SU0005258 SSNL - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

This wastewater is stored i a 2,000 lion concrete tank that is subsequently pumped out into a mobile tank pulled behind r to be applied to the subject property vineyard. These storage and disposal operations are under the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The domestic wastewater flows originate from two sources: The single family reside a (SFR)where the winemaker resides, and the Men's and Women's restrooms, and tin reception) area sink within the winery facility. From the original soil percolation test results illust in Table 1 below, we find that the soil acceptance rate at the soil-effluent interface wad 0.85 allons/ft2/day. However,potential biomat production is estimated to have reduced infiltration and percolation to 75%of the original rate over the last seven years, so that now the soil may theoretically accept 0.643 gallons/ft'/day. The Infiltrator Chamber data found below Table 1, reveal that 78 Chambers were installed and corroborated by the attached photograph. Each Chamber is 12.3 ft2 x 78 Chambers =959.4 ft' of disposal area. If the soil acceptance ratais now projected to be 0._643 gallons/ft2/day, we find the disposal area will theoretically accept 617llons effluent er a.y,at present(959.4 x .643 — 17). The SFR has two bedrooms and two bathrooms. The scientific literature typically ass' ns 250 gallons per day R of this size. Remaining wastewater acceptance volume forte 617 minus 25 367 Mons of effluent from the winery that may be accepted by the disposal area soil. If the s and Women's toilets were flushed every six minutes at 1.5 gals per flush, for an 8- ent = 240 gallons+ 100 gallons of hand washing and wine/water mixture down the sin =340 ga ons (340+250=590<617). Therefore, on a theoretical basis, the existing disposal d manage anticipated future effluent flows based on the assumptions and calculations presented above. However, as noted in the Recommendations Section below, effluent management by the receiving soils should be confirmed by direct observation. The sentence bolded in the paragraph below Table 1 (extracted from t}t,e original tudies report), states that monitoring ports were to be installed by the contractor. MoiriiQri rts were not I j� observed during my field investigation on Decemb 4JJ,,2012. To confine the infiltrarion and percolation of effluent at the soil-effluent interfac ,, two onitoring ports should be installed by the contractor who installed the system in the NW SEC of the disposal area, if not already done so. This is one of the significant benefits of Infiltrator Chambers in that the soil-effluent interface can be directly observed for biomat formation and effluent infiltration/percolation. From these direct observations,the condition of the disposal soils can be discerned. For example, if effluent is ponding on the soil surface after pump initiation, failure is near, if not imminent. TABLE 1 PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS 24 INCH DEEP PERC TEST BORING 9.3 miinch / 0.857 gallons/ft'/day PERCOLATION RATE/APPLICATION RATE 36 INCH DEEP PERC TEST BORING 7.6 min ' / 0.914 gallons/ft/day PERCOLATION RATE/APPLICATION RATE Page 2 of 4