Justification of Incukalns Rehabilitation Project

Modification

28.10.2013

Contractual

Starting point:Lump sum concept for

Hazardous waste Contaminated water

Definition of project areaDefinition of scopeperformance indicator

Obstacles

Framework conditions water:

Lump Sum provisionComposition of waste water

Acceptance of process for treatment and operation by SES and Consultant

Change of composition from 2004 to 2012(chemical reactions or unauthorized disposal)

Obstacles

Framework conditions waste:

Composition and chemical/physical conditions of waste materialProvision of RDF in constant quality and qualityProduction of treated material in

Quality Quantity

for CEMEX acceptanceProject area and additional sites and measures

Water Treatment

Waste Water Treatment adequately sampled?

Composition of water tested?? Feasibility Study Stage Tendering Stage Design Phase under the contract

Modification phase

Water Treatment

Feasibility Study Stage 2004/06 – tests were performed and taken into

consideration 2007 – review by Baufeld/JASPERS and accepted State-of-the-art approach

Tendering Stage 2010 – no knowledge or indication of test but also

no indication of changes based i.e. due to further disposal

No indications for additional actions – approach fully justified

Water Treatment

Design Phase under the contract Omission and incompetence of Contractor and

misinterpretation of Yellow Book Concept for project implementation.

Omissions of Consultant and SES – low cost solution for FIDIC Engineer resulting in minimal presence on site and weak Engineering/Supervision input

Only operation indicated a large amount of surfactants NOT PREVIOUSLY DETECTED

Increase of treatment cost and modification of treatment process necessary

Delay in works execution Unexpected impact of excavation operation to the

contamination level of the water layer (hydrophilic reactions of acid tar layer 1)

Water Treatment

Conclusion

UNEXPECTED AND NOT FORSEEABLE composition of waste water layer significantly varies from tender conditions Modification of treatment unavoidable Change of waste water layer composition

unforeseeable – no indication available Hydrophilic reaction of acid tar untypical and not

documented in previous surveys – unforeseeable condition as surveys during FS and JASPERS review did not indicate any of these obstacles

Water Treatment

Modification phase

Application of a new treatment concept – involvement of a local treatment company – transport to an adequate treatment facility

Demolishing of existing treatment and including of area into the revised treatment concept.

Acid Tar Treatment

Acid Tar adequately sampled?

Composition of acid tar and it´s layers adequately tested?? Feasibility Study Stage Tendering Stage Design Phase under the contract

Modification phase

Acid Tar Treatment

Feasibility Study Stage• In the feasibility study evaluation of

contaminations, a comprehensive analysis of the waste in Incukalns and appropriate groundwater analyses of the two sites for the defined limit values in Latvia are provided.

• Extensive analytical data were gathered on investigations on the biological degradation behaviour of the contaminants in the groundwater.

• There is no indication of any omission or shortfalls of the Feasibility Study and the review under JASPERS assignment in 2007

Acid Tar Treatment

Tendering Stage• According to the 2007 tender documents:

– tender shall be performed in 9 lots– detailed list of activities related to the preferred

remediation variants are included

• JASPERS recommendation: – Allow for alternative technologies (treatment on site / off

site for disposal or groundwater remediation), – specification of the preferred remediation variant,

objectives and further requirements (elimination, treatment, emission protection, security, etc.)

Acid Tar Treatment

Design Phase under the contract Omission and incompetence of Contractor and misinterpretation of Yellow Book Concept

for project implementation. Omissions of Consultant and SES – low cost solution for FIDIC Engineer resulting in

minimal presence on site and weak Engineering/Supervision input

Operation indicated Strong exothermic reaction Hydrophilic reactions of Acid Tar Increased consumption of Lime / Quick Lime Increase of treatment cost and duration Strong cohesive effects to equipment used Increased treatment period ( drying – storage) Repeated wending

Unforeseeable physical and chemical properties of waste material not detected in surveys and studies

Acid Tar Treatment

Operation Phase

Availability of RDF (conditioning material) in constant quality and quantity

Acceptance of treated material in a production facility, material beyond thresholds (i.e. chlorine)

Delay in works execution due to Rejection of material by end user Restricted availability and fluctuation of quality in RDF Break down of equipment due to unexpected cohesive effects

of acid tar during treatment process

Acid Tar Treatment

Conclusion

UNEXPECTED AND NOT FORESEEABLE chemical and physical reactions of Acid Tar material

Modification of treatment unavoidable Volume streams for conditioning materials be adjusted End-user with more tolerant thresholds

Acid Tar Treatment

Modification phase (1/3)

Application of a new modified concept • involvement of an international end user facility• transport to an adequate treatment facility of

surplus materials• Ensuring of reliable stream of conditioning

materials

INTRODUCTION OF WORKS SUPERVISION AND DOCUMENTATION OF ACTIVITIES

Acid Tar Treatment

Modification phase (2/3)

Adjustment of Scope and Area • Deletion of unnecessary and not justified

measures (i.e. metal sheet piling at Northern Pond)

• Including excavation of contaminated areas ( area of waste water treatment – UNFORESEEN due to inexperienced project preparation)

Acid Tar Treatment

Modification phase (3/3)

Improvement of on site operation• Exchange of personnel / deployment of new

experts

Modification / Amendment of Contract• Performance indicator for on site operation • Penalty clauses

Solution

Adjustment of Budget and including Supervision/Engineering Services

• Modified financial offer in accordance with the changes in scope and tasks

• Introduction of unit prices and performance indicators

• Modification of CF Grant Application

• Strong Supervision and Engineering Services– Transparent documentation activities (i.e. international

transport documents and end-user certificates)

Outstanding

– Acceptance of Contractors offer / Award– Acceptance of Engineers offer / Award

– Modification of Grant application– JASPERS Completion Note

– Approval of Modification Request