2018-10-09_REPORT - M1980244 (2)

Home Browse Search

Record of Construction Report,V112 Recertification Report t Subgrade and Geoembrane 9750'-9900'Elevations ■ Response to DRMS Comments NewFields Job 475.0106.026 October 5,2018 ' 2. Section 5.1.5 Geomembrane Destructive Testing: The text states "destructive test samples were marked for[sic] every 500 linear feet of seam for each welding type". However in ' Table E.4 the frequency of sampling is less than stated 500 linear feet of seaming. Please explain this discrepancy. ' Per the approved technical specifications, 02776-0 Geomembrane, "Contractor shall test a minimum of one destructive test per five hundred (500) feet of seam length..." Based on the ' table presented in Appendix E.4, the average distance between each destructive test is approximately 475'. This results in more tests than the frequency specified in the Technical Specification. ' 3. Section 5.1.5 Geomembrane Destructive Testing: The text identifies one destructive test that failed, RCDF-9, but the location of this test is not shown on Drawing 2 nor are the ' testing results shown in any of the tables in Appendix E. Please clarify if the sample was collected as part of the VLF2 Recertification Project between 9750'-9900'elevations ' and if so where the sample was taken and the results of the testing. The destructive test Identified as RCDF-9 was part of the "Record of Construction Report, VLF2 ' Recertification Project, Subgrade and Geomembrane 9650 — 9750' Elevation". This reference was mistakenly carried over into this report. ' 4. Field Daily Progress Report August 7 through 11, 2018:Please explain and describe the damage that occurred in the northeast corner of the geomembrane, the corrective actions taken, and why this event was left out of the text narrative. Prior to commencing the recertification project, the barren pipeline was routed along the 9850' bench and was relocated. During the relocation of the pipe, small holes were punctured into the geomembrane liner. The location of this damage was marked for future inspection and repair. Over the period of August 7— 11, the contractor exposed the geomembrane liner and Comanco repaired the damaged liner. The repairs included: geomembrane patches over large holes and geomembrane beading the smaller holes. All repairs where completed per the technical ' specification. These events were mistakenly left out of the narrative, as the narrative was completed prior to ' the repairs being completed. 5. Appendix E.3 Geomembrane Extrusion Trial Seam Summary: Please describe why RCTX- 15 failed, what corrective actions were taken and if RCTX-16 is a follow up test. Page 2