develop consensus standards for use by TNI's programs. This group has a support role in assisting other programs with activities such as guidance and standards interpretation.
fosters the generation of data of known and documented quality is through the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program, or NELAP. The purpose of this program is to establish and implement a program for the accreditation of environmental laboratories.
is to establish and maintain a national PT program to support TNI’s National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program, and other activities.
Field Activities Program (NEFAP) Executive Committee is to establish and implement an accreditation program for field sampling and measurement organizations (FSMOs).
Audit Sample Program is to develop consensus standards for the manufacture and analysis of audit samples for source emission testing.
on a variety of topics of interest to the environmental measurement community. TNI also hosts two regularly scheduled meetings per year, typically in January and August. Both are a week long and involve open meetings of TNI committees as well as training courses and other special sessions.Combined Interpretations of the 2003, 2009, and 2016 Standards that apply to Volume 1 of the 2016 TNI Standard
Question: I am confused about the PT requirements for labs doing WET analysis. The only 'true' PT is the DMRQA - but it runs longer than 45 days - which doesn't meet F.2.2 requirements. I need to know will the DMRQA be allowed and counted as a PT until such a time as the PT providers have other PTs available? TNI Response: The 2009 standard extended the time period to 90 days. The 2016 standard removes all references to study dates for WET testing. The SIR no longer applies to the 2009 or 2016 standards. Section 5.2.2 of 2016 V1M1 for WET testing: To maintain accreditation the laboratory shall participate in one (1) WET PT study per calendar year for each accreditation FoPT that correspond to the fields of accreditation for which the laboratory is accredited. a) This requirement can be met by annual participation in the EPA DMRQA studies for WET, or b) If the laboratory is not participating in an EPA DMRQA study for WET, the closing dates of subsequent PT study samples for WET testing PT studies must be no more than fourteen (14) months apart. Question: NELAC 2003 2.7.2 says, "For continuing accreditation, completion dates of successive proficiency rounds for a given field of proficiency testing shall be approximately six months apart. Failure to meet the semiannual schedule is regarded as a failed study." TNI V1M1 4.2.1 says, "The analysis dates of successive PT samples for the same accreditation FOPT shall be at least five months apart and no longer than seven months apart unless the PT sample is being used for corrective action to establish successful history …" There is no language to describe what happens after 7 months have passed. The sentence is missing from TNI that was in NELAC that directed or allowed the addition of a "failed study" when the semiannual requirement was not met. Is it the intent of the standard for ABs to continue treating a failure to meet the semiannual schedule as a failed study? This is a significant enforcement issue since a potential alternative seems to be in V2M2, 10.3: "The Primary AB shall revoke the accreditation of a laboratory for a FoPT when: (a) the laboratory does not participate in the PT program as required by this Standard." This penalty is too severe and problematic for what could be just a missed deadline. TNI Response: If a laboratory fails to report a single proficiency testing result it is evaluated as "not acceptable" per V2M2 7.3 part b. If the laboratory fails to report results for 2 out of 3 proficiency testing study time frames, then the laboratory's accreditation shall be suspended per V2M2 10.1 for failing to participate in the timeframes specified in the standard.The language has been clarified in the 2016 standard. Section 5.2.3 of V1M1 states a laboratory that fails to analyze and report PT studies for a particular field of accreditation with the frequency specified in Sections 5.2.1 or 5.2.2 for which it seeks to maintain accreditation is charged with a failed PT study. The SIR is likely obsolete. Question: Section 5.2.3 states that a study that does not meet the criteria of at least 7 days and no more than 7 months between the close of the previous study and open of the subsequent study is charged with a failed PT study. TNI Response: Section 5.2.1.2 c) reads "any study that does not meet the 7-day wait time between the closing date of one study and the opening date of another is invalid and is not counted toward the laboratory's PT history of the most recent three attempts".
MODULE 1: PROFICIENCY TESTING REQUIREMENTS
Section: 5.1-5.2
Section 5.2.1.2 states that studies which are closer than 7 days from the closing date of the previous study are invalid for the purposes of compliance with this Standard and are not counted toward the laboratory's PT history of the most recent 3 attempts.
So is a study that fails the 7 days or greater criteria invalid or failed? For example, a lab has 3 PT studies; #1 opening 8/28 closing 9/21, #2 opening 9/26 closing 10/6, #3 opening 10/13 closing 10/24. Would study #2 be invalid and not counted as 2 of 3 or would it be a failure?
Using the examples provided with the question, Study 2 is invalid and is not counted toward the laboratory's PT history. Since it is not counted, it isn't judged as a failure.
