NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR INSPECTION OF NON-FEDERAL DAMS ... · quickly, effective dam safety programs...

AD-A144 060 NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR INSPECTION OF NON-FEDERAL DAMS 1/2SAVILLE DAM (CT 00376-. U) CORPS OF ENGINEERS WALTHAMMA NEW ENGLAND DIV SEP 78

UNCLASSIFIED F/G I3/13 NL

muululhhhE~iilillilElillEEEiniliEEililiEIl~lE~lIhllIlmlllllilllliIIIE hhEEEi

4..

.4.,

-'4

I, 2

*:5*'I.I*I')

N'.".lii,111 I I

•iI

.. °

4'0

N( 91 70

000 FARMINGTON RIVER BASIN

BARKHAMSTED, CONNECTICUT

SAVILLE DAMO CT. 00376

PHASE I INSPECTION REPORTNATIONAL DAM INSPECTION PROGRAM

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYNEW ENGLAND DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS- 0

WALTHAM, MASS. 02154

f ox public rabosoi an sale; itsSEPTEMBER 19 TO Lsriuton is unmited -*

84 08 07 078

0 vi *wv w - -0 S .

UNr'_A-rSgT EnSECuRITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When De. tntoefd)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONSBEFORE COMPLETING FORM

1. REORT NMBER2. GVTA'yJ NO.3 RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

CT 003764 rTITLE (nd Sublills) S. TVPE OF REPORT 6 PERIOD COVERED

Saville Dam INSPECTION REPORT

NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR INSPECTION OF NON-FEDERAL 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

DAMS7. AUTHOR(&) I. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(*)

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERSNEW ENGLAND DIVISION

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASKAREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

i. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

DEPT. OF THE ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS September 1978NEW ENGLAND DIVISION, NEDED 1s. NUMBER OF PAGES

424 TRAPELO ROAD, WALTHAM, MA. 02254 9014. MONITORING AGENCY NAME A ADORESS(iI different from Centamloaug Oflier) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (f thie report)

UNCLASSIFIEDISO. DECL ASSI PIC ATION/DOWNORADING

ACHE DULE

IS. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT rol this Report)

APPROVAL FOR PUBLIC RELEASE: DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the obetract entered In 110c1 20, I diflerent how Repert)

Is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Cover program reads: Phase I Inspection Report, National Dam Inspection Program;however, the official title of the program is: National Program for Inspection ofNon-Federal Dams; use cover date for date of report.

* I1. K EY WORDS (Continue on reveree side if neceee M end IdenmItt by i60c0 aumber)

DAMS, INSPECTION, DAM SAFETY,Farmington River BasinBarkhamsted, Connecticut

20. ABST RACT (Continue en reverse side It neceeeery end i1ntitY by block umenbt)

The Saville Dam is an earth embankment with a concrete core that is 1,950 ft. long

and 135 feet high. It has an emergency spillway and three diversion conduits. The

dam and its appurtenant structures are in good condition. The project will not pass

the Probable Maximum Flood without overtopping the dam. However, the spillway cap-

acity is not judged seriously inadequate as the project will pass approximately 90

percent of the PMF before the dam is overtopped.

DD 1 A7 471 EDITION DOF I NO 69 IS OBSOLETE

%- % %....................... . .- r,. ..... -... '. *-Y...-..

'."- . .' . '. ., , . .*% .* o . . . ... - . . , . • .. ... * . _* ,.,

-. -.- .--- ~ ~ -*-* 5

5 NATIONAL DAM INSPECTION PROGRAM

PHASE I INSPECTION REPORT

Identification Number: CT 00376Name: Saville DamTown: BarkhamstedCounty and State: Litchfield County, Connecticut "Stream: East Branch of the

Farmington RiverV Date of Inspection: May 25, 1978

BRIEF ASSESSMENT

The Saville Dam is an earth embankment with a concrete

core that is 1,950 feet long and 135 feet high. It has an

emergency spillway and three diversion conduits. The dam

and its appurtenant structures are in good condition.

The project will not pass the Probable Maximum Flood ILI

(PMF) (Recommended Spillway Design Flood) without overtopping '-.-

the dam. However, the spillway capacity is not judged

seriously inadequate as the project will pass approximately

90 percent of the PMF before the dam is overtopped. The

spillway can pass the PMF if a 200 foot section of the

eastern portion of the dam is sandbagged. This condition is

known by the engineering staff of the Metropolitan District.

W 1W

* S - -. .% ?.

Some recommended measures to be undertaken by the onwerL ** include establishing metering points for seepage measurement

and repairs to the upper gate house bridge. It is not

IL urgent to implement these recommendations. However, it is

* recommended that the owner implement them within two to

- three years after receipt of this Phase I Inspection Report.

idJos ph F. Mleru Richard F. LyonHonctictP.E. #7639 Connecticut P.E. #8443Project Manager Project Engineer

777-.. '~ 7A,

* .J

W-1 -- 'W - W P'W W W W W W W' W W W- W, -*

PREFACE

This report is prepared under quidance contained in theRecommended Guidelines for Safety Inspection of Dams, forPhase I Investigations. Copies of these guidelines may be

.- obtained from the Office of Chief of Engineers, Washington,"'..' D.C. 20314. The purpose of a Phase I Investigation is to ,* -

identify expeditiously those dams which may pose hazards tohuman life or property. The assessment of the generalcondition of the dam is based upon available data and visual

- inspections. Detailed investigations and analyses involvingtopographic mapping, subsurface evaluations, testing, and .-..-

"" detailed computational evaluations are beyond the scope of a. -Phase I Investigation; however, the investigation is intended

to identify the need for such studies.

; -.. In reviewing this report, it should be realized thatthe reported condition of the dam is based on observationsof field conditions at the time of inspection along withdata available to the inspection team. In cases where thereservoir was lowered or drained prior to inspection, suchaction, while improving the stability and safety of the dam,removes the normal load on the structure and may obscurecertain conditions which might otherwise be detectable ifinspected under the normal operating environment of thestructure.

It is important to note that the condition of a damdepends on numerous and constantly changing internal andexternal conditions, and is evolutionary in nature. Itwould be incorrect to assume that the present condition ofthe dam will continue to represent the condition of the damat some point in the future. Only through continued careand inspection can there be any chance that unsafe conditions --be detected. *.

Phase I Inspections are not intended to provide detailedhydrologic and hydraulic analyses. In accordance with the'. "

established Guidelines, the Spillway Test Flood is based on I L.Si. the estimated "Probable Maximum Flood" for the region (greatest

reasonably possible storm runoff), or fractions thereof.Because of the magnitude and varity of such a storm event, a

S-finding that a spillway will not pass the test flood shouldnot be interpreted as necessarily posing a highly inadequate

*Q condition. The test flood provides a measure of relativespillway capacity and serves as an aide in determining the

.. " need for more detailed hydrologic and hydraulic studies, .-.". considering the size of the dam, its general condition and

- the downstream damage potential.

iv

. .. w ..- w -- A.- ,-,.- - **.*iC '**i*- ',

-.- -..... .. .. . .. .t .. *- .. * *. .-. * ..... ¢ . ..-..- ..-.. - . ...-... - • . ......... . .. :

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

- LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

BRIEF ASSESSMENT. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . .

*BRIEF ASSESSMENT ....... ...... . . *. . . . i

REVIEW BOARD PAGE . .. .** * * * * .iii .....

PREFACE.........................iv

*TABLE OF CONTENTS .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. v

TABLE OF CONTENTS . . .. . .. . .. . .. . I

OVERVIEW PHOTO

LOCATION MAP . .*. *.....*..*. **.. vii

REPORT

* ~SECTION 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION ,..

1.1 General **** .** *....... 10 1.2 Description of Project 2

1.3 Pertinent Data ... . .. . . . . . . . . 4

* .4SECTION 2 -ENGINEERING DATA

2.1 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.2 Construction .... 9

2.3 peraion . . . . .. . . . .. 41

2.3 OEralation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10V.. vlain... ...... 1

*SECTION 3 - VISUAL INSPECTION

3.1 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . 133.2 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

- .. SECTION 4 -OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

*Z 4.1 Procedures............ 194.2 Maintenance of Dam . . 194.3 Maintenance of Operating Facilities . . . 204.4 Description of Warning System .. . . . . . 214.5 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

Page

SECTION 5 -HYDRAULIC/HYDROLOGIC

51Evaluation of Features ... . .. . . .. 2

* . SECTION 6 - STRUCTURAL STABILITY

6.1 Evaluation of Structural Stability . . . . 24

*SECTION 7 - ASSESSMENT, RECOMMENDATIONS & REMEDIAL'MEASURES

7.1 Dam Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267.2 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277.3 RemedialMeasures . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

APPENDIX MATERIALS

A VISUAL INSPECTION CHECK LIST......... . . A-1 to A-8

B LIST OF REFERENCES . .. .. . ... .. . .. B-1ltoB-2

STAGE DISCHARGE CURVE . ............ B-3 n

AREA CAPAC TYCUREV. .. . . .*. .. .... B-4

-. HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS (MDC) . . . . . . . . . B-5 to B-17

PAST INSPECTION REPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . B-l8 to B-41

GENERAL PLAN. .......... . . . . . . . Plate 1

SECTION AND DETAILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plates 2, *~

C PHOTO LOCATPLN L.. .. .. .. .. . . .. Plate 5

PHOTOGRAPHS . . .. . .. ..................... . I-toII-5K

D HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1 to D-2

REGIONAL VICINITY MAPS .. .................. . .. Plates 66, 7K'

E INVENTORY FORMS. .. ... .. .. . .....

vi

62-, Ir~ ~- ~~

Ic

-LJCD

10 0

'to

IsR NDATFR F

NEW ENGAND DIVSIONLOATIO MA

WATHM MASS.L DAI0a 5IiVUK

7. W ?'~~W .W :$ W W- W W W- WCANTON-

NE m

.- -. . . . . . . . . ., O*** *-D

4 we% . . . . .

4.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .

INGTO. 4.N

. . . .. . . . .. 4-

- . PHASE I INSPECTION REPORT

SAVILLE DAM CT 00376

, -SECTION 1- PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 General

a. Authority - Public Law 92-367, August 8, 1972,

authorized the Secretary of the Army, through the Corps of

Engineers, to initiate a national program of dam inspection

throughout the United States. The New England Division of

the Corps of Engineers has been assigned the responsibility

" .. of supervising the inspection of dams within the New England- '4%"

Region. Storch Engineers has been retained by the New ,. •

England Division to inspect and report on selected dams in

-. the State of Connecticut. Authorization and notice to

proceed was issued to Storch Engineers under a letter of May

3, 1978 from Ralph T. Garver, Colonel, Corps of Engineers.

Contract No. DACW33-78-C-0000 has been assigned by the Corps

of Engineers for this work.

- - b. Purpose-

(1) Perform technical inspection and evaluation

of non-Federal dams to identify conditions which threaten

the public safety and thus permit correction in a timely

manner by non-Federal interests.• . 4. - .°

4• 4 ' .° " %

t1

*~~ WIW -- W WVV V V V V*. 34 36"...-

-4 . _ . 4 - . . - . ".4 . • . .. . . . . 4.. - - , . , ... .. , . - . . . .

, • ,- ,, " o° • °o - , -o o , o, o.- .. ., ° , -. . . . - 4, - ., . -, .. ° . - - 4 . 4 .% -• ,. -, ,, ., . , . . . -_ . .- ,,. .,t ,, o- ..- ,-,.,-. .. ,, , '. .,. :, . .. .. ,., .- .* - . ".4 ..- 4..-,)",.Z.'." ,,.

"j .' . °

(2) Encourage and assist the States to initiate

quickly, effective dam safety programs for non-Federal dams.

.(3) To update, verify and complete the National

Inventory of Dams.ILw

1.2 Description of Project

The Saville Dam is one of 18 dams owned and operated by

_ - the Metropolitan District of Hartford County, Connecticut.

The structure is an earth embankment with a concrete core

wall. The overall length and height of the dam is 1,1

feet and 135 feet (Appendix B, Plate 1). It has an e :gency

spillway and channel, upper and lower gate houses and --

service tunnel. The facility impounds the Barkhamsted

Reservoir and serves as the primary source of drinking water .

for the greater Hartford area. The dam is located in the

Town of Barkhamsted, Litchfield County, Connecticut (See

Location Map) on the East Branch of the Farmington River and

just upstream from Richard's Corner Dam.

The size classification of the dam is large (135 feet

high and 113,000 acre feet of storage) and the hazard

classification is high per the criteria set forth in the

* - .Recommended Guidelines for Safety Inspection of Dams by the -"

* "Corps of Engineers. The immediate downstream area that will

2

S 1 . -.• 7,- - *o.-

I ,, 'I, - .' J , -------------- -------.--

*': . .' . . . . . . .... . .. ,* .. . . .. ... . .. , .. . . , . : ..... . - ,- .. - . . . . - . . . .

be affected by the dam's failure as shown on Appendix D,

i Plates 6 and 7 includes parts of New Hartford, Collinsville O O

and Unionville as well as numerous homes and farms outside "

'" these communities "°

P The Saville Dam was designed by the Engineering Section -

of the Metropolitan District under the direction of Caleb M.

* Saville, Chief Engineer. Several consultants such as Karl

Terzaghi, Charles Berkey, C.M. Allen, J. Waldo Smith and

-[ Frank Winsor were retained as experts for the design. Model

tests of the spillway and channel were performed in 1935 and

1937 by the Alden Hydraulic Laboratory of the Worcester

- Polytechnic Institute (Appendix B, References 5, 6, and 7).

., When the flood of August, 1955 caused considerable damage to

the lower part of the spillway channel, channel repairs were

- made and a new model test was conducted in 1956 by the Alden

Laboratory to verify the adequacy of the spillway and its

-- channel (Appendix B, Reference 10).

The dam was constructed between the years 1933 and 1940

'" by the C & R Construction Company, Boston, Massachusetts and "

:* B. Perini & Sons, Framingham, Massachusetts (Appendix B,

References 1, 2 and 3).

There is a regular staff of maintenance personnel

available. The items that are scheduled for regular maintenance

* include the cutting of grass on the embankment of the dam, ...-..-

3

U ? U W W V W W W, W W W W

a-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .• .. * . i'

.- " -" " ." "+. " • "- + ' ." " " " • .' , . " " ." " -. a. . + .% '" "' ' " ' . . -- . . •• • . - •

- - ~ . •. .

servicing of the upper and lower gate house equipment and

inspection of the service tunnel. .0

The person in charge of day to day operation of the dam

is Irv Hart, MDC Supply Division Headquarters, Beach Rock

Road, Barkhamsted, Connecticut; Telephone Number: 379-0938.

1.3 Pertinent Data

a. Drainage Area - The 53.8 square mile drainagearea

that surrounds the Barkhamsted Reservoir is a fairly tight

and responsive watershed. The terrain is steep and forested

with very little development.

b. Discharge at Damsite - Maximum known flood discharge

at the spillway is 11,450 cfs at elevation 536.25, (August,

1955).

(1) Outlet Works - three, 54 inch diameter conduits at

invert elevation 420.3 +.

(2) Maximum known flood at damsite 11,450 cfs.

r (3) Ungated spillway capacity at maximum pool elevation

22,200 cfs at 545.0 elevation.

" '(4) Gated spillway capacity at pool elevation N/A cfs

at N/A elevation. ,---

(5) Gated spillway capacity at maximum pool elevation

N/A cfs at N/A elevation.

4

O4..

• % ., - 3.. ."*.--: .;-".- .- . .

• < .4.... .o-.-'--. ..... ,. ,

(6) Total spillway capacity at maximum pool elevation

Ie 0

22,200 cfs at 545.0 tLevation.

c. Elevation (Feet above MSL)

(1) Top of Dam: 549.0 "'

(2) Maximum pool-design surcharge (MDC):537.5 .

(3) Full flood-control pool: N/A

.. (4) Recreation pool: N/A

(5) Spillway crest: 530.0

" (6) Upstream portal invert diversion tunnel: 420.0

(7) Streambed at centerline of dam: 410.0

(8) Maximum tailwater: 427.0 t

d. Reservoir

" . (1) Length of maximum pool: 45,600 feet ±

(2) Length of recreation pool: N/A

(3) Length of flood-control pool: N/A

e. Storage (Acre-Feet)

* -(1) Recreation pool: N/A

* . (2) Flood-control pool: N/A

(3) Design surcharge (MDC): 113,000 +

(4) Top of dam: 144,000 ±

f. Reservoir Surface (Acres)

(1) Top of dam: 2,770 ±., 0 q

(2) Maximum pool: 2,700 ±

, .-5

-'.- -:' I W-- :W, W W"- :."a'"- r"

O ,: ' ..- a b *r., . ' - - .

q'._ %"-'q

(3) Flood-control pool: N/A

S(4) Recreation pool: N/A

S.(5) Spillway crest: 2,270 ±

g. Dam

(1) Type: Earth Embankment with concrete core

wall

(2) Length: 1,950 feet t

(3) Height: 135 feet t

(4) Top width: 85 feet t

(5) Side Slopes: Varies; upstream - 1:4 to 1:1.4

downstream - 1:3 to 1:1.7

(6) Zoning: See cross section, Appendix B, Plate 2.

(7) Impervious Core: Concrete

(8) Cutoff: Not less then six feet

(9) Grout curtain: 20 to 25 feet ±

(10) Other: N/A

h. Diversion and Regulating Tunnel (Appendix C,

Photo 7)

(1) Type: Concrete

. (2) Length: 330 feet ±

(3) Closure: Not applicable

(4) Access: Upper and lower gate houses

(5) Regulating Facilities: Electrically operated

gates for 3-54 inch pipes

6

* . •M . M -o.

. .. . . . . .- MM.6.-'"'<-'-"

*::.: .::'::::::M'M M M M M M

i. Spillway

(1) Type: Granite block lined fixed weir

(2) Length of Weir: 200 feet

* .(3) Crest elevation: 530 feet

IL (4) Gates: None

.

(5) U/s Channel: Earth approach underwater 5

feet

*(6) D/S Channel: 322 feet granite rubble masonry and

416 feet rock lined channel

* .: ' - .. . - " "

(7) General: N/A

j.Regulating Outlets

Regulating Outlets consists of three, 54 inch diameter

pipes. Two are for water supply and one discharges into a

downstream channel.

(1) Invert: U/S -Elevation 420.3

D/S -Elevation 416.54

(2) Size: three, 54 inch pipes

(3) Description: steel pipe

(4) Control mechanism: electrically operated gates

(5) Other: N/A

7~

.J'... .'

S ,. . -°

"*.*.*s"-'.'-*

*~*.-.*-.-- .*w**.-*-* . '.- ... i-'iF?. (2 Sie three W , 54 inhpie4 -% ()Dsrpin te ie,-.

SECTION 2 - ENGINEERING DATA

..-

-'" 2.1 Design

The dam was designed by the Metropolitan District in

-- conjunction with several well-known experts in the fields of "

geology, soils and hydraulics. In addition to the expertise,

provided by these consultants, there have been a number of

studies performed before, during and after the completion of

construction in 1940.

During the design phase, the "state of the art" for

-~ stability analysis was to utilize the experience of other

...: Asimilar designs. Geotechnical investigations were directed

towards the suitability of the existing subsurface strata at ... '. -

the dam site.

Dr. Terzaghi's 1929 report recommended certain slopes

for the body of the dam and construction methods for the

|core wall and earth embankment. Mr. Charles P. Berkey's 1931

report indicated that the crystalline rock at the core wall

foundation "will give excellent support and is essentially

S--tight". The site was evaluated several different times

before construction and the final recommendations were very

positive concerning the physical and geologic features of

* .". .

...,! < W ; U U U W.....:. U .: ....

. . . _. I . ..... W.. . W . W *

this site. The geological recommendations for this dam

called for a core wall throughout the body of the dam, which

was to be excavated for and seated into the rock floor to

insure a sound foundation.

Model tests on the spillway and spillway channel were

performed in 1935 and 1937 by the Alden Hydraulic Laboratory

.(Appendix B, References 5, 6 and 7). These model tests were

conducted to calibrate the spillway and obtain water surface

profiles for various floods as well as the maximum flood.

After considerable damage to the lower portion of the

spillway channel during the flood of August, 1955, a model

test was completed in 1956 (Appendix B, Reference 10) to

find a stablized outlet channel and pool to prevent scour

during all floods up to the design capacity of the original['S: .[ channel. Reconstruction of the spillway has since been

completed and is operating satisfactorily.

2.2 Construction

The dam was constructed between the years 1933 and 1940

under three contracts. The first by C & R Construction

... '... Company, Boston, Massachusetts was to construct the stream

control works and the lower portion of the earth dam. The

second and third contracts, by B. Perini & Sons, Framingham,

9

*'." -/ 9-S- . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' .'

Massachusetts were to complete the upper and lower gate

houses, complete the core wall and embankment, construct the O

spillway weir and channel, install service gates, valves,

and pipes and complete all unfinished items to make the

.. reservoir ready for operation.

Conversations with some of the personnel who were

. present during the construction phase of the dam, led to a

conclusion that an extraordinary amount of care was taken to

insure a tight seal for the core wall both during the

excavation of ledge for the seating and in the core wall

construction itself. During the core wall construction, all

pours had to be completed in the specified time and without

stopping. If the quality of the concrete was suspect, the

section was removed and repoured. All construction was

inspected under the direction of the Metropolitan District

. Commission.

2.3 Operation

This dam has to be operated only because of its function

as a water supply facility and, therefore, the water level - --

is kept to a maximum. The operation records for the water

level are monitored at the headquarters of the Metropolitan

District.

10

WS W- W PVV V V W- W W- W, W -

: ........ C-S U .-- ~*----------

- . . . %:.*-.*%1.*.-:-

r." ]. * .'."-. .,.."......?

The screens for the intake channel are maintained and

changed on a regular basis but are for the sole purpose of

-water quality.

Regulation of this water supply is through stop log

gates and sluice gates in the upper gate house as well as

discharge gate valves in the lower gate house. Water flow

in the conduits is measured by recording venturi meter tube

sections located midway in the service tunnel.

SThe method of operation is basically manual requiring

personnel attendance as needed to accommodate changing

conditions or flow regulation. Manual operations are assisted

by means of motor operators on the valves and an electrically .

* operated bridge crane.

2.4 Evaluation

a. Availability Design, construction and operation

information was readily available. The one area which was*,a

lacking in terms of design information was for embankment

slope stability. As was previously discussed, methods available

during the design period were limited.

b. Adequacy -The information made available for this

inspection along with the visual inspection, past performance

. .history and hydrologic and hydraulic assumptions were more

than adequate to assess the condition of the dam.

" V % e W- . W-

*,r. w7.-i-d

C. Validity -The information made available is not.

questionable and the history of this dam seems to bear this

out.

I

or

JJ

S.z

V w w ww w w w w le

• .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. -F .%,-r

* L

SECTION 3 - VISUAL INSPECTION

3.1 Findings

a. General - The visual inspection of the dam was

* conducted on May 25, 1978 by members of the engineering .

staff of Storch Engineers with the help of Peter Revill and.-.

Richard Allen of the Metropolitan District. A copy of the

visual inspection check list is contained in the Appendix.

The following procedure was used for the inspection:

1. An examination of the top and side slopes of the

dam, appurtenant structures and their parts;

\- * 2. A survey of the banks in the downstream area;

* 3. An inspection of the upstream surfaces of the dam,

outside of gate house and weir, as well as the

banks of the reservoir by boat;

4. A level survey of the dam crest;

I 5. A measurement of seepage discharges using calibrated

containers and stop-watch;

6. A measurement of the temperature of seepage water,

water in the reservoir and water downstream;

7. Sketches or notes of the areas that show evidence

- of leaking, leaching or damage;

* .°

13

W. ... •. .W.

* , , - ' ' h w' t,_ .. . ,' -'- V" , " , , . . ." . . - . . . ... . .- . -. . - - - . . - .

.* ",, -..... .

8. Photographs of the general view of the dam and its

appurtenant structures, (Appendix C).

Before the inspection, the design, construction,

. operation and maintenance documentation, results of repairL "

and prior inspections were compiled and studied. A compact

sketch of the main structure was used for a fast orientation

during the period of inspection (Appendix B, Plate 1).

* - In general, the overall appearance and condition of the

* .- dam and appurtenant sturctures is good.

b. Dam - The downstream face of the dam was inspected

for evidence of seepage through the body of the dam. The

sloped face of the dam has three berms which serve to collect

the surface runoff.

