HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 12 81 PC MinutesNovember 12, 1981
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a work session on Thursday,
November 12, 1981, from 4:30 to 6:00 p.m., in Meeting Room 5/6, Second Floor,
Albemarle County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, Chairman; Mr. David P. Bowerman,
Vice Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.; Mr. Allan Kindrick;
Mr. James Skove. Mr. Richard Cogan was absent. Other officials present were
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant
Director of Planning; Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Mr. William
Brent, Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority; Mr. Gary Beasley,
Water Quality Inspector; and Mr. Robert Milici from the Division of Mineral
Resources.
Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order and announced that the first item under
discussion was the cross connection program.
Mr. Keeler explained that for some time the Commission had questioned what the
cross connection program consisted of. He said that for that reason Mr. Brent and
Mr. Beasley were present to explain the program and answer any specific questions
the Commission might have.
Mr. Brent stated that the cross connection program originated as a Federally
mandated program to the States. Cross connection requirements became a part of
the Code of Virginia in 1974 and were adopted by the Board of Supervisors in
ordinance form in 1977, Mr. Brent continued.
Mrs. Diehl remarked that although these requirements had been in effect since 1977
the Commission had only just begun to see them as a condition of approval.
Mr. Brent explained that he did not really perceive them as a condition of approval
but rather as early notice to the builder or developer of the requirement. He
explained that in the past problems and confusion had arisen about the cross
connection program and this was a way in which the requirement would be known prior
to any construction.
Mr. Kindrick asked Mr. Brent to explain what exactly was meant by cross connection
program, as he understand the matter to concern a device that had to be installed.
Mr. Brent responded that it involved a program because after installation maintenance
and inspections at regular intervals were involved. He said that Mr. Beasley would
further explain the program.
Mr. Beasley stated that certain schedules were set up, depending upon a particular
cross connection device, to inspect against any back pressure or backflow. He
explained that inspections were made on new construction, to check and State certify
that the device specified on the blue prints was indeed properly installed and
functioning at the time of installation, then periodic follow-up inspections were
required at varying intervals to insure that the device continued to function properly.
Aside from new construction, Mr. Beasley stated that there were planned reviews of
older, previously installed devices on a regular basis. He explained that these
inspections were to protect the public water supply system.
Mr. Kindrick remarked that he was beginning to understand and that he believed a
full time position would shortly be created to handle all of these inspections.
�s�
Mr. Beasley responded in effect that he was indeed working almost full time on
the program. He explained that initially a survey was made of all commercial
and industrial connections to the public system and from that listing a
determination was made concerning the greatest potential hazard to the public
water supply and inspections of those with highest risk made first. Mr. Beasley
said that inspections were made for compliance with State Waterworks regulations
and the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, Section 1605.
He explained that there had been a backlog of existing structures that had required
inspection and follow-up and said that the point was just being reached where new
construction could be handled at the site plan stage. Mr. Beasley said that by
looking at the site plan, he could get an idea of the sort of device required, and
he could contact the architect or engineer directly and discuss the requirement.
He said that in the past this had not been possible.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether by having the cross connection listed as one of the
conditions or noting it on the site plan had had a positive effect for him.
Mr. Beasley replied that it had. He said that problems had very definitely been
avoided through having the opportunity to review the site plan and alert the
architect and engineer. He cited one instance where time and expense had been
avoided through the early detection of an incorrectly described device on a site
plan, involving some 180 protective devices. Mr. Beasley stated that he enjoyed
good relationships with all area architects and engineers, who were most cooperative.
Mrs. Diehl remarked that it sounded as though there were a real advantage to
having the cross connection cited at this early stage.
Mr. Skove questioned how this issue was different from items covered under the
building and electrical and plumbing codes, which the Commission did not directly
address during the course of its regular review.
Mr. Beasley responded that the cross connection devices were to insure the public
safety of the general water supply for potability and freedom from any contamination.
He further explained that the Health Department mandated Statewide that water
purveyors, such as the Service Authority, initiate such a program and conduct
inspection of installation of the proper devices as well as regular follow-up
inspections.
Mr. Skove said that he was not arguing against the desirability of these devices,
but he had some reservations about making it still another condition when there
were already so many and someone might be prompted to include something else if
this control were so included.
Mr. Brent observed that he still did not consider it a condition, but a statement
alerting at the earliest possible stage of the need to have the State Waterworks
regulations complied with. He said that it was clearly not contingent on issuing
a building permit or having the site plan approved as a site plan.
Mr. Davis wondered why the issue could not be flagged at the certificate of occupany
stage, as a subordinate item.
Mr. Beasley responded that this could be too late, causing great expense to redo
incorrectly installed devices, after construction had commenced and practically
terminated.
Mrs. Diehl observed that mentioning the requirement in the Staff Report would alert
the developer at an early stage.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that it could be shown on the site plan or plat at the time
of submittal, as one of the items required.
Mr. Gloeckner said that often the architectural plans.had not been drawn at the
time of submittal of a site plan.
Mr. Payne observed that since the issue of public water was involved, he could see
an advantage to preventing any costly dismantling by a developer in order to install
these devices through notifying the developer at the building permit stage. He
added that he saw this as a potentially practical matter, putting the developer on
notice of a requirement that at a later point could be very expensive to correct.
Mr. Kindrick remarked that this seemed like an appropriate place to put it, as with
the electrical service requirements. He added that there seemed to be more and
more areas for review. Mr. Skove agreed and wondered whether the number of conditions
was getting excessive.
Mr. Brent again objected to calling it a condition. He said that the Service
Authority was not requesting that this requirement be made one of the conditions of
approval on site plans.
Mr. Payne suggested that another approach might be to just rubber stamp each
building permit application with a note that if the building was to be served by
public water, it would be subject to the cross connection program. He added that
the advantage of having this item as a condition was that all requirements were
then listed in one place and were clearly subject to enforcement; he stated that
there could never be any question of the applicant having been alerted if it were
included in the list of conditions.
Mr. Davis observed that a similar situation existed when someone wanted to locate a
frost -proof hydrant in his yard within the City. Mr. Davis said that he had to pay
for various permits and inspection fees to insure that the hydrants would not back -
siphon into the public water supply. He suggested a fee per cross connection device.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Tucker whether he might have any suggestions on this matter.
Mr. Tucker responded that, although there had been considerable discussion of the
issue, a determination had not been made on how best to address it. He suggested
that he had been thinking perhaps along the line of Mr. Davis, that it might be
appropriate to have the Inspections Department notify applicants of the requirement
if public water would serve the site, at the time of applying for a building permit.
He said that he did not really understand why there was any problem, since approval
of water and sewer plans was already a requirement, prior to issuance of a building
permit. He said that he thought that the design of the cross connnection devices
would be at this stage also.
Mr. Gloeckner observed that plumbing plans were also involved because the interior
connections were also under review. Mr. Tucker said that either way the building
plans would be drawn up and the applicant had to comply with certain conditions
prior to receiving a building permit. Mr. Gloeckner said that sometimes someone
other than the architect prepared the site plan. He said that the architect might
not be aware of conditions of approval on the site plan when he starts to draw
up building plans.
Mr. Tucker suggested to the Chairman that perhaps Staff should work on this issue
and get back to the Commission with a recommendation.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Brent whether he was in agreement with handling the cross
connection requirement at the building permit stage.
Mr. Brent replied that he would probably ask his staff to raise the issue when
they first see the site plan, but he could not direct the Commission on its
position on the matter.
Mrs. Diehl thanked Mr. Brent and Mr. Beasley for coming to the meeting and
addressing the Commission's concerns with regard to the cross connection program.
Mrs. Diehl announced that Mr. Robert Milici from the Division of Mineral Resources
was present to address the Commission on exploratory drilling and how such
activities are controlled at the State level.
Mr. Keeler explained that in September the Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution
of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to include a definition of natural resource
extraction. He continued that the proposed definition included all exploratory
drilling as a natural resource extraction activity and would have to take place
within the natural resource extraction district or zone.
Mr. Keeler said that the Commission had reviewed and discussed this issue twice
and at the last meeting the prime concern had been whether or not to include
exploratory drilling for oil and natural gas in the definition or to provide for
this activity in some other fashion. Mr. Keeler introduced Mr. Milici, saying
that in talking with Mr. B. T. Fulmer, State Oil and Gas Inspector with the
Division of Mines and Quarries, Mr. Milici had been recommended as someone locally
who was well informed on exploratory drilling and State regulations.
Mr. Milici said that he had just returned from Richmond where he had been discussing
uranium mining. Mr. Milici further identified himself as the State Geologist and
offered the services of the Division of Mineral Resources, located on the University
of Virginia grounds. He passed out a few copies of a "Scheduling Diagram for Open
Pit Mine. (copy attached)
Mr. Milici explained that the initial diameter in an exploratory drilling would
usually be quite small, 1 and 7/8 inches in core -drilling. In depth he said that
it could range from a few feet to a few thousand feet. Mr. Milici said that in
the feasibility study stage bulk sampling presented a problem to environmentalists.
He said that the borderline between exploratory activity and actual mining was
disputable. Mr. Milici said that in bulk sampling it was conceivable that several
tons of soil could be disturbed and carried off. Mr. Milici said that such activity
did not come under mining laws because the material was not sold for profit.
Mr. Milici said that generally the position of the Mineral Resources Division
was to be in favor of any exploration for minerals, provided it was done
safely and with no lasting damage to the populace. He said that one reason the
Division was in favor of this type of exploration was because it was a way in
which man could learn more about his natural environment. Mr. Milici said that
ASS
he was opposed to legislative ignorance, such as the seven-year moratorium in New
Jersey on uranium exploration, which prevents discovering what is in existence
naturally. Mr. Milici pointed out that by learning about the natural environment
better land use could be planned. He stressed that this exploration should be safe.
Mr. Milici remarked that there were all sorts of drilling - water wells, oil and
natural gas, foundation test holes, etc. He explained that diamond drill core
drilling was about the same as water well drilling - same kind of rig, slightly
smaller diameter. From an environmental point of view, Mr. Milici stated, a
water well drill was more damaging than a diamond drill test hole for minerals.
He said that a water well rig could be open for years, but the diamond drill hole
was required to be sealed, plugged from the bottom to the top with cement, when
abandoned.
Mr. Milici next described how a company enters an area looking for minerals: it
begins with general nondestructive geology, then takes up leases and next plans
a drilling program. The drilling program initially consists of fairly wide
spaced holes, 1000-foot centers. If the explorer believes the available tonnage
warrants it, Mr. Milici continued, he will proceed to the feasibility study stage.
In this stage the drillings will be closer, 200 or 300 feet apart. Mr. Milici
said that permission to drill could currently be obtained by sending a plat to
Tom Fulmer indicating the desired drilling sites. Mr. Milici stated that Mr. Fulmer
then writes a letter to the person requesting permission to drill giving the person
or company permission to drill. Mr. Milici said that as one single inspector,
Mr. Fulmer could not possibly personally inspect each hole in the State and it
could therefore happen that some holes were not properly capped.
Mr. Milici pointed out the concern related to an improperly sealed well leaking
uranium, for example, and contaminating a nearby water well. Mr. Milici said that
the supposed the Commission wondered where the different levels of government
fit in the regulation of mineral exploration, how to go about enforcing it and
financing it.
Mrs. Diehl asked about the change in the definition of earth -disturbing activities
from the General Assembly, whether Mr. Milici could provide any further information
or background on this action. It was determined that this change moved drilling
for oil and gas from State Erosion and Sedimentation control law to the Division of
Mines and Quarries.
Mr. Milici said that this meant in effect that it was under Mr. Fulmer, who is
in Big Stone Gap, which has historically been the site for most gas and oil drilling.
He said that the seven counties surrounding Big Stone Gap have contained most
of this type drilling up until now, and Mr. Fulmer as State inspector would be
enforcing this activity. Mr. Milici stated that oil and gas rigs are huge and
involve disturbing a couple of acres, bringing in large trucks and spending months
of occupying the site, also mud pits and considerable impact.
Mr. Skove asked to what depth such drilling might go.
Mr. Milici replied 5,000 was shallow; 14, 15,000 feet was usual.
Mr. Skove asked if this activity was by permit. Mr. Milici replied that for oil
and'gas drilling there was a much more complicated process than the submittal of
a plat to Mr. Fulmer, and this process included indicating the proposed depth of
the drilling on the permit application.
6sy
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Milici to give some more details.
Mr. Milici said that to file for a permit for this type of drilling, a detailed
survey plat, kind of rig, geological formation to be tested, occupancy, estimate
of depth. Mr. Milici said that this sort of drilling was monitored closely.
He explained that extraction was from the same initial hole in gas, oil or water.
Mr. Milici explained that a mineral test hole was strictly exploratory and would
involve a separate mining activity if extraction were involved.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether in either of these cases, mineral or oil and gas drilling
field inspections were carried out.
Mr. Milici replied that they were in the oil and gas drillings. The mineral test
holes, however, Mr. Milici continued, probably were not always checked. Mr. Milici
confirmed that Mr. Fulmer did inspect each and every gas and oil hole in the State.
Mrs. Diehl asked how soil erosion problems were addressed, and Mr. Milici said
that he could not. answer with authority. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were
State regulations that a local government with particular concerns might utilize
such as in the case of the reservoir area or watershed area. Mr. Milici responded
that he believed a locality's specific concerns would have to be stated directly
to Mr. Fulmer.
Mrs. Diehl asked how local government fit into the overall process. Mr. Milici
suggested that local government would have to take the initiative.
Mr. Skove asked to confirm that in talking about a gas or oil drilling, the
depth could be 20,000 in Albemarle and involve a huge operation.
Mr. Davis said that the State has asked localities not to include exploratory
drilling for gas and oil under soil erosion and sedimentation regulations, but
leave the regulation of this activity to the State Division of Mines and Quarries.
Mr. Milici asked to give an example on water drilling. He stated that the State
Water Control Board requires a completion report and samples taken every ten feet
of the well, on every hole drilled. Mr. Milici said that this law was not enforced
uniformly across the state. He suggested that the driller rather than the property
owner should be required to collect the sample. He said the law was in place but
not workable as stated.
Mr. Davis asked how many exploratory wells had been drilled in Albemarle.
