Grant’s Blog

Last week I sat quietly while a design engineer lectured a client about my company’s “bad science.” He became so rabid during the two hour rant, I offered to get him a soda. Not because I was in any way empathetic. The spittle on his lip was grossing me out. Sadly, he declined the offer of drink and I withstood a two-fronted assault: verbal and visual.

Charlatans exist. I just read about a fellow in Russia who claims to have invented a device that supposedly makes drinking water out of radioactive waste. In the spirit of creating jobs in the Soviet down economy, I suppose, United Russia, the nation’s ruling party, has invested millions of rubles in the former convict’s “inventions.”

A healthy skepticism is a good defensive mechanism. In my circumstance, the engineer was outraged at my ability to work with an intelligent client to make the treatment plant he designed produce an effluent three times cleaner than his mathematical model said possible: 1.2 mg/L total-nitrogen. Without chemicals, Suffield (CT) is producing better effluent with much of the engineer’s equipment disabled. Worst of all, I have shown the audacity to provide scientific explanations. An unmitigated outrage!

At the risk of getting dead fish snail-mailed my way, I’m using this forum to share one of the very theories that got my counterpart jacked up. Comments, as always, are welcome.

In Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) process designs, engineers provide pumping equipment to internally recycle 3 to 5 times the influent flow rate. Math drives the designs. By recycling 4Q, 80% of the nitrate produced during nitrification is returned to the anoxic tank for denitrification.

Notwithstanding the beauty of the mathematics, high recycle rates don’t improve nitrogen removal at the treatment plants where I hang. The opposite occurs: too much internal recycling reduces nitrate removal. This fact has perplexed many an engineer.

Most consultants, when confronted with this reality, ascribe it to the recycling of dissolved oxygen back into the anoxic tank, and a resulting increase in anoxic DO. I agree. But. I believe it to be more than that.

And, here’s where I got Rabid Engineer frothing. I believe that the recycle rate affects the hydraulic retention time in the pre-anoxic and aeration tanks. That, when the recycle rate is too high, bacteria spend too few consecutive minutes in anoxic conditions to denitrify.

Bacteria, as those of us in the wastewater biz know, are prolific little copulators. But even these little sexpots require some time to get in the mood: to court one another, enjoy a meal together, and then go about their reproductive business. If they aren’t kept in an anoxic environment long enough, the growth rate is affected and nitrate removal efficiency declines. On the other hand, slowing down the internal recycle rate gives them more time to cozy up to one another and go about their nitrate removing business.

Biology trumps mathematics! That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.

Thanks for reading.

Grant

I once worked with a grizzly ol’ codger who – when the going got tough – liked to utter a phrase his even-grizzlier-yet dad used to say, “Just do SOMETHING!”

I liked hearing that. It fit well with my Dad’s view of the world. For most of my youth, my father had me believing that I could do anything I wanted as long as I set my mind to it. It was a bit of a setback to me when I confronted the reality that I posses more failings than the sum of those known to my ex-girlfriends.

To this day, I still get upset when I encounter a “can’t do” attitude. Which puts me back on top of the soap box for today’s blather.

Wastewater operators not only can make improvements to underperforming treatment plants, we should be expected to optimize performance. I consider it a cop out to blame a lack of funds for poor treatment. Sure, it takes money to treat wastewater, but as superintendents, it is our job to (a) maximize treatment using what we have and (b) do something about fixing the situation when what we have to work with isn’t good enough.

A confession. I enjoy the Bravo TV show, “Tabitha’s Salon Takeover.” Not a particularly manly admission, but so be it. I get a kick out of watching Tabitha – a no nonsense entrepreneur – take small business owners to task. Episode after episode, Tabitha is invited to fix “employee problems” and otherwise make things right only to tell the owner that it is THEM that need to change THEIR attitude. The business owners that get it generally turn their businesses around. Those that don’t, don’t.

It doesn’t work like that in our business. When treatment suffers, a long line of people form to support the “need” for millions of dollars for new equipment. Consultants speak to the poor condition of existing equipment. State and Federal regulators promote the funding programs they administer. Environmentalists express their outrage at the community’s failure to spend enough for the environment. Politicians publicize their efforts to locate grant funds.

With this approach, there will never be enough money to make treatment plants run right. If only… Imagine what could be done if those of us in charge appreciated all of the resources we do have and if we accepted it as our responsibility to spend as little money as possible to make the water we send out of the plant as clean as it can possibly be.

Thanks for reading.

Grant

Four snowstorms in a two week period has buried Washington, DC. Congress has gone into unofficial recess. Tens of thousands of “non-essential” federal employees have been kept from their work. Among the offices closed: FEMA. Workers at America’s Federal Emergency Management Agency are not being asked to navigate their way to work this week.

