professor of Chemical Engineering
Department of Chemical Engineering
University of Utah
John Lindstedt
President
Artistic Plating Company
Raymond Lizotte
Product Environmental Compliance
Engineer
Environmental Programs Office
American Power Conversion Corporation
Oliver Murphy
President
Lynntech, Inc,
Robin Newmark
Water and Environment Program Leader
Energy and Environment Directorate
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Patrick O'Hara
President
Cummings/Riter Consultants
Christine Owen
Water Quality Assurance Officer
Tampa Bay Water
Katherine Reed
Staff Vice President
3M Environmental, Health and Safety
Operations
Norman Richards
Administrator
First People's Environment, LLC
Karen Riggs
Product Line Manager
Environmental Assessment and Exposure
Battelle
James Bobbins
Executive Director
Environmental Business Cluster
Howard Roitman
Director of Environmental Programs
Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment
Kent Udell
Professor and Vice-Chair
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Utah
EPA Liaisons:
Stephen Lingle
Director
Environmental Engineering Research Division
National Center for Environmental Research
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Maggie Theroux
Director
Center for Environmental Industry and
Technology
New England, Region 1
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Walter Kovalick
Director
Technology Innovation and Field Services
Division
Office of Superfund Remediation
Technology Innovation
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Designated Federal Officer:
Mark Joyce
Associate Director
Office of Cooperative Environmental
Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contractor Support:
Beverly Campbell
Penelope Hansen
Carolyn Swanson
The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.
-------
Appendix C: EPA Program and Other Issue Presentations to the NACEPT
Subcommittee on Environmental Technology (November 2004 -
September 2005)
Presenters/Panelists
Presentation Topics
EPA Presenters
Jay Benforado, Office of Policy, Economics
and Innovation
Steve Lingle, ORD; Walt Kovalick, OSWER,
and Maggie Theroux, Region 1
Myles Morse, ORD
April Richards, ORD
Laurel Schultz, ORD
Maggie Theroux, Region 1
Teresa Harten, ORD
Clive Davies, OPPTS
Walt Kovalick, OSWER
Larry Weinstock, OAR
Mary Smith, OW
Jim Edward, OECA; Susan O'Keefe, OECA
Technology Programs
Sally Gutierrez, ORD
Sol Salinas, OIA; Joseph Ferrante, OIA
Kristin Pierre, OPPTS
Innovation at EPA
The Environmental Technology Council (ETC)
Environmental Technology Opportunities Portal (ETOP)
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
Cooperative Research end Development Agreement
(CRADA) Program
Center for Environmental Industry & Technology (CEIT)
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
Design for the Environment (DfE)
Technology Support for Cleanup Programs
EPA Air and Radiation Technology Programs
EPA Water Technology Programs
EPA Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Technology Programs at EPA Laboratories
EPA's International Programs
Green Suppliers Network Case Study
Other Presenters/Panelists
Lars Olaf Hollner, European Union
David Rejeski, Woodrow Wilson Center
Andrew Patterson, Environmental
Business Journal
Clayton Teague, National Nanotechnology
Coordination Office, Office of Science
and Technology Policy
Kei Koizumi, American Association for the
Advancement of Science
Alvin Firmin, COM; Richard Craig,
Weston Solutions
Carlos Montoulieu, U.S. Department of
Commerce
John Ferland, Maine Center for Enterprise
Development
Owen Boyd, SolmeteX; Dan Ostrye,
SeptiTech; Stuart Nemser, Compact
Membrane Systems; and Joseph Pezzullo,
CES
Kristine Krause, Wisconsin Energy
Corporation
Bob Mueller, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
International Views: Trends and Directions on
Environmental Technology
Creating a New Environmental Technology Strategy
Status of Private Sector Environmental Technology
Industry
New Technology Horizons: Nanotechnology
Status of Governmental Support for Environmental
Technology
Perspectives of Representatives from the American
Council of Engineering Companies
International Environmental Technology Markets
Technology Incubation and Development
Perspectives of Technology Vendors
Electric Power Research Institute Mercury Control
Case Study
Interstate Technology and Regulatory
Council/Technology Acceptance and Reciprocity
Partnership Case Studies
-------
APPENDIX D: EPA Technology Development Continuum
Purpose — To provide a guide for those inside and outside the Agency to the EPA programs that
address environmental technology, and the type of support these programs provide along the
path from development to commercialization.
What Is the Technology Continuum? — Successful environmental technologies progress along a
research and development (R&D) continuum from basic research to full-scale commercialization
and utilization. This continuum generally includes six phases that should not be viewed as a nec-
essarily linear process but as interdependent activities whose boundaries often are blurred.
