Page 1

Coal Ash Wastescape:

Designed Remediation of Chesterfield Power Station’s Coal Ash Ponds Lauren Delbridge

Coal Ash Wastescape: Designed Remediation of Chesterfield Power Station’s Coal Ash Ponds 2017 Lauren Delbridge

This project is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Bachelor of Landscape Architecture degree at the College of Architecture and Urban Studies at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Wendy Jacobson Associate Professor + Project Advisor

C.L. Bohannon Assistant Professor + Project Coordinator

Terry Clements Professor + Program Chair

Acknowledgments Thank you to my family and Matt for the continued support during my studies and for listening to me talk continuously about coal ash. Thank you to the small yet mighty LAR class of 2017 for pushing me to do my best work. Thank you to Wendy Jacobson for meeting with me every week to guide me through the process of the fifth year project. Thank you to the landscape architecture program for preparing me for an exciting future.


Table of Contents 1. The Issue with Coal Ash

Understanding why coal ash ponds are a critical problem in today’s America

2. Re-Imagining the Engineered Solution Current strategies that approach a safe disposal of coal ash

3. Site Location

The reasoning behind the selection of Chesterfield Power Station

4. Site Components and Synthesis Comprehending the complexities of the site

5. Alternative Concepts

Creating a spectrum of design ideas

6. The Productive Wastescape

Transformation of coal ash into a new growing medium

7. Appendices

More information supporting the remediation of coal ash ponds

8. References

[ 11 ]

[ 19 ]

[ 25 ]

[ 35 ]

[ 47 ]

[ 53 ]

[ 71 ] [ 81 ]

Coal Combustion Process

Introduction With coal ash ponds dotting the U.S. landscape, the potential for these sites to offer a future use creates a compelling argument for the designed remediation of these coal ash wastescapes. While the issue of coal ash is being discussed at a national and global level, little is being done to address the transformation of the coal ash pond as a site. Coal ash is produced as the byproduct of our dependence on coal for energy. As coal is burned, ash is produced and collected at multiple stages in the combustion process. The ash is combined with a water solution to easily pipe the sluice into pits within the landscape. These pits, traditionally unlined and exposed to the elements, are referred to as coal ash ponds and have acted as the main storage method for this waste material until the last few years (Coal generates 44%). The problem with this storage method for coal ash is the potential for heavy metals within the ash to leach into underlying groundwater systems and nearby creeks and streams. Even though coal ash is not specified as a toxic material, the amounts of accumulated heavy metals can be threatening. In addition to dangers with leachate, coal ash ponds have gotten most of their recent press surrounding massive spills such as the TVA Kingston Fossil Plant Spill in 2008. The potential for failure in addition to leaching heavy metals makes the traditional coal ash pond storage method hazardous and problematic (Electric Power Research). Recent EPA regulations in 2015 mandating “safe disposal” of coal ash, brings about a critical point for the discussion of coal ash ponds. New rules and technical standards have been put in place to force the industry to rethink their methods of coal ash storage and unlined ponds across the nation are in the process of being closed. The closure of unlined ponds aims to deal with the leaching of heavy metals; however, turning the coal ash ponds into landfill type structures neglect potential spaces for people (Hazardous). This project focuses on transforming Chesterfield Power Station’s coal ash pond into a space for education, experience, and interpretation, allowing the site a future life that gives back to people. By creating a remediation system that continues to accept ash and teach visitors, the site can act as a precedent for action that can be taken to rethink these wastescapes across the nation.

What is Coal Ash? Coal ash is primarily produced from the burning of coal in coal-fired power plants. Also referred to as coal combustion residuals or CCRs, coal ash includes a number of byproducts produced from burning coal, including:

Fly Ash

A very fine, powdery byproduct of burning finely ground coal in a boiler. Fly ash is mainly composed of silica.

Bottom Ash

A coarse, angular particle of ash formed at the bottom of the coal firebox. Bottom ash is too large to be carried up the smoke stack so it is collected at the bottom.

Boiler Slag

Molten bottom ash from slag tap and cyclone type furnaces. This ash has a smooth, glassy appearance when it is cooled with water.

Flue Gas Desulfurization Material

Material leftover from the process of reducing sulfur dioxide emissions from a coal-fired boiler that can be a wet sludge or a dry powdered material. This byproduct consists mostly of calcium sulfite and calcium sulfate (“Virginia Coal Ash”).


Chapter 1: The Issue With Coal Ash

A Nation Covered in Ash [ 13 ]

Spilling and Leaching [ 15 ]

The Nature of a Spill [ 17 ]

1. The Issue with Coal Ash Perhaps the most compelling problem with coal ash and coal ash ponds is in the numbers of how the U.S. is affected by this industrial waste material. In 2014, the U.S. consumed 917.7 million tons of coal. The electric power sector consumed 92.8% of the total tonnage. Each year, the U.S. produces nearly 140 million tons of coal ash. With roughly 140 million tons of coal ash being made each year, coal ash is a material we should be dealing with now. As coal continues to be burned to support our steady need for electricity, the issue of coal ash is a problem that is not disappearing (“Coal generates 44%). Most U.S. states are in some way affected by coal ash ponds and disposal sites, which makes design interventions applicable to sites across the nation. While all coal ash ponds vary in nature, the need for a future life can be shared by each of these industrial wastescapes.

Among the reasons for heightened press surrounding coal ash ponds are the expansive and devastating spills that have occurred in recent years. In particular, the TVA Kingston Fossil Plant Spill in Kingston, TN made headlines as 1.1 billion gallons of coal ash was spilled over 300 acres. On December 22, 2008, this coal ash pond failure damaged 40 nearby homes. An estimated $3 billion has been spent to clean up the damage caused by this failure in engineering and the lasting effects of coal ash contamination can still be observed today (Osborne). While many fear coal ash ponds for their potential to cause large-scale disasters, coal ash ponds should be seen equally for their potential for transformation. Coal ash is currently a nationwide issue and it will continue to be if steps are not taken to consider the process of dealing with ash as it is produced.

Main concerns associated with coal ash ponds are related to leaching and spilling of the coal ash slurry. Coal ash contains trace elements such as Arsenic, Mercury, Lead, and Chromium among others. Coal ash is specifically not classified by the EPA as a hazardous or toxic material due to overall low levels of these elements, however, the leaching or spilling of these elements into water systems is cause for concern (Hazardous 1). Arsenic is naturally occurring and can be found in other sources such as volcanic ash, food, water, soil, and air. Arsenic is a carcinogen when humans are exposed to certain levels of the element. Mercury is an element primarily released into the environment by volcanoes, stationary combustion (which is mostly coal-fired power plants), and gold production. This element is mostly threatening to children and infants. Lead is a highly poisonous metal when inhaled or swallowed. Exposure to lead in children is especially harmful and can affect almost every organ and system in the body. Chromium is a metal of concern when it is inhaled or ingested. Chromium has been found in groundwater in many U.S. cities generally because of the metal leaching from industrial sites (“Virginia Coal Ash�).

[ 11 ]

Coal Ash Waste Sites Per State

Kentucky 24 North Carolina 19 Virginia 11 Tennessee 10 South Carolina 9 West Virginia 7 Georgia 6 KEY 1 Waste Site

14 Waste Sites 15-19 Waste Sites

24 Waste Sites

A Nation Covered in Ash Coal ash has become a nationwide problem. With coal ash waste sites in 35 of the United States, many Americans can relate to the problems surrounding coal ash ponds. Kentucky leads the tally of coal ash waste sites with 24 sites within the state boundary. North Carolina and Virginia are also heavily affected by coal ash with 19 and 11 waste sites respectively. With nearly 140 million tons of coal ash produced each year in the U.S., coal cars stretching the perimeter of the continental United States and once across the center would be needed to hold the extent of the waste (“Virginia Coal Ash�).

Yearly Coal Ash Production in America

Coal Ash Sites, Spills, and Ponds

[ 13 ]

Spilling and Leaching

Lines of failure

Flow slide

Slough Slimes

Coal Ash Pond - Spill Coal ash ponds are retained by earthen dams which have the potential to fail and cause large-scale coal ash spills. The TVA Kingston dam failure was caused by a layer of slimes that had gone undetected for a number of years. This “creep failure� and the liquefaction of the coal ash led to the total failure (Osborne).

Coal Ash


Coal Ash Pond - Leaching Most coal ash ponds are unlined which poses a threat to underlying groundwater systems. As the heavy metals within the ash leach, the contaminates can enter the groundwater causing reason for concern.

Spilling and Leaching The main dangers surrounding coal ash ponds deal with potential spilling and leaching of material and heavy metals. Historically, coal ash has been stored in unlined pits behind earthen dams. Seepage and leakage are not uncommon over time as the coal ash ponds are filled. Poor engineering or other environmental factors can compromise the dam entirely resulting in a failure and mudslide-like event. In addition to endangering homes and structures within its path, a spill can threaten the surrounding wildlife and water systems. Leaching of the trace elements within coal ash has been observed with numerous unlined coal ash ponds. As the ash sits and weathers within the pond, arsenic, mercury, lead, chromium, and other heavy metals can begin to leach into underlying groundwater systems (“CCP Frequently”).

What Makes Coal Ash Dangerous?








Pb 207.2





Arsenic is naturally occurring and can be found in other sources such as volcanic ash, food, water, soil, and air. Arsenic is a carcinogen when humans are exposed to certain levels of the element.


Mercury is an element most commonly released into the environment by volcanoes, stationary combustion (which is mostly coal-fired power plants), and gold production. This element is mostly threatening to children and infants.


Lead is a highly poisonous metal when inhaled or swallowed. Exposure to lead in children is especially harmful and can affect almost every organ and system in the body.


Chromium is a metal of concern when it is inhaled or ingested. Chromium has been found in groundwater in many U.S. cities generally because of the metal leaching from industrial sites (“Virginia Coal Ash”).

[ 15 ]

Kingston Fossil Plant Coal Ash Spill - 2008

The Nature of a Spill - Kingston Fossil Plant

Coal ash floods nearby neighborhood

One of the forty homes destroyed by the coal ash flood

Nearby home suffers mud, ash, and water damage

Source: jpg

When the earthen dam used to contain one of TVA Kingston TN Fossil Plant’s coal ash ponds failed, 1.1 billion gallons of waste flowed from the site (“Virginia Coal Ash”). Destroying much of its path, the mudflow-like coal ash slurry damaged homes and caused contamination of the Emory and Clinch Rivers and surrounding environmental systems. According to an AECOM Technology Corporation report, the dike failure resulted from the liquefaction of several “slime” layers and other water-saturated materials within the ash pile (Osborne). This cause was later found in court to be a direct effect of negligence by TVA Kingston Fossil Plant and spurred new EPA regulations that focused on methods of safe disposal for coal ash.

Source: images/2008/12/24/us/25sludge2_600. JPG

Source: resources/images/NA-BS160_ COALAS_G_20120823173334.jpg

[ 17 ]

Chapter 2: Re-imagining the Engineered Solution

Clean Closure [ 21 ]

Closure-in-Place [ 23 ]

2. Re-imagining the Engineered Solution With regulations mandating the safe closure of coal ash ponds, now is the time for action to design the future of these waste sites. The EPA signed the Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities final rule on December 19, 2014, which states that unlined pits must be retrofitted to include a liner, or close to no longer accept coal ash. The industry is being forced to rethink the way they will store coal ash (Hazardous). Most of the proposed engineering solutions deal mainly with the encapsulation of coal ash. Using a strategy called Clean Closure, the ash is dewatered and placed into an engineered landfill. The landfill is provided with a bottom liner and leachate collection system to capture any excess water. The coal ash is then capped with a 30-mil synthetic barrier, layers of soil and topsoil, and vegetation (Larson).

Another strategy called Closure-in-Place also encapsulates the coal ash, but it does not require any movement of the ash. The ash is dewatered and systematically excavated and molded into a mounded form. The coal ash is then capped with a synthetic liner, soil, and vegetation; however, this strategy does not include a bottom liner (“Dominion’s Solution�). Both of these increasingly popular engineering solutions contain the coal ash and minimize leachate, but neither creates a space for people. There is a great opportunity for the designed closure of coal ash ponds. Considering the prevalence of coal ash across the nation, making the process of remediation visible and experiential would be highly valuable to educate the public about the potential to transform these wastescapes.

[ 19 ]

Clean Closure Diagram

Liner system Coal Ash Drainage layer with leachate collection system 30-mil synthetic barrier clay liner

Groundwater monitoring well

Leaching metals collected and piped off-site for decontamination

Existing soil


Clean Closure The “clean closure” of a coal ash pond is possibly the most foolproof way of transitioning the ash pond into a contained storage facility. With this strategy, coal ash is dewatered and removed from its original pond. The coal ash is placed in an engineered landfill with a bottom liner and leachate collection system. Once the landfill is full, the facility is capped to prevent water from seeping into the contained coal ash. While this strategy manages leachate, it carries with it several other issues. First, the transportation of large amounts of dewatered coal ash over extended distances to engineered landfill sites can cause disturbances to those living close by or en route to the location of the landfill. In addition, this strategy simply moves the ash to another location and leaves the coal ash pond as a contaminated site (Larson).

Geosynthetic cap system Vegetation Top Soil Layer Protective soil drainage layer 30-mil synthetic barrier

Coal Ash

However, a critical missed opportunity with “clean closure” is the lack of consideration for human interaction. Teaching the public how the industry is dealing with its waste could be hugely valuable to teaching the Americans more sustainable waste management practices. Also, once the coal ash is placed within the landfill, the process ends. This strategy is a one time solution for managing coal ash rather than approaching the problem with a solution that could remediate coal ash currently and in the future.

[ 21 ]

Closure-in-Place Diagram

Standing water

Depositional delta at discharge location


Perimeter Berm

1. Current Conditions

Perimeter ditch for dewatering

To wastewater treatment


Perimeter Berm

2. Dewatering

Affected soil to be removed

Vegetative layer Berm fill used for cover


ade in gr m % 5 Ash

3. Closure-in-place/Consolidation

Closure-in-Place Closure-in-place is a strategy accepted for currently unlined coal ash ponds to be closed in their current location. An option for a regulation approved closure without the need for material excavation or transport, closure-in-place allows the pond to be mitigated as is. The entire coal ash pond must initially be dewatered with equipment and piping to pump the ash water out of the containment area. This water is then sent to wastewater treatment for decontamination. After dewatering, the coal ash is built into a landfill type structure where a geomembrane and soil cap protect the fill from water permeating into the ash material (“Dominion’s Solution�). Similarly to clean closure, this strategy lacks the potential for human interaction. The waste site once again has become a landfill structure, however, this strategy lacks the bottom liner and leachate collection system that safeguards the leaching of dangerous coal ash elements.

[ 23 ]

Chapter 3: Site Location

Surrounding Connections [ 29 ]

Virginia Coal Ash Ponds [ 27 ]

Bird’s-eye View of Site [ 31 ]

Inventory Axon [ 33 ]

3. Site Location Virginia is one of the United States heavily affected by coal ash ponds. With 11 large ponds, the issue of coal ash is prevalent and closing the ash ponds safely is a priority for citizens and environmental advocates. There are four coal ash ponds identified by the EPA as ‘significant hazards’, meaning that a failure would cause significant economic loss and damage to surrounding infrastructure and the environment. These coal ash ponds are associated with Clinch River Power Station, Bremo Bluff Power Station, Possum Point Power Station, and Chesterfield Power Station (“Virginia Coal Ash”). Situated 15 miles south of Richmond, Virginia, The Chesterfield Power Station is the largest coal burning power plant in Virginia. It consumes over 8,400 tons of coal a day and will continue to burn coal in the future (“Chesterfield Power Station”). The location of the power station is a significant hazard due to its direct connections to surrounding water systems and natural areas.

Chesterfield Power Station lies along the James River, and relies on the river’s water for both intake and output. Possibly the most compelling adjacency to the power station is the existing Dutch Gap Conservation Area which surrounds the station’s coal ash pond and landfill. While the James River is a thriving ecosystem on its own, the Dutch Gap Conservation Area is 810 acres of diverse bird species, healthy wetlands, and bottomland forests (“Dutch Gap Canal”). The unique juxtaposition of these natural systems with the industrial processes and wastes of the power station offer great opportunities to weave the two uses together.

[ 25 ]

Virginia Coal Ash Ponds

Virginia Coal Ash Ponds Altavista Power Station

A coal-fired power station owned and operated by Dominion near Altavista, Virginia. The plant was converted from burning coal to biomass in 2013.

Bremo Bluff Power Station

A two-unit coal-fired power station of 254-megawatt (MW) in Bremo Bluff, Virginia. The plant was converted to natural gas in 2014.

Chesapeake Energy Center

A coal-fired power station owned and operated by Dominion near Chesapeake, Virginia. All four of its generating units were retired from service as of December 31, 2014.

Chesterfield Power Station

A coal-fired power station owned and operated by Dominion near Chester, Virginia.

Clinch River Plant

A coal-fired power station owned and operated by American Electric Power near Cleveland, Virginia.

Clover Power Station

A coal-fired power station owned and operated by Dominion near Clover, Virginia.

Glen Lyn Plant

A coal-fired power station owned by American Electric Power near Glen Lyn, Virginia. The power station was shut down in 2015.

Hopewell Power Station

A coal-fired power station owned and operated by Dominion in Hopewell, Virginia. As of 2005, the plant was on cold standby. It stopped burning coal in 2013 and was converted to burn biomass.

Possum Point Power Station

A coal-fired power station owned and operated by Dominion converted to natural gas and oil.

Southhampton Power Station

A coal-fired power station owned and operated by Dominion near Franklin, Virginia.

Yorktown Power Station

A coal-fired power station owned and operated by Dominion in Yorktown, Virginia. The coal plant is planned for closure by April 15, 2017. (Virginia Coal Ash Disposal) (“Chesterfield Power Station�)

[ 27 ]

Chesterfield Power Station Surrounding Connections


Proposed pedestrian/ bike/ shared trail network

Chesterfield Power Station

Surrounding Connections Located 15 miles south of Richmond, Virginia, Chesterfield Power Station is the largest coal-burning power station in Virginia. Consuming over 8,400 tons of coal a day, this power station plays a vital role in supplying energy to Virginia (“Chesterfield Power Station”). The power station is situated along the James River, more specifically called the Dutch Gap segment of the river. Chesterfield power station depends on the water from the James as part of its combustion processes. In addition to depending on the river, the power station’s proximity to the river has the potential to contaminate it. Environmental advocacy groups such as the James River Association, and the Sierra Club Virginia Chapter have been active in advocating for protection of the James from potential coal ash pond threats and dangers (“Chesterfield Power Station”). The site is situated in an industrial area of Chesterfield County, however, residential areas are only separated from the site by the James River. The site also lies along a proposed pedestrian / bike shared trail network that the county has outlined. The site is a short distance from Richmond and is already a regional destination for those visiting the adjacent Dutch Gap Conservation Area.

[ 29 ]

Bird’s-eye View of Site W Hundred Rd

View of the site from the east


Chesterfield Power Station / Dutch Gap Conservation Area The site is composed of two unique landscape types: the industrial Chesterfield Power Station and the ecological Dutch Gap Conservation Area. The combination of both types creates a peculiar juxtaposition of uses and offers great opportunities for the site design to weave together the current disparities. Shaded in red, the power station is composed of a 94 acre coal ash landfill, 90 acre coal ash pond, and the power station itself (“Chesterfield Power Station”). Identified with green labels, the 810 acre Dutch Gap Conservation Area surrounds the coal ash landfill and pond and is made up of diverse wetlands, and a tidal lagoon. Dutch Gap Conservation Area is already serving as a regional destination. The park has a 4 mile pedestrian/biking trail that takes visitors around the entire tidal lagoon and brings birders closer to species for observation. In addition, the park has a boating program that allows visitors to kayak and canoe the lagoon and learn more about the surrounding conservation land. The site also offers group educational primitive camping and other special events that draw in visitors yearly (“Tidal Lagoon Trail”). Another interesting element on the site is Henricus Park: a historical reenactment site that educates visitors about the early settlement established on the bank of the James River in the 1600s.

N [ 31 ]

Inventory Axon


Forested Areas of the Site


Coal Combustion Path, Pedestrian Network, and Vehicular Circulation

Site Inventory The site is bordered by mostly industrial uses and is separated from a residential area by the James River. The site has active rail connections that currently bring coal into the power station (“Chesterfield Power Station”). The primary waterways on site are the James River and lagoons and wetlands tidally fed by the James. When the Dutch Gap Canal was completed in 1870, one of the meanders of the river was severed, causing the unusual bend and dead end of the river channel observed on site. The site is mostly flat with little topographical change with the exception of the existing coal ash landfill which covers an area of approximately 94 acres with a maximum height of 55 feet. Bottomland forests are majority of vegetated areas on the site (“Gagnon 15”). There is currently only one point of vehicular entry to the site, and cars must then drive around the power station, coal ash pond, and coal ash landfill to reach designated parking areas on site. There is a well used pedestrian walking loop that follows the perimeter of the tidal lagoon as well as a documented boating guide for lagoon kayaking/canoing (“Tidal Lagoon Trail”).

[ 33 ]

Chapter 4: Site Components and Synthesis

River Morphology [ 37 ]

Coal Waste Processes [ 39 ]

Site Synthesis [ 43 ]

Wetland Components [ 41 ]

Points of Observation/Interest [ 45 ]

4. Site Components and Synthesis When looking at the components of the site, there are many overlaying complexities to consider. In addition to the juxtaposed conditions of coal ash waste processes and the nature conservation area, there are significant elements of history that shaped the site into what it is today.

Critical to the Dutch Gap Conservation Area, the existing wetlands have different uses and originated at different points in history. Aiken Swamp/Old River Channel, ‘The Wetlands’, and ‘Perimeter Wetlands’ are each home to diverse bird, fish, and wildlife species (“Dutch Gap Canal”).

Before the Chesterfield Power Station was established and before the Dutch Gap Conservation Area was formed, the site played a significant role in our nation’s history. The site of the second New World settlement, the Citie of Henricus was formed in 1611 as settlers were looking for a secure and healthy location for a new town. The site was also critical during the Civil War as the meanders in the James River created prime opportunities for blockades against the Confederates (“150 Years Ago”). Over time, the shape of the river began to change as a canal was built to bypass the bends in the river on site and once more as sand and gravel mining created an inner tidal lagoon. After these continuous changes to the river shape, Chesterfield Power Station was established and began using the river to create power (“Virginia Department of Historic Resources”).

The site synthesis explores the intervention opportunities on the site and where efforts should be made to transform rather than protect. Focusing mostly on the coal ash pond and landfill, these wasteland conditions are most malleable and in need of remediation and transformation. Since Chesterfield Power Station will continue to burn coal and produce coal ash in the future, it is important that some areas of the site remain as industrial use.

Other important components of the site are the coal waste processes and the conservation area conditions. Better understanding how these drastically different land uses exist simultaneously further supports the opportunity the site offers to weave these uses together.

The synthesis also explores proximity to coal ash and potential contamination of the surrounding site. With many components of the Conservation Area directly adjacent to the unlined coal ash pond and landfill, there is potential for leaching of heavy metals into the surrounding landscape. In addition, there are several noted outfalls that drain coal ash runoff and overflow back into the James River, creating another reason for contamination concern.

[ 35 ]

River Morphology

(“Virginia Department of Historic Resources�)

River Morphology The original course of the James River meandered across the site until the Civil War in 1864. Early attempts to build a canal to bypass the Union’s blockade failed, but the initial effort began to change the course of the river (“150 Years Ago”). Soon after the initial failed attempt, the Army Corps of Engineers successfully completed the Dutch Gap Canal and cut the river bends. Years later, the landscape underwent another change as sand and gravel mining operations excavated Farrar Island and left behind old barges and a large tidal lagoon. Following the mining operations, Chesterfield Power Station was established and only hints of the original river path remain. 1611 Citie of Henricus

Sir Thomas Dale arrived in Virginia with instructions from the London Company to find a secure and healthy area to establish a new town and principal seat for the colony

1781 Revolutionary War

British General Benedict Arnold surprised the Virginia Navy at Osborne’s Landing in the old river channel by Farrar’s Island

1864 Civil War

The Union sunk ships and placed obstructions and batteries around Farrar’s Island to prevent the Confederate fleet from coming down the James, and the Confederate engineers had placed mines and torpedoes in Trent’s Reach to hinder the Federal fleet from coming up

1870 Dutch Gap Canal Completed

The Army Corps of Engineers widened the canal to its current extent following previous attempts to build the canal during the Civil War

1925 Sand and Gravel Mining Richmond Sand and Gravel Corp. began mining Farrar Island

1944 Chesterfield Power Station 50 megawatt generating power plant begins service

1996 Dutch Gap Conservation Area

Land was acquired by the town after the state rejected the property as a park

2008 Major Emissions and Pollution Control

More strict air pollution controls regarding coal-burning plant emissions

2015 Final EPA Coal Ash Regulations

Coal ash ponds must be closed and alternative engineered methods of storing combustion waste must be put in place to minimize spill hazards

[ 37 ]

1 1 2




Coal Waste Processes By breaking down several of the complexities of the site, the coal processes and conditions of the conservation area can begin to be understood as components of the site. Beginning with the coal processes, the power station turns coal into waste. The raw material is burned to produce the ash that is collected at different stages along the combustion process. The ash is then mixed with water and piped into the coal ash pond. Over time, the coal ash can be dewatered and deposited into the coal ash landfill as its final resting place (CCP Frequently�).


1 2




Conservation Area Conditions The conservation area components detail the conditions of the existing trail. Beginning with the segment of the trail adjacent to the landfill, the pedestrian ways are already closely tied to the industrial landscape, but are separated by extreme grade change and a chain-link fence. The peninsula boating area of the trail is surrounded by the tidal lagoon and offers basic facilities to visitors interested in taking boating tours of Dutch Gap. The channel bridge crosses the channel that feeds the entire tidal lagoon. This point in the trail system is farthest from the coal ash pond and landfill, but there are views to the distant power station.

