Date post: | 08-Jul-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | wayne-hamilton |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 60
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
1/155
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF A CENTRAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT IN JAMAICA
Case Study of Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant
A Thesis/ Dissertation
Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Built Environment
The University of Technology, Jamaica
Wayneworth G. Hamilton
2015
Faculty of the Built Environment
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
2/155
ii
Certificate of Authorship
I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another person nor material
which to substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma of a
university or other institution of higher learning, except where due acknowledgement is made in
the acknowledgements.
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
3/155
iii
Dedication
I dedicate this thesis to Krystal D. M. Lyn, truly a symbol of inspiration and hope in my life.
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
4/155
1
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude, to everyone who assisted in the completion
of this thesis. Firstly, thanks to GOD, for His guidance, blessings and mercy and to my family,
for their understanding, patience, inspiration, encouragement, support and love during this very
challenging course of study.
Special thanks to Mr. Oreal Bailey Jr., my supervisor for his guidance, suggestions and
assistance in completing this research. He was always available for my myriad of queries and
pointed me in directions beyond my inclination and knowledge.
Thanks to Ms. Tammy Groves, Plant Manager/ Process Engineer at Soapberry
Wastewater Treatment Plant for her insight, critique, encouragement and for always availing
herself throughout this process.
Thanks to Ms. Shenee Douglas, administrative assistant and Mr. Keith Goodison,
manager of Central Wastewater Treatment Company for the provision of the requisite data and
operational reports necessary to undertake this study.
Thanks to Ms. Lise Walter and Mr. Christopher Burgess, reputed Civil Engineers who
contributed to the body of knowledge comprised in this research facilitated by interviews.
Thanks to Asaf Keren, Construction Manager, for his contribution of knowledge also
through interview.
Special thanks to Dr. Martin Morgan Tuuli, Senior Lecturer and Project Management
Specialist at the School of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University, United
Kingdom for providing expert critique of this thesis.
Finally, thanks to the staff of the Faculty of Built Environment, with specific reference to
those affiliated to the Master’s Programme for their support, guidance and expertise.
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
5/155
2
ABSTRACT
Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant consists of waste stabilization ponds and is
utilized as a central wastewater treatment plant for Kingston and St. Andrew. Waste stabilization
ponds represent an ideal method of wastewater treatment, however this technology is deficient in
adapting to operating conditions beyond its design. This study aims to evaluate the performance
of Soapberry as a central wastewater treatment system for the year 2014.
This evaluation include referencing the design limits of pH, BOD5, COD, TSS,
Phosphate, Total Nitrogen and Faecal Coliform for the plant to influent laboratory results. The
treatment process was analyzed based on the final effluent standards of the NRCA. The
challenges faced in operating/ maintaining this system were explored based on interviewing staff
and finally the flow data was analyzed to determine the relationship between flow and quality of
Final Effluent.
Results showed that the maximum Final Effluent concentrations of pH, BOD, COD, TSS,
Phosphate, Total Nitrogen and Faecal Coliform were 8.19, 11 mg/l, 50 mg/l, 21 mg/l, 11 mg/l,
25 mg/l and 1335 MPN/ 100 ml respectively. These results rendered TSS, Phosphate, Total
Nitrogen and Faecal Coliform non-compliant based on the NRCA standards.
It was concluded that the influent concentration of the parameters studied exceeded the
design limits with the exception of pH. Soapberry demonstrated its capability of treating the pH,
BOD and COD. The challenges faced by the Soapberry included ineffective preliminary
treatment and the lack of pre-treatment facility. The recommendations include the construction
of a grit chamber at Soapberry to further enhance preliminary treatment and the construction of a
pre-treatment facility at the Greenwich Transfer Station to address industrial wastewater.
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
6/155
3
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 2
1.0 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 13
1.1 Overview of Study .............................................................................................................. 13
1.2 Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 14
1.3 Study Area ........................................................................................................................... 14
1.4 Aim of Study ....................................................................................................................... 15
1.5 Objectives of Study ............................................................................................................. 16
1.6 Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 16
1.7 Significance of Study .......................................................................................................... 17
1.8 Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................. 18
1.9 Key Performance Indicators ................................................................................................ 18
1.9.1 Overview of Waste Stabilization Pond (WSP) Systems .................................................. 20
1.9.2 Organization of Research ................................................................................................. 21
2.0 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE ............................................. 23
2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 23
2.2 DESIGN PARAMETERS/ STANDARDS OF WASTE STABILIZATION PONDS ...... 23
2.2.1 Loading Rates Design Approach...................................................................................... 24
2.2.2 Design Parameters of Waste Stabilization Ponds ............................................................ 26
2.2.3 Operational Characteristics .............................................................................................. 28
2.2.4 Critique of Application of Waste Stabilization Ponds ..................................................... 29
2.3 IMPACT OF REGULATIONS ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT .............................. 30
2.3.1 Existing Policy Framework in Jamaica ............................................................................ 32
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
7/155
4
2.3.2 Existing Legal Framework in Jamaica ............................................................................. 36
2.3.3 Performance Evaluation of Sewage Treatment Plants ..................................................... 38
2.3.4 Public Private Partnership (PPP) in Wastewater Sector................................................... 41
2.3.5 NEPA Sludge Policy (2013) ............................................................................................ 43
2.3.6 Existing Institutional Framework in Jamaica ................................................................... 45
2.4 CHALLENGES IN OPERATING A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT .............. 49
2.4.1 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 55
2.4.2 Hydraulic Loading............................................................................................................ 56
2.4.3 Importance of Flowrate Measurement ............................................................................. 57
2.4.4 Variations in Wastewater Flowrates ................................................................................ 58
2.5 IMPLICATIONS OF VARIATIONS IN WASTEWATER FLOWRATES ...................... 60
2.5.1 Summary of Reviewed Literature .................................................................................... 61
3.0 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 63
3.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 63
3.2 Research Design .................................................................................................................. 63
3.3 Design of Survey Instrument............................................................................................... 64
3.4 Question 1 - What are the design/ operating characteristics and concentration levels of
influent for the Soapberry Treatment Plant? ............................................................................. 65
3.4.1 Qualitative Method ........................................................................................................... 65
3.4.2 Quantitative Method ......................................................................................................... 66
3.4.2.1 Data Format Conversion and Analysis ...................................................................... 67
3.5 Question 2 - To what extent is Soapberry compliant with the regulatory standards? ......... 68
3.5.1 Qualitative Methods ......................................................................................................... 68
3.5.2 Quantitative Method ......................................................................................................... 69
3.5.3 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................... 69
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
8/155
5
3.6 Question 3 - What are the challenges faced by Soapberry in its operational mandate? ..... 71
3.6.1 Qualitative Method ........................................................................................................... 71
3.7 Question 4 - What are the implications of variations in the flow of influent? .................... 73
3.7.1 Qualitative Methods ......................................................................................................... 73
3.7.2 Quantitative Method ......................................................................................................... 74
3.7.3 Summary of Methodological Decisions ........................................................................... 76
4.0 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ............................................................................................... 77
4.1 DESIGN PARAMETERS AND LIMITS OF SOAPBERRY PLANT .............................. 77
4.2 OPERATION OF SOAPBERRY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS . 78
