PLG - minutes of the 38th meeting in Prague, March 15/16, 2006Page 1 of 12
EA/PLG(06)M38_Prague
EL/07_05_06_228
Unconfirmed minutes of the 38th meeting of the
EA-Eurolab-Eurachem Permanent Liaison Group (PLG)
at Hotel Novotel Praha City in Prague on March 15-16, 2006
Attendance:
Manfred Golze-Eurolab (Chairman), Jean-Marc Aublant-Eurolab (minutes), Martine Bednarova-EA (only on March 15), John Day-Eurolab, Magnus Holmgren-Eurolab, Hanspeter Ischi-EA, Pavel Klenovski-Euromet (only on March 15), Christina Waddington-EA, Adolf Zschunke-Eurachem
- Opening of the meeting and welcome
Manfred Golze opened the meeting. He welcomed everybody and started the roll call of delegates. All members briefly introduced themselves.
He thanked Pavel Klenovski to represent Euromet and pleaded for a future participation of Euromet as a permanent PLG member.
- Adoption of the agenda
Manfred Golze proposed to add a topic related to the use of the joint ISO-ILAC-IAF communiqué in the accreditation process (see paragraph 6.2). It was accepted.
The amended agenda was approved.
- Minutes of the last meeting
3.1 Approval
The minutes of the last meeting (EA/PLG(05)M37) were approved without comments and with thanks to Christine Messerli for having prepared them.
3.2 Matters arising from the last page of the minutes
All actions were reviewed. Some of them were on the agenda of this meeting.
Action 2.
Magnus Holmgren informed the group that the final draft of the 3E PT WG subgroup document on the promotion of MU in PTs had been sent around by Nick Boley and to the PLG members for comments. Eurachem and Eurolab already approved it. HI mentioned that this document had recently also been forwarded to the EA LC for comments . He emphasised that it had already been well received and supported by EA members.
Action 4.
Regarding the document on the Selection of PT schemes Manfred Golze thanked Graham Talbot for rewording it and felt it was now a good document . He will submit it to the TC QA on May 8, 2006.
Action 5.
Manfred Golze informed the group that the workshop would be held in Borås on May 15, 2006.
Action 6.
Manfred Golze explained that the workshop programme was now available and the flyer was circulated.
- Information from and developments in the 3 Es
4.1 EA and ILAC
Regarding EA Hanspeter Ischi informed the group:
EA had elected a new Chairman, Lorenzo Thione, and a new Vice-Chairman, Graham Talbot. As a consequence Graham Talbot resigned from the PLG. The EA LC nominated Martina Bednarova provided that the Czech Accreditation Institute (CAI) will agree. As Wolfgang Bosch stepped back, too, another new representative of EA in the PLG group has to be nominated
He highlighted one of the future big tasks for EA, which is the co-operation with the European Commission. He explained that it is so far difficult for EA to understand what the European Commission is expecting from EA apart from a closer and intensified co-operation.
He stressed one possible consequence, namely a slight reorganization of the EAAB where the governmental representation could be enlarged in the future.
He mentioned that for the time being the chairman and the vice-chairman are visiting accreditation bodies all over Europe to meet them and learn about their wishes and expectations. Their findings will be summarised and discussed within the EA structures to adapt the strategy if needed.
He recalled the two-day meeting of EA LC, which was held on Monday and Tuesday, the days before.
He mentioned that Proficiency Tests (PTs) and Inter Laboratory Comparisons (ILCs) were discussed controversially. He underlined that the EA Executive Committee confirmed that it did not want EA to be an ILC provider.
He also mentioned that the draft guideline for computerized systems entitled “Guidance for the Management of computers and software in laboratories with reference to ISO/IEC 17025:2005” had been discussed in EA LC and was on the agenda of the meeting.
Finally referring to the forthcoming workshop on flexible scope in accreditation he informed the PLG that he had launched an enquiry with the EA LC members to collect and present the view of EA at the workshop in Borås.
Christina Waddington pointed out that the main discussions and expectations within EA were focused on practical issues; the target is a harmonization of practices.
Manfred Golze pointed out that he felt that the participation of calibration laboratories in interlaboratory comparisons should not be mandatory. Hanspeter Ischi agreed but felt that clarification was needed at EA level. He wanted to include this topic in the discussions on how the MLA is functioning.
Regarding ILAC Hanspeter Ischi informed the group:
An Executive Committee meeting had been held recently where a new member, CEOC, was accepted as stakeholder in ILAC. He pointed out that this strengthened the European voice in ILAC.
An application for membership has been introduced from NACLA (Canada) but it is still under consideration and needs clarification because there are many accreditation bodies in the US.
IAF has started to develop a guidance document on the implementation of ISO/IEC 17011. In spite ILAC does not really believe that such a document is needed,. ILAC will cooperate in developing it.
The WG on Reference Materials chaired by Maire Walsh is going to set up a guidance document that will be available in May 2006 in Madrid. Besides this meeting a half-day workshop will be held on the accreditation of RM producers. The first draft of the guidance document should be tabled at this meeting. Adolf Zschunke and Manfred Golze asked for a clarification and about the EU participants in this WG RM.
A new WG on Calibration has been set up. Three major topics should be tackled soon. Traceability (that could be convened by Erik Øhlenschlæger from Danak; an application decided in EA LC the day before will be sent to ILAC), Revision of the document on measurement uncertainty and Accreditation of NMIs.
Other WGs are still going on, i.e. WG on scopes, or are still under consideration, i.e. WG on disaster victims and identification of victims, because it needs to be clarified whether testing or inspection are applicable.
A discussion is still going on about what is accreditable, and in particular on accreditation of PT providers.
The running of the ILAC Secretariat is also questionable, in particular the tools and procedures need to be improved.
A statement dealing with a close co-operation between ILAC, BIPM and OIML has been recently issued. Manfred Golze claimed that the results of PTs must remain anonymous in the field sectors, and he suggested this statement to be revised.
John Day added that UKAS assessed 6 RM producers, including LGC, as a pilot process on a flexible scope basis. The results will be available by the end of April 2006.
4.2 3E PT Working Group
Magnus Holmgren reported on the work carried out since the last EEE-PT meeting. Regarding previous discussions he felt there was a mismatch of documents, in particular he mentioned that educational aspects (or learning aspects) had not been discussed sufficiently in the group.
According to a recent phone call he had before this meeting with Nick Boley, chair of the group, he pointed out 2 relevant facts; Nick Boley is going to step back from the chair of the group and the main concern of the group is the revision of the guidance document G13 of ILAC. This point will be discussed later .
Concerning the measurement uncertainty paper Manfred Golze mentioned that it had been finalised and accepted by Eurolab and also by the EA LC. Nonetheless at the EA LC meeting held the day before educational aspects were commented and criticized by Bob Karls, representing Eurachem but there were not too many critical statements from EA LC.
Hanspeter Ischi confirmed that it seemed to be a very good paper, which will help to maintain competence and quality in laboratories.
All the participants agreed on the fact that PT schemes should include educational aspects and assessment aspects for laboratories but also for providers offering PTs in new fields. Some conclusions on the results were discussed for the mandatory and voluntary fields. Regarding mandatory fields it was understood that accreditation could be suspended or withdrawn if results are wrong, but in voluntary fields it was emphasised that if the results are wrong they need to be investigated first and corrective actions be taken before any decision on accreditation will be taken. The participants stressed that in the case that a laboratory fails this does not mean it is not competent.
Adolf Zschunke mentioned from his point of view there were two different aspects in PT schemes, i.e. educational and assessment aspects that need to be considered
All these issues will be further discussed during the next meetings in Madrid.
4.3 EUROLAB
Jean-Marc Aublant informed the group that:
Marc Mortureux had step down from his function as Eurolab Chair as per December 1, 2005. The Eurolab Board meeting held in Teddington in December 2005 elected Bent Larsen, from Force-Dantest as acting President and Guy Jacques, from Vinçotte as acting Vice-President.
