performance evaluation of a central wastewater

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


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.


3/155

iii

Dedication

I dedicate this thesis to Krystal D. M. Lyn, truly a symbol of inspiration and hope in my life.


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.


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.


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


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


3.5.3 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................... 69


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


3.7.3 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


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


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


11/155

8

6.69 Further Study ................................................................................................................... 134

7.0 APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 136


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 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


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


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


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


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).


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).


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.


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?


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.


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


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).


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.


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.


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.


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


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-


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


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).


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.


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.


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?"


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)


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).


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).


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;


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).


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).


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).


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


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


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


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).


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


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.


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,


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


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,

performance evaluation of a central wastewater

Documents