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?