by J.C. Huntington
Dateline: Phoenix Arizona, Saturday, December 2, 2000
Holland and Turner's explanations for the withheld test were published in the Op-Ed section of the Nov. 15 edition of the San Manuel Miner.
Withholding the test from ADEQ, allows the UA to claim that it cannot be confirmed that Page-Trowbridge is leaking contaminants to groundwater.
The explanations offered by Holland and Turner contradict each other and the facts.
Holland claims that there was only one test performed on samples taken April 26 from monitoring well #5 at Page-Trowbridge.
Fact check: Reports from Turner Labs show 2 tests were run on the sample from MW #5. The first test was run on May 2 and the second on May 3. Both tests detected toluene, a federally regulated contaminant, and confirm that Page-Trowbridge is leaking to groundwater.
Holland claims that the reason only one test was performed was because the lab did not have a duplicate sample; Holland claims the duplicate sample was in a refrigerator at UA risk management office.
Fact check: the Chain of Custody form, used to document possession of the samples for legal purposes, shows both the original sample and duplicate for MW #5 were turned over to Turner labs on April 26, the same day the samples were taken.
Holland has thus far refused to explain why he would claim that the duplicate sample was in a refrigerator at his offices, when the lab records show that the duplicate was turned over to the lab.
Holland claims that the reason the duplicate was not tested was because the lab failed to notify the UA in time to have the UA take the duplicate sample to the lab. Holland said samples couldn't be tested if they are over 14 days old and that the lab failed to notify the UA that contamination had been detected in the original sample within this time limit. Holland told the Arizona Daily Star that "the lab should have told us immediately," when they detected contamination in the original sample.
Fact check: Nancy Turner, president of Turner Labs contradicted Holland in her letter to the editor by stating "it is not standard policy" for Turner Labs to notify clients when contaminants are detected.
Holland has thus far refused to answer why he would approve a procedure to validate contamination at Page-Trowbridge requiring that Turner Labs violate their policy and notify UA "immediately" when contaminants were detected.
Turner claims the laboratory withheld the results of the test performed on May 2 from the UA because, "several compounds exceeded acceptance criteria in the quality control check standard." Turner also said that the reason that May 3 test result was reported was because the test of May 2 detected toluene at a reportable level.
Consistency check: Turner claims that while the May 2 test results were good enough to use as the basis for submitting the May 3 test results, they were not good enough to report to the UA because of a quality control problem.
As of this writing, Turner has refused to explain why the lab would use the May 2 test results as the reason for reporting the test results from May 3 to ADEQ, yet withhold the May 2 test results from the UA, ADEQ and the public because of a quality control problem.
The following letter was sent to Steve Holland via Federal Express 11/20/2000. The letter was printed in the Nov. 22 edition of the San Manuel Miner.
As of this writing, Holland
has not answered any of the questions put to him in this letter, nor has
Holland agreed to authorize release of any and all records pertaining to
the April 26 test results (e.g. phone records, the test reports, etc.).
The following letter was faxed to Nancy Turner, president of Turner Laboratories, Inc. and the editor of the San Manuel Miner 11/27/2000.
As of this writing, Turner
has not answered any of the questions put to her in this letter.
The following links will enable readers to read and understand the Chain of Custody form that shows both the original and duplicate samples were turned over to Turner Labs April 26.
This form contradicts Holland's claim that the reason a second test was not run was because Turner Labs did not have the duplicate sample.
Two methods of reading the form are provided. One method will take more time than the other, but allows reading of the form on a step by step basis, which may aid in understanding.
Since each page contains
an image, this method of reading the form will take longer to read than
the "all at one time" method, but may help in understanding the form.
All At Once
A color printer is suggested.
The Chain of Custody Form