EPA747-R-96-010
November 1996
SURVEY OF STATE LEAD LABORATORY ACCREDITATION PROGRAMS
Technical Program Branch
Chemical Management Division
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington DC 20460
-------
The material in this document has been subject to Agency technical and policy review and approved
for publication as an EPA report. Mention of trade names, products, or services does not convey,
and should not be interpreted as conveying, official EPA approval, endorsement, or recommendation.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to recognize the assistance of Doug Farquhar, National Conference of State
Legislatures, for his support in the survey efforts.
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 2
1.1 Background on the National Lead Laboratory Accreditation
Program (NLLAP) 2
1.2 Requirements for the Use of NLLAP Recognized
Laboratories 2
1.3 Study Objectives 3
2.0 CONCLUSIONS 4
2.1 Lead in Paint Chips, Dust, and Soil Programs 4
2.2 Solid Environmental Media for Metals Programs 4
2.3 Drinking Water or Waste Water Programs 5
2.4 General Summary of Results 5
3.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE 10
3.1 Assurance of Appropriate Respondent Contact 10
3.2 Advance Mailing of Questionnaire and NLLAP Brochure ... 10
3.3 Comment Review and Follow-up 11
3.4 Numeric Review and Follow-up 11
4.0 STUDY DESIGN 12
4.1 Respondent Identification and Notification 12
4.2 Survey Questionnaire Design 12
5.0 INTERVIEWER TRAINING AND DATA COLLECTION 13
5.1 Training 13
5.2 Data Collection 13
6.0 DATA ANALYSIS 14
6.1 Analysis and Graphic Presentation 14
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 State Preferences for Lead Laboratory Accreditation Programs .... 8
2 State Preferences for Lead Laboratory Accreditation Programs .... 9
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
TELEPHONE SURVEY INSTRUMENT A-l
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report contains the results of a survey of the 50 states and the District of Columbia on
laboratory accreditation issues pertaining to the analysis of paint chips, dust, and soil for lead. The
primary goals of the survey were to determine the number of states that already had an accreditation
program in place which covered the analysis of paint chip, dust and soil samples for lead, and if states
planned to utilize the EPA National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program (NLLAP) as part of
their state lead program.
The survey data were collected by interviewing each state lab director by telephone. A great
deal of care was taken to ensure the appropriate respondent was contacted for the interview, this is,
someone who could properly speak for the state on lead laboratory accreditation issues. The
response rate was 100%; survey data were collected from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The primary responses from the survey about current and planned state-level laboratory
accreditation include:
• Eighty percent of states* were familiar with NLLAP.
• Almost 50 percent of the states* currently utilize the NLLAP program for laboratories
in their state.
• Sixty-seven percent, or 34 states*, indicated their intent to utilize either NLLAP or
establish an NLLAP-equivalent laboratory accreditation program in their state lead
program.
• Forty-two states* responded that they currently operate or manage a laboratory
accreditation program for drinking water/waste water, 15 responded that they operate
an accreditation program for metals in solid media, and 6 responded that they have
an accreditation program for analysis of paint chip, dust, and soil samples for lead.
• A total of 19 states* (37 percent) with a metal or drinking water/waste water
accreditation program indicated that their programs were adaptable to the laboratory
analysis of paint chip, dust, and soil samples for lead.
When the word "state" is used throughout this report it includes the 50 states and Washington, D.C.
1
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background on the National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program (NLLAP)
Since its inception, EPA has been interested in the issue of environmental laboratory
accreditation and quality assurance practices. NLLAP was established by the EPA Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) under the legislative directive of section 405(b) of Title X of the
Housing and Community development Act of 1992. NLLAP recognizes laboratories which have
demonstrated the ability to accurately analyze for lead in paint chip, dust, and soil samples associated
with the abatement and control of lead-based paint. In order for laboratories to be NLLAP
recognized (or "EPA recognized" for the analysis of lead in paint chip, dust and soil samples) they
must:
1. Successfully participate in the Environmental Lead Proficiency Analytical Testing
(ELPAT) Program and;
2. Undergo a systems audit.
The ELPAT Program is administered by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)
in conjunction with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). In order for
laboratories to successfully participate in NLLAP, their performance rating by NIOSH must be
"acceptable", having analyzed 75% of the proficiency test samples within the established sample lead
concentrations limits. The four ELPAT test rounds per year are administered on a quarterly basis.
Matrices covered in the testing are paint chips, dust wipes and soils.
The systems audit must be conducted by private or public laboratory accreditation
organization recognized by NLLAP through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with EPA
OPPT. An on-site visit is also required as a part of the systems audit. Some of the areas evaluated
in the audit include laboratory personnel qualifications, analytical instrumentation, quality assurance
procedures, and facility record keeping procedures. All laboratories participating in NLLAP must
undergo a systems audit at a minimum of once every three years.
1.2 Requirements for the Use of NLLAP Recognized Laboratories
On August 29, 1996 402 Rule, "Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities in Target
Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities" was promulgated. The 402 Rule requires that upon August
30,1999, for states or tribes without authorized programs, that all lead-based paint inspections, risk
assessments and abatements must be conducted by certified contractors and must be conducted
according to the standards in the 402 Rule. The 402 Rule requires any paint chip, dust or soil samples
collected by certified contractors as a part of their lead-based paint inspections, risk assessments and
abatements be sent for analysis to a laboratory recognized by EPA under the National Lead
Laboratory Accreditation Program (NLLAP).
-------
It is important to note that irrespective of the August 30, 1999 date for state/tribal compliance
to the 402 Rule, laboratories are subject to current state1 requirements for laboratory analyses. In
example, if a state currently requires lead-based paint inspectors to use EPA/NLLAP recognized
laboratories for all samples collected from target housing in their state, the laboratories utilized for
sample analyses must meet that requirement. There are states which do have such requirements
currently in place.
The use of NLLAP laboratories may also be required by grant/contract/work order
specifications. Contractual requirements requiring the use of NLLAP have been used on projects
funded by the Department of Defense and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
It is also important to note, that irrespective of the legal requirements described above, the
parties responsible for related lead-based paint abatement and control activities may wish to use
NLLAP recognized laboratories to avoid potential liability in lead poisoning cases.
1.3 Study Objectives
Given NLLAP and 402/404, the survey was interested in obtaining an accurate evaluation of
states' plans to establish a laboratory accreditation program for the analysis of lead in paint chip, dust,
and soil samples, and information about current and future use of NLLAP.
The survey also requested information on state accreditation programs for laboratories
performing analyses on environmental media for metals and drinking and waste water samples. The
objective of obtaining this information is to provide an indication of the potential for other state
laboratory accreditation programs to expand to cover the analysis of lead in paint chip, dust and soil
samples.
When the word "state" is used throughout this report it includes the 50 states and Washington, D.C.
