FIFTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR
RENTOKIL, INC. (VIRGINIA WOOD PRESERVING DIVISION) SUPERFUND SITE
HENRICO COUNTY, VIRGINIA
£
<
| ?
June 2023
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
PAIN I FD M A R D Digita"y signed by PAUL LE0NARD
r MUL LLVJIMnnU Date: 2023.06.28 15:08:28-04'00'
Paul Leonard, Director Date
Superfund and Emergency Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region 3
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 5
Site Background 5
Five-Year Review Summary Form 6
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY 7
Basis for Taking Action 7
Response Actions 7
Status of Implementation 9
Systems Operations/ Operation and Maintenance (O&M) 15
III. PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW 15
IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS 17
Community Notification, Community Involvement, and Site Interviews 17
Data Review 18
Site Inspection 21
V. TECHNICAL AS SES SMENT 21
QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? 21
QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RAOs
used at the time of the remedy selection still valid? 22
QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy? 24
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS 24
\ II. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT 24
VIII. NEXT REVIEW 24
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - SITE VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 2 - SITE BOUNDARY
FIGURE 3 - DETAILED MAP OF CURRENT SITE FEATURES AND REMEDIAL
COMPONENTS
FIGURE 4 - MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS
FIGURE 5 - HISTORICAL SITE FEATURES
FIGURE 6 - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL MAP
FIGURE 7 - HENRICO COUNTY TAX MAP
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST
APPENDIX B - SITE CHRONOLOGY
APPENDIX C - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
APPENDIX D - PRESS NOTICE
APPENDIX E - INTERVIEW FORMS
APPENDIX F - SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
APPENDIX G - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOS
APPENDIX H - VAPOR INTRUSTION MEMO
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS
AOC Administrative Order on Consent
ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
AUL Activity- and Use-Limitation
BTAG Biological Technical Assistance Group
CCA Chromated Copper Arsenate
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980, as amended
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CIC Community Involvement Coordinator
COC Contaminant of Concern
CZA Chromium Zinc Arsenate
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FFS Focused Feasibility Study
FYR Five-Year Review
HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment
IC Institutional Control
LDPE Low-Density Polyethylene
LTM Long-Term Monitoring
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MDL Method Detection Limit
Mg/kg Milligrams per Kilogram
[j,g/L Microgram per Liter
NPL National Priorities List
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OU Operable Unit
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
PCP Pentachlorophenol
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RAO Remedial Action Objective
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
RL Reporting Limits
RI/FS Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
RI Remedial Investigation
ROD Record of Decision
RPM Remedial Project Manager
T CDD 2,3,7,8 -T etrachl orodib enzo-p-di oxin
UU/UE Unlimited Use and Unrestricted Exposure
VDEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
VI Vapor Intrusion
VPI Virginia Properties, Inc.
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of a Five-Year review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of
a remedy to determine if the remedy is, and will continue to be, protective of human health and
the environment. The methods, findings and conclusions of reviews are documented in FYR
Reports such as this one. In addition, FYR Reports identify issues found during the review, if
any, and document recommendations to address them.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing this FYR pursuant to Section
121(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980, as amended (CERCLA),1 consistent with Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) ),2 and considering EPA policy.
This is the fifth FYR for the Rentokil, Inc. (Virginia Wood Preserving Division) Superfund site
(the Site). The triggering action for this statutory review is the completion date of the previous
FYR. The FYR has been prepared because hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants
remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (UU/UE).
The Site consists of one operable unit (OU). This FYR addresses the remedies for soil, sediment,
and groundwater. EPA remedial project manager (RPM) Victoria Schantz led the FYR.
Participants included EPA biological technical assistance group (BTAG) member Kimberly
Hudson, EPA geologist Herminio Concepcion, EPA toxicologist Linda Watson, Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) project manager Angie McGarvey, and
potentially responsible party (PRP) contractors Daniel Sheehan and Catherine Coffey from
Arcadis. Virginia Properties, Inc. (VPI), the PRP, was notified of the initiation of the FYR. The
review began on August 1, 2022.
Site Background
The Site is located on and around Peyton Street and Oakview Avenue, about 10 miles north-
northwest of Richmond, Virginia, in Henrico County (Figure l).3 A former wood-treating
facility operated at the Site from 1957 until January 1990 ("the facility"). As described in the
1993 Record of Decision (ROD), the Site is comprised of the land occupied by the former
facility, as well as wetland areas contiguous to the northcentral boundary and the southeastern
corner of the facility where hazardous substances from the former facility came to be located
(Figure 2). Chemicals used during wood-treatment operations included chromium zinc arsenate
(CZA), chromated copper arsenate (CCA), pentachlorophenol (PCP), fuel oil no. 2, creosote,
xylene, and fire retardants. Site operations resulted in the contamination of soil, sediment, and
groundwater with hazardous substances.
1 42 U.S.C. § 9621(c).
2 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(f)(4)(ii).
3 The addresses associated with the Site are 2900, 3000, and 3001 Peyton Street, Richmond, Henrico County,
Virginia 23228.
-------
Current Site features include the original cap and slurry wall surrounding the former wood
treating process area (Cap Area 1), the extended cap and slurry wall surrounding the area
downgradient and north of the original cap (Cap Area 2), a building previously used as part of
the remedy's groundwater dewatering system ("the water facility building"), and six monitoring
wells (Figure 3 and Figure 4). The Site is fenced. Portions of the non-capped area of the Site are
used for storage of contractor equipment. Surrounding land use includes light industrial,
commercial and residential use.
There are two water-bearing units at the Site, separated by a clay hardpan. The upper (perched)
aquifer consists of fluvial sediments and extends from the ground surface to about 4-7 feet below
grade. The lower, or saprolitic, aquifer extends from the bottom of the hardpan (about 7-10 feet
below grade) to the top of the Petersburg Granite bedrock. The bedrock serves as a confining
layer and is encountered about 25 feet below ground surface.
A municipal water supply has provided water to the area since approximately 1987. Groundwater
beneath the Site generally flows to the northeast, toward North Run Creek. Vertical groundwater
movement is restricted by the hardpan. North Run Creek flows into Talley's Pond about 1 mile
southeast of the Site (Figure 1) then continues to Upham Creek and then into the Chickahominy
River.
For reference, Appendix A includes a list of documents reviewed during this FYR. Appendix B
includes a timeline of Site events.
Five-Year Review Summary Form
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site Name: Rentokil, Inc. (Virginia Wood Preserving Division)
EPA ID: VAD071040752
Region: 3 | State: VA | City/County: Richmond/Henrico
SITE STATUS
NPL Status: Final
Multiple OUs? No | Has the Site achieved construction completion? Yes
REVIEW STATUS
Lead agency: EPA
Author name: Victoria Schantz
Author affiliation: EPA Region 3
Review period: 8/1/2022 - 5/1/2023
Date of Site inspection: 11/2/2022
Type of review: Statutory
Review number: 5
Triggering action date: 7/2/2018
-------
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY
Basis for Taking Action
The Remedial Investigation (RI) initially identified two on-site plumes of groundwater
contamination centered around the former treatment area and the unlined pond. A baseline
human health risk assessment was performed in 1992 to evaluate soil, groundwater, surface
water, and sediment. The baseline risk assessment determined that human exposure to soil,
sediment, and groundwater could pose a cancer or a non-carcinogenic risk. Specifically, it
identified unacceptable risks to residents and workers associated with incidental ingestion,
inhalation and dermal absorption of site soil and sediment and with ingestion and dermal
absorption of groundwater within both the perched and saprolite aquifers. The primary COCs are
considered to be arsenic, copper, zinc, chromium, PCP, and carcinogenic PAHs for groundwater,
soil, and sediment.
The environmental assessment, performed as part of the RI, identified no significant impact to
aquatic organisms in North Run Creek associated with surface water. It did find that
concentrations of organic and inorganic contaminants in sediment in North Run Creek and
wetland areas adjacent to the Site could potentially pose a risk to organisms.
Response Actions
Following fish kills in Talley's Pond in 1962, under the direction of the Virginia State Water
Control Board, the Site owner cleared, cleaned and replaced the facility's blowdown sump with a
concrete holding pond and constructed a covered, unlined pond in 1963. An underground pipe
connected the concrete holding pond to the covered unlined pond. In 1987, Rentokil removed the
contents of the unlined pond and disposed of the waste off-site (Figure 5). Because the unlined
pond was not backfilled, the excavation filled with rainwater and groundwater. The sludge at the
bottom of the former unlined pond was considered a listed hazardous waste. In 1989, the owners
of Talley's Pond (the off-property pond) dredged the pond sediment, placed the sediment around
Talley's Pond and seeded the area. EPA added the Site to the Superfund program's National
Priorities List (NPL) in March 1989.
Following the shut-down of wood-treating operations at the facility in 1990, the Site owner
placed a polyvinyl chloride cover over the drip pad and constructed a roof over the concrete
holding pond. In 1991, additional actions taken by the Site owner included removal and off-site
disposal of wood-treating equipment, aboveground storage tanks and treatment cylinders;
placement of clean, compacted clay over the former treatment cylinder area; construction of a
roof over the former tank farm; and placement of a layer of clean gravel over the entire surface
of the Site.
Rentokil, Inc. (Rentokil) (name was legally changed to VPI) and EPA signed an Administrative
Order on Consent (AOC) in December 1987 to conduct a remedial investigation and feasibility
-------
study (RI/FS).4 In March 1992, EPA entered into an AOC with VPI for the performance of a
removal action to prevent additional migration of contamination into North Run Creek. The
removal action included the placement of heavy plastic over the CCA Disposal Area and
construction of a berm and sediment trap. VPI completed the work between June and September
1992.
EPA selected a remedy to address Site contamination in a June 1993 ROD. The ROD did not
specify remedial action objectives (RAOs). However, as can be inferred from the list of the
major components of the remedy listed below, the objectives of the remedy are:
Source Control Response Objectives
• Reduce risks to human health by preventing direct contact with, and ingestion of,
contaminants in the Site soil, wetland sediments, and pond sediments, and by preventing
potential ingestion of contaminated groundwater;
• Reduce risks to the environment by preventing direct contact with, and ingestion of,
contaminants in the wetland sediments; and,
• Minimize the migration of contaminants from Site soil and wetland sediments that could
result in surface water concentrations in excess of Ambient Water Quality Criteria.
Management of Groundwater Migration Response Objectives
• Eliminate or minimize the threat posed to human health and the environment by
preventing exposure to the contaminants in the groundwater; and,
• Contain contaminated groundwater to protect human health and the environment.
The remedy outlined in the ROD included demolition and off-site disposal of existing structures,
excavation and off-site disposal of the unusable CCA, excavation and off-site incineration of
pond sediments, low temperature thermal desorption of "hot spot" soil, consolidation of surface
soil outside the area to be capped that exceed site-specific cleanup levels to the area of the Site to
be capped, construction of a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C cap,
construction of a slurry wall around the perimeter of the area encompassed by the cap,
installation of a dewatering system (horizontal wells) within the cap/slurry wall, extraction and
on-site treatment of groundwater (later changed to off-site disposal), restoration of three wetland
areas, implementation of ICs, and long-term monitoring (LTM) of groundwater. EPA issued a
ROD Amendment in August 1996 removing the requirement to treat "hot spots" of soil
contamination and modifying the groundwater remedy to dispose of the extracted groundwater
off-site based on groundwater modeling during the remedial design.
The ROD requires LTM of the primary COCs (i.e., arsenic, chromium, copper, zinc, PAHs, and
PCP) for at least 30 years to determine if maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) are being met at
4 VPI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rentokil Initial pic, a U.K. public limited company.
-------
the site boundary. For sediment and surface soils outside the area to be capped (i.e., the former
process area), the ROD selected risk-based soil cleanup goals based on a future industrial land
use scenario for PAHs, PCP, and arsenic. The primary COCs and associated cleanup goals
established for soil and sediment are listed in Table 2.
Table 1: Primary COCs Established by the 1993 ROD and Associated Cleanup Goals
Groundwater COC "
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
Total Carcinogenic PAHs
PCP
Soil and Sediment COC " Cleanup Goal (m«/k«) '*
Total Carcinogenic PAHs 5_l
PCP 48
Arsenic 33
Notes:
a COCs established by the 1993 ROD. The ROD did not establish specific numeric
values as groundwater cleanup goals but requires groundwater monitoring to
determine if MCLs are being met at the site boundary.
b Cleanup goals established by the 1993 ROD for areas outside the capped area.
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Status of Implementation
In February 1994, VPI entered into a Consent Decree with the United States to perform the
remedial design and implement the remedy selected in the 1993 ROD. VPI's remedial contractor
started remedy construction in May 1998.
Remedial construction at the Site was completed in August of 1999. Contaminated site sediments
and soils outside the area to be capped that exceeded cleanup goals listed in Table 1, above,
(generally occurring in Wetland Areas A, B, and C) were excavated and consolidated into the
former process area to be contained. A 30-inch-wide slurry wall was constructed around the area
from the ground surface to the bedrock-confining layer. Three directionally drilled wells,
identified as Laterals A, B, & C (also referred to as extraction wells), were installed 2 to 4 feet
above the bedrock within the containment area to create a lower groundwater level inside the
containment area than outside. The purpose of this inward gradient of groundwater was to
prevent contaminants from migrating outside of the containment area. A French Drain was
constructed at the perimeter of the containment area at the level of the perched aquifer. The
purpose of this element was to capture groundwater from the perched horizon. A RCRA Subtitle
C cap was placed over the approximately six (6) acre former process area of the Site (Cap Area
1), overlapping the boundaries of the slurry wall. Six monitoring wells (VPMW-1 thru VPMW-
-------
6) were installed outside of the slurry wall downgradient from Cap Area 1 in the saprolitic
groundwater aquifer for LTM.
The RCRA Cap system (Cap Area 1) consists of graded fill material, a low permeability Geo-
Clay liner (GCL), a low-density polyethylene liner (LDPE), a geonet and drainage composite
layer, geotextile fabric, protective cover soil, and approximately six inches of vegetated topsoil.
In preparation for possible future non-residential reuse of the Site, three divider-wall structures
were constructed within the confines of the slurry wall. The rectangular areas consist of
reinforced concrete walls with embedded LDPE strips for connection to the RCRA cap. The
divider walls allow for a total area of approximately 50,000 square feet for potential
redevelopment. Waterstops were inserted in each concrete construction joint for future
foundation construction. Utilities were also placed inside the divider wall structure. Four vents
are positioned on the highest elevation of the cap. The system is a passive gas-venting system
consistent with typical RCRA Subtitle C cap construction. EPA documented the completion of
remedy construction in the September 1999 Preliminary Close Out Report.
Groundwater extraction from the three laterals was initiated in 1999. The extracted groundwater
was pumped to the water facility building, which was constructed for water storage prior to being
transported off-site for disposal. According to the 2000 Final Remedial Design and Remedial
Action Report, the initial analysis of groundwater extracted from the containment system
indicated detections of low levels of non-carcinogenic PAHs and metals with no exceedances of
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). No recovery was being experienced from the French
Drain System indicating that the perched aquifer had been dewatered completely.
To conduct performance monitoring and determine the groundwater gradient within the
containment area, 14 piezometers were installed inside and outside the original slurry wall.
Groundwater depths in these piezometers were measured monthly until August 2014. During that
time, groundwater level data indicated a flat gradient with occasional slight outward or inward
gradients in limited areas of the Site. The piezometers were abandoned in Spring 2015.
In July 2005, EPA approved VPI's request for a one-year moratorium on the extraction and
disposal of groundwater from within the containment system. The moratorium was extended
each year until December 2008 when groundwater extraction was suspended indefinitely. EPA
and VDEQ agreed to the indefinite suspension based on a 2008 groundwater extraction test,
which determined that site groundwater conditions, from a contaminant concentration and flow
velocity/direction standpoint, are similar under extraction conditions and under the natural
conditions observed since the shut-down of the extraction system. In 2015, the groundwater
extraction pumps were removed and the groundwater extraction laterals were abandoned in
place. The remainder of the groundwater recovery system, including the above-ground pumps,
piping, and tanks were removed from the Site in 2016. In 2017, components of the containment
area dewatering system from the water facility building were removed. The building remains in
place. The current owner of the parcel uses the building for storage.
-------
During long-term groundwater monitoring, results for well VPMW-2 consistently showed PCP
concentrations at orders of magnitude above the MCL of 1 microgram per liter ((J,g/L) since
2001. Well VPMW-2 was located just north and downgradient of the original cap and slurry
wall. In 2011, EPA requested that VPI develop a comprehensive remediation strategy to address
contamination in this area, as an additional response action under the 1994 Consent Decree
described below. VPI submitted a focused feasibility study (FFS) to EPA in November 2012.
Based on the remedial alternatives in the FFS, EPA determined that extending the existing
remedy containment system (which includes the original cap and slurry wall) was the most
viable remedial option to address PCP contamination north of the original containment system.
EPA documented this information in a December 2013 Determination of Necessary Additional
Response Action.
VPI extended the cap (Cap Area 2) and slurry wall in December 2016 to contain the residual
PCP-contaminated soil and prevent the infiltration of water. The slurry wall extension is 18
inches wide and installed to a depth of 15-26 feet below ground surface. The total length of the
slurry wall is approximately 770 feet. The new cap components include a non-woven geotextile,
geomembrane, geocomposite drainage layer, 18 inches of protective cover soil, and 6 inches of
vegetated topsoil. The new cap overlaps the original cap by a minimum of 12 inches.
Partial NPL Deletion
In 2009, EPA partially deleted portions of the Site from the NPL, indicating that all appropriate
response actions at those parcels had been completed. The partial deletion pertains to the soil and
sediment of former Wetland Areas B and C and the groundwater at former Wetland Area C
(Figure 3).5. The notice of partial deletion was published by EPA in the Federal Register on
January 27, 2009, and the partial deletion became effective on March 30, 2009. Per the Federal
Register deletion notice, even though the ground water at former Wetland Area B is not
contaminated, EPA required the restriction on groundwater use to prevent the possibility of
drawing contamination in that direction. The Federal Register notice states that former Wetland
Area C would no longer be subject to five-year reviews because all response actions are
complete and conditions allow for UU/UE.
Since the groundwater at former Wetland Area B remains on the NPL, and ICs are in place to
prevent use of groundwater at former Wetland Area B, this area will continue to be evaluated in
this and future FYRs. VPI sold the parcel containing former Wetland Area B in 2008. The parcel
was sold again in December of 2018 to an adjacent property owner, Colonial Webb Contractors
Company, in December of 2018. At the time of the current FYR, the 3.8-acre property is zoned
for commercial and industrial use but has not yet been developed.
5 As part of the remedial action, the contaminated soil in former Wetland Areas B and C was excavated and disposed
of under the cap constructed on the Site. The two former wetland areas were subsequently mitigated by VPI at an
off-site location with the concurrence of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the natural resource trustee.
The mitigation area, which is located in Charles City County, Virginia, consists of 1.41 acres for former Wetland B
and 5 acres for former Wetland C. USFWS continues to monitor VPI's wetland mitigation.
-------
Institutional Control (IC) Review
The ROD requires implementation of ICs, including deed restrictions and restrictions on the use
of the groundwater, to be implemented. The deed restrictions prohibit residential development of
the Site in order to prevent exposure to contaminated soil. The restrictions on the use of the
groundwater at the Site prevent exposure to the contaminated groundwater. In addition, the ROD
Amendment provides, "ICs will be implemented to ensure that the integrity of the cap is
maintained," reflecting EPA's intention to implement ICs that will protect the cap and prohibit
interference with it.
On December 1, 2005, VPI recorded a Deed Notice and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants
(Restrictive Covenant) for the Site with the Henrico County (VA) Clerk's Office. Among other
things, this Restrictive Covenant implements the activity- and use-limitations (AULs) selected in
the ROD and ROD Amendment.6 The Restrictive Covenant applies to the three parcels that
comprise the real property owned by VPI at the time of recording ("the Site property"). The Site,
as described in the ROD, straddles these three parcels.
The Restrictive Covenant implemented AULs for the area of the Site property referred to as the
"Restricted Area," as shown in Exhibit B of the Restrictive Covenant. A copy of the Restrictive
Covenant is included in Appendix C of this FYR. Under the Restrictive Covenant, the
"Restricted Area" included: (i) Wetland Area A, (ii) the former industrial process area (i.e., the
parts of the Site occupied by the original cap and slurry wall systems) ("Area C - Cap Area"),
(iii) the area of the Site property immediately north of the Cap Area ("Area B"), and (iv) former
Wetland Area B ("Area D") (Figure 6). As required by the ROD and ROD Amendment, the
Restrictive Covenant prohibits residential development of the Site, use of Site groundwater, and
disturbance of the cap or placement of structures on it that would damage it in any way.
Neither EPA nor VDEQ were signatories to the Restrictive Covenant. However, EPA had an
opportunity to review and comment on it, and the Restrictive Covenant expressly provides that
the covenants contained in it cannot be "altered or breached in any respect without the express
written approval and consent of EPA (as intentional third-party beneficiary pursuant to§ 55-22 of
the Code of Virginia)." (Restrictive Covenant, ]} 8).7
On April 8, 2019, VPI recorded an Amendment to the Restrictive Covenant ("Amended
Restrictive Covenant" or "Amendment") with the Henrico County (VA) Clerk's Office, the
primary purpose of which was to expand Area C (Cap Area), as depicted on Exhibit B of the
Restrictive Covenant, to include the additional areas of the Site where the cap and slurry wall
6 The Restrictive Covenant also implements AULs not selected in the ROD and ROD Amendment (e.g., AULs for
Wetland Area A that mirror requirements under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344).
7 The Restrictive Covenant also provides VPI with enforcement rights under VA law and states that, if VPI transfers
the Restricted Area of the Site property, any deed or instrument of conveyance will expressly reserve an irrevocable
and permanent easement granting VPI (i) a right of access to meet its obligations under the Consent Decree and
ROD, and (ii) a right to carry out and enforce the AULs under the ROD and the Restrictive Covenant.
-------
were extended during the additional Remedial Action conducted in December 2016. The
Amended Restrictive Covenant included a revised version of Exhibit B, which is Figure 6 of this
FYR. The Amendment expanded the Restrictive Area of the Site to include the portion of the
Site property immediately north of Wetland Area A ("Area A"), although this is not required by
the ROD or ROD Amendment.8 EPA expressly approved and consented to the Amendment, as
required by the original Restrictive Covenant. Table 3, below, summarizes the AULs for the Site
property. A copy of the Amended Restrictive Covenant is included in Appendix C.
EPA completed a vapor intrusion (VI) assessment evaluation in February 2022 (as discussed in
Section V. Question B, below); and determined that an IC specifically related to VI is not
warranted.
Parcels 771-757-8224, 771-756-5980, and 771-756-7746, which comprise the Site property,
were acquired by a construction company, Laydown Yard, LLC, from VPI in October 2021. On
or around October 28, 2021, VPI and new owner, Laydown Yard, LLC, entered into an
Environmental Agreement relating to the sale of the Site property. Under this Environmental
Agreement, the parties purported to divide between themselves responsibility for VPI's
obligations under the Consent Decree ("the regulatory obligations"). Without going into detail
about the obligations purportedly assumed by the new owner, we note that the Consent Decree
"is binding upon the United States and upon VPI and its agents, successors and assigns. Any
change in ownership or corporate status of VPI including, but not limited to, any transfer of
assets or real or personal property shall in no way alter VPI's responsibilities under this Consent
Decree."9
8 Area A is not included within the ROD's definition of the Site. As such, EPA has not required AULs on this
portion of the Site property.
9 See also 42 U.S.C. § 9607(e) ("No indemnification, hold harmless, or similar agreement or conveyance shall be
effective to transfer from the owner or operator of any vessel or facility, or from any person who may be liable for a
release or threat of release under this section, to any other person the liability imposed under this section.")
-------
Table 2: Summary of Planned and/or Implemented Institutional Controls
Mediii, Kn»inccred Controls, itiul Aitsis
Thill Do Not Support I I /1 K liiised on
Current Conditions
ICs
Needed
ICs ( idled
lor in the
Decision
Documents
Impiiclcd I'nrccKs)
IC Objectse
Title of IC Instrument
Implemented iind Diilc
(or phinned)
IC Area: Wetland Area
(4.49 acres)
Includes Wetland Area A
Soil
Yes
Yes
North/central portion of
parcel
771-757-8224
Prohibit residential land use.
Restrictive Covenant,
recorded Dec. 1, 2005, as
amended, April 8, 2019
Groundwater
Yes
Yes
Prohibit groundwater use.
l( Area Area 1}
(7 In acres)
Soil
Yes
Yes
( enlral portion of parcel
771 -757-8224. just north
of the Cap Area, and
northern portion of
parcel
772-757-1 w 1S
Prohibit residential land use
Restricts e ( o\ enanl.
recorded Dee 1. 2nii5. as
amended. April 8. 2<>|M
(iroundw aler
Yes
Yes
Prohibit groundwater use
IC Area: Area C - Cap
Area
(9.29 acres)
Includes cap & slurry wall
Soil
Yes
Yes
Southern and
Southeastern portions of
parcel 771-757-8224.
Parcel
771-756-5980.
Prohibit residential land use.
Prohibit activities that could
compromise the integrity of the cap.
Restrictive Covenant,
recorded Dec. 1, 2005, as
amended, April 8, 2019
Groundwater
Yes
Yes
Prohibit installation of wells and
groundwater use.
l( Area Area 1)
(2 31 acres)
Includes former \\ el land
Area 1}
Soil (deleted
from MM.)
\o
Yes
Southern portion of
parcel
772-75 7-i wl 8
Prohibit residential land use.
Restricts e ( o\ enanl.
recorded Dec 1. as
amended. April 8. 2n|w
(iroundw aler
Yes
Yes
Prohibit installation of wells and
groundwater use
Notes:
1. The Site is comprised of four parcels (Nos. 771-757-8224, 772-757-0918, 771-756-5980, and 771-756-7746). Only the first three are subject to AULs under
the 1993 ROD and the ROD Amendment. Parcel 772-757-0918, which comprises 3.846 acres, was subdivided from Parcel 771-757-8224 in 2008.
2. Under the 2005 Restrictive Covenant, as amended, the activity- and use-restrictions selected in the 1993 ROD will run with the land.
3. The Site "IC Areas" referenced in the table above are depicted in Figure 6. They were established by the 2019 Amended Restrictive Covenant and do not
coincide with parcel boundaries. The Henrico County Parcel map is included as Figure 7.
4. Area A and IC Area E which are depicted in Figure 6 are not included in this table because they do not require ICs. Area A is considered off-Site under the
ROD, but is part of parcel 771-757-8224, once owned by VPI. Area E, which contains former Wetland Area C, is parcel 771-756-7746 and was deleted
from the NPL because conditions in this area allow for UU/UE and is not subject to five-year reviews.
5. Soil and sediments in Wetland Area B of the Site were deleted from the NPL in 2009. Arguably, the AUL prohibiting residential use of this area of the Site
is no longer needed for protectiveness.
-------
Systems Operations/ Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
VPI's O&M contractors, Arcadis and NewFields, perform O&M activities in accordance with
the 2001 Final O&M Plan and 2016 Groundwater Monitoring Plan. The contractors document
O&M activities in annual reports. This FYR included a review of O&M reports from 2017
through 2021. See the Data Review Section of this FYR for additional information regarding
groundwater monitoring. The current maintenance program for the Site includes quarterly
inspections and maintenance of the slurry-wall system, cap, stormwater management controls,
and the security fence. No significant issues were noted in this FYR period regarding the
condition or functionality of the cap, slurry wall or stormwater controls. Arcadis removes excess
vegetation and tree growth that might pose a threat to the integrity of the cap. Cap vegetation is
mowed at least twice a year. The security fence that surrounds the cap is cleared of vegetation
and repaired, as needed.
There are no additional monitoring events required for the wetland areas impacted by Site
releases. The maintenance and monitoring requirements for the restored wetlands located to the
north of the Site were satisfied in 2010. The wetlands were sufficiently established at that time.
In 2015, to facilitate the construction of the expanded containment system, all but three
monitoring wells (VPMW-4, VPMW-5 and VPMW-6) were abandoned. Following the extension
of the containment system in 2016, three new monitoring wells (VPMW-1R, VPDW-04R and
VPDW-05R) were installed north and downgradient of the extended system (Cap Area 2). The
six monitoring wells currently located on the Site outside of the cap and slurry wall areas are
depicted on Figure 4. There are currently no wells located within the containment areas.
The 2016 Groundwater Monitoring Plan became effective following the installation of the new
monitoring wells downgradient of the expanded cap and slurry-wall area. Upon completion of
the installation of the three new monitoring wells, a site-wide sampling event was conducted in
October 2017. There were no detections above MCLs at any of the six wells that were sampled.
Per the approved 2016 Groundwater Monitoring Plan and based on the results of the site wide
sampling event, the PRP requested an annual sampling schedule for year two thru year four of
post-remedial monitoring for the three new monitoring wells and discontinuance of monitoring
for the three older monitoring wells. A request to reduce the frequency of groundwater
monitoring from every year (annual) to every other year (biennial) was received in February
2022. The request was consistent with the approved 2016 Groundwater Monitoring Plan and
current and historical analytical data shows concentrations of COCs consistently below
applicable MCLs. Therefore, the request was approved by EPA in March 2022. Annual reporting
and cap inspections are still required.
III. PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW
This section includes the protectiveness determinations and statements from the previous FYR as
well as the recommendations from the previous FYR and the current status of those
recommendations.
-------
Table 3: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2018 FYR
or#
Protectiveness
Determination
Protectiveness Statement
i
Short-term
Protective
The remedy is protective of human health and the environment in
the short term because the cap prevents direct exposure to
contaminated soil, the groundwater contamination remains on-site,
the Site is fenced, and monitoring is performed to ensure the
integrity of the remedy.
Long-term protectiveness of the remedial action will be achieved
when groundwater monitoring with improved detection limits
verifies that there is no migration of groundwater above MCLs
downgradient of the slurry wall.
Additionally, ICs will need to prohibit activities that could impact
the integrity of the expanded cap and slurry wall. Although no one
currently uses the contaminated groundwater, institutional controls
have been implemented to prevent exposure to, or ingestion of,
contaminated groundwater. There are also institutional controls to
prevent residential use.
Table 4: Status of Recommendations from the 2018 FYR
or#
Issue
Recommendation
Current
Current
Com pletion
Status
Implementation
Dale (if
Status Description
applicable)
i
The
Revise the
Completed
The Amended
4/8/2019
institutional
institutional control
Restrictive
control in place
for the property
Covenant was
for parcel 771-
occupied by the new
recorded on
757-8224,
cap and slurry wall
4/8/2019 to expand
which includes
to include a
the AULs for the
the new cap
prohibition on
Cap Area of the
and slurry wall,
activities that could
Site. EPA
does not
impact the integrity
determined an ESD
prohibit
of the remedy and
would not be
activities that
consider an
needed because this
could
Explanation of
AUL was already
compromise
Significant
selected in the 1996
the integrity of
Differences to
ROD Amendment
the new
include this
(p. 8).10
remedial
restriction as part of
features.
the remedy.
10 The ROD Amendment provides, "Institutional controls will be implemented to ensure that the integrity of the cap
is maintained."
-------
The 2018 FYR also listed the below other findings that warranted follow-up, but did not
affect current or future protectiveness:
• Evaluate the need to reseed the expanded part of the cap in 2018.
o The seeding did not need to be redone. The Site visit for the 2018 FYR was done
in the late fall 2017, and the area was initially seeded in late spring 2017. When
spring 2018 came around, the area had a full grass field with wildflowers.
• Ensure that method detection limits (MDL) can detect groundwater constituents at
cleanup goal concentrations.
o VPI had already identified a new laboratory by issuance of the 2018 FYR that was
used thereafter and can achieve the necessary detection limit for benzo(a)pyrene.
The Arcadis Project Manager confirmed with the lab after the 2018 FYR about
the detection limits, and this change has been reflected in the annual reports.
IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
Community Notification, Community Involvement, and Site Interviews
A public notice was made available by newspaper posting in the Henrico Citizen on January 12,
2023. It stated that the FYR was underway and invited the public to submit any comments to
EPA. No comments were received. A copy of the press notice is in Appendix D. The results of
the review and the report will be made available at the Site's information repository. The Site's
information repository is located at the Tuckahoe Area Library and online at:
www.epa.gov/superfund/rentoki 1. The Tuckahoe Area Library is located at 1901 Starling Drive
in Henrico and is part of the Henrico County Public Library system.
During the FYR process, interviews were conducted to document any perceived problems or
successes with the remedy. The results of these interviews are summarized below. Completed
interview forms are included in Appendix E.
The VDEQ Project Manager indicated there have been no problems with unusual or unexpected
activities at the Site and has not received any complaints or inquiries regarding the Site. The
Arcadis Project Manager noted that there was one known trespassing event that occurred in
2018; however, no vandalism occurred to the remedial measures. Occasional dumping of tires,
vegetative debris, etc. outside of the perimeter fence had occurred prior to 2019 when warning
signs and cameras were installed to prevent such activities.
Laydown Yard, LLC, the current owner of parcels 771-757-8224, 771-756-5980, and 771-756-
7746 of the Site, stated that they were made aware of the environmental issues prior to
purchasing the property and feels well-informed of the response activities and remedial progress
at the Site. They are not aware of any problems or unusual or unexpected activities at the Site.
They are planning redevelopment of the Site for use as a laydown yard and will be submitting a
-------
Plan of Development to Henrico County. EPA will work with the property owner to ensure that
any future land uses would not interfere with the site's remedy.
Colonial Webb Contractors Company, the current owner of parcel 772-757-0918 where former
Wetland B was located, was contacted but not formally interviewed. The owner stated that they
are aware of the environmental issues at the Site and are well informed of the response activities
and remedial progress at the Site. The owner indicated that their future plans for their Site
property potentially involve development of a warehouse on the parcel. The owner stated that
they are aware of the Restrictive Covenant on the parcel. EPA will work with the property owner
to ensure that any future land uses would not interfere with the site's remedy.
The local government representative interviewed was from the Henrico County Planning
Department. The representative stated that Henrico County maintains a file on the Site but has
not been kept informed of Site activities since the previous Five-Year Review in 2018. The
county requested updates on the current status of the Site and restrictions on potential reuse of
the Site. The county also suggested that EPA have a specific county contact on file to provide
Site-related updates and copies of FYR reports. Leslie News, Assistant Director of Planning, has
since been established as the point of contact at the Henrico County Planning Department. The
county noted that the Division of Police has indicated there have been no calls for service at the
Site's address within the past five years. The county's 2026 Comprehensive Plan designates the
Site as restricted to light industrial use. The county is aware of Laydown Yard, LLC's plan to
redevelop the Site for use as a laydown yard.
During the Site visit, EPA RPM Victoria Schantz and CIC John Brakeall spoke to three residents
who live on Oakview Avenue, northwest of the Site. Two of the residents live in the same home
and were interviewed together. The two residents were not aware of the Site, but said they were
confident that EPA's work is protective of human health and the environment. They did,
however, note that they have not been kept informed of Site activities and that it would be
helpful if EPA could provide updates to the community, particularly if there are changes that
could affect their health. One of the residents noted that there is a lot of wildlife near the Site,
and it's easy to forget that the Site has contamination on it. Both residents appreciated the
opportunity to speak with EPA representatives. Both residents expressed interest in being kept
informed about future redevelopment of the Site. The third resident was not interested in being
formally interviewed. The resident was aware of the Site but had no questions or concerns to
share with EPA.
Data Review
The primary goal of the groundwater monitoring program is to evaluate water quality in the
shallow groundwater aquifer downgradient of the capped areas. This FYR included a review of
groundwater monitoring data collected from monitoring wells VPMW-1R, VPDW-04R and
VPDW-05R in June 2018 through June 2021, as presented in the Site's semi-annual groundwater
monitoring reports. Figure 4 shows the monitoring well network. The wells are installed in the
saprolitic aquifer, which lies above a bedrock confining layer at about 20 to 30 feet below
-------
ground surface. Groundwater samples were analyzed for arsenic, copper, chromium, zinc, PAHs,
and PCP. The samples for arsenic, chromium, copper, and zinc were filtered in the laboratory.
Since the Site-wide event in October 2017, annual sampling of the three monitoring wells from
2018 to 2021 has shown that all COCs remain below MCLs. Table 5, below, shows the detected
analytes during these four sampling events. All reporting limits (RLs) were equal to or less than
the MCL. No COCs were detected at or above their respective MCLs during the June 18, 2018,
June 27, 2019, June 25, 2020, and the June 16, 2021 sampling events. Per the approved biennial
sampling schedule, the wells were not sampled in June 2022. The next sampling event will take
place in June 2023.
-------
Table 5: Groundwater Analytical Detections Between June 2018 and June 2021
I.iiiiiiiiiii II)
YPMW-IR
YPDW-4R
YPDW-5R
S;iini)k' l);ik-
6/IS/20IS
6/27/201')
6/25/2020
6/16/2021
6/IN/20IN
6/27/201')
6/25/2020
6/16/2021
6/ IS/20 IS
6/27/201')
6/25/2020
6/16/2021
An;il\ k-
I nils
MCI.
RSI.
Fluoranthene
Hg/L
—
80
< 0.074
< 0.070
0.16 J
<0.10
0.22
< 0.074
< 0.069
<0.10
0.17 J
< 0.072
< 0.066
<0.23
Pentachlorophenol
(8151)
Hg/L
1
--
<0.036
<0.037
<0.019
< 0.027
<0.035
<0.038
<0.019
0.038 J
< 0.036
<0.037
<0.019
< 0.026
Phenanthrene
Hg/L
—
12
<0.039
<0.037
0.10 J
< 0.079
0.30
<0.039
<0.036
<0.079
0.078 J
<0.038
<0.035
<0.18
Pyrene
Hg/L
—
12
< 0.044
<0.041
0.12 J
<0.10
0.16 J
< 0.043
0.045 J
<0.10
0.14 J
< 0.042
<0.043 J
<0.10
Chromium
(Dissolved)
Hg/L
100
--
< 1.6
< 1.6
< 1.6
1.6 J
< 1.6
< 1.6
< 1.6
< 1.6
< 1.6
24
3.0 J
8.3 J
Copper
(Dissolved)
Hg/L
1300
--
< 1.8
< 1.8
< 1.8
< 1.8
< 1.8
< 1.8
< 1.8
< 1.8
< 1.8
3.4 J
3.8 J
5.6 J
Zinc (Dissolved)
Hg/L
-
600
<7.0
<7.0
<7.0
18 J
<7.0
<7.0
<7.0
7.5 J
20
26
36
180
Notes:
|ig/L - micrograms per liter
MCL - Maximum Concentration Limit
J - Result is less than the RL but greater than or equal to the MDL and the concentration is an approximate value
Bold - Indicates concentration was detected
Only analytes with detections are shown
Tap water Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) are provided for contaminants with no MCL as a comparative health-based screening standard.
The RSL for pyrene was used as a surrogate for phenanthrene.
-------
Site Inspection
The Site inspection took place on November 2, 2022. Prior to meeting at the Site, Victoria
Schantz (EPA RPM) and John Brakeall (EPA CIC) walked along Oakview Avenue and
conducted interviews with neighbors. Following the interviews, the EPA RPM and CIC visited
the Site's local information repository, Tuckahoe Public Library, at 1901 Starling Drive in
Henrico. The Henrico Government and Law Library previously served as the Site's repository
but merged with the Henrico County Public Library System. Library staff were unable to find the
Site documents at the time of the visit. After the visit EPA's records center worked with the
Tuckahoe Library to re-establish the repository for the Site.
After the visit to the library, the EPA RPM and CIC drove to the Site and met the other
attendees: Owner of Laydown Yard, LLC, Angie McGarvey (VDEQ), Catherine Coffey
(Arcadis), and Justin Coffey (Arcadis). Laydown Yard, LLC purchased the Site property (parcels
771-757-8224, 771-756-5980, and 771-756-7746) from VPI in October 2021. The purpose of the
inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy. The Site inspection checklist is
included in Appendix F. Site inspection photographs are included in Appendix G.
Site inspection participants gathered at the Site, located at 3000 Peyton Street, inside the fenced
area, near the water facility building. Once gathered, a brief safety meeting and discussion of the
inspection was held. Site inspection participants first observed the portion of the non-capped area
that the owner is using for contractor storage. Site inspection participants then left the fenced cap
and slurry-wall area to inspect the monitoring wells and observe Wetland Area A and North Run
Creek. All six monitoring wells were located and were locked. Site inspection participants
observed the Wetland Area A, North Run Creek and the stormwater basin. No issues were noted
in these areas.
Site inspection participants returned to inspect the fenced cap and slurry-wall area. The four cap
vents were also inspected. No damaged fencing was noted. The original and extended caps were
in good condition and vegetation was well established. No erosion was evident. No issues were
noted in these areas.
Next, the participants toured the inside of the water facility building. The owner is currently
using the building for storage of contractor equipment. Site inspection participants left the water
facility building and observed former Wetland Area B, which is fenced and supports well-
established vegetation.
V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
Question A Summary: Yes. The remedy is functioning as designed and intended by the
decision documents. There are no known complete exposure pathways at the Site.
-------
In the early 1990s, the removal action and other cleanup actions performed by VPI addressed
immediate threats to human health and the environment. Excavation and consolidation of
contaminated soil and sediment beneath the caps prevents unacceptable exposures to human and
ecological receptors through direct contact. The caps also prevent infiltration of precipitation
through the contaminated material, preventing additional groundwater contamination. The slurry
walls contain contaminated groundwater, preventing off-site migration of Site-related COCs.
The ROD and ROD Amendment require ICs to implement AULs to prohibit (i) residential
development of the Site (ii) activities that would impact the integrity of the cap and slurry wall,
and (iii) the use of Site groundwater. These AULs are required because the remedy leaves
contamination in place at concentrations that do not allow for UU/UE of the Site. The 2005
Restrictive Covenant and the 2019 Amendment implement the AULs selected in the ROD and
ROD Amendment.
Data from June 2018 to June 2021 indicate no COCs exceeding MCLs or Regional Screening
Levels (RSLs) for groundwater. The review of available groundwater data indicates that
groundwater contamination is confined within the Site property boundaries.
Site O&M is adequate. Based on a review of the available O&M reports and the Site inspection,
no significant issues have been noted since the previous FYR regarding the condition or
functionality of the cap, slurry wall or stormwater controls.
QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RAOs used
at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
Question B Summary: Yes. The cleanup goals and exposure assumptions used at the time of the
remedy selection remain valid. Although changes to toxicity data have occurred since remedy
selection, the changes do not call into question the protectiveness of the remedy.
The ROD did not establish specific numeric values as groundwater cleanup goals but requires
groundwater monitoring to determine if MCLs are being met at the Site boundary. The current
MCL for arsenic (10 (J,g/L) is lower than it was at the time of the ROD (50 (J,g/L). However,
groundwater COC concentrations are compared to the current MCLs and RSLs and during this
FYR period measured concentrations did not exceed even the lower MCL for arsenic. Therefore,
the change does not affect the protectiveness of the remedy.
The last FYR (2018) included a screening-level risk evaluation to determine if the soil dioxin
concentrations detected on-Site during the RI would pose unacceptable risks since the non-
cancer toxicity value for dioxin was updated. A review of the soil dioxin data confirmed that
dioxin contamination in Site soil was within the same general footprint as PCP soil
contamination which was consolidated under the cap. Therefore, the implemented soil remedy is
expected to have also addressed risks associated with 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
-------
(TCDD) in site soil. The evaluation also included an assessment of the soil cleanup goals which
demonstrated that the direct contact cleanup goals remained valid for the three primary soil
COCs established by the ROD.
The ROD did not evaluate risks to ecological receptors associated with surface soil. Available
surface soil data from the RI for soil that potentially remains in place was evaluated and
determined not to pose an unacceptable risk to ecological receptors. The clean fill used to
backfill remediated areas and the vegetative covers and caps create a barrier and prevents
exposure to any remaining potentially contaminated soil or sediment for ecological receptors.
This FYR evaluated the chemical-specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs) identified in the ROD and determined that there were no changes that affect the
protectiveness of the Site's remedy.
A VI assessment was performed by EPA in 2021. The evaluation was completed to answer
questions raised by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) regarding
the possible redevelopment of the Site and the potential need for an IC related to VI. The details
of the VI assessment are included in Appendix H and are summarized below.
Groundwater contamination is confined within the containment area surrounded by two slurry
walls and a RCRA Subtitle C cap. To get a sense of the potential risk of VI within the
containment area screenings were performed using EPA's Vapor Intrusion Screening Level
(VISL) Calculator. As no wells are currently located within the containment area to sample, the
screenings used available groundwater data from the 1992 RI and data collected in 2008 from the
extraction laterals. The screenings indicate:
• Groundwater in 1992 could have presented a VI risk within future commercial buildings,
primarily from naphthalene.
• Groundwater in 2008 from within the containment area could have presented a minimal
non-cancer VI risk within future commercial buildings, primarily from naphthalene.
• The results show that the VI risk decreased significantly from 1992, during the RI, to
2008, after the Remedial Action occurred and over one million gallons of groundwater
were extracted from within the containment area and disposed.
The 2008 data is the most recent data available as it was collected prior to abandonment of the
laterals. It is approximately 15 years old and concentrations of naphthalene have likely decreased
to levels that would not cause an unacceptable VI risk today. In addition, vapor mitigation is
inherent in a RCRA Subtitle C cap system. For these reasons, EPA is confident that VI is not an
issue at the Site.
An IC is in place which prohibits residential development on the property and EPA can require
additional VI mitigation as part of the reuse management authorities EPA has over the Site.
Therefore, a formal IC for VI mitigation is not warranted. Moving forward, EPA will advise
-------
Prospective Purchasers through a Comfort Letter and will work with the purchaser to determine
if structures would be anticipated on the capped area. If so, out of an abundance of caution,
EPA's preference would be to proactively incorporate a passive sub slab depressurization system
and a vapor barrier into any building designs.
QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy?
Question C Summary: No other information has come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy.
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS
Issues/Recommendations
()l (s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the hive-Year Review:
oTI
Other Findings:
In addition, the following is a recommendation that was identified during the FYR but does not
affect current and/or future protectiveness:
• The potential for deletion from the NPL has been discussed. Additional groundwater
data, including looking at additional potential parameters, will be necessary to perform a
risk evaluation prior to deletion.
VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT
Protectiveness Statement
()/>cicih/c I mi: 1 | I'roicciiwncs.v I K-icrniiiialioii: holiyli\ c
1 'l'(JIl'CII\'l'IIl'SS SIlIIl'IIIl'III:
The remedy is protective of human health and the environment. The cap prevents
direct exposure to contaminated soil, the groundwater contamination remains within
the containment area on-Site, the Site is fenced, and monitoring is performed to
ensure the integrity of the remedy. Institutional controls are also in place to prohibit
residential land use, prevent the use of impacted groundwater, and protect the
integrity of the remedy. EPA will continue to conduct FYRs to ensure that the remedy
remains protective.
VIII. NEXT REVIEW
The next FYR Report for OU1 of the Rentokil, Inc. site is required five years from the
completion date of this review.
-------
FIGURES
-------
Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map
:• <• 1
p£> - -y.Tii
-V
.; - .: : ¦v
EhMmBIHB
¦ ^ -
¦5 J3L-
*
. fc#P * T
V *
rTP - Vv * •,*->.••?,
CV?|\ 'V " ,
3§S
IRS! v
.< . v-'.
* * A \
¦ m'
* -«•.< .• .•
v - ¦¦¦" Y i
•¦_t3 - ^
0 462.5 925
1,850
H Feet
Sources: Esri, DeLorme, AND, Tele Atlas, First American,
UNEP-WCMC, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar
Geographies, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, Aerogrid,
IGN, the GIS User Community and the 2016 Operation,
Maintenance, and Monitoring Summary Report.
Legend
New Cap
Original Cap
V// Wetland Areas
North Run Creek
Railroad Tracks
^ Skeo
Rentokil, Inc. (Virginia Wood Preserving Division) Superfund Site
City of Richmond, Henrico County, Virginia J
Disclaimer-. This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change. The map is not
a survey. The map is for informational purposes only regarding EPA's response actions at the Site.
Richmondl
Mir.qinia
* 33
I] ]
301<
1
Rentokil, Inc.
.(Virginia Wood Preserving Division)
Superfund Site
-------
Figure 2: 1993 Site Boundary
Note: Figure 2 above is Figure 4 from the Site's 1993 ROD.
-------
Wetland Area A
Former
i Wetland
\ Area B
Former
Wetland Area C
Figure 3: Detailed Map of Current Site Features and Remedial Components
125
250
500
H Feet
Sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar
Geographies, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,
Aerogrid, IGN, the GIS User Community, the
2016 Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring
Summary Report and the 2016 Rentokil
Remedial Action Work Plan Addendum.
Legend
Original Monitoring Wells (Retained)
® New Monitoring Wells
North Run Creek
=—=— New Slurry Wall
[ j Property Parcels
Divider Walls
New Cap
^ _ J| Original Slurry Wall
T77X Original Cap
Wetland Areas
—— Railroad Tracks
X W&ter Facility Building
^ Skeo
Rentokil, Inc. (Virginia Wood Preserving Division) Superfund Site
City of Richmond, Henrico County, Virginia ,
Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change. The map is not
a survey. The map is for informational purposes only regarding EPA's response actions at the Site.
-------
Q
LU
o
_l
CL
LU
_l
m
<
i—
LU
I
>-
I—
W
I—
o
_l
CL
CL
=>
I—
LU
W
LU
O
<
CL
X
o
LU
I—
o
CM
of
LU
>
Q
<
O
<
oo
o
CNJ
CD
Q
LU
>
<
W
CM
H
=>
o
>-
<
O)
TO
CL
CD
-+—»
W
I
CM
O)
O
* I
LU 9
?" O
II o
u- o
LL O
o q
* " CO
zS
o £
O CD
Q. CO
o 9
X oo
a: t-
>- o
"O
si
LU
0
<
01
m
CL
01
j2
o
LU
O z
n O
ai
_l LU
a: <
a |
o
en
LU
m
0
. LU
01 a;
m W
UJ o
Q O LU
Q Z
a
<
o
>
z
LU
CL
=>
o
o ^
CD <
CO LLI
2 W
- O
S9 a:
w
Q
<
_ o
01 01
o <
>
01
LU
Q
Q >
S_
7 Q
il
W
_l
o
CL
<
LU
01
0) LLI
m
O
>-
m
CD
¦a
CD
.a
o
>-
o
CNJ
CD
O O in
EXISTING
BASIN
WETLANDS
VPMW-1R
CAP AREA 2
CAP AREA 1
LEGEND
PROPERTY OWNED BY VPI/RIESS
EXISTING 8' CHAIN LINK FENCE
EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY
EXISTING UTILITY POLE
EXISTING TREE LINE
EXISTING BASIN
EXISTING DITCH
EXISTING SLURRY WALL
EXISTING PERFORATED STORMWATER
COLLECTION PIPE (PSCP)
EXISTING GROUTED LATERAL DRAIN
EXISTING GROUTED MANHOLE
• EXISTING PVC CAP 8c BOLLARDS
EXISTING LINER
EXISTING CONTOURS
0 MONITORING WELL
A PROPOSED MONITORING WELL
NOTES:
1. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS BASED ON NAD 83 SOUTH ZONE
"GRID" COORDINATES REFERENCED TO THE KEYNET VRS
SYSTEM.
2. VERTICAL DATUM BASED ON NAVD 88, GEOID 12A
REFERENCED TO THE KEYNET VRS SYSTEM.
3. SURVEY PREPARED BY JORDAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,
P.C. AND SUPERFUNDCIVIL.DWG.
4. BASE MAP INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY NEWFIELDS; 1301
N. MCCARRAN BLVD; SUITE 101; SPARKS, NV 89431.
FORMER VIRGINIA PROPERTIES SUPERFUND SITE
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
2021 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND
MONITORING SUMMARY REPORT
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS AND
MONITORING WELLS LOCATIONS
^ARCADIS
Design & Consultancy
for natural and
built assets
FIGURE
-------
Figure 5: Historic Site Features
Note: Figure 4 above is Figure 7 from the Site's 1993 ROD.
-------
Figure 6: Institutional Control Map
1. THE RESTRICTED AREA INCLUOE5 AREA A. AREA B,
AREA C AND WETLAND AREA. AREA D IS
LEGEND RESTRICTED AS DETAILED IN THE RESTRICTIVE
COVENANT DATED APRIL 20, 2005.
AREA A - (5.03 ACRES)
AREA B - (7.10 ACRES)
AREA C - CAP AREA - (9.29 ACRES)
^7:. AREA 0 - (2.31 ACRES)
AREA E - (3.25 ACRES)
'WETLAND AREA - RESTRICTIVE
COTE MAN T (A. 49 ACRES)
RENTOKIL INITIAL ENVIRON WfcNTAt. SERVICES
VIRGINIA PROPER HE S, INC.
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
REAL ESTATE MAP
0>ARCADIS £
NOTE
Note: Figure 6 above is Exhibit A of the 2019 Amended Restrictive Covenant which is a revised
versi on of Exhibit B of the 2005 Restrictive Covenant.
-------
This map has been produced on Henrico. County's Geographical
hfgiynatiqn System using the best.data available to the County.
Thisrnsp is to be-used for reference purposes only.an%he County
of. Henrico makes no warranty as to its completeness or^cCuracy.
Any determin ation of topography or contours, or any depiction of
phyjlcol irnpiovvirients. property iines or boundaries is for serfr?"!
information only and shall not be used for the design, modification,
of constructi on of improvements to real property or for flood plain
ttete'iiflftstibn^JRfi rs% -.ff
771-757-8224
772-757-0918
771-756-5980
771-756-7746
Legend
Tax Parcels
Phases
Lots
771-756-3937
mi
I I I I I
0 0.0225 0.045 0.09
Figure 7 - Henrico County Tax Map
Henrico GIS
Author: Internet User
Date: 5/9/2023
-------
APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST
-------
Reference List
Administrative Order by Consent, Virginia Wood Preserving Site. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 3. 1987.
Amendment to Deed Notice and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for Certain Property at the
Rentokil Superfund Site, Henrico County, Virginia. April 20, 2019.
Deed Notice and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for Certain Property at the Rentokil
Superfund Site, Henrico County, Virginia. April 20, 2005.
Focused Feasibility Study, Rentokil Site, Richmond, Virginia. Prepared by NewFields for
Virginia Properties, Inc., A Rentokil Initial Company. November 2012.
Fourth Five-Year Review Report for Rentokil, Inc. Superfund Site, Henrico County, Virginia.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3. July 2, 2018.
Groundwater Monitoring Plan, Former Virginia Properties Superfund Site, Richmond, Virginia.
Prepared by Arcadis U.S., Inc. for Rentokil Initial Environmental Services, LLC. November 14,
2016.
NPL Partial Site Deletion Narrative, Rentokil, Inc. (Virginia Wood Preserving Division),
Richmond, Virginia.
Operation & Maintenance Plan, Rentokil Facility, Henrico County, Virginia. Arcadis. September
2018.
2017 Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Summary Report, Rentokil Site, Richmond,
Virginia. Prepared by Arcadis for Virginia Properties, Inc., A Rentokil Initial Company. May
2018.
2018 Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Summary Report, Rentokil Site, Richmond,
Virginia. Prepared by Arcadis for Virginia Properties, Inc., A Rentokil Initial Company. March
2019.
2019 Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Summary Report, Rentokil Site, Richmond,
Virginia. Prepared by Arcadis for Virginia Properties, Inc., A Rentokil Initial Company. March
2020.
2020 Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Summary Report, Rentokil Site, Richmond,
Virginia. Prepared by Arcadis for Virginia Properties, Inc., A Rentokil Initial Company. March
2021.
-------
2021 Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Summary Report, Rentokil Site, Richmond,
Virginia. Prepared by Arcadis for Virginia Properties, Inc., A Rentokil Initial Company. April
2022.
Phase II Remedial Investigation Report, Volume I - Text, Virginia Wood Preserving Site,
Richmond, Virginia. Prepared by Dames & Moore for Virginia Properties, Inc. February 1992.
Preliminary Close Out Report, Rentokil, Inc. Henrico County, Virginia. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 3. September 2, 1999.
Record of Decision: Rentokil Virginia Wood Preserving, VA. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 3. June 22, 1993.
Record of Decision Amendment, Rentokil, Inc. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
3. August 27, 1996.
Remedial Action Completion Report, Former Virginia Properties Superfund Site, Richmond,
Virginia. Prepared by Arcadis U.S., Inc. for Rentokil Initial Environmental Services, LLC.
September 2018.
Remedial Action Workplan Addendum, Former Virginia Properties Superfund Site, Richmond,
Virginia. Prepared by Arcadis U.S., Inc. for Rentokil Initial Environmental Services, LLC.
October 18, 2016.
Remedial Investigation Report, Volume I - Text, Virginia Wood Preserving Site, Richmond,
Virginia. Prepared by Dames & Moore for Virginia Properties, Inc. May 31, 1990.
Rentokil, Inc. Superfund Site, EPA Determination of Necessary Additional Response Action
Memorandum. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3. December 4, 2013.
Rentokil, Inc. Superfund Site, Need for Additional Response Action letter. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 3. December 5, 2013.
-------
APPENDIX B - SITE CHRONOLOGY
-------
Site Chronology
Kvenl
Wood treatment operations began on site
1957
Fish kills occurred in Talley's Pond
1962
Site owner cleared, cleaned and replaced the blowdown sump with a
concrete holding pond and constructed a covered, unlined pond
1963
Site operators disposed of over 1,100 pounds of CCA in a surface pit
on the northeastern part of the Site
1976
Rentokil, Inc. and EPA signed an Administrative Order by Consent to
conduct an RI/FS, Rentokil started the RI/FS
December 1987
EPA added the Site to the NPL
March 31, 1989
Rentokil completed the RI/FS
1992
All facility operations ceased.
January 1990
EPA entered into an Administrative Order by Consent with the PRP
for the performance of a removal action to prevent additional
migration of site-related contamination into North Run Creek
March 1992
PRP started the removal action
June 22, 1992
PRP completed the removal action
September 29, 1992
EPA signed the ROD
June 22, 1993
PRP entered into a Consent Decree with EPA to perform the remedial
design and implement the remedy selected by the ROD
February 1994
PRP began remedial design
May 2, 1994
EPA modified the remedy in an ROD Amendment to remove the
requirement to treat "hot spots" of soil contamination
August 27, 1996
PRP completed remedial design and started remedial action
May 21, 1998
PRP completed remedy construction, EPA issued the Site's
Preliminary Close Out Report
September 2, 1999
EPA completed the Site's first FYR
September 17, 2003
PRP ceased operation of the groundwater extraction system
2005
PRP filed a Deed Notice and Declaration of Environmental
Covenants for the Site with the Henrico County Clerk's Office
December 1, 2005
EPA determined that the Site was ready for reuse and redevelopment
June 26, 2006
Developer purchased 3.8 acres of the site property (the part of the
Site that includes former Wetland Area B)
July 28, 2008
EPA completed the Site's second FYR
September 22, 2008
EPA deleted a portion of the Site to accommodate
industrial/commercial development. This partial deletion includes the
soil and sediment at
former Wetland Areas B and C and the groundwater at former
Wetland Area C.
March 30, 2009
EPA submitted a letter to the PRP requiring development of a
comprehensive remediation strategy to address the contamination
north of the original containment system
March 3, 2011
PRP submitted an FFS to EPA that included remedial alternatives to
address contamination north of the original containment system
November 8, 2012
-------
EPA completed the Site's third FYR
July 2,2013
EPA issued a Determination of Necessary Additional Response
Action memorandum to the PRP regarding the need to expand the
original containment system
December 4, 2013
PRP submitted the Remedial Design Workplan to EPA regarding the
containment system expansion
April 2014
PRP submitted the initial Remedial Action Workplan to EPA
regarding the containment system expansion
February 2015
EPA completed the Site's fourth FYR
July 2018
PRP submitted the Operations and Maintenance Manual
September 2018
PRP submitted a Remedial Action Completion Report
September 2018
Adjacent property owner purchased 3.8 acres of the site property (the
part of the Site that includes former Wetland Area B)
December 2018
PRP filed an Amendment to Deed Notice and Declaration of
Environmental Covenants for the Site with the Henrico County
Clerk's Office
April 2019
VPI sold parcels 771-757-8224, 771-756-5980, and 771-756-7746
October 2021
EPA completed a Vapor Intrusion Investigation
February 2022
EPA approved request to decrease sampling frequency
March 2022
-------
APPENDIX C - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
-------
BK U 0 2 1PG i 2! I
DEED NOTICE
and
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS FOR
CERTAIN PROPERTY AT THE
RENTOKIL SUPERFUND SITE,
HENRICO COUNTY, VA
THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT is made as of this day of April, 2005, by
VIRGINIA PROPERTIES, INC ("VPI").
RECITALS
A. VPI is the owner in fee simple of three parcels of land in Henrico County, Virginia,
containing approximately 37.594 acres and more particularly described on Exhibit A
attached hereto (collectively the parcels are referred to as the "Property")
B Portions of the Property were used for a wood preserving operation resulting in chemical
contamination of soil and groundwater ("The Restricted Area"). The Restricted Area, as
defined for the purposes of this Restrictive Covenant, is more particularly described on
Exhibit B attached hereto
C The United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") issued a Record of Decision
for the Virginia Wood Preserving Site on June 22,199.3 ("ROD") and a Record of Decision
Amendment on August 27, 1996, pursuant to the authority of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended
("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C, §§ 9601-9675,
D. VPI entered into a Consent Decree which was entered by the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, on September 30,1994, and which was
recorded in the land records of Henrico County, Virginia at Deed Book 2555, page 930, to
accomplish work required by the ROD, and the ROD Amendment.
E. Pursuant to the Consent Decree and the ROD Amendment. VPI carried out a Remedial
A.ction. As part of the Remedial Action, VPI constructed a slurry wall, and a multi-layered
protective cap, and a groundwater drainage and removal system (the "Remedial Facility")
in the area designated "AREA C -CAP AREA" on the Plat attached hereto as Exhibit B
F. VPI also excavated soils and then undertook restoration of wetlands in area "B" and a portion
of the area designated "WETLAND AREA - RESTRICTIVE COVENANT" on the Plat
attached as Exhibit B. The wetland work was done under the oversight of EPA, the U S
Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
("DEQ"), in consultation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
G. VPI hereby places a restrictive covenant on the Restricted Area to implement Institutional
-1 -
-------
BKU02 IPG 1212
Controls (described below) as required by the Record of Decision Amendment and Section
V(E) (Notice of Obligations to Successors-in-Title) of the Consent Decree, See Exhibit B
for a schematic map of the Site boundary and Restricted Area
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
NOW, THEREFORE, due to the CERCLA remedial action, VPI, for itself, and its successors
and assigns, does hereby declare, covenant and agree, that the Restricted Area shall hereinafter be
subject to the following conditions and restrictions:
1. The Restricted Area shall not be used for residential use. Specifically, no building or
structure shall be constructed or located on the Restricted Area for residential use or
residential occupancy, including without limitation, single or multiple-family dwellings,
residential trailers and/or mobile; homes.
2, Except as required for monitoring the quality of groundwater or treating groundwater, as
required by the Consent Decree, VPI agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, that no
wells or other structure or equipment for the pumping or other taking of groundwater shall
be constructed or installed on the Restricted Area, and no groundwater shall be pumped or
otherwise taken from Areas B, C, and D of Exhibit B for potable or other use,
3 Pursuant to the Consent Decree, VPI has agreed for itself, its successors and assigns, to
monitor and operate the Remedial Facility in accordance with the Operating and
Maintenance Plan approved by EPA, or as revised from time to time and approved by EPA
4 Except as provided by the Operation and Maintenance Plan, there shall be no disturbance,
digging, excavation of the soils, or invasive construction in Area C of Exhibit B, and there
shall be no disturbance or removal of the Remedial Facility (e.g. there shall be no disturbance
of the cap or placement of structures on it that would damage it in any way)
5. The discharge of dredged or fill material, destruction or alteration of water courses, land
disturbance, land clearing, cultivation, draining, ditching, or building construction is
prohibited in the Wetland Area, except (a) as necessary to ensure the success of and in
conjunction with the monitoring and maintenance of the Wetland Area; (b) with the prioi
written consent of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the Army Corps
of Engineers; or (c) for structures or observation or management of the ecological state of
the Wetland Area which do not imperil the natural movement of water.
6 VPI may enforce this Restrictive Covenant by proceedings at law or in equity against any
person violating or attempting to violate the covenants herein. In the event of any
conveyance, assignment or transfer of the Restricted Area (as defined in Exhibit B hereto),
VPI shall expressly reserve in the deed or other instrument effecting the transfer, an
irrevocable and permanent easement which grants VPI: 1) the right to access for the purposes
of carrying out its obligations under the Consent Decree and this Restrictive
-2-
-------
BK1+ 0 2 1PG! 2 I 3
Covenant; and 2) the right to carry out and enforce the land use restrictions set forth in the
ROD, particularly at pages 63-64, and in paragraphs 1 -5 of this Restrictive Covenant. Prior
to such a conveyance, assignment or transfer of the Site (as defined in Exhibit B hereto), or
any interest therein, VPI shall provide EPA with a copy of the proposed deed or other
instrument of transfer. VPI shall enforce the terms of any such covenants or land use
restrictions reserved in this instrument against all subsequent grantees of an assignment or
transfer of the Restricted Area of the Site (as defined in Exhibit B hereto), or any interest
therein.
