Grant’s Blog

In response to a previous blog, a municipal plant manager submitted a very politic reply. He wrote, “Engineers by their nature are very good at solving problems, providing the relevant information is relayed to them.”

In other words, municipalities hold a goodly portion of the blame for bad engineering. A very good point. But…

I’m not so kind. Engineering companies collect huge fees for designing wastewater systems. Huge. My opinion: few municipalities get their money’s worth.

A confession. I am a card carrying professional engineer. I’m of the “let’s get on to the next problem already” kind of engineer. I don’t like pointless studies. I don’t like wasting resources rehashing previously resolved issues. Fortunately, for me I’ve found talented people to expertly tend to the design details. Better, I’ve found a lot of excellent free help.

Vendors live and die by the success of their products. Enough failures and equipment won’t sell. (Note: this is not true for old East German automobile manufacturers, but I digress.) Vendors assist engineers in making their products successful by providing design support. Most vendors are happy to grind out the details at no cost.

Notwithstanding, almost all wastewater consultants re-engineer the vendor supplied information. They charge engineering and drafting time for the “do over.” Some go further and design customized alternatives to vendor supplied components. One notable example is control systems. Why? I hope you don’t find me mean spirited, but there isn’t much money to be made operating a copy machine. The billing of engineering hours is a far more profitable enterprise.

Ponder on the following and ask yourself why. Why is the following true?

The vast majority of non-municipal treatment plants are pre-engineered, package plants. The vast majority of municipal wastewater treatment plants are custom designed, “stick built” facilities.

As Watergate’s Deep Throat told the Washington Post reporters Woodward & Bernstein, you’ll get the answer if you “follow the money.”

Thanks for reading.

Grant

During his initial visit to any municipal wastewater treatment plant, a consultant I know makes the restroom his first stop. And not necessarily for the reason you think. He claims that the nicer the bathroom, the better run the facility is.

I won’t go so far as to agree, but there is something to this.

When hired as superintendent of a municipal wastewater treatment plant some time ago, I was provided a city car. For several months, it had been driven by the assistant plant manager. When given to me, the car was a mess. Much like my consultant friend, my new assistant’s unwillingness (or inability) to trick out my ride told me more than a little about what I was getting into. Fortunately, because he was young, hard working, intelligent and eager to learn – my assistant developed into a very successful supervisor.

Every one of us is more skilled at some things than others. Meaning, every one of us does some things not so well as other things. Such is life, my friend.

For anyone to excel as a wastewater supervisor, he or she needs support from time to time. It isn’t hard for most supervisors to seek out engineers for technical assistance, but for some reason, it is unusual for us to solicit process support.

The weird thing is I find most superintendents to be more knowledgeable about their equipment than the biochemistry that makes sewage into clean water.

If I were the czar of municipal wastewater treatment, I’d make process support available in a rewarding way. I’d provide technical support without micro-managing day-to-day operations. I’d make big government money available for capital improvements when, and only when, less costly operational modifications couldn’t get the job done.

As czar, I’d instruct the regulators working for me to make wastewater treatment facilities work better, cheaper by expecting more, not less, of wastewater superintendents. Most, it has been my experience are more than a little capable.

Thanks for reading.

Grant

A 2008 New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission study found that the majority of Connecticut municipal wastewater treatment plants visited could improve nitrogen removal using existing tankage. 

The NEIWPCC finding is consistent with our experience. Eighty percent of the facilities we’ve evaluated can meet nutrient requirements by making processing changes along with small, targeted investments in new equipment. The cost of compliance is so low that it makes economic sense to complete the work in-house without any Clean Water Funds. The majority of the Pennsylvania treatment plants I’ve seen can comply with their new Chesapeake Bay nutrient standards this way.  

For facilities that nitrify, the most common way of making treatment modifications is to create an anoxic environment to denitrify nitrates to nitrogen gas. Phosphorus levels can be reduced by a combination of biological and chemical means. The beneficial use of volatile fatty acids (VFAs) plays a role in both nitrogen and phosphorus removal.

Superintendents who have their hearts set on a bunch of new equipment won’t likely see a benefit to our approach; we’re not big on expensive toys.

For the progressive plant managers, for those who wish to reduce nutrients at minimal ratepayer cost, a little experimentation with process changes can provide mind-boggling results. Time and time again, municipalities realize astounding savings. For those interested, we’ve assembled some technical information on our Wastewater Science web page. Feel free to browse.

In previous installments I’ve shared two case studies. In upcoming installments, I’ll provide more information on treatment facilities that are enjoying improved nutrient removal as a result of process changes. I invite others to share success stories.  

Thanks for reading.

Grant