Loading...
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,