SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ORDER NO.R5-2002-0148 -8- MUSCO FAMILY OLIVE COMPANY AND THE STUDLEY COMPANY WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND LAND DISPOSAL FACILITY SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY wastewater system, construction of the wastewater improvements designed by the Discharger's consultants, and cropping on all land application areas. 38. Administrative Civil Liability(ACL) Complaint No. R5-2002-0502 for$150,000 was issued by the Executive Officer on 11 April 2002 for violations of WDRs Order No. 97-037 in the time period between issuance of the C&A Order (17 November 2000) and the adoption of the TSO (25 January 2002). The Discharger waived its right to a public hearing and settled the ACL Complaint on 24 May 2002 with the $150,000 amount split into three $50,000 payments. 39. In April 2002, the Discharger requested a revision to TSO No. R5-2002-0014 to allow interim higher flow limits and supported that request with a technical report. The technical report addressed hydraulic, nutrient, and BOD loading but did not adequately address the dissolved solids loading. Because the TSO was considered an interim measure to allow the Discharger to continue operation while wastewater problems were addressed, staff supported the interim increase. A revised TSO No. R5-2002-0014-ROI was adopted by the Regional Board on 6 June 2002. In addition to the interim higher flow limits, the Discharger was allowed to apply wastewater as dust control in disturbed areas of the impoundment construction area and was allowed additional time to complete the 84-million gallon storage pond. The Discharger was required to provide an odor control report, evaluate the adequacy of monitoring well MW-9, and perform and submit the results of an additional groundwater monitoring event. 40. Staff have notified the Discharger several times that it is has violated provisions of TSO No. R5-2002-0014 and revised TSO No. R5-2002-0014-ROI. Violations include incomplete monitoring reports, exceedances of the flow limitations and DIS limitation, verification of nuisance odor conditions, and delayed construction of the 84-million gallon storage pond and tailwater return system. An Administrative Civil Liability Complaint will be prepared shortly after adoption of this Order. 41. As a result of the enforcement actions, the Discharger is constructing an 84-million gallon storage pond and is making improvements to the land application areas. The improvements include planting crops on the land application areas, mechanical equipment to improve distribution of wastewater on the land application areas, construction of tailwater collection ditches, and sumps equipped with pumps to return collected tailwater to either the 1-million gallon settling pond or the 84-million gallon storage pond. The improvements were designed to prevent wastewater from entering the surface water drainage course that flows though the land application areas and the facility. It is noted that the RWD states that the new storage pond will provide 114 million gallons of capacity; however, the Discharger notified staff on 31 July 2002 that the actual storage volume will be closer to 84 million gallons. GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS 42. The Discharger constructed a groundwater production well in 1983. The well is approximately 607 feet deep with a sanitary seal from the surface to 50-feet below ground surface. A gravel pack exists from 50 to 607 feet below ground surface. Based on five sample events performed from 1982 to 1999,the water quality in the well is as summarized in the table below: