Appendix B: Survey of Regulators, Consultants, and Stakeholders

B.1 Introduction

The web-based survey was conducted using Survey Monkey and opened on November 30, 2010 and remained open until August 14, 2011. It was first circulated among ITRC State Points of Contact (POCs) who are state regulators ITRC Board members from the Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Defense, USEPA, Industry Affiliate Members, and public and tribal stakeholders. A request was included with the circulation that the survey be distributed within these organizations to anyone with an interest in or experience with EMDs. The target audience for the survey included regulators (e.g., project managers, executive staff, and administrators of state/agency-funded cleanup programs), regulatory agency consultants, and ITRC industry affiliates program members.

B.2 Evaluation of Survey Results

90 people started the survey; 78 completed it.
As seen in Figure B-1, 60% were regulators, and 21% were consultants.

Figure B-1. Survey participants by profession.

29 states were represented (see Figure B-2): AK, AL,CA, CO, DE, FL, GA, IL KS, MA, MD, MI MO NC, NE, NH, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TX, VA, WV, WY.

Figure B-2. States with participants in the EMD Survey.

Regulator participation

2 federal staff; neither reported having EMD experience.
54 state staff; 4 reported having EMD experience.

Familiarity with EMDs (see Figure B-3)

34.5% familiar with CSIA
34.5% familiar with PCR
24.1% familiar with Fingerprinting Methods
18.4% SIP
14.9% FISH
11.5% Microarray analysis

Figure B-3. Percentage of respondents reporting familiarity with EMDs (figure generated from Survey Monkey results).

EMD Application ─ almost 66% of survey participants reported having no experience with EMDs (see Figure B-4).

Figure B-4. Percentage of respondents with EMD experience.

Potential barriers, ways to increase confidence and the number of people/number of sites where EMDs have been used.

Table B-1. Summary information for survey results

Table B-1. Summary information from survey results
Method	Barriers that prevent use of EMDs	Ways to increase confidence	Number of sites where EMDs have been used by survey respondents
Compound Specific Isotope Analysis (CSIA)	cost availability of qualified laboratory	guide to data interpretation method standardization	1 to 4 sites,15 respondents 5 to 9 sites, 2 respondents
Fingerprinting Methods (T-RFLP, DGGE, ARISA, PLFAPhospholipid fatty acids derived from the two hydrocarbon tails of phospholipids.)	knowledge of EMD availability of qualified laboratory	data validation process guide to data interpretation method standardization	1 to 4 sites, 14 respondents >15 sites, 1 respondent 5 to 9 sites, 2 respondents
Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Techniques	cost	method standardization data validation process guide to data interpretation	1 to 4 sites, 15 respondents 5 to 9 sites, 4 respondents 10 to 14 sites, 3 respondents >15 sites, 1 respondent
Microarray Analysis	knowledge of EMD availability of qualified laboratory cost availability of qualified technical personnel	guide to data interpretation method standardization	1 to 4 sites, 4 respondents 5 to 9 sites, 1 respondent
Stable Isotope Probing (SIP)	cost availability of qualified laboratory	guide to data interpretation method standardization	1 to 4 sites, 9 respondents 10 to 14 sites, 1 respondent > than 15 sites, 1 respondent
Enzyme Activity Probes (EAPs)	availability of qualified laboratories knowledge of EMD availability of qualified technical personnel cost	guide to data interpretation method standardization data validation process	1 to 4 sites, 3 respondents 5 to 9 sites, 1 respondent > 15 sites, 1 respondent
Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH)	availability of qualified laboratories knowledge of EMD cost availability of qualified technical personnel	guide to data interpretation method standardization	1 to 4 sites, 7 respondents 5 to 9 sites, 1 respondent
EMD Sampling Devices	availability of qualified laboratories availability of qualified technical personnel cost	standardized QA/QC procedures a guide for field sampling	1 to 4 sites, 7 respondents 5 to 9 sites, 3 respondents 10 to 14 sites, 1 respondent > than 15 sites, 2 respondents

Participants listed knowledge of EMDs, cost, availability of qualified laboratories, and availability of qualified technical personnel as barriers to using EMDs. Standardized QA/QC procedures, a guide to data interpretation, method standardization, a data validation process, and a guide to field sampling were all listed as ways to increase confidence in using EMDs. A summary of the potential barriers, ways to increase confidence and the number of people/number of sites where EMDs have been used are listed by each specific EMD in Table B-1.

B.3 Training Needs

The highlights of the results for the training needs questions on the survey include:

80.6% described EMD training needs at their agency or organization from moderate to very extensive. Only 19.5% of the survey respondents expressed training needs as “not very extensive”.
The majority of those that participated thought that basic sciences information should be a part of the EMD training program.
Most thought that their agency or organization would benefit from training on specific EMDs. See Figure B-5 for details.

Figure B-5. Summary of training needs (figure generated from Survey Monkey results).

Permission is granted to refer to or quote from this publication with the customary acknowledgment of the source (see suggested citation and disclaimer).

This web site is owned by ITRC.

1250 H Street, NW • Suite 850 • Washington, DC 20005 | P: (202) 266-4933 • F: (202) 266-4937

ITRC is sponsored by the Environmental Council of the States

Open topic with navigation