![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
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 #16
December 14, 2005
1:00 – 3:00 p.m. EDT
- Future Meeting Dates
- Next Steps Agreed to on December 14
- Welcome and Introductions
- Assignments to the Technical Work Group
- Future Meeting Schedule
- Input for the December 19 Policy Work Group Call
- Public Comment
- Wrap-up and Closing
- Attendance
- Back to Technical Workgroup home page
The next Technical Work Group call is scheduled for Wednesday, January 11, from 1:00 - 3:00 PM EST (in place of an earlier scheduled January 4 call).
Future Meeting Dates
Subsequent Technical Work Group calls will resume on a biweekly basis, at 1:00 PM EST, as follows:
- January 18
- February 1
- February 15
- March 1
- March 15
Next Steps Agreed to on December 14
The Technical Work Group agreed to the following next steps for the Multi-Lab/Inter-laboratory and the Single Laboratory Subgroups:
Multi-Lab/Inter-laboratory Subgroup
- Set a call for Wednesday, January 4 at 1:00 PM EST
- Call-in number is 1 866-299-3188; access code is 202 566-1045#.
- Subgroup members are Larry LaFleur, Bob Avery/Tim Fitzpatrick, Rick Rediske, Jim Pletl, Richard Reding, Steve Wendelken, and Ken Miller. (Steve will invite EPA staff who worked on multi-lab procedures for the agency to participate.)
- Bob Wheeler is to facilitate.
- Subgroup tasks to further the multi-lab study design and report to Technical Work Group on 1/11/06 are as follows:
- Task 1: Look at existing data, verify and document that they are not suitable for a multi-lab or inter-laboratory study. (Richard Reding will contact Cary Jackson to ask about the availability of datasets.)
- Task 2: Discuss and reach an understanding of the multi-lab and inter-laboratory study approaches and develop procedures for comparing and then validating the results (given the fact that results will come from both more sophisticated and less sophisticated labs).
- Steve Wendelken will provide the final version of the Hubaux-Vos procedure.
- Additionally, the group will develop a definition of a multi-laboratory study for the glossary.
Single-Lab Subgroup
- Set a call for Friday, January 6 at 1:00 PM EST
- Call-in number is 1 866-299-3188; access code is 202 566-1045#.
- Subgroup members are Richard Burrows, John Phillips, Ken Osborn, David Kimbrough, Brad Venner, Cliff Kirchmer, and Richard Reding. Ken Miller will also participate.
- Bob Wheeler is to facilitate.
- Subgroup tasks to further the single-lab study design and to prepare a report to Technical Work Group on 1/11/06 are as follows:
- Task 1a. Define and document the differences among the ACIL, LTMDL, and Consensus Group procedures
- Task 1b. Data providers are to transmit existing data to Ken Miller as soon as possible, with a goal of providing 200-300 data points (Richard Burrows will send a reminder to those who volunteered to provide data.)
- Task 2. Decide whether or not any modifications to procedures should be made. This will require input from and concurrence of developers of the procedures. The group will additionally look at the procedures in light of the fact that LD will not be determined. (Richard Reding will contact Bill Foreman of USGS, which proposed the LTMDL, to see if he wants to participate. John Phillips will work with the Consensus Group on its procedure.)
- Task 3. Define how to analyze and evaluate the data
- Task 4. Develop a definition of a single-laboratory study for the glossary
Welcome and Introductions
At 1:00 PM Robert Wheeler, facilitator, welcomed participants to the call, conducted a roll call of Technical Work Group members and observers, and briefly reviewed the agenda for the meeting.
He began the meeting by briefly recapping responses and decisions made by the federal advisory committee at its December 8-9 meeting relative to questions that the Technical Work Group had posed in advance of the meeting, as follows:
- The federal advisory committee approved the evaluation characteristics proposed by the Technical Work Group.
- It dropped the WRC, OSW and ISO/IUPAC LQ procedures from the pilot study and the Matrix.
- It approved, with some changes, the proposed pilot study purpose and objectives.
- Relative to a pilot study for LCMRL, it favored developing both a multi-lab and an inter-laboratory approach.
- It agreed to the proposed stepwise approach for proceeding on a pilot, provided that the Technical Work Group not make "decisions" that are out of compliance with Federal Advisory Committee Act rules.
- With respect to a single laboratory study, it felt that both prescriptive and descriptive approaches should be incorporated into the design.
- It approved the concept of making modifications to procedures in advance of pilot testing.
- It rejected further consideration of blank correction because it does not want all the analytical methods at 40 CFR to have to be revised.
- It agreed to drop the Hubaux-Vos procedure except in the Multi-Laboratory design.
Richard Reding commented that both Mike Shapiro, Deputy Administrator of the Office of Water, and Ephraim King, Director of the Office of Science and Technology, had noted and very much appreciated all the hard work that the advisory committee and its two work groups (Technical and Policy) had done.