4.2.1 Preliminary Treatment...................................................................................................... 78
4.2.2 Secondary Treatment........................................................................................................ 79
4.2.3 Tertiary Treatment............................................................................................................ 80
4.3 CONCENTRATION LEVELS OF INFLUENT ................................................................ 83
4.3.1 pH Results ........................................................................................................................ 83
4.3.2 BOD Results …………………………………………………………………………… 83
4.3.3 COD Results ..................................................................................................................... 84
4.3.4 TSS Results ...................................................................................................................... 85
4.3.5 Phosphate Results ............................................................................................................. 85
4.3.6 Total Nitrogen Results ..................................................................................................... 86
4.4 COMPLIANCE OF FINAL EFFLUENT ........................................................................... 87
4.4.1 NRCA Final Effluent Discharged Standards for Soapberry Plant ................................... 87
4.4.2 Removal of pH ................................................................................................................. 88
4.4.3 Removal of BOD .............................................................................................................. 88
4.4.4 Removal of COD .............................................................................................................. 89
4.4.5 Removal of TSS ............................................................................................................... 90
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
9/155
6
4.4.6 Removal of Phosphate ...................................................................................................... 90
4.4.7 Removal of Total Nitrogen .............................................................................................. 91
4.4.8 Compliance of Faecal Coliform ....................................................................................... 92
4.5 OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES OF SOAPBERRY TREATMENT PLANT ................ 93
4.5.1 Lack of Financial Support ................................................................................................ 93
4.5.2 Equipment Renewal ......................................................................................................... 93
4.5.3 Ineffective Preliminary Treatment ................................................................................... 94
4.5.4 Emergency Discharge ...................................................................................................... 96
4.5.5 Disrepair of Perimeter Fence............................................................................................ 97
4.5.6 Poor Condition of Access Route ...................................................................................... 98
4.5.7 High Energy Requirement of Treatment Process ............................................................. 98
4.5.8 Lack of Pre-treatment Facility.......................................................................................... 98
4.5.9 Treatment Plant Expansion .............................................................................................. 98
4.5.10 Lack of Trained Personnel ............................................................................................. 98
4.5.11 Geotechnical Issues ........................................................................................................ 99
4.6 FLOW DATA RESULTS ................................................................................................. 100
4.6.1 Average Daily Inflow ..................................................................................................... 101
4.6.2 Organic Loading Rate .................................................................................................... 101
4.6.2 Volume Treated Sewage Discharged ............................................................................. 102
4.6.3 Summary of Results ....................................................................................................... 103
5.0 CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION ................................................................ 104
5.1 DESIGN AND OPERATING WEAKNESSES ............................................................... 104
5.2 CONCENTRATION OF INFLUENT .............................................................................. 105
5.3 COMPLIANCE OF SOAPBERRY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT .............. 106
5.3.1 pH ................................................................................................................................... 106
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
10/155
7
5.3.2 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) .......................................................................... 107
5.3.3 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) ................................................................................ 110
5.3.4 Total Suspended Solids (TSS)........................................................................................ 113
5.3.5 Phosphate ....................................................................................................................... 115
5.3.6 Total Nitrogen (TN) ....................................................................................................... 116
5.3.7 Faecal Coliform (FC) ..................................................................................................... 118
5.4 OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES OF SOAPBERRY PLANT ....................................... 120
5.5 VARIATION OF FLOW/ CAPACITY ............................................................................ 126
5.6 IMPLICATIONS OF VARIATIONS IN FLOWRATE ................................................... 126
5.7 Summary of Discussion and Analysis ............................................................................... 128
6.0 CHAPTER SIX – CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... 130
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 130
6.1 Design Characteristics & Concentration of Influent ......................................................... 131
6.2 Extent of Soapberry’s Compliance with NRCA Standards .............................................. 131
6.3 Challenges Faced by Soapberry ........................................................................................ 131
6.4 Implications of Variations in the Capacity ........................................................................ 132
6.6 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................. 132
6.6.1 Financial Investment & Support .................................................................................... 132
6.6.2 Performance Monitoring and Enforcement .................................................................... 132
6.6.3 Wastewater Treatment Plant Equipment Renewal ......................................................... 133
6.6.4 Pre-treatment Facility ..................................................................................................... 133
6.6.5 Staff Training ................................................................................................................. 133
6.6.6 Improved Preliminary Treatment ................................................................................... 133
6.6.7 Improved Data Collection .............................................................................................. 134
6.6.8 Limitations of Study ....................................................................................................... 134
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
11/155
8
6.69 Further Study ................................................................................................................... 134
7.0 APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 136
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
12/155
9
List of Figures
Figure 1.0- Layout of Ponds at Soapberry .................................................................................... 15
Figure 2- Methodological Approach to Question 1 ...................................................................... 65
Figure 3.0 - Laboratory Results for October 2014 ........................................................................ 67
Figure 4.0- Methodological Design of Question 2 ....................................................................... 68
Figure 5.0- Concentration Levels for 2014 ................................................................................... 70
Figure 6.0- Methodological Design of Question 3 ....................................................................... 71
Figure 7.0- Methodological Design of Question 4 ....................................................................... 73
Figure 8.0- Flow Data for October 2014 ...................................................................................... 75
Figure 9.0- Treatment Process of Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant Operations ............... 78
Figure 10- Mechanical Bar Screens at Greenwich Transfer Station............................................. 78
Figure 11- Screw Pumps at Pond 12 ............................................................................................. 79
Figure 12- Distribution Chamber .................................................................................................. 80
Figure 13- Low-Lift Pumps at Pond 16 ........................................................................................ 81
Figure 14- Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) Process Flow Diagram .............................................. 82
Figure 15- Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) Batch Tester .............................................................. 82
Figure 16- pH Concentration Levels of Influent for 2014 ............................................................ 83
Figure 17 - BOD Concentration Levels of Influent for 2014 ....................................................... 84
Figure 18- COD Concentration Levels of Influent for 2014 ........................................................ 84
Figure 19- TSS Concentration Levels of Influent for 2014 .......................................................... 85
Figure 20- Phosphate Concentration Levels of Influent for 2014 ................................................ 86
Figure 21 - Total Nitrogen Concentration Levels of Influent for 2014 ........................................ 86
