MINUTES LABORATORY SERVICES ADVISORY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING APRIL 20, 2010

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality Multipurpose Room

707 North Robinson, Oklahoma City, OK LSAC APPROVED August 18, 2010 Notice of Public Meeting The Laboratory Services Advisory Council convened for its regular meeting at 1:30 p.m. April 20, 2010 in accordance with the Open Meeting Act, Section 311 of Title 25 of the Oklahoma Statutes. Notice of this meeting for was filed at the Office of the Secretary of State on December 3, 2009. The Agenda was posted on the entrance doors of the DEQ Central Office in Oklahoma City at least twenty-four hours prior to the meeting. Mr. Kenneth Crawford, Chair, called the meeting to order. Ms. Bruce called roll noting that a quorum was present.

MEMBERS PRESENT Anthony ‘Tony’ Bright Kenneth Crawford Brian Duzan Scott Haas Randall Ross

DEQ STAFF PRESENT Judy Duncan Chris Armstrong David Caldwell Barbara Rauch Jerry Sanger Myrna Bruce

MEMBERS ABSENT Jim Engman William ‘Bill’ Janacek Elaine Stebler Rodney Wiedemann

OTHERS PRESENT Christy Myers

Sign-in sheet attached and an official part of these Minutes.

Election of Officers Mr. Brian Duzan was nominated for Chair. See transcript pages 5 - 6

Anthony ‘Tony’ Bright Brian Duzan Scott Haas

Yes Yes Yes

Randall Ross Kenneth Crawford

Yes Yes

Mr. Randall Ross was nominated for Vice-Chair.

See transcript pages 5 - 6 Anthony ‘Tony’ Bright Brian Duzan Scott Haas

Yes Yes Yes

Randall Ross Kenneth Crawford

Yes Yes

Approval of Minutes Mr. Crawford moved approval of both the January 30, 2008 Minutes and the April 28 2009 Minutes. Mr. Duzan made the second.

See transcript pages 7 - 8 Anthony ‘Tony’ Bright Brian Duzan Scott Haas

Yes Yes Yes

Randall Ross Kenneth Crawford

Yes Yes

Discussion of plans to seek approval from The NELAC Institute to become a NELAP approved Accreditation Body. Ms. Judy Duncan, Director of the Customer Services Division, explained the premise of the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Council (NELAC) stating that the DEQ has closely followed NELAC and is seeking to become an a NELAC accreditation body. Ms. Duncan discussed the NELAC process and provided a handout of draft rulemaking language. Ms. Duncan answered questions and took comments from Council and public and suggested future meeting dates for August and November for the Council to consider actual language for proposed rule changes with possible approval in January and passed to the Environmental Quality Board for adoption in February of 2011.

See transcript pages 8 - 28

Discussion and review of proposed statute changes to clarify DEQ authority to provide mutual recognition of labs with other TNI recognized programs. Ms. Judy Duncan, Director of the Customer Services Division, explained that Senate Bill 1678 was signed by the Governor on April 9, 2010 and is in place. The Bill makes it clear that, if we become a NELAC accreditation body, we would have the authority to recognize other states accreditations of laboratories. Ms. Duncan fielded questions and comments from Council and public.

See transcript pages 28 - 35 Discussion of FY 2011 annual laboratory accreditation and laboratory services fee adjustments based upon the Consumer Price Index. Ms. Judy Duncan, Director of the Customer Services Division, explained the Department annually adjusts fee increases based on the Consumer Price Index. She advised that this year there was no increase in the Consumer Price Index, therefore, no changes in fees from 2010 to 2011.

See transcript pages 35 - 36 Discussion of proposed dates for Laboratory Service Council meetings in August 2010, November 2010, and January 2011. After considering calendars, meeting dates were set for August 18, 2010 in Tulsa with November 3, 2010 and January 5, 2011 at the DEQ Multipurpose Room. Mr. Haas made motion to approve the suggested dates and locations. Mr. Duzan made the second. [NOTE: August 18, 2010 will be in Tulsa at the Tulsa Tech Center Riverside Campus, 801East 91st, Room A-144; and November 3, 2010 and January 5, 2011 at the DEQ Multipurpose Room]

See transcript pages 36 - 41 Anthony ‘Tony’ Bright Brian Duzan Scott Haas

Yes Yes Yes

Randall Ross Kenneth Crawford

Yes Yes

Director’s Report Ms. Duncan thanked the Council and audience for all the input they have provided in the NELAC process. It has been helpful and she asked that they please continue to comment.

See transcript pages 42 – 46 New Business None Announcements Ms. Duncan advised that due to the new computer system now being used, some glitches were found in the calculation of the fees. She advised that everyone look at their fee invoices carefully and that David Caldwell would make any necessary corrections. Adjournment Mr. Duzan adjourned the meeting at 2:30 p.m.

Anthony ‘Tony’ Bright Brian Duzan Scott Haas

Yes Yes Yes

Randall Ross Kenneth Crawford

Yes Yes

The transcript and sign-in sheet are attached and made an official pat of these minutes.

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 * * * * * 8 LAB 9 * * * * * 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 MYERS REPORTING SERVICE Christy Myers, CSR 23 P.O. Box 721532 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73172-1532 24 (405) 721-2882 25 2

1 MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL 2 Elaine Stebler 3 Scott Haas 4 William Janacek 5 Anthony Bright 6 Rodney Weidemann 7 Kenneth Crawford 8 Brian Duzan 9 Randall Ross 10 James Engman 11 STAFF MEMBERS 12 Myrna Bruce 13 Judy Duncan 14 David Caldwell 15 Barbara Rauch 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1

2 MEETING 3 MR. CRAWFORD: This April 20, 4 2010 regular meeting of the Laboratory 5 Services Advisory Council was called in 6 accordance with the Open Meeting Act. 7 Notice of the meeting was filed with the 8 Secretary of State on December 3, 2009. 9 The Agenda was duly posted on the glass 10 doors of the Department of Environmental 11 Quality, 707 North Robinson, Oklahoma City, 12 Oklahoma at least 24 hours prior to this 13 meeting. Only matters appearing on the 14 posted agenda may be considered at this 15 regular meeting. In the event that this 16 meeting is continued or reconvened, public 17 notice of the date, time and place of the 18 continued meeting will be given by 19 announcement at this meeting. Only matters 20 appearing on the Agenda of a meeting which 21 is continued may be discussed at the 22 continued or reconvened meeting. 23 Roll call, please. 24 MS. BRUCE: Bill Janacek is 25 absent. Jim Engman is absent. 4 1 Tony Bright. 2 MR. BRIGHT: Here.

