Root cause of Stourport breach 2008

David Fletcher made this Freedom of Information request to British Waterways Board

The request was successful.

From: David Fletcher

17 September 2009

Dear Sir or Madam,

I request to be given a copy of the BW internal report and
recommendations into the circumstances leading up to the breach on
the Stourport Canal, 6/7 September 2008. It is my expectation that
this will cover both technical and organisational issues, and in
both cases identify the root cause(s) of the failure.

Yours faithfully
David Fletcher

Link to this

From: Sarina Young
British Waterways Board

21 September 2009

Dear Mr Fletcher,

Thank you for your request for information via the whatdotheyknow.com
website. In future requests can be made very simply to British Waterways
direct by visiting the following link
[1]http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/listen...
for the British Waterways website or alternatively you can e-mail me
directly at [2][email address].

I am pleased to inform you that once we have confirmed the extent to which
the regulations permit the release of the information which you have
requested a response will be sent within a 20 day working timescale from
the date we received your request.

Kind regards,
Sarina

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Sarina Young
British Waterways Board

6 November 2009

Attachment Hydraulic Appraisal of the Stourton Canal Breach V.2.pdf
3.5M Download View as HTML

Dear Mr Fletcher,

Further to our recent telephone conversation I am pleased to be able to
attach the Hydraulic Appraisal of the Breach at Stourport in response to
your request for:

`a copy of the BW internal report and recommendations into the
circumstances leading up to the breach on the Stourport Canal, 6/7
September 2008'.

Should you feel that British Waterways has not properly considered your
request for information, or you remain dissatisfied with British Waterways
in this regard, you are entitled to have your complaint considered by our
complaints process. If this is the case, please write to me at 64
Clarendon Road, Watford WD17 1DA and I will arrange for the complaint to
be considered in accordance with our complaints procedure. A copy of this
can be found at [1]http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk.

The Office of the Information Commissioner is the organisation that
ensures compliance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and deals with
formal complaints. If we have not been able to resolve your request you
are entitled under Section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to
apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision. His contact details
are:

Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Water
Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Enquiry/information line: 01625 545745

Email: [2][email address]

Yours sincerely,

Sarina Young
Customer Service Co-Ordinator

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Sarina Young
Sent: 21 September 2009 15:57
To: 'David Fletcher'
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information request - Root cause of Stourport
breach 2008

Dear Mr Fletcher,

Thank you for your request for information via the whatdotheyknow.com
website. In future requests can be made very simply to British Waterways
direct by visiting the following link
[3]http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/listen...
for the British Waterways website or alternatively you can e-mail me
directly at [4][email address].

I am pleased to inform you that once we have confirmed the extent to which
the regulations permit the release of the information which you have
requested a response will be sent within a 20 day working timescale from
the date we received your request.

Kind regards,
Sarina

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: David Fletcher

8 November 2009

Dear Sarina,
Thank you for this report, which covers the technical issues well.
I did ask in addition for any report on the organisational issues.
Some of these are identified in the report provided, but the root
causes not discussed.
Examples of these might be;
Why was the flood event in 2007 not investigated?
Why was retaining wall not rebuilt after being washed away in 2007?
Why was the operational history lost?
Yours sincerely
David Fletcher

Link to this

From: Christopher Gray
British Waterways Board

9 November 2009

Dear Mr Fletcher

Thank you for your request for information dated 09^th Nov 2009.

I understand that you have requested the following information:

Breach on the Stourport Canal 2008

1. Why was the flood event in 2007 not investigated?

2. Why was retaining wall not rebuilt after being washed away in
2007?

3. Why was the operational history lost?

I am pleased to inform you that once we have confirmed the extent to which
the regulations permit the release of the information which you have
requested a response will be sent within a 20 working day timescale from
the date we received your request.

Yours Sincerely

Chris Gray

Information Officer

Link to this

From: Christopher Gray
British Waterways Board

13 November 2009

Dear Mr Fletcher,

Request for Information - Root cause of Stourport breach 2008

Further to my correspondence with you of 9^thNovember 2009 I am
responding to your questions regarding the breach at Stourport in 2007,
for clarity I have responded to them below in the order you have asked
them:

1. Why was the flood event in 2007 not investigated?
A BW engineer did visit the location soon after the event and
concluded that apart from inundation of river water into the canal,
there was no other significant physical damage to the waterway
infrastructure. It was therefore felt, at the time, that there was no
immediate need to investigate this further. The landowner was
informed of the collapsed wall and they subsequently removed the
collapsed section.
2. Why was retaining wall not rebuilt after being washed away in 2007?
The wall is outside of the ownership of British Waterways. The summer
2007 rainfall event was an "extreme event" and because the canal had
not suffered significant damage as a result of the inundation event,
the implications of not having the wall rebuilt had not been fully
appreciated. We consequently did not request that the wall be rebuilt
following the 2007 event. However In the meantime, BW has gained
consent from the landowners and installed temporary measures to
replicate the beneficial effects of the river wall that collapsed also
BW are currently in discussions with the landowners of the wall with a
view to having the wall re-built.
3. Why was the operational history lost?
I can confirm that the operational history has not been lost.

I hope the responses to your questions are satisfactory. If you require
more information please contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Gray
Information Officer

Link to this

From: David Fletcher

23 November 2009

Dear Christopher,

Thank for your responses

I understand no 1 and 2 but I am surprised by 3 and ask you to
consider again.
To assist with what I mean, I point out various items from the
technical report.
In the summary it says that “…there is overwhelming evidence that
the flood was caused by flood waters entering the canal….
exaggerated by the loss of a river wall.”
Also
“….the canal pound had a significant number of waste structures …
probably introduced … to manage the flood waters … The loss of all
waste sluices and restricted capacity of the waste weirs … resulted
in having insufficient flood capacity.”

I conclude that after 2007 at the time of the first flood of recent
times, that the significance of the wall and the sluices was not
known, otherwise they would have been put right as a matter of
urgency as you have done in 2008. The technical report concluded
the sluices were “…. probably introduced..” for reasons of
necessity from previous events. I would suggest that the technical
report was required to understand and relearn operational history
from what had gone wrong in 2008, and also in 2007.
The need for a “significant number of waste structures” and the
“retaining wall” is, in my view, important operating history for
this part of the waterway.
Therefore I do not understand how you can say that operational
history had not been lost, when your own report indicates that it
had. I request that you clarify this.

Yours sincerely,

David Fletcher

Link to this

From: Christopher Gray
British Waterways Board

30 November 2009

Dear Mr Fletcher,

Root cause of Stourport breach 2008

I am responding to your request for clarification, dated 23rd November
2009, on BW's response to your question `Why was the operational history
lost? which was concerning a retaining wall.

It is doubtful, in the past that the significance of the river wall, given
its position away from the canal, on non BW land, was ever considered in
relation to canal flooding. We have nothing in our records to confirm or
dispute this however. It was not until the 2008 event that the benefit of
the wall in preventing flows into the canal was fully appreciated.

The majority of the sluices on this section have been disused for many
years and had not knowingly been operational during the time of our
longest serving members of staff in the Stourbridge area. Unfortunately
we do not have records of why the sluices were abandoned, however, over
the last few years, as part of our asset management process, we have been
reviewing our water control structures and, where necessary for effective
water control, we have been scheduling improvements. Since the 1990's
British Waterways has been operating a comprehensive asset management
system which enables a full asset history to be maintained.

Should you feel that British Waterways has not properly considered your
request for information, or you remain dissatisfied with British Waterways
in this regard, you are entitled to have your complaint considered by our
complaints process. If this is the case, please write to the Head of
Customer Relations, 64 Clarendon Road, Watford WD17 1DA and I will arrange
for the complaint to be considered in accordance with our complaints
procedure. A copy of this can be found at
[1]http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk'.

Yours Sincerely

Chris Gray

Information Officer

show quoted sections

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
British Waterways Board only: