Safety Factor Assessment Plant McDonough-Atkinson Ash Pond 3 (AP-3) and Ash Pond 4 (AP-4)

Similar documents
DRAFT ONONDAGA LAKE CAPPING AND DREDGE AREA AND DEPTH INITIAL DESIGN SUBMITTAL H.3 STATIC SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES

FINAL COVER VENEER STABILITY ANALYSES FOR SCA DESIGN

DIAC Engineering Practice References Index (March 2017 v1.1)

Fine Coal Refuse 25 Years of Field and Laboratory Testing Data and Correlations

An Experimental Study on Variation of Shear Strength for Layered Soils

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING

Soil Strength and Slope Stability

A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF SLOPE STABILITY USING FINITE ELEMENT METHOD (FEM)

THREE DIMENSIONAL SLOPE STABILITY

Stability analysis of slopes with surcharge by LEM and FEM

[Gupta* et al., 5(7): July, 2016] ISSN: IC Value: 3.00 Impact Factor: 4.116

Rapid Drawdown with Multi-Stage

Spatial variation of soil properties

EAT 212 SOIL MECHANICS

CLOSURE PLAN. CFR (b) Fly Ash Reservoir II. Cardinal Plant Brilliant, Ohio. August, 2016

CHAPTER 8 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS

Strength of Materials for Embankment Dams

2016 Annual Inspection Report

Chesapeake Energy Center. Submitted To: Chesapeake Energy Center 2701 Vepco Street Chesapeake, VA 23323

Numerical Analysis of the Bearing Capacity of Strip Footing Adjacent to Slope

Slope Stability of Soft Clay Embankment for Flood Protection

NOTICE OF INTENT. Submitted To: Bremo Power Station 1038 Bremo Bluff Road Bremo Bluff, VA 23022

Analysis of Embankments with Different Fill Materials using Plaxis-2D

Slope stability assessment

Slope Stability Analysis

Bearing Capacity Theory. Bearing Capacity

Centrifuge modelling and dynamic testing of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) landfills

COMPARISON OF SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS OF BLACK COTTON SOIL WITH EFFECT OF RELATIVE COMPACTION

Draft Rhode Island Stormwater Design and Installation Standards Manual

Slope Stability in Harris County

Subject Name: RESERVOIR AND FARM POND DESIGN (2+1) CONTENTS

Embankment Slope Stability Analysis of Dwight Mission Mine Site Reclamation Project

Emergency Action Plan (EAP) for Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) Units

Problems with Testing Peat for Stability Analysis

Overall Stability Moving from Service to Strength Limit State: Why? Nick Harman, MS, PE Ani Carignan, PE, LEED AP STGEC Conference October, 2018

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

This document downloaded from vulcanhammer.net vulcanhammer.info Chet Aero Marine

Full Scale Model Test of Soil Reinforcement on Soft Soil Deposition with Inclined Timber Pile

Department of Civil Engineering, Vel Tech High Tech Dr.Rangarajan Dr.Sakunthala Engineering College, Avadi, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.

PULLOUT CAPACITY OF HORIZONTAL AND INCLINED PLATE ANCHORS IN CLAYEY SOILS

Analysis of Pullout Resistance of Soil-Nailing in Lateritic Soil

Finite Element Methods against Limit Equilibrium Approaches for Slope Stability Analysis

CLOSURE PLAN. CCR (b) GERS Little Broad Run Landfill. Mountaineer Plant New Haven, West Virginia. October, 2016

Shear Strength of Soils

Soil Stabilization by Using Fly Ash

GUIDE FOR SELECTING AN APPROPRIATE METHOD TO ANALYZE THE STABILITY OF SLOPES ON RECLAIMED SURFACE MINES 1

Dam Construction by Stages

Effect of Slope Stability on Stabilized Soil due to Earthquake Loads using GeoStudio

EFFECT OF COMPACTION ON THE UNSATURATED SHEAR STRENGTH OF A COMPACTED TILL

Table of Contents. Attachments Attachment A Photos Attachment B Site Map. Pages 3 of 9

2018 Annual Landfill Inspection Report

APPENDIX A SIMPLIFIED APPROACH TO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FOR SMALL PROJECTS. In West Sadsbury Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania

Effect of characteristics of unsaturated soils on the stability of slopes subject to rainfall

Chapter 4 - Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans

CHECKLIST FOR PHASE II DRAINAGE REPORT

A comparison of numerical algorithms in the analysis of pile reinforced slopes

Alternative Cover Systems

HIGH PERFORMANCE COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUAL (CCR) SOLUTIONS

Piles subject to excavation-induced soil movement in clay

4. LANSLIDING AND SLOPE STAPILITY ANALYSIS

Selecting the Right Closure Cap Option for Your Surface Impoundment or CCR Landfill

Exposed geomembrane covers: Part 1 - geomembrane stresses

2018 Annual Landfill Inspection Report

GEOSYNTHETICS ENGINEERING: IN THEORY AND PRACTICE

NUMERICAL STUDY ON STABILITY OF PLATE ANCHOR IN SLOPING GROUND

Effect of Placement of Footing on Stability of Slope

Study on Effect of Water on Stability or Instability of the Earth Slopes

Laboratory Tests to Determine Shear Strength of Soils

Available online at ScienceDirect. Procedia Engineering 125 (2015 )

Advanced Foundation Engineering. Soil Exploration

EFFECT OF RELICT JOINTS IN RAIN INDUCED SLOPE FAILURES IN RESIDUAL SOIL

Exposed Geomembrane Cover Systems for Coal Ash Facilities

Reinforcement with Geosynthetics

WQ-23 MOUNTAINOUS AND STEEP SLOPE SITES

Assessment of Geotextile Reinforced Embankment on Soft Clay Soil

Consulting Engineers and Scientists. Closure Plan. Submitted by: GEI Consultants, Inc Voyager Drive Green Bay, Wisconsin

Performance of Geosynthetics in the Filtration of High Water Content Waste Material

GEOSYNTHETICS ENGINEERING: IN THEORY AND PRACTICE

Swelling Treatment By Using Sand for Tamia Swelling Soil

CLOSURE PLAN. CCR (b) GERS Landfill Area. Pirkey Power Plant Hallsville, Texas. October, 2016

1 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Lessons Learned From the Failure of a GCL/Geomembrane Barrier on a Side Slope Landfill Cover

Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page. Executive Summary

vulcanhammer.net Visit our companion site

SMALL PROJECTS SIMPLIFIED APPROACH

4 Slope Stabilization Using EPS Geofoam at Route 23A

Evaluation of Deep-Seated Slope Stability of Embankments over Deep Mixed Foundations

VIA Re: Liner Design Criteria for Existing CCR Surface Impoundments Interstate Power and Light Company (IPL) Prairie Creek Generating Station

LARGE-SCALE SHEAR TESTS ON INTERFACE SHEAR PERFORMANCE OF LANDFILL LINER SYSTEMS

Program ReSlope (3.0) : Supplemental Notes Dov Leshchinsky, PhD ADAMA Engineering, Inc. 33 The Horseshoe Newark, Delaware 19711, USA

Moisture Content Effect on Sliding Shear Test Parameters in Woven Geotextile Reinforced Pilani Soil

Global Journal of Engineering Science and Research Management

A Study on Suction-rainfall Response of a Cut Slope in Unsaturated Residual Soil Using a Field Rain Simulator

APPLICATIONS IN FILTRATION AND DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL

Evaluating Low Impact Development Practices for Stormwater Management on an Industrial Site in Mississippi

TRANSMISSIVITY BEHAVIOR OF SHREDDED SCRAP TIRE DRAINAGE LAYER IN LANDFILL COVER SYSTEM *

Figure 1 Cypress Street Study Area Location Map

Radon Measurement Survey Report. Rollins Elementary School 950 Kane Street Aurora, Illinois Prepared For:

Identifying Residual Soil Parameters for Numerical Analysis of Soil. Nailed Walls

Soil-Structure Interaction of a Piled Raft Foundation in Clay a 3D Numerical Study

Transcription:

Safety Factor Assessment Plant McDonough-Atkinson Ash Pond 3 (AP-3) and Ash Pond 4 (AP-4) Prepared for: Georgia Power Company Prepared by: Golder Associates Inc. 3730 Chamblee Tucker Road Atlanta, Georgia, USA 30341 +1 770 496-1893

Table of Contents 1.0 CERTIFICATION... 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION... 2 3.0 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY... 2 3.1 Maximum Pool Storage... 2 3.2 Maximum Pool Surcharge... 2 3.3 Seismic Loading Conditions... 2 3.4 Liquefaction Assessment... 3 4.0 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT RESULTS... 3 5.0 CONCLUSION... 3 6.0 REFERENCES... 3 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Stability Analysis Figures for AP-3 and AP-4 ii

1.0 CERTIFICATION This Safety Factor Assessment for Georgia Power Company (Georgia Power) s Ash Pond 3 (AP-3) and Ash Pond 4 (AP-4), located at Plant McDonough-Atkinson (Plant McDonough) in Cobb County, Georgia was prepared by Golder Associates Inc. (Golder). I certify that this Safety Factor Assessment for AP-3 and AP-4 was prepared in accordance with 257.73(e) of the United States Environmental Protection Agency s Standards for the Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals in Landfills and Surface Impoundments (40 CFR 257). Gregory L. Hebeler, PhD, P.E. Georgia Licensed Professional Engineer No. 034749 Golder Associates Inc. 1

2.0 INTRODUCTION The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) s Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities Final Rule (40 C.F.R. Part 257, the CCR Rule ) 257.73(e) requires the owner or operator of a CCR surface impoundment to conduct initial and periodic safety factor assessments. The owner or operator of the CCR unit must conduct an assessment and document whether the minimum safety factors outlined in 257.73(e)(1)(i) through (iv) for the critical cross section of the embankment are achieved. The interim (October 2017) construction condition of AP-3 and AP-4 was analyzed. In the interim condition, AP-3 and AP-4 are being consolidated and closed in-place as combined unit AP-3/4. According to section 257.73(e) of the rule, stability of earth structures must be assessed under four loading conditions: Maximum Pool Storage ( 257.73(e)(i)) Maximum Pool Surcharge ( 257.73(e)(ii)) Seismic Loading Conditions ( 257.73(e)(iii)) Post-Seismic Liquefaction Conditions (when liquefaction susceptible materials are present; 257.73(e)(iv)). 3.0 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY Embankment stability safety factors were evaluated for each of the loading scenarios using the computer program SLIDE 7.0 Version 7.031 (2018). As required by the CCR Rule, a general limit equilibrium (GLE) method (Morgenstern and Price) was used to calculate factors of safety, and the factor of safety is calculated by dividing the resisting forces by the driving forces along the calculated critical slip surface. Stability was evaluated along two cross-sections deemed the most critical for AP-3 and AP-4 as shown in Figure 1 of Appendix A. Subsurface stratigraphy at each cross-section was developed from data collected during subsurface explorations from October 2015 to January 2016. Similarly, material properties were developed for the dike, foundation, and impounded materials from this data. The conditions modeled in stability analyses are reflective of the (October 2017) interim conditions for AP-3 and AP-4. 3.1 Maximum Pool Storage The safety factor analyses represent the pool storage conditions for the interim condition (October 2017). At the time of this demonstration, some areas of AP-3 and AP-4 are covered with liner and others remain as open construction areas. The interim pool storage condition calculated in the Inflow Design Flood Control calculations was used for the maximum pool storage stability calculations. 3.2 Maximum Pool Surcharge The 100-year 24-hour rain event was used for the maximum pool surcharge scenario. For AP-3 and AP-4, the interim condition rain event will cause stormwater flow in a combination of lined channels and open working areas. Thus, the stability of AP-3 and AP-4 slopes were evaluated with applicable water levels to the calculated flow depths for the rain event. 3.3 Seismic Loading Conditions Factors of safety for stability under seismic loading conditions were calculated based on the earthquake hazard corresponding to a probability of exceedance of 2% in 50 years (2,475 year return period). The Bray and 2

Travasarou displacement-based seismic slope stability screening method was used to evaluate the seismic stability. For this method, a pseudo-static coefficient corresponding to an allowable displacement of six inches (15 cm) is applied as a horizontal force in the static stability model. The pseudo-static coefficient for the above stated criteria was calculated to be 0.029g (g = standard gravity). 3.4 Liquefaction Assessment The CCR Rule specifies a required factor of safety of 1.2 against liquefaction for pond impoundment structures in section 257.73(e)(iv). The dikes and foundation soils at the location of the AP-3 and AP-4 analysis sections were evaluated for liquefaction susceptibility and were found to have calculated factors of safety against liquefaction above 1.2. 4.0 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT RESULTS The table below presents the results of the slope stability analyses for the AP-3 and AP-4 dikes. For all cases analyzed, the calculated factors of safety are in excess of those required in Sections 257.73(e)(i) to (iii) of the CCR Rule. The detailed stability result figures are presented in Figures 2a-2c and 3a-3c of Appendix A. Interim Condition Stability Analysis Results Max. Max. Post Analysis Case Seismic Storage Pool Surcharge Pool Liquefaction Rule Section 257.73(e)(i) 257.73(e)(ii) 257.73(e)(iii) 257.73(e)(iv) Target Factor of Safety 1.5 1.4 1.0 1.2 Cross-Sections AP-4 North AP-4 East Factor of Safety 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 Not Applicable 5.0 CONCLUSION Golder evaluated the stability of the dikes surrounding AP-3 and AP-4 in the four loading conditions in accordance with section 257.73(e) of the CCR Rule: Maximum Pool Storage ( 257.73(e)(i)) Maximum Pool Surcharge ( 257.73(e)(ii)) Seismic Loading Conditions ( 257.73(e)(iii)) Post-Seismic Liquefaction Conditions (when liquefaction susceptible materials are present; 257.73(e)(iv)) For each loading case, the dikes were calculated to meet the target factor of safety presented in the CCR Rule. 6.0 REFERENCES Bray, J. D., and Travasarou, T. 2007. Simplified Procedure for Estimating Earthquake-Induced Deviatoric Slope Displacements. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 133, No. 4, pp. 381-392. 3

Bray, J.D., and Travasarou, T. 2009. Pseudostatic Coefficient for Use in Simplified Seismic Slope Stability Evaluation. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 9: pp. 1336-1340. Rocscience (2016), SLIDE Version 7.017. USEPA (2015), Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities, 40 CFR Parts 257 and 261. 4

APPENDIX A Stability Analysis Figures for AP-3 and AP-4

LEGEND 2 FOOT CONTOURS, OCTOBER 2017 CONDITIONS AP-4 " 300 100 0 300 Feet IF THIS MEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN, THE SHEET HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: ANSI B AP-4 CLIENT GEORGIA POWER COMPANY PROJECT PLANT MCDONOUGH AP-3 AND AP-4 STABILITY SECTION PLAN 10-2017 INTERIM CONDITIONS CONSULTANT PROJECT No. 1777449 YYYY-MM-DD 2018-03-23 PREPARED JDG DESIGN --- REVIEW LS APPROVED CONTROL GLH Rev. 0 1 in TITLE FIGURE 1 0 " Path: Q:\GIS\Southern Company\1777449_CCRpermitting\AP34 Stability Section Plan10-2017 Hydro.mxd 200

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/ft3) Strength Type (psf) Phi (deg) Type Water Surface Hu Type Hu Staked Ash Drained 110 Mohr Coulomb 0 30 Water Surface Custom 1 950 Sluiced Ash Drained 90 Mohr Coulomb 0 24 Water Surface Custom 1 Dike Fill Soil Drained 125 Mohr Coulomb 100 30 Water Surface Custom 1 Residuum Soil Drained 125 Mohr Coulomb 100 30 Water Surface Custom 1 PWR 140 Undrained 10000 Constant Water Surface Custom 0 900 Method Name Min FS GLE / Morgenstern Price 1.7 1.7 800 W 750 850 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 McDonough AP-3 and AP-4 SCALE AS SHOWN PROJECT DATE Apr 2018 TITLE MADE BY Section AP-4 (North) LJ Interim Condition (Drained), Normal Storage Pool CAD - FILE STABILITY CHECK JGM CLIENT FIGURE PROJECT No. REV. Georgia Power Company 1777449 0 REVIEW GLH 2(a)

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/ft3) Strength Type (psf) Phi (deg) Type Water Surface Hu Type Hu Staked Ash Drained 110 Mohr Coulomb 0 30 Water Surface Custom 1 950 Sluiced Ash Drained 90 Mohr Coulomb 0 24 Water Surface Custom 1 Dike Fill Soil Drained 125 Mohr Coulomb 100 30 Water Surface Custom 1 Residuum Soil Drained 125 Mohr Coulomb 100 30 Water Surface Custom 1 PWR 140 Undrained 10000 Constant Water Surface Custom 0 900 Method Name Min FS GLE / Morgenstern Price 1.7 1.7 800 W 750 850 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 McDonough AP-3 and AP-4 SCALE AS SHOWN PROJECT DATE Apr 2018 TITLE MADE BY Section AP-4 (North) LJ Maximum Surchage Pool CAD - FILE STABILITY CHECK JGM CLIENT FIGURE PROJECT No. REV. Georgia Power Company 1777449 0 REVIEW GLH 2(b)

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/ft3) Strength Type (psf) Type Shear Normal Function Water Surface Hu Type Hu 0.029 950 PWR 140 Undrained 10000 Constant Water Surface Custom 0 Staked Ash Undrained 110 Shear Normal function Compacted Ash Water Surface Custom 1 Sluiced Ash Undrained 90 Shear Normal function Sluiced Ash Water Surface Custom 1 Dike Fill Soil Undrained 125 Shear Normal function Fill Water Surface Custom 1 Residuum Soil Undrained 125 Shear Normal function Lower Residuum Water Surface Custom 1 900 Method Name Min FS GLE / Morgenstern Price 1.6 1.6 800 W 750 850 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 McDonough AP-3 and AP-4 SCALE AS SHOWN PROJECT DATE Apr 2018 TITLE MADE BY Section AP-4 (North) LJ Seismic Screening CAD - FILE STABILITY CHECK JGM CLIENT FIGURE PROJECT No. REV. Georgia Power Company 1777449 0 REVIEW GLH 2(c)

950 Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/ft3) Strength Type (psf) Phi (deg) Type Water Surface Hu Type Hu Sluiced Ash Drained 90 Mohr Coulomb 0 24 Water Surface Custom 1 Dike Fill Soil Drained 125 Mohr Coulomb 100 30 Water Surface Custom 1 Residuum Soil Drained 125 Mohr Coulomb 100 30 Water Surface Custom 1 PWR 140 Undrained 10000 Constant Water Surface Custom 0 1.6 Method Name Min FS GLE / Morgenstern Price 1.6 W 700 750 800 850 900 1325 1350 1375 1400 1425 1450 1475 1500 1525 1550 1575 1600 1625 1650 1675 1700 1725 1750 1775 McDonough AP-3 and AP-4 SCALE AS SHOWN PROJECT DATE Apr 2018 TITLE MADE BY Section AP-4 (South) LJ Interim Condition (Drained), Normal Storage Pool CAD - FILE STABILITY CHECK JGM CLIENT FIGURE PROJECT No. REV. Georgia Power Company 1777449 0 REVIEW GLH 3(a)

950 Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/ft3) Strength Type (psf) Phi (deg) Type Water Surface Hu Type Hu Sluiced Ash Drained 90 Mohr Coulomb 0 24 Water Surface Custom 1 Dike Fill Soil Drained 125 Mohr Coulomb 100 30 Water Surface Custom 1 Residuum Soil Drained 125 Mohr Coulomb 100 30 Water Surface Custom 1 PWR 140 Undrained 10000 Constant Water Surface Custom 0 1.6 Method Name Min FS GLE / Morgenstern Price 1.6 W 700 750 800 850 900 1325 1350 1375 1400 1425 1450 1475 1500 1525 1550 1575 1600 1625 1650 1675 1700 1725 1750 1775 McDonough AP-3 and AP-4 SCALE AS SHOWN PROJECT DATE Apr 2018 TITLE MADE BY Section AP-4 (South) LJ Maximum Surchage Pool CAD - FILE STABILITY CHECK JGM CLIENT FIGURE PROJECT No. REV. Georgia Power Company 1777449 0 REVIEW GLH 3(b)

950 Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/ft3) Strength Type (psf) Type Shear Normal Function Water Surface Hu Type Hu 0.029 PWR 140 Undrained 10000 Constant Water Surface Custom 0 Sluiced Ash Undrained 90 Shear Normal function Sluiced Ash Water Surface Custom 1 Dike Fill Soil Undrained 125 Shear Normal function Fill Water Surface Custom 1 1.5 Residuum Soil Undrained 125 Shear Normal function Lower Residuum Water Surface Custom 1 Method Name Min FS GLE / Morgenstern Price 1.5 W 700 750 800 850 900 1350 1375 1400 1425 1450 1475 1500 1525 1550 1575 1600 1625 1650 1675 1700 1725 1750 1775 McDonough AP-3 and AP-4 SCALE AS SHOWN PROJECT DATE Apr 2018 TITLE MADE BY Section AP-4 (South) LJ Seismic Screening CAD - FILE STABILITY CHECK JGM CLIENT FIGURE PROJECT No. REV. Georgia Power Company 1777449 0 REVIEW GLH 3(c)