BP GCLN Meeting October 20, 2004

1. BP GCLN MeetingOctober 20, 2004 Electronic Data Deliverable (EDD) Issues & Challenges Case Example: GeoTracker (California)

2. EDD Issues & ChallengesBP GCLN Meeting � October 20, 2004 GeoTracker Requirements Electronic Data Files (EDFs) must be uploaded for all LUST sites since 9/1/01 As of 1/1/05 EDFs must be uploaded for almost all sites in California Optional 3rd Part Data Validation & Field Data files just being implemented Other non-analytical files also uploaded (e.g., maps, gauging data, survey data, PDFs, well construction info, remediation data) J-Flag reporting required (sometimes local agencies over rule)

3. EDD Issues & ChallengesBP GCLN Meeting � October 20, 2004 EDD Goals Make the lab transparent Have each lab use the same codes Have each lab use the same codes in the same way No problems to consultant when GCLN sub labs used Get quality data Do this as quickly and cheaply as possible Get EDDs in a timely fashion Not have each consultant coordinate changes in EDD format with each lab (3 consultants x 7 labs = 21 calls to handle same issue) Minimize errors & inconsistencies

4. EDD Issues & ChallengesBP GCLN Meeting � October 20, 2004 Overview of Key EDD Issues Observed EDD problems EDD format definitions Mapping of LIMS to EDD format Multiple laboratories within a network Multiple laboratory networks Presentation of EDD data to users (in a useful and accurate format)

5. EDD Issues & ChallengesBP GCLN Meeting � October 20, 2004 Observed EDD Problems Result Errors Concentration errors Result records missing Multiple results for same analyte, same method, same sample Method Errors Wrong analytical method Wrong prep method Sample name errors Sample type errors Consultant vs. QC Product vs. Water Qualifier errors Not receiving EDDs

6. EDD Issues & ChallengesBP GCLN Meeting � October 20, 2004 EDD Format Issues Limited documentation Many �correct� ways to indicate same info: 69 - matrix codes (including 18 �water�) 10 - 8260 method codes Gasoline, TPH, TPH-g, GRO, etc. Guidance Documents have been issued, but are recommendations, not requirements No notice provided when documentation is updated No capacity to handle some important data: Field issues (e.g., purge vs. no-purge)

7. EDD Issues & ChallengesBP GCLN Meeting � October 20, 2004 Mapping of LIMS to EDD Format Poor documentation; many choices In many cases there is not a one-to-one relationship between LIMS values and EDD values One-to-many: J ? J,DX; Qual mapping (more precise) Many-to-one: Qual mapping (less precise) Not all consultants receive (or want) data in the same format Changes in EDD requirements & valid values not always known by lab Lab cannot QA/QC everything (do not know how data will be seen by end user)

8. EDD Issues & ChallengesBP GCLN Meeting � October 20, 2004 Multiple Labs Within a Network Multiple LIMS systems Requires duplication of mapping effort by labs (and consultants) Limits capacities of labs to share mapping work Different individuals at each lab need to maintain synchronized mapping with each other Regional differences in requirements often are set as lab defaults (e.g., J-flag reporting or not, 8260 list, RL) which can be problematic if data goes to another lab Labs in a �network� often compete against each other and are not always geared toward sharing Multiple labs handling same COC

9. EDD Issues & ChallengesBP GCLN Meeting � October 20, 2004 Multiple Lab Networks Lab networks are competitors (even within the GCLN) limiting the capacity to share information Compounds all of the previously mentioned issues

10. EDD Issues & ChallengesBP GCLN Meeting � October 20, 2004 Presentation of Data to Users The following are not shown to the public in GeoTracker: Duplicate vs. primary (in optional Field Data file) Test qualifiers Sample depth (in optional Field Data file) Purge vs. no purge Preservative (e.g., HCl, TSP, none) Different users have different needs Regulators Consultants Public Responsible Parties

11. EDD Issues & ChallengesBP GCLN Meeting � October 20, 2004 Solution: GCLN GeoTracker Group Members BP: Kim Loeb Consultants: SECOR, URS, Delta Labs (as needed): Del Mar, Sequoia, STL Activities E-mails and calls between members whenever issues arise Regular conference calls Coordinated communication with labs Coordinated communication with agencies Inclusion of GCLN as needed

12. EDD Issues & ChallengesBP GCLN Meeting � October 20, 2004 GCLN GeoTracker Group Successes Regulatory Changes Implementation of optional field issues tables Additional information shown to public Public discussion of problems with GeoTracker and proposed solutions Extra responsiveness by State to our issues Now State sometimes run proposed changes by us first EDD Standardization Standard list of qualifiers with usage guidance Standardized key field usage: Chemical Names (e.g., GRO nomenclature) Matrix (e.g., W for water)

13. EDD Issues & ChallengesBP GCLN Meeting � October 20, 2004 Summary GCLN GeoTracker Group works Has accomplished a lot Still a lot of work left On-going process Recommend a similar group structure for each EDD in use Recommend eventual coordination of groups with ENFOS development