CDA 2015 Annual Conference

Congrs annuel 2015 de lACB

CANADIAN DAM ASSOCIATION Mississauga, ON, Canada
ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE DES BARRAGES 2015 Oct 5-8

KOOTENAY CANAL CFRD SEALING

SYSTEM DESIGN AND INSTALLATION CASE HISTORY

Chris Daniel, P.Eng., BC Hydro, Vernon, BC, Canada

Mark Asleson, P.Eng., BC Hydro, Vernon, BC, Canada
Mitchell Illerbrun, EIT, BC Hydro, Vernon, BC, Canada
Tom Stewart, P.Eng., BC Hydro, Vernon, BC, Canada
Peter Gaffran, P.Eng., BC Hydro, Nelson, BC, Canada
David McEachern, P.Eng., BC Hydro, Burnaby, BC, Canada
John Wilkes, Carpi USA, Roanoke, VA, USA

ABSTRACT

The Kootenay Canal Dam and Generating Station is located on the left bank of the Kootenay River between the
cities of Nelson and Castlegar in British Columbia, Canada, and was completed in 1976. Unexpected leakage events
through one of two Concrete Faced Rockfill Dam (CFRD) forebay embankments in 1976 and 2003 were attributed
to differential settlement between the concrete slabs on the upstream face (founded on rockfill) and the plinth that
runs along the toe (founded on bedrock). A drained PVC geomembrane system was placed over the source area in
2009 to address the immediate problem. Coverage was extended in 2014 to include portions of both sides of the
forebay in 2014 in order to further mitigate the risks associated with leakage at the facility. The combined 2009 and
2014 work comprises approximately 9,500 square meters of coverage. The system includes tensioning profiles and
strip details to cover joints. The entire system of more than 85,000 kilograms was placed on the slope using solely
rope access. Surveillance results to date confirm the effectiveness of the installed system. This paper summarizes
the process by which the coverage area was selected, describes the geomembrane installation process, and presents
the seepage reduction results post installation.

RSUM

Achevs en 1976, le barrage du canal Kootenay et sa centrale sont situs sur la rive gauche de la rivire Kootenay,
entre les villes de Nelson et de Castlegar, en Colombie-Britannique, Canada. Deux barrages en enrochement avec
masque amont en bton ferment le bief amont. Survenues en 1976 et en 2003, des fuites imprvues travers un de
ces ouvrages ont t attribues au tassement diffrentiel entre les dalles de bton de la face amont (fondes sur
enrochement) et les plinthes qui courent le long du pied amont (fondes sur le roc). Une gomembrane PVC formant
un systme drain a t place sur le point dentre en 2009 afin de rgler le problme immdiat. La couverture a t
prolonge en 2014 pour inclure des parties des deux cts du bief amont afin d'attnuer davantage les risques
associs aux fuites dans l'installation. Au total, les installations de 2009 et de 2014 comprennent environ
9500 mtres carrs de couverture. Le systme inclut des profils pour tendre la membrane et des dtails pour
recouvrir les joints. L'ensemble du systme de plus de 85000 kg a t plac sur la pente en utilisant seulement des
appuis sur corde. ce jour, les rsultats de la surveillance confirment l'efficacit du systme install. Ce document
rsume le processus par lequel la zone de couverture a t choisie. Il dcrit le procd d'installation de la
gomembrane et il prsente les rsultats de lrduction de l'infiltration suite l'installation du correctif.

CDA 2015Annual
CDA 2015 AnnualConference,
Conference, Mississauga,
Mississauga, ON,ON, Canada
Canada 301
1 BACKGROUND

The Kootenay Canal facility, completed in 1976, is located on the Kootenay River between the cities of
Nelson and Castlegar in British Columbia, Canada. The facility consists of a 3 mile (5 km) long canal
leading to a 100 ft (30 m) high concrete intake dam with four penstocks. The forebay includes two
concrete faced rockfill dams roughly 90 ft (27 m) in height. These are identified as the North Forebay
embankment and the South Forebay embankment in Figure 1.

WEIR L4

CHEVRON
ROVER CREEK DRAINAGE
AREA
BOUNDARY (APPROX.)
UPSTREAM EXTENSIONS

SLAB-SLAB JOINT
COVER STRIP (TYP.)

