Technical Information Needs of State Superfund Coordinators Related to Managing Hazardous- Waste Sites and Spills: A Response Report D. A. Neitzel D. H. Fickeisen June 1983 Prepared for Office of Emergency and Remedial Response U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Interagency Agreement AD-89-F-2A115 with the U.S. Department of Energy Pacific Northwest Laboratory Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by Battelle Memorial Institute H Battelle ------- DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Although preparation of this document was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a response report for the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, it has not been subjected to agency peer review procedures and no official endorsement should be i nferred. PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORY operated by BATTELLE for the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under Contract DE-AC06-76RL0 1830 ------- TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS OF STATE SUPERFUND COORDINATORS RELATED TO MANAGING HAZARDOUS- WASTE SITES AND SPILLS: A RESPONSE REPORT D. A. Neitzel D. H. Fickeisen June 1983 Prepared for Office of Emergency and Remedial Response U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Interagency Agreement AD-89-F-2A115 with the U.S. Department of Energy L.C. Raniere, EPA Program Manager Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory Corvallis, Oregon 97333 Pacific Northwest Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 ------- FOREWORD This report describes the results of three workshops conducted by Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) under the auspices of the Hazardous Materials Assessment Team, Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory (CERL), Corvallis, Oregon. The workshops were used to help State and EPA regional representatives identify and rank technical information products for CERL and other Office of Research and Development research laboratories to facilitate emergency and remedial activities at hazardous waste sites and spills. In keeping with the mission of CERL, the workshops focused on, but were not limited to, biological and environmental considerations. Results of the workshops should enable CERL to provide the cognizant EPA research committees and program Offices with recommendations for developing or modifying laboratory programs to meet the needs of their state and regional officials while being consistent with the legislative mandates of the EPA. iii ------- SUMMARY The biological and environmental technical information needs ranked highest by the state Superfund coordinators are as follows: • environmental criteria for determining extent of cleanup at uncontrolled sites or spills (How clean is clean?) • guidance for field sampling (environmental and waste) • guidance for rapid initial screening and decisions to determine appropriate response to a potential site • field guide describing treatment options and methods (including biological). This ranking is the result of three workshops sponsored by the Hazardous Materials Assessment Team of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Research Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon (CERL). The workshops were held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on March 24 and 25, 1983; Atlanta, Georgia on March 28 and 29, 1983; and Denver, Colorado on April 4 and 5, 1983. The workshop participants included state Superfund coordinators from 19 states and individuals from EPA headquarters, regional offices, and EPA laboratories. A computer-assisted decision-analysis method was used to establish criteria weights for ranking the technical information needs of the workshop participants. Biological and environmental information and services related to management of hazardous-waste sites and spills are within the purview of CERL; however, many nonbiological or nonenvironmental issues were identified by participants. These issues were not deleted from the evaluated list because they provide valuable information that other EPA components can use to define technical information products for use by state and regional Superfund personnel. The nonbiological or nonenvironmental technical information needs ranked highest by the workshop participants are as follows: • technical information related to the characterization of hazardous materials v ------- • technical descriptions of cleanup alternatives • guidance related to regulatory and administrative needs of Superfund coordinators • bibliography of available technical information related to hazardous-waste management. Frequently in the proceedings of the workshop, various participants would mention particular needs which others indicated were already met. The state representatives seemed' to lack knowledge about the availability of existing technical information or seemed to have difficulty using technical information developed for something other than hazardous-waste management. For example, sampling techniques developed for the electrical power industry may be applicable to hazardous-waste management, but state Superfund staffs do not have the resources to find or sufficiently modify this information for their needs. Their expressed needs underscore the fact that technology transfer is often required to make existing knowledge applicable at uncontrolled hazardous-waste sites and spills. It was made clear that basic technical guidance must be presented in a nondetailed, straight- forward manner that is applicable to hazardous-waste cleanup activities. At the end of the workshop, participants critiqued the workshop results and the workshop format. Twenty-two of 23 participants indicated their technical information needs were adequately presented to EPA. Several people noted that they appreciated the opportunity EPA gave them to help develop technical information and services. vi ------- CONTENTS FOREWORD iii SUMMARY v LIST OF TABLES viii INTRODUCTION 1 WORKSHOP DESCRIPTION 3 METHODS 3 PARTICIPANTS 6 RESULTS 11 PHILADELPHIA 11 ATLANTA 12 DENVER 13 COMBINED RESULTS 14 MAIL RESULTS 16 DISCUSSION 17 BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS . . 17 NONBIOLOGICAL AND NONENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS 19 FORMAT AND SCOPE OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION 20 WORKSHOP CRITIQUE 22 LITERATURE CITED 25 APPENDIX A. 1 vi i ------- LIST OF TABLES 1. Criteria Developed at the "Strawman" Workshop 27 2. Technical Information Needs Ranked at the "Strawman" Workshop 28 3. Criteria Weights Assigned by Participants at Philadelphia Workshop 30 4. Ranked Technical Information Needs of Philadelphia Workshop Participants 32 5. Biological and Environmental Technical Information Needs of Philadelphia Workshop Participants 35 6. Sorted Criteria Weights of Participants at Atlanta Workshop . . .37 7. Ranked Technical Information Needs of Atlanta Workshop Participants 38 8. Biological and Environmental Technical Information Needs of Atlanta Workshop Participants 42 9. Criteria Weights of Participants at Denver Workshop 44 10. Ranked Technical Information Needs of Denver Workshop Participants 45 11. Biological and Environmental Technical Information Needs of the Denver Workshop Participants 49 12. Technical Information Needs Related to Pre-Treatment Site Assessment and the Rank Order of the Needs Established at Each Workshop 51 13. Technical Information Needs Related to Biological Concepts and the Rank Order of the Needs Established at Each Workshop 52 14. Technical Information Needs Related to Bioassays and the Rank Order of the Needs Established at Each Workshop 53 15. Technical Information Needs Related to Risk Assessment and the Rank Order of the Needs Established at Each Workshop 54 16. Technical Information Needs Related to Treatment of Hazardous Waste and the Rank Order of the Needs Established at Each Workshop 55 17. Technical Information Needs Related to Hazardous-Waste Site Monitoring and the Rank Order of the Needs Established at Each Workshop 56 18. Technical Information Needs Related to "How Clean is Clean?" and the Rank Order of the Needs Established at Each Workshop. . .57 vii i ------- TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS OF STATE SUPERFUND COORDINATORS RELATED TO MANAGING HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES AND SPILLS: A WORKING PAPER INTRODUCTION The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for the discovery, control and cleanup of hazardous substances and oils released to the environment from spills or from uncontrolled waste sites. The Agency is given this responsibility by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA); the National Contingency Plan of 1982 as amended (NCP); the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA); and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 as amended. In December 1982, EPA proposed an amendment to the National Contingency Plan. The Amendment includes the National Priorities List (40 CFR Part 300) as Appendix B. Once the National Priorities List is published, EPA projects that the rate of cleanup operations by states will accelerate rapidly. The agency also projects a corresponding increase in requests from states and EPA regions for technical information and services at specific hazardous-waste sites and spills. Anticipating these requests, CERL asked PNL to conduct a series of computer-assisted decision-analysis workshops to canvass cognizant state and EPA regional representatives about their perceived need for technical-assistance products or services. The workshops were structured to provide a valid consensus of defined and prioritized needs. This report describes the workshop methods, lists the workshop participants, and presents and discusses the results of the workshops. 