7. VPI agrees to record this document in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Henrico
County, Virginia within thirty (30) days of its execution.
8. The covenants contained herein shall not hereafter be altered or breached in any respect
without the express written approval and consent of EPA (as intentional third party
beneficiary pursuant to § 55-22 of the Code of Virginia). This Restrictive Covenant is not
intended to and does not grant or convey any interest in the Property to EPA.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, VPI has executed this instrument, under seal, by its duly
authorized officer or representative on the date first above written.
VIRGINIA PROPERTIES, INC.
Title: ^
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
tirflif (i 5
CITY/COUNTY OF.
. to wit:
fore me this
KS1YP0RCE
NOTARYPUBUC
STATE OF TEXAS
COMM. EXP. 03-18-2008
c2 O of a^Jl
^ » f of Virginia Properties, Inc.
h dncji
Notary Public
My commission expires: 3*118J W
-3-
-------
Bi< U 0 2 IPGI 2 t U
EXHIBIT A
Parcel 1:
ALL that certain piece, tract or parcel of land located in the County of
Henrico, Virginia, and described as follows:
Beginning at a stone marker on the easterly right of way line of Oakview
Avenue, where the said right of way line intersects the northerly right of way
line of Peyton Street;
Thence N. 16° 12' W„, along said easterly line of Oakview Avenue a
distance of 335,38' to a point, which point is 10' south of a measured at right
angles to the center line of a railroad spur track;
Thence in an easterly direction along a curve to the left which curve
is 10' south of and parallel to the center line of said track having a radius of
304.56', a distance of 202.83' to a point;
Thence N, 74° 54' E., 548,51' to a rod5
Thence S. 15° 06 E., 290.0' to a rod;
Thence S. 74° 54' W,, along the north line of Peyton Street, 710.38' to
a stone;
Thence continuing along said street linen on a curve to the right
having a radius of 20.0', tangent of 19.62' and length of 31.03' to the point of
beginning and containing 4.965 acres.
Parcel 2:
ALL those certain pieces or parcels of land, situated, lying and being in the
Brookland District, Henrico County, Virginia, designated as Parcel A,
containing 23.675 acres, and Parcel B, containing 8.954 acres, on plat made
by Foster & Miller, P.C., dated March 11, 1994, entitled "Plat of Two Parcels
of Land Lying on the North Line of Parham Road, in the Brookland District of
Henrico County, Virginia" (the "Plat"), a copy of which is attached hereto and
recorded herewith, and to which reference is hereby made, said property being
more particularly described on the Plat by metes and bounds, as follows:
-------
BKU02 IPGI 2 I 5
Parcel A:
BEGINNNG at the point of intersection with the West line of Ackley Avenue,
and the North line of Peyton Street; thence along the North line of Peyton
Street South 74 degrees 58 minutes 04 seconds West for a distance of 347 08'
to a point; thence North 14 degrees 59 minutes 33 second West for a distance
of 290.00' to a point; thence South 75 degrees 00 minutes 27 seconds West
for a distance of 548.51' to a point; thence along a curve to the right having a
radius of 304,56' and a length 202,83' and being subtended by a chord of
North 85 degrees 54 minutes 49 seconds West for a distance of 199.10* to a
point on the East line of Oakview Avenue; thence along the East line of
Oakview Avenue North 16 degrees 06 minutes 21 seconds West for a distance
of 740.48' to a point; thence North 73 degrees 52 minutes 01 seconds East for
a distance of 450 64' to a point on the East line ofMayfair Avenue; thence
along the East line ofMayfair Avenue North 15 degrees 56 minutes 32
seconds West for a distance of 116,66' to a point; thence North 73 degrees 53
minutes 15 seconds East for a distance of 435.35' to a point on the West line
of Russell Avenue; thence along the West line ofRussell Avenue South 15
degrees 55 minutes 55 seconds East for a distance of 149.58' to a point; thence
North 73 degrees 51 minutes 45 seconds East for a distance of 168.22' to a
point; thence South 05 degrees 44 minutes 24 seconds East for a distance of
144.15' to a point; thence North 61 degrees 15 minutes 35 seconds East for a
distance of 190.76' to a point; thence South 23 degrees 18 minutes 40 seconds
West for a distance of 294,34' to a point; thence South 27 degrees 51 minutes
25 Seconds East for a distance of 408.84' to a point; thence South 16 dep'ees
08 minutes 57 seconds East for a distance of 306.07' to a point on the West
line of Ackley Avenue; thence along the West line of Ackley Avenue through
a nontangent curve having a radius of 271.73' and a length of 60.49' and being
subtended by a chord of South 18 degrees 18 minutes 06 seconds West for a
distance of 60.37' to the point of beginning. Said property being 23 657 acres
more or less, and being part of Henrico County tax map parcel 98-B1-L
Parcel B:
BEGINNING at the point of intersection with the West line of Ackley Avenue
and the South line of Peyton Street; thence along the West line of Ackley
Avenue through a curve having a radius of 271.73' and a length of 62,91' and
being subtended by a chord of South 09 degrees 31 minutes 02 seconds East
for a distance of 62. 76' to a point; thence South 16 degiees 08 minutes 57
seconds East for a distance of 29.3 08' to a point; thence South 33 degrees 43
minutes 23 seconds West for a distance of 4.3.00' to a point on the North line
ofParham Road; thence along the North line of Parham Road South 77
degrees 2.2 minutes 03 seconds West for a distance of 676.09' to a point;
thence South 74 degrees 54 minutes 48 seconds West for a distance of 196.79'
to a point; thence along a curve to the left having a radius of 7739.44' and a
length of 148 .40' and being subtended by a chord of South 74 degrees 21
-------
BKU02 IPG 1216
minutes 50 seconds West for a distance of 148,40' to a point; thence along a
non-tangent curve to the left having a radius of 1126.28' and a length of
130.42' and being subtended by a chord of North 19 degrees 48 minutes 54
seconds West for a distance of 130,35' to a point; thence North 23 depees 07
minutes 56 seconds West for a distance of 138.01' to a point; thence along a
curve to the right having a radius of 1166.28' and a length of 91.27' and being
subtended by a chord of North 20 degrees 53 minutes 25 seconds West for a
distance of 91.24' to the point of intersection of the West line of Oakview
Avenue and the South line of Peyton Street; thence along the South line of
Peyton Street North 74 degrees 58 minutes 04 seconds East for a distance of
1092.96' to the point of beginning. Said property being 8.954 acres more or
less, and being a part of Henrico County tax map parcel 98-B1-1.
TOGETHER WITH and subject to all covenants, easements, and restrictions
of record,
BEING a part of the same property conveyed to Richmond Land Corporation,
a Virginia corporation, by the following deeds: (1) deed from A. J. Brent,
Trustee, dated February 17,1955, recorded March 3, 1955, Clerk's Office,
Circuit Court, Henrico County, Virginia, in Deed Book 722, page 437; (2)
deed from L. Paul Farley and E, J. Parley, also known as Elizabeth J. Farley,
Ms wife, dated February 17,1955, recorded March 3, 1955, Clerk's Office,
Circuit Court, Henrico County, Virginia, in Deed Book 722, page 439; (3)
deed from L. Paul Farley and Elizabeth J. Farley, his wife, dated January 20,
1956, recorded January 20,1956, Clerk's Office, Circuit Court, Henrico
County, Virginia, in Deed Book 777, page 349; (4) deed from Wesley D.
Charles, unmarried, dated May 14,1971, recorded July 16,1971, Clerk's
Office, Circuit Court, Henrico County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1471, page 28;
(5) deed from Board of County Supervisors of Henrico County, Virginia,
dated May 10,1974, recorded June 24,1974, Clerk's Office, Circuit Court,
Henrico County, Virginia, in Deed book 1607, page 474; and (6) vacation of
property by the Board of County Supervisors, Henrico County, Virginia, as to
portions of Mayfair and Russell Avenues, January 28,1976, a copy of said
ordinance having been recorded March 1,1976, Clerk's Office, Circuit Court,
Henrico County, Virginia in Deed Book 1669, Page 659.
\\REA\27253 1
-------
NOTE: THE "RESTRICTED AREA" IS DEFINED AS: WETLAND AREA,
AREA B, AREA C, AND AREA D
N
tfcT WilWEH £- WJ-EM
aa. *&ss. po a
ST
J-
AVEHUE
ttussat I
AVE»PJfc * „
ji?vfiu.i&£ J0>
-------
BKU02SPG5 218
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE
DO NOT REMOVE FROM DOCUMENT
INSTRUMENT #75039
RECORDED IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF
HENRICO COUNTY ON
DECEMBER i» 2005 AT 04:22PM
YVONNE S. SMITH? CLERK
RECORDED 8Y: KL8
-------
Commonwealth of Virginia
Land Record Instruments
Cover Sheet - Form A
[ILS VLR Cover Sheet Agent 1.0 93]
Date of Instrument:
Instrument Type:
Number of Parcels
Number of Pages
[11/21/2005
[NQqF-r
[ 1]
[ 7]
¦ID
CD
C3
ro
~T3
cn
r\3
CD
City
County [x] [Henrico County
(Box for Deed Stamp Only)
Last Name
First and Second Grantors
First Name
Middle Name or Initial
Suffix
[Virginia Properties, Inc ]
u
n
First and Second Grantees
][
| Last Name _
~ 0 [Vjf§f»ta~Properties, Inc ] [
~ CD [ ] [
Grantee Address
First Name
Middle Name or Initial
Suffix
Virginia Properties, inc.
PO Box5963
(Name)
(Address 1)
(Address 2} [
(City, State, Zip) [Kingwood
Consideration [0 00 ] Existing Debt [0 00
] [TX] [77325-5963
Assumption Balance [0 00 j
Prior Instr. Recorded at: City Q County E [Henrico County
Book [ ] Page [ ]
Parcel Identification No (PIN) [
Tax Map Num.. (if different than PIN) [
Short Property Description [
(
Current Property Address (Address 1) [3000 Peyton Street
(Address 2) [
(City, State, Zip) [Richmond
Percent, in this Juris.
Instr, No [
1001
] [VA J [23228
Instrument Prepared By [Decker Hallman Barber & Brlggs
Recording Paid for By [Decker Hallman Barber & Briggs
Return Recording To (Name) v. [Kathy Sims, Paralegal
(Address 1)\ [260 Peachtree Street, Suite 1700
(Address 2) [
(City, State, Zip) [Atlanta
Customer Case ID [1508/039 ] [
[GAJ [30303
Cover Sheet Page # 1 of 1
-------
Official Receipt
Henrico Circuit Court
Heidi S. Barshinger
P.O. Box 90775
Henrico, VA 23273-0775
(804) 501-4202
Receipt For : FRIEND, HUDAK & HARRIS, LLP
Cashier: SCG
Instrument Type: AMEND-PL
Receipt # : 2019-172232
Instrument #:
Book/Page:
1st Grantor:
1st Grantee;
Description:
Consideration:
201900009310
05837/1120-01126 Pages:7
VIRGINIA PROPERTIES INC
VIRGINIA PROPERTIES INC
Date :
Document:
Ex :
Ex:
AMENDMENT TO DEED NOTICE AND DECLARATION
OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS - RENTOKIL
SUPERFUND SITE
0.00 Assumed Value: 0.00
04/08/2019 08:39am
1 of 1
N
N
Pet: 100.00%
1st City: Y
Item #
Description
Qty
Unit Cost
Extended
035
VOF
1
""1.00
1.00
301
Clerk 1-10 Pages
1
14.50
14 50
145
VSLA
1
1.50
1.50
106
TTF
1
5.00
5.00
Document 1
22.00
Grand Total
22.00
Check 1858
-22.00
Balance
0.00
Customer Copy
-------
Virginia Land Record Cover Sheet
Form A - Cover Sheet Content
Instrument Date:
Instrument Type:
Number of Parcels:
[ ] c'ty (XI County
4/20/2019
AMEND
1 Number of Pages:
HENRICO
Virginia/Federal Law
Tax Exempt?
[ ] Grantor:
[ ] Grantee:
Consideration: $0.00
Existing Debt: $0.00
Actual Value/Assumed: $0.00
Prior Instrument Under § 58.1-803(d): (
Original Principal: $0.00 i
Fair Market Value Increase: $0.00
Original Book Number: 4021 Original Page Number:
RECORDED IN
COUNTY OF HENRICO, VA
HEIDI S. BARSHINGER
-CLEBK.QE-C1BCUU.CQUBI
FILED Apr 08, 2019
AT 08:39 am
BOOK 05837
START PAGE 1120
END PAGE 1126
INSTRUMENT#
201900009310
SCG
CD
SKC
tn
OJ
U5
en
l\3
O
Prior Recording At: |
] City [XI County
HENRICO
(Area Above Reserved For Deed Stamp Only)
1211 Original Instrument Number: 75039
100%
VIRGINIA PROPERTIES, INC.
Percentage In This Jurisdiction:
Business / Name
1 [XI Grantor:
[ ] Grantor:
1 M Grantee: VIRGINIA PROPERTIES, INC.
[ ] Grantee:
Grantee Address
Name: VIRGINIA PROPERTIES, INC.
Address: C/O NICOLE BLACKWELL, 2540 LAWRENCEViLLE HIGHWAY
City: LAWRENCEVILLE State: GA zip Code: 30044
Book Number: 4021 Page Number: 1211 Instrument Number: VdGiiJ
Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 771-756-5980 f Tax Map Number: 771-756-5980
Short Property Description: AMENDMENT TO DEED NOTICE AND DECLARATION OF
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS - RENTOKIL SUPERFUND SITE
Current Property Address: 3000 PEYTON STREET
City: HENRICO State: VA Zip Code: 23228
Instrument Prepared By: FRIEND, HUDAK & HARRIS Recording Paid By: FRIEND, HUDAK & HARRIS, LLP
Recording Returned To: FRIEND, HUDAK & HARRIS, LLP, NORMAN B. GERRY
Address: THREE RAVINIA DRIVE, STE 1700
City:
ATLANTA
State: GA zip Code:
30346
FORM CC-1570 Rev: 7/15
Page 1 of 1
Cover Sheet A
17.1-223,17.1-227.1,17.1-249
Copyright © 2014 Office of the Executive Secretary, Supreme Court of Virginia. All rights reserved.
-------
BX5037PGI 121
AMENDMENT TO DEED NOTICE AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE
COVENANTS FOE CERTAIN PROPERTY AT THE
RENTQKIL SUPERFUND SITE. HENRICO COUNTY. VA
THIS AMENDMENT TO DEED NOTICE AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE
COVENANTS FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY AT THE RENTOKIL SUPERFUND SITE,
HENRICO COUNTY, VA, DATED APRIL 20, 2005 (the "Restrictive Covenant") (this
"Amendment") is made and declared by VIRGINIA PROPERTIES, INC., a Virginia corporation
O'vpi "), owner of the fee simple title to the Property hereinafter described, effective as of
April 20, 2019 (the "Effective Dale").
BACKGROUND
A. VPI is the owner in fee simple of certain real property located in Henrico County,
VA (the "Property"), as described in Exhibit A of the Restrictive Covenant (Instrument Control
No. 75039) that was recorded by VPI in Book 4021, Page 1211 Henrico County, VA records;
B. In and around December 2016, pursuant to the 1994 Consent Decree (Civil Action
No. 3:94CV498), the Record of Decision, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), VPI performed additional Remedial Action at the
Property and, among other things, extended a multi-layered protective cap over portions of Area
B of the Property, as delineated on the Real Estate Map attached as Exhibit B to the Restrictive
Covenant; and
C. VPI desires to amend Exhibit B of the Restrictive Covenant to prohibit disturbance,
digging, excavation of the soils, invasive construction, or disturbance or removal of the multi-
layered protective cap In all areas of the Property where the cap was extended during the additional
Remedial Action described above.
D. Pursuant to Paragraph 8 of the Restrictive Covenant, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") expressly approves and consents to this Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, due to the additional CERCLA Remedial Action described above,
VPI, for itself, and Its successors and assigns, does hereby declare, covenant, and agree, that the
Restrictive Covenant is and shall hereby be amended as follows:
1. Defined Terms. Any and all capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the
meaning ascribed to such terms in the Restrictive Covenant.
2. Amendment. Exhibit B of the Restrictive Covenant is hereby amended by deleting In its
entirety the plat of survey in Exhibit B and substituting a new plat of survey for Exhibit B in the
form attached hereto as "Exhibit A, New Plat".
