[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
GROUNDW/ATER PROTECTION
HANDBOOK
FOR
SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA
_. _.,

- *E _vt









* *      *        *             _:i:::.._  *_:_:.
* :**''****

__:%,I *;

_*:    _                             **..- *_. * **.-. ;* *
PREPARED BY SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION
JANUARY 1990

GROUNDWATER PROTECTION HANDBOOK
FOR
SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA






This report was produced, in part, through
financial support from the Virginia CouncilI on the Environment
pursuant to Coastal Resources Program Grant No. NA-88-AA-D-CZ091
f romn the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.





Preparation of this report was included in the
SVPDC Program for Fiscal Year 1989-90, approved by the Commission
at its Executive Committee Meeting of March 15, 1989













Prepared by the Staff of the
Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission
January 1990

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ..............................ii
LIST OF FIGURES                                ..... ......iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                                 ............................iv
INTRODUCTION                                   ...............................1
WHAT IS GROUNDWATER AND WHY IS IT THREATENED'                      ............3
The Hydrologic Cycle..........................3
Basic Hydrogeology ..........................3
Threats to Groundwater........................	7
THE HYDROGEOLOGY OF SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA	............. 13

General Description ....... ........13
The Aquifers of Southeastern Virginia..................16
REGIONAL GROUNDWATER USE.......................19
UJsers of Groundwater.........................19
Trends in Local Groundwater Use	....................1 9
GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN PROTECTING GROUNDWATER	............ .27
Federal Government .........................27
State Government ..........................28
Local Government ..........................31
GROUNDWATER PROBLEM AREAS IN SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA ........35
Naturally Occurring Groundwater Quality................35
Human-induced Groundwater Quality Problems.............35
Areas Most Susceptible to Groundwater Contamination .........46
Identifying Specific High Risk Contamination Sources...........50
Relationship Between Groundwater and
Environmentally Critical Areas....................52
LOCAL GROUNDWATER PROTECTION TECHNIQUES..............54
Sensitive Area Controls ........................55
Source Controls............................60
MODEL GROUNDWATER PROTECTION REGULATIONS.............78
Model Septic System Management Ordinance ..............78
Model Hazardous Material Storage Ordinance..............81
Amendments to Existing Zoning Ordinance ...............82
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Amendmnents to Existing Subdivision Ordinance .............85
Amendments to Existing Erosion and Sedirnent
Control Ordinance .........................86
Amendment to Existing Site Plan Review Ordinance ...........86
Amendment to Existing Stormwater Management Ordinance.......88
Implementation Consicderations ....................89
CONCLUSION................................90
END NOTES ................................91
GLOSSARY.................................96
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..............................105

APPENDICES
A.   EXAMPLES OF ECONOMIC COSTS RESULTING FROM CONTAMINATED
GROUNDWATER
B   SUMMARY OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION PERTAINING TO GROUNDWATER
PROTECTION IN SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA
C   STATE GROUNDWATER ANTI-DEGRADATION POLICY AND GROUNDWATER
QUALITY STANDARDS
ii

LIST OF TABLES

1 Typical Permeability Values.....................                            7
2    Potential Sources of Groundwater Contamination in
Southeastern Virginia.......................                          8
3    Permitted Industrial and Municipal Groundwater Withdrawals
in Southeastern Virginia ......................20
4    Southeastern Virginia Groundwater Withdrawals by Use
Category, 1985 ..........................21
5    Withdrawals by Locality from the Confined Aquifer of
Southeastern Virginia, 1983.....................25
6	Groundwater Protection Responsibilities of Sate Agencies ........30
7.	Recent State Initiatives Promoting Groundwater Protection .......32
8	Registered Underground Storage Tanks in Southeastern
Virginia as ofAugust 1988 .....................38


LIST OF FIGURES


1 The Hyd rolog ic Cycle.........................4
2 Generalized Groundwater System ...................6
3	Land Use Activities That May Contaminate Groundwater                    ........ 10
4	Virginia's Physiographic Provinces...................14
5	The Hydrogeology of Southeastern Virginia                                 ..............1 5
6	Simulated and Measured Water Levels in the Micddle
Potomac Aquifer..........................24
7    Trends in Aquifer-Specific Withdrawals, 1891-1983 ...........26
iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In response to a growing awareness of the vulnerability of groundwater to
contamination from human activity, the Virginia Groundwater Protection Steering
Committee (GWPSC) was formed in 1985. In 1986, the GWPSC completed A
Groundwater Protection Strateciv for Virqinia which calls upon local governments to
become more involved in groundwater protection. The 1988 Virginia General
Assembly enacted legislation giving local governments the authority to consider
groundwater protection in preparing local comprehensive plans and zoning
ordinances.

A Groundwater Protection Handbook for Southeastern Vircjinia is designed to
improve the coordination and quality of local decision making as it relates to
groundwater protection. The Handbook will assist local governments in
implementing the recommendations of the State Groundwater Protection Strategy,
and in assuming the powers and responsibilities granted under the 1988 enabling
legislation.

W HAT IS GROUNDWATER AND WHY IS IT THREATENED?

The Handbook includes an overview of groundwater hydrogeology,
groundwater use and potential sources of contamination.
In 1988, there were more than 800 documented cases of groundwater
contamination in Virginia and new cases were occurring at a rate of twelve per
month. Most of these cases are attributable to leaking underground storage tanks
and associated piping.

It is commonly believed that physical ancd chemical processes attenuate
contaminants as they infiltrate through the soil. However, attenuation may be
incomplete or nonexistent and the underlying aquifers may be contaminated.
Contaminants may go undetected for many years and become evident only when
they reach a discharge point, usually a well. By that time, the source of the
contaminant may be difficult to determine.

The degree to which groundwater becomes contaminated will depend on local
hydrogeology, the volume and cornposition of contaminants, and the effects of local
well purnping on groundwater flow. Once groundwater is contaminated, rermedial
efforts can be expensive and it is usually impossible to return groundwater to its
former potability. The health and economic costs to a community from
contamination can be extremely high. It is therefore imperative that effor-ts be
undertaken to protect groundwater before contamination occurs.
iv

THE HYDROGEOLOGY OF SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA
Southeastern Virginia's groundwater system lies in the Coastal Plain and
consists of a seaward-thickening wedge of unconsolidated sediments containing
seven confined aquifers and one water table aquifer. Natural groundwater flow
through the confined aquifer system is in a lateral, seaward direction while flow
within the water table aquifer generally follows topography. Natural discharge
occurs at streams, lakes, the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. The largest
source of aquifer recharge is vertical leakage from the water table aquifer to the
confined system. Natural flow, has been disrupted by pumping in some areas.

REGIONAL GROUNDWATER USE

The USGS estimates that groundwater withdrawal from the region's confined
aquifers averaged 57.5 million gallons per day (MGD) in 1986. Withdrawals from the
water table aquifer were not included in this estimate. One industry alone, the
Union Camp Corporation near Franklin, accounted for 59 percent of the total.
Overall, industry accounted for 74.1 percent and public water suppliers accounted
for 25.4 percent of withdrawal. Total regional withdrawal allowed under VWCB
permits Is 160.18 MGD.

Steadily increasing pumping of groundwater in the deeper confined aquifers
since the turn of the century has resulted in significant water level declines,
expanding cones of depression, and potential contamination by saltwater intrusion.
The most significant water level decline is centered on the city of Franklin. There has
also been a proliferation of domestic wells which tap the shallower aquifers. This, in
combination with increases in the number of water-to-air heat pumps and in the
amount of impervious surface, has lead to a significant drop in water levels in
developed areas. It is speculated that this has caused salt water encroachment and
well contamination in some areas.

GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN PROTECTING GROUNDWATER

Until the mnid-1970s, federal water quality managernent efforts focused
primarily on surface water. In the mid to late 1970s, however, groundwater
contamination problems becamne better understood and pressure was exerted on
the federal government to take a more active role in protection efforts. Direct
federal involvement in groundwater protection was first evident in the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974. Several other federal statutes, enacted in the
1970s, also address threats to groundwater. Because groundwater protection was
being addressed through a number of programs designed for different purposes,
the EPA adopted a Groundwater Protection Strategy in 1984. This Strategy is
designed to coordinate federal regulatory programs and strengthen state programs.

Because there is no comprehensive federal statute requiring states to develop
programs that are specifically related to groundwater protection, approaches to
v

protecting groundwater differ from state to state. In Virginia, the Ilegal mandate to
protect groundwater lies in the Virginia Constitution which declares that it is the
policy of the Commonwealth to protect all State waters, including groundwater,
from 'degradation. The State Water Control Law (SWCL) was enacted to carry out
this mandate. The SWCL contains an "anti-degradation" policy which provides for
the protection of all high quality waters, and for the restoration of all other waters
to a level of quality that will permit all reasonable uses and support aquatic life.
Based on the anti-degradation policy and the State's groundwater quality standards,
the GWPSC concluded that there is no right to degrade groundwater from its natural
quality; no groundwater is pre-classif ied to allow degradation; those responsible for
groundwater pollution can be required to restore the water to its natural condition;
and groundwater protection activities must take social and economic consequences
into account.
Although the Virginia State Water Control Board has primary responsibility for
groundwater protection, se'veral other State agencies administer groundwater
management programs. Since publication of A Groundwater Protection Strateqv for
Virginia, a number of the Strategy's recommendations as well as other State
groundwater protection initiatives have been implemented.
Decisions made by local governments have the greatest potential to impact
groundwater quality. Ironically, Virginia's locality's have been least involved in
groundwater protection. Reasons for this include the State's reliance on the Dillon
Rule, regulatory preemption by State and federal statutes,, and lack of awareness
and information. Several provisions of the SDWA and Virginia's new solid waste
disposal facility regulations require more involvement by localities.

GROUNDWATER QUALITY PROBLEM AREAS IN SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA

The overall natural quality of the region's groundwater is high. High chloride
levels, however, are present in the deeper aquifers in the eastern portion of the
region and in the shallower aquifers in the vicinity of tidal waters. Other sporadic,
naturally occurring groundwater quality problems include high fluoride and sodium
levels in the deeper aquifers, and high iron levels ancl high acidity in the shallower
aquifers.

Large-scale, human-induced contarnination of the region's aquifers is not a
problem. However, the region has experienced a number of localized groundwater
contamination incidents in which finite areas near specific sources of pollutants have
been affected. Based an a review of literature and VWCB records, and interviews
with local officials, there are seven high priority threats to groundwater in
Southeastern Virginia. These are septic systems, underground storage tanks, spills
and improper disposal of hazardous materials, surface waste impoundments,
landfills, pesticide and fertilizer applications, and saltwater encroachment. Known
and suspected groundwater contamination problems in Southeastern Virginia
attributable to these sources are discussed. Officials involved in local groundwater
vi

management believe that contamination is more prevalent than existing
information indicates.

It is not within the scope of this Handbook to conduct a regional analysis of
local hydrogeologic factors to determine areas that are par-ticularly susceptible to
groundwater contamination. Such an analysis could be conducted using the
DRASTIC mapping methodology. The Handbook describes and evaluates the
DRASTIC methodology and it potential for use in Southeastern Virginia.

It is also important to identify specific sources which have a high potential for
causing contamination. Through the use of site-specif ic source evaluations, high risk
land use activities are identified, located and mapped, compared with the location
of sensitive areas, and assignecl hazard rankings. A methodology developed by the
West Michigan Shoreline Development Commission is described.

in humid areas, such as Southeastern Virginia, groundwater discharge may
account for 70 percent to 80 percent of a stream's annual discharge. Consequently,
if contaminated, groundwater discharge to surface waters may pose a threat to
environmentally critical aquatic areas. Also, depletion of groundwater supplies can
increase concentrations of pollutants by reducing flow. in Southeastern Virginia,
there have been a number of documented or suspected incidents of the degradation
of surface water by contaminated groundwater.

LOCAL GROUNDWATER PROTECTION TECHNIQUES

For a community to develop an effective groundwater protection program, it
must prepare a groundwater management plan consisting of community-specific
goals and objectives, and locally appropriate rmanagement techniques. These should
reflect local groundwater protection needs. Specific management techniques
should be combined to maximize effectiveness and minimize costs.

in describing and evaluating groundwater protection techniques, this
Handbook makes a distinction between sensitive area controls and source controls.
Discussion is limited to those techniques that would protect the region's two
shallowest aquifers: the Columbia (water table) and Yorktown-Eastover. This is
because they are the most susceptible to contamination and serve as the principal
source of recharge to the region's deeper aquifers. In addition, State regulations
ban the use of underground injection wells for waste disposal, thus protecting the
deeper aquifers from the direct introduction of pollutants.

Sensitive area controls involve the application of land use management
techniques to locations where groundwater resources are the most vulnerable to
contamination. Sensitive area groundwater protection controls might include the
incorporation of traditional or innovative techniques into zoning ordinances; the
incorporation of groundwater protection provisions into other land use control
ordinances; land acquisition; and tax incentives. innovative zoning techniques
vii

described and evaluated in this Handbook include overlay zoning, Planned Unit
Development, transfer of development rights, and performance standards. Other
land use regulations that might be revised to protect groundwater include
subdivision, erosion and sediment control, site plan review and stormwater
management ordinances. Land acquisition strategies might include fee simple
purchase, purchase of development rights, or purchase of restrictive easements.
Use-value taxation might be used for land dedicated to protecting groundwater
supplies.

A number of specific source controls are identified and evaluated for those
contamination sources that have been determined to pose the greatest threat to the
region's groundwater supply. Most of these sources are already subject to State and
federal regulations. A locality may decide, however, that existing regulations do not
adequately address community-specific contamination threats. Source controls
discussed in this Handbook include education programs, and local regulations which
exceed or supplement federal and State regulations for the siting, design, operation
and maintenance of potential contamination sources. Other controls are aimed at
keeping potential contaminants from entering the environment. These include
recycling of wastes, the extension of public sanitary sewer lines to areas served by
septic systems, the extension of public water lines to areas experiencing pumping
induced saltwater encroachment, and the use of integrated Pest Management.

MODEL GROUNDWATER PROTECTION REGULATIONS

Outlines for regulations that might be used to implementa local groundwater
protection plan are presented. They include new septic system and hazardous
material ordinances, and amendments to existing zoning, subdivision, erosion and
sediment control, site plan review and stormwater management ordinances. Due to
the diversity of potential contamination sources within a community, and because
contamination threats and protection needs can differ significantly among
communities, it was deemed impractical to develop a single, comprehensive model
groundwater protection ordinance.

Careful consideration must be given to local capability to implement the
model regulations presented in this Hancdbook. The studies necessary to adapt the
regulations to local conditions, and the review, monitoring, inspection and
enforcement provisions contained in the regulations are likely to require increases in
funding for staff, training and equipment. It is important to coordinate
groundwater protection activities with other management programs wherever
possible. Groundwater protection initiatives may also be of benefit in achieving
stormwater mnanagement and SARA Title III objectives. Local Chesapeake Say
Preservation Act programs may be used as vehicles for the implementation of
groundwater protection strategies. Finally, It is important to involve all entities with
groundwater use and/or protection concerns in the planning implementation of a
local groundwater protection program. This might be done by creating a
groundwater protection council or task force.
viii

INTRODUCTION
Groundwater* plays an impor-tant role in Southeastern Virginia's economy and
quality of life. Many of the region's industries, businesses, municipalities and
households depencd on groundwater for their water supply needs. The region's
dependence on groundwater has grown significantly in recent years due to
-increased water consumption by a rapidly growing population and a thriving
economy, and to economic, environmental and political constraints which have
hindered the development of surface water supplies. Past planning efforts have
centered on groundwater quantity management. More recently, however, there
has been a growing awareness of the vulnerability of groundwater to
contamination by human activity.
In response to the growing concern for groundwater quality and with
encouragement from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the State of
Virginia formed the Virginia Groundwater Protection Steering Committee (GWPSC)
in 1985. The GWPSC is chaired by the Virginia State Water Control Board (VWCB)
and consists of representatives from agencies whose programs can affect
groundwater quality. In 1986, the GWPSC completed A Groundwater Protection
Strategy for Virclinia. This Strategy includes a number of recommendations to
improve groundwater quality management throughout the state. Many of these
recommendations call upon local governments to become more involved in
groundwater protection.
In 1988, the Virginia General Assembly implemented two of the
recommendations contained in the State Groundwater Protection Strategy by
passing bills which increase local powers to promote groundwater quality
management. These bills amended the Virginia Code by granting local governments
the authority to c-onsider groundwater protection in the local planning process.
Section 15.1-446.1 of the Code was amended to add both surface and groundwater
protection to the list of items that may be considered in preparing a local
comprehensive plan, and Section 15.1-489 was amended to require local
governments to consider groundwater protection in the preparation of local zoning
ordinances. The 1988 General Assembly also passed the Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Act (CBPA) which reinforced these bills by authorizing Virginia localities
to consider all aspects of water quality protection in developing any land use
regulations.
The main objective of A Groundwater Protection Handbook for Southeastern
Virginia is to improve the coordination and quality of local and regional decision-
making as it relates to groundwater protection. To meet this objective, the
Handbook assists local governments in implementing the locally-oriented
recommendations of the State's Groundwater Protection Strategy, and in assuming
the newly authorized local powers and responsibilities granted under 1988 enabling
legislation. Specifically the Handbook wiil include the following:
*All words and phrases in bold print and all acronyms are defined in the Glossary.
1

*    A general discussion of what groundwater is, how it is formed and how it
can be contaminated.

*    A description of Southeastern Virginia htydrogeology and groundwater
usage ancd a discussion of federal, State and local responsibilities in
protecting groundwater.

*    A determination of areas of concern in Southeastern Virginia including
known and suspected groundwater contamination problems and areas
that are susceptible to groundwater contamination.

*	An inventory and evaluation of groundwater protection techniques.

*	Recommendations for local groundwater protection regulations
including outlines for new ordinances and suggested modifications to
existing ordinances.
2

WHAT IS GROUNDWATER AND WHY IS IT THREATENED?
THE HYDROLOGIC CYCLE

Groundwater owes its existence to the continual movement and recycling of
water above, on and under the earth's surface. This process is known as the
hydrologic cycle. As is illustrated in Figure 15 the fundamental stages of the
hydrologic cycle include (1) the transfer of water into the atmosphere by
evaporation from surface waters and by evapotranspiration from land areas; (2) the
transport of water through the atmosphere in the form of clouds; and (3) the return
of water to the earth's surface byprecipitation. Once returned to the earth through
precipitation, the movement of water can take several routes. It can be temporarily
stored on vegetation or in surface depressions and then quickly evaporated. it may
also run off the surface of the land to the nearest water body. Most impor-tantly
with respect to groundwater, it may enter, or infiltrate, the soil. Once the upper
layer of the soil becomes moist, water percolates deeper through the soil and
unsaturated zones until it reaches a saturated zone where it is stored as
groundwater. Groundwater then moves through the saturated zone and, in
Southeastern Virginia, eventually discharges to surface water. This process may take
several days or several decades depending on local conditions.

BASIC HYDROGEOLOGY

Groundwater is not, as is sometimes believed, found in underground rivers or
lakes. Instead, it is found in water bearing geologic formations that comprise the
saturated zone. It is estimated that in the top kilometer of the earth's crust there is
thirty times more water than is found in all of the earth's freshwater rivers, lakes and
streams. Water bearing geologic formations can consist of either unconsolidated or
consolidated materials. Unconsolidated formations are composed of deposits of
loose sand, gravel, rock, shell or soil. Groundwater is stored within the void spaces,
or pores, of these deposits. Consolidated formations are comprised of solid rock
masses. Groundwater in these formations is stored in cracks, fissures, channels, or in
porous rock such as limestone.

Water bearing geologic formations that will yield usable quantities of water to
wells or springs are known as aquifers. Aquifers can either be unconfined or
confined. Unconfined aquifers occur where unsaturated porous material overlies an
aquifer. The top boundary of the unconfined aquifer, commonly known as the
water table, will rise and fall as the quantity of water in the aquifer fluctuates. The
water table generally follows the slope of the land flowing from higher to lower
elevations. Unlike confined aquifers, water in unconfined aquifers remains at
atmospheric pressure.

Confined aquifers are sandwiched between impermneable or semi-permeable
rock or soil formations known as aquitards. The difference in height between the
higher and lower por-tions of a confined aquifer may result in considerable pressure
3

-- ----- - -- -- - - - - -m- -




FIGURE 1

THE HYDROLOGIC CYCLE



//	I	\',
,-	;	-\
,	!
RAIN




"nA,IhIl               EVAPORATION
EVAPOTRANSPI
I!.h  I IL/
-
Kx. -.	.  -A

_	- =-
SOILI INFILTRATION 'iE- 4/7

.-' .': ,>~~~~~/ - '  : : '{"-.- WAT- - '--'
.*          "'.. GE                                           OT............... ......'.R  '
DEEP PERCOLATION'.



Source: Adapted from Virginia Water Resources Resources Research Center,
Threats to Virciinia's Groundwater, (Blacksburg, Virginia: VWRRC, 1988),
p. 3.

differential. Therefore, if a well is drilled in the lower end of a confined aquifer,
water will rise above the level of the overlying aquitard. The level to which water
would rise in a well drilled into a confined aquifer is called the potentiometric, or
piezometric, surface. If the potentiometric surface is above ground level, the weli is
called a flowing artesian well. A cross-section showing typical unconfined and
confined aquifers and generalized groundwater flow can be found in Figure 2.
The capacity of an aquifer to store and transmit water depends on the porosity
and the permeability of the materials comprising it. Porosity is the ratio of pore
space to the total volume of material. Porosity values, which are a function of the
size and shape of pores, indicate the maximum amount of water that a formation
can contain when fully saturated. Typical permeability is a measure of an aquifer's
ability to transmit water. Permeability is a function of the size of the pores and
cracks within a formation and the extent to which they are interconnected.
Permeability values, expressed in feet of groundwater movement per day, for
various geologic materials are shown in Table 1. A high permeability value is
generally required for a productive groundwater well. It is possible for a water
bearing formation to have high porosity but low permeability, and vice versa. For
example, a clay deposit will have many small pores and will thus hold more water
than a sand deposit that has fewer but larger pores. However, the size of the pores
and the fact that they are highly interconnected gives sand a much higher
permeability value and makes a sand aquifer a more productive source of
groundwater. Wells drilled into clay deposits, or other formations with low
permeability values, will produce little or no water despite the presence of large
supplies.
The process by which water is added to an aquifer is known as recharge.
Recharge may occur from rain water infiltration, from seepage from lake bottoms or
stream beds, or from replenishment from overlying or underlying aquifers as a result
of hydraulic pressure differential (also known as induced recharge). Any removal of
water from an aquifer is known as discharge. Discharge points include wells,
springs, streams, lakes or wetlands. The surface area from which water for an
aquifer is collected is called the recharge area. In the eastern United States, where
precipitation usually exceeds evapotranspiration, recharge of aquifers generally
exceeds discharge. Because water percolates both vertically and horizontally
through an aquifer, the principal recharge area for that aquifer may be hundreds of
miles from the point of water withdrawal. Therefore, local precipitation and land
use at the point of withdrawal does not necessarily govern the recharge rate and
water quality of an aquifer.
5

IImm/II////Imm///Im/I
FIGURE 2

GENERALIZED GROUNDWATER SYSTEM
Source:   USGS, Office of Technology Policy, Federal Groundwater Science and
Technoloqv Proqrams, (Washington, D.C.: USGS, 1989), p. 3-1.

TABLE I
TYPICAL PERMEABILITY VALUES

Permeability
Material	(feet/day)

Gravels	280 to 2,800
Sands	60 to 450
Silts	0.5 to 0.8
Silty Sand	0.03 to 280
Glacial Till	0.0000003 to 0.3
Clays	0.00004
Sandstone	0.01 to 1 1
Shale	0.002 to 0.009


Note:   Permeability values reflect the capacity of a material to transmit water. Actual rate of
water movement within an aquifer may be different.

Source: V/anderMeulen and Reinking, Groundwater and Transition Landfills. (Kalamazoo,
Michigan: Western Michigan University, Science Citizens Center, 1982).

THREATS TO GROUNDWATER

Through a variety of human activities, pollutants may be allowed to enter the
ground and threaten groundwater supplies. The U.S. Office of Technology
Assessment has identified over 200 groundwater contaminants related to land use
activity. These contaminants can be classified into three general categories: (1)
bacteria and viruses; (2) nitrates, heavy metals, minerals and salts; and (3) synthetic-
organic compounds.1 Potential sources of groundwater pollution in Southeastern
Virginia and the types of pollutants generally associated with these sources are listed
in Table 2. Figure 3 is a schematic representation of land use activities that may
contaminate groundwater.

As of 1988, there were more than 800 documented cases of groundwater
contamination in Virginia and new cases were occurring at a rate of twelve per
month.2- Most of these cases are attributable to leaking underground storage tanks
and associated piping. Other documented sources of contamination by frequency of
occurrence include landfills, surface impoundments, septic systems and agricultural
activities.

Contrary to common belief, groundwater is not always cleansed of
contaminants as it infiltrates through the soii and unsaturated zones. The
infiltration process can attenuate some wastes through a number of physical and
7


POTENTIU





SOURCE

Septic systems

Land application of sewage
treatment wastewater
and sludge

Land application of animal
manure

Sanitary landfills

Hazardous waste handling
facilities

Abandoned hazardous
waste sites

Illegal dumping2

Surface waste impoundments
(ponds, pits, lagoons)

Outside materials storage

Dead animal burial

Above- and underground
storage tanks

Pesticide applications

Fertilizer application

Animal confinement and
feeding operations

De-icing applications

Urban runoff

Settling of atmospheric
pollutants
TABLE 2
AL SOURCES OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
IN SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA

Contaminant

Heavy	Salts and
PathogensI   Nitrates	Metals	Minerals

x	x	x	x

x	x	x	x
X	X	X	X

X	X	X	X
Organic
Chemicals

X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X

x
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X




X
X
X




x
X




X

x
X
X



x



x
8

TABLE 2 (Continued)
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
IN SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA
Contaminant

Heavy	Salts and
Pathogens    Nitrates	Metals	Minerals

items             X            X	X          X
Organic
Chemicals
x
x
x

x
x
SOURCE

Sanitary sewer sysi

Petroleum pipelines

Spills during transport of
hazardous materials

Artificial recharge3

Intrusion of polluted
surface waters

Salt water encroachment
from over-pumping

Naturally occurring sources
x
x
x
x

x
x

x
x

x
x
x
x
x
x
Notes:    1.	Includes bacteria, viruses and parasites.
2.	Includes promiscuous dumping of hazardous and non-hazardous waste by industries,
businesses and households.
3.   Includes recharge of aquifers to enchance groundwater supplies, heat pump exchange wells
and stormwater infiltration devices.
4.   Includes natural leaching and natural groundwater and surface water interactions.

