1

JANICKI BIOENERGY
June 29, 2016
Regional Wastewater Treatment Capacity Advisory Committee
Clackamas County Board of Supervisors
2051 Kaen Road
Oregon City, OR 97045

719 Metcalf Street

Sedro-Woolley, WA 98284
USA
(360) 399-6193
janickibioenergy.com

RE: Solid Waste Handling at the Tri-City Water Pollution Control Plant
Note: Please have this letter read into record during public comment on the June 30
meeting.
Dear Ms. Power,
Thank you for the time and effort you and your committee members all have invested in
considering Janicki Bioenergy (JB) and our waste processing technology as a possible
solution at the Tri-City Water Pollution Control Plant. While we appreciate the opportunity
and firmly believe that our solution would provide a multitude of benefits to the
surrounding communities (both financial and environmental), this letter serves as a formal
notification of our decision to withdraw all proposals previously submitted to your
committee from further consideration.
To date, there have been numerous and continuous erroneous statements made about
our technology and our company, including most recently during the May 26th meeting. It
is unnecessary and unproductive to point out all of the inaccuracies, but we would like to
clarify a couple of points for the record that were particularly unfounded. These
problematic claims are examples that serve to illustrate our reasons for withdrawal from
this process.
First, third-party testimony from a variety of un-vetted sources was repeated multiple times
claiming that dewatered biosolids are too wet to be effectively consumed in our Processor
without co-firing. This statement is simply not true. Our technology is not only selfsustaining, but generates excess electricity in operation. Our mass-energy balance has
been audited by countless experts in the field with full support, not to mention that we
prove this fact everyday with our S100 unit operating in Senegal and S200 unit operating in
Washington.
Second, third-party testimony was repeated multiple times claiming that waste activated
sludge (WAS) must first be anaerobically digested to allow for successful dewatering and,
therefore, that our claim of being able to take this material prior to the anaerobic digesters
was impossible. Again, this statement is simply not true. As a point of reference, of the

approximately 16,000 publicly owned treatment works in the US generating dewatered

WAS, less than 1,500 utilize anaerobic digestion in the process. Clearly, not only is it
possible, it is much more common for dewatering of WAS to take place without anaerobic
digestion than with it.
It appears that it would be counterproductive for both parties (your committee and JB) to
continue this relationship at this time. We hope that by rescinding our proposal your
committee and associated communities are able to resolve their solids management issues
quickly. Should the committee decide to reconsider our technology in the future utilizing a
process with objective evaluation measures and testimony, we would welcome the
opportunity to reengage.

Sincerely,
Sara VanTassel
President
Janicki Bioenergy