The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFW: TF Digester #2 Liner Failure - Notice Mike Plane From:Nathan Erickson Sent:Tuesday, October 3, 2023 10:34 To:Nicole Swafford Subject:FW: TF Digester #2 Liner Failure - Notice From: Tony Ghinazzi <tonyg@meritnow.com> Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 4:47 PM To: Pierce, Marshall <Marshall.Pierce@jacobs.com> Cc: Roy Thompson <royt@meritnow.com>; Black, Dan <Dan.Black@jacobs.com>; Stites, Harry <Harry.Stites@jacobs.com>; Nathan Erickson <nerickson@tfid.org>; Tuttle, Patterson <Patterson.Tuttle@jacobs.com> Subject: RE: TF Digester #2 Liner Failure - Notice \[EXTERNAL SENDER\] Marshall/Patterson, Please consider this email to override and supersede previous email traffic. It is my understanding that Carboline and Jacobs have been in discussion over the product options for this warranty repair. I also am led to understand in consideration for concern that this product is newer to the industry, Carboline is robustly confident in their product, such that they are offering increased material warranty duration, as well as Carboline/Merit adding increased material thickness, in support of the end user and to help relieve concern. I am submitting documents for approval with tweaks per discussion between Carboline and Jacobs. Merit will look to update the schedule based on current assumptions and provide shortly, pending confirmation for mtrl lead-time, equipment rental, and other similar details. V/R, Tony Offices in Boise, Tampa, Houston Tony Ghinazzi (208) 501-8143 (O) (208) 501-8401 (F) (208) 870-2547 (C) www.MeritNow.com From: Tony Ghinazzi Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 3:04 PM To: Pierce, Marshall <Marshall.Pierce@jacobs.com> Cc: Roy Thompson <royt@meritnow.com>; Black, Dan <Dan.Black@jacobs.com>; Stites, Harry 1 <Harry.Stites@jacobs.com>; nerickson@tfid.org; Tuttle, Patterson <Patterson.Tuttle@jacobs.com> Subject: RE: TF Digester #2 Liner Failure - Notice Marshall, I agree in large part with the sentiments of your comments and in our desire to support the project with a proper installation. I wish you could trust my intent, as I am trying very hard to do what is in the best interest for our mutual end-user and our customer. All I am hoping for is support and understanding from you, as Merit steps up to a challenging scope and schedule. This is no longer the same project as the previous. We are removing a different product system and trying to get a new system in place, under a more accelerated schedule. This drives some different considerations for us and for all. So I hope we can collectively look at things like the amount of time for advanced notice from the previous documentation, and other such things which may contribute to delay, from a teamship perspective. It is fair to say that the project spec is generic, as with most projects (meaning it is a basic description of system type). Not every type of product listed on pg 161 has to be used in a single system and there is no specific basis of design within this architecture. The intent as I understand it, is to have an approved material supplier submit their highest quality product, matching the intent of the design for intended service. For example, we can probably all agree that if a submitted product design and installation instruction allows for achieving full thickness in 1 coat, this is preferable to 2 coats, even though 2 is listed in the Spec. This would save time, reduce risk for amine btwn coats, etc. and so is an industry preference. I have understood you to have said per spec the proposed material must have a 5 year history. I have not yet found this language under the Materials? It looks like there is a 5-yr requirement under the Manufactures section. Is 2.01 B on pg 160 the basis for your rejection? If so, I think this would apply to the Manufacture’s experience with production of amine cured epoxies. I understand this to mean, the Manufacturer must have 5 years’ experience in the specified products (generally 100% Solids CRC Epoxy). Carboline is specifically listed as one such supplier and they have submit their best recommendation. I do not agree that a proposed system has a 5-yr history requirement. With respect, I think as a team we are rejecting the best product, from a named supplier, without cause. If correct, then the rejection wouldn’t entirely be Merit-caused. The submitted product has a 2-year history per Carboline, not 1 month. And it is a material optimization improvement from tried-and-true legacy system. I’d still prefer the better product recommendation if you agree with my comments per spec review and consideration. Let’s launch into this repair together and give the City the better technology. V/R, Tony Offices in Boise, Tampa, Houston Tony Ghinazzi (208) 501-8143 (O) (208) 501-8401 (F) (208) 870-2547 (C) www.MeritNow.com From: Pierce, Marshall <Marshall.Pierce@jacobs.com> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 12:58 PM 2 To: Tony Ghinazzi <tonyg@meritnow.com> Cc: Roy Thompson <royt@meritnow.com>; Black, Dan <Dan.Black@jacobs.com>; Stites, Harry <Harry.Stites@jacobs.com>; nerickson@tfid.org; Tuttle, Patterson <Patterson.Tuttle@jacobs.com> Subject: RE: TF Digester #2 Liner Failure - Notice Tony, The proposed product did not meet specification. This is a Merit-caused delay. We reviewed the submitted CAP and met with Merit to discuss the proposed CAP plan within two business days of Merit’s initial submission, attempting to work with Merit and progress this repair work. Jacobs does not have a contract with Merit. Merit’s contract is with the City. The intent of the specifications requiring a minimum of 7-days advance notice for start of field surface prep and coating application (and all coats thereafter), is to allow sufficient time for prep and scheduling site trips (by Jacobs, should they wish to attend in person). QCIC will be onsite full-time. “Best practices and most efficient schedule practices” that Merit notes below must meet the contract requirements. Work shall not be deemed complete until it has been approved by a third-party NACE inspector (QCIC in this case) and Owner’s Rep. (Jacobs) per specification section 01 31 13 1.03. Work is required to only be performed in the presence of Engineer or Coating Inspector, unless otherwise granted. Thank you, Marshall Pierce, P.E. | Jacobs | Project Manager C: 703.347.2363 | marshall.pierce@jacobs.com From: Tony Ghinazzi <tonyg@meritnow.com> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 12:17 PM To: Pierce, Marshall <Marshall.Pierce@jacobs.com> Cc: Roy Thompson <royt@meritnow.com>; Black, Dan <Dan.Black@jacobs.com>; Stites, Harry <Harry.Stites@jacobs.com>; nerickson@tfid.org; Tuttle, Patterson <Patterson.Tuttle@jacobs.com> Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] RE: TF Digester #2 Liner Failure - Notice Marshall, We are reviewing product options now. Since our first and second preferences were rejected, this sorta took the wind from our sails. Merit feels this is history repeated from the original project, only then due to Covid supply chain limited product availability, which lent to some poor results. So in order to avoid history repeated, we are considering our options and appreciate this has cost us a week from our schedule. So we will revise schedule as soon as possible. Please also see below comments in Red: Thanks as always, Offices in Boise, Tampa, Houston Tony Ghinazzi (208) 501-8143 (O) (208) 501-8401 (F) (208) 870-2547 (C) www.MeritNow.com 3 From: Pierce, Marshall Marshall.Pierce@jacobs.com Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 8:39 AM To: Tony Ghinazzi tonyg@meritnow.com Cc: Roy Thompson royt@meritnow.com; Black, Dan Dan.Black@jacobs.com; Stites, Harry Harry.Stites@jacobs.com; nerickson@tfid.org; Tuttle, Patterson Patterson.Tuttle@jacobs.com; Pierce, Marshall Marshall.Pierce@jacobs.com Subject: RE: TF Digester #2 Liner Failure - Notice Tony, Our meeting notes, which includes our CAP review comments we mentioned in the meeting, are below. Please let us know if we missed anything. We are looking forward to reviewing an alternate product to Hydro-plate 6500. Any update on submission? With this revised product submission, can you also submit an updated schedule? Thank you. Mtg Notes and CAP Review Comments:  Merit noted that they believe the cause of failure of the interior D2 coa?ngs was due to defec?ve product(s). Jacobs noted that they do not agree, and the two reports (CLT and QCIC) concluded that applica?on was cause of failure I would share that we do not disagree that there was off ratio application for Intermediate white coat 8200, induced by plural pump failure, as discussed during the project with all players. But I’ll add that it was cured and bought off to the satisfaction of everyone, before Merit continued forward. We also do not disagree that the Grey topcoat is now too thin and has pin holes and porosity, exposing the white coat to reaction with the environment. But I’ll add that we feel environmental exposure is what caused the Grey topcoat 8200 degradation and penetration through to the intermediate coat. Merit has collected samples which demonstrate to us there is a sorta chemical attack of the Greycoat, which was originally applied with the proper gallons to achieve >1.25x project spec thickness, and tested and approved by all per spec, tech data and certifications. Greycoat is thinned and porous b/c it is being eaten through from the exposed side. So we don’t disagree with QCIC that pinholes, holidays or porosity is causing issues. Only that this was not caused by inadequate application thickness, but rather from material degradation from exposure. QCIC cannot know that the whitecoat was known to be applied off ratio b/c this conversation was never afforded. Nor that it was fully cured and bought off by the material supplier b/c all of those SW personnel are gone from the company and Merit was not included in QCIC’s onboarding to the project. It is well documented with pictures and report that the white coat was destructive tested and durometer tested for hardness and cure. It is sticky/gooey now, because of exposure to the environment, since the Grey topcoat has failed, not because the whitecoat never cured in the first place. We believe that had QCIC been provided the information via discussion, it would have factored into their analysis. Merit fully disagrees with CLT, that the on-ratio Greycoat and touchup spots, does not show any sign of degradation. Merit would be happy to share samples with Jacobs which clearly demonstrate to Merit’s satisfaction that CLT’s comments are incorrect. (See attached pic showing progressive eroding, not singular pinholes from sparse application.) But we need to prove this through testing, before we can circle back with CLT/SW.  