3. Effect of Amendment. Except as modified by this Amendment, the Restrictive Covenant
shall remain in full force and effect.
Page 1 of4
-------
BK5837PGI I 22
4. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which
shall be fully executed as an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same
instrument. Any facsimile or other electronic copies hereof or signature hereon shall, for all
purposes, be deemed originals.
[The remainder of this page is left blank intentionally.]
Page 2 of 4
-------
BK5837PGI 123
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, VPI has caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the
day and year first above written.
rfen
\zmiG\
tr
STATE:
COUNTY:
to wit:
The foregoing instrument was
acknowledged before me on this
(9 Mm day of Ho? km » 2019,
vbyp[j^', (,X j \ijjj , as
Vjii^ Inc.
Mi'l'lltlLQ ui Ui
Notary Public
My commission exp:
VIRGINIA PROPERTIES, INC.
By:
Name:
Title:
i. l<
¦i u *
<¦' -vc b r
-rnnwoaith of Pennaylvanm. notary «e»i
Kathleen Archer, Notary Public
Berks County 1
3mroission expires November 14,2019
Commission number 1237S25 |
be. Pennsylvania Assoc.raic.fi of Nctarie &
-'j?
j©
' * i Hi''
STATE:
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY:
to wit:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
The foregoing instrument was
acknowledged before me on this
day of , 2019,
by Paul Leonard, as Acting Director,
Hazardous Site Cleanup Division
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III
By:
PAUL LEONARD
Acting Director, Hazardous Site Cleanup Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
Notary Public
My commission expires:
Page 3 of 4
-------
BK5837PGI I2U
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, VPI has caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the
day and year first above written.
STATE: _ VIRGINIA PROPERTIES, INC.
COUNTY: ,
to wit: By: ,
Name:
The foregoing instrument was Title:
acknowledged before me on this
day of , 2019,
by , as
of
Virginia Properties, Inc.
Notary Public
My commission expires:
STATE:
COUNTY:(
to wit:
j
APPROVED BY:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
The foregoing instrument was
acknowledged before me on this
Ist day of J ,2019,
by Paul Leonard, as Acting Director,
Hazardous Site Cleanup Division
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III
2
Notary Public "IT*7 *
My commission expires: w
By: . ••
PAULLEONARD
Acting Director, Hazardous Site Cleanup Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
Commonwea
PATRICIA
Notary Seel
*y Public
MgrCommt i4,20B
¦ CofTwrtaton Number 1191054
(
i m
I
O ,yv
V-6
III
•/ <
V'3
*- / Xj + V
V Y a
Page 3 of 4
-------
BK5831PGH25
Exhibit A, New Plat
LEGEND
AREA A - (5.03 ACRES)
AREA B - (7.10 ACRES)
AREA C - CAP AREA - (9.29 ACRES)
AREA D - (2.31 ACRES)
AREA E - (9.25 ACRES)
WETLAND AREA - RESTRICTIVE
COVENANT (4.49 ACRES)
THE RESTRICTED AREA INCLUDES AREA A, AREA B,
AREA C AND WETUND AREA. AREA D IS
RESTRICTED AS DETAILED IN THE RESTRICTIVE
COVENANT DATED APRIL 20, 2005.
RENTOKIL INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
VIRGINIA PROPERTIES, INC.
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
REAL ESTATE MAP
©ARCADIS
Etea<^i ftCansuLEBTcy
fcmftjnland
bAsffi
Page 4 of 4
-------
BK5837PG1126
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE
DO NOT REMOVE FROM DOCUMENT
INSTRUMENT # 201 §00009310
RECORDED IN THE CLERWS OFFICE OF
HEMRIGO COUNTY ON
APRILS, 2019 AT 08:39AM
HEIDI S. BARSHflSiGER. CLERK
RECORDED BY: SCG
-------
APPENDIX D - PRESS NOTICE
-------
CITIZEN
"An informed citizen is the cornerstone of our democracy"
Henrico County, Virginia's hometown news source since 2001
Thursday, January 12, 2023
f sr @
Home News * Calendar ? Obituaries Community * Entertainment ? Opinions * Podcast More ?
Recent News © Pi»yii*t
Top News
path* ®
As election-year
General Assembly
session begins,
Youngkin says
Virginia is on "right
Legislators push to
strengthen
'embarrassing'
campaign finance
regulations 0
Community invited
to Jan. 28 grand
opening of new
Henrico fire station
©
Thornton, Nelson to
lead Henrico Board
of Supervisors ®
Education
QPIaytist
Moody MS student wins Henrico
Schools' Divisionwide Spelling
Bee
® Audio A/tide
January 11. 2023
Republican lawmakers revive One-third of Virginia community
push for school choice legislation colleges lack close public transit
connections
® Audio Article
By Nathantet CSme. Vrfcpnta Mercury on January 9.
2023
By Watfianwi1 CSirw. Virginia Meruury on January 10;
2023
In the Classroom: Jan. 1-€, 2023 Henrico Schools adds 2 new days Henrico Schools to host job fair
off in February, May Jan. 10
® Audio Article
January 2023
S
IM
T
W
T
F
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
EPA PUBLIC NOTICE
EPA REVIEWS CLEANUP
HBfTORL, MC SUFCftFUNG SITE
Enter Your Phone Number *
CAPTCHA
I'm not a robot
reCAPTCHA
-------
APPENDIX E - INTERVIEW FORMS
-------
ReritokiiSuperfund Site
Five-Year Review Questionnaire
Site Name:
Subject Name:
Interview Format:
Interview Category:
Affiliation:
Date:
Rentokil
Angela McGarvey
Email
State
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, CERCLA Program
November 3, 2022
1. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have
taken place to date?
Response: Yes, VADEQ is a supporting regulatory agency for this CERLCA site located in Richmond,
Virginia.
2. Do you feel well-informed regarding the Site's activities and remedial progress? If not, how might EPA
convey site-related information in the future?
Response: Yes, VADEQ is copied on EPA's correspondence and provided the opportunity to comment on
project reports.
3. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency
response, vandalism or trespassing?
Response: No, the property is fenced and part of the property is used daily.
4. Are you aware of any changes to state laws or local regulations that might affect the protectiveness of
the Site's remedy?
Response: No, I am not aware of any changes to state laws that might affect the protectiveness of the
Site's remedy.
5. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site?
Response: The property was sold in October 2021 and the new owner plans to use the property, lease it,
or sell it. Land use is projected to remain industrial/commercial.
6. Has EPA kept involved parties and surrounding neighbors informed of activities at the Site? How can
EPA best provide site-related information in the future?
Response: Since the last review, VADEQ has not received any complaints or inquiries. There are no
current or anticipated future offsite impacts.
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding the project?
Response: No.
8. Do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this questionnaire in the
FYR report?
Response: Yes.
-------
ReritokiiSuperfund Site
Five-Year Review Questionnaire
Site Name:
Subject Name:
Interview Format:
Interview Category:
Affiliation:
Date:
Rentokil
Catherine Coffey
Email
PRP Representative
Arcadis U.S., Inc.
November 4, 2022
1. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have
taken place to date?
Response: Yes, I am aware of former environmental issues and cleanup activities.
2. Do you feel well-informed regarding the Site's activities and remedial progress? If not, how might EPA
convey site-related information in the future?
Response: Yes.
3. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency
response, vandalism or trespassing?
Response: There was one known trespassing event that occurred in 2018; however, no vandalism
occurred to the remedial measures. Occasional dumping of tires, vegetative debris, etc. outside of the
perimeter fence had occurred prior to 2019 when warning signs and cameras were installed to prevent
such activities. No emergency response actions have occurred.
4. Are you aware of any changes to state laws or local regulations that might affect the protectiveness of
the Site's remedy?
Response: No.
5. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site?
Response: No.
6. Has EPA kept involved parties and surrounding neighbors informed of activities at the Site? How can
EPA best provide site-related information in the future?
Response: To my knowledge, neighbors were interviewed as part of the 2018 Five Year Review and I
have no other suggestions on how to keep the surrounding neighbors informed in addition to the
current processes being used.
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding the project?
Response: Regulatory agencies have been actively engaged and are responsive to questions and
discussions on path forward.
8. Do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this questionnaire in the
FYR report?
Response: Yes.
-------
ReritokiiSuperfund Site
Five-Year Review Questionnaire
Site Name:
Subject Name:
Interview Format:
Interview Category:
Affiliation:
Date:
Rentokil
Leslie News
Email
Local Government
Henrico County Planning Department
12/29/2022
1. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have
taken place to date?
Response: The Planning Department has kept a file on the Virginia Wood Preserving (Rentokil)
Remediation Plan dating from the 1990s. However, no additional information has been provided by the
EPA since the previous five-year report in 2017 recently received.
2. Do you feel well-informed regarding the Site's activities and remedial progress? If not, how might EPA
convey site-related information in the future?
Response: The previous five-year report provided to the county provides a thorough detail of site
activities and remediation up to the year 2017. However, current status of the site is not clear to county
staff. Inclusion of information related to the current status of the site, including any specific restrictions
to potential uses, in the five-year report would be helpful.
3. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency
response, vandalism or trespassing?
Response: The Division of Police have indicated there have been no calls for service at this address within
the past five years.
4.Are you aware of any changes to state laws or local regulations that might affect the protectiveness of
the Site's remedy?
Response: I am not personally aware of any changes to state laws or local regulations that specifically
impact the protection of the site, but I cannot guaranty that there have been no such changes.
5.Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site?
Response: The County's 2026 Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Light Industrial. This was the
same designation for the site reflected in our previous 2010 Land Use Plan. The County has received
several conceptual plan submissions for the site, none of which have been formally approved. Previous
submissions included a proposal to use the site as a concert and event venue, a building materials
storage yard with ancillary buildings, and contractor services storage yard.
6.Has EPA kept involved parties and surrounding neighbors informed of activities at the Site? How can
EPA best provide site-related information in the future?
Response: The Planning Department has not received any information on this site prior to the recent
receipt of the previous five-year report. Additionally, it does not appear a specific county contact has
been established. County staff believes it would be beneficial for the EPA to have a specific county
contact on file to provide updates.
7.Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding the project?
Response: Please include reference to any restrictions or requirements applicable to any potential
development of the site within the five-year report or other document which could be made available to
the county.
-------
RentakiSuperfund Site
Five-Year Review Questionnaire
Site Name:
Rentokil
Subject Name: Tim Karn
Interview Format: Email
Interview Category: Property owner
Affiliation:
Date:
November 25, 2022
1. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have
taken place to date?
Response: Yes, I was made aware of the environmental issues prior to purchasing the property.
2. Do you feel well-informed regarding the Site's activities and remedial progress? If not, how might EPA
convey site-related information in the future?
Response: Yes I feel like I have been well informed.
3. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency
response, vandalism or trespassing?
Response: No, there have been no issues.
4. Are you aware of any changes to state laws or local regulations that might affect the protectiveness of
the Site's remedy?
Response: No, I am unaware of any changes in the laws or regulations that would affect the site.
5. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site?
Response: Yes, we are submitting a Plan of Development to Henrico County for a part of the site.
6. Has EPA kept involved parties and surrounding neighbors informed of activities at the Site? How can
EPA best provide site-related information in the future?
Response: I do not know.
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding the project?
Response: I may be asking for your input concerning the development of the Laydown Yard, to help
answer the county's concerns if any.
8. Do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this questionnaire in the
FYR report?
Response: Yes you do, that will be fine.
-------
RentokiSuperfund Site
Five-Year Review Questionnaire
Site Name:
Subject Name:
Interview Format:
Interview Category:
Affiliation:
Date:
Rentokil
In person
Community
Oakview Avenue Resident
November 2, 2022
1. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have
taken place to date?
Response: Yes. I moved here in 1995 and remember the cleanup work.
2. Do you feel well-informed regarding the Site's activities and remedial progress? If not, how might EPA
convey site-related information in the future?
Response: I had never talked to anyone from EPA about the site before.
3. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency
response, vandalism or trespassing?
Response: No. There is a lot of wildlife in the area. There may be groundhogs on the site too.
4. Are you aware of any changes to state laws or local regulations that might affect the protectiveness of
the Site's remedy?
Response: No.
5. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site?
Response: No.
6. Has EPA kept involved parties and surrounding neighbors informed of activities at the Site? How can
EPA best provide site-related information in the future?
Response: Let us know if our health could be affected.
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding the project?
Response: No. Just make sure no contamination migrates offsite and affects us.
-------
APPENDIX F - SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
-------
Appendix F: Site Inspection Checklist
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site Name: Rentokil, Inc. (Virginia Wood Preserving
Division)
Date of Inspection: 11/2/2022
Location and Region: Richmond, VA; EPA Region 3
EPA ID: VAD071040752
Agency, Office or Company Leading the Five-Year
Review: EPA
Weather/Temperature: 60s, Sunny
~ Monitored natural attenuation
1X1 Groundwater containment
~ Vertical barrier walls
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)
1X1 Landfill cover/containment
~ Access controls
1X1 Institutional controls
~ Groundwater pump and treatment
~ Surface water collection and treatment
1X1 Other: While the original remedy called for on-site treatment and discharge of extracted
groundwater, EPA approved VPI's request to modify that remedial component to allow for off-site
disposal of extracted groundwater. Site groundwater was never treated on site.
Attachments:
Inspection team roster attached
~ Site map attached
II. INTERVIEWS (check all that apply)
1. O&M Site Manager Catherine Coffey
Senior Environmental Scientist
Name
Interviewed ~ at site ~ at office |
Title
| by email ~ by phone Phone:
11/4/22
Date
Problems, suggestions ~ Report attached: Interviews are summarized in Section IV: completed
interview forms are included in Appendix F.
2. O&M Staff
Name
Interviewed ~ at site ~ at office ~ by phone
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:
Title
Phone:
Date
3. Local Regulatory Authorities and Response Agencies (i.e., state and tribal offices, emergency
response office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office,
recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices). Fill in all that apply.
Agency VADEQ
Contact Angie Mcgarvev
Name Title
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:
11/3/2022
Date
Phone No.
Agency Henrico County Planning Department
Contact Leslie News
Name Title
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:
12/29/2022
Date Phone No.
Agency
Contact
Name Title
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:
Date
Phone No.
-------
Asencv
Contact
Name Title
Problems/sussestions PI Rcoort attached:
Date
Phone No.
Asencv
Contact
Name Title
Problcms/suaacstions |~~| Report attached:
Date
Phone No.
4.
Other Interviews (optional) EH Report attached: Interviews are summarized in Section IV.
Oakview Avenue Resident #1
Oakview Avenue Resident #2
Oakview Avenue Resident #3
Tim Karn - Owner of Site
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS VERIFIED (check all that apply)
1.
O&M Documents
~ O&M manual ^ Readily available
[XI Up to date
~ n/a
~ As-built drawings Readily available
1X1 Up to date
~ n/a
~ Maintenance logs £3 Readily available
M Up to date
~ n/a
Remarks:
2.
Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan
[XI Readily available
[XI Up to date
~ n/a
~ Contingency plan/emergency response plan
1X1 Readily available
1X1 Up to date
~ n/a
Remarks:
3.
O&M and OSHA Training Records
Remarks:
1X1 Readily available
1X1 Up to date
~ n/a
4.
Permits and Service Agreements
~ Air discharge permit
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
[El N/A
1 1 Effluent discharge
1 1 Readily available
1 1 Up to date
[XI N/A
~ Waste disposal, POTW
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
[XI N/A
I"! Other Dcrmits:
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
[XI N/A
Remarks:
5.
Gas Generation Records
Remarks:
1 1 Readily available
1 1 Up to date
[XI N/A
6.
Settlement Monument Records
Remarks:
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
[XI N/A
7.
Groundwater Monitoring Records
1X1 Readily available
1X1 Up to date
~ n/a
Remarks: The PRP submits groundwater monitorine data in Annual O&M Reports.
-------
Leachate Extraction Records
Remarks:
~ Readily available ~ Up to date
N/A
9. Discharge Compliance Records
~ Air ~ Readily available
~ Water (effluent) ~ Readily available
Remarks:
~ Up to date
~ Up to date
I N/A
I N/A
10. Daily Access/Security Logs
Remarks:
~ Readily available ~ Up to date
N/A
IV. O&M COSTS
O&M Organization
~ State in-house
~ PRP in-house
~ Federal facility in-house
Arcadis performs O&M for Rentokil.
I I Contractor for state
1^1 Contractor for PRP
~ Contractor for Federal facility
2.
