EPA/600/R-08/025
February 2008
Environmental Technology
Verification Program
Policy Compendium
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
Notice
This document was developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
Environmental Technology Verification Program (ETV). ETV is a public/private partnership conducted,
in large part, through competitive cooperative agreements with nonprofit research institutes. This
document has been subjected to the Agency's review and has been approved for publication as an EPA
document. The policies contained in this document do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. EPA.
-------
Forward
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency
strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and
the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program
is providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from
pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research
program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land,
water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of
contaminated sites, sediments, and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and
restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster
technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research
provides solutions to environmental problems by developing and promoting technologies that protect and
improve the environment, advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and
policy decisions, and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation
of environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels. This publication
has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is published and made
available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user community and to link
researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
Acknowledgments
Early drafts of the Environmental Technology Verification Program (ETV) Policy Compendium
were developed in the program's pilot period (October 1995 to September 2000) by the pilot verification
organization (VOs) and the EPA ETV team. The EPA Science Advisory Board, the various stakeholder
groups participating in the program, and interested outside organizations such as the White House
Environmental Technology Task Force and Congress also provided operational input during the
conceptual development of the ETV Program and its pilot period.
The document underwent a major revision in 2002 to address the transition from twelve pilots to
six centers, as well as the addition of a homeland security focus following 9/11. The current revision was
completed in 2007 and addresses the inclusion of Environmental and Sustainable Technology Evaluations
(ESTE) efforts and the transfer of homeland security technology evaluation to the U.S. EPA Office of
Research and Development National Homeland Security Research Center. Again, the policies contained
in the document were developed by the center VOs and the EPA ETV team, with input from other EPA
offices (e.g., Office of General Council) where appropriate.
IV
-------
Abstract
This Policy Compendium summarizes operational decisions made to date by participants in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Environmental Technology Verification Program (ETV) to
encourage consistency among the ETV centers. The policies contained herein evolved from group
decisions made by the verification organizations (VOs), EPA ETV team, and other EPA personnel during
the original concept period (1993 to 1995), the operation of the actual pilot period (1995 to 2000), and
subsequently. As such, the policies are and will continue to be modified as necessary and, although they
generally apply to the entire ETV Program, there may be exceptions to which certain policies may not
apply. The main source for each policy is cited after each policy statement. The primary sources include
ETV team meetings and ETV publications, such as the ETV Program Verification Strategy (EPA 1997)
and ETV Quality Management Plan (EPA 2007)
Policies are valid as of the date of issuance and the document will be updated periodically.
Conformity with these policies is voluntary except where stipulated as part of the VO's agreement with
EPA. The ETV Policy Compendium is divided into two main sections. Section 1 addresses core policies
that generally apply to all of the ETV centers and ESTE projects. Section 2 explains policies that apply to
individual steps in the operational processes of the ETV Program.
-------
Contents
Notice ii
Foreward iii
Acknowledgments iv
Abstract v
Contents vi
Abbreviations and Acronyms ix
1 ETV Core Policies 1
1.1 General Environmental Technology Verification Program Policies 1
1.1.1 Definitions 1
1.1.2 The ETV Program operates through multiple centers and ESTEprojects which cover a broad
range of environmental technology categories 2
7.7.3 Three important ETV documents provide direction and help ensure the program's credibility
and consistency 2
1.1.4 The ETV Program allows wide latitude in procedures to test operational alternatives and seek
optimized, high quality verification testing and reporting. 3
7.7.5 ETV Program participants collect information through various mechanisms to give constant
feedback on potential improvements. 3
7.7.6 The proportion of costs covered by the vendors and others (e.g., collaborators) is expected to
increase over time. 3
7.7.7 Technology performance evaluations focus on performance characteristics. 4
7.7.8 ETV verification is expressly defined. 4
7.7.9 The program seeks to provide high-quality data to purchasers and permitters on the
performance characteristics of technologies. 4
1.1.10 Program operation is guided by ETV's commitment to being a fair, credible, objective,
transparent, and high quality organization 5
7.7.77 Key players in the ETV Program have clearly delineated roles. 6
1.1.12 Records are to be maintained in accordance with specific procedures. 6
1.1.13 Cooperative arrangements and collaborations with other organizations are negotiated directly
with the VO or can occur under the auspices of an Agency-negotiated memoranda of
agreement, memoranda of understanding, or letter of intent. 6
1.1.14 VO's must protect ETV's interests (e.g, values, purpose, policy, and quality requirements)
when they enter into partnerships and agreements with third-party organizations for ETV-
related activities 8
1.2 Technology Coverage and Eligibility 8
7.2.7 ETV is a voluntary program. 8
7.2.2 Participating technologies must be commercial-ready. 9
7.2.3 EPA project personnel must abide by the criminal conflicts of interest laws and the Standards
of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch during verification 9
1.2.4 Program focus is primarily on private sector technologies. 9
7.2.5 EPA developed technologies may be verified under the ETV Program in certain
circumstances. 9
7.2.6 Technologies that are linked to services can be verified under the ETV Program in certain
circumstances. 10
1.2.7 Technologies owned or marketed by non- U. S. developers are eligible for verification 10
2 ETV Process Policies 11
2.1 Solicitation and Selection of the VO 11
2.7.7 Public and private VOs participate in the verification process. 11
vi
-------
2.1.2 VOs, their subcontractors, and cooperators involved in the collection of verification data must
comply with the ETV QMP. 11
2.7.3 Center-specific and ESTEproject-specific QMPs must be reviewed and approved by EPA 11
2.2 Formation and Maintenance of Stakeholder Groups 12
2.2.1 Stakeholder groups have balanced membership and represent customer groups. 12
2.2.2 Regular and publicly announced and open stakeholder meetings are held. 12
2.3 Setting Technology Priorities 13
2.3.7 Stakeholder groups provide input for setting technology priorities. 13
2.3.2 Technology/outcomes profiles should be developed by the VO when the technology category is
prioritized for verification 13
2.4 Development of Generic Verification Protocols 13
2.4.1 Generic verification protocols and/or test/QA plans are developed for each ETV center and
ESTE project. 13
2.4.2 Generic verification protocols and test/QA plans undergo a specific preparation process. 14
2.4.3 The test/QA plan and associated protocol shall be posted on the ETV Web site for each
verified technology. 15
2.4.4 ETV centers and projects shall employ a structured data quality planning process. 15
2.4.5 Generic verification protocols and test/QA plans developed for international use or under the
lead of an outside VO may not follow the ETV process. 15
2.5 Solicitation of Technology Vendors 16
2.5.7 Solicitation is open andis advertised widely 16
2.6 Development of Specific Test/QA Plans 16
2.7 Technology Testing and Evaluation 16
2.7.7 Verification testing data are made publicly available. 16
2.7.2 Vendors must submit requests to designate information as proprietary at the time of
agreement to test. 17
2.7.3 Existing data may be used in verifications under specific conditions. 17
2.7.4 "Partial" verification tests must not be intentionally performed. 17
2.7.5 Vendors must pay for any re-testing of technologies. 18
2.7.6 Vendors may withdraw from the ETV'Program before testing begins. 18
2.7.7 ETV centers and ESTE projects must obtain approval from EPA OIAfor verification testing
in a foreign country. 18
2.7.8 ETV centers and ESTE projects must obtain approval from EPA OIA when purchasing
services from foreign contractors or subsidizing verification activities performed by foreign
VOs. 19
2.7.9 ETV centers and ESTE projects must obtain approval from EPA OIA when EPA and/or the
VOs (including their contractors) travel to foreign countries to represent ETV at a meeting. 19
2.7.70 When verification testing is conducted at a test site outside the U.S., EPA ETV funds should
not be used to cover the additional costs incurred by using this test site. 19
2.8 Data Package Approval/QA Evaluation 20
2.8.7 VOs are responsible for the maintenance of " raw data." 20
2.8.2 Technical systems audits will be performed by the VO and EPA 20
2.8.3 Audits of data quality are primarily conducted by the VO, although EPA may conduct
independent audits. 20
2.8.4 Performance evaluation audits are conducted by EPA and the VO. 20
2.9 Development of Verification Statements and Reports 21
2.9.7 Verification statements follow strict formatting guidelines. 21
2.9.2 ETV verification reports are published to provide data and summaries of an individual
technology's performance. 21
2.9.3 The verification statement requires EPA and VO representative signatures. 22
2.9.4 The VO has primary responsibility for preparing the verification report. 22
2.9.5 EPA has specific review requirements for verification statements and reports. 22
2.9.6 Cooperative agreements and contracts should include specific requirements for publishing
documents, such as verification statements and reports 23
2.9.7 In general, the verification report and statement are valid for an unspecified period of time. 23
Vll
-------
2.9.8 If the ownership or name of a verified technology changes, the verification statement, report,
and ETV logo may still be used for the technology as long as the technology performance and
design have not changed. 23
2.9.9 When the same technology is tested under separate test events or conditions, a single
verification report and statement should be produced, assuming this allows the program to
provide verification results in a timely and efficient manner. 24
2.9.10 "Partial" verification reports must not be generated. 24
2.9.11 Verification statements and reports should be finalized within three to six months from the
completion of testing. 25
2.9.12 Preliminary data reports may be released by the VO if qualified appropriately. 25
2.10 Information Diffusion 25
2.10.1 Vendors must agree to abide by the guidelines for use of the ETV name, logo, and
verification information, or verifications may be revoked. 25
2.10.2 Key ETV Program outputs are placed on the ETV Web site. 26
2.10.3 Technology briefs should be developed by the verification organization shortly after the
completion of the verification statement and report 26
2.10.4 The EPA center project officers and ESTE project managers are responsible for providing
Web-ready versions of the final verification reports and statements to the ETV coordination
staff. 26
2.10.5 Documents under active review will not be posted on the ETV Web site. 27
2.10.6 Final verification protocols and test/QA plans will be posted on the ETV Web site. 27
2.7ft 7 ETV centers and ESTE projects will provide ETV stands and disks to vendors who have a
verified technology under the ETV Program. 27
References 28
Vlll
-------
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ADQ audit of data quality
ANSI American National Standards Institute
APG annual performance goal
ASQC American Society for Quality Control
CBI confidential business information
DQO data quality objective
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESTE Environmental and Sustainable Technology Evaluations
ETV Environmental Technology Verification Program
MOA memoranda of agreement
MYP multi-year plan
NRMRL ORD's National Risk Management Research Laboratory
OIA EPA's Office of International Affairs
ORD EPA's Office of Research and Development
PEA performance evaluation audit
QA quality assurance
QMP quality management plan
TSA technical systems audit
VO verification organization
IX
-------
Section 1 - ETV Core Policies
1.1 General Environmental Technology Verification Program Policies
1.1.1 Defln itions
The following terms used in this Policy Compendium and other Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program documents are defined accordingly.
Commercial-ready technology: The technology is either in, or ready for, full-scale commercial
production and has a high probability of being effective.
Technology category: A group of technologies that are the same type of equipment and used in
the same application or a group of technologies that are different types of equipment that are used in the
same application.
Stakeholder groups: Groups established for each center or Environmental and Sustainable
Technology Evaluations (ESTE) project to provide input to the program and/or use the verification
information, including representatives of any or all of the following verification customer groups:
buyers and users of technology, technology developers/vendors, consulting engineers, finance and
export communities, government permitters, regulators, first responders, emergency responders,
disaster planners, public interest groups, and other groups interested in the performance of
environmental technologies.
Verification organizations: The public and private sector organizations holding cooperative
agreements or contracts to assist or support the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in
implementing ETV.
Verification: Establishing the performance of a technology under specific, predetermined criteria
or protocols and adequate data quality assurance procedures.
Verification test: The performance evaluation of one or more similar environmental technologies
that is documented in a single test/quality assurance plan and in one or more verification statements and
verification reports. More than one technology is often tested simultaneously.
Verification test/quality assurance plan: The plan developed by a verification organization (VO)
to perform technology verification(s). The test/quality assurance (QA) plan may include more than one
technology. The test/QA plan provides the experimental approach with clearly stated test objectives and
associated quality objectives for related measurements. The test/QA plan may incorporate or reference
existing generic verification protocols or provide the basis for refining draft generic verification
protocols.
-------
Generic verification protocol: This document is used to promote uniform testing procedures by
the VO for a single class of technologies. Adequate documentation of a robust protocol may allow the
development of abbreviated individual test/QA plans which incorporate the protocol by reference.
Protocols may retain draft status until verification testing is performed, then are finalized, building upon
the testing experience. Protocols may also be prepared after testing has been conducted following a
specific test/QA plan.
ETV verification report: The report containing the results of an individual technology test and/or
accepted existing data evaluation developed by the VO and reviewed and approved by EPA.
ETV verification statement: A summary statement based on the verification report developed by
the VO and signed by the VO and the EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL)
director, which reports individual technology performance.
Policy Source - ETV Quality Management Plan (QMP) 2007
1.1.2 The ETV Program operates through multiple centers and ESTEprojects which
cover a broad range of environmental technology categories.
During the program's pilot period, ETV operated 12 pilots, each with a different technology or
operational focus. At the conclusion of the program's pilot period, the Agency reviewed the performance
and operation of the program to assess its future direction and scope. Based on this review and ongoing
considerations, including planned declining budgets, the ETV Program consolidated into six centers
which cover a broad range of environmental technologies. In 2005, ETV further expanded its mission to
include ESTE projects. These projects are intended to target high-priority Agency issues and, as such, are
performed using contracts and work assignments that are managed by EPA Office of Research and
Development (ORD) project officers. In 2007, the agreement between EPA and the non-profit research
organization operating the pilot under the sixth center expired, as did the associated center.
Policy Source - Report to Congress (Final Draft) 2002, ETV QMP 2007
1.1.3 Four important ETV documents provide direction and help ensure the
program's credibility and consistency.
Four documents define the overall operation of ETV and help ensure program credibility and
consistency. The first document is the ETV Quality Management Plan (QMP) (EPA 2007). This is a
program management document used by ETV to guide its operation. The ETV QMP explains in detail the
quality assurance policies and procedures, including the development of center-specific QMPs by the
VOs or, in the case of the ESTE projects, joint QMP/test/QA plans or provide pre-existing QMPs that
meet ETV standards. The second is this document, the ETV Program Policy Compendium, which defines
the operating policies developed to encourage consistency among the ETV centers. The third document is
the draft U.S. EPA Environmental Technology Verification Program (ETV) Guidelines for Proper Use of
the ETV Name and Logo (EPA 2007). This document contains the policy and procedures for using the
ETV name [Environmental Technology Verification Program (ETV)], logo, or verified data. The fourth
document is draft Science and Technology for Sustainability Multi-Year Plan (MYP) (EPA 2006). This
document contains specific annual performance goals (APGs) and annual performance measures (APMs)
that have been developed to guide the EPA sustainability-based research program, of which ETV is a part.
These documents are evaluated and modified periodically.
-------
Policy Source - ETV QMP 2007, Sustainabiilty MYP (Draft) 2006, U.S. EPA Environmental Technology Verification Program
(ETV) Guidelines for Proper Use of the ETV Name and Logo, Draft January 2008.
1.1.4 The ETV Program allows wide latitude in procedures to test operational
alternatives and seek optimized, high quality verification testing and reporting.
To identify the most efficient and cost-effective verification methods, the ETV Program allows
for flexibility to test alternative ways of conducting similar activities. EPA project officers, VOs, and
stakeholders are encouraged to be innovative in seeking methods and processes that allow the verification
of technologies to be conducted as rapidly and efficiently as possible within the legitimate constraints of
quality assured data and the agreements used to operate the centers and perform the ESTE projects.
Improvements and changes to procedures are to be expected and are encouraged.
Policy Source - 2007 November Partner Call
7.7.5 ETV Program participants collect information through various mechanisms to
give constant feedback on potential improvements.
To assess efficiency and cost-effectiveness, the ETV Program incorporates several mechanisms to
ensure that constant feedback on potential improvements is received by all participants.
l.The first feedback mechanism is the ongoing data collection for and development of fiscal year annual
program reports, which identify the progress/milestones, trends, funding, expenditures, and timing data
for each ETV center, ESTE project, and for the ETV Program as a whole. ETV's online database
provides a central location that EPA ETV and VO staff can use to input, update, and manage this and
other information, as noted in Section 6.6 of the ETV QMP.
2.The second feedback mechanism is monthly EPA ETV Team conference calls and semiannual ETV VO
conference calls/meetings, which allow the people managing ETV centers and projects to share positive
and negative experiences with each other and with the ETV program director.
3.The third feedback mechanism is semiannual to annual ETV Team meetings (which include VO
managers), as needed, that allow VOs, EPA center project officers and ESTE project managers to
discuss program activities that have taken place within the last six (or more) months and learn from
both the positive and negative experiences of others. These meetings are limited generally to program
participants to encourage maximum candor and learning, although outside parties may attend.
Each of these feedback mechanisms provides the ETV program director and ETV coordination
staff, EPA center project officers, ESTE project managers, and VOs with information necessary to make
ongoing improvements to the ETV Program.
Policy Source - May 2001 Team Meeting, 2007 November Partner Call, ETV QMP 2007
7.7.6 The proportion of costs covered by the vendors and others (e.g., collaborators) is
expected to increase over time.
Over the five-year pilot phase of the program, the costs of verifying technologies in many pilots
shifted from being primarily government-funded to incorporating substantial private sector funding (e.g.,
participating vendors, others). Testing in at least one pilot was fully vendor supported from the beginning.
The original ETV verification white paper developed in 1994, called for complete private sector
-------
sponsorship within three years. An EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) review in 1995, however,
concluded that such a goal was probably not achievable in such a short timeframe (the SAB suggested
five to eight years) and that some level of government support (10 to 20 percent of ongoing costs) would
remain necessary to keep the activity viable.
With program maturity, the percentage of program funding received from vendors and other
parties (e.g., states, communities, federal agencies, and others) has increased overtime. Goals have been
established based on a number of factors, including the level of cost that the private sector is willing to
bear in various technology sectors. Expanded collaborations, involving greater funding contributions from
non-EPA ETV sources and greater involvement from participating vendors and other parties (e.g., states,
communities, federal agencies, and others) who need the information ETV produces, have been
encouraged. Reductions in center support costs have also been targeted, as well as increases in in-kind
support (e.g., field support) from others. In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, about 50 percent of program
funding (i.e., approximately half in-kind and half monetary) were received from vendors and others.
Recent budget cuts have caused ETV to aggressively focus on establishing self-supporting
centers. Under this new shift, EPA has committed to providing ongoing program support, NRMRL
signature of the verification statement, technology transfer, and quality assurance support to interested
centers, with monetary support being provided on an as-available and as-needed basis.
Policy Source - Verification Strategy 1997, Report to Congress (Final Draft) 2002, October 2003 Team Meeting, Spring 2006
Partner Calls, 2006 ETV Annual Report
1.1.7 Technology performance evaluations focus on performance characteristics.
The ETV Program evaluates environmental technologies to ascertain and report on their
performance characteristics. Under the ETV Program, EPA and its VOs do not (1) rank technologies or
descriptively compare their performance, (2) label or list technologies as acceptable or unacceptable, or
(3) seek to determine "best available technology" in any form. In general, the ETV Program will avoid all
potential pathways to picking "winners and losers." Only "standard" or "common" technology
performance specifications that originate from a clearly identified reference or source are used when
relative performance is addressed or discussed. The goal of the program is to make objective performance
information available to all of the actors in the environmental marketplace for their consideration and
decision making.
Policy Source - Verification Strategy 1997, October 2003 Team Meeting
1.1.8 ETV verification is expressly defined.
By "verify," ETV means to establish the performance of a technology under specific,
predetermined criteria or protocols and adequate data quality assurance procedures (i.e., confirm,
corroborate, substantiate, validate). ETV verification does not imply that technologies will always
perform as they performed under ETV testing, nor that they will perform in the same manner under
circumstances different from those tested. Most specifically, ETV does not "certify, " guarantee, or
warrant the performance of technologies.
Policy Source - Verification Strategy 1997, ETV QMP 2007
1.1.9 The program seeks to provide high-quality data to purchasers andpermitters on
the performance characteristics of technologies.
-------
The goal of the ETV Program is "to provide credible performance data for commercial-ready
environmental technologies to speed their implementation for the benefit of purchasers, permitters,
vendors, and the public." This means that the provision of data and information on performance
characteristics must address legitimate information that purchasers and permitters need to make decisions.
For this reason, ETV does not simply verify the claims of vendors (although it may do this also), but
instead, looks to stakeholders to define the data and operational parameters that must be known to make a
purchase, use, regulatory, or permitting decision.
Policy Source - Verification Strategy 1997, Program Fact Sheet 2007
1.1.10 Program operation is guided by ETV's commitment to being a fair, credible,
objective, transparent, and high-quality organization.
The ETV Program is committed to being a fair, credible, objective, transparent and high-quality
organization. These qualities are crucial to ETV's ability to help the marketplace make better
environmental technology decisions and help guide program operation as follows.
The program must be fair and equally available to all participants. Therefore, testing will be
available to and consistent for all vendors of commercial-ready technologies within defined
categories being evaluated by the program.
Data credibility and objectivity are important values that verification adds to the marketplace.
Therefore:
o All ETV tests will be conducted by objective, third-party testing organizations1 with no
financial or other interests in the technology being tested. Testing organizations with a
financial interest in a technology that may be a candidate for testing are not allowed to
conduct verification testing in that area unless the VO is able to determine that adequate
barriers are in place to prevent an actual or potential conflict of interest. Furthermore,
should the VO determine that the barriers are adequate, it may still be appropriate to
address the potential for "appearance issues," perhaps by disclosing the nature of the
financial interest or relationship to vendors who could be tested by this facility and noting
that the VO has determined that adequate barriers have been put in place. This restriction
is applicable to both the financial interests of the testing organization and the financial
interests of the testing organization's parent organization.
o Testing occurs through the development of generic verification protocols and/or test/QA
plans developed in advance of testing, which are publicly available for utilization.
The program will operate with full transparency. Therefore, all testing methods and verification
results will be published in reports and made fully available to the public.
High-quality programs depend on quality assurance procedures. Therefore, all ETV centers and
ESTE projects will operate under center-specific or project-specific QMPs which are consistent
with the ETV QMP and through quality procedures (e.g., audits and quality assurance reviews)
that assure the production of data of an acceptable level for verification (see Section 2.4.5). The
quality systems developed and used by the VOs must be consistent with both American National
Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society for Quality Control (ASQC) Standard E-4, 1994, or
ISO Standard 9000.
1 A third-party organization is an independent entity that has no interest in transactions between the first and second
parties. In the technology verification area, the first party is the vendor or manufacturer and the second party is the
purchaser or user. In ETV's case, the third party is the EPA/VO partnership.
-------
Policy Source - February 1997 Team Meeting, EPA Order 5360.1 A2 2000, Report to Congress (Final Draft) 2002, May 2007
Team Meeting
1.1.11 Key players in the ETVProgram have clearly delineated roles.
On a day-to-day basis, the ETV Program is implemented by the VOs, members of the EPA ETV
Team, and appropriate EPA line management. The center VOs operate the ETV centers under the
direction of a VO manager, with input from the VO quality manager and others; ESTE VOs perform
verifications under the direction of the EPA ESTE project manager, again with input from VO quality
assurance and technical staff. The ETV Team consists of EPA personnel who are involved in the
program, including center project officers, ESTE project managers, EPA directors of quality assurance,
EPA quality managers, the ETV program director, and ETV coordination staff. Section 1.2 of the ETV
QMP describes the formal duties of all defined participants. Section 1.3 of the ETVQMP explains ETV
customer needs, expectations, and work objectives.
Policy Source - ETV QMP 2007
1.1.12 Records are to be maintained in accordance with specific procedures.
Table 1 lists the different types of records that ETV generates. Procedures have been established
for the development, control, and maintenance of these records. These procedures are found in Section
5.0 of the ETV QMP, and the records schedules listed in Table 1.
Policy Source - ETV QMP 2007
1.1.13 Cooperative arrangements and collaborations with other organizations are
negotiated directly with the VO or can occur under the auspices of an Agency-
negotiated memoranda of agreement, memoranda of understanding, or letter of
intent.
EPA and the VOs may partner with other organizations, including private sector associations,
states, other federal agencies, other verification programs, and other countries, to conduct verification
activities when the goals and objectives of these organizations coincide with those of ETV. In general,
these partnerships will occur either as part of a cooperative agreement or grant which is negotiated
directly with the VO or under the auspices of an Agency-negotiated memoranda of agreement (MOA),
memoranda of understanding (MOU), or letter of intent (LOI). These agreements will need to conform to
all applicable laws and regulations as specified in the individual agreement, operate under the provisions
of the ETV QMP, and conform to the programmatic values specified in Section 1.1.10 of this Policy
Compendium. Operational procedures, such as responsibilities for evaluation and
-------
Table 1. ETV Records
Record Type
ETV quality management plan
CA/IAG/contract records
Policy Compendium
VO quality management plan
Minutes of stakeholder meetings
Generic verification protocol
Test/QA plan
(including SOPs)
Raw data
Existing data
ETV verification report and ETV
verification statement
Annual report
EPA center and ESTE project QA
reviews and assessment reports
VO internal QA document
reviews and assessment reports
Independent ETV program
reviews and assessment reports
Email/Memos related to
programmatic activities**
Records given to:
ETV director or designee
for posting to web site
ETV/ESTE project files
ETV director or designee
for posting to web site
ETV director or designee
for posting to web site
ETV director or designee
for posting to web site
ETV director or designee
for posting to web site (draft
and final versions)
ETV director or designee
for posting to web site
developer/vendor
VO project files (EPA can
request copies)
VO project files (EPA can
request copies)
ETV director or designee
for posting to web site
EPA laboratory directors
ETV/ESTE project files
VO project files (EPA can
request copies)
ETV program files
Receiving Person
Form
Electronic
Electronic
Electronic
Electronic
Electronic
Electronic
Electronic
Mixed*
Mixed*
Electronic
Electronic
Mixed*
Mixed*
Mixed*
Electronic
Applicable
Records
Schedule
185
003/202
185
185
006
185
185
003/202
003/202
258
006
185
185
185
006/127
# of years to
hold after
closing
10
10/7
10
10
10
10
10
10/7
10/7
Permanent
10
10
10
10
5/10 for general
correspondence
*Mixed = Report/summary electronic, some supporting documents for the review and assessment may not be records.
** The information contained or conveyed in an email or memo will determine whether it needs to be treated as a
record. Not all emails or memos qualify as records.
implementation of joint recognition, are specified in each agreement. The VO must notify the EPA center
project officer and ESTE project manager about any verification-related collaboration that the VO enters
into with an outside party.
-------
To directly accept funds through a contract with another organization, the VO needs to ensure
that there is a clear delineation regarding which verification-related activities will be purchased using
contract funds and which will be supported using cooperative agreements funds, as well as which
organization retains ownership of the products. The VO must notify the EPA center project officer and
ESTE project manager about any verification-related contracts entered into with an outside party. An
MOA with the ETV Program may be required for a commitment involving a relatively high level of
funding or broad scope of activities.
Policy Source - May 2001 Team Meeting, October 2003 Team Meeting
1.1.14 VOs must protect ETV's interests (e.g., values, purpose, policy, and quality
requirements) when they enter into partnerships and agreements with third-party
organizations for ETV-related activities.
Any ETV-related agreements made between a VO and a third-party organization, whether a
contract or a partnership, must not compromise either the VO's agreement with the ETV Program or its
ability to adhere to ETV's values (see Section 1.1.10), purpose, policy, and quality requirements. In
particular, controls must be in place to ensure that these agreements will not result in the following: (1)
ranking technologies or descriptively comparing their performance by the ETV center or ESTE project,
(2) labeling or listing of technologies as acceptable or unacceptable by the ETV center or ESTE project,
or (3) verification of technologies to directly determine whether they are a "best available technology."
The VO must clearly identify any products (e.g., protocols, test/QA plans, and/or verification
reports/statements) expected to result from these agreements.
Policy Source - October 2003 Team Meeting
1.2 Technology Coverage and Eligibility
1.2.1 ETV is a voluntary program.
Technology vendor participation in the ETV Program is completely voluntary. Vendors of
environmental technologies and other actors in the environmental marketplace are not required to
participate in the program, nor are they required to seek verification. The program goal is to provide
objective technology performance information to the environmental marketplace. Vendors who believe
that such information would be of value to their marketing activities are encouraged to participate as
appropriate.
Policy Source - Verification Strategy 1997, Report to Congress (Final Draft) 2002
-------
1.2.2 Participating tech n ologies must be commercial-ready.
The ETV Program serves the domestic and international marketplaces to encourage acceptance
and implementation of innovative environmental technologies. Therefore, ETV focuses its resources on
verification of environmental technologies that are either in, or ready for, full-scale commercialization.
The ETV Program does not evaluate technologies in research and development.
