1. TNI Advocacy Program Update AURORA SHIELDS

2. ADVOCACY COMMITTEE  Judy Duncan  Marlene Moore  Kenneth Jackson  Barbara Finazzo  Kevin Coast  Lara Autry  Gary Ward  Susan Wyatt  Jim Pletl  Zonetta English  Andy Eaton  Michael Wichman  Jerry Parr  Michael Perry  Robert Wyeth  Aurora Shields

3. TNI Vision All entities generating environmental data in the United States will be accredited to consensus national standards.

4. Advocacy Committee Charter  Establish relationships with trade organizations that have an interest in accreditation issues,  Establish relationships with EPA program offices,  Develop presentations and papers to promote national accreditation, and  Develop presentations and papers to promote TNI.  Assist with publication of the newsletter.

5. Member Demographics Commercial laboratories: 39% State agencies: 15% EPA: 3% Other Federal Agencies: 3% Vendors: 7% PT Providers: 4% Other: 4% Regulated industry: 3% Municipalities: 22%

6. 2007 PRESENTATIONS  Region 6 QA Conference October  EPA Quality Conference  New York/Pennsylvania Association of Accredited Laboratories  Midwest Environmental Laboratory Summit  EPA:  OAR  OIG  OSW  OW  FEM  OEI  Texas Trade Fair  DOE Consolidated Audit Program  DOD Environmental Monitoring & Data Quality Workshop  Edison Electric Institute  AWWA California-Nevada Section meeting  AWWA / WEF / NACWA  Florida Society of Environmental Analysts  NACWA Pretreatment Meeting

7. Outreach Efforts: Trade Associations  Small focus group meetings with representatives from:  American Council of Independent Laboratories (ACIL)  Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL)  American Water Works Association (AWWA)  Water Environment Federation (WEF)  National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA)  “Non-NELAP” states

8. ACIL Feedback  Endorses NELAP accreditation.  All environmental data should come from accredited laboratories.  The rigor of the standard should not be based on the size of the lab but on the use of the data.  There is a need for help of small organizations.  Support for scaled implementation models

9. AWWA Feedback  Cost of implementation is high.  Too difficult for small laboratories.  Frequency, cost and type of PTs is an issue.  Standard should specify the minimum requirements for data quality.  Data of known and documented quality is a benefit.  One uniform requirement for accreditation to deal with lack of consistency issues caused by EPA program offices.  Supports the concept of national accreditation.

10. APHL Feedback  Strong support for EPA to become an accrediting authority or at least EPA oversight of the state laboratories.  They need accreditation for all programs.  Supports the concept of national accreditation.

11. WEF Feedback  The standards should be developed to support data quality.  Support a national program based on quality systems and performance approach.  NELAC can not demonstrate cost benefit.  Small laboratories are overwhelmed with administrative requirements.  The program should have EPA oversight.  Supports the concept of national accreditation.

12. Non-NELAP State Feedback  Issues with consistency and stability of NELAC as an organization.  Not clear that the NELAC standard results or improves data quality.  Statuary authority issues having to do with fees and the use of those fees.  Too much work for a state with no resources.  No support from constituency.  Legislative difficulties.

13. Focus Group: Water Laboratories  By far, the largest group of laboratories that is currently not accredited to NELAC standard.  Includes drinking water and wastewater laboratories.  Municipal, industrial, and commercial laboratories.  First Focus Group meeting was conducted August 2007 with AWWA, WEF, and NACWA

14. Preliminary Outcomes AWWA, WEF, NACWA  Continue broad-based outreach efforts with trade associations.  Conduct Focus Group meetings on potential changes needed to accreditation and standard approach to better meet their needs.  Take results to appropriate committees in TNI.

15. Outreach Efforts: EPA  NELAC Special Committee letter in 2006  TNI letter to EPA in 2006  TNI meetings in 2007  Office of Solid Waste  Office of Water  Forum on Environmental Measurements (FEM)  Office of Inspector General  Office of Environmental Information  Office of Air  Primary focus of meetings was to introduce TNI and indicate willingness to harmonize efforts and meet program needs

16. Preliminary Outcomes: EPA  FEM designated EPA liaison to serve on TNI Board of Directors.  Barbara Finazzo, Region 2  EPA regions will provide individuals to serve as evaluators of ABs.  EPA will provide support for an evaluator coordinator for the next round of AB evaluations.

17. Preliminary Outcomes: EPA  Mutual interest in harmonizing drinking water certification program with TNI efforts. (See letter from EPA OW and Mike Shapiro’s presentation at the EMNC Boston)  Continued active participation of EPA staff in TNI activities.  Opened discussions with the EPA Office of Air about audit program for entities analyzing air samples.

18. FUTURE PLANS  Continue outreach efforts with trade organizations, EPA, other Federal Agencies, and states.  Outreach efforts to laboratories.  Promote the TNI standard for field activities and identify and meet with potential users.  Collect data about the benefits of national accreditation.  Focus on internal communications!  Newsletter  Website content