Laserfiche WebLink
California&Q onal Water Quality Co� oard _ <br /> Wentral Valley Region <br /> Karl E.Longley,ScD,P.E.,Chair <br /> Linda Adams Sacramento Main Office Arnold <br /> Secretaryfor 11020 Sun Center Drive#200,Rancho Cordova,California 95670-6114 Sehwarzenegger <br /> Environmental Phone(916)464-3291 •FAX(916)4644645 Governor <br /> Protection htlp://www.waterbowds.ca.gov/centralvalley <br /> 23 May 2008 ��k9 V �D <br /> MAY 2 a 2008 <br /> Robert Calvin Jim Crandell ENVIRONMENT HEALTH <br /> Constellation Wines U.S. R.M.E. Inc. PER.^.^!T/SERVICES <br /> 12667 Road 24 P.O. Box 1260 <br /> Madera, CA 93637 Woodbridge, CA 95258 <br /> CONCEPTUAL WORKPLAN REVIEW, PHASE 2 PROCESS WATER TREATMENT <br /> IMPROVEMENT WORKPLAN, WOODBRIDGE WINERY. SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY <br /> Staff has reviewed the 12 March 2008 Phase 2 Process Water Treatment Improvement <br /> Workplan (Workplan) prepared by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants. The Workplan was required <br /> by Item No. 9 of the Cease and Desist Order (CDO) No. R5-2007-0082 issued on 22 June <br /> 2007. Item No. 9 of the CDO states, "...the Discharger shall submit and immediately <br /> implement the Phase 2 Wastewater Treatment Improvement Workplan. The Workplan shall <br /> propose improvements to be made in the following areas: aerobic treatment, water <br /> conservation, source reduction and salt reduction." <br /> The workplan includes a general discussion of the following; a three-pond aerobic treatment <br /> system, a recirculation pump station, effluent pump station for reuse for crop irrigation, solids <br /> removal, existing ponds and source control and water conservation. The Workplan elements <br /> were discussed at a 13 March 2008 meeting held at the Regional Water Board offices. We <br /> have the following comments on the Workplan: <br /> 1. The workplan contains a conceptual proposal and states, "Three aeration ponds are <br /> shown on Figure 2 for concept only. The exact number and size of ponds will be <br /> determined during final design." It is difficult for Regional Water Board staff to comment <br /> on the proposal because typically a water balance would provide the design flow. <br /> Regional Water Board staff is also aware that the facility is planning an expansion and <br /> the additional waste must be considered in the design. <br /> 2. Improvements that are described in the Workplan will improve the treatment of <br /> Biochemical Oxygen Demand waste constituents. But the CDO was issued primarily <br /> because groundwater quality degradation has been observed at the facility. We <br /> understand that additional work is being performed to better characterize the <br /> groundwater quality at the facility, but our interpretation remains that past wastewater <br /> discharges to land at the facility have impacted groundwater quality - primarily with Fixed <br /> Dissolved Solids (FDS). The Workplan must include information on how new source <br /> control and treatment will impact FDS. <br /> 3. The CDO described concerns about the concentration of FDS in the facility wastewater. <br /> Finding No. 18 describes the loading rates of FDS that significantly exceed the crop <br /> California Environmental Protection Agency <br /> 0 Recycled Paper <br />