 |
 |
Kirstie Thank you for the prompt reply.......and the cartoon! I think what I am talking about is not small labs. I know someone posted some data recently where 3 "MCERTS accredited labs" ( or should I say labs with four different MCERTS accredited methods) obtained wildly different results due, at least in part, to variations in methodology within the MCERTS accreditation. If this indicates a result +/- 50% then surely the waste classification requires an analysis at <50% of the limit. Perhaps I have spent too many years in Air Quality. Regards Peter Fleming 07958 205920 Skype: petermfleming From: Ogilvie, Kirstie <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, 03 August 2018 10:03 To: 'Peter Fleming' <[log in to unmask]> Subject: RE: Is ignorance an excuse? [cid:image001.png@01D42B12.00AD7380] Uncertainty is present within every decision. If the analysis proves incorrect , then that would be an issue for the laboratory involved to prove all correct procedures were followed. The person who has disposed of he waste in accordance with the reasonable procedures can't be reasonably held liable but that's one for the lawyers to argue over. Liability is not so black and white, when lawyers are involved. There was a case down south somewhere a number of year ago, where a laboratory did falsify results and was found guilty in court. Others will be able to provide details as the lab was small scale independent and I cant recall the name properly, so don't want to name a blameless company. All incidents were the laboratory had been involved with was reviewed. If we suspect we have 'misreporting' of results in any site investigation submitted to us we will call the lab and speak to them direct about the sampling. They are only to happy to oblige as its their reputation, they are defending, Kirstie From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Fleming Sent: 03 August 2018 09:51 To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Is ignorance an excuse? Ladies and Gentlemen I have had a number of discussions on the subject of whether an "MCERTS analysis" certificate of non-hazardous ( for WAC under WM3) would be enough to protect the haulier, site operator and consultant from future action by the EA/HMRC if the analysis was found to be incorrect (e.g. contained coal tar that the lab missed.) I have been told by some that, provided the operator has acted in good faith, then they are protected. However, I am told by others that they fear this not to be the case, especially with the degree of uncertainty that results from variations between results from different labs. I am told that it is up to the operators to prove that a material is non-hazardous. What is the general view? Regards Peter Fleming 07958 205920 Skype: petermfleming ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES&A=1 *************************************************************************************************** This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended only for the use of the individual or group named above. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify your system manager immediately and erase the mail from your system. Any copyright material included with the e-mail should be solely used by its intended recipient and only for the purpose intended. The information contained within the message and any associated files are not necessarily the view of South Lanarkshire Council and do not bind the Council in any legal agreement. WARNING: While South Lanarkshire Council takes steps to prevent computer viruses from being transmitted via electronic mail attachments, we cannot guarantee that attachments do not contain computer virus code. You are therefore strongly advised to undertake anti-virus checks prior to accessing the attachment to this electronic mail. South Lanarkshire Council grants no warranties regarding performance use or quality of any attachment and undertakes no liability for loss or damage howsoever caused. South Lanarkshire Council may monitor the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for the purpose of ensuring compliance with its policies and procedures. *************************************************************************************************** ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES&A=1