Oregon Secretary of State | Report 2019-04 | January 2019 | Page 39
both cases, the labs continued to perform testing for several months after failing their
proficiency tests. ORELAP eventually issued corrective action letters requiring that both labs
pass pesticide proficiency tests or risk losing their accreditations, but not before both labs had
performed numerous compliance tests for pesticides over several months for their clients.
In the first case, the lab was contacted by ORELAP four months after failing to test properly for
11 pesticides. The lab chose not to retest, but never formally withdrew their accreditation, and
ORELAP never formally revoked it. Ultimately, the lab opted to subcontract out pesticide testing
to another lab and reportedly stopped performing pesticide tests in February 2018, six months
after failing the proficiency test. They retained the pesticide accreditation, with the exception of
the 11 pesticides that failed in proficiency testing. We were unable to confirm that this lab had
stopped performing pesticide tests. Tests that are subcontracted to a secondary lab are still
tracked under the name of the primary lab in Metrc, which gives the appearance that the
primary lab conducted the test.
In the second case, the lab was not contacted by ORELAP for a full year after failing their August
2017 pesticide proficiency test. Additionally, the second lab did not participate at all in the
required tests in the spring of 2018. In the year between failing the August 2017 proficiency test
and receiving the corrective action letter, the second lab continued to operate as a subcontractor
to several other labs, receiving and presumably testing over 1,000 packages between August
2017 and July 2018. This lab was only accredited to perform pesticide tests. The lab reported to
ORELAP in September 2018 that they were taking steps to address their proficiency testing
deficiencies, but had failed to enroll in further proficiency tests as of December 2018.
Limited authority, inadequate staff coverage, and inefficient processes reduce ORELAP’s
ability to ensure Oregon marijuana labs consistently operate under accreditation
standards
ORELAP can revoke or suspend lab accreditations for
proficiency testing failures. For other types of
accreditation deficiencies, ORELAP’s authority is bound
by Oregon’s Administrative Procedures Act. Addressing
these concerns triggers a protracted administrative
process during which ORELAP is prohibited from
curtailing any of a lab’s activities until after a court
hearing. If labs choose to appeal the decision of the
court, that can delay action almost indefinitely. While
ensuring that individuals and businesses have the
benefits of due process is critically important, the state
may consider reexamining the limits of ORELAP’s
authority in egregious cases, such as sampling fraud,
which could involve a potential public health concern.
Additional oversight authority in such cases could
prevent product that should not have passed a
compliance panel from reaching retail shelves.
High workloads and inefficient, incomplete, and time-
consuming tracking processes have likely impacted
ORELAP’s ability to respond to issues arising in
Oregon’s marijuana labs in a timely manner. ORELAP
lost two key managers in early 2017 and has struggled
with low staff numbers and high workloads for the past
two years. ORELAP has five full time staff, including
three assessors, a program manager, and a program
A case of potential sampling fraud
In early 2018, ORELAP received a video
that appeared to show a lab technician
participating in sampling fraud with staff
working at a grow site. The lab
technician observed grow site staff
separate out a portion of a larger batch,
then add an unidentified powder to the
separated portion. The technician
collected the sample only from this
portion of the batch. ORELAP began an
administrative review of the lab,
scheduling a court hearing with the
assistance of the Department of Justice.
The lab appealed after the hearing but
ultimately settled with ORELAP in
October 2018. The lab’s sampling
accreditation was then suspended until
the lab could prove that improvements
had been made. The lab was active
during the full 10-month period leading
up to the suspension. As of December
28th, 2018, the lab had not completed
the required corrective action plan.