3 MS. BRUCE: Brian Duzan. 4 MR. DUZAN: Here. 5 MS. BRUCE: Scott Haas. 6 MR. HAAS: Here. 7 MS. BRUCE: Randall Ross. 8 MR. ROSS: Here. 9 MS. BRUCE: Elaine Stebler is 10 absent. Rodney Weidemann is absent. 11 Kenneth Crawford. 12 MR. CRAWFORD: Present. 13 MS. BRUCE: We do have a quorum. 14 MR. CRAWFORD: Introduction of 15 guests. It's been a while since I've done 16 this, and gone through this. Are there any 17 guests that need to be pointed out or 18 anything like that? 19 MS. DUNCAN: Ken, since it's been 20 a while since we had such a nice group here 21 at the Council meeting, I think it wouldn't 22 hurt if we just introduced the staff and 23 then ask the people here in the audience to 24 introduce themselves, so we all have a 25 sense of who's who. 5 1 MR. CRAWFORD: Okay, very good. 2 (Refer to Sign-in Sheet) 3 MR. CRAWFORD: Thank you, very

4 much. 5 The next order of business is the 6 Election of Officers. How do we proceed 7 with this? 8 MR. DUZAN: I nominate Ken 9 Crawford for Chairman. 10 MR. BRIGHT: I'll second. 11 MR. CRAWFORD: No thank you. 12 MR. BRIGHT: I think Brian Duzan 13 would be a great Chairman. 14 MR. DUZAN: Second that. 15 MR. BRIGHT: And Randall Ross 16 would be a great Vice-Chairman. 17 MR. DUZAN: I will second Randall 18 Ross. 19 MR. CRAWFORD: I will make the 20 motion properly now. Okay, I need a roll 21 call vote for the Chairman position. 22 MS. BRUCE: Roll call for 23 Chairman Brian Duzan. Right? 24 Tony Bright. 25 MR. BRIGHT: Yes. 6 1 MS. BRUCE: Brian Duzan. 2 MR. DUZAN: Yes. 3 MS. BRUCE: Scott Haas. 4 MR. HAAS: Yes.

5 MS. BRUCE: Randall Ross. 6 MR. ROSS: Yes. 7 MS. BRUCE: Kenneth Crawford. 8 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes. 9 MS. BRUCE: Motion passed. 10 MR. CRAWFORD: Okay, and for the 11 Vice-Chair position, please, roll call. 12 MS. BRUCE: And the Vice-Chair 13 Randall Ross. 14 Tony Bright. 15 MR. BRIGHT: Yes. 16 MS. BRUCE: Brian Duzan. 17 MR. DUZAN: Yes. 18 MS. BRUCE: Scott Haas. 19 MR. HAAS: Yes. 20 MS. BRUCE: Randall Ross. 21 MR. ROSS: Yes. 22 MS. BRUCE: Thank you. Kenneth 23 Crawford. 24 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes. 25 MS. BRUCE: Thank you for that, 7 1 because we do just have a quorum. Thank 2 you for voting for yourself. 3 MR. CRAWFORD: Very good. The 4 next order of business -- well, I guess I 5 should turn the meeting over Chairman

6 Duzan. 7 MR. DUZAN: Okay. The next item 8 will be the Approval of Minutes which are 9 from the previous meeting which is 10 attached. Do we have any questions or 11 comments? 12 There are two sets from the two 13 meetings. Any questions or comments from 14 either of the two sets? 15 MR. CRAWFORD: I move that we 16 accept the Minutes as printed. 17 MR. DUZAN: I'll second. We'll 18 take a roll call vote then. 19 MS. BRUCE: Tony Bright. 20 MR. BRIGHT: Yes. 21 MS. BRUCE: Brian Duzan. 22 MR. DUZAN: Yes. 23 MS. BRUCE: Scott Haas. 24 MR. HAAS: Yes. 25 MS. BRUCE: Randall Ross. 8 1 MR. ROSS: Yes. 2 MS. BRUCE: Kenneth Crawford. 3 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes. 4 MS. BRUCE: Motion passed. Thank 5 you. 6 MR. DUZAN: Okay. The next item

7 on the list is the discussion for plans to 8 seek approval from the NELAC Institute to 9 become a NELAC approved accreditation body. 10 And so we have a presentation from Judy 11 Duncan. Judy. 12 MS. DUNCAN: Thank you, Brian. 13 Those of you who have been Members of the 14 Council for a while or have been around the 15 Council for a while, know that for many 16 years that DEQ has closely followed the 17 activities of, first of all, the NELAC 18 Institute, or the National Environmental 19 Laboratory Accreditation Council. 20 First of all, the NELAC, the 21 National Environmental Laboratory 22 Accreditation Council; and then when it was 23 superceded by the NELAC Institute, TNI. 24 And NELAC was a committee basically, or a 25 conference that was formed by EPA for the 9 1 purpose of developing consensus standards 2 for laboratory accreditation on a national 3 basis. And the movement to do that came 4 out of a Federal Advisory Committee that 5 EPA had, really, back in the 1980's -- 6 beginning in the late 1970's and into the 7 1980's. And the NELAC conference spent a

