Outreach Workgroup
Meeting
Public
Web Site
Demonstrated
and discussed current format and content. Discussed questionnaire results:
•
Add counter, add what’s new hyperlink
•
Support for guest book, response mechanisms need to be worked out
•
Complete Board meeting minutes will be available on the web site
•
Products need Board approval prior to going on web site
•
Board members - names and affiliations only not phone numbers and
addresses
•
Include caveat for all workplans and products - proposed products,
schedule and content could change, Board positions are works in progress
•
Remove all budget information from workgroup workplans
•
Hopefully, at least semi-annually, workgroup chairs get public
relations update to Charlie for web page
Publicizing
web page – Bob Berger contacted several organizations. We need to send them web page for review and then they could
link to the Board and publicize our activities.
The Board web page can be prominently featured on Office of Water, USGS,
ASTM, and other Board member organization web sites.
•
Continue working with Council to coordinate web sites and outreach
efforts
•
Obtain appropriate organization news letter spots –hardcopy and email
•
Future presentations should include web site information
Responses
to Guest book
•
Charlie will either answer guestbook entries or send to the appropriate
person on the Board for response
•
Each workgroup will have a guestbook; there will be no general
guestbook on the homepage, to encourage more specific comments and questions
•
If too many requests are received, then it may be necessary to get
contractor-support to deal with responses.
Content
of Web site: We need to add
information about the next Board meeting and request ideas for discussion at
next meeting. Feature a question and answer section (FAQs) based on guestbook
entries.
Next steps: Charlie
will send an email to all Board participants for final comments on the public
web page and slide show. Include
web addresses in email. The password protected site will be maintained to
conduct Board internal business.
Funding and CRADAs
USGS
(Bob Hirsch, Lew Wade, and Tim Miller) is very supportive of the Council and
Board efforts. It appears that
funds are available for State Board delegate travel costs in 1999.
The June Council meeting will be the last one this FY.
The USGS has been able to provide staff involvement through Charlie
Peters, Harold Ardourel, Merle Shockey, Charlie Patton and Michal Harthill’s
continued involvement. USGS is committed in the charter to pay for travel for
1 non-fed to board meetings. USGS
is currently funding 5 or 6 non-fed delegates. The USGS expects level funding
for FY00. Funding of workgroup
activities are the next budgetary hurdle.
Other organizations need to contribute more.
Hopefully, the upcoming ACWI meeting will help the situation.
On the EPA side,
Chuck Spooner has approximately $400K for Council and Board support.
Herb also reported that his office has $125K available.
Elizabeth Fellows and Jim Hanlon (OW) are very supportive.
However, there is not enough money to run both the Council and Board as
hoped or projected. USGS and EPA are presently committing approximately $2
million in salaries, travel, etc. Other organizations need to contribute.
Opportunities
for funding in AWWRF and WERF if technical topics appropriate.
Those organizations
having new methods or involved in method development may be interested in PBMS
pilots. We need to conceptualize
a pilot and then approach organizations.
WERF meets in July; AWWRF meets in late August.
Funds would not be available for a year after that.
It would be good to have Pilot pre-proposals in place by the end of
June. We need basic elements of what the proposed research project
would look like and questions being answered. DOE is also very interested in
PBMS. There is a June meeting of
the National Analytical Managers in DOE to whom Mary Verwolf will be speaking
about the Board. It may be
appropriate to bring up pilot pre-proposals there.
There may also be
opportunities to institute or shepherd pilot studies already in progress or
proposed (e.g., Wisconsin, Border States - Mexico). Drinking water industries
could be partnered with pulp and paper - singular chemicals, disinfection,
commercial methods or manufacturers to get funding on pilot projects. Need to
get very specific about what we need to do; i.e., studies needed and funding
needs.
CRADAs
- Larry Fradkin
A CRADA allows
federal labs to enter into agreements with private and university sectors.
These parties can provide supplies, labor, etc.
However, the federal government can’t give money directly to private
companies. A CRADA can provide private money to fund feds. CRADAs are
about the only way that feds can take private money. CRADAs are not new; they
must make sense to all sides.
Feds can get royalties if involved with a successful patent. One advantage of
CRADAs is that they are exempt from contract laws for example, they can be
noncompetitive. Indirect costs or
direct costs can be included so that overhead is not visible, and can include
in-kind services. The Board wouldn’t have a CRADA but the Board could
formulate a CRADA through a federal agency. CRADA may allow the Board to avoid
some of the beaurocratic and technical hurdles in dealing with AWARF and some
other funding organizations. A
schematic of a proposed CRADA could be as follows:
USGS --- EPA à
Contractor—Universities—States
|
|
Research Consortium –Companies, Research Foundations, Others
(private only)
The Technical
Commercialization Center (ETC2)(Cleveland, Ohio), funded by EPA, helps
formulate CRADAs, developing research consortiums, licenses, etc.
They do the leg work for setting up a CRADA and the services are free.
ETC2 could put ideas on the website to try and make this happen. We need to
determine specifically what want to achieve.
Each workgroup should develop a plan.
What about cost of
managing a CRADA? Oversight and
project management in other CRADAs is covered on the federal side.
