BK International Inc (BKII) is reserving its position on the cause of the East Demerara Water Conservancy (EDWC) Dam breach and says that nothing in the recently released investigative report extinguishes the company's earlier expressed view that the disaster was caused by "human hands unknown".

In a statement to Stabroek News yesterday, BKII also claimed that some members of the investigative team were members of the D&I Board, but never once during the work had they shared their concerns with the engineer and contractor. BKII was the contractor for rehabilitation of the EDWC dam. A portion of the dam gave away in November last year flooding the East Coast Demerara village of Cane Grove and causing severe losses. BKII has come in for close scrutiny following the release of the report which said that the contractor did not comply with several important procedures, excavated too close to the dam and utilised unsuitable material.

BKII in the statement said, "until the team is in a position to impartially and scientifically evaluate all possible options, BK International Inc will reserve its position as to causation in the same way that the 1968 breach remains a historical disaster of unknown origin."

Last week, Cabinet Secretary, Dr Roger Luncheon, announced that the National Drainage and Irrigation Board wanted to review the scientific documents on which the probe team based its conclusions and as a result its submission to the Office of the President would be delayed.

BKII's statement is in reaction to the report, which the five-man investigative team led by Guysuco's Director for Agricultural Services, Dr Harold Davis Jr, submitted. The report said "the conditions in the vicinity of the breached area have led us to conclude that the failure was as a result of excessive seepage which led to piping."

It supported this conclusion by referring to "the slippage behind the northern line of sheet piles used to seal the breach after additional load was placed behind it. This event underscored the instability of the section." The other members of the team were Col John Lewis of the Guyana Defence Force, Chief River and Sea Defence Officer, Ministry of Works, George Howard, and engineers Raymond Latchmansingh, and Paul Sarran.

The report also said "the contractor's manner of execution was in complete divergence from that outlined in the Method Statement."

BKII's statement challenges these conclusions by the probe team.

BKII noted that the conclusions were drawn by the team on the basis of conditions in the vicinity of the breached area and described this as "highly risky because conditions in the area after the breach were dramatically different from the situation, which obtained before the breach."

It also described as "even more risky" the conclusion by the team

that there was "slippage behind the northern line of sheet piles used to seal the breach after addition[al] load was placed behind it." BK said: "The conditions extant in such a locus horribilis just do not permit any scientific conclusions."

BKII also challenged the assertion by the investigative team that its "manner of execution was in complete divergence from that outlined in the Method Statement." It asserted that "of 153,120 ft (29 miles) of remedial work, 40 ft gave way for reasons still unknown and BK International Inc exerted every effort to seal the breach in record time."

BKII also refuted charges by the team that it failed to supply material requested by the probe team. It asserted that it "never received a single letter from the team requesting information" and was "willing to share information in its possession with any competent authority."

It noted too "all material requested of this company by the D&I Board was delivered to the D&I Board. Information requested by the team was already delivered to the board and in many cases there were no copies of its photographs and drawings."

BKII noted that in its method statement it had proposed "strengthening the dam by virtually building a 'new' dam behind the existing dam. This approach was not favoured in the actual contract. If it had been things would have been much different but the contract did not require it."

BKII said that the contract was "executed on the base of a design/drawing enshrined in the agreement."

It said it was still recommending that its proposals be seriously studied.

Another charge which BKII contested was the claim that it did not intend to import material from outside the half-mile radius as was catered for in the contract. It said that it mobilised equipment for this purpose but it was not required.

Moreover, the BKII statement contended: "The contract on page 75 permitted excavation outside a distance of 60 ft from the crest of the dam and BK International Inc faithfully complied with this requirement. It is not true that the permitted distance was 100' as stated on P 52 of the report." This had been one of the key criticisms of BKII's work by the probe team.

Stabroek News has seen an initialised version of the Method Statement which says at page 74 "Excavate material from within the conservancy. Materials not to be excavated within 60 feet of the crest of the existing embankment, or other limits stipulated by the design/engineer... "

The BKII statement concluded that the company "is mindful of the range of viewpoints on the cause of the breach and has its own. Others have theirs. Nothing is proven conclusively. Everything is speculation and unscientific extrapolation.

"Secondly, the specific items in the report have nothing to do with what the team said is 'seepage and piping' and much of it BK International Inc challenges.

"The fact remains that with time, the dam has indeed acquired a great fragility and needs to be approached with tremendous caution and sound engineering expertise."