SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

.' Page 2 of 3 has progressed over the last four years, which site plans make up the still pending Geo—Map filing uploaded, as required, to the GeoTracker database in 2002. In addition, in a rather lengthy note at the end of Section 5.4 of the same report, we explain that in order to comply with the requirements of California Assembly Bill 2886, we resurveyed the latitudes and Iongitudes of the initial 7 monitoring wells in addition to the new wells installed in 2002. As explained in the note, that new XY survey was achieved in 2002 by mobilizing into the field a modern surveying crew equipped with GPS receivers and auxiliary equipment. Section 5.2 of that report discusses the issues surrounding the initial XY surveys conducted in 2000, which issues are again detailed below. Issue 2: Discrepancies between Boring Log and Geo_Z Measurements As is detailed in Section 3.2 of our initial site characterization report(2001), the California Underground Storage Tank Clean-up Fund (USTCF) denied sufficient funding for a survey to be made by a California-licensed land surveyor at the Navarra Property, even though the area to be surveyed at the time covered 15.5 acres of developed commercial and light-industrial property. (Note: The area included in current site plans is now 72 acres.) Upon appeal of that curious funding denial, SJC was informed by the USTCF that "only 8 hours of assistant engineer time is determined necessary" for all surveying work. How that engineer was to perform any surveying work without the assistance of someone to hold onto the other end of the tape or the staff was not explained. Under those circumstances, the first leveling of the well casings was performed with the assistance of the driller's helper. Not surprisingly, errors were made on the days the wells were installed. Because we were concerned that funding restrictions had compromised good engineering practice, prior to completion of the first round of groundwater-quality monitoring in May 2000, SJC mobilized an adequately-staffed surveying team, lead by an SJC civil engineer licensed by the State to do surveying, to the 7500 West Eleventh Street site and re-surveyed the casing elevations at that time. The variances between the elevations seen on the boring logs and those that are cited in Table 3 of the initial site characterization report (January 2001) and all reports thereafter reflect the differences of 0.01 ft that you've noted at Monitoring Wells MW-2 and MW-5. It should be noted that in the case of MW-1, the variations between the elevations of the casing computed ftom the leveling performed with the assistance of the driller's helper amounted to 0.05 ft, which would be excessive if SJC had not corrected our draft Tables at the time that the casing elevations were resurveyed by our qualified team in May 2000. SJC also included the proper measurement in all of our GeoTracker uploads. As is also stated in the January 2001 report, because SJCEHD personnel disputed SJC's computed direction of groundwater flow at the site, the casing elevations were again resurveyed by SJC's qualified team on August 22, 2000. That work and the similar work performed in May 2000 were done essentially pro bond. The August 2000 survey elevations agreed precisely with those that had previously been surveyed by SJC's proper surveying team on May 11, 2000. By the time that the additional wells were installed at the site in 2002, as is reported in our October 2002 extended site characterization report, the USTCF had no option but to fund surveys compliant with proper engineering practice, because such were, by then, required by the AB2886 GeoTracker process. Consequently, as can be seen in Table 1 of the October 2002 extended site characterization report, the surveyed casing elevations of the wells installed in March 2002 are consistent with those shown on the applicable boring logs. Moreover, at that time, to comply with AB2886 regulations, the whole array of 12/3/2003