Laserfiche WebLink
ORDER NO. R5-2002-0148 - 6 - <br /> INFORMATION <br /> 6 - <br /> INFORMATION SHEET <br /> MUSCO FAMILY OLIVE COMPANY AND THE STUDLEY COMPANY <br /> WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND LAND DISPOSAL FACILITY <br /> SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY <br /> do not hinder crop growth. Because the DIS loading rate exceeds the crop uptake rate,it is anticipated that <br /> leaching of DIS will result in interim soil attenuation of the DIS and eventual groundwater degradation with <br /> continued application. This application procedure is not sustainable with nondegradable constituents. <br /> Loading rates must be balanced with uptake rates to protect groundwater quality, and therefore the 1,500 <br /> mg/l effluent limit for TDS is necessary. <br /> The Discharger states the BOD limits presented in the WDRs are overly restrictive and that higher loading <br /> rates have been employed at land application areas. Staff disagree that higher loading rates than published in <br /> the tentative WDRs would acceptable based on the Discharger's plan to limit treatment of BOD by <br /> mechanical treatment equipment and instead rely upon land treatment of BOD constituents. Land treatment <br /> is an effective treatment mechanism,however, overloading the land can result in generation of odors. The <br /> discharge has resulted in the generation of nuisance odors at the facility and staff has received numerous <br /> complaints,the most recent on 29 August 2002. <br /> Staff believes the appropriate BOD value that should be selected from Pollution Abatement is 100 <br /> lbs/acre-day. It is noted that the limit published in Pollution Abatement is for the summer season when <br /> conditions for land application are favorable. The Discharger is likely to discharge wastewater all year <br /> round,when conditions are not optimum. This limit published in the tentative WDRs should be protective <br /> of groundwater quality and crop health and should not generate nuisance odor conditions. This position is <br /> based on the staff s experience and the loading rate guidance presented in Small and Decentralized <br /> Wastewater Management Systems (Crites and Tchobanoglous, 1998) which states that loading rates for <br /> BOD often exceed 100 lb/acre day and occasionally exceed 3001b/acre•day; odor problems are avoided by <br /> providing adequate drying times between wastewater applications; and loading rates beyond 450 <br /> lb/acre-day of BOD should generally be avoided unless special management practices are used. Because <br /> of the close proximity of residential areas and the limited land area available for wastewater application, <br /> BOD loading rates that require special precautions are not appropriate in this case. <br /> Pollution Abatement also states if the BOD loading is too great, the soil will become anaerobic and the <br /> crop and treatment process will fail, but that higher loading rates are possible if the site is irrigated for only <br /> a few weeks each year and is well maintained. The Discharger's facility operates 365 days a year, so the <br /> application areas will not have the opportunity to rest. Because of the limited land area available there are <br /> no alternative application areas to discharge the water to if a system upset occurs." <br /> The Discharger is required to continue characterizing groundwater quality and to begin characterizing the <br /> quality of the percolate below the land treatment units. Percolate samples will be collected by pan lysimeters <br /> both in areas of land application and areas outside the land application limits. Groundwater monitoring wells <br /> will monitor the first saturated interval;percolate samples will be monitored by pan lysimeters installed at a <br /> depth of five feet. If groundwater or percolate quality is degraded,the Discharger must take steps such as <br /> reducing loading or improving cropping to protect groundwater quality. <br /> NUISANCE ODOR CONDITIONS <br /> The Regional Board has received numerous odor complaints regarding the land application areas. An <br /> adjacent landowner described the nuisance odor conditions at the 6 June 2002 Regional Board meeting. <br />