Posted on 02/12/2017 4:26:47 PM PST by janetjanet998
Edited on 02/12/2017 9:33:58 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
The Oroville Dam is the highest in the nation.
I understand the grout gallery doesn't go past the 750' elevation level on either abutment. Does that sound right? The California State Water Project Bulletin 200 (Nov. '74) pg. 134, under the Grout Curtain section, describes it built to that level with the remaining curtain drilled from the rock surface. I'm presuming they mean from the impervious layer trench above that point before they filled it.
If there is some issue with the grout curtain / fractured rock at that transition point, would they be able to drill from the dam crest now to do further grouting? That's assuming the grouting gallery doesn't extend further up the abutment face giving them access that way.
The grouting gallery is still an open tunnel today, right? I'm trying to reconcile that with the location of the inspection tunnel portal at (I believe about) 680' elev. on the left abutment. Would that intersect with the grouting gallery above the base of the dam somewhere, or do they have to go down to the core block first to get inside the grouting gallery? This isn't well-marked on the blueprints (in .pdf's) I've seen, and I can't even find the specific one that has that detail anymore.
I'm not making any assumption that the DWR would bother. Their 'inspection well' they drilled a few years back must tell them the approx. elevation of the phreatic line at any given point, but it sounds like they are not the least concerned about seepage based on that, e.g., 'natural spring' comment.
If there were to be a "piping" leak in the grout curtain above 750ft to 922ft level, there should be leakage sign in the zone 3 fill along the seam of the hillside. There are ways to check for this using thin probe sensors. It would be easiest to do this with a test well in the rock & not in the zone fill dam materials.
Yes, the Grout Gallery Tunnels are fully functional for inspections all of the way into the tunnel systems within the Concrete Core Block. It is quite an intricate system. In fact, fans deliver fresh air into the tunnels from the upper Gallery entrances.
To extract these details requires cross referencing many documents, better imaged blueprints, reconstructing fragmented writing, comparing information & photos from inspection reports, etc. It takes a bit of effort.
Grout Gallery Tunnels in Oroville Dam & Concrete Core Block Gallery tunnels.
Well that didn't take long.... new article this afternoon.
http://www.catholic.org/news/green/story.php?id=74779
Article excerpt: = =
LOS ANGELES, CA (California Network) - Oroville Dam may be facing a breach danger from a serious and a dangerous form of a slow motion failure mode of the left abutment of the dam [3]. Recently, authorities to the dam have responded to the public stating "its a natural spring", or "the green spot is from rain". Yet, outside of a public forum, DWR asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to move a test drill well near the leakage to try to get answers in 2016. If it's known to be a harmless "natural spring" or from "rain" why drill? Why hasn't DWR publicly announced that they have a "test well" near the leakage area, which they noted to FERC, quote "data collected may be beneficial in understanding seepage"?[1] However, DWR's recent town hall meeting's answers, by DWR engineers and representatives, do not stand up to honest engineering scrutiny. The public deserves an honest technical risk assessment of this known dam failure mode threat [9].
Analysis of DWR's town hall answers reveals conflicts in engineering fluid flow hydraulics. The OrovilleMR News [2] reported "'The green spot is from rain, said Christy Jones, deputy director of statewide emergency preparedness and security for DWR.' - 'When the rain falls, the grass grows. There is no leak in the dam,' she said."
If the cause was from "rain", then downhill erosion channels should be uniform above, below, and along the face of the dam. Yet it is not. The notable downhill erosion channels originate exclusively at the Green Wet Area (See Fig 2). This answer implies that rainfall somehow concentrates at the Green Wet Area. DWR's answer, inferring that the wispy greening of the rest of the dam means that the intense and much larger growth of the vegetation in the Green Wet Area is from the same "rain fall" - is not supportable. Only a concentration of an internal source of a particular volume of water leakage at the Green Wet Area would support the visible downhill erosion channels.
