The problems long plaguing the state pier don’t seem to be over yet. A November 2024 meeting of the Connecticut Port Authority’s (CPA) Finance Committee revealed soil deficiencies at the pier’s south wall will require remediation and new costs.

According to conversation during the meeting, that area of the pier, never intended for some of the heavier loads the pier handles, isn’t usable. It was designed as a transition area that could be used as storage. But underlying soil deficiencies mean it’s not currently able to be used for anything, which is a sticking point with Ørsted.

At the November 19 meeting, finance committee members stated the soil deficiency was Kiewit Corporation’s responsibility and that the company had been sent a letter requesting that they address the issue, and clarify how a solution would be financed.

In late December, according to CT Mirror, Port Authority chairman Paul Whitescarver emailed lawmakers to let them know that two portions of the pier–a tow wall on the pier’s east side and the south wall–need to be either partially or wholly rebuilt.

According to Whitescarver’s email, the issue with the toe wall is steel pilings driven in to support the heavy lift pad, they bent after meeting resistance from rocks buried below the mud. The issue, the email states, was unknown at the time because everything looked fine from above.

The issue with the south wall, Whitescarver wrote, is substandard soil.

Whitescarver’s email addressed possible solutions to the issues and the potential costs. While he says CPA will insist Kiewit should bear the costs of the repairs, the company is likely to push back.

It’s the latest issue in a long string of contract disputes, bidding irregularities, and increasing costs at the State Pier. Recently, the Auditors of Public Accounts found the CPA had failed to follow purchasing and procurement policies for the third audit in a row.

Regarding the soil issue, a spokesperson for Kiewit told Inside Investigator: “The fill material used at the site was provided in accordance with the specifications issued by the Connecticut Port Authority (CPA) and meets all performance standards required by the contract.  While we acknowledge that our own quality testing has identified an issue at the south wall of the pier, the impacted area represents less than 0.5% of the entire facility. We are addressing the issue under the direction of the CPA.”

Ørsted told Inside Investigator that operations had not been affected and directed further questions to the CPA.

This is not the first time questions have been raised about soil quality at the state pier.

Acting on a tip received in 2022 against Kiewit Corporation, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) investigated a complaint alleging that work at the state pier was exposing workers to potential drowning as a result of unstable soil.

On February 22, 2022, OSHA officials notified Kiewit that they had received a complaint about work being done at the state pier, alleging: “Truck operators may be exposed to possible cave in hazards associated with unstable soil. Trucks are being operated too close to the rivers (sic) edge exposing them to collapse and possible drowning.” The letter also said the complaint alleged employees were not being provided with personal flotation devices (PFDs) while working near the water, also creating a drowning hazard.

According to documents OSHA provided Inside Investigator as part of a federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, the agency began an inspection on March 29, 2022, and made two on-site inspections: the first on March 29 and the second on April 8, to close the investigation.

Among the records OSHA turned over were a safety narrative produced by the investigator assigned to the complaint, notes taken during on-site visits, a response explaining its findings to the complainant, photos of the work site, and email communications between OSHA officials discussing how to handle the response. Inside Investigator also requested the original complaint, but OSHA cited two exemptions to the law when rejecting access: one protecting the identity of confidential sources and another for records that could be an “unwarranted” invasion of personal privacy.

Email messages turned over as part of the request indicate that the agency initially handled the complaint informally and was satisfied with the response from Kiewit but opened the investigation after the complainant said the response was not adequate.

“I just read the complaint and response. The response is done by a professional engineer and the response is what I would have asked for. I don’t see any issues with the response. What am I supposed to ask for beyond the complaint items and response items?” the OSHA inspector assigned to the complaint, whose name was redacted, asked in an email to another agency official on March 24, prior to the first on-site inspection.

“Do I require the operators to wear a life jacket in the trucks and bulldozers? What do I require them to do about pushing the soil to the waters (sic) edge? My research has not produced any answers or questions. I’ll check with interpretations and see if there is anything.” they added.

According to the safety narrative, when the inspector first visited the site on March 30, workers were busy filling in the space between two pre-existing piers to build the state pier.

“The project at time of inspection was the filling in of approximately 7 acres of water that was between two permanently existing piers. At the ocean side, steel panels had been installed to form a wall enclosing a space between the concrete piers. There were two gaps in the steel panel walls to allow the water being displaced to flow out into the ocean. The gaps were not open at the ocean bottom and its’ opening was only approximately 4 feet from the final height of the ground being installed. This wall of water helped provide added back pressure to the ground being constructed.” the report read. “As the soil was added to the water, the displaced water rising would exist the area over the wall leaving the soil inside the newly enclosed area between the concrete piers. This soon to be constructed ground is to be a state of the art heavy-lift capable port facility that will accommodate a wide variety of cargo. It is being targeted to be the wind turbine generator staging and assembly facility.”

