EVALUATION OF ACADEMIC RESOURCES

IN CALIFORNIA FOR A TIRE RESEARCH CENTER:

 

 

MAY 2003

DRAFT REPORT

Purpose of Report

To assist the Board in evaluating the concept for creation of a Tire Research Center at one of California’s universities that provides a resource for third-party expert peer reviews and research, the Board entered into an interagency agreement with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment to learn the following:

Questions Asked

    What institutional and individual expertise for tire-related issues exist within California’s higher academic institutions?

   What academicians have a background and/or experience in tire-related issues?     What are the approaches and feasibility for a California Tire Research Center?  

Current Approach

1. The Board initially seeks assistance from other Cal/EPA Boards, Departments and Offices, other state agencies and the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) systems.

2. The Board seeks outside qualified expertise through a competitive process and issues Request for Proposals/Qualifications or Invitation for Bids to obtain a larger pool of qualified expertise.

Technical Assistance Contracts To Date  

  

Number of Contracts

 

Contractor

2 California State University (interagency agreement)

1 University of California (interagency agreement)

7 State of California Agencies (interagency agreement)

9 Private Consultants (standard agreement)

Identification of Academic Institutions

Internet searches were conducted and resulted in the identification of the 366 colleges and universities in California, only campuses of the University of California, California State University and two private academic institutions, CalTech and USC warranted further inquiry based on established academic and research programs in engineering, chemistry, environmental sciences and marketing.

Individual Expertise Regarding Tire Issues

Experts identified were initially contacted by phone and invited to participate in a scheduled telephone survey. Survey questions were developed from the interagency agreement scope of work. Each telephone survey was first conducted with the scientist with follow-up interviews of administrators in the Universities’ Office of Research and/or Sponsored Projects and Grants for administrative and logistical issues.

Findings

Often, tire-related activities are one-time projects or an activity related to other research work funded by the federal and/or state government.

This is probably is reflective of California’s lack of tire manufacturers that would enlist universities to prepare students to enter into this specific workforce area.

Three universities were well versed in the Board’s fee based source of funding and budget for tire-related research.

Findings

UC Riverside, College of Engineering-Center for Environmental Research and Technology (CE-CERT) program and the CSU Chico are perceived to have strengths in both theoretical and applied research.

Three private consultants commented that, while universities in California perform excellent theoretical research, the universities lack the applied technical experience needed by the Board to further expand and promote uses of recycled tire products.

Findings

UC Riverside, CSU Pomona and USC reported conducting research for tire manufacturing companies while others reported regular interaction with the tire industry.

One UC campus expressed hesitation in sharing research work with the CSU system given that the CSU system’s primary role is instruction while the UC system is research.

Findings

OEHHA noted that no proposals were received from any California UC or CSU campuses for the nine competitive contracts. Reasons given:

·        University resources required to submit a proposal to the Board outweigh the benefits. ·        Timing of the Board’s contract conflicts with other scheduled projects.

·        Time-limited state contracts and budget does not allow for research continuity and enlistment of graduate students.

Recommendation

Three approaches have been identified.

It is strongly recommended the Board further define the mission, goals, role and responsibilities, as well as, funding and workload projections for a tire research center before selection of either Approach #1 or #2

Approach #1Tire Research Center

Establish and maintain a Tire Research Center within a California university. The Tire Research Center, as designed by the Board, will serve as the Board’s primary technical advisor and a centralized place for conducting research on tire-related issues.

Approach #2 Tire Research Consortium

It is evident that no one university has the tire-related expertise encompassing the areas of research, chemistry, risk assessment, applied technology, marketing and development. Therefore, establish a tire research consortium of UC and CSU campuses that provides technical assistance and research to the Board.

Approach #3 Research Clearinghouse

To assist in the identification of readily available and specific tire-related expertise, an in-house research clearinghouse will provide immediate on-call technical assistance to the Board. Interviews conducted with Board programs revealed that numerous hours are spent networking in order to learn of any available tire-related experts.

A standalone university-based research center from which all tire-related technical assistance and research will be conducted on behalf and under direction of the Board.

A lead university entity will coordinate and delegate all tire-related technical assistance and research among the UC and CSU campuses on behalf of the Board.

A program designated to assist the Board’s programs to readily locate and obtain tire-related expertise specific to their requirements and needs.

#1 #2 #3

Structure

#1 #2 #3

Minimum Criteria

1.Campus housed facility

2.Staffing level: Principal Investigator, Graduate Student Assistant and administrative staff.

3.Startup funding of $300,000 to $500,000.

4.Daily staff salary and operating costs

5.Develop and maintain a database

6.Subcontracts for external consultants.

7.Board staff position to liaison to the university

1.Campus researcher and administrator

2.Staffing Level: Principal Investigator

3.Negotiated rates. Pay for services on an as needed basis

4.Minimal staff salary or operating expenses.

5.Develop and maintain a database

6.Subcontracts for external consultants.

7.Board staff position to liaison to the university

1.A Board position staffed in-house research clearinghouse

2.Staffing Level: Administrative support position.

3.Establish position and program: $100,000

4.Daily state staff salary and operating costs.

5.Develop and maintain a database

6.Internal and external consultant contracts

#1 #2 #3

Strengths

1.On-call, immediate assistance to the Board.

2.Designed to specifically meet the needs of the Board and university recognition as the Board’s researcher.

3.An entity to develop, propose and advise the Board on innovative recycle tire research activities and projects.

1.Access to all UC and CSU researchers.

2.Relieves the Board of the administrative responsibilities of locating consultants and entering into individual university contracts.

3.Minimizes costs based on fee-for-services.

1.In-house resource to immediately assist the Board programs locate qualified consultants.

2.Works with the Board to facilitate internal and external consultant contracts.

3.Database may assist other Cal/EPA programs to locate consultants and reduce duplicative search efforts.

#1 #2 #3

Weaknesses

1.Requires start-up funding.

2.Requires a three- to five-year research and funding commitment.

3.Daily operating costs of maintaining a research center when not in use by the Board.

4.Board projects must include a guaranteed of actual research activities. Peer reviews cannot be the primary function

1.Availability of researchers limited given existing university priorities.

2.The distribution of projects among the UC and CSU campuses may not provide research consistency and continuity.

3.Board projects must include a guaranteed of actual research activities. Peer reviews cannot be the primary function  

1.Development of a database, lengthy process.

2.Board responsible to make the final selection in compliance with the state contracting process.

3.Hiring or redirection of staff to support this program.

#1 #2 #3

Issues

1.Three to five year research and financial commitment by the Board to support a tire research center.

2.Does the Board’s projected research workload require dedicated and fulltime staffing of multi-disciplinary researchers?

3.How much support is the Board willing to expend for a university program to reach an acceptable level of expertise?

1.Will the Board lose its ability to directly select and supervise the activities of the assigned researcher?

2.Does the Board’s projected volume of research work far exceed the projected number of peer reviews?

3.If qualified university researchers are not available to perform the services within the required time period, what other options will the Board entertain?

1.Is the Board satisfied with its current contracting practices?

2.Does the Board envision a continued or expanded need for such services in other areas to support this new endeavor?

3.Is the Board willing to conduct outreach activities to increase its pool of qualified consultants and to instruct Board programs on the use of the clearinghouse?

Concluding Remarks

The findings of this report reveal that the present level of tire-related expertise available in California’s academic institutions may not fully meet the Board’s needs. With no comprehensive academic or research program for tires at any California university campus, there is a need for the Board to develop an infrastructure to recruit and sustain tire-related research activities in and for California