Policy Source - Verification Strategy 1997, Report to Congress (Final Draft) 2002
1.2.3 EPA project personnel must abide by the criminal conflicts of interest laws and
the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch when
verifying environmental technologies.
EPA project personnel must abide by the criminal conflicts of interest laws and the Standards of
Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch. See 18 USC 208 and 5 CFR Part 2635,
Subparts D and E. They cannot participate personally and substantially on any verification in which they,
their spouses, or their dependent children may have a financial interest, unless they first seek advice from
the NRMRL Deputy Ethics Official or the Office of General Counsel. EPA employees must also avoid
the appearance of a lack of impartiality pursuant to 5 CFR Part 2635 Subpart E, so employees who have a
personal or business relationship with an entity under review must request and receive an impartiality
determination from the NRMRL Deputy Ethics Official pursuant to 5 C.F.R. 2635.502(d) before
participation.
Policy Source - 18 USC 208 and 5 CFR Part 2635
1.2.4 Program focus is primarily on private sector tech n ologies.
One of the purposes of the ETV Program is to accelerate the development and acceptance of
improved environmental technologies through objective verification and reporting of technology
performance. One way to accomplish this goal is to provide verification of technologies that have clear
domestic and international market niches with a potential for substantial increases in technology sales and
use. Increasing technology sales and use can best be accomplished by focusing on technologies developed
by private sector companies, which, in comparison to government-developed technologies, are more
likely to be bought and sold in the environmental marketplace. While government-developed technologies
can be verified under ETV, the program's emphasis is clearly on the private sector.
Policy Source - Verification Strategy 1997
7.2.5 EPA-developed technologies may be verified under the ETV Program in certain
circumstances.
Although program focus is primarily on private sector technologies, EPA-developed technologies
may be verified under the ETV Program using EPA-directed contracts with verification organizations,
similar to ESTE projects. As noted in Section 1.2.3, to avoid the perception of a potential conflict of
interest or a lack of impartiality, EPA project personnel involved in verifying EPA-developed
technologies must request and receive an impartiality determination from the NRMRL or NERL Deputy
Ethics Official pursuant to 5 C.F.R. 2635.502(d) before participation. The factors that the Deputy Ethics
Official may take into consideration include the nature of the relationship involved; the effect that
resolution of the matter will have upon the financial interests of the person involved in the relationship;
the nature and importance of the employee's role in the matter, including the extent to which the
-------
employee is called upon to exercise discretion in the matter; the sensitivity of the matter; the difficulty in
reassigning the matter to another employee; and adjustments that may be made in the employee's duties
that would reduce or eliminate the likelihood that a reasonable person would question the employee's
impartiality. Verification statements and reports should clearly identify the technology as an EPA-
developed technology and note that the EPA project officer that directed the verification received an
impartiality determination from the EPA NRMRL or NERL Deputy Ethics Official.
Policy Source - May 2007 Team Meeting
1.2.6 Technologies that are linked to services can be verified under the ETVProgram
in certain circumstances.
In general, verification testing is limited to technologies (hardware and software) and does not
include services or technologies that are closely linked to services, since technology performance is often
linked to the staff performance. Centers and ESTE projects may, in certain circumstances, choose to
verify a technology that is linked to services, such as wetlands control, when the design criteria,
standards, etc., are so well defined that staff input will not cause significant variations in performance.
Policy Source - May 2001 Team Meeting, May 2007 Team Meeting
1.2.7 Technologies owned or marketed by non-U.S. developers are eligible for
verification.
All vendors may participate in the ETV Program, including those located outside the U.S.
Foreign vendors who have their technologies verified in the U.S. may be eligible to receive verification at
the same cost as U.S. vendors in a specific technology category if there is a clearly identified U.S. market
for their technology and the verification results would be beneficial to environmental technology
purchasers and decision-makers in the U.S.
In general, if a vendor requests that verification be conducted at test sites outside of the U.S.,
EPA ETV funds should not be used to cover any additional costs incurred by using the chosen test site, as
noted in Section 2.7.10. The decision to test at a site outside of the U.S. will be made by the VO based on
the cost-effectiveness of the testing location, the expected environmental benefits of the technology, and
whether verification outside the U.S. will increase the relevance or utility of the data.
Policy Source - May 2001 Team Meeting, October 2003 Team Meeting, 2007 November Partner Call
10
-------
Section 2 - ETV Process Policies
Policies in this section are organized according to the main steps of the ETV process, as initially
presented in the ETV Program Verification Strategy (EPA 1997) and updated thereafter.
2.1 Solicitation and Selection of the VO
2.1.1 Public and private VOs participate in the verification process.
In developing the ETV centers, ETV leveraged the capacity, expertise, and existing facilities of
others through agreements with public and private organizations to achieve coverage for a broad array of
technology types as rapidly as possible. With the development of the ESTE portion of the program, ETV
has been able to further expand into a number of high-priority Agency areas. Each center and ESTE
project has a third-party VO. EPA provides technical input to these organizations and audits testing to
confirm the credibility of the process and data. The selection process for VOs is delineated in Section 4.0
of fas ETV QMP.
Policy Source - Verification Strategy 1997, ETV QMP 2007
2.1.2 VOs, their subcontractors, and cooperators involved in the collection of
verification data, must comply with the ETV QMP.
Section 2.4 of the ETV QMP details the quality expectations for technologies and services under
the program. VOs and their subcontractors must comply with these expectations and other quality systems
described in the ETV QMP, as allowed for under their agreements or contracts with EPA.
Policy Source - ETV QMP 2007
2.1.3 Center-specific and ESTE project-specific QMPs must be reviewed and
approved by EPA.
Each ETV center and ESTE project is required under their agreement or contract with EPA to
develop a QMP or, in the case of ESTE, a joint QMP/test/QA plan2 specific to their center or project
which describes the quality management system that will be followed to assure that verification testing
and evaluation efforts carry the appropriate level of quality assurance to meet the needs of the users of the
performance information. This document is developed by the VO and should be consistent with the ETV
QMP. The center and ESTE QMPs are reviewed and approved by the EPA center project officer or ESTE
2 Consistency with the ETV QMP can also be established by referencing existing data quality system
documentation.
11
-------
project manager at the outset of the operation, with review and input from the EPA quality manager. They
are also reviewed annually during the review of the ETV QMP and revised as needed. Where ETV ESTE
activities are conducted via contracts outside the ETV centers, but by a VO that manages an ETV center,
the VO does not have to prepare another QMP specifically for the ESTE project as long as the VO is able
to address any differences that may be introduced (e.g., by using a different extramural mechanism)
through an addendum to the QMP or within an ESTE joint QMP/test/QA plan.
Policy Source - ETV QMP 2007, October 2003 Team Meeting, May 2007 Team Meeting
2.2 Formation and Maintenance of Stakeholder Groups
2.2.1 Stakeholder groups have balanced membership and represent customer groups.
Stakeholder groups are composed of representatives of national and international groups expected
to use the information developed from the testing of technologies within that technology area. In general,
stakeholders include representatives of appropriate ETV "customers" from both national and international
perspectives. The program defines ETV customers as buyers and users of environmental technology,
technology developers and vendors, and technology "enablers," such as:
the consulting and engineering community that recommends technology alternatives to purchasers
federal, state and local government permitting/regulatory agencies
first responder and disaster planning agencies
environmental public interest groups
other verification programs
marketers
financial and insurer communities
Congress.
Stakeholder responsibilities may include helping to develop generic verification protocols,
assisting in setting priorities for the types of technologies to be verified, reviewing project-specific
procedures and selected ETV verification reports emerging from the ETV center or ESTE project,
assisting in the definition and conduct of outreach activities for the technology area and customer groups,
and serving as information conduits to the particular constituencies that each member represents.
Policy Source - Verification Strategy 1997, ETV QMP 2007
2.2.2 Regular and publicly announced and open stakeholder meetings are held.
Under the ETV Program the primary purpose of the stakeholder groups is to seek a diversity of
opinions based on the members' expertise and the interests of the groups they represent. In general, the
role of the stakeholders in the ETV Program is to help set priorities for the types of technologies to be
verified, assist in developing technology testing procedures and verifications protocols, review project-
specific procedures and selected ETV verification reports emerging from the ETV center or ESTE
project, help in defining and conducting outreach activities for the technology area and serve as
information conduits to the particular constituencies that they represent. Stakeholder groups report
directly to the respective VOs. They do not report directly to the Federal government. These groups
generally meet no less than once a year, either in person or via teleconferences or videoconferences.
Meetings are publicly announced and open, and participants, whether formal members of the group or
not, are considered important contributors. Stakeholders typically maintain continued communications
between meetings via e-mail or by participating in conference calls or task groups.
Policy Source - 1996 Team Meeting, November 1997 Workshop, January 2004 Team Call
12
-------
2.3 Setting Technology Priorities
2.3.1 Stakeh older groups provide input for setting technology priorities.
Because it is not feasible to address all technologies that vendors may want to have performance-
verified, priorities must be established. The stakeholder groups assist ETV in this important function by
representing the marketplace for a given group of environmental technologies in terms of need and
feasibility. Although numerous differences in the prioritization process exist from one technology market
to another, in general, three criteria for selection are considered. First, there must be a legitimate
environmental need for the technology. Second, there must be at least one commercial-ready technology
available for testing. Third, verification protocols must be available or capable of being developed within
a reasonable time and cost range to make the verification activity feasible within the constraints of ETV
funding.
Policy Source - October 1998 Team Meeting
2.3.2 Technology/outcomes profiles should be developed by the VO when the
technology category is prioritized for verification.
Technology/outcomes profiles summarize basic information about a technology category that has
been prioritized or verified, including a short description of the technology category, background on the
associated environmental/health/regulatory issues, projected outcomes, etc. Technology/outcomes profiles
should be developed by the VO using ETV's online database when the technology category is prioritized
for verification. These profiles are used to promote ongoing activities and serve as a starting point for
developing technology briefs once verifications have been completed (see Section 2.10.3).
