United States      Office of Solid Waste and
Environmental Protection  Emergency Response
Agency        Washington DC 20460
EPA540 8-90 007
April 1990
Technology Transfer
Needs Assessment

1990

-------
                         EPA/540/8-90/007
                         April 1990
 Technology Transfer
   Needs Assessment

              1990
      Technology Innovation Office
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
United States Environmental Protection Agency
        Washington, DC  20460

   Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D., Director
                         ;jJL- 3, !>•_«.. rc,^ i
                         Shloago,, tU»
             April, 1990

-------
This needs assessment was prepared under the direction of Thomas H.  Pheiffer
and Richard Steimle of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.  The
research, analysis, interpretations, and text were prepared by Jerri P. Town and
Mary B. Deardorff of Environmental Management Support, Inc., of Silver Spring,
Maryland.

Comments or questions regarding this report should be directed to:

  Margaret M. Kelly, Deputy Director
  Technology Innovation Office (OS-110)
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  401 M Street, S.W.
  Washington, DC 20460
  (202)  382-4506
The information in this document has been funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
under contract number 68-01-7481 to ICF, Incorporated. It has been reviewed by the Agency and has been
approved as an EPA document. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mention of trade names does not constitute
endorsement nor recommendation for use.

-------
                                Preface
Technology transfer is an urgent and continuing need throughout the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). As field operations and regula-
tions keep  pace with  technological innovations, the amount and complexity of
technical data, methods, and models continue to grow. Staff turnover also contrib-
utes to a constant demand to anticipate and provide technical information in an
appropriate format.

Working closely with their counterparts in the Office of Research and Develop-
ment, OSWER and Regional Office staff annually identify and rank priority needs
based on emerging regulatory and legislative mandates, technical innovations, and
work force changes.  Periodically, OSWER steps back for a longer-term view of
requirements and emerging trends. This report supplements a 1986 assessment by
the Superfund Office and extends it to include solid waste, underground storage
tanks, and related issues. The data reported in this assessment will assist OSWER
and ORD develop technology transfer and technical information priorities over
the next several years. In addition, the report provides a  baseline of Regional Of-
fice requirements and expectations against which to measure information transfer
activities.

I encourage headquarters and Regional Office managers throughout OSWER to
read and apply the recommendations in this document.  I also encourage labora-
tory and ORD headquarters staff to read it in order to better anticipate mid-term
research needs.
                       Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.l
                   Director, Technology Innovation Office

-------
                        Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their appreciation to the many people in Head-
quarters and the Regions who gave their time and consideration to this project.
While there are too many people to name individually, we would especially like
to thank the management and staff of the hazardous waste divisions in Regions
IE, V, VI, and VIE for their hospitality and courtesy during our visits with them.
To the 239 individuals who further took the time to thoughtfully complete and
return the questionnaire, we hope that your efforts will be rewarded by improved
technology transfer products and training. Finally, we wish to thank Tom Pheiffer
and Rich Steimle of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and Cal
Lawrence and his staff in the Office of Research and Development for their direc-
tion, advice, and support.

-------
                          Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
                                    CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	  v
1. INTRODUCTION	   1
   1.1 Overview	   1
   1.2 Methods  	   3
   1.3 Overall Findings	   8
2. RCRA FINDINGS	   25
   2.1 Profile of RCRA Respondents	   25
   2.2 RCRA Technology Transfer Needs	   26
   2.3 Regional Technical Needs	   30
   2.4 RCRA Audience Needs	   31
3. CERCLA FINDINGS	   35
   3.1 Profile of CERCLA Respondents	   35
   3.2 CERCLA Technology Transfer Needs	   36
   3.3 Regional Technical Needs	   41
   3.4 CERCLA Audience Needs	   42
4. UST & BSD FINDINGS	   47
   4.1 Underground Storage Tanks	   47
   4.2 Environmental Services Division 	   50
5. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER DELIVERY SYSTEMS	   55
   5.1 Preferred Delivery Systems	   55
   5.2 Important Sources of Information	   60
   5.3 Constraints in Use of Technology Transfer Products and Activities  	   63
   5.4 Relating Delivery Systems to Technical Needs	   67
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS	   73
   6.1 Considerations and Survey Limitations  	   73
   6.2 Conclusions and Recommendations	,	   75

-------
                            Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
                                    LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1. Number and Percentage of Responses from each Region and Program Area	   7
Table 1-2. Summary of Training Information by Program Area	   12
Table 1-3. Summary of Background Information by Region	   13
Table 1-4. Fifteen Highest Ranked Technology Transfer Topics for the Overall Sample  	   14
Table 1-5. Rankings of Priority Technology Transfer Needs by Region	   22
Table 1-6. Audiences for Technology Transfer, Overall and by Program	   23
Table 2-1. Experience and Education of RCRA Respondents	   26
Table 2-2. Fifteen Highest Ranked Technical Needs for RCRA	   27
Table 2-3. Ranking of RCRA Technical Needs,  Overall and by Region	   32
Table 2-3. Ranking of RCRA Technical Needs,  Overall, and by Region (Continued)	   33
Table 2-4. Ranking of Needs of Primary RCRA Audiences 	   34
Table 3-1. Experience and Education of CERCLA Respondents 	   35
Table 3-2. Fifteen Highest Ranked Technical Needs for CERCLA	   37
Table 3-3. Rankings of CERCLA Technology Transfer Needs, Overall and by Region 	   43
Table 3.3. Rankings of CERCLA Technology Transfer Needs, Overall and by Region (Cont.)  .   44
Table 3-4. Ranking of Needs of Primary CERCLA Audiences 	   45
Table 4-1. Experience and Education of UST Respondents	   47
Table 4-2. Fifteen Highest Ranked Technical Needs for UST   	   48
Table 4-3. Experience and Education of ESD Respondents	   51
Table 4-4. Fifteen Highest Ranked Technical Needs for ESD   	   52
Table 5-1. Average Usefulness Ratings of Technology Transfer Delivery Systems
          by Program Area	   56
Table 5-2. Average Ratings of Technology Transfer Delivery  Systems by Region	   59
Table 5-3. Average Usefulness Ratings of Sources of Technology Transfer Information
          by Program Area	   61
Table 5-4. Average Ratings of Sources of Technology Transfer Information by Region	   62
Table 5-5. Constraints in Use of Technology Transfer Products and Activities
          by Program Area	   64
Table 5-6. Constraints in Use of Technology Transfer Products and Activities by Region  ....   66
Table 5-7. Relationship of Technology Transfer Needs and Delivery Systems	   69
Table 5-7. Relationship of Technology Transfer Needs and Delivery Systems (Continued) ....   70
                                             11

-------
                              Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
                                     LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.  Respondents' tenure with EPA and in current position  	   9
Figure 1.  Respondents' tenure with EPA and in current position  	    10
Figure 2.  Respondents' highest level of education and field of study  	    11
Figure 3.  Usefulness ratings for 40 technology transfer needs by program	    17
Figure 3.  Usefulness ratings for 40 technology transfer needs by program (Continued)	    18
Figure 3.  Usefulness ratings for 40 technology transfer needs by program (Continued)	    19
Figure 3.  Usefulness ratings for 40 technology transfer needs by program (Continued)	    20
                                              rn

-------
                           Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
                               EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
  This report summarizes the results of the Office of Solid Waste  and Emergency Response
(OSWER) Technology Transfer Needs  Assessment of FY  1990.  The needs assessment was
conducted during August through November, 1989, at the request of the Technology Innovation
Office (TIO) and the OSWER/ORD Technical Support Subcommittee of the Hazardous Waste/
Superfund Research Committee.  It  is intended to assist  the  TIO, Office of Research and
Development (ORD), and OSWER Program Offices in planning technology transfer products for
the next three to four years.

  This effort extends and updates a 1986 needs assessment conducted for the Superfund program
and previous ORD studies on Regional research and technology transfer needs.  This is the first
time a fully coordinated technology transfer needs assessment has  been conducted for all
OSWER-related programs. It encompasses the Superfund (CERCLA), Hazardous Waste (RCRA),
and Underground Storage Tank (UST)  programs, including OSWER enforcement.  Regional
Environmental  Service Divisions (ESDs)  and Superfund  Technical  Support Project Forum
members were  also included in the survey.   Although the Needs  Assessment focuses on
technology transfer needs  and distribution mechanisms for Regional personnel, it also addresses
the technical needs  of other end-user audiences (i.e. States and regulated community) across
OSWER's hazardous and solid waste programs.  It does not address potential research needs
associated with  the technical topics.

  Unlike previous needs surveys, the study attempts to explore  actual and  future needs, to the
extent possible, rather than perceived preferences for extant or proposed  technology transfer
activities.   It further  provides guidance for selecting technology  transfer delivery methods,
including electronic and other advanced media for information  distribution, based on specific
needs and  audience characteristics.  Reported constraints  to  accessing technology transfer
products and activities and typical sources of technical information  are  also considered.   The
results indicate  the priority of technical needs across program areas  and Regions, and provide
previously unavailable data regarding OSWER audiences.

  While the needs assessment identified effective distribution mechanisms for all of OSWER and
related preferred delivery  systems to observed needs, no attempt was made to directly evaluate
the effectiveness of currently offered technology transfer products and activities.  Although some
current technology transfer products and activities are discussed in the report,  no attempt was
made either to  inventory technology transfer products and activities, or  to identify gaps in
technology transfer information.

  The study design incorporated personal  interviews and  a Regional  survey questionnaire.
Preliminary interviews with headquarters branch chiefs in all OSWER program offices provided
decisive information for development of the Regional questionnaire  and for identifying survey
populations.  Regional interviews with CERCLA, RCRA,  and UST  staff were conducted in
Regions III, V,  VI,  and VIII to gain detailed information about technology transfer needs and

-------
                                   Executive Summary
audiences and to address problems that may not have been anticipated while the questionnaire
was being prepared. The questionnaire provided data for drawing general conclusions regarding
the priority technical needs and preferred delivery systems of Regional respondents.

  The target audience included Regional technical staff working in OSWER program areas. Of
the approximately 530 questionnaires sent to all 10 Regions,  roughly  300 were distributed to
CERCLA staff, by far the largest program with the most sections, 177 to RCRA, and 51 to UST
and others.  This provided an overall sampling ratio of about 44%.  It was intended that the
sample population  include a wide range of OSWER end users with broad experience  levels
enveloping RCRA  permitting, compliance, and corrective action; CERCLA removal, remedial
action, and enforcement; UST; and others providing technical support to the hazardous and solid
waste programs.

  Two hundred thirty-nine questionnaires were returned, representing an overall response rate
of about 45%. Of the questionnaires distributed to CERCLA staff, the response rate was about
43%, the RCRA  response rate was about 48%, and the UST and others response rate was about
47%. Response  rates around 40 to 45%  are comparable to those typically received from mail
surveys within OSWER.  Regional response rates across all program areas ranged from about
23% for Region  IX to 70% for Region VH.

  The major conclusions  and recommendations include:

  • A significant proportion of technology transfer products  and activities designed for EPA
    Regional employees should be geared for a relatively sophisticated technical audience.

  • Technology transfer products on hazardous waste remediation should address both legislative
    programs whenever possible.

   • Technology  transfer should focus on  alternative and innovative treatment technologies, risk
    assessment, ground water, remedy selection, field monitoring, and data requirements.

RCRA Technical Needs

   • Technology  transfer products and activities are needed to support RCRA corrective action.

   • Technology  transfer products  should be targeted to meet specific needs of certain RCRA
    audiences.

   • State agency staff  and the regulated community should be considered when developing
    technology transfer products for RCRA.

CERCLA Technical Needs

   • CERCLA technology transfer efforts should address: 1) establishing cleanup standards,  2)
    selecting and applying treatment technologies, 3) ground water, and 4) field sampling and
    analysis.
                                           VI

-------
                            Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
  • EPA contractors, State agency staff, and the regulated community should be considered when
    developing technology transfer products for Superfund.

Technology Transfer Delivery Systems

  • Printed technology transfer documents and workshops/seminars must be brief and clearly
    applied to audience job responsibilities.

  • Training in electronic media and expert systems will be necessary to ensure their use.

  • Developers of technology transfer products should consider providing technical information
    in more than one format whenever it is practical to do so.

  • Regional technology transfer networks should focus on professional staff within the Regional
    Waste Management Division.

  • Regional efforts at coordination of technology transfer should be  supported.

  • Continuing problems with  access to and familiarity with  computers,  modems, and
    communications  software should be addressed.

  • Technology transfer products and activities must be evaluated to determine whether technical
    needs are being met in  the  most  effective and efficient manner for specific audience
    segments.
                                           vn

-------
                           Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
                                 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview

  This report summarizes the results of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) Technology Transfer Needs Assessment of FY 1990.  The Needs Assessment was
conducted during August through November, 1989, at the request of the Technology Innovation
Office (TIO)1 and the OSWER/ORD Technical Support Subcommittee of the Hazardous Waste/
Superfund Research  Committee.   It is intended to assist the TIO, Office of Research and
Development (ORD), and OSWER Program Offices in planning technology transfer products for
the next three to four years.

  This effort extends and updates a  1986 needs assessment conducted for the Superfund
program2 and previous ORD studies on Regional research and technology transfer needs.  This
is the first time a fully coordinated technology transfer needs assessment has been conducted for
all OSWER-related programs.  It encompasses the Superfund (CERCLA), Hazardous Waste
(RCRA), and Underground Storage Tank (UST) programs, including OSWER enforcement.
Regional Environmental Service Divisions (ESDs) and Superfund Technical Support Project
Forum members were also included in the  survey.  Although the Needs Assessment focuses on
technology transfer needs and distribution mechanisms for Regional personnel, it also addresses
the technical needs of other end-user audiences (i.e. States  and regulated community) across
OSWER's hazardous and solid waste  programs.  Both  management  and  staff personnel are
included.

  The Needs  Assessment was conducted  through  a  series of interviews  with OSWER
management at headquarters, a questionnaire survey of all Regions, and  four Regional site visits.
Interviews with OSWER branch chiefs were used to  assist in development of the Regional
questionnaire and in interpretation of the data. The interviews were also used to identify needs
driven by program changes and requirements and to supplement those needs identified by field
personnel. Four Regional site visits were used to pilot test the questionnaire and to gather more
in-depth knowledge  of Regional needs and perspectives.  The questionnaire contains sections
dealing with respondent profiles, technology transfer topics based on present and future-oriented
program priorities, and end-user audiences  and delivery systems.
   formerly the Office of Program Management and Technology (OPMT). OPMT was abolished
and its technology transfer and training functions were passed to the TIO, which was created in
March,  1990.

   2Report on Results of the Technology Transfer Needs Assessment, EPA Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, January, 1987.

                                          1

-------
                                      Introduction
  The purpose of the Needs Assessment is to identify high priority Regional technical infor-
mation needs over the next three to four years, key OSWER audiences, and effective distribution
mechanisms for all of OSWER.  Unlike previous needs surveys, it attempts to explore actual and
future needs, to the extent possible, rather than perceived preferences for extant or proposed
technology transfer activities.   It further  attempts to develop,  in  broad terms, guidance  for
selecting technology transfer delivery methods, including electronic and other advanced media
for information distribution, based on  specific  needs and  audience characteristics.  Reported
constraints to  accessing  technology  transfer products and activities  and typical sources of
technical information are also considered.

  By focusing on actual needs over the next few years, the survey provides a means of validating
technical needs determined through other means, such as  the annual  OSWER training needs
assessments, the Technology Transfer  Advisory Committee,  various OSWER/ORD technical
assistance programs, and formal and informal ORD-Regional interactions.  The results indicate
the priority of technical needs across program areas and Regions,  and provide previously
unavailable data regarding OSWER audiences.

  Questions about technical topics  were separated from those  eliciting data on  delivery
mechanisms in order to isolate topics from treatments. No attempt was made to directly evaluate
the effectiveness of currently offered  technology transfer products and activities.  The data
suggest that some important technical areas may not be adequately addressed by the extant
technology transfer program and these are highlighted in the findings. Present activities that may
address identified needs were  solicited during discussions with headquarters and Regional
managers, and these are also discussed where appropriate.

  A few limitations on the findings of the study should be kept in mind when reviewing  the
results and conclusions:

  •  Although  the study design was intended to survey a wide variety  of OSWER Regional
    personnel  at management and staff levels, the findings suggest that the sample population
    favors experienced staff—those with at least three to five years in the Agency—rather than
    new, less-experienced staff. This may have resulted from  the survey  distribution scheme in
    which Regional section chiefs were asked to complete one questionnaire themselves and to
    distribute  two additional questionnaires to those on their staff whom  they felt were most
    knowledgeable of their offices' technical needs.

  •  The survey relied on  OSWER Regional  personnel to identify professionals (end-users)
    outside the Agency who are important in helping OSWER accomplish its mission. It did not
    independently survey these additional audiences because of the constraint on survey size
    established by the Office of Management and Budget.  While this is unfortunate, it is not
    considered a major limitation. There is no apparent reason why OSWER Regional personnel
    cannot satisfactorily represent their key audiences; however, there is also no proof that their
    assessments are valid.

  • Regional response rates varied, leaving little confidence in representativeness of data for a
    single Region.   It was also not possible to stratify findings within program areas (such as

-------
                           Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
    RCRA permitting and corrective  action, or CERCLA removal and remedial programs)
    because of the large degree of overlapping responsibilities of Regional respondents.

  Chapter 1 of the report describes the methods used in conducting the study and provides an
overview of the overall sample results.  Chapters 2, 3, and 4 summarize the results separately for
RCRA, CERCLA, and other OSWER programs, recognizing that there is a strong correspondence
of technical needs across program areas. Presentation and discussion of the results on technology
transfer delivery systems constitutes Chapter 5, and Chapter 6 provides the major conclusions and
recommendations of the study.  Appendices include a copy of the Regional questionnaire,
headquarters interview questions, and a list of interviewees.
1.2 Methods
  The study design  incorporated personal  interviews and a  Regional  survey  questionnaire.
Preliminary interviews with headquarters branch chiefs in all OSWER program offices provided
decisive information for development of the Regional questionnaire and  for identifying survey
populations.  Regional interviews with CERCLA, RCRA, and UST staff were conducted in
Regions HI, V, VI, and VIII to gain detailed information about technology transfer needs and
audiences and to address problems that may not have been anticipated while the questionnaire
was being prepared. The questionnaire provided data for drawing general conclusions regarding
the priority technical needs and preferred delivery systems of Regional respondents.

  Approximately 530  questionnaires were  distributed to Regional OSWER staff in all  ten
Regions.  Each Regional section chief in the CERCLA and RCRA programs was sent three
questionnaires, as were Regional UST coordinators.  Section chiefs were asked to complete one
questionnaire themselves and  to distribute the  two  additional  questionnaires to individuals
knowledgeable of technical needs in their program who could represent their staff.  In addition,
questionnaires were sent to Environmental Service  Division  (BSD) laboratory directors and
quality assurance coordinators, and the Superfund Technical Support Project Forum members.
Headquarters Interviews

  A series of preliminary interviews was conducted by two members of the survey team with
headquarters OSWER branch chiefs and others identified by OSWER management in the Offices
of Emergency  and  Remedial  Response  (OERR), Solid Waste (OSW),  Waste  Programs
Enforcement (OWPE), and Underground Storage  Tanks (OUST).  The purpose was to .gain
insight into major technology transfer plans and  activities, priority program responsibilities,
objectives for the next three to five years,  and the sample population to be surveyed.  Information
from the interviews was used to develop the list of topical OSWER technical needs utilized in
the Regional questionnaire.  Headquarters branch chiefs offered  useful insight into preferred
delivery methods and constraints on their use, and indicated Regions that the survey team might
visit. The Appendix contains a list of interviewees and a copy of the interview questions.

-------
                                       Introduction
 Questionnaire Development

   The Regional questionnaire consists of a respondent profile, a list of 40 technology transfer
 topics in 11 categories based on current and future-oriented program priorities, and a section
 addressing end-user audiences and delivery systems.  A copy of the Regional questionnaire can
 be found in the Appendix.

   Demographic and job information regarding respondents' current position, background, and
 experience were requested in the respondent profile  section of the questionnaire.  Answers to
 these  questions were  optional and  remain confidential,  and  included  such items as  the
 respondent's Region, division, and branch; program area in which the employee is currently
 involved; and high priority job responsibilities.  Background and experience questions included
 time in current job, years employed by EPA, highest level of education, major field of study, job-
 related EPA training, and technology transfer seminars or workshops attended during the past
 year.

   Forty  high-priority  technology transfer topics  and technical issues  encompassing eleven
 thematic areas were  listed in  the technical needs section  of the  questionnaire.  The eleven
 thematic areas are:

  •  Ground Water
  •  Monitoring Techniques
  •  Risk Assessment
  •  Establishing Treatment Standards
  •  Selection and Application of Treatment/Control Technologies
  •  Waste Management
  •  Alternative and Innovative Treatment Technologies
  •  Estimating Remediation Cost
,  •  Data Requirements
  •  Pollution Prevention
  •  Land Disposal Facilities

   Respondents were asked to provide their best estimate of how important the topics within each
 theme would be to accomplishing their jobs over the next three to  four years.  All topics were
 recognized by headquarters branch chiefs as vital to OSWER over the next three to four  years.
 A scale  of 1 ("not at all useful"), 3 ("quite useful"), and 5 ("extremely useful") was provided for
 respondents to use in rating the importance of each topic to their job responsibilities. A zero was
 used for topics considered "not applicable" to job responsibilities.  Additional space was provided
 to write in topics not on the list.  CERCLA, RCRA, and UST  topics were intentionally listed
 together within themes, without obvious distinction, so that respondents would examine all topics
 and issues, rather than only those within their program area.

   The delivery systems section of the questionnaire addresses end-user audiences for technology
 transfer. Respondents were asked to identify the  types of professionals outside their immediate
 office that are important in helping to accomplish their jobs.  The choices offered were State
 agency staff, EPA contractors, consultants, other federal agencies, academic institutions, regulated
 community, local government/legislators, and other.  Knowledge of these groups is an important

-------
                           Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
key to providing timely technical information and products to the right audiences in thv
appropriate format.  It should be noted, however, that although the question was intenc
identify end-user audiences, such as State agency staff and the regulated community, the que
may have  been interpreted as referring to sources of information rather  than  targets  ror
technology transfer.  While this may not be a major problem in interpreting the results of the
study, it could have an impact on the relative importance of this information.  Additional data
regarding target audiences was obtained for the most important (primary) audience among those
already identified.  Respondents were asked to name the one  most important audience in
accomplishing their jobs, estimate its size, and list the five top priority technical needs of that
"primary" audience. The question on technical needs of the primary audience was open-ended,
and responses were coded as representing one of the eleven technical categories listed above or
other areas of interest.

  Other items  in the  delivery  systems section  include:  respondent and primary audience
preferences for a variety of distribution methods and current sources of technical information on
a 1 ("not at all useful") to 5 ("extremely useful") scale; and  identification of the most serious
constraints experienced by respondents and their primary audience in using OSWER technology
transfer products and activities on a scale of 1 ("no problem") to 5 ("serious problem").
Regional Site Visits

  The survey team, consisting of a TIO staff member and contractor, visited Regions III, V, VI,
and VHI during October and November, 1989, to interview CERCLA, RCRA, and UST staff.
Regions were selected based on headquarters branch  chief information and recommendations.
The purpose of the interviews was to obtain detailed information about Regional responsibilities,
problems, technical needs, and audiences that might not be gained from the questionnaire. The
survey team pilot-tested the questionnaire during its first site visit in Region HI, and, as a result,
a minor  modification was made to the questionnaire before  distributing it  to all Regions.
Interview questions asked of Regional management and staff during the site visits corresponded
closely to those in the written questionnaire, with follow-up  questions related to important
technical needs, problems, and solutions.
Regional Survey

  The target audience included Regional technical staff working in OSWER program areas.
Each Superfund and RCRA section chief and UST Regional coordinator was sent three question-
naires with instructions to complete one and distribute the others to staff whom they felt were
most knowledgeable of their offices' technical needs.  One additional questionnaire was sent to
each BSD laboratory director and quality assurance coordinator and each Superfund Technical
Support Project Forum member.  Those surveyed  represent a  census  of Regional Waste
Management Division section chiefs, with a random  sampling of staff.  The overall sampling
ratio approximated 44% of the overall population of about 1200 Regional hazardous and solid
waste management staff.  However, any survey is necessarily a snapshot of the population  at a
given period in time.  Regional  staffing levels are  rapidly  changing  due to the increase of

-------
                                      Introduction
approximately 500 new Regional Superfund  staff  now  being  implemented,  and these  new
positions were not included in the survey.

  Of the approximately 530 questionnaires sent to all 10 Regions, roughly 300 were distributed
to CERCLA staff, by far the largest program with the most sections, 177 to RCRA, and 51 to
UST and others. It was intended that the sample population include a wide range of OSWER
end users with broad experience levels enveloping RCRA permitting, compliance, and corrective
action; CERCLA removal, remedial action, and enforcement; UST; and others providing technical
support to  the  hazardous and solid waste programs.  Based on the advice of headquarters
management and the Technology Transfer Subcommittee, OSWER section chiefs became the
focus of the survey sample.  It was felt that Regional section chiefs were among the most
knowledgeable of end-user technical needs and that their participation in the survey would help
ensure adequate coverage of the sample population.

  Respondents were initially given three weeks to complete the questionnaire, and a followup
memorandum from the Technology Innovation Office was distributed at that time to encourage
those who  had not yet responded to do so.  Three more weeks were provided for return of
additional questionnaires, yielding an overall six week period for data collection.
Survey Analysis

  The survey team received a total of 239 completed questionnaires representing an overall
response rate of about 45%. The distribution of responses for each Region and program area is
presented in Table 1-1. Of the questionnaires distributed to CERCLA staff, the response rate was
about 43%, the RCRA response rate was about 48%, and the UST and others response rate was
about 47%.  Response rates around 40 to 45% are comparable to those typically received from
mail surveys within OSWER.  This response was deemed adequate by TIO, and no further
follow-up action was taken.

  As shown in the table below,  response  rates per Region varied considerably.   Regional
response rates across all program areas ranged from about 23% for Region IX to 70% for Region
VII. In addition, the actual number of responses within program areas for some Regions is too
small to provide a reliable estimate of the population for that Region and program.   For these
reasons,  the data summaries focus on  Region or program overall, and not on Regions within
program areas.  Moreover,  the Regional data that is presented must be interpreted carefully.
Because of  the low response rates for some Regions, we cannot assume that those who did
respond are  representative of the entire Region.

  Data from the questionnaires were compiled and analyzed using database management and
statistical software.  Respondent  profile data were  compiled by frequency of response and
expressed in terms of percentages.  Technical needs were ranked for RCRA, CERCLA, UST, and
BSD as well as for  each Region  based on  the  arithmetic  means  of  their importance to
respondents. In some instances, the means were also compared utilizing a one-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) and the  Tukey multiple range test for  determining whether  significant
differences  exist between several means.   The "other" category includes respondents from
Regional UST programs (10 individuals), ESDs (12 individuals), and other offices that provide

-------
                            Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
 Table 1-1. Number and Percentage of Responses from each Region and Program Area

Region
I 1
11
B ;
IV
: v
VI
w
vni
! m
X ;
Total*
(% Total)
Response
Rate by
Program

CMCkA
9
(6.5%)
25
(18%)
21
(15%)
10
(7%)
9
(6.5%)
13
(9%)
19
(14%)
14
(10%)
8
(6%)
11
(8%)
139
(52%)
43%
Program Area
KOU
5
(5%)
9
(10%)
6
(7%)
9
(10%)
20
(22%)
9
(10%)
7
(8%)
10
(11%)
10
(11%)
7
(8%)
92
(35%)
48%

CWtar
2
(5.5%)
2
(5.5%)
7
(20%)
5
(14%)
4
(11%)
2
(5.5%)
3
(8%)
2
(5.5%)
2
(5.5%)
7
(20%)
36
(13%)
47%

Total*
(% Total)
16
(6%)
36
(14%)
34
(13%)
24
(9%)
33
(12%)
24
(9%)
29
(11%)
26
(10%)
20
(8%)
25
(9%)
267
(100%)
45%
Response
Rate by
Region
29%
49%
42%
45%
46%
45%
70%
63%
23%
58%
—
—
 Includes individuals who reported working in more than one major program area. Response rates are computed on the basis of actual
number of questionnaires returned.

support to the hazardous and solid  waste programs, such  as  the  Office  of Ground Water
Protection. These data are generally grouped due to the relatively small number of responses in
each area, but are discussed individually for comparisons among OSWER programs.  Also, it
should be noted that, in addition to BSD respondents,  28 individuals,  or 12%  of the overall
sample, reported  that their work involves more  than one major program  area (e.g.,  CERCLA
remediation and RCRA corrective action). As their work involves more than one program area,
it is assumed that their technical needs are also  relevant to both.  Therefore, these individuals
were included in  data summaries for each program.

-------
                                      Introduction
  The frequency with which respondents identified important audiences was determined for all
programs and for each Region.  Primary audiences were ranked, based on frequency of response,
and the technical needs of each primary  audience were counted and frequencies determined.
Audience data were expressed as percentages for each program area. Arithmetic means, based
on the degree of usefulness of various delivery methods, were determined and compared utilizing
the one-way ANOVA and Tukey tests. Data regarding sources of technical information  and
constraints  experienced in using technology  transfer  products were similarly  analyzed  and
reported. Relationships between reported technical needs and delivery system preferences were
examined with the use of correlations and covariance analyses.

1.3 Overall Findings

  This section  of the report provides a brief overview of the sample characteristics and the
technology transfer needs identified for the overall sample, with some discussion of differences
across program areas  and Regions.  More detailed results for the RCRA, CERCLA, and other
OSWER programs can be found in Chapters 2 through 4. Findings for the questions addressing
delivery system preferences, information sources, and constraints are presented in Chapter 5.

Respondent Profiles

  The sampling ratio of almost 44%  and response rate of 45% provide an actual sample of about
20% of the overall population  at the time the survey was conducted. However, as mentioned
above, the  survey distribution scheme may have resulted in a sample that favored senior staff
over those new to EPA's hazardous and solid waste programs. In addition, the survey took place
in the Fall  of 1989, just prior to the Regions' filling about 500 new positions provided by the
Administrator for the Superfund program.  Thus, these new hires are not represented  in the
sample. Figure 1, on the following page, provides a graphical representation of the respondents'
tenure with the Agency and  in  their current position.  Eighty-five percent  of the  sample
population  have been with EPA for 3 years or more,  with  over  50% being employed by the
Agency for 6 years or more. There  were a few differences across program areas, with those in
the "Other" category (UST, BSD, and others) reporting even greater seniority with EPA.

  However, respondents' time in their current position shows a different pattern. Almost 55%
of respondents report  being in their current position for 2 years or less, and 20% of those have
held their current jobs for under a  year.  This is similar to the sample drawn for the 1986
Superfund Technology Transfer Needs Assessment in which more than half of the respondents
had been in their jobs for 2 years or less.  As shown in Figure 1, there are only minor differences
between the CERCLA and RCRA programs, with Superfund staff showing slightly greater job
tenure.

   The discrepancy between time with EPA and time in current position could be due to upward
mobility or transfers across program areas. It suggests that even though time in current position
may be limited for Regional hazardous and solid  waste staff, their technical experience is not
necessarily lacking.  This conclusion is supported by the educational profile of respondents as
well. Figure 2 shows that over 50% of the sample hold graduate degrees, for the most part in
engineering or physical science. There is a great deal of similarity in educational level across
program areas.

                                           8

-------
                       Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
                 less than 1  year
                       (2%)
TIME WITH  EPA
  1 - 2 years
    (13%)
3 - 5 years
  (33%)
                                    over 10 years
                                        (35%)
                                6-10 years
                                   (17%)
                 RCRA
                CERCLA
                                     1-2 years

                            less than 1 year
                               10      20       30      40
                                  Number of Respondents
            Figure 1. Respondents' tenure with EPA and in current position

-------
                                  Introduction
TIME  IN  CURRENT
POSITION
                      less than 1 year
                          (15%)
         over  10 years
             (3%)
                     6-10 years
                        (9%)
                      1 - 2 years
                       (33.5%)
                                                            3-5 years
                                                             (33.5%)
           over 10 years

               6-10 years
  RCRA
 CERCLA
                                 3-5 years
                                       1-2 years
       years
       &&$$&
      1 -zyears
      QOSH&
less than 1 year
               10       20       30      40
                  Number of Respondents

         Figure 1. Respondents' tenure with EPA and in current position (Continued)
                                       10

-------
                                  Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
                                                            Highest Level of Education
                                                                 Other
                 Field of Study
  Business/
  Public
  Administration
Health/
Toxicology
Geology/
Hydrology
                        Other
              Environmental
              Science
                                                                          University Coursework
                                                         Ph.D.orJ
                                                                                Graduate Work
                                                      Field of Study
               RCRA
             CERCLA
                                    Environmental Science
                                           Geoloav/Hvdrol
                                 Health/Toxicology
                                 Business/Public Admin.
                                               Environmental Science
                                                     Hvd
                                 eaitn/1 oxicoiogy
                                    Business/Public Admin.
                                       20               40
                                        Number of Respondents
80
                  Figure 2. Respondents' highest level of education and field of study
                                                   11

-------
                                      Introduction
  Responses to the item regarding major field of study were coded into fourteen categories that
were further combined for presentation here. The Environmental Science category also includes
soil  science,  biology,  and chemistry responses;  Engineering  includes chemical, civil, and
environmental engineering; Health/Toxicology includes environmental health, public health, and
toxicology; Business and Public Administration also includes economics and planning degrees;
and the Other category includes law and liberal arts.  Comparisons across program areas (see
Figure 2) show all programs with 40% to 50% engineers. The Other category includes relatively
fewer geologists/hydrogeologists and health/toxicologists than the CERCLA and RCRA samples.

  The background information section of the questionnaire also included questions regarding
recent job-related training from EPA,  technology transfer seminars or workshops attended, and
the approximate number of job-related courses, seminars, or workshops attended each year.
Workshops and seminars are a means  frequently used to address technology  transfer needs, and
this  item  provides  information on the extent to which these  are used by  Regional staff.
Responses to the item asking respondents to list recent "job-related training from EPA" included
a variety of programmatic, management, and technical courses offered by ORD, OSWER, and
the Region.  "Technology transfer seminars or workshops" typically included seminars offered
by CERI, research seminars and workshops offered by ORD labs and OSWER, or professional
association meetings.  These two items are summarized with respect to  whether or not training
and technology transfer seminars or workshops were mentioned by the respondents. As  shown
in Table 1-2 below, a  large  percentage  of respondents  across program  areas (80%)  report
receiving job-related training from EPA, while less than 40% report attending  technology transfer
seminars or workshops. The  two items are not directly comparable, since job-related training
covers such a broad range of activities.  But this difference may reflect the time and difficulties
encountered in traveling away from the office for  training. This topic is more fully discussed
in Chapter 5, which examines preferred delivery systems  and constraints.

            Table  1-2. Summary of Training Information by Program Area
Training Item
• Average Number of Courses per Year
• % Participating in Job-Related Training
• % Attending Tech Transfer Seminars
All
Programs
3.2
80%
39%
Program Area
CERCLA
3.0
79%
39%
RCRA
3.7
83%
38%
Other
3.0
83%
34%
   Regional differences in background information from respondents were also examined, and a
Regional breakdown is presented in Table 1-3. However, due to the unacceptably low response
rates from some Regions and the relatively low absolute number of responses for others, no
comparisons were made among the Regions. In general, the responses to "Time with EPA" range
from about 5% to almost 30% reporting 2 years or less with the Agency.  Those with 2 years or
less time in their current positions range from a low of 29% to a high of over 70%.  In addition,
"Level of Education" varies from 37% to 68%  of respondents per Region who hold graduate
degrees.  While there are  some observed differences in "Field of Study," engineers  generally
predominated followed by geologists/ hydrogeologists and environmental scientists.
                                           12

-------
                                   Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
              X
              X
•I
£
§
1
I
 «
a
 CO


 I

C/5
                       CN
                              oo co
                              co co
                       T-H o ON *^
                       CN >/-> CN  V
                       CN VO T(- 00
                       •— ' CO CN CN
                       CO  CO >O ON
                       CN  CN CO —
                       r-  O co 7"
                       —   co  V
                       v*>
                       fS
                       CN
                                 tg
   in
   CN $3
   CN
                       rig
                       «-
                       VO  CN VO
                       CN  CO CO
                        r~ -— i co
                        — i CO -3-
                        p— r~
                        (S CN
                  co  Tt  oo
                  CO  CS  CO
               •— ' vo  Tf O\
               CS CO  1-1 CN
               0 °°
               CN CN
      00
      °°
               O\  P~  CN CN
               •— '  CN  r-> ••*
               o\
               fS
   oo  >o
   CO  CN
°°
                                          WO
i-i CN  >n
   CN  CO
                                          CN  CN CN
               CO  CN C
               *- 1  CO •— i
                o
                CN
       co o
       "» CN
                   •-<  T}- TT  oo
                   V  CN CN  CO
                                                                          «  V
r- co   : —
J- co  ^ V
                   •— i in  co >r>  £. i— i
                   V -fr  — co  ^ V
                                  •—  o i-* \o ^
                                   V  CN — vd V
         •~*  CO
          V  co
                                                                     Vi  SJ  >*   >rf
                                                                     CO Tf i—i  i—i

                                                                     ;- >o  V  V
                                                            CN V CN  V CO r-
                                  c  vo vo  £ o
                                  CN  " CO  ^ CN
                                                                                          CN
                                      os o\
                                      CN CN
                                                                                       VO
                                   CO CN  O\
                                   *~ CN  CO
                                                                                                     O CO
                                                                                           6?
                   r-  2
                                                                                                     v  v
                                                         oo

                                                         CN
                                                                   t-;

                                                                   CO
                                               oo
                                               00
                                                                   CO
                                                         CO
                                                                   CN
                                               *
                                               ss
                                                                                                             CN
                                          CO
                                                                   CO
                                                                                                              CO

                                                                                                              CO
s
                                                                                                                        o\
                                                                    ON
                                                                    CN
                                                                                                                        CN
                                                                                                                         ON
                                                                                                                         CO
                                                                    5?
         -  1

         <  '§>
             OS
co co  ;-!
CO CO
>n  co r- 
                                                                                               6D
                                                                               0
                S
                                 -  c  8  a  «  3 «
                                2  W  O [3  S CQ O
                                 u
                                E
                                                                                   e
                                                                                   §
                                                                                   u
                                                                                    o


                                                                                    o
                                                                                    60

                                                                                    2
Train
ob-Rela
                                                                     cS
                                                                     _c



                                                                     on

                                                         13

-------
                                         Introduction
Highest Ranked Technology Transfer Needs

  This overview  section addresses the ratings  of the importance of forty technology transfer
needs to accomplishing job responsibilities for the overall sample of 239 Regional hazardous and
solid waste personnel.  A breakdown of importance ratings by RCRA, CERCLA, and UST staff
is also provided, along with Regional rankings  of needs.  Detailed descriptions of the findings
for the RCRA, CERCLA, and other programs is presented in the following chapters.

  The top 15 of 40 technology transfer needs for the overall  sample are presented in Table 1-4.
These 15 represent eight different thematic classifications including:   Establishing  treatment
standards, Ground water,  Alternative and innovative treatment  technologies,  Estimating
remediation  costs,  Monitoring techniques, Remedy  selection, Risk assessment, and Data
requirements—reflecting a pervasive interest in hazardous waste remediation.
     Table 1-4. Fifteen Highest Ranked Technology Transfer Topics for the Overall Sample

 1.  Establishing risk-based cleanup levels for various contaminants and site conditions.

 2.  Fate and transport of contaminants in the subsurface (e.g.,facilitated transport, methods for measuring
    contaminant mobility, non-aqueous phase  liquids).

 3.  Ground-water monitoring for site inspection and for evaluating the effectiveness of treatment.

 4.  Use and effectiveness of biological treatment processes (e.g., biodegradation or bioremediation).

 5.  General technical information on the performance, limits, safety, and cost of hazardous waste treatment
    technologies.

 6.  Use and effectiveness of physical treatment processes (e.g., soil washing, vacuum extraction).

 7.  Use and effectiveness of stabilization/solidification.

 8.  Use and effectiveness of chemical treatment processes (e.g., KPEG).

 9.  Use and effectiveness of thermal destruction (incineration, oxidation).

 10. General information on the use and limitations of field sampling and analysis methods.

 11. Prototype remedy-selection models for recurrent site situations.

 12. Field screening, soil vapor and water sampling for hydrocarbons.

 13. Risk assessment information: risk levels for RCRA waste (e.g., incinerator ash).

 14. Quality assurance for field operations.

 15. Development and application of Data Quality Objectives in sampling and  analysis plans.
                                              14

-------
                           Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
  Establishing risk-based cleanup levels heads the list overall, as well as for both RCRA and
CERCLA staff.   Fate and transport of contaminants in  the subsurface and  Ground  water
monitoring for site inspection and for evaluating the effectiveness of treatment are the second and
third highest rated technical needs, confirming two of the four most important ground water
training topics found  in  the recently completed  Ground-Water  Training Needs Assessment.3
Interestingly, these were also the two topics for which Regional staff indicated the greatest need
for advanced training in the training survey.

  Alternative and innovative treatment technologies of interest to the overall sample include all
five of those presented in the questionnaire—biological, physical, stabilization/solidification,
chemical and thermal treatment processes. A closely related item that is ranked fifth concerns
General technical information on the performance, limits, safety, and cost of hazardous waste
treatment technologies.   The need for Prototype remedy-selection models for recurrent site
situations is also among the top rated in importance for the overall sample.

  The remainder of the 15 most important technical topics include:  General information on the
use and limitations of field sampling and analysis methods;  Field screening, soil vapor, and
water sampling for hydrocarbons', Risk assessment information/Risk levels for  RCRA wastes;
Quality assurance for field operations;  and Development and application  of Data Quality
Objectives.  In terms of the entire list of technical topics presented in the questionnaire, those
addressing waste  management, pollution prevention, and  land  disposal facilities  are not
represented  in the top 15.   This  difference in Regional technical needs  between solid and
hazardous waste management issues and those of waste remediation is most likely the result of
a change in  focus of the RCRA program, the addition  of corrective  action responsibilities, and
the delegation of the basic program to the States. See  Chapter 2 for a fuller discussion of this
topic.
Technology Transfer Needs by Program

  The comparison of differences in technology transfer needs for the RCRA, CERCLA, and
other OSWER programs is much more notable for the similarities on numerous topics than for
the few observable differences that were found. Over half of the 40 technical needs  listed are
rated "quite" to "extremely" useful by both RCRA and CERCLA. Graphical representations of
the means  and standard errors  for each technical need for  the RCRA, CERCLA,  and UST
programs are presented in Figure 3, on the following pages.

  Important similarities emerge when we compare technical topics valued as quite to extremely
useful by RCRA and CERCLA respondents.  RCRA respondents as a group perceive 27 of the
40 topics in the questionnaire in this category of usefulness, while CERCLA respondents rate 23
topics as highly useful. Twenty topics are valued similarly by CERCLA and RCRA respondents.
Thus, of topics rated "quite" to "extremely" useful by both groups, 74% are rated essentially the
same by both RCRA and CERCLA. This finding indicates that the top technical needs nationally
    3Draft report, Meeting the Ground-Water Training Needs of Regional Personnel, EPA Office of
Program Management and Technology, September 1989.

                                           15

-------
                                      Introduction
correspond quite closely across programs. It also confirms the results of a previous OSWER
annual training needs assessment, which found that approximately 70% of EPA staff requests for
extant technical and programmatic courses were in areas other than their particular programs.

   Only three of the topics considered "quite" to "extremely" useful by both RCRA and CERCLA
show statistical differences.  The first topic—General information on the use and limitations of
field sampling and analysis methods—is quite to extremely useful  to all three  programs, but
appears to be more valuable to UST and CERCLA than to RCRA. This may be due to the recent
emphasis of UST and OERR on site assessment. As OUST enters the post-regulatory cleanup
phase of the program, it has realized a major need for real-time site assessment methodologies
and  guidelines  to enable State regulatory staff and the consulting community to accurately
determine site conditions and speed cleanup decisions. Similarly, the CERCLA program has just
completed an additional 4,700  preliminary site assessments mandated by  the  Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)  and has conducted nearly 300 new
remedial investigation/feasibility studies in the past year.

   Two additional items—Risk levels for RCRA waste (e.g., incinerator ash, contaminated soil)
and Use of models for chemical mixture risk characterization—are "quite" to "extremely" useful
to both RCRA and CERCLA, but are perceived as more useful by RCRA than by CERCLA and
UST respondents. Risk levels for RCRA waste is a topic geared primarily for RCRA, which may
explain why RCRA respondents consider this topic somewhat more useful than CERCLA. Why
models for chemical mixture risk characterization is significantly more useful to RCRA than
CERCLA respondents in this survey  is more difficult  to explain.  OERR has identified the
capability to characterize chemical  mixtures as an important CERCLA research need.  Also,
application of the mixture rule under the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) of  RCRA applies
to Superfund as  well as to RCRA sites.   The mixture  rule (40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)) requires
treatment  of any mixture of solid waste and a listed hazardous  waste,  or a characteristic
hazardous waste (if the mixture exhibits a characteristic), before placement in a land disposal
unit.  CERCLA site managers must evaluate whether contaminants at  a Superfund site are RCRA
hazardous wastes under the LDRs.  It is possible that OSW attracted Regional attention to the
issue because it is developing treatment variances for mixed waste and a mixed waste training
course, scheduled for delivery in FY90.

   No differences were found between Regional RCRA and CERCLA program staff for  any of
the items related to ground water, monitoring techniques, waste management, or  alternative and
innovative treatment technologies.  Overall, only  14 of the 40 technical topics  are  valued
differently by RCRA, CERCLA, or UST.  (Those in the "quite" to "extremely" useful category
have been discussed). The ten topics presented below are geared primarily for a specific program
area, which helps explain why RCRA and CERCLA respondents view their usefulness differently.

Most Highly Valued by UST

    •   Leak detection and prevention methods for UST
    •   Application of mitigation, removal, and treatment technologies to LUST
                                          16

-------
                          Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
                                Ground Water
      0)
RCRA
CERCLA
LIST
        Extremely
           Quite
         Not at All
         Extremely'
            Quite
         Not at All
                            Monitoring Techiques
        Extremely '
           Quite
         Not at All
Risk Assessment
         Figure 3. Usefulness ratings for 40 technology transfer needs by program
                                        17

-------
                   Introduction
                Treatment Standards
    0>
    8


    I
I RCRA

i CERCLA


0 LIST
      Extremely
Quite
      Not at All
        Selection of Treatment or Control Technologies


     Extremely
       Quite
      Not at All
                Waste Management
      Extremely
       Quite
      Not at All
        #&#.#/
   Figure 3. Usefulness ratings for 40 technology transfer needs by program (Continued)
                      18

-------
                            Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
          Extremely
| RCRA
g CERCLA
(3 UST
                       Alternative/Innovative Treatment
                           Remedial Cost Estimation
           Extremely
             Quite •
           Not at All
          Extremely
             Quite -
           Not at All
                               Data Requirements
                              


-------
                                   Introduction
                             Pollution Prevention
     5
     I
       Extremely
          Quite
        Not at All
|  RCRA
H  CERCU
0  UST
                           Land Disposal Facilities
        Extremely
          Quite -I
        Not at All
   Figure 3. Usefulness ratings for 40 technology transfer needs by program (Continued)
                                        20

-------
                           Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
Most Highly Valued bv RCRA

   •   Assessment of oily waste risk and movement
   •   Minimal data  requirements for a RCRA Facility Investigation or Corrective Measures
       Study
   •   Selecting and applying release, flow, and source control technologies for RCRA corrective
       action
   •   Waste reduction tools for managing MSW and hazardous waste
   •   Technologies and quality assurance for land disposal facility design and construction
   •   Location standards for new and existing land disposal units

Most Highly Valued bv CERCLA

   •   Applicability of RCRA treatment standards to Superfund
   •   Uniform procedures for reporting costs and technical performance for operating treatments
       at Superfund sites

  Procedures for estimating costs of construction, operation, and maintenance of remedies—a
highly ranked CERCLA need—is not generally perceived by RCRA respondents to be useful.
However, General technical information on the performance, limits, safety, and cost of hazardous
waste treatment technologies is ranked within the top ten RCRA needs.  This apparent discrep-
ancy might be attributed to the wording of the first  topic,  which includes operation and
maintenance of remedies—clearly CERCLA concerns. Nevertheless, cleanup cost is an important
consideration in corrective action planning even though it may not have the same prominence that
it has  for CERCLA.  RCRA investigations, corrective  measures  studies, and treatments are
typically funded by the regulated community, not by government. Regional personnel may tend
to emphasize the effectiveness and safety of a proposed remedy at  least  as much as cost.