The report further describes how the inspector talked to various people working on and overseeing the project, asking questions about the complaint’s allegations. According to the report, the inspector explained that they had a “small concern” about what might happen if a bulldozer went in the water due to either operator error or a cave-in.

But during the conversation, the inspector reported they were told the bulldozers operated far enough away from the edge to “allow corrections to the dozer caused by any operator error.” Further, they were told that wearing PFDs would cause “seating issues and ergonomic issues as the seat and controls were not designed for the addition of a life jacket.” Someone mentioned that, even if the bulldozer slid into the water, it was only about a 4-foot slide, and the blade would slow the machine as it sank, giving the operator time to escape. Kyle Zimmer, Operating Engineer’s, local 478, Health and Safety Director, noted that there were no compaction issues, but even if there were, bulldozers are designed to work on loose soil. He suggested a buoy be secured to the bulldozer so that if an operator could not back up the bank, they would “only need to step out of the cab, grab the buoy, and walk off the tracks into the water.”

On March 30, the inspector talked to Kiewit district safety manager Micah Brannan and recommended bulldozer operators wear PFDs or a buoy be placed on the machine “just in case.” The inspector also explained they would be returning to the site to ask more questions and run some tests.

On April 8, the inspector returned to the site and met with representatives of Kiewit, Loureiro Construction, and three unions. They also asked a bulldozer operator to perform several tests and noted “the dozer was able to drove (sic) over and back up from loose unstable piles of soil” and noted, in closing, that there was no evidence of the two complaint items.

OSHA provided the complainant with their findings on September 15, 2022, noting that they had done two in-person inspections and met with representatives from the general contractor, subcontractor, and three unions involved with the project.

The response addressed findings for each claim individually.

On the claim that there were potential cave-in hazards due to unstable soil, OSHA’s response noted that Kiewit representatives had stated they had not “had any cave-ins of the ongoing construction of the soil platforms” and employees had not seen any evidence of cracks or unstable soil. The response further noted that Kiewit had safety personnel on the project, conducted “continuous safety inspections,” and had both a written safety program and disciplinary program.

Additionally, the report noted that during OSHA’s on-site inspections, they found no evidence of issues with the soil.

“The soil was stable and no depressions or shifting of the soil was evident while the numerous dump trucks were driving on, dumping their loads, and driving off continuously compacting the soil.” the response stated.

Kiewit told OSHA standard soil penetration tests were being performed and a double hung vibro compacting machine was on site to use to stabilize the soil.

The response also noted inspectors interviewed truck drivers, employed by Loureiro, and drivers stated they “had to wait for direct from the spotters before backing into position.” Asked what would happen if there was a failure and their truck drove into the water, they said they would “simply put on their brakes, shut off the truck, or simply jump out of the truck.” They also told inspectors barriers weren’t feasible because they were working on a “continuously being built leading edge.”

The interviewers also spoke to spotters and to bulldozer operators and conducted experiments to test whether the work the bulldozers were doing posed a safety hazard.

“Several experiments were conducted on the operation of the dozer and its abilities to move forward and reverse on and off loose unpacked soil and the machines operated flawlessy. Watching the dozer push soil into the water showed no movement of the soil bank or any shifting of the soil, no cracking or fissures.” OSHA’s response stated.

Interviews with union members also confirmed that routine safety checks were ongoing.

Safety officials also showed OSHA’s inspectors how soil was being spread out.

“Steel plates had been placed closing off the are between the two concrete piers. As the soil was dumped into the wharf embankment, the soil would actually spread out on the bottom and as the continuing dumping of soil was ongoing, the water would be displaced over the edge of the steel wall but the soil stayed. It created a 4 to 1 ratio and the leading edge bank was actually a slope instead of a cliff like drop. This severally (sic) limited the degree of the soil’s ability to actually cave-in at the bank area and actually allowed the soil to slowly flow into the water.” OSHA’s response noted.

They therefore concluded that there was “very little or no exposure to cave-in hazards” and that trucks were being operated far enough away from the water to mitigate drowning hazards. The agency also noted there was “no evidence of unstable, fissured, and/or structural cracks at the time of inspection.”

On the complaint’s second claim that employees could be exposed to drowning and were not provided PFDs, OSHA’s response noted they had seen guardrails in place along the river during inspections.

“Carpenters were continuously installing and adjusting the guardrail systems as the project progressed. All employees on the ground working at or near the water exposed to drowning hazards were wearing PFDs. There were two skiffs ready for use. There were buoys and warming blanket stations located every 50 to 90 feet along the water edges. All employees were trained on PFDs and the requirements to wear them. Safety inspections were conducted daily and any infractions were corrected.” OSHA wrote, concluding there were no drowning hazards.

This was the first complaint OSHA received about Kiewit’s operations in Connecticut, though it has received several dozen other complaints dating back to 2019 against the company’s operations in other states.

A spokesperson for Kiewit told Inside Investigator that the 2022 complaint was unrelated to the soil deficiency at the pier’s south wall.

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.