The body of the dam has a drainage system (Appendix B,

-" '"Plate 2) consisting of tile pipes 8 inches to 10 inches in

u diameter and catch basins on the berms to collect the surface

and seepage flows. A check of the outlet of each drain

showed that all drains were dry, except one which is near

the toe at the western end of the dam (Appendix C, Photo 9).

Measurement of the seepage discharge from this outlet was

approximately 2 to 3 gal/min.

,!," Once in recent years a catch basin at the lower level

backed-up and there was some fear that silt had blocked an

internal drain of the body of the dam. A visual check by

140 .-. W U V - V "V V Uo

.... - 14 '-. . . . . . . . . .....................* " -T ' - 4 ' " O

~~..'.:. '.' ,.:... ... ,.. .. .',,....'-. . .. **.' .-,,. -.-. -'..--....'...-.-. ..-.-.. : . .v v v ,, , . -. * .- '. * '.;- Wiv" -" " " "" - .'. '"-. . " "'.** . '-" "-"." , - . "

maintenance personnel showed nothing but because of thisU

* Iproblem, the Metropolitan District has developed plans which

will separate the surface drainage system from the internal

drain system.

R The downstream slope of the crest of the dam has a

shrubbery type of ground cover which was planted because the

slope was too steep (1.7:1) to be safely mowed. The removal

of this shrubbery, planting of grass and the use of grazing

animals for maintenance are plans that are now being implemented.

The level survey of the crest of the dam did not reveal

,.. any differential settlement. A careful visual survey of the

face of the dam showed no detectable bulges or movement of

the embankment. The condition of the spillway, the upstream

riprap of the dam, the exterior of the gate house and the

adjacent reservoir areas were inspected by boat and are

discussed in paragraphs c, d and e below.

c. Appurtenant Structures - The upper gate house

contains the operators for the sluice gates and emergency

.4 -power equipment. Near the bottom of the gate house there

are a number of places where there is evidence of seepage

and efflorescence. The upper gate house is structurally

sound and the equipment is in good condition, although it is

old.

15

W- .W. W *W W W W W V V V W, W W ..•. .............................. *

* .. ., . , .- . *- ,," ,,,,. -,,,. , n _I nun-.- r * ! .... -- i - ; , -, J ,

-.o

There is a steady flow of moisture through the expansion

joints of the service tunnel (Appendix C, Photo 8). The

concrete of the service tunnel is generally in good condition.

At the joint between the core wall and the service tunnel, " 4there is a flow of moisture. There have been a few attempts

to seal this area by means of pressure grouting and several

different types of epoxy grout. These methods have had only

limited success but the flow is not heavy and does not

appear to have changed over the years. A pipe that penetrates

Fq the wall of the service tunnel near the lower gate house

(Appendix C, Photo 10), supposedly carries the flow of a

spring in this area. The service tunnel contains three, 54

inch diameter pipes (Appendix C, Photo 7), two of which

supply water to the Hartford area and the third one goes to

the overflow basin which is located at the foot of the dam.

A visual survey of the dam crest showed the structures

and reservoir banks to be in good condition except for the

upper gate house bridge. The bridge has experienced some

settlement and the columns of this bridge above elevation

530.00 feet have a considerable number of cracks in the

mortar joints between the granite blocks, as well as in the

blocks themselves.

F 0

16

N.

WK.. W *I T . W V

Ft j , ','- , '., .i ,- , ,\ ..- ,., . - -,-, . . . . -., , ' - ' .,

. " . . ', .- .. . ... .. . ,- ',, - - '-- -.' .,' --

• . -'*

In the area of the upper gate house, there was some

settlement observed of the parapet type walls at the approach

to the gate house.

A moisture problem in the upper and lower gate houses

and the service tunnel prompted the installation of a

dehumidification system.

d. Reservoir Area - An inspection of the upstream

reservoir area by boat showed that the riprap is in satisfactory

condition with no evidence of shifting or repair (Appendix

C, Photo 5). The area immediately upstream of the dam

embankment seem to be in a very natural state with no visible

- .signs of erosion, sloughing or distress.

e. Downstream Channel - The spillway and downstream

channel are cut into ledge rock (Appendix C, Photos 3 and 4)

and are in good condition. There is no visible erosion or

sloughing of the floor or walls.

At the time of the 1955 flood, the lower part of the

channel was washed away. In May, 1956, a study done by

Alden Hydraulic Laboratory which checked the capability of

the repaired spillway channel. The present condition of the

channel seems to be very good.

17

-" .-" " " "" " - "7"". " "-

* .- - .- '.- - .'

i . -. . -.

3.2 Evaluation

* The visual inspection of this facility did not reveal '0

any apparent areas of distress. The general condition of

the dam is good. Although there was some seepage found

-- L coming from a drainage pipe of the toe of the dam this is O

considered normal for a dam of this size.

Overall, the appurtenant structures are in good condition

with some minor flaws such as cracks in the bridge to the

- -... ,upper gate house and seepage through the construction joints

S-.- in the service tunnel.

.-.-

18

*-J q V '--w, V 1P V - V V qV 1- W, W W -

* ** * .. *.: . . .+ .

OF V7".7 17 Yi

SECTION 4 - OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

SO

4.1 Procedures

-" ' The responsibility for maintenance is with the Metropolitan

District Commission. The maintenance staff and police force -

is headquartered in a building located approximately 1/2

* *" mile northwest of the dam. These personnel perform the

necessary work needed to patrol the area for trespassers,

mow the grass of the slopes and maintain the water supply

equipment and drainage system of the dam.

There is no written standard operating procedure or

emergency operating instructions for this dam.

4.2 Maintenance of the Dam

Maintenance of the dam is very consistant for items

such as mentioned above. The project for the separation of

the underdrain and surface water system that is described

I in Section 7 is part of the Metropolitan District's continuing

maintenance program. In the event of a PMF, it would be

' necessary to sandbag the east end of this dam, however,

there seems to exist nothing more than an understanding that...---.

this would be necessary.

19

.~

. . . .-.. .. .

* * * * * . . .. . . . ** -. -----. , -°

,-, .- ..-. , -.

- -I 7. Y ,

4.3 Maintenance of Operating FacilitiesThe overall maintenance of all the mechanical and , :

electrical components of the Saville Dam facilities which

could be observed appeared to be good. Some corrosion was

p iobserved on the bolts and flanges of the 48 inch diameter

piping located in the lower gate house.

Ventilation and high humidity appears to be an inherent

problem in the lower levels of the two gate houses and the

service tunnel. As a result, corrosion has damaged much of

the electrical wiring at the lower levels. The things that

have been done to combat this damage have been to install an

• • °-open wiring system (no electrical conduits) and a dehumid-

ification system. At the time of inspection, it was noted

I that electrical power to the operating facilities was by

outside purchased power. A diesel powered emergency generator

is located in the upper gate house which is periodically

* "cycled for testing and a 40 year old hydraulic turbine

generator is located in the lower gate house.

In addition, it was noted that metal deformation or

. ball-peening is evident in the upper end of the stop log

guide rails located in the stairwell of the upper gate

house.

- ., -'%'%

20W.W. .W .W W. .-

0-- p.- .W - w w w ,*-,w w

• * . 2o -

,.. .- .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-.. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Q.... . ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .e..-. ,,- -.-. -.-,.-.- . - .- , ,.,.-,, .,,-, -., .-.. t .'..' .'. ".-.' ,'. .- ,....-...-z .-a.. . . . . . . .. . . . . .... . . . . . . . .-.. . .-.. .-.. . . . . . . . . ... .-... . ..T <

4.4 Description of Warning System

The only warning system is a reservoir level monitor |. O

which records the pond elevations only. This instrumentation

"" ." is located at the dam, with transmitting capabilities to the ,',. --.

Metropolitan District Field Headquarters, 1/2 mile from the .

dam. There is no warning system to local police or civil

preparedness authorities.

4.5 Evaluation

In spite of the lack of modern updated equipment for

the emergency power system and modern valves and operators

for the water system, the safety of the dam does not appear

jeopardized. The capacity of the spillway precludes the

* hydraulic need for the service tunnel to exist. The existence

of the emergency system is necessary only for the purpose of ,"

water supply.

Although the evaluation of the mechanical and electrical

m Uequipment did not indicate any deficiencies which wouldjeopardize the structure's integrity, we did assemble a

"punch list" of electrical flaws which should be corrected " "

to conform to the electrical code. This list will be

- available to the Metropolitan District Commission to use as

they may see fit.

21.-.4-

-W W 1 W W W W W W

. * .-,- -- --.-. ,- ..* ..- . .. " "".*- * - **

:< .. .

SECTION 5- HYDRAULIC/HYDROLOGIC

U05.1 Evaluation of Features

a. Design Data - The 200 foot long spillway and

three, 54 inch pipes in the service tunnel are the only

means of transmitting water past the dam. As stated in

* Section 2, three separate model tests were conducted on the -

. spillway in 1935, 1937 and 1956. These tests gave important

data to the designers concerning the characteristics of the

spillway and determined its behavior during the design flood

(15,300 cfs, elevation 537.5).

A review of the calculations by the MDC indicates that

the spillway is capable of passing the PMF, however, a 200

foot section of the dam crest must be sandbagged to elevation

546.5 or 18 inches. This represents an inflow of 78,900 cfs

and a routed outflow of 24,200 cfs. The spillway capacity '"

.4' just before overtopping is 21,500 cfs or 89 percent of the

.. .~ PMF. Using the guide curves supplied by the Corps of

Engineers (mountainous terrain), the PMF inflow into the

reservoir is 75,320 cfs (1,400 cfs/SM x 53.8 SM). This flow

is less than that used by the MDC to calculate the PMF (see"" '". . 4.. ...

Appendix B).

b. Experience Data - The maximum flood to date at the

Saville Dam was the flood of August, 1955. During this "

22

.:.% -°. .•.,.:

- 4 o 4o4 4

* . -°.r-J

flood, the discharge was 11,450 cfs and the depth of water i.I over the spillway was 6.25 feet, 1.25 feet below the MDC's S

design depth of 7.5 feet. According to observations at the

time of the flood, the spillway and upper channel performed

adequately. The lower channel and pool, however, suffered

damage and had to be reconstructed.

c. Visual Observations - The spillway and channel at

the time of the inspection were in good condition. There

are presently plans by the Metropolitan District to regrout

.2 the joints in the granite lined portion of the spillway and -.

channel.

The three, 54 inch pipes in the service tunnel can be

. fully opened in the event of an emergency. The pipes are "

all in good condition and the outlet channel for the one 54

inch bypass pipe is in good condition. Like the spillway,

the channel joints need regrouting in some areas. -

d. Overtopping Potential - Calculations by the MDC .

show that the PMF will overtop the dam by 18 inches. The .-

" spillway can safely pass 89 percent of the PMF before overtopping.

23

W. W W * W W W * - W

- W . - p - . . , . ° . . . . . - *- . :*. ..*. ° . .. , , 4" . . . . . , . . . . . .. . . . . . !j

. ' . -' ' ',.' ".-. ",-,,, . ' " ' , ', '''" . ' , ' " ... " . ,' . '- ." , " .. v. " -. " -•V , - "

" ' - ' %" 4 ' : ' ' ' ; - " " " . -' ; .. .' , ' " . ' " ' °, . '.

SECTION 6 STRUCTURAL STABILITY

- * .0 I .-,'

6.1 Evaluation of Structural Stability

a. Visual Observations - It is most important to

study and consider the history of the design and construction

,. of a dam, especially if it is an older facility. The

history of the Saville Dam shows that there is a boil or awet spot that shows up at the toe of the dam when the level

• . of Compensating Reservoir (downstream) is drawndown. This

has occurred since the dam was built and it is generally

- believed by the personnel of the Metropolitan District that

this water could come from a spring which is located near

the toe of the dam. This boil could not be observed because

the level of Compensating Reservoir was up for seasonal

recreation. This spot is monitored by the District very

* -. closely and it is not believed to be of any immediate

concern. As an additional check for moisture or seepage on

the face of the dam, infra-red photographs were taken. No

unusual spots were seen in these photographs, although this

procedure is far from conclusive.

b. Design and Construction Data - After a thorough

examination of the project file for the dam, it was clear

; that a slope stability analysis had not been done. At the

time of design, this design technique had not been developed.

. .- 4...

24

. 4- WV - W WV W W --- 4

% ,-.'- * *' -*,-.° " *. ,-* * * ,- ,-*. "-- . . .. . %. .Z - ..- . . % - . -. . _% . ., o °.,. -.

