1 Site Visit Report

Chesterfield Power Station

500 Coxendale Road Chester, VA 23836 March 10, 2009

1.0 Background and Objectives

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of developing 316(b) cooling water intake structure requi rements that reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impact for all existing power plants and manufacturing facilities. As part of this process, EPA staff is visiting electric generato rs and manufacturers to better understand the cooling water intake structure (CWIS) technologies in use at typical facilities, including the site-specific characteristics of each f acility and how these affect the selection and performance of CWIS technologies. EP A is also visiting facilities to better understand cooling water use and specific is sues or technologies that can affect 316(b) compliance. Chesterfield Power Stat ion was selected for a site visit due to its proximity to EPA Headquarters and its use of combined cycle generation.

2.0 Facility Description

The Chesterfield Power Station is ow ned and operated by Dominion Virginia Power (Dominion). It is located on appr oximately 150 acres in Chester, Virginia just outside of Richmo nd. Chesterfield is the larges t fossil-fueled power station in the Dominion System. It began operation in 1944 and employs approximately 255 people.

Chesterfield withdraws cooling water from the James River, a tidal river, and discharges to both the James River and the Farrar Gut Canal. Cooling and process water withdrawals and wastewater discharges are currently regulated under NPDES permit VA0004146 which will expire on December 9, 2009.

3.0 Electricity Generation and Transmission

Chesterfield has four pulve rized coal-fired units and two combined cycle gas/oilfired units. Units 3, 4, 5 and 6 are coal-f ired baseload units with generating capacities of 106 MW, 176 MW, 337 MW , and 690 MW, respectively (gross summer capacity). Unit 3, the oldest, began operation in 1952, followed by Unit 4 in 1960, Unit 5 in 1964, and Unit 6 in 1969. Original Units 1 and 2 are permanently out of service. The fuel source for all four units is Eastern

Bituminous Coal. 1

1 Chesterfield maintains a one month coal supply on-site.2 Chesterfield’s two combined cycle units are peaking units that cycle depending on fuel cost, demand, and other factors. Ch esterfield is part of the PJM regional transmission organization which dictates the facility’s daily power generation. These units, referred to as Unit 7 and 8, have generating capacities of 200 MW and 204 MW (gross summer capacity), resp ectively and began operation in 1990

and 1992. 2 While they can use natural gas or fuel oil, these units primarily use natural gas.

Chesterfield performs routine maintenance on its generating units in the fall or spring. The facility typically maintains di fferent units each time. The length of each shutdown period associated with ma intenance varies with the type of maintenance or upgrade being performed. For example, facility representatives noted the outages have ranged from three to 90 days. 3

The transmission system is also owned by Dominion but is operated by a different

business unit.

4.0 Cooling Water System and Intake Structure

There are three CWISs providing once-thr ough cooling water: Units 5-6 in one, Units 3-4 in a second, and Units 7-8 in the third (moving downstream). 4 These

CWISs are located on an “outer bend” curve in the James River downstream from Richmond and well below a smallmouth bass fishery. The James is a tidal river with approximately 3 foot tides in the su mmer. The river depth directly in front of the screens is approximately 85 feet, which is unusually deep for a riverine

environment. The remainder of the river is more typical; because the James is a navigational river, the Army Corp of Engi neers dredges to maintain a depth of at least 35 feet. Depending on seasonal rainfa ll, the salt wedge in the James River has moved past Chesterfield and into Richmond in the summer.

Each CWIS is fitted with a trash rack and standard (i.e., coarse mesh 3/8”) traveling screen. The screens for Units 3, 4, 7, and 8 are eight feet wide and the

screens for Units 5 and 6 are ten feet wi de. The through-screen velocities range from 1.5 to 2.5 feet per second (fps). All of the screens are a bout 18-20 feet deep and rotate when the pressure differential across the screen reaches a specified amount. When the differential is reached, the screens rotate and are cleaned with a high pressure spray that flows into a debris trough which discharges to the

James River. Each unit has two screen s and one pump per screen. The design intake flow (DIF) for all units combined is calculated as 1245 MGD with an average actual intake flow (AIF) of 836 MGD.

Facility representatives indicated they have had no issues with screen operation.

Chesterfield does not have regularly scheduled overhaul or maintenance periods

2 Units 1 and 2 were replaced by Units 7 and 8.

3 A recent scrubber tie-in on Unit 6 required a 90 day outage.

4 The existing CWIS for the since-retired Units 1-2 was used for Units 7-8.3for the CWIS. Rather, it performs CWIS maintenance and overhaul on an asneeded basis. Plant outages in the fa ll and spring have historically provided adequate time for a ny CWIS maintenance.

