Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutACSA199900001 Study 1990-06-12 • SITE, RISK, AND REMEDIATION ASSESSMENT OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION AT THE SHADWELL "76" STATION SHADWELL, VIRGINIA June 12, 1990 1));g1g1111:0 PREPARED FOR: MN22 MR. SHERWOOD EXUM, PRESIDENT VALLEY RgGt'�N�' GOCO OIL COMPANY ' oF�tGE 924 HARRIS STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901 PREPARED BY: HYDROSYSTEMS, INC. 2340 COMMONWEALTH DRIVE SUITE 202 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901 REC. • CONTACT: JEFFREY A. SITLER 0 C T U 6 1992 EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT 804-973-9740 PLANNING� ING DE • HYDROSYSTEMS INc_ 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 - 2.0 SITE ASSESSMENT 2 2.1 Site Location. Description, and Land Use 2 2.2 Nature and Ouantity of Release 7 2.3 Hydrogeology - 8 2.4 Contamination Investigation 12 2.4.1 Methods 12 2.4.1.1 Soil Gas Survey 12 2.4.1.2 Boring Installations and Soil Sampling 13 2.4.1.3 Monitoring Well Installation 14 2.4.1.4 Well Development And Ground Water Sampling 16 2.4.1.5 Laboratory Analyses of Soils and Groundwater 16 2.4.2 Vapor Phase - Contamination in the Unsaturated Zone 16 2.4.3 Free Product Phase - Contamination on the Water Table 17 2.4.4 Dissolved Phase - Contamination in the Ground Water 18 3.0 RISK ASSESSMENT 20 3.1 Man-Made Pathways 20 3.2 Groundwater Pathway 21 3.3 Surface Water Pathway 22 3.4 Air Pathway 22 4.0 REMEDIATION ASSESSMENT 23 5.0 CORREC:1'1VE ACTION PLAN 24 APPENDIX 1 - BORING LOG AND WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS APPENDIX 2 - SOIL GAS SURVEY DATA APPENDIX 3 - LABORATORY ANALYTICAL.RESULTS APPENDIX 4 - TANK AND LINE INTEGRITY TEST REPORT HYDROSYSTEMS wc_ LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Topographic Map 4 Figure 2. Location of commercial and residential wells 5 Figure 3. Site layout 6 Figure 4. Site plan showing the topography and boring/monitoring well locations '' 10 Figure 5. Groundwater flow direction 11 Figure 6. Soil gas survey sampling locations'- 15 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - Headspace Analyses of Split Spoon Samples , 14 Table 2 - Laboratory Analyses of Groundwater Samples 19 • 1-IYDROSYSTEMS,Nc_ • 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of an investigation of groundwater contamination from petroleum hydrocarbons at the Shadwell "76" Service Station and distribution center on Route 250 in Shadwell, Virginia. HYDROSYSTEMS was engaged to conduct this investigation by Mr. Sherwood Exum of GOCO Oil Company of Charlottesville, Virginia, owner of the facility. This investigation was requested by the State Water Control Board (SWCB) in their letter of August 14, 1989 to Mr. Exum. The SWCB action was initiated in response to a report of petroleum taste and odor in the domestic well water supply at the site. This report was filed by the Albemarle Fire Inspector, Mr. John Paul Jones on April 28, 1989. On June 29, 1989 the SWCB collected water samples from the well which serves the site. Analytical results of these samples, provided in Section 2.4.4, indicate that petroleum contamination is affecting ground water quality at the site. Based on these results, the SWCB requested GOCO Oil Company to prepare and submit a Site, Risk, and Remediation Assessment to address the apparent contamination at the site. • The purpose of this assessment is to identify the source, nature, and extent of contamination at this site, assess the risks which such contamination poses, and determine the need for remediation or corrective action. This study is intended to satisfy draft SWCB regulations governing release response and corrective actions for underground storage tank (UST) systems containing petroleum products [VR ' 680-13-02, Parts V and VI]. 1 HYDROSYSTEMS wc_ 2.0 SITE ASSESSMENT 2.1 Site Location. Description, and Land Use The Shadwell "76" service station and distribution center is located along the northern side of State Route 250 in Shadwell, Albemarle County, Virginia, as shown in Figure 1. The property is bounded by Route 250 to the southwest, a C&O railroad right-of-way downslope and to the northwest, and private property (Michie residence) upslope to the east. The property is located at the head of a relatively:;shallow, narrow ravine which trends west- southwest toward the Rivanna River. The C&O railroad tracks lie within this ravine along the northeast boundary of the property. An unnamed, intermittent stream also flows in this ravine along the railroad tracks. This stream discharges to the Rivanna River, approximately 2000 feet west-southwest from the facility boundary. The area surrounding the site is rural, with mixed agricultural, residential, and commercial land uses. Land use to the east and upgradient of the site is primarily agricultural, with the Michie residence and commercial construction company office located approximately 500 feet from the site on the hill to the east. Additional agricultural land occurs to the north across the railroad tracks, with a convenience store (the Shadwell Food Store) and private residence located approximately 500 feet to the northwest of the site. Finally, largely undeveloped land occurs southwest of the site across Route 250. The Stone-Robinson elementary school and private residence (Lang residence) are located across Route 250 to the southwest, approximately 1000 feet downgradient of the site. A railroad spur and gravel storage area from the Luckstone Quarry is also located west of the site along the C&O railroad tracks across Route 250. All of the surrounding residences and commercial properties are served by private wells, as shown in Figure 2. The Shadwell "76" station is both a commercial gas station and a bulk distribution center for gasoline and fuel oil for GOCO Oil Company. The original facility, built in approximately 1940, consisted of the station building and four 15,000 gallon above-ground • tanks located behind the building as shown on Figure 3. The original piping from these tanks ran underground from the tanks directly underneath the building, to truck loading racks on the front porch of the building. Piping also ran to the far southwest corner of the property to a railroad unloading pad near the former railroad station. The two gas pumps in the front of the building were served by two small (<550 gallon, now removed) USTs located in the grassy area immediately adjacent to the pumps. 2 HYDROSYSTEMS wc_ GOCO Oil Company bought the property in 1963, and soon thereafter moved the unloading rack from near the old railroad station to beside the front porch of the building, next to the loading racks. In approximately 1974-75, major changes were made to all piping at the - facility. The loading/unloading racks were moved from the porch to its present location in the lot adjacent to the tanks. The small USTs near the gas pumps were retired and new piping from the above-ground tanks to these pumps was installed as shown in Figure 3. The 12,000 gallon kerosene UST, piping, and pump, and the diesel piping and pump were also installed at this time. The rear of the property was filled and graded, to build a truck staging and turn-around area. Presently, the four aboveground tanks are used to store super unleaded, regular leaded, regular unleaded, and diesel fuel. The adjacent UST currently stores kerosene. A complete UST notification form has been submitted to the SWCB for this kerosene tank installation. • HYDROSYSTEMS wc_ . - • . JiLik,''cTtfq,J1)" T'.. :•,."( .. 'I . ....;'..c1;`:1Y-:'-7.,)7/i "E. /1))))V( \ _ r•••••••"\lvf,,,z;,./((v,•••• : •)(),4\ 9 ,---,-;\ -------)-.)---41_,•\)Y,./ . . . ..:!.. '' '' •e•:- r..,._)•__IS : ISI,.r1?4)\ -1/c . . • , •• •• 1 - -(, /-• .1' ,,,,,?; , ‘,. 1 •1 • , . .., I ' r1))1 . '.. °'ir,/)I)()y)1 ,,\•k, \N4e. %1 I 1.... '\••••\•••••,..•-../ .. isr, 1 C /1N-\'.. .., --I. ' ^ '••1•11‘11. '---6.43 .!:.../. 7e,v........ ). 1 (c • vAs.....1 .„,\:•i•zz ‘,..,%I ........„......\_•-z —r\: 1\)11. `i . .•' `71 ' ''' • . • • ''- ' . tj • ))) t j2 4/./ )).. . .,// • + •• ii •-••-•, 00 ff.' ')1, C'../ re 1 •% ...*:-"'`-......-.71.16.-:.:.\\.. '..., " '\•‘..--, * j, ((1.! :...j: /1 ' • .9 r.... •-•r\—/As i• -...J, 1, -..- ''\--;\12-7 .. ' )\)\ \ \"41 1\ / r I ..-' 'l • -\ ll ' 'I/• "/ \ - , it. :..-:.:- ..--- --1----,. .4,.,N.,..__1,, __",;_.7_,\,_:.1._ -r'45 !...\ • , 1• k. g 1...--.:\.... If _Fr\k.s."••\- 9'pfL--1. \\, _,t.= ,•-k --\''.%'-T - -- -A. -—1- y-,-.--, • 11.1 ., ..-, --/ '" ) 1)C.Ft....0.1,. ..-':°"-;"-.:- :1 `---".;, `.;•--'1' I " - ' i,..„- . - 1 i i .`).4-r\+';'?.\ii ' 6 I s() .'•::-• % 0.'" ir . IF.,,iiitj '•#( " • ''' ' ,s —'• , ‘' 1 \‘ ''' .. liA"46 "/ *.1 I')\\ „.'lit if(;4.p i. • :.....5 ' - ra-VrCb t ‘ At Iii,••----,- 14iN I-1, °."'S./ ) "''' i I ---••j 4 — --yi As4',- ..\ _,,I. ,../.4# ':, , f t ( 1.0 ,-Yrrf ii-i,, • ) , .\\". .. • .,S yVi 1 )) y., ,R -.--___.T .7. ':,,,;_--,..-..;,;':.. , .. ;„ . _d:,...,,.. .)•,-... ..... I („A *,•:*( , i, ..,,, 4%44o "s, I*, 1, -s -I' - k,'. ' \•-,.... /-::----<.----4? )--) .\.:\ \`‘... 'i ‘ .., --2 v‘_,,-.4. ..-",,,,...4,-,„.‘,0‹..!, :.eito () if 4( ---) •\ 1 s; . )t - t 22 '-' . '''' ) :**•-,, • il, . ).1i;10,i c ft,\. • ....1,;11(‘‘ . 1 \ 9 i)7. eels c : (... .. \. J .--",, .,,,,,,— i\ ..,..... ,lk. Ifs7.!)1f.'t..i.;.1.•.:1 rd.' ,1 I\!•.2.i1371,61 cjOtikli77a7•,/...i:`-1. ' '.,4"4.1 fl,( ( „.••• . fr,1 4W,, 0, ii - 4 24... .. ..„, .-\ir..„.-)., -,„,,..., .., • ,. 6 , ____ • .. . (1" hadwiell ''.6,0/ /7";--.2.?•_,L.."'itkici,ti,..., ..,----. . . -..,-. OHIO a ':.... • , ., 1((---,:- .:1 •. 3 7 6..-_,/. (,,rig?.•1,1 ,-. 0... . . /(11 8 M '—...---7.-.--7-ifili "1°° ....t:.--•-••• -..-....;.... -..A............ '''; ' ' .L----CE-R , e.:•1 • 1 kl • 442x. ...",.. • tz•ne.Rohnon .2?7,.•,4 • ..__,.- ..,....,..-•/(---c ) 1 -'. . --,....— --, \ -se _....0. . • ,./.1•........_. .3 0.52.......71?..-,/-V I• , • / ' ) '• %al ? (1•1 4.4. .i ;....-- ,..., ••••—-. •-it .1, -• ; . r, ,. ••••\ .7;----_, \,..• k I k , w \ IC- 'I. ` • . • -• ilf. ' A \ .\\`',, •ii. \ .. •-•,- l'... •,., '.-1-_-... -. 1/4... *Bm".• ••:, , ‘, • \-.---. ' - \ '...C.,-, \_,--_,I., .7, t::( j . I.-1/1,,,, , • ,...,i I I,-•ti..„. , ..:. ,, . •, .., .„ , ,0. .,..\;-- -•.- .. . i.•:),...., , ,i,. ..._,„.,„.„...z... ,.., is,... . \\\, .‘„\\\I Lc: , i 0...... 4:2,; -.) /i..7 ...../ I ,‘ C,‘' „..„...,, / ,% ... (...7 -^ .;I. ,,,...-- • . it‘‘s.c'‘ 1.. ,.. \ . i c ...., V.)...,..:-",...•-•:(rr:--.._/.../*/:... .......:0c. ",,,,\.....„\....21'..,,,....c.c4 ), '( II, *.,(us.:.:, 4,4 ,1 1 i'•••:-.:11'''').\\:11,itictoa.-n% ... i\ \29.. i.//17 ' 1 ii/7---:_.%; •,,,.k._ 1-'1\.' I" ( \ c''\ i .. • r•-:-.) A ..).) ,.., • • \*‘ % \ I f I el - .J, r>;'°).. .,."? ,,.,,, t ));)? .'N• `.----- -• •• :, -,,,---• .__?..,----, ,., -..\ \, i. ,r,:/a. v:,.„..,._, . ,\..1_,,,,/ ' I .,- -r7.:-.. 732 7".ti:%''. --,- s''`'... ..' Is\\• '7-7.-(" .4.- ,,,,,• 0,i,..?,.,j• o i__,.:! .../;-____,I..., 1,4•5•!5":-' ,/1.4k a.>..9> . . , ' . i, .., ,..) g.is!. v, . ( 1 , .A / ••\1(.._. 373 * *, ,, 1...177--c-1 I% '\L\,.*.,-;..,-(S.TC)° , .! . • 's (' 'FA \ .(:5' _24%)( • •,',') („.....—<..„.„:;.1 e ---,•**(....." ,—,---.-:/' : . _ - ._'_ ''-''iN ••••$1,t ' \‘‘ -1 ) ) ./.. .1(;\ $ $•,i• 4 30_,...._,„ ,..„ )4+L .\\%..,/ v • \ .1 (--s ) I 0,!_., ....!:..- , k.//i2-=',-)5.- , i .7",--f . ...-L... ,___ SCALE: • . 1 INCH APPROXIMATELY 2000 FEET • Figure 1. Topographic Map (U.S.G.S. Charlottesville East, VA 7.5-Minute Quadrangle) showing the location of the Shadwell "76" Station Virginia. 4 HYDROSYSTEMS INC_ 1 I / (' S_j:), N .46°111.?//: ; —44°14:,`, i ..( \ [1 4;- L ---_.- \ -- / ) \-‘y ‘c)-. dN] \\ * i-----,..) •,\\•.V ) ' . .. --1-/-:— I \IL.,\: \ ..i,„ , -----'-:-----,--, ,--' \ '- , z ) c,. \. (-",.. ' \ c ( • -.. _:)) ''' (V, ., . =. -:'"":00,-;)) - „....---....--,-,...„, itnc..._ 1,----5-7•:.-..:::\--z--_--;--j."---:: • ,.40:i •n _� :: ,-.4.- ... --.... (... L--\ \ : - --- ..)--,--, - ; :.!) \ .;:-.-.;;.,.:-.-.::-.--,..-_,.-,__\ r\---\111 400 ..1-1:a ilSi?' / •/• ,(i/ //(- \(_ . .,--- cr• ; _ -.. \\r'��) i, ' Q�—^SITE�,'r ;���._�` �S ' ° ii: =,� i; Shad-4V21r' ;,' -�/%u ion.�R{u4 w. • • .. -......„, . ...........:--- -r.-fri.*LE cc:2 0. ,;,,..,----:--------__________:--- . l''''' \ tone;-1.40hXs, If. ....--_--- \\'' ,-. -/____: --- -__ _ . • a : i 1 5 rr-4. 8 i • \ COMMERICAL AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES SERVED' f// �''� BY INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLY WELLS , /` - -----. \::\.. °\1 - • i--:•.\W' ".•;41 ANN--------------%,_, `--Y(.....`--1')\.7 --=i-EY -• 1 ., .1 t---,-_,----)._,,_\__-_ -_,1„.2 • ,\,,.) i i . . . Or, \ • • 1 ; \ ------? °,. (::--) , 2)) ii .:. \Av:,\..., I -I : ( )11, --- ..,, ...,....,(4. 7:, }1•.--- i ,(-:_\..„.. , ,.... „ t.---s--.:----,o---c-o--.,''-•.,,,• 1 I f / • - - Milton . i .(•.I,D ;r')••. • _ _, .. \ �,I r,n„- ,' /; C_tea__ \ ! \. SCALE: ��\v i/ ^?', \ \ ��: \. 1 INCH AR I{ �i �' APP OXIMATELY 1000 FEET`nr Figure 2. Location of commercial and residential wells in the vicinity of the Shadwell "76" Station, Shadwell, VA. 5 HYDROSYSTEMS We . , . .. . LEGEND: . . SCALE I I 40 Feet ............ ............. --- Edge of Gravel •-•'" ... ." ... , ..... ....••••• .. ......." .. ....... .....-......- / .. ...— : ....... ' ! ................ ............... ..... : ........ .... ••••....... ................... . .............. ........... .. f• ............ -......... .... 1.\...... ... •-• ,- .................... ....... ......... ...