SU0005250 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MUSCO FAMILY OLIVE COMPANY AND THE STUDLEY COMPANY WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND LAND DISPOSAL FACILITY SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY INSPECTION REPORT added that they plan to install what they termed a"mud box" with an automatic sump purnp to return tailwater to the million-gallon pond, or to an intermediate sump. Musco staff stated their intent to collect and return all stormwater to the million-gallon pond and added that they have sized boxes, pumps, and other necessary equipment to do so. The tour then moved to the Spur North field (Figure 5). Musco staff stated that a tailwater ditch had been put in. NyPa Forage NyPa Forage in this field was planted approximately one year ago. Regional Board staff observed standing water at the bottom of the field and at the top part of the tailwater return ditch next to the fence. Standing water continued for the length of the field. The tailwater return ditch appeared to be in need of regrading to allow for proper flow of tailwater. Regional Board staff again observed standing tailwater fermenting at the top of the field near the railroad spur. This portion of the Spur North field was also in need of revegetation or in-fill with NyPa Forage. Figure 5—Field spur North Standing water was observed in the tailwater ponds at the bottom of the field. Musca staff stated that Musco intends to install a "mud box." for this field. Ms. Wyels asked about flushing of the irrigation lines for odor control and was informed by Musco staff that the lines are not flushed; rather, they are drained weekly and at the beginning of winter. Irrigation pipes are drained by uncapping the ends. Regional Board staff had been under the impression that lines were flushed with clean water after each irrigation to minimize site odors. As the tour approached the Title 27 lined ponds (Ponds A and B), discussion turned toward Musco's proposal to install evaporation slabs. Mr. Rosenbaum offered to provide Musco with evaporation slab j information from another facility, as this information might be helpful in the design process. Regional Board staff asked about which waste streams are directed to the Title 27 ponds. Mr. Hall answered that flotation brine, boiler blowdown, boiler softener exchange, spent lye, and high-strength cannery floor drainage (high-strength and low-strength drainage are segregated) are always discharged to the Title 27 ponds. All other waste streams are directed to the million-gallon pond. If, however, capacity exists in the Title 27 ponds, CO2 water may also be discharged to those ponds. Regional Board staff asked how Musco decides to discharge CO2 water to the lined ponds. Musco staff's response indicated that no decision matrix or algorithm exists for this process; it is simply a judgment call on the part of Musco staff based on available storage and anticipated weather and disposal options. Discharge of CO2 water to the Title 27 ponds is more likely.to take place in mid- �: ; summer. The next irrigation area inspected was the Evaporation ' South field (Figure 6). Musco staff stated that this field I was planted .in March 2006 and would be replanted this winter. Regional Board staff observed poor growth of the NyPa Forage. Erosion rills were noted at the lower end r ' of the field. Standing, fermenting tailwater was observed t.: in the sump to this field (Figure 7). Musco staff stated E 1 that they plan to install a "mud box" in the sump. Figure S---Field Evaporation South