Scribd Logo
Hochladen

Willkommen bei Scribd!

  • PARP 17-0012 Report of Investigation 14-0005 - Redacted

    Hochgeladen von

    Fredrick Kunkle
    297 Ansichten12 Seiten
    Metro's Office of Inspector General's Sept. 29, 2015 Report of Investigation

    Originaltitel

    PARP 17-0012 Report of Investigation 14-0005_Redacted

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Verfügbare Formate

    PDF oder online auf Scribd lesen

    Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

    Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

    Dieses Dokument melden
    Metro's Office of Inspector General's Sept. 29, 2015 Report of Investigation

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Als PDF herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    297 Ansichten12 Seiten

    PARP 17-0012 Report of Investigation 14-0005 - Redacted

    Hochgeladen von

    Fredrick Kunkle
    Metro's Office of Inspector General's Sept. 29, 2015 Report of Investigation

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Als PDF herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    von 12
    M cd ‘eashingon ‘Transit Authority SUBJECT: OIG Report of Investigation DATE: September 29, 2015 (Investigation No. 14-0005-!) FROM: OIG —Helen Lew PZNES TO: GM—Jack Requa DGM — Robert Troop The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is hereby transmitting a Report of Investigation (RO!) to you as the appropriate management officials. It was alleged structure inspectors used archived photos, cut and pasted prior years’ Teports and did not always perform the inspections. The allegations spanned several years. The investigation revealed marked improvement in the inspection reports in the last year, however, there were findings. Inspection report remarks were being copied and pasted from year to year, which makes it difficult to verify a new inspection was done. Inspectors were not using current photos; OIG found archived photos were being used. The investigation found TRST has no Standard Inspection Procedures Manual for the inspection of structures in place at this time. OIG found there was no method in InspectTech to verify inspectors had sent emails to the proper maintenance unit when the ranking was 5 or below. Currently there is a six month retention policy for emails at WMATA. Should a situation occur with a structure after six months there would not be a way to verify an email was sent. The current way to verify the completion of a repair is through the next year's inspection. Finally there was a noted lack of consistency as to the inspection process with different inspectors. This lack of consistency relates directly back to the lack of a Standard Inspection Procedures Manual for the inspection of structures. Please respond in writing by October 30, 2015 to Assistant Inspector General for Investigations Isabel Cumming concerning the findings outlined in the report. Attachment cc: CHOS — B. Richardson COUN — M. Pohl WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT OF INVESTIGATION Complaint No: 14-0005-| Bridge, Platform and Tunnel Inspection Allegation Date: September 28, 2015 Allegation and Background OIG received an allegation from|jZg\R aa =SQk OMRON aa add Ex. as 1.7(c) alleging bridge, platform and tunne Pispactions reports hava t pare by inspectors. The complainant wad g gal = QMS) Nan ex. ws T.7(c) Itwas alleged inspectors used archived p prior years’ reports and did not always perform the inspections. The allegations spanned several years. Summary of Investigation OIG reviewed more than one hundred inspection reports between 2008 to 2015, along with numerous documents provided by the complainant in order to determine the validity of the allegation. Tha complainant provided OIG with various names of Inepectors who were alleged to have completed ee a D ons. As a fe b aoa M wy \A ee PARP Ex. 6.1 x. eo) In order to understand the inspection process, OIG met with| who outlined the capabilities of the InspectTech system, a ‘syst records all inspections. OIG learned inspections are graded on a numeric rating system. A ranking of 9 would be considered excellent, and a ranking of 0 would be a failing condition resulting in the item being taken out of service or in need of immediate attention. The ranking of Not Applicable (N) would mean the item is not part of the inspection or does not exist. OIG leamed any inspected item receiving a ranking of § or below was considered in a condition in need of some type of action or repair and was to be referred to the proper maintenance unit for action. With the ranking of 5 or below, an email with the report and photo of the item was to be sent to maintenance and copied to the inspection supervisor. All inspectors use the same ranking system. It is described as follows: Ths eon sein hlomsbon ans ta tnwOG. Tasrepetis be OFFAL shuld ott coied eprasucs wou ite wen osere Inspection Rating System Rating Description Not Applicable Excellent Condition Very Good Condition Good Condition Satisfactory Condition - structural elements show some minor deterioration. Fair Condition - all primary structural elements are sound but may have minor section loss, cracking, spalling or scour. Poor Condition - advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling or scour. Serious Condition - loss of section, deterioration, spalling or scour have seriously affected primary structural components. Critical Condition - advanced deterioration of primary structural components. Imminent Failure Condition - major deterioration or loss of section present in critical structural components or obvious vertical or horizontal movement affecting structure stability, 0 Failed Condition - out of service - beyond corrective action. Aorvoz on an ‘After reviewing all the documents obtained, OIG found there were discrepancies and violations of procedures in the inspection reports. OIG also discovered there are no overall standard procedures in place for inspections of structures. It was noted TRST did have one standard ‘manual referenced for the WMATA Standard Work Procedure for Inspection of Steel Box Girder Structures (Rev. 3) (Exhibit 1), and there was a memorandum outlining the inspection requirements which was distributed in August 2003 (Exhibit 2). Prior to 2012, inspectors were allowed to use archived photos from previous inspections. In January 2012 there was a procedural change which required current photos to be taken and included in all inspection reports where the item is rated 5 or below. 8 inspection repor ted Concrete Ins & Grout Pad - Section e. Grout Pads a 4. The reports should have included a photo. fas questioned why there was no photo with that item, Y MLW eat PARP Ex. 6.1.6, PARP Ex. 6.1.7(c) tates there was a di [80 that is most Iikely Me reason why no photo was included |jiiiiiiibelieved a drawing gives more details than was easier for the photo, ani Engineers to go out and look at the problem. The drawing was also the same drawing from the 2008 report. This repo colors tenet noma si the pope th cers ole OFS Ths rego to OFF es of np 3) should met be epi or cod wien he wit The second inspection was the\j@UAMiaie een inspected in 2008 and 200: was rated a in late 2011, he rated it a 5 and included the identical drawing from the 2008 report. He was asked why in three and a half years this low score and the issues had not been addressed. He related the grout pads are difficutt to he believed expensive repairs are sometimes put on the back bumer by ances asked to explain the procedure when there is a rating of 6 or below. stated if it needs immediate action, he contacts his Supervisor to get them to come out with an Engineer to look at the issue. In other cases, an email is sent to the proper maintenance unit and copied to the Inspection Supervisor. The Maintenance Manager then prioritizes the report and sends it to the department responsible for handling the issue. icture which had identical items =. asked questions concerning the Crossbox Exterior - Section f. Thru Petes, which remarks and photos werere inspection report done by| imal 7 for the Fracture criti A ers 1, 2 and 3, 908 ry er In 2011, the same item numbers of 1, 2 and 3 were rated 5,4 and 4 by ith no photos, which should have been seals eDeetgPARP Ex. 6.1.6, PARP Ex. 6.1./(c) me inspection of thig@@\ NMSSM ria re Span = Splice Plates tevewed a rating from| an‘N’. ube spected the identi and also-gave it an “N" Tine same item a6. In 2011 ted it a6. This was the jave the item in 2012. However, in 2013, the same item was as asked to explain how an item went from a rating of an “N” in 200 109, to a rating of 6 in 2010, 2011, and 2012 and then back to an *N" rating in 2013. tat ut seeing the actual drawing, he could not say if the item had a Splice Plate or not. said he believed he may have checked the wrong box in 2013. Additionally, iiilllaiked about the way things were done in the past. Inspectors would hold fe notes from an inspection for six months before they would complete the reports. tated the reason for that was because they were busy trying to stay in compliance with certain inspection requirements mandated by the Department of Transportation (DOT). ‘This ego coins sensi incon ad is he popey lhe WMATA Oo! pear General (IG), shell nol be copied repre wince wren consent oie 1G. Tisrepos sor OFFICIAL USE ONL, nd 5 Gate a auataed parsons pone PARP Ex. 6.1.6, PARP Ex. 6.1.7(c) rial Structure pt Eremarks that were exactly the same as a 2012 report {completed by different inspectord Jexplained if there are no major changes seen during the inspection, then there is no need to make any changes to the report; the inspector will use the previous year's remarks. BBB as asked about the rating system they used, specifically in 2013 he gave a rating of a 3 for a Box Girder Exterior - e. Bolted Retrofits. This rating was the same rating that the inspectors gave in 2011 and 2012. A rating this low should have included a new photo and ‘—_o/ been reported to maintenance for apa OIG found an d photo was used i port which 5 8 ised eaten 16 PARP EX 6.1.7(c) IPARP Ex. ue 6, PARP Ex. 6.1.7(c) {gave him permission to use archived photos for this inspection. OIG did confirm with f Permission was granted. jas asked about another issue during that same inspection, Box Girder Interior - j. Bolted Connections which involved duplicated remarks and archived photos from a 2012 report fiiliiivas asked about th ligation of information; he gave the same reason as earlier for using archived hotoeillll a given another instance in the same 2013 inspection, Bearing - e. Bearing Assemblies, where his remarks and photo were identical to a 2011 report done by a different inspector lille again gave the same reason for this incident as he had given for the other inspection: MB 2 shown an inspection he did in 2013 where he rated the Box Girder Exterior - @. Bolted Retrofits a 3, but the inspectors in 2008, 2009 and 2010 rated it an “N". From 2011 to present the Box Girder has been rated a 3. In the span of three years it id have been fixed. He was asked to describe the procedures when an item is rated a

    Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen