RCC Holdings Corp fka RCCH

[johnnyfiber]

Anybody heard about the Great Falls wastewater system mentioned in this September 2010 ETV case study.


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
(State of Minnesota, 2008; State of New Jersey, 1993).
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-

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