And on Pile 8, the Bee claimed that the pile had “inferior concrete” and was “plagued by test and construction problems.” Dougherty countered in his letter that all tests – the “slump test” performed during the pour, the “break test,” the GGL tests performed after the pour and the later chipping – show “no abnormalities.” Dougherty said this information was provided to the Bee reporter, Charles Piller.

Caltrans’ webinar covered the same ground and showed videos of its procedures on the concrete pours of the rebar cages of the pilings. Both Tony Anziano, toll bridge program manager, and Dr. Brian Maroney, lead bridge designer and deputy program manager, reiterated that regardless of the procedural criticisms, Caltrans’ foundation construction emphasizes an “abundance of redundancy,” meaning that, for example, the foundation itself did not require 13 pilings but they did it anyway. Also, in the soil analysis, Maroney said that they drilled 7 sample holes around the pilings area to be extra sure about potential ground motion effects.

In response to the new story, Caltrans’ Dougherty said in a statement: “The ‘results’ cited by the Sacramento Bee are taken from a preliminary, draft work product. It is irresponsible and premature to draw any conclusions from the data at this time. Caltrans initiated this audit and has one objective in conducting it: To ensure the driving public is safe on California’s roads and bridges. Caltrans will release our findings to our federal partners and the public when the audit is complete. Thus far, Caltrans has no information that brings into question the safety of our transportation infrastructure. As multiple tests have repeatedly shown, the Bay Bridge is safe.”