Laserfiche WebLink
{ <br />monitored. As certain items are inspected at a high frequency and the consistency with which <br />the item meets specification is 100 percent, the frequency of observation may be reduced. An <br />example is: as consistency of suitability of material is observed, observations of that material <br />may decrease. However, in no event shall the frequency be reduced for items involving soil or <br />synthetic liner, piezometers, and caisson footings and in no case will observations be eliminated. <br />CC&V wishes to explain what is meant by the percentages listed in the tabulation. While every <br />weld of the liner will be tested and the test observed by Golder Associates, and while this <br />equates to 100 percent visual, in-field inspection, it does not mean that the inspector does <br />nothing else between tests. Further, 100 percent frequency for the toe berm fill means that there <br />will be an inspector present on some phase of the toe berm fill activities whenever there is <br />activity that results in changed conditions and prior to an additional activity obscuring the <br />previous phase. <br />An additional example of 100 percent coverage is periodic examination of depths of fill material <br />prior to adding cover (as opposed to continuous presence as each truck load of material is <br />dumped). Borrow material may be inspected for suitability and a large quantity found suitable, <br />which will then allow the inspector to move to another phase of the activities, such as placement <br />and compaction of that material. Much as in building inspections, key elements will be <br />inspected sometimes as they are executed and sometimes after, depending on the nature of the <br />activity. <br />One inspector may cycle between various activities, provided that adequate inspection occurs. <br />Further, as we specify later, both Golder and Bateman are empowered to inspect and either may <br />direct cessation of an activity that appeazs inconsistent with an approved specification or of <br />improper execution of an approved design. <br />It must be remembered that these on-site and visual inspections are strengthened by the more <br />quantitative testing that is required to ensure approved engineering specifications are met. In <br />general, these laboratory tests are not included in the percentages estimated in the Table. <br />In summarizing the procedures for visual, on-site inspections, we find that different <br />interpretations are developed by different people. In order to ensure that we do not write <br />something that is interpreted by OMLR staff as something other than we intended, we have <br />labelled the Table "Draft." Nonetheless, we intend to follow the outlined procedures as we <br />meant them until we have had an opportunity to discuss them with OMLR staff. I suggest that <br />we discuss the acceptability of our draft Table during your visit scheduled for July 20, 1994. <br />3 <br />