. . . . . . . ..-. ..,. . - - -, ,* ,' ,'. , ,"-. . ,,' "."% ,".'°"% . , . . - . - . ° .. -.. ° - . . - . .,- . ° . .. '

. . . . . .. . , ,.0 , .. ... .- , -. . '

C. Operating Records The water level is monitoredfrom the District Headquarters for this facility. Records W. 0

show that for the storm of 1955 a head of 6.25 feet was

realized. The MDC design head for this spillway is 7.5 -- -

* feet. Because the spillway is keyed into very firm ledge 9%

and there are no evidences of cracking or movement, the .

structure's integrity appears adequate.

d. Post Construction Changes - The evidences of post .

construction changes have been:

1. Washout at the bottom of the spillway channel.

2. Minor development of seepage and efflorescence

* spots in the upper gate house and service tunnel.

3. Boils, spring or a wet spot under the water

surface (Compensating Reservoir) at the toe of the

-* dam.

4. Backing-up of the surface water runoff into the J .

. underdrain system for the dam.

*_ 5. Slight settlement of the parapet type walls at the . '-.

S "upper gate houses.

All of these evidences have been studied extensively by

the staff of the Metropoliton District and solutions or

* continued observations have been instituted as a result.

e. Seismic Stability - The dam is located in Seismic

Zone No. 1 and in accordance with recommended Phase I guidelines

does not warrant seismic analysis.

25

.. . . . . . . .-.. .-..-.. . .

'.'/-% ", ,- ' ' p.' ** .~. \ *,* * %"'"' " .",°/ .- . ," ¢ ,: " ', * *,'*" -*"* *' ". * " [. • '": ". :" " '°

.. ~~7 7 . .. -.

SECTION 7 - ASSESSMENT, RECOMMENDATIONS & REMEDIAL MEASURES

. .

.* 7.1 Dam Assessment

a. Condition - The inspection of the Saville Dam

pointed out some of the potential wear points that exist for

this structure. The text of this report discusses each of

these points. In general, the condition of the dam and its

* appurtenant structures is good.

The structural capacity of this embankment seems to be

*m adequate. In addition, there appears to be no alarming

signs of any serious structural problems. Section 6 deals 7

with the structural deficiencies that presently exist. It

is important to continue monitoring these items so that any

ensuing structural changes can be noted.

b. Adequacy of Information - The assessment of the

condition of the dam can be based on the information available -'

as well as on the visual inspection.

C. Urgency - The owner shall implement the recommendations 'K. * .

and remedial measures described in the following sections --

' within two to three years after receipt of this Phase I

Inspection Report.

d. Need for Additional Investigation - There is no

need for additional investigation.

.. S....-

26

. .. ... ... ,-,- .-. * .

.... ?. •...*.,, 5 *** .

. . . I- -- . - ! -. ,i ,

9'7

* 7.2 Recommendations

*it is recommended that the following actions be undertaken

by the owner:

* 1. A metering point be established at the toe of the

dam so that the seepage from the body of the dam

can be measured. This would provide a point of

reference for the Metropolitan District to use for

their future inspections and evaluations.

S. ! The metering point should be equipped for the

measuring of seepage discharge, monthly.

2. The temperature of the seepage water should be

measured. This temperature should be compared

with the upstream reservoir water temperature to

evaluate the velocity of its travel through the

dam.

3. The damaged surfaces of the stone columns of the

upper gate house bridge, seepage and leaching

cracks and joints in the concrete of the upper

gate house and the service tunnel should be photographed

*' and recorded once every two years.

4. A systematic inspection program during periods of

the highest and lowest reservoir and downstream

water level should be implemented once in five

years so that all features of the dam are evaluated.

27

* 7-?** W .1W W W W W W W W- W W, W- W- W.

... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .

.-' easu ed. This temp rat re s oul be ompa ed -[%.."

-7. -7;'% -7,- Vo.'--

5. The eastern end of the dam should be built up so

the PMF will not overtop the dam.

Any of the above recommendations that require

additional investigation should be done by a

qualified engineering firm.

7.3 Remedial Measures

It is considered important that the following items be

attended to as early as practical:

a. Alternatives - Not applicable.

b. 0 & M Maintenance and Procedures-

1. Grass, brush and trees on the downstream face of

the dam should be removed to facilitate visual

observation.

2. The catch basins on the berms of the dam should be,-.. .N ,

protected from collecting debris.

3. The project of the Metropolitan District to divide

the surface and internal drains of the dam should

be completed. This will increase the reliability

of the dam drainage system and make easier its

observation and control.

4. A specific set of instructions should be formulated

by the owner as to the placing of the 200 foot . 6

* .. ° .. * . .

""" '," 28

1 . W .

• " s -- " " -- - . . . .- w -

- . .- -"'.'-. .'.--.- .-- .,.,*<.'. ..' ,. ,- .--,,. ° '.-.- . .-.: .'." . . . :. . .' - .- . .". . "

76 -.W -,:

IL

length of sandbags or raise the top of the dam at

the east wing.

- 5. Because of the location of the dam upstream of a

. populated area, round-the-clock surveillance

should be provided during periods of unusually

heavy precipitation.

6. The owner should develop a formal system for

warning downstream residents in case of an emergency.

¢-A1

-? .. .. - -

-% 4.•

- o . .

.'2

". -. ",.--,

W_ Ir 4.. " W.'..

_b .' T '_V " I '*"q 1" ' - - w * w - - -w- S-

. ,, ,....,.. ..-- .. .,. .- .- . ... , . .. . . . . -. . .. . . .. . ... .. .-.-. . . ..-. -....-.. ....- '..-. .; ..

IN.

IN.-

.p. lb

%K:~w~ V ... -. - II -.

1 117 -V- T4

VISUAL INSPECTION CHECK LIST

PARTY ORGANIZATION

U PROJECT Saville Dam (Barkhamsted DAT1- 5-25-78Reservoir)

TIM'E 8:00 a.m.

WEATHER Cloudy

UW.S. ELEV. 530.5 U.S. DN.S.

PARTY:

1. Richard Lyon 6. John Pozzato

~*Miron Petrovsky 7

3*Gary Giroux 8

4* John Schearer 9_________________

5.Otis Matthews 10.

PROJECT FETURE INSPECTED BY REMARKS

1.

U'0 Uptra 2.praue r4

3.ntem eprtue 4C

4.-

W 5.

6.W

7.%

- 4. . . . . .. . . . .. 76. h. . . . . ..

PERIODIC INSPECTION CHFCK LIST

PROJECT Saville Dam DAT 5-25-78

PROJECT FUATURE________ NAMEf Richard Lyon

DISCIPLINE_____________ NAM Gary Giroux

AREA EVALUA~TED CONDIT IONS

I.. DAM EMBANKMENT

Crest Elevation Some tree growth to be replaced bygrass - good condition.

Current Pool '"-vation Some slippage of original riprapwest side - good condition.

Maximum Impoundment to Date Go odto

Surface Cracks None

Pavement Condition Good

Movement or Settlement of Crest None Observed

Lateral Movement None Observed

Vertical Alignment None observed

Horizontal Alignment None Observed

Condition at Abutment and ot ConcreteStructures NA

Indications of Movement of Structural

Items on Slooes NA 1±2-eaDgagirl on Slonca Not permitted -patrolled

Sloughing or Erosion of Slopes or

Rock Slope Protection -Riprap FailuresWetfc slgt-n ohrf ailures

Unusual Movement or Cracking at orione

nP*' Togbs

Unusual Embankment or DownstreamSeepage None

Piping or Boils ione

Si ~Foundation Drainage Featurqs Good -new contract to improve

Toe Drains oe under water

.. 2.~ ---~. ... '.,..A-2 None

_____ 1 W W W W W

PERIODIC D1SPECTION CHECK LIST

PROACT Saville Dam DATE 5-25-78

PROJECT FEATURE NAM M. Petrovsky

* -5DISCIPLNE___ ________ NAME J- Schearer. J.Pozza~t

* ,AREA EVALUATED CONDITION

OUTLET WORS - INTAKE CHANNEL AND. -INTAKE STRUCTURE

a. Approach Chanx e

Slope Conditions

Bottom ConditionsUnder water

Rock Slides or Falls

Log Boom

Debris

Condition of Concrete Lining

Drains or Weep Holes

b. Intake Structure See Mechanical'-.J

Condition of Concrete

Stop Logs and Slots

, ... .".

0.0

A-3

-*.. ..-. w* w °- U* W

r-r r N .- , *.S -. - -r--• .- .-- S - - - tv. ,-- .- ' - -- - .* - .0

"' .''-'.'' -' J'." "- " "- "' "'v "' " "- '- """ ' "'/ ".""." .'-" " " ." ""- "" "-"".. .- "..-."-."-.. . . . . .- "..-.. .. '. .'.-.. . . .- ".. . . . . . . . .-. "

PERIODII 'MS2~PECTIQNi CHECK LIST

*PROJECT- Saville Dam JYATE 5-25-78

* PROJECT )EATURE___________ NAM4E R. Lyon, Otis Matthews7

DISCIPLINE___ ____ ____ NAME M. Petrovsky, J.Pozza

AREA EVALUATED CONDITION

OULEXT WORKS - CONTROL TOWER

* a. Concrete and Structural

* Gnerl CndiionGood -Granite blocks, hairlinecracks

Condition of Joints lGood to Fair -some joint's head___ ___ ___ ___ __ ___ ___ ___ __ pointing

SpailflgNone

Visible Reinforcing N/A

Rusting or Staining of Concrete Some staining in stairway

Any Seepage or EfflorescenceSoesangin tiry

Joint Alignment Very Good

I Unusual Seepage or Leaks in Gate NnChamber _____________________

CracksSmall amount of hairline

Limestone and dampness correctedRusting or Corrosion of Steel b euiiainsse

b. Mechanical and Electrical

Air Vents None

Float Wellh None

Crane Hoist Bridge Crane -operable

Elevator None

Hydraylic Syste~m None

Service Gates Mechanically - old but operableElectrically - Rewiring needed

Emergency Gates None

* ,Lightning Protectiorn 6ystem None

Emergency Power System Diesel Generator - operable

W~y-i~g andReiqirin qneeded but not relatedLig~-i~w SstemIto safety of dam

A-4

W W- W W W W- - 1 W- 0,-. 91

PERIODIC WkUPCTIQN CHEZCK LIST

'io1CT Saville Darn 5-25-78

PROJECT FETURE WE G. Giroux

DISCIPLINE____________- M. Petrovsky

AREA EVALUATED) CONDITION

OW7IET WORKS - TRANSITION AND CONDTJ-TT

General Condition of Concrete Fair to Good

Rust or Staining on Concrete Ten percent wall area

Spalling None or slight

Erosion or Cavitation Good Condition

Cracking Very slightK Good -Grouting than the years

Alignment of Monoliths to stop leaking at core wallAligmentox jintsinterface on pond side.I~gn--Ontof jiGood - Each joint is rusted_____________________ and slightly wet

Numbering of Monoliths 16

-A-4

-?I*h - J 2 - -6 . . . - wt

Fz;RIODIC- DJPECTION CHECK LIST

PROJECT Saville Dam LATE 5-25-78

PROJECT FEATRE____________ NAE .Lo

DISCILINEx~mE G. Giroux

AM1A EVALU4TED CONDITION

L 0OUTLET WORKS - OUTLET STRUCTURE AND

General Condition of Concrete Good

Rust or Stai-ing Minor

- .SpgUirlq Minor

Erosion or Cavitation Minor

Visible Reinforcing Minor

Any Seepage or Efflorescence Some

Condition at Joints Some need painting

Drain holes None

Channel

Loose Rock or Trees OverhangingChannel No

ICondition of Discharge Channel GoodOMT,

A- 6

P. 'P -rw -w : ew w w w w w --,

PROJECT Saville Damn 5-25-78

PROJECT YEATURL M. Petrovsky

U DISCIPLINE_______________ UAME J. Schearer

AREA EVALUATEDi CONDITION

OUTfLET WORKS - SPILL.WAY WEIR APPROACH('AND DISCHARGE CHANI ELS--

a.Approach Channel "f.

General Conditionk Good

Loooe Rock Ovierhar: rg cila.nie None

Trees Overhanging Channel NoneIUnder water-never dredged

Floor of Approach Channel drought condition showed noi silta' ion -clear.

b. Weir and Training Walls

Granite

* General Condition of Good

Bust or Staining Slight -

fjpalling None i.Any Visible: Reinforcing None

Any Seepage or Effloreactnce Some

Drain Holes Some

o.Discharge Channel

General Condition Good

* ~Loose Rock Overhanging Channel Nn

Trees Overhanging Channel None

Floor of Channel Good

Other Obstructions None

Granite walls need repointingin some locations - not bad.

