A HIGH-PROFILE ENGINEERING FACILITY IS EXPECTED
TO HAVE AN INCREASED PROBABILITY OF LITIGATION RISKS

◄—— Expert witness consulting is expected to be needed if litigation has commenced
An engineering risk analysis and design upgrade may prevent a failure and subsequent litigation ——►

DR. MIHOLITS' EXPERT WITNESS AND ENGINEERING CONSULTING SKILLS

◄—— Dr. Miholits is an analytical thinker and an engineering problem solver (design analysis) ——►
Dr. Miholits has the expert witness skills needed to determine why a failure/accident has occurred
and the engineering skills needed to analyze and upgrade designs to prevent failures from occurring

TYPICAL EXAMPLES OF EXPERT WITNESS & ENGINEERING SERVICES

◄—— Classic expert witness example — determine the cause of the TMI-2 incident
Example of a structure that could fail — the design of this 40-year old structure was analyzed relative
to today's standards and the potential for a big earthquake. Decision: it was reinforced, as shown ——► 

SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION TO HIGH-PROFILE ENGINEERING ACCIDENTS & FAILURES

FIRST OBJECTIVE OF WEB PAGE 2 - to describe what a high-profile engineering project is and why the potential for litigation increases. Definitions are in sections 1 and 2

• To show that Dr. Miholits' sole-proprietorship engineering consulting business has been structured around high-profile engineering areas (e.g., civil, environmental and nuclear fuel cycle engineering projects; physics research facilities, et cetera),

• To describe what a high-profile project is and explain why the risk of litigation is significant.

• To show that his skills and experience centers on the cited high-profile projects as it applies to his Expert Witness; Engineering Consulting; and Literature Research work, and

• To show that working in the high-profile area builds a broader range of skills. In the end, one's skills are ultimately more diverse, adaptable and valuable to other project types.

The high-profile engineering projects addressed herein all have some form of risky, perilous, hazardous, dangerous characteristics which can develop or lead to very severe legal ramifications, if there is a failure or accident. And then there is the associated health and safety areas risks (hazardous waste, ionizing radiation, etc.). Additionally, severe injury and death may also occur. Dr. Miholits provides the science and engineering evidence required by the legal community to build their legal arguments for their case. Evidence on both sides of the argument will be studied, analyzed and evaluated in detail for the legal community. The latter will be in accordance with the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court decision entitled, the 1993 Daubert Criteria.

In summary these criteria say the following. The 1993 U.S. Supreme Court established a standard for determining the admissibility of expert scientific evidence in litigation. This Court precedence, is described in a decision entitled, The Application of the U.S. Supreme Court's Daubert Criteria in Radiation Litigation (1993). This Court precedence is now known as the Daubert Criteria, named after the pertinent case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The Daubert Criteria require that the Courts determine whether or not: (1) the expert's work product is based on good science; (2) the expert's work is thorough, exemplary and without bias; (3) the expert's findings are derived by the use of an accepted scientific method; and (4) the expert's testimony reflects a complete and fair analysis and evaluation of both sides of the scientific knowledge base. The preceding will then permit the legal profession to see all sides of the evidence and develop their arguments accordingly and in conformance with the 1993 Daubert Criteria.

The three types of consulting work engaged by Dr. Miholits are described below.

• EXPERT WITNESS CONSULTING (business line 1). This is a litigation support phase and includes forensic research and litigation support services on projects where an Undesirable Incident has already occurred. Please click on the hyperlink —► Expert Witness 

• PROACTIVE ENGINEERING CONSULTING (business line 2). This is an engineering problem solving and design analysis phase. In this phase, engineering problems are solved before an undesirable incident (e.g., an accident or failure) occurs. Please note that the problems uncovered in this phase are always precursors to the Litigation Support Phase. Sometimes they are identified and corrected and sometimes not. When they are not corrected, there is a possibility that the undesirable failures and/or accidents may occur. If they do, the Litigation Support Phase may follow. Please click on the hyperlink —► Proactive Engineering

• ENGINEERING AND SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE RESEARCH (business line 3) This work is done for business lines 1 & 2, as well as for business line 3 (Stand-alone Clients). Please click on the hyperlink —► Literature Research

• All three phases are closely related in terms of the analytical work performed and required skills to do this work. The difference lies in the audience and the format and content of the report.

  • The audience for the Litigation Support Phase are Legal Firms representing the facility or the injured party.

