Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutACSA201100095 Staff Report 1992-10-23 (2) 1 sw�c� 144.65ttr, - J M,-.►3..drt.— tr 2) �f�t. \tts{)1' gekrf c�. .vS-- Mv. 13001V` 4, S COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE v�P�►e1 Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors FROM: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Vv U Development 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 (Goco, 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 seconC _ ,utegy 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 review technical documentation for any comment regarding its content before the public hearing. VWC/j cw cc: David Booth Sherwood Exum Bill Brent Jo Higgins • ITAQ NT A, PAGE 1 C ED Tattershall Farm Rt. 3 Box 188 OCT 2 6 1992 Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 „nni � ��. 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 c _ uatamination 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 . ' 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 ITACHrq'NT 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 this 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, 17, r ' -J ti David W. Booth AiTACH"'IFNT A, PAGE 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 KURT M.GLOECKNER,PE.,PL.S. O C T U 6 `,`' PRESIDENT August 7, 1992 BRIAN P.SMITH,PE. 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. I had a nice meeting with L. : County staff discussing potential 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. \TTACHMENT A, PAGE 4 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 the Freedom 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 IT CHMENT A, PAGE 5 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]. • • HYDROSYSTEMS�,�_ !'1'ACHNEP A, PA(E 6 it\.-/ r"- _----'.--) si l i 460-\+-1iy : \ GGC' d vLi. r6, c.-:) \S ( I ` :.( \ . i ,/ ., .\ \ ) ( ,, II O /j • 11 '/ - ----2 7 ���7,....„.,....:::_,..,...............„:_: . it� � � ______ ..„_ . _ __ . � . -, _ II c> l - . -..- --. \ \ \ ' bc:A:rt:i'`.;Z-- ;.)..a/3.475..";:,;(. 424 )) . . . ( t-c,�yr' ---3-H----/0_ _\ __ i�' ./ i /• . -SITE i- ~-`_ -.. .-4- _ice ' -) >_/ 1, ; , / c\ •• �' / _— _, )1 l `.:: S, -- '-' -;4 i ShadwellN \ , /u 142 c,C-- -_ —�— ,3.-• o _ J�r - 'Stone-Ro . „ =-- �\ r�1' E ° , .,, ..' • ,8--- ./!! / frif 4•/(9. 1 //-'---------j \ '\ COMMERICAL1', Wo� BY NDIVIDUAL AND RRESISSUPPLY WELL LS SERVED SC 4.. 4 -- • \g'-' i 7--_----_.:77----------;:::-' --- .- . _ <-7 \ 1.!___)..)\i, -,A, N_____________ ._ __ __,,..__,. \ ..:-:-Z__,L).//li.)\. .._,:, i i_.;/j.. -\, ._ 11 ram ` I E '' \ °--( -----;,,i_ (. . -? j ) „.. ......._. . .._:_.___„..._ ,:..,....,„\ ... ..\\ \ i , ) 11,1\\i „. -.- \> • :`,. \ �1 : � ll� /ice. /_ ,..: ii \\ , , \.\-: I . ).--,.--.,___ _I) 348., %\ \ `-s-,', 77.29..? (i / i/) \-z, m ,....,—...K Milton `\ 1 _( - / r. ..4_oo • \_ \\ ` •�, i \ �. `' SCALE: •; -. \ l 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-' SCA[E- | } / \ 40 Feet ' ~ ~ Edge mfGravel ��'''' ' � ` . ...... � _''.'' '................. / . '''' '''' ' '.''''' ^''''' � U � ........ Diesel ----'—'. rnn�, . ` -''~------'-'—'_—'--'/ Approx. piphxLocumm U Gas ` �_1 . � Pumps, WELL / ABOVEGRO ND ^NKS STATION 0 � u SU R[ RU D � ___/� ��. ��, �*rn | ' �EBOTA�� / � TanbDUue Pump FORMER RRGTATlcV� � EMBANKMENT � -----------------------`'--------------------~--------------------''-----------------------------------------------'—'—'---- --------`^-----^'--`'-----~--''--~--~--------'----------------------------------------------------'----------------------------'— RAILROAD TRACKS � Fin'nc 3' Site layout showing tank, piping, and fuel dispensing equipment locations at the Shadwcl} ''76' Station, Sbudwc}l, VA' . 6 . • C.O. RAILROAD : . ...--:......,..... . I : 4 : • i • ''. - '''':-•••: :"''''''' -I, . I"-- :'''''l''''''• 1 • : . i :---1--.1.--. r ;...-Iv-"t.....' : • i I ! i :_...;--. -,--::.....ir-•-•:-....:---1:-::. ' • ......: '• . : .--. ; • i i :. j. li ' --1':.'--•:-.:--.: _... : ; :!:- -: 4 . . i'-• -: 4---• .".- ---.--....,___ ----______ 7. • -•---— __4------.-- -------- --------- --__ • .........--- .. 73,---- i • .......3,....-- : • . ....,...4.4..4•41 44"n}$4-.4.43.P. / 4/ 3,e-- /Xi——— • : ! : . r ! P.A... 1 / r--''.-. i,•CEMBANK:MEW:7._------ -----—.7:-. ••,. r —----- .:-.=_:-_-_-_-__-• -_-=-_!..-:_,-•••,, / '. •--s---- -'/i>--,;-;.-7-••..7-,_- . 7-7-2_7 ._,__—— . 7--.... . . _ . .3.- . • I / • • 111•••110 \ / / / .• /,.,./•••A•i,..).•••.— .14....m.41,___—•--------- 144 ro••••I.. -••—------• ,.•r.•i . \ I '1 _••••••• ./ ./•/• . • - •-• -- • \ .. ........... ............ ,..,,..3./ /i ...,..../ /,, •., Z..,... _..----.------—_-- -_....,...,....7, ....."'it ?-....._... / / , .• , /il''r " •''',,l,---- -'-----———---N r...."11 • .. / i/ KTROSENE UST „.. • • * MW-5 . ,- ui,-44-- /2/- , . 1 t ‘ \ . • . co s, • `.. IROSENE P / \\ /',1 II 17-11 1-* / - • 9 . , l ,, ., / • . / •,:.) . • - ••-i, • •„/ / k \ \ l 1 • t ,, i ; * MW-3 ,/ . -.' STORE WELL GI • I'1 ABOVEGROUND GROUND T • . .. , -v cc‘• . _L'. I , •.. ,. t. ta r 4 3 n i \ •r•-• I \ i \si 11 /iij I / 1: ( —•• • I i ,. / / .1 STATION II 1 (--. , I I / • -- • , •. , . I y , . 1 .„...0 •• GO`- /... • • '• ----- ..••-., ___-- ... • , GAS PUMP. S ..v..1.........7...........-it....i.\.://)//1//17 N-'"--::...--:-r;..- '-r. , • ...-----7--''N . . .•••••••••••• .. ..'r--- : \/ 1 f'.I 1 1' / •• NI' . A\ ------ '. ---;--e...„ . i I i 171• / /,'// ...."' \ " /./ ..... ... 2.•''.1.,------ . ..- , . ...-----•, ''..:•• \\\ ‘,.N.- .........-.4-'''.•----- i • \... ....4}''' i II. i ;: .// 7// ..-•: * MW-2 - 1 ./.. ..•%.--•..-'-.•`••,-,..• 110 r......••••1 .... .••%.•:. \\\t\0 \\I‘......s1 ;., ...___.:L.,s,. -.1. .-- i i I /1 i //.1..... • .. C:::-.)... °• 1 . • -." • ../ :•.---- •,•-• ."",. .. ..-;:...- ...-• --• ..--7 ...• ••-"'"". '.*:-•\A \ \04 __ .,1 , ,'•I' „-,--••„.. ,.... . - , ... s„. 1.--•*.:-.- ---..--- •-•;•••• •-• • ••••••••• ,\\\‘.*;;•• -ts \ - --- ', .1.• -1------ J ."/ 'I.:1"" ••• ..(-' UNLOADING RACK ".',.• .,..- ..--„...• „...- ...--„••• . ..•" %.,% k% WN\ — ••• "...--•• 1 — - / .....- ...... e' /1-•..--- .1'.• • .•., --",..- ....-• ,-- •••:- / ..r• • ..,::::••••-• ,...!.., ....-- _...., .,./'• •*."‘,1•1 • i /0 /'..:. ,,,. -. • , 1 -_______;...) / , ..•...r.'.•• ..-- '.,C. V, \\‘1‘., , - ..- . .----.-..... ,./ ,/ .•••• • / ..-••.;;....--,.....----....,-5......--- •-•--.-•••••.1 .-••- _....., -,'' 1—, VA.,. ‘1‘1,‘,1.)\!,;..(12/.1%. ,,,." ......1..-":- ... :--.3.. ..... i.•/. ////',,. DIESEL PUMPS ..,..--- ` ••••" ---.....• --• --- --".-- .. CD •,,,._ ,.,....\,,,,......„„...-- , _____,...4 ___,..,,,/,/ , ---:-..- ... .--,-:.-..-:<;..---- ,,,.. ---,-• .. _,-.;.----- .. •.; -A-, .1....//// / ... ---•-4--•.: / ,.• ------ , . <•'••••••,'I. -' • -- / ..• --- •••••-.2-"!---'5---- --- ,.,-• .." 4 ••„ ...A ‘\4 0 , • ..„...,!._.- .. i 34 ' --- .4 F.." .,- ,.••----- ---,‹...< ..„...- i --• \ \\A - • ... .•-I,- 11\\Y . __ ?. '-' 4'. ' --''';'). ('.--- ----- -=-i - .--- ..:-...........-. ..- .. ---.7'.. ••' • .• --- -...> --.....- .....-, ...--,,,.... ..--- ....' / ..,...:::_.,........:::-.- ' ...4N- V%A . / : -- ..,,,•, ..•I %AV\ / .1, 1 „...-.. • • C• \ :;:. \\V\ \ •'''' / /1 .../• I ' ':- k 10\ --...„' / •• ,.-T------.4,,,\.. •:---;-------- EMBAEiKMENT ....„.„:„......----'' ..,, , %.J") '• •'• 11 ,'• .`,. ‘ \0----- --1-•-• ., 1 — - -- ...•.% -'••"*: ' . -51 ••••• .... 11\\0___- . ...:;---'/ ->- •-• •••;;%.<-•' *MONITORING SCALE: : / ,••---1... x‘v 1 ------ .••• 0 .• ''' "\\--------.! ' • ..k:'-''' • • (---.. ' 1 INCH A.PPROXIMATELY 45 FEET C..- '• '',.. ‘A \.... WELL -A '• %., k \ ————...__•_._.:1.,' ,'!" ';',...'-•' ..- '.- —.--.r'-,— • c•C‘ %. :',.‘•\ -----..,... ••••• ..„ i / : ••i:•••••-•-s4... ' ••••• , • . . ‘`.) '. %. ' - ,, c•ocled ip ., -, \ =Iv MW-4. •/ V •-4-• •!•‘ ..,.." / •:'•"*'. ., 0 3•t t co at.... '...k. /1 CC c c ......- ../' ..,•' / N_ 1.. ..• / 1 • •• -".......:,---,--- 1. I Of• ----.-- / \.1 ..... : •„-- /-.; •..&:• I ••• ..-1•," "-C ..)•_. --•-- . • ? ...- • 1 --- .. 0 , „_--- ••" '.....• •---- • --- o . • t , ---, . .._.- - co c..) ---4 Figure 4. Site plan showing the topography and boring/monitoring well locations at the Shadwell "76" Station, Shadwell, rri VA. . 0) • .1 • I — . • . ,_ _•:.T .ate 1" C:O RAILR_ _OAD-- tea./� �•- • • ` .. . - -. . ,..'151••••••• ..... , ..1 •n` w�'"`'''1 ��- /'!l --_ __._ _ �__—=-EMBA QAENT—--___ _—r^— _ ,. • 11 ,:.w \\{ ., .... (1•__ ._... rr:.//�/ /�/�/((� ` ~ -----__ \ �'I.'E_ROSENEUST /�� E hIW 5 � • .. / KEROSENE PUMP!•/ \\\ \if //` STORE WELL •• 1 ' %:_ i / \ \� Il If • 1 G ND TAT MW-3 ,/ ¢ e,., i ' ABOVEGROUND / / `I; i• /1• , „ ; STATION I v4L l_v_ii J,,, ' •... • _,� III • �\_- -4F� �� h \\ .'� _• APPROXIMATE DIRECTION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW /; �'' 'S .,..• \\\\�\\ \ — •,� '`' I 1 �'i/. ' ` r` ` i / �,-i•.... �..' \\\\�`\�\\\1 -- — I'/• :yip/�� ' UM OADING RACK fir• ��/ /i / !' • .-, \ \\ +, " / / DIESEL PliMPS '' i i/ _ _____......__________;s2:-.-1,[..--.---1...--.----;---->----2-..7.---frr'.-•/„...>„:„.„--": .••-. ---• w. ny- : \'I\\\\\\� / ;-' i' • %EMBa.I�I:MENT `r �� :/j- .-..,...•r-' SCALE 1\\\\ _— e• / , - / 1 INCIi APPROXIMATELY 45 FEET L. J'i:;\\\ .... , . .,/•t ,`',":y„• l %' k MONITORING WELT. L. \\\----_-A 1 / j'_'" -• ' -` am GROUNDWATER CONTOUR yy \ •--di MW-4-- .• .. ooJcd ' '... I ' • fir''' ,�,//''O • ni Figure 5. Groundwater flow direction at the Shadwell "76" Station, Shadwell, VA. •• n • ,TCACHMENT 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 u.c_ • TTACHMF T A, PAGE 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 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 carrie.. u, cnis 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,�� • • ITACF ENT A, PArE 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 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 w� !ITACHMENT 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 rio 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__ • TTACHMENT A, PAGE 14 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 wc_ T'TACHMENT 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 NC_ • TTA EMENT A, PAGE 16 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 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 (Regu Night Meeting) ifITACI MENT B., PAGE 1 . (Page 19) Staff Comment: The boarding of animals was not part of the original 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- 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.request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include GLENMORE PRO for water 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: i' November 6, 1991 (RegL..,._ Night Meeting) TTACITTNT, B, PACE; 2 I (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. Agenda Item No. 14. Request from Daniel Bieker to include property shown on Tax Map 79„as Parcel 25A near Glenmore in the Albemarle County Service 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. . . ITACHMEN" B, PAGE 3 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 Item.No.-1Q-,.,,gUBLIC HEARING on a request_to append the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer service 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 Chairma.. 01. tea 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, 49B, 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. ALBEMARLE CCU,. •-Y A 3EMARLE COUNTY A ENT C 62 63 : , 0,.■rvANN• All• I� \. 1 ss" r \ \ `\ /+ 4 ( \ Rr �\I � \ `w A. I m�©4�, OUT QF'FS �•- ANT PS TO 44-Eisi -ORE) �,lik o • \ (2'. 58 \ \ \c' I' \'\ ,X5A \ ( 46 59 \ [ MS \ 1 ( 9nk\ \\, . 4 46A . 21%,: \ /41,1104/ `�`` SECTION 78A ASKR• A. \III,'/ Er • 9 I .A�� \ \"/if \ \\ - ` I I \ >e.. t / Patirc -, - nos 21 , ,\'� 10 i" 1pf ` \ I 111 . •\,... \,,9 \ ''''' / )"....------.1 I•11: S0 /Slt /,c � \441:611, 5343 re •::::'---.--:____--- 10 p 2 ` • SO . ,..,,L I 12 A Vi; 0 ( s,*, �z•0 - �j � II )1 20 fly .,,AW S i i11F \4 11107 N.O. / \ SIA • \ I I-- _ _M--- I I 2D SO �'_ 1 2A \ 128 • I l . \ / � 20M :\,..._______,, . (\t / 31 �3Y \ \ I \ h 12L77 �pT� \�— \ 7\ 80 ��°+4�•r ��� 43 ,� S \, z.c-z1u �. \ i 45 - N94 1� STSLc2 Q7 , \ T 64 \ 1 1 '°��` INTER \. 224 oil R5T 4T llar �� /�/ J3�4I//- '�' •; •� I �` ° ��� ID 3A I IrE ROL,re 61 lip �/ �— �` lor g\� 31A .3 39 J48 49 • �, .I 25o v \ /�ip,7--- efO , SECTION 79A / / I.< 4411.1! .' -178 '24 /� 1 �— q=VANN• DIST. P 7 B 7eI \\ SHADWELL B^ nc�.�" \ ��� I/���� ' // \ COTTSV E 1ST. I AND LY//0 / I "� ��I�i//• �, �, f. \ I6 IS � //////��/i/ \ 20 it l / J CNESAKoe gIV4NN D15T 2 174 / tea Rlvonno11111 MONTICELLO / O T I / _ �j �.' /� / 2e- -' p�' / .� � SH4pWELL7....11. �j� I• Ow.I' /�/'//,�• . Nir B D / 36 D /// /// 1 22 .,, ..., ,_,- / 23E \\ 5T°T/ES �N E�I'HTS �\ \ �• � ��_ ' � ` �E A• Fri--•''•-•-•--___jr ,,,..,k . 1\ A . 23Tio �E sfc lof N� �\\ ., i" /� r• /�43A • .. ri Z / '';'/7 / (////' .• MILLS /. / / / .Yt�_ / 21A / /. /. �. I / j / '1 __< / ( EC), 7e ' /,, // , 43 254 ,/ 42/ / 23 �1 / \ / �j /73 3@ r z.�.. mot i /1 raw 27A / / %, '/ / v a� ri rT 25C \26 y 27E ,. ,.�/,/, .]i r °]f 3Ee34 25/ 26 (:1 ,�\(1I, <2 I 36' ) \r/'%,!II%� //�%�!/A or ,°3u 44 .�1 l I .iT"_ ~-2B //'' • 92 1C..,-_r-.., 8<f ESTAL n15TRICT 93 ,.� ". w RENT ,••• �« SCOTTSVILLE AND SECTION 78° SCALE 'H - ... ,.� RIVANNA AND SECTION 79 RIVANNA DISTRICTS k T SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICTS