Enhancing Public Health and Safety
Through Quality Testing and Engineering
Meeting Summary
ESS Section Conference Call
August 21, 2014
Participants:
Judy Morgan – Chair
Charlie Carter
Dave Friedman
Joann Slavin
Michael Flournoy
Rich Henson
Phil Worby
Dave Speis
Tom Hungerford
Zaneta Popovska
Allison Mackenzie
Shawn Kassner
Paul Monroy
Zoe Grosser
Bruce Godfrey
Jerry Singh
Bob Wyeth
Lindsay Holcroft
Joe Konschnik
Jack Farrell
Milton Bush
Richard Bright
Robert Uttenweiler
ESC Labs
Test America
Friedman Consulting
H2M Labs
Eurofins
Pace Analytical
Accutest Labs
QC Labs
S-F Analytical
L-A-B
Babcock Labs
Phenova
Babcock Labs
Horizon Technology
Curtis & Tompkins
RTI Laboratories
Independent
Horizon Technology
Restek
Analytical Excellence
ACIL CEO
ACIL COO
ACIL SEO
1)
The meeting was called to order by Judy Morgan – Chair at 11:02 am
2)
Introduction of Members and Guests - Bob Uttenweiler
3)
ACIL Antitrust Statement – Bob Uttenweiler
a)
4)
There being no disagreement, the Antitrust Statement was accepted
Review of Meeting Summaries from June and July 2014
a)
June 2014 – moved to approved with one type by Jerry Singh and seconded by
Jack Farrell
i)
The June meeting summary was approved as corrected
b)
July 2014 – A motion to approve with corrections was made by Joann Slavin and
seconded by Dave Speis
i)
5)
The July 2014 meeting summary with corrections was approved
Air Emissions – Massachusetts – Lindsay Holcroft
a)
Representatives have spoken to the legal team of the Massachusetts government
i)
States can set lower limits than federal
(1)
ii)
Massachusetts has set 2,000 pound limit for hazardous air
pollutants (HAP)
(a)
The federal is 10,000 pounds
(b)
There also is a limit of 25 tons of HAP for a combination of
compounds under Title V
In Massachusetts, the rule has two parts but a major issue is the potential
to emit HAP
(1)
This is an issue where laboratories were not suspected of reaching
the limits for HAP but were looking at dry cleaning shops, metal
working shops, painting operations, degreasing systems and other
commercial establishments
(2)
This actually starting in Vermont a few years ago and this
triggered a review by Massachusetts
(a)
Because the limit in Massachusetts is 2,000 pounds and
there is a problem if a lab is importing 20,000 pounds, there
is a potential to emit violation that must be considered even
if most of the HAP is recovered
(b)
By enforcing the state limit of 2,000 potential to emit, the
labs applied for permits, established programs and are
going through the state requirements for approval
(c)
If the federal violation had been under Title V, the fines
would have been much higher
iii)
Most states are relying on the 10 ton federal standard, but laboratories
need to be aware of the potential to emit issue
iv)
The EPA has been talking to the Massachusetts about this issue but it is
not known at this time if this will lead to an expanded review
6)
It does appear that EPA is looking to expand their reviews in other
states relating to the potential to emit
(2)
Not all states enforce potential to emit in the same way
b)
The bottom line of this discussion is that laboratories need to be aware of this
issue in each state and ensure that there is proper monitoring and recovery with
the 20,000 pound potential to emit problem
c)
This discussion relates to US Code Title 42
PADEP Drinking Water Letter Discussion – Follow-up – Dave Spies
a)
To date, Pennsylvania has not responded
i)
7)
(1)
Calls have been made to the Drinking Water Agency in PA but there has
been no response in six weeks
b)
There may need to be a request for a meeting to get a response from PA DEP
c)
In the letter to PA DEP, it was predicted that there would be trouble in getting
data accepted to PA DEP
i)
QC data was submitted to PA DEP but the data was rejected and could not
be entered into the PA DEP data base
ii)
The water purveyor had to go back to the state of PA and make a request
for additional time to enter the data and then the data was accepted by PA
iii)
Any minor deviations are going to logjam the process and create delays
and requests for extensions
EPA OIG Report – Feedback from membership and brief discussion – Judy Morgan
a)
The report focuses on laboratory fraud and the process that needs to take place if
this happens regarding notification
i)
The OIG is not happy with the way EPA has been handling these
investigations
(1)
ii)
b)
The report is a summary and raises the awareness of the problem
This report could raise the awareness on both the federal and state levels
i)
c)
Enforcement actions by states seem to have brought this to light
