SUMMARY OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
Teleconference: 866-299-3188/9195415544#

February 19, 2014; 1:00 - 3:00 p.m. EST

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental Laboratory Advisory Board
(ELAB or Board) teleconference was held on February 19, 2014. The agenda for this meeting is
provided as Attachment A, a list of the participants is provided as Attachment B, and action
items from the teleconference are included as Attachment C. The official certification of the
minutes by the Chair or Vice-Chair is included as Attachment D.

AGENDA ITEMS:

1.	OPENING REMARKS

Ms. Patsy Root, Chair of ELAB, and Ms. Lara Phelps, Designated Federal Official (DFO) of
ELAB, welcomed participants to the teleconference and called an official roll of the Board
members and guests.

2.	APPROVAL OF JANUARY MINUTES

Ms. Root asked whether any members had any comments regarding the January minutes; there
were none. Ms. Patricia Carvajal moved to accept the minutes, and Mr. Dave Speis seconded the
motion. The Board approved the January minutes unanimously with four abstentions and no
discussion.

3.	OFFICE OF WATER (OW) UPCOMING METHODS PROJECTS

Mr. Adrian Hanley (EPA) explained that OW's Office of Science and Technology (OST) is
responsible for wastewater, effluents and, to some extent, sewer sludge. OST is the main EPA
office that addresses Clean Water Act (CWA) methods, whereas OW's Office of Ground Water
and Drinking Water (OGWDW) is responsible for drinking water methods. OST staff includes
analytical chemists, microbiologists and scientists in other biological disciplines, and the office
deals with 40 CFR 136, which includes EPA's regulated methods that are deemed appropriate
for analyzing industrial wastewater and a wide variety of matrices. The office is considering
water criteria, including those contaminants with deficient or no CWA methods. There is the
potential for collaboration, particularly with organizations that may have methods near
completion, and OST is interested in obtaining stakeholder feedback about current and potential
future method development activities. Stakeholders include EPA offices, regions and
laboratories; state regulators; environmental laboratory associations; wastewater utilities; and
industry organizations. The goal is to gather a wide variety of comments to prioritize CWA
method development activities.

The office is undergoing a new Method Update Rule (MUR) proposal, which was announced in
2013. Methods 608, 624 and 625 are being updated, and guidelines documents for alternate
testing procedures (ATPs) and new methods approval for regulating contaminants are being

ELAB Meeting

1

February 19, 2014

-------
developed. OST also is undertaking qPCR method studies for various microbiological targets
and examining several future CWA method activities, including regulatory analysis of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), modification to the method detection limit, development of a
total nitrogen method, update of Method 1694, and exploration of nanomaterials.

Mr. Hanley asked the ELAB members about contaminants of significant concern for which EPA
has not regulated or provided methods. Dr. Richard Burrows said that when using Method 608 to
test for organochlorine pesticides, it is not uncommon for samples to possess heavy levels of
interferences that are difficult to clean; therefore, laboratories frequently do not have a high
degree of confidence in the determination. There are potential alternatives (e.g., gas
chromatography GC triple quad mass spectroscopy ionization) that could be useful to have as an
alternative in situations in which Method 608 does not provide the most reliable data.

Dr. Mahesh Pujari described a modification to Method 608 that helps when analyzing for PCBs.
Mr. John Phillips would like to see good methods for pharmaceuticals that commonly
contaminate wastewater and effluents. Nanomaterials are being used prevalently in many
industries; because there are no good techniques for measuring or monitoring them, however,
this represents another area of significance. Dr. Michael Wichman added that high-volume
diphenyl ethers are another area that would be beneficial to explore.

Dr. Dallas Wait asked how OST tries to harmonize its efforts to be consistent with other offices.
Mr. Hanley responded that his office meets with the Office of Resource Conservation and
Recovery and OGWDW every few months. The offices have different areas of concern and
responsibilities (i.e., OST focuses on a wider variety of methods, whereas OGWDW focuses on
higher accuracy and precision), but they attempt to harmonize when possible. Dr. Wait asked
whether the required number of points on the calibration curve could be harmonized among
offices regardless of matrices. Mr. Hanley agreed that this would make sense so that the same
method could be used for ground water and wastewater. Dr. Wait thought that a number of areas
(e.g., peak integration) could be harmonized to save time and effort for commercial laboratories,
and this is what ELAB would like to promote. Mr. Hanley agreed.