Mr. Milici responded that the Division of Mineral Resources had drilled one
mineral test hole, but that he was not aware of any gas or oil drilling.
Mr. Skove said that there had already been a lot of lease activity in Albemarle.
Mr. Milici said that some lease activity was speculative on the part of companies
who could sell if oil or gas was discovered in the area and they held lease on
adjacent property. He said that this sort of practice was common in North Carolina
up through the Blue Ridge into parts of Virginia.
Mr. Skove remarked that it was most likely that some day a hole would be drilled. `
Mr. Milici responded that he hoped so, that he was most curious to know whether
gas or oil existed.
Z O
Mr. Milici observed that in the entire Appalachias and overthrust area there was
not a single large well.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether Albemarle was considered part of this Eastern overthrust
area. Mr. Milici replied that Albemarle was on the eastern edge.
Mr. Davis inquired about the terms of some of the lease arrangements he had
heard about,specifically one sixteenth for the property owner's percentage.
Mr. Milici responded that one eighth was the normal percentage. He added that
a ten-year lease was a long one and that if he were the land owner he would
require full payment up front on such a lease.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether Mr. Fulmer would be responsible for overseeing that
any test hole was plugged. Mr. Milici replied that he was, and also stated
that he saw that oil and gas laws as written were implemented.
Mrs. Diehl asked about whether Mr. Milici thought this area might be used for
gas storage, since it had granite subsoil. Mr. Milici replied that he believed
it unlikely and said that usually old abandoned gas fields were used for storage.
Mr. Davis asked how long an exploratory drill might run. Mr. Milici replied
it might be anywhere from one to three months.
Mr. Bowerman confirmed that the depth was considerable, going down four miles.
Mrs. Diehl asked how four miles worth of matter would be disposed of.
Mr. Milici replied that material extracted in the drilling of a deep hole
generally was collected in a small lake or mud pit, which could be a half
of an acre in size. He added that it could also be pumped back into a dry
well. Mr. Milici said that these :cells, if drilled locally,would run to a cost
of a million or more dollars. He mentioned drilling was going on in counties
to the west of this area. He added that he would not wish to see core drilling
outlawed because he was most interested in collecting data from every available
hole.
Mrs. Diehl observed that she was interested in approaching this issue not so
much in a exclusionary fashion as in a restrictive one, in which local
authorities would play some part and regulate soil erosion. She asked Mr. Milici
whether he agreed with some control on soil erosion. He did so, saying that if
local authorities controlled soil erosion in subdivision development, it was
appropriate that some of these drillings be regulated in a similar manner.
Mrs. Diehl said that most of her concerns had been addressed by Mr. Milici; she
asked the other Commissioners for their questions or comments.
Mr. Gloeckner said that it was apparent that a definite distinction should be
made between geological drilling for information and drilling for gas and oil,
which impacted enormously. He added that perhaps erosion and reclamation needed
to be addressed in either case, but the magnitude of gas and oil drilling was
quite a separate matter.
Mr. Milici observed that he would think the Commission should be concerned with
where holes for drilling were located and that they be properly plugged.
W ,A
Mrs. Diehl asked what kind of rig was used for core drilling.
Mr. Milici replied one similar to a water rig.
Mrs. Diehl asked how these rigs were brought into fairly inaccessible areas.
Mr. Milici replied that the arrangement was between the company drilling and
the landowner. He said that a road could be bulldozed if the landowner so
agreed. He said that there was also a skid rig that could be pushed in by
bulldozer.
Mr. Davis said that he would prefer to see a permit procedure rather than a
rezoning approach for exploratory drilling.
Mr. Milici agreed that if the process were to be controlled locally, a permit
procedure was not a bad idea. He volunteered the help in reviewing permit
requests of the Division of Mineral Resources and suggested that information
from exploratory drilling be shared.
Mrs. Diehl observed that perhaps Mr. Milici's office could also advise the
Commission on possible trouble spots or what to be on the lookout for.
Mr. Davis asked whether Mr. Milici thought it probable that a company drilling
for gas or oil would willing share its geological information.
Mr. Milici replied that there is a depository located within the Division of
Mineral Resources where all samples collected under the rules and regulations come.
He explained that Mr. Fulmer was regulatory, but the Division of Mineral
Resources was scientific. Mr. Milici said that results of analysis and study
were logged at the Division from samples collected all over the state.
Mr. Davis asked whether these studies were independent from test results the
individual drilling companies might have. Mr. Milici replied that the Division
conducted its own tests but the results of the private companies' testing was
usually the same. He did say that often the Division never saw the individual
company's report on samples.
Mr. Payne suggested to Mrs. Diehl that if the distinction between exploratory
and exploitative or extraction drilling were to be made, the first activity
might be by special use permit and the latter under natural resource rezoning
procedure. He remarked that such an approach would entail quite a reworking of
the currently proposed definition and amendment.