[ 39 ]

Wetland Health



Wetland Components The Aiken Swamp/Old River Channel dates back to the 1940s and was initiated by the completion of the Dutch Gap Canal which severed one of the James River meanders. The wetland area is diverse with bird species that flock to the tidal, marshy conditions. ‘The Wetlands’ date back to the 1960s and were created as sand and gravel mining barges were sunk within the tidal lagoon. The sunken barges have created new fish habitats and are active with many bird species. The ‘Perimeter Wetlands’ have evolved over time as the shape of the James River has shifted and morphed. This area of the site is closely situated to an outflow point for coal ash landfill runoff and is therefore most threatened by contamination. Currently, this wetland area is acting as a heron hatchery and there are overlooks into the space to observe bird species from afar (“Dutch Gap Canal”).


1 2 3

[ 41 ]

Site Synthesis

Intervention Opportunities Legend

Coal Ash Pond

To remain in industrial use

Numbers correspond to points of interest on images of pages 44 - 45

Coal Ash Landfilll

0.5 miles

Site Synthesis Synthesis of all site conditions and components identified key locations for intervention within the site and specific points within the site that offer observation and elements of interest. By gaining an understanding of existing wetlands and forests, I was able to better understand the areas of the site that needed manipulation. The coal ash pond and landfill are both within the zone of manipulation and can be transformed into connective pieces that weave together the disjointed landscape.

Integrate trails with coal ash pond

Other important findings were areas most susceptible to contamination and leakage most specifically based on proximity to outfall locations. Each marked outfall is documented to contain some amount of coal ash slurry excess or runoff. Some level of coal ash contaminated material is allowed to be disposed of directly into the James River, but the water quality of these outfalls is being questioned. While a completely contaminated area of the site, the coal ash landfill has the potential to offer great views of the entire site and beyond to visitors. Capitalizing on those views will allow for the best observation on site.

Views from top of mound

Coal Ash Proximity Legend

0.5 miles

[ 43 ]

1. Chesterfield Power Station Upon Entry

3. Looking Into the James River Channel

2. Trail Adjacent to Ash Landfill

4. One of Multiple Docks Extending Into Tidal Lagoon



Points of Observation / Interest There are several points of observation and interest along the existing trails and roads on site. Beginning with the only entry route into the site, views of the power station meet visitors as soon as they enter the site. As one starts walking the loop trail, the proximity of the trail to the coal ash landfill is staggering. Moving to point three, there are views to the outflow systems of the power station and coal ash pond, but most importantly the trail offers views to the surrounding James River. Point four shows one of several existing docks that let visitors get closer to the tidal lagoon. Point five has views to the sunken barges left from the historical sand and gravel mining operations on site. Finally, point six is a view across the tidal lagoon to the distant power station.

5. Sunken Ship Among Other Sunken Barges


1 3 2

4 6. View of Power Station Across Tidal Lagoon



[ 45 ]

Chapter 5: Alternative Concepts

From Waste to Artscape [ 49 ]

Birding Ecologies [ 51 ]

5. Alternative Concepts An important part of the project is creating a spectrum of ideas to suggest different ways of using remediation to give Chesterfield Power Station’s coal ash pond a future life. By exploring different remediation techniques, it became clear that there are many answers to the issue of coal ash, and different remediation techniques could inform entirely different landscapes.

The value of pursuing multiple design concepts is creating different ideas that inspire different viewers. While there may not be funding for a large-scale artscape, there might be more ecological interest in drawing a more diverse group of birds to the site. The variety of ideas can appeal to wide variety of audiences and ultimately start conversations about all of the potential futures this wastescape could have.

The first alternative, From Waste to Artscape, uses bioremediation to continue to accept coal ash and decontaminate the waste. Once the waste is refined, it is placed in sculptural, conical mounds across the current landfill area to rethink the form of a landfill. These mounds allow people to experience the space by walking, climbing, and viewing the artful elements in the landscape. The second alternative, Birding Ecologies, looks to expand existing bird habitats through phytoremediaiton. Closing the coal ash pond in place and planting phytoextracting plants will allow the site to be remediated while also attracting more bird species.

[ 47 ]

From Waste to Artscape

Bioremediation Linear Basins Continues to accept coal ash and decontaminate

Conical Mounds Refined coal ash is placed in sculptural mounds for planting and capping

From Waste to Artscape

Chesterfield Power Station

By continuing to accept coal ash waste, this concept artfully deposits the ash into reinvented landfill structures. The coal ash is first treated with bioremediation in long linear basins. The introduction of microbes aids in the extraction of heavy metals and the refined material is then placed in its final conical shape. Each cone may be planted and/or capped to create small “landfills� that create an artscape for exploration.

Remediation Strategy

Tidal Lagoon

Perimeter Wetlands

In the initial stage, as the coal ash enters the linear basins, microbes are added to extract heavy metals within the ash. Throughout the bioremediation process, color changing additives in the ash would signify the time elapsed in the basins and would be a visible cue showing visitors the stages of remediation and ultimately indicating when the material is refined.

Bioremediation: Stage 1

Bioremediation: Stage 2

Bioremediation: Stage 3

*Process to be expanded to more stages across all linear basins 0.25 miles

[ 49 ]

Birding Ecologies

Proposed/Existing Trails Pedestrian network throughout the site Phytoremediation Birding Habitat Coal ash pond is closed-in-place, grid of dewatering pipes to remain

Expand Existing Bird Habitats Create bottomland forest, meadow, and wetland conditions

Birding Ecologies

Chesterfield Power Station

This concept works to enhance the existing habitats and ecologies that exist within the Dutch Gap Conservation Area. Creating more extensive bottom land forest, meadow, and wetland conditions will draw even more birds into the site to create a regional birding destination. By closing the coal ash pond in place, the wastescape can be transformed into an entirely new habitat condition that could appeal to new species of birds.

Aiken Swamp

Remediation Strategy As mentioned, the coal ash pond will be closed-in-place and will not accept any more coal ash. The site would be planted with a phytoextracting plant such as mustard that could absorb metals from the coal ash and undergo regular harvests to sequester the harmful elements (Hindawi 1). As the ash pond is dewatered, the water will be directed into a floating hydroponic system that will extract trace elements and then release the water back into the James River safely.