8 number of years developing a set of 9 consensus standards that were based upon 10 ISO standards. And then they adopted them 11 and there were 13 states that became NELAC 12 accreditation bodies. And I had spoken to 13 the Council many times before about NELAC 14 and about becoming a NELAC approved 15 accreditation body. I have told you that 16 the plan that we had here at DEQ was not to 17 be the first state out of the box because 18 we felt like there were some problems with 19 the system that needed to be resolved by 20 getting a few states to be NELAC 21 accreditation bodies and working with them 22 and finding out where the problems were 23 simply and working through them. But on 24 the other hand we didn't want to be the 25 last state out of the box. So we didn't 10 1 want to be ahead of the pack, we didn't 2 want to trail the pack, we wanted to be 3 kind of in the middle of the pack. And 4 right now seems to be the time where we are 5 really in the middle of the pack. 6 In addition to the 13 states that 7 have been NELAC accreditation bodies for a 8 number of years, we now have Virginia,

9 who's added and has become a NELAC 10 accreditation body within the last six 11 months; and Minnesota, who is well on their 12 way to being that. They have had their 13 application reviewed and about to be 14 checked to be complete and they are 15 awaiting their onsite assessment at the 16 present time. 17 And so Oklahoma will probably be the 18 next state that applies for NELAC 19 accreditation. But there are a number of 20 other states that are looking into it 21 including both North Carolina and South 22 Carolina, Kentucky, and some of the other 23 southern states are looking at NELAC 24 accreditation. 25 We have talked about this with the 11 1 Council many times, and the direction that 2 we have had from the Council the last time 3 we talked about it, was that you all also 4 thought it was time for us to move forward. 5 And if you look at this region, the region 6 of the country that we're in, Kansas is a 7 NELAC accreditation body, as are Louisiana 8 and Texas. So our surrounding states are 9 part of this movement and it seems only

10 logical that we should become a part of it 11 also. 12 We have been very active -- both 13 David Caldwell and I, have been active on 14 many committees of TNI. Chris Armstrong 15 from our laboratory have been very active, 16 Tony Bright was an active participant in 17 NELAC before that. And so we are 18 comfortable that the program now is one 19 that is reasonable and one that we can 20 implement in a reasonable fashion. And we 21 don't intend to just drop a bomb on people. 22 We don't want to have a kaboom-reaction is 23 what I told somebody earlier. What we want 24 to do is provide a great deal of assistance 25 to our laboratories as we move in this 12 1 direction. 2 So our first move here today is to 3 talk in general about what we will be 4 changing in our rules as we move towards 5 NELAC accreditation. And one of the things 6 that we will do later on in our Agenda 7 today is set up another couple of meetings 8 of the Council later this year. We will 9 probably be setting up a meeting in August 10 and another in November for the Council to

11 consider actual language for proposed rule 12 changes. What we have now is just some 13 concepts and some draft language but 14 nothing that we'll be voting on, nothing 15 that we will be approving today. And our 16 goal is to have a meeting of the Council 17 next January at which we will formally 18 adopt the rules for NELAP and pass them on 19 to the Environmental Quality Board for 20 adoption as rules in February of 2011. 21 Once we do that, then we will be in a 22 position to actually start preparing our 23 application. And there is a great many 24 things that we have to prepare as part of 25 our application; some of which we already 13 1 have, some of which we don't. Some of our 2 operating procedures need to be better 3 documented, some of them are not documented 4 at all. 5 So we already have a workgroup that 6 involves David Caldwell, Barbara Rauch and 7 Jerry Sanger from our legal staff; and as 8 well as Matt Caves from our legal staff and 9 Chris Armstrong, who is working through the 10 process of identifying all of the records 11 that we are going to need, all of the SOPs

12 and everything that we need to have before 13 we file our application. 14 Likely, our application will be 15 filed in the second half of 2011, probably 16 some time in the fall of 2011. TNI will 17 then have to review that application, and 18 they go through a review process. They, 19 first of all, review your application to 20 see if it is technically complete; if it 21 is, then they schedule an onsite 22 assessment. And that review and evaluation 23 process takes from six to nine months to 24 complete. Sometimes a little bit longer 25 than that. So realistically, we would 14 1 expect to become a NELAP approved -- a TNI 2 recognized NELAP accreditation body, until 3 sometime in mid-to-late 2012. And we also 4 anticipate that we will have a perspective 5 -- we will have at least a years time for 6 laboratories to come into compliance with 7 the new rules once we become a NELAC 8 accreditation body. So we are really 9 talking about sometime probably in 2013 10 before we are really ready to have everyone 11 in compliance with the NELAP rules. So 12 that gives us a lot of time. And one of

13 the things that we intend to do is make 14 available to you some training on what the 15 TNI standards say, because we will be 16 transitioning during that time from the 17 NELAC standards that TNI has been using up 18 until now, into the TNI standards which 19 have been adopted. They were adopted about 20 two years ago, they were finalized in the 21 last year. Their effective date is July of 22 2011. 23 And there is -- right now TNI is 24 going around the country holding meetings 25 where they just do a review of the TNI 15 1 standards, where they go through the 2 standards and tell you how they are 3 different from, or how they are similar to, 4 the NELAC standards. And most of the 5 requirements are the same or very similar. 6 There are a few places where the standards 7 have been tweaked. The major change that 8 they made is the NELAC standards were 9 written and organized by topic. So there 10 was a chapter on Proficiency Testing that 11 told you everything from how you accredit 12 PT providers, to how you must perform your 13 PT samples. And then there was a chapter

14 on Quality Systems, that talked about 15 quality systems for laboratories but also 16 talked about quality systems for 17 accreditation bodies. There was a chapter 18 on Staffing, there was a chapter on all 19 these different things. And so if you were 20 a lab, you had this, about, inch-and-a-half 21 thick manual and you had to pick and choose 22 through it to find out what applied to you 23 and what didn't. 24 One of the things that they did with 25 the TNI standards is they reorganized 16 1 things into modules that are organized by 2 laboratory. So there is a Laboratory 3 Module, that has everything you need to 4 have to be a laboratory. There is a 5 Proficiency Testing Module that has 6 everything you need to know to be approved 7 to be a proficiency testing provider. 8 Proficiency testing for laboratories is in 9 the Laboratory Module. There is a module 10 that's in there about accreditation bodies. 11 It says everything that you need to do to 12 be an approved laboratory accreditation 13 body. And so the standards themselves are 14 much easier to understand, they are much

15 better organized. 16 Also, one of the things that the 17 NELAC standard had done was they had tried 18 to paraphrase, but in fact illegally, 19 copied much of the language from ISO. And 20 ISO language is copyrighted language. And 21 so it was hard to tell were we had 22 bastardized ISO language or where we had 23 used the same as ISO. So in the new TNI 24 standards, the ISO language is at the 25 beginning of every group and then if TNI 17 1 has amplified that or said how the ISO 2 language applies to TNI, then that is right 3 below the listed ISO language. And those 4 of you all who may be with companies who 5 have had ISO accreditation in other areas, 6 like ISO 9000, know that, that, is a fairly 7 typical way to do that sort of thing. You 8 may have ISO general language that applies 9 to everyone and then specific language that 10 applies to your specific operation. And 11 that's what we have done with the ISO 12 language in the TNI standards. There is 13 going to be a training session in June in 14 Dallas that TNI is putting on that will 15 just review the new TNI standards and go

16 through it page, by page, by page. I think 17 it is June the 16th. But I recommend what 18 you do is go to the TNI website which is 19 NELAC Institute and they will get an e-mail 20 out to you with that link. I think that is 21 the best way to do that so that you know 22 when that -- Dallas is relatively close and 23 there is a nominal fee, but I -- it's just 24 a fee that covers the cost of putting on 25 the one-day conference that will go through 18 1 those things. 2 And then the other thing that Texas 3 did, whenever Texas became a NELAP 4 accrediting body, NELAP approved 5 accreditation body, is they hired TNI to 6 come in and do a series of "how to" 7 seminars across the state where they 8 actually -- labs could come in and go 9 through what you need to do that may be 10 different than you are doing already and 11 get some assistance with things like -- TNI 12 has a template, that you can purchase for 13 fifty dollars, from their website that is a 14 template for development of a quality 15 system. It helps you that if you don't 16 already have a quality system developed you

17 can go through and use that template and 18 work your way through that. And one of the 19 things that they do at this conference is 20 just take you through all of that and help 21 you figure out what will work, what won't 22 work. You get to talk with your peers and 23 the folks who teach those conferences are 24 folks who are, for the most part, NELAC 25 accreditors or assessors. So they are the 19 1 staff who actually do this sort of thing 2 either in another state or from the private 3 sector. 4 So we have -- we are embarking on a 5 process that is going to take us about two 6 to three years. We intend to be as helpful 7 as we possibly can to the laboratory 8 community in Oklahoma as we do that. And 9 we hope that you'll agree that now is the 10 time for us to begin to march down this 11 path. So I will take any questions that 12 the Council may have. 13 MR. CRAWFORD: What's the DEQ's 14 vision of what labs would be, to be NELAC 15 labs? Any lab that does any type of 16 compliance work? What kind of definition 17 -- I mean that's -- we don't want to ignore

18 the 67 ton elephant in the room, but that's 19 one of the questions I have. 20 MS. DUNCAN: Well, our intention 21 is to try to get a pattern program that 22 applies to all labs that are required by 23 our statute to submit data from accredited 24 labs. So that would be all of the labs 25 that do wastewater testing because that's 20 1 required there, and drinking water testing. 2 And then there are labs that voluntarily 3 work in the RECRA programs and Soloway 4 programs. And DEQ sometimes requires that 5 those labs, that they submit data under 6 contract to DEQ, be accredited. And then, 7 of course, we accredit on a state basis the 8 labs that submit data to the Corporation 9 Commission. So although some states have 10 dual programs, we are trying to model our 11 program after the program in Kansas where 12 they do accredit both things and they have 13 -- Kansas did something similar to what 14 we're doing. When they first implemented 15 the program, they went out and did a very 16 active outreach program to help train 17 people and get them the tools to do what 18 they needed to do. And, really, I think

19 that you'll find, David's been using the 20 NELAC check sheets as he has made 21 inspections over the last, what, three 22 years or so? So hopefully, you shouldn't 23 have a lot of surprises. You should have 24 heard a lot of the things you will see in 25 NELAC as recommendations or findings in the 21 1 inspections that David's been doing for at 2 least the last two rounds of inspections in 3 the state. 4 MR. DUZAN: I know in the past -- 5 what you are saying because about three or 6 four years ago, when we first started this 7 process, the thought was made to do a dual 8 program of a NELAC and then a non-NELAC. I 9 guess that is just -- it's all going to be 10 under one umbrella kind of NELAC that all 11 the labs in the program will follow all the 12 similar rules and basically every lab that 13 is in David's laboratory certification 14 program as it exists today, will either 15 come into compliance with the changes or 16 they will not be in the program. (29:30) 17 *** cm stopped **** 18 MS. DUNCAN: That is our plan. 19 And what we've found as we talk with other

20 states is that the thing that -- the issue 21 that always comes up is NELAC overkill. 22 Particularly, say, for an industrial lab 23 that does things like PH and a few other 24 very simple tests. But when you look at -- 25 when you boil it down, those TNI standards 22 1 or those NELAC standards, what you'll find 2 is what they have to do is relatively 3 simple. And so we really don't see the 4 point in making a difference, you know, 5 because it comes down to the data that you 6 are using for decision making. And really 7 the decisions that made based on that data 8 are sometimes as important and has the same 9 kind of potential cost implications that 10 something that you do on a GCMS method to 11 be. So it's a matter of just documenting 12 what you do, making sure that you have a 13 quality system to assure that the data that 14 you are producing is of known and 15 documented quality. 16 MR. DUZAN: This won't change the 17 deal with the operators at the plants, 18 because that's under a totally separate 19 program and they will continue to be 20 governed by their people.

21 MS. DUNCAN: That's right. The 22 way we have always interpreted that here at 23 DEQ is, if, say, a wastewater treatment 24 plant gets into testing for things other 25 than the basics, which are BOD, total 23 1 suspended solids, and sometimes bacteria 2 and sometimes nitrates, but if you get into 3 testing for toxics or anything like that, 4 we require that, that, be done in an 5 accredited lab anyway. And we also require 6 that if a municipal lab is taking in work 7 from other cities and doing work for them 8 that, that, lab also be accredited. 9 MR. DUZAN: Any other questions 10 from the Council? Do we have any questions 11 from the audience? 12 MS. BRUCE: Will you come to the 13 podium, please, sir. 14 MR. SOLOMON: My name is Solomon 15 from American Electric Power. You all may 16 remember or know us better as Public 17 Service of Oklahoma. We've got power 18 plants all over the state. We appreciate 19 the program that DEQ is trying to put into 20 place. 21 One of the concerns that we have is

22 the burden that this would place on small 23 facilities, including municipal facilities. 24 Our experience has been programs that look 25 like they are not going to be much, turn 24 1 out to be a little bit more than what we 2 would like. And we have concerns about 3 small facilities. We can easily get rid of 4 -- get down to three parameters at any of 5 our facilities. And indeed, Mr. Caldwell 6 and I, had a conversation about this just 7 recently; on one of our plants, he shares 8 the same concerns. 9 So as we go forward with this, I 10 would like for the Council of DEQ to 11 consider making this program optional and 12 not mandatory. We can still follow many of 13 the things of the rules, I think you, 14 Brian, kind of said the same thing. 15 Having spent two years as an 16 environmental consultant, covered a five 17 state region, I can tell you that there are 18 a lot of very, very, small labs with one 19 person that is there that is struggling to 20 get things done. And indeed the program 21 that DEQ's got in place now, has probably 22 helped those folks. But we don't really

23 want to get too overly burdensome with 24 them. 25 That's just really where we are kind 25 1 of focusing our efforts right now is work 2 with DEQ and that rule will be coming out 3 sometime in the future and we will comment 4 on that. But I would really like the 5 Council and DEQ to make sure that we don't 6 go overboard with the program. That would 7 just be too burdensome for some facilities. 8 Thank you. 9 MR. DUZAN: Any other questions 10 or comments from the audience? 11 MS. CRENWELGE: I would like to 12 make a comment. Good afternoon, I am 13 Kathryn Crenwelge, with International 14 Paper. And I want to thank the Council for 15 making these considerations. I also want 16 to thank staff for making this part of 17 their inspection process because it makes 18 it very clear for us to understand what the 19 new requirements will be, versus what's 20 required right now by the regs. 21 For example, in our case we had 22 twenty-three findings in our last 23 inspection; and of that, seventeen were

24 based on recommendations. So I want you to 25 please consider that even for a facility 26 1 our size, when we have technicians 2 available, these recommendations will have 3 quite a bit of impact to us, even, much 4 less the small facilities. And so I share 5 that same concern that those small 6 facilities will have difficulty meeting 7 these requirements. So maybe there is some 8 kind of a diminimus requirement that you 9 can put as part of this program or as the 10 gentleman earlier said, as possibly an 11 option. Because of those requirements, for 12 us, it will be burdensome even for us just 13 to keep up with our daily requirements and 14 then try to meet the certification 15 opportunities. Thank you. 16 MR. DUZAN: Any other questions, 17 or comments from the audience? Okay. 18 I guess we will move onto the next 19 topic. 20 MS. DUNCAN: As a follow up to 21 the comments, I take those comments very 22 much to heart. And one of the things that 23 we will do in our working group is go 24 through and look at what some of our

25 surrounding states are doing and see what 27 1 the options might possibly be, and try to 2 come back to the Council with some options 3 for what we might do. Because I think 4 that's a very legitimate concern and it's 5 our concern too. 6 Now our belief is based on 7 experience, that we can make it easy for 8 you but that's -- we've also been in this 9 business for quite a long time, and what's 10 easy for us may not be what you perceive as 11 being easy also. So we'll work on coming 12 up with some options for that. 13 MR. DUZAN: One of the other 14 things I would like to mention is Oklahoma 15 is an unusual state, probably similar to 16 Texas, in the fact that we have some of 17 these industries, whether it's PSO or OG&E, 18 that are in fairly remote locations. And 19 most of the commercial labs are in urban 20 areas. You get outside of Tulsa, Oklahoma 21 City, or Stillwater, you know, if you're 22 down in Lawton or Ada or some of these 23 other -- you're a long ways away from a 24 certified lab. And if you have Coliform or 25 Chlorine, you know, that can pose an issue

28 1 with compliance of getting things done in a 2 timely manner. So if PSO ever had to shut 3 down a lab, that might make a significant 4 input into the Qual (ps) program. 5 MS. DUNCAN: You know that is a 6 very good point. That's a point that we 7 cattle for the most part for municipalities 8 through the use of the certified operator 9 program, so that we can assure that people 10 at least have some training in what they're 11 doing. But there's some options for us and 12 so we will look at those options. 13 MR. DUZAN: Okay. I guess we'll 14 move on to the next item number which is 15 Number 7. Discussion and review of 16 proposed statute changes and to clarify DEQ 17 authority to provide mutual recognition of 18 labs with other TNI recognized programs. 19 Judy. 20 MS. DUNCAN: Those of you who 21 follow the Legislature's action know that 22 we had a Bill in this years Legislature. 23 It was Senate Bill 1678. It's already been 24 passed and signed by the Governor. And 25 what that Bill did was simply make it clear 29

1 in the statute that if we become a NELAC 2 accreditation body, we would have the 3 authority to recognize other states 4 accreditations of laboratories. It's what, 5 in the old language, you call reciprocity. 6 Okay? And that is a program that is built 7 into the TNI or the NELAC standards. It's 8 no longer called reciprocity because 9 reciprocity has a certain definition that's 10 not always the same from one state to the 11 other. It's called mutual recognition. 12 But what we basically agree to do is that 13 if a laboratory like yours, Ken, became a 14 NELAP approved laboratory in Oklahoma, then 15 you would no longer have to have 16 inspections by Kansas or some of the other 17 states. The other states that were NELAP 18 AB's, would recognize that. It is an 19 advantage for labs that do work in multiple 20 states. It's not particularly an advantage 21 for labs that do work only in-state. 22 Although the fees that we collect for the 23 labs for other states do help to fund some 24 of the work that we do in-state. So that 25 is just the way our fee system is set up, 30 1 as those of you all who may have been on

