1. Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (IRMM) Geel, Belgium http://www.irmm.jrc.be http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu 1 European Analytical Quality Control in support of the WFD via the Water Information System for Europe Contract N°022603 (STREP) Andrea Held EAQC-WISE

2. 2 EAQC-WISE : the partnership

3. 3 What has happened so far? Establishing the current status through survey –QA/QC tools (PTs, CRMs, validated methods) –Existing AQC systems across EU –Research and standardisation needs –Training and communication Workshop with stakeholders in Paris, Nov. 2006

4. 4 Survey on AQC in the EU Aim of the survey : –where are we now in EU ? –Gap analysis –Best practice and interesting cases methodology –‘general’ questionnaire –Specific questionnaires (R&D, PT providers, Training, RM producers) –Other inputs (literature, documents …)

5. 5 ‘general’ questionnaire ‘face-to-face’ interviews 21 countries across EU, 126 interviews, 72 questions, 3037 answers Targeted groups : –Monitoring labs (‘data producers’) –Accreditation –Competent authorities (‘buyers and users of data’) Clusters of questions around particular topics

6. 6 ‘specific’ questionnaires Specific questionnaires address specific audiences –Research projects –Proficiency test providers –Reference Material producers –Training providers

7. 7 EAQC-WISE survey : who is responsible to provide AQC tools ? answers … –We have no idea (25%) –The accreditation body (20%) –The lab itself (10%) –Named institutions (5%) –(Rest said yes, but no specific names given)

8. 8 Workshop with stakeholders in Paris, Nov. 2006 Report from the surveys 3 Working Groups –WG 1: Does accreditation help? –WG2: Regulator/purchaser/lab interface: Is going well? –WG 3: PT: Proficiency testing or pollice test? Case studies –Case 1: MCERTS, UK –Case 2: Systemic learning from proficiency testing –Case 3: How to improve systems for technical specification when contracting out analyses 3 Working groups on the case studies 4 presentations on specific technical issues –Inclusion of screening methods into PT schemes: the SWIFT experience –Sampling: focus on groundwater –Measuring Priority Substances in water today: do contracting authorities expect the labs to be masters in all areas? –Standardization: what to expect from it? Policy General discussion / conclusions

9. 9 Some trends on AQC system : picture today A lot of products/services/practices exist Very different in quality and availability across the EU Some important research still needs to be done (emerging substances, sampling) and a need to prioritise this A lot of miscommunication between actors If regulator fixes AQC issues (minimum requirements): things fall into place fast via public/private interaction Competence assessment : accreditation is playing vital role already, but practices differ very substantially When things happen : today, very often not a consequence of ‘system’ Who-does-what-at-which level ? How can we get our act together ?

10. 10 Key ingredients Accreditation of –Laboratories –Proficiency testing –Sampling There needs to be a minimum set of QA/QC measures implement in each lab, accreditation can ensure this BUT: so far not mandatory in all countries, application is not harmonised across MS no commonly accepted standard for sampling (17025 used in some countries)

11. 11 First steps… Accreditation mandatory as of Dec. 2012 for labs, PT providers European Accreditation (EA) laboratory committee sets up task force for WFD issues

12. 12 Proficiency testing Accreditation of PTs Comparable scoring Educational follow-up of PTs Availability for ‘difficult’ parameters / sampling (similar problem for Reference Materials, validated methods) Information Minimum citeria for appropriate PT participation (frequency, scope of scheme,…) Criteria for suspending labs

13. 13 Training What is acceptable product quality for WFD training? Availability of training with regard to WFD relevant content Availability in local language

14. 14 And a lot more… Research needs Validated methods Standardisation Reference Materials Communication …

15. 15 Vision : giving AQC the prominence it deserves The Commission Decision on AQC EAQC-WISE project recommendations (formulation of best practice today) implementation of EAQC- WISE project recommendations

16. 16 EAQC-WISE : the work packages WP 1:AQC systems and tools (sustainability!) WP 2:System for standardisation & research needs. WP 3:AQC system awareness and methodologies in the WFD information chain. WP 4:Training and Education in AQC

17. 17 Please also visit the project website: www.eaqc-wise.net

18. 18 Spare slides

19. 19 Overview What is this project all about ? Reliable data is non-trivial Unreliable data costs Project status How could it help you ? conclusion

20. 20 Vision behind the project ? Monitoring labs River Basin Authorities National competent authorities WISE European Commission (DG ENV) Data producer Commissioning and transfer Data collection Data user Appropriate AQC at all levels Reliable data! The red line through all of this …

21. 21 Decision Scope of the EAQC-WISE project SamplingTransportAnalysis Interpre- tation The Monitoring Process

22. 22 The Hubble Telescope lesson : don’t take AQC for granted No AQC With AQC Can you see the message in the stars ?

23. 23 Example : measuring the levels of C10-C13 alkanes No Reference Materials exist No PT schemes exist If there are accredited labs for this : how have these labs proven the reliability of their data ?

24. 24 Accreditation as it is now will not solve everything Interpretation of 17025 and ISO guide 43 (future 17043) for WFD labs needs to be harmonised and auditors need to be trained in a harmonised way –Harmonised evaluation of PTs –Harmonised practice on performance in PTs –Harmonised requirements for training –Harmonised scope of accreditation for WFD labs

25. 25 Possible solutions… Minimum criteria for appropriate PT participation (frequency, scope of the scheme) Fix scoring method Corrective actions, educational follow-up Criteria for suspending of labs Accreditation of PT Funding for PTs on ‘difficult’ substances / sampling

26. 26 In the medium-term (2006-2007) To derive a recommended approach of a AQC system that is likely to work at Member State, at river basin and at European scale To assess the impact of such a recommended AQC system. To check the applicability and validity by means of case studies To derive a communication system to efficiently link scientific and policy-making communities To derive a sustainable dissemination mechanism of reliable training appropriate to laboratories engaged in the analysis of matrices associated with WFD implementation In the long term (beyond 2008) The establishment of a quality control system, which would coordinate tailor-made proficiency testing activities, reference material production, research and training at the EU level in support of water and soil policies, with regular exchanges of good practices. Project objectives

27. 27 Outcome of EAQC-WISE : how will it help you in the end ? Instead of making ad-hoc recommendations by individuals This project should lead to clear recommended AQC practice clear recommended AQC practice realistic suggestions for clearly identified responsibilities at realistic suggestions for clearly identified responsibilities at European level European level National level National level River basin level River basin level

28. 28 AQC Blue Print will take into account … European kaleidoscope : –Nat Authority – Agency - national labs– monitoring labs –Private/Public Clarify key processes : and the responsibility ! Realism : financing EU - state – regional Some important trends (bigger labs, less labs, private pan-EU labs, …)