3
-------
2.0 CONCLUSIONS
This section presents the results and conclusions for the lead in paint chips, dust, and soil
programs, the solid environmental media for metals programs, and drinking water or waste water
laboratory accreditation programs.
2.1 Lead in Paint Chips, Dust, and Soil Programs
Only 6 states (12% of all states) currently have a laboratory accreditation program for the
analysis of paint chip, dust, and soil samples for lead. All 6 programs in place apply to commercial
laboratories and 5 of the 6 are mandatory for commercial laboratories. Five of the 6 apply to state
laboratories, and 4 of the 5 are mandatory.
Regarding proficiency testing, 4 of the 6 states have a proficiency testing program in place
and 2 states do not. Regarding frequency of testing for these four states, 1 tested four times a year,
and 2 tested twice a year.
Regarding systems audits, 5 states conducted systems audits and 1 did not. Of the 5 states
that conducted systems audits, 4 states indicated that state personnel conducted the audits, and 1 state
said they used an "other" organization, "AIHA," to perform the audits.
Regarding on-site assessments conducted as part of the systems audits, 5 of the 6 states
included on-site assessments. The assessing organizations ranged among various state health and
environmental agencies as well as a third party organization (AIHA). See Section 4.1, Question
13A1 l(a) for specific details.
Regarding program funding, all 6 states had user fees, 2 had grants, and 1 had state
appropriations.
2.2 Solid Environmental Media for Metals Programs
There were 15 states (29%) with a laboratory accreditation program for metals in solid
environmental media, more than double the number of laboratory accreditation programs for the
analysis of paint chip, dust, and soil samples for lead. Again, all 15 programs apply to commercial
laboratories and 12 of the 15 are mandatory. Fourteen of the 15 apply to state laboratories, and 11
of the 14 are mandatory.
Regarding proficiency testing, 11 of the 15 states responded that they have a proficiency
testing program in place and 3 do not. Regarding frequency of testing of these 11,4 tested once a
year, 6 tested twice a year, and 1 tested 3 times a year.
Regarding systems audits, all 15 states conducted systems audits. The audits were conducted
by state personnel in all 15 states.
-------
Regarding on-site assessments conducted as part of the systems audits, 14 of the 15 states
included on-site assessments. The assessing organizations again ranged among state health and
environmental agencies, e.g., ecology, health, natural resources, environmental lab certification,
epidemiology, etc., as well as a third party organization (AIHA). See Section 4.1, Question 13B1 l(a)
for specific details.
Regarding program funding, 13 out of 15 states had user fees, 5 had state appropriations, and
3 had grants.
2.3 Drinking Water or Waste Water Programs
By far the greatest number of states have water laboratory accreditation programs. Forty-two
responded that they have laboratory accreditation programs for drinking water or waste water
analyses. This is a significant increase over the 6 states with accreditation programs for the analysis
of paint chip, dust, and soil samples for lead, and 15 states with accreditation programs for metals.
Forty-one of the programs apply to commercial laboratories and 32 are mandatory for commercial
laboratories. Forty of the 42 programs apply to state laboratories, and 33 of the 40 are mandatory.
Regarding proficiency testing, 41 have a proficiency testing program in place. Regarding
frequency of testing, 13 tested once a year, 23 tested twice a year, 4 tested 4 times a year, and 1 did
not know the frequency of testing.
Regarding systems audits, all 42 respondents did systems audits. The audits were conducted
by state personnel in 38 of 42 states and in 2 states by EPA, 1 by EPA and the state, and 1 by a
university.
Regarding on-site assessments conducted as part of the systems audits, 41 states included on-
site assessments. The assessing organizations again ranged among state health and environmental
agencies, e.g., water, ecology, health, natural resources, environmental lab certification,
epidemiology, etc., but did not include private sector organizations. See Section 4.1, Question
13Cll(a) for specific details.
Regarding program funding, 28 states had user fees, 20 had state appropriations, and 10 had
grants.
2.4 General Summary of Results
Out of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, 46 (90%) indicated that they have some
type of laboratory accreditation program. Eighty-two percent of states currently operate or manage
a laboratory accreditation program for drinking water or waste water, 29% operate or manage an
accreditation program for metals in solid media, and 12% operate or manage a program for the
analysis of paint chip, dust, and soil samples for lead. In contrast to the 12% of states with state
operated programs, 29% of states indicated the utilization of a private sector laboratory accreditation
program for the analysis of paint chip, dust, and soil samples for lead.
-------
A total of 19 states (37%) indicated that either the laboratory accreditation program for their
metals program, or drinking/waste water programs could be adaptable to the analysis of paint chip,
dust, and soil samples for lead. Out of the 19 states, 13 states (68%) indicated that in the future, their
state preferred to have some type of relationship with NLLAP, ranging from maintaining their own
accreditation program as EPA/NLLAP recognized, to relying solely on the use of an NLLAP
laboratory. All of the 19 states indicating adaptable programs reported that systems audits were
conducted. Eighty-nine percent of the states with adaptable programs reported that there is a
proficiency testing program in place for their program. None of the states with adaptable
accreditation programs utilized the private sector for systems audits. The majority of states used state
personnel for audits. Out of the 19 states with adaptable programs, the majority of programs for
metals or water were at least partially funded by user fees (74%). Thirty-seven percent of states with
adaptable programs were funded by state appropriations, and 21% were funded by grants.
Regarding the state's feelings towards the use of NLLAP and NLLAP related options, 80%
of all states were familiar with NLLAP. Almost 50% of all states currently utilize the NLLAP
program for their laboratories. Forty-five percent of states indicated that they would prefer not to
develop their own accreditation program, and would rather require the use of NLLAP laboratories.
Twelve percent of states reported that they would prefer to develop or maintain their own
accreditation program as an EPA/NLLAP-recognized accrediting organization (which includes a
memorandum of understanding between EPA and the state). Another 10% preferred to develop or
maintain their own accreditation program that is EPA-recognized as an NLLAP-equivalent program.
Thus, 67% of states prefer to have some affiliation with the NLLAP program. (See Figure 1).
In review of the information generated by the survey, the following conclusions can be readily
drawn concerning state efforts to address the issue of accreditation for laboratories involved in the
analysis of paint chip, dust and soil samples.
The majority of the states either currently utilize or plan in the future to utilize the services
of NLLAP. Most states who plan to utilize NLLAP indicated a preference not to develop their own
accreditation program for the analysis of paint chip, dust, and soil samples for lead but instead default
to requiring the use of NLLAP recognized laboratories in their state. Although 19 states indicated
they had laboratory accreditation programs which were possibly adaptable to cover the analysis of
paint chip, dust and soil samples for lead, only 11 states wished to develop their own accreditation
program. Of these eleven states, five wished not to sign a formal memorandum of understanding with
the EPA but preferred to be recognized by EPA as "NLLAP equivalent."
A possible explanation for NLLAP's popularity with state programs is that it meets the critical
concerns of states which were expressed in the comments and suggestions provided by state officials
in response to the survey. States want a laboratory accreditation program which has well defined
laboratory requirements, uniformly applicable on a nationwide basis with the potential for reciprocity
between states and a program which does not require significant state resources. NLLAP is designed
as a program which establishes laboratory requirements on a nationwide basis with a single
proficiency testing program and can be utilized by states without the expenditure of significant (if any)
resources.
-------
The EPA values the input provided by states through surveys such as this, as well as input
obtained by national forums, written correspondence, and verbal communications. Quality input from
parties with a vested interest in the lead analyses of paint chip, dust and soil samples will allow EPA
to develop and revise NLLAP so that the program can best meet the needs of the parties the program
was intended to serve.
-------
Figure 1
State Preferences for Lead Laboratory Accreditation Programs
Don't Know
27%
\
NLLAP Related
67%
-------
Figure 2
State Preferences for Lead Laboratory Accreditation Programs
Use NLLAP
4^/0
Develop Own Accred.
Prog.,EPA/NLLAP, no
MOU
10%
Develop Own Accred.
Prog., EPA/NLLAP w/MOU
12%
Do Something Else
6%
Develop Own Accred.
Program, Federally
Independent
0%
Don't Know
27%
-------
3.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE
This chapter describes the data quality assurance program for this study. In all surveys, the
quality of results can be characterized in two major components:
a) Completeness of coverage (measured by response rate); and*
b) Accuracy of information provided (which depends on the identification of the
appropriate contact, respondent's knowledge, understanding of the questions, and
willingness to respond)*
Regarding the first component, completeness of coverage, this survey was a census of all 50
states and the District of Columbia. A response rate of 100% was achieved, thus the coverage was
complete, and non-response bias was non-existent for the overall survey. Individual item non-
response did, however, occur based on some respondent's lack of knowledge on a particular topic.
Regarding the second component, accuracy, several quality assurance measures were
implemented to ensure the utmost quality of the data. Special care was taken to identify the
appropriate respondent, an advance copy of the questionnaire was sent to all respondents so they
could consult with others in advance and prepare the most accurate information, and responses
collected during data collection were reviewed. These quality assurance measures are described in
detail below.
3.1 Assurance of Appropriate Respondent Contact
The strategy adopted for identifying appropriate respondents who could represent the state
on lead issues and to answer the survey questions for the particular state was a two-step approach.
First, the document developed by the NCSL, "Lead Poisoning Prevention: Directory of State
Contacts 1995-1996", was reviewed to locate laboratory program directors. The directory served
as an initial screen to attempt to locate appropriate respondents. The directory provides contact
name and telephone numbers for laboratory accreditation directors for each state and the District
of Columbia. The contacts were informed of the nature and time frame of the survey and were asked
to confirm that they were the correct representative for the state. If they were not, they were asked
to identify a more appropriate person to complete the survey. This initial step was taken in order
to maintain the highest quality data possible, by ensuring that the most appropriate representative
of the state responded to the survey questions.
3.2 Advance Mailing of Questionnaire and NLLAP Brochure
The second step of the respondent identification and notification approach involved
mailing information to the respondents in advance of the telephone interview. Each of the 51
potential respondents were sent by Federal Express, an advance copy of the questionnaire, a
brochure on the NLLAP program, and an introductory letter. This quality assurance step was
taken to that respondents could consult with others in order to prepare the most accurate
10
-------
information in preparation for the telephone interview.
3.3 Comment Review and Follow-up
The third quality assurance step was the review of comments and recontacting of selected
state officials to follow-up on questions concerning laboratory accreditation programs for paint
chips, dust and/or soil for lead. All comments were reviewed by the study director and entered into
a database. The database provided a means to present responses from all states to a specific
question, as well as responses from all states to the entire questionnaire, by appropriate data sorts.
Additional follow-up was conducted when appropriate. This resulted in additional contacts
identified and additional information developed in the comments.
3.4 Numeric Review and Follow-up
As the fourth step in the quality assurance process, each numerical response was reviewed
by the study director. As instructed in training, the interviewer took notes of verbal comments
received outside the questionnaire comment pattern. The study director reviewed these, and in
selected instances where value-added comments were provided in addition to the response to the
question, made follow-up calls.
The fifth step was the review of the frequency responses. The study director reviewed the
frequencies as the final quality control step in the data cleaning process, and verified any
inconsistencies in the data via additional follow-up as warranted.
11
-------
4.0 STUDY DESIGN
4.1 Respondent Identification and Notification
The strategy adopted for identifying appropriate respondents who could represent the state on
lead issues to answer the survey questions for the particular state was a two-step approach. First,
the document developed by the NCSL, Lead Poisoning Prevention: Directory of State Contacts
1995-1996 (also called the purple book), was reviewed to locate program directors. The directory
served as an initial screen to attempt to locate appropriate respondents. The directory provides
contact name and telephone numbers for laboratory accreditation directors for each state. Prior to
the call records being prepared with the relevant contact information for the interviewers, two senior
staff made calls to potential contacts identified from the purple book for each state and the District
of Columbia. The contacts were informed of the nature and time frame of the survey and were asked
to confirm that they were the correct representative for the state. If they were not, they were asked
to identify a more appropriate person to complete the survey.
A spreadsheet was developed from the initial review of the purple book and updated as
necessary when "more correct" respondents were identified. The final updated list of contacts was
provided to telephone interviewers to begin the survey process. The updated spreadsheet list was
used for generating shipping labels for the FedEx automated labeling and Internet tracking.
The second step of the respondent identification and notification approach involved mailing
the information to the respondents in advance of the telephone interview. An appointment was set
up for the interviewers to call back to complete the telephone interview. Each of the 51 potential
respondents were sent an advance copy of the questionnaire, a brochure on the NLLAP program, and
an introductory letter from the National Conference of State Legislatures. Federal Express's Internet
tracking system report confirmed receipt by the agency. Due to time considerations and to maximize
data quality, the decision was made to provide the questions in advance to candidate respondents, so
that they could prepare their answers and do any necessary background research and be prepared to
efficiently respond to a telephone survey based on these questions.
4.2 Survey Questionnaire Design
The questionnaire design was finalized in May, 1996. The questionnaire began with a general
section that was asked of all respondents, with 12 questions that covered contact information,
whether the state currently had a lead or laboratory accreditation program, if the state utilized any
private sector accreditation programs, and familiarity and utilization of the NLLAP program. The
questionnaire was then subdivided into 3 sections that were administered only if the state operated
a laboratory accreditation program in the specified media: paint chips, dust and soil; metals; and
drinking or waste water. Each of the three subsections asked 13 questions regarding whether the
accreditation program for the specified media applied to commercial and state laboratories, if the
program was mandatory or voluntary, if proficiency and systems audits were conducted, and how the
program was funded. The average telephone administration time for the questionnaire was 10
minutes. The final questionnaire can be found in Appendix A.
