Jump to main content.

Procedures for Detection and Quantitation

Policy Workgroup

Federal Advisory Committee on Detection and Quantitation Approaches and Uses in Clean Water Act (CWA) Programs

Summary of Policy Work Group Conference Call #20
October 26, 2006
1:00 – 3:00 p.m. EST

Calls will be held from 1:00 to 3:00 PM, Eastern Time, on the following dates: November 1, 9, 15 and 29, 2006.

The call in number is 1-866-299-3188, and the access code is 202-566-1000#.

Action Items

Tom Mugan will revise the Uses Proposal Option B in response to Policy Work Group comments during the call.

Mary Smith will review with her legal counsel the differences between a supplemental report and an attachment to a DMR. In upcoming meetings with the EPA Office of Enforcement Compliance and Assurance (OECA), she will explore the capabilities of the new ICIS compliance database. In particular, she will seek to understand whether the database can track compliance schedules and whether it can accept text entries (e.g. DNQ).

Triangle will send to the Policy Work Group Excel spreadsheets from one of Mary"s staff chemists (Brian Englert) who analyzed the current range of MQOs for a couple of existing analytical methods. Triangle will also send a MQO template to caucuses for preparation for the next Policy Work Group meeting. Caucuses should circulate this template among constituencies and be prepared to discuss it in detail at the next meeting.

Welcome and Introductions

Facilitator Alice Shorett convened the conference call at 1:00 PM ET and called the roll of participants. She briefly reviewed the agenda with participants.

Top of Page

Meeting Summary Review and Approval

Ms. Shorett asked for comments to the draft summary from the October 18 Policy Work Group (PWG) meeting. Michael Murray asked for clarification to the protocol for listing committee members who participate in PWG meetings and contribute but who may not be an official PWG member.

Ms. Shorett said that the approach has been to list up to two members of the committee as PWG members in the summary. Any committee member may listen to the call, but no more than two committee members per caucus can participate. She suggested that Rob Moore"s name be moved into the Policy Work Group Member list and be noted as "alternate".

The Policy Work Group agreed to that suggestion and approved the summary with that revision.

Top of Page

Discussion and Recommendation for a Proposal on Uses

Alice Shorett described the goal of the discussion was to narrow to one recommendation from three options (A, B, and C) for the committee to consider in December. She asked Tom Mugan and Dave Akers to describe the comments they added to the three proposals, focusing particularly on where they diverge from the option approach.

Tom Mugan said he tried to identify the difference between the three proposals in his comments. For example, the difference between Options A and B are the flexibility for the regulator to decide whether values below the QL would be reported as text or as numerical values, and to decide where they would be reported (i.e. as an attachment to, a supplemental to, or on, a DMR form). He said he also suggested a few minor revisions to make all the options consistent where appropriate.

Dave Akers said that he agreed with Mr. Mugan"s suggestions and indicated his comments were more focused on the limitations of each option.

Ms. Shorett then asked the group to compare each of the steps in the three options. Chris Hornback asked about the requirement of the most sensitive method in Option C and why the PWG needed to add it to Options A or B. Mr. Mugan said it was a necessary approach in Option C, but that it is also implied in Options A and B that labs are using the best methods. Mr. Hornback clarified that the requirement to use the most sensitive method assumes a prescriptive approach and that limits would be listed in a table for all analytical methods.

After some discussion on the clarification, Mr. Mugan agreed that there could be some implementation issues depending on the outcome of a table in a final rule. If some parameters did not have numbers, that would cause significant confusion. Larry LaFleur added that Options A and B more closely resembled the existing situation.

The group then briefly discussed Option C. Some members of the group expressed concern that this approach would not work country-wide. Most of the group did not support Option C because of concerns with CET and the direct requirement for all permittees to report below QL on the DMR.

Ms. Shorett then asked each caucus to describe their preference among the A and B options.

The State Caucus representatives said they could live with either option, although it is generally easier for states to have all of the information on a DMR form, which is included in Option A.

The Public Utilities Caucus members said they were supportive of Option B because they did not like the discretion given to the regulator for reported values as included in Option A. Chris Hornback said he understood there was a significant distinction between a supplemental report to a DMR and an attachment to a DMR. He said that if the committee"s intention is that additional information that is collected would not be subjected to the certification statement and enforcement action, he suggested the group recommend the material go on a supplemental report to the DMR.

Larry LaFleur said the Industry Caucus shares the concerns of the Public Utilities about putting numerical results below the WQBEL on the DMR. He suggested his constituents would be more supportive of Option B.

Nan Thomey said the Environmental Lab Caucus does not have a preference among the two uses options.

The Environmental Community Caucus generally supports Option C. Michael Murray said he supports Option C more because it requires reporting numerical values down to the DL. He said Option C has the added value of gathering additional data. He said he is most in favor of an option that mandates reporting requirements. In order for additional information to be useful, it needs to be collected, and it can only be collected when permittees are required to report it. Barry Sulkin added that permittees have been submitting supplemental reports for years. He said he wanted to see existing case law that shows where information that a permittee submitted in a supplemental report was acted upon, but that information was not in violation of a permit. He said that if there is any parameter being discharged from a facility, people need to know what it is and how much of it there is.

Chris Hornback responded that both Options A and B allow the regulator to require reporting numeric values below QL and greater than DL. He said the difference in the options is in how that information is reported. In either case, the information is being collected if the regulator chooses to require it.

Mr. Sulkin said that the approach in Option A will result in the same situation we have today - an inconsistent system from state to state. He encouraged the group to develop a proposal that requires a uniform way of reporting and using data across the country. Mr. Hornback agreed with the caveat that it does matter to his caucus where the information is reported.

Mary Smith said that EPA could support either Option A or B. She said she would favor one over the other if she could understand how the public would have access to the data in either option. She also said she would discuss with her legal counsel the distinction between a supplemental and an attachment to a DMR.

Ms. Shorett summarized by saying it sounded as though most caucuses could support either Option A or B. She said that based on what members had said about reporting requirements, it sounded like the majority was in favor of Option B.

With regard to steps 2 and 3 in Option B, Ms. Shorett said these were carried forward from the original straw proposal discussed by the committee at the July meeting. She said step one was near unanimously approved with the Industry caucus suggesting they wanted to revisit their vote in support of setting permit limits at the WQBEL once the final package was assembled. Ms. Shorett asked the group whether there was a need to carry forward any of the other options for step 2, such as using some fraction of the QL or DL.

Michael Murray said there was some value in keeping the option on the table at least until the committee votes. He agreed with Dave Akers statement that setting any values less than the QL equal to zero was the least conservative approach in terms of implementation. Other members of the Policy Work Group said they supported the use of zero as written in Option B steps 2 and 3. However, the group agreed that a note should be included in the committee document to consider the use of an alternative number.

The group finished discussion of Option B by focusing on step 5. Chris Hornback asked about the interaction between steps 4 and 5 in Option B, focusing on the following italicized section in the second to last sentence in step 5: "Reports under such provision will be done outside of the DMR reporting process, except that any additional effluent testing performed using approved analytical methods as part of the special studies must be reported on the DMR according to the above protocol."

Tom Mugan responded by saying this statement refers to the requirement in the Clean Water Act that any data collected as a result of special studies needs to be reported. His intention was that the data would be reported the same way as described in step 4. There was some additional discussion of what regulators were going to require on the DMR. Mr. Mugan said he was suggesting that if regulators asked for DNQ to be reported below the QL, it would go on the DMR. Alternatively, if regulators asked for the numeric values below the QL, it would go in a supplemental report to a DMR (and the DMR would still show those values as detected but not quantified). In addition, Michael Murray reiterated that the draft language in Option 5 step B is more permissive than the GLI, wherein PMP requirements are imposed for any cases where a WQBEL is less than the QL (this is noted in a comment in the draft uses proposal.)

Top of Page

Wrap Up and Adjourn

Alice Shorett briefly summarized the meeting saying the group agreed to forward Uses Proposal Option B to the committee as a recommendation for discussion in December. She also said there were some outstanding questions that Mary Smith agreed to pursue with regard to the DMR form and the new EPA database.

Ms. Shorett said the next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, November 1 from 1:00 - 3:00 PM, ET. She said the focus of the meeting will be on MQOs. In preparation for that meeting, she said Triangle would send to the PWG members two Excel spreadsheets prepared by one of Mary"s chemists showing an analysis of MQOs for a couple of existing analytical methods. The chemist, Brian Englert (englert.brian@epa.gov; 202-566-0754) would be the best person to answer any questions the group had about the spreadsheets. Additionally, Ms. Shorett said that Triangle would attach an MQO template that she asked members of the group to circulate among their constituents prior to the next conference call.

Ms. Shorett reviewed the schedule of remaining calls with the group. She said it was important to come to each meeting prepared to move forward in an effort to develop products that could be distributed to the committee well before the December meeting. Ms. Shorett thanked all for their participation and concluded the call at 2:55 PM (ET).

Attendance

Top of Page

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.