Source:   Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission, 1989.
9

-- -- -- - M m     - - - - - - -I- -I



FIGURE 3
LAND USE ACTIVITIES THAT MAY CONTAMINATE GROUNDWATER


-' '.:'.~" '
::/'
ï¿½~ ~ ~	~	~	r ï¿½o	ï¿½"	ï¿½
ï¿½ï¿½'	`=	'ï¿½	'
ï¿½.ï¿½
:.: E (~C SYSTEMS
ï¿½ï¿½*e     .  .'ï¿½         .* ~. ï¿½~'~           ï¿½
ï¿½~~~~~-ï¿½ ~ ~ ~	.''          ï¿½ï¿½

B              .5ï¿½.
	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'.
Source:   Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Groundwater Quality and Protection:
A Guide for Local Officials, (Boston Massachusetts; 1982), p. 20.

chemical processes including filtration, sorption, oxidation and reduction, biological
decay and assimilation, dilution, buffering of acidic and alkaline materials, chemical
precipitation, volatilization, evaporation, and radioactive decay.3 Nevertheless,
attenuation of many contaminants may be incomplete or nonexistent and
contamination of underlying aquifers may occur. This is particularly likely where soil
conditions allow for rapid infiltration or where an aquifer lies close to the surface. in
some cases, contaminants may be introduced directly into an aquifer without the
benefit of infiltration. This happens where septic systems, landfills or leaking
underground storage tanks sit below a high water table. It mnay also occur as a result
of the illegal injection of pollutants into abandoned wells or the leakage of
pollutants into inadequately constructed wells. An inadequately constructed well
may serve as a concluit for the inacdvertent transfer of pollutants from the water
table aquifer to confined aquifers. Because the various processes responsible for
removing contaminants during infiltration are much less effective in the saturated
zone, contaminants are less likely to be attenuated while moving through an
aquifer. In addition, depending on the permeability of an aquifer, a plume of
contaminants may take decades or even centuries to move through an aquifer.
Problems arise when polluted groundwater is withdrawn for human use or is
naturally discharged into surface waters. Because contaminant plumes often move
slowly through an aquifer, they may go undiscovered for many years and become
evident only when they reach a discharge point, usually a well. By that time, the
source of contamination may be forgotten, thus making the size and direction of the
plume difficult to determine.

Groundwater contamination may be complicated by excessive pumping from
an aquifer. If surface water within a recharge area is polluted, it may be drawn into
a depleted aquifer. Also, excessive pumping may expand the cone of depression
(the decline in water level in the vicinity of a well) to take in sources of
contamination not included in the original cone of depression.
The degree to which groundwater contamination occurs will depend on a
number of factors including soil permeability; depth to water table; rates of
evaporation and precipitation; the geochemical characteristics of substrate
materials; and the volume and chemical composition of wastes. Once groundwater
becomes contaminated, remedial efforts are very expensive and it is usually
impossible to return groundwater to its former potability. The costs to society of
groundwater contamination can be extremely high. A variety of health problems
have been associated with exposure to contaminated groundwater including
cancers, liver and kidney damage, and disorders of the central nervous system.
Because of the interrelationships among environmental media, the environmental
impac-ts associated with contaminated groundwater may include degradation of
surface water, soil, and even local air quality. The economic costs associated with
groundwater contamination include not only the expense of corrective action, but
also decreases in agricultural and industrial productivity, lower property values,
damage to plumbing and appliances, and the costs of developing alternative water
1
1

SUpplieS.4 Appendix A provides examples of direct economic damages incurred by
communities as a result of groundwater contamination. Unless otherwise noted, the
costs of remedial activities are not included. It must be emphasized that the direct
costs presented in these examples were incurred over the last 25 years and are not in
constant dollars. If presented in 1989 dollars, these costs would be significantly
higher.

Given the potentially adverse effects of groundwater contamination, it is
imperative that efforts be undertaken to protect groundwater before
contamination occurs. To do this, local governments must focus their planning
efforts on protecting areas that are geologically susceptible to groundwater
contamination and on controlling activities that pose the greatest threat to
groundwater.
12

THE HYDROGEOLOGY OF SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA
GENERAL DESCRIPTION

Southeastern Virginia lies within Virginia's Coastal Plain. The Coastal Plain
extends from the edge of the Continental Shelf, about 100 miles offshore, to a point
about 110 miles inland known as the Fall Line (see Figure 4). The Fall Line is an
imaginary north-south line where abrupt changes in geology and elevation mark the
transition between the Coastal Plain and the Piedmont Plateau. The Coastal Plain
consists of a seaward-thickening wedge of unconsolidated sediments which rests on
a massive body of hard rock called the Pre-Cretaceous Basement Complex. This
wedge, consisting of alternating beds of various mixtures of sand, gravel, shell rock,
silts and clays, varies in thickness from a "featheredge" at the Fall Line to
approximately 3,000 feet deep along the Atlantic coast (see Figure 5).

As shown in Figure 5, the groundwater system of Southeastern Virginia is
comprised of one water table aquifer and seven confined aquifers. In 1979, it was
estimated that the 3,000 square mile Southeastern Virginia Groundwater
Management Area (SVGMA), which encompassed the Southeastern Virginia
Planning District, contained 122 trillion gallons of groundwater.5 The SVGMA was
originally designated in 1976 by the Virginia State Water Control Board under the
Groundwater Act of 1973 in response to significant increases in groundwater
withdrawals. Encompassing an area significantly larger than the 2,018 square-mile
Southeastern Virginia Planning District, the SVGMA included Surrey, Isle of Wight,
Prince George and Southampton counties; parts of Greensville, Sussex and
Dinwiddie counties; and the cities of Virginia Reach, Suffolk, Chesapeake,
Portsmouth, Norfolk, Hopewell and Franklin. In 1989, the SVGMA was renamed the
Eastern Virginia Groundwater Management Area and was expanded to include the
counties of Charles City, James City, King William, New Kent and York; por-tions of
Chesterfield, Hanover and Henrico counties; and the cities of Hampton, Newpor-t
News, Poquoson and Williamsburg.

The characteristics of Southeastern Virginia's seven confined aquifers are
consistent with the geologic formation of the Coastal Plain in that most thicken and
dip from west to east. Consequently, under natural conditions, groundwater flows
through these aquifers in a lateral and seaward direction and discharges to a variety
of points including springs, streams, lakes, the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic
Ocean. Natural flow, however, has been disrupted by heavy pumping in some
aquifers. Where this has occurred, flow patterns are radial and centered on the
source of the pumping.

The region's seven confined aquifers are generally composed of various
mixtures of sand, clay, silt, gravel and shell material. Recharge of these aquifers
occurs from (1) infiltration of precipitation on outcrop areas along the Fall Line, (2)
seepage from water-bearing fractures in bedrock along the Fall Line, (3) ver-tical
discharge to and ver-tical recharge from aquifers through semi-permeable aquitards
13


-' - m - - -- - - - - m - m  - - - -


FIGURE 4
VIRGINIA'S PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES
:..::"ICUMBERLAND PLATEAU

~  VALLEY AND RIDGE

:::--:BLUE RIDGE

[: -PIEDMONT

Zï¿½ COASTAL PLAIN
Source:   Virginia Water Research Center, Threats to Virqinia's Groundwater
(Blacksburg, Virginia: VWRRC, 1988), p. 5.

mm I ININIImmIIlirammI~1mmmmallI
FIGURE 5
uw
z	u
THE HYDROGEOLOGY OF SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA	z<

~~r<~~~~~~~~ V ~~~~~~<FEET
SEA
LEVEL
Source:   USGS, Hydroqeoloqv and Analvsis of the Groundwater Flow System in
the Coastal Plain of Southeastern Virqinia, (Richmond, Virginia: USGS,
1988), p. 29.

as a result of hydraulic pressure differential between the aquifers and the widely
varied composition and distribution of aquitards, (4) infiltration from surface waters,
and (5) vertical flow from the unconfined Columbia Aquifer to the confined system.
The latter process is by far the largest source of aquifer recharge in Southeastern
Virginia. Unlike regions characterized by consolidated aquifers where recharge
occurs in smaller, well-defined locations, recharge to Southeastern Virginia's
groundwater system can occur anywhere in the region. There are areas in the
region, however, where recharge is more efficient due to a highly permeable
substrate. These areas are generally found in interstream areas and along relic sand
ridges. Discharge generally occurs at streams and flood plains.
Vertical flow between confined aquifers occurs because of natural hydraulic
pressure differential and because aquitards of clay and silt are distributed randomly
in poorly defined patterns.6 This allows water to move upward and downward
through the aquitards. Heavy pumping may accelerate this process by creating a
downward hydraulic gradient that encourages vertical flow from the overlying
aquifer.
THE AQUIFERS OF SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA

The following is a brief description of each of the aquifers found in the
SVGMA. Most of the information contained in this description was obtained from a
joint USGSIVWCB investigation that resulted in a 1988 report entitled Hydroqeolocly
and Analysis of the Ground-Water Flow System in the Coastal Plain of Southeastern
Virginia. Aquifers are discussed from the lowermost to the uppermost.

Lower Potomac Aquifer

Resting entirely on the Pre-Cretaceous Basement Complex, this aquifer is the
lowest and thickest of the region's confined systems. Thickness ranges from near
zero at its outcrop area at the Fall Line to 882 feet in the City of Norfolk. Although
capable of supplying large quantities of water, it generally lies too deep for most
users. Also, high chloride levels in the eastern portion of the aquifer restrict its use as
a potable water source.
Middle Potomac Aquifer
The Middle Potomac Aquifer is the second thickest in the SVGMA. It ranges in
thickness from zero at its outcrop area at the Fall Line to about 500 feet in the city of
Norfolk. This aquifer stores large quantities of water, but, like the Lower Potomac
Aquifer, high chloride levels are present in the eastern par-t of the aquifer. The main
users of this aquifer are large industries and municipalities in the central and
western portions of the SVGMA. The Middlle Potomac Aquifer is overlain by the
Upper Potomac Aquifer in the eastern part of the SVGMA and the Aquia Aquifer in
western part.
16

Upper Potomac Aquifer
The Upper Potomac Aquifer is found in the eastern two-thirds of the SVGMA
only and, because it does not reach the Fall Line, it is completely confined with no
outcrop area. This aquifer thickens from west to east and has been measured to be
280 feet thick in the city of Virginia Beach. Like the two lower Potomac aquifers, this
aquifer holds large quantities of water, but is tainted by high concentrations of
chloride and fluoride in the eastern part of the region. The Upper Potomac Aquifer
is a principal source of water for industrial and municipal users in the central portion
of the SVGMA. It is primarily overlain by the Aquia Aquifer, but small areas are
overlain by the Virginia Beach Aquifer in the Southeastern portion of the SVGMA
and the Chickahominy-Piney Point Aquifer in the northeastern portion.

Virginia Beach Aquifer

The Virginia Beach Aquifer is found in the eastern half of the SVGMA only and,
like the Upper Potomac Aquifer, is completely confined with no outcrop area. This
aquifer thickens from west to east and is about 110 feet thick in the city of
Chesapeake. it is capable of producing moderate to abundant groundwater and
mostly supplies industrial and domestic users. The Virginia Beach Aquifer is mostly
overlain by the Aquia Aquifer. A small area of the aquifer in the northeastern
portion of the SVGMA is overlain by the Chickahominy-Piney Point Aquifer.

Aquia Aquifer

The Aquia Aquifer is found throughout the SVGMA except in the vicinity of the
Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Ocean cod-t lines. This aquifer is mostly confined, but
does crop out along major stream valleys in the western portion of the region.
Unlike the other aquifers in the region, the Aquia Aquifer is thickest in the central
part of the SVGMA (approximately 65 feet) and thins out to both the east and west.
This aquifer provides moderate supplies to small industrial, municipal and domestic
users. It is overlain by the Chickahominy-Piney Point Aquifer.

Chickahominy-Piney Point Aquifer

This aquifer is found throughout the SVGMA except in the immediate vicinity
of the Fall Line. Like the Aquia Aquifer, it is confined throughout its extent, except
where it crops out along major stream valleys in the western por-tion of the region.
This aquifer thickens from east to west and is 160 feet thick in Virginia Beach.
Although this aquifer contains moderate to abundant supplies of groundwater,
most withdrawals occur in the Williamsburg area, outside the SVGMA. It is overlain
by the Yorktown-Eastover Aquifer.
17

Yorktown-Eastover Aquifer
This aquifer is found throughout the SVGMA except in the middle and upper
reaches of.stream valleys where it has been removed by erosion. It is unconfined in a
large area paralleling the Fall Line. Thickness of this aquifer ranges from near zero
in the western part of the SVGMA and along stream valleys to 280 feet in Virginia
Beach. The Yorktown-Eastover Aquifer is an important water supply for light
industrial, commercial and domestic users throughout Southeastern Virginia. It is
also an important source of recharge to the underlying confined systems in the
western part of the region. In the eastern par-t of the region, it is overlain by the
Columbia Aquifer.

Columbia Aquifer

The Columbia Aquifer, also known asthe water table aquifer, is the uppermost
aquifer and is unconfined throughout its extent. It ranges in thickness from 10 to 80
feet and is present only in the central and eastern por-tions of the region. The top of
the aquifer, or the water table, can vary in depth with precipitation and location
from just afew feet to 50feet below the surface. The Columbia Aquifer serves as a
reservoir of recharge to the underlying confined aquifers and is an impor-tant source
of water for rural and domestic users. It contains mainly freshwater, but may
contain salty water near shoreline areas. It is estimated that the por-tion of this
aquifer in the SVGMA contains 6.48 trillion gallons of water.7 Given the region's
average annual precipitation of 44 inches and assuming a recharge rate of 30
percent to 50 percent of annual precipitation, recharge to the Columbia Aquifer is
estimated to be between 666 billion and 1.095 trillion gallons per year.8
is

REGIONAL GROUNDWATER USE
USERS OF GROUNDWATER

Under the State Groundwater Act of 1973, as amended, non-exempt
groundwater users located within Groundwater Management Areas must obtain
Groundwater Withdrawal Permits from the VWCB for withdrawals of greater than
an average 10,000 gallons per day. These permits set maximum withdrawal limits for
individual wells or well systems. The maximum permitted withdrawals for industrial
and municipal wells located in the cities and counties comprising the Southeastern
Virginia Planning District can be found in Table 3. As noted, total regional
withdrawal allowed under VWCB permits is 160.18 million gallons per day (MGD)
(91.12 million MGD for 74 municipal wells and 69.63 MGD for 51 industrial wells).
Ac-tual withdrawal is considerably less than what is permitted, however. Many wells
are used during emergency situations only, and active wells are generally pumped at
rates that are far below those allowed under permit conditions. The USGS estimated
that, in 1986, actual groundwater withdrawal from the confined aquifers underlying
the Southeastern Virginia Planning District averaged 57.5 MGD.9 One industry
al-one, the Union Camp Corporation near the city of Franklin, accounted for 59
percent of this total.1O Withdrawals from the unconfined Columbia (water table)
aquifer were not included in this estimate.

The most recent groundwater withdrawal data by user group for the Planning
District are from 1985. At that time, industries accounted for 74.1 percent, public
water suppliers accounted for 25.4 percent, irrigation accounted for 0.3 percent, and
commercial establishments accounted for 0.2 percent of the average daily regional
withdrawal.l1 IA breakdown of withdrawals by user group by locality can be found
in Table 4.

TRENDS IN LOCAL GROUNDWATER USE

Steadily increasing pumping of groundwater in the deeper confined aquifers
(i.e., below the Yorktown-Eastover Aquifer) since the turn of the century in
Southeastern Virginia has resulted in significant water level declines, expanding
cones of depression around major pumpage centers, and potential contamination by
saltwater intrusion. The most significant water level decline is centered on the city
of Franklin. Groundwater withdrawals from the FPotomac aquifers began in this area
in the late 1 800s. At that time, these aquifers provided many homes and industries
with artesian flowing wells. By the late 1930s, the City of Franklin had begun
withdrawing groundwater for its municipal system and a smnall cone of depression
started to form. The potentiometric surface, however, was still at twenty feet above
sea level.12 In 1940, the Union Camp Corporation began withdrawing significant
quantities of groundwater to supply its paper mill. By the late 1940s, nearly all
artesian wells in the Franklin area had ceased flowing. By 1970, the potentiometric
surface at the center of the cone had declined to 165 feet below sea level and the
cone of depression had extended to an area of 50 square miles. Since that time,
19

TABLE 3
PERMITTED INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL GROUNDWATER
WITHDRAWALS IN SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA
(Millions of Gallons per Day)


Location of Wells             Industrial	Municipal	Total

Chesapeake                       .545	15.757	16.302
Franklin                            0	1.720	1.720
Norfolk	1.822	0	1.822
Portsmouth	6.412	0	6.412
Suffolk	1.274               58.339	59.613
Virginia Beach	2.428                    0	2.428
Isle of Wight County	48.175	9.570	57.745
Southampton County	8.675	5.460	14.135

TOTAL	69.331	90.846	160.177


Source: Virginia State Water Control Board, Tidewater Regional Office, 1989.
20

TABLE 4
SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA GROUNDWATER
WITHDRAWALS BY USE CATEGORY, 1985
(Millions of Gallons Per Day)
Locality

Chesapeake

Franklin

Norfolk

Portsmouth

Suffolk

Virginia Beach

Isle of Wight County

Southampton County
Public

0.358

1.258

0

0

11.359

0.135

0.612

.333
Commercial

0

0

0

0.061

0

0.028

0

0


0.089

0.2%
Manufacturing

0.092

0

0.393

0.509

0.031

0.015

35.163

4.778


40.981

74.1%
Irrigation

0

0

0

0

0.014

0.133

0

0.007


0.154

0.3%
Total

0.450

1.258

0.393

0.570

11.404

0.311

35.775

5.118


55.279
TOTAL

Percent
14.055

25.4%
Source:   State Water Control Board, Tidewater Regional Office, Water Withdrawal
1985, (Virginia Beach, Virginia: SWCB, 1986)
Reoort for 1984-
21

industrial withdrawals have been slightly reduced and water levels have stabilized.
As of 1983, deep wells in the vicinity of Franklin accounted for 41 percent of total
groundwater withdrawn from the confined aquifers of Virginia's Coastal Plain.13
The cone of depression that has formed in the Middle Potomac Aquifer around
Franklin is illustrated in Figure 6.

As mentioned, in 1986, total withdrawal from the confined aquifers of the
Southeastern Virginia Planning District was 57.5 MGD. This represents a nine
percent increase from 1983. As indicated in Table 5, 98 percent of the 1983 confined
aquifer withdrawals in the Southeastern Virginia Planning District came from the
three Potomac Aquifers. Withdrawals from, the Virginia Beach Aquifer are not
shown in Table 5 because it was not defined as a separate confined system in 1983.
Figure 7 shows trends in estimated annual total and annual aquifer-specific
withdrawals between 1891 and 1983 in a9,200 square mile groundwater flow modeI
area defined for a 1987 USGS study.14 This model area includes and is significantly
larger than the Southeastern Virginia Planning District. However, since most of the
withdrawal within the USGS model area occurs within Southeastern Virginia, it can
be safely assumed that the trends reflected in Figure 7 accurately reflect the
increasing withdrawal of groundwater in the Planning District.
The construction of wells tapping the Columbia and Yorktown-Eastover
aquifers has proliferated over the last ten to fifteen years and water levels have
dropped significantly as a result. This is in part due to the implementation of
mandatory water restrictions in some communities during the droughts of 1977 and
1980. These restrictions encouraged a large number of public water system
customers to install wells for domestic, non-consumptive uses (lawn watering,
etc.).15 Many well owners took advantage of new technology and installed well
systems that allowed for deeper and larger withdrawals. In addition, increasing
energy costs have encouraged the installation of a large number of water-to-air heat
pumps which primarily tap the Yorktown-Eastover Aquifer. Also, increased
development throughout the region has exacerbated the decline in groundwater
levels. Development not only leads to the drilling of more wells, but also increases
the amount of impervious surface which causes precipitation to run off rather than
infiltrate into the groundwater supply.
In Virginia Beach, there are an estimated 75,000 wells tapping the Columbia
and Yorktown-Eastover aquifers, but only 4,000 are used for drinking water. It is
estimated that the well users in the Great Neck and Little Neck areas of the city alone
may withdraw as much as eleven MGD during the summer for landscape watering.
This compares to only an estimated 0.8 to 1.5 MGD for heat pumps and drinking
water. 16
As a result of increased usage of the Columbia and Yorktown-Eastover
aquifers, heavy pumping during times of drought has lowered the water level of the
Yorktown-Eastover Aquifer to a depth below the intake capability of many local
well pumps. During the drought of 1985, over 200 wells went dry in the Great Neck
22

and Little Neck areas.17 Due to water level declines, new wells are typically drilled to
a depth of 40 to 150 feet, whereas depths of ten to fifteen feet previously sufficed.18
23

- -- - - m   - - - m  - - - --- -m
FIGURE 6
SIMULATED AND MEASURED WATER LEVELS IN THE MIDDLE POTOMAC AQUIFER, 1983
Source:   USGS, Hvdroqeoloqv and AnalYsis of the Groundwater - Flow Svstem in
the Coastal Plain Southeastern Virqinia, (Richmond, Virginia:  USGS,
1988), p. 91.

ImI~/m~11Ig/m/mImm//I
TABLE 5
WITHDRAWALS BY LOCALITY FROM THE CONFINED AQUIFERS OF
SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA, 1983
(Millions of Gallons per Day)
Chickahominy-	Yorktown-
Piney Point	Eastover
0            .420
0              0
0	.049
0	.166
0	.089
0	.166
0	0
0	0
Middle
Potomac
0
.460
0
0
6.173
0
23.791
5.460

35.884
67.7%
Upper
Potomac
.026
Lower
Potomac
0
0
0
0
.109
0
9.713
.390
Total
.461
.460
.255
.757
8.119
.166
36.885
5.881

52.984
100%
Aquia
.015
Locality
Chesapeake
Franklin
Norfolk
Portsmouth
wN    Suffolk
Virginia Beach
Isle of Wight County
Southampton County
0
0
.206
.455
1.748
0
3.295
.031

5.761

10.9%
0
.136
0
0
.086
0

.237
0.4%
0

0%
.890
1.7%
TOTAL
10.212
19.3%
Percent
Source:    U.S. Geological Survey, Ground-Water Withdrawals from the Confined Aauifers in the Coastal Plain of Virainia, 1891-1983,
(Richmond, Virginia: USGS, 1987), p.14.

m--- --- -- -- - -- - - -m-m- -m im


FIGURE 7
TRENDS IN AQUIFER - SPECIFIC WITHDRAWALS, 1891-1983
60 I                                    , a   ,      I _
I


I



0





























a














p-
I
a
9
9
I
9
 
a
 
AQUIFER

.......... YORKTOWN - EASTOVER
-----  CHICKAHOMINY-PINEY POINT
- - AQUIA
~-     BRIGHTSEAT-UPPER POTOMAC
- MIDDLE POTOMAC
-- LOWER POTOMAC
50 -


a
LLI




-.J
to

2
0
U
z




Cr

I-
40 -
30 -
-
20-
10-
.,/         el~ï¿½'   N...



...I
 /,  :-  h-
| _____4s--_ . o
I
n --          . *-*-
nI .         --   -.        -                                _    _          T-          - -
nnt,
rn
1890    1900    1910    1920    1930    1940
--1                                              .........kA            . nn      a   .A         d
1950    1960       1970    1980U   1990U
Source:   USGS, Groundwater Withdrawals from the Confined Aquifers in the
Coastal Plain of Virqinia, 1891-1983, (Richmond, Virginia: USGS, 1987), p.13.

GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN PROTECTING GROUNDWATER
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Before the mid-1970s, the federal government played only a limited role in
protecting groundwater. Federal environmental legislation in place at that time
dealt primarily with surface water pollution. The limited role of the federal
government in protecting groundwater was due, in part, to a lack of information
regarding the nature and extent of groundwater contamination problems, but also
to a basic philosophy that protection efforts were the responsibility of state and
local governments. In the mid to late 1970s, however, groundwater contamination
problems became better understood and pressure was exerted on the federal
government to take a more active role in protection efforts.

Direct federal involvement in groundwater protection was first evident in the
enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974. This Act was passed to
ofassure that water supply systems serving the public meet minimum national
standards for the protection of public health." To meet this goal, the Act authorizes
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to (1) develop and enforce drinking water
standards for contaminants, (2) establish a program to regulate underground
injection activities, and (3) designate sole source aquifers to protect recharge areas.
The regulations implementing these provisions are designed to encourage states to
initiate groundwater protection programs that reflect local needs and
hydrogeologic settings. Amendments to the SDWA in 1986 created two additional
groundwater protection programs that are implemented by the states. The first is
the Wellhead Protection Program which requires states to develop programs, which
involve local governments, to protect the wellhead areas of public water supply
wells. The second program provides grants for critical aquifer protection
demonstration programs in selected communities.

In addition to the SDWA, a number of other federal statutes were enacted in
the mid to late 1970s that direct the EPA and other federal agencies to address
specific environmental threats that may contaminate groundwater. As with the
SDWA, the primary responsibility for implementing most of these statutes lies with
the states. These statutes include the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA or "Superfund"), the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, the
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, the Hazardous Materials Transportation
Act, the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the Toxic Substances Control Act. Other federal
statutes take a broader approach to a variety of environmental protection issues, but
contain provisions that are relevant to groundwater protection. These include the
Water Quality Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act and the National
Environmental Policy Act. Appendix B contains a brief summary of those federal
statutes which per-tain to groundwater protection and which are applicable in
Southeastern Virginia.
27

As indicated above, groundwater protection is addressed through a number of
federal programs that are designed for different purposes. There is no
comprehensive federal law, like the Clean Air Act or the Water Quality Act, that
specifically addresses groundwater management. As a result, it became apparent in
the early 1980s that there were considerable gaps in the federal approach to
groundwater protection. To close these gaps, the EPA adopted a Groundwater
Protection Strategy in 1984. This Strategy is designed primarily to coordinate federal
regulatory programs and to strengthen state programs. In this strategy, the EPA
reaffirms that states have the primary responsibility in developing their own
groundwater protection programs with planning assistance and limited funding
assistance from the federal government. The EPA Groundwater Protection Strategy
relies on various authorities contained in the above-noted statutes and consists of
the following major components:
*    Short-term buildup of institutions at the state level through technical
assistance and grants;
*    Assessment of problems that may stem from sources of contamination
not addressed in existing legislation;

*    Issuance of guidelines for EPA decisions affecting groundwater
protection and cleanup. These guidelines are based on a three-tier
grou ndwater classification system; and
*    Strengthening EPA's organization for groundwater management and
EPA's cooperation with federal and state agencies.

STATE GOVERNMENT
As mentioned, there is no comprehensive federal statute which requires states
to adopt laws and develop programs that are specifically related to groundwater
protection. Approaches to protecting groundwater vary significantly from state to
state. In Virginia, a legal mandate to protect groundwater lies in Article XI, Section 1
of the Virginia Constitution which declares that it is a policy of the Commonwealth
"to protect its atmosphere, lands and waters from pollution, impairment, or
destruction, for the benefit, enjoyment and general welfare of the people of the
Commonwealth." The State Water Control Law (SWCL) was enacted in 1946 to carry
out this mandate as itper-tains to the protection of "state waters." Under the SWCL,
the definition of state waters includes both surface waters and groundwater. The
VWCB was created to enforce and administer the SWCL.
The SWCL includes what is called an "anti-degradation policy." This policy
provides for the protection of existing high quality waters, and for the restoration of
all other waters to a level of quality that will permit all reasonable uses and support
aquatic life. The anti-degradation policy is interpreted and refined by water quality
standards developed and adopted by the VWCB. The current antidegradation policy
28

and groundwater quality standards can be founded in Appendix C. In 1988, an
advisory group was formed which reviewed and recommended refinements to the
anti-degradation policy. The VWCB staff has reviewed the groups recommendations
and plans to propose a revised policy to its Board in March 1990. In addition, the
existing groundwater quality standards are currently under review and may undergo
revisions in the near future.

In viewing the anti-degradation policy and the VWCB's water quality standards
together, the Virginia Groundwater Protection Steering Committee has arrived at
the following conclusions regarding the State's ability to protect groundwater.19

*    There is no right to degrade the groundwater of Virginia f rom its natural
quaiity.

ï¿½    No groundwater source is pre-classified to allow degradation by human
activity.

*.   Those responsible for groundwater pollution that has occurred or might
occur can be required to restore the water to its natural condition.

*    Groundwater protection activities must take social and economic
consequences into account.

Although the VWCB has primary responsibility for gr-oundwater protection in
Virginia, a number of State agencies administer a variety of federal and State
mandated programs that either directly or indirectly address groundwater quality
management. Table 6 contains a listing of State agencies and their programs which
deal in some way with groundwater protection. These programs are described in
detail in the Virqinia Groundwater Manacjement Hancdbook which was prepared by
the GWPSC in 1988.
1With the exception of a few formal and informal agreements between the
VWCB and other State agencies, there has not, until recently, been an attempt to
develop a comprehensive, inter-agency strategy to implement the State's
groundwater protection authority. In 1973, the Groundwater Act was passed to
provide for the designation of Groundwater Management Areas where
groundwater supplies are overdrawn or polluted, ancl to establish a permitting
system for withdrawals in such areas. The primary focus of this legislation, however,
was g ro undwate r q u antity, n ot qu alIity.
29

TABLE 6
GROUNDWATER PROTECTION RESPONSIBILITIES OF STATE AGENCIES
Virginia Water Control Board (VWCB)
ï¿½	statewide groundwater resource management
ï¿½	regulation of non-hazardous waste pits, ponds, and lagoons; land application of non-hazardous
waste; commercial and industrial drainfield systems; underground storage tanks; animal waste
lagoons
*	groundwater monitoring, data collection, and management
*	groundwater modeling
*	municipal wastewater treatment (joint program with VDH)
*	municipal water treatment residue disposal
Virginia Department of Waste Management (DWM)
*	solid waste management (landfill permits)
*	hazardous waste management (RCRA permits; superfund program)
*	radioactive waste management
Virginia Department of Health (VDH)
*	on-site sewage disposal permits (septic systems)
ï¿½	publicwatersupply
ï¿½	water wellI construction standards
0	municipal wastewater treatment (joint program with VWCB)
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR), Division of Soil and
Water Conservation (DSWC)
ï¿½    agricultural non-point source pollution control (fertilizers and pesticides, animal waste
management)
ï¿½ urban nonpoint source pollution controI (stormnwater management)
Virginia Cooperative Extension Service (VCES)
ï¿½	pollution education programs
*	agricultural groundwater use data collection
*	soilI n utri ent testi ng servi ce
ï¿½	agricultural technical assistance
Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS)
ï¿½	regulation of pesticide and herbicide applicators
*	integrated pest management

Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy (DMME)
*	geologic mapping, drill cutting, and core analysis
*	mine regulation
ï¿½ oil and gas well regulation
Virginia Department of Emergency Services
0    assistance in responding to hazardous materials spills
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (VDHCR)
*    land use planning assistance
Virginia Council on the Environment (COE)
a inter-agency environmnent coordination

Source:   Virginia Groundwater Protection Steering Committee, A Groundwater Protection Strateav
for Virginia, Richmond, Virginia: VWCB, 1988, p. 8.
30

As mentioned at the beginning of this Handbook, the Virginia Groundwater
Protection Steering Committee was formed in 1985. impetus for formation of the
GWPSC came from the EPA which, through its Groundwater Protection Strategy,
awarded a grant to the State for the development of its own groundwater
protection strategy. This federal assistance coincided with a growing recognition by
the State that it must improve both state and local groundwater protection
capabilities. The GWPSC is chaired by the VWCB and is comprised of representatives
from a number of State agencies whose programs affect groundwater quality.20
The GWPSC's stated mission was to assess current problems, identify program needs
and set priorities for new groundwater protection programs. In 1986, the GWPSC
began a year-long planning effort which culminated in the 1987 publication of A
Groundwater Protection Strateclv for Viraiinia. This document identifies the greatest
threats to the quality of Virginia's groundwater and presents a number of specific
recommendations to improve groundwater quality protection throughout the state.
The Strategy emphasized the impor-tance of cooperation among State agencies as
well as coordination among the different levels of government, and specifically
called for more involvement by local governments.

The efforts of the GWPSC were reinforced by the creation, in 1986, of the
Secretariat of Natural Resources. This Cabinet-level office groups together under
one authority those State agencies involved in a diversity of environmental
protection activities. The Secretariat is empowered with strong management,
planning and budgeting authority, and is specifically mandated to ensure
interagency coordination in dealing with the full range of environmental issues,
including groundwater protection.
Since publication of A Groundwater Protection Stratecly for Virciinia, a number
of the proposed recommendations have been implemented. In addition, several
State initiatives that are consistent with but not specifically mentioned in the
proposed recommendations have been undertaken in response to federal mandates.
A listing of recent State initiatives undertaken to promote groundwater protection
are shown in Table 7.21
LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Decisions made by iocal governments have the greatest potential to impact
groundwater quality. Ironically, Virginia localities have been least involved in
groundwater protection. One reason for this lack of involvement is that the ability
of Virginia localities to address groundwater quality management has been limited
by the State's reliance on the Dillon Rule. Under the Dillon Rule, localities can
assume only those powers that are expressly given to them by the State legislature.
Virginia localities do, however, possess certain powers that can be used to promote
environmental protection. These include the authority to construct sewers, to
implement water conservation programs, to prevent the pollution of water and
injury to waterworks and, most importantly with regard to groundwater protection,
to adopt comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances and subdivision ordinances.22 As
previously mentioned, the 1988 Virginia General Assembly legitimized local
3
1

TABLE 7
RECENT STATE INITIATIVES PROMOTING GROUNDWATER PROTECTION

Water Control Board
*    The development of the Virginia Pollutant Abatement permit program
which provides greater regulatory control over sources of pollutants
which are not point source discharges to surface waters.
*    The clevelopment of a State underground storage tank regulatory
program.
* A study to determine how groundwater data can better be collected and
managed by State agencies.
* A training program through which local planners can evaluate the
relative groundwater pollution potential of different land areas by using
the DRASTIC model.
* The development of technical groundwater protection training programs
for State agency personnel.
* A review of the State's anti-degradation policy.
*The preparation of the Virciinia Groundwater Manaclement Handbook.
Department of Waste Management
* The development of new landfill management regulations which include
groundwater protection measures.
*    Development of a program to recluce waste volume ancd toxicity when a
product is manufactured.
*    The development of solid waste planning and recycling programs.
Department of Health
*    The development of draft regulations which establish construction
standards for private wells.
ï¿½    A research program designed to investigate alternative septic system
designs.
*    The establishment of an advisory committee to review the State's Sewage
Handling and Disposal Regulations.
Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board
* The development of performance criteria for septic systems located in
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas designated under the Chesapeake
Bay Preservation Act.
32

TABLE 7 (Continued)
RECENT STATE INITIATIVES PROMOTING GROUNDWATER PROTECTION

Department of Conservation and Recreation
*    The development and EPA-approval of the Virginia Nonpoint Source
Management Program.
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
* Staffs the Virginia Pesticide Control Board and implements the 1989
Virginia Pesticide Control Act.
* Development of a pilot "clean day" project through which commercial
and private applicators can dispose of unwanted or banned pesticides.
Council on the Environment
*    Preparation of a State groundwater protection handbook.
Virginia Cooperative Extension Service
*    The sponsoring of regional seminars and other educational programs on
groundwater protection.
Other
e    The amendment of existing planning enabling legislation to provide
more power to localities to consider groundwater protection in their land
use planning activities.

Source: Virginia Groundwater Protection Steering Committee, 1988 and 1989.
33

government authority to address groundwater protection in local land use
regulations by adding groundwater to the list of items that may be considered in
preparing a comprehensive plan and that must be considered in preparing a zoning
ordinance.
Another reason why local governments have not been more involved in
groundwater quality management is that certain powers that could be used locally
to protect groundwater have been preempted by either State or federal statute and,
therefore, cannot be exercised by localities. For instance, the Virginia Department of
Health regulates septic systems and well construction standards, the Virginia
Departmnent of Waste Management regulates solid waste disposal, and the VWCB
regulates the discharge of pollutants into State waters.

A Groundwater Protection Stratecjv for Virqinia cites two additional reasons
for local inactivity in groundwater protection. These are a lack of awareness and a
lack of information. Local governments are becoming more aware of the potential
threats to local groundwater supplies and the importance of taking preventive
measures to head off potentially expensive and environmentally catastrophic
groundwater contamination incidents. An improved information base is also
necessary so that local governments can make informed decisions when taking local
actions that may irmpact groundwater quality.
Local government may be taking an increasingly active role in the regulation of
activities that may impact groundwater quality. As previously mentioned, one of the
1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act requires states to develop
programs which involve local governments in establishing wellhead protection areas
around community wells. Within these areas, control measures will be required to
protect wells from contamnination. These measures will be implemented by local
governments with guidance from the states. Another 1986 amendment to the
SDWA provides funding for demonstration projects in selected communities. This
legislation allows localities to bypass state government and apply directly to EPA for
funding. At the state level, new regulations require each locality to develop a
comprehensive solid waste management plan and incorprate more stringent
standards in solid waste disposal facility construction and operation. Localities are
also required to regulate land use near solid waste management facilities so as to
insure local compatibility with such a facility.
34

GROUNDWATER QUALITY PROBLEM AREAS IN SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA
This chapter describes known groundwater contamination problems in
Southeastern Virginian, and identifies areas that may be par-ticularly susceptible to
groundwater contamination.

NATURALLY OCCURRING GROUNDWATER QUALITY

Before discussing the inc-idence of human-induced contamination of
Southeastern Virginia's groundlwater supplies, it is important to note that there is
wide variation in the natural quality of the region's groundwater. Naturally
occurring chemical constituents may make groundwater unsuitable for some uses
and may exceed concentrations set by drinking water standards.

With several exceptions, the overall natural quality of the region's
groundwater is high. In the eastern portion of the region, however, the Potomac
aquifers have high chloride levels due to an eastward thickening wedge of brackish
ancisaline water. The top of this wedge can be detected at aboutl100feet below sea
level in the extreme eastern portions of the region. It gradually deepens to the west,
but its western extent has not been precisely defined. isolated pockets of saline
water may also be found resting in the basement complex as far west as the Fall
Line.23 In the shallower aquifers, chloride levels are generally within acceptable
limits except in the immediate vicinity of tidal waters. Unless expensive treatment
processes are employecl, high chloride levels may impar-t an. objectionable taste to
water. Also, high levels of chloride often indicate the presence of high sodium
concentrations. High sodium levels may be harmful to people with high blood
pressure. As will be discussed later, excessive pumping in some areas of
Southeastern Virginia may be responsible for a rise in chloride levels in existing wells.

Other naturally occurring groundwater quality problems that are common to
Southeastern Virginia include high fluoride and sodium levels in the deeper aquifers,
and high iron levels and high acidity in the shallower aquifers. Although moderate
levels of fluoride strengthen tooth enamel and prevent cavities, excessively high
concentrations may damage teeth and bones. High iron c-oncentrations are not
dangerous, but may stain appliances, plumbing fixtures, clothes, sidewalks and so
forth, and may give food and beverages anunpleasant taste. Highly acidic water, a
problem generally found in withdrawals from the Columbia aquifer, may corrode
well casings, plumbing fixtures or other metal objects. Corrosion of copper
plumbing in homes may cause liver damage.

HUMAN-INDUCED GROUNDWATER QUALITY PROBLEMS

Large-scale, human-induced contamination of Southeastern Virginia's aquifers
is not a problem. However, the region has experienc-ed a number of localized
groundwater contamination incidents in which finite areas near specific sources of
pollutants have been affected. Through information gathered from existing
35

literature, VWCB records, and interviews with local planning, public utilities and
health officials, the following have been identified as the greatest threats to
groundwater in Southeastern Virginia:

*	Septic systems
*	UJnderground storage tanks
* Spills and improper disposal of hazardous materials
*	Sur-face waste impoundments
*	Landfills
*	Pesticide and fertilizer applications
*	Saltwater encroachment

This list closely resembles the statewide source priority list established by the Virginia
Groundwater Protection Steering Committee. Although other potential sources of
groundwater pollution exist in Southeastern Virginia, there is little evidence that
significant contamination f rom these sources has occurred.

The following section discusses known and suspected groundwater
contamination problems in Southeastern Virginia attributable to the sources listed
above. There is widespread belief among officials involved in local groundwater
management that contamination is more prevalent than existing information would
indicate. It is quite probable that a significant amount of groundwater pollution,
from all of the sources identified, has gone undiscovered due to a lack of
comprehensive monitoring programs and the localized nature of most
contamination incidents. One reason for this is that, in the urban areas of the
region, groundwater contamination has not been a high priority issue since nearly
all residents are served by municipal water systems. It is also important to note that,
as the region continues to e-xperience a rapid rate of development, the potential for
groundwater contamination incidents attributable to the identified sources will
increase.

Septic Systems

A 1988 study by the Virginia Water Project estimated that over 50,000 housing
units in the Southeastern Virginia Planning District rely on on-site sewage systems.24
The study determined that approximately 45,000 of these units use septic systems,
while the remainder use other on-site practices, usually outhouses. In addition to
single household disposal systems, the region has a number of mass drainfieldi
systems which serve businesses, clusters of houses, schools, and so forth.

On-site sewage systems are the largest contributors of wastewater to the
ground, and failing or inadequate systems are generally considered to be a common
source of groundwater contamination. Problems arise when systerns are improperly
designed, constructed or maintained, or are located too close to the water table or
in soils which do not adequately percolate. The Virginia Water Project estirnates
that nearly 4,000 housing units in Southeastern Virginia have systems which are
36

improperly constructed and/or located. The Virginia Water Project notes that this is
a conservative estimate that mostly reflects the problem of septage ponding on the
ground surface and not the discharging of raw septage below the water table.25

Wastewater from septic systems contains a variety of contaminants including
nitrates, bacteria, viruses, and a variety of organic and inorganic chemicals used in
common household products. A large majority of the on-site sewage systems are
found in areas which are dependent on private wells for drinking water.
Consequently, there is a possibility that on-site sewage systems will contaminate
improperly sited or inadequately sealed wells. The Virginia Water Project estimates
that there are more than 14,000 inadequately constructed, drilled or dug wells in the
Southeastern Virginia Planning District.

The extent to which on-site sewage systems contaminate groundwater in
Southeastern Virginia is unclear. Only a few cases of domestic well contamination by
septic systems have been documented. However, there have been a number of cases
where high bacteria or nitrate levels have been found in wells. Verification of the
source of these contaminants was not possible. For example, due to excessive levels
of nitrates found in the domestic wells of a rural neighborhood in Virginia Beach,
the City advised local children and senior citizens not to drink well water. The source
of these nitrates could not be determined, though septic systems wvere suspectecd.
The City remedied this problem by extending public water lines to the
neig hborhood.26

Underground Storage Tanks

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act was amended in 1984 to require
the regulation of certain underground storage tanks (USTs).  Under these
regulations, owners of non-exempt USTs that were in the ground on or after May 8,
1986 must be registered with the VWCB. As shown in Table 8, by August 1988, the
VWCB had been notified of the existence of 6,370 non-exempt USTs at 2,326 sites in
Southeastern Virginia. VWCB officials have indicated that there may be twice that
number of non-exempt USTs that have not yet been registered.

VWCB registration is not required for USTs that are exempt from RCRA
regulations. These include heating oil tanks of less than 5,000 gallons and any farm
and residential USTs stori ng less than 1, 1 10 gallons. There are no reliable esti mates
on the number of such tanks in Southeastern Virginia. VWCB officials believe that
residential heating oil tanks may be a significant threat to groundwater.27
37

-- - - - --- ---- - - - - - - -




TABLE 8
REGISTERED UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS IN SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA AS OF AUGUST 1988
NO. OF	NO. OF
SITES	USTS
SUBSTANCE STORED (No. of USTs)

Petroleum	Other Haz.
Product1	Material	Water        Unknown

844	16	9	19

107	0	0	1

1,664	52	30	53

601	9	16	24

518	5	1	7

1,335	20	6	23

259	2	0	3

317	0	0	1

5,645	104	62	131
AGE OF USTs

More than
13 years   Unknown

296	92

49	12

684	258

294	104

226	91

411	165

148	30

160	37

2,268	789
ABANDONED2




90

15

222

82

54

163

27

19

672
Empty

71

20

96

63

42

44

50

42

428
Chesapeake

Franklin

Norfolk

Portsmouth

Suffolk
Lo
Virginia Beach

Isle of Wight County

Southampton County

TOTAL
371

41

671

264

194

540

107

138

2,326
959

128

1,895

713

573

1,428

314

360

6,370


1 Includes gasoline, diesel fuel, kerosene, used oil, heating oil, hydraulic fluid, jet fuel and so forth.

2Most abandoned registered tanks are known to be empty.

Source:   Virginia State Water Control Board, 1988.

Of the substances stared in the region's USTs, petroleum products pose the
greatest threat to groundwater. VWCB data indicate that approximately 88 percent
of the region's registered USTs contain some type of petroleum product. Such
procducts can be extremely pervasive in an aquifer. It is estimatedi that one fifth of a
gallon of gasoline can contaminate one million gallons of groundwater at a level of
five parts per billion.29 Also, small amounts of petroleum products can affect the
taste and potability of groundwater and can be extremely hazardous to human
health and safety. For example, benzene and toluene, two chemicals found in
gasoline, are considered priority pollutants by the EPA and are toxic and
carcinogenic at low concentrations.

Hazardous materials other than petroleum-based substances are found in only
two percent of the region's registered USTs. These materials, which mostly include
pesticides and solvents, generally pose less of a threat to groundwater because
relatively small quantities are stored in fewer tanks. Moreover, tanks containing
these substances are generally newer with better leak protection than tanks storing
petroleum products.

.The extent to which the region's USTs are leaking and contaminating
groundwater is unknown. VWCB staff estimates that between five percent and 30
percent of ali USTs are leaking.30 Leakage is strongly correlated with tank age. An
official from a company that services and replaces USTs estimates that between 50
percent and 70 percent of all USTS installed before 1965 have some corrosion.28
VWCB staff estimates that, on average, tanks begin leaking after thirteen years of
use.31 As indicated by Table 8, nearly 36 percent of the region's registered USTs
were thir-teen years or older at the time of registration. An additional twelve
percent of the tanks were of unknown age. It is assumed that most tanks of
unknown age are older since records are non-existent. VWCB data files indicate that
there is a large number of USTs throughout the region that are 30 to 50 years old,
contain large quantities of petroleum products, and are not internally or externally
protected against leakage. This situation is par-ticularly common at military facilities.
It is likely that a significant amount of leakage and groundwater contamination
occurs from these tanks.

Pollution complaints repor-ted to the VWCB between July 1986 and August
1989 include 126 pollution incidents involving groundwater contamination in
Southeastern Virginia. In 82 of these incidents, contamination was determined or
suspected to be a result of leaking or abandoned USTs containing petroleum
products. Most of these incidents were discovered by UST owners who were in the
process of upgrading theirtanks to meet new requirements contained in recent EPA
regulations. These regulations were developed in 1988 (and adopted by the VWCB
with some minor modifications in 1989) to implement the 1984 RCRA UST
amendments. Under these regulations, all owners of existing, non-exempt USTs
must test and protect their tanks, identify and correct leaks, and clean up spills and
releases. The 1984 RCRA amendments specify that all regulated USTs must be
upgraded to meet the new regulations by 1998. VWCB staff expects that, as more
39

tank owners comply with these regulations, substantially more incidents of UST
contamination will be discovered.

Spills and Improper Disposal of Hazardous Materials

Potential groundWater contamination problems in this category include any
incidents where hazardous materials are either accidently spilled or intentionally
dumped on the ground. Major incidents of this typ'e may occur during transport, or
at fixed industrial or commercial facilities. Smaller but cumulatively significant
incidents may occur illicitly at private residences or in remote areas.

An estimated eighteen percent
of the trucks on Virginia's higlhways
carry hazardous materials.32  in
addition, significant quantities of
hazardous materials are transported
by rail. Groundwater contamination
rarely occurs as a result of transport-related spills, however. This is because such
spills are usually more visible, present an immediate danger and, therefore, invoke
prompt emergency responses.

Although spills of hazardous materials sometimes occur during transportation,
they are generally more common and more damaging at fixed commercial and
industrial facilities. At these facilities, emergency response may not be as quick since
spills may go unnoticed and may even be intentional. Also, spills at fixed facilities
may be small but reoccurring, such as the continual overfilling of a storage tank. In
these cases, individual incidents may appear insignificant, but the cumulative effects
of numerous spills over time could result in considerable contamination. VWCB files
indicate that, of the groundwater contamination incidents occurring in
Southeastern Virginia between July 1986 and August 1989, fourteen were at least
partially attributed to spills or improper ground disposal at commercial and
industrial facilities. All but one of these incidents involved petroleum products. In
addition, three of the region's four Superfund cleanup efforts involve industrial sites
where the long-term dumping of hazardous materials on the ground has resulted in
the contamination of soil and groundwater.33 The State also has a separate
hazardous waste cleanup program which deals with those sites which either require
emergency remediation or are not eligible for the Superfund program. Six of the
region's seven State cleanup sites involve soil and/or groundwater contamination
from hazardous material spills or dumping.

It is likely that there are many more abandoned or existing industrial sites
where the spilling or dumping of hazardous materials has led to groundwater
contamination. Sixty-two sites in Southeastern Virginia are currently being studied
by the Virginia Department of Waste Management and the EPA to determnine either
their eligibility for inclusion on the Superfund National Priorities List or their
40

potential as State Cleanup sites. At many of these sites, soil andi/or groundwater
contamination from hazarcdous material spills or dumping is suspected.

A CERCLA (Superfund) site discovery project for the Elizabeth River Basin was
completed in 1988 by the NUS Corporation under contract to the EPA. This project,
which is the first phase of a long-term effort to refine the Superfund National
Priorities List, resulted in an inventory of 377 potential hazardous waste sites
considered wor-thy of further investigation.34 This inventory was prepared through
an analysis of fifty years of aerial photography. A large number of the inventoried
sites were found to have ground stains or discolored soils which may be an indication
of past spilling or dumping of hazardous materials.

There are no reliable data on the incidence of illicit, off-site dumping of
hazardous waste by businesses and industries. Although RCRA provides for the strict
regulation of hazardous wastes "from cradle to grave", the practice of illegal
dumping continues. Press reports indicate that there have been several such
incidents in Southeastern Virginia in recent years. It is likely that many more
incidents have gone undetected. When discovered and responded to quickly,
groundwater contamination from illicit hazardous mnaterial releases is usually
avoided. Over time, however, undetected releases are likely to have significant
localized impacts on groundwater.

Illegal dumping of hazardous wastes by homeowners is also considered to be a
significant threat to groundwater in the more developed portions of the region.
Commonly disposed of household hazardous wastes include drain cleaners, paint
thinners, household cleaners, solvents, motor oil, battery acids, swimming pool
chemicals, unwanted fuels and pesticides. Soil and/or groundwater contamination
may occur by dumping t hese materials on the ground or by flushing them through
septic systems.   There  is little
information on the arnount of
householcl hazardous waste that is
disposed of properly or improperly
since disposal of such substances is not
governed by federal or State
regulations. It is estimated that the
average household contains between
three and ten gallons of materials that__
are potentially hazardous to human                                                  A
health  or	the  environment.35A-
Although	quantities improperly
disposed of by individual households          hp 1"
may be small, the cumulative impacts                 ~     ~
of disposal by entire communities	A'~
could be significant. Used motor oil is    ,'	.
one of the more commonly disposed.
ofhousehold hazardous wastes. The                                           w.A
41

Virginia Division of Mines, Minerals and Energy estimates that Virginians dump
4.4 million gallons of used motor oil into the environment per year. it is estimated
that one quar-t of oil can contaminate up to 250,000 gallons of surface water.36
Although this finding is not directly relevant to groundwater, it is an indication of
the pervasiveness of oil when mixed with either surface water or groundwater.

Surface Waste Impoundments

Surface waste impoundments are used by industries, agricultural operations
and municipalities for the retention, treatment and/or disposal of hazardous and
non-hazardous liquid wastes. In 1985, there were 430 industrial, 1,200 animal waste
and relatively few municipal surface impoundments in Virginia.37 The number of
these impoundments that are located in Southeastern Virginia has not been
determined. However, given large number of industries and animal feedlots in the
Southeastern Virginia, it is likely that a high proportion of the state's surface
impoundments are located in this region.

Leaking surface impoundments can easily contaminate groundwater. This is
par-ticularly true in Southeastern Virginia where the water table is usually found
close to the surface. Until recently, most surface impoundments in Virginia have
been constructed without, or with inadequate, liners. The VWCB now regulates the
construction and operation of surface impoundments under either the NPDES or the
Virginia Pollution Abatement (VPA) permit programs. In accordance with the 1984
RCRA amendments, the VWCB requires liners for all new surface impoundments
containing wastes regulated under RCRA. The VWCB may require liners for
impoundments containing RCRA-exempt wastes as a permit condition where
groundwater is threatened. In situations where there is a' high potential for
groundwater contamination, the VWCB may also require a liner as a condition for
NPDES or VPA permit renewal.

In spite of the current regulations requiring liners, there are many unlined
surface impoundments throughout Southeastern Virginia that were constructed
before the current requirements were implemented. VWCB records indicate that
there were two groundwater contamination incidents involving leaking surface
impoundments between July 1986 and August 1989. VWCB staff believes that there
is a high likelihood that many more impoundments are causing undetected,
localized groundwater contamination.

Of the 377 potential hazardous waste sites identified during the Elizabeth
River Basin CERCLA site discovery project, 70 sites (57 private and 13 federal) were
identified as existing or abandoned industrial waste impoundments. It is probable
that many of the privately-owned sites are permitted and conform with RCRA
regulations. Future investigations will most likely reveal that some of the
unregulated industrial waste impoundment sites identified during this project have
contributed to local groundwater contamination.
42

Landfills
A landfill is land that is set aside, and usually excavated, for the disposal of solid
waste. In the past, landfills were either sanitary (i.e., where refuse is compacted and
frequently covered with soil) or were uncovered, open dumps. During the last two
decades there has been a growing awareness of the hazardous substances disposed
of in landfills and the potential for these substances to leach through landfills and
contaminate  groundwater.   In
response to this concern, RCRA              :, ,
required the classification and closure    W
of open dumps.  RCRA also required                                     !   ? .-
A~~~~~~ -
entities generating  significant
quantities of hazardous wastes to
manage and track these wastes and to
dispose of them in permitted
hazardous waste facilities.  Due to
these regulations, large quantities of
hazardous wastes have been directed
away from landfills. However, there
are still  significant  quantities of
hazardous substances found in
common municipal waste which can be
leached out of a landfill and cause
significant groundwater contamination. The 1984 amendments to RCRA required
the EPA to provide states with guidelines for permitting solid waste landfills. The
Virginia Department of Waste Management adopted these guidelines and
promulgated new solid waste regulations which took effect in January, 1989. These
regulations promote groundwater protection by guiding proper siting, design,
management and closure of landfills.

Implementation of Virginia's new permitting regulations is just beginning.
Some well maintained and operated landfills already meet the new regulations, but
other landfills fall well short of compliance. In Southeastern Virginia, there are four
public and 17 private landfills. In 1988, the public waste system alone received 1.1
million tons of refuse. Groundwater contamination has been either documented or
suspected at several of these sites. In addition to these operating landfills, there are
many abandoned or closed landfill sites which are suspected of causing groundwater
contamination. One of the region's four Superfund sites is a closed public landfill in
Suffolk located in a former swamp. This site has contaminated monitoring wells and
at least one off- site well, and is suspected of contaminating a drainage ditch in the
nearby Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge.

Groundwater contamination has also occurred at an abandoned military
landfill that is being cleaned up under the State's hazardous waste cleanup program.
In addition, of the 377 potential hazardous waste sites identified during the
Elizabeth River Basin CERCLA site discovery project, 33 were identified as existing or
abandoned landfills. It is possible that a number of these sites have caused local
groundwater contamination.
43

Pesticide and Fertilizer Applications
Pesticides and fertilizers are usedi extensively throughout the region in
agriculture, silviculture, urban park management and in residential lawn and garden
care. The ability of a pesticide or fertilizer to contaminate groundwater depends on
a number of interdependent factors including application rate; decomposition rate;
water solubility of the chemical; degree of crop uptake; geologic characteristics of
the soil, unsaturated zone and the aquifer; and the depth to the water table.
Often, signif icant contamination occurs not from misapplication, but f rom long term
accumulation from years of repeated applications.
The total amount of pesticides used in Southeastern Virginia is unknown. At
present, there are no State reporting requirements for pesticide sales or use. This
may change, however, under the 1989 Virginia Pesticide Control Act which requires
the newly created State Pesticide Control Board to promulgate regulations which
would, among other things, strengthen reporting requirements for vendors, and
commercial and private applicators. In addition, the Virginia Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services intends to conduct statewide pesticide usage
su.rveys in the near future.
Although pesticides have been found to cause cancer, liver, kidney and central
nervous system damage, and eye and skin irritation, there is little evidence linking
groundwater contaminated by pesticides to human health problems. Most experts
agree, however, that, though inadequately documnented, the potential for negative
health effects does exist. There is also the potential for water quality degradation
resulting from the migration of pesticide-contaminated groundwater into surface
waters.
Although relatively major cases of groundwater contamination by pesticides
have occurred in Virginia, there have been few reported cases in this region. Of the
groundwater contamination incidents reported to the VWCB between 1986 and
1989, only two involved pesticides. It is possible, however, that other pesticide
contamination incidents have occurred, but have gone undetected.

Nitrogen in the form of nitrate is the fertilizer most commonly responsible for
groundwater contamination. This is because nitrogen is highly stable and water
soluble and therefore leaches easily through the soil. Other commonly used
fertilizers, phosphorus and potassium, are less soluble and therefore have a
tendency to bind to soil particles and not infiltrate into the groundwater. in
general, only half of the nitrogen applied is taken up in the plants, the rest either
runs off or enters the groundwater. Between 1987 and 1988, nearly 7,400 tons of
nitrogen fertilizer were sold in Southeastern Virginia.38

The main'health problem associated with excessive nitrate intake is
methemoglobinemia or "blue-baby syndrome." This condition occurs in infants
when nitrates are reduced to nitrites in the blood. Nitrite reacts with hemoglobin to
produce a compound that does not carry oxygen. Consequently, death from
asphyxiation can occur. Nitrates are also suspected of causing the formation of
carcinogenic nitrosamines in the stomach.39 There have not been many documented
cases of groundwater contamination by nitrates in Southeastern Virginia and there
are no known health problems resulting from the few contamination cases that are
on record. As mentioned earlier, high levels of nitrates in wells in a Virginia Beach
neighborhood led to a warning not to consume well water and the eventual
installation of public water lines. In that case, malfunctioning septic systems were
the suspected source of the contamination. Relatively high nitrate concentrations
have been detected in other shallow wells in rural Virginia Beach.40 One well
contained 14.0 mg/I of nitrate, which is well above the ten mg/I allowed by the
Federal Primary Drinking Water Standards. The apparent increase in overall nitrate
concentrations in this part of the city has been attributed to the impact of
agricultural activities. In a 1985 survey of ten shallow household wells in the city of
Chesapeake, one well was found to have a nitrate concentration of 12.75 mg/I. In
this case, lawn fertilizers were cited as a probable source of contamination.41

Although commercial agriculture is the largest user of pesticides and fertilizers
in Southeastern Virginia, substantial amounts are also used by industry, government
and homeowners.42 Homeowner use of pesticides and fertilizers may present a
significant threat to groundwater in residential areas due to the high concentrations
of treated lawns and gardens and, in some areas, the close proximity of domestic
water supply wells.

Saltwater Encroachment

As noted earlier, the deeper confined aquifers of the eastern por-tion of the
region are characterized by a naturally occurring eastward thickening wedge of
saltwater. There is also naturally occurring saltwater in shallower aquifers in the
immediate vicinity of tidal shorelines. In both the deep and shallow aquifers,
excessive withdrawals of groundwater may cause an encroachmnent of brackish or
salty water toward withdrawal points and the invasion of saltwater into previously
uncontaminated groundwater. Encroachment may occur in the form of vertical
Itupconing" of brackish water from lower aquifers, or the lateral "intrusion" of
45

saltwater from adjacent surface waters when groundwater levels drop below mean
sea level. Saltwater intrusion and upconing occurs very slowly and may take years to
materialize. Once it has occurred, it is usually irreversible. It is also important to
note that the same process which causes the intrusion of saltwater from adjacent
surface waters may also induce the intrusion of contaminants from polluted water
bodies.
As is the case with the region's other potential groundwater contamination
threats, man-induced saltwater contamination is suspected of occurring in
Southeastern Virginia, but there is little suppor-ting evidence. Staff of the Virginia
Beach Public Utilities Departmnent reports that, given the amount of withdrawals in
cer-tain parts of the city, saltwater intrusion is probably occurring. There have been
sporadic reports that would support this speculation, but data are not sufficient
enough to identify trends or delineate specific problem areas.43 A 1986 analysis of
well logs in the Great Neck area of Virginia Beach by the Virginia Beach Health
Depar-tment indicates that excessive chloride levels have been present near the
Lynnhaven River and Broad Bay shorelines for at least fifteen years.44 Without pre-
development data, however, it is impossible to determine whether these high levels
are natural or are caused by residential pumping.

Saltwater intrusion is also suspected, but not proven, in the Churchland area of
Portsmouth. In 1988, about twenty residents living along the Hampton Roads
shoreline noticed an increased saltiness in their well water.. The suspected source of
this saltwater intrusion is the dewatering of a 140 acre. Virginia Department of
Transpor-tation borrow pit dug for the construction of the Western Freeway.

It has been speculated that heavy pumping in the Franklin area has resulted in
a westward movement of the saltwater wedge that is present in the deeper confined
aquifers. To date, the fresh/salt water interface of the wedge has not been mapped
and monitoring programs have not been adequate enough to show significant
upward or downward trends in chloride content. Calculations based on mapped
gradients and estimated porosity and permeability values indicate that the saltwater
wedge may be advancing westward at a rate of 30 to 40 feet per year, and probably
faster in the vicinity of major withdrawal points.45 The saltwater encroachment
issue is being addressed in an ongoing project to refine a regional groundwater flow
model developed jointly by the USGS and the VWCB. This project is being conducted
through the Southeastern Virginia Cooperative Regional Groundwater Program
which is a cooperative effort, concerned primarily with groundwater quantity,
involving the UJSGS, the SVPDC, the localities of Southeastern Virginia and the
VWCB.
AREAS MOST SUSCEPTIBLE TO GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
The vulnerability of an area to groundwater contamination is determined by a
number of influences including existing and potential sources of contamination;
various anthropogenic influences (local regulations, politics, social values, and so
46

on), and the hydrogeologic setting. This section focuses on local groundwater
vulnerability as determined by hydrogeologic setting which is defined as the
composite description of all hydrogeologic factors that influence groundwater
movement in an area!46 These factors include numerous physical characteristics and
chemical processes.

It is not within the scope of this Handbook to conduct a regional analysis of
local hydrogeologic factors to assess the vulnerability of the region's groundwater.
With adequate resources and regional cooperation, however, such an analysis could
be conducted using the DRASTIC mapping methodology developed by the National
Water Well Association under contract to the EPA. The foliowing is a brief
description of DRASTIC. For a more complete description, the reader is referred to
EPA publication EPA-600/2-87-035 entitled DRASTIC: A Standardized System for
Evaluatinci Ground Water Pollution Potential Usinci Hydroqeolociic Settincis.

The letters in DRASTIC stand for seven irnpor-tant mappable hydrogeologic
factors which affect groundwater vulnerability. These factors are:

*Depth to water table
*	(net) Recharge rate
*	Aquifer media
*	Soil media
ï¿½	Topography
ï¿½	impact of vadose (unsaturated) zone
* Conductivity (hydraulic) of the aquifer

While not all inclusive, these factors were determined to include the basic
requirements needed to assess the general pollution potential of different
hydrogeologic settings. Moreover, these factors represent measurable parameters
for which data are generally available without detailed reconnaissance.

Through the DRASTIC system, hydrogeologic settings are designated and
mapped, and a ranking scheme is applied to determine relative groundwater
vulnerability. Once completed, this evaluation can be used to help direct resources
and land use activities to appropriate areas, and may also assist in setting
groundwater protection, monitoring and clean-up priorities.

The DRASTIC methodology has been applied successfully in six counties in
Virginia through a demonstration project funded by an EPA Groundwater
Protection Grant. Due to the success of that project and in response to a
recommendation in A Groundwater Protection Stratecjy for Virqinia, the VWCB has
instituted a program to provide technical assistance and training to localities for the
local application of the DRASTIC methodology.

DRASTIC can be a powerful tool in managing groundwater. It is relatively easy
to use and its effectiveness has been proven. However, several weaknesses in the
47

DRASTIC methodology should be noted. First, as mentioned above, DRASTIC does
not account for all factors affecting groundwater vulnerability. Another drawback is
that this methodology relies on several assumptions which limit its applicability.
These assumptions and their limitations are described below:

ï¿½    A contaminant is introduced at the ciround surface. DRASTIC does not
provide an accurate assessment of pollution potential where pollutants
are discharged directly into groundwater.

*    A contaminant is flushed into the ciroundwater by Precipitation. The
DRASTIC approach may not provide accurate results in areas where
irrigation or other forms of artificial recharge occur.

ï¿½    A contaminant has the mobility of water. In reality, a contaminant may
be more or less dense than water and exhibit different flow
characteristics.

* An area evaluated usinci DRASTIC must be 100 acres or larcier. Often the
flow of acontaminant is determined bysite-specific characteristics.

Finally, due to data insufficiencies, it is often necessary to estimate when mapping
the boundaries of the DRASTIC parameters or applying the numerical ranking
system. Consequently, because the DRASTIC methodology often deals in
generalities, it is inappropriate for site-specific applications..

A brief discussion of the DRASTIC factors and how they relate to groundwater
vulnerability in Southeastern Virginia is presented below. Another vulnerability
factor, the area of influence around a pumping well, which is not adequately
addressed by DRASTIC is also discussed.

Depth to Water Table

Depth to the water table is one of the key factors determining the length of
time it will take for a pollutant to percolate through the soil and unsaturated zone
to the water table aquifer. With a longer residence time in the unsaturated zone,
there is a greater chance that pollutant attenuation will occur. In Southeastern
Virginia, water table depth can range from imnmediately at or near the surface in
floodplains to as much as fifty feet below the surface in interstream upland areas.

Net Recharge

Net Recharge represents the amount of vwater per unit of land which
penetrates the ground and reaches the water table. Net recharge is mainly
determined by the rate of precipitation, but, in some areas, irrigation, artificial
recharge and wastewater application may be contributing factors. Recharge water
is the principal vehicle for leaching and transporting solid or liquid contaminants to
48

the water table. Therefore, in mnost cases, the greater the recharge, the greater the
potential for groundwater pollution. It is possible, however, for large amounts of
recharge to dilute contaminants, at which point contamination potential may
decrease. This possibility is not accounted for in DRASTIC.

Southeastern Virginia experiences a fairly uniform precipitation rate.
However, localized net recharge can be affected by surface cover, soil permeability
and slope. Consequently, net recharge rates might be less than average in densely
developed areas having large amounts of impervious surface, in heavily vegetated
areas, or in areas where soils have a high clay content. There may also be some slight
variation in net recharge in the western portions of the region due to changes in
topography. Net recharge can also be affected by local groundwater flow gradient.
There may be an upward flow in discharge areas (rivers, wetlands and so forth) and a
downward f low in the vicinity of pumping wells.

Aquifer Media, Soil Media and Impact of the Vadose (Unsaturated) Zone

The potential for groundwater contamination will depend on the degree of
.attenuation that occurs during the migration of the contaminant plume through the
soil, the vadose or unsaturated zone, and the aquifer. Attenuation varies with
different geologic materials, environmental conditions, and pollutant types. In
general, fine- textured materials with low permeability values such as silts or clays
can reduce infiltration and decrease the potential for contaminant mnigration.
Conversely, coarser materials with high permeability such.as,sand, gravel or shell will
encourage recharge and the infiltration of contaminants.

Soil is considered to be the upper weathered zone of the earth that averages
six feet or less in depth. The unsaturated zone is the area below the soil zone and
above the water table. Much of the material comprising these two zones in
Southeastern Virginia, especially in the eastern por-tion of the region, consists of clay
and silt and is poorly drained. More permeable sandy substrate, which is much more
vulnerable to groundwater contamination, exists along ridges, or between stream
valleys in the western por-tion of the region.

The two uppermost aquifers, the Columbia (water table) and the Yorktown-
Eastover, are the most vulnerable to human induced contamination. The Columbia
aquifer is the most vulnerable because it is usually the first to receive contamination.
The Yorktown- Eastover aquifer is considered vulnerable by virtue of its high degree
of interconnection to the Columbia aquifer. These aquifers consist mainly of fine to
coarse sand and some mixed sand, gravel and shell. Not only do these materials have
high permeability values, but the physical, biological and chemical processes
responsible for attenuating pollutants are much less effective in a saturated
environment. Therefore, materials comprising these two aquifers have a high
potential fortransmitting pollutants.
49

Topography
Topography refers to the slope and slope variability of the land surface.
Depending on the topography of an area, a contaminant will either run off the land
or remain long enough to infiltrate the soil. Areas with steep slopes will produce
more runoff and will generally have low groundwater pollution potential.
Conversely, flat or gentle sloping land will have greater pollution potential. For the
most part, Southeastern Virginia is characterized by relatively low relief and would
score high on this pollution vulnerability factor. There is, however, a notable
difference in topography between the eastern and the western portions of
Southeastern Virginia. In the western part of the region (west of the Suffolk Scarp),
elevations range from twenty to 175 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and the land is
characterized by gentle slopes overall with some moderately steep slopes along
stream valleys. The eastern part of the region is characterized by poor drainage and
elevations that seldom exceed 20 feet above MSL.

Hydraulic Conductivity

Hydraulic conductivity is the same as permeability, as defined earlier in this
handbook. Permeability refers to the ability of an aquifer to transmit water which,
in turn, controls the rate at which groundwater will flow under a given hydraulic
gradient. The rate of groundwater flow controls the rate at which a contaminant
will move through an aquifer. As mentioned, the Columbia and Yorktown-Eastover
aquifers are comprised mainly of sand, gravel and shell. -The-materials have high
hydraulic conductivity values.

Area of Influence

An area of influence is that area which overlies a well's cone of depression. In
review, a cone of depression occurs where pumping has lowered the water table or
the potentiometric surface of an aquifer, and has distor-ted the natural flow pattern
of an aquifer. The size and shape of an area of influence will vary with pumping
rates, recharge rates and the hydrogeology of an aquifer. An area of influence is
vulnerable to contamination because pollutants introduced into this area are likely
to be drawn into the well. The closer the source of pollution to a well, the sooner
contaminants will be drawn into the water supply, and the less opportunity there
will be for pollution attenuation. As mentioned previously, the 1986 amendments
to the Safe Water Drinking Act require the states to develop programs which will
guide localities in protecting the wellhead areas of public water supply wells. It is
likely that such programs will delineate and require groundwater protection
measures within areas of influence.
IDENTIFYING SPECIFIC HIGH RISK CONTAMINATION SOURCES
In addition to identifying areas that are particularly sensitive to groundwater
contamination, it is also important to identify specific sources which have a high
50

potential for causing contamination. Such analyses are called site-specific source
evaluations. It is not within the scope of this Handbook to conduct such an analysis
for the Southeastern Virginia region. However, the following briefly defines site-
specific source evaluations and provides an example of how one might be
implemented.
Site-specific source evaluations are used to systematically examine current and
potential groundwater contamination problems associated with various land use
activities. Through such evaluations, high risk land use activities are identified,
located and mapped, compared with the location of sensitive areas, and assigned
hazard rankings. Sites with high hazard rankings are then given high management
priorities in the development and implementation of groundwater protection plans.
Specifically, information gained from site-specific source evaluations might be used
to determine priorities for a groundwater quality monitoring program, to determine
target populations in a groundwater protection education program, or to assist in
source identification in a groundwater pollution remediation effort.
The basic approach to conducting a site-specific source evaluation involves an
examination of several factors including the relative hazards associated with the
materials used by an activity; the method in which these materials are handled;
proximity of an activity to designated sensitive areas; and the number of people that
might be affected by a contamination incident. A diversity of methodologies
representing a wide range of sophistica-tion and resource requirements have evolved
from this basic approach. For more information regardng, different site- specific
source evaluation methodologies, the reader is referred to an Arnerican Planning
Association publication entitled Local Groundwater Protection.
One methodology which is somewhat simplified, but illustrates the basic
approach to site-specific source evaluations was developed by the West Michigan
Shoreline Development Commission (WMSRDC) as par-t of its Section 208 water
quality planning program. The f irst step in the WMSRDC method is to assign hazard
rankings to activities by their Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code. These
initial rankings may then be adjusted on a site-by- site basis with respect to a number
of factors including volumes, toxicity and concentrations of hazardous materials
present; level of waste pretreatment; and site history (such as previous record of
previous spills). in the second step, the nurnber of households that are within a one
mile radius and may be affected by the activity is determined. The third step rates
the site based on the number of households within a one mile radius that depend on
groundwater for their water supply. In the last step, the site's distance to the
nearest surface water is determined. Based on a evaluation system that considers
the individual rankings from each of the four steps, each site is given a "low",
"medium" or "high" groundwater pollution potential ranking.

The WMSRDC approach has its deficiencies; it does not consider groundwater
flow patterns, nor does it consider the proximity of public water supply wells. These
deficiencies not withstanding, this approach appears to be feasible in Southeastern
51

Virginia. The data required for all four steps should be available for most sites.
Hazardous material use and toxic chemical release data are available for many sites
under the "Community Right-to-Know" reporting requirements of Title III of the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986. In addition,
records of reported spills are available through the VWCB Pollution Remediation
Program. Data on the number of households within a one mile radius are available
from the U.S. Census, while data on groundwater dependency should be available
from local public utilities depar-tments.

Site-specific source evaluations would not be appropriate in assessing saltwater
encroachment since this source of contamination does not emanate directly from a
land use activity. Areas that are potentially susceptible to saltwater intrusion or
upconing can best be identified through monitoring and the development of
groundwater flow models. Inflow/outflow analyses may also be used in shoreline
areas as afirst approximation of saltwater encroachment potential. Inflow/outflow
analyses compare total recharge in an area to total withdrawals to estimate the
magnitude of aquifer depletion.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GROUNDWATER AND ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL
AREAS

Groundwater accounts for a significant amount of surface water flow. In
humid areas, such as Southeastern Virginia, groundwater discharge may account for
70 to 80 percent of a stream's annual discharge.47 Consequently, if contaminated,
groundwater discharge to surface waters may pose a threat to environmentally
critical aquatic areas. The greatest potential for contamination occurrs where
groundwater provides a base flow or suppor-ting water level for unique terrestrial or
aquatic habitats, or where groundwater discharges to a water supply reservoir. Also,
depletion of groundwater supplies can increase the concentrations of pollutants in
streams by reducing flow.

Recent research has found the river systems support underground ecosystems
known as hyporheic zones which are crucial to the health of surface water
habitats.48 These zones, which may extend fifteen to thirty feet below and many
miles from each side of a stream channel, supply nutrients to surface waters and
harbor subterranean organisms which periodically emerge and becomne part of the
river's food chain. The introduction of contaminants into these zones may have a
detrimental effect on the underground organisms and ultimately on the surface
water habitat. Thus far, research on hyporheic zones has occurred primarily in the
western United states. The nature and extent of these zones in the tidal estuaries
and f ree-f lowing streams of the Coastal Plain of the eastern United States has yet to
be determined.

In Southeastern Virginia, environmentally critical aquatic areas that may be
hydrologically connected to groundwater systems include lakes, free-flowing
streams, wetlands, estuaries, coastlines and embayments. There have been a
52

number of documented or suspected incidents of the degradation of surface water
by contaminated groundwater. These incidents include seepage from a number of
abandoned landfills, underground storage tanks and hazardous waste dumps along
the Elizabeth River; suspected contamination of the Back Bay, Lynnhaven River and
Lake Speight by malfunctioning septic systems; and suspected contamination of the
Great Dismal Swamp by the abandoned Suffolk Landfill.

Although delineating environmentally critical areas may be relatively straight
forward, determining the presence and source of polluted groundwater discharge
may be difficult.
53

LOCAL raROUNDWATER PROTECTION TECHNIQUES
There are numerous strategies that can be implemented by local governments
to prevent groundwater contamination. However, for a community to develop an
effective groundwater protection program, it must prepare a groundwater
management plan consisting of community-specific goals and objectives, and locally
appropriate management techniques. In formulating goals and objectives, a
community must determine local groundwater protection needs and the
appropriate scope of a local groundwater protection program. The determination
of protection needs will be based on local hydrogeology, existing and potential
threats to the groundwater system, and patterns of water use. In determining the
appropriate scope of a local groundwater protection program, consideration must
be given to local dependence on the groundwater supply, other community goals
that may conflict with groundwater protection, legal constraints, existing state and
federal regulatory programs, and the values and priorities of the local citizenry.
Once a community has assessed its groundwater protection needs and has
formulated the goals and objectives of its groundwater protection plan, it is then
ready to select specific management techniques. These techniques must be carefully
selected and combined in such a way as to maximize effectiveness in achieving
objectives and to minimize costs. In general, groundwater protection techniques
can be grouped into two broad categories: sensitive area controls and source
controls. The following description and evaluation of techniques has been
separated into these two categories. It is important.to note that, in most
groundwater protection programs, both types of strategies are implemented in
concert.

To date, no locality in Southeastern Virginia has developed a formal
groundwater protection program. Given the variation in Southeastern Virginia with
respect to groundwater dependence, contamination threats and, to a lesser degree,
hydrogeology, it is likely that the content of local groundwater protection programs
would differ significantly. It is not the intent of this Handbook to recommend
specific protection programs for individual localities. This can only be done through
the local planning process. The purpose of this Handbook is to provide information
that can be used in formulating local goals and objectives and in selecting
appropriate management techniques. Thus far, this Handbook has presented
information on local hydrogeology; existing groundwater use; federal, state and
local roles in protecting the region's groundwater; and local groundwater areas of
concern. in this section, a number of groundwater protection strategies will be
identified and, where possible, evaluated with respect to their potential usefulness
in local groundwater protection programs.
The discussion of control techniques has been limited to those that would
protect the Columbia and Yorktown-Eastover aquifers. This is because these
aquifers are the most susceptible to contamination from overlying land use
activities, and they serve as the principal source of recharge to the region's deeper
54

aquifers. In addition, State regulations ban the use of deep underground injection
wells for waste disposal, thus preventing the direct introduction of contaminants
into the deeper aquifers. It is therefore reasonable to assume that protection of the
Columbia and Yorktown-Eastover aquifers will prevent contamination of the
aquifers to which they are hydrologically linked.

SENSITIVE AREA CONTROLS

Through the identification of sensitive areas, management techniques can be
applied to locations where groundwater resources require the greatest protection.
In delineating sensitive areas, consideration is generally given to one or more of the
following criteria: importance as a recharge zone; location within a pumping
center's area of influence; existing groundwater quality; vulnerability to
contamination; existing or intended uses; and the interrelationship between
groundwater and environmentally critical areas.

A locality may want to assign protection priorities to different types of sensitive
areas or to differentiate zones within individual sensitive areas. Areas with the
highest protection priorities would be subject to more stringent controls. For
example, through a detailed hydrogeologic survey, concentric zones can be
identified within areas of influence which reflect the time required for groundwater
to reach a pumping center. These zones, commonly referred to as time-related
capture zones, could be used to assess water quality threats to a pumping center and
to assist in the development of protection techniques. Through the designation of
time-related capture zones, land use controls within an area of influence can be
fashioned so that their stringency increases as groundwater flow time to a pumping
center decreases.

Not all of the criteria used in delineating sensitive areas are relevant to
Southeastern Virginia. For instance, it would be difficult to delineate specific
recharge areas. This is because, unlike other physiographic provinces where discrete
recharge zones can be identified, recharge occurs over large portions of the region
through ver-tical leakage from the Columbia (water table) aquifer.

Another obstacle to sensitive area identification is that the data required to
map sensitive areas may not be available. In Southeastern Virginia, this would be
the case when attempting to determine areas of influence around major pumping
centers, ambient water quality, and the relationship between groundwater and
environmentally critical areas. Delineation of areas of influence around public water
supply wells should be facilitated by the State's wellhead protection program which
is being developed in accordance with the 1986 amendments to the Safe Water
Drinking Act.

As mentioned previously, one potentially useful approach to identifying areas
that are particularly vulnerable to groundwater contamination is the DRASTIC
mapping system. By using this technique, readily available data can be used to help
55

determine the groundwater pollution potential of and to assign protection priorities
to various hydrogeologic settings within a locality.

-A sensitive area identification approach may be controversial in that areas not
designated as being sensitive will receive lower levels of protection. It could
therefore be implied that the portions of an aquifer receiving less protection will be
allowed a certain amount of contamination. This situation should be avoided
through adherence to the State's antidegradation policy which is intended to ensure
that future groundwater needs will be met through the maintenance of existing
groundwater quality.

Once identified, sensitive areas can be protected by a mix of land use
management and source-specific controls. Source-specific controls, which are
generally most applicable in built up areas, might be applied in designated sensitive
areas only, or uniformly throughout an entire locality. Such strategies will be
discussed later in this chapter. Land use controls are best suited to controlling future
land uses within sensitive areas that are undeveloped. The following is a description
and evaluation of land use management techniques that might be used to protect a
community's groundwater resources.

Traditional Zoning
In general, a traditional zoning ordinance delineates zoning districts, lists
permitted and conditional uses in each district, and establishes basic development
requirements for each district (i.e., minimum setbacks, side yards, lot size, lot
coverage and building height). As previously mentioned, the 1988 session of the
Virginia General Assembly acknowledged the importance of zoning in protecting
groundwater by amending Section 15.1-489 of the Virginia Code to require local
governments to consider groundwater protection in the preparation of local zoning
ordinances.

Traditional zoning can be used to prevent groundwater contamination
through the creation of new zoning districts to protect sensitive areas or through
the strengthening of restrictions in existing zoning districts which contain
designated sensitive areas. In either case, groundwater protection could be
achieved through use prohibitions and restrictions; density restrictions; and limits on
the amount of impermeable surface.

Use prohibitions or restrictions can be imposed for activities that have a high
potential for groundwater contamination (e.g., septic systems, businesses using or
storing hazardous materials, waste management facilities, borrow pits, outside
materials storage, and so forth). A locality can restrict such uses through a special or
conditional use permitting process. Through this process, a request for a use can be
denied outright, or special conditions can be imposed which are based on specific
issues and concerns raised about a particular site. Such conditions might stipulate
facility design requirements and best management practices which minimize the
56

potential for groundlwater contamnination. For example, a locality may prohibit
commercial and inclustrial establishments from using septic systems unless cer-tain
discharge quantity and quality conditions are met. Along with imposing
prohibitions within new or existing zoning districts, a locality may want to
incorporate new guidelines into its zoning ordinance for amortizing existing
prohibited uses.
Zoning may also impose density restrictions through minimum lot size and
maximum lot coverage requirements. Low density zoning may be necessary in
sensitive areas to ensure that the assimilative and filtrative capacity of the soil and
unsaturated zones are not exceeded. Low density zoning is most commonly used to
prevent groundwater contamination in areas where hydrogeologic conditions limit
the use of septic systems. Requiring a minimum lot size reduces the density of septic
systems and limits the total quantity of effluent entering the ground.
By minimizing the amount of impermeable surface within a zoning district, the
natural recharge characteristics of a site can be preserved. Maintaining the integrity
of the natural groundwater flow system is particularly important on sites where
pumping might otherwise encourage the encroachment of saltwater or man-made
contaminants.
In a 1989 survey conducted by the Virginia Council on the Environment, local
governments cited traditional zoning as one of the few management tools currently
being used by Southeastern Virginia localities to,pre-vent groundwater
contamination. Conditional zoning and special use permits are sometimes used to
impose conditions on proposed uses which may have adverse effects on
groundwater. In addition, large lot zoning is commonly used to ensure compliance
with or exceed Virginia Department of Health standards in areas that necessitate the
use of on-site septic systems and wells.
There are several drawbacks to using traditional zoning, as well as the
innovative zoning techniques described below, to protect groundwater. A principal
disadvantage is that such techniques may be challenged on the grounds that they
constitute a taking of property without compensation. To avoid such challenges,
zoning ordinances should conform to well prepared, publicly accepted and
technically sound groundwater management plans. Such plans should be
incorporated in and be consistent with acommunity's comprehensive plan. Another
potential problem with land use controls is that recharge to a community's
groundwater system may occur across political boundaries. In such cases,
groundwater contamination may occur as aresult of land use management practices
in a neighboring jurisdiction that do not protect groundwater. A further
disadvantage to using zoning techniques to prevent groundwater contamination is
that they are ineffective in controlling the activities of state and federal agencies.
57

Innovative Zoning Techniques
Innovative zoning techniques that might be incorporated into the existing
zoning ordinance to protect groundwater resources include overlay zoning, Planned
Unit Development, transfer of development rights, and performance standards.
The following provides a brief description of each.

Overlay zoning offers an alternative to the sometimes static nature of
traditional zoning. Overlay zones are not intended to replace or change underlying
zoning requirernents. Instead, they are superimposed on existing zoning districts to
provide additional land use regulations. In the context of groundwater protection,
overlay zones might be applied in designated sensitive areas to impose additional
use restrictions, runoff and groundwater contamination performance standards,
tighter septic system regulations and stricter site plan review procedures.

Planned Unit Development (PUD) is a technique by which subdivision and
zoning regulations apply to an entire project rather than to individual lots. This
allows site designs which cluster development and maximize areas for the
development of public facilities and the preservation of open space. PUD can be
used to maintain the natural recharge characteristics of a site, or direct development
away from portions of a site that are vulnerable to groundwater contamination or
where groundwater discharges to surface waters.
Through the transfer of development rights (TDR),,. a property owner in
designated areas, known as "sending zones," may transfer (sell) the development
rights granted to him under the zoning ordinance to a property owner in a
designated "receiving zone"m where conditions for development are more
appropriate. A TDR program could be used to shift development densities and
potential contamination threats away from designated sensitive areas. The use of
TDR might not be appropriate in every community. In order for development rights
to be marketable, development pressure and limited availability of land are needed;
these conditions do not exist in all Southeastern Virginia localities. In addition, the
use of TDR is not permitted under State enabling legislation. It is anticipated,
however, that this issue will be addressed in the 1989 Virginia General Assembly.

In contrast to the conventional use and density restrictions imposed under
traditional zoning, the intensity of development is sometimes controlled by the
application of environmental performance standards. Through the use of such
standards, selected uses or mixes of uses are allowed within a zoning district as long
as they meet cer-tain "performance" criteria. Examples of performance standards
that might be used to protect groundwater include:
0    imposing different septic systern design requirements depending on the
hydrogeologic characteristics of a site;
58

ï¿½    ensuring adequate recharge by requiring that runoff volumes not exceed
pre-development levels;

*    employing a groundwater mocdelling program on sites that would be
* served by septic systems to ensure that nitrate levels would meet
appropriate standards at the property line and at a drinking water well.
An advantage of performance standards is that they allow considerable flexibility
with respect to site design and use. The primary disadvantage to their use is that the
data needed to demonstrate that performance criteria are being met may not be
readily available. In addition, the use of certain performance standards may not be
allowed under state enabling legislation.
Other Land Use Control Ordinances
Groundwater protection provisions can also be incorporated into other land
use control regulations including subdivision, erosion and sediment control, site plan
review and stormwater management ordinances. A brief discussion on how each
might be revised is found below.
A locality's subdivision ordinance can be used to require developers to set land
aside or utilize design standards and engineering practices to protect groundwater.
For instance, subdivision regulations might be used to reserve designated sensitive
areas for eventual acquisition by a locality, or to ensure the provision of stormwater
control practices which would maintain the natural groundwater flow characteristics
of a site. In addition, subdivision controls might be used to ensure that certain
stormwater management facilities, such as infiltration devices or wet detention
basins, are not located where they might contaminate groundwater supplies. A
subdivision ordinance should require that an evaluation of soils for well and septic
system suitability be conducted before land is subdivided.
A locality may wish to strengthen its erosion and sediment control ordinance to
better regulate land disturbing activities in sensitive areas. If not properly
controlled, site development may disrupt the natural flow of the groundwater
system and encourage the introduction of contaminants. This would most likely
occur where the water table lies close to the surface, and where increases in
impermeable surfaces inhibit recharge and encourage the encroachment of
saltwater or man-made contaminants.
A locality may want to consider revising its site plan review ordinance, or
zoning ordinance where such an ordinance has not been adopted, to incorporate
certain groundwater protection provisions in the site plan review process. In
reviewing a site plan for possible groundwater impacts, consideration should be
given to the on-site location of potential contamination sources such as septic
systems, underground storage tanks and surface waste impoundments. Such
facilities should be located away from steep slopes, surface waters, flood zones,
stormwater runoff pathways, and water supply wells. Site plan review requirements
59

might also require developers to conduct site-specific studies to ensure groundlwater
protection. These studies might include hydrogeologic impact analyses, hazardous
materials use and disposal plans, or general groundwater protection plans.

The 1989 Virginia General Assembly passed legislation which enables local
governments to adopt stormwater management ordinances which require the
submission and approval of site-specific stormwater management plans prior to any
non-exempt development activity. If adopted, a stormwater management
ordinance might require that site-specific plans describe the extent to which
proposed stormwater control practices and the hydrologic characteristics of the
proposed development will affect local groundwater flow and quality.
Land Acquisition
Occasionally, a locality will use its eminent domain powers for the fee simple
acquisition of sensitive areas. This is usually done where (1) long-term protection is
absolutely essential to protect groundwater quality; (2) stringent land use controls
on private property are politically or legally unacceptable; or (3) a combination of
mutually supportive purposes can be achieved (i.e., non-point source pollution
control, provision of recreation, wildlife protection or wetlands preservation). As
mentioned previously, public acquisition might be achieved through the subdivision
ordinance by requiring developers to reserve environmentally sensitive portions of
sites for eventual acquisition by the locality. Public acquisition is often not practical
for a locality due to the high acquisition and long-term maintenance costs involved.

In lieu of fee simple acquisition, a locaiity may elect to purchase development
rights or purchase restrictive easements in sensitive areas.

Tax Incentives
Localities may consider lowering the property tax assessment on land used for
the purpose of protecting groundwater supplies. This procedure is commonly
known as use-value taxation. The State Code allows the use-value taxation of open
space preserved for the protection of natural resources as long as certain conditions
are met.
SOURCE CONTROLS
As previously mentioned, most local groundwater protection programs consist
of a mix of sensitive area and source controls. Often, source controls are
incorporated into land use management strategies cdesigned to protect sensitive
areas. Under some circumstances, however, a locality may choose to adopt
community-wide source controls rather than sensitive area controls. For example,
source controls may be preferred in communities where sensitive areas are not easily
delineated because local hydrogeologic characteristics are either too homogenous
60

or not well defined. A community may also find that source controls are more
effective where political support for sensitive area controls is lacking.
Most of the high priority groundwater contamination sources identified for
this Handbook are already subject to State and federal regulations. A locality may
decide, however, that regulations imposed on certain sources do not adequately
address community-specific groundwater contamination threats. Therefore, the
source controls discussed below focus on those which a locality might use to
supplement controls imposed by higher State or fecleral agencies.

Source controls can be structural or nonstructural and may include procedural
and reporting requirements. The following describes possible controls for those
sources of pollutants that have been identified as the greatest threats to
groundwater in Southeastern Virginia.

Septic Svstems

Existing Regulations and Initiatives

On-site domestic and commercial sewage disposal systems which do not
discharge to surface waters are regulated by the Virginia Department of Health
(VDH). These systems mostly include septic systems and mass drain fields. Before on-
site sewage disposal systems are constructed, permits must be obtained from locally-
basedi VDH sanitarians. Before permits are issued, the sanitarian will review the
proposed design and site characteristics to ensure that the system will function
adequately. Site characteristics considered in this review include topography;
percolation rates; standoff distance to water table; depth to restrictive layers beldw
a system; slope; and setback distances to potentially sensitive site features such as
streams, lakes, wells, shellfish waters, and so forth. Systems are inspected at the time
of installation to ensure compliance with VDH regulations. No routine follow-up
visits are conducted to monitor system operation. If a cornplaint is received of a
failing system, the VDH will investigate. If a failing system is found, the owner will
be required to take corrective action. In some localities, the VDH will inspect on-site
sewage disposal systems as a service to lending institutions when homes are sold.
These inspections are not required by Virginia law, however. Occasionally, the VDH
will conduct sanitary surveys of specific geographic areas in response to the needs of
local governments. These surveys evaluate existing systems for overt failures (i.e.,
sewage above ground) and are usually conducted to identify areas in need of public
sewer systems. Such a survey has been conducted in the commnunity of Sandbridge in
Virginia Beach and is currently being conducted in the Lake Speight subdivision in
Suffolk.
61

COMPONENTS OF A HOUSEHOLD SEPTIC SYSTEM
I I
I I
I RESERVE DRAN FIELDI
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~I



PERFORATED PIPE
OR
DISTRIBUTION      OPEN-JOINTED TILE
SEWER PIPE FROM HOUSE
SEPTIC TANK

I ARROWS INDICAE WASTEWATER FLOW DIRECrION                    DRAIN FIELD
Septic systems for the disposal of industrial wastewater are regulated by the
VWCB. There is no separate program for regulating industrial septic systems. Such
systems are subject to the general requirements of the Virginia Pollution Abatement
permit program because they do not result in point source discharges to surface
waters. Before a VPA permit will be issued, it must be demonstrated that a proposed
in,dustrial septic system will protect the beneficial uses of groundwater.
Groundwater monitoring is often a permit condition. VPA permits, or No-Discharge
Certificates where still applicable, are periodically reviewed to ensure that a system
continues to operate properly.

In addition to the VDH and VWCB regulations, Tidewater localities are subject
to septic system standards contained in the implementing regulations of the
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. These standards state that all septic systems in
designated Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas must be pumped out every five years
and any new systems must be constructed with a 100 percent reserve drainfield
capacity.
The Virginia Cooperative Extension Service (VCES) is the educational arm of the
State's two Land-Grant Universities (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, and Virginia State University). The VCES is a par-tnership of federal, State
and local organizations which provides public education opportunities in a number
of areas. Field staff consists of county and city Extension Agents, and research staff is
comprised of faculty at both universities. The VCES has recently incorporated
groundwater protection into its agriculture and natural resources program unit. The
VCES groundwater education program addresses a number of groundwater
protection issues including management of on-site septic systems.

Alternative Local Strategies

The existing State septic system regulations may not adequately address a
locality's groundiwater protection needs for several reasons. As mentioned, the VDH
does not concduct routine inspections to ensure the proper operation of systems. In
addition, the primary focus of the VDH on-site sewage disposal regulations is to
62

prevent the ponding of sewage in soils that do not percolate. The protection of
groundwater receives less attention. In some communities, septic systems have been
allowed where ponding may not occur, but where highly permeable soils and
shallow water tables create conditions that are conducive to groundwater
contamination. Another potential threat to a community's groundwater is the
existence of unpermitted domestic or commercial/industrial systems which do not
meet permitting criteria. Finally, under existing VDH and VWCB permitting
regulations, there is insufficient attention paid to ensuring compliance with
groundwater standards.49
To protect local groundwater from contamination from septic systerns, a
locality might eliminate the need for septic systems by extending public sewer lines
to designated sensitive areas. Where this is not practical, a number of local
strategies can be employed which supplement the State septic systerm regulations.
Possible density controls were discussed previously. There are also a number of
siting, design and operation controls which mnight be incorporated into zoning,
subdivision, site plan review or ordinances, or might serve as the basis for a separate
on-site waste disposal management ordinance. In addition, public education
programs can be useful in promoting proper operation and maintenance of septic
systems. Possible siting, design, operation and education strategies that might be
implemented to prevent groundwater contamination from septic systems are
discussed below. Some of these strategies will require new State enabling
legislation before they can be irmplemented by Southeastern Virginia localities.

Septic system siting and design standards that localiti es might use to protect
groundwater include:

* Exceed VDH septic system minimum separation distances where necessary
to protect groundwater.

*    Require a minimum separation distance between the septic system and
the water table which takes maximum water table height into account.

*    Require 100 percent reserve drainfield capacity which would be available
for the construction of a second drainfield should the first field fail. (This
requirement already exists for Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas.)
ï¿½ Require that each septic system have a split drainfield or duplicate
drainfields. This would allow flow tobe periodically diverted to the other
half of a single dainfield or to a second drainfield. By diverting flow, a
drainfield can 'rest' thus allowing substances which may clog a system to
degrade.
*	Prohibit storm drain connections to septic systems.
*	Require sufficient and convenient vehicle access to the tank cover for
septic system maintenance and inspection purposes.
63

Locally implemented septic system operation and maintenance controls might
be implemented community-wide or in specified on-site sewage management
districts. These districts, which are discussed in detail in the 1983 update of the
Hampton Roads Water Quality Manaqement Plan and were encouraged by a
resolution passed by the 1989 Virginia General Assembly, could be established in
designated problem areas to monitor, or assume responsibility for, the operation
and maintenance of septic systems. Should a locality assume management and
operation responsibilities within a district, it might consider forming a public utility
for that purpose. Alternative operation and maintenance controls are as follows:

0    Prohibit the disposal of materials in septic systems which have high
groundwater pollution potential. Such materials might include
hazardous materials as defined by the National Fire Prevention Code;
petroleum products; pesticides; embalming fluicds; photography
developing fluids; medical wastes; septictank cleaning compounds; drain
cleaners; disposable diapers and coffee grounds.50

* Require that septic systems be pumped out and inspected every five years.
(The pump-out requirement already exists for Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Areas.) Inspections might be conducted by a locality, or by
certified private engineers or sanitarians. In the latter case, a mail-in
certification system could be employed.

ï¿½    if a locality implements a five year pump-out requirement, it may consider
assuming the responsibility by contracting out septic tank pumping to a
private firm and then billing property owners. Through this approach, full
compliance with the pump-out requirement can be assured and system
failures can be minimized.

ï¿½    If split or duplicate drainfields are mandatory, require that they be
alternated on a regular basis, perhaps annually or serni-annually.

ï¿½    Institute mandatory pre-occupancy inspections of septic systems when
properties change hands.

Public education programs aimed at promoting proper operation and
maintenance of septic systems mnight reach targeted audiences through seminars, a
detailed septic system owner's guide, brochures and fliers, public service
announcements, local cable access programmning, traveling exhibits, and speaker
programs. Such programs might contain the following elements:

*    information on why septic systems fail, and how to locate, inspect and
p um p out systemrs.

*    Promotion of water conservation measures to reduce the amount of
wastewater that enters the ground and to extend the life of septic
systemis.
64

*    Cost figures which demonstrate the savings that septic system owners can
realize in the long run through proper operation and maintenance
procedures.

*	A listing of the materials that should not disposed of in septic systems.
*	The required posting of notices at commercial and industrial
establishments dependent on septic systems to alert business owners,
employees and customers of the need to keep certain substances out of
the septic system.

Underqround Storaqe Tanks

Existing Regulations and Initiatives

The 1984 amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
require the regulation of USTs. Under the Federal UST Program, which is
administered by the EPA, states are required to gather data on existing USTs and the
EPA is responsible for developing regulations to implement performance criteria for
new USTs. To meet the federal data gathering mandate, the VWCB administers a
tank notification program which requires the registration of all non-exempt USTs
that were in the ground on or after May 8, 1986. Registration is not required for
certain types of USTs that are exempt from RCRA regulations including heating oil
tanks of less than 5,000 gallons and any farm and residential USTs storing less than
1,110 gallons.

















In conformance with the 1984 RCRA amendments, the Virginia General
Assembly enacted Articles 9 and 10 of the State Water Control Law to (1) establish a
VWCB-administered Virginia UST program that is at least as stringent as the Federal
UST Program, (2) establish financial responsibilities for tank owners, and (3) create
65

the Virginia Petroleum Storage Tank Fund to be used in conjunction with the Federal
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund.

-In 1988, EPA regulations addiressing technical stancdarcds for installation,
upgrade, closure and corrective action became effective. The EPA regulations were
incorporated into the Virginia UST Program with some minor modifications that
increase the stringency of the State regulations. Under the new regulations, all
owners of existing, non-exempt USTs are required to test and protect their tanks,
identify and correct leaks, and clean up spills and releases by 1998. In addition,
newly installed tanks are required to meet design, construction and monitoring
standards that prevent leaks and overflows. These regulations will be implemented
at the local level by permitting programs administered by local building inspectors.
The VWCB conducts random inspections to uncover violations of the Virginia UST
Program.

Alternative Local Strategies

Although the Virginia UST Program exceeds federal regulations and is a vast
improvement over pre-existing UST controls, it does have several deficiencies. One
drawback to the program is that monitoring program compliance is limited to
random inspections by a short-handed VWCB staff. Only a very small percentage of
violations can be uncovered under the present system. Another deficiency of the
program is that heating oil tanks of less than 5,000 gallon capacity and farm and
residential tanks storing less than 11100 gallons are unregulated. it has been
speculated that, of all types of USTs, home heating oil tanks pose the greatest threat
to groundwater.
Several controls that might be implemented by local governments to
supplement State UST regulations are listed below. Applicable siting strategies were
discussed in the Sensitive Area Controls section.

ï¿½ Develop a program through which local staff assist State personnel in
monitoring compliance with the Virginia UST Program.

*    Institute a local program regulating smaller tanks that are exempt from
the Virginia UST Program. Such a program might include many of the
issues addressed in the State program including permitting of
installations, construction standards, testing, upgrades, repairs and
c-losures.

* Prohibit below-ground residential heating oil tanks and establish a
program through which existing tanks are phased out at the end of their
anticipated lifetimes.

* Institute a public education program to inform business owners of the
existence and requirements of the Virginia UST Program.
66

Spills and Improper Disposal of Hazardous Materials
Existing Regulations and Initiatives

Several State and regional agencies work together in the prevention of and
emergency response to spills and improper disposal of hazardous materials.
The Virginia Department of Waste Management (DWM) is responsible for
promulgating regulations governing the transportation of hazardous materials.
These regulations, which are consistent with the federal Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act, designate the manner in which hazardous materials should be
loaded, unloaded, packed, identified,.marked, placarded, stored and transported.

The DWM also regulates the
handling of hazardous wastes through its
Hazardous Waste Management Program.
Under this program, the DWM oversees
several activities including hazardous
waste management facility site
certification and permitting, the RCRA
gocradle-to-grave" hazardous waste
disposal regulations, and accidental spill or
release reporting procedures.   The   -
hazardous waste management facility site
certification process reviews potential off-
site impacts of a proposed facility and
involves extensive local government
involvement, preparation of an
environmental impact statement and a
public hearing process.


The hazardous waste facility
permitting process ensures that facilities
meet operation and design standards
mandated in the 1984 Hazardous and Solid
WCareuesthe Amendment-HW)to-gCRAve
RCAst Amequirens theWA crdeto RCrave
regulation of hazardous waste generation,
transportation, treatment, storage and disposal. Through this system, which is
administered by the DWM in Virginia, all non-exempt hazardous waste must be
accompanied from its point of generation to its ultimate disposal site by a manifest.
All facilities generating more than 100 kilograrns per month of hazardous waste are
subject to the manifest requirement.
67

DWM accidental spill or release repor-ting regulations, required under the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, provide guidelines for the
reporting of all hazardous substance releases exceeding "reportable quantities"
established by the EPIA. These guidelines dictate the types of information that
should be included in an initial notification, and who should be notified for different
types of releases.

Under the Virginia Emergency Services and Disaster Law of 1973, as amended,
the Virginia Department of Emergency Services (VDES) provides guidance, support
and resources to local governments in dealing with all types of disasters, including
both in-transit and on-site hazardous materials spills. In the event of a spill, the
VDES Technological Hazards Branch (THB) can provide information to local
emergency response personnel on product identification, specific chemical data or
incident mitigation. THB personnel, or a multi-agency Hazardous Materials
Emergency Response Team coordinatedi by the VDES, can provide on-scene
assistance by either providing technical guidance or participating in control actions.
Final cleanup is usually handled by contractors or the DWM.

The VWCB Pollution Remediation Program (PReP) was organized to investigate
pollution incidents that impact or have the potential to impact State waters. PReP
maintains a 24-hour hotline to receive reports. When a call is received, PReP
personnel evaluate the report and determine appropriate VWCB response, or notify
another agency if the incident does not fall under VWCB purview. When a
groundwater p-ollution incident is identified, remediation plans are developed by
the responsible party for review by VWCB personnel.

Although not mandated by State or federal regulations, the proper disposal of
household hazardous wastes is addressed by programs administered by the Virginia
Depar-tment of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME), the Southeastern Public Service
Authority (SPSA) and the DWM. The DMME administers a program which provides
used oil collection centers across the state. At the regional level, SPSA has sponsored
and the DWM has provided technical assistance and support to a series of Household
Hazardous Waste Clean-Up Days which have been held at various locations
throughout Southeastern Virginia. Through these events, residents are encouraged
to bring hazardous wastes to a central collection site for identification, packing and
shipment to a permitted hazardous waste management facility. in addition, SPSA
has established a permanent household hazardous waste collection facility at the
SPSA Chesapeake Transfer Station. SPSA has also hired a consultant to investigate
the possibility of implementing a hazardous waste collection program for small
businesses not regulated under RCRA.,--                              - - -  .     'I
68

Alternative Local Strategies
There are several ways in which local governments can supplement and
suppor-t federal, State and regional effor-ts to prevent groundwater contamination
from accidental spills or improper disposal of hazardous materials. As noted above,
only hazardous waste management facilities are subject to State and federal siting
and design regulations. The siting and design of other facilities which use hazardous
substances and/or generate hazardous wastes can be controlled locally by employing
overlay zoning or a special use permitting process. Design requirements that might
be imposed in an overlay zone or as conditions of a special use permit include
enclosure of storage areas and stockpiles; provision of curbs, drains and sumps to
prevent contaminant runoff; and installation of leak detection devices.

Another potential strategy is the adoption of a hazardous materials storage
ordinance. Such an ordinance has been implemented successfully elsewhere in the
country, but would probably require new enabling legislation before it can be
adopted in Southeastern Virginia. This ordinance would require businesses and
industries to obtain a local permit for the storage of all hazardous materials meeting
State and/or federal definitions. The ordinance would establish installation,
containment and monitoring standards that would have to be met by new and
existing facilities before this permit is issued. The ordinance would also require
facility operators to inventory the types and quantities of materials to be used, and
the method in which these materials are to be stored, separated and monitored.
Periodic locai inspections might also be required under this ordi-nance-

Local governments might also implement strategies to control hazardous
waste disposal from generators not regulated under RCRA. These include businesses
which generate less than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste per month as well as
horneowners who cumulatively dispose of large quantities of hazardous materials.
Given the sheer numbers of such waste generators, a local regulatory program which
requires these generators to account for their disposal practices would be
impractical. A more practical approach would be to implement an educational
program through SPSA which disseminates information on proper hazardous waste
management. This program could-

* Describe the potential effects of small amounts of hazardous materials on
groundwater resources.

ï¿½    Instruct businesses and residents in the proper use, handling and disposal
of hazardous materials.

*    Encourage businesses and residents to avoid using illegal dumps and to
report such dumps to the proper authorities.