Tidal Lagoon

Perimeter Wetlands

Floating Hydroponics Floating systems treat wastewater as coal ash pond is dewatered

0.25 miles

Coal ash is seeded with extracting vegetation

Plants extract heavy metals from coal ash

Plants are harvested and collected for biomass

[ 51 ]

Chapter 6: The Productive Wastescape

Masterplan [ 55 ] Perspectives [ 63-67 ]

Remediation Cell Processes [ 57 ] Terraced Landscape [ 59 ]

Experiential Landscape [ 61 ]

6. The Productive Wastescape Since Chesterfield Power Station will continue to burn coal and produce coal ash, it is critical to think about ways to remediate the waste and also transform it into something useful. The Productive Wastescape concept creates a working landscape that collects and refines coal ash and then adds the materials needed for the ash to become a growing medium. The growing medium is then used to fill the terraced landscape and create an experimental testing ground to measure how plants respond to the ash soil medium. The idea of the concept is to make remediation processes clear to visitors and transform the landscape into an education, interpretive, and experiential environment. The creation of an Interpretation Center anchors the remediation cells and the terraced landscape and forms a space for visitors to learn more about the processes happening in the larger landscape.

Visitors can then ascend the terraced landscape to gain a comprehensive view of the entire site. The summit views show the connections between the remediation cells and the natural recreational area. Moving back down the terraces, visitors can begin their walk along the remediation cells where they can observe the juxtaposition of remediation processes and natural recreational areas. Visitors can make their way onto the boating recreation pier to experience the tidal lagoon and watch others explore the site by kayak and canoe. Ultimately the Productive Wastescape weaves together the industrial and the natural and allows visitors to become part of the landscape system. By teaching, showing, and interacting with guests, the transformed landscape would be instrumental to thinking about the future of coal ash ponds.

[ 53 ]

Productive Wastescape

Remediation Cells Continues to accept coal ash and transform into growing medium

Terraced Landscape Refined coal ash growing medium fills the terraaces


es R iver

Boating/Swimming Recreation

Tidal Lagoon

Productive Wastescape Masterplan / Coal Ash to Productive Medium This concept transforms Chesterfield Power Station’s coal ash pond into a productive landscape. The system will continue to accept coal ash as the power station continues to burn coal to produce energy. Bi-yearly, the fully lined coal ash containment area will be dewatered and the coal ash will be moved into a system of remediation cells. From west to east, the ash moves from most contaminated to most refined as heavy metals are leached and collected. In the final stage of cells, additives will be mixed into the coal ash to provide structure for three distinct soil types: agricultural, wetland, and forest. The ash soil will then be deposited to fill the terraced mound and form an experimental testing ground. This controlled environment will allow researchers to study the new soil through the use of phytoextracting plants (Hindawi 1). The plants will indicate what heavy metals can still be absorbed and overall how vegetation can manage a coal ash based growing medium.

Remediation Cell Processes

Phytoremediation of Leachate Solids Coal Ash Containment Leachate Treatment Agricultural Medium Coal Ash to Productive Growing Medium

Wetland Medium

Forest Medium

Leachate Treatment

[ 55 ]

Remediation Cell Processes



3 4

Coal Ash Weatherin g/Leachate Coll

ection: Sta

ge 1 Weatherin g/Leachate Co

llection: Sta

ge 2

Weatherin g/Leachate Coll

ection: Sta ge


Remediation Cells Coal ash will continue to be collected, remediated, and transformed through a series of regulated remediation cells. Each cell is lined and fitted with a leachate collection system to collect leachate and direct it to the adjacent leachate treatment cells. 1. Coal Ash Containment

Coal ash slurry is stored in an engineered containment facility where it is dewatered in sections throughout the year.

2., 3., 4. Weathering/Leachate Collection


Coal ash is allowed to weather in each cell for three months before undergoing transport to the next cell. Each cell will be covered with a mesh membrane to eliminate the blowing of ash.

5. Additives to Form a Productive Growing Medium

Coal ash naturally contains great amounts of organic material, but it lacks the structure to support plant life. In this stage, materials such as coarse stone will be combined with the now refined coal ash medium to create a soil type ideal for forested conditions. While forested conditions require coarse material additives, wetland soils should introduce sandy additives (“Technical Guidance for Creating Wetlands� 9), and agricultural soil needs large aggregates and additional organic material (Savage).

Additives to

Form Prod uctive Gro wing


[ 57 ]

Terraced Landscape Processes


India musta rd Brassica jun cea Pb, Cd, Hg



Common su nflower Helianthus annuus Pb, Cd, Ni



Alfalfa Medicago sa tivo As, B, Cr, C s, Se, Mo, N i


Barley Hordeum vu lgare Pb, As, B, C r, Cs, Se Common B ean Phaseolus v ulgaris Pb, As, B, C r, Cs, Se,

Mo, Ni, Co , Cu

Planted Terraced Landscape Once the productive growing medium has been created, it will be deposited into a terraced landscape that builds upon the existing landfill mound. The terraces will be filled from bottom to top and will be planted based upon the designation of forest, wetland, or agricultural typology. This particular section looks at a primarily agricultural portion of the terraced landscape that overlooks the surrounding remediation cells. Visitors can spiral along the retaining wall paths to reach the peak of the mound or they can travel up sets of stairs throughout the landform. The plants selected for planting in this section target specific heavy metals through phytoremediation. While the coal ash has gone through the remediation process, the terraced landscape creates an experimental hub to see how plants are responding to the new soil conditions. By growing phytoextracting plants, evaluations can be made as to what metals, if any, are still remaining in the coal ash soil.

Common su nflower Helianthus annuus Pb, Cd, Ni

India musta rd Brassica jun cea Pb, Cd, Hg

[ 59 ]

Experiential Landscape 1. Interpretation Center 2. Ascending the Terraces


3. Summit Views 4. Remediation Overlook Promenade 5. Boating Recreation 6. Dewatered Coal Ash Cell 7. Leachate Treatment Cell


8. Remediation Orchard


Tidal Lagoon

Experiential Landscape

8 1 4


The center of the Productive Wastescape weaves together the remediation cells and the terraced landscape by introducing a strong human experiential core. A pedestrian spine integrates interpretation, education, and recreation, immerses visitors into the workings of the site, and makes for a pleasant experience. As guests arrive at the interpretation center, they are surrounded by a remediation orchard that is working to transform the ash landscape that previously occupied the space. Visitors can make their way through a central plaza to the base of the terraced landscape to ascend the stairs that slice through the planted landscape. Once at the summit, visitors can seek shade within the observation overlooks while also looking out onto the broader site landscape. Moving back down the terraces, visitors can begin their walk to the west along the remediation cells where they can observe the juxtaposition of remediation processes and natural recreational areas. With observation decks and covered pavilions dotting the promenade, the linear expanse is broken into moments of discovery about the surrounding landscape. Visitors can make their way onto the boating recreation pier to experience the tidal lagoon and watch others explore the site by kayak and canoe.


