![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Procedures for Detection and Quantitation
Preliminary Draft Evaluation Criteria
September 30, 2005
At the June 21-22 meeting, you developed a list of "desirable characteristics" for the Technical Work Group to use in its initial analysis and evaluation of the technical merits of detection and quantitation procedures. You will see the results of this initial evaluation during this meeting.
You, as a Committee, also need to develop broad, policy-level criteria for evaluating a final package of detection and quantitation procedures to recommend to EPA. At the June meeting, you began the process of identifying these criteria by responding in your respective caucuses to the question, What does your interest group need from a final package of methodologies?
The table below presents the broad, policy-level criteria that each caucus identified as necessary in a final package of procedures. The facilitators have grouped these elements into three categories: those that must be met; those that are highly desirable; and those that are goals to work toward.
On September 30th, 2005, you will take the next steps to develop evaluation criteria for the package of recommendations as a whole.
| Caucus | Must Be Met | Highly Desirable | Goals to Work Toward |
|---|---|---|---|
| States | Address both detection and quantitation procedures | Provide flexibility to implement use of detection and quantitation limits as public policy evolves | Reward entities that strive to attain lower detection and quantitation limits where necessary (e.g., water quality) |
| States | Include protocols for advancement of technologies/sensitivity | ||
| Environmental Laboratories | Provide clear, consistent, technically-valid procedures to replace existing procedure in 40 CFR part 136 appendix B | Entice "non-compliant" laboratories to comply | |
| Environmental Laboratories | Provide guidance document (e.g., SW846 - method 5035A) | Be easy to use in a competitive environment | |
| Environmental Community | Provide confidence in detection and quantitation procedures at low enough levels to protect human health and the environment | ||
| Environmental Community | Give equal attention to false positives and negatives | Choose procedure(s) that encourage more sensitive methods and equipmen | |
| Environmental Community | Address matrices (e.g., sample interference) | ||
| Environmental Community | A procedure that reflects routine laboratory operation | ||
| Industry | Provide explicit definitions for a detection limit and a quantitation limit | Tailor different procedures for different regulatory uses | |
| Industry | Detection:
|
||
| Industry | Quantitation suitable for regulatory compliance:
|
||
| Public Utilities | Procedures that determine in an unambiguous and legally-defensible manner compliance with the Clean Water Act | Procedures should apply to labs and analytical methods | |
| Public Utilities | 40 CFR promulgated procedures that clearly define measurement quality objectives for different uses | Procedures shouldn't preclude a qualified lab from conducting them | Within reason, procedures should be driven by quality, not cost |
| Public Utilities | Measurement quality objectives are needed for data quality indicators for both detection and quantitation | ||
| Public Utilities | Procedures allow assessment of ability to meet the measurement quality objectives on an ongoing, batch-by-batch basis
|
||
| EPA | Be a complete, tested, understandable, written procedure | ||
| EPA | Include a statement of uncertainty level around detection and quantitation levels | ||
| EPA | Include a sense of method performance (QA/QC) | ||
| EPA | Include a procedure for validation and a procedure for laboratories |