HomeMy WebLinkAboutACSA199500007 Executive Summary 1995-12-06 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITI.F.: AGENDA DATF: ITEM NIIMRF,R:
Service Authority Jurisdictional Area Request -VDOT Albemarle December 6, 1995
County Rest Areas and Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Ivy Landfill
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
SI IRJECTJPROPOS Aj,(REQI IESST:
Request for Sewer to Existing Structures at I-64 East Rest Area, CONSENT AGENDA:
Water and Sewer to Existing Structures at I-64 West Rest Area and ACTION: INFORMATION:
Sewer to the Ivy Landfill
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CONTACT(S): l
Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors considered this request on November 1, 1995 (staff report attached as Attachment 1) and agreed
to set this public hearing for the request.
DISCIISSION:
In its recommendations for the November 1 consideration of the request by the Board, staff recommended additional information be provided
before public hearing. The applicant has responded in two areas - further information has been provided regarding the feasibility of
alternative non-discharge systems and the feasibility of re-locating the rest areas closer to public utilities. (See attachment II) No additional
information has been provided regarding verification of existing well flow or alternative well site potential at the west bound rest stop. The
Water Resources Manager has provided comment in response to the applicant's additional information. (See Attachment III) The
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)has also provided comment. (See Attachment IV)
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the comments of staffs November 1, 1995 report and information since provided by the applicant, our Water Resources Manager,
and DEQ, staff recommends the following for approval:
1) Limited Service- Sewer to Existing Rest Area Structures Only -VDOT I-64 Fast Rest Area (Tax Map 54, I-64 Right of Way) and
VDOT I-64 West Rest Area(Tax Map 73,I-64 Right of Way) - Service by private sewer lines following existing VDOT right of way
only.
2) Limited Service-Sewer to Ivy Sanitary Landfill for Leachate Management Only (Tax Map 73, Parcel 28) - Service by private sewer
lines following VDOT right of way only.
In addition, based on lack of information justifying need, stafkdoes not recommend amending the jurisdictional area for water to the 1-64
West Rest Area.
cc: Taylor Turner, III, R. Stuart Royer&Associates, Inc.
Art Petrini
Bill Brent
David Hirschman
VDOTRES2.EXE
95.206
CUUNTY OF ALBEMAKLE ATTACHMENT I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
If
AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NITMBER:
Service Authority Jurisdictional Area Request-VDOT Albemarle November 1, 1995
County Rest Areas and Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Ivy Landfill
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPoSAIJREQITEST:
Request for Sewer to Existing Structures at I-64 East Rest Area, CONSENT AGENDA:
Water and Sewer to Existing Structures at I-64 West Rest Area and ACTION: INFORMATION:
Sewer to the Ivy Landfill
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CONTACT(.):
Messrs. Tucker, Cilimherg REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Virginia Department of Transportation(VDOT)desires to replace currently operating zero discharge mineral oil sewage waste systems
at its two Albemarle County rest areas on 1-64 with connections to the Crozet Interceptor and, furthermore, to replace the existing on-site
well with a connection to public water at the I-64 West Rest Area. (The request is fully described and justified in Attachment A.) The
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority(RSWA),in anticipation of the possible need to dispose of leachate from the Ivy landfill, desires the ability
to connect to the Crozet Interceptor along the same corridor as used for the I-64 West Rest Area connection. (The request is fully described
and justified in Attachment B.) All connections will be via private service lines not available to other properties.
DISCITSSION:
The Water Resources Manager and Albemarle County Service Authority have both provided comment. (See Attachments C and D)
VDOT's consultant notes numerous problems with the mineral oil sewage waste system, attempts to remedy some of the problems and
system demands that have made the system malodorous at its current and anticipated levels of usage. While several alternatives to this
system are possible,the Water Resources Manager supports connection to public sewer as much preferable to package treatment, pump and
haul or spray irrigation. Another type of non-discharge waste recycling system is a possibility, but has not been explored by the applicant
as of this writing. Non-discharge systems do require some level of pump and haul. RSWA currently has leachate waste hauled and
considers connection to the Crozet Interceptor to be a desirable future alternative. Again, other alternatives exist,but are either not desirable
(point source discharge Ind treatment and pump and haul) or limited in their utility (in-situ treatment of groundwater through bio-
remediation). As to water at the I-64 West Rest Stop, the VDOT consultant cites reported inadequate capacity to meet future demands.
A draw-down test for this well is expected to verify flow,but results have not been made available as of this writing. Additional wells have
not been drilled to determine if adequate groundwater exists elsewhere on the site.
The aforementioned requests are all for properties 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). In addition, the Crozet Interceptor was constructed and has existed with the intent to serve only growth
area properties, particularly the Community of Crozet, without intervening connection to Rural Area properties.
AGENDA TITLE: Service Authori_y Jurisdictional Area Request-VDOT Albemarle County Rest Areas and Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority Ivy I Andfill
AGENDA DATE: November 1, 1995
Page 2
The subject requests in each case lie several miles from existing public utilities. (It is not known if re-location of the rest areas closer to
public utilities near the Crozet interchange would be a feasible alternative.) Connection would either be constructed along existing VDOT
right of way or cross country. The sewer connections would involve pumping and force mains. Although intended to be via private lines,
such connections have the potential of creating additional pressure for connection and setting a precedent for connection in the Rural Area,
particularly to the Crozet Interceptor. The requests do not satisfy the adjacent to existing lines requirement. The malodorous condition of
the existing rest area waste systems is characterized by the applicant as "unsanitary", although it is of some question that public health and
safety is endangered. The landfill leachate can pose a public health concern if not properly disposed of. In both cases it should be noted
that as water supply watershed properties,package treatment and point source discharge is undesirable. (The County Attorney believes that
VDOT could install package treatment plants without County approval should the permitting agencies allow.) Regarding water to the I-64
West rest area, there is no evidence of endangerment to public health and safety. The reliability of water in the area has been of some
question and connection of the rest stop would bring public water in close proximity of subdivisions currently on central well systems that
have expressed concerns about reliability.
RFrOMMF.NT)ATION:
This is a very unique yet potentially precedent-setting consideration. The sewer connection aspect seems to deserve particularly careful
consideration in that, while not meeting the Comprehensive Plan intent for such service in the Rural Area, it is to address existing waste
disposal problems in the Rivanna Reservoir watershed that can only be expected to increase in volume unless the facilities are shut down
and waste flow ended. Short of alternative non-discharge systems which still involve some pump and haul, connection to public sewer seems
to be the preferable way to address these problems. For this reason, it is recommended that this aspect of the request proceed to public
hearing for sewer to existing structures only. In the interim, further information should be provided regarding the feasibility of alternative
non-discharge systems.
Regarding the request for water, the necessity for public water does not seem to exist based on information provided to this point. Should
the Board decide to proceed to public hearing for this request, it should be for water to existing structures only. Verification of existing
well flow and information on alternative well site potential should be provided.
Regarding the rest areas, the Board may also want information regarding the feasibility of re-locating them closer to public utilities near
the Crozet interchange.
cc: Taylor Turner, III, R. Stuart Royer&Associates, Inc.
Art Petrini
Bill Brent _
David Hirschman
VDOTREST.EXE
95.182
L11 1111,..L11"ALLY 1 t1
APPLICATION TO ANEL,—.1 THE M� County of A _arle
�r'�; Department of Planning and Community Development
SERVICE AUTHORITY -' 401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 229024596
JURISDICTIONAL AREAS fait-,,N,t• 804 296-5823 •
•
APPLICANT Name: Virgi ni Department' of Transportation
Signature: Kenn A. IlarriQ— ,/� � _ �` Phone: (804) 692-0390
Address: 1401 Fast Broad Street'
Richmond, Virginia 23219-1939
R. Stuart Royer and Associates, Inc.
Taylor F. Turner, III `
Signature: Y �u:t�� Phone: (804) 281-0901
1503 Santa Rosa Road, 221 .
Address: to
Riclinund, Virginia 23229
JURISDICTIONAL AREA DESIGNATION REQUESTED:
❑ Water and Sewer to Existing Structures 0 Water only
❑ Water Only to Existing Structure(s) ❑ Limited Service (Describe in Justification
below)
PROPERTY LOCATION (Address) See Attached
Tax Map(s)/Parcel Number(s):
CURRENT SERVICE AREA DESIGNATION (If any):
❑ Water and Sewer ❑ Water Only •
❑ Water Only to Existing Structures 0 Limited Service
JUSTIFICATION FOR REQUEST: See Attached
For Staff Use Only
DATE SUBMII 1"ED: DATE$130 FEE PAID:
PROPERTY IS LOCATED (Check Appropriate):
❑ Inside or ❑Outside a Growth Area? ❑ Adjacent to SAJA?
❑ Inside or ❑Outside a Water-Supply Watershed? ❑ Adjacent to a Growth Area?
Location and distance of water/sewer line proposed to provide service
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT ADOPTED: El Yes ❑ No Date of Action
Application to Amend Service Authority Jurisdictional Areas
VDOT Rest Stop Modifications
0064-002-F07, PE 101 (Albemarle)
Project No 9518
BACKGROUND
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) owns and operates the Virginia
Interstate Highway system which includes rest areas throughout the state. These
facilities were constructed with Federal assistance and major improvements are
normally performed on a cost share basis. One of the Interstate Highways (I-64)
crosses the southern portion of Albemarle County. Two (2) rest stops are located
along this portion of 1-64- one on the west bound lane (WBL) approximately 1 .4 miles
west of the Ivy exit and one on the east bound lane (EBL) approximately 0.2 miles
west of Route 691 .' These rest areas provide tourists and travellers the opportunity
to break from their travels and use the rest room facilities.
Governor George Allen has stated the interstate rest areas are a key to Virginia's
tourism since they create the tourist's first impression of the state. Therefore, the
overall appearance and cleanliness of the rest areas is an important part of promoting
tourism in Virginia.
EXISTING SYSTEM - DESCRIPTION
Sewage handling is provided at each of the Albemarle County rest areas by zero
discharge mineral oil systems. Oil transports the waste material from the rest rooms
to a separate facility for separation of the oil and waste matter. The solids are held
in a sludge tank and transported to the County wastewater treatment plant (wwtp)
several times each week.
EXISTING SYSTEM - PROBLEMS
The mineral oil systems were manufactured by a subsidiary of the Chrysler
Corporation which is no longer in business. The systems have experienced numerous
problems over the years. The problems include inadequate filtration of the recycled
oil, odor, aesthetics, incompatibility of the mineral oil with system components,
capacity limitations, and limited availability of spare parts.
As system demands increase during high usage, the filtration system efficiency
decreases. The poor efficiency of the filtration system results in recycling of fecal
matter, which results in odors and unsanitary conditions.
Incompatibility of the mineral oil with the system components has resulted in
deterioration and replacement of the plumbing on three occasions.
1 The EBL rest stop is approximately 3.4 miles from the end of the Crozet Interceptor.
The WBL rest stop is approximately 1.5 miles from the Crozet Interceptor.
EXISTING SYSTEM - ATTEMPTS TO REMEDY PROBLEMS
The systems were originally installed in 1979. A complete overhaul was performed
in 1988, at which time the largest possible system was installed. In addition, VDOT
has replaced the plumbing three times with different type materials due to
deterioration by the mineral oil.
EXISTING SYSTEM - FLOWS
The average daily flows (1994) were 19,904 gpd for the EBL and 20,266 gpd for the
WBL. The maximum day flows were 60,080 gpd and 53,933 gpd respectively.
VDOT estimates traffic on 1-64 to increase approximately 69% by the year 2015.
Therefore, the corresponding estimated average flows are 33,638 gpd and 34,250
gpd respectively with maximum day flows of 101,535 gpd and 91,147 gpd
respectively.
ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS
Three alternatives were considered for alleviating the current problems - Natural
Treatment methods, Conventional wastewater treatment plants (wwtp),and discharge
into the Crozet Interceptor. Natural Treatment systems are land application methods
which include spray irrigation, rapid infiltration overland flow, and systems such as
aquatic ponds, constructed wetlands, and other aquatic plant systems.2
The severe ground slope and the soils prevent the use of natural systems at the WBL
rest stop. The ground is more gently rolling at the EBL rest stop. However, the slope,
depth to rock, moderately permeable clayey subsoil, and seepage are the main
limitations of the soils for natural treatment systems at the EBL rest stop.3
Construction of a conventional wwtp is feasible. However, the discharge will flow
into the watershed management area which is contrary to the efforts by the County
to eliminate point source discharges.
The third alternative, discharge into the Crozet Interceptor, is the preferred alternative.
This would allow conversion of the rest areas to a conventional wastewater system,
keep all discharges out of the watershed management area, and allow for a cleaner
more sanitary rest area. This would also provide additional revenue for the County in
the form of a connection fee and in monthly treatment fees.
It is noted, water is also required at the WBL rest stop with any of the conventional
2 Natural treatment systems as stated in the Virginia Department of Health Sewage Collection and
Treatment Regulations, VR 355-17-120 Article 15- Natural Treatment Systems. Page 357-378.
3 The soils in the vicinity of the EBL rest stop include Ashe Loam, Braddock Loam, Chester Loam, and
Thurmont Loam. Soil Survey of Albemarle County, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, 1980. Pages 16, 17, 19, 20, 30, 118.
alternatives. The capacity of the EBL well is 72 gpm based on a 48 draw down test.4
While additional storage capacity may be required, this well appears capable of
meeting the demands. The reported capacity of the WBL well is 15 gpm.5 The 2015
average day demand is approximately 24 gpm at each rest stop, with maximum day
demands of 71 gpm, and intermittent peaks greater than 71 gpm. Therefore, the WBL
well is not capable of meeting the average demands.
COMMENTS ON THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The above alternatives were reviewed based on the Comprehensive Plan. Chapter
Two of the Comprehensive Plan states:
"Residential development in the rural portion of the County has adverse
effects,....
Commercial land uses in the rural areas also impact agricultural and forestal
activities. "5
The VDOT rest stops are existing state owned and state maintained facilities. The
sludge produced by these facilities is currently treated at the Charlottesville wwtp.
Therefore, modifications to these systems do not conflict with the stated objective of
protecting the County's agricultural and forestal lands but rather support the County's
objectives.'
Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan also states:
"WA TER RESOURCES
GOAL; Protect the County's surface water and groundwater supplies for the
benefit of Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, the Town of Scottsville,
and downstream interests. "8
Both natural treatment methods and conventional wwtps could impact the water
quality of the watershed management area. While the distance of the facilities from
the water withdrawal is significant, point discharges are contrary to the County's long
term effort to eliminate point source discharges. Discharge into the Crozet Interceptor
4 Virginia Department of Health Description of System. January 18, 1979.
5 Virginia Department of Health Description of System. January 18, 1979.
6 The Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County, Virginia 1989-2010, Adopted July 12, 1989, Department
of Planning & Community Development. Page 49.
7 The Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County, Virginia 1989-2010, Adopted July 12, 1989, Department
of Planning & Community Development. Page 50.
8 The Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County, Virginia 1989-2010, Adopted July 12, 1989, Department
of Planning & Community Development. Page 57.
I '
would minimize risk of contamination to the watershed management area.
Chapter Three of the Comprehensive Plan states:
"OBJECTIVE: Provide public water and sewer services to the Urban Area and
Communities.
STRA TEGIES:
• 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 property is: (1) adjacent to existing lines;
and , (2) public health or safety is endangered.
• Prohibit access to the Crozet Interceptor between the boundary of the
Crozet Community and the Urban Area. "9
Regarding the first point, both rest stops are outside of the jurisdictional area and
therefore are not part of the designated growth area. However, these are existing
VDOT facilities which have attempted to provide their own water and sewer since
inception. They do not represent growth in the rural area and they are not associated
with residential or commercial facilities.
Regarding the second point, the WBL rest stop is not adjacent to, but is close to the
existing jurisdictional area. The EBL rest stop is not adjacent to the existing
jurisdictional area. However, there is a public health issue associated with both of the
existing facilities as previously noted.
Regarding the third point, both rest areas are outside of the Crozet Community.
The Comprehensive Plan also states:
"The Urban area interchanges, ..., serve as gateways to Charlottesville and the
urban area and deserve particular attention to desirable visual impact. i1°
This is consistent with the Governor's statement. The rest areas provide the first
impression to travellers of the Charlottesville area. Therefore, it is beneficial to
Albemarle County and Charlottesville to assist VDOT in alleviating the current
problems.
The wording and intent of the Comprehensive Plan appear directed at limiting growth
9 The Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County, Virginia 1989-2010, Adopted July 12, 1989, Department
of Planning & Community Development. Page 146.
10 The Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County, Virginia 1989-2015, Adopted July 12, 1989, Department
of Planning & Community Development. Page 203.
I
of residential and commercial development which could have an adverse impact on the
environment. The VDOT rest stops are existing facilities, not new development. The
force main and water line for the EBL rest stop would be located in VDOT right of
way, to the extent possible. Constructing the water and sewer lines for the WBL in
cross country easement is preferred due to cost. Water and sewer lines for both rest
areas would be sized for VDOT use only. An agreement can be drawn to stipulate no
additional connections are allowed. VDOT would own and maintain the lines and
pump stations.
REQUEST
Based on the above stated problem, the implications of this problem, and the
alternatives available, the Virginia Department of Transportation respectively requests
an amendment to the Service Authority Jurisdictional Area to allow discharge of the
rest stop wastewater into the Crozet Interceptor and connection to public water as
needed. Your favorable response is greatly appreciated.
File: C:%WPDOCS\VAD07\6618\CVAMEND
RECEIVED
R. STUART ROYER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Rr
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS SEP 1 5 1995
. � 792 JR
September 12, 1995 P! nn lg Dept.
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning and Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Re: VDOT Rest Stop Modifications
0064-063-F07, PE 101 (Albemarle)
RSR&A Project No: 9518
Dear Mr. Cilimberg:
Please find enclosed, as per our September 11 , 1995 meeting, County maps indicating
the rest stops, landfill, and proposed force main alignments.
In addition, we request a delay in our presentation to the Board of Supervisors from
October to November, 1995. This is to allow time for the Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority (RSWA) to study the feasibility of their discharging into a common system
with VDOT. If this is a feasible alternative, VDOT and RSWA would prefer to meet
together with the Board of Supervisors to discuss connection to the Crozet
Interceptor.
If you should have any questions, please call.
Very truly,
R STUART ROYER AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
By 7a44.41q--
T r ✓YyJrner, III, P.E.
Project Manager
ENCLOSURES
cc: Mr. Kenn A. Harris - VDOT, Special Operations and Facilities Manager (W/ Encl)
Mr. Arthur Petrini - RSWA, Executive Director (W Encl)
..c:1 WPDO CSIVADO n961 B1.1b912
1503 SANTA ROSA ROAD, SUITE 211 • RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23229•(804) 281-0901 FAX (804) 281-0962
•
1200 o �� l A76 k 675 -- ��� '� A, L� • AS 1 658 /
,, o c • 2 c.) i \ 16 t 5
oe o I _, �680 •• —� �� 0 3.� �- +
I - r 676 °�� I \ ,•
684 788 ".,n 810 1 • 802 ,„ (�- 1 -. I - -- ,�ti
I ® ) ® 1 678) r bq s ' I►
[691 i s 'sv 1 :911 680 , ® 1�'� I �.Sf'�L / 656y
. \_ CrozBet 1 �3' :N t' ° - Ati 654
1 e
1 t Ck r o moo° I Farmington CM o° oc
Brownsville J k,n9 71111110714/* 677I Country Club601'j797.11230+ • oo✓�� ® ,31 , IL25 7 • `' 1 \ a r
�' / ?S . • 'sli 1[679) `-- - i- t6a - - - -- -----4 el / I
ile 1:3 $ I ��
Y.nceM�II '751 682 ` all �, D [16301 �° - 6�7 I f
w� / I ® j 683 1
i 16211787 637 q � ( 1 1 ✓ ty. ' , i
f .
.�. �{ / 44 / / 1620 ► (16 31
{ 635 /Q�/� �• o I Chorlottesville ���
Ojst �� 77 1 �� P\C� I Reservoir 250 .1c `
824 Fez 1622 00 ‘� C4. '
. i. ' ill
688 Midway / 637 o ^J _ —1
�� 635 '�� - tnU(�') 682i ' ...✓ / / wb(. I12 - CHAR
l 689 0 / ( 637 2%S& r"oP . 64 ! ... VIL
v� o?i`i�I 637 ` _. �r� 6 :F 171
LA
�� i • aI / Y.
Miller • �P • 1 ./•/, ' �`�
r'% 689 Schoo / �OJN \ o 3 �.. f • I 5 ��
{ y 635) •/ `• ioiol Ena — 745 1 631
� \ 1 1 / ,780 -
I
o . f Pt�\• \ 70g h 818
3 s, 689 \P [ l\ o 1'v i 631 - - - [742
• (710 1
/‘..' ;Is- 4 4 I 6 - [696) ' . S (7oe] el N. / ,�
x� HIGH 814 TOM 779 _ 710 `< Arrowhead / (, "-----------
4,3a TOP 692, MOUNTAIN �c t.o $ i642
O i® ��► r- OV0 9� o Rsd I, lit
A
\. I. 760 „ 760�/ � S Hill 1
\,k' 1611 1 , N�•°" 789 I235 -
row-- • t I q'' --
1rm ,707 6841 788 g10 1a 802
NI (,1SL p } of _ ® 4
2�+gi STPP G 04, '' 691 1� .ie 1 !' 680
691 � 1 - 1 P
LQ(i -L r .a.,_ � m _ S
t,� hs r:7 15 1 Brownsville a r, rI ,
690`' r:"7 827 SCountry 684I 1230 �' ® u f 682 o.
4� .*.a r
F 174 3so n op1 690 791 797 C,,e® F1173 /1 .09 \
Greenwood F-I 5 690 825 ta:
�...� _, ic J (1��`
7 0g Yancey • °b • ' ' I751 ` 682 ' 869
F 172 filt,
. ._•-, _� ate14. 1 0� MiII 751 / 1621 )7
at [690F 1 7 3 'il r tellOr' i1�`�� 635 �i'att
1 I/ • �7S j. 1 �, 6) 79
• 796 1 1 / 0
�, 61 750 °. [796� 11 o COEI 1Al F 176 F 852 8r. �6 �-� !� 1622
SOP\ 750 �,- _ 803 filo��+_�� e
�/ (691 n�a'� 689 �' 1 ').? 791 °7St s
1Ao� ; - . 1 —�., .
Iris 637 688 Midway _
Cntrers Stockton N- r p� :\ If
688
Shop 692 re, a� ��� -le 0 635 PU ' 6821 „ � - �ec i ( i B 63 7
637 692 t 689 02, �► 637
I5I \ --�` .L
ix 637 °1? 1 :. 0 = — ` % o -
- ') ►�
\ C , N._
1 758 �`_t :, _ ,�� j 637 ,s ;'14
TO RT. 151 637 b Miller • N�
�f 5l shoo 00�
/ ‘ .:V/ t N r ;689 ti' 635 t i
38.OQ 2 �May n Botesvil ie Q ., `
\f '0° 692 '
\_ — -
636 736 `.1 White —J 7 ` Ji t pc�\"
` Samuel 636 j 635] f 692 • 1
i ; 63 5J 1 1696I��.
693
736' ` 691 ..1 j' g HIGH ® TOM 779 -
''0 TOP 692 MOUNTAIN o,o '�
, 1
09` \` �' �693) �� 694 s� 801 002 s
q[635] \\ °' 695j ) . 856 ® ! i
. o63
\ ,_,635 \ 1 � 0 76
/ I 6911—V`oys R--- ' 0o2
635 ` V / , 712
._ �`'�.�\ oA 0K [6921 0,
. R. STUART ROYER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS Rr
. �.rc d192-Y RECEIV �R
fir.:
September 22, 1995 ��;;
2o1995
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community DOelnoa1 ent
County of Albemarle ,"` t i..'l.g Dept•
Department of Planning and Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Re: Application to Amend Service Authority Jurisdictional Areas
VDOT Rest Stop Modifications
0064-063-F07, PE 101 (Albemarle)
RSR&A Project No: 9518
Dear Mr. Cilimberg:
We request the above referenced Application to Amend Service Authority
Jurisdictional Areas be amended to include a third possible force main alignment to
serve VDOT's west bound lane rest stop. This alignment follows the west bound lane
of 1-64 to Route 637 and then north along Route 637 to its intersection with the
Crozet Interceptor (See attached map). This alignment, while longer, has two
advantages over the initial alignments. First, the pump station costs (equipment and
power consumption) would be less due to the substantially lower static head.
Second, it avoids easement requirements associated with a cross country alignment.
Thank you for your assistance. We look forward to meeting with you and the Board
at the November 1 , 1995 meeting.
If you should have any questions, please call.
Very truly,
R STUART ROYER AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
By
a / F rn , III, P.E.
Pr ject Ma ger
ENCLOSURES
cc: Mr. Kenn A. Harris - VDOT, Special Operations and Facilities Manager (W/ Encl)
W:c:l WPOOC31 VADO TW6181.16022
1503 SANTA ROSA ROAD, SUITE 211 • RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23229• (804) 281-0901 FAX (804)281-0962
k----c _;-_„, • ____,..,-tl Neo . \-1'...-\--- ---177r•-___, ) .
- --41, -,It A ‘ ' ITT
-:H _• 7 osAz\nA ___. ,r,t ,J \ &,‘ • ,. 11.,,,„ ,/,,,,,,,z, c - %..:1•:.*:%4,...,. ., \,, .... ,.
11:__ . ./ r,,,,,....v . .,,ws „,t .,,,,. .., . 14\ ._, , . • \
.../.,.ic .-.,:;7 \-) --. .t_ i:--\--Lit-r '. s--e.(_15 \?,,I,\A .,,,-\...,. ...\sa „
41,
•
hk,
kibbliv:
�r _.7.3._\, „ _ _ ,fir,„..; /--� � �,
-\' 40 ji*Vs,,_
OC-4-;14.---;144 .., 3. . /,,-.........._ ... ) "'Ilk\ .....1..-_1\____ / ,, , ,,t4t,.....,:,, •-• A, ---(:,9 \,, . /
..,1C--‘L'T-7 .../ #1......iy(Op.ov -4til%. ----"140....., . \''‘ _,
- 4110 , . - I 41P .4j W - \ ii i ,7'
)j\'‘--- .- jam ,L-.-_-, -----...,. . ,.......,. .-- \ ‘ -.. .60•0•• -,,
v ,Ir- ,1____..,c tr, I 1 ; .fe"--4° --- -rt1.44i . - '
4P ''\'' \\\'' :''1:: • . 7::'%::1;:f. 4 f...,,_-,.^•31PAZ .4, : 4*-e . -,‘1)':x, . ))
; _., Lli 4,_',, ,, ----!-__;--_, t,,,,, . . .,,:),,,-.., \ s„,,,,,, ."*.w.:,,,,-..itt .0 %A#4/'..-- : k 4.*„4:: r•—/,,_
�;,51fr_ \I*
Gig
_y_.:.,,.,..,,,,._, v....N...\\,j•4.,- ( a /f-A , :1-,: L.t, ' \ Ia. --,--,\ .
2----, ,,,___.-Y:f ^:-/..:_.. , .‘ _._.'-_,,,c ,..mcii j 1 cde__:
",> Nr------- /I, ‘ .kl:,7C; ,,,,•:„.„„7,-, ..• ,
\ \ytti, t,
itc
e...,.,„,,,--1#.. __,:.,-, i
‘, i oy, .
\c\- . .-
v....,-..-:=-- _
4•'''.4Y di4ftl) N •
� Le:-.2‘ /5: , --.\-----..\j' :-„/.1 7- 1%..-- "' —.0
�� I �:o-_,L O lit„..,5
` {�7l
:... '. �--' ..: �". 7 . `mil �, � Ir*Ki.
1 \,„
1'0 - .,':)/:' i 'C'';''• \-i`--. '\ .:(-) L - -S .-.° I/r ' '
_jii\
, .._ _116.-f_ •—__- __,„,i, : ' --,......._1 L.....,s•) ,_____,// ,•••"" („,..;,,,--, .1\ 6 i% 0 ?
''J• AO , iffing VINW . -"."'"041. . 1 ------- 7((.,$.,----.r, . - =-. ' ' -
,_______%1 -.-).,
REST STOP 9 /I � � � � a • (
Ttra 1\
,71 \L __>. ,,,,---- 10°- _.__Ak...,_ ______ , —kse 1 s r\--.),,I . ; .,, r--,';— --__.-1?
;\• _ ---� ,--� 6p0 • -i-' -, %; �, : :y �� �� ��
-____. 4 /0 ,:->`'. i-lj ji
-- m—\\, 2 • E7''. ,_. .7 5:-2 DI .;,-- -'',- 1:1,--. N—' • •''' 1,jx:---.. ,,..
Wr --A" -'" -- -
7 \;__),/
_, ,7 ,- ,, i, --\ .., ,..., ___, ) ,. .:,.)\:A,,, , r____.,-,f,t ,---Th. ) %.Tr
:a ‘N <,. ii\7,00 -,----; ?:, _ . .,>.),---77/(--.A : - • .: 4,,,,r;, , 2 : . , '
ii \ . --_-\r„
)4 a ," ' • )
,( ')•
p, .', -11 , \ -1 ? �,: /4 ' fig �� el), ... ,,./7",
0 7? f Z, / i
L °\ ', _,':-/ '425-:\A" , l, ' - : (
i __y_y_.) .41_-__/-
\17-j))/12-,,4,,,..). . ' ,,,,,,./ ' ) ...)
' V � � e,.,.„-;-'1 L.���� ��'• A Val ���d6�1;( 1 , ate ,
Lyra �• • x r tiJ
' ATTACHMENT B
„so.,&AIREM
44.
RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
• •
P.O. BOX 979 • CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902-0979 • (604) 977-2976
• RFUSf •
TO: WAYNE CILIMBERG, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
FROM: ARTHUR D. PETRINI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR A g7
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL AREA
DATE: OCTOBER 24, 1995
The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA), at their October 23, 1995 regular
meeting, has directed me to proceed with a jurisdictional area request for the Ivy Sanitary
Landfill located at 6876 Dick Woods Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903. This request is for
a sewage force main that would run from the landfill to the Crozet sewage interceptor. As
addressed in the accompanying memo from Joyce Engineering (our consultant), the health
and safety of the area will best be served by a pump station and force main.
Per our conversation with R. Stuart Royer & Associates, Inc., which firm is
representing the VDOT Rest Stop Modifications, the RSWA would like to process its
request along with the VDOT request. Both projects could use part of the same route and
therefore some economic savings could occur. Equally important would be the acquisition
and/or use of existing right-of-ways once instead of twice.
Please call me should you require further information.
ADP/ldb
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
'y 10.44H[1 JUYLLt ENGINEERING P. 1/2
4 '
. a
Memorandum
To: Art Petrini - Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
From: Ron DiFrancesco - Joyce Engineering Inc.
Date: October 18, 1995
Subject: Jurisdictional Area designation for the Ivy Sanitary Landfill
This memo addresses the reasons why the Ivy Sanitary Landfill property should be considered a
Jurisdictional Area by the Albemarle County Planning Commission. This request is a result of
the meeting which we attended on Monday, October 16, 1995, at the County's Planning
Department.
In an effort to plan for a long-term solution for leachate management at the Ivy Sanitary Landfill,
the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) is requesting consideration as a Jurisdictional Area
so that a possible future connection to the Crozet Interceptor can be made.
The RSWA is considering and evaluating several long-term solutions to leachate management at
the Ivy Sanitary Landfill. These solutions include, but may not be limited to, the following:
1. Transport by pump station and force main to the Crozet Interceptor.
2. Transport by tank truck to the Rivanna Wastewater Treatment Facility.
3. On-site treatment of leachate with a point source discharge to an adjacent stream.
4. In-situ treatment of contaminated groundwater through bio-remediation.
The first option may be the most attractive solution. By installing a pump station and force
main, the RSWA will be able to safely transport leachate through the County to the Rivanna
Wastewater Treatment Facility for ultimate treatment and disposal. We feel this option may be
feasible if the RSWA is able to join with the proposed VDOT Rest Area Improvement Project to
install a parallel force main connecting to the Crozet Interceptor. However, it is our
understanding that the Ivy Sanitary Landfill must first be designated as a Jurisdictional Area.
This request is primarily based upon the following concerns relating to public health and safety
Page 1 of 2
VCT 1a '35 10:45RM JOY( ENGINEERING P 2/2 '-
.1
with the remaining options.
The second option, which is currently being used, has the associated risk of transporting leachate
via tank truck over interstate highway. The current transport vehicle has already been struck
once by a motorist. It is our opinion that continuing this practice will present a greater risk to the
public than transporting leachate through a buried force main.
The third option of on-site treatment of leachate may be the most expensive and controversial.
This would include a state-of-the-art treatment process with a point source discharge. The
facility has already come under scrutiny relating to the state waters surrounding the facility. This
option would require a Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES)permit. At
this time, it is uncertain if this permit would be obtainable from the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) or if the RSWA could feasibly treat the leachate to desirable
discharge limits.
The fourth option of in-situ treatment of groundwater through bio-remediation is limited to the
treatment of groundwater. This does not account for the leachate currently being collected and
stored through the leachate collection and removal system. This option would have to be used in
conjunction with one of the others to treat and dispose of leachate generated at the facility.
Although this technology may prove to be safe and effective in treating groundwater, it does not
solve the long-term problem of disposing generated leachate.
At this time, the RSWA is requesting the Jurisdictional Area designation so if the solution of
transporting leachate via force main is determined to be the safest and most cost effective,
approval will have been granted so the Authority may design and construct the transport system.
Please review and contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Thank
you.
Page 2 of 2
/ ATTACHMENT C
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE "1 2 3 1995
Ack
MEMORANDUM
TO: Wayne Cilimberg - Planning & Community Development
FROM: David Hirschman - Water Resources Manage
60—,
DATE: October 20, 1995
RE: VDOT Jurisdictional Area Request
I spoke with Ron Conner of the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) in Lexington about this
request. He had an interesting spin on the issue. Apparently, back in the 70s, VDOT had a.
discharge certificate to put in package plants at the rest areas. Due to all the efforts to restore
the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir at that time, the Health Department basically told them they
needed non-discharging systems. Mr. Conner said that VDH couldn't at that time support
point source discharges at the rest areas when all the efforts had been expended, through the
Crozet Interceptor and other means, to remove existing point source discharges in the rest of
the watershed. In that sense, VDOT was trying to comply with reservoir protection ideals by
installing the mineral oil systems in the first place.
There are only two locations in Virginia where rest areas have mineral oil systems: Albemarle
County and New Kent County. Mr. Conner did not have much good to say about these
systems. They have had problems with odors, leaking valves (and oil getting on the floor - a
health hazard in itself), and many maintenance headaches. He also said that these systems are
probably nearing their useful life expectancy. Apparently, VDOT is just doing what they can
to keep these things going, but they aren't operating as designed.
I discussed the following alternative solutions with Mr. Conner:
1. Construct Alternative Zero-Discharge System: There are some systems that recycle
wastewater. However, Mr. Conner suggested that these need a complete treatment
plant on-site and are very operator-intensive, not to mention expensive. They require
careful signage to separate potable water from recycled wastewater. Most likely, the
operation of one of these plants would also entail the periodic hauling of sludge. The
public safety of a system like this depends heavily on the reliability of the operator and
the smooth operating of the plant.
2. Spray Irrigation: This probably wouldn't (and shouldn't) be permitted because it's still
a discharge in the reservoir watershed.
.1
MEMORANDUM
Wayne Cilimber, Planning & Community Development
October 20, 1995
Page Two
3. Package Plants: Mr. Conner said VDH probably wouldn't recommend that a permit be
granted because of the reservoir issue. VDH would probably tell VDOT to just limp
along with the current system (if no other alternatives existed).
4. Mass Drainfield: There is too much flow at the facilities and the soils aren't suitable.
If reservoir protection was the guiding principal when the mineral oil systems were developed,
it seems that this philosophy should prevail to decide what should replace the faulty systems.
The only alternatives to hooking to the Interceptor that respect this are: an on-site recycling
plant, permanent pump and haul, or spray irrigation on land outside the reservoir watershed
(this would also entail hauling of waste on County roads). It is my opinion that pipelines are
much preferable, from a public health and safety point of view, than hauling waste around the
County in tanker trucks. This reasoning eliminates pump and haul and spray irrigation.
While Mr. Conner did not sound optimistic about the feasibility of a recycling plant, perhaps
this alternative should be explored a little more thoroughly. I discussed this with Taylor
Turner III of R. Stuart Royer and Associates, and he may be looking into it. It will be
particularly important to evaluate whether these systems (1) require the hauling of sludge, and
(2) pose operation and maintenance issues that diminish their attractiveness.
Let me know if you need any additional information at this time.
DJH/ctj
File:davidhdn.juc
1 ATTACHMENT D
ALBVARH CO, \TY SRVC Aii IORITY
P O Box 1009 168 SPOT NAP RD CI'ARLO'IESVIh r VA 22902 • (304) 97; 4Y I 1 AX (80z1) 979-0(,98
October 20 , 1995
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg �CF I%% J
Director of Planning and
Community Development ��' J.�C►%1!;^:•;
Albemarle County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia
Re: Interstate 64 Rest Areas
Dear Wayne:
You have asked for comments from the Service Authority
concerning Virginia Department of Transportation's request
for water and sewer service to the Interstate 64 rest areas.
It is my understanding that their application has been
amended and they now seek water and sewer to existing
structures for the westbound facility and sewer only to
existing structures at the eastbound rest area. The Service
Authority offers the following comments.
Sewer
Our engineering staff sees no technical problems
with VDOT connecting to the Crozet Interceptor. If
approved by the Board of Supervisors, VDOT would have to
design, install, and operate at its expense all facili-
ties from the rest area to the interceptor. Connection
would have to be made at a point acceptable to this
authority and Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. The
effect of these connections on the capacity of the
interceptor is insignificant.
You and I have discussed the prospect of VDOT
building sewage treatment plants at these facilities if
they are unable to connect to public sewer. Allowing
that to happen would be contrary to one of the primary
purposes for the Crozet Interceptor - ELIMINATION OF
POINT SOURCE DISCHARGES FROM THE WATERSHED.
Water
Water service could be provided to the westbound
lane rest area. The connection point would be at the
intersection of Route 250 and West Leigh Drive. In
studying the question of water service to this rest
area, you should know that there are several existing
subdivisions now served by central well systems which
could potentially be served by further extensions of a
water main which would serve VDOT. These are Peacock
Hill, Langford Farm, and Glenair. Residents of Peacock
Hill and Glenair have previously expressed concern about
the reliability of their water systems and have made
inquiries to ACSA about the possibility of service.
If we can provide you with any additional information
concerning this matter please let me know.
Very truly yours,
•
J.W. Brent
Executive Director
JWB/lbt
c.c: Board of Directors
Paul Shoop
Arthur Petrini
4
ATTACHMENT II
R. STUART ROYER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Rr
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS
it,tdd 1925' R
November 17, 1995
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning and Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Re: VDOT Rest Stop Modifications
0064-063-F07, PE 101 (Albemarle)
RSR&A Project No: 9518
Dear Mr. Cilimberg:
Please find enclosed, as requested, additional information regarding alternative
systems for the above referenced project. As noted in the enclosed, our research did
not reveal any alternative systems applicable for the VDOT Rest Areas. This is
consistent with our original report and Mr. David Hirschman's comments (October 20,
1995).
We plan to have results of the draw down test by the public hearing.
If you should have any questions, please call.
Very truly,
R STUART ROYER AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
B •
/ y ner,
Projec a ager
2 1995
cc: Mr. Kenn A. Harris - VDOT
Ms. Angela Tucker - VDOT
fil•:c.\WP DO C SWA DO T\B61 BV.1 B 11 18
1503 SANTA ROSA ROAD, SUITE 211 • RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23229• (804) 281-0901 FAX (804) 281-0962
R. Stuart Royer&Associates "
MEMO
To: Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development
From: Taylor F. Turner III, P.E.
Date: 1 1/17/95
Re: VDOT Rest Areas - Albemarle County
RLE: C:\WPDCOSIVADOT\9618\VWCMEM
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memo is to address comments stated in the Executive Summary presented
at the November 1 , 1995 Board of Supervisor's meeting and to provide additional information
to the Board of Supervisors. These items include Alternatives, Relocation of Rest Areas,
Sanitary Conditions, and Water Request.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
Various treatment systems including Conventional, Natural, Innovative, and Off-Site were
reviewed in an attempt to determine cost effective, feasible alternatives for replacing the
current VDOT Rest Area wastewater systems. Conventional wastewater treatment is not
recommended due to the requirement for discharge into the watershed management area and
high present worth cost. Land application is not possible due to soil conditions, bedrock, and
potential for run off into the watershed management area. Natural systems (constructed
wetlands,etc) are not recommended due to the requirement for a discharge and additional land
requirements. Innovative systems (recycle-reuse) are not recommended due to the
requirement for a discharge, pump and haul for sludge disposal, and the high present worth
cost. Connection to the Crozet interceptor avoids discharge to the watershed management
area, eliminates the potential for contact with recycled wastewater, and provides the lowest
estimated present worth of the alternatives reviewed. Therefore, based on the above,
connection to the Crozet Interceptor is the recommended alternative to alleviate the situation
at the VDOT Rest Areas.
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES
There are two methods to handle wastewater from any facility- on site and off site treatment.
On site treatment methods include conventional wastewater treatment systems, natural
treatment systems, and innovative treatment systems. Off site treatment utilizes a public
wastewater system. Transport of wastewater to a public system is accomplished by piping
(force main and or gravity sewer).'
Conventional Treatment
Conventional treatment, while possible, requires discharge of treated wastewater into the
watershed management area. A discharge into the watershed management area is contrary
to the Comprehensive Plan and County efforts to eliminate all point source discharges. VDH
stated they would oppose a discharge at either Rest Area.2 Therefore, conventional
wastewater treatment is not recommended.
1 As per conversation with Mr. Ron Connor, Virginia Department of Health (VDH). Pump and haul is not
allowed by VDH as a long term alternative.
2 Various conversations with Mr. Ron Connor, Lexington Office, VDH.
RE
JR
R. Stuart Royer&Associates
I'
Natural Treatment
Natural Treatment includes spray irrigation and systems such as aquatic ponds, constructed
wetlands, and other aquatic plant systems.' The severe ground slope and the soil types
prevent the use of natural systems (spray irrigation and land application) at the WBL rest stop.
The slope, depth to rock, moderately permeable clayey subsoil, and seepage are the main
limitations for natural treatment systems (spray irrigation and land application) at the EBL rest
stop.' Aquatic ponds, constructed wetlands, and other aquatic plant systems require a
discharge permit. Therefore, Natural Treatment systems are not recommended.
Innovative Systems
Innovative systems include those systems referred to as zero discharge and recycle-reuse.
All recycle-reuse systems identified require off-site sludge disposal and a discharge permit for
at least 5% of the wastewater flow. Therefore, there are no true zero-discharge or 100%
recycle systems capable of meeting the demands of the VDOT Rest Areas.
As requested, innovative/alternative systems were researched to determine availability and
applicability. This research included calls to the Virginia Department of Health (VDH),6e the
National Science Foundation (NSF),' the National Small Flows Clearing House (NSFCH),8 the
National Park Services Albemarle County,10 manufacturer's representatives, manufacturers,"
3 Natural treatment systems as stated in the Virginia Department of Health Sewage Collection and
Treatment Regulations, VR 355-17-120 Article 15- Natural Treatment Systems. Page 357-378.
4 The soils in the vicinity of the EBL rest stop include Ashe Loam, Braddock Loam, Chester Loam, and
Thurmont Loam. Soil Survey of Albemarle County, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, 1980. Pages 16, 17, 19, 20, 30, 118.
5 11/1/95 call to Mr Ron Connor, Lexington office VDH. Mr.Connor was not aware of any innovative or
alternative systems. Mr. Connor supports connection to the Crozet Interceptor.
8 11/3/95 call from Mr. Don Alexander, Richmond Office, VDH. Mr. Alexander was not aware of any zero
discharge or other innovative systems.
7 11/2/95 call to Mr Tom Bruursema, Program Manager, National Science Foundation (NSF). Mr.
Bruursema is not aware of any alternative/innovative systems applicable for the VDOT Rest Areas.
8 10/24/95 call to Mr Brock McCracken, Technical Assistant Specialist, National Small Flows Clearing
House (NSFCH), West Virginia University (WVU). Mr McCracken was not aware of any applicable
systems.
9 11/3/95 call to Mr.Tom Harrington, Technical Expert Environmental Engineering, National Park Service,
Denver, Colorado. Mr. Harrington serves as the nationwide trouble shooter for the 1900(+) water
systems and 1900(+) sewer systems owned and operated by the national park service. Mr. Harrington
also serves on the NSF Drinking Water Treatment Committee and the NSF Wastewater Treatment
Committee. The National Park service has at least one of every available system. Mr. Harrington is not
aware of any feasible systems for the VDOT Rest Areas.
to 11/2/95 call to Mr. David Hirschman,Water Resources manager, Albemarle County. Mr Hirschman was
not aware of any other systems.
11 11/2/95 conversation with Pure Stream, a manufacturer of small packaged treatment systems. Their
systems are not applicable for the given conditions. They are not aware of any feasible systems. They
recommended a manufacturer's representative in PA who was unable to offer any assistance.
Rr
JR
R. Stuart Royer&Associates
,1
and publications.12
VDH was not aware of any alternative systems applicable for the Rest Areas in Albemarle
County. VDH is opposed to a discharge at either Rest Area. VDH supports connection to the
Crozet Interceptor.13
The National Science Foundation (NSF) stated they were not aware of any alternative systems
suitable for the VDOT Rest Areas.14 NSF developed a standard (NSF 41) to address public
health issues associated with potential public contact with the recycled water in recycle-reuse
systems.15 NSF stated there are no recycle-reuse systems certified NSF 41 . Most systems
certified NSF 41 are for flows less than 1 ,500 gpd and are either chemical or compost
toilets.18
The National Small Flows Clearing House (NSFCH) was contacted regarding
alternative/innovative treatment systems for remote facilities. A periodical search was
performed resulting in seven (7) articles addressing zero discharge or recycle-reuse systems."
18 19 20 21 22 23 There were only four different systems identified in the seven papers. Three
12 The Water Environment Federation's Yearbook Buyer's Guide was reviewed. Supply House Times, a
wholesale buyer's source, was also consulted. Neither source was beneficial.
13 1 1/1/95 conversation with Mr. Ron Connor, Lexington Office, VDH.
14 The National Science Foundation (NSF) is a not-for-profit organization devoted to research, education,
and service. The NSF serves as a neutral medium in which business and industry, official regulatory
agencies, and the public come together to deal with problems involving products, equipment, procedures,
and services related to health and the environment.
15 NSF International (NSF), Standard 41, WASTEWATER RECYCLE/REUSE AND WATER CONSERVATION
DEVICES. Adopted by the NSF Board of Trustees, November 1978. Revised May 1983.
18 1 1/2/95 call to Mr Tom Bruursema, Program Manager, National Science Foundation (NSF). Mr.
Bruursema is not aware of any alternative/innovative systems applicable for the VDOT Rest Areas.
17 "Water Reuse Plans and Demonstrations", AWWA Research Foundation, No 19, April 1979. Pages 21-
23.
18 Parker, Clinton E., "Treatment of Water Closet Flush Water For Recycle and Reuse", Paper presented at
the 54th Annual Conference of the Water Pollution Control Federation.
19 "Water Reuse at Highway Rest Areas: Evaluation Phase", Virginia Highway&Transportation Research
Council, Charlottesville, December 1977, PB-278-542.
20 Etzel, J.E., "Treatment of Sanitary Wastes at Interstate Rest Areas",Joint Highway Research Project,
FHWA/IN/JHRP-81/8. April 1982.
21 Ackerman, Roy A. and Cosentino, I.A., "Recreational Area Water Reuse System". Presented at Water
Reuse Symposium, March 25-30, 1979, Washington, DC.
22 "A Study of Highway Rest Area Wastewater Disposal", Public Works for December 1972, Pages 70-74.
23 Sylvester, Robert O. and Seabloom, Robert W., "Rest Area Wastewater Disposal- A Study Prepared for
the Washington State Highway Commission Department of Highways", January 1972.
Rr
JR
4
R. Stuart Royer&Associates
I'
papers addressed VDOT's Fairfield/18 1 Rest Area.24 25 26 Two additional papers addressed the
same system.' 28
Each of the systems required some form of treatment prior to recycling the water with
discharge of at least 5% of the treated wastewater. In addition, each of the systems required
vehicular transport (pump and haul) of the sludge and in some cases for wastewater also.
Most of the systems appear to operate satisfactorily for small systems (less than 3,000 gpd)
that can be cleaned frequently. However, their application for larger systems such as Rest
Areas is not proven.29
VDOT Recycle-Reuse
Additional information is provided on the VDOT(1-81)recycle system due to Albemarle County
staff interest. The basic components of this system include rest room facilities, treatment,30
recycle pumping, sludge holding, and discharge to stream or holding for pump and haul.31
The Fairfield Rest Area was converted from a 10,000 gpd extended air activated sludge
system to a recycle-reuse system.32 Water can be recycled approximately 20 times without
problems. While there was no reason given for the limit on recycle, it probably deals with the
concentration of toxins.33
24 AWWA Research Foundation, No 19.
25 Parker, Clinton E.
28 Virginia Highway&Transportation Research Council.
27 Public Works.
28 Sylvester, Robert O. and Seabloom, Robert W.
29 One system, designed for flows up to 3,000 gpd, involved flushing
into nylon filter bags.This was a
research project. The authors stated the system was worthy of further consideration and evaluation.
This system requires pump and haul or treatment of wastewater and solids disposal.
A second system utilized physical, chemical, and biological processes with equalization, gross particulate
removal, trickling filter, screening, filtration, activated carbon adsorption, disinfection, and storage tank.
System requires pump and haul of sludge. The basic system capacity is substantially less than required
by the Rest Areas.The system included a sewer system to transport wastewater to a remote tertiary
wwtp with discharge by spray irrigation. Contact was attempted through PA Directory Assistance and
WEF Buyer's Guide Yearbook. It is assumed this company is out of business.
A third system, typically used on aircraft, utilized recycle with a holding tank. Based on information in
paper,the rest areas would require cleaning every four(4)days with pumping and hauling at this time.
The authors stated, "Operation of present day wastewater treatment units in a recycle system is not
considered practicable for Rest Areas."
The VDOT system is addressed in the body of this report.
30 Treatment includes biological process, filtration, and disinfection.
31 This system started with a VPDES Permit which has been cancelled due to low wastage rates.
32 The recycle-reuse system was placed in service in 1978 after five years of bench scale testing. The
extended air treatment system is still required to treat the wastewater prior to recycle.
33 1 1/2/95 conversation with Tom Bruursema, Program Manager, NSF.
Rr
JR
R. Stuart Royer&Associates
The system operates on a preset volume of water. Therefore, water is wasted as needed to
maintain the desired amount of recycle water.34 Water is released to an evaporation/holding
pond. Sludge (15,000 gallons per year) is transported from the pond to a conventional wwtp
for treatment.
The estimated present worth cost of a similar new system is $3,000,000. This is three times
the present worth of connecting to the Crozet Interceptor ($1,000,000). This system requires
a discharge permit and pump and haul of sludge to the Charlottesville wwtp.36 VDH is not
supportive of this system.3e Therefore, this system is not recommended.
The National Park Service(NPS)was contacted due to their extensive knowledge of alternative
wastewater treatment systems.37 NPS has over 3,800 water and sewer systems across the
country. NPS was not aware of any feasible alternative systems and stated, under the
circumstances in Albemarle County, connection to the public system was the best
alternative.3e
Based on our research, Zenon Municipal Systems Inc. appears to manufacture one of the
better recycle systems. However, a discharge is required with this system.39 The Zenon
system is a recycle system (90-95%)with biological treatment and membrane filtration. VDH
stated one of the Zenon Systems is operating in Virginia.40 We note, NSF stated there are no
NSF 41 certified recycle-reuse treatment systems.41 The NSF 41 certification is not critical
but does address health and safety issues associated with recycle systems. The approximate
present worth of constructing one Zenon system ($2,000,000)is twice that of connecting to
the Crozet Interceptor($1,000,000).42 Based on the requirement for a discharge permit, pump
and haul, and high cost, the Zenon System is not recommended.
34 To account for the addition of wasted potable water from sinks and water fountains.
35 A VPDES Discharge Permit is required at startup.
3e 1 1/1/95 call to Mr. Ron Connor, Lexington Office, VDH. Mr. Connor stated the Fairfield Rest Area wwtp
is not desirable.
37 11/3/95 call to Mr.Tom Harrington, Technical Expert Environmental Engineering for the National Park
Service, Denver, Colorado.
38 Mr. Harrington stated alternative systems are used when public sewer is not available. Mr. Harrington
worked with the experimental mineral oil system installed at Mt Rushmore. This is the same system
installed in Albemarle and New Kent. Mr Harrington stated the problem with this system is the
coalescing filter.
39 As per conversations with Mr. Ed Jordan, President and Mr. Herschel)Winfrey, V.P. Engineering and
Operations, Zenon Municipal Systems, Inc.
40 11/3/95 call from Mr. Don Alexander, Richmond Office, VDH. There is a Zenon system installed in Great
Falls, Virginia that appears to operate satisfactorily. It has a drain field for disposal of the treated
wastewater.
41 1 1/2/95 call to Mr.Tom Bruursema, Program Manager, NSF. Mr Bruursema stated there are no recycle
systems certified NSF 41.
42 Based on i = 6% and n = 20 year project life.
Rr
JR
rr R. Stuart Royer&Associates
Off-Site
Connect to Crozet Interceptor
The Crozet Interceptor was originally designed to serve the Community of Crozet. However,
the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) stated, "there are no technical problems with
VDOT connecting to the Crozet Interceptor" and "the effect of these connections on the
capacity of the interceptor is insignificant."43 A possible location for connection to the water
system was also provided."
Connection to the Crozet Interceptor is the most cost effective alternative identified. It allows
conversion of the Rest Areas to a more reliable system, maintains the County's position of No
Discharges into the watershed management area, and allows for a cleaner more sanitary Rest
Area. This alternative also provides additional revenue for RWSA in the form of monthly
treatment fees.
We recommend sewer and possibly water for existing VDOT structures only. The lines would
be sized for existing Rest Area structures only and no other connections would be allowed.
Connection by others to this line would adversely impact operation of the VDOT system.
RELOCATION OF REST AREAS
The construction cost associated with relocation of the Rest Areas is approximately
$5,000,000(+) per Rest Area. Relocation to an interchange is potential competition with
(preset or future) private businesses. As per FHWA and VDOT guidelines, Rest Areas are to
be located where they would not compete with private businesses. Relocation of the Rest
Areas does not eliminate the need for water and sewer. In addition, it would be difficult for
VDOT to justify to the taxpayers why they relocated two Rest Areas two miles to connect to
public utilities. Therefore, relocation of the Rest Areas is not feasible.
SANITARY CONDITIONS
The current mineral oil treatment systems were originally installed as experimental systems
to assist Albemarle County eliminate point source discharges into the watershed management
area. These systems were overhauled in 1988 and the largest possible systems installed. The
mineral oil is not compatible with the various piping materials installed.45 The oil deteriorates
the piping, fittings, and valves resulting in leaking. Major leaks have occurred requiring shut
down of the Rest Areas and disinfection prior to opening.
WATER REQUEST
As stated in the Executive Summary, there is no endangerment of public health associated
with the well system at the WBL Rest Area. However, the need for water at the rest areas
is due to the fact conventional wastewater systems require water to operate.
Our statement of inadequate water supply was originally based on discussion with RSWA,
water demands at the WBL Rest Area, and low reported WBL well capacity. However, it is
supported by ACSA's comments regarding capacity problems at Peacock Hill, Langford Farm,
43 10/20/95 letter from Mr. Bill Brent to Mr. V. W. Cilimberg
44 10/20/95 letter from Mr. Bill Brent to Mr. V. W. Cilimberg
45 The piping in the rest areas has been replaced three times with different materials.
Rom'
JR
R. Stuart Royer&Associates
and Glenair which are adjacent to the WBL Rest Area.ae
The capacity of the EBL well is 72 gpm (based on a 48 draw down test).47 The reported
capacity of the WBL well is 15 gpm.48 The 2015 average day demand is approximately 24
gpm at each rest stop, with maximum day demands of 71 gpm, and intermittent peaks greater
than 71 gpm.49 Therefore, the WBL well is not capable of meeting the average day demands
of a conventional system.
A draw down test to determine actual WBL well yield is currently being performed. It is
VDOT's intent to provide water from the site if possible - whether from the existing or new
wells. Conversion to low flush toilets and urinals is recommended. This reduction in demand
combined with an actual well capacity greater than previously reported should satisfy the
water requirements. However, if water is not available in sufficient quantity, connection to
public water is recommended.
IMPACT ON TOURISM
The director of the local Board of Tourism stated the rest areas do have an impact on public
perception. If Rest Area aesthetics are poor (ie odors, unclean, etc),tourists immediately form
an opinion of everything in the state including the Charlottesville area. If bad odors are
present, everything is considered dirty, regardless of appearance.5o
ae 10/20/95 letter from Mr. Bill Brent to Mr. V.W. Cilimberg.
47 Virginia Department of Health Description of System. January 18, 1979.
48 Virginia Department of Health Description of System. January 18, 1979.
49 Current flows based on actual flow data provided by VDOT. Estimated flows based on current flows and
estimated 20 year increase in traffic.
50 1 1/9/95 meeting with Barbara W. (Bobbye) Cochran, Director, Charlottesville/Albemarle Convention and
Visitors Bureau.
Rr
JR
LATTACHMENTIII
`, .
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
,.iv-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Wayne Cilimberg - Director of Planning & Community Development
FROM: David Hirschman - Water Resources Manager
Nt____
DATE: November 27, 1995
RE: VDOT Jurisdictional Area Request, Alternatives Assessment
I have reviewed the additional materials submitted by R. Stuart Royer & Associates, Inc.
concerning wastewater alternatives for the Rest Areas. I feel that the applicant has undertaken
a fair assessment of the available alternatives.
While alternative zero-discharge systems may be an attractive idea in some cases, it seems that
the volume of flows, natural topography and soils, and the desire to eliminate any point source
discharges from the reservoir watershed limit their feasibility for the Rest Areas. This leaves
connection with the Crozet Interceptor as the technical alternative that is most consistent with
watershed protection policies (see my October 20 memo to you for more details).
With regard to the request for water for the WBL Rest Area, there is not currently enough
information available to evaluate the request. Of particular importance for this analysis are:
the capacity of the existing wells, opportunities for new wells, opportunities for storage to help
meet peak demands, and the influence of water-conserving fixtures on demand projections. In
other similar situations, such as the Clifton Inn, the applicant has exhausted reasonable on-site
solutions in order to justify the need for public water from a public health and safety
standpoint.
Please let me know if you need additional information at this time.
DJH/ctj
Ric davidIdoe2.n .
271995
NOV 29 ' 95 13 : 04 • PAGE . 002
4` I ATTACHMENT IV
R. STUART ROYER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Re
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS
3 /928 R
November 29, 1995
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning and Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
•
Re: VDOT Rest Stop Modifications
0064-063-F07, PE 101 (Albemarle)
RSR&A Project No: 9518
Dear Mr. Cilimberg:
The following information regarding the above referenced project was submitted to the
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for their review and comments:
Application to Amend Service Authority Jurisdictional Areas
(Prepared by R. Stuart Royer & Associates)
County of Albemarle Executive Summary (With attachments)
(Prepared by Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg)
11/17/95 Memo to Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg
(Prepared by R. Stuart Royer & Associates)
Please find enclosed, for your information, a copy of DEQ's comments regarding the
above information. We note Item 3 of the enclosed letter indicates the Crozet
Interceptor was constructed, in part, with grant funds specifically for the purpose of
avoiding discharge into the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir.
Our November 17, 1995 letter to you, stated we planned to have results from the well
draw down test by the Public Hearing. Unfortunately the test was delayed and results
will not be available for the Public Hearing. The test is rescheduled for the week of
December 4, 1995. Results will be forwarded to you when available.
1503 SANTA ROSA ROAD, SUITE 211 • RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23229•(804) 281.0901 FAX (804)281-0962
NOV 29 ' 95 13: 04 PAGE . 003
,)
If you should have any questions, please call.
Very truly,
R STUART ROYER AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
B�. , ' _.
t To u der, Ill, P.E.
•
•
cc: Mr. Kenn A. Harris - VDOT
Ms. Angela Tucker - VDOT
rt�aac�v�uvt�ststatitta
1
NOV 29 ' 95 13 : 05 PRGE . 004
0 ill
�•)
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Peter W. Schmidt DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY R. Bradley Cheweing,P.E.
Director Regional Director
116 N. Main Street
P. O. Box 268
Bridgewter, Virginia 22812
(540) 828.2595 _
November 21, 1995 37, '''?j,r
ti
4,
Mr. Taylor F. Turner, III, P.E. o 4 0�
R. Stuart Royer & Associates, Inc. cc, �S Fes,
1503 Santa Rosa Road d9 c
Suite 211 `i 'Zt '
Richmond, VA 23229 'sib '
Re: VDOT Rest Areas - Albemarle County ���Z! !f U16 ''
Dear Mr. Turner:
At your request, I am providing you with the following
comments. Based on the information which you transmitted to me
by letter dated November 17, 1995, it appears that service of the
referenced facilities by connection to the Crozet Interceptor is
the alternative we would consider most desirable. Of course,
this conclusion assumes that the need for continued operation of
the rest areas has been adequately justified. Connection to the
Crozet Interceptor is consistent with long standing agency
preferences to:
1. Avoid the construction of several smaller wastewater
treatment facilities where regional sewerage and
central treatment are feasible,
2 . Avoid pump and haul of liquid wastes where other
options are reasonably available, and
3. with particular reference to the South Fork Rivanna
River Reservoir discharge area, protect the primary
water supply for Charlottesville and the surrounding
Albemarle County service area by elimination of
contributing point source discharges through central
connection. The Crozet interceptor was a grant
participation project and undertaken for this purpose.
FILL'i. Ctst a
NOV 29 ' 95 13 : 05 PAGE . 005
Mr. Taylor F. Turner, III, P.E.
November 21 , 1995
Page 2
From a strictly environmental perspective, connection to the
Crozet Interceptor would probably result in the least risk to
ground or surface water resources, assuming no new property
developments would result from this connection.
lcerely,
c/t4 •
rry M. Simmons, P.E.
egional Permit Manager
cc: File - Albemarle County General