Pages

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Head's Up

Today, on the Dave Congelton Show, KVEC, 920 AM, 4 PM

Pio Lombardo will be discussing decentralized wastewater treatment systems as a possible option for Los Osos. For those who missed his talk at the PZLDF meeting, here's an opportunity to learn about a system that could be a considered option. KVEC's call-in number is 543-8830, so if you have questions or concerns, please listen and call in. Great opportunity.

PZLDF Meeting on July 16, 6 PM will be a closed session only for CDO holders who are being represented by Sauna Sullivan.

BUT,

Monday, JULY 23, 6 PM

PZLDF Meeting at the WA MU Bank (Los Osos Valley Rd. across from Vons) will presents:

Paavo Ogren & Rob Miller, who will speak on the 218 assessment.

A lot of people are expressing concern about that vote and how the assessment will be assessed and the vote held, here's an opportunity to learn more from the folks who will be in charge of that. So, plan to attend.

10 comments:

Shark Inlet said...

Thanks a bunch for the reminder, Ann!

I just wonder whether decentralized systems are being seriously considered by the County.

If they are, great. If they are not, why not? (And why would Congelton even have this topic for discussion if it's not being considered?)

Again, it would be great to add the ability to irrigate with treated wastewater to the project. It would raise the costs considerably, but it would be far better than irrigating farmland from the POV of saltwater intrusion. And, as Ann points out, it could keep us from needing water from outside our aquifer.

Smart but costly. I wonder what the cost would be?

4crapkiller said...

Yesterday The Bay News had an article on decentralized systems.

Lombardo, sole distributer for the Canadian Nitrex system for nitrogen removal, feels his system would reduce nitrogen levels ot about 3 miligrams per liter.

As soon as I saw that, I wondered whether there was confusion as to NITRATE removal. I googled.

http://www.epa.gov/NE/assistance/ceit_iti/tech_cos/waterloo.html

There it was! NITRATE removal to acceptable levels. Or so they say.

HOWEVER, on the right side of the page is a disclamer from the US EPA that the information comes from the manufacturer and the EPA has not verified the claims.

And so we have claims without EPA verification, however the Canadian University at Waterloo, according to the manufacturer has verified the the claim of NITRATE reduction.

This is a last filter on a step/steg system (a septic tank is necessary) and it would seem to make sense. PROVIDING that good verification and documentation of NITRATE REDUCTION is available. I know that similar systems are in use for tertiary treatment (NITRATE REDUCTION) in major centralized sewer plants. The textile media can have a carbon source within.
I am glad the county is willing to take a hard look at this. If other problems can be solved, it possibly could be a viable solution should documentation and verification be available. We would still probably have to replace our septic tanks with the newer kind. Sites would have to be found etc.

DO NOT GET YOUR HOPES UP. Additional documentation is necessary.

Mike Green said...

OK, I was number three on the call in list, and I'll bet a dozen Carlock donuts number two was Jon Arcuni!

Hit a home run too!

I'd love a Lambardo system.

Shark Inlet said...

Mike (Green),

I guess I heard both of you ... the sad thing here is that everyone but Gail and Dave were open and honest and made sense.

It seemed to me that the two of them were far too willing to cut corners on the facts. For example, Gail said that Measure B was about moving the sewer ... perhaps she's never read the actual text of the Measure but it never talks about moving the sewer at all. She also talked about the County picking up where the LOCSD left off in the effort to move the sewer. We don't know what the County will do, so she shouldn't speak as if they're going to pick out of town.

Frankly, Gail seems like a real weasel ... like a politician. I don't like that kind at all. I much prefer people like you and Jon.

There are two issues I would like to see addressed in this discussion of the decentralized systems. First, the cost. I know there are some savings, but the purple pipes and storage tanks will add cost (especially because at least one direction ... uphill or down ... something will have to be pumped). I also want to know how people will react to five or ten (or more) treatment plants in town. If people were afraid of a smell from TriW (with it's odor scrubbers) won't there be a fear of odors from the treatment plant in each and every neighborhood?

As a technical note ... I was up in Santa Cruz last weekend ... and interestingly enough, there was a WWTF in the middle of town, just upwind of the downtown and primary tourest areas, sandwiched in by homes on all sides ... oh yeah, they also have a park there too.

Mike Green said...

Well Sharkey, I guess I got to put an old question back at ya:

How much more are you willing to spend to have a centralized system in one spot over the annoyance of decentralized collection system?

Full circle eh?

And quite frankly, I don't care if Gail is Beazelbubs half sister and a card carrying member of cargo cult.
As long as she supports the 218 vote, good on her.

Mike Green said...

The weasel slinks
smooth slithering sneaks
concentrates, thinks
plans attack, defeats!
dies anyway
by poisoned meats!


For Ann and PG

Shark Inlet said...

I'm willing to go with any reasonable solution ... as long as it is not much more than the cheapest reasonable solution.

Essentially I think that the benefit of decentralized isn't the construction cost (as we've discussed earlier, even the "cheaper" systems are actually more expensive if delay and inflation are included) but it will allow us to use our aquifer for longer and our costs would be lowered in that way.

Minimize my long run costs, I say.

Sewertoons said...

I don't get it. People shrieked about a plant in the "middle of town" and now little plants all over town are OK? I feel like the candy coating to say "no sewer" gets more sophisticated, and the runaround toward finding one is just a tactic to promote confusion.

Mike said...

It sure seems like a shell game with the following choices(so far):

A.) many septic tanks, many pumper trucks

B.) decentralized, fewer collection tanks, fewer pumper trucks

C.) centralized, one main treatment center, one sludge hauler

How many more possible configurations? How much more time and money can be spent on studies? How long can Los Osos delay any sewer?

4crapkiller said...

To Mike Green:

I heard the broadcast. Agree totaly with Sharky.
Who ever it was, one caller was able to nail down the documentation issue of NITRATE reduction.

In the meantime McPherson sounded like she had been hired as a comissioned SALESPERSON for PIO. $$$$$. While Congleton trusts her, I do not. I just do not like slick people with an agenda.

She sure kicked TRI-W using all the "click words". Mostly noticed was that she said that TRI-W would not help our water problem. I wonder what the leach field at Broderson was designed to do using MBR tertiary plus treated water, according to her statement.

In the meantime, she said that she just wanted this system to be considered as an option. El Toro poo-poo. She has an agenda, and I believe, somewhere $$$$$$ is part of it. $$$$$$ for her.

This old lady is wary. "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts". Troy ceased to exist after they accepted the gift.

But that does not mean that this concept is NOT a viable option.