University of
California at Davis
April 6-9, 2010
WAS THE AGENDA FOR THIS COURSE ADEQUATE AND DID IT MEET YOUR EXPECTATION
 | Excellent. Could have more time to talk about accreditation, forensic lab tour. |
| Exceeded my expectations. (2) |
| Yes. I think that it addressed everyone’s needs and concerns adequately. There were topics applicable to each person’s concern. |
| Yes, but wished they had an open method information group session. This would be a way for people to get help with issues they are having in their labs. People could submit their questions to a “box” by Tuesday, then on Thursday the planners would go through the questions and start a group solutions session. |
| Yes. (3) |
| I was very pleased with the agenda. It covered a variety of topics and had very good speakers. |
| Absolutely. It was a perfect mix of topics. All of which are directly applicable to our laboratory program. |
| The agenda actually exceeded my expectations. |
| Yes, it met expectations. I liked the state presentations, too, even though I am not a speaker! |
| Yes. I would have liked more discussion/roundtables similar to Day Two 10:45 AM topic. Enjoyed hearing about the states. |
| Yes - as an enforcement person this course opened my eyes considerably regarding the lab and the challenges faced. |
| Yes - very good! |
| Yes. It was very helpful to a new lab director. It helped create many relationships that will be very beneficial. |
| Yes, it was very informative and the connections I have made are extremely valuable. |
| Yes. The best training and networking I have ever had. My agency had to pay for my travel to this course. Time and resources well spent! A sincere thank you for the organizers - Suzanne, Dea and Jennifer, a fantastic job. Thank you for all your hard work! |
| Yes, it does. 1st accreditation session was very useful. The talk about estimating measurement uncertainty was informative and useful. Very good presentation. |
| Yes. It’s great to know what other states/regions are doing. |
| Yes, actually exceeded. Great information and contacts. |
| It was very good. The networking opportunity was fantastic - I now have a lot of new resources that I will feel very comfortable going to. |
| Excellent! I think this course exceeded my expectations. |
| Yes. Several of the sections, particularly the roundtable discussions, were very relevant to my job and will help improve the performance of myself and my lab. The sections on communication and PIRT needs were also very helpful. |
| Yes. Topics were timely, informative. It was a great benefit to hear other states challenges and what they are doing well. Great opportunity to network and meet others in same boat and those with different perspective. |
| Excellent - best thing to happen to FIFRA labs in years. I cannot state how effective this meeting was. This PREP course needs to happen every two years. A series of courses analogous to PIRT/PREP for labs needs to be developed. |
| Yes - a nice variety of subjects/topics. |
| Very well organized and thoughtful agenda. |
WHAT COULD THE PREP PLANNERS HAVE DONE TO MAKE THIS COURSE MORE USEFUL TO YOU?
| More of the Friday PM discussion - lots of opportunity for roundtable discussion - may not need as much formal presentations. Try to front-load state presentations, so hear them early in the program. |
| Everything was useful. |
| Not much - I came in not knowing much about the FIFRA program, leaving with much more knowledge. NYSDEC DSHM lab is not an Ag/commodity lab and as such does not have to deal with some of the issues discussed. |
| I don’t know. Perhaps survey previous participants for areas of interest/concern prior to planning? |
| Besides analytical methods, you could do a session on group training across regions. |
| I thought the course was well-planned and went very smoothly. |
| I can’t think of anything - it was all great! |
| The PREP planners did an excellent job in the preparation of the course material and the topics discussed were extremely useful to the participants. |
| I can think of nothing to improve this course at this time. |
| 17025 Interpretation of standards for FIFRA labs or could this be separate training session. |
| More discussion. |
| Nothing - they were 100% perfect! |
| Did a good job. |
| More detailed training on lab accreditation. Specific requirements/compare lab experiences. |
| Nothing. |
| More time for the field trip. PREP planners were more than accommodating. |
| Nothing, it was great networking with all of our colleagues. |
| I would appreciate more roundtable discussions. |
| Could easily make several PREP courses from the topics covered here. |
| Actually have gotten into the method validation information/discussion. Next time, right? No one ever came out and said what the cost of getting ISO 17025 actually was for them. |
| Don’t see how! |
IF THIS COURSE WAS TO BE HELD AGAIN IN THE FUTURE, CAN YOU SUGGEST FACULTY WHO COULD SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVE THE AGENDA?
| Dea. |
| John Yoshida - Explore How to Fix Quality Issues in Face of Dwindling Resources (A CDOJ lab case history type of thing). |
| I think almost any participant could propose a faculty to lend a specific perspective or expertise depending on focus/need. |
| Adrian Burns, EPA Formulations, AAPCO, AAFCO, etc. |
| If you could include laboratory exercises such as the pesticide workshops held by NEIC in the past on different pesticide groups. |
| Dr. Seiber and Beth Mishalanie’s continued participation would be invaluable. |
| Martha Lamont, Director PDP, USDA/AMS |
| Not at the moment. |
| Not faculty - tell how R5 got to where they are. How did they do it? Are there other ways of training? |
| Doug Marsh was great, Beth Mishalanie was great, industry speaker was great; Dea was great and interactive. |
| Not sure that FQS was the right fit for accreditation discussion. Might be too far into the crime lab area and less accessible then A2LA or NELAC. |
| Accreditation assessors discussing experience with FIFRA labs. |
| Not sure. Having regional EPA attendants was very helpful. |
| Please, please, please hold the course again in the future! 11 years is too long to wait! |
| It is well organized and the agenda is good. I would like to see more laboratory related topics. |
| Not at this point. They would need to decide during the organization season. However it is imperative that the course be repeated on a yearly basis. There should be a third type of training by EPA (1. PREP, 2. PIRT, 3. LAB). There is no other venue for FIFRA lab directors to meet where travel is paid by EPA and to discuss lab administrations. |
| Dea and Suzanne did a great job. Maybe a BEAD or OPP leader. Speakers were great, covered nice variety of materials. |
| Possibly bring in someone who handles product registration (RD), e.g. Debbie McCall re: registration requirements for products. Possibly bring in someone who handles soil/water requirements (EFED). |
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
| ISO-17025 - many questions now answered/glossed over - will take money and people - concrete answers would have been useful. That said, still a very useful presentation. |
| I was/am truly grateful for the opportunity to be a part of this course. In one short week I have gained insight, perspective, contacts, and resources that are invaluable. |
| Need less administration rules talks and more practice/use talks. Include an afternoon for group training on new methodology or instrumentation advances. Have a lab close to Davis and host it. Could be HPLC/MSMS or GC-MSMS but we need more information here. Future training needs to go out on Ag labs please! |
| Always helpful to me to meet with people from other labs to find out what is going on in other states. |
| The course was extremely well organized. State of the lab presentations were great. Thank you very much Dea, Suzanne and Jennifer. You did an outstanding job! |
| This course should be offered more often. In my opinion, many SLA labs are not really interested in lab functions. Don’t try to pair SLAs and lab personnel but instead have separate meetings for each group. This is the only forum available for many lab directors. The costs are covered by federal funds so attendees should always be good. I have enjoyed meeting with other FIFRA labs. The information and contacts I have made will be used now and in very practical ways. Thanks for the opportunity! |
| We did not cover the validation portion of the agenda. |
| This type of course (lab specific) should be held more frequently. Might be good to pull some more program people in for discussion. Could this course be done in 3 days? Travel Monday and Friday. |
| Perhaps a hybrid of risk control and lab issues including med. toxicology people to get into the question of “what does a sample result mean?” |
| Subjects for future: Repository of Methods, “Q,” Nanotechnology. |
| I think this format with lab managers is unique and valuable. The networking and relationships become resources for the long term. I would like to see more of this type of course in the future. |
| Thank you very much for the opportunity to attend this course. Great job! |
| Perhaps the most valuable part of this course occurs outside the formal sessions. The networking opportunities here were tremendous. |
| Well done. Excellent planning, logistics. |
| Lawyers were a nice addition. State presentations were helpful and informative. Best use of EPA funds in a long time. |
| I am so glad that I was able to attend this course! Thank you for all of Dea’s, Suzanne’s, etc’s hard work in putting it on! It is much appreciated! |
| Need to include lab issues PREP on a more regular basis. One every 11 years is too long. |