ELAP proposes $1M database upgrade and an optional full TNI accreditation pathway

Staff for the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) outlined major cost drivers and a proposed accreditation pathway during the State Water Resources Control Board’s virtual stakeholder meeting.

Tracy Lots said the FY 25/26 ELAP fee-setting budget was approximately $4.66 million and the Governor’s January proposed FY 26/27 total is about $5.8 million, an increase of roughly $1.2 million (25.5%). She said the largest single cost-driver shown was a proposed one-time $1 million BCP for a new secure ELAP database — described as the California Environmental Regulatory Data Security Initiative — to address repeated system outages and incidents of data loss and to maintain accreditation services.

Tracy said the $1 million would be one-time contract funding to complete the project approval process and to implement a secure, modern database that aligns with later stages of the State’s project approval life cycle (PAL). Staff stated they do not anticipate fee increases would be needed for this item if the BCP is finalized because the ELAP fund reserve is expected to cover the cost.

Michael Head, supervisor in the Program Development, Research and Enforcement Unit, described an accreditation-pathway proposal to restore ELAP to full TNI accreditation-body status. He said staff propose a dual-path model: continue offering the current TNI-minus-2 option and add an optional full-TNI pathway for laboratories that choose higher technical requirements. Michael said the full-TNI option would not be mandatory, would carry a different fee structure, and would require additional technical commitments from labs (for example, two performance tests per year rather than one and higher technical-manager requirements).

Stakeholders asked whether ELAP costs will stabilize. Staff (Darren and Cassandra White) said fee-structure changes implemented previously have substantially stabilized program fee flows, they do not anticipate growth at this time, and the program is working to address earlier underfunding effects from when the program was at CDPH.

Staff said they plan to provide more detailed cost and fee numbers at the June stakeholder meeting and encouraged written comments and questions via the posted link.

There were no formal votes or decisions recorded on the accreditation proposal or the database BCP during the meeting.