A total of 31 persons participated in the Methods Board meeting on January 26-27 in Reston, Virginia. The following is a brief summary of that meeting.

All agreed that PBMS is central to the Board’s mission and its priorities. In this light, the issue paper on PBMS written by Ann Strong (in the ITFM Technical Appendices) needs to be revisited and perhaps expanded by the Board. A Workgroup was formed which will prepare a scoping document discussing how the Board should deal with PBMS issues.

The suggestion was made that the Board needs to determine the most efficient way to distribute information to a variety of interested organizations. Ideas include: Announcements and Fact Sheets for newsletters and meetings (ASIWPCA, AMSA, etc.). A Workgroup was formed to provide publicity and outreach guidance to the Board. More participants will be solicited. Tetra Tech will draft a paragraph for publicity in ASTM and other newsletters.

EPA’s NCOD (National Contaminant Occurrence Data Base for Drinking Water and Source Water) was discussed. Herb distributed Chuck Job’s (EPA, OGWDW) write-up on the NCOD. Herb requested Board review of the latest NCOD background document (to be provided). A workgroup was formed to review the current NCOD database design and report back to the Board and EPA.

The Board heard a summary of the USGS-EPA Drinking Water Initiative and the Cooperative Research Agreement (CRADA) between USGS and DuPont. It was agreed that the DuPont CRADA was relevant to the Board’s mission and objectives. Copies of material related to the CRADA will be distributed to the Board and a review team will be formed. The role of the Board with respect to CRADAs in general warrants further discussion.

There was general consensus on the Board’s charter objectives. Many specific priorities were raised in the meeting which need to be associated with those listed in the charter.

Participants: See Attachment 1

Janice Ward (USGS, Acting Chief, Office of Water Quality, WRD) gave a brief introduction and welcome.

Herb Brass then presented background information on the ITFM Methods Task Group and the mission, scope, and structure of the Board. A handout was available at the meeting (contact Jerry Diamond if a handout is desired).

Following Herb’s presentation the following observations or issues were offered:

Participants were asked to volunteer what they saw as their top priorities for the Board, both short and long term. Attachment 2 summarizes the priorities mentioned (but not in priority order). Many of the priorities raised fell into one of three general categories: (a) database and data sharing issues; (b) method development, new methods, reference method selection, and method flexibility (PBMS); and (c) method validation, data quality objectives (DQOs), and quality control issues.

Herb noted that the Board is still soliciting delegates and alternates for some sectors. Delegates and alternates can serve up to a 3 year term according to the Charter, but terms need to be staggered so that only a subset (approximately one-third) will cycle off the Board in a given year. Therefore, in the first year, delegates and alternates need to have different length terms to create the staggered effect desired in the Charter.

By February 18, delegates and alternates need to tell Herb or Merle their preferred term length, after which Herb and Merle will evaluate the responses and determine the need to make any adjustments so as to fulfill the Charter requirements.

Barbara Erickson presented information on the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) meeting held recently. The purpose of NELAC is

to foster the generation of environmental laboratory data of known quality in a cost-effective manner through the development of national accreditation standards for environmental

laboratories. A central issue is comparative quality of data. Some states will have trouble joining NELAC due to legal problems. Virginia is one state that passed legislation so that they could be part of NELAC. Barbara indicated that 18 states have already applied for inclusion in NELAC. She observed that there is disagreement among EPA programs on the proper direction of NELAC. Lynn Bradley remarked that the Defense Department may not have bought in at this time, which could mean that contract laboratories working for DOD might not participate in NELAC. The consensus is that NELAC has already come a long way but there are many hurdles yet to overcome. Most feel that NELAC is likely to be a reality and it will be an important force.

Elizabeth Fellows and John Klein gave a brief history of ITFM, the evolution and purpose of the National Council, and its relationship with the Board. Elizabeth reiterated her belief that Methods issues and the mission of the Methods Board were central to the Council’s mission and to the National strategy for water monitoring.

Elizabeth remarked that the National monitoring strategy is voluntary but she and John recognized that the Methods arena also needs some bite to work. The Board needs to find the right mix of bite and voluntary actions. She suggested that the Board define the most important issues and figure out the best strategy to get us there. Elizabeth also reminded the participants that the Board answers to the Council. There is a hierarchy. The implementation package the Board develops is ultimately most important — not how to get the package through the bureaucracy.

What about resources for the Board’s activities? Elizabeth answered that the Board needs to set its priorities and determine required resources. The resource request will be evaluated by USGS and EPA in consultation with the National Council.

