NR 149.26(3) (3) Results from all PT sample reports issued to the department by PT sample providers shall be used to determine a laboratory's accreditation status.
NR 149.26(4) (4) The department may only accept amended and reissued PT sample reports if the reissue is due to an error made by the PT sample provider and revised reports are all the following:
NR 149.26(4)(a) (a) Clearly labeled as revised or reissued.
NR 149.26(4)(b) (b) Directly submitted to the department by the PT sample provider.
NR 149.26(4)(c) (c) Accompanied by an explanation of the PT sample provider's error.
NR 149.26 Note Note: Re-issued reports are acceptable in cases when the laboratory neglected to instruct the PT sample provider to report results to the department.
NR 149.26 History History: CR 17-046: cr. Register February 2021 No. 782, eff. 6-29-21.
NR 149.27 NR 149.27 Proficiency testing sample acceptance limits and grading.
NR 149.27(1)(1)Acceptance limits. A laboratory's result for any analyte or analyte group is considered unacceptable if it meets any of the following conditions:
NR 149.27(1)(a) (a) The result falls outside the acceptance limits.
NR 149.27(1)(b) (b) The laboratory reports a result for an analyte not present in the PT sample.
NR 149.27(1)(c) (c) The laboratory does not report a result for an analyte present in the PT sample.
NR 149.27(1)(d) (d) The laboratory fails to submit its results to the PT sample provider on or before the deadline for the PT sample study.
NR 149.27(1)(e) (e) The laboratory reports a method code for either an unapproved method or the method code reported is not appropriate for the technology-analyte or method-analyte combination.
NR 149.27(1)(f) (f) The laboratory fails to meet department specified grading criteria for multi-analyte PT samples.
NR 149.27 Note Note: Department grading criteria can be found on the Wisconsin department of natural resources laboratory accreditation program website.
NR 149.27(2) (2)Grading.
NR 149.27(2)(a)(a) PT samples for analytes in aqueous and non-aqueous matrices shall be graded in accordance with acceptance limits established by the department considering criteria developed by the EPA.
NR 149.27(2)(b) (b) When the EPA has not developed acceptance limits for required PT sample analytes, the department may develop acceptance limits based on its experience or information supplied by approved PT sample providers.
NR 149.27(2)(c) (c) When an insufficient number of laboratories participate in a study to generate peer-based acceptance limits in a PT sample with analytes for which the EPA has not established acceptance limits, the department may grade results using fixed acceptance limits.
NR 149.27(2)(d) (d) PT sample analytes in drinking water shall be graded in accordance with the acceptance limits established in 40 CFR 141.23 (k) (3) (ii), 40 CFR 141.24 (f) (17) (i) (C) and (D), 40 CFR 141.24 (f) (17) (ii) (B), 40 CFR 141.24 (h) (19) (i) (A) and (B), and 40 CFR 141.89 (a) (1) (ii), and 40 CFR 141.131 (b) (2) (ii) and (iii).
NR 149.27 Note Note: Links to 40 CFR Part 141 can be found on the Wisconsin department of natural resources laboratory accreditation program website.
NR 149.27(2)(e) (e) When accreditation in an analyte group is based on passing a representative PT sample containing more than one analyte, the laboratory shall report acceptable results on at least 80% of the analytes to achieve acceptable results for that sample. The department may investigate repeated failures for specific analytes and direct enforcement action in the event of two consecutive failures in the drinking water matrix or three consecutive failures in the aqueous matrix.
NR 149.27(2)(f) (f) The department shall establish procedures for evaluating false positives and false negatives reported in analyzed PT samples.
NR 149.27 History History: CR 17-046: cr. Register February 2021 No. 782, eff. 6-29-21.
NR 149.28 NR 149.28 Procedure for correcting unacceptable proficiency testing sample results.
NR 149.28(1)(1)Aqueous and non-aqueous matrices.
