Jim Bridger Power Plant - Berkshire Hathaway Energy · mitigate groundwater contamination down gradient from the pond. This is the Pump Back Building on Figure 1‐1 [7]. The second

2015 Coal Combustion Residuals Annual Inspection

Jim Bridger Power Plant FGD Pond #2

Prepared for PacifiCorp Energy North Temple Office 1407 West North Temple Salt Lake City, Utah 84116

Final December 29, 2015

URS Corporation 756 East Winchester, Suite 400 Salt Lake City, Utah 84107

2015 Jim Bridger FGD Pond #2 Inspection i

Contents1 Findings ................................................................................................................................................. 1

2 Description and History of FGD Pond #2 .............................................................................................. 2

2.1 General Overview ......................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Location ......................................................................................................................................... 2

2.3 FGD Pond #2 Description .............................................................................................................. 2

2.4 Performance History ..................................................................................................................... 4

2.5 Construction History ..................................................................................................................... 5

2.6 Review of Operating Record Files ................................................................................................. 5

2.6.1 Design and Construction Information ................................................................................... 5

2.6.2 Previous Periodic Structural Analyses ................................................................................... 5

2.6.3 Results of Inspection by a Qualified Person .......................................................................... 5

2.6.4 Results of Previous Annual Inspections ................................................................................ 6

3 Field Inspection of FGD Pond #2 ........................................................................................................... 6

3.1 General .......................................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 FGD Pond #2 Geometry ................................................................................................................ 6

3.3 Instrumentation ............................................................................................................................ 8

3.4 Impounded Water Depth and Volume ......................................................................................... 8

3.5 Storage Capacity ........................................................................................................................... 8

3.6 Observed or Potential Structural Weaknesses ............................................................................. 8

3.7 Observed Changes ........................................................................................................................ 8

4 Limitations and Consultant Qualifications ............................................................................................ 9

4.1 Limitations ..................................................................................................................................... 9

4.2 Professional Engineer Qualifications ............................................................................................ 9

5 References ............................................................................................................................................ 9

Appendices

Appendix A Photograph Log

Appendix B Annual Inspection Report Form

Appendix C Example PacifiCorp Inspection Form

2015 Jim Bridger FGD Pond #2 Inspection 1

1 FindingsThis annual inspection and report are being completed for the purpose of providing due diligence by

PacifiCorp to ensure the safety of its coal combustion residual facilities. The inspection was performed

according to the requirements for annual inspections under Section 257.83 (CCR surface

impoundments) of 40 CFR Parts 257 and 261, Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal

of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities, Final Rule, dated April 17, 2015 [16].

The field inspection was performed on August 25, 2015. The principal project features of Flue Gas

Desulfurization (FGD) Pond #2 were found to be in satisfactory condition. Nothing was observed

suggesting an active or impending dam safety issue. None of the inspection findings indicate the need

for immediate action to address a dam safety concern.

FGD Pond #2 is an unlined evaporation pond with no outlet or spillway. Its purpose is to receive FGD

waste slurry from the plant by pipe to serve as a permanent storage facility for the FGD solids.

Figure 1‐1 is an aerial image of the pond taken in July 2014.

Figure 1‐1. FGD Pond #2

The 2015 CCR inspection found:

1. Significant erosion at the FGD inlet (Photo 1, Appendix A).

2. Animal Burrows (Photo 5, Appendix A).

3. Minor erosion along the toe of the north embankment (Photo 7, Appendix A).


Plant staff informed the inspectors that a contract had been executed to repair item 1 above. This

repair was completed in September 2015.

A CCR rule requirement for signage requires the 1) name of owner; 2) name of unit; and 3) state ID

number [16]. The following photo (Figure 1‐2) demonstrates that the signage does not meet the CCR

rules requirement.

