The National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) is an 

independent federal advisory committee that provides recommendations to the Administrator 

of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on a broad range of environmental issues. 

The Subcommittee on Environmental Technology is an ad hoc subcommittee of the Council 

and was formed to examine EPA’s role in the development, commercialization, and use of 

innovative technology in fulfilling its mission to protect human health and the environment. 

The findings and recommendations of the Subcommittee do not necessarily represent the 

views of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

EPA 130-R-07-004


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency


Office of Cooperative Environmental Management


http://www.epa.gov/ocem


May 2007

Subcommittee Members 

Philip Helgerson (Chair) – CSC Advanced Marine Center 

Dan Watts (Liaison to the NACEPT Council) – New Jersey Institute of Technology 

Linda Benevides – Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 

David Dzombak – Carnegie Mellon University 

Kenneth Geiser – University of Massachusetts at Lowell 

John Hornback – Metro 4/Southeastern States Air Resource Managers, Inc. (SESARM) 

Kristine Krause – Wisconsin Energy Corporation 

JoAnn Slama Lighty – University of Utah 

Raymond Lizotte – American Power Conversion Corporation 

Oliver Murphy – Lynntech, Inc. 

Robin Newmark – Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

Patrick O’Hara – Cummings/Riter Consultants 

Christine Owen – Tampa Bay Water 

Katherine Reed – 3M Environmental, Health and Safety Operations 

Norman Richards – Mohegan Environmental Protection Department, The Mohegan Tribe 

Karen Riggs – Battelle Memorial Institute 

James Robbins – Environmental Business Cluster 

Howard Roitman – Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials 

Kent Udell – University of Utah (Professor and Chair), University of California, Berkeley 

(Professor Emeritus) 
ii

Chairman’s Prologue 

This is the second report by the Environmental Technology Subcommittee of 

the National Advisory Council on Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT). 

The Subcommittee was created in November 2004, at the request of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Administrator to provide insight and 

guidance regarding EPA’s current technology programs. The Subcommittee has 

brought together representatives from the environmental, industrial, public policy, 

scientific, and academic communities in dialogue with senior managers and EPA 

subject matter experts. Together with our first report, which was issued in May 

2006, this report completes the Findings and Recommendations of the 

Subcommittee. 

In our first report, we focused on internal EPA programs and practices. In this 

report, we offer additional recommendations for the Agency’s Environmental 

Technology Programs, and then turn our attention outward, looking at how the 

Agency engages with others. The recommendations cover four critical areas: 

Partnerships—We recommend specific ways that EPA can increase its partnerships with states, tribes, and private-sector organizations to further the 

discovery, development, and deployment of new technologies. 

Encouraging Market Demand—We highlight opportunities for EPA to use its 

regulatory authority and respected science and technology expertise to 

stimulate market demand for promising new technologies. 

International Issues—Our recommendations encourage EPA to engage 

more in international activities, increase awareness of and response to 

changing international standards and markets, expand cooperative technology verification programs across the world, and identify emerging markets for new technologies. 

Global Climate Change Roles and Responsibilities—We propose increased 

activity in technology development and regulatory analysis and policy in 

areas where the Agency’s mission will require it to be involved in addressing 

causes, projected environmental impacts, and potential adaptation 

actions related to global climate change. 

In December 2006, EPA Administrator Johnson advised NACEPT that he had 

directed implementation of key recommendations from our first report, establishing a Senior Environmental Technology Officer to lead and coordinate Agency 

environmental strategy and policy and creating positions for Environmental 

Technology Advocates in each EPA region. In addition, the Administrator acted 

to strengthen the Environmental Technology Council and to create an 

Environmental Technology Verification and Assessment Staff coordinated by 

the National Risk Management Research Laboratory. 

Building on these positive initiatives, I am confident that the Agency will be 

able to adopt further recommendations of this Subcommittee, and more visibly 

and effectively improve its engagement with the environmental technology 

market. 

Philip Helgerson, Chairman 

Subcommittee on Environmental Technology 

National Advisory Council for Environmental 

Policy and Technology 
Table of Contents


I. Executive Summary ..................................................................................1 

A.	 Background and Process ..................................................................................1


B.	 Summary of the Recommendations in the First Report 


of the NACEPT Subcommittee ..........................................................................2


C.	 Findings and Recommendations in the Second Report


of the NACEPT Subcommittee ..........................................................................3


II. EPA Technology Programs: Engaging the Marketplace ....................11 

A. Introduction/Background................................................................................11


B. 	 NACEPT Subcommittee First Report, EPA Technology Programs 


and Intra-Agency Coordination ....................................................................12


C. Report Overview ..............................................................................................13


D. 	 Findings and Recommendations ..................................................................13


1. EPA Technology Program Management 


(Additional Recommendations)................................................................13


2. Partnership Issues ........................................................................................18


3. Encouraging Market Demand for Innovative 


Environmental Technology ........................................................................25


4. International Issues ....................................................................................37


5. Environmental Technology and Climate Change ..................................41
 iii

III. Appendices ............................................................................................49 

Appendix A: 	Charge to the Subcommittee on Environmental


Technology ..............................................................................................49


Appendix B: 	 List of Subcommittee Members ............................................................55


Appendix C: 	List of Recommendations in the First Report of the 


NACEPT Subcommittee ..........................................................................56


Appendix D: 	EPA Administrator’s December 19, 2006 Letter 


to NACEPT Chair......................................................................................59


Appendix E: 	Suggested Functions and Duties of the SETO, Regional 


Technology Coordinators, and Technology 


Communication Coordinator ................................................................61

iv

List of Acronyms


DfE Design for the Environment 

DOC Department of Commerce 

DoD Department of Defense 

DOE Department of Energy 

ECOS Environmental Council of the States 

ELV End of Life Vehicles 

EMS Environmental Management System 

EP Environmental Project 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute 

ERIS Environmental Research Institute of the States 

ESTCP Environmental Security Technology Certification Program 

ETC Environmental Technology Council 

ETOP Environmental Technology Opportunities Portal 

ETV Environmental Technology Verification 

EU European Union 

FRTR Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable 

GHG Greenhouse Gas 

ITRC Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council 

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

NACEPT National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology 

NPS Nonpoint Source 

ORD Office of Research and Development 

POC Point of Contact 

R&D Research and Development 

RoHS Restriction on Hazardous Substances in Electronics 

SEP Supplemental Environmental Project 

SERDP Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program 

SETO Senior Environmental Technology Officer 

SWAQ Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality 

TARP Technology Acceptance and Reciprocity Partnership 

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme 

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development 

USGBC U.S. Green Building Council 

WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Product 

WHO World Health Organization 
I. Executive Summary 

This report, EPA Technology Programs: Engaging the Marketplace, is the second of two reports issued by the National Advisory Council for Environmental 

Policy and Technology (NACEPT) on therole of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) in fostering the development and deployment of innovative environmental technologies. Produced by the NACEPT Subcommittee on 

Environmental Technology, the first report was published in May 2006 and 

focused on the internal structure, efficacy, and communication aspects of EPA’s 

many and diverse technology programs. The Subcommittee now issues its second and final report on EPA’s relationships, interactions, and communication with 

the vast universe of entities that constitute the complex marketplace for new 

environmental technologies. 

A. Background and Process 

EPA’s mission is to protect human health and the natural environment. Its 

strategic goals are Clean Air and Global Climate Change, Clean and Safe 1

Water, Land Preservation and Restoration, Healthy Communities and Ecosystems, 

and Compliance and Environmental Stewardship. The EPA Administrator and 

other senior managers have stated that technology is critical in achieving these 

goals, and that it will be the central driver in moving from the command and 

control policies of the past to a new, more sustainable environmental protection 

paradigm for the future. 

The EPA Administrator established the NACEPT Subcommittee on 

Environmental Technology to evaluate and make recommendations on EPA’s 

stimulation, facilitation, and use of innovative technology in carrying out its mission. The Agency’s charge to this Subcommittee is presented in Appendix A, and 

a list of the Subcommittee members is provided in Appendix B. The 

Subcommittee convened its first meeting in November 2004, and has held quarterly sessions for the past 2 years. Numerous presenters from EPA, other government agencies, states, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector 

have briefed the Subcommittee on a broad spectrum of technology issues. Eight 

specific subject areas have been addressed further by working groups comprised 

of Subcommittee members. Each working group has developed findings and 

recommendations with which the full Subcommittee concurs. 

The Subcommittee has reviewed the Agency’s technology programs in the 

context of the unique role that EPA plays in the broad spectrum of public and private activities that must occur to bring increasingly cost-effective technologies 
2

into use. Specifically, the Subcommittee has sought to answer the questions 

posed in the Agency’s charge: 

How can EPA better optimize its environmental technology programs to 

make them as effective as possible in promoting the research, development, commercialization, and implementation of sustainable private-sector 

technologies? 

What other environmental programs and activities should EPA initiate to 

take advantage of opportunities that it may be missing to further the effectiveness of its technology facilitation objectives? (Although EPA is not likely 

to receive significant additional funding for any new technology activities, 

the Subcommittee should not feel constrained in its thinking.) 

In general, the Subcommittee has been most impressed with the broad spectrum of technology-related programs presented to it by Agency managers and 

others. The overall pace of environmental progress in recent decades attests to 

EPA’s effectiveness in supporting the legal and technological changes that have 

brought it about. EPA is involved in all of the components of technology 

research, development, and diffusion, and some of the Agency’s programs have 

been pivotal in bringing important new technologies into use. 

B. 	Summary of the Recommendations in the First Report of the 

NACEPT Subcommittee 

The NACEPT Subcommittee on Environmental Technology issued its first report, 

EPA Technology Programs and Intra-Agency Coordination, in May 2006. This 

report focused on the evaluation of EPA’s internal technology programs, the 

organization of their presentation to the public, and recent efforts to cross organizational lines to more effectively solve problems that are impeded by the lack of 

commercially available technology. In particular, the report contained the EPA 

Technology Development Continuum, a newly developed tool for organizing and 

analyzing the Agency’s diverse technology facilitation programs, which reside in 

EPA’s media program offices (i.e., Air and Radiation; Water; Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response; and Pollution Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances), 

Office of Research and Development (ORD), and Region 1. Twenty-four programs are defined and appropriately arrayed across the entire spectrum of 

activities needed to move technology ideas from earliest conceptualization 

through research and development and on to full commercialization and use. 

The first report contained Subcommittee findings and the following recommendations in three areas:1 

1.	 Environmental Technology Development Continuum: EPA should broadly 

publish the Continuum and should use it as a tool to evaluate the outcomes of EPA programs across a wide spectrum of metrics and criteria. 

2.	 EPA Programs, Priorities, and Policy: EPA should target its technology support efforts to publicly stated environmental goals; improve its metrics of 

success; expand its support programs at the demonstration, verification, 

1 Figure 1, on page 14 of this report, contains a summary of the major recommendations from the Subcommittee’s first 

report and Appendix C contains the complete list of recommendations. The entire report can be found on the Web 

at http://www.epa.gov/etop/nacept. 
and commercialization end of the Continuum; improve communication 

from one technology program to another; designate technology coordinators in the regional offices; increase public awareness of its programs to 

create demand for new environmental technologies; and encourage 

sustainability as one of the criteria for technology development assistance. 

3.	 Environmental Technology Action Teams: EPA should employ an ongoing 

public process to identify the country’s most pressing environmental problems needing technological solutions and utilize its newly developed 

Environmental Technology Council (ETC) Action Team initiative to address 

them. 

C. Findings and Recommendations in the Second Report of the 

NACEPT Subcommittee 

The Subcommittee’s second report, EPA 

Technology Programs: Engaging the 

Marketplace, focuses on management issues 

that affect the Agency’s ability to coordinate 

its programs and interface with the diverse 

governmental and private-sector organizations that constitute the environmental 

marketplace; on the critical area of the 

Agency’s ability to build, join, coordinate, 

sustain, and leverage partnerships with key 

government and private-sector organizations; on the complex issues of EPA’s role in 

impacting market demand forces to 

empower technology deployment both 

within the United States and abroad; and 

finally, on the looming technological challenges associated with mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. 

3

Findings and Recommendations 

Finding 1: 	EPA Technology Program Management 

(Additional Recommendations) 

From its earliest deliberations, the Subcommittee has discussed the need for 

EPA to create a more coordinated and interconnected internal technology management structure to attain a higher degree of coordination and visibility across 

the broad and diverse spectrum of programs now operating within the Agency. 

The Continuum was the first product of this focus on increased coordination and 

this report follows with its focus on EPA’s engagement with those outside entities 

whose actions will fundamentally influence the rate of new technology implementation. 

Between the issuance of its first report in May 2006 and this one, the 

Subcommittee is pleased to note that EPA management has responded to its 

recommendations through the establishment or enhancement of four organizational entities. These changes are described in a letter dated December 19, 
4

2006, from EPA Administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, to the Chair of NACEPT, John L. 

Howard, Jr. (see Appendix D). The Subcommittee believes the implementation of 

these changes will have a positive impact on the Agency’s ability to manage its 

internal technology programs and to interact with a diverse external universe of 

environmental actors. The four new functions identified in the December 19 letter 

are to: 

“Establish a Senior Environmental Technology Officer (SETO) who will be the 

focal point for key activities recommended in the report like establishing priorities, chairing the ETC, facilitating cross-agency coordination and information sharing, working with the business community and other stakeholders, 

and developing metrics for measuring effectiveness.” 

“Establish the Environmental Technology Council as a core Agency activity 

with more senior-level membership accountable for results.” 

“Establish a Regional Environmental Technology Advocacy Network comprised of a technology advocate in each region to identify opportunities to 

use technology to achieve better results, share information within the 

Agency and with stakeholders, serve as a liaison with technology programs 

across the Agency, and serve as a member of the ETC.” 

“Create an Environmental Technology Verification and Assessment Staff 

coordinated by the National Risk Management Research Laboratory to 

provide enhanced technology support to the SETO and the rest of the 

Agency on issues like technology verifications, state-of-the-art assessments, 

technology development collaborations, and encouraging sustainability.” 

Recommendation 1.1: SETO. EPA’s newly created SETO should report 

directly to the Administrator and be afforded the appropriate staff and 

monetary resources necessary to support this important function. The primary roles of this position should be to: (1) have knowledge of Agency 

technology programs and needs; (2) coordinate program and regional 

office activities to ensure that redundancies are avoided and resources 

are appropriately allocated to address the most serious problems requiring 

technological fixes; (3) provide the Administrator with knowledgeable 

advice on domestic and international technology issues and policies; 

(4) open communication channels and partnership opportunities to all 

outside entities whose assistance can further Agency technology development and deployment goals; and (5) ensure that outstanding communication functions operate across the entire Agency to facilitate robust 

information flow to the marketplace on effective technologies of all types. 

Recommendation 1.2: Additional Important SETO Functions. Three additional functions to be carried out by the SETO are recommended to: 

(1) assure EPA leadership in environmental technology communications 

and the provision of substantial resources for this critical function; (2) create 

and nurture EPA partnerships with both public- and private-sector organizations to maximize effective interface with other government agencies that 

have major technology development and deployment responsibilities, as 

well as the multiple actors in the commercial marketplace; and (3) convene a broadly based External Technology Advisory Board to advise the 

Agency on priority environmental problems needing technology breakthroughs, marketplace realities, communication issues, partnership 
opportunities, and emerging technological challenges and opportunities 

such as those to be found in the field of nanotechnology. 

Recommendation 1.3: Expansion of Environmental Technology Council 

Functions. EPA will expand the present functions of the ETC to encompass 

the broader role of an ongoing, cross-Agency technology council for coordination of technology programs, sharing of information, and development 

of general EPA technology policy. 

Recommendation 1.4: Regional Technology Coordinator Function. The 

Subcommittee reconfirms its previously stated recommendation to “establish a policy that each regional office will designate a specific technology 

information coordinator” and applauds EPA’s decision to do so. It further 

recommends specific functions to be provided by the regions through this 

mechanism and overall coordination by the SETO. 

Recommendation 1.5: Environmental Technology Verification and 

Assessment. A primary barrier to new private-sector technology has been 

the lack of independent and quality assured data on its environmental performance, operational reliability, and cost. EPA-supported verification 

allows this gap to be filled by providing technology developers with data 

that they can use to convince buyers to buy, while ensuring that the 

Agency’s primary function, environmental protection, is safe-guarded by 

technologies that work. The permanent placement of verification and 

assessment staff within ORD’s National Risk Management Research 

Laboratory will ensure that this critical function is continued. 

Finding 2: Partnership Goals and Opportunities 

The concept of partnership is integral to the success of EPA’s environmental 

technology efforts. Partnerships with other federal, tribal, state, and local government agencies; academia; public- and private-sector research organizations; 

trade and professional associations; technology developers and vendors; and 

purchasers and users of new technologies are necessary for technologies to 

move from early research to actual deployment. EPA cannot and should not 

develop or promote the development of technology in a vacuum. This is true not 

only because of EPA’s finite resources, but also, more importantly, because a host 

of other partners bring needed expertise, creativity, and market knowledge, as 

well as resources, to the table. EPA is particularly in need of input from the private sector. 

Recommendation 2.1: Strategic Partnership Planning. EPA should use the 

Environmental Technology Development Continuum, described in the 

Subcommittee’s first report, for strategic thinking about the need for partners at different stages along the Continuum. By identifying partnerships 

that may be needed and available at particular stages, the Agency can 

better target its resources towards either supporting those partnerships or 

filling gaps by establishing new partnerships where there currently are no 

partners. 

Recommendation 2.2: Partnerships With Other Agencies. EPA should join 

successful initiatives that already exist in other government agencies at all 

levels to further commercialization of environmental technology and 

expand the successful partnerships in which the Agency now participates. 

5
6

Recommendation 2.3: State Partnership Challenges. Because states, tribes, 

and local government regulators play a major role in implementation of all 

technology, EPA should establish effective mechanisms for them to provide 

significant ongoing input into EPA environmental technology strategies and 

receive information and training on new technologies. 

Recommendation 2.4: Partnership With the Private Sector. EPA should 

expand the use of its broad stakeholder process used in the Agency’s 

Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program to other appropriate 

programs across the Continuum and use that process in the ETC Action 

Teams. The process brings to the table all segments of the marketplace— 

scientists and engineers, small business incubators, testing organizations, 

buyer and seller associations, developers and vendors, purchasers and 

users, other appropriate federal agencies, and regulators/permit writers at 

all appropriate levels of government—to discuss the opportunities and 

impediments as well as the data necessary to bring specific classes of 

needed technology to commercialization. 

Finding 3: 	Encouraging Market Demand for Innovative 

Environmental Technology 

Historically, EPA has conducted numerous 

programs to develop and promote marketplace 

demand for innovative environmental technology with strong emphasis on particular areas 

such as municipal wastewater treatment 

systems, soil and groundwater remediation 

technologies, and others. In the past 15 

years, the universe of primarily voluntary 

approaches for stimulating and increasing 

demand for innovative technology 

deployment has expanded, and EPA has 

been involved to varying degrees with 

development and/or implementation of 

many of these approaches. In general, 

so-called “demand pull” activities fall into 

three categories: (1) creative regulatory and 

enforcement approaches that provide incentives for technology innovation, such as emission 

trading (e.g., the acid rain program), flexible 

permitting, and enforcement incentives; (2) efforts to 

assist skeptical purchasers in their selection of new technologies with high-quality, independent information on performance (e.g., ETV, 

Design for the Environment [DfE]) and voluntary certification programs (e.g., 

ENERGY STAR); and (3) direct government support in selected areas through preferential procurement standards and purchasing (e.g., recycled paper, fly ash in 

concrete) or direct project funding (e.g., wastewater facilities, arsenic removal 

systems). 

Recommendation 3.1: Emission Credit Trading. Emission credit trading 

should be a component of environmental programs wherever possible. 

Under “cap and trade” programs, industry is given the incentive to achieve 

pollution reduction and maximize efficiency by the ability to sell emission 

credits to other companies that it has gained through reductions in emissions. The weak market for many new technologies can be stimulated 
through partnership with market forces found in emission credit trading programs established or endorsed by EPA. 

Recommendation 3.2: Flexible Permitting. EPA should commit to partnering with states independently and regionally to develop specific opportunities for greater flexibility in permitting to promote progressive technology 

development, particularly in areas in which innovative technology is needed to address serious unsolved problems or existing technology is too 

expensive for widespread implementation. 

Recommendation 3.3: Flexible Enforcement Actions. Environmental 

Projects (EPs) and Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) are important tools that EPA can employ to promote technology development and 

should be used more extensively for this purpose. Enforcement actions 

should authorize the development, piloting, or enhancement of environmental technology where appropriate. EPA should specifically include 

innovative technologies in project ideas for potential SEPs, with appropriate 

protections for the performance risks of the new technologies. 

Recommendation 3.4: ETC Action Teams and SEPs. SEPs should be expanded specifically to include support for ETC Action Team projects. Action 

Team problem areas that have sufficient nexus to the environmental conditions impacted by alleged violations could be directly supported by SEPs. 

Recommendation 3.5: Independent and Quality Assured Performance 

Data. EPA can and should continue to stimulate demand by providing the 

environmental marketplace with independent information and quality 

assured data on the performance of innovative, commercial-ready technologies through expansion of the DfE and ETV programs. 

Recommendation 3.6: Expanded “Green” Certification Programs. EPA 

should continue to expand on the success of its voluntary ENERGY STAR program, creating additional “green” programs in the same mold for a wide 

variety of industries and activities. In addition, the Agency should welcome 

the opportunity to work with any not-for-profit or private-sector organization 

interested in creating a robust certification program aimed at reducing pollution, energy usage, water usage, and waste, and increasing the overall 

sustainability of commercial, residential, and industrial activity. 

Recommendation 3.7: Preferential Purchasing. EPA should identify and act 

on opportunities to stimulate innovative environmental technology development and adoption through direct Agency preferential purchasing and 

through preferential purchasing requirements included in procurement 

specifications. EPA should be a leader among federal agencies in environmentally preferential purchasing, and offer guidance to other agencies in 

implementing adaptations of its model program. 

Finding 4: International Trends and Issues 

The Subcommittee has focused its work in the international area on evaluating the role and function of EPA technology assistance activities in the rapidly 

evolving international marketplace. The international technology sector is important to EPA and to the United States for many reasons, including the direct environmental impact of cross-border pollution, the expanded use in this country of 

technology developed and manufactured abroad, and the economic stimulus 

7
8

potential of the global marketplace for the development of innovative technologies across the board. In addition, emerging product, operational, and waste 

regulations in Europe that target the environmental characteristics of products 

are causing entire industries to redesign their products to optimize for environmental performance. Individual U.S. states, most notably California, are producing similar regulations that are resulting in the demand for new environmental 

technologies in the areas of manufacturing, measurement and verification, risk 

assessment, software, and other tools needed to achieve and ensure desired 

product performance. 

Recommendation 4.1: New International Manufacturing and Recycling 

Standards. U.S. manufacturers are responding to product environmental 

performance standards and regulations developed in Europe, and to state 

regulations that are emulating those developments at home. Emergence 

of differing and possibly conflicting standards will create confusion and 

impede the marketplace for these new technologies. Therefore, in partnership with appropriate state and business organizations, EPA should promptly 

conduct a major study or series of studies in affected sectors to determine 

the extent to which these new standards will affect U.S. environmental and 

technology requirements and determine what EPA’s role should be in harmonizing regulatory approaches and guiding states, manufacturers, and 

citizens in this rapidly evolving situation. 

Recommendation 4.2: International Technology Verification. EPA’s technology verification programs should be strengthened and promoted internationally as a process that offers technically reliable assessment of new 

domestic and international environmental technologies. In particular, the 

Agency should promote the use of ETV testing protocols by other nations to 

allow for the more rapid understanding and diffusion of commonly based 

performance information. 

Recommendation 4.3: International “Targets of Opportunity.” EPA should 

continue to pursue, and if possible, expand its policy of addressing international “targets of opportunity,” particularly in areas of cross-boundary pollution prevention/control and on other topics of high priority to the Agency, 

such as mercury control. Such targets also may arise from priorities developed by other departments and agencies charged with U.S. foreign policy 

missions. 

Recommendation 4.4: U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) and U.S. 

Agency for International Development (USAID) Partnerships. EPA should 

strengthen its interaction and cooperation with the domestic agencies that 

are the primary players in the international realm. DOC and USAID, in particular, have the lead in areas such as foreign aid and capacity building 

and support international opportunities for U.S. environmental technology 

industries. 

Finding 5: Global Climate Change Technology Challenges 

Climate change, a large-scale environmental issue with the potential to 

impact the entire globe, is one of the most important challenges that EPA will 

face in the 21st Century. The EPA Administrator stated in his climate change 

memorandum of July 6, 2006, that “Our planning must truly be strategic and 

include consideration of emerging challenges and opportunities. Rather than 

react or confront problems out of necessity, we should try to anticipate them and 
adapt our programs accordingly.” The Subcommittee agrees with this forwardlooking strategy and believes that problem anticipation must be accompanied 

by a corollary activity in technological solution evaluation. 

EPA’s massive commitment to and success in improving air and water quality 

over the last three decades are at risk. Many problems, which the nation has 

viewed as “solved,” will require new technology development to address newly 

defined issues as the dimensions of climate change impacts emerge. 

Strategic planning in this area will be multimedia of necessity, and therefore, 

will require the active participation of the new SETO to ensure that cross-media 

impacts are addressed and that the climate change aspects of technologies 

developed for other needs are evaluated. 

EPA should, as a result of its core environmental protection function, continue 

on its present course of assessing the potential degradation of air and water 

quality that will be caused by global warming. The Subcommittee also thinks, 

however, that EPA should expand its role in facilitating the development and 

deployment of the new technologies that will be needed to address climate 

change, assess its role in facilitating emissions trading, and prepare to use its regulatory authority to work with partners on the state and federal level on this serious emerging environmental challenge. 

Recommendation 5.1: Climate Change Technology Planning and R&D. 

Current federal climate change policy gives primary responsibility to other 

agencies, principally the U.S. Department of Energy, for technology related 

to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Subcommittee recommends 

that EPA identify and fund climate change technology in areas of importance within its purview that need special development assistance. 

Assistance along the entire Continuum for these required technologies 

needs attention and active, cross-Agency strategic planning for technology development. This planning process should be addressed by the SETO 

as a priority matter. 

Recommendation 5.2: Public/Private and State Partnerships. EPA should 

establish and cultivate meaningful public/private partnerships for technology development on climate change challenges. The importance of private-sector and public-sector partnerships becomes markedly more significant when dealing with large-scale environmental issues because of cost 

and scale, as well as practical implementation issues. In addition, EPA 

should increase its participation in partnerships with state, tribal, and regional groups that already are actively addressing the environmental effects of 

climate change. 

Recommendation 5.3: Technology Verification and Demonstration Support. 

EPA should establish and actively promote its leadership role in evaluating 

climate change technologies as new technologies approach the commercialization stage, so that purchasers can be assured that they are selecting 

the best technology for their particular situation. Governments, businesses, 

and individual consumers are beginning to voluntarily seek climate-friendly 

technologies in large numbers. Performance claims by vendors in a rapidly 

expanding marketplace need to be verified to ensure that technologies 

produce the types of results desired and that purchasers are not dissuaded 

from further voluntary actions by poor performance of new technology. 

9
10

Recommendation 5.4: EPA’s Potential Role in Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 

Emissions Trading. EPA should utilize its existing inventory of CO2 power 

plant emissions to establish a baseline for use by electric utilities in instituting 

an emissions trading program in the United States as soon as possible. As a 

result of the emission monitoring and reporting provisions of the Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1990, EPA’s Office of Atmospheric Programs is a world 

leader in operating both emissions inventory activities and emissions trading 

programs. The CO2 database that it has maintained for 10 years is the 

most available and logical source of plant-by-plant emissions data in the 

country and it should be utilized to rapidly establish year-specific baselines 

for all medium- to large-sized power plants. 

Recommendation 5.5: EPA’s Regulatory Role in Innovative Technology 

Development. Consistent with its charge to explore “encouraging demand 

for innovative technologies,” the Subcommittee recommends that EPA 

drive and enable innovative technology in all media by using not only existing but also new and creative regulatory and policy approaches to help 

solve the difficult issues facing the nation with respect to both prevention of 

and adaptation to climate change. EPA should actively seek and consider 

suggestions for innovative regulatory approaches that would encourage 

technology development within the regulated community as well as state, 

tribal, and local organizations. 
II. EPA Technology Programs: Engaging the Marketplace 

A. Introduction/Background 

In October 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of 

Research and Development (ORD) requested that the National Advisory Council 

for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) form a broad-based subcommittee of technology experts to address issues and advise the Administrator on 

the present focus and status of environmental technology programs within the 

Agency (see Appendix A for the full text of the Subcommittee Charge document). On November 3, 2004, the Environmental Technology Subcommittee was 

formed (see Appendix B for the Subcommittee membership list) and shortly thereafter, held its first meeting. 

The Charge to the Subcommittee posited the following core questions: 

How can EPA better optimize its environmental technology programs to make 

them as effective as possible in promoting the research, development, commercialization, and implementation of sustainable private-sector technolo- 11

gies? 

What other environmental programs and activities should EPA initiate to take


advantage of opportunities that it may be missing to further the effectiveness


of its technology facilitation objectives? (Although EPA is not likely to receive


significant additional funding for any new technology activities, the


Subcommittee should not feel constrained in its thinking.)


In particular, EPA requested the Subcommittee to review its effectiveness in 

the following five areas: 

Evaluating the existing suite of technology support programs, both individually


and collectively, with a particular focus on redundancies or gaps and the


extent to which they are appropriately designed to address technology


development barriers.


Encouraging demand for innovative technologies through the use of such tools


as direct financial incentives, creative regulatory and policy approaches,


preferential governmental purchasing, the evaluation and elimination of gov­


ernmental permitting barriers, or other demand-pull actions.


Reaching critical audiences with innovative technology information by organiz­


ing (or reorganizing) the massive amount of information that the Agency pos­


sesses on technology advances and performance, and by making this mate­

rial more accessible to the multiple public- and private-sector customers who 

need it through the use of 21st Century communication tools. 

Collaborating with states, tribes, and local governments to increase coordination and cooperation within and across all levels of government in assisting 

technologies to move from research to the actual implementation stage of 

development and commercialization. 

Collaborating with other federal agencies and the private sector to ensure that 

all major stakeholders in the complex process of bringing innovative technologies to market are represented in the consideration and implementation 

of EPA’s technology programs. 

The full Subcommittee has held eight meetings to date. Meeting agendas 

have included presentations by both government and nongovernment experts 

on overview issues and extensive briefings on the many and varied environmental technology research, development, and proliferation programs conducted by 

EPA. Working groups comprised of Subcommittee members have been formed 

to address specific issues and make preliminary recommendations to the full 

Subcommittee. After 2 years of deliberation, the Subcommittee now issues its 

second and final report containing findings and recommendations on which all 

members concur. The Subcommittee recommends that EPA and NACEPT monitor and periodically review the results of actions taken in response to recommendations contained in both reports. 

B. 	NACEPT Subcommittee First Report, EPA Technology Programs 

and Intra-Agency Coordination 

The Subcommittee’s first report, EPA Technology 

Programs and Intra-Agency Coordination, was 

issued in May 2006, and focused on findings and 

recommendations pursuant to EPA’s broad 

spectrum of technology programs and coordination among them. As such, it addressed 

primarily the first and third of the Charge 

topics listed above. In particular, the report 

contained the newly developed EPA 

Technology Development Continuum, the 

entire text of which can be found in 

Appendix D of the Subcommittee’s first 

report (the full Subcommittee report is 

available on the Web at 

http://www.epa.gov/etop/nacept). The 

Continuum displays, for the first time, the full 

range of EPA’s many and diverse technology 

facilitation programs. The Subcommittee 

reviewed a substantial subset of these programs, 

24 of which have been identified to date, and have 

used this information to inform the findings and recommendations for both of its 

reports. These programs reside in all of the Agency’s media program offices (Air; 

Water; Solid Waste and Emergency Response; and Pollution Prevention, Pesticides 

and Toxic Substances), ORD, and Region 1. They cover all of the three major 

12
functions necessary to develop, evaluate, and promote commercial-ready technologies to improve the environment: 

Basic research and development assistance for new ideas and innovations by 

academics, independent inventors, and researchers working both within the 

Agency and in large and small companies; 

Demonstration and verification of near or fully commercial-ready technologies to 

assist consultants and purchasers in making good choices among competing 

technologies based on independent and quality assured performance data; 

and 

Technology information diffusion to targeted audiences such as states, local 

governments, associations, and private-sector organizations to facilitate the 

spread of information on technologies that are available, effective, and 

affordable. 

A brief summary of the major recommendations in the Subcommittee’s first 

report is presented in Figure 1. A full list of these recommendations is provided in 

Appendix C and will be referenced extensively in this report. The entire first report 

can be found on the Web at http://www.epa.gov/etop/nacept. 

C. Report Overview 

This second report, EPA Technology Programs: Engaging the Marketplace, 

focuses on findings and recommendations pursuant to the remaining elements of 

the Subcommittee’s Charge. These include: management recommendations, 

which the Subcommittee believes will make the operation of the Agency’s programs more holistic, coordinated, and transparent to the public; the critical area 

of the Agency’s ability to build, join, coordinate, sustain, and leverage partnerships both internally and with key organizations outside of EPA, including the private sector; the use of various instruments, both regulatory and nonregulatory, to 

create a market demand for new technologies; the increasingly important role of 

international activity in the development and proliferation of improved technology; and the looming technological challenge of global climate change. 

D. Findings and Recommendations 

1. 	 EPA Technology Program Management 

(Additional Recommendations) 

As the Subcommittee emphasized in its first report, innovative and cost-effective environmental technologies are the keys to meeting our environmental goals 

and to achieving maximized environmental protection in the 21st Century. 

Ensuring that innovative technologies, capable of attaining improved environmental results at lower cost to the economy, move through the research and 

development continuum to full implementation in the marketplace requires 

focused attention at the highest levels of EPA and throughout the organization. 

This focus is particularly important in light of the need to interact extensively with 

the private sector on technology commercialization and deployment. With 

declining resources, however, the focus on getting technologies developed and 

used is rarely a priority activity in the Agency’s media programs and regional 

offices. 

13
Figure 1. Summary of Recommendations From the First Subcommittee Report 

14

1. EPA Technology Development Continuum 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should broadly publish the Continuum, in both Web and document form, to assist information 

seekers both within the Agency and outside. The Agency should use the 

Continuum as an effectiveness and evaluation tool to determine the 

metrics and outcomes of EPA programs; a prioritization and resource 

evaluation tool to make cross-Agency resource decisions; and an evaluation tool to determine EPA’s effectiveness in working with the other critical stakeholders in technology development and diffusion, most particularly state and local government and the private sector. 

2. EPA Programs, Priorities, and Policy 

EPA should target its technology support efforts to areas clearly linked 

to environmental regulations and other publicly stated environmental 

goals. 

Improved and coordinated metrics need to be developed, used 

across the entire spectrum of EPA technology programs, and publicized. 

Although a research focus is consistent with the government’s traditional role in funding basic research, it is important that other efforts, further 

along the research and development continuum, continue to be supported. 

Demonstration/verification programs need to be expanded. 

Each EPA technology program should know where to direct technologies to the next step in the development process both inside and outside EPA to ensure that promising innovations move through the 

Continuum toward commercialization. 

The Agency should address critical diffusion and utilization gaps that 

impede new technology from reaching the appropriate markets. 

The Agency should establish a policy that asks each regional office to 

designate a specific technology information coordinator. 

EPA should place more emphasis on and increase public awareness of 

its programs to create a demand for new environmental technologies. 

EPA should devote more attention and resources to those Agency programs that incorporate and encourage sustainability as one of the 

goals or criteria for technology development or implementation assistance. 

