PaintSquare.com


The First Word in Protective & Marine Coatings

A Product of Technology Publishing / PaintSquare
JPCL | PaintSquare News | Durability + Design | Paint BidTracker

Get Paint BidTracker's Bridge Painting Opportunities of 2015

Paint and Coatings Industry News

Main News Page


Paint Waste Halts $4.2M Bridge Project

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

More items for Environmental Controls

Comment | More

A dispute over spilled lead paint chips, containment issues and other problems has stopped a $4.2 million bridge project cold in Oregon, where commuters have spent much of the summer enduring tie-ups around the idled worksite.

Work to replace the 53-year-old Morrison Bridge’s steel grating in Portland had barely begun in mid-June when problems arose between Multnomah County and the contractor, Conway Construction, of Ridgefield, WA.

 Morrison Bridge

 Cacophony / Wikimedia Commons

Work on the $4.2 million Morrison Bridge project has been idle for weeks.

Now, the county has given repeated notice that it intends to fire the contractor over multiple operational, safety and environmental problems.

Containment Breaches

In a Pre-Enforcement Notice on July 19, the state’s Department of Environment Quality informed Conway that the project’s containment system had been breached twice: on July 6-7, by burning material from cutting on the steel deck; and on July 17, from the weight of rainwater filling the containment structure.

On both occasions, DEQ said, plastic containment tarps dumped paint waste containing heavy metals and contained rainwater into the Willamette River.

The county issued a Stop Work Order after the first breach. After that, the company fixed the tears in the containment and resumed work. A second Stop Work Order was issued after the second breach.

DEQ called the breaches a Class 1 environmental violation—the state’s most serious category, reserved for significant harm or the risk of significant harm. The agency ordered immediate cleanup and remediation, dismantling of the old containment system and installation of a new, state-approved system.

Company Responds

David J. Conway, president of Conway Construction, said his company had tried repeatedly to resolve the disputes.  He said that neither the county nor DEQ had produced any evidence that contaminants were released into the river.

“We just want to get back to work and try to complete as much of the project as possible with what little good weather remains,” Conway said in an email Tuesday (Aug. 30).

Regarding the July 17 incident, Conway gave this account.

On Friday, July 15, the company “vacuumed what little debris that had accumulated in the tarps,” Conway wrote. “The forecast that day called for 0.10 inches of rain over the weekend.”

The next day, it rained about 0.07 inches, and the company “inspected the tarps to insure they were draining.”

On Sunday, July 17, said Conway, “it rained a record amount. Conway was there pumping water, but the north end of the east tarp developed a tear and water spilled into the river. This tear occurred under the traffic side of the bridge, not the area over which Conway was working.”

On Monday, July 18, Conway was directed to stop work and was forced to lay off 14 employees.

‘Cadillac of Containment’

Conway also released an Aug. 9 letter from his company’s attorneys, noting that the contractor had revised its schedule to accommodate the county’s Dec. 1 project deadline.

Regarding containment, Conway said Multnomah County had initially approved the tarp system. Nevertheless, after the July 17 incident, attorneys Joseph A. Yazbeck Jr. and David H. Bowser say, the company submitted a new containment plan that replaces the tarps with an engineered hard deck—”the Cadillac of containment options,” they call it.

Conway said his firm had been waiting a month for clarifications and revisions to that containment plan—a response it finally received on Aug. 25. “This is an unreasonable delay,” and the long-awaited revisions were minor, Conway said.

Conway said his firm had completed contracts for eight bridges in three states last year alone. This year, he said, the company completed a bridge near Waldport, OR, that “included more rigorous containment specifications than the Morrison Bridge.” That work drew a glowing written review, which Conway produced, from the state Department of Transportation.

Termination Notice

On Aug. 2, the county notified Conway that it intended to terminate the contract. The county cited:

• Significant project delays that have left Conway “without a plan or any realistic means for meeting the schedule.”

• The release of toxic materials into the Willamette River. “Conway’s violations are directly contrary to the County’s ‘no effect memo’ submitted to the Federal Highway Administration to secure permission to perform the Project,” the county said.

• The DEQ notice regarding “failures of Conway’s containment system, which failures allowed lead paint chips and contained water (without limitation)” into the river.

• Failure to provide the county with required documentation when transporting tarps from the failed containment system.

• Delays in river traffic “by failing to respond to call outs from county personnel.”

• Partially blocking the river with the containment system.

• Violating the stop-work order by performing work at the site on two occasions.

Conway responded, in part:

• Any impediments in navigation were the result of “slight and infrequent hiccups” in communication that have been corrected and do not merit termination;

• The tarps were tested by a third-party lab—with sampling locations chosen by the county—and found to be free of contaminants; and

• The stop-work order was not violated. One employee lowered a cage “to write on it in sharpie” and a third-party vendor, unaware of the order, was ordered off the site when the company learned of his presence, Conway said.

Cure Plan Rejected

After a Termination meeting Aug. 10, the county informed Conway that its “cure plan” for the project was inadequate.

The county “does not feel at this time that Conway has presented a complete plan to fix all of the problems that caused the county to issue the notice of termination in the first place,” wrote Jon P. Henrichsen, PE, Engineering Services Manager for the county Bridge Division.

The company was granted an extension to provide a plan that includes:

• Addressing all safety, environmental and work quality risks from an accelerated work schedule;

• An updated budget showing the cost of all projected cost increases;

• A revised safety plan; and

• Full implementation of a new containment system approved by DEQ and the state DOT.

“Finally,” wrote Henrichsen, “Conway must commit to working with the County to address disputes in the field,” including having a project manager or superintendent on the site at all times.

$10,000 per Week

Conway was the low bidder to replace the slippery steel grating on the bascule deck with fiber-reinforced polymer panels on the drawbridge’s leafs, The Oregonian reported.

The company has until Friday (Sept. 2) to get its plan together. Conway said Tuesday that his firm was about to submit the plan.

Conway says the standoff has cost his company $10,000 per week.

Multnomah County spokesman Hank Stern told reporters:  “We want this thing to get done; that’s why we’ve extended the deadline to Sept. 2 for them to respond. We want to resolve this, believe me. We want the bridge open and ready for traffic.”

   

Tagged categories: Bridges; Containment; Lawsuits; Lead; Paint and coatings removal; Paint disposal; Project Management

Comment from Jef Verhelst, (8/31/2011, 3:37 AM)

A project like this is not a one sided stand/approach, unless the owner,engineer is willing to participate in all dialogue of this project. Succesfully completion of a project is null and non existing.!!!


Comment from James Johnson, (8/31/2011, 8:33 AM)

It sounds like a county and DEQ gone wild. Either that or the contractor got on the bad side of some local politician. The tarp system was approved, there is no proof any contaminants entered the river, the county themselves held the project up for a month - From what is written it sounds like the county has made up their mind to get rid of the contractor, whether he did anything wrong or not.


Comment from Chuck Pease, (9/12/2011, 7:12 PM)

always in starting a bridge job buy the resident engineer and the inspectors a case of Crown Royal goes a long way with keeping the tribe happy. :)


Comment from Tom Schwerdt, (9/14/2011, 8:43 AM)

James, there can be a big difference between approved containment drawings and what the contractor actually implements in the field.


Comment from Richard McLaughlin, (9/14/2011, 9:51 AM)

Chuck, it appears you went through the same school of on-sight training I did...:-)


Comment from Chuck Pease, (9/15/2011, 9:23 PM)

yes indeed Richard


Comment from shane hirvi, (11/16/2011, 4:41 PM)

I find these stories coming out of washington and oregon rather amusing.


Comment from Thomas Frauenhoffer, (11/16/2011, 11:10 PM)

It is unfortunate another project comes to a halt due to contractor/facility owner conflicts. Oregon is pretty stringent on their administering bridge painting projects. As Tom eluded, approved containment verses installed containment can be miles apart. By the same token, many facility owners stretch the limits or allow their "engineers" to use their judgement as to what constitutes an as built containment or not. Another project heading to court.


