Automatic Synergy in Obtaining Cost Effective Data of Known and Documented Quality Experiences under the Great Lakes

2544 days ago, 1058 views
PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Workshop Overview. Automatic Synergy in Obtaining Cost Effective Data of Known and Documented QualityLouis Blume, US EPA GLNPOExperiences under the Great Lakes Legacy ActLinda M. Mauel, US EPA Region 2Region 2 Support for the GLNPO Braddock Bay ProjectBob Avery, The Laboratory of the Michigan Department of Environmental QualityChallenges of meeting EPA information reporting requirementsMichael Johnson

Presentation Transcript

Slide 1

Automatic Synergy in Obtaining Cost Effective Data of Known and Documented Quality Experiences under the Great Lakes Legacy Act Louis Blume and Alie Muneer U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office Judy Schofield and Neal Jannelle, CSC EPA Quality Management Conference May 14, 2009

Slide 2

Workshop Overview Programmatic Synergy in Obtaining Cost Effective Data of Known and Documented Quality Louis Blume , US EPA GLNPO Experiences under the Great Lakes Legacy Act Linda M. Mauel , US EPA Region 2 Region 2 Support for the GLNPO Braddock Bay Project Bob Avery , The Laboratory of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Challenges of meeting EPA information announcing prerequisites Michael Johnson , US EPA OSWER Cool Tools for Cost Effective Data Management

Slide 3

Presentation Overview Background on Great Lakes Legacy Act (GLLA) Challenges in overseeing information and meeting quality framework objectives under the GLLA Data Management systems under the GLLA cost examinations (I wish!) Recommendations The information administration challenges that GLNPO is confronting are like those that the Agency will confront in case of a national crisis.

Slide 4

GLLA Background "Extraordinary Lakes and Lake Champlain Act of 2002" go by Congress on November 12, 2002 Signed into law by President Bush on November 27, 2002 (Public Law No: 107-303) The Great Lakes Legacy Act (GLLA) approves $50M every year for polluted dregs extends in the Great Lakes

Slide 5

GLLA Background Appropriations got to date have been: FY2004 $10 Million FY2005 $22 Million FY2006 $29 Million FY2007 $30 Million FY2008/2009 $35 Million President's Budget Request for FY2010: $43M

Slide 6

GLLA Background Currently 42 Areas of Concern (AOCs) all through the Great Lakes Contaminated silt can be found at a considerable lot of these AOCs bringing about different gainful utilize weaknesses Since 1997, roughly 46* million cubic yards of tainted residue have been remediated in the Great Lakes AOCs *Secondary QAPP exists, GPRA reportable

Slide 7

The recently reauthorized GLLA Reauthorization (2009-2010) Level approval $50 M/year Allows for territory reclamation in conjunction with remediation Identify PRPs associated with the Site portrayal at 100% government

Slide 8

GLLA Project Types Must be in U.S. Territories of Concern (AOCs) and: Implement an arrangement to remediate defiled silt (most noteworthy need) Monitor or assess debased dregs Prevent further or recharged residue sullying All tasks require least 35% non-Federal match

Slide 9

Cost-imparting to non-Federal Sponsor (NFS) Non-Federal Cost Share Must be no less than 35% of Total Project Costs and 100% of Operations and Maintenance Costs, and: May incorporate into kind administrations, May incorporate monies and in-kind administrations under a managerial request on assent or legal assent declaration, May exclude any assets as per a one-sided regulatory request or court arrange.

Slide 10

Great Lakes Legacy Act Project Agreement Not a concede; not an agreement Project Agreement (PA) An arranged understanding amongst EPA and the non-Federal Sponsor Outlines parts and duties of each gathering

Slide 11

Great Lakes Legacy Act Partners Non-Federal Sponsors States Potentially capable gatherings (PRPs) Local consortiums Contractors Remedial Action Contracts (RACs) Emergency and Rapid Response Services (ERRS) Superfund Technical Assessment & Response Team (START)

Slide 12

GLLA Quality Management Objective is to guarantee the accumulation of supporting information that are experimentally solid, legitimately faultless, and of known and archived quality Provides a predictable way to deal with ecological choices

Slide 13

GLLA Quality Management Data Management must be "support to grave" Project is not genuinely finished until venture data is aggregated and accessible to partners and people in general Project data must be straightforward and reproducible Completion of venture reports are driving the procedure

Slide 14

GLLA Data Management GLLA QMP stipulates that adequate documentation be given accommodation of an informational collection to help information clients while assessing the utility of the informational collection for their motivations incorporates the first data on information quality related with the information supplementary data including information confirmation accounts quality documentation for each venture addresses information administration issues including accumulation, detailing, check, and capacity

