IL AC input to CIPM MRA Re vie w Wor kshop 13- 14 Oc tobe r 2015 BI PM Se vre s 13 Oc to b e r 2015 By E rik Oe hle nsc hla e g e r I L AC (DANAK )
IL AC Histor y • ILAC first started as a conference in 1977 (Copenhagen) with the aim of developing international cooperation for facilitating trade by promotion of the acceptance of accredited test and calibration results. • In 1996, ILAC became a formal cooperation with a charter to establish a network of mutual recognition agreements among accreditation bodies. • In 2000, the 36 ILAC’s Full Members consisting of laboratory accreditation bodies from 28 economies worldwide, signed the ILAC Mutual Recognition Arrangement (ILAC MRA) in Washington DC, to promote the acceptance of technical test and calibration data for exported goods. • The ILAC MRA for calibration and testing laboratories came into effect on 31 January 2001.
IL AC F ac ts and figur e s
IL AC F ac ts and figur e s
45000+ accredited laboratories worldwide Construction materials Generic Cabling EMC Food products Wind turbine blades Veterinary samples Nano structures Toys Furniture Personal protective equipment Electrical safety Water sample analyses Non Destructive Testing Sensorics Electronics Stoves Stack emissions Acoustics Legal metrology Pharmaceuticals Household appliances Radiation testing Road materials Forensics Calibration Medical samples
BIPM/ CIPM - one of the 9 MoU par tne r s of IL AC • International Accreditation Forum (IAF) • International Bureau for Weights and Measures (BIPM) and International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM) • International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) • International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) • International Organization for Standardization (ISO) • International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) • International Telecommunication Union (ITU) • United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) • World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)
CIPM – a r e sour c e for ac c r e ditation • Providing technical assessors to Accreditation Bodies • The KCDB • Technical guidance (Euramet) • Cooperation in metrology and accreditation
CIPM – sour c e of te c hnic al asse ssor s • Technical assessors from NMI’s are usually state of the art assessors in measurement and uncertainty issues. • Well trained and experienced. • Serving as a technical assessor is also providing a channel for communication between the industrial sector and the NMI community. Opportunities for improvement • Establishment of databases of experts (trained technical assessors) in the RMO’s.
CIPM – the KCDB • The CMC’s found in the KCDB Appendix C are a valuable benchmarking tool when taking decisions on accreditation in calibration (high end labs). • The KCDB Appendix C is an important resource for high end labs (and AB’s) when seeking a NMI for a bilateral comparison. • The KCDB Appendix D provides access to KC’s. This feature is used much less than Appendix C and usually in investigation of validity of CMC’s and bilateral comparisons. • The KCDB Appendix C makes it possible to check the CMC of NMI’s used as the source for traceability to accredited labs (ILAC P10).
CIPM – the KCDB Concerns on fundamental changes to the KCDB • Presently CMC’s in the KCDB covers exactly the same as CMC’s of accredited laboratories. Some NMI’s even compete in the same market as the accredited laboratories. (which is not necessarily a problem) • If only high end CMC’s were to be maintained in the KCDB it would be impossible for AB’s and the laboratories to check if a NMI service has been subject to assessment from a third party (peer review or accreditation) and support traceability (“ILAC P10 route 1”) Opportunities for improvement • It actually works quite well! !!! As it is it surely serves the needs of the AB’s • The scrutiny for approval of CMC’s may be different for primary and secondary quantities. Anyway: Keep it transparent (as you are so good at!)
CIPM – T e c hnic al guidanc e • Valuable information comes from the KC’s. Much of this information may be valuable also to laboratories and AB’s. • Technical guides and protocols developed regionally are to some extent standardization outside ISO in order to improve demonstration of equivalence of measurements of laboratories. • Guidance in metrology (GUM&VIM, JCGM) Opportunities for improvement • Structuring this information in a similar way as the KC’s and the CMC’s may be valuable for metrologists and users of metrology.
T oR BIPM- IL AC Wor king Gr oup (2005) • intensify the information flow between the two organizations; • review the CIPM-ILAC MoU when necessary; • review issues concerning the degree of equivalence and appropriate mutual strengthening of the CIPM MRA and the ILAC Arrangement; • exchange information on current and planned inter laboratory comparisons under both organizations with a view to identifying those which are of common importance to both; • review the traceability and dissemination process between NMIs and accredited laboratories and give appropriate feedback to both memberships for appropriate further action; • review the impact of ISO Standards on metrology and related matters.
Coope r ation in me tr ology and ac c r e ditation • Annual meeting of the BIPM-ILAC Working Group since March 2005. • CMC paper by the joint BIPM/ILAC working group , issued in 2007. • ILAC P14:2010 Estimation of Uncertainty in calibration . • Quadripartite Declaration on Metrological Traceability with OIML and ISO, ILAC and the BIPM issued in 2011. • CIPM-ILAC MoU reaffirmed 2012 • ILAC P10:2013 Policy on traceability of measurement results
Coope r ation in me tr ology and ac c r e ditation Opportunities for improvements • Work for better use from KC’s in order for high level accredited and non NMI/DI labs to demonstrate CMC’s at the same level as NMI’s – We do not propose that accredited labs participate the KC’s. – We ask for more NMI’s to offer comparison services for high end calibration laboratories - bilateral or multilateral as convenient - in the “slipstream” of the KC’s. (as required in ILAC P9) – Please see that activity as a development in metrological infrastructure resulting from better access to primary realizations of primary quantities similar to ordinary dissemination of traceability. • Continue the (very good) joint work for equal access to CMC’s and to establish traceability that complies with ILAC P10 - within NMI’s as well as accredited labs in all regions around the world. (DCMAS)
Coope r ation on ac c r e ditation of NMIs • There are NMIs that both participate in the CIPM MRA and choose to be accredited (or required to be accredited by regulation). • The Joint ILAC – CIPM Communication regarding the Accreditation of Calibration and Measurement Services of National Metrology Institutes issued 2012 was a major step forward clarifying how accreditation best support the CIPM MRA infrastructure Opportunities for improvement • Further joint work for removal of redundant activities. This especially concerns issues related to the “chapter 4” (QMS part) of ISO 17025:2005. There is a wide spectrum of regional approaches for the cooperation on accreditation of NMI’s.
F inally ILAC is pleased to be asked to contribute to this workshop and appreciates the vital cooperation between the CIPM/BIPM and ILAC in support of the world wide dissemination of traceability. ILAC will be available for any future communication on issues of mutual interest.
Recommend
More recommend
