Pages

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Stealth Update Reply

Below, posted with permission, is Keith Wimer’s response to the recent RWQCB ‘s update of the onsite systems section of the Basin Plan, 0005 & 00o6. His response is long, but for dedicated Sewerites, interesting. So far as I can tell, people living outside of the Los Osos PZ – i.e. all of the county – are clueless that this update is in the works (public comment on the draft closed April 7 and to my knowledge none of the people owning legally permitted (by the county) septic systems got so much as a postcard telling them about this draft update and comment period).



Well, they’ll find out once its stealths its way to the State Water Board and a few years down the line – when it will be too late to object – people on septics throughout the county who laughed at Los Ososians will wake up to find Roger Briggs on their doorstop sayaing scientific things like, " common knowledge tells us . . . ." Then the laughter will die in their throats and start up in the throats of all Los Ososians. (Poor Ron Crawford over at http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com/ is already having vapors and cold chills. He lives in Santa Margarita.) And, Oh, wait, I forgot, people in Los Osos who live outside the PZ who are also clueless as to this “update” will be in for some chortling surprises as well.

Keith’s letter and comments:

April 2, 2008
Central Coast Water Board
895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

RE: Response to Basin Plan Revisions

Honorable Board Members:

The proposed revisions to the Basin Plan should not be approved.

As recommended, the revisions are vague and confusing, impose unknown and unfunded costs on individuals and agencies, and they’re inconsistent with applicable standards, policies, laws, and ordinances, including the draft state-wide AB 885 ordinance.

The changes, if approved, will discourage on-site system use, water recycling, decentralized (cluster) systems, and possibly STEP/STEG systems in the Region, at a time when local, state, and federal agencies are looking to these options to help communities protect water quality and deal with looming water and energy shortages in cost-effective ways. In other words, the changes may do more harm than good to the Region’s waters, people, and economy.

Rather than attempt to amend these proposals, your Board should postpone implementation of any new regulations relative to onsite systems and discharge until you have thoroughly reviewed related laws and policies, industry standards, current research on new onsite technology, additional stakeholder input from the Region, and the progress achieved at the state level on AB 885. I’ve provided links to a number of relevant resources.

At a minimum, Basin Plan changes should use the same definitions and terminology used by virtually all wastewater authorities, and they should incorporate many more of the standards from the draft 885 ordinance. New language should also incorporate state and federal policies prioritizing sustainability, water conservation, energy-efficiency, and adequate funding. Finally, new regulations should be consistent with Basin Plan goals and the Porter-Cologne Act, which require economic feasibility and water recycling to be considered in water quality objectives. Note that the only references to these were deleted from the sections under consideration (see Chapter 4, VIII.D, pages 5 & 6).

The Region is looking to your Board to lead us into a 21st Century, in which the people and businesses of the Region have ample water, as well as clean water, to support a thriving economy. Limiting the use of onsite and decentralized systems can actually take us in the opposite direction.

A complete history and review of the AB 885 ordinance development process, with stakeholder input, is presented in the National Decentralized Water Resources Capacity Development Project, June 2004, available at http://www.ndwrcdp.org/userfiles/ACFoc1vrb.pdf. This contains a “Model Ordinance” by experts in the field of wastewater (Appendix K). The SWRCB website contains the AB 885 draft ordinance and EIR documents. Note that the SWRCB identified potentially “significant impacts” from the AB 885 ordinance (see AB 885 Initial Study, SWRCB website). Attached are more complete explanations of why the proposed changes should not be approved (with citations and attachments), along with a summary explaining why adoption of this language will lead the Region toward a less sustainable future. .

Respectfully,

Keith Wimer
Attachments: Additional Reasons, Sustainability Summary, Works Cited, Attachments #1-#10 (38 pages total)

ATTACHMENT 1
Problematic proposed revisions
Chapter 4 “Implementation Plan”
(Proposed amendments are underlined; my comments are italicized)

VIII.D. “Individual and Community Onsite Wastewater Systems”

Note: The wording in Section VIII.D (in the documents showing changes available on the CCWQCB’s website) varies from wording Section VIII.D in the Basin Plan on the website. The differences include the title of the section, along with the titles and content of several subsections. In the Basin Plan the title of Section VIII.D is “Individual, Alternative, and Community Wastewater Systems;” on the version with proposed changes the title is “Individual, Alternative, and Community Onsite Systems” (emphasis added). If these changes have already been approved, they should be reconsidered because they add to the vagueness and potential confusion of the section. In effect, these changes (if they are changes) appear to have narrowed the definition of community systems to include only systems with on-site treatment components (e.g., STEP/STEG systems) and not other types of community systems (e.g., gravity, vacuum, and low-pressure systems). It is also not clear whether it refers to decentralized systems (or cluster) systems. For the Basin Plan to provide clear direction and adequately address and regulate wastewater alternatives, at a minimum, it must dedicate separate sections to (1) onsite systems, (2) STEP/STEG systems (and possibly other pressurized systems), and (3) gravity systems—as they all have different standards and potential benefits and requirements that would need to be addressed.

VIII.D.1.a (Pages 3-5)

The first paragraph of the subsection (third paragraph, right column, page 3) states, “It is incumbent upon local governing jurisdictions to develop and implement programs to ensure conformance with this Basin Plan and local regulations” adding “Such programs shall include (but are not be (sic) limited to) procedures to…(with several procedures listed)” This expands local agencies’ responsibilities from administering “inspection programs” to complete responsibility for brining all systems into “conformance”with the Basin Plan and local regulations. The Basin Plan’s objectives are vague in most cases, while the “not limited to language makes the requirement even more open-ended.

The sixth paragraph on Page 4 (left column) states, “Local agencies should ensure the terms of the enforcement actions are entered into the public record.” This places the obligation on local agencies to formally notify residents of Regional Board enforcement actions.

The second paragraph on Page 4 (right column) states, “To protect this set-aside area (for a second leach field?--see note below) from encroachment, the local agency shall require restrictions on future use of the area as a condition of land division or building permit approval.” This requirement may make some lots unbuildable. Additionally, the language is vague, as “Onsite disposal area” was earlier defined (right column, paragraph 8, page 2) as “application area (trench, pit, bed) and surrounding 100’ radius from any point in the application area that may be influenced by discharge from the disposal system.”

The first paragraph on page 5 (right column) states, “Repairs to failing systems all shall be done under permit from the local agency. The local agency shall require failing systems to be brought into compliance with Basin Plan recommendations, requirements and prohibitions: or repair criteria consistent with locally implemented onsite management plan (approved by the Central Coast Water Board Water Board Executive Officer).” This requires local agencies to formulate ordinances, police failing septic systems, and compel homeowners to comply with orders. It also appears to place liability on the local agency for failing to stop pollution. Further, the requirement is open-ended. The definition of a “failed system” (second paragraph, Page 2, right column) states, “Failed or failing onsite system is any system that displays symptoms of inadequate dispersion, treatment or assimilation of wastewater. These may include, but are not limited to, surfacing effluent, lush growth above the leach area, sluggish house drains, impacts to surface or groundwater from the onsite discharge, odors, frequent pumping, or backflow into tank when pumped.” The “not limited to” in addition to the inclusion of “impacts to surface or groundwater” as criteria for failing systems leaves total discretion to the Executive Officer as to whether a system is failing.

The second paragraph on page 5 (left column) states, “Land use changes should not be approved by the local agency until the existing onsite system meets criteria of this Basin Plan and local ordinances.” This expands the original language, which applied to “commercial, institutional or industrial uses” to include individual uses. The change apparently prevents any land use changes, even General Plan Updates, until onsite systems meet all Basin Plan criteria.

“Requirements” #5 (page 5) states “Wastewater Management Plans shall be prepared and implemented for urbanizing and high density areas served by onsite wastewater systems,” This apparently requires local agencies to undertake planning efforts but does not refer to funding sources.

“Requirements” #6 (page 5) states, “Local jurisdictions shall require replacements or repairs to failing systems to be in substantial conformance (to the greatest extent practicable) with Basin Plan recommendations, requirements and prohibitions or the local onsite wastewater management plan.” Since a local onsite wastewater management plans "shall be approved by the Central Coast Water Board Executive Officer,” (third paragraph, page 6, right column), little authority will reside with local agencies on how to implement this language (e.g., deciding what “practicable” means).

“Requirements” #7 (page 5) states, “Local jurisdictions shall ensure that alternative onsite systems owners are provided an informational maintenance or replacement document by the system design engineer or representative … (which)… cite(s) homeowner procedures to ensure maintenance, repair, or replacement of critical items within 48 hours following failure.” This requirement is burdensome on agencies and may not even be possible for homeowners. It is also not consistent with the Draft AB 885 statewide ordinance.

“Prohibitions” #9 (page 5) states, “Alternative systems are prohibited unless consistent with a locally implemented onsite wastewater management plan approved by the Central Coast Water Board Executive Officer.” This, again, reflects that all discretionary authority resides with the Executive Officer.


VIII.D.1.b. “Onsite Waste Water Management Plans”

The first paragraph of this subsection (sixth paragraph, page 5, right column) states, “Onsite wastewater management plans shall be implemented in urbanizing areas to investigate and mitigate long-term cumulative impacts resulting from continued use of individual, alternative, and community onsite wastewater systems.” This appears to place responsibility for cleaning up any polluted waters on agencies, and the requirement is open-ended because it goes on to state, “Onsite wastewater management plans shall include (but not be limited to) the following elements:” (including) “Survey and evaluation of existing onsite systems…Water quality (ground and surface water) monitoring program…Alternative means of disposing of sewage in the event of disposal system failure and/or irreversible degradation from onsite disposal…Education and outreach program…Enforcement options…Septage management…Program administration, staffing, records keeping, installation and repairs tracking, and financing.”


VIII.D.2. “Criteria for New Systems”

The first paragraph of this subsection (paragraph 5, right column, page 6) states, “The following section includes criteria for all new onsite wastewater disposal systems. Local governing jurisdictions should incorporate these criteria and guidelines into their local ordinances. These criteria will be used by the Central Coast Water Board for Water Board regulated systems and exemptions. In the context of these criteria, new systems shall refer to onsite wastewater systems approved after May 9, 2008.” This language converts all the former recommended onsite system criteria to requirements (e.g.., all the requirements and prohibitions on pages 7-9).

The second paragraph on page 7 (left column) states, “Local agencies may authorize alternative onsite systems consident with locally implemented onsite wastewater management plans approved by the Central Coast Water Board Executive Officer.” Once again, complete discretion is granted the Executive Officer. This potentially removes a means of correcting on-site problems, if the Executive Officer prohibits alternative solutions.

VIII.D.2.a “Site Suitability”

“Requirements” #4 states (page 7), “At least one soil boring or excavation per onste system shall be performed to determine soil suitability, depth to ground water, and depth to bedrock or impervious layer…and be performed during or shortly after the wet season to characterize the most limiting conditions. Limiting boring samples only to a certain time of year can place an onerous burden on the homeowner, delaying an entire building process for up to a year.

“Requirements” #11 (page 8) states, “Onsite disposal systems on slopes greater than 20% shall be designed by a certified professional.” This language is vague. Does it refer alternative systems or only “Engineered systems?”

“Prohibitions” #13 (page 8) states, For new land divisions (including lot splits served by onsite systems, lot sizes less than one acre are prohibited unless authorized under an onsite management plan approved by the Central Coast Water Board Executive Officer. For the purpose of this prohibition, secondary units are considered ‘defacto’ lot splits and shall not be constructed on lots less than two acres in size.” This is an arbitrary requirement, not supported by science. One-half acre is considered to be adequate to avoid contaminant loading in the soil. Further, alternative systems (with supplemental treatment) are not limited by lot size.

“Prohibitions” # 18 (page 8) states, “Onsite discharge is prohibited where lot sizes, dwelling densities or site conditions cause detrimental impacts to water quality.” This is vague and open-ended, once again affording complete discretion to the Executive Officer to decide which “densities or site conditions cause detrimental impacts to water quality.” Further, this language assumes all discharges are equal (i.e., all discharge is waste or pollution); whereas, some onsite systems produce tertiary treated water for beneficial uses. The introduction to this section of Chapter 4 (second paragraph, page 1, right column) also indicates that all discharge is considered non-beneficial, i.e., “Onsite wastewater systems may be used to treat and dispose of wastewater.” This equates treated water with wastewater.

“Prohibitions” #20 (page 8) states, “Onsite discharge is prohibited in any area where continued use of onsite systems constitutes a public health hazard, an existing or threatened condition of water pollution, or nuisance.” This is open-ended and vague, again affording total discretion ultimately to the Executive Officer. Paragraph three on page 3 defines a threatened condition as “… one that if left uncorrected may cause or contribute to water quality or public health impacts. This language, especially when considered with language pertaining to failing systems (noted above), does little to narrow the applicability of the prohibition, in effect, allowing the Executive Officer discretion to prohibit any discharge at any time.

VIII.D.2.b. “Onsite System Design”

“Requirements” #9 (page 9) states, “Leachfield loading application rate shall not exceed the following” (followed by a chart of loading rates). This prescriptive language, in addition to other criteria, e.g., percolation rates, adds multiple layers of conditions and regulatory burden.

“Requirements” #14 (page 9) states, “All onsite disposal systems shall reserve an expansion area (additional 100% disposal capacity to be set aside and protected from all uses except future drainfield repair and replacement. Community systems shall install dual drainfields (200% disposal capacity) and reserve replacement area (3rd 100% disposal capacity). This, again, is vague, and may preclude many land uses, due to the requirement that large portions are set aside for individual and community disposal systems, when, in fact, advanced systems (e.g., that treat the water to reuse standards) would make this requirement unnecessary.

“Requirements” #17 (page 9) states, “Where site conditions permit water migration of wastewater to water, setback distances from disposal trench/pit shall be at least” (with set back distances listed). This language is extremely vague and discretionary—even with the possible misprint corrected.

“Prohibitions” #23 (page 10) states, “Inflow and infiltration shall be precluded from the system unless design specifically accommodates such excess flows.” With out reference to industry standards, this allows the Executive Officer to decide what flows are appropriate.

VIII.D.2.c. “Design for Alternative and Engineered Systems”

“Requirements” #4 (page 10) states, “Alternative and engineered onsite wastewater systems shall be located, designed, installed, operated, maintained, and monitored in accordance with a locally implemented onsite management plan approved by the Central Coast Water Board Executive Officer.” This language, without reference to industry standards, permits the Executive Officer to prohibit the use of a system arbitrarily.

“Prohibitions” #4 states, Alternative and engineered onsite wastewater systems are prohibited, except where consistent with a locally implemented onsite management plan approved by the Central Coast Water Board Executive Officer.” (See comment for previous paragraph.)

VIII.D.2.e. “Onsite System Maintenance”

“Requirements” #3 -#6 (pages 11 & 12) state, “Onsite wastewater systems shall be maintained in accordance with approved onsite management plans. Where onsite management plans have not been approved by the Central Coast Water Board Executive Officer, onsite systems shall be maintained as described in the following specifications.” (with #4 specifying that tanks will be pumped every 5 years; #5 stating that disposal of solids will be “accomplished in a manner acceptable to the Central Coast Water Board Executive Officer;” and #6 requiring the system owner to maintain “Records of maintenance, pumping, septage disposal, etc.” with records “available upon request.” This is vague and the 5-year requirement is arbitrary (i.e., not applicable to many systems and situations). The language makes homeowners responsible for a mandate, but does not provide for their notification of the requirement.

VIII.D.2.g. “Onsite Wastewater System Prohibition Areas”

#3 states, “Discharges from individual and community sewage disposal systems are prohibited, effective November 1, 1988, in the Los Osos/Baywood Park area…” The Los Osos prohibition was implemented many years ago, but language in this section has been changed—possibly redefining what is meant by “community sewage disposal systems” The language may now mean the prohibition applies to STEP/STEG and decentralized systems, but not conventional gravity, low-pressure, or vacuum systems?

VIII.D.2.h. “Subsurface Disposal Exemptions”

The third paragraph on page 12 (right column) states, The Central Coast Water Board or Executive Officer may grant exemption to prohibitions for: (1) engineered new onsite wastewater systems for sites unsuitable for standard systems: and (2) new or existing onsite systems…” adding “Such exemptions may be granted only after presentation by the discharger of sufficient justification, including geologic and hydrologic evidence that the continued operation of such system(s) in a particular area will not individually or collectively, directly or indirectly, result in pollution or nuisance, or affect water quality adversely. Individual, alternative, and community systems shall not be approved for any area where it appears that the total discharge of leachate to the geological system, under fully developed conditions, will cause: (1) damage to public or private property; (2) ground or surface water degradation; (3) nuisance; or, (4) a public health hazard.” This places an unfair burden on “dischargers” to prove that a system meets very vague criteria and/or standards.



Response to proposed changes to Chapters 4 & 5 of the Central Coast Basin Plan

Keith Wimer, 4/7/08

Reason #1—Unfunded mandates will lead to ineffective implementation and conflicts.

Per the May 9 “Staff Report,” upon approval of the “Resolution,” all homeowners in the Region not hooked up to a community system will be subject to the new provisions. Where it is “mutually beneficial,” local agencies can negotiate MOU’s that require them to implement management plans, which “…regulate siting, design, construction, monitoring, and performance” of systems “in accordance with criteria specified in the Basin Plan” (p. 2). Agencies which sign MOUs will have to revise ordinances to align with new requirements, issue permits for system repairs, enforce the new criteria, and “identify additional measures …to identify and address areas of degraded groundwater or surface water quality where onsite wastewater treatment systems are a potential source of pollution” (“Staff Report,” p. 3). With numerous, open-ended, and unfunded requirements, it is doubtful agencies will choose to enter into MOUs. If they do, they will incur considerable costs for managing the program, and they will undoubtedly pass the costs onto consumers in the form of high fees or rate increases.

Homeowners not covered by agency MOUs, must submit applications to the Regional Board, pay fees, and meet all the proposed new criteria. Referring to Resolution 69-01, new language in Chapter 5 reads, “The Resolution …states Regional Board intention to take enforcement action, if local jurisdictions fail to manage wastewater systems in a water quality protective manner” (“Staff Report,” p. 2; Chapter 5, Part III, page 1). In the not too distant future, therefore, thousands of people within the Region will be required to meet all proposed regulations, pay fees, have their systems tested and inspected for compliance with new standards, pay for needed upgrades—or face enforcement actions. An unknown number of homeowners will be told they must stop using their systems because they’re in a prohibition zone.

Although the “Resolution” “…finds (the) costs to be reasonable,” agencies and individuals are not likely to (“Resolution,”p.2). Both are likely to avoid full implementation of the requirements, due to costs, resulting in poorly implemented plans. The USEPA considers inadequate funding a main reason for ineffective management plans, which, in turn, leads to poor onsite system performance. It suggests that “statewide public financing programs” and “cost-share grants” are needed for successful programs (USEPA, 2008) (also see Attachment #2).

