HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1988/09/20 Item 06
~
:..
..
..
..
?o
.....
of
y
#.
;
.
~
'\
~ .
..
.oj
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
Item 6
Meeting Date 9/20/88
Resolution!Y7?t7!f Appropriating funds from the General
Fund Reserve for costs to prepare a hydrogeo1 ogi c assessment
report for the State wat.?Quali Y Control Board on the
Corporation Yard paint pit
Director of PUblicWor~
City Manager Jb~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes X No_
SUBMITTED BY:
REV I EWED BY:
In November 1987, Public Works solicited proposals for a subsurface
investigation of the old paint pit disposal area at the Corporation Yard.
This report was to determine the extent of any contamination problem that may
exi st and the costs associ ated wi th its correcti on. It was the intent that
once this was done the paint pits would be removed and any and all corrective
action that needed to be taken would be completed. In January 1988, a
contract in the amount of $9,480 was awarded to Applied Hydrogeologic
Consultants to prepare the study including preparing a hydrogeological
assessment report for the Cali forni a Regi ona 1 Water Qual i ty Control Board.
Based on a review of the initial draft by the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board, additional work over and above the scope of the
original contract needs to be done. Additional funds are needed to do that
work.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resol uti on appropri ati ng $5,000 from the General
Fund Reserve for costs to complete the hydrogeologie assessment report for the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
During the process of awarding a contract to Applied Hydrogeologic Consultants
of San Diego for a report on any possible subsurface contamination in
connection with the paint pit, it was determined that the paint pit fell under
the guidelines of the State's Toxic Pits Cleanup Act which was enacted in 1984
and administered by the State Water Resources Control Board. When the County
of San Diego met with Applied Hydrogeologic Consultants and the City to
discuss the removal of the pits, it was their determination that the State
needed to be brought into the process. The State ruled that this was not
merely removal of an underground tank, which would be handled by the County,
but was subject to the more stringent Toxic Pits Cleanup Act. The Act
requires preparation of a hydrogeological assessment report as an initial part
of the cleanup process. Before we can complete the work, we must comply with
"
~..
.
,.
.
.
~.
.
..
..
, '
)
t.
'4
Page 2, Item 6
Meeting Date 9/20/88
the provisions of the Act. The City also had to pay fees to the State for the
cleanup. These fees will be used by the State to monitor our progress in
cleaning up the pit.
After review of the requirements for a hydrogeological assessment report with
the consultants and the State, the contract that was entered into between the
City and Applied Hydrogeologic Consultants was a lump sum for the actual
report preparation, but because the amount of testi ng was i ndetermi nate and
coul d vary based upon State revi ew of the hydrogeol ogi cal assessment report,
all testing was to be done on a cost basis. On May 26, 1988, we transmitted
the prel imi nary copy of the hydrogeol ogi cal assessment report to the Regi onal
Board for their review. The Regional Board reviewed that report and came back
with further revisions including a considerable amount of additional testing.
Applied Hydrogeologic Consultants has given us a cost figure of $3,740 to
complete the investigation and work necessary to finalize the hydrogeological
assessment report according to the State IS comments. This will also complete
any reports for us outl i ni ng what work is necessary to be done in order to
clean up the site. Once that work is completed, the City will then move
forward with a contract to do the actual cleanup work.
FISCAL IMPACT: An additional $5,000 is required to complete the
hydrogeol ogi c assessment report for the State Water Resources Control Board.
This includes $3,740 for Applied Hydrogeologic Consultants to complete the
work and $1,260 in incidental costs. In addition, once State approval is
received, we can begin work on the actual removal process according to State
gui del i nes. The amount of that work and the ul timate cost depends on the
State I s revi ew of our compl eted hydrogeol ogi c assessment report and thei r
requirements.
CS:nr/
WPC 3976E
~~~/
the City C '";c;;I of
Chula Vista, C:.i;fcrnia
Dated
I <,/W!t