[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6680268,"mediaKeyId","2259781-e4c4cf5924c856e5091d89dec24c5620","parentId",2259781,"title","Engineers present $328 million midterm transmission plan to reduce Henrico’s East End reliance on Richmond","audioSeconds",1285,"startMs",5695000,"endMs",6980000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2259781-e4c4cf5924c856e5091d89dec24c5620&start=5695&end=6980","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2259781-e4c4cf5924c856e5091d89dec24c5620/thumbnail_5695000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6680268/Henrico-County/Virginia/Engineers-present-328-million-midterm-transmission-plan-to-reduce-Henricos-East-End-reliance-on-Richmond","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6680268-768142dff2cd820f7351bdc05c91bc07/orig.mp4?Expires=1771151446&Signature=La4URvPZEpTaYeu0ZNHdNOiHcorlQ2dURTNY6HZXru8VlOnJrxHSjgIEp0dYBE~SMursvn6CxdvQaAwpO2hqBGijEj7fJoQm4nBCWvcBUnqLWIlQJGXyyWmRfsjSU6h0uzwC6JX8zcmSAvTwwexWQlFpzsVn4ILXu1GUXHArGv8PnbJ8eYkfJBMNOpfVG2IlinBGtLn2~yKErwI8vnTtp4jsYqUfsfVuFwAYVRP5~7Bh1ezQ~3V18N9jJvesTdAFlpyHAkQZDLwPNlWms~UiaPFwHYS1hUDR7cX-KKq1Ty8V5kEiQvmeMbtto7-hqkVrGhMrCDOEcF4HgpY84YWw8g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Henrico County","date","2025-02-11T00:00:00Z","article","Consultant engineers on Feb. 11 presented a range of infrastructure options intended to reduce Henrico County’s reliance on City of Richmond water for the county’s East End and to improve system reliability after a January outage.

Dan Seeley, consulting engineer with Whitman, Requardt & Associates (WRA), summarized three planning objectives: a short-term supply target (7 MGD to the Greater Eubank zone), a midterm target to fully replace Richmond supply (21 MGD), and a long-term target (40 MGD) to meet projected growth. He told the board the county’s three primary constraints are available transmission capacity, the existing contractual relationship with Richmond and physical bottlenecks in the distribution network.

Recommendation and why it matters

WRA’s recommended midterm option would construct roughly 70,000 feet (about 13 miles) of 48-inch transmission main from western supply corridors through La Burnum/Azalea into the Greater Eubank zone. That project is estimated at $328 million with a 5–7 year engineering and construction timeline. The firm said that capacity — 21 MGD to Greater Eubank plus 5 MGD to La Burnum/Azalea — would allow the county to operate without drawing that portion of supply from Richmond.

Major options summarized

- Short-term option A: 7 MGD to Greater Eubank via roughly 54,000 feet (about 10 miles) of new 30-inch transmission main and pump upgrades. Cost: approximately $117 million; timeline: 5–6 years. This meets average daily demand but not peak.

- Short-term option B: Re-permit and retrofit four East End wells to produce about 4 MGD. Cost: approximately $20 million; timeline: 3–4 years. WRA and county staff told the board VDH would require permitting and treatment upgrades before those wells could supply drinking water routinely.

- Midterm option (recommended): 21 MGD via 70,000 feet of 48-inch main (cost: $328 million; 5–7 years). The plan is additive to the long-term alternative and would cover average and peak needs for the East End without city supply.

- Long-term option: Expand to a 40 MGD capacity with additional 42-inch mains; cost estimated at $583 million; 6–8 years. WRA also noted a greenfield regional treatment plant was technically possible but would be much more expensive (planning estimate $1.3 billion and 10+ years).

Technical constraints and shorter mitigations

Seeley emphasized that the system is not designed to convey full East End demand from Henrico’s western treatment plant under present configuration, and that bottlenecks near the center of the county constrain flow. He outlined smaller operational mitigations implemented during the outage — closing large city boundary valves, using emergency PRV connections (approximately 2.0 MGD at Wilkinson and 1.1 MGD at Brook Road) and prioritizing storage use — but said those stopgap measures do not replace the need for larger transmission capacity.

Funding and timing

County leadership said the midterm option aligns with near-term capital planning and that the manager will present specific funding scenarios in the upcoming budget release. The county manager told supervisors the proposed 21 MGD option could be advanced in the capital budget cycle and that planned 5% annual water-and-sewer rate increases already contemplated by the county would be factored into any financing plan.

Next steps requested by the board

Board members and staff agreed on four near-term steps: 1) await Richmond’s forthcoming internal and VDH reports to understand the producer-side prognosis; 2) refine WRA’s cost and schedule estimates and supply-chain assumptions; 3) prepare funding and rate scenarios as part of the budget documents being released in two weeks; and 4) evaluate regional partnership options — including potential negotiation with Richmond or a multi-jurisdictional authority — as part of the broader financial analysis.

Provenance: This article is based on Dan Seeley’s WRA engineering presentation and subsequent board discussion during Henrico County’s Feb. 11 work session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Henrico County - Board of Supervisors Work Session - Feb 11, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Whitman, Requardt & Associates presented short-, mid- and long-term options to deliver independent water to Henrico’s East End. The firm recommended a 21 MGD midterm transmission project estimated at $328 million and 5–7 years to design and build; county leaders said funding options will be considered in the upcoming budget.","taxTitle","Henrico County, Virginia","taxId",58541,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6680273,"Henrico review cites delayed interjurisdictional notice but praises DPU staff after regional water outage",2419,821000,3240000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2259781-e4c4cf5924c856e5091d89dec24c5620&start=821&end=3240","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2259781-e4c4cf5924c856e5091d89dec24c5620/thumbnail_821000.jpg","/articles/6680273/Henrico-County/Virginia/Henrico-review-cites-delayed-interjurisdictional-notice-but-praises-DPU-staff-after-regional-water-outage","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6680273-fa0e5e7d1ef18fb8a5c6ccf8de3346fe/orig.mp4?Expires=1771151446&Signature=oFznUz2LBgj3zIhomQwRA1KI6kaFwoXjihvpxI0JTuJwgUiBCaGxMISWW24AuVNPLlbNgu7DTyKtnl2NHSXj4LDLLIy2GnFIS7uuc3s2aLFQF40pXyU9a65DtGGflZCb0~e49-CPaWhsu76C28pTsPJSeNRXQ0GaGViwciaH0ujKjjjUwDSyR7~tmFTzxjMKXMWRafwr~GjnOWNVH9fx8gOPVZmPKZdzK4VQ0aRFYAvtJ4Q-XVum2pvMq0oVr5yDNVAgbBbZjVy3t8LR9l-j77x4-oxewgvCM7cmv1U0Sft~iO38kQQRAbVP~v0U-xGAJrOO10YQuiXmtFoMQy89oQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Henrico County on Feb. 11 received an independent after-action report that found delays and inconsistent information from the City of Richmond prolonged a multi-day water outage that left parts of eastern Henrico without reliable water service.

Chris Pomeroy, lead consultant with AquaLaw, presented the firm’s timeline and factual accounting of the outage and Henrico’s response. He told the Board of Supervisors the firm focused on contemporaneous records — call logs, emails, staff interviews and public releases — and declined to make technical adjudications about what failed inside the Richmond plant. “I take full responsibility for it,” Pomeroy said of the report and its findings.

The report, and follow-up discussion with Henrico officials, underscores three immediate facts: plant operators in Richmond recorded a facility failure early the morning of Jan. 6; Henrico did not learn the outage would be prolonged until late afternoon Jan. 6; and interjurisdictional coordination intensified only after Henrico initiated director-to-director outreach.

Why it matters: Henrico buys water under a long-term agreement with Richmond. When Richmond’s treatment plant suffered a power and control failure, inaccurate or optimistic status updates from Richmond’s side meant Henrico staff and leaders could not accelerate contingency steps sooner, the report said. That delay narrowed the window for mitigation before supply to eastern Henrico dropped to zero.

Key timeline and operational points

- At about 7 a.m. on the first day of the event, Henrico staff learned Richmond’s plant was down. Pomeroy’s timeline shows the full extent and likely duration of the Richmond failure was not clear until roughly 2:34 p.m., when Henrico Director Bentley Chan received a return call from Richmond’s director stating the plant likely would not restart that day.

- Henrico convened regional utility directors at 2:45 p.m.; the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) and other jurisdictions were notified in that same 2:30–3:00 p.m. window. VDH issued a boil-water advisory for Richmond at 4:26 p.m.; a countywide advisory followed after coordination later that evening.

- At 6:48 p.m. on day one, the main Richmond supply into eastern Henrico “went dry,” leaving the county to rely on stored water in tanks and pipeline redistribution. Pomeroy and Henrico staff described an extraordinary reverse-flow phenomenon in which meters on the boundary began to spin backward, drawing water away from Henrico into the depleted city system.

- Operations staff worked around the clock to isolate reverse flows by closing boundary valves, open emergency links such as the Wilkinson pressure-reducing valve and a Brook Road connection, and push water east from Henrico’s 80 MGD treatment plant. By the on-site efforts and valve work, staff restored service to about 6,000 residents in central Henrico and protected three other pressure zones, including supply for Saint Mary’s Hospital by switching that facility to county service in an emergency operation.

- Re-pressurization and water-quality testing followed a phased sequence: once sufficient pressure returned, Henrico and VDH began a multi-day, two-round laboratory testing regimen (24-hour turnarounds for bacterial tests) that led to lifting the county’s boil-water advisory after two clean test rounds.

Limitations and communication issues

Pomeroy’s findings emphasized that much of the uncertainty stemmed from not having access to detailed, inside-the-fence-line information at Richmond’s plant. The Virginia Department of Health’s preliminary assessment cited power failures on Dominion feeds, delayed generator switchover and problems with uninterruptible power supplies that left electronics and some pumps inoperable. Pomeroy said those VDH allegations are in the report’s appendix but that AquaLaw did not interview Richmond staff directly.

Board members repeatedly pressed for clarity on when Richmond’s staff first understood the outage severity and why Henrico’s director-to-director notification did not occur until midafternoon. Pomeroy said his review found no evidence Richmond told Henrico early that the plant would remain down for an extended period; the worst-case duration became apparent only after the midafternoon exchanges.

What county staff said

Bentley Chan, director of Henrico Department of Public Utilities, told the board the county’s own treatment facility (placed in service in 2004) had staffing and redundancy in place and that county crews performed 24/7 operations during the outage, including generator switchover and hydrant flushing to purge air from emptied lines. “We have staffing around the clock,” Chan said, describing generator procedures and on-site crews.

Board reaction and next steps

Supervisors praised DPU staff for sustained around-the-clock work and asked the manager to pursue immediate actions to reduce future risk: await Richmond’s internal reports (VDH and the city), refine the county’s contingency and communications protocols, and accelerate engineering options to increase independent supply capacity to the East End. The board asked that the county present costed funding options as part of the upcoming capital and operating budget discussions.

Provenance: This article is based on the AquaLaw after-action presentation and the board’s questions and discussion during the Henrico County work session on Feb. 11, including Chris Pomeroy’s timeline and Bentley Chan’s operational remarks.","An independent after-action review presented Feb. 11 found that delayed information from Richmond about a treatment-plant failure prolonged Henrico County’s water outage, but identified strong, sustained emergency operations by Henrico Department of Public Utilities staff that restored service to thousands and protected critical facilities.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Engineers present $328 million midterm transmission plan to reduce Henrico’s East End reliance on Richmond

Henrico review cites delayed interjurisdictional notice but praises DPU staff after regional water outage