ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS National laboratory accreditation program moves forward SCIENCE • W o u l d less frequent pesticide monitoring be better? 70A • M i c r o b e thrives on arsenic, 70A • O z o n e hole effects documented in UN report, 71A •Sequential use of disinfectants shown to kill Cryptosporidium, 71A TECHNOLOGY •California technology certification a national model? 72A •Titanium-coated zeolite for removing plutonium, 73A GOVERNMENT • N e w European recycling rules to curb German efforts, 74A •Low-emission vehicles approved for Northeast states, 74A SOCIETY • N a t i v e American office established at EPA, 75A •Environmental worries rank high for students, 75A
A
fter five years of planning and discussion, a proposal for a system for national accreditation of environmental laboratories will be thrown open to public debate at an EPA-sponsored meeting February 14-16. A national accreditation program would make it easier for laboratories to operate nationwide and would set up strict performance testing of laboratories. The proposed accreditation program, drafted by a focus group made up of EPA and state experts, would establish a National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) for setting standards. The group has also proposed an initial set of standards based on ISO 25 guidelines (see Federal Register, 1994, 59, p. 62178). This structure was developed from recommendations of the Committee on National Accreditation of Environmental Laboratories, a group of representatives from laboratories, academia, federal and state agencies, environmental groups, and private accrediting bodies. The proposed accreditation system is a voluntary program that would be implemented by the states, says EPA's Jeanne Hankins Mourrain, vice chair of the focus group. States would be free to use or reject standards set by NELAC. According to a number of sources, it is uncertain how many states will participate in NELAC or even attend the February meeting in Arlington, VA, which is expected to attract representatives of environmental laboratories, federal and state EPA offices, and state agencies, as well as the general public. Without specific legislation, says Mourrain, "There is no way to require states to participate." States that choose to partici-
6 8 A • VOL. 29, NO. 2, 1995 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
pate in the program could accredit laboratories through a state agency or through a contract with a third party. EPA would oversee the state programs and inspect state and federal laboratories, but which EPA office would take the lead is still not clear, says Mourrain. The national system would supplant the current program of narrowly defined accreditations and inspections under different programs covering topics such as drinking water and radon. As proposed, NELAC would consist of two voting bodies. The House of Representatives would be composed of a representative of each participating state and two representatives—one federal, one state—nominated by each of the seven federal EPA offices. All other federal and state officials actively engaged in accreditation would join a House of Delegates. Simple majorities of both Houses are required to approve standards. The voluntary nature of the program worries the laboratory community. "The states need in-
Establishing standards EPA's proposal for a National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) would establish a self-supporting body to: • modify or create new requirements for national accreditation of environmental laboratories, • provide EPA with the standards for approving state authorities that implement accreditation programs, • set requirements for the training and experience of laboratory inspectors, and • provide a mechanism for laboratories, industry, and interested parties to advise EPA and NELAC on accreditation issues.
0013-936X/95/0929-68AS09.00/0 © 1995 American Chemical Society
centives to accept the standards," says Linda Christenson, executive director of the International Association of Environmental Testing Laboratories (Arlington, VA). A key element for laboratories is reciprocity: participating states would permit labs that were accredited by other states to operate. Under the current system, labs must gain accreditation from each state in which they want to operate. States could still impose supplemental requirements such as performance evaluation for certain drinking-water analytes. Matt Caruso, technical director for New York's environmental laboratory approval program, thinks that states will accept the accreditation process. "We are fairly positive on the proposal," he says. Those states that do not participate in the program could accept accreditation from a state like New York without setting up their own bureaucracy. "It would create a level playing field" for environmental laboratories, Caruso points out. Those states that do accredit would charge a fee that would cover the costs of certification, says Caruso. "The assistant and associate administrators have signed off on the draft standards," says Mourrain, "with the clear understanding that there could be major changes ahead." Christenson says that laboratories would really prefer international reciprocity, which she says Canadian laboratories now enjoy. The key is to adopt ISO 25 guidelines, an issue she expects to be discussed at the February meeting. Christenson says that the industry is also concerned about not having a vote. In response, the International Association of Environmental Testing Laboratories and others in the industry have formed a separate advisory board that could give them a unified voice at NELAC. Christenson and others predict that accreditation is still a few years away from implementation. —ALAN NEWMAN
Environmental legislation faces tough ride in 1995
A
tough and uncertain ride awaits environmental legislation and regulations, according to interviews, press accounts, and rumors, as the new Republican Congress took over the reins of leadership in January. Superfund, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Water Act are among top legislative priorities of high-ranking members for the first year of the new Congress, say Republican congressional sources. But they note that other proposals may push their way to the top of the agenda. First out of the block, congressional staff say, will be legislation to reflect the Republicans' "Contract With America" proposal as well as legislation to freeze new regulations. The freeze would pull in the "bull market" for environmental regulations, according to House staff, while Congress considers legislation to require tougher review of regulations. Among environmentally related provisions, the Republicans' Contract calls for added costbenefit analyses and risk assessments for new regulations, creation of peer review panels with veto authority for expensive regulations, an end to unannounced environmental and safety industrial inspections, and a broad range of private property protections. The new Congress is also expected to focus on "editing" current laws and new regulations through appropriations and oversight. For instance, staff note that one of the Bush administration's key antiregulatory leaders, David Mcintosh, former executive director of the Vice President's Council on Competitiveness, now is an elected representative from Indiana and chair of the House Government Reform and Oversight
Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs. Staff expect this committee and Mcintosh to lead an examination of the impact of environmental regulations. Also, staff say, Congress may consider legislation to freeze regulations, restrict unfunded mandates, and require cost-benefit/ risk analysis early in the session, rather than turn to traditional multi-title, media-specific reauthorizations. These smaller bills, however, could have a major impact on environmental regulations and laws, staff say. For instance, enacting a "super-mandate" bill now under discussion could avoid a congressional battle to eliminate the Delaney Clause, according to House Commerce Committee staff. Instead, staff say, the legislation would require that "incremental cost of a regulation be reasonably related to its benefit," and by superseding other laws, the super-mandate bill would in effect kill Delaney's no-safe-level provisions for carcinogens. For its part, the Clinton administration has said it will step up its regulatory reform activities and has announced its intention to rely on regulations rather than new legislation. How this will play in the new Congress is unclear as the new Republican congressional leadership takes over. Also unclear is what influence environmentalists will have over this debate. As one long-time House Republican staff member says, "Our guys have always gotten zeros from the League of Conservation Voters. We're immune to any threat. We're ready for any political flak we may get because it hasn't made any difference to us in the past." —JEFF JOHNSON
VOL. 29, NO. 2, 1995 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY • 6 9 A
