Colstrip 1&2 B Flyash Pond CCR History of Construction Report October 2016 BFA

Prepared for
TALEN MONTANA, LLC

303 N 28th St., Suite 400
Billings, Montana 59101
HISTORY OF CONSTRUCTION
REPORT
Per Requirements of 40 CFR 257.73
COLSTRIP STEAM ELECTRIC STATION

COLSTRIP, MONTANA
Prepared by
10211 Wincopin Circle, 4th Floor

Columbia, Maryland 21044
Geosyntec Project No: ME1272
October 2016
Talen Energy
History of Construction Report
Colstrip Steam Electric Station
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Colstrip Steam Electric Station (CSES or the Site) is a 2,094 megawatt (MW) coal-fired steam
electric generating facility partially owned and operated by Talen Montana, LLC. The Site is
located in Colstrip, Rosebud County, Montana, approximately 90 miles east of Billings, Montana.
Electric power is generated at two distinct units at CSES, including: (i) Units 1 and 2, which
generate 614 MW of power; and (ii) Units 3 and 4, which generate 1,480 MW of power. Coal
combustion residuals (CCR) generated at CSES are managed in the Sites three primary areas,
including the plant area, the Units 1 & 2 Stage-Two Evaporation Pond (STEP) area, and the
Effluent Holding Pond (EHP) area.
On 17 April 2015, the United States Environment Protection Agency (EPA) published the Final
Rule for the Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities (CCR Rule). CCR
Rule section 257.73(c)(1) requires the owner of existing CCR surface impoundments to compile
a history of construction containing available information pertaining to the location, purpose,
design, construction, and maintenance of the unit.
The purpose of this History of Construction Report (Report) is to provide a history of construction
record for CCR impoundments at CSES. This Report is based on review of reference
documentation and data provided to Geosyntec Consultants by Talen Montana, LLC (without
independent verification of accuracy). Reference documents reviewed to compile history of
construction of CCR units at CSES include historical design and construction reports, design and
as-built drawings, inspection and instrumentation reports, stability analyses, and geotechnical
investigations, to the extent these resources were available. This Report describes the underlying
geologic conditions, abutments, and foundation materials on which CCR units are constructed as
well as material properties and techniques used to construct these units. Miscellaneous
engineering structures and appurtenances associated with CCR units are described and identified
on design and as-built dimensional drawings. When available, as-built topographic and
bathymetric data was used to develop area-capacity curves for the CCR units. An evaluation of
periodic inspections, instrumentation monitoring, and stability analyses at CSES concluded that
no major deficiencies in the structures associated with CCR units at CSES have been identified
since their construction. Inspections, instrumentation monitoring, and stability analyses are
performed periodically at CSES and provisions for maintenance and repair are generally
recommended based on these events.
ME1272/MD16146/History of Construction - Colstrip
October 2016
Talen Energy
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
2.
OWNER AND CCR UNIT INFORMATION......................................................... 2
3.
UNIT LOCATION .................................................................................................. 3
4.
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE ................................................................................. 4
5.
WATERSHED DESCRIPTION .............................................................................. 5
6.
FOUNDATION MATERIALS ............................................................................... 6

6.1
Geologic Profile.................................................................................................. 6
6.2
Foundation Properties ......................................................................................... 7
7.
6.2.1
Plant Area.................................................................................................. 8
6.2.2
Units 1 & 2 STEP Area ............................................................................. 9
6.2.3
Units 3 & 4 EHP Area ............................................................................ 11
PHYSICAL AND ENGINEERING MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND

CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND DATES ............................................... 14
7.1
Plant Area ......................................................................................................... 14
7.1.1
Units 1 & 2 B Fly Ash Pond and Bottom Ash Pond............................... 14
7.1.2
Units 3 & 4 Bottom Ash Pond ................................................................ 17
7.2
Units 1 & 2 STEP Area .................................................................................... 18
7.3
Units 3 & 4 EHP Area ...................................................................................... 21
8.
DIMENSIONAL DRAWINGS ............................................................................. 28

8.1
Plant Area ......................................................................................................... 28
8.1.1
Units 1 & 2 B Fly Ash Pond and Bottom Ash Pond............................... 28
8.1.2
Units 3 & 4 Bottom Ash Pond ................................................................ 30
8.2
Units 1 & 2 STEP Area .................................................................................... 31
8.3
Units 3 & 4 EHP Area ...................................................................................... 32
9.
EXISTING INSTRUMENTATION ...................................................................... 36

9.1
Plant Area ......................................................................................................... 36
9.2
Units 1 & 2 STEP Area .................................................................................... 36
9.3
Units 3 & 4 EHP Area ...................................................................................... 37
10.
AREA-CAPACITY CURVES .............................................................................. 38
ii
October 2016
Talen Energy
11.
SPILLWAY AND DIVERSION FEATURES ...................................................... 39
11.1 Plant Area ......................................................................................................... 39

11.2 Units 1 & 2 STEP Area .................................................................................... 39
11.3 Units 3 & 4 EHP Area ...................................................................................... 40
12.
SURVEILLANCE, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR PROVISIONS ............... 41
13.
RECORD OF STRUCTURAL INSTABILITY .................................................... 42
13.1 Plant Area ......................................................................................................... 42

13.2 Units 1 & 2 STEP Area .................................................................................... 43
13.3 Units 3 & 4 EHP Area ...................................................................................... 44
14.
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 47
TABLES
Table 1:
Statement of Purpose for CCR Units
Table 2:
Existing Inclinometer Instrumentation
Table 3:
Existing Piezometer Instrumentation
FIGURES
Figure 1:
Project Location Map Colstrip Steam Electric Station, Colstrip, Montana
Figure 2:
Unit Locations Plant Area
Figure 3:
Unit Locations Units 1 & 2 STEP Area
Figure 4:
Unit Locations Units 3 & 4 EHP Area
APPENDICES
Appendix A:
USGS Topographic Maps
Appendix B:
Geologic Cross Sections
Appendix C:
Dimensional Drawings
Appendix C.1:
Dimensional Drawings Plant Area
iii
October 2016
Talen Energy
Appendix C.2:
Dimensional Drawings Units 1 & 2 STEP Area
Appendix C.3:
Dimensional Drawings Units 3 & 4 EHP Area
Appendix D:
Instrumentation Locations
Appendix E:
Area-Capacity Curves
Appendix E.1:
Area-Capacity Curves Plant Area
Appendix E.2:
Area-Capacity Curves Units 1 & 2 STEP Area
Appendix E.3:
Area-Capacity Curves Units 3 & 4 EHP Area
iv
October 2016
Talen Energy
1.
INTRODUCTION
In response to the recently published Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) Rule (40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 257), Talen Montana, LLC (Talen) retained Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.
(Geosyntec) to prepare required documentation for existing surface impoundments (SI) at Colstrip
Steam Electric Station (CSES or the Site), located in Colstrip, Rosebud County, Montana.
Section 257.73(c)(1) of the CCR Rule states that:
No later than October 17, 2016, the owner or operator of the CCR unit must
compile a history of construction, which shall contain, to the extent feasible, the
information specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (xi) of this section.
This History of Construction Report (Report) is intended to meet the requirements of Section
257.73 (c)(1)(i) through (xii) of the CCR Rule for SIs at CSES, by documenting dike geometry,
engineering properties, material parameters, instrumentation, and other required information. The
remaining sections of this Report are organized to satisfy specific requirements of the CCR Rule
as follows:
Section 2 provides owner and CCR unit information.
Section 3 provides the location of the CCR units.
Section 4 describes the purpose of the CCR units.
Section 5 describes the CCR unit watershed location.
Section 6 describes the physical and engineering properties of foundation materials.
Section 7 presents construction methods and dates, and physical and engineering properties
of materials used.
Section 8 provides dimensional drawings.
Section 9 describes the existing instrumentation.
Section 10 presents the area-capacity curves.
Section 11 describes spillway and diversion features.
Section 12 discusses surveillance, maintenance, and repair provisions.
Section 13 discusses any record or knowledge of instability.
Section 14 provides the sources referenced within this Report.
October 2016
Talen Energy
2.
OWNER AND CCR UNIT INFORMATION
Section 257.73(c)(1)(i) of the CCR Rule requires:

The name and address of the person(s) owning or operating the CCR unit; the
name associated with the CCR unit; and identification number of the CCR unit if
one has been assigned by the state.
CSES is a coal-fired steam electric generating facility partially owned and operated by Talen
Montana, LLC (Talen). Talens corporate offices are located at 303 North Broadway, Suite 400,
Billings, Montana 59101. The Site is located in Colstrip, Rosebud County, Montana,
approximately 90 miles east of Billings, Montana. CSES is located at 580 Willow Avenue,
Colstrip, Montana 59323. Other companies sharing ownership of CSES with Talen include Puget
Sound Energy, Portland General Electric Company, Avista Corporation, PacifiCorp, and
NorthWestern Energy (Puget, 2013). No CCR unit identification numbers have been assigned by
the State of Montana.
October 2016
Talen Energy
3.
UNIT LOCATION
Section 257.73(c)(1)(ii) of the CCR Rule requires:

The location of the CCR unit identified on the most recent U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) 7 minute or 15 minute topographic quadrangle map, or a topographic
map of equivalent scale if a USGS map is not available.
CCRs generated at CSES are managed in the Sites three primary areas, including the plant area,
the Units 1 & 2 Stage-Two Evaporation Pond (STEP) area, and the Units 3 & 4 Effluent Holding
Pond (EHP) area. A project location map of CSES is presented in Figure 1. Figures 2, 3, and 4
present the locations of the plant area, the Units 1 & 2 STEP area, and the Units 3 & 4 EHP area
on United States Geologic Survey (USGS) 7 minute topographic quadrangle maps. Individual
units within each of these areas are identified in their respective figure. The Sites three primary
areas are situated in three adjoining quadrangles, including: (i) Colstrip East Quadrangle (USGS,
2014a); (ii) Colstrip Southeast Quadrangle (USGS, 2014b); and (iii) Colstrip West Quadrangle
(USGS, 2014d).
The plant area is located on both the Colstrip East Quadrangle and the Colstrip Southeast
Quadrangle. Units that are covered by the CCR Rule, including the Units 1 & 2 B Fly Ash Pond,
the Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Pond, and the Units 3 & 4 Bottom Ash Pond, are located within the
Colstrip East Quadrangle. Units in the Units 1 & 2 STEP area are located within the Colstrip West
Quadrangle and units in the Units 3 & 4 EHP area are located within the Colstrip Southeast
Quadrangle. Original 7 minute quadrangle maps provided by USGS are included as Appendix
A to this Report.
October 2016
Talen Energy
4.
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
Section 257.73(c)(1)(iii) of the CCR Rule requires:

A statement of purpose for which the CCR unit is being used.
Four coal-fired generating units are operated at CSES with a total generating capacity of 2,094
megawatts (MW). Electric power is generated at two distinct facilities at CSES. Units 1 and 2
generate 614 MW of power and began commercial operation in 1975 and 1976, respectively. Units
3 and 4 generate 1,480 MW of power and began commercial operation in 1984 and 1986,
respectively.
Table 1 outlines the purpose of each unit at CSES covered by the CCR Rule, including the types
of waste managed in each unit. Two types of CCR waste are produced due to electricity generation
operations at the Site: (i) scrubber slurry, which includes the fly ash and flue gas desulfurization
solids from the air pollution control system; and (ii) bottom ash, which is collected at the bottom
of the boilers. The scrubber slurry is transferred as a slurry through pipes to either the Units 1 &
2 STEP (for CCR generated at Units 1 and 2) or to the Units 3 & 4 EHP (for CCR generated at
Units 3 and 4), where it is treated and dewatered (this resulting material is referred to as paste
throughout this Report) and then disposed. Bottom ash is dewatered in bottom ash ponds at the
plant area, and then transported via truck to the Units 3 & 4 EHP.
October 2016
Talen Energy
5.
WATERSHED DESCRIPTION
Section 257.73(c)(1)(iv) of the CCR Rule requires:

The name and size in acres of the watershed within which the CCR unit is
located.
CSES is located in the northern portion of the Powder River Basin. Plant area and Units 1 & 2
STEP area units that are covered by the CCR Rule are located in the Headwaters East Fork Armells
Creek Subwatershed (Hydrologic Unit Code: 101000011001), which encompasses approximately
28,783 acres. Units 3 & 4 EHP area units are located in the Cow Creek Subwatershed (Hydrologic
Unit Code: 101000030601), which encompasses approximately 22,436 acres.
October 2016
Talen Energy
6.
FOUNDATION MATERIALS
Section 257.73(c)(1)(v) of the CCR Rule requires:

A description of the physical and engineering properties of the foundation and
abutment materials on which the CCR unit is constructed.
Overall geological and foundation properties of the plant area, Units 1 & 2 STEP area, and Units
3 & 4 EHP area are described in this section. Foundation properties of individual units covered
by the CCR Rule are described in more detail to the extent this information is available.
6.1
Geologic Profile
Units at CSES overlay the Fort Union Formation, which consists of mostly Paleocene deposits that
generally include claystone, siltstone, shale, sandstone, and coal deposits. Members comprising
the Fort Union Formation are described by Vuke et al. (2001) and are included below, in
descending order:
Tongue River Member: Yellow, orange, or tan, fine-grained sandstone with thinner
interbeds of yellowish brown, orange, or tan siltstone; light-colored mudstone and clay;
and coal beds. The most prominent coal beds are the Robinson, McKay, Rosebud,
Knobloch, and Sawyer (Derkey, 1986). Clay is dominantly non-swelling. Sandstone is
massive or crossbedded. Member noted to be as thick as 640 feet (ft).
Lebo Member: Gray, smectite shale and mudstone with lenses of gray and yellow, very
fine- to medium-grained sandstone. Ironstone concretion zones from 1 to 12 inches (in.)
thick and a few thin coal beds are present. Thickness of the member ranges from 95 to 200
ft.
Tullock Member: Light-yellow and light brown, planar-bedded, very fine- to mediumgrained sandstone and minor amounts of gray shale. Two or three coal beds are present in
the upper 110 ft of the member, and in many locations, a coal bed is present at the base of
the member. Thickness of the member ranges from 240 to 260 ft.
Hydrometrics (2012, 2013a; 2013b) describes the overall geologic profile of the Fort Union
Formation in site reports prepared for the plant area, the Units 1 & 2 STEP area, and the Units 3
& 4 EHP area. The Fort Union Formation includes alternating and intercalated deposits of shale,
claystone, mudstone, siltstone, sandstone, carbonaceous shale, and coal. A variety of contributing
factors (e.g., depositional setting of the Fort Union Formation, mining disturbances, scoria
formation, erosion and deposition from East Fork Armells Creek) have resulted in these
sedimentary deposits tending to exhibit vertical and horizontal anisotropy and heterogeneities.
Weak calcium carbonate and trace silica cementation is predominant within sedimentary units in
the Fort Union Formation.
October 2016
Talen Energy
Two major coal units are present in the vicinity of the three primary areas at CSES: Rosebud Coal
and McKay Coal. Rosebud Coal, the shallower of the two coal units, is described as cleated coal
(i.e., coal that contains vertical fractures oriented normal to bedding planes) ranging in thickness
from 20 to 25 ft. McKay Coal is described as cleated coal with thickness ranging from 7 to 14 ft.
Hydraulic conductivity of these major coal units is generally in the range of 1 ft/day (3.510-4
centimeters per second [cm/s]) to 3 ft/day (1.110-3 cm/s). Overburden bedrock units consisting
of siltstone, claystone, shale, and fine-grained sandstone typically overlay the Rosebud Coal.
Interburden layers, which separate the Rosebud and McKay Coal seams, typically consist of
siltstone, claystone, and shale. Below the McKay Coal unit, the Fort Union Formation consists of
interbedded and laterally discontinuous claystone, siltstone, fine-grained sandstone, and thin coal
seams.
Alluvial deposits tend to exhibit a depositional sequence that grades towards coarser particles with
increasing depth. Gravel sized particles overlay bedrock and in some instances, where East Fork
Armells Creek has eroded through bedrock, gravel can be in contact with geological strata that
underlie the McKay Coal seam. Gravel generally transitions into poorly sorted sands and silts as
elevation above bedrock increases. Silty clay to clayey silts are the predominant alluvial surface
deposits. These surface deposits of alluvium are gradational with colluvium, which is also
described as silty clay or clayey silt. Alluvium can contain coarse-grained lenses deposited during
higher energy events surrounded by finer materials deposited during lower energy events.
Hydraulic conductivity of alluvium can range from less than 1 ft/day (3.510-4 cm/s) to greater
than 50 ft/day (1.810-2 cm/s) and tends to be a function of particle size and orientation,
cementation, and interstitial space within these deposits. Hydraulic conductivity of colluvium is
typically less than 1 ft/day.
The geologic map of the Lame Deer 30 60 Quadrangle prepared by Vuke et al. (2001) shows
an abundance of scoria in the vicinity of CSES. Also referred to as clinker or baked shale, scoria
is described as thermally metamorphosed sandstone, siltstone, and shale, resulting from the
burning of underlying layers of coal. Once the burning of the coal has concluded, the scoria
material settles or collapses into the void formed during the burning of the coal, resulting in a
highly fractured and permeable layer of metamorphosed sedimentary rock with ash and unburned
coal present at the base of the scoria. Scoria fragments can be present throughout alluvium and at
the contact between alluvium and bedrock.
6.2
Foundation Properties
Foundation properties of the individual Units 1 & 2 STEP area and Units 3 & 4 EHP area units are
not typically described in the design drawings and reports, as the internal divider dikes which
formed these units were generally not considered critical to the overall safety of these areas.
However, it is noted that CCR Rule compliance is evaluated for individual units within these areas.
The majority of available information on foundation materials in the Units 1 & 2 STEP area
October 2016
Talen Energy
pertains to the Units 1 & 2 STEP Main Dam (i.e., E Cell and Old Clearwell east embankments).
The majority of available information on foundation materials in the Units 3 & 4 EHP area pertains
to materials underlying the Units 3 & 4 EHP Main Dam (i.e., J Cell north embankment) and Saddle
Dam (i.e., J Cell northeast embankment and G Cell east embankment). Additional details on
individual units within the Units 1 & 2 STEP area and Units 3 & 4 EHP area are included in this
section, to the extent that information is available.
6.2.1
Plant Area
Overview
General information on the foundation materials present in the plant area is compiled and
summarized in a report prepared by Hydrometrics (2012). A geologic cross section of the plant
area prepared by Hydrometrics (2012) is included in Appendix B to this Report. Both Rosebud
Coal and McKay Coal units are present in the plant area with interburden and overburden layers
of siltstone, claystone, sandstone, and shale. A significant amount of mining has taken place in
the Rosebud Coal throughout the eastern portion of the plant area. Areas where Rosebud Coal
was mined in the plant area were backfilled with spoil, which consists of silt, clay, sandstone, and
coal fragments that were originally excavated during strip mining of the Rosebud Coal seam. Spoil
can exhibit hydraulic conductivities ranging from approximately 3 ft/day (1.110-3 cm/s) to greater
than 600 ft/day (2.110-1 cm/s). Fill, a general term for earthen materials used for backfilling and
grading at CSES, is also noted to be present in the plant area. With the exception of spoil, fill
materials are typically located above the groundwater table. McKay Coal seams typically range
in thickness from 8 to 9 ft in the plant area and are often saturated with groundwater. Significant
amounts of alluvium are present along East Fork Armells Creek, located to the west of the plant
area. Alluvial deposits in this area can be greater than 35 ft thick.
Geotechnical Investigations
Geotechnical investigations conducted in October and November of 2003 contain details on
foundation materials underlying the Units 1 & 2 B Fly Ash Pond (Portage and HKM, 2005). The
investigation consisted of 13 test pits and 10 boreholes advanced using hollow stem auguring.
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow counts were recorded for select intervals in each borehole
and samples were collected for laboratory testing. Soils underlying the Units 1 & 2 B Fly Ash
Pond consisted of low plasticity silts and clays which generally became stiffer with depth. This
material exhibited a broad range of SPT blow counts, ranging from 6 blows/ft to greater than 50
blows/ft. Two samples of material immediately underlying the pond were tested for hydraulic
conductivity and yielded values of 1.710-6 and 4.210-7 cm/s for the south and north ends of the
pond, respectively. A material classified as a mixture of scoria, sand, silt, clay, and minor coal
inclusions was encountered in the southwest corner of the pond at a depths ranging from 19.0 to
30.5 ft below the ground surface. SPT tests typically advanced under the weight of the hammer
October 2016
Talen Energy
for this material. Bedrock at the Units 1 & 2 B Fly Ash Pond, consisting of siltstone or shale with
occasional sandstone and coal present, was encountered within 10 feet of the ground surface in
several instances. A shallow coal deposit was encountered at a depth of 14.0 ft at the north end of
the pond. Groundwater was observed to generally flow to the northwest, with hydrostatic
groundwater levels ranging from elevations of 3,234 to 3,238 ft at the northwest and southeast
corners of the pond, respectively.
Two additional subsurface investigations that proceeded into foundation materials were conducted
at the Units 1 & 2 plant area ponds in 2009. Four exploratory boreholes were drilled into the north
and east embankments of the Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Pond (Womack, 2010b). A similar
investigation was conducted on the west embankment of the Units 1 & 2 A Pond and the northwest
corner of the Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Clearwell (Womack, 2010c). The Units 1 & 2 A Pond is
not covered by the CCR Rule; however, because of its close proximity to other plant area units,
geotechnical investigations conducted at this pond are considered to be relevant to understanding
the overall foundation conditions of the plant area. For both investigations, two boreholes were
advanced along the pond embankment crest using hollow stem auguring and two test pits were
excavated into the downstream shell of the embankment. Foundation materials underlying the
Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Pond generally consisted of weathered claystone and shale bedrock. In
one instance, a 3 ft thick layer of dense, nonplastic sandy silt was encountered overlying bedrock
at a depth of 37 ft below the crest of the embankment. This layer is not believed to be continuous
beneath the embankment. Foundation materials underlying the Units 1 & 2 A Pond and the Units
1 & 2 Bottom Ash Clearwell embankments generally consisted of a stiff, low plasticity, and
inorganic clay alluvium. Field pocket penetrometer tests conducted on this material estimated
unconfined compressive strengths ranging from 3.75 to greater than 4.5 tons per square foot (tsf).
Corrected SPT blow counts (N1,60) in this material ranged from 19 to 45 blows/ft. Direct shear
tests on this alluvial material yielded an average effective friction angle of 29.2 and an average
cohesion of 107.8 pounds per square foot (psf). A loose to medium dense silty sand layer was
encountered under the Units 1 & 2 A Pond at depths of 33 to 39 ft below the embankment surface.
No detailed geotechnical information on foundation materials underlying the Units 3 & 4 Bottom
Ash Pond is available.
6.2.2
Units 1 & 2 STEP Area
Overview
General information on the foundation materials present in the Units 1 & 2 STEP area is compiled
and summarized in a report prepared by Hydrometrics (2013a). Geologic cross sections of the
Units 1 & 2 STEP area prepared by Hydrometrics (2013a) are included in Appendix B to this
Report. Both Rosebud Coal and McKay Coal units are present in the Units 1 & 2 STEP area with
interburden and overburden layers. Interburden layers between the Rosebud Coal and McKay
October 2016
Talen Energy
Coal are present to the south of Units 1 & 2 STEP area ponds, but generally absent in the northern
portions of the area where coal is noted to be absent. In the southern portions of the Units 1 & 2
STEP area, the Rosebud Coal has been burned, resulting in the presence of a significant amount
of scoria and ash. McKay Coal in the Units 1 & 2 STEP area typically ranges from 7 to 9 ft thick,
although seams ranging from 13 to 15 ft thick may be present. Significant amounts of alluvium
are present along East Fork Armells Creek, located to the east of the Units 1 & 2 STEP area.
Additionally, minor alluvial deposits are present within the extents of the Units 1 & 2 STEP area.
These deposits coincide with the valley drainage bottoms in which the Units 1 & 2 STEP was
constructed. Alluvium in these areas range in gradation from very poorly sorted clayey silt to silty,
sandy gravel and contains rock fragments primarily comprised of scoria.
Prior to construction activities at the Units 1 & 2 STEP area, geotechnical investigations were
conducted between September and November 1978 and during October 1979 and are presented in
a design report prepared by Bechtel (1979). Overburden alluvial deposits encountered during this
investigation consisted of loose to dense silty and gravelly sand, as well as sandy and clayey silt,
and varied in depth from 20 ft to greater than 30 ft along the valley bottom where the dam was
constructed. Overburden at the adjacent valley slopes and dam abutments consist of residual soils,
mainly silt derived from siltstone, and could be as shallow as 6 in. deep. Overburden soils in the
Units 1 & 2 STEP area are typically nonplastic or slightly plastic. Bedrock underlying the
overburden was predominantly weathered siltstone. Weathering of the bedrock was observed as
deep as 20 ft at the southern abutment of the dam, where the siltstone is poorly cemented. Deeper
strata in the Units 1 & 2 STEP area were noted to consist of alternating horizontal sandstone,
siltstone, and shale layers ranging in thickness from several inches to tens of feet.
Laboratory and in-situ testing was conducted alongside this investigation in order to characterize
materials for slope stability analyses. Uncorrected SPT blow counts of alluvium ranged from 3 to
51 blows/ft while the bedrock material ranged from 6 to 41 blows/ft. Permeability testing yielded
hydraulic conductivities ranging from 0.7 ft/yr (6.810-7 cm/s) to 2.0 ft/yr (1.910-6 cm/s) for the
alluvium and from 5 ft/yr (4.810-6 cm/s) to 100 ft/yr (9.610-5 cm/s) for bedrock materials. Total
shear strength parameters of alluvium were determined based on Unconsolidated Undrained (UU)
triaxial testing, and resulted in a friction angle of 17.5 and a cohesion of 700 psf. Effective shear
strength parameters of alluvium were determined based on Consolidated Undrained (CU) and
Consolidated Drained (CD) triaxial testing, and resulted in a friction angle of 32 with no cohesion.
A subsurface investigation that proceeded into foundation materials was conducted at the Units 1
& 2 STEP Main Dam in 2009. Five exploratory boreholes were advanced on the outboard side of
the Units 1 & 2 STEP Main Dam crest and one borehole was advanced on the inboard side of the
crest at the E Cell/Old Clearwell divider dike (Womack, 2010d). Foundation materials underlying
the Units 1 & 2 STEP Main Dam were encountered at depths ranging from 19.4 to 120.0 ft below
10
October 2016
Talen Energy
the crest of the dam and generally consisted of alluvium, claystone, and trace coal. Both the
claystone and alluvial foundation materials classified as low plasticity clay. N1,60 values of this
material ranged from 17 to greater than 100 blows/ft.
Previous geotechnical investigations of the Units 1 & 2 STEP area had focused on the Units 1 &
2 STEP Main Dam and generally did not include divider dikes in the area. In order to address the
need for instrumentation and stability analyses on these areas of the Units 1 & 2 STEP, a site
specific exploratory field investigation was carried out in 2015 and included 13 boreholes
advanced through the crests of the divider dikes that had not been previously analyzed (Jorgensen,
2016b). Foundation material encountered in the Units 1 & 2 STEP area consisted of alluvium and
colluvium, which generally classified as low plasticity, fine-grained material. Foundation soils
encountered beneath the D Cell south embankment were noted to be comprised of thinly stratified
layers of sand and finer-grained soils. An undisturbed sample of a finer-grained material from this
embankment foundation was tested in direct shear and yielded an effective friction angle of 27.4
and a cohesion of 687.1 psf. N1,60 values of foundation material in the Units 1 & 2 STEP area
ranged from 4 to 28 blows/ft. Bedrock encountered during this investigation generally consisted
of weathered shale and sandstone.
6.2.3
Units 3 & 4 EHP Area
Overview
General information on the foundation materials present in the Units 3 & 4 EHP area is compiled
and summarized in a report prepared by Hydrometrics (2013b). Geologic cross sections of the
Units 3 & 4 EHP area prepared by Hydrometrics (2013b) are included in Appendix B to this
Report. Both Rosebud Coal and McKay Coal units are present in the Units 3 & 4 EHP area with
interburden and overburden layers. Throughout most of the Units 3 & 4 EHP area, the Rosebud
Coal has been burned, resulting in overburden in this area that has generally been altered to scoria.
Interburden layers between the Rosebud Coal (or scoria in areas where Rosebud Coal has been
burned) and McKay Coal are highly variable in thickness, ranging from 1 ft to the northwest of
the pond, 13 ft thick to the northeast of the pond, and greater than 29 ft thick to the south of the
pond. McKay Coal in the Units 3 & 4 EHP area typically ranges from 7 to 10 ft thick. McKay
Coal is present around the perimeter and beneath parts of the Units 3 & 4 EHP area ponds, but has
generally been eroded or burned within the extents of the area. Spoil material is only present
within the Units 3 & 4 EHP area in small, isolated areas where test mining was carried out. Alluvial
deposits exist in drainage bottoms within the extents of the Units 3 & 4 EHP area and consist of
clay, silt, sand, and gravel.
11
October 2016
Talen Energy
Prior to construction activities at the Units 3 & 4 EHP area, geotechnical investigations were
conducted between October and December 1981, and are presented in a design report prepared by
Bechtel (1982). Scoria was typically encountered at or near the ground surface and was described
as baked siltstone, sandstone, and shale in a matrix of silt and fine sand. Alluvium was encountered
at both the Main Dam and Saddle Dam and was generally classified as nonplastic to low plasticity,
lose to medium dense silty sands, clayey silt, and silty clay.
Laboratory and in-situ testing was conducted alongside this investigation in order to characterize
materials for slope stability analyses. Uncorrected SPT blow counts of alluvium ranged from 6 to
53 blows/ft at the Main Dam and from 10 to 34 blows/ft at the Saddle Dam. Permeability of
alluvium at the Main Dam ranged from 0.2 ft/yr (1.910-7 cm/s) to 10.3 ft/yr (1.010-5 cm/s).
Permeability of alluvium at the Saddle Dam ranged from 0.1 ft/yr (9.710-8 cm/s) to 5.2 ft/yr
(5.010-6 cm/s). Total shear strength parameters were determined based on UU triaxial testing.
Friction angle ranged from 3 to 28 for alluvium at the Main Dam and from 6 to 28 for alluvium
at the Saddle Dam. Cohesion ranged from 500 to 3,700 psf for alluvium at the Main Dam and
from 400 to 1,000 psf for alluvium at the Saddle Dam. Effective shear strength parameters were
determined based on CU and CD triaxial testing. Effective friction angle ranged from 30 to 31
for alluvium at the Main Dam and from 23 to 35 for alluvium at the Saddle Dam. No cohesion
was measured for alluvium at the Main Dam and cohesion ranged from 0 to 200 psf for alluvium
at the Saddle Dam. For the design of Units 3 & 4 EHP area ponds, engineering properties of the
underlying sandstone, siltstone, and shale were adopted from material properties used for the
design of Units 1 & 2 STEP area ponds.
A geotechnical investigation was conducted in 1989 at the Units 3 & 4 EHP area in order to
determine site-specific properties of materials used to construct the Units 3 & 4 EHP Main Dam
and Saddle Dam (Chen-Northern, 1989). Five boreholes were advanced in the Units 3 & 4 EHP
area using hollow stem auguring and split spoon and Shelby tube samples were obtained for
laboratory testing. During this investigation, bedrock was encountered in one borehole that was
advanced through the Units 3 & 4 EHP Saddle Dam. The bedrock was described as baked
sandstone with the consistency of a loose to dense silty sand with gravel. Uncorrected SPT blow
counts of this material ranged from 5 to 45 blows/ft.
A subsurface investigation that proceeded into foundation materials was conducted at the Units 3
& 4 EHP Main Dam in 2009, in which ten exploratory boreholes and one test pit were advanced
into the dam (Womack, 2010e). The investigation at the Main Dam encountered weathered
siltstone, claystone, and sandstone immediately beneath the dam and alluvium downstream of the
toe of the dam. Alluvium was not encountered directly beneath the dam because this foundation
material had been stripped prior to dam construction. The average N1,60 value for the claystone
and siltstone foundation materials was greater than 100 blows/ft. One SPT conducted on alluvium
12
October 2016
Talen Energy
yielded an N1,60 value of 9 blows/ft. The Main Dam abutments consist of, in descending order, a
scoria cap, an upper sandstone and siltstone layer, a middle claystone layer, a lower sandstone
layer, and foundation claystone. Field permeability tests were conducted on sandstone underlying
and left and right abutments of the Main Dam and yielded results ranging from 1.710-6 to
4.210-7 cm/s. The average N1,60 value for the abutment sandstone was 79 blows/ft.
A similar investigation was carried out at the Units 3 & 4 EHP Saddle Dam in 2009, in which six
exploratory boreholes were advanced into the dam (Womack, 2009e). Laboratory analyses were
not carried out on foundation materials at the Saddle Dam, though the material encountered
generally consisted of scoria overlying a thin layer of alluvium or ash, which in turn overlaid
claystone bedrock. Scoria was generally described as medium to very dense sandy gravel.
Previous geotechnical investigations of the Units 3 & 4 EHP area had focused on the Units 3 & 4
EHP Main Dam and Saddle Dam and generally did not include divider dikes in the area. In order
to address the need for instrumentation and stability analyses on these areas of the Units 3 & 4
EHP, a site specific exploratory field investigation was carried out in 2015 and included 14
boreholes advanced through the crests of the divider dikes that had not been previously analyzed
(Jorgensen, 2016b). Foundation material encountered in the Units 3 & 4 EHP area consisted of
colluvium, which generally classified as low plasticity clay. Uncorrected SPT blow counts of 12
and 14 blows/ft were recorded for this colluvial material. Bedrock encountered during this
investigation generally consisted of weathered shale and scoria.
13
October 2016
Talen Energy
7.
PHYSICAL AND ENGINEERING MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND

CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND DATES
Section 257.73(c)(1)(vi) of the CCR Rule requires:

A statement of the type, size, range, and physical and engineering properties of
the materials used in constructing each zone or stage of the CCR unit; the method
of site preparation and construction of each zone of the CCR unit; and the
approximate dates of construction of each successive stage of construction of the
CCR unit.
Individual Units 1 & 2 STEP area and Units 3 & 4 EHP area units are not typically described in
the design drawings and reports, as the internal divider dikes which formed these units were
generally not considered critical to the overall safety of these areas. However, it is noted that CCR
Rule compliance is evaluated for individual units within these areas. The majority of available
information on engineering properties of Units 1 & 2 STEP area units pertains to the Units 1 & 2
STEP Main Dam (i.e., E Cell and Old Clearwell east embankments). The majority of available
information on engineering properties of Units 3 & 4 EHP area units pertains to the Units 3 & 4
EHP Main Dam (i.e., J Cell north embankment) and Saddle Dam (i.e., J Cell northeast
embankment and G Cell east embankment). Additional details on individual units within the Units
1 & 2 STEP area and Units 3 & 4 EHP area are included in this section, to the extent that
information is available.
7.1
Plant Area
7.1.1
Units 1 & 2 B Fly Ash Pond and Bottom Ash Pond
The Units 1 & 2 B Fly Ash Pond and Bottom Ash Pond have been in service at CSES since 1975,
although the function of several of these ponds has changed since being initially brought into
service. The original design and construction reports for these ponds are not available for review;
however, several drawings by Bechtel detail the original design of these ponds.
Original design drawings by Bechtel specify the construction of the Units 1 & 2 plant area ponds
with above-grade, zoned embankments. Perimeter embankments of these ponds were designed
with a clay core and a random earth shell on the upstream and downstream sides while interior
embankments in this area were designed using only the random earth material. The clay core
extends down to the clay foundation material, except for the northwest corner where the core
material is constructed with a keyway that extends through the clay foundation to the underlying
bedrock.
Notes in the design drawings specify the removal of organic, loose, or permeable materials before
placement of any embankment materials. Embankment materials were required to be compacted
14
October 2016
Talen Energy
to a minimum of 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry unit weight and within a 2
percent window of optimum moisture content. Exterior embankments were designed with 6 in. of
topsoil on downstream faces and seeded for erosion control. Detailed descriptions of material
properties are not included in these design drawings, with the clay core simply described as an
impervious borrow material.
Units 1 & 2 B Fly Ash Pond
Original design drawings by Bechtel show the Units 1 & 2 fly ash ponds as a single, U-shaped unit
with a west leg (A Side) and an east leg (B Side) connected at the south end of the pond. Fly ash
and flue gas desulfurization slurry was discharged into the northeast corner of the east leg, and
fines were allowed to settle out as water flowed around the internal divider dike towards the west
leg of the pond. However, several modifications have been made to this pond and are documented
in a design and construction report prepared by Portage and HKM (2005). In 2002, the internal
divider dike was extended at the southern end of the fly ash pond with a bottom ash dike, isolating
the two legs of the pond from one another. In 2004, the pond was reconstructed with a reinforced
polypropylene (RPP) double liner with underdrain and leak control systems.
Geotechnical investigations conducted in October and November of 2003 contain details on
materials used to construct the Units 1 & 2 B Fly Ash Pond (Portage and HKM, 2005). The
investigation consisted of 13 test pits and 10 boreholes advanced using hollow stem auguring.
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow counts were recorded for select intervals in each borehole
and samples were collected for laboratory testing. Surface material encountered in the pond was
identified as a mixed fill with scoria and was generally encountered to a depth of approximately
1.5 ft. This was the predominant surface material throughout the unit. Saturated fly ash (which
now serves as an internal divider dike between the Units 1 & 2 B Fly Ash Pond and the Units 1 &
2 Bottom Ash Pond) was identified in one borehole advanced into the northern end of the pond.
Uncorrected SPT blow counts of 8 and 9 were recorded for this material. Foundation materials
were encountered at a depth of approximately 44.0-ft below the top of this dike. Boreholes
advanced into the southwest bottom ash divider dike of this pond (BH-9 and BH-10) indicate that
this section consists of saturated bottom ash which begins to grade into fly ash at depths ranging
from 10 to 14 ft below the top of the dike. SPT blow counts were very low to a depth of 30.5 ft
below the top of the dike, with several tests advancing under weight of the SPT hammer.
Foundation materials were encountered at approximate depths of 30.5 and 19.0 ft below the top of
the bottom ash divider dike at boreholes BH-9 and BH-10, respectively. Underlying foundation
materials encountered during this investigation are described in Section 6.2.1 of this Report.
Design and record drawings contain general descriptions of materials used during the 2004
modifications to the Units 1 & 2 B Fly Ash Pond. Material used for the pond subgrade and within
anchor trenches is specified as an earthen material free of organics and deleterious material, with
a maximum particle size of 3/4 in., and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the standard
15
October 2016
Talen Energy
Proctor maximum dry unit weight. Record drawings indicate that bottom ash, which is only
described as a primarily coarse sand material, was used as a 1 ft thick base protection layer
overlying the RPP double liner.
Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Pond
Original design drawings by Bechtel indicate that the Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Pond originally
served as the wash tray pond for Units 1 & 2. The wash tray pond was taken out of service in 1980
and remained abandoned until 1988, when it was converted into a bottom ash pond and began
servicing Units 1 & 2. Besides original design drawings mentioned previously, there are no
available records of the design, construction methods, materials, and timelines for the initial
construction or modifications of this pond.
Original design drawings by Bechtel indicate that the Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Clearwell originally
served as the fly ash clearwell for Units 1 & 2. This pond was brought out of commission in 2005,
and in 2006, a RPP double-liner with underdrain and leak control systems was installed and it
began service as the Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Clearwell. Design and record drawings contain
general descriptions of materials used during these modifications. Material used for the pond
subgrade and within anchor trenches is specified as an earthen material free of organics and
deleterious material, with a maximum particle size of 3/4 in., and compacted to a minimum of 95
percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry unit weight. Record drawings indicate that bottom
ash, which is only described as a primarily coarse sand material, was used as subgrade in portions
of the pond.
Two subsurface investigations were conducted at the Units 1 & 2 plant area ponds in 2009 and
describe the shell (referred to as random earth in design drawings by Bechtel) and core regions
of the Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Pond embankments. Four exploratory boreholes were drilled into
the north and east embankments of the Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Pond (Womack, 2010b). A similar
investigation was conducted on the west embankment of the Units 1 & 2 A Pond and the northwest
corner of the Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Clearwell (Womack, 2010c). The Units 1 & 2 A Pond is
not covered by the CCR Rule; however, because it was constructed using the similar materials and
construction techniques as other plant area ponds, geotechnical investigations conducted at this
pond are considered to be relevant to understanding the engineering properties of other plant area
units. For both investigations, two boreholes were advanced along the pond embankment crest
using hollow stem auguring and two test pits were excavated into the downstream shell of the
embankment. The embankment shell has a variable thickness and samples classified as a variety
of low plasticity materials, including silty, sandy, and gravelly clays. N1,60 values recorded in the
shell material of these embankments ranged from 11 to 30 blows/ft and unconfined compressive
strengths, measured via field pocket penetrometer tests, ranged from less than 0.5 to greater than
4.5 tsf. Direct shear tests on material underlying the Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Pond yielded an
average effective friction angle of 30.9 and an average cohesion of 372.9 psf, while direct shear
16
October 2016
Talen Energy
tests on material underlying the Units 1 & 2 A Pond and Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Clearwell yielded
an average effective friction angle of 31.5 and an average cohesion of 204.2 psf. The embankment
core consists of low plasticity silty clay to sandy, silty clay. N1,60 values recorded in the core
material of these embankments ranged from 11 to 22 blows/ft. At the Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash
Pond, unconfined compressive strengths, measured via field pocket penetrometer tests, ranged
from 1.25 to greater than 4.5 tsf, while at the Units 1 & 2 A Pond and Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash
Clearwell, unconfined compressive strengths ranged from 0.5 to 0.75 tsf. Undisturbed samples
could not be obtained from the embankment core due to its high in-situ stiffness and strength, and
therefore, direct shear tests were not performed on this material. Underlying foundation materials
encountered during this investigation are described in Section 6.2.1 of this Report.
7.1.2
The Units 3 & 4 Bottom Ash Pond has been in service at CSES since 1983. Records of the design,
construction methods, materials, and timelines for the initial construction or modifications of this
pond are not available for review. Available design drawings for this pond indicate that it was
originally designed as a single, rectangular bottom ash pond with a floor sloping downwards at
0.015 ft/ft towards a reinforced concrete weir wall along the north end of the pond. The weir wall
creates a shallow channel along the north end of the pond, and water that overtops the weir wall
drains via the channel towards a spillway and into a rectangular clearwell located to the north of
the bottom ash pond. Water in the clearwell is generally routed back to the generating facility and
reused. The design drawings specify a 3 ft thick clay liner for both the bottom ash pond and
clearwell. Additionally, the drawings specify the scarification and recompaction of 1 ft of soil
beneath the clay liner as well as a 1 ft thick soil cover above the clay liner. Details on properties
of these liner materials are not available.
Although information on this pond is limited, several details on the original design and
modifications to the Units 3 & 4 Bottom Ash Pond are contained in a letter from Bechtel to the
Montana Power Company with the subject line Colstrip Units 3 & 4, Bechtel Job No. 10676,
Bottom Ash Removal. The letter is undated; however, the text states that the purpose of the letter
is to provide additional comments to an initial letter from Bechtel to the Montana Power Company
dated 29 May 1984. It was the original intent for bottom ash to be disposed of and accumulate in
the southern portion of the pond, allowing water to drain towards the weir wall while the ash was
raised to its design elevation of 3,330 ft over time. However, it was noted that its particle size and
gradation prohibited the ash from accumulating as originally intended, resulting in ash reaching
the weir wall before the southern portion of the pond could reach the final design elevation. The
letter proposes the addition of an east-west dike within the pond, constructed with bottom ash,
which would impound ash in the southern portion of the pond and create a longer flow distance
for water in the pond, allowing the finer particles to settle out before reaching the weir wall. A
sketch attached to this letter shows an existing north-south dike within the bottom ash pond as
well, which was not detailed in the original design drawings.
17
October 2016
Talen Energy
Additional modifications to the Units 3 & 4 Bottom Ash Pond are described in a 4 October 1985
memorandum entitled Bottom Ash Pond, Colstrip 3 & 4 (title corrected for typographic error).
The letter includes several provisions for reduction of fines carryover into the Units 3 & 4 Bottom
Ash Clearwell. The letter proposes, among other things, relocation of ash to the east side of the
pond behind the north-south divider dike, raising portions of the northern weir wall, and
installation of a temporary screen in the channel created by the weir wall. The intention of these
modifications was to create an additional clearwell in the west side of the pond and increase the
flow distance for water in the pond.
In its current configuration, the Units 3 & 4 Bottom Ash Pond consists of seven cells. Bottom ash
slurry is initially discharged into two solids removal cells on the east side of the Units 3 & 4 Bottom
Ash Pond complex. While inactive, the solids are removed from these ponds and when active,
water decants into two secondary settlement cells, where final removal of suspended solids occurs.
Water flows from the two secondary settlement cells into a water storage cell and then into a
clearwell cell. From the clearwell cell, water is returned directly to the generating facility. Cells
are connected to one another via piping and weirs located underneath divider dikes. There is no
available information on material properties or construction techniques used to bring the Units 3
& 4 Bottom Ash Pond to its current state.
7.2
The Units 1 & 2 STEP area was constructed during 1987 and 1988 and began operation at CSES
in 1992. Units in use at this time were lined with high-density polyethylene (HDPE)
geomembranes following their initial construction. D Cell was constructed as a process water
storage pond in 2011 with a RPP double liner with underdrain and leak control systems.
Design and Construction
CCR units at the Units 1 & 2 STEP area are encompassed by a Main Dam oriented in the northsouth direction on the east side of the area and internal divider dikes located throughout the area.
Details on the design and construction of the Main Dam and divider dikes are included in a design
report prepared by Bechtel (1979) and in construction progress reports.
Mobilization to the Units 1 & 2 STEP area commenced on 9 March 1987 and initial construction
activities consisted of clearing and grubbing of the area. Stripping of topsoil in the area to a
minimum depth of 12 in. occurred between 31 March and 7 April 1987, and trenching for the clay
core of the Main Dam subsequently began on 8 April 1987. The core trench was specified to be
excavated through overburden materials and 2 to 5 ft into foundation bedrock, dependent on the
location along the axis of the dam. Depth of excavation into bedrock could vary based on field
observations of bedrock cementation during construction. An April 1987 construction progress
report notes that overburden excavated for the Units 1 & 2 STEP Main Dam trench was determined
18
October 2016
Talen Energy
to be suitable embankment material and was used for construction of internal divider dikes in the
Units 1 & 2 STEP area. This material was used alongside typically borrow materials for
construction of these dikes.
Placement of the Main Dam embankment materials in the core trench commenced on 10 June
1987. The Main Dam was constructed as a zoned, rolled-earth-fill dam with a central clay core
extending down to bedrock and an upstream and downstream shell. Materials for the embankment
shell and core were obtained from the same borrow sources, with clay core materials and
construction techniques being subject to stricter specifications than the shell material. Compaction
of core and shell materials was specified to maximum lift thicknesses of 12 in., a minimum of 95
percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry unit weight (further modified to 20,000 ft-lbf/ft3
compactive effort), and within a + 2 percent window of optimum moisture content for core material
and a 2 percent window of optimum moisture content for shell material. Design drawings of the
dam specify that shell material be gradational from finer material near the core of the dam to
coarser material towards the upstream and downstream slopes of the dam.
The Main Dam was constructed with a chimney drain, an inclined drain, a horizontal blanket drain,
and a toe drain on the downstream side of the dam. These drainage features generally consisted
of processed sands and gravels. Transition material between the clay core and drainage materials
were specified to be core or shell material with no greater than 80 percent passing the No. 200
sieve (i.e., smaller than 0.075 millimeters [mm]). Gradation of materials used to construct these
drains was selected to permit controlled seepage through the dam towards a downstream toe drain
while preventing the piping of finer material from the embankment and foundation through the
drains.
A grout curtain was constructed along the axis of the Main Dam. Construction activities associated
with the grout curtain occurred between 5 May and 17 July 1987. The grout curtain was
constructed as a single row and included an initial set of primary boreholes grouted at 20 ft centers,
followed up by secondary boreholes grouted at the midpoint between primary boreholes. Tertiary
boreholes were grouted when deemed necessary based on field observations of grout acceptance
in the boreholes. Boreholes were drilled and grouted at an angle in order to intercept vertical joints
in the foundation materials. The grout curtain was constructed at varying depths along the axis of
the Main Dam, but was typically constructed to a depth of approximately 80 ft beneath the core
trench (i.e., 93 ft boreholes at a 30 inclination from the vertical). Type II Portland cement was
specified for the grout curtain mixture.
The Main Dam was completed to an elevation of 3,278 ft on 18 September 1987. The internal
divider dikes were subsequently completed to their final elevation of 3,270 ft and, where necessary,
the crests of these dikes were transitioned to the crest of the Main Dam. All Units 1 & 2 STEP
area embankment construction was completed by 24 September 1987. Subsequent construction
activities at the Units 1 & 2 STEP area occurred in 1988 and included subgrade preparation and
19
October 2016
Talen Energy
HDPE liner installation at E Cell and the Old Clearwell. Regrading and subgrade preparation for
RPP liner installation occurred at D Cell in 2011.
The Units 1 & 2 STEP Main Dam was designed with an upstream blanket which was constructed
with the same material used for the dam core. The design report specifies compaction in maximum
lift thicknesses of 12 in. to a minimum of 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry unit
weight (further modified to 20,000 ft-lbf/ft3 compactive effort) and within a 2 percent window
of optimum moisture content. Embankment slope protection was provided by soil-cement,
specified as 10 percent Type II or Type V Portland cement and 90 percent soil by weight, for the
upstream face of the Main Dam. This material was selected due to the scarcity of suitable rip-rap
materials in the vicinity of CSES. Downstream slope protection was provided by 6 in. of topsoil
and seeding.
Construction of the Units 1 & 2 STEP area emergency spillway commenced in August 1987 and
was completed in September 1987. This feature is located approximately 400 ft north of the left
abutment of the Units 1 & 2 STEP Main Dam. The emergency spillway is described in more detail
in Section 11.2 of this Report.
Prior to construction activities at the Units 1 & 2 STEP area, geotechnical investigations were
conducted between September and November 1978 and during October 1979 and are presented in
a design report prepared by Bechtel (1979). The investigations were conducted in Units 1 & 2
STEP area foundation materials and three potential borrow areas for construction of embankments
in the area. Underlying foundation materials encountered during this investigation are described
in Section 6.2.2 of this Report.
Soil from the borrow areas deemed suitable as a clay core and upstream blanket material consisted
primarily of low to medium plasticity silty clay and clayey silt with some sand noted to be present.
Permeability testing was conducted on samples compacted at optimum moisture content to 95
percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry unit weight (further modified to 20,000 ft-lbf/ft3
compactive effort) and back pressure saturated, yielding hydraulic conductivities ranging from
0.02 ft/yr (1.910-8 cm/s) to 5.0 ft/yr (4.810-6 cm/s) for this material. Total shear strength
parameters of the clay core was determined based on UU triaxial testing, and resulted in a friction
angle of 13.0 and a cohesion of 1,000 psf. Effective shear strength parameters of the clay core
were determined based on CU and CD triaxial testing, and resulted in a friction angle of 33.5 with
no cohesion.
Soil from the borrow areas deemed suitable as shell material primarily derived from weathered
sandstone, siltstone, and shale. This material exhibited a broader range of gradations than the clay
core material, with samples classifying as silty sand, sandy silt, clayey silt, and silty clay.
20
October 2016
Talen Energy
Permeability testing on shell material, prepared and conducted under the same conditions as clay
core materials, yielded hydraulic conductivities ranging from 0.2 ft/yr (1.910-7 cm/s) to 7.0 ft/yr
(6.810-6 cm/s). Total shear strength parameters of shell materials were determined based on UU
triaxial testing, and resulted in a friction angle of 22.5 and a cohesion of 750 psf. Effective shear
strength parameters of shell materials were determined based on CU and CD triaxial testing, and
resulted in a friction angle of 33.0 with no cohesion.
A subsurface investigation was conducted at the Units 1 & 2 STEP Main Dam in 2009, in which
five exploratory boreholes were advanced on the outboard side of the Units 1 & 2 STEP Main
Dam crest and one borehole was advanced on the inboard side of the crest at the E Cell/Old
Clearwell divider dike (Womack, 2010d). The investigation encountered the embankment shell,
core, and drain materials. The embankment core was generally described as low plasticity sandy,
silty clay. Shell materials were variable and consisted of sandy, silty clay to silty, clayey sand
with some gravel present. N1,60 values recorded in core and shell materials generally ranged from
12 to 31 blows/ft. The embankment drain material encountered during this investigation is
described as medium dense, clean sand and gravel and was determined to be approximately 4 ft
thick based on field observations. Foundation materials underlying the Units 1 & 2 STEP Main
Dam were encountered at depths ranging from 19.4 to 120.0 ft below the crest of the dam and are
described in more detail in Section 6.2.2 of this Report.
Previous geotechnical investigations of the Units 1 & 2 STEP area had focused on the Units 1 &
2 STEP Main Dam and generally did not include divider dikes in the area. In order to address the
need for instrumentation and stability analyses on these areas of the Units 1 & 2 STEP, a site
specific exploratory field investigation was carried out in 2015 and included 13 boreholes
advanced through the crests of the divider dikes that had not been previously analyzed (Jorgensen,
2016b). Embankment materials encountered in the Units 1 & 2 STEP area generally classified as
low plasticity clay with some sand and gravel noted to be present. N1,60 values recorded in these
materials ranged from 14 to 46 blows/ft. The clay core and drain materials were encountered on
the east embankment of D Cell (i.e., the Units 1 & 2 STEP Main Dam). Clay core classified as
medium stiff lean clay with sand and the drain material classified as a dense silty sand. Underlying
foundation materials encountered during this investigation are described in Section 6.2.2 of this
Report.
7.3
The first stage of embankment construction of the Units 3 & 4 EHP area occurred in 1983 and
1984. Staged construction of embankments in the Units 3 & 4 EHP area was planned to
accommodate gradual accumulation of effluent over time. The Units 3 & 4 EHP area began
operation at CSES in 1983, at which point, of the units covered by the CCR Rule, only B Cell and
a clearwell (currently a part of J Cell) were in service. Modifications to B Cell, which included
the installation of a RPP liner and underdrain system occurred in 2008. B Cell began operation as
21
October 2016
Talen Energy
the Units 3 & 4 EHP area clearwell in 2009. The second stage of embankment construction
occurred in 2012, during which the Units 3 & 4 EHP area Main Dam and Saddle Dam were raised
to their final crest elevations of 3,290 ft. In 2014, the C Cell/J Cell divider dike was buttressed
and raised and a new divider dike was constructed in between G Cell and J Cell, bringing these
three units to their current configuration.
Design and Construction
CCR units at the Units 3 & 4 EHP area are encompassed by a Main Dam oriented in the east-west
direction on the north side of the area, a Saddle Dam oriented in the north-south direction on the
east side of the area, twelve saddle dikes located along the south and west perimeter of the area,
and internal divider dikes located throughout the area. Details on the design and construction of
these structures are included in design and construction reports prepared by Bechtel (1982, 1984,
1985a).
Construction of the Main Dam and Saddle Dam began in 1983 with the stripping of topsoil and
unsuitable material in the area to a minimum depth of 12 in. and excavation for the foundation and
clay core. The core trench was specified to be excavated through overburden materials and a
minimum of 2 ft into bedrock, but no less than 5 ft below the elevation to which the foundation
material had been stripped to. For foundation materials consisting of scoria, which is noted to be
very abundant throughout the Units 3 & 4 EHP area, the core trench was specified to extend a
minimum of 5 ft into the material. Scoria that would remain beneath core and shell materials was
also specified to be wetted and compacted if it exhibited characteristics of soil, or be cleaned and
covered with 4 in. of lean concrete (i.e., concrete with high water-cement ratio) if it exhibited
characteristics of rock.
The Main Dam and Saddle Dam were constructed as zoned, rolled-earth-fill dams with a central
clay core extending down to bedrock and an upstream and downstream shell. Compaction of core
and shell materials was specified to maximum lift thicknesses of 12 in., a minimum of 95 percent
of the modified Proctor maximum dry unit weight (further modified to 20,000 ft-lbf/ft3 compactive
effort), and within a 2 percent window of optimum moisture content. The construction report
prepared by Bechtel (1985a) documents materials used to construct the different zones of the Units
3 & 4 EHP area dams. The clay core consisted of low to medium plasticity clayey silts and silty
clays, generally averaging from 78 to 86 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. The shell was mostly
friable siltstone and silty sandstone, averaging from 60 to 70 percent passing the No. 200 sieve.
Inorganic silty and clayey overburden and silty shale were noted to be used in shell material as
well.
Construction of the Units 3 & 4 EHP Main Dam initiated with a starter dam located at the upstream
toe. The starter dam was constructed with clay core material in August and September of 1982
and included a cutoff trench that extended 2 ft into bedrock. The starter dam allowed the Units
22
October 2016
Talen Energy
3 & 4 EHP area to begin accepting effluent in 1983, before the first major stage of construction
was completed, but ultimately was not used. The Main Dam was completed to its first stage
elevation of 3,260 ft during the 1983 construction season, which began on 21 March 1983 and
ended on 18 November 1983. The Saddle Dam was noted to be approximately 50 percent complete
at the end of this construction season. The Saddle Dam was completed to an elevation of 3,260 ft
during the 1984 construction season.
The second stage of construction in the Units 3 & 4 EHP area, during which the Main Dam and
Saddle Dam were raised to their final crest elevation of 3,290 ft, occurred in 2012. The original
design report by Bechtel (1982) proposed increasing the height of the Main Dam and Saddle Dam
by expanding the outboard face of the dams; however, the report prepared by Womack (2011b)
proposed an alternative to this design, in which the inboard face of these dams is buttressed with
bottom ash and fly ash and then brought to the final crest elevation of 3,290 ft using fill material.
The report includes two phases to this construction. The first phase included the placement of
roller-compacted bottom ash, sourced from within the Units 3 & 4 EHP area, as the inboard
buttress. The design report allowed for the use of fly ash as well. The buttress overlies existing
paste deposits within the Units 3 & 4 EHP area. The second phase involved raising the crest of
the dams using decomposed sandstone and siltstone, similar to material used for the embankment
shell, sourced from outside of the Units 3 & 4 EHP area.
The Main Dam and Saddle Dam were constructed with a chimney drain, an inclined drain, a
horizontal blanket drain, and a toe drain on the downstream side of the dam. These drainage
features generally consisted of well graded, processed sands and gravels. Transition material
between the clay core and drainage materials were sandy silts and clays with an average of 35 to
45 percent passing the No. 200 sieve (i.e., smaller than 0.075 mm). Gradation of materials used
to construct these drains was selected to permit controlled seepage through the dam towards a
downstream toe drain while preventing the piping of finer material from the embankment and
foundation through the drains.
Details on the design and construction of the Units 3 & 4 EHP slurry wall are included in a
construction report prepared by Bechtel (1985b). The slurry wall, which is typically described as
a plastic concrete wall in design and construction reports, was constructed along the entire
perimeter of the Units 3 & 4 EHP area in order to prevent seepage through scoria and high
permeability formations underlying the area. The top of the slurry wall was constructed to an
elevation of 3,280 ft except for beneath the Main Dam and Saddle Dam, where the slurry wall
extends approximately 2 to 7 feet into the embankment. The slurry wall was constructed to depths
ranging from 31 to 80 ft into subsurface materials, with a minimum of 5 ft extending into
competent bedrock. The mix design of the concrete consisted of fine and coarse aggregate, fly
ash, cement, bentonite, and water. Specifications required the slurry wall be 2.5 ft thick with a
hydraulic conductivity no greater than 1.010-6 cm/s or 2 ft thick with a hydraulic conductivity no
23
October 2016
Talen Energy
greater than 1.010-7 cm/s, although actual construction practices used likely resulted in a slurry
wall much thicker than this.
The slurry wall was constructed by excavating a series of trench segments (referred to as panels in
design and construction reports) ranging in length from 8 to 37 ft. The sequence of panel
construction was staggered, with primary panels being initially excavated and backfilled with
concrete before secondary panels were constructed in between the primary panels, creating a
continuous cutoff wall. Bentonite slurry was used to temporarily prevent caving-in of the
excavations before backfilling with concrete. The bentonite slurry is displaced from the trench
during backfilling with the denser concrete mixture. The bentonite slurry has a supplemental
purpose of forming a leftover filter cake on the walls of the excavation, enhancing the overall
performance of the cutoff wall. Construction of the slurry wall occurred between spring 1983 and
fall 1984, with no construction activities occurring during the winter season.
Embankment slope protection was provided by soil-cement, specified as 10 percent Type II or
Type V Portland cement and 90 percent soil by weight, for the upstream face of the Main Dam
and Saddle Dam. This material was selected due to the scarcity of suitable rip-rap materials in the
vicinity of CSES. Several soil-cement samples were tested for compressive strength and yielded
an average 7-day strength of 810 psi. Downstream slope protection on these embankments was
provided by 6 in. of topsoil and seeding. During the 1983 construction season, Units 3 & 4 EHP
area soils below an elevation of 3,200 ft were treated with bentonite, as required by the Montana
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC).
Twelve saddle dikes were constructed along the south and west sides of the Units 3 & 4 EHP area,
with six of these dikes being completed during the 1983 construction season and six completed
during the 1984 construction season. The saddle dikes were constructed with a crest elevation of
3,290 ft. These saddle dikes were constructed using shell material and compacted to the same
specifications as the Main Dam and Saddle Dam. Downstream slopes of saddle dikes were
protected with 12 in. of topsoil and seeding.
Internal divider dikes constructed in the Units 3 & 4 EHP area during the first stage of construction
include the Clearwell Divider Dike, the Cooling Tower Blowdown Dike (also referred to as the
Cooling Tower Blowdown Dam), and Dike G. During the 1983 construction season, the Clearwell
Divider Dike was constructed to an elevation of 3,190 ft and the Cooling Tower Blowdown Dike
was constructed to a final elevation of 3,240 ft. During the 1984 construction season, both the
Clearwell Divider Dike and Dike G were constructed to an elevation of 3,205 ft. In 2014, the C
Cell/J Cell divider dike (i.e., the Clearwell Divider Dike) was buttressed and raised to an elevation
of 3,290 ft and a new divider dike was constructed in between G Cell and J Cell.
Foundation preparation at the Clearwell Divider Dike consisted of excavation an average of 2 ft
below the ground surface, foundation scarification, moisture conditioning, and compaction. The
24
October 2016
Talen Energy
foundation of the Clearwell Divider Dike is the only part of the Units 3 & 4 EHP area below an
elevation of 3,200 ft not treated with bentonite, but instead constructed as a 1 ft thick layer of clay
core material. Foundation preparation at the Cooling Tower Blowdown Dike generally consisted
of topsoil stripping, removal of scoria, foundation scarification, moisture conditioning, and
compaction. Dike G foundation preparation consisted of stripping of 1 ft of topsoil and/or
bentonite treated soil.
Both the Clearwell Divider Dike and Dike G were constructed without a core trench. Shell
material was used to construct the Clearwell Divider Dike to an elevation of 3,190 ft and scoria
was used to reinforce the sideslopes. Between elevations of 3,190 and 3,205 ft, the Clearwell
Divider Dike is constructed as a zoned embankment with a core consisting of shell material and
scoria comprising the shell. Finer scoria material was placed upstream of the core while coarser
material was placed downstream of the core. Transition zones were provided on both the upstream
and downstream sides of the core to prevent piping of core material. Dike G was constructed of
shell material with a 2 ft layer of scoria on its sideslopes. Both the Clearwell Divider Dike and
Dike G were designed to be constructed to a final elevation of 3,280 ft over time using bottom ash.
Dike G was removed in 2014 when modifications were made to G Cell and J Cell.
The Cooling Tower Blowdown Dike was constructed with a 1 ft thick clay base and a keyway
excavated 2 ft into bedrock and backfilled with clay core material. The remainder of this
embankment was constructed using compacted shell material protected with a 3 ft thick layer of
scoria. The crest of this dike was constructed at 35 ft wide. This dike contains a downstream toe
drain at the east abutment, which was constructed to intercept seepage through the scoria identified
in this abutment.
Subsequent construction activities at the Units 3 & 4 EHP area included the regrading and subgrade
preparation for RPP liner installation at B Cell. Additionally, technical specifications prepared by
Summit (2014) for the buttressing and raising of the C Cell/J Cell divider dike (i.e., the Clearwell
Divider Dike) and construction of the new divider dike between G Cell and J Cell call for these
modification to be made using compacted scoria, fly ash, and bottom ash from on-site sources.
The design report by Bechtel (1982) contains provisions for construction of an emergency spillway
in the Units 3 & 4 EHP area; however, this feature was not constructed. The design of this
emergency spillway is described in more detail in Section 11.3 of this Report.
Prior to construction activities at the Units 3 & 4 EHP area, geotechnical investigations were
conducted between October and December 1981 and are presented in a design report prepared by
Bechtel (1982). The investigations were conducted in Units 3 & 4 EHP area foundation materials
and three potential borrow areas for construction of embankments in the area. Additionally, a
25
October 2016
Talen Energy
seismic refraction survey was conducted along the perimeter of the Units 3 & 4 EHP area with the
primary purpose of identifying the location and depth of scoria. Underlying foundation materials
encountered during this investigation are described in Section 6.2.3 of this Report.
Soil from the borrow areas deemed suitable as a clay core material consisted primarily of finegrained, low to medium plasticity silty clay and clayey silt with some sand noted to be present.
Permeability testing was conducted on samples compacted at 2 percent below optimum moisture
content to 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry unit weight (further modified to 20,000
ft-lbf/ft3 compactive effort) and back pressure saturated, yielding hydraulic conductivities ranging
from 0.002 ft/yr (1.910-9 cm/s) to 20.7 ft/yr (2.010-5 cm/s) for this material. Total shear strength
parameters of the clay core was determined based on UU triaxial testing, and resulted in a friction
angle of 27.0 and a cohesion of 120 psf. Effective shear strength parameters of the clay core were
determined based on CU and CD triaxial testing, and resulted in a friction angle of 28.5 with no
cohesion. Engineering properties of the embankment shell material for the Units 3 & 4 EHP area
were adopted from the laboratory investigation conducted on similar materials at the Units 1 & 2
STEP area prior to its construction.
A geotechnical investigation was conducted in 1989 at the Units 3 & 4 EHP area in order to
determine site-specific properties of materials used to construct the Units 3 & 4 EHP Main Dam
and Saddle Dam (Chen-Northern, 1989). During the initial stability analyses of these dams, the
embankment shell material properties had been assumed to be the same as those used to construct
the Units 1 & 2 STEP Main Dam. Five boreholes were advanced in the Units 3 & 4 EHP area
using hollow stem auguring and split spoon and Shelby tube samples were obtained for laboratory
testing. Boring locations were selected to specifically investigate the shell material of these dams,
whose properties had been assumed based on testing from similar materials from the Units 1 & 2
STEP area. The shell generally classified as a lean clay with sand and occasionally graded to a
silty clay with sand. Uncorrected SPT blow counts of this material ranged between 28 to 69
blows/ft. Three CU triaxial tests conducted on the shell material resulted in effective friction angle
values of 33, 34, and 32 corresponding to cohesion values of 700, 0, and 500 psf, respectively.
These values exceeded the shear strength parameters assumed for the design of the Units 3 & 4
EHP area dams. Underlying foundation materials encountered during this investigation are
described in Section 6.2.3 of this Report.
A subsurface investigation was conducted at the Units 3 & 4 EHP area in 2009, in which ten
exploratory boreholes and one test pit were advanced into the Units 3 & 4 EHP Main Dam
(Womack, 2010e). The clay core, shell, and drainage materials were encountered during this
investigation. The clay core was described as stiff and predominantly clay and silt with varying
amounts of sand and gravel. N1,60 values recorded in the clay core resulted in an average of 18
blows/ft and unconfined compressive strengths, measured via field pocket penetrometer tests, were
generally greater than 4.5 tsf. Shell materials were classified as very stiff clay and silt with varying
amounts of gravel and sand. N1,60 values recorded in the shell resulted in an average of 23 blows/ft
26
October 2016
Talen Energy
and unconfined compressive strengths, measured via field pocket penetrometer tests, ranged from
3.0 to greater than 4.5 tsf. Permeability testing on the shell material yielded hydraulic conductivity
values ranging from 1.410-8 ft/sec (4.310-7 cm/s) to 4.910-7 ft/sec (1.510-5 cm/s). The
chimney drain was encountered during this investigation and consisted of clean, dense gravelly
sand with N1,60 values ranging from 21 to 37 blows/ft. A similar investigation was conducted in
the vicinity of the Units 3 & 4 EHP Saddle Dam in 2009, in which six exploratory boreholes were
advanced into this dam (Womack, 2009e). The motivation for this investigation was to install
additional piezometers and conduct a seepage analysis, and therefore, laboratory testing was not
carried out. Shell material encountered at the Saddle Dam and was described as a stiff, nonplastic
clayey silt. Two boreholes proceeded through bottom ash divider dikes in the G Cell/J Cell area
(including Dike G) which abut the Saddle Dam. The bottom ash was described as ranging in size
from coarse sand to fine gravel. Underlying foundation materials encountered during these
investigations are described in Section 6.2.3 of this Report.
Previous geotechnical investigations of the Units 3 & 4 EHP area had focused on the Units 3 & 4
EHP Main Dam and Saddle Dam and generally did not include divider dikes in the area. In order
to address the need for instrumentation and stability analyses on these areas of the Units 3 & 4
EHP, a site specific exploratory field investigation was carried out in 2015 and included 14
boreholes advanced through the crests of the divider dikes that had not been previously analyzed
(Jorgensen, 2016b). Embankment shell materials encountered in the Units 3 & 4 EHP generally
classified as low plasticity clay with some sand and gravel noted to be present. N1,60 values
recorded in the shell material of these embankments ranged from 5 to 58 blows/ft. Embankment
core material was not encountered during this investigation in the Units 1 & 2 STEP area.
Underlying foundation materials encountered during this investigation are described in Section
6.2.3 of this Report.
27
October 2016
Talen Energy
8.
DIMENSIONAL DRAWINGS
Section 257.73(c)(1)(vii) of the CCR Rule requires:

At a scale that details engineering structures and appurtenances relevant to the
design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the CCR unit, detailed
dimensional drawings of the CCR unit, including a plan view and cross sections of
the length and width of the CCR unit, showing all zones, foundation improvements,
drainage provisions, spillways, diversion ditches, outlets, instrument locations, and
slope protection, in addition to the normal operating pool surface elevation and the
maximum pool surface elevation following peak discharge from the inflow design
flood, the expected maximum depth of CCR within the CCR surface impoundment,
and any identifiable natural or manmade features that could adversely affect
operation of the CCR unit due to malfunction or mis-operation.
This section of the Report documents information related to the design and construction of CCR
units at CSES on dimensional drawings, to the extent this information is available. Drawings of
plant area, Units 1 & 2 STEP area, and Units 3 & 4 EHP area units are included in Appendix C.1,
C.2, and C.3 to this Report, respectively.
8.1
Plant Area
The complete set of original design drawings for plant area units by Bechtel is not available for
review; however, select drawings from these sets were compiled and are included in Appendix C.1
to this Report. Drawing No. C3-0001 (Rev. 20) from this drawing set shows an overall site plan
of the plant area; however, engineered structures are not shown in detail on this drawing.
8.1.1
Units 1 & 2 B Fly Ash Pond and Bottom Ash Pond
Drawing No. C-1-25 (Rev. 5) shows a site plan of Units 1 & 2 ponds in the plant area; however,
engineered structures are not shown in detail on this drawing. Drawing No. C1-31 (Rev. 15)
presents a more detailed plan of Units 1 & 2 plant area ponds as they were originally designed.
Drawing No. C1-32 (Rev. 4) presents cross sections of embankments from this area, as well as
details on sluice piping and appurtenances. Embankments are noted to vary in crest elevation
throughout the area, but were typically designed at an elevation of 3,265 ft. Embankments were
designed to be constructed with 2H:1V sideslopes and a crest width of 20 ft. Within the ponds,
the clay foundation material was partially excavated to the underlying bedrock, creating a 30 ft
wide embankment bench on the interior slopes of the Units 1 & 2 plant area ponds. Drawing No.
C1-35 (Rev. 5) contains details on the designed intake and outlet structures, as well as underflow
piping, at Units 1 & 2 plant area ponds.
28
October 2016
Talen Energy

Drawing No. C1-31 (Rev. 15) from the original design drawings by Bechtel shows the Units 1 &
2 fly ash ponds as a single, U-shaped unit with a west leg (A Side) and an east leg (B Side)
connected at the south end of the pond. However, several modifications have been made to this
pond and are documented in a design and construction report prepared by Portage and HKM
(2005). This report contains design and record drawings for the Units 1 & 2 B Fly Ash Pond, both
entitled Construction Plans for Backup Fly Ash Pond and Clear Well. Drawing sets contain
design and as-built grading, as well as details on the liner, underdrain, and leak control systems
installed at the pond. Drawing No. P-4R, which contains the record drawing on the finished grades
of the pond, shows that the crest of the Units 1 & 2 B Fly Ash Pond was constructed at an elevation
of 3,264 ft, allowing for 4 ft of freeboard when the pond is at its maximum pool elevation of 3,260
ft. The bottom of the pond varies in elevation from 3,228 to 3,242 ft. The maximum embankment
height is approximately 36 ft and sideslopes are generally constructed at a slope of 2H:1V.
Several design and record drawings show that a buried sheet pile wall was installed in the
southwest bottom ash dike, which was constructed in 2002 to isolate the west and east legs of the
fly ash pond from one another. Aside from its location, as-built details on this sheet pile wall are
not available; however, Drawing No. P-4 specifies the maximum top elevation of the sheet pile
wall at 3,264.7 ft and a minimum of 1.5 ft bottom ash cover on the roadway above the sheet pile.
Drawing No. C1-31 (Rev. 15) from the original design drawings by Bechtel shows that the Units
1 & 2 Bottom Ash Pond was originally designed as a single pond located to the north of the Units
1 & 2 B Fly Ash Pond and used as the wash tray pond for Units 1 & 2. Additionally, this drawing
indicates that the Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Clearwell originally served as the fly ash clearwell for
Units 1 & 2. Detailed dimensional drawings of the Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Pond as it is currently
constructed are not available.
The geosynthetics quality assurance report prepared by Portage and HKM (2007) regarding
modifications to the Units 1 & 2 plant area clearwell contains design and record drawings for the
Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Clearwell, both entitled Construction Plans for A/B Clearwell Pond.
Drawing sets contain design and as-built grading, as well as details on the liner, underdrain, and
leak control systems installed at the pond. Drawing No. P-3R, which contains the record drawing
on the finished grades of the pond, shows that the crest of the Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Clearwell
was constructed at an elevation of 3,264 ft. No information is available on the maximum pool
elevation of the pond; however, in order to allow for 4 ft of freeboard, as is the case with the Units
1 & 2 B Fly Ash Pond, the clearwell would need to be limited to a maximum pool elevation of
3,260 ft. The bottom of the pond is at an elevation of 3,237 ft. The maximum embankment height
is approximately 27 ft and sideslopes are generally constructed at a slope of 3H:1V.
29
October 2016
Talen Energy
8.1.2
Drawing No. C3-0038 (Rev. 5) shows a detailed plan view of the Units 3 & 4 Bottom Ash Pond
as it was originally designed. The unit was originally designed as a single, rectangular bottom ash
pond with a floor sloping downwards at 0.015 ft/ft towards a reinforced concrete weir wall along
the north end of the pond. The weir wall creates a shallow channel along the north end of the
pond, and water that overtops the weir wall drains via the channel towards a spillway and into a
rectangular clearwell located to the north of the bottom ash pond. The floor of the bottom ash
pond was designed with its east-west centerline at an elevation of 3,288 ft while the floor of the
clearwell was designed at an elevation of 3,270 ft. Interior sideslopes of the bottom ash pond and
clearwell embankments were designed at a slope of 3H:1V, while exterior sideslopes ranged from
2H:1V to 3H:1V. The maximum embankment heights of the bottom ash pond and clearwell were
determined to be approximately 15 ft and 20 ft, respectively.
Drawing No. C3-0039 (Rev. 1) supplements Drawing No. C3-0038 (Rev. 5) with details and
sections of the Units 3 & 4 Bottom Ash Pond, including: (i) cross sections of the pond, clearwell,
and embankments; (ii) liner system details; (iii) reinforced concrete weir wall details, as well as
the channel formed to the north of the bottom ash pond by the weir wall and the spillway between
the bottom ash pond and clearwell; and (iv) perimeter access road details. Drawing No. C3-0035
(Rev. 3) contains details on the Units 3 & 4 Bottom Ash Pond piping systems. The bottom ash
pond was designed with two 10-in. diameter sluice pipes traversing the western and southern
embankments of the bottom ash pond and discharging into the southeast corner of the pond. This
drawing also contains details on appurtenances pertaining to the clearwell bypass system,
including clearwell bypass valve pits and the clearwell bypass intake structure, located in the
northwest corner of the bottom ash pond.
Details on modifications performed on the Units 3 & 4 Bottom Ash Pond are contained in a
drawing attached to a letter from Bechtel to the Montana Power Company with the subject line
Colstrip Units 3 & 4, Bechtel Job No. 10676, Bottom Ash Removal. The letter is undated;
however, the text states that the purpose of the letter is to provide additional comments to an initial
letter from Bechtel to the Montana Power Company dated 29 May 1984. The drawing appears to
be a modification to Drawing No. C3-0038 (Rev. 5) and shows an existing north-south divider
dike and a proposed east-west divider dike, separating the bottom ash pond into four distinct areas.
The east-west divider dike was proposed to have a crest elevation of 3,296 ft, corresponding to a
maximum dike height of approximately 8 ft. Dimensions of the north-south divider dike are not
included in this drawing. The letter suggests that the original design elevation of ash in the bottom
ash pond was 3,330 ft, corresponding to a height of approximately 40 ft above the floor of the
pond.
The current design of the Units 3 & 4 Bottom Ash Pond is presented in Drawing No. C3-033
(Rev. 1) from the drawing set entitled Colstrip Units 3&4 Bottom Ash Pond Modifications and
30
October 2016
Talen Energy
dated 3 November 2008, which shows the area divided into seven individual ponds connected via
piping and weirs located underneath divider dikes. This drawing addresses modifications to
existing ponds in the area, and therefore, dimensions of engineered structures and appurtenances
are not presented in detail in this drawing. The crest elevation of divider dikes is noted to be 3,295
ft with the exception of dikes surrounding the solids removal cells, which are at elevation 3,300 ft.
Maximum water level is noted to be 3,295 ft for both solids removal cells. The water storage cell,
clearwell bypass cell, and clearwell have maximum water levels of 3,289, 3,288, and 3,288 ft,
respectively. There is no listed maximum water level for the secondary settlement cells.
8.2
The complete set of original design drawings for Units 1 & 2 STEP area units by Bechtel is not
available for review; however, select drawings from these sets were compiled and are included in
Appendix C.2 to this Report. Drawing Nos. C1-925 (Rev. 1), C1-926 (Rev. 1), and C1-928 (Rev.
1) from this drawing set show overall site plans of the Units 1 & 2 STEP area; however, engineered
structures are not shown in detail on these drawings. Drawing Nos. C1-933 (Rev. 1) and C1-934
(Rev. 1) show plan, profile, and cross sectional views of the Units 1 & 2 STEP Main Dam. The
crest of the dam is 20 ft wide and at an elevation of 3,278 ft, corresponding to a maximum design
crest height of approximately 88 ft. The dam is oriented in the north-south direction and is
approximately 2,400 ft long. The dam was designed with 3H:1V sideslopes. These drawings note
that the normal maximum pool surface behind the Units 1 & 2 STEP Main Dam is at an elevation
of 3,270 ft. Drawing No. C1-934 (Rev. 1) shows the geometry of the different zones used when
constructing the Units 1 & 2 STEP Main Dam, including the clay core, upstream and downstream
embankment shell, drainage features, and foundation materials. Details on the dam crest, toe drain,
and valley drainage trench are presented in this drawing as well. Information on divider dikes
constructed in the Units 1 & 2 STEP area is generally not included in these design drawings;
however, Drawing No. C1-927 (Rev. 1), which contains multiple cross sections of final grades in
the Units 1 & 2 STEP area, shows that these dikes were designed with crest elevations of 3,270 ft,
corresponding to the normal maximum pool level in the Units 1 & 2 STEP area.
Drawing No. C1-933 (Rev. 1) shows the presence of an emergency spillway in the Units 1 & 2
STEP area located approximately 400 ft north of the left abutment of the Units 1 & 2 STEP Main
Dam. This spillway feature is described in more detail in Section 11.2 of this Report. Drawing
Nos. C1-937 (Rev. 1) and C1-938 (Rev. 1) present plans and details on the valley drain sump,
located approximately 500 ft east of the downstream toe of the Units 1 & 2 STEP Main Dam.
D Cell
The construction quality assurance report prepared by DOWL HKM (2012) contains design and
record drawings for the Units 1 & 2 STEP area D Cell, both entitled Construction Plans for Units
1 & 2 STEP Cell D Lining Project. Drawing sets contain design and as-built grading, as well as
31
October 2016
Talen Energy
details on the liner, underdrain, and leak control systems installed at the pond. Drawing No. P4R,
which contains the record drawing on the finished grades of the pond, shows that the crest of the
Units 1 & 2 STEP area D Cell varies in elevation from approximately 3,276 to 3,280 ft. The
bottom of the pond varies in elevation from approximately 3,232 to 3,250 ft. Based on a normal
pool elevation of 3,272.5 ft used by DOWL HKM (2012), the normal pool depth ranges from 22.5
ft on the southern end of the pond to 40.5 ft on the northern end of the pond. The maximum
embankment height is approximately 44 ft and sideslopes are generally constructed at a slope of
3H:1V, with the exception of the northeast embankment, which was constructed at a slope of
3.5H:1V.
E Cell and Old Clearwell
The east embankments of both E Cell and the Old Clearwell are encompassed by the Units 1 & 2
STEP Main Dam, which is described in more detail previously in this section. Besides the original
design drawings by Bechtel, no available dimensional drawings detail the individual design of
these units or the divider dikes which form these ponds.
8.3
Two sets of drawings are available that detail the original design and construction of the Units 3
& 4 EHP area. The first set is from the original design report by Bechtel (1982) and addresses the
design of the Units 3 & 4 EHP Main Dam and Saddle Dam. The second set is from the construction
report by Bechtel (1985a) and contains as-built drawings of the Units 3 & 4 EHP Main Dam and
Saddle Dam, as well as details on several dams and dikes constructed within and along the exterior
of the Units 3 & 4 EHP area. Select drawings from these sets are included in Appendix C.3 to this
Report.
Plate Nos. 20 and 24 from the design report by Bechtel (1982) show design plan and profiles of
the Units 3 & 4 EHP Main Dam and Saddle Dam; however, engineered structures are not shown
in detail on these drawings. These drawings show that the Main Dam and Saddle Dam have crest
lengths of approximately 2,500 and 3,500 ft, respectively. Plate No. 25 from this drawing set
shows cross sections of the Main Dam and Saddle Dam in more detail. The crests of these dams
are 20 ft wide and at an elevation of 3,290 ft, corresponding to a maximum design crest height of
approximately 138 and 66 ft for the Main Dam and Saddle Dam, respectively. The dams were
designed with 3H:1V sideslopes. This drawing also shows the geometry of the different zones
used when constructing these Units 3 & 4 EHP area dams, including the clay core, upstream and
downstream embankment shell, drainage features, and foundation materials.
Plate Nos. 26 and 27 present the planned stages of construction for the Main Dam and Saddle
Dam, respectively. The Main Dam was designed to begin as a starter dam constructed at the
upstream toe of the dam with a crest elevation of 3,185 ft, then proceed into staged construction
32
October 2016
Talen Energy
consisting of dam crest elevations of 3,230 ft, 3,260 ft, and 3,290 ft. The Saddle Dam was designed
with stages at elevations of 3,260 ft and 3,290 ft. Figure Nos. 2 and 3 (Rev. A) from the
construction report by Bechtel (1985a) show as-built plan views of the Units 3 & 4 EHP Main
Dam and Saddle Dam, respectively, after the first stage of construction had proceeded to an
elevation of 3,260 ft. As-built cross sections of the Main Dam and Saddle Dam at this stage of
construction are shown on Figure No. 5 (Rev. A). The Main Dam and Saddle Dam were
constructed to their final crest elevation of 3,290 ft in 2012. The design used for this stage of
embankment construction involved the buttressing of the inboard face of these dams with bottom
ash and fly ash and then bringing the crest to its final elevation of 3,290 ft using fill material. This
design is presented in Figure 4 from the design report prepared by Womack (2011b).
A Cell
Drawing No. C8 from the drawing set entitled CP 402B-2: J Cell Phase 1 Earthworks Project
(Summit, 2014) shows the Units 3 & 4 EHP area A Cell as a stockpile area. The area is noted to
contain bottom ash. The exterior embankments of A Cell are generally at an elevation of 3,290 ft.
B Cell
The geosynthetics quality assurance report prepared by Portage (2008) regarding modifications to
the Units 3 & 4 EHP area B Cell (referred to as Cell B Clear Well) contains design drawings for
this unit, entitled Units 3 & 4 Clear Well Final Design. This drawing set contains the design
liner grades of the unit, as well as details on the liner and underdrain systems installed at the pond.
Drawing Nos. 1 and 2 from this set, which contains the design drawings of the liner system grading,
cross sections, and liner details, show that the crest of the Units 3 & 4 EHP area B Cell is at an
elevation of 3,290 ft. The bottom of the pond varies in elevation from approximately 3,261 ft at
the northern end of the pond to 3,269 ft at the southern end of the pond. The maximum
embankment height is approximately 29 ft and sideslopes are generally constructed at a slope of
4H:1V.
C Cell
Figure No. 1 (Rev. A) from the 1985 construction report drawing set by Bechtel presents a general
location plan of the Units 3 & 4 EHP area with dam and dike locations within the area. The
drawing shows that the Clearwell Divider Dike and Cooling Tower Blowdown Dike form the north
and south embankments of C Cell, respectively. Figure No. 6 (Rev. A) shows that the Clearwater
Divider Dike was initially constructed with a crest that varied in elevation from 3,205 ft at the
edges to 3,206.5 ft at the centerline. The inboard and outboard sideslopes varied in slope from
2.5H:1V to 2H:1V. The second stage of embankment construction in 2012 would increase the
height of the Clearwater Divider Dike to an elevation of 3,280 ft. The crest was designed to be 20
ft wide and the inboard (i.e. towards C Cell) and outboard sideslopes were designed to be at slopes
33
October 2016
Talen Energy
of 1.5H:1V and 2H:1V, respectively. Figure No. 6 (Rev. A) shows that the Cooling Tower
Blowdown Dike was initially constructed with a 35 ft wide crest at an elevation of 3,240 ft and
with 2H:1V sideslopes.
Drawing C-301 (Rev. 1) from the drawing set entitled CP 302A-3 EHP Earthwork/Pipework
Project (Womack, 2014) regarding modifications to the Units 3 & 4 EHP area, shows that the
Clearwell Divider Dike (now the internal divider dike between C Cell and J Cell) was raised to an
approximate elevation of 3,285.5 ft. The internal divider dike between C Cell and G Cell has a
maximum crest elevation of 3,286.5 ft in this drawing. Drawing No. C-201 (Rev. H) from this
drawing set shows that the Cooling Tower Blowdown Dike (now the internal divider dike between
C Cell and the adjacent water storage cell) has since been raised to an elevation of approximately
3,290 ft. Drawing No. C-302 (Rev. 0) from this drawing set shows the internal divider dike
between C Cell and B Cell at an elevation of 3,293.5 ft.
(Summit, 2014) presents the regrading of the south and west embankments of J Cell. The proposed
dike (i.e., the C Cell/J Cell divider dike) has a 50 ft crest at an elevation of 3,290 ft with 3H:1V
sideslopes.
D/E Cell
(Summit, 2014) shows the Units 3 & 4 EHP area D/E Cell as a stockpile area. The area is noted
to contain scoria, fly ash, bottom ash, and a boulder stockpile. The maximum stockpile elevation
at D/E Cell is noted to be at 3,340 ft at the fly ash and bottom ash stockpiles.
G Cell
drawing shows that G Cell was formed by construction of the Saddle Dam as the east embankment.
The Saddle Dam is discussed in more detail previously in this section.
internal divider dikes between C Cell and G Cell has a maximum crest elevation of 3,286.5 ft.
(Summit, 2014) presents the design of a new internal divider dike between G Cell and J Cell. The
proposed dike has a 50 ft crest at an elevation of 3,290 ft with 3H:1V sideslopes. Drawing No.
C12 presents embankment cross sections of the proposed divider dike. Drawing No. C10 from
34
October 2016
Talen Energy
this drawing set shows the internal divider dike between G Cell and the adjacent water storage cell
with a crest at an approximate elevation of 3,290 ft with 3H:1V sideslopes.
J Cell
drawing shows that J Cell (which was the Units 3 & 4 EHP area clearwell at the time) was formed
by construction of the Main Dam as the north embankment, the Clearwell Divider Dike as the
south embankment, and Dike G as the east embankment. The Main Dam is discussed in more
detail previously in this section. Figure No. 6 (Rev. A) shows that the Clearwater Divider Dike
and Dike G were initially constructed with a crest that varied in elevation from 3,205 ft at the edges
to 3,206.5 ft at the centerline. The second stage of embankment construction would increase the
height of these embankments to an elevation of 3,280 ft with 20 ft crest widths. The inboard (i.e.
towards J Cell) and outboard sideslopes of the Clearwater Divider Dike were designed to be at
slopes of 2H:1V and 1.5H:1V, respectively. Dike G was designed to have 1.5H:1V sideslopes.
Clearwell Divider Dike (now the interior divider dike between C Cell and J Cell) was raised to an
approximate elevation of 3,285.5 ft. Drawing Nos. C8 and C9 from the drawing set entitled CP
402B-2: J Cell Phase 1 Earthworks Project (Summit, 2014) present the design of a new internal
divider dike between G Cell and J Cell and the regrading of the south and west embankments of J
Cell. The proposed dike (i.e., the G Cell/J Cell divider dikes and the C Cell/J Cell divider dike)
has a 50 ft crest at an elevation of 3,290 ft with 3H:1V sideslopes. The dike regrading continues
to match the existing grades along the face of the Units 3 & 4 EHP Main Dam. The bottom of the
pond varies in elevation from approximately 3,240 ft at the western end of the pond to 3,260 ft at
the eastern end of the pond, corresponding to a maximum embankment height of approximately
50 ft. Drawing No. C12 presents embankment cross sections of the proposed divider dike. The
proposed design from this drawing also shows that a scoria bench with a top elevation of 3,240
was designed for construction in the southwest corner of J Cell.
35
October 2016
Talen Energy
9.
EXISTING INSTRUMENTATION
Section 257.73(c)(1)(viii) of the CCR Rule requires:

A description of the type, purpose, and location of existing instrumentation.
Instrumentation used for the evaluation of the structural stability of CCR units is described in this
section to the extent this information is available. The impetus for installation and periodic
monitoring of current instrumentation at CSES was based on United State Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) recommendations for corrective measures needed to address the lack of
adequate instrumentation in the three main areas of the facility (GEI, 2009). Tables 2 and 3
summarize inclinometers and piezometers currently monitored as a part of periodic surveillance
events performed at CSES.
9.1
Plant Area
Two subsurface investigations were conducted at the Units 1 & 2 plant area ponds in 2009. Four
exploratory boreholes were drilled into the north and east embankments of the Units 1 & 2 Bottom
Ash Pond (Womack, 2010b). A similar investigation was conducted on the west embankment of
the Units 1 & 2 A Pond and the northwest corner of the Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Clearwell
(Womack, 2010c). For both investigations, two boreholes were advanced along the pond
embankment crest using hollow stem auguring and two test pits were excavated into the
downstream shell of the embankment. Vibrating wire (VW) piezometers were installed in all eight
boreholes at depths near the bottom of the embankment core material in order to monitor internal
pore water pressures.
Locations of VW piezometers currently installed at the Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Pond are presented
in a location map prepared by Jorgensen (2016a), included in Appendix D to this Report. It is
noted that two VW piezometers were installed on the west embankment of the Units 1 & 2 A Pond;
however, the CCR Rule is not applicable to this unit and these instruments are not included in
regular monitoring events performed at the plant area.
9.2
Units in the Units 1 & 2 STEP area have historically been monitored with standpipe piezometers
located throughout the area. Units in the Units 1 & 2 STEP area are currently monitored with
inclinometers and piezometers located along the Main Dam and divider dikes. VW piezometers
and inclinometers were installed in the Units 1 & 2 STEP area as a part of a series of geotechnical
investigations initiated in 2009.
Locations of inclinometers and piezometers currently installed in the Units 1 & 2 STEP area are
presented in a location map prepared by Jorgensen (2016b), included in Appendix D to this Report.
36
October 2016
Talen Energy
The majority of piezometers found in the Units 1 & 2 STEP area are VW piezometers; however,
several standpipe piezometers are still in use in this area as well. Of the standpipe piezometers
noted to be present in the Units 1 & 2 STEP area in a 2009 inspection report prepared by
Hydrometrics (2009b), piezometer 952D, which is located on the east embankment of D Cell, is
still included in periodic monitoring events. Standpipe piezometer 2019D is not noted to be present
in the 2009 inspection report (Hydrometrics, 2009b), and there is no available record of its
installation.
9.3
In order to meet the original design capacity at the Units 3 & 4 EHP, the crests of the Main Dam
and Saddle Dam were increased to their original design height during the second stage of
embankment construction, which took place in 2012 and raised the crests of the Units 3 & 4 EHP
area Main Dam and Saddle Dam to an elevation of 3,290 ft. This construction activity required
the abandonment of most of the existing inclinometers and piezometers in the Units 3 & 4 EHP
area. The abandonment plan is detailed in a report prepared by Hydrometrics (2011) and involved
the reinstallation of abandoned instruments as close to their original location as possible. Units in
the Units 3 & 4 EHP area are currently monitored with inclinometers and piezometers located
along the Main Dam, Saddle Dam, and divider dikes. Piezometers and inclinometers in the Units
3 & 4 EHP area that are included in the current instrumentation monitoring program were installed,
abandoned, and replaced as a part of a series of geotechnical investigations and construction
activities initiated in 2009. Instruments are installed both upstream and downstream of the Units
3 & 4 EHP cutoff wall.
Locations of inclinometers and piezometers currently installed in the Units 3 & 4 EHP area are
presented in a location map prepared by Jorgensen (2016b), included in Appendix D to this Report.
The majority of piezometers found in the Units 3 & 4 EHP area are VW piezometers; however,
standpipe piezometers are still in use in this area as well. Three piezometers in the Units 3 & 4
EHP area (SD-12-42P, SD-12-44P, and SD-12-45P) are labeled as standpipe piezometers in the
instrumentation figure; however, these instruments are noted to be VW piezometers based on
monthly monitoring data, in which readings are reported as frequencies and temperatures as
opposed to depth measurements.
37
October 2016
Talen Energy
10.
AREA-CAPACITY CURVES
Section 257.73(c)(1)(ix) of the CCR Rule requires:

Area-Capacity curves for the CCR unit.
Aerial survey, bathymetric survey, and base grade information was used, when available, to
calculate incremental pond volumes and surface areas for area-capacity curves at CSES. Areacapacity curves for plant area, Units 1 & 2 STEP area, and Units 3 & 4 EHP area units are located
in Appendix E.1, E.2, and E.3, respectively.
In general, either design or as-built base grades were used to create area-capacity curves. The
area-capacity curve for the Units 1 & 2 STEP area E Cell was created using April 2009 bathymetric
survey results (Hydrometrics, 2009d). Area-capacity curves for Units 3 & 4 EHP area C Cell, G
Cell, and J Cell were created using an 8 December 2014 aerial survey by Aerial Data Design.
Therefore, these area-capacity curves only contain data for elevations above the level of paste in
the ponds at the time these surveys were conducted.
Sufficient information on the construction and current configuration of the plant area Units 1 & 2
Bottom Ash Pond and the Units 3 & 4 Bottom Ash Pond was not available to create area-capacity
curves for these units. The Units 3 & 4 EHP area A Cell and D/E Cell are stockpile areas, and
therefore, area-capacity curves were not created for these units.
38
October 2016
Talen Energy
11.
SPILLWAY AND DIVERSION FEATURES
Section 257.73(c)(1)(x) of the CCR Rule requires:

A description of each spillway and diversion design features and capacities and
calculations used in their determination.
11.1
Plant Area
The Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Pond and the Units 1 & 2 B Fly Ash Pond contain no spillway
features. Stormwater evaluations performed by DOWL (2015) concluded that all stormwater
runoff is contained within plant area units and natural depressions in the area. Modeling was based
on a 1,000-year storm event as well as a 100-year storm and 10-year/100-year back-to-back storms.
Drawings C3-0038 (Rev. 5) and C3-0039 (Rev. 1) (Appendix C.1) show a spillway feature
between the Units 3 & 4 Bottom Ash Pond and the Units 3 & 4 Bottom Ash Clearwell; however,
this feature is not considered an emergency spillway and is there not discussed further.
11.2
The Units 1 & 2 STEP area contains an emergency spillway located approximately 400 ft north of
the left abutment of the Units 1 & 2 STEP Main Dam. The emergency spillway is a trapezoidal,
uncontrolled, and unlined spillway designed with a base width of 25 ft and 2H:1V sideslopes.
Chen-Northern (1988a) notes that the spillway was constructed with a base width of 36 ft. The
spillway was constructed directly in the scoria and weakly cemented bedrock of the left abutment.
A spillway crest elevation of 3,274.6 ft was selected based on the spillway design analysis
conducted by Bechtel (1979) that considered the combination of a 100-year flood event followed
by a 24 hour probable maximum flood (PMF), resulting in a total flood volume of 872 acre-ft.
This design flood would raise the pond elevation approximately 4.6 ft from its maximum operating
level of 3,270 ft. The Main Dam still maintains 3.4 ft of available freeboard during this design
event, and therefore, the emergency spillway was designed to prevent overtopping of the Main
Dam in the event this design scenario is exceeded.
An independent flood routing analysis of the Units 1 & 2 STEP area emergency spillway was
carried out by Chen-Northern (1988a) using a base width of 36 ft as opposed to the 25 ft base
width originally called for in the design by Bechtel (1979). Additionally, a 72 hour PMP event
was used as opposed to a 24 hour PMP event. This analysis concluded that the Units 1 & 2 STEP
area could maintain the majority of this PMF event, with an additional volume of 501 acre-ft safely
discharging through the spillway at 111 cubic feet per second (cfs), corresponding to a flow depth
of 0.8 ft.
39
October 2016
Talen Energy
Stormwater evaluations performed by DOWL (2015) concluded that all stormwater runoff is fully
contained within each respective unit and within stormwater detention ponds and natural
depression areas at the Units 1 & 2 STEP area during a PMP event. Retention was also confirmed
for a 100-year storm and 100-year/100-year back-to-back storms.
11.3
The original design analysis of the Units 3 & 4 EHP area emergency spillway was carried out by
Bechtel (1982) and predicted that the combination of a 100-year flood event followed by a 24 hour
PMF would raise the pond elevation to approximately 3,283 ft, leaving 7 ft of available freeboard
during this event. The emergency spillway was designed to be an uncontrolled, gabion lined
spillway with a crest at 3,286.1 ft. It was the original intent for the spillway to be constructed as
a part of the second stage of embankment construction in the Units 3 & 4 EHP area, which took
place in 2012 and raised the crests of the Units 3 & 4 EHP area Main Dam and Saddle Dam to
their final design elevation of 3,290 ft.
An independent flood routing analysis of the Units 3 & 4 EHP area emergency spillway carried
out by Chen-Northern (1988b) demonstrated that the impoundment would retain the majority of
the PMF. For this analysis, the PMF was predicted using a 72 hour PMP event. Additionally, a
spillway crest elevation of 3,283.1 ft was used as opposed to 3,286.1 ft, which was believed to
possibly be a typographic error in the original design report, due to the implication that the
emergency spillway provided a release for pond elevations in excess of 3,283 ft (i.e., the spillway
crest was designed without freeboard). This analysis concluded that the maximum spillway
discharge rate would be 29 cfs, corresponding to a stage of less than 3,283.5 ft and a flow depth
of less than 0.4 ft. Although the emergency spillway was included in the original design of the
Units 3 & 4 EHP, it has not been constructed at the Units 3 & 4 EHP area.
Stormwater evaluations performed by DOWL (2015) concluded that all stormwater runoff is
conveyed fully to and contained within each respective unit at the Units 3 & 4 EHP area. Modeling
was based on a 1,000-year storm event as well as a 100-year storm and 10-year/100-year back-toback storms.
40
October 2016
Talen Energy
12.
SURVEILLANCE, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR PROVISIONS
Section 257.73(c)(1)(xi) of the CCR Rule requires:

The construction specifications and provisions for surveillance, maintenance, and
repair of the CCR unit.
The CCR Rule requires that structural integrity assessments of applicable units be performed
periodically. Currently, monitoring events of piezometers and inclinometers discussed in Section
9 of this Report are conducted on a monthly basis. Inspections of CCR units are conducted
regularly by CSES personnel and Dam Safety Inspections have been conducted since 1988 on a
five-year interval.
Recommendations for maintenance and repair of CCR units at CSES have historically been
included in periodic inspection reports prepared by independent contractors. The status of these
recommendations are typically reevaluated and additional recommendations for maintenance and
repair are proposed in subsequent inspection reports.
41
October 2016
Talen Energy
13.
RECORD OF STRUCTURAL INSTABILITY
Section 257.73(c)(1)(xii) of the CCR Rule requires:

Any record of knowledge of structural instability of the CCR unit.
This section of the Report documents available records of structural instability of CCR units at
CSES as well as documented stability analyses performed on dams and embankments which
encompass these units.
13.1
Plant Area
There is no record of structural instability at plant area units covered by the CCR Rule. Periodic
inspections and stability analyses of these units have not identified major deficiencies in structures
associated with these units. Inspection reports and stability analyses reviewed in completing this
Report are summarized below:
Inspection reports prepared by Hydrometrics (2009a; 2014a) concluded that, based on field
observations, the embankments which abut the Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Pond did not
exhibit any major structural deficiencies.
In a 13 August 2013 letter from the EPA to the Montana Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ) regarding structural integrity of CCR surface impoundments, several
plant area units, including the Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Pond, were determined to be in fair
condition, indicating that these impoundments were expected to exhibit acceptable
performance under static, hydrologic, and seismic loading conditions.
In order to address EPA recommendations to conduct stability analyses of plant area units
based on site-specific information (GEI, 2009), two subsurface investigations were
conducted at the Units 1 & 2 plant area ponds in 2009. Stability analyses were performed
on the Units 1 & 2 A Pond and the Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Pond (Womack, 2010b; 2010c).
Static and seismic factors of safety calculated for these analyses exceeded minimum values
required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The Units 1 & 2 A Pond
is not covered by the CCR Rule; however, because it was constructed using the similar
materials and construction techniques as other plant area ponds, stability analyses
conducted on this pond are considered to be relevant to understanding the structural
performance of other plant area units.
Instrumentation reports prepared by Womack (2010a; 2011a, 2015) have concluded that
piezometer measurements at plant area units are not indicative of adverse groundwater
conditions that could result in stability issues.
There are no available records of stability analyses conducted on the Units 1 & 2 B Fly Ash Pond
or the Units 3 & 4 Bottom Ash Pond. Both of these ponds are incised, meaning that the units were
42
October 2016
Talen Energy
constructed deeper than natural ground and sit below the natural grade. These impoundments
exhibit low hazard potential, as they do not have a diked portion.
13.2
There is no record of structural instability at Units 1 & 2 STEP area units covered by the CCR
Rule. Periodic inspections and stability analyses of these units have not identified major
deficiencies in structures associated with these units. Inspection reports and stability analyses
reviewed in completing this Report are summarized below:
A number of reports document inspections and independent stability analyses of the Units
1 & 2 STEP area (Chen-Northern, 1988a; Tetra Tech, 2006a; Hydrometrics, 2009b;
2014b). These reports concluded that there were no significant deficiencies requiring
immediate remedial action. Additionally, a 1994 inspection report concluded that the Units
1 & 2 STEP area conformed to United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
guidelines with respect to seepage, slope stability, and flood routing. These inspections
and analyses generally addressed stability of the Units 1 & 2 STEP Main Dam (i.e., E Cell
and Old Clearwell east embankments).
In a 13 August 2013 letter from the EPA to the MDEQ regarding structural integrity of
CCR surface impoundments, Units 1 & 2 STEP area units were determined to be in fair
In order to address EPA recommendations to conduct stability analyses of the Units 1 & 2
STEP area Main Dam based on site-specific information (GEI, 2009), a subsurface
investigation was conducted at the Units 1 & 2 STEP area in 2009. A stability analysis
was performed on a cross section intersecting the Old Clearwell east embankment, which
was determined to be the critical section based on embankment height (Womack, 2010d).
Static and seismic factors of safety calculated for these analyses exceeded minimum values
required by FERC.
Instrumentation reports prepared by Womack (2010a; 2011a, 2015) have concluded that
piezometer measurements at Units 1 & 2 STEP area units are not indicative of adverse
groundwater conditions that could result in stability issues. Units 1 & 2 STEP area
piezometers typically recorded dry conditions. Additionally, it was reported that
inclinometer readings exhibited little deviation from initial readings taken after their
installation.
The most recent available geotechnical investigation and embankment stability report
indicates that calculated factors of safety for Units 1 & 2 STEP area embankments exceed
minimum required values for static and seismic conditions (Jorgensen, 2016b). These
43
October 2016
Talen Energy
evaluations included embankments within the Units 1 & 2 STEP area that had not been
previously analyzed.
13.3
There is no record of structural instability at Units 3 & 4 EHP area units covered by the CCR Rule.
Periodic inspections and stability analyses of these units have not identified major deficiencies in
structures associated with these units. Inspection reports and stability analyses reviewed in
completing this Report are summarized below:
A number of reports document inspections and independent stability analyses of the Units
3 & 4 EHP area (Chen-Northern, 1988b; 1989; 1993; Tetra Tech, 2006b; Hydrometrics,
2001a; 2009c; 2014c). These reports concluded that there were no significant deficiencies
requiring immediate remedial action. Additionally, a 1994 inspection report concluded
that the Units 3 & 4 EHP area conformed to USACE guidelines with respect to seepage,
slope stability, and flood routing. These inspections and analyses generally addressed
stability of the Units 3 & 4 EHP Main Dam (i.e., J Cell north embankment) and Saddle
Dam (i.e., J Cell northeast embankment and G Cell east embankment).
In a 13 August 2013 letter from the EPA to the MDEQ regarding structural integrity of
CCR surface impoundments, Units 3 & 4 EHP area units were determined to be in fair
In response to observed minor cracking and seepage at the Units 3 & 4 EHP Saddle Dam,
a restriction of the water level in G Cell began in December 1999 and a periodic slope
inclinometer monitoring program was implemented on Saddle Dam instrumentation.
Based on recommendations by Hydrometrics (2000; 2001b), a restriction of the G Cell
water level was implemented and the facility began impounding paste along the Saddle
Dam as opposed to fly ash slurry. A number of geotechnical monitoring reports were
prepared by Hydrometrics (2002; 2003a; 2003b; 2004; 2005; 2006) and Womack (2007;
2009c) in order to assess the overall stability of the Saddle Dam. These issues were
concluded to not be indicative of overall stability issues of the Saddle Dam. Recommended
monitoring and repair provisions were included in these reports in order to mitigate
potential stability issues.
In response to observations of minor seepage at the toe of the Units 3 & 4 EHP Main Dam,
which were first documented in October 2000, Womack (2008) conducted a stability
analysis to determine factors of safety against embankment failure. In 2009, this stability
analysis was repeated with a phreatic surface updated with more recent piezometer
measurements (Womack, 2009d). Both analyses calculated adequate factors of safety for
the Units 3 & 4 EHP Main Dam. It was noted in both reports that no evidence of surface
displacement or seepage was observed from the downstream face of the Main Dam.
44
October 2016
Talen Energy
Slope stability analyses were performed on the divider dike between C Cell and the Units
3 & 4 EHP Old Clearwell (currently a part of J Cell) in 2009. Based on slope stability
analyses, the dike was initially diagnosed to be susceptible to shallow slope failures and
potential mitigation techniques were recommended in a report prepared by Womack
(2009a). A second set of analyses was performed by Womack (2009b), assuming the
construction of a downstream buttress on the dike, and found this to be a feasible mitigation
technique.
In order to address EPA recommendations to conduct seepage analyses of the Units 3 & 4
EHP area based on site-specific information (GEI, 2009), subsurface investigations were
conducted at the Units 3 & 4 EHP area Main Dam and Saddle Dam in 2009. A seepage
analysis was performed on the Saddle Dam at a cross section intersecting the east
embankment of G Cell and diagnosed the cause of elevated groundwater levels upstream
of the Saddle Dam cutoff wall (Womack, 2009e). The report recommended the application
of additional paste at the southeast corner of C Cell in order to mitigate seepage through a
permeable scoria layer towards the Saddle Dam cutoff wall. Seepage analyses were
performed on the Main Dam at a cross-section intersecting the Units 3 & 4 EHP Old
Clearwell (currently the north embankment of J Cell) and two downstream sections of the
dam where the embankment shell is in contact with surrounding bedrock (Womack,
2010e). Because groundwater was not detected in the downstream shell of the Main Dam,
embankment drains were determined to be functioning properly, and the Main Dam was
concluded to be safe to operate at maximum allowable pool elevations. An ancillary
stability analysis was performed on the Main Dam at the cross section intersecting the Units
3 & 4 EHP Old Clearwell. Static and seismic factors of safety calculated for these analyses
exceeded minimum values required by FERC.
As a part of the design report prepared for the second stage of embankment construction at
the Units 3 & 4 EHP area, during which the Main Dam and Saddle Dam were brought to
their final elevation of 3,290 ft, a slope stability analysis was performed by Womack
(2011b) and determined that factors of safety exceeded minimum values required by FERC
for both steady-state and seismic conditions. This analysis considered the revised design,
in which the inboard face of these dams is buttressed with bottom ash and fly ash and then
brought to a final crest elevation of 3,290 ft using fill material.
Instrumentation reports prepared by Womack (2010a; 2011a; 2015) have concluded that
piezometer measurements at the Units 3 & 4 EHP area Main Dam, Saddle Dam, and divider
dikes are not indicative of adverse groundwater conditions that could result in stability
issues. Additionally, it was reported that inclinometer readings exhibited little deviation
from initial readings taken after their installation.
The most recent available geotechnical investigation and embankment stability report
indicates that calculated factors of safety for Units 3 & 4 EHP area embankments exceed
45
October 2016
Talen Energy
minimum required values for static and seismic conditions (Jorgensen, 2016b). This
evaluation included embankments within the Units 3 & 4 EHP area that had not been
previously analyzed.
46
October 2016
Talen Energy
14.
REFERENCES
Aerial Data Design (2014). Aerial topographic map for the Plant, STEP, and EHP areas.
Bechtel Power Corporation (1979). Second Stage Evaporation Pond Design Report, prepared
for The Montana Power Company and Puget Sound Power and Light Company, December.
Bechtel Power Corporation (1982). Effluent Holding Pond Design Report, prepared for The
Montana Power Company, Puget Sound Power and Light Company, Portland General
Electric, The Washington Water Power Company, and Pacific Power and Light Company,
October.
Bechtel Power Corporation (1984). Effluent Holding Pond Embankments Interim Construction
Report, prepared for The Montana Power Company, Puget Sound Power and Light
Company, Portland General Electric, The Washington Water Power Company, and Pacific
Power and Light Company, February.
Bechtel Power Corporation (1985a). Effluent Holding Pond Embankments Construction Report,
prepared for The Montana Power Company, Puget Sound Power and Light Company,
Portland General Electric, The Washington Water Power Company, and Pacific Power and
Light Company, February.
Bechtel Power Corporation (1985b). Effluent Holding Pond Slurry Cutoff Wall Final
Construction Report, prepared for The Montana Power Company, Puget Sound Power
and Light Company, Portland General Electric, The Washington Water Power Company,
and Pacific Power and Light Company, February.
Chen-Northern, Inc. (1988a). Phase I Inspection of Units 1 and 2 Stage II Evaporation Pond,
Colstrip, Montana, prepared for The Montana Power Company, 9 December.
Chen-Northern, Inc. (1988b). Phase I Inspection of Units 3 and 4 Effluent Pond, Colstrip,
Montana, prepared for The Montana Power Company, 9 December.
Chen-Northern, Inc. (1989). Units 3 and 4 Effluent Holding Pond, Geotechnical Investigation
prepared for The Montana Power Company, 15 November.
Chen-Northern, Inc. (1993). Phase I Inspection Units 3 & 4 Effluent Pond, Colstrip, Montana,
prepared for The Montana Power Company, 17 November.
Daly, T.J. Re: Bottom Ash Pond, Colstrip 3 & 4, Memorandum to: Myers, C.D. 4 October 1985.
Derkey, P.D. (1986). Coal Stratigraphy of the Lame Deer 30 60 Quadrangle, Southern
Montana, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Geologic Map GM 43.
47
October 2016
Talen Energy
DOWL HKM, LLC (2012). PPL Units 1 & 2 STEP D Cell Construction Quality Assurance
Report, prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, February.
DOWL (2015). Stormwater Master Plan Evaluation, Talen Montana, LLC. Facilities Colstrip,
Montana, prepared for Geosyntec Consultants and Talen Montana, LLC, August.
GEI Consultants, Inc. (2009). Final Coal Ash Impoundment Specific Site Assessment Report,
prepared for Lockheed-Martin Corporation, September.
Geosyntec Consultants (2015a). Master Plan for Coal Combustion Residual Waste Management
Systems, Colstrip Steam Electric Station, Revision 1, prepared for Talen Montana, LLC,
Project Number ME1199, 6 November.
Geosyntec Consultants (2015b). Master Plan Summary Report, Colstrip Steam Electric Station,
Revision 2, prepared for Talen Montana, LLC, Project Number ME1199, 9 November.
Hydrometrics, Inc. (2000). Units 3 & 4 Saddle Dam Geotechnical Report, prepared for PPL
Montana, LLC, July.
Hydrometrics, Inc. (2001a). Units 3 & 4 Main Dam Revised Stability Analysis, prepared for
PPL Montana, LLC, December.
Hydrometrics, Inc. (2001b). Units 3 & 4 Saddle Dam Remedial Measures Preliminary Design,
prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, February.
Hydrometrics, Inc. (2002). Units 3 & 4 EHP Saddle Dam Slope Inclinometer and Survey
Monitoring, prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, 22 May.
Hydrometrics, Inc. (2003a). Units 3 & 4 EHP Saddle Dam Slope Inclinometer Monitoring,
prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, 20 May.
Hydrometrics, Inc. (2003b). Units 3 & 4 EHP Saddle Dam Slope Inclinometer Monitoring,
prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, 1 December.
Hydrometrics, Inc. (2004). Units 3 & 4 EHP Saddle Dam Slope Inclinometer Monitoring,
prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, 14 June.
prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, 18 January.
prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, 4 January.
48
October 2016
Talen Energy
Hydrometrics, Inc. (2009a). 2009 Engineers Inspection, Pond AB Dike, Colstrip, Montana,
prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, October.
Hydrometrics, Inc. (2009b). 2009 Periodic Engineers Inspection, Units 1 & 2 Stage II
Evaporation Pond (STEP) Main Dam and External Divider Dikes, Colstrip, Montana,
prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, October.
Hydrometrics, Inc. (2009c). 2009 Periodic Engineers Inspection, Units 3 & 4 Effluent Holding
Pond, Main and Saddle Dams, Colstrip, Montana, prepared for PPL Montana, LLC,
September.
Hydrometrics, Inc. (2009d). 2009 Pond Capacity Survey, prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, July.
Hydrometrics, Inc. (2011). Units 3 & 4 Effluent Holding Ponds Monitoring Well Plug,
Abandonment, and Replacement Work Plan, prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, 13
September.
Hydrometrics, Inc. (2012). Colstrip Steam Electric Station, Administrative Order on Consent,
Plant Site Report, Revised January 2015, prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, January.
Hydrometrics, Inc. (2013a). Colstrip Steam Electric Station, Administrative Order on Consent,
Units 1 & 2 Stage I and II Evaporation Ponds Site Report, Revised March 2016, prepared
for PPL Montana, LLC, May.
Hydrometrics, Inc. (2013b). Colstrip Steam Electric Station, Administrative Order on Consent,
Units 3 & 4 Effluent Holding Pond (EHP) Site Report, prepared for PPL Montana, LLC,
October.
Hydrometrics, Inc. (2014a). 2014 Engineers Inspection, A/B Pond Complex Dike, Colstrip,
Montana, prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, September.
Hydrometrics, Inc. (2014b). 2014 Periodic Engineers Inspection, Units 1 & 2 Stage II
Evaporation Pond (STEP) Main Dam, Colstrip, Montana, prepared for PPL Montana,
LLC, September.
Hydrometrics, Inc. (2014c). 2014 Periodic Engineers Inspection, Units 3 & 4 Effluent Holding
Pond Main and Saddle Dams, Colstrip, Montana, prepared for PPL Montana, LLC,
September.
Jorgensen Geotechnical, LLC (2016a). 2015 Annual Inspection Report, Project No. 15419,
prepared for Talen Energy, 13 January.
49
October 2016
Talen Energy
Jorgensen Geotechnical, LLC (2016b). Geotechnical Investigation and Stability Report, Colstrip
Steam Electric Station, Colstrip, Montana, Revision 1, prepared for Talen Montana, LLC,
3 March.
King, A.M. (Bechtel Power Corporation). Re: Colstrip Units 3 & 4, Bechtel Job No. 10676,
Bottom Ash Removal, Memorandum to: Olson, T.M. (The Montana Power Company).
Undated.
Portage Environmental, Inc. (2008). PPL Montana, LLC Units 3 & 4 Cell B Clear Well
Geosynthetics Quality Assurance Report, prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, August.
Portage Environmental, Inc. and HKM Engineering, Inc. (2005). PPL/Colstrip Fly Ash Pond
Design and Construction Report, prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, August.
Portage Environmental, Inc. and HKM Engineering, Inc. (2007). PPL/Colstrip A/B Clearwell
Geosynthetics Quality Assurance Report, prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, May.
Puget Sound Energy (2013). 2013 Integrated Resource Plan, Appendix J: Colstrip, 30 May.
Stanislaus, M. (United States Environmental Protection Agency). Letter to: Stone-Manning, T.
(Montana Department of Environmental Quality). 13 August 2013.
Summit Consulting Group, LLC (2014). Project Manual, CP402B-2 J Cell Phase 1 Earthwork,
Revision 1, prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, 16 May.
Tetra Tech, Inc. (2006a). 2005 Phase I Inspection, Units 1 & 2 Stage II Evaporation Pond, Main
Dam, Colstrip, Montana, prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, January.
Tetra Tech, Inc. (2006b). 2005 Phase I Inspection, Units 3 & 4 Effluent Pond, Main and Saddle
Dams, Colstrip, Montana, prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, January.
United States Geologic Survey (USGS) (2014a). Colstrip East Quadrangle, Montana-Rosebud Co.,
7.5-Minute Series, http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/, Accessed April 2016.
United States Geologic Survey (USGS) (2014b). Colstrip Southeast Quadrangle, MontanaRosebud Co., 7.5-Minute Series, http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/, Accessed April 2016.
United States Geologic Survey (USGS) (2014c). Colstrip Southwest Quadrangle, MontanaRosebud Co., 7.5-Minute Series, http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/, Accessed July 2016.
United States Geologic Survey (USGS) (2014d). Colstrip West Quadrangle, Montana-Rosebud
Co., 7.5-Minute Series, http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/, Accessed April 2016.
50
October 2016
Talen Energy
Vuke, S.M., Heffern, E.L., Bergantino, R.N., and Colton, R.B. (2001). Geological Map of the
Lame Deer 30 60 Quadrangle, Eastern Montana, Revised 2007, Montana Bureau of
Mines and Geology, Open File Report MBMG 428.
Womack & Associates, Inc. (2007). Units 3 & 4 EHP Saddle Dam Slope Inclinometer
Monitoring, prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, 21 March.
Womack & Associates, Inc. (2008). 3/4 EHP Main Dam Observations and Stability Review,
prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, 3 March.
Womack & Associates, Inc. (2009a). C Cell Old Clearwell (C/CW) Divider Dike Pore Water
Pressures and Slope Stability, prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, 29 May.
Womack & Associates, Inc. (2009b). C Cell Old Clearwell (C/CW) Divider Dike Buttress Slope
Stability, prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, 18 August.
Womack & Associates, Inc. (2009c). Units 3 & 4 EHP Saddle Dam Slope Inclinometer
Monitoring, prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, 20 April.
Womack & Associates, Inc. (2009d). 3/4 EHP Main Dam Observation and Stability Review
Update, prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, 29 May.
Womack & Associates, Inc. (2009e). Geotechnical Investigation Report, EPA Recommended
Corrective Measures at the Colstrip Power Plant, Units 3 & 4 EHP Saddle Dam, prepared
for PPL Montana, LLC, 21 December.
Womack & Associates, Inc. (2010a). Annual EPA Report, Instrumentation Measurements and
Assessment for PPLMs Colstrip Power Plant Effluent Holding Ponds, prepared for PPL
Montana, LLC, 28 December.
Womack & Associates, Inc. (2010b). Geotechnical Investigation Report, EPA Recommended
Corrective Measures at the Colstrip Power Plant, Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Waste
Impoundment Pond, prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, January.
Womack & Associates, Inc. (2010c). Geotechnical Investigation Report, EPA Recommended
Corrective Measures at the Colstrip Power Plant, Units 1 & 2 Pond A Waste
Impoundment Embankment, prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, January.
Womack & Associates, Inc. (2010d). Geotechnical Investigation Report, EPA Recommended
Corrective Measures at the Colstrip Power Plant, Units 1 & 2 Stage Two Evaporation Pond
(STEP) Dam, prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, January.
51
October 2016
Talen Energy
Womack & Associates, Inc. (2010e). Geotechnical Investigation Report, EPA Recommended
Corrective Measures at the Colstrip Power Plant, Units 3 & 4 EHP Main Dam, prepared
for PPL Montana, LLC, February.
Womack & Associates, Inc. (2011a). Annual Report, Instrumentation Measurements and
Assessment for PPLMs Colstrip Power Plant Effluent Holding Ponds, prepared for PPL
Montana, LLC, 21 December.
Womack & Associates, Inc. (2011b). Geotechnical Investigation Report, CP 102 EHP Dam Raise
Project, PPL Montana Colstrip Power Plant, Units 3 & 4 EHP, Stage 2 Dam Raise
Inboard Embankment Fill, prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, January.
Womack & Associates, Inc. (2014). Final Construction Report, CP 302A-2 EHP H-Cell Liner
Installation & CP 302A-3 EHP Earthwork/Pipework, prepared for PPL Montana, LLC,
January.
Womack & Associates, Inc. (2015). 2014 Annual Report for Instrumentation Measurements and
Assessment of PPLMs Colstrip Effluent Holding Ponds (EHP), prepared for PPL
Montana, LLC, 26 January.
52
October 2016
TABLES
TABLE 1
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE FOR CCR UNITS (1)
HISTORY OF CONSTRUCTION REPORT
Talen Montana, LLC - Colstrip, Montana
Current Operating
Status
Unit ID
Purpose
Plant Area
Operating
Operating
Operating
Contains a significant amount of CCRs and is currently in use

for CCR disposal, as needed.
Contains a significant amount of bottom ash and water and is
currently in use for bottom ash dewatering.
Contains a significant amount of bottom ash and water and is
currently in use for bottom ash dewatering.
Units 1 & 2 Stage-Two Evaporation Pond (STEP) Area

Old Clearwell
Operating
Contains CCRs and water and is currently in use.
D Cell
Operating
Used for water storage.
E Cell
Operating
Contains significant amounts of both paste and water and is

currently in use.
Units 3 & 4 Effluent Holding Pond (EHP) Area

A Cell
Operating
B Cell
Operating
C Cell
Operating
D/E Cell
Operating
G Cell
Operating
J Cell
Operating
Contains a significant amount of bottom ash and other dry

CCRs and is currently used for bottom ash disposal.
Used for water storage and is the current location of return
water to the plant.
Contains significant amounts of paste and minimal water and
is currently used for paste and bottom ash disposal.
Contains significant amounts of dry scrubber slurry and is
used for dry disposal of scrubber slurry and/or bottom ash.
Contains significant amounts of paste and is used for disposal
of paste/bottom ash.
Contains significant amounts of paste and is used for paste
disposal.
Note: (1) Adapted from Master Plan Summary Report, Colstrip Steam Electric
Station (Geosyntec, 2015b).
ME1272/MD16146/Tables
October 2016
TABLE 2
EXISTING INCLINOMETER INSTRUMENTATION
Instrument Name
Location
Instrumentation Type

B/E-15-4INC
B Cell-E Cell Divider Dike
Slope Inclinometer
Old Clearwell-D Cell Divider Dike
Slope Inclinometer
D-15-7INC
D Cell South Embankment
Slope Inclinometer
D-15-8INC
D Cell East Embankment
Slope Inclinometer
D-15-9INC
Slope Inclinometer
E/C-15-3INC
E Cell-Future C Cell Divider Dike
Slope Inclinometer
E/D-15-5INC
E Cell-D Cell Divider Dike
Slope Inclinometer
STEP-09-1INC
E Cell East Embankment (Main Dam)
Slope Inclinometer
STEP-09-2INC
Old Clearwell East Embankment (Main Dam)
Slope Inclinometer
CW/D-15-6INC

A-15-5INC
A Cell North Embankment
Slope Inclinometer
A-15-6INC
Slope Inclinometer
F-15-20INC
F Cell West Embankment
Slope Inclinometer
F-15-21INC
F Cell West Embankment
Slope Inclinometer
H-15-19INC
H Cell Southeast Embankment
Slope Inclinometer
H-15-22INC
H Cell Southeast Embankment
Slope Inclinometer
MD-12-3INC
J Cell North Embankment (Main Dam)
Slope Inclinometer
MD-12-4INC
Slope Inclinometer
SD-12-13INC
J Cell Northeast Embankment (Saddle Dam)
Slope Inclinometer
SD-12-14INC
Slope Inclinometer
SD-12-15INC
G Cell East Embankment (Saddle Dam)
Slope Inclinometer
SD-12-16INC
Slope Inclinometer
Slope Inclinometer
Slope Inclinometer
Slope Inclinometer
SD-15-17INC
SD-15-18INC
SD-15-19INC
(1)
Note: (1) Instrument abandoned and replaced by SD-15-19INC in September 2015 due to a
defect in the inclinometer casing. The new inclinometer was installed
approximately 10 ft to the south of the original instrument.
October 2016
TABLE 3
EXISTING PIEZOMETER INSTRUMENTATION
Instrument Name
Location
Plant Area
BOTASH-09-1P
BOTASH-09-2P
Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Pond North

Embankment
Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Pond North
Embankment
VW Piezometer
VW Piezometer
BOTASH-09-3P
Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Pond East Embankment
VW Piezometer
BOTASH-09-4P
Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Pond East Embankment
VW Piezometer
PONDA-09-1P (1)
Units 1 & 2 A Pond West Embankment
VW Piezometer
PONDA-09-2P (1)
Units 1 & 2 A Pond West Embankment
VW Piezometer
PONDA-09-3P
PONDA-09-4P
Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Clearwell North

Embankment
Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Clearwell North
Embankment
VW Piezometer
VW Piezometer

B/E-15-P9
Water Storage B Cell-E Cell Divider Dike
VW Piezometer
B/E-15-P10
Water Storage B Cell-E Cell Divider Dike
VW Piezometer
D-15-12P
D Cell South Embankment
VW Piezometer
D-15-P13
VW Piezometer
D-15-P14
VW Piezometer
E/D-15-P11
E Cell-D Cell Divider Dike
VW Piezometer
STEP-09-1P
VW Piezometer
STEP-09-2P
VW Piezometer
STEP-09-3P
VW Piezometer
STEP-09-4P
VW Piezometer
STEP-09-5P
VW Piezometer
STEP-09-6P
VW Piezometer
STEP-09-7P
VW Piezometer
STEP-09-8P
VW Piezometer
Toe Drain (Main Dam)
Drain
2019D
Old Clearwell-D Cell Divider Dike
Standpipe Piezometer
952D
STEP-Toe Drain
October 2016
TABLE 3
Instrument Name
Location

A-15-P18
VW Piezometer
A-15-P19
VW Piezometer
A-15-P20
VW Piezometer
A-15-P21
VW Piezometer
F-15-P23
Water Storage F Cell West Embankment
VW Piezometer
F-15-P24
Water Storage F Cell West Embankment
VW Piezometer
H-15-P22
Water Storage H Cell Southeast Embankment
VW Piezometer
H-15-P25
Water Storage H Cell Southeast Embankment
VW Piezometer
MD-09-1SP
MD-09-2P
VW Piezometer
MD-09-2SP
MD-09-4P
VW Piezometer
MD-09-5P
VW Piezometer
MD-09-6P
VW Piezometer
MD-12-12P
VW Piezometer
MD-12-13P
VW Piezometer
MD-12-14P
VW Piezometer
MD-12-15P
VW Piezometer
MD-12-16SP
MD-12-17SP
Toe Drain (Main Dam)
Drain
VW Piezometer
VW Piezometer
VW Piezometer
MD-Toe Drain
SD-09-P34
SD-09-P35
SD-12-41P
(2)
(3)
SD-12-42P
SD-12-43SP
VW Piezometer
SD-12-44P (3)
VW Piezometer
(3)
SD-12-45P
SD-12-46SP
VW Piezometer
SD-12-47P
VW Piezometer
SD-12-48P
VW Piezometer
SD-12-49P
VW Piezometer
October 2016
TABLE 3
Instrument Name
Location
SD-12-50P
VW Piezometer
SD-12-51SP
SD-12-52P
VW Piezometer
SD-12-53SP
SD-12-54P
VW Piezometer
SD-12-55P
VW Piezometer
SD-12-56SP
SD-12-57P
VW Piezometer
Toe Drain (Saddle Dam)
Drain
SD-Toe Drain
Notes: (1) Instrument not monitored as a part of periodic surveillance events.

(2) Instrument labeled as SD-09-P33 in instrumentation figure prepared by
Jorgensen (2016b).
(3) Instrument shown as a standpipe piezometer in instrumentation figure prepared
by Jorgensen (2016b).
October 2016
FIGURES
FIGURE 3 - UNITS 1 & 2 STEP AREA
COLSTRIP, MT
FIGURE 2 - PLANT AREA
P:\CADD\0COLSTRIP\1199\1199-100\1199F154.DWG 10/3/2016 1:05 PM TJOYNES
FIGURE 4 UNITS 3 & 4 EHP AREA
BACKGROUND GOOGLEMAPS (2015)
MONTANA
SITE LOCATION
NO SCALE
SITE
COLUMBIA, MARYLAND
GENERATING
UNITS 3 & 4
GENERATING
UNITS 1 & 2
UNITS 1 & 2 BOTTOM

ASH PONDS
P:\CADD\0COLSTRIP\1343\1343-000\F001-003.DWG 10/3/2016 1:04 PM TJOYNES
UNITS 1 & 2 B
FLY ASH POND
SOURCE: USGS MAP (7.5, MINUTE SERIES,

ROSEBUD COUNTY, 2014)
COLUMBIA, MARYLAND
UNITS 3 & 4
BOTTOM
ASH POND
N
CELL
B
CELLB
CELL
E
CELLE
OLDCLEARWELL
CLEARWELL
OLD
CELL
D
CELLD

COLUMBIA, MARYLAND
CELL
J CELLJ
A
CELLA
CELL
CELL
B CELLB
CELL
F CELLF
C CELLC
CELL
CELL
D/E
D/E
CELL
G
CELLG
CELL
CELL
H CELLH

COLUMBIA, MARYLAND
APPENDIX A
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS
COLSTRIP EAST QUADRANGLE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
MONTANA-ROSEBUD CO.
7.5-MINUTE SERIES
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

10637'30"
75000m E
00
76
4600'
35'
77
31 3
78
79
32'30"
80
2730 000 FEET
4600'
00
30
95
50
3200
3200
95000mN
50
10630'
83
82
81
3200
3000
0
300
3000
3200
3100
FEET
94
3100
320
0
94
50
50
00
30
310
0
.... .
..
.
RD
WIMER
650 000
3100
..
3200
300
0
3100
300
0
3000
32
00
Spr
320
0
2900
ague Cr
... . . . .
.
..
...
.. .
93
50
3200
0
310
3000
93
50
3200
3000
S p r a gu e
Cr
3000
..
.
.... ..
32
00
310
0
....
...
92
50
300
0
92
3200
3000
3000
3200
50
3000
. . ....
r
eC
Sp rag u
W IM ER
..
RD
3100
00
31
. ....
.
.
3100
..
3100
3100
91
50
91
50
..
..... .
Sprague Cr
00
33
57'30"
57'30"
3200
0
320
00
31
00
31
31
00
00
33
90
50
90
50
3000
3400
3200
3100
3300
3200
3400
Spr ing Cr
Spring Cr
0
330
89
50
3400
3000
89
50
..
3200
3100
330
0
..
..
320
0
00
34
Spr
ing Cr
310
0
3400
3300
..
3200
3300
3200
3300
00
34
3300
320
0
Sp ri ng Cr
3400
3300
33
00
87
50
3200
33
00
33
00
320
0
0
320
87
340
0
Eagle
Rock
31
00
50
3100
3300
'
3300
88
..
...
3400
88
50
50
31
00
3200
3300
3400
330
0
3400
0
330
3400
33
00
3300
3400
00
34
3300
00
33
3400
86
50
55'
3300
320
0
DR
55'
3300
0
340
ON
REMINGT
00
34
00
34
TOR DR
PR O SP EC
330
0
3400
3500
00
34
B U TTE DR
85
3300
85
50
3300
DR
P IN
3200
P on
0
330
r
P on y C
PIEDM O N
3200
Pon y Cr
3500
3200
50
3300
00
33
Colstrip
!
"
#
Cem
3300
00
33
35
00
3300
3400
TD
y Cr
3100
.
3400
VIS
3400
...
3400
3300
TA
DR
32
00
83
50
00
33
WIL LOW AVE
32
00
.....
.
..... 3200
320
0
32
00
l ls
32
00
Cr
3200
330
0
82000mN
50
'
Cr
T RD
Cow
75
2 710 000 FEET
76
North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and
1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 13T
10 000-foot ticks: Montana Coordinate System of 1983
Imagery..................................................NAIP, July 2011

Roads....................................................... HERE, 2013
Names..........................................................GNIS,
2013
Hydrography....................National Hydrography Dataset, 2011
Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2009
Boundaries............Multiple sources; see metadata file 1972 - 2013
Public Land Survey System..................................BLM, 2011
78
79
35'
10 2
178 MILS
1 7
20 MILS
82
32'30"
0.5
1000
500
1
1000
1000
2000
KILOMETERS
METERS
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
MONTANA
6000
FEET
U.S. National Grid
CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
CL
Grid Zone Designation
7000
This map was produced to conform with the

National Geospatial Program US Topo Product Standard, 2011.
A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.6.16
8000
9000
Expressway
4552'30"
10630'
Local Connector
Local Road
Secondary Hwy
Ramp
UTM GRID AND 2014 MAGNETIC NORTH

DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET
100,000-m Square ID
ROAD CLASSIFICATION
0
0.5
3200
83000mE
MILES
13T
0
310
C ow Cr
81
SCALE 1:24 000

MN
GN
80
Produced by the United States Geological Survey
This map is not a legal document. Boundaries may be

generalized for this map scale. Private lands within government
reservations may not be shown. Obtain permission before
entering private lands.
77
10000
QUADRANGLE LOCATION
4
6
ADJOINING QUADRANGLES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Sheep Creek Camp

McKerlich Creek
Mitchell Coulee
Colstrip West
Hammond Draw NW
Colstrip SW
Colstrip SE
Hammond Draw SW
X
W Interstate Route
4WD
.
/
US Route
H State Route
COLSTRIP EAST, MT
2014
7 6 4 3 0 1 6 3 7 6 1 4 1
NSN.
NGA REF NO. U S G S X 2 4 K 9 6 5 9
ROSEBUD LN
3200
3200
3200
3300
10637'30"
*7643016376141*
AN
3100
00
33
PL
E
P OW
32
00
3200
rme
E Fork A
82
4552'30"
3300
'
330
0
F n
^
50
3300
00
33
POWER R D
3400
83
FEET
3200
33
00
33
00
33
00
50
610000
3300
Cr
ow
Colstrip
3300
C
3300
3300
84
50
3200
330
0
84
50
COLSTRIP SE QUADRANGLE
MONTANA-ROSEBUD CO.
7.5-MINUTE SERIES

10637'30"
ROSEBUD LN
PO
4552'30"
75000mE
76
35'
77
78
32'30"
80
79
81
01N42E04ACA_01
Spring
32
00
0
310
3200
3200
3200
33
00
3100
39
32
00
33
00
00
33
..
80
50
00
34
80
81
50
Co w Cr
3200
3300
330
0
3300
4552'30"
00
31
9
-3
33
00
81000mN
50
3300
3200
00
34
MT
33
00
10630'
2730 000 FEET
82
3300
50
3200
3300
3300
3400
3500
3400
330
0
3300
600000
FEET
79
3500
35
00
3400
00
33
3400
320
0
0
330
3600
w Cr
S Fo rk Co
3600
35
00
3300
3200
39
3500
3600
32
00
50
3200
3100
S Fork Cow Cr
36
00
RD
-3 9
3200
34
00
3200
78
3400
0
360
78
50
320
0
MT
3600
3600
50
COWC REE K
00
35
3400
Hay
Coulee
3400
00
34
Emile
Coulee
77
33
00
3400
33
00
350
0
3200
0
350
36
00
77
50
50
3300
3300
3300
50'
0
320
3300
3200
50'
00
35
CO W CREEK RD
320
0
3100
360
0
3100
35
00
3200
76
50
32
00
33
00
.
.
32
00
0
320
3200
00
31
50
00
31
75
50
3200
320
0
32
00
3300
39
01N41E24CCAA01
Spring
3200
00
31
. ..
3400
01N41E27BAAA01
Spring
75
3200
32
00
3200
3200
00
32
3200
3200
MT-39
3200
74
..
3100
74
50
00
32
3400
50
3200
3100
Emile
Coulee
3100
3100
3200
3200
3100
3200
3300
310
0
33
00
35
00
3000
3200
3200
3400
RO
..
3200
3500
3400
3400
3500
3500
3400
3300
Ros
eb
ud
3300
3000
3200
..
ud
3000
Cr
50
71
se
3200
Ro
00
31
71
47'30"
Miller Coulee
3100
0
320
3100
3200
3400
50
73
50
72
50
e
e
RD
EEK
Hay
Coulee
0
300
0
310
39
3200
3400
3500
3200
CR
32
00
0
330
47'30"
UD
00
34
35
00
SEB
3100
73
50
32
00
31
00
3500
Lee Cem
310
0
3000
!
"
#
3100
570 000
FEET
00
33
3100
3400
bu
Cr
Dobbs Coulee
310
0
00
30
31
00
3100
MT-39
Lee
Coulee
3200
70
50
00
31
3100
310
0
.
.
.. .
70
50
e
os
.
Rose
39
bud
3100
..
3200
3100
3200
4545'
10637'30"3
74
2 710 000 FEET
75


Roads....................................................... HERE, 2013
Names..........................................................GNIS,
2013
3200
78
77
32'30"
10 1
178 MILS
1 7
20 MILS
0.5
1000
500
KILOMETERS
METERS
0
1000
2000
0.5
1000
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
MONTANA
6000
FEET
U.S. National Grid

CL
7000

8000
9000
Expressway
4545'
10630'
Local Connector
Local Road
Secondary Hwy
Ramp

100,000-m Square ID
83000mE
ROAD CLASSIFICATION
MILES
13T
82
81
32
SCALE 1:24 000

MN
GN
79

35'
3200
3100
39
68000mN
50
0
310
00
32
3100
Miller C
68
50
10000
QUADRANGLE LOCATION
4
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Colstrip West
Colstrip East
Hammond Draw NW
Colstrip SW
Hammond Draw SW
Jimtown
Badger Peak
Garfield Peak
X
W Interstate Route
4WD
.
/
US Route
COLSTRIP SE, MT
2014
H State Route
7 6 4 3 0 1 6 3 7 6 1 4 0
NSN.
d Cr
ebu
-39
MT
3200
..
West Fork
Downey Coulee
3100
Ro s
69
50
*7643016376140*
Downey
Coulee
3100
3100
31
00
00
31
69
310
0
Cr
50
RO
RD
CR EE K
SE BU D
COLSTRIP SW QUADRANGLE
MONTANA-ROSEBUD CO.
7.5-MINUTE SERIES

65000m.E..
66
0042'30"
67
..
68
000m
RO
00
35
81
50
CK
RD
3500
73
72
10637'30"
PO
2700000 FEET
4552'30"
81
50
3500
340
0
3500
3500
71
01N40E02BDAB01
Spring
40'
70
39
TL
..
01N40E02BBDD01
Spring
69
CA
S
01N40E02BABD01
Spring
POWDER LN
10645'
4552'30"
35
00
340
0
3500
00
33
3600
3300
3600
80
50
80
50
00
34
k
E For
3400
Ar m
ells
Cr
600000
FEET
00
35
36
00
RD
K
CAS TLE ROC
..
3400
3400
....
Colstrip Airport
79
50
3500
k
E For
me
lls
RD
79
50
3400
Cr
3500
3400
34
00
A rm e l l s C r
F or k
00
34
Ar
AIR PORT
E Fork Armells Cr
350
0
FA R LE
Y RD
50
35
00
78
3500
78
50
3500
3500
35
00
3600
3600
3600
3600
00
35
3600
E
C
3600
3500
3600
36
00
50'
Miller
Coulee
50'
3500
00
35
350
0
3500
3500
3500
0
340
3600
3600
3500
..
00
36
3600
0
360
36
00
.
3500
77
50
76
50
00
34
00
35
76
50
36
00
34
00
0
350
75
50
0
360
3400
3600
. ....
3600
36
00
3600
35
00
3400
35
00
3300
..
0
340
3500
3600
75
50
3400
3500
3400
35
00
3600
3500
3500
3400
3600
33
00
330
0
3400
34
00
50
330
0
350
0
3300
33
00
0
360
'
00
33
3500
36
00
73
50
330
0
3600
3500
3600
3200
0
360
3500
72
50
0
340
3500
33
00
3500
3600
Lee
Coulee
34
00
0
350
3600
3500
33
00
34
00
34
00
3300
35
00
00
35
00
35
34
00
3500
35
00
72
3400
3500
347'30"
00
34
3600
3400
3200
00
35
00
35
47'30"
3500
. .
....
3400
00
35
3600
3500
34
00
3600
..
3600
340
0
73
50
3600
3400
00
33
3600
50
74
3400
74
50
320
0
3200
71
33
00
00
36
3600
50
3400
3500
3400
3300
3500
3500
0
350
3300
3400
3400
3500
3500
.
... .....
Rape
Coulee
3400
33
00
3300
34
00
35
00
35
00
3400
34
00
3500
69
01S40E12DDD_01
Spring
50
3100
69
50
350
0
3400
3600
70
00
32
32
00
00
32
50
3300
35
00
00
33
0
360
..
.
.
..
70
3600
350
0
50
3500
3400
0
320
350
0
3300
3200
3500
3400
.
3300
0
310
3400
32
00
3500
3300
360
0
3200
Rosebud
Richard
Coulee
3400
65
2 680 000 FEET
66


Roads....................................................... HERE, 2013
Names..........................................................GNIS,
2013
69
42'30"
72
71
10 5
179 MILS
1 13
21 MILS
0.5
1000
500
KILOMETERS
METERS
0
1000
2000
MONTANA
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000

FEET
U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID
CL
13T
7000

8000
9000
Expressway
4545'
10637'30"
Local Connector
Local Road
Secondary Hwy
Ramp
MILES
1000
68000mN
50
ROAD CLASSIFICATION
0
0.5
73000mE
Ri h d
40'
SCALE 1:24 000

MN
GN
70

68
Cr
10000
QUADRANGLE LOCATION
4
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Trail Creek School

Colstrip West
Colstrip East
Rough Draw
Colstrip SE
Black Spring
Jimtown
Badger Peak
X
W Interstate Route
4WD
.
/
US Route
COLSTRIP SW, MT
2014
H State Route
7 6 4 3 0 1 6 3 7 6 1 4 2
NSN.
10645'
64
3400
. .
00
34
FEET
4545'
3500
350
0
560000
3600
*7643016376142*
3600
3400
COLSTRIP WEST QUADRANGLE
MONTANA-ROSEBUD CO.
7.5-MINUTE SERIES

10645'
3
4600'
66
65000mE
42'30"
67
68
69
40'
70
2690000 FEET
71
10637'30"
73
4600'
3300
3300
-39
MT
Ar
650 000
3100
FEET
el
Cr
0
310
Mc Gi lv r ey Cr
95
50
E For k
ls
3200
3300
cG
3200
95000mN
50
ilv rey Cr
310
0
3300
3300
39
3200
3100
3300
34
00
94
50
3400
94
50
3300
3400
00
32
3300
3200
00
31
33
00
33
00
EF
3300
o rk
WIMER RD
3300
93
50
el
Arm ls Cr
93
50
3100
3200
3100
.... .. ..
.
..
... .
3300
320
0
32
00
0
320
3200
33
00
3400
50
3100
92
50
92
3300
Corral Cr
3300
320
0
3200
0
320
3100
rr
39
3300
320
0
3200
91
50
57'30"
Fo
57'30"
03N41E34CCCD01
Spring
ls
A r m el
33
00
Co
91
310
0
rk
50
C
al
3400
3300
32
00
00
32
Corr al Cr
3300
3200
90
50
32
90
50
3300
3300
00
32
3100
00
33
330
0
MT-3
3300
3400
EF
o
89
3200
rk
330
0
89
50
..
.
50
e
Arm ll s Cr
3400
330
0
320
0
3400
00
34
. .
50
3200
3400
88
39
er Cr
ck
3300
St
3500
50
00
33
3300
88
3200
34
00
......
32
00
34
00
3500
02N40E17ADAD01
Spring
33
00
87
50
3500
E Fork Armells Cr
00
34
00
32
87
50
3300
3200
3300
340
0
0
340
33
00
3500
3500
55'
50
Stock e r Cr
3400
35
00
3300
00
32
55'
00
33
0
320
86
3300
3400
PALOO SA D R
AP
HE
TE
STI
3200
WA
-39
3300
MT
3400
YE
R RD
..
E DR
LL
3400
0
330
rC
r
DR
3300
39
00
33
3300
rm
rk A
E Fo
3300
340
0
33
00
3400
3400
3300
0
330
340
0
Colstrip
Castle
Rock
Lake
3400
ER
3400
3400
34
00
PO W
610000
83
34
00
340
0
FEET
50
3400
CA
3500
3600
3500
34
00
.

Roads....................................................... HERE, 2013
Names..........................................................GNIS,
2013
69
MN
GN
70
72
71
10 6
180 MILS
0.5
1000
500
KILOMETERS
METERS
0
1000
2000
MONTANA
1000
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000

FEET
U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID
CL
7000

8000
9000
Expressway
4552'30"
10637'30"
Local Connector
Local Road
Secondary Hwy
Ramp
MILES
13T
ROAD CLASSIFICATION
0
0.5
73000mE
40'
SCALE 1:24 000
1 13
22 MILS
82000mN
50
39

68
F n
^
3500
42'30"
AV E
..
.
67
LOW
T
RY S
ER
3500
35
00
WIL
CH
66
ST
2 670 000 FEET
R O SE
10645'
OD
..
...
WO
4552'30"
B LV
3500
..
PO
RD
39
..
.
3500
CASTLE ROCK
STE
A
3600
3500
82
HO
50
ME
DR
00
34
3500
3300
R
B ROW N I N G D
3400
3400
ROC K LAK
E DR
CIMARRON D
M T-
34
00
O L IV E
3400
3500
STL E
E F ork
83
50
10000
QUADRANGLE LOCATION
4
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Griffin Coulee
Sheep Creek Camp
McKerlich Creek
Trail Creek School
Colstrip East
Rough Draw
Colstrip SW
Colstrip SE
X
W Interstate Route
4WD
.
/
US Route
H State Route
COLSTRIP WEST, MT
2014
7 6 4 3 0 1 6 3 7 6 1 4 4
NSN.
3500
00
34
84
RD
34
00
3500
3300
3400
50
r
e ll s C
0
330
84
50
*7643016376144*
Sto
cke r C r
S to
85
50
0
330
3200
ke
00
33
85
50
HO
C H IS L M
00
32
3400
APPENDIX B
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONS
SCALE
0
PPL MONTANA, LLC

COLSTRIP STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER ON CONSENT
PLANT SITE REPORT
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION

THROUGH THE PLANT SITE
400
FIGURE
3-1
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX C.1
PLANT AREA
APPENDIX C.2
UNITS 1 & 2 STEP AREA
dowlhkm.com
Units 1&2 STEP "D Cell Lining Project"

POND LINER GRADES
PPL Montana, L.L.C.

COLSTRIP, MONTANA
920 Technology Blvd.

Suite A
Bozeman, MT 59718
406-586-8834
406-586-1730 (fax)
ORCEMBE
C
RE DE
ING
W
RA011
D
2
D
P4R
APPENDIX C.3
UNITS 3 & 4 EHP AREA
&(
&&(//
*&(//
+&(//
PLAN VIEW
)25&('
(9$37<3
)25&('
(9$37<3
)&(//
29(5)/2:
/,1(
)25&('
(9$3
6833/<
/,1(
81'(5*5281'
87,/,7,(67<3
+'3(
6/855<
'5$,1/,1(
+'3(
6/855</,1(
81'(5*5281'
87,/,7,(67<3
a/)8186('
+'3(
)25&('
(9$3
6833/<
/,1(
&03
0$1+2/(
)25&('(9$3
6833/</,1(
81'(5*5281'
(/(&7<3
'21275(029(25),//
,1(;,67,1*/2:$5($6
81'(5*5281'
(/(&7<3
81'(5*5281'
87,/,7,(67<3
+'3(+&(//
:$7(575$16)(5/,1(
)25&('
(9$3
%/'*
+&(//3803
67$7,21
29(5+($'
(/(&7<3
:,5()(1&(
(+3&872)):$//
81'(5*5281'
6+2:1$3352;
87,/,7<
32/(7<3
+'3(
*5281':$7(5
&2//(&7,21:(//
5(7851/,1(
&03
0$1+2/(6
+'3(
)&(//
',6&+$5*(
/,1(
+'3(
)&(//
',6&+$5*(
/,1(
(+3&872)):$//
81'(5*5281'
6+2:1$3352;
87,/,7<
32/(7<3
785%20,67(5
3803%$5*(
:,5()(1&(
+'3(
*5281':$7(5
&2//(&7,21:(//
5(7851/,1(

&
:,5(
)(1&(
'(16(
9(*(7$7,21
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
&03
0$1+2/(
%2//$5'6
*5281':$7(5
&2//(&7,21:(//
5(7851/,1(
[
[
[
[
[

[[
6(
&7
0$7&+(;,67,1**5$'(6
$/21*0$,1'$0)$&(
*5281':$7(5
&2//(&7,21:(//
5(7851/,1(6
:(67&251(5
2)-&(//

[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
29(5+($'
(/(&7<3
81'(5*5281'(/(& &21'8,7
72%(5(029('6((127(
81'(5*5281'
87,/,7<725(0$,1

-&(//75$16)(53,3(
72%(5(029('$1'
672&.3,/(')25/$7(586(
6((127(
*:021,725,1*
:(//72%(5(029('

%$5*(38033,3,1*
0$1,)2/' 0,6&&21&5(7(
72%(5(029('6((127(

&030$1+2/(725(0$,1
+'3(&/($5:$7(50$.(83/,1(
&5$1(3$'

;
0,1
+'3(96(3&2//(&7,21/,1(

(/(&
3$1(/
+'3(96(35(7851/,1(
+'3((+35(7851/,1(
%$5*(3803
72%(5(029('
%<27+(56
,21
&039$/9(
0$1+2/(6
87,/,7<32/(6725(0$,1
29(5+($'
(/(&7<3
725(0$,1 75$16)250(567$7,21
72%(5(029('6((127(
3(/(&%/'*72%(
5(029('6((127(
%$5*(3803$&&(6667$,56
72%(5(029('%<27+(56
6(&7

:,'(
:$7(5/,1(
&255,'25

&7
(+3&872)):$//
81'(5*5281'
6+2:1$3352;
&(17(5/,1(
6$)(7<%(50
$59
6
39&
5,6(56
6(
+'3((+3
5(7851/,1(
$3352;('*(
2):$7(5
(/(9 s

:,'(
%85,('(/(&
&255,'25
1
%85,('
),%(572
29(5+($'
-&(//6(&7,216
5()(5726+((7&
87,/,7<32/(6
72%(5(029('
%<27+(56
6(&7,2
67$572)
-&(//($57+:25.
$/,*10(17
1
81'(5*5281'
),%(5237,&
1
'(16(
9(*(7$7,21
,2
:,5()(1&(
&$77/(*8$5'
,2
,&26
:$5(+286(
(+3&872)):$//
81'(5*5281'
6+2:1$3352;
$59
39&
5,6(5
:,5(
)(1&(
*5281':$7(5
&2//(&7,21:(//
5(7851/,1(6
29(5+($'
(/(&7<3
*(1
81'(5*5281'
87,/,7<7<3
3$67(3/$17
%5($.5220
&03
0$1+2/(
81'(5*5281'
(/(&/,1(
+'3(
96(3(47$1.
29(5)/2:/,1(
+'3(
6/855</,1(
+'3(
3$67(3/$17
'5$,1/,1(
+'3(
3$67(3/$17
'5$,1/,1(
(+3
81'(5'5$,1
6803
+'3(3$67(
',6&+$5*(/,1(
72%(029('
%<27+(56
+'3(3$67(
'5$,13,3(
725(0$,1
&(17(5/,1(6$)(7<
%(50%27+6,'(6
*:021,725,1*
:(//6725(0$,1
+'3(-&(//:$7(5
75$16)(53,3(
72%(029('
6((127(
+'3(
3$67(3/$17
%<3$66/,1(
+'3(
&/($5:$7(5
/,1(

(/(&75,&
6(59,&(

&
[
[
87,/,7<
32/(7<3
*5281':$7(5
&2//(&7,21:(//
5(7851/,1(6
[ [
[ [
[
[
*5281':$7(5
&2//(&7,21:(//
5(7851/,1(6
:,5()(1&(
&$77/(*8$5'
29(5+($'
(/(&7<3
(+3&872)):$//
81'(5*5281'
6+2:1$3352;
&$77/(
*8$5'
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
&03
0$1+2/(
[
[
[
[
(+3&872)):$//
81'(5*5281'
6+2:1$3352;
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
(+3&872)):$//
81'(5*5281'
6+2:1$3352;
[
[
[
+'3(3$67(
',6&+$5*(/,1(
72%(029('
%<27+(56
[
[
[
[
[
:(//72%(
5(029('
[
[
6,'(6/23(6
0$;

[
[

:,5()(1&(

[
[
[
&(17(5/,1(6$)(7<
%(50($&+6,'(

&8/9(5772
%(5(0$,1
[
[
[

:(//672
5(0$,1
[
[
[
3523-&',9,'(5
',.((/
[
[
+'3(3$67(
',6&+$5*(/,1(
72%(029('
%<27+(56
&(17(5/,1(6$)(7<
%(50($&+6,'(
[
[
[
[
[
(+3&872)):$//
81'(5*5281'
6+2:1$3352;
[
[
[

$3352;
('*(2)
:$7(5
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[

[
[

[
[
[
[
[
&
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
$3352;
('*(2)
:$7(5
[
[
a/)+'3(
[
[
[
[
[
7(03*&(//
:$7(5
75$16)(5
3803
:,5()(1&(
&$77/(*8$5'
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
(+3&872)):$//
81'(5*5281'
6+2:1$3352;
[
+'3(
7(03*&(//
:$7(5
75$16)(5
/,1(
[
[
+'3(
7(03&&(//
:$7(5
75$16)(5
/,1(
[
[
'(16(
9(*(7$7,21
[
[
81'(5*5281'
(/(&7<3
[
[
+'3(
(1'2))8785(
-&(//:$7(5
75$16)(5/,1(
[
[
[
[
81'(5*5281'
(/(&7<3
[
[
:,5()(1&(
[
[
[
[
8186('
+'3(3,3(
[
[
+'3(
*5281':$7(5
&2//(&7,21:(//
5(7851/,1(
)520*:6<67(0
[
[
670
[
[
+&(//(/(&
(1&/28685(%<
1257+:(67(51
(1(5*<
81'(5*5281'
(/(&7<3
(+3&872)):$//
81'(5*5281'
6+2:1$3352;
[
[
&03
0$1+2/(
[
[
+'3(
*5281':$7(5
&2//(&7,21:(//
5(7851/,1(
)520*:6<67(0
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
'(16(
9(*(7$7,21
[
[
[
[
[
+'3(
*5281':$7(5
&2//(&7,21:(//
5(7851/,1(
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
81'(5*5281'
(/(&7<3

[
[
[
'(16(
9(*(7$7,21
:,5()(1&(
[
[
[
[
(+3&872)):$//
81'(5*5281'
6+2:1$3352;
'(16(
9(*(7$7,21

&

352326('),1,6+('*5$'(
%$.('6+$/(%(1&+
723(/(9
6/2
)7/,1(5&86+,21

3(a
(;,67,1**5$'(
)7/,1(5&86+,21

(;,67,1**5$'(

)8785(/,1(575(1&+$5($
0$7&+(;,67,1**5$'(
0$7&+(;,67,1**5$'(
6$)(7<%(50

6$)(7<%(50

%$.('6+$/(%(1&+
723(/(9
352326('),1,6+('*5$'(
<3
7

3(
6/2

)7/,1(5&86+,21
6/2
352326('),1,6+('*5$'(
3(
<3
(;,67,1**5$'(
)7/,1(5&86+,21
(;,67,1**5$'(
7

)8785(/,1(575(1&+$5($
6$)(7<%(50
0$7&+(;,67,1**5$'(

(;,67,1*
%$.('6+$/(%(1&+
723(/(9
)7/,1(5&86+,21
<3
7
3(
6/2
6/2
3(
7
<3
<3
7
3(
6/2
352326('),1,6+('*5$'(
)7/,1(5&86+,21

352326('),1,6+('*5$'(

352326('),1,6+('*5$'(
6$)(7<%(50

(;,67,1**5$'(

6$)(7<%(50
6$)(7<%(50
0$7&+(;,67,1**5$'(

352326('),1,6+('*5$'(
352326('),1,6+('*5$'(
)7/,1(5&86+,21

%$.('6+$/(%(1&+
723(/(9

352326('),1,6+('*5$'(
)7/,1(5&86+,21

<3
7
(
/23
6/2
3(
7
<3

6/2
3(
7
<3
(;,67,1**5$'(
(;,67,1**5$'(
/(*(1'
(;,67,1*
6$)(7<%(50

352326('),1,6+('*5$'(
)7/,1(5&86+,21

%$.('6+$/(%(1&+
723(/(9

3(
6/2
<
7
(;,67,1**5$'(

352326('

%2552:$5($%DNHG6KDOH)LOO)O\$VKDQG%RWWRP$VK6WUXFWXUDO)LOO
%25526$5($)O\$VK3DVWH6WUXFWXUDO)LOO&XVKLRQ
%2552:$5($%RWWRP$VK6WUXFWXUDO)LOO
&XW
0$7&+(;,67,1**5$'(
127(6
7KHVDIHW\EHUPDVVKRZQLQFRQVWUXFWLRQGUDZLQJVLVWREHIWLQ
KHLJKWDORQJWKHVDIHW\EHUPFHQWHUOLQHZLWKVLGHVORSHV

&
APPENDIX D
INSTRUMENTATION LOCATIONS
Plotted by clane on Jan 13, 2016 - 4:45pm
Jackson, Wyoming
307-733-5150
www.jorgensenassociates.com
PROJECT TITLE:
SHEET TITLE:
W:\Clients\ppl\2015 Monitoring\Reporting\Appendices\Maps\Plantsite Piezo Location Map.dwg
Ver. 15.1
DRAFTED BY:
CHL
REVIEWED BY:
PLAN VERSION
DATE
1/13/2016
PROJECT NUMBER
15419
SHEET
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX E.1
PLANT AREA
Talen Energy
Figure E.1.1: Units 1 & 2 B Fly Ash Pond Area-Capacity Curve
ME1272/MD16146/App.E.1
October 2016
Talen Energy
Figure E.1.2: Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Clearwell Area-Capacity Curve
ME1272/MD16146/App.E.1
October 2016
APPENDIX E.2
UNITS 1 & 2 STEP AREA
Talen Energy
Figure E.2.1: Units 1 & 2 STEP Area Old Clearwell Area-Capacity Curve
ME1272/MD16146/App.E.2
October 2016
Talen Energy
Figure E.2.2: Units 1 & 2 STEP Area D Cell Area-Capacity Curve
ME1272/MD16146/App.E.2
October 2016
Talen Energy
Figure E.2.3: Units 1 & 2 STEP Area E Cell Area-Capacity Curve
ME1272/MD16146/App.E.2
October 2016
APPENDIX E.3
UNITS 3 & 4 EHP AREA
Talen Energy
Figure E.3.1: Units 3 & 4 EHP Area B Cell Area-Capacity Curve
ME1272/MD16146/App.E.3
October 2016
Talen Energy
Figure E.3.2: Units 3 & 4 EHP Area C Cell Area-Capacity Curve
ME1272/MD16146/App.E.3
October 2016
Talen Energy
Figure E.3.3: Units 3 & 4 EHP Area G Cell Area-Capacity Curve
ME1272/MD16146/App.E.3
October 2016
Talen Energy
Figure E.3.4: Units 3 & 4 EHP Area J Cell Area-Capacity Curve
ME1272/MD16146/App.E.3
October 2016

Colstrip 1&amp;2 B Flyash Pond CCR History of Construction Report October 2016 BFA

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Colstrip 1&amp;2 B Flyash Pond CCR History of Construction Report October 2016 BFA

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Prepared for

TALEN MONTANA, LLC

COLSTRIP STEAM ELECTRIC STATION

10211 Wincopin Circle, 4th Floor

ME1272/MD16146/History of Construction - Colstrip

OWNER AND CCR UNIT INFORMATION......................................................... 2

UNIT LOCATION .................................................................................................. 3

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE ................................................................................. 4

WATERSHED DESCRIPTION .............................................................................. 5

FOUNDATION MATERIALS ............................................................................... 6

Foundation Properties ......................................................................................... 7

Units 1 & 2 STEP Area ............................................................................. 9

Units 3 & 4 EHP Area ............................................................................ 11

PHYSICAL AND ENGINEERING MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND

Plant Area ......................................................................................................... 14

Units 1 & 2 B Fly Ash Pond and Bottom Ash Pond............................... 14

Units 3 & 4 Bottom Ash Pond ................................................................ 17

Units 1 & 2 STEP Area .................................................................................... 18

Units 3 & 4 EHP Area ...................................................................................... 21

DIMENSIONAL DRAWINGS ............................................................................. 28

Plant Area ......................................................................................................... 28

Units 1 & 2 B Fly Ash Pond and Bottom Ash Pond............................... 28

Units 3 & 4 Bottom Ash Pond ................................................................ 30

Units 1 & 2 STEP Area .................................................................................... 31

Units 3 & 4 EHP Area ...................................................................................... 32

EXISTING INSTRUMENTATION ...................................................................... 36

Plant Area ......................................................................................................... 36

Units 1 & 2 STEP Area .................................................................................... 36

Units 3 & 4 EHP Area ...................................................................................... 37

AREA-CAPACITY CURVES .............................................................................. 38

ME1272/MD16146/History of Construction - Colstrip

SPILLWAY AND DIVERSION FEATURES ...................................................... 39

11.1 Plant Area ......................................................................................................... 39

SURVEILLANCE, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR PROVISIONS ............... 41

RECORD OF STRUCTURAL INSTABILITY .................................................... 42

13.1 Plant Area ......................................................................................................... 42

Statement of Purpose for CCR Units

Existing Inclinometer Instrumentation

Existing Piezometer Instrumentation

Project Location Map Colstrip Steam Electric Station, Colstrip, Montana

Unit Locations Plant Area

Unit Locations Units 1 & 2 STEP Area

Unit Locations Units 3 & 4 EHP Area

USGS Topographic Maps

Geologic Cross Sections

Dimensional Drawings Plant Area

ME1272/MD16146/History of Construction - Colstrip

Dimensional Drawings Units 1 & 2 STEP Area

Dimensional Drawings Units 3 & 4 EHP Area

Area-Capacity Curves Plant Area

Area-Capacity Curves Units 1 & 2 STEP Area

Area-Capacity Curves Units 3 & 4 EHP Area

ME1272/MD16146/History of Construction - Colstrip

Section 2 provides owner and CCR unit information.

Section 3 provides the location of the CCR units.

Section 4 describes the purpose of the CCR units.

Section 5 describes the CCR unit watershed location.

Section 6 describes the physical and engineering properties of foundation materials.

Section 8 provides dimensional drawings.

Section 9 describes the existing instrumentation.

Section 10 presents the area-capacity curves.

Section 11 describes spillway and diversion features.

Section 12 discusses surveillance, maintenance, and repair provisions.

Section 13 discusses any record or knowledge of instability.

Colstrip 1&2 B Flyash Pond CCR History of Construction Report October 2016 BFA

Colstrip 1&2 B Flyash Pond CCR History of Construction Report October 2016 BFA