1 ------- WORKSHOP DESCRIPTION The objective of this project was to determine what kinds of technical information and services are needed by state Superfund coordinators. The EPA will use the list of needs to plan activities that support the efforts of the states to deal with hazardous wastes, both in the context of an emergency response to a spill or sudden release of materials, and in the context of conducting remedial actions to clean up disposal sites. The needs were ranked in order of importance based on a set of criteria developed by the workshop participants. Listing the needs in order of priority along with their rationale (the criteria) provides the EPA with guidance to support development of technical information related to hazardous-waste cleanup. The three workshops were sponsored by the Hazardous Materials Assessment Team (HMAT) of CERL. The assessment team is charged with evaluating biological and environmental concerns related to Superfund activities. At the workshops, however, the scope of the identified needs extended to nonbiological and nonenvironmental concerns and beyond strict interpretation of the limits of Superfund. The results not within the purview of the HMAT will be made available to other EPA organizations to more fully serve state needs. Results of the project will serve as one source of information that the HMAT can use to plan future projects. The listing of state needs can be used to help ensure that the limited resources available to HMAT will be used in effective ways to meet the biological and environmental support needed by the states. METHODS Three workshops were held to solicit input from representatives of state Superfund coordinators. The workshops were structured to develop a list of needed technical information and technical services in order of priority within a 2-day period. The workshop process was facilitated through use of software developed for a microcomputer that provided 3 ------- preliminary results at the end of the workshop. The number of participants at each workshop was limited to facilitate open discussion by the participants. By holding the workshops in major cities near the participants, travel time and costs were minimized. Each workshop was conducted in a similar manner, and participants were all provided the same background materials for review before the meetings. The software used to help facilitate the meetings is called Decision Analysis with Paired Comparisons (DAPC). DAPC was developed by PNL for use in ranking arctic research needs for EPA (States 1982). The software permits participants to have an equal representation in the workshop results and provides a quantitative ranking of issues (in this case, the technical information and service needs) based on scoring of each need against a common set of criteria. Participants developed final lists of criteria and needs from a "strawman" which was presented to them before the workshop. The relative importance of the criteria was determined by the participants, and a weighting factor was assigned to each criterion. The weighting factors were combined with raw scores assigned by each individual to each of the criterion for each need on the list. The sum of weighted raw scores, averaged for the entire group, was used to rank the list. A series of reports, prepared with the software, was available before the end of the workshop for review and comment by the participants. Participants were asked to review these preliminary results and were encouraged to send any additional comments to the PNL authors who were drafting this final report. At the beginning of the workshops, the objectives of the meetings were described and the DAPC system was introduced. Participants then proceeded to develop a list of technical information needs and a list of criteria to be used for ranking them. Most of the workshop effort involved developing the list, reaching a common understanding of the meanings of the criteria, and reaching consensus on the wording of the items included on the list of needs. Once the lists were developed, the software procedure was used to generate two evaluation forms that each participant was asked to complete. 4 ------- The first evaluation provided the data for assigning weighting factors to the criteria. Every possible pair of criteria was considered. Participants indicated, for each pair, which of the two criteria was more important in ranking their needs. These comparisons were used to distribute 100 points among the criteria as weighting factors. The participants used the second evaluation form to score each of their needs against each of the ranked criteria. A measurement scale [least important (0) to most important (9)] was used for the scoring. In addition, participants could decline to score a particular need against a particular criterion if they wished to defer to the rest of the group for that score. The software was used to compute the mean raw score of the group for each need against each criterion. Each criterion was then multiplied by its weighting factor, and the resulting products were summed over all criteria for each need. The software listed the needs in ranked order according to the total score given to each need. Small differences among total scores are not significant because of the variance among scores; thus, the relative importance of closely ranked needs cannot be judged accurately. Accordingly, it is most useful to group the needs into categories of priority that include a range of scores. Scores can range from 0 to 900. A high score typically would be anything over 700 points, but needs ranked in the upper 600s could also be considered important. The ranking analysis can be conducted for subsets of the needs or for subgroups of the participants. The criteria weights and the ranking of needs of a subgroup of participants are based only on the data for the subgroup. At these workshops, several individuals asked for a copy of their individual ranking of needs, and a copy was given to them. After the workshop, we verified data entry and analyzed the workshop results in detail by examining subsets of the needs and subgroups of the participants. For purposes of this report, we analyzed the data twice: once for the state representatives only, and then for 5 ------- the entire group at each workshop (which included representatives of some of the EPA regional offices and of other EPA groups). A "strawman" list of criteria and needs was developed before the workshops to provide a basis for opening discussion (Tables 1 and 2). The "strawman" provided examples of needs and criteria and was used to illustrate the DAPC method. The "strawman" lists, developed in a preliminary workshop attended by PNL and EPA staff, were mailed to participants for their review before the workshops. During each workshop, the participants modified the "strawman" by changing wording and deleting or adding items to it to develop their own list of needs and evaluation criteria. The "strawman" included biological and environmental needs, but participants were invited to include on their final lists any nonbiological and nonenvironmental needs related to hazardous waste and to Superfund activities. Because the lists of needs and criteria were developed and modified at each workshop, the scores cannot be combined to yield a single, objective ranking of all needs. We noted, however, that there were many similarities among the items listed, and we grouped them by category to aid in understanding the results. PARTICIPANTS At least one person from each state and one from each of EPA's regional offices were invited to the workshops. The list of invitees was developed from a list of "state Superfund coordinators" within each EPA region. The regional lists were provided by the cognizant EPA regional Superfund coordinator. Invitees were each sent a letter from the HMAT describing the objective of the workshop and requesting attendance and participation of the addressee or his delegate. The letters were followed up by phone calls made by PNL staff to confirm who the attendee would be. Additional information was sent to those people included on the revised list of attendees. The information included background on the workshop, the "strawman" lists of needs and criteria, and administrative information. 6 ------- Attendees were offered reimbursement for lodging and meals during the workshop, and several actions were taken to facilitate attendance by those invited to the workshop. Transportation expenses were minimized by holding the workshops in Philadelphia for states in EPA Regions I, II, III, and V; in Atlanta for states in Regions IV, VI, and VII; and in Denver for Regions VIII, IX, and X. Invitees who said they could not attend because of schedule conflicts were given the option of attending one of the other workshops. Twenty-two representatives of 19 states attended the workshops (see list below). The invitees from the other states were sent a form with a post-paid return envelope for providing their technical information needs after the workshops. Although their comments could not be included in the ranked list of information needs, their needs are listed in the Results section of this report. PHILADELPHIA STATES Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Vi rginia ATLANTA STATES Alabama Arkansas Florida Kentucky Missouri Nebraska North Carolina Oklahoma South Carolina Texas 7 EPA REGIONS OTHERS III Corvallis Environmental Research V Laboratory, Corvallis, OR Environmental Response Team, Edison, NJ Regional Services Staff, Washington D.C. EPA REGIONS OTHERS IV Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR Environmental Response Team, Edison, NJ Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH ------- DENVER STATES EPA REGIONS OTHERS Idaho Montana Utah VIII Environmental Response Team, Edison, NJ National Enforcement Investigations Center Denver, CO Washington In addition to the state representatives who participated in the workshops, the EPA regional offices were invited to send attendees who could contribute to the objectives of the workshop. Four of the regions were thus represented. Other people who attended were from EPA headquarters in Washington D.C., the Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio, and the National Enforcement Investigations Center in Denver, Colorado. The EPA Hazardous Materials Assessment Team (Corvallis, Oregon) was represented at two of the workshops, and the Environmental Response Team (Edison, New Jersey) participated in all four workshops. The latter group are expected to represent users of the workshop results and were present to clarify the objective of the workshop and to learn firsthand of the needs of the states. A list of workshop participants, including their affiliation, address, and phone number, is given in Appendix A. The participants were asked to provide information about their training and their involvement with Superfund. Responses were obtained from all participants. Their background training included biology (14), environmental science (8), engineering (9), hydrology (2), and chemistry (2). Most (22) indicated they had a technical supervisory role. Many (10 to 14) indicated a role in administration, policy development, enforcement, or cleanup. In addition, three said they were involved in site evaluations, and two indicated a role in hazard assessment. Most of the participants (31) have worked in remedial response, and about half (16) have worked on emergency responses. More than half of the participants had worked at one or more Superfund sites or spills 8 ------- (median = 2 sites), but 11 had no specific site or spill experience, and only 7 had worked at more than 5 sites or spills. One person had experience at over 150 sites and spills. 