I would like to request that the adoption of this final regulation be delayed to incorporate additional public comments to this regulation.  This final regulation was developed several years ago and as such, it conflicts with current Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VA DEQ) policy regarding the data utilized for their biennial assessment report.  The final adoption and implementation of this program will severely hamper the VA DEQ’s ability to comply with requirements of several state and federal statutes.

Thank you for considering delaying this final rulemaking to insure that all state agencies reduce duplicative efforts and do not adopt regulations that are in conflict.

Sincerely,

Stacey T. Brown

Virginia Save Our Streams

stacey@vasos.org

These comments are in regard to your proposed “Regulations Governing the Certification of Non-Commercial Environmental Laboratories [1 VAC 30 ­ 45]”.  This is an excellent example of a regulation being developed in a vacuum without regard or respect for the on-going work of other professionals in the field.  The net effect of requiring lab certification for all labs and organizations that supply VDEQ with data on environmental quality will be a small increase in data reliability and a large decrease in the amount of available data. In turn, this will lead to decision making that is less data driven.  Is this your intent?  If not, then there was a egregious lack of effort on your part to understand how the present system is working.  I have been directly or indirectly supervising the Ferrum College Water Quality Lab since 1985 where we have generated a large water quality data set of sufficient reliability to be valuable to the VDEQ and to many local decision makers.  The Smith Mountain Lake Water Quality Monitoring Program is managed cooperatively between Ferrum College and the Smith Mountain Lake Association (SMLA) is a model program, recognized nationally. Since its inception in 1987, we have been part of the effort to get citizens involved with environmental stewardship, an effort that incorporates environmental monitoring in a larger program of environmental education and awareness.  This effort is represented by the state-wide organization, Citizens for Water Quality, founded by Jay Gilliam in 1996. For more than five years we have worked closely with VDEQ on our QA/QC program and have achieved the Level III status. This achievement is important not just to Ferrum College and SMLA but to the dozens of families who take pride in their work as citizen water quality monitors. In addition to the points I have raised, the following specific points must be considered in your response to comments:

--The fees associated with this regulation will severely impact citizen monitoring programs in Virginia.  Citizens monitoring programs do not have deep pockets and typically survive on shoestring budgets.  Any additional expenses these groups endure will deplete limited resources.     

--The public engagement process for adopting the regulation is questionable.  The regulation was originally submitted in 2005.  After 3 years, this regulation is now proposed for final adoption.  This 3 year time period did not allow any public involvement or input to the regulation.  And a result, the transparency of this process is called into question.  Many affected stakeholders were not adequately notified of this upcoming action in a timely manner.  There are too many unanswered questions about how this regulation will affect citizen monitoring programs in Virginia.

--There have been significant changes regarding citizen volunteer water monitoring programs since this regulation was originally proposed.  The DEQ has developed a QA/QC program that defines how citizen monitoring data will be utilized by the agency.  The proposed regulation does not reflect this update.  This regulation creates a conflict between two state agencies.   

--As written, this regulation is inconsistent with HB 1859 passed in the 2007 General Assembly.  HB 1859 states, “It shall be the goal of the Department to encourage citizen water quality monitoring so that 3000 stream miles are monitored by volunteer citizens by 2010.”  Additional fees associated with this regulation will result in greater citizen monitoring start up costs, increased laboratory fees, and reduced data submission to the DEQ.  This is in direct conflict with the state code.   

--The regulation proposes that non-commercial laboratories should meet National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) standards.  However, NELAC accreditation was never designed to be applied to citizen water quality monitoring.  By developing a regulation that includes citizen monitoring programs, DGS has over-reached and gone beyond the intent of NELAC.

David M. Johnson, Ph.D.

Associate Dean, School of Natural Sciences and Mathematics

Professor of Chemistry & Environmental Science

Ferrum College

Ferrum, VA

(540)365-4364

I would like to request that the adoption of this final regulation be delayed to incorporate additional public comments to this regulation.  This final regulation was developed several years ago and as such, it conflicts with current Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VA DEQ) policy regarding the data utilized for their biennial assessment report.  The final adoption and implementation of this program will severely hamper the VA DEQ’s ability to comply with requirements of several state and federal statutes.

