Opinion ID: 2794232
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Selection of Variation 1

Text: First, a thorough review of the record shows that it is not without evidence to support the Commission's finding that the Project, using Variation 1, will reasonably minimize adverse impacts as required by the statute. The property was previously an industrial operations and manufacturing site that caused substantial soil and groundwater contamination. As part of the environmental remediation efforts within the former main industrial area known as Area 4C, consisting of approximately 30 acres, BASF excavated several lagoons and surface impoundments and reinterred the materials 26 into a stabilized capped landfill. To capture additional contaminants, BASF has developed plans to construct a permeable reactive barrier (bio-barrier) near the landfill. BASF is also planning the creation of a phytoremediation plot on Area 4C. This involves selective plant growth on the property to minimize the migration of contaminants by binding them in the soil while lowering the water table. The dispute over the Project's adverse environmental impact to BASF's property centers on the Commission's approval of Dominion's construction of a transmission tower in Area 4C for the Surry-Skiffe's Creek Line, using Variation 1. BASF's remediation specialist, Vernon Burrows, testified that the placement of the tower in Area 4C conflicts with BASF's remediation efforts, including the bio-barrier and the phytoremediation plot, and would result in serious environmental damage to the BASF property. Dominion, on the other hand, presented expert testimony indicating that the construction of the tower in Area 4C will have minimal environmental impact. One such witness was Mark Allen, a Dominion civil engineer, who is responsible for the management of all of the high voltage transmission designs in Dominion's system. This includes assuring that all such designs meet established standards for safety and reliability. Another such witness was Cathy Taylor, director of Dominion's Electric 27 Environmental Services Department, whose responsibilities include oversight of environmental compliance and remediation. Allen submitted testimony that the only tower required in Area 4C would not be located on the capped landfill. He also stated that the landfill could successfully be spanned by the transmission line proposed in Variation 1, such that no construction activity would occur on the capped landfill. In contrast to Burrows' statements that the foundations for the tower would be installed by drilled piles, a method that can cause displacement of contaminates, Allen and Taylor both testified that Dominion would use pipe pile foundations that would be driven into the ground by vibration, resulting in minimal disruption of surrounding soil and migration of contaminated groundwater. Taylor testified that they would work with BASF to reconfigure the location of the tower or biobarrier, if necessary, in order that the tower would not interfere with the construction and operation of the biobarrier. Additionally, Taylor stated that there is more than enough space to safely place the tower [and bio-barrier] in [Area 4C]. As to BASF's plan for phytoremediation, while BASF will be unable to plant hybrid poplars in the right-of-way area as it had planned, Taylor testified that there are numerous alternative grasses and small plants that can be used for 28 phytoremediation that would be consistent with the mandatory standards for transmission line right-of-way maintenance. The DEQ, which is overseeing the remediation of Area 4C, also submitted an extensive report to the Commission regarding the proposed Project, including Variation 1. The DEQ, however, did not indicate in the report that Variation 1 was incompatible with BASF's remediation of Area 4C as claimed by BASF. Rather, the DEQ recommended without preference that one of the proposed routes for the Surry-Skiffes Creek Line be used, as opposed to the route for the alternative Chickahominy-Skiffes Creek Line. While vigorously contested, we cannot say that the Commission's selection of Variation 1 was without evidence to support it.