2 the Council at the time we adopted those 3 fees remembers discussing. 4 So that Bill is in Senate Bill 1678 5 and it was signed by the Governor on April 6 the 9th. It's already in place. Questions 7 or comments about that? 8 MR. DUZAN: In here, is there 9 verbiage that says that we will only 10 inspect in-state laboratories? Then since 11 we will be able to offer mutual agreement 12 or reciprocity with the labs in Kansas, 13 since Kansas is a NELAC state, labs there 14 want to get, or Texas want to get certified 15 in Oklahoma. But if you have a lab in New 16 Mexico, Arkansas, that is not -- and are we 17 only going to have our people sort of going 18 to and doing inspections on in-state 19 laboratories? 20 MS. DUNCAN: We are still only 21 going to have our people doing inspections 22 on in-state laboratories. And there is a 23 mixture of how states handle this. About 24 half the states do inspections anywhere 25 that anyone applies, and about half the 31 1 states are like Oklahoma and only do 2 in-state inspections. Kansas only does

3 in-state inspections. I don't know about 4 Texas. I think they only do in-state 5 inspections. I believe Louisiana travels 6 around. Louisiana, they do theirs mostly 7 through the use of contract assessors. But 8 some of the larger states like Florida and 9 New York and Oregon travel around. 10 Illinois, I believe only does in-state 11 inspections. So it's kind of a hodge-podge 12 of how that is handled. And we don't have 13 any intention of traveling out of state at 14 this point in time. 15 MR. CRAWFORD: One more question. 16 How would this handle a laboratory in a 17 non-NELAP state coming in to us? 18 MS. DUNCAN: They could, if they 19 wanted to apply here, they could apply for 20 secondary accreditation. And what they 21 would have to do then is get primary 22 accreditation from one of those states that 23 does travel around. And that's the way 24 that -- that's the common practice right 25 now. 32 1 MR. BRIGHT: Judy, is there a 2 commercial group that actually goes out and 3 does NELAC certification?

4 MS. DUNCAN: There is not a 5 commercial group, as such. There are a 6 number of individuals, some of whom work 7 for a few different companies, some whom 8 work in individuals, and the state 9 arrangements with those vary -- with them 10 vary. Some states will contract with a 11 company or with an individual to do a 12 certain number of inspections. Some states 13 will simply give the laboratory a list of 14 contractors that would be acceptable to 15 them. So the way the money changes hand, 16 varies from one place to another. 17 Sometimes the lab pays the assessor 18 directly. Sometimes they pay the state and 19 the state pays the assessor. But there is 20 a group of people -- and TNI's in the 21 process of developing a way to recognize 22 those -- to credential those people, I 23 guess is the best way to state it. Right 24 now that's done on a state by state basis. 25 But TNI is considering a way to develop a 33 1 list of people who have had the adequate 2 training and a program for that use. It's 3 a little bit early in the years of having 4 done this to have that very well developed

5 right now, but it is on the draft board. 6 MR. HAAS: Judy, you mentioned 7 primary and secondary accreditation. Could 8 you tell me the distinction between those 9 two? 10 MS. DUNCAN: Okay. A primary 11 accreditation, is the accreditation for the 12 state where you are located. Okay. So a 13 Oklahoma lab would get primary 14 accreditation from Oklahoma. 15 Secondary accreditation is a 16 recognition of, in your state, of a lab 17 that has primary accreditation in another 18 state. 19 So a Kansas lab, for instance, that 20 wanted to do work in Oklahoma would have 21 secondary accreditation -- primary 22 accreditation in Kansas, secondary 23 accreditation in Oklahoma. Or the 24 gentleman from Ana-lab in Texas, you would 25 have your primary accreditation in Texas 34 1 and secondary accreditation in Oklahoma. 2 MR. HAAS: Thank you. 3 MR. DUZAN: Have you looked at 4 the potential loss in fees if you assume -- 5 I don't know how many labs are in Arkansas,

6 Missouri, New Mexico, that since they're 7 not NELAC states as soon as this becomes 8 law you would basically almost eliminate 9 probably most of those from the 10 certification process. I mean, because I 11 know fees are -- and all of the state 12 budgets are a tight point of concern. 13 MS. DUNCAN: I really don't 14 anticipate much loss. In the first place, 15 we don't have many labs from New Mexico or 16 Arkansas in our program, you know. 17 And then secondly, some of the 18 larger labs like to compete for things -- 19 like Department of Defense or Department of 20 Energy contracts, and what have you, like 21 to be able to be prepared by being 22 accredited in all states. And many of our 23 out of state labs, are labs that fall into 24 that category. Some of them are labs that 25 are basically in areas that are close or 35 1 nearby to Oklahoma. Like we do have a few 2 Arkansas labs that do work over the line in 3 Oklahoma. And in a couple of cases like 4 that, we have actually gone across the 5 state line and inspected them, when we 6 found that the Arkansas inspections that

7 they submitted to us work adequate to meet 8 our program needs. 9 MR. DUZAN: Any other questions 10 from our Council? Any questions or 11 comments from the audience? Okay. 12 We'll move on to Item Number 8, 13 which is the discussion of the fiscal year 14 2011 annual laboratory accreditation 15 laboratory services fee adjustments based 16 on the Consumer Price Index. Judy. 17 MS. DUNCAN: As you all may 18 recall, about three years ago when we 19 passed our laboratory fee index -- the fee 20 increases, there was a clause placed in our 21 rules that said that our fees would be 22 annually adjusted based on increases in the 23 Consumer Price Index. And that is a clause 24 that is now in virtually every DEQ fee 25 rule. And this year, as you might expect, 36 1 there was no increase in the Consumer Price 2 Index. So there will be no change in fees 3 from 2010 to 2011. We just wanted to make 4 that clear. 5 MR. DUZAN: Questions from the 6 Council? Questions from the audience? 7 Okay.

