Monthly Teleconference: 202-991 -0477/793925J#, March 20, 2019; 1:00-3:00 p.m. ET
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental Laboratory Advisory Board
(ELAB or Board) teleconference meeting was held on March 20. 2019. The agenda for this
meeting is provided as Attachment A. a list of meeting participants is provided as Attachment B.
and action items are included as Attachment C. The official certification of the minutes by the
Chair or Vice-Chair and the Designated Federal Officer is included as Attachment D.
Dr. Tom O'Farreil called the meeting to order and called roll.
Mr. Mike Flournoy motioned to approve the February 2019 meeting minutes. The minutes were
approved unanimously.
Dr. O'Farreil thanked Mr. Flournoy for accepting the role as ELAB Chair, and ELAB members
for participating in the voting process for Vice Chair. He congratulated Mr. Brad Meadows for
being voted in as the new Vice Chair of ELAB. Mr. Meadows thanked Mr. Flournoy for his
leadership. His goal is to use everyone's input to improve ELAB.
User-Generated Mass SpectraI Library Acceptance Criteria
Dr. Brian Buckley presented this topic. ELAB received two response letters from the EPA.
stating that the methods 8260D and 8270E - already have provisions that allows users to generate
libraries. These methods specify users can generate their own libraries for identification, using
the same conditions required for sample analysis. There is no requirement to duplicate the N1ST
generated libraries in terms of performance or ion ratios. These methods permit the use of the
best instrumentation available and ion traps. However. Dr. Buckley is concerned that some users
may be constrained to 624 and 625 methods and may not have the flexibility to use 8260D and

Ms. Deb Waller slated that K26UD and 8270!-. cannot be used because the\ arc not yet approved
in the Federal Register, and that for regulated wastewater, the 600 series methods are required.
Dr. O'barrel I confirmed that Dr. Buckley has read Mr. Adrian Jlanley s response from CPAs
()W. Dr. Chauvin had concerns with Adrian I lanley's response, due to timing limitations,
California is still using ll)% regulations, that allow the use of other methods. This means tlicy
could potentially use K260D and 8270E, instead of the 600 series methods. Ms. Waller disagrees
because this is policy, and not regulation, and the States could potentially overrule it, Mr.
Richard Gossett stated because the States are responsible for regulating this polie\. they arc
potentially an impediment. Ms, Waller recommended entities cheek with the Stale before
proceeding to be safe. A follow-up from FLAB may not be necessary because the topic is an
issue with the States. Dr. OT'arrell identified a similar recommendation in EPA response letters,
stating the EPA methods are guidance and to make sure to check with the regulating authoriiv,
The letters are going to be posted on El AB's website, and ELAB can reference them when
communicating with labs regarding this issue. Ms. Waller reminded EEAB thai SW-846 is not
being referenced in the current 600 series methods, and clarification may he needed. Mr.
Hournoy will send a follow-up letter to Adrian 1 lanley to clarify a couple points in the OW
response regarding the 8260'82 70 criteria.
. Icroh'in and Acrylonitri/e /'reservation
Mr. Meadows has a template letter from the ACII. l-.SS and he is going to modify it to solicit
laboratory participation in the preservation studies. 1 le is going to coordinate with the eo-chairs
of the ESS committee to complete the letter.
Dr. Mike Delaney slated that there are labs outside of ACII. that may be interested in
participating in the preservation study and inquired about the possibility. Mr. Meadows response
is the AC IE is being used because they have large lab membership, but labs outside of ACII are
welcome. The study is more likely to be accepted b\ the EPA if more labs are involved,
feedback from Adrian Hartley stated thai previous studies were too limited.
Ms. Stacie Crandall volunteered 1ISRD to participate in the study, slating that IISRI) has a
diverse pre-treatmcnt program. I1SRD has already asked pre-treatmenl personnel to collect a
variety of different sample matrices for testing. Ms. Crandall suggested adding resources to this
effort to get the data for the preservation .studies.
f>tW-Serie\ Methods
Dr. I lent*)' Leibovitz presented this topic. The task Ibrce- consisting of Mike Delaney. Francois
Chauvin. Jayesh (ihandi. Ray Erederici. Rich Gossett. David Thai met. and will meet again
before the March 2019 meeting. They discussed two topics: 1) the letter the EEAB originally
sent EPA when the method update rule was proposed, and 2) the comments Dr. Richard Burrows
from TestAmcriea submitted. Dr. Delaney found a copy to the EPA response letter. The EPA did
revise the method rule according to the comments they received. Dr. Chauvin asked Richard
Burrows to prov ide an example where a calibration curve generated a R: of 0.92. which is
believed to be too low and unacceptable. Richard Burrows provided an example which
concerned Dr. 1 eibovitz. Another concern is the "blanket statement" in the method for all the