    • The facility is being sued because they had an undesirable incident which may have resulted in injury or death or something else.

    • The injured party may bring suit against the facility.

  • The audience for the Engineering Problem Solving & Design Analysis Phase is the owner/operator of a high-profile facility who wants to take the steps necessary to prevent undesirable incidents from occurring.

  • The audience for the Engineering and Scientific Literature Research Phase are Dr. Miholits needs in business lime 1 & 2, as well as for business line 3 (Stand-alone Clients).

  • Dr. Miholits has the skills to do all three phases.

• The three phases are described on:

  • THE EXPERT WITNESS web page is on page 3. Please click on the hyperlink —► Expert Witness

  • THE PROACTIVE ENGINEERING web page is on page 4. Please click on the hyperlink —►  Proactive Engineering

  • THE ENGINEERING LITERATURE RESEARCH web page is on page 5. Please click on the hyperlink —► Literature Research

SECTION 2
WHAT IS A HIGH-PROFILE ENGINEERING PROJECT?

The High-Profile Engineering Projects cited herein, are generally in the Public Eye.  The reason being that in many cases they are judged on the basis of their public image and perception (e.g., nuclear projects are normally considered dangerous and have greater risks). But in reality, the facts may prove otherwise. In Dr. Miholits' opinion, the goal of both Phases is to uncover the factual information (the truth) and present the evidence to his Client in a fashion which ensures legal success.

Dr. Miholits' definition of a High-Profile Engineering Project follows.

• High-profile engineering projects are most notable for being able to create an undesirable incident. All of the project types named by Dr. Miholits are projects which might be correctly called, Risky or Perilous Engineering Projects. Definitions used herein were created by Dr. Miholits.

  • Types of undesirable incidents which may occur from these projects include: (1) civil engineering issues (structural failures); (2) a hazardous waste release both (specific chemicals possess a hazard based on their identity, concentration and quantity of release); (3) environmental and regulatory issues; (4) health & safety incidents; (5) nuclear fuel cycle issues (radioisotope releases and/or radiation exposures); and (6) et cetera.

  • Undesirable incidents may have a significant litigation risk potential.

  • This being the case, in the Engineering Problem Solving & Design Analysis Phase we have assumed that the undesirable incident has not occurred. So as an example, we can do retrofits to prevent a failure and/or an accident from happening.

• The incidents cited on the web pages herein, are primarily in high-profile areas and include specific types of facilities.

  • These facilities include, but are not limited to: water and wastewater treatment plants; nuclear power plants; nuclear fuel cycle facilities; facilities with health & safety issues; radiation exposure; et cetera.

  • Please note: Dr. Miholits is not limited to only working in high-profile areas. He specifies this area for two reasons: (1) he has the expertise to deal effectively with high-profile areas; and (2) he has the broad-based abilities to cover many other engineering and science areas which are out of his stated area of specialty.

  • His high-profile specialty areas are defined on this web page.

Dr. Miholits defines a High-Profile Engineering Project as one that is generally more risky or perilous than others. Such an example is a civil engineering structure such as the Raised Concrete Highway in Oakland, CA which collapsed during the 1989 San Francisco earthquake. Therefore, risky engineering areas include: civil; environmental; nuclear fuel cycle; health & safety; radiation protection; et cetera. Consequently, these project areas may have a significant litigation risk potential. The kinds of risks include:

• An incident may result in health, medical, safety, injury, death and other problems for Humans and other members of the Plant and Animal Kingdom. These health and medical problems may be short term or long-term.

• An incident may result in a significant loss in manufacturing facilities or other real estate, as well as money,

• An incident may result in social, political and/or esthetic situations to occur,

• An incident may result in significant regulatory violations to develop, and/or

• An incident may result in significant legal actions to be taken.

Based on Dr. Miholits' experience, he believes that these types of High-Profile Engineering Projects may have a significantly high probability of occurring on:

• Civil engineering projects (e.g., construction of bridges, chemical refineries, etc.),

• Hazardous waste activities (e.g., sanitary, industrial, hazardous, toxic and medical wastes; landfill sites, etc.),

• Health and safety activities (e.g., OSHA), and

• Nuclear fuel cycle engineering projects (e.g., uranium enrichment, nuclear fuel reprocessing plants, decontamination of nuclear power plants, nuclear waste repositories, nuclear waste transport, spent fuel storage, radioactive waste, etc.); and (5) related projects.

