SU0005250 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r i FACILITY [INSPECTION REPORT -2- MUSCO FAMILY OLIVE COMPANY SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY second sump (Photo 8) to the nearby drainage, as well as a wastewater pipeline that had been placed on the surface over the drainage (Photo 9). 1 observed other wastewater pipelines placed on the surface in this field (Photo 10). The drainage where the erosion channel terminated contained stagnant water similar in color to olive processing wastewater (i.e., dark brown). I showed Leikam the physical evidence of erosion that wastewater had discharged to the drainage. He indicated this field had been irrigated for couple of hours that morning and that, until I pointed it out to him, he was not aware that wastewater had spilled from the sump to the drainage. When I indicated that measures should be implemented to preclude discharge of wastewater to the drainage, he indicated berms would be constructed in this area to contain runoff. I collected several field measurements and samples of liquid in the sumps and the drainage for laboratory analysis. Table 1 (below) and Table 3 (at the end of this inspection report) provide the results. Table 1 Evaporation South Field Samples — EC, pH, and Temperature ECTemperature Sample ID Time .Sample Location (umhoslcm) pH Field Measurement 12:35 PM First Sump 4,900 9.08 20.0 2,155 9.62 HA060323-1 11:40 AM Second Sump (2,100)2 (9.3) 18.2 NM NM HA060323-2 12:15 PM Drainage (3,400) (9.4) NM 1 Specific conductance at 25'C 2 Laboratory result in parentheses s Drainage that flows through a culvert under 1-580 a Not measured The EC of the dark-colored liquid in the drainage was higher than that in the second sump, but lower than that in the first sump. The EC and pH data is evidence that the liquid in the drainage was dominated by wastewater, most likely wastewater runoff from the Evaporation South Field that overflowed from the sump. The discharge of wastewater to the drainage violates WDRs R5-2002-0148, Discharge Prohibition A.1 , which prohibits discharge of wastewater to surface waters or surface water drainage courses. During my inspection of the drainage near 1-580 and Evaporation South Field, I noticed several 6-inch-diameter PVC pipelines used to convey wastewater to Evaporation South, Spur North, and 18 North fields across the drainage. These pipes were not equipped with supports, but partially or fully submerged in mud (Photos 7 through 12). 1 explained to Leikam that this configuration is not adequate, as pipe segments could easily shift and disconnect, which would