[ 61 ]

Interpretation Center with Terraced Landscape Backdrop

1. Interpretation Center The anchor of the site, the interpretation center brings together the remediation cells and the terraced landscape and creates a space for education, interpretation, and experience. Visitors, particularly children, can learn about the processes taking place in the larger landscape by playing in imitation ash sandboxes, and a representational water feature, and by planting saplings and seedlings in educational planting beds.

[ 63 ]

Summit Views

3. Summit Views At the peak of the terraces, the larger site landscape begins to unfold as visitors can look out into the tidal lagoon and remediation cells. Still a short distance from the interpretation center, the overlooks allow a more comprehensive view of the site which helps one better understand the systems at work to create the landscape.

[ 65 ]

Boating Recreation

5. Boating Recreation Existing Dutch Gap boating recreational programs will be expanded upon in the proposed recreation hub. The recreation hub invites visitors to explore the tidal lagoon by swimming and boating and has piers designated for these activities. At the boating recreation pier, visitors can take group tours of the lagoon by boat or arrange to bring their own kayak or canoe to explore individually.

[ 67 ]

Interpretation Center - Site Plan

Interpretation + Play Imitation ash sandboxes and water feature

Outdoor Education Space

Phytoremediation Orchards Phytoextracting trees work to remediate the site

Remediation Education Center


Plant Educational Center

Nursery Education Visitors can learn how to plant their own seeds and saplings

Terraced Landscape Experimental testing ground for coal ash growing medium

60 ft

Interpretation Center - Site Plan Serving as the anchor for the site, the Interpretation Center provides spaces for visitors to learn about the processes occurring in the larger landscape through education, interpretation, and play. From the parking area, visitors are surrounded by the phytoremedial orchard where they can observe phytoremediation at a more personal scale. Visitors then move into the plaza where they can enter either of the educational centers or play in the interpretation ash sandbox or the water feature. Both play features imitate the workings of the remediation cells. Visitors can also learn to plant their own seeds and saplings in the nursery education space. While at a much smaller scale, the nursery area teaches visitors how plants are placed in the terraced landscape.

[ 69 ]

Chapter 7: Appendices

Coal Ash Pond to Wetland [ 73 ]

Stabilization [ 75 ]

Plant Selection [ 77 ]

Bird Species [ 79 ]

7. Appendices Further information about case studies and research done on the topics of coal ash pond to wetland scenarios and planting in coal ash.

Also supplies more information about the phytoremedial plant selection and the current bird species that visit the Dutch Gap Conservation Area.

[ 71 ]

Coal Ash Pond to Wetland

Coal Ash Pond Closure | TRC TRC is an engineering, environmental consulting, and construction management firm committed to the careful closure of coal ash ponds. Recent work with a confidential client involved the closure of a coal ash pond supplied by a neighboring industrial coal-fueled factory.

The Site

The coal ash pond and associated industrial factory occupies waterfront land, making the rehabilitation of the landscape critical to the ecological features of the site.

Remediation Process

The site was remediated through the engineered process of clean closure. The coal ash from the pond was dewatered and extracted, leaving the remaining open pit. Specific to the site, the ground water table had a high probability of filling the pit, which would further the possibilities of remediation. The engineering team called for wetland engineers and Landscape Architects to transform the leftover pit into a functioning wetland (McAnulty).

[ 73 ]

Stabilization of Coal Ash Disposal Site

Coal Ash Site Remediation | RECOAL RECOAL has worked to reintegrate coal ash disposal sites and mitigate pollution in the West Balkan Area. Their studies deal with chemical and vegetative strategies as well as the effects of the strategies over time.

The Site

The studies focused on several open ash disposal sites near Tuzla, in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Remediation Processes

The primary concern of site remediation revolved around the stabilization of the sites to prevent coal ash from being blown into surrounding regions. RECOAL developed field study plots on the open ash sites as well as controlled greenhouse ash environments to test different soil amendments and their effects on grasses. Another great question of the region was the potential to grow crops on the disturbed land. By testing many different locally grown crops, the crops were evaluated for their tolerance to the heavy metals as well as their resistance to metal absorption. Barley, lucerne, and bean were found to have the greatest tolerance and barley showed the greatest resistance to metal absorption (RECOAL).

[ 75 ]

Phytoremedial Plant Selection

Hordeum vulgare Pb, As, B, Cr, Cs, Se

Medicago sativa As, B, Cr, Cs, Se, Mo, Ni

Phaseolus vulgaris As, B, Cr, Cs, Se, Mo, Ni, Pb, Co, Cu

Brassica campestris L. Pb

Brassica juncea Pb, Cd, Hg

Brassica napus L. Pb

Populus alba L. As, Cd, Zn

Triticum aestivum L. Pb, Cd

Populus nigra As, Cu, Pb

Brassica nigra L. Pb

Salix L. As

Brassica olerace Pb

Pinus silvest Cd, Zn, P

Azolla carolinia As

Pinus silvestris L. Cd, Zn, Pb

Azolla caroliniana As

Zea mays As, Cu, Cr

Picea abies L. Cd, Zn, Pb

Salix viminalis L. Hg

Eichhornia Kunth Cd, As, Cr, Hg

Acorus calamus L. Pb


Helianthus annuus L. Pb, Cd, Ni


Salix L. As

Brassica oleracea L. Pb

A study of plants that are suitable to the Chesterfield, Virginia climate and also distinctly target the extraction of heavy metals found in coal ash. The plants are separated into categories of agriculture, forest, and wetland (Hindawi 2).


