APPENDIX B PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS

Similar documents
CCR Annual Inspection (b) for the Ash Pond at the A.B. Brown Generating Station. Revision 0

CCR Annual Inspection (b) for the Ash Pond at the A.B. Brown Generating Station. Revision 0

Diversion Dikes. Fe=0.95

CCR Annual Inspection (b) for the Ash Pond at the A.B. Brown Generating Station. Revision 0

HISTORY OF CONSTRUCTION 40 CFR (c)(1)(i)-(xii) PLANT MCDONOUGH ASH POND 2 (AP-2) GEORGIA POWER COMPANY

Bethel Bank Stabilization

CCR Annual Inspection (b) for the West Ash Pond at the F. B. Culley Generating Station. Revision 0

PRELIMINARY SHORELINE PROTECTION STUDY Parking Lot D to the JFK Library

Coal Combustion Residuals Inflow Design Flood Control System Plan

Coal Combustion Facility Assessment Report. October 20, 2010

McElroy s Run Impoundment Structural Stability Assessment Report

HISTORY OF CONSTRUCTION 40 CFR (c)(1)(i)-(xii) PLANT MCDONOUGH ASH POND 1 (AP-1) GEORGIA POWER COMPANY

Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey May 2012 STANDARD FOR SLOPE PROTECTION STRUCTURES. Definition

HISTORY OF CONSTRUCTION 40 CFR (c)(1)(i)-(xii) PLANT WANSLEY ASH POND (AP-1) GEORGIA POWER COMPANY. Carrollton, Georgia 30116

Coal Combustion Residuals Unit Structural Stability Assessment

Pond Closure - Case Study[TP1]

Appendix K: Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Check List

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit Application Tips

HISTORY OF CONSTRUCTION 40 CFR (c)(1)(i) (xii) PLANT HAMMOND ASH POND (AP 2) GEEORGIA POWER COMPANY

Annual Inspection Report CCR Surface Impoundment. MidAmerican Energy Company, Louisa Generating Station

2017 Annual Inspection Report

STRUCTURAL STABILITY ASSESSMENT. Bremo Power Station CCR Surface Impoundment: North Ash Pond STRUCTURAL STABILITY ASSESSMENT

2015 INSPECTION REPORT FLY ASH DAM and BOTTOM ASH POND COMPLEX JOHN AMOS PLANT ST. ALBANS, WEST VIRGINIA. June 2015

STRUCTURAL STABILITY ASSESSMENT

Norfolk District Regulatory Office

Macoupin Mechanical Boats

Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey May 2012 STANDARD FOR RIPRAP. Conditions Where Practice Applies

SHORELINE STABILIZATION AND MARINE FACILITIES PUBLIC WORKSHOP. Town of Jupiter Community Center February 12, :30 PM

204 - EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL FOR STRUCTURES SECTION 204 EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL FOR STRUCTURES. Granular Backfill (Wingwalls) (Set Price)

2017 Annual Inspection Report

Annual Inspection Report Jeffrey Energy Center Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Landfill

Active Coal Combustion Residuals Landfill Annual Inspection Escalante Generating Station

BAYFRONT CANAL AND ATHERTON CHANNEL PROJECT DESCRIPTION

STRUCTURAL STABILITY ASSESSMENT

TVA Colbert Fossil Facility Ash Disposal Pond 4

Maine s Land Use Regulations and Erosion Control Techniques

APPENDIX L PROJECT COST ESTIMATE

5/25/2017. Lumpkin Detention Basin Houston, Texas By Brian Whitney, P.E., CFM Victor Rendon. Lumpkin Basin. Lumpkin Road Overall Description

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

MATERIAL AMENDMENT STAFF REPORT AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION. Southern California Edison (SCE)

Pajaro Dunes GHAD Pajaro Dunes Annual Inspection of Rock Revetment and River Wall

Team Member Affiliation WEDA Member Role

FOUR CORNERS POWER PLANT POST-CLOSURE PLAN (d) LINED DECANT WATER POND (LDWP) FC_PostClosPlan_009_

FOUR CORNERS POWER PLANT POST-CLOSURE PLAN (d) LINED ASH IMPOUNDMENT (LAI) FC_PostClosPlan_008_

Description. Installation and Implementation Requirements

Watershed size and name: The drainage area is acres. The pond is located within the Ohio River watershed. (2016 Inflow Design Plan)