The six phases are: (1) basic research and proof of concept, (2) technology development,
(3) demonstration at either pilot or full scale, (4) verification of performance at the commercial-
ization stage, (5) commercialization by the private sector, and (6) diffusion activities and utiliza-
tion by customers. Definitions of these phases are found below. An important aspect of this
continuum is that at every stage, technologies that fail to perform or are seen as economically
infeasible move to the sidelines and are not further developed for utilization. This weeding out
process is inherent in all fields of research, but particularly true of technology development.
Definitions of activities performed at different points along the continuum of technology
research, development, and diffusion/utilization are quite fluid. In addition, different industry,
media, and government program sectors may place different activities in different places along
the continuum. The definitions provided on the next page, therefore, are used primarily to give
clarity to the reader in the context of the terms used in the mapping of EPA's environmental
technology programs and should not be considered definitive in the context of all EPA technolo-
gy programs. The process described takes between 5 and 15 years, which is fairly typical of
technology development in other fields.
EPA's Environmental Technology Programs — EPA seeks to encourage academic, public, and pri-
vate sector developers to invest time and money in the creation of new, cost-effective environ-
mental technologies by providing them with a variety of tools and opportunities to further their
efforts. EPA also provides guidance through its programs and research solicitations on areas that
the Agency thinks are most in need of innovative technologies. Figure 1 illustrates how EPA
focuses its activities by mapping Agency environmental technology programs along the R&D
continuum. The 24 programs arrayed across one or more phases of the continuum were taken
from the Environmental Technology Opportunities Portal (www.eDa.gov/etop) , which provides a
one-stop-shop for information on EPA's technology assistance programs.
Descriptions of the individual programs follow. They are presented in order of where the pro-
gram's primary emphasis begins on the continuum (e.g., programs that have a primary emphasis
on supporting research/proof of concept appear first in the figure). In addition to a brief
overview of each program, the descriptions note the primary and secondary (if any) emphases
of the programs, the target media areas, the purpose and type of support provided by EPA, the
responsible EPA office, and a Web site for more information. No specific information on
resources has been provided in the program descriptions because resources vary from year to
year. To provide an approximation of the size of the programs in Fiscal Year 2005, they have
been assigned to one of the following three categories:
+ $ = Programs with less than $1 million/year
•f $$ = Programs with $1 million/year to $10 million/year
+ $$$ = Programs with greater than $10 million/year
A graphic depiction of these programs along the continuum is presented in Figure 1 , with pri-
mary functions in dark shading and secondary functions in light shading.
Definitions of Environmental Technology Development Stages1
Research/Proof of Concept
To conduct basic and/or bench-scale research on a technology approach or idea within cate-
gories that show the potential for solving various types of intractable, challenging, or expensive
environmental problems. The result of this stage of development is a technology that shows
enough promise both technically and in market potential to allow it to garner ongoing scale-up
support.
Development
To move from bench to pilot stage research on a given technology. This stage of the scale up
may require a number of pilot-scale activities and various false starts that need correction. The
result of this stage of development is a one-of-a-kind technology that shows enough promise
both technically and economically to allow it to garner support for scale up and full-scale
demonstration.
Demonstration
To construct and conduct tests on first time or early stage technology at full scale under varying
conditions to show its range of performance, determine its applicability and weaknesses, opti-
mize its operational parameters, and determine its costs. The demonstration stage can be char-
acterized by substantial redesign and debugging until final "robustness" and optimization can
be established. Final results may be used to market financial backers and even customers.
1 These definitions should not be considered definitive in the context of all EPA technology programs
-------
Verification
To test and publicly report the performance of a commercial-ready technology under specific,
predetermined protocols designed by stakeholders and quality assurance procedures stipulated
by EPA. Technologies within a given class are tested by independent organizations in the same
or similar manner to assist purchasers and permitters in comparing the environmental and opera-
tional performance of competing products and technologies. Results, if positive, are used for
direct customer marketing purposes.
Commercialization (Private Sector)
To prepare for, finance, and implement full-scale manufacturing and marketing activities moving
from one or few-of-a-kind to reliably produced and replicable technology. This often includes
developing business plans, entering into partnerships, securing working capital, arranging for
manufacturing facilities, and developing channels for distribution.
Diffusion
To implement a full-scale marketing plan for products or technology, including interface with
appropriate authorities. This stage is characterized by intensive marketing to all appropriate
stakeholders and can be assisted by government through a broad array of tools such as Web
sites, targeted conferences, list-serves, and information targeting state and local authorities.
