A HISTORY OF ASHFIELD'S WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
By Jennifer Fraulo
1. OPTIONS:
Ashfield, Massachusetts Needs a Sewage Treatment Facility:
Rural Ashfield Village, peaceful and picturesque, is located in the Berkshire foothills in Western Massachusetts. Ashf ield Village is composed of 130 dwellings, in addition to a few small businesses, churches, and town buildings.' By the 1990's, Ashfield Village had been knowingly polluting its lake and streams with sewage for over thirty years.
The sewage generated in each of these buildings historically had been disposed of privately and onsite. As recently as 1989, disposal methods have involved cesspools and septic system overflow to a stream, according to a study commissioned by the town.' At least 49 properties discharged directly into a stream!
It was in the early 1970's that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) discovered that "raw sewage was being dumped into Ashfield lake and directly into the [South Rliver. 114 Ordering the town of Ashf ield to correct the problem, EPA offered $585,000 of federal funds toward constructing a community sewage treatment systern.' In 1990, sewage treatment in Ashfield Village had not been improved, while the town faced a state fine of $25,000 per day for each day the town was not actively working toward alleviating the pollution."
For twenty years, Ashfield had explored alternative designs with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the state agency which implements federal water quality laws. DEQ engineers proposed a design which included "12-foot plastic wheels rotating through a trough of sewage," among other noisy, smelly, expensive industrial facilities." Ashfield preferred simpler solutions, such as retrofitting individual septic systems, or diverting effluent from all systems to a collective leachfield! The DEQ engineers evaluated the designs for their ability to achieve treatment needs, while the town evaluated designs based on their compatibility-with the "town character." No design for the town's treatment needs was mutually acceptable. ,
In 1988, a committee formed to carefully examine the town's options.' Upgrading individual septic systems would place a large financial burden on individual landowners, and site conditions challenged the ability to adequately upgrade. Rather than ordering individual landowners to upgrade each of their septic systems, the town committed to piping effluent from all of the existing systems to a central treatment facility whose cost was shared by the entire town." Ashfield began to search for a design for a central public treatment facility which would meet treatment needs, but not detract from its rural setting. The only candidate meeting both criteria was a solar aquatics facility.
Understanding Wastewater Treatment Systems
Under federal law, all public wastewater treatment systems must accomplish three goals. They must extract solids from liquids, they must remove pathogens, and they must remove nitrogen from the waste stream.
These goals are accomplished through tivee phases of treatmenL In the primary phase, solids are removed from the waste stream. In the secondary phase, pathogens are killed. In the third phase, nitrogen in the waste stream is converted to nitrogen gas and released into the air.
Almost all treatment facilities use "conventional" technology. Conventional treatment facilities remove all solids by detaining sewage inflows in settling tanks, and they use chlorine to kill pathogens. Conventional facilities remove nitrogen in one of two ways. Some facilities use chemicals which react with nitrogen-containing compounds and release nitrogen gas into the air. These facilities must add other chemicals to the waste stream to remove the byproducts of the reaction." Other conventional facilities remove nitrogen-containing compounds biologically by introducing bacteria which digest them and release the nitrogen as gas. When bacteria are used in denitrification, the denitrifying tanks must be aerated to provide the bacteria with the oxygen they need.
What is Solar Aquatics, and What Makes it Different?
The solar aquatics wastewater treatment system, first developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), is based on the model of waste recycling in natural systems." The conventional treatment process relies heavily on machines, chemicals, and energy. In natural systems, animal waste does not endlessly accumulate in the absence of human technological intervention. Instead, it is recycled, broken down by microorganisms, and incorporated i.n new Plant growth. Animal waste is one of the best sources of nitrogen, which plants need to n1ake the proteins that allow growth and all other life processes.
Waste streams from human communities are large in volume and concentration in compari son to natural systems. In addition, the federal government's standards for the water produced by these facilities are higher than those expected in most natural water bodies. V*rith some human intervention, however, natural processes can produce water that meets federal drinking water standards from large volumes of sewage.
John Todd was among the first to promote constructed natural systems to treat the wastes of urban or other concentrated human populations. His goal was to "change attitudes toward waste so that sewage will be seen for the valuable renewable resource it is."13
In John Todd's design concept, sewage is used as plant food. As plants assimilate wastes, the waste stream is purified. Sewage flows through a variety of aquatic plant habitats housed within a greenhouse. Plant growth is harvested. Harvested plants can be fed to poultry, or they can be composted to create rich soil. A facility such as this would provide employment opportunities by creating marketable resources and supporting associated agricultural industries." The gaseous fraction of the incoming waste stream could even be used to generate electricity."
Todd's use of plants in wastewater treatment reduces the need to separate solids from the waste stream and enhances nutrient removal. The design does not, however, completely exclude machines and chemicals. Incoming waste still is sterilized to kill human pathogens, although ozone is used instead of chlorine. Solids are ground up to dissolve better into the slurry.",
Todd's design provides a cheaper and less technologically dependent way of treating waste than the conventional treatment facilities, which depend on expensive computer-driven machinery. What is most distinctive about Todd's design, however, is that it is as much about using waste as a biological and economic resource as it is about purifying water.
Ashfield's Attraction to Solar Aquatics Design
A solar aquatics treatment facility is a garden of plant and animal life, a community of life forms thriving on the nutrients in the waste stream. The waste stream flows through a train of large, transparent, cylindrical tanks housing plants, algae, fish, and shellfish. The solar aquatics treatment facility captured the imaginations of the townspeople.
The facility's advantages were described by Tamsen Merrill in a 1990 article published in the Ashfield News: "it does not require much room. It does not rely on expensive, energyconsuming machinery to process waste. It discharges clean water and does not dump pollutants into the soil. It's not ugly and doesn't smell or make noise. It's safe. Perhaps most significantly, it is cheaper to build and operate, than the formerly proposed sewer facility and it could help pay for itself by accepting septage from septic tank pumping in the village and from other parts of town.
Ashfield's Board of Heath began to investigate solar aquatics as an option in 1989."' In 1993, the town voted to appropriate funds to build the facility. In the interim, Ashfield deliberated over its options.
The Advantages of the Solar Aquatics Facility Over the Conventional
As described previously, some conventional systems remove nitrogen from the waste stream by flushing it with a series of chemicals of high toxicity, while others remove nitrogen by housing bacteria which digest the wastes. Solar aquatics, while similar to conventional systems which avoid chemical denitrification, has additional advantages over these systems.
The most obvious advantages of the solar aquatics system are aesthetic. The system is housed in a greenhouse rather than an industrial building. Plants, not sewage, dominate the visual field. Plants also contain sewage odors in the tanks, leaving the air smelling fresh. The biotic community can support turtles, tropical birds, and other animals. The treatment system is complex and intriguing, appealing for use as a classroom or botanical garden.
From a more technical standpoint, design features of the solar aquatics tanks produce a more flexible and resilient system than conventionally designed facilities. Conventional systems consist of a small number of large-capacity treatment tanks. In contrast, the solar aquatics design consists of a, larger number of smaller tanks. Because solar aquatics design is modular, tanks can be added or subtracted to a train as waste flow increases or decreases.
The, plants in the solar aquatics system enable the tanks to support a much larger number of active microbes than they would be able to otherwise. The large tanks of conventional systems support only "suspended growth" of bacteria: bacteria are suspended in the waste strewn. Although the water in the smaller solar tanks also accommodates "suspended growth," roots of plants in solar tanks provide a much more extensive surface for "fixed growth" microbes to digest nutrients in the liquid media. In addition, plant roots capture solid sludge particles, where microbes on plant root surfaces can decompose it. As a result, solar tanks containing plants produce less sludge than treatment tanks devoid of plants."
Solar aquatics has further practical advantages over conventional wastewater treatment facilities. In a conventional system, a toxic load in wastewater can wipe out the whole population of denitrifying bacteria. Because the solar aquatics design features wastewater flowing through a sequence of tanks, the chance of bacteria populations collapsing in all tanks is slight. Upstream tanks can buffer downstream tanks. Because the waste stream flows between tanks slowly, an upset affecting upstream tanks can be stopped before reaching downstream tanks.
