I agree with Adam, I think it is realistic not fatalistic.
Sometimes you just have to work with what you can achieve on a
best endeavour basis.
You must have ideals but you must realise that likelihood of
them being reached is low at best.
Russell
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion
List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter
Hewitt
Sent: 28 July 2010 15:53
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Deviating samples & BS10175
Come on Adam it is unlike you to be
so fatalistic and anyway Prof Ramsey's research would suggest otherwise.
Peter
On 28 July 2010 at
16:31 Adam Czarnecki <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Sampling error will always be very high on most, if not all , brownfield
sites and taking duplicates etc is unlikely to have a beneficial effect. Yes to
use of lab errors but the use of the numbers will always be masked by the
sampling error.
>
>
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> Adam Czarnecki
>
>
>
> Regional Director
>
> VertaseFLI Limited
>
> 3000 Manchester Business Park
>
> Aviator Way
>
> Manchester
>
> M22 5TG
>
>
>
> Tel. 0161 437 2708
>
> Mob. 07833 478863
>
> email: [log in to unmask]
>
> www.vertasefli.com <http://www.vertasefli.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Hewitt
> Sent: 28 July 2010 13:58
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Deviating samples & BS10175
>
>
>
> Hello
>
>
>
> Given the recent discussions regarding TPH testing, should we not also be
including something in here regarding the standardisation of laboratory testing
methods, as this can produce as many variations in test results as deviating
samples and is just as likely to "jeopardise the validity of the reported
test result".
>
>
>
> One thing that I think we should be promoting is duplicate and split
sampling as proposed by Prof Ramsey, as this allows sampling and lab errors to
be quatified. This proposal should be widely accepted as it provides
consultants with a quantifiable guide to the accuracy of testing whilst labs
will gain from the additional testing and clients should not object if for the
small increase in testing costs (1 per 8 samples) a greater degree of certainty
(or a lesser degree of uncertainty) can be acheived.
>
>
>
> Yours
>
>
>
> Peter Hewitt
>
>
>
>
>
> On 27 July 2010 at 18:03 Mike Hopgood <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > During a recent presentation I gave at the NECLF in Newcastle on
water sampling, the subject of deviating samples was raised and it became
obvious that many of the audience were unaware of the implications . We
therefore thought it might be an idea for the subject to be raised in this
forum for discussion to get the views of local authorities, consultants,
stakeholders etc. with a view to putting forward comments for possible
inclusion in BS 10175 ( via the proper channels).
> >
> > Deviating samples
> >
> > UKAS definition: Deviating samples are samples which are not
(correctly) preserved, for example they may have exceeded their maximum
preservation time, lack the date and time of sampling, are not cooled, have
inappropriate headspace and so on. As a result, deviating samples may
jeopardise the validity of the reported test result.
> >
> > UKAS now require laboratories to operate the following protocol:
> >
> > Upon receipt of each sample, a competent laboratory shall assess
whether the sample is suitable with regard to the requested test(s);
> >
> > - When the sample is deviating, a competent laboratory shall contact
the customer for further instructions;
> >
> > - When the customer wants the deviating sample to be analysed, a
competent laboratory shall include a disclaimer in the report, clearly stating
that the sample was deviating and that, as a result, the test result(s) may be
invalid;
> > As a result, laboratories will need to review the condition of the as
received samples, some aspects of which are given below,
> > against the test schedule to ensure that the samples are suitable for
the requested tests in accordance with current good practice.
> >
> >
> > a) Sample container type(s)
> >
> > b) Headspace in vials
> >
> > c) Delivery containers (cool box, loose
etc.)
> >
> > d) Delivery temperature
> >
> > e) Date and time of receipt
> >
> > f) Date and time of sampling
> >
> > g) Preservation
> >
> >
> > Regards
> > Mike Hopgood
> > Technical Manager
> > Derwentside Environmental Testing Services
> > Unit 2
> > Park Road Ind Est
> > Consett
> > Co Durham
> > DH8 5PY
> > Tel: 01207 582333
> > Fax: 01207 582444
> > Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > Website: www.dets.co.uk<blocked::http://www.dets.co.uk/>
> > This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential
and/or proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity to
which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient
or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you
have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to
this message and delete this e- mail immediately
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Peter Hewitt
>
> Mob: 07840 802366
> Web: www.terrasolve.co.uk
>
> Terrra Solve Ltd
> 19 Kingfisher Way
> Cottenham
> Cambridge
> CB24 8XN
>
Peter Hewitt
Mob: 07840 802366
Web: www.terrasolve.co.uk
Terrra Solve Ltd
19 Kingfisher Way
Cottenham
Cambridge
CB24 8XN