Utilization
To encourage the adoption and/or purchase of fully developed and proven new technology by
assisting in the flow of information about the technology within the targeted environmental area,
acting as "first users," and removing regulatory barriers to its implementation.
EPA Offices
OAR - Office of Air and Radiation
OPPTS - Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
ORD - Office of Research and Development
OSWER - Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OW - Office of Water
Descriptions of EPA's Environmental Technology Programs
1. Science To Achieve Results (STAR): The STAR Program is EPA's primary competitive grants
program to fund extramural research in environmental science and engineering for universi-
ties and nonprofit organizations.
Areas on Technology Continuum: Research/Proof of Concept
Development (secondary focus)
Media Focus: Focus areas chosen each year
Type of Support Provided: Grants to universities and nonprofits
Funding: S$2
Responsible Office: ORD
Web Site: www.epa.gov/ncer/grants
The STAR Program supports the research of investigators at universities and nonprofit organi-
zations. Cutting-edge science and proof of concept-type projects are supported in
research areas consistent with EPA's mission and vision. Past research has included a wide
range of technology areas with focus on green chemistry and engineering. Current
emphasis is on nanotechnology. Grants average about $350,000 for 3 years.
2. Federal Technology Transfer Act (FTTA) Activities: The FTTA allows for negotiated agreements
between specific EPA offices or laboratories/centers and external organizations to under-
take joint research projects, exchange materials, or license EPA developed
technologies.
Areas on Technology Continuum: Research/Proof of Concept
Development
Demonstration
Diffusion/Utilization (secondary focus)
Media Focus: All
Type of Support Provided: Use of EPA facilities, equipment, and other in-kind
services by public or private technology developers
Funding: $$
Responsible Office: ORD
Web Sites: www.epa.gov/etop/crada/index.html
www.epa.gov/osp/ftta.htrn
The FTTA provides a mechanism for cooperative research and development partnerships.
Through the FTTA program, federal agencies can conduct joint research with non-federal
partners and protect intellectual property that may be developed, The alliance that is
formed through the FTTA program supports and improves U.S. competitive positions world-
wide, helps remove barriers to collaboration, and encourages cooperative research and
development with the goal of commercialization. Cooperative research and development
agreements (CRADAs) allow non-federal parties to collaborate on projects with the EPA and
! The funding levels in this document reflect Fiscal Year 2005 resourc
-------
share in-kind resources. Non-federal parries can provide direct funds as well, but the
Agency cannot. EPA also can license technologies developed within the Agency to exter-
nal parties and accept royalties. Royalties are split between the EPA laboratory where the
technology was developed and the inventor(s),
3. ORD In-House Technology Research: ORD conducts a vigorous and well-recognized
research program in environmental technology. It includes R&D through technology trans-
fer in monitoring, treatment, prevention, and cleaner technologies.
Area on Technology Continuum: Research/Proof of Concept
Development
Demonstration
Verification
Diffusion/Utilization
Media Focus: All media and cross-media
Type of Support Provided: Bench research to full-scale demonstrations and
technology transfer
Funding: $$$
Responsible Office: ORD
ORD utilizes a multidisciplinary in-house staff of scientists and engineers to conduct an
applied research, development, and technology transfer program for new environmental
technologies. Technologies of interest are determined largely by the critical needs of EPA
program offices for understanding how current or emerging technology performs in a spe-
cific problem area, such as for mercury control and drinking water disinfection. ORD also
responds to the need for new technology development for emerging issues where there is a
gap in work performed by external research organizations and where ORD may provide a
unique multimedia, multidisciplinary approach. A postdoctoral program is used to quickly
engage new expertise if needed to supplement ORD staff. CRADAs may be used to collab-
oratively develop technology approaches with private-sector support for research from
proof-of-concept to pilot-scale demonstration. Examples of this type of research are espe-
cially found in the green chemistry, green engineering, and pollution prevention tools devel-
opment areas of the in-house research program.
4. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR): EPA provides funding for technology develop-
ment from proof of concept (Phase I) through commercial prototype (Phase II) using com-
petitive solicitations for small businesses,
Areas on Technology Continuum: Research/Proof of Concept
Development
Demonstration (secondary focus)
Verification (limited to funding for ETV verification)
Diffusion/Utilization (limited to funding for
commercialization option)
Media Focus: Focus areas chosen each year
Type of Support Provided: Contracts to small businesses
Funding: $$
Responsible Office: ORD
Web Site: www.epa.gov/ncer/sbir
In addition to awarding contracts averaging $295,000 for the core activities of proof of con-
cept and prototype development, the SBIR program encourages further development lead-
ing to commercialization by offering additional funding of $70,000 to firms that have
secured third-party financing for accelerating commercialization of the technology and up
to $50,000 to support verification of technologies accepted into EPA's Environmental
Technology Verification (ETV) Program. Areas of technology focus are chosen each year
and can cover all environmental media.
5. Clean Automotive Technology Program: Under this program, EPA conducts innovative
research in collaboration with the automotive industry to achieve ultra-low pollution emis-
sions, increase fuel efficiency, and reduce greenhouse gases.
Areas on Technology Continuum: Research/Proof of Concept
Development
Media Focus: Air
Type of Support Provided: Researchers and facilities
Funding: $$$
Responsible Office: OAR
Web Site: www.epa.gov/otaq/technology
By developing cost-effective technologies, the program encourages manufacturers to pro-
duce cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles. Also under the program, EPA is working with
industrial partners to evaluate and develop the Agency's Clean Diesel Combustion (CDC)
Technology, which refines several existing technologies into a unique engine design that is
simultaneously clean, efficient, and cost effective. EPA partners with industry to maximize
the viability of targeted technologies for commercial production through CRADAs. The
research is conducted at EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor,
Michigan. The Clean Automotive Technology Program has four main focus areas:
(1) hydraulic hybrid research, (2) engine research, (3) alternative fuels research, and
(4) technical and analytical support.
-------
o
6. Water Nonpoint Source Grants Program: EPA awards grants to state and tribal agencies to
deal with nonpoint sources of water pollution.
Areas on Technology Continuum: Research/Proof of Concept
Development
Demonstration
Media Focus: Water
Type of Support Provided: Grants or cooperative agreements
Funding: $$$
Responsible Office: OW
Web Sites: www.epa.gov/owow/nps/cwact.html
Under the authority of Section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), EPA makes grant funds
available to state and tribal agencies to implement their approved nonpoint source man-
agement programs. These programs can contain components involving technical assis-
tance, technology transfer, and demonstration projects. Each year, EPA awards Section
319(h) funds to states in accordance with a state-by-state allocation formula that the
Agency has developed in consultation with the states.
7. Small Drinking Water Systems and Capacity Development: This program addresses issues
affecting drinking water systems serving populations less than 3,300.
Areas on Technology Continuum: Research/Proof of Concept
Development
Utilization
Media Focus: Drinking water treatment
Type of Support Provided: Research, information/technology transfer3
Funding: $
Responsible Office: OW
Web Site: www.epa.gov/safewater/smallsys.html
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) authorizes EPA to make grants to institutions of higher
learning to establish and operate small public water systems technology assistance centers
(TACs). Together, the eight TACs and state and federal regulatory agencies work with small
water systems (serving less than 10,000 population) to assist them in acquiring and maintain-
ing the technical, managerial, and financial capacity needed ro consistently provide safe
drinking water and meet the public health protection goals of the SDWA. Resources avail-
able include, but are not limited to, onsite technical assistance, training for water systems
operators and managers, technical assistance in conducting sanitary surveys and self-
assessments, water treatment technology research and evaluation, computer training
including database and Web page development and management, systems finances,
and monitoring.
8. Water Security: Significant actions are underway to develop new security technologies to
detect and monitor contaminants and prevent security breaches.
Areas on Technology Continuum: Development
Verification
Utilization
Media Focus: Water security
Type of Support Provided: Verification, information/technology transfer3
Funding: $$
Responsible Office: ORD/OW
Web Site: cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/watersecurity/index.cfm
EPA works with other federal agencies (e.g., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Department of Defense) and water sector
organizations (e.g.. Water Environment Research Foundation) to improve information on
technologies and conduct research for water sector security. ORD and OW developed the
Water Security Research and Technical Support Action Plan, which was peer reviewed by
the National Research Council. This publication presents results of collaborative efforts
between EPA and other government agencies, the water industry, public health organiza-
tions, and the emergency response community to identify critical research and technical
support needs for protecting drinking and wastewater infrastructures. The Water Security
Division in OW is working with ORD to support verification of water security technologies.
3 The activities of some of the information/education programs target earlier stages in the technology development continuum
but because commercialization and/or utilization are the ultimate objective of these programs, they were mapped to the
commercialization and/or utilization stage of the continuum.