204 - EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL FOR STRUCTURES SECTION 204 EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL FOR STRUCTURES

Supplemental Watershed Plan Agreement No. 10 for Neshaminy Creek Watershed Core Creek Dam (PA-620) Bucks County, Pennsylvania

AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER (SWEPCO)

2016 DAM AND DIKE INSPECTION REPORT CCR PONDS COMPLEX

IDEM Wetlands and Streams Regulatory Overview. An overview of IDEM permitting for work in Waters of the State

CHAPTER 2. Restricted Residential ½ Street** Design Speed 25 MPH 25 MPH 25 MPH 25 MPH 40 MPH 50 MPH 55 MPH

Bowling Green, Kentucky Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) Sediment Management Practices (SMPs) Activity: Temporary Inlet Protection (TIP)

VISUAL SITE INSPECTION REPORT 2018

GRADING, FILL, EXCAVATION AND LANDSCAPING 2012 EDITION

2-16 EROSION, SEDIMENT & STORM WATER CONTROL REGULATIONS APPENDIX B1

BALLAST PRODUCTION CURRY QUARRY

Coal Combustion Residual Landfill Annual Inspection Report Corrective Actions Resolution. Boardman Generating Facility

DTE Energy Monroe Power Plant

Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control Updates

Appendix E. Coordinating Erosion and Sediment Control With Low-Impact Development Planning

FOUR CORNERS POWER PLANT POST-CLOSURE PLAN (d) DRY FLY ASH DISPOSAL AREA (DFADA) FC_PostClosPlan_004_

2018 Annual Inspection Report

Suggested Stormwater Management Practices For Individual House Lots

Ohio Department of Transportation Division of Production Management Office of Geotechnical Engineering. Geotechnical Bulletin

Old Mill School Stream Restoration

ITEM 706 PIPE SLOPE DRAIN

PART 1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

DRAINAGE STUDY PHASE 2 REPORT HORRY COUNTY STORMWATER DEPARTMENT HIGHWAY 9 & 57 HORRY COUNTY, SC PREPARED FOR: APRIL 07, 2016 J

CCR Rule Annual Inspection Report 2

AMENDMENTS TO BAYFIELD COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE. Lake Superior Shoreland Lot Development Requirements.

Allatoona Lake. Application for Rip-Rap Installation

Lake Lorelei Property Owners Association Rip Rap Standards Recommendations. Revision 0 February 2018

Chapter 3 Dispersion BMPs

GREEN SHORELINE PROJECTS ON LONG ISLAND

J O I N T P U B L I C N O T I C E

15A NCAC 07H.0308 SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS FOR OCEAN HAZARD AREAS (a) Ocean Shoreline Erosion Control Activities: (1) Use Standards Applicable to all

Index. outlet protection Rev. 12/93

Maine s Environmental Laws Protect Our Natural Resources

SW-74 SERENOVA PRESERVE SITES 2, 3, 4, 8 MITIGATION PLAN

NRG BRANDYWINE ASH STORAGE SITE BRANDYWINE, MARYLAND 2015 ANNUAL CCR INSPECTION REPORT

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FEASIBILITY PLAN. EB3679 February 2011

APPENDIX C DURING CONSTRUCTION BMP TABLES

ILLINOIS URBAN MANUAL PRACTICE STANDARD TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING (no.) CODE 975. Source: Hey and Associates, Inc.

Town of Friday Harbor PO Box 219 / Friday Harbor / WA / (360) / fax (360) /

Wetlands Board Hearing Procedures

WATER AND DRAINAGE. Drainage Around Walls Water Applications Drainage Structures Water and Drainage Q & A

Phase II: Proposed (regulated) Impervious in disturbed area (ac) Long Lake Existing Impervious in disturbed area (ac)

SHORELINE & STREAMBANK EROSION CONTROL. Wendy Henniges DNR Water Management Specialist

STREAMBANK RESTORATION DESIGN

How & Where does infiltration work? Context: Summary of Geologic History Constraints/benefits for different geologic units

NOTICE OF PREPARATION

2017 Annual Surface Impoundment Inspection

Information for File # RMM

PROJECT SCREENING MATRIX: A User s Guide

Suitable Applications Where concentrated flow of surface runoff must be conveyed down a slope in order to prevent erosion.

COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT GUIDELINE K-2 SLOPE (BANK) PROTECTION DESIGN GUIDANCE

2016 ANNUAL DAM AND DIKE INSPECTION REPORT. Bottom Ash Ponds. Rockport Plant Spencer County, Indiana. December 6 th, 2016

Strategies to Mitigate Scour Critical Structures

CHAPTER 8 SEEPAGE CONTROL IN EMBANKMENTS

Transcription:

APPENDIX B PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION The Chesapeake Energy Center (Station), owned and operated by Virginia Electric and Power Company dba Dominion Virginia Power (Dominion), is located in Chesapeake, Virginia, within the Hampton Roads region. The Chesapeake Energy System has been generating electric power for almost half a century to homes and businesses. A shoreline stabilization project at the Chesapeake Energy Center was initiated in 2010 in order to address comments received following an inspection conducted by O Brien & Gere on behalf of the EPA. The 2010 shoreline stabilization project consisted of improvements to the east and west shorelines of the bottom ash pond/sedimentation pond at the south end of the perimeter shoreline. These improvements were completed in January 2011. With the decommissioning of the station in mind, planned for December 2014, and EPA inspection comments, Dominion is currently pursuing the necessary repairs for the remainder of the perimeter shoreline. The purpose of the shoreline stabilization project is to stabilize the perimeter shoreline around the Columbia Gas property and dry ash storage facility south of the station, with a longterm, low maintenance solution. The remaining areas requiring repair are known as Priority 1 Area, Priority 2 Area, and Priority 3 Area. The Priority 1 Area, for which this JPA applies, is the section of the east shoreline adjacent to the Columbia Gas facility between the transmission tower and the station. Priority 1 Area shoreline repairs will consist of work to be completed on both Columbia Gas Transmission property and Dominion property. Priority 1 Area been identified as being the area with the most severe erosion and is in need of the most urgent repair. DESCRIPTION & BACKGROUND Shoreline stabilization was previously conducted at the Chesapeake Energy Center in 2010. The 2010 work was done on the east and west shorelines of the bottom ash pond/sedimentation pond at the south end of Dominion s property. In order to improve the stability of the east shoreline, sheet piling was installed along a 470 foot long portion of the shoreline. There were no wetlands impacted as a result of the east shoreline improvements. For the west shoreline, a riprap buttress was constructed to improve stability. This portion of the project impacted 3,800 sq. ft. (0.09 ac) of non-vegetated tidal wetlands. On-site, in-kind compensatory mitigation was not feasible due to 1

area constraints. Therefore, Dominion Virginia Power purchased 0.05 credits from the Libertyville Road Tidal Mitigation Bank. The JPA for the 2010 shoreline stabilization project was submitted on October 15, 2010, and the permit was issued November 18, 2010. Subsequent to the 2010 work, Dominion is currently pursuing shoreline stabilization in Priority 1 Area. Priority 1 Area at the Chesapeake Energy Center is an approximately 1,000 foot long area on the east side of Dominion s property. The area is bordered by the Elizabeth River to the east and the Columbia Gas property to the west. An asphalt-paved service road runs along the crest of the shoreline in this area. The condition of the shoreline slope below the service road varies. In an approximately 300-foot long section starting at approximately Station 17+50, the upper portion of the slope is near vertical. The remaining sections of the shoreline slope of the perimeter shoreline in the Priority 1 Area range from about 1H:1V to 2H:1V with an average of about 1.5H:1V. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Dominion s primary objective for this project is to stabilize the perimeter shoreline in the Priority 1 Area with a long term, low maintenance solution that minimizes environmental impacts. From a regulatory perspective, the primary objective is to identify the least environmentally damaging practical alternative. To ensure that the most appropriate solution was selected, Dominion and their engineering consultant, Schnabel Engineering, considered multiple alternatives for repairing and stabilizing the perimeter shoreline in the Priority 1 Area. Each of the alternatives considered are discussed below. A plan view and cross section view of each of the alternatives is also provided. The alternatives consist of some combination of a flattened slope with and without a sheet pile wall, and erosion and scour protection along the toe of the slope and/or the base of the wall. 2

Alternative 1 Alternative 1 consists of re-constructing the existing slope and reinforcing the slope with geogrid to allow a stable 1.5H:1V slope to be constructed. A steel sheet pile wall will be needed to support the 1.5H:1V reinforced slope between Station 17+90 and 20+00. Rip rap will be placed along the toe of the reconstructed slope and below the sheet pile wall between Station 20+00 and Station 26+10 to provide erosion protection along the full length of the repair area. The installation of rip rap below the sheet pile wall will allow the wall to be cantilevered. Approximately 16,500 square feet of wetlands would be impacted by this alternative. (See Figure 1) Alternative 1 has the potential to result in non-uniform shoreline conditions, potentially resulting in hydraulic eccentricities that could cause shoreline stability concerns in adjacent areas over time. Additionally, sheet piles have a shorter service life (25-50 years), especially in an industrial environment, and require regular maintenance. Impacts to station operations were also considered during the alternatives evaluation since the station will still be in operation during the construction of the Priority 1 Area improvements. This alternative would require complete closure of the service road along the crest of the shoreline for up to 8 months during construction, resulting in significant hardship to station operations. Sheet piles do not achieve Dominion s objective of providing a long term, low maintenance solution. In addition, Alternative 1 will adversely affect station operations. Based on the foregoing, Alternative 1 is not a practical option. 3

Alternative 2 Dominion proposed Alternative 2 at the initial pre-application meeting on January 29, 2013. Alternative 2 consists of flattening the shoreline slope to 2.5H:1V through a combination of excavation and placement of compacted structural fill. Compacted structural fill will generally consist of soils with greater than 50% sand and less than 50% silt and/or clay. Riprap will be placed over the bottom half of the re-graded slope to provide erosion and scour protection during normal river flows and high river flows resulting from storm events. Riprap and bedding stone will consist of crushed rock. The total area of wetlands to be impacted by Alternative 2 is 32,180 ft 2 (0.739 acres). (See Figure 2) During the January 2013 meeting, regulatory agencies expressed concern over the amount of wetlands impacted by Alternative 2. During that meeting, regulators suggested relocating the service road along the shoreline in order to reduce the wetlands impacted. Since the facility will be maintained upon decommissioning of the plant, the road will be needed into the future. Additionally, the adjacent Columbia Gas property includes a containment structure adjacent to the road and will continue operation after decommissioning. Therefore, relocation of the road to the west is not possible. Alternative 2 meets Dominions objective of a long-term, low maintenance solution, with the service life being 50+ years and minor maintenance. However, the regulators suggested another alternative that further minimizes environmental impacts, particularly to wetlands. 5

Alternative 3 As discussed in the most recent pre-application meeting on June 6, 2013, significant efforts were made to reduce the impacts associated with Alternative 2. Alternative 3 reflects the results of these efforts. These efforts included reducing the width of the service road along the crest of the dike to one lane, steepening the bottom half of the slope from 2.5H:1V to 2H:1V, and modifying the riprap revetment geometry at the south end of the Priority 1 Area to result in a smaller footprint and a more efficient tie-out of the proposed grading. The total affected area of wetlands to be impacted by the proposed construction is 20,870 ft 2 (0.480 acres). (See Figure 3) Alternative 3 has a 50+ year service life and low maintenance required. The service road would be closed for a limited period of time decreasing the effects on station operations. Additionally, the Columbia Gas containment area would not be impacted with this alternative. Another advantage of the alternative proposed by Dominion is that uniform shoreline conditions will be re-established after stabilization. Due to the narrowing of the service road, Alternative 3 was able to decrease the amount of impacted wetlands by 11,310 square feet compared to those impacted by Alternative 2. Since Dominion plans to decommission the Chesapeake Energy Center in 2014/2015, a long term, low maintenance solution is essential. In order to achieve this objective, and satisfy the regulatory objectives, Alternative 3 is the most viable and least environmentally damaging alternative. Alternative 3 requires little maintenance and has a long service life. Alternative 3 also takes into account facility operations and would limit the effect on those operations. 7