Figure 1‐2. Sign marking FGD Pond #2

2 DescriptionandHistoryofFGDPond#2

2.1 GeneralOverviewThe Jim Bridger Power Plant is owned and operated by PacifiCorp.

2.2 LocationThe Jim Bridger Power Plant is located approximately 37 miles northeast of Rock Springs, Wyoming. The

site is approximately 7 miles north of Interstate‐80 (Wyoming Highway 377) near Point of Rocks,

Wyoming (Mile Marker 130). Nine Mile Road provides access to the plant.

2.3 FGDPond#2DescriptionFGD Pond #2 is located approximately 1.25 miles north of the Jim Bridger generating facility and

immediately north of and adjacent to FGD Pond #1 and the Evaporation Pond. FGD Pond #2 is unlined

and bounded by an embankment on the southern, eastern and northern sides, by FGD Pond #1 on the

southwestern side, and by a topographic basin on the western side.

As part of the embankment construction to create FGD Pond #2, a continuous earthen embankment was

built around the east end of the pond. The location and limits of the embankment are shown by

stationing on Figure 1‐1. The embankment is approximately 9,700 feet in length and extends roughly

4,000 feet west from the easternmost edge of the pond [6]. A section of the embankment is illustrated


in Figure 3‐1. The embankment consists of two zones. Zone 1 is a low permeability core with side slopes

of 1H:1V [Horizontal:Vertical] and a core crest width of 10 feet. Zone 2 is a semi‐pervious shell with

upstream and downstream side slopes of 3H:1V [5]. A key trench was excavated along the centerline of

the dam and varies in depth between about 5 to 15 feet below the existing ground surface. A cement‐

bentonite seepage cutoff wall was also constructed along the centerline of the dam and extends at least

15 to 20 feet below the base of the key trench. In areas where the upstream shell was founded on

previously placed FGD solids, a geotextile was used before embankment was placed [7].

The embankment ranges in height from only a few feet to a maximum height of 42 feet [7]; and was

constructed to a crest elevation of approximately 6,702 feet [6]. The crest width is generally about

20‐feet wide; however, a portion of the embankment between Stations 39+40 and 45+10 (east end of

the pond) has a crest width of approximately 30 feet [6]. This increased width allowed County Road 15

to be diverted atop the embankment for safety concerns related to drifting snow. A typical embankment

section with the county road is shown in Figure 3‐1. Subsequently, the county road was relocated off of

the embankment and to the east.

An embankment now known as the Divider Dike (see Figure 1‐1) was originally described as existing Dike

V and existing Dike VI. The Divider Dike is interior to Pond #2 and separates the portion of the pond that

currently contains FGD wastewater from a topographic basin to the west. As shown in design drawing

(Site Plan Appendix A [6]), the natural basin is considered part of the ultimate extent of the pond and

was deepened because it was the borrow source for both the core and embankment shell. This borrow

area is part of the permitted pond area, but currently stores no CCR material.

The expansion report stated that the Divider Dike should be left in place to allow sufficient time for

borrow material to be obtained for construction of the FGD Pond #2 embankment and “closure

materials for FGD Pond 1” [9]. Since the Cornforth inspection in 2009, the Divider Dike has been raised

(downstream construction based on review of aerial photographs) to prevent overtopping of the dike

and to prolong the life of the borrow area northwest of the dike.

FGD Pond #2 is an evaporative pond so there are no outlet structures or spillway associated with the

pond. The pond also was not constructed, or subsequently modified, to include a soil or synthetic liner

[9]. Seepage is returned to the pond by two pump‐back systems. One of the systems was designed to

mitigate groundwater contamination down gradient from the pond. This is the Pump Back Building on

Figure 1‐1 [7].

The second is a toe drain with a pump used to recover seepage along the western end of the north

embankment. Refer to Figure 1‐1. This system also probably recovers some storm water below the toe.

Refer to Table 2‐1, below, for a summary of pertinent data for FGD Pond #2.


Table 2‐1. Pertinent Data for FGD Pond #2

Description FGD Pond #2

Pond:

Total Pond Capacity (acre‐feet) 11,534 [6]

Maximum Pond Elevation (feet) 6,699 [6]

Surface Area (acres) 2661,2

Pond Perimeter (feet) 15,5001,2

Drainage Area (square miles) 1,148 [7]

Design Freeboard (feet) 3 [6]

Embankment:

Type Impervious Core with

Semi‐Impervious Shell [6]

Maximum Design Height (feet) 42 [7]

Design Crest Width (feet) 203 [6]

Design Crest Length (feet) 9,781 [6]

Design Crest Elevation (feet) 6,702 [6]

Design Upstream Slope (Horizontal:Vertical) 3:1 [6]

Design Downstream Slope (Horizontal:Vertical) 3:1 [6]

Pond Inlet: Two 12‐inch HDPE Pipe

Pond Outlet Structure: None 1 Estimated based on aerial photographs and satellite imagery. 2 As of October 2015, the borrow area located west of the Divider Dike is not used for FGD disposal. Consequently, the actual surface area and perimeter shown in this table were estimated from current aerial photographs. When the borrow area is used for FGD waste disposal, the design surface area will be approximately 392 acres [6].

3 The crest width for a typical section of the embankment is 20 feet; however, a portion of the embankment between STA 39+40 and 45+10 was constructed with a crest width of approximately 30 feet to allow for County Road 15 to be diverted atop the embankment because of safety concerns related to drifting snow over the existing county road alignment located east of FGD Pond #2.

2.4 PerformanceHistorySince construction in 2003, there are no incidences of any embankment movement or failures

associated with FGD Pond #2. Seepage beyond the toe of the north embankment was anticipated in

2002 during design of the expansion of FGD Pond #2, so a pump‐back building with return lines was built

to dewater the area and prevent any potential contaminants beyond the toe from leaving PacifiCorp

property. This water is returned to the pond.

As a result of observed seepage in 2007 from toe drains, a dye test study of a seepage area at

approximately Station 81+00 was performed in 2008 [14]. It concluded that the seepage presented


negligible concern for the dam’s stability and that the toe drain is expected to function as designed.

There are no recorded releases of CCR materials from FGD Pond #2.

2.5 ConstructionHistoryThe original coal‐combustion waste pond was constructed in November 1974. The original pond was

used to store only hydraulically conveyed bottom and fly ash waste from the plant [4] cooling tower

blowdown and certain other waste flows.

In 1990, the north half of the Evaporation Pond was converted into FGD Pond 2. In 2003, the

embankments for FGD Pond #2 were raised 28 feet [7] (west, northeast and south sides) and new

embankments (northeast and east side) were constructed, resulting in the current configuration of the

pond. Since 2003, the pond has received FGD waste.

2.6 ReviewofOperatingRecordFilesThe list of operating records to be reviewed during the annual inspection as contained in 40 CFR §257,

Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals for Electric Utilities is “CCR unit design and construction

information required by §§2557.73(c)(1) and 257.74(c)(1), previous periodic structural stability

assessments required under §§257.73(d) and 257.74(d), the results of inspections by a qualified person,

and results of previous annual inspections”[16]. The following subsection describes the review of

operating record files.

2.6.1 DesignandConstructionInformationURS staff reviewed the as‐built drawings prepared by Maxim Technologies, Inc. [6]. The drawings

provide plans and sections for the embankment. The draft Geotechnical Design Report was also

prepared by Maxim Technologies and contains considerable detail about the subsurface conditions at

the site, including plan and profiles for seismic refraction [9].

2.6.2 PreviousPeriodicStructuralAnalysesIn general, the existing stability analyses for the embankments meet the minimum factor of safety

requirements reported by the Maxim [9] and GEI [7] reports in 2001 and 2009 respectively. With the

exception of the pseudo‐static analyses, the minimum factors of safety established by various design

reports are consistent with current standard practice for the loading conditions evaluated.

A detailed check of stability calculations was not part of the scope of work for this inspection. The

review of these analyses is based solely on associated assumptions, inputs, and results as summarized in

the available documents.