These comments are in regard to your proposed “Regulations Governing the Certification of Non-Commercial Environmental Laboratories [1 VAC 30 ­ 45]”.  This is an excellent example of a regulation being developed in a vacuum without regard or respect for the on-going work of other professionals in the field.  The net effect of requiring lab certification for all labs and organizations that supply VDEQ with data on environmental quality will be a small increase in data reliability and a large decrease in the amount of available data. In turn, this will lead to decision making that is less data driven.  Is this your intent?  If not, then there was a egregious lack of effort on your part to understand how the present system is working.  I have been directly or indirectly supervising the Ferrum College Water Quality Lab since 1985 where we have generated a large water quality data set of sufficient reliability to be valuable to the VDEQ and to many local decision makers.  The Smith Mountain Lake Water Quality Monitoring Program is managed cooperatively between Ferrum College and the Smith Mountain Lake Association (SMLA) is a model program, recognized nationally. Since its inception in 1987, we have been part of the effort to get citizens involved with environmental stewardship, an effort that incorporates environmental monitoring in a larger program of environmental education and awareness.  This effort is represented by the state-wide organization, Citizens for Water Quality, founded by Jay Gilliam in 1996. For more than five years we have worked closely with VDEQ on our QA/QC program and have achieved the Level III status. This achievement is important not just to Ferrum College and SMLA but to the dozens of families who take pride in their work as citizen water quality monitors. In addition to the points I have raised, the following specific points must be considered in your response to comments:

--The fees associated with this regulation will severely impact citizen monitoring programs in Virginia.  Citizens monitoring programs do not have deep pockets and typically survive on shoestring budgets.  Any additional expenses these groups endure will deplete limited resources.     

--The public engagement process for adopting the regulation is questionable.  The regulation was originally submitted in 2005.  After 3 years, this regulation is now proposed for final adoption.  This 3 year time period did not allow any public involvement or input to the regulation.  And a result, the transparency of this process is called into question.  Many affected stakeholders were not adequately notified of this upcoming action in a timely manner.  There are too many unanswered questions about how this regulation will affect citizen monitoring programs in Virginia.

--There have been significant changes regarding citizen volunteer water monitoring programs since this regulation was originally proposed.  The DEQ has developed a QA/QC program that defines how citizen monitoring data will be utilized by the agency.  The proposed regulation does not reflect this update.  This regulation creates a conflict between two state agencies.   

--As written, this regulation is inconsistent with HB 1859 passed in the 2007 General Assembly.  HB 1859 states, “It shall be the goal of the Department to encourage citizen water quality monitoring so that 3000 stream miles are monitored by volunteer citizens by 2010.”  Additional fees associated with this regulation will result in greater citizen monitoring start up costs, increased laboratory fees, and reduced data submission to the DEQ.  This is in direct conflict with the state code.   

--The regulation proposes that non-commercial laboratories should meet National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) standards.  However, NELAC accreditation was never designed to be applied to citizen water quality monitoring.  By developing a regulation that includes citizen monitoring programs, DGS has over-reached and gone beyond the intent of NELAC.

David M. Johnson, Ph.D.

Associate Dean, School of Natural Sciences and Mathematics

Professor of Chemistry & Environmental Science

Ferrum College

Ferrum, VA

(540)365-4364

I am in hopes that as this formal certification program takes place, that Virginia will consider becoming an Accrediting Authority that covers all areas of the accreditation fields.  We would like to eventually replace our Florida NELAC accreditation with that of Virginia - where we do much more work.

I am very concerned that the proposed fees for certification of noncommercial environmental laboratories would make it nearly impossible for citizen monitoring groups to continue operation.  I know from experience that citizen monitoring groups operate on the thinnest of shoestrings, getting small grants only when they can find time to invest many hours of volunteer effort.  The statewide effort to support citizen monitoring will be severely curtailed if these fees are charged.  I can understand the need to collect some funding, but there has to be a less onerous way.  Please do not allow these fees to be charged!

I would like to request that the adoption of this regulation be postponed to allow for an adequate public comment period. The fees associated with this regulation will have negative effects on citizen monitoring programs in Virginia.

