[21twelve]

There are many possible reasons not to be blasting in an area. Some might cause damage, but there are plenty of others. No blasting in a wetlands. No blasting where ejected material might enter a wetlands or a body of water. I was at a site where the dirt was not allowed to enter the water. (We tried our best, but didn’t worry too much about it if a few rocks made it that far.)

[EarthResearcher333]

FERC Document - Blasting Damage Concerns at Connection of New Spillway to Existing Upper Spillway

Hi 21twelve, I did some digging and located the original FERC letter to DWR discussing the Blasting issues.

Looks like DWR slipped up again on the Quality Control Inspection Program (QCIP) that DWR is responsible for maintaining full procedural observance of issues & plans.

The full letter is posted below. What is interesting is that DWR is reassuring to FERC that they will insure that "new staff" and "key personnel" will have QCIP review sessions during construction team meetings. This is "code" for, "we are green in this experience" and will "train and remind" as we go.

I suspect that Kiewit is fuming in the background. They are the ones that are being guided by DWR via recommendations by the BOC as "new defective" issues are being discovered in the Upper Main spillway (i.e. the recent saw cuts of the slabs in the drains revealed horribly corroded rebar to where there wasn't any steel left). Kiewit has to move quickly on construction developments to keep to schedule and is critically dependent on the QCIP guidance & restrictions that DWR MUST be fully competent with.

FERC document: 20170626-5055(32231416) Page 1

FERC document: 20170626-5055(32231416) Page 2

FERC document: 20170626-5055(32231416) Page 3