City is s?ll ﬁrm with November 1 comple?on date. Currently, Merit’s schedule shows comple?on in mid- November  Air supply, gas monitor, etc. will be provided by Merit as per contract  Merit agrees surface prep per SSPC SP 13 and per product requirements  Merit agrees that 8200 and 5000 need to be removed en?rely. All 8200 needs to be removed, nothing le?. Re- surfacer would not s?ck to 8200. MERIT to make sure ALL 8200 is gone  SP 13 allows for adhesion tes?ng in lieu of removal of all 2300, PLUS le?er of approval from coa?ngs manufacturer (approving coa?ng over 2300). Carboline rep will want adhesion test passing in order to warrant new work  Anything that exceeds CSP 5 will need to be resurfaced  ALL bug holes and voids to be ﬁlled and smooth, not just ½” deep and ½” diameter sized ones 4  Jacobs has concern for oﬀ-gassing through epoxy ﬁller, since less permeable that cemen??ous ﬁller. Carboline rep conﬁrmed this is not a concern, epoxy ﬁller can go on prior to 1340. 510 can be used before or a?er 1340. Generally primed before using epoxy surfacer  Hydro-plate 6500 – NEW to carboline, about 1 month ago. NOT approved as it does not meet the spec required minimum of 5-year product installa?on history  Wet-on-wet applica?on – Merit says this is a secondary measure to get a bug hole ﬁlled that was not previously ﬁlled. Will be done within minutes, not hours or days later This is in-process method to heading check application thickness, and help smooth for a monolithic coating.  4550 – same applica?on as this, may be submi?ed for review. 60 to 100 mils desired, but challenging for 4550  Amine blush – Merit to assume it is there  QA/QC – Carboline will be onsite. City will have full ?me inspector, QCIC. All spec required tes?ng to be performed with no excep?on Merit concedes access and transparency to inspection from NACE 2-3. But Merit does not concede any schedule delay rd caused by 3 party inspection, since Merit is providing Inspection and oversight through product supplier.  DFT tests oﬀ of adhesion tests to limit destruc?ve DFT, samples required are per standards. Will provide clean cuts. Single holiday test a?er full applica?on. Primer is not thick enough  Merit to no?fy QCIC and Jacobs of inspec?on readiness at milestones, including but not limited to surface prep complete, and all individual layers including surface prep, primer, epoxy, and any top coa?ng layer(s). Any delay caused by hold-oﬀ on QCIC or Jacobs end, will be noted and ?me recoverable in Merit’s schedule. However, this is for inspec?on and tes?ng. This does not relieve Merit from performing per the contract speciﬁca?ons, and ?me will not be given for any delay caused by non-conforming work. Merit appreciates Jacobs recovery offer for schedule. But Merit asks that Jacobs understand that delay also drives costs for rented equipment, personnel, weather conditioning, etc. Merit agrees to proceed with best practices and most efficient schedule methods. If QCIC/Jacobs wish to hold Merit from progress for cause, then costs associated with the hold should be recoverable from Jacobs or absorbed by Merit, depending on the resolution and determination of the specific hold challenge.  Merit to submit revised a plan CAP to include new product(s). Merit noted they would likely want another Teams call to discuss. Marshall Pierce, P.E. | Jacobs | Project Manager C: 703.347.2363 | marshall.pierce@jacobs.com From: Tony Ghinazzi <tonyg@meritnow.com> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 9:57 AM To: Pierce, Marshall <Marshall.Pierce@jacobs.com> Cc: Roy Thompson <royt@meritnow.com>; Black, Dan <Dan.Black@jacobs.com>; Stites, Harry <Harry.Stites@jacobs.com>; nerickson@tfid.org; Woods, Paul <Paul.Woods@jacobs.com>; Tuttle, Patterson <Patterson.Tuttle@jacobs.com> Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] RE: TF Digester #2 Liner Failure - Notice Marshall, Please see attached CAP plan. We have vetted this through Carboline and others for concurrence. Status as of 9/22/23 Safeway is holding to planning and we will have the scaffold complete today. We have received media and are planning our mobilization for next week with crew and equipment. As for planning, it’s clear the 8200 must come out. In the spirit of not wasting a moments time, we want to start freight for Mtrl and Plural Pump asap. We cut the schedule in half for the removal effort, in order to support the City of Twin Falls. This is obviously one of the biggest unknowns from a planning perspective, but we feel the failing nature of the 5 DP8200 and the fact that it was only designed at 40 mils per project spec, can go fast, via a couple different techniques we plan to try in the first couple days of removal, which we will communicate back in terms of status as we go. I’m hoping to keep things moving by starting removal asap next week, post mobilization. We also think it is important to discuss the CAP and review it with a larger team. Can we perhaps have a Mtg Monday, to include Jacobs, Shane Prudhomme (previously from Apex on the original project) and now representing Carboline and with Carboline folks to discuss any parts of the CAP that merits group discussion. If yes, how about 10:00 Monday or 1:30 or later Monday? Please know we are coordinating with all the right people to help ensure a robust application with confidence, but we also want to make sure we are supporting our end user and Jacobs to the best of our ability. Please help me to push things where we can, in support of the team goals and risk for winter conditions. V/R, Tony Offices in Boise, Tampa, Houston Tony Ghinazzi (208) 501-8143 (O) (208) 501-8401 (F) (208) 870-2547 (C) www.MeritNow.com From: Tony Ghinazzi Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 8:20 AM To: Pierce, Marshall <Marshall.Pierce@jacobs.com> Cc: Roy Thompson <royt@meritnow.com>; Black, Dan <Dan.Black@jacobs.com>; Stites, Harry <Harry.Stites@jacobs.com>; nerickson@tfid.org; Woods, Paul <Paul.Woods@jacobs.com>; Tuttle, Patterson <Patterson.Tuttle@jacobs.com> Subject: RE: TF Digester #2 Liner Failure - Notice Harry, Thanks the storage permission. Marshall and team, Status 9/20/23. Safway is progressing nicely. Framing is in, and we’re hoping for rounded platform and wood floor today’ish, with wood floor complete tmrw and Towers through the balance of week. Just a quick update that things are progressing according to plan, to be done by Friday. Our blast media is in route and we are staging our start. We have ordered an adhesion tester, and will blast into the 2300 and perform pull tests for team review and discussion for what needs to happen with the 2300. This is an automated process w/o Merit influence, so the numbers will be the numbers. But trust me, we will not build an expensive system atop a bad foundation. We will do the right thing, via coordination with Carboline, Jacobs, and our end user. Merit will have Carboline support throughout this process and we’d like to set up a teams mtg to discuss at your convenience, and coordinated schedules of course. V/R, 6 Tony Offices in Boise, Tampa, Houston Tony Ghinazzi (208) 501-8143 (O) (208) 501-8401 (F) (208) 870-2547 (C) www.MeritNow.com From: Tony Ghinazzi Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 2:41 PM To: Pierce, Marshall <Marshall.Pierce@jacobs.com> Cc: Roy Thompson <royt@meritnow.com>; Black, Dan <Dan.Black@jacobs.com>; Stites, Harry <Harry.Stites@jacobs.com>; nerickson@tfid.org; Woods, Paul <Paul.Woods@jacobs.com>; Tuttle, Patterson <Patterson.Tuttle@jacobs.com> Subject: RE: TF Digester #2 Liner Failure - Notice Marshall, We are trying to keep things as tight as possible to maintain and recover schedule/delay from testing. We really ought to discuss 2300 removal requirement prior to the week of the 25th, since we are potentially starting removing that week, pending CAP approval. Removing 2300 vs not removing 2300, are 2 different media and have a host of other impacts, relative to blast time, risk of damage to concrete, clean time, etc. If we must remove 2300, we increase the risk for not completing this year, which not an option for how Merit is looking at this repair. Therefore, we should target to compress schedule to the extent possible. We were vetting 2 different product options and suppliers, and as of today, are recommneding Carboline product and product support. This is born from an SW recommendation to repeat the repair with the same product and same process, which we feel is contributory to the failure. However, both material suppliers are saying that we can leave the 2300 cementitious resurfacer in place, to the extent it remains post blasting. We will early test, post blasting, to ensure it’s adhesion is robust and CSP of 3-5 suitable for next overcoat layer, working in concert with NACE support and verification. We have spoken to Shane Pruhomme (representing Carboline products and I believe known to Jacobs as previously with Apex) and Carboline tech support for process, materials, and project goals. We have their best recommendation and would like to set up a meeting which includes them, either onsite as we get closer or via Teams Mtg for CAP approval, to help bring home confidence in this shifted planning from the previous project. At that time we can further discuss 2300, and any other questions that Jacobs or the City may have. As well, we have a couple questions to help affirm product selection: 1) What is the max temp/hea?ng inside D2? 2) What is the % H2S Gas concentra?on at the top of the digester? 3) As with the original project, can we use the condi?oned bldg. space outside ops bldg. for mtrl storage? Since SW/Jacobs/Apex supported proper installation review, we feel it would be a mistake to repeat a 40-mil application, approved by the group as suitable for service, and hope for a different result. We also prefer to apply 1 single coat to full build, via a spray and back trowel for bug holes, as a wet-on-wet overcoat to final thickness, as discussed and endorsed by Carboline. This helps in-process thickness check and ensuring minimal touchup repairs post application. SW has said that they would consider a submittal for another product if merit demanded but SW feels there 7 is not an inherent product issue for the environment. Merit disagrees strongly and is in the process of sending CLT samples provided to Merit, out for testing. Marshall please call me back at your earliest convenience today to discuss? And we will send a revised CAP plan after we have vetted through Carboline for concurrence of the details, to accompany the above. V/R, Tony Offices in Boise, Tampa, Houston Tony Ghinazzi (208) 501-8143 (O) (208) 501-8401 (F) (208) 870-2547 (C) www.MeritNow.com From: Pierce, Marshall <Marshall.Pierce@jacobs.com> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2023 4:25 PM To: Tony Ghinazzi <tonyg@meritnow.com> Cc: Roy Thompson <royt@meritnow.com>; Black, Dan <Dan.Black@jacobs.com>; Stites, Harry <Harry.Stites@jacobs.com>; nerickson@tfid.org; Woods, Paul <Paul.Woods@jacobs.com>; Tuttle, Patterson <Patterson.Tuttle@jacobs.com> Subject: RE: TF Digester #2 Liner Failure - Notice Tony, We would prefer meeting when Merit has a repair plan we can discuss. Also, there are some concerns we have with keeping the 2300 layer in place. As noted previously, our schedules don’t align well for this meeting next week, as Patterson and I are both traveling to jobsites starting Tuesday. Perhaps we should plan to meet early the following week? Does this give Merit enough time to finalize a repair plan for review? Thank you, Marshall Pierce, P.E. | Jacobs | Project Manager C: 703.347.2363 | marshall.pierce@jacobs.com From: Tony Ghinazzi <tonyg@meritnow.com> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2023 1:22 PM To: Pierce, Marshall <Marshall.Pierce@jacobs.com> Cc: Roy Thompson <royt@meritnow.com>; Black, Dan <Dan.Black@jacobs.com>; Stites, Harry <Harry.Stites@jacobs.com>; nerickson@tfid.org; Woods, Paul <Paul.Woods@jacobs.com>; Tuttle, Patterson <Patterson.Tuttle@jacobs.com> Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] RE: TF Digester #2 Liner Failure - Notice Yes, let’s shoot for Monday but perhaps a reduced crowd? We’re gonna need one more answer by the beginning of next week. I know I owe you a final CAP, and I am needing one more convo with SW to get us there. 8 There are 2 important topics for us, before we start respective activities, then we have some time while we are prep/blasting to come together to everyone’s satisfaction on the process/ppwk… 1) You answered that we have permission to start scaﬀold erec?on without an approved plan. a. Thank you 2) The second is rela?ve to removal. Removing to the 2300 vs removing all, factors largely into schedule for us all. a. I’d like to plan now to remove to the 2300 per discussion with SW. i. 2300 is cemen??ous resurfacer. So it is like concrete substrate now, and in the case of TF-D2 appears really well adhered and rock hard. 1. Our plan for whatever product we ﬁnalize on, is to blast into this during removal, but allow anything that does not remove, to remain in place. a. Removing this in whole o?en does more harm than good, when we have strong adhesion. Since it is concrete, blas?ng can damage the concrete it is adhered to, meaning your skirt and dome wall surfaces, more than we should. If the bite from 2300 to wall, is stronger than the cohesive strength of the older concrete. b. This does several things: i. Reduces risk of substrate damage ii. Reduces the blast eﬀort/schedule iii. Alters the media down-selec?on op?ons iv. Reduces the cleanup of spent media/schedule b. We have spoken to product suppliers and blas?ng experts, with regard to diﬀerent products and this speciﬁc removal. i. These discussions have led us to target this plan, with tes?ng. Meaning we blast day 1 and then test. If the 2300 tests at very strong adhesion over a larger sample set of SF than the temp scaﬀold access, we can have high conﬁdence that it should not be removed, apply a ?e coat of Macropoxy 5000 and then topcoat lining. This would certainly help prewinter schedule risk. 1. This already happened on TF-D2 project, where we le? some bits of red material b/c the removal was causing more damage than removal. I do not expect an answer today. But I do have to order media sooner than later. So I am hoping to understand if Jacobs is willing to take the recommendation of the product supplier over the recommendation within QCIC’s report. SW and Merit have more a stake than anyone for warranty and performance. I am not saying QCIC’s comment is a bad conservative recommendation. I am saying that we have to breath in the whole of the project considerations, and make best decisions from a global perspective. And Merit is saying that we test to determine, rather than chart a longer course now without enough information. V/R, Tony Offices in Boise, Tampa, Houston Tony Ghinazzi (208) 501-8143 (O) (208) 501-8401 (F) (208) 870-2547 (C) www.MeritNow.com From: Pierce, Marshall <Marshall.Pierce@jacobs.com> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 4:46 PM To: Tony Ghinazzi <tonyg@meritnow.com> 9 Cc: Roy Thompson <royt@meritnow.com>; Black, Dan <Dan.Black@jacobs.com>; Stites, Harry <Harry.Stites@jacobs.com>; nerickson@tfid.org; Woods, Paul <Paul.Woods@jacobs.com>; Tuttle, Patterson <Patterson.Tuttle@jacobs.com> Subject: RE: TF Digester #2 Liner Failure - Notice Tony, I’m in the field for startup and commissioning at a different plan Tuesday through Friday, and Patterson is in the field 20 and 21. Any chance Monday could work? Otherwise, it would have to be the week after. Thanks, Marshall Pierce, P.E. | Jacobs | Project Manager C: 703.347.2363 | marshall.pierce@jacobs.com From: Tony Ghinazzi <tonyg@meritnow.com> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 4:20 PM To: Pierce, Marshall <Marshall.Pierce@jacobs.com> Cc: Roy Thompson <royt@meritnow.com>; Black, Dan <Dan.Black@jacobs.com>; Stites, Harry <Harry.Stites@jacobs.com>; nerickson@tfid.org; Woods, Paul <Paul.Woods@jacobs.com>; Tuttle, Patterson <Patterson.Tuttle@jacobs.com> Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] RE: TF Digester #2 Liner Failure - Notice Understood and thank you. Let’s plan for early next week as we meet Friday afternoon, and then just need to plug in a few things to the CAP. When is good for you, say Tues or Wed? Offices in Boise, Tampa, Houston Tony Ghinazzi (208) 501-8143 (O) (208) 501-8401 (F) (208) 870-2547 (C) www.MeritNow.com From: Pierce, Marshall <Marshall.Pierce@jacobs.com> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 2:19 PM To: Tony Ghinazzi <tonyg@meritnow.com> Cc: Roy Thompson <royt@meritnow.com>; Black, Dan <Dan.Black@jacobs.com>; Stites, Harry <Harry.Stites@jacobs.com>; nerickson@tfid.org; Woods, Paul <Paul.Woods@jacobs.com>; Tuttle, Patterson <Patterson.Tuttle@jacobs.com> Subject: RE: TF Digester #2 Liner Failure - Notice Tony, The City has confirmed that a scaffold assembly start date of next Monday works on their end. Let’s meet once you have submitted a repair plan for review; we can also discuss the findings of both reports, and final SW recommendations for Merit. Thank you, 10 Marshall Pierce, P.E. | Jacobs | Project Manager C: 703.347.2363 | marshall.pierce@jacobs.com From: Tony Ghinazzi <tonyg@meritnow.com> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 11:41 AM To: Pierce, Marshall <Marshall.Pierce@jacobs.com> Cc: Roy Thompson <royt@meritnow.com>; Black, Dan <Dan.Black@jacobs.com>; Stites, Harry <Harry.Stites@jacobs.com>; nerickson@tfid.org; Woods, Paul <Paul.Woods@jacobs.com>; Tuttle, Patterson <Patterson.Tuttle@jacobs.com> Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] FW: TF Digester #2 Liner Failure - Notice Marshall, Thank you for this information. At the highest level, Merit does not disagree with much from CLT and QCIC’s findings (off ratio and removal of 8200). But we would like to take this opportunity to loosely speculate as to what we feel is happening, with the understanding Merit has not lab tested anything as yet. However, we still intend to, now that we know which tests have been performed. But we do of course have the findings that everyone else has. And finally, we st were there at time of 1 8200 application, sample collection, and everything in between, and feel we know some things that can contribute and tweak inspection knowledge. Merit is not an expert in all things but we were boots on the ground and offer this in concert with the reports: st 1) The 1 (~ 1/3 - ½ of the surface area) applica?on of 8200 whitecoat was realized to be oﬀ count and therefore oﬀ ra?o, before Merit could stop the spray. a. Merit raised the red ﬂag to SW/Jacobs and had it tested per SW recommenda?on and par?cipa?on. i. The determina?on was that it was overcatalyzed, and could be sprayed over without nega?vely aﬀec?ng the next coat performance. 2) The Plural rig was inves?gated by SW tech rep and Merit and determined to have issues which contributed to the oﬀ ra?o. a. These were replaced and repaired by SW tech rep except for the B side gauge which could not be procured, due to Covid supply chain availabil?y. i. Merit did not want to run the pump w/o this gauge and w/o ra?o assurance, as the only way to tell on this pump if the ra?o was correct. 1. SW tech rep said he could run the pump and could tell if it was oﬀ ra?o in order to proceed. 3) Merit sprayed 2 more coats via this support and conﬁgura?on for a total of ~300 gallons, of 8200 which would have covered the surface with the appropriate mils. a. The math requirement is 209 gallons for the surface area at 40 mils, meaning greycoat 12/2/21 at 20 mils should be 105 gallons and we applied 150 gallons, so Merit believes greycoat mils as tested can only be explained by degrada?on. b. The combina?on of Apex and SW destruc?ve/holiday/etc. tes?ng and also Jacobs/SW/Apex visual inspec?on, gave Merit conﬁdence that we had a coa?ng applica?on mee?ng spec. c. Merit believes the monolithic, hardness and thickness then, do not match today’s samples. 4) Merit believes that some combina?on of the thin 40 mils system, coa?ngs chemistry and greycoat topcoat slightly oﬀ ra?o, has allowed the topcoat to be eaten away by exposure. a. Merit points to current sample test mils showing the greycoat as well under approved thickness, as well as heavily pi?ed, is ID’ing the lining layer as far diﬀerent now than the ?me of cure. It looks translucent, gaunt and pi?ed vs grey and solid. b. Merit believes that gas and liquid penetrated the greycoat and aﬀected the white coat. The white coat appears gummy and undercatalyzed as compared to the opposite, which we would expect based on tes?ng and logic for B-rich. This appearance from Merit observa?on and QCIC pics, is more relatable to A-rich undercatalyzed. 11 c. They greycoat is delamina?ng and pi?ng in areas where there was no known oﬀ ra?o and/or hand mix over metal substrate. The failure appears unform in all areas, including areas where scaﬀold and sample collec?on were not. i. Turrets and highest points above the waste line that see gas concentra?on appear the most eaten away greycoat by visual observa?on. 5) Merit cannot comment about 8200 performance in this environment. But we have requested another system based on our experience, that we reapply at much thicker mils that spec, applied in a single coat, sprayed and back troweled. 6) Merit believes SW has said to remove to sound 2300 per the a?ached and reapply. We will conﬁrm prior to our next Mtg. a. Merit has a tenta?ve mtg for FRI to coord schedules and conform all details prior to providing a ﬁnal CAP submission. b. Merit would like to start scaﬀold erec?on Monday 8/18/23, even though we will not have an approved CAP, and expect this to take a week. i. Scaﬀold, mobiliza?on and start of removal can occur concurrent to Merit/Jacobs review and approval of the ﬁnal CAP? I will call to discuss… V/R, Tony Offices in Boise, Tampa, Houston Tony Ghinazzi (208) 501-8143 (O) (208) 501-8401 (F) (208) 870-2547 (C) www.MeritNow.com From: Pierce, Marshall <Marshall.Pierce@jacobs.com> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 9:29 AM To: Tony Ghinazzi <tonyg@meritnow.com> Cc: Roy Thompson <royt@meritnow.com>; Black, Dan <Dan.Black@jacobs.com>; Stites, Harry <Harry.Stites@jacobs.com>; nerickson@tfid.org; Woods, Paul <Paul.Woods@jacobs.com>; Tuttle, Patterson <Patterson.Tuttle@jacobs.com> Subject: RE: TF Digester #2 Liner Failure - Notice Tony, Thank you for sending this report. Last night we received QCIC’ report, please see attached. The good news is these two reports appear to be concluding the same: Off ratio mixing of the plural pump that applied the first coat, and inconsistent/out-of-spec coating thicknesses. We will review the CLT report in further detail internally, and will request a meeting with Merit to discuss both report’s findings. It would be extremely helpful if you discuss the best path forward with SW prior to our meeting. The CLT report did not recommend removal extents; QCIC’s did. Please discuss removal extents with SW. Thank you, 12 Marshall Pierce, P.E. | Jacobs | Project Manager C: 703.347.2363 | marshall.pierce@jacobs.com From: Tony Ghinazzi <tonyg@meritnow.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 7:38 AM To: Pierce, Marshall <Marshall.Pierce@jacobs.com> Cc: Roy Thompson <royt@meritnow.com>; Black, Dan <Dan.Black@jacobs.com>; Stites, Harry <Harry.Stites@jacobs.com>; nerickson@tfid.org; Woods, Paul <Paul.Woods@jacobs.com>; Tuttle, Patterson <Patterson.Tuttle@jacobs.com> Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] RE: TF Digester #2 Liner Failure - Notice Marshall, What I think I understand is that SW is saying to reapply the same product, following the previous instructions. This means to reapply the DP8200 product in 2 coats of 20 mils each. This was previously bought off by Jacobs, SW and Apex as properly installed. I would like to know how you feel about that recommendation? I also believe that they are recommended to remove up to the DP2300, such that this layer remains, based on site and lab review. I have not received anything that supersedes previous direction. I would also like to know how you feel about that? I do not believe SW has said that application has done anything wrong, however the recommendation is to repeat. I think what I am reading is that SW is saying the white coat, which is the first coat of 8200, was off ratio and this affected performance. 8200 was applied with a plural pump for automated mix, run by and in observation from SW tech rep for both coats. And think this is suggesting Intermediate white coat 8200 could have affected the grey topcoat 8200, but it is not certain. Merit is internally discussing options and also trying to speak with SW for better understanding and path forward. You can see what they provided is minimal and what CLT produced is a lot to absorb. So Merit is open to a discussion with the team at your convenience. V/R, Tony Offices in Boise, Tampa, Houston Tony Ghinazzi (208) 501-8143 (O) (208) 501-8401 (F) (208) 870-2547 (C) www.MeritNow.com From: Tony Ghinazzi Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 2:04 PM To: Pierce, Marshall <Marshall.Pierce@jacobs.com> Cc: Roy Thompson <royt@meritnow.com>; Black, Dan <Dan.Black@jacobs.com>; Stites, Harry <Harry.Stites@jacobs.com>; nerickson@tfid.org; Woods, Paul <Paul.Woods@jacobs.com>; Tuttle, Patterson 13 <Patterson.Tuttle@jacobs.com> Subject: RE: TF Digester #2 Liner Failure - Notice Marshall, We got information from SW and are trying to set up a call to review with them. Have you received anything from QCIC yet? I will send along what I have but I do need to try and understand what was provided first. More to follow shortly… Offices in Boise, Tampa, Houston Tony Ghinazzi (208) 501-8143 (O) (208) 501-8401 (F) (208) 870-2547 (C) www.MeritNow.com From: Tony Ghinazzi Sent: Friday, September 1, 2023 2:53 PM To: Pierce, Marshall <Marshall.Pierce@jacobs.com> Cc: Roy Thompson <royt@meritnow.com>; Black, Dan <Dan.Black@jacobs.com>; Stites, Harry <Harry.Stites@jacobs.com>; nerickson@tfid.org; Woods, Paul <Paul.Woods@jacobs.com>; Tuttle, Patterson <Patterson.Tuttle@jacobs.com> Subject: RE: TF Digester #2 Liner Failure - Notice Marshall, Thanks and see below in red: Have a great wkend, Offices in Boise, Tampa, Houston Tony Ghinazzi (208) 501-8143 (O) (208) 501-8401 (F) (208) 870-2547 (C) www.MeritNow.com From: Pierce, Marshall <Marshall.Pierce@jacobs.com> Sent: Friday, September 1, 2023 10:58 AM To: Tony Ghinazzi <tonyg@meritnow.com> Cc: Roy Thompson <royt@meritnow.com>; Black, Dan <Dan.Black@jacobs.com>; Stites, Harry <Harry.Stites@jacobs.com>; nerickson@tfid.org; Woods, Paul <Paul.Woods@jacobs.com>; Tuttle, Patterson <Patterson.Tuttle@jacobs.com> Subject: RE: TF Digester #2 Liner Failure - Notice Tony, 14 We are available to meet next week. The City maintains their position of scaffold assembly as soon as possible, and repairs made in 2023 and not next Spring. Merit understands this preference and is doing everything reasonable to further this goal. The scaffolding has already slipped two weeks, as Merit informed Jacobs/City that Safway was able to lock in this week, further pushing out the install date from the week of 08.14. This was due to Merit’s position of not wanting to pay for scaffold rental without having approval and consensus on a repair plan, taking into account the anticipated report deliverable date from SW. We assume, since Merit is a good customer of Safway as you noted in a previous email, that you are coordinating this with them so we don’t miss out on rental availability. We are absolutely coordinating with Safway but still waiting for their response for dates… Next