Labs should be concerned and focus to ensure quality of data
This report focuses on internal EPA procedures and establishing a coordinated
response to issues within EPA
8)
d)
ACIL has a number of tools (white papers, etc.) that are available that labs might
be able to use and remind members about the importance of this potential problem
e)
After an extensive discussion, it was agreed that no action items are needed at this
time but monitoring must continue
ELAB Report – Short summary – Dave Speis
a)
b)
9)
i)
The meeting was an overview of accomplishments
ii)
There are a few items still under review
iii)
There were two sidebar meetings that occurred on Methods
Harmonization and on the Methods Update Rule
(1)
Methods Harmonization – it is likely that existing harmonization
methods will stay in place
(2)
Methods Update Rule – a new rule will be sent out in the next few
months but some additional changes may be coming that will
strengthen and harmonize the document
ACIL wants to continue to have strong representation and talent on ELAB and is
awaiting an announcement of new board members
ILI SPE Project – Summary of Status – Dave Friedman
a)
10)
ELAB met at the NEMC Conference in DC
Letters have been sent to all potential vendors with a reply date next week to
participate in phase II
i)
Some positive letters have been received
ii)
There is an effort to improve the QC of data collection
Analyst Certification/Enrichment – Summary of Status – Joe Konschnik
a)
The subcommittee met to discuss this initiative
b)
There is a need to survey the lab community to understand the types and kinds of
training and certifications that are wanted / needed
i)
The subcommittee met at NEMC and put together a list of survey
questions
ii)
The survey questions will be put into a survey monkey format and will
send those out to the subcommittee for comment on the questions
iii)
c)
11)
12)
At the Annual Meeting, one discussion item could the changing face of
accreditation
i)
Other discussion topics could be disaster planning recovery, information
security, social responsibility and social media and how labs should deal
with social media contacts (use, control, etc.)
ii)
Another discussion could be how to handle the media, who is the
spokesperson for the lab, development of talking points
iii)
Steve Arms from Florida will be attending the Section’s Annual Meeting
NEMC/TNI – August 2014 Meeting Summary
a)
From a TNI standpoint, changes to the 2009 standard are still being discussed
with the desired completion to take place in 2015 but that may not occur
b)
ACIL session at NEMC was standing room only
i)
Planning will start for 2015 as soon as possible
ii)
Very good feedback on the session and the speakers
ACIL Annual Meeting – October 5-8, 2014, Chicago, IL
a)
Registration is now open - http://independenttesting.net/ACIL77/
i)
13)
The ESS meeting will be Sunday, October 5 from 1:00 pm until 5:00 pm
Ongoing Initiatives – ESS Value Proposition, Membership Update, EMR Ratings, China
Brownfields Program
a)
14)
Once the survey questions are approved, Judy Morgan will circulate the
questions to ACIL member labs in early September with the hopes of
having results for the ACIL Annual Meeting in October
No new information
Non-Governmental Accreditation Initiative WG Report
a)
Florida
i)
b)
Steve Arms will make a presentation at the ESS meeting at the ACIL
Annual Meeting
New Jersey
i)
Cabot Earle, Davie Speis and Milton Bush are meeting with the
Commission and Assistant Commissioner of the DEP to layout objections
to proposed procurement regulations, invitations to bid and privatization
of assessments within the state of New Jersey
c)
d)
California – Allison Mackenzie
i)
California is fast-tracking the laboratory accreditation program regulations
and statutes because of a change of agencies
ii)
First time the regulations will have changed in over ten years
iii)
There is no hard information on the time frame on the new regulations for
environmental laboratory accreditation program
iv)
There will be a follow-up call on California on September 18 at 1:00 pm
ET / 10:00 am PT with details to be sent to the Section prior to that call
Other states ( MN, KY) – Charlie Carter
i)
Minnesota has sent a letter on July 9 that looks to change reporting limits
ii)
The letter and one additional document are embedded below
MN_Intervention_Lim
its_2014.xls
15)
A.O.B.
16)
Next ESS call will take place on Thursday, September 18, 2014
17)
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:05 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert Uttenweiler
ACIL SEO