Solar tanks offer some financial advantages over conventional systems. As a new technology, solar aquatics facilities can be partially funded through federal grants for innovative technologies. In addition, the solar aquatics facility can double as a plant nursery. Revenue can be produced by selling the plants propagated and grown from the nutrient flow.
The Advantages of the Conventional Facilities Over Solar Aquatics
Engineers and government regulatory agencies can design conventional treatment facilities to treat a given capacity of waste to a prescribed level of purity, according to past experiences.with similar facilities. Engineers are familiar with conventional components, mechanisms, and operations. Over time, designs have improved and glitches have been anticipated or easily corrected. The same cannot be said for solar aquatics facilities.
Solar aquatics is still new technology. Solar Aquatics Systems (SAS) are designed and marketed by only one company: Ecological Engineering Associates (EEA), founded by John Todd and his colleague Susan Peterson in 1999.' Only a handful of facilities have been built, limiting opportunities to study the systems and to accumulate experience building them, operating them, and projecting their costs.
Before 1992, the Massachusetts DEP would only approve a solar aquatics facility as a small-scale experimental pilot projecL" John Todd built two such pilot facilities between 1987 and 1989, one at the Sugarbush Ski Resort in Verrnont~ and one in the city of Providence, Rhode Island.' In 1989, EEA constructed a third pilot facility in Harwich, MA. By 1998, EEA had designed fifteen working facilities.
The pilot facilities were designed to test the performance of the technology, which was carefully monitored. At least one facility was slow to produce clean water that met federal standards. During its first two and a half years of operation, the Harwich facility did not meet permit limits for effluent quality. It was not until 1992 that the Massachusetts DEP certified that the purified water produced by "solar aquatics met Class I drinking water quality standards." That year solar aquatics was approved as a "conditional technology" for the State of Massachusetts.' By formally approving Solar Aquatics Systems as a "conditional technology," the DEP recognized that the technology was capable of successfully purifying sewage. Successful performance of a facility, however, requires a certain minimum capacity for a given volume of sewage flow, and a certain physical and biological design for a waste stream's special composition. The DEP was unable to apply exact design specifications based on past experience with the solar aquatics technology in Massachusetts, and yet still was charged with evaluating the proposed solar aquatics design for its expectpd effectiveness in meeting federal effluent standards. conservative regulatory requirements and uncertain performance conflicts with efficient design.
Solar aquatics might appear to be a simpler and cheaper technology than conventional treatment systems. Carefully drawn price comparisons, however, projected the costs of a conventional and solar aquatics system designed for Ashfield's needs to be comparable, roughly $1.5 million each.
Furthermore, Uncertainties about possible DEP mandated alterations to the solar aquatics design were perhaps underplayed. In January 1993, a consulting engineer expressed concern to the town "that the apparent equal cost of the two options may be an artifact, and that the full-scale facility may cost more than now anticipated ... [T]his is more likely with the solar aquatic system (sic) because of the limited experience with full-scale facilities." 25 That same year, the project's chief engineers reported that "design modifications imposed by the DEP to ensure that the Solar Aquatics System meets all federal and state requirements may increase the cost of the Solar Aquatics System, as will additional operator requirements."26 In February 1999, the facility's first operator, Tom Leue, racounted the chief engineer's warning to the town that the solar aquatics design would likely be a significant extra financial burden on [the people of Ashfield] forevermore. 27
II. THE FACILITY
The Ashfield Facility is Designed and Built
On June 28, 1993, the citizens of Ashfield voted 312 to 18 "to authorize the Selectmen to cause the design and construction of a community wastewater treatment system, identified as a solar aquatic (sic) technology".28 A second vote authorized $1.5 million to be appropriated for constructing the facility.24 The facility began operations in September, 1998. By that time, the total construction costs totaled $4.4 million! 29.