Technology Transfer Needs by  Region

  Overall means for each of the 40 technology transfer needs were computed for each Region
and then ranked from highest to lowest in order of usefulness.  These rankings are presented in
Table  1-5 for  the 20 needs rated highest by the overall sample.  Because of the problems
described above with inadequate response rates and small sample  sizes for  some Regions, no
statistical comparisons among  Regional means were conducted.  The  rankings illustrate the
relative importance of technical  needs across Regions.  For example, while six of the ten Regions
rate Establishing risk-based cleanup levels as their highest or second highest priority, Region III
appears more interested in Field screening for hydrocarbons and Field sampling and analysis;
and Region VI's highest priority is Procedures for estimating costs for construction, operation,
and maintenance.  However, it  should be pointed out that among the means for all 20 technical
needs for all Regions, all  but ten (or 5%) are rated as "quite" to "extremely" useful.
                                          21

-------
                                               Introduction






o
"En
V
fitf









X
B
>— i
M
>
5
>•
>
>
>

H^

NM
NM
_ ex
•3 .S
h -g
51
(Technology
Transfer Needs
Tl-
CS
_

(N

•t
*-^


>o

r— I
t


V.
1
_W
c
c
K
£
"t
1
a
1
•a
•c
00
c
IE
a
!Z
\L
en
•
cs

vo

en
-fr
vo

CO

oo
cs
m

I GW monitoring for site inspection, trmt. evaluation
VO
TJ-
•*

en

V)
cs
fS

cs

rf
VO
rfr

I Use and effectiveness of biological treatment
•*
i— i
00

f-H

00
VO
in

T— 1

/•>


I Information on performance, cost of treatments
r«
ON
en

VD

vo
en
•*

o

cs
vo
VO

1- 	 	 — I
Use and effectiveness of physical treatment
>o
\o
t-~

o\

oo
r»
en

>ri

cs
o
t~-

I Use and effectiveness of S/S
oo
oo
vo

r~

r-


Tf
F-^
CM
1—t



8
o
1— 1
cs

R Field screening for hydrocarbons
oo
cs
1— t
en

•0
o
\o

f-

en
t— 4
CS
en

J_ 	 ^ 	 — 	 I
Risk assessment: risk levels for RCRA wastes j
2;
v-t
r~-

u-i

T~*
CS
J—l
>n

oo

cs
•sf
•^f

II Quality assurance for field operations |
CT\
CS
*-H
r-

en

00
oc
•*

ON

•*
T—l
cn
>ri

in
i
"cl
w
'1
"nj
§
"S
CIJ
f
"3.
M
.S
M
O
a
a
t*-.
o
«3
S
o
c
1
£
O
r-H
U-l
»— 1

cs

cs
ON
O

VO

o
oo
VO

M 	 	 j
K Well techniques for determining hydrology |
cs
o\
O\

oo

o
en
CS
cs

en

ON
vo
00

If 	 : 	 — 	 1
II Applicability of RCRA Treatment Standards to SF |
c-
T— 1
S
o

VO

Os
VO
00

en

vo
ON
ON

R Air monitoring for site inspection, trmt. evaluation
en
^
**

T— •

*-*
CS
cs
o

S

>o
1— 1
Tfr
S

I 	 • 	
R Procedures for estimating construction, O&M costs

ca


"8
 o
 I


1
 03

ft!
                                                      22

-------
                             Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
Audiences for Technology Transfer

  In the delivery systems section of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to identify the
types of professionals outside their office that are important in helping to accomplish their job
responsibilities.  A listing of eight potential audiences was included with the opportunity to
specify other audiences as well.  Table 1-6 below presents the frequency with which these end-
user audiences  were selected overall and within program areas.  Respondents were also asked to
identify one of these audiences  as the most important or "primary"  audience for technology
transfer.  The  frequency with which each audience was selected  as  the primary audience is
presented in the right hand column for that program area.
        Table 1-6.  Audiences for Technology Transfer, Overall and by Program
Audience
%
Sfsic agcnsy staff
A;tutl0ns
iEFA<^a&«»&
Regulated community
C€«$»lt«l*$: >
il,OC^.gOv^rKa».
i Otfee* Merit nge»cies
PUljliC, " ;;,
Overall
Sample
86%
16%
88%
50%
45%
28%
54%
37%
Program
»€&A
An
Audience
86%
13%
87%
60%
37%
21%
34%
30%
Primary
Audience
53%
1%
10%
28%
2%
<1%
1%
<1%
OvROuA
An
Audience
85%
16%
96%
42%
50%
31%
69%
44%
Primary
Audience
21%
<1%
44%
13%
2%
<1%
5%
9%
Other
An
Audience
80%
26%
63%
54%
51%
29%
54%
31%
Primary
Audience
38%
<1%
32%
18%
3%
<1%
<1%
6%
  As can be seen from the table, both RCRA and CERCLA staff consider State agency staff and EPA
contractors as important audiences. RCRA staff were more likely to mention the regulated community as
an audience for technology transfer, and CERCLA staff noted consultants and other federal agencies as
target audiences.  When asked to designate their primary audience, approximately half of the RCRA staff
chose State agency  staff and another 28% selected the regulated community.  For CERCLA staff, the
largest "primary audiences" include State agency staff (21%), EPA contractors (44%), and the regulated
community (13%).  Data on primary audience size and technical needs as reported by Regional staff are
presented in the detailed findings for each program area provided in Chapters 2 through 4.
                                            23

-------
                           Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
                                 2. RCRA FINDINGS
  This Chapter  contains detailed  findings on  the  technical information  needs of RCRA
respondents and their end-user audiences in the Regions. The survey results are presented within
the context of the RCRA legislative program and include information acquired from headquarters
branch chief interviews and Regional site visits, as appropriate.
2.1 Profile of RCRA Respondents

  Approximately 80% of the 92 Regional RCRA personnel who responded to the survey report
high priority job responsibilities in more than one RCRA program area (permitting, compliance,
or corrective  action).  This important finding indicates there is considerable interweaving of
responsibilities among RCRA Regional personnel. Regional personnel oversee State Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) authorization; implement corrective action
through permits; review RCRA Facility Investigation workplans and closure plans as well as
Subpart X and incinerator permits;  assist States in enforcement case development; resolve
outstanding permit appeals; settle enforcement orders; participate in inspections; coordinate public
participation;  track medical waste; manage State grants and contracts; and perform other duties.

  The intertwining of permitting, comph'ance, and corrective action responsibilities among RCRA
personnel corroborates an OSW headquarters view that the RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI),
Corrective Measures Study (CMS), and Corrective Measures Implementation (CMI) phases of
the corrective action  process  are  fully  integrated.   The complete corrective action plan
incorporates site-specific, corrective action requirements and compliance schedules into permits
(§3004(u) and (v))  and Corrective  Action Orders (§3008(h)).   This is  done,  in  part, for
enforcement purposes and to improve quality throughout the process.

  The typical RCRA respondent has  been  in his or her current job less than 2 years (61%) and
has been an EPA employee 3 to 10 years (52%). She or he also has a masters degree (47%) and
is an engineer (42%). These characteristics are quite similar to those for CERCLA respondents
and for the sample as a whole. Table  2-1 presents a summary of the respondents' job experience
and backgrounds.

  About 61% of RCRA respondents have been in then: current jobs less than 2 years, suggesting
a high personnel  turnover rate  in the RCRA program.   However, there are no significant
differences in perceived technical needs between respondents with less than 2 years experience
in their jobs and those  who have been in  their current positions for longer periods (CERCLA
findings  are similar).  The reasons for this may be due to the technical backgrounds of most
RCRA personnel and to retention of experience within the Agency by recruiting primarily from
within EPA rather than from outside.
                                          25

-------
                                    RCRA Findings
  About 85% of respondents have degrees in technical areas, and 74% have at least graduate
course work experience—the majority hold masters degrees.  Almost 50% of RCRA respondents
have been employed by EPA 6 or more years (81% for 3 or more years). Thus, it appears that
those who are new on the job are neither technically naive nor less perceptive of the technical
requirements of their jobs. This finding generally holds for time at EPA as well, although there
is a statistically significant tendency for employees with 3 to 5 years in the Agency to perceive
technical needs as more useful than those who have been with the  Agency for either shorter or
longer periods.  The 3 to  5 year group includes  employees hired immediately  following
enactment of HSWA  in 1984.

  RCRA respondents each attended an average of three or four courses during the  past year.
Approximately 38%  attended technology transfer seminars or workshops; 83% attended job
training offered by OSWER, ORD, or the Region.
              Table 2-1. Experience and Education of RCRA Respondents
Respondent Profile
Time in Current Position
Time with EPA
Highest Level
of Education
Major Field
of Study
University
Courses
1%
Environmental
Science
12%
<1 Year
24%
3%
Bachelors
Degree
25%
Geology
Hydrogeology
22%
1-2
Years
37%
16%
Graduate
Courses
19%
Engineering
42%
3-5
Years
30%
33%
Masters
Degree
47%
Health
Toxicology
9%
6-10
Years
6%
20%
Ph.D.
or J.D.
6%
Bus/Public
Administration
10%
>10 Years
3%
28%
Other
2%
Other
5%
2.2 RCRA Technology Transfer Needs

  The highest priority technical information needs (top 15 of 40) for all RCRA respondents can
be categorized into six thematic areas:

  •  Establishing Treatment Standards
  •  Ground Water
  •  Risk Assessment
  •  Alternative and Innovative Treatment Technologies
  •  Selection and Application of Treatment/Control Technologies
  •  Data Requirements
                                         26

-------
                              Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
The 15 highest ranked technical needs for all RCRA respondents are presented in Table 2-2.
Although only the top 15 are listed, technical needs  ranked  1-27 are perceived by  RCRA
respondents as "quite" to "extremely" useful  (see Table 2-3 for complete ranking of technical
topics):
                 Table 2-2.  Fifteen Highest Ranked Technical Needs for RCRA

  * 1. Establishing risk-based cleanup levels for various contaminants and site conditions.

  * 2. Fate and transport of contaminants in the subsurface (e.g., facilitated transport, methods
       for measuring contaminant mobility, non-aqueous phase liquids).

  * 3. Ground-water monitoring  for site inspection and  for evaluating  the  effectiveness of
       treatment.

    4.  Risk  assessment  information:   Risk  levels for RCRA waste  (e.g.,  incinerator ash,
       contaminated soil).

  * 5. Use and effectiveness of biological treatment processes (biodegradation or bioremediation).

    6.  Selecting and applying release and flow control, and source control technologies for RCRA
       corrective action.

  * 7. Use and  effectiveness of physical treatment processes (e.g., soil  washing, vacuum
       extraction).

  * 8. Use and effectiveness of stabilization/solidification.

  * 9. General technical information on the performance, limits, safety, and cost of hazardous
       waste treatment technologies.

  *  10. Use and effectiveness of chemical treatment processes (e.g., KPEG).

  *  11. Prototype remedy-selection models for recurrent site situations.

  *  12. Use and effectiveness of thermal destruction (incineration, oxidation).

   13. Minimal data requirements for a  RCRA Facility Investigation or  Corrective  Measures
       Study.

  *  14. Standardized methods for ecological risk assessment.

   15. Use of models for chemical mixture risk characterizations.

  * Appears on both CERCLA and RCRA lists.
                                              27

-------
                                     RCRA Findings
  Overall, the technical needs indicate fairly extensive Regional involvement in corrective action.
Establishing risk-based cleanup levels for various contaminants and site conditions is the highest
ranked need for RCRA and ranks within  the top six needs across  all ten Regions.  Selecting
release and source control technologies for RCRA corrective action ranks sixth. And the Use
and  effectiveness  of biological, physical, stabilization/solidification,  chemical, and thermal
treatment and control technologies all rank nationally within the top 12 RCRA needs.  Nearly
all of these top-ranked RCRA needs are among the top ten CERCLA needs, indicating that these
two programs (as well as the UST program) are converging on cleanup problems. This finding
also  suggests wide concurrence with OSWER's priorities regarding risk-based cleanup.

  As more States are authorized to permit hazardous waste facilities under HSWA, Regional and
State permit writers and compliance officers are becoming increasingly involved in evaluating
RCRA Facility Investigations (RFI) and Corrective Measures Studies (CMS).  This involvement
is expected to grow as increasing numbers of RCRA facilities are required  to meet corrective
action requirements under §3004(u) and Subpart F of HSWA.

  The strong need for technical corrective action information by RCRA respondents confirms
current OSWER emphasis on  developing corrective action technology  transfer products and
training.  Some of the highest ranked technical topics perceived by RCRA  respondents in the
survey closely match those identified by OSW's Corrective Action Workgroup, which convened
in January, 1989, to discuss corrective action training. Regional members of the Workgroup felt
that  to make sound decisions in the corrective  action  process, Regional personnel need site-
specific data requirements to evaluate the selection of a proposed corrective measures technology
(e.g., contaminant  source control, flow control,  and  treatment).  They also need to know the
performance evaluation criteria, limitations, and quality assurance requirements of the proposed
technology. These technical areas closely match  three of the highest ranked technical needs
perceived by RCRA respondents in the  survey. They are Selecting and applying release, flow,
and  source control technologies for RCRA corrective  action;  Minimal data requirements for
RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) and Corrective Measures Study (CMS); and Development and
application of Data Quality Objectives in  sampling and analysis plans.  OSW has incorporated
its Workgroup's suggestions into a RFI/CMS workshop, which will be conducted once in each
Region this year.

  Headquarters management conceived several technical needs that Regional respondents indicate
are "quite" to "extremely" useful for accomplishing their jobs.  OSW branch chiefs pointed out
that establishing risk-based cleanup levels for various contaminants and  site conditions is a major
need for  both listed and non-listed wastes  including incinerator ash. They stressed the need for
ground-water evaluations, field sampling and analysis techniques, and risk assessments that are
consistent with Superfund. They also recognized a major need for practical technical information
on selecting and applying hazardous waste thermal and non-thermal treatment options, including
release-and-flow and source control technologies, for corrective action.

  However, not all high priority topics identified by headquarters management rank high by
respondents in the Regions. For example, the Waste management topics on oil and gas, medical
waste, hazardous waste treatment residues andMSW, as well as Location standards for new and
                                           28

-------
                           Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
existing land disposal sites rank relatively low among respondents but are considered important
by headquarters management and are addressed in the OSWER Strategic Plan FY 1992-1995.

  Reasons for these differences in perspectives may reflect the different priorities of headquarters
and Regional staff.  For example, OSW headquarters is developing location standards for new
and existing land disposal sites and expects these standards will impact the Regions over the next
three or four years. However, Regional respondents do not perceive Location standards for new
and existing land disposal sites to be as useful as Technologies and quality assurance information
for land disposal facility design and construction and Results of treatability studies for land
disposal.  There appears to be a tendency for Regional respondents to value topics of immediate
concern more than those that may affect them in the future.

  The situation is somewhat different when we analyze the oil and gas management topic.  OSW
has submitted a Report to Congress on oil and gas and is studying management practices and the
effectiveness of State controls  before making a regulatory determination.  These actions have
involved only a few Regions, such as Region VIII, which includes oil and gas producing States.
Therefore, it is not surprising that Regions with specific waste concerns indicate sharply defined
technical information needs, which are not generally perceived by other Regions to be important.

  Medical waste is even more complex because it involves some personnel  in every Region.  In
response to  recent medical waste legislation, the Agency issued rules last year establishing a
demonstration medical waste tracking system for States  that elect to participate.  The results of
the  demonstration  will  be compiled, a Report to  Congress  prepared, and  a  regulatory
determination will be made. As a State program, relatively few Regional personnel are involved
at this time, although some Regions—such as Regions I and II that have several participating
States—are more active than others.  Consequently, the technical needs of only a few personnel
in each Region, while important, may not be highly ranked overall.

  Management options for MSW is a low-ranked topic, but Waste reduction  tools such as source
reduction, recovery, and recycling for managing MSW and hazardous waste is rated as "quite"
to "extremely" useful. Reasons for this discrepancy might be attributed to Agency emphasis on
pollution  prevention, as well as to the small numbers of Regional  personnel  assigned MSW
responsibilities.    Congress recognized  that State and local  governments   have primary
responsibility for MSW management, although  it gave EPA some regulatory and assistance
responsibilities. At present, EPA is promoting an integrated MSW program of source reduction
including reuse, recycling, and  energy  recovery  at   the local government  level.   Waste
minimization is emphasized in  the OSWER Strategic Plan FY 1992-1995 as well.

  RCRA respondents also rank Combustion emission  controls from  MSW  incinerators low,
concurring with Agency emphasis  on pollution prevention  of MSW rather  than treatment.
However, this finding does not imply that incineration, in general,  is not an important  issue.
RCRA respondents rank the Use and effectiveness of thermal destruction (incineration, oxidation)
12th among their high priority needs.  ORD's Center for Environmental Research Information
(CERI) appears to  have accurately  diagnosed  needs for  technology transfer products on
incineration and waste minimization. CERI offered incineration products and ten well received
workshops on waste minimization methods and procedures last year.
                                          29

-------
                                     RCRA Findings
  Write-in technical needs were added by  approximately  15 RCRA respondents.  In general,
most of the write-ins reflect broad technical needs, but some, such as Subpart X wastes, are very
important to some Regions.  Nearly all write-ins are elaborations of topics already listed in the
questionnaire:

  •  Five write-ins from Regions V, VI, and VIII address Subpart X explosive and reactive wastes
    and include topics such as reducing air emissions produced by open burn detonation and
    materials that should not be open burned but incinerated in popping furnaces.

  •  Five write-ins are ground-water topics and include a field seminar with hands-on installation
    for monitoring wells and detailed information on single ground-water models.

  •  Four write-ins relate to treatment standards, such as BDAT-based cleanup standards, cleanup
    criteria for sediment, and establishing air criteria for corrective action during soil and ground-
    water remediation when inhalation toxicity data are scarce.

  •  Four  write-ins  address  data  requirements,  such  as site-specific  data requirements and
    geochemical interpretation of ground-water data quality.

  •  Two write-in topics are on monitoring techniques and include methods of analysis of waste
    and environmental samples, and statistical  soil sampling.

  •  One risk assessment topic cites the need for information to evaluate both site-contamination
    risk and risk associated  with the use of available technologies.

  •  One request is for information on the use and effectiveness of treatment technologies to meet
    land disposal restrictions.

  •  One waste reduction topic focuses on the application of waste minimization technologies to
    Department of Defense  activities and other specific industries.

  •  One  topic,  offered by a person with CERCLA and RCRA federal facility responsibilities,
    addresses treatment techniques  for radioactive soils  and ground water, and related to this,
    another person listed in  situ vitrification information.

  •  Two write-ins address non-technical programmatic needs.
2.3 Regional Technical Needs

   Comparisons across Regions reveal widespread concurrence in technical needs.  Topics highly
useful to respondents in each Region are similar to those highly valued by RCRA respondents
as a whole.  Topics of interest to all Regions relate to establishing treatment standards, ground
water, risk assessment, alternative and innovative treatment technologies, selection and application
of treatment/control technologies, and  data requirements.  Eight Regions also  highly  value
General information on the use and limitations of field sampling and analysis methods, and five
                                            30

-------
                           Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
Regions indicate that Disposal methods for residues such as ash from treated hazardous waste
is "quite" to "extremely" useful.

  Although the most important finding is the similarity of technical needs across Regions, two
topics appear to be more important to some Regions than others. Region VIE, which is actively
involved with  the major oil and gas  producing  States in the west, is  the  only Region that
distinguishes Effective oil and gas management practices as a "quite" useful topic.  Based on
write-in topics, Subpart X (munitions/explosives) appears to be a very important topic in some
Regions, including V, VI, and VIE, but not necessarily all Regions. Staff of the OSW Assistance
Branch at headquarters,  which receives Regional requests for information  on Subpart X, also
stressed the need for up-to-date technical information on Subpart X technologies and guidance
for determining the minimal technology for disposing of explosives and other munitions.  Table
2-3 provides a ranking of RCRA technical needs by Region.
2.4 RCRA Audience Needs

  RCRA respondents are involved with a variety of professionals outside their offices to accom-
plish their jobs, but their most important (primary) end-users are State agency staffs and the
regulated communities.  Approximately 53% of respondents report that State agency staffs are
their primary audience, and about 29% identify regulated communities as their primary audience.
The overall size of these end-user groups is difficult to assess. Estimates range from 1,500-2,000
for State agency staffs and several hundred thousand for the regulated communities. There are
an estimated 500-1000 Regional and State permit writers. There are approximately 5,700 owner/
operators of hazardous waste landfills;  50,000 hazardous waste generators, but only a few
companies account for most of the generated waste; 5,000 treatment facilities; 20,000 hazardous
waste transporters; and 800,000 oil/gas wells.

  The technical needs perceived  by RCRA respondents  as important for  State agency staff
correspond closely to those for the  regulated community. They are  also among the highest
ranked needs of RCRA respondents.  Table 2-4 presents  the highest ranked topics that RCRA
respondents feel their State and regulated community audiences need.  The ranking is based on
the frequency with which respondents mentioned topics for each audience.

  For both primary user audiences, more non-technical, programmatic needs are mentioned than
any other category of technical needs.  Programmatic needs include topics such as training  to
conduct HSWA and non-HSWA corrective action, RFI guidance, understanding land ban restric-
tions and  how  they relate to closures  and corrective action,  general information on RCRA
regulations, and information to produce quality RFIs and CMSs.
                                          31

-------
RCRA Findings







§
oe
ev
OS
>>
ja
•o

SB
A
S!
?
(A
5
Z
S
•B
e
2
H
,*
^
e
•S
£
<;
OS
V
OS
•5
S>
c
12
i
OS
*?

£

>



>


5


B


NN



«:
5^
< CJ
OS






Technology
Transfer Needs


co
CN
-
-
u->

„



—


vo


-


tN












CO
£
.2
c
i
£
13
tc/
ex
c
IE
V
K
™
u

1—4
•o


o
«— 4


»/•>


vn




vn







c
u
ra
S
8
'§
_"c
15
u-i
0
K
C
.1
1

co

co



>o


t>


VO


CO




VO



_o
^
4>
>
1
8
<
e
c*
£
cn
U
'5
o
"o
' 1
|
c
u
c
V
•c
i
t
?
^
1 C
) a

V-i
o\
CN
VO
VO

t—



>n


o





>n




r~







c

•g
•o
c
>
•s
1
 c/
* ^-

U-l
>n
>n
r-
vo

>n



vn


O


CO


r-




00







1 52
. C/2
U-i
0
V
c
1
a.
•c
1 g
> a.
3 -

vn
•-•
r-
vo
t*-

oo



ON


OO


r~


CO




o\







nn nerformance and cost of hazardous waste treatmen
) 1

>o
oo
co
VI
n


VO




O







anrf effectiveness of chemical treatment
«.
£

tN
VO
n
oo
oo
VD

O



•q-


0
••H


CN


VO




tN







and effectiveness of thermal treatment
' 1

1
»n
cs
i—-
ON
c-~
>n

tN



CM


TT


^J


VO




CO







00
u
•o
i
E
X.
&
•3
8
c
a
•S
1
i 1

V>
CO
00
vo
r-

tN



tN


*-*


tN


T




rr







AwAneA methods for ecological risk assessment
*
V

1
t-
r-
o
VO
t-

»/">



VO


tN


00


tN




>/"l







nf mnHels for chemical mixture risk characterization
i i

r~-
oo
as
oo
r~

•^~



tN


TT


O


tN




VO







cn
J3
"S,
cn
'cn
£,
13
c
CQ
T3
%
01
"c
E
S
C
CO
8
^"^
!».
c
I
c
' -
) >
1 0.
) C

t-
in
r-
00
•^•

o
CN



r-


>n


vo


tN




f-



co
w
_
CT1
l iprhniniies for determining hydrologic properties of a
^
S 5

CN
TT
O
•^>
ON

tN
tN



in


•«r


o


tN




00







1
w
cn
'cn
>i
1
a
"O
cB
w
"c
' E
S
2
0.
(^M
g
1
" 'S
1
) 1

1
00
vn
CO
in
tN
*-*

=



t—


>r>


*•*


CO




ON







S
_O
' 1
1
T3
1
^
(*•
t
C
5
S
.1
? 1

co
0
o II
»"H II
>0
ON

CO II
tN
II
||

—


W-l


VO
•—<


>n




g



CO
C
J3

>-,
'-
00
*s. |
a
^
T3
• i
!
0
cn
1
' "
T3
x £
       32

-------
Technology Transfer Needs Assessment








<*

>


>
>

M
^*
*-

-
<
— Jg
< u
tt
» Technology
Transfer Needs

cs

^,

Os

00
T

en
OS

r-

os

r-
cs
II Data reauirements for enforcement

o

0

v-i

-
Os

8
CS

r-

Os

in
cs
cs
C/l
o
•8
E
s
ra
T3
1
CI
' 1
es
s
CO
>

OO

Tf

\C

-
en

sC
O

oo

VI

r-
en
cs
Ih- 	 — 	 	 	
II Assessment of oilv waste risk and movement

o

os

so

~
_

oo
V)

m

en

en
•*f
cs
11 Multimedia monitoring for inspection and evaluation of treatments 1

oo

«

__

Os
oo

cs
0

•t

__

cs
in
cs
II Tech & OA for land disposal facility design and construction

TT

r~

o

en
SO

t^-
_

_

in

2
so
cs
II Waste reduction tools for MSW and hazardous waste

Os

m

so

-
o

os
„

m

cs

in
r~
cs
1
g.
C/5
•5
T3
C
_2
£
W
"5
V5
a
>•
•o
a
tr
>
IE
£
«
£

Os

f-

*_,

in
en

in
CS
oo

cs

•t

00
oo
cs
1
a
s.
2
c/o
0
M
•o
w
cs
•o
1
i«
<
Qi
u
05
"c
>
IB
cs
c.
"c
<

cs

Tf

^*

CN
CS

t~-
\O

TT

Os

r-
Os
cs
4J
c/5
CS
T3
I4J
«
O
u
-
O
•o
i
j=
W5
CS
£
c«
I
> CJ
"cc
crt
: 1
Q

••^

0

en

t--
„

TT
CS
VO

SO

c~

o
o
en
'c'
1
u
1
^
oo


oo

Os

SO
in

en
en
so

OO

CS

en
so
en
II MSW combustion emission controls

»n

Os

r-

oc
r-

en
o

r—

cs

\O
c~
en
II Uniform procedures to report cost/performance SF site treatments

SO

Os

Os

r~-
t-~

cs
en
0

OS

en

Os
oo
en
II r.eneral info on limits and safety of MSW management options

oo

r~-

=}

r^-
^i

TT
m


\O

Tf

-
Os
en
on
1
§
e
u
(U
CJ
«
i
E
u
V
n
1
I

"1

O

~

£

CS
VI 11
en
cs

O |

v~t ||

^
0
Tf
Oil and gas management practices
                 33

-------
                                   RCRA Findings
              Table 2-4. Ranking of Needs of Primary RCRA Audiences
  State Agency Staff

Other (non-technical)
Selection of Cleanup Technologies
Monitoring
Risk Assessment
Risk-Based Treatment Standards
Data Requirements
Pollution Prevention
Waste Management (MSW, Medical)
Ground Water
Land Disposal Facilities
Alternative Treatment Technologies
Estimating Remediation Cost
  Regulated Community

Other (non-technical)
Risk Assessment
Monitoring
Selection of Cleanup Technologies
Ground Water
Risk-Based Treatment Standards
Data Requirements
Pollution Prevention
Land Disposal Facilities
Estimating Remediation Cost
Waste Management
Alternative Treatment Technologies
                                         34

-------
                          Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
                              3. CERCLA FINDINGS
  One hundred thirty-nine Regional respondents indicate that they are currently involved in one
or more of the CERCLA removal, remedial, enforcement, or other programs.  This chapter
presents the survey results for CERCLA respondents drawing upon the interviews with headquar-
ters branch chiefs, and Regional management and staff for comparisons and explanations when
appropriate.
3.1 Profile of CERCLA Respondents

  The typical CERCLA respondent has been with the Agency for 3 to 5 years, has held his or
her current position from 1 to 2 years, and has a masters degree in engineering.  These "typical"
characteristics are quite similar to those for RCRA respondents and for the sample as a whole.
A summary  of the experience, highest  level of education, and field of  study for CERCLA
respondents can be found in Table 3-1 below.

