Anast, G. A.

Connolly, J.

Dahlgran, J. R.

Fisk, J.

Lindahl, P. C.

Marr, J. J.

Newberry, W. R.

Parish, K. J.

Scandora, A. E., Jr.

Streets, W. E.

Watkins, C.

UNT Digital Library

*.4;>l?4.RESULTS OF PILOT IMPLEMENTATION STUDIES OF DOE’SINTEGRATED PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRJ%M (IPEP)*P. C. Lindahl, W. E. Streets, J. J. Marr, K. J. Parish, A. E. Scandor~ Jr.Analytical Chemistry LaboratoryChemical Technology DivisionArgonne National LaboratoryG. A. AnastEnvironmental Assessment DivisionArgonne National LaboratoryArgonne, IL 60439W. R. NewberryU.S. Department of EnergyOffice of Environmental ManagementWashington, DC 20585J. R. DahlgranU.S. Department of EnerWRadiological and Environmental Sciences LaboratoryIdaho Falls, ID 83415C. Watkins and J. ConnollyIdaho National Engineering and Environmental LaboratoryIdaho Falls, ID 83415J. FiskU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyWashington, DC 20460to be presented at37ti ORNL-DOE Conferenceon Analytical Chemistry in Energy TechnologyOctober 7-9, 1997Gatlinburg, TNThe submitted manuscript has been created’,by the University of Chicago as Operator of;Argonne National Laboratory (“Argonne”)under Contract No. W-31 -1 09-ENG-38 with:the U.S. Department of Energy. The U.S. IGovernment retains for itself, and others act-;ing on its behalf, a paid-up, nonexclusive,irrevocable worfdwide ficense in said articleto reproduce, prepare derivative woks, dis-’tribute copies to the public, and perform pub-;ticIy and display publicly, by or on behalf of,the Government.*Work supportedby the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract W-31- 109-ENG-38.DISCLAIMERThis report was prepared as an account of work sponsoredby an agency of the United States Government. Neither theUnited States Government nor any agency thereof, nor anyof their employees, make any warranty, express or implied,or assumes any legal Iiabiiity or responsibility for theaccuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information,apparatus, product, or process disciosed, or represents thatits use wouid not infringe privately owned rights. Referenceherein to any specific commercial product, process, orservice by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, orotherwise does not necessarily constitute or impiy itsendorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the UnitedStates Government or any agency thereof. The views andopinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarilystate or refiect those of the United States Government orany agency thereof.DISCLAIMERPortions of this document may be illegiblein electronic image products. Images areproduced from the best available originaldocument.tResults of Implementation Pilot~ studies of DOE’s Integrated.Performance Evaluation Program(IPEl?)* “37th ORNL-DOE Conference onAnalytical Chemistry in Energy TechnologyGatlinburg, TNOctober 7=9,1997** Work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract W-3 1-109-ENG-38.Co-contributors .dahl, W.E. Streets, J.J. Marr, K.J. Parish, G.A. Anast, and A.E. Scandora, Jr.Analytical Chemistry LaboratoryArgonne National LaboratoryArgonne, IL 60439W.R. NewberryU.S. Department of EnergyOffice of Environmental ManagementWashington, DC 20585.J.R. DahlgranU.S. Department of EnergyRadiological and Environmental Sciences LaboratoryIdaho Falls, ID 83415C. Watkins and J. ConnollyIdaho National Engineering LaboratoryIdaho Falls, ID 83415J. FiskU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyWashington, DC 20460,Objectives of Pilot StudiesSMO Objectives:● Access laboratory performance information quickly, inuseful formats● Have meaningful, consistent assessments of laboratoryperformanceIPEP Objectives:. Provide laboratory performance information to varioususer audiences quickly, in useful formats for each usersneeds● Develop a system for providingvarious IPEP user audiencesinformation to the.Types of IPEP ReportsI* Single Study Reports include historical3PEPRO(Y CLIP WS WP EML M4PEP PIBPQUARTER INORG ORG QAPFY93Q2 IV93Q2 A(93 Q2 030FY93Q3 FY93Q3 FY93Q3 032 