December 10, 2025, Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

33 of 55 sheets Page 129 to 132 of 144 01/14/2026 10:36:25 AM 129 and that's a legal question. So that's above his1 ability to provide that information.2 THE PUBLIC: That would be experience, all3 right. That's his experience. I am not asking him to4 opine about what happens in court, but in your opinion5 as an engineer, in your experience, you're making a6 choice between a more conservative versus a less7 conservative opinion regarding the numbers that are used8 to decide the risk, right. And you're making a choice9 based on that which happens in engineering all the same10 time I'm sure. And I'm asking you in your experience11 when there's a choice between a more conservative and12 less conservative standard and there's a disaster which13 happens, nothings zero risk, which is, you very clearly14 laid out, how is that managed?15 THE WITNESS: I don't quite understand what16 you mean, managed. In other words, if it has a slope17 failure?18 THE PUBLIC: The building comes down, which19 this builder has experienced. If something, if there's20 a disaster, if the O-ring, you know, falls apart on a21 spaceship these are engineering challenges, I teach22 engineering and these are things that you think about in23 medicine, these can cause death. It sounds like that's24 the situation here. And you make choices regarding the25 130 standards that we use to evaluate risk in any situation1 and we very commonly are a third opinion, which you are,2 you are a third opinion when you have an engineering3 group saying one thing and another engineer group saying4 another thing and you have to adjudicate that, you're a5 third opinion as an impartial expert, how is that dealt6 with when there's an error? When there's, you know, a7 flaw in the choice between the less stringent versus the8 more stringent standard.9 THE WITNESS: Well, there would be, you10 know, an investigation. If it was me I would be on the11 carpet and --12 THE PUBLIC: And you feel that, right, I13 guess that's a very simple one, you can feel bad when14 something terrible happens based on the decision?15 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I might be fined or16 jailed, if I was negligent put in jail, which would be a17 terrible thing.18 THE PUBLIC: So thinking about those19 terrible things, what would make an engineer, and I20 really don't know, what would make an engineer make a21 choice to use the less stringent versus a more

ng.18 THE PUBLIC: So thinking about those19 terrible things, what would make an engineer, and I20 really don't know, what would make an engineer make a21 choice to use the less stringent versus a more stringent22 recommendation when evaluating risk in determining, you23 know, what their opinions should be in a situation?24 THE WITNESS: Well, the less stringent25 131 method in this case is the amount of reserve strength1 that you have on the failure surface. In other words,2 based on the recommendation for, for the Princeton Hydro3 may be two times.4 THE PUBLIC: That 1.5 versus 2.0 number,5 right?6 THE WITNESS: And so the one and half7 criteria is generally accepted in the practice as being8 adequate. And to recommend the higher, you know, would9 like to use, you know, the higher coefficient all the10 time but it enables, it imposes large financial burdens11 on people if we over design everything.12 THE PUBLIC: So that's helpful, and I guess13 troubling to me because now what we're doing is talking14 about financial challenges versus evaluating safety.15 Like when is it a good idea to accept a lesser standard?16 THE WITNESS: But these standards are set by17 the standard setting --18 THE PUBLIC: But somebody thinks the19 standard is 2.0 --20 THE WITNESS: -- and in my experience the21 site conditions indicated by the exploration and the22 type of construction on the slope, which there is no23 construction permitted on the slope, there is not --24 does not warrant a safety factor of 2.0.25 132 THE PUBLIC: Are there ever situations where1 it's utilizing a higher standard it becomes untenable,2 unfeasible, unsafe to proceed with a project utilizing a3 more conservative estimate of risk?4 THE WITNESS: Yes, if it was some kind of a5 capital improvement project for a municipality and if6 they had a budget of X million dollars and the bids all7 come in to X, bids come in at 2X then th project doesn't8 go forward. These sorts of things, and if you9 arbitrarily decide to use that to design everything to10 the highest standard and then it's not affordable, then11 it's a problem.12 THE PUBLIC: I will stop in a second, I know13 it's a lot of questions, but when is it ever a worse14 thing in engineering to use a better safety standard15 than a lower safety standard, given the choice provided16 by two expert firms? Like what's the harm, I guess is17 what I am asking. What's

orse14 thing in engineering to use a better safety standard15 than a lower safety standard, given the choice provided16 by two expert firms? Like what's the harm, I guess is17 what I am asking. What's the harm ever in accepting in18 your analysis the more stringent safety standard when19 all things are equal rather than the less stringent20 safety standard?21 THE WITNESS: Well, you can make the stuff22 so large that it's not constructible. Or that it is so23 difficult in construction that you -- it's not24 affordable.25