SCAPEGOATING SOLAR-AQUATICS 
by Ken and Ethel Kipen

To begin we'd like to say our motive in chronicling the following is not to pass judgment on anybody, especially those who have seen their way clear to play a role in Town affairs. But while we believe that all who do so are motivated by conviction that they are acting in the best interests of the Town, it has become all too clear the choice voters made at the 1993 Special Town Meeting to select solar-aquatic technology. . . plants, marshes, greenhouses, and all, is being systematically undermined.

The objective of any wastewater plant is to produce a high quality effluent to protect our natural resources. The AWWTP accomplishes this objective and additionally provides environmental, social, and educational benefits not commonly associated with conventional treatment plants.

When we read this conclusion in Margaret Hamel's April 1999 study entitled "Independent Assessment of the Ashfield Wastewater Treatment Plant", we both recognized it as kindred to the community spirit that in 1993 chose the solar-aquatic technology over all the other technologies proposed. This was the vision our Town meeting held so proudly back then: If it was right to stop polluting the South River it was also right to do so with a plan that would benefit future generations and the quality of their environment. And yes, the spirit of this resolve embraced another hopeful idea, that our town should do this as a 'flagship community', acting as a model to help encourage other towns to make environmentally-sound choices.

Things have degraded a lot since then. Not only has this vision not been realized educationally and socially, but soon it may be abandoned as a biodiverse environmental system as well. The plantings in tanks at Ashfield's Wastewater Treatment Plant (AWWTP), originally 48 tanks but reduced over the past ten months to 32, are all in the process of being 'removed from the system to test their effectiveness'. It sounds very scientific, but this is happening because solar-aquatic technology has been the victim of scapegoating here since the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) dictated requirements to Weston & Sampson Engineers (WSE) that resulted in our facility being built with 2 1/2 times more capacity than needed. Actually, it goes back further than that if you count the appointment of Tom Carter to head the newly formed Sewer Commission, one of the few who spoke against the technology at the 1993 Special Town Meeting that so resoundingly approved it.

We've been told the Select Board chose Mr. Carter for his experienced and dedicated service to the Town but equally to mollify the DEP, which at that time was also opposed to our choice of technology. WSE also advised voters against it at that Special Town Meeting but were nevertheless contracted as the design engineers for the project. Never having designed nor built a sewage treatment plant of this kind, the Town designated Environmental Engineering Associates (EEA), the inventors and patent-holders for the technology, as subcontractor to WSE to input that expertise.

Sometime early in 1998 the DEP assigned Roland Dupuis to oversee our facility. Mr. Dupuis is a DEP 'Technical Representative' but not part of their administrative hierarchy, thus able to function as the agency's hatchet-man. DEP's action to appoint him to watchdog our project began a history of intimidation here. He has pursued what seems sometimes to be his own agenda, one that in any case is both abrasive and divisive, often pitting townspeople against one another. DEP pressures on the Town reached a peak last year when the agency threatened to enforce their 'Notice of Non-Compliance' with fines, potentially as much as $1,000 per day. Given this 'pressure-cooker' atmosphere it's not surprising our elected officials decided to be as conciliatory as possible and were willing to jump through whatever hoops were necessary to avoid the agency's wrath.

But well beyond such necessity, Select Board member (now Chair) Bill Perlman has amply revealed a personal bias against solar-aquatics. His distrust of natural systems has taken the form of a misguided campaign against the use of plant-material, the heart of the technology. He has persistently, over many months, publicly misrepresented solar-aquatics and EEA. Here's one recent example. At the 11/1 Select Board meeting we asked Mr. Perlman for the source of his 8/23 statement (from 9/3 West County News) '. . .that overall opinion suggests the contribution of plants to cleanse waste water is "at best minimal." He replied, "That's from the report by Margaret Hamel," so we obtained a copy from Town Hall. Entitled "Independent Assessment of the Ashfield Wastewater Treatment Plant" and dated April 1999, it consists of 29 pages, 15 of which comprise her own study of Ashfield's facility. The following 14-page appendix is a reprint authored by The Water Environment Federation that evaluated "The Living Machine" solar-aquatic treatment plant in Frederick, MD.

It was only in the latter that we found any reference to contribution of plants as "at best minimal" ' (p.7):