Figure 22- pH Concentration Levels of Final Effluent for 2014 .................................................. 88
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
13/155
10
Figure 23- BOD Concentration Levels of Final Effluent for 2014 ............................................... 89
Figure 24- COD Concentration Levels of Final Effluent for 2014 ............................................... 89
Figure 25- TSS Concentration Levels for Final Effluent for 2014 ............................................... 90
Figure 26- Phosphate Concentration Levels vs NRCA Standard ................................................. 91
Figure 27- Total Nitrogen Concentration Levels of Final Effluent of 2014 ................................. 91
Figure 28- Faecal Coliform Concentration Levels of Final Effluent for 2014 ............................. 92
Figure 29- Disrepair of Screw Pump ............................................................................................ 93
Figure 30 - Scum Accumulated at Pond 9 .................................................................................... 94
Figure 31 - Grit and Plastics Removed from Pond 14 .................................................................. 94
Figure 32 - Workers Removing Debris from Pond 10 .................................................................. 95
Figure 33 - Manual Cleaning of Temporary Screen at Inlet Structure (Pond 15 to Pond 16) ...... 95
Figure 34 - Overflow Structure at Pond 12 ................................................................................... 96
Figure 35- Inundation of Adjoining Lands (Western) by Overflow Structure at Pond 12 ........... 96
Figure 36- Damage of Western Section of Perimeter Fence ........................................................ 97
Figure 37 - Crocodile on Dyke ..................................................................................................... 97
Figure 38 - Effect of Settling of Western Dyke ............................................................................ 99
Figure 39 - Flow Data for 2014 .................................................................................................. 100
Figure 40 - Average Daily Inflow for 2014 ................................................................................ 101
Figure 41 - Organic Loading Rate for 2014................................................................................ 102
Figure 42 - Volume Treated Sewage Discharged for 2014 ........................................................ 102
Figure 43 - pH % Removal Efficiency for 2014……………………….……………………… 106
Figure 44- Correlation between Influent BOD and Organic Loading…………………….……108
Figure 45 - BOD Final Effluent Concentration & Removal Efficiency…………………….… 109
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
14/155
11
Figure 46- Average Daily Flow vs COD Removal Efficiency for 2014……...………………. 110
Figure 47 - Removal Efficiency of COD and BOD for 2014…………………….…………… 111
Figure 48- Concentration of Influent of COD and BOD…………………...…………………. 112
Figure 49 - Concentration of Final Effluent of COD and BOD………………………………. 112
Figure 50 - Concentration of Final Effluent of TSS and BOD for 2014………..…………….. 113
Figure 51- Average Daily Flow vs TSS Removal Efficiency for 2014………….……………. 114
Figure 52 - Concentration of Final Effluent of Phosphate & Removal Efficiency of 2014…... 115
Figure 53 - Total Nitrogen Final Effluent & Removal Efficiency of 2014…………..……….. 117
Figure 54 - Faecal Coliform Concentration of Final Effluent for 2014…………….…………. 118
Figure 55 - Galvanized Baskets fitted to Inlet Structures………………………..……………. 120
Figure 56 - Rectangular Galvanized Baskets fitted to Low-Lift Pumps………………….…… 121
Figure 57 - Pond 15 (Secondary Pond) Visibly Brown on 3/12/14……………………...……. 123
Figure 58 - Frequency of Reported Challenges for 2014……………………………...……… 125
Figure 59 - Average Daily Flow vs Organic Loading Rate for 2014……………….………… 127
Figure 60 - Treated Sewage Discharged vs Average Daily Inflow for 2014……………..…… 128
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
15/155
12
List of Tables
Table 1.0 - European Union Effluent Standards ........................................................................... 25
Table 2.0 - India Wastewater Discharge Standards ...................................................................... 26
Table 3.0- Design Criteria for Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant (Phase 1) ....................... 77
Table 4.0 - Regulatory Standards for Effluent Discharged........................................................... 87
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
16/155
13
1.0 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
In this chapter the presentation will follow: overview of study, statement of problem,
overview of study area, aim and objective of study, research questions, significance of study,
definition of terms, key performance indicators, overview of waste stabilization ponds and a
brief overview of each chapter of the research.
1.1 Overview of Study
The most appropriate wastewater treatment is that which will produce an effluent meeting
the recommended microbiological and chemical quality guidelines both at low cost and with
minimal operational and maintenance requirements. Different systems are employed worldwide
for wastewater treatment which include conventional and non-conventional (eco-technologies)
systems. Conventional systems include activated sludge and trickling filter while non-
conventional systems include Waste Stabilization Pond Systems (WSPs).
Waste stabilization pond systems are commonly employed for municipal sewage
purification, especially in developing countries, due to their cost-effectiveness and high potential
of removing different pollutants (Arar, 1988; Christian, Sabine, Arnulf, 2003; Awuah, 2006;
Wiley, Brenneman, Jocobson, 2009; Mozaheb, Ghaneian, Ghanizadeh, & Fallahzadeh, 2010).
Waste stabilization ponds are biological treatment systems which are divided into three
types of ponds based on the biological activity taking place in each pond. They are anaerobic,
facultative and maturation ponds; anaerobic and facultative ponds are employed for Biological
Oxygenated Demand (BOD) removal, while the primary function of maturation pond is to
remove excreted pathogens (Gawasiri, 2003).
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
17/155
14
A waste stabilization pond system has been considered an ideal method of utilizing
natural processes to improve wastewater effluents whereby the pathogens are progressively
removed along the pond series with the optimal removal efficiency occurring in maturation
ponds (Mara & Pearson, 1998; Gray, 2004).
Within this study a performance evaluation of the Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant
will be discussed. The study incorporates an assessment of the design/ operating characteristics
of the plant. Additionally, an evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of wastewater
stabilization ponds to treat municipal wastewater in Jamaica to the promulgated standards will be
executed.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Waste Stabilization Ponds represent a cost effective and reliable means of wastewater
treatment. A major deficiency is its inability to adapt to conditions beyond the scope of its
design. These conditions can include influent characteristics (microbiological), concentration
levels, flow and capacity.
1.3 Study Area
The Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant/ Phase 1 (Appendix A) was constructed in
2007 and commissioned in 2008, on approximately 170 hectares of wetlands. This plant was
designed to treat wastewater from Kingston Metropolitan Area (KMA) and sections of Portmore,
St. Catherine. This plant employs a combination of waste stabilization ponds, four primary (9,
10, 13, 14) and four secondary (11, 12, 15, 16) ponds in addition to a dissolved air flotation
system (DAF) and four sand filters (See Figure 1.0).
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
18/155
15
The approximate location of the Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant is 17º 59ʹ 50.81ʺ
N, 76º 51ʹ 48.06 ʺ W and 4.572 meters above mean sea level. Temperature ranges from 22.3 ºC
to 31.9 ºC and the average evaporation is 5.1 mm/ day (Groves, 2015).
Figure 1.0- Layout of Ponds at Soapberry
(WOMC, 2015)
1.4 Aim of Study
The aim of this study is to evaluate the performance of Soapberry Wastewater Treatment
Plant (hereafter called Soapberry) and to determine its efficiency and effectiveness as a central
wastewater treatment system.
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
19/155
16
1.5 Objectives of Study
The objectives of this study include an assessment of the operating and design parameters
of Soapberry with respect to influent/ effluent characteristics, concentration levels and flow.
Also, a derivative from this study is a review of the legislation which governs the operation of
the facility in addition to an evaluation of the regulatory standards which are specified by the
National Resources Conservation Authority Permit Number 2004-02017-EP00225, NRCA
License No.: 2004-02017-EL00049.
This evaluation will be based on the analysis of laboratory results benchmarked to the
aforementioned standards, in addition to international standards and best practices.
Utilizing the standards stipulated in the NRCA Permit Number 2004-02017-EP00225,
NRCA License No.: 2004-02017-EL00049 (Table 4.0) as the benchmark, Soapberry’s
compliance will be determined. A determination of operational challenges will be ascertained
and analyzed to make recommendations. Finally the impact of variations of flow of influent will
be evaluated and analyzed in order to gauge the adaptability of change in capacity of this system
and the constituent technologies employed.
1.6 Research Questions
1. What are the design/ operating characteristics and concentration levels of influent for the
Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant?
2. To what extent is Soapberry compliant with the regulatory standards?
3. What are the challenges faced by Soapberry in executing its operational mandate?
4. What are the implications of variations in the flow of influent?
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
20/155
17
1.7 Significance of Study
The ultimate goal of wastewater management is the protection of the environment in a
manner commensurate with the regulatory framework relating to public health and socio-
economic concerns (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
Evaluation is therefore important to determine operational efficiency, effectiveness,
adherence to regulatory standards and most importantly to abate gross pollution. The efficiency
and effectiveness of Soapberry is inextricably linked to the design and operation parameters
particularly effluent characteristics, concentration levels, flow and capacity. The concentration
level of influent is stipulated by design parameters and final effluent is defined by the National
Resources Conservation Authority standards (Table 4.0).
Soapberry is not dissimilar to other treatment plants in developing countries where final
effluent is discharged into rivers and watercourses, in this case the Rio Cobre River.
Consequently, the efficiency and effectiveness of such as facility must be maintained to avoid
environmental degradation and the subsequent entry of pollutants into the food chain (Silva &
Sperling, 2011).
The significance of this study also include providing a replicable model to conduct
similar researches in Built Environment, presenting the operators of wastewater facilities an
understanding of the causal components of non-compliant parameters, as well as the
relationships between variables and the corrective steps which can be applied.
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
21/155
18
1.8 Definition of Terms
Biological Oxygenated Demand (BOD) - the most widely used parameter of organic pollution
applied to wastewater and is the 5-day BOD, denoted as (BOD5). This determination is the
quantification of the dissolved oxygen used by microorganisms in the biochemical oxidation of
organic matter (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1991).
Chemical Oxygenated Demand (COD) - parameter used to quantify the oxygen equivalent of
the organic material in wastewater that can be oxidized chemically using dichromate in an acid
solution (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1991).
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) - portion of solids retained on a filter (Whatman glass fiber
filter) with a specified pore size, measured after being dried at a specified temperature 105ºC
(Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1991).
1.9 Key Performance Indicators
The parameters analyzed were pH, concentration levels of Biological Oxygen Demand
(BOD5), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Phosphate, Total
Nitrogen, Faecal Coliform for both influent and Final Effluent of Soapberry, Flow and Loading
Rate.
According to Wallace (1998) these are orthodox parameters used for the performance
evaluation of central wastewater treatment plant. The rationale for the choice of these parameters
also include the availability of Influent and Final Effluent laboratory data, the fact that the design
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
22/155
19
standards for these parameters were predominantly known and the final effluent standards for
these parameters were all known.
These parameters also showcase the strengths (BOD & COD Removal) and weaknesses
(Nutrient Removal) of waste stabilization pond systems which are critical in analyzing the
system. Finally this choice of parameters was substantiated by their extensive usage in recent
similar studies under similar conditions with similar objectives such as studies by Nadaffi et al.,
(2009); Mozaheb, et al. (2010); Haydeh, (2012).
The influent limits are premised on design metrics whereas final effluent limits for these
parameters are stipulated by the NRCA license agreement. This analytical approach is based on
the standard methods adopted by the American Public Health Association (APHA). Flowrate
data and loading will also be analyzed in order to determine relatedness between flow and
concentration levels (American Public Health Association, 1995).
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
23/155
20
1.9.1 Overview of Waste Stabilization Pond (WSP) Systems
Historically, ponds represent the oldest form of wastewater treatment. Essentially, WSP’s
consisting of holding basins whereby naturally occurring processes account for the stabilization
of waste and elimination of pathogen (Droste, 1997).
The operation of a stabilization pond system is premised on simplicity and relative ease
of operation. Effluent generally flows through a pond system by gravity. The flow period can
range from a few days in warm climates to months in colder climates. There is a symbiotic
relationship between detention time with flow and final effluent quality. The required final
effluent is governed by the applicable environmental standards. These standards represent
hydrological characteristics which assimilate the characteristics of the receiving water course
(Droste, 1997).
Stabilization ponds are ideally suited for areas where land which is the major capital
expense is relatively inexpensive such as wetlands. Pond systems are suited to warm climates
such as in tropical countries like as Jamaica. Pond systems are characterized by low operational
costs compared to more mechanized systems such as activated sludge processes. (Smith & Knoll,
1986).
Gawasiri, (2003) highlights the constituent parts of a WSP system as being divided into
three types of ponds based on type of biological activity occurring in each pond. The types are
Anaerobic, Facultative and Maturation ponds. Anaerobic and facultative ponds are employed for
BOD removal, while the primary function of maturation pond is to remove excreted pathogens.
This study provides a disaggregation of the system whereby the functions of each part is
comprehensively explained.
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
24/155
21
1.9.2 Organization of Research
To accomplish the aforementioned aim, objectives and to satisfy the research questions,
the structure and organization of the thesis is as follows:
Chapter one outlines the overview of the study, statement of the problem, description of
the study area, aim/ objectives of the study in addition to the research questions. This chapter
also outlines the significance of conducting a performance evaluation of Soapberry, defines key
terms, outlines the key performance indicators as well as articulates an overview of the waste
stabilization pond technology.
Chapter two provides a comprehensive review of relevant literature of similar studies to
understand the design parameters and approaches of Waste Stabilization Pond (WSP) systems.
This chapter is disaggregated into the operational characteristics, legislative framework, policies,
institutional arrangements and stakeholders of the wastewater sector in Jamaica. This chapter
also explores the challenges encountered in the operation of WSP’s both locally and abroad and
the importance of flow data collection and the implications in the variation of flowrate to WSP’s.
Chapter three explicitly defines the methodology undertaken to realize the aim of
executing a performance evaluation of a WSP system as a central wastewater treatment system.
This chapter is explanatory of the research design for each research question. The overall
approach represents a mixed methodology of qualitative and quantitative methods. Interviews
provide the qualitative data through an open-ended questionnaire while laboratory results and
flow data account for the quantitative data. The software used to collate, save, analyze and
display was Microsoft Excel. The rationale for the method adopted, the analytical techniques,
and the display of results for each question are based on literature.
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
25/155
22
Chapter four presents the results of methodological investigation as outlined in chapter
three to address the aim, objectives and research questions. The design and operating
characteristics were unearthed from interviews and presented. Microsoft Excel was used to
present the concentration of influent data of the parameters studied for 2014 relative to design
limits, the concentration of final effluent relative to the NRCA’s applicable standards and flow
data of 2014. The operational challenges were revealed through interviews.
Chapter five offers explanation of all results, generally showing consistency and
inconsistency with literature, design limits and applicable standards. This chapter seeks to gauge
effectiveness of the Soapberry Plant in treating municipal wastewater, providing an efficiency
rating of Soapberry’s ability to treat each parameter through removal efficiency computations
and explaining the relationship between flow and loading, thereby understanding the effects of
flow variation. The challenges faced in operating this facility will be explained, further to review
of interviews and the content of monthly operational reports and finally compared/ contrasted
with the findings of similar studies.
Chapter six offers a summarized view of the extent to which the aim and objectives are
realized in addition to the conclusive elements drawn from each research question. The
limitations of the study are articulated in addition to an avenue for further studies. With respect
to the conclusions made, recommendations were offered.
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
26/155
23
2.0 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE
2.1 Overview
The literature review includes four areas of focus: (a) the design and operating
characteristics for influent and final effluent of central wastewater treatment plants, (b)
international and local regulatory standards for wastewater treatment, (c) challenges faced by
central wastewater treatment plants, and (d) the implications of variations in the hydraulic
capacity of influent in central wastewater treatment plants. The present review is limited to
central wastewater treatment plants which employs the waste stabilization pond system.
2.2 DESIGN PARAMETERS/ STANDARDS OF WASTE STABILIZATION PONDS
According to Atta (2003), the feasibility of natural treatment technologies is accentuated
by their low capital costs, ease of maintenance and potentially longer life-cycles than their
electro-mechanical counterparts. This is in addition to their ability to recover a variety of
resources such as treated effluent for irrigation, organic humus for soil amendment and energy in
the form of biogas.
The primary functions of a central wastewater treatment plant such as Soapberry are to
meet the sanitation needs of the locality and ultimately protect water resources. The design of
such a plant should facilitate the functional sustainability and longevity of the associated
technology to be efficient and effective in the provision of services to the local neighborhood.