Another DWR public town hall statement, from a DWR engineer, was "it's a natural spring" - i.e. causing the Green Wet Area. Yet, precise elevation markings of the near perfect horizontal progression of the Green Wet Area, away from the dam hillside abutment, defies this explanation. In fact, the horizontal elevation of the greening increases in elevation further away from the abutment (See Fig 2). Water does not flow uphill. If there were to be a natural spring, emitting water from within the left abutment hillside, there would be a downward curvature to any greening that would follow the hillside topography. It does not.
So why are reputable DWR engineers and representatives giving answers that are easily refuted? Worse, these answers infer a demonstration of a lack of engineering competency. Yet, these provably "flawed" engineering answers are the basis of reassuring the public that "There is no leak in the dam". With such a magnitude of risk from a known & dangerous dam failure mechanism, how can representatives state to concerned public citizens, of a certainty of "there is no leak in the dam" when they give flawed answers?
= = end excerpt
Word must be spreading. People are getting their own evidence in close up pictures of the leaking Green Wet Area (from behind the bushes). The erosion channels stand out well in this photo. It would be interesting to get a real good close up of the reported clear water flow spurting in this area, besides a close up of how tall the plants are. btw- I wasn't able to make out a rain cloud hovering over this green spot in the photo…. :-)
Once your credibility is lost, it is nearly impossible to ever recover it.
In addition to all of their other ‘dam’ problems,
DWR now has a huge public relations problem on its hands.
It’s almost as if someone installed a sprinkler system on that area.
That the seepage is occurring right were the differential settlement would manifest - and just beneath a seam - is alarming.
Lake is at ~840’. They need to drop that level below the layer 2-3 boundary.
I still don’t have a good suggestion for the little gully below the Emergency Spillway area formed during it’s cover failure.
However, this green area with its rivulets from seepage is now forever (after yesterday’s news conference) the Christy Jones Memorial Lawn and Undermined Area.
The Christy Jones Memorial Lawn - I like it!
That’s genius!
I was confusing the 'Left Gallery Access' entrance at 820' (normally not shown in photographs) with the entrance much lower and towards the center at 700' or so, which I thought was labeled something like 'inspection tunnel' or 'access tunnel'. I know the Palermo Outlet Works is/was also around that elevation as well, but (if I understand correctly) has since been closed off aside from a drain to Tunnel #2.
I'm reading through this fascinating thread an have only just reached the 2000's messages, so sorry for missing your post at 3450 - I'm getting there.
When leftists insult people with valid concerns, smugness and belittlement as their tools, then they deserve special remembrance. She CAN’T deal with the concern, so she used those tools like all lousy politicians, academics and bureaucrats do to make it harder for general citizens to raise such issues.
Heaven help her if the Christy Jones Memorial Lawn and Undermined Area is the location that kills ten of thousands because, even if I am alone, I will be posting that name on the internet and telling people how Ms Jones’ skill set was so limited that thousands had to die.
I agree.
Here's another big PR problem. CA needs Fed $'s. Thus all of america could sour on DWR & the Gov's office from what's unfolding.
The world is watching this crisis. FERC normally has 5 board members, where 3 are needed for a quorum. FERC had only 3 members when Trump replaced the acting chair member with a more energy friendly pick (Cheryl LaFleur) as the new head of the agency. Immediately, the prior Chair person Norman Bay tendered his resignation. Today, only 2 FERC members remain. Because of this, DWR can't get their coveted "relicensing approval" from FERC that is due for Oroville Dam.
If DWR burns bridges with the local's public trust, with State Legislators, with US Congress reps, and then with america's public trust, then how is the Trump admin going to respond to CA for their Fed $'s needs? in addition to their FERC relicensing need?
Internally, DWR must be in the most intense crisis of "trying to look good" that anything, even the smallest thing, that is negative, is in the temptation zone of being "less than forthcoming" about. The more DWR tries to "bottle-it-up", the more things are found out by a large army of those investigating evidence independently. It's a self reinforcing downward PR spiral mode.
I suspect this is why DWR is pulling out all of the stops in these town hall meetings in trying to recover credibility. They start the meetings with "sincere apologies" (good). Yet give squirrelly answers as "rain falls..grass grows" (bad).
Did you know department... Just before the town hall meeting commences, citizens fill out cards with questions they want to ask, then these people are called upon in the Q&A session. One unconfirmed report - a determined citizen arrived early & had their card filled out & it was done as one of the first three. Yet this person was never called upon.... Is DWR "sorting" through questions?.
Just coming off an intense national Presidential election, where these sort of shenanigan's went on (town hall pre-assigned questions, debate pre-known questions slipped to candidate, etc.), the american public would cringe at more of the same... if it were discovered (or true).
It seems as if DWR has shoved all of their chips as "all-in" in a high stakes poker game. But, the "chips" in this case are the lives of the citizens at stake below the dam and for the rest of the central valley.
I thought the dam had numerous huge failure modes...looks like it will follow with a bigger failure mode... that of Public Relations.
The tunnel that was closed off was a connecting tunnel between the Concrete Core Block Gallery tunnels to the Hyatt Power plant. The reason for sealing this off was wise. In case either the Hyatt plant flooded or the Concrete Core block tunnels flooded, the seal provided an isolation to prevent the flooding of both.
There still is a "back door" flood risk of "both" IF a one-way valve hasn't been installed. That is a 12 inch drain pipe that connects from the Concrete Core Block seepage removal sump pumps to the crest of the top of Diversion Tunnel 2. I don't know the exact elevation of this pipe. But I'm curious about what risk this pipe posed when the Hyatt power plant was fighting to control flooding from the spillway "blowout failure" damming up the feather river. Pictures inside of the Hyatt power plant showed sandbags, pipes, pumps, and puddled water at the floor level of the generators. The turbines and outlets into the diversion tunnels are below this "sandbagging" level.
What may have been a serious risk or an actual "event" crisis was a potential flooding of the Concrete core block gallery tunnels via this back flow into the sump pump 12 inch connecting pipe. I don't believe DWR would be volunteering any such information.
If DWR did plug the 12 inch connecting pipe to prevent the gallery tunnel flooding, then the sump pumps had to be augmented with temporary pumps to deliver the large seepage water somewhere else. The only option would have been to route large hoses up the Grout Gallery tunnel and out one of the entrances.
Such intrigue....
SacBee news with interesting info. They can't get the formulations of crushed rock from the reclaimed stockpile to work (RCC intended use). This could be a significant disaster in that IF they were planning on using this material for the voluminous RCC construction repairs & building to quality standards of ES & MS new spillways. They would need a plan "B" to get known quality rock & materials to meet schedules. But this would be equivalent to trucking in nearly the same volume of the stockpile with "known good" RCC base rock & material.
Other news in this article are that new plans are afoot inferring that only "minor work" will be done in the Upper Main Spillway in 2017, leaving the upper spillway "mostly untouched".
Article excerpts: === (emphasis mine)
"In a 16-page report made public late Wednesday, the engineering consultants concur with DWR’s plan to leave the dam’s upper spillway mostly untouched this summer while focusing efforts on the heavily damaged lower spillway."….."However, DWR redacted five paragraphs that spell out the consultants’ recommendations for making the plan work."…..
"The consultants’ report, their fourth, was more heavily redacted than the previous memos released by DWR. Erin Mellon, a spokeswoman for the Natural Resources Agency, which oversees DWR, said the latest report contains more information that was considered “critical energy infrastructure information,” or CEII. That rule, intended to prevent terrorist attacks, allows DWR to seal sensitive information."…..
“There was more CEII in the fourth consultants’ memo,” Mellon said Thursday."…."In their memo, the consultants also sign off on DWR’s plan to fill in the gaping chasms in the spillway with fast-drying concrete made from recycled rock that’s been recovered from the Feather River channel below the dam. However, they add that so far the methods used for crushing the rocks don’t produce “suitable material” and need to be refined.….
== end excerpts.
Oroville Dam: The latest on spillway repairs – and what state won’t tell us
Concrete mix quality discussion: stockpile rock vs "known quality" aggregate
Asbestos found in stockpile rock - DWR treating site as "contaminated".
The clearance to the Rail Bridge doesn't look like much. I wonder if someone is going to clean up the offensive graffiti on the Railroad bridge?
DWR should consider safety plans for brush fires along this route in the hot summer days.
http://www.water.ca.gov/news/newsreleases/2017/050417news.pdf
Questions about “green spots” on Oroville Dam
·
The green stripes, or vegetation, pose no threat to dam safety. Oroville Dam is sound and safe.
·
DWR has determined that these green stripes are caused by rainwater falling on the face of the dam and seeping into soil layers, causing grasses and weeds to grow in rainy spring seasons.
·
This has been the conclusion of numerous independent cons
ulting boards convened at five-year intervals over several decades. This vegetation was first noticed on the dam prior to the reservoir being filled in the mid-1960s.
Hi abb, DWR is continuing to spin. Metadata from DWR's PDF file reveals they created their finished Press Release document 23 minutes AFTER the critical Catholic Online article went public on the internet. Well, isn't that a coincidence. Just before a town hall meeting in the evening where the Green Spot has been a hot topic.
DWR's new "meme" for the Green Wet Area is (1) from rainfall (2) vegetation was observed on the dam in the mid-1960's before it was filled (3) numerous consulting boards have been convened at five-year intervals over several decades.
DWR continues to conflict themselves in their statements: now from this new press release
Why did an official DWR engineer state at the April 27, 2017 town hall that the Wet Area & greening was "it's a natural spring"? Did these numerous consulting boards reveal their findings to this engineer? Will DWR now "retract" an "errant" statement of "it's a natural spring" by this official DWR engineer?
DWR's press release states "DWR has determined that these green stripes are caused by rainwater falling on the face of the dam..". How does DWR explain the factual conflict in that an "evenly distributed rainfall" on a dam hasn't caused stark erosion channels everywhere except only as seen coming from the Green Wet area at the left abutment?
How does DWR explain the concentration of rainfall just at that intense greening section? How does DWR explain how rainfall concentrates just at an area of where there is a steep slope abutment transition that is a widely known "differential settlement" longitudinal crack seam inducing failure mode to leakage internal to the dam?
Where is the extensive DWR survey monument data from the 100 available monuments on the dam showing that there is no unusual "settlement" at the left abutment with respect to the rest of the dam? Why has DWR asked FERC to relocate a test drill well where DWR admits they are trying to understand the origin of the water source?
Since DWR has admitted in their filings with FERC in seeking to understand the origin of the water source at the Greening Wet area, by drilling a test well, then their new Press Release has stated that it is from rainfall, and this has been the conclusion of decades of independent consulting board reviews, then why do the test well?
DWR has yet to respond to FERC on DWR's Board wanting engineers to explain the 2x differential settlement found & noted in the last DSSMR's report. This establishes that the dam does settle at rates that should be of note. If they found one area at 2x the settlement rate (crest), then where's the data for the left abutment?
There are many engineering conflicts to what DWR is messaging. Besides the fact that the message is changing in answers between town hall meetings and now this fresh Press Release 23 minutes after a critical & technically accurate article was published.
Does this demonstrate that DWR is more concerned with PR than with providing technically correct answers? answers that are not changing and but are modified to exclude such significant statements by a DWR engineer of a "natural spring" invading the Shell Zone 3 layer (even if the waterflow would have to be an uphill flow)?
DWR is setting themselves up for an outside independent engineering assessment on their statements and the evidence on the dam. It's only been when an official report comes out from outside engineers or groups is when DWR's explanations become problematic. (A perfect example is UC Berkeley's Prof Robert Bea's report CCRM).
= = = Metadata imbedded in DWR's PDF May 4, 2017 Press Release reveals it was created/modified 23 minutes AFTER the critical Catholic Online article went public on the internet. File Name: 050417news
Document type: Portable Document Format (PDF)
File size: 126 KB (126,491 bytes)
- - - - -
PDF Version: 1.3
Page Count: 2
Page Size: 8.5 x 11 inches
- - - - -
Title: Microsoft Word - Document1
Author: -
Subject: -
PDF Producer: Acrobat PDFMaker 15 for Word
Content Creator: Word
Creation Date: May 4, 2017 2:27 PM
Modification Date: May 4, 2017 2:27 PM
= = = =
DWR is spinning the new message: Now its only simple rain. No comment on the erosion channels, No retraction from DWR engineer's town hall declaration "it's a natural spring", no explanation for concentrated rain in one area…
DWR is decimated in the Catholic Online article. Reveals the engineering lack of competency in DWR's town hall meeting answers. DWR created their Press Release document 23 minutes after the Catholic Online article hit the internet.
- repost of text without the continuous italics..
Hi abb, DWR is continuing to spin. Metadata from DWR's PDF file reveals they created their finished Press Release document 23 minutes AFTER the critical Catholic Online article went public on the internet. Well, isn't that a coincidence. Just before a town hall meeting in the evening where the Green Spot has been a hot topic.
DWR's new "meme" for the Green Wet Area is (1) from rainfall (2) vegetation was observed on the dam in the mid-1960's before it was filled (3) numerous consulting boards have been convened at five-year intervals over several decades.
DWR continues to conflict themselves in their statements: now from this new press release
Why did an official DWR engineer state at the April 27, 2017 town hall that the Wet Area & greening was "it's a natural spring"? Did these numerous consulting boards reveal their findings to this engineer? Will DWR now "retract" an "errant" statement of "it's a natural spring" by this official DWR engineer?
DWR's press release states "DWR has determined that these green stripes are caused by rainwater falling on the face of the dam..". How does DWR explain the factual conflict in that an "evenly distributed rainfall" on a dam hasn't caused stark erosion channels everywhere except only as seen coming from the Green Wet area at the left abutment?
How does DWR explain the concentration of rainfall just at that intense greening section? How does DWR explain how rainfall concentrates just at an area of where there is a steep slope abutment transition that is a widely known "differential settlement" longitudinal crack seam inducing failure mode to leakage internal to the dam?
Where is the extensive DWR survey monument data from the 100 available monuments on the dam showing that there is no unusual "settlement" at the left abutment with respect to the rest of the dam? Why has DWR asked FERC to relocate a test drill well where DWR admits they are trying to understand the origin of the water source?
Since DWR has admitted in their filings with FERC in seeking to understand the origin of the water source at the Greening Wet area, by drilling a test well, then their new Press Release has stated that it is from rainfall, and this has been the conclusion of decades of independent consulting board reviews, then why do the test well?
DWR has yet to respond to FERC on DWR's Board wanting engineers to explain the 2x differential settlement found & noted in the last DSSMR's report. This establishes that the dam does settle at rates that should be of note. If they found one area at 2x the settlement rate (crest), then where's the data for the left abutment?
There are many engineering conflicts to what DWR is messaging. Besides the fact that the message is changing in answers between town hall meetings and now this fresh Press Release 23 minutes after a critical & technically accurate article was published.
Does this demonstrate that DWR is more concerned with PR than with providing technically correct answers? answers that are not changing and but are modified to exclude such significant statements by a DWR engineer of a "natural spring" invading the Shell Zone 3 layer (even if the waterflow would have to be an uphill flow)?
DWR is setting themselves up for an outside independent engineering assessment on their statements and the evidence on the dam. It's only been when an official report comes out from outside engineers or groups is when DWR's explanations become problematic. (A perfect example is UC Berkeley's Prof Robert Bea's report CCRM).
= = = Metadata imbedded in DWR's PDF May 4, 2017 Press Release reveals it was created/modified 23 minutes AFTER the critical Catholic Online article went public on the internet. File Name: 050417news
Document type: Portable Document Format (PDF)
File size: 126 KB (126,491 bytes)
- - - - -
PDF Version: 1.3
Page Count: 2
Page Size: 8.5 x 11 inches
- - - - -
Title: Microsoft Word - Document1
Author: -
Subject: -
PDF Producer: Acrobat PDFMaker 15 for Word
Content Creator: Word
Creation Date: May 4, 2017 2:27 PM
Modification Date: May 4, 2017 2:27 PM
= = = =
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.