Policy Source - May 2007 Team Meeting
2.4 Development of Generic Verification Protocols
2.4.1 Generic verification protocols and/or test/QA plans are developed for each ETV
center and ESTEproject.
Each ETV center and ESTE project will typically develop a generic verification protocol and/or
test/QA plan(s) for use in conducting verifications in each technology category. The generic verification
protocols and/or test/QA plans should be developed with sufficient detail so that ETV or other testing
organizations could duplicate the test and obtain similar results. The generic verification protocols and/or
test/QA plans are publicly available on the ETV Web site and, in some cases, the VO's Web site, as noted
in Section 2.10.2.
Generic verification protocols provide verification testing guidance for a particular technology
category, but not for a specific technology, specific test facility or site, or specific test event. They are
meant to promote uniform testing by the VO and provide a framework for developing the more detailed
test/QA plan. The generic verification protocol should be broad enough to guide testing of different
technologies falling into the technology category, yet detailed enough to be usable by a third party to
guide similar testing efforts on technologies in the category. The specific content and level of detail in
generic verification protocols may vary among centers or projects.
13
-------
Test/QA plans provide detailed instructions for the verification testing of a single technology, or a
group of technologies in the same test group, during a specific test event. The test/QA plan is specific as
to the technologies to be tested, timing (i.e., includes a schedule), and place (i.e., identifies the exact test
facility or site). It must be detailed and specific enough to allow a third-party to reproduce the testing
results. A separate, pre-approved test/QA plan is developed and used for each verification test. A test/QA
plan may be developed specific to a technology type and test facility, and an addendum later added for
each specific technology tested.
Policy Source - Verification Strategy 1997, ETV QMP 2007, April 1999 Team Meeting, Review of Implementation of Quality
Management in the ETV Program 2000, October 2003 Team Meeting
2.4.2 Gen eric verification protocols an d test/QA plans un dergo a specific preparation
process.
In general, generic verification protocols and test/QA plans are developed in the following
manner after a technology or technology category is selected for verification.
a. Per the original ETV model, a generic verification protocol (i.e., nonproduct-specific) is first
developed for each technology category to be tested by the VO, followed by development of a
specific test/QA plan (based on the generic verification protocol) for each item or group of items to
be verified in a given test "event." Draft generic verification protocols and specific test/QA plans
are developed through whatever process the individual VOs, EPA center project officers, ESTE
project managers, VOs, and stakeholders deem appropriate, efficient, and fair. These may include,
but are not limited to, expert in-house or consultant development, technical panel formation and
development, vendor design followed by stakeholder review, or any combination of the above.
Stakeholder groups and participating vendors are given the opportunity to comment on draft
generic verification protocols and test/QA plans, regardless of how they are developed.
[Note: In some cases, the experimental design within a generic verification protocol or test/QA plan
may be specific to a matrix/contaminant, rather than a specific technology category, since many
types of technologies may be used to address a specific situation. For example, the document may
be specific to the verification of technologies capable of analyzing metals in soil, rather than the
verification of x-ray fluorescence instruments. Also, in some cases, test/QA plans may be
developed first. Generic verification protocols are then developed from the test/QA plans following
technology testing. This is often the case in situations where only one technology in a technology
category participates in the first round of testing.]
b. Draft specific test/QA plans contain the experimental approach to be used to verify different
technology performance factors. This includes not only the technical and analytical parameters, but
also the operation, maintenance, labor, energy, and/or cost factors if these are to be included in the
ETV verification report/statement.
c. Vendors participating in ETV verification tests are given the draft verification test/QA plan prior to
participation and afforded an opportunity to comment on the document. The verification test/QA
plan may also be reviewed by a peer reviewer, preferably the same one that will be reviewing the
verification reports. This will help to familiarize the reviewer with the test event and address and
resolve any issues that the reviewer might have with the experimental design.
d. Verification test/QA plans are placed on the ETV Web site and, in some cases, the VO's Web site,
as noted in Sections 2.4.3 and 2.10.6
e. It is expected that test procedures may be modified during the course of testing; some only in small
ways, others may be modified substantially. Appropriate notes will be kept on these changes and
they will be documented in the verification report.
14
-------
f. Following the completion of tests, VOs and EPA managers may modify the verification test/QA
plan and/or the generic verification protocol, based on the experience gained during the test and
will remove the technology- and event-specific elements (i.e., make it more generic). The revised
documents will be reviewed by the ETV program director, VO quality managers, and EPA quality
managers and will be placed on the ETV Web site as the final test/QA plan and/or generic
verification protocol for an individual technology category, as noted in Section 2.4.3. [Note:
Protocols are not developed for every technology category.]
g. Subsequent tests of technologies in the category will be conducted in a manner consistent with
these generic verification protocols to the fullest extent possible. Generic verification protocols
may, in some cases, is updated over time, and new specific test/QA plans will be produced for each
new test event.
Policy Source - April 1999 Team Meeting, ETV QMP 2007
2.4.3 The test/QA plan and associated protocol shall be posted on the ETV Web site
for each verified technology.
The final test/QA plan and protocol used to verify a technology must be posted on the ETV Web
site and, in some cases, the VO's Web site, as noted in Section 2.10.6. Ideally, these documents should be
posted at the start of testing and then replaced with a final version that has been revised to reflect
modifications that occurred during the course of testing (see Section 2.4.2, items e and f). If the test/QA
plan or protocol is updated at a later date (e.g., for a second round of verifications), both the original copy
of the test/QA plan or protocol and the updated test/QA plan or protocol should be posted on the ETV
Web site, so that they are available to readers interested in a particular round of verifications. Since some
ETV centers and ESTE projects develop generic verification protocols only after some testing has
occurred, not every technology will have both a test/QA plan and a generic verification protocol posted.
Policy Source - May 2001 Team Meeting, 2007 November Partner Call
2.4.4 ETV centers and projects shall employ a structured data quality planning
process.
ETV centers and ESTE projects are encouraged to employ a structured data quality planning
process such as the Agency's Data Quality Objectives (DQO) (EPA QA/G-4) process to develop generic
verification protocols and test/QA plans, as noted in Section 1.1, Part B of the ETV QMP. As part of the
DQO process, ETV centers and ESTE projects will develop decision rules to aid in resolving testing
issues, such as sampling program designs. Consistent use of a systematic data quality planning process
ensures that future verification tests are designed to reflect the inherent variability in technology
performance. ETV centers and projects should include a detailed description of their DQO process in their
test/QA plans and brief discussion of the process in each verification report.
Policy Source - May 2000 Science Advisory Board Review of ETV Program, May 2001 Team Meeting, ETV QMP 2007
2.4.5 Generic verification protocols and test/QA plans developed for international use
or under the lead of an outside VO do not need to follow the ETV process.
15
-------
A number of countries have developed verification programs since the ETV Program was started
in 1995. ETV program and center staff has been investigating ways to work more effectively with these
programs. In addition to raising the international relevance of ETV's efforts, a more collaborative
relationship could reduce or eliminate duplicative efforts and allow ETV and other verification programs
to leverage their resources and skills to meet shared environmental goals in: drinking water treatment,
greenhouse gas reduction, water quality protection, site characterization/risk assessment, compliance
monitoring, pollution prevention and waste treatment, and waste tracking. The co-development of
mutually acceptable verification protocols and test/QA plans has been identified as a collaborative
activity that the different ETV programs could potentially pursue. Given the emerging nature of this
activity, ETV anticipates that the joint generic verification protocols or test/QA plans may not necessarily
be developed per the "typical" ETV process, particularly if they are developed under the lead of a foreign
verification program. Per Section 1.1.14, however, ETV interests must be protected and maintained
during this process.
Policy Source - May 2007 Team Meeting
2.5 Solicitation of Technology Vendors
2.5.1 Solicitation is open and is advertised widely.
The solicitation of vendors for participation in the ETV Program is open to all vendors of
commercial-ready environmental technologies in a given category of interest. At a minimum, each ETV
center and ESTE project shall open the solicitation process to all vendors by advertising plans for
verification testing of particular technology types on the ETV Web site, and via ETVoice, ETV's monthly
listserv. VOs should announce verification testing on their Web sites and invite vendor participation using
letters and contacts to trade journals, associations and individual companies. VOs pursuing funding for
verification via agreements with other organizations must openly solicit for vendors as part of proposal
development or post-award.
Policy Source - Verification Strategy 1997, November 1997 Team Meeting, October 2003 Team Meeting, 2007 November
Partner Call
2.6 Development of Specific Test/QA Plans
As noted previously, test/QA plans are documents providing detailed instructions for the
verification testing of a single technology, or a group of technologies in the same test group, during a
specific test event. The test/QA plan is specific to the technologies to be tested, timing (i.e., includes a
schedule), and place (i.e., identifies the exact test facility or site). Although sometimes based on an
existing generic verification protocol, these documents are often developed before the protocol. A pre-
approved test/QA plan must also be used during verification testing. Additional policies regarding the
development and use of test/QA plans can be found in Sections 2.4.1 through 2.4.5 of this Policy
Compendium.
2.7 Technology Testing and Evaluation
2.7.1 Verification testing data are made publicly available.
After testing occurs, the data are generally reviewed by ETV center or ESTE project staff and
validated data sets are then given to each participating vendor by the VO. The results and supporting data
16
-------
will be publicly reported in a verification report and statement, as noted in Section 2.9. The report and
statement will be posted on the ETV Web site and, in some cases, the VO's Web site, as noted in Section
2.10.2. In some cases, VOs may release preliminary data sets that have not been reviewed by EPA, as
discussed in Section 2.9.12.