9 ------- RESULTS The workshop results are presented separately for each workshop. The evaluation criteria are listed with the weights assigned to them by the state representatives and the weights assigned to them by all participants. Also listed are the technical information needs of the workshop participants. Technical information needs are presented in two lists: 1) a ranked list of all the technical information needs evaluated by the participants, and 2) a ranked list of the biological and environmental technical information needs. Both lists of technical information needs include the rank and evaluation scores both of the state participants and of all participants. PHILADELPHIA Ten criteria were developed and weighted by the workshop participants at Philadelphia (Table 3). The criterion weighted heaviest by the state participants and by all participants, including those representing the states, was "application to development of information for decision process." The evaluation scale for this criterion ranged from a low of "not required or necessary" to a high of "required or necessary." Other heavily weighted criteria included applicability of the technical information to many sites and application to cost-benefit decisions. Using the criteria listed in Table 3, the workshop participants evaluated 28 technical information needs (Table 4). The highest-ranked technical information needs of the state participants are as follows: • guidance manual for field sampling (environmental and waste) • field guide for rapid, onsite screening of hazardous material • guidance manual for determining effective cleanup levels at uncontrolled sites and spills • guidance manual for assessing alternative actions at a Superfund site. 11 ------- These needs were ranked 1, 2, 3, and 4 by the state participants and 3, 4, 1, and 2, respectively, by all participants. Of the 28 technical information needs ranked at Philadelphia, 16 dealt with biological or environmental aspects of hazardous-waste management. The ranked biological and environmental technical information needs of the Philadelphia workshop participants are listed in Table 5. The highest-ranked needs of the state participants are as follows: • guidance manual for field sampling (environmental and waste) • guidance manual for determining effective cleanup levels at uncontrolled sites and spills. These needs were ranked 1 and 2 by the state participants and 2 and 1, respectively by all participants. The two highest-ranked biological and environmental technical information needs of the state participants were also their highest-ranked needs in the evaluation of all needs. ATLANTA Nine criteria were developed and weighted by the workshop participants at Atlanta (Table 6). The criterion weighted heaviest by state participants and by all participants was whether or not the information was "relevant to state Superfund needs." The evaluation scale for this criterion ranged from a low of "irrelevant" to a high of "very important." Other heavily weighted criteria were related to multi-characteristic application, "real world" experience involved in the development of the information, and practicality to cleanup of hazardous-waste sites or spills. Using the criteria listed in Table 6, the workshop participants evaluated 36 technical information needs (Table 7). The highest-ranked technical information needs of the state participants are as follows: • environmental criteria for determining extent of cleanup at uncontrolled sites and spills • guidance manual for containment techniques related to hazardous wastes 12 ------- • streamlined administrative procedures and guidance for compliance with paperwork requirements at Superfund sites • cross-referenced data base of hazardous-waste components and associated containment groups. These needs were ranked 1, 2, 3, and 4 by the state participants and 1, 4, 9, and 2, respectively, by all participants. Of the 36 technical information needs ranked at Atlanta, 15 were related to the biological or environmental aspects of hazardous-waste management. The biological and environmental technical information needs of the Atlanta workshop participants are ranked in Table 8. One environmental technical information need of state participants was clearly ranked highest. The need is: • environmental criteria for determining extent of cleanup at uncontrolled sites and spills. This need was ranked 1 by the state participants and by all participants. This need was also ranked 1 by state participants and by all participants in the evaluation of all needs. DENVER Nine criteria were developed and weighted by the workshop participants at Denver (Table 9). The criterion weighted heaviest by state participants and by all participants was "ease of application of the product (practicality)." The evaluation scale ranged from a low of "difficult to understand and use" to a high of "easy to understand and use." Two other criteria were also weighted heavily by the participants: "area of information deficiency" and "site application." Using the criteria listed in Table 9, the workshop participants evaluated 28 technical information needs (Table 10). The highest-ranked technical information needs of the state participants are as follows: • guidance for developing public information programs for Superfund sites • status report of regulations related to exempted and de-listed wastes 13 ------- • bibliography of reports dealing with cleanup and indexed by waste, media, and treatment technologies • equipment pool that can be accessed rapidly for use at hazardous-waste sites and spills • guidance for determining cost-effectiveness of available mitigation activities • field guide for rapid onsite chemical characterization of hazardous waste. These needs were ranked 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 by the state participants and 2, 12, 1, 21, 9, and 8, respectively, by all participants. Of the 28 technical information needs ranked at Denver, 11'were related to the biological or environmental aspects of hazardous-waste management. The biological and environmental technical information needs of the Denver workshop participants are ranked in Table 11. The needs ranked highest by the state participants are as follows: • guidance for rapid initial screening and decisions to determine appropriate response to a potential hazardous-waste site • field guide describing treatment methods and options • environmental criteria for determining extent of cleanup at uncontrolled sites and spills. These needs were ranked 1, 2, and 3 by the state participants and 2, 1, and 9, respectively, by all participants. These biological and environmental technical information needs were ranked 13, 14, and 15 by the state participants in the evaluation of all needs. They were ranked 5,3, and 20 by all participants. COMBINED RESULTS The ranked list of biological and environmental technical information needs from the Philadelphia and Atlanta workshops indicate one need at each workshop that is clearly the highest ranked. At Denver, however, three biological and environmental technical 14 ------- information needs were ranked high and cannot be distinguished using the evaluation score. The highest-ranked need in Atlanta was similar to the third-ranked need in Denver. Our subjective evaluation of these five technical information needs suggests that there are four high-ranked biological and environmental technical information needs of state Superfund coordinators related to the management of hazardous-waste sites and spills. These biological and environmental technical information needs are as follows: • guidance manual for field sampling (environmental and waste) • environmental criteria for determining extent of cleanup at uncontrolled sites and spills • guidance for rapid initial screening and decisions to determine appropriate response to a potential site • field guide describing treatment methods and options (including biological treatment). Nonbiological or nonenvironmental technical information needs were ranked second and fourth at Philadelphia, second, third, and fourth at Atlanta, and first, second, and third at Denver. These eight needs can be categorized into four general technical information needs for hazardous-waste management. The needs that were ranked highest at the three Superfund workshops are as follows: • technical information related to the characterization of hazardous materials (rank 2 Philadelphia, rank 4 Atlanta) • technical descriptions of cleanup alternatives (rank 4 Philadelphia, rank 2 Atlanta) • guidance related to regulatory and administrative needs of Superfund coordinators (rank 2 Atlanta, rank 1 and 2 Denver) • bibliography of available technical information related to hazardous-waste management (rank 3 Denver). 15 ------- MAIL RESULTS Six Superfund coordinators responded by mail to the request for a listing of their technical information needs. Responses were from Arizona, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, and Vermont. The most frequently listed needs were related to these three aspects of waste characterization: 1) synergistic toxicity, 2) evaluation of sampling and monitoring gear, and 3) waste mobility in the environment. Also listed by more than one respondent were technical information needs related to: 1) the need to know what technical information is available, 2) protection of waste site workers, and 3) decision criteria related to the cleanup process (i.e., How clean is clean?). 16 ------- DISCUSSION The objective of this project was to determine what kinds of technical information and services are needed by state Superfund coordinators. Three workshops were conducted to canvas cognizant state and EPA representatives about their needs. In keeping with the mission of CERL, the workshops focused on, but were not limited to, biological and environmental considerations. We discussed 1) the biological and environmental technical information needs ranked at the workshops, 2) the nonbiological and nonenvironmental technical information needs ranked at the workshops, and 3) critiques of the workshops prepared by the participants. BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS Forty-two biological and environmental technical information needs were presented and evaluated by the participants of all three workshops. The needs can be grouped into seven general categories, which we have listed in chronological order as they might relate to the management of a hazardous waste site or spill. For example, activities expected to occur prior to emergency or remedial action are discussed first, technical information related to cleanup or containment of wastes is discussed second, and post-closure technical information needs are discussed last. Pre-treatment Site Assessment Workshop participants identified five areas of technical information they need for assessing a site and gathering information to determine appropriate responses, identify concerns, and rank sites (Table 12). Pre-treatment site assessment was the number one environmental technical information need at the Denver workshop. Biological Concepts Biological concepts of hazardous-waste management that were discussed at the workshops included bioavailability, biotransportation, bioaccumulation, and biodegradation. The availability, accumulation, and transport of wastes must be assessed to determine risks, design 17 ------- monitoring programs, and select the appropriate treatment or cleanup option. Biodegradation is the basis for biotreatment. Seven technical information needs related to these concepts were discussed and evaluated at the three workshops (Table 13). Bioassay as an Assessment Technique Bioassays can be used to assess the toxicity of hazardous wastes and determine the "risk" at hazardous waste sites and spills. Technical information needs related to the use of bioassays at hazardous-waste sites and spills were discussed at the three workshops (Table 14). Risk Risk and the assessment of risk has many components, such as risks to the public, to site workers, and to the environment. The multi- component aspects of risk are evident by the number of technical information needs discussed and evaluated at the workshops. Ten risk- related technical information needs (almost 25% of the biological and environmental needs) were ranked at the three workshops (Table 15). At Atlanta, the needs ranked 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 were related to the assessment of risk. At Philadelphia, the needs ranked 4, 7, and 9 were related to risk, and at Denver the needs ranked 4 and 11 were related to risk. Treatment of Hazardous Waste Biological and environmental aspects of waste treatment were discussed and ranked at the workshops. Six technical information needs were related to biological treatment techniques and to assessment of environmental impacts of cleanup alternatives (Table 16). The need ranked 2 at the Denver workshop was a field guide describing available treatment methods, including biological techniques. Hazardous-Waste-Site Monitoring Workshop participants ranked nine technical information needs related to environmental monitoring of hazardous-waste sites (Table 17). Monitoring needs vary as cleanup at a waste site progresses; monitoring during treatment or cleanup is different from post-closure monitoring. The difference is reflected in the described needs. Five of the 18 ------- monitoring needs related to general aspects of monitoring; however, three needs were specific to post-closure monitoring. The needs ranked 1 and 2 by the Philadelphia participants related to monitoring. Post-closure monitoring ranked 5, 6, and 7, respectively, at Philadelphia, Denver, and Atlanta. How Clean Is Clean? Management of a waste site or spill ends when the site is "clean". Although the participants generally agreed that this determination is a political or legal question at many sites, many technical considerations need to be addressed. The technical aspects of "How clean is clean?" were discussed at all workshops. Technical guidance related to this question was ranked 1st at Atlanta and 3rd at Philadelphia and Denver (Table 18). NONBIOLOGICAL AND NONENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS Forty-nine nonbiological and nonenvironmental technical information needs were discussed and ranked at the three workshops. They can be grouped generally into four broad categories: 1) nonenvironmental aspects of site and waste characterization, 2) access to available technical information, 3) legal and administrative aspects of hazardous-waste management, and 4) cost- effectiveness of waste-management decisions. Twenty-three of these technical information needs are related to site and waste characterization. Needs discussed and ranked include development and use of data bases for characterizing waste, assessment of available field and laboratory equipment that can be used at hazardous-waste sites and spills, and development of criteria for use in characterizing wastes. Nine of the 23 technical information needs were related to a need to know what technical information was available. Discussions at all three workshops were frequently interrupted by a comment that the information was available in a document, or at a particular location, or by calling a particular phone number. Many of the technical information needs of state Superfund coordinators have probably been addressed in 19 ------- some form, but the information is not always readily accessible, and potential users may not be aware of what technical information is available. Eight information needs related to legal and administrative aspects of Superfund were discussed and ranked. State participants expressed concern that much of their Superfund responsibilities were administrative rather than technical because of EPA regulations. Participants at the Atlanta workshop suggested that it would be useful to "streamline" EPA regulations at Superfund sites. The cost-effectiveness of available treatment techniques was impor- tant to the state workshop participants. Three information needs were related to cost-effectiveness. In Philadelphia, no needs for informa- tion about cost-effectiveness were ranked; however, one of the heaviest- weighted evaluation criteria was related to cost-effectiveness. FORMAT AND SCOPE OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION The format and scope of technical information products developed by EPA to assist state Superfund personnel is important because of the varied and complex nature of hazardous-waste management. Hazardous- waste managers must be conversant in or have access to information from a variety of disciplines. For example, waste characterization requires a knowledge of chemistry, site characterization a knowledge of ecology, waste treatment and waste containment a knowledge of engineering, and waste-site monitoring a knowledge of statistics. As indicated by the workshop participant profiles (pages 6-8), state Superfund coordinators have academic training in one discipline, and many coordinator's have limited on-scene experience. Because of the broad technical requirements of hazardous-waste management, information developed to guide state Superfund coordinators must provide, but not be limited to, a basic overview of the aspect of hazardous-waste management that is being addressed. Guidance must be directed to provide assistance" at the level of decisions made by state and local personnel (Table 3, Criterion 1; Table 6, Criterion 1). For example, state personnel are not generally responsible for engineering design of a cleanup option. They 20 ------- are responsible for preparing and evaluating proposals from prospective design contractors. Guidance should be directed towards assisting state and local personnel at this level of decision making. Much of the technical information necessary to manage hazardous- waste sites may already be available. However, the guidance may be beyond the scope of the state Superfund coordinators' needs or be more detailed than necessary for their use. Existing guidance often describes techniques for developing or collecting data to make decisions or guidance is developed particularly for engineering design. Where possible, technical information should be presented for making decisions without requiring the development of new data. Guidance must address available options and questions that have to be asked to determine the utility of solution alternatives for specific problems. For example, is biological treatment of hazardous waste an option at a Superfund site? (Table 11, Rank 2; Table 8, Rank 13, Table 5, Rank 11). Useful guidance related to biological treatment methods should therefore discuss 1) what options are available, 2) what questions must be addressed to determine the utility of the treatment options, and 3) what are the advantages and disadvantages of the available options. Guidance manuals for field sampling (Table 5, Rank 1) are available (Cochran 1977; States et al. 1978; Weber 1972). Guidance to determine the extent of cleanup (Table 5, Rank 2; Table 8, Rank 1; Table 11, Rank 3) is also available (Melcalf and Eddy 1979; Pojasek 1980; Tolman et al. 1978). These sources of guidance, however, do not adequately address the problems of managing an uncontrolled hazardous-waste site. Superfund staff members at the State level have had difficulty using the available information because they lack the resources necessary to make technology transfers. Therefore, it is essential that guidance documents developed by EPA for state and regional Superfund personnel provide a basic overview of each aspect of hazardous-waste management, provide assistance for making decisions, and apply available technical information to hazardous-waste-site management. 21 ------- WORKSHOP CRITIQUE Before the workshop ended, participants were asked to comment on 1) whether or not their technical information needs were adequately presented to the EPA, 2) what they liked or did not like about the workshop, and 3) what they liked or did not like about the workshop objectives. They were also asked to make suggestions for improving the workshop. Twenty-two of the participants felt their technical information needs were adequately presented to EPA. One state participant did not believe his needs were presented. Many state participants were pleased that EPA extended an opportunity to the states to provide input to the development of technical information they need for managing hazardous- waste sites and spills. One participant commented, "I see this as a very positive experience, and I hope EPA will use this technique of state involvement again." On the other hand, some people expressed doubt that EPA would use the information presented at the workshops. One state participant wrote, "I doubt if EPA will respond effectively to our expressed needs." The most frequently stated "like" was the open discussions that evolved during the workshops and the opportunity to share needs with other state Superfund representatives. Eleven participants liked the format of the workshops, especially the presentation of preliminary results at the end of the workshop. Only two participants expressed concern over the format. One participant believed that a questionnaire mailed to the group would have provided the same service, and another participant expressed a "basic distrust of statistics." The most frequently expressed dislike was that the criteria lacked adequate explanation. Most who commented on the criteria stated that the function of the criteria (to evaluate needs) was not adequately explained before the criteria were developed. Six participants stated that more states should have been represented at the workshop. Five participants specifically stated that the workshop invitation did not arrive in time for them to prepare for the workshop. (Invitations were sent out on January 31, 1983. The first workshop began March 24, 22 ------- 1983.) Most of these comments were prefaced with the suspicion that receipt of the invitation and workshop information was an intrastate problem. A typical comment was, "A breakdown in communication within my agency did not allow me to prepare adequately." Several suggestions were made on how to improve the workshop. The suggestions included: 1) giving more advance information, 2) improving the explanation of the criteria, and 3) facilitating broader participant representation. The workshop critique also invited "other comments." One participant stated that much of the information requested during the workshop was currently available. This participant stated, "I was really surprised by the lack of knowledge and (technical information needs) availability." Most of the other comments were positive. One participant simply stated "Thank you" to express thanks to EPA for providing the states with an opportunity to identify and rank their technical information needs. 23 ------- LITERATURE CITED Cochran, W. H. 1977. Sampling Techniques. 3rd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Melcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1979. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, Reuse. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York. Pojasek, R. B., ed. 1979, 1979, 1980. Toxic and Hazardous Waste Disposal, Vol. 1, 2, and 4. Ann Arbor Science, Woburn, Massachusetts. States, J. B. 1982. Prioritization of Cold-Climate Environmental Issues. Summary of a Workshop by the Cold-Climate Research Assessment Project. Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon. States, J. B., et al. 1978. A System Approach to Ecological Baseline Studies. FWS/OBS-78/21. Biological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Tolman, S. L., et al. 1978. Guidance Manual for Minimizing Pollution from Waste Disposal Sites. EPA-600/2-78-142, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. Weber, W. J. 1972. Physicochemical Processes for Water Quality Control. Wiley-Interscience, New York. 25 ------- TABLE 1. Criteria Developed at the "Strawman" Workshop Ease of application of product: (0 = Extensive training required; 9=minimum training required) Technical Utility: Cross-Control technology application (0=1imited number of technologies: 9rmany technologies) Temporal need: When is the information needed? (0=the information will be most useful several years from now: 9=the information is needed now) Cross-media application: (0=applicable to only one medium; 9=applicable to all media) Enforcement/cost recovery: (Oirrelevant; 9=very important) Multi-site application: (0=information useful at limited number of superfund sites; 9=information useful at many superfund sites) Multi-chemical application: (0=information applicable to limited number of hazardous chemicals; 9=information applicable to many hazardous chemicals) Applicability to other state environmental programs: (0=not applicable; 9=universally applicable) 27 ------- TABLE 2. Technical Information Needs Ranked at the "Strawman" Workshop Field guide for evaluating environmental risk at a Superfund site. What are the risks of delaying cleanup? What are the components of determining risk: to the public?; to the workers?; to the envi ronment? Biotransportation assessment: (How much waste is being transported from the waste site by plants and animals?) Field guide that defines methods for monitoring wildlife utilization of the waste site Data base with rapid access to microbiological degradation data Field guide for rapid onsite chemical characterization of hazardous waste Guidance manual for special considerations due to unique environmental conditions (e.g., permafrost, rainforest, arid region) Guidance manual for designing experiments to assess biotransformation potential of hazardous wastes Evaluation of relative efficiency of various bioassay testing procedures Guidance manual of procedures to evaluate the potential bioavailability of hazardous materials and transformation products Data base of bioavailability of hazardous materials and transformation products Summary and review of biotreatment activities at Superfund sites. Summary to include: sites using biotreatment; contractor; description and evaluation of effort List of contractors that have: assessment, biotreatment, or monitoring capabilities. List should include: contractor name, address, capability statement Assessment of Superfund sites indicating sites with waste and site characteristics suitable for biotreatment Field guide describing biotreatment methods and options List of hazardous wastes and applicable biotreatment techniques Field guide for determining site compatibility with biotreatment of hazardous wastes 28 ------- TABLE 2. (contd) Guidance manual for environmental impact assessment associated with available biotreatment options Summary of federal legislation as it related to treatment of Superfund sites Guidance manual for statistical input to field monitoring of waste site cleanup Guidance manual for use and limitation of available laboratory analytical equipment Guidance manual for chemical monitoring in soil and water including: detection limits of available methods; problems with available methods Field guide to biological monitoring at hazardous-waste sites (sampling design, objectives, etc.) Field guide for post-closure monitoring of Superfund sites Environmental criteria for determining extent of cleanup at uncontrolled sites or spills. (How clean is clean?) 29 ------- TABLE 3. Criteria Weights Assigned by Participants at Philadelphia Workshop CRITERIA WEIGHTS State Participants All Participants 17 17 13 11 12 10 13 10 11 9 9 9 10 Criteria Description Application to development of information for decision process (0 = not required or necessary; 9 = required or necessary) Multi-site application: (0 = information useful at limited number of superfund sites; 9 = information useful at many Superfund sites) Application to cost-benefit decisions (0 = not applicable; 9 = very important) Multi-chemical application: (0 = information applicable to limited number of hazardous chemicals; 9 = information applicable to many hazardous chemicals) Temporal need: When is the information needed? (0 = the information will be most useful several years from now; 9 = the information is needed now) Ease of application of product: (0 = difficult; 9 = easy) Cost of gathering and implementing information (0 = expensive to implement; 9 = low implementation cost) Enforcement/cost recovery (0 = irrelevant; 9 = very important) Technical/program diversity: Scope of application (0 = limited number of technologies; 9 = diverse application) 30 ------- TABLE 3. (contd) CRITERIA WEIGHTS State Participants All Participants 6 7 Criteria Description Cross-media/program application: (0 = applicable to only one medium; 9 = applicable to all media) 31 ------- TABLE 4. Ranked Technical Information Needs of Philadelphia Workshop Participants STATE PARTICIPANTS ALL PARTICIPANTS Rank Evalu- ation Score 771 2 768 3 767 4 755 5 724 6 724 8 713 9 709 10 702 Rank Evalu- ation Score 732 4 713 1 764 2 749 9 689 5 708 7 718 23 613 8 691 12 666 6 707 TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS DESCRIPTION Guidance manual for field sampling (environmental and waste): sampling programs; statistical design; equipment. Field guide for rapid onsite hazardous material screening (personal safety, bulking potential, waste compatibility, etc.) Guidance manual for determining effective cleanup levels at uncontrolled sites or spills. Guidance manual for assessing alternative actions at a Superfund site. Guidance manual for statistical input to field monitoring of waste site cleanup. Evaluation of relative hazards due to critical exposure routes. List of contractors that have: assessment, treatment, or monitoring capabilities. List should include contractor name, address, response time, capability statement. Guidance manual for use and limitations of available equipment for in-field analysis of hazardous wastes. Field guide for post-closure monitoring of Superfund sites. Guidance manual for design of feasibility studies at Superfund sites. 32 ------- TABLE 4. (contd) STATE PARTICIPANTS ALL PARTICIPANTS Rank 11 Evalu- ation Score 695 12 694 13 690 14 671 15 667 16 659 17 657 Rank 21 Evalu- ation Score 622 10 688 18 652 13 663 11 682 19 652 16 655 TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS DESCRIPTION Guidance manual for ranking sites in terms of potential effects on health and the environment and determining priority for cleanup. Handbook for preparation of health assessments (workers and public-at- large) at a Superfund site. List of EPA oil and hazardous waste technical information available and technical activities in progress. Field guide to biological monitoring at hazardous-waste sites (sampling design, objectives, etc.) Techniques for order-of-magnitude initial analysis (easy to apply in field but with sufficient resolving power to be useful). Guidance manual for use and limitations of available laboratory analytical equipment. Guidance manual for assessing transformation and persistence of hazardous wastes. 18 654 19 652 7 696 17 654 Field guide for initial 'risk' at a site. assessment of Technical reference manual for geophysical techniques for detection and investigation of waste sites, including: cost, effectiveness. 33 ------- TABLE 4. (contd) STATE ALL PARTICIPANTS PARTICIPANTS Evalu- Evalu ation atiori Rank Score Rank Score 20 642 25 576 21 630 15 656 22 626 20 626 23 615 14 662 24 602 24 596 25 585 22 614 26 553 27 556 27 545 28 545 28 526 26 566 TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS DESCRIPTION Summary and review of treatment activities at Superfund sites. Summary to include: treatment used; contractor; description and evaluation of effort. Listing of bioassay methods. How can a battery of tests be used for assessments? What tests are available? What are their advantages and limitations? Treatment reference manual describing biotreatment methods and options, including: guidance for determining waste and site compatibility with biotreatment. Handbook for preparation of environmental assessments at a Superfund site. Guidance manual for environmental impact assessment associated with available biotreatment options. Data base of bioavailability of hazardous materials and transformation products. Guidance manual of procedures to evaluate the potential bioavailability of hazardous materials and transformation products. Data base with rapid access to microbiological degradation data. Technical reference manual for remote sensing techniques for detection and investigation of waste sites, including: cost, effectiveness. 