A request was made for minutes of the Peel Marina Project Board meetings, and the Department of Infrastructure disclosed all information including 161 pages of documents covering silt management strategies and environmental data.
Key Facts
The project aims to find the best solution for problematic silt at Peel Marina considering cost, environment, and operational impact.
Lead levels in 60% of surface silt samples exceeded Cefas Action Level 2 thresholds.
The preferred option for existing silt involves dredging, dewatering for 12 months, and moving dry material to the Foxdale Deads.
High lead concentrations in water runoff from the Cross Vein Mine area were linked to disturbance by off-road bikes.
Water quality changes are expected to take 1-3 years to settle, potentially deteriorating before improving.
Data Disclosed
60% of surface samples exceeded Lead Action Level 2
10% of samples exceeded Zinc Action Level 2
161 pages
11 documents
2020-01-15
2020-02-07
12 months dewatering
1-3 years settlement time
2,153 micrograms/l Lead (Site 1)
10,940 micrograms/l Lead (Site 2)
8,525 micrograms/l Lead (Site 3)
288 milligrams/l Suspended Solids (Site 2)
Original Request
Copies of the minutes of all meetings of the Peel Marina Project Board.
Data Tables (136)
23.7
1.75
23.1
70.7
0.06
24.2
496
439
19.6
1.6
24
108
0.14
23.1
601
557
21.3
2.33
20.9
65.2
0.09
21.3
743
554
16.9
0.68
22.8
30.9
0.03
23.8
277
253
31.1
2.93
26.2
66.8
0.1
26.1
948
667
40.3
3.65
31.8
75.7
0.11
31.5
1060
797
12.3
1.42
33.5
56.2
0.07
32.8
206
237
34
3.6
28.5
72.5
0.12
27.5
1037
797
37.6
3.59
32.2
74.5
0.08
29.2
976
780
38.1
3.27
32.9
76.3
0.1
30.8
1099
751
17.1
1.06
18.4
31.2
<0.015
20.6
286
258
26.2
2.12
20.2
68.8
<0.015
23
916
640
18
1.36
29.1
60.6
<0.015
26.8
444
417
23.7
0.95
20.9
67.6
<0.015
22.5
729
512
17.6
0.59
34.2
30.2
<0.015
34.2
194
265
1.
Welcome and Apologies
Apologies received from:-
Emma Killip, Project Manager, DOI (EK)
Stephanie Gray, Head of Waste Management, DOI (SG)
2.
Preferred option to deal with silt already in Marina
JR told that the preferred option now is to look at dredging the silt, store to
dewater (approx. 12 months) and then move the dry material to the Foxdale
Deads. Advantage with this solution is that it would allow the dredging to
take place in the January to May 2019 window, and will give DEFA the time
to undertake the necessary monitoring at the Deads. TB said that the 12
month drying time is a broad brush figure as do not have to get the material
to a specific dryness before moving.
JR said that in conversations with MUA and landowners the Department has
intimated 12 months and the more the silt is dewatered the less risk there is
of liquid being lost during transportation. Likely cost of this method is a
quarter of the cost of chemical treatment, and is a simple, more cost
effective method.
Regarding potential sites, JR told of having spoken to [redacted], who has
indicated that he is interested to talk about the field by the power station
[redacted]. JR said of being able to pump into the field, form a bund and
then use the slope of the field to allow the material to drain, with water
either going to the MUA stream or the river itself or back to the marina. JR
stated that some of the drying process is through evaporation and therefore
the material would not be covered. TB said following the recent meeting
that [redacted] had the understanding of the wider good for the Peel
community and was also interested if the field could end up as a place of
employment for Peel, i.e. with improved road access.
JR advised that the access to the site is currently via Mill Road. Extension of
the existing access road onto A27 Glenfaba Road, owned by the
AR advised of having some material stored at Turkeylands, and if moved
could release funds for leasing/storage of field. TB said of not wishing to
move it to the field, but moving it to the Deads could be an option. JR said
that this could be identified as a saving in the application for contingency
funding.
3.
Progress update on other options
(a) Wrights Pit North – SG sent in comments to advise that the methodology
for sampling has been agreed and await confirmation from contractor re
dates for sampling to advise HRS. Project spec for additional Point of Ayre,
CHs drafted. Site to be surveyed.
(b) Energy from Waste Plant – SG sent in comments to advise within the
time constraints this will be progressed once WPN is underway.
(c) Material treatment and recycling – JR said that this is still available as an
option. Draft PIN response done, however need some information from
DEFA.
4.
Long Term Options
(a) & (b) Geotextile coastal protection and Peel Brickworks Quarry and Silt
Traps – AR advised that the JBA report should be available before the next
meeting.
(c) Glenfaba field – JR informed of being part of the discussions with MUA as
to whether some material could be used to fill hole at Glenfaba site. TB said
that this adds complexity.
5.
Funding & Project Management
TB said of currently not having a defined project or money. JR said of the
need to write a paper to Treasury (Contingency Fund) and of the need to
establish costs ahead of being set up and need to understand what funding
DEFA is looking for. BW said that after the two meetings mentioned earlier
we will be in a better position to identify the project and funding
requirements.
JR said of the need to look at who is going to manage the project, ie internal
or external/tech specialist. TB advised of requiring conversation with CEO
and was concerned about any delay resulting in loss of focus and
momentum. JR said that if internal will need technical input. JR informed
that he would like to award contract and start on site in January 2019.
Regarding land issues, JR said that we may need to find a small space for a
compound for the dredging contractor – MK/AR said of previously having a
site hut in the boat park. AR advised of having 800m worth of piping – TB
queried the contractor bringing their own. BW stated that if help/advice if
needed the H&S team would be forthcoming.
6.
Overall programme update
Programme to be updated.
TB noted of requiring conversations with the Quarry owners and [redacted],
planning pre-application discussions and meeting with DEFA.
Referring to the procurement side, TC said of window being at the start of
the year, and queried if we need to have the contractor in place early. JR
said that we could put information out to those who expressed interest in the
PIN. MK said of the need to wait until we have a firmer understanding of the
land commitment – JR said that this would be in the next 2-3 weeks. TB
asked for information to be started to be put together. It was noted that
the project is now main steam dredging works. TB asked if we are going to
be writing back to those who responded with an update. TB queried
expression of interest phase as may get people that did not respond to the
PIN. JR to talk to procurement. TB stressed that early contractor
engagement is key and the more we can do in advance the better. TB said
of the need for early engagement with procurement and sending an update
letter to PIN responders.
JR
JR
7.
Any Other Business
JR told of an individual with an interest in the subject wanting to talk through
the history of Peel marina and that a useful view was that the water in the
Neb comes from Glen Helen and Foxdale. BW said that the water quality of
the lagoons at Rockmount showed some significant metal figures which
comes from Glen Helen. One option would be to divert the river when it gets
to the marina. He also mentioned university/academic research and that
we should approach a university to look at.
JR queried if we should be looking for someone to focus on the long term
solutions. TB said of the need to concentrate on 2019/20.
TB noted that canalisation has not gone off the agenda.
8.
Date of next meeting
14th June 2018 at 1500 hours in West 1
1.
Welcome and Apologies
Apologies received from:-
Jeremy Reece, Policy & Strategy, DOI (JR)
Bernard Warden, Director of Environment, Safety & Health, DEFA (BW)
Emma Killip, Project Manager, DOI (EK)
Stephanie Gray, Head of Waste Management, DOI (SG)
2.
Preferred option to deal with silt already in Marina
JR update via email :-
DEFA
I met with DEFA colleagues to discuss the environmental approvals
process for a dewatering site at both fields. DEFA have started water
sampling for both sites and together with the information from the
Rockmount lagoons, do not foresee major problems. They anticipate
that once a site is confirmed, a waste disposal licence can be applied
for the field and discharge licence can be applied for discharging the
water back to the river or marina. Tests will help DEFA determine if
waste water will need to be piped back to the marina or via river /
Power Station Race. DEFA are working with MUA to determine if
Power Station race could be used. A 6 week public consultation will
be required, so overall process approx 3 months
Remediation works on Deads likely to require 12 month EIA study.
Placement of remediation material on Deads will need to be timed to
avoid bird season (Sept – Feb).
Details of design for Deads will be required, settlement / silt traps
required. JBA are working on similar projects in UK, so may be a
suitable consultant? Planning permission may be required?
Contingency Fund application to include:-
o EIA study
o Mine working / geo-physical survey
o Appointment of a bio-diversity / environmental officer
BW was at the meeting, so can provide further clarity, if required
Locations
Meeting with [redacted] planned for tomorrow – initial feedback from
JBA conversations ref sand quarry, indicate [redacted] are positive
about helping with the overall problem
Meeting with planners at 1pm today – I will ring AR with feedback
I have not gone back to [redacted] until after speaking with planners
Programme
Target dredging Jan – May 19
Dewatering
Placement of remediation material on Deads – Sept 19 – Feb 2020
Contracting Strategy
Early Contractor Involvement still required
I have not gone back to PIN contractors, will do after planning and
[redacted] discussions
TC told of new sewerage treatment works to take place in Peel in the Winter
with new pipes to go up through the quayside. MK advised East side-TC
confirmed along old heritage trail. AR asked about bridge works – TC
informed of works to take place August-December 2018.
3.
Progress update on other options
SG update via email :-
WPN planning application for the deposit of marina silts: following analysis
commissioned by MUA, DEFA and DOI are considering whether this data can
be used to inform the Hydrological Risk Assessment which could circumvent
the need for additional Marina sampling and analysis. If agreed then this will
save time and resources. WPN void space is being surveyed 04/05/18 and
this will advise the planning application in terms of how much dredged or
stored silt could be accommodated pre 31/12/19. A decision will need
formally to be taken on whether Rockmount is to remain in situ. The draft
Specification for the ITT for development of further bore holes around the
site is currently being reviewed.
4.
Long Term Options
AR advised that the JBA report is due back tomorrow. Not yet received costs
with regard to engineering view.
Noted canalisation project is still in the background.
5.
Funding & Project Management
Noted Lagoon option information document was circulated with the agenda
for meeting.
JR update via email :-
Project Management & Funding
Paul Slinger has confirmed that Project Management Unit are no
longer able to offer Emma Killip’s services as a PM, due to the volume
of funded capital projects they are currently delivering.
PMU will support us in drafting tender docs for external PM /
advertising on Portal
JR taking on PM role is not an option
Therefore, we will need to secure services of an external PM /
technical advisor, once funding secured
I am happy to put draft funding document together and work with EK
on PM remit docs
6.
Overall programme update
JR update via email :-
Procurement
I have not yet made contact with Procurement to alert them to the
forthcoming need to tender work.
7.
Any Other Business
7.1 Clean up in Wales – BBC news article was mentioned.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-43961898
8.
Date of next meeting
15th June 2018 at 1500 hours in West 1
1.
Welcome and Apologies
Apologies received from:-
Ann Reynolds, Director of Ports, DOI (AR)
Tim Cowin, Head of Highways and Asset Management, DOI (TC)
Emma Killip, Project Manager, DOI (EK)
Stephanie Gray, Head of Waste Management, DOI (SG)
JR welcomed those to the meeting and advised on this interim meeting to
up-date where we are and on proposals going forward.
1. JR advised on meeting both the two landowners. [Redacted] happy to
work with us regarding 1 field adjacent to the power station and his
preferred land boundary of first field only. Noted MK/BW took a walk
round the area and felt the field was in a good position. [Redacted]
are also willing to work with the project and are encouraging.
[Redacted] are unwilling to consider the field immediately west of the
MUA Glenfaba House site, also JR commented that the proposed
access route to this field through MUA site is not practical and MK
also highlighted additional costs with pumping to this field.
[Redacted] are willing to work with us on the field to the north of
Glenfaba House, alongside the river Neb. JR noted that there may be
some issues having to terrace off the lagoon and involve more civil
works. JR advised on the proposed timetable, with both options
having contingencies for 12 months.
2. Noted MUA have changed their mind about access through the lower
field, as they want a larger laydown / storage area and are willing to
move some of their permanent works away to allow the access route
– costs at £10K design changes, and approx. £50K to introduce
longer road. JR explained to MUA that DOI/DEFA have no funds at
the moment.
1.
Welcome and Apologies
Apologies received from:-
Mark Kenyon, Ports Manager, DOI (MK)
Tim Cowin, Head of Highways and Asset Management, DOI (TC)
Emma Killip, Project Manager, DOI (EK)
Stephanie Gray, Head of Waste Management, DOI (SG)
2.
Phase 1 – Dredging, dewatering and ground remediation at former
Cross Vein Mine
(a) Structure of Phases – 1A and 1B
JR told of progressing well. It was noted that Phase 1A (DOI led) is the
dredging and dewatering of the project, and Phase 1B (DEFA led) relates to
moving material to the Deads. Phase 2 is the longer term options (DOI to
develop to start with). BW said that Steve Stanley is confused regarding the
term of ‘leadership’. BW informed that in terms of work necessary to fulfil
the options DEFA is moving forward, however DEFA were under the
impression that they would be DOI projects. JR stated that this was not his
interpretation as would be better to be a DEFA project. Matter to be
discussed outside of the Project Board meeting. TB stated that DOI could
not do the remediation works without DEFA’s expertise. JR said that the
Deads are DEFA land and was looking at which Department had better
expertise to lead the phase/project. Detail to be discussed further at
meeting tomorrow. TB stressed of not wanting to duplicate anything. JR
told of two different Project Managers for Phases 1A and 1B. BW stressed
that 1A and 1B cannot be separated too far as they are linked. TB advised of
being one end to end project and wants it driven all the way through.
(b) Phase 1A
a. Land issues – JR advised of having engaged the services of Brett Woods
and have met with both land owners, who are happy to receive an offer from
the Department for a fixed price. JR said that both land owners understand
both parties are there. [Redacted] has agreed to start the consultation with
the Commissioners. Heads of Terms of lease to be included with option to
JR/BW
(c) Phase 1B
a. DEFA project plan – it was discussed whether phase should be DOI or
DEFA led.
b. Inclusion of Rockmount and Turkeylands materials – noted not to include
Turkeylands material.
Cellular geogrid was discussed. JR said that cost elements are vague.
TB stated that discussion is required regarding contingency/funding, with the
need for a conversation with the Minister and CEO.
NG advised that mining assessments are being done.
(d) Wrights Pit North
Being developed on contingency option. NG told of still doing work in case it
has to be used.
SG gave the following feedback for the meeting – The draft scope and
content of the environmental study has been forward to DEFA Planning
Application and Building Control for review. A sampling methodology to
advise the Hydrogeological Risk Assessment is being finalised with DEFA
Environmental Protection. The specification for additional in-waste boreholes
has been provided to DOI for inclusion within the ITT for development of
boreholes. Analysis is being undertaken of an additional, non dredged,
waste material that may need to be accommodated within WPN. The annual
Ayres restoration flora and fauna survey has been commissioned. A bird
survey has been completed to advise the WPN site restoration scheme.
NG advised of having also done testing at Corletts.
3.
Phase 2
a. Silt traps – AR advised that a draft report has been received regarding silt
traps which outlined that they do not recommend. AR to get report finalised
and will distribute. Noted more than one party is against debris trap. BW
queried silt trap and former quarry – JR said that one option was to direct
the river and dredge, pump and fill up over the years (as a store). BW told
of potential for retention at source rather than collection. TB said of long
term option being to repeat the process on an ongoing basis – JR said that
this has not been included as is being driven as a temporary solution.
b. Energy from Waste Plant – no progress to report. SG advised that this
would be a significant piece of work if it is to be undertaken with sufficient
scientific rigour to make it valid. It would involve utilising JCKs facility at
Balthane to process a representative tonnage of excavated marina silts to
extract the aggregate, capturing the residue, drying it and then passing it via
the EfWP. All of the above will require environmental containment and
management of leachate.
AR
4.
Overall programme update
TB said of the need to drive Phases 1A and 1B. JR told of continually fighting
to keep this moving.
TB queried remits for Phase 1A and asked if it would be better to go out for
1A and 1B together. JR told of the need to fully understand 1B.
BW said of needing to commence on planning front, ie environmental impact
assessments.
SG outlined in email sent prior to meeting that one of the main problems to
face is that we do not have an idea of what the annual maintenance dredge
will comprise of – fine silts/larger aggregate and in what %’s. This is critical
for the EfWP and also JCK process. Whilst the marina is backlogged we
won’t get the information we need to run theoretical modelling via EfWP or
an actual trial.
5.
Notes from previous meetings
TB queried MUA – JR advised that comms plan needs to link.
6.
Date of next meeting
12th July 2018 at 1500 hours in West 1, Sea Terminal
TB advised that the Minister had requested the setting up of a Peel Marina
Project Board to get the right degree of focus on current issues. A lot of
work is going on around Peel Marina and everyone has to be conscious as to
where it crosses over Departments/divisions. We need a clear focus on
trying to get solutions implemented to allow normal operation of Peel Marina
in 2018 and beyond.
1.
Scope and Objectives
TB said of the need to resolve the silt problems in the Peel Inner Harbour.
IH asked TB if he sees it as establishing a long term solution or for the next
2 years – TB answered for both. MK stated that what is agreed for Peel will
also have an influence on what the DOI does in Douglas. TB noted that
Douglas was not as immediate as Peel. BW advised the heavy metals made
the distinction between the silt issues for Peel and Douglas. TB said of the
need to be more focused on the specific issue and could consider Douglas as
a second phase. IH said that the immediate issue is that Peel Inner Harbour
is becoming unusable. TB advised to focus on Peel Inner Harbour, with
Douglas to be addressed further down the line.
Discussion ensued regarding the storage at Rockmount. AR stated that it
could be a two year project to build something to store the Rockmount silts,
which under covenant must be removed by May 2020. IH stated that
essentially one solution could be if we can get planning/licensing issues
dealt with at Wrights Pit North in that it could take all material from current
storage sites, for little expense. TB noted a current workstream ongoing
within the Waste Management Unit of DOI that will involve the silts being
stored at Rockmount.
BW said that the work being discussed is to be supported, with the need to
try to establish alternative uses for the material stored at Rockmount, which
could be done in parallel. SG advised that you cannot make engineering
material out of the silt. TC asked what the classification of waste is – SG
answered as to not being sure yet. BW informed that the material has
never been classified as hazardous or toxic.
SG advised on a medium term option being R & D needs to get started now.
IH said of a danger of losing sight of the bigger picture, ie while considering
what to do with Peel short term, but beyond that we need a sustainable
ongoing solution, with the need to understand what we are dealing with so
we can plan capacity requirements going forward. It was noted that Laxey
and Ramsey dredging, which are much less amounts, are currently being
dealt with and managed.
TB advised that Rockmount is out of the scope of this project
board, with Waste Management Unit to update group on progress.
Douglas currently also out of scope, and the group will consider
Douglas once there is sufficient progress on Peel Inner Harbour.
Peel Outer Harbour also out of scope.
2.
Solutions and what we need to achieve and by when
It was agreed that the DOI needs a 2018 and 2019 solution and medium
term solutions.
3.
Workstreams
TB said that there seems to be several pieces of work going on and he
wishes to use this project board to capture all the work and to get some
results.
TB said that in 2018 we need to have some method of disposing of what is
extracted. AR queried destinations (ie burning/storage area). TB noted that
it was clear that it cannot be put out to sea. BW questioned the suggested
practicalities, namely Wrights Pit North or the Energy From Waste Plant
(incinerator), as these options have been discounted in the past. SG
advised of developments at Wrights Pit North, namely due to a recent
survey highlighting that by putting in materials it will have negligible impact
on the areas environment and that there is surplus capacity available ahead
of the site’s planned closure. TB said we need to focus on what we can do
now and if different from the past then to be understand why things have
changed.
Workstream 1 EFWP/Wrights Pit North – Waste Div (DOI) are working
on potential use of the Energy From Waste Plant (EFWP) to burn silts and
Wrights Pit North for the storage of silt, dewatered or not. Wrights Pit North
will have DEFA/Planning issues to overcome/apply for.
Workstream 2 Dewatering – Discussion was held on the various ways of
getting the material out of the harbour. MK said that the closer you keep the
material to source you can put it back into the harbour. AR said that there
were various methods to dewater silts but also the method of removing the
SG/IH
silt played a part. TB queried how the Department want to get the material
out of the harbour – BW advised that this work has already commenced and
of the need to know more about the materials.
TB requested that prior to the next meeting MK/TC work out a practical
initial proposal for extracting the material from the harbour and dewatering
it as close to the point of extraction as possible, including estimating
approximate volumes.
Discussion ensued regarding dewatering and grading, and BW said of the
need to make a distinction between the two.
Workstream 3 Understanding the material - It was noted that
IH/SG/BW are looking at trying to review terms of reference in minimising
contaminants at source. This is a wider project
Workstream 4 Potential canalization of Peel Marina - TB asked for a
high level assessment (1 page overview) of MK’s idea of separating the main
river channel from the pontoon area in Peel Marina, to see if we can get a
canalization route in place. It was noted that this solution would require an
Environmental Assessment and also hydraulic modelling.
MK/TC
IH/SG/BW
TC/EO’S
4.
AOB
A) Consultants – BW said that DEFA/Waste Div will get together to
discuss the works each have with their respective consultants, to
ensure no overlap.
B) Contingency for 2018 – AR said that Colas had offered a temporary
storage facility at Turkeylands for 2017 however there was
insufficient time to make the relevant licence change application in
time to make the dredging window. The DOI Minister has asked AR
to speak with Colas to see if they will consider making the application
now so that if necessary, as a contingency, the storage could be
used for 2018 dredging works at Peel. TB agreed AR to progress this
suggestion as a contingency.
BW advised that environmentally he supports the Colas storage.
C) MK stressed of the need to have a solution in place to allow dredging
to commence on 1 January 2018.
BW/SG
AR
4.
