1 / 15

Enhancing User Experience with GeoTracker in California CUPA Forms

Learn about the challenges and improvements in utilizing GeoTracker system for site management in California. Explore issues with facility data entry, laboratory EDF generation, and XYZ data compliance for better user productivity. Discover suggested enhancements and user feedback for a smoother experience. Stay updated on the evolving system functionalities.

mcmanusr
Download Presentation

Enhancing User Experience with GeoTracker in California CUPA Forms

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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

More Related