Atta (2003), postulates that functional sustainability should also be correlated to the capability of
the technology to recycle precious resources and to enable the production and sale of products
that can lead to the recovery of construction and operation costs. This postulate is considered
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
27/155
24
within the context that sanitation services are developed primarily as a responsibility of the state
rather than an income generating venture.
Waste stabilization ponds represent one of the most efficient, high performance and low-
cost wastewater treatment technology used worldwide. Pond systems for wastewater treatment
consisting of anaerobic, facultative and maturation ponds having a short retention time and
relatively shallow depths can produce high quality effluents (Atta, 2003).
There are four approaches to wastewater stabilization pond design. They are loading
rates, empirical design equations, reactor theory, and mechanistic modeling. The loading rates
design approach is simple, widely used and recommended in most of the wastewater standard
design handbooks worldwide (Atta, 2003). The Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant is an
example of this design approach.
2.2.1 Loading Rates Design Approach
This approach is characterized by a "black box" type of design, where a ratio of a
parameter such as population, flow or BOD is used relative to the required volume or area of
pond. This simplified approach to the process design of pond systems has been very commonly
used throughout the world. In New Zealand, 84 kg BOD/ha. per day has been routinely used for
Facultative pond design regardless of the distinct differences in environmental conditions
throughout the country (Atta, 2003).
Another critical parameter of design are Effluent limit which represent the maximum
allowable quantity of pollutants to be discharged from wastewater to its final destination
(waterway, reservoir for reuse, etc.). These limits vary due to geographical, climatic and socio-
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
28/155
25
economic conditions. Variation is also attributable to the character of the treated effluent
discharge destination. This is typified by the effluent quality of wastewater discharged to the
ocean which would be less stringent than the effluent quality of wastewater used for agriculture
(Atta, 2003).
According to Atta (2003), effluent limits essentially characterize the required and
accepted quality of the discharged wastewater. Consequently, prior to design, these limits must
be ascertained (from local municipal or environmental effluent standards publications) since they
will formulate the water quality design objectives. In Jamaica effluent limits are currently
promulgated in the NEPA Sludge Policy (2013).
An example is the European Union quality requirements for pond effluents being
discharged into surface and coastal waters:
Table 1.0 - European Union Effluent Standards
EUROPEAN UNION STANDARDS
Parameters Effluent Standards
Filtered BOD (non-algal BOD) 25 mg/l
Filtered COD (non-algal COD) 125 mg/l
Suspended solids 150 mg/l
Total nitrogen 15 mg/l
Total phosphorous 2 mg/l
Source: Council of the European Communities, 1991a
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
29/155
26
In India, the general standards for the discharge of treated wastewaters into inland surface waters
for ponds design are as follow:
Table 2.0 - India Wastewater Discharge Standards
INDIA WASTEWATER DISCHARGE STANDARDS
Parameters India Effluent Standards
BOD (non-filtered) 30 mg/l
Suspended solids 100 mg/l
Total Nitrogen 100 mg N/l
Total Ammonia 50 mg N/l
Free Ammonia 5 mg N/l
Sulphide 2 mg/l
pH 5.5 – 9.0
Source: Environment Protection Rules (CPCB, 1996)
2.2.2 Design Parameters of Waste Stabilization Ponds
According to Atta (2003), the four most important parameters for waste stabilization
ponds design are temperature, net evaporation, flow and biochemical oxygenated demand. The
design temperature is usually the mean air temperature in the coolest month, quarter or period of
the irrigation season. Temperature is correlated to kinetics which is typified by the direct
relationship between the success of microbial process and temperature.
An Anaerobic Pond followed by a facultative pond will produce effluent quality
appropriate to be discharged to waterways. However, wastewater for restricted or unrestricted
irrigation requires additional Maturation pond(s) succeeding the facultative pond in order to
polish the final effluent from faecal coliform, helminth egg and nutrient excess (Atta, 2003).
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
30/155
27
According to Bartone (1991), maturation ponds are not designed for BOD removal, but
the assumption is that 25% filtered BOD removal can be realized per pond for temperatures
above 20°C. In hot climates, a minimum 25-day, 5-cell pond system facilitates unrestricted
irrigation while restricted irrigation requires a 2-pond, 10-day detention time for adequate
pathogen destruction.
Net evaporation is factored into the design of facultative and maturation ponds but not
anaerobic ponds since the scum layer produced on top of anaerobic ponds will obviate
evaporation. Net evaporation is equivalent to the evaporation minus rainfall. The net evaporation
rates in the months used for selection of the design temperatures shall be those of lowest
temperature (Shaw, 1962; Atta, 2003).
A suitable flow design value is 80% of the in-house water consumption. The design flow
may be based on local experience in sewered communities of similar socio-economic status and
water use practice. Water/ wastewater service providers generally use data of the number of
sewered communities, population, connections to sewage infrastructure and flow meters at
existing treatment plants to reliably estimate flow data (Atta, 2003).
According to Mara and Pearson (1998), where wastewater exists, its BOD may be
measured. Otherwise, a reliable estimate can be computed from established mathematical
models. The BOD removal in primary facultative ponds is typically 70-80% based on unfiltered
samples (i.e. including the BOD exerted by the algae), and usually above 90% based on filtered
samples. This postulation identifies that pond systems are very efficient in BOD removal.
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
31/155
28
2.2.3 Operational Characteristics
According to Atta (2003), a pond treatment system requires a steady influent flow to
facilitate the rapid and uninterrupted growth of bacteria involved in the biological breakdown of
effluent. It is essential that the daily loading into the ponds is kept to the design standards of the
pond system. Large loads may flush out essential bacteria, ultimately resulting in system failure.
Variation in loads inevitably alters the retention time. Increasing the retention time of the
effluent will increase the amount of disease-causing microorganism die-off. The concentration of
microorganisms within the effluent will be reduced and the effluent will be of higher quality
before discharge into a waterway (Atta, 2003).
Pano and Middlebrooks (1982) present equations for nutrient removal specifically for
ammonical nitrogen (NH3 + NH+4) removal in individual facultative and maturation ponds for
temperatures above and below 20o Celsius. Reed (1985) presents an equation for the removal of
total nitrogen in individual facultative and maturation ponds. According to Mara and Pearson
(1998), nitrogen removal of 70-90%, and total phosphorus removals of 30 - 45% are easily
achievable in a series of well-designed ponds. This postulation indicates the inherent
shortcoming of waste stabilization pond systems to effectively remove nutrients.
Finney and Middlebrooks (1980) postulated that accurate projection of hydraulic
residence time is critically important in predicting pond performance, irrespective of the design
approach adopted. Shilton (2001) presented a comprehensive study on the hydraulics of
stabilization ponds. Twenty experimental configurations were tested in the laboratory of which
ten were mathematically modeled based on their acquiescence with the experimental results.
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
32/155
29
Shilton and Harrison (2003) subsequently introduced broad and informative guidelines
for hydraulic design of ponds to "help fill the knowledge gap in the pond hydraulics area".
Although engineering expertise is essential, coupled with the fact that understanding of ponds
hydraulics is still limited, these guidelines were deemed useful for improving ponds hydraulics,
and consequently ameliorating pond design, performance and efficiency.
With reference to pathogen removal, ponds can attain a 99.999% faecal coliform
reduction when operated in parallel, and are capable of attaining a 100% removal of helminths,
thus facilitating the recovery of the wastewater for agriculture in both restricted and unrestricted
irrigation (WHO, 1987; Mara and Pearson, 1998). The most significant pathogen reductions
occur during the warm months, which coincide with the irrigation season. During this period,
effluent standards that meet unrestricted irrigation are easily attained (Mara and Pearson, 1998).
