Most individuals often do not think about the accuracy of environmental testing results.
Yet, the laboratories conducting these analyses impact our lives on a wide scale. Water, air, soil, waste, and product samples from governmental, industrial, commercial, agricultural, and environmental service organizations across the U.S. routinely receive assessments from analytical facilities. Moreover, the results of these tests drive the decisions associated with manufacturing, packaging, transporting, and marketing product lines and services offered to the public.
Inaccurate test findings can generate substantial business risks for laboratories, including a loss of reputation and trust and non-compliance penalties. As such, entities that contract with environmental testing facilities must be discerning in their selection processes by utilizing criteria to lessen the chance of employing a lab with poor analytical performance.
Subpar environmental testing is detrimental to a lab’s brand.
When Environmental Monitoring Technologies (EMT) released false test results to the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), both parties suffered severe reputational damage. The inaccurate analysis showed arsenic in the public drinking water supply when there was none. NYCHA issued a notice informing residents not to drink the water. Although EMT quickly notified NYCHA of the mistake and the agency promptly rescinded the notification, confusion and fear continued to grip the affected citizens.
In this case, the faulty arsenic result led to a loss of trust among the local government authority, the laboratory, and the community. Trust and reputation require enormous efforts to regain once lost. Furthermore, the emotional damage endured by third parties may even lead to lawsuits, as it did in these circumstances.
Possible enforcement awaits poor-performing analytical testers.
Western Analytical Laboratories could not escape the enforcement consequences of falsely reporting data in a wastewater treatment plant’s compliance report. California regulators began investigating due to inconsistencies found between the treatment site’s monitoring reports and the results provided by Western Analytical. In its official reporting, the laboratory utilized information from a third-party unaccredited lab, which lacked quality controls for reliability.
Unfortunately, the inaccurate environmental testing influenced the compliance decisions and pollution controls within the wastewater treatment plant’s environmental protection program. In the end, Western Analytical was fined $90,000 and lost the ability to renew its state laboratory accreditation.
What should customers consider during laboratory selection to ensure reliable analytical results?
Businesses that procure services from environmental laboratories should evaluate four criteria when awarding contracts for this type of work:
- Accreditation status – Only contract with labs that are part of the state-based accredited laboratory program.
- Reputation – Choose facilities with solid customer reviews, no pending legal actions, and little to no bad press.
- Quality – Ask about procedures and select entities with current quality control or assurance systems.
- Employees – Request general information on the lab employees’ academic backgrounds, work experience, and professional certifications. Work only with facilities that employ individuals with the knowledge, skills, and abilities to produce reliable results.
Final Thoughts on Environmental Testing Integrity
Analytical facilities must embrace a culture of high quality to ensure a solid reputation and lower compliance risk. Once the integrity of a laboratory is called into question, it will be extremely challenging to regain trust and maintain a competitive bottom line. Entities seeking environmental laboratory analysis services can and should take steps to confirm their testing comes from a dependable lab that produces accurate analyses.