Contractual
Starting point:
Lump sum concept for Hazardous waste Contaminated water
Definition of project area
Definition of scope
performance indicator
Obstacles
Framework conditions water:
Lump Sum provision
Composition 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 material
Provision of RDF in constant quality and quality
Production of treated material in Quality Quantity
for CEMEX acceptance
Project 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