I recently posted an exchange of emails between Mr. Murphy (Reclamator) and myself. Additionally, various people posted comments on the blog entry. The following was an email response cc'd to me from Mr. Murphy that included (following) a copy of Mr. Le Gros' previously posted comments on this website. I have redacted an unnecessary "rudeness" in Mr. Murphy’s intro email to me without altering the sense of it.
Hi Ann,
I hope your weekend was good.
I was wondering if you would be so kind to post this communication on “Ann’s Land”? This guy [Mr. Le Gros] brings up some really good comments which come from his really [ . . . ] mindset that obviously is based upon agenda driven ignorance. The intelligent ones will enjoy the exchange.
Thank you,
Tom
The RECLAMATOR “is not” a “septic system” and DOES NOT “DISCHARGE,” therefore NO “DISCHARGE PERMIT” is required and thus the reason a “building permit” was issued WITHOUT a “DISCHARGE PERMIT.” It is just that simple.
The LOCSD instructed the County to issue the permit. As I have been telling you for the past 7 months, the RECLAMATOR does not require a “DISCHARGE PERMIT.” Now I have just proved it and we still have roadside authorities who continue to suggest it isn’t true…when it is in “red-n-black” ink. Just go to nowastewater.com, it is there for your viewing pleasure.
The “point of my device” is: Me being “connected” to the LOCSD’s collection system and them NOT issuing me an “Exemption from Required Connection” so I can reuse my own water for such things as indirect potable reuse, subsurface irrigation and even toilet flushing, I have a “money tree” as the RECLAMATOR produces “HARVEST WATER”, a BEYOND “recycled water” resource, the such which is defined as water which is a “valuable resource”, my property and subject to purchase under the United States Constitution’s Fifth Amendment which requires a government agency to fairly and justly compensate a private citizen at fair market value should the private citizen be obligated to give up his personal property to such government entity. The LOCSD is obligated to pay for all RECLAMATOR harvest water they take just like the County will be obligated to pay for all the RECLAMATOR harvest water if they so stupidly chose to continue with a “dead” publicly owned sewer project that can't be paid for, just go figure, again, it is just that simple…it is “WATER,” not “DISCHARGE.”
The “fair market value” of 5Xs (five times) the Golden State water rate coming into same property is based on Lake Havasu’s latest sewer service rates. He, who owns the facility, owns the reclaimed water (state law). He who owns the water is entitled to be paid provided anyone takes it. This month the water bill was $66 dollars with irrigation turned off. That means the LOCSD would have been owing me approximately $300.00 for my reclaimed “harvest water” this month. Just think feeding solar power back into the “power grid” and associate that model to feeding harvest water back into the POTW “sewer grid”.
In regards to “monitoring” the device, it is monitored by a “ultra-filtration” membrane which is a physical filtration and is not subject to allow non-effluent limitation meeting “discharge” through it. The membrane takes out the “unknown failure possibility” out of the equation. If it fails, it asks for service, again, it is just that simple…it is “fool and foul proof” in regards to permeate quality. When the biological process is functioning, the RECLAMATOR is denitrifying. When the biological process equipment fails, the process is affected and the membrane won’t allow passage thus causing a service signal to go out. No thousands of gallons of untreated sewage and pollutants flow into the bay…ever!
Obviously, Mr. LeGros doesn’t know a RECLAMATOR is required to be installed at each home prior to discharging into a POTW to comply with the “pretreatment requirements” of USC 33/26. Maybe he should read “Facts” then he will have a few of his own as he is running real short on them at present…….Again, with either an “Exemption” or “Payment”, which one or the other must apply, the sewer can’t be funded, thus will NEVER happen. If Mr. LeGros doesn’t get it, then maybe he just needs to ask Mr. Ogren to explain it to him.
The BESTEP 10 was tested by NSF International in 1994 and demonstrated to provide consistent denitrification. No other technology has been successfully able to accomplish this to this day. I am going to provide a computer to the regulatory authorities so they can monitor them all right from their office along with NSF International as NSF is the entity who has agreed to provide daily monitoring of all the systems via wireless technology and internet. Just to show what a really nice guy I am, I’m not even going to charge them for the computers…J
Thanks again,
Tom Murphy, Los Osos, CA.
[Mr LeGros had posted] I have some experience regarding the 'permit' issue on the installation of a private septic system on private property; so I'll chime in.I used to own a vacant lot on Bay Vista Lane here in Los Osos. While the property is in the PZ (same as Bayridge Estates), the RWQCB allows building on said vacant lot (Averaged lot size up in that area over 1 acre). When I applied for a building permit from the County Building Department; the ONLY way a building permit could be issued (allowing the private septic system to be installed) was with a DISCHARGE PERMIT from the RWQCB; with the caveat that I provide reports to the RWQCB on the performance of the septic system EACH YEAR OF OPERATION; and pay a $900 processing fee to the RWQCB each year as well.IF Mr. Murphy intends to solely use his reclaimator (not attached to the Bayridge Community septic system), he will be required to get a DISCHARGE PERMIT from the RWQCB.IF Mr Murphy connects his reclaimator to the community systeic system (as he has) he will not be required to get a discharge permit form the RWQCB. But then again, the discharge from his devices is now going into the community septic system....so what is the point of his device at all? He could forgo the device by just having a pipe from hs house to the community sewer.I would be interested if Murphy plans to monitor the discharge from the device as it enteres the community septic system. If he plans to monitor, it would be helpful to know what the loading will be on the device, what tests are to be perfomed; who will do the testing; which labratory will perform the tests; and for how long a time period the monitoring will occur.Regards, Richard LeGros
And Another Murphy Clarification Reply:
In addition to the above exchange, the following email was also in reply to my recent posting of emails between Mr. Murphy of AES (Reclamator) and myself concerning “discharge permits.” If Mr. Murphy lets me know when he has filed his lawsuit, I’ll post that info as well. If nothing is settled in court before 2011, the question will be: Will the RWQCB then issue a CAO and/or CDO to Mr. Murphy? If so, that hearing will be very, very interesting. If they don’t, then that will get even more interesting! Stay tuned.
[Mr. Murphy writes:]
Ann, I just want to clear up one thing. I don’t want a “discharge permit”. I have refused to be issued a “discharge permit”. I am not ever going to accept a “discharge permit”. Furthermore, soon, I will soon be filing a federal injunction against any “discharge permit” being issued in the State of California with all other states to follow…..
The law required best available technology which will eliminate the discharge of pollutants. The RECLAMATOR does this and therefore is the technology which achieves this requirements and as such shall be implemented nationally. They already owe me damages for not specifying it since 1994 (NSF Report showing nitrate reduction) nationally. Now, it is “knowingly” violating the federal law to not require and assist in the application of the RECLAMATOR nationally.
Now, there is no need for the Water Board as they only rule over “discharges” and there will be no more “discharges” allowed…“Disband the Water Board”!!! It is the solution for the State’s deficit.
[ my previous posting] Well, there it is, for now. And so, THWOK! The ball is now in the RWQCB and/or the CSD’s hands. Will they issue an “exemption” from hook up; will they issue a “discharge” permit and if so, what “discharges” will be permitted, ie. So many mgls of this and that, what will it cost per year and require, vis a vis testing & etc.? Will they issue an exemption or discharge permit before or after the sewer’s built, i.e. stall and delay and ignore Mr. Murphy – hey, they’re busy with Morro Bay’s nitrate levels, we’ll get back to you after 2011 or so – and pretend not to notice until after the whole town’s sewered THEN either issue Mr. Murphy a CAO or, heh-heh, decide that, sure, heck, we’ll give him a “discharge” permit, heh-heh, we were just kidding about “discharges” and not permitting any onsites in the PZ? This is a political football that can stay in the air for years! So, stay tuned.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
52 comments:
I knew it.
I knew, over a year ago, when I wrote, on 1/9/07:
"Los Osos, it's time to throw some tea overboard. It's time to not move to the back of the bus. It's time for some serious defiance."
... that if someone from Los Osos were to simply challenge the RWQCB on their own document, Item 19, that discusses, "Require Alternative Waste Disposal Units" in Los Osos, that a sewer would never be built.
Let the record reflect that I originally predicted that on 1/1/07 -- a prediction that was based on the comments of a brilliant Canadian wastewater expert, and in places like Canada, and Australia, they KNOW their on-site technology. They have to.
And the Reclamator sure sounds a lot like an "Advanced treatment unit," as the staff of the RWQCB phrases it.
Furthermore, I also showed how WHEN (yes, when) someone like the Reclamator guys wins their "what's the definition of discharge" court challenge, they will be opening the door for all kinds of "Alternative Waste Disposal Units," including composting toilet systems, and a quick Google search for "composting toilet systems" shows that a nice system runs anywhere from $1,500 - $5,000.
So, that kind of sucks for the Rec guys, because, while I greatly applaud their efforts to challenge the RWQCB in a real court of law -- a challenge they will win -- I'm not too sure how many Los Ososans will be throwing... what?... $15,000 in their direction when property owners, following that expensive court ruling, will be able to just plunk down $1,500 - $5,000 and easily purchase a modern, environmentally friendly, efficient composting toilet system. (For God's sake, I just looked at a site that shows composting toilet systems are available at Home Depot. It's all sooooooo simple.)
So, I guess what I'm saying is that my 1/1/07 prediction will be right, of course. (At least a version of it -- whether it be composting toilets, the Reclamator, or some other "Alternative Waste Disposal Unit.")
I knew it would be, because it makes so much sense. I just missed the date by about a year or so, and during that time, the county of SLO spent (wasted?) over $2 million studying a huge sewer system that will never be built, when all they had to do is read SewerWatch's 1/9/07 report on Item 19.
Just found a document from the EPA itself on composting toilet systems. They all but rave about them.
Here are some quotes:
"Composting toilet systems can be used almost anywhere a flush toilet can be used."
and;
"Public health professionals are beginning to recognize the need for environmentally sound human waste treatment and recycling methods. The composting toilet is a nonwater-carriage system that is well-suited for (but is not limited to) remote areas where water is scarce, or areas with low percolation, high water tables, shallow soil, or rough terrain. [Sound familiar, Los Osos?] Because composting toilets eliminate the need for flush toilets, this significantly reduces water use..."
So, that makes TWO government agencies that rave about composting toilet systems -- the staff of the RWQCB (with Item 19) AND the Environmental Protection Agency.
It sucks being right all the time.
Ann,
I respectfully disagree with your evaluation of who knows what between the RWQCB and McPherson and the difference between them.
The RWQCB and staff know EXACTLY what they are doing, however illegal.
McPherson's actions and decisions may carry no legal weight, but they carry moral and financial weight.
Morally, her actions and decisions have cost the community dearly, particularly by lying about having a plan/project after the recall, encouraging a "stand down" during the Blakeslee legislation, and instilling fear in the community of RWQCB fines for a positive 218 vote...knowing the threat of fines was only a scare tactic for the vote.
Now the community is faced with the big pipe/gravity sewer with a blank check...brought to you by Gail McPherson.
Financially, because of her poor decisions and deliberate actions contrary to what's best for the community, my house is now worth $200,000 less...and the sewer could well supercede $100,000 per home.