EPA’s NCOD (National Contaminant Occurrence Data Base for Drinking Water and Source Water) was discussed in response to Elizabeth’s remarks, as this project has natural links with the Board and Elizabeth is involved with it. Elizabeth concurred that the Board could have beneficial input on how this database is designed and used.

Dennis reviewed/summarized NCOD and potential applications. Data elements are being decided already. How accessible will the data be to the public, and for regulated entities? What about data quality caveats, interpretable form, etc.? It was noted that data going in the database will be by Rule, after notice and comment. Therefore, it is unlikely that there will be non-relevant or inappropriate data in the database.

Lynn and Barbara reported that stakeholder participation in NCOD database design is supposed to be completed by January 28, 1998. The project has widespread interest and links with many agencies and organizations. Elizabeth indicated that the NCOD needs to find a good balance in:

Elizabeth remarked that there will not be a single "database in the sky" that satisfies all purposes. Rather, NCOD probably will be a separate database along with NAWQA, NWIS (USGS’s "STORET"), STORET, and others. Dennis McChesney observed that laboratory LIMS-type systems are at the front end of all large databases, including NCOD potentially. Potentially, this is a direct issue for the Board.

The Internet accentuates the fact that data are now more easily available and the accessibility of

high quality data is now even more of an issue. In this light, several participants expressed the concern about excluding bad data (poor quality) after they have already been incorporated in databases. Another issue is expressing the quality of data for public, non-technical people. It was pointed out that there are different requirements for each database. Agencies often need to prioritize where resources need to go, which is dependent on interpretation of various types of data in multiple databases.

Herb distributed Chuck Job’s (EPA, OGWDW) write-up on the NCOD. He noted that there are many similarities with current Board priorities and concerns. Herb requested Board review of the latest NCOD background document (to be provided).

Bob Berger, Dennis McChesney, and Andy Eaton agreed to serve on a workgroup to review the current NCOD database design and report back to the Board and EPA.

Herb noted that the Board is still soliciting delegates and alternates for some sectors. The Board needs alternates as a way of including more expertise, wider representation, and as John noted, to create a wider network to publicize the Board’s products. Barbara suggested that the delegate should get input on Board issues from their alternate and others in their organization or region. Barbara agreed to help find an alternate in California or Nevada.

The roles and responsibilities of delegates and alternates were reviewed, considering the Methods Board Charter. It is clear that the Board will need to rely on the expertise of alternates in most of its deliberations. However, the function of alternates is not well defined in the Charter; for example, how one designates an alternate to vote for a delegate that is absent from a meeting (should that become necessary). It was decided to defer this issue, assuming that the way in which the Board operates subsequently will better define the role of alternates. Potentially, the Charter can be modified to deal with this issue.

Following Ann Strong’s presentation (a handout was available which can be obtained from Jerry Diamond if desired) the following questions/comments were expressed:

Jerry gave a summary of the conceptual PBMS framework developed by the Task Group for Biological collection methods and field methods in general. He also briefly summarized parts of the Wisconsin Pilot studies as Mike Talbot (WDNR) was unable to attend the meeting. The USGS fact sheet for the biological part of the Wisconsin Pilot can be downloaded from the following internet address: //wwwdwimdn.er.usgs.gov/nawqa/pubs/fs_216-96.html. A more visually pleasing version of the Fact Sheet (exactly like the printed version) can be obtained by accessing the pdf file (same address as above but using pdf in place of html). One needs Adobe Acrobat software to read and display this type of file.

The chemical/nutrients part of the Wisconsin Pilot study is still in draft form and not available. This will also be a USGS Fact Sheet some time in the near future.

Herb noted that Herb Garn of USGS in Wisconsin has submitted an Abstract for a platform presentation on the Wisconsin Pilot work for the upcoming National Monitoring Conference in Reno, Nevada, July 7-9, 1998.

Much of Jerry’s presentation on PBMS is available in the ITFM Technical Appendices and in a paper published in the 1996 Journal of the North American Benthological Society (15:713-279). Copies can be obtained from Jerry on request.

Bill Battaglin (USGS) and Mike Focazio presented a summary of the USGS-EPA Drinking Water Initiative and the Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) between USGS and DuPont. The following questions and comments were raised in response to this presentation:

What about data interpretation? Bill noted that both USGS & DuPont can publish data — DuPont cannot use their split sample data as "USGS" data. What about health and environmental effects data for these sulfonyl urea pesticides? Bill responded that there are few data available. Limited data suggests that the lower detection limits being developed by USGS are relevant to potential effects concentrations.

