Jump to content

A great day for PA.


Recommended Posts

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nearchoclatetown</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I hope all the Pa. guys noticed the lovely Kathleen resigned as head of DEP yesterday. She has cost Pa. tons of $$. Good ridence!! A resignation usually means the end of a political career, so that's good too. </div></div>

Resigning from the DEP is hardly a death sentence. I worked under three Secretaries at the DEP. One resigned for health resons and passed away immediately afterward. The other two went on to immediately be named heads of 2 Chamber of Commerces (state & Philadelphia), both at a very high pay raise. Of course those two worked under administrations with a <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="text-decoration: underline">very different</span></span> idea of environmental regulation from the norm. (I used to keep technically illegal duplicate files on all my sites, because negative reports tended to "disappear" in Harrisburg in those days. mad.gif When you hear "compliance-based regiment" in the running of a state agency, that's what it means.)

Your tax dollars not at work.

BTW, she seems to have been an actually effective administrator. In PA that must have been a tough thing to get used to.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/pa-gove...thleen-mcginty/

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/24443994.html

She'll do fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave, I didn't think you would understand. What your articles didn't tell you was how she stopped construction on the most dangerous stretch of hiway PA. owns because runoff from stone used on the embankements MIGHT kill a fish. No real facts just MIGHT. The stone was mined in the area it was used. The construction stopped and the stone was covered with plastic and sandbags. The plastic poses a greater risk of killing fish then the stone. She has been studying the "problem" for several years with no outcome. Meanwhile the taxpayer pays the contractor for the delay. She's also brought Pa. the most idiotic set of car immisions laws known to man. They test the cars that test themselves, LOOK at the cars that don't. BTW, if you were really an evironmentalist, like you claim on this forum, why would you knowingly keep 2 sets of records? I would not want a job like that!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> BTW, if you were really an evironmentalist, like you claim on this forum, why would you knowingly keep 2 sets of records? I would not want a job like that!!</div></div>

I did a great deal of good in those years, stopped more pollution than I ever could have in any other life choice, worked outdoors in a position of authority and responsibility at a comparitively young age, and did it all working with people who shared a (reasonable) attitude towards environmental quality vs. human commerce, most of whom would've done it for nothing like me. I'd do it again tomorrow.

The second set of records were mainly to secure myself from question by the EPA, who are about as incorruptable as the FBI. If you ever want to know why those with deep pockets support political causes that push for local government authority in the maximum number of situations, just remember how much easier it is to bribe the mayor than the Prseident. It's good to work for the President instead of the mayor, believe me!

As for rock runnoff killing "a fish", it's obvious that the whole story isn't there in your post. If I were to build an embankment along a Wayne Co. brook trout stream out of acidic coal mine gob I'd have about half the pickup trucks in PA looking for me with shotguns after a while. That's an extreme, but there are almost certainly complications to this story that you either don't know or are leaving out. It's very easy to see why this would be important.

BTW, stream impacts are handled by the Bureau of Dams and Waterways. Their regs are largely based on Federal requirements, especially when it comes to direct impacts like this one. Rarely is there anything like discretion in evaluating one of these plans. It sounds like PENNDOT (again) signed a contract where someone is being paid until the program is approved who is also responsible for the approval. Gee, what could go wrong? smirk.gif

As for the emissions program, what ever did make sense about that? PA is run by lobbyists, pure and simple. If someone in private enterprise can charge you more for something that the government should be doing, it'll happen in PA first. The whole inspection program should've been scrapped years ago. Moving to Ohio underscores that in the extreme!

(When I worked for the PA-DER, <span style="text-decoration: underline">every</span> office/building in the Dept. was rented. Did you know that landlords make great campaign contributors? My converted warehouse office in Pittsburgh (with the used cubicles from a closed Westinghouse division) was rented at a higher rate per square foot than <span style="text-decoration: underline">any</span> other office space in the city (mahogany walls or not). I <span style="text-decoration: underline">NEVER</span> met one person from another environmmental agency who worked in a rented office, reasonable rates or no. Not from any other state, not from the EPA, not even from any county agency.)

wink.gifwink.gif (Hint--this means "wink-wink") <span style="font-style: italic">But for God's sake, don't vote for anybody but the incumbant that speaks to your needs and who belongs to the only good political party on earth (whichever, as long as it's your's). Only he/she understands. It's everybody else in the state that can't see past the bull of <span style="text-decoration: underline">their</span> guy.</span> crazy.gifcrazy.gifcrazy.gif

<span style="font-weight: bold">Pennsylvania, Land of Incumbancy</span>

(Did I mention I used to work for those clowns?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are refering to the new hiway near State College. If I remember correctly the fill and/or the hiway cut was loaded with iron pyrite. Pyrites are notorious for forming sulphuric acid and is the main cause of acid mine drainage and the death of streams and rivers.

I've been swimming in the West branch of the Susquehanna for about 30 years now. We camp and hang glide near Renovo, PA. 30 years ago the river ran clear and looked great but it was dead. Nothing lived in it. After a swim your skin would be all flakey and while you were in the river every body orfice would burn from the acidity.

Over the last 4th of july weekend some in our group were catching (and releasing) nice size small mouth bass and at night you can hear frogs drumming. Flocks of geese and ducks were paddling about and reeds are growing again in the shallows.

The biggest thrill though was when I flew wing tip to wing tip at 3000 feet above the river with a mature bald eagle. They have returned to feed on the river fish.

I'm no tree hugger but I feel that all the above is beyond price. And if it takes holding up a bit of construction or spending some money to keep our priceless rivers clean it's OK with me........Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bhigdog, you could be right, I don't know. But wouldn't ALL of that have been known BEFORE the contract was let out? The engineers that approved where the stone pit was established would have been aware of this. By this time the stone in question could have been removed and replaced with other stone instead of holding up the project. Are you also aware she also wants to force EVERY township/municpailty to implament septic inspections? ALL tanks would have to be pumped every 3-5 years and inspected by the locals, and replaced if they don't pass inspection. Of course the state would pay half of the inspection fee. But the homeowner gets to really pay the whole bill! The 18th will be a good day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you also aware she also wants to force EVERY township/municpailty to implament septic inspections </div></div>

Actually I am aware of that proposal because I'm on my township's planning commission. I do beleive the 3-5 year pumping plan is a bit much. On the other hand we have a village in our township that has about 30 homes with failed septic systems that are draining raw sewage directly into the Little Schuylkill Creek. That's not speculation it's a documented fact. Where the line is drawn between responsible regulation and environmentalism run amok is a thorny issue. I don't claim to have all the answers.....Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pennsylvania, especially northeast PA, was decades behind most of the country in basic septic care when I was with the DER. I lived for a year and half in Packerton in the late 1980s, a small village between Jim Thorpe and Lehighton. At that time virtually none of the small cities of Carbon County had any sewage treatment whatsoever, and one had only recently bothered to install below ground sewage lines.

20 miles downstream was the Schaefer Brewery, by then brewing Strohs beer.

A non-functioning septic system is no better, and I can tell you from personal experience (sewage sludge disposal was part of my purview with the DER prior to moving to Pittsburgh) that the people who don't maintain their systems are the ones who will object the loudest to having that discovered by any means. Meanwhile your tomato garden is giving you food poisoning because it's getting runoff from the neighbor's yard.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where the line is drawn between responsible regulation and environmentalism run amok is a thorny issue. I don't claim to have all the answers..... </div></div>

There won't be one if ensuring simple responsibility to one's fellow man falls under the "run amok" heading. People are simply not as responsible as others imagine them to be. Therefore it becomes a cost/benefit analysis. You can absolutely bet that this proposal was based on one. Pragmatism does still exist.

Knee-jerk reactions against things like this don't consider such things. It's a belief system in this country that all new things are designed to take advantage of people, especially when the government is involved. Sometimes it's the old things that have been doing that all along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I lived for a year and half in Packerton in the late 1980s, a small village between Jim Thorpe and Lehighton. At that time virtually none of the small cities of Carbon County had any sewage treatment whatsoever </div></div>

All the "cities" of Carbon county are small. Both Lehighton and Jim Thorpe have had sewerage treatment plants for about 50 years........Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you know anything about sewage treatment, there are three levels: Primary, secondary, and tertiary. Tertiary removes specific materials/contaminants that are a problem specific to the water system in question, usually through media filtration (which is very expensive). Secondary is nutrient removal (usually through large aeration tanks and/or media tanks, both of which encourage microbial breakdown). Primary is filtering out the chunks by settlement only, hopefully (but not always) both the floaters and the sinkers.

When I lived there <span style="text-decoration: underline">nobody</span> had better than primary treatment, including Lehighton and Jim Thorpe, and most had none whatsoever. Frankly I make little distinction between primary treatment and none whatsoever.

After I moved there I stopped drinking Stroh's. Nobody in my office would either. Inspecting those places was our job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Frankly I make little distinction between primary treatment and none whatsoever.

</div></div>

Dave, you can spin faster than a small block Chevy on nitrous. Not that there's anything wrong with that. The Sewer plant in Jim Thorpe (nee Mauch Chunk) was built in 1964 as both a primary and secondary process plant.

BTW, the production water at Stroh's (nee Schaefer) then Pabst, Ice something or other, now Sam Adams is drawn from deep wells and further filtered and processed. The finished beer is pasteurized. Couldn't be more clean and sanitary to the point of being sterilized. It did taste like crap though. Perhaps that's why you were confused........Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Primary is filtering out the chunks by settlement only, hopefully (but not always) both the floaters and the sinkers.

Frankly I make little distinction between primary treatment and none whatsoever.

</div></div>

Well gee Dave, 98% of our 4 county Northern Neck area has "only" the primary systems you describe. They have worked fine since first used in the early 50's right after people upgraded from those drafty outhouses. eek.gif

Nothing like a snake in the outhouse to make you finish the business quicker. grin.gif

We still have shallow wells in our area too, but no one ever complained about the water quality or the taste. Actually the shallow well water tastes better than the deep well water in our parts. wink.gif

Wayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bhigdog Bob,if you are aware of the legislation you are also aware of the percentage of "suspect" systems that promt the inspections. Our Tship has, to use round numbers for discussion, 20 % suspect systems, the threshold is 18% which kicks in the inspection. MY fix to our stupidvisors was fix the 2% worst systems in the worst areas to get under the 18% magic number so the whole Tship doesn't have to be punished and inspected. The first inspection would probably be easy, but the second or third would have new guidelines and pretty soon EVERYONE has a failed system. Pretty soon everyone would have a new $20,000 sandmound or worse yet a sewer bill. Every Tship, by the newly state mandated building codes, has the right to force citizens to fix known failed systems. Use the laws already in the books, don't create ne laws. I'm just hoping all of her outrageous ideas go away with her. She has cost the citizens of PA. hundreds of millions of $$.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People are simply not as responsible as others imagine them to be. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Our Tship has, to use round numbers for discussion, 20 % suspect systems,...</div></div>

1 in 5, huh? Remind me not to buy any roadside produce when I come to Hershey next year. wink.gif

At least you guys have the Hershey Medical Center. Imagine having to trust the single-story hospitals most small towns have when your kid or your food gets a little too close to a "suspect system" (which is a nice euphemism for surface leakage of someone's sh.... Oops, forgot where I was. smirk.gif ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't have a problem with inspections as long as they are not over zealous. Our township has a Sewage Officer and he seems rational.

The mandate for a mandatory 3 year pump out schedule is just plain rediculous. This is an example of environmental over zealousness run amok I was refering to............Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUALIFYER FOR DAVE MOON. "To use round numbers for discussion" As the meeting was several months ago I don't remember the exact percentage. Had I said 1% and 3% you would have challenged that too. The point was, which you missed it BTW, that it would be easier/cheaper for everyone concerned to fix the few known problem systems rather then make everyone go through expensive and needless pumping and inspection. You win again Dave, I'm done but so is Kathleen!! BTW, she should have never been confirmed because of the million dollar conflict of interest contract she signed for her husband's company. But Dumbacrats never seem concerned with details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The point was, which you missed it BTW, that it would be easier/cheaper for everyone concerned to fix the few known problem systems rather then make everyone go through expensive and needless pumping and inspection. </div></div>

Of course. (And I didn't miss it.) And it would be cheaper and easier if all the murderers in the world would just turn them selves in, or at least let themselves be hunted down like animals to be placed on pikes outside town. Imagine the savings. No police. No justice system.

Also I'm not challenging anything. Just pointing out the thought processes that lead to different approaches.

It's not a liberal/conservative, environmentalist/real American, or Democrat/Republican thing (or world for that matter). It's a problem/pragmatism thing.

It used to be a problem/pragmatism world, too. frown.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The mandate for a mandatory 3 year pump out schedule is just plain rediculous. This is an example of environmental over zealousness run amok I was refering to............Bob</div></div>

I thought so!

Here's what the real proposed regulation actually says:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maintenance

Pump out of the septic tank every three years <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="color: #6633FF">or</span></span> whenever measurement reveals</span> that the tank is

filled with solids in excess of 1/3 of the liquid depth of the tank or with scum in excess of 1/3 of

the liquid depth of the tank</div></div>

BTW, the average septic tank is 1500 gallons. A three year cleanout schedule would be typical/recommended with such a tank serving a family of 5. ( Inspectapedia Building & Environment...evention Advice )

In all I've yet to hear of one single thing this woman has done in her tenure that's anything less than an excellent, reasoned approach to her job. It sounds like all her problems exist in the editorial section and on the AM dial of certain (shall we say) <span style="font-style: italic">biased</span> media outlets.

More problems from the land of incumbency (and pure partisan approaches). crazy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee Dave, Another wealth of partial information. You neglected to mention that the draft also calls for a visual inspection of the tank baffles, solid and scum levels. What this means is that every three years a septic system that shows no signs of malfunction must be uncovered and visually inspected. Of course once it's opened it might as well be pumped. In other words it's a defacto 3 year pump schedule. That's both arbitrary and onerous.

The inspectapedia you quote is basically a puff piece for paid home inspectors. Of course they are going to tout frequent inspections. BTW they quote a ball park price of $700 for opening and pumping a tank. No mention of the "inspection" fee. A tank BTW that in most cases would be functioning perfectly fine with no outward signs of malfunction.

Yet another case of invironmental excess and of "Figures don't lie but liars can figure".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Inspection

Measurement of the sludge and scum depth in the septic tank as adequate to determine need for

and frequency of pumping, unless pumping every three years is determined to be appropriate as

the pumping frequency.

Inspection of the septic tank, inlet and outlet baffles, and solids retainer every three years for

structural integrity.</div></div>

I used to do this for a living, remember.

Notice anything missing from this quote? Go through the rest of the 23 pages of proposed regulations I linked. If you follow the structure of the writing, whenever you see the word "inspection" you'll notice that who is doing the inspection is <span style="text-decoration: underline">always</span> specified. Usually it's the township "sewage enforcement officer" (SEO). Here no one is specified as the inspector.

Do you inspect your own tires? Brakes? (Oh, I forgot. In PA you have to pay someone else to do that. smirk.gif ) Do you have to replace them every time you/somebody looks at them? (Oh yeah, this PA again. smirk.gifsmirk.gif )

What this simply means is that you're required to check and make sure your tank is still intact and functioning every three years, just in case it could be leaking/malfunctioning and the results aren't immediately visible on your property. Do you have any idea how many "septic" systems there are in PA that simply dump into mine voids, all of which outflow somewhere. Most SEO's in mined areas can name hundreds. That's just one of many practices that this section makes a direct responsibility of the owner.

You can also hire someone to do the inspection if your want, and of course the municipality has to option to oversee the process as it sees fit. The responsibility still lies with the owner.

While researching this I found at least one DEP Secretary press release admonishing honey dippers and other contractors for distributing misinformation about the regs for their own advantage. Apparently what most people are saying about these regs isn't what the regs say. Typical AM radio analysis.

This constant level of mistrust of fellow Americans just because they come from a different political party, and listening only to those who do the same, has to stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I used to do this for a living, remember.

</div></div>

Yeah, you also said you KNEW Jim Thorpe's sewage plant didn't exist in the 80's and that it was only a primary treatment facility. Remember?

Your last post agrees with what I said. That every three years a homeowner will be required to uncover and inspect his septic tank. The cost will be borne by the homeowner @ about $700 plus inspection fees. Unnessesary and onerous!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This constant level of mistrust of fellow Americans just because they come from a different political party, and listening only to those who do the same, has to stop. </div></div>

HAW HAW HAW! Obviously you haven't been following the Harrisburg happenings for the last few years.

Can't we just all get along? Make luv not war.

Trust me, I'm from Harrisburg and I'm here to help. HAW HAW HAW!

Son, you got a lot learn.........Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Son, you got a lot learn.........Bob</div></div>

Well, I haven't had much time between paying $25/month sewer bills and all, but here goes:

$700.00 is an excessive fee for a pumping and inspection. They range upward from about $300.00, depending on tank size and location, with anything over $500.00 being exceptional. Either you've never paid this fee, you have and have been ripped off, or you've been listening to partisan fear mongering which apparently has even sunk (literally) to this depth. grin.gif

If you have been paying $700.00 for this on a normally sized tank every 3 years (or maybe less often?), I suggest you contact the Pennsylvania Septage Management Assn. to find a better contractor.

I'm sure you can find one that'll take $25/month! smirk.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> you've been listening to partisan fear mongering which apparently has even sunk (literally) to this depth.

</div></div>

Errrr......Ahhhhh,............... This is kind of awkward, but the $700 (or higher) is the expected cost suggested on the Inspectipedia site for a 1000 Gallon tank. You remember Inspectipedia? That's the "expert professionals" you used as a reference to bolster your 3 year pump cycle reccomendation.

So the question on everyone's lips is......Who is the partisan fear monger?.............Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting what some people choose to fear.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">InspectAPedia.com is a building encyclopedia which provides © protected un-biased, in-depth information on detecting, diagnosing, correcting and preventing building defects, failures, and hazards.</div></div>

And it took me a long while to figure out where the $700.00 came from, but I finally found it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Typical Septic Tank Pumping Costs: A typical fee to pump a septic tank is $200. to $300 to pump a septic tank up to 1000g in size, provided that the tank pumping access port has been uncovered and is readily accessible. <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">If the septic pumping contractor needs to <span style="color: #FF0000">find</span> the septic tank and then excavate the septic tank pumping access opening</span>, expect to pay an additional $350. to $400.</span> provided that no extraordinary measures are needed. Prices vary somewhat by region. A part of the fee you're paying your septic pumping contractor is the cost to dispose of the septage.</div></div>

I actually looked up what quotes I could find online from PA contractors who didn't have to look for and dig up the tank. (<span style="font-style: italic">Can you imagine how full it must be if it's been so long you can't find it!!!!</span> shocked.gif ) Apparently (if PA honey dippers work off of the same fee schedule), it's an extra $100-$150 to peak inside after they pump it out and write down what they see.

I guess you've either never pumped yours or don't have one. I still say you could find a contractor for $25/mo. with no trouble, especially if all he has to do every other 3 year cycle is look inside and see that it didn't fill enough yet, which given tank and household size is probably at least the norm. (And yes, the reg says that's ok.)

It's funny how responsible behavior can be made to sound heinous when politics are involved.

=============================

(BTW, Be wary of the lowest bidder when having this done. We had a hauler in the Scranton area who was such a frequent and notorious roadside dumper we called him Dr. Giardia around the office!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave, while this has been entertaining, let's get out of the sewer and bring the discussion back to cars. What is your rationale for the emmisions test done in PA. The cars that are hooked up and tested , post '96, have On Board Diagnostic systems. All the mechanic would need to do is look at the dash display. BUT, because of Kathleen, the customer/taxpayer is charged about $40 to tap into a California computor. The most frequent cause of failure, according to local mechanics, is a loose or bad gas cap. I'm sure there's a logical reason other then revenue generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm sure there's a logical reason other then revenue generation. </div></div>

Nope, there isn't.

The DEP (as I understand it, I never worked in air quality) is limited to issuing/approving the the emissions standards that have to be met. The means to meet them were left up to PENNDOT, subject to EPA approval.

Here in Cincinnati we had (note the past tense) an emissions test that was way more complex than PA's. Every 2 years they put your car up on a dynanometer (along with several other tests including one specifically for cap performance) in a specialized testing facility run by a state contractor. The whole thing took about 10 minutes, with (in my station) 4 lines that rarely had more than 2-3 cars in them.

The cars needed testing every 2 years, and it cost $24.

"Kathleen" had nothing to do with PA's procedure. She, like you, is stuck with it.

If you want to do something about it, consider voting for the other party (wherever you are). The cozy relationships that have been set up between lobbyists (such as the service station operators') and the legislature/governor's mansion in PA is horrifying, largely due to the extreme level of incumbency that occurs (most PA offices might as well be elections for life). The legislature and the governor's mansion can lean on PENNDOT to no end because they control the purse strings and because most people in PENNDOT of any authority are political appointees. Civil service people in PENNDOT are all of such low level it's shocking. It's a very different story in the DEP.

BTW, the people here considered $24 and 20 minutes every two years so oppressive that they demanded a switch to reformulated gas to get rid of the inspection process. Either one was A-OK with EPA for our air quality, which is little different from anywhere in PA outside of Philly. If the state was as beholden to the garage owners doing the inspections as PA's is that'd never happen. As it was the state paid what people thought was an exorbitant amount to the contractor to buy out the contract here. By PA standards it was peanuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I still say you could find a contractor for $25/mo. with no trouble, </div></div>

I'm sure I could since that would be $900 (plus loss of compound interest) for a 3 year inspection even if it didn't need a pump out.

What kind of tortured logic is that?............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What kind of tortured logic is that?............</div></div>

That paying for a cleaner world is what we're all doing anyway, and that the "unnecessary & onerous" costs you're complaining about are far less than what the average person in America is already paying without complaint in this area.

You <span style="text-decoration: underline">can</span> complain if they want charge you Philly rates instead of red-state midwestern rates if you'd like, however!! wink.gifsmirk.gif

Like not allowing our wild fish populations to pay the price for poor/cheap highway construction, or not allowing the drilling for oil off of Big Sur, the American public long ago accepted that paying more for a cleaner world is a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tortured logic in question is why you would reccomend I pay $900+ rather than $700.

However, you have also worn me down with circular logic, obfuscation, pseudo scientific wind-baggery, and just plain untruths.

Ba-da, ba-da, ba-da,......That's All Folks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nearchoclatetown</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is your rationale for the emmisions test done in PA. The cars that are hooked up and tested , post '96, have On Board Diagnostic systems. All the mechanic would need to do is look at the dash display. BUT, because of Kathleen, the customer/taxpayer is charged about $40 to tap into a California computor. The most frequent cause of failure, according to local mechanics, is a loose or bad gas cap. I'm sure there's a logical reason other then revenue generation. </div></div>

If one relies only on the dash display it may be possible to have a vehicle "pass" an emission's inspection even when it should not.

What is to stop someone from using a scan tool to reset a "Check Engine" light just before a "visual" emissions inspection would be done?

Without hooking the car up to a monitoring device, the mechanic would have no idea that the reset was just done and all the "readiness codes"

are not valid. It is my understanding that the current emissions inspection checks the "readiness codes" of the on board computer to insure

that someone has not "reset" the computer. This is the reason why after a repair is done to a vehicle and the mechanic turns off the check engine light, it cannot be emissions inspected until the vehicle resets the "readiness codes" as the driver uses the vehicle.

This is also why inspection stations always warn their customer not to schedule their annual inspection on the last day of the month when their check engine light is on.

Personally, I do not care for certain parts of the emissions testing procedure.

For instance, Why when a vehicle is "Exempt" should the owner have to pay a fee of $20-25?

The amount of time necessary to check the mileage and the amount of time the mechanic's computer

needs to be connected to the Emissions processing computer is extremely short.

This is most definitely a money making situation for certain parties involved.

Don't even get me started on the 100s of millions of dollars of tax payer money the state of Pennsylvania flushed down the toilet

after they broke the contract they signed with the company that was to do centralized emissions testing.

They had actually started construction of 1 or 2 of these inspections stations locally before PA pulled the plug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, you have also worn me down with circular logic, obfuscation, pseudo scientific wind-baggery, and just plain untruths. </div></div>

Well. I did mis-remember the configuration of one sewage treatment plant I haven't visited in 20 years. Maybe you're right! smirk.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Don't even get me started on the 100s of millions of dollars of tax payer money the state of Pennsylvania flushed down the toilet

after they broke the contract they signed with the company that was to do centralized emissions testing.

They had actually started construction of 1 or 2 of these inspections stations locally before PA pulled the plug.</div></div>

When did they do this? It sounds like what we used to have here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Don't even get me started on the 100s of millions of dollars of tax payer money the state of Pennsylvania flushed down the toilet after they broke the contract they signed with the company that was to do centralized emissions testing.

They had actually started construction of 1 or 2 of these inspections stations locally before PA pulled the plug.</div></div>

When did they do this? It sounds like what we used to have here. </div></div>

In November 1993, PennDOT contracted with Envirotest Systems of Tucson, Arizona, to implement the state's centralized test-only I/M program.

As of June 1994, Envirotest reported owning 24 sites with 53 more under purchase agreement and having begun construction at 11 sites. When the state of Pennsylvania terminated the contract with Envirotest, that company sought to recoup $354.6 million in termination costs.

The settlement paid by the state of PA amounted to about $145 million dollars.

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/polycomm/pressrel/95/news_enviro.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...