Articles

From: Bert Rapp [mailto:brapp@ci.fillmore.ca.us]

From: Jeff Guild [mailto:jguild@noram-eng.com]

Nitrification takes place partially in the Vertreat shaft, and partially post-shaft in our own nitrification biofilters (these are operational at the Chevron refinery). They are a simple course rock BAF system (Biological Aerated Filter). They are fixed film filters, and as such they operate at very long sludge detention time (SRTs over 20 days). The microbes that metabolize the BOD in the shaft require about 15 mg/L of ammonia for bio-oxidation of the organic carbon. That leaves about 16 mg/L of ammonia in the influent to convert to nitrate in the shaft and biofilter.

Nitrification of ammonia in a deep shaft was measured throughout the year at a test site using a deep shaft fitted with plate [Kubota] membranes in the head tank. At temperatures above 15 C [59 F] effluent ammonia levels were <1 mg/L and NO3-N was > 20 mg/L. At temperatures of about 10C the deep shaft achieved about 50% nitrification. About one third of the flow into the holding tank is nitrified recycle flows and consists of RAS from the flotation tank, bottom recycle, and backwash from the biofilters. The recycle streams from the mesophilic aerobic digesters will also contain a significant amount of nitrate-N and organic-N. Introduction of these streams into the holding tanks containing raw sewage will cause a significant portion of the total nitrogen to convert N2 gas under the anoxic conditions. The effluent from both the biofilters and the sand filters will be low in TSS and in particulate matter. Since organic nitrogen is usually associated with TSS much of the organic nitrogen will be removed with the TSS. The sand filters will serve to remove the remaining TSS and denitrify the remaining NO3-N. I've attached a presentation from the sand filter manufacturer that details the denitrification step in their filters, and results from operating facilities.

There are no "water chemistry problems". We have explained how the system works, and provided references for our information. Empty blanket statements from faceless opponents don't hold much weight with me. If someone takes issue with any technical statements we have made, please state the technical opposition in technical terms. I can't answer questions that aren't asked, and "water chemistry problems" is pretty vague to say the least. Also, I'm not sure that the firms in question are qualified to speak about our pricing. Considering the fact that our assertion about our price being lower than the MBR system proposed in Santa Paula was confirmed by Kennedy Jenks, with Jeff Savard presenting his own findings to the Santa Paula council stating that "Vertreat was cheaper", where do these contradictory comments come from now?

Best Regards,

From: Bert Rapp [mailto:brapp@ci.fillmore.ca.us]

I am critically interested in Vertreat's proven ability to meet our treatment requirements. You have not been able or willing to point me to an existing Verteat plant with proven performance to our permit requirements. I have several engineering firms indicating that Vertreat may not be able to meet our water treatment requirements and may have water chemistry problems with the denitrification process when the water comes out of the deep shaft. They also believe the cost for a complete Vertreat plant with nitrification denitrification added will cost more to build and operate than a MBR or activated sludge plant. The companies I am referring to are Parsons, Boyle Engineering, CH2MHILL, Kennedy Jenks Consultants and RBF. All of these firms are experienced with wastewater treatment and the water chemistry involved.

From: Gayle [mailto:gaylewashburn@sbcglobal.net]

NORAM is saying that their system will meet our permit requirements. They seem to be guaranteeing that. The activated sludge plus filtration is common. We've been saying this for a long time. The statements that have been made against Vertreat system are incorrect. The bottom line is if it will meet the requirements and save the community millions of dollars we should be evaluating on a level playing field. This should have been done a long time ago - and - needs to be done without the sarcasm and calling engineers "salesmen".

Regards,

From: Jeff Guild [mailto:jguild@noram-eng.com]

I get the feeling from your response that you are not particularly interested in whether or not our system can meet the effluent requirements in Fillmore. I have told you that we will meet the water quality objectives, and I have explained in thorough detail our flowsheet, citing example plants in your state that use activated sludge followed by sand filtration. Anyone skilled in the field of wastewater engineering should be able to understand this... Although we aren't interested in being part of a last minute "validation exercise" on your decision to go with an MBR system, if you are interested in properly evaluating Vertreat, and performing proper due diligence on what is a simple activated sludge process, we will provide whatever assistance we can. If you are interested in visiting a facility or want more information for a real evaluation of our treatment process, please let me know. I'm happy to accommodate you so long as we aren't being led down the garden path. Nothing you have said to date has given me a strong indication that you really want to evaluate alternatives. This dates back to your original phone call to me (back in late November), when you called me to perform "due diligence" on our system, and asked me for budget numbers. I explicitly asked you at that time whether or not Vertreat was being considered as a candidate technology for Fillmore, and you said "yes". The next day, you had a signed agreement with American Water for an MBR system. Who performs due diligence on other systems the day before signing a 223 page contract (not including appendices)?

So I surmise from your response that NORAM does not know if any of your systems currently meet our permit requirements. And I would have to call people in Japan to determine what water quality NORAM can produce with the Vertreat system.

From: Jeff Guild [mailto:jguild@noram-eng.com]

Sorry I missed your call earlier. A number of the facilities in Japan (located in Tokyo Dome, underneath buildings and hotels, etc.) are producing reuse quality effluent. Many use the effluent for non-potable reuse in the buildings themselves, with applications including water supply for the toilets and water makeup for the air conditioning systems. As you can imagine, the effluent guidelines are quite stringent in such applications. A contractor there named Takenaka was the most active licensee in terms of producing recycle quality water. I have attached a reference list which provides some details on these systems. You'll notice that Kubota (a huge MBR supplier) were themselves a licensee of the "Deep Shaft" process at one time! The systems in Japan were installed before Noram owned the technology, and as a result, we don't have current information on operators & contacts for these plants. If you are serious about traveling to Japan to view these facilities, I'd be happy to dig up contact information for these plants, but as you can imagine, this is not an easy task (primarily due to the significant language barrier). A much closer facility to view would be the Vertreat system at the Chevron plant here in Burnaby, BC. While it is not treating domestic wastewater, the petrochemical wastewater that it treats is actually much tougher to degrade (due to the presence of MtBE, BTEX, cyanide, phenols, sulfides, etc.), separate, and filter than any domestic wastewater. Despite the highly variable and difficult nature of the influent, the plant effluent is consistently < 5 mg/L BOD, < 5 mg/L TSS, and < 5 mg/L TN.

A trip to Homer, AK can be easily arranged as well. That plant produces effluent that is consistently < 15 mg/L BOD, < 15 mg/L TSS. This facility has no nitrogen specification, but is still a good reference facility for the "heart" of the system (the activated sludge plant) which would then be followed by an Astrasand or Dynasand filter to meet Title 22 specifications. We'd be happy to arrange separate tours of some sand filtration plants in your area if you would like to satisfy yourself with their operability as well.

Activated sludge followed by sand filtration has been around much longer than MBR systems, and all of the original Title 22 facilities use this flowsheet...it is not new in any way, shape or form. We simply use a better mousetrap (a vertical shaft) for the unit operation that is the activated sludge system. The technology is EPA tested and approved, and has been around for 30 years (much longer than MBR technology). It will meet all your specifications now, and in the future, which we guarantee. It is cheaper, and much simpler to operate than an MBR, as shown by the capital and operating cost numbers that we are quite happy to provide on a fixed price basis with a guarantee.

From: Bert Rapp [mailto:brapp@ci.fillmore.ca.us]

One of the requirements of the bidders who competed to design-build-operate our new plant was that they had to have existing plants currently producing the water quality required by our permit requirements. The attached document has our water quality requirements with one exception. The total nitrogen was increased from 5 mg/L to 8 mg/L. Does Noram have domestic sewage treatment plants currently operating that produce the water quality required under our permit that I may visit and get performance data from?

From: Jeff Guild [mailto:jguild@noram-eng.com]

