RCC Holdings Corp fka RCCH

[johnnyfiber]

EPA 600/R-10/119 | September 2010 | www.epa.gov/ord

At the time of verification (2006), the technology was manufactured by International Wastewater Systems, Inc. In 2007, RCC Holdings Corporation purchased International Wastewater Systems, Inc., renaming the company International Wastewater Systems. In 2009, the company filed paperwork to modify its corporate name to IWS Water Solutions, Inc., but will maintain
use of the name International Wastewater Systems.

EPA’s 2006–2011 Strategic Plan states that the Agency
will continue to encourage state, tribal, and local governments
to adopt voluntary guidelines for managing decentralized
wastewater treatment systems and will use Clean
Water State Revolving Funds to finance systems where
appropriate (U.S. EPA, 2006). The American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) provides an additional
$4 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving
Funds.Twenty percent of each state’s capitalization grant
can support “Green Reserve” projects, which are defined
as green infrastructure, energy efficiency projects, water
efficiency projects, or innovative environmental projects.
Decentralized wastewater treatment systems qualify for
Green Reserve funding in the category of “innovative environmental
projects.” States may use ARRA funding for
solutions to existing deficient or failing onsite systems
(U.S. EPA, 2009a).

The Model 6000 SBR currently is installed at two commercial
sites in Montana—a commercial center at East
Gallatin Airport outside Bozeman and a casino project
on an Indian reservation north of Great Falls (Smith,
2010a). Two additional systems are completing installation
in Montana. One of the systems is being installed
in a 50-home subdivision, and the other will be shared
by a fitness center and a children’s rehabilitation center
(Smith, 2010d). An additional system also was scheduled
be installed in a 30-home subdivision during 2010,but the subdivision project currently is pending funding.


According to the vendor, these projects were
approved solely on the basis of the Model 6000 SBR’s
ability to meet the nondegradation requirements of the
State of Montana, as demonstrated through ETV testing.
Although the Great Falls project did not have major
environmental requirements associated with it, the Indian
reservation wanted the best environmental treatment
system possible. The vendor’s system had documented
performance through ETV verification and was awarded
the project. The vendor also has $9 million worth of new
bids in progress (Smith, 2010a). Additionally, Minnesota
and New Jersey have nondegradation limits similar
to those of Montana, so the verified technology could
be used to meet the requirements in these states as well

The vendor reports that the payback period for the cost
of the ETV verification was 11 months (Smith, 2010g)
and that demonstrated technology performance as verified
by the ETV Program has had indirect benefits in
the form of valuation and partnerships. Based on an audit
of company assets by an outside valuation firm, the
vendor reports that the value added to the company as a
result of ETV verification could range from $2 million
or $3 million up to as much as $5 million. The audit
determined that the company’s primary asset was participation
in ETV verification because of the competitive
advantage it provides in states that recognize the ETV
Program (Smith, 2010c). According to the vendor, another
important benefit of ETV verification testing has
been the reputation that it provides with new customers
and partners, allowing the company to compete in a
much broader range of activities than it could have without
ETV verification. The value of these partnerships
is worth much more than the $5 million valuation of
the ETV asset and would not have been available to the
company without the ETV results (Smith, 2010a). The
vendor states that because of the ETV name recogni-

“It can’t be emphasized enough that ETV
ignited our company and its growth and
continues to be used by us every day in the
expansion of our company. So, in a very
unique way, you can never put a fixed value
on ETV, because it has become a cornerstone
of our company’s existence, and it allows us
to increase in value every day.”
Claude Smith, President,
International Wastewater Systems (Smith, 2010a).

The Chesapeake Bay Program has outlined how EPA
can protect the Bay watershed, including requiring all
newly developed communities and densely populated
areas to use cluster systems employing advanced nitrogen
removal technology (U.S. EPA, 2009b). The new
discharge standards specify total nitrogen levels of not
more than 20 mg/L throughout the Bay watershed and
in some areas no more than 5 mg/L. The Chesapeake
Bay Program specifically cites ETV and several verified
products when discussing available technologies to
meet these new standards (U.S. EPA, 2010c). The verified
technology discussed in this case study meets the
nitrogen recommendations for use in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed.

Smith C. 2010a. E-mail communication. International Wastewater
Systems, Inc. 6 January.
Smith C. 2010b. E-mail communication. International Wastewater
Systems, Inc. 3 March.
Smith C. 2010c. E-mail communication. International Wastewater
Systems, Inc. 27 April.
Smith C. 2010d. E-mail communication. International Wastewater
Systems, Inc. 18 August.
Smith C. 2010e. E-mail communication. International Wastewater
Systems, Inc. 19 August.
Smith C. 2010f. E-mail communication. International Wastewater
Systems, Inc. 7 September.
Smith C. 2010g. E-mail communication. International Wastewater
Systems, Inc. 17 September.

http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r10119/600r10119.pdf