3. Environmental Technology Council Action Teams 

EPA should develop a formal and ongoing public process to identify 

the country’s most pressing environmental problems needing technological solutions. EPA should make the Action Team initiative a core program 

with high-level Agency support, while streamlining the management 

structure for both the Environmental Technology Council (ETC) and its 

Action Teams. The ETC should develop and institute Standard Operating 

Procedures for Action Teams and ensure that they immediately begin to 

include appropriate outside stakeholders. 
The Subcommittee believes that implementation of the recommendations 

made in its first report (see Figure 1), as well as those contained in this report, will 

move EPA toward more robust and coordinated technology programs across the 

Agency. The recommendations in this report, in particular, will facilitate activities 

through the many outside entities that must be involved for improved technology 

to be deployed through the marketplace. 

From its earliest deliberations, the Subcommittee has discussed the need for 

EPA to create a more coordinated and communicative internal technology 

management structure to attain a higher degree of coordination and visibility 

across the broad and diverse spectrum of programs now operating within the 

Agency. The Continuum was the first product of this focus on increased coordination, and this report follows with its focus on EPA’s engagement with those outside entities whose actions will fundamentally influence the rate of new technology implementation. 

Between the issuance of the Subcommittee’s first report in May 2006, and this 

one, EPA management has responded to the Subcommittee’s recommendations 

through the creation of four new organizational entities. These changes are 

described in a letter dated December 19, 2006, from EPA Administrator, Stephen 

L. Johnson, to the NACEPT Chair, John L. Howard, Jr. (see Appendix D). The 

Subcommittee believes that the implementation of these changes will have a 

positive impact on the Agency’s ability to manage its internal technology programs and to interact with a diverse external universe of environmental actors. 

The four new organizational functions are referenced in the findings below, along 

with the Subcommittee’s comments and recommendations on their implementation. 

Findings 

Finding 1.1: EPA will, “Establish a Senior Environmental Technology Officer 

(SETO) who will be the focal point for key activities recommended in the 

report like establishing priorities, chairing the Environmental Technology 

Council (ETC), facilitating cross-agency coordination and information sharing, working with the business community and other stakeholders, and 

developing metrics for measuring effectiveness.” 

Finding 1.2: EPA will, “Establish the Environmental Technology Council as a 

core Agency activity with more senior-level membership accountable for 

results.” 

Finding 1.3: EPA will, “Establish a Regional Environmental Technology 

Advocacy Network comprised of a technology advocate in each region 

to identify opportunities to use technology to achieve better results, share 

information within the Agency and with stakeholders, serve as liaison with 

technology programs across the Agency, and serve as a member of the 

ETC.” 

Finding 1.4: EPA will, “Create an Environmental Technology Verification and 

Assessment Staff coordinated by the National Risk Management Research 

Laboratory to provide enhanced technology support to the SETO and the 

rest of the Agency on issues like technology verifications, state-of-the-art 

assessments, technology development collaborations, and encouraging 

sustainability.” 

15
16

Finding 1.5: Communication of technology information on the broadest 

possible scale is necessary for the actual adoption, implementation, and 

use of better technology. At every point in the Continuum, but especially 

at the end of the process when an innovation has been fully developed, its 

performance independently verified, and its commercial potential ensured, 

EPA must facilitate the transmission of information and data to the wide 

diversity of people outside the Agency who need it for decision-making 

purposes. Today, Web sites and Web-based communication activities are 

the most universal means of information diffusion and critical to every 

aspect of implementation of innovative technology. The existence of a 

Web site, however, does not ensure that it will or should be used. EPA, 

through the focused management structure that it now has created, must 

ensure that those sites incorporated into its Environmental Technology 

Opportunities Portal (ETOP) Web Site are up to date, accurate, and user 

friendly. This Web site quality control function is essential for the Agency’s 

ongoing reputation as a repository of current and high-quality data and 

information. 

Recommendations 

Recommendation 1.1: SETO. EPA’s newly created SETO, should report 

directly to the Administrator and be afforded the appropriate staff and 

monetary resources necessary to support this important function. The primary roles of this position should be to: (1) have knowledge of Agency 

technology programs and needs; (2) coordinate program and regional 

office activities to ensure that redundancies are avoided and resources 

are appropriately allocated to address the most serious problems requiring 

technological fixes; (3) provide the Administrator with knowledgeable 

advice on domestic and international technology issues and policies; 

(4) open communication channels and partnership opportunities to all 

outside entities whose assistance can further Agency technology development and deployment goals; and (5) ensure that outstanding communication functions operate across the entire Agency to facilitate robust 

nformation flow on effective technology opportunities of all types. 

Appendix E contains further Subcommittee ideas on the internal and 

external roles of the SETO. 

Recommendation 1.2: Additional Important SETO Functions. The 

Subcommittee believes that there are several specific functions requiring 

special skills and experience that should reside within the office of the SETO. 

These are: 

Communications Leadership. The responsibility for the critical communication function should reside with the SETO and receive the substantial 

resources that a really effective communication effort will require to 

ensure actual implementation of new technologies. Subcommittee 

suggestions for this function are found in Appendix E. 

Partnership Coordination. EPA should create and nurture a technology 

support coordination function with the mission and responsibility of 

linking promising technologies with partners. This support function 

should have a working knowledge of incubators, markets, financial 

resources like venture capital organizations, regulatory agency needs, 

leadership companies, regulatory tools, interests of nonprofits, states 
taking leadership roles in specific areas, and other partners that could 

contribute to successful technology development and marketing. 

External Technology Advisory Board. An external Technology Advisory 

Board, comprised of major stakeholders, including a range of public 

and private representatives, should be formed to provide ongoing 

advice to the SETO and the Agency on priority environmental problems 

needing technology breakthroughs, marketplace realities, communication issues, and partnership opportunities. The Technology Advisory 

Board also could be charged with recommending or reviewing appropriate metrics for the Agency to use in measuring real-world results, 

both environmental and economic, from the introduction of innovations and could follow and advise on issues germane to the emergence of wholly new environmental approaches such as those involving nanotechnology. 

Recommendation 1.3: Expansion of Environmental Technology Council 

Functions. The Subcommittee approves of the Administrator’s decision to 

place the ETC under the direction of the SETO as EPA’s cross-Agency council on technology issues. The now permanent ETC should expand its functions to the broader role of an ongoing technology forum for coordination 

of technology programs, information diffusion, and development of general EPA technology policy. The ETC currently consists of representatives from 

each program office, ORD, and all 10 regions. Its present functions are to 

periodically identify the most pressing environmental problems requiring 

new technology and establish cross-Agency Action Teams to address them. 

The Subcommittee examined the ETC and its Action Teams and developed 

several recommendations concerning the Council in the May 2006 report, 

among which was, “EPA should make the Action Team initiative a core program with high-level Agency support...” ETC’s expanded functions will vary 

over time as Agency goals, issues, and initiatives evolve, but its existence as 

an intra-EPA forum for technology discussion is critical. 

Recommendation 1.4: Regional Technology Coordinator Functions. The 

Subcommittee’s May 2006 report recommended that the Agency 

“...establish a policy that each regional office will designate a specific 

technology information coordinator.” The Subcommittee reconfirms this 

recommendation and applauds the Administrator’s decision to implement 

it. The Subcommittee’s recommendations on the functions of these 

Coordinators are found in Appendix E. 

Recommendation 1.5: Environmental Technology Verification and 

Assessment. In almost every section of both its first and second reports, the 

Subcommittee has recommended the expansion and support of the 

Agency’s programs for technology verification as a core function within 

EPA. The Agency’s charge to this Subcommittee stated, “The Agency must 

support the role of the private sector in technology development, leveraging its programs and activities to facilitate the deployment of such technologies and eliminating barriers that discourage or hold back their adoption.” A primary barrier to new private-sector technology has always been 

the lack of independent and quality assured data on its environmental performance, operational reliability, and cost. EPA-supported verification 

allows this gap to be filled by providing technology developers with data 

that they can use to convince buyers to buy, while ensuring that the 

17
18

Agency’s primary function, environmental protection, is safe-guarded by 

technologies that work. The permanent placement of a verification and 

assessment staff within ORD’s National Risk Management Research 

Laboratory will ensure that this critical function is continued. 

2. Partnership Issues 

The recommendations of the Subcommittee on partnerships are intended to 

address strategic use of various partnership opportunities to further EPA’s environmental goals and solve priority problems. EPA has adopted a partnership culture 

and has established successful partnerships with many organizations. Some 

examples of these effective partnership-based programs include the Design for 

the Environment (DfE), WasteWise, Environmental Technology Verification (ETV), 

Nonpoint Source Partnership, and ENERGY STAR programs (see Successful EPA 

Partnership Programs on page 19 as well as the descriptions of DfE and ETV in the 

May 2006 report), but there are many others across the Agency. 

The concept of partnering with other federal, tribal, state, and local government agencies; academia; trade and professional associations; public- and private-sector research organizations; technology developers and vendors; and 

purchasers and users of new technologies is integral to the success of EPA’s environmental technology efforts. EPA cannot and should not develop or promote 

the development of technology in a vacuum. This is true not only because of 

EPA’s finite resources, but also more importantly, because a host of other partners 

bring needed expertise, creativity, and market knowledge, as well as resources, 

to the table. 

It should be emphasized that “partnership” is not a euphemism for “deep 

pockets,” nor are partnerships entered into primarily to leverage resources from 

other organizations, although this may sometimes occur. Partnership means 

many different things, and different kinds of partnerships may be more or less 

important at various points along the Continuum of technology development 

described in the NACEPT Subcommittee’s first report. Further, EPA’s role is different in relation to different partners. EPA can form partnerships and lead them, 

but it also can join existing partnerships led by others and effectively further its 

mission through these activities. 

Findings 

Findings 2.1: Partnerships are important to the advancement of environmental technology. EPA’s ability to advance technology is greatly 

enhanced by effective collaboration with a multiplicity of research, development, and marketplace actors. In particular, its relationships with state 

organizations such as the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) is critical to implementing its environmental goals in general and its technology 

goals in particular (see the description of ECOS on page 20). EPA needs to 

identify the gaps in developing needed technologies and support their closure through strategic use of partnerships. 

Finding 2.2: Current EPA partnerships that support development and marketing of environmental technologies are category specific (i.e., by industry, media, or technology) and tend to focus on the early and late stages 

of the Continuum. Partnerships appear to be less prevalent in the middle 

of the Continuum, the stage at which good ideas either succeed or fail in 

moving to commercialization. Partnerships needed at this stage may 
-

Successful EPA Partnership Programs 

Design for the Environment (DfE) is one of EPA’s premier partnership programs, working 

with individual industry sectors to compare and improve the performance and reduce 

human health and environmental risks and costs of existing and alternative products, 

processes, and practices. DfE partnership projects promote integrating cleaner, 

cheaper, and smarter solutions into everyday business practices. 

WasteWise is a free, voluntary EPA program through which organizations eliminate 

costly municipal solid waste and select industrial wastes, benefiting their bottom line 

and the environment. WasteWise is a flexible program that allows partners to design 

their own waste reduction programs tailored to their needs. All organizations within 

the United States may join the program. Large and small businesses from any industry 

sector are welcome to participate. Institutions, such as hospitals and universities, nonprofits, and other organizations, as well as state, local, and tribal governments, also 

are eligible to participate in WasteWise. 

The Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program develops testing protocols 

and verifies the performance of innovative technologies that have the potential to 

improve protection of human health and the environment. The program partners with 

private-sector testing organizations, federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of 

Defense, Department of Energy (DOE), National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, and Coast Guard, and numerous states to accelerate the entrance of 

new environmental technologies of all types into the domestic and international marketplace. ETV utilizes the largest stakeholder process in the Agency—more than 800 

public- and private-sector individuals representing federal, state, and local govern 

ment agencies; academics and technology experts; not-for-profits; associations; and 

a broad group of technology purchasers, users, developers, and vendors—to direct 

program activities. 

The State-EPA Nonpoint Source (NPS) Partnership provides an excellent framework for 

states and EPA to work together cooperatively to identify, prioritize, and solve NPS 

water problems. Work groups were established through this partnership to focus on 

NPS topic-specific needs, including: watershed planning and implementation; rural 

nonpoint sources; urban nonpoint sources; nonpoint source grants management; nonpoint source capacity building and funding; information transfer and outreach; nonpoint source results; and nonpoint source monitoring. The information and products 

emerging from these work groups help states to more effectively implement their NPS 

management programs. 

ENERGY STAR is a joint program of EPA and DOE that is helping Americans save money 

and protect the environment through energy-efficient products and practices. The 

program was introduced by EPA in 1992 as a voluntary labeling program designed to 

identify and promote energy-efficient products to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Today, more than 40 percent of the American public recognizes the ENERGY STAR 

label, which is on major appliances, office equipment, lighting, home electronics, and 

more. EPA also has extended the label to cover new homes and commercial and 

industrial buildings. Through its partnerships with more than 8,000 private- and publicsector organizations, ENERGY STAR delivers the technical information and tools that 

organizations and consumers need to choose energy-efficient solutions and best management practices. 

19
20

Environmental Council of the States 

The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) is the national nonprofit, nonpartisan 

association of state and territorial environmental agency leaders. The purpose of 

ECOS is to improve the capability of state environmental agencies and their leaders 

to protect and improve human health and the environment of the United States. 

ECOS believes that state government agencies are the keys to delivering environmental protection afforded by both federal and state law, and that the Council plays a 

critical role in facilitating a quality relationship between federal and state agencies in 

the fulfillment of that mission. The role of ECOS is to: 

◆ Articulate, advocate, preserve, and champion the role of the states in 


environmental management. 


◆ Provide for the exchange of ideas, views, and experiences among states and 

with others. 

◆ Foster cooperation and coordination in environmental management. 

◆ Articulate state positions to Congress, federal agencies, and the public on 

environmental issues. 

ECOS is actively working on several environmental policy research efforts both independently and through cooperative agreements with EPA, including the National 

Childhood Asthma Prevention Campaign, the Forum on State and Tribal Toxics Action, 

and Small Community Compliance Assistance. ECOS currently has several key partnerships with EPA, including: 

◆ State-EPA Information Management Workgroup. This workgroup formed the 

Environmental Data Standards Council in November 1999. The Council has 10 

members—four state, four EPA, and two tribal representatives. The Council 

develops environmental data standards to promote the exchange of information among states, tribes, and EPA. The workgroup also sponsors WISER, a 

secure, electronic workplace for use by employees of state environmental 

agencies and the EPA. Its purpose is to share ideas and information about 

information management and other topics of mutual interest. 

◆ National Environmental Information Exchange Network. The Exchange 

Network is a partnership among states, tribes, and EPA that is revolutionizing 

the exchange of environmental information. Partners on the Exchange 

Network share data efficiently and securely over the Internet. This new 

approach is providing real-time access to higher quality data while saving 

time, resources, and money for partner states, tribes, and territories. 

◆ The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC). The ITRC is a stateled coalition of regulators, industry experts, academia, citizen stakeholders, 

and federal partners working together to increase regulatory acceptance of 

state-of-the-art environmental technologies and approaches. 
provide funding for verification, regulatory or market advice, a venue for 

demonstration, and/or an opportunity for scale up. All are important to 

technology development and marketing success. 

Finding 2.3: A successful technology project partnership contains several 

key components, including: a serious environmental problem focus, a free 

exchange of existing knowledge and information as it develops, an adequate funding base, a willingness to explore the technology opportunity 

and pursue development, and an acceptance that risks and rewards 

should be shared. Different partners provide these components. 

Finding 2.4: Creative collaboration with the private sector, as well as input 

and interaction with government entities, are pivotal to the success of 

EPA’s environmental technology programs. Critical elements of development and commercialization can be achieved and sustained only by the 

private sector. A major factor in the success of EPA’s verification programs 

is the active inclusion of diverse public and private stakeholder groups used 

to: set priorities on categories to be tested, identify data needs, set testing 

parameters/protocols, and locate commercial technologies ready for testing. Stakeholder groups typically include appropriate federal, state, and 

sometimes local and tribal representatives, business and industry associations, scientists and engineers working in the field, large and small companies that need to procure technology in the area, and technology developers and vendors. 

Finding 2.5: Commercialization by the private sector may be the least 

understood aspect of technology development by government regulators. 

As a project approaches the commercialization phase, the importance of 

private-sector partnerships becomes markedly more significant. Factors 

that affect commercialization include: 

Limited growth potential, recognizing that, unlike many other businesses, there is a natural ceiling for many environmental technologies (i.e., 

only those who are required to or, for business or altruistic reasons, voluntarily decide to purchase pollution prevention/control/monitoring 

technology do so). 

Technical risk of noncompliance or nonperformance; operational and 

management difficulties; and high or unknown lifecycle costs. 

Intellectual property rights issues. 

Unfavorable odds, including lack of capital, opportunity, and time necessary to adequately demonstrate performance capabilities of the 

technology. 

Uncertain, evolving, and multiple regulatory requirements and performance standards at the local, state, and federal levels. 

Finding 2.6: Small business incubators, which accelerate development of 

successful entrepreneurial efforts by providing practical assistance and a 

variety of business and technical support services, represent a target of 

opportunity for EPA. A relatively small investment per company or project 

may be critical to the development of a technology needed to address a 

key EPA priority. 

21
22

Finding 2.7: Partners who can supply much-needed financial resources are 

particularly difficult for regulatory agencies to identify. Fundamentally, to 

invest in technology development, an entity must perceive a reasonable 

likelihood of a return on investment through the creation of new markets, 

increased efficiency, and/or lower costs. Thus, broad-based and multipurpose technologies will have greater likelihood of attracting venture capital 

than technologies with limited applications, even though some of these 

”limited market” technologies could be important for environmental protection needs (e.g., real-time bacterial monitoring). 

Finding 2.8: EPA’s longstanding policy of collaboration with other federal 

agencies, states, tribes, and local governments needs to focus more effectively on technology issues. Lack of regulatory acceptance at state and 

local government levels continues to be cited as an impediment to effective adoption of new environmental technologies. Early involvement of EPA 

in the process will help to facilitate the acceptance of state, tribe, and 

local regulators and the effective implementation of innovative technologies. 

Finding 2.9: EPA participates in a number of partnerships in which the 

Agency plays an important role in influencing the policies and actions of 

the other partners. EPA representatives serve on committees and other 

groups that are shaping federal policy, identifying research needs, and 

forging strategies for addressing important environmental issues. EPA’s role 

in these activities is important for overcoming barriers to the adoption of 

innovative technologies and for identifying opportunities to work with partners to address specific high-priority problems. 

Recommendations 

Recommendation 2.1: Strategic Partnership Planning. EPA should use the 

Technology Development Continuum, described in the Subcommittee’s first 

report, for strategic thinking about the need for partners at different stages 

of technology development along the Continuum. By identifying partnerships that may be needed and available at particular stages, the Agency 

can better target its resources towards either supporting those partnerships 

or filling gaps where there currently are no partners by actively seeking new 

partners. The likelihood of financing should be evaluated, and synergies 

can be identified and promoted. This should be done as early as possible 

in the development process and include an assessment of motivations or 

drivers for needed partners, including such factors as potential financial 

gain, rule development facilitation, good will, regulations, and enforcement. EPA should have an explicit goal in entering into each partnership 

and evaluate the need for its continuation, modification, and termination 

with that goal in mind as a technology moves through the Continuum. As 

indicated in Recommendation 1.1, the SETO should have overall responsibility for coordinating the Agency’s technology partnership strategy and 

implementation. 

Recommendation 2.2: Partnerships With Federal and State Organizations. 

EPA should develop new partnerships and expand existing ones that 

address technology needs across the entire Continuum and in all environmental media. EPA should join successful initiatives and multiparty consortia that already exist in other government agencies both at the federal and 
state levels to further commercialization of environmental technologies that 

address the Agency’s priority problems. For example, EPA could partner 

with the California Energy Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Industry Growth Forums, 

and follow technologies all the way across the development Continuum 

with these partners. 

EPA also should expand the successful partnerships in which it now participates, such as the Department of Defense’s (DoD) Strategic Environmental 

Research and Development Program (SERDP), which focuses on the early 

stages of the Continuum (see the description of SERDP on page 24), and 

the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP), which 

focuses on the middle and later stages of the Continuum (see the description of ESTCP on page 24). Furthermore, EPA should expand many of its 

current partnerships and support more partnerships that include all environmental media. 

The Agency should seize opportunities to participate in committees and 

other groups that are shaping federal policy, identifying research needs, 

and forging strategies as a means of overcoming barriers to the adoption 

of innovative technologies and for identifying opportunities to work with 

partners to address specific high-priority problems. Some examples of these 

types of partnerships include the Federal Remediation Technologies 

Roundtable (FRTR) and the Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality 

(SWAQ). The FRTR leads the Federal Government’s efforts to promote interagency cooperation to advance the use of innovative technologies for the 

remediation of hazardous waste sites and transfer the benefits of these 

cooperative efforts to the site remediation community. SWAQ was formed 

to advise and assist the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources 

and the National Science and Technology Council on policies, procedures, 

plans, issues, scientific developments, and research needs related to the 

availability and quality of water resources of the United States. 

Recommendation 2.3: Regulator Challenges and Opportunities. Because 

states, tribes, and local government regulators play a major role in implementation of all technology, EPA should establish or maintain strategic partnerships that allow these regulators to provide significant input to Agency 

environmental technology strategies early in the process so that their concerns can be addressed. EPA also should form partnerships to provide 

information and training on new technologies to these regulators. Lack of 

acceptance by state regulators may be tied to unfamiliarity with the technology and/or lack of comfort with the risk it poses, as well as resource limitations that require focus on core activities (permitting, developing regulations, providing technical assistance, and enforcing regulations). It is important that the Agency understands and honors the legitimate role and concerns of state and local regulators that may be contributing to their reluctance to foster utilization of new technologies. 

There are many state-, tribal-, and local-level environmental initiatives that 

are consistent with EPA policy or regulations, but that may not be required 

by EPA. The Agency should consider technology partnerships that are 

mutually supportive of those efforts and EPA’s mission. The Interstate 

Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) (see the description of the ITRC 

23
24

Strategic Environmental Research and 


Development Program


The Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) is the U.S. 

Department of Defense’s (DoD) environmental science and technology program, 

planned and executed in full partnership with EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE), with participation by numerous other federal and nonfederal organizations. 

Representatives from DoD, EPA, DOE, and the U.S. Coast Guard sit on the 12-member 

council that manages SERDP. 

To address the highest priority issues confronting the Army, Navy, Air Force, and 

Marines, SERDP focuses on cross-service requirements and pursues high-risk/high-payoff 

solutions to DoD’s most intractable environmental problems. The four focus areas of 

the program are: Environmental Restoration, Munitions Management, Sustainable 

Infrastructure, and Weapons Systems and Platforms. Within its broad areas of interest, 

SERDP focuses on cleanup, compliance, conservation, and pollution prevention technologies. The program partners provide locations, facilities, and mechanisms for 

applied research, comparative demonstrations, and comprehensive evaluations. Its 

goal is to transfer technology from research to full-scale use and from government 

agencies to the private sector. 

Environmental Security Technology 


Certification Program


The Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) is DoD’s environmental technology demonstration and validation program. ESTCP’s goal is to identify, 

demonstrate, validate, and transfer promising, innovative technologies that address 

DoD’s highest priority environmental requirements. The program promotes innovative, 

cost-effective environmental technologies through demonstrations at DoD facilities 

and sites. These technologies provide a return on investment through improved efficiency, reduced liability, and direct cost savings. ESTCP selects laboratory-proven 

technologies with broad DoD application for rigorous field trials documenting their 

cost, performance, and market potential. ESTCP technology demonstrations address 

DoD environmental needs in the Environmental Restoration, Munitions Management, 

Sustainable Infrastructure, and Weapons Systems and Platforms focus areas. 

In July 1999, DoD and EPA signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to facilitate 

closer cooperation and coordination on joint technology verification efforts. The MOA 

built a partnership between DoD’s ESTCP and EPA’s Environmental Technology 

Verification program. This agreement was designed to help companies that develop 

innovative technologies penetrate markets of interest to both EPA and DoD at a faster 

rate. 
on page 26) and the Technology Acceptance and Reciprocity Partnership 

(TARP) (see the description of TARP on page 28) are good examples of 

partnerships that involve states early in the process, address the challenges 

faced by these regulators, and expedite the acceptance and use of innovative technologies. The Subcommittee believes that EPA’s focused, efficient, and highly leveraged support of ITRC represents a “best practice” in 

real-world fostering of technical innovation that should serve as a model for 

consideration by EPA offices and programs. EPA should use the ITRC and 

TARP as models in other areas and expand them to include additional 

media, states, and programs. 

Recommendation 2.4: Partnership With the Private Sector. EPA should 

expand the use of its broad stakeholder process used in the ETV program to 

other appropriate programs across the Continuum and use it in the ETC 

Action Teams. This process brings to the table all segments of the marketplace—scientists and engineers, small business incubators, testing organizations, buyer and seller associations, developers and vendors, purchasers 

and users, other appropriate federal agencies, and regulators/permit writers at all appropriate levels of government—to discuss the opportunities 

and impediments as well as the data necessary to bring specific classes of 

needed technology to commercialization. The broadest possible range of 

public/private collaboration should be encouraged through this process. 

3.	 Encouraging Market Demand for Innovative Environmental 

Technology 

In its first report, the Subcommittee recommended that, “the Agency place 

more emphasis on and increase public awareness of its programs to create a 

demand for new environmental technologies,” and commit itself to “seek further 

information on EPA’s past experiences, both positive and negative, with these 

types of policies.” EPA has conducted a number of programs to develop and 

promote approaches to stimulate marketplace demand for innovative environmental technology with emphasis on particular areas such as municipal wastewater treatment systems, soil and groundwater remediation, and others. In 

recent years, the universe of possible approaches for stimulating and increasing 

demand for innovative environmental technology has expanded, and EPA has 

been involved to varying degrees with development and/or implementation of 

many of these approaches. 

Approaches for Stimulating Market Demand 

General categories of approaches for stimulating market demand for innovative technology are listed in Table 1, along with examples of specific programs or 

activities under each category. The motivating factors that drive the interest of 

individuals or organizations in the various approaches also are listed, and include 

regulatory/legal, financial, and public benefit. A subjective assessment of the 

important motivators for each of the approaches also is provided in Table 1. The 

demand-pull approaches identified in the table have been selected from the 

perspective of the desirability of moving commercial-ready technologies into the 

marketplace. Although some of the approaches listed could certainly be 

applied to promote initial research and development of new technologies, these 

approaches were selected for their actual or potential ability to enhance market 

demand and facilitate market penetration at the commercialization and diffusion/utilization stages of the Technology Development Continuum. 

25
26

State Leadership in Permit Facilitation:


The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council


The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) is a state-led organization 

devoted to increasing the efficiency of state permitting on innovative technologies. 

ITRC originated in 1995 from a previous initiative by the Western Governors’Association. 

In January 1999, it affiliated with the Environmental Research Institute of the States 

(ERIS), which is a nonprofit educational subsidiary of the Environmental Council of the 

States (ECOS). 

For most of its 10-year history, the primary goal of the ITRC has been to expedite the 

acceptance of innovative technologies utilized in the remediation of contaminated 

hazardous waste sites. In the last 2 years, the ITRC has broadened its focus to address 

other environmental issues. With the funding ITRC receives from EPA, Department of 

Energy (DOE), and Department of Defense (DoD), it has been able to break down 

barriers to innovative technologies, reduce compliance costs, make it easier to use 

new technologies, and help states maximize their resources. 

ITRC accomplishes its mission in two ways: it develops guidance documents and training courses to meet the needs of both regulators and environmental consultants, and 

it works with state representatives to ensure that ITRC products and services have maximum impact among state environmental agencies and technology users. EPA has 

supported the development and operation of ITRC through modest direct funding, but 

additionally through broad and effective outreach communicating ITRC information, 

events, and programs to vital stakeholders. For example, all free ITRC Web workshops 

(typically 10 per month) are directly advertised by EPA’s Office of Superfund 

Remediation Technology Innovation to more than 26,000 subscribing stakeholders. 

Just this one example of outreach enables 150 stakeholders (on average) to actively 

participate in each ITRC Web seminar at no cost. The benefits to ITRC on having such 

broad and deep stakeholder involvement in its activities are substantial, and include 

the support and consensus on ITRC guidance documents enjoyed by state regulators 

and the engineering community. 

ITRC has made significant strides in reducing the barriers to and increasing the acceptance of innovative technologies by forming technical teams devoted to providing 

information that decision makers use to address issues of concern. ITRC brings together a diverse mix of environmental experts and stakeholders from both the public and 

private sectors to broaden and deepen technical knowledge and streamline the regulation of new environmental technologies. Technical Teams are comprised of a 

diverse group of stakeholders: state and federal regulators, federal site owners such 

as DoD and DOE, consultants, vendors, academics, and public stakeholders. These 

organizations bring a healthy diversity of views and interests to ITRC. The Technical 

Team gets the “shovel in the ground” and provides critical information that is used in 

the Team’s final product, the Technical and Regulatory Review Guidance Document 

(Tech/Reg). This document is a comprehensive review that examines all aspects of 

the technology. The Team may produce other documents as well—most commonly 

Overviews of the Technology, State Surveys, or Case Studies. Although sometimes 

challenging, consensus is facilitated by the fact that ITRC concentrates on technical 

issues, providing the best information available, and does not directly address policy 

issues. Upon completion of the Tech/Reg document, the Team provides related training on the Internet or possibly through classroom training. ITRC documents and training have proved immediately beneficial to the user, and the documents do not “sit on 

the shelf.” 

A critical component of ITRC is its network of state Point of Contact (POC). Each state 

that is a member of ITRC (currently 46) assigns one staff person to serve as a liaison 

between ITRC and the organization. The POCs provide information on training opportunities and documents that may be relevant to state technology problems to state 

staff and others that may benefit from ITRC products. They respond to surveys prepared by Technical Teams and seek state concurrence on documents. POCs also are 

expected to convey the needs of their states to ITRC and to attend ITRC meetings. 

ITRC is housed in ECOS, giving members a direct line of communication to state environmental commissioners, who are the most important environmental decision makers 

in the state and pivotal in getting new technologies introduced and accepted. 
Table 1. Demand-Pull Approaches, Motivating Factors, and EPA Involvement 

Motivating Factors 

Market Demand Stimulation 

Approach1 

EPA 

Role2 

Regulatory/ 

Legal 

Financial Public 

Benefit 

Creative Regulatory Approaches 

Emissions Trading 

Flexible, Efficient Permitting 

Supplemental Environmental Projects 

Environmental Projects 

L 

L 

L 

L 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Green Product/Process Design 

(e.g., Hg-free batteries) 

Technology Verification 

EPA ETV Program 

S 

L 

X 

X 

X 

Certifications/Labeling 

Product Labeling (e.g., cleaning supplies, carpets) 

EPA ENERGY STAR Standards 

EPA Green Lights 

Voluntary Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction 

Mobile Diesel Emission Reduction 

LEED Green Building Certification 

S 

L 

L 

L 

L 

S 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Product Take-Back Requirements 

(e.g., PCs, Pb-acid batteries) 

S X 

Preferential Purchasing 

(e.g., recycled paper, green buildings, hybrids 

for fleet vehicles) 

S X X 

Direct Financial Incentives L X


(subsidies for innovative technology 


implementation)


1

Example programs or activities are shown in italics.


2

EPA Role: L = lead; S = supporting role to states, tribes, or other organizations.


Creative regulatory and enforcement approaches can provide incentives for 

technology innovation. Examples of regulatory approaches that encourage 

innovation are emissions trading, where an investment in control technology 

can yield a valuable asset in the form of emission credits, and flexible permitting that allows for uncertainty in technology performance during a startup 

period or under varying operational conditions. Flexible enforcement programs also can create the opportunity for new solutions and the chance to 

demonstrate them, increasing the market for innovative technologies. 

Market demand also can be stimulated for new technologies through efforts to 

assist skeptical purchasers in their selection of technologies with high-quality performance and cost information. When it comes to making technological 

choices and acquisition decisions, buyers and users frequently will move to 

those technologies that are known to work, rather than take a chance on 

new and unproven approaches even if these are advertised to save them 

money either immediately or over time. Demonstration, verification, publicly 

available information on operation and maintenance parameters and costs, 

and/or certification with respect to publicly stated standards by trusted institutions are all approaches that assist high-performing, commercial-ready 

technologies to penetrate the market. Readily available information, particularly verified or certified information, on new approaches is critical to acceptance and widespread implementation. 

27
28

Technology Acceptance and Reciprocity Partnership


Consensus Testing Protocols at the State Level


Scientifically valid information on the performance of new technologies is critical to 

making state permit decisions, and it often does not exist for new technologies. 

Uncertain testing requirements and duplicative reviews under traditional “state by 

state” permit review systems drive up the cost of commercialization for new technologies. 

The Commissioners and Secretaries of the eight Technology Acceptance and 

Reciprocity Partnership (TARP) states (California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New 

Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) have set up a mechanism for states to 

develop common testing protocols for vendors to use to demonstrate the effectiveness of their technologies, thereby providing a pathway for technology developers to 

develop credible data; reduce costly, duplicative field-testing; and gain regulatory 

acceptance. 

In the area of stormwater treatment technologies, for example, regulators in each participating state oversee the field-testing of stormwater technologies across the country. The host state performs a critical evaluation of the performance data collected 

and required in the common protocol and then shares its analysis with collaborating 

states. Results are posted in a searchable database (http://www.mastep.net) to provide the public and regulators with a “one-stop shop” for reports, data, and evaluations of stormwater technologies. By sharing the workload for review across state lines, 

TARP estimates that up to 80 percent of the state’s traditional application review time 

is reduced. TARP is housed in the Environmental Council of the States along with the 

Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council. 
The government can stimulate markets in selected areas through preferential 

purchases or direct funding. The capacity for government to stimulate market 

demand for environmental technologies and products through preferential 

purchasing and direct financial incentives has been demonstrated and such 

efforts can be expanded. 

Findings 

Finding 3.1: Emissions trading programs have been in place for sulfur dioxide (SO2) air emissions control since the early 1990s, and currently are under 

development for water effluent control. Under such “cap and trade” programs, industry is given the incentive to achieve emission reduction and 

maximize efficiency through the ability to sell its unused emission credits to 

other companies. Trading schemes encourage the adoption of innovative 

technology as opportunities for process revision arise because of the potential to create more emission credits than can be achieved with conventional technology. The credits can be used for process expansion internally or 

sold. By providing industry with maximal opportunity for technology innovation, trading programs can be a cost-effective way to achieve regional or 

national emissions reduction at relatively low cost through voluntary implementation of new emission control technology. The success of the acid 

rain air emission credit trading program, which was established under the 

authority of the Clean Air Act to reduce acid rain and its impacts, has 

demonstrated the clear potential of the approach. It is now being developed by EPA and the states for use in water programs and is used extensively in other countries. Partnerships with industry and regional state organizations may provide opportunities for EPA to identify emissions impacting a 

variety of media that may potentially respond to emission trading programs. In any media, however, pollutant-specific emissions trading must 

start with a limited number of pollutants and grow to include other pollutants as successes are demonstrated. 

Finding 3.2: Flexible permitting approaches are sometimes important for 

the trial and adoption of innovative environmental control technology. 

There is little incentive for trying a new emissions technology, for example, if 

penalties for excess emissions during the trial or startup period loom. Pilotscale studies or other controlled technology testing with engineering uncertainty but minimal public health consequences need to be pursued. The 

decision of an organization concerning the trial of a new control technology can be influenced by the willingness of a regulatory agency to work 

with the organization to develop monitoring and performance requirements appropriate for the new technology. Colorado, for example, has 

piloted a holistic permit that combines all media permits for a given facility 

under the umbrella of an environmental management system (EMS) permit 

as a way of encouraging innovation for better environmental results. 

Finding 3.3: Creative enforcement approaches can help stimulate technology innovation. The development of Supplemental Environmental Projects 

(SEPs) in lieu of legal penalties is an important example of such an enforcement approach. A SEP is a tool that the Agency can use in achieving settlements of enforcement actions with the regulated community. EPA has a 

policy that permits fines and penalties to be mitigated in part by settlements that provide for voluntary performance of SEPs by the accused violator of an environmental statute. There are clear policy limitations on the 

29
30

scope and use of SEPs in settlements. Some important aspects of the EPA 

SEP policy are: 

A SEP cannot be inconsistent with any provision of the underlying 

statute. 

The SEP must advance at least one of the objectives of the environmental statute(s) that is(are) the basis of the enforcement action. 

The SEP must have nexus (i.e., it must be reasonably directed towards 

improving conditions or adverse effects of the alleged violation). 

The SEP must be a tangible project that otherwise would not be 

required to be performed. It cannot simply be a monetary contribution 

to an existing charitable or civic organization. 

EPA cannot directly manage the SEP or the funds used to finance the 

SEP. 

EPA has published ideas for potential SEPs such as: lead-based paint 

abatement, purchase/installation of fuel cells, diesel retrofits of 

municipal/transportation fleets, alternative fuel/hybrid vehicles, coolant 

recycling systems, installing wind turbines for buildings, and so on. 

Innovative technologies in these and other areas that could be explored 

for SEP applications are developed in the EPA Small Business Innovation 

Research Program, and investigated by the EPA ETC Action Teams and the 

Technology Innovation Program. In general, SEPs cannot be pure research 

activities; however, projects to overcome funding gaps to produce/encourage demand for innovative technologies and that produce environmental 

benefits are excellent candidates for SEPs and should be routinely considered by EPA in settling enforcement actions. Another tool that has been 

utilized by the EPA is an “Environmental Project” (EP). An EP can be part of 

a settlement process where injunctive relief and assessment of civil penalties is sought by EPA. The Wisconsin Electric Environmental Project 

(described on page 31) is a notable example. 

Finding 3.4: The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 recognized that “pollution 

should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible.” The 

legislation directed EPA to provide industry with technical assistance and 

information on source reduction opportunities and financial assistance to 

states to establish source reduction programs. EPA’s Office of Prevention, 

Pesticides and Toxic Substances has created several information and technical assistance activities that include the DfE, Green Chemistry, and 

Environmentally Preferable Products (EPP) programs. EPA also initiated a 

national design competition entitled, “P3: People, Prosperity, and the 

Planet Student Design Competition for Sustainability,” and has co-sponsored initiatives with the Green Chemistry Institute of the American 

Chemical Society, the International Center for Sustainable and Appropriate 

Technology, and other organizations. DfE works collaboratively with industry groups to share information and improve the environmental performance of products, processes, and practices. These programs, coupled with 

increasingly stringent emission and waste disposal regulations in the United 

States and elsewhere, have served to increase interest in sustainable 

(“green”) product and process design. Examples include the development 
Wisconsin Electric Environmental Project 

An example of an Environmental Project is contained in a consent decree dealing 

with an alleged violation of the Clean Air Act by Wisconsin Electric Power Company. 

Part of the settlement is a full-scale demonstration project of a new technology 

designed to remove mercury from the flue gas of coal-fired power plants. This project 

was of interest to EPA because the readiness of the technology is a key component of 

the rulemaking process with which the Agency was involved. The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE), through the Clean Coal Power Initiative, was seeking proposals for projects designed to demonstrate this type of technology, and Wisconsin Electric successfully proposed a project in which the $50 million cost was essentially split between DOE 

and the company. EPA embedded certain features of the project and project schedule in the consent decree. This example demonstrates how the enforcement process 

can be used by EPA to further technology development, but it also is an example of 

EPA and DOE partnering together and with the private sector to leverage resources to 

advance environmental technology. The technology being demonstrated here is the 

result of a collaborative process in the electric utility industry where companies pool 

their research dollars to fund the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)—yet another 

example of partnering. EPA’s notice that mercury emissions were going to be regulated initiated the original research within EPRI. DOE is charged with keeping coal as a 

viable option in the energy infrastructure, and thus funds projects that address emerging environmental issues. 

Private-Sector Certification Programs 

Some certification programs outside of government have had significant effects on 

stimulating demand for environmental products and technologies. The certification 

organization Green Seal, for example, has developed green standards for a variety of 

consumer products, including paints, cleaning products, paper, lighting, tires, and others. Another example of very successful independent certification is the green building certification program entitled “Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design” 

(LEED) developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). The LEED Green 

Building Rating System is a voluntary, consensus-based national standard for development of buildings with high energy performance and environmentally sustainable features. The LEED rating system for new construction and renovation projects is based on 

lists of specific green building features that, if included in a project, accrue points 

toward a rating. The features listed include use of technologies verified in the 

Environmental Technology Verification or Technology Acceptance and Reciprocity 

Partnership programs. Depending on the number of LEED features and points included in a design, buildings can achieve different levels of LEED certification. To obtain a 

LEED rating, building owners must submit detailed, defined technical documentation 

to USGBC for review. The LEED rating system has stimulated a tremendous amount of 

voluntary interest across the United States. Private organizations as well as federal and 

state agencies have made commitments to LEED certification for new construction 

and major renovation projects. 

31
32

of mercury-free alkaline batteries and the design of some computers for 

disassembly and material recovery. EPA does not have the resources or 

legislative mandate to develop green products and processes itself, but it 

can do much through collaborations and advice to help stimulate such 

development. The DfE program, in particular, although small in budget, is a 

model for the future. The DfE staff works collaboratively with industry groups 

to share information and develop technologies that reduce the use of environmentally harmful chemicals through chemical substitution and other 

methods that support the achievement of design criteria mandated by 

product-focused regulations. 

Finding 3.5: Verification of environmental technology performance by EPA 

through the ETV program stimulates market demand by demonstrating new 

technology performance in an independent setting under consensus testing protocols with Agency quality assurance of the data. Purchasers who 

are reluctant to acquire innovative technologies are thus assured that they 

work and can meet both operating requirements and regulatory standards. 

Some 360 environmental technologies and products have been voluntarily 

submitted for verification by vendors who must pay a substantial part of the 

cost of testing, but consider whether the marketing value of publicly establishing their performance parameters under EPA protocols is worth the cost. 

ETV was discussed extensively in the Subcommittee’s first report. Like DfE, 

ETV’s chief contribution in creating market demand is providing help in 

overcoming the lack of reliable performance information for purchasers of 

new technology. 

Finding 3.6: Since the mid 1990s, work on development of voluntary certifications for environmental technologies and products by EPA and a variety 

of nongovernmental organizations has done much to stimulate market 

demand. Although EPA does not issue certifications directly, it has published criteria for defined (and named) levels of technology performance 

through a number of programs. In the most prominent example, EPA 

developed criteria for energy efficiency of appliances and other energysaving technologies and techniques in the ENERGY STAR program (see the 

ENERGY STAR program description on page 33 and its metrics of success on 

page 45). Manufacturers meeting these criteria self-certify and can claim 

that their product complies with and qualifies for ENERGY STAR status. This 

program and the related performance criteria have stimulated consumer 

interest in appliances that meet ENERGY STAR criteria, which in turn has 

stimulated manufacturers to develop more energy-efficient appliances. 

Voluntary private-sector certification programs also are effective in encouraging the use of new technology (see description of Private Sector 

Certification Programs on page 31) and are increasing in number. At the 

international level, product environmental performance regulations include 

product certification programs, such as the green labeling programs in the 

European countries and the certification requirements within China’s 

Administrative Measures on the Control of Pollution Caused by Electronic 

Information Products. These labeling programs are intended to be the 

environmental performance equivalent of existing and successful product 

certification programs, such as ENERGY STAR (see ENERGY STAR and Other 

Air Quality Improvement Programs on page 33). 

Finding 3.7: Waste reduction and technologies to reduce waste production 

and increase waste recovery can be stimulated through product takeback programs such as those in place for paper, bottles and cans, lead­
ENERGY STAR and Other Air Quality Improvement Programs 

ENERGY STAR is a joint program of EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) that is 

helping Americans save money and protect the environment through energy-efficient 

products and practices. The program was introduced by EPA in 1992 as a voluntary 

labeling program designed to identify and promote energy-efficient products to 

reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Today, more than 40 percent of the 

American public recognizes the ENERGY STAR label, which is on major appliances, 

office equipment, lighting, home electronics, and more. EPA also has extended the 

label to cover new homes and commercial and industrial buildings. Through its partnerships with more than 8,000 private- and public-sector organizations, ENERGY STAR 

delivers the technical information and tools that organizations and consumers need to 

choose energy-efficient solutions and best management practices. 

The continued success of the ENERGY STAR program is a result of its focus on practical 

strategies to remove market barriers. These barriers can hinder investment in costeffective, energy-efficient products and practices that help individuals and organizations realize significant savings. It enhances the market for energy efficiency by reducing the transaction costs and lowering the investment risks to the point that many 

more projects become attractive. ENERGY STAR plays a distinct role in the marketplace by providing credible, objective information and tools on which businesses and 

homeowners can rely to make well-informed energy decisions. Better energy decisions contribute to a better environment by reducing emissions of GHGs, and through 

ENERGY STAR, the efforts of thousands of homeowners and businesses are adding up 

to significant contributions to the President’s GHG intensity reduction goal for 2012. 

A cornerstone of the ENERGY STAR program is identifying efficient products that will 

reliably deliver energy savings and environmental benefits. EPA and DOE work closely 

with about 1,500 manufacturers to determine the energy performance levels that 

must be met for a product to earn the ENERGY STAR. The label is only awarded to 

products that offer the features and performance consumers want and provide a reasonable payback if the initial purchase price is higher. Over the past decade, ENERGY 

STAR has been a driving force behind the more widespread use of such technological 

innovations as LED traffic lights, efficient fluorescent lighting, power management systems for office equipment, and low standby energy use. ENERGY STAR has dramatically increased the use of energy-efficiency products and practices and is well positioned to promote more widespread efficiency improvements. 

EPA has established a number of other programs that aim to achieve cleaner air in a 

cost-effective and beneficial way without the need for regulation. These programs 

reduce pollution and improve air quality through partnerships with small and large 

businesses, citizen groups, industry, manufacturers, trade associations, and state and 

local governments. Examples of these programs include: the Green Vehicle Guide, 

which helps consumers choose the cleanest and most efficient vehicle that meets 

their needs; the SmartWay Transport Partnership, which creates strong market-based 

incentives that challenge companies shipping products and the truck and rail companies delivering these products to improve the environmental performance of their 

freight operations; and the Green Power Partnership, which encourages organizations 

to purchase green power as a way to reduce the environmental impacts associated 

with conventional electricity use. 

33
34

acid batteries, and computers. Legislated product take-back requirements 

are the fastest means of market stimulation, and are a rapidly growing 

international trend (see the next section, 4. International Issues, for more 

detailed information). Information and startup assistance, however, can 

motivate community/industry initiatives for product recovery, sometimes on 

a large scale, even in the absence of legislation. Computer recovery for 

disassembly and material reuse in the United States is at an early stage but 

growing. A host of nonregulatory product stewardship initiatives have been 

undertaken by individual companies, trade organizations, and nonprofit 

groups. The nonprofit Product Stewardship Institute, for example, works with 

companies and government agencies to develop environmentally progressive goals for various stages of product lifecycle (e.g., material selection 

and recovery). 

Finding 3.8: The ability of government and companies to stimulate market 

demand for environmental technologies and products through preferential 

purchasing decisions has been well demonstrated. For example, the Federal 

Government had a central role in expanding the production and use of 

paper with recycled content through purchasing requirements for federal 

agencies and contractors. The federal EPP initiative was developed in 

response to Executive Order 13101 entitled “Greening the Government 

through Waste Prevention, Recycling and Federal Acquisition.” The EPP initiative encourages the purchase of environmentally progressive products 

on a continuing basis. This use of the power of large-scale purchasing to 

grow the market for environmental technologies and products also has 

been adopted by state and local government agencies as well as privatesector organizations. There is potential for the government and other 

organizations to do much more in stimulating demand for environmental 

technologies through direct purchasing as first users or near-first users, and 

also through development of guidelines for defining green technologies 

and products. 

Finding 3.9: Government subsidies to cover, or help with covering, 

increased financial cost or risk associated with innovative technologies can 

do much to stimulate market demand for innovative technologies. As profit potential is rarely involved in decisions about adoption of technology that 

will prevent or mitigate environmental impact, purchasers (e.g., communities, companies, and individuals) are naturally risk averse. There is usually a 

modest financial upside and significant financial downside if an innovative 

environmental technology does not work as advertised. For example, 

financial incentives for adoption of innovative technologies were included 

in the wastewater treatment plant construction grants program of the 1970s 

and 1980s. Similar incentives, through partial subsidies or more generous 

repayment requirements, could be included in the current water and 

wastewater revolving fund programs of the present if funds were available. 

Subsidies for implementation of innovative soil and groundwater remediation technologies were offered by EPA in the 1990s, but were rarely used. 

Because there appears to be little likelihood for budget expansions that 

would support direct financial incentives, the Subcommittee will make no 

recommendations in this area. 
Recommendations 

Recommendation 3.1: Emission Credit Trading. Trading of emission credits 

should be a component of environmental programs wherever possible 

because of its effective role in stimulating use of innovative technology. 

Emission credit trading programs can be an effective way to achieve 

regional or national emissions reduction at relatively low cost through voluntary implementation of emission control technology. The weak market for 

many new technologies can be stimulated through partnership with market 

forces found in emission credit programs. Under such “cap and trade” programs, industry is given the incentive to achieve emission reduction and 

maximize efficiency by the ability to sell to other companies emission credits it has gained through reductions in emissions and discharges that go 

beyond regulatory requirements. The new technologies employed in early 

reduction programs and highly efficient emission control systems frequently 

advance the technological state-of-the-art in areas as diverse as pollution 

prevention, materials substitution, and advanced monitoring. The Agency 

should engage with states and industry to help shape the most promising 

trading program alternatives and stimulate market activities that fulfill and 

sustain the emission trading market objectives. 

Recommendation 3.2: Flexible Permitting. EPA should encourage and 

assist states in developing specific opportunities for greater flexibility in permitting to promote progressive technology development and demonstration. This is particularly important in areas in which innovative technologies 

are needed to address serious unsolved problems or existing technology is 

too expensive for widespread implementation. The new SETO should be 

involved in convening appropriate state and regional officials, including 

enforcement staff, in several pilot cases to explore options for addressing 

flexible permitting prior to the permitting event. Successful approaches 

then should be standardized and publicized in all regions. 

Recommendation 3.3: Flexible Enforcement Actions. EPs and SEPs are 

important tools that can promote technology development and should be 

used more often. EPA has unique opportunities to demonstrate environmental technologies and create market demand through creative 

enforcement approaches that promote adoption of innovative environmental technology. Enforcement actions should authorize the development, piloting, or enhancement of environmental technology where 

appropriate. EPA should specifically include innovative technologies in 

project ideas for potential SEPs. Acceptance of new technologies in SEPs 

should acknowledge and provide for protection regarding the performance risks of new technologies. Because there appears to be substantial 

variation among regional offices related to knowledge of and interest in 

SEPs, EPA should exhibit leadership in communicating the potential for SEPs 

and in disseminating best practices regarding the use of innovative technologies in SEPs. Establishment of a technology advocate in each EPA 

regional office could assist in this effort. 

Recommendation 3.4: SEPs and ETC Action Teams. SEP projects should be 

actively promoted to include support for ETC Action Teams. Action Team 

problem areas that have sufficient nexus to the environmental conditions 

impacted by alleged violations could be directly supported by SEPs. Done 

35
36

well, these projects would provide highly leveraged investments contributing tangibly to mitigating the high-priority technology gaps already identified by the Agency through its ETC prioritization process (see the May 2006 

Subcommittee report). The breadth of the Action Team subject areas is 

such that the necessary linkage to many alleged violations could be readily 

demonstrated. Therefore, SEPs represent a relatively untapped resource to 

address high-priority technology gaps already identified by EPA, and the 

Subcommittee recommends expedited exploration of the full potential of 

SEPs to help mitigate these gaps. 

Recommendation 3.5: Independent and Quality Assured Data. EPA can 

and should continue to stimulate demand by providing purchasers and the 

environmental marketplace in general with independent information and 

quality assured data on the performance of innovative, at or near commercial-ready private-sector technologies. The Agency should expand the 

voluntary DfE and ETV programs to continue offering technology vendors 

the opportunity to display the performance capability of their innovations. 

EPA should explore opportunities to expand the best available technology 

concept into sustainable technologies in different industries. 

Recommendation 3.6: Expanded “Green” Certification Programs. EPA 

should continue to expand on the success of its voluntary ENERGY STAR program, creating additional “green” programs in the same mold for a wide 

variety of industries and activities. In addition, the Agency should welcome 

the opportunity to work with any not-for-profit or private-sector organization 

interested in creating a robust certification program aimed at reducing pollution, energy usage, water usage, and waste, and in increasing the overall 

sustainability of commercial, residential, and industrial activity. A relatively 

low-cost Agency role in such instances could include providing technical 

support and technology performance verification with industry and other 

stakeholders providing financial support. As will be discussed in the next 

section of this report, green product and waste avoidance programs are 

proliferating across the world based primarily on European regulatory models, and U.S. states are beginning to legislate in this area as well. EPA’s participation in the international discussion relative to both legislated and voluntary product certification programs would be beneficial in stimulating the 

development of comprehensive product certification programs in the 

United States. 

Recommendation 3.7: Preferential Purchasing. EPA should identify and act 

on opportunities to stimulate innovative environmental technology development and adoption through Agency preferential purchasing and 

through preferential purchasing requirements included in procurement 

specifications. EPA is in a unique position, for example, to influence the 

technology used for environmental monitoring both by purchasing such 

technologies and by ensuring that its regulations and procedures for air, 

water, soil, and waste monitoring reflect current capabilities of systems that 

produce highly accurate and real-time data. EPA should be a leader 

among federal agencies in environmentally preferential purchasing, and 

should provide guidance and assistance to other agencies on how to plan 

and implement preferential purchasing programs that favor new environmental technologies. 
4. International Issues 

The Subcommittee has focused its work in the international area on evaluating the role and function of EPA technology assistance activities in the rapidly 

evolving international marketplace. 

Findings 

Finding 4.1: The international technology sector is important to EPA and to 

the United States for several reasons: 

Many environmental problems are inherently international in nature, 

most notably cross-boundary air and water pollution, global warming, 

and the prevention of invasive species. The implementation of 

improved technology in other countries can have a direct impact on 

the U.S. environment. For example, anticipated deployment along the 

U.S. border is a primary goal of the diesel retrofit and ultra-low sulfur fuel 

technology bus project being tested in Mexico City (see Cleaning Up 

Diesel Emissions in Mexico City on page 38). 