8 We will move on to Number 9, 9 discussion of proposed dates the Laboratory 10 Service Council meetings in August, 11 November of this year and then January of 12 next year. 13 MS. DUNCAN: And as I mentioned 14 earlier, if we are going to accomplish what 15 we hope to accomplish in terms of reviewing 16 our rules and making changes to them, we 17 believe that the Council is going to have 18 to have a busier year this year than 19 obviously we have had in the last two 20 years. Since you approved the Minutes for 21 2008 meeting and the 2009 meeting, you can 22 tell we have had a couple of quiet years. 23 And this year is going to be one of our 24 busier years. 25 So I have worked with Myrna and with 37 1 Barbara, and working backwards from the 2 time that we hope to have rules ready to go 3 to the Environmental Quality Board, we have 4 chosen some potential times for Council 5 meetings. And what to do would be to hold 6 a meeting first of all in August, and at 7 that meeting we will have some draft rules 8 for discussion. And we will have those

9 available -- what's our time period? 10 Thirty days before that meeting they can be 11 distributed? 12 MS. RAUCH: They are not going to 13 vote on them. 14 MS. DUNCAN: Okay. 15 MS. RAUCH: We don't really have 16 a time set. 17 MS. DUNCAN: But we will try to 18 get them out in time so that we can have 19 them in at least two weeks for discussion. 20 And we will also e-mail all of the 21 accredited labs to let you know of that. 22 And we will have those rules available on 23 our website where you can download them and 24 look at them in detail. 25 And so Myrna's schedule provided -- 38 1 suggested that we have the meeting sometime 2 between August 1st and August 20th. The 3 second week of August, the week of August 4 9th, is the week of the TNI meeting in 5 Washington D.C. So we'd like for you to 6 look at a date either in August -- the week 7 of August 2nd, which is the first week of 8 August or the week of August 16th. 9 Is there some particular day of the

10 week that works better for you all as 11 Council Members? 12 MR. DUZAN: Anything but Friday 13 or Monday as a rule. 14 MS. DUNCAN: Okay. What about a 15 Tuesday or Wednesday; would one of those 16 days work for you all? Do you have a 17 preference for the first week in August or 18 the third week in August? 19 MR. HAAS: I will be unavailable 20 the first week. 21 MS. DUNCAN: You are unavailable 22 the first week? Okay. So the third week 23 in August, say, Tuesday would be the 17th 24 and Wednesday would be the 18th. Do you 25 all have a preference? What about a site? 39 1 MR. DUZAN: I would prefer since 2 we are scheduling quite a few of these 3 meetings that we could maybe do one of them 4 in Tulsa? 5 MS. DUNCAN: Okay. Do you have a 6 preference for which one? 7 MR. DUZAN: Whatever works for 8 everybody. You may have to see what's 9 available in Tulsa. 10 MS. DUNCAN: Okay. Well why

11 don't we go then for August the 18th, which 12 would be a Wednesday. Does afternoon work 13 well for you all? 14 MR. DUZAN: Yes. 15 MS. DUNCAN: So August the 18th 16 at 1:30. And we will look at meeting 17 spaces and figure out whether or not we 18 will have that meeting in Tulsa, or whether 19 or not we will have the meeting in November 20 in Tulsa. Okay. 21 And then November would be the time 22 we would actually be voting on the rules. 23 And the first two weeks of November are 24 available on Myrna's schedule. November 25 the 11th is Veterans Day Holiday, so I 40 1 would suggest that we not have it on the 2 11th or the 12th. But we could have it, if 3 we want to stick with a Wednesday, on 4 November the 3rd or November the 10th. 5 MR. DUZAN: I would vote for as 6 early in November as you can. Because you 7 really start getting into holiday stuff. 8 MS. DUNCAN: Okay. So November 9 the 3rd. 10 MR. HAAS: I agree. 11 MS. DUNCAN: And then we would

12 also schedule a meeting in January and that 13 would be our backup meeting in case we 14 weren't able to approve the rules in 15 November. Okay? So if everything goes 16 well, we will approve the rules in 17 November, but if we can't do that, then we 18 will have a backup meeting scheduled in 19 January that would allow us to meet then 20 and approve the rules. And the time that 21 Myrna has available in January is the 1st 22 week of January, and that Wednesday would 23 be January 5th. Does that sound okay? 24 It's close to the holidays, but there's 25 really not much way around it. Myrna's 41 1 schedule gets pretty busy whenever we have 2 all the Councils trying to get rules ready 3 to go to the DEQ Board. 4 MR. DUZAN: January 5th is fine. 5 MS. DUNCAN: Okay. So, Myrna, do 6 we need a motion that we have meetings on 7 those dates? 8 MS. BRUCE: Sure. 9 MS. DUNCAN: We need a motion to 10 meet on August 18, 2010; on November 3, 11 2010; and on January 5, 2011. 12 MR. HAAS: So moved.

13 MR. DUZAN: I'll second. So 14 we'll take a roll call vote. 15 MS. BRUCE: Tony Bright. 16 MR. BRIGHT: Yes. 17 MS. BRUCE: Brian Duzan. 18 MR. DUZAN: Yes. 19 MS. BRUCE: Scott Haas. 20 MR. HAAS: Yes. 21 MS. BRUCE: Randall Ross. 22 MR. ROSS: Yes. 23 MS. BRUCE: Kenneth Crawford. 24 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes. 25 MS. BRUCE: Thank you. 42 1 MR. DUZAN: Okay. So now that 2 the dates are set, the next item is Number 3 10, the Director's Report. Judy. 4 MS. DUNCAN: Well I really don't 5 have much to report other than all the 6 talking I've been doing already for you 7 all. 8 One of the things I would like to 9 tell the audience, is we very much 10 appreciate you coming out for this meeting. 11 We hope that you will stay with us as we go 12 through this process because we don't want 13 to do something that is overly burdensome

14 to you. But we do think that it's really 15 important that we join the rest of the 16 country and that we implement the consensus 17 standards that are beginning to be used 18 more and more in Oklahoma. And we feel 19 like we can do that in a helpful way. And 20 we invite you to tell us what you want us 21 to do. Okay. Tell us what you think you 22 need from us to make this a process that 23 will work for you. 24 You know, one of the things that, as 25 you all know, most of you all know, I have 43 1 been very involved in TNI. I am a past 2 Chair of TNI, I'm a past Chair of the NELAC 3 Conference Committee. And we have done a 4 lot of things that have a lot of feedback 5 from laboratories who have participated in 6 the NELAC process. And while the general 7 thing that we are seeing, is while everyone 8 fears NELAP when they haven't done it, most 9 people appreciate it when they have. And 10 they realize that it really does give you a 11 better quality product. It gives you a 12 more reliable process to generate 13 (inaudible) environment data. And the 14 whole point of all of this is to make sure

15 that all those decisions that are made 16 based on environmental quality data, those 17 decisions about whether or not you're in 18 compliance or out of compliance or you're 19 in (inaudible) or whether or not your water 20 is fit to drink or not fit to drink. If 21 they are not based on good data, then we're 22 spending money where we don't need to. Or 23 we may be not rectifying a problem that 24 could have environmental or human 25 consequences. So that is the whole point, 44 1 the whole idea behind what the 2 recommendation is. Appreciate you coming 3 out and hope you stay with us as we go 4 through this process over the next year. 5 Same thing, I want to express my 6 appreciation to the Council because I think 7 it's a very important thing that we are 8 working upon. 9 MR. DUZAN: Barbara. 10 MS. RAUCH: On the front desk, 11 there is a package of draft rules and there 12 seriously drafted. David and I, did a data 13 gap analysis and going through the outline 14 from the TNI folks and tried to figure out 15 where we needed to write SOPs, where we

16 needed to change the law, what new rules we 17 needed to have. And then we sat down and 18 tentatively did those things. So, feel 19 free to comment widely, we are not done. I 20 am not terribly possessive about our 21 language in those rules. 22 UNIDENTIFIED: Thank you, and 23 then also those in the audience please take 24 these home. Take a look at them and if 25 something makes you scream, let us know. 45 1 And if you like something please let us 2 know. MR. CALDWELL: I 3 would like to add one more comment. On 4 these draft rules, we will be talking with 5 TNI to find reference so if you have a 6 standard in there it will be referenced. 7 (Inaudible conversation) 8 MR. DUZAN: Judy, anybody that is 9 looking through that, you might tell them 10 where they can get the TNI material online. 11 12 MS. DUNCAN: The TNI material is 13 available online through the NELAC 14 Institute. You can download a copy of the 15 TNI standard without the ISO language for 16 free. Because the ISO language is

17 copyrighted, TNI charges a fee of fifty 18 dollars to download the language with the 19 ISO language. That website and those 20 links, I will be sending out an e-mail to 21 everybody that has links to the schedule 22 for the training that are going to be done, 23 as well as the template for the QA Quality 24 Management System Manual, and the standards 25 themselves. I've got copies of the 46 1 standards here with me. If anyone is 2 interested, just let me know. 3 MR. DUZAN: Okay. Anymore 4 questions or comments from the Council? 5 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes. I am just 6 curious, what is the status of getting a 7 second individual in the laboratory 8 auditing or accreditation department with 9 David? 10 MS. DUNCAN: We have a position 11 approved. We are -- I've been dragging my 12 feet just a little bit until we figured out 13 what the state budget was going to do with 14 us. But it looks like we are going to be 15 able to weather the state budget crisis 16 here at DEQ, and so we will be moving to 17 advertise that within the next few months.

18 19 MR. DUZAN: Okay. Any other 20 questions or comments from the Council? 21 Any from the audience? Okay. Any 22 announcements? 23 MS. DUNCAN: Brian, I do need to 24 make one announcement. David has let me 25 know that this year for the first time we 47 1 generated our fees, laboratory fees, using 2 the computer system that we have been using 3 for the last year or two. And David's 4 getting a few calls, and not everything 5 went as well as it should have. So look 6 over your fee invoice carefully, and if you 7 feel that there has been an error in the 8 calculation of the fee, contact David, and 9 he will helpfully and expeditiously correct 10 that. We are going to -- this is a new 11 system for us and over the next year we'll 12 also be going to the states new PeopleSoft 13 System. So there may be a few glitches 14 here and there, but please understand that 15 we apologize, but we will fix anything that 16 we mess up. 17 MR. DUZAN: Okay. Any other 18 announcements? Okay. I will make a

19 movement for adjournment. 20 Mr. CRAWFORD: I'll second that. 21 MR. DUZAN: Take a roll call 22 vote. 23 MS. BRUCE: Tony Bright. 24 MR. BRIGHT: Yes. 25 MS. BRUCE: Brian Duzan. 48 1 MR. DUZAN: Yes. 2 MS. BRUCE: Scott Haas. 3 MR. HAAS: Yes. 4 MS. BRUCE: Randall Ross. 5 MR. ROSS: Yes. 6 MS. BRUCE: Kenneth Crawford. 7 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes. 8 MS. BRUCE: We are adjourned. 9 (Meeting Concluded) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

23 24 25 49 1 2 C E R T I F I C A T E 3 STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) 4 ) ss: 5 COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA ) 6 I, CHRISTY A. MYERS, Certified 7 Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of 8 Oklahoma, do hereby certify that the above 9 meeting is the truth, the whole truth, and 10 nothing but the truth; that the foregoing 11 meeting was taken down in shorthand and 12 thereafter transcribed under my direction; 13 that said meeting was taken on the 20th day 14 of April, 2010, at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; 15 and that I am neither attorney for, nor 16 relative of any of said parties, nor 17 otherwise interested in said action. 18 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto 19 set my hand and official seal on this, the 20 27th day of April, 2010. 21 22 23 CHRISTY A. MYERS, C.S.R.