Tuesday marks 5 weeks from when samples were collected by Merit. I want to be clear, that “not wanting to pay for scaffold rental” is part of a broader, legitimate desire for information- based decisions. I still cannot comment as to root cause, nor can any other, but I am trying to gain the answer. It’s good business for us to test drive before we buy, just as Jacobs does not prefer to approve a draft CAP without test results information. Nobody wants to proceed at risk, so we must both have SW recommendation and input for a confident path forward. Thanks for understanding. Were it possible, we would have preferred to start already, as hold for testing results adds schedule risk. Thank you, Marshall Pierce, P.E. | Jacobs | Project Manager C: 703.347.2363 | marshall.pierce@jacobs.com From: Tony Ghinazzi <tonyg@meritnow.com> Sent: Friday, September 1, 2023 10:40 AM To: Pierce, Marshall <Marshall.Pierce@jacobs.com> Cc: Roy Thompson <royt@meritnow.com>; Black, Dan <Dan.Black@jacobs.com>; Stites, Harry <Harry.Stites@jacobs.com>; nerickson@tfid.org; Woods, Paul <Paul.Woods@jacobs.com>; Tuttle, Patterson <Patterson.Tuttle@jacobs.com> Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] RE: TF Digester #2 Liner Failure - Notice Marshall, Today is less than my favorite position to be in and so I apologize for any stress I add to your plate. Merit has almost no control over current circumstances. We met with SW Wed and they said they were trying their very best to put information together to aid our decisions. I know you said you were hoping to have QCIC report by end of week/mo. I also would like to see their report but Merit is weighing SW’s/CLT’s information with greatest value for our path forward. Since it is their repair recommendation for their products and also their product recommendation for reapplication. I know it’s a long wkend for many and perhaps hard to plan, but I will share info as it becomes available to me. Currently I do not have either report. Currently I have Safway slated for Tues after the Holiday wkend to start install. Merit maintains that we cannot install Scaffolding until we have an approved CAP. We had hoped to gain enough confidence from reports/findings provided, to aid a conversation/decision without this formal buyoff, based hopefully on predicted results confirmation. This way formal approval ppwk could follow, and Merit could consider proceeding at risk based on reasonable level of risk mitigation. But we currently do not have a glimpse at the data, for this ~4-5 week mark from sample collection on the 8/1/23. I know SW said 4-5 wks and I give them a few days for freight to lab, so I think we are talking about another scaffold shift decision to be made today. 15 I figure I have to let Safway know by noon the workday before the planned install, for a modicum of professionalism. And I also think we need to coord with Safway and see what the next shift would look like, were we to call off for Tues? And then with that information, we should regroup as a team and discuss, hopefully with the reports as well. I think we should pencil in a Mtg for next week. 1) Lab test results 2) 2023 planning/schedule All the best, Tony Offices in Boise, Tampa, Houston Tony Ghinazzi (208) 501-8143 (O) (208) 501-8401 (F) (208) 870-2547 (C) www.MeritNow.com From: Tony Ghinazzi Sent: Friday, August 25, 2023 9:28 AM To: Pierce, Marshall <Marshall.Pierce@jacobs.com> Cc: Roy Thompson <royt@meritnow.com>; Black, Dan <Dan.Black@jacobs.com>; Stites, Harry <Harry.Stites@jacobs.com>; nerickson@tfid.org; Woods, Paul <Paul.Woods@jacobs.com>; Tuttle, Patterson <Patterson.Tuttle@jacobs.com> Subject: RE: TF Digester #2 Liner Failure - Notice Marshall, Of course we understand. Sometimes in construction we have to try and push things forward, knowing that it is not a perfect design at the onset of starting to build. It is our hope that we have greased the skids a little during this hold point, for the benefit of team review. SW has now committed to try and produce final testing results and report by the end of the month. We will go off that report and hope it aligns with whatever QCIC tested and produces so we have clear path forward. Should they agree, I think this lends confidence. Should they differ, we’ll just have to talk that out. I do not know what QCIC collected and is testing, but hope it aligns enough to gain analogous results. Have a great weekend, Tony Offices in Boise, Tampa, Houston Tony Ghinazzi (208) 501-8143 (O) (208) 501-8401 (F) (208) 870-2547 (C) www.MeritNow.com 16 From: Pierce, Marshall <Marshall.Pierce@jacobs.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 9:04 AM To: Tony Ghinazzi <tonyg@meritnow.com> Cc: Roy Thompson <royt@meritnow.com>; Black, Dan <Dan.Black@jacobs.com>; Stites, Harry <Harry.Stites@jacobs.com>; nerickson@tfid.org; Woods, Paul <Paul.Woods@jacobs.com>; Tuttle, Patterson <Patterson.Tuttle@jacobs.com> Subject: RE: TF Digester #2 Liner Failure - Notice Tony, Without lab results and inspection reports from SW and QCIC, it is difficult to review the plan that you have attached. Once we have received these deliverables, we will review the updated repair plan from Merit. To aid Merit in writing their repair plan, we will share QCIC’s report as soon as it is made available. Thank you, Marshall Pierce, P.E. | Jacobs | Project Manager C: 703.347.2363 | marshall.pierce@jacobs.com NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any 17 viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. 18