The authors of AB 885 recognized the significant cost impacts of a statewide ordinance, so added, “It is the intent of the Legislature to assist private property owners with existing systems who incur costs as a result of the implementation of the regulations under this section by encouraging the state board to make loans…” (Water Code § 13291.7). However, the current proposed changes do not to provide assistance for agencies or individuals. Without a funding source for the proposed changes, the changes will undoubtedly meet considerable resistance from many sides. A percentage of homeowners and agencies will fail to comply, forcing the Regional Board to increase oversight and enforcement actions—adding significantly to Board workloads to achieve marginal results.

Reason #2—Vague, confusing, and open-ended language will lead to ineffective implementation and conflicts.

The title and wording of Chapter 4, Section VIII.D. makes the intent of the section confusing (p. 1) (also see Attachment #1, p. 1). A person reading the title, with “Onsite” added, is not sure whether the language refers to decentralized (cluster) systems and/or STEP/STEG systems along with onsite systems. (Note: The title of VIII.D., and several subsections are different from the Basin Plan posted on the website; an added word “onsite” appears in the version with proposed changes, but it is not underlined, nor are other altered or deleted Basin Plan sections identified with underlines or strikethroughs, e.g., Subsection VIII.D.3.f. “Community System Design”—see Attachment #5, p.2). If the language of this section does refer to decentralized and STEP/STEG systems, it should say so—and if it applies to low-pressure and vacuum systems, it should say so as well. All of these systems have onsite components and can be part of decentralized systems. If the language does not apply to low-pressure and vacuum systems, or centralized gravity systems, where are these systems covered?

Virtually all official wastewater resources use the terms “on-site, decentralized, and centralized” when categorizing wastewater systems. They also identify STEP/STEG, low-pressure, and vacuum systems specifically. If the proposed changes are to be clear, they must use standard terms and identify these major types of systems specifically.

When compared to the EPA definition of “decentralized” system, the revised proposed Basin Plan definitions for “community onsite” and “onsite system” highlight the need for clear terminology. The proposed language defines “Community systems” as “(1) residential wastewater treatment systems serving more that 5 units or more than 5 parcels, or (2) commercial institutional or industrial systems treating sanitary wastewater equal to or greater than 2,500 gallons per day…,” and it defines onsite systems by saying “onsite wastewater systems may be used to treat and dispose of wastewater from: (1) individual residences; (2) multi-unit residences; (3) institutions or places of commerce” (Chapter 4, VIII.D., page 1) The USEPA’s 1997 Report to Congress on the Use of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems (p. A-1) defines a cluster system as “a decentralized wastewater collection and treatment system where two or more dwellings, but less than an entire community, is served,” and Crites and Tchobanoglous, in a widely-used text book entitled Small and Decentralized Wastewater Management Systems state “Decentralized wastewater management (DWM) may be defined as the collection, and treatment, and disposal/reuse of wastewater from individual homes, clusters of homes, isolated communities, industries, or institutional facilities, as well as from portions of existing communities at or near the point of waste generation” (Hamilton, et al, 2004,p. 3; Crites and Tchobanoglous, 1998, p. 2). The draft statewide ordinance refers to “Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS)” (p. 1). The ordinance does not refer to “Community Onsite Systems.” Obviously, the proposed language changes must be clearer about what they cover.

As noted in Attachment #1, the proposals also have open-ended language throughout. Of course, vague, confusing, and open ended language invites inconsistent and arbitrary interpretations and application, which, in turn, causes conflicts, litigation, additional staff time, and large costs for everyone involved. Note how many times language leaves unanswered questions, all to be decided by the Executive Officer (see Attachment #1). Clearer more specific and complete language/provisions are essential if the policy is to be implemented without prohibitive costs and conflicts.

Reason #3—Not Consistent with other standards and ordinances

Chapter 5 (Subsection III.F. page 5) begins by stating “The Regional Board intends to discourage high density development on septic tank disposal systems and generally will require increased size of parcels with increasing slopes and slower percolation rates.” It then states, “Unsewered areas having high density (one acre lots or smaller) should be organized into septic tank management districts and sewerage feasibility studies should be complete in potential problem areas. Local implementation should be encouraged by Regional Board actions.” This prescriptive (yet vague) language strongly suggests that the Regional Board will encourage “sewerage” (i.e., centralized systems) in areas with parcels under one acre. This runs contrary to current expert opinion, since onsite systems (and decentralized systems) are considered viable options (and often the preferred option) for some urban settings and homes with small lot sizes. USEPA states, “With proper management oversight, alternative systems (e.g., recirculating sand filters, peat-based systems, package aeration units) can be installed in areas where soils, bedrock, fluctuating ground water levels, or lot sizes limit the use of conventional systems,” and it adds, “The most arbitrary siting requirement, however, is the minimum lot size restriction incorporated into many state and local codes. Lot size limits prohibit onsite treatment system installations on nonconforming lots without regard to the performance capabilities of the proposed system” (USEPA, 2008).

The proposed changes are also inconsistent with other related standards and ordinances. For example, the draft version of the AB 885 ordinance uses a different set of terms and definitions. It also requires homeowners to have “a service provider inspect” the septic tank every five years to determine if pumping is needed, and it requires owners to correct malfunctioning systems “within 90 days”—whereas, the proposed language calls for mandatory pumping every five years, and system repairs for alternative systems within 48 hours (Chapter 4, VIII.D., p. 5 & 11; SWRCB, 2007) (also see Attachment #4). Similarly, the 885 draft ordinance, does not prohibit “onsite discharge…in any area where continued use of onsite systems constitutes a public health hazard, an existing or threatened condition of water pollution, or nuisance” Chapter 4, VIII.D., p. 8, Item 20). Instead, it requires that onsite systems located near impaired water bodies provide supplemental treatment at levels necessary to protect the resource (SWRCB, 2007, page 16) (also see Attachment #4). Overall, the draft AB 885ordinance recognizes that advanced onsite systems can treat wastewater to levels equal to centralized systems, if they are well-managed. Therefore, it uses a combination of performance-based and prescriptive standards.

A sample ordinance prepared by experts at Chico State includes procedures to promote the safe use of innovative systems, while EPA Onsite Guidelines provide for five levels of onsite management, depending upon specific conditions (California Wastewater Training and Research Center, Appendix K; USEPA, 2003) (also see Attachment #3). The 1998 Crites and Tchobanoglous textbook offers guidelines for effective management plans, as do several other resources (e.g., Nelson, 1998). Your Board should review these ordinances, industry standards, and related expert input—with serious consideration given to delaying implementation until a statewide, standardized policy per AB 885 can be developed. Such ordinance is sure to address the concerns mentioned here.

Reason #4—Not Consistent with Basin Plan Goals, Porter-Cologne Act, Water Code, and other laws

Basin Plan goals emphasize the consideration of recycling in Basin Planning, as does the Porter-Cologne Act and the Water Code (Porter-Cologne Act § 13510 et seq and Water Code § 13520 et seq.) (see Attachment #5 for Basin Plan goals). Proposed changes, unfortunately, remove the only reference to “reuse” on page 5. (Chapter 4, VIII.D (p. 5). Onsite recycling and discharge of treated water close to where it is used is one of the most cost-and energy-effective ways to save water and to recharge local aquifers Centralized systems often transport the water out of a basin requiring energy-intensive pumping systems to transport it back to less-effective central recharge locations (Asano, et al, 2006; California Wastewater Training & Research Center, 2003, Pinkham, et al, 2004; Nelson, 1998). Modern onsite systems can treat water to tertiary standards, very close to the levels of centralized systems, while natural percolation provides free additional tertiary treatment (Asano, et al, 2006; California Wastewater Training & Research Center, 2003; Pinkham, et al, 2004). Therefore, onsite and decentralized systems can potentially clean up degraded basins faster than centralized solutions by replacing degraded aquifer water more effectively than centralized recharge systems. Thus, Basin Plan goals may be achieved more rapidly with onsite/decentralized systems than with centralized options.

Also, the Basin Plan and Porter-Cologne Act require economic considerations in Basin Planning. Unfortunately, one of the only references to costs (i.e., “cost effectiveness analysis…to select the recommended plan”) was removed by the proposed changes (Porter-Cologne Act § 13515 and §13527;
Chapter 4, VIII.D, p. 6)

The California Water Plan (Water Code § 10004-10013) calls for the “orderly and coordinated control, protection, conservation, development, and utilization of the water resources of the state…” which include strategies for “water conservation and water recycling.” The Governor’s Water-Energy Subgroup of the Climate Action Team (WET-CAT) recently presented five broad strategies to reduce global warming pollution from water use in California, including water recycling, water conservation, water infrastructure efficiency, use of renewable energy, and the management of storm water in urban areas. A state law sponsored by the Planning and Conservation League, now going through the Legislative process, AB 2153, would ensure that the state adopt a “comprehensive water conservation plan” with feasible, cost-effective” targets” (Planning and Conservation League Insider, March 28, 2008) Clearly, state priorities support greater conservation and water recycling; onsite and decentralized systems can help achieve these goals.

Reasons #5—Reduced wastewater project funding opportunities

The Porter-Cologne Act and California Water Code give priority consideration to projects that emphasize the recycling of water. The SWRCB also has grant funding sources for low-impact and for onsite projects. Because proposed language changes would discourage use of on-site and decentralized projects, they would reduce opportunities for these grants.

