My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP50288
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP50288
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:55:20 AM
Creation date
11/27/2007 12:48:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1996084
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
5/29/2002
Doc Name
Request for Support on Excess Spoill Fill Reports Memo
From
KAG
To
BGW
Permit Index Doc Type
Waste Pile/Fill Report
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Lorencito Fill Report Review <br />May 29, 2002 <br />Page 7 of 14 Pages <br /> areas in a manner that prevents infiltration of the water evidence of <br /> into the spoil material. The underdrain system shall be springs or <br /> protected by an adequate filter and shall be designed and seeps. <br /> constructed using standazd geotechnical engineering <br /> methods. <br /> <br />' By signature titles, Ronald G. Thompson was the inspector. The certifcation statement does not <br />say that Thompson was under the direct supervision of McGlothlin. There is a PE stamp on the <br />report. <br />z The report does not indicate the time frame. Your draft asks for the date of the inspection. <br />a The report states that the underdrains were not built as designed. Was there an approved field <br />change or modification? How is approval for this technique documented? <br />s The report was dated January 25, 2002 but the date of inspection is not indicated. It was <br />received at the Division on April 22, 2002. The submittal is not in compliance with this rule. <br />6 By omission, one might infer compliance. However, better engineering practice would be to <br />include a statement that none exists. <br />~ You have already addressed the lack of photographs in your draft letter. <br />$ The report indicates under ACTIVITIES NOTED DURING INSPECTION that "most <br />vegetation had been removed and topsoil was actively being recovered." Under SITE <br />PREPARATION the statement is made that "Organic materials such as brush and trees have <br />been removed from the proposed fill areas." <br />Summary: Recommend the addition to your draft comments (Disposal of Excess Spill Fill Area <br />#8 Construction January 25, 2002) the following: <br />Please add to the certification (page 2) that Ronald G. Thompson, a qualified professional <br />specialist experienced in construction of earth and rockfill embankments, accomplished the <br />inspection under the direction of Charles W. McGlothlin. <br />Please add to the introduction of the report the date construction started on this fill <br />(demonstrates that this report is the first of the quarterly reports) and the date of the <br />inspection. <br />Please submit a change to the designs for approval of alternate subdrain configurations. <br />Please note that inspection reports are due within two weeks of the inspection [Rule <br />4.091(ll)(b)). <br />Please add to the report that there was no appearance of instability, structural weakness, <br />or other hazardous conditions during the inspection. <br />~ Please reconcile the ACTIVITIES NOTED DURING INSPECTION and SITE <br />I PREPARATION portions of the report that removal of vegetation and topsoil is underway. <br />Disposa[ of Excess Spill Fill Area #9 First Quarter 2002 Certification February 23, 2002 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.