Pages

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Is It Close, But No Ceeegar?

Mark Low sent the following, with attachments and documents, to Paavo Ogren, as well as the Planning Commission and the Coastal Commission. He’s been asking for months why this vacuum system hasn’t been on the Sewer Table, even though he presented the info way back when. Well, maybe now we’ll get some answers from somebody? Or the vacuum system he's proposing may get another look-see? Or maybe not, if it’s all too late. As with all things Sewerish, stay tuned. The Planning Commission is still at work. The Coastal Commission has been checking in with letters commenting on what the PC is doing – little smoke signals indicating their possible leanings and concerns. So it all remains to be seen.

Greetings Gentlemen,

In response to October 27, 2008: Release of the Final Report from the NWRI Independent Peer Review Panel:


Treatment Technology
4.3.1 Options:
Biolac
Facultative Pond
Oxidation Ditch
Membrane Bioreactor (added by Panel)


Attached please see a generic proposal for a 1MGD ECOfluid USBF Membrane Bioreactor Title 22 Water Reclamation Facility.

A close review of our treatment technology will reveal many advantages over the other treatment technologies your study process included.
These advantages include, but are not limited to, reduced footprint, reduced energy consumption, no odor, reduced sludge production, reduced capital and O&M costs.

The cost range is $6,900,000.00 for a Micro Screen option and $7,400,000.00 for the Membrane option which includes 30% design, engineering and contingency. As Paavo Ogren stated in August 2007- If there is a technology that is significantly less expensive”, “then that technology becomes the new standard and all others fall away”. When these words become reality the citizens are well represented by their government.

The one factor that significantly contributes to operating simplicity and reduces operating and maintenance needs and costs, is the. Pumped once from the equalization tank into the bioreactors, the entire flow through the process (biology, filtration and UV disinfection) is by gravity. Gravity and hydraulic action are forces of nature and is energy which is free of charge.

Of course any size (GPD) facility for any strength influent can be designed upon request.

The attached Nitrogen Reduction Memorandum should be of particular interest to those interested in solving Nitrogen loading problems.

ECOfluid President, Karel Galland and I are available to discuss in detail this generic proposal and how a site specific proposal can be developed for your project.

We expect to see our technology included in your study review process, including the EIR study.

Time and money are precious, so we won’t waste any and know that you will want to give us your best consideration so we look forward to hearing from you soon.

Your prompt attention in this matter will be appreciated.

Kind regards,


Mark Low
602.740.7975 voice
480.464.0405 facsimile
http://us.mc1800.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Mark@NOwastewater.com
P.O. Box 1355 Mesa, Arizona 85211

14 comments:

Rick said...

What ever happened to that guy that said he had EPA-compliant septic tanks and other snake oil for sale? I haven't heard about him in a while.

Mike said...

...hmmmm... something seems a little curious in the posting of a letter without a date, but supposedly seeking some timely consideration....

"In response to October 27, 2008... (Today is July 23,2009)"... Attached please see a generic proposal" (Generic...??? After his years of "studying" the Los Osos problem of non-compliance with Clean Water Laws, he can only be Generic...???)

"...Of course any size (GPD) facility for any strength influent can be designed upon request." (Request...??? and at what price...???)

"...We expect to see our technology included in your study review process, including the EIR study." (Wow, they couldn't get their act together when the County first began requesting systems for review...???)

"Time and money are precious, so we won’t waste any and know that you will want to give us your best consideration so we look forward to hearing from you soon.

Your prompt attention in this matter will be appreciated." (They couldn't be bothered to prepare an honest proposal months ago, but now they all but demand the County drop their reviews of timely submittals and jump on another Wrecklamator type solution to save Los Osos... Maybe "PROMPT" has a different definition in Canada & Arizona... like waiting 9 months to prepare yet another "Generic" dog and pony show...!!!!)

There are reasons Mark Low is not high on the County's response list... When his latest course of direction stalls, what new "technology" will he trot out...?????

franc4 said...

Mike, you do-nothing but gossip and mock other peoples attempt at input, fool,
" When his latest course of direction stalls, what new "technology" will he trot out...?????"
...unlike you, at least he is capable of some sort of input an original thought! How are you helping ANY cause? All you do is stick to TRI-W, pine away for Julie and bitch about every one and idea...nothing new or original.

Mike said...

Hi Franki... how's the wife...??

Watershed Mark said...

FYI: Here is a copy of the cover letter posted by Ann:


From: Mark Low [mailto:Mark@NOwastewater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 9:35 AM
To: pogren@co.slo.ca.us; John Waddell; Mark Hutchinson; 'LOWWP@co.slo.ca.us'
Cc: BGibson@co.slo.ca.us; Karl Hadler; Lou Carella; Mark Low
Subject: ECOfluid's USBF 1 MGD Generic Plant Proposal-Membrane Bioreactor all gravity process flow
Importance: High

Greetings Gentlemen,

In response to October 27, 2008: Release of the Final Report from the NWRI Independent Peer Review Panel:


Treatment Technology
4.3.1 Options:
Biolac
Facultative Pond
Oxidation Ditch
Membrane Bioreactor (added by Panel)


Attached please see a generic proposal for a 1MGD ECOfluid USBF Membrane Bioreactor Title 22 Water Reclamation Facility.

A close review of our treatment technology will reveal many advantages over the other treatment technologies your study process included.
These advantages include, but are not limited to, reduced footprint, reduced energy consumption, no odor, reduced sludge production, reduced capital and O&M costs.

The cost range is $6,900,000.00 for a Micro Screen option and $7,400,000.00 for the Membrane option which includes 30% design, engineering and contingency. As Paavo Ogren stated in August 2007- If there is a technology that is significantly less expensive”, “then that technology becomes the new standard and all others fall away”. When these words become reality the citizens are well represented by their government.

The one factor that significantly contributes to operating simplicity and reduces operating and maintenance needs and costs, is the. Pumped once from the equalization tank into the bioreactors, the entire flow through the process (biology, filtration and UV disinfection) is by gravity. Gravity and hydraulic action are forces of nature and is energy which is free of charge.

Of course any size (GPD) facility for any strength influent can be designed upon request.

The attached Nitrogen Reduction Memorandum should be of particular interest to those interested in solving Nitrogen loading problems.

ECOfluid President, Karel Galland and I are available to discuss in detail this generic proposal and how a site specific proposal can be developed for your project.

We expect to see our technology included in your study review process, including the EIR study.

Time and money are precious, so we won’t waste any and know that you will want to give us your best consideration so we look forward to hearing from you soon.

Your prompt attention in this matter will be appreciated.

Kind regards,


Mark Low
602.740.7975 voice
480.464.0405 facsimile
Mark@NOwastewater.com
P.O. Box 1355 Mesa, Arizona 85211
Spero Meliora "I aspire to greater things"


Also FYI:




Environmentally Significant Technology
The following comments are in response to the Los Osos Wastewater Draft Environmental Impact Report and were sent to Mark Hutchinson, Environmental Projects Manager, San Luis Obispo County, Calif. via Facsimile 1/14/09 and FedEx overnight to arrive 1/15/09.


Per Paavo "If there is a technology that is significantly less expensive, then that technology becomes the new standard and all others fall away" Ogren's "request", "we" met with and presented our technology albeit briefly to his no bid/sole source consulting engineer in their offices on May 5, 2007.

If they were tasked to review alternatives and millions of dollars were paid to them why wasn't vacuum collection studied?
Why was STEP/STEG dismissed and intentionally excluded from consideration in favor of leaky bell and spigot gravity?

Mike said...

....Why is Ann finally getting around to posting a November 05, 2008 letter...???? Why would a legitimate company trying to sell a sewer system wait 8 months for a response from the County...??? Was the County's response not understood...???

Why can't Ann post an answer to why she hasn't paid her portion of the PZLDF lawsuit, but can post an 8 month old letter...????

Watershed Mark said...

MIKE,
I posted both letters on the internet the day I sent them, but as usual you missed the mark.

Mike said...

...it's beyond belief to think that a response from the County was not made in 9 months...

Ann and the salesman's repetitive posting of an old letter without also including the respons leads everyone to conclude that neither Ann nor the salesman could accept the County response... Just where is the response...??? If the letter was important enough to post 8 months latter, then the response should also be equally important don't ya think...???

This is subject is OLD news Ann... is Ron now doing your research from his past as usual...

Watershed Mark said...

Now you are beginning to "get it" MIKE, believe it...

Mike said...

...honestly suspect a response was made which neither Ann nor the salesman either recognize or accept... TBSS

Watershed Mark said...

Oops MIKE, you dropped the ball. You didn't "get it"...

GVD said...

Help from anyone..... was the county planning dept. this involved in the last go around with the mid town site ??. From what I remember, they hardly let out a whimper about the whole situation, Wan't Bruce on the PC at that time ?

Alon Perlman said...

GVD, If i understand you correctly... this is the second time the county had the project.
In the current situation the County is the applicant, the PC is the regulatory agency that reviews the application in their semi- Autonemous role, and the California Coastal Commission is the regulatory lead agency in this part of the process.
While some are concerned with the PC's "Direction", They (PC) are for the most part just complying with the CCC's direction.
Hope this helps...

Watershed Mark said...

As the County is the applicant how can it review complaints about its process without a conflict of interest?

Anyone seen Warren Jensen's treatment of Lisa's complaint yet?