SU0004324 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FAX NO. :2099315186 ig. 09 2003 04:03PM P4 rA � use perform an estimate of actual usage based on reality and not local outdated plumbing standards that will even come close to the design point of this system.This Is equivalent to 657,000 gallons/year,which is equal to 438,000 tollet flusheslyr= 1,200 toilet flushes/day. 3. Paragraph 4: a. Attached is analysis of process wastewater. The total Nitrogen is 10 mg1L which Is substantially more conservative than any number used in our analysis. In fact the total Nitrogen for our industrial waste is at the maximum allowable drinkable limit before it even enters our septic system for denitrification] b. As Is clearly demonstrated our facility is unable to substantially degrade wastewater because WE ARE PUTTING NOTHING IN THE SYSTEM EXCEPT FOR DOMESTIC WASTE+CLEAN RINSE/COOLING WATER+APPDXIMATELLY 3 CUP$OF SUGAR PER WEEKll11 C. I do not understand your statement of the Callifomia Business and Professions Code? i. Our report was prepared and stamped by a California registered engineer(See Attached). ii. I do not believe that you or Wendy Wyles are registered engineers. Are you l stating that as the Board staff you are unqualified, or legally prevented from interpreting the data we have presented to you? 4. Paragraph 5: Your statement that"SSF has not made a demonstration that degradation should be allowed for its discharge"should now be changed to"SSF has demonstrated that degradation CAN NOT occur because of Its discharge which Is what Schenone has been asserting for over two years." 5. Paragraph 8: With regards to your statement that SSF has not submitted any of the items requested In our May 30 Letter, I offer the following; a. Form 200 is attached b. Please reconsider the requested increase In our fee per point#1 above. c. I resubmit the previously submitted information that was taken from a report prepared by a registered civil engineer. Conclusion In my opinion the Board has been duped by the San Joaquin County EHD, specifically Mike Huggins,into making this process as difficult and costly on me as possible. There is no other explanation as to the timing and nature of comments made by the Board. This is what has happened. Mike Huggins has an extremely Gose relationship with Don Chesney. They interface very closely and often. Mike Huggins recommends Don Chesney as a consultant and Don Chesney seems to get his projects approved fairly easily. On March 21,20031 had a dispute with Don Chesney regarding the quality and completeness of I the work he had done. Ever since then Mike Huggins has done everything possible to delay and derail my project. I believe he also encouraged the Board to be as thorough and doubting as you have been. Please stop this madness. You have seen my facility,you have reviewed the data I have submitted. You can clearly see that I have nothing to hide and my facility Is insignificant to the true Intent of the Board. You should be able to clearly see that I am not a throat to groundwater degradation.