1) the Meeting Was Called to Order by Judy Morgan Chair at 11:02 Am

Meeting Summary

ESS Section Conference Call
August 21, 2014

Participants:

Judy Morgan – Chair ESC Labs
Charlie Carter Test America
Dave Friedman Friedman Consulting
Joann Slavin H2M Labs
Michael Flournoy Eurofins
Rich Henson Pace Analytical
Phil Worby Accutest Labs
Dave Speis QC Labs
Tom Hungerford S-F Analytical
Zaneta Popovska L-A-B
Allison Mackenzie Babcock Labs
Shawn Kassner Phenova
Paul Monroy Babcock Labs
Zoe Grosser Horizon Technology
Bruce Godfrey Curtis & Tompkins
Jerry Singh RTI Laboratories
Bob Wyeth Independent
Lindsay Holcroft Horizon Technology
Joe Konschnik Restek
Jack Farrell Analytical Excellence
Milton Bush ACIL CEO
Richard Bright ACIL COO
Robert Uttenweiler 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)  There being no disagreement, the Antitrust Statement was accepted

4)  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)  The July 2014 meeting summary with corrections was approved

5)  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)  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

ii)  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

(1)  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

6)  PADEP Drinking Water Letter Discussion – Follow-up – Dave Spies

a)  To date, Pennsylvania has not responded

i)  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

7)  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)  Enforcement actions by states seem to have brought this to light

ii)  The report is a summary and raises the awareness of the problem

b)  This report could raise the awareness on both the federal and state levels

i)  Labs should be concerned and focus to ensure quality of data

c)  This report focuses on internal EPA procedures and establishing a coordinated response to issues within EPA

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

8)  ELAB Report – Short summary – Dave Speis

a)  ELAB met at the NEMC Conference in DC

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

b)  ACIL wants to continue to have strong representation and talent on ELAB and is awaiting an announcement of new board members

9)  ILI SPE Project – Summary of Status – Dave Friedman

a)  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

10)  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)  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

c)  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

11)  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

12)  ACIL Annual Meeting – October 5-8, 2014, Chicago, IL

a)  Registration is now open - http://independenttesting.net/ACIL77/

i)  The ESS meeting will be Sunday, October 5 from 1:00 pm until 5:00 pm

13)  Ongoing Initiatives – ESS Value Proposition, Membership Update, EMR Ratings, China Brownfields Program

a)  No new information

14)  Non-Governmental Accreditation Initiative WG Report

a)  Florida

i)  Steve Arms will make a presentation at the ESS meeting at the ACIL Annual Meeting

b)  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)  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

d)  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

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