I appreciate your invitation to participate in your upcoming public workshop on treatment technologies, but due to the short notice I must unfortunately decline as I have a scheduling conflict next week. I understand that the city council has requested that you set up a date for a Vertreat presentation, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on potential dates for such a presentation (especially given your tight timelines for decisions if you decide to pursue a change in direction with respect to treatment technology). Just as a point of clarification, your email seems to imply that our Vertreat flowsheet is unproven in California, despite the fact that virtually all of the Title 22 plants in the LARWQCB area are "activated sludge with media filtration". The example Bill Wilson used in Santa Paula was Tapia, which is activated sludge plus media filtration. During our meetings with Santa Paula's city council, Jon Bishop was there on behalf of the RWQCB, and he supported every statement that Bill Wilson and I made regarding approval of our approach, and the fact that virtually all of the Title 22 plants in the region are activated sludge plants with 'media filtration', i.e. sand filters. We followed up with Jeff Stone on the subject, and he provided us with a letter that confirmed our assertion that our proposed flowsheet already has Title 22 certification (so there is no need to test or prove anything). It would surprise most Fillmore residents to know that such a system has been operational for over 7 years not far away in Corona, CA. The Golden Cheese plant in Corona pre-treats high strength food processing wastewater in Vertreat system prior to discharge to the Santa Ana Regional Interceptor (SARI). Of course, being an industrial pre-treatment system (treating BOD as high as 6000 mg/L) this facility is not designed to, nor would it be expected to produce effluent of the quality required in Fillmore, but it serves as an excellent reference facility for activated sludge treatment in a vertical shaft configuration in California. Not unlike Santa Paula, we expect that Fillmore realize a number of benefits if Vertreat were considered for the impending plant upgrade. The Vertreat system, a third-generation deep-shaft technology, takes a conventional biological treatment plant underground into a vertical steel-lined concrete shaft. The advantages are compelling: Small Footprint The plant uses a fraction of the space required by conventional activated sludge systems, and MBR plants (especially those requiring significant tankage for flow equalization). Exceptional Water Quality Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) of 15/15 or better are routinely achievable. With the addition of filtration technology (sand media) to our system, we can achieve reuse quality effluent (< 5 mg/L BOD, < 5 mg/L TSS, < 8 mg/L TN). Hazard Mitigation In the event of an earthquake, the in-ground reactor provides optimal resistance to spillage or rupture by moving with the ground, largely eliminating any torsional moments experienced by above-ground structures. Energy Efficiency Biological wastewater plants rely on bacteria to treat the wastewater. The bacteria thrives on oxygen, circulated by aerating the water with compressors. In the case of the shaft reactor, oxygen transfer is so efficient (65-70%, as compared with roughly 10-15% in conventional treatment) that the energy requirements of the plant as a whole drop by 50%.

 Reduced Emissions and Odours

Because less air is required for aeration, the volume of gas emanating from the treatment works is dramatically reduced, allowing capture and treatment. Indeed, so unobtrusive is the technology that these plants have been built into the basement of a hotel (Japan), or indoors (City of Homer, Alaska).

Reduced Capital and Operating Costs

Quite apart from the savings in land requirements, the installed costs of a Vertreat plant are substantially less than a conventional plant. The main cost hinges on the shaft, which is readily drilled and encased in almost any terrain using standard shaft drilling techniques.

Finally, I really believe that your workshop panel would benefit greatly from having Bill Wilson participate. While it may appear that he has been championing the Vertreat system for Santa Paula and Fillmore, in actuality he is challenging the notion that membrane technology is the only solution to meet the wastewater treatment needs of these communities. Bill has extensive experience with activated sludge systems and MBR plants of all configurations, in both design and operation. He is a licensed engineer in California, and is well versed in Title 22 requirements, with a network contacts throughout the various permitting and regulatory agencies in the state. He is unique in that he is knowledgeable in the pros & cons for both systems, and he will be the first to tell you that membrane technology is fantastic in the right applications. He simply believes (as I do) that membrane technology is overkill for the Fillmore and Santa Paula applications, and the capital & operating cost data reflect this. I know that Bill has offered is services to Boyle Engineering as a consultant to the workshop, and I understand that he has not been retained at this time. You, the consultants on your project (Boyle) and every other member of your panel is being paid by someone to attend, so I would hope that there is some money in the budget for this project review to retain someone of Bill's calibre on a short term contract. As an independent consultant, he simply can not continue to bear all of these costs on his own (and I can tell you that he has already incurred substantive costs in looking at alternatives for the City of Santa Paula).

From: Bert Rapp [mailto:brapp@ci.fillmore.ca.us]

The City of Fillmore is holding a public workshop on March 22, 2007 to discuss sewer treatment technology. There will be a panel of public sewer agency managers who will be discussing treatment and disposal options for Fillmore. They will discuss using activated sludge processes with sand filters and MBR's. They will also discuss if the City should use technologies that are not currently operating and producing water that meets Fillmore's Waste Discharge Requirements from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and do not yet have full Title 22 certification.

The panelists include:

 1. John Mundy, Las Virgenes Municipal Water District (Operates activated sludge plant)

2. John Corea, Ojai Valley Sanitation District (Operates oxidation ditch)

3. Wes Curry, City of Corona (operates an oxidation ditch and MBR plants)

The panelists will be introduced and then answer questions from the Council and audience. The panelists are not making presentations.  Consistent with all other panelists, the City cannot offer reimbursement of your costs to attend.

You are being invited to attend because you made a presentation to Santa Paula and the Fillmore City Council asked that you be invited to participate in the March 22nd workshop. The City is currently designing an MBR plant is planning to break ground on construction of the plant in May 2007.