Reason #6—EIR is not adequate

The proposed changes also are sure to cause significant environmental impacts due to their tendency to reduce the use of onsite systems and onsite recharge provided by the systems. Note that the SWRCB determined an EIR was required for the AB 885 statewide ordinance (see AB 885 Initial Study, SWRCB website).

Reason #7—Lack of support from the CCWQCB Staff precludes effective onsite regulation

The Executive Officer and Staff have not supported innovated onsite systems, STEP/STEG systems, or onsite management plans in the past. The proposed changes would give ultimate authority to the Regional Board Executive Officer (and by implication the Regional Board Staff) to decide when, if, and how on-site, decentralized, and STEP-STEG systems and management plans would be approved and designed. (see Attachment #1). With Los Osos as the most obvious case, CCWQCB staff has shown an unwillingness to negotiate or oversee effective onsite management plans, and/or consider alternative onsite systems. The Executive Officer issued a letter refusing to approve use of the Reclamator, apparently under any circumstances, i.e., even if it meets specific water quality standards. The letter also appears to preclude use of all onsite systems in Los Osos, and to prohibit all onsite water recycling, by stating that all onsite discharges in Los Osos are prohibited (see Attachment # 6). This application of regulation provides a good indication of how the Executive Officer will interpret and apply proposed changes. Of course, precluding all onsite system use and discharge in a “prohibition zone” severely limits available options for conservation and aquifer recharge in those areas.

Additionally, the Executive Officer has generally advocated and been willing to approve just one wastewater option for Los Osos, a centralized conventional gravity system. He argued against a STEP/STEG system in his input for the 2001 Project EIR, contradicting the project consultant and important authorities (e.g., Crites and Tchobanoglous) by stating that STEP/STEG systems had greater I/I than conventional gravity systems (see Attachment #7). In his response to the Los Osos Wastewater Project (LOWWP) Rough Screening Report, he contradicted Carollo Engineers and the NWRI Review Panel, questioning whether STEP/STEG systems weren’t fatally flawed. On the other hand, he has never questioned whether a conventional gravity system is right for Los Osos, despite its known problems associated with greater amounts of inflow and infiltration (I/I) (leaks of water into the system) and exfiltration (leaks of raw sewage out of the system), especially as the system gets older. The LOWWP Fine Screening Report estimates wet weather flow (the design criteria for the project) will be 200,000 gallons per day (gpd) more than a STEP/STEG system’s average wet weather flow, due to I/I (Carollo Engineers, 2007, 1-11) (also see Attachment #10). The LOWWP Load and Flow Technical Memorandum estimates peak wet weather flows for a conventional gravity system will go as high as 2.5 million gallons or 180% of average wet weather flows (almost a million gallons per day more than STEP/STEG systems) (Carollo Engineers, 2008, p,10) (also see Attachment #10). Authorities, including the EPA and SWRCB, recognize I/I as a main cause of sewer overflows (SSOs)—and SSOs as a main cause of beach closures and surface water pollution (Asano, et al, 2006; Pinkham, et al, 2004; Nelson, 1998; USEPA, 2000).

The SWRCB’s Statewide General WDR for Sanitary Sewer Systems (Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ) requires sewer system management plans (SSMPs) be developed for every public system with collections systems over one mile in length to reduce SSOs (see Attachment # 9). This document, plus USEPA documents (e.g., USEPA, 2004; see Attachment #8), points out the serious public health hazard SSOs cause. Leading authoritiees, (e.g., Asano et al., 2006) indicate that conventional gravity systems result in more exfiltration than cluster and STEP/STEG systems, while the EPA points out that exfiltration is believed to be a main cause of ground water and surface water pollution throughout the U.S. (USEPA, 2000). The 2000 USEPA study concludes that pipes “above, but in close proximity to the ground water” are most susceptible (USEPA, 2000. p. 25)—a condition that likely describes many areas within the Central Coast Region. These facts, and the above WDR, suggests why the CCWQCB and its staff should be at least as concerned about discharges from centralized gravity systems as discharges from onsite and decentralized systems. The WDR, in fact, raises the question of whether conventional gravity systems should even be considered for sensitive and impaired groundwater areas—since they are proven to leak significantly more than sealed systems (i.e., STEP/STEG, low pressure, or vacuum) and cause harmful releases of raw sewage into the environment.

Finally, high levels of I/I entering conventional gravity systems reduce natural ground water recharge by siphoning off rain water that would otherwise percolate to ground water (Asano, et al, 2006; Pinkham, et al, 2004; Nelson, 1998).

Summary of why the proposed changes work against sustainable development

The net effect of the proposed changes will be to discourage onsite and decentralized systems, onsite recycling, and possibly STEP/STEG systems, pushing the Region toward large-scale, energy- and cost-intensive water/wastewater options, such as centralized gravity collection systems and water-import pipelines—despite growing evidence these options are unsustainable.

Global warming is likely to reduce the availability of state water in the future, and many communities in California are now facing extremely costly upgrades of their conventional gravity sewers to stop the pollution of local ecosystems and water supplies resulting from system failures and overflows. Experts agree that onsite and STEP/STEG systems can significantly reduce the costs, energy use, and environmental damage of wastewater treatment and disposal.

At a time when it is incumbent upon your Board to find ways to encourage sustainable solutions, I ask that you don’t take the Region in the other direction.

The proposed Basin Plan changes—and the Basin Plan in general—reflect water policies and priorities that seem to be out-of-date. They narrowly focused on federal zero discharge goals, without adequate consideration of water scarcity, resource-effectiveness, or the social and economic impacts of high-dollar water/wastewater projects, no longer funded with federal dollars. Too narrow a focus on discharge goals, in fact, can lead to greater water scarcity and dependence on threatened state water by focusing too much on expensive centralized treatment and not enough on replenishment of the Region’s aquifers.

The CCWQCB can lead this Region into a 21st Century with ample, clean water for the people and businesses of the Region, but it will take forward-thinking plans and goals, which emphasize long-term, whole-systems thinking and a sustainable development approach. State-of-the-art, fair-minded standards and policies will inspire cooperation among residents and agencies, allowing Regional Board to achieve and exceed its goals.

Works Cited

Asano, Takshi, et al. Water Reuse: Issues, Technologies, and Applications. New York: McGraw Hill, 2006

California Wastewater Training and Research Center. Status Report: Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in California. California State University, Chico. June 2003 http://csuchico.edu/cwtrc/PDFFILES/updates/statusreportdraft.pdf

——— National Decentralized Water Resources Capacity Development Project: Onsite Sewage Treatment in California and the Progression Toward Statewide Standards. California State University, Chico. June 2004 http://www.ndwrcdp.org/userfiles/ACFoc1vrb.pdf

Carollo Engineers. Viable Project Alternatives: Fine Screening Analysis. San Luis Obispo County Wastewater Project. August 2007.

______ Technical Memorandum: Flow and Loads. San Luis Obispo County Wastewater Project. February 2008.

Crites, R., G. Tchobanoglous. Small and Decentralized Wastewater Management Systems. Boston: Mc Graw Hill, 1998.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Voluntary National Guidelines for Management of Onsite and clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems. EPA 832-B-03-001. Office of Research and Development. March 2003.

———Report to Congress on Impacts and Control of Combined Sewer Overflows and Sanitary Sewer Overflows: Fact Sheet. August 2004 http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/csosso_rtc_factsheet.pdf

——— Background and Use of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems. EPA 600/R-00/008. April 2008 http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/625r00008/html/600R00008chapt1.htm

———Amick, Robert S.,P.E. and Edward H. Burgess. Exfiltration in Sewer Systems. EPA 600/R01/034. December 2000.

National Water Research Institute (NWRI). Final Report of the Independent Advisory Panel on Reviewing the Los Osos Wastewater management Plan Update. 4 December 2006

Nelson, Valerie I. Accountability: Issues of compliance with Decentralized Wastewater Management Goals. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management. August 1998. http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/wastewater/account.pdf

PCL Insider: News from the Capitol. The Planning and Conservation League. March 2008

Pinkham, et al., Valuing Decentralized Wastewater Technologies: A Catalog of Benefits, Costs, and Economic Analysis Techniques. Snowmass: Rocky Mountain Institute for the USEPA, 2004 http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Water/w04-21_ValuWstWtr.pdf

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Chapter 7 “Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS) (Draft of a statewide AB 885 ordinance). March 13, 2007. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ab885

52 comments:

Watershed Mark said...

KUDOS to you Mr. Wimer!
You are a "stand up" citizen and you are spot on.

I would love to be on your team because you sure can throw.
Three darts...Double Bull's-Eye all.

A few more like you and we shall have better government.

Mike Green said...

Central Coast Water Board
895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

RE: Response to Basin Plan Revisions

Honorable Board Members:

It has come to our attention that the Water Gods wish to increase their influence and thereby their homage from the peasants of all the lands of Californicate.

We, the humble members of the Los Osos Branch of Cargo Cult ( members in the thousands, or at least tenths of hundreds), applaud you!
As you already know, we in the Holy Center of Prohibited Zones have paid and have promised much of our treasure to your will and bidding!
Hear Our Plea!
Subjugate the Masses so that they ALL bear the burden of your omnipresence !
When All of the peasants of Caif. bear witness to your omnipotence and wisdom we shall be set free of the pollution of usury! Indeed, by our own measuring we shall surly imbibe the nitrated swill of redemption knowing that no sin occurred because we paid the immaculate fine! Just like the Men's colony.
Punish ALL the sinners!!

Gonna spend my check on local wine!

Watershed Mark said...