The Chairpersons’ meeting (EA-Eurolab-Eurachem-Euromet and CEOC) had been held in Brussels on January 20, 2006. Bent Larsen, Guy Jacques and Jean-Marc Aublant attended this meeting. The minutes were prepared and distributed by the CEOC secretariat. The next annual meeting is planned to be held in Paris on February 19, 2007.
The annual meeting between Eurolab and the EC DG Enterprise was held on March 7, 2006 in Brussels. It was attended by Jacques McMillan, Martin Stadler, Bent Larsen, Guy Jacques and Jean-Marc Aublant. A report was issued and will be published in the next Eurolab newsletter.
The Eurolab Technical Secretariat moved from BAM to LNE from January 1, 2006 with a transition period that will end at the Eurolab General Assembly to be held on May 16, 2006. Jean-Marc Aublant is the new Eurolab Secretary from January 1, 2006 and should be approved at the next General Assembly.
4.4 EPTIS
Manfred Golze informed the group about a decision of the Eurolab Board to send a letter to EA and ILAC explaining the role and interest of EPTIS. The two organisations are asked to support this database for which each year around 100.000 Euros are required and which is run bythe EPTIS consortium. Today costs of approx. 50.000 Euros are covered by BAM and 50.000 Euros by the national contact points for maintenance and updating.
Hanspeter Ischi confirmed that the point would be discussed at the ExCom of EA.
4.5 EURACHEM
Adolf Zschunke stated there was no EURACHEM meeting since the last PLG Meeting held in Rome.
There were correspondence and exchange by email on the EA position paper on the cooperation with the European Commission.
The next Eurachem General Assembly is planned to be held in Istanbul on Thursday 19 and Friday 20 October 2006where some working group meetings will be held the days before.
4.5 IAGRM
This topic was not discussed due to the fact this group is considered as dormant for the time being.
- Matters arising from the 4E Chairpersons’ meeting
The minutes of the 4E chairpersons’ meeting had been published and disseminated by the CEOC Secretariat on March 10, 2006. The organizations present and represented were: Euromet, Eurachem, EA, Eurolab and CEOC. Hanspeter Ischi mentioned that he was not available for attending this meeting.
Jean-Marc Aublant gave a short overview on the main issues:
Revision of the New Approach. The joint-CEOC- Eurolab position paper was circulated, presented by Guy Jacques and commented by the participants. They agreed that one of the objectives of the review of the new approach is to strengthen the role of accreditation as a guarantee of the quality of conformity assessment and of a better use of conformity assessment services.
The Services Directive. Dr. Hugo Eberhardt highlighted that conformity assessment and accreditation activities are considered as services and then would fall under the scope of this directive. The participants pointed out that a full deregulation of services would endanger the principles of the New Approach and the quality of services. They agreed to take a common position on this issue.
EA and the EA strategy paper. Lorenzo Thione explained that a revised version of the EA strategy paper had been presented to Jacques McMillan and that this paper had been approved as such by the EC. This paper was circulated among the participants beforehand. Guy Jacques explained and argued that an appeal procedure could be established as regards the interpretation of accreditation bodies. Some amendments were suggested; the amended version of the EA strategy paper will be circulated among the participants. It has also been agreed that the draft procedure prepared by Guy Jacques should be circulated to and discussed by EAAB.
Impartiality requirements for Notified Bodies. Bent Larsen pleaded for harmonized and coherent Criteria for impartiality in the whole of Europe. Lorenzo Thione agreed that such an issue should be put on the agenda of EA.
Activities for which conformity assessment bodies can be accredited. Accreditation of reference materials producers and PTs were mentioned. It was confirmed that EA will never support ILAC in extending the field of accreditation beyond this limit.
Co-operation in international organizations. To save money it was stated that EURACHEM, Eurolab and CEOC had agreed to cross-inform on their participation in the ILAC LC meetings so that if one person participates he may represent the others.
