THE WELCH COMPANY
440 Davis Court #1602
San Francisco, CA 94111-2496
415 781 5700
S U M M A R Y
DIARY: December 19, 1991 09:00 AM Thursday;
Interview Percy Dawson for Broadwater engineer.
3...Other Voith Equipment
4...Subject to Review
5...Project Management Critical
6...Full Operation Test
7...AGMA Calculations for Helecial Gear
.....Errors Found on MK's Project
8...Problems in US
9...Fast Track Design Limitations
11...Interview Bill Larsen
13...Payment of Percy's Travel Expense
Click here to comment!
0201 - Dawson Mechanical Engineer 510 254 8582
020101 - Mr. Percy B. Dawson; =415 442 7421
Voith Contract Closeout
Engineering Management, 911011
Opinion Contract Requirements,
Industry Standards; Expert Opinion
Evidence of Defective Work
Submit Shop Drawings for approval, review
Replace v. Retrofit, 920120
Submittals, complete review, 911118
Fast Track, Concurrent Engineering
1312 - ..
1313 - Summary
131401 - Percy inspected the plant and explained what a professional review of
131402 - the speed increaser design would entail.
131404 - He is capable and provided important, timely advice to DNRC.
131406 - Consideration should be given to pay his travel expense.
1317 - Plant inspection
131801 - Walt and Mike took Percy to the Broadwater plant. Upon return, Walt
131802 - indicated they had done most of the standardized questions Walt has
131803 - used with interviewees. Mike indicated he feels Percy is the most
131804 - qualified engineer interviewed so far on the speed increaser.
131806 - Prior to the plant inspection, Percy and Rod Welch had breakfast and
131807 - discussed issues between Voith and DNRC, ref SDS 2 and DIP 1 to DNRC.
1321 - 1250 Lunch & Discussions
132201 - Walt, Mike and I took Percy to lunch, then we met in the Engineering
132202 - Library to continue the interview. Sarah joined us for that
132203 - interview.
132206 - Scope of Speed Increaser
132207 - Submittal Review
132209 - Percy seems very capable of doing the review to determine the adequacy
132210 - of the speed increaser. He explained to Walt that in light of the
132211 - prior difficulties of this unit, DNRC must insist upon reviewing all
132212 - of the design information needed to make sure the speed increaser is
132213 - adequate. He emphasized that an equipment failure places the owner
132214 - and contractor on notice to perform a more thorough review of the
132215 - design and workmanship of the contractor.
132217 - Examples
132219 - Walt asked for examples of things that should be reviewed by the
132220 - Engineer in the contractor's shop drawings.
132222 - Besides checking AGMA calculations, Percy mentioned that stress and
132223 - vibration analyses are needed, structural support systems, and
132224 - mechanical and electrical subystems all need review. He gave an
132225 - example of how the design of a support for a connecting shaft had
132226 - failed because the moment was taken at the support interface rather
132227 - than the axis of the shaft.
132230 - Other Voith Equipment
132231 - Subject to Review
132233 - This same approach is needed of other Voith equipment for which the
132234 - record indicates that the review of contractor submittals by the
132235 - Engineer may have been perfunctory and/or inadequate.
132239 - Project Management Critical
132241 - Percy also pointed out candidly that the most important issue is get-
132242 - ting sound project management in place who can approach the issues
132243 - within industry standards for engineers on resolving defective work
132244 - problems.
132247 - Full Operation Test
132249 - Percy indicated that after the punch list work is complete, including
132250 - the speed increaser, there should be another 30 day full operation
132251 - test with adequate Engineering supervision.
132255 - During the meeting, Sarah delivered the Federal Express package from
132256 - Tudor that includes more information on speed increaser submittals.
132257 - Included seemed to be AGMA calculations that are missing from the
132258 - Tudor jobsite files.
132261 - Voith Submitted
132262 - AGMA Calculations for Helecial Gear
132264 - Percy glanced through some of this information handed to him by Walt,
132265 - and observed that it seems to refer to helical gears as specified in
132266 - the contract, rather than spur gear data which Voith maintains it
132267 - supplied. Mike Sims noted that the valuations for the gear factors
132268 - may be those for a spur gear even though the language describes a
132269 - helical gear. [this requires research]
132271 - Errors Found on MK's Project
132273 - Percy explained the review he recently performed on AGMA calcula-
132274 - tions submitted by Philadelphia Gear on a project where MK is the
132275 - project engineer. He found numerous mathamatical errors in the
132276 - contractor's computer submittal which required correction prior to
132277 - manufacturer. He would expect to perform a similar evaluation of
132278 - Voith's submittals on the Broadwater project.
132282 - History of Speed Increaser
132283 - Problems in US
132285 - Percy believes speed increasers have a history in the US of diffi-
132286 - culties. It is not clear whether there was sufficient in 1988, 1989
132287 - to have alerted Tudor to give this matter greater attention and care
132288 - in review of shop drawings.
132290 - Percy also indicated speed increasers are relatively new technology in
132291 - the US on hydro electric plants. He feels this is another reason for
132292 - careful review of contractor's shop drawings.
132294 - He explained that for the Broadwater site a speed increaser may have
132295 - been the best engineering solution.
132298 - Fast Track Design Limitations
132300 - Sarah asked Percy if in his experience a "fast track" project would
132301 - have called for less vigilent review of the speed increaser shop
132302 - drawings than might otherwise be required for a regular project?
132304 - Percy feels that "fast track" refers to specifying a shorter time
132305 - frame for a project [generally achieved by increased staffing, longer
132306 - work days, multiple shifting] than would result from applying typical
132307 - scheduling methods. He advised that most hydro electric projects are
132308 - built using the phased design/construct procedure used on Broadwater,
132309 - where the equipment contract is awarded and that contractor then
132310 - furnishes information for the design of the powerhouse. This proced-
132311 - ure alone would not comprise a "fast track" hydro electric project.
132313 - He explained that in all cases, however, it is important for the
132314 - engineer to make clear in the contract specifications the design
132315 - criteria to be met by the equipment manufacturer and for the engineer
132316 - to then review the contractor's proposed design to make sure it will
132317 - accomplish the criteria set out in the specifications. Percy cited
132318 - the historical problems with speed increasers as warranting particular
132319 - attention.
132321 - Percy indicated that in his experience the time frame of the project
132322 - does not relieve either the contractor nor the engineer for properly
132323 - designing, reviewing and constructing the work. Shorter time frames
132324 - can increase the cost by requiring much greater resources (men and
132325 - equipment) to accomplish the same work in a shorter time frame. Fast
132326 - track affects the efficiency by which the steps to construct the work
132327 - correctly are carried out, but it does not relieve the requirement to
132328 - make sure the work is constructed correctly.
132331 - Consultants
132332 - Written Recommendations
132334 - Percy explained his experience of requiring written opinions from
132335 - consultants on their findings. This information is then evaluated
132336 - with the contractor's information to form a final written opinion on
132337 - the adequacy of the contractor's design and to support the Engineer's
132338 - direction to the contractor.
132340 - If he accepted the assignment to evaluate the speed increaser, he
132341 - would require written findings from Geartech and Maritech to support
132342 - his work.
Voith Contract Closeout
Engineering Management, 911011
1508 - Evaluation
150901 - Sarah feels Bill Larsen showed in recent phone conversations that he
150902 - would make a better expert witness than Percy. She feels Percy would
150903 - not stand up under cross examination. I explained that in my experi-
150904 - ence as an arbitrator I found Percy's demeanor acceptable and his
150905 - presentation knowledgable and credible. Percy has been highly
150906 - recommended by Stone & Webster and more recently by Morrison Knudson
150907 - Engineers based on his work on the Idaho Falls project, ref SDS 2 line
150908 - 051206.
150910 - I was also struck by the seeming increase in his energy level as we
150911 - got into the subject. Mike commented on this as well. In any event,
150912 - Percy's age is a factor in the selection from a health and availa-
150913 - bility standpoint.
150915 - Percy's stature in the industry and his knowledge may encourage Voith
150916 - to avoid the kind of tactical delays they have used so far in dealing
150917 - with DNRC staff. Percy appears to have the skill and experience to do
150918 - the engineering review information upon which sound management deci-
150919 - sions can be made which are needed for the Jan 14, session in York.
150922 - Interview Bill Larsen
150924 - The previous interviews have disclosed more knowledge about the
150925 - material issues involved in selecting an engineer. Bill Larsen should
150926 - be interviewed personally, to see if his youth and other capabilities
150927 - warrant selection above Percy Dawson.
150931 - Geartech's Opinion
150933 - Since DNRC is relying on Geartech and since Percy Dawson has also used
150934 - Geartech for gear set analysis, Geartech's opinion of Percy may be
150935 - helpful to determine the quality of Percy's work and the difference in
150936 - scope between what Geartech does and what Percy would do. If
150937 - Geartech has worked with both Dawson and Larsen, his common
150938 - experience may be helpful.
150942 - Payment of Percy's Travel Expense
150944 - I recommend that DNRC pay Percy for his travel expense and maintain
150945 - contact with him. Even if he is not initially selected, he is a very
150946 - valuable resource.
1512 - Next step
151301 - I suggested again to Walt that he request the following from HKM and
151302 - Power Engineering (his initial choices for Engineer).
151305 - 1. Proposed agreement terms.
151306 - 2. Anticiapted budget and schedule.
151307 - 3. Initial work plan.
151308 - 4. Names of engineers they offer for speed increaser review
151309 - and hydro electric engineering experience.
1516 - 1720 Discussion with Sarah and Wayne
151701 - Sarah said Walt requested this afternoon the above items from Acres,
151702 - HKM and Power Engineering.
Distribution. . . . See "CONTACTS"