There is no cost to the private group.
For Federal - State partnering, there are better methods
than CRADAs - interagency agreements for example.
Some concern was expressed in having one private firm
providing the money to do some work in a CRADA.
Perhaps we can get several companies to fund Board efforts through a
consortium.
Should the Board endorse the idea of pursuing CRADAs?
CRADAs are not rigid, they can be renegotiated, and they
can be amended easily. They’re easy to get into and out of these agreements.
CRADAs take about two months to develop. We should get Rick Lieberman to
describe how the AWARF CRADA was managed. Marty Allen was also involved with
that CRADA.
Accreditation Workgroup Meeting
Attendees –Barbara Erickson, Harold Ardourel, Andy
Eaton, Tom Maloney by phone and Charlie Peters.
Workplan: The
workgroup needs to revise their workplan to emphasize that only federal lab
accreditation is being addressed and not state or private lab accreditation.
The workgroup may address those aspects in a future position paper. We
need to add a new objective for state and private labs and field
certification.
Position paper: An
outline was prepared for a position paper by the Board that states the need
for accreditation of Federal water quality monitoring labs. Federal labs need
to have national certification to gain acceptance by states for work done for
regulatory purposes. Federal labs don’t want to be required to get certified
by each individual State. For
accreditation beyond drinking water, it may be advisable to pursue accrediting
the system in the lab and not the methods.
Goals for national certifications: There is a need to assure comparability of data and assure
state acceptance of data (QAQC blessing for data).
The position paper will address water only. The paper needs to describe
how DQOs differ for ambient versus compliance monitoring. Compliance DQOs are
set in stone. Ambient DQOs may be more or less stringent (one may be looking
at lower levels, however, there may not be as stringent MQOs).
It is critical that data meet state data quality requirements,
sufficient for sharing and applicable for ambient and compliance monitoring.
There are several types of accreditation.
ISO standards are more general than most which has advantages. A lab
needs to show it can meet DQOs. NELAC is very specific regarding how many
times you run a sample and on which instrument, etc. Bioterrorism and food
safety focus use the ISO25 guidelines (CDC involved with this) (revised number
is 17025?). HL7
format must be used for bioterrorism and food safety. The position paper will
indicate that different standards and different programs were considered.
NELAC is the most recognized accrediting body presently. GLP is
recognized but not for environmental programs.
The Navy does their own accreditation but they are considering joining
NELAC. NELAC is not PBMS-based. ISO is PBMS-based but not to a great level of
detail. AALA
focuses on compliance monitoring labs – a checksheet monitoring
system. Only 3 or 4 states use AALA.
We need to start a position paper this FY.
The Canadian lab certification board (CALCAN) should be added to the
list of programs. Tom Maloney will help research the ISOs, NVLAP and CALCAN.
Barbara will research NELAC and NELAP. Robin Nissan - Navy. Tom
McAninch will summarize ISO web page information. Bart Simmons - E4, NELAC/NELAP.
Harold will look at ASTM guidelines and standards. We need to list other
write-ups needed and ask for volunteers to complete those parts. Part II -
water only and ambient versus baseline. Part III add Barts’ comments to EPA
and add other feds. Part IV add ASTM. Part V
add forensic lab accreditation – EPA. Part VI - will be the actual
position statement.
Need ACWI support for whatever system the position paper
recommends. Five slides will be prepared for the ACWI presentation : 1) goals
of position paper, 2) list of fed data collection entities, 3) what standards
are currently being used by federal labs, 4) what accreditation programs
exist, 5) prepare position paper and ask for support.
The workgroup discussed State drinking water program
licensure program and various related concerns. States need to have EPA
approval and must run performance standards. Standards can be supplied by NIST.
Some states (CA, WI, NY) also do these themselves. Standards do not exist for
all matrices. Performance standards generally use water as a matrix, not
typically a variety of matrices. There is no money in State environmental
agencies to pay for this.
EPA no longer has money to fund state lab accreditation
through NELAP. If not, who will do this? Concerned that EPAs NELAC support is
slowly eroding away. The EPA office handling NELAC is changing (from the
office of R&D). EMMC will also be moved into this new office. There is no
chief yet and there is concern that there will not be support in this new
office. NELAP has seen this coming and so has reduced the standards somewhat
before this fell apart. 11 states will have been accredited, but at a
lower/quicker standard.
There are still a lot of questions concerning
accreditation training, liability, and costs to States. Who will accredit the
state lab accreditors?
Jerry Parr and Bill
Moore are preparing a 1 day NELAP certification training on how to get and
maintain lab certification, based on the latest NELAC rules. This would be
presented at the WTQA conference, July 22nd.
Jerry will report on training at the next meeting.
The position paper
needs to add CDC, FWS, FS, NOAA, BLM, and others to the federal lab section of
the paper. NELAC is a FACA group. AALA and NIST currently do 3rd party
accreditation. There are no recognized standards for national accreditation.
NELAC should provide oversight for PE samples. A standard was written,
but who will be paid to implement it? Harold presented slides for Herb’s
presentation to ACWI, highlighting the position paper under development
recommending support for national accreditation of federal water-testing labs. The workgroup will concentrate for now on federal labs since
this is more feasible.
