Accreditation of Laboratory and Field Activities

for Water Quality Monitoring

 

Text Box: ü Laboratory accreditation, using internationally accepted standards for a comprehensive array of environmental work, is an effective way of promoting uniform competence among laboratories. ü An independent accreditation can affirm that adequate quality systems are in place and that a laboratory meets established standards for competence. ü The use of uniform standards enhances our ability to make sound decisions, take appropriate remedial action, and protect human health and the environment. ü Implementation of standards may substantially reduce the costs associated with obtaining various accreditations. ü Rigorous, consistent accreditation standards can be a critical tool in providing resource agencies with comparable data that can be used in evaluating the performance of environmental programs. The National Water Quality Monitoring Council (NWQMC), and its predecessor, the Interagency Task Force on Monitoring, recognized that poor or unknown data quality impedes our ability to use environmental information effectively. Data of known quality enhances our ability to make sound decisions, take appropriate remedial action, and protect human health and the environment.

 

There has been the notion that “following the method” ensures data of known quality, however, a method is simply one key component of a water-quality monitoring program. Many of the important components of a water-quality monitoring program, including: instrumentation and equipment calibration, personnel performance and training, quality assurance and quality control procedures, record-keeping systems, data review processes, and methodologies may be evaluated by an independent party through an accreditation process. Accreditation is the independent assessment of a laboratory or field program’s technical competence and quality system. 

 

The Methods Board prepared a position paper, “Accreditation of Federal Laboratories for Water Quality Monitoring”, because it recognized that the current accreditation process needs improvement. The position paper proposed three major recommendations (see box below) based on a comprehensive evaluation of: federal laboratory accreditation needs; the types of laboratory accreditation standards available and used throughout North America; and the types of programs currently accrediting laboratories for water quality analyses. These recommendations were endorsed by the Advisory Council on Water Information (ACWI) in April 2002.  Based on the information evaluated, The National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) is the preferred accreditation body for laboratories involved in water monitoring.

Text Box: Recommendations endorsed by ACWI concerning Federal laboratory accreditation: (ACWI is the parent organization of the NWQMC and the Methods Board and is an inter-organizational FACA-chartered group that represents all levels of the government and the private sector.) 1. All federal agencies (and commercial laboratories employed by federal agencies) performing routine analytical water testing, as part of compliance or ambient monitoring programs, be accredited under a recognized program, in order to better establish comparability of data and to meet the data needs of specific federal agency programs. Each agency should evaluate the cost of implementing this recommendation as it applies to their individual situation. 2. NELAP is the Board’s recommended program because NELAP adequately meets (or is taking measures that meet) the broad needs of the majority of federal agencies performing water testing. Specifically, it is focused on uniform accreditation requirements across states, state reciprocity (and therefore, potentially reduced accreditation costs for labs operating in several states), and it allows Federal as well as state accrediting authorities. For NELAP to serve as a satisfactory accrediting program for federal laboratories, NELAP needs to continue its efforts to: • Obtain more state participation and reciprocity • Address standards for ambient monitoring, field sample collection, and field measurements • Promote the development of PBMS implementation 3. The MDCB will periodically re-evaluate NELAP’s suitability to serve as a national accreditation program in order to: (1) review the status of their progress in the aforementioned efforts, and (2) encourage state, federal, and private participation in NELAP.

In the past year, since these recommendations were endorsed by ACWI, significant progress has been made in terms of NELAP’s ability to address the needs of laboratory accreditation.  The recent structural reorganization of NELAP, including the formation of the separate standards development body INELA (Institute for National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation), is viewed as a positive step in achieving more consistent accreditation standards across a broader range of water quality monitoring methods.  Since the ACWI recommendations were endorsed, three additional states (Connecticut, Georgia, and Michigan) now recognize and accept NELAP accreditation, further promoting consistent laboratory accreditation standards throughout the U.S.  Finally, NELAP is beginning to address many of the outstanding issues raised in the Position Paper recommendations.  For example, standards for field methods are being developed (Chapter 7 of the NELAC standards) and important aspects of a performance-based systems approach are being incorporated in the revised standard for quality systems (Chapter 5 of the NELAC standards). 

The Methods Board is currently involved in three activities to assure data of known quality through use of uniform accreditation practices: 1) assessment of the implementation of the Federal Laboratories accreditation recommendations; 2) development of a position paper on the accreditation of state laboratories; and 3) participating on the INELA work group for field method accreditation standards development.