A-7

W W' 'W !IY W, ~'Ww-wW W, W

'.. f .. *. fifif~ij~jifiififfiff\* * ~s--i--. .$.*~ ~ . . ~ iifi:r

SavillePERIODIC IN3JPECTIO'l CIIECK LL'T

PROJECT SvleDamnT 5-25-78

PROJCT MTURER. Lyon

DISCILINENAW, M. Petrovsky

AREA EVALUATED CONDITION

LWOUrIET WORKS - SERVICE BRIDGE

a. Super Structure

Bearings Concrete Arch Bridge

Anchor Bolts With Granite Stone Facing

Bridge Seat With Granite Stone Facing p-J

Longitudinal Members With Granite Stone Facing

Unider Side of Deck Good - Some lime seepage

Secondary Bracing Good - Some lime seepage

Deck Good

PDrainage System Good

Railings Good -Granite Stone Parapets

Expansion Joints N/A

Paint N/A

b. Abutment & Piers

General Condition of Concrete HaySeaetruhmra__________________________ jints on downstream side.

Alignment of Abutment Go

Approach to Bridge Good

%Condition of Seat & Backwal). N/A

All Granite needs some pointing.

A-8

WKT 10 W W - IT W'i .- " W, .

2. -N,.

APPENDIX B

IP LIST OF REFERENCES B-1 to B-2

STAGE DISCHARGE CURVE B-3

AREA CAPACITY CURVE B-4

HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS (MDC) B-5 to B-17

PAST INSPECTION REPORTS B-18 to B-41

GENERAL PLAN Plate 1

SECTION AND DETAILS Plates 2, 3 & 4

1: . -W t 1w ':' w w w W

7.7 7-"77-. T 1 7-.' 7-77 7 .1

All references listed below except numbers 14, 15, and 16 aare located at the MDC Headquarters, 555 Main Street, Hartford,

Connecticut. 6

1. "The Construction of Stream Control Works and the Lower

Portion of the Bills Brook Dam", Contract 15. The- "Metropolitan District; Hartford County, Connecticut;

Water Bureau, 1933.--

2. "The Construction of the Second Portion of the Bills.. Brook Dam", Contract 17. The Metropolitan District;S. *. Hartford County, Connecticut; Water Bureau, 1935.

3. "Contract Plans for the completion of the Bills BrookDam and Appurtenant Structures of the BarkhamstedReservoir", Contract 17 (Volumes I and II). TheMetropolitan District; Hartford County, Connecticut;Water Bureau, 1937.

4. Geology Reports - East and West Branches of theFarmington River. The Metropolitan District; Hartford -.

County, Connecticut; Water Bureau, 1929-1932.

5. Model Tests on Spillway of Bills Brook Dam BarkhamstedReservoir. Alden Hydraulic Laboratory; Worcester PolytechnicInstitute; August, September, 1935.

6. Model Tests on Cone Valve Outlet Barkhamsted Reservoir.• .Alden Hydraulic Laboratory; Worcester Polytechnic

[Institute; June, 1936.

7. Model Test on Spillway Channel Barkhamsted Reservoir.Alden Hydraulic Laboratory; Worcester Polytechnic

- "Institute; March, 1937.

8. "Bills Brook Dam - Spillway Channel and Wall Analysis".The Water Bureau of the Metropolitan District; Hartford,Connecticut; October, 1934.

9. "Bills Brook Dam - Overturning Factor of SpillwayWeir". The Water Bureau of the Metropolitan District;

- .Hartford, Connecticut; April, 1938.

40J B-1

. . . . . .. . %

O _*

. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . *- *.** - . - o

7.7, 7,;,

W. - , - .

10. Saville Spillway Model. Alden Hydraulic Laboratory;Worcester Polytechnic Institute; May, 1956.

11. Inspection of Saville Dam. The Metropolitan District;"-' Hartford County, Connecticut; Water Bureau, Designing

Division; September 11, 1973

- 12. "Saville Dam Drainage Repairs South Face of Dam andWest and East Parking Areas". Drawing 5392, Sheet 1.The Metropolitan District; Hartford County, Connecticut; .Water Bureau; April, 1978.

13. "Data on Safety of Metropolitan District Dams". TheMetropolitan District; Hartford County, Connecticut;Water Bureau.

-.-% 14. Recommended Guidelines for Safety Inspection of Dams.Department of the Army; Office of the Chief of Engineers;Washington, D.C.; November, 1976.

15. Preliminary Guidance for Estimating Maximum ProbableDischarges in Phase I Dam Safety Inspections. NewEngland Division; Corps of Engineers; March, 1978.

16. Rule of Thumb - Guidance for estimating downstream dam-. ifailure hydrographs; Corps of Engineers; April, 1978.... .

.. :-. *-.:

9.%

B-2

J,. - W W - .

COMPUTATIONS SUPPLIED BY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION

0L

I I I I

1 t F + -77n

. ..... .-7-7--

s.0.._ _ .. . ....- - -I

a d:'7 j :7-

%, .

A t i I_


I IL

---- II - ~[jj)n

- I 4

* -- A -

-. . . .

I..

t

V34

.B-

' 777.~oil


Ua posO )sl 1 15 A\so 40ut4s e. \Cc\I 4-

Av) - ISD -s ckoXA t-,aA. YcaAnr\k 4 16" on 6a sqmi, . 0Xe~~16

* Fyov-n Sot OV- c>%> v neL~i\ Q- CAN.

On 27 ,cu-(ve 4- may, pc,5-,'0oAe Y0;r\-8AX ~c-'. se~eJeA fle'x) Gv'lSr~favl C\a- Aet3-r,->c Rv, .; ciWc- In v~ckco [o-

*Tw cwuve eaoe-. noVicl~c snow mol. See A SC E:Thiriu Vol. 11o IN4S, 8. 60 A 81

P,95&giue jc~va;-.%Ous a~re'-s exl~a& Auaov\ {cf- \c cv%%tAiA &NiJ Wn ioU . A..l TV Te se c- S.~ w ehr toIn p tIe~ 6E

Qe'&xe - SQ N.)w v- La~ vg~te~.c,

10 2c Vic iy i. S.L

20c> _cc tn1-7 kt

'200 &1. r6.2e os k)a' (6~Y~ \i)

6 l~ l1 2C 30 T7%me

B- 5

* ~~ ., 4. . . .. - . . . .

COMPUTATIONS SUPPLIED BY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSIONOn p.~4"~~e Ao~ rc'.inr cr~A~'

53~~~ ~ ~~Mc'I 2Ooiy co'vA ue rn ^te OL tl~ a-

FO r S A w. r

40 IO.. . cr> 'Y-2-

C~~v(A otl 15v \oJAe

12 is zi 30 36 )ov

T~A~r )&e aeJa, po 4 We aoove~ ycJ-o ol. yna t5E\L ~~s1- - + %T +

'6 e- a '4p oec .A1 2 suw . tt t"V0 s-- l

-- z-c- oU ne IxisrUne maLydn.e-wniccevW

Veve 'I. \ nAo\ knrc LonsxvlIeins y-)osste, P'cune evc sho no I,

ti L) I )no -C ey -6~k [Wyvvveq -TCALunum Cr~~skf crue

Vol. 11 PeLLL

e r e .a -iL'rt" -in -o ie I6 p cm% ~S~lotmaW\ ,60 le v kk),mV6,.V(!Wkv) CII .u Ie i

\0S u 2e Au s 1

.7

COMPUTATIONS SUPPLIED BY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSIONF% om loJ'! e 0~aVo Y-fuy4 - A-a% e - kep- \t, blvht. L

V~as e)L c- "f conv.ml~tee cvn ko.. 2"Aon~ S. Z. gjp- )c3?o* ~~ce-Ac~m~in ~ e

Pt\\ &lej 'pyrn\e. Wxoul& com~e koelj W s valedu

- A am1x \rn um~ Cocewac e Ac

kfcornvevi'-rnce- o4 Ne -cveriec.

?%eserv~~ly- N. LI

Cuvve 4 k'~ow in S. 'vo vIse le \jcr"- 2ev.I~

a& s cow or,~ Acc. 0A-2G,:) 10 dxde~c.s 40wnu NVir-e skools

B-7qW' *jW W *W w w lw w w w w

*~~~~~~~ .-* 77*..z.**-

COMPUTATIONS SUPPLIED BY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION ---

S5a-6'5

awai

Q~~72,A,- '1) 1.~ 1~~ 6 e1o

C;,VC~~S uux.d&>Lklezx scae u\t\'

lie r0* It:n no Suvncne iLIV 615a, ~Y ~ x-cc CA-%, oe - e-" oo v- * *'

WeWoA6v em acch9.o..rowt uck o.e-b- V*P k~i Qovv) eV cl, - Yo . wn

cot-nv~w C sv~i VN- A < bet'y ana r we1~y )Oast

J. J r - w ." V w -W.V cLwe w vy w W. 1w w e. . . .. . . . .


_____ CS__ R.v2.c O\Yk~e >e '1t 6A~ w Qe

_ _ - -i il 2Xi

0c 0T 0 O-

-~Mo D0, \rovito~z

Li it - .&1iIg. t. F 6%.. c n

5-4

z6 1 9 10 k 7- \7 S 61 191 coU77 23 100

.",.J. "

. .Y, 4 . .-

'.4.''')%

.9 4' ." .. " - '

- .. S 4 . .

,.': t3 1 .'r m ..v '.-'.-

B-9

.' 4 4 4 4. .'.'-

4 4....4 -..-.4 4 .,:. :, .- :4

' " L ;n~~4- * ,,.e I x--Foub e ''"'',..


- - 71 .- 7 7

7:z: -

-7 ---1 * Et l -

-4--

--- ---------

t -I t

1 ~ ~ ~ 7 --------1 -- - ~ ~ - _

--- ----

7-iL±2 t__ ~ _ __4

B-10

w~ ~ ~ ~ m , v w

K _ _ ___ -N ____ ___

r~~~I *- %I 6

COMPUTATIONS SUPPLIED BY METROPOLITAN DIS'IRICT COMMISSION

jxLk-k Tilcv. 1520-00 6J,.

I n~low~ Pon&A e kvo\4 oN SO 1iot 0 porA&&ce I TOW:d iIs. enal c- .,s E n& OV I se I;) or aw aq ris1,e -i ~w0

______ae~Ae neie - '( c poM\. El eV. ~~rA ~d

6 ' o'oc4..311 00 530 zz. 0.2-z 50 3J0 30 -3co

103o 5) 30' 5S O3S7 200 000 SoO0VAOON ~0O5-31-33I 1 074 6o0 lo 0 l950

I vm 250800Q SZ2o 0-87 1550o 24Z50 25, goo2. 3300510 3,0 e Z3c~o 131 30"'

3 307 0 533-8 -6 416 50 1c-j10 7-

D o 3Z o,4- 5 71oC 13 000-1 18 600 g3-P63 1 031r

j- sl 600o 5?i8 6 -1 61 00'i 7,o 1 51601-z~oo - Soo-

* -i 10~o I -oZ *7 "7,250 0 56 t o

mot~r 2 2-0Q 56 0-57-: S,550 15 10/qS.Z 3o 6S,7 ('za 11,003o28SSoo

2.Ai 113160 07S0 $ ~

2- L, zoo Y41- S', 1128 1 50~ -37, '00~ 5Z2,350430j 54Z1?3 1.70 17, 0 0 4-L,O0)0 c4> 8 5 0

4,/10 / 1006 20 s-l-a Soo S

8c)-3~ 543'1 07. zo Z70 366r3 o ID 5.r33 1JB )0~-c sl 8;,'1io

0,4 ;,4o l7 00 1+00 40z,40o0

9) Zw6o ______ az5s ?-c 5650S1SI

9 co 1 c-4 00.356s 00 Z31-700 z 2. 600!) -2-jI C)lPm I7, 2c)0 - 5-e4 9 -0-2-0 -2-3, O0 -600~j 7o

&m ToKXA. qvrAc

B-11

w -w w - w W, *-- v S

*. . . . . . . ..

-. COMPUTATIONS SUPPLIED BY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION

*~~11 L Acc pA & or o DSL.o ver c. y.'ev \s *I'( ;.eII6e a. koc s - v X \

.e.., . _ _ cVi , 0 .. 'c . sL., \-p ..