anaKtes. Some analyles arc "bad actors." or do nol perform as expected in analysis. The task
group will rev iew (he regulated anaKtes lo make reeommendalions k> the HPA for selling
additional criteria. The reeommendalions will he more flexible fur I lie "had actors" and more
slringent on the more predictable analyles. I.astlv. Dr. Lcibovii/ presented Richard Burrows
question regarding calibration: When the calibration for sex era! anaKtes fail, is it acceptable to
rerun the calibration and ignore the performance of the other analyles'.' 1 he task group w ill meet
and have an update on this topic at the next I:LAB meeting.
Dr. Delano) discussed concerns raised by a laboraton in Massachusetts: the 625.1 method has a
now requirement to compare internal standards lo the LCS. I hoy reached out to the Region i OA
chemist. Mr. Lemuel Walker, who replied thai this requirement was a mistake. 1 he\ were
attempting to make the regulation consistent with 624. forgetting that the I.CS for 624 and 625
arc not the same. Dr. Dclaney would like to include (his concern in a letter to HP A regarding the
600 series. Dr. l.eibovit/ added thai 624.1 is a volatile organic method that does nol require an
extraction. It requires a purge and trap. The ICS is treated the same way as a CC'V. f or 625.1 the
LCS is extracted, while the CCV is not. The two methods are nol comparable.
Ms. Sharon Merlons received a call from TeslAmcriea regarding the "blanket statement".
TeslAmcriea received a violation from a customer {customer A). A different customer (customer
B) requested samples tesled al a strict QC specific lo a project. Customer A requested their
samples tested, and TeslAmcriea performed the test for both customers simultaneous!) using
customer B"s strict QC. Customer A issued a v iolation, staling that the customer B's QC did not
pass normal QC. Customer A wanted the entire batch to be reanaK/.ed. Dr. Leibovitz responded
that LLAH raised this concern previously, and LPA did not change the method. Ms. Mertens
stated that this concern is costing laboratories monetary resources. Dr. l.eibovit/ stated the I-PA
response: the promulgated methods already provide the laboratories with the Ilexihi 1 it) desired,
fhe task group will lake a closer look at this concern and decide how to respond. Dr. Delane)
asked if labs are doing what is required b) method and if there arc extra components. Is there a
wa> to ilag it? Ms. Mertens answered that there is a way and that TestAmeriea did compK. It
was the customers interpretation ofLPAs "blanket statement" that caused the issue. Dr.
l.eibovit/. wonders if it was LPA's intention with this method to avoid the usage of data
qualifiers. The "blanket statement" is an ethics concern causing laboratories to throw oul
"defensible" data.
Ms. Mertens would like the task group to address this issue with potential changes to the
language used in the current 600 series regulation. Ms. Stacie Crandall added that I IRC has
ahead) submitted suggested language changes to llie LPA in the past and received no response.
She suggested the task group could look at those suggested language changes as a stalling point.
LLAB ma)" make new recommendations for criteria lor some regulator) and non-regulator)
(Kill D11' (init/aiicc on Drinking Water MDLs
Dr. Delane). Ms. Mertens. and Ms. Waller offered a letter lo the HPA for approval b\ f.l.AB.
I he letter is a recommendation for the HPA to publish documents public!) and distinguish
between policy requirements, guidances, and suggestions. A participant from the Massachusetts
DPP asked a question regarding the ion chromotograph) methods: If you are following new

procedures to test \!i)i.s every 6 months, do you have to still do the 6-roortih Ml)l. testing? Ms.
Mertens would like litis issue addressed in the letter to the EPA. An HPA Region 1 representative
told Dr. Delaney that state labs should recalculate MDI s every 6 months because that is what is
in the method. "Should" is not a requirement. The letter will address the issue of the HPA
creating memos and guidances that are riot readily available to the entities that need to be using
them and are open to interpretation by regulatory officials.
Inactive Topics
a) Improved PC H (\mgeihr Method
Adrian Hanley provided an update at the March 2011) meeting that the analysis has begun for the
multi-lab study. Dr. Delaney suggested revisiting this subject once the data for the study
becomes available later in the year.
h) I f "We Effluent Toxicity P T Standards
Dr. Delanev contacted Mr. Greg Savitskc before the 1 ebruary 1 11 AN meeting. Greg Savitske is
willing to ha\e task group meeting with KLAB and the WET testing task group, after the middle
of April. This topic will remain inactive for now.
c) In-Line On-Line Monitoring
Mr. I lournoy stated there was not enough interest from HPA on this topic. Ms. (Tandall
informed ELAB that HPA is performing actions for chlorine, and that she w ill talk to Lemuel
Walker about whether KLAB can play a role in developing In-I.ine. On-l inc methods. To date.
(T AB has not received further feedback from the EPA. ELAN discussed the rofc of ELAB to the
HPA. The question is "Does the HPA need anything from ELAB"'" Lastly, Ms. Mertens
reminded ELAB thai this topic pertains to not onl\ wastewater, but also air. and other things
measured with sensor technology. Mr. I'lournoy adds that the EPA has already approved on-line
monitoring for air. I here was a session at NHMC to address this topic.
This topic is inactive for now.

Dr. Chauvin led a discussion on tho requirements lor QC failures and addressing outliers and
presented J-.LAB with a Idler to EPA on this topic. ELAB agreed to distribute this letter In email
and \ote on it al the next meeting.
1.	Mike Flournoy will send a letter to Tom to distribute to Adrian Hanley {EPA, OWi to
clarif\ a point from his recent comments on the I scr-Generate Library Acceptance
Criteria letter sent front ELAB to EPA in Oct. of 2018.
2.	Brad Meadows will ask the ACIL about the possibility of conducting a study to address
pll preservation of acrolein and acrylonitrile in wastewater samples.
3.	Mike Dektne\ will send the summar\ of comments in the docket from the last 600 Series
Ml R.
4.	Deb Waller will make final edits to the l)\V MD1. letter and send to ELAB via email for
5.	Mike Delancy will follow up with (.ireg Savitske about selling up a meeting with ELAB
and INI on \YL f PT probabK in April 20 E>.
6.	Staeie Crandall will ask Lemuel Walker about whether ELAR should play a role in
developing In-line'On-l.ine monitoring methods.
7.	lTancoise Chauvin will send a letter that will go to LPA on 1DOC guidance to ELAB first
for re\ iew In email. The final \ersion of Ihe letter will be voted on at the April 201'J
HI AB meeting.
Ihe April 2010 HI.AB Meeling will be held on .April 17. 2010 at I pm 1-astern.
Dr. Deluney mo\ed to adjourn at 2:54 p.m.. and it was passed.

At (itch merit A
Teleconference Numbers 202-991-0477 / 79392518
March 20, 2019
Webconference: epawebconferencing.acms.com/ofarrel
I.	Call Meeting to Order	Flournoy
II.	Introduction of Board Members/Roll Call	Board
III.	Approval of Minutes for Previous Meetings	Flournoy
IV.	Remarks .md Updates from the DFO	O'Farrell
 Vice chair selection
VI.	Updates on Current Topics
a.	User-Generated Library Acceptance Criteria..........			Buckley
b.	Acrolein and Acrylonitrile Preservation and pH					Meadows
c.	600-Series Methods												leibovitz
d.	OGWDW Guidance on Drinking Water MDls 						Oelaney
f. Inactive topics awaiting feedback/input:
 Improved PCB Congener Method					Delaney
	Whole Effluent Toxicity proficiency study standards
(is this back to active?)							 leibovitz
	In line/On-line Monitoring						 Flournoy
	Addressing Emerging Contaminants				Mertens
	Drinking Water Program Adoption of
Recent Approved Methods					Waller
VII.	New Topics/Issues for Consideration	Flournoy
What does the Laboratory community want ELAB to work on? (Waller)
VIII.	Wrap Up/Summaryof Action Items	Q'Farrelf/Ftournoy
Closing Remarks/Adjourn
O'Farrell/ Flournoy

Attachment B
Dr. Michael {Mike) Dclaney
Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority
(MWRA) '
Representing: MWRA
Board Memht'is Attendance
Mr, Michael Flournoy (Chair)
I)t I homas ()' 1 nneil (DLO|
Dr. Kim Anderson
Dr. Brian Bucklev
Dr. i'raneoise Chain in
Di. Dcyuan (Kitty) Kong
Furofins Lnvironment Testing
Representing: American
Council of Independent
1:.S. Hn\ironmental Protection
Representing: i'PA
Oregon State Cni\ersity
Representing: Aeademia-
Oregon State I ni\ ersitx
Rutgers Ln\ ironmental and
Occupational Health Sciences
Representing: Academia and
I .allocators - Rutgers
NYC Dept. of i jn ironmental
Representing: NYCDEP
Chevron Lnergv "technology

Ms. Slacie Crunch II
i)r. Hcnrv Leibmit/
Mr. Brad Meadow:
Ms, Sharon Mortens
Mr, Richard (iossett
Dr. Javesh Cihandt
Ms. Debra (Deb) Waller
Representing: Chevron
I lampion Roads Sanitation
Representing: 1ISR1)
Rhode Island State I lealth
Representing: Association of
Public Health Laboratories
Ikibeoek Laboratories, Inc.
Representing: Commercial
Laboratorx -- Babcoek
I Laboratories. lite.
Miluaukee Melropolitan
Sewerage District
Representing: The Nbl.AC
VIr. David Ilia
, Representing: I'i 1YSIS Labs
Hnvironmental Standards Inc.
; Representing: Lnvironnienial
! Standards Inc.
; Melrolim USA
1 Representing: Metrohm USA
New Jersey Department of
Hnvironmenta! Protection
Representing: State 	


Government- NJI)1.1'
N Mr, Ray Frederici
Representing: TestAmeriea
t (mtractors and (iuosts
Attendance (Y/N)
Ms. Alexis !in ant
I- !5A
Mr. Nick Ramos
1 lunUm. .Andrews, Kurth

Mr. Dale Tapp
\\ aterOne
Penny Shandons
I lunton'Acicr

\Much men t i
Action Items
1.	Mike llournoy will send a letter to Tom to distribute to Adrian I lanley (I I'A. 0\V) to
ckiiif> a point from his recent comments on the I ';set-(.icneratc 1 ibr.try Acceptance
Criteria letter sent from J:LAB to EPA in t >ct. of 2018,
2.	Brad Meadows will ask the AC'i 1. about the possibility of conducting a study to address
pi I preservation of acrolein and aerylonitrile in wastewater samples.
3.	Mike Dekinev will send the summary of comments in the docket from the last 600 Scries
Ml JR.
4.	Deb Waller will make final edits to the DW MDL letter and send to ELAB via email for
5.	Mike Dekiney will follow up with Greg Savitske about setting up a meeting with ELAB
and TNI on WET P f probably in April 201*),
6.	Stacie ("randall will ask Lemuel Walker about whether I .LAB should play a role in
developing In-line/'On-Line monitoring methods.
?. I-'rancoise ("hauvin will send a letter that will go io EPA on I DOC guidance to ELAB first
for review b\ email. The final version of the letter will be voted on ai the April 2019
ELAB meeting.

Attachment I)
1 hereby certify that this is the final version of the minutes for the I .in ironmenta! Laboratory
Advisory Board Meeting held on March 20. 20i 9.

Mr. Michael Floumov
Di. Thomas O'Farrell
Designated Federal Officer