Units 4-6 discharge cooling water via a discharge canal into Farrar Gut which ultimately discharges back into the James River. Chesterfield is the only direct source of water to the Farrar Gut Canal; facility representatives indicated Farrar

Gut Canal was closed off and would run dr y without the cooling water discharge. Units 3, 7, and 8 discharge cooling water directly into the James River.

5.0 Impingement and Entrainment Information

Chesterfield collected impingement sa mples in 1977 and again in 2005/2006. In order to facilitate comparison of the data , Chesterfield used the same procedure and methodology during both sampling pe riods. During the sampling periods, Chesterfield conducted impingement sampli ng two times a month for a year for a total of 24 sampling events. During each 24-hour sampling event, 16, 10- minute screen-wash samples were co llected at 0800, 0900, 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1800, 1900, 2000, 2100, 2400, 0100, 0200, 0300, 0600, and 0700 hours. Samples were collected in five baskets, consisting of 3/8-inch mesh, and one dip net in the screen-wash troughs for each unit.

The table below shows results from the two impingement studies. The facility collected 14 common species during the tw o sampling periods. While the species generally remained the same, the dominan t species changed between the first and second sampling period. During the 1970s, the dominant species was alewife, while the dominant species in the rece nt sampling was clupeids. Herring and

alewife are not observed as ofte n in the more recent sampling.

Sampling Period

1977 2005/2006 Number of species collected 23 21 + 3 shellfish 1

Primary species Hogchoker Spottail shiner

Alewife Blue catfish 2
Blueback herring

Channel catfish

Bluecrab

Total number of fish collected 441 159

1 The facility did not sample for shellfish during the 1977 sampling period.

2 Due to stocking, the river has recently beco me a fishery for blue and flathead catfish.

During the 2005/2006 sampling period, Cheste rfield also coll ected entrainment samples and conducted ambient studies. Concurrent with the impingement sampling, Chesterfield collected entrainm ent samples for both fish and shellfish eggs and larvae in front of the screens for Unit 6. 5 During each sampling event,

5 Since Unit 6 is the largest generating unit, it was sel ected as the “worst case” scenario for entrainment.4 duplicate 10-minute samples were collect ed from near bottom, mid-depth, and

near surface locations four times duri ng the 24-hour period, centered around: 1000, 1600, 2200, 0400 hours. Samples were coll ected with 1⁄2 m diameter mouth plankton nets constructed of 505- μ m netting, each affixed in a double-net bongo frame. A mix of eggs and larvae wi th clupeids and Dorosoma (gizzard shad) representing 43% and 35%, respectively were collected. The facility also entrained a smaller percentage of Mysid Shrimp and blue crab.

In conjunction with each entrainment sample, samples were also collected via tows from the James River upstream, downstream, and adjacent to the intake centered on the 1000, 1600, 2200, and 0400 hours. During ambient studies, the facility collected 1,106 fish during four surveys. The ambient ichthyoplankton

tows mirrored the entrainment results.

6.0 Cooling Tower Feasibility

Chesterfield has not performed any coo ling tower feasibility studies; facility representatives noted monetary and space con cerns especially in light of its recent capital expenditures and facility expansi on for air controls. Other factors that may affect cooling tower installation are an adjacent county park and the close proximity of the boilers to the river (r educing the available space for tie-in).

7.0 Debris Handling

Chesterfield does not have significant problems with debris loading. It experiences an influx of leaves in the fa ll, but facility representatives indicated this hasn’t negatively impact ed facility operations.

8.0 Repowering/Future Uses

Chesterfield has no curren t plans for re-powering or upgrades other than

additional air controls. See Section 13.0.

9.0 Cooling Ponds

There are no cooling ponds on site.

10.0 Ownership

Chesterfield is owned by Virginia El ectric and Power Company d/b/a Dominion Virginia Power, a subsidiary of Domini on Resources, Inc., an investor-owned

company.5 11.0 316(a)

Chesterfield has a 316(a) BTU heat rejection requirement, but has had no problems meeting its limit. No s easonal derating has been necessary.

12.0 Ash Handling

Bottom and fly ash from Units 3-6 are handled wet. A small portion of the bottom ash is sold, while the remainder is commingled with the fly ash and sluiced to the ash pond.