Areas such as drinking water and alternative energy systems have 

been internationalized by the rise of non-American technology developers entering the U.S. market in force and offering improved technologies for use in this country. 

Other market interests have arisen because, in the face of flattening 

U.S. markets, the viability and expanding scope of the overseas market 

encourages developers to investigate technologies that would not be 

economically practicable for the U.S. market alone. 

Innovation for the world market, whether developed in this country or 

abroad, has increasing impact on the ability of the United States to 

benefit from better technology. Environmental technology development has been globalized in the last decade, and EPA’s programs must 

evolve with these trends in mind if they are to remain current. 

Finding 4.2: The Subcommittee believes that the Agency has several areas 

of strength in the international arena: 

EPA’s greatest strength is that, as an agency, it is well respected internationally and thus an effective agent in disseminating environmental 

technology information abroad. It has taken a strong leadership role in 

demonstration and verification of commercial-ready technology and 

developed programs as well as test protocols that now are being 

copied around the world. 

EPA has demonstrated a commitment to technology information diffusion in selected countries with specific environmental problems, such as 

air pollution in China and Mexico and waste disposal issues in the 

Eastern European nations. 

EPA responds to “targets of opportunity” around the world when these 

targets are in line with EPA’s strategic goals and objectives. It also 

works with international agencies such as the United Nations 

37
38

International Technology Demonstrations


Cleaning Up Diesel Emissions in Mexico City


The Challenge: Mexico City’s air pollution, with ground-level ozone and particulate 

matter exceeding national standards 80 percent of the year, affects the health and 

quality of life of all its residents. Heavy-duty diesel vehicles—buses, trash trucks, commercial vehicles—contribute up to 38 percent of the nitrogen oxides and more than 50 

percent of the fine particulates in the air, despite comprising only 5.5 percent of the 

entire vehicle fleet. Emissions from diesel trucks and buses pose serious public health 

concerns, ranging from asthma to cardiovascular disease to cancer. 

The Initiative: EPA, working with the U.S. Agency for International Development 

(USAID) and EMBARQ, the World Resources Institute’s Center for Transport and the 

Environment, initiated the Mexico City Diesel Retrofit Project in June 2004. The project 

was designed to demonstrate how the combined use of low sulfur fuels and diesel 

retrofit technologies on urban buses can improve air quality and reduce impacts to 

human health. The project is similar to diesel retrofit projects now underway in several 

U.S. cities, which have committed to retrofit more than 150,000 diesel vehicles. The 

Mexico City Diesel Retrofit Project is the first international retrofit project of the United 

States, and already it is serving as a model for EPA projects in other areas of the world. 

The technologies used for the demonstration project are diesel particulate filters and 

diesel oxidation catalysts that have been performance verified under EPA’s 

Environmental Technology Verification program. The project developed key information on costs and emissions reductions, and is leading to policy recommendations for 

reducing emissions from other fleets in Mexico City and other cities in Mexico. It also 

was a concrete demonstration for the benefits of ultra-low sulfur fuel. Mexico has 

since passed a regulation requiring ultra-low sulfur fuel for the U.S.-Mexico Border by 

2007, and for the nation by 2009. 

The Results: Ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (15 ppm) was provided from a U.S. refinery for 20 

buses involved in the demonstration. The buses were retrofitted, labeled, and operated on the streets of Mexico City. The Centro de Transporte Sustentable performed 

baseline emissions testing, testing 1 month after the retrofits were installed, and at the 

end of the demonstration project (after approximately 11 months of operation) to 

determine how much the emissions are reduced by the cleaner fuels and cleaner 

vehicle technologies. 

Results of the testing show reductions of 86 to 92 percent in the particulate emissions 

from the newer vehicles using diesel particulate filters and ultra-low sulfur fuel, and 10 

to 23 percent reduction from the older vehicles using diesel oxidation catalysts, a 

technology most useful for older buses. Although the project size was limited, the 

potential is great: there are more than 3,000 buses in Mexico City. More important is 

the opportunity to use this information in the other pollution-choked cities of the world. 
Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Health Organization 

(WHO) on specific issues. EPA’s activities with the U.S./Asia 

Environmental Partnership over the years have been particularly fruitful. 

The United States, in general, enjoys a prominent position in negotiating 

trade agreements that establish international environmental standards. 

Finding 4.3: Emerging product, operational, and waste regulations in 

Europe that target the environmental characteristics of products, such as 

the European Union Restriction on Hazardous Substances in Electronics 

(RoHS), the Waste Electrical and Electronic Product (WEEE), and End of Life 

Vehicles (ELV) directives, are causing entire industries to redesign their products to optimize for environmental performance ( see International Product 

Design, Take-Back, and Recycling Standards on page 40 for a description 

of this rapidly evolving situation). Individual U.S. states, most notably 

California, are producing similar regulations that are bringing within U.S. borders what has initially been an international phenomenon. These regulations are resulting in the demand for new environmental technologies in the 

areas of manufacturing, measurement and verification, risk assessment, 

software, and other tools needed to achieve and ensure desired product 

performance. They also are resulting in a patchwork of state regulations 

that could negatively impact the diffusion of environmental technologies in 

much the same way that varying state septic system regulations have 

impeded the adoption of new septic system technologies. 

The emergence of these product environmental performance regulations 

and the subsequent demand for product-related environmental technologies offer the Agency several opportunities. First, although the regulation of 

environmental characteristics is not within EPA’s statutory authority, attaining improvements in product design and product environmental performance would generate improvements in the areas where EPA does have 

authority (e.g., solid waste management) and has identified priority problems. Second, this is an area receiving a great deal of attention in the 

states that would benefit from EPA’s participation and leadership. Third, 

regulation of this type is being adopted throughout the world and by many 

U.S. states as the preferred method of regulating waste products. EPA 

would benefit from participating now, rather than later, in the development 

of these future-oriented guidelines. Activity in this arena also would be 

consistent with the Agency’s goals in fostering the long-term sustainability of 

commercial and industrial activity in the United States. 

Recommendations 

Recommendation 4.1: New International Manufacturing and Recycling 

Standards and Studies. EPA should emphasize activities focused on building 

international demand for improved environmental technologies and, in 

particular, determine the extent to which new international manufacturing 

and other standards that incorporate environmental parameters will affect 

U.S. technology standards. As described above, manufacturers around the 

world are responding to product environmental performance standards 

and regulations developed in Europe, and states within the United States 

are beginning to develop regulations that emulate these developments. 

There is a real risk that states and regions will independently develop differing and perhaps conflicting standards that will introduce complexity and 

confusion in the marketplace, impeding the development and acceptance 

39
40

International Product Design, Take-Back, 

and Recycling Standards 

Product-specific directives and regulations that mandate design criteria and end-oflife take-back responsibilities are being implemented by regulators around the world to 

address significant environmental problems caused by increasing quantities of electronic and other slowly degrading or toxic wastes generated by society. Productfocused approaches emphasize the removal of toxic or difficult-to-manage hazards 

from products and/or assign to the products’ manufacturers the responsibility to takeback, recycle, or pay for the disposal of the products they place on the market. The 

adoption of these new standards in Europe, Japan, China, and other countries and 

the nature of the globalized marketplace has placed American manufacturers at a 

disadvantage and caused numerous states to begin the process of legislating in this 

area. There now are more than 400 laws governing electronic product design and 

disposal around the world, up from less than 100 in 2002. 

The European Union’s (EU) Restriction on Hazardous Substances in Electronics (RoHS) 

and Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) directives are typically the 

model on which other product-focused regulations around the world are based. 

Redesigning products has resulted in the development of new materials, manufacturing processes, and support products. For example, the RoHS regulations requiring the 

elimination of lead solder from components and circuitry has spawned a lead-free soldering industry that is supporting the conversion of lead-based products to lead-free. 

The need to verify that the supply of components needed to build RoHS-compliant 

products has resulted in the creation of business-to-business software that facilitates a 

company’s query of its supply base regarding compliance, manages the gathered 

data, and links those data to the subject products for compliance verification. 

Portable analysis instruments, such as NITON’s Lead Paint Analyzer, described in the first 

Subcommittee report, have become key tools for ensuring a product’s compliance 

with mandated design criteria. 

In countries like the United States where the consumer typically bears the financial 

responsibility, either directly or through taxes, for disposal of obsolete electronic 

devices, the EU WEEE directive is being considered as a method to address increasing 

quantities of waste electronics without a corresponding burden on public infrastructure. Although the EU WEEE directive specifically places disposal responsibility on manufacturers of electronic devices, other waste disposal regulations seek to manage 

end-of-life disposal by requiring special labeling or seller notification of products, 

charging buyers an “E-Waste” recycling tax or fee, requiring manufacturers to take 

back their product at the end of functional life, and simple landfill disposal bans. 

Other product-focused directives and regulations are moving beyond electronics and 

affecting product types such as “white goods” appliances, automobiles, and truck 

tires. 

All of these options are under discussion and study in U.S. states and many countries 

outside the EU. State regulators are evaluating product take-back directives and regulations to solve their growing electronic solid waste problems. Fifteen states have 

either authorized or are considering studies to determine if product-focused 

approaches would work for them. More than one-half of these states have implemented or proposed implementing all or part of the EU substance restrictions, and 

one-quarter are proposing the collection of fees at the point of sale to defer future disposal costs. State regulations are being developed with widely varying requirements. 

Some sort of national harmonization may be necessary to prevent these international 

environmental standards from becoming a significant barrier to doing business in the 

United States, as well as preventing the American consumer from purchasing environmentally inferior products. 
of new technologies and products. Therefore, in partnership with appropriate state and business organizations, EPA should conduct a major study or 

series of studies to determine the extent to which these new standards will 

affect U.S. environmental and technology standards and determine what 

its role should be in harmonizing regulatory approaches and guiding states, 

manufacturers, and citizens in this rapidly evolving situation. The 

Subcommittee believes that EPA has a critical role to play that is as yet 

undefined—one that may impact many of its present programs and 

responsibilities. 

Recommendations 4.2: Promote International Technology Verification 

Programs. EPA’s technology verification programs should be strengthened 

and promoted internationally as a process that offers technically reliable 

assessment of new domestic and international environmental technologies. 

Internationally accepted verification tests and monitoring standards are particularly important in addressing the product content and design standards 

discussed above. EPA should participate in the ongoing development of 

similar programs in Europe, Japan, and other Asian nations. In particular, 

the Agency should promote the use of ETV testing protocols by other 

nations to allow for the more rapid diffusion of commonly based performance information. Such information strengthens world technology markets 

and thus speeds commercial development of technologies by assuring purchasers that innovative technology is both environmentally beneficial and 

cost effective. 

Recommendation 4.3: Seek International “Targets of Opportunity.” EPA 

should continue to pursue, and if possible, expand its policy of addressing 

international “targets of opportunity,” particularly in areas of cross-boundary 

pollution prevention/control and on other topics of high priority to the 

Agency such as mercury control. Such targets may arise from priorities 

developed by other lead departments and agencies charged with U.S. foreign policy missions. Consistent with the Subcommittee’s recommendations 

on global climate change (see the next section, 5. Environmental 

Technology and Climate Change), EPA should devote considerable 

resources to working with other governments on this critical worldwide issue. 

Recommendation 4.4: Revive U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) and 

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Partnerships. EPA should 

strengthen its interaction and cooperation with other domestic agencies 

that are the primary players in the international realm. DOC and USAID, in 

particular, have the lead in areas such as foreign aid and capacity building 

and support international opportunities for U.S. environmental technology 

industries. EPA has had significant innovative technology assistance projects with these agencies in the past and should seek to revive these activities in the future. 

5. Environmental Technology and Climate Change 

Climate change, a large-scale environmental issue with the potential to 

impact the entire globe, is one of the most important challenges that EPA will 

face in the 21st Century. Although the overall federal climate change strategy 

assigns primary responsibility for the issue to the Department of Energy—in particular, the development of innovative greenhouse gas emission control technology—there are technology areas in which EPA will be required to participate in the 

future and should be preparing for now. 

41
42

The EPA Global Change Research Program Multi-Year Plan of April 2003, EPA’s 

basic strategy document in this area, states, “It is the mission of EPA to protect 

human health and to safeguard the natural environment—air, water, and land— 

upon which life depends.” The Plan focuses EPA’s research in this area on assessing the potential impacts of climate change on four focus areas: human health, 

ecosystems, air quality, and water quality. Numerous studies of both macro and 

regional impacts on all of these four areas have been completed by the Agency 

and many more are ongoing (see page 43 for the results of several regional 

impact summaries conducted to date). Funding for greenhouse gas technologyrelated research and private-sector technology verification, however, ended in 

2000. 

Building on the 2003 strategic plan, the EPA Administrator further stated in his 

memorandum of July 6, 2006, that “Our planning must truly be strategic and 

include consideration of emerging challenges and opportunities. Rather than 

react or confront problems out of necessity, we should try to anticipate them and 

adapt our programs accordingly.” The Subcommittee agrees with this forwardlooking strategy and believes that problem anticipation must be accompanied 

by a corollary activity in technological solution evaluation. The Subcommittee 

has considered several areas in which EPA’s strategic contribution to development, evaluation, verification, and acceptance of technologies related to climate change mitigation and adaptation can significantly contribute to environmental safety and public health, as well as air and water quality. 

Just as technology has proved to be essential to the achievement of healthy 

air and water standards over the last 35 years, technology research, development, verification, and commercialization will be essential to combating the 

threats of climate change, both preventing contributions to and mitigating those 

climate change consequences that affect the environment and human health. 

EPA should, as a result of its core environmental protection function, continue on 

its present course of assessing the potential degradation of air and water quality 

that will be caused by global warming. The Subcommittee also thinks, however, 

that EPA should expand its role in facilitating the development and deployment 

of the new technologies that will be needed to address climate change. 

Findings 

Finding 5.1: Climate change is a large-scale environmental issue requiring 

significant technological innovation to address a broad range of challenges. The possible negative impact on the environment in the United 

States over the next 50 years, based on multiple scientific studies, is projected to include, among other things: loss of snow pack and other drinking 

and industrial water supplies leading to a degradation of water quality, sea 

level rise, increased flooding, heat-related deaths, decreased crop yield, 

changes in insect populations, food quality losses, increases in forest fire frequency, increased ozone formation leading to degradation of air quality, 

and more respiratory ailments. As these impacts and challenges become 

better defined through EPA’s ongoing research (see examples on page 43) 

and that of others, the Agency will have an expanding role to play in 

addressing emerging issues. EPA’s massive commitment to and success in 

improving air and water quality over the last three decades are at risk, and 

many problems, which the nation has viewed as “solved,” will require new 

technology development to address newly defined problems. 
EPA Analysis of Expected Climate Change Effects 

on Specific Regions 

The following list, while not comprehensive, provides illustrative examples of some of the 

higher likelihood effects of climate change that EPA expects in different parts of the United 

States: 

In the Northeast: 

Northward shifts in the ranges of plant and animal species resulting from warmer 

temperatures 

Coastal erosion, loss of wetland habitat, increased risk from storm surges from sea 

level rise 

Reduced winter recreation (skiing); increased warm season activities 

Higher summer heat and increase in heat-related morbidity and mortality, especially in urban areas; reduced winter cold stress with associated decrease in 

cold-related mortality. 

In the Southeast and Gulf Coast: 

Increased loss of barrier islands and wetlands 

Intense coastal zone development places coastal floodplains at risk to flooding 

from sea level rise, storm surge, and extreme precipitation events 

Changing forest character as disturbances (e.g., fire and insect outbreaks) 

increase 

Higher summer heat; reduced winter cold stress. 

In the Midwest and Great Lakes: 

Lowered lake and river levels, resulting from warmer temperatures and increased 

evaporation, impact recreation, and shipping 

Increased agricultural productivity in many regions resulting from increased carbon dioxide and warmer temperatures 

Higher summer heat and increase in heat-related morbidity and mortality, especially in urban areas; reduced winter cold stress with associated decrease in 

cold-related mortality. 

In the Great Plains: 

Agricultural productivity shifts northward as the potential for drought increases 

Intensified springtime flood and summertime drought cycles 

Higher summer heat; reduced winter cold stress. 

In the West: 

Changes in natural ecosystems resulting from higher temperatures and possibly 

intensified winter precipitation 

Earlier runoff of snowmelt, stressing some reservoir systems 

Rapid population growth coupled with limited, heavily utilized water supplies 

present significant challenges for securing reliable sources for consumption, 

power generation, and agricultural needs 

Higher summer heat; reduced winter cold stress 

Increased wildfire potential. 

Alaska: 

Forest disruption resulting from warming and increased pest outbreaks 

General increase in biological production from warming; but reduced sea ice 

and warming disrupts polar bears, marine mammals, and other wildlife 

Damage to infrastructure resulting from permafrost melting 

Retreating sea ice and earlier snowmelt alter native people’s traditional life styles 

Opportunities for warm season activities increase. 

43
44

Finding 5.2: EPA should play a leadership role in solving those specific technical challenges within its sphere of influence and expertise. EPA 

Administrator Stephen Johnson has stated that “voluntary programs and 

technological innovation are the best ways to address climate change” 

(January 19, 2006). As discussed in section 3. Encouraging Market Demand 

for Innovative Environmental Technologies, EPA has made a substantial 

commitment to voluntary energy conservation programs, which combined 

with its pollution prevention and waste disposal regulatory programs and 

the ever increasing cost of energy have been quite effective in ameliorating the growth of energy use on the part of industry, commercial, and 

community sources (see ENERGY STAR Metrics of Success on page 45 for 

information on outcome measurements for the ENERGY STAR program). 

Although other federal organizations—particularly DOE, which has been 

assigned primacy in the technology area—also are addressing this problem, EPA needs to identify the key environmental issues to which it can contribute solutions to the emerging technical challenges in appropriate programs along the entire technology Continuum. Strategic planning in this 

area will be multimedia of necessity, and therefore, will require the active 

participation of the SETO to ensure that cross-media impacts are addressed 

and that the climate change aspects of technologies developed for other 

needs are evaluated. 

Finding 5.3: Regulatory action drives technology adoption; therefore, EPA 

needs to utilize its existing regulatory authority and be ready to utilize new 

authority if and when it emerges from Congress, the courts, or the states. 

EPA’s authority to regulate emissions of carbon currently is being challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court. The results of that case will have 

substantial ramifications for the Agency and the country. Concurrently, a 

number of states, counties, and cities have taken action to regulate CO2 

emissions in various ways. California, for example, seeks to return emissions 

to a 1990 baseline by 2020. In addition, DOE is sponsoring development of 

many CO2 control technologies, some of which will require environmental 

permitting by EPA, including the enormous zero-emission coal technology, 

Future Gen. Other regulatory challenges, such as deep well sequestration 

for CO2 control, also await EPA decision making. As stated in the 1997 

National Academy of Sciences’ report Preparing for the 21st Century: 

Technology and the Nation’s Future, while “...private firms have the primary 

responsibility for the development and adoption of technology in this country, federal and state governments play an important role in enhancing 

civilian technology development and adoption through their economic, 

regulatory, and trade policies, their support for research and development, 

and their own procurement of technology.” 

Finding 5.4 The Subcommittee believes that it is in the interest of major CO2 

generators, particularly in the electric utility industry, for a CO2 emissions 

trading market to begin operation at the earliest possible date. Power 

plants across the country are delaying decisions on new, more efficient 

technology purchase and installation because of the uncertainties inherent 

in not knowing key parameters on how such a cap and trade program will 

operate for CO2. A key component of this uncertainty is the so-called CO2 

baseline factor against which emission trading is measured and where it will 

be drawn for each facility. Companies that take early action on technology installation and emissions reduction may well be penalized for such 

actions, and most have decided to delay improvements until the trading 
ENERGY STAR Metrics of Success 

ENERGY STAR products prevented 35 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions 

in 2005 alone—equivalent to the annual emissions of 23 million vehicles—and saved 

about $12 billion on utility bills. They also saved 150 billion kilowatt hours (kWh) or 4 

percent of the total 2005 electricity demand. 

About 1,500 manufacturers are using the ENERGY STAR to label and differentiate 

more than 35,000 individual product models. 

More than 800 retail partners are bringing ENERGY STAR qualifying products and educational information to their customers. 

More than 2,500 builder partners are constructing new homes in every state that 

qualify for the ENERGY STAR, and 70 architecture and engineering firms are using the 

“Designed to Earn the ENERGY STAR” graphic on drawings. 

About 2,500 private businesses, public-sector organizations, and industrial facilities are 

investing in energy efficiency and reducing energy use in their buildings. 

More than 30 states and more than 450 utilities and other energy efficiency program 

sponsors are leveraging ENERGY STAR to improve the efficiency of government buildings and of their customers. 

Americans purchased about 175 million ENERGY STAR qualified products spanning 

more than 40 product categories in 2005, bringing the total number of ENERGY STAR 

products purchased since 1992 to more than 2 billion. 

More than 17,000 homes have been improved through state and locally sponsored 

Home Performance with ENERGY STAR programs. 

EPA added new products to the ENERGY STAR suite by developing energy efficiency 

specifications for power supplies and a specification for battery charging systems. 

More than 500,000 families, 40 percent more than in 2004, now live in ENERGY STAR 

qualified new homes and are saving about $110 million annually. 

EPA launched the ENERGY STAR challenge in 2005, calling on U.S. businesses and institutions to reduce energy use by 10 percent or more in coordination with key associations and states. 

More than 2,500 buildings (480 million square feet) have earned the ENERGY STAR 

label for superior energy and environmental performance. 

EPA’s energy performance rating system has been used to evaluate about 26,000 

buildings, including 38 percent of hospitals, 25 percent of office buildings, 24 percent 

of supermarkets, 15 percent of schools, and 14 percent of hotel spaces. 

ENERGY STAR partnered with three new focus industries—food processing, glass manufacturing, and water/wastewater treatment—to develop standardized measurement tools and industry-specific best practices. 

45
46

program becomes defined. Technological approaches that could be saving money for utilities and reducing greenhouse gases at the same time are 

not being implemented because of this uncertainty. Some states have 

recently implemented emission registries to begin the process of facilitating 

CO2 emission trading, which is expected to begin operation sometime within this decade. Under the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990, however, EPA already has collected 10 years of continuous, 

detailed, quality assured, and highly accurate CO2 emissions data from all 

of the nation’s major power plants that could be, but are not being, used 

for this important purpose. 

Finding 5.5: According to a recent issue of The Economist, almost onetenth of America’s venture capital is being spent on a broad array of alternative energy projects (approximately $64 billion in 2006), doubling the 

amount invested just 2 years ago. John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins states that: 

“Innovation in clean tech could be the biggest economic opportunity in 

the 21st Century.” The Electric Power Research Institute’s 2007 Global 

Energy Technology Strategy for Addressing Climate Change states that, 

“Technology plays a critical role in containing the societal cost of policies 

to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions... and creating the technological 

change needed to stabilize concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere is a 

challenge to energy R&D of unprecedented scope.” Very little private 

investment takes place by venture capitalists or customers until the technology is ready for the commercial market. Cost remains a major barrier to 

technology research and development, and the challenges posed by 

global warming are enormous. The State of California has proposed committing $4 billion to the development of clean energy technology. Stanford 

University’s Global Climate and Energy Project sponsors will invest a total of 

$225 million over a decade or more as it explores energy technologies that 

are efficient, environmentally benign, and cost-effective when deployed 

on a large scale. Other states are considering sponsorship of or are participating in new technology investment programs. Action is needed at all 

levels of government and by all pertinent agencies, however, to help 

reduce cost barriers at the research, development, and verification stages. 

EPA has the expertise to assist in evaluating new technologies to help stimulate private and public investment, particularly through its verification programs. 

Recommendations 

Recommendation 5.1: Climate Change Technology Planning and R&D. EPA 

should identify and fund climate change technology development in areas 

of importance within its purview that need special development assistance. 

Just as EPA has identified Action Teams to address certain environmental 

problems, it needs to anticipate and identify specific areas where new 

technology could help prevent, monitor, or aid adaptation to environmental impacts caused by climate change. Assistance along the entire 

Continuum for these required technologies needs attention and active, 

cross-Agency strategic planning for technology development. This planning process should be addressed by the SETO as a priority matter. As stated above, targeted research and development on technologies needed 

to address the new aspects of environmental degradation expected to 

occur as a result of climate change is particularly important. Targeted 
funding needs to be identified and/or leveraged through partnerships that 

can help reduce barriers to technology development and adoption. This 

may require reallocation of funds within existing and future budgets. 

Recommendation 5.2: Public/Private and State Partnerships. EPA should 

establish and cultivate meaningful public/private partnerships for technology development on climate change challenges. The importance of private-sector partnerships becomes markedly more significant when dealing 

with large-scale environmental issues because of cost and scale, as well as 

practical implementation issues. In addition, EPA should increase its participation in partnerships with state and regional groups that already are 

actively addressing the environmental effects of climate change— 

California and New England being prime examples (see Recommendation 

5.4 below). EPA should, for instance, encourage partnerships with respect 

to CO2 mitigation, including the creation of an information clearinghouse 

and publication of technology information. This would help provide and 

coordinate data for policy makers, businesses, consumers, and legislators to 

be able to make more informed decisions about technology. Public 

recognition of results and visible advocacy for successful new technology 

initiatives are low cost but powerful methods for the Agency to encourage 

and support development of new environmental technologies. 

Recommendation 5.3: Technology Verification and Demonstration Support. 

EPA should establish and actively promote its leadership role in evaluating 

climate change technology as new technologies approach the commercialization stage so that purchasers can be assured that they are selecting 

the best technology for their particular situation. Governments, businesses, 

and individual consumers are beginning to seek climate-friendly technologies voluntarily in large numbers. Performance claims by vendors in a rapidly expanding marketplace need to be verified to ensure that technologies produce the types of results desired and that purchasers are not dissuaded from further voluntary actions by poor performance of new technology. EPA’s verification of private-sector developed climate change 

technology and publication of its effectiveness is an important source of 

data for businesses, consumers, and policy makers in this area and should 

be reactivated. Opportunities for pilot testing should be promoted for 

technologies where early installment and technology utilization appear key 

to EPA climate change priorities. EPA also should demonstrate advanced 

vehicle and engine technologies, consistent with EPA’s FY2007-2009 milestones and create pilot programs to use commercially available advanced 

technology in fleets to produce cost-effective models for emission and fuel 

consumption reduction. 

Recommendation 5.4: EPA’s Potential Role in CO2 Emissions Trading. EPA 

should utilize its existing database of CO2 power plant emissions to establish 

a baseline for electric utilities to use in instituting an emissions trading program in the United States as soon as possible. As a result of the emission 

monitoring and reporting provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990, EPA’s Office of Atmospheric Programs is a world leader in operating 

both emission inventory activities and emission trading programs. The CO2 

database that it has maintained for 10 years is the most available and logical source of plant-by-plant emission data in the country and should be utilized to rapidly establish year-specific baselines for all medium- to large47
48

sized power plants. Through this mechanism, trading can begin and technology decisions on the part of the electric utility industry that will better 

protect the environment and lower costs to customers can be implemented. 

Recommendation 5.5 EPA’s Regulatory Role in Innovative Technology 

Development. Consistent with its charge to explore “encouraging demand 

for innovative technologies,” the Subcommittee recommends that EPA 

drive and enable innovative technology in all media by using not only existing but also new and innovative regulatory and policy approaches to help 

solve the difficult issues facing the nation with respect to both prevention of 

and adaptation to climate change. Although new legislation may be necessary for some beneficial actions and court actions for others, EPA’s broad 

authority to protect the environment through existing laws is already extensive. In particular, the Agency should ensure that all new regulations, no 

matter which media office they emerge from or which environmental law 

they implement, include standard evaluations of climate change impacts if 

appropriate. 

Northeastern states and most recently, five western states (California, 

Washington, Oregon, Arizona, and New Mexico), and others have developed formal state greenhouse gas reduction plans that include quantitative emission assessments, innovative regulatory approaches, and the 

beginnings of regional emission trading programs. EPA has the opportunity 

to follow the states’ programs and also to assess co-benefits of use of technology on EPA-regulated air pollutants at significantly reduced cost. EPA 

also should actively seek and consider suggestions for innovative regulatory 

approaches that would encourage technology development by the regulated community as well as state, regional, tribal, and local organizations. 
III. Appendices 

Appendix A: Charge to the Subcommittee on Environmental 

Technology 

Appendix B: List of Subcommittee Members 

Appendix C: List of Recommendations in the First Report of 

the NACEPT Subcommittee 

Appendix D: EPA Administrator’s December 19, 2006 Letter to 

NACEPT Chair 

Appendix E: Suggested Functions and Duties of the SETO, 

Regional Technology Coordinators, and 

Technology Communication Coordinator 

APPENDIX A: 	Charge to the Subcommittee on Environmental 

Technology 

National Advisory Council For Environmental Policy and Technology 

Draft Framework for Developing Recommendations on U.S. EPA’s Environmental 

Technology Programs 

Background 

EPA Administrator Leavitt has established a vision that will enable EPA to 

move to a new level of more efficient, effective and collaborative environmental 

management. He has identified four cornerstones of this effort: better use of science and technology, using market mechanisms, collaboration and networking, 

and managing for results. These elements must work together to bring about 

environmental progress. In particular, EPA needs to focus its efforts on the role 

that innovative technology can play in moving to a model of environmental protection built on the principles of stewardship and sustainable development, 

which will allow environmental, economic, and social goals to be achieved 

simultaneously. 

The following statement by Paul Gilman, EPA Science Advisor and Assistant 

Administrator, Office of Research and Development, from a recent editorial in 

Science, provides an overarching context for thinking about environmental technology. 

EPA is at its best when it views its role as not just custodial but as 

cutting edge, providing leadership and prescribing answers to 

key environmental problems. Today in the same vane, EPA 

Administrator Michael Leavitt is challenging the Agency to find 

creative ways to accelerate efforts to protect human health and 

the environment, and prepare for the future. This challenge can 

only get more daunting if the suggested increases in world’s population (50 %), global economic activity (500 %), and global energy consumption and manufacturing activity (300 %) are 

achieved in the next 50 years. Here the goal of sustainability can 

be an important unifying principle. EPA’s research and technology programs can be an effective force in the design and measurement of our progress toward sustainable systems. 

49
50

Technology is undoubtedly a central element in being able to achieve a synergy between environmental protection and economic growth while improving 

the lives of people around the world. The following quote from a report to the 

European Parliament, titled Stimulating Technologies for Sustainable Development: 

An Environmental Technologies Action Plan for the European Union, establishes a useful perspective: 

The potential of technology to create synergies between environmental protection and economic growth was recognized by 

the October 2003 European council. Environmental technologies—taken in the Action Plan to include all technologies whose 

use is less environmentally harmful than relevant alternatives—are 

key to this. They encompass technologies and processes to manage pollution (e.g. air pollution control, waste management), less 

polluting and less resource-intensive products and services, and 

ways to manage resources more efficiently (e.g. water supply, 

energy-saving technologies). Thus defined, they pervade all 

economic activities and sectors, where they often cut costs and 

improve competitiveness by reducing energy and resource consumption, and so create fewer emissions and less waste. 

Without innovative technology, most of the environmental gains that we 

have achieved over the last thirty years would not have been possible. EPA continues to think strategically about how development and rapid introduction of 

innovative technology can lead to better and more cost effective environmental 

management. To do this the Agency must support the role of the private sector 

in technology development, leveraging its programs and activities to facilitate 

the deployment of such technologies, and eliminating barriers that discourage or 

hold back their adoption. While development and sale of commercial-ready 

environmental technology is the task and proper role of the private sector, the 

EPA plays an important role in facilitating the creation of sustainable technology 

in at least the following ways. The Agency: 

1.	 Helps to identify technology gaps in environmental protection through an 

ongoing process of problem identification and setting of environmental 

goals; 

2.	 Provides limited and targeted financial support for needed new technologies through research grants to universities, funding for small business R&D, 

and research in EPA’s laboratory research facilities; 

3.	 Provides performance verification of new private sector technologies to 

reduce uncertainty for technology purchasers and protect the public; 

4.	 Provides information to the public (states, communities, industrial and commercial purchasers) on the availability, benefits and effectiveness of innovative and sustainable technologies; 

5.	 Encourages design and use of sustainable technologies in various public and 

private sectors through voluntary partnerships; 

6.	 Impacts the use of innovative technologies through its policies, regulations, 

and compliance activities. 
Charge to the Subcommittee 

The Subcommittee is asked to assist the Agency in evaluating its current and 

potential role in technology facilitation, bearing in mind two overarching questions as it formulates its recommendations: 

•	 How can EPA better optimize its existing environmental technology programs to make them as effective as possible in promoting the research, 

development, commercialization, and implementation of sustainable private sector technologies; and 

•	 What other environmental technology programs and activities should EPA 

initiate to take advantage of opportunities it may be missing to further 

the effectiveness of its technology facilitation objectives? (Although EPA 

is not likely to receive significant additional funding for any new technology activities, the Subcommittee should not feel constrained in its thinking.) 

There are several specific areas where NACEPT can advise the Agency on its 

environmental technology programs. The Subcommittee is asked to consider at 

least the following types of actions and programs. 

1. Evaluating EPA’s Existing Suite of Technology Support Programs. In a Report to 

Congress in October of 2003, EPA described the current suite of technology support programs carried out by the Agency’s Program Offices, Regional Offices, 

and the Office of Research and Development. Using information on the entire 

range of technology programs conducted by the Agency, all of which can be 

accessed through the Environmental Technology Opportunities Portal 

(www.epa.gov/etop), the Subcommittee is asked to evaluate the mission and 

overall approach of the programs individually and collectively, determine 

whether there are any redundancies or gaps, and consider whether they are 

appropriately designed to address technology development barriers. The 

Subcommittee’s views on the coverage and focus placed on various environmental problems areas and the effectiveness of these efforts in supporting private sector development and commercialization of the most critically needed 

new and sustainable technologies are also sought. 

2. Encouraging Demand for Innovative Technology. EPA’s regulatory requirements for the attainment of certain levels of pollutant reduction, as well as ongoing or periodic monitoring of pollutant releases and levels, inherently create a 

demand for environmental technologies. Other more direct approaches to 

demand-pull may be needed, however. Specific categories of innovative technologies may warrant assistance from the EPA or other government programs 

because of their efficiency or sustainability factors or their inherent benefit in 

addressing certain difficult or intractable environmental problems. Some of the 

approaches listed below have been used to further such goals by providing 

incentives to appropriate places in the technology development system. Which 

of these appear to be particularly worthy of expansion? 

•	 Direct financial incentives. Up front capital costs often deter businesses 

from installing greener technologies that may be more environmentally 

beneficial and in some cases more cost effective, and thus more sustainable, in the long term. In the past, government funding for the construction of wastewater treatment projects included incentives for purchasing 

innovative technologies over standard technology. Are new investment 

incentives needed for either developers or user of new technologies? 

51
52

•	 Creative regulatory and policy approaches. The way regulations and 

policies are designed, can provide either incentives or disincentives for 

technology innovation. For example, emission trading approaches such 

as those employed through the Acid Rain Program and those proposed 

in the Clear Skies Initiative are generally considered to provide incentives 

for innovation. Use of voluntary approaches in lieu of regulations also may 

encourage technology innovation. For example, the Toxic Releases 

Inventory encourages firms to find innovative ways to reduce their emissions. Voluntary use of Environmental Management Systems might also 

encourage firms to find innovative ways of improving their environmental 

performance. What types of approaches should the Agency consider to 

encourage technology innovation? 

•	 Preferential governmental purchasing that makes the government a first 

user of innovative technologies is another demand-pull approach that 

can help move promising technologies into full commercial use. The 

Federal program for the “Greening of Government” encourages the purchase of environmentally preferable products often produced by innovative technologies. Innovative field monitoring technologies and continuous monitoring devices have been purchased by Federal and State environmental agencies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their 

environmental measurement functions. As “first users” of innovative technologies, government agencies are in an excellent position to demonstrate their benefits. How can government purchasing best be used for 

innovative technologies? Should EPA encourage states to use grant 

funds for preferential funding of innovative new technologies such as air 

monitoring networks and other beneficial uses? 