Dr. Wait noted that Mr. Hanley had mentioned the update of Method 1694, which is a liquid
chromatography with tandem mass spectroscopy (LC-MS/MS) method. There are additional LC-
MS/MS methods within the Agency (e.g., Methods 685 and 537), and he has found significant
differences among them in regard to the construct for transition ions and determination of
conformation. He thought that, regardless of matrices, fundamental issues (e.g., calibration
points, transformation ions) should be standard, and he hoped that this would be considered
when Method 1694 is updated. Mr. Hanley agreed, and his opinion regarding the path forward
was for offices to agree to try to reproduce the number of calibration points and transformation
ions, which should not be affected too much by the matrices. There is some method flexibility
for wastewater methods, but it would be too labor intensive to revise all of the current methods.

Dr. Pujari noted that there is little difference between Methods 624 and 8260, but laboratories are
struggling to run them both. If these are streamlined, laboratories can run one method for
analyses. Mr. Hanley said that some of this could be covered in wastewater's method flexibility.

Ms. Root explained that an ELAB Task Group has been speaking with another EPA office about
Recreational Water Quality Criteria and use of qPCR. Will this method now also be used for
wastewater effluent? Mr. Hanley responded that nine different water matrices currently are being

ELAB Meeting

2

February 19, 2014

-------
tested, and if qPCR performs well enough it eventually could be included in 40 CFR 136.
Ms. Root asked how this particular method would be addressed in a CWA ATP process because
there are no comparable methods. Mr. Hanley was not familiar enough with the Recreational
Water Quality Criteria effort to provide a precise answer.

In response to a question from Dr. Wait, Mr. Hanley explained that OW has not developed an
EPA method for phenol-carboxylates.

Mr. David Blye (Environmental Standards) asked whether OST was examining alternatives for
Method 1668. Mr. Hanley said that Method 1668 is a reliable, sensitive method. Method 608 is
not sensitive enough for PCBs, which are regulated at zero discharge. Dr. Burrows mentioned
the potential use of a gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy approach somewhere between
Methods 608 and 1668. Mr. Hanley said that this was a good description and noted the
ubiquitous background levels of PCBs. Mr. Phillips referenced high-resolution capillary
chromatography and noted that good cleanups go a long way to achieve a better, more sensitive
technique and better separation from interference. Mr. Hanley agreed that there are other
available options.

Dr. Pujari asked about separate testing of acrylonitrile and acrolein in Method 624. Mr. Hanley
was unfamiliar with the issue but offered to ask a colleague about it. Dr. Burrows said that
acrylonitrile is relatively stable, but degradation was seen with acrolein no matter what. Dr. Wait
said that Method 603 covers acrylonitrile, requiring a heated purge and trap. He asked whether
Method 624 allowed mass spectroscopy methods for acrylonitrile. His understanding was that
Method 603 can use Method 624 as long as the Method 603 purging methods are used. Dr. Pujari
said that there is a requirement to use the quality criteria (QC) requirements for Methods 603 and
624.

Dr. Pujari said that in terms of Method 200.8, the MUR allows the use of collision cells. Method
200.8 needs to be modified so that there is not a conflict regarding the mass of collision cells
versus noncollision cells.

Mr. Akin Babatola (City of Santa Cruz) asked when additional methods for bacterial analysis
could be expected. Mr. Hanley said that for the next year or so, the office is focusing on qPCR,
so if additional methods are desired, Mr. Babatola should suggest them. Mr. Babatola
recommended methods for Bacteroides.

In response to a question from Mr. Phillips, Mr. Hanley agreed to share the presentation slides
with the ELAB members. In response to a question from Dr. Burrows about whether the slides
could be shared with the Board's constituencies, Mr. Hanley explained that the information
contained on the slides includes areas of interest for his office, but they are not definite action
items; this must be understood. Mr. Hanley thanked the ELAB members for the productive
feedback.