            Table 3-1. Experience and Education of CERCLA Respondents
Respondent Profile
Time in Current Position
Time with EPA
Highest Level
of Education
Major Field
of Study
University
Courses
1%
Environmental
Science
17%
<1 Year
19%
2%
Bachelors
Degree
28%
Geology
Hydrogeology
16%
1-2
Years
33%
10%
Graduate
Courses
14%
Engineering
47%
3-5
Years
32%
35%
Masters
Degree
50%
Health
Toxicology
5%
6-10
Years
12%
18%
Ph.D.
or J.D.
5%
Bus/Public
Administration
9%
>10 Years
4%
35%
Other
2%
Other
6%
  Respondents were asked to indicate programs in which they are  currently involved.  For
CERCLA, the choices included CERCLA removal, remedial, and enforcement programs, and an
opportunity to specify other program areas.  Because the remedial and enforcement programs in
most Regions have been integrated,  some overlap between these areas was expected.  In fact,
65% of respondents indicate that they are currently involved in two or more CERCLA program
areas. Of the 139 respondents, 11 (8%) mentioned only the removal program, 28 (20%) indicated
the remedial program only, and 12 (9%) checked only enforcement. Among the others, 24 (17%)
                                         35

-------
                                   CERCLA Findings
said they are involved in all three CERCLA program areas, 52 (37%) represent remedial and
enforcement, and 4 (3%) claim both removal and enforcement responsibilities.  Eight respondents
(6%) specified either the preremedial program or federal facilities.  Because of the extent of
overlap among program areas within CERCLA, it is not possible to examine technical needs
separately for the three programs.

  For the sample of CERCLA respondents, 52% have been in their current positions for 2 years
or less, supporting the general perception of a relatively "new" workforce. However, only 12%
have been employed by EPA for that short a period.  This suggests that there is a good deal of
mobility in  the Regions, either across program areas or within a program. In addition, almost
60% hold a graduate degree, 85% of which are in a related technical field. During the Regional
site visits, interviewees were asked  about the difficulty of maintaining technical skills among
RPMs, and  they provided a variety of answers.  One approach by Regional management was to
support as  much training and personnel development for  RPMs as was possible.  In  other
Regions,  the proposed solution was to recruit individuals  with  strong backgrounds in project
management, and to back them up with technical assistance. Most of the Regions visited had
established  a Regional technical support group, or were considering doing so.

  While the CERCLA respondents in this survey show a relatively strong technical background,
this may  not be the case for the almost 500 new staff being added to the Regional workforce.
Region in indicated that most of their new FTEs would fill RPM positions (26 new RPMs),
Region IV will have 18 new RPMs and 10 new attorney positions  in support of Superfund. In
Regions VI and VIII, the new FTEs will be used largely for management or support positions,
such as contracts administration. Technology transfer needs for these  new positions will have
to be determined at a later time.

  With respect to training, CERCLA respondents attended an average of three training courses
during the past year. Seventy-nine percent report recent job-related training from EPA (including
the Region, OSWER, or ORD sponsored courses), and 39% report attending technology transfer
seminars  or workshops. The latter includes both ORD Technology Transfer seminars and profes-
sional conferences.
3.2 CERCLA Technology Transfer Needs

  The highest priority technical information needs (top 15 of 40) for all CERCLA respondents
can be categorized into the following areas:
   •   Establishing Treatment Standards
   •   Ground Water
   •   Risk Assessment
   •   Alternative and Innovative Treatment Technologies
   •   Selection and Application of Treatment/Control Technologies
   •   Monitoring
   •   Estimating Remediation Costs
                                          36

-------
                              Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
   The 15 highest ranked technology transfer needs are presented in Table 3-2.  Although only
the top 15  are listed here, 23 technical needs  are perceived by CERCLA staff as "quite" to
"extremely" useful (see Table 3-3 for a complete ranking of technical topics).
               Table 3-2. Fifteen Highest Ranked Technical Needs for CERCLA


 * 1.   Establishing risk-based cleanup levels for various contaminants and site conditions.

 * 2.   General technical information on the performance, limits, safety, and cost of hazardous
       waste treatment technologies.

 * 3.   Use and effectiveness of biological treatme nt processes (biodegradation or bioremediation).

 * 4.   Use and  effectiveness of physical treatment processes  (e.g., soil washing, vacuum
       extraction).

 * 5.   Use and effectiveness of chemical treatment processes (e.g., KPEG).

 * 6.   Use and effectiveness of stabilization!solidification.

 * 7.   Use and effectiveness of thermal destruction (incineration, oxidation).

   8.   Applicability of RCRA Treatment Standards to Superfund.

 * 9.   Ground-water monitoring for  site inspection and  for evaluating  the  effectiveness  of
       treatment.

* 10.   Fate and transport of contaminants in the subsurface (e.g., facilitated transport, methods
       for measuring contaminant mobility, non-aqueous phase liquids).

* 11.   Prototype remedy-selection models for recurrent site situations.

  12.   General information on the use and limitations of field sampling and analysis methods.

  13.   Procedures for estimating costs for construction, operation, and maintenance of remedies.

  14.   Field-screening, soil vapor, and water sampling for hydrocarbons.

* 15.   Standardized methods for ecological risk assessment.

    * Appears on both RCRA and CERCLA lists.
                                               37

-------
                                   CERCLA Findings
  Ten of the top 15 Superfund needs are related to progress in moving sites into the remedial
design phase,  and SARA requirements that  permanent solutions  and alternative treatment
technologies be used "to the maximum extent practicable."  Eleven of the top fifteen rated
technical needs also appear on the RCRA list of highest rated technical needs.  As discussed in
Chapter 2, Regional RCRA staff rate alternative and innovative treatment technologies and risk-
based cleanup  levels among  their top technical needs as well.  In implementing RCRA's new
corrective action program, as well as the  UST program, Regional hazardous  and solid waste
programs are converging on cleanup problems.

  The list of 40 technology  transfer needs included in the questionnaire contained two items
related to establishing treatment standards—Establishing risk-based cleanup levels for various
contaminants and site conditions, and Applicability of RCRA treatment standards to Superfund.
These items rank first and eighth for CERCLA respondents overall, and both rank within the top
nine for all ten Regions.  The selected level of cleanup will drive most other decisions at the site
including which alternatives will be considered and which have a chance of succeeding.  SARA
and the NCP require that on-site removal and remedial actions attain applicable or relevant and
appropriate regulations (ARARs) to the extent practicable. RCRA's Land Disposal Restrictions
place specific restrictions (e.g., treatment of waste to concentration levels) on RCRA hazardous
wastes prior to their placement in land disposal units. Problems arise in determining when LDRs
are applicable  to CERCLA response actions.  Regional CERCLA respondents need technical
information to assist in applying LDRs to  Superfund sites and in establishing cleanup levels.

  Two items in the top 15  address the  selection and application of treatment  and  control
technologies:  General technical information on the performance, limits, safety,  and  cost of
hazardous waste treatment technologies and Prototype remedy-selection models for recurrent site
situations.  Superfund has been criticized for inconsistency in remedy selection at NPL sites.  It
is possible that both the consistency and quality of remedy  selection can be improved by
technical information on the applicability, limitations, and  costs  of alternative and innovative
technologies.  However, differing site conditions, statutorily required State regulations, PRP
negotiations, unresolved policy  issues, and other non-technical factors  also contribute to this
issue. In addition,  in many cases, complete technical information on alternative and innovative
technologies does not yet exist.  OERR has recognized these problems and is  addressing them
through policy guidance; programs to improve  the  development and  application  of new
technologies; and recommendations for conducting treatability studies during the RI/FS.

  Procedures for estimating  costs for construction, operation, and maintenance of remedies is
also listed  among  the top technical needs.  The Administrator's Management Review of the
Superfund Program recommended the development of prototype RI/FS and remedy-selection
models for recurrent site situations to speed the RI/FS process and limit the number of remedial
alternatives that must be considered during the remedial process.  OERR and ORD are moving
forward to address  this need through the development of protocols for landfills, soil washing, and
stabilization/solidification.   Efforts  are also  underway  to develop automated  databases  of
treatability information and expert systems for estimating remediation costs.

   Section 121(b) of CERCLA mandates EPA to select remedies that "utilize permanent solutions
and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the  maximum extent
                                          38

-------
                           Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
practicable" and to "prefer remedial actions in which treatment permanently and significantly
reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants
as a principal element." Items 3 through 7 in the list of highest ranked technical needs focus on
alternative and innovative treatment technologies, including: biological, physical, chemical, and
thermal treatment processes, and stabilization/solidification.  In scoping the RI/FS, literature
surveys are conducted to gather information on a potential alternative technology's applicability,
performance, implementability,  relative costs,  and operation  and maintenance requirements.
RPMs  may  also consider the types of response  actions selected for other  sites  with  similar
problems or contaminants to identify those remedial alternatives that carry high potential of being
an effective solution for  site problems.   If practical candidate  technologies have not  been
sufficiently demonstrated or cannot be adequately evaluated on the basis of available information,
treatability testing is performed.  Evaluation reports developed on the basis of treatability tests
provide information that may be quite valuable to other project managers with similar problems.

  OSWER and ORD are taking several steps to encourage treatability testing  on alternative and
innovative  technologies,  and to make performance and  cost  information broadly available.
Regional management emphasized this need, and  suggested that efforts be made to incorporate
information from treatability tests conducted by PRPs as well.  ORD's Center  for Environmental
Research Information  (CERI)  has  begun to address  technical information on treatment
technologies through handbooks  and workshops on stabilization/solidification, bioremediation,
and physical and chemical treatment. OERR and OSWER have arranged frequent meetings on
technologies to discuss  the most current information and experiences.  Although some progress
is being made  in collecting and  summarizing available information, and demonstrating new
techniques (e.g., through the SITE program), much remains to be accomplished in developing and
disseminating technical information in this  area.

  The  two ground-water related items rated highest by CERCLA respondents are: Ground-water
monitoring for  site inspection and for evaluating the effectiveness of treatment and Fate and
transport of contaminants in the subsurface.  At most hazardous  waste sites  ground-water
contamination is a  major concern.  Ground-water monitoring methods  are  needed for site
characterization, determining the location  and concentrations of contaminants, developing
adequate data to support risk assessment and the analysis of remedial alternatives, defining the
risks posed by a site, demonstrating the need for  remedial action, and supporting  the rationale
for selecting a remedial action alternative.  Analyses of contaminant fate and transport involve
determining the actual  and potential magnitude of releases from sources and the mobility and
persistence  of source contaminants.  This analysis frequently involves numerical models to
interpolate among and extrapolate from isolated field samples to areas and times not sampled.
Ground-water monitoring and fate and transport analyses are also very important to the evaluation
of treatment performance. Long-term monitoring and evaluation of treatment are essential to
negotiations with States and responsible parties who will be involved in the continuing operation
and maintenance of remedies.  OERR has recently  begun investigations of the applicability of
traditional pump-and-treat remediation as applied to Superfund sites, and has recently published
new ground-water guidance.  CERI and the R.S. Kerr Laboratory have offered training in basic
ground water and fate and transport.  OSWER has recently completed a detailed analysis of the
ground-water related tasks that must be completed by Regional CERCLA and RCRA staff and
the training now available to meet these needs.
                                           39

-------
                                    CERCLA Findings
  Field sampling and analysis methods are also of major concern to CERCLA staff.  The two
items under the monitoring topic in the questionnaire most highly rated by CERCLA respondents
are: General information on the use and limitations of field sampling and analysis methods and
Field-screening, soil vapor, and water sampling for hydrocarbons. Field monitoring, sampling,
and analysis are also considered quite important by both headquarters and Regional management.
Region in indicates that this  is their  biggest technical problem at present as does Region
VIII—and this is  borne out in the Regional rankings of needs.  Field sampling and analysis is
critical  in preremedial activities as well as  in data collection during  the RI/FS.  Statutory
requirements in the revised NCP and the new Hazard Ranking System (HRS) will increase the
need for field sampling and analysis at a time when no new resources are available and efforts
to reduce the time allotted for field work are underway. For example, the new HRS will require
that  numerous new  measurements  and additional steps  in the preliminary assessment/site
investigation (PA/SI) process be applied to the backlog of 25,000 sites to be assessed. There is
a need for development and dissemination of  information on small scale, accurate, and efficient
field methods.

  The final technical need in the list of the top 15 is Standardized methods for ecological risk
assessment. Cleanup goals must be addressed to protect both human health and the environment.
OSWER's Strategic Plan FY1992-1995 recognizes the importance of determining the ecological
risks at Superfund sites and commits the office to investigating measures of ecotoxicity and the
propensity of contaminants to bioaccumulate.  OERR and OWPE have recently reemphasized the
importance of environmental assessment through the establishment of a work group, and the
development of policy and guidance.

  Although for the large majority of items, headquarters branch chiefs and Regional CERCLA
respondents concur on the most important technical needs,  there are a few items emphasized by
headquarters that do not appear among the most important topics for the Regions. These include
more general risk assessment information, data interpretation, technical support for enforcement
case preparation,  and hydrologic properties of difficult areas such as Karst. The item on risk
information for RCRA wastes, while not among the top 15, is rated as "quite" to "extremely"
useful by Regional CERCLA respondents.  All of the Regions employ toxicologists who  can
provide technical support to RPMs in risk assessment, and  in several Regions the ESD provides
this type of support. It is possible that the survey did not tap the specific individuals responsible
for risk assessment support.  A similar situation exists with respect to data interpretation. Both
Quality assurance for field operations and Development of Data Quality Objectives in sampling
and  analysis plans are ranked among the top 20 for CERCLA staff and both  are considered
"quite" to "extremely" useful.

  The  only  item included  in  the questionnaire  directly related to  technical  support  for
enforcement is Technical data requirements for enforcement case development. It is possible that
the phrasing of this item, with its emphasis on data requirements, was overly specific and  that
a more general item on  technical  support  for enforcement  would have  elicited  a  stronger
response.  Regional management emphasized the need for training  and technical support for
enforcement, especially with regard to the integration of RPM responsibilities for both Fund-lead
and enforcement-lead sites. A final need that headquarters felt would be extremely important and
that was not highly valued by the Regions concerns Hydrologic properties of difficult areas, such
                                           40

-------
                           Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
as Karst.  A possible explanation for this discrepancy can be found in the results of the recent
ground-water training study. In a survey directly related to technical training needs for ground
water, it was found that hydrology was a topic that has been extensively covered in available
training. However, Region V did note problems  in this area during the Regional site visits; it
is possible that the topic is of importance to only a few sites, and therefore is not highly rated
overall.

  Twenty individuals in the CERCLA sample suggested additional topics as extremely important
to accomplishing their job responsibilities. Many of these were elaborations on topics presented
in the questionnaire, some were additional technical topics, and still others concerned policy or
programmatic areas.  Some of the  most frequently mentioned technical  needs suggested by
respondents include:

   •  Quick turnaround field sampling and analysis (3  write-ins)

   •  Applied geophysical methods (2 write-ins)

   •  Scoping and costs of RI/FS (3 write-ins)

   •  Experience in removal techniques (4 write-ins)

   •  Treatment of munitions waste (2 write-ins)

   •  Statistical analysis, data interpretation (2 write-ins)

   •  Remediation of fractured bedrock (2 write-ins)

   •  Evaluating Regions' experience in treatability studies (3 write-ins)

   •  Controlling air emissions during remediation (2 write-ins)

   «  Treatment techniques, assessment, and analytical requirements for radioactive wastes (3
      write-ins)


3.3 Regional Technical Needs

  Ratings of the importance of the 40 technical needs were averaged for each Region and ranked
from most important to least important  These rankings are presented in Table 3-3. Needs with
the same average value are  given the same ranking, so that for some  Regions a number  will
appear more  than once. The relatively low response rates from Regions  I  and IX allow  less
confidence in the representativeness  of the sample for those Regions.

  In general, there is a great deal of consistency in technical needs across Regions. Establishing
risk-based cleanup levels,  ranked number one overall, is also ranked first or second for all ten
Regions.  Technical information on  the performance, limits,  safety  and  cost of  treatment
technologies is also among the top five  for all Regions.  Alternative and innovative  treatment

                                          41

-------
                                    CERCLA Findings
technologies including biological, chemical, physical, thermal, and stabilization/solidification are
among the top five needs for five or more of the Regions, as is the Applicability of RCRA
treatment standards to Superfund.

  The additional topics written in by respondents are also somewhat revealing regarding Regional
CERCLA needs.  Regions II and HI suggest additional topics in field sampling, geophysical
methods, and scoping and costs for RI/FS. Region VI stresses short-term versus long-term risks,
evaluation of treatability study experience, air emissions during remediation, DNAPLs, and Data
Quality Objectives in RD/RA. Region Vn needs include munitions waste, statistical analyses,
and treatability protocols. Region VIII suggests field analytical techniques, field assessment for
radiation sites, air emission controls for air stripping, and emerging technologies. Region X's
additional needs are related to federal facilities (including radioactive wastes), enforcement topics,
and data requirements related to specific remedial technologies.
3.4 CERCLA Audience Needs

   CERCLA staff identify State agency staff, EPA contractors, and the regulated community as
important audiences for EPA technology transfer. EPA contractors are selected as the primary
audience by 44% of respondents (96% selected them as an audience), while State agency staff
are considered the primary audience by 21% of respondents (85% selected them as an audience).
The regulated community (presumably Potentially Responsible Parties) is also identified as the
primary audience by  15% of respondents (42% designate this group as an audience).  All other
groups are considered to be the primary audience by less than 10% of respondents. The question
on audience size  received a wide range of responses; for example, EPA contractors and State
agency staff are estimated by 76% of respondents as including less than 100 persons, or less than
500 persons by 91% of respondents.  In addition, some respondents estimate audiences sizes for
the regulated community in the thousands.

   Respondents were  asked to list the five top priority technical needs of their primary audience.
Responses to this item were coded as representing one of the 11 thematic areas used to organize
technical needs in the questionnaire.  Eighty percent of responses to this question could easily
be categorized in this fashion, the remaining  20% are for programmatic training or guidance.
Technical needs for the three main CERCLA audiences are summarized and listed in rank order
in Table 3-4. These closely parallel CERCLA  staff technical needs in general. Among the most
frequently mentioned needs  for  State agency staff  are ground water, monitoring techniques,
selection  and application of treatment/control  technologies, and alternative and  innovative
treatment technologies.   EPA Contractor technical  needs include  selection and application of
treatment and  control technologies, alternative and innovative treatment technologies,  and
monitoring techniques. Technical needs for the Regulated Community include monitoring, risk
assessment, and selection and application of treatment/control technologies.
                                           42

-------
                              Technology Transfer Needs Assessment





1
V
Q£










X
•x
M
e
t-^
e;
>•
5
>
>

M
H«

B

*->
<
^1
U
O
1 Technology
Transfer Needs
CO
fN
-
O!

-
CN


CN



CS


II Establishing risk-based cleanup levels
-
co
TT
^H

CO
CO
oo

oo

CO

-
CS

II 	
II Information on performance, costs of treatments
Tt
•*
OS
CN

CN
—
CN

0

Tf

VO
CO

1 Use and effectiveness of biological treatment
>n
-3-
>n
co

in
-
TJ-

OS

CN

VO
•n
co
>n

in
Tt
CN

^

•*r

00
in

II 	
II Use and effectiveness of S/S
•n

vo

VO
r-

II Applicability of RCRA treatment standards to Superfund
-
r~
cs
t^

en
•
Crt
"c/5
>>
i
CO
•o
BO
_c
"5.
%
S
13
1C
<4—
0
C/3
^O
a
'B
T3
i
o
c/l
vo
O
in
•
CN

II Field screening, soil vapor, and water sampling for hydrocarbons
CO
-
CN
•<*•

oo
oo
0

oo

IT-,

VO
CO

II Standardized methods for ecological risk assessment
co
r—t
O
f
o

04
VO
,_

CN

*•— 4

VO
Tf

|| Well techniques for determining hydrologic properties of aquifers
ro
1—4
vo
-
r^

vO
o
•*

^4

CN

Tf
m

I Quality assurance for field operations
oo
oo
oo
in

••3-
OO
m

n 1
r-

1 Development of DQOs in sampling and analysis plans
O
•ft
Ol
6
 VI

 2


 12
 o
"o
U
tf
u
u
 I
fiS



CO
 cs
                                               43

-------
CERCLA Findings








f
a
•c
s

s~"' 1
o
ac

T3
B

u
O
en"
z
in
B
a
£
_o
"3
B
H
j
^
OS
U
u
•s
Table 3-3. Rankings (








g
.2
bo
OS






















X

K

-
>
K
>
5



^


>

S


K
~
^
= U


U






B Technology
Transfer Needs
o

CO

oo

CO

cs



cs


Tf

o\


'"H
oo

oo





i3

II Procedures for estimating costs and performanc
t

co

^
~
w,

in
^^


O


•—

2;

oo

co

ON









a
CO
tt
a
X
u
1
CO
1
a
>
00



in

ON

o
*™^


ON


CO

VO


CS
s

o
cs







o
1 Models for chemical mixture risk characterizati
cs

«-.

ON

_

ON



•^t


""

cs

r~

oo

_
cs








1 Results of treatability studies for land disposal
^

CN

0
CS
VO

o



00


cs

E

v>
cs
cs

cs
cs








£
n
I
"c3
"S
'co
a
1
E
1
(X
S
ON

O

OO

w,

CO



"— '


oo

ON

CO
cs
ON

CO
cs




s

c
_o
"S
1
s^
II Technical data requirements for enforcement ca
VO

VO

CO
cs
cs

^



>n


cs

CN

cs
cs
•— «


cs







I
Op
"3
o
§
•o
*o
i
o
•5
1
>

-------
                            Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
             Table 3-4. Ranking of Needs of Primary CERCLA Audiences
State Agency

Selection of Cleanup
  Technologies
Other (non-technical)
Monitoring
Ground Water
Alternative Treatment
  Technologies
Data Requirements
Risk Assessment
Estimating Costs
Treatment Standards
Waste Management
Land Disposal
EPA Contractor

Other (non-technical)
Selection of Treatment
  Technologies
Monitoring
Alternative Treatment
  Technologies
Data Requirements
Ground Water
Risk Assessment
Treatment Standards
Estimating Costs
Land Disposal
Waste Management
Regulated Community

Selection of Treatment
  Technologies
Risk Assessment
Other (non-technical)
Monitoring
Ground Water
Estimating Costs
Waste Management
Alternative Treatment
  Technologies
Treatment Standards
Data Requirements
Land Disposal
                                           45

-------
                           Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
                              4. UST & ESD FINDINGS
  This chapter presents the survey results on the technical information needs  of Regional
Underground Storage  Tank (UST) respondents and Environmental Services Division (ESD)
respondents, including the needs of their  respective end  users.  Thirty questionnaires were
distributed to the Regional UST Program Mangers, and ten Regional UST employees responded.
Approximately 20 questionnaires were sent to ESD laboratory directors and quality assurance
coordinators, and  12 ESD employees responded.   Because of the small survey sizes of each
group, statistical analysis of the data was considered inappropriate. Nevertheless, the results
reflect some important Regional needs, which are described in the following summary.
4.1 Underground Storage Tanks

  Ten Regional UST employees responded to the questionnaire, representing about one tenth of
the total number of UST employees in the Regions. Approximately 70% of the respondents have
been in their current positions for 3 to 5 years and with the Agency for 11 years or more. The
majority of UST respondents are engineers or geologists (70%) and hold masters degrees (60%).
UST respondents report that their highest priority job responsibilities involve State oversight of
UST regulatory implementation and cleanup. These include a wide variety of duties: LUST Trust
Fund contracts and grants management; review and approval of State financial assurance funds;
State program review and approval; technical support to the States particularly for leak detection
technologies; distribution of detailed information to a variety of people impacted by the program;
and oversight  of UST  cleanup, enforcement, and cost recovery.   Table 4-1  summarizes the
respondents' experience and educational profiles.

