Which brings us to the first "other story" that comes out of the reports...
Copying and pasting alive and well at the Corps
This comes from the 17th Street project (prime contractor: Bailey-CKY Joint Venture). I read the QC and QA reports alongside each other to see if one report would mention something that another would not. While doing so, I started to notice remarkable similarities between the two groups of reports.
The February 26, 2011 QC report from the contractor reads:
"Started clearing and grubbing on the East Bank of canal between stations 567+00 and 581+00. Material is being hauled to the north end of the laydown area and stockpiled for subsequent hauling to offsite location. A small windrow of material was left along the silt fencing for additional jet grounting [sic] spoil protection. This material will be removed prior to levee re-construction."
And here's an excerpt from the Corps' February 26, 2011 report:
"Bailey-CKY crew started clearing and grubbing on the esat [sic] bank of the canal between stations 567+00 and 581+00. Material is being hauled to the north end of the laydown area and stockpiled for subsequent hauling to offsite location. A small windrow of material was left along the silt fencing for add jet grout spoil protection. This material will be removed prior to levee reconstruction."
When you see Corps personnel - that are supposed to be overseeing contractors - copying and pasting the contractor's reports into their own reports, it gives you a chilly feeling down your spine. And this was not an isolated incident. From the February 23, 2011 contractor QC report:
"Work performed today (loc. and descrip. of work performed by Contractor) - Layne Geo continued set up of equipment on site and assembly of the cement pumping systems. - Placed riprap on west side of canal between stations 558+70 and 590+15 (approx. 145 linear feet). Total linear footage of riprap placed to date is 400 linear feet."
And from the February 23, 2011 Corps QA report:
"Layne Geo continued to assemble B300 drill rig and assemble the concrete [sic] pumping systems. Crew place [sic] riprap on the westside of the canal between stations 558+70 and 590+15 (approx. 145 linear feet). Total Linear feet place [sic] is 400 linear feet."
There's lots more examples of this. There were also other QA curiosities.
The July 21, 2011 QA report reads:
"EASTBANK:
Contractor dressing/grading slopes along eastbank to final grades. Removing crane mats
WESTBANK:
Contractor grading slopes along eastbank to final grade. JC Creek on site for 1st day to start turf establishment. Removed large stones greater than 3" from levee. JC Creek placed DAP and Sulphur from stations 553+45 to 586+00.
J&R Concrete forming bike path.
Layne finished remedial coring at station 581+56B/C and 592+91.25B/C
OTHER
SSE performed survey work for grading.
Street sweeper maintaining streets at east and west banks.
Water truck in operation watering sreets [sic] for dust control around worksite"
When I read it, I thought it sounded familiar, so I paged back and found the following for the July 15, 2011 QA update:
"EASTBANK:
Contractor dressing/grading slopes along eastbank to final grades. Removing crane mats
WESTBANK:
Contractor grading slopes along eastbank to final grade. JC Creek on site for 1st day to start turf establishment. Removed large stones greater than 3" from levee. JC Creek placed DAP and Sulphur from stations 553+45 to 586+00.
J&R Concrete forming bike path.
Layne finished remedial coring at station 581+56B/C and 592+91.25B/C
OTHER
SSE performed survey work for grading.
Street sweeper maintaining streets at east and west banks.
Water truck in operation watering sreets [sic] for dust control around worksite"
Amazing! The exact same work performed the exact same way on two separate days!
Of course, that's not really what happened. Here's part of the contractor QC report from July 15, 2011:
"Work Performed Today (loc. and descrp. of work performed by Contractor)
JOB SITE:
- East side of canal embankment - No embankment work today due to rain. Unloaded 2 truk load[s] of round bales of hay.
- West side of canal embankment - No work today due to rain."
Interesting. They were actually rained out on the 15th. And here's the QC report from the 21st:
"Work Performed Today (loc. and descrp. of work performed by Contractor)
JOB SITE:
- East side of the canal embankment- Used Trimble GPS to layout levee for final grading. Loading crane mats from Bellaire laydown yard.
- West side of the canal embankment- Finalizing grading. JC Cheek on site to begin turf establishment. Bailey CKY JV had a crew of four employees to pick any debris 3" or larger as JC Cheek prepared the levee for turf establishment. Used street sweeper and shovels to clean Orpheum Drive."
Which matches the QA report from the 21st. So the content of the Corps QA report on the 21st was copied and pasted into the Corps QA report for the 15th, bringing into question when exactly the Corps QA inspectors were compiling their reports. It appears in this case, the July 15th QA report was compiled almost a week later.
All this copying and pasting makes one very suspicious of the oversight being performed by the Corps QA representatives.
Public Comment, Schmublic Comment
Last March, I was attempting to track the remediation projects in real time. One of the issues I came across was the Corps' use of publicly owned, mostly residential lots for access to the London Avenue canal.