OK GREEN, Your in! Very good!

When it is known how much raw sewage actually spilled in the ocean this past winter due to leaky sewerage overwhelming the treatmen facilties, those on record wanting to lay pipe in the zone could be publically and politically punished in one way or another.

Vote yes! He cried for his supper...Inside joke.
I posted the piece that contained this line on Ann's land awhile back...The laughter generated from this line literally brings tears to my eyes, everytime.

Watershed Mark said...

This just in:

It is our counsel's opinion that QCB3 is involved in the most ridiculous application of law he has seen or heard of.

Add BADCT technology and a few good men and it is: GAME ON.

God Bless America

Watershed Mark said...

Let's get that treatment plant data:

ARTICLE 5. ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF
REPORTS
§ 13195. Definitions
For purposes of this article, the following terms have the
following meanings:
(a) “Public domain” means a format that may be
duplicated, distributed, and used without payment of a
royalty or license fee.
(b) “Report” means any document or item that is required
for submission in order for a person to comply with a
regulation, directive, or order issued by the state board, a
regional board, or a local agency pursuant to a program
administered by the state board, including, but not limited
to, any analysis of material by a laboratory that has
accreditation or certification pursuant to Article 3
(commencing with Section 100825) of Chapter 4 of Part 1
of Division 101 of the Health and Safety Code.
§ 13196. Electronic format
(a) The state board may require a person submitting a
report to the state board, a regional board, or a local
agency to submit the report in electronic format. The state
board may also require that any report submitted in
electronic format include the latitude and longitude,
accurate to within one meter, of the location where any
sample analyzed in the report was collected.
(b) The state board shall adopt a single, standard format
for the electronic submission of analytical and
environmental compliance data contained in reports. In
adopting a standard format, the state board shall only
consider formats that meet all of the following criteria:
(1) Are available free of charge.
(2) Are available in the public domain.
(3) Have available public domain means to import,
manipulate, and store data.
(4) Allow the importation of data into tables indicating
relational distances.
(5) Allow the verification of data submission
consistency.
(6) Allow for inclusion of all of the following
information:
(A) The physical site address from which the sample was
taken, along with any information already required for
permitting and reporting unauthorized releases.
(B) Environmental assessment data taken during the
initial site investigation phase, as well as the continuing
monitoring and evaluation phases.
PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT (CAL. WATER CODE, DIVISION 7) EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2008
Rev. 12-18-2007 - 15 -
(C) The latitude and longitude, accurate to within one
meter, of the location where any sample was collected.
(D) A description of all tests performed on the sample,
the results of that testing, any quality assurance and
quality control information, any available narrative
information regarding the collection of the sample, and
any available information concerning the laboratory’s
analysis of the sample.
(7) Fulfill any additional criteria the state board
determines appropriate for an effective electronic report
submission program.

Watershed Mark said...

"discharge"
Federal Water Pollution Conrol Act is also known as Clean Water Act.
We Love it!
§ 13373. Definitions

The terms “navigable waters,” “administrator,” “pollutants,” “biological monitoring,” “discharge” and “point sources” as used in this chapter shall have the same meaning as in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto.

Shark Inlet said...

The problem, Mark, is that it is you who are saying your device doesn't discharge. Presumably this means your device produces pure water and this is not the case according to your earlier claims that the nitrates are lower than the TriW nitrates.

Who gets to say what level of nitrates count as a discharge and what don't?

Um .... isn't that the water board?

They gave the LOCSD a permit to discharge as long as the nitrates in the discharge didn't go over 7. This doesn't, de facto, define less than 7 as a non-discharge. Any nitrates in the output of your device or a treatment plant could be considered a disharge. The question is when a discharge is permitted.

The RWQCB permits discharges which are monitored to see if they are within an allowed range.

Were you going to be testing the nitrates every day from every Reclamator? A random sample every month? Were you going to test the output from any of them? How would you determine whether a particular reclamator would need to be serviced? How would you be reporting nitrate overages to the RWQCB?

I don't believe these questions have been answered yet.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

I don't think a six month testing period even daily on ONE device is going to convince many, mark.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Tell us about your projects in Arizona mark. That is where you came from isn't it? Don't you have something going there?

Mike Green said...

Mark, I don't give a hoot whether your contraption works or not.
I just want to see a letter from the CRWQCB telling you that your Notice of Violation has been rescinded because of the installation of your gizmo.

Plain and simple.

Come on! time is a wastin!

In the mean time, I think I'll go holler down a well or something, maybe I'll go teach a class in sarcasm at Cuesta.
Jon, just got back from a scouting trip to Mexico prices way up, hows things in Panama?

Unknown said...

OH NO!!!

Apparently the gizmo is spawning another directly related "service" for the use of the "non" discharge, clean water. Guess Mark is developing a fall back strategy in case the LOCSD doesn't pay him for the clean discharge dripping out the end of the wrecklamator. What's next? Bottled "Spring" water?

http://www.runyourcarwithwater.com/

Watershed Mark said...

If the Harvest Water produced by the RECLAMATOR has less nitrates than what is delivered to your home for your consupmtion would it be a "discharge"?

MG: We are working on it...

Watershed Mark said...

Let's get those government treatment facilty test results.

Watershed Mark said...

Anything less than the "effluent limit" is not a discharge of waste.

Watershed Mark said...

Shark:
Here you are today carping (think red herring here) about wanting to know how a RECLAMATOR works after you were offered the oppourtunity to speak with the invenor during a personal tour of the device, yesterday.
What is wrong with this picture?

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,


You're being a dick. While this may be a common trait in those who do sales, it is not an attractive quality and folks tend to not buy
from people who insult prospective clients. Hell, at this point in time, I'm willing to pay more every month forever just to avoid giving you any money at all because you've been such an *ss here. If you change your ways and start to be more polite and if you offer us a real solution, I may change my mind, but you've gotten off on the wrong foot, my friend.


Now, to the issue you raise. I am not saying that I want to know how the device works but whether it would work for Los Osos. I would think that someone reading carefully would have figured that out by now.

A tour announced at the last minute that conflicts with my schedule doesn't give you the right to say that I am being unreasonable. (And if you don't believe me, you have 15 minutes to stop by my office and read the piece of paper that proves this and if you don't, I'll tell others that you didn't avail yourself of the opportunity to see the proof.)

Perhaps if you were to present data that shows your devices work over multiple years my curiosity would be satisfied.


As to your earlier comment about anything less than the "effluent limit" not being a discharge ... what is the effluent limit for the PZ? Unless there is a defined nitrate limit for the PZ, your claim that you don't discharge is clearly open to interpretation. The RWQCB does offer permits with specific effluent limits (which vary). What did they approve as an effluent limit for reclamators?

Watershed Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Watershed Mark said...

A “discharge” is “a discharge of waste” or “a discharge of a pollutant”. NOTE: The term “discharge” when used without qualification within the wastewater industry means “discharge of a pollutant” or “discharge of pollutants” unless otherwise qualified such as for example: “discharge of water” or “discharge of harvest water” or “discharge of reclamate”.



The Water Board ONLY has authority over “wastewater discharges, i.e. discharges of waste/pollutants”. Once a constituent is demonstrated to be less than the determined “Effluent Limit” in regard to such constituent, the Water Board no longer have any authority over such “discharge of water”.



What is the Effluent Limit for the LO PZ?

7 mg/l Nitrogen (which means Total Nitrogen) for “subsurface” reuse.
2.2 fecal coliform / hundred milliliters for “surface” or “direct” reuse.


What determines a “discharge”? Answer: A level of a constituent having an established “Effluent Limit” exceeding such established Effluent Limit is a “discharge”, i.e. in the LO PZ 9 mg/l is a “discharge” (not suitable for a beneficial reuse application) and 6 mg/l isn’t a “discharge” (suitable for a beneficial reuse applicaton). Any “regulator” who argues otherwise is ignorant of the law and their (“Effluent”) limit of their authority.



Water quality of less than 7 mg/l TN is “harvest water” (not a discharge) suitable for “subsurface beneficial reuse” applications.

Indirect potable reuse (USEPA term for a beneficial reuse application)
Surface irrigation (a beneficial reuse application)

Water quality of less than 2.2 fecal coliform (Title 22) is “reclamate” (not a discharge) suitable for “surface beneficial reuse” applications.

Toilet flushing
Irrigation
Car washing
Clothes washing
Showers
NOT INTENDED FOR DRINKING

Conclusion: The RECLAMATOR complies with the LO PZ established Effluent Limits.

The RECLAMATOR has been demonstrated (by a Nationally/Internationally recognized third party testing laboratory) to achieve TN of 4 mg/l (average). This is well below the LO PZ established Effluent Limit of 7 mg/l TN (average). The Water Board (and all other state environmental protection authorities):

Must stop allowing “discharge permits” being issued (has been required since 12/27/77) allowing any lesser or inferior technology (not equal) to discharge toxic pollutants into state waters
Based upon this “demonstrated” control possibility of the RECLAMATOR is obligated to “require and to assist” in the application of it as the best available demonstrated control technology (BADCT)
Has no authority over the RECLAMATOR’s discharge of water as it achieves a “non-enforceable public health standard”
Must expediently promulgate its availability and its required application within the LO PZ AND throughout their jurisdiction per their fiduciary duty under law
Must promulgate the new national standard of performance to be specified by brand name (RECLAMATOR) or equal, based upon its demonstrated performance, to serve each and every pollution abatement application within their jurisdiction
Must require all point source discharges within their jurisdiction, as expediently as practicable, comply with the new national standard of performance upon any failure, change of ownership or new source establishment having a sewer pipe coming from such new source
Is subject to criminal violation under federal law for “knowingly” refusing to administer under their fiduciary duty in the interest of public health, to eliminate the discharge of toxic source pollutants into the drinking water aquifers of California (nation).