-------
9. National Environmental Technology Competition (NETC): The NETC Program was created to
recognize and reward innovative and cost-effective technology solutions and to move
them toward commercialization. It also emphasizes sustainable technologies and practices.
Areas on Technology Continuum: Demonstration
Diffusion/Utilization (secondary focus)
Media Focus: All
Type of Support Provided: Grants to universities
Funding: $$
Responsible Office: ORD
Web Site: www.epa.gov/etop/netc/index.html
NETC's current focus is to provide small grants to teams of university students to compete in
a national competition called "P3" (People, Prosperity, Planet). The teams develop sustain-
able technology designs for the developed and developing world over the academic year
and exhibit them in a spring competition on the National Mall in Washington, DC. Winning
teams receive additional funds to further develop and implement their designs. Sixty-six
teams competed in 2005.
10. Arsenic Treatment Technology Demonstration Program: The purpose of the Arsenic
Treatment Technology Demonstration Program is to evaluate cost-effective technologies to
help small drinking water systems meet the new arsenic standard. One major aspect of the
program was the initiation of the full-scale treatment demonstration program. Recognizing
that the new arsenic rule can be an economic burden to small water systems, the demon-
stration program research was specifically geared toward establishing, testing, and demon-
strating effective arsenic technologies that are low cost. The demonstrations are: (1) evalu-
ating cost-effectiveness relative to existing technologies and gauge simplicity of operation,
(2) evaluating the effectiveness of arsenic treatment technologies under varying water
quality conditions, (3) comparing reliability, (4) documenting operation and maintenance
needs, and (5) characterizing arsenic wastes (residuals) and evaluating management prac-
tices. The goal of the program is to provide information on arsenic treatment technologies
to water systems, engineering firms, regulatory officials, and others impacted by the new
arsenic standard.
Areas on Technology Continuum: Demonstration
Verification
Utilization (secondary focus)
Media Focus: Drinking water treatment
Type of Support Provided: Full-scale demonstration and performance evaluation
Funding: $$
Responsible Office: ORD
Web Site: www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/arsenic
When the new arsenic drinking water standard was announced the Agency committed to
provide an extensive research and technical assistance program to assist small communities
in meeting the revised maximum contaminant limit of 10 ug/L The centerpiece of the pro-
gram is full-scale demonstration of commercial-ready arsenic treatment technologies at 40
selected water systems across the country. The treatment systems are being installed in 20
different states, and performance evaluation studies are conducted for a minimum of 1
year to determine the cost and performance of the systems. The average cost of each
demonstration project that includes the cost of the full-scale treatment system and the per-
formance evaluation study is $500,000.
11. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE): The SITE Demonstration Program offers a
mechanism for conducting joint technology demonstration and evaluation projects at haz-
ardous waste sites involving the private sector, EPA, and other state and federal agencies.
The SITE Program is composed of a Demonstration Program and a Measurement and
Monitoring Technologies Program.
Areas on Technology Continuum: Demonstration
Verification
Media Focus: Hazardous waste treatment and monitoring
technologies
Type of Support Provided: Pilot and full-scale demonstration and performance
reports
Funding: $$
Responsible Office: ORD
Web Site: www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE
The SITE Program supports field tests of innovative hazardous waste treatment technologies
at sites where few remedial alternatives exist, or existing methods are too costly. The SITE
Measurement and Monitoring Technologies Program evaluates technologies for characteri-
zation and monitoring of toxic substances to provide more cost-effective methods for pro-
ducing real-time data. SITE compiles data and reports on variables such as the perform-
ance of the technology, potential operating problems, capital and operating costs, and
the applicability to other sites and waste types. The SITE program is responsible for prelimi-
nary treatability studies, test plan preparation, sampling, sample and data analysis, and the
reporting of the demonstration results. All project participants (i.e., SITE Program, site/prob-
lem owner, and technology vendor) share in the project funding through financial and in-
kind contributions.
o
-------
o
12. Technology Testing and Evaluation Program (TTEP): TTEP's mission is to service the needs of
water utility operators, building and facility managers, emergency responders, conse-
quence managers, and regulators by providing reliable performance information from a
trusted source.
Areas on Technology Continuum: Demonstration
Verification
Diffusion/Utilization (secondary focus)
Media Focus: Homeland security-related technologies, specifically
detection, monitoring, treatment, and decontamina-
tion as applied to high hazard chemical, biological,
and radiological contaminants
Type of Support Provided: Technology testing and evaluation and performance
reports
Funding: $$
Responsible Office: ORD
Web Site: www.epa.gov/nhsrc/tte.htm
The TTEP process includes the use of chemical and biological warfare agents and field test-
ing where appropriate. ETV test plans often are used after being modified to meet home-
land security requirements. All testing is conducted following strict quality assurance (QA)
procedures that are described in the test plan. The data are evaluated, and the perform-
ance results are included in individual summary reports and in side-by-side comparisons.
TTEP provides high-quality test results obtained through rigorous testing. Technologies are
tested using a wide range of performance characteristics, requirements, or specifications.
The results are provided in user-oriented products that are intended for procurement and
application decisions. These products can take the form of brief summary reports and side-
by-side comparisons whenever possible.
13. Technology Innovation Program (TIP): The Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation's TIP provides information about characterization and treatment technologies for
the hazardous waste remediation community. The program offers technology selection
tools and describes programs, organizations, and publications for federal and state person-
nel, consulting engineers, technology developers and vendors remediation contractors,
researchers, community groups, and individual citizens.
Areas on Technology Continuum: Demonstration
Diffusion/Utilization
Media Focus: Technologies addressing contamination of soil
or groundwater
Type of Support Provided: Funding and information/technology transfer3
Funding: $$
Responsible Office: OSWER
Web Site: www.epa.gov/tio
The main goal of TIP is to assemble and disseminate information about treatment technolo-
gies through partnerships and initiatives such as the Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable (www.frtr.gov), the State Coalition of Drycleaners (www.drycleancoalition.org),
and the Remediation Technologies Development Forum (www.rtdf.org)—all promoting com-
mercialization and utilization of remediation technologies. Through Measurement and
Monitoring Technologies for the 21st Century (21M2, www.cluin.org/programs/21m2), EPA
supports field projects for first-time deployment of commercial-ready measurement tech-
niques for contaminants in soil and groundwater. Funding for the 21M2 demonstrations is
about $270,000 per year. TIP also promotes numerous databases and provides a support
area for vendors and developers (www.cluin.org/vendor).
14. Environmental Technology Verification (ETV): The ETV Program develops testing protocols
and verifies the performance of innovative technologies with the potential to more effi-
ciently and effectively protect human health and the environment.
Areas on Technology Continuum: Verification
Diffusion/Utilization (secondary focus)
Media Focus: All environmental technologies except hazardous
waste remediation
Type of Support Provided: Verification testing and reports under consensus
protocols
Funding: $$
Responsible Office: ORD
Web Site: www.epa.gov/etv
The ETV Program provides independent performance verification data for commercial-
ready technologies to help purchasers and permitters evaluate which technologies to
select to solve environmental problems. The program has developed 82 consensus testing
protocols for various technology categories through the efforts of 12 stakeholder groups and
has completed 350 verification tests and reports for innovative air, water, and monitoring
technologies. Both the protocols and test reports are posted on the ETV Web Site, which
receives over 1.5 million hits a year. ETV testing protocols are used around the world to eval-
uate commercial-ready technologies. An average verification costs about $80,000, and
ETV currently funds approximately 50% of the cost of the verification; the vendor and other
partners fund the remaining 50%.
-------
15. Green Engineering Program: Green Engineering is the design, commercialization, and use
of processes and products that are feasible and economical while minimizing the genera-
tion of pollution at the source and risk to human health and the environment.
Areas on Technology Continuum: Research/Proof of Concept (through the STAR and SBIR
Programs)
Utilization
Media Focus: Pollution prevention technology
Type of Support Provided: Information/technology transfer3, education
Funding: $$
Responsible Office: OPPTS
Web Site: www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenengineering
The goal of the Green Engineering Program is to "institutionalize" green thinking in the
design, commercialization, and use of processes and products. One goal of the program is
to introduce a "green" philosophy into engineering programs through the development of
environmental information disseminated to the academic and industrial communities. EPA
has partnered with the American Society of Engineering Education to develop green engi-
neering educational materials to train the next generation of engineers. The materials have
included a textbook, student handouts, instructor's guide, and case studies. The program
also co-sponsors workshops to facilitate the exchange of green engineering information
among practicing engineers and researchers. Both the SBIR Program and the STAR Program
include green engineering in their research programs.
16. Green Chemistry Program: The Green Chemistry Program promotes innovative chemical
technologies that reduce or eliminate the use or generation of hazardous substances in the
design, manufacture, and use of chemical products.
Area on Technology Continuum: Research (through the STAR Program)
Proof of Concept (through the SBIR and
STAR Programs)
Utilization
Media Focus: All
Type of Support Provided: Information/technology transfer3, recognition,
education
Funding: $
Responsible Office: OPPTS
Web Site: www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenchemistry
The Green Chemistry Program supports educational efforts, international activities, and con-
ferences and meetings to encourage the commercialization/utilization of Green Chemistry.
Activities include the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award given annually to rec-
ognize innovative chemical technologies that accomplish pollution prevention and have
broad application. An annual Green Chemistry and Engineering conference presents the
latest research and commercial activities in green chemistry. Both the SBIR Program and
the STAR Program include green chemistry in their research programs.
17. Water Efficiency Market Enhancement Program: By reaching out to organizations and fos-
tering public-private partnerships, the Water Efficiency Market Enhancement Program hopes
to promote the use of more water-efficient products and practices in businesses and homes
across the country.
Areas on Technology Continuum: Diffusion/Utilization
Media Focus: Water
Type of Support Provided: To be determined
Funding: $$
Responsible Office: OW
Web Site: www.epa.gov/owm/water-efficiency/products_
program.htm
Implementation of an effective Water Efficiency Market Enhancement Program could save
billions of dollars in infrastructure costs, save consumers billions of dollars in water and energy
costs, and help protect aquatic ecosystems. OW currently is examining options for program
design that might include information dissemination and a product certification and label-
ing program. Extensive stakeholder input has been solicited, and a preliminary assessment
of 41 products has been completed. A more detailed scoping of 14 products is now under-
way.
18. Design for the Environment (DfE): The DfE partnership projects promote the integration of
cleaner, cheaper, and smarter solutions into everyday business practices.
Areas on Technology Continuum: Diffusion/Utilization
Media Focus: Technical tools and expertise in specific industry sectors
Type of Support Provided: Information/technology transfer3, partnership brokering
Funding: $
Responsible Office: OPPTS
Web Site: www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe
-------
o
The DfE Program collaborates with a broad range of stakeholders that include manufactur-
ers, trade groups, and environmental organizations, to achieve risk reduction by applying
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) technical tools and expertise. DfE partners
with a range of industry sectors (e.g., chemical manufacturers, chemical product formula-
tors, the furniture industry, the electronics industry, and nail salons) to incorporate cleaner,
innovative technologies into their business organizations (utilization). DfE partnerships pro-
tect human health and the environment by focusing on sectors with potential for the maxi-
mum reduction of release of chemicals of concern and sectors that could be most influ-
enced by EPA's involvement.
19. Clean Air Technology Center (CATC): The CATC serves as a resource for all areas of emerg-
ing and existing air pollution prevention and control technologies and provides public
access to data and information on their use, effectiveness, and cost, The CATC is com-
prised of the Reasonably Available Control Technology/Best Available Control Technology/
Lowest Achievable Emission Rate Clearinghouse (RBLC), the U.S. - Mexican Border
Information Center on Air Pollution, and the Small Business Assistance Program.
Areas on Technology Continuum: Diffusion/Utilization
Media Focus: Air pollution and control technologies
Type of Support Provided: Information/technology transfer3
Funding: $
Responsible Office: OAR
Web Site: www.epa.gov/ttn/catc
The CATC provides the public with information on different facets of air pollution and control
technologies, promoting commercialization and utilization of innovative environmental
technologies.
20. Voluntary Diesel Retrofit Program: OAR's voluntary program designed to improve the emis-
sion performance of existing diesel vehicles and equipment. The program is building a mar-
ket for clean diesel concepts by: (1) accelerating the delivery of ultra-low sulfur diesel
(ULSD), (2) forging business partnerships and relationships, (3) evaluating technologies and
supporting their use, and (4) investing EPA resources to accelerate market growth. In
February 2005, EPA announced the award of 18 grants designed to demonstrate effective
emissions reduction strategies for diesel fleets. Each demonstration project reduces the
impacts of pollution on a population that is especially susceptible to the effects of diesel
exhaust, including children, the elderly, and the chronically ill. The 18 grant recipients will
use retrofit diesel vehicles and equipment with advanced technologies.
Areas on Technology Continuum: Diffusion/Utilization
Media Focus: Air
Type of Support Provided: Funding, partnerships brokering, information/
technology transfer3
Funding: $$
Responsible Office: OAR
Web Site: www.epa.gov/otaq/retrofit
EPA has a plan to significantly reduce pollution from new diesel engines. It is a two-step
approach that first set new emission standards for diesel engines that took effect in 2004. In
the second step, EPA will establish even more stringent emission standards for these engines
beginning in 2007 in combination with ULSD fuel Because new vehicles and engines are
purchased gradually over time to replace older units, EPA has developed the Voluntary
Diesel Retrofit Program to help make a difference in the immediate future. The program will
address pollution from diesel construction equipment and heavy-duty vehicles that currently
are on the road.
21. SmartWay Transport Partnership: EPA's SmartWay Transport Partnership is working to acceler-
ate innovative emission reduction technology into the freight industry. Many technologies
have the potential to reduce emissions (e.g., NOx and particulate matter) and improve fuel
efficiency.
Area on Technology Continuum: Utilization
Media Focus: Air
Type of Support Provided: Standards, information/technology transfer3
Funding: $$
Responsible Office: OAR
Web Site: www.epa,gov/otaq/smanLway/index.htm
Unnecessary idling at truck stops wastes about a billion gallons of fuel annually. Advanced
truck stop electrification offers a feasible solution. Electrification refers to a technology that
harnesses an electrical system to provide the truck operator with climate control, access to
telecommunication (e.g., e-mail, Internet), and other needs, eliminating the need to idle
the main engine. It can be a stand-alone system or it can include a combined on-board
and off-board system. In October 2003, EPA and the Department of Transportation held the
first national workshop on developing consistent truck stop electrification codes and electri-
cal standards. Following this workshop, EPA published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA)
in the Federal Register requesting comments and suggestions that would be used to better
develop a national consensus.
-------
22. Center for Environmental Industry and Technology (CEIT): EPA Region 1 's CEIT provides
access to resources, people, and programs for the environmental technology industry in
New England and promotes the acceptance of innovative environmental technologies to
solve the most significant environmental problems in New England.
Areas on Technology Continuum: Diffusion/Utilization
Media Focus: All media
Type of Support Provided: Information/technology transfer3, partnership brokering
Funding: $
Responsible Office: Region 1
Web Site: www.epa.gov/ne/assistance/ceit
New England has a significant number of environmental technology developers. CEIT was
established in 1993 to help these companies get their technologies into the marketplace.
Over time, CEIT has developed a number of information services that cover the entire tech-
nology continuum. CEIT connects technology developers with funding sources as well as
verification and demonstration opportunities through the CEIT Web Site. It also offers an
advisory service to technology developers at any stage, and provides them with opportuni-
ties to market their technologies on CEIT's Web-based Innovative Technology Inventory and
Virtual Trade Shows.
23. Green Building Program Workgroup: Green or sustainable building is the practice of creat-
ing healthier and more resource-efficient models of construction, renovation, operation,
maintenance, and demolition.
Area on Technology Continuum: Utilization
Media Focus: Building technology
Type of Support Provided: Information/technology transfer3
Funding: $
Responsible Office: OPPTS and OAR, current co-chairs
Web Site: www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenbuilding
EPA provides information to homebuilders, businesses, and interested individuals on green
building and promotes green building through programs such as Indoor Environments,
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing, ENERGY STAR, and numerous others.
24. ENERGY STAR: ENERGY STAR is a government-backed program helping businesses and indi-
viduals protect the environment through the implementation of superior energy efficiency
technology and procedures.
Area on Technology Continuum: Utilization
Media Focus: Energy conservation
Type of Support Provided: Information/technology transfer3
Funding: $$$
Responsible Office: OAR
Web Site: www.energystar.gov
The ENERGY STAR program works with companies to assist them in planning and implement-
ing ENERGY STAR-qualified products that use less energy, save money, and help protect the
environment. Businesses use the ENERGY STAR designation as a marketing tool to help pro-
mote the sale/use of their products.
-------
o
Research/Proof of Concept
1. Science To Achieve Results (STAR)
Program
2. Federal Technology Transfer
Act (FTTA) Activities
Development
Demonstration
3. ORD In-House Technology
Research
4. Small Business Innovation Research
(SBIR) Program
5. Clean Automotive Technology
Program
6. Water Nonpoint Source Grants
Program
.. Small Drinking Water Systems and
Capacity Development
8. Water Security
_. National Environmental Technology
Competition (NETC)
10. Arsenic Demonstration
Program
11. Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) Program
12. Technology Testing and
Evaluation Program (TTEP)
13. Technology Innovation
Program (TIP)
Figure 1. EPA's Environmental Technology
Development Continuum
Note: Lighter shades of color indicate a minor or secondary
emphasis for the listed program.
• = All Media Technologies
• = Water Technologies • - Hazardous Waste Technologies
• = Air Technologies = Energy Conservation
-------
Verification
Commercialization
Diffusion/Utilization
------- |