1. BP/ARCO GeoTracker User Experiences California CUPA Form February 2002

2. View/Add Facilities Screen

3. View Associated Facilities

4. Results of Search Associated Facilities

5. Example: Two Users Claim Same Site

6. Results of View Submittals

7. Effort Required >BP’s Time to claim site and release to consultant >Consultant’s time to claim sites and enter data ongoing basis >Labs time and effort to generate EDF >BP’s time to have wells resurveyed

8. BP’s Effort >Finding sites in GeoTracker >Many don’t list ARCO Facility Number >Can’t search by Facility Number >Sites W/wrong or different address >Sites with different name >Sites with different city >Sites missing in GeoTracker >Non-ARCO consultants claiming ARCO Sites

9. Consultant Effort >Find site in GeoTracker >Claim site >Upload field points >Check Laboratory EDF and upload >Check and upload survey data >Upload site maps and field data >Averaging 1 to 2 hours per submittal to find, claim, review and upload EDFs

10. Laboratory EDF >BP/ARCO Primary Labs: Sequoia, Del Mar, Pace, and STL >These labs all are providing EDF >Had problems with complex COELT format >Difficulties with evolving valid value list >Now moving from “Startup” to Production mode for EDF submittals

11. Laboratory Effort >Some Laboratories have added staff to process the volume of EDFs >Due to the dynamic nature of the process, labs find it hard to fully automate generating EDFs

12. BP/ARCO XYZ Data >BP/ARCO conducted new horizontal surveys to be compliant with AB2886 >New X-Y surveys completed December 2001 and are being uploaded by the site consultants >BP/ARCO is using existing Z data which is being uploaded by the site consultants >BP/ARCO offered to help the State Water Resources Control Board test the XYZ upload feature

13. LUST vs UST >LUST database is dynamic >UST database is static >Found plotting problems in both databases >Many sites and wells not plotted in correct location, especially in UST database >Suggest there be a section in the GeoTracker FAQ that discusses the difference in quality of LUST vs UST data

14. Suggested Improvements >Add a way to search for sites by Agency >Add a way to search on additional data entered in “Field Point Name” file >Provide feed back that sites not found in GeoTracker have been added so users can claim them

15. Summary >For the first several months the GeoTracker user interface was constantly updated as many “bugs” were being fixed >ARCO’s consultants now fluent in the GeoTracker process >All of BP/ARCO’s labs can produce EDF >Labs moving to a “production” mode for EDF from a startup mode but have a ways to go >GeoTracker is still an evolving system