EYE WITNESS REPORT ON THE POLLUTION
'INCIDENT' AT THE INCINERATOR
CONSTRUCTION SITE AT LA COLLETTE - 28th APRIL, 2009
Below follows a short extract from
a description of events that took place between the end of April and
early May 2009 provided by the Project Manager's Representative (Babtie
Fichtner), followed by a series of photographs taken by him on 28th
April 2009, with explanatory captions. The reader may draw his or her
own conclusion about what in fact took place on the site during construction,
and how it may have affected our beaches and marine life.
"There
were four extract well points drilled into the bottom of the excavation
pit and another four discharge points drilled outside of the sheet pile
curtain. The intention of CSBC, (consortium of contractors) as described
in their Risk Assessment and Method Statement (RAMS), was to pump sea water
from the extract wells, sub-surface, before it entered the excavation, over
the sheet pile wall and discharge into the well points located outside of
the sheet pile curtain.This was tried on a number of occasions and proven
to be unsuccessful, due to the discharge wells being flooded with the incoming
tide so the water that was being pumped from the extract wells had nowhere
to go.
I have copies of e mails questioning the methodology for this activity but,
as was usually the case, my questions were never fully answered or ignored.
The habitual late submission of these and similar documents caused me many
problems when trying to get an acceptable methodology in place before work
commenced. Fitchtner frequently instructed me not to stop CSBC just because
of paperwork not being in place, so I was continuously battling against
CSBC starting activities which were not adequately planned or supervised
and TTS's/Fichtner's concerns over the lack of progress. I also have records
of minutes of meetings where my dissatisfaction over the late submission
of documents has been recorded and TTS were aware of the situation.
You will note that the report, incorrectly in my opinion, states that the
pollution in the sea would be unlikely caused by the pumping into the well
discharge point; Before the sheet pile curtain was completed the sea entered
the excavation on a twice daily basis and left, taking any pollutants with
it along the stone fill around the culvert, which was acting like a french
drain and facilitated the quick and easy emptying of tidal water. This was
common knowledge and although I raised my concerns was the case until such
time the sheet pile curtain was in satisfactory condition to keep the majority
of tidal water away from the excavation. However, there was still some water
entering the excavation which the sheet piles helped to retain within the
excavation, thus preventing work from proceeding as efficiently as CSBC
desired.
On a weekly basis I asked CSBC why the settlement tanks were not being used
to demonstrate to the EPO that water could be treated as they suggested
in their discharge consent application. To be honest the entire system was
undersized and useless for the purposes it was intended. This was brought
to their attention by me and also recorded in minutes which I have available.
Because they couldn't get rid of the water held within the excavation they
proceeded to use less scrupulous methods to empty the excavation."
"The above photograph, taken by me on the 28th April at approximately
4pm shows water being pumped direct from the excavation. This was
in contravention of agreements made between the EPO and CSBC to use
the extract wells to prevent contaminated water entering the discharge
wells outside of the sheet pile curtain and the Risk Assessment and
Method Statement (RAMS) produced to show how de-watering was to be
carried out."
"The second photograph, again taken at 4pm on the 28th April
shows the water being pumped
into the discharge well number 1."
"This photograph, one of several taken between 4pm and
4.15 on the 28th April, shows discolouration of the sea. The photograph
does not show the full extent of the pollution.
I instructed CSBC to stop work immediately and told the CSBC Safety
Officer to arrange for samples to be taken of the sea.
This had not been observed before on site and I am convinced that this
was due to the pumping of very dirty water from the bottom of the excavation."
"Although CSBC had spent many hours trying to seal up the
sheet pile curtain at the culvert side there was still water ingress
being encountered through the curtain, at both sides of the excavation
and through the bottom of the excavation. The first picture shows
the extend of the water lying in the bottom of the excavation on the
morning of the 28th April.
After the culvert was originally constructed it was backfilled with
shale and loose rock, so once exposed represented an easy path-way
for tidal waters to travel along the outside of the culvert and then
into the excavation via the sheet pile curtain which was, at this
time, not fully water tight. Water also entered the excavation via
fissures at the opposite end of the excavation and through the bottom
which I believe were created during both the original blasting, required
to construct the culvert and again by the blasting which took place
to facilitate the EfW excavation to be carried out."
"This photograph shows water sitting on top of the culvert
during high tide on the morning of the 28th April. You will note the
scum on the top of the water. This was I believe, in this instance,
caused by sand which CSBC had used to try and seal up the gap
between the culvert side and the sheet pile curtain. I have other
photographs showing this type of scum throughout the excavation. I
had frequently, over the space of two months asked CSBC to procure
a floating boom, in an attempt to control the spread of
floating debris and suspended solids, but to no avail."
"Notice the scum, common event over the culvert."
"The water level not up to the weir level of the first tank
(above) to send it to the second tank, (below) before it was supposed
to go to the oil separator."
"This photograph above,taken on the morning of the 28th April,
shows that the connection between the second settlement tank and the
oil separator had not yet been made. So this demonstrates that the
settlement tank system had not yet been operational up to the 28th
April. I had, on a number of occasions questioned the suitability
and sizing of the settlement tanks and in particular the oil separator.
At a later date the settlement tanks were used and the separator silted
up and overflowed to the sea.The outlet side of the second settlement
tank, not connected to the oil separator and the water level not up
to the weir level of the first tank to send it to the second tank
(yellow tank) is the second settlement before it was supposed to go
to the oil separator."
"The above photograph show settlement
tank number 2 empty on the morning of the 28th April, demonstrating
that the system was not in use".
To see an analysis of the heavy metals contained in a sample of the
leachate (pit water) please click here
For a States of Jersey definition of "comfortable" please click here
Save Our Shoreline 27th January 2010
working to protect our marine environment.
Find us on Facebook and comment on any of our posts. Or simply
show your support by sending us a friend request! Just click on the logo below.
