Source: http://www.sfgate.com, August 4, 2014
By: Jaxon Van Derbeken
Top Caltrans officials are expected to respond Tuesday to accusations that they “gagged and banished” engineers who identified construction problems on the new Bay Bridge eastern span and that the agency failed to maintain basic quality control on the project.
In advance of a state Senate hearing, Caltrans has signaled that the agency’s major problem was poor communication with the public and its own employees. When it comes to construction, officials say, Caltrans did almost nothing wrong and fixed the few problems that did arise.
Lawmakers on the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee will question Caltrans Director Malcolm Dougherty, other state officials and the head of the bridge’s lead contractor, American Bridge/Fluor, about two reports last week from an investigator and a panel of six engineers who were critical of how the $6.4 billion project was managed.

Investigator’s report

Former investigative journalist Roland De Wolk concluded in his report that although the span is unlikely to suffer major damage in an earthquake, it will probably require retrofitting during its 150-year life span because Caltrans accepted cracked welds on components fabricated at Zhenhua Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. in Shanghai.
The six-member engineering panel, chaired by Professor Reginald DesRoches of the Georgia Institute of Technology, found that the failure last year of 32 galvanized, high-strength steel rods used to anchor the bridge’s seismic stabilizers raised questions about Caltrans’ quality control on the project. Separately, the panel called on bridge builders to do a risk analysis to pinpoint the likely weakest link on the span in an earthquake.
DesRoches, an expert in seismic performance of structures, said that although such a study was not standard for bridges, the Bay Bridge is sufficiently complex that one is merited. The engineering panel noted that such studies are common for major structures such as nuclear power plants and offshore oil platforms.

‘Proud of our work’

“I am very proud of our work; I hope they will take our recommendations to heart,” DesRoches said in an interview Monday. “I think a risk assessment would shed a lot of light on potential vulnerabilities that may exist over time.”
In a letter Friday to the chairman of the Senate committee, Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, Caltrans’ Dougherty said the engineering panel’s findings supported the agency’s contention that the project is safe.
He noted that the panel concluded that Caltrans met or exceeded seismic design standards in place at the time the project was planned, and that the engineers had endorsed the state’s repairs of the seismic stabilizers after the high-strength rods broke.
Dougherty called the engineering panel’s conclusions “thoughtful, informed feedback that in many cases we agree with,” and that some findings “warrant further conversations.”
He did not respond to the specific seismic issues the panel raised, including Caltrans’ failure to perform a rigorous risk analysis to see how the span might perform in a major earthquake. Instead, Dougherty told DeSaulnier that in general, “Caltrans used appropriate methodologies, approaches and assumptions” in building the bridge.

Caltrans’ assessment

A report Caltrans released last week about the “lessons learned” on the project acknowledged that the agency would have benefited from an independent review beforehand of its decision to use high-strength steel in more than 2,000 rods and bolts. Such steel is more vulnerable to corrosion, one reason that Caltrans typically does not allow it on bridges.
Caltrans decided it needed high-strength steel on the Bay Bridge to withstand demands put on the bolts and rods by the unusual self-anchored suspension span design.
The state agency blamed public distrust of the bridge on the agency’s early response to the broken rods.
“When unexpected problems” such as the failure “occurred without prior explanation or swift access and information, the lack of transparency in the decision-making process was reported by the media and did not help foster trust,” Caltrans said.
As for the engineering panel’s critique of quality control, Dougherty acknowledged, “There are lessons to be learned.”
Overall, Dougherty wrote, the findings of the panel “help underscore our contention that the new bridge is safe.”

Retaliation reported

Two lead critics of weld quality on the project are expected to testify Tuesday that they were shunted aside after voicing criticisms to their supervisors. De Wolk concluded that a total of nine engineers were “gagged and banished” after they complained that quality was being sacrificed or that costs were too high for the work being done in China.
Nathan Lindell, who was hired in 2007 by American Bridge/Fluor, told De Wolk he was relegated to software development after pleading with his bosses to hire as many as 30 more engineers to verify the quality of the Chinese work.
American Bridge/Fluor officials did not cooperate with De Wolk’s report. Its CEO, Michael Flowers, is scheduled to appear before the state Senate committee Tuesday.
Keith Devonport, a consultant who was hired by a contractor to help Caltrans oversee weld quality, told De Wolk that he too was given a desk job after calling for more rigorous inspections.
Dougherty said “there could have been better communication amongst the team” to make sure everyone knew how Caltrans officials were resolving construction problems, but that its absence did not amount to retaliation.