Next meeting
TB stressed the need to keep the momentum of the meetings going. Next
meeting to take place before the end of May on a Thursday. Thereafter will
need to be at least monthly.
Date of next meeting: 25th May 2017 at 1500 hours in West 1, Sea Terminal
Building, Douglas
1
Canalisation of Marina
Advantages
Disadvantages
Replace existing central pontoon with a solid wall/walkway
constructedwithsheetpilingtoallowfreeflowofriver.Restrict
waterfeedtoMarinabyincorporatingintermittentspillways.This
optionreturnstherivertoitsnaturaltidalstatusandallowsiltto
flow to the outer harbour area and beyond.
> Returns tidal flow to river reducing build up of silts in
the marina.
> Provides a long term engineered solution for the
natural management of silt.
> Reduces the burden of seasonal dredging, storage
and disposal of silt.
> No restrictions to berths
Improves safe depths for manoeuvring vessels.
> High cost - estimated at £4.4 million, may be
difficulties in obtaining funding.
> Will require a number of assessments/modelling
studies to be undertaken incl. EIA etc.
> May be difficulties and associated costs in obtaining
planning permission.
> Economic impact; no visiting yachts whilst works are
carried out, loss of income.
> Sediment may instead gather in the outer harbour
resulting in a requirement for dredging in this area
> Still requires removal of existing silt deposits (19,000
tonnes).
2
Seasonally Impound the Marina
Advantages
Disadvantages
Leave flap gate open during winter months when river flow is
greatest to reduce silting up of Marina.
> Returns tidal flow to river for part of the year thereby
reducing the build up of silts in the Marina.
> Relatively low cost option.
> Can be implemented with relative ease.
> Winter storms will likely move the sediments out of
the outer harbour area (further out to sea).
> Sediment modelling required.
> Still requires removal of existing silt deposits (19,000
tonnes)
> Boats will need to removed or cradled out of the
Marina.
> May be disruptive and unpopular.
> Pontoons will require additional
maintenance/management.
> Risk that silts may not be carried further out to sea
but will deposit in the outer harbour which will then
require additional dredging/management.
> needs additional area to store boats.
3
Decommission Peel Marina
Advantages
Disadvantages
Decommission the Marina, remove pontoons and open flap gate.
Install tidal berths only.
Potential to relocate Marina to Port St. Mary bay.
> Short term and long term savings; no requirement to
manage, dispose of silt.
> Tidal flow is returned and silts are naturally washed
out to sea.
> Reduces/removes risks associated with future
changes to environmental legislation.
> Economic impact on Peel and Island as whole.
> Costs associated with removing the Marina.
> Existing silt deposits still need to be removed and
stored/disposed of.
> Issue of contaminated silts still exists.
> Opposition from Stakeholders.
> Environmental impact of removing marina.
4
Install silt trap in the River
Advantages
Disadvantages
Install and engineered silt trap in the river.
> Cost effective and simple engineered solution
> No visible or physical impact on the Marina area.
> No detrimental economical impacts to area.
> Can be implemented relatively quickly.
> Will require environmental assessment and modelling.
> Specialist design input.
> Reduces dredging in the Marina area and associated
disruption.
> Silt traps will require management.
> Traps will need to be accessible in order to remove
trapped silts.
> Transport, storage/disposal of silts remains an issue.
> Existing silt deposits still need to be removed from
Marina (19,000 tonnes).
5
Extend dredging window
Advantages
Disadvantages
Agreement to allow the Department to carry out dredging over a
longer period in any one year.
> Allows better planning and management of silt
dredging, storage/disposal.
> Reduces substantial build ups of silt in the Marina
> Improves accessibility of the Marina for visiting
vessels, increasing visitor numbers and the associated
economic benefits.
> Environmental impact of dredging during certain
seasons.
> Existing silt deposits still need to be removed from
Marina (19,000 tonnes).
> Final solution for storage/disposal of silts still required.
6
Develop Treatment Facility
Advantages
Disadvantages
Develop bespoke facility to treat contaminated silts e.g. Abilene
Snowe.
> Provides a long term solution for the management
and treatment of silt deposits in Marinas around the
> Waste product can be utilised by other industries.
> A trial installation could be set up initially at a lesser
cost.
> Plant will treat existing silt stored at sites on island
and free those sites up.
> May be able to reduce costs by specifying only partial
remediation; removal of only the most hazardous
contaminants allowing the end product to be dumped
at sea.
> High setup and operational costs.
> First of its kind - untested
> Will require Planning permission - time factor.
> Requires a site
> Further information on the scientific specifics and
certification is required.
> Political/local objection.
7
Dump at Sea
Advantages
Disadvantages
Dredge silts from Marina and dump at Sea.
> Removes issue of storage/disposal.
> Silts are dumped at sea where they would naturally
end up if tidal flow was reinstated.
> Silt disposal can be more effectively planned and
managed.
> Legal/regulatory issues of compliance.
> Fines
> Environmental impact of concentrated contaminants
being dumped.
> Economic impact on the islands fishery industry
> Local/political objection.
> Morality/ethical issues.
8
Land Fill
Advantages
Disadvantages
> Realitivly Inexpensive
> Material can go straight there with minimum
treatment
> No suitable long term land fill currently
Available
> Land fill has a large full life cost
1.
Welcome and Apologies
TB welcomed those to the meeting and noted apologies and that Steve
Butler was representing Jennifer Chance.
2.
Notes of previous meeting held 4 May 2017 were accepted.
3.
Matters arising picked up under agenda items.
4.
Workstream updates
(1) Potential Disposal route – EFWP/Wright’s Pit North
SG talked about undertaking trials of organic matter. SG explained on
meeting Consultant from Peter Brett Associates with BW and although we
have a lot of data she spoke of gaps that do need analysing to establish, for
example, chromium levels and apply to UK standards to identify whether the
waste is hazardous or not. It was noted that Wright’s North Pit is not
licensed to take hazardous waste. SG recommended more scientific data is
needed, which will prove beneficial in the longer-term. SG advised data
sampling and analysis will take 4 weeks with a further additional period to
check for of chromium whether type ‘3’ or ‘6’.
BW suggested that silt/aggregate may be worthy of further treatment to
bring the readings below OSPAR levels and therefore could be brought into a
condition where it potentially could be disposed of out to sea, however he
agreed that we need to know more about the materials.
SG advised that in order to consider the short term option of disposing of the
sits at Wrights Pit North landfill site the material needed to be classified in
accordance with the EWC codes. These codes are used to identify the types
of waste that can be managed through an individual waste facility. In
SG/BW
presentation and said that it was felt that at £95 per tonne was quite
expensive. MK added that they are quite keen to trial, but it would be a big
commitment to bring them on board. TB queried if it would be the solution
in the short-term. SG suggested it might be better if they were to come back
to us, after they had undertaken trials and got the science proven. TB asked
to respond in terms that the interest was good, however with budget
restrictions may not be able to consider within the current proposals.
(3) Long Term solution
TC circulated a paper summarising various options for Peel marina dredging
(to be attached to these notes). Discussion took place on all 7 proposals.
TB advised it was a good start and it was agreed that these will be up-dated
and circulated to the next meeting. TC suggested using colour indicators.
JBA Report – BW advised that in terms of assessment on what was out there,
BW submitted and circulated the Report and said it may prove worthwhile to
review the report. BW to send the Report to TC.
MUA Sewerage Plant, Peel – SB queried impact and if they could assist. TC
advised on works to do the re-generation of the quayside and that it would
be highly unlikely that they would want to treat anything other than
sewerage.
It was noted in discussion that both the EFWP and treatment options such as
those offered by Abilene Snow were likely to be long-term, rather than short-
term options.
TB
Co py of Copy of Peel
Ma rina Options end of ju
TC
BW
4.
Contingency planning application
TB advised that he met with the DOI, CEO and Minister to discuss
Turkeylands/Colas. TB talked about their lease coming to an end and it
being negotiated with Colas taking on other options for a long-term solution.
It was noted that Turkeylands currently has silt temporarily stored for DOI.
Subject to agreement, BW said he would sign-off the wavier that identified
the circumstances etc for the silt to be stored at Turkeylands.
TB queried whether we think we should submit a Planning Application in
respect of WPN or confident to wait to the end of August for the results. AR
stressed the need to dredge both Peel and Douglas. TB suggested having an
early meeting in August and September and by September we should know if
we need to put in a Planning Application. SG informed that we would need
to liaise with Bride Commissioners if we progressed with WPN.
TB advised that in principle what we are going to do has not been defined or
what the preferred solutions are.
5.
Any Other Business
(a) Companies/Consultants – SG suggested that we should be open and
welcome any other approaches who may have solutions to our silt
problems.
1.
Welcome and Apologies
Apologies received from:-
Ann Reynolds, Director of Ports, DOI (AR)
BW confirmed with TB that it was acceptable for KK, SR & NG to attend the
meeting to answer any questions directly.
2.
Notes of previous meeting held 3 August 2017 were accepted.
3.
Progress discussion/update
SG referred to the Brett Associates Report, a copy of which was handed to
TB. SG said of the need for DEFA to talk to Peter Brett Associates and said
that the issue we have is that the classification is dependent on the amount
of material that is analysed. SG recommended that, whilst this analysis is
not conclusive we (prudently) assume the material as ‘hazardous’ and speak
to DEFA about what is required, and also do additional analysis. KK said that
it is wise for the lab to consult with Planning regarding minimum assessment
requirements.
KK stated that previously an assessment was made to see if material was fit
for deposit at sea (sieve 2mm); landfill needs to look different criteria and
leaching rates on a net weight basis so therefore need to know moisture
content. SR said that of primary importance is that we know it has
hazardous content (primarily lead) so need to know what will leach and the
risk to the environment – looking for Hydrological Risk Assessment. SG
spoke about EWC Codes. NG spoke of stable, non-reactive hazardous waste
with the need to know if it will leach – KK said that leachate will have
contaminants.
SR said that a planning application will be required. If dry enough thinks it
will be acceptable to dispose of in WPN. SR queried IOM Waste Regulations,
further work to consider this.
TB said of the need to look at further tests and get Abilene Snowe to talk to
SG/KK etc.
TB summarised that we now had the following workstreams;
(1) Treatment trial (Abilene Snowe)
(2) Wrights Pit North planning application
(3) Removal of river deposits
(4) Geotextile bag storage.
Noted estimate of 20,000 cubic meters to be removed. SG said of the need
for indication of amounts for business case. KK said of the need to make an
accurate assessment with a bathymetric survey– and work out a deposition
rate from that. MK indicated that he was satisfied with the current method
used to calculate the current figures and future deposition rates were heavily
weather dependant.
SR said EPU to put in writing what we need to move forward with planning
application. SG to speak to Planning. Need to know indication for number of
vehicle movements. TB said to (prudently) do calculations on filling WPN
with as much as you can, based on what space is left over and above what is
needed for other materials.
TB advised that a business case needs to be done for the whole
solution, not just WPN. It is vital that we look at this as a holistic
process not individual items. TB also reminded the group about the
forthcoming Department P&S meeting on this subject and invited
BW to attend if available.
KK asked if there were any thoughts on a future facility. BW advised that
this would form part of the second part of the project.
TC presented chart outlining relative costs and advised that previously it cost
£285k to remove 10k tonnes.
The following figures were outlined:
Dumping at sea £7 a tonne
Landfill £22 a tonne
EFWP £86 a tonne
Abilene £95 a tonne
4.
Summary of potential way forward
Based on the above discussions, there is a potential way forward, which can
be implemented in 2018. Approx 20,000 tonnes of silt needs addressing.
Extraction to commence in early 2018 and to be done in a controlled manner
over a 2-3 year period (which suits harbour operations), using an extended 9
month per annum window (DEFA Fisheries likely to consent, subject to
appropriate ‘silt screen’ methodology).
Proposed solution has several elements:
1. “River channel area” (c.3,500 tonnes) can be extracted immediately as
it is not hazardous and could be washed and recycled (subject to
assistance from JCK/Colas). This would also partly mitigate the further
build-up of silt in subsequent years and would show early progress
2. Abilene Snowe trial (initial trial c.4,000 tonnes) – needs further
scientific/data analysis before commencement, however agreed that this
approach has merit. 40k investment to conduct trial is money well spent.
If successful it opens up some very interesting long-term potential
solutions, which could also deal with more of the accumulated volume of
silt. Trial must be progressed to either confirm or eliminate this
methodology. Trial to be conducted using “fresh” silt extracted from Peel
and process to take place on Fenella Beach car park. Target start date of
January 2018.
3. Wrights Pit North – dewatered silt can be disposed of to landfill at WPN
up until end 2019 and possibly 2020, subject to planning consent being
obtained (assumption is that consent can be achieved but planning
application MUST show that all non-landfill options have been explored
and fully considered). Currently the site is below capacity and, in the
absence of the silt being disposed there, would require additional material
to bring it up to the required restoration levels. Vital for DEFA that
material is appropriately dewatered – but more gradual approach now
proposed facilitates this.
4. Geotextile bags – can potentially be filled with extracted silt and utilised
for coastal protection around Kirk Michael area. Will require protection
with concrete to extend their useful life. Would fill the bags at KM.
Avoids disposing of the silt in other manners and has a double-benefit in
avoiding expenditure which would otherwise be incurred in due course on
coastal protection. Needs fully exploring.
Whilst further work is required on each of the above work-streams,
discussion provides confidence that, in combination, we have a potentially
viable solution that will deal with the legacy silt accumulation from 2018 in a
controlled and manageable way and could provide an ongoing long-term
solution, along with the other options previously identified. Initial focus is on
the immediate 2018 priorities and we can then re-assess the longer-term
solution in the light of the learnings from 2018.
Note: As part of this longer term planning we need also to assess whether
there is any potential in the Foxdale ‘deads’ aspect mentioned in 3 above.
Next meeting to take place on Thursday 12 October 2017 at 1500 hours.
Thereafter meetings also calendared for 2 November and 7 December.
1.
Welcome and Apologies
Apologies received from:-
Bernard Warden, Director of Environment, Safety & Health, DEFA (BW)
Emma Killip, Project Manager, DOI (EK)
Stephanie Gray, Head of Waste Management, DOI (SG)
Distribution
attendees and apologies
Malcolm Cowin, MUA
2.
Funding
JR told that funding is progressing well and have been asked to amend the bid to split the
revenue contingency and capital funding. Revenue funding is everything in phase 1a with the
exception of site access approval and early development from Cross Vein site and development
of phase 2. Capital funding is for works for Cross Vein and Rockmount.
JR said of the need to put in revenue bid to cover revenue contingency funding (3 years of
funding out of revenue contingency fund). It was noted that Treasury may ask Department to
put in revenue bid. However this allows us to put in place the contract. JR advised that
Rachel has a copy of the funding request, which will then go to Treasury. In the meantime,
capital bid for 20/21 has been finalised. Invited to SACIC next week to answer questions.
Pink paper for the Department to be signed off.
JR informed of progressing with appointment of Project Manager, Planning Supervisor and
Quantity Surveyor – it was noted that there would be a break clause in contracts if the funding
is not received. To be done under Department’s framework. TB said of the need for defined
skills sets to get to different stages. TB informed that he feels that Treasury are being
reasonably receptive.
3.
Adoption of Project Strategy
Pink paper to be signed by Minister.
trap) and identify the best option. MK said of the need for something to stop the heavier
aggregates coming down the river. TC said that it makes sense to capture. TB said that there
should be enough insight within the Department to come up with a solution. JR advised of
having looked at different options individually, and that the issues in the marina link back to the
catchment. TB said of needing to look holistically, however we still need to do something to
prevent the debris. AR said that a practical piece of work could be done, involving MUA and
DEFA as a separate piece of work. TB said that the language/terminology used is important, ie
aggregate / debris trap, not a silt trap.
(b) Energy from Waste Plan
Progressing.
(c) Canalisation
AR queried funding. JR said to include as one of the longer term options.
(d) Installation of river bank cut-off wall
JR said that one of the potential sources of contaminants is from the historic fuel leak below the
power station tanks.
5.
Overall Programme Update
Programme updated. JR said of being up against it and are behind where we should be. AR
queried PIN – JR informed of having gone back and advised interested parties. TB queried
slippage – JR said of having taken 2-3 weeks regarding Project Manager, plus documents and
paperwork. JR said that if funding comes through as revenue contingency funding then we may
be able to accelerate staging.
6.
Notes from previous meeting held 14th June
TB queried previous discussions regarding Departmental responsibilities – noted CEO is happy
for DOI to take responsibility for Phase 1B.
7.
Any Other Business
TC told of a number of other projects in Peel, ie new bridge (Sept/Oct), sewerage treatment
pipeline, resurfacing of the quay and new sewerage treatment works.
JR queried the requirement for contractor to provide work boat? AR said that they would have
to have additional insurance.
8.
Date of next meeting
9th August 2018 at 1500 hours in West 1, Sea Terminal
1.
Welcome and Apologies
Apologies received from:-
Stephanie Gray, Head of Waste Management, DOI (SG)
Distribution
attendees and apologies
Malcolm Cowin, MUA
2.
Funding
TB advised that funding has been confirmed. It was noted that TB/NB/AR attended SACIC,
and NB also went to Treasury. COMIN approval has also been received. JR informed that
COMIN endorsed strategy and Treasury approved the monies. JR told of having been
granted revenue contingency funding for the dredging and for the development phases for
both Cross Vein Mine and Stage 2. A separate Capital Business Case has been submitted for
the Cross Vein Mine works phase in 2019/20 and 2020/21. Noted monies for dredging is
split across 3 financial years. Noted project won’t have capital money until April for the
works phase at Cross Vein mine. BW asked if the need for ongoing funding at Cross Vein
mine has been mentioned – JR said that it was mentioned that DEFA could put bid in. TB
stressed the need to now ‘crack on’. Regarding the bike fraternity who currently use Cross
Vein mine, JR said that the ACU has been advised – JR to find out what the CEO has in mind
as alternative.
JR
3.
Updates
Phase 1 – Peel Marina Dredging, Dewatering and Ground Remediation at former
Cross Vein mine
(a) Phase 1A
JR advised that the next issue is planning approval for the lagoons, Peel. JR said that they
have spoken to Peel, Patrick and German Commissioners, with positive responses received.
Noted generally Peel thought both options are OK, Patrick could see the logic, and German
were more concerned about traffic through St Johns and favoured the Ballaterson Farm
Field. German were also concerned about traffic from Knockaloe Beg passing close to St
John’s School – AR said that previously options have been put in place, i.e. could restrict
number of movements per day or the timing of the movements. TB said that there may not
be a choice as to which field is used and that the balance of view is that the Ballaterson
September. Most of the bird data is available and DEFA will need a years worth of data to
account for visiting birds. Plan is for data to be ready by September 2019 and then analyse,
with feedback October 2019. It was noted that November to February is best time to place
material. BW said that in the meeting he will push for the information to be front loaded
and consider the ways immerging information can be presented at planning, to allow work
to start in winter 19/20, subject to a final confirmation from planning. It was noted that it is
likely Cross Vein Mine is home to a rare lichen.
TB informed that when talking to planning regarding Phase 1A it might be worth talking also
about Phase 1B (ie approval in principle).
AR asked who was doing the negotiation with the field owners. Noted Brett Woods. TB
queried whether Brett should attend the next meeting – JR to invite.
JR advised that he met with Stephen Parry regarding Communications Plan, who has asked
for additional information regarding environmental benefit of Cross Vein mine, and told BW
that he would like this information as soon possible (ie 2 weeks).
TB advised to wait a bit longer before putting out information to the general public as the
land owners were not yet on board.
BW left the meeting.
Meeting spoke about German Commissioners and the issue of material at Rockmount, and
noted that the Commissioners are looking for a roundabout at St Johns instead of moving
material. Meeting also discussed the agreement that is in place. AR said that she is happy
to progress, with TC. JR told of possible issues for material remaining at Rockmount
permanently, i.e. covenant, planning permission and possibly waste disposal issues with
DEFA.
(c) Wrights Pit North
Ongoing.
(d) Phase 2
JR said at this stage we have funding to do development and of focusing at the moment on
Phase 1A and 1B.
BW
JR
BW
AR/TC
4.
Notes of previous meeting
(a) Adoption of Project Strategy - noted pink paper has been signed.
(b) Overall Programme - being kept under review.
5.
Any Other Business
TB highlighted issue of sand washing at Corlett’s. MK informed that they do have a series of
lagoons and of the need to look at all sources once sampling is done.
6.
Next Meeting
13 September 2018 3pm West 1
1.
Welcome and Apologies
Apologies received from:-
Ann Reynolds, Director of Ports, DOI (AR)
Mark Kenyon, Ports Manager, DOI (MK)
Bernard Warden, Director of Environment, Safety & Health, DEFA (BW)
Emma Killip, Project Manager, DOI (EK)
Stephanie Gray, Head of Waste Management, DOI (SG)
Distribution
attendees and apologies
Malcolm Cowin, MUA
Hydrographic Specialist, Anthony Bates Partnership
Dredging Consultant, Anthony Bates Partnership
2.
Phase 1A update
Appointment of Project Team – JR advised of now having appointed a Project Team,
consisting of Anthony Bates Partnership as Lead Engineer, headed by ABP Hydrological
Specialist, assisted by colleagues, Primary Consulting as Planning Supervisors and Silva
Consultants as QS (noted all technically in contract award appeal week). TB asked
about interest received – JR told of 2 applications for Lead Consultant and 2 for
Quantity Surveyor and 4 for Planning Supervisor. JR informed of now being able to
formulate phase 1A design team to deliver phase 1A as an operational project. Project
Board then to take step back from Phase 1A and focus on strategic delivery of the
multi-phased project, with regular reporting from each Phase. TB stressed that it is
very important that we do not lose focus on delivering Phase 1A and have to maintain
Project Board structure. JR said that the Project Board is good as a steering body, and
hold each delivery team to account. TB queried how the Project Delivery Team will
‘hang’ together – JR suggested that Terms of Reference be reviewed for each and that
essentially the Lead Engineer will act as coordinator and will be invited to attend join
the Project Board and they will have to submit monthly progress reports to the Project
Board.
Planning Issues – JR informed of having met with DEFA, primarily looking at phase 1B
and one thing that came out was the need for DEFA to have a ‘ Chinese wall’ to avoid
any conflict of interest between project and approvals team. At the meeting, it was
noted that a final approved location for the silt is required for the temporary planning
approval, otherwise it could be a stumbling block. JR said that he has looked for
JR
alternatives and there is no alternative facility to take the silt and Turkeylands does not
have planning permission for hazardous waste and the EFWP would not be able to take
the volume. TB queried legal requirements for disposal – JR told that there is an issue
over the licence of EFWP. JR advised that during the PIN other processes were
identified, i.e. chemical process to turn into inert waste, which could then go to
Turkeylands.
JR told of having had good discussions regarding environmental impact. Consultants
starting to discuss with planning regarding EIA. TB queried timetable for professional
team and asked when it is anticipated to submit the planning application. JR informed
that some surveys are to be done prior to submitting the planning application and of
looking to submit first week in January 2019. TB queried the 3 month delay. JR told
that this was due to the level of detail required for planning. TB stressed that he was
concerned of not meeting the dredging window deadline. JR stated that capital
procedures need to be followed and have already commenced work on data collection.
TC said of the need for a certain level of detail to gain optimum result.
JR advised of not being able to award contract until planning permission is received and
therefore would not be liable for any costs. BWo stated that you could extend the
window of acceptance for tender and that the land is covered under a 3 year lease. TB
said that COMIN calling in was discussed. JR advised that planning is for the
dewatering site, not the dredging. JR to ask team to look at marina to identify the
priority areas to dredge in first year – however it was noted that this would increase the
cost of the project. TC queried, if planning permission was granted 1st April 2019, how
long would it take to build the lagoons – it was noted that it would take 3 weeks. TB
also told of a 21 day period that persons can appeal planning and JR confirmed that a 2
week standstill was required following contract award. JR said of the need to look at
programme again to try to pull some time back and would work with Project Team to
review this ASAP. BWo advised that the land owners are willing to enter into an
agreement. BWo said that each field has a different value. JR asked how far away on
documentation – BWo said of hoping for drafts early next week and of an email
outlining heads of terms to be sent to the land owners. Routing in and out of each field
was discussed, including ownership. JR told of having spoken to Castle View Nursing
Home and EVF who highlighted their concerns.
Environmental Issues – JR advised that Martin has drafted the scoping document and
will talk to planning before submitting.
Communications Plan – JR informed of having spoken to a few more neighbours, and
that nothing has been made public. TB said of the need to be clear on timetable before
progressing with rolling out the briefings. JR advised that COMIN have accepted the
project strategy and agreed finance, this is not the same as granting a planning appeal.
TB said that if Phase 1A is going to slip, do you then do a planning application for both
1A and 1B at the same time? It was noted of a 12 month EIA period for 1B having just
commenced. R said that having good environment backing is essential and will improve
the area, with the need to build up positives. It was noted that Snuff the Wind is under
DEFA ownership. TB advised that even if delayed, Phase 1A is better to be ‘ploughed
on with’, separately from Phase 1A.
JR
JR
3.
Phase 1B
JR advised of not yet having put project team tenders together. Comms part already
started. BWo said that that two should be entwined as a plan perspective and noted
chemical alternatives.
JR outlined the following from SG: first draft of hydrological risk assessment currently
with DEFA /bore holes programme October / planning application progressed subject to
work priorities / quarry does not have licence.
TB said he is happy there is a process, which is lawful that we would not be left with
material once dredged.
4.
Feedback from MineXchange conference
JR told of having attended a conference last week, run by Natural Resources Wales,
about abandoned metal mines. There were a number of talks from speakers with lots
of ideas how to deal with metal mines. Trialling in New Zealand using scallops to form
a filter was discussed. JR said of having met a number of consultants/specialist who
have been involved in similar projects. This will be useful for Phase 2.
5.
Notes of previous meeting held 16th August
It was noted that the CEO is talking to the ACU regarding alternative for biking
fraternity, with possibility of taking over 1 of the 3 former quarry’s.
JR said of the need to hold emphasis on press release.
Front loading EIA done.
JR to chase information to be sent to Stephen Parry with regard to environmental
benefit of Cross Vein mine.
Noted AR did meet with German Commissioners, with no resolution. More meetings
required.
JR
AR
6.
Next Meeting
11 October 2018 3pm West 1
1.
Welcome and Apologies
Apologies received from:-
Ann Reynolds, Director of Ports, DOI (AR)
Tim Cowin, Head of Highways and Asset Management, DOI
Stephanie Gray, Head of Waste Management, DOI
Distribution
attendees and apologies
Malcolm Cowin, MUA
2.
Phase 1A update
Programme and risk – HS advised that an updated programme has been provided and
highlighted of working on a tight timeline with risks all the way along. General
consensus is the need to keep ploughing ahead and stick to the programme as best can
and deal with any slips as we go through it. HS told of preparing draft risk register and
will distribute to team members for comment. BW asked if there are any real ‘track
stopper’ risks. HS told of one potentially detrimental risk, namely if agreement to use
land is not received and told of concerns that there may be significant contamination
from tank farm in the soil, and also of the requirement for planning permission. TB
queried soil – JR told of an historic leak from fuel farm with the question being if it has
permeated back to the field – it was noted that hydrocarbons are present in the
ground. TB asked about implications if present – HS said that the plan is to excavate
material to form bunds and therefore it could contain oil which would be free to soak
away into adjacent land. JR said of being addressed by doing bore hole investigations
and trial pits.
JR said of the need to discuss with [redacted] as is tight on capacity with just one field,
with conversation to be held regarding part of next field which is on long term lease to
a tenant. HS advised that if more land can be secured it would lessen the pressure to
get all the material out in one go, or by making the bunds extremely high. TB queried
if this was unmanageable or less manageable – HS said that it is still doable, but bunds
could be up to 4m high – TB noted it makes it more difficult, not impossible.
MK said that by knowing of the potential for contaminants of lower soils it may be
limiting as to how much can be dug until the ground investigation is complete and the
way you remediate is via air. HS said the seepage would be an issue. TB queried if
bunds could be lined – HS told of not being what has been considered as need natural
HS
TB asked about water discharging back into the marina rather than the Neb – JR
advised that, following discussion with DEFA, they do not want it to go into the river,
however still have concerns about it going back into the marina. JR informed of
hydraulic modelling to be carried out by MUA of sewer and that there may be an option
to limit discharge of lagoon.
Due to licensing issues DEFA looking at discharging the water out to sea. MK told of
not being impossible, pump at exit of lagoon down over fish pass. BW told of checks to
be run on leachate which will inform decisions. HS queried the meaning of leachate –
BW told of run off from dewatering process. HS queried trial – BW told of UK standard
method. JR informed that Simon Renton (Environmental Protection Manager) to set up
meeting early next week to discuss direct. BW asked HS that in similar circumstances
has he been asked to apply for a licence to return leachate water back to marina – HS
said no, as it is regarded as a circular process, viewed as most beneficial way of
transporting water. BW asked if the fluid output is largely unaltered – HS said yes.
BW asked if previous work done have contaminants been in same order of magnitude –
HS said no – BW queried impact of fluid fraction – HS told of mainly PAHs which can
migrate out of material with no specific information in mind regarding contaminants in
transport water – no comparable to level of lead in material – HS to find out further
information.
Finances – JR said that at this stage there are no cost estimates to compare against
budget.
Communications Plan – JR told of now wanting to issue revised PIN to get contractor on
board – draft ready. JR queried about putting out press release with it. TB advised to
prepare simple factual communications piece. MK said that people are already asking
questions. BW said that it would be helpful to outline that the material is to be used for
remediation. JR said to outline that we are currently looking at 2 land options. TB said
that more complete communications could go out once planning application is
submitted. MK said that a well worded brief could stop planning objections.
Outstanding information – HS spoke about land survey and of prices being due
tomorrow for the topographical survey. JR told of working on ground investigation
document and of also looking at doing trial pits - it was noted of a lot of information
gathering over the next few weeks. TB asked if we need option agreement signed off
before any surveys take place – JR said of the need to seek agreement from land
owners to do surveys. HS said biometric survey option of using own small boat and
asked can it be checked that it is fully functioning and moved to Peel – MK said that
boat is on trailer, ready to go.
HS left meeting
Contingency – SG sent in the following comments from Waste Management:
Planning application for WPN – DEFA have now confirmed it is happy with the
hydrological risk assessment. Rockmount silts store – SG awaiting confirmation from
the Department regarding the long term planning status of this site. In the interim SG
is arranging for a small area of the site to be excavated to allow sampling to the base
of the deposit to determine the chemistry and leachate/water content of the material.
HS
3.
Phase 1B
Project Team appointments – JR told of have started work on appointment of Project
Team and has drafted remits for Lead Consultant, Quantity Surveyor and Planning
Supervisor. Have separately appointment Wardell Armstrong to do mining assessment,
looking at historic workings.
EIA & Planning Application – BW told of scoping document draft almost complete and
will send to JR early next week, and the relevant team members are committed to
doing data searches. JR said that the more we can do will reduce the consultant price.
BW said of developing before and after sampling plans.
Programme – JR advised that the programme has been updated and that gathering
some of the environmental data will take 12 months for the surveys – have not looked
at how much of planning process can start before EIA completed. BW said that we
could approach at how early can we submit planning application and how much of
planning application can we get done upfront – all team are committed to get ready
early. JR queried the environmental limitations around the construction window – BW
to investigate and confirm initial thinking. JR told of traffic issue with risk if doing in
shorter time as traffic impact may be too high – it was noted of requiring 4 months
minimum to move all the material from Peel. BW told of issues on transportation
around schools, immediate access road and site layout.
Communications Plan – JR advised of not having been addressed with the need to look
at possibly next month when putting out consultant remit. TB asked if we should talk
about outline for Phase 1B when advising of Phase 1A. BW said of the need to consider
motorcycle lobby and the works being part of bigger trial of upland management. TB
queried motorcycle lobby – JR said that he has not had an update – it was noted that
SG had spoken to JCK, who thought the local group was trying to get permission to rent
Cross Vein – JR to discuss further with CEO. JR said that if capital bid for Phase 1B
comes through we could be in a position to put in fencing from April 2019. BW said of
being committed to monthly sampling of river water quality and sediments, which the
bikes churn up – scope document put in for Phase 1B required for visual element. BW
said as long as there was proper plant management for any equipment working on the
site, due to the remote nature of the site, there should not be a need for heras fencing.
TB queried planning application for fencing as it may be incongruous. MK said that it
could be closed off ‘as part of scientific process’.
JR
4.
Phase 2 update
JR said of not being too much to update, however useful to start discussions with Steve
Stanley regarding catchment management plan. MK queried regarding goal, ie silt trap
– BW told of being part of process, and the more frequent the dredging the lower the
contaminants. BW said of bathing water quality, working on communications. JR said
at the need to look at if we can reduce volume and level of contamination and looking
at traps etc, with all options being looked at. BW said that majority of damage is
during heavy rainfall. MK spoke about the need to reinstall a debris screen/trap.
JR
5.
Notes of previous meeting held 13 September
Appointment of Project Team - Noted Primary Consulting dropped out and have now
appointed Safety Management Services as Planning Supervisor.
Depositing of material - TB queried having somewhere to put, even if not desirable – JR
told of being able to stabilise material and take to Turkeylands which would be viable
and legal.
6.
Any Other Business
Project terminology – JR suggested words sent out.
Regarding potential press release for Phase 1B works at Cross Vein Mine – BW
suggested Stephen Parry to speak directly to BW for a few sentences on the
environmental benefits.
German Commissioners – regarding roundabout – ongoing – AR is the lead for this.
JR
BW
AR
7.
Next Meeting
8 November 2018 @ 3pm West 1
1.
Welcome and Apologies
Apologies received from:-
Stephanie Gray, Head of Waste Management, DOI
Distribution
attendees and apologies
Malcolm Cowin, MUA
Brett Woods, DOI
2.
Phase 1A Update
DC advised that, from a design point of view, the status is:-
bathymetry survey complete
trial pits undertaken at Ballaterson Farm
topographic survey started today and due for completion tomorrow at
Ballaterson today
Quotes received from suppliers for the bore hole campaign – awaiting DOI
confirmation
Therefore, the design team can now progress with planning application.
TB noted agreed strategy to just concentrate on Ballaterson Farm, which is a pragmatic
decision based on resources and that Knockaloe Beg Farm was looking like an outside
option, at best.
Negotiations with land owner at [redacted] are progressing. JR informed that
[redacted] has had his Advocates review the proposal, with a few minor questions
asked. It was noted that Brett Woods is meeting with [redacted] on Tuesday morning
with the hope being to close the deal next week. It was noted that the proposed
agreement includes an option on the site for 2 year, commencing from date of
signature, and that the Heads of Terms covers rate for 3 year land lease once option is
exercised.
JR told of issue with MUA pushing for decision on the proposed [redacted] site access
road across their site. JR advised that that MUA have developed their design for
JR
JR told of concerns regarding resource to do leachate testing. BW told of hoping to do
some 2 weeks ago. However, when the fishing trawler caught fire in the marina,
sampling was postponed and now the employee is off for at least a month. It was
noted of the need for boat/expertise. MK to provide boat and crew and joint DOI/DEFA
team to undertake sampling using equipment loaned by ADBP, ASAP.
HS stated that sampling will help determine how quickly the silt settles out of
suspension.
Regarding the traffic study for EIA, JR told of the need to provide swept path analysis
for the HGV route. TC said agreed that Highway Services has necessary programmes
and will arrange for Scott to assist.
TB asked when the planning application is to be submitted. It was noted that the EIA
will still take a further 2-3 weeks. HS informed of intention to submit by end of
November. TB noted EIA has to go in with planning application. TB advised that there
is no mandatory EIA process on Island. JR said that the planners would not comment
on the proposed scope of the EIA. HS told of having better focus on what we are
going to put in.
BW /
MK to
co-
ordinate
for this
week
TC/JR
ADBP
3.
Phase 1B Update
JR advised of having draft scope to appoint Consultants. BW said of being 4 weeks
overdue on DEFA elements of the scope document – BW to provide ASAP. JR said that
DEFA have commenced sampling to gather data for EIA, and the Consultant will then
take this EIA data to use in EIA. The Planning Application will have to be made and
Capital Procedures have been looked at. The aim is to start moving material in Autumn
2020. TB asked why the cut off Feb/March for Autumn – JR told of birds and nesting
season, plus other environmental constraints. BW advised of Wildlife Act. JR told of 12
months EIA gathering.
JR asked, when putting out comms for Phase 1A, should we be putting out Phase 1B.
TB advised end of November for comms for whole project (Phases 1A, 1B and 2).
TC queried Rockmount, and commitment as a store. AR informed of intention to meet
with Commissioners to look at all options. It was noted that if Rockmount material was
spread at Cross Vein it would increase layer from 900mm to 1.2m thick.
TB said of the need to tell the whole story. JR said that the question will be asked as
to what is being done with Rockmount material. AR told of being under covenant until
2020. HS asked if DEFA have been doing sampling at Rockmount – BW advised ‘no’.
HS queried summary report, i.e. leachate re Rockmount material – BW to look into and
send to JR. AR said that she believes SG has been testing. BW stated that the
contaminants in the run off never exceeded the background levels in the stream.
BW
JR/SP
AR/TC
BW
4.
Phase 2 Update
JR has met with Steve Stanley at DEFA to understand more about their catchment
management plan – the overall aim is to reduce silt in the rivers. JR outlined proposal
for Phase 2 to undertake feasibility study, focussed on contamination reduction and
both elements can be combined to look at level of reduction of silt and contamination in
River Neb.
JR suggested that the OSPAR and other regulations should be reviewed as part of the
feasibility study and advice provided regarding disposal at sea issues. BW confirmed
that it would be good to include an update on OSPAR, as approx. 2 years since last
major review by DEFA.
BW said that work will slot in nicely with DEFA bathing water quality work (DEFA have
some monitoring kit on order). TB queried scope of heavy metals or silt. JR said that
DEFA are moving with silt side and need the 2 together. JR said that both questions
need to be asked. TB asked if Steve’s work is going to deliver the answers – JR told of
working to try to frame something together. HS stated as to not having heard much
about flocculation process (salt and fresh water mixing in marina and causing silt to
drop out) and identify if any contamination is coming into the marina from the Irish
Sea? All agreed that both need to be part of the Phase 2 thought process.
JR to
include
in remit
5.
Next Meeting
13 December 2018
1.
Welcome and Apologies
Apologies received from:-
Bernard Warden, Director of Environment, Safety & Health, DEFA (BW)
Distribution
attendees and apologies
Malcolm Cowin, MUA
Brett Woods, DOI
Stephanie Gray, DOI
2.
Phase 1A Update
Planning Application Submission- TB advised that the planning application has been
submitted and validated by DEFA. It was noted that there has been an exhibition in
Peel since Monday with a couple of concerns raised with regard to moving of the
material by HGV via Station Hill (however this will be covered by the next planning
application) and where supply and drainage pipes will go along the riverside footpath.
TB told of speaking to municipal colleagues who were extremely complimentary about
the solution. It was noted that a letter has been received from the IOM Harbour Users
Association – AR to draft response. TB stressed that the key message is that the
Department is dealing with the problem.
TB told of being pleased that the 30 November deadline was met for the submission of
the planning application. JR advised that the 21 day response period closes mid-
January and it is hoped that it will be discussed at the 4 February planning committee.
TB informed of taking no part in DEFA decision and asked for someone from the
Department to register as a speaker – AR/JR to register. TB said that the DEFA
planning officers report is worth reading ahead of the planning committee meeting.
Regarding planners concerns that the dredging requires planning permission, AR is to
respond in writing. AR said that the Department does have a statutory legal duty to
keep the marina safe and working.
Design & ECI tender progress – noted planning application submitted, with a couple of
requests/clarifications. Tender package (design, specification and Bills of Quantities)
AR
AR/JR
AR
Wrights Pit North – contingency option – no update.
Communications Plan – noted request received from Manx Radio to speak to
Consultants. TB advised of being happy to do further interview, possibly with DEFA
colleagues.
3.
Phase 1B Update
JR told of no progress since last meeting. JR had received DEFA input for remit
document and also some input from SG. Consultant will do EIA and DEFA have
commenced data processing.
AR/TC to meet German Commissioners on 9 January 2019 to discuss Rockmount
options. AR asked about samples at Rockmount – clarification to be sought.
4.
Phase 2 Update
No update.
5.
Notes of previous meeting held 13 November
Impact of MUA high voltage cable within [redacted] - DC has sent emails regarding
cable to MUA - Noted cable is outside 4m wayleave and MUA have gone silent on the
matter. MUA aware that current design will build up to cable. TB queried constraints.
6.
Any Other Business
No matters raised.
7.
Next Meeting
31 January 2019
1.
Welcome and Apologies
Apologies received from:-
Ann Reynolds, Director of Ports, DOI (AR)
Tim Cowin, Head of Highways and Asset Management, DOI (TC)
Stephanie Gray, Head of Waste Management, DOI (SG)
2.
Phase 1A Update
Planning Application Progress
Noted planning application has been submitted with various comments
received from stakeholders / government departments / public. Impression
is that there are a lot less concerns than expected, most of the comments
have been raised by government officers, not the public. JR told of 57 items
being addressed, including pipe line route in river which was commented
upon, so plan is to take pipe out of the river and run along the roadside /
along harbour wall. A table has been compiled setting out the questions and
going forward will itemise responses and adjustments made, which will then
be resubmitted along with any revised documents. This will trigger another
21 day consultation window. The existing programme can accommodate this
delay, but with no further float for other delays, keeping the 2019 dredging
option on course.
JR advised that DOI and planning have still not yet received a definitive
response from DEFA – SR informed that the response is with the CEO – BW
to chase. SR told of a review meeting to be held on Monday afternoon, with
documents to be submitted to Planning on Tuesday. TB noted draft
feedback had been received from DEFA – SR stated that the concerns have
not been made in detail.
BW said that one issue that was raised related to black guillemots – DC said
that this issue is being addressed. BW said that the timing of excavator
moving at a reasonable pace would minimise disruption to nesting. It was
BW
liability cover re putting field back to original conditions. BW told of
undertaking weekly sampling during Rockmount of the run off/leachate. BW
asked for more details from contractor regarding proposal. PL told of being
able to do weekly samples.
Finance Regs compliance
JR told of some issues and of currently working with the AGs.
Programme and Risks
DC said that the key is to do 18 days of dredging in 2019.
Land Issues
JR advised that the last round of negotiation is ongoing with [redacted].
Issues around working hours. Still working with [redacted] as option as
back-up plan.
Finances
JE told of budget shortfall – volume of material has gone up by 70%. Paper
to Treasury required to seek additional budget and appointment of single
tender contractor.
Wrights Pit North
No longer option as application submitted does not include to accept silt.
Therefore, option CLOSED.
TB asked where material could go if not to Cross Vein Mine – SR told of
possibility of New Turkeyland, with possible change in disposal licence and
using up significant volumes in strategically important facility.
Communication Plan
Nothing further – wait until project is further forward.
JR
JR
3.
Phase 1B Update
JR told of little progress made. BW informed of having provided EIA scoping
– JR said of the need to incorporate comments.
JR advised that he will look at Rockmount and of possible requirement for 12
month extension to planning / covenant.
JR to arrange for Phase 1B Consultants to do review of Rockmount. TB
asked about monitoring at Cross Vein Mine – SR advised that this has
commenced.
JR
4.