               Table 4-1. Experience and Education of UST Respondents
Respondent Profile
Time in Current Position
Time with EPA
Highest Level
of Education
Major Field
of Study
University
Courses
10%
Environmental
Science
0%
<1 Year
10%
0%
Bachelors
Degree
10%
Geology
Hydrogeology
20%
1-2
Years
10%
10%
Graduate
Courses
10%
Engineering
50%
3-5
Years
70%
20%
Masters
Degree
60%
Health
Toxicology
0%
6-10
Years
0%
0%
Ph.D.
or J.D.
10%
Bus/Public
Administration
20%
>10 Years
10%
70%
Other
0%
Other
10%
                                          47

-------
                                      UST & ESD Findings
  UST respondents indicate that their highest priority technical needs are in the application of
treatment technologies, alternative and innovative treatment technologies, monitoring techniques,
and  ground water.  Table  4-2 presents the 15 highest ranked technology transfer  needs of
Regional UST respondents.  Although only the top 15 are listed here, UST respondents perceive
22 topics as "quite" to "extremely" useful.
                  Table 4-2. Fifteen Highest Ranked Technical Needs for UST

 1.  Application of mitigation, removal, and treatment technologies to leaking underground storage
    tanks.

 2.  Use and effectiveness of biological treatment processes (biodegradation or bioremediation).

 3.  Field screening, soil vapor, and water sampling for hydrocarbons.

 4.  Leak detection and prevention methods for underground storage tanks.

 5.  Ground-water monitoring for site inspection  and for evaluating the effectiveness of treatment.

 6.  Use and effectiveness of physical treatment (e.g., soil washing, vacuum extraction).

 7.  Establishing risk-based cleanup levels.

 8.  Fate and transport of contaminants in the subsurface.

 9.  Use and effectiveness of chemical treatment (e.g., KPEG).

 10. Use and effectiveness of thermal destruction (incineration, oxidation).

 11. General information on the use and limitations of field  sampling and analysis methods.

 12. General information on the performance, limits, safety, and cost of hazardous waste/petroleum
    treatment technologies.

 13. Use and effectiveness of stabilization/solidification.

 14. Selecting and applying release and flow control, and source control technologies for UST (RCRA)
    corrective action. (Nearly all UST respondents added "UST" to this item.)

 15. Development and application of Data Quality Objectives in sampling and analysis plans.
                                               48

-------
                            Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
  The seven other technical needs that UST respondents rate as "quite" to "extremely" useful
include:

  • Two topics on data requirements—Quality assurance for field operations and Technical data
    requirements for enforcement case development including extraordinary circumstances;

  • Two ground-water topics—Well techniques for determining hydrologic properties of aquifers
    and Hydrologic properties of difficult areas such  as Karst terrains and aquifers;

  • Two risk assessment topics—Assessment of oily waste risk and movement and Standardized
    methods for ecological risk assessment; and

  • One topic on estimating  treatment costs—Uniform procedures for reporting costs and
    technical performance for operating treatments at UST (RCRA) sites.

  These findings reveal  a major interest in technology that  improves corrective action, and they
concur with UST headquarters objectives for improving speed and quality, and reducing costs,
of corrective actions.  Regional UST respondents perceive  the need for technology transfer
products on topics related to cheaper treatment alternatives designed specifically for cleaning up
leaking underground storage (LUST) sites, aqueous waste streams, and vapors. The most highly
valued topic on alternative treatments  is biological treatment processes, which ranks second
among all UST respondent needs.  This suggests an interest in in situ alternatives that go beyond
more conventional methods such as pump and treat technologies. Regional and headquarters
personnel also recognize the importance of technology transfer topics related to real-time site
investigation and characterization methods. Site information is used to confirm the release  of
contaminants, investigate a site for remediation, assess progress in cleanup, and confirm cleanup.

  Regional UST respondents wrote in several technical topics, which  are somewhat revealing  of
their strongest needs.  Generally all the additional write-ins are elaborations on topics listed  in
the questionnaire.  They  stress  the need for technology  transfer on  petroleum treatment
alternatives, including uniform procedures for reporting the technical performance and costs  of
operating treatments at LUST sites.  They also emphasize the need for a wide variety of waste
minimization topics,  such  as  pollution prevention through  tank upgrade,  case studies, and
demonstrations of  successful  practices.   Additional write-ins  are  related  to  minimal data
requirements for LUST, health and safety training, UST inspector training, and disposal methods
for treated petroleum/hazardous substance contaminated soil.

  UST respondents  acknowledge several important  end-user  audiences  in  helping  them
accomplish their job  responsibilities.   Although  State and  local governments are the most
frequently mentioned  audience, UST respondents indicate that responsible parties and others  in
the regulated community, including contractors and consultants, are also critical technology users.
Based on respondent estimates, there may be 200 to 300 State agency personnel active in UST
in each Region.  Nationally, there are several hundred thousand UST owner/operators.

  Approximately, 90% of UST respondents identified  State agency staffs as their most important
user audience, and  10% listed the regulated community. But again,  some respondents pointed
                                           49

-------
                                   UST & BSD Findings
out that because the cleanup process is complex and the critical target audiences can be different
depending on the  site  situation, technology transfer must be designed to meet  performance
improvement needs of a number of specific target groups.

  The OUST is currently conducting State pilot studies of the corrective action implementation
process at selected UST sites.  A major objective of these pilot studies is to identify specific
problems in the corrective action process, define the  causes, and demonstrate  performance
improvement.  The effort entails work with personnel at all levels of UST corrective action from
State personnel to  emergency personnel and contractors.  The results  will eventually be made
available to all States with the  intention that they use the pilots as models for analyzing  and
improving their own  UST programs.

  In general, the most frequently mentioned technology transfer topics that UST respondents  feel
their State agency staffs need are rapid site assessment and petroleum cleanup technologies, other
than pump-and-treat technologies. Additional technology transfer needs include the following:

  •  Standards for petroleum cleanup  levels that are justifiable and applicable on a site specific
    basis.

  •  Standards for qualified tank regulation experts and a means of identifying these experts.

  •  Waste disposal options (where to send) for contaminated soils  and tank systems.

  •  Information to correctly perform leak detection testing.

  •  UST investigating procedures.

  •  UST inspection techniques for upgraded tank systems already in use.

  •  Information to approve leak detection options, investigation results, remediation plans,  and
    installation and removal plans.

  •  Technical UST cleanup, enforcement, field measurement, and health and safety training  that
    meets OSHA requirements.

  •  LUST Trust Fund accounting/cost recovery.

  •  Uniform cost reporting for compliance with UST rules.


4.2 Environmental Services Division

   Twelve ESD  personnel responded to the questionnaire,  which was  sent to laboratory  and
quality assurance directors. The respondents indicate that their job  responsibilities cut across all
Agency programs.  Responsibilities include in-house sampling analyses, management of Contract
Laboratory Program, methods development and implementation, review of project-sampling plans
for CERCLA and RCRA activities, technology evaluation and matching of technologies to sites,

                                           50

-------
                            Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
design and implementation of the hazardous waste quality assurance programs, data validation,
analytical support to program offices, technical consulting to EPA personnel on priority sites,
human and ecological health risk assessment, and others.

  The majority of ESD respondents have been in their current positions for 3 to 5 years (58%)
and  have been  EPA employees for 11  years  or more (67%).   Approximately  84%  are
environmental scientists (chemistry, biology, ecology) and engineers, and most hold a bachelors
degree. Table 4-3 presents the ESD respondents' experience and educational profiles.
               Table 4-3. Experience and Education of ESD Respondents
Respondent Profile
Time in Current Position
Time with EPA
Highest Level
of Education
Major Field
of Study
University
Courses
0%
Environmental
Science
42%
<1 Year
17%
0%
Bachelors
Degree
42%
Geology
Hydrogeology
8%
1-2
Years
8%
0%
Graduate
Courses
25%
Engineering
42%
3-5
Years
58%
25%
Masters
Degree
25%
Health
Toxicology
0%
6-10
Years
17%
8%
Ph.D.
or J.D.
8%
Bus/Public
Administration
8%
>10 Years
0%
67%
Other
0%
Other
0%
  The most useful technology transfer topics identified by ESD respondents are categorized in
four thematic areas:   Monitoring  techniques, data  requirements, ground water,  and risk
assessment  In general, there is a tendency for ESD respondents to value all the questionnaire
topics  on monitoring techniques more  than either RCRA or CERCLA respondents.  This is
especially true of General information on field sampling and analysis methods, listed among the
top technical needs for all  three groups.

  Many of the highest  ranked ESD technical topics address quality assurance issues, analytical
methods, and sampling designs.  Some emphasis on quality assurance was expected; OSWER has
recently required the ESD  to design and implement quality assurance programs, and the survey
targeted the quality assurance coordinators in the laboratories.  However,  these findings are
consistent with the total measurement process outlined last year by Regional ESD Directors. The
process includes analytical methods  development, criteria to evaluate the significance of data,
designing a monitoring/sampling plan, collecting representative samples, and determining  and
reporting data quality.  Table 4-4 presents the 15 highest ranked technology transfer needs of
ESD respondents, and includes all topics rated "quite" to "extremely" useful.
                                           51

-------
                                     UST & ESD Findings
               Table 4-4. Fifteen Highest Ranked Technical Needs for ESD

1.  General information on the use and limitations of field sampling and analysis methods.

2.  Field screening, soil vapor, and water sampling for hydrocarbons.

3.  Development and application of Data Quality Objectives in sampling and analysis plans.

4.  Fate and transport of contaminants in the subsurface.

5.  Quality assurance for field operations.

6.  Air and other media monitoring for site inspection and for evaluating the effectiveness of
    treatment.

7.  Validated ground-water models and expert systems that support sampling plans  and statistical
    analyses.

8.  Ground-water monitoring for site inspection and for evaluating the effectiveness of treatment.

9.  Technical  data requirements  for  enforcement  case  development  including  extraordinary
    circumstances.

10.  Minimal data requirements for RCRA Facility Investigation or Corrective Measures Study.

11.  Use of models for chemical mixture risk characterization.

12.  Risk assessment levels for RCRA waste (e.g., incinerator ash, contaminated soil).

13.  Technologies and quality assurance information for land disposal facility design and construction.

14.  Continuous and static monitoring of stack emissions from all types of incinerators.

15.  Well techniques for determining hydrologic properties of aquifers.



  Some respondents wrote  in  additional technology transfer  topics.   The  following list
summarizes the major ones:

    •  Emerging and existing analytical methods.

    •  Statistical applications for site investigations.

    •  Statistical methods for environmental monitoring.
                                              52

-------
                            Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
    •  Analytical methods differences between program areas.

    •  Analytical options and requirements under new QA/QC programs.

    •  Uniform methods for analysis of environmental samples (all programs).

    •  Efficient use of remote sensing.

    •  Dissolved vs. total metals in ground water.

  BSD respondents indicate that they work with Regional EPA program personnel, other federal
agencies, private laboratories, State  agency staffs, academic institutions, and  the public to
accomplish  their jobs.  Their most  important (primary) technology users/clients  are  EPA
contractors in CERCLA and RCRA as well as some responsible party contractors in the regulated
communities (50%), State agency staffs and other federal agencies (25%), EPA Regional project
officers (17%), and the public (8%).  Respondents estimate the size of the contractor audience
in each Region to range from about 30 to 150, and from 100 to 300 per Region for State agency
staffs.

  In general, BSD respondents report similar technology transfer needs for contractors,  State
agency staffs, and EPA project managers.  For these audiences, respondents emphasize data
requirements, ground-water topics, and statistical analyses to confirm cleanup. The following list
is a summary of contractor and State agency needs:

    •  Field sampling requirements and quality assurance.

    •  Establishing data quality objectives.

    •  Information to evaluate and chose analytical options.

    •  Statistical evaluation  of data collection methods.

    •  Various treatment  technologies, including  pumping  and treating ground water,  and
       DNAPLs treatment technologies.

    •  Subsurface fate and transport; and validation of ground-water models.

    •  BSD laboratory capabilities, and program review and requirements.

    •  Monitoring and new analytical field techniques.

  Technology transfer topics identified for the regulated community include matrix assessments
to facilitate selection of remedial measures; information on how to confirm remedial effectiveness
and  determine the  economic  efficiency  of remedial technologies  (life cycle  costing);  and
information  on how to maintain remedies over the long term. Topics identified  for the public
relate to understanding risk assessments.
                                          53

-------
                           Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
                5, TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER DELIVERY SYSTEMS
  This chapter presents the results of the technology transfer delivery systems section of the
questionnaire, drawing upon comments from headquarters interviews and Regional site visits as
appropriate.  Survey respondents' ratings of the utility of various delivery systems are presented
first, followed by  a  discussion of important  sources of technical information, and relevant
problems or constraints in the use of technology transfer products and activities.  These findings
are discussed  with  respect to OSWER  programs and Regions.   Recommendations  for
combinations of delivery systems,  improvements in current systems, and the use of technology
transfer products from other federal agencies as reported by respondents are also included. The
final section addresses the relationship between technology transfer needs and preferred delivery
systems,  and makes  recommendations regarding the most appropriate delivery  methods for
important technical needs.
5.1 Preferred Delivery Systems

  Respondents were provided with a list of 15 potential technology transfer delivery methods
and asked to rate their usefulness on a scale of 1 ("not at all useful") to 5 ("extremely useful"),
and to indicate unfamiliar delivery methods with a zero.  The zero rating is included in the
calculation of usefulness ratings on the assumption that unfamiliar delivery methods are not very
useful. The list of delivery systems, their average ratings, and rank are provided in Table 5-1.
As indicated in the table, the overall sample ratings and those for the RCRA, CERCLA, and
other program areas are strikingly similar. The top six delivery methods—Guidance manuals,
Technical reports/handbooks,  Seminars  and  workshops,  Technology summaries/bulletins,
Conferences and symposia, and Technology demonstrations—are all rated above average in
usefulness by  all program areas.  A one-way ANOVA by program for each delivery method
revealed no differences in usefulness ratings. Respondents prefer print media (manuals, reports
and handbooks, summaries and bulletins) or direct interaction (seminars, workshops, conferences,
and demonstrations) to electronic or automated media.

  This finding is  consistent with  the Superfund  Technology  Transfer Needs Assessment
conducted in  1986.   In  that study, training courses, technical reports and  handbooks, and
conferences and seminars were rated as the  most effective delivery  techniques.  Interestingly,
technical summaries (or abstracts) and automated databases both were viewed as less effective
at that time.   On  the  basis of the weight  of other evidence; however,  the  1986 study did
recommend  that OERR develop technical summaries for broad distribution.  This strategy
apparently  is  working, as usefulness  ratings of technology summaries/bulletins  are  now
comparable with traditionally favored delivery  methods.

  The findings could also be interpreted as indicating that respondents prefer more familiar to
less familiar delivery methods.  Although  the preference for print media is not surprising,
especially in light of the tendency to be more comfortable with that with which one is familiar,

                                          55

-------
                       Technology Transfer Delivery Systems
         Table 5-1. Average Usefulness Ratings of Technology Transfer
                      Delivery Systems by Program Area
Twtoioloi? Traira&r
Delivery System
Guidance manuals
Technical Reports/Handbooks
Seminars/workshops
Technology summaries/bulletins
Conference/symposia
Technology demonstrations
Hotlines
Automated databases
Technology videotapes
Job aids (e.g., checklists,
nomograms)
Teleconferencing
Electronic information transfer
Expert systems/PC-based models
Computer-assisted/interactive
training
Videoconferencing
Overall •
3.98
(1)
3.89
(2)
3.76
(3)
3.50
(4)
3.41
(5)
3.33
(6)
2.95
(7)
2.87
(8)
2.77
(9)
2.64
(10)
2.54
(11)
2.53
(12)
2.49
(13)
2.31
(14)
1.88
(15)
CERCLA
3.89
(1)
3.86
(2)
3.71
(3)
3.52
(4)
3.32
(6)
3.34
(5)
2.67
(8)
2.90
(7)
2.55
(9)
2.38
(12)
2.54
(10)
2.48
(11)
2.37
(13)
2.12
(14)
1.79
(15)
RCRA
4.14
(1)
3.87
(2)
3.83
(3)
3.25
(5)
3.38
(4)
3.17
(6)
3.08
(7)
2.53
(10)
2.69
(9)
2.84
(8)
2.40
(11)
2.33
(14)
2.33
(13)
2.34
(12)
1.90
(15)
Other
4.00
(1)
3.86
(2)
3.57
(3)
3.54
(4)
3.53
(5)
3.35
(6)
3.29
(8)
3.34
(7)
3.21
(9)
2.91
(10)
2.68
(13)
2.82
(11)
2.74
(12)
2.59
(14)
1.85
(15)
Key:   Average rating
          (Rank)
                                       56

-------
                            Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
preferences alone do not determine the most appropriate delivery methods. Regional management
and staff consistently report that staff are overloaded with information and do not have time to
assimilate it all.  Regional respondents also rate seminars, workshops, and conferences as very
useful; however, as discussed in a later  section, Regional staff frequently have problems with
travel funds and scheduling time away from the job.

  Interviews with OSWER branch chiefs  indicated that headquarters is much more  likely to
endorse  alternative delivery  methods,  such as electronic  information  transfer and  video.
Headquarters is  generally concerned with broader audiences, including state agencies,  the
regulated community, and the public.  Typically, OSWER program offices are also the source
of resources for development of technology transfer products and activities, and must  therefore
consider the most cost effective means of delivery. The Office of Solid  Waste indicated that
their target  audience for technology transfer includes  State as well as Regional permit and
compliance staff, the regulated community,  numerous trade associations and industry groups, and
local municipal solid waste management officials, among others.  While they emphasize  the
importance of guidance, handbooks, workshops, seminars, and symposia for Regional staff, OSW
management feels that technical and policy guidance documents are under-utilized because they
are  usually  too lengthy and inconvenient  to use;  they also are not well publicized.4  OSW
management also feels that other formats,  such as videotapes, hotlines,  and electronic bulletin
boards  serve useful purposes  and are  cost effective  for large  audiences.   The Office  of
Underground Storage Tanks targets state and local  regulators, contractors  and consultants, and
Responsible Parties at hundreds of thousands of corrective action sites nationwide.  Accordingly,
OUST  has  focused on  a number of  outreach products  including technology summaries,
handbooks, and videotapes—as they consider conferences, workshops, and hotlines too costly for
the  size and diversity of the UST audience.

  The Office of Emergency and Remedial Response focuses more specifically on Regional staff
involved in  the Superfund program, EPA contractors, State project managers, PRPs and their
contractors.   Their preferred  delivery  systems include guidance  manuals and handbooks,
conferences and workshops, technology summaries and bulletins, as well as  automated databases,
expert systems, and electronic  information transfer.  OERR management also expressed  the
opinion  that it may be  necessary to disseminate technical information in a variety of  forms or
delivery methods, so that the user has the information available in his or her preferred format.
Both RCRA and CERCLA audiences are  targeted by the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement.
While OWPE managers emphasized the  importance of guidance manuals,  handbooks,  and
workshops for Regional  staff,  they  also felt that high-quality  videotapes  and electronic
information  transfer is useful.  OWPE is also working with OSWER in developing EPA's first
interactive videodisc training program on Land Disposal Restrictions.  OSW and OWPE both
stressed the importance of providing workshops or training along with new guidance or  manuals,
so that Regional staff might use this information appropriately.
    4Memorandum and attached paper from WMD Director to Director of OSW, October, 1987:
Improving the utility of WMD (and OSW) Guidance.

                                           57

-------
                            Technology Transfer Delivery Systems
  Several respondents at headquarters and in the Regions commented that they do not trust
expert systems. Some feel that once they have gone to the trouble to input all the required facts
and information, they can reach a better solution using  their own judgement;  while others
question the quality control aspects of developing and maintaining expert systems. Automated
databases may be similarity distrusted.  Respondents both in headquarters and in the Regions
expressed the opinion that currently available databases are incomplete and not kept up-to-date.

  Examination of delivery system preferences across Regions shows few differences. Guidance
manuals, Technical reports and handbooks, and Seminars and  workshops are the highest rated
delivery methods for all ten Regions,  as can be seen in Table 5-2.  Similarly, Technology sum-
maries/bulletins, Conferences, and Technology demonstrations are rated above average in utility
by all Regions. However, a  few Regions also rate  some of the remaining delivery systems as
above average in usefulness.   Regions I, II, IV, and X rate Automated databases as useful and
Hotlines are considered useful by Regions II, III,  VI, DC, and X.

  Two additional  items included in  the questionnaire  address the topic  of combinations of
delivery systems and recommendations to improve the utility of existing systems.  Respondents
were asked to indicate which  of the delivery systems listed in the previous question are best used
in combination, such as guidance manuals with workshops, or a technology bulletin with a report.
Suggestions for combinations of delivery methods were made  by  186 respondents (or  78% of
respondents).  The  great  majority of these (123  or 52%)  recommend that guidance manuals,
technical reports, or handbooks be accompanied by a workshop or seminar.  (This combination
was given  as an example in the questionnaire.)  Other combinations of interest to Regional
respondents include: guidance, reports or handbooks with a technical demonstration (30 or 16%);
guidance, reports or handbooks with technical summaries or bulletins (12 or  6%);  guidance,
reports or handbooks with computer-assisted instruction (9 or 4%); and automated databases with
computer-assisted instruction (5 or 2.5%).

  Recommendations for improvements in delivery systems were also solicited  by asking what
could be done to improve the utility of available systems that are not found useful.  This short
answer question received 142 responses (59% of  the overall sample), which were analyzed for
content and coded  into 8  separate categories.  Respondents recommend:

  • Improved access to computers or systems (32 individuals or 22.5% of the sample)

  • Better targeted or more specific products (14  or 10%)

  • Broader dissemination of what is available (13 or 9%)

  • Training on the use of computer  systems (12  or 8.5%)

  Among the other recommendations mentioned by one or more respondents are:  improve
available training,  reduce the amount of paper that must be  processed,  provide more timely
technology transfer, and improve quality assurance of technology transfer products.
                                           58

-------
                               Technology Transfer Needs Assessment








1
a:














X



NM
>
*




ES
_







«
•8 f=
e5 w
I Technology Tr
Delivery Sys
en ^"^
„. ^


S C
en ^
en "^
c- —.
*r '*"'

cn
2 ^
Se
en s~'
OO ,-*.
en «


^ "*"*'





11 Guidance manuals
II
*s
•«• ,—.
en "•'

S e*
en •-•
00 fj
en "-'
vo ^

Ss c-
en '-'
-S
00 £$
en ^
en fj


ON CN
en ~~*




m
Technical Reports/Handboo
I
oo ^^
en en
en —
o ^
en

So C— '
en
en ****
8-
"^

en
en ""^
Tf ^-^
en "^^
3*
en **^

"»





Seminars/workshops
Se
8 Co
en


en
en '*-'
f"*
en
9 -^
^
cs ^^
en N
9 -
en ^-"
8W
"" ^

e^S-



S
§
II Technology summaries/buli
^ s
en
r* oo

es C
2s
en-
CS >— '
en -^
(N O

es C-
bo
.S
.5
s

1 Computer-assisted/interactiv
\n ^
»?
O N^>

O c*^
cs 0
S 9"
es C-
SS5-

2J?
HOI
S en"
CN O
«^

Sv7
es' C-

_: 0

1
,


OO 1
|
 o
'So
 tu
05
 U3

CO

 >.

 O*

 I
 o
"o
 O

 CD


 "es



 CJD

 l_

 >
                                                   59

-------
                            Technology Transfer Delivery Systems
5.2 Important Sources of Information

   Respondents were asked to rate the importance of a dozen potential sources of technical
information that are available to support staff in hazardous and solid waste. A scale of 1 ("not
at all useful") to 5 ("extremely  useful")  was provided, with zero representing  unfamiliar or
inapplicable information sources.  The overall results of this item are provided  in Table 5-3,
along with breakdowns for RCRA, CERCLA, and other programs.  The top three information
sources based on ratings of usefulness include:  Other professional staff in  my office; EPA
Regional, Headquarters, or Laboratory Library; and EPA Headquarters Contacts.  Other sources
that rate above average in usefulness include Supervisor, branch, or division; State  agencies; and
ORD laboratory contacts. The only significant differences found between programs are that
CERCLA respondents find Other federal agencies and Technology vendors to be somewhat more
useful sources of information than do RCRA respondents.

   Several of the general comments from respondents  addressed the availability of technical
information, especially print materials. In general, respondents indicate  that sending a single
copy of a report to the Division director or branch chief is inefficient, and that they  are frequently
unaware  or unable to locate a copy of important technical documents.