O&M Cost Records
~ Readily available Q Up to date
~ Funding mechanism/agreement in place ^ Unavailable
Original O&M cost estimate: _ _ ~ Breakdown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
From: To:
Date
Date
Total cost
From:
To:
Date
Date
Total cost
From:
To:
Date
Date
Total cost
From:
To:
Date
Date
Total cost
From:
To:
I I Breakdown attached
I I Breakdown attached
I I Breakdown attached
I I Breakdown attached
I I Breakdown attached
Date
Date
Total cost
3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs during Review Period
Describe costs and reasons:
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS ~ Applicable ~ N/A
A. Fencing
1. Fencing Damaged ~ Location shown on site map Gates secured I I N/A
Remarks: Site fencing appeared to be in good condition. The entrance gate to the Site is secured with a
-------
lock when no one is present.
B. Other Access Restrictions
1. Signs and Other Security Measures ~ Location shown on site map ~ N/A
Remarks: Signage with number. Owner plans to put sign to deter trespassers.
C. Institutional Controls (ICs)
1. Implementation and Enforcement
Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented ~ Yes |E| No ~ N/A
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced Q Yes ^ No ~ N/A
Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by):
Frequency:
Responsible party/agency: Arcadis
Contact Catherine Coffey Senior Environmental Scientist
Name Title
Reporting is up to date
Reports are verified by the lead agency
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met
Violations have been reported
Other problems or suggestions: ~ Report attached
Date
Phone no.
I~1 Yes
~
No
[XI N/A
I~1 Yes
~
No
|E1 N/A
IEI Yes
~
No
~ n/a
I~1 Yes
IEI
No
~ n/a
2. Adequacy ^ ICs are adequate ~ ICs are inadequate ~ N/A
Remarks: Institutional controls are in place to prevent groundwater use, protect the integrity of the
original and extended cap and slurry wall, and to prohibit residential land use for most of the Site.
D. General
1. Vandalism/Trespassing ~ Location shown on site map ^ No vandalism evident
Remarks: No evidence was observed during the inspection.
2. Land Use Changes On Site ~ N/A
Remarks: New owner using non-capped area for storage of contractor equipment.
3. Land Use Changes Off Site ^ N/A
Remarks:
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads ^ Applicable ~ N/A
1. Roads Damaged ~ Location shown on site map ~ Roads adequate ~ N/A
Remarks: Site roads are in good condition.
B. Other Site Conditions
Remarks:
VII. LANDFILL COVERS ^Applicable ~ N/A
-------
A.
Landfill Surface
1.
Settlement (low spots)
1 1 Location shown on site map
Settlement not evident
Area extent:
Deoth:
Remarks:
2.
Cracks
1 1 Location shown on site map
Cracking not evident
Leneths:
Widths:
Deaths:
Remarks:
3.
Erosion
1 1 Location shown on site map
Erosion not evident
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
4.
Holes
1 1 Location shown on site map
Holes not evident
Area extent:
Deoth:
Remarks:
5.
Vegetative Cover
1X1 Grass
Cover properly established
153 No signs of stress
1 1 Trees/shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)
Remarks:
6.
Alternative Cover (e g
, armored rock, concrete)
IEIn/a
Remarks:
7.
Bulges
~ Location shown on site map
Bulges not evident
Area extent:
Heisht:
Remarks:
8.
Wet A rcas/Water Damage ^ Wet areas/water damage not evident
n Wet areas
1 1 Location shown on site map
Area extent:
1 1 Ponding
1 1 Location shown on site map
Area extent:
I~1 Seeps
1 1 Location shown on site map
Area extent:
1 1 Soft subgrade
1 1 Location shown on site map
Area extent:
Remarks:
9.
Slope Instability
1 1 Slides
1 1 Location shown on site map
No evidence of slope instability
Area extent:
Remarks:
B.
Benches ~ Applicable ^ N/A
(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in
order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined channel.)
-------
1.
Flows Bypass Bench Q Location shown on site map
Remarks:
1 1 N/A or okay
2.
Bench Breached Q Location shown on site map
Remarks:
1 1 N/A or okay
3.
Bench Overtopped Q Location shown on site map
Remarks:
1 1 N/A or okay
C.
Letdown Channels ~ Applicable ^ N/A
(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill
cover without creating erosion gullies.)
1.
Settlement (Low spots) ~ Location shown on site map
~ No evidence of settlement
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
2.
Material Degradation Q Location shown on site map
~ No evidence of degradation
Material tvne:
Area extent:
Remarks:
3.
Erosion Q Location shown on site map
~ No evidence of erosion
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
4.
Undercutting Q Location shown on site map
~ No evidence of undercutting
Area extent:
Deoth:
Remarks:
5.
Obstructions Tvoe:
I-! Location shown on site mat) Area extent:
Size:
Remarks:
~ No obstructions
6.
Excessive Vegetative Growth Tydc:
~ No evidence of excessive growth
1 1 Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow
I-! Location shown on site mat) Area extent:
Remarks:
D.
Cover Penetrations ^ Applicable ~ N/A
1.
Gas Vents Q Active
153 Passive
153 Properly secured/locked ^ Functioning Q Routinely sampled ^ Good condition
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration ~ Needs maintenance EH N/A
-------
Remarks:
2
Gas Monitoring Probes
1 1 Properly secured/locked EH Functioning EH Routinely sampled
EH Good condition
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration EH Needs maintenance
M N/A
Remarks:
3
Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)
1 1 Properly secured/locked EH Functioning EH Routinely sampled
EH Good condition
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration EH Needs maintenance
IEIn/a
Remarks: There are no active monitorine wells located within the surface of the caps.
4
Extraction Wells Leachate
1 1 Properly secured/locked EH Functioning EH Routinely sampled
EH Good condition
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration EH Needs maintenance
IE|n/a
Remarks:
5
Settlement Monuments EH Located EH Routinely surveyed
|EI N/A
Remarks:
E.
Gas Collection and Treatment EH Applicable ^ N/A
1
Gas Treatment Facilities
I~1 Flaring ED Thermal destruction
EH Collection for reuse
1 1 Good condition ED Needs maintenance
Remarks:
2
Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping
1 1 Good condition EH Needs maintenance
Remarks:
3
Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)
I~1 Good condition EH Needs maintenance EH N/A
Remarks:
F.
Cover Drainage Layer ^ Applicable EH N/A
1
Outlet Pipes Inspected ^ Functioning EH N/A
Remarks: Outlet nines were free of vesetation and anneared to be in sood condition.
2
Outlet Rock Inspected EH Functioning ^ N/A
Remarks:
G.
Detention/Sedimentation Ponds ^ Applicable EH N/A
1.
Siltation Area extent: Dcnth:
EH N/A
1^1 Siltation not evident
Remarks:
-------
2.
Erosion Area extent: Depth:
1^1 Erosion not evident
Remarks:
3.
Outlet Works ~ Functioning
Remarks:
|E1 N/A
4.
Dam ~ Functioning
Remarks:
|E1 N/A
H. Retaining Walls ~ Applicable N/A
1.
Deformations ~ Location shown on site map
1 1 Deformation not evident
Horizontal displacement: Vertical displacement:
Rotational displacement:
Remarks:
2.
Degradation ~ Location shown on site map
Remarks:
1 1 Degradation not evident
I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge ~ Applicable
[El n/a
1.
Siltation ~ Location shown on site map
1 1 Siltation not evident
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
2.
Vegetative Growth ~ Location shown on site map
1 1 Vegetation does not impede flow
~ n/a
Area extent:
Tvpe:
Remarks:
3.
Erosion ~ Location shown on site map
1 1 Erosion not evident
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
4.
Discharge Structure ~ Functioning
Remarks:
~ n/a
VIII.
VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS ^ Applicable
~ n/a
1.
Settlement EH Location shown on site map
153 Settlement not evident
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
2.
Performance Monitoring Tydc of monitorine: Groundwater monitorine and water level
measurements.
1 1 Performance not monitored
Freauencv: The PRP performs semi-annual eroundwater
~ Evidence of breaching
-------
monitorins and previously collected monthly water level
measurements to assess the Dcrformancc of the slurry wall.
Head differential:
Remarks: In January 2017. PRP contractors removed components of the groundwater dewaterine system
from the water facility building.
IX.
GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES ~ Applicable ^ N/A
A.
Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps and Pipelines ~ Applicable ~ N/A
1.
Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing and Electrical
~ Good condition Q All required wells properly operating Q Needs maintenance Q N/A
Remarks:
2.
Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes and Other Appurtenances
~ Good condition Q Needs maintenance
Remarks:
3.
Spare Parts and Equipment
1 1 Readily available Q Good condition Q Requires upgrade Q Needs to be provided
Remarks:
B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps and Pipelines ~ Applicable Q N/A
1.
Collection Structures, Pumps and Electrical
1 1 Good condition ~ Needs maintenance
Remarks:
2.
Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes and Other Appurtenances
1 1 Good condition ~ Needs maintenance
Remarks:
3.
Spare Parts and Equipment
1 1 Readily available Q Good condition Q Requires upgrade Q Needs to be provided
Remarks:
C.
Treatment System Q Applicable ^ N/A
1.
Treatment Train (check components that apply)
1 1 Metals removal Q Oil/water separation Q Bioremediation
~ Air stripping ~ Carbon adsorbers
1 1 Filters:
I"! Additive (e.e.. chelation asent. flocculent):
1 1 Others:
1 1 Good condition Q Needs maintenance
1 1 Sampling ports properly marked and functional
-------
1 1 Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
1 1 Equipment properly identified
I"! Ouantitv of groundwater treated annually:
I"! Ouantitv of surface water treated annuallv:
Remarks:
2.
Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
1 1N/A EH Good condition EH Needs maintenance
Remarks:
3.
Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels
I~1 N/A EH Good condition EH Proper secondary containment
EH Needs maintenance
Remarks:
4.
Discharge Structure and Appurtenances
EH N/A EH Good condition EH Needs maintenance
Remarks:
5.
Treatment Building(s)
EH N/A EH Good condition (esp. roof and doorways)
EH Needs repair
EH Chemicals and equipment properly stored
Remarks:
6.
Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)
EH Properly secured/locked EH Functioning EH Routinely sampled
EH Good condition
EH All required wells located EH Needs maintenance
EHn/a
Remarks:
D. Monitoring Data
1.
Monitoring Data
153 Is routinely submitted on time ^ Is of acceptable quality
2.
Monitoring Data Suggests:
153 Groundwater plume is effectively contained ^ Contaminant concentrations are declining
E.
Monitored Natural Attenuation
1.
Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)
153 Properly secured/locked ^ Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition
153 All required wells located EH Needs maintenance
EH N/A
Remarks: Monitorine wells on site are used to assess the Dcrformancc of the slurry wall and cat) (not
natural attenuation). All monitorine wells are secured with locks.
X. OTHER REMEDIES
If there are remedies applied at the site and not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical
nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction.
XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
-------
A.
Implementation of the Remedy
Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed.
Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is designed to accomplish (e.g., to contain contaminant
plume, minimize infiltration and gas emissions).
The Site's final remedy included demolition and off-site disoosal of site structures, drum disoosal. removal
of the former site oond. construction of a slurry wall around the former process and storase areas.
installation of a de-waterins system, construction of a RCRA car) over the area encompassed by the slurry
wall, excavation and consolidation of contaminated soil and wetland sediment beneath the car), mitisation
of wetland loss, institutional controls, and groundwater monitorins. In 2016. in accordance with the ROD.
the PRP extended the slurry wall and car) to address an additional area of soil contamination north of the
orisinal car). Based on the findinss of the FYR site inspection, the remedy seems to be effective and
functionins as desisned. The cans are in sood condition and appear to be well-maintained. Thev prevent
exposure to contaminated soil and sediment. The slurry walls and caps prevent the misration of
contaminated groundwater and institutional controls are in place to prevent sroundwater use. prohibit
residential land use. and prohibit activities that could potentially affect the integrity of cap and slurry
walls. A review of sroundwater data confirms that sroundwater contamination is beins contained and has
not misrated off-site.
B.
Adequacy of O&M
Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In
particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
O&M procedures are implemented as prescribed by the O&M manual. Based on FYR site inspection
observations. O&M activities seem to be adeauate. Vesetation on the orisinal cap is well-established and
the fence surroundins the cap is in sood condition.
C.
Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems
Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high
frequency of unscheduled repairs that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised
in the future.
No early indicators of potential remedy problems were identified at the time of the site inspection.
D.
Opportunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
None identified.
Site Inspection Roster:
Victoria Schantz, EPA RPM
John Brakeall, EPA CIC
Angie McGarvey, VDEQ
Catherine Coffey, Arcadis
Justin Coffey, Arcadis
Tim Karn, Owner
-------
APPENDIX G - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOS
-------
Inside of Water Facility Building
Site Inspection Photos -1
-------
Inside of Water Facility Building
Capped Area, Facing West
Site Inspection Photos - 2
-------
Vent on Original Capped Area
Site Inspection Photos - 3
-------
Monitoring Well
Former Wetland Area B
Site Inspection Photos - 4
-------
APPENDIX H - VAPOR INTRUSTION MEMO
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029
SUBJECT: Rentokil, Inc. (Virginia Wood Preserving Site)
Superfund Site - Vapor Intrusion
February 28, 2022
FROM:
Victoria Schantz
Remedial Project Manager
TO:
FILE
The purpose of this memo to file is to document information and discussions regarding the
possibility for Vapor Intrusion (VI) at the Rentokil Inc. (Virginia Wood Preserving) Superfund
Site (the "Site") located in Henrico County, Virginia.
During a call on December 9, 2020, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ)
requested a consult from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding questions
raised to them by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). ATSDR
was reviewing a draft Letter Health Consultation (LHC) report prepared by the Virginia
Department of Health (VDH). VDH prepared the draft LHC under a cooperative agreement with
ATSDR. The LHC reviewed multiple site-related documents and revaluated exposure pathways,
conclusions, and recommendations from ATSDR's public health assessment (PHA) for the
Rentokil Site. The draft LHC recommends that, "If the Site is used for future building
construction, the potential health risk of VI to workers in the buildings should be evaluated."
Based on this recommendation, the potential for VI was investigated by reviewing past site data
found in EPA records. The documents reviewed as part of the investigation are listed at the end
of this memorandum. Additionally, the following people were consulted throughout the
investigation:
• *Will Geiger, Chief, DE/VA/WV Remedial Section
• Joseph McDowell, Senior Remedial Project Manager, Site Remediation Branch
• *Chris Corbett, Senior Remedial Project Manager, Site Remediation Branch
• *Christian Matta, Remedial Project Manager, DE/VA/WV Remedial Section
• *Linda Watson, Toxicologist, Risk Assessment Section
• *Herminio Concepcion, Hydrogeologist, Hydrologic Support Section
• *Patricia Flores, Environmental Scientist, Air Quality Analysis Branch
• *Robert Hasson, Attorney Advisor, CERCLA Branch 1
• *Huu Ngo, Remedial Project Manager, Eastern Pennsylvania Remedial Section
• *Alan Geyer, Remedial Project Manager, DE/VA/WV Remedial Section
• *Christopher Thomas, Land Revitalization Action Team, Site Assessment Branch
• Thomas Cinti, Attorney Advisor, CERCLA Branch 2
• Angela McGarvey, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
• Catherine Coffey, Project Manager, Arcadis U.S., Inc.
• Daniel Sheehan, Program Manager, Arcadis U.S., Inc.
indicates presence at October 6, 2021 internal EPA meeting to discuss the VI assessment
W Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free.
Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474
-------
Site Background
The Site, located in Henrico County, Virginia, is a former wood-treating facility that operated
from 1957 until January 1990. Chemicals used during operations included chromium zinc
arsenate (CZA), chromated copper arsenate (CCA), pentachlorophenol (PCP), fuel oil no. 2,
creosote, xylene, and fire retardants. Site operations resulted in the contamination of soil,
sediment, and groundwater with hazardous substances.
The EPA placed the Site on the National Priorities List (NPL) in March 1989. The Remedial
Investigation (RI) was completed in two phases. The Phase IRI was completed in 1990 and a
Phase II RI, which was intended to fill data gaps identified during the Phase I RI, was completed
in 1992. The Phase II RI is not intended to be a stand-alone document and presents the results of
the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA). Total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
and total carcinogenic PAHs were used in the Phase II RI as an indicator of constituents from
creosote.
EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Site in 1993 (later amended in 1996). The
remedy outlined in the ROD included demolition and off-site disposal of existing structures,
excavation and off-site disposal of the unusable CCA, excavation and off-site incineration of
pond sediments, low temperature thermal desorption of "hot spot" soil, consolidation of surface
soil outside the area to be capped that exceed site-specific cleanup levels to the area of the Site to
be capped, construction of a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C cap,
construction of a slurry wall around the perimeter of the area encompassed by the cap,
installation of a dewatering system (horizontal wells) within the cap/slurry wall, extraction and
on-site treatment of groundwater (later changed to off-site disposal), restoration of three wetland
areas, implementation of institutional controls, and long-term monitoring (LTM) of groundwater.
EPA amended the ROD in August 1996 to delete the low-temperature thermal desorption as a
component of the cleanup.
The contaminants of concern (COCs) identified in the Phase II RI and the ROD were:
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Toluene
Xylenes
Benzoic Acid
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2-Methyiphenol
4-Methyiphenol
PCP
Phenol
PAHs
Dioxins
Furans
The ROD requires LTM of groundwater for the primary contaminants detected in groundwater
during the RI including arsenic, chromium, copper, zinc, PAHs, and PCP. For sediment and
surface soils outside the area to be capped (i.e., the former process area), the ROD included
cleanup levels for PAHs, PCP, and arsenic. Later reports for the Site list the COC's as the
following list of primary COCs: Arsenic, Copper, Zinc, Chromium, PCP, and PAHs.
Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free.
O Customer Service Hotlin e: 1-800-438-2474
-------
Geology & Hydrology
There are two water-bearing units at the Site, separated by a clay hardpan. The upper (perched)
aquifer consists of fluvial sediments and extends from the ground surface to about 4-7 feet below
ground surface (bgs). The lower, or saprolitic, aquifer extends from the bottom of the hardpan
(about 7-10 feet bgs) to the top of the Petersburg Granite bedrock. The clay hardpan is a semi-
permeable confining layer, which acts as a barrier to perched groundwater infiltration into the
saprolitic aquifer. The perched aquifer pinches out toward the wetland on the northern portion of
the property and becomes nonexistent at North Run Creek. The bedrock serves as a confining
layer and is encountered about 25 feet bgs. Groundwater beneath the Site generally flows to the
northeast, toward North Run Creek, the primary surface water feature near the Site, which flows
into Talley's Pond about 1 mile southeast of the Site. A municipal water supply provides water
to the area since approximately 1987.
Remedial Action
Remedial Construction at the Site was completed in August of 1999. Contaminated site
sediments and soils were excavated and consolidated into the former process area to be
contained. A 30-inch-wide slurry wall was constructed around the area from the ground surface
to the bedrock-confining layer. Three directionally drilled wells, identified as Laterals A, B, & C
(also referred to as extraction wells), were installed 2 to 4 feet above the bedrock within the
containment area to create a lower groundwater level inside the containment area than outside.
The purpose of this inward gradient of groundwater was to prevent contaminants from migrating
outside of the containment area. A French Drain was constructed at the perimeter of the
containment area at the level of the perched aquifer. The purpose of this element was to capture
groundwater from the perched horizon. A RCRA Subtitle C cap was placed over the
approximately six (6) acre former process area of the Site (Cap Area 1), overlapping the
boundaries of the slurry wall. Six monitoring wells (VPMW-1 thru VPMW-6) were installed
outside of the slurry wall down gradient from Cap Area 1 in the saprolitic groundwater aquifer
for LTM.
The RCRA Cap system (Cap Area 1) consists of graded fill material, a low permeability Geo-
Clay liner (GCL), a low-density polyethylene liner (LDPE), a geonet and drainage composite
layer, geotextile fabric, protective cover soil, and approximately six inches of vegetated topsoil.
In preparation for possible future non-residential reuse of the site, three divider wall structures
were constructed within the confines of the slurry wall. The rectangular areas consist of
reinforced concrete walls with embedded LDPE strips for connection to the RCRA cap. The
walls allow for a total area of approximately 50,000 square feet for potential redevelopment.
Waterstops were inserted in each concrete construction joint for future foundation construction.
Utilities were also placed inside the divider wall structure. Cap construction details are depicted
on the 1999 As-Built drawings and show four vents positioned on the highest elevation of the
cap. The system is a passive gas venting system consistent with typical RCRA Subtitle C cap
construction.
In 2016, an additional slurry wall was installed to extend the existing slurry wall and cap to
enclose an approximately one and a half (1.5) acres area (Cap Area 2) located to the north of the
Cap Area 1. The 2016 slurry wall is 18 inches thick and was installed to the depth of refusal
Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free.
O Customer Service Hotlin e: 1-800-438-2474
-------
which was approximately 15-26 feet bgs. Cap Area 2 was constructed to contain residual PCP
impacted soils and prevent the infiltration of stormwater, as well as any potential contact with
impacted surface soils. Cap Area 2 ties into the existing anchor trench/infiltration drainage
system of Cap Area 1 and consists of graded soil, a nonwoven geotextile layer, a LDPE
Geomembrane, geosynthetic drainage composite, 18-inch general fill soil layer, and 6-inch
vegetated topsoil layer.
Groundwater Extraction
Groundwater extraction from the three laterals was initiated in 1999. The extracted groundwater
was pumped to the water facility building, which was constructed for water storage prior to being
transported off-site for disposal. According to the 2000 Final Remedial Design and Remedial
Action Report, the initial analysis of groundwater extracted from the containment system
indicated detections of low levels of non-carcinogenic PAHs and metals with no exceedances of
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). As of January 31, 2000, approximately 770,000 gallons
of groundwater had been removed and disposed of from within the boundaries of the slurry wall
and cap system. No recovery was being experienced from the French Drain System indicating
that the perched aquifer had been dewatered completely.
To conduct performance monitoring and determine the groundwater gradient within the
containment area, 14 piezometers were installed inside and outside the original slurry wall.
Groundwater depths in these piezometers were measured monthly until August 2014. During that
time, groundwater level data indicated a flat gradient with occasional slight outward or inward
gradients in limited areas of the Site. The piezometers were abandoned in Spring 2015.
In July 2005, EPA approved the Responsible Party's (RP's) request for a one-year moratorium
on the extraction and disposal of ground water from within the containment system. The
moratorium was extended each year until December 2008 when groundwater extraction was
suspended indefinitely. EPA and VDEQ agreed to the indefinite suspension based on a 2008
groundwater extraction test which determined that site groundwater conditions, from a
contaminant concentration and flow velocity/direction standpoint, are similar under extraction
conditions and under the natural conditions observed since the shut-down of the extraction
system. In 2015 the groundwater extraction pumps were removed and the groundwater extraction
laterals were abandoned in place. The remainder of the groundwater recovery system, including
the above-ground pumps, piping, and tanks were removed from the Site in 2016. In 2017,
components of the containment area dewatering system from the water facility building were
removed. The building remains in place but is no longer in use.
According to the 2009 Groundwater Remediation Evaluation Report, leakage of groundwater
through the fractured bedrock underlying the saprolite aquifer (groundwater that, based on
previous evaluation of upgradient groundwater, does not contain COCs) acts as an equalization
force in the saprolite aquifer inside and outside of the Slurry Wall. As expected, there has been
minimal recharge of groundwater from the bedrock aquifer over time, groundwater inside the
containment structure has most likely achieved equilibrium. The 2009 report concludes that the
extraction of over one million gallons of groundwater from inside the containment elements of
the site had resulted in the removal of a small amount of contamination from the site and that
data from the most recent sampling events, compared with previous sampling events, and from
the focused groundwater extraction test, clearly indicate that there is no further value in
Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free.
O Customer Service Hotlin e: 1-800-438-2474
-------
extracting and disposing of groundwater from site.
According to the 2018 Operations and Maintenance Manual, the cap and the associated
surrounding slurry wall contain and prevent movement of groundwater from the containment
structure to the aquifer. The groundwater historically located within the containment structure
originated from the perched aquifer and has since been removed from the area via the
decommissioned groundwater recovery and extraction system. Groundwater in the containment
system which originated from the saprolite aquifer was also removed by the decommissioned
groundwater recovery and extraction system. The RCRA Subtitle C caps covering Cap Area 1
and Cap Area 2, as well as and the associated slurry walls, prevent surface water infiltration of
rainwater and the intrusion of groundwater from outside the containment structure.
The three extraction wells from within the containment area appear to have been last sampling in
April 2008 to support the permanent discontinuance of groundwater extraction, as summarized in
the August 2008 Groundwater Monitoring Report. Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) as
well as VOCs were detected in the samples. Benzene was the only VOC that was detected at
concentrations above its MCL (5 |ig/L) in Lateral 2 (38 (J,g/L), and Lateral 3 (47 (J,g/L). PCP was
the only SVOC detected above its respective MCL (1 ug/L) in Lateral 1 (78 ug/L) and Lateral 3
(17 ug/L).
Groundwater Monitoring
LTM of groundwater at the site began in July 2001. In 2015, to facilitate the construction of the
expanded containment system, all but three monitoring wells (VPMW-4, VPMW-5 and VPMW-
6) were abandoned. Following the extension of the containment system in 2016, three new
monitoring wells (VPMW-1R, VPDW-04R and VPDW-05R) were installed north and
downgradient of the extended system. The six monitoring wells are currently located on the site.
There are currently no wells located within the containment areas.
Upon completion of the installation of the three new monitoring wells, one site wide sampling
event was conducted in October 2017 including all six monitoring wells. No detections were
presented exceeding MCLs for the primary COCs detailed in the ROD for the site wide sampling
event. Per the approved 2016 Groundwater Monitoring Plan and based on the results of the site
wide sampling event, an annual sampling schedule for year two thru year four of post remedial
monitoring for the three new monitoring wells (VPMW-1R, VPDW-04R and VPDW-05R) and
discontinuance of monitoring the three existing monitoring wells (VPMW-4, VPMW-5, and
VPMW-6) was requested. Since the site wide event, annual sampling of the three new
monitoring wells have not reported concentration of COCs exceeding MCLs.
Institutional Controls
Institutional Controls (ICs) were implemented through a Restrictive Covenant in 2005. The
Restrictive Covenant prohibits residential development, use of groundwater at the site, and
disturbance of the cap. In 2019 the Restrictive Covenant was amended to include Cap Area 2.
There is currently no IC specifically requiring mitigation of VI associated with placement of
structures on the site.
Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free.
O Customer Service Hotlin e: 1-800-438-2474
-------
Vapor Intrusion Assessments
VI is briefly discussed in the second, third, and fourth Five Year Review (FYR) reports
completed in 2008, 2013, and 2018, respectively. The potential for VI is not addressed in prior
reports for the Site. The second and third FYR reports state that, although the May 2007
Groundwater Monitoring Report clearly identifies VOCs at detectable concentrations (mainly
within the extraction wells), the reported concentrations are low (trace) and do not exceed EPA's
screening values except for a few contaminants. They conclude that VI is not a pathway of
concern because the only existing building on the Site is the water facility building, which is
rarely used, and the groundwater in former Wetland Areas B and C is not contaminated. While
they provide an evaluation of current groundwater performance standards (MCLs) using updated
risk guidance, the FYRs do not include risk from VI since, "none of the 1993 ROD identified
COCs are VOCs". The fourth FYR simply states that VI does not pose a risk to human health
because there are no exposure pathways as groundwater contamination is confined to the Site,
primarily within the areas contained by the two slurry walls, and the only enclosed structure
located on site is the water facility building, which is no longer used. The FYRs state that Site
groundwater VOC concentrations should be re-screened, using EPA's most current table, when
performance standards are believed to have been achieved.
While VI has not been assessed previously for the Site, current annual sampling from the six
groundwater monitoring wells located outside of the capped area have not reported concentration
of COCs exceeding MCLs. Therefore, VI is not anticipated to be a concern for the non-capped
areas. Only historical groundwater data exists from within the capped areas and new samples
cannot be collected. The last samples of groundwater collected within the containment area was
collected in 2008 to support the permanent moratorium on groundwater extraction and disposal.
Since all wells and piezometers that were once located within the contaminant area have been
abandoned, groundwater samples cannot be collected without damaging the cap.
The water facility building is located on Cap Area 1 and is still present on Site though not used.
The building appears to be a large pole barn with a garage door and louver windows. As
discussed above, in preparation for possible future reuse of the Site, the cap has been engineered
to anticipate construction of non-residential structures. The divider wall structures constructed
within the confines of the slurry wall allow for a total area of approximately 50,000 square feet
for potential redevelopment. The possibility for VI into the water facility building or in potential
future construction has not been previously evaluated.
To get a sense of the potential risk of VI within the containment area at the Site, screenings were
performed using EPA's Vapor Intrusion Screening Level (VISL) Calculator. The first screening
was performed by Linda Watson, EPA Toxicologist, and used the 1992 Phase IRI groundwater
data which was collected from the saprolite aquifer prior to Remedial Action. Table 1, below,
shows the results from VISL.
Table 1: 1992 RI Data Saprolii
te Aquifer - VISL Groundwater to Indoor Air Risk Results
VOC COC
Maximum
Detected (ug/L)
Calculated Indoor Air
Concentration (ug/m3)
C 'ommercial 1 I
C 'arcinovenic Risk
C 'ommercial 1 I
Hazard
Benzene
300
68.1
4 3i :-i)5
5 :i ¦:-<)!
Ethylbenzene
160
51.5
i ii:-i)5
i :i;-n:
Toluene
1200
326
-
15i ¦:-<):
Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free.
O Customer Service Hotlin e: 1-800-438-2474
-------
Styrene
44
4.95
-
1 ll><)3
Xylene
580
157
-
Napthalene
7600
137
3.81 >04
10
Total Risks
4.3H-04
II
*Bold denotes an exceedance of EPA's risk criteria for cancer (Cancer Risk .81 ¦-()(•<
s n;-<)2
Ethylbenzene
34
11
: 21 :-no
2 51 >1)3
Toluene
49
13.3
-
o II >i)4
Styrene
—
-
-
-
Xylene
130
35.2
-
S.ll><)2
Napthalene
810
14.6
4 i)|>1)5
I.I
Total Risks
1.3
*Bold denotes an exceedance of EPA's risk criteria for cancer (Cancer Risk
-------
Redevelopment
The Site was purchased in October 2021. Plans include development of a warehouse on the
northern section of the Site, north of North Run Creek. The purchaser plans to use the capped
areas for laydown storage of contractor equipment. EPA advised the Prospective Purchaser via a
Comfort Letter dated November 2, 2021. The Comfort Letter listed multiple reasonable steps
including that there shall be no placement of any structure on the capped area without first
obtaining EPA's written permission to do so. The agency will work with the purchaser and,
should new construction on the capped area be anticipated, out of an abundance of caution,
EPA's preference would be to proactively incorporate in any building design a passive sub slab
depressurization system and a vapor barrier. The assessment of the need for VI mitigation would
need to be included in any reuse plans associated with the property which includes placement of
structures on the cap. Moving forward, EPA will advise future Prospective Purchasers in a
similar fashion.
Conclusion
EPA held an internal call on October 6, 2021 to discuss the information presented above. The
assessment led the team to decide that a formal institutional control for VI mitigation is not
warranted and that VI is likely not an issue at the Site. This is due to the vapor mitigation
inherent in a RCRA Subtitle C cap system as well as EPA's ability to require any additional VI
mitigation as part of the reuse management authorities EPA has over the Site. An IC is also in
place which prohibits residential development on the property. Moving forward EPA will advise
Prospective Purchasers through a Comfort Letter and would need to work with the purchaser to
determine if structures would be anticipated on the capped area. This information will be
included in the next five-year review (due in July 2023) as part of the discussion related to
institutional controls.
Documents Reviewed
• 1990 Phase I Remedial Investigation Report
• 1992 Phase II Remedial Investigation Report
• 1992 Feasibility Study
• 1993 Proposed Plan
• 1993 Record of Decision
• 1996 Record of Decision Amendment
• 1999 As-Built Drawings
• 1999 Primary Close Out Report
• 2000 Final Report Remedial Design and Remedial Action
• 2003 First Five Year Review
• 2005 Property Deed and Restrictive Covenant
• 2008 Second FYR
• 2009 Groundwater Remediation Evaluation Report
• 2021 Focused Feasibility Study
• 2013 Third FYR
Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free.
O Customer Service Hotlin e: 1-800-438-2474
-------
• 2016 Groundwater Monitoring Plan
• 2018 Fourth FYR
• 2018 Remedial Action Completion Report
• 2018 Operations and Maintenance Manual
• 2019 Property Deed Amendment
• Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Summary Reports for 2017, 2018, 2019, and
2020
Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free.
Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474
------- |