Phase 2 Update
JR informed of no progress. BW said that Phase 1B solves Phase 2.
5.
Response to Environmental & Infrastructure Policy Review
JR advised of CEO looking for update. JR to draft response for CEO next
week.
JR
6.
Notes from previous meeting
AR/JR to register as Speaker for Planning.
JR advised of draft letter to DEFA Planning regarding dredging work in
marina sent to AR this afternoon.
AR/JR
7.
Any Other Business
7.1 Debris screen - BW said that this could house long term monitoring kit.
JR said that this may be worth flagging up to the Minister.
7.2 SR advised of having spoken to silt busters and coagulant. DC to speak
to MH.
JR
DC
8.
Next Meeting
To take place on 14 February 2019
1.
Welcome and Apologies
Apologies received from:-
Bernard Warden, Director of Environment, Safety & Health, DEFA (BW)
Paul Lenartowicz, DEFA (PL)
2.
Phase 1A
DC advised that the ECI Stage One tender report has been approved, with
meetings scheduled with the successful tenderer (Land & Water Services) on
28 Feb and 1 March – agenda to be produced. DC told of having been in
touch with the bore hole contractor, with draft test results expected this
week. DC confirmed all on track.
DC informed of comments received back from S Butler (DEFA) regarding
planning. JR told of having met with S Butler yesterday to go through
comments – draft Officers Report is proposing to accept application. TB
noted 5 year approval from when granted.
TB told of now having to go through Planning Committee and Officers Report
proposes only 4 interested parties (MNH, MUA, [redacted] and Peel Town
Commissioners). TB told of having previously received positive feedback
from Peel Town Commissioners towards the scheme. AR noted Manx Wildlife
Trust does not get interested party status - TB said of there still being a
period of time until heard from Committee, and they can still show an
interest. DC spoke about EVF queries. TC told of three planning conditions
from Highways. TB noted a lot work undertaken in resubmitting information.
Noted 4 March Planning Committee – JR to register as Speaker.
DC told of the need to firm up the budget. JR went through table summary
of costs which highlighted budget of £1.934M, with revised cost forecast
being £3.239M, showing a difference of £1.3M. Meeting noted could either
modify scheme to fit available money or seek further funds. It was noted
that the additional monies are required in later years. TB said of the need to
JR
be clear about what we are delivering for the money and to present how
many tonnes are to be delivered, ie Department is doing more dredging.
MK stated that mobilisation costs are high. JR to show/outline as cost per
tonne. JR said that, after fixed costs, there is not much left for dredging. AR
said that we could factor in two year’s worth of maintenance dredging
savings – JR said that Treasury may want contribution back from
Department. TB said that the wording needs to be clear and asked if
another paper has to be put together. JR said of the need for a paper to
Treasury to cover bothy single tender bid and cost is above budget. JR to
produce draft paper – need confirmation that the CEO’s view is the same at
TB’s view.
AR noted going through ECI stage. AR also noted 7 day a week dredging.
AR mentioned work permits and contractor must hold valid work permits –
TC told of zero days for construction industry workers.
DC told of being a premium to dredge in 2019 due to mobilisation costs of
equipment for short period and queried whether the company could hire local
excavator for first year to keep mobilisation costs down.
MK said of the need to speak to Fisheries about dredging after TT period. JR
informed of Cross Vein Mine not ready until after second year of dredging.
TB said of the need for definitive dredging dates. TB queried what DEFA will
allow the Department to do – what would be the cost saving if dredging was
deferred to next year. TB said that he would accept if not value for money.
JR to look at costings and model.
TB asked what the successful company thinks they have won. JR said to
work with ECI to build lagoon, dredge 16,000m3 with option for second
16,000m3. DC told of having priced for 3 dredging campaigns (6,10 &
14,000m3) and have submitted alternative idea for staging the lagoon
construction. JR told of commitment to do 16,000m3 and empty lagoon and
decommission, with option to do third year. TB asked who has the option.
DC said that it is for the Department to place on the contractor. TB noted of
company having won contract to finalise design, build and operate from
beginning to end.
TB asked about [redacted] – JR told of having gone to the AGs. TB asked if
there was any reason to be concerned. JR highlighted working
hours/description of hours in lease did not tie up with what we were asking
for and have gone back to [redacted] with outline of hours. DC told of
having asked for 7 days a week operation, 12 hours a day – JR said that
what went in is what we put in EIA. JR advised of still having similar
paperwork being developed for the [redacted].
SG mentioned possible negotiations with the [redacted] regarding the
Raggatt Tip – TB/JR noted.
JR
JR
DC
JR
3.
Phase 1B Update
JR expressed concern in relation to resource to get Phase 1B going. Phase
1A keeps growing with demand for officer time. Know what we need to do
to get consultants going, and what is expected for us for 1B – should we be
looking at trials/and will we be expected to undertake – have asked for
feasibility study.
AR told of requiring input from DEFA for 1B. JR said that it is very
environmental and suggested DEFA have their own consultants. TB said that
Phase 1B is DEFA led and suggested to set up discussions between JR/TB &
DEFA (BW/SR) to kick off Phase 1B. SG told of having looked at draft remit
and had questions about statements DEFA made and the need to provide
supporting documents.
4.
Phase 2 Update
JR advised that Phase 2 is where we start to reduce the level of
contaminants going into the river. Noted letter drafted for CEO for ENI Policy
Review Committee. TB said that Phase 1B is linked with Phase 2, and
queried how high up list Cross Vein Mine is – TB noted multiple sources.
TB stressed that Phase 1B kick off meeting is priority and then mobilise
Phase 2 from that. AR said of having written to MUA about silt screens.
JR told of the need to analyse point sources and identify and would help with
contaminants coming into water. If silt trap still would have problem as to
what to do with silt. It was queried if put on the 7 mines if it would make a
difference. TB said of the need to understand the bigger picture.
Regarding debris screen, TB told to treat as Ports Division issue.
5.
Notes from previous meeting
Discharge Licence – noted Department would apply for the licence and then
transfer to third party.
Silt Busters – DC said that for hydraulic option would need at least 5 units. If
mechanical dredging used, it is more feasible. There is a cost with the
benefits unknown. These may be an option to consider under the adaptive
management system.
TB asked what Silt Busters do – DC said that they treat water and attempts
to remove some of the silt. Noted that they are a potential post-lagoon
treatment. TB asked if DEFA are going to control what is going back into
marina with the discharge licence – should only be deployed if necessary.
DEFA response- noted BW chased response.
E&I Policy Review – draft response for CEO done.
Speaker for Planning Committee 4 March – JR to register nearer the time.
Rockmount – JR told of having been highlighted in planning application
process about the 5 year condition on Rockmount with the Department’s
JR
response being that the dewatered material would go to Cross Vein Mine
and/or remediation at Wright Pitts North, with anything that was not suitably
dry going to Cross Vein Mine and the Department would look to put into Peel
Lagoon.
AR said that overall thoughts are to look for short term extension with
Commissioners for extra time so as not to take away priority of Peel. SG told
of being too saline to be used for restoration material as is very sandy – no
bore hole data – need structural test/analysis. SG stressed the need for
evidence based decision making. JR to include in Phase 1B remit.
JR stated that it would be useful for SG to be involved.
JR
6.
Any Other Business
No matters raised.
7.
Next Meeting
To take place on 14 March 2019
1.
Welcome and Apologies
Apologies received from:-
Mark Kenyon, Ports Manager, DOI (MK)
Stephanie Gray, Head of Waste Management, DOI (SG)
Distribution:
Present & Apologies
Malcolm Cowin, MUA
2.
Phase 1A
DC advised of having appointed Land & Water (the dredging contractor) for
the ECI phase (Stage 1), the team has met with them and they are helping
to develop plan/design. DC said that they have been professional and
positive. Programme is on track and currently working towards dredging in
2019.
JR advised that planning permission for the project has been received and
that the panel were complimentary about the government Departments
working together. JR told that the planning approval comes with 28
conditions. We are still on course for Contract award 1 April (subject to
departmental approval and Treasury approval) and hope to have both
Fisheries and Waste Licence in place before contract award. Water Discharge
Licence expected mid to late April.
JR informed of risk of land lease, with final version having now gone to the
land owners agents. AR asked about length of time the contractor needs to
prepare the site. JR advised contract award 1 April with hope to mobilise
mid-April to construction of lagoon for this year’s dredging to commence 1
May. BW asked how long construction phase will take – JR told 2-3 weeks –
DC advised 24 days to construct and 24 days of dredging. TB queried 250
cubic metres a day and asked if that is a finite volume – DC said that it may
AR asked JR to add communications to the agenda.
JR
3.
Phase 1B Update
JR advised that BW/SR/TB met last week and discussed how to structure.
Regarding structure the best way is for DOI to own project with DEFA to
have dual role (land owner/environmental regulator). As part of that BW
proposed possible changes to attendance at this Project Board meeting.
BW told of structural changes within DEFA and that SR is the obvious liaison
within DEFA for the Project Board meetings. BW to make sure appropriate
specialist officers are invited to meetings where necessary.
TC queried if his attendance was still necessary at the meetings as Phases 1A
and 1B are under control. It was agreed that TC be kept on circulation list
for agenda and notes and to attend if he felt it worthwhile.
JR said of the need to understand what is needed at Cross Vein Mine with
the need to look at doing feasibility study to validate using Cross Vein Mine.
It was noted that some stabilisation of material may be required. AR queried
if a feasibility study would help us gauge how we want it to be. Noted don’t
have anything scientific yet. BW said that any form of feasibility study is
going to support and be complimented by an environmental impact study.
BW said that the usual DEFA specialist can see value of approach. The term
feasibility study was queried – BW said of possibility to rename ‘proposed
review of’ or ‘detailed assessment’. JR to ensure that wording on remit is
amended. BW said that there will always be questions about value of putting
material to Cross Vein Mine, however metals are less contaminated than at
the Deads site. BW spoke about UNESCO.
BW said that the project is a catalyst to develop better project management.
TB said of needing to be clear of our objectives. SR said of being keen that
we keep options open. TB said of being lots of value in wider exercise, and
that he wants the focus to achieve the outcome we said we were going to.
BW said message is Cross Vein Mine remediation is the core project work.
AR noted all in agreement.
JR spoke about Dunston Environmental stabilisation process and advised of
having received quotes to filter/treat/stabilise material. JR recommended a
trail small scale as part of the ‘detailed assessment’.
Cross Vein Mine will have to go through planning process. JR told of back up
option being to stabilise material. BW said any disposal at sea for material
above the OSPAR level 2 threshold would need to demonstrate we have
looked at all options.
TB stressed of not wanting us to be cavalier about environmental issues and
is worth covering bases – can see value in the proposed Dunston
Environmental stabilisation trial.
TB queried ‘may need treatment’ – BW said of first knowledge being after SR
BW
JR
spoke to consultants – SR said of needing opinion of a land remediation
expert. TB queried verification exercise / detailed assessment and asked if
we are going out to market about intent. BW suggested that there is scope
for further officer meetings (BW/JR/SR/PL+others).
JR advised of having secured budget for Phase 1B. This generally follows the
pattern of Revenue funding for dredging and capital for CVM.
AR queried phase 2 feasibility – JR said that once Phase 1A and 1B are
going, once resource is available. SR told of quantification of benefits of
remediating Cross Vein Mine - noted Winter 20/21.
JR said that another option could be to use the same consultants to look at
Rockmount – AR to look into this.
AR
4.
Phase 2 Update
No progress. AR advised of having a meeting arranged between Ports and
MUA regarding debris.
5.
Notes from previous meeting
Previous notes from 31 January meeting
TB queried [redacted] – JR advised of having lease documents.
E&I Policy review – JR did draft and had E&I Committee last week.
Responses drafted for CEO for both.
Previous notes from 14 February meeting
Work permits – in process of applying for Land & Water. AR noted Antony
Bates Partnership (DC & HS) have work permits.
Dredging after TT – risks have been discussed with Land & Water and the
risks would be too high to dredge after TT. TB noted it has been evaluated
and is commercially too high.
6.
Any Other Business
BW spoke about DEFA planning consultation response for Phase 1A and said
that SR did all the work and did a ‘smashing job’ on it. TB acknowledged
support from planning in respect of team/good work.
7.
Next Meeting
To take place on 11 April 2019
1.
Welcome
Tim Baker MHK Chairman (TB)
Ray Harmer MHK, Minister (RH) – Part only
Ann Reynolds, Director of Ports, DOI (AR)
Mark Kenyon, Ports Manager, DOI (MK)
Bernard Warden, Director of Environment, Safety & Health, DEFA (BW)
Stephanie Gray, Head of Waste Management, DOI (SG)
Simon Renton, DEFA (SR)
Jeremy Reece, Senior Project Manager, DOI (JR)
Dredging Consultant, Anthony Bates Partnership (DC)
Personal Secretary, note taker
Distribution
attendees and apologies
Malcolm Cowin (MUA)
2.
TB opened the meeting at 9am and thanked everyone for coming.
Further to Treasury’s decision not to agree to the request for additional expenditure
and the waiver to appoint a single tenderer, TB queried the Pink Book budget provision.
JR set out the financial provisions within both capital and revenue funding. JR
confirmed that any tender with a value of over £100,000 would require Treasury
approval to award. TB noted that the project would be unable to move forward in the
preferred manner.
AR commented that the exemption request to allow Anthony Bates Partnership and
Silva Consulting to compile the tender documents was submitted to the Attorney
General’s and that a retrospective exemption was issued for permission. Capital
Procedure had been followed in all other aspects and it had been confirmed that this
was a technicality and did not influence the tender process in any way.
AR noted that the formal Treasury Minute had not yet been received and that
information relating to Treasury’s decision had been fed back by Nick Black. JR to chase
NB for details of the formal minute.
TB asked whether dredging could take place after TT 2019; JR added that productivity
would be low under the conditions set by DEFA over this time line due to standing time
of either three or six hours in every twelve to reflect conditions linked to the tides. MK
added that this assumed that the boats would be able to move around to accommodate
the restrictions and would present major operational difficulties. DC noted that the
contractor could be asked to set their working hours and rest days to suit the tides. AR
added that in 2016 mobilised works had to be stopped due to fish spawning early. JR
confirmed that Treasury approval would still be required to appoint Land and Water for
this work.
JR
RH confirmed his agreement to tender in parallel to the planning application for Cross
Vein due to the need to move the material at Rockmount to Cross Vein. RH stated that
it would be important to ensure that dredging started in January 2020; by not doing it
the problem does not go away and it makes it worse.
DC and RH suggested letting Land and Water know the situation and ask them to
extend the length of time their tender was valid for.
RH and DC left the meeting at 11.15am.
DC/JR
3.
Phase 1B
JR noted that the next stage would be scientific and environmental procedure; an
exemption would be needed for a consultant to put together the tender documents. TB
stated that the proper process must be followed. JR said that the consultant would
need to be able to work through the environmental reports, identify requirements and
liaise with DEFA and driving it forward.
SG added that the planning application for Rockmount had a time limit for the removal
of material and DEFA will require information. TB asked that AR start the process of
applying for an extension of the planning permission at Rockmount.
AR to discuss any possible planning points with Nick Black.
It was noted that the Team ensures that the material is not left in the field.
TB concluded that the presentation and paper to Treasury needed to be pulled together
for May; JR to co-ordinate with DC and the Hydrographic Consultant from ADBP. TB
stressed that the paper should speak to people who were not technically minded and
that appendices should be included to add detail where required for robustness.
Meeting closed at 12.15pm
AR
AR
6.
Next Meeting
9th May 2019
1.
Welcome
Tim Baker MHK Chairman (TB)
Ann Reynolds, Director of Ports, DOI (AR) - part of the meeting
Mark Kenyon, Ports Manager, DOI (MK)
Jeremy Reece, Senior Project Manager, DOI (JR)
Paul Lenartowicz, Government Labs, DEFA (PL)
Dredging Consultant, Anthony Bates Partnership (DC)
Hydrographic Consultant, Anthony Bates Partnership (HS)
Personal Secretary, Note taker
Nick Black, Chief Executive, DoI (NB) – part of the meeting
Distribution
attendees and apologies
Tim Cowin, DOI Highways
Stephanie Gray, Head of Waste Management, DOI (SG)
Simon Renton, DEFA (SR)
Malcolm Cowin, MUA
2.
TB opened the meeting at 1000hrs and thanked everyone for coming.
TB advised that both NB and AR would be attending the meeting shortly as they were
invited to meet the Chief Minister in the Chief Secretary’s Office regarding issues
surrounding Peel Marina Project.
Phase 1A Update
TB advised on Treasury’s decision not to agree to the requests for additional
expenditure and the waiver to appoint a single tenderer. We need to be clear where we
are going and navigate the issues through onto solid ground.
As far as the Independent Review was concerned, JR advised on approaching CEFAS,
which was liked by Treasury & DEFA. It was noted that CEFAS have come back
suggesting they could produce a report by late August/September. Alternatively, JR
said we could go to other consultants for example involved in the Deep Water Berth
projects. JR advised that it was NB view to use CEFAS as they are accredited to
industry standards and would be acknowledged by Treasury and DEFA. JR suggested
that he goes back to CEFAS and discuss a quote and plan of delivery.
1010hrs NB and AR joined the meeting.
NB advised that they have just come back from a meeting with the Chief Minister and
Treasury officials on Peel Marina and gave the following briefing. NB informed that the
Chief Minister expressed concerned on this project with the lack of progress together
regarding his increasing workload requesting some additional support. TB supported
JR’s position. AR agreed to progress. TB agreed that additional support should be
looked at as a priority.
Comms Plan
JR queried communications in the public domain. AR referred to recent correspondence
with IOM Harbour Users Association and of regular meetings where updates are given.
Reference was made from an approach from IOM Newspapers with a simple outline
response given. TB noted that any communications are vetted through IOMG
protocols.
DEFA
Following on from Bernard Warden’s retirement, Karen McHarg has been promoted into
his role. AR agreed to invite her to the next meeting or a named representative.
Land Lease – JR advised that the [redacted] are negotiating a deal with MUA on their
field at [redacted] for storage and compound facilities. MUA requested that we
withdraw from discussions, to release the [redacted] to negotiate with MUA. JR has
withdrawn the Department from negotiations and reminded the team that the site
posed some access issues and we have secured the lease option on [redacted]. JR to
write to [redacted] to confirm. AR added to thank them etc. It was noted that no
payments had been made.
AR
4.
Phase 2 up-date
AR advised that MUA needs to be invited to the Project Board when Phase 2 is
considered. AR to discuss with NB.
AR
5.
Actions from the previous meeting No 24 held 12 April 2019
(a) Tender extension – JR to meet tomorrow re: Land and Water.
(b) Rockmount – AR talking to NB on the matter.
(c) Planning points – extending the application approval.
6.
Any Other Business
(a) DEFA representation – TB requested the DEFA representative have a consistent
attendance. AR to ask NB to discuss further with Richard Lole, CEO, DEFA.
Meeting concluded 1145hrs.
AR
7.
Next Meeting
13 June 2019
Present:-
Tim Baker MHK Chairman (TB)
Ann Reynolds, Director of Ports (AR)
Mark Kenyon, Harbours Ports Manager (MK)
Jeremy Reece, Senior Project Manager, DOI (JR)
Karen McHarg, Director of Environment, Health & Safety, DEFA (KM)
Simon Renton, Environmental Protection, DEFA (SR)
Dredging Consultant, Anthony Bates Partnership (DC) (by phone)
Hydrographic Consultant, Anthony Bates Partnership (HS) (by phone)
Personal Secretary, note taker
Distribution
Attendees and apologies
Tim Cowin, DOI Highways (TC)
Stephanie Gray, Head of Waste Management DOI (SG)
Paul Lenartowicz, Government Labs, DEFA (PL)
Malcom Cowin, MUA (MC)
1.
Welcome and Apologies
TB welcomed those to the meeting in particular to KM who replaced Bernard
Warden following his retirement. Introductions around the table were made.
2.
Phase 1A update
JR advised on receiving a quote from CEFAS to carry out the independent project
review. CEFAS are able to comment on the marine based issues i.e. dredging and
de-watering, however they advised that they cannot comment on other land based
issues such as the movement of material to Cross Vein Mine. They propose using
Environment Agency (UK Gov’t) to undertake the review of the land based issues
under a separate quote. Neither CEFAS nor EA would comment on the value for
money elements.
JR suggested appointing an Independent QS to undertake this element. JR referred
to a previous meeting with himself, AR and Andrew Sidebottom, Treasury (AS). It
was AS’s view that Treasury wouldn’t give approval unless further information was
obtained regarding Cross Vein Mine including assurances on costs. It was
suggested that Anthony D Bates Partnership (ADBP) could be approached to
recommend a QS who is good with a relevant data set from the dredging industry.
DC agreed to give it some thought and feedback to JR. .
Discussions were held on a suitable alternative, on or off-island. Silva Consulting
DC
JR advised on their credentials as a lab accredited by the MMO in the UK and the
only lab that is accredited for all types of tests. SR queried surface fraction issues
and deposits to sea. SR suggested it could be cheaper if the test results for the top
layers could be dumped out to sea and going forward if minimum levels were
decided future silt could go out to sea. JR suggested that the silt may be used in
other areas depending on the results.
Land and Water Tender
DC advised that Land and Water Services (LAWS) are coming back next week with
an updated tender based on 2 dredging campaigns, with lagoon construction in late
2019 and the first round of dredging starting January 2020. Silva Consulting (QS)
looking at the cost side and expect a saving of £100-£150K with contract to be
awarded by 5 August 2019 – there may be some flexibility in this date, as it does
not align with the reviews and Treasury approval programme. DC informed looking
at the contractors Programme, which appeared OK. JR advised it is going to be
tight with some key dates to stick to. TB suggested undertaking some underwriting.
JR advised that we may have to look to underwrite some of the advanced
procurement costs.
Programme
JR provided an update on the overall project Programme, with concerns on Phase
1B. In order to mitigate this, advanced procurement will be required on the wildlife
surveys. TB queried link between Phase 1A and 1B removal of material and why it
is only shown between November to February each year. JR referred to issues
being driven by DEFA with working at the Cross Vein Mine between certain times in
the year. JR stressed if 1B runs late then 1A there will be knock on effects on
moving the material.
Comms Plan
JR referred to during TT week Mr Crookall, MHK was on MMTV pushing for
progress. It was noted that JR had spoken to him this week with an up-date.
TB advised on a good meeting when the IOM HUA met the Minister.
JR
3.
Phase 1B
Re: Scientific Study – Noted ADBP has been commissioned to draw up a remit for
consultants. JR advised on a meeting held yesterday (12 Jun 2019) between
himself, ADBP, and various DEFA officers to discuss the relevant issues.
During this meeting a query was made by ADBP in how we address Cross Vein Mine
is it landfill or reclamation. ADBP queried that we need to understand what we
want to achieve and help clarify issues for the Planning Application in terms of what
level of scientific input is required. JR explained that if we treat Cross Vein Mine as
remediation then we are likely to have to factor in a liner to separate the existing
material from the imported silt and undertake chemical stabilisation of the silt to
remove any additional environmental ‘load’, for which we have no budget.
If we define Cross Vein Mine as landfill we don’t have to undertake treatment,
Cross Vein Mine is up for questioning and SR confirmed that DEFA need additional
study to be able to support their original concept of an environmental net gain at
CVM. JR to produce remit for the consultants, then we can put out to tender,
however he advised that we need a high level interim report before then. DC to
speak with SC on methodology and options. Other areas of storage was discussed,
including Turkeylands. AR advised there is a capacity issue and is expensive. SR
referred to Billown Quarry as a new infill site and believed it has a massive capacity.
AR agreed to speak with NB on these options for advice. MK suggested South
Barrule Quarry area. SR advised that DEFA would need to take professional advice
on remediation, however offered up any other assistance.
4.
Phase 2 update
JR advised remit documents drawn up and could go to tender in 2 weeks. However,
as the project funding is on stop from Treasury, Phase 2 studies should wait until
September. AR advised that the work has to be done and get a spec out and get a
price for a “feasibility study”. It was noted that the Minister is keen to push on with
Phase 2.
AR advised on looking at silt traps next week, trying to work in parallel the project
with a view to reducing the amount of silt coming down from the river.
AR
5.
Actions from the previous meeting No.25 dated 9 May 2019.
(a) CEFAS re quote – JR advised quote received and to do a Financial Regs
exemption.
(b) Meeting Land & Water Services – done.
(c) Areas of Programme – JR advised on up-dated timeline.
(d) Stand alone letter – ongoing.
(e) Bernard Warden’s replacement representative –AR confirmed spoke to KM,
done.
6.
Any Other Business
(a) Silt Traps – AR advised on a meeting next week involving MUA, DEFA, DoI.
TB referred to an email from Friends of the Earth who had put down a
number of suggestions. TB to send to AR and KM for consideration.
(b) JR Workload Resource – JR queried on his current workload. Noted that JR
to speak to Paul Slinger.
TB
7.
Date of Next Meeting
Noted 11 July 2019 1500hrs in West 1. TB asked that the time of this meeting be
re-scheduled to 0900hrs. This was agreed.
Meeting concluded 1715hrs
Present:-
Tim Baker MHK Chairman (TB)
Mark Kenyon, Harbours Ports Manager (MK)
Jeremy Reece, Senior Project Manager, DOI (JR)
Karan McHarg, Director of Environment, DEFA (KM)
Paul Lenartowicz, Government Labs, DEFA (PL)
Simon Renton, Environmental Protection, DEFA (SR)
Dredging Consultant, Anthony Bates Partnership (DC) (by phone)
Hydrographic Consultant, Anthony Bates Partnership (HS) (by phone)
(from 1007hrs)
Personal Secretary, note taker
Distribution
Attendees and apologies
Ann Reynolds, Director of Ports (AR)
Tim Cowin, DOI Highways (TC)
Stephanie Gray, Head of Waste Management DOI (SG)
Malcom Cowin, MUA (MC)
1.
Welcome and Apologies
TB welcomed all those to the meeting.
Ann Reynolds had passed on her apologies to the meeting.
2.
Phase 1A update
JR advised that CEFAS are going to be on the Island 11-12 July and will be
meeting separately MK and DEFA team this afternoon with a site visit
arranged for tomorrow. It was noted that CEFAS had indicated their report
should be with us by 7 August 2019, just before the next Project Board
Meeting. JR informed on a telephone conference with CEFAS and they
understand the remit and hopefully give us our chosen way forward. TB
advised that if they submit other suggestions then we will take them aboard
and hopefully they will support our chosen way forward which will give
reassurances for Treasury.
JR advised that this covers only the marine side. As far the land elements
are concerned, JR advised that CEFAS had hoped to engage the Environment
Agency to review it, however they could not support it taking account of the
time frame, but have supplied CEFAS with a number of possible consultants
on their framework contract. CEFAS have been asked to provide a quotation
for engaging one of these consultants as a sub-consultant. Therefore JR
advised on having 2 reports, one on marine aspects and one on land (sub-
contracted) from CEFAS. JR advised Anthony Bates Partnership (ABP) had
identified “Atkins” (formerly W S Atkins) as an independent cost consultant.
Atkins work would be headed by the former Chief Engineer at Milford Haven
Port who has vast experience working on a number of schemes involving
contaminated silt. JR advised that they are aware we need their draft report
by 7 August 2019.
JR pointed out the deadline for accepting the Land and Water Services
(LAWS) tender, which has been extended to Mid-September. TB advised on
being clear that the Independent Report under 1A is different than 1B. JR
referred to concerns on getting the ‘land’ element to tie in to the timescale
and potential additional work involving 1 or 2 parties if CEFAS give advice on
other options and if Atkins need to take a look.
TB advised it would be helpful to deliver the 2 reports by CEFAS as we need
to get Treasury concurrence. For the ‘land’ element, JR advised he will let
KM know maybe up to 2 weeks although hopeful to get both reports by the
end of August. TB queried LAWS tender price expires. DC confirmed it is
valid to 15 September 2019. TB noted that LAWS are keen to progress.
Land – DC advised on continuing to work with LAWS on technical and design
issues to improve the dewater system. In terms of costs they have revised
the figures for 2 campaigns and the expected saving over the original 3
campaign proposal is ca £147K.
3.
Phase 1B
SR advised the report from Wardell Armstrong (WA) on the suitability of the
silt for use at Cross Vein Mine was expected that day and in the meantime
WA had provided a short email narrative stating there were concerns that the
material is not fit for purpose due to exceedance of lead and PAHs.
TB expressed concerns on what their remit/instructions were. SR confirmed
that the remit had been circulated in advance and advised that WA had been
asked whether the material is fit for purpose to go to Cross Vein Mine (CVM).
KM advised that the group needed to see the full report to take a look at the
detail. TB stressed that this is a shared problem and that we still have got to
do something with the silt - it cannot remain in the marina and has to go
somewhere.
MK queried the methodology and whether it could review the implications for
lining the site or should it be deemed as landfill, i.e. look at options to get the
silt to CVM. KM queried the use of other sites - South Barrule quarry /
Turkeylands / existing landfill.
SR advised his understanding that CEFAS may be looking at depositing at sea
and capping with a sand layer. JR referred to using a hydro-cyclone method
(like a tumble drier), if the material remains on land - however he explained
that it takes a lot of energy and issues with kit may be problematic. MK
advised that something similar had been looked at however there were too
many issues to deal with.
TB queried information on capping. JR advised that the budget does not
include anything for any material treatment. JR advised that CEFAS has
talked about looking at an option to deposit the silt out to sea with a sand
layer over it (capped). KM advised that she will discuss this option later on
today with CEFAS as she had concerns over scallop beds if this was
recommended.
TB queried capping at CVM as his belief was to layer it over with clay and
have WA considered that?
SR advised that if it was deemed as landfill, DEFA Planning would expect the
environmental impact to be assessed as part of the planning application. JR
added that to comply with the Strategic Plan, it has to be demonstrated that
if it is deemed landfill, all alternative locations have been assessed and it can
be demonstrated that CVM is the best place.
JR explained that if we were to put a cap on the existing material with the silt
on top then it would be deemed remediation and may be viewed as an
environmental enhancement scheme. TB advised on his understanding that
this option is an improvement on the problems at CVM and that DEFA would
support the improvement of the land as an environmental enhancement
exercise. TB informed that ultimately COMIN will have to decide and stressed
that the silt is going to go somewhere and that we all have a collective
responsibility.
KM stated that it was essential for the group to take external independent
advice to avoid future public criticism and there is a need to ensure that the
development is done for environmental reasons and the risks are reduced
wherever possible. MK advised that any option is never going to be a good
option, and if CEFAS recommend depositing out to sea and capping then
concerns may be raised by marine conservation people/organisations.
TB stressed on the need to work up a solution. PL advised that we need to
see the WA report and to discuss with them on the points they have raised.
It was agreed that JR call an extra Project Board meeting next Thursday (18
July 2019) and invite Neil Hughes from WA to discuss the report and get
more information on their findings and their remit. SR confirmed he will
circulate WA’s report later on today to the Project Board. JR and KM to speak
to WA beforehand. DC expressed surprise that this has come out now as
timing is still an issue.
1007hrs HS from ABP joined the meeting (via phone).
TB advised that COMIN will ultimately make the decision as to where the silt
is to go either on land or out to sea and we have to provide option(s) for
them to decide.
KM
JR
SR
JR/KM/SR
4.
Phase 2 update
JR advised on updating the draft remit for the consultants re: Scientific Study.
SR queried if consultant had been appointed. JR advised that 6-7 months
ago DEFA was going to initiate a Catchment Management Project to include
the River Neb and the Phase 2 consultants would need to identify and fill any
gaps in the DEFA project.
can be done and there is a need to look at the designs and options for sites.
Generally it was agreed it was a productive meeting.
TB noted a mini-work stream being developed. TB advised on IOM HUA’s
understanding that MUA was more involved with the Peel Marina Board. MK
informed that MUA don’t need to be involved and that the MUA are the
landowner with flood management responsibilities. They have admitted their
guidance document is a little ambiguous and are looking to re-draft it. TB
noted that the MUA are engaged with the Peel Marina Board as much as they
need to be.
5.
Actions from the previous meeting No.26 dated 13 June 2019.
(a) QS recommendation - done.
(b) Paper re Treasury concerns – done.
(c) Programme Management - JR on-going.
(d) WA/Scoping – on-going.
(e) Phase 2 Report – Treasury paper – JR working to procure working
with DEFA and WA to include in Treasury paper. Noted scientific
study/stabilisation on hold until WA advice.
(f) Silt Traps – done.
6.
Any Other Business
(a) Turkeylands – SR referred to AR and potential site at Turkeylands as
an option and that she was going to speak with NB. JR agreed to
speak to AR to get feedback.
(b) South Barrule – KM queried possibility of this as a suitable site. MK
advised the site is owned by the DoI has been used for disposal of
date expired marine pyrotechnics (flares). However, in the past SG
has ruled this area out with having licensing, planning and habitat
issues.
TB referred to the wording in the Strategic Plan with some grey areas
as far as planning is concerned. . Referring to the planning process,
TB advised working up a framework in line with the Strategic Plan and
that the application is balanced. TB advised that the Planning
Application will be referred straight away to an Independent Inspector
as it is an application involving DEFA owned land. As a result the
decision will rest with COMIN. JR added that we need to develop a
robust case to gain Treasury confidence.
KM advised if we were to treat the contaminated material to reduce
the lead/PAH this may increase the cost. MK pointed out issues with
where to treat it, including environmental issues and noise may be a
concern. JR informed on having received an outline proposal for
stabilisation process, as part of the Phase 1A Planning Application
(received from Dunton Environmental Ltd).
(c) Water Licence – JR requested that KM/SR chase Neil Gray (DEFA) for
the formal issue of the Waste Licence. SR agreed to chase.
JR
SR
7.
Date of Next Meeting
Present:-
Tim Baker MHK Chairman (TB)
Jeremy Reece, Senior Project Manager, DOI (JR)
Ann Reynolds, Director of Ports (AR)
Mark Kenyon, Harbours Ports Manager (MK)
Peter Dainton, Project Manager, DOI (PD)
Karan McHarg, Director of Environment, DEFA (KM)
Paul Lenartowicz, Government Labs, DEFA (PL)
Simon Renton, Environmental Protection, DEFA (SR)
Dredging Consultant, Anthony Bates Partnership (DC)
Personal Secretary, note taker
Distribution
Attendees and apologies
Hydrographic Consultant, Anthony Bates Partnership (HS)
Tim Cowin, DOI Highways (TC)
Stephanie Gray, Head of Waste Management DOI (SG)
Malcom Cowin, MUA (MC)
1.
Welcome and Apologies
TB welcomed all those to the meeting.
2.
Phase 1A update
JR confirmed that CEFAS marine report has been received and circulated to
members. TB noted on a comprehensive document. To sum up, JR advised
that CEFAS have recommended to pursue the land based option. Noted CEFAS
had identified alternative option for disposal at sea, but with capping. CEFAS
have concluded that for the capping option, the costs could escalate and the
risks would be higher and timetable may take longer. AR suggested that
Treasury may not approve a scheme which involved such high risks.
JR tabled an Options Summary (appended) to the meeting giving a breakdown
on overall costings and comparing either dredging, dewater and hold in lagoon
against dredge and cap at sea.
Page 1 – Excluded the costs associated with the Rockmount material and looked
at the cost per cubic metre, vehicle miles, environmental issues/impacts and
including risks the meeting noted the overall costs range.
Page 2 – Including the costs associated with the Rockmount material. TB
advised on excluding Rockmount as CEFAS have already given us 2 core
options. JR reminded all that the business case includes the costs for the
Rockmount material.
finding of the last 2 months and that some areas to be covered in the report
have already been duplicated by the WA and CEFAS (Arcadis) reports.
JR advised that one area of the study would be a feasibility study looking at
Rockmount, which could be done as a separate study. JR to ask ABP to edit the
remit for 1B consultant. DC suggested to narrow the scope down – JR
recommended push for 1B Study, ultimately then we have a consultant’s report.
CEFAS (marine) report
JR asked for comments on the report by tomorrow.
SR advised that CEFAS were suggesting water coming back from the lagoon
may need treatment and asked for examples where this has taken place and
relevant licence conditions.
JR identified that it has been recommended that the flapgate remains closed for
6 hours after dredging finishes. Given that the flapgate is open for 4 hours each
tide, it only leaves 2 hours per tide to dredge. SR referred to the use of silt
curtains and need to sustain pathway for the fish. PL suggested closing the
marina and removing the boats. MK confirmed this would not be practicable.
Phase 2
SR advised on agreement reached by DEFA/MUA to engage a consultant to
provide a catchment management plan, in line with ongoing flood risk
management.
AR referred to a meeting with MUA to discuss silt traps. Noted JBA is working
on a feasibility study.
AR advised that the IOM Harbour Users Association are continuing to press for a
solution.
1704hrs SR left the meeting.
JR
All
JR
JR
SR/KMc
5.
Actions from the previous meeting No.27 dated 11 July 2019.
(a) Scallop Bed concern – not now the preferred option. Closed.
(b) Additional PMB Meeting– done took place 18 July 2019. Closed.
(c) Circulating WA Report – done. Closed.
(d) KM/JR speak to WA – done. Closed
(e) KM speak to DEFA re clarification - done. Closed.
(f) Phase IB remit – done. Closed.
(g) IOM HUA response - draft letter produced AR to send to TB. Noted
meeting next week. Closed.
(h) Turkeylands – JR advised not done and to speak to AR.
(i) Water Licence – JR advised outstanding will email Neil Gray (DEFA)
by the end of the month.
JR/AR
JR
6.
Any Other Business
No new issues raised
7.
Date of Next Meeting
Present:-
Tim Baker MHK Chairman (TB)
Jeremy Reece, Senior Project Manager, DOI (JR)
Ann Reynolds, Director of Ports (AR)
Ports Project Coordinator, DOI (PC)
Karen McHarg, Director of Environment, DEFA (KM)
Paul Lenartowicz, Government Labs, DEFA (PL)
Simon Renton, Environmental Protection, DEFA (SR)
Dredging Consultant, Anthony Bates Partnership (DC)
Personal Secretary, note taker
Apologies:-
Mark Kenyon, Harbours Ports Manager (MK)
Hydrographic Consultant, Anthony Bates Partnership (HS)
Distribution
Attendees and apologies
Tim Cowin, DOI Highways (TC)
Stephanie Gray, Head of Waste Management DOI (SG)
Malcom Cowin, MUA (MC)
1.
TB advised now in end game of this project, and purpose of today is to bring
the project to a proposed solution prior to the all parties meeting next Monday,
23 September. Object of meeting is to have an agreed solution between both
departments ahead of the Treasury discussion. It was noted that there are still
some boxes to tick in terms of Treasury obligations. ie, “What are we going to
do and when?”. TB stressed that doing nothing is not an option.
2.
Outcomes and recommendation of Independent Review and
resampling of marina
Marine, Land and Cost reports
Reports previously circulated, together with summary report. JR told of the
objectives of the review, namely;
Is the two phase strategy still valid – answer yes
Is selected option for phase 1 the most effective – yes. However Arcadis
were non-committal.
Alternative options – no one has said not right option – CEFAS have left
open a couple of possible options. Arcadis and Atkins have said that
without stabilising, CVM was not feasible.
Costs – Atkins confirm the tender is within the plus or minus 5% range –
provides value for money.
Piping vs haulage – Atkins have said that mechanical is the right option,
appears to be out of line with historical comparators – with MS11 and MS13
being high contaminant levels and retest to make sure you have not got a cross
contaminated sample pot – KH said they were also inconsistent with previous
results in river channel. TB told to do testing and get results which define area
that can go to sea then need some work doing EIA or risk assessment
coordinated by or done by CEFAS. JR asked DEFA colleagues to confirm what
we are actually asking CEFAS to do, within the next day or so.
SR confirmed a disposal at sea licence is required under Part 2 for dredging. DC
asked if Peel has its own designated disposal areas - AR said that in the past
DEFA came back with 3 sites - PL said that there is a site that has been licenced
not far from Peel which has been issued in past for small dredging’s. However
he has concern that a much larger deposits would need a review. The previous
report identified areas on the “least worst for fishing” basis - AR to look for a
copy of the report and the previous dispersal modelling reports.
TB queried potential sites – AR advised 3 sites highlighted in 2015. PL said if
below Action Level 2 some of the previous concerns cease to be appropriate.
PL informed that the OSPAR wording is below upper level should require more
detailed assessment before depositing at sea – our concerns are fishing industry
and if nutrients in it. JR asked if he could have all that test requirements out by
end of tomorrow.
TB queried if we are asking CEFAS to evaluate the green areas and dispersal at
sea? KH said depending on sampling results -TB queried why? KM said that if
all untested samples are below level 1 it can be disposed at sea – if over 1 then
more rigorous assessment needs to be done as to where to go. PL asked if it is
better to ask them to do that in respect of 2 sites on basis if assessment says
not going to do any harm just off Peel it would save on costs. DC said that the
approach he would take is to gather everything and give to CEFAS and see what
they recommend/advise. KM said that DEFA would have to do some kind of
consultation with fishing industry. DC said that info received from CEFAS was
would draw mid-way point for sea disposal and noted DEFA have differing
opinion.
DC queried the area around MS1 – a lot of area is at flap gate level and below,
so the volume to be dredged is only 1000m3. JR suggested waiting to get
resampling data back before reviewing it.
AR
KMcH/
SR/PL
3.
Phase 1B update
JR told of 16,000 m3 capacity in lagoon and the need to think how we develop
1B, to avoid refilling the lagoon, if possible. JR outlined the new option of a
modification at the Energy for Waste plant. SR asked if he would try to do both
dredging to sea and land in one year – JR said that the disruption to the
harbour would be colossal if done in one year. Normal practice would be to
dredge the less contaminated areas first, however from a logistics point of view
to do river first would free up pontoon spaces to provide space to relocate boats
to – TB said that this has yet to be determined. TB confirmed that dredging will
be done over 2 years and the material not going to sea will go to site to
dewater – all needs to be properly evaluated. JR told of the need to be
pursuing both options, EFWP and Cross Vein. TB stressed that it is down to us
to drive forward every solution – TB wants someone from group to take
ownership of this. PL raised concern about how it works at EFWO as most of
the material won’t burn –TB noted all a part of appraisal – who is going to deal
with it – AR said that Ports will pick up.
JR reminded all that the independent review had effectively eliminated the
“Landfill” option at CVM, Phase 1B is down to 2 options – stabilisation of
material for Cross Vein and EFWP. JR suggested that next step being to
commission a start of design for stabilisation option at CVM.
TB queried where it sits in terms of process with Treasury and their previous
restriction to stop work on the project. TB’s view would be that it would be
reasonable to progress work on dispersal to sea, but don’t think we should be
instructing design of the Cross Vein solution until through the Treasury approval
loop.
Treasury do not have any of the independent review reports. TB queried what
we need to do to move Cross Vein forward, JR said Treasury have given
permission to commence environmental surveys at Cross Vein which has been
ongoing since the Spring. If we don’t start design now we will, in all likelihood,
not be able to empty the lagoon at end of year 1 dredging. TB stated that if
you do the disposal to sea first, we have bought ourselves another year.
AR noted aim for next Monday is to tell attendees where we are with the
options. KM asked if anything is going to be circulated ahead of the meeting –
AR said that we could circulate the slides.
AR/PC
AR
4.
