Attach. 26, 2012-01-24 Brooks to Smith email

From: Brooks, David M Jr <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 3:32 PM
To: Smith, Al <[e-mail]>, Botkins, Henry A Jr
<[e-mail]>; File, Brent P <Brent.File@duke-
energy.com>
Subject: FW: Buck CTCC - Ash Dike
Here is the latest on the Buck Ash dike breach. I have been tasked to work on the investigation. I talked to
Bobby Pratt about it today and the notification and contact with NCDENR is being handled by Tim Russell.
From: Brooks, David M Jr
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:43 AM
To: Herrick, Dayna J
Cc: Shuping, Todd; Zalme, Nob J
Subject: RE: Buck CTCC - Ash Dike
Dayna:
Tim Russell's note sums things up very well, but I contacted Bobby Pratt to answer your questions:
1. There was civil engineering performed on this job by Shaw, Bobby Pratt and others on the project but
they didn't know a NCDENR permit was required and that Tim or Alex had to review. When SM&E was
brought in again to do a slope stability analysis specific to the gate access they told Bobby that a
NCDENR permit was probably going to be required and that's when he brought in Tim Russell.
2. There was a stability analysis performed early in the project for some other site excavations near the
toe of the dam (prior to the TVA incident and the new rules for dams). No permits were required for
those excavations. They called SM&E back in to perform the slope stability and drainage analysis for the
gate access under the same assumptions.
Bobby Pratt, Shaw and SM&E are getting all of their documentation together at this time for Tim Russell or Alex
Papp to take to NCDENR to discuss this issue and get the dam permit. If you have any questions or need more
info, I recommend you talk to Bobby Pratt directly. I don't see me adding much value as a go between here. I
will make the appropriate entries to document the incident in eTrac as you directed.
Thanks,
DB
.............. ............._............ ..... ......... _................... ........ _ ..................
From: Herrick, Dayna J
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:57 AM
To: Brooks, David M Jr
Cc: Shuping, Todd
Subject: FW: Buck CTCC - Ash Dike
Tim's note below provides some insights into how we got to this place. Make sure you talk with Bobby Pratt
directly.
Duke -SEA -heck -00376160

Dayna
............................................................................................. ...............................................................................................................................................
From: Russell, Tim
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:24 AM
To: Herrick, Dayna J
Subject: Re: Buck CTCC - Ash Dike
I think I've only scratched the surface as to why this issue did not go thru Program Engineering. First, when this
project began, NCUC was still the regulatory entity, and permits by DENR were not required. I gather Shaw was
still working under that presumption and engaged S&ME to evaluate their planned excavation into the dam to
facilitate the installation of the security gate.
During my discussion with Dave Waugh yesterday, Bobby Pratt (civil in Program Engineering, but not part of dam
safety) indicated that he and other project team members approved the gate location due to site limitations and
turn radius needed for trucks. Admittedly, Bobby said the excavation shown on Shaw's plans didn't seem to be
as steep as what is there now. In hindsight, he agrees he probably should have involved Alex and me given the
proposed excavation, but he didn't realize a permit was required and thought Shaw was operating in a manner
consistent with what had been done for previous project design phases (during NCUC tenure).
Hope this addresses your questions.
Tim Russell, PE
Senior Engineer
Program Engineering
Duke Energy
526 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
[phone]
[phone]
............................................................................................. ...............................................................................................................................................
From: Herrick, Dayna J
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 07:31 AM
To: Brooks, David M Jr
Cc: Russell, Tim; Shuping, Todd; Zalme, Nob J; Waugh, Dave
Subject: FW: Buck CTCC - Ash Dike
David,
Since the project team requested that you be their primary contact, please work with them to answer the
following questions:
1. Why was this work done without Program Engineering review and permit prior to the work?
2. Why was a stability analysis performed by a vendor without appropriate engagement by the Program
Engineering folks?
Make sure that this and whatever other information you can find goes into the database as "Other regulatory
non-compliance". Tim Russell or Alex Papp will be notifying DENR of the unpermitted activity and can be a
Duke -SEA -heck -00376161