Policy Source - November 1997 Team Meeting, April 1998 Team Meeting, May 2001 Team Meeting, May 2007 Team Meeting
2.7.2 Vendors must submit requests to designate information as proprietary at the
time of agreement to test.
It is the stated purpose of ETV to publish objective data on technology performance following a
technology evaluation. In general, all data developed through the program are considered public
information, since they are developed under agreements or contracts with EPA. Information submitted to
ETV in support of verification activities is designated as proprietary only if a written request is made in
advance of the submittal and at the time of agreement to test, as stipulated by the standard EPA policy on
proprietary information found in Chapter 8 of the Information Security Information Resources
Management Policy Manual (2100A16). This document addresses the establishment of a comprehensive,
Agency-wide security program to safeguard Agency information resources, including the management of
confidential business information, as defined below:
Confidential Business Information (CBI) includes trade secrets, proprietary, commercial,
financial, and other information that is afforded protection from disclosure under certain
circumstances as described in statutes administered by the Agency. Business information is
entitled to confidential treatment if: (1) business asserts a confidentiality claim; (2) business
shows it has taken its own measures to protect the information; (3) the information is not publicly
available; or (4) disclosure is not required by statute and the disclosure would either cause
competitive harm or impair the Agency's ability to obtain necessary information in the future.
EPA and its contractors and grantees must adhere to all Agency and organizational information
security policies, standards, and procedures pertaining to CBI. It is solely the responsibility of the vendor
to make a request to designate information as proprietary, and no post-testing requests are allowed. The
data generated during testing cannot be considered proprietary, as they were collected, in part, through the
use of public funds or in-kind support.
Policy Source - November 1997 Team Meeting, Information Security Information Resources Management Policy Manual
(2100A16)
2.7.3 Existing data may be used in verifications under specific conditions.
Although existing vendor-generated data are valuable, these data are not often acceptable for
verification purposes and should, in most cases, only be used to augment data generated during ETV
testing. With that said, in some cases existing data may be used to supplement or replace verification
testing. The rationale and process for using existing data to fully or partly replace verification testing are
contained in Appendix C: Environmental Technology Verification Program Existing Data: Policy and
Process of the ETVQMP (EPA 2007).
Policy Source - July 1997 Team Meeting, November 1997 Team Meeting, ETV QMP 2007
2.7.4 "Partial" verification tests must not be intentionally performed.
17
-------
Verification tests must fully address all of the critical measurements/objectives identified in the
test/QA plan or its accompanying generic verification protocol (per the requirements in the test/QA plan).
"Partial" verifications which purposely address only some of the critical performance factors must not be
performed, unless the protocol or test/QA plan clearly states that vendors or centers may decide to test a
technology under a subset of applicable critical and secondary factors and/or specific conditions/sites, or
existing data are available that can be used to supplement/replace testing.
Policy Source - January 2004 Team Call
2.7.5 Ven dors must pay for any re-testing of tech n ologies.
Vendors will pay for all of the costs for re-testing a technology after testing is completed. For
example, if a technology does not perform up to the vendor's expectations in the initial verification
testing or is subsequently modified, the vendor would be required to pay for any re-testing of the
technology. The ETV VOs can decline to re-test a technology that has already been verified if the vendor
seeking retesting is unable to demonstrate that modifications have been made to the technology that could
change the technology's performance, based on an analysis performed by the VO, EPA and/or
stakeholders. In either case, the results of the first test will be published in a verification report and
possibly a verification statement.
Policy Source - April 1998 Team Meeting, May 2007 Team Meeting
2.7.6 Vendors may withdraw from the ETV Program before testing begins.
Vendors may withdraw from the ETV Program before testing begins or if unexpected
circumstances (e.g., broken and irreparable equipment) prevent the completion of verification testing.
After testing is completed, the ETV Program will make the results and data publicly available in a
verification report and statement, as discussed in Section 2.7.1. However, the vendor may choose not to
have a verification statement issued. If verification testing cannot be completed due to unexpected
circumstances, the EPA center project officer or EPA ESTE project manager and VO will jointly
determine if enough data have been collected to warrant the development of a verification report.
Policy Source - November 1997 Team Meeting, May 2001 Team Meeting, May 2007 Team Meeting
2.7.7 ETV centers and ESTE projects must obtain approval from EPA Office of
International Affairs (OIA)for verification testing in a foreign country.
ETV centers or ESTE projects that conduct verification testing at sites outside the U.S. or
subsidize verification testing performed by foreign VOs must obtain approval from EPA OIA before
verification testing is performed. Ideally, OIA approval of these activities should be included in the
original assistance agreement or contract between EPA and the VO. Alternatively, the EPA center project
officer or EPA ESTE project manager can obtain written approval from OIA after an assistance
agreement or contract has been awarded. International travel expenses related to the verification must also
be approved by OIA either within the original agreement or in writing from OIA after the award and
attached to the original agreement or contract (see Section 2.7.9). This requirement also applies to
contractors, consultants, and other assistance recipients working under the agreement.
Policy Source - 2007 November Partner Call, EPA Order 4540.1
18
-------
2.7.8 ETV centers and ESTE projects must obtain approval from EPA OIA when
purchasing services from foreign contractors or subsidizing verification activities
performed by foreign VOs.
ETV centers or ESTE projects must obtain approval from EPA OIA when using federal
government funds (EPA or other federal funds) to purchase contractor services from foreign firms to
conduct verification testing at sites located in foreign countries or to subsidize verification activities
performed by foreign VOs. As noted in Section 2.7.7 of this Policy Compendium, prior approval should
be obtained from OIA before the assistance agreement or contract between EPA and the VO is awarded.
Alternatively, the EPA center project officer or EPA ESTE project manager can obtain written approval
from OIA after the agreement or contract has been awarded. If an ETV center or ESTE project uses a
U.S.-based contractor to conduct verification testing in a foreign country and no funds are transferred to a
foreign firm, approval from OIA is still necessary.
Policy Source - 2007 November Partner Call, EPA Order 4540.1
2.7.9 ETV centers and ESTE projects must obtain approval from EPA OIA when
EPA and/or the VOs (including their contractors) travel to foreign countries to
represent ETV at a meeting.
ETV centers and ESTE projects must obtain approval from EPA OIA for any proposed foreign
travel by EPA and/or VOs to meetings, conferences, or symposia to represent ETV.
In general, initial approval should be obtained from OIA before an assistance agreement or
contract is awarded, preferably during an OIA review of the agreement or contract. The agreement or
contract should specify which countries will be visited as part of the agreement or contract.
Initial approval may also be obtained after a contract or agreement is awarded. The EPA center
project officer and EPA ESTE project manager will be responsible for specifying in writing which
countries will be visited as part of the agreement or contract. This information will be attached to a copy
of the agreement or contract and sent to the appropriate OIA representative. OIA will, in turn, notify and
request approval from appropriate non-EPA departments. To ensure enough time is allocated, the request
for approval to travel internationally under a specific agreement or contract should be sent to ETV's OIA
representative at least 20 days before travel is scheduled to take place.
Cooperators or contractors with initial approval to travel internationally under an agreement or
contract will need to obtain final approval from OIA each time they travel internationally. The EPA
center project officer or EPA ESTE project manager will need to submit the request for final approval to
OIA within 10 business days of departure. The request should identify who is traveling, when and why
they are traveling, and under which agreement or contract travel is to occur. It should also note that initial
approval to travel to the country in question has already been obtained under the agreement or contract.
Policy Source - EPA Order 4540.1, Input Provided by the OIA Representative Assigned to ETV, January 2004 Team Call
2.7.10 When verification testing is conducted at a test site outside the U.S., EPA ETV
funds should not be used to cover the additional costs incurred by using this test site.
If a vendor requests that verification be conducted at test sites outside of the U.S., EPA ETV
funds should not be used to cover the additional costs incurred by using the chosen test site. These costs
include developing the test/QA plan, conducting testing and QA, and travel and related expenses. The
19
-------
decision to test at a site outside of the U.S. will be made based on the cost-effectiveness of the testing
location, the expected environmental benefits of the technology, and whether verification outside the US
will increase the relevance or utility of the data.
Policy Source - May 2001 Team Meeting, October 2003 Team Meeting, 2007 November Partner Call
2.8 Data Package Approval/QA Evaluation
2.8.1 VOs are responsible for the maintenance of "raw data."
In keeping with standard EPA practice, VOs must retain all data, notebooks, logs, lab results,
chains of custody, and records on each ETV test per schedule 003 (for cooperative agreements) or
schedule 202 (for contracts). When the retention period for records ends, the VO will decide on what to
do with these records. The EPA project officer may request these records or certain part of the records be
transferred to EPA for further retention. But the final responsibility for the fate of these raw data would
still be decided by the VO unless the agreements or contracts specify otherwise. The raw data do not
become EPA records unless they are requested by and given to the EPA.
Policy Source - ETV QMP 2007 , US EPA Directive 2160 - Records Management Manual 1984
2.8.2 Technical systems audits will be performed by the VO and EPA.
A technical systems audit (TSA) is a qualitative onsite evaluation of the sampling and
measurement systems used during a verification test. The objective of the TSA is to assess and document
acceptability of all facilities, maintenance, calibration procedures, reporting requirements, sampling and
analytical activities, and quality control procedures. An approved test/QA plan provides the basis for the
TSA. Each VO will conduct its own TSAs based on the frequency outlined in the center QMP, ESTE
project QMP, and the ETV QMP, but no less than once per verification test. Independent TSAs should
also be conducted by the EPA quality manager, or designee as applicable, but at least once per year or as
determined by the EPA quality manager. Section 9.1 of the ETV QMP discusses TSA reporting
requirements and frequencies.
Policy Source - ETV QMP 2007
2.8.3 Audits of data quality are primarily conducted by the VO, although EPA will
periodically conduct independent audits.
An audit of data quality (ADQ) is used to determine whether the data quality indicator goals
specified in the test/QA plan has been met. During these assessments, at least 10 percent of all of the
verification data that have already been 100 percent verified by the project personnel will be traced from
original recording through transferring, calculating, summarizing, and reporting. [Note: "10 percent of all
of the data" means a random selection of data from each of the measured parameters.] Independent ADQs
will also be conducted by the EPA quality managers, or their designee as applicable. Section 9.1 of the
ETV QMP discusses ADQ reporting requirements and frequencies.
Policy Source - ETV QMP 2007
2.8.4 Performance evaluation audits are conducted by EPA and the VO.
20
-------
A performance evaluation audit (PEA) is a quantitative evaluation of a measurement system.
PEAs are conducted by the VO for each test (if a test is capable of being quantitatively audited) to
determine the bias of the total measurement system(s). The EPA quality manager will perform
independent PEAs once per year if appropriate. As part of a PEA, a reference material of known value or
composition is usually measured and/or analyzed, as outlined in the test/QA plan. Section 9.1 of the ETV
QMP discusses PEA reporting requirements and frequencies.
Policy Source - ETV QMP 2007
2.9 Development of Verification Statements and Reports
2.9.1 Verification statements follow strict formatting guidelin es.
Each verification statement shall be included in the associated verification report on the first page
after the report cover. The verification statement shall contain the information presented in the sample
box below in the same format. Except for the addition of footnotes and endnotes explaining a change, etc.
(see Section 2.9.8), the information in this box is the only information that can be changed in a
verification statement following its issuance. This information can be updated as needed to ensure that
customers of the verification information have access to the most recent contact information.
TECHNOLOGY TYPE: WIDGET
APPLICATION:
ADVANCED REMOTE WIDGETING
TECHNOLOGY NAME: WIDGET - 2000 - A
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
WEBSITE:
EMAIL:
USA Widget, Inc.
1999 Main Street PHONE: (000) 555-2000
Somewhere, USA 00001 FAX: (000) 555-2001
http://www.usawidget.com
widget@usawidget.com
Figure 1. Sample of information to be included in each verification statement
Policy Source - May 2001 Team Meeting
2.9.2 ETV verification reports are published to provide data and summaries of an
individual technology's performance.
The ETV Program verification reports and statements describe the performance of a technology
(for a specific test period). Although similar technologies are sometimes tested using the same or very
similar test/QA plans, the ETV Program does not provide narrative side-by-side comparisons of
21
-------
technology performance. The responsibility for comparing technology performance rests with the end
user/customer of the data. Verification statements and reports do not interpret data or draw conclusions
about performance or make recommendations; they only provide results.
Policy Source - April 1998 Team Meeting, May 2007 Team Meeting
2.9.3 The verification statement requires EPA and VO representative signatures.
Each verification statement will include the signatures of the NRMRL laboratory director and the
appropriate VO representative. (Verification statements for technologies completed prior to this policy
may include only the appropriate EPA signature.) Technology tests conducted with the substantial
support of other organizations (in excess of 30 percent of the cost of verification including in-kind) may
place their signature in a separate signature block for major contributors and/or place their logo on the
document. Since readers may question why the organization's logo is on the cover, the organization's
contribution(s) should also be recognized in the body of the report.
Policy Source - April 1998 Team Meeting, October 2003 Team Meeting, May 2007 Team Meeting
2.9.4 The VO has primary responsibility for preparing the verification report.
In general, it is the responsibility of the VO to complete verification reports and manage the peer
review process using subject matter experts that are external to both EPA and the VO. [Note:
Stakeholders may serve as subject matter experts.] The VO should also develop and implement
procedures designed to expedite the report writing and peer review process, such as access to either in-
house or contracted staff responsible for the technical development and editing of the reports. To the
fullest extent possible, the reports should be developed simultaneously with the testing effort, and review
of all "boilerplate" language should be completed in advance to allow for a more efficient report writing
process. Thus, only the results section of the report should need to be produced after testing is completed.
Policy Source - November 1997 Team Meeting
2.9.5 EPA has specific review requirements for verification statements and reports.
Each verification test results in one or more verification reports(s) and verification statement(s).
The VO manager is responsible for coordinating their development. These two documents, including
revisions, shall be reviewed by qualified personnel for conformance with technical requirements and
quality system requirements and approved for release by authorized personnel. Specifically, verification
statements should be reviewed by the EPA center project officer or the EPA ESTE project manager, the
EPA quality manager, the VO quality manager, the vendor, the ETV program director, and an EPA
reviewer external to the ETV Program. Verification statements are considered final when signed by the
NRMRL laboratory director. Verification reports should be reviewed by the EPA quality manager, the
VO quality manager, and the vendor, and should be reviewed and approved by the EPA center project
officer or EPA ESTE project manager (see Part B, Section 5.2 of the ETVQMP).
Policy Source - ETV QMP 2007, October 2003 Team Meeting
22
-------
2.9.6 Cooperative agreements and contracts should include specific requirements for
publishing documents, such as verification statements and reports.
Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of the ETVQMP describe in detail the procedures for reviewing, approving,
distributing, and storing ETV documents. These procedures should be included in the publishing
requirements specified in cooperative agreements, contracts, and other agreements between ETV centers
or ESTE projects and other organizations, between EPA and VOs, and between VOs and their
contractors. Newer agreements between EPA and VOs shall require that that any documents forwarded by
the VO for posting on the ETV Web site comply with the provisions of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation
Act (29 U.S. C. Part d), the Accessibility Standard (36 CFR 1194), and the FAR Final Rule (FAR Part
39).
Policy Source - ETV QMP 2007, May 2007 Team Meeting
2.9.7 In general, the verification report and statement are valid for an unspecified
period of time.
A verification report is issued for each technology tested under the ETV Program. Verification
statements are also issued for technologies that have been tested under the ETV Program, unless the
vendor requests that the statement not be issued. Each report and statement provides a performance
summary for the specific technology tested. In general, no time limit is included in the verification report
or statement. However, in certain instances, the verification report and statement may indicate a
termination date or condition for making them invalid when adopted as a part of a protocol or test/QA
plan. Vendors must notify the VO of any changes to a verified technology that affects its performance and
thus warrants the termination of the verification report or statement. Although the ETV Program has no
legal right to require re-testing of a vendor's technology, the ETV Program reserves the right to announce
when it believes a verification report or statement no longer represents the technology that is being
marketed.
Policy Source - April 1998 Team Meeting, May 2007 Team Meeting
2.9.8 If the ownership or name of a verified technology changes, the verification
statement, report, and ETV logo may still be used for the technology as long as the
technology performance and design have not changed.
Companies with performance-verified technologies may be acquired by other companies, change
their company name, or change the name of a performance-verified technology. As long as the
technology remains the same and is not changed, the new company, company with a name change, or
company with a product name change may continue to use the verification statement, report, and ETV
name and logo in accordance with ETV Program guidelines. The company will need to contact the VO in
writing to request the company or technology name change. The written request will need to describe why
a name change is being requested (e.g., a change in ownership) and state whether there have been any
design or performance changes since the technology was originally verified. The VO will review the
vendor's written request, as well as any documentation that may be provided, to determine whether the
technology changed in any way since verification. If deemed necessary, a more in-depth analysis may be
performed by the VO to confirm that the technology has not changed. The vendor will be responsible for
paying for this analysis.
Once the VO is satisfied that no changes have been made to the technology, the VO can update
the verification statement (and report, if applicable) to reflect the change(s). The VO shall update the
23
-------
ownership and contact information in the box on the first page of the verification statement (new
company or technology name, phone number, Web site, etc.) as appropriate (see section 2.9.1 for
example). A footnote documenting the relevant changes should be added. For example, "This verification
statement (and report) was originally written for the XYZ Company which has been purchased by the
ABC Company. Widget Z is the new product name for the technology originally verified as Widget Y.
The verification statement was revised on mm/dd/yyyy (insert date) to reflect this change." Other
information, such as "the XYZ Company has moved from Ontario to Pittsburgh," may also be included in
the footnote. Since the information is changed only on the cover of the verification statement, a footnote
or endnote should be included stating "These changes have been made only to the cover of the document.
The remainder of the document refers to the product and company name which were applicable when the
technology was originally verified." Information can also be added to the footnotes identifying the level
of analysis used by the VO to assess whether a change occurred (e.g., reviewed a letter provided by the
vendor). Once the VO has made the revisions to the verification statement (and report, if applicable), the
new company, company with a name change, or company with a verified technology name change may
continue to use the ETV verification report and statement and, subsequently, the ETV name and logo in
accordance with the guidelines specified in the U.S. EPA Environmental Technology Verification
Program (ETV) Guidelines for Proper Use of the ETV Name and Logo.
Policy Source - May 2001 Team Meeting, October 2003 Team Meeting, May 2007 Team Meeting, U.S. EPA Environmental
Technology Verification Program (ETV) Guidelines for Proper Use of the ETV Name and Logo, Draft January 2008
2.9.9 When the same technology is tested under separate test events or conditions, a
single verification report and statement should be produced, assuming this allows the
program to provide verification results in a timely and efficient manner.
Some technologies may be tested during separate test events or conditions, either at different
facilities or using different performance criteria. Since a single verification statement or report is often the
more efficient way to present and also understand verification results, centers and ESTE projects need to
carefully determine whether to generate more than one verification statement or report for the same
technology. For example, if the tests were performed contemporaneously (or close to it) and the results
from the different test events can be efficiently and effectively combined in a single document without
significantly delaying its release, then only one verification report and statement should be produced. If
the technology was verified at multiple locations (usually with different collaborators, applications, and/or
scales) and a significant amount of time elapsed between these test events, then separate verification
reports and statements may be more appropriate. The ultimate goal is to provide ETV customers with
verified technology performance information in a timely and efficient manner. If more than one
verification statement and report is produced, then successive verification reports should reference all
previous reports.
