JRC Corporate Image Toolkit (CIT)

1
The EAQC-WISE blueprint Recommendations for a
quality control system for chemical
monitoringunder the WFD A. Held IRMM -
Institute for Reference Materials and
Measurements Geel - Belgium
2
EAQC-WISE

• Aim of the project
• Outline of a quality control system for chemical
  monitoring under the WFD
• Current status
• Blue print developed, discussed with
  stakeholders at workshop June 2008, finalisation
  of report ongoing

3
The ideal system

• Effective
• Sustainable
• Clear responsibilities
• Secured funding
• Flexible
• Simple
• Feasible

4
Building blocks for QA/QC

• Proficiency testing
• Reference Materials
• Research
• Standardisation
• Validated Methods
• Communication of QA/QC information
• Training
• Accreditation

5
Findings of the project - 1

• Still many specific QA/QC tools missing (PTs,
  (C)RMs, validated methods, training products)
• Lists of missing tools available
• (www.eaqc-wise.net)
• Maintain lists
• Mechanism to fill gaps and initiate actions

6
Findings of the project - 2

• A lot of good initiatives related to QA/QC
  ongoing in different Member States
• Coordination?
• Exchange of best practice?
• Strategic planning?

7
Findings of the project - 3

• Some developments hampered by language barriers
  (training, PTs)
• How to solve?

8
Findings of the project - 4

• Competent authorities (CAs) are usually not
  experts in QA/QC
• Accreditation bodies / technical assessors are
  not experts in WFD
• Provide support to CA on QA/QC
• Provide support to accreditation bodies on WFD
  issues

9
First conclusion

• Forum needed that will
• Link actors
• Exchange information and best practice
• Take responsibility for processes
• Initiate activities
• Facilitate improved use of resources
• Set up a system (the blue print)
• Structure of National and European Expert Groups
  (NEGs, EEG)

10
National Expert Groups

• Can be
• group of experts
• or nominated institute(s)
• or any other structure
• bringing together the required expertise
• Up to CA to decide
• Allows incorporation of any existing structure
• One per Member State (MS) or group of MS or
  region (e.g. river basin)
• Geographic coverage needs to be ensured

11
Mandate NEG

• Advisory function to Competent Authority on QA/QC
  issues
• Facilitate communication
• Send delegate to European Expert Group (EEG)
• Collect information on QA/QC issues and problems
• Identify gaps and needs for QA/QC tools
• Identify the reasons for the existence of those
  gaps
• Communicate the need to a relevant body at
  national level.
• Refer to EEG if European dimension
• Early warning system
• Provide input to the database of recommended
  QA/QC tools
• Review quality control information, assessing
  fitness for purpose of data, identify areas for
  improvement

12
European Expert Group

• Consists of delegates of NEG stakeholders (EA,
  CEN, EUROLAB, EURACHEM, DGs, )
• Clear mandate within the Common Implementation
  Strategy (WFD-CIS)
• Could be part of the Chemical Monitoring Activity
  (CMA)
• Sub-structure with working groups on specific
  topics

13
Mandate of the EEG

• Advisory function to DG Environment, EEA and
  other relevant European bodies on QA/QC issues
• Collect information on QA/QC issues and problems
  from NEGs, European Accreditation (EA), networks
  of PT providers, training providers, etc.
• Support relevant voluntary networks of e.g. PT
  providers, provide them with relevant information
  and feedback
• Identify gaps and needs for QA/QC tools
• identify the reasons for the existence of those
  gaps
• Establish prioritised lists of needed QA/QC tools
  using set criteria
• Communicate the need for QA/QC tools to a
  relevant body at European level
• Maintain a database of recommended QA/QC tools
  for WFD purposes

14
Proficiency testing

• Self committed network of PT providers that will
  work together to
• Organise PT schemes for all parameters on
  Priority Substance list
• Organise schemes at EU level also for analytes
  that are only analysed by few labs per country
• Guarantee harmonised performance evaluation
• Decrease cost of PTs due to cooperation

15
Proficiency testing

• Plan B
• EC funding of PTs for crucial, difficult
  parameters in the event of market failure

16
Reference Materials

• Survey of existing materials
• Assessment of suitability for WFD
• List of recommended RMs
• Prioritised list of missing RMs
• Support initiation of new RM developments
• Provide guidance where no RMs are available (yet)

17
Reference materials

• How
• Via expert groups
• Criteria for prioritisation, criteria for
  recommended RMs
• EEG communicate to funding bodies, research, RM
  producers etc.

18
Research

• The expert groups, together with river/marine
  commissions and a network of labs should
• Evaluate the status where are the gaps?
• Perform gap analysis are current tools fit for
  purpose?
• Define and classify the work to be done direct
  towards basic research or standardisation
• Prioritise level of importance of existing gaps,
  cost effectiveness
• Give feedback to regulator
• Link to other processes standardisation,
  validated methods, reference materials,

19
Standardisation

• Needs for new or improved standards are collected
  by expert group, needs are analysed and tasks
  defined
• Investigation on existing tools, gap analysis
• Definition and classification of work to be done
  together with CEN
• Prioritisation of tasks
• Use of prioritised task list for proposing a new
  mandate to CEN
• Execution of new work items
• Implementation of new standards in regulatory
  framework

20
Validated methods

• All methods to fulfil minimum performance
  criteria (QA/QC Directive)
• Maintain list of standardised methods
  fit-for-purpose for WFD
• Open list of validated, non-standardised methods
  not feasible
• Validation following international standards and
  guidelines

21
Communication

• Expert groups are cornerstone for communication
  of QA/QC issues
• Provide expertise and advice on QA/QC to CA
• Review QC information, assess fitness for purpose
• Identify areas for improvement
• Support data interpretation related to quality
  issues
• Provide advice at EU level, e.g. specifications

22
(No Transcript)
23
Training

• Voluntary network of training providers should
• Notify labs, NABs, CAs and expert group of new
  products and services
• Collaborate to improve geographical and
  linguistic coverage

24
Training

• Expert group
• Collect, monitor and assess products using set
  criteria
• Communicate information on appropriate training
  products to stakeholders
• Maintain a list of appropriate training products
  and services
• Identify gaps in the provision of training
  products, communicate to training service
  providers

25
Accreditation

• Accreditation should become mandatory (labs and
  PT)
• National expert groups should include member of
  NAB and of monitoring labs
• Communicate positive/negative experiences from
  both to EEG
• EEG advice on the improvement of the application
  of accreditation in collaboration with EA
• Specify requirements for accreditation at EU
  level
• Same minimum level of competence of technical
  assessors across EU
• Working group of EA should deal with WFD specific
  issues

26
Accreditation

• Working group of EA on WFD
• Common training of assessors on WFD issues,
  exchange of experience
• Minimum requirements for PT participation of WFD
  labs (frequency, scores, action if not
  successful)
• Harmonise scopes of accreditation
• Using existing guidance as much a possible

27

• If you think this is all too ambitious
• and it will not happen
• See our success story on proficiency testing

28
Consequences and follow-up

• Convert final report of EAQC-WISE into Guidance
  Document in activity 2 of CMA
• Approval of Guidance Document by SCG and Water
  Directors

29
Follow up

• Initiation of additional voluntary networks
• training providers, WFD laboratories
• Integration of European Expert Group in CMA
  (activity 2), update of CMA mandate to integrate
  EEG tasks
• Establishment of the National Expert Groups
• Setting up of networks including links with
  existing ones

30
Follow up

• Regular review of activities (self assessment of
  expert groups, including stakeholders)
• Regular update of mandates of expert groups