The Ooops Chronicles
Part 2 -- The Ooops memo
OMI's Gerald Boyce responds to issues raised by Venice Florida! dot com, continues to state that the soil in question was not contaminated despite the lack of testing
-- John Patten, 04/21/05
-- jpatten@veniceflorida.com

Got a comment? Make it here.

RELATED:
Ooops, I did it again
-- Venice Florida! dot com, 04/17/05
OMI's Newton "removed" after Venice Florida! dot com's Ooops story reports soil dumping at water plant
-- Venice Gondolier Sun, 04/19/05

OMI responds
At the bottom of this page is the memo written by OMI's Gerald Boyce in response to the story Ooops, I did it again.

Note the addition of a second hole, the rate of infiltration into the sanitary sewer (100 gallons per minute) and the continued statement that the soil was uncontaminated by sewage despite the fact that the soil in question was never tested.

Also note that while Boyce states that he spoke with witnesses at the dig, he omits their names from the memo. While that is not uncommon in journalism (especially when people speak on condition of anonymity), it is very strange to see that in a public document that is a summary of an investigation into an incident.

Any raw sewage pipe that can take 100 gallons per minute infiltration has a damned big hole in it that can also leak up to 100 gallons per minute. Nobody has any idea how long that hole had been in the raw sewage pipe -- the only reason it was noticed was because of heavy rains that had just fallen. Ultimately, nobody knows if it had been seeping sewage previously (almost a given), and if so, how much and for how long.

So this blanket factual statement that there was no way that the soil excavated from the dig, even from six feet away as this new memo now claims, is, in my opinion, bullshit. And not just in my opinion, either. Virtually all of the utils workers I've talked with are still shaking their heads in disbelief over this whole matter.

As to a second hole mentioned below, I visited the scene and took pictures -- click on the two thumbnailed pics below to enlarge.

There is no second hole that I can find, just one (1) roughly rectangular hole about five by fifteen feet. Moreover, the e-mail by Tim Newton (included in the original story) gave a pretty detailed explanation of the excavation process and near totally contradicts the notion stated in Boyce's memo about a second hole:

It was decided to excavate the area around the infiltration on the morning of 13 April to coincide with the low tide. The area was excavated and the true source of the inflow into the sanitary sewer was the storm drain which crossed perpendicular to the sanitary sewer main. Once the pipe was located, the Vactor was used to complete the excavation and control the ground water level until the repair to the sanitary sewer was complete and the inflow from the storm drain eliminated. By using the Vactor to complete the excavation, the soil that had been previously removed was prevented from being contaminated.
-- e-mail from OMI's Tim Newton to Chris Sharek, dated 04/14/05

Witnesses stated that Newton had claimed that the soil was from the top of the dig, not from the side.

Also note the straw man argument: that allegations were made that sewage was spilled. No such allegations were made by anyone I spoke with, nor did I make any such allegations. The allegations heard were simple -- that the soil in question was possibly and probably contaminated, as there were chunks of clay sewage pipe and asphalt with green spray paint mixed in (green spray paint indicates a sanitary sewer line directly below). As such, once the soil had been dumped behind the water plant, it should have been tested in order to document the incident. Blanket statements to the effect that there is no possible way that the soil could have been contaminated are, again, bullshit.

I'm still gathering information and there is still some investigating that City Manager Marty Black wants to do, so there will be a follow-up article.

So what's the big deal?
The big deal here is that:

1.) Possibly (and probably) sewage contaminated soil was dumped behind the water plant in blatant disregard for safety and health protocols when it should have been taken directly to the Eastside Wastewater Treatment Plant for disposal. In spite of all statements to the effect that the soil was uncontaminated, two types of physical evidence indicate otherwise -- chunks of asphalt with green spray paint and, more importantly, chunks of sanitary sewer pipe. If the soil was indeed contaminated, this would have been a criminal offense.

2.) That instead of investigating the incident as a possible criminal offense, utils administrator Chris Sharek moved to cover it up. When testing of the dumped soil was suggested, Sharek instead ordered that the soil be removed. While Sharek apparently never gave the order that the soil shouldn't be tested, it was clear to witnesses at the scene that Sharek didn't want the soil tested.  Sharek then, without the benefit of any testing, made the blanket statement that there was no way the soil could have been contaminated with raw sewage. Sharek never reported the incident to either the health department or to law enforcement.

3.) In spite of all of that, OMI's Gerald Boyce enters the fray, again with blanket statements (that are not backed up by any testing data) that the soil in question could not possibly have been contaminated.

and

4.) If this is going on and it trips out into the public eye, what else has been going on that the public doesn't know about?

Due to the precarious relative position of the pipes, hand digging was initiated and continued for the remainder of the excavation with the Vac Truck pulling up any further debris. All of the contents of the Vac Truck from this dig were deposited directly on the drying beds at the Eastside WRF [sic]. After all of the pipes were exposed it was observed that a large hole had rusted through the bottom of a metal stormwater pipe. The dump truck went to the Water Plant where the excavated material was unloaded into an area designated for construction debris. Asphalt sand was loaded into the dump truck and taken to the excavation site to finish the backfill.

After reviewing the eyewitness accounts of these events as given by those closest to the work, I am convinced that there was no spillage of wastewater at this repair site. In consideration of the fact that the excavated material came from an area no closer than 6' away from the leak and that the leak was stormwater going into the sanitary line at a substantial rate which would tend to leach the constituents of the soil into the sanitary sewer line, I feel that there was no contamination by wastewater of the excavated material that was temporarily deposited at the Water Plant site.

We would be glad to discuss this with you or provide further information if requested.

-- Gerald Boyce, 04/19/05

John Patten is the head of Web Operations for Creative Pages, and has worked in broadcasting for over 12 years. He can also be incredibly rude at times.