34 ------- TABLE 5. Biological and Environmental Technical Information Needs of Philadelphia Workshop Participants STATE PARTICIPANTS ALL PARTICIPANTS Rank Evalu- ation Score 771 2 767 3 724 4 724 5 709 6 695 7 694 8 671 9 654 10 630 Rank Evalu- ation Score 732 1 764 5 689 3 708 7 666 12 622 6 688 8 663 4 696 10 656 TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS DESCRIPTION Guidance manual for field sampling (environmental and waste): sampling programs; statistical design; equipment. Guidance manual for determining effective cleanup levels at uncontrolled sites or spills. Guidance manual for statistical input to field monitoring of waste site cleanup. Evaluation of relative hazards due to critical exposure routes. Field guide for post-closure monitoring of Superfund sites. Guidance manual for ranking sites in terms of potential effects on health and the environment and determining priority for cleanup. Handbook for preparation of health assessments (workers and public-at- large) at a Superfund site. Field guide to biological monitoring at hazardous-waste sites (sampling design, objectives, etc.). Field guide for initial assessment of 'risk' at a site. Listing of bioassay methods. How can a battery of tests be used for assessments? What tests are available? What are their advantages and limitations? 35 ------- TABLE 5. (contd) STATE ALL PARTICIPANTS PARTICIPANTS Evalu- Evalu ation ation Rank Score Rank Score 11 626 11 626 12 615 9 662 13 602 14 596 14 535 13 614 15 553 15 556 16 545 16 545 TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS DESCRIPTION Treatment reference manual describing biotreatment methods and options, including: guidance for determining waste and site compatibility with biotreatment. Handbook for preparation of environmental assessments at a Superfund site. Guidance manual for environmental impact assessment associated with available biotreatment options. Data base of bioavailability of hazardous materials and transformation products. Guidance manual of procedures to evaluate the potential bioavailability of hazardous materials and transformation products. Data base with rapid access to microbiological degradation data. 36 ------- TABLE 6. Sorted Criteria Weights of Participants at Atlanta Workshop CRITERIA WEIGHTS STATE PARTICIPANTS 17 14 14 13 11 11 9 7 3 ALL PARTICIPANTS 16 13 14 15 12 10 8 7 3 Relevant to state Superfund needs (0 = irrelevant; 9 = very important) Multi-characteristic applica- bility; including technologies, sites, chemicals, and media (0 = limited applicability; 9 = broad application) 'Real world' experience involved in development of technical information (0 = theoretical only; 9 = based on experience) Practicality to cleanup of hazardous waste sites or spills (0 = not practical; 9 = very practical) Cost-effectiveness of implementing product (0 = expensive; 9 = low cost) Temporal need: When is the information needed? (0 = extensive training required; 9 = minimal training requi red) Ease of application of product (0 = extensive training required; 9 = minimal training requi red) Frequency of update of technical information (0 = infrequent; 9 = continuous) Enforcement/cost recovery (0 = irrelevant; 9 = very important) 37 ------- TABLE 7. Ranked Technical Information Needs of Atlanta Workshop Participants STATE PARTICIPANTS ALL PARTICIPANTS Rank Evalu- ation Score 741 732 726 726 709 6 709 7 706 8 706 9 694 Rank Evalu- ation Score 735 716 696 716 716 6 704 5 705 11 681 7 699 TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS DESCRIPTION Environmental criteria for determining extent of cleanup at uncontrolled sites or spills (How clean is clean?), including site use considerations. Presented by media. Related to contracting requirements. Guidance manual for containment techniques related to hazardous wastes. Streamlined administrative procedures and guidance to compliance with paperwork requirements at Superfund sites. Cross-referenced data base of hazardous-waste components and associated contaminant groups. Including environmental chemistry, toxicity, industrial use. Summary and review of treatment activities at hazardous-waste sites. Include treatment and monitoring methods used, site contractor, and site and waste characteristics. Accessible list of available technical information. Guidance for determining the most cost-effective cleanup option at uncontrolled hazardous-waste sites. Guidance manual for removal techniques related to hazardous wastes. Data base of hazardous-waste toxicity to human populations. 38 ------- TABLE 7. (contd) STATE ALL PARTICIPANTS PARTICIPANTS Evalu- Evalu ation atiori Rank Score Rank Score 10 684 8 697 11 681 15 665 12 678 12 680 13 672 13 677 14 670 10 682 15 664 14 668 16 637 16 649 17 631 19 639 18 631 20 634 TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS DESCRIPTION Field guide for rapid onsite physical and chemical characterization of hazardous waste, including: shock sensitivity, water reactivity, compatibility. Comparison of available exposure models for human health risks due to hazardous wastes. Help determine allowable residual concentrations in the environment. Field guide for evaluating environmental risk at a Superfund site. What are the risks of delaying cleanup? What are the components of determining risk: to the public?; to the workers?; to the environment? Guidance for interactive assessment and ranking processes for hazardous- waste sites. Guidance manual for disposal techniques related to hazardous wastes. Guidance for determining hazardous- waste toxicity to human populations. Assessment of available toxicity data related to Superfund sites. Guidance manual for use and limitations of available equipment for in-field analysis of hazardous wastes. Technical reference manual describing background levels and day-to-day chemical use of potentially hazardous materials. 39 ------- TABLE 7. (contd) STATE PARTICIPANTS ALL PARTICIPANTS Rank 19 Evalu- ation Score 624 Rank 18 Evalu- ation Score 641 20 619 22 615 21 617 22 617 23 611 23 609 17 643 21 628 24 581 25 596 TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS DESCRIPTION Guidance related to decontamination procedures for hazardous-waste site workers and equipment. Field guide for post-closure monitoring of Superfund sites. Assessment of Mitre model utility for Superfund sites (update or modify for Superfund programs). Guidance for establishing when hazardous waste becomes an environmental concern. Guidance manual for chemical monitoring in soil and water, including: detection limits of available methods; problems with available methods. Guidance manual for application of biological assessment techniques to cleanup decisions, including bioavailability, bioaccumulation, food chain transfer. 25 26 579 576 24 28 598 584 27 567 26 585 Assessment of techniques to assess leachate characteristics (including, e.g. toxicity test) Guidance manual for use of bioavailability, bioaccumulation and food chain transfer data related to cleanup decisions. Biological considerations of managing hazardous-waste sites and spills, including: biological aspects of site assessment, description and assessment of bioassay procedures, post-treatment monitoring. 40 ------- TABLE 7. (contd) STATE ALL PARTICIPANTS PARTICIPANTS Evalu- Evalu- ation ation Rank Score Rank Score TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS DESCRIPTION 28 560 29 583 Guidance related to determining 'responsible party1 for a hazardous- waste site. 29 559 27 584 30 536 30 560 31 535 31 557 32 534 33 524 34 545 33 545 Guidance manual for statistical input to field monitoring of waste site cleanup. (Including budget considerations). Guidance for identification and quantification of dilute waste (concentrations near detection 1imits). Biological concepts and available data related to biological treatment of hazardous wastes. Updated microbiological degradation data, biotransformation techniques, bioavailability data and evaluation techniques. Guidance manual for use and limitations of available laboratory analytical equipment. Summary of federal legislation as it related to treatment of Superfund sites. 34 516 32 547 Uniform fact sheet of Superfund sites, with frequent updates. Including characteristics, treatment, etc. 35 489 36 394 35 531 36 419 Evaluation of relative efficacy of various bioassay testing procedures. (Relevance to public health.) Guidance manual for special consid- erations due to unique environmental conditions (e.g., permafrost, rain- forest, arid region, buildings, coastal plains, mangrove swamps). 41 ------- TABLE 8. Biological and Environmental Technical Information Needs of Atlanta Workshop Participants STATE PARTICIPANTS ALL PARTICIPANTS Rank Evalu- ation Score 741 Rank Evalu- ation Score 735 694 681 699 665 TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS DESCRIPTION Environmental criteria for determining extent of cleanup at uncontrolled sites or spills (How clean is clean?), including site use considerations. Presented by media. Related to contracting requirements. Data base of hazardous-waste toxicity to human populations. Comparison of available exposure models for human health risks due hazardous wastes. Help determine allowable residual concentrations the environment. to in 678 680 664 637 668 649 7 619 8 615 8 617 581 643 9 596 Field guide for evaluating environmental risk at a Superfund site. What are the risks of delaying cleanup? What are the components of determining risk: to the public; to the workers; to the environment? Guidance for determining hazardous- waste toxicity to human populations. Assessment of available toxicity data related to Superfund sites. Field guide for post-closure monitoring of Superfund sites. Guidance for establishing when hazardous waste becomes an environmental concern. Guidance manual for application of biological assessment techniques to cleanup decision's, including bioavailability, bioaccumulation, food chain transfer. 42 ------- TABLE 8. (contd) STATE ALL PARTICIPANTS PARTICIPANTS Evalu- Evalu ation ation Rank Score Rank Score 10 576 12 584 11 567 10 585 12 559 11 584 13 535 13 557 14 489 14 531 15 394 15 419 TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS DESCRIPTION Guidance manual for use of bioavailability, bioaccumulation and food chain transfer data related to cleanup decisions. Biological considerations of managing hazardous-waste sites and spills. Including: biological aspects of site assessment, description and assessment of bioassay procedures, post-treatment monitoring. Guidance manual for statistical input to field monitoring of waste site cleanup. (Including budget considerations.) Biological concepts and available data related to biological treatment of hazardous wastes. Updated microbiological degradation data, biotransformation techniques, bioavailability data and evaluation techniques. Evaluation of relative efficacy of various bioassay testing procedures. (Relevance to public health.) Guidance manual for special considerations due to unique environmental conditions (e.g., permafrost, rainforest, arid region, buildings, coastal plains, mangrove swamps). 43 ------- TABLE 9. Criteria Weights of Participants at Denver Workshop CRITERIA WEIGHT STATE PARTICIPANTS ALL PARTICIPANTS 15 15 15 15 14 15 10 12 10 10 10 11 10 CRITERIA DESCRIPTION Ease of application of product (practicality): (0 = difficult to understand and use; 9 = easy to understand and use). Area of information deficiency: (O=information available but limited utility in present form; 9 = no information currently available) Site application: (0 = information useful at limited number of sites; 9 = information useful at many sites) Number of potential users and potential frequency of use (0 = limited use; 9 = extensive use) Cross-media application; (0 = applicable to only one medium; 9 = applicable to all media) Treatment technology application: (0 = limited to one treatment technology; 9 = applicable to many treatment technologies) Equipment required to use product: (0 = expensive and has limited availability; 9 = no special equipment required) Cost of implementing information: (0 = prohibitively expensive; 9 = cheap) Training required to use information: (0 = extensive; 9 = no training) 44 ------- TABLE 10. Ranked Technical Information Needs of Denver Workshop Participants STATE PARTICIPANTS ALL PARTICIPANTS Rank Evalu- ation Score 759 Rank Evalu- ation Score 708 TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS DESCRIPTION Guidance for developing public information programs for Superfund sites. 736 12 677 3 722 1 710 4 711 21 661 Status report on regulations related to exempted and de-listed wastes. What are characteristics of exempted and de-listed wastes? Bibliography of reports dealing with cleanup indexed by waste, media, and treatment technologies. Equipment pool. Rapid access to analytical equipment on loan basis. What is available? Where? Response time? 5 710 9 681 6 710 8 689 7 702 14 671 8 699 10 680 9 698 6 693 Guidance for determining cost- effectiveness of available mitigative activities (e.g., containment, treatment, removal). Field guide for rapid onsite chemical characterization of hazardous waste. Guidance for application of RCRA to Superfund sites. How does RCRA apply? When do sites fall under RCRA rules? Who is then responsible for followup activities? Guidance for immediate and cost- effectiveness cleanup of hazardous- waste sites and spills. Access to available technical information related to all aspects of hazardous-waste management. What's available? Where is it? How can I get it? Updated searchable data base. 45 ------- TABLE 10. (contd) STATE ALL PARTICIPANTS PARTICIPANTS Evalu- Evalu ation ation Rank Score Rank Score 10 692 11 678 11 688 4 700 12 685 7 689 13 682 5 695 14 681 3 707 15 680 20 661 16 679 23 645 TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS DESCRIPTION Guidance for treatment and control of exempted wastes (e.g., mining wastes, drilling wastes). Summary and review of past and on- going treatment activities at hazardous-waste sites and spills. Include treatment methods used; on-site coordinator's name; contractor; description and evaluation of cleanup. Guidance for determining when immediate need is satisfied: When is first phase of cleanup completed? When can we begin pre-closure activities or additional investigation if needed? Guidance for rapid initial screening and decisions to determine appropriate response to a potential site. Objective, economic, and consistent way to assess a site based on limited information. Field guide describing treatment methods and options, including biological, chemical, and physical treatments. List of treatable hazardous wastes. Environmental criteria for determining extent of cleanup at uncontrolled sites or spills (How clean is clean?). Uniform criteria for site characterization. How can sites be assigned a priority for further action? 46 ------- TABLE 10. (contd) STATE PARTICIPANTS ALL PARTICIPANTS Rank 17 18 Evalu- ation Score 676 665 Rank 22 18 Evalu- ation Score 658 662 19 655 13 673 20 649 16 667 21 641 24 613 22 639 17 665 23 639 19 661 TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS DESCRIPTION Guidance manual for use and limitations of equipment for in-field analysis of hazardous wastes. Field guide for evaluating environmental risk at a hazardous- waste site. What are the risks of delaying cleanup? What are the components of determining risks: to the public?; to the workers?; to the envi ronment? Field guide for assessing bioavailability, transformation and degradation of hazardous wastes. Include all media; information on acceptable environmental concentrations; bioavailability, transformation, and degradation data base. Guidance to design of monitoring programs for post-closure including chemical, biological, and physical monitoring. Analytical methods; statistical design; frequency; location. Assessment of available bioassay techniques for characterization of hazardous wastes and environmental contami nation. Guidance to design of monitoring programs for site assessment and cleanup including chemical, biological, and physical monitoring. Analytical methods; statistical design; frequency; location. Field guide for determining environmental transport and on-site containment of hazardous materials. 47 ------- TABLE 10. (contd) STATE ALL PARTICIPANTS PARTICIPANTS Evalu- Evalu ation ation Rank Score Rank Score 24 638 15 670 25 614 25 604 26 524 26 556 27 510 27 550 28 480 28 501 TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS DESCRIPTION Guidance to determining effects of cleanup alternatives. (Can impacts of cleanup be greater than taking no action?) Guidance for application of technical information to assignment of res ponsibi1ity/1iability. Field guide for assessment of stabil- ity of existing surface impoundments and tailings piles and ponds. Guidance related to availability, collection and evaluation of epidemiological data. Description of available treatment methods for acid mine drainage, including: evaluation of available methods; descriptions, cost- effectiveness . 48 ------- Table 11. Biological and Environmental Technical Information Meeds of the Denver Workshop Participants STATE PARTICIPANTS ALL PARTICIPANTS Rank Evalu- ation Score 682 Rank Evalu- ation Score 695 2 681 1 707 TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS DESCRIPTION Guidance for rapid initial screening and decisions to determine appropriate response to a potential site. Objective, economic, and consistent way to assess a site based on limited information. Field guide describing treatment methods and options, including biological, chemical, and physical treatments. List of treatable hazardous wastes. 3 680 9 661 4 665 7 662 5 655 3 673 649 667 Environmental criteria for determining extent of cleanup at uncontrolled sites or spills (How clean is clean?). Field guide for evaluating environ- mental risk at a hazardous waste site. What are the risks of delaying cleanup? What are the components of determining risks: to the public; to workers; to the environment. Field guide for assessing bioavailability, transformation and degradation of hazardous wastes. Include all media; information on acceptable environmental concentrations; bioavailability, transformation and degradation data base. Guidance to design of monitoring programs for post-closure including chemical, biological, and physical monitoring. Analytical methods; statistical design; frequency location. 49 ------- TABLE 11. (contd) STATE ALL PARTICIPANTS PARTICIPANTS Evalu- Evalu ation ation Rank Score Rank Score 7 641 10 613 8 639 6 665 9 639 8 661 10 638 4 670 11 510 11 550 TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS DESCRIPTION Assessment of available bioassay techniques for characterizations of hazardous wastes and environmental contamination. Guidance to design of monitoring programs for site assessment and cleanup including chemical, biological, and physical monitoring. Analytical methods; statistical design; frequency; location. Field guide for determining environmental transport and on-site containment of hazardous materials. Guidance to determining effects of cleanup alternatives. (Can impacts of cleanup be greater than taking no action?) Guidance related to availability collection and evaluation of epidemiological data. 50 ------- TABLE 12. Technical Information Needs Related to Pre-Treatment Site Assessment and the Rank Order of the Needs Established at Each Workshop Workshop Location TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS PHILADELPHIA ATLANTA DENVER Guidance for rapid initial screening 1 and decisions to determine appropriate response to a potential site. Objective, economic, and consistent way to assess a site based on limited information. Guidance manual for ranking sites in 6 terms of potential effects on health and the environment and determining priority for cleanup. Guidance for establishing when 8 hazardous waste becomes an environ- mental concern. Biological considerations of managing 11 hazardous-waste sites and spills, including: biological aspects of site assessment, description and assessment of bioassay procedures, post-treatment monitoring. Guidance manual for special consider- 15 ations due to unique environmental conditions (e.g., permafrost, rainforest, arid region, buildings, coastal plains, mangrove swamps). 