Assignments to the Technical Work Group
Mr. Wheeler then reviewed the following direction and prioritized assignments from the FACDQ to the Technical Work Group:
- Further develop the design for a multi-laboratory study - 1st priority
- Work with existing data for the single laboratory study - 1st priority
- Procedure modification - 2nd priority
- Procedure reduction recommendation - 2nd priority
- Continue to add to the glossary - 3rd priority
Other work efforts were considered but not specifically assigned, including:
- Assist Policy Work Group with MQO/DQO identification
- Matrix normalization
- Single-Lab pilot study design
The federal advisory committee did not assign these additional work efforts because of concerns related to the amount of time available for the Technical Work Group to complete these efforts.
Larry LaFleur asked about the continued use of LD and whether or not it was needed. Richard Burrows responded that single lab procedures would use LC and LQ, not LD as directed by the federal advisory committee. Mr. Burrows stated that false positives are seen at LC and false negatives at LQ - so it is not clear to him what LD would be used for. John Phillips added that it was useful to know LD in setting quantitation because LQ should not be below LD. Ken Osborn noted that LD could be used as a diagnostic and agreed it could be useful as a test to see if LD exceeded LQ.
Related to the topic of the definitions, Mr. Wheeler pointed out that the federal advisory committee had agreed to remove one of the statistical definitions of LC and a footnote to one of the layperson's definitions of LC related to zero versus the blank.
The work group also discussed the approach for the multi and inter-lab pilot study. The thought was that individual labs would choose specific spike levels (4 different levels) for the LCMRL and test the LCMRL procedure. The results would be aggregated and evaluated. For the Hubaux-Vos, IDE, and IQE, the results of the LCMRL would be considered and specific samples established for distribution to the pilot testing labs.
Future Meeting Schedule
Mr. Wheeler noted that if the Technical Work Group continued its pattern of biweekly calls, the Group could have up to six meetings before the March federal advisory committee meeting. The Group's products would have to be completed by the beginning of March to be sent to members in advance of the meeting.
Given the coming holidays, the Group agreed to reschedule the January 4 call to January 11, at 1:00 PM EST. The Group then reviewed the schedule of subgroup work in light of the advisory committee's assignments and agreed on specific tasks for both the Multi-Lab/Inter-laboratory and the Single Laboratory pilot study subgroup.
Multi-Lab/Inter-laboratory Subgroup
Please see the beginning of the summary for the date of the first call of the Multi-Laboratory Subgroup, the membership of the subgroup, and the specific tasks it agreed to undertake. Larry LaFleur indicated that Subgroup calls might need to occur at least weekly. He also said he hoped EPA staff would join so the Subgroup could benefit from their experience.
Single laboratory Subgroup
Please see the beginning of the summary for the date of the first call of the Single-Laboratory Subgroup, the membership of the subgroup, and the specific tasks it agreed to undertake. The Group decided not to set a deadline for Ken Miller to receive data to consolidate into a database to avoid eliminating good data that may come in later.
Input for the December 19 Policy Work Group Call
Mr. Wheeler noted that the federal advisory committee had asked the Policy Work Group to consider measurement quality objectives (MQOs) and data quality objectives (DQOs) that would evaluate the procedures' performance with respect to α, β, precision and accuracy. He indicated that the Policy Work Group would likely ask for technical input from the Technical Work Group. He also asked if the group wanted to provide input now on this set of issues for consideration by the Policy Work Group on its December 19 call.
In response, Jim Pletl said he would encourage the Policy Work Group to think not just about accuracy and precision, but also about representative-ness, comparability, and how rugged and robust procedures were. Larry LaFleur clarified that at the federal advisory committee meeting accuracy and precision had been noted as minimum DQOs for regulatory compliance testing. Mr. Pletl agreed that the parameters one would pick would depend on the use, and he wanted to encourage the Policy Work Group not to limit the universe of things to consider for data quality objectives - they could be narrative or numeric - but they needed to be robust. It was agreed that Larry LaFleur and David Kimbrough would raise this issue on the December 19 Policy Work Group call.
Richard Burrows raised the issue of how best to develop Lc for a censored procedure. After discussion, it was agreed that, while this issue related primarily to the Single Laboratory study, it would be useful to define four to five options for both the Multi-Laboratory/Inter-laboratory and the Single Laboratory study designs for the group to consider before deciding.
Public Comment
Tom Georgian of the Army Corps of Engineers expressed concern about a statement he had heard indicating that LD was unimportant for Single Lab procedures. He said that failing to calculate LD would adversely affect the quality of the data, especially for censored methods, where he considers LD to be more important than LC.
Wrap-up and Closing
Mr. Wheeler thanked the members for their hard work, wished them all happy holidays, and adjourned the meeting at 3:00 p.m. EST.
Attendance
Technical Work Group Members
- States: Bob Avery
- Environmental Laboratories: Richard Burrows
- Environmental Community: Richard Rediske
- POTWs: Ken Osborn, David Kimbrough, and Jim Pletl
- Industry: Larry LaFleur and John Phillips
- US EPA: Richard Reding (Office of Water) and Steve Wendelken (Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water)
- Other Federal:
Triangle Associates: Robert Wheeler and Vicki King
Observers
- Ken Miller (Consultant to EPA Office of Water)
- Tom Georgian (Army Corps of Engineers)