Mark received information regarding ECOfluid during the EIR Scoping period in Decembber 2007, but none of it was discussed in the DEIR and the County's Consulting Engineer never followed up after their May 5th, 2007 meeting with "us".
We will continue our work to make known the USBF MBR Technology to those responsible for solving wastewater treatment issues, because using USBF MBR conserves energy and capital costs are greatly reduced, which eases the environmental and finacial footprint.
Smart choices are those based upon full and complete research and comparisons.
Fortunately the law appears to protect those choices.
Subject: Title 14 (b)&(c) & 15088.5 (a)
http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/guidelines/art7.html
15088. Evaluation of and Response to Comments
(a) The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The Lead Agency shall respond to comments received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments.
(b) The lead agency shall provide a written proposed response to a public agency on comments made by that public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying an environmental impact report.
(c) The written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, the major environmental issues raised when the Lead Agency's position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice.
(d) The response to comments may take the form of a revision to the draft EIR or may be a separate section in the final EIR. Where the response to comments makes important changes in the information contained in the text of the draft EIR, the Lead Agency should either:
(1) Revise the text in the body of the EIR, or
(2) Include marginal notes showing that the information is revised in the response to comments.
Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21092.5, 21104, and 21153, Public Resources Code; People v. County of Kern (1974) 39 Cal. App. 3d 830; Cleary v. County of Stanislaus (1981) 118 Cal. App. 3d 348.
15088.5. Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification
(a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term "information" can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement. "Significant new information" requiring recirculation include, for example, a disclosure showing that:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am particularly interested in how the use of MBR technology might reduce one or more of the project's environmental effects, as described in the DEIR.
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"
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Low [mailto:Mark@NOwastewater.com]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 3:54 PM
To: 'mhutchinson@co.slo.ca.us'
Subject: RE: Not all MBR's are the same
Beautiful!
Thank you for your assistance.
Better water quality for less energy and at less capital cost than Ox-Ditch because USBF is done all in one basin, using gravity instead of electricity to process water through the membrane.
When tertiary membrane treatment is implemented without electricity now it will eliminate any future EIR study/reporting and construction costs and impacts of the planned tertiary "upgrade".
I will work on my comments and questions and would still appreciate a few moments of your time in the weeks ahead to speak with Karel Galland and me.
May we schedule an appointment?
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"
-----Original Message-----
From: mhutchinson@co.slo.ca.us [mailto:mhutchinson@co.slo.ca.us]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 3:40 PM
To: Mark Low
Subject: Re: Not all MBR's are the same
Mark,
Most people who provide comments on draft EIRs use regular mail, but I
don't see any reason why you couldn't use certified mail. Please remember
that we should focus EIR comments on environmental impacts, and that we
should explain the basis for our comments using facts, reasonable
assumptions based on facts, and expert opinion based on facts (CEQA
Guidelines section 15200).
I am particularly interested in how the use of MBR technology might reduce
one or more of the project's environmental effects, as described in the
DEIR.
Mark Hutchinson
Environmental Programs Manager
Department of Public Works
"Mark Low"
12/12/2008 02:27 cc
PM
Subject
Not all MBR's are the same
Hello Mark,
From the DEIR http://www.lowwp-eir.net/lowwpeir/Los_Osos_DEIR.pdf :
"MBR is one of the most commonly implemented treatment process components
for communities the
size of Los Osos seeking high-quality effluent. MBR has a high energy
demand and high capital cost
for implementation. However, MBR has been included as a Level B alternative
in consideration of
the significant benefits offered by the small physical footprint and very
high-quality of the effluent
produced by MBR systems."
The statement from the DEIR is not correct: MBR has a high energy demand
and high capital cost
for implementation.
Will I need a certified return receipt when I submit my comments/questions
for the DEIR?
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"
-----Original Message-----
From: mhutchinson@co.slo.ca.us [mailto:mhutchinson@co.slo.ca.us]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 2:44 PM
To: Mark Low
Cc: pogren@co.slo.ca.us
Subject: Re: NWRI MBR Recommendation
Mark,
MBR is included in chapter 7 of the DEIR (Alternatives) as well as in
Appendix P-1 of the DEIR. Additional information is included in the Fine
Screening Report and of course in the 2001 EIR.
Mark Hutchinson
Environmental Programs Manager
Department of Public Works
"Mark Low"
"Mark Hutchinson"
12/12/2008 10:30
AM cc
Subject
NWRI MBR Recommendation
http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/AssetFactory.aspx?did=18272
Hi Mark,
I was able to access the report via the link I harvested previously below.
I see that someone is keeping the front page on the archive/news lean and
mean, which is why I didn’t see it and why I called you about it.
Is the county looking at the NWRI recommendation for Membrane Bioreactor?
If not, why not?
If so, how can I help?
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"
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"
(See attached file: ECOfluid 1MGD Generic Proposal.zip)(See attached
file: Custom Designs Municipal.zip)
No comments:
Post a Comment