Jump to content

CRT cover up?


dor
 Share

Featured Posts

Perhaps the reservoir will be covered with camouflage netting to prevent the worlds terrorist powers dying it red? National security, HUMBUG!

We all know its there, its on Google Earth. Will they have Google redacted?

 

When will this failed "Charity" be impeached?

Edited by Boater Sam
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, cougie said:

If there are strategic issues with the dam it wouldn't be great to share the weaknesses with the world would it ?

It's a clay-cored dam.  Very common in small scale reservoirs.  You wouldn't need to be a genius or have detailed plans to work out how to do it some serious damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
3 minutes ago, dor said:

It's a clay-cored dam.  Very common in small scale reservoirs.  You wouldn't need to be a genius or have detailed plans to work out how to do it some serious damage.

See the source image

Edited by Ray T
  • Greenie 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dor said:

It's a clay-cored dam.  Very common in small scale reservoirs.  You wouldn't need to be a genius or have detailed plans to work out how to do it some serious damage.

Is it a clay cored dam? 

 

Quote

Consultant engineer Nicholas Brown's report of 1836 had specified a puddle trench varying from 12 feet at the brook end to 6 feet in width,[8] but investigations in the late 20th century led to doubt as to whether it was constructed as laid out on original drawings or with more porous core material.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

If anyone would like to read the redacted independent engineers report mentioned in the BBC article here is the copy provided to me in response to an information request -

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/594764/response/1436315/attach/4/2019 S10.pdf

"read" = look at black boxes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I note that this is the inspection report prior to the  dam collapse by Mott MacDonald in April 2019. Any sensitive information disclosure could affect a subsequent inquiry. As stated before this reservoir dam location, as built in the 1830's, had been moved from its initial intended location. There are many factors associated with this emergency, including infrastructure and maintenance issues. Hopefully a comprehensive report will be made of what did happen. By redacting information, the interpretations must include a fear of the worst reasons. CRT may well be concerned that any inquiry must be concluded first before all facts are made known, yet if CRT were negligent that also MUST be made known eventually. If any of the redacted paragraphs do suggest this, it is vitally important that such information is made public. 

 

Concerns have been recently raised about the state of the dam at Earlswood Reservoir,  exactly how many more dams are at risk must also be in the public interest!

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Is it a clay cored dam? 

 

 

I haven't been back to have a look, but I am sure it is.  They go under various names such as earth dams, rockfill dams or embankment dams.

Dragging up my Engineering Geology course memory from nearly fifty years ago!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The decision to move the dam to the present location was taken by William Mackenzie who superintended the construction (1837-1840), It was near the first suggested location, This original site had been rejected  as coal pits existed there. The later site up the valley was not favoured by Mackenzie and so this final place was where the dam was made. Mackenzie provided advice though to 1840 and then the superintendent John Garlick took charge. The reservoir was finally completed in June 1841. With the various inputs by different engineers, the construction if the dam in the final form may well have deviated from the specifications laid out, at first.

 

Another factor to be considered is the collapse of a capped coal shaft through the heavy rainfall. I do wonder if this reason has even been considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Heartland said:

I note that this is the inspection report prior to the  dam collapse by Mott MacDonald in April 2019. Any sensitive information disclosure could affect a subsequent inquiry. As stated before this reservoir dam location, as built in the 1830's, had been moved from its initial intended location. There are many factors associated with this emergency, including infrastructure and maintenance issues. Hopefully a comprehensive report will be made of what did happen. By redacting information, the interpretations must include a fear of the worst reasons. CRT may well be concerned that any inquiry must be concluded first before all facts are made known, yet if CRT were negligent that also MUST be made known eventually. If any of the redacted paragraphs do suggest this, it is vitally important that such information is made public. 

 

Concerns have been recently raised about the state of the dam at Earlswood Reservoir,  exactly how many more dams are at risk must also be in the public interest!

 

 

 

 

 

The redacted report was provided under Environmental Information Regulations 2004 which provides public access to environmental information held by public authorities. As with the later Freedom of Information Act, safeguards are built in (called 'exceptions') which allows information to be withheld. However, most of these are subject to a public interest test. There is nothing in EIR which allows information to be withheld because it could affect a future enquiry.

Below is the full text of the reasons given by C&RT for redacting information -
 

Quote

 

The Trust has redacted information contained in each report under the
following two exceptions: -

 

 1. Regulation 12(5)(a) - on the basis that disclosure would adversely
affect national security and public safety. The Trust has considered
the public interest test in relation to the application of this
exception.

 

The factors in favour of withholding the information are that during the
current heightened status of threat to national security, there is a high
level of public interest in not realising information that would result in
a threat to public safety. If the Trust were to release copies of these
reports, which were not redacted, it would be releasing key details of the
infrastructure and potential vulnerabilities of the Toddbrook Reservoir.
This would prejudice the protection and safety of the public through
potential damage or disruption to the national infrastructure by acts of
sabotage.

 

The factors in favour of disclosure are that there is a general
presumption of openness and a need to promote accountability and
transparency, taking into account the public interest in this reservoir.
The Trust has considered whether the information is already in the public
domain and in the case of detailed information in the inspection reports,
it is not. We have considered the contribution that the release would make
to public debate and have sought to release as much information as
possible in order to allow the public to engage in debate and to be
transparent in the regulation of reservoirs. However, the Trust has
determined that the factors in favour of withholding the information
outweigh the public interest factors in disclosing the information.  

 

 2. Regulation 13(1) - on the basis that some of the information requested
is personal information and its disclosure would contravene the first
data protection principle of the Data Protection Act 2018.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dor said:

I haven't been back to have a look, but I am sure it is.  They go under various names such as earth dams, rockfill dams or embankment dams.

Dragging up my Engineering Geology course memory from nearly fifty years ago!

aka Pennine type dams.

It was a rhetorical question in a way. There is a suggestion that work undertaken twenty years ago threw some doubt on the composition of the core.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Bugsworth Tippler said:

"read" = look at black boxes

I wonder what the report and any subsequent enquiry will say about the release valve fitted around 10 years ago?

 

Word on the streets is that this valve was jammed and couldn't be used to stop the overtopping.  We do not know if this is true or not, but what is indisputable is that 21 high volume pumps were installed and it took them 3 days to lower the level to that which the valve SHOULD have achieved unassisted in the same time period.

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, furnessvale said:

I wonder what the report and any subsequent enquiry will say about the release valve fitted around 10 years ago?

 

Word on the streets is that this valve was jammed and couldn't be used to stop the overtopping.  We do not know if this is true or not, but what is indisputable is that 21 high volume pumps were installed and it took them 3 days to lower the level to that which the valve SHOULD have achieved unassisted in the same time period.

 

George

Not sure it would have had the capacity to act as an emergency drawdown device but it would have helped to some extent. As I recall the pipework was lined at the which might have decreased capacity somewhat

In CRT's twice weekly inspection reports, the bit about valves has been redacted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Not sure it would have had the capacity to act as an emergency drawdown device but it would have helped to some extent. As I recall the pipework was lined at the which might have decreased capacity somewhat

In CRT's twice weekly inspection reports, the bit about valves has been redacted.

Following the Uffley (spelling?) dam breach some years ago all dams with a capacity above 25000cu m were reviewed.

 

It is my understanding (although to be fair finding the exact legislation is proving difficult) that, following Uffley, all such dams had a requirement that they should be capable of drawing down one third of capacity in 3 days to relieve pressure.

 

Again it is my understanding that the dams at Combs and Toddbrook were modified around 2009 to allow this.  Following this, they were then permitted to reuse the full dam capacity which had previously been restricted.

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, furnessvale said:

Following the Uffley (spelling?) dam breach some years ago all dams with a capacity above 25000cu m were reviewed.

 

It is my understanding (although to be fair finding the exact legislation is proving difficult) that, following Uffley, all such dams had a requirement that they should be capable of drawing down one third of capacity in 3 days to relieve pressure.

 

Again it is my understanding that the dams at Combs and Toddbrook were modified around 2009 to allow this.  Following this, they were then permitted to reuse the full dam capacity which had previously been restricted.

 

George

You are quite right about the Ulley dam causing a review.

The legislation is the Reservoirs Act 1975, as amended by the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. 

The Flood and Water Management Act does not specify drawdown in the way you suggest but allows Defra to make orders and provide guidance.

I think the draft guidance was -

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/181435/onsite-plan.pdf


Latest guidance is much more detailed and specific to drawdown -

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guide-to-drawdown-capacity-for-reservoir-safety-and-emergency-planning


 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/10/2019 at 19:39, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Below is the full text of the reasons given by C&RT for redacting information -

On 01/10/2019 at 19:39, Allan(nb Albert) said:

... there is a high level of public interest in not realising information...

So even their press releases about redaction aren’t proof read. No wonder their signs are so poor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.