I don’t know about you, but I have been affected neither by the absence of legislative action nor by the halting of the federal bureaucracy. The storm has cost Americans many millions of dollars for man-hours not worked. But has anyone among us been affected in any way?

Last week I had the pleasure to travel to Wisconsin. While there, it snowed. Non-stop. The snow didn’t shut down anything. In fact, 60 small town wastewater treatment plant operators drove an hour or more to attend an all-day workshop. They made the trip to discuss different ways of saving money for their ratepayers.

I spoke about wastewater treatment process changes that not only reduce O&M costs, but do so by while improving effluent quality and reducing the wastewater treatment plant’s carbon footprint. Another speaker talked about the benefits of rebuilding existing process equipment versus buying new. Both of our talks were well received.

Some time ago, as president of the Water Planet company, I made a business decision to not involve the company in Clean Water funded projects. My rationale: the administrative requirements outweigh the financial advantage of using Clean Water funds. Both the company and our growing client base are profiting from this decision. We provide design solutions that are typically one-quarter the cost of conventional designs. We deliver the same water quality improvements at a seventy-five percent savings. Correction, not really “same,” better. Our approach is being increasing embraced by those willing to think and act creatively.

In Wisconsin, it was nice to speak with a group of wastewater operators who share my interest in making clean water affordable by getting more done for less. Thanks to Terry Vanden Heuvel for inviting me to Merrill. And, thanks to the operators of north-central Wisconsin for doing what you do. And, for being who you are.

As to Congress, please stay in recess. I like it when you don’t pass laws. As to the rest of you…

Thanks for reading.

Grant

For some time now, I’ve been promoting the idea of “capital-avoidance” wastewater treatment plant upgrades. The idea is to use existing tankage to provide biological habitats for nitrification, denitrification, and enhanced biological phosphorus removal.

The effort is gaining traction. A goodly percentage of operators “get” what I’m talking about. In Wisconsin next month I have the opportunity to meet with 50 operators. We’ll talk about ways that they might improve treatment while reducing operating costs.

In promoting this concept, I’ve been focusing on cost. By doing so, I have failed to promote another advantage to the capital-avoidance effort. The 21st Century way of thinking is “sustainability.” Now that I’ve seen the light, I’m on it.

I was one of those guys in the 1960s who got caught up in the Earth Day scene. I painted an ecology flag on the trunk of my car. It once got me pulled over by a cop who asked if it was a North Vietnamese flag. (History note: we were once at war with the North Vietnamese; thousands of Americans died there.) My explanation left him confused, but my Mom got it. She not only tolerated my way of thinking, she made an ecology flag quilt for me. Something I cherished. Sadly, neither she nor the quilt is any longer with me.

Using existing wastewater treatment equipment differently versus buying new may not get you any LEED awards, but I challenge anyone to explain how doing so is anything but “sustainable.”

Some ideas to consider: create anaerobic and/or anoxic zones by dialing down the electrical use, cycle aeration in aerobic zones to maintain enough DO for nitrification but no more, and cycle aeration of sludge digestion / sludge holding tanks to allow for VFA formation but not methanogenesis. All of these improve treatment, save money and reduce the carbon footprint. Want more ideas? Go to my company’s Wastewater Science web page.

I encourage wastewater operators to (a) use what you have only as much as you need and (b) buy as little new stuff as possible. Taking these actions may reduce your carbon footprint enough to offset Al Gore’s mansion’s carbon footprint. More importantly, doing so provides your children with a cleaner water environment and a more sustainable lifestyle. Not to mention, saving your ratepayers a boatload of money that you can then spend on other environmentally beneficial projects.

Thanks for reading.

Grant

I’m taking a temporary break from my cynicism to embrace the holiday spirit. My tree is up and decorated. Hereabouts, the weather has turned to winter. The conditions are such that I’m almost to the place (not quite) where I enjoy Christmas music.

My Christmas wishes are traditional, sentimental. Not meant to offend. In fact, I’m in more of a Thanksgiving mode. Me, I have a lot to be thankful for. Many, I’m sure, feel likewise.

For those who are unaware, I’d like to introduce Water for People, my favorite charity. The following is taken from their website. Check it out. If you have not contributed, please consider doing so.

“Water for People assists people in developing countries to improve quality of life by supporting the development of locally sustainable drinking water resources, sanitation facilities and hygiene education programs.

Around the world, 884 million people do not have access to safe drinking water and 2.5 billion are without adequate sanitation facilities. Every day, nearly 6,000 people who share our planet die from water-related illnesses, and the vast majority are children.

Our vision is a world where all people have access to safe drinking water and sanitation; a world where no one suffers or dies from a water- or sanitation-related disease.”

Merry Christmas and thanks for reading.

Grant

Ninety-four percent of college professors consider themselves to be above average teachers. Statistically, of course, only fifty percent are. Students are not quite so high on themselves: seventy percent of high school seniors give themselves “above average leadership skills.”

Another study. Notwithstanding an 88 percent confidence level in their diagnosis, only 20 percent of surveyed doctors’ patients actually had pneumonia. Ouch!

Ninety percent of drivers rate themselves better than the typical driver. With my trifocal vision and unrelenting impatience, I am among the ten percent that acknowledges less than average driving skills. Meaning, next time we travel together, maybe you should drive.

People not only give ourselves higher marks than we deserve, we ignore information to the contrary. We’re twice as likely to seek out information that confirms our beliefs than listening to evidence that might disprove what we believe to be true.

What does this have to do with sewage treatment? Quite a lot, I think.

Much like teachers and doctors, wastewater superintendents don’t get a lot of realistic feedback on how we are doing. Sure, we have permits to meet. But, when compliance becomes difficult, we can always justify our inability to meet permit conditions by pointing to our aged equipment. The answer to most treatment problems is “facility upgrade.” Having trouble meeting permit? Contact the state. Government officials are willing to help.

The dirty little secret is this: many, many millions of dollars are wasted on unnecessary “facility upgrades.” Money spent on design and construction is – when warranted – money well spent. But when improvements can be made without multi-million dollar expenditures, doing so is –how do I say this in a politically correct way – a waste.

Seventy-five percent of treatment plants I recently visited can meet new permit requirements at one-fourth the cost of a facility upgrade. They do this by investing in process control changes, instrumentation, and very little equipment. That’s a seventy-five percent, multi-million dollar savings!

I hold wastewater superintendents in high regards. It is one of the most thankless, important and damn difficult jobs out there. But the fact is this: only half of us are better than average. Another, even more important fact: the very best one-percent of us is less than 100% skilled at everything we do. And, because it is so new, biological nutrient removal is something that few of us do really well.

How, I wonder, can it become okay for more superintendents to embrace process control modifications as a cost saving alternative to engineering fixes? I’ll keep looking for the answer to this one.

Thanks for reading.

Grant

Approaching 60, as I am, I’m making those necessary physical adjustments so that I can navigate the downhill run of life. Doing so causes me to see things differently. Better, I think.

It no longer causes me discomfort to learn that I don’t know things that I once thought I did. Wiser people don’t wait so long to get this place. Admitting this acknowledges something unkind about myself. But, what can I say? It’s true.

In my younger days, I was interested in proving myself. Because I looked much younger than I actually was, I worked particularly hard at being serious and respectful. My beard is all but completely grey. Now I LIKE it when somebody believes me younger than I am.

As I’ve learned to better live within my skin, I’ve learned that the most effective people are those with the confidence to seek input from others. This is certainly true in our profession. Wastewater professionals who listen and learn are engaging people. They bring us into conversations. They learn from us. By not listening to them, we lose out on the opportunity to learn from them as well.

With each passing year, I’m learning more about how to learn. I find that I get a lot of pleasure learning new wastewater treatment tricks from people who are younger, less experienced, and/or less educated than me. I’m finding that my willingness to “not know” causes me to spend less energy keeping my guard up and gives me far more time to listen and collaborate.

Lately, I’ve been making a number of first time visits to treatment plants. At most every facility I visit I learn something new. On occasion, I’m also able to pass along something of value. And that is what pays the bills.

Thanks for reading.

Grant

One of the most common items of discussion among treatment plant superintendents is staffing. Specifically, the need for more trained operators. The conversation always lead to some grousing about the State’s licensing rules, the shortage of training opportunities, and the aging workforce.

The irony is this. Those of us who are already licensed benefit financially from the shortage of licensed operators. It may be hard for us to find qualified licensed personnel to work for us, but the rules of supply and demand kick in and we find ourselves in a seller’s market.

I’m down with the need to license wastewater treatment plant operators. No issue there. We need to ensure some level of professionalism. The ABC classifications make sense to me; more or less. I do take issue with the educational, years of in-plant experience, and limitations on very small treatment plants being applied by some State regulatory authorities. Others have legitimate beefs.

Like me, most everyone in the business has their opinions about the certification rules. But, in all my conversations, I’ve never heard anybody discuss the following.

Why do the wastewater operator licensing requirements apply to people who work at wastewater treatment plants but NOT to people who design them?

Why do the wastewater operator licensing requirements apply to people who work at wastewater treatment plants but NOT to people who regulate them?

My opinion: designers and regulators need to spend time at treatment plants to understand how to design and regulate them. Being crotchety, I find it hard to defer to the thinking of unlicensed regulators when they explain to me why the qualifications that they establish for wastewater treatment plant operators to be licensed are just and fair. My opinion: if you haven’t walked the walk, don’t talk the talk.