Citizen monitoring groups provide accurate, useful data to the Department of Environmental Quality. They operate on limited budgets and in many cases do not have the financial resources to support the additional expenses they would incur under the proposed regulation.

I would like to request the adoption of this regulation be postponed to allow for an adequate public comment period. 

Thank you,

Bobbi Rasnick

I am requesting the adoption of this regulation be postponed to allow for an adequate public comment period.  Citizens monitoring groups simply lack the financial resources to support additional expenses.

Thank you,

Carla Mullins

The regulation is still quite confusing with respect to the impacts on state college and university research laboratories.  For example, there are cases, depending upon who sponsors the work, that a state university lab might be considered either commercial or non-commercial.  Could this possibly have been the intent.  More review is needed....the stakeholder group should have representation from university laboratories.

There seems to be quite a bit of confusion and this could especially be problematic for University labs. 

This regulation is not yet ready, particularly for University labs.  The classifications are confusing, and the record-keeping burden can be onerous.  A university lab may fall under different classifications depending on whether research is being done for the state or through a contract with another funding agency or even as a subcontractor to a private company.  In short, the public comment period needs to be extended to consider these types of issues.

I request that the regulations be delayed until we can decide how these will imapct out lab operations. We also need time to prepare for these if they are inacted.

Pls extend the comment period.  The proposed regulation will greatly affect the protocols and costs of universities conducting studies that are performed for the state or eventually of use by the state.    GDB 

This proposed action has the potential to cause extensive impacts to those laboratories and organizations which are either non-profit or volunteer. University laboratories and citizen monitoring groups come to mind as examples of these. The definite impacts will be fiscal, not merely in the fees required and purchase of certifying standards, but also in the additional staff resources that will be required to implement the program. Other commenters have spoken about the confusion for state university laboratories because their status could be interpreted as being both commercial and non-commercial (does this mean they get certified twice?) depending upon whether they are doing work directly for DEQ or indirectly via a subcontract to a commercial entity. There are additional educational requirements for commercial labs, so does this mean state university laboratories that do commercial work as subcontractors need to implement those along with any additional expenses that entails? Furthermore, if a state university laboratory does work for the DEQ under a contract, does this mean that the DEQ pays the university laboratory to obtain the certification by paying a fee to the DEQ from those DEQ-contracted funds?

At minimum, then, the comment period on this needs to be extended, and some thoughful modifications need to be made based on the comments received. If these issues were pointed out by any university and volunteer organization members who were members of the advisory committee, it would be good to know what logic was used to issue the proposed regulation in this form. Or, perhaps, these issues were never raised, in which case I would posit that proper representation on the committee from these constituencies was missing. If, indeed, there were representatives from these constituencies, and these issues were never raised, then I submit for consideration that the representatives were inadequately familiar with how non-profit laboratories operate.

Definitely needs a re-do!

My concerns relate to the impact of these certification requirements on laboratories at universities in the Commonwealth who conduct research efforts for agencies within Virginia.  In times of dwindling funding from the Commonwealth  as it is imposing fees on university/college laboratories for certifications requirements just adds a substantial further burden.  In reality these costs will have to be passed along to the agencies funding these research efforts (e.g., DEQ), thereby making the cost of funding research work simply higher for the Commonwealth 

More time is necessary to review and evaluate the Virginia Environmental Laboratory Certification Program before it can be implemented.  A significant amount of valuable and accurate research data  are generated at Virginia's Universities and used by DEQ to evaluate and solve environmental problems.  These research data are outside the realm of compliance or routine monitoring data and should not be subject to the same reporting requirments.

The classifications of this regulation are confusing, and the record-keeping requirement is excessive.

Request to delay regulation adoption pending additional public comment.

I am requesting the adoption of this regulation be postponed to allow for an adequate public comment period. 

1) Citizens monitoring groups simply do not have the financial resources that may be required by this proposed regulation.  This will negatively impact citizen monitoring at a time when DEQ is seeking to increase emphasis on citizen stream monitoring. Citizen monitoring groups provide accurate, useful data to DEQ. We operate on limited budgets and in many cases do not have the financial resources to support the additional expenses they would incur under the proposed regulation. 

2) I understand that this proposed regulation was developed in 2005 and that there is direct conflict with current DEQ policy regarding the data utilized for their biennial assessment report. The public engagement process for adopting the regulation is questionable.  There has not been sufficient public involvement or input to the regulation.  Many affected stakeholders were not adequately notified of this upcoming action in a timely manner.  There are too many unanswered questions about how this regulation will affect citizen monitoring programs in Virginia.

3) There have been significant changes regarding citizen volunteer water monitoring programs since this regulation was originally proposed.  The DEQ has developed a QA/QC program that defines how citizen monitoring data will be utilized by the agency.  The proposed regulation does not reflect this update.  This regulation creates a conflict between two state agencies.

David Ward
Loudoun Watershed Watch

I would like to formally request that the public comment period be extended for Regulations Governing the Certification of Non-Commercial Environmental Laboratories [1 VAC 30   45]. 

I supervise several university research labs that periodically report soil, sediment and water quality data to DEQ and other state agencies. While this reporting is often part of an agency approved research framework, it also commonly serves as part of permit monitoring requirements as well. 

These regulations are lengthy and complex. Regardless, it does appear that the direct effect of their implementation would be to greatly increase the cost of our field sampling and laboratory analytical programs. We have made every effort to keep the costs of our support analyses for DEQ and other agencies as low as possible over time while still maintaining a valid and defensible QA/QC program through appropriate internal procedures.

Imposition of these regulations requires careful evaluation with respect to state laboratories and universities providing advisory and environmental research data to agencies such as VDH or DEQ.  In many instances contractual agreements are developed that specify QA/QC plans to address the kinds of data concerns covered in the NELAC protocols.  Adoption of these regulations will place an additional monetary burden on state laboraties/universities and lead to a complex and difficult to administer certification system. Consideration must be given to alternatives.

The proposed action on laboratory accreditation needs to be further reviewed and discussed - especially as it relates to the negative effects upon environmental monitoring by citizens groups and colleges and universities in Virginia.  Up to this time, the VA DEQ and many other organizations have worked with citizens groups in establishing an extensive network of environmental monitors across the state.  It's not so much accreditation that is being argued here as much as it is the cost(s) incurred by this legislation.  If this action is voted into law, then Virginia stands to lose a huge data gathering resource for the environment - the concerned citizen.

The Friends of the Shenandoah River with more than 75 volunteers monitoring 120 sites currently on a bi-monthly basis and having been working to protect the Shenandoah River and its tributaries through its monitoring program since 1989 is deeply concerned about the proposed rules.

Our laboratory has been certified by DEQ.  We have been strongly supported by the General Assembly with grant funds for automated equipment amounting to a total of about $125,000 including $65,000 for an equipment upgrade this year.

We are in the process of relocating our laboratory to new facilities at Shenandoah University from cramped quarters there as part of a new environmental program being established by the University.

We struggle every year to maintain adequate funding for our efforts through grants and donations along with membership dues.  We receive very modest support from the State and that support is not dependable (witness cancellation of the DEQ grant program last year because of the 5% budget reduction.) Without our highly motivated volunteer monitors who are highly trained and donate countless hours to our program we could not exist.

Imposing additional unnecessary expenses for our program will only discourage volunteer efforts.  If there were ever a time to avoid an increase in expenses for organizations such as ours it is now.

Unless there is a strong desire to discourage volunteer organizations such as the Friends of the Shenandoah River only the elimination of the proposed annual fees to organizations such as ours will head off that implication.

Voluntary citizen involvement in efforts to protect our rivers and streams is critical to the achievement of Clean Water goals of local, state and the Federal Government.  Don't make it more difficult.

Thank you.

Bernard C. Nagelvoort

Treasurer, FOSR

Sincerely,

Charles Vandervoort

Concerning Regulation [1 VAC 30 ? 45],  I have read through most of the text and although there are many sound ideas, I feel that these regulations would put undue hardship on mainly volunteer, limited budget, non-profit organizations.  The time, energy and money involved in compliance would, in my opinion, have a quelling effect on citizen monitoring efforts.  The results would be scaled back operations and perhaps even an end to some of these valuable citizen monitoring organizations.  The Commonwealth of Virginia is getting a great "deal" from these groups and any additional regulation should come after careful consideration, and at the very least, at no additional financial cost to these organizations.

Also, I am concerned that this seems to have moved forward suddenly, without public input.  I don't see any evidence of the steps DEQ has taken to help to assure quality.

Thank you,

Gary Lauben

Dear Mr. Adcock,

I am requesting that the Department of General Services open a public comment period so that the regulation regarding certification of non-commercial environmental labs can be openly discussed and potential negative impacts to volunteer citizen monitoring efforts can be assessed.  

Governor Kaine and the Department of Environmental Quality have made the support of volunteer citizen water quality monitoring efforts in Virginia a high priority during the last several years.  Adoption of the proposed regulations regarding laboratory certification requirements would prove a great challenge to the continuation of water monitoring efforts in the Commonwealth and be a complete contradiction of the Governor's mandates.  Costs associated with volunteer water monitoring efforts are already high and difficult to fund.  The addition of potentially higher costs for laboratory certification would have a huge negative impact.

Friends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River (FNFSR) has 30 volunteer water monitors that participate in a Shenandoah Basin wide water monitoring effort overseen by the Friends of the Shenandoah River.  We also are planning to expand our monitoring efforts to include bacteria assessment and benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring.  The laboratory run by Friends of the Shenandoah is the glue that holds the surface water monitoring program together and is an essential link to the expansion of FNFSR's monitoring efforts.  Cancellation of Department of Environmental Quality grant funding in 2007 has already impacted our current monitoring efforts and plans for expansion; the addition of further financial requirements will only create a further burden.  

Friends of the North Fork works with Friends of the Shenandoah not to replace DEQ monitoring efforts but to expand DEQ's reach to monitor more of Virginia's precious water resources. This combined basin wide monitoring effort is certified and accepted by DEQ and thus increases the amount of valuable data available for assessing Virginia's waterways at no expense to the Commonwealth.  We understand the importance of this data as well as the importance of quality assurance and control and good laboratory practices.  However, when formulating the regulations, it is essential to consider the financial impact that using a broad stroke approach to regulation will have on volunteer based organizations throughout Virginia.

Without adequate time and open discussion of the proposed lab certification regulations, these concerns will go unheard and unaddressed and thus may be the demise of volunteer water monitoring efforts throughout Virginia.  Please consider opeing a public comment period to discuss this regulation.

Thank you for your consideration,

Leslie Mitchell-Watson

Executive Director, Friends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River

540-459-8550

P O Box 746

Woodstock VA 2664

Leslie.watson@fnfsr.org

An exerpt from DCR document entitled Watershed Prioritization by Mr. Mark Bennett

"The opportunity to improve communication with the public is one of the strongest motivating factors for states to adopt a staewide watershed management approach.  By developing information plans and using methods that promote public involvement (e.g. educational meetings, workshops, citizen stream-monitoring) watershed management can increase public awareness for watershed related issues and facilitate responses to citizen concerns.  Watershed plans contribute to a more informed public, which can result in more realistic expectations regarding water management. "

To Whom It May Concern:

I am President of the Friends of the Shenandoah River, a citizens volunteer water quality monitoring group.  We work in conjunction with several other groups (the Friends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River, The Opequon Watershed, Friends of Page County....)  Our organization monitors 120 sites along the North Fork, the South Fork, and the Main Stem of the Shenandoah River.  The organization is deeply concerned with the proposed fees and I personally feel betrayed.

Our lab has been certified by DEQ and they use our published results as do many other important agencies, including the EPA.  We survive through our own fund raising efforts every year and the idea that we would have to pay fees to a private company for our on-going lab certification is absurd.  DEQ, a government agency, supports us and other water monitoring groups when it is able.  Last year after a 5% State budget reduction they pulled their grant (and all other grants to citizen water quality monitoring groups) off the table.  I am sure with the budget being what it is they will do the same this year. 

We rely on very dedicated volunteer monitors and with the price of everything, especially gasoline skyrocketing, it is difficult enough for everyone to be able to afford to volunteer.  Without our highly trained volunteers we could not exist. 

It seems counter intuitive to me to raise fees to volunteer organizations because all it is going to do is add yet another layer of difficulty for these organizations to follow their mission.  As I said above, many other organizations use our data but if these fees are imposed we might not be able to continue to supply that data. 

This proposal should be eliminated.  If it is, in fact, initiated, the signal sent to all water quality monitoring groups is that of discouragement.  All of these groups and myriad state and federal agencies have as their charter the achievement of goals of the Clean Water Act and the Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Act of 2010 and this proposal will do nothing to help anyone achieve those goals.

Respectfully submitted,  George L. Ohrstrom, II President - Friends of the Shenandoah River

      In looking over this proposed regulation, it seems there are many issues relating to citizen water monitoring efforts that warrant the state to reopen the public comment period.  Specifically, page 5 of the Final Regulation Agency Background Document states the JLARC study used as the basis to develop this regulation recommends the General Assembly "...consider studying the adoption of a laboratory certification program for laboratories wishing to conduct sample analyses for environmental permit holders..."  Citizen monitoring efforts in Virginia are not used for permitting purposes, enforcement, or regulatory actions.  The following quote is offered from the Code of Virginia § 62.1-44.19:11, Citizen water quality monitoring program.  "The results of such citizen monitoring shall not be used as evidence in any enforcement action."  This statement reinforces the fact that citizen data is not utilized for permitting, enforcement, and regulatory action.  As a result, any citizen monitoring group who submits data to the DEQ should be considered exempt from this regulation.

     Additionally, this regulation as currently written appears to conflict with the Code of Virginia § 62.1-44.19:11, Citizen water quality monitoring program and its 3000 river mile goal.  This conflict needs to be resolved before an effective regulation can be finalized.

     Finally, the DEQ has developed policies for its use of citizen monitoring data.  To throw out a system that many citzen monitoring groups accept for a process that charges fees to groups who have limited resources is ludicrous.  DCLS should stop trying to repeat the efforts already made by the DEQ.   

     This is another great example of what government waste really looks like.

Request the adoption of this regulation be postponed to allow for an adequate public comment period. Affected stakeholders were not adequately notified of this upcoming action in a timely manner, therefore many unanswered questions about how this regulation will affect citizen monitoring programs across Virginia remain.

Fees associated with this regulation will severly impact citizen monitoring programs.Citizen monitoring groups do not have the resources to support additional expenses; they barely have enough financial resources or operate now.

I respectfully request the Department of General Services postpone the adoption of this regulation to allow for an adequate comment period.

Any consideration given this request will be greatly appreciated.  Thank you.

Request adoption of this regulation be postponed to allow for an adequate public comment period. This regulation will severely impact citizen monitoring groups throughout Virginia.

Thank you for your consideration.

An extension of the public comment period for Regulations Governing the Certification of Non-Commercial Environmental Laboratories [1 VAC 30 - 45] is requested. These regulations have the potential to significantly affect water quality monitoring programs involving citizens as well as research laboratories at the state's universities. Consequently, more discussion would be very helpful prior to enactment of this regulation. 

I request the Department of General Services postpone the adoption ofthis regulation to allow for adequate time for public consideration and comment.

Lynda Hubbard

This regulation is confusing in many ways, one of which is the commercial/non-commercial lab designation of Virginia state college and university laboratories that collect and analyze water samples, and report the results of these analyses to Virginia DEQ.  In various sections of the regulation, it seems that a university/college lab could be considered either commercial or non-commercial, depending on who funds the work, and even those definitions aren't clear, leaving the distinction dangerously (for the labs involved) open to interpretation by someone else.  This distinction is more than academic, because whether a lab is classified as commercial or non-commercial involves substantially different certification procedures and fees.

The Lonesome Pine SWCD at their regular monthly meeting voted to request the Department of General Services postpone the adoption of this reglation {1 VAC 30-45} to allow for an adequate comment period.

I request that the period of public comment be extended to allow university laboratories to be considered as a special case.