4. TASK GROUPS

As a result of the changes to federal workgroup structure, the standing ELAB Workgroups were
dissolved, and ad hoc task (topic) groups were formed based on Board topics and activities.

ELAB Meeting

3

February 19, 2014

-------
Ms. Root reported that the letter to ORCR regarding the SW-846 updates was sent on January
28, 2014, and the following day ORCR responded that it would take the comments into
consideration. The letter to the Agency regarding method detection limits was sent on February
2, 2014, and there has been no response from Mr. Lem Walker (OW) as of yet. Ms. Root will
follow up with Mr. Walker to ensure that he has received it and determine whether he has any
questions.

Ms. Root noted that there was a good discussion regarding method harmony during Mr. Hanley's
presentation. Dr. Wait agreed, noting that speaking to EPA staff members is beneficial to ELAB.
Ms. Root was glad that Dr. Wait had focused the issue during the discussion. Dr. Wait agreed
that there is a better chance for success when specific rather than general issues are presented.
The next step in this effort is for Dr. Wait to draft a letter to EPA personnel about the issue, and
once he sends the letter to his Task Group, he will schedule a teleconference for the group to
discuss the letter. Ms. Phelps will complete her outstanding action item to determine the most
appropriate staff members to whom to send the letter once the recent personnel movement within
EPA has slowed down.

In terms of the content of the letter, the goal was to outline potential approaches for QC
harmonization and increased communication while providing specific examples. Two letters will
be developed: one to the members of OW and ORCR who met with the Task Group and a more
general one including additional EPA offices. Ms. Aurora Shields moved that the Board discuss
the letter via email once the Task Group has developed it. Dr. Wichman seconded the motion.
Ms. Phelps suggested adding a clause to the motion indicating that if there is a desire, the letter
can be discussed during the March ELAB teleconference. Mr. Speis asked about the urgency in
approving the letter prior to the next Board meeting. Because the Task Group met with Agency
personnel in January, the desire was to respond promptly, but after further discussion, it was
determined that there was no urgency to craft anything beyond a straightforward thank you letter
to OW and ORCR. Ms. Shields withdrew the motion, and Dr. Wichman withdrew his second.
Dr. Wait will send a straightforward courtesy email (one to two sentences) thanking the ORCR
and OW staff members for attending the meeting without needing prior ELAB approval.
Ms. Phelps volunteered to review the email before Dr. Wait sends it, but it is not necessary.

Ms. Root reported that the letter regarding ELAB's desire to be engaged during the next MUR
process was sent to the Forum on Environmental Measurements in December 2013. Ms. Phelps
said that the letter was well received, and a letter from Dr. Mike Shapiro (EPA) is being drafted,
including a small point of clarification. ELAB's letter is being distributed widely among the
Agency so that all groups are aware of it, and it will be published on the Board's website. ELAB
should receive the response prior to its March meeting.

Ms. Wade explained that she had drafted a second letter regarding the MUR that included an
attachment with the pertinent MUR topics that the Board would like to address. Ms. Root had
sent the letter to the Board members the prior day for their review. Mr. Farrell made a motion to
discuss and vote on the letter via email, which Ms. Wade seconded. The motion passed
unanimously. Ms. Phelps noted that, per the Board's established email voting process, an
expedited schedule would need to be in place to ensure that the letter is sent by the deadline of
March 3, 2014. Mr. Farrell amended his motion so that all comments must be sent to Ms. Root
no later than Monday, February 24, 2014. Ms. Wade seconded the amended motion, which
passed unanimously.

ELAB Meeting

4

February 19, 2014

-------
5. NEW TOPICS/ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

In terms of field sampling, Mr. Jack Farrell commented that Dr. Jim Seiber's point was that field
sampling is becoming an increasingly more important part of obtaining analytical data. ELAB
should decide whether it would like to address this topic. Ms. Root agreed that it always has been
an important part of the process, and now is getting the attention that it deserves.

Mr. Phillips mentioned The NELAC Institute's (TNI) National Environmental Field Activities
Program (NEFAP) and suggested that a recommendation could be for the Agency to require
NEFAP certification for field sampling when possible. Ms. Phelps recommended being very
careful about recommending that the Agency use a single source. She can educate ELAB about
EPA actions regarding field sampling and measurements. An effort began more than a year prior,
and there are more consistent criteria that will be instituted for field sampling. Following much
negotiation and establishment of a committee, field operations guidelines have been developed
and heavily vetted within the Agency; every program within the Agency must be in compliance
with the new guidelines by January 2016. Mr. Phillips thanked Ms. Phelps for the information,
explaining that he had suggested NEFAP because he had not been aware of any other efforts.

Mr. Speis thought that it would be helpful for ELAB to be educated about Agency efforts in this
area. Ms. Phelps said that she could share information regarding the field sampling efforts to
ELAB prior to the next meeting so that the Board to facilitate discussion during the March
meeting. Mr. Speis and Mr. Farrell thought that this would be beneficial. Mr. Farrell thought that
in addition to require a quality system and competency, competency for sampling should be
defined. Ms. Phelps suggested that Mr. Farrell include information from TNI as well;
Ms. Marlene Moore (Advanced Systems, Inc.) is another potential resource. Mr. Farrell
volunteered to contact her.

Ms. Root asked whether there was any way of knowing whether the new guideline would be
included in the MUR. Ms. Phelps did not think it would be integrated into the MUR, but she
could discuss this with Mr. Walker. Per the guidelines, those generating data for EPA under
grants and cooperative agreements must demonstrate competency. Ms. Root explained that she
wondered whether the use of quality system-based field sampling would be included generally in
the MUR. Ms. Phelps said that the requirements were being integrated into specific grants and
cooperative agreements, but it probably would not be generally integrated into a rule. Mr. Farrell
said that requiring states to implement this under regulations would be a challenge. Ms. Phelps
said that anyone receiving an EPA-grant above a specific amount threshold understand that they
must demonstrate competency per the new guidelines.

Ms. Shields said that with the new guidelines, the facilities that collect the samples will be
required to demonstrate proficiency rather than the states themselves, which would be required if
it was formalized in a regulation. Ms. Ruth Forman cited an example that she was aware of in
Tennessee in which a state regulator required the laboratory performing field sampling to
demonstrate competency, and Region 4 had provided this guidance to the state as well. She
thought that this requirement was being promoted beyond EPA funding programs. Ms. Phelps
said that this was true, and she has spoken with Region 4 about the competency policy. Each
region is implementing the new policy in its own way, but the goal is to generate some
consistency. The regions understand that if the new policy is not followed, they could lose

ELAB Meeting

5

February 19, 2014

-------
Agency funding. Ms. Root noted that in Europe, ISO standards are followed, and a method
cannot be conducted in isolation.

6.	WRAP-UP/REVIEW ACTION ITEMS

There was not sufficient time to review the action items during the teleconference.

7.	CLOSING REMARKS/ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 3:06 p.m.

ELAB Meeting

6

February 19, 2014

-------
Attachment A

AGENDA

ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ADVISORY BOARD

Monthly Teleconference: 866-299-3188/9195415544#
February 19, 2014; 1:00 - 3:00 p.m. (EST)

Opening Remarks

Phelps/Root

Approval of January Minutes

Root

Office of Water (OW) Upcoming Methods Projects

Hanley (OW)

Task Groups

All

Letter to ORCR on SW-846 Updates

Letter to Agency Regarding Method Detection Limits

Interagency Data Quality Task Force/Data Quality
Objectives Process

Methods Harmony

Method Update Rule

Field Sampling

New Topics/Issues for Consideration	Root

Total Nitrogen
Update Radiologicals Tables
Method 1668 (PCBs)

Biosolid Methods
Whole Effluent Toxicity
MDL Procedure

Wrap-Up/Review Action Items	Root/LeBaron

Closing Remarks/Adjourn	Phelps/Root

ELAB Meeting

7

February 19, 2014

-------
Attachment B

MEMBERSHIP LISTING AND GUESTS

ELAB TELECONFERENCE
February 19, 2014; 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. EST

Attendance
(Y/N)

Name

Affiliation

Y

Ms. Patsy Root (Chair)

IDEXX Laboratories, Inc.

Representing: Laboratory Product Developers

Y

Ms. Michelle L. Wade
(Vice-Chair)

Kansas Department of Health and the Environment
Representing: Laboratory Accreditation Bodies

Y

Ms. Lara P. Phelps, DFO

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Representing: EPA

Y

Dr. Richard Burrows

TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc.

Representing: Commercial Laboratory Industry

Y

Ms. Patricia M. Carvajal

San Antonio River Authority
Representing: Watershed/Restoration

Y

Mr. John (Jack) E. Farrell, III

Analytical Excellence, Inc.

Representing: The NELAC Institute (TNI)

Y

Ms. Ruth L. Forman

Environmental Standards, Inc.

Representing: Large Third-Party Assessors

N

Ms. Sylvia (Silky) S. Labie

Environmental Laboratory Consulting &
Technology, LLC

Representing: Third Party Assessors

Y

Ms. Susan L. Mazur

Florida Power and Light
Representing: Utility Water Act Group

Y

Mr. John H. Phillips

Ford Motor Company

Representing: Alliance of Automobile

Manufacturers

Y

Dr. Mahesh P. Pujari

City of Los Angeles

Representing: National Association of Clean
Water Agencies (NACWA)

N

Dr. James N. Seiber

University of California, Davis
Representing: Academic and Research
Communities

Y

Ms. Aurora Shields

City of Lawrence, Kansas
Representing: Wastewater Laboratories

Y

Mr. David (Dave) N. Speis

QC Laboratories

Representing: American Council of Independent
Laboratories (ACIL)

Y

Dr. A. Dallas Wait

Gradient

Representing: Consumer Products Industry





State Hygienic Laboratory at the University of

Y

Dr. Michael D. Wichman

Iowa

Representing: Association of Public Health
Laboratories (APHL)

ELAB Meeting

8

February 19, 2014

-------
Attendance
(Y/N)

Name

Affiliation

Y

Ms. Kristen LeBaron (Contractor)

The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc. (SCG)

Y

Mr. Akin Babatola (Guest)

City of Santa Cruz (California)

Y

Mr. David Blye (Guest)

Environmental Standards

Y

Ms. Lynn Bradley (Guest)

TNI

Y

Dr. Mike Delaney (Guest)

Massachusetts Water Resources Authority

Y

Mr. Adrian Hanley (Guest)

EPA

Y

Ms. Ann Lawson (Guest)

Arlington (Texas) Water Utilities

Y

Ms. Karen Menard (Guest)

Upper Trinity Regional Water District (Texas)

Y

Ms. Renee Spears (Guest)

California State Water Resources Control
Board

Y

Ms. Linda Wilson (Guest)

New York State

ELAB Meeting

9

February 19, 2014

-------
Attachment C

ACTION ITEMS

1.	Ms. Kristen LeBaron will finalize the January 2014 meeting minutes and send them to
Ms. Phelps via email.

2.	Ms. Root will follow up with Mr. Walker regarding the MDL letter.

3.	Dr. Wait will send a brief, straightforward thank you email to the ORCR and OW staff
members who met with the Methods Harmonization Task Group.

4.	Board members will provide their comments regarding the second MUR letter to Ms.
Root no later than Monday, February 24, 2014; ELAB members then will vote on
whether to approve the letter no later than March 3, 2014.

5.	Mr. Farrell will contact The NELAC Institute (TNI) personnel, including Ms. Marlene
Moore (Advanced Systems, Inc.), regarding TNI's field activities.

6.	Ms. Phelps will discuss with Mr. Walker whether the new field sampling
guidelines/policies may be incorporated into the MUR.

7.	Ms. Phelps will provide the Board members with information about EPA's new policies
regarding demonstration of competency for field sampling.

ELAB Meeting

10

February 19, 2014

-------
Attachment D

I hereby certify that this is the final version of the minutes for the Environmental Laboratory
Advisory Board Meeting held on February 19, 2014.

Signature Chair

Ms. Michelle Wade
Print Name Chair

ELAB Meeting

11

February 19, 2014

-------