Anytime I see rebar patterns or something like these trunnion anchors with a center to center spacing as illustrated by the photo, I end up suspecting some honeycombed concrete with voids in that area.
Normally the aggregate maximum size for the specified concrete mix is such that getting uniform placement around reinforcement spaced at that interval (or around tubes for post tensioning) is a difficult thing to achieve due to the aggregate size. If these have no sleeves and are totally installed by drilled holes, then the spacing of the invasive drilling would give me equal pause.
press conference this afternoon.....
Juan just did a quick update, he is hearing they plan on running the spillway non-stop until June.....
This may explain why the NWS river forecast downstream says max outflow 38,000 cfs I assume 30,000 from the spillway and 8000 from the power plant.
perhaps they plan on running the spillway longer but at a lower rate this time..
2-3 inches fell in parts of the basin the past 24 hours inflow back up to around 40,000
lake at 863 feet and rising a foot every 7 hours now
also 89.7 inches on the 8 station rainfall index breaking the 1982-83 mark
Yet, the failed Anchor Tendons at Oroville, AND the failed Anchor Tendons at Clifton Court Forebay Dam both had poorly placed grout within the sleeves. The "failed steel" in the rod is where "voiding" areas were found between the sleeves and the tendon where moisture collected and corroded the tendon to failure (original construction technique caused the "voiding").
Finding a matching construction issue at two separate DWR dams (sleeve grouting) is concerning. Since Ultrasonic testing, that DWR is using in yearly Inspections of the Steel Rod Tendons, only reveals "defect reflections from cracks and/or corrosion" to only 3 to 4 feet of a 37foot 6inch long tendon, then 90% of the tendon is not verified. Combine this fact with the known construction defects of "voiding" in the original construction, this means DWR is "flying blind" on 90% of the linear component of an unknown number of potentially failed tendons (note: 384 tendons are needed for the 48 each for a single gate).
That is why they are "scrambling" to get a new technology verified - the Dispersal Wave Technique - where its goal is to verify the tensile component of the steel tendon to see how much (or if zero) of the tension is left (outright fail or creep tensile reduced). They have asked FERC for an extension to Sept 2017 as their estimated results by April 2017 has been delayed. Thus, I suspect the free flowing money opportunity (as you worded) will be used to replace them all & give up on the Dispersal Wave Testing lab pattern resonance verification.
How DWR can say "satisfactory" or "safe" for these critical components for safe operation of the Main Spillway Radial Gates during spillway flows is questionable.