http://www.water.ca.gov/oroville-spillway/pdf/2017/BOC%20Memo%208.pdf
BOC MEMO SUMMARY #8
|
Released July 13, 2017
Lake Oroville Spillways Emergency Recovery Board of Consultants Memorandum No. 8 – June 23, 2017
Prepared by the California Department of Water Resources
Update on investigation of existing FCO spillway chute foundation condition.
The BOC was provided an update to findings on the investigation of the interface between the concrete and rock material. Four concrete cutouts were excavated and exposures described. Subsequently, and as part of the concrete removal, the Contractor created a 200-foot-long centerline
exposure of the interface from Stations 25+00 to 27+00. Where present, the soil material that did exist appeared to be semi-consolidated fines and angular rock debris that was not removed as part of the initial (1960’s era)foundation surface cleanup. The interpretation of the investigators was that the localized occurrence of the soil and its angular nature did not appear to be fill that was purposefully placed as bearing material. A photo of this material is shown as Figure 8.
Nice find - thanks.
Is DWR seeking to preemptively address a serious design issue of constructing the spillway upon a pre-applied layer of "compacted fines or soils"?
A "slight of hand" wording maneuver surely seems to have occurred in the latest DWR "BOC summary" report released yesterday, July 13, 2017. The metadata "author" of this new report summary and combined BOC file creation is David Gutierrez (see Fig 1). This is the same Dave Gutierrez discussed in prior post 3903 where questionable information in testimony and statements have been documented. POST 3903 clip: "Dave Gutierrez has been hired back by DWR as an advisory consultant role during this crisis. He has spoken at town hall meetings and given Testimony at the State Legislative Hearings on the Spillway Failure.
Dave Gutierrez has been a central figure to questionable testimony and statements in light of considering his credentials in engineering expertise (see link to post below: "DWR Organizational Ethics? - Severe Engineering Incompetence or Calculated Engineering Deception? - On the Record Examples from DWR officials in Press Releases, Town Halls, to the Press, and Testimony in State Legislative Hearings 2017")
DWR may be seeking to preemptively strike against a very damaging revelation of the spillway being constructed upon a layer of "compacted clayey fines or clayey soils". If the spillway was indeed "authorized" and "constructed" to be built upon with a "layer" of compacted soil-like material above the underlying foundation, then this has implications to the Upper Spillway's integrity in the decision to not fully replace in 2017.
A Question arises as to WHY this BOC memo, with DWR's preceding summary comments was just released yesterday, July 13, 2017, & with no redactions. The main BOC memorandum #8 report has been available and complete since June 23, 2017. DWR has filed this BOC Memorandum #8 as CEII with FERC, keeping it secret (see Fig 2). So why now? with no redactions if it was CEII secret?
Further examination of this new release shows that the July 13, 2017 document was created with DWR's summary statements as "new" via footer noting "BOC MEMO SUMMARY #8 / Released July 13, 2017" in the DWR summary section. (See Fig 3.)
There is evidence that "questionable statements" have been written in the DWR summary section from this report, authored by David Gutierrez (file metadata identifies as "author"). These DWR summary "statements" are highly misleading when compared to what was written in the original BOC Memorandum (Fig 3 vs Fig 4).
The Independent Board of Consultants never "concluded" that fill material was "not placed as part of the original construction". In fact, DWR was tasked by the BOC with investigating the foundation of the existing concrete chute. Thus, DWR is the "source" of the information provided to the BOC. The BOC clearly states "The interpretation of the investigators..". The "investigators" and the "interpretation" in this case is NOT the BOC. This leaves DWR or an independent consultant/contractor working for DWR as the "investigators" and the "interpreters". Since DWR was "tasked" by the BOC to do the investigation, the results and contents, passed on to the BOC, is the responsibility of DWR.
The end result is that this "DWR responsible" original "interpretations of the investigators" in which said that it "did not appear" to be "purposefully placed fill material" ended up "re-translated" by DWR saying "The BOC notes that material was not placed as part of the original construction". DWR is essentially placing words in the mouths of the BOC. Why?
A DWR provided photograph, of part of the fill material investigation, was noted with comments of "Base of leveling concrete under the slab", and "Soil debris with angular rock fragments left in place", and "Rock foundation" (Fig 5). However, this photograph has a much different "interpretation" to the known conditions of the highly pressurized subslab water flow. Any prior soil like material (as proven "existing" in their photograph) would be part of a greater volume of this soil material to remain under the years of pressurized erosive "washing". Thus "voids" would form in the areas washed and eroded and the known repairs of "void filling" under the slabs would leave the identical impressional results as shown in that photograph. In fact, the concave round rock "indentations" are classic as a "evidential mold" footprints of downward protruding round rock that would have been retained into the slab from the round drain rock used near drain pipes. If this was "leveling concrete", why is the top surface so irregular? This irregularity is a better fit to "void filling" and the effects of the irregular underslab surface prior to the void fill.
A photograph NOT provided by DWR to the BOC to be included in the Memorandum #8 report reveals a LARGE amount of Soil beneath the slabs (Fig 6). This photograph was taken in the same upper spillway inspection in cutting holes to look at the foundation. It is a DWR photograph. Why didn't DWR submit this to the BOC? This photograph completely changes the narrative of the other photograph. Isn't forensic accuracy important to investigations, including providing critical information to the BOC? Was the original photograph "cherry picked" by DWR to give to the BOC?
Original construction photographs evidence that the spillway was covered with a layer of compacted aggregate/soils before the slabs were poured. (see Fig below). The massive "blowout failure" region also evidences that NO leveling concrete was emplaced as this leveling concrete would have been anchored to competent bedrock and there would have been evidence remaining of these sections. None have been found. (note: Fig 7).
Fig 1. New DWR released DWR Summary + BOC report #8 identifies David Gutierrez as the author in the file's metadata. This file created July 12, 2017.
Fig 2. FERC document reveals DWR filed the BOC Memorandum No. 8 as secret (CEII status) back in July 6 from the original June 23 BOC report. Yet, DWR decides to release July 13 with no redactions now? Why?
Fig 3. DWR "re-translates" the BOC's report notes into a form of a "conclusion" position of the BOC. Yet DWR was the source (tasked with & responsible for) of the investigation information. DWR's own investigation "interpretation" is simply repeated by the BOC in their report. Highly Misleading Conduct?/Actions? by DWR?
Fig 4. BOC report's original comments as provided by DWR (DWR = "interpretations of the investigators"). The wording in this section is noted as "interpretive" and does not contain any statement of "conclusions". The "leap" to an inferred BOC "conclusion" is written solely by DWR in the DWR summary section of the document.
Fig 5. Photograph submitted to the BOC by DWR's investigation with "notes" in white blocks. This photograph has a much different "interpretation" to the known conditions of the highly pressurized subslab water flow. Any prior soil like material (as proven "existing" in their photograph) would be part of a greater volume of this soil material to remain under the pressurized erosive "washing". Thus "voids" would form in the areas washed and eroded and the known repairs of "void filling" under the slabs would leave the identical impressional results as shown in the photograph. In fact, the concave round rock "indentations" are classic as a "evidential mold" footprint of downward protruding round rock that would have been retained into the slab from the round drain rock used near drain pipes. If this was "leveling concrete", why is the top surface so irregular? This irregularity is a better fit to "void filling" and the effects of the irregular underslab surface prior to the void fill.
Fig 6. A photograph NOT provided by DWR to the BOC to be included in the Memorandum #8 report reveals a LARGE amount of Soil beneath the slabs. This photograph was taken in the same upper spillway inspection in cutting holes to look at the foundation. It is a DWR photograph. Why didn't DWR submit this to the BOC? This photograph completely changes the narrative of the other photograph. Isn't forensic accuracy important to investigations, including providing critical information to the BOC? Was the original photograph "cherry picked" by DWR to give to the BOC?
Fig 7. Photograph was taken prior to the pour of the spillway concrete slabs, the image reveals the "grade" aggregate soils compaction construction layer of which the slabs were to be emplaced upon. NO areas in the steep section of the spillway show "leveling concrete" colorations.