Thanks for your moral and fiancial help, Gail. You have singlehandedly wiped me out...along with hundreds...probably thousands of others.
Ironic that Gail, who lives outside the PZ, won't have to endure the years of deep trenching and noisy construction or have to pay a dime for any of it.
She is a private citoizen who picked the board, ran the board, picked the lawyers, and picked us clean. And she's still trying to raise money for a non-cause that never was.
So, Ann, tell me again, what the "huge difference" actually is between the RWQCB and Gail McPherson doing the RWQCB's job for them.
If she isn't being paid by them, she should be.
If so, that hearing will be very, very interesting. If they don’t, then that will get even more interesting! Stay tuned.
Water is the most destructive force on the planet. There is no life without water, as we know it...
Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Damn. I love L.O
omposting Toilets are not "Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology". Using them will conserve water so the RECLAMATOR guys say it's a free country. I would rather install a closed loop system that would allow me to use whatever size gallon flush toilet I already own. The BADCT RECLAMATOR takes the flush toiletsoff the grid, dig?
I'm certainly glad Mr. Murphy is willing to wage a jihad against the state to get them to recognize that they are violating federal law.
The only problem is this: both the state and federal government have cooperative jurisdiction over environmental regulation, and, generally, federal law sets the floor, not the ceiling.
As such, compliance with federal law means bupkes if it doesn't also comply with state law.
If Mr. Murphy's lawyers aren't explaining that to him, maybe he should fire them.
There you go again mark -
"The BESTEP 10 was tested by NSF International in 1994 and demonstrated to provide consistent denitrification. No other technology has been successfully able to accomplish this to this day."
I hope you are as sick of me asking you as I am - WHERE are pages 2-51 of this report you say in an earlier post that you have "gone beyond?"
Just another few questions - how many Wrecklamators do you have in stock now? How long does it take to assemble one? Who is your manufacturer? Are they overseas? Where is your warehouse? What are the trucking fees?
Awaiting your prompt response. Many a fine idea has gone by the wayside due to little deficiencies in the above mentioned areas.
Rick said...
I'm certainly glad Mr. Murphy is willing to wage a jihad against the state to get them to recognize that they are violating federal law.
The only problem is this: both the state and federal government have cooperative jurisdiction over environmental regulation, and, generally, federal law sets the floor, not the ceiling.
Rick, we are not building a house, we are eliminating the discharge of pollutants. Have you read Porter-Cologne or C26?
As such, compliance with federal law means bupkes if it doesn't also comply with state law. ...Federal law have supremacy over a stste law unless a state law is more stringent
If Mr. Murphy's lawyers aren't explaining that to him, maybe he should fire them....Did you know a person need not have passed a "BAR" examination to be appointed a United States of America Supreme Court Justice? Nor Catholic to become the Pope? When you have the facts and no law argue facts. When yoiu have law but no facts argue the law. We have the facts and the law in play on the ground/in the ground in the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution.
1:19 PM, March 20, 2008
Sewertoons said...
There you go again mark -
"The BESTEP 10 was tested by NSF International in 1994 and demonstrated to provide consistent denitrification. No other technology has been successfully able to accomplish this to this day."
I hope you are as sick of me asking you as I am - WHERE are pages 2-51 of this report you say in an earlier post that you have "gone beyond?"
Just another few questions - how many Wrecklamators do you have in stock now? How long does it take to assemble one? Who is your manufacturer? Are they overseas? Where is your warehouse? What are the trucking fees?
Awaiting your prompt response. Many a fine idea has gone by the wayside due to little deficiencies in the above mentioned areas.
Toons I love the cut and paste! Hang in there and don't worry about "delivery" it is covered in the price of he service initiation. We are thinking of everything. RELAX., the county study of leaky sewerage process continues on step.
Happy Easter!
2:59 PM, March 20, 2008
Mark,
I wonder (again) whether you are a lawyer with expertise in this area.
After all, you are telling us that we should disregard others with this expertise. Who should we trust?
I also note with interest that you've not yet let us know how you are 100% sure that your machines will work 100% of the time and that all possible pollutants will be eliminated from the output all the time. After all, if there is even the possibility that your machines won't work 100% of the time, they will discharge and the RWQCB will be able to regulate you.
So then ... would you again let us know how there will never be an error or a breakdown and there will never be any discharge?
Howie sez:"The RWQCB and staff know EXACTLY what they are doing, however illegal."
Nobody who sat throught the ACL and CDO hearings would ever, EVER say that. "know exactly what they're doing."
and "Now the community is faced with the big pipe/gravity sewer with a blank check...brought to you by Gail McPherson."
Wrong, that was brought to you by the recalled CSD.
and, " Financially, because of her poor decisions and deliberate actions contrary to what's best for the community, my house is now worth $200,000 less...and the sewer could well supercede $100,000 per home."
Wrong again, value drop was triggered by the nationwide home loan fiasco. People in towns with full sewers have seen their house value drop by $200,000 or more. As for the sewer superceding $100,000 a home, that number certainly didn't come from the TAC. Did you just make that up?
I suggest you go over to Ron's blosite and read up on his timelines to see just where this train started going off the track.
... that if someone from Los Osos were to simply challenge the RWQCB on their own document, Item 19, that discusses, "Require Alternative Waste Disposal Units" in Los Osos, that a sewer would never be built."
On little thing is missing from this notion: So long as the RWQCB can define their terms, so long as those terms aren't testing in a "real" court of law, the RWQCB can just keep making stuff up. For example, you think that folks can just install a compost toilet, for example. Ah, but what do they do about their "discharge" of shower, sink, washing machine "wastewater?" Right, that's "discharge" and there is no discharges allowed within the PZ starting in 2011 without a "discharge" permit and no permits will be given for any "onsite" systems. And so we go, round and round again.
Ah, but what do they do about their "discharge" of shower, sink, washing machine "wastewater?" Right, that's "discharge" and there is no discharges allowed within the PZ starting in 2011 without a "discharge" permit and no permits will be given for any "onsite" systems. And so we go, round and round again.
Ann, I'm glad to see that you understand the very essence of discharge and why a RECLAMATOR is the solution to the problem.
The Quality Control Board should be real happy when the discharges are eliminated.
Shark: Hang in there, I'm working on a thoughtful response to questions. I have asked a few myself which I am waiting on a reply also, for instance:
Why aren't you interested in how leaks and infiltration in a 40+ miles of pipe process are monitored, reported or regulated?
Trust your own judgment. The government doesn't care about your financial situation as evidenced by there own financial situation. $14B in the red for the State of California. SLOCO is looking to increase its income, why not a ~P~I~P~E~ at your expense. They do not care, see what I mean.
The county study of leaky sewerage continues on step. Think Exfiltration/Infiltration/Carbon Footprint.
Think "pretreatment" it's the law. The government and her consulting engineers are aware of this law and now must deal with it.
Ann wrote:
"Ah, but what do they do about their "discharge" of shower, sink, washing machine "wastewater?" Right, that's "discharge" and there is no discharges allowed within the PZ starting in 2011 without a "discharge" permit "
That's exactly why there needs to be a test case in a real court -- to get all of that hammered down -- grey water discharge vs. black water discharge, etc.
One question I would have is, ALL PZ wastewater data is based on black water. Slap in a composting toilet, and voila!, now you only have a grey water discharge -- discharging into a garden that contains plants designed specifically to munch up things like nitrates. So, is there any evidence that grey water -- discharged through an "appropriate grey water system" -- is polluting the ground water in Los Osos?
Plus, and this is huge, a composting toilet allows a PZ property owner to fill their septic tank with sand (decommission), and that is at the HEART of 83-13 -- a decommissioned septic tank.
A property owner with a little bit of construction skill and a few grand laying around, could wake up Saturday morning, pump out their septic tank, fill it with sand, drive down to Home Depot, purchase a composting toilet system, install it, develop an "appropriate grey water system," and by Monday morning, that property owner would be 100-percent 83-13 compliant, because they would no longer have a drop of discharge coming out of their decommissioned septic tank.
And, IF the RWQCB were to say a word to that property owner, the RWQCB would lose in a real court of law, because the foundation for my argument (and Mark and Tom's argument for that matter, which is basically the exact argument I wrote on 1/9/07) is based in L-A-W, and the RWQCB's argument is based in C-Y-A, and L-A-W beats C-Y-A... every... single... f-ing... time.
Plus, I highly doubt the RWQCB would even let it go to a real court, because their #1 PRIORITY these days isn't "Water Quality," it's "Cover Your Ass" for what they did from 1998 - 2000, and if they were to end up in a real court, they would be massively exposed, and I just don't see that happening.
It would be unbelievably embarrassing for them. They would be going after a property owner that did EVERYTHING possible to improve water quality (just like "Coastkeeper" Gordon Hensley should have done years ago, but I guess he just doesn't care much about the "Coast" that he "Keeps"), and, at the same time, the RWQCB would be exposed to ALL of their major, major f-ups over the years.
They are not going to do that. That's why they fight so hard to make sure that all litigation towards them goes away (i.e. that terribly worded resolution).
What Mark and Tom appear to be doing is the test case I suggested at the link above. ONE successful test case, and there will NEVER be a sewer in Los Osos. That's true. It will all be on-site.
Now, imagine what kind of case they would have, if Item 19, instead of stating:
"Advanced treatment units (for improved effluent quality), portable toilets and/or composting toilets (for reduced discharges, as discussed in previous section regarding prohibiting black water discharges) could be required."
stated this:
"Advanced treatment units (for improved effluent quality), portable toilets and/or the RECLAMATOR (for reduced discharges, as discussed in previous section regarding prohibiting black water discharges) could be required."
Their argument would be as strong as mine.
Mark wrote:
"Using (composting toilets) will conserve water so the RECLAMATOR guys say it's a free country. I would rather install a closed loop system that would allow me to use whatever size gallon flush toilet I already own."
That's interesting, and I can really see it all coming down to that: Would you rather pay about $15,000 to flush with water, or about $3,000 for a composting toilet?
As a gardener, I'd chose the latter... and my garden would kick-butt, but that's just me. Like Mark wrote, it's a free country... someone just needs to tell Roger Briggs that.
The important thing to keep in mind, is the competition appears to be less and less between the RECLAMATOR and a giant sewer system, but the RECLAMATOR and composting toilets.
Ron,
Composting Toilets are not an advanced treatment. You do make the case that if it were left up to the individual some would take the least cost way out. Fortunately there is law that makes it illegal to do that.
Then there is AB 2701 "community wide collection and treatment"
Don't forget about the 75% Federal Grant Assistance for advanced alternative treatment making that $3,500.00 total cost.
I think the quality control board get's it or at least "is getting it".
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Standards
Infiltration. One criterion used by the EPA and Montana DEQ to evaluate the condition of the collection system is the amount of groundwater that enters the pipes. The collection system of Missoula receives a below average amount of groundwater (50 gallons per capita per day) into the system and therefore infiltration is not considered a priority problem. This below average flow also relates to the integrity of the pipes.
