Performance Evaluation of A Central Wastewater

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
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.
ii
Dedication
I dedicate this thesis to Krystal D. M. Lyn, truly a symbol of inspiration and hope in my life.
iii
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 Masters Programme for their support, guidance and expertise.
1
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.
2
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
3
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
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
5
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
6
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 Soapberrys 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
7
6.69 Further Study ................................................................................................................... 134

7.0 APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 136
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
9
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
10
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
11
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
12
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 nonconventional 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).
13
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).
14
The approximate location of the Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant is 17 59 50.81

N, 76 51 48.06 W and 4.572 meters above mean sea level. Temperature ranges from 22.3 C
to 31.9 C 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.
15
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, Soapberrys
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?
16
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 socioeconomic 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.
17
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 105C
(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
18
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).
19
1.9.1 Overview of Waste Stabilization Pond (WSP) Systems

Historically, ponds represent the oldest form of wastewater treatment. Essentially, WSPs
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.
20
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 WSPs both locally and abroad and
the importance of flow data collection and the implications in the variation of flowrate to WSPs.
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.
21
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 NRCAs 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 Soapberrys 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.
22
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
23
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 lowcost 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 socio24
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
25
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).
26
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 20C. 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.
27
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.
28
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?"
29
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 1970s, 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)
30
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).
31
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 Governments assurance to implement standards for
trade effluent, sewage effluent, ambient water quality, potable water, recreational water (pool
and beaches) and irrigation water (Emmanuel, 2010).
32
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 Governments 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;

33
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 Jamaicas 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 noncompliant facilities to attain compliance with the national environmental standards as critical
objectives (Emmanuel, 2010).
34
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 (NGOs) 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).
35
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).
36
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
37
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
38
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
39
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).
40
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
Jamaicas 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
41
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 Yarrows view represents a more realistic picture.
Consequently, policy direction in developing states represents a departure from Yarrows
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.
42
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,
43
irrespective of the effluents 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 <1000 MPN/g of treated sludge and the absence of Salmonella. Also included are the
establishment of metals ceiling concentrations, annual loading rates and cumulative loading rates
for metals in treated sewage sludge when applied to agricultural land were established. The
sludge policy articulates the License requirements for sludge treatment and sewage sludge
disposal in addition to the requisite forms (Emmanuel, 2010).
To further substantiate the choice of key performance indicators, Wallace (1998),
USEPA (1994), articulated that in the performance evaluation of Waste Stabilization Ponds
(WSPs) employed as central wastewater treatment plants, the parameters of concern usually
include biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total suspended
solids (TSS), Total Nitrogen (TN), Ammonium Nitrogen (NH+4-N), Nitrate nitrogen (NO-3N),
Orthophosphate (PO43-), total phosphorous (TP), sulphate (SO42-), sulphide (S2-) and sanitary
indicators (Total Coliform & Faecal Coliform).
The aforementioned parameters, their respective concentration levels and unit of measure
are all promulgated in the NEPA Sludge Policy (2013) of Jamaica. The standards for final
effluent discharged from sewage treatment systems built after 1997 in Jamaica promulgated in
the NEPA Sludge Policy 2013 are: BOD5 is 20 mg/l, TSS is 20 mg/l, total nitrogen is 10 mg/l,
6-9 for pH and COD is 100 mg/l. The results attained from the case study of Soapberry will
provide a premise to analyze and subsequently validate the policy standards.
44
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 plants
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, 2010).
2.3.6 Existing Institutional Framework in Jamaica

According to CWTC (2013), though the Government of Jamaica has developed a Water
Sector Policy (WSP), the management of the islands water and sanitation sector is shared by a
number of agencies with responsibility for setting policy, providing services and ensuring
compliance with regulatory standards.
45
With regards to wastewater management, the agencies that play a significant role are:
National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA), Environment Health Unit of the Ministry
of Health, National Water Commission (NWC) and Water Resources Authority (WRA). The
Ministry with responsibility for Environment has responsibility to develop and implement
Environmental Management Policies (Emmanuel, 2010).
According to Emmanuel (2010), the Ministry of Health has responsibility to develop and
implement health policies and legislation to promote appropriate sanitation practices; establish
and monitor health indicators for sanitation; enforce public health laws; provide public education
on sanitation and hygiene and promote good hygiene practices. Regarding water quality
standards, the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines and the Interim Jamaica guidelines
apply and they are monitored by the Parish Public Health Departments and the Environmental
Health Unit of the Ministry of Health.
These organizations monitor effluent standards for permissible limits on discharge of
treated sewage, as well as ambient water quality guidelines for recreational waters. This
responsibility for monitoring and enforcing compliance with these standards is shared with
NEPA. In addition to their role as regulators, the Ministry of Health operates the sewage
treatment plants associated with their hospitals and health care facilities (Emmanuel, 2010).
The National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) establishes planning
requirements; develop and enforce environmental management standards; establishes and
enforces legal standards for effluent disposal; ensures, through regulatory instruments or
otherwise, that housing developments are not sited in vulnerable areas; ensures that planning
46
requirements for housing developments meet required standards for density and sanitation
facilities (water supply and sewage disposal) (Emmanuel, 2010).
The Ministry of Water and Housing focuses on development and implementation of
policies for the management of water supplies, wastewater treatment/disposal systems and
housing developments; implementation of programmes to provide potable water to all
communities in Jamaica; implementation of programmes to provide for the safe collection,
conveyance, treatment and disposal of sewage; and ensuring that all housing developments meet
required standards for sanitation (Emmanuel, 2010).
The Local Authorities, including parish councils, are charged with the responsibility of
providing an adequate number of properly maintained public sanitary conveniences (especially
in urban centers); prohibit / penalize urination and defecation in areas that are not designated for
that purpose and work as partners with communities to establish acceptable water supply and
excreta disposal systems (Emmanuel, 2010).
According to Emmanuel (2010), the National Water Commission (NWC) is the largest
owner of sewage plants in Jamaica. In recent years NWC has been incurring losses. The practice
has been for the NWC to rely on the Government to finance new infrastructure. However,
competing demands on the Government budget mean that this source has not been adequate to
provide for the water and wastewater infrastructure needs of the country.
The NWC has indicated that they are discouraging the use of package plants and
promoting the use of waste stabilization ponds where applicable. There is a preference for low
technology facilities so that the maintenance costs can be reduced. The premise that wastewater
47
treatment by waste stabilization ponds (WSPs) provides an ideal natural mechanism to treat
wastewater at relatively low cost has been substantiated by (Mara, D. and H. Pearson, 1998).
The Scientific Research Council (SRC) provides information / advice on design and
implementation of environmentally friendly wastewater management systems such as Anaerobic
Technology and Biodigesters. Services include measuring, analyzing and characterizing the
types of wastewater produced at a given source and determining the methods for treating it to
reduce pollution. The SRC provides technical support to the National Water Commission,
communities, schools, farmers and housing developers in commissioning and maintaining waste
treatment systems (Emmanuel, 2010).
The National Housing Trust usually operates sewage treatment plants associated with
government housing projects but eventually hands these plants over to the NWC. Increasingly
the NWC has indicated that they must first agree to the proposed sewage treatment facility that
they are eventually expected to take over (Emmanuel, 2010). The Urban Development
Corporation (UDC) operates a number of small sewage treatment plants across the island. Local
involvement in wastewater management has improved significantly over the past five years with
establishment of a North Coast Wastewater District by the NWC. It has also seen the strong
involvement of Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (ENGO) and Community
Based Organizations (CBO).
According to Emmanuel (2010), the existing arrangements are not sufficient for the
proper functioning of the wastewater sector and additional measures are needed to enhance the
performance of the sector. There is a need for improvements in the monitoring, evaluation and
enforcement capacities of regulatory agencies. The collaboration between regulatory agencies
such as NEPA and the Public Health Department is weak.
48
2.4 CHALLENGES IN OPERATING A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