Co-operation in joint working groups. The revised ToR of the PLG had been circulated among the participants before the meeting . Euromet confirmed that it could participate in PLG meetings when items of interest would be discussed.
Joint workshop on Flexible Scope in Laboratory Accreditation. A first draft programme of the workshop organized by SP in Borås-Sweden was tabled.
The next 4E + CEOC International meeting will be held in Paris on February 19, 2007.
- Matters for discussion
6.1 Workshop of EA/LC and Eurolab TCQA on flexible scopes
Manfred Golze circulated some flyers of the workshop and asked the participants to disseminate the information and to request more if needed.
Magnus Holmgren gave relevant information regarding practical arrangements. Manfred Golze detailed the programme and suggested a significant follow up of the main issues.
Magnus Holmgren explained that it was planned to issue a final document summarizing the proceedings and debates after the workshop .
Manfred Golze and Magnus Holmgren proposed to send this document to Hanspeter Ischi to sensitize EA LC and EA ExCom. They also suggested to prepare a report and discuss the matter at the next EA General Assembly that will be held on 7-8 June 2006 in Riga.
Hanspeter Ischi agreed and mentioned that besides he had launched a survey on flexible scope amongst the accreditation bodies in Europe.
6.2 Promotion of accreditation, Promotion of ILAC statement
Hanspeter Ischi informed the group that at EA level some improvements of the website had been carried out, in particular related to the database on accredited laboratories. He also pointed out that the 2005 annual report should be issued soon. Nonetheless he underlined that there were no further promotion actions planned to be done for the time being.
Manfred Golze gave an example for the recognition of accreditation by German authorities in the field of environmental laboratories.
In addition he highlighted the possible use of the Joint Communiqué to promote accreditation. He mentioned that it could be sent either to the laboratories or as it was done in the UK a formal statement could be included in the certificates referring to the joint communiqué; sometimes it is also attached to the certificates.
Finally it was stated that differences exist among the members of EA and that this situation could be improved.
Manfred Golze suggested to bring up this issue at the Eurolab General Assembly and to ask the members to monitor satisfaction and experience from the laboratories.
John Day was asked to provide the PLG with an example for UKAS’ practices.
6.3 The use of computerized systems in laboratories
Magnus Holmgren gave a brief digest of the work having been done so far. He reminded that the drafting of the guideline of computerized systems had been launched on request of the EA LC and in close contacts with the TCQA. An ad hoc group had been set up composed of representatives of EA, Euromet, Eurolab, ILAC-A2LA, and the terms of reference once drafted by TCQA had been given to the group.
He mentioned that a lot of work had been done and that 2 first drafts had been issued before the final version had been circulated to the participants prior to the meeting. The guideline contained annexes and was drafted in connection with ISO 17025 taking into account the risk management.
John Day suggested some editorial corrections and confirmed the guideline to be very useful and appreciated the risk assessment to be treated as such. He highlighted the importance of documenting everything, specifically actions and modifications. He underlined the importance of the Excel spreadsheet validation.
Magnus Holmgren stated that this document was the final version of the ad hoc group and as such will be transmitted to TCQA. The next step should be that Hans Andersson would give a new assignment to Magnus Holmgren to deal with all the comments and inputs collected so far. Magnus Holmgren accepted to take into account all these comments .
John Day agreed to send to Magnus Holmgren examples of spreadsheet validation used in LGC.
Regarding the use of this document Manfred Golze suggested that as a co-operative work it could be published as a Eurolab guideline with acknowledgement to all the other contributors. The ownership will then be kept by Eurolab and hence the approval and revision procedures could be eased in the future.
Christina Waddington asked Magnus Holmgren to refer to the year of the ISO/IEC 17025 version considered in the guideline.
Manfred Golze appreciated the structure of the document and based on discussions held at the EA LC meeting asked for comments. Appendix 1 and Appendix 3 were commented in depth and particularly regarding the use and meaning of “risk”. For instance the headlines should show clearly the extent of the use of computers instead of the word “risk”.