Sie sind auf Seite 1von 145
Prepared for T ALEN M ONTANA , LLC 303 N 28 St., Suite 400 Billings, Montana

Prepared for

TALEN MONTANA, LLC

303 N 28 th 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

Prepared for T ALEN M ONTANA , LLC 303 N 28 St., Suite 400 Billings, Montana

10211 Wincopin Circle, 4 th Floor Columbia, Maryland 21044

Geosyntec Project No: ME1272

October 2016

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Colstrip Steam Electric Station

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 Site’s 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.

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1
 
  • 1. INTRODUCTION

1

  • 2. OWNER AND CCR UNIT

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

 

6.2.1

Plant

8

6.2.2

Units 1 & 2 STEP Area

9

6.2.3

Units 3 & 4 EHP Area

11

  • 7. 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

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station 11. SPILLWAY AND DIVERSION FEATURES 39
  • 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

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station Appendix C.2: Dimensional Drawings – Units

Appendix C.2:

Dimensional Drawings – Units 1 & 2 STEP Area

Appendix C.3:

Dimensional Drawings – Units 3 & 4 EHP Area

Appendix D:

Appendix E:

Instrumentation Locations

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

ME1272/MD16146/History of Construction - Colstrip

iv

October 2016

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

1. INTRODUCTION

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station 1. INTRODUCTION In response to the

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.

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station 2. OWNER AND CCR UNIT INFORMATION
  • 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). Talen’s 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.

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

  • 3. UNIT LOCATION

Section §257.73(c)(1)(ii) of the CCR Rule requires:

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station 3. UNIT LOCATION Section §257.73(c)(1)(ii) of

“The location of the CCR unit identified on the most recent U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7 ½ 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 Site’s 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 ½ minute topographic quadrangle maps. Individual units within each of these areas are identified in their respective figure. The Site’s 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 ½ minute quadrangle maps provided by USGS are included as Appendix A to this Report.

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

  • 4. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

Section §257.73(c)(1)(iii) of the CCR Rule requires:

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station 4. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE Section §257.73(c)(1)(iii)

“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.

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station 5. WATERSHED DESCRIPTION Section §257.73(c)(1)(iv) of
  • 5. WATERSHED DESCRIPTION

Section §257.73(c)(1)(iv) of the CCR Rule requires:

“The name and size in acres of the watershed located.”

within which the CCR unit

is

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.

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

  • 6. FOUNDATION MATERIALS

Section §257.73(c)(1)(v) of the CCR Rule requires:

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station 6. FOUNDATION MATERIALS Section §257.73(c)(1)(v) of

“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 medium- grained 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.

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station Two major coal units are present

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 (3.5×10 -4 centimeters per second [cm/s]) to 3 ft/day (1.1×10 -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 (3.5×10 -4 cm/s) to greater than 50 ft/day (1.8×10 -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× 60Quadrangle 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

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station pertains to the Units 1 &

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 (1.1×10 -3 cm/s) to greater than 600 ft/day (2.1×10 -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 1.7×10 -6 and 4.2×10 -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

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station for this material. Bedrock at the

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 (N 1,60 ) 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

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station Coal are present to the south

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.

Geotechnical Investigations

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 (6.8×10 -7 cm/s) to 2.0 ft/ yr (1.9×10 -6 cm/s) for the alluvium and from 5 ft/ yr (4.8×10 -6 cm/s) to 100 ft/ yr (9.6×10 -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

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station the crest of the dam and

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. N 1,60 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. N 1,60 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.

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Geotechnical Investigations

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station Geotechnical Investigations Prior to construction activities

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 (1.9×10 -7 cm/s) to 10.3 ft/yr (1.0×10 -5 cm/s). Permeability of alluvium at the Saddle Dam ranged from 0.1 ft/yr (9.7×10 -8 cm/s) to 5.2 ft/yr (5.0×10 -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 t o 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 N 1,60 value for the claystone and siltstone foundation materials was greater than 100 blows/ft. One SPT conducted on alluvium

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station yielded an N value of 9

yielded an N 1,60 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 1.7×10 -6 to 4.2×10 -7 cm/s. The average N 1,60 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 s coria 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.

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station 7. PHYSICAL AND ENGINEERING MATERIAL PROPERTIES
  • 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

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station to a minimum of 90 percent

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 fl y 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

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station Proctor maximum dry unit weight. Record

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. N 1,60 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

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station tests on material underlying the Units

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. N 1,60 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 Units 3 & 4 Bottom Ash Pond

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.

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station Additional modifications to the Units 3

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 Units 1 & 2 STEP Area

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 north- south 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

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station to be suitable embankment material and

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/ft 3 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

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station HDPE liner installation at E Cell

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/ft 3 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.

Geotechnical Investigations

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/ft 3 compactive effort) and back pressure saturated, yielding hydraulic conductivities ranging from 0.02 ft/yr (1.9×10 -8 cm/s) to 5.0 ft/yr (4.8×10 -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.

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station Permeability testing on shell material, prepared

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 (1.9×10 -7 cm/s) to 7.0 ft/yr (6.8×10 -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. N 1,60 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. N 1,60 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 Units 3 & 4 EHP Area

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

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station the Units 3 & 4 EHP

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/ft 3 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 silt y 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

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station 3 & 4 EHP area to

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 1.0×10 -6 cm/s or 2 ft thick with a hydraulic conductivity no

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station greater than 1.0×10 cm/s, although actual

greater than 1.0×10 -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

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station foundation of the Clearwell Divider Dike

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.

Geotechnical Investigations

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

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station seismic refraction survey was conducted along

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 fine- grained, 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/ft 3 compactive effort) and back pressure saturated, yielding hydraulic conductivities ranging from 0.002 ft/yr (1.9×10 -9 cm/s) to 20.7 ft/yr (2.0×10 -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. N 1,60 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. N 1,60 values recorded in the shell resulted in an average of 23 blows/ft

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station and unconfined compressive strengths, measured via

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 1.4×10 -8 ft/sec (4.3×10 -7 cm/s) to 4.9×10 -7 ft/sec (1.5×10 -5 cm/s). The chimney drain was encountered during this investigation and consisted of clean, dense gravelly sand with N 1,60 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. N 1,60 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.

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

  • 8. DIMENSIONAL DRAWINGS

Section §257.73(c)(1)(vii) of the CCR Rule requires:

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station 8. DIMENSIONAL DRAWINGS Section §257.73(c)(1)(vii) of

“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 incl uded 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 underl ying 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.

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Units 1 & 2 B Fly Ash Pond

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station Units 1 & 2 B Fly

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.

Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Pond

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.

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

  • 8.1.2 Units 3 & 4 Bottom Ash Pond

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station 8.1.2 Units 3 & 4 Bottom

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

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station dated 3 November 2008, which shows

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 Units 1 & 2 STEP Area

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

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station details on the liner, underdrain, and

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 Units 3 & 4 EHP Area

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

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station consisting of dam crest elevations of

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 generall y 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

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station of 1.5H:1V and 2H:1V, respectively. Figure

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.

Drawing No. C8 from the drawing set entitled “CP 402B-2: J Cell Phase 1 Earthworks Project” (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

Drawing No. C6 from the drawing set entitled “CP 402B-2: J Cell Phase 1 Earthworks Project” (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

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 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.

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 internal divider dikes between C Cell and G Cell has a maximum crest elevation of 3,286.5 ft. Drawing No. C9 from the drawing set entitled “CP 402B-2: J Cell Phase 1 Earthworks Project” (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

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station this drawing set shows the internal

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

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 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.

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 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.

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

  • 9. EXISTING INSTRUMENTATION

Section §257.73(c)(1)(viii) of the CCR Rule requires:

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station 9. EXISTING INSTRUMENTATION Section §257.73(c)(1)(viii) of

“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 1 & 2 STEP Area

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.

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station The majority of piezometers found in

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 Units 3 & 4 EHP Area

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.

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

  • 10. AREA-CAPACITY CURVES

Section §257.73(c)(1)(ix) of the CCR Rule requires:

“Area-Capacity curves for the CCR unit.”

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station 10. AREA-CAPACITY CURVES Section §257.73(c)(1)(ix) of

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. Area- capacity 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.

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station 11. SPILLWAY AND DIVERSION FEATURES Section
  • 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 Units 1 & 2 STEP Area

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.

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station Stormwater evaluations performed by DOWL (2015)

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. Ret ention was also confirmed for a 100- year storm and 100-year/100- year back-to-back storms.

  • 11.3 Units 3 & 4 EHP Area

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-to- back storms.

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station 12. SURVEILLANCE, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR PROVISIONS
  • 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.