Many people were involved in designing the system. The firm Weston & Sampson designed the collection system and the leachfield, and served as the main engineers for the entire project. 30. A second firm, Ecological Engineering Associates, was subcontracted to design the solar aquatics facility. 31. Phillip Henderson of EEA estimates that his firm was responsible for the process design and about 80% of the final design details for the facility, while Weston & Sampson was responsible for the remaining 20% of the design details.32 Weston & Sampson assembled the final design package. The work of both firms was carefully overseen and reviewed by state engineers at the Department of Environmental Protection.
Ashfield's $4.4 million facility was funded in large part by a federal grant and through state and federal loans. The USDA's Rural Development Administration provided a grant of $1.6 million dollars, and an additional $2 million in long-term loans for the project. Loans for an additional $787,600 were provided by the Massachusetts State Revolving Fund in cooperation with the EPA. 33.
The new facility attracted school groups and tourists who were interested in solar aquatics technology and the biological communities on which it depended. 34.
Wastes entering the greenhouse supported exotic and alluring flowering plants like fig trees and banana trees. 35. Water hyacinth, elephant ear plant, and numerous microorganisms also inhabited the tanks, where they supported populations of trout and freshwater clams. The greenhouses were animated by box turtles, lizards, and tropical birds. 36. Abundant clippings from fast-growing plants were composted, 37. yielding friable, black earth, full of worms, huge toads, and even four of those blue spotted salamanders in one pile alone.38. The facility operator planned informational brochures and signs to interpret the facility's ecological processes to the public.39.
Eventually, the town and the state would both order that the greenhouses be closed to the public, and the plants and animals would be removed. The facility's benefits were not worth its costs to the town.
Surprises in the Construction Process
Conservative overdesign accounted for many of the extra costs. Ashfield's sewage treatment facility was modeled on the facility in Harwich which was the only other solar aquatics treatment facility in the state. The Harwich facility, however, had been designed to treat septage rather than less concentrated sewage. 37. Septage is a thick liquid which accumulates at the bottom of septic tanks and eventually must be pumped out. Sewage is a much more diluted waste stream, containing significantly more water than septage.
Early in the process of designing Ashfield's facility, EEA voiced concern that "to our knowledge DEP has no information on operations of SAS sewage treatment facilitiee(emphasis added)." EEA attempted to provide the needed information by providing records of "performance and design data on two operating solar aquatic (s1c) sewage treatment facilities and design data on a third facility that has been approved for construction" in other states. Nonetheless, the DEP ordered that "the number, size, and configuration of the solar aquatic (sic) tanks and marshes [in the Ashfield facility] must be designed based strictly on the approved Harwich facility even though the Ashfield system is proposed to treat wastewater [rather than the more concentrated septage treated at Harwich]."'
The treatment facility is designed to be capable of processing 25,000 gallons of sewage per day. 41. EEA's original design proposal called for a single greenhouse containing 42. solar tanks and three marshes to handle this volume.43. Weston and Sampson's final design included 64 solar tanks housed in one greenhouse, and four marshes housed in the other. Ultimately, treatment was adequately performed by only 24 solar tanks and two marshes. The facility as originally built, therefore, included more than twice the number of tanks, marshes, and greenhouses needed, even accounting for back-up needs.
Even the capacity of 25,000 gallons per day is conservative and excessive. By a 1992 calculation, Ashfield's sewage volume was projected to range from 18,000 to 20,000 gallons per day." By 1998, the facility's load averaged approximately 17,000 gallons/day. One third of the facility's capacity is currently unused. "The solar aquatic system (sic), town officials agree, was overdesigned, primarily at the request of DEP, which was uncertain of the performance of the solar aquatic (sic) technology."'
Building costs were already inflated by the need to bid out the construction, requiring detailed engineering bids to be drafted. A simpler design-build arrangement theoretically would have cost the town up to 50% less, but this option is not available for projects commissioned by government bodies. Additional extra costs included the $4(0,000 architect-designed headhouse "designed to resemble white clapboard New England add-on architecture,
Sewer rates charged to users reflected the enormous cost overruns and the town's subsequent debt. In 1998 the $ 100,000 annual cost to the town was divided among fewer than 200 users, costing each user an average of $575 per year, the second highest sewer rate in Massachusetts.' Many users failed to pay. In 1998, only $60,000 was collected of the $100,000 charged.'