". . .there is no major difference in performance of the overall system with or without plants on the aeration tanks." But just two pages further on we found this explanation (p.9): "As described in a previous section the plants in the Frederick MD "Living Machine" did not contribute significantly to treatment. This is not because the plants cannot contribute but rather because there are insufficient numbers of plants in the Frederick system. Any system which is intended to depend on plants and solar energy for treatment must then provide sufficient surface area so the plants are in fact A MAJOR PHYSICAL PRESENCE IN THE SYSTEM." (my emphasis) Yet Mr. Perlman, Mr. Carter, and WSE with the assent of DEP may propose to reduce the number of planting tanks below the limit of effectiveness, causing the contribution of plants to cleanse waste water to be "at best minimal." This is not the only self-fulfilling prophesy that would stack the deck against plant-materials. The more potent one is, as EEA has said, that it will be found that the AWWTP will 'work' without the plant-materials, so those prevailing against them will say, "Why pay for them if they aren't necessary?" The answer to this question is actually three answers: 1) they add stability to the AWWTP because their removal will leave no back-up system, 2) a bio-diverse system such as plant-materials provide will treat a wider variety of waste, and 3) the plant-materials make a significant contribution to air quality in the neighborhood surrounding the AWWTP (more about this later on). This is not even to mention their role in finishing, the reason for the "high quality effluent", to use Ms. Hamel's phrase, that has exceeded DEP requirements continuously for more than three years.

From the March 22, 1998 Select Board minutes: 'Finance committee people wanted to know how much of the problems were related to newness of the technology. Bill Perlman said most were related to lack of maintenance. He was asked, with all the problems (he) described, how was it that the end result could meet DEP requirements? Perlman explained that the plant was out of balance internally, requiring more work to achieve the required result.' Unaccountably absent from Mr. Perlman's explanation is that a high-quality output may be linked DIRECTLY to the plants, that their role in 'finishing' the process maximizes just that. Mr. Perlman has been ignoring this at least as far back as the November 30, 1998 Select Board meeting, where it's recorded: 'He (Selectman Perlman) doesn't understand the insistence on maintaining aspects which have little to do with plant (AWWTP) operation. (Plant diversity and size)', and 'Bill continued saying that this technology can work with no plants. It is the roots of the plants that are of use to anchor nonmobile bacteria. . .this could be accomplished with polypropylene (plastic fence).'

Due to DEP oversizing but also to many WSE mistakes in control-system design and overall construction supervision, the AWWTP startup was roller-coaster. Many of the problems identified were later scapegoated onto solar-aquatic components designed by EEA. One example: WSE maintained that 'solids deposited from the marshes' were responsible for the failure of their disposal field; recently DEP notified WSE and the Town that their evaluation has determined it was "inadequately constructed." By the time of their report to DEP dated July 12th, 1999, WSE was of a different mind about the marshes: "Based on our findings to date, the performance of the marshes is far better than the minimum performance requirements of the original design basis and discharge permit."

Yet as recently as October 25, 1999, Mr. Perlman was still attempting to scapegoat the marshes (West County News, 10/29): 'The plant's marsh greenhouse has never worked properly "since day one" according to the chair, and is apparently distributing solid growths into the leach field.' and ' "The marsh never settles into a working area," Mr. Perlman said. "It never settles down to a kind of stasis." ' The final word sounded so scientific that we looked it up. The dictionary definition of 'stasis' is "the state of equilibrium or inactivity caused by opposing equal forces". On November 3rd we asked Phil Henderson of EEA about Mr. Perlman's use of that word, and he replied, "Of course, that is how Bill would see it. He's not comfortable with natural systems, which vary in their performance a lot because they are responding to actual biological conditions, which themselves are quite variable. Sure, some solids buildup from time to time requiring occasional maintenance to prevent an outflow blockage, but nothing was blocked in the marshes when I was there a month ago, nor when Bruce (his partner in EEA) was there two weeks ago."

Two separate attempts were made by Mr. Perlman to reduce the participation of EEA, each case corresponding to new phases of work affecting solar-aquatic components of the AWWTP which, without EEA oversight, would allow more mobility for those who planned to advocate their removal. The first time was last January during the period engineering contracts were being negotiated for the work involved in implementing DEP's Corrective Action Plan. On February 3rd the Select Board (absent Mr. Robinson who was out of town at the time) met with representatives of WSE to finalize terms that would become a part of their contract. EEA and a member of the Ashfield Solar-Aquatic Interest Group attended this meeting, which saw Selectwoman Dianne Muller support a significantly greater participation for EEA than the Chairman had been advocating. The second time started sometime just after the August 30, 1999 Select Board vote to test the AWWTP without plants, and became heated this past October 25th when the Chairman, referring to EEA, proclaimed (10/29 W. Co. News): ' "I don't trust them," Mr. Perlman said. "I think they're a bunch of clowns. I think we're p***ing the money away." ' Again cooler heads prevailed as the other two members of the Board stood fast on maintaining the level of EEA participation established less than eight months before. Selectman Robinson was candid: "The more we are contemplating the abandonment of the process, the more important it is that they (EEA) be there." But while the thrust of Mr. Robinson's statement was clearly to express his own priority for fair-play, that the plant-material elimination campaign was already in control of the playing field was plain for anyone to hear in his opening phrase.

High cost to ratepayers, a problem due to oversized capacity, has resulted in some 30% of ratepayers not being able to pay their sewer bills. In this atmosphere maintenance costs can easily be made to appear unreasonable. Once ratepayer relief occurs from grants-in-hand being applied to construction loans, cost associated with plant-materials will appear to one and all as it really is, a reasonable portion of both ratepayer and taxpayer bills.