•	 Permitting Barriers. Past EPA and White House reports have highlighted 

permitting as a barrier to new technology introduction. Beyond these 

generic recommendations, what specifically about the permitting 

process is the issue that EPA and its partners can deal with? For example, 

is technology introduction inhibited by problem owner reluctance due to 

the cost of failed technologies, lack of confidence in approaching the 

state regulator, lack of authentic, verified information for the user and the 

regulator on technology performance in the specific new application, 

lack of resources by the regulator to divert to evaluating new technology 

applications, problem owner concern over public acceptance, or other 

issues? 

3. Reaching Critical Audiences with Innovative Technology Information. The 

commercialization of innovative technologies is frequently stymied because of 

the lack of current and accurate information on their availability, applicability, 

performance, location, and cost. EPA, through its long years of supporting technology development and evaluation programs, has one of the largest repositories of environmental technology information in the world. Making this store of 

information available to the numerous public and private entities that need it is a 

daunting task. In its “Report to Congress on a One-Stop-Shop for Coordination of 

Programs Which Foster Development of Environmental Technologies,” EPA committed to creating an Environmental Technology Opportunities Portal (ETOP) that 

would lead users to information on all of EPA’s technology programs through an 

integrated “one-stop-shop.” This portal became operational on December 31, 

2003. 
•	 Information coverage. ETOP consists of 16 independent websites created 

and maintained across the Agency. Some of these are particularly suited 

to the scientific and engineering community, some to the technology 

purchasing community and consuming public, some to government entities, some to narrow segments of environmental interest, and some to 

broad interests. Is the organization of both the ETOP and its component 

parts adequate in its clarity of purpose, its coverage, and its depth for the 

various audiences that need access to its information? If not, what other 

information should be available through this web portal and how should it 

be organized? Do these gaps require the creation of new programs or 

simply restructuring the site to make it more user-friendly? 

•	 Accessibility. Websites created by the Agency have frequently taken 

years to gain readership by targeted audiences. How can EPA rapidly 

inform the numerous and diverse public and private constituency groups 

mentioned above that the information they require is available through 

ETOP and easily guide these users to the information they need? What 

other tools (workshops, conferences, association partnerships, regional 

and state technology contacts) should the Agency employ to assure that 

full, but targeted, information reaches appropriate audiences in a timely 

manner? Is EPA’s public recognition of successful new technologies 

appropriate and effective? 

4. Collaborative Approaches with States, Tribes and Local Governments. As the 

governmental entities most directly proximate to the purchasers of environmental 

technology, the states, tribes and local governments frequently play a pivotal 

role in encouraging the development and implementation of innovative technologies. States can also place barriers to innovation if they do not have the 

information required to evaluate the applicability and performance of new technology. Several programs have proved helpful in the past and could be expanded. 

•	 Public assistance programs. US EPA Region I has developed an effective 

program called the Center for Environmental Industry and Technology 

that provides assistance to both technology developers and technology 

users seeking solutions to problems. If this program were to be replicated 

in other Regions, what kinds of assistance should be available through 

these Centers? Would a Technology Assistance Center at Headquarters 

be valuable as a central EPA point of contact and a formal link to other 

Federal, State and local organizations with environmental technology 

programs? What should its functions be? 

•	 Cross-State cooperation. At the State level, differing regulatory requirements and permitting practices may impede the adoption of innovative 

technologies. The Interstate Technology Research Council (ITRC) is working with the States to establish common data requirements for the permitting of remediation technologies. How should this, and similar programs, 

such as the Technology Acceptance and Reciprocity Partnership, be 

expanded to help remove regulatory impediments to the adoption of 

sustainable environmental technologies? 

•	 Enforcement interface. EPA and some State Agencies have had programs offering incentives to companies not in compliance that encourage them to implement pollution prevention solutions, which often 

involves the adoption of innovative technologies. How can EPA work 

53
54

more effectively with State Agencies to make information on cost effective innovative technologies available to firms that aren’t in compliance, 

particularly small and medium sized firms? In addition to the enforcement offices in EPA and State Agencies, what other offices should be 

involved? How can information on enforcement actions and potential 

customers be effectively conveyed to technology developers and 

suppliers? 

5. Collaborative Approaches With Others. EPA can be most effective in 

encouraging technology innovation if it works collaboratively with numerous and 

diverse stakeholders. This includes states (see above), other federal agencies, private sector developers and purchasers, and various interest groups. Many of the 

programs already discussed require engagement with these organizations. 

Examples of targeted collaborations might include: 

•	 Working with other federal agencies. Opportunities for collaborative 

undertakings with other federal agencies working in the environmental 

field include preferred purchasing (discussed above), dual use technologies, joint R&D, providing incentives and information sharing. An example 

of a successful partnership for sharing information is the 10-year-old 

Federal Remediation Roundtable. Another example of cooperation are 

the five federal agencies that have provided test beds for private sector 

technologies being verified by the Environmental Technology Verification 

(ETV) program, significantly reducing the testing costs to vendors. How 

can EPA be more effective in getting other federal agencies to serve as 

demonstrators and first time purchasers of innovative technologies? 

•	 Dual use technologies. Since the market for environmental technologies 

is generally low growth, the greatest opportunities for the commercialization and adoption of innovative technologies may come through taking 

advantage of dual use technologies that are being developed for other 

markets. How can EPA engage companies and agencies in defense, 

energy, health science, food science and other sectors industries that are 

developing technologies that might also have environmental applications? 

•	 Working with the private sector. Many of EPA’s programs involve collaboration with the private sector in the development of technologies, such as 

the CRADA program. The ETV program operates within a broad stakeholder structure that includes state and local permitters, technology testing organizations, and technology vendors and purchasers. Through 

these programs, EPA provides factual information to states, industry and 

the public, but does not advocate for a particular company’s product or 

technology. How can EPA best recognize and publicize outstanding new 

commercially available technologies without negating its non-advocacy 

policy? 
APPENDIX B: List of Subcommittee Members 

Chair: 

Philip Helgerson 

CSC Advanced Marine Center 

Liaison to the NACEPT Council: 

Dan Watts 

New Jersey Institute of Technology 

Members: 

Linda Benevides 

Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection 

David Dzombak 

Carnegie Mellon University 

Kenneth Geiser 

University of Massachusetts at Lowell 

John Hornback 

Metro 4/Southeastern States Air 

Resource Managers, Inc. (SESARM) 

Kristine Krause 

Wisconsin Energy Corporation 

JoAnn Slama Lighty 

University of Utah 

Raymond Lizotte 

American Power Conversion 

Corporation 

Oliver Murphy 

Lynntech, Inc. 

Robin Newmark 

Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory 

Patrick O’Hara 

Cummings/Riter Consultants 

Christine Owen 

Tampa Bay Water 

Katherine Reed 

3M Environmental, Health and Safety 

Operations 

Norman Richards 

Mohegan Environmental Protection 

Department, The Mohegan Tribe 

Karen Riggs 

Battelle Memorial Institute 

James Robbins 

Environmental Business Cluster 

Howard Roitman 

Association of State and Territorial Solid 

Waste Management Officials 

Kent Udell 

University of Utah 

(Professor and Chair); 

University of California, Berkeley 

(Professor Emeritus) 

EPA Liaisons: 

Stephen Lingle 

Office of Research and Development 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Maggie Theroux 

New England, Region 1 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Walter Kovalick 

Region 5 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Designated Federal Officer: 

Mark Joyce 

Office of Cooperative Environmental 

Management 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contractor Support: 

Beverly Campbell 

Penelope Hansen 

Susie Warner 

The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc. 

55
56

APPENDIX C: 	 List of Recommendations in the First Report of the 

NACEPT Subcommittee 

The following is a summary of the recommendations of the NACEPT 

Environmental Technology Subcommittee’s May 2006 report, EPA Technology 

Programs and Intra-Agency Coordination (the full report is available on the Web at 

http://www.epa.gov/etop/nacept). 

Finding 1: The EPA Technology Development Continuum 

Recommendation 1.1: Broadly publish the Continuum, in both Web and 

document form, to assist information seekers both within the Agency and 

outside to find the technology support and data they need to move technology forward. EPA must ensure that the information in the Continuum 

remains current and up to date. 

Recommendation 1.2: Use the Continuum as: 

1.2.1	 An effectiveness and evaluation tool to determine the metrics 

and outcomes of EPA programs; 

1.2.2 	A prioritization and resource evaluation tool to make crossAgency resource decisions; and 

1.2.3	 An evaluation tool to determine the Agency’s effectiveness in 

working with the other critical stakeholders in technology development and diffusion, most particularly state and local government and the private sector. 

Finding 2: Subcommittee Observations on EPA Technology Programs 

Recommendation 2.1: EPA should target its technology support efforts to 

areas clearly linked to environmental regulations and other publicly stated 

environmental goals. In particular, the Agency should build its strategic 

plans around the availability of emerging technology with a clear plan of 

technology support for those areas it considers to be critical to its success. 

Recommendation 2.2: Improved and coordinated metrics need to be 

developed, used across the entire spectrum of EPA technology programs, 

and publicized. The Agency has an impressive array of programs but in the 

absence of consistent and available metrics, it is difficult to see how effective they are in actually bringing needed technologies to implementation 

or to make valid effectiveness comparisons among individual programs. 

The Subcommittee understands that the Agency is working on the issue of 

metrics within all of its programs and that this kind of outcome measurement, particularly applied to the broad area of technology development 

and deployment, is difficult to construct. 

Recommendation 2.3: Although a research focus is consistent with government’s traditional role in funding basic research, it is important that other 

efforts, further along the research and development continuum, continue to 

be supported. Front-loading of resources on research may be less effective 

in achieving technology utilization than actively promoting those technologies that have been shown to work. Many innovations begin in the private 
sector with little or no government support but require demonstration 

and/or verification by independent entities to determine their effectiveness. 

They also may require diffusion activities by the government to achieve 

regulatory acceptance and thus commercialization. 

Recommendation 2.4: Demonstration/verification programs need to be 

expanded. States support the verification testing of technologies through 

activities like EPA’s Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program 

rather than leaving this testing for each individual state to do on its own. 

The fact that EPA has verified more than 350 innovative technologies to 

date and that hundreds more await verification attests to the value of this 

activity to commercial developers. The fact that the ETV Web Site containing performance data on all of these technologies is visited more than 

1,500,000 times each year attests to the value of the information it contains 

on new technologies. Demonstration and verification programs are major 

commercialization facilitation activities and help assure that effective, 

rather than ineffective, technologies are deployed. 

Recommendation 2.5: Each EPA technology program should know where 

to direct technologies to the next step in the development process both 

inside and outside EPA to ensure that promising innovations move through 

the Continuum toward commercialization. Program interaction, communication, and focus on commercialization requirements need improvement. 

Recommendation 2.6: The Agency should address critical diffusion and utilization gaps that impede new technology from reaching the appropriate 

markets. 

2.6.1	 The Subcommittee recommends that the Agency establish a 

policy that each regional office designates a specific technology information coordinator. The regions are the front line of the 

Agency and a primary source for state- and local-level decision 

makers to obtain guidance on technology and permitting 

issues, particularly concerning the performance of new technologies. Developers also come to the regions for help in 

penetrating EPA’s technology assistance programs. A regional 

technology information coordinator would serve to connect 

regional problems to the funding and resources of EPA 

Headquarters. The effectiveness of this approach has been 

demonstrated in Region 1. Headquarters’ coordination of these 

regional technology information coordinators will be critical to 

their success. The Subcommittee will address the management 

and coordination issues for EPA’s technology programs in future 

reports. 

2.6.2	 The Subcommittee recommends that EPA place more emphasis 

on and increase public awareness of its programs to create a 

demand for new environmental technologies. A review of the 

scope of programs in the Continuum reveals an apparent gap 

in Agency activities that directly address the creation of 

markets or market mechanisms for new technologies. One 

example of such a program is ENERGY STAR, which encourages 

energy conservation by working with corporations to develop 

conservation plans. Such “demand-pull” activities can include 

57
58

government policies such as tax credits and “first purchaser” 

activities that encourage innovation. The Subcommittee will 

seek further information on EPA’s past experiences, both positive andnegative, with these types of policies at its upcoming 

meetings. 

Recommendation 2.7: EPA should devote more attention and resources to 

those Agency programs that incorporate and encourage sustainability as 

one of the goals or criteria for technology development or implementation 

assistance. As this subject is specifically called out for comment in the 

charge and the Subcommittee considers that there is an opportunity for 

the Agency to accomplish important strategic objectives in this area, the 

Subcommittee will look at the issue of sustainability in more detail over the 

coming months and make specific recommendations in a future report. 

The Subcommittee hopes to identify and evaluate several EPA programs 

that are actively seeking to incorporate this analytically difficult subject into 

their technology development activities and highlight their methodology 

and successes. 

Finding 3: The Environmental Technology Council (ETC) Action Teams 

Recommendation 3.1: EPA should develop a formal and ongoing public 

process to identify the country’s most pressing environmental problems 

needing technological solutions, ensuring that the selection is truly focused 

on environmental problems and not simply on technology development. 

Recommendation 3.2: EPA should make the ETC Action Team initiative a 

core program with high-level Agency support, while streamlining the oversight for both the ETC and its Action Teams. 

Recommendation 3.3: The ETC should develop and institute Standard 

Operating Procedures for Action Teams and ensure that they 

immediately begin to include appropriate outside stakeholders in their 

deliberations and activities. The most successful Team activities should be 

highlighted. 
APPENDIX D: EPA Administrator’s December 19, 2006 Letter 

to NACEPT Chair 

59
APPENDIX D: EPA Administrator’s December 19, 2006 Letter 

to NACEPT Chair (continued) 

60
APPENDIX E: 	 Suggested Functions and Duties of the SETO, 

Regional Technology Coordinators, and 

Technology Communication Coordinator 

Internal responsibilities of the Senior Environmental Technology Officer 

(SETO) and staff should include functions such as: 

•	 Understand and influence all existing internal technology support activities 

across the Continuum and assist in the coordination of these programs to 

ensure maximum effectiveness. 

•	 Ensure that technology programs across the Continuum support the Agency’s 

strategic plan and solution of its highest priority problems that require technology development and deployment. Seek opportunities to add technology 

activities and metrics to all program office sections in the EPA Strategic Plan, 

support and coordinate those activities, and report on environmental results. 

•	 Chair and direct the activities of the Environmental Technology Council (see 

below), including updating current priorities, Action Teams, and followup on 

previous Environmental Technology Subcommittee recommendations. 

•	 Efficiently resolve internal and partnership disputes related to environmental 

technology commercialization and deployment. EPA should consider creating an innovative technology appeals board to address and resolve issues 

that arise in a timely manner. 

•	 Identify international programs that have an environmental technology component and seek opportunities to understand the international market for 

technologies to encourage investment in developing technologies and promote export of U.S. technologies. 

•	 Develop and be responsible for keeping current a central, consolidated, and 

simple clearinghouse for commercial-ready technologies and associated 

performance data to assist purchasers in getting the best technology for their 

particular situation. 

•	 Educate staff about the issues faced by technology developers—there 

should be a list of Frequently Asked Questions about technology development and partnering. Establish performance expectations for regional technology advocates and consider recognition programs for staff members who 

take risks to use environmental technologies that achieve results. 

•	 Establish clearly defined metrics for program success that include the most 

important elements for technology development along the entire Continuum. 

•	 Oversee communication and outreach activities, particularly the quality of 

the Agency’s various technology Web sites, to achieve outstanding information flow to the entire technology development, commercialization, and purchasing community. 

61
62

External responsibilities of the SETO should include: 

•	 The authority to represent the Agency as a technology champion and create external events and communication tools that highlight successful technology commercialization and uses. 

•	 Act as the primary external spokesperson for environmental technology, 

including providing advice to Congress. Establish communication with and 

among appropriate government agencies at all levels. 

•	 Establish relationships with key governmental, external nongovernmental 

organizations, and private-sector actors, including the investment community 

and appropriate international organizations. Build relationships with other 

federal agencies and encourage partnership formation wherever appropriate. 

•	 Establish relationships with state entities of all types, including state small business development agencies, as well as CalPERS and other state funds that 

invest in clean technology. Establish and chair an external technology advisory board to provide input and expertise into technology activities. Work 

with the Environmental Council of the States and other state organizations to 

engage states in all aspects of technology implementation and support state 

environmental technology innovation programs such as the Technology 

Acceptance and Reciprocity Partnership and the Interstate Technology and 

Regulatory Council. 

Functions of the Regional Technology Information Coordinator: 

•	 Work day-to-day with regional staff to facilitate the use of new technologies 

as a primary tool to improve environmental performance and solve problems. 

•	 Serve as the external contact for companies needing access to services, 

markets, or regulatory assistance. 

•	 Communicate with states to respond to their technology information and 

policy needs and learn from their areas of expertise. 

•	 Coordinate routinely with regional counterparts and through quarterly meetings with the Senior Environmental Technology Officer. 

•	 Staff the Environmental Technology Council and recruit members for the 

Action Teams. 

•	 Seek technology solutions to achieve environmental results in all regional 

media programs and enforcement (see section 3. Encouraging Market 

Demand for Innovative Environmental Technology). 
Functions of the Technology Communication Coordinator under the SETO: 

•	 Ensure effective communication of data and information between scientists/ 

engineers/regulators throughout EPA. The SETO and Regional Coordinators 

should lead the effort to move other offices toward proactive, engaging 

technology outreach. 

•	 Devote the resources for one person to continually monitor and update the 

Environmental Technology Opportunities Portal (ETOP) Web Site and all of its 

components. Material that is outdated, poorly organized, or confusing 

should be removed rather than left to confuse the public and reduce 

Agency credibility. This person should report to the recommended SETO. 

•	 Ensure timely information reporting and use timeliness of public reporting as a 

metric of success in all technology programs. Timely reporting of environmental technology information (data, performance, etc.), no matter where 

that technology is on the Continuum, is imperative for commercialization. 

Within the context of this rapidly moving environment, a multi-year turnaround for report approval is not acceptable. 

•	 Provide short- and long-term data on environmental technologies in a 

searchable Web-based format to ensure that ongoing information is captured. The data should not only reflect initial stage verification but also performance data, operation and maintenance information, and costs. 

63
64