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station 13. RECORD OF STRUCTURAL INSTABILITY Section
  • 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

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station constructed deeper than natural ground and

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 Units 1 & 2 STEP Area

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 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 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

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station evaluations included embankments within the Units

evaluations included embankments within the Units 1 & 2 STEP area that had not been previously analyzed.

  • 13.3 Units 3 & 4 EHP Area

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 condition, indicating that these impoundments were expected to exhibit acceptable performance under static, hydrologic, and seismic loading conditions.

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 H ydrometrics (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.

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station • Slope stability analyses were performed

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

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station minimum required values for static and

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.

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

14. REFERENCES

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station 14. REFERENCES Aerial Data Design (2014).

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 Corporati on (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× 60Quadrangle, Southern Montana,” Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Geologic Map GM 43.

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station DOWL HKM, LLC (2012). “PPL Units

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.

Hydrometrics, Inc. (2005). “Units 3 & 4 EHP Saddle Dam Slope Inclinometer Monitoring,” prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, 18 January.

Hydrometrics, Inc. (2006). “Units 3 & 4 EHP Saddle Dam Slope Inclinometer Monitoring,” prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, 4 January.

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station Hydrometrics, Inc. (2009a). “2009 Engineer’s Inspection,

Hydrometrics, Inc. (2009a). “2009 Engineer’s Inspection, Pond AB Dike, Colstrip, Montana,” prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, October.

Hydrometrics, Inc. (2009b). “2009 Periodic Engineer’s 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 Engineer’s 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 Engineer’s Inspection, A/B Pond Complex Dike, Colstrip, Montana,” prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, September.

Hydrometrics, Inc. (2014b). “2014 Periodic Engineer’s Inspection, Units 1 & 2 Stage II Evaporation Pond (STEP) Main Dam, Colstrip, Montana,” prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, September.

Hydrometrics, Inc. (2014c). “2014 Periodic Engineer’s 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.

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station Jorgensen Geotechnical, LLC (2016b). “Geotechnical Investigationhttp://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/ , Accessed April 2016. United States Geologic Survey (USGS) (2014b). Colstrip Southeast Quadrangle, Montana- Rosebud Co., 7.5-Minute Series, http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/ , Accessed April 2016. United States Geologic Survey (USGS) (2014c). Colstrip Southwest Quadrangle, Montana- Rosebud 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. ME1272/MD16146/History of Construction - Colstrip 50 October 2016 " id="pdf-obj-54-4" src="pdf-obj-54-4.jpg">

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, Montana- Rosebud Co., 7.5-Minute Series, http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/, Accessed April 2016.

United States Geologic Survey (USGS) (2014c). Colstrip Southwest Quadrangle, Montana- Rosebud 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.

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station Vuke, S.M., Heffern, E.L., Bergantino, R.N.,

Vuke, S.M., Heffern, E.L., Bergantino, R.N., and Colton, R.B. (2001). “Geological Map of the Lame Deer 30× 60Quadrangle, 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 PPLM’s 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.

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Talen Energy History of Construction Report Colstrip Steam Electric Station Womack & Associates, Inc. (2010e). “Geotechnical

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 PPLM’s 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 PPLM’s Colstrip Effluent Holding Ponds (EHP),” prepared for PPL Montana, LLC, 26 January.

TABLES

TABLE 1 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE FOR CCR UNITS HISTORY OF CONSTRUCTION REPORT Colstrip Steam Electric Station

TABLE 1 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE FOR CCR UNITS (1) HISTORY OF CONSTRUCTION REPORT

Colstrip Steam Electric Station Talen Montana, LLC - Colstrip, Montana

 

Unit ID

Current Operating Status

Purpose

 

Plant Area

Units 1 & 2 B Fly Ash Pond

Operating

Contains a significant amount of CCRs and is currently in use

Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Pond

Operating

for CCR disposal, as needed. Contains a significant amount of bottom ash and water and is currently in use for bottom ash dewatering.

Units 3 & 4 Bottom Ash Pond

Operating

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

Contains a significant amount of bottom ash and other dry CCRs and is currently used for bottom ash disposal.

 

B Cell

Operating

Used for water storage and is the current location of return water to the plant.

C

Cell

Operating

Contains significant amounts of paste and minimal water and is currently used for paste and bottom ash disposal.

D/E Cell

Operating

Contains significant amounts of dry scrubber slurry and is used for dry disposal of scrubber slurry and/or bottom ash.

 

G Cell

Operating

Contains significant amounts of paste and is used for disposal of paste/bottom ash.

 

J Cell

Operating

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 HISTORY OF CONSTRUCTION REPORT Colstrip Steam Electric Station Talen Montana, LLC

TABLE 2 EXISTING INCLINOMETER INSTRUMENTATION HISTORY OF CONSTRUCTION REPORT

Colstrip Steam Electric Station Talen Montana, LLC - Colstrip, Montana

Instrument Name

Location

Instrumentation Type

 

Units 1 & 2 Stage-Two Evaporation Pond (STEP) Area

B/E-15-4INC

B Cell-E Cell Divider Dike

Slope Inclinometer

CW/D-15-6INC

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

  • D Cell East Embankment

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

 

Units 3 & 4 Effluent Holding Pond (EHP) Area

A-15-5INC

A Cell North Embankment

Slope Inclinometer

A-15-6INC

A Cell North Embankment

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

J Cell North Embankment (Main Dam)

Slope Inclinometer

SD-12-13INC

J Cell Northeast Embankment (Saddle Dam)

Slope Inclinometer

SD-12-14INC

J Cell Northeast Embankment (Saddle Dam)

Slope Inclinometer

SD-12-15INC

G Cell East Embankment (Saddle Dam)

Slope Inclinometer

SD-12-16INC

G Cell East Embankment (Saddle Dam)

Slope Inclinometer

SD-15-17INC

G Cell East Embankment (Saddle Dam)

Slope Inclinometer

SD-15-18INC (1)

G Cell East Embankment (Saddle Dam)

Slope Inclinometer

SD-15-19INC

G Cell East Embankment (Saddle Dam)

Slope Inclinometer

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.

ME1272/MD16146/Tables

October 2016

TABLE 3 EXISTING PIEZOMETER INSTRUMENTATION HISTORY OF CONSTRUCTION REPORT Colstrip Steam Electric Station Talen Montana, LLC

TABLE 3 EXISTING PIEZOMETER INSTRUMENTATION HISTORY OF CONSTRUCTION REPORT

Colstrip Steam Electric Station Talen Montana, LLC - Colstrip, Montana

Instrument Name

Location

Instrumentation Type

 

Plant Area

BOTASH-09-1P

Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Pond North Embankment

VW Piezometer

BOTASH-09-2P

Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Pond North Embankment

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

Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Clearwell North Embankment

VW Piezometer

PONDA-09-4P

Units 1 & 2 Bottom Ash Clearwell North Embankment

VW Piezometer

 

Units 1 & 2 Stage-Two Evaporation Pond (STEP) Area

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

  • D Cell East Embankment

VW Piezometer

D-15-P14

  • D Cell East Embankment

VW Piezometer

E/D-15-P11

E Cell-D Cell Divider Dike

VW Piezometer

STEP-09-1P

E Cell-Future C Cell Divider Dike

VW Piezometer

STEP-09-2P

E Cell-Future C Cell Divider Dike

VW Piezometer

STEP-09-3P

E Cell East Embankment (Main Dam)

VW Piezometer

STEP-09-4P

Old Clearwell East Embankment (Main Dam)

VW Piezometer

STEP-09-5P

Old Clearwell East Embankment (Main Dam)

VW Piezometer

STEP-09-6P

E Cell East Embankment (Main Dam)

VW Piezometer

STEP-09-7P

Old Clearwell East Embankment (Main Dam)

VW Piezometer

STEP-09-8P

E Cell East Embankment (Main Dam)

VW Piezometer

STEP-Toe Drain

Toe Drain (Main Dam)

Drain

2019D

Old Clearwell-D Cell Divider Dike

Standpipe Piezometer

952D

  • D Cell East Embankment

Standpipe Piezometer

ME1272/MD16146/Tables

October 2016

TABLE 3 EXISTING PIEZOMETER INSTRUMENTATION HISTORY OF CONSTRUCTION REPORT Colstrip Steam Electric Station Talen Montana, LLC

TABLE 3 EXISTING PIEZOMETER INSTRUMENTATION HISTORY OF CONSTRUCTION REPORT

Colstrip Steam Electric Station Talen Montana, LLC - Colstrip, Montana

Instrument Name

Location

Instrumentation Type

 

Units 3 & 4 Effluent Holding Pond (EHP) Area

A-15-P18

A Cell North Embankment

VW Piezometer

A-15-P19

A Cell North Embankment

VW Piezometer

A-15-P20

A Cell North Embankment

VW Piezometer

A-15-P21

A Cell North Embankment

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

J Cell North Embankment (Main Dam)

Standpipe Piezometer

MD-09-2P

J Cell North Embankment (Main Dam)

VW Piezometer

MD-09-2SP

J Cell North Embankment (Main Dam)

Standpipe Piezometer

MD-09-4P

J Cell North Embankment (Main Dam)

VW Piezometer

MD-09-5P

J Cell North Embankment (Main Dam)

VW Piezometer

MD-09-6P

J Cell North Embankment (Main Dam)

VW Piezometer

MD-12-12P

J Cell North Embankment (Main Dam)

VW Piezometer

MD-12-13P

J Cell North Embankment (Main Dam)

VW Piezometer

MD-12-14P

J Cell North Embankment (Main Dam)

VW Piezometer

MD-12-15P

J Cell North Embankment (Main Dam)

VW Piezometer

MD-12-16SP

J Cell North Embankment (Main Dam)

Standpipe Piezometer

MD-12-17SP

J Cell North Embankment (Main Dam)

Standpipe Piezometer

MD-Toe Drain

Toe Drain (Main Dam)

Drain

SD-09-P34

G Cell East Embankment (Saddle Dam)

VW Piezometer

SD-09-P35 (2)

G Cell East Embankment (Saddle Dam)

VW Piezometer

SD-12-41P

J Cell Northeast Embankment (Saddle Dam)

VW Piezometer

SD-12-42P (3)

J Cell Northeast Embankment (Saddle Dam)

VW Piezometer

SD-12-43SP

J Cell Northeast Embankment (Saddle Dam)

Standpipe Piezometer

SD-12-44P (3)

G Cell East Embankment (Saddle Dam)

VW Piezometer

SD-12-45P (3)

G Cell East Embankment (Saddle Dam)

VW Piezometer

SD-12-46SP

G Cell East Embankment (Saddle Dam)

Standpipe Piezometer

SD-12-47P

G Cell East Embankment (Saddle Dam)

VW Piezometer

SD-12-48P

G Cell East Embankment (Saddle Dam)

VW Piezometer

SD-12-49P

G Cell East Embankment (Saddle Dam)

VW Piezometer

ME1272/MD16146/Tables

October 2016

TABLE 3 EXISTING PIEZOMETER INSTRUMENTATION HISTORY OF CONSTRUCTION REPORT Colstrip Steam Electric Station Talen Montana, LLC

TABLE 3 EXISTING PIEZOMETER INSTRUMENTATION HISTORY OF CONSTRUCTION REPORT

Colstrip Steam Electric Station Talen Montana, LLC - Colstrip, Montana

Instrument Name

Location

Instrumentation Type

SD-12-50P

G Cell East Embankment (Saddle Dam)

VW Piezometer

SD-12-51SP

G Cell East Embankment (Saddle Dam)

Standpipe Piezometer

SD-12-52P

G Cell East Embankment (Saddle Dam)

VW Piezometer

SD-12-53SP

G Cell East Embankment (Saddle Dam)

Standpipe Piezometer

SD-12-54P

G Cell East Embankment (Saddle Dam)

VW Piezometer

SD-12-55P

G Cell East Embankment (Saddle Dam)

VW Piezometer

SD-12-56SP

G Cell East Embankment (Saddle Dam)

Standpipe Piezometer

SD-12-57P

G Cell East Embankment (Saddle Dam)

VW Piezometer

SD-Toe Drain

Toe Drain (Saddle Dam)

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).

ME1272/MD16146/Tables

October 2016

FIGURES

FIGURE 3 - UNITS 1 & 2 STEP AREA COLSTRIP, MT FIGURE 2 - PLANT AREA
FIGURE 3 - UNITS 1 & 2 STEP AREA
COLSTRIP, MT
FIGURE 2 - PLANT AREA
FIGURE 4 -
UNITS 3 & 4 EHP AREA
BACKGROUND © GOOGLEMAPS (2015)
MONTANA
SITE
SITE LOCATION
COLUMBIA, MARYLAND
NO SCALE
P:\CADD\0COLSTRIP\1199\1199-100\1199F154.DWG 10/3/2016 1:05 PM TJOYNES
N
GENERATING UNITS 3 & 4 GENERATING UNITS 1 & 2 UNITS 3 & 4 BOTTOM ASH
GENERATING
UNITS 3 & 4
GENERATING
UNITS 1 & 2
UNITS 3 & 4
BOTTOM
ASH POND
UNITS 1 & 2 BOTTOM
ASH PONDS
UNITS 1 & 2 B
FLY ASH POND
SOURCE: USGS MAP (7.5, MINUTE SERIES,
ROSEBUD COUNTY, 2014)
COLUMBIA, MARYLAND
P:\CADD\0COLSTRIP\1343\1343-000\F001-003.DWG 10/3/2016 1:04 PM TJOYNES
N
B CELL CELL B E CELL CELL E OLD CLEARWELL OLD CLEARWELL D CELL CELL D
B CELL
CELL B
E CELL
CELL E
OLD CLEARWELL
OLD CLEARWELL
D CELL
CELL D
SOURCE: USGS MAP (7.5, MINUTE SERIES,
ROSEBUD COUNTY, 2014)
COLUMBIA, MARYLAND
P:\CADD\0COLSTRIP\1343\1343-000\F001-003.DWG 10/3/2016 1:40 PM TJOYNES
N
CELL J J CELL A CELL CELL A CELL G G CELL CELL C C CELL
CELL J
J CELL
A CELL
CELL A
CELL G
G CELL
CELL C
C CELL
CELL B
B CELL
CELL H
H CELL
CELL F
F CELL
CELL
D/E
CELL
D/E
SOURCE: USGS MAP (7.5, MINUTE SERIES,
ROSEBUD COUNTY, 2014)
COLUMBIA, MARYLAND
P:\CADD\0COLSTRIP\1343\1343-000\F001-003.DWG 10/3/2016 3:38 PM TJOYNES
N

APPENDIX A

USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS

3000 S p 3100 r 3000 3000 a U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR COLSTRIP EAST QUADRANGLE
3000
S
p
3100
r
3000
3000
a
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
COLSTRIP EAST QUADRANGLE
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
MONTANA-ROSEBUD CO.
7.5-MINUTE SERIES
106° 37' 30"
46° 00'
35'
32' 30"
106° 30'
g
3
83
3
75
000m
E
3
76
3 77
3
78
3
79
3
80
3
81
3
82
2
730 000 FEET
C
46° 00'
r
e
3200
50
95
3100
50
95
000m
N
u
3100
u
3000
3200
3200
3200
650 000
3200
3000
FEET
g
e
.
.
.
50
94
3200
3200
50
94
R
.
D
.
.
W IM ER
a
3100
C
.
3200
..
.
50
93
.
.
.
.
50
93
3100
3000
r
r
3200
..
3100
.
.
3000
.
3100
2900
.
.
.
.
50
.
92
50
92
3100
S
p
3300
p
3200
3000
r
.
.
S
r
p
50
91
3000
r
3200
C
50
91
.
.
a
.
a
.
3100
3100
57' 30"
g
57' 30"
3100
g
S
3000
u
50
90
g
e
3100
S
50
90
u
3200
3200
p
3200
3200
3000
r
3400
3200
i
3200
3000
3300
C
e
n
3300
3300
g
3200
n
50
89
3300
3400
r
C
3300
3300
3
3400
50
89
3000
3200
3400
r
3300
r
.
3200
C
3300
3400
3200
3300
3300
.
.
3400
i
3200
3400
3400
C
3300
50
88
3100
r
3300
50
88
3300
.
r
.
.
3300
g
3200
3100
...
'
3300
3400
3300
Eagle
50
87
3300
Rock
n
3400
3400
50
87
3300
3400
3300
3300
3200
p
3400
i
N
3300
3400
3300
G
r
50
86
3100
I
T
D
55'
55'
3500
R
3200
M
3300
P R
3400
3300
3200
S
O
C
3500
p
R
D
3500
O
o
3200
r
3200
3400
Colstrip
3200
#
" !
Cem
50
85
3300
3300
r
3200
E
WIME R
R
O
w
SP ECT
C
MONT
50
85
3100
D
3400
3000
S
y
n
3400
o
A D
P
3300
D
T
3300
R
P IE
.
3100
C
N
3300
E
3400
E
.
.
50
84
P
3300
R
3000
3300
50
84
C
3400
3400
3300
3200
S
r
3300
Colstrip
P o n y C r
3200
R
3300
3300
C
3300
r
I
3400
50
83
'
50
83
D
y
E
610
000
3200
w
3400
D
3200
I
AV E
FEET
W
N
.
.
.
WI LLO
o
n█
50
82
000m
N
¥
^
F
3100
50
82
V
'
R
r
3400
MN
C
C
Ù
n
s
ROSEBUD LN
l
3100
l
45° 52' 30"
106° 37' 30"
45° 52' 30"
3200
3
75
3
76
2
710 000 FEET
3
77
3
78
3
79
3
80
3
81
3
82
3
83
000m
E
e
35'
32' 30"
106° 30'
^
R
Produced by the United States Geological Survey
SCALE 1:24 000
ROAD CLASSIFICATION
m
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
Expressway
Local Connector
1
0.5
0
KILOMETERS
1
2
MONTANA
Secondary Hwy
Local Road
r
10° 2´
1000
500
0
METERS
1000
C
2000
178 MILS
Ramp
4WD
3200
1
0.5
0
1
1° 7´
GN
A
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.
20 MILS
X
MILES
W
Interstate Route
3100
/
.
US Route
H
State Route
P OW
1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
QUADRANGLE LOCATION
3200
FEET
k
UTM GRID AND 2014 MAGNETIC NORTH
DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET
E
o
1
Sheep Creek Camp
o
Imagery
NAIP,
July 2011
U.S. National Grid
CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET
NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
3200
123
2
McKerlich Creek
r
Roads
.......................................................
HERE,
©2013
100,000-m Square ID
3
Mitchell Coulee
POWER
Names
Hydrography
Contours
Boundaries
Public Land Survey
GNIS,
2013
3300
4
Colstrip West
National
Hydrography
Dataset,
2011
4
5
o
E
CL
This map was produced to conform with the
5
Hammond Draw NW
National
Elevation
Dataset,
2009
6
Colstrip SW
Multiple
sources; see metadata file 1972 - 2013
National Geospatial Program US Topo Product Standard, 2011.
A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.6.16
COLSTRIP EAST, MT
System
BLM,
2011
678
7
Colstrip SE
Grid Zone Designation
F
8
Hammond Draw SW
13T
2014
ADJOINING QUADRANGLES
w
3300
E
R
P
C
r
3300
3200
P
LA
N
3100
B
T
3300
DR
3300
3000
3100
U
R
D
3300
TT E
3100
3200
3200
.
.
.
.
.
.
3400
3300
3200
3200
pS
r i
n g
.
C r
.
.
.
.
.
.
3200
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3300
3300
3300
3200
3100
.
3300
3000
3300
3300
*7643016376141*
NSN. 7643016376141
NGA REF NO. USGSX2 4 K9 6 5 9
3200 3100 C o w C r U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR COLSTRIP SE QUADRANGLE U.S.
3200
3100
C o w C r
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
COLSTRIP SE QUADRANGLE
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
MONTANA-ROSEBUD CO.
7.5-MINUTE SERIES
3300
3300
UD LN
106° 37' 30"
45° 52' 30"
3200
35'
32' 30"
106° 30'
3
75
000m
E
3
76
3
77
3
78
3
79
3
80
3
81
3
82
2 730 000 FEET
45° 52' 30"
3200
50
81
3200
3300
3200
50
81
000m
N
01N42E04ACA_01
3200
Spring
3300
3200
3300
.
50
80
¬«
3300
39
3200
3300
50
80
3300
3500
WCRE EK
RD
3400
3500
3300
3200
600
000
3300
3400
3300
FEET
3400
3300
3200
3100
3600
50
79
3500
3300
3600
3300
3300
3400
3500
S F o r k C o w C r
3100
3100
3300
¬«
39
3500
O
3200
3600
50
78
3100
3400
3600
50
78
3300
3200
3400
3200
S F o r k C o w C r
CO
3100
3100
3300
3400
Hay
Emile
50
77
Coulee
C
Coulee
r
3200
3200
50
77
C
3600
3200
9
3100
50'
50'
W
3300
d
CR EEK
R D
3300
u
-3
b
T
3400
MT-39
3600
3100
e
50
76
M
3600
3200
3400
3200
3400
3600
s
3200
o
.
¬«
.
39
01N41E24CCAA01
3200
Spring
3000
3500
50
75
3100
.
.
R
3200
50
75
3100
3500
01N41E27BAAA01
Spring
3200
3200
3100
3300
3500
3200
3100
3400
3200
50
74
3200
3200
3200
50
74
3100
3500
3200
Emile
3100
Coulee
3200
3100
3100
3100
3200
3400
3200
3300
3200
3500
50
73
3200
3200
3100
3400
3500
50
73
3300
.
3100
Hay
3500
3400
Coulee
3400
3500
3400
3200
3500
¬«
39
3300
47' 30"
47' 30"
3200
3100
50
72
3500
3500
3200
3200
3400
MT-39
e
3400
e
Miller Coulee
3100
.
.
3000
50
71
3100
50
71
3300
3200
3100
Lee Cem
#
" !
570 000
3500
MT-39
r
3100
FEET
C
3300
3100
Dobbs Coulee
d
3000
50
70
u
50
70
b
3400
3200
e
3100
s
3200
3300
3300
Lee
o
3100
.
.
Coulee
3100
3200
R
3100
¬«
39
3300
.
50
69
3200
3000
50
69
3100
3100
Downey
Coulee
3200
3200
3200
.
3200
.
.
West Fork
50
68
000m
N
Downey Coulee
50
68
ROS E BUD CREE K
MN
RD
3200
ROSE BUD CRE EK
Ù
R
¬«
39
3200
3100
45° 45'
45° 45'
3
74
3
75
2
710 000 FEET
3
77
3
78
3
79
3
81
3
82
3
83
000m
E
3000
106° 37' 30"
35'
32' 30"
106° 30'
^
Produced by the United States Geological Survey
SCALE 1:24 000
ROAD CLASSIFICATION
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
Expressway
Local Connector
1
0.5
0
KILOMETERS
1
2
MONTANA
Secondary Hwy
Local Road
10° 1´
1000
500
0
METERS
1000
2000
D
178 MILS
Ramp
4WD
1
0.5
0
1
1° 7´
GN
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.
20 MILS
X
MILES
W
Interstate Route
/
.
US Route
H
State Route
1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
QUADRANGLE LOCATION
FEET
UTM GRID AND 2014 MAGNETIC NORTH
DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET
1
Colstrip West
Imagery
NAIP,
July
2011
U.S. National Grid
CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET
NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
r
123
2
Colstrip East
Roads
.......................................................
HERE, ©2013
100,000-m Square ID
3
Hammond Draw NW
Names
GNIS,
2013
3200
MT-39
4
Colstrip SW
Hydrography
National
Hydrography
Dataset,
2011
4
5
CL
This map was produced to conform with the
5
Hammond Draw SW
Contours
National
Elevation
Dataset,
2009
6
Jimtown
Boundaries
Multiple
sources; see metadata file 1972 - 2013
National Geospatial Program US Topo Product Standard, 2011.
A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.6.16
COLSTRIP SE, MT
System
BLM,
2011
678
7
Badger Peak
Grid Zone Designation
8
Garfield Peak
13T
2014
ADJOINING QUADRANGLES
3200
C
9
R
o
d
3000
s
e
b
u
d
3200
C
r
u
b
3400
3100
R o s e b u d C r
3100
3600
e
3200
3200
s
3200
o
3100
3200
R
3300
3100
3100
3400
r
.
C
.
.
3100
.
3400
3200
3100
r
.
3200
e
.
l
l
i
M
*7643016376140*
NSN. 7643016376140
NGA REF NO. USGSX2 4 K9 6 6 0
3400 3500 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR COLSTRIP SW QUADRANGLE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MONTANA-ROSEBUD CO. 3500
3400
3500
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
COLSTRIP SW QUADRANGLE
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
MONTANA-ROSEBUD CO.
3500
7.5-MINUTE SERIES
106° 45'
45° 52' 30"
42' 30"
40'
106° 37' 30"
3
73
3
65
000m
E
66
67
3
68
3
69
3
3
70
3
71
3
72
3
2 700 000 FEET
45° 52' 30"
.
.
3500
C
01N40E02BABD01
3500
Spring
..
¬«
39
01N40E02BBDD01
ROCK
RD
50
81
Spring
01N40E02BDAB01
50
81
000m
N
Spring
3500
3500
3500
A STL E
3400
3300
3600
3600
50
80
50
80
3400
3400
3400
3400
600
000
3500
RD
.
3400
FEET
E
3400
F
o
K
r
3600
k
3500
A
r
m
50
79
3400
e
.
.
l
Colstrip Airport
l
50
79
s
3600
CASTL E ROC
C
r
3500
r
C
s
l
3500
3500
l
3500
e
3600
3500
m
AIR PORT
50
78
r
E
3500
3600
3400
3500
A
50
78
3500
k
3600
3500
r
E