You be the judge - Failure of the consultants in 2014 FERC Part 12D process
Here is the supporting evidence of the problem of a "consensus" vote in a panel. Investigative reporter Dan Brekke uncovered confidential information through a California Public Records Act (CPRA) request.
With the evidence staring the consultants in the face, they still decided (panel outcome), that the failure mode that Oroville displayed to the world Feb 2017 was "Highly Unlikely".
Yet what is not revealed is any internal discussion on the "dissent" in this FERC Part 12D analysis. This is where there is a critical weakness in this process.
It is highly revealing that ALL of the consultants did not respond for comment. Yet, when presented with evidence to an outside independent engineer, he was "startled" at their Part 12D conclusion.
So how could four engineering consulting experts "miss" such stark evidence? This leaves the question open to the "consensus" process of analysis (i.e. dissenting views vs a "vote").
The recent Independent Forensic Team (IFT) interim report has cast a dark shadow on the original assessment of this FERC Part 12D analysis as the IFT team stated that the historical evidence to the failure mode(s) was known and documented. Yet this historical data was seemingly ignored.
The subsequent IFT interim report turned into a public embarrassment to DWR in Erin Mellon's prior "on-the-record" statement "the information gathered showed the spillway was in good condition and the rock beneath it was extremely competent."
----- Investigative Reporter Dan Brekke Article clip:
The four outside consultants hired to conduct the 2014 Part 12D safety review, including the PFMA process, did not respond to emailed requests for comment.
Department of Water Resources spokeswoman Erin Mellon said in an email Monday the evidence presented for the potential failure mode analysis included a site inspection and historical documents including past geologic studies of the area.
While not offering specifics about the data considered, Mellon said “the information gathered showed the spillway was in good condition and the rock beneath it was extremely competent.”
---- end clip more at link
Panel Weighed Oroville Spillway Failure in 2014 - and Called it 'Highly Unlikely'
Joining of Old to New Sidewalls & Spillway Slab concrete - Lower Transition Slab (RCC to Construction Concrete)
Getting the last sections completed. An interesting RCC design modification. Power jackhammer mini-excavators have been used to cut grooves across the RCC spillway surface. No particular pattern to these cut grooves. In addition, the large flat surface area of the RCC is being air blasted and hydro blasted in what seems to be a "roughing up" or cleaning up of the top aggregate of the RCC. Power washers are then used to move the dislodged material downslope.
The mini-tracked dump units are able to rotate 360 degrees on the central axis over the tracks. This allows "dumping" material over the side of the sloped RCC areas by the sidewalls without having to skid rotate turn the tracks.
Old original Sidewall and New taller Sidewall being joined in a final stage concrete pour. Same for the Old spillway slabs to the New spillway slab area.
Lower transition section of construction concrete has been poured. Water fills a "V" ditch to where the other half of the transition will be likely filled with RCC in the final top surfacing phase.