Average Flow. Another criteria used by EPA and Montana DEQ is the amount of wastewater received per capita as plant influent. The EPA norm or design standard is 100 gpcd (gallons per capita per day) whereas in accordance with 1999 Wastewater Facility Plan (Table 3-7) the City receives 114 gpcd. Therefore the collected flow that is discharged to the Wastewater Treatment Plant is within EPA Standards and indicates minimal leakage or exfiltration.
Maintenance
Annual Cleaning. The City hydro cleans and root cuts most of the 240 miles of sewer line every two years. If any problems are discovered by the cleaning crews, these sewer lines are video inspected and then scheduled for repair. The North Side and Lower Rattlesnake areas are being inspected in addition to the routine maintenance of the collection system. As the problem lines in these areas are discovered they will be documented and scheduled for repair. In the South Avenue and Higgins Street area, more than 100,000 feet of sewer lines are scheduled to be root cut as a preventative maintenance project.
Large Diameter Sewer System. In 1994, the City inspected and rated all of its larger diameter critical sewer collection system that is 30 years or older. Most of the system was rated in good shape and one line was rated for improvements.
Wellhead Protection. In 1993-5 in conjunction with Mountain Water, the City inspected and repaired its sewer collection lines that were within an influence zone of the Mountain Water drinking wells. Additionally, beginning in 1998 the City removed almost 100 sewer flush tank systems thus eliminating possible water sewer cross connections. This project was completed in 2001.
Annual Repair Work. The City annually budgets $200,000 for repair of sewer lines.
Pipe Replacement. The City has completed major replacement of significant large diameter pipes such as the Rattlesnake Interceptor, Riverfront Interceptor and Lift Station, and the Reserve St. Interceptor which amounts to nearly seven miles of new pipe. Additionally, the E. Mullan Road Interceptor was installed. This new line replaced the Russell St. Siphon that transversed the Clark Fork River .
Video Inspections. The City inspected more than 15,000 feet of new and existing sewer lines in 2001. This video inspection will be increased to 40,000 feet in 2002 and these inspections will include much of the older sewer lines in the north side area.
Emergency Power Generators. Emergency power generators at the Linda Vista and Grant Creek Lift stations have now been installed.
Mark,
Glad to know you'll get back to us on the question of whether you believe your device is perfect (and thus, really outside the purview of the RWQCB) or anything less than perfect (in which case the RWQCB will have some regulatory authority). Thanks!
On the matter of whether I am bothered by the possibility of leaks in pipes ... um ... not that much. Leaky pipes are far less problematic than leaky septics or a septic tank overload. You may think that I have a double standard, caring about pollution sometimes but not others. Not at all. I think that we in Los Osos should do whatever is cheapest and best for our community.
If you prove your point with the RWQCB that your device is truly superior to other alternatives ... awesome! We will have more options.
If it saves us money, great.
However, until you get approval from the RWQCB and whomever else (the County, perhaps) I will not consider your option one that is viable for our community ... even if you feel it is preferable, it isn't preferable for me if it is not an option I am allowed.
Again, your argument would seem to be with the RWQCB and not us.
As for Ron's thoughts ... they always seem to be centered around the 1997-2004 timeframe. Why has he never investigated the post-recall decisions of the LOCSD board? Why has he never written on these matters? He says it is because the story is boring by comparison to the one he's told us hundreds of times about Pandora and her evil nature. Now ... if you were a storyteller or even a journalist ... don't you think that your audience would want something other than the same old thing over and over and over and over? Where would Bob Woodward be today if he had gotten obsessed with reporting on James Gleason in Maryland in 1970? Sometimes even exploring a new wrinkle of a story helps considerably. Give it a try, Ron. Ask tough questions of your buddy Julie and find out who they talked to for advice prior to their fateful vote to stop TriW, just hours after the vote count was confirmed. Ask questions about why Julie voted against septic management when it would have helped clean up water. Ask why the LOCSD refused to take out a bridge loan so they could take the state's offer to move the sewer back in October/November 2005.
Yeah the RECLAMATOR is as close toa perfect solution as has ever been engineered, designed, built, installed and operational. The Ultra Ffiltration Membrane Permeate is beyond tertiary quality which is beyond the scope of what the Quality ConrolBoard regulates. They should promulgate the RECLAMATOR. We are workig on that.
Given your statements regarding leaky sewerage I have my work cut out in answering your questions.
Outof sight is not out of mind when it comes to water pollution. Not for us and the regulators.
When are youm going to get on board with your own "What leakage?-Blog.spot"?
Ron,
I would not want to reuse that composting toilet water"...
What are your "other" options Shark?
From what I know every other system discharges pollutants.
How much is a never ending supply of "new water" worth?
Thinking about how "perfect" the reclamator is:
Does the reclamator have a double walled tank and piping with leak detection between toilet and tank?
Is it possible a pipe or tank conection could develop a leak?
Is some amount of leakage acceptable?
If so, who decides what level is "acceptable"?
mark, your selective reading is telling. I ask you some practical questions, and you only seem to have read the last one and respond to that. Shall I assume you have no answers to give us on the others? (I'll ask again, leaving out the part I'm not supposed to "worry" about.)
How many Wrecklamators do you have in stock now? How long does it take to assemble one? Who is your manufacturer? Are they overseas? Where is your warehouse?
PS - pages 2-51? When will you post them?
Mark,
I am not in the job of providing options to Los Osos, so don't ask me what my other options are. My self-appointed job is to determine the veracity of those who would otherwise sell us a bill of goods.
The recall candidates were one such group and I am afraid that you are another.
Until you offer proof that your system will keep us from getting fined by the RWQCB, I will view you as a snake-oil salesman because those in the past who have offered us promises have not been able to follow through, I will assume that you are in the same category as those well intentioned folks.
Mike said...
Thinking about how "perfect" the reclamator is: FINALLY!
Does the reclamator have a double walled tank and piping with leak detection between toilet and tank? ......No. Why not triple walled?
Is it possible a pipe or tank conection could develop a leak?......Anything is possible, but the integrity of the tank design and materials make leakage a non issue.
Is some amount of leakage acceptable?........Not to me.
If so, who decides what level is "acceptable"? ........ZERO.
11:19 AM, March 21, 2008
Sewertoons said...
mark, your selective reading is telling....Toons your misspelling of RECLAMATOR is telling.
I ask you some practical questions, and you only seem to have read the last one and respond to that......We are the "Qualified Lowest Bidder"andare prepared to complete the project on time and on budget.
Shall I assume you have no answers to give us on the others? (I'll ask again, leaving out the part I'm not supposed to "worry" about.)....Don't assume anything, fact check it.
How many Wrecklamators do you have in stock now? There is no need to stock RECLAMATORS. They are assembled and delivered for installation as needed, "just in time".
How long does it take to assemble one? .....It takes one man a few hours to build a RECLAMATOR.
Who is your manufacturer?......There are more than one supplier of components. Think McDonalds here.
Are they overseas?.....We have suppliers in several countries, but we expect to utilize California suppliers when possible. Of course we reserve the right to business with whoever provides the best goods and services at the best price.
Where is your warehouse?........Local assembly locations will be established as needed, just in time.
PS - pages 2-51? When will you post them?............We won't be posting the report. Remeber the RWQCB has a copy. Go ask them.
12:05 PM, March 21, 2008
Shark Inlet said...
Mark,
I am not in the job of providing options to Los Osos, so don't ask me what my other options are. My self-appointed job is to determine the veracity of those who would otherwise sell us a bill of goods.
The recall candidates were one such group and I am afraid that you are another.
Until you offer proof that your system will keep us from getting fined by the RWQCB, I will view you as a snake-oil salesman because those in the past who have offered us promises have not been able to follow through, I will assume that you are in the same category as those well intentioned folks.
2:38 PM, March 21, 2008
.........Defamation is an expensive proposition Shark. Technology is one significant difference between a LOCSD Boardmember and AES DES LLC. AES has it the LOCSD need it. Interesting that you have been unable to determine that the county's study of leaky sewerage has not included "pretreatment" as is required by law. The RECLAMATOR is in the ground in Los Osos and is producing ultra filtration membrane permeate, which demostrates follow through in my book unlike other well intentioned folks. Hang in there Shark the county's study of leaky sewerage continues on step.
How many men (only men?) do you have that has experience putting one together? From your patent information - which I have - it doesn't exactly look like an inexperienced person can just cob one together without the possibility of making a mistake. Since you have so few of them in operation world-wide, Los Osos being your largest job ever should you get it - (which I doubt), do we just take it on faith that you can deliver these things? Clearly this isn't an Aston Martin, but some assembly is required.
Hey, did you know that some gravity pipes have been in the ground 20 years and have NEVER leaked? More that we can say about Wrecklamators as they haven't been around for 20 years.
Mark,
You wave the magic "technology" word around as if we're supposed to be really impressed with it.
I'm not. Someone with no solid science behind their invention could trumpet that word just as loudly as you have done and are doing.
If you explain the technology ... WHY your system works ... WHY it is better ... if you give the details, we can understand that you are more than someone selling hope in a can with a fancy label.
As for your defamation comment ... I would suggest you look the word up before you use it. Using a word of phrase incorrectly (such as "vados zone") makes you look ... um ... somewhat uninformed.
Don't get me wrong Mark. I can not stand a pompous salesman trying to sell me a product as being technologically advanced, and then proceeds to say it will never fail, or in this case, leak!
Well Mark, some Reclamator WILL leak, a pipe connection will leak, a tank could have an undetected flaw, the aerator will fail, the filter will clog. There are many opportunities for a leak, especially when handling liquid waste.
I notice you've already back off a bit and now call the reclamator a "pretreatment", well Mark, that's all a septic system really is. The reclamator is merely a slightly more advanced septic tank than those we already have.
Finally, you Mark, are one of the biggest reasons that the reclamator will not become accepted in Los Osos. With your lack of tact and pompous attitude, real or perceived, you have got to be one of the worst salesmen of any product in this area! Sueing or even threatening to sue the CSD, the community, the County, and/or the State has got to be the dumbest sales techique every used.
Sewertoons said...
How many men (only men?) do you have that has experience putting one together? From your patent information - which I have - it doesn't exactly look like an inexperienced person can just cob one together without the possibility of making a mistake. Since you have so few of them in operation world-wide, Los Osos being your largest job ever should you get it - (which I doubt), do we just take it on faith that you can deliver these things? Clearly this isn't an Aston Martin, but some assembly is required......Toons, every RECLAMATOR put into service will be our responsibilty.
Hey, did you know that some gravity pipes have been in the ground 20 years and have NEVER leaked? More that we can say about Wrecklamators as they haven't been around for 20 years........Show me the data.
10:15 PM, March 21, 2008
Shark Inlet said...
Mark,
You wave the magic "technology" word around as if we're supposed to be really impressed with it.
I'm not. Someone with no solid science behind their invention could trumpet that word just as loudly as you have done and are doing.
If you explain the technology ... WHY your system works ... WHY it is better ... if you give the details, we can understand that you are more than someone selling hope in a can with a fancy label.
READ THE RECLAMATOR ENGINEERING REPORT, for the details...
As for your defamation comment ... I would suggest you look the word up before you use it. Using a word of phrase incorrectly (such as "vados zone") makes you look ... um ... somewhat uninformed.
Shark-Please cut and paste where I used "vados zone".
Mike said...
Don't get me wrong Mark. I can not stand a pompous salesman trying to sell me a product as being technologically advanced, and then proceeds to say it will never fail, or in this case, leak!
Well Mark, some Reclamator WILL leak, a pipe connection will leak, a tank could have an undetected flaw, the aerator will fail, the filter will clog. There are many opportunities for a leak, especially when handling liquid waste.
I notice you've already back off a bit and now call the reclamator a "pretreatment", well Mark, that's all a septic system really is. The reclamator is merely a slightly more advanced septic tank than those we already have.
Finally, you Mark, are one of the biggest reasons that the reclamator will not become accepted in Los Osos. With your lack of tact and pompous attitude, real or perceived, you have got to be one of the worst salesmen of any product in this area! Sueing or even threatening to sue the CSD, the community, the County, and/or the State has got to be the dumbest sales techique every used.
The Pretreatment offered by the RECLAMATOR makes a sewer pipe obsolete in all instances and completely unnecessary in LO/BP. No backing off here MIKE. I see you don't understand the RECLAMATOR Technology.
On balance why not offer some thoughts on the county's study of leaky sewerage? Or is that leakage OK with you. Trust that technology in tankage has progressed from what you might "know".
mark, you don't seem to get what we are saying. I'll repeat what others on this blog have said: The wrecklamator may be just fine, but your "proof" is just you, saying you have proof. That is NOT proof. Years of reputable data collection from many systems IS PROOF. You invented this thing in - what - in '94? Had you been collecting data for the past 14 years, you'd have something to show us that we could believe in. Why didn't you do that? One test off of one device for six months is slim pickin's in the proof department.
Now I asked this on another thread - Have you tried this before in another state at another time? You haven't answered yet.
Mark,
Get us a link for the engineering report and we'll read it.
About "vados zone" ... it is not something that you wrote, but another participant here. I forgot that you've not been around long enough to have seen that one. Apologies.
Again, get us that engineering report, business plan and some solid evidence that the RWQCB will allow us to use your system instead of a sewer and we can talk.
http://www.nowastewater.com/engineering_report.html
I can't read the permit number. It looks like C63537. Is that correct?
Sewertoons said...
mark, you don't seem to get what we are saying. I'll repeat what others on this blog have said: The wrecklamator may be just fine, but your "proof" is just you, saying you have proof. That is NOT proof. Years of reputable data collection from many systems IS PROOF. You invented this thing in - what - in '94? Had you been collecting data for the past 14 years, you'd have something to show us that we could believe in. Why didn't you do that? One test off of one device for six months is slim pickin's in the proof department.
Toons: Do you believe Dr. Oppenhiemer's ( Oppenheimer's Deadly Toy ) splitting of the Hydrogen Atom in the 1940's will work today? Perhaps you can click on over to the Advanced Environmental Systems website "comparison" link and see the IDEA compared with other processes. The link is on the NOwastewater home page right side towards the top.
The third party testing and verification of denitrification during the coldest winter on record in Michigan in 1994 is a world class demonstration. Cold is hard on the bugs.
Perhaps when you understand that biology doesn't change and that process is a function of design and control. engineered for results you will understand what a RECLAMATOR actually is. In the weeks ahead we will be scheduling tours of the RECLAMATOR and I intend to ask all you anonymice to show up at a special, just for you, showing, as I serve as your tour guide. Got guts?
Now I asked this on another thread - Have you tried this before in another state at another time? You haven't answered yet.
Toons: I am sorry but I won't be discussing our work in other areas of the world. As an anonymous blogget, you can understand "privacy" can't you? I'm focused like a laser beam on several projects and Los Osos is still my favorite. I love L.O.
Dodging the question again I see. if you had done projects like these elsewhere, and they were SUCCESSFUL, you would be bludgeoning us with that information to persuade us to buy, not saying that I am anonymous, so I can't tell you. That's lame and right in the same category of telling us that you couldn't post pages 2-51 on the NSF report because they wouldn't allow you, when shooting them an e-mail to ask was all that you had to do to get permission to do so.
Gee, didn't they do a lot of tests on atom splitting? I happen to be reading "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes right now. There was an incredible amount of testing to get to the spectacular results of blowing up Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I feel an analogy coming on…
Biology isn't the topic here. Data is. Showing us anonymous posters the wonderful Wrecklamator in action isn't the topic either. Data is.
BTW, is the engineer the guy from Desert Sun Engineering in Yuma?
BTW, is the engineer the guy from Desert Sun Engineering in Yuma?
Toons:You tell me/us. I never said I was anonymous...is it because I won't say what you want that it is necessary to put words in my mouth?
So are you up for the tour or not?
Why not shoot Harvey Packard an email and get a copy from the State?
You really should be putting in for some of that money the county is spending studying leaky sewerage, you really should...
I say it's lame to be an anonymous.
Talk about lame: Where is all the leaky pipe/plant failure data?
Even if I said my name, you would not know if I was the person I claim to be here.
I didn't say YOU were anonymous, I said YOU said I WAS anonymous, therefor wouldn't answer my question. All beside the point.
Did you or didn't you try to do this same type of "project" in another state? If so, where? I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm asking a question that you don't seem to want to answer. I'm making rational guesses as to why you won't answer my question.
I don't care if you think it is lame to be anonymous. I just want an answer to my question. You FINALLY gave me an answer to my question for you to show us pages 2-51. It was NO. How long did I have to keep hammering at you to get that simple answer? How long is it going to take you to answer this one?
Now I asked this on another thread - Have you tried this before in another state at another time? You haven't answered yet.
Toons: I am sorry but I won't be discussing our work in other areas of the world. As an anonymous blogget, you can understand "privacy" can't you? I'm focused like a laser beam on several projects and Los Osos is still my favorite. I love L.O.
