 |
 |
Another random (and probably controversial!) thought for Friday afternoon
It is a pitty that the descriptions on so many logs are “made ground” , “ashy fill”, “domestic refuse”. The standard of description for Made Ground is appalling in many cases and not in accordance with BS 5930.
Soil description and sampling protocols are far more important than MCERTS.
Steve Wilson, Technical Director
EPG Limited
Tel 07971 277869
www.epg-ltd.co.uk
-----( Disclaimer )-----
> >
Information contained in this e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee
only, and is confidential and may contain commercially sensitive material. Any
dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication, other
than for which it is explicitly intended, without
the permission of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
e-mail in error, please advise the sender immediately and delete it from your
system. Whilst all e-mails are screened for known viruses, the company cannot
accept responsibility for any which have been transmitted.
From: Contaminated
Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wilkinson, Christiaan
Sent: 26 October 2007 16:09
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: MCERTS and made
ground
Bit of a random thought for a Friday afternoon but isn’t the onus on the Lab to determine the principal soil constituents for MCERTS testing regardless of the general engineering description written on the sample container by accident?
From: Contaminated
Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam Czarnecki
Sent: 25 October 2007 11:32
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: MCERTS and made ground
**** This Message Originated From The Internet. Please Be Aware Of Suspicious Attachments And Content ****
Dear All,
I wonder what proportion of us specify MCERTS for testing? And if you do, are you sure all the tests you are requesting are MCERTS accredited.
Adam
--
Adam Czarnecki
Head of GeoEnvironmental Division
Clancy Consulting Ltd.
Dunham Court
2, Dunham Road
Altrincham
Cheshire
WA14 4NX
Tel: 0161 613 6000
Fax: 0161 613 6099
Clancy Consulting Ltd.
Registered Office: 2 Dunham Road, Altrincham, Cheshire, WA14 4NX
Registered in England No: 3693529
We cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage sustained as a result of
software viruses. It is your responsibility to carry out such virus checking as
is necessary before opening any attachment.
The information contained in this message is private and confidential. It is
intended only for the use of the named E-Mail addressee. If you are not the
named E-Mail addressee please E-Mail or telephone us immediately with your
confirmation that you have destroyed it. In no event should you disclose the
contents of this E-Mail to any other person nor copy, use, print, distribute or
disseminate it or any information contained in it. Thank you for your
co-operation.
Please visit our website at www.clancy.co.uk
From: Contaminated
Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Nathanail
Sent: 25 October 2007 09:48
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: MCERTS and made
ground
Folks
there is a big difference between a description (sandy gravel with occ boulders) and a classification (MADE GROUND). (There is a good paper in Engineering Geology on classification of Made Ground whose first author is Mike Rosenbaum - happy reading!).
If a description is provided, then the lab can see if it is a matrix they are MCerts accredited to analyse for. A stiff clay with occ red brick fragments should be OK for a lab, rubble with rebar and plastic bags may give the lab a bit more of a challenge.
From:
Contaminated Land Management Discussion List on behalf of Heather Baker
Sent: Thu 25/10/2007 09:46
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: MCERTS and made
ground
For your info;
This is the official response I received from the quality assurance manager at our lab re: MCERTS.
I have spoken to them and they confirmed that they have to take the information on the sample container to inform them of the sample type, as they are working blind and have not seen where the sample has come from themselves.
They are not aware of any 50% rule and if made ground is written on the pot they can't accredit it to MCERTS, regardless if the majority of the matrix of the sample is natural or reworked soil.
Thought I would share this info!
Heather Baker
Dear Heather,
Regarding your samples for job 458317. Due to the samples having the
description of "Made Ground" we cannot report the analytical results
as MCERTS accredited as this is not covered by our scope of accreditation given
by UKAS. Our methods are accredited for soils only and have been validated
against 3 soil types:- Sand, Loam and Clay. Your samples will however be tested
using the same analytical test methods that would be used for soil samples.
A copy of our schedule of accreditation is attached along with a copy of the
MCERTS standard for your reference.
****************************************************************************************************************
Vinci PLC Group of Companies
Opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual not the company, unless specifically indicated to that effect.
This e-mail together with any files attached is confidential and intended for the addressee only.
If you have received this in error, please delete it from your PC and inform our IT Department on 01923 470407 or [log in to unmask].
This footnote also confirms that this e-mail has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses.
Vinci PLC
Registered in England and Wales No. 737204 Registered Office : Astral House,
Imperial Way, Watford, Hertfordshire, WD24 4WW
****************************************************************************************************************