![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Procedures for Detection and Quantitation
Federal Advisory Committee on Detection and Quantitation Approaches and Uses in Clean Water Act (CWA) Programs
Draft Summary of Technical Work Group Conference Call #23
March 10, 2006
1:00 – 3:00 p.m. EST
- Future Meeting Dates
- Action Items
- Welcome and Introductions
- Expected Products for the Federal Advisory Committee
- Single-Lab Subgroup Report
- Discussion of Revised Procedures
- Regression-based Design Subgroup Report
- Questions and Products for the Federal Advisory Committee
- Omission of L D Discussion Paper
- Public Comment
- Wrap-up
- Attendance
- Back to Technical Workgroup home page
Future Meeting Dates
The next Technical Work Group call is scheduled for Wednesday, March 15, from 1:00 – 3:00 PM EST . The call-in number is 866-299-3188; access code is 2025661045#.
Action Items
The Technical Work Group agreed to the following action items during the conference call:
- Ken Miller will distribute a progress report describing the existing data analyses for the single-lab subgroup.
- Technical Work Group members will provide comment on the draft to Triangle Associates by 9:00 a.m. (PST) Tuesday, March 14, 2006.
- Richard Burrows will circulate the revised ACIL procedure to all Technical Work Group members for review prior to the March federal advisory committee meeting.
- Triangle will:
- Review comments to the analyses of existing data progress report. If there are any objections to the document, it will be withheld from distribution to the federal advisory committee.
- Format the additional document from the Regression-based Subgroup addressing the questions or information needs that the pilot study, as currently drafted, could address.
Welcome and Introductions
At 1:00 PM Bob 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.
e asked for comments on the draft summary from the 1 March 2006 Technical Work Group conference call. There were no comments and the summary was approved, as drafted.
Expected Products for the Federal Advisory Committee
Mr. Wheeler briefly reviewed expectations for products to be forwarded to the federal advisory committee for its March meeting. The expected Technical Work Group products are:
- Regression-based Design Study
- Analysis of regression based existing data
- Questions to be addressed by the regression based pilot
- Single-lab Analysis of Existing Data
- Options for L C for Censored Methods
- Analytical Methods Being Considered for Pilot Testing
- Normalized Matrix
- Glossary of Terms
- Questions we want the FACDQ to answer
Single-Lab Subgroup Report
Ken Miller explained the analyses he had conducted to date for the single-lab subgroup using existing data. He said that he had sent out several products with results from the analyses via email before this call. John Phillips acknowledged that he had reviewed some of the data results and found them very interesting. He said the Technical Work Group was going to need time to sift through and understand the data, the assumptions used to analyze the data and the results of the analyses.
In response to a question if Mr. Miller was planning to present an assessment of the existing data, Bob Wheeler explained that it was never intended that Mr. Miller would interpret the results of the existing data analyses. Rather, he was to assemble and distribute the results.
The group discussed the product that would be forwarded to the federal advisory committee. Some members were uncomfortable with a report of existing data analyses that offered more than a progress report. Many members agreed that they needed time to understand the results themselves and felt it was premature to send those results to the committee.
Mr. Miller agreed to distribute a draft progress report by close of business today, Friday, March 10, 2006. Members were to review the document and provide comments to Triangle by 9:00 a.m. (PST) Tuesday, March 14. Bob Wheeler explained that if there were any objections to the contents of the progress report, the document would be withheld from distribution to the federal advisory committee until after the Technical Work Group had had a chance to review the document.
Discussion of Revised Procedures
Richard Burrows said that he had revised the ACIL procedure and would like to offer it to the federal advisory committee as an example of how to move forward should the committee choose to identify specific MQOs for the pilot test. He explained that he did not expect this to be a Technical Work Group or subgroup document. He asked for reactions to his proposal. Members discussed the pros and cons to this approach; many members noted that the Technical Work Group had made it a practice not to distribute documents from individuals. However, members asked Mr. Burrows to circulate the revised procedure so that they could review it prior to the March committee meeting.
Regression-based Design Subgroup Report
Larry LaFleur reported the subgroup’s progress on assessing existing data. He said the subgroup had not completed an interpretation of the results of the existing data. The subgroup had drafted a discussion paper that describes where the subgroup could go next with the existing data.
There was opposition to adopting the suggested revisions to the summary of existing data for purposes of distributing the federal advisory committee.
Mr. LaFleur added that the subgroup had developed another document that was not part of its assignment. The document attempted to address what questions or information needs the pilot study, as currently scoped, would address. The Technical Work Group agreed the document should also be distributed to the federal advisory committee.
Questions and Products for the Federal Advisory Committee
Bob Wheeler briefly reviewed a document he had drafted for Technical Work Group review that listed a set of questions to the advisory committee for response at the March meeting; it also identified products the advisory committee might request. The group discussed one question regarding determining L C for censored methods. Some members felt the committee was not in a position to discuss the issue at this time since the Technical Work Group had not yet fully synthesized and reached agreement on the issue. Other members agreed that it might not be appropriate to ask the question directly but expressed their hope that the committee might still have the conversation.
Omission of L D Discussion Paper
Bob Wheeler explained that Cliff Kirchmer had made revisions to the draft document after the last Technical Work Group conference call, including his comments and those others sent to him. After discussion, the group agreed that the document, in its current form, would not provide useful information for committee deliberations at the March meeting. Therefore, the group agreed not to forward the document to the federal advisory committee. Members agreed that discussion of the L D issue would come up as part of the discussion of uses.
Public Comment
Tom Georgian, USGS, asked if the ASTM approach were going to be used for the multi-lab pilot study. He said he noticed that the MDL gave a higher L D than the Consensus Group procedure in the analysis of existing data conducted by the Regression-based Subgroup. Mr. Georgian encouraged members to examine the analysis of the existing data very carefully to be sure they understand the assumptions behind the analysis and what the results meant. With respect to the issue of L D , Mr. Georgian said the most important thing was for the committee to revisit this decision.
Wrap-up
Mr. Wheeler summarized the action items from the discussion and thanked members for their hard work. He noted that the next meeting was scheduled for 15 March 2006. He asked the group to review the summary of existing data from the Single-lab Subgroup and send comments to Triangle by Tuesday, March 14 by 9:00 a.m. (PST). He adjourned the meeting at 2:45 p.m. EST.
Attendance
Technical Work Group Members
- States: Bob Avery, Tim Fitzpatrick and Cliff Kirchmer
- Environmental Laboratories: Richard Burrows
- Environmental Community: Richard Rediske
- POTWs: David Kimbrough, Ken Osborn and Jim Pletl
- Industry: Larry LaFleur and John Phillips
- US EPA: Richard Reding (Office of Water) and Brad Venner ( Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance)
- Other Federal:
Triangle Associates
- Robert Wheeler and Derek Van Marter
Observers
- Tom Georgian (US Army Corps of Engineers)
- Gary McAllister (Office of Air and Radiation)
- Ken Miller (Consultant to EPA Office of Water)
- Nicole Shao (Office of Research and Development)