Laserfiche WebLink
Cary Keaten • -2 - • 9 August 2004 <br /> 5. The continued failure to present a uniform pond and land application naming nomenclature <br /> makes review of the document difficult. Staff recommends all ponds be named in a way that <br /> immediately distinguishes the area as a wastewater storage pond. Similarly,all land application <br /> areas should be given a unique name to allow efficient review and discussion. <br /> 6. The failure to present clear drawings that present and name all wastewater ponds, land <br /> application areas, and monitoring wells makes review difficult. Please check all drawings for <br /> completeness, accuracy, and legibility, and resubmit. <br /> 7. The development schedule for wastewater storage and land application areas is not presented in <br /> the RWD. Normally, the facilities are constructed prior to any wastewater discharge,however <br /> Figure 4 indicates storage and application areas will be developed over the next 18 months. The <br /> Discharger must provide a schedule that demonstrates adequate capacity for the wastewater that <br /> will be generated. Staff recommends the Discharger develop initial capacity for at least 250,000 <br /> gallons per day(gpd) and then prepare facilities to allow one increase to the maximum flow rate <br /> of 750,000 gpd. <br /> 8. The tables and figures that were submitted in the RWD are often incomplete and/or illegible. <br /> Data and/or lists of wells are located on numerous tables rather than in one place. Such examples <br /> include: <br /> a. Figure 7-7 does not include all the wastewater storage ponds and land application areas. <br /> For example, the wastewater pond and land application area planned for Howland Road is <br /> not presented on the figure. In addition, the ponds that are presented in the Lathrop <br /> Station development are not labeled. The Lathrop Station spray field east of Golden <br /> Valley Parkway is not presented on the figure, nor is the wastewater pond or spray field <br /> located near Well P-5. <br /> b. The well names for TMW-3 and TMW-5 are not legible because they have been partially <br /> covered by other drawing details. Well P-7 is completely obscured by the pattern <br /> indicating Land Application Area RWI-40. <br /> c. The data is spread between numerous tables for no apparent reason. Wells for the River <br /> Islands pond and land application area are presented on Tables 7-1 through 7-7; data for <br /> Mossdale Landing and the Reiter Property are presented on Tables 7-8 through 7-12. <br /> There is no obvious reason for separating the data tables (and creating twice as many <br /> tables to review). When the tables are compared, inconsistencies in the testing programs <br /> become apparent. <br /> d. Tables 7-20 and 7-21 present similar information. Table 7-20 presents land application <br /> areas and wastewater storage ponds for River Islands; Table 7-21 presents the land <br /> application areas for Mossdale Village. To find the wastewater storage ponds for <br /> Mossdale Village,the reader has to refer to Table 7-18. Please consolidate the <br /> j _ information in the tables and figures. <br /> W:\SueWnenTSan IwqJnLLatluvP_k'R'TPMBR Platt N ..6 Au od.DM <br />