INSPEC43353 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

', • (Page 4) MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-80-244 INSPECTION DATE July 14, 1994 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS JAP The following problems IPB) and/or possible violations (PV) (and suggested corrective actions) were identified during this inspection. The problems should be corrected by the dates given, or they will become possible violations. The possible violations should be corrected by the dates given to reduce their severity when considered by the Mined Land Reclamation Board. The inspector noted on the previous page should be notified of all corrective actions taken. Construction QA/QC Procedures Upon returning to the office I described this chain of events with Bruce Humphries, Berhan Keffelew and Mike Long, Division Director. We discussed whether this situation might be indicative of a problem in QA/QC oversight. As a result of our discussion it is our opinion that a potential problem does exist at the site which could result in substandard construction. For whatever reason it appears that inadequate QA/QC oversight may be occurring in the case of the finger drain, which we consider a critical component. We are also concerned that this may be indicative of a larger potential developing problem. Specifically, we are concerned that a critical component such as an underdrain finger drain is not receiving constant QA/QC scrutiny by Golder Associates. We believe that critical components, such as the finger drains, underdrains, underdrain pipelines, leak detection trenches, leak collection trenches, all liner component layers, etc., should be constantly observed by the QA/QC personnel. We suspect that the QA/QC staff is spread too thin to properly accomplish this task at a level we consider appropriate. Therefore, the Division is directing CC&VG to address this potential problem within ten working days. We require a statement of the specific level of scrutiny (percent attendance) the operator feels appropriate. The response should also describe what the breakdown was in this particular instance and how future recurrences will be prevented. The statement should detail those components CC6VG believes comprise "critical components". Further, we require a written description of the working and authority relationships of Bateman Engineering, Golder Associates, Ames Construction and CC6VG. Who is responsible for QA/QC supervision and who has authority to suspend work until a potential problem has been rectified? We require submittal of this statement no later than noon on Friday, July 29, 1994. Further, if the Division encounters any situation in the future where work is proceeding on a critical facility and is not under the direct scrutiny of QA/QC personnel the Division will issue a Reason to Believe Letter to CC~VG.