Widespread defaults on sewer payments raised anxieties even higher in Ashfield, introducing the danger of lien attachment on homes and properties, and causing other users' rates to proportionally rise.' In addition, "state laws mandate that the debit be offset by an increase in the [municipal] tax rate.9/59
More Surprises After Construction is Completed
When the facility began operations, more problems emerged in the form of design flaws and process glitches. Problems unrelated to the solar aquatics components included leachfield failure, nonfunctional alarms, and pump station failure, the last causing sewage to flood a house basement."
Other problems related directly to the solar aquatics system. Within the first two weeks of operation, all pipes in the system clogged, but were not designed to allow cleaning out.' Single-speed, high-powered air compressors blasted liquid out of the tanks.' Net and outlet pipes to and from tanks allowed only the upper fractions of liquid to move from one tank to the next." Liquid continued to pump into a tank, even after that tank was full, unless the stream was monitored and manually turned off.' Glass used in greenhouse construction was poor at retaining heat because it hadn't been coated with an insulating glaze.' Excess bacteria growth clogged pipes in the marsh." For ten months, nitrogen in effluent exceeded the federal discharge limit."
The two greenhouses cost $120,000 a year to operate, twice the amount EEA originally estimated for a single 7,000-square-foot greenhouse. Labor costs were $30,000 higher than expected. The original estimate did not foresee employing full-time a licensed operator or providing benefits to employees. Fuel costs were $6,000 more than expected, and maintenance and repair cost $2,000 more than expected." Ongoing consulting fees and debt service were not considered in the original budget at all .7' Along with construction costs, these operating costs were reflected in the rates charged to the system's users.
Panic, Community Conflict, and Finger-Pointing
The financial burden the facility had imposed on the town and the sewer users created a climate of anxiety, alarm, and accusation. Selectman Bill Perelman feared ". . . when people get their sewer bills, they're going to have heart attacks. This town is going to own some properties and I don't think. that's fair."' Selectman Don Robinson agreed, "Financially, it is a disaster."'
People differed in their opinions as to who to blame for the problems accompanying the treatment plant. Mr. Perelman spoke of suing EEA, saying "I'm not sure we weren't sold a bill of goods and I'm not sure that we were not lied to ... We, the town, were sold by some very, very smooth operators and we bought it. . - "74EEA's total fee for its design concept, its collaboration with Weston & Sampson, and its continued advice to the facility operator was only $115,000."' Weston & Sampson's fees, however, were 2501o of the project, or roughly $1.1 million.'
The Ashfield Solar-Aquatic Interest Group, represented by Harry Dodson and Ken Kipen, argued that Weston & Sampson was responsible "for most of the effors, and omissions."' Phil Henderson of EEA defended Weston & Sampson's work, however, explaining that building the treatment facility involved a learning curve, and applauding Weston & Sampson for helping Ashfield to secure funding to defray the high costs."
Phil Henderson of EEA believes that many of the facility's problems were caused by the complications of collaboration with other firms and government engineers and regulators. Although he reviewpd and commented on Weston & Sampson's final plans, "the process made it awkward to make changes.""
Ashfield's Sewer Commission used every resource at its disposal to improve the facility. They continued to retain Weston & Sampson's consulting services to improve the facility's operations.' They applied to EPA and their district Senator for emergency funding."' '
Not all of the Sewer Commission's actions were popular. Some townspeople felt that EEA, and not Weston & Sampson, should be the consulting engineers employed by the town to refine the facility's operations,' When the sewer commission prohibited the facility operator, Tom Lette, from communicating directly with EEA, and later put Mr. Leue under probationary review, many townspeople rallied behind Mr. Leue, a man they felt to be "very capable, professional, hardworking, and dedicated to the project.""m The town wasdivided.
The Facility Proves Successful While Help is On the Way
By April, 1998, one year and five months after the solar aquatics treatment facility began operations, the leachfield was the only malfunctioning element in the system, and Weston & Sampson had accepted responsibility "for the septic field failure, and they ... agreed to fix it at their expense."' The facility operator reported that "all discharge parameters [with the exception of those associated with the leachfield failure] are in full compliance and have been since April of 1998."" Fight months later, in early January, 1999, the Ashfield Solar-Aquatic Research Group would report to the Select Board without dispute that "[tlhe solar-aquatic elements of the facility have been running well beyond stringent DEP requirements for wastewater treatment now for nearly eight consecutive months . . . 'it [isi] one of the cleanest operating plants in the state for the present time.""
However, after only four months of success, in August, 1998, the EPA came through with a grant of $1.5 million to overhaul the facility. Ashfieldjumped to receive the aid package and to commit to the overhaul, known as the "Corrective Action Phase."" The facility would continue to be in compliance with DEP standards for the interim months before the new work started.
The Overhaul
When Ashfield was first awarded the grant, the treatment facility had only been running successfully for four months. At that point, it was unclear whether the facility would continue operating reliably. The EPA requires three years of smooth operation before "a level of stability" is recognized." An additional concern was that the amount of labor and the operating costs required to sustain successful operation far exceeded the town's expectations, and continued to strain the town's resources. The EPA grant would enable Ashfield to streamline operations to achieve greater efficiency, and to guarantee continued successful operations.
The facility's reputation as a failure became key to the town's hopes for ending the financial hardships surrounding the treatment facility. As the facility continued to operate successfully, the town feared losing eligibility for the grant. Town officials discouraged publicizing the facility's success. The facility operator reports, I wrote an article for a tradejournal that says thi s were looking up and [the Sewer Commissioners] all soundly chastised me because they were 210 the DEP-might see it and therefore reduce the grant money coming our way, since the plant was said to be working all right,"" Mr. Perlman insisted, "one way or another this thing will work when it's finished.""
Govemment beneficiaries of the funds wamed Ashfield against delaying to commit to the "Corrective Action Plan." "The availability of additional funding was predicated on the town's effort to execute the required contract amendment needed to complete the coffective action phase. If Ashfield delays the process ... the funding will be jeopardized by the inability to initiate the corrective action phase or meet the close out date."" The likelihood was strong that Ashf leld would be ineligible for future government funds if the conective work were postponed until it were proven necessary."
At the time of Mr. Leue's termination in February 1999, the DEP's concerns with the treatment facility consisted of only "five items. These are the fixing of the leachfield, the explanations of why the alanins don't work right, additional water testing, a summary of the changes to the O&M manual, and a plan for the compost and sludge management."" The grant money was seen by the town leaders as an opportunity to do much more, however. Their level of discomfort with managing an unfamiliar and unpredictable living system resulted in an overhaul that transformed the solar aquatics facility into a conventional facility.
A Clue to the Madness: The Challenges of Operating an "Innovative" Facility
Harry Dodson, among others, felt that Tom Leue deserved much of the credit for the facility's tumaround in mid- 1998. "His abilities and commitment have helped to make Ashfield's solar aquatic (sic) plant one of the cleanest in the state. Due to engineering flaws ... such as the failed leach field, pump station and grinder pumps, he has had to work under extremely difficult circumstances but has still managed to bring the plant into compliance with state testing requirements."97 On behalf of the Select Board, the Select Board Chair, M. Dianne Muller, offered her praise: "The DEP and Weston &Sampson have repeatedly said to us, the Superintendent and the Commissioners that Tom's knowledge and opinions are valuable and significant."" .
Tom himself offered insight into the efforts which had been required to bring the facility into compliance:
While making the facility successful, Tom also kept sight of the initial desire for the treatment facility to be notjust a utility, but a cultural and educational resource for the community.
The Commission was wary of Leue's technical talents and resourcefulness. They restricted his contact with the engineers, and forbade him from mitigating their mistakes with his own judgment." According to the Ashfield Solar-Aquatic Interest Group, "fflhe Ashfield Sewer Commission insisted ... that Leue follow [the Operations and Management Manual) to-the-letter, [even though] it was incomplete and in many cases incoffect."101
His supporters point out that "[Mr. Leue] realized that especially for an innovative technology the O&M needed to be a working document... "" He departed from the manual's instructions so that the facility might perform successfully, "insisting his first responsibility was to the provisions of this operator's license and to his job-description to make the plant work as well as he might."103 He made no change without first conferring with EEA, and assured that "[alll modifications [to the facility and its operations] have been approved in writing [by EEA]."" Nonetheless, according to the Ashfield Solar-Aquatic Interest Group, "The Sewer Commissioners ... interpreted much of [Leue's technical improvements and experimentation] as insubordinate behavior.""
Ideally, Mr. Leue's diagnostic and technical abilities, his eagerness to experiment, and his firsthand experience with the facility would have been encouraged and incorporated into a strong collaborative partnership with the project engineers, Weston & Sampson and Ecological Engineering Associates. Ashfield's town leaders gave authority to change the O&M Manual only to Weston & Sampson, not to EEA, and not to the facility operator. Mr. Leue attempted to work closely with Weston & Sampson to improve the facility's performance. Weston & Sampson, however, were "very poor at responding to my many memos to them ... including some that are described as emergency situations ... [and] have not returned telephone calls for the last six months." Mr. Leue was told he must not communicate with EEA except through Weston and Sampson."
The Ruthless Pursuit of Efficiency
Mr. Leue's expertise was seen as a threat rather than a resource. This reaction undoubtedly reflected the continuing panic over the loans, soaring user fates, and higher than expected operation costs.
Prior to the "Corrective Action Phase," the successful functioning of the town's $4.4 million investment was dependent on the accumulated experience and constant involvement of a single ingenious operator. The Sewer Comritission seems to have found alarming the amount of labor and level of expertise specific to the facility required for the operator to run the facility successfully, even if the operator willingly rose to the challenges.
The Commission and the DEP were equally uncomfortable with the demonstration of whimsy enabled by the unique system. The sewer commission lodged complaints that '1&. Ixue continued to work on and push his own "pef' projects at the plant ... for tourism or non-essential horticultural projects."" Roland Dupuis, a DEP engineer, "ordered Tom Leue to remove many of the features of the splar aquatic system (sic) such as birds and reptiles that make it'a living, functioning environment."" The Sewer Commissioners feared that "the animals['] ... presence made the town look like it wasn't "serious" about wastewater treatment."110
As part of the "corrective action phase," Weston & Sampson identified inefficiencies in the facility, focusing on the plants themselves. In the July, 2000 report entitled, "Solar Tank Process Optimization," Weston & Sampson claimed that "[h]igher than expected labor and operation and maintenance ... costs were associated with managing, harvesting, and disposing of the solar tank plant and sludge material [which accumulates on the surface of the water in the tanks] .
In the same report, Weston & Sampson identified a number of other problems associated with the plants. These problems included maintenance needs, vulnerability of plant-tending volunteers to sludge-borne human pathogens, loose plant material clogging pipes, insects infesting sludge mats, young plant roots requiring reductions in tank aeration, and plant material preventing the operator from observing all tanks from one physical location."'
On November 4,1998, under the order of the Sewer Commissioners, Tom Leue removed all of the animals from the greenhouses, "to the extent they could be found."" On August 23, 1999, the Sewer Commissioil voted to determine whether plants might be permanently eliminated without decreasing the effeCtiveness of the treatment process."" In January, 2000, all plants were removed."'
With the loss of the complexity brought by the animals and the plants, the sewage treatment facility became more regular and predictable. It also lost much of its value as a public attraction and an educational resource, as well as an opportunity to use waste as a biological and economic resource rather than a pollutant of groundwater and surface water.'
How Can the Solar Aquatics Facility Work Without Plants?
Combined with a conventional microbial treatment process, the plants in a solar aquatics facility digest solid waste particles, reduce sludge production, accelerate nitrogen removal, and extract a broader spectrum of contaminants from the waste stream."" Without plants, the facility loses those benefits it has over a conventional facility. "By eliminating the plants, the system would no longer function as a Solar Aquatics System and would need to be run as a conventional system."""'
From a technical standpoint, however, the solar aquatics facility was designed to work with or without the plants. Back-up features were in place in case plants were temporarily lost to calamities like insect infestation, frost, or a large toxic load. Compensating for the loss of the plants "could require addition of artificial media to the tanks, it would require substantially increasing the flow rate of recycled sludge, increasing the amount of waste sludge generated, adding odor control [mechanisms] to the building, and adding additional chemicals to the marsh [to chemically produce nitrogen gas from organic nitrogen-containing molecules]."""
The more important function of the plants in a solar aquatics wastewater treatment facility, however, is to recycle waste into commodities to expand local economic activity through ecological process which provide opportunities for educational gain. This is what was lost on DEP and the town of Ashfield, and underemphasized by Ecological Engineering Associates, the purveyors of the technology.
Evaluating the Ashfield Facility According to John Todd's Vision
The true innovation in the solar aquatics facility is in making a biological resource out of waste, and making a community resource out of a necessary municipal expense. From the beginning, however, Ashfield's residents were persuaded to support solar aquatics technology by arguments focused on aesthetics and gross cost.
Ashfield's residents seem to have liked the idea of a treatment system which would not change their lives dramatically; they wanted a system whose appearance was in keeping with the town's character, and whose cost would be minimal. In the end, very few people had a stake in the3 facility's being an economic and educational resource because the facility had not been integrated into community life. Even when it cleaned wastewater to state drinking water standards, Ashfield's facility fell far short of John Todd's vision.
Can Solar Aquatics Facilities Be Successful Elsewhere?
Even Ashfield's bad experience shows that solar aquatics treatment facilities can be effective, which is one conventional measure of success. In addition, solar aquatics facilities have the potential to be affordable and also successful in stimulating community development, local economies, and curiosity toward complex natural systems.
After careful experimentation and modification, the technology in the Ashfield facility consistently purified sewage to meet drinking water standards. The capital expense of Ashfield's facility was competitive with conventional technology until the DEP needlessly ordered the facility's capacity to be expanded. As engineers and regulatory bodies become more familiar with the technology, technical and financial success of solar aquatics facilities will be better assured.
Ashfield's experience indicates that the operation of a solar aquatics facility is more labor-intensive than a comparable conventional facility. The additional labor demand creates a higher operating expense. However, the activities which maintain the solar aquatics facility can simultaneously produce salable commodities. When an operator divides overgrown plants, she or he can be repotting them for sale. When an operator prunes or harvests overgrown plants and disposes of cuttings, he or she can be feeding livestock or making fertile compost for sale. The incomegenerating capacity of solar aquatics is the secret to its affordability.
The State of Massachusetts, however, does not permit Ashfield's waste stream to be an agricultural and econoirtic resource."' Under orders by Massachusetts' Department of Environmental Protection, plant material harvested from the solar aquatics facility and compost made from that material are classified as "sludge," a "hazardous waste."" These nutrient-rich materials cannot be used as fertilizers or feed. Plant matter produced by the facility must be trucked to a hazardous waste site."'
Two steps must be taken in order for solar aquatics technology to advance and succeed to its potential. First, toxic materials, particularly those which are most likely to enter the waste stream, must be replaced by nontoxic alternatives. Second, procedures to kill pathogenic microbes which associate with harvested plant matter must be developed and approved by state regulators. Only then will composted wastes be safe and sanctioned to enter the food chain.
The success of the new solar aquatics technology depends on commitment among state regulators and town leaders to embrace the idea of using waste as a resource, and to encourage both experimentation with the facility and ongoing collaboration between operators and engineers. Success also depends on state regulators referring to the most accurate and relevant information available when evaluating the design of an innovative facility. Unfortunately, unnecessary capital costs forced Ashfield to exhaust its resources before the facility even began operations, Also unfortunate, Ashfield's town leaders did not encourage and facilitate collaboration between the facility operator and the engineers. The system's complexity was resented, and it was begrudged the labor it requires for maintenance and for profitability. Circumstances might have been otherwise,
Footnotes: