|
Article written by Thomas V. Coyner, President, Analytical Products Group
Complete Article from Edition 10 APG eNewsletter
Since the implementation of NELAC several years ago, the NELAC Proficiency Testing
System has been an issue for laboratories, states, USEPA, and
the PT providers. Everyone involved in the process has
a different set of issues and it is difficult to coordinate an effective forum to
accomplish program revisions.
Moving Forward
That is all changing thanks to Lara Autry, Executive Director of NELAC. Lara
has been working with USEPA Office of Water, NIST, the states, PT providers,
and the laboratories to tackle the tough issues inherent in the PT program.
This effort started with a meeting in Cincinnati, Ohio between USEPA, NIST, and
the PT providers in August of 2003. This was followed by a second meeting between the States, laboratories, USEPA and NELAC
in November at Research Triangle Park (RTP) in North Carolina. Progress is being made
and a third meeting is scheduled for the joint NELAC INLEA meeting in January 2004.
First Meeting: Cincinnati, Ohio
During the first meeting, NIST committed to extending their program to include
the NELAC extended WS and WP parameters. This means that NELAC would only need
to find an accreditation body for the hazardous waste area. Issues were also
raised about the approval of A2LA as a NELAC Proficiency Testing Oversight Body (PTOB).
In a subsequent notice, A2LA's approval was placed on hold for the moment. Also during
this meeting, USEPA Office Water agreed with NIST and NELAC on improvements to the
PT accreditation process. Concerns were expressed about the effort to update the
EPA/NELAC laboratory acceptance limits because currently good laboratories are
failing as the result of poorly developed limits.
Second Meeting: Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
The second meeting at RTP, focused on the identification of
laboratory and state issues with the PT programs. The laboratories
expressed concern over the effective sharing of information between NELAC
Primary and Secondary Accrediting Authorities. They were concerned with the expense and
the need for multiple accreditations because of inconsistent state programs. The states
were concerned about the consistency of provider's electronic data. They also had
issues with receiving sufficient information to verify the quality of the
data they were receiving from the PT providers. There was a long discussion
of the roles and responsibilities of the new NELAC PT Board.
Looking Forward
I think that the general consensus was that the PT Board would play a critical role in
the resolution of many of the PT issues. Mike Miller, the Chair of the
PT Board, was present for the meeting and explained the status of the
activities of this important new group. A third meeting will be
held during the INELA/NELAC meeting to update everyone on the progress that
is being made.
Please forward and questions or concerns to NELAC and Lara Autry. You may also send your questions or feedback to Thomas Coyner.
|