Figure 1: Plan View of Kootenay Canal Forebay showing extents of 2014 Geomembrane
and Typical Expansion Joint Detail.

The forebay slopes are lined with concrete slabs founded on rockfill. At the toe of each slab is a concrete
plinth founded on bedrock. Slab-slab expansion joints are spanned by flexible sealant at surface (Thiokol
R-600P mastic), a base seal PVC waterstop that is cast into both slabs, and a plastic sheet that was placed
over the rockfill prior to slab construction (Figure 1 inset). Between the flexible sealant and the PVC
waterstop, the joint is filled with cork. Slab-plinth joints are equivalent except the plinth side of the PVC
waterstop is cast into the plinth concrete.

Atypical leakage events occurred through the North Forebay embankment in late 1976 and in 2003. Both
events manifested as seepage at the downstream toe of the embankment, and both were traced back to the
slab-plinth joint at the base of Slab 579 (Figure 1), where unusually high differential settlements have
occurred (> 6 inches, 150 mm). Surface flows were visually estimated to be 0.02 and 0.25 m3/sec in 1976
and 2003, respectively.

Dive inspections in late 2008 revealed potentially deteriorating conditions at Slab 579 and the adjoining
slab 578, prompting the planning and execution of remedial work in 2009. The remedial work included
placement of a geomembrane liner over the problem area and construction of a weighted filter and drain
at the downstream toe of the North Forebay embankment (Gaffran and Psutka, 2010; Daniel and Stewart,

CDA 2015Annual
CDA 2015 AnnualConference,
Conference, Mississauga,
Mississauga, ON,ON, Canada
Canada 3022
 GEONET (BENEATH OPTIONAL GEOGRID)

GEOGRID (OPTIONAL)

PERIMETER BATTEN
STRIP, ANCHORED

GEOCOMPOSITE

Figure 2: Components of Geomembrane Liner System.

(a) (b)

Figure 3: Heat-welding of geomembrane at Kootenay Canal by roped workers

using (a) automatic dual track welder and (b) manual hand welder.

2010). The geomembrane liner was designed, supplied and installed by Carpi Tech Canada Inc. (Carpi),
and generally consists of a layer of heat-welded geocomposite (geomembrane bonded to a geotextile)
underlain by a layer of bi-planar geonet. The liner components are secured by a perimeter seal comprised
of mechanically anchored stainless steel batten strips underlain by epoxy mortar. These components of
the liner system are shown in Figure 2, as well as an optional layer of geogrid installed between the
geomembrane and geonet to provide additional support in selected areas. The liner is held taut by a series
of evenly spaced tensioning profiles that extend horizontally across the coverage area (Figure 3b).
Equipment used for automated and manual heat-welding of geomembrane is shown in Figure 3. General
information on geomembrane sealing systems can be found in ICOLD (2010).

CDA 2015Annual
CDA 2015 AnnualConference,
Conference, Mississauga,
Mississauga, ON,ON, Canada
Canada 3033
 (a) (b)

Figure 4: Typical crack distributions: (a) North Forebay slab 574 in 2009 (cracks painted white) and (b) South
Forebay slabs 669 and 670 in 2014 (cracks painted blue).

The 2009 remedial work was completed in an urgent manner to address a known source of concentrated
leakage that was observed to be degrading, based on growth of radiating cracks in forebay slabs 578 and
579. It was recognized at the time that further in-canal work would be required to achieve an appropriate
balance of residual risk. This article describes the design and installation of additional geomembrane
liner in 2014 to achieve that goal. Challenges for the 2014 work included:

The need to unwater the canal, requiring a full plant outage and associated cost, environmental
and Columbia River Treaty considerations a long outage likely could not be justified; and,
The inability to finalize the design until the canal was fully unwatered and could be inspected.

The need to deliver efficient field inspections, rapid design assessments and prompt contractual decisions
would be paramount in order to install the geomembrane within the constrained outage window.

2 2009 INSPECTION

The North Forebay embankment concrete liner components were carefully inspected during the 2009
unwatering. Outside of the Slab 578-579 problem area, the concrete slabs were found to be in generally
good condition, commonly showing some hairline cracks attributed to curing strain and some arcuate
cracking in the lower thirds of the slabs (Figure 4a). The latter were typically hairline, but in some
locations had as much as 0.1 inch (2 mm) aperture at surface. With the exception of the Slab 578-579
problem area, no out-of-plane crack offsets were observed.

CDA 2015Annual
CDA 2015 AnnualConference,
Conference, Mississauga,
Mississauga, ON,ON, Canada
Canada 3044
 MINOR
DE-BONDING

(a) (b)

Figure 5: Typical conditions of (a) slab-plinth joint showing deflection and minor de-bonding of flexible sealant and
(b) slab-slab joint within normal operational range of forebay showing fully de-bonded flexible sealant.

As expected, differential settlement was highest along the joints between slabs (founded on rockfill) and
plinths (founded on bedrock), typically ranging from zero to 2 inches (0 to 50 mm) but having peak
values in the order of 6 inches (150 mm) at Slab 579. The top of the flexible sealant in the slab-plinth
joints was typically found to be 2 to 3 inches (50 to 75 mm) below that of the adjacent slabs. Despite this
deflection, the flexible sealant was generally well bonded to the adjacent concrete liner components
(Figure 5a).

Little or no differential settlement had occurred along the slab-slab expansion joints. Near the toe of the
upstream face, the condition of the flexible sealant in slab-slab joints was comparable to that observed in
the slab-plinth joints (2 to 3 inches deflection and generally well bonded). The amount of deflection
decreased moving up the slope, suggesting the deflection is directly proportional to the applied water
pressure, as expected.

Portions of the slab-slab joint flexible sealant and underlying filler located within the normal operational
range of the forebay (elevation 1730 to 1745 ft) were found to be badly degraded. The degradation
commonly included de-bonding from one or both sides of the joint and erosion of underlying joint filler
material. Figure 5b shows an example observed on the South Forebay in 2014). These materials would
have been subjected to daily wet-dry cycles during the summer and freeze-thaw cycles during winter, and
it is inferred that the cycling combined with cumulative exposure to UV radiation and hydraulic forces
caused the degradation. In this elevation range the upper sealant was typically ineffective as a water
barrier, likely providing only marginal physical protection for the underlying PVC waterstops.

CDA 2015Annual
CDA 2015 AnnualConference,
Conference, Mississauga,
Mississauga, ON,ON, Canada
Canada 3055
The South Forebay was not inspected as extensively in 2009 because the upstream face was covered by
snow shortly after canal unwatering. It was assumed that the South Forebay conditions would be roughly
equivalent, and this was confirmed during the 2014 unwatering (Figure 4b).

3 DESIGN

3.1 Conceptual / Feasibility Design

In 2014, following the positive results of the 2009 work, geomembrane coverage was identified as the
preferred solution to achieve a suitable balance of residual risk with respect to leakage originating in the
forebay. Following confirmation of this detail, the main requirement for the Conceptual/Feasibility
design was to identify the optimum extent of coverage. This decision had to consider:

Uncertainty regarding the condition of the original canal liner components, particularly on the
south side;
The residual risks associated with leaving portions of the original canal liner uncovered; and,
The daily cost of having the canal out of service during installation of the geomembrane liner.

After the 2009 remedial work, it was considered that the potential for a future leakage event was higher
for the South Forebay than the North Forebay because of design similarities between Slabs 679 (South
Forebay) and 579 (North Forebay), and because of the presence of a second historical problem area
known as the Chevron located on the South Forebay embankment (Figure 1). The two slabs
comprising the Chevron (666 and 667) had heaved due to unbalanced water pressures during an early, too
rapid unwatering of the canal, and were noted in 2009 to have suffered more extensive and concerning
cracking than all other slabs excluding Slabs 578 and 579. Due to limited material supplies, it was only
possible to cover the slab-plinth joint of the Chevron during the 2009 unwatering.

In addition to higher potential for future leakage, the consequences of a potential South Forebay leakage
event were also of greater concern. It was considered that any significant leakage through the South
Forebay liner would likely flow overland beneath the penstocks and enter the powerhouse. In contrast,
the 2009 toe drain installation and associated re-contouring of the ground surface downstream of the
North Forebay were such that only very large leakage events would have the potential to impinge upon
the powerhouse. For both embankments, the upstream limit of coverage would be the edge of the former
Rover Creek channel, which passes beneath the forebay and forms a natural drainage boundary at the
approximate position shown in Figure 1. The consequence of leakage originating upstream of this
boundary would be substantially lower than any originating downstream.

A range of coverage options were considered during Conceptual/Feasibility design. Constraining the
coverage option was the limited time and resources that could be devoted to the installation. In order of
increasing coverage area, the options considered were coverage of:

1. The lower third of South Forebay;

2. The lower thirds of North and South Forebays;
3. All of the South Forebay;
4. All of the South Forebay and the lower third of the North Forebay; or,
5. All of the North and South Forebays.

CDA 2015Annual
CDA 2015 AnnualConference,
Conference, Mississauga,
Mississauga, ON,ON, Canada
Canada 3066
For all options the geomembrane would only be installed downstream of the Rover Creek drainage
boundary. Considering the unknown condition of the South Forebay slabs and joints, and the high
consequences of a major leak on that side, it was considered prudent to discard Options 1 and 2. This
decision was later supported by the results of an analysis that pointed to degraded joints at high elevation
as a probable source for much of the historical flows through the South Forebay (Daniel et al, In Press).

Given the observation in 2009 of settlement driven cracking on the lower third of several North Forebay
slabs that were left uncovered, but considering the lower consequence of leakage on that side, Option 4
was selected as the preferred option. The risk reduction achieved by increasing coverage from Option 4 to
Option 5 was not considered sufficient to justify the increased outage, material and labour costs.

3.2 Preliminary Design

Due to the specialized nature of the geomembrane solution, the constraints of the outage duration and
timing, and the inabilty to finalize the design until the canal would be unwatered for installation, BC
Hydro identified the need for an Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) procurement strategy. The supply
and installation Contractor who had successfully completed the 2009 installation (Carpi) was again
contracted by BC Hydro to provide extensive input and specialized design services during a collaborative
Preliminary Design process. In particular, this included collaborative development and acceptance of
design details for 17 unique boundary scenarios that would be encountered in the coverage area identified
during Conceptual/Feasibility Design, primarily crossings of interfaces between concrete liner
components such as expansion joints.

Consideration of one boundary scenario led to modification of the planned coverage area during
Preliminary Design. It was noted that the upper perimeter of the North Forebay coverage would be
submerged, and this perimeter would include crossings of slab-slab joints with potential for leakage,
depending on the details of the crossing. The 2009 liner included a number of these crossings but, due to
the urgent nature of the work, the potential for leakage at the crossings was considered acceptable.

During Preliminary Design of the 2014 work, extensive consultation and bench-testing of options for
preparing slab-slab joints for submerged perimeter installation revealed no acceptable solution. Rather
than install a geomembrane with potential leak points around the perimeter, Carpi recommended
elimination of the submerged expansion joint crossings by extending geomembrane strips up each slab-
slab joint to above normal maximum water level. Application of this solution to the South Forebay was
considered but, considering the uncertain condition of the South Forebay slabs and practical limitations
on the extent to which the coverage prescription could be adjusted following unwatering and inspection,
full South Forebay coverage per Design Option 4 remained the preferred solution.

3.3 Final Design

It was recognized at the start of the design process that Final Design could not be issued prior to
unwatering of the canal and inspection of the true condition. The inspection findings and resulting
modifications to the Preliminary Design are described in Section 5.0.

4 PLANNING AND PREPARATION

Throughout the roughly 8 month design process, BC Hydro and Carpi planned and coordinated all aspects
of the installation process ranging from lockout procedures for in-canal work, to First Nations
consultations.

CDA 2015Annual
CDA 2015 AnnualConference,
Conference, Mississauga,
Mississauga, ON,ON, Canada
Canada 3077
 (a) (b)

Figure 6: Installation crews using ropes to access work areas with (a) trolley suspended on ropes to transport
materials and (b) trolley mounted vacuum systems to mitigate silica dust hazard.

One detail that required particularly careful planning was development of unwatering procedures that
would prevent any further heave of the Chevron slabs. The forebay had not been unwatered since the
2009 work, and it was considered possible that geomembrane coverage of the slab-plinth joint in 2009
may have substantially reduced the ability for groundwater to drain from beneath the slabs into the
forebay. To address this concern, the unwatering rate was reduced, and a permanent dewatering well was
drilled from the South Forebay embankment crest into the bedrock basin behind the Chevron slabs. The
well was pumped for several days prior to the 2014 unwatering to lower groundwater levels (confirmed
by an existing piezometer) and reduce the amount of groundwater that would need to drain through
existing drain holes in the slabs. No additional heave was observed following unwatering.

Two important general safety considerations were provision of safe access to the 2(H):1(V) upstream
faces of the forebay embankments, and management of silica dust that would be created while drilling
thousands of shallow anchor holes around the perimeter of the geomembrane.

Carpi had traditionally utilized swingstages to deploy workers and materials to the upstream faces of
dams and canals. Managing and moving swingstages typically requires cranes and is time-consuming,
however, and it was considered that the upstream face at Kootenay Canal was gradual enough that
workers and materials could be deployed exclusively using ropes. To that end, Carpi worked closely and
extensively with a rope access specialist to develop a work method utilizing a system of pulleys and
trolleys to transport materials and equipment (Figure 6a).

To address the silica dust hazard, Carpi undertook a test program with an occupational hygienest to
develop appropriate work procedures. This resulted in a work program that prescribed different types of
dust containment for different sizes of hole drilled. Trolleys were deployed down the slope for larger
holes to provide more powerful vacuum systems to capture the silica within exposure limits for workers
(Figure 6b). Minimizing the amount of work that would require use of dust masks was an important
contribution to the efficiency and safety of the overall work methodology, as it was recognized that full
days of roped work on the slopes would be strenuous enough for the installation crews, even without the
requirement of wearing dust masks.

CDA 2015Annual
CDA 2015 AnnualConference,
Conference, Mississauga,
Mississauga, ON,ON, Canada
Canada 3088
5 UNWATERED INSPECTION AND CONSTRUCTION

Roped inspection of the forebay was completed by a team of five engineers during the initial days of the
installation work. The condition assessment completed during this inspection was used to progress the
Preliminary Design to Final Design status. The inspection findings are summarized as follows:

The geomembrane installed in 2009 was found to be in good condition, with no apparent signs of
damage or leaks;
The North Forebay slabs were generally in the same condition as noted during the 2009
inspection. Some minor crack extensions and appearances of new cracks were noted;
The South Forebay slabs were found to be in comparable condition to the North Forebay slabs
(Figure 4b). The Chevron slabs (666 and 667) had clearly deteriorated since 2009, and showed
evidence of fresh cracking;
Minor changes in measured slab-plinth differential settlement between 2009 and 2014 were
considered to be within the level of accuracy of the measurement;
Slab-Slab joint filler was confirmed to be in equally poor condition on the North and South
Forebay within the normal operational range of canal elevations. In many cases the flexible
sealant had de-bonded from both sides of the joint over significant lengths and offered no
resistance to removal for inspection of the underlying PVC waterstop (Figure 5b).
The PVC waterstop was found to be in good condition when it was exposed for inspection. At
some locations the waterstop was found to have been installed slightly off-centre.

The apparent deterioration within the Chevron location prompted several modifications to the design,
including:

Addition of a perimeter seal to isolate the base of the Chevron from the remainder of the South
Forebay geomembrane liner;
Removal of tensioning profiles with conventional thick and rigid stainless steel shapes to reduce
the potential for a crack rupturing the steel and cutting the geomembrane from below. The
tensioning profiles were replaced with small battern strips that were more flexible and were
attached on top of the geomembrane and covered with a coverstrip; and,
Addition of a layer of sacrificial geomembrane beneath the sealing geomembrane over the entire
Chevron area to act as cushioning against large crack offsets.

These modifications are illustrated in Figure 7. To further reduce the potential for trapping of
groundwater behind the Chevron slabs during future unwaterings, additional drain holes were drilled
through the slab (these were also used to provide access to inspect the underlying rockfill), and a unique
hatch detail was developed. The hatch detail consists of a perimeter batten installed around each drain
hole to provide isolation from the remainder of the geomembrane liner. The hatch area is covered by a
rectangular piece of geomembrane sealed against the perimeter batten using a compression gasket. This
geomembrane can be either unbolted and removed or simply cut and replaced during future canal
unwaterings. This approach is expected to be far superior to the previous use of hinged rubber flaps to
cover drain holes, both in preventing leakage during normal operation, and in allowing drainage into the
forebay during future unwatering events. During the 2009 and 2014 unwaterings the rubber flaps were
osbserved to severely inhibit drainage until manually lifted. The final configuration of the geomembrane
coverage in the Chevron area and a typical hatch cover detail are shown in Figure 8.

CDA 2015Annual
CDA 2015 AnnualConference,
Conference, Mississauga,
Mississauga, ON,ON, Canada
Canada 3099
 PERIMETER SEAL ISOLATING CHEVRON
AREA FROM REMAINDER OF LINER

REVISED ALIGNMENT OF
TENSIONING PROFILES

UPDATED COVER FOR EXISTING

DRAIN HOLE (TYP.)

SACRIFICIAL GEOMEMBRANE CUSHION

Figure 7: Geomembrane installation details in South Forebay Chevron area showing revised
tensioning profile geometry and extra layer of sacrificial geomembrane.

CDA 2015Annual
CDA 2015 AnnualConference,
Conference, Mississauga,
Mississauga, ON,ON, Canada
Canada 10
310
 Figure 8: Geomembrane liner nearing completion in Chevron area showing hatch covers on drain holes. Inset
shows typical hatch cover detail.

SPALLED
CONCRETE

Figure 9: Wedged rock particles and spalled concrete in slab-plinth joint near upstream end of Forebay.

One unexpected finding of the 2014 inspection was extensive impingement of gravel to cobble sized rock
particles into the flexible sealant of the slab-plinth joints on both sides of the upstream portion of the
forebay (Figure 9). In many cases the particles were deeply embedded within the flexible sealant. It is
presumed that these particles originated in unlined portions of the canal upstream of the forebay and were
carried into the forebay by flow within the canal. It is probable that some of the bedload materials would
be deposited or become trapped in the slab-plinth joints given their geometry. Penetration of particles
into the sealant is likely due to water pressure, possibly augmented by cyclic settlement and rebound of
the slabs due to normal (daily) cycling of the canal water level.

CDA 2015Annual
CDA 2015 AnnualConference,
Conference, Mississauga,
Mississauga, ON,ON, Canada
Canada 11
311
 Figure 10: Design detail for coverage of upstream slab-plinth joints.

Figure 11: Final configuration of geomembrane liner looking upstream.

The hypothesis that cyclic displacements of the slabs related to canal operation were contributing to the
jacking of granular particles into the joints was supported by observations of concrete spalling adjacent to
large wedged particles at several locations (Figure 9). It was considered that this jacking mechanism
could eventually lead to penetration of rock particles into the PVC waterstop underlying the flexible
sealant. To address this concern, the Preliminary Design was modified to include manual cleaning of
rocks from the slab-plinth joint on both sides of the forebay, and placement of geomembrane strips
extending from the upstream edge of the main geomembrane liner areas to the upstream edge of the
forebay on both sides of the forebay, as shown in Figures 1, 10, 11 and 12.

CDA 2015Annual
CDA 2015 AnnualConference,
Conference, Mississauga,
Mississauga, ON,ON, Canada
Canada 12
312
 Figure 12: Final configuration of geomembrane liner looking downstream.

Figure 13: Kootenay Canal returned to service. New geomembrane liner visible above waterline.

CDA 2015Annual
CDA 2015 AnnualConference,
Conference, Mississauga,
Mississauga, ON,ON, Canada
Canada 13
313
 Forebay Water Level (ft) 1750

1745

1740

1735

1730
2014 LINER INSTALLATION
1725

800
2013 / 2014
Weir L4 Flow (L/min)

2012 / 2013 TYPICAL WINTER

600 PEAK FLOWS

PEAK ABSENT
2014 / 2015
400

200

0
Mar 01, 2014

Mar 01, 2015

Dec 01, 2014
Sep 01, 2014
Mar 01, 2013

Jun 01, 2014

Jun 01, 2015

Dec 01, 2013
Sep 01, 2013
Jun 01, 2013
Dec 01, 2012

Figure 14: Forebay water level and Weir L4 flows before and after Geomembrane Installation, showing absence of
typical winter peak flows following installation (data thinned for clarity).

6 PERFORMANCE

The canal was returned to service on October 25, 2014 following a 51 day outage (Figure 13). Inspection
of the new geomembrane liners has been limited to visual inspection from the embankment crests. These
inspections have revealed no performance concerns or signs of wear during the 10 months since the canal
was rewatered. No future unwatering events are planned at this time, but it is expected that opportunities
for underwater inspection will arise during routine canal maintenance such as trash rack cleaning and
inspection dives.

The effect of geomembrane installation on leakage through the South Forebay embankment is readily
apparent in flow data measured in Weir L4 (Figure 14), the general position of which is indicated on
Figure 1. The flow data are well correlated to forebay water level, and show clear winter peak flows in
both 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Following geomembrane installation, the 2014-2015 winter peak is
notably absent. This early evidence is encouraging and suggests that leakage through the South Forebay
embankment has been significantly reduced. Data from the North Forebay embankment is similar but
less striking due to slightly weaker reservoir-leakage correlations.

CDA 2015Annual
CDA 2015 AnnualConference,
Conference, Mississauga,
Mississauga, ON,ON, Canada
Canada 14
314
7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Installation of geomembrane liners on the North and South Forebay embankments at the Kootenay Canal
was a challenging project due to uncertainty about the condition of the concrete liner components,
schedule constraints related to the cost of taking the canal out of service to complete the installation, and
the wide range of boundary conditions for the liners. Despite these constraints and limitations, the
installation was completed on budget and slightly ahead of schedule, and early observations suggest the
installation has significantly reduced flow through both the forebay embankments. The writers believe
that this success was due in large part to:

1. The decision to pursue an Early Contractor Involvement procurement strategy allowed for a
highly collaborative Preliminary Design stage, which resulted in the Owner and Contractor
having a very clear understanding and acceptance of the type and extent of design modifications
that could be practically enacted based on the findings of the unwatered inspection;

2. Optimization of the design coverage area allowed for maximizing the benefits of coverage while
being sensitive to the impacts and the constraints related to duration of the outage; and,

3. A commitment by both parties to establish and maintain a streamlined decision making procedure
during construction, including the presence of key personnel in the field through most of the 45
day construction period.

Future research into best practices for installation of perimeter seals across expansion joints in
geomembrane coverage areas that will be submerged is encouraged.

8 REFERENCES

Daniel, C.R. and Stewart, T.W., 2010. Design and Testing of an Embankment Toe Drain System. In Proc. Assoc.
of State Dam Safety Officials, Annual Conference, Seattle, WA.

Daniel, C., Gaffran, P., Illerbrun, M., Asleson, M. and Stewart, T., In Press. Detection of Waterline Leaks in a
Concrete Faced Rockfill Dam. Accepted for Publication in upcoming ICOLD Bulletin Lessons Learnt
from Dam Surveillance Case Histories.

Gaffran, P.C and Psutka, J.F., 2010. Leakage Mysteries at Kootenay Canal Generating Station, British Columbia.
In Proc. Assoc. of State Dam Safety Officials, Annual Conference, Seattle, WA.

ICOLD, 2010. Geomembrane Sealing Systems for Dams. International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD)
Bulletin 135, 2010, pp. 468.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors from BC Hydro would like to specifically thank their co-author John Wilkes for his dedication to
quality and his commitment to the project, which set a high standard for the team and was critical to the success of
the project.

The members of the BC Hydro and Carpi project teams are too numerous to list, but the authors would like to
acknowledge their tremendous efforts, to which the success of the project is directly attributable. The authors would
also like to acknowledge the diligent staff at Canadian Rope Access Specialists Inc. The photographs in Figures 3,
4b, 8, 9, 11 and 12 were taken and processed by Karen Redfern of Redfern Photographics.

CDA 2015Annual
CDA 2015 AnnualConference,
Conference, Mississauga,
Mississauga, ON,ON, Canada
Canada 15
315