NR 149.28(1)(a) (a) If a laboratory does not meet the acceptance limits for an analyte or analyte group and the laboratory does not have acceptable results on a previous sample analyzed during the same accreditation period, the laboratory shall analyze a second PT sample for that analyte or analyte group.
NR 149.28(1)(b) (b) If the results of a second PT sample do not meet the acceptance limits, the department may initiate an assessment of the laboratory's quality control records if this action is necessary to validate data generated by the laboratory. If two consecutive PT samples do not meet acceptance limits, the laboratory shall do all the following:
NR 149.28(1)(b)1. 1. Prepare a corrective action report and initiate an action plan to correct the problems within 30 days of the date of notification of the second failure. This action plan shall include a timetable for correcting the problems and obtaining a third PT sample.
NR 149.28(1)(b)2. 2. Analyze a third PT sample within 60 days of the date of notification of the second failure. If the results of the third PT sample do not meet the acceptance limits, the laboratory shall analyze two subsequent and consecutive acceptable PT samples.
NR 149.28(1)(c) (c) The department may not renew accreditation of those analytes or analyte groups for which a laboratory has failed three consecutive PT samples and has not successfully analyzed two subsequent and consecutive PT samples for those analytes or analyte groups prior to September 1.
NR 149.28(1)(d) (d) When applying to have an analyte or analyte group reinstated after non-renewal for failing three consecutive PT samples, the laboratory shall provide acceptable results on two subsequent and consecutive PT sample studies for that analyte or analyte group. The consecutive PT samples shall be two unique studies received by the laboratory at least ten business days apart. The laboratory may not prepare or analyze the two PT samples in the same batch.
NR 149.28(2) (2)Drinking water. If a certified laboratory does not meet the acceptance limits that have been established by the department, the department shall require the laboratory to analyze a second PT sample and may require the laboratory to submit a corrective action report. If the results of the second sample do not meet the acceptance limits, the department may not renew the laboratory's certification and may revoke the laboratory's certification as specified in s. NR 149.10. To reinstate the certification for the affected method-analyte or analyte group, the laboratory shall submit a revised application, pay the revised application fee, and provide acceptable results on two subsequent and consecutive PT sample studies for that method-analyte or analyte group. The consecutive PT samples shall be two unique studies received by the laboratory at least ten business days apart. The laboratory may not prepare or analyze the two PT samples in the same batch.
NR 149.28 History History: CR 17-046: cr. Register February 2021 No. 782, eff. 6-29-21.
subch. VI of ch. NR 149 Subchapter VI — On-Site Laboratory Evaluations
NR 149.29 NR 149.29 Purpose, type, and frequency.
NR 149.29(1)(1)The department shall perform on-site evaluations to determine a laboratory's potential, actual, or continued ability to comply with the provisions of this chapter.
NR 149.29(2) (2) The department shall conduct announced on-site evaluations of laboratories once every three years and when any of the following occurs:
NR 149.29(2)(a) (a) A laboratory applies to become certified or registered in any field of accreditation unless the department waives the requirement to perform an on-site evaluation. When the department does not waive an evaluation, the evaluation shall be performed within 90 days after the department determines that a received application is complete.
NR 149.29(2)(b) (b) A laboratory changes its location, ownership or key personnel, unless the department waives the requirement to perform an on-site evaluation. When the department does not waive an evaluation, the evaluation shall be performed within 90 days after the department receives notification of these changes.
NR 149.29(2)(c) (c) The department determines that an on-site evaluation is necessary to verify corrective action implemented by a laboratory to address deficiencies identified in a previous on-site evaluation.
NR 149.29(2)(d) (d) The department has reason to believe that a laboratory is not in compliance with this chapter.
NR 149.29(3) (3) The department may conduct unannounced on-site evaluations of a laboratory to verify compliance with this chapter after a notice of violation has been issued to a laboratory.
NR 149.29 History History: CR 17-046: cr. Register February 2021 No. 782, eff. 6-29-21; correction in (title) made under s. 13.92 (4) (b) 2., Stats., Register February 2021 No. 782.
NR 149.30 NR 149.30 Evaluation procedures and appraisal.
NR 149.30(1)(1)The department shall perform on-site evaluations of laboratories to evaluate systems, practices, procedures, and documentation in a laboratory and to identify deficiencies according to documented procedures that promote consistency in determining a laboratory's potential, actual, or continued ability to comply with this chapter.
NR 149.30(2) (2) If, in performing an on-site evaluation, the department finds that the laboratory is implementing a procedure that is neither allowed nor disallowed by method or this chapter, the department will assess the scientific validity of the procedure. The department may seek the advice of the council in making determinations under this subsection.
NR 149.30(3) (3) The department shall provide laboratories with a survey to allow them to appraise the evaluation process.
NR 149.30 History History: CR 17-046: cr. Register February 2021 No. 782, eff. 6-29-21; correction in (2) made under s. 13.92 (4) (b) 7., Stats., Register February 2021 No. 782.
NR 149.31 NR 149.31 Evaluation reports.
NR 149.31(1)(1)The department shall document the deficiencies identified during an on-site evaluation under s. NR 149.30 in reports issued to the evaluated laboratory.
NR 149.31(2) (2) The report of an on-site evaluation shall be issued to a laboratory within 30 days of the conclusion of the on-site visit. When the department finds it necessary to issue an evaluation report at a date later than 30 days after the conclusion of an on-site visit, the department shall notify the laboratory about the delay. The notice shall include an expected delivery date for the report.
NR 149.31 History History: CR 17-046: cr. Register February 2021 No. 782, eff. 6-29-21.
NR 149.32 NR 149.32 Evaluation corrective action.
NR 149.32(1)(1)A laboratory shall take corrective action to address all deficiencies discovered during an on-site evaluation under s. NR 149.30 and contained in an evaluation report under s. NR 149.31.
NR 149.32(2) (2) A laboratory shall submit to the department, within 30 days from the evaluation report's date, a plan of corrective action to address all the deficiencies noted in the report. When a laboratory finds it necessary to submit a corrective action plan at a date later than 30 days after the evaluation report's date, the laboratory shall notify the department about the delay and provide an expected delivery date in consultation with the department.
NR 149.32(3) (3) The department shall review the corrective action plan submitted by a laboratory under sub. (2) and inform the laboratory whether the submitted plan addresses satisfactorily all noted deficiencies, or whether additional action or documentation is necessary to determine the laboratory's ability to comply with this chapter, subject to all the following:
NR 149.32(3)(a) (a) When the department determines that the submitted corrective action plan addresses all noted deficiencies satisfactorily, the department shall inform the laboratory in writing within 30 days that the plan is acceptable.
NR 149.32(3)(b) (b) When the department determines that additional action or documentation is needed to evaluate compliance with this chapter, the department, in consultation with the laboratory, shall set a date for the laboratory to submit a second corrective action plan.
NR 149.32(3)(b)1. 1. If the department determines that the second corrective action plan submitted under sub. (3) (b) addresses all noted deficiencies satisfactorily, the department shall inform the laboratory in writing that the evaluation process has concluded.
NR 149.32(3)(b)2. 2. If the department determines that the second corrective action plan submitted under sub. (3) (b) does not address all the noted deficiencies satisfactorily, the department may schedule another on-site evaluation to determine the laboratory's compliance with this chapter, terminate any outstanding application that led to the original on-site evaluation, or direct enforcement to the laboratory.
NR 149.32(3)(b)3. 3. If a second on-site evaluation is scheduled as a follow-up to a second corrective action plan submitted under sub. (3) (b), the department shall establish deadlines that resolve any remaining unresolved deficiencies expeditiously, but no later than 90 days after the conclusion of the follow-up visit.
NR 149.32 History History: CR 17-046: cr. Register February 2021 No. 782, eff. 6-29-21.
NR 149.33 NR 149.33 Conflicts of interest.
NR 149.33(1)(1)The department shall establish procedures to ensure and document that laboratory evaluators under its employment are free of any conflicts that would render the laboratory evaluator incapable of performing an objective and unbiased evaluation of a laboratory.
NR 149.33(2) (2) A laboratory may request information and documents used by the department to establish that any evaluator assigned to perform the laboratory's evaluation is free of any conflicts of interest.
NR 149.33 History History: CR 17-046: cr. Register February 2021 No. 782, eff. 6-29-21.
NR 149.34 NR 149.34 Evaluator qualifications.
NR 149.34(1)(1)The department shall develop procedures to establish and evaluate the education, experience, and credentials of the laboratory evaluators under its employment.
NR 149.34(2) (2) A laboratory may request information and documents used by the department to establish that any evaluator assigned to perform the laboratory's evaluation has the necessary education, experience, or credentials to perform evaluations competently.
NR 149.34 History History: CR 17-046: cr. Register February 2021 No. 782, eff. 6-29-21.
subch. VII of ch. NR 149 Subchapter VII — Quality Systems
NR 149.35 NR 149.35 General requirements.
NR 149.35(1)(1)Scope. This subchapter establishes personnel, quality assurance, quality control, method selection, sample handling, and documentation requirements for laboratories.
NR 149.35(2) (2)Responsibility for quality system. A laboratory shall conduct analytical activities under a quality system that incorporates the provisions of this subchapter. At least one individual within a laboratory's organization or under the laboratory's employment shall be identified to the department as responsible for establishing, implementing, assessing, and revising, as needed, a laboratory's quality system.
NR 149.35 History History: CR 17-046: cr. Register February 2021 No. 782, eff. 6-29-21.
NR 149.36 NR 149.36 Laboratory personnel.
NR 149.36(1)(1)Management and analytical staff. The laboratory shall have personnel with education, training, or experience that allows the laboratory to comply with the requirements of this chapter. Contractors, external to the laboratory, may serve in key laboratory roles. When external contractors serve in essential laboratory roles, the contracts shall be available to the department to ensure that contractual specifications satisfy the requirements of this chapter.
NR 149.36 Note Note: For requirements regarding changes in key personnel see s. NR 149.155.
NR 149.36(2) (2)Demonstration of capability.
NR 149.36(2)(a) (a) When a laboratory references a method that contains procedures for demonstrating initial capability, continuing capability or both, personnel performing analyses using these methods shall perform the procedures, meet any associated evaluation criteria, and document the results. When initial demonstrations of capability include the analysis of samples, the samples shall be prepared from a clean matrix and processed through all method preparation steps.
NR 149.36(2)(b) (b) When a laboratory references a method that does not contain procedures for demonstrating initial capability, the laboratory shall establish initial demonstration of capability criteria for determining that each person who performs testing on compliance samples using the method has demonstrated the necessary skills and expertise required to generate quality analytical results. The laboratory shall retain documentation that each person performing a given test on compliance samples has satisfied the demonstration of capability criteria established by the laboratory.
NR 149.36 History History: CR 17-046: cr. Register February 2021 No. 782, eff. 6-29-21.
NR 149.365 NR 149.365 Laboratory ethics. All the following practices are prohibited and may result in enforcement action under s. NR 149.10:
NR 149.365(1) (1) Fabrication, falsification, or misrepresentation of data.
NR 149.365(2) (2) Improper instrument clock setting, termed time traveling, or improper recording of date or time.
NR 149.365(3) (3) Unwarranted manipulation of samples, software, peak integration, or analytical conditions.
NR 149.365(4) (4) Concealing or failing to report a known improper or unethical behavior or action associated with sample analysis.
Loading...
Loading...
Published under s. 35.93, Stats. Updated on the first day of each month. Entire code is always current. The Register date on each page is the date the chapter was last published.