Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility PAC
Eco-Machine Subgroup Proposal
18 January 2006
Process Critique:
Any community planning for managed growth must do so within several typical parameters: a residential/commercial acreage ratio to balance the work pool, an urbanized/open space ratio to preserve the quality of life and environment, an influx and/or incubation of industry, a taxation and assessment structure to support public infrastructure and services, and of course, the public infrastructure itself - roads, water supply, and wastewater collection and treatment.
Of these parameters (as well as other related ones), any constraints on water supply and wastewater, whether financial, political or physical, will trump all the others, potentially halting development.
Lawrence is struggling with several such sewage constraints. Long term urban expansion will be primarily to the northwest and the south. Development to the northwest may be stymied by sewage service. Topographical barriers in the west two thirds of town require inefficient force mains to the Kansas River Treatment Facility. And to the south, the Wakarusa River is a small-flow stream through sensitive wetlands, yet it is intended to accept 7 million gallons/day treated waste water within seven years, and from 30-50 million gallons/day within fifty years.
As members of the Public Advisory Committee, we appreciate the opportunity to help develop optimal wastewater plans that will address these complex conditions. However, there are several of us who seriously question the initial assumptions for the project, the predefined goal of the project, and the sequence in which the major concerns are being addressed.
The major initial assumptions, by City staff and/or Black & Veatch, are that this will be a conventional activated sludge facility and that it will be a large, single facility on a centralized site on the Wakarusa River. We think such assumptions both close out other less expensive, though equally effective, technologies, as well as other wastewater collection configurations.
As John Keller has written, “The stated goal for this (PAC) project is to find the most suitable and flexible site for the Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility . . .” Obviously, this reinforces the initial assumption of a centralized facility fed by the existing force-main/gravity sewer collection system.
Such sequencing of the process puts the above two “carts” before the “horse” of investigating other possible scenarios. For example, some of us on the PAC want serious consideration of Eco Machine technologies. If they prove to be a better alternative to an activated sludge technology, the Eco Machine capabilities of smaller physical size, of greater modular build out, and of smaller and distributed locations in various sub watersheds will be ruled out by the selection of a large, centralized, site on the river. If nothing else, this backwards sequence of PAC objectives makes the entire process very inefficient.
Eco Machine Subgroup, page 2
Technical Brief:
As a mater of reference for those unfamiliar with Eco Machine technology (other manufacturers’ names are: Living Machine, Solar Aquatic System), the general description follows.
An Eco Machine is a more efficient and sophisticated form of constructed wetland. Eco Machines concentrate and accelerate the natural water clarifying processes, using solar input inside a greenhouse setting, and a computer micro-processor to control the waste stream.
Essentially, Eco Machines are a series of anaerobic and aerobic chambers containing wetland ecosystems of plants, amphibians, snails, fish and bacteria. This highly diverse biotic community can treat a widely divergent waste stream. Because they are more efficient than weather-exposed constructed wetlands, Eco Machines require considerably less surface area for an equivalent design flow.
Eco machines have been built in the U.S. and worldwide, and used for treating municipal, industrial, agricultural and marine wastewater. They have been designed to handle millions of gallons per day, or small so as to treat waste from a single building. Their modular design lend them the flexibility of clustering as a centralized facility or decentralizing more efficiently in sub-watershed locations. This also allows greater flexibility of planning and financing future expansion of the entire system.
PAC Subgroup Proposal:
The Eco Machine Sub-Group of the PAC is proposing that this technology be studied in depth and as an immediate priority. For reasons of good planning and time efficient use of the PAC, the City staff and our paid consultants, we request that site location decisions for a central activated sludge facility be put on hold until these options of other technologies be evaluated thoroughly.
Specifically, we are asking that professional consultants from organizations and companies such as John Todd Ecological Design, Living Designs Group, Ecological Engineering Group, etc. be brought to Lawrence to present to the PAC. Following that, we ask that a request for proposals (RFP) be issued to such firms to provide designs of centralized and decentralized systems, performance projections and cost projections for Eco Machines.
Being unsure how the current project parameters were determined by the City Commission, City staff and the consultant, Black & Veatch, it is assumed that the City Commission alone has the authority to change the agenda. If nothing else, the contingency clause of the consultant contract can be used for this purpose.
Attached are some background materials to familiarize PAC members with some of the concepts and methods, as well as generalized performance projections for decentralized wastewater systems and Eco Machine technologies.
Eco Machine Subgroup, page 3
Supportive Documentation:
“Integrated Wastewater Management has Concrete Benefits”
Summary of two RMI reports: “Valuing Decentralized Wastewater Technologies”, and “Case Studies of Economic Analysis & Community Decision Making for Decentralized Wastewater Systems”
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid172.php#W04-21
Rocky Mountain Institute, 27 May 2005
References:
Ecological Engineering Group
http://www.ecological-engineering.com/
John Todd Ecological Design
Living Design Group
http://www.livingmachines.com/