Laserfiche WebLink
%%./ <br /> groundwater could not be determined by a "grab" sample . This <br /> referred to a sample of water taken from the bottom of the <br /> pit by WJH at the time of the excavation and tabulated in <br /> the above noted report . No mention was made as to field <br /> procedures used to obtain the sample . <br /> Inasmuch as the re-excavation and sampling program proposed <br /> by JTO had been both approved and witnessed by EHD, it is <br /> beyond my understanding how EHD could now reject the "all <br /> clean" results of a program approved by them and specify a <br /> further testing program involving monitoring wells . <br /> Subsequent to the above letter, on January 25, 1993, Mr. <br /> Tollini wrote WJH that he expected WJH to reimburse "funds <br /> expended for the execution and preparation of your last <br /> report" if WJH was not able to persuade EHD to validate the <br /> WJH conclusions that no water contamination- existed. Mr. <br /> Tollini also referred to a sampling device that did not meet <br /> legal criteria, that being the use of a clean, never used <br /> food can to sample water seepage into the pit. This can was <br /> supplied by Mr. Freggiaro at the site . Mr. Tollini stated <br /> the Mr. Valinoti , EHD, had a problem with the method used <br /> for sampling the pit water. An unused and clean metal <br /> container had been used to assemble a "grab" sampler to <br /> obtain a sample of the water that had entered the <br /> excavation. The excavation was in a highly unstable state <br /> and could not be entered safely to obtain the sample . This <br /> was evidenced by the large wall slump that suddenly occurred <br /> just after the sampling had been completed (noted in the <br /> above listed report) . <br /> I referred to the clean can as a coffee can in my previous <br /> report, because that is what I though the intended use had <br /> been. Inasmuch as the can had never been used for anything, <br /> this was incorrect. With reference to the legality of use of <br /> the can, there are recommended procedures for sampling, <br /> which were followed. Such procedures are not " law" but those <br /> recommended for use to establish that test - results are valid <br /> and not contaminated. As an example, the use of a bailer for <br /> sampling in either a pit or a bore hole obtains no more than <br /> a type of "grab" sample using previously used equipment, <br /> that has been cleaned, but perhaps carried on a truck for <br /> days prior to use . The container used was clean to sight and <br /> smell , although this is no guarantee that it was free of <br /> hydrocarbon contamination. The decision to use it was made <br /> on site with the knowledge that if the sample showed <br /> contamination, it could be due to either water contamination <br /> or possibly contamination from the sample can, and the <br /> results could not be trusted. Because the samples taken <br /> with the sample can tested clean, then it is not hard to <br /> deduce that neither the can nor the water samples collected <br /> ins were contaminated. <br /> 2 <br />