2.6.3 ResultsofInspectionbyaQualifiedPersonFGD Pond #2 is subject to periodic inspections by the Jim Bridger Power Plant staff. URS reviewed the

inspection reports; however, this is the beginning of the first cycle of inspections under CCR regulations

and the record is limited to a few weeks of inspections. These inspections are documented and retained

by PacifiCorp. A sample of PacifiCorp’s Inspection form can be found in Appendix C. In the opinion of this

report author, the interim inspections by the plant staff are adequate and appropriate for this CCR unit.


2.6.4 ResultsofPreviousAnnualInspectionsThis is the initial and only annual inspection conducted under CCR rules [16] for the Jim Bridger Plant

FGD Pond #2. PacifiCorp has completed other independent inspections by third parties. None of the

observations from this or previous inspections indicated imminent dam safety concerns.

This report and other pertinent reports and data are accessible at the following website:

http://www.berkshirehathawayenergyco.com/ccr/ppw.html

Section 5 of this report is a list of references for FGD Pond #2.

3 FieldInspectionofFGDPond#2A field inspection was conducted on August 25, 2015 by URS staff, Rick J. Cox, P.E. and Matthew Zion.

Mr. Cox previously participated in the CCR impoundment inspections in 2014 for Bridger Power Plant

[1]. PacifiCorp personnel from the Jim Bridger Power Plant participated in an interview prior to the field

inspection to answer questions.

A photo log documenting features and their condition at the time of the inspection is presented in

Appendix A. These photos are referenced in the report and inspection checklist.

The Annual Inspection Report form is presented in Appendix B. This checklist should be considered an

integral part of the report and remain attached whenever the report is forwarded or otherwise

reproduced.

3.1 GeneralThe field inspection was performed by the URS team by walking along the FGD Pond #2 south, east and

north embankments and driving along the crest. Features and conditions were documented on the

Annual Inspection Report form (Appendix B) and were photographed and marked with GPS coordinates.

The approximate locations of the photos are detailed in the inspection photo log overview map of the

first page of Appendix A. In addition to documenting current features, the photo log of existing

conditions is intended on aiding future inspections.

3.2 FGDPond#2GeometryThe embankment for FGD Pond #2 is zoned with an impervious Zone 1 core in the middle of the

embankment with a cutoff wall extending below the core. The outer shells are comprised of

semi‐impervious material. Both upstream and downstream faces are 3 horizontal to 1 vertical slopes.

Figure 3‐1 is a typical section of the embankment.


Figure 3‐1. FGD Pond #2 Typical Cross Section [6]


3.3 InstrumentationThe FGD Pond #2 instrumentation includes:

1. Seven piezometers.

2. Four settlement monuments.

3. A flow meter with totalizer on the seepage pump‐back system near Station 81+00.

The piezometers were not currently being read [1]; however this inspection took place prior to

commencement of the 30‐day monitoring requirements of the rule.

Settlement monuments are measured annually, in accordance with accepted engineering practices,

unless movement is detected. Then an increased frequency will be determined.

A flow meter is installed on the seepage pump‐back system. This data is collected and monitored by plant staff for flow changes. The plant staff reports less than ¼ gallon per minute is pumped back to the pond [4].

3.4 ImpoundedWaterDepthandVolumeOn the day of the field inspection, the URS inspector estimated the freeboard at approximately 20 feet,

making the water surface at approximately 6680 amsl. Based on the stage capacity table on Sheet C‐

4625 of the as‐built drawings [6], this is a volume of approximately 5,000 acre‐feet, including both

sediment and water.

3.5 StorageCapacityThe pond’s capacity is reported at 12,733 acre feet on the stage capacity curve of the as‐built drawings

[6].

3.6 ObservedorPotentialStructuralWeaknessesThere were no observations of slumps, cracks or other embankment movement or seepage that might

indicate imminent weaknesses in the embankment.

3.7 ObservedChangesThis is the initial and only annual inspection conducted under the CCR rules [16] for the Jim Bridger FGD

Pond #2. However, PacifiCorp historically commissioned other third party inspections that were not

related to the CCR rules, the latest being completed by URS in 2014 [1]. This report of observed changes

is based on the 2014 report.