ï¿½    Inform citizens of the existence of the DMME used oil program and the
SPSA household hazardous waste collection program.
69

0    Encourage individuals and businesses to substitute "safe" products for
commonly used hazardous and toxic substances.

An educational program might also be developed that is aimed at the
regulated community. This program would describe existing regulatory efforts and
encourage non-exempt generators to comply with State and federal regulations.

Surface Waste Impoundments

Existing Regulations and Initiatives

The VWCB regulates the construction and operation of surface impoundments
under either the NPDES or the Virginia Pollution Abatement permit programs.
NPDES permits are required for those surface impoundments which discharge to
state waters. Under the VPA program, which has recently replaced the no discharge
certification program, permits are required for those non-discharging
impoundments which rely on evaporation or store waste for eventual land
application. In conformance with federal regulations promulgated under the 1984
RCRA amendments and in adherence to the State anti-degradation policy, the VWCB
requires that design and performance standards be met for all new surface
impoundments requiring NPDES or VPA permits. These standards address
impoundment size, and location relative to State waters, including groundwater.
Groundwater monitoring may also be required as a permitco,adition.- Under federal
law, liners are required only for those impoundments which store wastes that are
regulated under RCRA. However, the VWCB may require liners for other facilities as
a permit condition. in situations where there is a high potential for groundwater
contamination, the VWCB may also impose stricter design and performance
standards on existing facilities requiring NPDES or VPA permit renewal.

Alternative Local Strategies

The federal and State laws governing surface waste impoundments are
generally effective in preventing groundwater pollution. The most effective
strategies that local governments can implement to supplement State and federal
regulations are sensitive area controls discussed previously. There is, however, at
least one regulatory gap which could be filled by a local source-specific control.
Under current laws, liners, the primary defense against groundwater pollution, are
required only for impoundments containing wastes regulated by RCRA. Materials
exempt under RCRA that are commonly found in impoundments include domestic
sewage; animal wastes; point source industrial wastewater discharges; materials
which are considered primary parts or interim byproducts of manufacturing
processes; and other materials which are always used, reused, recycled or reclaimed
by all companies within an industry. Although the VWCB often requires liners for
impoundments containing such materials as a condition for permitting, localities
may want to reinforce State efforts by requiring that all surface waste
70

impoundments, either throughout the community or in designated sensitive areas
only, be equipped with liners. This could be accomplished through special use
permitting or overlay zoning.

Landf ills

Existing Regulations and Initiatives

As previously mentioned, RCRA requires entities generating significant
quantities of hazardous wastes to manage and track these wastes and to dispose of
them in RCRA-permitted hazardous waste facilities. Due to these regulations, large
quantities of hazardous wastes have been directed away from landfills. However,
there are still significant quantities of hazardous substances found in common
municipal waste which can be leached out of a landfill and cause significant
groundwater contamination. The 1984 amendments to RCRA required the EPA to
provide states with guidelines for permitting new and existing sanitary landfills. In
1989, the DWM adopted the EPA guidelines and promulgated new solid waste
regulations. These regulations promote groundwater protection by regulating
proper siting, design, management and closure of landfills. As result of these
regulations, new landfills must be developed away from areas that are susceptible to
groundwater contamination. Both new and existing landfills must incorporate new
design and operation standards such as double clay or synthetic liners; leachate
collection, treatment and disposal systems; and groundwater monitoring and
corrective action programs. Existing landfills will have u.ntil 1992 to come into
compliance. The regulations also stipulate specific procedures for landfill closure
including a ten year groundwater monitoring program.

Alternative Local Strategies

Using the previously discussed sensitive area controls to ensure proper siting
and bringing municipal landfills into compliance with the new DWM regulations are
the most effective strategies that a local government can pursue to prevent
groundwater contamination from landfill leachate. A local government could also
consider implementing a program to keep private landfill operators informed of
their responsibilities under the new regulations. A locality may also want to
implement an education program aimed at discouraging non-regulated hazardous
waste generators from disposing hazardous waste into the municipal waste stream.
Possible cornponents of such a program are presented in the section on accidental
spills and improper disposal of hazardous materials. Another strategy for keeping
potential contaminants out of landfills is to develop a comprehensive recycling
program. Recyclable materials that may contaminate groundwater if disposed of in
landfills include used oil, solvents, plastics and newsprint.
71

Pesticide and Fertilizer Applications
Existing Regulations and Initiatives

The 1989 Virginia Pesticide Control Act, mandates a number of programs which
will help prevent groundwater contamination by pesticides. Under the Act, the
~Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) ensures that the
regulations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) are
met. These regulations govern the registration, and proper labeling, handling, and
use of pesticides. In conformance with FIFRA, the VDACS administers a cer-tification
program through which commercial and private pesticide applicators demonstrate
their competency in the handling and use of pesticides.

The Pesticide Control Act requires a number of initiatives that go beyond
federal mandates. These include:

*    The establishment of a State Pesticide Control Board which has broad
regulatory powers. This Board has the authority to cancel or deny
registration for a pesticide which causes significant degradation of
groundwater.

*    Creation of a consumer-oriented public education program to encourage
the proper use of pesticides and the use of aiternative, environmentally
safe pest controls.                           41-I.---

*    An annual business license requirement for commercial firms which sell,
distribute, store or apply pesticides. This program would include rec-ord
keeping and reporting requirements to enable the VDACS to monitor the
use purchase, distribution and storage of pesticides.

*	Public notification of pesticide use near structures.

ï¿½	Stricter certification requirements for commercial applic-ators.

*	Stiff penalties for violating the provisions of the Act.

One of the first initiatives undertaken by the Pesticide Control Board has been
a pilot "clean day" project through which private and commercial applicators can
safely dispose of banned or unwanted pesticides at a central location. The pilot
Clean Day is expected to take place in the spring of 1990.

There are no regulations limiting the anmount, type or patterns of fertilizer use.
Manufacturers of fer-tilizers must be licensecd by the VDACS. Under this programn,
manufacturers must register their products with VDACS, report fertilizer sales by
county, and submit to a VDACS sampling program. The principal objective of this
program, however, is consumer, not environmental protection.
72

As mnentioned previously, VCES has included a groundwater protection
education program in its agriculture and natural resources educational unit.
Fertilizer and pesticide management are important components of this program.

Alternative Local Strategies

The options available to local governments to prevent groundwater
contamination from fertilizer and pesticides use are lirnited. Local regulation is, for
the most part, pre-empted by State and federal programs. Also, due to the diffuse
nature of fertilizer and pesticide use and the limited resources of local governmet,
it would be extremely difficult for localities to detect, characterize and resolve
potential or existing groundwater contamination problems. Therefore, the most
effective way for a locality to address groundwater contamination from pesticides
and fertilizers is through a preventive public education program. Such a program
should be conducted in conjunction with the existing VCES program and should have
separate components for three distinct target audiences: farmers, landscape
maintenance businesses, and homeowners. Issues that should be addressed in the
design of groundwater education programs for each of the targeted groups are
discussed below.

Any education program aimed at recducing the threat of pesticide
contamination of groundwater from farming activities should emphasize Integrated
Pest Management (IPM). IPM is the use of various environmentally safe biological
and cultural controls combined with improved timing and placement of traditional
chemical pesticides to reduce overall pesticide use. The three principles of the IPM
approach are preventive practices, remedial practices, and the economic threshold.
Preventive practices make crops less attractive to, more resistant to, and more
competitive with pests. Such practices include crop rotation, timely planting and
harvesting, and the use of pest-resistent varieties of plants. Remedial practices
include the limited use of traditional chemical controls and the use of "natural"
biological controls. Biological control practices use organisms (predators, parasitoids
or pathogens) which feed upon or infect insect pests. The third principle of IPM is
the economic threshold (ET). The ET is the point at which pest population levels
indicate that the additional cost and additional benefit of pesticide application are
equal. Only when the economic threshold is approached would pesticide use be
considered. At population levels below the economic threshold, application would
be a waste of money, time and pesticide.
Besides IPM, an education program to prevent groundwater contamination
from the agricultural use of pesticides should stress the following:

* Wherever appropriate, less leachable pesticides should be substituted for
those substances on the EPA's list of leachable pesticides.
73

* Whenever possible, contact pesticides that do not have to be
incorporated into the soil should be used.

* Recommended application rates should not be exceeded.

* Pesticide application equipment should be calibrated to ensure that
pesticides are applied at intended rates.
* The application rate should be uniform over an entire field. Overlapping
should be avoided.
A groundwater protection education program designed for the farming
community should address the following points regarding fer-tilizer application:
*    Where appropriate, regular fertilizers should be replaced with slow-
release formulations. A slow-release fertilizer geared to a plant's uptake
rate can reduce the amount of fer-tilizer needed.

0    Nitrogen applications can be reduced by determining the residual soil
nitrates in the crop and rooting zone.

* Nitrate leaching can be reduced by splitting the required amount of
fertilizer between two applications and ensuring that applications are
made during periods of greatest crop uptake.

* Crop rotation with nitrogen producing legumes can reduce the need for
fertilizer.

An education program aimed at reducing the threat of groundwater
contamination from fertilizer and pesticide use by homeowners should emphasize
the following points:

*    Product label instructions pertaining to appropriate use, mixing,
application rate, storage, and disposal should be followed carefully.

*    When purchasing pesticides and fertilizers, careful consideration should
be given to the quantities actually needed. Buying excessive quantities
often leads to over- application or improper disposal.

* Local disposal laws should be checked before a pesticide is disposed of in
a landfill or trash receptacle. Disposal of excess pesticides at a SPSA
hazardous waste collection center should be encouraged.

* Homeowners should test their soils to determine the proper type and
quantity of fertilizer needed.
74

* Soil amendments such as compost, manure or mulch can reduce the need
for fertilizers by adding nutrients and increasing the soil's nutrient
holding capacity.
*    Alternatives to pesticides should be encouraged. These include a number
of biological and cultural controls similar to those used in IPM.

*    When mixing p roducts with a garden hose used with a well pump, care
should be taken to avoid back-siphoning into the water supply. Also,
excess pesticides or fertilizers should never be dumped into an
abandoned well.
BACK-SIPHONING PI
'RE VENTIO N



)   0
notfl-]is
..  (chem-icals
siphoned back
into Water supply)

(backf ow
prevention)











Source: Virginia Cooperative Extension Service, 1.988
Saltwater Encroachment

Existing Regulation and Initiatives

The intrusion or upconing of saltwater into the Columbia and Yorktown-
Eastover aquifers is usually attributed to declining groundwater levels caused by
either a localized proliferation of wells tapping these aquifers or the dewatering of
borrow pits. VWCB policy specifies that "total withdrawals from coastal zone
aquifers should be limited to such quantity as to prevent the intrusion of salinity
beyond the limit determined acceptable for the beneficial uses of the aquifer."51
Despite this policy directive, there are no specific State, or federal, regulations which
address the saltwater encroachment problem. The Virginia Groundwater Act
authorizes the VWCB to govern groundwater use in designated Groundwater
Management Areas by requiring permits for withdrawals in excess of 300,000
75

gallons per month. Such withdrawals, however, are generally from the deeper
confined aquifers and do not contribute directly to saltwater encroachment into the
shallow aquifers.

Alternative Local Strategies

Given the lack of federal and State regulations, the only practical means of
addressing this problem is the development of local management strategies aimed
at limiting withdrawals in areas prone to saltwater encroachment. There are a
number of technically feasible engineering solutions to preventing saltwater
encroachment, but most of these techniques would be too costly for widespread
application in Southeastern Virginia localities. For more information on these
techniques, the reader is referred to the VWCB Best Manaclement Handbook:
Sources Affectinci Groundwater.

Under existing State enabling legislation, local cities and counties do not have
the power to restrict groundwater usage. Therefore, the most effective strategy to
prevent saltwater encroachment would be an educational program which
encourages householcds and businesses depende-nt on groundwater to follow water
conservation practices. Other strategies might include a reinjection ordinance which
regulates geothermal heat pump reinjection; a program to extend public water lines
into areas with current or potential saltwater encroachmnent problems; and, as
previously discussed, various land use controls which maintain natural recharge rates
by minimizing impervious surfaces and/or which guide the siting of borrow pits.

The following points should be ermphasized in an education program to
encourage groundwater conservation in areas with existing or potential saltwater
encroachment problems:

* Household water consumption can be significantly lowered by altering
water use behavior. For instance, faucets can be turned off while
brushing teeth, shampooing, bathing, washing dishes, and so for-th.

*    Many plumbing fixtures can be retrofitted or replaced to improve water
use effilciency.

*    In landscaping, drought-resistant species of plants can reduce the need
for yard watering. This approach to landscaping is known as xeriscaping.

* In watering lawns and gardens, drip irrigation is preferred over spray
irrigation because it uses less water.
76

In order to ensure that geothermal heat pumps do not deplete groundwater
supplies and encourage saltwater encroachment, a locality might develop an
ordinance requiring that any heat pump, not already covered by a NPDES permit,
discharge to the aquifer from which it withdrew. It may also be required that no
pollutants, such as biocides or other treatment chemicals, be added to the water
before it is reinjected. Virginia Beach has adopted such an ordinance.
In areas currently or potentially affected by saltwater encroachment, a locality
may find it necessary to replace groundwater supplies with a public water system. If
not a scheduled component of a capital improvements program, this may impose a
severe financial burden on a locality. In areas where large quantities of
groundwater are being used in lieu of public water, replacing groundwater supplies
could also put a strain on public water resources. For instance, in Virginia Beach,
public water demand projections and the scope of the Lake Gaston Project are based
on the assumption that there will be continued dependence on groundwater in
many parts of the city. If significant contamination from saltwater encroachment
occurs and the City is forced to expand its public water system move rapidly than
planned, existing and f uture water resources may be insufficient to meet demand.
In addition to the above strategies, local governments should work with the
VWCB to intensify existing monitoring programs to identify and measure saltwater
intrusion. This effort might be supplemented by encouraging homeowners to have
their wells privately tested for a number of contaminants, including saltwater.
77

MODEL GROUNDWATER PROTECTION REGULATIONS
Despite the numerous State and federal initiatives which promote
groundwater protection, local government has the greatest potential to affect
groundwater quality. This is because localities, using their delegated police powers,
are uniquely suited to address local land use activities as they relate to local
groundwater conditions. This Handbook has emphasized the importance of
designing a local groundwater protection program which is guided by a
groundwater protection plan. This plan should contain locally appropriate goals,
objectives and management strategies derived from a thorough assessment of local
groundwater protection needs. Once a groundwater protection plan has been
adopted, local groundwater protection regulations are needed to accomplish plan
implementation.
The purpose of this chapter is to present outlines for regulations that might be
used to implement a locally adopted groundwater protection plan. Outlines are
presentedl for new septic system management and hazardous material ordinances,
and for regulations that might be incorporated into existing zoning, subdivision,
erosion and sediment control, site plan review and stormwater management
ordinances. Due to the diversity of potential contamination sources within a
community, and because contamination threats and protection needs can differ
significantly among communities, it was deerned impractical to develop a single,
comprehensive model groundwater protection ordinance.

These outlines only present issues that should be considered in drafting
regulations and do not recommend numerical operation and design standards. Such
standards can only be developed through detailed assessment of local concditions
and could exceed minimum State stanclards where necessary. Even though decisions
on what types of regulations to adopt will ultimately be guided by local plans, the
model regulations should be widely applicable because they address groundwater
contamination problems found throughout much of Southeastern Virginia. The
model regulations presented in this Handbook are meant to provide guidance only.
Use of any of these regulations will require adapting the language and developing
appropriate numerical design and operation standards to meet local needs. In
addition, the specific content and language of local regulations should be reviewed
by the city/county legal department to ensure consistency with local laws and State
enabling legislation.
MODEL SEPTIC SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
The following outline is for a septic system management ordinance that would
build upon existing VDH regulations. A septic system management ordinance could
be implemented either jurisdiction-wide or in designated on-site sewage
management districts. Numerical siting, design and operating standards are
unspeci'fied, but should be adapted to local conditions and exceed State standards
78

where necessary. It is important to note that some of the provisions of this model
ordinance are currently under review by the VDH.

Sec. 1.   Definition of Septic Systerm. Would probably include conventional septic
systems with septic tanks and gravity fed drainfields, and pump systems
with a septic tank, pump station and drainfield.

Sec. 2.    Minimum Lot Size. Establish minimum lot area and minimum lot width at
building iine for any lot utilizing a septic system.
Sec. 3.    Prohibition of Commercial and Industrial Septic Svstems. A commercial
and industrial facility would be prohibited from using a septic system
unless it meets certain design and operation criteria. These criteria might
include the following:
(a)	Facility water use must be kept below a specified daily limit.
(b)	The septic system must be used for sanitary and food service waste
disposal only.
(c)  The facility must not utilize or produce any of the substances listed in
section 6 of this ordinance.

Sec. 4.    Site Restrictions. The following site restrictions could apply to any septic
system requiring an on-site wastewater disposal system:

(a)  Ali septic systems must be separated from the water table by a specified
minimum distance to ensure that systems remain well above seasonally
high water table levels. [Note: the VDH iscurrently re-evaluating existing
State water table sepa'ration req uirements].
(b)  Septic systems are prohibited in soil horizons having an estimated or
measured percolation rate in excess of a specified amount. A minimum
standoff distance for trench bottoms above any soil layer having an
unsatisfactory percolation rate should also be specified.
(c)  Septic systems are prohibited in specified soils that are poorly drained;
somewhat poorly drained; subject to flooding; have high shrink/swell
characteristics (unless certain pre-soaking percolation tests are
conducted); or are well drained, but have slow permeability.
(d)	Septic systems are prohibited in upland drainage ways.
(e)	Septic systems are prohibited where free standing water is present in a
profile hole.
Sec. 5.    Sitina~ and Construction of Septic Systems. The following standards might
be used to govern the siting and construction of any septic system for
which a VDH on-site wastewater disposai permit is required:
(a)  All septic systems must have a 100 percent reserve drainfield capacity.
[Note:This is already required for Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas].
79

This reserve drainfield must be able to accommodate a system that meets
the site restrictions contained in Section 4.
(b) All septic systems must be separated frorn tidal waters, free-flowing
streams, and impounded water by a specified minimum distance.
(c) All lots must be graded or engineered in such a manner that prevents
surface runoff from flowing towards aseptic field.
(d) Explosive or pneumatic hammers will not be permitted for the excavation
of drainfields or septic tanks.
(e) No storm drain connections to a septic system are permitted.
(f) No irrigation system should be installed within a specified distance from
the septic system.
(g) All residential septic systems must be designed to accommodate the
disposal of waste from a garbage disposal unit. Disposal units shall be
connected to a septic system by a separate septic tank instailed between
the unit and the primary septic tank. The disposal unit tank must be
pumped out at specified intervals.
(h) All septic systems must have sufficient vehicle access and access to the
septic tank cover for maintenance purposes.
(i) No portion of a septic system should be located on another lot or parcel
unless an easement is recorded.
(j) Any person who constructs a septic system must have a Class B contractors
license and be approved by the local health department.
(k) Any construction of a septic system will be preceded by the filing of an as-
built drawing of the system with the local health department. This
drawing would show 1) the size, orientation and location of each
component of the system, and 2) the distances from the system to all
structures on the property and to all proper-ty lines.

Sec. 6.    Prohibited Materials in Septic Systems.  Disposal of the following
materials might be prohibited in all septic systems: hazardous materials as
defined by the National Fire Prevention Code; petroleum products;
pesticides; embalming fluids; photography developing fluids; medical
wastes; septic tank cleaning compounds; drain cleaners; disposable
diapers and coffee grounds.

Sec. 7.    Maintenance and Repair of Septic Systems. Septic system owners should
have the following mnaintenance and repair responsibilities:

(a) Every septic system must be kept in good repair so that the system
functions as intended.
(b) Septic systems mnust be pumped and maintained at specified intervals.
[Note: CBPA regulations require that septic tanks within Preservation
Areas be pumped out every five years]. Immediately upon having a septic
system purnped and maintained, the owner of the system must certify in a
form approved by the local health department that such pumping and
maintenance was performed. Another option is for a locality to
80

implement an on-site inspection program which ensures that owners
properly maintain their systems and undertake any necessary corrective
actions.

Sec. 8.    Enforcement. Enforcement measures should be strong enough to ensure
compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. Authority should be
granted to the locality to correct any violations that are not corrected by
the septic system owner within aspecified time- The septic system owner
would then be responsible for reimbursing the locality for the cost of
correcting the violation and for any administrative expenses.

MODEL HAZARDOUS MATERIAL STORAGE ORDINANCE

A number of State and federal regulations govern the storage, treatment and
disposal of hazardous wastes. The storage and use of hazardous materials prior to
their ultimate clisposal as waste is virtually unregulated, however. Such substances
can contaminate groundwater and surface water through the infiltration of
material spills or by runoff from storage and production areas. The following
ordinance, which is an adaptation of a model ordinance prepared by the
Conservation Law Foundation of New England, might be implemented by a locality
to prevent such occurrences. This ordinance would also be useful in implementing a
stormwater management program. It could also be used to meet and supplement
the emergency planning and community right to know requirements of SARA Title
III.

Sec. 1.    Definitions.

(a) "Hazardous Material" means any substance or mixture of substances
having physical, chemical or infectious characteristics which pose
significant actual or potential threats to the environment or to human
health if discharged. "Hazarcdous materials" inclucle, without limitation,
organic chemicals, petroleum products, heavy metals, radioactive or
infectious wastes, acids or alkalies, pesticides, herbicides, solvents and
thinners.
(b) "Discharge" means the accidental or intentional spilling, leaking,
pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, or dumping of hazardous
mnaterials upon or into any lands or waters.

Sec. 2.    Prohibitions.

(a) The discharge of hazardous materials is prohibited.
(b) Outdoor storage of hazardous materials is prohibited, except in prod uct-
tight containers which are protected from the elements, leakage,
acci'dental damage and vandalism, and which are stored in accordance
with the provisions of Section 3.
81

Sec. 3.    Storacie Controls, Reciistration, and inventory.
(a) Every owner or operator of a site at which hazardous materials are stored
in quantities totaling more than a specified number of liquid gallons or a
specified number of pounds dry weight shall register with the local health
or fire department the types, quantities, location and method storage of
these materials. The health or fire department may require that an
inventory of such materials be maintained on the premises and be
reconciled with purchase, use, sales, and disposal records on a monthly
basis to detect any product loss.
(b) The health or fire department may require that containers of hazardous
materials be stored on impervious, chemical resistant surfaces that are
compatible with the materials being stored, and that design best
management practices be used to ensure product containment. These
practices might include enclosing storage areas, and providing berms,
curbs and specialized drains and sumps to prevent release of
contaminants.

Sec. 4.    Reportinci of Discharcie. Any person having knowledge of a discharge of
hazardous material believed to be in excess of a specified amount must
immediately report the discharge to the health or fire departments, or
other public safety agency.

Sec. 5.    Enforcement

(a) The health or fire department and its agents may enter upon privately
owned property to inspect for compliance with this ordinance.
(b) Upon request of an agent of the health or fire department, the owner or
operator of any site using or storing hazardous materials must furnish all
information required to enforce and monitor compliance with this
ordinance.
(c) Certification of conformance with the requirements of this ordinance
shall be required prior to issuance of construction and occupancy permits
for any nonresidential use.
(d)  Any person who violates any pro vision of this ordinance shall be punished
by a specified fine. Each day or por-tion thereof during which a violation
continues constitutes a separate offense.
Sec. 6.    Fees. Any person registering storage of hazardous materials pursuant to
Section 4 shall pay an annual registration fee based on the number of
gallons or pounds of hazardous materials stored.

AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING ZONING ORDINANCE

The following sensitive area overlay zone provisions might be incorporated
into an existing zoning ordinance. These provisions were adapted from the Spokane
82

County, Washington Aquifer Sensitive Area Overlay Zone Ordinance. These
provisions would also be used to help implement a stormwater management
program and torneet or supplement SARA TitleIl requirements.

Sec. 1.    Intent. The intent of this sensitive area overlay zone is to provide
supplemental development regulation in the designated sensitive area to
protect groundwater resources from additional long-term contamination
originating from man's activities. These provisions could apply to any
person, firm, or corporation within a sensitive area that proposes to
establish a new or different land use or activity.

Sec. 2.    Objectives.

(a) To allow use, handling or storage of hazardous materials and to assure
adequate protection of groundwater;
(b) To establish strict performance standards for use, handling or storage
facilities associated with hazardous materials so as to prevent their
introduction into the groundwater supply;
Cc) To establish land use intensity limitations, particularly sanitary sewers;
(d) To prohibit the disposal of hazardous materials within designated
sensitive areas;
(e) To aler-t landowners, potential buyers, appraisers and lessees of the legal
restrictions associated with certain land use activities in the overlay zone.

Sec. 3    Administrative Guide for Implementation of the Sensitive Area Zone.

(a) A Hazardous Materials Handbook would be essential to the
implementation of these provisions. This handbook would describe
suggested mnanagement and design solutions to achieve the performance
standards contained in Section 5.
(b) A Hazardous Materials List would be developed and used in the initial
screening of applications in order to anticipate the types and quantities
of chemicals associated with various activities. This list would include the
names, amounts and storage techniques commonly associated with
chemicals used in various activities.

Sec. 4.    Application of Sensitive Area Overlay Zone Standards. This section would
describe:

(a) The responsibilities of different city/county agencies in implementing
these provisions.
(b) The process that would be used to determine whether hazardous
materials would be used in a new land use or activity.
(c) Procedures for assuring compliance with these provisions.
83

Sec. 5.    Standards for Business, Commercial, and Industrial Uses within Sensitive
Are as.

.(a)  In areas not served by public sanitary sewers, all business, commercial and
industrial developments regardless of hazardous materials usage whose
wastewater disposal needs exceed those of an average single dwelling
unit must be served by wastewater disposal systems that provide sensitive
area protection equal to or greater than that listed below:

(i	Collection or treatment using sealed lagoons;
(ii)	Collection and treatment utilizing holding tanks, and
transportldisposal at a site licensed for the particular
effluent;
(iii) Collection, treatment and disposal using an appropriate
discharge permit;
(iv)  Approved connection to an existing public or private
collection/treatment facility.

(b)  In areas served by public sanitary sewers all uses listed in (a) that do not
use hazardous materials shall be connected to the central sewer system.
(c)  in areas served by public sanitary sewers all uses listed in (a) that use
hazardous materials must be connected to a central sewer system or be
subject to the provisions of Section 5(a)(i) through (iii).
(d)  All business, commercial and industrial activities and land uses using
hazardous materials must meet the following conditions:

(i)  Facilities will be designed so that any spilled or leaked
materials are contained on-site;
(i i)  Facilities will be designed so that any spilled or leaked
materials cannot infiltrate the ground;
(iii) No permanent disposal of any waste containing hazardous
materials will be allowed on-site.

