Laserfiche WebLink
REVISED CLEANUP AND ABATEMENT ORDER NO. 5-01-703 • -2- <br /> CITY <br /> 2-CITY OF RIVERBANK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT <br /> STANISLAUS COUNTY <br /> RBAAP proposed to cease all treatment of groundwater and to discharge untreated groundwater to <br /> the facility. Staff determined that the proposed discharge modification would violate the RBAAP <br /> Record of Decision and pose a threat to groundwater quality at the facility. RBAAP was notified <br /> of this determination. <br /> 7. Influent flow to the facility is typically highest in the summer due to the cannery discharge. Order <br /> No. 94-100 prescribes an average daily dry weather flow of 7.9 mgd. In 1999, the peak daily flow <br /> was 5.9 mgd and the average daily flow was 2.1 mgd. In 2000, the peak daily flow was 5.7 mgd <br /> and the average daily flow was 2.3 mgd. <br /> 8. In 1996, the Discharger applied for a State Revolving Fund loan to finance facility improvements <br /> to prevent odor problems during the tomato processing season, rehabilitate the Winter Aeration <br /> Cell to allow emptying and cleaning of the Summer Aeration Cell, and prevent overflows at the <br /> headworks. The project included replacing the plant's motor control center, which was inadequate <br /> to provide reliable power for the aerators. Several aging aerators were to be replaced, and <br /> additional aerators were to be added to restore treatment capacity to the Winter Aeration Pond. <br /> The project also included reconstruction of the plant headworks to eliminate the hydraulic <br /> bottleneck caused by the current solids screening system. The State Water Resources Control <br /> Board approved the Discharger's Facilities Plan on 29 March 2000. <br /> 9. As a separate project with funding provided by the City of Riverbank, the Discharger undertook a <br /> storm water segregation project to provide separate storm drains for the older part of the City, <br /> which were served by a combined sewer. During heavy precipitation events, the combined sewer <br /> sometimes discharged hydraulic loads that overwhelmed the headworks. The purpose of the <br /> project was to reduce winter flows and potential headworks overflows during high-precipitation <br /> events. <br /> 10. On 10 September 1999, staff received the Discharger's verbal report of a spill of untreated waste <br /> from the plant headworks that occurred on 6 September 1999. The spill was caused by an <br /> electrical overload that stopped the screening mechanism within the headworks. Approximately <br /> 10,000 gallons of raw sewage (primarily tomato processing waste) was discharged to a contained <br /> land area below the headworks. The discharger cleaned out and disinfected the spill area as soon <br /> as practical after power was restored to the headworks. The Discharger also installed an auto <br /> dialer alarm system to inform the treatment plant operator of headworks power failure. A Notice <br /> of Violation (NOV) was issued for the spill on 15 November 1999. <br /> 11. On 25 January 2000, the Discharger reported that the headworks overflowed during a high- <br /> precipitation event due to sewer flows in excess of the headworks hydraulic capacity. <br /> Approximately 40,000 gallons of raw sewage diluted with storm water runoff was discharged to <br /> the contained land area below the headworks. Once equipment access was possible, the <br /> Discharger pumped the effluent back to the headworks and disinfected the spill area. Staff <br /> understands that most of the waste percolated into the ground. <br /> 12. An NOV was issued for this violation on 4 February 2000. The NOV required that the Discharger <br /> submit a report that specified the timeline for completion of the stone drain segregation project. <br /> The Discharger stated that the electrical improvements and some of the replacement aerators <br />