Is It Close, But No Ceeegar?
Mark Low sent the following, with attachments and documents, to Paavo Ogren, as well as the Planning Commission and the Coastal Commission. He’s been asking for months why this vacuum system hasn’t been on the Sewer Table, even though he presented the info way back when. Well, maybe now we’ll get some answers from somebody? Or the vacuum system he's proposing may get another look-see? Or maybe not, if it’s all too late. As with all things Sewerish, stay tuned. The Planning Commission is still at work. The Coastal Commission has been checking in with letters commenting on what the PC is doing – little smoke signals indicating their possible leanings and concerns. So it all remains to be seen.
In response to October 27, 2008: Release of the Final Report from the NWRI Independent Peer Review Panel:
Membrane Bioreactor (added by Panel)
Attached please see a generic proposal for a 1MGD ECOfluid USBF Membrane Bioreactor Title 22 Water Reclamation Facility.
A close review of our treatment technology will reveal many advantages over the other treatment technologies your study process included.
These advantages include, but are not limited to, reduced footprint, reduced energy consumption, no odor, reduced sludge production, reduced capital and O&M costs.
The cost range is $6,900,000.00 for a Micro Screen option and $7,400,000.00 for the Membrane option which includes 30% design, engineering and contingency. As Paavo Ogren stated in August 2007- If there is a technology that is significantly less expensive”, “then that technology becomes the new standard and all others fall away”. When these words become reality the citizens are well represented by their government.
The one factor that significantly contributes to operating simplicity and reduces operating and maintenance needs and costs, is the. Pumped once from the equalization tank into the bioreactors, the entire flow through the process (biology, filtration and UV disinfection) is by gravity. Gravity and hydraulic action are forces of nature and is energy which is free of charge.
Of course any size (GPD) facility for any strength influent can be designed upon request.
The attached Nitrogen Reduction Memorandum should be of particular interest to those interested in solving Nitrogen loading problems.
ECOfluid President, Karel Galland and I are available to discuss in detail this generic proposal and how a site specific proposal can be developed for your project.
We expect to see our technology included in your study review process, including the EIR study.
Time and money are precious, so we won’t waste any and know that you will want to give us your best consideration so we look forward to hearing from you soon.
Your prompt attention in this matter will be appreciated.
P.O. Box 1355 Mesa, Arizona 85211