Dr. Miholits believes that the following items are applicable to the cited types of High-Profile Engineering Projects.

• These projects may have a higher probability of proceeding to the Legal Phase than other project types.

• These projects suggest that the qualifications of the consultant be appropriate for the special characteristics of these projects. As an example, nuclear projects require special education and unique experience.

• In this regard, Dr. Miholits has three degrees in engineering from two top-ten universities. He has over 25 years of experience in the above cited engineering areas. In his situation, his experience in these high-profile areas began in 1965. This was supplemented by: (1) his teaching and research experience; and (2) his emphasis on engaging in Problem Solving University-Type Paper Studies. When all of these factors are combined, Dr. Miholits developed the necessary attributes to be effective in the area of engineering consulting and subsequent inputs to the Legal Process. Please see other sections of this web-site for supporting information.

SECTION 3
MARKETING PROGRAM FOR DR. MIHOLITS

SECOND OBJECTIVE OF WEB-PAGE 2  —  to market Dr. Miholits' skills as an Expert Witness Consultant to:

• Legal firms working on litigation issues related to engineering failures and accidents, and

• Engineering expert witness firms working for legal firms.

The rationale for the marketing program is presented in Sections 3 and 4.

The marketing effort is based on the work Dr,. Miholits did on two billion dollar plus nuclear projects (1980 dollars):

• A Failure Modes and Effects Analysis for WIPP (a Defense Nuclear Waste Repository). See Section 5 for details, and

• A Design Audit for the Comanche Creek Nuclear Power Plant. See Section 6 for details.

What is the Daubert Criteria and why is it repeated again, herein? Because it forms the basis and the performance standards that Dr. Miholits, as an Expert Witness must meet and follow.

In summary the Daubert Criteria say the following. The 1993 U.S. Supreme Court established a standard for determining the admissibility of expert scientific evidence in litigation. This Court precedence, is described in a decision entitled, The Application of the U.S. Supreme Court's Daubert Criteria in Radiation Litigation (1993). This Court precedence is now known as the Daubert Criteria, named after the pertinent case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The Daubert Criteria require that the Courts determine whether or not: (1) the expert's work product is based on good science; (2) the expert's work is thorough, exemplary and without bias; (3) the expert's findings are derived by the use of an accepted scientific method; and (4) the expert's testimony reflects a complete and fair analysis and evaluation of both sides of the scientific knowledge base.

Because Dr. Miholits conducts his Forensic Investigations in accordance with these criteria, the legal profession will be given all sides of the evidence base and thereby be able to develop their arguments accordingly and in conformance with the Daubert Criteria.

In BUSINESS LINE 1 he offers EXPERT WITNESS SERVICES. In this role, Dr. Miholits determines the cause of a failure or accident, after-the-fact.

In BUSINESS LINE 2 he offers supporting PROACTIVE ENGINEERING SERVICES.  In this role, Dr. Miholits analyzes designs and solves design problems to ensure that failures or accidents do not occur. This is a before-a-failure/accident occurs type of service, as illustrated below by the WIPP and Comanche Creek Nuclear Power Plant projects.

In BUSINESS LINE 3 he performs LITERATURE RESEARCH SERVICES for business lines 1 & 2 and offers these services in business line 3 for "Stand-alone Clients." 

On this page, Dr. Miholits demonstrates how he can apply his strong Business Line 2 skills and experience in the Reverse Direction. That is, analyze a failure and/or accident for the legal profession (Business Line 1).  To do this, Dr. Miholits has set up these two business lines. Dr. Miholits engages in both business lines because he believes both are needed to make the complete Expert Witness. The rationale for this opinion follows.

Dr. Miholits offers Expert Witness Services in many engineering areas such as, civil, environmental, nuclear, et cetera. To do this, a brief discussion is presented on Dr. Miholits' role, as it applies to potential failures and accidents that might occur at two large nuclear facilities (WIPP & Comanche Creek). The WIPP facility design was critically analyzed by Dr. Miholits and his staff prior to the start of the construction phase to ensure that no failures or accidents occurred during the construction and operational phases. The Comanche Creek Nuclear Power Plant was analyzed solely by him via a Design Audit. Both of these Design-Based Analyses are very relevant to Expert Witness Consulting for the reasons listed below:

• An engineer who is exposed to good designs tends to recognize good, as well as potentially flawed designs and/or design weaknesses at other facilities. WIPP was a lesson in how to design well and prevent downstream failures. Please see his Curriculum Vitae via the hyperlink ——► Curriculum Vitae
• An engineer who is then exposed to marginal designs should now be able to quickly identify what may become a potential failure scenario.
• The key to all of this is that a person can enhance their Expert Witness skills by first or simultaneously working on design projects that create good designs and have a minimal number of failures and/or accidents.
• WIPP and the Comanche Nuclear Power Plant were chosen as examples because there was a significantly higher potential that failures and/or accidents could occur at these facilities. And the failures could have monumental consequences and lead to big litigation problems.
  • Therefore, a Failure Modes & Effects Analysis was appropriate for the design phase of the WIPP nuclear waste repository, and
  • A Design Audit was appropriate for the Comanche Creek Nuclear Power Plant.
• Both projects served as good projects for Dr. Miholits to enhance his Expert Witness skills because he went through similar steps that one goes through to prevent a failure, as one goes though to find the cause of a failure.
  • Dr. Miholits' responsibility on both projects was to provide the assurance that the designs would not result in failures and/or accidents that could result in injuries, death, financial and other losses that could lead to litigation.
  • This was done on WIPP by providing the assurance that there was a strict adherence to regulations, design codes, backup systems, etc.
  • On the other hand, Comanche Creek was more vulnerable on this issue because the overall design and construction period lasted about 20 years. During this period there were many changes in design criteria, codes and standards, social, political and environmental influence, regulatory changes, legal case history, et cetera.
• Dr. Miholits' believes that his extensive exposure to good designs (WIPP) enhanced his ability to develop an effective Two-Way Analytical Thinking Process. That is, from the design side he can see how the pieces fit together correctly so there will be no failures. Then from the operational phase, he can quickly see what caused the failure. Because he is good at analytical two-way thinking processes, Dr. Miholits thought it appropriate to insert a picture of the Rodin statue The Thinker, below his photograph.
• This Two-Way Analysis Thinking Process skill is extremely valuable and effective in developing failure/accident scenarios. To do this in the real world, two things must happen, (1) an engineer needs to work in the design world; and (2) he needs to possess an effective two-way analytical thinking process.
• These two examples illustrate that the thinking process for: (1) a failure analysis study; and (2) a design audit on newly designed facilities (before construction) is similar to the thinking process that could be used in the reverse direction. That is, after a failure or accident has occurred, the engineer must use reverse engineering to find the cause of the failure and/or accident for the legal profession. Dr. Miholits can do this kind of analytical two-way thinking and analysis (i.e., reverse engineering).

SECTION 4
AN OVERVIEW OF DR. MIHOLITS' SKILLS IN THE AFOREMENTIONED SUBJECT AREAS

• The research, analysis and evaluation work is similar in both phases. That is, in business line 1 one does reverse engineering analysis to find out what caused the failure or accident and in business line 2 one does a design analysis to upgrade the design to prevent a failure. The thinking process for both is similar. The required skills are similar and transferable between phases. Only, the End Audience is different. In the first case, it is the facility owner and in the second case it is the attorneys.
• The research, analysis and evaluations one does to solve a problem in the Proactive Engineering Consulting area is for the facility owner. It is virtually the same as the type of research, analysis and evaluations one does in the Expert Witness Support Phase, which is find the cause of the failure for the legal firms. Remember, in both phases, we are dealing with the same high-profile projects and their design and/or failure, thereof.
• An expert in the Proactive Engineering Consulting area (design analysis & engineering problem solving phase) can be an expert in the Expert Witness Support Phase if his research skills, report writing skills, presentation skills and many other related skills are good and adequate for both of these phases.
• Therefore, Dr. Miholits can do the work in both phases equally as effectively.
• Please click on the hyperlink —► Curriculum Vitae

Why has Dr. Miholits elected to market himself to Expert Witness Engineering Companies, who in turn, then provide these same services to legal firms?

• Because he has done complex engineering research, analysis and evaluation assignments for engineering firms, but not for legal firms.

• Because his skills and experience will be best recognized by engineering firms as applicable to the needs of legal firms.

• Because his marketing of his services to an engineering firms ensures that all parties will benefit to the maximum extent. That is, the engineering firm, the legal firm and Dr. Miholits.

• Because this should be the best, fastest and most effective way to market my talents and skills.

• Because the Expert Witness Engineering Firms have a cadre of Anchor Clients, that is, regular and repeat clients, and

• Because these same engineering firms should have developed a cadre of high-quality staff and have high professional standards.

Why should engineering and legal firms utilize his services as an Expert Witness?

• Because he has done this work before as an engineering problem solver and design analyzer. This is discussed in Sections 3 & 4 on this web page.

• Because he has enhanced his engineering design analysis and problem solving skills through his skills as a literature researcher.

• Because there is a very significant interrelationship between engineering design analysis/problem solving and litigation support.

• Because the engineering design analysis/problem solver area can (in many cases) be a precursor to the litigation support area.

• Because Dr. Miholits started his career as a design analyst, engineering problem solver and literature researcher in 1965.

• Because he was a college professor from 1965-1970. He has presented papers at professional engineering conventions to audiences of 1,000 and many engineering company presentations to government agencies re: project proposal interviews. All of these enhanced his communication skills. 

SECTION 5
WIPP - A DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY
Dr. Miholits Performed Expert Witness Tasks (i.e. a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis on the WIPP Design)

Task manager for the development of a Failure Modes & Effects Analysis (FMEA) methodology to be used to evaluate the design of a defense nuclear waste repository 2,150 feet below the surface of the earth in a bedded salt deposit in Carlsbad, New Mexico. See sketch below. This FMEA methodology is also known as an Fault Tree Analysis, Event Tree Analysis, Decision Tree Analysis, Probabilistic Risk Analysis, et cetera.

This analysis was done to ensure that the above-ground, shaft and below-ground systems were safe for the workers during the construction and operation phases.

The WIPP project had a FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) performed after the design was almost completed, but before the start of construction. A forward and backward analysis was done of the design to ensure that potential failures were identified and ultimately determine if re-engineering was necessary. As a result of this exercise, the process allowed Dr. Miholits to get Expert Witness experience and credentials because he analyzed the design for potential failures and/or accidents.

Each element of the design was evaluated to ensure that a failure will not occur. To do this, the engineering team had to identify each designed system that could fail and the effect of the failure. This information provided the team leader (Dr. Miholits) with information to deal with the reverse situation. That is, a situation where the failure already occurred and in this role he would provide assistance to the legal profession.

Dr. Miholits built his credibility by analyzing designs and solving design problems to ensure that failures do not occur. His skill in developing failure scenarios is drawn from being successful in the design direction. If one knows what went into the design, one knows the strengths and weaknesses of the design. This skill makes reverse engineering easy and makes him very suited to help the legal profession.

The argument presented herein is simply that an engineer who has the skills to analyze designs and solve design problems to ensure that failures do not occur will be equally as effective identifying and developing the accident and/or failure scenarios for the legal profession. Dr. Miholits has these skills.

SECTION 6
COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
Dr. Miholits Performed Expert Witness Skills (i.e., a Structural Design Audit on a Nuclear Reactor Building)

A structural design audit was conducted on the reactor building because there was a 20 year span from the start of design in 1965 to the time the first unit went on line in 1986.

Consequently there were many design changes to go along with regulatory, design code and environmental changes. Each element of the design was critically reviewed to ensure that everything was done correctly and to ensure that nothing would surface that would result in downstream litigation because of a failure or accident related to the big time period and other factors. The design audit provided this assurance.

The Comanche Creek Nuclear Power Plant required a design audit because the design was spread over a time period approaching 20 years. As such, it was subject to a changing set of rules and regulations regarding design standards, earthquake standards, nuclear regulations, enhanced design analysis knowledge, etc. This audit looked at all of these features forward and backwards. In effect the design that was audited was shown to be free of defects. It should not result in any failures. To ensure this, all forms of reverse engineering was done to simulate an accident/failure. None was identified therefore, re-engineering was not necessary. This process gave me another opportunity to gain additional Expert Witness experience and credentials because through this audit process, failures and/or accidents were analyzed.

From the Expert Witness standpoint, this design review also identified all of the design elements that could fail. Therefore it provided the team leader (Dr. Miholits) with information to permit him to do reverse engineering in the event of a failure.

Again the same argument is used as was used for WIPP. That is, an engineer who has the skills to analyze designs and solve design problems to ensure that failures do not occur will be equally as effective identifying and developing the accident and/or failure scenarios for the legal profession. Dr. Miholits has these skills.

End of Engineering and Litigation Discussion — Page 2 of 6