ࡱ> 6853 %bjbjCC &0!!!l, ,FHHHHHH$} llddddFdFdndF _u(,fF0,eFeFd,,California Regional Water Quality Control Board North Coast Region Interoffice Communication DATE: October 13, 2005 TO: John Short SUBJECT: Inspection of City of Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Facility (WDID No. 1B84029OMEN) On October 6, 2005, I inspected the subject facility accompanied by Ann Burck (City Utilities Department Project Engineer), Andrew Luke (Wastewater Treatment Plant operator), and Tim Banyai (Brown and Caldwell the Citys consulting engineer for the WWTF upgrade project). During the meeting time, we discussed issues that I will need to address in the Citys permit revision, including the following: General permit renewal process. I have provided Ann Burck and Tim Banyai with a summary of what we will be asking for in the Report of Waste Discharge/Permit Renewal application package and told them that I will send a formal letter requesting the ROWD by December 1, 2005. I described the process from the time we receive the ROWD to the time of permit adoption. They asked if they could be given more than 30 days to review the draft permit due to the complexity of our current permit. I told them that we would make every effort to provide more than 30 days. Facility upgrade project. The facility upgrade includes the following components: a new head works facility, addition of two new circular primary clarifiers, rebuilding of the existing secondary clarifiers which will be converted to primary clarifiers, modification of the existing trickling filters (replace filter arms, convert to hydraulic distribution), conversion of primary clarifiers to secondary aeration basins along with installation of blowers, improvements to the chlorination facilities (new chemical addition and mixing facilities), addition of a dissolved air flotation tank to thicken solids, improvements to existing sludge digesters (replace floating roofs with fixed roofs, replace/modify piping and gas management system), and a new operations building. Design of the facility upgrade is complete and the City went out to bid on the project this summer. The bid came in $12 million higher than the $45 million cost that the City had estimated. The City Council will be voting on awarding bid on October 17. In addition, the City had to notify the ratepayers in accordance with Proposition 218 requirements. The upgrade project will cause rates to increase from $16 per month to $62 per month. The upgrade project is likely to begin this winter and be in full swing starting next summer. The City anticipates that the project will take three years to construct. The City is aware of the need to apply for coverage under the Statewide Construction Stormwater permit. Percolation ponds and ground water study to determine facilitys impact on groundwater and pollutant connectivity to the Russian River. I discussed the fact that the revised permit will contain a requirement to determine if there is pollutant connectivity to the Russian River. Ann Burck stated that the City will want guidance regarding this study. The City has evaluated reclamation opportunities that might be available to them if they were disallowed from using percolation ponds for summertime disposal. The City has some significant concerns regarding the viability of reclamation due to the number of organic agricultural operations, issues raised by agricultural users with existing water rights (use it or lose it), and the distance from the treatment plant to the urban center (length and cost of pipeline for limited reclamation potential in comparison to amount of wastewater that must be disposed of in the summer). California Toxics Rule. I discussed the fact that the Citys CTR data showed reasonable potential for dichlorobromomethane and that the revised permit will include effluent limitations for this constituent. The Request for Report of Waste Discharge to the City will alert the City to the need for them to evaluate the feasibility of meeting final effluent limitations and the need for a time schedule in the permit. In addition, I requested that the ROWD discuss the toxic pollutants that have effluent limitations and/or monitoring requirements in the current permit so that I can evaluate whether there is reasonable potential for these constituents. For example, the current permit contains an effluent limitation and monitoring requirement for tributyltin. It appears that this constituent was related to Masonites past discharge to the plant, however, Masonite has closed down. If that was the sole reason for including tributyltin effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in the current permit, it would be appropriate to eliminate these requirements from the revised permit. Industrial Stormwater. The parking lot area and lab roof drain to a storm drain ditch along the north side of the facility. This ditch connects with another ditch that discharges to the Russian River. I discussed the need for the City to apply for an industrial stormwater permit. Collection System, pollutant sources and source control. We discussed the importance of identifying pollutant sources to the treatment plant, including leachate from the landfill, reasons for low levels of toluene and metals in on-going monitoring data. We also discussed the need to identify satellite collection systems. We didnt talk about plans for reducing infiltration and inflow but this will be identified in the ROWD request letter. Exception to Basin Plan One-percent Discharge Limitation. The City anticipates a possible need to request an exception if the percolation pond study shows pollutant connectivity to the Russian River and a subsequent need to identify alternatives to percolation pond disposal. This is not an issue for this permit renewal, but could become an issue for the next permit renewal in five years. Inspection Laboratory. I did not inspect the laboratory during this inspection. Headworks. Most influent arrives at the headworks by gravity flow. There are no influent flow measurement devices at this facility. Influent flow measurement is planned for the new headworks that will be constructed as part of the planned facility upgrade project. The plant has a bar screen on the influent channel. Treatment. The facility is designed to treat an ADWF of 2.8 mgd. Treatment consists of grit removal, primary sedimentation, secondary treatment using trickling filters, secondary sedimentation, and secondary chlorination with liquid hypochlorite solution. During periods of discharge to the Russian River, the disinfected, secondary effluent continues on to the advanced wastewater treatment facility which includes, filtration through plastic media and anthracite over sand. Ferric chloride and Clarifloc polymer are added to the effluent to improve filtration, chlorine disinfection, and dechlorination. Chlorination. The secondary chlorination facility is a 600 foot long 8-foot diameter underground pipe. The AWT chlorination facility consists of two concrete-lined aboveground baffled basins. These basins have significant cracks due to settling. The operators regularly caulk the cracks. These basins will be lined as part of the upgrade project. Disposal. Most of the year the disinfected, secondary effluent is discharged to percolation ponds located adjacent to the Russian River. The facility has three 15 million gallon percolation ponds. These ponds are maintained to maximize percolation by alternately ripping the bottom of one pond each summer to increase the pond permeability. The pond bottoms slope toward the river. All three ponds have been used during the summer. At the time of my inspection Pond 3 had the most water in it. The half of the pond closest to the river had water in it ranging in depth from less than one-half foot at the west end to about three feet at the east end. Sludge Handling. The facility has two anaerobic digesters that are used to process the sludge. Sludge from the digesters is directed to a sludge press and then hauled off to Redwood Landfill in Novato for disposal and occasional use as cover material. Historically, the facility directed sludge from the digesters to a sludge lagoon at the southwest side of the facility. The operators are processing the sludge in that lagoon with a dredge. A portion of the sludge is dredged each summer and placed in a sludge drying bed at the center of the facility. When the sludge is dry, it is removed from the drying bed and hauled off to a landfill where it can be used for cover or is disposed of. I was told that no sludge was processed this summer because of the late rains. ^x0GzV4>u~: C ""%>*50CD^_vwwx u v /0^h^h & F ^`$a$%0yzUV34tu9 : ""##%%%% & F$&P1h/ =!"#$% i8@8 NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH 2@2 Heading 1$@&5\<A@< Default Paragraph Font<C@< Body Text Indent ^! 0 0CD^_vwwxu v /0yzUV34tu9:!!!!000000000000000 00 000000 00 00 00 00 00000000000000000000%0%%mo*/u   +^h084=]fjs!_u >.x!333333333moxx72y@^ars8E7COa!!!!Cathleen GoodwinLD:\My Documents\goodc\WINWORD\DOCUMENT\Dischargers\Ukiah Inspection Memo.docCathleen GoodwinLD:\My Documents\goodc\WINWORD\DOCUMENT\Dischargers\Ukiah Inspection Memo.docCathleen GoodwinnC:\Documents and Settings\staff\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Ukiah Inspection Memo.asdCathleen GoodwinnC:\Documents and Settings\staff\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Ukiah Inspection Memo.asdCathleen GoodwinLD:\My Documents\goodc\WINWORD\DOCUMENT\Dischargers\Ukiah Inspection Memo.docCathleen GoodwinnC:\Documents and Settings\staff\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Ukiah Inspection Memo.asdCathleen GoodwinnC:\Documents and Settings\staff\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Ukiah Inspection Memo.asdCathleen GoodwinLD:\My Documents\goodc\WINWORD\DOCUMENT\Dischargers\Ukiah Inspection Memo.docCathleen GoodwinLD:\My Documents\goodc\WINWORD\DOCUMENT\Dischargers\Ukiah Inspection Memo.docCathleen GoodwinLD:\My Documents\goodc\WINWORD\DOCUMENT\Dischargers\Ukiah Inspection Memo.docz~`woh^`.h^`.hpLp^p`L.h@ @ ^@ `.h^`.hL^`L.h^`.h^`.hPLP^P`L.z~`w         @oolBom#*!@UnknownG: Times New Roman5Symbol3& : Arial"qh44kV*f; %!20dG"_3QH/California Regional Water Quality Control BoardCathleen GoodwinCathleen GoodwinOh+'0 , HT p |  0California Regional Water Quality Control BoardaliCathleen Goodwinal athath Normal.dotoCathleen Goodwinal 8thMicrosoft Word 9.0 @<@ĝ@H@>4s(՜.+,D՜.+,` hp  SWRCBn;G" 0California Regional Water Quality Control Board Title8_AdHocReviewCycleID_EmailSubject _AuthorEmail_AuthorEmailDisplayNameBCloverdale Violations SummaryCogoodwins@sonic.netnDavid and Cathy Goodwin  !"#$&'()*+,./012347Root Entry Fpfu(91TableeWordDocument&0SummaryInformation(%DocumentSummaryInformation8-CompObjjObjectPoolpfu(pfu(  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q