Calhouns Can(n)ons

Quick, Maudie, Git Them Goal Posts Moved, Agin,' Or,
Ah, Yes, But Who Sez The Numbers Mean Anything? I Can Set The Numbers At, Oh, Let Me Think, Ummm, How’s About ZERO?

From Tom Murphy of AES “Reclamator.” Boink. One tennis ball in Roger Briggs' yard. Now, let’s see those goal posts moved again, zip! Zoom! No, the meaning of Is is. Nuh-huh, it’s not, is so, is . . . ..



Mark,

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.
--end--



O.K. if The RWQCB has set a TN of 7 mg/l for the Los Osos PZ, and I presume the county plans for a community sewer the discharge of the treated wastewater (needed to reverse salt water intrusion and return the water to recharge the aquifer) is likely governed by that number, and IF the Reclamtor meets or gets under that number (and meets or gets under all the other numbers, coliform counts, BODs etc.) then the RWQCB had better hurry up and pass a new resolution moving the "discharge" number to ZERO, which will throw the County's community plan into a tizzy since they won't be able to "discharge" anything up on Broderson. Oh, dear. And if the RWQCB doesn't reset the TN of 7 then they'll have to 'splain why they'll be giving a discharge permit to the county to discharge TN 7 but won't give a discharge permit to the Reclamator if it discharges TN4.

Please 'splain, please. (email Posted with permission)