1 / 21

Justification of Incukalns Rehabilitation Project Modification 28.10.2013

Justification of Incukalns Rehabilitation Project Modification 28.10.2013. Contractual. Starting point: Lump sum concept for Hazardous waste Contaminated water Definition of project area Definition of scope performance indicator. Obstacles. Framework conditions water:

duaa
Download Presentation

Justification of Incukalns Rehabilitation Project Modification 28.10.2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Justification of Incukalns Rehabilitation Project Modification28.10.2013

  2. Contractual Starting point: Lump sum concept for • Hazardous waste • Contaminated water Definition of project area Definition of scope performance indicator

  3. 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)

  4. 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

  5. Water Treatment Waste Water Treatment adequately sampled? Composition of water tested?? • Feasibility Study Stage • Tendering Stage • Design Phase under the contract • Modification phase

  6. 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

  7. 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)

  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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.)

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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)

  18. 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

  19. 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)

  20. Outstanding • Acceptance of Contractors offer / Award • Acceptance of Engineers offer / Award • Modification of Grant application • JASPERS Completion Note • Approval of Modification Request

More Related