2.2.4 Critique of Application of Waste Stabilization Ponds
Yu, et al., (1997) outlined that there is constant trepidation relating to the economic
feasibility of utilizing waste stabilization pond systems particularly in urban areas where land
price is relatively high. The crux of this postulate was premised on the reality that ponds require
large land areas. The substantive deduction was that ponds lose their comparative cost advantage
over mechanized treatment systems when land prices are greater than US$ 15-20/m2.
Contrastingly, Mara and Pearson (1998) have succinctly contended that even at high land
costs, ponds represent the most cost effective option of achieving sanitation objectives by asking
the question: "Do you pay for the required land area up front, or for continuously high
consumption of electricity in the future?"
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
33/155
30
This position is based on the fact that ponds are ideally characterized by low
mechanization and low energy requirement. The low energy requirement is quantified by the
power requirement to facilitate effective and efficient wastewater treatment, rather than savings
derived from alternative technology installed such as solar panel or biogas which inherently
would be implemented at further capital expenditure. Though plants such as Soapberry offer
tremendous potential for the generation of alternative energy, capital investment remains the
deterrent.
Another rationale for the larger footprint pond system is that it is usually constructed on
wetlands, as in the case of Soapberry, which occupies approximately 170 hectares of wetland,
which is unsuitable for other developmental activities coupled with the fact that it adjoins lands
used for sugar cane farming which offers an ideal opportunity for restricted agricultural re-use.
Additionally, Mara (2001) contended that the theory of the "extremely land intensive"
ponds system is flawed. Premised on research in northern Brazil (Pearson et al., 1995; Pearson et
al., 1996) shows that a 1 to 2-day anaerobic pond and a 3 to 6-day facultative pond can produce a
final effluent suitable for restricted irrigation, where the combined area required for both ponds
is as low as 0.35 m2 per person.
2.3 IMPACT OF REGULATIONS ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT
According to Metcalf and Eddy (1991), from about 1900 to the early 1970’s, wastewater
treatment objectives were premised on the removal of colloidal, suspended and floatable
material, the treatment of biodegradable organics and the eradication of pathogenic organisms. In
developed countries such as the United States of America, the Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA)
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
34/155
31
was seen as the catalyst for substantial changes in wastewater treatment to realize the objectives
of “fishable and swimmable” waters. Another critical inclusion in the CWA was the
promulgation of minimum standards for each discharger.
A similar statute in Jamaica, with enforcement, could alleviate the gross pollution of the
Kingston Harbour and protect stakeholders’ interests. According to NEPA (2013), the Kingston
Harbour is used mainly for fishing, shipping, recreation, industry and commerce. The most
significant and immediate effect of pollution is absorbed by the fishing activities of an estimated
3,386 fisherman with an approximate catch of 1.1 million Kg of fish per year (CWTC, 2013).
Sometime around 1980, wastewater treatment objectives had been augmented from the
reduction of biological oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS) and pathogenic
organisms to include aesthetic and environmental concerns. This evolution necessitated the
removal of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, mainly due to final effluent being
discharged in nearby aquatic environment (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
This transition of objectives in treatment deliverables was supported by amendments to
the CWA in 1987 (amendment known as the Water Quality Act, WQA); these included penalties
for permit violations and the identification/ regulation of toxic pollutants. Subsequent to these
amendments, the implementation of major programs by federal agencies, to improve wastewater
treatment, was undertaken with the ultimate goal being the improvement of water quality. These
programs were comprised of three pillars which are: firstly to develop an understanding of the
environmental effects of wastewater discharges, secondly to appreciate the long term health and
environmental effects of specific constituents of wastewater and finally to cultivate a national
concern for environmental protection (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
35/155
32
The overarching trend is that water quality, health and environmental objectives are
inextricably linked to wastewater treatment. This seemingly interdependent relationship requires
that wastewater treatment technologies, standards and objectives be harmonized with
environmental, health and water quality objectives. This calls for a participatory approach from
stakeholders in planning, design, implementation, crafting legislation, monitoring and evaluation
of wastewater treatment facilities.
2.3.1 Existing Policy Framework in Jamaica
According to Emmanuel (2010), with technical aid from the World Bank, the National
Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) and the Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ)
developed the Jamaica National Environmental Action Plan (JANEAP) in 1995. The JANEAP
represented the main environmental management policy instrument. Its stated purpose was ‘to
document the major environmental problems facing the country and to formulate the appropriate
policy framework, institutional arrangements, legal instruments, strategies, programmes and
projects to address and mitigate these problems’.
The significance of the JANEAP document was manifested in its explicit recognition of the
necessity to pursue the ambitious goal of sustainable development and, more importantly, the
critical role which the “polluter pays principle” inevitably has to play to realize the deliverables
of this goal. The document also comprises Government’s assurance to implement standards for
trade effluent, sewage effluent, ambient water quality, potable water, recreational water (pool
and beaches) and irrigation water (Emmanuel, 2010).
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
36/155
33
Another instrument is the Global Plan of Action (GPA) for the Protection of the Marine
Environment from Land-Based Activities which enunciates the clarion calls for the protection of
the marine environment, combined with the requisite commitments by governments in this
regard. In 1999, the wider Caribbean accepted the initiative to adopt the protocol relative to the
pollution from Land-Based Sources and Activities (LBS Protocol). Annex III of the Protocol
promulgates the stipulated limits for sewage effluent discharge to marine environment (Knight,
2003).
According to Emmanuel (2010); CWTC (2013), the Jamaica Water Sector Policy (1999)
enunciates the Government’s objectives in the provision of urban and rural water and sewerage.
Regarding the scope of the wastewater services provided to consumers, it is the intention of
Government to:
• Focus the provision of water and wastewater services on meeting the needs of target areas
of the National Industrial Policy to achieve the maximum impact on growth and
development; Provide for expansion of the sewerage network in areas with high
population densities with reference to health and environmental considerations;
• Ensure improvements in sewage treatment and disposal, to protect the environment;
Control and reduce the production of industrial effluents, and ensure that such effluents
are adequately treated, to avoid contamination of existing water resources.
• Within the Water Sector Policy, there are strategies focused and designed for water
pollution prevention and control including: Maintenance of ecosystem integrity through
the protection of aquatic resources from negative impacts caused by development and
natural processes;
• Protection of public health against disease vectors and from pathogens;
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
37/155
34
• Ensuring sustainable water use and ecosystem protection on a long-term basis;
• Implementing the polluter pays principle.
Knight (2003), articulated that domestic wastewater discharges represent one of the most
significant threats to marine ecosystems worldwide. Knight posits that improperly treated sewage
introduces pathogens to an aquatic environment which ultimately endangers public health and
the survival of aquatic organisms. This postulation rationalizes the need for performance
evaluation of sewage facilities which evaluates the objectives and deliverables of the Water
Sector Policy (1999).
The fact that Soapberry discharges final effluent to the Rio Cobre River is not only a
common feature of central wastewater treatment facilities in developing countries but is also a
clarion call for the efficiency and effectiveness of such a facility to be maintained to avoid
environmental degradation of marine ecosystems, circumvent entry of pollutants into the food
chain and maintain the quality of water resources (Silva and von Sperling, 2011).
According to Emmanuel (2010), the Jamaica Water Sector Policy (1999) also states
explicitly the roles and responsibilities of strategic institutions in the water, wastewater, drainage
and irrigation sectors. The principal actor is the Water Resources Authority (WRA), which has
the responsibility for regulation, control and management of the Jamaica’s water resources since
April 1996.
The revised draft Water Sector Policy, Strategy and Action Plan (2004) articulates the
goal of sewering all major towns by 2020, in addition to the restoration of existing non-
compliant facilities to attain compliance with the national environmental standards as critical
objectives (Emmanuel, 2010).
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
38/155
35
According to Emmanuel (2010), the Draft Jamaica National Sanitation Policy (2005) was
comprised of situation analysis which was the premise for sanitation at both the local and
national levels. It articulated the institutional framework for sanitation, inclusive of the role of
stakeholders, particularly non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) and Community Based
Organizations (CBOs). This document amplified the relevance of stakeholder involvement in the
provision and improvement of sanitation. The policy also elucidated the critically important
inter-linkages with other existing policies deemed as complementary to sanitation. Such
complementary policies include the water sector policy, poverty eradication policy, health
policy, solid waste management policy and the social housing policy.
Sanitation services represent one of the Basic Human Needs (BHN). Sanitation is
concomitant with the provision/ accessibility of potable water, public health and environmental
protection (CWTC, 2013). In this regard the policy envisages that “Every Jamaican understands
what proper sanitation and hygiene means and has the means to be able to practice proper
sanitation” (Emmanuel, 2010).
According to Emmanuel (2010), one of the main objectives is that acceptable water
supply and sewage/ excreta disposal are systems available in homes, schools and public places.
Other policy instruments that have been drafted and which provide linkages in support of
improved sanitation include the Health Policy (Ministry of Health); the Squatter Management
Policy (Ministry of Land and Environment); and the Social Housing Policy (Ministry of Water
and Housing).
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
39/155
36
2.3.2 Existing Legal Framework in Jamaica
According to Emmanuel (2010), there exist at least fifty statutes applicable to
environmental management and protection in Jamaica. The existing legislation is considered at
best to be widespread and fragmented. With specific reference to wastewater management the
most important statutes are: The National Resources Conservation Authority (NRCA) Act, 1991,
The Public Health Act 1974, amended in 1985, The National Water Commission Act, 1963,
amended in 1965, 1973 & 1980 and The Water Resources Act, 1995.
According to Emmanuel (2010), the NRCA Act is empowered to ensure the proper
management of the environment, with specific delineation for the regulation of effluent
discharges, Section 9(4) and 12. The National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) has
the mandate for environmental management in Jamaica, which is executed on behalf of the
Natural Resources Conservation Authority (NRCA).
Section 12 of the NRCA Act specifies the requirement of a license for the discharge of
wastewater into the environment in addition to any alteration, reconstruction and construction of
wastewater treatment facilities. Effective January 1, 1997, the Permit and License Regulations
were promulgated with the requirement of a Permit from the NRCA for the construction and
operation of a new wastewater treatment facility and that a license is obtained for the discharge
of trade and sewage effluent. NEPA has the responsibility to process permit applications for new
wastewater treatment facilities and license applications for the discharge of effluent; Soapberry
Wastewater Treatment Plant would have been subject to this requirement. The agency is also
involved in enforcement and public education (Emmanuel, 2010).
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
40/155
37
There are established standards for sewage and trade effluent quality and meeting the
standards is a condition of every license granted by the Authority (NRCA) through NEPA. There
are currently two standards for sewage effluent; standards for existing facilities, which are
defined as facilities in operation prior to 1997 and those for facilities built after 1996. The
definitions are in accordance with the NRCA Permit and Licences Regulation, 1996 (Emmanuel,
2010).
The requirements of the license include self-monitoring with the frequency specified to
ensure adherence to applicable standards. This requirement usually takes the form of an
Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan provided by the entity seeking the license.
NEPA executes post-approval monitoring to assess compliance and ensure that conditions of
approval are being adhered to. NEPA also collects samples of final effluent from treatment
plants which are then analyzed by an independent laboratory as a metric of compliance to
promulgated standards. This process seeks to offer an independent view of effectiveness and
compliance of the plant (Emmanuel, 2010). The independent laboratory results of 2014 collected
at Soapberry will be the basis for a quantitative analysis of this study to assess overall
performance.
The Public Health Act allows the Minister to make regulations relative to air, soil and
water pollution in Section 14. It also allows the Local Board of Health to make regulations for
the sanitary collection and disposal of garbage and other waste matter in Section 7(p).
The National Water Commission (NWC) Act of 1980 gives the NWC responsibility for
public water supply systems and public sewerage and sewage treatment. The National Water
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
41/155
38
Commission has developed various regulations under the National Water Commission Act,
mainly concerned with setting and collection of tariffs for water supply and sewerage services.
The Water Resources Act was established to provide for the establishment of the now
Water Resources Authority whose responsibility is to regulate, control and conserve water
resources.
2.3.3 Performance Evaluation of Sewage Treatment Plants
The aim of this study is to execute a performance evaluation of a central wastewater
treatment facility. In a similar performance evaluation study conducted by Haydeh,
Mohammadreza, and Mohammadhossein, (2012) of a waste stabilization pond system in Birjand,
Iran for the treatment of municipal wastewater, samples were taken of individual ponds so as to
determine the removal efficiency of each pond. These samples were benchmarked against the
guidelines published by (Gary, 2004; Mara, 2004 & Shah, 2008) for individual ponds.
The removal efficiency for individual ponds was compared to the overall efficiency of
the pond system. This approach is grounded in the theory that the overall system can produce a
final effluent that is in accordance with the established standards but the constituents ponds may
not be operating at optimum efficiency, thus eventually decreasing overall efficiency.
This approach presents a logical premise to execute similar research. However, the
distinct differences are firstly, Soapberry presents a situation where the effluent is in constant
circulation as opposed to separated constituent ponds as in Iran. This increases the retention time
which relieves the organic load. Secondly, Soapberry therefore takes isolated samples purely as
an operational procedure, and these samples are not gauged against published guidelines. The
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
42/155
39
emphasis is on influent referenced to design limits and final effluent governed by promulgated
environmental discharge standards specified under a license agreement.
Boller, (1997) executed performance evaluations of wastewater treatment plants in India
by initially developing performance criteria under five categories viz. general, technical,
physical, personnel, and operation and maintenance by evaluating past studies, preliminary
investigation and informal discussion with the officers who manage treatment plants.
That study is dissimilar to the methodology adopted for that study in that the criteria for
evaluation will be the design and regulatory standards. Another difference is the departure from a
purely qualitative approach in that, though this study will employ primary data collected by a
qualitative survey instrument, the research also involves a quantitative aspect as the analysis of
secondary laboratory data will be integral. That study however provides a substantive platform
from which a survey instrument can be developed for the current study.
Another objective of this study is to determine the level of compliance of Soapberry to
regulatory standards. In 1997, the NRCA introduced the Section 17 Programme to ascertain the
level of compliance with effluent standards of the existing major generators of effluent. The
initial focus of the programme was concentrated on entities that discharged wastewater into the
Kingston Harbour but was expanded to embrace all sugar factories, distilleries, bauxite/alumina
plants, coffee pulperies as well as other establishments known to generate sewage and trade
effluent. The Section 17 Programme was characterized as a voluntary compliance mechanism for
entities in operation prior to January 1997. However in 1999 these entities were eventually
incorporated into the licensing system for existing entities (Emmanuel, 2010).
According to Knight (2003), the Section 17 Programme had paucities in adequately
evaluating the performance of sewage treatment plants. Deficiencies were underscored in respect
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
43/155
40
of verification of monitoring visits by NEPA/ NRCA staff in addition to the self-monitoring
reports submitted by operators of the sewage plants.
In the study period of 1997 to 2000, 55 visits were made to 36 facilities. The resultant
assessment of effluent quality for compliance levels with the National Sewage Effluent
Standards was as follows: 56.4% for BOD5, 74.5% for TSS and 38.2% for Faecal Coliform.
Based on these figures, the logical conclusion was that these plants in their current state or based
on the current evaluation mechanism were below the requisite standards. Interestingly, plants
constructed after January 1, 1997 which were regulated by the NRCA (Permits and License)
Regulations, produced final effluent in accordance with the standards (Knight, 2003).
According to Knight (2003), the distinctive difference with the results from the newer
plants was the implementation of a more rigorous monitoring structure. The fact that compliance
was achieved means that it can be posited that this level of performance could be maintained.
The performance of sewage treatment plants with reference to environmental and effluent
standards is monitored by NEPA through the NRCA Act, Section 17 Programme and the Permit
and License Regulations prior to the promulgation of the NEPA Sludge Policy (2013).
In 2002, NEPA through the Coastal Water Quality Improvement Project (funded by
USAID and Government of Jamaica), commissioned a study on the domestic wastewater sector.
The average performance rating of the sector was poor effluent quality, not in accordance with
Sewage Effluent Standards and the LBS Protocol. This performance evaluation was very
balanced in that each plant was evaluated based on its design specifications as well as the
promulgated standards (Knight, 2003).
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
44/155
41
This research will adopt a similarly balanced performance evaluation whereby the
applicable standards and the design influent specifications will provide the premise for
evaluation.
An objective of this research is to generate recommendations from the results of the
performance evaluation of Soapberry. According to Knight (2003), the way forward for
Jamaica’s sewage treatment sector, which clearly had room for improvement included
institutional arrangement with specific reference to policy framework enabling Public Private
Partnerships, policy orientation regarding regulations for disposal and sewage treatment,
resource mobilization such as the use of non-traditional donors and private sector involvement
and finally area of technology including pretreatment of industrial wastewater, community
financed onsite system and small systems.
2.3.4 Public Private Partnership (PPP) in Wastewater Sector
In response to the growing rate of ineffective existing infrastructure combined with the
harsh economic realities on low productivity and indebtedness, governments of developing
countries such as Jamaica adopted reforms to their wastewater sectors. These reforms were
manifested in policy positions alongside infrastructural development, most notably involving
private sector involvement. Since 1990, in excess of 260 contracts have been awarded to private
entities for the operation, management and provision of urban water and sanitation utilities in
developing countries (Marin, 2009).
According to Yarrow (1986) in Privatization in Theory and in Practice postulated that “in
general, competition and regulation are likely to be more important determinants of economic
performance than ownership”. This position indicates that, where there is infrastructural
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
45/155
42
deficiency the policy direction should be so channeled to escalate competitiveness and
improvement of the regulatory framework as opposed to simply privatizing the sector. This is a
position which is at best viewed as pro-public ownership rather than anti-private partnership,
though hardly applicable without the economic stimuli of a thriving economy.
In the context of Jamaica, the need for public services continues to increase in an
economy dominated by intense competition for limited resources (Heilman & Johnson, 1992;
pp9-10). An assessment of the state of sewage infrastructure by NEPA in 2002 revealed that the
sector has significant room for improvement regarding infrastructure and compliance with the
promulgated standards of final effluent. However, like many developing states where there is an
acceptance of the need for infrastructural improvements, the challenges posed by an increasing
demand on aging infrastructure, lack of pretreatment of industrial wastewater and the economic
realities characterized by low productivity, high inflation and a ballooning debt burden a
departure from Yarrow’s view represents a more realistic picture.
Consequently, policy direction in developing states represents a departure from Yarrow’s
posit, and have seemingly become reliant on the private sector participation to deliver
wastewater utilities. This is a position reinforced by OECD (2007) which articulates that the
involvement of the private sector is needed to “attract investment and mobilize private sector
resources for the benefit of the society and sustainable development”.
Jamaica has re-evaluated its target deliverables as well as the legislative framework
required to facilitate this shift to privatization. The first demonstration of this shift is at the
direction of the Government of Jamaica (GOJ), approved by Cabinet, whereby Jamaica entered
into a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) for the construction, operation and management of a
central sewage treatment facility called Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant.
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
46/155
43
The Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant (Phase 1) of the Kingston Metropolitan Area
(KMA) Wastewater Project was implemented by the Central Wastewater Treatment Company
(CWTC). The initial shareholders in this PPP were the National Water Commission (NWC),
Urban Development Corporation (UDC), National Housing Trust (NHT), Ministry of Water and
Housing and Ashtrom Building Systems Limited (Vaz, 2010).
This privatized approach is commonly adopted in developed countries and implemented
successfully. In the United States of America, the first PPP application in wastewater treatment
infrastructure was in Alabama. Not dissimilar to Jamaica, the growing economic reality of
limited resources represented the catalyst for this venture (Colman, 1989).
2.3.5 NEPA Sludge Policy (2013)
Jamaica took another groundbreaking step of developing wastewater and sludge
regulations promulgated as the NEPA Sludge Policy (2013), fundamentally enabling the practice
of safe environmental sanitation (ecosan) and protection of public health. The wastewater and
sludge policy now facilitates the safe management, treatment and disposal of sewage and
industrial sludge. The policy articulates strict pathogen and heavy metal content limits for treated
domestic sewage sludge (termed as National Treated Sewage Sludge/ Biosolids Standard) that is
suitable for land application. The regulations are designed to facilitate land application of
biosolids and their derivatives in a manner consistent with public health while maintaining or
improving environmental quality (Emmanuel, 2010).
A key tenet of the policy is provision for calculation and subsequent collection of
wastewater discharge fees which underpins the “polluter-pay” principle. The operating reality of
this principle is that the entity discharging effluent pays a calculated rate fee for that discharge,
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
47/155
44
irrespective of the effluent’s compliance with the effluent standards. The aim is to encourage the
polluter to remedy the problem rather than to pay the penalty (Emmanuel, 2010).
Another notable inclusion is the standard for pathogens utilizing the metric of faecal
coliforms
8/19/2019 Performance Evaluation of a Central Wastewater
48/155
45
In India the wastewater standards published for the discharge of treated wastewaters into
inland surface waters are: 30 mg/l for BOD, 100 mg/l for suspended solids, 100 mg/l for total
nitrogen, 2 mg/l for sulphide and 5.5 – 9.0 for pH (Mara, 1997).
This study seeks to determine the efficiency of Soapberry, by the computation of removal
efficiencies of all parameters studied. What is glaringly absent from the NEPA Sludge Policy
(2013) is the percentage of removal efficiency of each parameter. Removal efficiency is
represented as a percentage and is used to compare different treatment processes (Christian, et
al., 2004). In this case it will be computed from the concentration levels of influent and final
effluent of each parameter to provide a metric for the determination of the treatment plant’s
efficiency in satisfying its operational mandate. The computed removal efficiency of each
parameter will be used to determine the efficiency of the technologies employed at Soapberry
Wastewater Treatment Plant, Jamaica, thereby fulfilling the objective of assessing the system.
The regulations are complemented by 10 schedules which provide the standards for the
sewage and trade effluent, including for use of discharges for irrigation, landfilling of sludge,
water quality standards, forms, and reporting stipulations (Emmanuel,