A question was raised as to whether CRADA projects are something the Board wants or should do. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that the DuPont CRADA was relevant to the Board’s mission and objectives. Copies of material related to the CRADA will be distributed to the Board. Subsequently, a review team will be formed. The role of the Board with respect to CRADAs in general warrants further discussion.

The next meeting may be in Reston, preferably prior to the next Council meeting in April. The Board needs to decide on a date. Possibilities are the week of April 20, the week of April 13 , and the week of April 27. The week of April 13 appeared to be better for most participants (and will be proposed based on subsequent discussions).

The third meeting could be in a variety of locations. One suggestion was having the meeting in Reno in conjunction with the National Monitoring Conference or, Bob Held indicated that ASTM, in conjunction with the ASTM D-19 meeting, could offer room space at the end of July also in Reno. Another possibility is Sacramento, CA.

There was general consensus among participants on the Board’s charter objectives, and that the priorities suggested at the meeting and listed in Attachment 2 are by in large specific issues associated with the various Charter objectives. We still need to associate the priorities raised with those listed in the charter. All agreed that PBMS is central to the Board’s mission and to its priorities. In this light, the issue paper on PBMS written by Ann (in the ITFM Technical Appendices) needs to be revisited and perhaps expanded by the Board.

Many participants thought that the Board should devote a block of time at the next meeting to discuss a PBMS framework and to define the issues. All agreed that it would be a good idea to invite Bill Telliard, (EPA, OST), and other appropriate EPA spokespersons, to discuss PBMS issues with the Board.

The suggestion was made that the Board needs to determine the most efficient way to distribute information to EPA, USGS, and other large organizations. Ideas include:

Name                     Affiliation

Herb Brass, Co-Chair     EPA, OGWDW
Merle Shockey, Co-Chair  USGS, NWQL/WRD
Richard Ayers            VA DEQ
Michalann Harthill       USGS, BRD
Andy Eaton               Standard Methods/Montgomery Watson Lab
Bob Carlson              Kent State Univ.
Katherine Alben          NY Dept. Health/SUNY
Dennis McChesney         EPA, Region 2
Maria Gomez-Taylor       EPA, OST
Rob Henry                VG Elemental/ASTM D-19
Bob Held                 ASTM
Bob Berger               East Bay MUD
Tom McAninch             Eastman Chemical/CMA
Cliff Annis, Jr.         Merck & Co./CMA
Ann Strong               ACOE
Barbara Erickson         AZ Dept. Health
Scott Coates             AOAC
Chuck Spooner            EPA, AWPD
Janice Ward              USGS, WRD
John Klein               USGS, WRD
Elizabeth Fellows        EPA, OGWDW
Howard Hankin            USDA, NRCS
Steve Via                AWWA
Mike Focazio             USGS/WRD
Lynn Bradley             Assoc. State Tribal Pub. Health Lab
Brad Fisher              Wash. Sub. San. Comm.
Keith McLaughlin         USDA, FS
Gary Cottrell            USGS, NWQL
Bill Battaglin           USGS, ORH
Jerry Diamond            Tetra Tech
Giles Miller             KY Division of Water

Uniform data format - share data, minimize data manipulation or promote uniform data manipulation methods

PBMS: importance of reference methods; best affordable technologies, faster, cheaper, better methods consistent with DQOs; issue of regulatory-driven vs DQO driven; non-scientific rejection of data

Glossary: e.g., "comparability"; expand and refine definition of PBMS

Method Validation Process: Clarification and coordination

Matrix issues: methods validity (robustness), detection limit versus quantitation, wider variety of reference materials for different matrices; transferability of data from one matrix to another

DQOs: goal oriented monitoring menu

support the use of DQOs in all monitoring design/methods

Menu of methods meeting various DQOs: purposes for which data can be used, cannot

be used

Guidance, recommendations on representative sampling: real time, frequency, timing, size of samples; when data are "accurate" reflection of reality; how to ensure that samples accurately reflect parameter of interest; low-level monitoring

Volunteer monitoring methods:

Public outreach, include groups interested in "comparability"; communicating Board recommendations

Pilot projects - to determine comparability among collection methods; data collection

Application of biomonitoring data to TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) process, clean-up goals, Clean Water Act 303(d) (impaired) water body designation

MDL (method detection level) definition / process, method

Return to the Minutes Page