"Time" nylou" 6A.: A 16tjj

10 A .5 . 0. t55-s-

NcON 7S00 53t'Io 0.51. 00 "7l0oo 5 CIO-- :- P Z 0 03311 OZ o o 727 ",00 .0

o7o 661 O-'

3 9,"700 53P '7 0-Z6 I 100 Z5 0 50"'J6co 532'2Z 0.,35 8I 0S oo 0o 10 -.-

I0 o S2-' 51 OSI 2,-300 2 650 to0

is 6b ~o ! C5 s LcA85 'S)00 1-?- -70Q1 7o- 15 o & 0 533 0 4 8oo - 1 oo 125 0o 1-_ -t,

15", 6oo 3 - 0 '41 "T84,000 1 ..o .e' -- 3 7 o 0 53j5 0 0-'6 . '7600 14,0 - -7 00

25*7 a 0 0 -65 1 D ,000 1 .17 OO 2, -800Io t),-oo 5363 ,61 0'71 0,700 2.01 c.--:0 5-0.2AI j5,6oo 53'15 - ,4 ,o8o Iooj, 3.,boo2"".€.c 72. o*z f5. 2.o z1l,3oo. 3S,?5oo ;:::::

0 e00 600 4 +6,o 06o,0.N i zl43 Co ' 6'7 0'1M 17 6oo . 0o 93500 • "

, ~~~C2 4,,.0 30,,0C 1, 1(,4o /o, 481, 00 ..:

.....-:Y 800 C) g4.,5 '03 2o'oo! .2. 500 51 ()o :0.-s " C 60 53'93 V1 8 :1,501 3"7,..00 58 7 0 '

- -45'9 '8oo 56 0oo oo

22~8O 5EZOO 79)00:li '': \ 0 1O, 200 . .54. 2o i o'5i '. 23 0, 16,3oo~ 40 ,20.0o.

t)1C)ZO6 ; ,o; q(:)IOo0

D/ 21 1- -. 0 41,0 '70C

B- 12* -w w. WW lSwwW

.1 -.. -. . . . . . . . . . . . . I . --. '-.

.. '.,. .....' "..... ...

... ...... ....... ...... ......... ,


",Acnoj V\) svc \&, o \co,,- \-' avc ?e. o~v k~e evia c4 VW

leacpi4, k)aaL%.3y , c yG CL~ -,Alrc VeetL_- \oovc 6ev-c&

cx ew ,nc>.).s o k-c c mnr-C_ hce ifre e de -s yV.

y6 \e us-A-& CA'q M6.X a 6Le ~n.el (cu- 60r ?PccX.

~?JIn. r\Q3 155eOko~ (,SLe Aer ~ -3'

---wQ' e" e~6 0&ir c..

Z;. 0

. ic~~ ~-oc ~ ~~e Ur~c 3.G:s0 0 1!cr&.~ ~\~~t~ S~ ou .'.~:.-

% /

COMPUTATIONS SUPPLIED BY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION:..

G. S0'00610 i';oZ o. 6 0c)

-~2 ~b0 530,3 -03 ~0 0 113,000

3 o : t 10 0 30 0 0 31,05

6 ( 66500. 5- 7*1 1 1~. C ~0o 520 56 70 09100 535-1 2- t0 16 300 6Z, 6 co "7 8 _5o

65T,00XZ 4r~ I1Zo B-J 310 110

60 500j i545~tI 7 6oo00o111 6000 5 A 6 lo 23/ 00 3-z 5pI 5c zo :

iq A7 ooo: 548-s6 071( 2-scc0

16 238000 5 4SI,3 S 13~ Q, 00

I '7 33jSC)() S~ so7 0~*

20 1 2O0oC;00 ;D00 ---

~~ ~ u-ek k\\e ttlei v~2 ~u. bcy- Ub io; lc

@1ov e, tL %.k q

PeS C4'cr..............,r-q

eV C- .1c oeo w . p o'

. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .w. -.


'0: J t:nt

0 - 0 7@1 0

653 'z 0 ISa

oo C) 1 5172-0c

o~ 5 Soo1 27 0 33.,400oc '3 6o! L3 8120o 0 0. 39 000

10 4 2-1,50c 5,36.6'7 1-o7 1 1 0-0 31 1400O 4Z11 -7,o~ (1 Vc7So -. 6150 32),600 4 71100

~ ~,Oo 51 60.)540 123 I-oZ 4OI~ 6 K17, 00 3 2- 0 0 56) o 0

000 ~ J13 Soo00 4l4,O 0040

I-4 4,800 LcoS710,0 -5S~.V4 Z l,6 oc 42~oI 0zoo

Doc 54. ; A "70

1 300co 55O6 3 1-72500~

62 3 0oc< 2, 1 -zi 15 ? oo

'I 5q I lo 0

*.e trm i~~ more Slc IS *E oueil c~~ ne~

B-15

* W w V W w - . W l. ''

COMPUTATIONS SUPPLIED BY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION1:

.vrm

%. o xp A -W\~& ku,' .lot& aovlA to -fepiresen- ro&)m'rY'71.con'ei\Jole . \oo& o~r ZZwyl r '30 kouvsl

'~~ riOq-u1pi 13 - gamne ats A~ e)vuepl* .loUJs 64e.-~ peakL te-awainjed-

W% lxq)00 C -Au, 15,55 100& 0 ul"VjaO4pel uwa a AII

70 A&,c resayvok'r levels wj~h

60 1

~so E;4A ~6

40

A~\S5 koc& WOAA) l6we30y~ Av 68O (see ~~-

20 A~ce

8 StoN 7- 6 9 10 K -L10N 2c'a4

*C cxA :i) 0ce const1aeye& ko 6e tc ee~ ko 6e- '-epoY~. ioYM A tmv;r cclci.a&e koc. n 3buF i c Vons.I:)ue Lb'I1

peo-14) iWcruon\-, Wne i\kvk 'O - m

A ov~ cx\-e VA-na-& t~cmuirn~ Con~e \IoVtce aI~Xc.~A -

We 'TeiM C ,I.A 1': &600[ [lie Wa- u.W CtV4rck .cx:P pO~xa O C~ 0 - e PeCd12 'I 01We eil~l DI tI)C ';1- 0M,

B-1 6

w * ' w~ -.- _ w ww w

COMPUTATIONS SUPPLIED BY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION.

Aolk V e 0_fftbun Au ~ %e _____m

kh V~ p\Sm e-i*AOCA % e-'~-e nmc'xlmiunlyan0 0f

~~Wes CcN CZvv~ sVe6L m Sc) ~uys. (See s'hees

ai\AV c ovl Aw\e- Wac- e s mcx\A 0 3o V sj.".mntA

4, T Pe6 Pc~ .wWeck~\C D)\et~m

w 'l fiAe~ll;A uLn')AdlLo),Cl

Om u) ox.~ (u\\Ic, IA C assuV'fe& S&wvIn S,

p~~~I *v~kn&a~k acx". IV)o\ ~c~A

-. A-Np vnT\mxf P \TkT~ocl Lvc),A& ec~'~~v1ebaxm,* 'Thj\)\es nQ e'&~c4 wasc~ &yav) ce-%JevaX~oa eleou lou

-reo.2rn aX ve? nok- e(e-e~lnck 'Eev 6461suY 5 ~ S

* ~ s no c'r ele\/cieAe A Vw- V0 ?.vcvIAC.e4~* ~ '~QLL~Ck ~ ~ e \erVoV 1 tii~ \u&

* X~ ling\k~~c r~.icc \i yic. Wc~kec

1 e iAua\ VY3.{oskkelwv~'les,, i&W - ! Ou re

B-17w w W- v 0- 0 0

9; The M'etropolitan District Des. Div. Ref . No. S- 1401iiartford County, Connecticut Date 9-11-73

Water BureauDesigning Division

INSPECTION OF DAMS AND SPILLWAYS

NAME-OF DAM4 SAVILLE

LOCATION (Town, River, Reservoir) East Branch Farmingtoa_ River in Barkhamsted

INSPECTORS Name 1"i 0e Div./bept.

Dick Allen Ast. Engr. S&P

Dick Conopask S.Engro Design

~" . In filling out this form, please enter full information on conditions, and onlocation of any defects.

A. GENERAL

1) Were any photographs taken of the dam during this inspection Yes

2) Reservoir level, Elev. 526.58

3)Weather (including commnent on humidity) Cool,-dry, sunny (beautiful

.,.~ ~fall day)

- B. EARTH DAMS

1) Note any depressions in crest None

2) Slides and/or erosion, upstream face None

3)Slides and/or erosion, downsteam face Minor erosion where turf has been

worn away in footpaths (I on dam - Picture #1, 1 near spillway -Picture #2) -

*,L4) Cracks in enibankmcnt None (5± Woodchuck holes)

B-18

vt-es~~~ ~~ w

"- -- . --.

L 5) Surfacing on crest and condition Bit. Conc, road surface - good

Grass on berm worn (west of Upper Gate house to Spillway).

6) Condition of parapet walls, if any Generally O.K. - minor joint pointing

- & caulking of contraction joints necessary.

7) Seepage on downstream face, especially at toe, (location and quantity)

See Section H, #3. East end not visible, See #13 this section.

" q 8) Soft ground at toe'(locate) None visible

9) Signs of settlement at gate house and/or gate house bridge Causeway settling

down with respect to gate house, causing cracking on causeway wall -

Picture #18. Settlement has been monitored in past.10) -Downstream drainagesysfem (clear or blocked, etc.-.Mostly clear;* stone

paved ditches need de-grassing (work is in progress). "

11) Type and condition of downstream face planting Grass - O.K.; no major

S.plantings; natural growth @ East end heavy.

121 Is planting and/or debris etc. a fire hazard? No

% 13) Do plantings obscure toe of dam and other points where Monitoring inspec-

tion is necessary? Natural growth on East end does -- Picture #3

1. 14) Damage or vandalism (to lights, plaques, etc.)Usual littering

15) Other Field personnel would like plantings on upstream face & upper

• - slope of downstream face of dam to eliminate hazardous mowing conditions.

'. CONCRETE DAMS-

1) Any signs of motion

* * =Catch basins W/ solid covers-1. Middle level - 5th from west end

~ 2. Top level - west end basin

'Some basins on East side have grates covered w/ pine needles and branches.B- 19

* -, -SW '

.............. ,'. .. ].

2) Deterioration noted:

Uptra fc

Upwstream face

Road/walk on crest

Parapets

* . Spillway

-* Other (excluding gate houses)______________

3) Inspection Gallery:

General condition

* Leakage

Lime accumulation

I.Flooding & drainage po- e

4) Damage or vandalism (to/Ights, plaques, etc.) _____________

* D. GATE HOUSES

* . I)Upper House

1) Exterior: walls Excellent -crack in SE buttres Picture A4.

* windows Excellent -

doors Excellent

roof Excelle nt -no leaks

B- 20

W, -wW W x1_* W -, W, W 10 .- 0

:- : ~ 2) Superstructure Interior:

walls Excellent -pictures #5 & #6.

floor Excellent

ceiling Excellent

3) Leakage into superstructure None -

4) Substructure, interior:

Leakage and condensation El. 507± W & N walls. le~kage & rr -*

condensation begin, severe calcium (lime) deposit-formedPictures #7, #8 & #9.Condition of metal work (stairs, etc.) -good exSceot

for superficial rusting.

5) Equipment condition:

Sluice gates O.K.-

Gate valves O.K.

Piping O.K.LI

Electrical gear O.K.

Other Diesel O.K.

6) Do all electric lights work Hi-voltage problem; switching to 130V bulbs

7)Condition of stop logs in storage well Excellent - half painted-w/ heavy \-

duty Rustoleum; half to be painted wI/ rubber base paint.

8) Operating personnel comrments on functional condition of all equipment

(valves, hoists, selector gates, trash racks, screens, etc.) ______

O.K.

B- 21

.:.-:K-.-..-.%-----....................0,

9)Last time various wells and other underwater portions were unwatered

and examined (Give name of well and date in case of multiple wells).

East Well, Feb., 1968; West WellI, March. 1963: Main Well. March. 1968:

Selector Gates, Apr., 1964.

10) Other commrents Heating/de-hurnidification of stairwell in upper gate house

L extremely desirable -pictures #7, #8 & #9.

10) Lower House

~-'1) Exterior: walls leakage from roof; lime leaching

- - windows -None

doors Casement rotting,@ bottom sill location

'2) Superstructure Interior:

walls leakage from roof

floor Good

*ceiling paint peeling from roof leakage

3)Leakage irnto superstructure from roof -.- 4~

4i) Substructure, interior:

Leakage and condensation minimal

*Condition of metal work (stairs, etc.) Good

5) Equipment condition:

Sluice gates O.K.

Gate valves O.K.

PipngExcellent B-22*~Ppn %D - - - . .de~ w w *

L

Electrical gear Good

Other __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

6)Do all electric lights work Hi-Voltage problem; replacing W/130V bulbs.-

7)Condition of stop logs in storage well-

8) Operating personnel commnents on functional condition of all equipment

(valves, hoists, selector gates, trash racks, screens, etc.) ______

-' O.K.

9) Other conmnents Roof should be fixed to stop leaks.

iii) Conduit between gate houses- Pictures #11'& #12

1) Concrete condition Good

2) Leakage Spring in East Wall 0So. End) I aprrt: roof leaks:,2 W/'guttarj&.

3)Condition of 'metal work and piping Pipe -excellent: walkways need

maintenance, railings are flimsy,

~ . ) Other commnents replace metal walkway 'grates w/ alumninumi ones to

* -.- eliminate maintenance. .4'

4 . E. PRINCIPLE SPILLWAY

(If spillway is part of dam, enter information in C only).

U I1) Weir Excellent

B- 2 3

~..,w1---I~w. *~ V V V -V V V V U UA

2) Channel Generally Excellent -some ioints in-floor should be pointed.

3)Outlet of channel Good

I0L)Note any obstructions to flow None

5)Bridge Generally good, some leaching on North & South faces from road

-surface.~

6) Is water spilling No

* 7) Other comrments ___________________________

.F. EMERGENCY SPILLWAY

1) Channel None

* ~2) Obstructions _______________________________

3)Other commvents ______________________________

-I-

G. APPURTENANT STRUCTURES

- List structure (such as stilling pools, discharge weir structures, stream

diversion works, etc. and give conditions.

Diversion works -generally excellent (picture #13) but access road & worksovergrown. -- ':

Brook to Compensating Reservoir also overgrown. This is

particularly objectionable @culverts (Pictures #114 & #15).

B- 24

Ht OVERALL ASSESSMEHTS

is this dam with its appurtenances maintained in a condition satisfactorily

I to the Inspectors? (1) Exterior - excellent; interior of gate houses need better I @

housekeeping procedures (see Picture #10). (2) East end of dam needs plantings on

both sides of fence to improve appearance & reduce maintenance (pictures #16 &

#17). (3) This dam was reinspected on October 17, 1973 with the Compensating

Reservoir drawn down about 15' to observe a known seepage condition which is

normally submerged. This seepage is apparently through the dam and does not

* seem to have increased in the past 8 years. Flow is estimated @ between 50 and ..

* 75 cg.p.m. This condition should be monitored on future inspections. See picture

#19.

0Ur0-['

See-cAe~ie~. . - .

B-25-

-J W " 1 a

-%.%

SAVILLE DAM

- #1 Minor erosion on path, #2 Erosion on path near spillway.downstream side of dam

#3 Heavy growtWg East Toe%0of Dam. (Far end)

SWr!~ W ~W W W - W - W- - W- W, *K4 .i.!.

...........................................

T.-TI.'. K"" T r- , -

SAVILLE DAM

IWi v * w a

SAVILLE DAM

?V. %

I.P.#7Bgnigo ecig#8Lm eoiso al

in~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Upe Gt Hue tir f perGtHous Starwel

#7~ ~# Beginnin of lecin p8piedeoitenral

Stairwel House stairwell

a. ~ - -

'a7

d *..

#1 Lowe Gat House a

substructur

#1 Codi bewe0oss 1 onutbtenHueshowng mnorleakin howig exellnt cndi

roof andhandail -29 ion f Vetur

WT W' '

4..

#14 ~ ~ ~ 1 Diversion worksm outletsin tra

:W.- W e. W* W

#16. Shrln o-ated 1 rabew''-as akn

of~~~~ DaSo n ec

W -j W I - I

4%;.

",J b ~ m ,"DIVISION,

INSPECTION OF WATER BUREAUFACILITIES

SI SYSTEM S .k FACILITY -' ".

NAME OF FACILITY A W., , c ,

,-.. .. I I%.%°"

LOCATION 4

INSPECTORS: N'mE " TITLE DIVISION/DEPT.

.:. :. 1;9, •A ..4 :,,..... . __ __ __ __ __ ___.-___.-.CAA-V

-_ _,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ '',.'_'.__ _',

CONDITION OF FACILITY:

>46vub~~ su -rojos f r cc ?46 V.VAr4A r-4I

.LL.S --- . ...........__ o4, , LA %IJ t .A t(. ..

J .' .%.9L

,.. .,k V.

WORK SUGGESTED BY OPERATING AUTHORITY:

RECOMMENDATIONS: .I .J.Of

", •.,:,.VL. CA . ..... ... . .P .

B- 32. -. __ __W "- - -":-W .,,,:~~~~~~~~~~~~....:. :...................._.,.......................... ............ .............-....,.-:..........:..

INSPECTION OF WATER BUREAUFACILITIES K

SYSTEM_ __ __ __ __u_ FACILITY __ __ __ _ __ __

NAME OF FACILITY' &czvxdle Q-Y-

.pJ LOCEI ON ls f6"ipl .Zz

*~~HJ INPCOS E TITLE . DIVISION4/DEPT.


Llc -,Qirc ecAe f e V.

CoASt~ %tcv 9 uidtce .3cLs \e~AL 1 l Ll~ch

*SeAck~oxnre~s s t-evrt\ c~uae ~ sp M11 cLC'rcbss e

90ma r Soe '1U3r6 t vU~tc#

p4=- WORK SUGGESTED BY OPERATING AUTHORITY:

RECOMMENDATIONS:

~~& ce C&-c Ve 0 C -Li r

B- 33

-. ,.

L U.-. - ~

* :~c'- 4~'. - ,~.,.*........

-I~*'4 .44

* .a4.* ~.. -

'a

I Ca~ ~i:-~-~ -a

.4. , *4. 4/

4..

'-4..-"

S

-4

R~ ~U''a.-;'

*4a..~*

4.

x

L.'a

p

44 ~-.

*.4, '**4

as.'

i~riL'~4 S1L~LL~ CtAc L~cL-~cv~

F.4.

b ~.

4.4

4.4. 4

B- 34

~ ~ 4 ~- 4-,-

* -a..

4- * --. ' -

-...--. ~ -4.- * '~ ~c-.'I-~:-.:&-.--U!-§L* Y&~-~* .- *.*.-* ]


SSYSTEM UDlIFACILITY Dom~

NAME OF FACILITY Scyn Ih, vcyw

S 4GAf+eN ..

ro"0 go~e 318 byIAc6(- nv'lm t*o :S$illl~dV 2-C~& I rA~

-:INSPECTORS:. . NM IL Dvso/ET

C,~ Gcv~riii A s c-l C i e-, . 00r. __________\-,'IA

CONDITION OF FACILITY: -

C-1 c c ro copr ,c %r)Y\C v r b~ c -~ iA. 6cy

I. c Q*0 t,

~Ji~'I~c rVL.L r~r r ~ e.'*

-aA - 0-cx "te

* RECOMMENDATIONS:

-~ r1eov- wC)Aio e_ uA O~Q

. . . . . -. .

F ___ ____ _____ ___%

-~~~ - - - - - - -.

'E SIGNING DIVISION '.DT QA20,7

q ~ INSPECTION OF WATER BUREAUFACILITIES

SYSTEM _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __FACILITY _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

NAME OF FACILITY

LOCATI ON

j.U.

INSPECTORS: NAME TITLE DIVISION/DEPT.

* CONDITION OF FACILITY: C04r.-

U - SOW~e 0 !g 4 Ae WO#io'Cky 30oA 4 S Ovt 4 . "eioliy,%, wall r-%Ov*\~ o & Lo ly-

.*- in 'bc coy'dA~iov" (de're'r;b+e1. voyAa- io ex cLetvW o au' C0+2. unC6s).

0%~ -hie we5d wollI o Iic cJVA4%et +V'ie, mroov y'ee -o le ekJ-

,; -t ,.a.. bo-,zcAc JllA be low + e cap s~ov,. Cbe.4weev) ,r;g

te V\-o i. -otje ti e6P- tt, wet.+ CA'apve wa((!, CEwell

WO)4KvLF&GG6STED BY OPEFATING AUTHORITY: se o~ti~

6 RECOMMENDATIONS:

U'2.

B-36

JS W'

A. ~ W a W W W W W W

., .4..t * -~ .e -- .

iAC4

* r ? .s±? .

- e~ t ~t.-. -Y.;

A t- -- -.-:

-4o - -

In I..-, . . .:, . .,.,. .. . . . ,'-,-. .,. .- - .. . . , . . . . .. . . . -. . . . . . ..-.

p. . . - . . .

.". ."."'' , , ."-.-.-.- .--.- '" ',-."-" ' % - , .- "• ' ,. '- ' -.- "-'. ..'''''' .''"- '' .'-" " ."." -. "- - -'. "" . '

,% " - - - . . . . '- - - ' '''- # 'V ," . " -" ._* .P. ' " " ' ' ' ' ' " ' - - - - * - "

' .'''' . ", ". - --. ° -

WATER BUREAU -- .- -DAEINrvc-

*DESIGNING DIVISION

1576L INSPECTION OF WATER BUREAU

FA C ILIT IES

SYSTEM__________ __ FACILITY ______

* NAME OF FACILITY Daar\.c. -.M

*NAME TITLE DIVISION/DEPT.

INSPECTORS:


nvis-0e '.>flLv - 51t.ie't 43 Ms-e .,vf a -.. eo-v-0'

Cki ~ c?. Rion-m se6'rLe s6Lps on' egoe sttctkkt_ scowecL

7 j

* ~ ~ ~ evV'.. L~r~ Cec:*v\iw~ .c%~+-

-RECOMMENDATIONS-:

Scivecse . Oyve.A e iv,

We vj9~.~~c 1ir~X 12.~e~s'~v a+ C~luvrcp~l>-

4 eA.M kt.l A fte QN I

Attachment _________(None), ~A %. ve C (Number)

B-38 o.t~t.j t

w

Z.

W~LN bNLD ATE '2-4- u v-, r~.%DESIGNING DIVISION


SSYSTEM_________________ FACILITY_______

NAME OF FACILITY GaojL\ M 'Tho-n -VWei-r 4 nrve\

LOCATION

NAME TITLE DIVISION/DEPT.

INSPECTORS:

&p. et~cp~s

CONDITION OF FACILITY: (joAtr U- be\cu.o Si

We\- Suka.ce bmpm roph' 0 004 - Y C to C CT- ~s~v.kou.c eea- '

Zoz v 4 Sve&C~,t- VCenev seemns t" bci'.e vnoveo\ pps~yea.vr

c ene c ,% e-c. &-a 4iv~ 6eu~\~L

SCc\ A oe 'svv vrnss c C.ie vaide-

Set .N SrC - ~ e ba\o b\-cv% 0A0xe Ia.Jtr C~clr~o-

:Q RECOMMENDATIONS: ( )

W Av -r So~1 cv oSev in~s wiW opeoir L 6wcov well9X &n-so

e*V C U .. 6)~ ~ ~ - e LCnO .r a x" -'. ~ e - S -- .v O f v

Attachment _(on) -________ (Number)

B-39

12. W1rw . W ,,W - . *

% % 5

arI- ING DIVIS ION

L INSPECTION OF WATER BUREAULFACILIT IES

SYSTEM____U___ ____ ___L FACILITY 7D xr,

~NAME OF FACILITY ~dcTCW

NAME TITLE oovisioN/oEp-r.

INSPECTORS: S


re~

SeeM Sc:- ijek If ~ S Aecrc.r W J IV C-A . 4",

\h e cu~ej P~u- e V\ * T-U eor A Ck-0~ v~ I V, p- 4 seC14 C31. V1% PA.ft

eU ectc- 6r>eovy\EaC Well. .wre - t~.er wv- cmt str.v-ke.i.s ue,,claea

~~ cV6n&rne\.1 sk.? ~Cr ~h~Nc~

t CAnit ek~r tto r'.' kr.VA-~ flIIen:T,- lb;*.v e-a a-cU -j e-

e~k v cIYNe> \II. V M.,-v

B-4

REOMNDTOS w' NO RIP W, *'-o"

* . .*

FO-. , -2/REC/ss

U METROPOLITAN DISTRICT.; HARTFORD COUNTY, CONNECTICUT

om: R. E. Conopask, Senior Engineer Date: February 1, 1977

P. J. Revill, Chief Designing Engineer Copy to: REC

.SKBJECT: Inspection of dehumidification results File: -'

-. in Lower Gate House, Pipe Gallery, Stairwelland Upper Gate House - Saville Dam

Basically, about 807. of the problems associated with humidity have been '-eliminated by the present heating system; however a few wet areas couldpossibly be dried by heat. The following suggestions for were offered byEd Sullivan and Tony Failla:

1. Remove large unit heaters in operating floor area of Lower -- "Gate House and replace with the smaller ones now on the,..second level. Put cast iron radiators (used) in lowest "level of Gate House to dry up this level better.

2. West and East walls of the stairwell from the bottom to anelevation about 2 levels above the diesel cooling pump stilldrip. Add more fin tube heaters from bottom up as necessaryto attempt to dry up weepage. Use present tees in upper %Gate House Zone to supply heat. "

3. Add (2) fin tube heaters in north end of pipe gallery againsteast and west walls at bottom of spiral stairway to attempt

- "to dry the gallery roof.

The operating personnel would like guidelines for operating the exhaust

fan to obtain optimum moisture removal for each gallon of fuel burned. I

The operating personnel also want to eliminate the "re-corking" of thepipes in the gallery and instead paint them as the deteriorated cork isremoved and rely on the dehumidification system to prevent condensation onthe pipes. . '

"ichard E. Conopask

B- 41

• %. % %

.. ,... . . . . . . . ...

:.,:....:..,.

k 11111 U-.

Crx.

*0-

U9U

Inci

Z~~ 0 X

a0

slow.

4.9

*~~ t: U.RYCRoFEGNER SAILE ANE5 NLN IIINGNRLPA

WATA0 AS0 Ca

ZIU) 0)

___~~~~~ t* - =Z W * * --. *

116. .. . .. . .

U.S.ARMYCOROFENGINEE. S .L A

WALHAM MAS.GNEA PA

I I

v . .. .

-qt

SECTIO INot to

4.

* NOTE: INFORMATION TAKEN FROM DRAWINGS SUPPLIEDBY THE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSIONOF HARTFORD.

CA4CI Ofi0217

A'oL.L&-el, 44y731" tk

~~4LNo to Scale 5'IEP- Z2

SECU.SN AAASTORCH ENGINEERS USA

WETHERSFIELD, CONNECTICAIT

NATIONAL PROGRAM OF INSPECTI

* ~jI EDSAVILLE DA

. .:: N FARMINGTON RIVER

I ISCALEIDATEj

*1 Iy

Z, <4 & L'

xj7DE 0..**AI

7N1

~Y 549 TPLATE- 27

STRHEGIER ..545NINE I.NE NLN

6asr7'gE: ASON

r......... .... :.....

-1

~1

::.A 01'?c7., .4 T-- ELGk

g ,

SECOil No

'

NOTE: INFORMATION TAKEN FROM DRAWINGS SUPPLIEDBY THE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSIONOF HARTFORD.

4.4

"4W

e'4r4-'0VV*T 7O

U.S. ARYEN

$TORCH ENGINEERS U..RM Ni

WETMER3FIELO, CONNECTICUT WLH

. NATIONAL PROGRAM OF INSPECTION OF N

SAVILLE DAMF.' ARMINGTON RIVER C

I ISCALE: AS SHC

X140,01 y o/0

lU..

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

FPLAT _3

r TOpsCH NIER .. RYEON DV E NLN

COP FENIER4.MRFED CNETCTWATA AS

NATIONAL PROGRAM OF INSPECTION OF NON-FED. DAMS

SAVILLE DAM

- FARMINGTON RIVER CONNECTICUT

9--- 1SCALE: AS SHOWN

AD-A144 060 NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR INSPECTION OF NON-FEDERAL DAMS 212SAVILLE DAM (CT 00376..(U) CORPS OF ENGINEERS WALTHAM

MA NEW ENGLAND DIV SEP 78UNCL ASSIFIED FiG 13/13 NL

lIII..-

2.5.

24

4..l

4~~0

REOUTO TTCHR

MIROOP -96

% A

'~-o 77. -. p. .

jrR"=57 OPr W!Ie 5.30.

71'IA TC P4,Nr'?YO)9

SECTION C-C .Not to Scale

UM~ OE: INFORMATION TAKEN-FROMDRAWINGS SUPPLIED BY THE

. -METROPOLITAN DISTRICT~ *COMMISSION OF HARTFORD.

SU.S. ARMYCORP OF ENGINEERS S AVI LLE DAMNEW ENGLAND DIVISION

WALTHAM, MASS. S ECTION AND DETAILS CIL~

Ap lo w w-- w v W- w................... .

. ~ ~ ~ - - I ... '...

APPENDIX C

PHOTO LOCATION PLAN Plate 5

*PHOTOGRAPHS II-I to 11-5

-A .s

444

or p

1h 0

a--do

II

U S~ ARYOPFNIER S'~J AV .A

01 0

I; -20-

PHOT I~-

PHOTO 1

LOW UPER GATE HOUSEFCEODM

-4-

-. -Z!,

PHOTO 3

SPILLWAY WEIR

PHOTO 14

SPILLWAY CHANNEL AND SERVICE BRIDGE

.1l

PHOTO 5UPSTREAMl FACE OF DAM

PHOTO 6

DIVERSION TUNNEL OUTLET CHANNEL

11-3

PHOTO 7

(LOOINGSE~rVICE TUNNEL(LOO~iNGTOWARD LOWER GATE HOUSE)

PHOTO 3

SERVICE TUNNJEL - CONSTRUCTION JOINT11

OUTLET OF SURFACE AND UNDERDRAIN NETWORK

PHOTO 10

* , PIPE COLLECTING FLOW FROM SPRING NEAR LOWER GATE HOUSE

11 5

V.-7*67-73 77 -7.7

* APPENDIX D

HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS D-1 to D-2

*REGIONAL VICINITY MAPS Plates 6 &7

Ir

Ora.

-T P 1.

- - .. . . . . . . . . . ..

STORCH ENGINEERSEngineers. Landscape Architects

Planners - Environmental Consultants

0/ %r ."0o-

* i c•r ~ ~ o A D n&,-oz. m jr, ...:,.-:..-> .-:,

Qc zj.L9 H2/ Ac /SA22 A+ P,(T '4 rr~u f (Lr'l' ,>I T.ri jj- - - (c o y P C.(C) see- d~e e 4.- A., A , 7,ti . .

A, / -, :: 29(I -G "A"

C )'. .. =

C•"= " A 3 3 , 0-Q '

- ,c-k 7 5 oP', ,,4; -o A:- - ::, '-.

D .,. . .5-0 -.

= * % -'S

D- 1 .5

_ -_ , 7 pi a.-.- We - w ' w .W q ,. - - . - - -S., ...

?:.:.

I.,.. . * . . *' ...- .- .- ,.

*"** -.* *. -o . -."..' -

Engineers - Landscape ArchitectsPlanners Environmental Consultants

T7YPCAL SEfCTION- FARtiIMV TON7IYVEI?

I; 0

LC /2Z30 4/0000 3 a,. - I /o~-I 0V

too0 &1/~ (/0~c L/ 2 12 .33 Cb5, ;-*D-/-7,0

eo IO E70 7-?(o0 Lf'1-.0b J2,.)et OS97 27.51!

* /00 /8q0 I I B.L1G -%.L. 5.S3.3 e9,

t~ NOF FLO'W(P)

!57-AG36-DACH c9..4c FA4-,R 71VGTD1V V.'UTrtE-A 01 Oijr LEN

%S %

D-2.

5.7

1- -- *--

-,7 r -

.,( vb*- 1b

'L; ~ \X~c~z -.2

1-<Y ~c-~\S z ~ r* .; /AFg.~ ~ &9'7

J,

'Y V/-4

As--

IF? '1 ~~al

DEOE LIMIT OF FLOODING~IN~~~ CAS OFDM ALUEW 1(Mr k AL0U

'NNM t

LL1L

-7 N.~r)

- A-

4, 4

X C

w<12Zi

-X z~

-~--~~--46

_ -'- --J.

0 Q'0 &Z' - ~

(I<)N. ~ r72K ~ -~ <

T,,-

t ~ ' ~-~~> ~-STORCH ENGINEERS U.S ARPAYO40INr- - CORPS L.

* SCALL I i4000 WETHER3FiILD, CONNECTICUT WALTh.

NATIONAL PROGRAM OF INSPECTION OFt.

-r S A SV ILE DAM

o- UUIV 1 oIrxVA 10FE FARWAINGTQN RIVER

.~b 0 WA "AIA

*~.1\

-F

<

NIT)

?r~'~4:.

~j~i 'L~z

L <>SOC NIER

WETH!RFIELOCON~eCIU ATA~ AS

NAINLPORMOISPCINONNFDDM

7AIL A

PARMNGTO RIER CNNECiCU

______ iI47pA..A H/ er;.1t!

* . * *C.~'~.-. *\ *~JAI

IiIt

_ '" J

4L _ ~ -4. -z:-.

If - ---

.SAL 1~ - 40>0

A ~ 1_ 14jDEOE iLIMITS OF FLODN CONOURINTRAL1 f

IN C SE O DAM FAIL RE UTUNSCL NI-MUA XXI

~ ~L.

\A\:

N 7

toe -

-~ S.

A i

\\ -~-,44

_ '~ -V

-7t,~.'- ________-.-

IP ~ -~ ~ *~.-___ -:..~ X.~ ,.

____

INL

1 of

]~KN 4. Z

'2 K'y~12A' ~z

SC~t I 2cXX~WETHERSFIELD, CONNESCALE 24000NATIONAL PROGR

CONTOUR IN1IIWVA. 10 FEET FARMINGTON RIVA1v~l S IIMLM MLA LEMk

IL.

N ~ (~~.- C q'

C.. .

% 4~

~..... ~ J- .

~ ~ - .. FARA

& .PN-

\I\*~j/N

\\\~\>~\h0-

:g. A.

~p ~-4

- ~s.-:~~.~---- '~;. -

~ ~<6A-~ ') ,,4~ ~' x

<S.

/ I -

~~9 -7; -A-7PL TE

SI 2 .fT,:STORCH ENGINEERS U.S.ARMY ENGINEER DIV NEW ENGLAND* WETHERSFIELD, CONNECTICUT WALTMAN.* MAO@

NATIONAL PROGRAM OF INSPECTION OF NON - FED. DAMS

SAVILLE DAM

FARMINGTON RIVER CONNECTICUTiHM

K:% %.,

L I-.

*.

I..1APPENDIX E

INVENTORY FORMS ~.

'r. ~* .

-.

t.

4'

AS.

4' V..5..

.. ~..

-~ 'c.'

~ a,

-S

~- *0

* .**

-'S

,.* %* %~

is4

-S

S..

.5

I ~.1 -. . -.

5'.................................. . . - S

---- 5 ~. . . . . . .5.0* S. * . .

5. ...............................................

* 5

h - -...... *. S . . 5 . S**~5 S., - * -- S~ - .5 * -,. .5. 5-.

*,

.5-.

*~.

*.

.5

5.*

*5.*.

.. '~- 4 - - V ~**-. - - 4 . - - .

N. t

- *

'N ' ' - ' ' . -

V. fr

b-ti~ ' -. "*44*

* IF

4-- '4 4 ii* fr**4 4

- - .,' ~ N

- V I -. ~'o- I -- \ H Z~r . )* -p. - -A- 4 4

* ~4~*'~2j t - - ~S~~-$~tJ -' - t ..-

4; ~~. *%V:~a~Msk

~

- 4 ~' 4

~ -~-

.4

.4'-

~ ~ C

r 4-

$7

9. - ~~Y: > j~;#' ~-~ ~ Q ~tA -4$a

2 - - -. ',

-4 ~~' ~'

4%-p '1'

'V

r 4.ia p

4.

44(4 **t.4-,

V. '~

~. "'A r --

N. - I.4 4

Date post:	04-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR INSPECTION OF NON-FEDERAL DAMS ... · quickly, effective dam safety programs...

Documents