State-Journal.com - Uncertainty over safety of Dix Dam still lingers

Deron Rambo, local emergency management director, says he expects a written report this week from Kentucky Utilities regarding the safety of Dix Dam.

In a March 13 letter to KU, Rambo said, "As you are aware citizens of Frankfort and Franklin County that live along the Kentucky River are very concerned about the potential risk to the community should a disaster occur at Dix Dam.

"The only information available to my office and these citizens is very dated and goes all the way back to the construction in the 1920s.

"The most recent data I have seen is from the 1980s and references very large holes and the lack of inspections to the lower portions of the dam which of course would cause concern to anyone who reads these reports."

KU owns the 84-year-old dam, 53 miles upstream from Frankfort on the Dix River, a tributary of the Kentucky River. When completed in 1925, Dix Dam was the world's largest rock-filled dam.
It is more than 1,000 feet long and 287 feet high and impounds Herrington Lake, which is 260 feet deep and 25 miles long.

Rambo spoke briefly at Monday's City Commission meeting after Jim Daniel, of the Kentucky Council for Dix Dam Safety, gave a presentation on the dangers of the dam.

Daniel, a retired enforcement agent for the state Division of Water, also plans to speak to Franklin County Fiscal Court soon.

"We have absolutely no documentation that the dam is safe, which is why we believe it may not be safe," Daniel said Monday.

U.S. Corps of Engineers' studies in the late 1970s determined there were numerous serious structural-integrity deficiencies, Daniel said.

"There are no records available that indicate that any of those deficiencies have been corrected," Daniel said.

Daniel says the only way to find out the condition of the dam is to drain the waters of Herrington Lake.

Clyde Baldwin, a retired chief engineer for the Division of Water, said at a January public meeting that's unnecessary. Drawing down the water behind a dam is just as dangerous as filling it the first time, he said.

"Drawing that structure completely wouldn't prove really a thing," Baldwin said. "You don't want to go through with that unless it's necessary."

In a letter to Gov. Steve Beshear on Jan. 30, Daniel said KU and its owner, E.on U.S., "should present for public review all documentation of maintenance and repair from 1925 to the present."

Daniel's letter to Beshear also said there's no record that the state Division of Water, "now the sole regulatory authority over this dam, has ever performed or required that the owner conduct a subsurface inspection of the upstream face of the dam."

The letter said the Division of Water "has been making public declarations that this high-hazard dam is safe and there is no justification to conduct a subsurface investigation."

However, on all official inspection reports, the Division of Water has a disclaimer saying it "does not intend this report to be taken as an assurance that no other problems exist at this site or that the dam is safe."

"That means it's not worth the paper it's written on if you have to put a disclaimer on like that," Daniel said at Monday's meeting.

Daniel has asked Beshear to require the Division of Water to take appropriate measures "to assure the downstream public that the Dix Dam is as safe as possibleYour help is crucially needed to avert a possible if not probable tragedy."

Daniel said today he has not received a response from the governor.

Daniel said Monday Dix Dam is the highest and one of the most dangerous dams in the state.

"Whether or not it is the most dangerous dam is open for debate," Daniel said Monday. "But one thing for certain is it's the most dangerous one for us."

Chris Whelan, director of communications for E.on U.S., said in January, "It's in our interest to ensure the dam is safe."

The dam is monitored daily and there are regular inspections for shifting and leaks including underwater inspections and biennial state evaluations, Whelan said.

"All rock-filled dams leak to some degree but none that would cause any issues," Whelan said.

Rambo's letter to KU was a follow-up to a meeting he had with KU officials on Jan. 22.

In his letter, Rambo asked KU to:
>Provide his office a copy of the current emergency plan that addresses the "emergency release of water and/or a partial or complete failure of the structure.
"Obviously we would like to be ensured that we will receive immediate notification should an incident occur. A successful evacuation would depend on it."
>Provide an updated estimate of the "time it would take a surge to reach Franklin County. The current estimate states it would take over 30 hours which we know is not accurate and is also based on the river being at summer pool which is highly unlikely."
>Consider sending KU representatives who "are very knowledgeable of this subject to Frankfort to conduct a community meeting to address citizen concerns firsthand
"The presence of outdated or inaccurate information helps no one and may even cause unnecessary panic." Rambo said he also wants to invite to the meeting emergency management directors and local elected officials from other counties along the Kentucky/River "that would be immediately affected."
>Provide a summary of recent maintenance and inspections that will show that KU "has been vigilant about the safety of the dam.
"You spoke in our meeting of recent work that had been completed. Older reports suggest that no attempt has been made (to) inspect the lower portions of the dam and that known issues have not been resolved.
"State Division of Water reports are very basic and based only on a visual surface assessment. This would be something very important to address in a public meeting."
>Discuss the possibility of partnering with the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Kentucky River Authority, "to place a flow monitor somewhere below the dam to assist in the notification of a surge and normal downstream forecasting."

That information could then be available to the public by phone or Internet, Rambo said.

He said the common goal should be "to create an effective partnership/that ensures we provide the highest level of safety for the public we serve. Perhaps the best place to start is through education by making available timely and accurate information."

Rambo told city commissioners Monday, "I think we're moving forward. I think it's baby steps. But I think this has been wanted for a long time. A big part of this is having an open dialogue, making sure everyone's on the same page.

"We should be on a first-name basis with (KU and Dix Dam emergency and safety officials). Then if something does happen, they won't have to wonder who to call. They'll know who to call."