Mr. Milici asked to make one more observation, that the Commission might want to
consider a rezoning procedure in any case where a mine might be located.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Milici about uranium mining; she stated that local vineyard
growers had raised concerns about dust from such mining and she wished to know
about what risks might be involved in such activity.
Mr. Milici said that if it were not controlled it could probably be a threat.
He explained that the drilling should include the proper plugging of holes.
He added that mining was regulated under the Division of Mines and the state
was actively looking into controls. Mr. Milici stated that should uranium
mining take place in Virginia there would be adequate safeguards in effect to
protect the environment. The tailings, he added, were property of the Federal
Government and the mills controlled by the Federal Government.
6
J
Mrs. Diehl said that if there were no further questions from the Commissioners,
she would thank Mr. Milici for having come to the meeting and enlightened those
present. She added that the Commission might be calling on him again in the future.
Mr. Payne observed that the issues before the Commission were (1) how to make a
distinction between the exploration phase and the exploitation phase, if such was
desired and (2) whether to make a distinction between exploration for oil and gas,
and other minerals on the other hand, excepting water wells.
Mr. Payne said that as he understood Mr. Milici's position, the first issue was
probably appropriate, that a distinction should be made, but not necessarily the
second. He said, any exploratory drilling should probably be by special use
permit in the RA, the only district where such activity would be suitable. Then,
for any other type drilling, Mr. Payne continued, the rezoning to natural resource
district would be required.
Mr. Davis wondered why there was a need for special use permit in the case of small
core drilling. He suggested a list of regulations to control the activity, but
not subject it to a political decision.
Mr. Payne said that he saw two advantages to using the special use permit process.
He said that there was the power to deny it and secondly, from a legal standpoint
a condition on a special use permit is an integral part of that permit. Mr. Payne
explained that in a legal proceeding if a ruling were made in favor of an applicant
who did not wish to comply with a condition on a special use permit, such a ruling
would also strike down the special use permit and subject the whole application
to review again. Mr. Payne explained this feature as a further safeguard in
regulating drilling activity, as compared to supplementary regulations which would
cover all concerns with great difficulty and were unlikely to do so, and which
would be severable as opposed to non -severable. Mr. Payne said that from a legal
point of view, he thought the distinction might be significant.
Mrs. Diehl said that she felt strongly that only a special use permit procedure
would give the Commission power to review each case individually.
Mr. Skove asked whether Mrs. Diehl was referring to diamond core drilling,
exploratory for minerals, geological drilling.
Mrs. Diehl responded that although it was still a gray area to her, she would
be concerned about soil erosion during any type of drilling and believed that
the special use permit procedure allowed for control of soil erosion.
Mr. Skove remarked that from what he could understand, some of the diamond core
drilling was less disruptive than water well drilling and that he was reluctant
to see a lot of special use permit activity for every small hole that might be
drilled.
Mrs. Diehl pointed out that in outlying areas, inaccessible locations, bulldozers
might be used to push out a route for a rig. She added that she liked the idea
of separating the two types of activities, but at the same time wanted local control
over both.
Mr. Gloeckner wondered whether if drilling were subject to special use permit
review, some applications might be denied based on what might be extracted rather
than on the basis of soil erosion. Mrs. Diehl did not believe this would happen.
663
Mr. Payne said that he did not believe that soil erosion was the only concern
of the Commission. He added that Mr. Milici would be able to help condition
a special use permit for uranium drilling, for example. Mr. Payne also mentioned
that in certain cases even in the RA district drilling might not be appropriate
due to development or a small lot size.
Mr. Davis remarked that it was much more likely that uranium exploration would
take place locally; he doubted that anyone was really looking for gas and oil,
although there seemed to be more interest in controlling gas and oil than in
addressing what he considered the greater threat - uranium drilling.
Mr. Bowerman said that his understanding of putting exploration for oil and
natural gas and diamond core bit drilling under the regulation of local
government through the special use permit process, was to insure a review of
each case, allowing for the particular topography of a site. If in the drilling
process there was a determination to extract, Mr. Bowerman continued, that would
go through a whole different process. He said that he tended to agree with
Mr. Davis that there would not be a flurry of drilling in the near future.
Mr. Bowerman said that he did not see the special use permit process as a burden
but rather as a good method.
Mr. Gloeckner observed that the exploration would then have to be exposed; he
said that someone might not want to disclose what they were looking for.
Mr. Payne said that he was not certain this was true; he said that if a given
process were being used, it would not necessarily be required that an
applicant disclose his objective. Mr. Payne said that someone might be drilling
for gold and hit the mother lode of uranium.
Mr. Skove said that he still believed the special use permit procedure was a
lengthy one for exploratory drilling, which he did not believe disturbed much
land.