12
-------
5.0 INTERVIEWER TRAINING AND DATA COLLECTION
This chapter describes the interviewer training activities and the implementation of the survey.
5.1 Training
Interviewer training was conducted on May 7, 1996. Telephone center interviewers were
given a background briefing on the survey, provided with the questionnaire, and were given the
opportunity to clarify any issues. All interviewers were experienced in telephone data collection.
5.2 Data Collection
As discussed in section 4.1, Respondent Identification and Notification, the updated list of
contacts was furnished to the telephone interviewers. The data collection strategy had three
components:
1. Advance delivery of the questionnaire and supporting materials;
2. Initial contact for the purpose of making an appointment for the telephone interview;
and
3. Telephone interview conducted with the respondent.
The questionnaires were sent to each respondent by Federal Express. The telephone
interviewers began contacting respondents one week after the advance mailout of the questionnaires
to collect the survey information. The field period was conducted from May 7, through May 25,
1996. Each telephone interview took an average of about 10 minutes to complete. After the
telephone interviews were completed, the data from each questionnaire was data entered into a
computer, and then edited and cleaned for analysis. A response rate of 100% was achieved; all 50
states and the District of Columbia participated in the survey.
13
-------
6.0 DATA ANALYSIS
This section provides a numerical analysis and graphic presentations of the coded responses
in an item by item format. This section also provides selected comments to the open-ended items
provided by the 51 respondents.
The Survey was designed to utilize a categorical question-and-answer format. The
respondents were given a set of categories to choose from as responses to each question which often
required a simple YES/NO response. Occasionally, respondents were asked to fill in a blank, such
as providing the annual frequency of proficiency tests. A few questions sought out qualitative
information, such as the name of an assessing organization. Three questions elicited some general
comments on specific issues.
This analysis presents the detailed quantitative results of the categorical and quantitative fill-
in-the-blank questions. It also lists out the responses to qualitative questions. The quantitative
results are presented in both numerical and graphical format. Only formal responses are included in
the analysis.
6.1 Analysis and Graphic Presentation
This Section presents the numeric analysis and a graphical presentation of specific response
frequencies for each question, starting with Question 5, the first technical question. Whenever the
tabulation indicates that fewer than 51 states responded, those who did not respond are the ones who
legitimately skipped the question, since it did not apply to them based on previous responses.
5. Does your state currently have a lead program?
YES
NO .
1
2
Question 5
No
16% (8)
\
Yes
84% (43)
51 states responded.
14
-------
Does your state currently have a laboratory accreditation program of any kind?
YES
NO .
1
2
Question 6
No
10% (5)
\
Yes
90% (46)
51 states responded.
Does your state utilize any private sector laboratory accreditation programs for lead
analysis of paint chips, dust, and soil samples?
YES
NO .
1
2
[GO TO 9]
Question 7
No
69% (35)
Yes
29% (15)
51 states responded.
15
-------
8. For which of the following media does your state utilize private sector accreditation
programs for lead analyses?
Paint chips
Soil
Dust
YES NO
1 2
1 2
1 2
15 n
12 -
9 -
6 -
3 -
0 -
*
Qi
jest
•
on 8
•
• No
rjYes
Paint Soil Dust
chips
15 states responded to each data item.
16
-------
9. Are you familiar with EPA's recognition program for laboratories conducting paint chip, dust
and soil analysis for lead? The program, called the National Lead Laboratory Accreditation
Program (NLLAP) recognizes private sector accreditation.
YES
NO .
1
2
[GO TO 11]
Question 9
No
20% (10)
Yes
80% (41)
51 states responded.
10. Does your program currently utilize the EPA recognized National Lead Laboratory
Accreditation Program (NLLAP) for laboratories in your state?
YES
NO .
1
2
Question 10
Don't
Know
No
49% (20)
Yes
49% (20)
41 states responded.
17
-------
11. In the future, concerning laboratories performing lead analyses on paint chips, dust, and
soil samples, does your state prefer to ... (circle one)
Develop or maintain your own accreditation program independent
of any federal program,
1
Develop or maintain your own accreditation program as an
EPA/NLLAP recognized accrediting organization, (which includes
a memorandum of understanding (MOD) between EPA and the state), . 2
Develop or maintain your own accreditation program that is EPA
recognized as an NLLAP equivalent program, (no memorandum
of understanding is required), 3
Not develop your own accreditation program, and require the use
of EPA recognized (NLLAP) laboratories, or 4
Do something else? 5
(SPECIFY)
Don't know? 6
20 -
10 -
0
1 -
Develop
Own
Program
2 - NLLAP
With MOU
Question 11
23
3 - NLLAP
No MOU
4-Use
NLLAP
5-Do
Something
Else
14
6 - Don't
Know
51 states responded.
3 states responded to (SPECIFY) as follows:
State Name Comment
Arkansas
North Carolina
North Dakota
There is a NELAC group trying to develop guidelines we would be
interested in.
State lab being used.
Have done a lot of testing, have no problems, so no plan.
18
-------
12. If you have or plan to set up a lead analysis laboratory accreditation program of your
own, do you, or do you anticipate that you will recognize other accrediting programs (i.e.,
federal, state, local, or private) in an effort to establish reciprocity between other federal
or state programs?
YES
NO
Other ....
(SPECIFY)
1
2
3
Question 12
20 -
10 -
Yes No Other Don't Have
Know no
plans
51 states responded.
5 states responded to "Other (SPECIFY)" as follows:
State Name Comment
Arkansas
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Missouri
Ohio
Has no reciprocity but accepts inspection of other labs
No agency in place to assess any environmental labs
Would want reciprocity if they set the program up
Would use EPA or NLLAP
Already has program in place
19
-------
A. PAINT CHIPS, DUST, AND/OR SOIL FOR LEAD
13A1. Does your state currently operate or manage a laboratory accreditation program for
paint chips, and/or dust, and/or soil for lead? (except: portable XRFs)
YES
NO .
1
2
[GOT013B1]
Question 13A1
Don't
Know Yes
4% (2) 13% (6)
No
83% (38)
46 states responded.
13A2. Does the accreditation program apply to commercial laboratories?
YES
NO .
1
2
[GOTO13A4]
Question 13A2
No
0%
\
Yes
100%
6 states responded.
20
-------
A. PAINT CHIPS, DUST, AND/OR SOIL FOR LEAD
13A3. Is the accreditation program mandatory or voluntary for commercial laboratories?
MANDATORY
VOLUNTARY
1
2
Question 13A3
Voluntary
17% (1)
\
Mandatory
83% (5)
6 states responded.
