27-05-2025
- Business
- New Indian Express
L&T claims ‘certain inconsistencies' in NDSA report on Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Scheme
HYDERABAD: The L&T-PES joint venture, the contracting agency for the Medigadda barrage, has cited 'certain inconsistencies' in the National Dam Safety Authority (NDSA) report on the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Scheme and asked the Authority to update it.
In a letter to the irrigation superintending engineer of the Ramagundam circle, L&T stated that the NDSA's conclusions were contradictory and urged an updated version of the report.
The company said that while the NDSA report offered justification for its findings on structural inadequacies, it did not clearly present any evidence of a lack of quality control.
L&T referred to point five of the executive summary of the report, which stated that the original ground conditions and the state of structures could not be assessed due to premature grouting, which altered critical sub-surface geotechnical conditions beneath the raft and along the secant pile cut-offs.
'However, in contrast, page 283 of Chapter 11.2 noted that the Quality Management Programme (QMP) documents had been submitted by the construction agency, and that these documents helped project teams establish quality planning, quality control, and assurance procedures,' the letter said.
L&T also cited pages 64 and 65 of the report, which acknowledged that grouting activities carried out by the Irrigation and CAD department had altered the upstream and downstream plinth slabs and secant piles, making it impossible to evaluate their original condition. 'Additionally, page 145 of Chapter 6 noted that premature grouting was performed before seismic investigations could be conducted, resulting in the loss of information regarding the secant pile cut-offs and parametric joints,' the letter said.
With regard to the observation on quality control, L&T referred to its responses to 31 questions submitted to the NDSA on March 29, 2024. 'Despite this, the NDSA's executive summary, point 13, stated that no quality control procedures had been implemented to ensure the watertightness of the cut-off walls,' the letter said, claiming that this contradicted the report's own earlier observations and the submitted documents.