39FY93Q4 FY93Q4 A193Q4 031FY94Q1 RI(94Q1 A(94Q1 033 40FY94Q2 FY94Q2 FY94Q2 032 S1 -FY94Q3 FY94Q3 FY94Q3 034 41 WIFY94Q4 FY94Q4 F’Y94Q4 033 S2FY95Q1 I?Y95QI I?Y95Q] 035 42 w AF: GA,BWaler:Gb7nmarWP033Single StudyReport*studies.E..IPEP Report Production Process● Acquiring& servicesinformation about laboratoriesbeing provided to EM & PEProgram participation● Acquiring data from PE Programs● Providing reports to user audiencesAcquiring Information aboutLaboratories1● Identify laboratories providing services to EM2 ● Identify type of service each laboratory provides toOPS Offices, SMOS ~ LAB DBEM4.5 ●6.7 ●Match laboratory EM services to PE program participationSummarize laboratoryLAB DBQuery apparent lapsesIPEP ~services, PE participation—-IPEP-Warious PE programsin PE program participationOPS Offices, SMOSInitiate participation in appropriate PE programsOPS Offices,Return to Step OneSMOS ~ LaboratoriesIntegrated Performance Evaluation ProgramDOEM&OLabsData Input-i-Eu--DOEMAPEP4EPANERL-CiW, WP kEPANERL-LVCLP t--iEPANERL-LVPESP t-IPEPReports-1===1DOEDASDOEHQ[ProgramManagersl-i DOEAuditProgram--’1 DOEM&OLabs4 CommercialLabs.. II.Providing Reports to SMOS, OPS OfficesHard CopiesElectronic versions of reports, via InternetElectronic transmissionOPS Offices in formatsincorporation into localsystemsof data to SMOS,compatible forassessment...IPEP Reports. IPEP Objectives● Normalize assessments in all reportsQ Support assessments with CorrectiveAction Protocols. Produce all reports in similar formatstofacilitate● Ease of use by the End Users. Subsequent incorporation of informationinto Consolidated & Management ReportsCorrective Action PhilosophyforSingleStudy Reports● Be reactive enough to be effective for EM needs,● ... But not over-reactive to the detriment of budget orprofessional relationshipsAttempt to use one systemsimplicity to end usersfor all reports for consistency &● Identify real, acute, problems in current studieso problems with the same analyte in more than 1 matrix. problems with several analytes in the same matrix. Use historical data to identify chronic problems,~ B*las not yet incorporated into Corrective Action Protocols.Formats for Hard Copy Single Study Reports “are designedto be progressive in level of detail● Introduction:. Speci@ particular study. Detail any problems or anomalies reported by PE ProgramSponsor. Summaries (Tables & Graphs):. Overall, Matrix/Analyte Class -. Individual Laboratory Reports(Current & Historical Information):. Individual Laboratory Summary Report (ILSR)● Laboratory Individual Analyte Smary Report● Amendix:Brief Individual PE Program DescriptionExplanation of scoring algorithms, assessments.Individual Laboratory Summary Reports(ILSRS)Formats for WS & WI?. Overall Summary of Performance in Current Study. & Summary by Matrix/Analyte Class for:@ YOParticipation* YOAcceptableo IPEP● IdentificationStudyAssessmentof Unacceptable Analtyes in Current● Recommended Areas for Corrective Action, withReasons SpecifiedInternet Versions of ReportsCurrently TVS,WP, & QAP postedNoNoSummariesCorrectiveActionsFalse Positives correctly incorporated into allreportsAble to use both graphical and non-graphicalbrowsersLaboratory Individual Analyte SummaryReport Formats:TVs & WP:● Same as Sponsor Format for Current StudyWP:● Two water samples are treated as different matrices. Oil is not sumarized separatelyc False Positives not incorporatedQAP:. Individual analyte results have been arranged topresent data the same as other PE ProgramSponsorsAU ●●. IPEP Assessments. Historical data for previous three studies.Operational Issues to Resolve. r●.1● Permission to access & publish PE data2 ●4 ●Provision of PE data in local formats forelectronic download into local assessmentsystems. .Corrective Action:Who informs laboratories?Who initiates follow-up?Others??

Results of pilot implementation studies of DOE'S integrated performance evaluation program (IPEP).

Results of pilot implementation studies of DOE'S integrated performance evaluation program (IPEP).

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNT Digital Library