Mr. Bowerman responded that it was difficult to determine what would be
destructive and that roads bulldozed out for rigs that might make small holes
could be considered destructive. Mr. Skove said this activity was not related to
drilling, special use permit for exploratory drilling. Mr. Bowerman replied
that roads would be conditioned under a permit procedure. Mr. Payne concurred
that this activity would have to be considered as part of the special use permit
review.
Mrs. Diehl apologized for interrrupting the discussion, but informed the Commissioners
that there was someone present who wished to speak on this matter, if the
Commissioners agreed to reopen the public hearing.
Mr. Davis moved to reopen the public hearing, Mr. Skove seconded the motion, and
it passed unanimously with no further discussion.
Donna Shaunesey introduced herself as a resident of Nelson County where one tenth
of the county has been leased by gas companies. She said that although she had
no prepared statement to make, she thought the Commission should be made aware
that the regulatory picture was currently in a state of change. Ms. Shaunesey
mentioned a bill proposed by Rick Voucher which was currently going through
public hearings across the state. She said that there seemed to be a good chance
that the bill would be passed and that it would protect coal resources also.
66�
Ms. Shaunesey said that in talking with Mr. Voucher, he had recommended that one
way in which local governments could deal with regulating this activity was to
apply a severance tax of one percent. She added that damage to roads was one
common problem when drilling takes off in an area, due to the weight of the rigs
that have to be brought in. Ms. Shaunesey mentioned the problems encountered in
West Virginia after ten years of drilling activity: the location of pipe lines
if obstructions exist, fencing out livestock to keep them from entering drilling
areas, cutting off property owners from through access on their own property,
falling water tables, etc. She stated that there were many more problems than
just soil erosion.
Ms. Shaunesey explained a common practice in drilling for gas was that one hole
when it began to go dry, would have additional holes drilled around it and those
would be pumped with water to force out the gas. She stated that this process
contaminated the water and environment, especially since it was common practice
to use salt water.
Another technique, Ms. Shaunesey continued, was dynamiting deep in the hole.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether these practices took place during the extraction phase.
Ms. Shaunesey replied that they did.
Ms. Shaunesey said that a group in West Virginia, the Oil and Gas Reform Coalition,
was passing along information to her and that she in turn would be glad to share
whatever she heard with the Commissioners. She said that talking with others and
seeing literature concerning these activities would probably be helpful to a local
government in determining its role in the regulation of drilling.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether in Nelson County there was any effort going on to separate
exploratory activity from the extraction process.
Ms. Shaunesey replied that there was not and with oil and gas it was difficult
to separate the twc.
Mrs. Diehl thanked Ms. Shaunesey and asked whether there was further public comment.
Mrs. Peggy Van Yahres, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, expressed
her concern over how exploration and extraction definitions could really pinpoint
when one activity ended and the other began. She mentioned Mr. Norman Reynolds,
Vice President of Mining for Marline; Mrs. Van Yahres said that he had been unable
to clearly define the difference between the two activities. She said that the
question on whether exploration was dangerous depended on the number of holes
and the size of the area in which holes were drilled, whether they became closer
and closer together.
Mrs. Van Yahres mentioned that Mr. Milici had stated that uranium could contaminate
the water table. As to the question of whether exploration was being regulated,
she continued, she said that the question was asked of Mr. Reynolds why in
Pittsylvania County some of the holes had not been properly capped. Mrs. Van Yahres
said that he had replied that some of the farmers had asked that they not be
capped. She pointed out that therefore regulation or effective regulation did
not exist. Mrs. Van Yahres stated that even with the Federal Government presumably
taking care of tailings, there was no guarantee of any material successfully
containing tailings. She questioned the safety of any of the process for uranium
or for that matter for gas and oil. Mrs. Van Yahres said that the answers to most
of these issues were still not known and that certainly effective regulations did
not yet exist.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any further public comment. When there was none,
she announced that the public hearing was closed once again and the matter before
the Commission. vmd
Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners to resume their discussion of whether to require
a special use permit for exploratory drilling. She added that she personally felt
very strongly that the special use permit process was the only way to effectively
and conveniently handle such a variety of activities.
Mr. Skove said that the inclusion of roads altered his thinking.
Mr. Davis wondered whether there could be a means of having the special use permit
fee pay for an inspector responsible for on -site inspections of drilling holes,
looking for soil erosion or runoff problems, making sure that holes were properly
plugged. Mr. Davis remarked that if drilling costs a company thousands of dollars,
a special use fee high enough to support an inspector should be no problem to the
company. Mr. Davis mentioned a figure of $300. He then added that perhaps this would
be too much responsibility for a single individual.
Mr. Gloeckner responded that he doubted that there would be sufficient volume to
support another governmental position. He said that he suspected that if a hole were
drilled of the magnitude being suggested, it would be one hole and a $300 special use
fee would not support an inspector's services.
Mr. Davis suggested that perhaps someone in the Inspections Department could handle
these inspections.
Mrs. Diehl asked for other comments by the Commissioners, or a concensus on what
direction to take.
Mr. Gloeckner observed that he favored the special use permit approach for gas and
oil drilling, since there was considerable impact from this drilling. He wondered
whether the depth of the hole to be drilled might not be a criteria to consider.
Mr. Gloeckner mentioned that a couple of local firms drilled or bored regularly for
foundation studies and their equipment was fairly big and required the cutting down
of trees and temporary roadways in order to move rigs into an area. Mr. Gloeckner
said that they did not disturb much land.
Mr. Payne asked what sort of limit to depth Mr. Gloeckner might have in mind, before
requiring a special use permit. Mr. Payne said that he had some difficulty with this
concept because of the difficulty of enforcing it. He said that someone drilling close
to the limit, finding some encouraging signs, would proceed regardless.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he just did not see the need for extension regulation of
an activity that was not more disruptive than digging for a water well. However, he
continued, in the case of uranium the whole issue of radioactivity and contamination
of the air and water was involved. Mr. Gloeckner stated that this type exploration
was quite different because of the harmful element.
Mrs. Diehl said that the definition included ores other than uranium; she asked
Mr. Gloeckner whether he was suggesting putting gas and oil under special use permit
and putting uranium in another category. Mr. Gloeckner indicated that he would be
inclined to include uranium drilling in with the gas and oil, but the real problem
was that nobody would know what someone was drilling for.
�064
Mrs. Diehl remarked that she believed, as Mr. Payne had said, that what was being
drilled for was not as critical as how they go about doing it, unless of course she
added, it was radioactive.
Mr. Payne suggested that it would encourage or invite perjury to require disclosure
on what was being drilled for, because applicants would probably never state their
true objective.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether a concensus had been reached.
Mr. Skove said that he was leaning more toward the special use permit, although with
definite reluctance, because of the road problems related to drilling.
Mr. Kindrick said that he favored the special use permit approach, although he did not
know how the cut-off point could be determined. He said that if someone started
drilling under a special use permit and made a considerable investment, the problem
might arise that a rezoning for extraction activity in that same location might not
be possible.
Mr. Davis said that he would certainly support the special use permit procedure over
making it a rezoning process.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the Commissioners were speaking only to exploratory drilling.
Mr. Skove said that it was clear that water wells were excluded.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Gloeckner how deep the deepest pilings were, in the area.
Mr. Gloeckner said as deep 75 feet.
Mr. Davis said that a water well could average 250 feet in depth.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that there was a concensus to address exploratory drilling
through the special use permit process and to address all other activities related
to extraction or exploitation through the natural resource overlay rezoning process.
She asked Mr. Payne whether the Commission was under a deadline to take action on
this matter. Mr. Tucker indicated that there was no urgency because he had explained
to the Board that the Commission was looking into the matter further and would
readvertise at a later date.
Mr. Payne said that he would want to investigate further before presenting wording.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether uranium was being considered under the definition of
exploration or considering it under a test drill. Mr. Payne said that as far as he
was concerned, it would be two phases, exploration and exploitation and everything
would be included under exploration except for water wells and foundation test drills
not more than 75 feet. Mr. Gloeckner suggested checking on an appropriate depth
because he was not sure that 75 feet was a standard depth.
Mr. Bowerman said that then that all exploration would come under special use permit.
Mr. Payne concurred.
Mr. Davis asked whether there could not be some way in which exploration for any
hazardous substance could be advised, so that health problems could be more properly
addressed, perhaps with additional regulations for any drilling of hazardous material.
667
Mrs. Diehl said that she believed that any danger or threat due to the substance
could be addressed at the exploitative stage or extraction point.
Mrs. Diehl said that the next item on the agenda was an update on Rio Road
improvements.
Mr. Tucker said that the only planned projects on Rio were from the Vo. Tech. School., where
the intersection with McIntire Extended would be, to Route 29. He said that no
improvements were planned south or east of the interchange. He added that the Park
Street bridge improvement was scheduled for next year. Mr. Tucker said that
Mr. Roosevelt believed there would be an increase in truck traffic when the bridge
improvements were made.
Mr. Tucker said that funds were the problem for both the City and County in getting
certain road projects/improvements taken care of. Mr. Tucker said that the Commission
would go into funding difficulties in more depth when the CATS study came out, which
he added would be very soon.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether Mr. Roosevelt had mentioned the possibility of any stopgap
measures for Rio Road, such as the guardrails, on the bad curves where there is a drop.
Mr. Tucker said that he thought the Highway Department could always do such
improvements if a request came from the Board of Supervisors, or from the Commission
through the Board. He explained that funding might take a little time but such
projects could usually be worked into the Highway budget.
Mr. Skove remarked that it was interesting to think that the bridge improvement
could make the general situation worse. Mr. Tucker agreed, saying that it was
amazing that the point had not been brought up during public hearings, but with
increased truck traffic some improvements were probably needed.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether no improvements were being planned south of that
interchange, due to shortage of funds and the physical characteristics of Rio.
Mr. Tucker replied that he believed the thinking was to put the money into McIntire
where more traffic was expected, leaving Rio to be residential, a side street.
Mr. Bowerman said that it was difficult for him to understand why guardrails were
not installed years ago, considering the volume of traffic on that road. He said
that there were markers with reflectors.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Tucker if the Commission could initiate some action for this
improvement. Mr. Tucker said that it absolutely could. He added that it might be
eight to ten years before there were funds for the McIntire project. Mr. Gloeckner
mentioned that River Run would probably be developed in about that length of time.
Mr. Gloeckner said that historically the Highway Department had only done something
when they had a problem, but that funding had always been readily available to
correct problems. He said that all of the Federal money had gone into interstate
systems and rising costs of gas had cut back on use of cars and therefore revenue
for the Highway Department.
66 s,
Mr. Payne said that he was certain that the Highway Department was due for a major
revamping in order to survive financially or the counties would take them over. He
cited Fairfax as an example.
Mr. Tucker said that Fairfax passed a $30,000,000 bond referendum recently.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether the CATS study had any schedule or was just a list of
priorities.
Mr. Tucker replied that it was primarily a setting of priorities. He said that due
to funding limitations, there was a reluctance to schedule, although there were
phases to certain projects and these were ranked according to priority.
Mr. Skove said that the Crozet interceptor project in the CIP was in a similar
situation, with no definite funding in sight.
Mrs. Diehl said that she would be interested in seeing the Commission recommend
guardrails on Rio Road. She asked the Commission if it wished to wait to see the
CATS study or wished to take action before then.
Mr. Bowerman asked what the meeting on November 18 might entail.
Mr. Tucker replied that it was hoped that it would be the last meeting at which
time the study would be formally adopted.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that maybe a field inspection should be made, maybe ask
Bryon Coburn to go along. The point was raised that there might be a problem in
locating guardrails due to lack of area on the steep slopes.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Tucker whether he could contact Mr. Coburn and relay the
Commission's concerns.
Mr. Tucker responded that he would and get back to the Commission with some cost
figures, so that the Commission could then formally initiate some action to pass on
to the Board.
Mr. Keeler indicated that there was an item to address in executive session, involving
possible litigation. Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Commission go into executive session.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no discussion.
The time was approximately 6:30 p.m.
RobArt W. Tucker, Jr.
Sec tary
&6y
Cal of those producing most of our do-
mestically -produced metals may require
five to eight years. A period of five years
is shown in Figure 6.
ment of the mine and construction of all
related facilities.
A period of three years is shown for
this phase in Figure 6.
Development and Construction Phase Summary
After it has been concluded that the
deposit under study can be put into
profitable operation, a major and costly
effort is required to transform plans into
an operating mine. This includes
detailed design of the mining method
and the metallurgical process, the ob-
taining of required permits from the
appropriate governmental agencies and
the awarding of contracts for develop -
The average open pit mine of the
future will require on the order of eleven
years to be brought to the point of pro-
duction and another year to meet rated
capacity. Thus, twelve years will be
required to achieve full production.
Because underground mines require
deep drilling during the exploration
phase, sometimes to depths in excess
of 3,000 feet, and require deep shafts
SCHEDULING DIAGRAM FOR OPEN PIT MINE
YEAR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
EXPLORATION
GEOLOGY
gonun
uulo,
wlow
INITIAL DRILLING
uum
ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY & PERMITS
,
.......
- METALLURGICAL BENCH TESTS
logo
FEASIBILITY STUDY
GEOLOGY
lolouu
n+um
11111411
low
um
CONFIRMATORY DRILLING
uuuu
,••,go•,
1949111111111132
logo
ACCESS TO DEPOSIT
,logo•
BULK SAMPLING
11311to
METALLURGICAL TESTING & FLOW SHEET DESIGN
ENGINEERING & ECONOMIC STUDIES
uuw
,uum
uunn
,louts
uum
ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY, CONTROL & PERMITS
num
gogoan
uulolo
uww
.aw
ADMINISTRATION & SUPPORT
gouty
nuw
,uun,
ngou,•
ugou,
DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION
DESIGN & ENGINEERING
loll,,,
86121#181
,,,,,,,,
CONSTRUCTION OF SURFACE FACILITIES
.............
gogo,•o
PRE -PRODUCTION STRIPPING
1181181111111
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
,•gogolo
11111811161611141
ADMINISTRATION & SUPPORT
,,,,loll
,,,,,,,,
o,,,,o,
DISCOVERY START OF PRODUCTION
Assumptions: 20,000 tons per day open pit mine, average pre -stripping of waste material
no unusual Infrastructure problems
19
no undue delays In obtaining required governmental permits
Figure 6.
i'o:21b