Chesterfield has two ash ponds that began operation in the 1960s and 1980s, respectively. The older p ond is unlined and is still active. The newer pond is unlined and is being closed with ash. The active newer pond is approximately 80 feet above grade. The plant expects that when it is completely filled, in approximately 2020, it will be 160 feet above grade. In addition, flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater treatmen t purge also discharges to this ash pond. The pond has a general nutrient discharge permit that requires monitoring of TSS, oil and grease, and nitrogen.

13.0 Air Emissions Controls

Chesterfield employs low NO

x burners on Units 3-6 and SCRs year round on Units 4-6. The facility noted it achieves 90% NO

x reductions during the ozone season (May 1-September 30) and 75 % NOx reductions during the remainder of the year. The facility also employs el ectrostatic precipitato rs on Units 3-5 and a baghouse on Unit 6 for PM (particulate matte r) control that are 96-99% efficient.

In 2008, Chesterfield began operating a limestone forced oxidation (LSFO) FGD

on Unit 6 for SO 2 removal. The facility noted the scrubber’s efficiency exceeds 95% and prevents the emission of 30,000 tons of SO 2 annually. The FGD

blowdown is based on the level of chlori des in the absorber vessel, which are typically kept between 24,000-25,000 pp m (scrubber design may not exceed 30,000 ppm chlorides). The FGD purge is sent to the wastewater treatment system. Gypsum is barged and sold off-site for beneficial reuse.

The FGD wastewater treatment system c onsists of a DensaDeg clarifier, pH adjustment with lime and polymer addition for greater settling of solids. The FGD waste stream is an internal discharge th at discharges to the ash pond. Proctor’s Creek (a nearby wastewater treatment plant) effluent is used as make-up water for

the scrubber.6 Chesterfield plans to inst all a single wet LSFO FGD sc rubber for Units 3, 4, and 5

in 2012. 6 The facility projects this additional scrubber to reduce overall SO 2 emission by at least 95%.

Chesterfield’s 2008 enhanced environmenta l control system additionally included a fabric filtration baghouse (the largest in the U.S.) on Unit 6 that removes greater

than 99% of PM. Chesterfield noted th at the combination of the new scrubber and baghouse system is also expected to reduce mercury air emissions by 90%.

Chesterfield noted that the enhanced e nvironmental controls more than doubled the size of the power station and that the total costs of environmental expenditures associated with the existing SCRs, FGD, baghouse, and scrubber were $750 million. It took the facility 4 years to complete installation of these systems.

14.0 Additional Information

With regard to the 2004 316(b) Phase II rule, Chesterfield completed its biological studies including impingement and entrainment estimates. Facility representatives indicated that dete rmining the calculation baseline was straightforward because they are a shoreline facility with traveling screens. The facility did not complete technology feasib ility evaluations nor did they come to conclusions as to how they would have complied with the 2004 rule. However, Chesterfield representatives indicated they liked the flexibility that the 2004 rule offered. They thought it was imperative that the new rule offer multiple compliance options to allow each facility to accommodate site-specific issues. Specifically, Dominion Power representative s would like to see rule options that provide credit for flow reductions, a suite of technology options that accommodate site-specific characteris tics, and water body considerations.

In the 1960s, a series of aerators were inst alled in the discharge for Units 4-6 (in Farrar Gut Canal) to improve water qualit y in the James River. However, these have not been used in many years.

Attachments

Attachment A List of Attendees

Attachment B Aerial Photos

Attachment C Site Visit Photos

6 Facility representatives noted that the single scrubber for Units 3, 4, and 5 would be about the same size

as the scrubber for Unit 6.7 Attachment A--Lis t of Attendees

Paul Shriner, EPA Jan Matuszko, EPA Josh Hall, EPA Erik Helm, EPA Julie Hewitt, EPA Richard Witt, EPA OGC Shari Goodwin, Tetra Tech Kelly Meadows, Tetra Tech Peter Sherman, Tetra Tech Christine Wong, Tetra Tech John Sunda, SAIC Dawn Garber, Dominion Bill Bolin, Dominion Oula Shehab, Dominion Cathy Taylor, Dominion

# Copyrighted page/s removed. Copyrighted material is not available in Regulations.gov since it may not be reproduced without consent of the copyright holder.

Please contact the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room to view this document.

Address: 1301 Constitution Ave, NW

Room 3334 Washington, DC 20004

Telephone: 202-566-1744

Fax: 202-566-9744

Email: docket-customerservice@epa.gov10 Attachment C—Site Visit Photos

Please see the attached materials.