Calhouns Can(n)ons

Professor Henry Hill Hears From The RWQCB

The second email posted here (below) is from Mark Lowe, and presumably Mr. Murphy of Advanced Environmental Systems on their proposed onsite “Reclamator” system . The last email (below) from me to Mr. Lowe is in response to his original email. And the first (directly below) is the response to Mr. Lowe’s email , from Matt Thompson of the RWQCB.

As I noted when I posted Mr. Lowe’s original email on this blogsite on 9/4/07, the battle between the AES and the RWQCB hinges on data and statutory and legal “definitions,” as in, What constitutes Waste & Water & Discharge & Pollutants & Reclamation & Tertiary & ReUse & Recycled & What needs a Permit & What Doesn’t and Who Sez & Neener Neener, So’s Yer Momma & Whose Definitions Prevail & If It’s Permitable HOW MUCH Can Be Charged For A Permit & Should It Be Hourly? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? Testing? So We Can Make Sure The Testing & Permit Requirements will be WAAAAAAYYYYY More Expensive than ANY Central Municipal Wastewater System Picked By The BOS & Etc. (Not That We’re Telling You What Kind Of System To Pick, Mind You, No, That Would Be Illegal) & etc.

Herewith the email response from the RWQCB. ( Of particular interest to me is Matt Thompson’s notation regarding the need for potential actual full costs (absent any grants), including guestimates of homeowner, out of pocket onsite, post-installation, re-landscaping costs & etc. Such real-time, real world guestimates would enable homeowners to compare that with the guestimates for the various systems the county has already looked at.)

And a further reminder that under the county Process, Mr. Murphy's system will be looked at as additional "alternative technologies," during the required CEQA and due diligence phase of determining best technology and best price & etc.

Also, a reminder, the RWQCB is meeting Friday, Sept 7 at their Aerovista headquarters in SLO Townfor a county update report, set for the afternoon session (ca. 1:30 pm?) . If public comment is allowed, I'm sure a lot of people plan to be there to ask that the Board rescind the 45 CDOs and CAO's and promise to "stand down" so this election can take place on a level playing field with no perceived threats and unfair coercion & etc. There is a genuine opportunity here for a "Virtuous Cycle" to begin. The choice is, again, in the Regional Board's hands.

Email to Mr. Lowe:
Mark,

The claims you make are very misleading and must be corrected before we will seriously consider your proposal. The BESTEP 10 is simply a conventional wastewater treatment technology packaged in a small system for household use. Although the system may reduce nitrogen, the system still discharges waste, which would not comply with the Basin Plan prohibition of waste discharges in certain areas of Los Osos/Baywood Park. The RECLAMATOR is essentially a small membrane bioreactor. Although the system may produce tertiary quality effluent that is suitable for recycling, the system would require regulatory oversight. In California, recycled water is jointly regulated by the Water Board and the California Dept. of Public Health (CDPH). Anyone installing the RECLAMATOR and claiming 'indirect potable reuse' would be required to submit a Recycled Water Engineering Report to the Water Board and CDPH, and obtain and comply with water recycling requirements. Indirect potable reuse typically requires tertiary 2.2 quality recycled water, with daily total coliform monitoring to ensure system performance. Both the BESTEP 10 and RECLAMATOR are complex and must be operated by a state-certified operator.

Your claim that that the system will cost a typical homeowner a one time cost of $3,500 and then $46 per month is based on a questionable assumption that the federal government will pay for 75% of the system cost. Unless you can provide written correspondence from the federal government to substantiate this assumption, it is more appropriate for you to represent the full cost of the system.--

Matt ThompsonEnforcement UnitRegional Water Quality Control BoardCentral Coast Region895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101San Luis Obispo, California 93401V (805) 549-3159F (805) 788-3572

Mr. Low’s cc original email to me concerning this system: (previously posed on 9/4/07)

>>> "Mark Low" 9/3/2007 1:17 PM >>>Ann:This will serve to keep the focus on the Technology as is required by USC Title 33 Chapter 26 (C26).The last paragraph of the AES Technology Description defines the quality of the water produced by the RECLAMATOR.The The 1994 NSF Report demonstrates the "BESTEP" Process.Tom, on his own volition, paid to have the Nitrogen testing done because he knew "then" the importance of it.I know of no other "at source" alternative technology which can achieve the level of treatment as demonstrated in the testing data.Within the past 3 years, he has added an ultra filtration spiral wound membrane into the decanter to enable the BESTEP (UF-900) to meet the Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLG) which is the US EPA Standard which defines water having no pollutants, the national treated drinking water standards. The MCLG, not to be confused with the MCLs, is "The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety and are non-enforceable public health goals." Please make note of the "non-enforceable" component of this definition.(See: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html ) When the "discharge of pollutants" is eliminated, the requirement for a "discharge permit" is also eliminated, as a "discharge permit" is a measure of enforcement. Additionally, C26, Section 1311 (a) additionally clarifies no discharge permit is required unless there is a discharge of pollutants. The BESTEP UF-900 does not discharge pollutants.A Membrane is a physical "definite" barrier the discharge of pollutants. Unlike a process which solely uses biological treatment, the addition of a definite barrier membrane "consistently and reliably" assures the quality of water which is produced. The quality of water (reclaimed/repurified) produced by the BESTEP UF-900 is: 100% removal of colloids and particulates larger than 10 nano meters, turbidity less than 0.1 NTU, over log 6 removal of bacteria (99.9999% removal), over log 4 removal of viruses (99.99% removal), and removal of large molecular weight organic compounds (above 100,000 Daltons). BESTEP + Membrane = BADCT (best available demonstrated control technology)The BESTEP eliminates the need for any collection system and thereby complies with the requirements of C26. The post federal grant cost to each DUE will be $3,500 with a monthly service fee of $45.75 per month.Any other area-wide waste management solution which might be proposed by the County, as is required by C26, would have to have a life-cycle cost of not more than 15% of the most cost effective alternative. (See Sec. 1281 (j)) This means that, to comply with federal law, such solution if it were to be proposed by the County, would 1) have to be equal in technology and performance, and 2) be required to cost no more than $20 million dollars "installed".BADCT is required to be promulgated and used when possible, as required by C26.Howard Kolb previously communicated to Mr. Murphy that if the LOCSD had proposed the BESTEP 10 as the solution for Los Osos, the State WaterBoard would have approved it.Mark480.363.1154

My email response to the original above email:

Mark@ModernHunter.com writes: To all interested parties: Please see attached;

Thanks for the file. I trust you'll be submitting your test data & etc to the RWQCB staff Friday (if not before) as well as meeting with Paavo. I believe everything you're proposing here will likely hinge on that data. Ann Calhoun Los Osos, CA