The observed changes since the 2014 inspection are:

1. Erosion near the inlet pipe. Refer to Photo 1, Appendix A. This was repaired in September 2015.

2. New minor erosion along toe of the north embankment. Refer to Photo 7, Appendix A.

3. Translational cracking near the toe of the north embankment could not be located in 2015.


4 Limitations and Consultant Qualifications

4.1 Limitations This report presents observations, and conclusions drawn from a review of pertinent documents referenced in Section 5, and a field inspection of the Jim Bridger FGD Pond #2. The purpose of the review and inspection has been to assess the safety or adequacy of the facilities against catastrophic failure of the major constructed elements during normal operations or unusual or extreme events based on visual inspection and available information. A secondary purpose is to identify any potential deficiencies related to the CCR rules [16].

The conclusions and professional opinions presented herein were developed by the independent consultant and are in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices at the time and location the services were provided. URS makes no other warranty, either expressed or implied.

4.2 Professional Engineer Qualifications The professional engineer for this inspection is Rick J. Cox. He is licensed in the State of Wyoming (13825) as a civil engineer. He has over 32 years experience in civil/structural engineering and has performed inspections and safety evaluations on dams, canals and numerous other water containing structures.

5 References [1] URS, “2014 Coal Combustion Residuals Impoundment Inspection and Assessment – Jim Bridger

Power Plant,” February 2015.

[2] PacifiCorp Energy, “Thermal Generation Fact Sheets: Jim Bridger Plant,” 2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.pacificorp.com/es/thermal.html. [Accessed: 21-Nov-2014].

[3] PacifiCorp Energy, “Plant Brochure: Jim Bridger Plant,” Point of Rocks, Wyoming, 2011.

[4] Cornforth Consultants Inc., “Phase I Geotechnical Assessments: Coal Combustion Waste Pond Embankments, Jim Bridger Power Plant,” Point of Rocks, Wyoming, 2009.

[5] Bechtel Corporation, “As-Built Drawings: F.G.D. Facilities,” Point of Rocks, Wyoming, 1979.

[6] Maxim Technologies Inc., “As-Built Drawings: FGD Pond 2 Expansion,” Point of Rocks, Wyoming, 2002.

[7] GEI, "Final Coal Ash Impoundment - Specific Site Assessment Report, PacifiCorp Energy, Jim Bridger Power Station, September, 2009.

[8] Wyoming State Engineer's Office, "Dam Inspection Report - FGD Spent Liquor Ponds # 1 and #2 and Evaporation Pond, June 11, 2009.


[9] Maxim Technologies, Inc., "Jim Bridger Plant ‐ FGD Pond Expansion, Draft Geotechnical Design

Report", November 26, 2001.

[10] Cornforth Consultants Inc., “Survey Data and Embankment Stability Review ‐ FGD Pond No. 2,

Station 8+00, Jim Bridger Power Plant,” Point of Rocks, Wyoming, April 26, 2010.

[11] PacifiCorp, "Response to EPA on GEI Inspection Report," dated October 6, 2009.

[12] Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA), Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Hazard

Potential Classification System for Dams, April 2004.

[13] United States Geological Survey [USGS], “2008 Interactive Deaggregations,” 2014. [Online].

Available: http://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/. [Accessed: 27‐Oct‐2014].

[14] Tetra Tech, Dye Trace Study to Evaluate Potential Seepage Paths from the FGD Pond 2 at Jim

Bridger Power Plant Point of the Rocks, Wyoming, April 14, 2008.

[15] Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System,

Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities" Prepublication Copy, Unofficial

Version; December 19, 2014.

[16] 40 CFS § 257 Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities, April 17, 2015.

[17] Wyoming State Engineer's Office, "Wyoming Dam Inspection Report – FGD Pond #2, September

17, 2014.

2015 Jim Bridger FGD Pond #2 Inspection

AppendixA

PhotographLog

Inspection Photographs PacifiCorp Energy

Jim Bridger Power Plant October 14-15, 2014

Page A-1



Page A-2

Photograph No. 1 Erosion and repair efforts along FGD Pond #2 southwest bank.

Photograph No. 2 Minor erosion along upstream slope of the southern embankment of the FGD Pond #2.



Page A-3

Photograph No. 3 Animal burrow along the south eastern toe of the FGD Pond #2 embankment.

Photograph No. 4 View of installed erosion control along the toe of the eastern embankment.



Page A-4

Photograph No. 5 Animal burrow on the toe of the northeastern corner.

Photograph No. 6 Repaired erosion along the upstream side of the northern embankment.



Page A-5

Photograph No. 7 Minor erosion along the toe of the northern embankment.

Photograph No. 8 Toe drain cleanout along the toe of the northern embankment of FGD Pond #2.


AppendixB

AnnualInspectionReportForm

Annual CCR Impoundment Inspection Report

Issue Date: 8-24-2015 Form XXXXX Revision A

Page 1 of 4

Feature Name:

Jim Bridger FGD Pond #2 Feature ID: Date:

August 25, 2015 Station/Owner PacifiCorp

County, Lincoln

State Wyoming

Inspected By Rick J. Cox, P.E. and Matt Zion

Date 8‐25‐15

Phone No. 801‐904‐4096

Type of Dam Concrete Gravity Embankment Concrete Arch Stone Masonry

Concrete Buttress Other

Weather Wet Dry Snow Cover

Other

Type of Inspection Initial Periodic Follow up Other

Hazard Description Low. No buildings immediately downstream.

Condition Assessment Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor Not rated Fair

Hazard Class Low (A) Intermediate (B) High (C)

Remarks This was the initial inspection under CCR regulations.

Actions None Maintenance Monitoring Minor Repair Engineering

Recommendations Inspection letter Inspection by DSE Deficiency letter Dam safety order EOR notice Enforcement Engineering study Periodic reinspection Inspection by EOR Other reinspection

Pool Level (ft) URS team estimated 20 ft freeboard

Total Precipitation since last inspection None recently.

UPSTREA

M SLO

PE/FA

CE

Problems COVER:

1. None 2. Vegetation >2” dia. 3. Veg. height >6” 4. High bushes 5. Animal Burrows 6. Livestock damage

7. Wave Erosion 8. Slides 9. Depressions 10. Bulges 11. Cracks 12. Spalling

13. Scarps 14. Sloughing 15. Holes 16. Undermining 17. Displaced joints 18. Deteriorated joints

19. Exposed reinforcement 20. Veg. or sediment in rip rap 21. Displaced rip rap 22. Sparse rip rap 23. Other Erosion 24. Other

Vegetation Rip rap Concrete Asphalt Other

Comments /Action Items: Minor erosion at water surface of embankment repaired. Minor other interior face (Photo 1, Photo Log). Staff reported plans in place to repair.


TOP OF DAM/CREST

PROBLEMS COVER: 1. None 2. Vegetation >2” dia. 3. Veg. height >6” 4. High bushes 5. Animal Burrows 6. Livestock damage

7. Ruts 8. Depressions 9. Unlevel 10. Misalignment 11. Signs of overtopping

12. Cracks 13. Deteriorated joints 14. Displaced joints 15. Exposed reinforcement 16. Settlement

17. Scarps 18. Spalling 19. Sinkholes 20. Puddles 21. Other


gravel

Comments /Action Items




Page 2 of 4

Feature Name:


August 25, 2015

TOE CONTA

CT

PROBLEMS COVER:

1. None 2. Vegetation >2” dia. 3. Veg. height >6” 4. High bushes 5. Poor grass cover 6. Animal Burrows 7. Livestock damage

8. Wetness 9. Seepage 10. Boils 11. Puddles 12. Erosion 13. Slope instability 14. Scarps

15. Sloughs/bulges 16. Depressions 17. Undercutting 18. Rutting/rills 19. Cracks 20. Scour 21. Spalling

22. Displaced joints 23. Deteriorated joints 24. Exposed reinforcement 25. Riprap needs attention 26. Veg. or sediment in rip rap 27. Other


28. Does standing water or seepage contain sediment? Yes No NA

Describe seepage with regard to quantity and clarity (turbidity). Note changes:

Comments /Action Items: Toe drain collects seepage on north embankment and returns to pond in closed system.


ABUTM

ENT CONTA

CTS

PROBLEMS COVER:

1. None 2. Vegetation >2” dia. 3. Veg. height >6” 4. High bushes 5. Poor grass cover 6. Animal Burrows 7. Livestock damage







DOWNSTREA

M SLO

PE/FA

CE

PROBLEMS COVER: 1. None 2. Vegetation >2” dia.\ 3. Veg. height >6” 4. High bushes 5. Poor grass cover 6. Animal Burrows 7. Livestock damage





28. Does standing water or seepage contain sediment? Yes No NA

29. Is there natural hillside seepage in in embankment area? Yes No NA

Describe seepage with regard to quantity and clarity (turbidity). Note changes:

Comments /Action Items: Minor erosion and few animal burrows.




Page 3 of 4

Feature Name:


August 25, 2015

PRINCIPAL SPILLW

AY

OBSERVATIONS No Spillway

Is spillway control system operating properly? Yes No

PROBLEMS CHANNEL LINING 1. None 2. Trashguard 3. Debris 4. Obstructed 5. Plugged/Clogged 6. Gates Damaged 7. Gates leaking 8. Gates Rusted

9. Misalignment 10. Joints leaking 11. Joint deterioration 12. Joint displacement 13. Conduit collapsed 14. Exposed reinforcement 15. Erosion

16. Undermining 17. Voids 18. Cracks 19. Holes 20. Spalling 21. Slides 22. Outlet

undercutting

23. Sloughing 24. Scarps 25. Deteriorated lining 26. Boils 27. Outlet erosion 28. Displaced rip rap 29. Sparse rip rap 30. Other




EMER

GEN

CY SPILLW

AY

OBSERVATIONS

No emergency spillway Same as primary spillway

PROBLEMS CHANNEL LINING

1. None 2. Debris in channel 3. Gates 4. Misalignment

5. Joint deterioration 6. Joint displacement 7. Exposed reinforcement 8. Erosion

9. Undermining 10. Voids 11. Cracks 12. Holes 13. Outlet erosion

14. Displaced rip rap 15. Sparse rip rap 16. Outlet undercutting 17. Inadequate capacity 18. Other




DRAINS/OUTLET

STR

UCTU

RE

Observations

1. Is discharge system operating properly? Zero discharge facility Yes No N/A

2. Valves and operators in good condition? Yes No N/A

3. Walkway in good condition? Yes No N/A

4. Is there any turbidity observed at the outlet? Yes No N/A

5. Seepage at pipe outlet. Outlet is submerged. Yes No N/A

6. No Bottom Drain Yes No N/A

7. Bottom Drain Operable Yes No N/A

8. Subsurface Drain Dry Yes No N/A

9. Subsurface drain muddy flow Yes No N/A

10. Subsurface drain obstructed Yes No N/A

11. Animal guard Yes No N/A

12. other Yes No N/A





Page 4 of 4

Feature Name:


August 25, 2015

OTH

ER

OBSERVATIONS

1. leachate/stormwater (RCP; CMP) drain pipes that pass through or under an ash basin intact? Yes No N/A

2. Drainage/ diversion ditches/riprap‐lined channels in good condition? Yes No N/A

3. Other steel structures/steel reinforcement in concrete structures in good condition? Yes No N/A

4. Other concrete structures in good condition? Yes No N/A

5. Overflow pipes and flap gates on filter dam/ drain pipe filter zone in good condition? Yes No N/A

6. Howell Bunger Valves in good condition? Yes No N/A

7. Weirs in good condition? Yes No N/A

8. Fences and Gates in good condition? Yes No N/A

9. Security devices in good condition Yes No N/A

10. Signs in good condition Yes No N/A

11. Instrumentation in good condition Yes No N/A

12. Reference monuments/Survey Monuments in good condition Yes No N/A

13. other Yes No N/A



Routine instrumentation monitoring (piezometers, inclinometers, etc.) are recorded separately. Have these measurements been collected, and properly recorded. Yes No N/A Plant is just starting to collect data. Are additional sheets included, if applicable to address regulatory, or third party inspection issues? Yes No N/A

Are there any other abnormal conditions at the Impoundment that could pose a risk to public health, safety or welfare; the environment or natural resources Yes No

Inspector Signature

Date 8/25/2015

RESER

VIOR/POOL

OBSERVATION

Has there been a sudden drop in the content level of the Impoundment Yes No

PROBLEMS

1. None 2. Inadequate freeboard

3. Skimmer 4. Depressions

5. Whirlpools 6. Sinkholes 7. Unwanted growth in pond water




AppendixC

ExamplePacifiCorpInspectionForm

1

Issue Date: Rev. 1

Jim Bridger Impoundment Inspection Report

Impoundment Name: Jim Bridger FGD Pond 2 Date: Time:

Inspected By:

Type of Impoundment: Active Inactive Weather Conditions: Wet Dry Snow Cover Other

Discharge: Yes No Water Elevation: Instrumentation Monitoring Completed: Yes No NA

Inspection Frequency: Routine Weather/Seismic Event High Flow Other _____________________________

Up

stre

am F

ace

1. Evidence of erosion from surface runoff or other effects on the face of the embankment. Yes No 2. Riprap or erosion protection damaged, needs repair. Yes No 3. Water elevation exceeds freeboard requirements for the impoundment and may overtop. Yes No 4. Animal burrows or other animal damage present on the face of the embankment. Yes No 5. Embankment is free of vegetation taller than 6 inches. Yes No 6. Signs of settlement, low spots, depressions, sinkholes, cracks, or other instability visible on the embankment.

Yes No

Observations:

Actions: None Maintenance Monitoring Engineering Notification/Work Order#:

Dow

nst

ream

Fac

e

7. Indicators of seepage or evidence of seepage are present on the face, abutments, or toe of the embankment.

Yes No

8. Evidence of erosion from surface runoff or other effects on the face of the embankment. Yes No

9. Animal burrows or other animal damage present on the face of the embankment. Yes No 10. Embankment is free of vegetation taller than 6 inches. Yes No 11. Signs of settlement, slides, low spots, depressions, sinkholes, cracks, or other instability visible on the embankment.

Yes No

Observations:


2

Issue Date: Rev. 1

Cre

st

12. Signs of surface damage from vehicles (wheel ruts), drainage, or other activity are present. Yes No

13. Evidence of erosion from surface runoff on the crest. Yes No 14. Animal burrows or other animal damage present on the crest. Yes No 15. Crest is free of vegetation taller than 6 inches. Yes No 16. Signs of settlement, low spots, depressions, sinkholes, cracks, or other instability visible on the crest.

Yes No

Observations:


Ru

le

17. Any appearance of actual or potential structural weakness and other conditions which are disrupting or have the potential to disrupt the operation or safety of the CCR unit?

Yes No NA

18. Abnormal discoloration, flow, or discharge of debris or sediment from outlets or structures that pass underneath the impoundment, or through the dike?

Yes No NA

19. Outlets, conduits, and hydraulic gates malfunctioning, with seepage or other evidence of damage. Yes No NA

20. Instrumentation, pump-back systems, drains, and other monitoring intact. Yes No NA

21. Other non-structural or non-emergency safety issues. Yes No NA

Observations:


Inspector Signature: ________________________________________________ Date: _________________________

Documents

Jim Bridger Power Plant - Berkshire Hathaway Energy · mitigate groundwater contamination down gradient from the pond. This is the Pump Back Building on Figure 1‐1 [7]. The second