Bay Bridge problems

Caltrans accused of trying to hide Bay Bridge problems

By Jaxon Van Derbeken

A Caltrans engineer and an outside expert working on the Bay Bridge eastern span accused agency officials of discounting warnings about cracked welds on the bridge, and telling them not to put their concerns in writing to keep them from becoming public, according to a report commissioned for a state Senate committee.

An official overseeing the long-delayed, $6.4 billion project told a Caltrans engineer who had examined the Chinese-made welds "not to record his concerns in writing, either on paper or e-mail, but rather to communicate orally," said the report for the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee, which was released Wednesday. A quality-control consultant said Caltrans supervisors "did not want a record that would be legally available through the California Public Records Act," the report said.

The experts were concerned that a Chinese company working on huge sections of the bridge deck was turning out numerous welds that had cracks in them, contrary to Caltrans' standards for the span, the report said.

Caltrans officials said disputes over the welds were dealt with methodically and responsibly and stressed that an outside panel eventually certified the welds as sound, the report said. The main agency official overseeing the bridge project described the exchanges with critics of the work as "philosophical disagreements" and said no one had been discouraged from reporting problems.

The report is expected to be the centerpiece of a committee hearing Friday led by state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord. He commissioned the report, which was written by a former investigative producer for KTVU-TV, Roland De Wolk.

The weld issue is separate from concerns that emerged last year over thousands of rods and bolts that are embedded in the bridge tower and hold together seismic-safety structures. Caltrans is still conducting tests to determine the long-term safety of the galvanized-steel fasteners.

The new report, based on De Wolk's interviews with current and former Caltrans employees, outside consultants and officials, "confirms a lot of fears I had of what's been reported about the bridge," DeSaulnier said. "When we get the final report, people will be held accountable and we will reform the culture at Caltrans so it will better serve the public."

Andrew Gordon, spokesman for the bridge project, said officials were reviewing the document and would give their responses at Friday's hearing.

One witness scheduled to testify Friday is James Merrill, an official with the quality assurance firm MACTEC. He told De Wolk that Caltrans had replaced his firm from a job overseeing work at the Chinese company after officials told him it was being "too rigorous" in rejecting cracked welds.

Merrill said the company, Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industry Co. Ltd. - known as ZPMC - lacked experience in bridge work and was only marginally qualified for the job. Caltrans took a "great risk" in relying on them, he told De Wolk.

"We found hundreds of cracks," many of them visible to the naked eye, the report quotes Merrill as saying. Others were revealed through ultrasonic testing, he said. After Merrill's firm started to reject deck sections in 2008 because of the cracks, progress stalled. The delays eventually added $100 million to the cost of the bridge, the report said.

When the head of Caltrans' testing branch near Sacramento backed up Merrill's findings, Caltrans told his firm to send its work directly to bridge project managers, the report said.

In 2008, Caltrans replaced Merrill's firm with another outfit and commissioned an independent audit of the new quality-control company. That study raised questions about the new firm's qualifications, the report said.
The auditor's report, however, never made it out of draft form because one of the officials overseeing the bridge project, Tony Anziano, kept raising objections, audit firm owner Michael Mayes said.

"He kept asking me to change things," Mayes told De Wolk. "I had my suspicions. I think he didn't want it to get out that these guys were not qualified." The report notes that the California Public Records Act does not require that draft documents be disclosed to the media or other members of the public who request state documents.

Merrill said Anziano had told him explicitly not to put concerns about the welds in writing because he "did not want a record that would be legally available through the California Public Records Act," the report said.
The Caltrans engineer who objected to the Chinese work, 25-year agency veteran Douglas Coe, said he received a similar reaction after concluding that thousands of welds were cracked and that the head of the new quality-control firm was "lying" about having conducted inspections.

Anziano "repeatedly instructed him not to record his concerns in writing, either on paper or e-mail, but rather to communicate orally," the report said. Coe said that after he raised his objections, he was reassigned to lesser duties at the Antioch Bridge. Coe and Merrill said the weld problems did not make the bridge unsafe, but that dealing with them would require increased maintenance throughout the span's predicted 150-year life.

"This is the first time in my career the engineering wasn't allowed to be done right," Coe said. "It's a loss of public trust. ... If that bridge starts to crack in five years, it's all going come out."

Anziano told De Wolk that he did not get the impression the weld situation was alarming. "Issues were identified and routinely addressed," he said, and no one was ever discouraged from reporting problems. He said there were "healthy conversations" and "philosophical disagreements" about the welds.
Anziano said he didn't recall ordering anyone not to put their concerns in writing.

"In my view, you are always better off with written communication," Anziano said, according to the report.
Anziano said he had taken Coe off the bridge project because he had been "unable to establish a working relationship with our contractors" and needed a "fresh assignment."

In the end, bridge management brought in outside experts, who reviewed the welding issue and judged the welds to be safe.