To gain access to the canal with cranes and to stage building materials, in addition to areas they had previously announced the Corps proposed using 13 lots owned by the Louisiana Land Trust (aka "LLT," the repository for properties sold to the state of Louisiana through the Road Home program), as well as a 14th site owned by the City of New Orleans' Department of Parks and Parkways. Here's the location of the lots (the original staging locations are in yellow and the 14 new ones are in blue):
The Corps had originally wanted to do this staging and access from the bridges crossing the canal at Filmore and Mirabeau Avenues, but was not able to coordinate that work with the City of New Orleans, who was performing resurfacing work on and around the bridges at the same time.
To meet federal environmental requirements, the Corps - through the expedited Individual Environmental Reporting (IER) process set up post-Federal Flood - announced their intention to use the 14 lots in a supplemental to the IER which had authorized the canal remediation work. That supplemental - IERS 27.a - was publicly issued March 14, 2011 and was open for public comment for 30 days, until April 14, 2011. Until that public comment period closed, the extra lots were not to be used for staging.
Thanks to yeoman work by The Lens' Steve Beatty, I managed to catch the Corps using the 14 lots before the public comment period even opened:
Here's pictures of construction equipment on the empty lot at 5332 Warrington from February and March, 2011:
I posted about this on March 17, 2011, the day after I emailed the Corps asking what was going on (that email string is part of the final IER supplemental, found here). I received a response on March 22nd - included in the March 17th post - which seemed to admit their boo boo. At the time I noted they probably thought it was better to seek forgiveness rather than permission.
Now, with the contractor QC reports for the London Avenue project (prime contractor: Integrated Pro Services, or IPS), we know what was happening behind the scenes. The topic of the 14 lots was extensively discussed from the very beginning of the project. In fact, the very first QC report with text in it, from January 5, 2011, discusses the 13 LLT lots:
"Talked to Carmen Williams (USACE Project Engineer) about our Access Plan (submitted on 12-29-10) pertaining to the 'required site access' IPS required from LA Land Trust. I expressed to her would like to mob[ilize] our office trailers on Monday (1-10-11). Carmen stated since the 'required site access' is not environmental[ly] cleared we cannot proceed with mobilization on the 'required site access.' She has stated the Access Plan and environmental clearances have been routed to the properate [sic] offices to be reviewed and IPS should know something on these issues by 1-14-11.
[...]
Carmen stated she would talk to Greg Schultz (Contracting Officer) about our situation."
Another meeting took place two days later, on January 7, 2011:
"Met with Laura Lee and Lee (USACE Environmental) on site concerning the 'required site accesses.' We rode each individual site and explained that each site would only [be] temporary staging for concrete pump trucks, materials, and misc. items. We stated the site would be matted, so that the ground would not be disturbed during construction operations. They took pictures of each site and document[ed] the site conditions. They stated they would go back and talk to their group and decision will be made next week."
A third meeting took place the following Monday, January 10, 2011:
"Met with Carmen, Project Manager, and [USACE] Environmental to show and discuss the 'required access sites.' This was the third time meeting about these areas. The Environmental group has taken all the information back to their department to make a determination on these sites. They stated that a IER may have to take place to obtain approval for these site[s], this could take up to 60 days."
We know now an IER was required. The contractor didn't report on the extra sites again until February 1, 2011:
"Had weekly progress meeting. [Corps engineer] Chuck [Brannon] stated that the 'access properties' have been elevated to the Conlenal [sic, probably meant "Colonel," referring to the Colonel in charge of the Hurricane Protection Office] and should have an answer on the status by the end of the week. He also stated the supplemental IER package is complete and ready to be submitted. The submittal process should take about 45-50 days once submitted."
So all parties were aware at the beginning of February, 2011 that the 14 properties were on hold until the IER process had played out. That included allowing the public to be informed and comment on what was happening in their neighborhood and next door to some of their houses. Then came this mention on February 15, 2011:
"Greg Schultz (Contracting Officer) gave a verbal that the access properties are approved for access."
And that is how the public gets screwed. The Corps says, "forget all that public comment BS - just do what you want." Except in this case, they got caught.
The very same day I received my response from the Corps on the 14 lots admitting their error - March 22, 2011 - here's what was in the QC report:
"Greg Schultz (CO) stated that the access properties acquired [sic - should be "required"] cannot be used until the IER has been signed. The earliest these properties can be utilized is April 15, 2011 [the day after the public comment period for the IER closed]. A letter dated February 15, 2011, sent from Greg Schultz (CO) states that the "access properties" are approved to be utilized."
In other words, "We, the contractor, are throwing the Corps under the bus. They told us - in print - we could use the lots, and they were wrong."
I cannot believe this is an isolated case. Too many times public comment on Corps projects post-Federal flood has been just so much stagecraft because all the decisions have already been made. The most obvious case was the public's overwhelming desire for Option 2 (concrete-lined, ground level canals with a single pump station)along the outfall canals and the Corps' decision to use the cheaper Option 1 (remediated walls and multiple pump stations on each canal). I must say though it is remarkable seeing it in print.
17th Street wall movements - and leak!
I'm not exactly sure what to make of this one. It appears to fit a pattern of job requirements changing on Corps jobs once construction gets underway, from big stuff to small stuff, so I thought I would report on it.
The 17th Street remediation job consisted mostly of placement of deep soil mixing columns in groups of six along many sections of both sides of the canal. Here's a view from above of that arrangement from the project drawings:
In general, each grouping, called a "panel," was placed at 14.5' centers along the length of the wall (this was changed from the original 10' centers shown above based upon test columns that were placed at the beginning of the project). Note that while the drawings show nine columns for each panel, there were actually only six (presumably bigger diameter) columns in each panel. From the March 3, 2011 QC report:
"An element is the [sic] considered 3 columns and a panel is [a] complete 16.7-foot series of 2 elements."
The columns went down to somewhere between 20 and 40 feet below sea level, depending upon location along the canal. When you so radically alter the foundation of levees with sheet piling wall partially stuck in them, you can expect one thing: movement of the walls.
So the Corps had the contractor monitor the walls for movement, using Trimble GPS monitors and straightedges, something called a digital "smart" level and who knows what else. The point is they were watching the walls near where they were placing the columns. This started on February 28, 2011.
At first they were monitoring the walls the entire day in real time. The first numerical results from the wall monitoring appear in the March 5, 2011 QC report:
"After the first element installation it appeared that the wall moved slightly at the expansion joint near the top. Monitored the other three element installations by placing a tape measure across the expansion joints and monitoring the movement real time. The walls were observed to move between 5/16" and 1/2". Movement was a separation at the top of the wall at the expansion joint and slight movement toward the protected [i.e. land] side. We informed the onsite [Quality Assurance Representative] as soon as we confirmed wall movement."
Again, while this sounds bad, I'm not sure it shouldn't be expected.
Two days later, we got some more numbers. From the March 7, 2011 QC report:
"We were instructed to continue with jet grouting after we informed the USACE that we recorded wall movement up to 3/4" at the top of the wall expansion joint during the installation of one element."
So we got up to 3/4" two days later, and the Corps determined that was acceptable. Okay.
For the next three days, the QC reports said the following:
"Continued 'real time' monitoring of wall movement at expansion joints at the top of the wall as well as by use of a digital level and GPS system. Wall movement did not exceed 1/2" either vertically or horizontally during today's activities."
On March 11, 2011, "real time" measurement was discontinued. After that, measurements were only taken before and after column placement operations. The contractor did station a person to watch the wall during work to look for "significant" movement.
After March 11, the QC reports started reporting wall movement with nearly the same verbiage every time. A typical passage from the March 12, 2011 QC report:
"Continued to monitor movement on I-Wall. Measurements were recorded before and after drilling operations. We still had a person visually monitor the wall for any 'significant' movement. The was no wall movement in excess of 1/2" vertically or horizontally measured."
Note that it doesn't say there was zero movement, just that there wasn't any movement more than 1/2". This 1/2" criterion continued to be used through April 7. On April 8th, there was a significant change in the boilerplate (the verbiage had changed slightly by then):
"Continued to monitor movement on I-Wall. Two staff members of Bailey-CKY JV were on each side of the canal throughout grouting process. No wall movement in excess of 1.0" was physically measured during today's operations. Each monolithic panel where jetting has occurred is measured at the end of the day using static GPS and recorded."
So the limit/criterion/rule of thumb/whatever was doubled. There's no reason given for this in the QC or QA reports around that time. The 1.0" number remains in the QC reports all the way to the end of the column placement work on June 20, 2011.
Why does any of this matter, except as a matter of curiosity? Because when you move a segmented wall with water against it, sometimes stuff comes through the gaps. From the April 12, 2011 QA report:
"East bank coring:
I visually observed [deep soil mixing subcontractor] Layne Geo coring at EG58022 Element A. [W]hen I looked at the base of the I-wall a couple of away for [sic] where there [sic] coring saw some water leaking for [sic] the base of the I-wall. [T]hen started video recording on my camera the leak. I have save[d] the video on my computer. The water only leaked when they was [sic] coring, then it slow[ed] down to no more leaking after the coring stopped."
By way of explanation, "cores" are small diameter borings taken from completed columns for later testing to ensure the columns' integrity and conformance with specifications.
This leak from the canal - which is not mentioned in the April 12th QC report - combined with the apparent doubling in permitted permanent deformation of the walls four days earlier, raises some very interesting questions. The most obvious one is whether sections of the canal I-walls were permanently deformed by the deep soil mixing process? While walls may not have moved permanently more than 1.0", they could have moved 0.95" (horizontally or vertically) and not gotten a mention.
Another question is what the acceptable number is for permanent deformation of the walls during operations like this? The individual sections of wall (the stuff you can see above ground) have flexible waterstops between them. It was one of those waterstops that failed on the London Avenue canal just a month before the 17th Street canal leak reported above. Can those waterstops take up to 1.0" of deformation? That's unknown.
So the wall movement measurements during the 17th Street remediation project leave us with more questions than answers. What prompted the end of "real time" operations? Why was the limit for permanent deformation raised from 1/2" to 1" mid-project? Were there other leaks during the project that went unreported? Are the walls permanently deformed, and is that a concern?
In the
No comments:
Post a Comment