[Acoustics] Legal challenges to the validity of flow data derivedfrom an ADCP.

[jfenwick]

Hi Richard,

I've not had to defend ADCP (or other) measurements in court, but in running
a QA system have had to think about it from a similar perspective.   My
suggestions would be:

1.  Document as a report (internal or whatever) all comparison measurments
you have made between ADCP and ADP and other methods, current meter and
others.  And analyse the uncertainties and compare between methods.

2.  Run your ADCPs in a tow tank if you can.  I've had success
with a 1200 Rio.  Even if there are not enough scatterers to get velocities (
a common problem in tanks) you may be able to check the bottom-tracking.
Again, document the tests.

3.  Critically compare the procedures used with those in the draft standard
and the manufacturer's manuals, and add it to your report.

I'd think that if you could write all these areas up and form conclusions
that the method, the calibrations as you know them and the comparative
results all showed that the data was valid, you have pretty much done all
that you can. (Though others may be able to add something else?)  And having
covered the state of the art as known internationally, depending on the
robustness of your data/conclusions, you would go a long way towards being
able to defend your results.  I did something like this some time ago for our
work and was able to convince the sceptics.

I hope that's some use, and I'll be keen to hear any other ideas and how you
get on.

Cheers,

John.

--- "Richard Iredale" <richard.iredale at environment-agency.gov.uk> wrote:
> 
> Has anybody out there had to defend the validity of an ADCP flow
> measurement against a legal challenge from a third party? 
> The Environment Agency manage Water Resources in England and Wales. One
> of the Agency's duties is to enforce the terms of water Abstraction
> Licences. From time to time the Agency prosecute water abstractors for
> taking water in excess of their abstraction licence conditions. This
> has, on a number of occasions, involved the Agency having to present
> flow measurement evidence in a court of law to substantiate our claim
> that the abstractor was taking more water than his license allowed.
> The robustness of our flow measurement method has in the past been
> tested in court under cross examination from the abstractors legal
> team.
> When current meters were used to undertake these measurements  we could
> claim that the flow measurement was undertaken in conformance with
> British and International standards for current meter gauging and that
> the current meter had a valid calibration certificate. If necessary the
> current meter was calibrated both before and after the measurement was
> taken.
> In the case where flow measurements are now taken using ADCPs we feel
> more vulnerable to legal challenges. This is for two reasons.-
> 1. There is no ISO document in place. The Agency has to rely on its own
> internal document on gauging procedures which is based on the draft ISO
> document.
> 2. ADCPs do not have "certificates of calibration" . The only checks on
> the performance that can be made are against other ADCPs or other types
> of flow monitoring equipment. 
> On the latter point.  Does anyone have any suggestions the may help our
> case if we had to defend  ADCP flow measurement in a court of law.
> Has anybody out there been in a similar position of having to defend
> the robustness of an ADCP flow measurement technique. 
> All responses gratefully received
> Richard Iredale
> Technical Advisor 
> The Environment Agency of England and Wales.
> 
> Richard Iredale
> Technical Advisor, Hydrometry Process
> Head Office , Water resources
> 
> Int Number 7 22 4650
> External Number 0121 708 4650
> 
> Hydrometry Process Intranet Site :
>
http://intranet.ea.gov/organisation/df/water_management/process/field_monito>
ring_and_data/contents.htm
> 
> 
> Information in this message may be confidential and may be legally
> privileged. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the
> sender immediately, delete it and do not copy it to anyone else.
> 
> We have checked this email and its attachments for viruses. But you should
> still check any attachment before opening it.
> 
> We may have to make this message and any reply to it public if asked to
> under the Freedom of Information Act, Data Protection Act or for
> litigation.  Email messages and attachments sent to or from any Environment
> Agency address may also be accessed by someone other than the sender or
> recipient, for business purposes.
> 
> If we have sent you information and you wish to use it please read our
> terms and conditions which you can get by calling us on 08708 506 506. 
> Find out more about the Environment Agency at www.environment-agency.gov.uk
> _______________________________________________
> Acoustics mailing list
> Acoustics at simon.er.usgs.gov
> http://simon.er.usgs.gov/mailman/listinfo/acoustics
>