Note: Federal statutes to support each statement is available upon request.

Watershed Mark said...

Just a basis for understanding: The term "effluent" means "waste". So an
"Effluent Limit" is in actuality a "Waste Limit".



This means a "limit" to the amount of "waste" one is allowed to "discharge"
(or one is allowed to "permit" to be discharged). For 30 years, the federal
Effluent Limit has been the "standard of performance" as defined in USC Sec.
1316, were practicable, a standard that eliminates the discharge of
pollutants, i.e. a standard which achieves an Effluent Limit which had been
determined not to be a threat to public health, i.e.
non-polluting/non-enforceable. Such Effluent Limit is established in the
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLG) set for drinking water.



The USC requires the regulatory authorities to "require and to assist" the
"best available demonstrated control technology" which will "provide for the
maximum degree of effluent (waste) reduction" AND achieve a "standard of
eliminating the discharge of pollutants", i.e. complying with "Effluent
Limits" by achieving a quality of water LESS than the established "Effluent
Limits" (not eliminate constituents in their entirety as would be
impossible).



As I said, the USC requirements for this has been violated now for over 30
years, coming from US EPA Headquarters so as to maintain the "water
associated government water control and revenue generating" with total
disregard for their duty under federal law, to administer USC Title 33
Chapter 26.



This blatant act of knowing extortion that has been supported by all state
and federal environmental protection regulatory authorities commissioned to
administer the "supremacy" federal water law to prevent and/or eliminate
allowing of discharges "where practicable" now for over 30 years, has now
resulted in daily discharges of toxic source poison, nitrosamines, into our
nation's drinking water supplies:



State of California (1,000,000 systems) Pounds of Nitrosamine
Poison Discharged/Day (0.1 lb/DUE/day)

* Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (not BADCT) = 100,000
LBS/DAY



Nationally (26,000,000 systems)

* Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (not BADCT) =
2,600,000 LBS/DAY



Centralized Wastewater Systems (publicly owned treatment works)
= 7,500,000 LBS/DAY



National Total for Nitrosamine Source Toxic Pollutant Discharges =
>10,000,000 LBS/DAY



They are killing us...poisoning our drinking water!

*PG-13 said...

Sewertoons said > Tell us about your projects in Arizona mark... Don't you have something going there?

How ShedHead can post so much and give so few answers is a mystery to me. So I did a little research and I think I may have found your answer. The Arizona Reclamator probably makes the list of Arizona Urban Legends documented here.

Hey Mark, its all in good fun. If we can't cry we best learn to laugh. And this sewer saga - especially with the addition of The Reclamator - warrants lots of both.

Watershed Mark said...

Toons,
Arizona was the last to become a State in the continental United States.
A few years back the State Legislature passed a billmaking helmets mandatory for motorcycle riders.
Given the strength of citizenship the bill was ammended to make helmets mandatory from those less than 18 years of age.
When I located here in 1990 open containers were allowed in vehicles, although the driver had better not have anything on their breath.
Unfortunately, after the Rodney King riots there began a "Californication" of Arizona, so some of the wild west character has been lost. Anyone can still carry a loaded weapon openly displayed and as long as one isan upstanding citizen they can after 16 hours of training carry a concealed weapon.
This law was passed after the Rodney King riots as there were a growing "punk" problem which resolved itself after a few little old ladies and a few young ladies preventedwhat would have been a tradgedy had they not been armed and therefore equally dangerous.

I have several women friends who hate guns but are now able to place their had into their purse and have averted "punks" from attempting to harass them, or worse. They hate guns but use the possibilty of them to be safe, so cute.:)

Setting a "precedent" is important for personal saftey and freedom.

Thanks for the link, it was fun!

Watershed Mark said...

Under your skin too 13?:)
Stick with the pipe if it gets built it will need paying customers to pay for the resource of value coming from our customers overflow...

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

No need for the history lesson here mark, just answer the question - do you or did you have a project in Arizona?

Watershed Mark said...

Why so sour tunes?

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Why no answer mark?

Watershed Mark said...

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

I'm not really trying that hard to get a different answer. Just pointing up to those who may have come in late how you answer questions.

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

Besides the obvious question "why are you not answering Toons' question", a few things come to mind...

First ... thanks for providing detailed explanations for your claim that your device does not discharge. While a real court may not agree with your conclusion, I appreciate your willingness to provide your reasoning.

Just to be clear, where does one find the definition of harvest water (i.e. non discharge) corresponding to nitrates less than 7?

Watershed Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Watershed Mark said...

"We love it", so we use it in our discussion and here: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/sc/W11b-8-2004.pdf

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

The Coastal Commission approval of TriW doesn't really seem to be the place where one would find a definition of "discharge" being more than 7 for nitrates.

Are you telling us that this document
In a quick re-read of the document, I didn't find the definition you suggest is found here.

What page should I look on?

Oh ... did you release the entire NSF report to the public yet?

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

Could you also clarify that your reference to the TriW CDP was intended to answer the question about where one would find a definition of the nitrate level which determines whether one is discharging or not?

The reason I ask is that otherwise your citation of this document wouldn't seem to make any sense in the context of this discussion.

I also ask because if this CCC document doesn't really offer us a definition as you suggest, it is clear that you misunderstand the document, that you misunderstood the question or that you are trying to snow us.

So then ... why did you give us this reference?

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

We are waiting for that answer mark.

Unknown said...

Mis-direction is the snakeoil salesman's answer to any question which asks for a scientific, mathematical or engineered proof.

Ain't ever gonna get proof from the fertilizer/wrecklamator salesman.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

You are right Mike. I just like collecting the written words that he/they will not answer the questions put to him/them, which will undermine the undermining he/they is/are trying to do to Los Osos.

Watershed Mark said...

We made this distinction as the only published distinction for reuse water was “Recycled water” which is virtually septic effluent in the State of California. There needed to be additional distinctions made between the qualities of these reuse waters so we, AES, from studies and experience as “specialists” in this area with interests, developed the following levels:



Recycled water (a valuable resource) is reusable water having nitrates >10 mg/l and FCR >2.2. It qualifies for minimal beneficial surface (MBS) reuse applications with no public access allowed.


Harvest water (a more valuable resource) is reusable water having nitrates <10 mg/l (<7 mg/l in LO PZ) and FCR >2.2. It qualifies for full beneficial subsurface (FBS) reuse applications for subsurface irrigation and indirect potable water reuse.


Reclamate (the most valuable resource) is reusable water having nitrates <7 mg/l and FCR <2.2. It qualifies for full beneficial reuse (FBR) applications for all beneficial reuse applications with the exception of drinking.


The RECLAMATOR “BESTEP 10” produces the FBS level, “harvest water”.

The RECLAMATOR “BESTEP UF-900” produces the FBR level, “reclamate”.

Watershed Mark said...

Shark:

A little more rhetoric to help, as you said, "shape the debate":

The RECLAMATOR (B)(B=below ground reuse) “BESTEP 10” produces the FBS level, “harvest water”.
The RECLAMATOR (A)(A =above ground reuse) “BESTEP UF-900” produces the FBR level, “Reclamate”.

&

Is SLO CO consulting engineer's continued study of leaky sewerage which does not contain a pretreatment component and failure prone treatment facility a fraud or boondoggle?

Boondoggle, in the sense of a term for a project that wastes time and money, first appeared during the Great Depression in the 1930s, referring to the millions of jobs given to unemployed men and women to try to get the economy moving again, as part of the New Deal. It came into common usage after a 1935 New York Times headline claimed that over $3 million had been spent teaching the jobless how to make boon doggles.[1]

More recently, the term boondoggle has come to refer to a government or corporate project involving large numbers of people and usually, heavy expenditure, where at some point the key operators have realized that the project is never going to work, but are reluctant to bring this to the attention of their superiors. Generally there is an aspect of "going through the motions"—for example, continuing research and development—as long as funds are available to keep paying the researchers' and executives' salaries. The situation can be allowed to continue for what seem like unreasonably long periods, as senior management are often reluctant to admit that they allowed a failed project to go on for so long. In many cases, the actual device itself may eventually work, but not well enough to ever recoup its development costs.

A distinguishing aspect of a boondoggle, as opposed to a project that simply fails, is the eventual realization by its operators that it is never going to work, long before it is finally shut down. This is not the same thing as fraud, in which the proponents know in advance that their idea has no merit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boondoggle_%28pr.....oject%29


Fraud... In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and is also a civil law violation. Many hoaxes are fraudulent, although those not made for personal gain are not technically frauds. Defrauding people of money is presumably the most common type of fraud, but there have also been many fraudulent "discoveries" in art, archaeology, and science.

In criminal law, fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them – usually, to obtain property or services unjustly. [1] Fraud can be accomplished through the aid of forged objects. In the criminal law of common law jurisdictions it may be called "theft by deception," "larceny by trick," "larceny by fraud and deception" or something similar.

Marriage Fraud can take several forms and is the act of entering a marriage for personal gain rather than a genuine desire to enter into a sincere marital relationship. Marriage Fraud is usually associated with obtaining immigration benefits. In the United States, marriage fraud for immigration purposes is punishable under INA §204(c)(1) and the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986. Possible criminal penalties include $250,000 and 5 years in prison as well as deportation and a permanent bar against receiving future immigration status. Marriage Fraud can be either unilateral or bilateral Unity and Immigration Policy in the United States. In a unilateral marriage fraud, only one party is aware of the fraud and the fraud is against both the immigration service as well as the other party. The innocent party may file a lawsuit and/or annulment of the marriage. In a bilateral fraud, both parties are aware of it and both parties are subject to criminal penalties.