Slide 15

GLLA Data Management Challenges Dealing with numerous substances with unmistakable lines of specialist Collaborators have their conventional methods for doing things Need to give adaptability in information revealing yet at the same time catch required data Need to meet GLNPO/Federal approach of straightforwardness and catch test particular quality control information

Slide 16

GLLA Data Management Challenges Need to be good with other information streams and information positions including Great Lakes Environmental Database and National Sediment Inventory Must deal with information in various networks including residue, water and tissue Must deal with information from organic investigations, for example, benthic invertebrate populace information and danger information

Slide 17

GLLA Data Management Allowable Data Reporting Formats Query Manager Template (with QC ) EPA Region V EDD Right form Staged Electronic Data Deliverable (SEDD) With field information in QM layout or Region V EDD Stage 3 perfect No field information

Slide 18

GLLA Data Management Strategy

Slide 19

GLLA Data Management Data Reporting Guidelines Stand alone record presently included as a connection to the QMP For submittal to contractual workers and research facilities in charge of announcing information Contains information standard formats, references and client guides expected to report information Includes segment on locational information gathering and announcing – New!

Slide 20

Case Study Sediment Remediation (Project E) First GLLA venture to utilize CLP fortunately START temporary worker led remediation CLP labs utilized Data turnaround snappy Contract consistence screening (CCS) important and proficient ESAT fairly helpful, however took an additional 60 days Cost institutionalized Lack of information ease of use audit (e.g., converging of lab and field information) START contractual worker did not report QC information to EPA

Slide 21

Project A START contractual worker subcontracting to lab Region 5 EDD Data administration level of trouble Medium Issues Multiple entries of information (requires affirmation of changes between variants) Multiple examinations with temporary worker to obtain (>9 months) Required QC information, Batch data, Definition of the research center announcing limits, Data stories last approval banners (conflicting utilization of validator banners versus lab-connected banners) Definition of non-standard example sorts Subjective understanding of information components (utilize fields for their own particular purposes rather than the aim of the information standard)

Slide 22

Project B and C Not revenue driven temporary worker subcontracting to lab Data administration level of trouble Data not yet got Issues Project information translation is at present in progress utilizing rundown spreadsheets gave by the contractual worker Report being created Requested information in Region EDD per the QAPP

Slide 23

Project D CLP program Data administration level of trouble Just accepting information Issues Multiple labs revealing in various configurations Must relate lab information from these entries to regular testing station IDs

Slide 24

Project E Combination of CLP program and subcontracted labs through START contract based worker Data administration level of trouble Medium for CLP, High for non-CLP Issues Batch data not gave. Could recover it for the CLP information, yet not for the non-CLP information. MS/MSD information gave as sum found without spiking data. Limits translation of these outcomes. Different QC comes about for a one of a kind example ID Lab connected information qualifiers not characterized. Locational information missing for a few specimens. Information check accounts not accommodated non-CLP

Slide 25

Project F CLP program Data administration level of trouble Medium Issues MS/MSD information were given as sum found. Recuperation must be ascertained. Working with SMO on choices for catching these information. Reports from CLP are extremely useful and give a great part of the data required for transfer to GLSED.

Slide 26

Cost examination Costs are last cost to GLNPO per test

Slide 27

Recommendations Encourage appropriation of SEDD crosswise over media Few labs routinely announcing in SEDD outside of CLP Encourage least institutionalized field information revealing Headquarters track investigation by geographic reference Automated information audit programming for 2a and 2b accessible to the Agency and contractual workers EXES accessible crosswise over Agency and cooperators

Slide 28

Recommendations Expand instruments to work with non-conventional strategies harmfulness, TOC, physical information, Toxicity trademark Leaching system (TCLP) for licenses Provide for adaptability in systematic strategy Provide for venture particular estimation quality destinations

Slide 29

Project Successes GLSED Data for twelve activities has been transferred into the Great Lakes Sediment Database for a sum of 93,000 records Database contains test particular quality control results and information confirmation accounts Database was intended to disentangle transfer to the Great Lakes Environmental Database, CDX, and the National Sediment Inventory. May start to incorporate information quality mark

Slide 30

Conclusions Involvement of various Regions, Program Offices, and States, gives the prescribed procedures of every element: Synergistic Response Empathy for Partners issues and concerns Major cost investment funds Lays out strides for development by accomplices If you don't record the nature of the information you are not going to have any issues until you settle on the wrong choice and you can not bolster questionable choices .:tsl