10:50 PM, March 22, 2008
Dopey, non-answer, cut and paste from the other thread.
OK, how about telling all the community of your successes elsewhere? It would convince many, I am sure,
Are you trying to hise something? Hmmmmm.
No offense Mark, but typically folks who want to sell their services bring some references when they go-a-sellin. That being said, I find it rather odd that you are reluctant to tell us about other projects like the Los Osos project.
Shark, Toons: This is history in the making.
The RECLAMATOR makes sewerage is obsolete.
No offense but there is nothing typical about what is going on "around here"...
Toons, so sorry you don't like my answers to your questions. Why wouldn't I believe you if you told me who you are?
Mark,
I am saddened that you are only telling us how awesome your product is but that when certain questions are raised you seem to avoid addressing those questions head on.
I can think of no valid "privacy" reasons why you could not tell us if your product is being used elsewhere in a community of 1000 or more.
Your refusal to do so makes it look like your product isn't being used elsewhere on the scale you propose for its use here. Correct me if I am wrong.
I also suspect that you don't have multiple years worth of monthly output pollutant readings on any of your tanks. Again, let me know if I am incorrect.
I also noticed on your website a form I could send in to the RWQCB telling them that I'm producing less nitrates than some specified level. My friend, that means your system discharges. While it might be "clean" by some standards, you are telling us via that form that it is not 100% H20.
This also bothers me because you've told us that the water is pure. By some standards, yes ... but by others, no.
Is there anything else you've not told us that might raise eyebrows?
Shark: I guess you'll be stuck on trying to find fault when you will not follow the discussion more closely.
Appears you missed the entire discussion of USEPA drinking water standards http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html too bad.
I can understand that a citizen unframiliar with "process" might be saddened, bothered or otherwise uncertain about water reclamation. It is not like heading to the Hardware store for some pipe and fittings.
All I can ask for is patience as the county continues its study of leaky sewerage. Surely you can see some of the holes in that process by now.
Do you realy believe that your input would have any real effect on the process? You don't have any law or technology that you offer, only questions and emotions.
In time all of your concerns will be addressed as the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution continues on step.
You'll just have to be patient. What other choice do you have?
Is there anything else you've not told us that might raise eyebrows?
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
Albert Einstein
Why would anyone want to reclaim 100% of their own water?
Why would anyone want a computer?
Why would anyone want to fly?
Some of you have been fighting/playing for so long you don't a winning hand when you see it.
"Know" a winning hand when you see it.
mark, your non-answers speak volumes to us. Are YOU listening?
Shark; Sorry this took so long,I should have had it out before Easter. My bad, I have been a little busy...Governor is in town today, I wonder if Pandora will talk RECLAMATOR with him?
Shark Inlet said...
Mark,
I wonder (again) whether you are a lawyer with expertise in this area.
After all, you are telling us that we should disregard others with this expertise. Who should we trust?
I also note with interest that you've not yet let us know how you are 100% sure that your machines will work 100% of the time and that all possible pollutants will be eliminated from the output all the time. After all, if there is even the possibility that your machines won't work 100% of the time, they will discharge and the RWQCB will be able to regulate you.
So then ... would you again let us know how there will never be an error or a breakdown and there will never be any discharge?
10:49 PM, March 20, 2008
Shark:
The RECLAMATOR will be monitored remotely electronically. A complete overhaul of the system would take one person one hour maximum to change out every moving component that could require inspection, maintenance or replacement. The fixed parts of the RECLAMATOR will last much longer than anything "sewerage". Of course the Quality Control Board would be electronically monitoring/notified every RECLAMATOR. As long as the water levels are maintained all is well, no discharge. When water levels are of concern there would be immediate notification, allowing for several days to respond in order to perform the one hour or less "D2C"(Detect, Determine, Control) and if necessary complete overhaul of the system.
The design is genius (ask toons she has copies of the patents), the technology is very robust and once understood will prove to be the "best" to anyone studying it. We look forward to the county's consulting engineer's, California State Engineering Certification Board's expert and the Quality Control Board HQ's results of their current review.
Any potential for "discharge" is completely mitigated by use of the RECLAMATOR its design, planning and the control technology.
Once the "authorities" evaluate and sign off on I.D.E.A/Membrane(Biological/Physical Technology) they will have done their job and there will be much less concern about the performance of the RECLAMATOR.
mark says:
"As long as the water levels are maintained all is well"
Vacation homes are left empty sometimes for months. Please explain how water levels are to be maintained in these homes.
Toons: The system level I referred to was high water level. I will look forward to the "boards" doing their job, so citizens are not left wondering. It is difficult to explain "process" on a blog...
The RECLAMATOR technology treats "any" (flows/loads)waste stream by design. It's a patented process/design. Think of the water as a bus delivering the "pollutants".
It is difficult to explain process to citizens. The county's consulting engineer has not contacted AES yet to learn more about I.D.E.A., even though by law they are obligated to review "alternatives".
That would be funny if it wasn't so economically and environmentally(and yes, Jon "metaphysically")serious.
Vacation homes are left empty sometimes for months. Please explain how water levels are to be maintained in these homes.
Think "service" here...
Ann wrote:issue Mr. Murphy a CAO
The RECLAMATOR is the best method to clean up the leach pits/drainfields and aquifers and is a no cost benefit/side effect of the service/technology.
The RECLAMATOR handles everything the Quality Control Board can legally throw at it.
mark says:
"Think "service" here..."
OK, what then does THAT mean in service trips (costs).
Toons:
No trips, no charge, no discharge, no problem.
It's covered...
Post a Comment