resource for your investigation. Give Nob a call and he can bring you up to speed on what he knows.
Day=
From: Zalme, Nob J
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 4:04 PM
To: Herrick, Dayna J
Subject: FW: Buck CTCC - Ash Dike
fyi
,T'o6 Zahne
EJfS Coordinator
Duke Energy-BuckSteam Station
Office: [phone]
Ce!C (336462-0221
From: Russell, Tim
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 9:17 AM
To: Zalme, Nob J
Subject: FW: Buck CTCC - Ash Dike
Tim Russell, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Program Engineering
Generation Engineering
Duke Energy
526 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
[phone] - Office
[phone] - Mobile
From: Russell, Tim
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 9:16 AM
To: Pratt, Bobby
Cc: Papp, Alex S
Subject: RE: Buck CTCC - Ash Dike
Bobby,
I presume the pipe and drainage issue is being addressed by Sells, so I'll address the issues involving dam safety.
In general, any ground disturbing work within the limits of the dam or alteration of associated appurtenances or
conduits (e.g. modification to the existing slope drain) require a permit from NCDENR Dam Safety. This also
includes any ground disturbing work beyond the toe of the dam that could affect drainage or stability
characteristics of the dam. Given the down -stream design grade of 2.5(H):1(V), it would appear that the
excavation completed for the gate could potentially affect the stability. I've attached the original design drawing
for this dam for reference. I understand Shaw had S&ME check the stability of this excavation, but this stability
calculation has not been provide to us for review. It should be noted that a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 is
the regulatory requirement for steady-state conditions. However, if the factor of safety after excavation is less
than the factor of safety prior to excavation, then Dam Safety would consider this excavation affects the stability
even if the resulting factor of safety met the minimum factor of safety requirement. Regardless, alteration of
Duke -SEA -heck -00376162

the slope drain will require Dam Safety approval.
I've attached the procedure to repair/alter a dam per North Carolina 1967 Dam Safety Law. The permitting
process can take up to 60 days. The permit request application must include a construction schedule, design
drawings, material/product specifications, design data, and calculations prepared by a NC registered engineer
per section .0201 of NC GS 15A, Subchapter 2K. The design drawings need to include all_ modifications to the
dam, either temporary or permanent, and they typically include the following:
• Existing site plan to document current grades and site features;
• Proposed site plan to illustrate final planned grades and site features including any alterations to the
dam;
• Erosion and sediment control plan (this may not be needed as it could be considered part of the CTCC
construction); and
• Cross-sections and details.
I presume Shaw will prepare the application package. Dam Safety requires two copies of the application
package be submitted. We will review the package and submit it to Dam Safety under cover letter that
addresses other aspects of the submittal (i.e. emergency action plan, O&M manual, H & H analysis, etc.). This is
necessary so that we maintain the point of contact for Dam Safety.
Once the permit request submittal is approved by Dam Safety, they will issue a Certificate of Approval, at which
point, the work can proceed. Upon completion of the work, the registered engineer that prepared the submittal
package must review and approve the work and submit a certification letter along with two copies of as -built
drawings to Dam Safety. Dam Safety will then perform an inspection of the final conditions for approval.
I hope this summary helps.
Tim Russell, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Program Engineering
Generation Engineering
Duke Energy
526 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
[phone] - Office
[phone] - Mobile
From: Pratt, Bobby
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 3:18 PM
To: Russell, Tim
Subject: Buck CTCC - Ash Dike
Tim:
Attached are some pictures from the Buck CTCC project where the south gate is being installed. These pictures
are taken at the ditch between the entrance road and the extreme toe of the dike. To make room for the gate,
Shaw has cut into the slope and left a fairly steep cut face. They also installed the pad for the gate controls
across the ditch.
There are two main issues: the stability of the slopes and the proper function of the ditch.
Shaw has had surveys taken of the slopes and S&ME has performed stability analysis and all factors of safety are
Duke -SEA -heck -00376163

above 1.5. However, the slopes will need to be laid back and properly protected.
For the ditch, Shaw installed a 12" pipe through the pad but it will not be sufficient for the anticipated flow.
Shaw is in the process of having Sells look at the drainage and determine the proper size pipe to handle the
flow. The new pipe will likely need to be routed around the concrete pad.
I'd like to discuss this with you Monday morning and get your thoughts.
Thanks,
Bobby
Duke -SEA -heck -00376164