Minutes 1986/08/07
5386
Roll Call
Police
Exp. Proj.
August 7J 1986
Special Meeting
Gilroy, California
Mayor Hughan led the pledge of allegiance to the Flag.
Present: Councilmembers: Donald F. Gage, Larry MussallemJ
Daniel D. Palmerlee, Pete ValdezJ Jr. and Roberta H. Hughan;
Absent: Councilmembers: Sharon A. Albert and Paul V. Kloecker.
3:36 p.m.
Mayor Hughan noted that the meeting was scheduled to
discuss and consider options for disposal of contaminated soil
at the Police Facility Expansion Project.
~_.~
.....
City Administrator Baksa presented a Staff report and
recommendations further explaining sameJ noting consultants
from Cooper Engineers and Groundwater Technology are present in
the audience for further explanations of the proposals. He
noted that the estimated cost to date is $42,915.00, and that
there are primarily two major areas of work to do: 1) Finalize
the definition of the plume noting two estimates: Cooper Eng.
$16,000. to $21JOOO. and Groundwater Technology $17J750.; 2)
Clean-up.
He further noted the estimate to remove dirt and shore to
be $467J340.00. Other options are extraction (vapor and/or
groundwater): Estimate to provide vapor extraction beneath new
addition which would be a series of pipes installed under the
foundation and a pump would pull the vapors out of the soil and
said operations would continue until the vapors were extracted.
Groundwater Technology - $28J245. - $31J925.; Yearly Operation-
al Cost - $500/yr.; Air Permit may be requiredJ cost unknown;
Testing (vapor) $200./yr. Estimate to provide groundwater
cleanup (if needed): Cooper Engineers $125,000. - $175,000.;
Groundwater Technology - Cost not known; Yearly Operational
Cost - $25,000 - $50,000/yr.
'.-
City Administrator Baksa noted that Staff recommends that
both extraction methods be done. When the plume is defined and
located then it will be known whether or not the groundwater
extraction wells will be needed. Both extraction methods will
require yearly operation.
--
Discussion was had by Council on the matter.
David Olds, Hazardous Materials Specialist, addressed the
Council further explaining the extraction options.
Gary TaggertJ District Manager of Groundwater TechnologYJ
addressed the Council recommending vapor extraction and ground-
water Cleanup and further explaining their proposal submitted
and recommended that this be done in a phased approach.
Chief Building Inspector James addressed the Council and
noted that Cooper Engineers' representative is also present to
present a proposal.
Mr. Howard Aritat Cooper Engineers, addressed the Council
noting they are present to answer any questions Council may
have and that in all of their cost estimates there has been a
certain amount of speculation and that they are not able to
provide an estimate for the vapor extraction method.
~
~
Further discussion was had by Council and questions
directed to Mr. Arita.
Mr. Lou Richardson, GeologistJ Cooper EngineersJ
addressed the Council and explained technical data.
Hazardous Materials Specialist Olds further explained the
groundwater extraction method noting that all of the tech-
nology available had been in existence for only a short time.
~)387
Mr. Taggert, Groundwater Technology, noted that vapor
extraction is not intended to be a cure-all; some treatment
will be needed. He further noted that the project could con-
tinue and continuation of the clean-up system under the build-
ing would not be a problem and could certainly be accom-
plished. He noted that the proposal submitted was based upon
two objectives: 1) in the short-term to allow construction to
resume as soon as possible; 2) over the long-term to achieve
reduction in contaminate levels to meet regulatory
requirements.
-
Mr. Arita, Cooper Engineers, noted that he doesn't
disagree with vapor extraction; it has been shown to work. He
noted that he has a problem as to how well does it work. He
noted on the issue of the hole itself, he would advise that
same not be left open during the winter because that would
require some type of drainage system. A soils review of
leaving the hole open would be necessary.
-
Councilman Gage inquired as to the length of time it
would take for the bacterial system to work.
""'''#0;
Mr. Arita responded that same is a trial and error
process. He noted that what they would do is take some of the
water out, analyze the needs of the bacteria, grow a culture
suitable for digestion or metabolizing those chemicals in the
water. Once the culture is grown then they would add nutrients
to that and reinject that into the water in the areas of con-
tamination. The geology of the site has to be understood very
well to know where the water being injected is going to. He
further noted that if water is just injected it might spread
the contamination furtherJ it might go to areas that aren't
contaminated. They will inject water into an area they think
is defined, they will run the process in that cycleJ they will
extract groundwater as well as inject the nutrient and culture
mix. They will monitor the quality of the water that continues
to come out of the ground as well as other monitoring wells.
They will find areas where if there isn't enough nutrient flow
to that area or enough organisms to that area, they will put an
injection system and withdrawal system in the new area and will
continue this process until the site is cleaned up.
-
Mr. Taggert responded that Groundwater Technology
basically pioneered the bioreclamation technology. He noted
that they have been applying it for several sites across the
country. He further stated that it is correct that it is
dependent upon the geologic environment of which you're trying
to apply it. He noted that the environment at this site is
more applicable to the application of bioreclamation techno-
logy. He further noted that in most of their applications
there is a 60-80% reduction in contamination levels within the
first year of operation and have seen projects run and be shut
down totally in 3 to 4 years of operation with contaminate
levels similar or greater than at the Gilroy site.
-
Mr. Gary Farotte, Contractor, noted that where the
retaining wall is located you will have contamination behind
that wall no matter what is done, and to get rid of that there
must be an injection or withdrawal system or some way of taking
care of that. He noted that his greatest concern is that
operation has stopped now and winter is approaching which could
be as big a problem where they are with the removal right now.
He noted that with taking the soil out there would be a 3 week
time delay to get back to where they are now and could be under
construction and possibly beat the winter problems. He further
noted that it is his understanding that the Regional Water
Quality Control Board would not make the City take down the
existing police station to take care of the contamination
underneath the existing police station. He believes that if
they would approve a method of handling the matter now and the
building was constructed that they wouldn't require the City to
take the new building down to take care of that problem. He
believes the same thing would hold true at that point.
~
S38B
Councilman Mussallem inquired of Farotte's estimate of
$467,340 for removal of dirt and shoreJ if it would apply to
what was recommended for excavation of 15 feet below the
present excavation point.
Mr. Farotte responded that is correct and then put the
fabric down, a foot of drain rockJ fabric and then backfill
back to where they are at the present time.
Hazardous Materials Specialist Olds noted that all of
this hinges on that time is money and in almost all of these
cases that we've been discussingJ whatever we dOJ the Board
(RWCQB) is basically looking at you eventually have to clean it
up. Eventually it can be an interesting amount of time, that
is it can be 3 months, 3 years and notes IBM has been pumping
for 6 years. He notes that it can be a long time, but what
they are really looking for is continual progress in the lower
of the contamination. What we can do is look toward some
method of quickly getting a lot of the contamination removed
early and have a shorter time or we can take a long-term slope
at it and take a long time in getting rid of the contamination.
He noted that there really is not a fixed time element; it is
negotiable with the Board. He further noted that in some of
the experimental cases they essentially say as long as you are
making progress that is what they are looking at. He noted
that if it should hit a wellJ yes; but there is no evidence at
the present time that any of the City wells have been hit so
far with the plume. He noted that it is primarily what the
Council feels comfortable withJ if you want to do it fast you
spend a lot of money; if you want to do it slower you use less
money.
City Administrator Baksa noted that keeping in mind of
trying to get the building completed and trying to do an ex-
traction program that will remove the contamination as soon as
possibleJ Staff's recommendation would be to define the plumeJ
then go to the vapor extraction and groundwater well extraction
and clean-up to allow the building to continue and not pose the
contractor any problems with winter and still getting the best
technology possible to solve the ultimate problem.
Chief Building Inspector James noted that they received
verbal approval from the Regional Water Quality Control Board
fairly fast before and weren't negative on any of the items
commented on dirt extraction or groundwater extraction; that
they were agreeable to either method. He believes that they
would be favorable to a recommendation from the consultant
which ever method is selected. And he believes that it would
just be a matter of days before they would receive approval to
go ahead or to do more study.
Councilman Gage recommended that the plume be located,
select the consultant to install the vapor extraction system
and work on the extraction wells based on what comes out of the
finding of the plume.
City Administrator Baksa noted that the vapor extraction
proposal from Groundwater Technology has been received.
Hazardous Materials Specialist Olds noted that the
Regional Water Quality Control Board does not want to impede
progress as long as reasonable progress is being made. And if
they see that reasonable progress is being madeJ even in the
installation of the extraction, it may not be even in opera-
tion, but they realize that eventually it will be put into
operation and that there will be further definitions of the
final plume, etc. They want to see a positive progress and
understand that it all takes time.
Councilman Palmerlee inquired what the main objection to
excavation is?
City Administrator Baksa noted that No. 1 is time and No.
2, it is the most costly, No.3 is that the groundwater extrac-
tion will have to be done in addition, regardless of what
method is selected to remove the contamination from the soil
-
-
-
-
......
~'f.
[')789
.... ..J
underneath the building. The consultants have recommended that
vapor extraction method is a viable way of accomplishing con-
tamination removal and the least expensive method.
Further discussion was had by Council on the matter.
-
Mr. Arita noted that there is no preferred option. The
scope of their services changed in the project when the costs
were known. He noted that their preferred option would be to
define the plume and find out the magnitude of the entire
problem and then to go through a feasibility study on what is
the lowest cost option. He noted that would be incompatible
with constructing the building. He further noted that they
just chose what they believed would be a conservative approach
to resolution.
-
Mr. Taggert noted that there is another problem associ-
ated with vapors. He stated that the vapors are a flammable
explosive mixture that is relatively common for vapors to
evolve off of absorbed contaminates in the subsurface and to
then migrate to lower pressure areas, such as within basements
where they collectJ and concentrate to explosive concentra-
tions. He noted that they have seen structures that have
exploded because someone walked into the building in the morn-
ingJ turned on the light switch and it exploded. He further
noted that they have seen the same thing occur on the east
coast where buildings have exploded because of vapors evolving
off of gasoline contamination within the soil. He strongly
suggests that vapor abatement consideration be given to the
structure whether it's applied as a method to implement or
reimplement construction or to abate the absorb contamina-
tion within the soils at the existing and new building.
City Administrator Baksa inquired if this would be
recommended even if the soil was extracted under the new
building; to install a vapor system under the new building.
-
Mr. Taggert responded that they would because as noted in
the report of Cooper Engineers, the highest contaminate levels
both in soil and in water were in the extreme northwest corner
and along the west side of the excavation. It's not logical to
assume that it stops right there. It's logical to assume that
it decreases in that direction along essentially the same level
of decrease that it goes to the other direction. You should
likely have significant contamination beneath the existing
structure.
City Administrator Baksa noted that Staff's recommenda-
tion would be to go to vapor extraction and enter into contract
with Groundwater Technology to start the process of going
through the regulatory agency and if approval is given to then
work with City Staff and the Contractor to start to lay that
system to get the contractor back on the project. He further
noted that on the definition of the plume it is not as critical
to begin that process today; same can wait and Staff will make
their recommendation at the August 11, 1986 regular Adjourned
Council Meeting.
-
Motion was made by Councilman Gage seconded by Councilman
Valdez and not carried by the following voteJ to select the
vapor extraction method and enter into contract with Ground-
water Technology as recommended by Staff: Ayes: Councilmembers:
Gage, Mussallem and Valdez; Noes: Councilmembers: Palmerlee and
Hughan. (Motion failed.)
...
Further discussion was had by Council on the matter, and
further explanation by Staff regarding the consultants.
It was noted that this matter would be reagendized for
the August 11, 1986 regular adjourned Council Meeting to allow
Staff to prepare a copy of the Cooper Engineers list of
options. Councilman Palmerlee requested that Staff determine
what Groundwater Technology has done ,with this type of problem
in California.
1 r. 7 () ll"'J
.J ,)./ "
Dev.Agree
Meads Group;
Carriage
Hills
Chestnut
St.Fire
Stn. Proj.
Adjourn.
"
City Administrator Baksa noted that California is not the
is?ue. The issue is if it's been' done.
The Mayor requested that Hazardous Materials Specialist
Olds speak to the out-of-state area where this has been doneJ
what their levels of contamination were and what they had to
reach, as far as clean-up.
(The Mayor deviated from the Agenda to accommodate interested
persons in the audience.)
City Administrator Baksa presented the following develop-
ment Agreements recommending approval subject to Bond approvals
by the City Attorney: Meads Group, Tract 7856 - Santa Teresa
Boulevard and Carriage Hills, Tract 7867 -Mantelli Drive.
Motion was made by Councilman Gage seconded by Councilman
Mussallem and carried that the following Development Agreements
be approved subject to Bond approvals by the City AttorneYJ as
recommended: Meads GroupJ Tract 7856 and Carriage Hills, Tract
7867.
(The Mayor continued with the regular Agenda.)
Discussed and considered Options on the Old City Hall
Interior AssetsJ FixturesJ etc. further explained by City
Administrator Baksa, noting that the Small Business Adminis-
tration will negotiate with the City for a lump sum type of
amount to include the Lease. He noted that the appraisal for
the assets is approximately $260JOOO.-$270,000.00 at its
original purchase price. Replacement price would be approxi-
mately an additional 20%. He noted that the goal is to attempt
to save the assets and lease so the City would then have some-
thing saleable, to allow the City to sublease to a conces-
sionaire to operate the restaurant. He noted that the entire
assets and lease can be purchased for approximately $100,000.00
noting that an enterprise fund would be established and a loan
from all funds made for this purchase with payment back through
the lease amount from the building.
Motion was made by Councilman Gage seconded by Councilman
Palmer lee and carried that Staff be authorized to negotiate the
best possible deal with the Small Business Administration to
purchase the Old City Hall interior assets and lease.
City Administrator Baksa recommended hiring E. H. Duerr,
A.I.A., as architect for the addition to the Chestnut Street
Fire Station.
Motion was made by Councilman Gage seconded by Councilman
Valdez and carried that the City retain E. H. Duerr, A.I.A. as
architect for the addition to the Chestnut Street Fire Station
as recommended.
At 5:16 p.m. the Mayor adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,