21.	Posted by Liralen April 22, 2009
	It's not necessary to prove that the dam is unsafe at this point. It's reasonable to ask the PSC to require KU to provide assurance that the dam is safe. The sentiments expressed in the last two paragraphs of the above article about having a plan in the event of failure is also reasonable. Both are within the PSC's jurisdiction to require of KU - that they require KU to explain what it has done to ensure the safety of the dam and to explain what it has done to coordinate with emergency officials in the event of failure. We even used to require the utilities to file their emergency operations plans, and I suspect they still do. So it's worth a shot to just ask them. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/807/005/001.htm 807 KAR 5:001 Rules of Procedure Section 12. Formal Complaints. (1) Contents of complaint. Each complaint shall be headed "Before the Public Service Commission," shall set out the names of the complainant and the name of the defendant, and shall state: (a) The full name and post office address of the complainant. (b) The full name and post office address of the defendant. (c) Fully, clearly, and with reasonable certainty, the act or thing done or omitted to be done, of which complaint is made, with a reference, where practicable, to the law, order, or section, and subsections, of which a violation is claimed, and such other matters, or facts, if any, as may be necessary to acquaint the commission fully with the details of the alleged violation. The complainant shall set forth definitely the exact relief which is desired (see Section 15(1) of this administrative regulation). (2) Signature. The complaint shall be signed by the complainant or his attorney, if any, and if signed by such attorney, shall show his post office address. Complaints by corporations or associations, or any other organization having the right to file a complaint, must be signed by its attorney and show his post office address. No oral or unsigned complaints will be entertained or acted upon by the commission. (3) Number of copies required. At the time the complainant files his original complaint, he must also file copies thereof equal in number to ten (10) more than the number of persons or corporations to be served. (4) Procedure on filing of complaint. (a) Upon the filing of such complaint, the commission will immediately examine the same to ascertain whether it establishes a prima facie case and conforms to this administrative regulation. If the commission is of the opinion that the complaint does not establish a prima facie case or does not conform to this administrative regulation, it will notify the complainant or his attorney to that effect, and opportunity may be given to amend the complaint within a specified time. If the complaint is not so amended within such time or such extension thereof as the commission, for good cause shown, may grant, it will be dismissed. (b) If the commission is of the opinion that such complaint, either as originally filed or as amended, does establish a prima facie case and conforms to this administrative regulation, the commission will serve an order upon such corporations or persons complained of under the hand of its secretary and attested by its seal, accompanied by a copy of said complaint, directed to such corporation or person and requiring that the matter complained of be satisfied, or that the complaint be answered in writing within ten (10) days from the date of service of such order, provided that the commission may, in particular cases, require the answer to be filed within a shorter time. (5) Satisfaction of the complaint. If the defendant desires to satisfy the complaint, he shall submit to the commission, within the time allowed for satisfaction or answer, a statement of the relief which he is willing to give. Upon the acceptance of this offer by the complainant and the approval of the commission, no further proceedings need be taken. (6) Answer to complaint. If satisfaction be not made as aforesaid, the corporation or person complained of must file an answer to the complaint, with certificate of service on other parties endorsed thereon, within the time specified in the order or such extension thereof as the commission, for good cause shown, may grant. The answer must contain a specific denial of such material allegations of the complaint as controverted by the defendant and also a statement of any new matter constituting a defense. If the answering party has no information or belief upon the subject sufficient to enable him to answer an allegation of the complaint, he may so state in his answer and place his denial upon that ground (see Section 15(2) of this administrative regulation). Section 13. Informal Complaints. (1) Informal complaints must be made in writing. Matters thus presented are, if their nature warrants, taken up by correspondence with the utility complained against in an endeavor to bring about satisfaction of the complaint without formal hearing. (2) No form of informal complaint is prescribed, but in substance it must contain the essential elements of a complaint, including the name and address of complainant, the correct name and post office address of the utility against whom complaint is made, a clear and concise statement of the facts involved, and the relief requested. (3) In the event of failure to bring about satisfaction of the complaint because of the inability of the parties to agree as to the facts involved, or from other causes, the proceeding is held to be without prejudice to the complainant's right to file and prosecute a formal complaint whereupon the informal proceedings will be discontinued.

19.	Posted by Liralen April 18, 2009
	I've been overly terse, my apologies, due to time constraints. Here's the statute that could trigger a PSC investigation. Notice the word "unsafe". http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/278-00/260.PDF 278.260 Jurisdiction over complaints as to rates or service -- Investigations -- Hearing. (1) The commission shall have original jurisdiction over complaints as to rates or service of any utility, and upon a complaint in writing made against any utility by any person that any rate in which the complainant is directly interested is unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory, or that any regulation, measurement, practice or act affecting or relating to the service of the utility or any service in connection therewith is unreasonable, unsafe, insufficient or unjustly discriminatory, or that any service is inadequate or cannot be obtained, the commission shall proceed, with or without notice, to make such investigation as it deems necessary or convenient. The commission may also make such an investigation on its own motion. No order affecting the rates or service complained of shall be entered by the commission without a formal public hearing. (2) The commission shall fix the time and place for each hearing held by it, and shall serve notice thereof upon the utility and the complainant not less than twenty (20) days before the time set for the hearing. The commission may dismiss any complaint without a hearing if, in its opinion, a hearing is not necessary in the public interest or for the protection of substantial rights. (3) The complainant and the person complained of shall be entitled to be heard in person or by an attorney and to introduce evidence. When I worked at the PSC, it was routine to grant such requests if the complaint was expressed clearly, the complainant had standing (being a customer of the utility is the best standing), and the problem was jurisdictional to the PSC. A description of the remedy expected is also helpful (i.e., I would like KU to explain what measures it has taken to ensure the safety of Dix Dam, and if inadequate, that KU be required to remedy any deficiencies.) The next step the PSC would take (or at least, did when I worked there) is to then issue a "Satisfy or Answer" Order to KU, i.e., satisfy the complaint, or explain why they didn't think it shouldn't be required to.