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-
------- |