Policy Source - May 2001 Team Meeting, January 2004 Team Call
2.9.10 "Partial" verification reports must not be generated.
All of the critical measurements/objectives identified in the test/QA plan or its accompanying
generic verification protocol must be fully addressed (per the requirements in the test/QA plan) for a
verification report or statement to be developed. "Partial" verifications which intentionally address only
some of the critical performance factors must not be performed, as noted in Section 2.7.4.
If problems are encountered that prevent a center or ESTE project from fully verifying the
performance of a technology under all the different test conditions or locations defined in the test/QA
plan, the VO (with EPA and stakeholder input) may re-evaluate whether enough data have been or will be
24
-------
collected to generate a verification statement or report that could prove useful to a technology decision-
maker, albeit on a smaller number of conditions or locations than originally targeted. If the VO and EPA
decide that a verification report and statement can be developed which evaluates all the critical objectives,
but not under all the scenarios or locations originally targeted in the test/QA plan, this decision must be
discussed in the verification report and a modification to the test/QA plan or protocol may be warranted.
In certain, very limited circumstances, usually due to a significant delay in completing the second, third,
etc., phase of testing specified in the test/QA plan, a verification statement or report may be developed
containing the initial test results, as per Section 2.9.12.
Policy Source - January 2004 Team Call, 2007 November Partner Call
2.9.11 Verification statements and reports should be finalized within three to six
months from the completion of testing.
Verification reports and statements should be finalized within three months of the end of testing
and must be finalized within six months of testing completion. In general, no more than nine months to
one year should elapse between the signing of the vendor agreements and the submittal of the draft final
report by the VO to the EPA center project officer or EPA ESTE project manager for signature, assuming
that testing takes less than three months.
Policy Source - January 2004 Team Call
2.9.12 Preliminary data reports may be released by the VO if qualified appropriately.
In certain circumstance, VOs may release short reports that contain verification results that have
not been reviewed by the EPA quality manager, but have been reviewed and approved by the VO quality
manager. In addition to clearly stating that these reports are not products of the ETV Program and have
not been reviewed by EPA, these reports must contain the following disclaimer:
"The results and conclusions presented in this report have not been reviewed by the EPA quality
manager for the ETV (insert the name of the center or ESTE project). The results in this report
have been reviewed, however, by the ETV (insert name of VO) quality manager for the (insert
name of the center or ESTE project) and approved for release."
The report should also note that the results presented in the report are not final and are, therefore,
subject to change, since they have not been reviewed by the EPA quality manager. The report should also
note that the final data set will be summarized in the upcoming verification report and statement.
Policy Source - May 2007 Team Meeting
2.10 Information Diffusion
2.10.1 Vendors must agree to abide by the guidelines for use of the ETV name, logo,
and verification information, or verifications may be revoked.
Any use of the ETV name [Environmental Technology Verification Program (ETV)], logo, or
verification data must be in compliance with the U.S. EPA Environmental Technology Verification
Program (ETV) Guidelines for Proper Use of the ETV Name and Logo. VO agreements with vendors
must require that vendors agree to follow the ETV name and logo use guidance. The agreements must
state that the VO reserves the right to revoke verification in cases of inaccurate statements or logo use.
25
-------
Vendors of technologies that have completed the ETV verification process may use the ETV
name and logo to advertise the availability of performance data verified by ETV. Under no circumstances
shall the ETV name or logo be used in a manner that would imply EPA endorsement, approval,
certification, guarantee, or warranty of the company, its products, its technologies, or its services.
Organizations that misuse the ETV name or logo will be contacted in writing or by telephone to
correct the error(s). Failure by a developer/vendor or their representative(s) (e.g., licensed distributor,
foreign subsidiary, contractor, advertisement agency, etc.) to make the required correction(s) may result
in removal of the developer's/vendor's verification report and statement from the ETV Web Site and
revocation of the verification report and statement. In the event of revocation of a verification report and
statement, ETV verification organizations may also send out an announcement stating that the verification
has been revoked. If a developers/vendor's verification report and statement are revoked by EPA, any
and all permission for use of the ETV name and logo by that developer/vendor and their representative(s)
is also revoked.
Policy Source - U.S. EPA Environmental Technology Verification Program (ETV) Guidelines for Proper Use of the ETV Name
and Logo, Draft January 2008
2.10.2 Key ETV Program outputs are placed on the ETV Web site.
The goal of the ETV Web site (www.epa.gov/etv) is to ensure that the most up-to-date
information about all parts of the program is available to the interested. If achieved, this will facilitate
access to information for all customers, provide better communication among ETV Team members and
VOs, and provide a current, accurate account of ETV technologies and activities. As new cooperative
agreements are being competed and awarded, VOs are increasingly posting program outputs on their
organizations' web sites.
Policy Source - October 1998 Team Meeting, October 2003 Team Meeting
2.10.3 Technology briefs should be developed by the VO shortly after the completion of
the verification statement and report.
Technology briefs are used to document ETV activities in a specific area (e.g., green buildings) or
for a specific technology category. In general, they include a short description of a technology
category(ies), a summary of the verification activities to date, including verification results for completed
verifications, and background information on the environmental, human health, and regulatory drivers for
technology use. Although summary tables may be included that identify a technology or vendor by name,
technology briefs should not contain narrative comparisons of technology performance. Whenever
possible, technology briefs should be developed by the VO shortly after the completion of the verification
statement and report.
Policy Source - May 2007 Team Meeting
2.10.4 The EPA center project officers and EPA ESTEproject managers are
responsible for providing Web-ready versions of the final verification reports and
statements to the ETV coordination staff.
As soon as the verification report and statement are completed for a technology, the EPA center project
officer or EPA ESTE project manager is responsible for clearing these documents and providing Web-
26
-------
ready electronic versions of the verification report and statement to the ETV director or designee in the
ETV coordination staff. VOs and project officers with agreements that require compliance with Section
508 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Accessibility Standard, and the FAR Final Rule shall also ensure that
the statements and reports are 508-compliant. In addition to *.pdf file(s), the EPA center project officer
or EPA ESTE project manager should forward copies of the original source file(s). All files should be
provided to the ETV director or designee within one week of EPA approval. ETV coordination staff
will promptly forward these documents to the EPA Web master to be placed on the ETV Web site.
Policy Source - May 2001 Team Meeting, May 2007 Team Meeting
2.10.5 Documents under active review will not be posted on the ETV Web site.
The primary purpose of the ETV Program Web site is information diffusion to purchasers,
permitters, regulators, vendors, and the general public. Therefore, documents under active review should
not be posted on the Web site.
Policy Source - May 2001 Team Meeting
2.10.6 Final verification protocols and test/QA plans will be posted on the ETV Web
site.
The primary purpose of the ETV Program Web site is information diffusion to purchasers,
permitters, regulators, vendors, and the general public. Therefore, final verification protocols and test/QA
plans (i.e., those ready for use in testing) should be posted on the ETV Web site and, in some cases, the
VO's Web site, as noted in Section 2.10.2. The EPA center project officers and ESTE project managers
are responsible for providing web-ready electronic versions of these documents to ETV coordination staff
for posting, per the requirements outlined for verification reports and statements in Section 2.10.4.
Policy Source - May 2001 Team Meeting, May 2007 Team Meeting
2.10.7 ETV centers and ESTE projects will provide ETV stands and disks to vendors
who have a verified technology under the ETV Program.
An "ETV Participant" stand will be provided by the ETV center or ESTE project to a vendor
once a vendor agreement has been signed and upon receiving full payment for testing as applicable. An
ETV disk will be provided by the appropriate ETV center or ESTE project to vendors once their
technology has completed verification under the program, typically at the same time they receive the
completed verification report and statement. The ETV stand and disk can be used by vendors at
conferences and other meetings where they are displaying the technology or information about the
technology that ETV has verified. The ETV stand and disk can be affixed to a booth or table or to the
technology itself if it is being displayed. The ETV centers and ESTE projects will provide a letter to each
vendor detailing the purpose and proper use of the ETV Disk. The purpose and proper use of the ETV
stand and disk are detailed in U.S. EPA Environmental Technology Verification Program (ETV)
Guidelines for Proper Use of the ETV Name and Logo.
Policy Source - May 2001 Team Meeting, U.S. EPA Environmental Technology Verification Program (ETV) Guidelines for
Proper Use of the ETV Name and Logo, Draft January 2008
27
-------
References
EPA. 1984. Directive 2160 - Records Management Manual. July. See
yjov/re«^^ for individual schedules.
EPA. 1997. ETV Program Verification Strategy. EPA/600/K-96/003 . February.
EPA. 1999. Directive 2100. A16. Information Security, Chapter 8, Information Resources
Management Policy Manual. December.
EPA. 2000. Order 5360.1 A2. Policy and Program Requirements for the Mandatory Agency-wide
Quality System. May.
EPA Science Advisory Board, Environmental Engineering Committee, Technology Evaluation
Subcommittee. 2000. Review of EPA's Environmental Technology Verification Program.
EPA/SAB/EEC/00/012. August.
EPA. 2002. Report to Congress. Final Draft. August.
EPA. 2003. White Paper - Measuring Short-term Outcomes of the EPA Environmental
Technology Verification Program. Final Draft. August.
EPA. 2006. Science and Technology for Sustainability Multi-Year Plan. Draft. September.
EPA. 2007. Fact Sheet: EPA's ETV Program. EPA/600/F-07/005 . May.
EPA. 2007. ETV Program Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report. July.
EPA. 2008. Environmental Technology Verification Program Quality Management Plan.
January.
EPA. 2008. U.S. EPA Environmental Technology Verification Program (ETV) Guidelines for
Proper Use of the ETV Name and Logo. Draft. January.
28
-------
------- |