13A4. Does the accreditation program apply to state/municipal laboratories?
YES
NO .
1
2
[GOTO13A6]
Question 13A4
Yes
83% (5)
6 states responded.
21
-------
A. PAINT CHIPS, DUST, AND/OR SOIL FOR LEAD
13A5. Is the accreditation program mandatory or voluntary for state/municipal laboratories?
MANDATORY
VOLUNTARY
1
2
Question 13A5
Voluntary
20% (1)
\
Mandatory
80% (4)
5 states responded.
13A6. Is there a proficiency testing program in place for laboratories analyzing paint chips,
and/or dust, and/or soil for lead?
YES
NO .
1
2
[GOTO13A8]
Question 13A6
No
33% (2)
\
Yes
67% (4)
6 states responded.
22
-------
A. PAINT CHIPS, DUST, AND/OR SOIL FOR LEAD
13A7. How may times per year is proficiency testing conducted?
times per year
Question 13A7
Don't
Know
25% (1)
2 times
50% (2)
4 times
25% (1)
4 states responded.
13A8. Are systems audits conducted for laboratories analyzing paint chips, and/or dust, and /or
soil for lead?
YES
NO .
1
2
[GOTO13A10]
Question 13A8
No
17% (1)
\
Yes
83% (5)
6 states responded.
23
-------
A. PAINT CHIPS, DUST, AND/OR SOIL FOR LEAD
13A9. Who conducts the systems audits?
State personnel,
Private sector personnel, or
Other?
(SPECIFY)
1
2
3
Question
AHA
20% (1)
\
13A9
(5^^ }
K— - _ ^— - -H
^^^^^
State
Personnel
80% (4)
5 states responded.
13A10. Are on-site assessments conducted as a part of the systems audits for laboratories
analyzing paint chips, and/or dust, and /or soil for lead?
YES
NO .
1
2
[GOTO13A12]
Question 13A10
No
17% (1)
\
Yes
83% (5)
6 states responded.
24
-------
A. PAINT CHIPS, DUST, AND/OR SOIL FOR LEAD
13A11. (a) Who is the on-site assessing organization and (b) how frequently are on-site
assessments conducted?
a.
b.
5 states responded as follows:
State Name (a) On-Site Assessing Organization (b) Frequency of On-Site Assessment
Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Once a year
Connecticut The Department of Public Health, Once every 3 years
Environmental Health Services
New York The State Environmental Lab Approval Once a year
Program
Ohio The American Industrial Hygiene Association Once every 3 years
Utah The Bureau of Laboratory Improvement, Once every 2 years
Division of Epidemiology
In summary, 2 states perform assessments every year, 1 state responded that it performs
assessments every 2 years, and 2 states perform assessments every 3 years.
25
-------
A. PAINT CHIPS, DUST, AND/OR SOIL FOR LEAD
13A12. How is the program funded?
a. Grants
b. User fees
c. State appropriations
d. Other?
(SPECIFY)
YES
1
1
1
1
NO
2
2
2
2
6 n
2
Question 13A12
Grants
User
fees
State
Appr.
6 states responded to each data item.
26
-------
B. SOLID ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA FOR METALS
13B1. Does your state currently operate or manage an environmental laboratory accreditation
program for metals in solid media?
YES
NO .
46 states responded.
1
2
[GOTO13C1]
Question
Don't
Know
4% (2)
\
63% (29)
13B1
Yes
33% (15)
. /
13B2. Does the
accreditation program apply to commercial laboratories?
YES 1
NO 2
Question 13B2
No
0%
rCHI^
^~^>
\
Yes
100%
15 states responded.
- [GOT013B4]
27
-------
B. SOLID ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA FOR METALS
13B3. Is the accreditation program mandatory or voluntary for commercial laboratories?
MANDATORY
VOLUNTARY
1
2
Voluntary
Question 13B3
Don't
Know
13% (2)
Mandatory
80% (12)
15 states responded.
13B4. Does the accreditation program apply to state/municipal laboratories?
YES
NO .
1
2
[GOTO13B6]
Question 13B4
No
\
Yes
93% (14)
15 states responded.
28
-------
B. SOLID ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA FOR METALS
13B5. Is the accreditation program mandatory or voluntary for state/municipal
laboratories?
MANDATORY
VOLUNTARY
1
2
Question 13B5
Don't
Know
Voluntary 14o/0 (2)
\
Mandatory
79% (11)
14 states responded.
13B6. Is there a proficiency testing program in place for environmental laboratories
analyzing for metals in solid media?
YES
NO .
1
2
[GOTO13B8]
No
20% (3)
Question 13B6
Don't
know
Yes
73% (11)
15 states responded.
29
-------
B. SOLID ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA FOR METALS
13B7. How many times per year is proficiency testing conducted?
times per year
Question 13B7
3 times
1 time
36% (4)
2 times
55% (6)
11 states responded.
13B8. Are systems audits conducted for environmental laboratories analyzing for metals in
solid media?
YES
NO .
1
2
[GOTO13B10]
Question 13B8
No
0%
\
Yes
100%
15 states responded.
30
-------
B. SOLID ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA FOR METALS
13B9. Who conducts the systems audits?
State personnel,
Private sector personnel, or
Other?
(SPECIFY)
1
2
3
Question 13B9
State
Personnel
100%
15 states responded.
13B10. Are on-site assessments conducted as a part of the systems audits for environmental
laboratories analyzing for metals in solid media?
YES
NO .
1
2
[GOT013B12]
Question 13B10
Yes
93% (14)
15 states responded.
31
-------
B. SOLID ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA FOR METALS
13B11. (a) Who is the on-site assessing organization and (b) how frequently are on-site
assessments conducted?
a.
b.
14 states responded, as follows:
State Name (a) On-Site Assessing Organization
Assessment
(b) Frequency of On-Site
Arizona
Arkansas
Connecticut
Florida
Maryland
Minnesota
Missouri
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
South Carolina
Utah
Washington (state)
Wisconsin
The Department of Health Services
Pollution Control and Ecology
The Department of Public Health,
Environmental Health Services
The Florida Health & Rehab Services
state personnel
The Minnesota Department of Health
The Department of Natural Resources
state personnel
The North Dakota Department of Health
The American Industrial Hygiene Association
The Office of Environmental Lab Certification
The Bureau of Laboratory Improvement,
Division of Epidemiology
The Department of Ecology
The Department of Natural Resources
Once a year
Once a year
Once every 3 years
Missing
Once a year
Once every 3 years
Once every 3 years
Once a year
Once every 3 years
Once every 3 years
Up to a 3 year rotating cycle
Once every 2 years
Once every 2 years
A less than annual cycle
Summarizing over the 14 states, 1 state does on-site assessment less than annually, 4 states
perform on-site assessments every year, 1 state performs it every 2 years, and 5 states perform
assessments on-site every 3 years.
32
-------
B. SOLID ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA FOR METALS
13B12. How is the program funded?
a. Grants
b. User fees
c. State appropriations
d. Other?
(SPECIFY)
YES
1
1
1
1
NO
2
2
2
2
15 n
12 -
9 -
6 -
3 -
Question 13B12
Grants
User
fees
State
Appr.
15 states responded to each data item.
33
-------
B. SOLID ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA FOR METALS
13B13. If you don't have a laboratory accreditation program for paint chips, dust, and soil for
lead, could the metals in solid media accreditation program be adapted?
YES
NO
Comments
1
2
3
Question 13B13
Don't
know
29% (4)
No
14% (2)
— Yes
57% (8)
14 states responded.
34
-------
C. DRINKING AND/OR WASTE WATER
13C1. Doesyo
drinkinc
jr state currently operate or manage a laboratory accreditation program for
and/or waste water analyses?
YES 1
NO 2
Question 13C1
Don't
No know
7% (3) 2%(1)
C^Z^
C: ^
^Ves
91% (42)
46 states responded.
- [GOTO13C14]
13C2. Does the
accreditation program apply to commercial laboratories?
YES 1
NO 2
Question 13C2
No
2%(1)
C±^
L-^T-^
Yes
98% (41)
42 states responded.
- [GOT013C4]
35
-------
C. DRINKING AND/OR WASTE WATER
13C3. Is the accreditation program mandatory or voluntary?
MANDATORY
VOLUNTARY
1
2
Question 13C3
Don't
know
Voluntary 5o/0 (2)
17% (7),
Mandatory
78% (32)
41 states responded.
13C4. Does the accreditation program apply to state/municipal laboratories?
YES
NO .
1
2
[GOTO13C6]
Question 13C4
No
5% (2)
\
Yes
95% (40)
42 states responded.
36
-------
C. DRINKING AND/OR WASTE WATER
13C5. Is the accreditation program mandatory or voluntary for state/municipal laboratories?
MANDATORY
VOLUNTARY
1
2
Question 13C5
Don't
know
Voluntary 5o/0 (2)
13% (5)
Mandatory
82% (33)
40 states responded.
13C6. Is there a proficiency testing program in place for laboratories analyzing drinking and/or
waste water?
YES
NO .
1
2
[GOTO13C8]
Question 13C6
No
Yes
98% (41)
42 states responded.
37
-------
C. DRINKING AND/OR WASTE WATER
13C7. How many times per year is proficiency testing conducted?
times per year
Question 13C7
23
20 -
10 -
1 time
2
times
4
times
Don't
know
41 states responded.
13C8. Are systems audits conducted for laboratories analyzing drinking and/or waste water?
[GOTO13C10]
YES
NO .
1
2
Question 13C8
No
0%
42 states responded.
38
-------
C. DRINKING AND/OR WASTE WATER
13C9. Who conducts the systems audits?
State personnel,
Private sector personnel, or
Other?
(SPECIFY)
1
2
3
State
Personnel
Question 13C9
EPA
EPA & State
Personnel
University
Hygienist
42 states responded.
4 states provided comments to "Other (SPECIFY)" as follows:
State Name Comment
Delaware
District of Columbia
Iowa
Wisconsin
EPA does the state lab audits, we have primacy
EPA
The University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory
EPA and state personnel
39
-------
C. DRINKING AND/OR WASTE WATER
13C10. Are on-site assessments conducted as a part of the systems audits for laboratories
analyzing drinking and/or waste water?
YES
NO .
1
2
[GOT013C12]
Question 13C10
Yes
98% (41)
42 states responded.
40
-------
C. DRINKING AND/OR WASTE WATER
13C11. (a) Who is the on-site assessing organization and (b) how frequently are on-site
assessments conducted?
a.
b.
39 states responded, as follows:
State Name On-site Assessing Organization
Alaska Dept. of Env. Cons, Div. of Env Health
Arizona Pollution Control & Ecology
Arkansas Pollution Control & Ecology
California Dept. of Health, Env. Lab. Accred. Div.
Connecticut Dept. of Public Hlth., Env. Hlth Service
DC EPA
Delaware Public Health & Office of Drinking Water
Florida Health & Rehab. Srvcs. & Of. of Lab. Srvcs.
Georgia Env. Prot. Div., Div of Natural Resources
Hawaii Department of Health
Idaho Bureau of Laboratories
Illinois Illinois EPA
Indiana Department of Health
Iowa University Hygienic Laboratory
Kansas State
Kentucky Div of Water, Cabinet for NR&EP
Louisiana Office of Public Health
Maine Department of Human Services
Maryland State Personnel
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Prot.
Minnesota Minnesota Department of Health
Mississippi Office of Pollution Control, Health Dept.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
N. Carolina State Personnel
N. Dakota N. Dakota Department of Health
N. Hampshire Lab. Cert. Prog., Dept. of Env. Srvcs.
Nebraska Department of Health Labs
New Jersey State agency with state personnel
New York State Environmental Lab Appr. Prog.
Ohio Department of Health
Oklahoma State Dept. of Env. Quality
Frequency of Assessments
Every 3 years
Once a year
Every year
Don't know
Every 3 years
Every year
Every 3 years
1/yr in state, 2/yr out of state
Every 3 years
Every year
Every year
Every 3 years
Every 3 years
Every 2 years
Every year
Every year
Every 2 years
Every 2 years
Every year
Every 3 years
Every 3 years
"as needed"
Every 3 years
Every year
Every 3 years
3 yr state, 2 yr in state coml,
2-5 out of state
Every year
Every 3 years
Every year
Every 3 years
Every 2 years
41
-------
C. DRINKING AND/OR WASTE WATER
13C11 continued
State Name On-site Assessing Organization Frequency of Assessments
Rhode Island DOH Div. of Facility Regulation Every 2-3 years
S. Carolina Office of Env. Lab. Certification Every 3 years
S. Dakota Public Health Laboratory Every 3 years
Tennessee Dept. of Environmental Health Every year
Utah Bur. of Laboratory Imp., Div. of Epidemiology Every 2 years
Vermont Department of Health Every year, st. labs
Washington Department of Ecology Every 2 years
Wisconsin DNR or EPA Every 3 years
Summarizing the frequency of assessments, of the 39 states responding, 14 states reported
conducting an on-site assessment annually, 7 biennially, 15 triennially, and 3 reported some other type of
conditional frequency.
42
-------
C. DRINKING AND/OR WASTE WATER
13C12. How is the program funded?
a. Grants
b. User fees
c. State appropriations
d. Other?
(SPECIFY)
YES
1
1
1
1
NO
2
2
2
2
40 -
30 -
90
10
n
-
C
lues
tion 13
C12
• Don't know
HI No
DYes
Grants User State
fees Appr.
42 states responded to each data item.
3 states provided comments to "other," as follows:
State Name Comment
District of Columbia
Florida
Missouri
Federal government
Trust Funds
Certification fees and audit fees, does not consider these fees to
be user fees
43
-------
C. DRINKING AND/OR WASTE WATER
13C13. If you don't have a laboratory accreditation program for paint chips, dust, and soil for lead,
could the water accreditation program be adapted?
YES
NO
Comments
1
2
3
15
15 n
10 -
Question 13C13
13
Yes
No
Don't know
Other
42 states responded.
5 states provided comments, as follows:
State Name Comment
Kentucky
New Hampshire
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Vermont
"Its not under us, not sure" May call NREP, Division of Water
Director Jack Wilson, 502-564-3410.
It could be, but there is no funding, no personnel.
They do have laboratory accreditation.
Would need state EPA cooperation or agreement. Haven't
approached them yet.
It could but regulation for paint labs must go through
EPA or private labs, have certification through Region I, EPA.
44
-------
C. DRINKING AND/OR WASTE WATER
13C14. Are there any comments or suggestions you would like to offer regarding laboratory
accreditation, NLLAP, utilization of private sector accrediting organizations, laboratory
proficiency testing, etc.:
Comments or suggestions:
State Name
Alaska
Arkansas
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Comments or Suggestions
With declining state revenues (North Slope Oil Royalties) third
party accreditation is becoming more important, if cost effective.
Alaska is different than other states, it costs more to get people up
here.
NELAC will be what we'll follow. They'll set criteria for
accrediting labs - we'll make ours fit or they'll make a national
program.
Don't know what you are getting at. We have compliance testing
but no NLLAP. I need more clarification.
California has a long history with CLIA and its own ELAP program
for hazardous waste and the Superfund. Expansions should be with
private sector organizations, we shouldn't develop duplicates for
NLLAP, which they really like, and are glad its happening. No
unfunded mandates are desired.
EPA program appears to be sufficient - should qualify if NLLAP
recognition will be required for state approval under section 404
regulations, NLLAP material should be sent to all labs in state,
please contact me, Tom Tayon, 303 692-3185.
I'm involved w/NELAC - conference is in Washington in July. I'm
all for establishing uniformity throughout the country. There
should be standards for proficiency results & inspection. Inspectors
should all get qualified training for inspectors.
We do blood leads, drinking water under approval by CLIA.
Would like to participate in other areas besides blood.
NLLAP superior program.
Every effort should be made to reduce the costs associated with
accreditation process for labs.
Please note that drinking and waste water programs are part of the
Iowa Department of Natural Resources - NOT the Iowa Department
of Public Health.
45
-------
C. DRINKING AND/OR WASTE WATER
13C14 continued
State Name
Kansas
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Nevada
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Comments or Suggestions
Concerned that accreditation standards, if adopted, be national in
scope.
National group to provide accreditation to set national standards.
None, NLLAP is a fairly well established program.
We should discuss this program w/lead program staff to see if we
can accommodate needs in this area. We are actively participating
in NELAC which is looking for harmonizing accreditation
requirements for all EPA programs.
As with Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act (CLIA), it's become
a national standard. We would like to see implementation of
ELPAT or NLLAP. Need to encourage provisions for state to be
active agents. We'd like to see more national focus - we don't have
the resources to do it ourselves. Like to see environmental
laboratory standards and regulations developed to all states to
develop infrastructure directly and allow for a great deal of
compatibility of federal and state - allow for reciprocity. Chuck
Arnold, Bureau of Environmental Epidemiology, Enforcement and
Compliance of lead program is a good future reference @
573-571-6331 or 573-526-5873. Took John Scalera's name and fax
number.
Not really - "We have no option" as told by director. Wait and see.
No, but thought it was a good survey and was happy to participate
in it.
We're following NELAC and hoping it succeeds.
Requirements to become involved in NLLAP program not spelled
out clearly.
Questionnaire seems to be circular in some areas. I don't know how
this ended up on my desk.
NLLAP doing a good job.
They are working with NELAC conference trying to standardize
accrediting programs over the country. Accreditation requirements
should be standardized for all programs.
There are lots of problems with Environmental Accreditation, with
conflicting information. I would like to see a national accreditation
program with reciprocity - ASTPHLD at 202-822-5227 is working
on a national program and you can get more info from them. There
will be a conference in June or July.
This state has a low regulation philosophy. Citizens would
probably benefit by increased accreditation requirements this
circumstance. (TX has "no" on lead program, question 5).
46
-------
C. DRINKING AND/OR WASTE WATER
13C14 continued
State Name Comments or Suggestions
Utah For any accreditation in laboratory area, in future they should
consider NELAC program, not have an accrediting program that's
not part of that - for all states.
Vermont Shouldn't have separate like New York, I fully support NLLAP,
some one doing water could do paint.
West Virginia If EPA sets up a National Accreditation Program for labs
conducting lead sampling analysis, that would be sufficient. We
would not need to duplicate at state level, as long as the program
was in place. We would recognize AIHA & NLLAP labs because
they meet stringent requirements and programs.
Wisconsin Uniform national rules or standards would be helpful.
47
-------
APPENDIX
TELEPHONE SURVEY INSTRUMENT
A-l
-------
STATE SURVEY OF LABORATORY ACCREDITATION PROGRAMS
The National Conference of State Legislators is conducting a national telephone survey about state
laboratory accreditation programs. This copy of the survey is for your convenience in collecting the
appropriate information. A telephone interviewer will contact you within the next week or so to obtain the
answers to these questions by phone. If you have any questions regarding the survey, please contact
Bill Devlin at (301) 294-2840. Thank you very much for your participation.
1. State Office:
2. Contact Name:
3. Position:
4. Telephone Number: ( ) - Fax: (
5. Does your state currently have a lead program?
YES 1
NO 2
6. Does your state currently have a laboratory accreditation program of any kind?
YES 1
NO 2 -» [ASK7-12, &
13C14, THEN
END SURVEY]
7. Does your state utilize any private sector laboratory accreditation programs for lead analysis of
paint chips, dust, and soil samples?
YES 1
NO 2 -» [GOTO9]
8. For which of the following media does your state utilize private sector accreditation programs for
lead analyses? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
YES NO
Paint chips 1 2
Soil 1 2
Dust 1 2
A-2
-------
9. Are you familiar with EPA's recognition program for laboratories conducting paint chip, dust and
soil analysis for lead? The program, called the National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program
(NLLAP) recognizes private sector accreditation.
YES 1
NO 2 -» [GO TO 11]
10. Does your program currently utilize the EPA recognized National Lead Laboratory Accreditation
Program (NLLAP) for laboratories in your state?
YES 1
NO 2
11. In the future, concerning laboratories performing lead analyses on paint chips, dust, and soil
samples, does your state prefer to . . . (circle one)
Develop or maintain your own accreditation program
independent of any federal program, 1
Develop or maintain your own accreditation program
as an EPA/NLLAP recognized accrediting organization,
(which includes a memorandum of understanding
between EPA and the state), 2
Develop or maintain your own accreditation program
that is EPA recognized as an NLLAP equivalent
program, (no memorandum of understanding
is required), 3
Not develop your own accreditation program,
and require the use of EPA recognized (NLLAP)
laboratories, or 4
Do something else? 5
(SPECIFY)
Don't know? 8
12. If you have or plan to set up a lead analysis laboratory accreditation program of your own, do
you, or do you anticipate that you will recognize other accrediting programs (i.e., federal, state,
local, or private) in an effort to establish reciprocity between other federal or state programs?
YES 1
NO 2
Other 3
(SPECIFY)
IF NO TO Q6 THEN GO TO 13C14.
A-3
-------
A. PAINT CHIPS, AND/OR DUST, AND/OR SOIL FOR LEAD
13A1. Does your state currently operate or manage a laboratory accreditation program for paint chips,
and/or dust, and /or soil for lead? (except: portable XRFs)
YES 1
NO 2 -» [GOTO13B1]
13A2. Does the accreditation program apply to commercial laboratories?
YES 1
NO 2 -» [GOT013A4]
13A3. Is the accreditation program mandatory or voluntary for commercial laboratories?
MANDATORY 1
VOLUNTARY 2
13A4. Does the accreditation program apply to state/municipal laboratories?
YES 1
NO 2 -» [GOTO13A6]
13A5. Is the accreditation program mandatory or voluntary for state/municipal laboratories?
MANDATORY 1
VOLUNTARY 2
13A6. Is there a proficiency testing program in place for laboratories analyzing paint chips, and/or dust,
and/or soil for lead?
YES 1
NO 2 -» [GOT013A8]
13A7. How may times per year is proficiency testing conducted?
times per year
13A8. Are systems audits conducted for laboratories analyzing paint chips, and/or dust, and /or soil for
lead?
YES 1
NO 2 -» [GOTO13A10]
A-4
-------
13A9. Who conducts the systems audits?
State personnel, 1
Private sector personnel, or 2
Other? 3
(SPECIFY)
13A10. Are on-site assessments conducted as a part of the systems audits for laboratories analyzing
paint chips, and/or dust, and /or soil for lead?
YES 1
NO 2 -» [GOTO13A12]
13A11. (a) Who is the on-site assessing organization and (b) how frequently are on-site assessments
conducted?
a.
b.
13A12. How is the program funded?
YES NO
a. Grants 1 2
b. Userfees 1 2
c. State appropriations 1 2
d. Other? 1 2
(SPECIFY)
A-5
-------
B. ANALYSES OF SOLID ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA FOR METALS
13B1. Does your state currently operate or manage an environmental laboratory accreditation program
for metals in solid media?
YES 1
NO 2 -» [GOTO13C1]
13B2. Does the accreditation program apply to commercial laboratories?
YES 1
NO 2 -» [GOT013B4]
13B3. Is the accreditation program mandatory or voluntary for commercial laboratories?
MANDATORY 1
VOLUNTARY 2
13B4. Does the accreditation program apply to state/municipal laboratories?
YES 1
NO 2 -» [GOTO13B6]
13B5. Is the accreditation program mandatory or voluntary for state/municipal laboratories?
MANDATORY 1
VOLUNTARY 2
13B6. Is there a proficiency testing program in place for environmental laboratories analyzing for
metals in solid media?
YES 1
NO 2 -» [GOT013B8]
13B7. How many times per year is proficiency testing conducted?
times per year
13B8. Are systems audits conducted for environmental laboratories analyzing for metals in solid
media?
YES 1
NO 2 -» [GOTO13B10]
A-6
-------
13B9. Who conducts the systems audits?
State personnel, 1
Private sector personnel, or 2
Other? 3
(SPECIFY)
13B10. Are on-site assessments conducted as a part of the systems audits for environmental
laboratories analyzing for metals in solid media?
YES 1
NO 2 -» [GOTO13B12]
13B11. (a) Who is the on-site assessing organization and (b) how frequently are on-site assessments
conducted?
a.
b.
13B12. How is the program funded?
YES NO
a. Grants 1 2
b. Userfees 1 2
c. State appropriations 1 2
d. Other? 1 2
(SPECIFY)
13B13. If you don't have a laboratory accreditation program for paint chips, dust, and soil for lead, could
the metals in solid media accreditation program be adapted?
YES 1
NO 2
Comments 3
A-7
-------
C. DRINKING AND/OR WASTE WATER
13C1. Does your state currently operate or manage a laboratory accreditation program for drinking
and/or waste water analyses?
YES 1
NO 2 -» [GOTO13C14]
13C2. Does the accreditation program apply to commercial laboratories?
YES 1
NO 2 -» [GOT013C4]
13C3. Is the accreditation program mandatory or voluntary?
MANDATORY 1
VOLUNTARY 2
13C4. Does the accreditation program apply to state/municipal laboratories?
YES 1
NO 2 -» [GOTO13C6]
13C5. Is the accreditation program mandatory or voluntary for state/municipal laboratories?
MANDATORY 1
VOLUNTARY 2
13C6. Is there a proficiency testing program in place for laboratories analyzing drinking and/or waste
water?
YES 1
NO 2 -» [GOT013C8]
13C7. How many times per year is proficiency testing conducted?
times per year
13C8. Are systems audits conducted for laboratories analyzing drinking and/or waste water?
YES 1
NO 2 -» [GOTO13C10]
A-8
-------
13C9. Who conducts the systems audits?
State personnel, 1
Private sector personnel, or 2
Other? 3
(SPECIFY)
13C10. Are on-site assessments conducted as a part of the systems audits for laboratories analyzing
drinking and/or waste water?
YES 1
NO 2 -» [GOTO13C12]
13C11. (a) Who is the on-site assessing organization and (b) how frequently are on-site assessments
conducted?
a.
b.
13C12. How is the program funded?
YES NO
a. Grants 1 2
b. Userfees 1 2
c. State appropriations 1 2
d. Other? 1 2
(SPECIFY)
13C13. If you don't have a laboratory accreditation program for paint chips, dust, and soil for lead, could
the water accreditation program be adapted?
YES 1
NO 2
Comments 3
A-9
-------
13C14. Are there any comments or suggestions you would like to offer regarding laboratory
accreditation, NLLAP, utilization of private sector accrediting organizations, laboratory
proficiency testing, etc.:
Comments or suggestions:
Thank you very much for your participation. This concludes the survey.
A-10
------- |