   As a followup to the question on information sources, respondents were asked to list examples
of technology transfer products from other federal agencies that they use in their work.  Thirty-
three percent of the respondents did so, also indicating  the specific agencies that produced the
information they use.  The U.S. Geological Survey was by far the most frequently listed source
of technical information among other federal agencies, constituting 41 respondents  (52% of those
listing technology transfer products from other federal agencies). Another 22 respondents (28%)
listed technical information from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, specifically
the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH).  The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the  Agency  for Toxic Substances  and Disease Registry (ATSDR) are each
mentioned as technical resources by  14 individuals (17%), and the Departments of Defense and
Energy are each listed by  12 respondents (15%). Other federal agencies  mentioned by two or
more respondents include  the  National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences  (NffiHS),
Department of the Interior (DOI), National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration (NO A A),
and  the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

   Ratings of information sources by Region were also  examined. Table 5-4 presents average
usefulness ratings and rankings for each  of the 12 information sources by Region.  Regional
ratings correspond quite closely to the overall ratings, and show considerable agreement across
Regions.  Regions II, III, IV, VI, and X are somewhat more likely to view EPA Headquarters
Contacts as useful.  Supervisor, branch, or division is rated slightly higher by Regions I, II, HI,
V, VII, and IX than by the other Regions. Regions  n and III rate State agencies as somewhat
more useful,  and Region II has the highest rating for ORD Contacts.
                                           60

-------
                       Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
              Table 5-3. Average Usefulness Ratings of Sources of
              Technology Transfer Information by Program Area
Sources of Technology
Transfer Information
Other Professional Staff in my
Office
EPA Regional, Headquarters, or
Laboratory Library
EPA Headquarters Contacts
Supervisor, Branch or Division
State Agencies
ORD Laboratory Contacts
Other Federal Agencies
Technology Vendors
ORD Regional Scientist
Affiliated Universities
Center for Environmental
Research Information (CERI)
Clearinghouses
Overall
4.02
(1)
3.10
(2)
3.04
(3)
2.98
(4)
2,63
(5)
2.48
(6)
2.06
(7)
2.30
(8)
1.88
(9)
1.53
(10)
1.35
(11)
1.18
(12)
CBRCLA •
4.04
(1)
2.99
(3)
2.89
(4)
3.04
(2)
2.54
(6)
2.55
(5)
2.43
(7)
2.16
(8)
1.85
(9)
1.58
(10)
1.40
(11)
1.33
(12)
RCRA
3.99
(1)
3.28
(2)
3.21
(3)
2.81
(4)
2.72
(5)
2.24
(6)
1.56
(9)
1.65
(8)
1.83
(7)
1.24
(10)
1.22
(11)
0.91
(12)
Other
3.69
(1)
3.18
(3)
3.20
(2)
2.41
(6)
2.52
(5)
2.59
(4)
2.00
(9)
2.15
(8)
2.25
(7)
1.82
(10)
1.52
(11)
1.23
(12)
Key:   Average rating
         (Rank)
                                      61

-------
                                Technology Transfer Delivery Systems
 o
I

 I
 en
 _o
 "o
 1
 o
 en
 oc
 2
 Ol
 CU
 z












c
o
of
OS


















X

X



"*"
=


tj
^



>

^


B

B


^«



^> e
00 §
» Sources of Technok
Transfer Informal!

CN O

£o
"*

co O
co ~—
So
co " '

co O
rf ^"



CO ^

CT\ ^-«
CO ^^

*'~

ON O
co ^-^
O 	
CN O
"*
O
£
0

p
Other Professional Staff in
o ^

co' "~^
8^
co

CN
co ~~^
oo co"
CN ^

O co"
co v-'



CN ^

\O TJ-
CN "~^
OO ^^
"^1 CN
CO ^
oo ^^
>-< CO
CO "—'

NO CN
co ^

i_
O

IEPA Regional, Headquarter
Laboratory Library

0 to-
co' ^
Sc?
CN v-"
vn

CN v~'
o ^-^
CN ^
o
<*! CN
CO



oo ^
CN ^
xO
p cN
CO ^"'
VI
X CO
CO v~'
[-- ^
CN CN
CO ~~~

OO -^j-
CN ^




EPA Headquarters Contacts

>n <3"
CN ^
OO _
o fT
co ^"''

co ^p
CN ^
TJ- 	
CN CN
CO

P"- in'
CN "-'


CO ^^
co

(>• r<">
CN ^

CO "-''
ON ~
0 ^P
co '-''

co co
CO ""'




[Supervisor, Branch, or Divi

t~~ (/•>"
CN ""^
.^
CN ^

. P
CN ^-^
S Co"
CN ^

f~~ ^
CN ^



co "— '

CN P
CN ^
O s-*.
CN s-'
t~- 	
O in
CO -s^

CN Cn"
CN ^^




I_ 	 . 	 	 	 —
Slate Agencies

ON ^
CN ^
CN ^_,


O vo
CN ^
JO^
CN "^


CN ^



»-« ^

^ in
CN ^
in 	 	 	
CN ^-^

o Co"
CO ^^
O ^.
oq ^
CN "— '




ORD Laboratory Contacts

•••' oo"
CN "— '
ON ^^
f) OO


ON oo

SP


ON oo
f-H ^~*



CS s~'
t~ ^_
C5 oo
CN s-'
t— ^_^
CN ^-^

•-*. So"
CN "^

O \o
CN ^-^




Other Federal Agencies

p o

co zz-.
CN O
-^

— in"
CN ^~*
OO ^^
O in
CN '— '

CO P
CN ^



ON oo
OO ._
co Co
CN ~~~^
CO _.
oq cy

CN P
CN ^-^
CO . 	 .
ON P





1 Technology Vendors
CN -^
CO P
CN '—'
^P


^o 3^

c^ ^^


P 0
1-H x_^



^ 2!^
m _^
C\ ON
»—(

CN '-"'

o 5^
CN x~'

"t. ON'





ORD Regional Scientist

O ON
CN ^
OO JH'
o ~~-

>n o
-^
05-
-^

Ox &?
*— < N™"x



-'=-
^^
•tf O
-^

s o

CN O


r^- ocj
»— i **"''




Affilitated Universities

"") S

&&



~~
SO
~~

Tf *~*
I-M s_*-



SB

r-1 CN
f-H v^X
co ^
vo O

**t S
«-H -**~s

tN *^

J=
M
s
§3
1 Center for Environmental R
Information (CERI)

2 CN

3?r
o O

OO CN
O C-
f — ^.^


•tr —»
*•"* ^^ x



2 E

cN r~~l
r~ i '^^

1
I
oq CS II
0~

co O





Clearinghouses
                                                                                                         2
                                                   62

-------
                            Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
  In general, these important sources of information—other professional staff, EPA libraries, and
EPA headquarters contacts—suggest networks for coordinating technology transfer information
most likely  to be  successful.  Sources not now considered important or typically  used by a
majority of the respondents could also become coordination points for technology transfer, but
additional effort will need to be expended in letting Regional staff know that useful information
is available from that source.
5.3 Constraints in Use of Technology Transfer Products and Activities

  The final set of items in the questionnaire asked respondents to rate the constraints that they
had experienced in the use of technology transfer products and services on a scale of 1 ("no
problem")  to 5 ("severe  problem").   The list of ten potential constraints contained in the
questionnaire had been developed on the basis of previous studies, such as the 1986 Technology
Transfer Needs Assessment for Superfund  and  the  Technology  Transfer  Priorities  Study
developed by OSWER and ORD in  November, 1988. Ratings of problems or constraints in the
use of technology transfer products  and activities by program area are presented in Table 5-5.

  First among  the problems encountered by Regional staff in effectively accessing and using
technology transfer information is a lack of sufficient time due to pressing job responsibilities.
Thirty-six percent of the overall sample rate this as a "severe problem," and this is consistent
across program areas.  This issue has been widely recognized in several reviews of the Superfund
program (e.g., 1986 Technology Transfer Study, 1988 Technology Transfer Priorities Study, and
the recent Management Review of the Superfund Program), as well as by OSW management.
Approaches to alleviating the problem have ranged from alternative technical information delivery
techniques (such as summaries, bulletins, and automated abstracts), to mandatory training, and
to proposals for additional technical  support and additional FTEs  to ease the  work load of
Regional staff.  One of the consequences of this situation is that field staff do not take the time
to keep informed of new technical information as it becomes available. Regional staff report that
they need to be able locate and access technical information at the appropriate time, indicating
that training will be attended or reports read only if they are relevant to an immediate problem.

  Two of the most serious problems encountered in utilizing technology transfer products and
activities involve awareness of what is available.  Seventy-three percent of respondents consider
this to be a moderate  to  severe problem (rating of 3 to 5), while 65% feel that learning about
technology transfer activities in sufficient time to take advantage of them is a moderate to severe
problem. This finding suggests that  greater effort needs to be expended in communicating about
technology transfer activities.  A technology transfer newsletter to broadly disseminate  this
information has frequently been recommended, and OSWER will soon begin publication of a
technology  newsletter which  will provide bi-monthly updates on  many technology transfer
activities.  Some  Regional staff report that while they have frequently had  trouble locating
technical and guidance information in the past, recent print and electronic information directories
are useful (e.g.,  OSWER Training Calendar, Electronic  Bulletin Board, and Region Ill's
automated technology transfer information directory).  Also most Regional Waste Management
Divisions  are  establishing  their  own information repositories  for  printed materials  and
announcements.
                                           63

-------
                            Technology Transfer Delivery Systems
                 Table 5-5. Constraints in Use of Technology Transfer
                       Products and Activities by Program Area
Technology
Transfer Constraints
Unable to take sufficient time
away from job responsibilities
Not aware of available tech
transfer products or activities
Insufficient travel funds

Not aware of tech transfer
activities in sufficient time to
plan
Aware of tech transfer products,
but access is too difficult
Limited access to computers or
modems
Need for basic computer training
Information is not collected,
assembled, or published by EPA
Unsure of applicability to job
responsibilities
Do not trust source of technical
information
Overall
3.72
(1)
3.23
(2)
3.05
(3)
3.00
(4)

2.96
(5)
2.80
(6)
2.47
(7)
1.92
(8)
1.81
(9)
1.69
(10)
CERCLA
3.67
(1)
3.02
(2)
2.50
(6)
2.86
(4)

2.97
(3)
2.66
(5)
2.35
(7)
1.85
(8)
1.64
(10)
1.67
(9)
RCRA
3.81
(1)
3.45
(3)
3.72
(2)
3.16
(4)

3.05
(5)
3.01
(6)
2.56
(7)
2.03
(8)
2.01
(9)
1.66
(10)
Otter
3.42
(2)
3.43
(1)
3.25
(4)
3.37
(3)

2.65
(5)
2.44
(6)
2.44
(6)
1.97
(7)
1.64
(8)
1.55
(9)
    Key:
Average rating
   (Rank)
  A related problem, also among the top five delivery system constraints, concerns situations in
which  Regional staff are aware of available  technology transfer products, but access is too
difficult (e.g., problems are encountered in locating reports, or information is too disorganized
or difficult to assimilate). A more coordinated technology transfer program at the Regional level,
better targeted  technology transfer products, and more and better communications within the
Agency are called for.  Although numerous activities are now underway to address this issue, it
continues to be a central problem in technology transfer for OSWER.
                                            64

-------
                            Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
  The availability of sufficient travel funds is rated as a relatively serious problem in taking
advantage of technology transfer activities.  This is also the one area in which RCRA respondents
report significantly more difficulty than CERCLA respondents.  Technology transfer planners in
OSWER and ORD are well aware of this problem  and are making efforts to bring seminars,
workshops, and meetings to the Regions whenever  possible.  This problem is  exacerbated by
relatively high turnover rates among Regional staff (estimates range from 15% to 25% and vary
by Region), leading to the examination of alternatives,  such as videotape or interactive video-
conferencing, to ensure  that technical information is available when it is needed and to avoid
travel restrictions.

  Limited access to  computers or modems and  the need for basic computer training are also
considered problems, but less serious than those  already mentioned. The Superfund office has
made a commitment to "ensuring that all key field staff have immediate access to personal
computers, portable computers for the field, related hardware and software, and communications
capabilities  to  access   OSWER   information  systems."5    Current  problems  focus  on
communications software and knowing how to  use it, as well as being aware of available
automated information systems and  developing the skills  to access them.  The  solution to this
problem for RCRA staff is less clear.

  Table 5-6 displays the average rating of seriousness  and the ranking of technology transfer
constraints by Region.  Although it is difficult to make comparisons among the Regions due to
differing response rates to the survey, the data reveal potential differences between the Regions
in some areas.  For example insufficient travel funds seems to be a more serious constraint for
Regions  IV, VI, and X.  Additionally, limited access to computers and modems is considered
more of a problem by respondents in Regions VI and X.

  These constraints to the use of technology transfer information  should be considered in any
attempts to  provide useful technical products and  activities to the Regions.    For example,
bringing seminars and workshops to the Regions reduces the time that staff must spend away
from their job responsibilities, and alleviates problems with travel funds. The fact that Regional
staff are frequently not aware of technology transfer products and activities,  or not aware  in
sufficient time to use them suggests  that greater coordination and better advertising of products
is needed.  Difficulty  in accessing technology  transfer information could result in the best
technical information being ignored by those who  need it most. Technology transfer information
must be better targeted, more easily located, and succinct if it is to be useful. Finally, continuing
problems with access to and skills in using personal  computers and electronic information must
be considered when these delivery systems are selected for technology transfer.
    5 A Management Review of the Superfund Program, EPA, Office of the Administrator, Spring,
1989.

                                           65

-------
                            Technology Transfer Delivery Systems
V)
I

>> C
§*.!
o  g>
£-
^  va
**S  <"
Q  •—
w  *•*

II
c  <:
«  "S
—  c
.5  °*
"3  w
 5
 O
















"So
O)
ftS












^


X

!_
M
>

|^


KJ



^

^,

C


e


M



1 Technology
Transfer Constraints

'—' «— «
Tj- ^
Os ^

en
oo
f~- i— •
en ^
^
OO ^
en ^~^

CN ,— <
•^ ^"^


oo ,_,
en
OSR
en ^
0 ^
en ^

O ^
"^

1 — ' 1 — '
en ^


.1
.s
'2
3
C/3
o ^
2 1

^ ^j-
en "^

en CN
en ^

en cN1
en ^
CN
— ; en
en ^ ^
^
CN vo
en ^


•* cs"
en ^"^
oo
"— ' en
en ^-"
oo ^~,
CN "^
en , 	 .
en CN
en ^
oo ^_,
O CN
en ^


INot aware of available tech
transfer products or activities

oo CN"
en

w*l i/~f
CN ^~*

en en
en ^~*

ob v-f
CN v~'
Os
•— en
^ ^^


CN ^^.
<*1 en
en "^
en..
en s^
S ^
CN "-'
r-H
vo 0
CN "~^

•O Tj-
CN ^"^


| Insufficient travel funds

q vo
en

r~; en'
CN ^"^

CN T^
en ^ '
OS
r~" CN
en ^ ^
en
^" ^J"
en ^^


c£ ^
CN ^^
VO 	 	 ,
en ^
^K
CN s-x
CN ,_,

en v~'
en ^_^
en vo
CN ^


||
ii
JS 'o
o £
^—1 V
° -S
o '^
z «

"^ n
csi ^^
CN s~>

CN ^^

oo r-.
CN ^


Os VT"
CN "^
8^
en ^^
«•"> ^v
CN "^

en en
en "^

vo cn^
CN '*-'
v
8
o
3
WJ
1
11
§ o
gs
< .a

vo en
en
CN
vO rj-
CN ^
OS
>O vo
CN ^
VO
oo vo
CN ^
CN
en CN
Tf ^


en ,^
^ c~-
CN ^
0 ^
CN ^
0_
CN '^

VO t^
CN "— '

^" >O
CN ^-^

u.
1 Limited access to computers c
modems
o ^-,

CN "~^

*"*. t —
CN "^

'T t~~
CN ^
0
oo P
CN ^
OS
CN >/-)
en


oo .^
<0 Co"
CN '^
^ ,—,
CN ^^
en ._,
en Co
CN "-^
en , 	 .
CD ^.
CN ~-^
en .-s,
Os P

w>
c
S
o
o
'c/3
U<
T3
0 ^

CN ^^
<^ ^-v

~~
VO ^-,

'"^
OS ^_
0 So
CN ^^
Wl ^_
r- S?
>— i ^~^


en ^
q oo
CN ^
op
CN ^
Og,


Os o?

en , 	 ,
oo oo


0
Ilnfo not collected, assembled,
published by EPA

q P
CN ^

r-t QO
r-<

O oo
CN ^^
VO
OS o"T
.— < v — '
en £^>
-t 2
>— < -^


q o?
'N
\o o
I— t ^ — '
t> 0?


^°. &


\o ^
1— 1 S— •


1 Unsure of applicability to job
resoonsibilities
o ^
""> oo
CN ^
oo ^>
o o
I-vx











p: g^
~~
oo
oo £N"

"~- S"
^H •^^ll'
oo sr~
>n O


vS o7


o
IDo not trust source of technic
information
                                                                                        00
                                                                                        .5
                                            66

-------
                            Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
5.4 Relating Delivery Systems to Technical Needs

  One of the major purposes of the Needs Assessment was to attempt to relate specific technical
needs with particular delivery systems or methods. In general, the findings of the survey show
a great deal of consistency across programs and Regions in both technical needs and delivery
system preferences and constraints.   Because of the consistency of needs across programs,
Regions, and most background items measured in the study, there was little likelihood that these
variables would be effective in determining differences in preferred delivery  systems.

  Other  considerations important in selecting the most appropriate delivery system were not
measured directly in the study.  The size of the audience is an important characteristic, as various
delivery  methods  have different costs depending on  the  size of  the user audience.  More
expensive development costs can be justified on  the basis  of lower delivery costs per person.
However, for the  most part, data collected in the current study is relevant  to all Regional
hazardous and solid waste program staff.  While some information on end-user audiences (such
as State  agency staff, EPA contractors and the regulated community)  was collected from the
Regional respondents,  they were not the focus of the study, and  their needs were not directly
measured.  In addition, no data was collected on costs,  level of presentation/complexity, or
characteristics of the available knowledge  base. Furthermore, the survey contains no valuative
data on success of various delivery methods in providing technical information to the Regional
staff. Each of these limits the ability of the study  to empirically determine the most appropriate
delivery method to meet a given technical need.

  The survey data did allow an examination of the relationship  between technical needs and
preferred delivery systems for Regional respondents.  Correlations were computed between each
of the 40 technical needs and 15 delivery systems to provide an approximation of which delivery
systems should be considered first for meeting the  various needs. Partial correlations controlling
for program  area  and Region show  some variation in  the relationships between needs and
delivery  systems, suggesting somewhat different patterns for RCRA and  CERCLA. However,
since the technical needs for the two programs correspond so closely, it was felt  that these minor
differences in delivery system preferences would be less important than other considerations, such
as available resources.  Results of the correlational analysis are presented in Table 5-7.  For each
of the 40 technical needs, the two or three highest correlations are highlighted. These range from
a high of about 0.50 to a low of approximately 0.20.  Smaller correlations that are nonetheless
highly significant are also  indicated.  Finally, the  15 highest rated technical needs are shaded in
the table for easy recognition.

  Relationships between ratings of importance for technology transfer needs and specific delivery
systems indicate that those respondents demonstrating the greatest need for a technical item are
also likely to find the related delivery system useful. This does not necessarily mean that a given
delivery  method will be most appropriate for meeting that need.  Numerous  other factors, such
as those  discussed above, must also be taken into consideration.  The remainder of this section
discusses recommended and potential delivery methods for the most important  needs identified
by the survey for Regional hazardous and solid waste personnel.

   In general, technical bulletins, demonstrations, videotapes, and technical reports are among the
delivery  methods most highly  correlated with technical needs.  Guidance manuals, workshops,

                                           67

-------
                            Technology Transfer Delivery Systems
and computer-based models or expert systems also show a number of significant correlations with
observed technical needs.  Among the top 15 technical needs for the overall sample, all show
significant correlations with technical bulletins/summaries, and most are highly correlated with
technical demonstrations and technical reports.  Other  delivery methods correlated with  the
highest rated technical needs include workshops, technology videos, guidance manuals, PC-based
systems, job aids, and  videoconferences.   On the other end  of the scale, conferences,
teleconferences,  and automated databases may be over-rated mechanisms, at least as far as
Regional respondents are currently concerned.

  Regional needs  for Establishing risk-based cleanup levels are most closely associated with
technical reports, technical bulletins, and videotape, although preferences for technical demonstra-
tions  and workshops  also  showed significant relationships.  Given the broad audience  and
apparent urgency of this need, it would seem that a technical bulletin and accompanying technical
report should be prepared first on this topic. Depending on the level of available resources other
potential delivery systems should be considered, such as accompanying workshops and technical
demonstrations.  A videotape of essential factors in  the process would  provide access to  the
information provided in the workshop or demonstration for those unable to attend, and would be
useful in addressing the need to disseminate this information to broader audiences among State
agencies and the regulated community.

  The two highest rated ground-water items are Ground-water monitoring and Fate and transport
of contaminants in the subsurface.  Preferences for  technical reports and technical bulletins/
summaries show strong associations with these needs, suggesting that they should be provided
for these topics. Workshops and technical demonstrations should be considered for providing the
needed technical information  on ground-water monitoring.  Computer models or PC-based
systems for fate and transport, if available, should be accompanied by demonstrations in their use.

  Technical bulletins/summaries and technical demonstrations are the delivery systems most
closely associated with needs  for information  in Alternative  and  innovative  treatment
technologies. Respondents apparently need to know  the basics  of how these systems work to
determine whether they may be applicable to a given remedial or corrective action problem.
Other technology  transfer  delivery methods closely  associated with needs for this type of
information include technical reports, workshops, and in some instances, videotape.  Needs for
General technical  information on the performance, limits, safety, and costs of treatments  and
Prototype remedy selection models  are  also  highly  associated with technical bulletins  and
demonstrations.    While it would also  seem reasonable to provide automated databases or
electronic methods for specific information on performance and costs of technologies, the survey
suggests that the individuals most in need of this type of  information would be less likely to use
information in these formats.  If these systems are to be used, training  or demonstrations may be
required as well.

   Technical  information  needs for  monitoring technologies, including  General  technical
information on  the use and limitations of field sampling and analysis methods  and Field
screening, soil vapor, and water sampling for hydrocarbons show significant associations with
a  number of  delivery  systems.    The  strongest correlations  are with   technical reports,
demonstrations, and technical bulletins or summaries. Preferences for workshops, guidance
                                           68

-------
                                Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
in

v

2,
"5
•a


 OT

 (A



|
I


I

•s
 •a
 a
gy
                      >>

                      J=
                  9   'I
ts
                                       $   *
                                   <» . ,K
                                                   '?
fo
£  '=
        .§
         &o
         o






It t/J










*1
j> •g
f— S
11
U
< "3
3 §
u S
5
2
H
11
HO
it
1
II
li
1!
1
cy
u
&
V]
e











.

.'0

-
o
'o
3
"S
•s





o





•

o

•
CO
1
l«
o
_o
I
o
o
"5
c
~o
•X







*





O

•••
n the subsurface







•




•
o


/^N.
^
«
QJ




o
•
o
•



o



•
CO
c








b


;. o-
',)
;•
o
*
"I
.a
1
to
C
'I








•




•
O
O
site inspection and evaluation


•





•





•

tack emissions








'•.o


#.
'Si
';

•. *
r sampling for hydrocarbons


0



•
•
•




0
o

£
in
o

•
o




0


o
o

•

1
BE
a



•



o






•













•


0
•
\ risk assessment



•



•








novement








•




•


1
1
c/5
3
1
XJ
S








•


o

'o

•













'•, ••
>


)f treatments














•
•
?A corrective action








•



'•:.. '
:.:•



                                                                                                   '«
2
o
1

1
ex
t/1
c
.s
trt
£
SO
^c
1
>
0
u.
a
-8
^
W5
U
3
CT
'e
1
"S
c
i
S
o
I
•s
n

C
•3
properties of
o
"5b
_o
>,
S
8.
X
•o
c
n
V3
i
a
1
tM
0
& limitations
§
|
§
1
a
H5
u
w,
o
T3
ra
.h
<
5
I
u
1
CO
<*i
VJ
a
o
3
.5
I
U
c
i
1
CD
1
^
•a
73
IE
.0
c
^
s
o.
T3
i
c
_o
s
•§
IS
J3
•u
s
•S
o
1
1

1
C/i
a
C/5
«
_>>
'5
u^
0
B
M
S
W)
<
n
a>
<
Qi
U
OS
"5
>>
la
.§
a.
a.
<
i
u
"S
1
A;
v:
•c
&0
_e
!§
1
8
on pcrformaii
c
.2
&2
c
C— l
VI
^
•s
&
• 8
.1
                                                   69

-------
                          Technology Transfer Delivery Systems
in
a
%
S1
1
_c
•s
c
1
D.
_C
Q






assurance for field operations
C

c

I
0.
f>n
ig MSW and hazardous waste throuf
u>
'an
C9
1
|


2
s
^
oo
"Z
1
I
1
!
I
i






1
T3
u.
i
V)
fl 	 ~
fl Location


I

I

1
1
-
1
e/> II
1
I
                                           70

-------
                            Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
manuals, and videotapes are also strongly associated with these needs.  It is possible that a number
of delivery methods should be developed to meet technical  needs  of the various audiences
requiring this type of information.

  Risk assessment: risk levels for RCRA wastes is also among the top rated technology transfer
needs of the overall sample.  Delivery  systems associated with this  need include guidance
manuals, technical bulletins or summaries, and job aids. A number of other delivery methods,
such as workshops and video, also are significantly correlated with ratings of the importance of
risk assessment. The choice of specific delivery systems for risk assessment information should
include one or more of these methods.

  Two additional needs rated in the top 15 for importance are Development and application of
Data  Quality  Objectives  in sampling and analysis  plans  and  Quality  assurance for field
operations.  Both items are  highly correlated with technical bulletins/summaries and technical
demonstrations.   Technical  reports, guidance  manuals, and  technology  videotapes are  also
correlates of the item  on DQOs.   It is  clear that a  variety of approaches are available for
developing technology transfer information for Data Quality Objectives, but that these should
include a technical summary and demonstration or instruction in their  application. The need for
technical information on QA  for field operations would probably benefit from a separate technical
summary, but might also be included in technology transfer materials developed in order to meet
the need for general technical information for field sampling and analysis.

  Most all of the technical needs rated as "quite" to "extremely" important by respondents to the
survey are also associated with the most preferred delivery methods, including technical reports,
summaries or bulletins, and technical demonstrations. Other important technical needs were also
related to alternative delivery methods, such as PC-based systems, technology videotapes, and
computer assisted instruction. Choices among these delivery methods and systems must be based
on a number of considerations.  Some of the most important  determinants in  addition to user
preferences include:   the timing of products/urgency of need; resources available;  level of
detail/complexity required; audience characteristics such as background and experience, turnover
rate among the audience, etc.  Training or demonstrations in use of  new systems is needed to
overcome negative attitudes  and skill deficiencies regarding automated databases and electronic
information transfer.  Institutional barriers, such as lack of access to computers and modems, and
insufficient travel funds also must be addressed by developers of technology transfer information.
Characteristics of the information itself and availability issues  (e.g., does the information exist,
can it be easily compiled, rate of change in technical information) must be determined by
technical experts.

  In targeting technical information to specific audiences, the above factors must be taken into
account, along with consideration  of how  the  audience  will use the  technical information.
Technology transfer developers must also ensure that products  and activities are well advertised
and coordinated.  Finally, the role of evaluation and  feedback  can not  be  overemphasized,
otherwise technology transfer developers will not know whether needs are being met, or how to
correct problems that persist.
                                           71

-------
                            Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
                    6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Considerations and Survey Limitations

  The main purpose of the needs assessment was to identify high priority Regional technical
information  needs over the  next three to four years for RCRA, CERCLA, UST, and other
OSWER program areas.  Since Regional personnel are not the only end-users of technology
(State agencies, the regulated communities, contractors, and others have operative roles in the
implementation of environmental protection legislation), another objective of the survey was to
identify key  OSWER audiences and their major technical needs. The final objective of the needs
assessment was to identify effective distribution mechanisms  for all of OSWER  and to relate
preferred delivery systems to observed needs.  No attempt was made to directly evaluate the
effectiveness of currently offered technology transfer products and activities.  Although some
current technology transfer products and activities are discussed in the report, no attempt was
made either to inventory technology  transfer  products and  activities, or to identify gaps in
technology transfer information.

  The survey corroborates  and extends the findings of a 1986  Technology Transfer survey
conducted for the Superfund Program.  The  1986 survey relied largely on group  interviews
conducted in the  Regions and focused on  particular planned or existing technology transfer
products, rather than a broader list of technical topics.  The previous study was  conducted
specifically  for the Superfund program and did not include RCRA, UST,  or other programs.
However, it is possible to  compare the previous findings with  the  results of the CERCLA
responses in the current study. Both surveys noted that about 50% of CERCLA respondents had
been in their current position for two years or less.  General technical needs for  Superfund
identified by both studies focused on treatment technologies, including innovative approaches to
remediation.   The 1986 needs assessment  found that guidance  documents,  training courses,
technical reports  and handbooks, and conferences  and seminars were  considered the most
effective delivery  methods, as did the present study.  However, technology bulletins  were rated
relatively low in effectiveness, whereas the present study found them to be "quite to extremely"
useful.  Increased ratings of the effectiveness of this delivery method is probably related to
greater experience with technical bulletins and summaries among  the Regional staff.  The
previous study also noted problems in locating, obtaining, and assimilating technical information,
and this does not appear to have changed greatly. The previous study strongly recommended that
a centralized distribution system, or clearinghouse be established  for all technical information;
while the present  study found more evidence to support Regional information centers.

  The needs assessment does not address potential research needs associated with high priority
technical topics.   The survey  listed technology transfer topics identified by  headquarters
management as important  for  accomplishing hazardous  and solid  waste goals.   Regional
respondents  were asked to  rate the  importance of  these needs to  accomplishing their job
responsibilities and to  identify other important technical topics.  Whereas  the findings of the
study may  have  implications for research needs,  the  availability of technical information

                                           73

-------
                             Conclusions and Recommendations
addressing these topics was not assessed, and no recommendations for research are included in
the report.

  While the needs assessment did not specifically address training needs, in practice, it is
frequently difficult to distinguish training and technology transfer needs. Respondents frequently
recommend  training to meet specific technical needs,  and workshops/seminars are one of  the
technology transfer delivery methods rated most useful by Regional staff.  In this regard,  the
study has considerable relevance to future training plans, as well as those for technology transfer.

  The survey relied on OSWER Regional personnel to identify professionals outside the Agency
who are important in helping OSWER accomplish its mission.  It did not independently  survey
these audiences because of the austere constraints on survey size established by the Office of
Management and  Budget.  Nsvertheless, OSWER Regional personnel  work closely with
professionals outside the Agency  to implement  hazardous and  solid waste legislation.  This is
especially true for State agency staffs, which were most frequently identified by RCRA and UST
personnel as their primary audience, and were also frequently considered an important audience
by CERCLA and BSD personnel.  Regional personnel also have close ties with EPA contractors,
which  CERCLA and BSD  personnel  most frequently recognize as their  primary  audience.
Because EPA Regional  personnel  are the main  contact for both  State  agency  staffs and
contractors on environmental issues, they are likely to be aware of the most urgent needs of these
groups.

  It is less clear whether the survey data on the technical needs  of the regulated communities
accurately reflect these groups' particular needs.   The  regulated communities are  a diverse
population including a wide variety of small and large hazardous waste generators, UST owners
and operators, potentially responsible parties, transporters, treatment facility operators, and others.
In general, Regional personnel who listed technical needs for the regulated community did  not
specify which subgroups within the community those needs addressed.  However, taken as a
whole, the Regional perception of the regulated communities' technical needs reveals that they
are probably quite similar to those of State agencies and contractors, and to their own as well.
Consequently, some technology transfer products designed for State agencies and EPA contractors
may serve the regulated  community, but further study would  be required to link product
development with those in the regulated community who would benefit most.

  Although the study design was  intended to survey a wide variety of  OSWER Regional
personnel at management and staff levels, the findings suggest that the sample population favors
experienced staff—those with at least three to five years in the Agency. This may have resulted
from the survey distribution scheme, but it may also be a relatively accurate view of the Regional
OSWER population. About half (49%) of the respondents, overall, had been in their current job
positions for two years or less. However, 85%  of respondents had been at EPA three or more
years.  This indicates that within  the Regions, there are  more personnel hired from within the
Agency  than  from outside.   While the sample  population  favors experienced  staff,  new
"inexperienced" staff may be a relatively small part of the total Regional OSWER population.
It should be noted that the survey sample did not include representation of the approximately  500
new Superfund staff that are being added to the Regional work force.
                                           74

-------
                            Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
   Two final dispositions should be kept in mind. Regional response rates varied widely, leaving
little confidence in the representativeness of data for a single Region. Finally, it was not possible
to stratify findings based on respondents' job responsibilities within legislative program areas
(such  as RCRA  permitting and  corrective action, or CERCLA remedial  and enforcement
programs) because of the extensive overlap of staff responsibilities in these areas.
6.2 Conclusions and Recommendations

  A significant proportion of technology transfer products and activities designed for EPA
Regional employees should be geared for a relatively sophisticated technical audience.  There
is a high level of experience, educational background, and knowledge of technical areas among
respondents—overall, and across legislative programs.  The typical survey respondent has been
in his or her current position for two years or less (49%), but has been with EPA for three or
more years (85%), and holds a graduate degree (63%) in a technical field (84%).  Evidence for
a high experience  level can be found in  the number of years respondents had been with the
Agency and the similarity of technical needs between  those who had been in  their  current
positions for less than two years and those who had been in their jobs for  longer times.  In
addition, Regional  employees generally have a strong technical background as demonstrated by
their educational experience. This finding is consistent with a recent OSWER survey of ground-
water training needs that identified advanced level training needs for solid and hazardous waste
staff. The results are also consistent with the practice among the Regions of providing technical
support staff with expertise in specific areas, or of developing "Regional Experts" or one among
the staff who concentrates on a specific technical topic.  These individuals would also require
relatively advanced technical delivery.  However, it may not  hold for the planned new hires in
Superfund.

  Technology transfer products on hazardous waste remediation should address both legislative
programs whenever possible.  The findings of the needs assessment show that the major OSWER
programs are converging on cleanup problems. The top ranked technical needs correspond quite
closely across RCRA and CERCLA programs. Approximately 74% of technology transfer topics,
are ranked  "quite"  to "extremely" useful by both CERCLA and RCRA respondents. Eleven of
the top fifteen technical needs were the same for both RCRA and CERCLA, and no significant
differences between the importance ratings of the two programs were found for these items.
Additionally, there were very few differences in delivery system preferences for the two major
hazardous waste programs, suggesting that similar delivery methods should be successful for both
programs.  However, the two programs differ in implementation and these specific differences
should be addressed in technology transfer products and services targeted to particular audiences.

  There is  considerable interest in technology transfer on Establishing risk-based cleanup levels
for various contaminants and site conditions. This is the highest ranked technology transfer topic
overall as well as  for both RCRA  and CERCLA.   Other important needs for both programs
include Fate and transport of contaminants in the subsurface, Ground water monitoring for site
inspection  and for evaluating the effectiveness of treatment, and  Alternative and innovative
treatment technologies. The alternative and innovative technologies include biological, physical,
and chemical treatment processes, stabilization and solidification, and thermal destruction. Two
                                           75

-------
                             Conclusions and Recommendations
related items are  also among the most needed topics:  General technical information on the
performance, limits, safety, and costs of hazardous waste treatment technologies; and Prototype
remedy-selection models for recurrent site situations.

    Technology transfer should focus on alternative and innovative treatment technologies, risk
assessment, ground water, remedy selection, field monitoring, and data  requirements.  In
general, Regional  staff in both the RCRA and CERCLA programs need to know how to establish
cleanup levels, how wastes move through the subsurface and affect ground water, how to monitor
in the field and  assure data quality,  how  to select  remedies, and  most importantly, which
remedies work and which do not in specific situations.  The fifteen highest ranked  technical
needs overall  and for CERCLA and RCRA reflect  a pervasive interest in hazardous waste
remediation.  Overall needs include:

   • Two items on risk assessment/treatment standards — (#1) Establishing  risk-based cleanup
    levels, and (#13) Risk levels for RCRA wastes.

   • Two ground water items — (#2) Fate and transport of contaminants in the  subsurface, and
    (#3) Ground-water monitoring for  site  inspection and for evaluating the effectiveness of
    treatment.

   • Two items on remedy selection — (#5) General technical information of the performance,
    limits, safety, and cost of treatments; and (#11) Prototype remedy  selection models for
    recurrent site  situations.

   • All five items on alternative and innovative  treatment technologies  — (#s 4, &  6-9)
    biological, chemical and physical treatment processes, stabilization/solidification, and thermal
    destruction.

   • Two items on field monitoring — (#10) General information on the use and limitations of
    field  sampling and analysis methods,  and (#12) Field screening, soil vapor, and water
    sampling for  hydrocarbons.

   • Two data requirements items — (#14) Quality assurance for field operations, and (#15)
    Development and application of Data Quality Objectives in sampling  and analysis plans.

   Technical needs appearing  among the top fifteen for RCRA and not for CERCLA or for the
overall  sample include Selecting and applying release  and flow control, and source control
technologies for  RCRA corrective action,  Minimal data requirements for a RCRA Facility
Investigation or  Corrective Measures  Study, and  Use of models for chemical mixture risk
characterizations.  For CERCLA, specific needs  include Applicability  of RCRA Treatment
Standards to Superfund, and Procedures for estimating costs for construction, operation, and
maintenance of remedies.  While there is clear agreement among the Regions over the highest
priority technical  needs, there are notable differences  in their relative priorities from Region to
Region.
                                           76

-------
                            Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
  A number of technology transfer activities  are currently being conducted or are planned to
address several of these top technical needs.  However, it is beyond the scope of this study to
assess whether or not these activities are likely to meet Regional needs. It would be prudent to
evaluate these technology transfer  activities to determine the extent to which technical needs
identified by this needs assessment are being addressed and whether the correct audience segment
is being reached.
RCRA Technical Needs

  Technology transfer products and activities are needed to support RCRA corrective action.
The highest ranked technical needs perceived by RCRA respondents indicate fairly extensive
Regional involvement in corrective action.  There is a high degree of overlap in responsibilities
among RCRA field staff, with 80% of respondents reporting responsibilities in more than one
RCRA program area.   This intertwining of permitting, compliance,  and corrective  action
responsibilities suggests that RCRA staff have  comprehensive needs for technology  transfer.
Establishing risk-based cleanup levels, selection and application of treatment/control technologies,
alternative and innovative treatment technologies, and data requirements are among the topics of
greatest importance to RCRA respondents. In addition, RCRA respondents rate ground-water and
risk assessment information among their top technical needs.  Several of these topics correspond
with those identified for Regional personnel by OSW's Corrective Action Workgroup.

  Although not a specific  focus of the survey, needs for technical  assistance as  well as
technology  transfer  information were frequently expressed by RCRA  respondents.   Both
headquarters and Regional participants in the needs assessment noted the discrepancy in programs
and services for providing technical  assistance for CERCLA  as compared to RCRA.  Given the
analogous missions of the  two programs and corresponding technology  transfer needs, it is
reasonable for RCRA staff to expect that similar technical assistance services be made available
to them.

  Technology transfer products should be targeted to meet specific needs of certain RCRA
audiences.  Regions with specific waste concerns, such as Subpart X and certain special wastes,
indicate sharply defined  technical information needs related to those wastes, which are not
generally perceived by other Regions to be important.  We recommend that these needs not be
ignored, even though the target audiences may be small.

  Although the survey attempted to explore technology transfer needs over the next three to four
years, there  was a tendency for respondents to value topics of immediate concern to their jobs
more  than  those that may  affect them in the future.  This is  best demonstrated  by RCRA
respondents perception of waste management topics (e.g., oil and gas management practices,
medical waste, hazardous waste treatment residues, municipal  solid waste, and locations standards
for  land disposal sites).  Several  technical topics  considered quite important  by headquarters
management rank fairly low among  Regional staff.

  There  is  generally widespread concurrence across Regions regarding the  most important
technical needs. However, within each Region, some areas of technical need, primarily State
programs such  as medical waste and municipal solid waste, appear to be very important to a

                                          77

-------
                             Conclusions and Recommendations
relatively  small number of Regional personnel.  These also are among the most  frequently
mentioned State agency staff needs. Thus, there may be important differences in technical needs
for  headquarters,  Regional,  and  State  programs  due to  differing responsibilities  for
implementation of the RCRA program. These differences in specific technical needs for various
segments  of the audience should  be explored further and addressed in the development of
technology transfer products in order to most effectively meet technical needs.

  State agency staff and the regulated community  should be considered when developing
technology transfer products for RCRA.  RCRA's primary end-users for technology transfer,
other than Regional staff, include State agency staff (53%) and the regulated community (29%).
The most frequently mentioned needs for these groups are in non-technical areas, such as general
information on the  program  and RCRA  regulations.   The three  most frequently mentioned
technical needs for both of these primary audiences include selection of cleanup technologies,
risk  assessment,  and monitoring topics, suggesting that these topics should be  considered for
technology transfer products designed for broad distribution.
CERCLA Technical Needs

  CERCLA technology transfer efforts should address: 1) establishing cleanup standards,
2) selecting and applying treatment technologies, 3) ground water, and 4) field sampling and
analysis.  Ten of the top fifteen CERCLA needs relate to moving sites into Remedial Design/
Remedial Action  and to SARA requirements for permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies.  Two items in the top fifteen concern Establishing risk-based cleanup levels for
various contaminants and site conditions,  and Applicability of RCRA Treatment Standards to
Superfund.  Establishing risk-based cleanup  levels  is rated as the number one technical need
overall, and is rated first or second by each of the Regions. Standardized methods for ecological
risk assessment, is also included among the top fifteen needs, reflecting concern with cleanup
goals to protect both human health and the environment.  Clearly,  establishing cleanup  levels is
the top priority technical need for Superfund.

  Alternative treatment technologies and the selection and application of remedies is another
critical area  for  technology transfer for CERCLA.   The second  ranked technical need for
CERCLA is General technical information on the performance,  limits, safety, and cost of
hazardous waste  treatment technologies.  All five of the alternative and innovative technology
items listed in the questionnaire—biological, physical, and chemical treatment, solidification and
stabilization, and thermal destruction—are  rated among  the top  seven technical needs for
Superfund.  In addition, Prototype remedy selection models for recurrent site situations, and
Procedures for estimating costs for construction, operation, and  maintenance of remedies are
among the most important technical needs for CERCLA.  Congressional deadlines for moving
sites to construction (e.g., mandated number of remedial action starts each year) will require that
this information be provided as soon as possible.  Rapid methods and approaches for technology
transfer will be required to disseminate information as it develops. For example, information on
the success  and  failure of remedies, and the results of  treatability studies  must be  almost
immediately available if they are to be of use in improving Superfund decision making.
                                           78

-------
                           Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
  Ground-water monitoring for site inspection and for evaluating the effectiveness of treatment,
and Fate and transport of contaminants in the subsurface are also rated among the top ten
CERCLA needs. Although the current needs assessment did not address the level of knowledge
of potential technology transfer audiences, other evidence suggests that these topics should be
addressed on an intermediate to advanced level. The recently completed Ground-Water Training
Needs Assessment found that a considerable amount of basic ground-water instruction is available
to the Regions,  and that these same two areas are among those for which advanced training is
needed. In addition, the background and experience of the Regional staff in this survey would
suggest that more advanced levels of presentation of technical information are appropriate.

  The  area of field sampling and analysis is important to the preremedial program as well as the
removal and remedial programs.  Two items addressing  this topic contained in the top fifteen
Superfund needs are:  General information on the use and limitations of field sampling and
analysis methods, and Field-screening, soil vapor, and water sampling for hydrocarbons. Shorter
time frames for  site characterization, additional data needs for Remedial Design, and the revised
Hazard Ranking System are all program developments requiring the dissemination of information
on small  scale, accurate, and efficient methods for field sampling and  analysis.

  Topics of concern to headquarters management that are not highly rated by Regional CERCLA
staff include more general information on risk assessment, quality assurance, and the development
and application  of Data  Quality Objectives.  As noted in Chapter 3,  these technical areas are
frequently addressed by support staff or contractors and may, therefore, be of less concern to the
majority of CERCLA staff included in the survey.  The survey also did not address a variety of
training and technical topics related to increased emphasis on enforcement. In fact, many of the
technical topics  are the same, and 65% of CERCLA staff indicate that they have responsibilities
in both remedial and enforcement areas.  However, growth in the Superfund enforcement program
and the integration of the remedial  and enforcement programs in most Regions have  led to a
number of challenges for Regional management.

  EPA contractors, State agency staff, and the regulated community should be considered
when developing technology transfer products for Superfund. CERCLA respondents identified
EPA contractors (44%), State agency staff (21%), and the regulated community of PRPs and their
contractors (13%) as their primary audiences.  These groups' technical  needs correspond closely
to those of Regional staff. The technology transfer needs  listed by respondents for their primary
audiences include  selection of cleanup technologies, monitoring,  alternative and innovative
treatment technologies, ground water, and risk assessment.  However, 20% of the needs listed
in response to this item address nontechnical topics such  as programmatic training or guidance.
Examination of  needs for dissemination of program and policy information are beyond the scope
of the  needs  assessment; however, this finding suggests that this  is an area that should be
explored further. The emerging trend towards nontechnical Remedial Project Managers (RPMs)
will impose a greater burden upon remedial contractors,  Environmental Service Division staff,
and technical support branches within Regional Waste Management  Divisions.  This may mean
that target audiences  for technology transfer will also change from emphasizing RPMs toward
these other support staffs.
                                          79

-------
                             Conclusions and Recommendations
UST and ESP Technical Needs

  The sample sizes for the Underground Storage Tank staff (10 individuals) and Environmental
Service Division staff (12 individuals) subgroups of the survey were too small for meaningful
statistical comparisons.  However, examination of the responses reveal that UST needs closely
parallel both CERCLA and RCRA with an emphasis on UST specific technical topics such as
Application of mitigation, removal, and treatment technologies to leaking underground storage
tanks;  and Leak  detection and prevention methods for underground storage  tanks.   UST
respondents were  also quite interested in health and safety information and training, especially
with respect to their primary audiences—State agencies and the regulated community.

  Environmental  Service  Divisions  perform various roles  in the  Regions,  but most  have
responsibility to support OSWER programs in monitoring, risk assessment, and sampling and
analysis.  The emphasis for technology transfer needs for BSD respondents correspondingly
focuses on topics  other than treatment technologies.  Their top technical needs include most of
the items related to ground water, field monitoring, data requirements, and risk assessment.  BSD
audiences include Regional staff,  EPA contractors,  and the regulated  community.  Technical
needs  identified for these  audiences include  subsurface ground-water  topics and statistical
analyses to confirm cleanup.
Technology Transfer Delivery Systems

  Printed technology transfer documents and workshops/seminars must be brief and clearly
applied to audience job responsibilities.  Respondents prefer print media (e.g., technical reports,
handbooks, technical bulletins/summaries) or direct interaction (e.g., workshops and seminars)
to electronic or automated media.  Ratings of the utility of fifteen delivery systems showed that
overall, and for both RCRA and CERCLA, the delivery methods rated most useful include
guidance    manuals,   technical   reports/handbooks,   seminars/workshops,   technology
summaries/bulletins,  and conferences and symposia.  Technology demonstrations, hotlines, and
automated  databases  are  considered somewhat useful.   Expert systems/PC-based  models,
computer-assisted/interactive training, and videoconferencing  are rated as least useful.

  The preference for print as opposed to electronic or other nontraditional media poses a conflict
in that the most serious constraint to technology transfer is generally the Regional staffs inability
to take sufficient time away from their job responsibilities to read reports or attend workshops
or meetings. Many individuals commented that there is an excess of print materials and  that they
do not have time to read  and  study  technical documents.  This contradiction  can  be  partially
resolved by technical  bulletins/summaries  and briefer, targeted  documents.   More specific
products that are directly applicable to respondents job responsibilities are also recommended by
Regional respondents. A major reason for low ratings of electronic and computer-based systems
lies with the lack of easy  access to personal computers and modems.  This is  particularly true
with RCRA Regional staff.

   Training in electronic media and expert systems mil be necessary to ensure their use.
Another solution to the problem of time required to assimilate written materials and attend
workshops and seminars is to develop and aggressively market alternative electronic media.  A

                                           80

-------
                            Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
considerable distrust of "expert systems" was evidenced in interviews and comments provided
by respondents.  While automated databases are considered somewhat useful by Regional staff,
expert systems/PC-based models are among the delivery methods rated least useful.  Regional
respondents to  the  survey are concerned about the actual ability of such systems  to aid in
decision making, the amount of effort that may be required to utilize them, the frequency with
which they are updated, and the quality control invested in their development.  OSWER and
ORD have already  developed  a number of automated databases and expert systems, and are
currently developing several more electronic systems to meet some of RCRA and CERCLA's
most pressing technical information  needs.  If they are to  be  used, it  will be  necessary to
overcome these attitudinal barriers by aggressively "marketing" these products to intended users.
Continuing  problems  with  access  to  computers,  modems, and  communications  software
(especially among RCRA staff) will also need to be addressed.

  Developers of technology transfer products should consider providing technical information
in more than one format whenever it is practical  to do so.  Most of the recommendations
received during the survey regarding improvements in the delivery of technology transfer concern
ways to make  access  easier and provide information  in a number of formats.   Respondents
recommend that guidance documents, technical reports and  handbooks be accompanied  by a
workshop or seminar,  technical summary, or demonstration to explain how they are to be used.
The use of such combinations of delivery  methods will  improve understanding of technical
documents, provide broader access, reinforce important technical lessons, and allow users to
choose the approach that best suits their needs from various delivery systems.   Therefore, a
variety of approaches  to technology transfer delivery will be  required to meet needs identified
by the needs assessment.

  Timing of technology transfer delivery is also a critical issue. Respondents noted that they do
not usually have the  time to attend workshops or seminars, or to read and study documents unless
they address a pressing problem at the present time. Turnover among Regional staff exacerbates
the problem of being able to access the right information at the right time. Providing information
in a variety of forms will help alleviate the problem of having  ready access to  technical
information when it  is needed.  Innovative approaches  to this problem  recommended  by
respondents include establishing videotape libraries to  provide a readily available overview of
technical information  with references  and contacts for more information, and a comprehensive
database of technical abstracts  to quickly locate appropriate documents.