Quoting the August 30, 1999 Select Board Minutes: 'Don [Robinson] noted that it is known that the plant works, discharge requirements are being met and the cost of operation is within the conventional range; thus the purpose of this project has been achieved. He is interested in comparative costs of operating the plant - with plants vs. without. When pressed in the presence of Phil Henderson (EEA), Paul MacNevin (WSE) seemed to indicate, with plants would not be a lot more than without. Paul did indicate he suspects the plants may not be necessary.' (our underlines) A motion was then made and voted to "authorize" (pay additional money to) WSE to test operation of the AWWTP without plants in the solar tanks, pending availability of funding to cover the cost at this time.

Here are some arguments that challenge the wisdom of this testing scenario:

1) availability of funds to test now is a financial consideration that has no bearing on scientific validity.

2) the tests being done before the Corrective Action Plan is completed compromises applicability of results.

3) EEA maintains that such testing needs to be over the four seasons a) to yield valid scientific data, b) to quantify increases in sludge buildup in the absence of plant-materials and to factor in associated extra cost for hauling it away, and c) to acknowledge that cost of maintaining plant-materials varies widely from season-to-season.

Scapegoating plant-materials' effectiveness while alleging high maintenance cost ignores that plant-materials add a vital component system to our AWWTP. All components in any type of sewage treatment require maintenance, plants are no different. They are somewhat more labor intensive and therefore more costly to maintain than mechanical components, but their maintenance is not an extraordinary expense in a solar-aquatic sewage treatment plant, the kind voted by the Town.

Let's take a look at actual maintenance cost. The tanks containing plants had been maintained by two part-time Ashfield residents totaling 15 hours per week at an average of $ 7.17 per hour, or $ 108 for 48 tanks, just $ 2.25 per tank per week. Maintaining 20 tanks, the estimated result of 'corrective action', will cost about $ 45 per week. Yet the Sewer Commission has reassigned the task of maintaining plants to the new operator at $ 15 per hour, more than doubling the part-time hourly cost to $ 94 per week. We suggest this is financially irresponsible. Anyone taking these costs out of their own pocket would have kept the part-time help in order to save the $ 49 per week difference, week-in and week-out, a total saving of $ 2,548 per year. We wonder what sort of thinking could pass over such savings while, at the same time, scapegoating plant-materials for "high maintenance-cost".

According to Mr. Perlman, normal maintenance of plant materials must include that for removal of sludge-mats that form in the planting tanks. This is presently being done, related the Chairman at the 11/1/99 Select Board meeting, by breaking them up by hand, scooping the pieces out with a shovel into buckets, then hand carrying the buckets to the other end of the AWWTP, lifting them to shoulder level to empty them into a top-loading storage tank. I myself thought this was more than a little labor intensive, so I phoned Phil Henderson of EEA to ask him about it. "That's not necessary on a normal basis," he replied, "Bill and the new operator saw my partner and me do it that way last spring when there was an unusually thick buildup, since apparently no one had maintained the tanks since Tom Leue's staff people were dismissed last February. On a regular maintenance schedule," he continued, "you can break up the sludge-mats with water hoses and flush them through the interconnecting piping, no 'bucket-brigade' required." Later we found out the reason that the present operator was not aware of this procedure or those of the former maintenance workers. When Tom Leue resigned he offered to help with transition to a new operator. He was never to be called in to do so. The week following Tom's last day Sewer Commissioner Mary Fitzgibbon telephoned the assistant operator and asked her to tell one of the two part-time maintenance staff, just as his workday was ending, that he wouldn't be needed anymore. The other part-time maintenance staff-person doesn't recall which of the Sewer Commissioners it was who called her, but she was told since Tom Leue had left, things were up in the air and that until further notice she shouldn't report for work. Neither were given any notice prior to termination, nor any severance pay. Dismissal in that manner meant there was no transition-team. When the inexperienced new operator arrived more than 3 months later and saw how the EEA partners did the work, both he and Mr. Perlman must've assumed that's how it was normally done.

In conclusion we'd like to mention something everyone involved seems to acknowledge as a problem associated with the elimination of plant materials, but which no one seems anxious to give assurances about. Removal of the plants changes the overall system from solar-aquatic to 'activated sludge', a type associated with strong odors, affecting air quality in the vicinity surrounding the facility. For this reason sewage treatment plants of this type are sited well outside settled areas. We all know that ours is not. Is this the welcome we wish to extend to visitors entering our town on Route 116?

Could this be any farther from the vision we held as a community in 1993?

Ed. note: Alas, poor Tilapia! I knew him well, Horatio! [sic!]

Click here for a new and well-researched report by Jennifer Fraulo on this entire issue of solar-aquatics as experienced by the town of Ashfield