- : ----- ----.....- .. • .: 1. ..••••' • ..--- -.. '••••..................,........... ...................................................--.11.- -......- ... UNLOADING RACK • .... ................ ,.. ....... r ....,,,0'..• • i k *--................ ..If'''. 1 •.--........ -.............. -- .. it Diesel • ; ...• ...- .-- • ::?\ ‘ Purn13•„1. .. ,-• ...- ...-- i I f -.---- Approx. Plphg Location.' I i ill li - i -.. — ii : Gas i....... ..; : WELL .P.. ABOVEGROlill ND TANKS STATION •.... i Pumps . : •• 0 • • SU RL RU D '•-. ___, 17=3 !. .... ..• ............ UNDERGROUND KERO TANK I Approx.Piping Location Kero .----*/ Tank Dike Pump FORMER RR STAT1011 EMBANKMENT --< RAILROAD TRACKS 0 o --< cf, Figure 3. Site layout showing tank, piping, and fuel dispensing equipment locations at the Shadwell "76" Station, Shadwell, --i rn VA. ci) A 6 1 . 2.2 Nature and Ouantity of Release To date, no release from the kerosene UST or piping serving the aboveground tanks have been confirmed. Although of questionable value for leak detection, GOCO has also indicated that inventory control records from these systems show no significant product losses. Additionally, soil borings, monitoring wells, and soil gas survey data show no evidence of free product occurring anywhere on the site. As described in Section 2.4.4, the highest levels.-of ground water quality degradation occur near the loading/unloading rack. Therefore, it is likely that this structure or its operation are responsible for at least part of the contamination at the site, with the most likely sources being either overfill or spillage. Significant leakage from the lines serving the rack appears unlikely, since no significant soil contamination or free product was found in the boring or well installed adjacent to this rack or on the surface where the lines are exposed. Pressure testing of these lines has confirmed that they currently are not leaking, thus, not a current source of contamination (Appendix 4). Therefore, since the lines test tight, the most likely source is overfill and spillage at rack, and past operations. Soil gas data collected itnmediateljr adjacent to the rack showed high levels of organic vapors, a situation commonly found at loading racks resulting from surface spillage. The kerosene UST does not appear to be a source of contamination. Soil samples collected from MW-3, placed adjacent to the tank show insignificant levels of hydrocarbons, and groundwater samples collected from this boring show no dissolved hydrocarbons. The soil gas data in this area also show background values. Finally, tightness testing results on the tank confirm that it is not leaking. Another potential contaminant source investigated was the abandoned USTs stockpiled on the rear of the property. However, soil gas survey data collected immediately beneath these tanks show very low levels of organic vapors. If a release had occurred from these tanks at any time, residual soil organic vapors would be detected in the underlying soils. Additionally screening of vapors in the tanks themselves show low levels of organic vapors, suggesting that the tanks had been emptied and cleaned or present on-site for an extended period of time. Finally, the past practices, unrelated to the current operation at the facility may be responsible for at least part of the contamination. This facility has been in operation since the 1940s. It is likely that isolated spillage and leakage has occurred in the past. 7 HYDROSYSTEMS wc_ 2.3 Hydrogeology The site is located just south of the contact between the Catoctin Formation and the Loudoun Formation. This contact appears to run along the C&O railroad which borders the site to the north. The Loudoun Formation in this area consists of shaley sandstones, sandy shales, and yellow/pink paper-bedded shales, while the Catoctin Formation consists of greenstone, or metamorphosed basalt. Based on geologic maps, the site appears to be underlain by the Loudoun For'thation, although borings which terminated at rock surface (refusal) showed some greenstone chips. It is,,likely that the contact between the two formations is not distinct in this area. Figure 4 provides a site plan showing topography and boring/monitoring well locations. Boring data (Appendix 1) show that silty saprolitic soils ranging in thickness from 20-50+ feet overly bedrock on the site. Competent rock (refusal) was encountered a approximately 20 feet in depth in the rear portion of the site near the unloading rack and kerosene UST (MW-2, MW-3). However, soils thicken to greater than 40 - 50 feet upgradient of the site near MW-1 and along the downgradient boundary of the site near MW-4 and MW-5. Competent rock (refusal) was not encountered in these borings. These saprolitic soils show significant structure and clearly defined bedding planes at approximately 45-60°, and are interspersed with seams of clay and more-intact rock fragments. Groundwater appears to occur under unconfined conditions across the site. Depth to groundwater ranges from 17-22 feet in topographically higher portions of the site (MW-1 and MW-4) to 9-12 feet across the rear of the property (MW-2 and MW-3) and in the topographically lower front portion of the property. Groundwater therefore occurs within the saprolitic soils, although the most appreciable water-bearing zones appear to occur at the top of bedrock. The significant structure and bedding planes observed in these soils clearly influences groundwater flow both above and below the groundwater table. Water level data collected from the monitoring wells show groundwater to be flowing west- northwest across the site, from the highland located beyond the rear of the property to the topographically lower western corner of the site near the C&O railroad cut and Route 250, as shown in Figure 5. Water levels in MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3 differ by less than 0.5 feet, revealing a very flat gradient in this area. After rainfall events, water levels in MW-2 and MW-3 are often a few tenths of a foot higher than the intended upgradient well, MW-1. These water levels are obviously affected by rainfall/recharge, the highly-structured saprolitic soils, and the location of competent rock. In MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3 either 8 HYDROSYSTEMS wc_ • ; ► refusal or a hard saprolitic/rock layer was encountered at approximately 347 feet MSL, while borings placed along the front of the property (MW-4, MW-5) did not encounter rock, even to well below this depth. This competent rock surface/layer may serve to locally redirect or control flow in this area, especially during recharge events. As shown on Figure 5, water levels in MW-2 and MW-3 are at or slightly higher than the elevation of the intermittent stream along the northern boundary of the property, indicating that groundwater discharges to the stream in this,area. Groundwater discharge to this stream is also indicated by wet conditions and seepage occurring at the northwest corner of the station building at approximately the same elevation. However, along Route 250 (MW-5) groundwater levels drop to approximately 7 feet below the stream elevation, suggesting that the stream is perched above the water table in this area. The overall groundwater gradient across the site is approximately 0.05. Typical hydraulic conductivity values for saprolitic soils derived from the Loudoun Formation average approximately lx10-4 cm/s. Effective porosities for such soils could be assumed to be on the order of 0.2-0.5, while effective porosities for the underlying rock may be as low as 0.01. Assuming these values, ground water flow velocities on site would be expected to range from 20-550 ft/yr. This somewhat large range is possibly due to the heterogeneous conditions observed on site. 9 HYDROSYSTEMS INc_ • ;._. .t..._t......� i...., :...•., a —; �... _ _ C;O:_RAILROAD... -. - 1--•--:-.. ; -. • • • • • . ; :•....; i / i +t -_____ -_. —__—==_=EMBANKMENTr_---- =__ • i..a• \\ ._ ._ .._ / / /%— -- 1// i .i.�`t� ---.-.— • --- t.�r•o.�... .. ._. i�� i. Y * MW s \\ // J��i ./�/i l j`'---- 1� KEROSENE UST /�' .i o • ,Nl ' KEROSENE PUMP47 /� I\\ VI } / / �, • j -/ _/ / 1 1 II I t • :`/ I '� ABOVEGROUND GROUND T MW-3 / .4 STORE WELL a K 1`. / s.' t b•n•4 '\ I O / STATION }• ••.. ,Y ' \ III / \_.r,_aw_ _ _ --- , GAS PUMPS I -/.•--.I //// ' 1 ,.:'GO /' ,aa• '.• \\\��� \'.\ ���• -�1 :,-.1 _(\,-- , 11 I i� �,��'j/ hiW-2 _ \.; .�/��i. i'' •�;;L •t•- \\\ �%\�1\\_.aw' _ • _ if d / 4: / i / ..,./ ///i - • it \,�.\, •`\ , '� � 1 .. ///l;•✓� UNLOADING RACK ?�. /• �i�i�� ,�.•' i..., �'yo,, •rLl i-- _1~ ^--i�a,. ::// / / DIESEL PUMPS / i/ /i /•-' = rrs 1 \\\\ • / / ice '/ i"i �•••• .1•• _ , C.- •:}''1. 11111\\���// /: v� iEMBAIv7ChIENT' .N ` • 1\\1\ --_— / • r� �" :• 11\\\�--- // �i� %%�' �� SGAIE BOG1�\\\— ---- 1 / •• �'b•� // • •_ 1 INCH APPROXIMATELY 45 FEET I �`V- _^_1 e.' ,/ �..''.> ~" IIFMONITORING WELL i'• / ,....-/ •: are o Z. �,�/ , — mFigure 4. Site plan showing the topography and boring/monitoring well locations at the Shadwell "76" Station, Shadwell, VA. I • •C.O RAILROAD : •-:-..•••r ,... : :_._,:.....:....«.....:.....:._..� .i. i- 'I' • a J...,` •_----— _��`> ' 1—�7 ��— Mu 1. Jyua 7 - ._..: :0,•4,>,' •j j4__—'---' /-K =___-_-_-_--_--_-_`((�_ =-EMBANKMENT ___- • ' • ... i ........ r 4- 4 r 1 _. •4.Wit- --••--- — _ ._ .▪. '— ►•�'`, y. 1 1 i"T / - _ ' /V .J�i_—r —lam f.4rw:.w l -� ,.:r i, ——7:7 /..• N ' ,jam' / // ///1 (r \ �I�ROSENE UST // ▪ .L * :5 �`� •# IMROSENE PUMP��� / r( �\� \ \ /` / - y / = #STORE WELL • i 1• I /1 , �I'• lABI G 10 I IG ND TAI',' g I�LVI/-3/ ''• o..:.: , r e / STATION 4, III '� // '... j r.. . ,..„0, 1 l• I. . .4t w 1 1 i .,...‘„::..\........'.—........2..„: .... _.......----•' _...?!.., • �, I III/ \; ,-... \ _.. •• • _I • G PUMPS;r,: APPROXIMATE DIRECTTON OF GROUNDWATER FLOW "� ���•" • \\ _�� /'�'�_` `_'�/ II //�/ '••, ..... 2K}vIW-Z�'.• \ /"���//sjs`a mot! T..Se 3 WI . ;\0\\`\\`�1\\1 ��i :/�! 'a i�� , UNLOADING RACK: • f • i // // • �\ �` ! .. /1✓�! • /%;:.•• / ice.////i �' �V ►~� •,`` \���`;�,�;!L< i' `• i` %//li'QDIESEL PUMPS ` „„....-•'' fib. \�\\\V♦ // �' !� • ����EMBANKMENT- 'N \\\\ \ _ /• / ! .,_:i�;�! - ' •: SCALE: r• +\\\\\\—-- ~ � / '• •`.•• ii/� - I INCH APPROXIMATELY'IS FEET O \ __ y" i ��, j�;> _ MONITORING WELL, Gm ;`� —�--'• i ice.;{• '-` ———GROUNDWATER CONTOUR (`7� `�7F'MW-4�/ ✓/ ••/‘• yr o o d c d • 0 J,.'. \\ ., r A, orcc 1:vim 1/��// rnFigure 5. Groundwater flow direction at the Shadwell "76" Station, Shadwell, VA. cn • Z 2.4 Contamination Investigation 2.4.1 Methods Several techniques were employed to delineate the source, nature, and extent of contamination at this site. These included: ■ Conducting a soil gas survey to identify the potential contaminant sources and areal extent of contamination; ■ Drilling 5 borings to collect split spoon samples for lithologic descriptions and headspace./laboratory analysis; ■ Analysis of headspace on split spoon samples obtained during drilling to screen samples for the areal and vertical extent of contamination; ■ Laboratory analysis of selected split spoon samples for total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) analysis to confirm and quantify areal and vertical extent of contamination; ■ Installation of 5 monitoring wells to determine the presence of free product and to collect ground water samples; ■ Laboratory analysis of groundwater samples to determine presence of dissolved phase hydrocarbons; and ■ Tightness testing of product lines and underground tanks. Each of these investigative techniques are described in detail below. 2.4.1.1 Soil .Gas Survey HYDROSYSTEMS conducted a two-phased soil gas survey to attempt to identify potential contaminant sources and the areal extent of contamination in the unsaturated zone. The presence of significant organic vapors in the shallow soils are often good indicator of contaminant sources and extent. An initial survey consisting of a rough 50-foot grid across 12 HYDROSYSTEMS INC_ • • the entire site was conducted on August 28, 1989. A follow-up survey which included more closely-spaced points along piping runs and other potential contaminant sources was _ performed on September 19, 1989. The soil gas surveys consisted of the installation of 51, 1.5-inch diameter, 4-foot deep auger holes at the locations shown in Figure 6. After installation, the opening of each hole was sealed at the surface to retain any volatilized gases for sampling. Soil gas data were collected using a Foxboro Century 128 Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA) and Gas Chromatograph (GC). A 0.25-inch diameter teflon probe was inserted into each hole to measure the concentration of organic vapors within the boring. The OVA can detect volatile organics to 0.2 parts-per-million (PPM) total organic vapors. 2.4.1.2 Boring Installations and Soil Sampling On September 1, 1989, three borings MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3 were installed at the locations shown in Figure 5. MW-1 was sited to provide data on upgradient conditions, While MW-2 and MW-3 were sited to provide information in the areas of likely contaminant sources, the fuel unloading rack and piping and the kerosene UST. These borings were drilled using a 7 5/8-inch hollow stem auger to refusal at the bedrock surface (for MW-2 and MW-3) or until an appreciable water bearing zone was encountered. Split spoon samples were collected at 5-foot intervals to refusal. These split spoon samples were screened with the OVA to assist in identifying the areal and vertical extent of contamination. Soil samples were placed in a 1-quart glass jar and warmed for 20 minutes prior to analysis. The OVA was then used to measure organic vapor concentrations in the headspace above the soil samples (Table 1). Selected split spoon samples which showed the highest concentrations of organic vapors were then retained for laboratory analysis. Two supplemental borings, MW-4 and MW-5,were installed at the site on October 3, using the same methods described above. These borings were sited to better delineate ground water flow directions and to identify the extent of the water quality degradation shown in MW-2. 13 HYDROSYSTEMS INc_ . i Table 1 - Headspace Analyses of Split Spoon Samples, GOCO "76", Shadwell, VA. Soil Sample Total Organic Vapor Boring Depth (ft.) Concentration (ppm) TB-1 4 0.6 9 0.5 14 19 1.6 24 1.5 TB-2 4 0.7 9 >1000 14 200 19 180 TB-3 4 14 9 58 14 12 TB-4 4 0.0 9 0.7 14 0.2 TB-5 4 6.8 9 0.8 14 0.2 • Sample retained for laboratory TPH analysis 2.4.1.3 Monitoring Well Installation Upon completion of all borings, 2-inch PVC monitoring wells were installed. Although completion details differed for each well, typically 10-20 feet of 0.01-inch slotted screen with an appropriate length of riser pipe were installed in each boring. The well screen was packed with clean gravel extending to at least one foot above the well screen. Each well was completed with a bentonite seal, grout backfill, locking cap, and protective casing or manhole covering. Well construction details for all wells are provided in Appendix 1. 14 HYDROSYSTEMS INc_ . . LEGEND: ' I SCALE 1 I " 40 Feet Edge of Gravel .. - -*****- • ..•••**************. .*****-..... .......---...... ....-.......... ................ . ...........-- 2§g.o-...... ...."........ .............. -•••... ...............‘,... ‘-... 2op..-o' --... 5.8......... *-............ ...... .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................i.......0.....i...w....cb....t0...00na....... RiAocco.0............... .........".............3... . --..........4:.. ...............................9......5.,...,...... i .z..........................16.1i1.11..:..1.0i.../..i.....i............... ..„••••• .4-.....-.F.ulernspe1 .1 si A •vi ,". .5 i. . -*0.0 49 •• -" -' 1+ :• .••...... (3-3 0,0 , n.4a , zo -'" A14142x' P/Phg Lcc.arht I + 3+.0 o.o 741 •211 n n: ABOVEGR ND NKS o+o STATION 10: 9P6 uams pi .. .•:..i y RL RU n 1 0 i • \-.. ..0 s. • 5.• 0.0 ''•••..... 0.0 ...-* L..]c L. 15 -4 ''• , + 1 t 1=1 -• Appcox.FlArli tio LAxan 10000 ; .4'6.0 1000.0 1 50.Q:Ki UNDERGROUND KERO TANK I Kero -4- + _ + + + • Tank Dike Pump FORMER RR STATION' 50.0 EMBANKMENT - 15.0 + t ••• ••••• ••mm•••••• •••• ••• ••• •••••••••• •••m•m••••••m•••• ••• •••m•••••• •••,m.•••• •.................................... ........................ ..••....•a •••••..••••..m•• ••~.••••• •••••m•••••m.••,m•m••••.o•••••••••••• ••••.•••••.m•••mm 0 k 3zi RAILROAD TRACKS 0 cn --‹ cn Figure 6. Soil gas survey sampling locations and measured organic vapor concentrations at the Shadwell "76" Station, --I rn Shadwell, VA. cn . , A • I 2.4.1.4 Well Development And Ground Water Sampling On September 8, 1989 MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3 were developed and purged by bailing a minimum of 5 well volumes of water, or until dry, from each well using a teflon bailers dedicated to each well. After purging, groundwater samples were collected using the teflon bailers. Additionally, each well was checked for the presence of free product both before and after purging with a clear acrylic bailer. A groundwater sample was also collected at this time from the well supplying the store located to the rear of the property, as shown on Figure 4. This well is a 55-foot deep drilled well with an unknown length of steel casing in the overburden. The well was purged from a faucet in the well pit for approximately 20 minutes at 7.5 gpm prior to sampling. Monitoring wells MW-4 and MW-5 were developed and sampled following these same procedures on October 9, 1989. A second round of samples was also collected from MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3 at this time. Samples were placed in clean glass jars, sealed, and preserved with ice during shipping. Chain-of-custody procedures were also followed during sample collection and transport. 2.4.1.5 Laboratory Analyses of Soils and Groundwater All laboratory analyses were performed by Central Virginia Laboratories of Lynchburg, Virginia (CVLC). The groundwater samples were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, (BTEX). Since most soil samples showed low levels of organic vapors based on headspace screening'with The OVA, only one sample which showed the highest organic vapor readings was retained for confirmatory laboratory analysis. The sample from MW-2 collected at the 10-foot depth was forwarded to CVLC for TPH analysis. 2.4.2 Vapor Phase - Contamination in the Unsaturated Zone Contamination in the unsaturated zone appears to be limited based on the results of the soil gas survey, headspace analysis of split spoon samples collected during drilling, and laboratory analysis of selected split spoon samples for TPH. 16 HYDROSYSTEMS INC... • Results of the soil gas survey is provided in Figure 6 and Appendix 2. Although this survey reveals several areas of appreciable (>100 ppm) organic vapor concentrations, most appear to be related to minor surface spillage from dispensing equipment or site runoff. Elevated soil gas readings near the diesel pumps and gas pumps appear to be due to minor spillage associated with dispensing equipment. Elevated readings along the edge of the gravel area south of the unloading rack and in the low lying area near the former railroad station and Route 250 appear to be due to runoff from the gravel parking lot area. The elevated readings to the west of the building and near the kerosene pump appear related to the wet conditions in this area, which result from the surface seepage of contaminated groundwater. The elevated soil gas readings near the loading/unloading rack appear to be the most notable contamination in the unsaturated zone. Since the lines tested tight, it is likely that these elevated readings are due to surface spillage in this area. Results of the organic vapor headspace analyses performed on the split spoon soil samples collected during drilling are provided in Table 1 and indicate that contamination in the unsaturated zone is minimal. No appreciable organic vapors were detected in samples from MW-1, MW-4, or MW-5. Based on the low levels found at depth in MW-5, it appears that the high soil gas survey readings near the railroad tracks and route 250 are surficial and very localized. Near the kerosene tank in MW-3, headspace concentrations were slightly above background., but well below levels indicative of releases from this UST. The only appreciable organic vapor headspace concentrations occurred in MW-2 near the loading/unloading rack, where concentrations in excess of 1000 ppm were recorded in the soil sample collected at 8.5-10 feet in depth. This soil sample at 10 foot depth in MW-2, which showed the highest headspace readings of any sample collected on site, was retained for laboratory analysis of TPH. Laboratory analysis of this sample revealed TPH level of only 35 ppm, well below the SWCB's action level of 100 ppm for soils. Thus, other than some surface spillage in the immediate vicinity of the unloading rack, contamination in the unsaturated zone appears minimal. 2.4.3 Free Product Phase - Contamination on the Water Table - No evidence of free product was observed during any phase of this investigation, which suggests a diffuse or slow source is responsible for the groundwater quality degradation. No free product was observed in soils during drilling or monitoring well installation. All monitoring wells were also checked for free product using an acrylic bailer prior to well development and each sampling event. No free product was observed on any monitoring 17 1-IYDROSYSTEMS INc_ wells. Additionally, visual observation of water level tapes indicate that no free product is present in the store well either. 2.4.4 Dissolved Phase - Contamination in the Ground Water Results of laboratory analyses,,of TPH and BTEX performed on ground water samples,- collected from the monitoring wells, the well supplying the store, and from the intermittent stream at the downstream border of the propeftsi boundary are provided in Table 2. Also provided for comparison are analytical results for a sample the store well collected on June 29, 1989 by the SWCB. All samples showed nondetectable levels of TPH (< 1 ppm), with the exception of MW-4, which reported a value of 1.4 ppm. This TPH value is believed to be an outlier, since all BTEX components in this well were below detection, and no other indication of contamination (sheen, odor) was observed in this well. Significant levels of contamination were observed in the store well and MW-2, located near the loading/unloading rack. Contaminant levels MW-2 exceeded drinking water limits by 100's of times for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and approached the limit for xylene. Contaminant levels in the store well were not quite as severe, but still exceeded drinking water limits for benzene by a factor of 100. These high contaminant levels in MW-2 indicate a source at the loading/unloading rack. The lower, but still elevated, levels observed in the store well appear to be due to contaminants spreading in the unsaturated zone or in the groundwater during times of recharge to the site. The flat water table gradient and soil structure observed in the saprolitic soils may account for this spreading in an apparently "upgradient" direction. Low levels of contamination were also observed in the upgradient well, MW-1. Although much lower than that observed in MW-2 or the store well, drinking water standards for benzene were still exceeded by 10's of times. As with the store well, these levels are attributed to spreading in the unsaturated zone, or due to the flat water table gradient in this area. MW-4, MW-5 and a sample collected at the property boundary from the intermittent stream along the C&O railroad tracks show nondetectable levels of all BTEX constituents. This indicates that the contamination is confined to the local area of the loading/unloading rack, and is not moving off-site via ground water or surface water pathways. 18 HYDROSYSTEMS INC. • Table 2 - Laboratory Analyses of Groundwater Samples, GOCO "76" Station, Shadwell, VA (1). STORE PARAMETER (ppm) MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 MW-5 WELL STREAM [Regulatory Limit (2)] (Upgr) (Rack) (Kero) (Entrance) (250 & RR) Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons [1.0] <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Benzene [0.005] 0.149 2.40 <0.001 0.723 0.047 2.67 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.350 (3) <0.001 Toluene [2.00] 0.002 4.07 0.002 0.198 <0.001 1.81 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 , ,0.220 (3) <0.001 Ethylbenzene [0.700] 0.002 1.53 <0.001 0.007 <0.001 1.09 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.070 (3) <0.001 Xylenes [10.0] 0.002 5.68 0.001 0.609 0.007 7.06 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.680 (3) <0.001 TOT p (1) Upper value indicates samples collected 9/8/89; lower values collected 10/9/89 cn -.< (2) EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) for Drinking Water m (3) SWCB sample collected 6/29/89 cn 19 y 3.0 RISK ASSESSMENT This section of this report defines the risk the contamination observed on-site poses to the environment and human health. In conducting this risk assessment, HYDROSYSTEMS defines: ■ What pathways exist along which the contaminants may migrate ■ Who/what are the potential receptors along each pathway • At what levels could these receptors be exposed and, given these levels, what is the risk to the receptor, • Do these risks warrant corrective actions to reduce or eliminate the risks The following discussion evaluates the above items based on each likely pathway for contaminant migration. Since no significant levels of soil contamination or free product have been found on-site, migration via the ground water pathway appears to be the most significant cause for concern. 3.1 Man-Made Pathways Two man-made pathway exist on site which may be contributing to the spreading of contaminants. As shown in Figure 3, a 12-inch conduit carries surface water runoff from the rack area past the store well and discharges to the intermittent stream near the railroad . tracks. Contaminated runoff carried by this line could be spreading to the well area, if a breach exists in this line. Additionally, although a drain line exits from the store well pit, no outfall could be found. This drain line may join the surface water runoff line. If so, blockage present now or previously in the surface drain line may result in a direct conduit for contaminants to travel from the rack area to the well pit. Further investigation of this pathway is warranted. A second man-made pathway which may be contributing to the spreading of the contamination is the septic system. Contaminated groundwater derived from the store well is used for sanitary purposes and discharged to a leachfield on the north-northwest side of the station. The resultant discharge has the potential to further spread the hydrocarbon contamination to the groundwater and possibly to surface waters via the seeps. 20 HYDROSYSTEMS,Nc_ The potential for contaminant migration or impacts via other man-made pathways at the site are nonexistent. All utilities serving the site are overhead, thus no underground conduits exist for contaminant migration. • 3.2 Groundwater Pathway Given the significant levels of BTEX components in,the groundwater near MW-2 and the store well, the potential migration of contaminated groundwater poses the greatest risks to receptors near this site. The primary receptor of concern is the store well which has already shown to be impacted. Described in Section 2.1 (and shown on Figure 2), other nearby residential wells include the Michie residence upslope and approximately 400 feet to the east of the property, the Stone-Robinson Elementary School Well located approximately 800 feet to the southwest of the property, the Lang residence located approximately 1200 feet to the east-southeast of the site near the Stone-Robinson school, and wells located at the Shadwell Food Store, located approximately 800 feet northeast of the site at the intersection of Routes 250 and 22. Given the ground water flow directions determined in Section 2.3, only one of these wells should potentially be affected from contamination at the site. The Michie residence located upslope and to the east of the site is upgradient of the site, and therefore should not be impacted by conditions at the site. The wells located at the Shadwell Food Store are located across the apparent ground water divide formed by the discharge area along the topographically low area along the railroad tracks. Therefore, these wells would not be impacted by flow from the site either. The Stone-Robinson school, southwest of the site, is laterally downgradient from the site. However, a the west-northwest gradient toward the intermittent stream makes impacts to this well unlikely. Additionally, MW-4, located along the property boundary directly between the contaminated area and the school well shows no impacts. The one residential well which potentilally could be impacted by contaminated ground water on the site is the Lang residence located west of the site in the topographically low area along the railroad tracks. Although groundwater on the site flows west-northwest, and appears to discharge to the intermittent stream, groundwater which does not discharge (during dry periods, for example) would be expected to flow west parallelling the intermittent stream. Although this is a possible pathway, exposure via this pathway is unlikely for two reasons. First, MW-5 which is sited to monitor this flowpath, reveals no contamination. This indicates that contamination has not yet even traveled to the site boundary. Based on the suspected groundwater discharge to the seepage area at the 21 HYDROSYSTEMS INc— northwestern corner of the station building and intermittent stream, contamination may never travel to the site boundary. Second, based on groundwater flow velocities provided in Section 2.3, and assuming no attenuation, it would take on the order of 2.2 - 60 years to travel the 1200 feet to this well. Continued monitoring of MW-5 could serve as an indicator of such migration. t.. 3.3 Surface Water Pathway The potential for contaminant migration and impacts to receptors via a surface water pathway exists, but appears limited for a number of reasons. The only receptor of surface water discharges is the intermittent stream itself and eventually the Rivanna River. No human receptors exist since this intermittent stream is not used for human consumption. Although human receptors are not of concern, pathways do exist for potentially contaminated surface water exiting the site. Pathways include: (1) runoff of surface water from the site (2) groundwater seepage which surfaces at the front of the building entering the intermittent stream, and (3) discharge of contaminated groundwater from the rack area directly to the stream. Although these pathways exist, sampling of the intermittent stream shows no impacts to the stream. All TPH and BTEX components were nondetectable in one grab sample collected at the downstream property boundary. Either no contaminated groundwater is reaching this stream, or if it is, the BTEX components are volatilizing in this surface flow. Continued monitoring of this stream may be warranted to determine if any contaminants are exiting the site via the surface water pathway. 3.4 Air Pathway Since no free product or significantly contaminated soils occur on site, the accumulation or migration of significant concentrations of organic vapors is unlikely. The existing station structure has no basement, and there are no nearby residences in which vapor accumulation would be of concern. OVA readings taken in the ambient atmosphere in the spill area also show no detectible levels of organic vapors. Therefore there is no risk to any potential receptors via any air pathway. 22 HYDROSYSTEMS INC_ • 4.0 REMEDIATION ASSESSMENT Based on investigations performed to date, remedial measures do not appear to be warranted for this site. No significant hydrocarbons in soils, vapor phase contamination, or free product occurs on the site. Thus, corresponding remedial measures such as soil excavation and removal, soil venting, biodegradation, or free product recovery are not applicable or necessary. With some improvements in product handling on site, recommended in section 5.0, natural biodegradation should be sufficient to remove the low levels of soil contamination observed. Although remediation of the contaminated groundwater is feasible, such work does not appear to be warranted for several reasons. First, the quality problems at the station well have been in existence for at least 10 years. Although ground water contamination apparently has existed throughout this time period, HYDROSYSTEMS' work to date shows contamination to be localized in the vicinity of the unloading rack and store well. Thus, it appears that contamination has not moved significantly, and is therefore not likely to migrate and negatively impact nearby residential wells. Further monitoring and the recommendations outlined in Section 5.0 would confirm this assumption. Second, other than the store well, no other receptors exist which would likely be impacted by the contamination on the site. As described in Sections 2.1 and 3.2, although the Lang residential well is located downgradient of the site, impacts to this well are unlikely due to a combination of the distance to the well and that the contaminated groundwater appears to be discharging to the intermittent stream on the rear portion of the property. Likewise, although the Stone-Robinson School is laterally downgradient, impacts to this well are unlikely since groundwater flows more due west, along or discharging to the intermittent stream along the railroad. In either case, monitoring wells MW-4 and MW-5 located along the downgradient boundary of the property, and one additional well placed near the station building could be used to monitor for and detect any such migration toward these users. If water quality degradation were to be observed in these wells, appropriate remedial actions could be pursued as needed at that time. If required, a remediation scheme using ground water pumping/collection followed by treatment and discharge to surface water would most likely be used at this site. Since ground water is shallow (< 11') in the most highly contaminated portion of the site, a groundwater collection system composed of horizontal drains may be applicable. In shallow water table situations, such systems are often more cost-effective to install and operate than pumping well systems. If use of horizontal drains is not possible, a pumping well system could be installed. This system would most likely be a 2-well system, using the existing well 23 HYDROSYSTEMS INc_ supplying the store as one pumping well. An additional pumping well would be installed near the unloading rack in the most highly contaminated area. Pumping rates of these wells would be determined based on an analysis of pumping test data. Contaminated groundwater collected by a drain or pumping well system would then require treatment. Air stripping is clearly the technology of choice for treatment and removal of volatile organic compounds at these levels from water. Sizing of an air stripping unit would be based on expected pumpinglrates from the recovery wells. Depending upon the influent water quality, an oil/water separator may be installed in-line ahead of the air stripping unit. After treatment, water would be discharged to the intermittent stream bounding the site, since no sewerage facilities serve the area. This discharge would most likely be conducted under an Virginia Pollution Abatement permit (VPA). Depending upon the removals achieved with air stripping and the effluent limitations imposed on this discharge, a carbon adsorption finishing unit may be required for final treatment prior to discharge. 5.0 CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN • • As described in Section, 4.0, ground water remediation at this site does not appear to be necessary at this time, based on the relatively immobile nature of the contamination and the lack of receptors likely to be impacted. However, further work should be performed to define and eliminate potential sources of contamination and to ensure that contamination which is present does not migrate off-site and impact potential receptors. Work recommended to adequately characterize the source of contamination and limit such sources includes: . ■ Investigate the line carrying runoff from the gravel area near the unloading rack to ensure this is not connected to or otherwise a source of contamination in the well pit. ■ Discontinue use of the store well. Drill a replacement well in the vicinity of MW-4 to provide water supply for the station. ■ Excavate and remove surficial petroleum-contaminated soils near the fuel loading/unloading rack. Pave this area with concrete to eliminate continued contamination due to product spillage. Berm or slope this area to contain runoff, which should be directed through an oil/water separator prior to discharge. 24 NYDROSYSTEMS INC_ Work recommended to ensure that the contamination present does not migrate off-site and impact potential receptors includes: ■ Monitor water quality in all monitoring wells, the store well, and the intermittent stream semiannually for a minimum of two years. Samples should be analyzed for BTEX components, and results provided to the SWCB. At the end of this two year period, provide the SWCB with a summary of all data collected to date and recommendations for further monitoring and disposition of the site. ■ If significant water quality degradation is•vobserved in any monitoring well, which indicates that the contamination is migrating, implement ground water remediation as discussed in Section 4.0. Provide the SWCB a corrective action plan prior to implementing this work. Other housekeeping recommendations which are largely unrelated to the ground water contamination on-site include: ■ Remove and properly dispose of the abandoned USTs currently stockpiled at the rear of the site. ■ Excavate and properly dispose surficial petroleum-contaminated soils in the vicinity - of the gas, diesel, and kerosene pumps, and along the northeast corner of the gravel parking lot. • 25 HYDROSYSTEMS,Nc_ • ulll®n GOCO, I Nc• (4)4/ P.O. BOX 1404 � CHARLOTTESVILLE. VA. C '-rzm ' 111 V rz. 22902 II t,6.—/ice' V h:, 1 6 1773 February 16, 1993 G .j • erg" Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg County of Albemarle Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road - Charlottesville, Va. 22902-4596 Re: Application for Jurisdictional Area Amendment Dear Mr. Cilimberg: It is our desire not to have our application for a Jurisdictional Area Amendment deferred again. If Mr. Booth should need another delay, we feel that our circumstances warrant that we be given seperate consideration. If necessary, we would be willing to file a seperate application, as the only reason we filed jointly was at Mr. Booth's request. As you know, our circumstances are quite different. We have a documented problem with ground water on our site, and desire to obtain potable water for our existing business. Mr. Booth, on the other hand, would like a water tap for possible future development of his site. In light of our differing circumstances, we therefore request that our application be given consideration at your scheduled meeting on March 3 , 1993 . If you have any questions, or need any further action from us, please give me a call. Sincerely, 77& n. Harry M. Montague President, GOCO, Inc. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MmAnil RGIN�P MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Jo Higgins, Director of Engineering FROM: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of'yPlanning & Community Development DATE: February 16, 1993 RE: Jurisdictional Area Request - David Booth The attached has been received from Applied Technology and Engineering on behalf of David Booth regarding a well located on Mr. Booth's property on Route 250 East. Mr. Booth sought this analysis as justification for his request to receive Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area designation for water only. As you can see, the tests of the existing on-site well indicate no petroleum hydrocarbons, but an unacceptable level of bacteria for drinking water. I would appreciate your Department's review and comment regarding this analysis as technical grounds for granting the jurisdictional area request. I would appreciate your response by Wednesday, February 24, 1993. Much thanks for your cooperation. VWC/blb Applied Technology and Engineering, P.C. (747)7 1115 5th Street S.W. Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-6465 Phone: (804) 977-1498 - RECEIVED Fax: (804) 977-6778 FEB 031993 January 28, 1993 Mr. David Booth 'a---n'ing Dent. Tattershall Farm Route 3 Box 188 Charlottesville, VA 22903 Re: Sampling of well located on Tax Map 79 Parcel 19; Albemarle County,Virginia Dear Mr. Booth: At your request, Applied Technology and Engineering. P.C. (AT&E) conducted sampling of the well located on Tax Map 79 Parcel 19; Albemarle County,Virginia. The primary objective of the sampling was to determine if there was evidence that the well has been impacted by a release of petroleum products on the adjacent property. AT&E personnel visited the site on January 25, 1993 to conduct the sampling. Prior to sampling, data on the well was obtained. The depth to water was 8.6 feet. The depth of the well was 75 feet. The diameter of the casing was 6 inches. The length of the casing is unknown. The well is not currently being used. A sample was obtained from the well. Since the well has been idle, a pump down of the well was conducted and an additional sample was taken. The objective of the pump down was to establish a flow in the idle well and was not meant to assess the yield of the well. Since the well was larger and deeper than anticipated, the pump down test was somewhat limited. At a pumping rate of;approximately 11 GPM the water depth dropped to approximately 27 feet and remained at that depth over a three hour pump cycle. The samples were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPI-I) and Coliform. The coliform tests were run to determine if the level of bacteria was acceptable as drinking water quality. 'The results are as follows: ANALYSES OF WATER SAMPLES WELL ON T.M. 79-19 ALBEMARLE COUNTY Sample TPH, mg/I Coliform, total Initial 0 fail a`ter pump down 0 fail Based on this testing there is no indication that the well has been impacted by the release on the adjacent property. Additional testing would be required to determine if there was a hydraulic connection between the contamination on the adjacent property and the well on this property. The bacteria testing indicates that the water quality is not acceptable for drinking water. Let us know if you have any questions or comments or require any further assistance. Sincerely, /9;&'2.L-2 ;e-2 John R.Walenten,Vice President Environmental Management and Regulatory Compliance COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE J�/���T L8��9 EIRGlN1P ,.MEMORANDUM TO: V. Wayne Cilimb r , Director of Planning FROM: Jo Higgins, Di gg ctor of Engineering DATE: 8 December 1992 RE: Booth, David W. /Sandra Andrews - Jurisdictional Area Amendment Attachment A, Page 3 - Kurt M. Gloeckner's letter dated 8 August 1992 . The second page of Mr. Gloeckner's letter mentions that some wells have been closed, "such as Stone Robinson School" . This is to clarify that this occurrence is entirely unrelated and should not be inferred to substantiate any potential for general groundwater contamination in the area. Stone Robinson had a leaking heating fuel oil line that ran from an underground storage tank to the boiler room. This has been appropriately addressed to the SWCB per regulations governing underground storage tank systems. Subsequently, a new well was provided to serve the school. The new well is northeast of the school and is tested quarterly with no problems. (Page 12 , third paragraph of this attachment does state that impact from this incident 'is unlikely. ) This report does address "potential" groundwater issues. It does not provide sufficient test data to substantiate actual contamination. JH/ 1 VM- `inG1N‘P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development COUNTY OFALBEMARLE 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 ^ r (804) 296-5823 FEB 3 2 199 IL February 11, 1993 - ,t= GIFU BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ,David W. Booth Rt. 3, Box 188 Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: David W. Booth/Sandra Andrews and Sherwood Exum (Goco, Inc) - Jurisdictional Area Amendment Dear Mr. Booth: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on February 3, 1993 , deferred the above-noted request to its meeting on March 3, 1993 . If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, • 1 I , V. Wayn Cilimb-rgr" Director of Pla ,nin• & Community Development VWC/jcw /' cc: Ella Carey V Sherwood E. Exum, President Distributed to Board: ) Agenda Item No. , ID A 7 M,:IT Y.iv AL8D„AARL& rITIE Tettershell Farm , � ,'krj ,: Rt. 3 Box 188 BOARD 'OF,SW'P RV`FSCRS Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 Ph: 804-971-5564 12/8/92 Clerk, Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 Re: Jurisdictional Area Amendment for David W. Booth/Sandra Andrews and Sherwood Exum (G000, inc.) - Tax Map 79, Parcels 18 and 19 I would like to request a delay of the public hearing of the above referenced matter until February 1 , 1993. This request for delay is to allow sufficient time to pursue further engineering studies of parcel 19,Tax Map 79. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Cordially, czoi . David W. Booth • Distributed to Board: _14 - Q :a to 1 (_Er? Agenda Item No.oris *10 COUNTY O ALBEMARL ; COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 29 199 401 McIntire Road �j Q�� J, � .~ .. Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 , = t��� iftc. (804) 296-5823 BOARD OF S:UREA'ViSQR,,q TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors FROM: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Vv v Development V" DATE: October 23, 1992 RE: Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area Amendment for David W. Booth/Sandra Andrews and Sherwood Exum (Goco, Inc) - Tax Map 79, Parcels 18 and 19 The applicants, David W. Booth/Sandra Andrews and Sherwood Exum (Gbco, Inc. ) , request Jurisdictional Area designation for water only. Booth/Andrews, owners of Tax Map 79, Parcel 19 which is zoned C-1 and developed with one dwelling unit, state a need for a new water source for possible commercial use because of potential, groundwater contamination from the adjacent Goco and Shadwell Store underground fuel tanks. Exum (Goco, Inc. ) , owner of Tax Map 79, Parcel 18 which is zoned Rural Area and developed with the Goco station,. states a need for a new water source due to potential and actual groundwater contamination from fuel oil. Documentation has been provided by the applicants to verify these problems (Attachment A) . History: On November 6, 1991, the Board amended the Jurisdictional Area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include the Glenmore Planned Residential Development, allowing provision of public water (as well as public sewer) to Glenmore at the expense of the developer (minutes attached) . On December 18, 1991, the Board further amended the Jurisdictional Area boundaries to incorporate all remaining properties as shown in the Comprehensive Plan as the Rivanna Village (minutes attached) . On June 3, 1992, the Board amended the Jurisdictional Area boundaries to include the Stone Robinson School (No minutes available, however, the Clerk's records indicate no discussion occurred) . Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Page 2 October 23, 1992 The Comprehensive Plan, in the Village of Rivanna recommendations, says, "water lines should be sized to serve the Village and Stone Robinson School only". With the development of Glenmore in the Village, a water line is being installed along the Route 250 East corridor from the Urban Area to Glenmore. Public water, therefore,"crosses or will be easily accessible to a number of parcels in this corridor (See attached map) . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN This parcel is located in the Rural Areas as designated by the Comprehensive Plan. Regarding provision of public utilities, the Comprehensive Plan is intentionally specific in objective and strategies as to where and under what circumstances public utilities should be made available (p. 146) : OBJECTIVE: Provide public water and sewer services to the Urban Area and Communities. STRATEGIES: ■ Follow the boundaries of the designated Growth Areas in delineating jurisdictional areas. ■ .Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of designated Growth Area boundaries in cases where the property is: (1) adjacent to existing lines; and (2) public health or safety is endangered. Further, the Comprehensive Plan warns that "such utilities are not to be extended to the Rural Areas as these services can increase development pressures" (p. 146) . This request appears to be consistent with the second strategy listed above. ' The applicants have indicated quality problems in supporting documentation. RECOMMENDATION As a general policy, staff has advised that public utility capacities should be reserved to support development of designated growth areas. Past actions by the Board have typically been to limit utility service outside the designated growth areas. However, where properties have experienced quality/quantity problems and are adjacent to existing lines, the Board has granted jurisdictional area designation for water only to existing structures (again, this request is for water only) . • ' • Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Page 3 October 23, 1992 As Tax Map 79, Parcel 19 is underdeveloped, reasonable use of the property as C-i will likely involve new structures. Therefore, water only to existing structures would not be sufficient for C-1 use. Staff would recommend proceeding to public hearing for water only designation for Tax Map 79, Parcel 19 and water only to existing structures for Tax Map 79, Parcel 18 based on documented and potential water quality problems. Planning staff will have the Engineering Department xeview technical documentation for any comment regarding its content before the public hearing. VWC/jcw cc: David Booth Sherwood Exum Bill Brent Jo Higgins • • ATTACHMENT A, PAGE 1 • RECEIVED Tattershall Farm Rt. 3 Box 188 _ OCT 2 61992 Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 Planning Dept. Ph: 804-971 -5564 April 24, 1992 V. Wayne Cilimberg Director of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Va . 22901-4596 Re: Booth/Exum Application to amend the Service Authority Jurisdictional Area Dear Mr. Cilimberg: The following itemized information is provided to assist you with your November 4, 1992 report to the Board of Supervisors regarding our request to include parcel 18 & 19, tax map 79 in the Service Authority Jurisdictional Area. 1 . Booth parcel 19 is down gradient of the adjecent Shadwell store' underground fuel tanks to the West and up gradient of the GOCO fuel storage depot to the East . 2 . There is without a doubt contamination of the GOCO fuel depot well . Reference Hydrosystems Inc. engineering report dated June 12, 1990, page 18,. item 2 .4 . 4, contamination in the Ground Water. "Significant levels of contamination were observed in the store well and 191-2, located near the loading/unloading rack . Contaminant levels MW-2 exceeded drinking water limits by 100' s of times for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and approached the limit for xylene. Contaminant levels in the store well were not quite as severe, but still exceeded drinking water limits for benzene by a factor of 100 . " 3 . , The'rail road right of way along the East property border is also a continual source for soil and water contamination. 4 . The existing parcel 19 (Booth property) well is inadequate and failing. A new well drilled on the existing property would reach the elevation of known contaminants at the GOCO site at 62 feet down. Parcel 19 (Booth property) , is zoned C-1 and to be developed • ATTACH►IEIT A, PAGE 2 would require a safe water supply for public safety and health standards . Reference Gloeckner Osborne letter dated August 8, 1992, 2nd page for independent engineering opinion of life safety issue regarding available water supply to this property. 7 . Soil type parcel 19 (Booth property) is 58-B, Soil Conservation Map 16, which exhibits Moderate seepage characteristics with surface drainage deep to water table. Soil type parcel 18 (Exum property) is 12-C, soil Conservation Map 16, which exhibits severe seepage characteristic with surface drainage deep to water table I hope this itemized list will assist you with a successful presentation to the Board of Supervisors Inclusion in the Jurisdictional area at this time will obviously preclude much work and expense on my part to continue the pursuit of this water supply out of simple necessity if any use of the C-1 zoning of thin property is to be realized. If in fact we have been paying commercial tax rates for years we should be able to develop this property as a commercial use now. Cordially, P; ./' David W Booth • ATTACHMENT A, PAS 3. GLOECKNER & OSBORNE, INC. ENGINEERS,SURVEYORS AND LAND PLANNERS 710 EAST HIGH STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE VIRGINIA 22902 TELEPHONE:(804)971-1591 PRINCIPALS FAX NO:(804)293.7612 t • ' KURT M.GLOECKNER,P.E..P.L.S. Q C T i S 19p2 PRESIDENT August 7, 1992 IN BRIAN P.SMITH,P.E. '�aq.:•ia ;; . • VICE-PRESIDENT Mr. David Booth Tattershall Farm Route 3 Box 188 - Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 Re: Site Study/Tax Map 79 Parcel 19 Albemarle County, Virginia G&O Job No. 92-045-00 Dear David, After many weeks of studying the above referenced site, the following comments and observations can be made. - Because of the strategic location of this property as being at the intersection of two major highways (State Route 22 and U. S. • Route 250) it is my opinion that his property is very valuable. Since the property is zoned C-1 (Commercial) it has potential to be developed in numerous ways and for many uses. Presently the Virginia Department of Transportation is studying the best possible access point and will recommend a configuration of turn and deceleration lanes. I will forward their letter as soon as I receive it. • a I had a nice meeting with the County staff discussing potc :t..i.. development. The Architectural Review Board will have jurisdiction since the highways are entrance corridors. This will mean other people's tastes of what is good or looks good will govern. Sad situation, but true. The Health Department will require sufficient drain fields for the chosen commercial use. This then brings me to the proposed 16" waterline that is to go through your property. This - waterline easement will use 1, 620 square feet of land if it is to be 20 feet in width. Since it is at the end of your property it isolates another 1, 620 square feet between the easement and adjacent parcel property line. It would be of utmost importance to hook on to this line, mainly from a health aspect, but also for safety and public welfare. 7 MACUMENT A, PAGE 4 i Mr. David Booth August 8, 1992 Page 2 First from a health aspect, obtaining potable water on this sit is a questionable reality. The adjacent railroad and oil storage depot have polluted land and wells in the area. The Goco Oil storage site well is contaminated as can. be verified from the State Water Control Board through theFreedom of Information Act. Other wells in the area are of questionable purity also. Some have been closed, such as Stone Robinson School. From a safety aspect, when the site is developed, fire protection should be made available not only to your site but to the adjacent store/gas station and the bulk fuel storage depot to the rear. The welfare of the public, would be served in specific as well as in general ways. If you can not tap this 16" waterline, it becomes a liability as to danger from rupture and encumbering your land. I hope you can tap this line so that it becomes an asset as opposed to a liability. I hope. these remarks are of assistance to you, and we thank you for the opportunity to serve. Sincerely, Kurt M. Gloeckner, President , GLOECKNER & OSBORNE, INC. KMG:tpm ATTACHMENT A, PAGE 5 l ) • 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of an investigation of groundwater contamination from petroleum hydrocarbons at the Shadwell "76" Service Station and distribution center on Route 250 in Shadwell, Virginia. HYDROSYSTEMS was engaged to conduct this investigation by Mr. Sherwood Exum of GOCO Oil Company of Charlottesville, Virginia, owner of the facility. This investigation was requested by the State Water Control Board (SWCB) in their letter of August 14, 1989 to Mr. Exum. The SWCB action was initiated in response to a report of petroleum taste and odor in the domestic well water supply at the site. This report was filed by the Albemarle Fire Inspector, Mr. John Paul Jones on April 28, 1989. On June 29, 1989 the SWCB collected water samples from the well which serves the site. Analytical . results of these samples, provided in Section 2.4.4, indicate that petroleum contamination is affecting ground water quality at the site. Based on these results, the SWCB requested GOCO Oil Company to prepare and submit a Site, Risk, and Remediation Assessment to address the apparent contamination at the site. The purpose of this assessment is to identify the source, nature, and extent of contamination at this site, assess the risks which such contamination poses, and determine the need for remediation or corrective action. This study is intended to satisfy draft SWCB regulations governing release response and corrective actions for underground storage tank (UST) systems containing petroleum products [VR ' 680-13-02, Parts V and VI]. . a • 1 HYDROSYSTEMS wc_ ^ A'_ CEMENT A, PA(E 6 • • O 1 I 11--� ( vj 4 6.O—11\1 / : 01 d 1,-' :17 1 � / 7r� N- / U\l \\ I� 11 p // 11\7 c7 .' �_i \,..\„..„...: .k___f_v__' '''' ) (,(Ls. \ // .--. ........- _.,,__100.) v\ (--,..,- \ \I-\ ( • ___-_:,:.---.-•-..,---..':'.-_,- ____ lt,t2)1„..- y (---=,- , - -_ , -- ,41,Tif:R. If (1; --1-1-',,7-,----1---_----'-.--7S-. •:::.-.-.... .-- - ( ----‘ \ 1 - : "--Vb it (,,;,�'/jf�' —` ..`I• \ `-,.�`.-::\� ) ( \ \11 400 WV ,•--•.,,..';,-f-1---. ,,' .I .... ---> 1 C21-1,---- ---- I , , .___-7-1.,..3....,,,...„4 • / /.. .. , — .;?..).'"- ----,_ •-:----...1---: (-- \/:::-..- Ii.a :.iV.- / • . ii ; ./ n. ,_... ,.. . cc...x.c.:, ,___) _ ‘N._____....,‘ , /.1; 1. ,.. . 00---SITE---, /-7•••;- . 7---____ - ' ° -� i i Sh�,d-well'�' 'A)-1., . 40. ju io>7, u �I--_••-.:- :___--.::Z—.....!"---- _.), " sj-7•- , / e-:_-___3-771.„., one:Ro 6 - 1\-'4k- .. ___730::',`) , _ T "? ° , ; r,-4. 8 li COMMERICAL AND RE '----.- -,,_--;._.-- ....). ---. _____ __._. _ <2 L -0J-' k. SIDENTIAL PROPERTIES SERVED \ 1 ' r� BYY INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLY WELLS , /( & Y-... (s_.,—*/ \ , 7 ,)- / • 1 r# ` • 11 ,. i i \ ? //1. \ . 13\ ' . .11/4"----„__) ''s\ -.,.__-_•-- ° i• ) s.'s'i 7._.„7 ,... 1 , ) ,• 7...„ ,...7 nr--i ,I, :a. • tis \, ,,, ,,,,,,. j ‘---qt : ' c il7>' 7" . cf----11/- ?l ,�48 \- , c..2 9.,? (1 / ji) Milton ii, ,, FI.0o , �� 11.11, \ — (1( INCH APPROXIMATELY 1000 FEET' Figure 2. Location of commercial and residential wells in the vicinity of the Shadwell "76" Station, Shadwell, VA. 5 HYDROSYSTEMS Wc_ , . LEGEND: - : SCALE ' I I . 4 0 Feet ... .... Edge of Gravel ... - .... . - ' ... . .. ........... ....... , All .... .........- . ...-- • ../ - - • ...............•• ... •• i ... - ... - ...-- ... i ... ... - . ......... •-••• : ....... : i ... - .- : • - .i.:•••• .; .... ... ............. ... .. i ...- .. -... ..... ......... •• ••• ••• ... • .•:, --....... .............. ------ ........... , .- ..-• UNLOADING RACK .... .••••••••• '-- I I *.--'-•....., • -.4.,rvSSG.1 .-. ............ ................. . - . . ... --. - .... : • .1 ••. ....--- Pump ' . -' • ::'I'. I .... — f „•- Approx. piping LocatiOn El . }. • - I . . WELL k Pumps l- ABM)EGRO ND .NKS STATION i 0 ‘ S SU RL RU D • i '''•• ___I I— I. .1 oD '..-••• . . - • -......•.n................. .." UNDERGROUND KERO TANK I Approx.Piping Locabon Kero Tank Dike Pump FORMER RR STATION' EMBANKMENT --< . 0 o 1-ci DzI RAILROAD TRACKS Erl 0 (y) --< cr, Figure 3. Site layout showing tank, : (ping, and fuel dispensing equipment locations at the Shadwell "76" Station, Shadwell, ---1 rn VA. , cn A , • • • 6 , -C.O. RAILROAD • • •. 1 j_..._;.._ _..�.!�`! .i... .j. ! I-_--.ti•.�.:� "'-•- -- --•� F••---' i �›„�tea+ _ -y • • ��� r,,— —ate-- -�.— • • _�--_—�� __ ---.—_—� • 'y...t a.• .t. .• • —..-�»fI r' I ��'•*-.wl .Y WA..' /!ff—se�� /'fit �_ _— _...__.—.--_=_ — __�a...',•'a ' i-...: : I /•/— {/t_— _ --- —_— _=F�iBANK_M_ENT -_--___-- — " f r� _ i \\ l •---• . '•_ '__— /; /%//l "' .-/r'�/��• —`�d���— ---• tar t. --- -i 0 r.�l— • \\ i• -.-.._ ,/� i • �///� (/ j r_ fi2 SENE U // • \ \" rf I / i /..i' - \ \ ABO\/HG I OUND GROUND TAI * MW-3 •/ Q.STORE WELL a , , / r-.'. ' ; I \al 11 II 11 �/i V t • 'r•• I / R41 1. c / ;t STATION /"— �' I ,- • i % , I I —x•�—__ -.r � Je t t`>ti\ • GAS PUMPS ' 1 _/.-:• 1 / •• G • ,,aqa o-at.rr 1\\--' rl—J` ��� / rIJI i ly /���/ - MW-Z \ ��• '// •�•f„ 7 ' n,a.�..fe. -• •-\•�• •�\\\\\\\\\\k\\\_af_ -- 7.`` . -- J I i .1.///j/�.• •O'': --. a� �t / / //�/ ,r.•`J . \\\\\\f\\ \\\\ -v �1.---- _i I// /t.. .- / . UNLOADING RACK ' .i-'i/%//j,:•' / r• Y\`,Ai 'ot / ^�:�a. //////QDIESEL PUMPS //"• / / / /""% • • � \ — \ '• \\\ \" —/ '�/ / / "jami • � ••V • • / • \\\\ / � %�` ( Sycei ••i�iii • / • . _ 0 A% any : \ / J'L't ; / �.=�!/Eh r 4 C., • \V\ �'ti \ \\\ � / /; �`/ / -O • %.\\\\\ -----1- / e : // / I INCH APPROXIMATELY 45 FEET C- \% \\`----_—_t��� i/� �:- ��'' EMONTTORING WELL , co r3 a•. \\ 1 *MW-4'• / V • / fi o o d c d �] • • •.• s%, ...... . i ,/ / 21 atcc -N- ,. .. .. .... ... 1 v.... •.1% .-. ? ..... ,., ,. . , /.. ... • O ....... %an — ilab O' v^ • ..- Y l _ L i l co y Figure 4. Site plan showing the topography and boring/monitoring well locations at the Shadwell "76" Station, Shadwell, rn VA. • cn - n ATTACHMENT A, PAGE 9 • 1 G ♦ __• A Ilk., -1 ♦♦ ••.. 1111119411 `�w 1 IOW ► 3 ♦♦ 11t111� I 111jI11 ` • '�� -4. P I I ' v ' II Ill I' o o u Vliai;t.ii iSI' Eiji�:2a U I 111111111l•1 \: \ F-3Wa 1llç1 ! 1• \\1,"1i11ii \ '-...... \\\\•\\`• pklE R 3 I \\\ \•., •,�,•...:: a 1 r111111t1„: \ -_'__``\. ,\\\\\\\ \ I I ii II lt I1 \••• .••-\ \ \ \ 0 \ ..'N \ \\%. ".,...:.\\„, , 8"'i - . 1 II' I ` \ p '\\ \\, 1 I i I 1111111.11. Itll u�1 P\ \\\ �' ^\•\\\\\\\:!{N\^ f 11111111111 I., c S./ •\\\ \••. .\ I I II I1I I •V)' • ' \ \\ ' ! I *e. - 111411i1 • '. '' \ \\\\ \ .\\ . : 1 '114,1 Li.4,.,, E A ..t.,4.„ %. \\\\ \ ...\ 71.5 _1 I 1 i I jlll _. �.\ O '\\\0 \ . \• \ I. 111IiIl 111 1 I 2 \\I- x \\\\\\ '4. I11II11 116 C7 • 4.\ 1111111 I I t O `.ti\\ •\ o 1 1 �chilI1,,� 1I C7 ♦I 1 l�; z :\ �' \\\ \\\\'L _ ,..• o 0: =1 1 111111 1 11 ':O \ ,\\\\ w \ a: 1 ± ill' \ 1 a 1al � \\\�. :\''. .' VD r c/] . d . \ I1Iii\t ,",�, /i CI .. , '1\\tn `�1 I , -o,/ \ • \ N. t i \�• \\\ w ♦ I '.\\\\;\ 1 • Ca A 4 \. - • S •\\ \\� ' I .\ \ '• 1 .n I t : \ 0 \\\\,• \ \\\1•,� ': 1 \.^ v] I l `� \ \\ '\\ sue' \ ca I Lam;, - e �. \\\\ %, ..1.1' V. \o. G \ \ \ •f 1 (L( \ \\,..a I�� I II; le IN --- 1. •.I•c♦ \ «+ I � I ♦ \ \ 1 \ \ 1 .\ \ 1 ► I I �► / \\ 'b - \ / r "'' ti. \•-- 1 \ \\ ♦ IJ 1 / . .� ' ''�/•--I \ ,' ,+ I \ \ If \\ �/���i��. ....' r •1.• ./ \ \ lkf„."-.....%" .. I ir ice 1^ {• s �' 11 • ' ` HYDROSYSTEMS wc_ • 1. • ATTACHMENT A, PAGE 10 • wells. Additionally, visual observation of water level tapes indicate that no free product*is present in the store well either. 2.4.4 Dissolved Phase - Contamination in the Ground Water Results of laboratory analyses of.TPH and BTEX performed on ground water samples collected from the monitoring wells, the well supplying the store, and from the intermittent stream at the downstream border of the property:boundary are provided in Table 2. Also provided for comparison are analytical results for a sample the store well collected on June 29, 1989 by the SWCB. All samples showed nondetectable levels of TPH (< 1 ppm), with the exception of MW-4, which reported a value of 1.4 ppm. This TPH value is believed to be an outlier, since all BTEX components in this well were below detection, and no other indication of contamination (sheen, odor) was observed in this well. Significant levels of contamination were observed in the store well and MW-2, located near the loading/unloading rack. Contaminant levels. MW-2 exceeded drinking water limits by 100's of times for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and approached the limit for xylene. Contaminant levels in the store well were not quite as severe, but still exceeded drinking water limits for benzene by a factor of 100. These high contaminant levels in MW-2 indicate a source at the loading/unloading rack. The lower, but still elevated, levels observed in the store well appear to be due to contaminants spreading in the unsaturated zone or in the groundwater during times of recharge to the site. The flat water table gradient and soil structure observed in the saprolitic soils may account for this spreading in an apparently "upgradient",direction. Low levels of contamination were also observed in the upgradient well, MW-1. Although much lower than that observed in MW-2 or the store well, drinking water standards for benzene were still exceeded by 10's of times. As with the store well, these levels are attributed to spreading in the unsaturated zone, or due to the flat water table gradient in this area. MW-4, MW-5 and a sample collected at the property boundary from the intermittent stream along the C&O railroad tracks show nondetectable levels of all BTEX constituents. This indicates that the contamination is confined to the local area of the loading/unloading rack, and is not moving off-site via ground water or surface water pathways. 18 HYDROSYSTEMS wc_ 7 ATTACHMF',NT A, PA(E 11 3.0 RISK ASSESSMENT This section of this report defines the risk the contamination observed on-site poses to the environment and human health. In conducting this risk assessment, HYDROSYSTEMS defines: ■ What pathways exist along which the contaminants may migrate ■ Who/what are the potential receptors along peach pathway ■ At what levels could these receptors be exposed and, given these levels, what is the risk to the receptor, ■ Do these risks warrant corrective actions to reduce or eliminate the risks The following discussion evaluates the above items based on each likely pathway for contaminant migration. Since no significant levels of soil contamination or free product have been found on-site, migration via the ground water pathway appears to be the most significant cause for concern. 3.1 Man-Made Pathways • Two man-made pathway exist on site which may be contributing to the spreading of contaminants. As shown in Figure 3, a 12-inch conduit carries surface water runoff from the rack area past the store well and discharges to the intermittent stream near,the railroad tracks. Contaminated runoff carried by this line could be spreading to the well are._, if a breach exists in this line. Additionally, although a drain line exits from the store well pit, no outfall could be found. This drain line may join the surface water runoff line. If so, blockage present now or previously in the surface drain line may result in a direct conduit for contaminants to travel from the rack area to the well pit. Further investigation of this pathway is warranted. A second man-made pathway which may be contributing to the spreading of the contamination is the septic system. Contaminated groundwater derived from the store well is used for sanitary purposes and discharged to a leachfield on the north-northwest side of the station. The resultant discharge has the potential to further spread the hydrocarbon contamination to the groundwater and possibly to surface waters via the seeps. 20 HYDROSYSTEMS,Nc_ • , - ATTAACHME NT A, PA(E 12 The potential for contaminant migration or impacts via other man-made pathways at the site are nonexistent. All utilities serving the site are overhead, thus no underground conduits exist for contaminant migration. - 3.2 Groundwater Pathway Given the significant levels of BTEX components in the groundwater near MW-2 and the store well, the potential migration of contaminated'groundwater poses the greatest risks to receptors near this site. The primary receptor of concern is the store well which has already • shown to be impacted. Described in Section 2.1 (and shown on Figure 2), other nearby residential wells include the Michie residence upslope and approximately 400 feet to the east of the property, the Stone-Robinson Elementary School Well located approximately 800 • feet to the southwest of the property, the Lang residence located approximately 1200 feet to the east-southeast of the site near the Stone-Robinson school, and wells located at the Shadwell Food Store, located approximately 800 feet northeast of the site at the intersection of Routes 250 and 22. Given the ground water flow directions determined in Section 2.3, only one of these wells should potentially be affected from contamination at the site. The Michie residence located upslope and to the east of the site is upgradient of the site, and therefore should not be impacted by conditions at the site. The wells located at the Shadwell Food Store are located across the apparent ground water divide formed by the discharge area along the topographically low area along the railroad tracks. Therefore, these wells would not be impacted by flow from the site either. The Stone-Robinson school, southwest of the site, is laterally downgradient from the site. However, a the west-northwest gradient toward the intermittent s`• , :hakes impacts to this well unlikely. Additionally, MW-4, located along the property boundary directly between the contaminated area and the school well shows no impacts. The one residential well which potentilally could be impacted by contaminated ground water on the site is the Lang residence located west of the site in the topographically low area along the railroad tracks. Although groundwater on the site flows west-northwest, and appears to discharge to the intermittent stream, groundwater which does not discharge (during dry periods, for example) would be expected to flow west parallelling the intermittent stream. Although this is a possible pathway, exposure via this pathway is unlikely for two reasons. First, MW-5 which is sited to monitor this flowpath, reveals no contamination. This indicates that contamination has not yet even traveled to the site boundary. Based on the suspected groundwater discharge to the seepage area at the 21 HYDROSYSTEMS INC ATTACHMENT A, PAGE 13 northwestern corner of the station building and intermittent stream, contamination may never travel to the site boundary. Second, based on groundwater flow velocities provided in Section 2.3, and assuming no attenuation, it would take on the order of 2.2 - 60 years to travel the 1200 feet to this well. Continued monitoring of MW-5 could serve as an indicator of such migration. 3.3 Surface Water Pathway The potential for contaminant migration and impacts to receptors via a surface water pathway exists, but appears limited for a number of reasons. The only receptor of surface water discharges is the intermittent stream itself and eventually the Rivanna River. No human receptors exist since this intermittent stream is not used for human consumption. Although human receptors are not of concern, pathways do exist for potentially contaminated surface water exiting the site. Pathways include: (1) runoff of surface water from the site (2) groundwater seepage which surfaces at the front of the building entering the intermittent stream, and (3) discharge of contaminated groundwater from the rack area directly to the stream. Although these pathways exist, sampling of the intermittent stream shows no impacts to the stream. All TPH and BTEX components were nondetectable in one grab sample collected at the downstream property boundary. Either no contaminated groundwater is reaching this stream, or if it is, the BTEX components are volatilizing in this surface flow. Continued monitoring of this stream may be warranted to determine if any contaminants are exiting the site via the surface water pathway. 3.4 Air Pathway Since no free product or significantly contaminated soils occur on site, the accumulation or migration of significant concentrations of organic vapors is unlikely. The existing station structure has no basement, and there are no nearby residences in which vapor accumulation would be of concern. OVA readings taken in the ambient atmosphere in the spill area also show no detectible levels of organic vapors. Therefore there is no risk to any potential receptors via any air pathway. • 22 HYDROSYSTEMS Nc_ • t ATTACHMENT A, PAGE 1$ 4.0 REMEDIATION ASSESSMENT Based on investigations performed to date, remedial measures do not appear to be warranted for this site. No significant hydrocarbons in soils, vapor phase contamination, or free product occurs on the site. Thus, corresponding remedial measures such as soil excavation and removal, soil venting, biodegradation, or free product recovery are not applicable or necessary. With_ some improvements in product handling on site, recommended in section 5.0, natural biodegradation should be sufficient to remove the low levels of soil contamination observed. Although remediation of the contaminated groundwater is feasible, such work does not appear to be warranted for several reasons. First, the quality problems at the station well have been in existence for at least 10 years. Although ground water contamination apparently has existed throughout this time period, HYDROSYSTEMS' work to date shows contamination to be localized in the vicinity of the unloading rack and store well. Thus, it appears that contamination has not moved significantly, and is therefore not likely to migrate and negatively impact nearby residential wells. Further monitoring and the recommendations outlined in Section 5.0 would confirm this assumption. Second, other than the store well, no other receptors exist which would likely be impacted by the contamination on the site. As described in Sections 2.1 and 3.2, although the Lang residential well is located downgradient of the site, impacts to this well are unlikely due to a combination of the distance to the well and that the contaminated groundwater appears to be discharging to the intermittent stream on the rear portion of the property. Likewise, although the Stone-Robinson School is laterally downgradient, impacts to this well are unlikely since groundwater flows more due west, along or discharging to the intermittent stream alc e :ailroad. In either case, monitoring wells MW-4 and MW-5 located along the downgradient boundary of the property, and one additional well placed near the station building could be used to monitor for and detect any such migration toward these users. If water quality degradation were to be observed in these wells, appropriate remedial actions could be pursued as needed at that time. If required, a remediation scheme using ground water pumping/collection followed by treatment and discharge to surface water would most likely be used at this site. Since ground water is shallow (< 11') in the most highly contaminated portion of the site, a groundwater collection system composed of horizontal drains may be applicable. In shallow water table situations, such systems are often more cost-effective to install and operate than pumping well systems. If use of horizontal drains is not possible, a pumping well system could be installed. This system would most likely be a 2-well system, using the existing well 23 HYDROSYSTEMS,Nc ATTACHMENT A, PAGE 15 supplying the store as one pumping well. An additional pumping well would be installed near the unloading rack in the most highly contaminated area. Pumping rates of these wells would be determined based-on an analysis of pumping test data. Contaminated groundwater collected by a drain or pumping well system would then require treatment. Air stripping is clearly the technology of choice for treatment and removal of volatile organic compounds at these levels from water. Sizing of an air stripping unit would be based on expected pumping rates from the recovery wells. Depending upon the influent water quality, an oil/water separator may be installed in-line ahead of the air stripping unit. After treatment, water would be discharged to the intermittent stream bounding the site, since no sewerage facilities serve the area. This discharge would most likely be conducted under an Virginia Pollution Abatement permit (VPA). Depending upon the removals achieved with air stripping and the effluent limitations imposed on this discharge, a carbon adsorption finishing unit may be required for final treatment prior to discharge. 5.0 CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN • • As described in.Section, 4.0, ground water remediation at this site does not appear to be necessary at this time, based on the relatively immobile nature of the contamination and the ' lack of receptors likely to be impacted. However, further work should be performed to define and eliminate potential sources of contamination and to ensure that contamination which is present does not migrate off-site and impact potential receptors. Work recommended to adequately characterize the source of contamination and limit such sources includes: • Investigate the line carrying runoff from the gravel area near the unloading rack to ensure this is not connected to or otherwise a source of contamination in the well pit. ■ Discontinue use of the store well. Drill a replacement well in the vicinity of MW-4 to provide water supply for the station. • Excavate and remove surficial petroleum-contaminated soils near the fuel loading/unloading rack. Pave this area with concrete to eliminate continued contamination due to product spillage. Berm or slope this area to contain runoff, which should be directed through an oil/water separator prior to discharge. 24 HYDROSYSTEMS INc_ ' ATTACHMENT A, PAGE 16 Work recorrimended to ensure that the contamination present does not migrate off-site and impact potential receptors includes: ■ Monitor water quality in all monitoring wells, the store well, and the intermittent stream semiannually for a minimum of two years. Samples should be analyzed for. BTEX components, and results provided to the SWCB. At the end of this two year period, provide the SWCB with a summary of all data collected to date and recommendations for further monitoring and disposition of the site. • ■ If significant water quality degradation is observed in any monitoring well, which indicates that the contamination is migrating, implement ground water remediation as discussed in Section 4.0. Provide the SWCB a corrective action plan prior to implementing this work. Other housekeeping recommendations which are largely unrelated to the ground water contamination on-site include: ■ Remove and properly dispose of the abandoned USTs currently stockpiled at the rear of the site. ■ Excavate and properly dispose surficial petroleum-contaminated soils in the vicinity of the gas, diesel, and kerosene pumps, and along the northeast corner of the gravel parking lot. 25 HYDROSYSTEMS wc_ November 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) A'L.LACHMENT 13, PAGE 1 ' '9 (Page 19) �I Staff Comment: The boarding of animals was not part of theroriginal special use permit request for this site. The applicant proposes to board cats only and will use facilities currently in place. No exterior modifications will be required. Activity on site should not increase as no extra trips to the site during non-business hours will be required. Return trips to the site during evenings and weekends are currently required to care for sick or injured animals. During the review of SP-89-06, staff received three letters concerning the animal hospital. Staff has included these letters for the Plan- ning Commission and Board of Supervisors use. It is the opinion of staff that the proposed use will not appreciably increase activity at the site. Staff is unaware of any complaints about the animal hospital. ' Based on the limited impact of the pro- posed use, staff recommends approval subject to the following condi- tions: . Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. Animals shall be confined to an enclosed structure. Noise mea- sured at the nearest lot line shall not exceed forty (40) deci- C bels; and 2. Commercial boarding shall be limited to cats only." Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 1, 1991, unanimously recommended approval of SP-91-51 subject to the two condi- tions recommended by staff. Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing and asked the applicant if he wished •to speak. • Mr. John Gruss, the applicant and a veterinarian, said there are already dogs and cats at the hospital, and he would like to board cats. He recognized that the intent of the special use permit was to control sound, but he does not think that cats would be adding a significant sound level that is not there already. He does not believe that neighbors are now being bothered and he does not think this amendment will propose any significant changes to what is already going on at the hospital. No one else wanted to address the matter, so Mr. Bowie closed the public hearing. Motion was made by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve SP-91-51 subject to the two conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. With no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: • AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 1. Animals shall be confined to an enclosed structure. Noise mea- . sured at the nearest lot line shall not exceed forty (40) deci- bels; and . 2. Commercial boarding shall be limited to cats only. ,Agenda Item No. 13.. Public Hearing on...a..Lequest to amend„the service , area boundaries. of the Albemarle County Service Authority to-include-GLENMORE. ,PRD forWwate; and.sewer service. Property consists of approx 1141.7 ac bor- - dered by US Rt 250 E on the N & by the Rivanna River on the S & W. Property comprises the majority of the Rivanna Village, a designated growth area. TM7D,P6&7,Sec 3; TM93,P59&60; TM94,P2&11. Rivanna Dist. This is a designated growth area. (Advertised in the Daily Progress September 16 and September 23, 1991.) Mr. Keeler summarized the following staff report: ' AT-MCI-MO B, PACE 2 November 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) `;� ` • (Page 20) "Property: The property consists of +1141.7 acres described as Tax Map 79D, Section 3, Parcels 6 and 7; Tax Map 93, Parcels 59 and 60 and Tax Map 94, Parcels 2 and 11. The property, bordered by U. S. Route 250 East on the north and by the Rivanna River on the south and west, comprises the majority of the Rivanna Village, a designated growth area in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Request: To schedule a public hearing for amendment to the Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional area for public water and sewer on the above referenced parcels. Background: Provision of public water and sewer was at the center of consideration for the Rivanna Village and, more specifically, approval of the Glenmore PRD (ZMA-90-19). Public water and sewer were both a condition for development in the Village and proffered in ZMA-90-19 to be provided at the expense of the applicant (Frank Kessler). During the review of ZMA-90-19 the applicant submitted a letter to request inclusion in the jurisdictional area. This letter was included in the staff report as an attachment. The staff report stated: 'The appli- cant has submitted a request to the Board of Supervisors for inclusion of Glenmore into the Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional area for a public water and sewer service. The Board in its action on this request can adequately address this matter.' However, this item was not specifically addressed in the action nor was it listed on the Board's agenda as a separate item. In order to defin- itively resolve this matter, staff recommends the Board state a resolu- tion of intent to forward this request to public hearing. This public hearing is recommended to be held at your November 6, 1991 meeting." Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing. No one came forward, so Mr. Bowie • closed the public hearing. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include the following parcels in Glenmore PRD for water and sewer service: Tax Map 79D, Section 3, Parcels 6 and 7; Tax Map 93, Parcels 59 and 60; and Tax Map 94, Parcels 2 and 11. With no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. A_genda_.Item No-, 4._ ,Request from Daniel Bieker to include property shown on Tax Map 79,as Parcel 25A near Glenmore in the.Albemarle County Service 1 Authority service-area boundaries for water and sewer service. - Mr. Keeler said Mr. Bieker is requesting that his property near Glenmore be included in the Albemarle County Service Authority's service area bounda- ries for water and sewer service. He pointed out the property on the map and said the staff is recommending that a public hearing be set. He added that staff is recommending, in addition to Mr. Bieker's property, that all other properties in the Village of Rivanna be included in the Albemarle County Service Authority service area boundaries for public water and sewer. He said there is a list of the properties provided as Attachment C (on file). Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to set a public'hearing for December 18, 1991, to consider full designation for all remaining properties in the Village of Rivanna, including Mr. Daniel Bieker's. With no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. — NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 15a. Appointment: Appoint a voting member for the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) Annual Meeting. Mr. Bowie said a representative and an alternate from the Board of Supervisors need to be appointed to vote at the VACo Annual Business Meeting. • I ATT. cHMEN^ B, .PAGE 3 t -1 December 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) from "up-zoning" property. It is a well-known fact that once property is rezoned from R-6 to R-15 the land immensely increases in value. He thinks there could be a ripple effect if this is done. VDoT could decide to acquire all the property along the route. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks that if the rezoning was-accompanied by a specific plan, it would put a different light on the request. He thinks that since there is no plan, the request should not be approved. Mr. Bowie agreed. Mrs. Humphris said she thinks it would be in the best interest of the County to have the property zoned R-15 and developed, but to keep the faith with the Commonwealth Transportation Board, this Board needs to honor its statements. She does not think the request should be approved. Mr. St. John commented that the Board is "caught between a rock and a hard place" because it does not want to give the impression that it has entered into a binding agreement with VDoT and will not exercise its legis- lative judgement in rezonings. Mr. Bowerman then offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to deny ZMA-89-09. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Agenda.Ftem Na:_.1. 4J BLIC'HEARING' on a.request_to .amend the service area,bondaxies..of.;the:Albemarle�County.Service-Authority- for-water and sewer. ..ser�tice�to include all. remaining. properties as shown in the Comprehensive Plan • as the Rivanna-Village, which is a designated growth area. (Advertised' in the Daily Progress on December 3 and December 10, 1991.) Mr. Cilimberg said last month the Board had before it a request to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority's service area boundaries for water and sewer service to the Glenmore property in the Village of Rivanna. At that time, staff asked the Board'to consider amending the service area boundaries for water and sewer service to the entire Rivanna Village-which would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He presented a map which covered the Village area. Mr. Bowie asked if this amendment would make it mandatory for a subdivi- sion to connect to water and sewer service. Mr. St. John responded "no", but a future Board could require the connection following a public hearing. Mr. Cilimberg said this amendment does not mean that the properties within the service areas will automatically have water and sewer available. ' The Chairman opened the public hearing. Mr. Dan Bieker, a property owner, said he hopes the Board approves this designation. He does not think water and sewer service should just be available to Glenmore. There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer service to include all remaining properties as shown in the Compre- hensive Plan as the Rivanna Village, which is a designated growth area, and set out as follows: Tax Map 79, Parcels 25, 25A, 25B, 25C, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 35A; Tax Map 79D,( Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, '9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19; Tax Map 80, Parcels 46, 46A, 46B, 46C, 46D, 46E, 47; 48, 49, 49A, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 54A, 55, 55A, 55B, 55C, 56, 56A, 57, 57A, 58, 58A; Tax Map 93, Parcels' 61, 61A, 61B, 62; and Tax Map 94, Parcels 1, 1A, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7A, 7B, 8, 8A, 8C, 8D, 8E, 8F, 9, 10, 47, 47A, 48, 498, 49C, 50, 51, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, • 74. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins, and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. r ALB • UNTY mucHmENT c -,; I A \ 4 ( \.. le O/, n y 59 • 46 \ (,71. '� /e 2'1' se 7 , NI ,\ \\j: •• ,\ SDR �\ \ \ v� �` R e _ li � R 4. Is. 46A .< \ n0� as R 9 i i I \ \\\ 4 /: /7A n[x ��ISM � \ CP lie 7 I7D IS"1i.1 ' Ise ®14 A q 'IS4 'ID•"•IU[ I24 ��. -+I ,•\r �rtD ®,-.41 41..-N,7 ! EOA Ix• 2S I - - \ \ [ ® nRO �� .ems�O 734 \ \ I/ 9 92 12 A �``�S' \Vn I,\ l� ;\ it y 20 ©��,'i I \ zoFl 4� \( I l • S ,ic .� 44TO�� ,� toe I 120 ///c., r-- 2 OM T7 [`A�!�C�� 1.9 . / • / \ A, '2C I 80 ,`,`�,^ \ x • .c•z. '\Nis, WAIL 4, 211 rySE CONDOS \ \ JNITS r•x Q7 �l \ ROUSE g� •\ -- r-J 22A \• ���\ INT RSTp7 / 1. 22 ��— � SEC �/// ' , 12 wa( \ • �� SECTION 7.A i ' 2AA i M ONTIC EL LO � /"11 "J�_22 : _��G /� i/� \ r02(1T/6 �i N75 / ��\� ry��E sfc laf N�� ) / // \\ i zx �,� / V 254 27 ,{, j _. , 259 i Pre. Ri :wrl' /�Th • r• 25C 33 �J ,J�' Ss , 25 • 26 '25 / 1 �S• 52 ,31 /� r SCALE IN FEET S CO 1 TSY SECTION 79 RIVANNA S 4 S r 0 tig ht qT 47 `�RG1N�P , C COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development C�)NTY Y A'' nr1 AR LE �..._ • �Y � 1 401 McIntire Road ;-1 s: � � -... Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 1 s; Z{r k, 1.9 r/V Z November 16, 1992 -,a- Sherwood E. Exum 924 Harris Street Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)Jurisdictional Area Amendment for David W. Booth/Sandra Andrews and Sherwood Exum (Goco, Inc) - Tax Map 79, Parcels 18 and 19 Dear Mr. Exum: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on November 4, 1992, set a public hearing for December 16, 1992 for the above-noted request to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority service area boundaries for "water only" 'to Tax Map 79, Parcels 18 and 19. YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT FOR THIS MEETING. The Board requests a copy of the letter dated August 14, 1989 from the State Water Control Board concerning an investigation of groundwater contamination. Please forward to me as soon as possible. Several Board members would like to visit the site of your request before December 16. Please contact me as.to possible times to meet. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, (960 V. Wayne ilimber Director of Plann ng &C mmunity Development VWC/j cw cc: David W. Booth Bill Brent Amelia Patterson Jo Higgins -0 • J 67 frifiZto COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE �'^I!'''- �, ARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development i•; 401 McIntire Road 11 i' S Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 1 t,;;': `.r i ir,42 (804) 296-5823 ,! November 17, 1992 .;+.., __.. .___ �l iJ UO,;,,v 01. SUPERVISORS David W. Booth Rt. 3, Box 188 Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area Amendment for David W. Booth/Sandra Andrews and Sherwood Exum (Goco, Inc) - Tax Map 79, Parcels 18 and 19 Dear Mr. Booth: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on November 4, 1992, set a public hearing for December 16, 1992 for the above-noted request to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority service area boundaries for "water only" to Tax Map 79, Parcels 18 and 19. YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT FOR THIS MEETING. The Board requests a copy of the letter dated August 14, 1989 from the State Water Control Board concerning an investigation of groundwater contamination. Please forward to me as soon as possible. Several Board members would like to visit the site of your request before December 16. Please contact me as. to possible times to meet. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, (I),( C Of V. Wayne C. imberg Director " Plannin: & Cop ity Development VWC/j cw cc: Sherwood Exum Amelia McCulley Bill Brent Jo Higgins