NEWS SOCIETY Uniform accreditation standards for environmental labs advance at NELAC meeting After approving a constitution and the major provisions of three standards at its annual meeting, the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC), a voluntary association of state and federal officials, moved closer to its goal of developing national performance standards for environmental laboratories. Once finalized, the standards will make it easier for laboratories to operate across state lines, improve data quality, and reduce the oversight responsibilities of state regulators. Establishing the conference was first discussed in 1990, when laboratory owners and regulators agreed that the lack of uniform collection, testing, and analytical protocol led to uneven data quality. The call for national standards "was a bold and very necessary step" taken by the private sector and the states, said NELAC Executive Secretary Ted Coopwood. The group comprises regulators, state and U.S. territory representatives officials from seven federal agencies and nonvoting private sector labs and consultants Coopwood said At the second annual meeting in Washington, D.C., in late July, NELAC members approved partial standards governing on-site assessment, quality systems, and the accreditation process for the labs, according to NELAC Director Jeanne Mourrain. More controversial sections of the standards were withdrawn for revision and a vote later this year. "There wasn't anything that couldn't be worked out," Mourrain said. Included in the on-site assessment standard is a description of the essential elements of an assessment and the qualifications for on-site inspectors. For example, on-site assessments of accredited laboratories must be done every two years. If a deficiency is discovered, follow-up assessments are required. ISO 25 standards, which have been accepted by the European
NELAC achievements The National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference agreed to almost 70% of three standards designed to establish uniformity among environmental laboratory procedures. Highlights of its second annual meeting include: • Approval of new constitution and conference bylaws • Approval of partial standards covering on-site assessments, quality systems, and the accreditation process for the laboratories • Charles Borkopp, Utah Department of Health, elected as the new conference chair • Subcommittee established to review the accreditation role of the private sector
community for laboratory accreditation, have been incorporated, witri some revisions, into trie quality systems standard approved by NELAC, said Mourrain. NELAC also agreed, in general,
on the process for lab accreditation. To receive accreditation, each lab must complete an application tailored to meet the specific state regulatory requirements needed for accreditation within that state. Three standards were tabled for future consideration, Mourrain said—one each on the proficiency testing program, program policy and structure, and standards for the accrediting authorities. The three-day meeting had a healthy representation from 46 states. Although the standardvoting process went smoothly, at least one issue remains unresolved. Several private sector companies have pushed for the authority to act as a third-party accreditation body. But NELAC voted against this, agreeing by a large margin that accreditation power should remain with the government. Still, NELAC said, the companies can work as contractors to the regulators by performing on-site assessments. The private sector firms do not want to be left out of the accreditation process so a subcommitNELAC's governing board has been established to discuss an expanded role for the private sector NELAC will hold an interim meeting this winter. —CATHERINE M. COONEY
Lawsuit urges action on U.S. "Great Waters" Three environmental groups have sued EPA for failing to determine whether new emissions controls are required to protect the nation's "Great Waters." In a suit filed July 18 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation, and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation charged that EPA has failed to protect the ecosystems of the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, Lake Champlain, and certain coastal waters, by not implementing provisions in the Clean Air Act. Numerous studies have shown that pollutants including dioxin, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), can travel great distances, persist in the environment, and bioaccumulate. The Clean Air Act requires that by
1993, EPA report on any studies of air pollution's effects on the Great Waters and determine if the act's provisions adequately protect human health and the waters. If not, EPA should recommend new emissions controls. In 1994 EPA submitted its first report to Congress. Because "uncertainties in current information are significant," the agency declined to address whether the act's toxic air pollution control provisions provide adequate protection, the report said. Although the agency is working on its second report on the Great Waters, agency researchers warn that there are still wide data gaps, including a lack of information identifying the origin of the deposition. —CATHERINE M. COONEY
VOL. 30, NO. 9, 1996 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 3 8 7 A