In academia and science, fraud can refer to academic fraud – the falsifying of research findings which is a form of scientific misconduct – and in common use intellectual fraud signifies falsification of a position taken or implied by an author or speaker, within a book, controversy or debate, or an idea deceptively presented to hide known logical weaknesses. Journalistic fraud implies a similar notion, the falsification of journalistic findings.

Fraud can be committed through many methods, including mail, wire, phone, and the internet (computer crime and internet fraud).

Acts which may constitute criminal fraud include:

Marriage Fraud to obtain immigration benefits INA §204(c)(1),
bait and switch
confidence tricks such as the 419 fraud, Spanish Prisoner, and the shell game
false advertising
identity theft
false billing
forgery of documents or signatures
taking money which is under your control, but not yours (embezzlement)
health fraud, selling of products of spurious use, such as quack medicines
creation of false companies or "long firms"
false insurance claims
bankruptcy fraud, is a US federal crime that can lead to criminal prosecution under the charge of theft of the goods or services
investment frauds, such as Ponzi schemes
securities frauds such as pump and dump
Fraud, in addition to being a criminal act, is also a type of civil law violation known as a tort. A tort is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. A civil fraud typically involves the act of intentionally making a false representation of a material fact, with the intent to deceive, which is reasonably relied upon by another person to that person's detriment. A "false representation" can take many forms, such as:

A false statement of fact, known to be false at the time it was made;
A statement of fact with no reasonable basis to make that statement;
A promise of future performance made with an intent, at the time the promise was made, not to perform as promised;
A statement of opinion based on a false statement of fact;
A statement of opinion that the maker knows to be false; or
An expression of opinion that is false, made by one claiming or implying to have special knowledge of the subject matter of the opinion. "Special knowledge" in this case means knowledge or information superior to that possessed by the other party, and to which the other party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

Watershed Mark said...

----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Cc: tom@nowastewater.com
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 9:11 AM


Thank you for speaking with us this morning. Cornell law school puts the
USC 33/26 on the internet. I put 1316 (a) and 1317 (c) below, with the
entire code of that part for your edification. I do appreciate what you
spoke about. Please understand that if pre-treatment is less costly and
provides the same water treatment as a municipal plant, the citizens of the
United States are benefitted. In essence, that is the heart of the law.
Patrick Sparks, Esq.

§ 1316. National standards of performance
How Current is This? (a) Definitions
For purposes of this section:
(1) The term “standard of performance” means a standard for the control of
the discharge of pollutants which reflect the greatest degree of effluent
reduction which the Administrator determines to be achievable through
application of the best available demonstrated control technology,
processes, operating methods, or other alternatives, including, where
practicable, a standard permitting no discharge of pollutants.
(2) The term “new source” means any source, the construction of which is
commenced after the publication of proposed regulations prescribing a
standard of performance under this section which will be applicable to such
source, if such standard is thereafter promulgated in accordance with this
section.
(3) The term “source” means any building, structure, facility, or
installation from which there is or may be the discharge of pollutants.
(4) The term “owner or operator” means any person who owns, leases,
operates, controls, or supervises a source.
(5) The term “construction” means any placement, assembly, or installation
of facilities or equipment (including contractual obligations to purchase
such facilities or equipment) at the premises where such equipment will be
used, including preparation work at such premises.
(b) Categories of sources; Federal standards of performance for new sources
(1)
(A) The Administrator shall, within ninety days after October 18, 1972,
publish (and from time to time thereafter shall revise) a list of categories
of sources, which shall, at the minimum, include:
pulp and paper mills;
paperboard, builders paper and board mills;
meat product and rendering processing;
dairy product processing;
grain mills;
canned and preserved fruits and vegetables processing;
canned and preserved seafood processing;
sugar processing;
textile mills;
cement manufacturing;
feedlots;
electroplating;
organic chemicals manufacturing;
inorganic chemicals manufacturing;
plastic and synthetic materials manufacturing;
soap and detergent manufacturing;
fertilizer manufacturing;
petroleum refining;
iron and steel manufacturing;
nonferrous metals manufacturing;
phosphate manufacturing;
steam electric powerplants;
ferroalloy manufacturing;
leather tanning and finishing;
glass and asbestos manufacturing;
rubber processing; and
timber products processing.
(B) As soon as practicable, but in no case more than one year, after a
category of sources is included in a list under subparagraph (A) of this
paragraph, the Administrator shall propose and publish regulations
establishing Federal standards of performance for new sources within such
category. The Administrator shall afford interested persons an opportunity
for written comment on such proposed regulations. After considering such
comments, he shall promulgate, within one hundred and twenty days after
publication of such proposed regulations, such standards with such
adjustments as he deems appropriate. The Administrator shall, from time to
time, as technology and alternatives change, revise such standards following
the procedure required by this subsection for promulgation of such
standards. Standards of performance, or revisions thereof, shall become
effective upon promulgation. In establishing or revising Federal standards
of performance for new sources under this section, the Administrator shall
take into consideration the cost of achieving such effluent reduction, and
any non-water quality, environmental impact and energy requirements.
(2) The Administrator may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within
categories of new sources for the purpose of establishing such standards and
shall consider the type of process employed (including whether batch or
continuous).
(3) The provisions of this section shall apply to any new source owned or
operated by the United States.
(c) State enforcement of standards of performance
Each State may develop and submit to the Administrator a procedure under
State law for applying and enforcing standards of performance for new
sources located in such State. If the Administrator finds that the procedure
and the law of any State require the application and enforcement of
standards of performance to at least the same extent as required by this
section, such State is authorized to apply and enforce such standards of
performance (except with respect to new sources owned or operated by the
United States).
(d) Protection from more stringent standards
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any point source the
construction of which is commenced after October 18, 1972, and which is so
constructed as to meet all applicable standards of performance shall not be
subject to any more stringent standard of performance during a ten-year
period beginning on the date of completion of such construction or during
the period of depreciation or amortization of such facility for the purposes
of section 167 or 169 (or both) of title 26 whichever period ends first.
(e) Illegality of operation of new sources in violation of applicable
standards of performance
After the effective date of standards of performance promulgated under this
section, it shall be unlawful for any owner or operator of any new source to
operate such source in violation of any standard of performance applicable
to such source.