Brassica nigra L. Pb

Phytoremedial Plant Selection

[ 77 ]

Dutch Gap Conservation Area Bird Species




winter Pileated Woodpecker Hairy Woodpecker Downy Woodpecker Red-headed Woodpecker


Red-bellied Woodpecker Bald Eagle Orchard Oriole Summer Tanager Painted Bunting Red-eyed Vireo Scarlet Tanager Crested Flycatcher Sparrow


GoldďŹ nch Indigo Bunting Eastern Bluebird Kingbird Sparrow Hawk Ring-necked Duck

Woodland and Meadow Bird Species


The existing bird species that can be found throughout the year at Dutch Gap Conservation Area. WETLAND / POND

Mallard Northern Shoveler Northern Pintail Osprey American Bittern

Scarlet Tanager Crested Flycatcher Sparrow


Goldfinch Indigo Bunting Eastern Bluebird Kingbird



Sparrow Hawk Pileated Woodpecker Ring-necked Duck Hairy Woodpecker Gadwall


Downy Mallard Woodpecker Red-headed Woodpecker Northern Shoveler Red-bellied Woodpecker Northern Pintail Bald Eagle Osprey Orchard AmericanOriole Bittern Summer WigeonsTanager Painted Goose Bunting Canada Kingfisher Red-eyed Vireo



Yellow Warbler Scarlet Tanager Yellow-throated Warbler Crested Flycatcher Pine Warbler Sparrow Prairie Warbler Goldfinch Black-and-White Warbler Indigo Bunting American Redstart Warbler Eastern Bluebird Wilson’s Warbler Kingbird Sparrow Hawk

Wetland/Pond and Woodland/Wetland Bird Species The existing bird species that can be found throughout the year at Dutch Gap Conservation Area (“66. Dutch Gap”). WETLAND / POND


Ring-necked Duck Gadwall Mallard Northern Shoveler Northern Pintail Osprey American Bittern

[ 79 ]

8. References “150 Years Ago Today: Blowing Up of the Bulkheads of Dutch Gap Canal: January 1, 1865.” The Siege of Petersburg Online. 01 Feb. 2015. Web. 15 Oct. 2017. <http://www.>.

Dorman, Lane C. Evaluation of a pilot-scale constructed wetland treatment system for ash basin water. Thesis. Clemson University , 2008. Tiger Prints, n.d. Print.

“66. Dutch Gap Conservation Area, Chester, Virginia.” BirdWatching. Web. 29 Jan. 2017. <http://www. b i r d w a t c h i n g d a i l y. c o m / h o t s p o t s / 6 6 - d u t c h - g a p conservation-area-chester-virginia/>.

“Coal generates 44% of our electricity, and is the single biggest air polluter in the U.S.” Union of Concerned Scientists. 01 Sept. 2016.

Adamson, Emilee, and Brian Wrenn. VPDES Permit Fact Sheet. Glen Allen: 2016. PDF. B, Lokeshappa, and Anil Kumar Dikshit. Behaviour of Metals in Coal Fly Ash Ponds. Tech. ICESD, 2012. Print. “CCP Frequently Asked Questions.” American Coal Ash Association. n.d. Web. 7 Sept. 2017. <https://www.acaa-usa. org/About-Coal-Ash/CCP-FAQs>. “CCR Coal Ash Ponds.” Griffin Dewatering. Web. 20 Jan. 2017. <>. “Chesterfield Power Station.” Chesterfield Power Station SourceWatch. Web. 05 Aug 2016. <http://www.sourcewatch. org/index.php/Chesterfield_Power_Station>. Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources. Technical Guidance for Creating Wetlands. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Feb. 1997. PDF. Dodge, Ed. “Can Coal Fly Ash Waste Be Put To Good Use?” Breaking Energy. n.d. Web. 19 July 2016. <http://>. “Dominion’s solution for leaking coal ash: Just put a lid on it.” Southern Environmental Law Center. 23 Apr. 2015. Web. 11 Aug. 2016. <>.

“Dutch Gap Canal.” James River. Web. 25 Jan. 2017. <http://>.

Electric Power Research Institute. Coal Ash: Characteristics, Management and Environmental Issues. Rep. N.p.: n.p., 2009. Print. “Engineering with Geosynthetics.” Geosynthetica: Geosynthetics Engineering. n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2016. <http://>. Gagnon, Jennifer. Forests of Virginia: Importance, Composition, Ecology, Threats, and Management. Rep. Virginia Cooperative Extension, 2016. Print. Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities. Environmental Protection Agency (2015). Hindawi. “A Review on Heavy Metals (As, Pb, and Hg) Uptake by Plants through Phytoremediation.” International Journal of Chemical Engineering. Hindawi Publishing Corporation, 16 Aug. 2011. Web. 10 Feb. 2017. “History of Henricus.” Henricus Historical Park. Web. 12 Sept. 2016. <>. “Knee-deep in coal ash: Is it really hazardous?” Chesterfield Observer. n.d. Web. 05 Aug. 2016. Landry, Gregory M. Dewatering Fly Ash for Remediation: Two Approaches. Tech. World of Coal Ash, 2015. Print.

[ 81 ]

Larson, Aaron. “Coal Combustion Residuals Rule Compliance Strategies.” POWER Magazine. 31 May 2016. Web. 15 Sept. 2016. <>. McAnulty, Stacy. Personal Interview. 07 Sept 2016. McConnell, Jim. “Dominion to close coal ash ponds in Chester.” Chesterfield Observer. n.d. Web. 05 May 2017. Morris, Elli. “Digging up the past.” Chesterfield Observer. Web. 05 Sept. 2016. <http://www.chesterfieldobserver. com/news/2011-06-29/Family/Digging_up_the_past.html>.

“Tide Tables.” James River - Rivers Bend Tide Times, VA WillyWeather. Web. 28 Jan. 2017. <http://tides.willyweather. com/va/chesterfield-county/james-river--rivers-bend. html>. Virginia Coal Ash Disposal In Ponds and Landfills. Earth Justice, n.d. PDF. “Virginia Department of Historic Resources.” Richmond Ironclads at Trent’s Reach, Slideshow, DHR. DHRVirginia, Web. 10 Nov. 2016. < SlideShows/TrentsReach/TrentsReachslide14.html>.

Osborne, Robert. “What Caused the Spill at TVA’s Kingston Plant?” Watercrunch. 02 May 2015. Web. 05 Mar 2017. <>. Placek, Agnieszka, Anna Grobelak, and Malgorzata Kacprzak. “Improving the phytoremediation of heavy metals contaminated soil by use of sewage sludge.” International Journal of Phytoremediation. Taylor & Francis, 02 June 2016. Web. 05 Feb. 2017. Ramsey, John. “Chesterfield Power Station expected to burn coal for the foreseeable future.” Richmond Times-Dispatch. 26 Mar. 2016. 05 Sept. 2016. RECOAL. Reintegration of Coal Ash Disposal Sites and Mitigation of Pollution in the West Balkan Area. Tech. N.p.: Commission of the European Union, 2008. Print. Savage, Steve. “Soil Building: The Key To Sustainable Farming.” Science 2.0. 26 Aug. 2014. Web. 12 Apr. 2017. <http:// sustainable_farming-103132>. “Tidal Lagoon Trail.” Experience Chesterfield. Web. 1 Sept. 2016. <>.

[ 83 ]

Profile for Lauren Delbridge

Coal Ash Wastescape: Designed Remediation of Chesterfield Power Station's Coal Ash Ponds  

Coal Ash Wastescape: Designed Remediation of Chesterfield Power Station's Coal Ash Ponds