As to design engineers. Since beginning this blog, I’ve learned that there are more than a few others who share my belief that it is nigh on impossible for excellent designs to come from engineers with no plant experience. Yet, for some reason, our field uniquely empowers inexperienced personnel to design equipment for us to operate.

It’s as if judges never practiced law. It’s as if naval architects never went to sea. It’s as if automobile executives never drove a car; oops, I understand that to be the case with some of the newly appointed overseers of GM and Chrysler. My bad…

Thanks for reading.

Grant

I recently attended a two day EPA seminar “Nutrient Control at Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants.” It was excellent. My thanks to EPA’s Roger Jansen for organizing and hosting the event, and thanks to Clifford Randall, James Barnard, David Stensel, J.B. Neethling, and incoming WEF President Jeanette Brown for the informative presentations.

I have been closely involved in the operation of some twenty wastewater treatment plants that employ nutrient removal. Over the past dozen years the Water Planet company has worked with all kinds of facilities: activated sludge, fixed media, submerged media, SBR, and membrane filtration. Our operational experience is unique. At a January 2010 conference in Boston, I will be presenting a paper entitled “Nitrogen Removal: Lessons Learned.”

I learned a lot from the academics who developed many of the modern nutrient removal strategies. In dramatic contrast to my conventional cynical view, I found myself awed to be in the presence of these geniuses. Thanks to their pioneering work (and that of others), we can now treat wastewater to even higher levels without significant expense.

Without significant expense?

Yes, the speakers reaffirmed my company’s experiences. Many – I say most – municipal treatment plants can significantly reduce their discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus with little to no capital expenses.

This is done by using existing equipment differently. Oftentimes, all that is needed is an understanding of the science and the freedom and courage to make process changes.

Thanks for reading.

Grant

I once got myself into trouble by disagreeing with a state official who penned a newspaper article proclaiming the Clean Water Fund he administered to be the “hero” of the “story” of the cleanup of Long Island Sound. I expressed my disagreement by submitting a counter position calling the Clean Water Fund “a pork barrel program,” something I now regret having written.

The Clean Water program was once an important source of funds for the construction of new treatment facilities; but nowadays, the program pumps too many millions of taxpayer dollars into the wallets of engineers, lawyers, paper-pushers, equipment suppliers and contractors, and too few dollars into clean water improvements to suit me. It is my outspoken opinion that the Clean Water Fund is a fallen hero. Taxpayers are no longer getting a good bang for their buck.

The heroes of the nation’s water cleanup stories are wastewater treatment plant operators. We are the most unsung of heroes, are we not!? Because we toil in such a low status occupation, few consider us capable. As a result, good minded people concerned about the environment ignore the folks who are in the best position to affect change: you and me. Environmentalists and municipal officials believe it necessary to bring in the “experts” to redo sewage treatment plants, and they lobby for ever more Clean Water Funds to do so.

Those of us who work at water pollution control facilities hear the message: without outside help (that is, engineers and the new equipment they dispense), we are doing as well as can be expected. We have become so accustomed to this way of thinking that we take no offense to the diss.

If not seek more funds for ever more equipment, what are we, the most hands-on water quality protectors of all, to do?

How about putting existing equipment to more effective use? It’s something I regularly write about in my blog.

When superintendents apply themselves to solving problems, the results can be dramatic: doubling nitrogen removal, slashing phosphorus, saving electricity, to name a few. Wastewater operators are the nation’s clean water experts. The machinery bought with Clean Water Funds moves wastewater around, it is us who make the water clean; something we do well and proudly.

Unfortunately, too many treatment plant managers find it in their interest to pursue multi-million dollar “Clean Water” funding for treatment plant upgrades. Many of us find it more rewarding to locate grant money for multi-million dollar projects than using municipal funds at lower ratepayer cost to finance equally effective, less grandiose work. Thankfully, an increasing number of us are looking to ourselves before we look to others for solutions. In the August 2009 edition of TPO magazine, Shenandoah, Iowa’s Greg Scott congratulated TPO on its practical approach to water quality protection by writing, “I get tired of reading about multimillion-dollar … systems [in other publications].” I second Greg’s comment.

Municipal wastewater treatment plants require ongoing investments in capital equipment. To get the money, municipalities that establish sewer rates that include the depreciation cost of their equipment instead of using state and federal tax money to care for treatment facilities, get more done for less. If everyone were to do so, there would be very little need for any Clean Water Funds anywhere, ever. Our nation’s waters would be healthier and our national debt somewhat less damaged. And, we’d all have one more thing to be proud about.

Thanks for reading.

Grant