(e)  All activities or land uses using hazardous materials must have specially
designed stormwater runoff drainage facilities in areas where spills might
occur which are designed to:

(i)  Prevent the co-mingling of stormnwater runoff and hazardous
material spills;
(i i)  Enhance spill cleanup procedures; and
(iii) Be consistent with the standards in Section 5(a)(i) through
(iv).
84

Sec. 6.    Standards and Conditions for Residential Development in Sensitive Areas.
(a)  in areas not served by a public sanitary sewer system residential
development shall occur at no less than a specified number of acres per
dwelling unit unless the development is served by a sewage disposal
system that provides sensitive area protection equal to or greater than
that listed in Section 5(a)(i) through (iv).

Sec. 7.    Solid Waste and Septic Tank Sludqe Disposal within the Sensitive Area.
No new sanitary landfill or septic tank sludge disposal sites shall be
allowed within the sensitive area. Surface or subsurface disposal of
hazardous materials is specifically prohibited in the sensitive area overlay
zone.
Sec. 8.    Penalty. This section would describe the fines or prison terms resulting
from non-compliance with these provisions.

AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE

The following provisions might be included in an existing subdivision
ordinance to address groundwater protection issues.
Sec. 1. ..Intent. To ensure that consideration is given to groundwater quality and
quantity during the subdivision process.
Sec. 2.	Subdivision Plan Submission Reqiuirements.

(a)	Existing and proposed system of drainage systems.
(b)	Zoning classification of all land including any sensitive area overlay zones.
(c)	Soil data from existing surveys and/or from test pits or borings.
(d)	Maximum and minimum water table elevation and direction of
groundwater flow.
Sec. 3.    Groundwater Impact Analysis.  See Section 2 of the suggested
amendments to a site plan review ordinance.

Sec. 4.	Desiqn Standards.

(a)	Subdivision design shall reduce, to the extent possible, the dimensions of
impervious areas, including streets.
(b)  Subdivision design shall maintain, to the extent possible, pre-
development runoff and vegetative cover conditions. in designated
sensitive areas, peak stream flows and runoff at the boundaries of the
development must be no higher than pre-development levels during a
specified design year storm event. In other areas, peak stream flows and
85

runoff should be no mnore than a specified percentage higher during the
same stormn event.

(b)  Leak-tight designs shall be used in sanitary sewer construction to prevent
groundwater contamnination.
(d)  The City/County may require the subdivision plan to leave designated
sensitive areas in open space for future acquisition by the City/County.

AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ORDINANCE

The following revisions might be made to an existing erosion and sediment
control plan.

Sec. 1.    Intent. To ensure that a land disturbing activity does not contaminate
local groundwater.

Sec. 2.    Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.  In addition to other types of
information required, a plan for erosion and sediment control plan might
include the following:

(a)  A description of site-specific hydrogeology including depth to seasonally
high and low water table; composition of the soil and unsaturated zone;
and groundwater flow characteristics.
(b)  All proposed construction practices that may affect groundwater quality
or levels shall be identified, and proposed mitigation strategies shall be
described. Such practices might include, but are not limited to:

(i)  Excavation below the seasonally high water table;
(ii1) Disturbance of hazardous wastes left from previous
development;
(Ili) Use of herbicides and pesticides during clearing and
grubbing;
(iv) The stockpiling and use of hazardous materials that may
contaminate groundwater.

(c)  All proposed erosion and sediment control best management practices
that mnay affect groundwater quality or levels shall be identified, and
mitigation strategies shall be described.

AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING SITE PLAN REVIEW ORDINANCE

The following requirements might be incorporated into a site plan review
ordinance to protect designated sensitive areas. These provisions were adapted
from the West Whitehead Township, Pennsylvania Carbonate Area District
Ordinance.
86

Sec. 1.   Intent. To protect a designated groundwater sensitive area from land use
ancd development patterns that would threaten the quantity and quality
of groundwater.

Sec. 2.    Groundwater Impact Analvsis. Prior to any change in land use within a
designated sensitive area, a developer would submit a groundwater
impact analysis which includes the iternslisted below. [Note: This analysis
may also be incorporated into a subdiivision ordinance. Also in
developing local regulations for Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas,
consideration should be given to incorporating this analysis into the
existing water quality impact assessmnent requirements].

(a)  A map no less detailed  than 1 " = 100"  (or scale normally requiredi)
indicating the location of the proper-ty and all proposed improvements
thereon.
(b)  A cdescription of the proposed action including: types, locations, and
phasing of proposed site disturbances ancl construction, and proposed
future ownership and maintenance of the property.
(c)  For developments with proposed grading, construction of buildings and
other improvements, the submission of site-specific information
describing geology, topography, groundwater and surface water
hydrology, soil types, vegetative cover and existing improvements and
uses.
(dl) A map indicating existing drainage, a description and map of proposed
stormwater management improvements, and a post-development water
budget analysis.
Ce)  A map showing the existence of existing private and public wells on
adjoining properties, and the on-site location and extent of any of the
following, if existing or proposed:

(i)  Underground storage tanks;
(ii) Fill containing any material that would represent a potential
contamination hazard to groundwater and surface water;
(iii) Facilities for storing, handling, processing or disposing of
hazardous materials;
(iv) Land grading or construction activities that would directly or
indirectly affect natural groundwater flow.

(f)  A description of all proposed measures to control all adverse
groundwater quality impacts that may occur as a result of the proposed
action.
87

AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
The following sections might be added to an existing stormwater management
ordinance. These provisions were partially adapted from the Virginia Beach
Stormwater Management Ordinance.

Sec. 1.   Intent. To maintain or restore the groundwater quantity by preserving
natural groundwater flow hydraulics of an area, and to maintain
groundwater quality by ensuring that stormwater management practices
do not pollute groundwater.
Sec. 2.    Stormwater Manacernent Plan. In addition to other types of information
needed to assess stormwater impacts, a stormwater management plan
might require the following relating to groundwater:

(a)  Pre-development conditions including:

(i)  the location of areas on the site where stormwater collects or
percolates into the ground;
(i i)  Groundwater levels including seasonal fluctuations;
(iii) topography and soils.

(b)  Proposed alterations including:

(i)	c-hanges in topography;
(i i)	areas that will be covered with impervious surface and a
description of the surfacing material.

(c)  Predicted impacts of the proposed development including:

(i)	changes in groundwater quality;
(i i)	changes in groundwater levels;

(d)  Proposed stormwater managemnent devices including:

(i)  areas of a site to be used or reserved for percolation.

Sec. 3.	Performance Standards.

(a)	Stormwater management systems shall be designed to protect natural
groundwater quality and groundwater levels.
(a)  All developments mnust be designecl to preserve present natural drainage
patterns and local groundwater recharge conditions. This requires that
all drainage systems be designed to recharge to groundwater as closely as
possible to the point where stormwater falls.
88

(b)  Development intensities and associated local area drainage design in
designated sensitive areas shall be capable of complete local recharge of
a specified design year storm.

Sec. 4.	Desicin Standards.

(a)	Stormwater infiltration devices shall be built above the seasonally high
water table;
(b)  Where necessary, stormwater detention facilities shall be constructed
with clay liners to prevent the infiltration of polluted stormwater runoff
into the water table.

IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS

In evaluating the feasibility of the model groundwater protection regulations
presented in this chapter, careful consideration must be given to whether local
capability exists for successful implementation. The studies necessary to adapt the
suggested regulations to local conditions, and the review, monitoring, inspection
and enforcement provisions contained in the regulations will undoubtedly require
significant increases in funding for staffing, training and equipment. At present,
there is little State or fecderal financial assistance available for locai groundwater
protection activities. It is therefore essential that programs be designed to make the
most of available resources.

To avoid cduplication of effort and to make the most efficient use of limited
resources, localities should, wherever possible, coordinate groundwater protection
activities with other management programs. For example, groundwater protec-tion
regulations which address hazardous material management would also be of
benefit in achieving stormwater management and SARA Title III objectives. Another
opportunity for program coordination lies in the local implementation of the
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act regulations. Locai CBPA programs might be
expanded to include the designation of groundwater sensitive areas and the
implementation of groundwater protection strategies.

To ensure effective planning and implementation of a local groundwater
protection program, all entities with groundwater use and/or protection concerns
should be involved. These entities might include all local, State and federai agencies
with groundwater management responsibilities; private industry; environmental
groups; and homeowners dependent on private wells and/or septic systems. One
way of ensuring involvement from these groups would be the creation of a
groundwater protection council or task force. This group might coordinate planning
efforts, serve as a vehicle for public participation, guide policy making, review
development projects that may impact groundwater, monitor State and federal
regulatory activities relating to groundwater management, and communicate
ongoing work to their constituencies.
89

CONCLUSION
Despite the long-recognized importance of a dependable groundwater supply
to Southeastern Virginia's economy and quality of life, existing and potential
contamination threats to this resource have only recently become a matter of
concern. It has long been assumed that, due to its physical location, groundwater
was generally protected from pollution and that any pollutants introduced on or
into the ground would be attenuated by natural processes. Although this
assumption is valid under certain circumstances, research and documented
contamination incidents have demonstrated that grounclwater can be extremely
susceptible to pollution and that such contamination incidents can have disastrous
consequences for a community.

To date, Southeastern Virginia has been fortunate enough to avoid
widespread contamination of its groundwater supply. The overall quality of the
resource is good. However, a number of localized contamination incidents from a
variety of sources have been documented and the number of reported groundwater
contamination incidents has been increasing rapidly. Moreover, due to the
difficulties in detecting and assessing contamination, it is generally assumed that a
significant number of incidents have gone undiscovered. Given the region's pace of
development and the the proliferation of potential groundwater contamination
sources, it is imperative that local governments become more involved in protecting
local groundwater resources.
The intent of this Handbook is to help localities use the powers available to them to
develop programs which will anticipate and prevent groundwater contamination. It
is essential that local governments implement protection programs now while
overall quality of local groundwater resources is still good. Efforts to clean up
contaminatedi groundwater can be extremely expensive, or perhaps impossible. By
ignoring groundwater protection, Southeastern Virginia localities may someday be
faced with contamination problems that pose health threats to their citizens and
present obstacles to economic development. Effective local groundwater protection
program implemented in concert with State and federal management programs will
ensure that Southeastern Virginia's groundwater supply will remain a safe,
renewable resource that will serve the region indefinitely.
90

ENDNOTES

1.   Virginia Water Resources Research Center, Protectinq Virqinia's Groundwater:
A Handbook for Local Government Officials, (Blacksburg, Virginia: VWRRC,
1986), p. 3.

2.    Virginia State Water Control Board, Virqinia Water Quality Assessment,
Information Bulletin 574, (Richmond, Virginia: VWCB, 1988), p. 3-3.

3.   Jaffe, Martin and Frank Dinovo, Local Groundwater Protection, (Washington,
D.C.: American Planning Association, 1987), pp. 25-26.

4.    U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Protectinci the Nation's
Groundwater from Contamination, Volume I, (Washington, D.C.: OTA, 1984),
p.5.

5.    Geraghty and Miller, Inc., Availability of Ground Water In the Southeastern
Virqinia Groundwater Manaqement Area, (Annapolis, Maryland: Geraghty
and Miller, Inc., 1979), p. 9.

6.	lbid, p. A-5.

7.	lbid, p. A-11.

8.	Virginia State Water Control Board, Groundwater Resources of the Four Cities
Area, Virqinia, (Richmond, Virginia: VWCB, 1981), p. 30.

9     Personal Communication with Mike Focazio, USGS, Richmond, September 1,
1989.

10.  U.S. Geological Survey, Evaluation of Municipal Withdrawals from the
Confined Aquifers of Southeastern Virqinia, (Richmond: Virginia, USGS 1988),
p. 5.

11.  Virginia State Water Control Board, Tidewater Region, Water Withdrawals
Report for 1984-1985, (Virginia Beach, Virginia: VWCB, 1986).

12.   U.S. Geological Survey, A Predictive Computer Model of the Lower Cretaceous
Aquifer, Franklin Area, Southeastern Virqinia, (Richmond, Virginia: USGS,
1975), p. 16.

13.   U.S. Geological Survey, Groundwater Withdrawals from the Confined
Aquifers in the Coastal Plain of Virqinia, 1891-1983, (Richmond, Virginia:
USGS, 1987) p. 26.

14.   U.S. Geological Survey, Hydroqeoloqy and Analysis of the Ground-Water Flow
System in the Coatal Plain of Southeastern Virqinia, (Richmond, Virginia:
USGS, 1987).
92

15.   VWCB, Groundwater Resources for the Four Cities Area, p. 83.
16.   City of Virginia Beach, Status Report: Shallow Groundwater Conditions in the
Great Neck and Little Neck Peninsulas, (Virginia Beach, Virginia: The City,
1986), p. 13.

17.   Davis, Marc, "Summer Parches Beach:  Wells Lacking Groundwater"in The
Virqinian-Pilot Ledqer-Star, June 8, 1986.

18.  Virginia Water Resources Research Center, Threats to Virciinia's Groundwater,
(Blacksburg, Virginia: VWRRC, Virginia Polytechnic and State University,
1988), p. 31.

19.   Virginia Groundwater Protection Steering Committee, A Groundwater
Protection Strateqv for Virqinia, (Richmond, Virginia: Virginia
State Water
Control Board, 1987), p. 3.

20.   State agencies represented on the GWPSC include the Water Control
Board,
the Department of Health, the Department of Waste Management, the
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Council on the
Environment, the Department of Housing and Community Development, the
Division of Mined Land Reclamation, the Division of Mineral
Resources, the
Division of Soil and Water Conservation, and the Agricultural
Extension
Service.

21.   Virginia Groundwater Protection Steering Committee, 1988 and 1989 annual
reports.

22.   VWRRC, Protectinq Virqinia's Groundwater:  A Handbook for Local
Government Officials, p. 7.

23.   North Carolina-Virginia Groundwater Subcommittee, Groundwater
Manaciement in Southeastern Virqinia and North Carolina, 1975.

24.   Virginia Water Project, Inc., Water for Tomorrow: A Report on Water and
Wastewater Needs in Virqinia, (Roanoke, Virginia: Gurtner Publishing
Company, 1988).

25.	lbid, p. 15.

26.	Conservation with Thomas Leahy, Virginia Beach Public Utilities Department,
September 13, 1989.

27.   VWRRC, Threats to Virqinia's Groundwater, p. 18.
93

28.   Shadden, Janet, "Gas Stations Feel Brunt of New Environmental Laws" in The
Vircinian-Pilot, December 18, 1989.

29.   Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission, Clark County Ground Water
Protection Plan, (Front Royal, Virginia: LFPDC, 1987), p.14.

30.	Conservation with Dave Borton, Staff Geologist, VWCB, October 11, 1989.

31.	Ibid.

32.	VWRRC, Threats to Virciinia's Groundwater, p. 18.

33.	These Superfund sites include the Atlantic Wood Industries, Inc. and Abex
Corporation sites in Portsmouth, and the Saunders Supply Company site in
Suffolk.

34.   NUS Corporation, Field Investiciations Team Activities at Uncontrolled
Hazardous Substances Facilities - Zone I, (Wayne, Pennsylvania: NUS
Corporation, 1989).

35.	Southeastern Public Service Authority, 1989.

36.	Washington State Department of Ecology, Focusinci on Recyclinq, Vol. 2, No.
4,1984, p. 1.

37.	GWPSC, A Groundwater Protection Strateclv for Virclinia, pp. 28-29.

38.	Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs, Virclinia 1987-
1988; Fertilizer and Lime Used and Results of Inspection, (Richmond, Virginia:
VDACS, 1988).

39.   Halstead, John M. et al, Lawn and Garden Chemicals and the Potential for
Groundwater Contamination, undated, p. 1.

40.   Roy Mann Associates, Inc., A Manaciement Plan for Back Bay, Volume 2:
Water Quality, (Boston, Massachusetts: Roy Mann Associates, Inc., 1984), p. 2-
4.

41.   Phillips, Joseph V., "City's Well Water Makes the Grade" in the Chesapeake
Clipper, November 10, 1985.

42.   According to the Council on Agriculture Science and Technology (1985), the
national breakdown of pesticide use by type of user is commercial agriculture
(68%) industry (17%), government (7%) and homeowner (8%). When
pesticides alone are considered, homeowners account for 15% of total usage.
94

43.   Thomas Leahy, September 13, 1989.
44.   Virginia Beach Health Department, Groundwater Quality Study: Northern
Great Neck Peninsula, (Virginia Beach, Virginia: The City, 1986), p.7.

45.   Geraghty and Miller, Inc., Availability of Ground Water in the Southeastern
Virqinia Groundwater Manaqement Area, pp. A-33 to A-34.

46.   Wagner, Terry D. et al, DRASTIC: A Demonstration Mappinq Project,
(Richmond, Virginia: Virginia State Water Control Board), 1989, p. 5.

47.   Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Research,
Protection of Public Water Supplies from Groundwater Contamination,
Seminar Publication, (Cincinnati, Ohio: EPA, 1985), p. 84.

48.   Booth, William, "Subterranean World Nourishes River, Research Team Finds"
in The Virqinian-Pilot, December 9, 1989, p. B4.

49.	GWPSC, A Groundwater Protection Strateqy for Virclinia, p. 33.

50.	Article Xl, Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, p. 6.

51.	Virginia State Water Control Board, Best Manaciement Practices Handbook:
Sources Affectinci Groundwater, Planning Bulletin 318, (Richmond, Virginia:
SWCB, 1979), p. 1-12.
95

GLOSSARY

Aquifer
A geologic formation, a group of formations or a part of a formation that
contains sufficient permeable material to yield sufficient quantities of water to
.wells and springs.

Aq uita rd
An impermeable or semi-permeable geologic formation that hampers the
movement of water into or out of a confined aquifer; also called a confining
bed.

Area of Influence
The surface area which overlies a well's cone of depression.

Artesian Well
A well tapping a confined aquifer in which the static water levei is above the
top of the aquifer. A flowing artesian weil is a well in which the water level is
above the land sur-face.

Attenuation
The dissipation of pollutants during infiltration through a variety of processes
including filtration, sorption, oxicdation and reduction, biological decay and
assimilation, buffering of acidic and alkaline materials, chemical precipitation,
volitization, evaporation and radioactive decay.

Biological Decay and Assimilation
The process by which plant uptake and microbial decomposition removes or
renders inert inorganic or organic contaminants.

Buffering
The ability of a substance to maintain a constant pH over a wide range of
concentrations.

CB PA
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act

CE RCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; also
known as "Superfund".
Chemical Precipitation
The process by which a soluble substance is separated out of a solution.
Coastal Plain
A physiographic province in the eastern part of Virginia characterized by gently
dipping unconsolidated sands, silts and clays.
97

Columbia Aquifer
The unconfined water table aquifer in Southeastern Virginia.

Cone of Depression
Depression in the. potentiometric surface that develops around a well, or well
field, from which water is being drawn.

Confined Aquifer
An aquifer that is enclosed between impermeable or semi- permeable geologic
formations. Water in this aquifer is under pressure that is significantly greater
than atmospheric pressure.

Consolidated Formations
Geologic formations comprised of solid or hardened rock masses.

Dilution
A process which, through the introduction of water by precipitation or other
source, causes the concentration of a contaminmant to decrease with distance
f rom the poi nt of i ntrod uction.

Discharge
The movement of water from an aquifer to springs, seeps, marshes, surface
waters, or flowing or- pumping wells.

Discharge Area
The area in which groundwater discharge occurs.

DMME
Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy

DRASTIC
A mapping methodology through which the groundwater pollution
vulnerability of various hydrogeologic settings is determined.

DWM
Virginia Department of Waste Management

EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Evaporation
The change in a substance's physical state from liquid to gaseous vapor.

Evapotranspiration
The release of water from the earth's surface to the atmosphere by
evaporation from soil and surface water, and by transpiration from plants.
98

Fall Line
An imaginary north-south line in Virginia where abrupt changes in geology
and elevation mark the transition between the Coastal Plain and the Piedmont
-Plateau.

FIFRA
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act

Filtration
A process through which contaminants larger than the pore spaces of the host
median are removed.

Groundwater
All water beneath the earth's surface, as distinct from surface water.

GWPSC
Virginia Groundwater Protection Steering Committee

HSWA
1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the Resource Conservation
ancd Recovery Act.

Hydraulic Conductivity
See Permeability.

Hydrogeologic Setting
The composite description of all hydrogeologic factors influencing
groundwater movement within an area.

Hydrogeology
The science that deals with subsurface waters and related geologic aspects of
surface waters.

Hydrologic Cycle
A continuous movement of water from the atmosphere to the surface of the
earth and back to the atmosphere through various processes including
precipitation, runoff, infiltration, percolation, storage, evaporation and
transpiration.

Hyporheic Zone
The area below a stream channel which is hydrologically and ecologically
connected to the stream.

Infiltration
The movement of water from the surface into the ground.
99

1PM
Integrated Pest Management

Landfill
A system of garbage and trash disposal in which waste is buried between layers
of earth.

MGD
Millions of Gallons per Day

MSL
Mean Sea Level

NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

Outcrop Area
That portion of geologic formations, including aquifers, that is exposed at the
e-arth's surface.

Overlay Zone
A zone that is superimposed on existing zoning districts to provide additional
land use regulations.

Oxidation
Chemical reaction in which there is a transfer of electrons from an ion or atom,
thus increasing its net charge or valence.

Percolation
Subsurface movement of water through openings in porous earth material.

Performance Standards
A land use planning technique through which the type and intensity of a land
use is determined by the ability of a development to meet certain performance
criteria.-

Permeability
Measure of an aquifer's ability to transmit water, generally expressed in feet of
groundwater per day.

Piezo metric Surface
See Potentio metric Surface.

Planned Unit Development (PUD)
A land use planning technique through which subdivision and zoning
regulations apply to an entire project rather than to individual lots.
100

Porosity
The ratio of pore space in a geologic formation to the total volume of mnateri al.

Potentiometric Surface
An imaginary surface defined by the level to which groundwater will rise if
reIleased from a confined aquifer by a well or conduit; also known as
piezometric surface.

PReP
The Virginia State Water Control Board Pollution Remediation Program

Radioactive Decay
The spontaneous transformation of one atomic nucleus into another,
accompanied by the emission of subatomic particles or gamma rays.

Recharge
The addition of water to the groundwater system by natural or artificial
processes.

Recharge Area
The surface area in which recharge occurs.

RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Reduction
Chemical reaction in which there is a transfer of electrons to an ion or atom,
thus decreasing its net change or valence.

Relict Sand Ridge
A subsurface sancd formation developed under a climate and/or geologic
conclition different from those prevailing at present.

Saltwater Intrusion
The lateral invasion of a freshwater aquifer by saltwater from adjacent surface
water.

Saltwater Upconing
A process through which saline water underlying freshwater in an aquifer rises
upward into the freshwater zone as a result of pumping.

SARA
Superfund Amendments ancd Reauthorization Act.
101

Saturated Zone
A subsurface zone in which all pores or voids are filled with water under
pressure greater than that of the atmosphere; the zone in which groundwater
,occurs.

SDWA
Safe Drinking Water Act

Soil
The weathered unconsolidated mineral and organic material on the immediate
surface of the earth that serves as a natural medium for the growth of
vegetation.

Sorption
Process by which substances are taken up or held by absorption or adsorption.

SPSA
Southeastern Public Service Authority

Surface impoundments
Ponds or lagoons used by industries, agricultural operations and municipalities
for the retention, treatment and/or disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous
liquid wastes.

SVGMA
Southeastern Virginia Groundwater Management Area

SVPDC
Southeastern Virginia Planning District Cornmission

SWCL
State Water Control Law

Synthetic Organic Compound
Manufactured compounds of carbon chains or rings containing hydrogen, and
with or without oxygen, nitrogen, and other elements.

THB
Virginia Department of Emergency Services Technological Hazards Branch.

Topography
The slope and slope variability of the land surface.
102

Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
A land use planning technique through which property owners in designated
.areas may transfer (sell) development rights granted to them under a zoning
ordinance to property owners in area where conditions for development are
more appropriate.
Unconfined Aquifer
An aquifer not confined by an overlying impermeable layer. The water table
defines the upper limit of an unconfined aquifer.

Unconsolidated Formations
Geologic formations in which individual particles are not bound strongly
enough together to form rocklike material.

Unsatu rated Zone
A subsurface zone in which pores or voids are only partially filled with water;
usually the interval between the land surface and the water table (also called
the zone of aeration or the vadose zone).

USGS
United States Geological Survey

UST
Underground Storage Tank
Vadose Zone
See Unsaturated Zone.

Volatilization
The loss of a compound to the atmosphere.

VC ES
Virginia Cooperative Extension Service

VDACS
Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

VDES
Virginia'Depar-tment of Emergency Services

VDH
Virginia Depar-tment of Health

VPA Permit
Virginia Pollution Abatement Permit
103

VWCB
Virginia State Water Control Board

Water Table
The upper limit of the saturated zone in an unconfined aquifer.

Yorktown-Eastover Aquifer
The uppermost confined aquifer in Southeastern Virginia.
104

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, Mel. "The Family That Was Always Sick" in Yankee. April 1987, p.85.
American Planning Association. Local Groundwater Protection. Chicago, Illinois:
APA, 1987.

Local Groundwater Protection: Midwest Reciion. Chicago,
Illinois: APA.

American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service. Groundwater Protection
Articles. Reference Packet. Chicago, Illinois: APA, 1982.

Local Groundwater Protection Ordinances.  Reference
Packet. Chicago, Illinois: APA.

Association of American Geographers, Water Resources Specialty Group. "Assessing
the Dilemma of Groundwater Protection and Agrichemical Use" in Water
Resources Specialty Group Newsletter. Volume 9, Number 2 (October, 1989),
pp. 5-6.

"Property Rights and Groundwater Resources" in Water
Resources Specialty Group Newsletter. Volume 9, Number 1 (March, 1989), p.
27.

Bachman, Geraldine. "Government Mobilizes for Groundwater Protection
Initiatives" in Urban Land. April, 1986, pp. 36-37.

Barcelona, Michael et al. EPA Groundwater Handbook. Rockville, Maryland:
Government Institutes, Inc., 1989.

Booth, William. "Subterranean World Nourishes River, Research Team Finds" in The
Virqinian-Pilot. December 9, 1989, p. B4.

Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. Clean Water Update: Standards for Disposal of Sewage
Sludge. Cambridge, Massachusetts: CDM, 1989.

"Providing and Protecting Water Through Reuse" in
CDMnews. Volume 23, Number 3 (Summer 1989), pp. 8-10.

What You Should Know .... Underqround Storaqe Tank
Manaaement. Cambridge, Massachusetts: CDM, undated.

Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board. Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area
Desiqnation and Manaqement Requlations (Revised Final Requlation: VR 173-
02-01). Richmond, Virginia: CBLAB, 1989.
106

Commonwealth of Virginia. Report of the Joint Subcommittee Studvinq Pollution
from Untreated Discharqes and Failinci Se1ptic Tanks to the Governor and
General Assembly of Virciinia. Richmond, Virginia: The Commonwealth, 1989.

Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Article 4, Code of VirQinia, 1950, as
amended.

Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Article 8, Code of Virclinia, 1950, as
amended.

Commonwealth of Virginia, Office of the Secretary of Natural Resources. "Water
Board Expands Groundwater Protection" in Virclinia Natural Resources
Newsletter. Richmond, Virginia: Virginia Council on the Environment, 1989, p.
7.
Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment. Protectincl the
Nation's Groundwater from Contamination, Volumes I & II. Washington, D.C.:
OTA, 1984.

County of Chesterfield. Chapter 18.1, Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as
amended.

Chapter 20, Article Xi, Code of the County of Chesterfield,
1978, as amended.
County of Clark. Clark County Ground Water Protection Plan. Front Royal, Virginia:
Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission, 1987.

Davis, Marc. "Summer Parches Beach: Wells Lacking Groundwater" in The Virciinian-
Pilot. June 8, 1986.

DeRochi, Kerry. "Corps Gives Chesapeake Permit to Use Canal Water" in The
Virqinian-Pilot. September 28, 1988.

"Water Worries Stall Chesapeake Plans" in The Virclinian-
Pilot. October 7, 1989.
DiNovo, Frank. "Local Groundwater Protection Programs" in PAS Memo. August,
1983, pp. 1-4.
DiNovo, Frank and Martin Jaffe. "A Survey of Local Regulations for Groundwater
Protection" in Zoninq Diqest. pp. 1-14.
Dix, Stephen P. "Public Education Critical to Septic Tank Maintenance" in Small
Flows. October, 1989, pp. 2-3.
107

' "Management Options Help Maintain Septic Systems" in
Manaqinci Small Flows. August, 1989, pp. 4-5.

Engineering Enterprises, Inc. A Local Planninci Process for Groundwater Protection.
Norman, Oklahoma: Engineering Enterprises, Inc., 1989.

. Development of a Ground-Water Manaciement Aquifer
Protection Plan. Norman, Oklahoma: Engineering Enterprises, Inc., 1989.

Evans, R.O. et al. Effects of Aairicultural Water Table Manaqement on Drainacie
Water Qualitv. Report No. 237. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: Water Resources
Research Institute, University of North Carolina, 1989.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy,
Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology, Subcommittee
on Groundwater of the Committee on Earth Sciences. Federal Ground-Water
Science and Technolociv Procirams: The Role of Science and Technoloqy in the
Manaqement of the Nation's Ground-Water Resources. Washington, D.C.:
Executive Office of the President, 1989.

Fahey, Joe. "Tapping Swamp Canal is Drawing Opposition" in The Virciinian-Pilot.
June 7, 1988.

Garcia, Margot W. "Arizona's Ground-Water Law and its Implications for Urban
Development". 1986.

Geraghty & Miller, Inc. Availabilitv of Groundwater in the Southeastern Virciinia
Groundwater Manaclement Area. Annapolis, Maryland: Virginia State Water
Control Board, 1979

Geske, Bob. "Chesapeake Races Clock to Sink Wells" in The Virclinian-Pilot.

Glass, Jon. "Dare Looks Forward to a Flow of Freshwater" in The Virqinian-Pilot.

Hall, Henry Boyd. "Judge Acts to Keep Contaminants from Reservoir" in The
Virciinian-Pilot. August 2, 1988.
Halstead, John M. et al. Lawn and Garden Chemicals and the Potential for
Groundwater Contamination. Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, undated.

Harrison, David and Greg Schneider. "Suffolk Council to Get Desalination Proposal"
in The Virqinian-Pilot. April 2, 1988.

Hogg, Allen. "Stricter EPA Rules Force Some to Ditch Tanks" in The Virginian Pilot.
July 5, 1989.
108

Jordan, Ida Kay. "Digging of Borrow Pit Puts Salt at Resident's Front Door" in The
Vircinian Pilot. August 18, 1989.

Kerns, Waldon R. Groundwater Protection and the Role of Education - An Appraisal.
Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
undated.

Kerns, Waldon R. et al. Groundwater Quality and the Use of Lawn and Garden
Chemicals by Homeowners. Publication 426-059. Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1988.

Ladson, Sheon. "Chesapeake Starts Testing for Water Storage Project" in The
Virqinian-Pilot. January 27, 1989.

Metzger, Phillip C. et al. "The Developer's Stake in Groundwater Protection" in
Urban Land. April, 1986, pp. 19-23.

Mlay, Marian. "U.S. EPA's Groundwater Protection Strategy". 1985.

Morris, Joe. "Attacking Tainted Groundwater Supplies" in American City and
County. March, 1987, pp. 30-40.

Muller, Robert A., (ed.). Physical Geoaraphy Today: A Portrait of a Planet. Del Mar,
California: CRM Books, 1974.

National Research Council, Committee on Groundwater Quality Protection. Ground
Water Quality Protection: State and Local Strateqies. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press, 1986.

North Carolina - Virginia Groundwater Subcommittee. Groundwater Manaciement
in Southeastern Virqinia and Northeastern North Carolina. 1975.

North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service. Chemiqation Practices to Prevent
Groundwater Contamination. Fact Sheet 1. Raleigh, North Carolina: NCAES,
1988.

Preventinci Pesticide Pollution of Surface and Ground Water.
Fact Sheet 7. Raleigh, North Carolina: NCAES, 1988.

Preventinq Well Contamination by Pesticides. Fact Sheet 5.
Raleigh, North Carolina: NCAES, 1988.

Protectinq Groundwater from Contamination bv Pesticides.
Fact Sheet 10. Raleigh, North Carolina: NCAES, 1988.
109

NUS Corporation. Field Investigations Team Activities at Uncontrolled Hazardous
Substances Facilities - Zone I. Wayne, Pennsylvania: NUS Corporation, 1989.

Paskowski, Andrew C. "Groundwater and Watershed Protection" in Environmental
Planninc Quarterly. Washington, D.C.: American Planning Association, 1988,
pp. 2-9.

Pate, James L. "Chesapeake Council is Hopeful About Water Proposal" in The
Virginian-Pilot. November 25, 1987.

Phillips, Joseph V. "City's Well Water Makes the Grade" in the Chesapeake Clipper.
November 10, 1985.

Phillips, Patrick. "Groundwater Protection Activity: A Land Use Issue" in Urban Land.
August, 1987, pp. 34-35.

Richmond Regional Planning District Commission. Sand and Gravel Resources: Local
Options for Protection and Requlation. Richmond, Virginia: RRPDC, 1989.

Roy Mann Associates, Inc. A Manaqement Plan for Back Bay: Virginia Beach,
Virginia. Volume 2: Water Quality. Boston, Massachusetts: Roy Mann
Associates, Inc., 1984.

Schneider, Alan. "Deep Wells in Chuckatuck Found to Be Chromium Free" in The
Virqinian-Pilot. September 3, 1987.

"Desalination Viable, Rowe Tells Council" in The Virginian-
Pilot. August 20, 1987.

"Study Likely to Favor Desalination Program" in The
Virainian-Pilot. August 15, 1987.

."Suffolk to Test Desalination of Well Water" in The Virginian-
Pilot. September 17, 1987.

"Suffolk Wants to Spread Cost of Desalination" in The
Virqinian-Pilot. September 6, 1988.

Shadden, Janet. "Gas Stations Feel Brunt of New Environmental Laws" in The
Virainian-Pilot, December 18, 1989.

Sipress, Alan. "Sludge Dumping Plan has Many Opponents" in The Virqinian-Pilot.
March 18, 1986.
"Wells May Cure Chesapeake's Water Woes" in The
Virainian-Pilot. June 18, 1986.
110

Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission. An Analvsis of Hazardous
Waste Generation and Disposal in Southeastern Virqinia. Norfolk, Virginia:
SVPDC, 1986.

Review of Permits: Southeastern Vircinia Groundwater
Management Area. Chesapeake, Virginia: SVPDC, 1987.

Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission and Hampton Roads Water
Quality Agency. Elizabeth River Environmental Manaqement Proqram,
Appendices. Chesapeake, Virginia: SVPDC, 1989.

* Hampton Roads Water Quality Manaqement Plan: Physical
Features Inventory. Appendix 7, Volume B-Part 1. Norfolk, Virginia: SVPDC,
1978.

Hampton Roads Water Quality Manaqement Plan: Physical
Features Inventory. Appendix 9, Volume B. Norfolk, Virginia: SVPDC, 1978.

* Hampton Roads Water Quality Manaqement Plan: Plan
Update 1983 II. Norfolk, Virginia:SVPDC, 1983.

Regional Stormwater Manacement  Stratecv for
Southeastern Virciinia. Chesapeake, Virginia: SVPDC, 1989.

Tacoma Planning Department. South Tacoma Plan. Tacoma, Washington: The City,
1985.

Tarlock, A. Dan.  "Prevention of Groundwater Contamination" in Zoning and
Planninc Law Report. Vol. 8, No. 5 (May, 1985), pp. 121-128.

The Virginian-Pilot. "Food Safety, Pesticides on Farm Bureau Agenda". November
27, 1989.

"Protect Groundwater". March 21, 1986.

Underwater Research Institute, eds. Groundwater Pollution. St. Louis, Missouri: URI,
1973.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Chesapeake Bay Low Freshwater Inflow Study,
Appendix C. Baltimore, Maryland: US ACE, 1984.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR Part 149. "Criteria for Identifying
Critical Aquifer Protection Areas." Federal Register 6836, February 14, 1989.
111

Title IlI Fact Sheet: Emerqencv Planninc and Community
Right-to-Know. Washington, D.C.: EPA, undated.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Research
Information. Protection of Public Water Supplies from Ground-Water
Contamination. Cincinnati, Ohio: EPA, 1985.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Processes and Effects
Research. EPA Ground-Water Research Procrams. Project Summary.
Washington, D.C.: EPA, 1986.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Groundwater Protection.
Guidelines for Groundwater Protection Under the EPA Groundwater
Protection Strateqv. Washington, D.C.: EPA, 1986.

ï¿½ Ground-Water Provisions of the SDWA Amendments of 1986.
EPA Fact Sheet. Washington, D.C.: EPA, 1986.

Septic Systems and Ground-Water Protection: An Executive's
Guide. Washington, D.C.: EPA, 1986.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory. Inventory of Potential
Hazardous Waste Sites: Elizabeth River Area, Virciinia, Volume I. Las Vegas,
Nevada: EPA, 1987.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory, Office of Research and Development. DRASTIC: A Standardized
System for Evaluatinq Ground Water Pollution Potential Using Hvdrogeologic
Settinqs. Ada, Oklahoma: EPA, 1987.

. Upconinq of a Salt/Freshwater Interface Below a Pumpinq
Well. Project Summary. Ada, Oklahoma: EPA, 1985.

U.S. Geological Survey. Artificial Recharge to a Freshwater- Sensitive Brackish-Water
Sand Aquifer, Norfolk, Virginia. Geological Survey Professional Paper 939.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977.

. A Predictive Computer Model of the Lower Cretaceous
Aquifer, Franklin Area, Southeastern Virqinia. Richmond, Virginia: USGS, 1975.

Evaluation of Municipal Withdrawals from the Confined
Aquifers of Southeastern Virqinia. Richmond, Virginia: USGS, 1988.

. Ground-Water Conditions in the Franklin Area, Southeastern
Virginia. Reston, Virginia: USGS, 1974.
112

. Groundwater Withdrawals from the Confined Aquifers in the
Coastal Plain of Virqinia, 1891-1983. Richmond, Virginia: USGS, 1987.

Hvdrocieoloqy and Analysis of the Ground-Water Flow
System in the Coastal Plain of Southeastern Virqinia. Richmond, Virginia:
USGS, 1988.
. National Water Summary 1986 - Hydrolociic Events and
Ground-Water Quality. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1988.

Potentiometric-Surface Map for the Cretaceous Aquifer,
Viroinia Coastal Plain, 1978. USGS, 1980.

. U.S. Geolociical Survey Groundwater Studies in Virqinia.
USGS Water Fact Sheet, 1988.

Virginia Beach, City of. Development Ordinance Revisions lncludinq Stormwater
Manaqement Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. Virginia Beach, Virginia:
The City, 1988.

Status Report: Shallow Groundwater Conditions in the Great
Neck and Little Neck Peninsulas. Virginia Beach, Virginia: The City, 1986.

Virginia Beach Health Department.  Groundwater Quality Study: Northern Great
Neck Peninsula. Virginia Beach, Virginia: The City, 1986.

Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Product and
Industry Regulation, Fertilizer and Lime Section. Virciinia 1987-1988: Fertilizer
and Lime Used and Results of Inspection. Richmond, Virginia: VDACS, 1988.

Virginia Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Division of
Mineral Resources. "Utilization of Subsurface Information in the Coastal Plain
of Virginia" in Virqinia Minerals. Volume 21, Number 2 (May, 1975), pp. 17-18.

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil and Water
Conservation. Virqinia Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment Report.
Richmond, Virginia: VDCR, 1989.

Virginia Department of Health. Draft Private Water Well Reciulations. Richmond,
Virginia: VDH, 1989.

Sewaqe Handlinq and Disposal Reciulations. Richmond,
Virginia: VDH, 1982.
113

Virginia Groundwater Protection Steering Committee. Groundwater Protection in
Vircinia: Annual Report of the Groundwater Protection Steering Committee.
Richmond, Virginia: Virginia Water Control Board, 1989.

1989 Groundwater Protection in Virqinia: Second Annual
Report of the Groundwater Protection Steerinc Committee. Richmond,
Virginia: Virginia Water Control Board, 1989.

. Groundwater Protection Strateqv for Virqinia. Richmond,
Virginia: Virginia Water Control Board, 1987.

Virqinia Groundwater Manaqement Handbook: State
Aqencv Programs for Groundwater Protection. Richmond, Virginia: Virginia
Water Control Board, 1988.

Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commission. Vircinia Erosion and Sediment
Control Handbook. Richmond, Virginia: VSWCC, 1980.

Virginia State Water Control Board. Best Manaqement Practices Handbook: Sources
Affectinq Groundwater. Richmond, Virginia: VWCB, 1979

State Water Control Board Plan for the Development of the
Water Resources of Southeastern Virqinia as Required by Section 62.1-44.38 of
the Code of Virqinia. Richmond, Virginia: VWCB, 1981.

. Virqinia Water Quality Assessment: 305(b) Report to EPA and
Conqress. Information Bulletin 574. Richmond, Virginia: VWCB, 1988.

Virginia State Water Control Board, Bureau of Water Control Management.
Groundwater of Southeastern Virqinia. Planning Bulletin 318. Richmond,
Virginia: VWCB, 1974.
. Ground Water Resources of the Four Cities Area, Vircinia.
Richmond, Virginia: VWCB, 1981.
Virginia State Water Control Board with the U.S. Geological Survey. Water Use in
Virginia, 1980. Richmond, Virginia: VWCB, 1983.

Virginia State Water Control Board, Tidewater Region. Water Withdrawal Report
for 1984-1985. Virginia Beach, Virginia: VWCB, 1986.

Virginia Water Project, Inc. Water for Tomorrow: A Report on Water and
Wastewater Needs in Virqinia. Roanoke, Virginia: Gurtner Printing Co., 1988.
114

Virginia Water Resources Research Center. A Groundwater Primer for Virciinians.
Blacksburg, Virginia: VWRRC, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, 1985.

*A Homeowner's Guide to Domestic Wells. Blacksburg,
Virginia: VWRRC, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1985.

* A Homeowner's Guide to Septic Svstems. Blacksburg,
Virginia: VWRRC, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1985.

. Deep Well Iniection of Industrial Wastes: Government
Controls and Lecaia Constraints. Blacksburg, Virginia: VWRRC, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1976.

. Financial Responsibility Provisions for UJnderairound Storaqe
Tanks in Virciinia. Bulletin 161. Blacksburg, Virginia: VWRRC, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1988.

Protectinai Viraiinia's Groundwater: A Handbook for Local
Government Officials. Blacksburg, Virginia: VWRRC, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, 1986.

.Threats to Virciinia's Groundwater. Blacksburg, Virginia:
VWRRC, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, undated.

.Underciround Injection Control in Virciinia. Blacksburg,
Virginia: VWRRC, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1989.

.Underciround Storacje Tank Disposal: Alternatives,
Economics, and Environmental Costs. Bulletin 160. Blacksburg, Virginia:
VWRRC, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1988.

.Virqinia's Groundwater: Proceedincis of a Symposium
Oraianized by the Environmnental Defense Fund. Blacksburg, Virginia: VWRRC,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1984.

Wagner, Terry D. et al. DRASTIC: A Demonstration Mappinci Project. Richmond,
Virginia: Virginia State Water Control Board, 1989.

Waltz, Lynn. "Possible Lake Defiling is Under State Study" in The Virciinian-Pilot.
November 3, 1989.

Water Pollution Control Federation. Groundwater: Why You Should Care.
Alexandria, Virginia: WPCF, 1987.
115

Welch, Nancy M. Public Health Water Report - Chesapeake. Chesapeake, Virginia:
Chesapeake Health Department, 1987.

Wharton, Tony and Greg Raver-Lampman. "Controversy Spills Over from City's
Water Wells" in The Virciinian-Pilot. August 18, 1987.

"Water from New Wells Slimy, High in Sodium" in The
Virqinian-Pilot. August 6, 1987.

Wharton, Tony. "Baliles Calls Water Supply Cities' Issue" in The Virqinian-Pilot.
October 21, 1987.

. "Chesapeake Doubles Water Sodium, Fluorides" in The
Virclinian-Pilot. August 19, 1987.

. "State Curbs Chesapeake Water Supply: Angry Councilman
Promises Appeal" in The Vircinian-Pilot. March 24, 1987.

"Tests Delays New Chesapeake Wells" in The Virginian- Pilot.
July 3, 1987.

Young, Richard, ed. "Roundtable: Groundwater Contamination Issues" in Pollution
Engineering. Volume XXI, Number 4 (April, 1989), pp. 92-105.

Zaneski, Cyril T. "Golf Course Plans for Water Studied: Deep Wells Proposed at
Beach" in The Virqinian-Pilot. February 26, 1987.
116

APPENDIX A

/        - /  I  I  I m -  m      m -    m m  m -  -  -
EXAMPLES OF ECONOMIC COSTS RESULTING FROM CONTAMINATED
GROUNDWATER1
Location
Contaminants
Nature of Costs
Direct Costs Incurred2
Carbon tetrachloride,
methylethylketone,
trichloroethylene,
chloroform
Well closings, extension
of water lines to affected
areas
$145,000 - $379,000
Canton,
CT
Oscoda, MI

South Brunswick, NJ
Trichloroethylene

Chloroform, toluene,
xylene,
trichloromethane,
trichloroethylene
Well closings, provision
of new source of water
Well closings, extension
of water lines to affected
areas.
$140,00
0

$300,00
0
Cohansey Aquifer,
NJ
Wastes from manufacture
of organic chemicals,
plastics, resin



Brine Contamination from
oil and gas activities.
148 well closings;
removal of
drums; interim emergency
water supply; drilling of
new wells;extension of
public water supply

Loss of irrigation well
Partial rice crop loss
Estimated loss in profits
from change to
non-irrigated crops
$417,000
(avg. residential water
bill increased by 66%)



$4000
$36,000
$1 50/acre/year for rice
$35/acre/year for cotton
$20/acre/year for
soybeans



co
Miller County, AR
38 communities
in
11 midwestern
states

Atlantic City,
NJ
Mineral
content3



Chemical wastes
Reduced service
lives of
household plumbing and
appliances

New well field
Alternative water supply
Increased annual capital cost
per household of 40% as
total dissolved solids increased
from 250 ppm to 1,750 ppm
$2 million
250,000

/I~I/IImm//I/I~III~
I~1
EXAMPLES OF ECONOMIC COSTS RESULTING FROM CONTAMINATED
GROUNDWATER
Location
Contaminants
Nature of Costs
Direct Costs Incurred
Orange County, CA
Mineral Content3
Reduced service lives of
household plumbing and
appliances
$6.5 million (est. tot. annual
capital cost)
$12.3 million (estimated
avg.annual cost)
$5 million/year
Montana
Salinity
Cost of water softeners or
cleaning products
Loss of farm income
San Joaquin
Valley, CA
Salinity
Loss of farm income
$31.2 million/year
Auburn, MA
Unspecified Chemicals
Alternative water supply for
affected area
$180,000
Lathrop, CA


Jackson Township,
NJ


Jefferson County,
CO
Pesticides


Chloroform, methylchloride
benzene, toluene,
trichloroethylene,
ethylbenzene, acetone
Uranium ore
Purchase of water by residents
Connection to district water
supply
Estimated cost of water
system to replace 100 wells


Alternative water supply and
water purification system
$3-5 per 5 gallons
$1 50/connection, $4-$10
monthly operating costs
$1.2 million



$612,000 (1983)
Roanoke, VA
Chromium, cyanide
Alternative water supply for
affected area
$1.45 million

-EM P     O M                           CS  R ---L  TN  - - m M




EXAMPLES OF ECONOMIC COSTS RESULTING FROM CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER
Location
York County, VA


Clark County, VA
Contaminants	Nature of Costs
Fly ash containing copper,	Alternative water supply for 30
nickel, beryllium, vanadium,	well users and capping, sealing
selenium and arsenic	and draining of ash pit
Nitrates, phenols and	Alternate water supply for
herbicides	affected area
Direct Costs Incurred
$14 million


$1.3 million (1981)
Notes:   1.	Not included are costs incurred to clean up groundwater contamination.

2.	Cost figures are not in constant dollars. Since the examples used occurred over a period of about 25 years, costs in 1989 dollars could
be considerably higher.

3.  Mineral contamination is generally derived from natural sources. However, artificial recharge may induce mineral contamination
through accelerated leaching.

Source:   Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment. Protecting the Nation's Groundwater from Contamination, Volume I,
Washington, D.C.: OTA, 1984, p. 39.

Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission, 1989.
N.J
0

APPENDIX B

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION PERTAINING TO GROUNDWATER
PROTECTION IN SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA
Legislation	Relevance to Groundwater Protection

Safe Drinking Water Act	Establishes drinking water standards; requires
state underground injection control programs;
requires federal review of federally assisted
projects overlying sole source aquifers; requires
states to develop wellhead protection
programs; and provides funding for
demonstration programs designed to identify
critical aquifer protection areas.
Resource Conservation and	Establishes a "cradle to grave" management
Recovery Act	system for hazardous waste disposal facilities;
bans open dumps; provides for state solid waste
plans; and sets criteria for solid waste disposal to
avoid groundwater pollution. Amendments to
this Act in 1984 established a program to control
underground storage tanks containing
regulated substances.
Comprehensive Environmental Response	Authorizes the EPA to conduct short-term
Compensation and Liability Act	emergency and long-term remedial actions in
response to the release of hazardous substances
into the environment.
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act      Establishes regulations for the transpor-tation of
hazardous materials, including hazardous
wastes.
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act        Establishes regulations for the interstate and
international movement of hazardous liquids by
pipeline (and their storage incidental to such
movement).
The Federal insecticide Fungicide and	Establishes regulations for pesticide use and
Rod enti ci de Act	disposal. Also gives the EPA authority to review
the environmental effects associated with
pesticide use.
Toxic Substances Control Act                Authorizes the EPA to control the manufacture,
use and disposal of toxic pollutants. Requires
manufacturers to register chemicals, submit
periodic reports, and meet labeling ancl
packaging requirernents.
122

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION PERTAINING TO GROUNDWATER
PROTECTION IN SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA
Legislation	Relevance to Groundwater Protection

Clean WaterAct	Establishes water quality   monitoring
programs, ongoing water quality and
management prograrns, and water quality
standards.
Coastal Zone Management Act                Authorizes funding to encourage and assist
states in the development and implementation
of programs to manage the use of land and
water in the coastal zone.
National Environmental Policy Act          Requires evaluation and study of all federal
actions for their potential adverse effects on the
environment.
Source:    Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment. Protectinci the
Nation's Groundwater from Contamination, Volume 1, Washington, D.C.: OTA, 1984,
p. 216.
123

APPENDIX C

State Anti-Degradation Policy for Groundwater
If the concentration of any constituent in groundwater is less than the limit set
forth' by groundwater standards, the natural quality for the constituent shall be
maintained; natural quality shall also be maintained for all constituents, including
temperature, not set forth in groundwater standards. If the concentration of any
constituent in the groundwater exceeds the limit in the standard for the constituent,
no addition of that constituent to the naturally occurring concentration shall be
made. Variance to this policy shall not be made unless it has been affirmatively
demonstrated that a change is justifiable to provide necessary economic or social
development, that the degree of waste treatment necessary to preserve the existing
quality cannot be economically or socially justified, and that the present and
anticipated uses of such water will be preserved and protected.
125

GROUNDWATER STANDARDS APPLICABLE STATEWIDE
Constituent	Concentration

Sodium	270	mg/l
Foaming Agents as methylene blue active substances	0.05	mg/l
Petroleum hydrocarbons	1.0	mg/l
Arsenic	0.05	mg/l
Barium	1.0	mg/l
Cadmium	0.0004	mg/l
Chromium	0.05	mg/l
Copper	1.0	mg/l
Cyanide	0.005	mg/l
Lead	0.05	mg/l
Mercury	0.00005	mg/l
Phen,ols	0.001	mg/l
Selenium	0.01	mg/l
Silver	None
Zinc	0.05        mg/l

Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Insecticides

Aldrin/Dieldrin	0.003	ug/l
Chlordane	0.01	ug/1
DDT	0.001	ug/1
Endrin	0.004	ug/1
Heptachlor	0.001	ug/1
Heptachlor Epoxide	0.001	ug/1
Kepone	None
Lindane	0.01	ug/1
Methoxychlor	0.03	ug/1
Mirex	None
Toxaphene	None
126

GROUNDWATER STANDARDS APPLICABLE STATEWIDE
Constituent
Concentration
Chlorophenoxy Herbicides

2,4-D
Silvex

Radioactivity

Total Radium (Ra-226 & Ra-228)
Radium 226
Gross Beta Activity*
Gross Alpha Activity (excluding Radon & Uranium)
Tritium
Stronti u m-90
Manmade Radioactivity -Total Dose Equiv, **
0.1
0.01
mg/1
mg/l1
5
3
50
15
20,000
8
4
pCi/l
pCi/1
pCi/1
pCi/l
pCi/1
pCi/i1
mrem/yr
PCi/l1 = picocurie per liter
Mrem/yr = millirems per year

*The gross beta value shall be used as a screening value only. If exceeded the water
must be analyzed to determine the presence and quanity of radionuclids to
determine compliance with the tritium, strontium, and manmade radioactivity
standards.
**Combination of all sources should not exceed total dose equivalent of 4
mrem/year.

Source: Virginia State Water Control Board, 1989.
127

GROUNDWATER STANDARDS APPLICABLE BY STATE
PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCE
CONCENTRATION
Valley    Cumberland
and Ridge	Plateau
6-9	5-8.5
CONSTITUENT
Piedmont and
Blue Ridge
5.5 - 8.5

0.025 mg/1

0.025 mg/l1

5.0 mg/1
Coastal
Plain
6.5 -9

0.025 mg/l1

0.025 mg/l1

5.0 mg/l1
pH
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrite
Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrogen
0.025 mg/il

0.025 mg/l1

5.0 mg/1
0.025 mg/1

0.025 mg/l1

0.5 mg/il
Source: Virginia State Water Control Board, 1989.
128