Biology Workgroup Meeting
Attendees - Gene
Rice, Michalann Harthill, Bob Berger, Donna Francy, Ed Santoro, Dennis
McChesney, Bob Berger, Katherine Alben, Jerry Diamond, Mike Miller.
The biological
methods section for the NEMI structure and use document was revised and
describes what type of biological methods will eventually be
incorporated into NEMI, the types of searches we'd like to see for those
methods, and the types of organizations we envision using this database.
This revised information was presented and generally approved. The
weasel was chosen as the workgroup mascot.
Jerry provided a draft database structure patterned after
NEMI and some of EPA's EMMI fields, using a couple of toxicity test methods
and a couple of macroinvertebrate collection methods. Presently, the field that is called method specific
requirements (which is not an official NEMI field) attempts to sum up the
salient features of a method that distinguish it from other methods of its
type and matrix. This field is
essentially Chris Ingersoll's table for tox methods.
The workgroup needs to think about whether this structure is okay for
now or whether we really do need separate fields for each specific method
requirement. If possible, it
would be nice to have as many similar data fields across biological methods as
possible. The information we put
in the particular data field will be different depending on the type of method
but the field still applies. One thing to think about here is that the search
engine can search on text within a field and pick out those tox methods, for
example, that require 25°C
or those macroinvertebrate collection methods that use a kick net in wadeable
streams. These don't have to be
separate fields for searching purposes. However,
as we were lead to understand by the NEMI group, for query purposes, an item
or requirement needs to be in its own field if we think it will be a major
item upon which methods will be sorted. We
still need more input here from folks like Jim King from DynCorps who is
helping with the EMMI database structure.
Clearly, some fields such as precision or sensitivity, will take work
to dig out for a given method and many methods may have nothing to report, at
least easily. That may be okay as
that separates methods that underwent more 'validation' from other methods.
As a result of the May 19 workgroup meeting, the work
group has decided it will do the following tasks over the next 3 weeks or so:
Microbiological
Methods - Donna and Gene
Dennis will send
Donna fields they use for microbiology. Donna Francy and Gene Rice will take
total coliform and crypto methods and expand their database fields for those
methods. They will look at the
NEMI fields as well as draft fields done by Jerry Diamond as they develop a
spreadsheet for these particular methods.
Macroinvertebrate
Methods
Mike and Tetra Tech
will focus on 1 or 2 habitats and work up spreadsheet - methods
characteristics. Mike and Jerry will discuss the feasibility of using the
fields Jerry devised patterned after the chemistry NEMI fields.
Immunoassays
Katherine updated
tables - will focus on atrazine - need to look at recent literature and get
methods.
Toxicology
Chris Ingersoll and Jerry will take a look at perhaps one
type of toxicity test method and also do the same exercise.
For all of the above methods, if info for a certain field
is not known but probably available, that will be noted in the respective
table. If a given field doesn't
apply to a type of method, that will be indicated too. Draft tables are due to Jerry for distribution by June 18.
The workgroup agreed that it should concentrate on
populating method database fields for now. Eventually, we will all join forces
and design an 'expert system' that would guide a user into NEMI from many
potential lines of questioning (e.g., what's the right type of method if I
want to answer such and such a question).
Goals
of Biological Database
We would like to
provide comprehensive evidence of methods so users can decide which ones to
use. How does one decide
which method to use? Owners of methods should participate in extraction and
review effort, maybe help with financing, and be responsible for NEMI updates?
Program Objectives
Tier 1:
“Expert System” level; why someone would want to use biological methods;
monitoring goals and biological methods
Surveillance vs.
Compliance, trend analysis, process control, land use decisions - BMPs, Rapid
vs. detailed characterization, human vs. ecological.
Tier
2: Method Characterization
•
strategy of method, QA/QC required; quality of data
•
screening versus quantitative
•
media type
•
level of organization
•
field versus lab
•
terrestrial versus aquatic
•
relative cost/effort/expertise
Tier
3: nuts and bolts of each
method.
Where do we address
method comparability?
•
partly in quality of data
•
method characteristics (Tier 2) and specifics of methods (Tier 3)
Attachment B
summarizes the three Tiers or levels of the database discussed.
NEMI Workgroup
Attendees: Larry
Keith, Ann Strong, Jim Keith, Marion Thompson, Bernie Malo, John Klein, Cliff
Annis, Elaine Streets, Anthony Scandoro, Herb Brass, Charlie Peters, Chuck
Spooner, Merle Shockey, Charlie Peters
Tony
Scadora (Argonne National Laboratory) - Database Critique
Tony indicated that
it is probably best to buy a known browser search engine for the internet
rather than building one. Oracle
has such a search engine. Chuck
Spooner is also involved with a similar issue in STORET and could help out.
Tony noted that the NEMI database is not so huge or the transactions so
many. However, data do need to be
reliable. Oracle would be a good
way to go. USGS can help out.
--
Going to take money to do regardless of which database one uses.
--
Chuck — can EMMI be used rather than Oracle?
Jim King:
EMMI internet version doesn’t have much of the functionality required
by the Board. Also USGS has some funding to set-up a pilot NEMI using Oracle,
once a database is propulated. EMMI
could be close to the needs of NEMI if linked to the full methods and
searchable.
Larry noted that we
have a large variety of users, not only chemists.
EMMI is not necessarily adaptable to non-chemists.
Chuck questioned
whether EMMI will keep going with its own web version if the Board produces a
NEMI?
Marion answered
possibly yes. EPA is concerned
that methods are updated and current. Perhaps
EMMI may have a subset of the database that doesn’t have all Board fields.
She also noted that nonwater methods are also in EMMI.
All
agreed that the goal is to meet NEMI requirements and the EMMI user community
--
It would be logical for the Board and EMMI to join forces and have one
product on water methods
--
Board’s methods or subset of EMMI?
Assumptions
for NEMI
(1) Port data from
EMMI and EMSD to USGS Oracle after cleanup.
(2) Chemistry and
Biological schematics
•
25 fields for chemistry methods plus associated metadata fields (units
of measure, etc.).
•
not sure how many new fields for Biological Methods
What needs to be done
to clean up data for ORACLE?
1.
‘normalize’ metadata in EMMI
2.
add metadata ‘provenance’ from sources (e.g., one lab validation,
multi-lab validation)
3.
CAS number and synonyms are not a problem
4.
after #1 and #2, port data to USGS
5.
Add more method comparability/PBMS information such as interferences?
Reference
sources?
Preservation
requirements?
Sample
preparation?
6.
Add field analytical methods from EMSD
7.
Add Help
Next Steps
8.
Develop rules/options for database structure
9.
EMSD and EMMI — fit data to database structure and split up data (EMSD)
or combine data (EMMI)
10.
Develop algorithms and generate consistent metadata for 350 water
methods
11.
Identify critical fields that need to be filled when absent in EMMI and
fill them.
Resource
Discussion
Cliff:
Resources need to be dealt with for this project since central to Board’s
mission.
Chuck:
Board’s proposal should identify certain assumptions regarding EMMI being
underfunded in regards to Board’s needs.
Herb:
To get EMMI up on the internet would cost approximately $125K - and this
database won’t meet a substantial portion of the Board’s needs. The Board
should revisit with Mat Brin the possible use of a CRADA to help with
developing NEMI.
EMMI
was designed for regulatory community-compliance. What’s the difference in cost between the update/on-line of
EMMI with or without the board’s input?
USGS and EPA should not be the only funding organizations. This is an interagency effort. NEMI will be presented to ACWI next week. There is
interagency agreement on goal and objectives for NEMI.
We need to keep going and not let a temporary lack of resources stop
progress.
Tony
— could have two
“entrances” to the same database — one for EMMI and one for NEMI users. The workgroup needs to quantify the real budget and get
appropriate resources.
Chuck
— The Board is preparing a new institutional arrangement to put NEMI on
another server (not EMMI). There
may be a policy choice regarding funding being unsupportive of EMMI.
Larry Keith —
The Board has come to terms with what changes need to be made to EMMI
to make it useful to non-chemists. There
is still no committment for funding to do what the Board recommended.
John Klein— USGS has money available, but has moved it this
year. NAWQA has an intense interest.
Use both EMMI and EMSD in NEMI.
EPA estimates $45K to develop rules/options for database structure.
We need to develop algorithms and generate consistent metadata. Limit the pilot to 350 water methods; estimated costs is
$30K.
For
Radioactive methods, the detection limit is method-specific (time
duration/half life). Perhaps
detection limit field may need to be modified from other chemical methods. Is
it possible to obtain DOE funding to
include these methods?
Funding should come
from beyond USGS and EPA such as other feds or CRADAs, etc.
Proceed with NEMI as
planned. With funding create the NEMI interface that builds off of
EMMI and EMSD. Don’t shortchange how NEMI is done or it won’t be used.
We need a detailed proposal that states what is needed and what will be
provided for the funding.
Other
Workgroup Interface
Biology
- Jerry gave a summary of the biological database structure under discussion.
All agreed that there should be more emphasis on Tiers 2 and 3
(Attachment B) for now; i.e., more emphasis on method characteristics and
specifics and not as much on Tier 1 which is an “expert system” level.
That will come later.
Nutrients – Only
about 3 of 40 EMMI methods had
any precision data. Is that representative of all methods?
There are probably about 10 fields with no data for most nutrient
methods. The workgroup identified
2 or 3 other fields to add.
Water Quality Data Elements Workgroup Meeting
Attendees: Chuck Job, Lynn Bradley–by phone, Glenn
Patterson–by phone, John Rumble –by phone, Charlie Peters, Bob Berger,
Charlie Patton , Ed Santoro, Dennis McChesney, Andy Eaton, Barabara Erickson,
Michalann Harthill, Roger Stewart– by phone, Tom Maloney
– by phone
Review of March 15th Minutes
The first conference call/meeting of the committee was
held March 15, 1999, from 1:00 to 3:00 pm
EST.
The agenda was: Introductions,
Purpose of the Committee, Discussion of Materials attached to email, Approach
to Developing a Recommended Set of Data Elements for Water Quality Data
Reporting, Next Steps
Include a summary of the March minutes (attachment C)
when obtained from Chuck Job.
Organizational Considerations
Workgroup will communicate with each other via email
through the internal website email archive. The archive email address is: djsulliv@usgs.gov
type WQDE Workgroup in the subject line to allow the archival file system to
organize the Workgroup emails.
To view WQDE mail in this archive :
1) get on the internal Board website -URL - http://wi.water.usgs.gov/methodsboard/
2) When queried type in id = methods Password = nocarp99
3) in the Directory –click on email archive
4) find emails with the subject line of NCOD or WQDE
Workgroup, click on them and read them
5) if you reply to the email the emails will be filed
together via a thread index in the archive
There is also a WQDE Workgroup home page in both the
internal Board website and the Public Board website (http://wi.water.usgs.gov/pmethods/index.html).
The public website WQDE page includes a guestbook that can also be used to
exchange information or to obtain comments from interetsted non-Workgroup
members.
The Workgroup will operate by consensus, however, there
need not be unanimous agreement.
Should attempt to get Alden Henderson the Board member
from the CDC involved in this Workgroup. Also should try and get some State
Fish and Game people and a USDA and NOAA individual on the Workgroup.
Also should invite State Environmental Commisioners to participate in
the workgroup.
Will take about 1 to 1.5 years to develop the list and
definitions and hold requisite public meetings.
Review Meeting Materials
-
list of WQDE groups –includes 13 suggested elements
-
AZ DEQ data elements tables (roughly comparable to data element groups)
– from Mario Castenada
-
Des Moines EMPACT project data elements permissible values – 141
elements
-
Environmental Data Registry data element definitions format (linked to
HL7 format)
-
HL7 format –from Barbara Erickson
-
Environmental Council of States – developing data elements list
(State Env. Comm)
-
Recommended NCOD data elements – includes 47 data elements and
relates them to Appendix M data elements from ITFM report (available on the
internal website)
-
USGS NWIS data elements and definitions
Discussion about “What data element groups should be
considered to apply to a recommended core water quality data element set?”
-
Need to be sure we connect the water data elements to human health data
as well. There is currently a problem linking the health locations
geospatially.
-
These data elements should be viable for compliance and ambient data
sets.
-
We need a commonly acceptable set of data elements and definitions for
a “core” or “mimimum” or “critical” set.
-
Appendix M and proposed NCOD lists are on the website
-
Must have consistency between data element names and definitions.
-
Charlie Peters will get a NAWQA data elements list
-
We should also get the NEMI, Chesapeake Bay, SIDWIS, and DOE data
elements list
-
Previous minimum set of data elements required was 5 or 6. STORETX
minimum is much larger
-
We should start with a large (complete) date set and then winnow the
list
-
Some data eleements apply to samples and some to methods, we need to
indicate which apply to each.
-
Will use the “bounded” list of draft list of 13 elements that was
adapted from the EPA env. Date reg. As the pilot list and add and subtract
from it.
-
Need to add reason for sample collection under sample info element.
Also need to add constituent concentration. Need to add time, duration, and
sample analyses date to the date element.
-
Chuck will send electronic copy of the 13 proposed set to Charlie top
put on the website.
-
Roger Stewart will provide the CIMS and STORET date alement module.
-
Perhaps should eliminate Chemical Substance as an element in the list.
-
Glenn Patterson will crosswalk USGS data elements with the env. Data
reg list (available at www.epa.gov/edr)
-
Bob Berger will get Canada’s system for the Workgroup
Next Steps
-
Develop the criteria that defines “core” Minimum” “critical” set of data elements
–Conference call near the end of June or early July (target date 6/23, 11am
EDT)
-
Develop definitions for each data element and common names
-
Continue to compile data elements lists
Meetings with EPA Staff
Individuals attended various meetings with EPA Staff. The topics were:
MDLs with Dick Reding and Paul Britton, OGWDW Methods Development with Dave
Munch, ORD Methods Development with Tom Behymer, and ORD Microbiology methods
with Gerry Stelma.
Nutrient Workgroup Meeting
Attendees: Rick Dunn, Charlie Patton, Ed Santoro,
Katherine Alben, Bob Carlson, Charlie Peters, Michalann Harthill, Merle
Shockey -by phone
Suggested the Nutria or a guinea pig for the workgroup
mascot.
Action since last meeting
1) Talked to Batelle concerning CRADAs - Workgroup should
think about specifics and prepare a proposal to pursue this.
2) Is Tetra Tech money allocated? They are tasked to do an exploratory literature review.
3) Work with EPA to produce a methods manual/white paper
overview. This will need funding.
Discussion of Approach
NEMI fields of information were provided as a handout and
discussed. EMMI Nutrients methods were provided for review as a template.
We need to look through the list and determine which of these methods
are most appropriate.
Charlie Patton provided a handout that suggested that a
database to compare methods will not be feasible because meta data are often
unavailable with any of these methods. This
is what prevents sharing of nutrient data now. Instead, he suggested 4
products: 1)suggest minimum QC requirements for nutrient analyses; 2)
establish reference methods for common nutrients; 3) develop replacement
methods for antiquated methods; 4) promote filtration and chilling as an
alternate preservation approach.
Who will be the users of NEMI? Are nutrient methods
important to NEMI? We need to
identify user levels - volunteer groups, those who choose a lab, those running
the labs.
Other issues: Are
we interested in helping people with historic data? We need to include a field for hazardous toxic concerns/waste
byproducts. Should we
include any new method that is in the published literature?
A field perhaps should be added that describes the litigation history
of the method. Three responses are possible for a new field - historic,
approved for drinking water/NPDES (i.e., ambient or compliance) or
developmental. There are variations in compliance methods between states.
The Workgroup observed that there were no differences
between 80% of methods examined. Einstein
said “keep things as simple as possible but not simpler”. How do we do
this without irritating folks whose methods we trash? We need to keep the data
fields quantitative and the facts will speak for themselves. People will
choose screening tools when appropriate.
The analytical nutrient strategy handout includes a list
of issues.
EMMI template review for nitrate
The Workgroup reviewed the brief method summary for ASTM
method number D3867 using NEMI data element fields. The narrative of the method itself should provide any
information for the data elements that we know – i.e., various references
about interferences, method detection limits, etc.
1) method source - year, reference list-literature review
(Charlie Patton can provide), last modification date, organization or agency -
ASTM
2) method number - ASTM, or EPA, or USGS etc. - D3867a
3) brief title - nitrate/nitrite automated cadmium
reduction
4) official title - nitrate nitrite reduction in water by
automated cadmium reduction.
5) chemical name - nitrate/nitrite
6) synonym - 2+3, etc
7) CAS registry number -
8) applicable matrices - what is in this reference
-water, waste water, saltwater.
narrative for other matrices?
9) brief method summary -Charlie Patton has canned
10) MDL and how determined - none given - if not
mentioned specifically in method, suggest using appendix b of CFR 40-136, for
proper concentration range.
11) concentraion used for method detection limit - none
given - would be user chosen, see 10 above
12) applicable concentration range - .05 to 1 mg/l, again
as written in the method
13) interferences - based on literature available -
suspended sediment
14) instrumentation, including detectors and columns,
etc. - as in the method - photometer/spectophotometer, embellished -
continuous flow analyzer
15) precision - should be discussed relative to time -
within run, between day, also dependent upon concentration. 24 hr or within
run - none given. Precision has
been shown to be 1% between days and .3% within run, for example.
16) accuracy - none
given by 3rd party certified reference material check stock, reference
material cited and what method has been shown to apply for that concentration
in percent
17) sampling methods - none given. in narrative
include - bottle type , grab or composite, etc
18) sample preservation - given as 2 ml concentrated
sulfuric acid per liter or 24 hrs at < 4°C.
No narrative - acidify to pH less than 2
19) maximum holding time - none given. CFR says 28 days
20) sample prep - remove turbidity by filter or oil and
grease by liquid extraction and adjust pH to between 6 and 8 if needed.
mention prep for other matrices?
21) quality control requirements “meta data” - none
given. narrative - good analytical practice would require duplicates, blanks,
spikes, and reference sample with each analytical run.
22)
reference source - none given. See #16 above - standard reference material.
23)
ruggedness - none given.
see Cliff Annis and Ann Strong definition, hopefully this will be an a,b,c,
etc - ability to vary various parameters without sacrificing method
performance.
24) relative
cost - none given. on a four
dollar sign scale - start up costs and or reagent costs, etc.
25) ASTM address and phone number
26) lab sampling - shake bottle, etc.
Next steps
-
Prepare two tables -
First cut between similar methods, then more specific tables that include a
number of these equivalent methods.
-
Review current EMMI methods and decide whether to keep in or put others
in
-
Have Tetra Tech do a first cut of narratives and then have workgroup
review
-
Tetra Tech literature review and outline for a manual
-
Determine what other techniques not in here - through board and council
Questions
-
What money is available for nutrients through Tetra Tech?
-
What are plans for writing narratives?
-
Who will be writing the conversions from EMMI to NEMI?
PBMS Workgroup Meeting
Attendees: Andy
Eaton, Larry Keith, Barbara Erickson, Marion Thompson, Bernie Malo, Rob Henry,
John Klein, Cliff Annis, Tony Scadora, Elaine Streets, Herb Brass, Ann Strong,
Jerry Diamond, Dennis McChesney, Dick Reding, Marianne Lynch – by phone,
David Friedman – by phone
General
discussion
Version
5.2 Dog is being submitted to ACWI for endorsement.
The Board needs to do
a PBMS pilot but such a study is probably expensive. John Klein proposed a nutrient pilot which could be popular
with ACWI and others. USGS and other organizations could be used who are
already sampling and conducting analyses.
Cliff sent an email
to ACS to find out about difficult matrices and other possible analytes.
Total nitrogen is a good example, since we need to examine different
digestion techniques and sample preservation methods.
CRADA possibilities:
get Matt and/or Debra from ETCC to help early on in the process.
There is also a good opportunity for WERF in their July meeting.
Need to get in a preliminary proposal. No one had a problem
conceptually using a CRADA
mechanism.
EPA Workshops – Marianne Lynch/David Friedman
David described EMMC
workshops on PBMS training. Several
workshops are scheduled across the U.S. These
are open meetings to educate people. The last one was held in Philadelphia. 3-4 modules are in
development; in the outline phase. This
is a 3-day training. David is
coordinating the workshops. Details
are not yet worked out on what’s being included.
ERG is the contractor. Comments
and input from the Board are welcome. EPA
is hoping
to have training modules flushed out by the end of July with training
beginning the latter half of this year. Training
for lab auditors will probably be a module but will be one of the last ones to
be developed.
PBMS is defined in
terms of MQOs and DQOs, and issues unresolved. Reference method - defines
performance objectives as part of the method.
At the Philadelphia workshop, two speakers talked about reference
method approaches and boundaries of PBMS - method-dependent parameters - not
PBMS. Approximately 30 people
attended. EPA will have different
speakers from the region depending on where the workshop is held.
Office of Water and compliance and legal staff are meeting to work out
details of the presentation. Overheads
from workshops will be on the web.
Upcoming ACWI
Meeting
Herb will present
information on the PBMS paper and approach and ask for support.
He will also discuss federal lab accreditation issues developed by the
lab accreditation group. Herb
will present bullets summarizing key points of the paper.
ACS PBMS Pilot
Study
Larry reported that
the pilot changed objectives along the way as they couldn’t evaluate DQOs as
hoped. There was not enough
funding for sufficient samples to obtain statistical confidence intervals.
Therefore, the pilot is addressing MQOs.
They used Youden pairs of samples instead of triplicates as planned.
They found that some labs were not able to participate because they
can’t take instruments off-line and already have instruments committed for
samples. Samples are being
shipped out now or soon. Analytes
include herbicides, metals, semivolatiles, and volatiles
in water. Matrices include
treated municipal wastewater, groundwater - petroleum contaminated, soil -
“easy” (high sand/loam), and soil - challenging (some clay). The total budget is ~ $220K.
Average cost is $20K per lab for water and $25K per lab for soil.
A total of 4 labs are involved.
Barbara noted that it
would be good to have samples or sites for which “reference” methods
don’t exist but need site-specific methods (PBMS).
This could make PBMS more receptive in a court of law.
Khouane (EPA ATP
Program) offered to find data for validation protocols.
Some chemical methods do not have electronic data – they exists as
raw data in study reports. However, the docket for rulemaking is electronic.
For example, Cyanide methods: compare
reference method and MQO approach. Khouane
will email to Charlie the docket for distribution to the workgroup. Khouane
will also find budget information; why the instrument manufacturer developed a
PBMS method and what happened. He
can perhaps pull out some examples from the lab end as well.
Andy will distribute
letters from NEIC and EPA to the rest of the workgroup.
The workgroup should also review Office of Water data before going
further on pilot details. We still need to look at funding for a PBMS Pilot.
Bernie observed that
ASTM has found that inter-laboratory site validation studies are very costly.
A PBMS pilot needs to
examine different aspects of PBMS.
--
Need to explore how a CRADA might work. Possible sources include CMA,
instrument vendors, and standard reference material vendors.
Need to see the
economic benefit of being involved. We
believe this could be demonstrated through lower costs, future revenues, and
greater data availability. In-kind
contributions could be important.
--
Explore methods and parameters that have been modified for
site-specific reasons, such as matrix, or used in other pilots.
This could be a good opportunity for a CRADA too.
John:
Perhaps it would be a good idea to do a multi-lab field study, with a
national view on a simpler parameter such as a nutrient.
This may be very sellable to the Department of Agriculture, USGS, and
others. If include spiking, samples will need to be sent to a central
lab for spiking and then the subsamples sent out to labs for analysis.
Total nitrogen measurements are constrained to kjeldahl
measurements rather than the simpler total nitrogen persulfate method
(alkaline persulfate) which minimizes waste produced. NPDES doesn’t
recognize this method. Prerequiste for a pilot is that the lab does a lot of
samples by an approved method so that sample results for that side would
already be available. There is a beginning model from ITFM for a nutrient
pilot. Jerry will look at that to determine whether this is appropriate for a
pilot. NWQL does many samples as it is, so the additional samples would be
relatively minimal. CRADA players would be fed labs with good data sets,
private sectors, non profits, states, etc. The Dupont CRADA model may be a
good place to start. It would be
good to get a pilot started by the fall.
What kind of funding might be needed?
No one was opposed to pursuing the use of a CRADA.
Jerry will pull out the ITFM nutrient pilot study and circulate for
comment.
The workgroup reached
some consensus for John’s idea using nutrients. CMA might be a potential partner as well.
The workgroup needs to look at the USGS CRADA to see how to do a
similar idea for a PBMS pilot.
National Enforcement Investigation
Center (NEIC) comments on PBMS
NEIC is very opposed
to PBMS
--
Concerned about liability and notification of regulatory authority
before collecting data.
--
Admisability of scientific information into court case — peer review
needed — PBMS may not be peer-reviewed.
But definition of peer-review is vague.
The current prescriptive system is more easily enforceable.
Lab
Certification Presentation –Ed Glick
CFR 141.28 requires
certification for labs that make measurements in drinking water. Only EPA has
a certification program which was initiated
in 1943 and developed its current form in 1978.
An information manual on this program is on the internet at
epa.gov.ogwdw/standards ( revised in 1997).
Requirements for prescriptive or promulgated methods are
that a lab must pass a PE sample (annual) and on-site audits.
Audits include review of QAPP and data audits.
This is a cooperative program by states, EPA, and EPA regions.
EPA audits regional programs which audit states which audit labs.
States do most of the certification work.
Certification is by analyte and by type of method:
microbiology, chemistry, radiochemistry, VOC’s
Four types of certification are possible:
fully, provisional, none, and interim (not a negative category -
certification granted until EPA gets their act together such as for new
contaminants, no PE sample available, or timely on-site audits not feasible)
--
Performance testing samples rather than PE samples.
These should be more available in the future.
--
Minimum education and training for auditors so they can be proficient
--
Reciprocity and 3rd party auditors - EPA hires auditors
since not done internally
PBMS is consistent with drinking water certification
program. PE samples would still
be used but the process would be a lot tougher for auditors because they will
now need SOPs for the lab, a QAPP
in place and the information examined prior to the audit.
PE samples need to be verified when using a new method.
If there’s no PE sample, can a lab use a PBMS method?
EPA will publish which parameters will be regulated in the future so as
to keep providers up-to-date and so PE samples can be developed.
Training for certification officers will need to be done for PBMS and
written into the rule. Once
signed, EPA will need to fund training and certification somehow.
Board may/could take action to recommend side-by-side PE
data generation to judge/evaluate quality of contractor-produced PE samples in
EPA samples. A letter may be
useful but to whom? Larry:
ACS policy issue panel would be good recipient of the letter.
Also could visit with congressional staff in order to help the Board
get an ear for their recommendations or issues.
Ed noted that vendors of PE samples will be NIST-certified.
NIST was supposed to analyze a certain percentage of samples they
produced but they are no longer doing this.
Instead, NIST will rely on lab data generated.
Ed noted that while PE samples are only a part of the certification
program, they are a big part.
Barbara made a motion to write a letter recommending
scientific examination of the current externalization program and use of
side-by-side PE sample testing. Ed
- seconded the motion.
Discussion: Need
to list out scientific issues/concerns in the letter. Board voted and unanimously agreed. Harold’s Certification workgroup will draft a letter for
review by the Board. We need to
examine the information available before writing the letter.
Board Business
Charlie distributed minutes of conference calls and last
meeting and action items.
Roster
Delegates were appointed for 2 and 3 year terms.
Alternate term length was not determined. Second year will be completed in
January 00. Two-year delegates
are – Cliff Annis, Andy Eaton, Bob Carlson, Bob Berger, Mike Miller, Ann
Strong, Keith McLaughlin, Katherine Alben, Barbara Erickson, Merle Shockey.
We need to ask alternates and delegates if they want to be reappointed.
All delegates and alternates should evaluate their status and interest.
For the August meeting, specific proposals should be prepared and
discussed.
Upcoming meetings
Steering committee meeting - 6/23 1pm EDT
Full board conference
call - 7/28 - 1 pm edt
NWQMC
- conference will be held week of 4/24/00 in Austin, TX.
ACWI
meeting in 2 weeks. Board presentations to ask for PBMS issue paper support,
pilot help, accreditation position paper support, announce that the fact sheet
is out, provide copies of workplan, describe a little about other activities.
NWQM Council meeting in 3 weeks – Board will have 45
minutes for a presentation - brief update and emphasize funding?
NELAC – about a month
- Have 20 minutes at opening session to provide a Board overview.
Revise current power point slide show, attach to email for Board comments
prior to meeting. Needs to be omewhat basic. Use headings from workplan.
Make sure website url is available for them.
WTQA conference in several weeks - Andy presenting on
PBMS from Board perspective
Roundtable
- NWQMC
- has a new logo
-
There is travel money in the Dupont CRADA to provide specific
individuals with money to travel to the August meeting if we have the CRADA as
a significant agenda item.
-
Liked formats for separate workgroups. Biology group making progress.
-
Happy the reservoir dog has been put to sleep.
-
More was accomplished with this meeting format.
Encouraged by what has been getting done between meetings and the good
cooperation.
-
PBMS progress and consensus on NEMI was impressive.
-
Funding is major concern. Continue
to focus on value added work so folks will utilize our work.
-
D19 ASTM committee meeting coming up June 17th in Louisville – on
website.
-
Tough to hear on conference lines. Options for videoconferencing but
too expensive. Maybe we could use video conferencing for critical issues?
-
Thanks to Herb for hosting the meeting.
-
Solid foundation to workgroups - need to find the funding or it will be
in vain.
-
Hold monthly conference calls for both the full Board and the Steering
Committee.
Attachment A.
Interagency
Methods and Data Comparability Board
May
11th – 13th, 1999 Meeting Agenda
Andrew
W. Breidenbach Environmental Research Center
26
W. Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio
Meeting Goals:
·