  Regional technology transfer networks should  focus on professional staff within  the
Regional Waste Management  Division.  Survey findings regarding the most useful sources of
technical information  indicate that Regional staff are more likely to locate information among
other professionals in their office than any other source.  EPA libraries, and headquarters contacts
are the second and third most useful sources; with supervisor, branch or division typically rated
fourth in usefulness.  Respondents indicate  that, aside from having sufficient time, their most
serious problems in  utilizing technology transfer information involve being unaware of available
information and being unable to locate and easily access information. Comments received from
respondents suggest  that  problems in  information distribution schemes  continue  to  exist.
Technical staff are frequently unaware of or unable to locate a single copy of a technical report
that has  been sent  to the Division Director or branch chief.  Respondents prefer to locate
                                           81

-------
                             Conclusions and Recommendations
information within the Region, as Regional interpretation of technical issues may differ in some
specifics.  In addition, libraries frequently do not have copies of important technical documents.

  Distribution schemes for technology transfer information should include Regional resource
centers or technical coordinators if at all possible. Other points of coordination might include
Regional experts, technology transfer contacts, and technical support staff.  It should be noted
that Regional staff often do not recognize the source of technical information (e.g., technical
reports, bulletins, Technology Transfer seminars provided by CERI) and thus, are unaware of
where additional information on a given topic may be located.

  Regional  efforts at coordination of technology transfer should be supported.   Regional
offices are fairly large and diverse organizations. Even within the Regional Waste Management
Division, there may be problems with interoffice communication  and information distribution.
Seventy-three percent of respondents consider awareness of what is available to be a moderate
to severe problem, while 65%  feel that learning about technology transfer products and activities
in sufficient time to take advantage of them is a moderate to severe problem. This suggests that
greater  effort needs  to be  expended  in communicating about technology transfer activities.
Headquarters activities such as a technology transfer newsletter have often been recommended,
and recently developed directories of technology transfer information and contacts show potential
for helping to address these problems.  However, some Regional Waste Management Divisions
are developing their own library or repository of important technical information, and this
approach shows  an even greater likelihood of success.  Region III has developed an automated
technology transfer  system to  locate  technical  information  and inform staff  of upcoming
technology transfer activities.  A repository of technical information and technology transfer
products has also been developed to  provide easy access  to information located through the
system.

  Continuing problems with  access to and familiarity  with computers,  modems,  and
communications software should be addressed.   Limited  access to computers,  modems, and
communications software are still considered fairly serious problems in  accessing technology
transfer information by respondents.  Regional staff also noted a need for basic computer training.
The issue of computer literacy has  not been directly addressed by OSWER, but it likely continues
to play a role in limiting the potential utility of electronic and automated systems.  For example,
in interviews with headquarters  and Regional staff, although many respondents expressed fairly
positive opinions of the OSWER  Electronic Bulletin Board System, none acknowledged using
the BBS.  The Superfund Office has made a commitment to providing CERCLA staff with access
to personal computers, but  many had not received these at  the time the survey was conducted.
Moreover, even those with computers said they  had  difficulty in  communicating with distant
systems because of a lack of modems or unavailability of communications software.

   Technology transfer products and activities must be evaluated to determine whether technical
needs are being met  in the  most effective and efficient manner for specific audience segments.
The study contains recommendations for  possible technology transfer delivery methods for the
top rated Regional technical needs based on relationships between needs and preferred delivery
systems, but also notes that selection of delivery methods must be based on a number of other
factors as well.  OSWER's  relatively recent emphasis on technology transfer that began with the
OSWER Technology Transfer Strategy, published in 1986,  appears to have facilitated technical

                                           82

-------
                            Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
information  transfer to the Regions.  However,  as  shown by  the current study, a number of
barriers to technology transfer remain to be addressed, and the transfer of technical information
to audiences outside  the Agency is just beginning.  The success  of technical bulletins  and
summaries (as indicated by increased usefulness ratings since 1986)  indicates that it is possible
to promote  new delivery methods.  However,  as  yet,  no  systematic evaluation of delivery
methods for technology transfer has been attempted.  As needs for current, high-quality technical
information  intensify and more resources are invested in alternative delivery methods, the need
for evaluation also becomes more critical.
                                           83

-------
         Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
                 APPENDIX
List of OSWER Headquarters Interviews



Headquarters Interview Guide



Regional Survey Questionnaire
                    A-l

-------
                       Technology Transfer Needs Assessment
           OSWER TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER NEEDS ASSESSMENT
                  List of Headquarters Management Interviews
OSW
4   Alex McBride, Chief OSW Technical Assistance Branch
*   Bob  Tonetti, Chief OSW Special Waste Branch and Acting Deputy Director Waste
    Management Division
*   Elizabeth Colsworth, Chief OSW Assistance Branch
4   Sonya Stelmack, chemical engineer OSW Assistance Branch
4   Steve Levy, Special Assistant OSW Municipal Solid Waste Program
4   Mike Petruska, Chief OSW Waste Characterization Branch
*   Jim Berlow, Chief OSW Waste Treatment Branch
4   Denise Keehner, Chief OSW Permits Branch
4   Frank McAlister, OSW Permits Branch
4   Dave Pagan, OSW Permits Branch
4   Art Day, Chief OSW Land Disposal Branch
4   Jon Perry, OSW Land Disposal Branch

OUST
4   David O'Brien, Chief OUST Standards Branch
4   Venay Kumar, OUST Standards Branch

OERR
4   Randy Kaltreider, OERR/HSCD Site Policy and Guidance Branch
4   Robin Anderson, OERR/HSCD Site Policy and Guidance Branch
4   Bruce Means, Chief OERR/HSED Toxics Integration Branch and Health Effects Program
4   Bruce Englebert, Chief OERR/ERD Response Operations Branch
4   Sue Janowiak, OERR/ERD Response Operations Branch
4   Mike Carter, Section Chief OERR/HSED Analytical Operations Branch
4   Pat Wilkshire, OERR/HSED Analytical Operations Branch
4   Penny Hansen, Chief OERR/HSED Site Assessment Branch
4   Joe Lafornara, Chief OERR/ERD Environmental Response Branch

OWPE
4   Frank Biros, Chief OWPE/CERCLA Technical Assistance Branch
4   Glenn Hardcastle, Section Chief OWPE/CERCLA Compliance Branch
4   Candice Wingfield, OWPE/CERCLA Compliance Branch, Regional Coordination Staff
4   Scott Parrish, Chief OWPE/RCRA Enforcement Branch
                                     A-2

-------
      OSWER TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER NEEDS ASSESSMENT

      INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR HEADQUARTERS MANAGEMENT
Interviewee:
Title:
Office/Branch:
Date:
Purpose of Technology Transfer Needs Assessment

      One of the major activities planned by the Technology Transfer Subcommittee in
implementing  OSWER's Technology Transfer  Strategy is an assessment of the  technology
transfer needs of the Superfund, RCRA, and UST Programs.  As implementation activities expand
and OSWER programs grow and mature, the need for technological solutions to problems in the
field and for up to date technical information become more and more apparent.  The purpose of
the Needs Assessment is to ensure that resources for technology transfer are going  where they
are most needed.

      The objectives of the assessment are to update and expand earlier studies, to include all
OSWER program areas, to  identify high priority technology transfer needs,  and  to develop
criteria for selecting technology transfer delivery mechanisms.  The study is being conducted in
two phases:  (1) interviews with headquarters program office  management and (2) Regional
surveys including a questionnaire and site visits to selected Regions.  Your responses to this
interview will be used in  helping define program  priorities for technology  transfer and in
developing the questionnaire to be used in the Regional survey. The interview should require
approximately 45 minutes of your time.

-------
 1.   The OSWER  Technology  Transfer  Strategy  defines  technology  transfer  as  "The
     development and dissemination of OSWER and ORD technical information, techniques,
     and products to  a  pre-selected  audience to  facilitate  EPA's  regulatory  and/or
     enforcement functions."  The information, techniques, and products are intended to
     "improve the performance of hazardous  waste regulatory and management personnel."
     Question:
            Does this definition meet with your view of technology transfer?
     Answer:
Ib.   Question IF needed:
            If not, how would you define technology transfer?
     Answer:
 2.    Technical assistance is different from technology transfer and is defined in the OSWER
      Technology Transfer Strategy as "The  person-to-person transmission of technical or
      scientific information to  aid  specific  users  in solving a  specific  regulatory or
      enforcement problem in the field."
      Question:
            Does this meet with your view?
      Answer:
2b.   Question IF needed:
            If not, what is  your definition of technical assistance?
      Answer:
 3.   Although training and technology transfer respond to specific needs and are intended
      to improve job performance, they are different.  The basic distinction between them is
      that  training  is a continuing process of improving requisite knowledge, skills,  and
      abilities, while technology transfer improves or broadens use of tools that are available.
      For example, conferences, seminars, and workshops are generally considered technology
      transfer products by OSWER, while  established courses fall under training.  Training
      is defined in  the Strategy as "The development and presentation, on a continuing basis.
      of curricula designed to improve knowledge or skill required for individual or group
      performance  within the Agency's regulatory or enforcement functions."
      Question:
             Is  this distinction consistent with  your thinking?
      Answer:
                                         - 2 -

-------
3b.    Question IF needed:
            If not, how would you distinguish training and technology transfer?
      Answer:
 4.    By definition, technology transfer is developed and disseminated to specific audiences.
      Question:
            Is your primary audience...
            RCRA Regional permit writers, compliance officers, and corrective action staff,
                   state and local governments, and private sector owners and operators of
                   RCRA facilities, others?   OR
            SF     OSCs, RPMs, enforcement officers, others?  OR
            UST   states, regulated community and private sector, others
      Answer:
4b.   Question IF applicable:
            Which state and local governmental audiences have a compelling need for EPA
            technical products and skills in order to implement their part of your program?
      Answer:
4c.   Question:
            What about EPA contractors?
      Answer:
4d.   Question:
            Would  you try  to  estimate the number of individuals  who  need technology
            transfer in each  audience?
      Answer:
 5.   Question:
             What kinds of technology transfer products  or activities are being planned by
             your program office at present?
      Answer:
                                        - 3 -

-------
5b.   Question:
            Are these products  funded by your office, or jointly with ORD, OPMT, or
            others? (e.g.,  OSW technology transfer meeting on ATTIC July 27, 1989)
      Answer:
5c.   Question:
            Who will be  the audience(s)?
      Answer:
5d.   Question:
            What delivery method(s) will you use and why?
            (e.g., handbooks and guidance  manuals;  demonstrations;  conferences  and
            symposia; seminars and workshops; technical abstracts, summaries, and bulletins;
            technical videotapes; and computer-based formats including expert systems)
      Answer:
5e.   Question:
            Is the speed of dissemination of technical products an important consideration
            in selecting the delivery method(s)?
      Answer:
 5f.   Question:
             How were the needs for these products identified?
      Answer:
 5g.   Question:
             Do  you  anticipate that there  will  be a recurring  need for these or other
             technology transfer activities due to, for example, staff turnover, program growth,
             greater program delegation, etc.?  Why?
      Answer:
                                         - 4 -

-------
 6.   Question:
            What  do you feel are the highest priority program objectives for your branch
            at present?    Do you expect changes in priorities over the next three to four
            years?
     Answer:
6b.  Question:
            Can  you  foresee the kinds  of  technical information  and  skills  that your
            headquarters and Regional personnel and other audiences may need in order to
            meet both your present and near-term (3-4 year) objectives?
     Answer:
 7.    Question:
            What do you feel  are the priority  objectives of the whole program office at
            present.  Do you expect changes in these priorities over the next three to four
            years because of, for example, Congressional or court-ordered mandates?
      Answer:
7b.   Question  For  only  RCRA  and  UST:    What  about  the  upcoming  RCRA
      reauthorization;  how do  you think it could impact program  priorities  and technical
      requirements?
      Answer:
7c.   Question:
            Again, what do you foresee are the kinds of technical information and skills that
            specific headquarters, Regional, or other audiences may need in order to meet
            the present and near-term  (3-4 year) objectives?
      Answer:
                                        - 5 -

-------
The remaining questions are on technology transfer delivery systems  such as handbooks  and
guidance manuals;  demonstrations;  conferences  and  symposia;  seminars  and  workshops;
abstracts, summaries, and bulletins; videotapes; and computer-based formats including expert
systems.

  8.    Question:
             What types of delivery systems  do  you feel are generally most appropriate for
             disseminating  technical methods and information  to audiences of interest to
             EPA?  Let me list some possibilities:
                    Technical reports, handbooks,  and guidance manuals
                    Demonstrations of technology  applications
                    Conferences and symposia
                    Seminars and workshops
                    Technology notices, summaries,  bulletins, abstracts
                    Technology videotapes
                    PC-based models, automated databases, and
                           electronic information transfer (BBS, E-mail)
                    Computer-assisted and interactive training formats
                    Hotlines
                    Expert systems
       Answer:
 8b.   Question:
             Are these delivery systems the best ones for your program office?  Why?
       Answer:
  8c.   Question IF electronic/computer methods were not mentioned:
              Why did you not select computer-based or electronic transfer type  systems?
       Answer:
  8d.   Question:
V£uesuon:
      What overpowering constraints may be encountered in instituting the preferred
      delivery systems that  you mentioned?   (e.g.,  cost, importance of speed in
      disseminating  technology  transfer  products,  personnel  time  required  for
      development, lack of training)
Answer:
                                          - 6 -

-------
 9.   Question:
            What direct experience have you had using or developing the more traditional
            of these delivery systems, such as workshops and seminars?
     Answer:
9b.   Question:
            What direct experience have you had using  or developing alternative delivery
            systems such as expert systems, automated databases, and electronic information
            transfer?
      Answer:
                                        - 7 -

-------
                  Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
       Technology  Transfer Needs Assessment
                           Questionnaire

  OSWER is conducting an assessment of the technology transfer needs of the Superfund,
RCRA, and UST Programs through the OSWER/ORD Technology Transfer Subcommittee.
As implementation activities expand and OSWER programs grow and mature, the need for
technological solutions to problems in the field and for up-to-date technical information be-
come more and more apparent.
                  Technology transfer is defined as "the development and dis-
                  semination of technical information, techniques, and products
                  to targeted audiences tofaciliate EPA's regulatory and en-
                  forcement functions."
  The purpose of the Needs Assessment is to identify high priority technology transfer needs
for all of OSWER for the next three to four years to assist in planning for the Hazardous
Waste/Superfund Research Committee, Program Offices, and the Office of Research and De-
velopment. The survey will also aid in developing criteria for selecting delivery methods for
technology transfer products and tools.

  Your responses to this questionnaire will be used in helping to establish priorities for tech-
nology transfer and in developing guidelines for selection of technology transfer delivery sys-
tems. Participating in the survey allows you to influence the recommendations that will be
made to OSWER management. The questionnaire should require approximately 20 to 30 min-
utes of your time to complete. Please feel free to expand upon any of your responses.

Please return the completed questionnaire directly to:

                                   EMS, Inc.
                             ATTN: OSWER Survey
                          1010 Wayne Avenue, Suite 200
                            Silver Spring, MD 20910

                   Please call (301) 589-5318, if you have questions.

-------
                          PART1. RESPONDENT PROFILE

  The following demographic and job information is needed to group the data during the sta-
tistical analysis phase of the study. For example, generalizations will be made about all em-
ployees in a given position. Your answers to these questions are optional and will be kept
completely confidential.

Current Position
1.  In which Region are you employed?	
2.  In which Division and Branch do you work? (Example: ERD/ERB)
3.  Which program areas are you currently involved with?  (Please check all that apply)
  Q  CERCLA Removal   Q  CERCLA Remedial   Q CERCLA Enforcement
  Q  RCRA Permitting    Q  RCRA Compliance   Q RCRA Corrective Action
  Q  USTProgram      "Q  Other (Pleasespecify)	
4.  List three of your current high priority job responsibilities.
Background and Experience

5.  Approximately how long have you held your current position?
      Q Less than one year           Q 6 to 10 years
      Q 1 to 2 years                 Q 11 years or more
      Q 3 to 5 years

6.  Approximately how long have you been employed by EPA?
      Q Less than one year           Q 6 to 10 years
      Q 1 to 2 years                 Q 11 years or more
      Q 3 to 5 years

7.  What is your highest level of education?
      Q Univ. or College Coursework        Q Masters Degree
      Q Associate Degree                  Q Juris Doctorate
      Q Bachelor Degree                   Q Doctor of Philosophy
      Q Graduate School Coursework       Q Other (Please specify)
8.  What was your major field of study for your highest degree?

                                       -1-

-------
9.   Please list the most recent job-related training from EPA that you have attended.
10.   Please list any technology transfer seminars or workshops you have recently attended.
11.   Approximately how many technical, job-related training courses, seminars, or workshops
    do you attend per year?	


                       PART 2. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER NEEDS

  This section of the questionnaire focuses on setting priorities for technology transfer needs
over the next 3 to 4 years. Please provide us with your best estimate of how the following
technology transfer topics and technical issues will affect your job in the hazardous or solid
waste program. Please indicate the importance of each listed topic to your job on a scale ofl (minimal
to no importance) to 5 (extremely important). Be sure to consider topics in other programs, as
there is considerable overlap of technical issues.  Also feel free to write in topics that we may not
have anticipated.
                                                           Not at All    Quite     Extremely
Ground Water                                         NA   Useful     Useful      Useful
   Ground-water monitoring for site inspection and         012345
   for evaluating the effectiveness of treatment.

   Well techniques for determining hydrologic              012345
   properties of aquifers.

   Fate and transport of contaminants in the subsurface     012345
   (e.g., facilitated transport, methods for measuring
   contaminant mobility, non-aqueous phase liquids).

   Hydrologic properties of difficult areas such as           012345
   Karst terrains and aquifers.

   Validated ground-water models and expert systems      012345
   that support sampling plans and statistical analyses.

Monitoring Techniques
   General information on the use and limitations of        012345
   field sampling and analysis methods.

   Air and other media monitoring for site inspection       012345
   and for evaluating the effectiveness of treatment.

   Continuous and static monitoring of stack emissions      012345
   from all types  of incinerators.

                                          -2-

-------
                                                            Not at All    Quite     Extremely
                                                        NA  Useful     Useful      Useful
   Field-screening, soil vapor, and water sampling for       0123
   hydrocarbons.

   Leak detection and prevention methods for under-       0123
   ground storage tanks.

Risk Assessment
   Risk assessment information: risk levels for RCRA       0123
   waste (e.g., incinerator ash, contaminated soil).

   Use of models for chemical mixture risk                 0123
   characterization.

   Standaradized methods for ecological                   0123
   risk assessment.

   Assessment of oily waste risk and movement.            0123

Establishing Treatment Standards
   Applicability of RCRA Treatment Standards to           0123
   Superfund.

   Establishing risk-based cleanup levels for various        0123
   contaminants and site conditions.

Selection and Application  Treatment/Control Tech.
   General technical information on the performance,       0123
   limits, safety, and cost of hazardous waste
   treatment technologies.

   Selecting and applying release and flow control,         0123
   and source control technologies for RCRA corrective
   action (e.g., selection of source control technologies
   for ground-water contamination).

   Prototype remedy-selection models for recurrent         0123
   site situations:
     wood-treatment facilities
     metals contaminated sites
     soil and debris contaminated sites
     battery-cracking sites
     municipal landfills
     industrial boilers and furnaces
     munitions/explosives
     underground injection wells
mining wastes
mixed wastes
pesticides
plating
solvents
multi-source GW
dioxins
PCBs
   Application of mitigation, removal, and treatment       0
   technologies to leaking underground storage tanks.
                                           -3-

-------
X
Waste Management —
General technical information on the limits and safety
of municipal waste management options.
Combustion emission controls for metals, PICs, NOx,
and others from municipal solid waste incineration.
Disposal methods for residues such as ash from
treated hazardous waste.
Effective oil and gas management practices.
Medical waste management options.
Alternative and Innovative Treatment Technologies
Use and effectiveness of physical treatment processes
(e.g., soil washing, vacuum extraction).
Use and effectiveness of chemical treatment processes
(«.$., KPEG).
Use and effectiveness of biological treatment
processes (biodegradation or bioremediation).
Use and effectiveness of thermal destruction
(incineration, oxidation).
Use and effectiveness of stabilization/solidification.
Estimating Remediation Cost
Procedures for estimating costs for construction,
operation, and maintenance of remedies.
Uniform procedures for reporting costs and technical
performance for operating treatments at SF sites.
Data Requirements
Minimal data requirements for a RCRA Facility
Investigation or Corrective Measures Study.
Technical data requirements for enforcement case
development including extraordinary circumstances.
Development and application of Data Quality
Objectives in sampling and analysis plans.
Quality assurance for field operations.
Not at All Quite
NA Useful Useful

0

0

0

0
0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0


0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1
1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1


1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2
2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2


2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3
3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3


3

3

3

3
"V
Extremely
Useful

4

4

4

4
4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4


4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5
5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5


5

5

5

5
-4-

-------
                                                           Not at All    Quite    Extremely
Pollution Prevention                                    NA  Useful
  Tools for managing municipal solid waste and             Q    \    2
  hazardous waste through source reduction,
  recovery, and recycling.

Land Disposal Facilities
  Technologies and quality assurance information for        012
  land disposal facility design and construction
  including installing liners and covers.

  Location standards for new and existing land disposal      012
  sites.

  Results of treatability studies for land disposal.             012

Others?
                                                         012345

                                                         012345

                                                         012345
                PART 3.  TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER DELIVERY SYSTEMS


  This section of the questionnaire addresses factors for determining which of numerous deliv-
ery systems is most appropriate for a given technology transfer need and audience. The key to
successful technology transfer is getting the right information to the right person at the right
time and in the best format.

Audiences for Technology Transfer

1.  What types of professionals outside your office are important in helping you accomplish
   your job responsibilities? (Please check all that apply)
   Q State agency staff                   Q Academic institutions
   Q EPA contractors                    Q Regulated community
   Q Consultants                        Q Local government/legislators
   Q Other federal agencies              Q Public
   Q Other (Please specify)	'

2.  Of the audiences identified above, which is your primary audience (your most important)?
3. Estimate the size of your primary audience (Please indicate whether the estimate is limited to
   your Region, state, or other locality). 	
                                         -5-

-------
4.   List the five top priority technical needs of your primary audience.
Delivery Systems

5. Rate the utility of each of the following delivery methods for You and for your Primary
   Audience. Use a scale of 1 (not at all useful) to 5 (extremely useful).  Use 0 (NA) for unfamiliar
   information sources.                                            Primary
                                                     *ou        Audience
          Technical reports/handbooks               	          	

          Guidance manuals                         	          	

          Technology demonstrations                 	          	

          Conference/symposia                      	          	

          Seminars/workshops                       	          	

          Technology summaries/bulletins            	          	

          Technology videotapes                     	          	

          Expert systems/PC-based models           	          	

          Computer-assisted/interactive training      	          	

          Electronic information transfer              	          	

          Automated databases                      	          	

          Hotlines                                  	         	

          Job aids (e.g., checklists, nomograms)           	         	

          Teleconferencing                           	         	

          Videoconferencing                         	         	

          Other	          	         	

                                         -6-

-------
6.  Of the delivery methods listed in question 5, which are best used in combination, such as
   guidance manuals with workshops, or a technology bulletin with a report?
7.  What could be done to improve the utility of available systems you do not now find useful?
8.  Rate the importance of each of the following sources of technical information that You
   use and that your Primary Audience use routinely. Use a scale ofl (not at all useful) to
   5 (extremely useful), and 0 (NA) for unfamiliar information sources.       Primary
                                                        You     Audience
      Supervisor, Branch, or Division                     	      	

      Other Professional Staff in your Office               	      	

      EPA Regional, Headquarters, or Laboratory Library   	      	

      EPA Headquarters Contacts                        	      	

      ORD Laboratory Contacts                          	      	

      ORD Regional Scientist                            	      	
      Center for Environmental Research Information
      (CERI)

      Other Federal Agencies

      State Agencies

      Affiliated Universities

      Clearinghouses

      Technology Vendors

      Other	
9. If you use technology transfer products from other federal agencies in your work, please
   list a few examples of the products you use and indicate the agency that produced it (e.g.,
   DOD, DOE, USGS, NIEHS, NIOSH, ACOE).
                                      -7-

-------
10. Rate the constraints that You have experienced in the use of technology transfer products
   and activities, and those your Primary Audience has experienced. Use a scale of 1 (no prob-
   lem) to 5 (severe problem), and 0 (NA) for constraints that do not apply.
       Limited access to computers or modems for
       electronic media.

       Need for basic computer training.

       Not aware of available technology transfer
       products or activities.

       Not aware of tech transfer activities in suffi-
       cient time to take advantage of them (e.g.,
       seminar announcements arrive too late).

       Aware of tech transfer products, but access is
       too difficult (e.g., problems locating reports,
       information too disorganized or difficult to
       assimilate).

       Unable to take sufficient time away from job
       responsibilities to attend technology transfer
       activities.

       Insufficient travel funds.

       Unsure of applicability to job responsibilities.

       Do not trust source of technical information.

       Information is not collected, assembled, or
       published by EPA.

       Others	
                                                                    Primary
                                                       You         Audience
                                          -8-

-------
11.   Comments:
            Thank you for taking time to complete this questionnaire.


If you wish us to send you a copy of the final report, please detach this portion and return with your name and com-
plete mailing address. Your anonymity will be preserved. Please return form to:
EMS, Inc., ATTN: OSWER Survey, 1010 Wayne Ave., Suite 200, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.

NAME:                  	
OFFICE:
STREET:
CITY/STATE/ZIP:	


                                           -9-

-------