Proposed Way Forward
Joint meeting to be held next week. We have tender with Land and Water
Services extended to end of October and in order to commence dredging in
January need to know by end of October. Looking at early October for
resampling results – could then be back to Treasury mid-October.
AR suggested to write to Andrew Sidebottom – TB asked AR to liaise with CEO.
TB said we should give them some update. TB told of concerns re instructing
Land and Water due to the October timescale. JR advised that there could be
an option for the contract with Land and Water Services to be varied for first
year to take to sea and then second year to build lagoon.
Re money JR explained if all material has to go to land looking at £7-7.5M to
dredge, dewater, stabilise – if some going to sea and some to Cross Vein Mine
looking at £4.7M. If EFWP for material not to sea looking at £3.6M – SR noted
development of EFWP is included. JR said cost of some material going to sea is
a lot cheaper (a tenth of the cost). Budget request in 2018 for phase 1A and
1B total was £2.485M and in April 2019 it was increased to £4.3M. If all to
EFWP cost is £4.5M.
TB noted some risk around EFWP costs. JR stated that none of the costs
include gate fees at EfWP and ash disposal fees at Turkeyland costs. DC told
that EFWP gives long term solution (Phase 2).
AR
JR will work on remit for 1B at Cross Vein Mine in the background.
JR
5.
Phase 2 update
JR told of being ready to put our feasibility study brief to get long term options
looked at. Will hold off until at least had initial feedback to Treasury.
AR asked if we have to check with Andrew Sidebottom re costs as going back to
ask for more CEFAS work and more sampling – noted independent review was
okayed by Treasury, not cost.
6.
Actions from previous meeting
TB re all parties meeting – all set for 23rd Sept.
Reports – all back – TB said well done to everyone for getting them
back.
JR action re transporting re Wardell Armstrong report – re differing
option – superseded. Not looking at taking option 5 any further forward.
Comments re CEFAS marine report – done.
JR action re SC remit – not done.
Examples where taken place – email with SR from CEFAS – SR CEFAS
have not come back with anything – if mechanical dredge there will able
a lot more settlement and could let settle for discharge – did not see
need for any additional - DEFA to come back.
JR re flap gate closing for 6 hours after dredging finishes – CEFAS have
come back re netting.
Re phase 2 – KM have quote to do work and project spec, but no one to
manage.
Re water licence – have water licence - await waste licence.
DEFA
7.
Any Other Business
AR asked who is coming to Monday meeting – DEFA unsure – TB said he would
like some continuity - KM to check with Richard Lole.
KM
8.
Next Meeting
Thursday 17 October 2019
Present:-
Ann Reynolds, Director of Ports (AR) (Acting Chairman)
Jeremy Reece, Senior Project Manager, DOI (JR)
Mark Kenyon, Harbours Ports Manager (MK)
Ports Project Coordinator, DOI (PC)
Karan McHarg, Director of Environment, DEFA (KMcH)
Paul Lenartowicz, Government Labs, DEFA (PL)
Dredging Consultant, Anthony Bates Partnership (DC)
Hydrographic Consultant, Anthony Bates Partnership (HS)
Personal Secretary, note taker
Apologies:-
Tim Baker MHK Chairman (TB)
Simon Renton, Environmental Protection, DEFA (SR)
Distribution
Attendees and apologies
Tim Cowin, DOI Highways (TC)
Stephanie Gray, Head of Waste Management DOI (SG)
Malcom Cowin, MUA (MC)
1.
AR opened the meeting and advised that TB had been unavoidably detained at
Tynwald. However he had asked her to Chair the meeting.
2.
Outcomes and recommendation from additional silt samples
AR advised that following on from the meeting held 23 September with DOI
and DEFA the remaining silt sample testing has been completed, with the
results fed through at the beginning of the week.
AR suggested that in reality, depositing silt at sea is no longer a
recommendation / feasible. DC advised on up-dating his report accounting for
the latest results and advised that undertaking further sampling or testing
would not be worthwhile.
DC & PL discussed amalgamating a number of sample results to provide
average readings that would be below CEFAS Action Level 2. DC believed this
to be acceptable but queried whether they would have to be combined and that
a determination would need to be made by this Board.
AR referred to the amount work involved to seek approval for sea depositing
for only 4-5000 tonnes, accounting for the cost/work and time, and questioned
whether it was a viable option. AR stressed that we need to keep to the
water testing is required to allow future depositing at sea to be agreed (See
previous note).
It was noted that that all of the above had covered 2, 3 and 4 of the
Agenda.
5.
Programme for approvals/contract award
JR advised if going to Turkeylands, to plan for approval by Summer 2020, top
allow transport of the first campaign of dredged material in Autumn 2020 to
allow further dredging in January 2021.
JR referred to some existing studies to be done that had been instrumental
using CEFAS, Arcadia and Aitkens and queried whether the previously
requested addendums following receipt of the latest test results is still
required? Atkins already starting work and a quote received from CEFAS for the
Arcadis report (not sure with CEFAS re on the marine side). AR advised that
CVM isn’t necessarily off the table and recommended that the reports should be
completed.
JR referred to one outstanding piece of work from the Manx Wildlife Trust for
Phase 1B, re: ecology survey at Cross Vein Mine. Approx half of the work is
complete. It was agreed to continue the work.
6.
Phase 2 update
DC queried progressing with Phase 2. It was noted that Treasury had
effectively put phase 2 on hold.
It was noted that the latest sampling results indicate results on the surface
samples are below CEFAS Action Level 2, with the exception of Lead and Zinc.
JR advised that within phase 2 we could take a look at the source of the Lead
and Zinc to target possible removal close to source, to continue sampling and
monitoring and work up designated target sites. AR stressed that it is not our
priority and that we will need to address phase 2 following approval to proceed
with Phase 1A.
KMcH advised on a meeting with the MUA to commission a review of the River
Neb catchment, working with JBA consultants who will put together
management options. JBA consultants are fully aware of the Peel Marina silt
issues. KMcH informed on waiting to hear for a further up-date spec to include
any environmental change. KMcH suggested of benefit for JBA to meet with
JR/AR or the Board to discuss their remit.
KMcH
7.
Actions from the previous Meeting held 16 September 2019.
Page 2 depth samples – JR done and DC up-dated the table.
Page 3 environmental assessment / risk assessment for disposal site if silt
deposited at sea - KM – noted not applicable.
Page 5 previous dispersal modelling report – AR - AR advised report was sent.
Closed.
Page 5 JR asked that test requirements out by end of tomorrow – KMcH, SR &
PL – done.
Page 5 materials that won’t burn – AR/PC – AR matter superseded, with
meeting to take place.
Page 6 circulate slides to the meeting – AR – AR advised that copies the actual
slides that were shown at the DOI/DEFA meeting will be circulated.
Page 6 AR to liaise with CEO re: write to Andrew Sidebottom – AR – AR
confirmed action outstanding and will up-date.
Page 7 – JR to work on remit re: CVM – JR – noted superseded.
Page 7 – water licence DEFA – JR advised on receiving waste licence for
lagoon. Closed.
Page 7 – DOI/DEFA Meeting 23 September 2019 – KMcH – noted PL and Peter
Duncan attended the meeting. Closed.
AR
8.
Any Other Business
(a) AR advised on a meeting with Colas next week and will discuss options
at the next meeting.
(b) Availability Nutrient Testing – PL advised it may be relevant to progress
and help with the Hydrological Risk Assessment re: Turkeylands. KMcH
informed that SR has some work for WPN suggesting that he may want
to speak with SG. AR suggested taking this piece of work internally.
KMcH suggested that Colas will probably be undertaking testing with
procedures and criteria in place and of the importance that both sets of
testing use the same method. PL agreed to email DC a paper.
(c) Treasury concurrence – KMcH queried when it would be likely that
Treasury will be considering our re-submission. AR advised that
Treasury have put the project on hold. Noted Independent Review is
now completed and, AR advised that we need to re-submit with final
recommendations, which currently (subject to further investigations) is
the silt (de-watered) and destined for Turkeylands. JR advised that
Treasury meet every week.
(d) Socotec - DC advised that samples are currently being stored by
Socotec and requested advice, noting that there is enough to do some
nurtrient testing but not enough to do WAC testing. DC advised that
Socotec to retain samples and nutrient testing requirements to be
authorised, once a price has been agreed.
PL
9.
Next Meeting
Thursday 14 November 2019 15.00hrs at Sea Terminal Building
Present:-
Tim Baker MHK Chairman (TB)
Ann Reynolds, Director of Ports (AR)
Jeremy Reece, Senior Project Manager, DOI (JR)
Mark Kenyon, Harbours Ports Manager (MK)
Ports Project Coordinator, DOI (PC)
Simon Renton, Environmental Protection, DEFA (SR)
Paul Lenartowicz, Government Labs, DEFA (PL)
Dredging Consultant, Anthony Bates Partnership (DC)
Hydrographic Consultant, Anthony Bates Partnership (HS)
Personal Secretary, note taker
Apologies:-
Karen McHarg, Director of Environment, DEFA (KM)
Distribution
Attendees and apologies
Tim Cowin, DOI Highways (TC)
Stephanie Gray, Head of Waste Management DOI (SG)
Malcom Cowin, MUA (MC)
1.
TB opened the meeting and apologised for the slight delay. JR advised that
KMcH had tabled apologies but had provided an up-date for the meeting.
2.
Phase 1B Update
JR referred to discussions that had taken place between DoI and Colas looking
at Turkeyland Old Quarry (TOQ) as a preferred site to deposit the silt and of a
proposal to link to the Problematic Waste Facility Project. AR pointed out that
discussions had started with Colas regarding the Turkeyland New Quarry (TNQ)
however it was agreed not to pursue and revert back to TOQ. JR advised that
TOQ had an overall potential capacity of 80Ktonnes and whilst the Department
were working to store Problematic Waste (PW) at TOQ, there was capacity
there for the Peel silt with possible capacity extension for the future.
JR explained that there had been concerns with landfill liners degrading over
time and the proposal to use 2 existing cells for silt and 1 for PW, with a future
extension for PW was felt to be a better method than initially constructing 3
cells for PW. It was noted that SR had met with Colas.
AR advised on bringing both strategies into one with a view to reducing costs
and having options to expand capacity in the future. TB informed he felt
comfortable with this proposal and it was a beneficial step in the right direction.
AR advised that NB was speaking with the CEO of Colas, to negotiate contract
linked to organic content, which is higher in finer silt and lower in course
gravels. MK advised the 2020 works are taking place out of season for algae
bloom to happen and will involve the more coarse materials, so the risk is low.
It was agreed that PL and DC discuss further in terms samples and types of
analysis. All agreed that the risk of algae blooms would not stop the job (e.g.
prevent dredging in April / May) and that steps are put in place to minimise the
risk.
3.
Phase 2 up-date
Re: DEFA / MUA Catchment Study – JR advised that KM had sent through the
scope that has been agreed from JBA, which outlined 8-10 weeks delivery time
– JR to circulate to the Board members. It is unknown when the 8-10 weeks
will start .
PC queried on needing to know what the MUA are going to do. SR suggested it
would be worthwhile for MUA to do some monitoring before any options are
considered.
AR suggested setting up a sub-committee to the PMPB to regularly report back,
in the same way that Phases 1A and 1B can regularly report back. TB agreed.
AR agreed to write to the MUA on the matter.
JR
AR
4.
Actions from previous Meeting No30 held 17 October 2019
(a) Page 2 -Note of DoI/DEFA Meeting – TB advised on further meetings
taking place with contents now superseded. No need to circulate notes.
(b) Page 3 -JR to check indication of £20 per tonne – JR advised cost was
built in.
(c) Page 3 -DC to forward proposed nutrient testing to PL – noted the
matter has now been covered.
(d) Page 4 -JR to sent WAC surface test results to AR – JR advised done and
copied to Colas.
(e) Page 4 -JR to speak to Steve Butler, Planning – JR advised still to do and
for Colas to give input
(f) Page 5 -JR to review the costed options spreadsheet – JR advised done.
(g) KM meeting with JBA – carried forward.
(h) Page 6 –AR to liaise with Andrew Sidebottom – AR advised done.
(i) Page 6 –PL to email DC re Nutrient Testing – noted done.
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
JR
Closed
KM
Closed
Closed
5.
Any Other Business
No new issues raised.
6.
Next Meeting
Thursday 12 December 15.00hrs STB
Noted 2020 dates to be calendared in remaining on the second Thursday of
each month.
Present:-
Tim Baker MHK Chairman (TB) – left 1630hrs
Ann Reynolds, Director of Ports (AR)
Jeremy Reece, Senior Project Manager, DOI (JR)
Mark Kenyon, Harbours Ports Manager (MK)
Ports Project Coordinator, DOI (PC)
Paul Lenartowicz, Government Labs, DEFA (PL)
Andrew Lees, Director of Agriculture & Lands, DEFA (AL)
Neil Gray, Environmental Protection Officer, DEFA (NG)
Dredging Consultant, Anthony Bates Partnership (DC)
Anthony Bates Partnership (AC)
Personal Secretary, note taker
Apologies:-
Hydrographic Consultant, Anthony Bates Partnership (MM)
Karen McHarg, Director of Environment, DEFA (KM)
Simon Renton, Environmental Protection, DEFA (SR)
Distribution
Attendees and apologies
Tim Cowin, DOI Highways (TC)
Stephanie Gray, Head of Waste Management DOI (SG)
Malcom Cowin, MUA (MC)
1.
TB opened the meeting and welcomed all to the meeting noting some new
attendees. Introductions round the table were made. It was noted that AL is
representing KM. AR advised that AL will be receiving an invite to attend the
Sub-Committee of the Peel Projects Board focusing primarily on Phase 2
works/initiates.
AR
2.
Phase 1A Update
DC up-dated the meeting by advising that the Design Team had met with Land
& Water Services (LAWS) today on Island to discuss contract details and
contract signing. It is currently planned to finalise the contract and LAWS to
sign by next Friday 20 December 2019, to be returned to DoI to sign.
DC referred to issues surrounding the level of Professional Indemnity insurance
that LAWS have recently highlighted and their issues in securing £5m PI cover.
LAWS have agreed to send an email to DC which will be forwarded to JR putting
forwards options for discussion on levels of cover, which hopefully will be
acceptable. TB queried if this was going to be an obstacle as we will not be
going back to Treasury. JR referred to insurance industry changes following
recent incident (e.g. Grenfell fire) that has affected the insurance market. DC
TB queried when will we be able to start dredging. DC advised dredging can be
done as soon as lagoon is built currently planned for 4 March 2020. TB queried
any risk around building the lagoon. DC informed it should be straight forward
and the long-lead item (clay liner) has already been ordered. TB confirmed that
the Minister is keen to progress.
TB queried how long to complete the first campaign. It was noted ca64 days
with a view to finish before TT week. NG advised DEFA were happy with this
timescale. PL advised that he could see no reason why the timetable cannot
go ahead. DC informed on having fisheries approval letter. The Waste Licence
only needs the contractor’s working plan to finalise. MK has drafted the
Harbours approval letter and will draft a circular for the Marina boat-owners (to
be released after press release w/c 6th Jan). JR advised on working with DC
and Steve Butler on satisfying the remaining planning conditions.
Harbours Preparation - MK advised until we have drawings of the areas of
occupation and phasing of works he felt that there is little benefit of going
public. MK advised on a meeting with Bob Stimpson (MUA) as they are planning
to carry out a phased work programme on East Quay. MK pointed to a few
logistics to keep an eye upon. AR confirmed that she has warned the Harbour
Users Association (HUA) of the impending works and requested assistance with
communications with boat-owners to move their boats as they had done in the
past. TB noted lots of engagement between the DoI and MUA. AR advised that
the MUA attend the Sub-Committee and are up to speed with the Project.
Campaign 2 - JR advised that this is currently planned for early 2021 (13
January 2021). TB noted if went to plan the works would run through 14 April
and queried any issues with this. DC advised there shouldn’t be as the
programme holds a little bit of breathing space within.
DC
MK
JR/DC
3.
Phase 1B
JR confirmed that work is progressing. However, as outline earlier, there is a
chance/risk that Turkeyland won’t be ready for November 2020 as currently
planned. JR advised that having taken advice from Colas and others who have
recommended that you shouldn’t build landfill sites during the winter months.
That said, JR added it still could fit in with our plan for the second dredging
campaign starting in January 2021. AR always good to aim for plan A and have
a plan B as a back-up. TB queried introducing incentives when negotiating the
contract either build a bonus payment or include penalties - JR agreed to take
forward. TB referred to the meeting with Colas where they appeared to be
ready to take on the project. TB stressed on the need to determine the type of
Planning Application Colas has submitted in terms of details especially if we
want it operational by November 2020. AR queried on delays with submitting
an outline planning application. TB suggested it could take twice as long as the
application has to be considered twice.
JR
4.
Phase 2 Up-date
JR reported on his attendance at MineXchange Conference in Aberystwyth,
which focused on remediation of heavy metal mines.
JR reminded the meeting the more we can do now, the better, as it takes time
for the river to naturally flush through. JR advised that our levels are lower
compared to some other sites in the UK featured at the MineXchange
conference. PL queried if the problem is coming from the surface could we put
something on top of the land (ie concrete or other material). JR suggested
using the clay liner from Peel Marina lagoon at CVM to stop the water seeping
through.
JR confirmed he will invite the Coal Authority over to give advice as they are not
looking for any professional fees, just flights and a hotel.
JR
5.
Actions from previous meeting No 31 held 14 November 2019
(a) Page 2 – AR to email NB re: Treasury Meeting and JR to speak to
Andrew Sidebottom, Treasury – done.
(b) Page 2 JR to share first part of the strategy report – done.
(c) Page 2 – AR to invite SR to speak with Colas – done.
(d) Page 2 – JR to speak with Stephen Parry on comms plan – done.
(e) Page 3 – JR to prepare brief on worst case if Treasury approval not
forthcoming – JR advised we got the approval however was otherwise
prepared. Done.
(f) Page 3 – PC undertaking water monitoring – done.
(g) Page 3 – PL and DC to confirm spec for nutrient testing – done.
(h) Page 4 – JR to circulate DEFA/MUA catchment study – done – JR advised
that KM is waiting to hear back from JBA regarding when planning to
start.
(i) Page 4 – AR to write to MUA on new Sub-Committee to PMPB – AR
advised on first meeting held 10 November 2019. AR added also has a
representative from DEFA.
(j) Page 4 – JR to speak to Steve Butler, Planning re: Colas and
Environmental Assessment – done.
(k) Page 4 – KM to meet with JBA - done.
KM
5.
Any Other Business
(a) DC attendance at PMPB – DC advised that he will be attending these
meeting in person more often than not going forward into 2020. DC
advised on giving a proposed schedule to JR.
6.
Next Meeting
Thursday 16 January 2020 – 1500hrs – STB Boardroom
Feasibility Study -
Project Board 12 12 2019 (2).pdf
1.
Welcome and Apologies
Apologies received from:-
Ann Reynolds, Director of Ports, DOI (AR)
BW confirmed with TB that it was acceptable for KK, SR & NG to attend the
meeting to answer any questions directly.
2.
Notes of previous meeting held 3 August 2017 were accepted.
3.
Progress discussion/update
SG referred to the Brett Associates Report, a copy of which was handed to
TB. SG said of the need for DEFA to talk to Brett Associates and said that
the issue we have is that the classification is dependent on the amount of
material that is analysed. SG recommended that, whilst this analysis is not
conclusive we (prudently) assume the material as ‘hazardous’ and speak to
DEFA about what is required, and also do additional analysis. KK said that it
is wise for the lab to consult with Planning regarding minimum assessment
requirements.
KK stated that previously an assessment was made to see if material was fit
for deposit at sea (sieve 2mm); landfill needs to look different criteria and
leaching rates on a net weight basis so therefore need to know moisture
content. SR said that of primary importance is that we know it has
hazardous content (primarily lead) so need to know what will leach and the
risk to the environment – looking for Hydrological Risk Assessment. SG
spoke about EWC Codes. NG spoke of stable, non-reactive hazardous waste
with the need to know if it will leach – KK said that leachate will have
contaminants.
SR said that a planning application will be required. If dry enough thinks it
will be acceptable to dispose of in WPN. SR queried IOM Waste Regulations,
further work to consider this.
TB said of the need to look at further tests and get Abilene Snowe to talk to
SG/KK etc.
TB summarised that we now had the following workstreams;
(1) Treatment trial (Abilene Snowe)
(2) Wrights Pit North planning application
(3) Removal of river deposits
(4) Geotextile bag storage.
Noted estimate of 20,000 cubic meters to be removed. SG said of the need
for indication of amounts for business case. KK said of the need to make an
accurate assessment with a bathymetric survey– and work out a deposition
rate from that. MK indicated that he was satisfied with the current method
used to calculate the current figures and future deposition rates were heavily
weather dependant.
SR said EPU to put in writing what we need to move forward with planning
application. SG to speak to Planning. Need to know indication for number of
vehicle movements. TB said to (prudently) do calculations on filling WPN
with as much as you can, based on what space is left over and above what is
needed for other materials.
TB advised that a business case needs to be done for the whole
solution, not just WPN. It is vital that we look at this as a holistic
process not individual items. TB also reminded the group about the
forthcoming Department P&S meeting on this subject and invited
BW to attend if available.
KK asked if there were any thoughts on a future facility. BW advised that
this would form part of the second part of the project.
TC presented chart outlining relative costs and advised that previously it cost
£285k to remove 10k tonnes.
The following figures were outlined:
Dumping at sea £7 a tonne
Landfill £22 a tonne
EFWP £86 a tonne
Abilene £95 a tonne
4.
Summary of potential way forward
Based on the above discussions, there is a potential way forward, which can
be implemented in 2018. Approx 20,000 tonnes of silt needs addressing.
Extraction to commence in early 2018 and to be done in a controlled manner
over a 2-3 year period (which suits harbour operations), using an extended 9
month per annum window (DEFA Fisheries likely to consent, subject to
appropriate ‘silt screen’ methodology).
Proposed solution has several elements:
1. “River channel area” (c.3,500 tonnes) can be extracted immediately as
it is not hazardous and could be washed and recycled (subject to
assistance from JCK/Colas). This would also partly mitigate the further
build-up of silt in subsequent years and would show early progress
2. Abilene Snowe trial (initial trial c.4,000 tonnes) – needs further
scientific/data analysis before commencement, however agreed that this
approach has merit. 40k investment to conduct trial is money well spent.
If successful it opens up some very interesting long-term potential
solutions, which could also deal with more of the accumulated volume of
silt. Trial must be progressed to either confirm or eliminate this
methodology. Trial to be conducted using “fresh” silt extracted from Peel
and process to take place on Fenella Beach car park. Target start date of
January 2018.
3. Wrights Pit North – dewatered silt can be disposed of to landfill at WPN
up until end 2019 and possibly 2020, subject to planning consent being
obtained (assumption is that consent can be achieved but planning
application MUST show that all non-landfill options have been explored
and fully considered). Currently the site is below capacity and, in the
absence of the silt being disposed there, would require additional material
to bring it up to the required restoration levels. Vital for DEFA that
material is appropriately dewatered – but more gradual approach now
proposed facilitates this.
4. Geotextile bags – can potentially be filled with extracted silt and utilised
for coastal protection around Kirk Michael area. Will require protection
with concrete to extend their useful life. Would fill the bags at KM.
Avoids disposing of the silt in other manners and has a double-benefit in
avoiding expenditure which would otherwise be incurred in due course on
coastal protection. Needs fully exploring.
Whilst further work is required on each of the above work-streams,
discussion provides confidence that, in combination, we have a potentially
viable solution that will deal with the legacy silt accumulation from 2018 in a
controlled and manageable way and could provide an ongoing long-term
solution, along with the other options previously identified. Initial focus is on
the immediate 2018 priorities and we can then re-assess the longer-term
solution in the light of the learnings from 2018.
Note: As part of this longer term planning we need also to assess whether
there is any potential in the Foxdale ‘deads’ aspect mentioned in 3 above.
Next meeting to take place on Thursday 12 October 2017 at 1500 hours.
Thereafter meetings also calendared for 2 November and 7 December.
1.
Welcome and Apologies
Apologies received from:-
Ann Reynolds, Director of Ports, DOI (AR)
Emma Killip, Project Manager, DOI (EK)
Stephanie Gray, Head of Waste Management, DOI (SG)
2.
Notes of previous meeting held 3 August 2017 were accepted.
3.
MK said that we need to face up to the fact that we are not going to be
commencing dredging on 1st January 2018. Even if a site was identified today
the preparation of the disposal site together with the requirement to procure
the physical work and mobilisation means that we are out of time
Referring to the recent P&S, TB said he was confident regarding the river
dredging. BW advised that SG had been referring to samples taken on the
river stretch where the gravel is. If we get the go ahead from operators at
Turkeylands there are ways and means of being able to start the process as
there is an element of recycling. BW said that there are smaller portions of
reusable materials further down the river flow and all depends on JCK/Colas
support. BW said that he would give a letter of comfort. TB noted to focus
on the channel. MK said that the best way to achieve any progress dredging
early next year is via a land based excavator working in the channel from the
West Quay. The chances of tendering for vessels to mobilise and be involved
were slim. BW said that he would be happy if we had concentrations that
would break-down like last time, ie 90% reusable. MK stated that the nature
of the material would change as progress was made down river reducing the
re-usable element.
BW said that during the operation in 2014 the water used to wash the
dredgings was considered to be contaminated water so a licence was given
for the liquid fraction to be tankered to a manhole in Balthane, and he would
be more comfortable if JCK would do it having been involved previously.
Meeting agreed for AR to speak to JCK about washing/recycling of material
from the river stretch. However, conclusion was that the area of the river
channel that BW was happy to be dredged was upstream from that which
AR
MK advised was crucial. Therefore, whilst feasible, it would not significantly
enhance the marina to dredge this area at this stage.
BW and MK spoke about the possibility of retaining the dredged material
within the marina in a contained area. Noted cost of piling was prohibitive
and impacted seriously on the marina operation and berth numbers.
TB advised that someone had contacted the Minister regarding the old
brickworks quarry further up the river. BW said that this has previously been
looked at, and was a viable option, but a lengthy process would be required
as the quarry was water filled and owned by a private landowner. MK said
that it would be the ideal site if the Government owned it, but was concerned
that the area may be considered a nature reserve. BW said that land
ownership is an issue but it is worthy of further exploration given its
proximity to Peel Marina and potential to pump direct and use a closed
system. TB to speak to AR to explore further.
MK highlighted the very high road lorry miles to take material to Wright’s Pit
North via a number of villages which in itself could have significant
environmental issues. It would be likely that delays would be caused by
consultations and safety concerns based on experiences during the
’Rockmount’ process.
MK spoke about the small bridge in Peel being rebuilt during 2018 and of a
temporary structure across the river which may cause access problems. TC
added that any temporary structure would be able to carry wagons. TB noted
river stone dredging is not going to do much to impact our problems overall
– BW said that we would not get support for further down the river since the
material lacked much in the way of re-usable aggregate. MK advised of
5,000 tonnes needing to be removed from the river stretch alone down to
the fish pass.
Workstream
TB said of the need to explore brickworks quarry.
TB
4.
Workstream updates
(a) Abilene Snow treatment trial
MK told of having received an email from the company that morning in which
Abilene Snowe described having been in contact with Kev Kennington, who is
now apparently happy with the process as described. Noted Non-Disclosure
Agreement signed. TB noted more work needs to be done. MK informed
that contracts/ planning/permissions/ mobilisation were all required and all
will take time. Business case will need Treasury approval.
(b) Wright’s Pit North
BW advised that the Environmental Protection Unit found the environmental
impact study from the original inert landfill application and with one or two
amendments felt the pre-existing EIA & GO would be suitable. It was noted
that SG wanted to go ahead with Fate and Path analysis.
MK said that the biggest impact on the environment is going to be the road
delicate from fisheries perspective.
5.
Management
TB said of the need for a more coherent proposition before establishing more
formal project management arrangements.
6.
Any Other Business
6.1 BW suggested BW/TB/Karen McHarg meet to see what KH would agree
to.
6.2 Turkeylands – noted AR doing work with Colas/DOI re lease
arrangements. BW advised that Neil Gray, new DEFA Environmental
Protection Officer saw the facilities at Turkeylands and asked why we are not
using this as they were in his opinion ideal. BW to speak further to NG. TB
to progress with AR.
Specific additional Workstreams:
(a) Turkeylands
(b) Brickworks quarry
(c) Rockmount
(d) Deads
BW/TB
TB/AR
7.
Date of next meetings
2 November 2017 then 7 December 2017
1.
Welcome and Apologies
2.
Notes of previous meeting held 12 October 2017 were accepted.
3.
Update on subsequent developments
(a) 18 October meeting
TB said that the Minister was keen to make sure we have momentum.
Noted that there was a P&S held in September which gave an update of
work which was very positive. Further Project Board meeting held on 12
October which refined thinking. Minister suggested we should meet and
‘take stock’.
(b) 27 October pink paper
Noted Minister/CEO/TB/AR met on 18 October to talk through options and
put together a coherent plan, where the Minister suggested to consider also
option of Peel Brickworks Quarry. TB said that the meeting resulted in a
pink paper which has been signed and will be circulated to this group.
Paper focused on options with clear preference to go for a solution which is
sustainable and fulfils environmental issues.
TB said there were three resulting short term preferred options; (1)
Geotextile coastal protections, (2) Mining remediation (the deads); and (3)
Abilene Snowe trial (or similar), which are where the Minister wants us to
focus. TB stated that if solutions are viable and successful for 2018 then
they are also applicable beyond 2018.
Three landfill options also need to be worked on as a contingency, however
of these Turkeylands is more problematic. TB said that whilst we have
landfill solutions possibly available now, they are not going to be going
forward long term. Longer term options around silt traps/canalisation also
need be looked at, however need to focus on present situation.
AR stated that part of meeting on 18 October was to look at ability to go to
Treasury for funds, and as part of the business case would need to take silt
Sec
4.
Workstream summary
(a) Geotextile coastal protections
To be run alongside coastal erosion environment. Led by DOI.
(b) Mining remediation (the Deads)
DEFA to take lead. BW said that if ‘deads’ proposal is successful, needs to
be disposal path for sediments.
(c) Abilene Snowe trial
DEFA to take lead. AR to do PIN (and business case once idea on funding
requirements known).
(d) WPN
SG to do detailed piece of work and scope out what is involved.
(e) Peel Brickworks Quarry
BW said of the need for this to be fully explored.
(f) Turkeylands
Contingency planning only.
(g) Longer Term Options
Engineering-solutions and landfill
DOI
DEFA
DEFA
SG
5.
Date of next meeting
7 December 2017
1.
Welcome and Apologies
Apologies
Bernard Warden, Director of Environment, Safety & Health, DEFA (BW)
2.
Notes of previous meeting held 2 November 2017 were accepted.
3.
Progress update on preferred potential solutions for 2018
TB said of there being three preferred sustainable solutions, plus other
fallback/long term positions, and stressed that the Minister wants us to focus
on the three solutions below.
AR said that she had met with JR as was looking for a coordinator. AR
stressed that Emma is a Project Manager who will be doing the day to day
management, ie they are 2 different roles.
(a) Geotextile coastal protection
AR advised of a meeting scheduled to take place next week with JBA
regarding scope of viability assessment with regard to the use of geotextile
bags. Discussion took place regarding issues and looking at using at Kirk
Michael.
JR queried JBA timescale – AR advised of information to be received by the
beginning of January. PS informed that there are 2 main areas to consider;
(1) do they provide the coastal defence we require; and (2) would they hold
the silt. There are some issues at Kirk Michael which make the use of the
bags challenging and would they perform what we need to do at that
location. Other area of concern is, would they contain the pollution? PS said
that he is not convinced they would.
SG advised that sampling has been done and contaminants are very small.
PS stated that geotextile bags have to have a permeability which will let 40
microns minimum to pass. PS said that material has to be reasonably
‘soupy’ and in order to make work can be used as underwater reef or in a
Actions
TB stressed the need for AR to push regarding the Expressions of Interest.
TB to talk to Abilene Snowe.
Find site in Peel.
MK/TC to view Mill Road area.
Progress update on other potential solutions
(a) Wrights Pit North
SG advised of having done a project plan and would take 12 months to get
planning permission including required background research and moisture
content analysis. Looking to contact JCK with regard to long reach
extraction for trial. Bore holes progressing. Joint bid with Highways. Work
in progress. Had meeting with DEFA regarding additional information who
are happy and fully aware of content.
TB asked when anything visible will be done – SG said of the need to
contact Peel Commissioners regarding scooping out which is one day’s work
and will also need to speak to Bride Commissioners. TB suggested a draft
communications plan was required before starting communicating – SG to
progress re WPN. Noted JR doing comms plan for whole project.
It was noted that facility is to close 31.12.19 therefore 12 months to put
material in. SG said that there is space for 19,000 tonnes – MK advised of
10,000 tonnes in Rockmount. SG said that the decision as to what goes in
is a political one.
(b) Peel Brickworks Quarry
AR advised that JBA are to look into this matter and that it would need
planning, environmental impact study, discussion with owners and viability.
Could use river into that area and re-route. Do have 850m worth of piping.
TB queried whether this could be a long term silt trap (settlement lagoon) or
long term disposal route.
(c) EFWP
Noted not progressed as a workstream. SG said that she has mentioned it
to EFWP and will speak to them next week about how much they would
need to do a trial. SG advised that an organics test is being done.
5.
2018 Approach
Extraction & Dewatering
TB said that whatever the chosen disposal route we will need a contractor to
extract silt. AR said she thought a framework had been commenced. AR to
check. TB queried lead time – TC said that if in framework it can be done
quite quickly, and over £10k have a different process to follow. Formal
tender over £100k and 3 quotes if under £100k. TB asked when we need to
start the procurement process to get material out of the harbour. TC said
that if the framework is in place we need to appoint someone off the list.
AR to check and send out results. JR advised that drafting takes time.
AR
6.
Any Other Business
JR to pull together Project Programme of all options and show critical path
and circulate draft for comments.
JR
7.
Date of next meeting
11 January 2018
1.
Welcome and Apologies
Apologies received from:-
Steve Butler, Head of Development Management, Planning Dept, DEFA
2.
Notes of previous meeting held 7 December 2017 were accepted.
3.
Progress update on preferred potential solutions for 2018:
(a) Geotextile coastal protection
AR advised that she has met with JBA to discuss geotextile coastal
protection, silt trap and Peel Brickworks Quarry regarding scope and viability.
Budget is £10k. AR said that JBA want to speak to DEFA and the Quarry
owners. JBA require 3 weeks from order being placed.
AR stated that JBA have queried if DEFA would approve of use of the quarry,
if recommended – BW said of the need for a discharge licence and that PAH’s
would be a problem, however PCBs in the marina are negligible.
AR advised of having received a report back from Colas with regard to
materials currently stored at Turkeylands – BW asked for a summary – AR to
send out. (Post Meeting Note – the report from Colas was not finalised so
once received AR to send out.) It was noted that the brief is still outstanding
for Kirk Michael.
(b) Mining remediation – The Deads
BW advised that SG was trying to set up a site visit for TB for the week after
next which should be seen as a positive. There is a large area that needs to
be covered. However strength of the off-road motorcycle lobby is a
disadvantage. BW said that it would have to be properly engineered and
landscaped. It was noted that contamination levels are 8 times more
concentrated than the material in the marina.
BW said of a cautionary note being the motorcycle lobby and potential safety
issues with unknown mining shafts. Environmental impact assessment would
take a year to complete. TB noted that the Deads approach has real
potential from a DEFA position. BW said that it has to seriously be
considered and it would get support as a solution for Peel silt.
TB said of being cautious but encouraged by this option. He also stated that
alternative arrangements could potentially be made to accommodate any
impact on the off-road motorcyclists – so that should not prevent us pursuing
this solution.
(c) Proposed treatment trial
AR referred to PIN-v-EOI approaches. JR said that he has spoken to 2
dredging contractors, one who has a specialist team. TB asked why we
cannot write a tender document – JR said that the issue is difficult as to what
to write now as we currently don’t know which option (ie process) to tender.
BW asked what would stop us from saying what we have and what we need
to achieve, ie below OSPAR1. MK said of the need to make sure DEFA are
happy with what we are doing, ie material down to recommended OSPAR
level. BW said that if contaminants are below OSPAR1 then DEFA would be
relieved. JR stated that we could find already proven methods. AR said that
we can ask in the PIN for figures/accounts, etc.
It was noted that AR has drafted a pink paper re PIN. TB said of the need to
do some proper PR when we undertake works. JR said of the need to think
about options regarding material at Turkeylands and Rockmount – TB said
that his only concern is we don’t lose focus on what we are trying to achieve
at Peel. TB said of ‘one hit’ or ‘phased approach’ to be outlined in the PIN.
JR said to not make too technical. TB stated that a press release has to be
good thing and of the need to have a big picture and then determine detail
once we have solutions.
JR asked is OSPAR1 is more or less restrictive if land based – SG said that it
is not specific as some are classed as hazardous. BW said that if reduced to
almost OSPAR1 the material could go to somewhere that takes asbestos. It
was agreed for the contact points for the PIN will be EK and JR. TB asked JR
to start an information pack.
AR to speak with Richard Parslow re press release.
JR
AR
4.
Progress update on other potential solutions
(a) Wright’s Pit North
(c) EFWP
Noted SG is currently doing work re WPN (12 month process). SG said
contaminant would have to be inert, however WPN does not have the
capacity to take all material. SG informed of progressing with background
information with DEFA. Issue is the moisture content of the silt.
Plan to take 4 scoops from the harbour and then drive around to be able to
determine the moisture content. SG said that there is a lake at the side of
WPN with works ongoing with regard to this, and also looking at average
composition of the silt. SG to do working methodology and contact JCK re
SG
long reach excavator. JCK continuing aggregate sampling (ie clay) for trial
with EFWP.
TB said of the need to excavate and take aggregate out and dewater, the
residue of which could have potential to go to EFWP. SG said that this would
have to be a long term solution. SG to explore with JCK. BW highlighted
inflexibility with Glashen Stream and possible issues with Derbyhaven.
(b) Peel Brickworks Quarry
To be covered as part of JBA works.
5.
Any Other Business
(a) Haulage framework
AR said that this includes carriage of contaminated dredged materials.
(b) Dredging period
TC highlighted that we are now in this year’s dredging period which runs to
June.
(c) Dredging framework
JR asked if we currently have a dredging framework in place. Noted there is
no existing framework.
(d) EFWP
JR said of the need to agree scope of EIA with development management
and consult.
(e) Abilene Snowe
TB said of having been chased by Abilene Snowe and of having explained
context. AR to contact Abilene Snowe re PIN details, and to progress
communications that way.
(f) Complaints – current state of Peel Marina
MK said that we are likely to start receiving a lot of complaints from Peel boat
owners as unlikely to get any dredging done in 2018.
(g) Short Term resolution
TB asked if we have any short term resolutions – AR said that a debris
screen has been requested by IOMHUA, and was to be part of advice
received from JBA. BW said that this would need input of DOI Engineering
colleagues.
CLOSED
AR
6.
Date of next meeting
8 February 2018
1.
Welcome and Apologies
Apologies received from:-
Bernard Warden, Director of Environment, Safety & Health, DEFA (BW)
Steve Butler, Head of Development Management, Planning Dept, DEFA
2.
Notes of previous meeting held 11th January 2018 were accepted.
3.
Progress update on preferred potential solutions for 2018:
(a) Proposed treatment trial – update of PIN (JR)
JR advised that the PIN has been released with closing date 14th February. It
was noted that the PIN was picked up by Dredging Today website which has
resulted in it going far and wide. EK said that there had been 12 responses
as of last week. JR stated that generally the responses are from
people/companies that seem to think they can do something. Issue may
come from whether works can be undertaken by land or water, as land
based works may require planning permission. JR spoke about being asked
about material composition, etc. JR asked who we want involved in
evaluating the responses – AR suggested that JR/MK/EK would be sufficient
– SG suggested someone from DEFA to also be involved – meeting agreed.
JR to arrange PIN review meeting
JR has approached three dredging / marine specialist consultancies for
quotes to help evaluate the responses, with the cheapest quote being just
under £5k to review up to 12 responses. However they have also included a
site visit and attendance at a Project Board meeting which AR/TB did not
think was necessary, ie a report would suffice. TB wanted a controlled
process and to come back with proposal of how to move forward with a
summary produced and high level overview. TB noted that from the PIN we
will end up with the information necessary to make a decision on the way
forward. JR said that the objective is to understand if a chemical cleaning up
process is viable which can then guide what we put into the tender
documents.
JR
on fees for affected boats in Peel Marina as per last year.
Interim meeting on 22nd February to be held to discuss the outcome from the
PIN. TB stressed that he does not want the programme to slip more than is
essential.
(b) Geotextile coastal protection and Peel Brickworks Quarry (AR)
AR advised of not having yet signed the scoping report with JBA re geotextile
bags, Peel Brickworks and silt trap. Report will take 3 weeks from placing
order and she expected the scope and price back imminently. TB queried if
Paul Salmon had looked further into coastal erosion – TC said not yet. AR
said that she has advised JBA that we need to know tomorrow and will then
look for another consultant to pick up if JBA are not forthcoming.
(c) Mining remediation – The Deads (BW)
Not aware of any progress being made. JR to liaise with BW regarding
possible support to ensure this can move forward
(d) Programme update
JR said that the programme is dependent on whether planning permission is
required or not and are currently on programme with the exception of JBA
reports. It was noted that SG’s work re Wright’s Pit North is also mapped.
Programme does not yet include any details on DEFA – The Deads or use of
geotextile bags.
TB asked if there if anywhere as a fall back – TC said possibly the quarry. JR
informed that in one of the example projects, silt was pumped 6km on land
and queried where we could drive/pump to. TC said that Poortown quarry is
under the Department’s ownership. MK said that it would require several
supplementary pumps to pump.
AR
JR
4.
Progress update on other potential solutions
(a) Wright’s Pit North
SG advised of having met with Steve Butler and agreed the scope of EIA.
However it will need full planning permission due to the nature of the
planning approval, as cannot vary the use of the land. It was noted that
originally the plan allowed 12 months for restoring the site. However it is
likely the PA will request permission to infill until June 2020, giving an
additional 6 month extension for filling (to June 2020). Hydrological risk
assessment (HRA) was mentioned and AR agreed Ports will fund £14k for
HRA. SG said of the need to get additional sampling from the Marina to
advise the HRA modelling.
(b) Peel Brickworks Quarry
To be covered as part of JBA works.
(c) EFWP
JCK happy to undertake trial. SG said that once material is washed it needs
to dry out and could then be drip fed into EFWP. SG asked about the nature
of the material on an annual maintenance dredge. TB stressed that this is
not going to give a solution for next year’s challenges. JR said that it needs
AR
to be worked on in the background. TB stated that EFWP is a longer term
solution, along with silt traps and canalisation.
5.
Any Other Business
(a) Peel Commissioners - AR advised of having sent email to Peel
Commissioners regarding the PIN and was waiting for a date to meet with
them. TB said of the need to consider how and when to communicate.
(b) Press release - TB queried when we need to put a summary out about
where the project is going, once decision has been made. JR to brief new
Communications Manager (Steve Parry).
JR
6.
Date of next meeting
8 March 2018
Interim meeting to discuss PIN to take place on 22 February 2018
1.
Welcome and Apologies
Apologies received from:-
Tim Cowin, Head of Highways and Asset Management, DOI (TC)
Stephanie Gray, Head of Waste Management, DOI (SG)
2.
Notes of previous meeting held 8th February 2018 were accepted.
Matters Arising from previous notes:
(a) Ownership of sections of land for possible use
JR said that EK/JR met with Paul Slinger regarding funding, with
recommendation being to make an application to Treasury for contingency
funding, which would not need to go through Tynwald for approval. It was
noted that TC has investigated the ownership of the land and has a name
and address, however no approach has yet been made to the farmer. TB
noted that if a land based solution is required, it is worthy of exploration. JR
said that Fenella Beach car park could also potentially be used – MK said that
this could be controversial.
(b) Capital Procedures
JR/EK discussed this with Paul Slinger and concluded that as this project is
not a typical civil engineering / building project, the full capital procedures for
civil engineering works would not need to be implemented. However some
reporting procedures would have to be followed and will be agreed with PS
when funding is agreed.
(c) Initial Business Case
Noted AR forwarded a copy of the initial business case for reference to JR.
(d) JBA
AR advised of having originally met with JBA but the scoping of the works
had been delayed by JBA as the person who was writing the scoping
Closed
document was off sick. AR noted she was not happy with the scoping
document, as it did not fully reflect our requirements. After subsequent
meeting with JBA, a purchase order will be issued today with works to
commence on Monday and will take approx. 4 weeks. AR has approached
the landowner to advise that they will be contacted by JBA. JBA will also
contact BW. TB stated that we have taken a wide approach and need to be
clear at looking at all options.
(e) Mining remediation – the Deads
BW advised that a visit is planned for tomorrow to see/look at the potential.
(f) HRA funding
AR informed that a purchase order has been supplied for the hydrological risk
assessment. AR said that she has queried with SG what happens if we need
anything further.
(g) Press Release
JR said that he has spoken to the DOI Communications Manager (SP) to give
an update and that he is thinking about how to approach. It was agreed to
await definitive decision of works before publicising.
AR
Closed
3.
Evaluation of Prior Information Notice
JR outlined the background for the PIN and reminded all that Abilene Snowe
approached the Department regarding their process and wanted us to fund a
trial, which would tie us in commercially for the remainder of the material.
This would require an FD8 waiver on the basis that Abilene Snowe were the
only potential supplier and the PIN was developed test the market to
establish if they were the only company able to provide such a service.
The PIN asked interested companies to tell us about their capabilities and
how they would tackle Peel Marina and were asked to complete a pre-
qualification questionnaire. 18 submissions were received, 12 of which were
of significance, and 6 from local companies submitting their interest (which
were noted). 12 submissions were looked at in detail. Each company was
asked to indicate if they were interested in dredging, treating or both, with
majority able to do both. Also asked to tell us would they be able to treat
the contaminants to below OSPAR level 1 and could they treat on land or
sea. Basically, the summary is that it was questionable of being able reduce
contamination below OSPAR levels to dispose at sea, but reuse / disposal on
land appears to be achievable.
All were asked to indicate whether treatment could be undertaken on water
(pontoon / barge) or on land. All but one indicated land was required, so
establishing seems to be a requirement to be able to move forward.
BW said that he has met colleagues and tried to get some answers and has
looked at various options and the impediments and unfortunately most of the
options being considered would need full planning permission. AR queried if
material could be dredged, treated and then taken away, ie if only temporary
would planning permission still be required. BW confirmed there is a 30 day
threshold for “temporary”. BW advised that proposal should be put forward
review all ongoing options again in 2 week’s time at the next meeting. TB
did not want any option closed down until we know more of the future.
4.
Progress update on other options:
Wright’s Pit North
SG advised, via email sent prior to meeting, that the Hydrological Risk
Assessment has been placed and awaiting confirmation from DEFA that the
sample locations proposed are adequate before completing the sampling
methodology statement and organising work. SG/AR to meet with Peel
Commissioners in advance to advise of the works. NG said that in the next 2
weeks we need to know if the lab has bought the bit of kit and relative
samples can be taken from the harbour and western lake.
DEFA
AR/SG
5.
Any Other Business
No matters raised.
6.
Date of next meeting
23rd March 2018
1.
Land Update
JR advised that the land owner of the fields is [redacted], and that he has
been in touch with the Minister with regard to meeting. JR has spoken to
MUA to find out some background information and discovered that it was not
the easiest of dealings with the landowner, and also that planning was an
issue due to a neighbour. JR said that the Department should consider
options for leasing the fields, as well as purchase.
JR outlined an additional option a field which is owned by [redacted], and
access could be created through the MUA site. TB queried if able to pump to
this area – JR & HS confirmed it can be done but preferred method being to
dredge with a closed bucket, as the volume of water increases significantly if
pumped and all water will need to be treated before return to river / marina.
DC raised concern about the use of some flocculents and the need to look at
the environmental impacts.
2.
DEFA PAPERS
Remediation Paper
DC advised that a working trial is being assessed and that works would have
to be undertaken to engineering the site at the Foxdale Deads and include
blocking up some drains. Forestry have worked on Environmental Impact
Assessments which would have to be concluded.
HS queried salt content – DC said that this would have to be looked into,
however there is an option to put top soil with the appropriate Ph content to
cap the silt. TB reminded all that the land is heavily contaminated already, at
a higher concentration than the silt material, and that the land is the source
of the majority of heavy metals that end up in Peel Marina. DC explained the
issues of vehicles churning up the soil and that water samples were taken
last week which showed lesser where soil is not churned up.
JR queried the timescales for geological and EIA survey. DC said that EIA
species will need to be looked at and that a breeding birds survey would take
the longest period of time, with the need to start as soon as possible, with
project costs.
TB queried pumping to the field and drying out and also whether it needs to
be kept covered – HS confirmed it is very rarely covered as some of the
drying process is evaporation. TB asked, if dried out, can the material be put
straight onto the Deads – all agreed it appeared feasible.
JR highlighted the need to manage rain water run off, so the drainage water
treatment process (capture & treatment, if necessary) will be required
throughout the length of the drying out process.
JR told that Neil Gray was to look at leachate tests at Rockmount and could
be based on samples taken at Rockmount. TB stated that if we can acquire
use of the privately owned land then we potentially have a solution.
HS said that if renting the land, the land owner will require indemnity due to
remaining contamination and testing should be done on the land prior to use
to be used as a baseline.
JR said of assessment of costs missing. HS estimated that this process is
approx. a quarter of the cost of chemical treatment process. JR/TB agreed
that the way forward was to identify feasible options, then costs estimation
carried out.
JR queried how far material could be pumped – HS said one kilometre,
however may need an interim pumping station, if up hill. TB asked if the
contactor would provide this, ie from dredging to delivering to field – HS
replied yes.
All discussed the need for a package of works to offer to the market, and
once agreed with the [redacted], could potentially go for Early Contractor
Involvement due to the need for detailed site development for planning.
HS advised to think about the dredged material as a resource, rather than a
waste, ie remediation material.
TB confirmed the following approach;
Phase 1 – Dredge, pump, dewater & hold
Phase 2 – Transport, spread & remediate
Once this has been developed a bit further, funding requests should be
submitted for all the works (including The Deads remediation works by
DEFA).
TB requested that HS develop an outline proposal for the field site, to allow
discussions with [redacted] and planning. JR / HS to discuss timescales and
costs separately
All to
note
HS
Next Meeting
Next full Project Board Meeting – 12th April, 3pm – West 1, STB
Number
Date meeting took
place
Date meeting
originally scheduled
(subject to
rearrangement)
Comments
1
4th May 2017
-
Inaugural meeting of Project
Board
2
-
25th May 2017
Meeting cancelled
3
29th June 2017
Options attachment enclosed
4
3rd August 2017
3rd August 2017
5
7th September 2017
7th September 2017
6
12th October 2017
12th October 2017
7
2nd November 2017
2nd November 2017
8
7th December 2017
7th December 2017
9
11th January 2018
11th January 2018
10
8th February 2018
8th February 2018
11
8th March 2018
-
Interim meeting to discuss
PIN calendared for 22nd
February 2018
Meeting mislabelled as
‘Meeting No 10’
11A
23rd March 2018
22nd February 2018
12
12th April 2018
12th April 2018
13
3rd May 2018
14th June 2018
13A
16th May 2018
-
Interim meeting to update
and discuss proposals
14
14th June 2018
15th June 2018
15
12th July 2018
12th July 2018
16
16th August 2018
9th August 2018
17
13th September
2018
13th September 2018
18
11th October 2018
11th October 2018
19
8th November 2018
8th November 2018
20
20th December 2018
13th December 2018
21
31st January 2019
31st January 2019
22
14th February 2019
14th February 2019
23
14th March 2019
14th March 2019
24
11th April 2019
11th April 2019
25
9th May 2019
9th May 2019
26
13th June 2019
13th June 2019
27
11th July 2019
11th July 2019
28
8th August 2019
8th August 2019
29
16th September
2019
16th September
2019
30
17th October 2019
17th October 2019
31
14th November 2019
14th November 2019
32
12th December 2019
12th December 2019
Slides relating to a feasibility
study attached
Full Response Text
Feasibility Study Remit
Objective:-
Best solution to deal with ongoing problematic silt arriving at Peel Marina,
taking account of:-
•
Cost
•
Environment
•
Operational impact
Feasibility Study Remit
Options:-
•
Canalisation of Peel Marina
•
Removal / collection of contamination at source and allow silt to be deposited at
sea (below Cefas Action Level 2 threshold)
•
Working with Cefas to develop Isle of Man specific regional “action levels” based
on background geological concentrations and ecotoxicological assays.
•
Silt reduction (link with MUA / DEFA work on catchment management plan)
•
Silt traps
– River Neb close to marina
– Utilising the former peel brickwork quarry
– Foxdale area
– Divert river Neb to create natural siltation area
•
Disposal through Energy from Waste Plant
•
Installation of cut-off wall on river bank – to isolate ground contamination from
historic fuel oil leak at the Peel Power Station from the River Neb
Surface silt sample results
Lead exceeds Cefas Action Level 2 in 60% of surface samples
Average of all Lead levels exceeds Action Level 2 thresholds
Zinc exceeds Cefas Action Level 2 in 10% of all samples
In order to ensure maintenance dredging material can be deposited at sea in future, Lead levels must be
reduced and Zinc levels examined
(Data – Ecospan silt samples – Summer 2019)
Surface Layer
Sample
Arsenic
Cadmium Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
1
23.7
1.75
23.1
70.7
0.06
24.2
496
439
2
19.6
1.6
24
108
0.14
23.1
601
557
3
21.3
2.33
20.9
65.2
0.09
21.3
743
554
4
16.9
0.68
22.8
30.9
0.03
23.8
277
253
5
31.1
2.93
26.2
66.8
0.1
26.1
948
667
6
40.3
3.65
31.8
75.7
0.11
31.5
1060
797
7
12.3
1.42
33.5
56.2
0.07
32.8
206
237
8
34
3.6
28.5
72.5
0.12
27.5
1037
797
9
37.6
3.59
32.2
74.5
0.08
29.2
976
780
10
38.1
3.27
32.9
76.3
0.1
30.8
1099
751
11
17.1
1.06
18.4
31.2
<0.015
20.6
286
258
12
26.2
2.12
20.2
68.8
<0.015
23
916
640
13
18
1.36
29.1
60.6
<0.015
26.8
444
417
14
23.7
0.95
20.9
67.6
<0.015
22.5
729
512
15
17.6
0.59
34.2
30.2
<0.015
34.2
194
265
Water Quality
Lead concentrations in water
1
730 micrograms / l
2
34 micrograms / l
3
118 micrograms / l
4
26 micrograms / l
5
less than 5 micrograms / l
6
Less than 5 micrograms / l
7
6 micrograms / l
Highest concentrations at site 1
indicate source is Cross Vein Mine
area
(Data – 31/10/18 DEFA sample results)
Water Quality
Zinc concentrations in water
1
150 micrograms / l
2
382 micrograms / l
3
249 micrograms / l
4
155 micrograms / l
5
less than 20 micrograms / l
6
77 micrograms / l
7
32 micrograms / l
Highest concentrations at site 2
indicate source is above Kerrowdhoo
Stream / Upper Foxdale
(Data – 31/10/18 DEFA sample results)
Water Quality
Zinc concentrations in water
1
125 micrograms / l
2
22 micrograms / l
3
33 micrograms / l
4
less than 20 micrograms / l
5
less than 20 micrograms / l
6
261 micrograms / l
7
240 micrograms / l
Highest concentrations at site 6 and
7 indicate source is or above
Kionslieau Reservoir
(Data – 27/11/19 DOI sample results)
Cross Vein Mine
Site 1 – run off undisturbed by off-
road bikes.
Suspended Solids less than 10
milligrams / l
Site 2 – run off disturbed by off-road
bikes.
Suspended Solids 288 milligrams / l
Site 3 – adjacent to road and run off
disturbed by off-road bikes.
Suspended Solids 192 milligrams / l
Lead Results
Site 1 – 2,153 micrograms / l
Site 2 – 10,940 micrograms / l
Site 3 – 8,525 micrograms / l
(Data – 15/03/18 DEFA sample results)
Metal Mines
Possible pathways:-
•
Surface runoff from waste areas
•
Mine water from adits & shafts
•
Groundwater seepage
Metal Mines
No precise models available to predict exact change in water quality or change to silt
content in marina
Monitor -> design -> implement -> monitor and evaluate (repeat as necessary)
Changes take time to settle down (1-3 years) – water quality likely to deteriorate
before improving
Impact on silt – How to ensure it is below Cefas Action Level 2 after Spring 2021
dredging?
•
Remove off-road bikes & enforce
•
Determine sources at Cross Vein Mine & Kionslieau Reservoir?
•
Consider silt traps in Foxdale area to capture Lead & Zinc?
•
Coal Authority support?
Other Actions
•
Monitoring shellfish and fish meat throughout the year and every year to
determine natural variability both seasonally and spatially
•
Monitoring of sediments outside the Harbour entrance (pre and post
dredging)
•
Assessing hydrocarbon contamination in terms of the Goram Test
Page 1 Peel Marina Project Board meeting 12.4.18
CONFIDENTIAL
Department of Infrastructure
Notes of the Peel Marina Project Board Meeting No 12
held 12th April 2018 at 1500 hours at the Sea Terminal
Present:-
Tim Baker MHK Chairman (TB)
Ann Reynolds, Director of Ports, DOI (AR)
Mark Kenyon, Ports Manager, DOI (MK)
Jeremy Reece, Policy & Strategy, DOI (JR)
Bernard Warden, Director of Environment, Safety & Health, DEFA (BW)
Tim Cowin, Head of Highways and Asset Management, DOI (TC)
Personal Secretary, note taker
FOR ACTION
Welcome and Apologies
Apologies received from:-
Emma Killip, Project Manager, DOI (EK)
Stephanie Gray, Head of Waste Management, DOI (SG)
Preferred option to deal with silt already in Marina
JR told that the preferred option now is to look at dredging the silt, store to
dewater (approx. 12 months) and then move the dry material to the Foxdale
Deads. Advantage with this solution is that it would allow the dredging to
take place in the January to May 2019 window, and will give DEFA the time
to undertake the necessary monitoring at the Deads. TB said that the 12
month drying time is a broad brush figure as do not have to get the material
to a specific dryness before moving.
JR said that in conversations with MUA and landowners the Department has
intimated 12 months and the more the silt is dewatered the less risk there is
of liquid being lost during transportation. Likely cost of this method is a
quarter of the cost of chemical treatment, and is a simple, more cost
effective method.
Regarding potential sites, JR told of having spoken to [redacted], who has
indicated that he is interested to talk about the field by the power station
[redacted]. JR said of being able to pump into the field, form a bund and
then use the slope of the field to allow the material to drain, with water
either going to the MUA stream or the river itself or back to the marina. JR
stated that some of the drying process is through evaporation and therefore
the material would not be covered. TB said following the recent meeting
that [redacted] had the understanding of the wider good for the Peel
community and was also interested if the field could end up as a place of
employment for Peel, i.e. with improved road access.
JR advised that the access to the site is currently via Mill Road. Extension of
the existing access road onto A27 Glenfaba Road, owned by the
Page 2 Peel Marina Project Board meeting 12.4.18
Commissioners, would require improvements to the junction with A27 – TC
informed of having information on the junction but no costings. TC to review
design and provide costings.
JR told of possible road issues if using the Mill Road access, with restrictions
alongside the House of Manannan. BW said that the performance of the
transport contractors was good last time and so it is doable.
JR outlined a second option was to continue the piping up the river and use
land beyond the Brickyard quarry. The field immediately adjacent has a steep
slope and there is another field (relatively flat) adjacent to the MUA Glenfaba
House STW site. As this is further up the hill, it would require additional
pumps. TB said if the local resident was an issue we could look at using the
top part of the field only. JR confirmed of potentially having 2 feasible sites.
AR asked if planning permission would be required for both land suggestions
– TB informed that the Power Station field is zoned for industrial use.
Dewatering process is currently thought to only require a temporary planning
permission, as it will be completed within 2 years.
Anthony Bates Partnership Lagoon report outlines possibility of using
geotextile bags during dewatering process, it visual restrictions imposed by
planners. There is a cost and could potentially slow the process down.
Minister Harmer has been requested to set up a meeting with the owners of
the field adjacent to Glenfaba STW site. JR to chase
JR to go back to [redacted] to advise the material will fit in one field, meet
the Quarry owners and Planning.
BW asked if any research has been done regarding buried cables – TC said
that the MUA were looking to put pipes for the treatment works through the
heritage trail and therefore plans are available.
JR said of the need to work with BW regarding approach, licensing and water
testing etc. BW said that tests are being done and now have much better
resource available and that the Deads is being viewed as a viable option. It
was noted that the silt from the marina has an eighth of the contamination of
the material already at the Deads. BW said that the material could become
too dry and make handling more difficult?
Contracting Strategy: JR said of the need to look as one big contract, and
that the transport from dewatering site to Deads could be the break point.
TB queried if there will be maintenance of the material stockpile required -
MK said that it depends on drying process. JR said that the fields need to be
put back to their original state. TB stated that, although not currently
knowing which field to use, could start to draft contract/tender. JR said of
the need to decide on how we will project manage the scheme. BW advised
that another piece of significant work would be the survey on the disused
mines etc. JR said that a separate meeting with DEFA to map out the
environmental side is required, including the full EPU team.
TC
JR
JR
Page 3 Peel Marina Project Board meeting 12.4.18
AR advised of having some material stored at Turkeylands, and if moved
could release funds for leasing/storage of field. TB said of not wishing to
move it to the field, but moving it to the Deads could be an option. JR said
that this could be identified as a saving in the application for contingency
funding.
Progress update on other options
(a) Wrights Pit North – SG sent in comments to advise that the methodology
for sampling has been agreed and await confirmation from contractor re
dates for sampling to advise HRS. Project spec for additional Point of Ayre,
CHs drafted. Site to be surveyed.
(b) Energy from Waste Plant – SG sent in comments to advise within the
time constraints this will be progressed once WPN is underway.
(c) Material treatment and recycling – JR said that this is still available as an
option. Draft PIN response done, however need some information from
DEFA.
Long Term Options
(a) & (b) Geotextile coastal protection and Peel Brickworks Quarry and Silt
Traps – AR advised that the JBA report should be available before the next
meeting.
(c) Glenfaba field – JR informed of being part of the discussions with MUA as
to whether some material could be used to fill hole at Glenfaba site. TB said
that this adds complexity.
Funding & Project Management
TB said of currently not having a defined project or money. JR said of the
need to write a paper to Treasury (Contingency Fund) and of the need to
establish costs ahead of being set up and need to understand what funding
DEFA is looking for. BW said that after the two meetings mentioned earlier
we will be in a better position to identify the project and funding
requirements.
JR said of the need to look at who is going to manage the project, ie internal
or external/tech specialist. TB advised of requiring conversation with CEO
and was concerned about any delay resulting in loss of focus and
momentum. JR said that if internal will need technical input. JR informed
that he would like to award contract and start on site in January 2019.
Regarding land issues, JR said that we may need to find a small space for a
compound for the dredging contractor – MK/AR said of previously having a
site hut in the boat park. AR advised of having 800m worth of piping – TB
queried the contractor bringing their own. BW stated that if help/advice if
needed the H&S team would be forthcoming.
Page 4 Peel Marina Project Board meeting 12.4.18
Overall programme update
Programme to be updated.
TB noted of requiring conversations with the Quarry owners and [redacted],
planning pre-application discussions and meeting with DEFA.
Referring to the procurement side, TC said of window being at the start of
the year, and queried if we need to have the contractor in place early. JR
said that we could put information out to those who expressed interest in the
PIN. MK said of the need to wait until we have a firmer understanding of the
land commitment – JR said that this would be in the next 2-3 weeks. TB
asked for information to be started to be put together. It was noted that
the project is now main steam dredging works. TB asked if we are going to
be writing back to those who responded with an update. TB queried
expression of interest phase as may get people that did not respond to the
PIN. JR to talk to procurement. TB stressed that early contractor
engagement is key and the more we can do in advance the better. TB said
of the need for early engagement with procurement and sending an update
letter to PIN responders.
JR
JR
7.
Any Other Business
JR told of an individual with an interest in the subject wanting to talk through
the history of Peel marina and that a useful view was that the water in the
Neb comes from Glen Helen and Foxdale. BW said that the water quality of
the lagoons at Rockmount showed some significant metal figures which
comes from Glen Helen. One option would be to divert the river when it gets
to the marina. He also mentioned university/academic research and that
we should approach a university to look at.
JR queried if we should be looking for someone to focus on the long term
solutions. TB said of the need to concentrate on 2019/20.
TB noted that canalisation has not gone off the agenda.
[Response truncated — full text is 385,256 characters]