SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

San Joaquin County Public Health Services A91701 April 16, 1996 Page 3 "dishonest" and that he would see to it that "Twining will be black-balled in San Joaquin County". When Mr. Jones tried to determine the nature of the problem, PHS/EHD staff recounted his objections to Twining's PID field screening techniques and pointed out that our hand-auger boring equipment was incomplete. Mr. Jones does not recall discussion of questions concerning the soil samples collected from soil borings HA-7, HA-8, or HA-10 at that time. Mr. Jones then spoke with the field geologist concerning the perceived problem and was told about the changes made to the field screening techniques at PHS/EHD staffs request. We also discussed the problem with the hand auger equipment (the sampler had been lost during the trip). The field geologist improvised by using the split spoon sampler from the drill rig which he had driven in by hand. The field geologist stated that PHS/EHD staff seemed satisfied with this. In as much as we modified our PID procedure to comply with PHS/EHD staff, and we had collected a discrete sample from the hand auger borings, Mr.Jones felt the problem had been solved. During later conversations with Mr.Jones, the field geologist and driller both recalled that the PHS/EHD staff stated that he would "blackball Twining in San Joaquin County". 6. In reference to the lack of boring logs in the report for soil boring HA-7, HA-8, and HA- 10. Twining regrets this oversight and the subject boring logs are attached. 7. Twinning contacted PHS/EHD staff on March 14, 1996 and requested that we schedule a meeting for all parties to resolve the perceived deficiencies in a timely manner. PHS/EHD staff called back on March 15, 1996 and stated that as the PHS/EHD did not have the time or the funds to expend on such a meeting, so they were not interested. 8. Considering two soil samples each have been collected from the locations of soil borings HA-7, HA-8, and HA-10, on two different occasions, and that the results of the soil sample laboratory analyses from these investigations have detected no evidence of PPCs above detection limits, it is our professional opinion that additional assessment in these areas is not justified. 9. Twining has conducted this investigation utilizing the generally accepted principals of environmental assessments in central California. We have completed our contracted work in keeping with the work plan which was approved by San Joaquin County Public Health Services. It is our professional opinion that the results presented in our report support our evaluations and recommendations. Any effort to duplicate our work would be unwarranted, unnecessary, and wasteful.