51 ------- TABLE 13. Technical Information Needs Related to Biological Concepts and the Rank Order of the Needs Established at Each Workshop Workshop Location TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS PHILADELPHIA ATLANTA DENVER Field guide for assessing bioavail 5 ability, transformation and degrad- ation, of hazardous wastes. Include all media; information on acceptable environmental concentrations; bio- availability, transformation, and degradation data base. Field guide for determining environ- 9 mental transport and on-site contain- ment of hazardous materials. Guidance manual for application of 9 biological assessment techniques to cleanup decisions, including bioavailabi1ity, bioaccumulation, food chain transfer. Guidance manual for use of bioavail- 10 ability, bioaccumulation and food chain transfer data related to cleanup decisions. Data base of bioavailability of hazard- 14 ous materials and transformation products. Guidance manual of procedures to 15 evaluate the potential bioavailability of hazardous materials and transfor- mation products. Data base with rapid access to 16 microbiological degradation data. 52 ------- TABLE 14. Technical Information Needs Related to Bioassays and the Rank Order of the Needs Established at Each Workshop Workshop Location TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS Assessment of available bioassay techniques for characterization of hazardous wastes and environmental contami nation. Listing of bioassay methods. How can a battery of tests be used for assess- ments? What tests are available? What are their advantages and 1 imitations? Biological considerations of managing 11 hazardous-waste sites and spills, including: biological aspects of site assessment, description and assess- ment of bioassay procedures, post- treatment monitoring. PHILADELPHIA ATLANTA DENVER 7 10 53 ------- TABLE 15. Technical Information Needs Related to Risk Assessment and the Rank Order of the Needs Established at Each Workshop Workshop Location TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS PHILADELPHIA ATLANTA DENVER Data base of hazardous-waste toxicity 2 to human populations. Comparison of available exposure 3 models for human health risks due to hazardous wastes. Help determine allowable residual concentrations in the environment. Field guide for evaluating environ- mental risk at a Superfund site. What are the risks of delaying clean- up? What are the components of determining risk: to the public?; to the workers?; to the environment? Evaluation of relative hazards due to critical exposure routes. Field guide for evaluating environ- mental risk at a hazardous-waste site. What are the risks of delaying cleanup? What are the components of determining risks: to the public; to workers; to the environment? Guidance for determining hazardous waste toxicity to human populations. Assessment of available toxicity data 6 related to Superfund sites. Handbook for preparation of health 7 assessments (workers and public-at- large) at a Superfund site. Field guide for initial assessment of 9 'risk' at a site. Guidance related to availability, 11 collection and evaluation of epidemiological data. 54 ------- TABLE 16. Technical Information Meeds Related to Treatment of Hazardous Waste and the Rank Order of the Needs Established at Each Workshop Workshop Location TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS Field guide describing treatment methods and options, including biological, chemical, and physical treatments. List of treatable hazardous wastes. Treatment reference manual describing biotreatment methods and options, including: guidance for determining waste and site compatibility with biotreatment. Biological concepts and available data 13 related to biological treatment of hazardous wastes. Updated microbiolog- ical degredation data, biotransformation techniques, bioavailability data and evaluation techniques. Guidance to determining effects of 10 cleanup alternatives. (Can impacts of cleanup be greater than taking no action?) Handbook for preparation of environmental 12 assessments at a Superfund site. Guidance manual for environmental impact 13 assessment associated with available biotreatment options. PHILADELPHIA ATLANTA DENVER 2 11 55 ------- TABLE 17. Technical Information Needs Related to Hazardous-Waste Site Monitoring and the Rank Order of the Needs Established at Each Workshop TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS Workshop Location PHILADELPHIA ATLANTA DENVER Evaluation of relative efficacy of various bioassay testing procedures. (Relevance to public health.) Guidance manual for field sampling (environmental and waste): sampling programs; statistical design; equipment. Guidance manual for determining effective cleanup levels at uncontrolled sites or spills. Field guide to biological monitoring at hazardous-waste sites (sampling design, objectives, etc.). Guidance to design of monitoring programs for site assessment and cleanup including chemical, biological, and physical monitoring. Analytical methods; statistical design; frequency; location. Guidance manual for statistical input to field monitoring of waste site cleanup. (Including budget considerations.) Field guide for post-closure monitoring of Superfund sites. Guidance to design of monitoring programs for post-closure including chemical, biological, and physical monitoring. Analytical methods; statistical design; frequency; location. Field guide for post-closure monitoring of Superfund sites. Biological considerations of managing hazardous waste sites and spills, including: biological aspects of site assessment, description and assessment of bioassay procedures, post-treatment monitoring. 14 12 7 11 56 ------- TABLE 18. Technical Information Needs Related to "How Clean is Clean?" and the Rank Order of the Needs Established at Each Workshop TECHNICAL INFORMATION NEEDS Workshop Location PHILADELPHIA ATLANTA DENVER Environmental criteria for deter- mining extent of cleanup at uncontrolled sites or spills (How clean is clean?), including site use considerations. Presented by media. Related to contracting requi rements. Guidance manual for statistical input to field monitoring of waste site cleanup. Environmental criteria for deter- mining of cleanup at uncontrolled sites or spills (How clean is clean?). 57 ------- APPENDIX WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS ------- APPENDIX WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS The names, addresses, and affiliations of workshop participants are listed in this appendix. The listing is organized by workshop and, within each workshop, by EPA regional offices, state representatives, and others. Philadelphia, March 24-25, 1983 EPA Regional Representatives Kathy Hodgkiss U.S. EPA Region III 6th and Walnut Streets Philadelphia, PA 19106 FTS 597-9023 Mike 0'Toole Remedial Response Branch U.S. EPA Region V 230 South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60604 FTS 886-3008 (312) 886-3008 State Representatives New York Larry Skinner Bureau of Environmental Protection Division of Fish and Wildlife New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, NY 12233 (518) 457-1769 New Jersey Michael Zachowski New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Waste Management-HSMA 8 East Hanover Trenton, NJ 08625 (609) 984-4891 Paul M. Zarrillo New Jersey State Dept. of Environmental Protection 8 East Hanover Trenton, NJ 08625 (609) 984-4791 A. 1 ------- Maryland Frank Henderson Enforcement Office, Support Services Division Waste Management Administration Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene Office of Environmental Programs 201 Preston Baltimore, MD 21203 FTS 922-3311 (301) 383-6650 Pennsylvania Mike Steiner Dept. of Environmental Resources P.O. Box 2063 Fulton Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 FTS (717) 787-9870 Virginia William F. Gilley, Director Division of Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Virginia Dept. of Health James Madison Building 109 Governor Street Rlichmond, VA 23219 FTS 937-6011 (804) 786-5271 Other Participants Royal J. Nadeau Chief, EI Section U.S. EPA-ERT Woodbridge Ave. Edison, NJ 08837 (201) 321-6743 Larry C. Raniere U.S. EPA CERL 200 SW 35th Corval1is, OR 97333 (503) 757-4852 Gerald J. Rausa Regional Liaison Officer U.S. EPA/RSS RD 675 401 M Street SW Washington, DC 20460 (202) 382-7667 William E. Fallon U.S. EPA RD 682 401 M Street SW Washington, DC 20460 (202) 382-5990 ------- Atlanta, March 28-29, 1983 EPA Regional Representatives Steven J. Davis Emergency Response Branch U.S. EPA Region IV 345 Courtland Street NE Atlanta, GA 30365 FTS 404 881-3931 State Representatives A1abama Harold Taylor Land Program Dept. of Environmental Management State Capital Montgomery, AL 36130-1701 FTS 205 834-1303 Arkansas Robert Blanz, Acting Director Dept. of Pollution Control and Ecology P.O. Box 9583 Little Rock, AR 72219 FTS 740-5011 501 562-7444 F1 orida Sam Johnston Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 FTS 904 488-3601 Kentucky Barry Burrus Dept. of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection 1800 Reilly Road Frankfort, KT 40601 FTS 502 564-2150 Missouri Art Groner Waste Management Program P.O. Box 1368 Jefferson City, M0 65102 (314) 751-3241 Ext. 364 A.3 ------- Nebraska M. W. Sheil Water and Waste Management Division Dept. of Environmental Control Box 94877 State House Station Lincoln, NB 68509 FTS 758-7212 402 471-4217 North Carolina Jerry Rhodes Dept. of Human Resources Solid and Hazardous Waste Division of Health SErvice Bath Building Room 213 P.O. Box 2091 Raleigh, NC 27602 FTS 919 733-2178 Oklahoma R. Fenton Rood Dept. of Health Industrial and Solid Waste Division 1000 NE 10th Oklahoma, OK 73152 FTS 736-4011 405 271-5338 South Carolina Alan Trim Dept. of Health and Environmental Conservation J Marion Sims Building 2600 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201 FTS 803 758-5681 Brian McHenry Dept. of Health and Environmental Conservation J. Marion Sims Building 2600 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201 FTS 803 758-5861 Texas Bob Chapin Solid Waste and Superfund Response Dept. of Water Resources P.O. Box 13087 Capitol Street Austin, TX 78711 FTS 729-4011 A.4 ------- Charles R. Faulds Solid Waste and Superfund Response Dept. of Water Resources P.O. Box 13087 Capitol Street Austin, TX 78711 FTS 729-4011 Other Participants Larry C. Raniere U.S. EPA CERL 200 SW 35th Corvallis, OR 97333 (503) 757-4852 Naomi P. Barkley U.S. EPA MERL/SHWRD 36 W. St. Clair Cincinnati, OH 45268 (513) 684-7871 Harrv L. Allen U.S." EPA GSA Raritan Depot, Bldg. 10 Edison, NJ 08837 (201) 321-6747 A.5 ------- Denver, April 4-5, 1983 EPA Regional Representatives Bill Rothenmeyer 8AW-WM U.S. EPA Region VIII 1860 Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80295 (303) 327-6238' State Representatives Idaho Daryl Koch Hazardous Materials Bureau Dept. of Health and Welfare State House Boise, ID 83720 Utah Dennis Downs Bureau of Solid Waste Management Dept. of Health 150W N. Temple P.O. Box 2500 Salt Lake City, UT 84110 (801) 533-4145 Washi ngton Mike Ruef Dept. of Ecology Mail Stop PV-11 Olympia, WA 98504 (206) 459-6304 Other Participants George Prince U.S. EPA ERT GSA Raritan Depot, Bldg. 10 Edison, NJ 08837 (201) 321-6649 Bob Fox U.S. EPA Montana Operations Office Federal Office Building Drawer 10096 301 S. Park Helena, MT 59601 FTS 585-5414 Gene Lubieniecki U.S. EPA-NEIC Bldg. 53 Denver Federal Center P. 0. Box 25227 Denver, CO 80225 FTS 234-4658 (303) 234-4658 A.6 ------- |