Jump to main content.

Procedures for Detection and Quantitation

Technical Workgroup

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

Summary of Technical Work Group Conference Call #5
August 24, 2005
1:00 – 3:00 p.m. EDT

The next Technical Work Group call is scheduled for Wednesday, September 7, from 1:00 – 3:00 PM EDT. Please see below for the schedule of subsequent calls.

Action Items

Richard Reding will lead a fourth subgroup (TWG – Pilot Scope Sub) to scope a study design for pilot testing procedures. The draft study design will be discussed at the next Technical Work Group conference call. Other subgroup members include:

For discussion at the next meeting, the subgroup on definitions of detection and quantitation (Steve Bonde, Cliff Kirchmer, Ken Osborn, John Phillips, David Rocke, and Brad Venner) will:

The subgroup on matrix of characteristics and procedures (Richard Reding, Timothy Fitzpatrick, Larry LaFleur, Jim Pletl, Richard Burrows, Richard Rediske, and Bill Ingersoll) will finalize the matrix template and refine the characteristics definitions based on the input received from the Technical Work Group at the 8/24 meeting. Assignments were made (see below) for individuals to evaluate a procedure’s corresponding characteristics in the matrix in advance of the next Technical Work Group meeting.

The MDL/ML subgroup (Larry LaFleur, Brad Venner, Cliff Kirchmer, and Richard Burrows) tasked with describing the issues and concerns with the current procedures will finalize the draft discussion paper for the Technical Work Group to review and approve at its next meeting for distribution to the federal advisory committee.

Triangle will:

Top of Page

Welcome and Introductions

Robert Wheeler, facilitator, welcomed participants to the call at 1:00 PM EDT . He conducted a roll call of Technical Work Group members and observers, and briefly reminded participants of the agreed-upon protocols for the teleconference established on the June 24 teleconference call. (The protocols are listed in the June 24 meeting summary.) He reminded Technical Work Group members of their assignment from the federal advisory committee. He said Technical Work Group members were tasked with developing:

Mr. Wheeler reminded Technical Work Group members that there were only three more conference calls prior to the next federal advisory committee meeting. In that limited time, he said, there were still many products to finalize. He explained that where consensus could not be reached on a product, Technical Work Group members can and should present the differing perspectives for the federal advisory committee’s consideration. The federal advisory committee will benefit from understanding differences in the definitions, such as the definitions for detection.

Mr. Wheeler then asked Technical Work Group members for comments to the draft summary of the August 10, 2005 Technical Work Group meeting. There were no comments and the summary was approved, as drafted.

Several Technical Work Group members indicated that interested individuals had contacted them regarding the status of the Technical Work Group. Members agreed that approved summaries of Technical Work Group meetings should be posted to the web as a means of informing constituents and other interested public of Technical Work Group progress. Mr. Wheeler requested that Technical Work Group members closely review meeting summaries, especially technical discussions, in order to ensure that meeting notes accurately portray discussions.

Mr. Wheeler added that materials for Technical Work Group meetings would be distributed by Triangle Associates in the future (via email from Derek Van Marter) and that the goal is to distribute materials at least three days in advance of each meeting.

Mr. Wheeler asked Technical Work Group members to consider how they could narrow the long list of detection and quantitation procedures currently in the matrix. He said there would not be enough time or resources available to evaluate and pilot test each of the procedures currently identified in the matrix, and asked the Technical Work Group to discuss how some of the procedures may be consolidated or dropped from consideration.

Top of Page

Discussion of Narrowing Procedures in the Matrix

Richard Reding of EPA added that the goal of the federal advisory committee is to develop consensus recommendations for one or more procedures that the agency could pilot test within a year. He said EPA is considering funding two to three procedures to pilot test in the upcoming federal fiscal year, but he wants to be sure it is feasible for the Technical Work Group to agree to test two to three procedures before he advocates for the funding.

Technical Work Group members agreed that there were some procedures identified in the matrix that could be eliminated (e.g. CRV), and that there were other procedures identified in the matrix that could be covered by testing a similar procedure. In a quick review, it appeared that with two to three pilot tests (the Consensus Group procedure, the IDE/IQE procedure and the Hubaux and Vos procedure) many of the procedures could be evaluated. Members suggested that in order to narrow the list of procedures to a smaller number it was critical that the federal advisory committee have significant discussion on the uses of detection and quantitation.

Mr. Reding suggested that a small group of members work with an EPA statistician prior to the next Technical Work Group meeting to begin scoping a study design for pilot testing some procedures. Members agreed to establish and task a fourth subgroup (Pilot Scope Subgroup) to meet and draft a preliminary study design for consideration at the next Technical Work Group meeting.

Top of Page

Report from the Subgroup for MDL/ML Issues and Concerns

Larry LaFleur clarified that the purpose of this federal advisory committee assignment is to summarize and consolidate concerns about the MDL/ML procedures. He reported that he started with the previous MDL/ML Issues draft document distributed by Richard Reding in June. He also reviewed the comments submitted to EPA regarding the Revised Assessment Document to understand the nature of the concerns and issues respondents had with the current procedures.

Mr. Wheeler summarized the brief discussion by saying that the subgroup product was near complete. The subgroup will complete the following tasks in preparation of the final product for presentation to the federal advisory committee:

  1. Add an introduction
  2. Simplify language for layperson understanding
  3. Incorporate final comments from Technical Work Group members for clarification
  4. Incorporate the discussion on MDL between Brad and Cliff and what it represents
  5. Have a final discussion and approval at the next Technical Work Group meeting

    Top of Page

Report of the Subgroup for the Characteristics-Procedure Matrix and Discussion

Mr. Wheeler started the discussion by asking Technical Work Group members to think about the feasibility of filling in the matrix prior to the September federal advisory committee meeting. He also asked members to consider how the information in the matrix should be presented to the federal advisory committee at the September meeting. He asked members if they thought there were enough time between now and the federal advisory committee meeting to fill in and discuss the matrix, or whether this Technical Work Group task should be considered complete.

All Technical Work Group members agreed there was ample time to fill in the matrix. Members decided the most efficient way to do that was to assign one person familiar with a procedure the task of filling in the characteristics for that procedure. The Technical Work Group would then discuss the filled in matrix at the next Technical Work Group meeting. The following people were assigned to fill in characteristics for the corresponding procedure:

Members agreed to drop the following procedures from further consideration because they were not written procedures or because components from the procedure could be addressed through one or more of the other procedures:

The Technical Work Group discussed suggested revisions from Richard Burrows under the “Evaluation of Method Performance” section of the characteristics document regarding blank contamination and routine method performance. Members agreed to add a characteristic regarding non-zero results and to clarify several others. Members also discussed how those characteristics could be measured.

Members agreed to hold on adding any other procedures (AML and Instrument QC level) until further notice, but added the “Osborn Lab Q/C Procedure.” Mr. Wheeler said the matrix subgroup would revise the characteristics and matrix based on comments from Technical Work Group members as discussed at this meeting. He also said Triangle would send to Technical Work Group members via email the most recent version of the matrix so that the above-mentioned could begin to fill in the matrix.

Top of Page

Report of the Subgroup for Definitions and Discussion

Mr. Wheeler reiterated his opening remarks that there can be more than one definition for a particular term. He explained that the definitions would be presented to the federal advisory committee by a panel of Technical Work Group members composed of one representative from each caucus. The focus of the presentation should be to describe why it was hard for the subgroup to reach consensus on the definitions. This information, with the array of definitions, will assist the federal advisory committee in their discussions. He asked John Phillips to explain to the Technical Work Group members where the subgroup was in the process of finalizing its product.

Mr. Phillips explained that the subgroup would like to narrow the list of definitions further by the next Technical Work Group meeting. Also, the subgroup would be drafting a white paper to accompany its product that would explain several major points, including:

Mr. Phillips said the goal was to have this drafted for review and discussion at the next Technical Work Group meeting.

Top of Page

Report on Development of a Glossary of Terms

Mr. Wheeler explained that as follow-up to an action item from the last meeting, Triangle worked with Richard Reding to compile a glossary of terms that incorporated many terms from the three glossaries previously distributed to Technical Work Group members. He asked members to review the glossary and send comments to Triangle and Mr. Reding. Mr. Wheeler added that the glossary should be near final by the next Technical Work Group meeting.

Top of Page

Public Comment

Mr. Wheeler invited observers to offer comments.

Thomas Georgian suggested the Technical Work Group clarify in its matrix of procedures and characteristics whether a procedure was a multi- or single-lab procedure. He also informed members that the COP Program at the US Army Corps of Engineers is currently collecting data and calculating results using the Consensus Group procedure.

Top of Page

Wrap-up and Closing

Mr. Wheeler asked members to begin focusing on finalizing products and on presenting the information to the federal advisory committee in late September. He reminded participants that the dates and times (all are EDT) of future Technical Work Group meetings are as follows: .

Mr. Wheeler briefly noted the action items from the call, thanked Technical Work Group members for their participation, and closed the meeting at 3:00 p.m. (EDT).

Top of Page

Attendance

 

Technical Work Group Members

Triangle Associates - Derek Van Marter and Robert Wheeler

Observers

Top of Page

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.