matthew taylor, p.e.s3.amazonaws.com/ebcne-web-content/fileadmin/pres/... · ebc’s dam management...

Matthew Taylor, P.E.

GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.

Senior Project Manager

A Review of the MIIC Infrastructure Status Report on

Dams

Dam Safety in Massachusetts, By the Numbers

EBC’s Dam

Management

Program

Series:

Massachusetts

Pending Dam

Safety

Legislation

April 26, 2012

Environmental

Business Council

New England, Inc.

2

Dam Safety in Massachusetts

By the Numbers

Matthew A. Taylor, P.E.

Senior Project Manager

GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.

http://www.ebcne.org/


By the Numbers

• Objectives:

– Summarize the May 2010

Massachusetts

Infrastructure Investment

Coalition (MIIC) -

Infrastructure Status Report:

Massachusetts Dams

– Highlights of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Dam Safety Regulations 302 CMR 10:00

• Hazard Class vs. Condition Rating

– Major Recommendations from the 2011 Auditor of

the Commonwealth’s Report on the Massachusetts

Dam Safety Law



By the Numbers

• Who is the Massachusetts Infrastructure

Investment Coalition (MIIC)?

– The Engineering Center along with ACEC/MA, BSCES,

and MALSCE organized the coalition with over 20

industry associations.

– Goals: Identifies the long term needs for infrastructure

investments to support economic develop and to improve

the quality of life for citizens of Massachusetts.

– MIIC prepared Infrastructure Status Report for

infrastructure elements including dams, bridges,

roadways, water, wastewater, etc.

– GZA assisted the MIIC in the preparation of the MIIC

Status Report on Massachusetts Dam’s in May 2010.


Over 2,900 dams in the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts

~1,683 Jurisdictional Dams


Almost half of the Massachusetts Dams are more

than 100 years old

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2010

Perc

en

tag

e o

f D

am

s i

n M

assach

usett

s

Date of Construction (prior to)

Distribution of Dams by Date of Construction

or earlier


ASDSO Survey on Design Life of

Dams – Providence, RI, 2000

• The 100-year design life was reported most frequently.

• Data generally suggests a design life of less than 150

years is appropriate for most dams.

• More than 1,300 of Massachusetts’ dams have

exceeded their design life!


Hazard Potential Classification

– Per 302 CMR 10.06(3)

• Hazard Potential Classification is primarily based

on potential consequence of failure, such as:

– Loss of life; and

– Damage to property or infrastructure

• Hazard Potential Classification has no relationship

to:

– Current structural integrity

– Operational status

– Flood routing capability

– Safety condition of the dam


Hazard Potential Classification

- Per 302 CMR 10.06(3)

• High (Class I)

– Failure will likely lead to loss of life and serious damage

to homes, industrial/commercial facilities, important

public utilities, highways, railroads.

• Significant (Class II)

– Failure may lead to loss of life and damage to homes,

industrial/commercial facilities, secondary highways or

railroads, interruption of use or service of relatively

important facilities.

• Low (Class III)

– Failure may cause minimal property damage and no loss

of life expected.


Nearly 2/3’a of Massachusetts Dams are High

or Significant Hazard to Public Safety

~1,683 Jurisdictional Dams

Source: ODS, 2010


Condition Ratings for Dams

• Assessed by a Registered Professional

Engineer experienced in dam safety

inspections and engineering during the Phase

I Inspection.

• The Report is then subsequently submitted to

the ODS where it is accepted/denied by the

Commissioner of the DCR.

• Condition Rating is based on the overall state

of a dam and its potential risk of failure.

– Condition Rating is independent of “potential

consequence of failure”.



• Considers the following aspects of the dam:

– Structural Integrity

– Operational and maintenance procedures

– Compliance with design standards/regulations.

• Condition Ratings include:

1. Good

2. Satisfactory

3. Fair

4. Poor

5. Unsafe


Many of Massachusetts Dams are in a

State of Disrepair

26% of Massachusetts Dams

Source: ODS, 2010


Condition Ratings for Dams * * Per App. D – ODS Phase I Dam Inspection Report

1. Good:

– No existing or potential deficiencies. Safe performance is

expected under all loading including the Spillway Design

Flood.

2. Satisfactory:

– Minor O&M deficiencies. Infrequent hydrologic events

would probably result in deficiencies.

3. Fair:

– Significant O&M deficiencies, no structural deficiencies.

Potential deficiencies exist at unusual loading conditions

that may realistically occur. Can be used when

uncertainties exist as to critical parameters.


Condition Ratings for Dams * * Per App. D – ODS Phase I Dam Inspection Report

4. Poor:

– Significant structural, O&M deficiencies are

clearly recognized under normal loading

conditions.

5. Unsafe:

– Major structural, O&M deficiencies exist under

normal operating conditions.

• Note: Only Poor and Unsafe are defined in 302

CMR 10.00. App. D states if a discrepancy among

the definitions exists, 302 CMR 10.00 shall

govern.



• Structural deficiencies(*), include but are not

limited to, the following:

• Excessive uncontrolled seepage

• Missing riprap with resulting erosion of slope

• Sinkholes (not animal burrows)

• Excessive vegetation and tree growth

• Deterioration of concrete structures

• Inoperable outlets (gates and valves)

(*) Per App. D – ODS Phase I Dam Inspection Report (not

defined in 302 CMR 10.00).



• Per 302 CMR 10.08:

– The Commissioner shall determine whether a dam

and appurtenant features meets accepted dam

safety standards.

• The Commissioner will issue Certificates of Non-

Compliance and order dam owners to execute

detailed inspections and to bring their dams in to

compliance to reduce safety risk.

• Around 2006/2007, ODS began issuing these

Certificate of Non-Compliance to Poor or Unsafe

dams with High and Significant Hazard

Classifications.


Hazard Potential Classification vs.

Condition Rating

• Hazard Potential Classification is primarily

based on potential consequence of failure.

• Condition Rating is primarily based on

potential risk of failure.

• Hazard Potential Classification of dam is

independent of its Condition Rating.

– Condition Rating cannot increase or decrease the

Hazard Potential Classification of the dam per the

Dam Safety Regulations.


Auditor of the Commonwealth –

Division of Local Mandates (DLM)

• In January 2011, the DLM issued the report

entitled Local Financial Impact Review –

Massachusetts Dam Safety Law.

• The DLM’s report contains the following key

conclusions about Massachusetts dams:

– 62 municipalities own 100 critical dams that are in

Unsafe or Poor condition.

– Estimate $60M in remediation costs to reduce the

likelihood of failure of these critical dams.

– 75 of the 100 critical dams do not have Emergency

Action Plans (EAP).

The DLM report is available at: www.mass.gov/sao/dlmstudies.htm




• The DLM’s report contains the following major

recommendations:

1. Short Term: The Commonwealth should

ensure that the every high hazard, municipally

owned critical dam has an EAP.

2. Long Term: The Commonwealth should

establish a multi-year program of incentive

financing to target resources for remediation

of the 100 municipal critical dams.




• Additional Key Items in the DLM’s report:

1. Incentive Financing = Zero interest loans

funded by the Commonwealth where

repayments are earmarked and used to fund

future dam repair projects.

2. The work should be performed on a prioritized

schedule that is based on level of risk to public

safety.

3. The DLM report does not define how the

Commonwealth would secure funding for the

recommended dam remediation work.


?? Questions ??


matthew taylor, p.e.s3.amazonaws.com/ebcne-web-content/fileadmin/pres/... · ebc’s dam management...

Documents