Comment from shane hirvi, (11/17/2011, 6:13 PM)

Some of these stories are hard for the reader to really figure out. When contracts publically go to pieces you see all manner of smoke and mirrors that make the other side appear to be completely evil. This is merely one of many tactics employed by all entities involved to better posture themselves as things progress towards a disputes, termination, claims and litigation phase. Unfortunately this tactic really does not serve the public interest vis-a-vis the project being completed in a timely on budget manner. These displays of posturing and rhetoric seem to be a favorite method of mitigating liability. Without the obfuscation that this kind of posturing and rhetoric, the smoke and mirrors as it were, provides--these problems are usually a result of one or two individuals employed by one of these entities that has no clue about what their job really is about. All too often instead of being open and honest, as these contracts break down, each side focuses more on posturing and rhetoric rather than fixing the problems. A lot of times admitting a mistake opens yourself up to what amounts to a pile-on of additional liability. I have been on one or two large projects that have been settled in claims, disputes or full on litigation and find that protecting ones (percieved) interest is paramount. Each entity has an inexorable responsibility to perserving their organization which usaually involves the hiring of consultants and lawyers who have lots of experience navigating through these legal mechanisms and manuevers. I may not personally agree with a lot of the posturing and rhetoric that these entities employ, when contracts break down and move toward a disputes board, claims or litigation, but I certainly understand the importance of rhetoric and posturing for each entity. A fact of life for doing business in this industry is knowing how to posture yourself when things go bad. As an individual I find it an unfortunate failure of leadership that people can't get together and solve their problems on the ground rather than in the courtroom. As a business owner its just another day full of possibilities. I wish I could see more of my post and put in some paragraphs...


Comment from Billy Russell, (11/20/2011, 11:42 AM)

I am not even going to touch the case of crown,I hope this is not the means of keeping everyone happy on multi million dollar projects,I would hope that doing what we are required by federal and state law and open transparent communication,should rule out misinterpertation of the contract specification... I would hope that sooner rather than later the federal DOT starts random audits of these projects where 80% of the money is provided by the federal government to do these projects,however there is very little over sight and federal inspectors visiting these jobs I would like to see U.S. DOT put inspectors in the field with actual field experiance with bridges especially over water in order to keep everyone honest,protect the workers and enviorment from harm by misinterpertation of the specifications and the contractors and State DOT inspectors are looking the other way while (potentially harmful RED paint chips float down the rivers and are left all around these projects after completed....enough is enough.......


Comment Join the Conversation:

Sign in to our community to add your comments.

Abrasives Inc.
Check our Prices for Blast Abrasives

Faced with higher abrasive costs? We invite you to call & check our rates on Black Magic® coal slag and other quality blast materials. Abrasives Inc. 800-584-7524


Atlantic Design, Inc.
POWER ON WITH ADI!

The most air flow possible… In the smallest package imaginable… For a price you won’t believe! 866.Call.ADI


SAFE Systems, Inc.
Enduroguard -
The Tough Cable
for a Tough Industry.

Reduce maintenance costs and down time, increase job site safety with Enduroguard Cable. Available exclusively from SAFE Systems. UL listed, flexible, abrasion resistant and cut resistant.


Wasser High-Tech Coatings Inc.
Wasser Coatings Protect

some of the most important bridges in the country; learn about our NEPCOAT-approved system and our entire range of MCU & Polyurea coatings. 1-800-627-2968 www.wassercoatings.com


Minerals Research & Recovery

HIGH PERFORMANCE ABRASIVES


“Made in the USA!”

Why recycle waste from other countries? Go FASTER, CLEANER, at 1/3 THE COST with MR&R “All-American” Sharpshot®HP!!

WATCH THE VIDEO


Hempel (USA) Inc.
HEMPEL PROTECTIVE COATINGS

Efficient systems and high quality products to reduce your maintenance costs. Visit Hempel Protective for more information.


DeFelsko Corporation
PosiTector Dew Point Meter

Measures and records
environmental conditions
during surface prep and
painting. 4 Models
Available – Standard
or Advanced features,
Built-in or Separate probe.

 
 
 
Technology Publishing

The Technology Publishing Network

The Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings (JPCL) PaintSquare
Durability + Design Paint BidTracker JPCL Europe

 
EXPLORE:      JPCL   |   PaintSquare News   |   Interact   |   Buying Guides   |   Webinars   |   Resources   |   Classifieds
REGISTER AND SUBSCRIBE:      Free PaintSquare Registration   |   Subscribe to JPCL   |   Subscribe to PaintSquare News
MORE:      About PaintSquare.com   |   Privacy policy   |   Terms & conditions   |   Site Map   |   Search   |   Contact Us
 

© Copyright 2000-2014, Technology Publishing / PaintSquare, All rights reserved
2100 Wharton Street, Suite 310, Pittsburgh PA 15203-1951; Tel 1-412-431-8300; Fax 1-412-431-5428; E-mail webmaster@paintsquare.com