Mar 26, 2015
ORELAP Statutes (excerpts):“Accrediting authority” means the official accrediting authority for the Oregon environmental laboratory accreditation program comprised of the Director of Human Services or designee, the Director of the Department of Environmental Quality or designee and the Director of Agriculture or designee.
438.610 Standards for accreditation; rules. (1) The Department of Human Services, in concurrence with the accrediting authority, may adopt by rule standards for any laboratory seeking accreditation and performing environmental testing for a fee or for determining compliance with environmental statutes, rules or regulations.
(2) In developing standards under subsection (1) of this section, the department shall cooperate with and may seek advice from the United States Environmental Protection Agency and any other state or federal agency that may have adopted rules or regulations for environmental monitoring.
(3) The standards adopted under this section may address testing and sampling procedures or methods, record keeping, disposal or retention of testing materials or samples, or any other practice related to work performed by an environmental laboratory. [1999 c.1063 §2]
438.615 Environmental laboratory accreditation program; rules. The Department of Human Services, in concurrence with the accrediting authority, shall establish by rule and implement an environmental laboratory accreditation program. The standards for accreditation may be equivalent to, but may not exceed, standards adopted by national accreditation programs. [1999 c.1063 §3]
Beth MeyersBert SeierstadBill MichalekJohn NeilsonKeith ChapmanDave Leland
Dan HickmanIrene RonningRita YouellGreg PettitMike Skeels
ORELAP Work Group 2009
Purpose of ORELAPCharacteristics of a Successful ORELAP Current Problems with ORELAP SolutionsNext Steps
Improve quality of laboratory testing
Improve the quality of information for policy & decision making
Give consumer & the public protection, & confidence in test results so regulatory actions are appropriate & the public is protected.
Purpose of ORELAP
Private laboratories can be competitive for out-of-state business
Encourage development of statewide lab capacity
Create a level playing field for statewide lab quality
Support EPA drinking water certification with primacy & future program mandates
Beneficial to Oregonians
Oregon labs can use or refer to out-of-state labs recognized by ORELAP to offer all services for testing
Characteristics of a Successful ORELAP
Efficient, timely, responsive, simple & effective
Comprehensive but flexible
Mandatory compliance monitoring for permitting programs & official reporting programs
Viewed as value added for the participating laboratories
A functional & effective appeals process
Consistent with national standards
Money is well spent and program is cost effective for accrediting body, labs & consumers
Offer training to labs
Characteristics of a Successful ORELAP
Current Problems with ORELAP
Turn around Time (TAT) & responsiveness
ORELAP does not follow its own timelines for audit response or corrective action response
During the exit interview not all deficiencies are explained to the lab manager & staff so that they can start working on corrections
Auditing consistency between survey years, laboratories & surveyors
Fiscal sustainability
Overly prescriptive standards and/or interpretation
The first answer is usually “no” when alternate options are asked to be considered
E-mails and phone calls are not always answered or returned
An effective appeals process is needed; an interactive, mutually respectful interchange with no fear of retaliation.
OTAC has a process for participating laboratories to bring technical & other issues for review but it is not very effective. Wrong mix of representation on OTAC.
Current Problems with ORELAP
Unkept promises related to efficiencies & electronic application. Program has lost credibility with the participating labs
Poor communication
Program is very complex for the small lab
ORELAP is not always consistent with EPA requirements
Current Problems with ORELAP
Process for applications, adding methods & generating fees is inefficient & cumbersome
Solutions Look for system solutions
Better communication between ORELAP & labs
TAT from ORELAP; approval is automatic if state does not meet their deadlines
Consequences for the state if they fail to meet deadlines
The lab should not be penalized if state fails to meet deadlines
Grant interim accreditation based on completed application & acceptable proficiency testing performance
Solutions
Reduce cost of program by fewer individuals on survey & less time spent writing up findings
Consider tiered accreditation
Differences between EPA, ORELAP & NELAP need to be identified & shared
Improve role for OTAC with better representation from accredited labs
Improve access to ORELAP staff
Improve program management & oversight
Automate & streamline on-line application & other program functions
Use alerts, out-reach & education to inform of changes in standards
Independent appeals process
Regular evaluation of the ORELAP QM process by participants
Solutions
Financial Issues
ORELAP Financial Update April 2009July 1, 2007 – February 28, 2009 (20 months)
ExpendituresIn-state labs $ 401,682Out-of-state labs 161,495
TOTAL $ 563,177
RevenueORELAP in-state fees $ 108,756ORELAP out-of-state fees 243,933Federal Drinking Water funds 180,054
TOTAL $ 532,743
Difference ($ 30,434)
Next Steps
Create a balanced & sustainable budget
Decrease expenses for on-site assessments
Continue drinking water federal funding
Increase fees for out-of-state labs
Reduce personnel expenses through administrative efficiencies
Eliminate DEQ subsidy of DW primacy
Next Steps
Create dynamic website linked to database
Improved service to labs
Significant administrative streamlining
Improve communications with labs
Revamp and revitalize OTAC
Better responsiveness and TAT
Improve management oversight & QA
More proactive communication with labs
Questions?