§ 1317. Toxic and pretreatment effluent standards
How Current is This? (a) Toxic pollutant list; revision; hearing;
promulgation of standards; effective date; consultation
(1) On and after December 27, 1977, the list of toxic pollutants or
combination of pollutants subject to this chapter shall consist of those
toxic pollutants listed in table 1 of Committee Print Numbered 95–30 of the
Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of
Representatives, and the Administrator shall publish, not later than the
thirtieth day after December 27, 1977, that list. From time to time
thereafter, the Administrator may revise such list and the Administrator is
authorized to add to or remove from such list any pollutant. The
Administrator in publishing any revised list, including the addition or
removal of any pollutant from such list, shall take into account toxicity of
the pollutant, its persistence, degradability, the usual or potential
presence of the affected organisms in any waters, the importance of the
affected organisms, and the nature and extent of the effect of the toxic
pollutant on such organisms. A determination of the Administrator under this
paragraph shall be final except that if, on judicial review, such
determination was based on arbitrary and capricious action of the
Administrator, the Administrator shall make a redetermination.
(2) Each toxic pollutant listed in accordance with paragraph (1) of this
subsection shall be subject to effluent limitations resulting from the
application of the best available technology economically achievable for the
applicable category or class of point sources established in accordance with
sections 1311 (b)(2)(A) and 1314 (b)(2) of this title. The Administrator, in
his discretion, may publish in the Federal Register a proposed effluent
standard (which may include a prohibition) establishing requirements for a
toxic pollutant which, if an effluent limitation is applicable to a class or
category of point sources, shall be applicable to such category or class
only if such standard imposes more stringent requirements. Such published
effluent standard (or prohibition) shall take into account the toxicity of
the pollutant, its persistence, degradability, the usual or potential
presence of the affected organisms in any waters, the importance of the
affected organisms and the nature and extent of the effect of the toxic
pollutant on such organisms, and the extent to which effective control is
being or may be achieved under other regulatory authority. The Administrator
shall allow a period of not less than sixty days following publication of
any such proposed effluent standard (or prohibition) for written comment by
interested persons on such proposed standard. In addition, if within thirty
days of publication of any such proposed effluent standard (or prohibition)
any interested person so requests, the Administrator shall hold a public
hearing in connection therewith. Such a public hearing shall provide an
opportunity for oral and written presentations, such cross-examination as
the Administrator determines is appropriate on disputed issues of material
fact, and the transcription of a verbatim record which shall be available to
the public. After consideration of such comments and any information and
material presented at any public hearing held on such proposed standard or
prohibition, the Administrator shall promulgate such standard (or
prohibition) with such modification as the Administrator finds are
justified. Such promulgation by the Administrator shall be made within two
hundred and seventy days after publication of proposed standard (or
prohibition). Such standard (or prohibition) shall be final except that if,
on judicial review, such standard was not based on substantial evidence, the
Administrator shall promulgate a revised standard. Effluent limitations
shall be established in accordance with sections 1311 (b)(2)(A) and 1314
(b)(2) of this title for every toxic pollutant referred to in table 1 of
Committee Print Numbered 95–30 of the Committee on Public Works and
Transportation of the House of Representatives as soon as practicable after
December 27, 1977, but no later than July 1, 1980. Such effluent limitations
or effluent standards (or prohibitions) shall be established for every other
toxic pollutant listed under paragraph (1) of this subsection as soon as
practicable after it is so listed.
(3) Each such effluent standard (or prohibition) shall be reviewed and, if
appropriate, revised at least every three years.
(4) Any effluent standard promulgated under this section shall be at that
level which the Administrator determines provides an ample margin of safety.
(5) When proposing or promulgating any effluent standard (or prohibition)
under this section, the Administrator shall designate the category or
categories of sources to which the effluent standard (or prohibition) shall
apply. Any disposal of dredged material may be included in such a category
of sources after consultation with the Secretary of the Army.
(6) Any effluent standard (or prohibition) established pursuant to this
section shall take effect on such date or dates as specified in the order
promulgating such standard, but in no case, more than one year from the date
of such promulgation. If the Administrator determines that compliance within
one year from the date of promulgation is technologically infeasible for a
category of sources, the Administrator may establish the effective date of
the effluent standard (or prohibition) for such category at the earliest
date upon which compliance can be feasibly attained by sources within such
category, but in no event more than three years after the date of such
promulgation.
(7) Prior to publishing any regulations pursuant to this section the
Administrator shall, to the maximum extent practicable within the time
provided, consult with appropriate advisory committees, States, independent
experts, and Federal departments and agencies.
(b) Pretreatment standards; hearing; promulgation; compliance period;
revision; application to State and local laws
(1) The Administrator shall, within one hundred and eighty days after
October 18, 1972, and from time to time thereafter, publish proposed
regulations establishing pretreatment standards for introduction of
pollutants into treatment works (as defined in section 1292 of this title)
which are publicly owned for those pollutants which are determined not to be
susceptible to treatment by such treatment works or which would interfere
with the operation of such treatment works. Not later than ninety days after
such publication, and after opportunity for public hearing, the
Administrator shall promulgate such pretreatment standards. Pretreatment
standards under this subsection shall specify a time for compliance not to
exceed three years from the date of promulgation and shall be established to
prevent the discharge of any pollutant through treatment works (as defined
in section 1292 of this title) which are publicly owned, which pollutant
interferes with, passes through, or otherwise is incompatible with such
works. If, in the case of any toxic pollutant under subsection (a) of this
section introduced by a source into a publicly owned treatment works, the
treatment by such works removes all or any part of such toxic pollutant and
the discharge from such works does not violate that effluent limitation or
standard which would be applicable to such toxic pollutant if it were
discharged by such source other than through a publicly owned treatment
works, and does not prevent sludge use or disposal by such works in
accordance with section 1345 of this title, then the pretreatment
requirements for the sources actually discharging such toxic pollutant into
such publicly owned treatment works may be revised by the owner or operator
of such works to reflect the removal of such toxic pollutant by such works.
(2) The Administrator shall, from time to time, as control technology,
processes, operating methods, or other alternatives change, revise such
standards following the procedure established by this subsection for
promulgation of such standards.
(3) When proposing or promulgating any pretreatment standard under this
section, the Administrator shall designate the category or categories of
sources to which such standard shall apply.
(4) Nothing in this subsection shall affect any pretreatment requirement
established by any State or local law not in conflict with any pretreatment
standard established under this subsection.
(c) New sources of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works
In order to insure that any source introducing pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works, which source would be a new source subject to section
1316 of this title if it were to discharge pollutants, will not cause a
violation of the effluent limitations established for any such treatment
works, the Administrator shall promulgate pretreatment standards for the
category of such sources simultaneously with the promulgation of standards
of performance under section 1316 of this title for the equivalent category
of new sources. Such pretreatment standards shall prevent the discharge of
any pollutant into such treatment works, which pollutant may interfere with,
pass through, or otherwise be incompatible with such works.
(d) Operation in violation of standards unlawful
After the effective date of any effluent standard or prohibition or
pretreatment standard promulgated under this section, it shall be unlawful
for any owner or operator of any source to operate any source in violation
of any such effluent standard or prohibition or pretreatment standard.
(e) Compliance date extension for innovative pretreatment systems
In the case of any existing facility that proposes to comply with the
pretreatment standards of subsection (b) of this section by applying an
innovative system that meets the requirements of section 1311 (k) of this
title, the owner or operator of the publicly owned treatment works receiving
the treated effluent from such facility may extend the date for compliance
with the applicable pretreatment standard established under this section for
a period not to exceed 2 years—
(1) if the Administrator determines that the innovative system has the
potential for industrywide application, and
(2) if the Administrator (or the State in consultation with the
Administrator, in any case in which the State has a pretreatment program
approved by the Administrator)—
(A) determines that the proposed extension will not cause the publicly owned
treatment works to be in violation of its permit under section 1342 of this
title or of section 1345 of this title or to contribute to such a violation,
and
(B) concurs with the proposed extension.

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

We missed it. In the stuff you've put online here in the last three days where is water defined as a discharge if the nitrates are above 7 but clean if it is below 7?

Watershed Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Watershed Mark said...

Shark: Have a look at the February 7, 2003 RWQCB Waste Discharge/Recycled Water Requirements Document, Order No. R3-2003-0007 Item 13 14 adoption of findings of mitigation page 5&6... Prepared for Richard/LOCSD and stored at the LOCSD and County Files.

Also recently referenced here:

Los Osos Wastewater Project Development

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

ONSITE TREATMENT

FINAL DRAFT

January 2008

2.1.3 Suspended Growth Treatment Systems

Suspended growth systems have the advantage over attached growth systems that they generally have a smaller footprint. Like attached growth systems, they can be purchased in the form of pre-manufactured kits. They are often in the form of a cylindrical tank, where aeration and settling take place, and have a footprint of 25 to 75 ft2. In general, suspended growth systems cannot meet effluent nitrogen limits of 7 mg/L, and would require a separate denitrification step. Some package systems have separate anoxic tanks, where denitrification takes place. However, compared to attached growth processes, energy and maintenance requirements are high, so they are not as popular as attached growth filters. Sludge removal is also a component of these systems, unlike for attached growth processes.

Unfortunately the above referenced January TM didn't include an actual review of the RECLAMATOR (big mistake)...

I am somewhat surprised you are not aware of "the limit" given your substantial interest in the "project". I could shoot you an electronic copy, if I had your address. Please don't offer any suggestions to make it available to you on line, just jump in or on your ride or walk on down to your local LOCSD...;-)

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

I'm not going to look that up now. If you could quote from the relevant section, I would appreciate it.

Again, until you trot out some unambiguous portion of state or federal water law which defines a discharge as corresponding to more than seven but less than seven as being clean.

My understanding of the document you refer to (and I am not going to look it up now and review them unless you can let me know where in the document to look), it does not define clean versus discharge but instead defines what would be an illegal discharge for the LOCSD. The RWQCB told the LOCSD that above 7 would result in a fine ... not that below was clean or pure.

Watershed Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Watershed Mark said...

Shark:
I'm interested in how the QCB3 justifies permitting a leaky polluting sewer in a PZ.
Any leakage would contain nitrate in excess of the 7 mg/l limit.
As a citizen I ask, how is that "permittable"?

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

As a citizen you should direct your question to the RWQCB.

Also ... you've not addressed the question. Think "red herring."

As a citizen, I don't want them to allow on site unless it is both effective and monitored ... or else we won't have any long-term improvement over our current situation once the onsite systems stop treating nitrogen so efficiently and the individuals who one those systems stop maintaining them so diligently.

Perhaps if you focus on proving your own system worthy of consideration your time would be better spent.

Watershed Mark said...

Show me the law...

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

Your "Show me the law..." reply is 100% off topic as a reply to all the issues I raised in my recent comment.

Either you know that (and you're deliberately trying to confuse the readers) or you don't (and you're incompetent to participate in this discussion).

Which is it?

Watershed Mark said...

You could be right.

The ideal man bears the accidents of life with dignity and grace, making the best of circumstances.
Aristotle

Watershed Mark said...

Or you could just show me the law which supports your positions.

I have...

Watershed Mark said...

Shark:
You'll be much better equipped for the discussion if and when you ever get to talk with someone you respect about biological process.

Comments like: once the onsite systems stop treating nitrogen so efficiently... illustrate my point.

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

Stop being so silly and pedantic.

You (should) know that depending on what goes down the drain and how often and how much each sort of input arrives, the balance of bacteria and the like will fluctuate and sometimes the denitrification will be less efficient and other times more so.

In your one NSF test you've revealed, things looked pretty good. What happens when real families really use the system in a normal way? Sometimes people dump a gallon of bleach down the toilet (god knows why ... but it happens). This will have a huge impact on your reclamator.

To pretend your machine is perfect and handles all inputs and all conditions all the time without any variability is just plain silly and shows that you're not being realistic.

I prefer when salesmen tell me the truth and explain the limitations of the device they are selling. Honesty is the best policy.

Now, perhaps you are telling me what you believe to be the truth. If that is the case, either you're misunderstanding what Tom is telling you or Tom is not telling you the truth. There is no system ever designed by humans which is as flawless as you are telling us the reclamator is.

Watershed Mark said...

The I.D.E.A. process design is very robust. If and when you come to understand process this will be evident.
Individualized treatment makes each user responsible for his own actions at the source, so any behaviour would be localized, dealt with and hopfully prevented in the future.