A critical objective of this study is to ascertain the challenges encountered by Soapberry
in the execution of its operational mandate. Mara (2004) articulated that waste stabilization
ponds represent a simple technology, but some common problems tend to characterize their
operation. Typical challenges affecting waste stabilization ponds include odor issues associated
with operation/ maintenance, poor effluent quality attributed to sampling and testing procedures,
overloading, lack of skilled personnel, lack of pre-treatment for industrial wastes and adopting
designs from developed countries which are not readily adaptable to a developing country due to
the prevailing economic reality and climatic conditions. The findings from Mara, (2004) will be
used as a premise to develop survey instruments and validate the findings of this study.
According to Knight (2003), NEPAs monitoring programmes in addition to a special
study by the Scientific Research Council (SRC) indicated that poor operating practices and
inadequate maintenance at sewage treatment plants were very evident. The Jamaica Wastewater
Operators Association (JWOA) presented its status report on wastewater treatment plants in 2003
which was consistent with the findings of NEPA and the SRC. The JWOA study examined 14
treatment plants, highlighting the conclusions of the plant operators on the facilities they
operated.
The generalized view was that the average performance of the sector was poor with
effluent quality not meeting the sewage effluent standards and the LBS Protocol more often than
not. While it was recognized and accepted that most of the treatment plants were old and their
designs could not deliver final effluent to current standards, it was deemed unacceptable the
these plants were not meeting the standards based on their design specifications (Knight, 2003).
49
Operation and maintenance issues were the main factors responsible for the poor
performance of the sector. Most plants lack a documented operational and maintenance
programmes. There was little effort to replace or repair vital components responsible for the
effective functioning of plants. Inadequate monitoring and limited enforcement options by
regulatory agencies continued to allow plants to be operated at undesirable levels (Knight, 2003).
According to Varn and Mara (2004), the simplicity of routine WSP maintenance is
sometimes fallaciously interpreted as "low maintenance equals no maintenance". Consequently,
routine preventive maintenance is often neglected, or not adequately executed, and the WSPs are
"maintained" only when a serious problem has developed such as odor, mosquito breeding,
excessive sludge accumulation in anaerobic ponds, or excessive vegetation growth in facultative
ponds and maturation ponds.
According to Mara, (2004) as well as Wang, Omosa, Keller and Li (2012), poor operation
and maintenance is a challenge for wastewater treatment plants and waterworks. As seen where
some manufacturers in Africa cannot get applicable technologies to remove pollutants from their
industrial wastewater due to limited available information and experiences.
Bernhard and Kirchgessner, (1987); Mantilla et al., (2002) enunciated that a major issue
was the absence or inadequate provision for preliminary treatment (screening and grit removal),
which can adversely affects the ponds because of excessive scum and a higher rate of sludge
accumulation.
A position further supported by Pena and Mara (2004); Arafeh (2012), who enunciated
that inefficiencies in preliminary treatment can present challenges at subsequent stages of
wastewater treatment. The mantra of preliminary treatment is to protect the principal treatment
50
processes that follow by the removal of plastic, grease, scum, solids and grit which can block and
wear pipe work, valves, pumps and treatment equipment.
Methods and equipment used to remove these materials may include chemical addition,
pre-aeration, bar racks, screens and shredding devices, and grit chambers. The design of this
preliminary treatment stage is the same as that used for conventional electro mechanic
wastewater treatment plant, but for WSPs the simplest systems are generally used (manually
raked screens and manually cleaned constant-velocity grit channels). Preliminary treatment may
also consist of a single process or a combination of processes, such as coagulation, flocculation,
and flotation Pena and Mara (2004); (Arafeh, G.A., 2012).
Bernhard and Kirchgessner, (1987); Mantilla et al., (2002), articulated that pond failure
or poor performance was also attributable to inadequate attention being given to geotechnical
aspects during the design and construction of WSPs. The need for comprehensive geotechnical
engineering cannot be overstated, as WSPs are often sited on wetlands where settlement issues
are analogous to, a reality not dissimilar to Soapberry.
This is a postulation also supported by Mara and Pearson, (1998) who articulated that
geotechnical aspects, if not taken into consideration, may cause the ponds system to malfunction.
A geotechnical investigation of the site should be made during the design stage to ensure correct
embankment design and to determine whether the soil is sufficiently impermeable to allow the
pond to be lined. A stable and impermeable embankment core shall be formed, whether chosen
from an available local or imported soil. After compaction, the soil should have a coefficient of
permeability of 10-7 m/s.
51
Varn and Mara (2004); Shilton and Harrison (2003), postulated that inlets and outlets
are often incorrectly located or as is commonly the case with wetlands, is affected by uneven
settlement thus rendering some inlets inoperable which ultimately affect pond hydrodynamics
and kinetics. This scenario ultimately affects the hydraulic retention time of the pond.
Naddafi, K., Hassanvand, M. S., et al, (2008), suggested that inlet and outlet deficiencies
result in bad distribution of the wastewater and bad mixing with the microorganisms in the pond.
Optimal positioning and operation of these elements are critical to the entrance of wastewater to
the ponds and the complete mixing of effluent in other ponds, particularly in the recirculation
systems, as in the case of Soapberry. The efficiency of the facultative ponds might be raised by
increasing the number inlets and outlets of each pond to achieve well mixed flow conditions and
avoid dead zones. In other scenarios, inlets and outlets may lack maintenance to get rid of the
deposits that block them.
Another common problem is that of under-loading, where notwithstanding the loading
rates being appropriately designated by the designer, based on design parameters, such as
population, per capita wastewater flow and BOD5 contribution, the actual influent loads are
different. The actual loading at the start may be much lower than the design value used, leading
to critical underloading in the anaerobic ponds; or it may increase at a greater rate than predicted
in the design, leading to early critical overloading in the anaerobic and facultative ponds (Varn
and Mara 2004).
Lloyd and Leitner, et al. (2003) studied fourteen WSP systems in Mexico: all produced
poor quality final effluents. The reasons for under-performance included gross under-design,
adverse environmental conditions, a very high degree of hydraulic short-circuiting, and very poor
52
operation and maintenance. The main adverse environmental conditions were the large diurnal
variations in temperature in winter (from 4C to +30C) and very high wind speeds (peaks of
more than 8 m/s), both of which resulted in the excessive hydraulic short-circuiting. In one pond
the dead space was 80 % of the pond volume.
The adverse effects of environmental conditions are further substantiated by Varn and
Mara (2004) who postulated that designers often apply design criteria from temperate climates to
the design of WSPs in the tropics. The result of this regrettable reality is that many WSPs have
been "designed" with inappropriate BOD5 loadings. Inappropriately high loadings lead to odor
and pond failure; inappropriately low loadings, especially on anaerobic ponds, lead to underperformance and overall costs are increased as the land area used is greater than necessary. This
is due to the inversely proportional relationship between temperature and pond footprint.
Varn and Mara (2004); (Mara, 2004) suggested that the lack of skilled personnel and
professionals involved in WSP projects presents a major challenge. These include design and
construction engineers, engineers responsible for operation of the WSPs once commissioned, and
chemical/ microbiological laboratory managers, analysts and a well trained staff for maintenance
and general operation. All the professionals require appropriate training.
According to Mara, (2004), a serious challenge for stabilization ponds and lagoons is the
heavy load of inuent. The inuent concentration is high due to insufcient pretreatment of
industrial wastewater.
Li, Wang and Mafuta (2011) cited a case study of the Dandora
Wastewater Treatment Plant, Nairobi, Kenya. In this case the collected samples showed that the
inuent chemical oxygen demand and biochemical oxygen demand was 2030 and 1500mg/L,
respectively, while the average removal of organic pollutants is 70%. According to this study the
53
average removal efciency of NH3-N, TN, and TP in Dandora was only 46, 36, and 16%,
respectively. The resultant efuent from the system is heavily colored due to algae.
Barjenbrach and Erler (2005) summarized that there are several causes for deterioration
of the purification performance associated with waste stabilization ponds such as unsuitable
design of the pond, incomplete mixing of aerated pond, type of preliminary treatment,
insufficient maintenance and increased organic influent loads.
According to Metcalf and Eddy (1991, pp.15), important concerns in wastewater
treatment include: aging infrastructure, new methods of process analysis and control, treatment
plant performance and reliability, wastewater disinfection, combined sewer overflows, impacts
of stormwater and sanitary overflows and nonpoint sources of pollution, separate treatment of
return flows, odor control, control of emissions and retrofitting and upgrading wastewater
treatment plants.
The aging and in some cases archaic infrastructure is a problem in the United States
which was manifested by leaking and undersized sewers, overflows from sanitary and combined
collection systems and the need to upgrade treatment systems to achieve higher levels of specific
constituents (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991, pp.16). This scenario is exacerbated by the fact that plants
may predate the wastewater standards and, if not upgraded at significant capital expenditure,
may not be able to deliver a final effluent meeting the applicable standards.
According to Li and Wang (2011), disinfection is also important for wastewater
treatment, particularly where the efuent is discharged from wastewater treatment plants to
rivers or lakes without disinfection. In the Dandora treatment plant, efuent from stabilization
ponds is owing into the Nairobi River through an open channel, where livestock drink the river
54
water. This could cause harm to the livestock and human health eventually. A similar concern
could be mounted since final effluent outfalls to the Rio Cobre, Jamaica which is an objective of
this research.
2.4.1 Recommendations
The dynamism inherently associated with the characteristics of wastewater necessitates
constant studies of wastewater treatability of specific constituents. The importance of these
studies lies in the derivation of understanding of constituents and development of an appropriate
treatment methodology. These studies also aid in the assessment of industrial or domestic
wastewater treatability and the evaluation of existing treatment plants and technologies in order
to make recommendations (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991, pp.16).
According to Wang and Zhang, et al. (2013), it is important to provide training and to
enhance the expertise for the operation and maintenance of the facilities for wastewater
treatment. Capacity building is needed to improve the knowledge of the workers in this sector.
Only qualied and efcient operators and managers can ensure the smooth operation of these
treatment facilities. In addition, those who construct the wastewater treatment facilities should
establish necessary maintenance mechanisms so that these facilities can run sustainably.
Quin and Balfors, et al. (2011) postulated that the low priority accorded to the wastewater
sector translates to poor water quality. Governments usually lack the political will to emphasize
wastewater treatment and the relevant enforcement of applicable penalties because this is not
considered as politically expedient; neither is it seen as vote winning. It was suggested that
local planning processes need to be reformed so that local government is enabled legislatively
55
and financially to be responsible to municipal facilities so as to act decisively in improving water

and wastewater services.
To establish good governance with a better mechanism and institutional framework is
critical to avoiding the lack of political will and commitment for wastewater treatment. The
regulatory authorities should put up legislations and rules to require industries to establish on-site
pre-treatment facilities and in addition to the legislation, strict enforcement should be applied
(Quin and Balfors, et. al., 2011).
Hartley (2006) suggested that the improvement of wastewater treatment needs joint
efforts from stakeholders, including the public. It is felt that decisions for water and wastewater
treatment are taken without public involvement, and people are unaware of the signicance of
the synergistic relationship between water and wastewater in addition to the methods to protect
water quality. Public participation may enhance the political will if politicians seek public
support.
2.4.2 Hydraulic Loading

A critical parameter in both the design and operation of a WSP system is the amount of
wastewater to be treated. This is referred to as the "loading" of the pond. The loading is typically
given relative to the surface area of the system and may be stated in several different ways such
as population loading, organic loading and hydraulic loading.
According to the State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources & Environment
(2010), flowrates are directly correlated to hydraulic loading. Hydraulic loading is the rate of
inflow or volume of wastewater to be treated. This may be expressed in simple flow rate terms
56
such as gallons per day or million gallons per day (MGD). An important aspect of the hydraulic
loading is the detention time of the pond(s). This is the calculated time required to displace or fill
the volume of the pond(s) at the determined inflow rate.
2.4.3 Importance of Flowrate Measurement

According to the State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources & Environment
(2010), it is exceedingly necessary that an influent quantifying device be installed to enable a
direct reading on the daily volume of wastes that are introduced into the ponds. This information
is essential to compute the hydraulic loading and storage capacity for the treatment system. It is
also required, along with a BOD measurement of the influent, to calculate the organic loading on
the pond. Influent flow volumes may also be used to monitor pump efficiencies, detect increases
in infiltration, and to determine chemical feed rates.
Comparison of influent and effluent flow rates is necessary for estimating percolation and
evaporation losses. A flow meter delivers basic data for forecast of future plant expansion needs
or for identifying unauthorized or abnormal flows. Reliable records on flow volume help justify
budgets and greatly assist an engineer's design of a plant expansion or new installation. Effluent
measuring is required by the discharge permit. It is also very important for plant control as well
as monitoring environmental impact (State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources &
Environment, 2010).
57
2.4.4 Variations in Wastewater Flowrates

Wastewater flow is difficult to design for, as the rate of flow varies with fluctuations in
population, an issue that is particularly relevant in developing countries. Basic design data is
often not readily available in developing countries because of limited resources to install flow
measuring devices (Von Sperling, 1996).
According to Metcalf and Eddy (2003), hydraulic design of wastewater treatment
facilities is affected by variations in wastewater flowrate. Consequently, flowrate characteristics
have to be analyzed from existing records. Analysis of wastewater data involves the computation
of flowrate and mass loading variations. Flowrates can be correlated to concentrations of specific
constituents, mass loading, sustained mass loadings occurring over a defined time period so as to
develop a trend analysis.
The factors deemed to be contributory to loading variations include the established habits
of community residents which is resultant in short-term variations (hourly, daily and weekly);
seasonal conditions resultant in long term variations; and industrial activities resultant in both
long and short term variations (Metcalf and Eddy, 2003).
Short term constituent concentration variations may change significantly during the
course of a day. Typically, BOD variation follows the flow with the peak BOD concentration
occurring in the evening. With regards to seasonal variations for domestic flow (without
factoring infiltration), per capita loadings and wastewater strength from seasonal sources such as
resorts will remain the same daily, notwithstanding the fact that flowrate will vary based on
occupancy levels. The total mass of BOD and TSS of the wastewater will increase
proportionately to the population served. With respect to variations in industrial wastewater
58
which is premised on the composition of the wastewater from a particular industry, the variation
can be wide. More industries contributing wastewater make the variation more unpredictable and
difficult to define (Metcalf and Eddy, 2003).
Droste (1997) postulated that an efficient hydraulic design should provide treatment over
wide range of flows at a minimum energy requirement. He also posited that such a design must
have the ability to operate under future modifications and expansions. Consequently, the
treatment plant must be designed to function under all hydraulic conditions from low to high
flows.
This is a view supported by Metcalf and Eddy (2003), who posited that treatment plants
must be designed to facilitate shock loading particularly due to the significant variation in
industrial wastewater. The impact of wastewater from canneries can result in flow and BOD
loadings to increase between two to five times average conditions.
Metcalf and Eddy (2003) postulated that if industrial wastes are to be discharged to a
collection system ultimately for treatment in a central wastewater treatment facility such as
Soapberry, it becomes necessary to adequately characterize the waste so as to identify the ranges
in constituent concentrations and mass loadings. This characterization aids in the determination
of the prerequisite for industrial pretreatment prior to discharge to municipal sewer networks.
However, industrial wastewater flow and ground water infiltration cannot be isolated and
measured with high levels of accuracy. These factors can significantly change the wastewater
flow from those used in the design (Campos and Von Sperling 1996).
Haydeh, et al, (2012) analyzed the data in three months blocks to determine seasonal
variations on performance of the pond system This presents an avenue for further study, however
59
the fact that Jamaica is not affected by significant seasonal weather related variations means that
this approach may not yield any significant differential pattern. This study however will seek to
execute a temporal analysis of data for 2014 to develop trend analyses and more importantly
relatedness between the various parameters analyzed, so as to determine the effectiveness and
efficiency of Soapberry, as well to make recommendations where applicable.
2.5 IMPLICATIONS OF VARIATIONS IN WASTEWATER FLOWRATES

Another objective of this study is to assess and analyze the effects of variations in flow.
According to Atta (2003), a pond treatment system requires steady effluent flow to encourage the
rapid and continuous 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.
A very large load may flush out important bacteria, eventually leading to system failure.
Atta (2003), articulates that variation in loads will consequently alter the retention time
and any attempt to extend the retention time of effluent within the pond system 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. Thus variation in capacity alters retention time, effluent quality and the biological
breakdown of effluent.
According to Atta (2003); Shilton and Harrison (2003), influent should be mixed into the
main body of the pond to avoid localized overloading, taking into consideration not to cause
short-circuiting. Short-circuiting arises when water enters and leaves the pond in a very short
time which results in a large reduction in the discharge quality and should be avoided. Another
60
challenge arising from flow pattern is that of solid deposits. The solids deposition within the
pond occurs as a result of the flow, rather than the flow being redirected as a result of the solids.
Shilton and Harrison (2003) recommended that a pond should maintain a similar and reasonably
well defined flow pattern through the range of possible flow rates.
Tchobanoglous et al. (2003) have further suggested that the daily fluctuation of the
incoming wastewater flow into wastewater treatment plants cause turbulent eddies to develop. It
is proposed that turbulent eddies and molecular diffusion cause the dispersion of wastewater
pollutants within WSP.
According to Arafeh (2012), biological nitrification occurs under optimal conditions for
growth and sustenance of the aerobic autotrophic nitrifying bacteria. These conditions are
adversely affected by fluctuating flow rates whereby the bacteria involved in both the aerobic
and anoxic sequences can be adversely affected.
2.5.1 Summary of Reviewed Literature

The review of literature provided information of the design/ operating parameters of the
case study with respect to the key performance indicators. This served as a metric to evaluate the
influent data and provided a reliable premise for critique the system and its associated
technologies.
Highlighted also were the various legislative, institutional and policy frameworks of
which the NRCA standards provided the basis to gauge compliance of final effluent to
promulgated standards. The literature review provided challenges encountered in similar studies
which generated an awareness of typical challenges such as lack of pretreatment of industrial
61
wastewater, untrained personnel, inefficient preliminary treatment, geotechnical issues

associated with wetlands in addition to a myriad of maintenance and operational issues.
Finally, the importance of flow data was underscored as essential to loading
computations and capacity determination. The variation of flow was found to affect the
biological breakdown of effluent, affect flow patterns and ultimately the quality of final effluent.
62
3.0 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Overview
This section describes the research strategy used, and expounds upon the techniques used
in collecting data. The significance of this section is underscored by the presentation of a
methodological design, thus enabling the research to be repeated, thereby facilitating the
processes of evaluation and validation. The steps taken to execute this research are well
documented and justified where necessary. This study is intended to execute a performance
evaluation of a central wastewater treatment plant, thus determining the efficiency and
effectiveness of waste stabilization pond systems.
3.2 Research Design

The research design reflects that of an applied research, in that it was undertaken to
provide a basis for a solution to a practical problem. The approach adopted for this research was
one of a mixed methodology of both qualitative and quantitative methods. The purpose of the
qualitative approach was evaluation of performance (effectiveness/ efficiency) of a central
wastewater sewage plant. The qualitative research design was that of case study whereby the
Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant was chosen for in depth study for a period of a year
(2014).
The case study is geared at providing compliance data, trends and relatedness between
the parameters that characterize the performance indicators. However, according to Leedy and
Ormrod (2010), though this design is capable of providing a sufficient base for evaluation, it is
deficient in that the fact that one case is used the findings are not necessarily generalizable.
63
The other facet of this research is that of a descriptive quantitative research, since a
Sewage Treatment Plant was studied to explore the possibility of correlations among the key
performance indicators. However this research did not include the varying of any of the
parameters under investigation. The quantitative approach accounted for the collection,
interpretation and analysis of secondary data. This secondary data was independent laboratory
data abstracted from monthly operational reports of 2014.
3.3 Design of Survey Instrument

In order to ascertain the pertinent qualitative data to satisfy queries posed by the research
questions and objectives, a survey instrument was developed (See Appendix-C). This instrument
was administered in semi-structured face-to-face interviews so as to pose individually tailored
questions, in addition to the standard set of questions, thus getting clarification where necessary.
The face-to-face element provided the premise for the open-ended approach which is felt to have
a distinct advantage in establishing rapport and gaining the participants cooperation (Leedy and
Ormrod, 2010).
This instrument was further validated by Arafeh, (2012) who conducted a performance
evaluation of existing wastewater treatment plants in Palestine. The resultant questionnaire
contains 35 questions apportioned into 4 sections, with each section addressing a research
question and the associated objectives.
64
3.4 Question 1 - What are the design/ operating characteristics and concentration levels of
influent for the Soapberry Treatment Plant?
For the objective of ascertaining the design/ operating characteristics, and concentration
levels of influent for the case study (Soapberry Treatment Plant), both qualitative and
quantitative methods of data collection were employed.
Figure 2- Methodological Approach to Question 1
Interview of
Treatment Plant
Manager/ Process
Engineer
Interview of
Reputable Civil
Engineers
Data Format
Conversion and
Analysis
Presentation of
Results
Collection of
Secondary Data
(Lab Results of
Influent)
3.4.1 Qualitative Method

Qualitative data collection was accomplished by interviewing staff at Soapberry based on
Section 1 (Questions 1-6) of the survey instrument. Section 1 was geared at unearthing what the
Soapberry Plant was designed for with respect to influent characteristics, concentration levels,
flow data and loading. This section also addressed the operational component technologies and
their respective functions. This method was validated by Boller, (1997) who conducted
interviews to collect primary data. This approach was necessary as data regarding characteristics,
capacity and flow of the plant were not promulgated.
65
Additionally, interviews were conducted with Civil Engineers (Appendix E) with

extensive experience in the design of wastewater treatment plants in Jamaica. Qualitative data
was also abstracted from monthly operation reports of the Wastewater Operation and
Management Company Limited (WOMC) regarding explanations posited for the laboratory
results (see Appendix B).
3.4.2 Quantitative Method

The quantitative requirement was realized by the collection of laboratory results of
concentration levels of influent (pH, BOD, COD, TSS, Phosphate, Total Nitrogen, Faecal
Coliform).
This data was abstracted from monthly operation reports (see Appendix D) prepared by
WOMC for the Central Wastewater Treatment Company (CWTC). The laboratory testing was
conducted by the ESL Quality and Environmental Health Laboratory, which fulfills the
independent testing requirement. This usage of independent laboratory test results provided a
legitimate premise to ascertain data, consequently evaluation, analyses of the results were
legitimized.
The secondary data collected and analyzed spanned the period January to December of
2014. The rationale for the choice of this period is that a complete dataset existed for 2014
inclusive of flow data which was estimated in previous years and 2014 presented a current view
of the performance of the Soapberry Plant. An analysis for 2014 was done to determine the
relationship between flow rate and concentration levels of each parameter.
66
3.4.2.1 Data Format Conversion and Analysis

Laboratory results received from the (CWTC) on April 10th and 15th, 2015 were portable
document formatted (.pdf) files. This file format was not interoperable with the software package
chosen for subsequent analyses which was Microsoft Excel.
Spreadsheets were created in Microsoft Excel where the data was stored. This provided
an ideal platform to compare and analyze the influent data versus their design limits and the final
effluent data versus the NRCA promulgated standards since mathematical models were entered
to generate cell contents with relative ease and which limited human entry of figures thus
limiting errors.
Figure 3.0 - Laboratory Results for October 2014
(CWTC, 2015)
67
3.5 Question 2 - To what extent is Soapberry compliant with the regulatory standards?
Figure 4.0- Methodological Design of Question 2
Interview Treatment
Plant Manager
Comparative Analysis
of Data and Standards
using Standard
Mathematical Models
in Microsoft Excel
Determine Applicable
Legislative Standards
(Literature/
Interviews)
Collect Secondary
Data of Final Effluent
Concentration Levels
Presentation of Results
(Histograms & Scatter Plots
connected by lines)
3.5.1 Qualitative Methods

An objective of this research was to ascertain the level of compliance of Soapberry to
regulatory standards. Prior to determining the extent of compliance to regulatory standards, the
underpinning question was What are the regulatory standards? Section 2 (Questions 7-13) of
the survey instrument (See Appendix C) was geared at unearthing what are the legislative
standards, instruments, protocols and institutional arrangements affecting the Soapberry Plant.
This section was administered to the manager of Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant. The
results of this section were validated by the review of relevant literature.
68

Having ascertained the regulatory framework governing the plant from the review of
relevant literature and interview of the plant manager the following step was to ascertain the
extent of Soapberrys compliance with the regulatory framework. The determination of the
compliance of Soapberry included quantitative methodology in that a comparative analysis of
monthly secondary laboratory test results of concentration levels of final effluent with
promulgated standards of pH, BOD, COD, TSS, Phosphate, Total Nitrogen and Faecal Coliform
was done. The secondary data was collected and analyzed for 2014 so as to utilize actual flow
data and laboratory data. The relationships and trends between flow and concentration of final
effluent was analyzed.
3.5.3 Data Analysis

A mathematical model was used to determine removal efficiency of the technology
employed at Soapberry for each parameter. The mathematical model used was:
% Removal = [100 (C effluent / C influent) 100] (APHA, 1995)
This model was validated by its extensive usage by the American Public Health Association
(APHA, 1995). This efficiency rating computation and presentation was performed by Microsoft
Excel. The results of this process were compared to efficiency results of similar studies so as to
gauge performance, ideally isolate causal factors and ultimately provide a plausible remedy.
Finally, Microsoft Excel was used to ascertain the relatedness between parameters by the use of
graphical output graphs with multiple axes.
69
Figure 5.0- Concentration Levels for 2014
(Hamilton, 2015)
70
3.6 Question 3 - What are the challenges faced by Soapberry in its operational mandate?
Interview of
Soapberry
Professionals & other
Managers of
Treatment Plant
Correlation of
Interviews with
Literature
Site Visits to Nanse Pen Pump Station,

Greenwich Town Transfer Station and
Soapberry Treatment Plant
Review of Operational
Reports
3.6.1 Qualitative Method

To realize the objective of ascertaining what are the challenges faced by Soapberry in
executing its operational mandate, a qualitative approach was adopted to collect primary data
from interviewing the Process Engineer at the Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant. The basis
of the interview was the aforementioned survey instrument with specific reference to Section 3
(Questions 14 25). In addition, a manager of the New Harbour Village III Sewage Treatment
Plant was interviewed based on Appendix F.
The genesis of Section 3 was the review of related literature which aided in ascertaining
an awareness of typical challenges associated with similar plants as well as indicators of future
issues. The findings from Mara, (2004) proved particularly beneficial in developing this section
of the survey instruments. The findings of the study conducted in 2003 by the Scientific
71
Research Council, as articulated by Knight (2003) provided a localized context of challenges

which was consistent with the findings of Mara (2003).
Section 3 of the survey instrument was also administered to a Property Manager who has
extensive experience in the operation and management of wastewater treatment plants in
Jamaica. This expertise was sought based on the fact that the challenges needed to be
contextualized to the localized realities of technology, climate and economics.
Finally, the monthly operational report prepared by the operators of the plant, WOMC,
was used to provide detailed information regarding challenges faced, the causative factors and
more importantly corrective measures to be implemented.
The use of this report was coupled with visits to Nanse Pen Pump Station, Greenwich
Town Transfer Station and Soapberry since specific reference was made to these locations in the
report. This step was aimed at investigating if a symbiotic relationship existed between a
particular challenge and a particular parameter. The existence of such a relationship could then
serve to isolate problems, mitigate their effects or ideally prevent them.
72
3.7 Question 4 - What are the implications of variations in the flow of influent?
Interview
Professionals at
Soapberry
Collect Flowrate Data

(Daily Flow, Organic
Loading and Treated
Discharge Volume)
Analysis &
Investigation of
Correlation Between
Variables
Tabulate and Analyze

Data using Microsoft
Excel
3.7.1 Qualitative Methods

Section 4 (Questions 26-35) of the survey instrument was administered to professionals at
Soapberry to acquire pertinent details regarding flow variation, effects of variations and analysis
of these effects thus satisfying an objective of this research. This approach was validated by
Mohamed (2002) who suggests that variation in flow alters retention time, effluent quality and
the biological breakdown of effluent.
The purpose of administering the survey instrument to the manager at the Soapberry plant
was to unearth whether the plant was operating below design capacity, and to determine the
projected implications of the connection of Portmore Sewage Plants to Soapberry, in addition to
the impact of the addition of the Caymanas connection.
73
Additionally, other professionals were interviewed to aid the analysis of data,

understanding the symbiotic relationships which may exist and quantifying/qualifying the overall
impacts of variations in flow.

To determine the implications of variations in the flow of influent, a quantitative
approach was employed whereby secondary flow data was analyzed. This data was recorded
from flow metering devices relating to inflow and volume of treated effluent discharged acquired
from CWTC, which was tabulated and analyzed using Microsoft Excel as illustrated in Figure
8.0.
Atta (2003) articulated that variation in flow affects the quality of effluent. Shilton and
Harrison (2003) postulated that flow rates are akin to flow patterns which invariably affect the
quality of final effluent. From the review of literature it was posited that flow and loading
(organic/ hydraulic) are correlated to the quality of final effluent. This relationship was explored
by depicting the data using multiple axes (primary & secondary) correlation graphs generated by
Microsoft Excel and conducting data analysis by the use of linear trend lines.
This approach was validated by the fact that there was a need to investigate the
relationship between continuous variables. This was to compare data about concentration levels
of each parameter, final effluent quality and flow over the study period.
74
Figure 8.0- Flow Data for October 2014
(WOMC, 2015)
Flow data for the period of 2014 was used in order to develop trend analysis by Microsoft
Excel, in effect to develop an understanding of causative factors, projection of the overall
implication on both final effluent and the need to implement a second phase of the Soapberry
Plant. The implications of the increased flow was examined, analyzed and presented by
Microsoft Excel. The analysis aided in understanding the implications and making plausible
recommendations.
75
3.7.3 Summary of Methodological Decisions

From the methodological design of the research a decision was taken to cross reference
the qualitative data from interviews of plant manager of Soapberry regarding design/ operation
of plant and an industry engineer with related literature to aid in analysis. The usage of data for
2014 was due to the lack of complete datasets for previous years. Based on the provision of data
in portable data format, data was reformatted to spreadsheets.
The mathematical model published by the American Public Health Association was used
to compute removal efficiency based on its extensive usage in similar studies. A decision was
taken to visit the Soapberry Plant, Nanse Pen Pumping Station and the Greenwich Town
Transfer Station so as to investigate challenges reported in monthly reports.
The decision to use Microsoft Excel to display and analyze results was made due to its
ability to superimpose or cross tabulate different datasets on the same graphs using independent
variables over the same period. This cross tabulation was used to analyze flow with loading and
treated discharge from the plant.
76
4.0 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

The results of this study are based on qualitative data collected from interviews
conducted with professionals employed at Soapberry, industry professionals, observation and the
explanatory content of monthly operational reports of the Wastewater Operation and
Management Company (WOMC). Results are also based on quantitative data provided by the
laboratory results of independent testing done by ESL Quality & Environmental Health
Laboratory for the study period of 2014.
4.1 DESIGN PARAMETERS AND LIMITS OF SOAPBERRY PLANT

Based on an interview conducted on the 23rd of March, 2015 with Tammy Groves, Plant
Manager/ Process Engineer at Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant (Phase 1), the influent
characteristics were summarized as follows:
Table 3.0- Design Criteria for Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant (Phase 1)
PARAMETERS
Equivalent Population
BOD Loading (kg/day)
Average daily flow(m3/day)
BOD Concentration (mg/l)
TSS Concentration (mg/l)
pH
Total Nitrogen (mg/l)
Average hourly flow (m3/h)
LIMITS
247,886
18,750
75,000
250
240
6-9
50
3125
Source: WOMC, (2015)
77
4.2 OPERATION OF SOAPBERRY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS

The operations of the Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant are characterized by three
main stages of treatment. These stages are summarized as Preliminary, Secondary and Tertiary
treatment as illustrated in Figure 9.0.
Figure 9.0- Treatment Process of Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant Operations
Preliminary
Treatment
Screening & Grit
Removal of Raw Water
Secondary
Treatment
Tertiary
Treatment
Recirculation of Effluent DAF & Sand Filtration to

in Oxidation Ponds
achieve Final Effluent
4.2.1 Preliminary Treatment

The Greenwich Transfer and the Nanse Pen Pump Stations were equipped with
mechanical bar screens and grit chambers for the removal of plastics, sand and grit. This
mechanism was also manned 24 hours to aid in the preliminary treatment process.
Figure 10- Mechanical Bar Screens at Greenwich Transfer Station
(Hamilton, 2015)
78
4.2.2 Secondary Treatment

Soapberry is considered a recirculation oxidation pond system consisting of four primary
and four secondary ponds. Raw water enters a quieting chamber from Nanse Pen pumping and
the Greenwich Town transfer stations via 28 and 48 force main and siphon respectively. The
effluent from the quieting chamber was mixed with secondary effluent which was previously
biologically treated and removed from pond 12 (Figure 1.0) by three screw pumps (Groves,
2015).
Figure 11- Screw Pumps at Pond 12
(WOMC, 2014)
The rationale underpinning the mixture was to relieve the organic load since the
concentration of algae produces oxygen which aids in breakdown of the organic matter. Another
operational advantage was that the concentration of BOD of the raw water was immediately
reduced as the secondary effluent was of a lesser concentration (Groves, 2015).
79
The mixed effluent flows via a siphon to a distribution chamber at the radius of the
facility, where it is designed to be distributed to the four primary ponds ultimately regulated by
manual gates. Soapberry was designed to treat 75,000 m3 of effluent, however it is currently
treating approximately (65%) design capacity (Groves, 2015).
Due to the lower operational capacity two primary ponds were closed to maintain
hydraulic characteristics and plug flow. The lower capacity will inherently increase the
circulation and retention times, therefore by closing two ponds (9 & 10) the hydraulic pressure
was maintained. The closure of half the system was felt to maintain the retention time at 28 to 30
days as per design (Groves, 2015).
Figure 12- Distribution Chamber
(WOMC, 2014)
4.2.3 Tertiary Treatment
This stage of treatment was executed by a Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) system as
illustrated in Figure 14. Low lift pumps were used to pump secondary effluent from polishing
pond 16 into a chamber where it was mixed with a cationic polymer (coagulant).
80
Figure 13- Low-Lift Pumps at Pond 16
(Hamilton, 2015)
The coagulant was proportioned by the use of a DAF Batch Tester (Figure 15) whereby
the conditions of the DAF were simulated using a sample of the secondary effluent. The
simulation involves the determination of the turbidity of the sample and an iterative process of
adding different dosages of the coagulant polymer was executed to determine the most effective
proportion to remove algae and suspended solids (Groves, 2015).
The secondary effluent was pumped from pond 16 by low lift pumps (Figure 13) into a
chamber, mixed with the appropriate proportion of the coagulant and fed into a flocculation tank
where a flash mix occurs. This flash mix was used to rapidly mix secondary effluent with the
coagulant so as to destabilize molecules thus separating positive and negative charges (Groves,
2015).
The destabilized mixture was fed to a second flocculation tank for a slower mixing which
facilitated the reunion of positive and negative charges, consequently forming floc. This mixture
was fed to a separator tank where it was exposed to high pressure water (80 psi.) flow which
forced air into the mixture. The air was shared, thus forming micro-bubbles which were attached
to the clumps previously formed which caused the floc to float to the top of the tank forming a
81
blanket which was skimmed off and sent back to the distribution chamber and then the primary
ponds (Groves, 2015).
The remaining effluent was fed through four sand filters; this process removed the
suspended solids which escaped the flocculation processes. The output from the sand filtration
process represents the final effluent which was discharged to the Rio Cobre River. The
accumulation of suspended solids was alleviated by periodic desludging and back washing of the
sand filters (Groves, 2015).
Figure 14- Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) Process Flow Diagram
(Hamilton, 2015)
Figure 15- Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) Batch Tester
(Hamilton, 2015)
82
4.3 CONCENTRATION LEVELS OF INFLUENT

4.3.1 pH Results
The designed limit for pH is 6-9 and the concentration levels of influent collected for
2014 illustrated that the influent requirement was duly satisfied with a minimum of 7.17 in April
and a maximum of 7.97 in September as illustrated in Figure 16.
Figure 16- pH Concentration Levels of Influent for 2014
pH Levels
pH Concentration of Influent for

2014
9
8
7
6
pH
(Hamilton, 2015)
4.3.2 BOD Results

The design influent limit for the concentration level of BOD is 250 mg/l and according to
laboratory results for 2014, four months were within the permissible limit those being January
(238 mg/l), May (226 mg/l), August (221 mg/l) and September (234 mg/l). The maximum
concentration was observed in October (386 mg/l) as illustrated in Figure 17.
83
Figure 17 - BOD Concentration Levels of Influent for 2014
BOD (mg/l)
400
BOD Concentration of Influent for

2014
350
300
200
DESIGN
JANUARY
FEBRUA
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST
SEPTEM
OCTOBER
NOVEM
DECEMB
250
BOD (mg/L)
(Hamilton, 2015)
4.3.3 COD Results

The design limit for COD influent concentration level was unknown for the Soapberry
Wastewater Treatment Plant. However laboratory data collected for 2014 reflected a minimum
concentration level of 319 mg/l in December and a maximum of 718 mg/l in October as
illustrated in Figure 18.
Figure 18- COD Concentration Levels of Influent for 2014
800
700
600
500
400
300
DESIGN
JANUARY
FEBRU
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST
SEPTEM
OCTOBER
NOVEM
DECEM
COD (mg/l)
COD Concentration of Influent for

2014
COD (mg/L)
(Hamilton, 2015)
84
4.3.4 TSS Results

Based on an interview conducted with the plant manager at Soapberry it was ascertained
that the design limit for influent concentration level of TSS is 240 mg/L. Of the laboratory
results collected for 2014, five months, January (194 mg/l), March (199 mg/l), July (218 mg/l)
and December (144 mg/l) were within the design limit. The maximum concentration was
observed in November (317 mg/l) as illustrated in Figure 19.
Figure 19- TSS Concentration Levels of Influent for 2014
TSS Concentration of Influent for

2014
350
TSS (mg/l)
300
250
200
150
TSS (mg/L)
DECEMBER
NOVEMBER
OCTOBER
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
JULY
JUNE
MAY
APRIL
MARCH
FEBRUARY
JANUARY
DESIGN LIMIT
100
(Hamilton, 2015)
4.3.5 Phosphate Results

The design limit for the influent concentration level of Phosphate for the Soapberry Plant
was also unknown. However from laboratory results collected for 2014, it was revealed that the
month of May represented the minimum value of 1.0 mg/l and June the maximum of 14 mg/l as
illustrated by Figure 20.
85
Figure 20- Phosphate Concentration Levels of Influent for 2014
Phosphate (mg/l)
14
Phosphate Concentration of Influent

for 2014
9
4
Phosphate
(mg/L)
-1
(Hamilton, 2015)
4.3.6 Total Nitrogen Results

The design limit for Total Nitrogen influent concentration is 50 mg/l. Based on this
design parameter, data collected for 2014 revealed that April (31 mg/l), May (38 mg/l), June (30
mg/l), July (32 mg/l), August (25 mg/l), September (37 mg/l), October (33 mg/l) and December
(36 mg/l) satisfied this criteria. A maximum of 99 mg/l was observed in January as illustrated in
Figure 21.
Figure 21 - Total Nitrogen Concentration Levels of Influent for 2014
TN (mg/l)
150
TN Concentration of Influent for

2014
100
50
Total
Nitrogen
(Hamilton, 2015)
86
4.4 COMPLIANCE OF FINAL EFFLUENT

The aim of a treatment system is to effectively reduce the concentration of influent
parameter to the promulgated standards with a degree of efficiency. The effectiveness of the
system was therefore given as a function of final effluent concentration directly referenced to the
NRCA applicable standard.
4.4.1 NRCA Final Effluent Discharged Standards for Soapberry Plant

According to the license agreement governing Soapberrys operation, the NRCA Permit
Number 2004-02017-EP00225, NRCA License No.: 2004-02017-EL00049 the permissible
discharge limits are summarized as follows:
Table 4.0 - Regulatory Standards for Effluent Discharged
PARAMETERS
BOD (mg/L)
pH
COD (mg /L)
Faecal Coliform (MPN/100ml)
TSS (mg/L)
Phosphate (mg/L)
Total Nitrogen (mg /L)
NRCA SEWAGE EFFLUENT

STANDARD
20
6-9
100
200
20
4
10
Source: WOMC, (2015)
87
4.4.2 Removal of pH
Based on data collected for 2014, the NRCA standard of 6-9 of final effluent was not
exceeded. The final effluent ranged from a minimum of 7.85 in October to a maximum of 8.19 in
June and September as illustrated in Figure 22.
DECEMBER
NOVEMBER
OCTOBER
SEPTEMBER
AUGUST
JULY
JUNE
MAY
APRIL
MARCH
pH 6-9
FEBRUARY
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
pH Concentration of Final
Effluent for 2014
JANUARY
pH Concentration
Figure 22- pH Concentration Levels of Final Effluent for 2014
(Hamilton, 2015)
4.4.3 Removal of BOD

The NRCA discharge standard of BOD for the Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant is
20 mg/l and based on data collected for 2014 the plant was in full compliance with reference to
BOD discharge. The Final Effluent concentration ranged from a minimum of 4.0 mg/l in August
and October to a maximum of 11 mg/l in May as illustrated in Figure 23.
88
25
20
15
10
5
0
BOD Concentration of Final

Effluent for 2014
NRCA
JANUARY
FEBRU
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST
SEPTEM
OCTOBER
NOVEM
DECEM
BOD (mg/l)
Figure 23- BOD Concentration Levels of Final Effluent for 2014
BOD (mg/L)
(Hamilton, 2015)
4.4.4 Removal of COD

The NRCA discharge standard of COD for the Soapberry Plant is 100 mg/l. The data
collected for 2014 when referenced to the NRCA applicable standard for COD reflected total
compliance with a minimum value of 10.0 mg/l in August and a maximum of 50 mg/l in March
as illustrated in Figure 24.
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
COD Concentration of Final

Effluent for 2014
NRCA
JANUARY
FEBRUARY
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST
SEPTEMB
OCTOBER
NOVEMBER
DECEMBER
COD (mg/l)
Figure 24- COD Concentration Levels of Final Effluent for 2014
COD
(Hamilton, 2015)
89
4.4.5 Removal of TSS

The laboratory results collected for 2014 showed that there was one instance of noncompliance to the applicable NRCA standard (20 mg/l) which occurred in November (21 mg/l).
The remaining months of 2014 were all within the permissible limit with the minimum value of 6
mg/l in August as illustrated in Figure 25.
Figure 25- TSS Concentration Levels for Final Effluent for 2014
TSS Concentration of Final

Effluent for 2014
TSS (mg/l)
25
20
15
10
5
TSS
(Hamilton, 2015)
4.4.6 Removal of Phosphate

The NRCA applicable discharge limit for final effluent concentration of Phosphate is 4
mg/l. With reference to this standard the phosphate concentration of the final effluent for 2014
exhibited non-compliance with variations ranging from a minimum of 1.0 mg/l in March,
September and December to a maximum of 11 mg/l in April as illustrated by Figure 26.
90
Figure 26- Phosphate Concentration Levels vs NRCA Standard
NOVEMB
DECEMBER
OCTOBER
SEPTEMB
JULY
AUGUST
JUNE
MAY
APRIL
MARCH
FEBRUARY
Phosphate
Concentration
JANUARY
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
NRCA
Phosphate (mg/l)
Phosphate Concentration of Final

Effluent for 2014
(Hamilton, 2015)
4.4.7 Removal of Total Nitrogen

The NRCA standard for Total Nitrogen is 10 mg/l, the laboratory results collected for
2014 exhibited non-compliance with the minimum value of 11 mg/l in September and the
maximum value 25 mg/l in January and March as illustrated in Figure 27.
Figure 27- Total Nitrogen Concentration Levels of Final Effluent of 2014
25
20
15
10
5
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)

NRCA
JANUARY
FEBRUARY
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST
SEPTEMB
OCTOBER
NOVEMBER
DECEMBER
TN (mg/l)
Total Nitrogen Concentration of Final

Effluent for 2014
30
(Hamilton, 2015)
91
4.4.8 Compliance of Faecal Coliform

The discharge limit of faecal coliform as promulgated by the NRCA standards is 200
MPN/ 100ml, this parameter exhibited significant variation with three months of compliance.
August (188 MPN/ 100 ml), September (179 MPN/ 100 ml) and November (87 MPN/ 100 ml)
were compliant, but the remaining months of 2014 were non-compliant with a maximum of 1335
MPN/ 100 ml in as illustrated in Figure 28.
Figure 28- Faecal Coliform Concentration Levels of Final Effluent for 2014
1500
1000
500
0
NRCA
JANUARY
FEBRUARY
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
OCTOBER
NOVEMBER
DECEMBER
FC (MPN/ 100 ml)
Faecal Coliform Concentration of

Final Effluent for 2014
Faecal Coliform
(MPN/100ml)
(Hamilton, 2015)
92
4.5 OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES OF SOAPBERRY TREATMENT PLANT

The aim of wastewater treatment is essentially to reduce the concentration of constituent
parameters to the promulgated standards of discharge to the environment or re-use. Though
waste stabilization ponds represent a simple, seemingly easy to operate and cost effective way to
execute this mantra, there are an array of associated challenges. The challenges are as follows:
4.5.1 Lack of Financial Support
Budgetary constraints adversely affect the execution of the operation and maintenance plan
of the Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plants (Groves, 2015).
4.5.2 Equipment Renewal

There is need for the renewal of the Low Lift Pumps, Screw Pumps, DAF & Filter Media,
Bar Screens repairs and installation of new automatic screening (WOMC, 2014).
Figure 29- Disrepair of Screw Pump
(Hamilton, 2015)
93
4.5.3 Ineffective Preliminary Treatment

The screening and grit removal processes at Greenwich Town Transfer Station and the Nanse
Pen Pumping Station were facilitated by mechanical screens which were slow between cycles, in
addition to the spacing between screen forks being too wide, consequently allowing the passage
of plastics and grit to oxidation ponds as illustrated in Figure 31.
Figure 30 - Scum Accumulated at Pond 9
(Hamilton, 2015)
Figure 31 - Grit and Plastics Removed from Pond 14
(Hamilton, 2015)
94
Figure 32 - Workers Removing Debris from Pond 10
(Hamilton, 2015)
Figure 33 - Manual Cleaning of Temporary Screen at Inlet Structure (Pond 15 to Pond 16)
(WOMC, 2014)
95
4.5.4 Emergency Discharge

Secondary effluent intermittently exits the plant from emergency overflow structures at
Ponds 12 and 16 due to Low- Lift Pumps, Screw Pumps and/or DAF operational issues required
to lower the ponds water levels and minimize outflow from the emergency exits (WOMC,
2014).
Figure 34 - Overflow Structure at Pond 12
(Hamilton, 2015)
Figure 35- Inundation of Adjoining Lands (Western) by Overflow Structure at Pond 12
(Hamilton, 2015)
96
4.5.5 Disrepair of Perimeter Fence

Fence repair has become critical as increased crocodile population poses real risk to staff &
sub-contractors working along the dykes cleaning screens and removing debris. CWTC has
invited tenders for repair proposals (WOMC, 2014).
Figure 36- Damage of Western Section of Perimeter Fence
(Hamilton, 2015)
Figure 37 - Crocodile on Dyke
(Hamilton, 2015)
97
4.5.6 Poor Condition of Access Route

The access road from the Mandela Highway to the Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant is
in a state of disrepair. Quotations for repairing the access road have been received (WOMC,
2014).
4.5.7 High Energy Requirement of Treatment Process

The high operating energy requirement of the DAF remains a costly undertaking which poses
a legitimate challenge.
4.5.8 Lack of Pre-treatment Facility

The construction of a pre-treatment facility at Greenwich is needed to improve the treatment
process.
4.5.9 Treatment Plant Expansion

The second phase of Soapberry is required to increase the ability of the plant to treat
additional flows from Portmore, and Caymanas Sewage Conveyance System Project with
estimated peak daily flow of 11,745m3/day and other sewage redirection projects.
4.5.10 Lack of Trained Personnel

There are currently 16 persons employed by the WOMC to operate Soapberry Plant. Seven
persons are directly stationed at the Soapberry Plant, only three of which are trained
98
professionals (Manager, Process Engineer & Lab Technician). The remaining staff is untrained
in wastewater operations / maintenance. Though a rigorous maintenance plan exists, a critical
component in its execution is human resource (Groves, 2015).
4.5.11 Geotechnical Issues

Based on a site visit on June 4, 2015 it was noticed that the eastern dyke of the plant, and part
of pond 12 was affected by settlement. This section was in the vicinity of an overflow structure
and adjoined by wetlands.
Figure 38 - Effect of Settling of Western Dyke
(Hamilton, 2015)
99
4.6 FLOW DATA RESULTS

An interview conducted with Tammy Groves, Plant Manager/ Process Engineer at the
Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant on the 23rd of March, 2015 between 11:15 am to 1:03 pm
with reference to Section 4 (Questions 26-35) of a survey instrument which was developed from
relevant literature revealed the following findings:
According to Groves (2015), the design average daily flow of the Soapberry Wastewater
Treatment Plant was 75,000 m3/ day; however the plant was operating at approximately 65% of
this parameter limit.
From Figure 39, flow data collected for the study period of 2014, the average daily
inflow was 38,348.5 m3, which represents 51.13% of the design limit.
Figure 39 - Flow Data for 2014
(Hamilton, 2015)
The hydraulic characteristics were maintained by closing two gates at the distribution
chamber, thus preventing flow to primary ponds 9 and 10 consequently maintaining the desired
retention time of 28-30 days. This implementation also maintained the 1:2 ratio of the raw water
to secondary effluent mixture necessary to provide the dilution effect to relieve the organic load
of the primary effluent (Groves, 2015).
100
4.6.1 Average Daily Inflow

The design value for Average Daily Inflow for the Soapberry Plant was 75,000 m3; using
this figure as a metric for data collected for 2014 all months fell within the design value. The
month of July had the minimum average daily flow of 32,256 m3 while December accounted for
the maximum value of 41,814 m3.
Figure 40 - Average Daily Inflow for 2014
Average Daily Inflow for 2014

Inflow (m3)
80000
70000
60000
Average
Daily Flow
50000
40000
Design Values
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
30000
(Hamilton, 2015)
4.6.2 Organic Loading Rate

The design limit for Organic Loading Rate is 18,750 Kg BOD/day; with this reference all
months of 2014 fell within the design limit. The minimum organic loading rate was recorded in
September at 7,822 Kg BOD/day and the maximum was recorded in October at 14,225 Kg
BOD/day as illustrated by Figure 41.
101
Figure 41 - Organic Loading Rate for 2014
22000
19000
16000
13000
10000
7000
Design
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
(Kg BOD/day)
Organic Loading Rate for 2014
Organic
Loading
Rates
(Hamilton, 2015)
4.6.2 Volume Treated Sewage Discharged

Based on data collected for 2014, the minimum volume of treated sewage discharged was
799,948 m3 in July with the maximum volume recorded in December of 1,036,986 m3 as
illustrated in Figure 42.
Figure 42 - Volume Treated Sewage Discharged for 2014
Volume Treated Sewage Discharged
1000000
Volume
Treated
Discharge
900000
800000
700000
Design
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Volume (m3)
1100000
(Hamilton, 2015)
102
4.6.3 Summary of Results

The design limits of BOD, TSS, pH and Phosphate are 250 mg/ l, 240 mg/l, 6-9, and 50
mg/l respectively. The operation of the Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant was characterized
by three stages of treatment which are preliminary, secondary and tertiary. The influent
concentration of pH was within the design limit while BOD, TSS and TN were in excess of
design limits.
The concentration of the Final Effluent discharged from the plant was stipulated by the
NRCA standards as expressed in the license agreement; the standards for pH, BOD, COD, FC,
TSS, Phosphate and TN were 6-9, 20 mg/l, 100 mg/l, 200 MPN/ 100 ml, 20 mg/l, 4 mg/l, and 10
mg/l respectively. The final effluent concentration of pH, BOD and COD reflected compliance
with NRCA standards while TSS, Phosphate, TN and FC were all non-compliant with the
applicable standards.
The challenges affecting the Soapberry Plant included lack of financial support, lack of
pre-treatment of industrial wastewater, lack of trained personnel, geotechnical issues and other
maintenance related issues such as equipment renewal. A notable challenge was that of the high
energy requirement to execute the tertiary stage of treatment. The designed average daily flow
was 75,000 m3/ day which was duly complied with for the study period of 2014.
103
5.0 CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION

This chapter discusses the results of the collected data and offers an analysis of Soapberry
Wastewater Treatment Plants performance. The performance of the system was evaluated based
on influent characteristics, flow, operational characteristics, adherence of the final effluent
concentration levels to the promulgated standard and the challenges faced by Soapberry in
executing the plants operational mandate. The removal efficiency of each parameter is given as
a function of influent and final effluent concentration and expressed as a percentage.
5.1 DESIGN AND OPERATING WEAKNESSES

Soapberry was designed as a recirculation oxidation system, consequently there was no
demarcation between ponds. The effluent was held for a period in each zone of the system
(anaerobic, facultative & maturation) and the passage from one zone to another was facilitated
by inlet/ outlet structures.
No design limits were known for parameters such as COD, phosphate and no influent
data was collected for faecal coliform; hence removal efficiency could not be computed.
Laboratory results for each zone of the system were non-existent, so the system could not be
tested in a disaggregated manner to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of its component
zones.
The concentration of secondary effluent which was re-circulated to the system is
unknown. The purpose of this operation was to relieve the organic load of influent but, without
concentration data, the effectiveness and efficiency of this operation remain unknown. Another
104
weakness was the absence of disinfection; pH was seen as an ideal natural disinfection above
values of nine. However, for the study period, the maximum value of this parameter was 8.19.
5.2 CONCENTRATION OF INFLUENT

The design limit of pH for Soapberry is 6-9 and the influent concentration levels for 2014
illustrated that the influent requirement was duly satisfied. Regarding BOD, the design limit is
250 mg/l, which was exceeded for eight months of 2014. The maximum concentration was
observed in October (386 mg/l) which according to the monthly operational report of October
was attributed to the lack of pretreatment at the Greenwich Town Transfer Station. The average
BOD influent concentration for 2014 was 252.08 mg/l which is in excess of the design limit.
The COD design limit of the Soapberry Plant was unknown. However, that of TSS is 240
mg/l with the average concentration of influent for 2014 being 243.75 mg/l thus exceeding the
design limit. Pretreatment at Greenwich was cited in November as an issue and this month
accounted for the maximum TSS concentration (317 mg/l) of the study period of 2014.
The design limit of Phosphate for the Soapberry Plant was also unknown. However, that
for Total Nitrogen (TN) is 50 mg/l. The average influent concentration of TN for 2014 was 45.17
mg/l which reflected overall compliance to design limit for that period.
The design limit of Faecal Coliform (FC) was unknown, coupled with the fact that no
influent concentration for FC was recorded, consequently no removal efficiency analysis was
possible for this parameter.
105
5.3 COMPLIANCE OF SOAPBERRY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

The compliance metric for the Soapberry Treatment Plant is ultimately the NRCA
discharge standards as stipulated in the license agreement of the Plant. Each parameter studied
was analyzed against the corresponding standard to determine the effectiveness of the treatment
system. The removal efficiency was computed to gauge the efficiency of the Plant to treat each
parameter.
5.3.1 pH
The efficiency of pH removal was very low for 2014 with the highest value of 0.13% in
August and the lowest value of -11.72% in April as illustrated in Figure 43. Though the results
fell within the NRCA standard of 6 - 9, a notable observation was that the process failed to
reduce the pH level from influent to final effluent, conversely an increase in pH was observed.
Figure 43 - pH % Removal Efficiency for 2014
pH % Removal Efficiency
2.00
Months of 2014
% Removal Efficiency
0.00
1
10 11 12
-2.00
-4.00
pH
-6.00
-8.00
-10.00
-12.00
(Hamilton, 2015)
106
This observation was further substantiated by the fact that eleven months of 2014
returned negative percentage values for removal efficiency as illustrated in Figure 43. This
increase in pH value can be attributed to CO2 consumption during photosynthesis of algae.
This situation aids somewhat in disinfection. However, concentration of pH below 9.0
will be inadequate as a disinfecting agent and will necessitate other forms of disinfection. Li and
Wang (2011) highlighted the significance of disinfection particularly when effluent is discharged
to rivers as in this case. Metcalf and Eddy (1991) posited that wastewater disinfection is a
significant issue with WSPs.
5.3.2 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)

This is an important parameter in the treatment process design and effluent discharge
(Qasim, 1999). Lowering of BOD5 is both a physical process by way of settling of organic
particles and a biochemical process through decomposition and mineralization of organic and
inorganic compounds (Reed, 1995).
Though the design BOD limit of 250 mg/l was exceeded for eight months of 2014, the
treatment process demonstrated sufficient capability of physically and biochemically lower the
concentration level of the influent to meet the NRCAs discharge limit of 20 mg/l. Data analyzed
for the study period of 2014 showed that Soapberry was 100% compliant in this regard.
In a good designed system, lagoons are capable of reliably producing an effluent with
biological oxygen demand (BOD5) less than 30mg/l if settling is provided at the end of the
system (EPA, 2002); (Walter, 2015). The NRCA standard for BOD of final effluent is lower at
20 mg/l.
107
However, Soapberry has demonstrated the capability over the study period of 2014 to
deliver a final effluent in compliance with the regulations, with removal efficiency in excess of
95%. This removal efficiency is consistent with the postulation of Mara and Pearson (1998);
Walter (2015) that waste stabilization ponds are capable of BOD removal efficiencies of 90%.
Figure 44- Correlation between Influent BOD and Organic Loading
Influent BOD vs Organic Loading

Organic
Loading
350
12000
300
9000
250
6000
200
1
Influent BOD (mg/l)
Organic Loading (Kg BOD/day)
400
15000
Influent BOD
Linear
(Organic
Loading)
Linear
(Influent BOD)
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Months of 2014
(Hamilton, 2015)
Figure 44, illustrated a positive correlation between the influent concentration of BOD
and the organic loading rate for the year 2014, with the exceptions of July and August. Based on
monthly operational reports prepared by the WOMC, it was reported that secondary effluent was
discharged from Pond 16, due to maintenance issues with Low-Lift Pumps and/or DAF
operation; this situation increased dilution in the ponds, thereby decreasing the organic load
while increasing the hydraulic load for that period, resulting in overflow at Pond 12.
108
To substantiate the results of full BOD compliance to NRCA standard the system
exhibited high removal efficiency for this parameter. The minimum value of 95.13% in May can
be produced relative to the highest final effluent BOD value of 11 mg/l. Though this figure
represented compliance, it also represented the lowest efficiency rating. Conversely, the
maximum value of 98.96% was observed in October as illustrated in Figure 45.
Figure 45 - BOD Final Effluent Concentration & Removal Efficiency
BOD Effluent & Removal Efficiency

10
98.00
8
97.00
6
96.00
95.00
2
1
5 6 7 8
Months of 2014
10 11 12
BOD Concentration (mg/l)
12
99.00
BOD
Removal
Efficiency
BOD Final
Effluent
Linear
(BOD
Removal
Efficiency)
Linear
(BOD Final
Effluent)
(Hamilton, 2015)
Taking into consideration that the final effluent was discharged to the Rio Cobre River,
the fact that the trend of BOD5 removal efficiency values demonstrated in Figure 45 showed
linear increase and the final effluent concentration trend line shows a linear decline, so the
technology employed at Soapberry was considered to be effective and efficient in BOD
treatment. More importantly the compliance of this parameter explicitly indicated that there was
no gross environmental pollution with respect to BOD.
109
5.3.3 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

This is an important parameter highlighted in this research for the performance evaluation
of Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant. By the NRCA standard of 100 mg/l for COD
concentration of final effluent, the Soapberry Plant for the study period of 2014 reflected full
compliance as illustrated by Figure 46.
The values for the removal efficiency of COD, when compared to the average daily flow
rates of influent to Soapberry during the study period as illustrated in Figure 46, elucidated an
inverse correlation. This situation was evident where periods of high flow increased the
hydraulic load of the plant, which reflected negatively on removal efficiency, consequently
increasing the average final effluent COD concentration of the plant.
Figure 46- Average Daily Flow vs COD Removal Efficiency for 2014
Flow vs COD Removal Efficiency

100.00
98.00
96.00
40000
94.00
92.00
35000
90.00
88.00
30000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Months of 2014
Average Daily
Flow
Average Daily Flow (m3)
45000
COD Removal
Efficiency
Linear (Average
Daily Flow)
Linear (COD
Removal
Efficiency)
(Hamilton, 2015)
110
Figure 47 indicates that the value of the COD removal efficiency is less than the BOD
except for August which, following from Ghannam (2006), may be due to the non-removal of
the non-degradable fraction of the COD. According to Qasim (1999), in combined aeration
lagoons, the COD removal could reach up to 90%. The combination of lagoons, DAF and sand
filters have achieved removal efficiencies ranging from 89.41% to 98.36% in the study period of
2014 as illustrated in Figure 47 which is consistent with the aforementioned postulation.
Figure 47 - Removal Efficiency of COD and BOD for 2014
Removal Efficiency of BOD &

COD
100.00
%
95.00
BOD
90.00
COD
85.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Months of 2014
(Hamilton, 2015)
As illustrated by Figure 48, the influent COD showed that for eight months of 2014, the
COD fell below a ratio of 2:1 BOD which was non-compliant with theoretical ratio of COD:
BOD of municipal settled sewage (Horan, 1990). The compliant months being May, August,
September and November.
Based on Figure 49, values obtained for final effluent for COD: BOD ratios showed a
relation in excess of 3:1, except for August at 2.5:1). This may have been because the
biodegradable fraction of the waste decreased through the biological treatment whereas the nonbiodegradable fraction remained unchanged (Horan, 1990).
111
Figure 48- Concentration of Influent of COD and BOD
COD vs BOD Influent Concentration
mg/l
800
600
BOD
400
COD
200
1
5 6 7 8
Months of 2014
10 11 12
(Hamilton, 2015)
Figure 49 - Concentration of Final Effluent of COD and BOD
COD & BOD Final Effluent

Comparison of 2014
mg/l
60
40
BOD (mg/l)
20
COD (mg/l)
0
1
6 7 8
Months
9 10 11 12
(Hamilton, 2015)
112
5.3.4 Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

This parameter for 2014 reflected compliance for all months except November (21 mg/l),
which was 1 mg/l in excess of the NRCA standard of 20 mg/l. Theoretically the value of TSS
should not exceed 80% of the value of BOD in the wastewater (Horan, 1990). The ratios of TSS
to BOD in the effluent were favorable for six months (January-75%, February-57%, April12.5%, May-72.7%, August-50% & September-66.6%) which did not exceed 80%.
Figure 50 - Concentration of Final Effluent of TSS and BOD for 2014
BOD vs TSS for 2014

Concentration (mg/l)
25
20
15
BOD
10
TSS
5
0
1
5 6 7 8
Months of 2014
10 11 12
The six months (March, July, October, November & December) which were in excess of
80% increase in TSS to BOD ratio could have decreased the overall ability of the Soapberry
Plant to remove suspended solids. This can be correlated to their larger size and more rapid
settling velocities, which form a sludge blanket in the settling lagoons, which could be seen as
small sludge islands in lagoons. Consequently, this could reduce the hydraulic capacity of ponds,
retention time and the removal efficiency of the TSS (Tchobanoglous, 1998).
113
This was substantiated by the TSS results of Final Effluent whereby the concentration
levels increased from August (6 mg/l) to November (21 mg/l) and the average daily flow from
September (33,429 m3) to December (41,814 m3) also increased. The system exhibited high
removal efficiency of TSS for 2014, with a minimum of 91.28% in July and a maximum of
97.74% in August. Increased flow and increased concentration levels coincided with a decrease
in removal efficiency from August (97.74%) to November (90.28%) as illustrated in Figure 51.
Figure 51- Average Daily Flow vs TSS Removal Efficiency for 2014
100.00
Average Daily Flow (m3)
44000
42000
98.00
40000
38000
96.00
36000
94.00
34000
92.00
32000
30000
90.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Months of 2014
TSS Removal Efficiency (%)
Flow vs TSS Removal Efficiency

Average Daily
Flow
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Linear
(Average
Daily Flow)
Linear (TSS
Removal
Efficiency)
(Hamilton, 2015)
The organic material deposited on the bed of the lagoons was subject to biodegradation,
which resulted in a depletion of the oxygen source at a faster rate than it was supplied. This
material was therefore subject to anaerobic breakdown, which resulted in the production of
methane and toxic hydrogen sulfide gases. It is worth noting that, though the system
demonstrated high removal efficiency for TSS, the values of influent for 2014 exceeded the
design limit for seven months, which could have caused non-compliance of the final effluent to
applicable standards in November. The poor grit removal at Nanse Pen and Greenwich Transfer
facilities could also be a causal factor for non-compliance of TSS (Ghannam, 2006).
114
Nadaffi, K., et. al, (2009) articulated that one of the main constraints in WSPs was the
high suspended solids in the effluent, which was due to high concentrations of algal cells in the
effluent. This deficiency, and the associated effects, can be alleviated by filtration. The benefit of
sand filtration was evident where only November 2014 (21 mg/l) reflected non-compliance.
5.3.5 Phosphate
The treatment system exhibited a wide variation in removal efficiency of phosphate with
a minimum of -300.0% in May to a maximum of 97.74% in August as illustrated in Figure 52.
The NRCA standard for phosphate (4 mg/l) was achieved except for April (11 mg/l) and June (6
mg/l) with 0.0% and 57.14% removal efficiency respectively. Also, of note was May, which had
a final effluent of 4 mg/l equal to the standard, but with an efficiency removal of 300%. Though
ten months of 2014 was in compliance with the prescribed standard, the mean removal efficiency
for 2014 was 40.96%. This figure was consistent with the postulation of Mara and Pearson
(1998) of 30 45% removal efficiency for phosphate.
Figure 52 - Concentration of Final Effluent of Phosphate & Removal Efficiency of 2014
200.00
100.00
10
0.00
-100.00
8
1
10 11 12
-200.00
-300.00
-400.00
Months of 2014
Concentration (mg/l)
Phosphate Final Effluent & Removal

Efficiency of 2014
12
Removal
Efficiency
Final
Effluent
(Hamilton, 2015)
115
Theoretically, phosphate removal efficiency in WSPs largely depends on the quantity

exiting the pond water column and entering the pond sediments. This occurs as a direct result of
sedimentation at pH levels above 9.5, as this provide a disinfecting mechanism (Burgess, 2015).
The phosphorus associated with the non-biodegradable fraction of the algal cells remains
in the sediments. Consequently, the ideal methodology of improving phosphorus removal in
WSPs is to increase the number of maturation ponds, so that progressively phosphorus becomes
immobilized in the sediments (Burgess, 2015).
A first order plug flow model for phosphorus removal has been developed, (Huang &
Gloyna, 1984), but it is not in a form useful for design. The model shows that, if BOD removal is
90%, then phosphorus removal is approximately 45% which is consistent with this study.
5.3.6 Total Nitrogen (TN)

The design limit for Total Nitrogen of 50 mg/l was exceeded for four months of 2014
(January, February, March & November). The NRCA discharge standard of 10 mg/l was
exceeded for the entire study period of 2014. The months of maximum non-compliance which
was in excess of double the standard include January (25 mg/l), February (24 mg/l), March (25
mg/l), November (22 mg/l) and December (24 mg/l).
Figure 53 illustrates the concentration of final effluent of TN, the associated removal
efficiencies and the general trend of the removal efficiency and the final effluent. Figure 53 also
indicates that both final effluent concentration and removal efficiency were in decline over the
study period of 2014. The final effluent concentration of TN values fluctuated from 25 mg/l to
11 mg/l typifying the general downward trend.
116
The removal efficiency of TN also showed a general downward trend with a maximum
value of 74.75% in January, which indicated that nitrification-denitrification processes occurred
for the ammonia at that time, and a maximum of 33.33% in December.
Figure 53 - Total Nitrogen Final Effluent & Removal Efficiency of 2014
TN Concentration & Removal Efficiency

30
Concentration (Mg/l)
70.00
25
60.00
20
50.00
40.00
15
30.00
10
80.00
20.00
1
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Months of 2014
TN Final
Effluent
TN Removal
Efficiency
Linear (TN
Final
Effluent)
Linear (TN
Removal
Efficiency)
(Hamilton, 2015)
The main problems likely to arise from sewage effluent discharges that are non-compliant
regarding total nitrogen are nutrient enrichment (Eutrophication) with associated algal blooms
and de-aeration of the Rio Cobre, resulting from oxidation of ammonia to nitrate by nitrification
(Burgess. 2015).
Where nitrification does occur, there is the associated problem of nitrate toxicity.
Although sewage effluents are not the only source of nitrogen pollution, their impacts are major,
yet they are the most amenable to control (Ghannam, 2006).
During any biological treatment process, 20-30% of the total nitrogen is removed in cell
synthesis by ammonification. In addition, a small fraction of the influent nitrogen will be
removed during the sedimentation process (Tchobanoglous, et. al., 1998).
117
In order to remove the remaining ammonia, a nitrification followed by denitrification

processes should be undertaken. The average removal efficiency of TN for 2014 was 55.98%,
which was in excess of the range of aforementioned theoretical value.
5.3.7 Faecal Coliform (FC)

Faecal Coliform (FC) was analyzed as an indicator for the removal capability of WSPs
for biological contamination. Figure 54 illustrates the average monthly values of final effluent of
FC discharged from Soapberry for 2014. The average monthly values of influent FC were not
recorded; consequently, no microbiological removal efficiency was determined. The NRCA
discharge standard of FC is 200MPN/100ml. This standard was adhered to in August (188 MPN/
100ml), September (179 MPN/100ml) and November (87 MPN/ 100ml) while the maximum
discharge concentration occurred in January of 1335 MPN/100ml.
Figure 54 - Faecal Coliform Concentration of Final Effluent for 2014
FC (MPN/100ml)
Faecal Coliform Final Effluent for

2014
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250
0
FC
Linear
(FC)
1
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Months of 2014
(Hamilton, 2015)
118
The treatment process showed a downward trend in concentration with a maximum of

1335 MPN/100ml in January which also exceeded the WHO guideline of 1000 FC count per 100
mL (WHO, 2004). The minimum of 87 MPN/100ml was observed in November. The plant was
not equipped with a chlorination chamber which could provide additional disinfection. This
deficiency could be one reason for having the high concentration of the FC in the final effluent.
The discharged effluent to the Rio Cobre could adversely affect the water quality and
subsequently pollute the Kingston Harbour. Though pH provided natural disinfection, it was not
sufficiently high to operate as an effective disinfecting agent in this case, which advances the
need for alternative disinfection such as chlorine, ozonic or ultra violet radiation.
Bracho, (2006) showed that FC removal efficiency was associated with flow patterns.
However, this correlation could not be verified, as no influent data for faecal coliform was
collected. Consequently no removal efficiency could be computed by published mathematical
models.
119
5.4 OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES OF SOAPBERRY PLANT

Since preliminary treatment was not at its optimum, resulting in the clogging of inlet
structures at Soapberry, which necessitated additional screening facilitated by a galvanized mesh
basket fitted to the inlet. This operated as a strainer to prevent the inlet clogging as in Figure 55.
This basket was periodically cleared of plastics by workers and ultimately changed after being
exposed to such a corrosive environment (WOMC, 2014; Groves, 2015).
Figure 55 - Galvanized Baskets fitted to Inlet Structures
(Hamilton, 2015)
Ghannam (2006), articulated that high sand and grit content in influent reduces the
hydraulic capacity of WSPs and hence decreases their treatment efficiency. The entry of plastics
into inlet structures at Soapberry ultimately affects the kinetics of the system, capacity, and
retention times and could be eventually picked up by low-lift pumps, consequently causing
damage to pump shafts. The counter measure adopted at Soapberry was to install rectangular
post-fabricated mesh baskets around each low-lift pump as illustrated in Figure 56 to reduce sand
and grit intake (Groves, 2015).
120
Figure 56 - Rectangular Galvanized Baskets fitted to Low-Lift Pumps
(Hamilton, 2015)
The equipment renewal plan calls for pumps, screens, filtration media and other
mechanized elements to be changed after five years. This will ensure that the plant can operate at
full capacity and at maximum efficiency level. The prohibitive factor has been limited financial
resources and the intense competition for the available resources to operate and maintain the
plant (Groves, 2015).
The deficiencies of preliminary treatment, coupled with the lack of equipment renewal,
has resulted in operational issues related to low- lift pumps, screw pumps and the DAF, which
often result in overflow of emergency discharge structures in maturation pond 12. Metcalf &
Eddy, (1991, pp.16), articulated that wastewater plants needed equipment upgrade at significant
capital expenditure to deliver a final effluent meeting the applicable standards.
121
The cumulative effect of ineffective preliminary treatment and lack of equipment renewal
could be manifested in the primary to secondary effluent mixing ratio altered by the operational
inefficiency of the screw pumps and the reduced capacity of the DAF, due to issues with low-lift
pumps. The discharge of untreated effluent to adjoining lands from overflow structures must be
reserved for emergency scenarios, as opposed to being exacerbated by maintenance deficiencies.
The presence of crocodiles has intensified the clarion calls for the repair of a chain link
fence occupying the perimeter of the plant. The fact that workers were stationed on the dykes to
execute cleaning necessitated protection from these animals. The location of inlet structures
makes them inaccessible without workers entering the pond which amplified the risk of being
attacked. CWTC has requested, and subsequently received, tenders which were reviewed for the
repairs of this fence. Quotations were also received and reviewed for the repair of the access road
to the Soapberry Plant (WOMC, 2014, Groves, 2015).
WSPs are characterized by an inherent low energy requirement; however, when
combined with a DAF system the overall system requirement for energy was significantly
increased due the highly mechanized nature of the DAF. Solar energy has been identified as the
most practical and accessible alternative that can be applied in a timely manner, to reduce the
cost of electricity and increase the sustainability of the Soapberry operation. Proposal for the
supply/ finance of a 1.0 MW solar system has been presented to CWTC (WOMC, 2014; Groves,
2015).
According to Groves (2015), pretreatment of industrial waste continues to adversely
affect the effectiveness and efficiency of the plant. Though the legislative provisions are
adequate to alleviate this situation, the enforcement mechanism appears, at best, inadequate.
122
The incident report of December 2014 stated that on December 3rd, it was observed that
the ponds were brown and the dissolved oxygen levels were consistently low, indicating algal
growth inhibition. This state persisted for approximately two weeks, during which algal
regeneration was minimal. The expected effect of continued discharged of unknown
contaminants into the system was a significant increase in the concentration of final effluent
(WOMC, 2014).
Figure 57 - Pond 15 (Secondary Pond) Visibly Brown on 3/12/14
(WOMC, 2014)
For February 2014, total nitrogen and faecal coliform were non-compliant. The high level
of total nitrogen concentrations were attributed to the extremely high levels of TN in the influent,
which originated from unauthorized untreated industrial waste that was being introduced into the
system via existing pipelines and cesspool tankers at Greenwich Transfer Station (WOMC,
2014).
123
According to the WOMCs Operational Report dated June 2013, the projected increase
from Portmore, in addition to increased flow generated from Majesty Gardens, Seaview and
Riverton, has necessitated the commencement of the procurement process for Soapberry Phase 2
to provide treatment facilities for the additional flows. The implementation of Phase 2 will
facilitate the treatment of the projected increase in flow. This implementation became even more
urgent in 2015 with the impending connection of Portmore and Caymanas.
The low requirement of skilled personnel should not be misconstrued as no skilled
personnel required. Mara (2004); Keren (2015); Burgess (2015); Mozaheb, et. al (2010),
suggested that the lack of skilled personnel and professionals involved in WSP projects present a
major challenge and was a reflection of the technical reality of developing states.
A position substantiated by the fact that there are 16 persons employed by the WOMC to
operate the Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant. Seven persons were directly stationed at
Soapberry, three of which are trained professionals (Manager, Process Engineer & Lab
Technician). The remaining staff was untrained in wastewater operations/maintenance. Though a
rigorous maintenance plan exists, a critical component of its execution was trained human
resource (Groves, 2015).
Training is important to execute maintenance plans and more importantly preventative
maintenance. Training personnel to monitor and evaluate the pond performance and response to
upgrading effluent quality is important and should be recognized (Farzadkia, Ehrampoush, et.al,
2014).
Mara and Pearson, (1998) articulated that geotechnical problems are usually associated
with wetlands. The case study of Soapberry is not dissimilar to this reality as evidence of uneven
124
settlement was noted along the eastern dyke of pond 12. Geotechnical problems should, ideally,
be sufficiently addressed at the design stage. However, realistically, embankments may need
additional attention to maintain their operational capability, or may often take a longer time to
settle than expected.
The frequency of each challenge reported in monthly reports of 2014 was summarized in
Figure 58. This summary gives an indication of the recurrence of each challenge so as to give
perspective to the magnitude of the associated ill effect of each challenge. The implementation of
Phase 2 of Soapberry was reported every month so too the construction of a pre-treatment
facility and the need to improve access to the plant. The challenge least reported was that of
addressing the energy requirement which was being reviewed.
Figure 58 - Frequency of Reported Challenges for 2014
(Hamilton, 2015)
Groves (2015), articulated that the challenges faced at Soapberry were closely correlated
to the economic realities of the plant. This reality was characterized by limited financial
resources and the fiercely competing demand of operation/maintenance on the limited budget.
The fact that an existing detailed maintenance plan cannot be fully implemented, due to financial
constraints, prolonged the effects of challenges.
125
5.5 VARIATION OF FLOW/ CAPACITY

According to the monthly operational report prepared by the Wastewater Operation and
Management Company Ltd. (WOMC), dated September 2013 the connection of the Darling
Street Pumping Station increased the average daily flow by approximately 15,000 m3 per day
with a total organic load of 16,074 Kg BOD/day.
Groves (2015), articulated that the increased flow from the Darling Street Pumping
Station did not exceed the design average daily flow, as the estimated flow represented an
increase of 20%, which was within the design limit. The increase in flow had no adverse effects
on the treatment process.
Regarding the connection of Portmore to the Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant, the
computed average daily flow for year 2035 is 27,405 m3/day. This figure represents 36.54% of
the design limit of Phase 1 of the plant. This projected increase will necessitate the
implementation of Phase 2 of the plant (Groves, 2015).
5.6 IMPLICATIONS OF VARIATIONS IN FLOWRATE

The general linear trend of average daily flow for 2014 represented a slight decline
whereas the linear trend of organic loading rate for the same period represented an increase.
Theoretically, a possible impact of increased flow is a direct correlation to organic loading which
is illustrated in Figure 59, except for periods of April to May and July to August.
Based on monthly operational reports prepared by WOMC, these periods were both
characterized by secondary effluent re-entering into the system due to maintenance issues with
low-lift pumps which pumped effluent from maturation pond 16 to the DAF.
126
This situation also resulted in overflow of the system which caused the overflow structure
in maturation pond 12 to deposit untreated effluent to the adjoining wetlands east of the plant.
The re-entry of secondary effluent to primary ponds was ideally to produce a diluting effect on
the primary effluent thus relieving the organic load, though flow increased over these periods the
organic load decreased due to the presence of excess secondary effluent.
Figure 59 - Average Daily Flow vs Organic Loading Rate for 2014
Average Daily Flow vs Organic Loading Rate of

2014
Average
44000
15000
13000
Flow (m3)
40000
12000
38000
11000
10000
36000
9000
34000
8000
32000
7000
Daily Flow
Loading (Kg/BOD/day)
14000
42000
Organic
Loading
Rate
Linear
(Average
Daily Flow)
Linear
(Organic
Loading
Rate)
(Hamilton, 2015)
The flow data of 2014 illustrated in Figure 59 that there was a positive correlation
between average daily flow and organic loading rate, except for the aforementioned periods of
re-entry of secondary effluent, which biased the overall trend as depicted by trend lines.
There was a positive correlation between the average daily flow and the volume of
treated sewage discharged from Soapberry (Figure 60), except for February, when the monthly
operational report stated that the plant was adversely affected by mechanical problems
specifically the low-lift pumps which supply secondary effluent to the DAF. Consequently less
127
sewage was treated and discharged. This was also demonstrated in Figure 59 which shows an
increase in organic loading rate, due to the decline in treatment of sewage in February.
Figure 60 - Treated Sewage Discharged vs Average Daily Inflow for 2014
1050000
42000
1000000
40000
950000
38000
900000
36000
850000
34000
800000
32000
30000
750000
1
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Months of 2014
Average Daily Inflow (m3)
Volume Treated Sewage

Discharged (m3)
Treated Discharge vs Daily flow
Volume
Treated
Discharge
Average
Daily
Inflow
Linear
(Volume
Treated
Discharge)
Linear
(Average
Daily
Inflow)
(Hamilton, 2015)
5.7 Summary of Discussion and Analysis

Soapberry was designed as a recirculation oxidation system with the passage of effluent
facilitated by inlet/outlet structures. No disinfection mechanism, such as a chlorination chamber
was incorporated and, though pH provided natural disinfection, the results of nutrient removal
suggested this process was inadequate.
Monthly operational reports prepared by the WOMC identified the lack of pre-treatment
of industrial wastewater as responsible for TSS non-compliance. Removal efficiency of BOD
128
exceeded 90% which was consistent with the postulation of Mara and Pearson (1998). Influent
BOD displayed a direct correlation with organic loading rate for 2014.
The final effluent concentration of COD exhibited compliance with the NRCA standard;
TSS was non-compliant. A rational argument by Tchobanoglous (1998) was that sludge settling
in lagoons reduces hydraulic capacity and, as such, reduces the removal efficiency of the system.
Ghannam (2008) suggestion that poor sand and grit removal can result in poor plant performance
in the removal of TSS was consistent with the operation of Soapberry.
The poor removal efficiency of phosphate and its non-compliance to applicable standards
can be attributed to lack of disinfection and disruption of plug flow according to Burgess (2015).
The non-compliance of TN and the associated poor to moderate removal efficiency can be a
source of pollution to the Rio Cobre (Ghannam, 2006). No influent data was collected for FC,
hence no removal efficiency was computed to test the theory of Bracho (2006) which states that
there is a correlation between the removal efficiency of FC and flow patterns.
The challenges encountered, such as ineffective preliminary treatment, resulted in
maintenance issues with pumps, which was consistent with the findings of Ghannam (2006). The
lack of industrial pre-treatment affected Soapberrys ability to treat TN and FC. There was a lack
of skilled personnel to execute operational/maintenance tasks, which supports Mara (2004) who
suggested that low skilled requirement is often manifested as no-skilled, to the detriment of
operations.
There existed a partial correlation between flow and organic loading with the exception
of periods of no discharge due to operational issues with the DAF. There was a positive
correlation between treated discharge and flow.
129
6.0 CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSION
The aim of this research was realized in that an evaluation of performance of Soapberry
Wastewater Treatment Plant was executed and the efficiency and effectiveness of this central
wastewater system was determined based on established parameters.
The objectives of this research were also realized in that an assessment of the operating
and design parameters of Soapberry with respect to influent/ effluent characteristics,
concentration levels and flow was done.
The legislations which facilitated the operation and compliance metrics for this facility
are the National Resources Conservation Authority Standards (stipulated by license agreement)
and also the National Environmental and Planning Agency (NEPA) Sludge Policy 2013 were
reviewed.
The objectives achieved included the determination of the level of compliance of
Soapberrys operations, relative to the aforementioned standards. A determination of operational
challenges was done and recommendations made. Finally the impacts of variations of flow of
influent were analyzed.
The following conclusions are being based on the objectives and associated research
questions:
130
6.1 Design Characteristics & Concentration of Influent

Based on the research it can be concluded that the influent concentration level of BOD, TSS,
TN exceeded the known design limits. The concentration of pH was within the design limit. The
design limits of COD and Phosphate were unknown.
6.2 Extent of Soapberrys Compliance with NRCA Standards

Based on the discharge standards stipulated by the NRCA Permit Number: 2004-02017EP00225, NRCA License Number: 2004-02017-EL00049, Soapberry demonstrated that waste
stabilization ponds, in conjunction with a DAF and four sand filters, were effective in treating
the pH, BOD and COD components of municipal wastewater in Kingston and Saint Andrew,
Jamaica for 2014. The treatment system however demonstrated its ineffectiveness in treating
TSS, Phosphate, Total Nitrogen and Faecal Coliform which were all non-compliant with the
aforementioned standards.
Over the study period, Soapberry demonstrated poor removal efficiencies for pH, Phosphate
and Total Nitrogen but very good removal efficiencies for BOD, COD and TSS.
6.3 Challenges Faced by Soapberry

Based on the research, the challenges faced by the Soapberry Wastewater Treatment
Plant for 2014 included, the need for equipment renewal, ineffective preliminary treatment,
emergency discharge, disrepair of perimeter fence, poor condition of access road, high energy
requirement of treatment process, lack of pre-treatment of industrial wastewater, treatment plant
expansion, lack of trained personnel and geotechnical issues.
131
6.4 Implications of Variations in Capacity

Based on the research, Soapberry operated in 2014 at 51.13% of its design capacity. The
estimated increase of influent from the Portmore connection is 36.54% (27,405 m3/day).
Therefore, this connection should theoretically elevate capacity to 87.67% (65,753.5 m3/day) of
capacity. Future connections such as Caymanas will necessitate the second phase of the plant to
be implemented, as the situation of hydraulically overloading the plant can result in retention
time being decreased leading to decline in the plants performance in the treatment process.
6.6 RECOMMENDATIONS
With respect to the conclusions made from this study, the following recommendations are
being made:
6.6.1 Financial Investment & Support
The engagement of the private sector to create PPP financing mechanisms was the
approach which delivered Soapberry as a Central Wastewater Treatment Plant and is certainly a
proven model which can be replicated to provide continued financial support for operation,
maintenance and improvement activities.
6.6.2 Performance Monitoring and Enforcement

Independent performance evaluation studies should be conducted annually of Central
Wastewater Treatment Plants such as Soapberry. This study will present a reliable premise for
the enforcement mechanisms of NEPA, WRA and the Public Health Department to operate.
132
These studies can also be the basis to effect solution to chronic problems, by providing greater
understanding of the root cause of problems.
6.6.3 Wastewater Treatment Plant Equipment Renewal

The owners/ operators of Soapberry, (CWTC) should develop an equipment renewal
plan, comprised of financial support to complement the existing operation and maintenance plan.
6.6.4 Pre-treatment Facility

The construction of the proposed pre-treatment facility at the Greenwich Transfer Station
needs engagement and support of the stakeholders, particularly the generators of industrial waste
to partner in the delivery of such a facility.
6.6.5 Staff Training

Training is essential to equip the workforce to execute effectively and efficiently
operational and maintenance activities; special capacity building initiatives should be undertaken
to train staff.
6.6.6 Improved Preliminary Treatment

A grit chamber should be constructed at Soapberry to further enhance preliminary
treatment. Also, mechanical screens of smaller spacing can be used or alternatively
supplemented by manual screening.
133
6.6.7 Improved Data Collection

There is a need for comprehensive laboratory testing for all parameters, both influent and
final effluent concentrations.
6.6.8 Limitations of Study

There was a glaring omission of critical data, as seen in the case of faecal coliform, where
no influent data exists for this major indicator of the success of the treatment process of
pathogenic removal. This omission resulted in inability to compute the removal efficiency for
this parameter. Since there was no secondary effluent concentration data available, an assessment
of the level of success of diluting the influent could not be achieved. The loss of flow meter
readings for previous years of 2012 and 2013 curtailed the study period.
6.69 Further Study

Further study could explore the potential of renewable energy generation from municipal
wastewater and biosolids. The energy requirement to satisfy the tertiary treatment process
(Dissolved Air Flotation) has been a significant financial challenge which defies the approach of
waste stabilization pond systems (Tchobanoglous, and Leverenz, 2009).
This financial burden can be juxtaposed against the recognition that central wastewater
treatment plants such as Soapberry can be a renewable energy source, capable of generating
clean energy, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and most importantly reducing the current
electricity requirement from a fossil-fuel based power source (Heidrich, Curtis, et. al., 2011).
134
The hypothesis is that the energy contained in municipal wastewater / biosolids exceeds
the quantity required to achieve treatment objectives. The goal is therefore to, at the minimum,
generate an equivalent energy to satisfy treatment activities, thus becoming energy neutral or
ideally, producing an energy surplus relative to requirement (Heidrich, Curtis, et. al., 2011).
135
7.0 APPENDICES
Appendix A Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant
Source: WOMC (March 23, 2015)
136
Appendix B Executive Summary Abstracted From Monthly Operational Report
Source: WOMC (2015)
137
Appendix C
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Interview of Tammy Groves, Process Engineer at Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Section 1
1. What are the component parts of the treatment plant?
2. How does the plant operate?
3. What is the design capacity of the plant?
4. What is the hydraulic retention time?
5. What are the design limit of parameters?
(BOD, COD, TSS, Phosphate, pH, Flow, Discharge, Faecal Coliform, BOD Loading)
6. What are the design/ operating deficiencies of the Soapberry plant?
Section 2
7. Is there any plan for agricultural reuse of final effluent?
8. How is data collected, stored, analyzed and presented?
9. What are the governing standards for the plant?
10. What are the protocols and instruments related to wastewater treatment in Jamaica?
11. What are the institutional arrangements regarding wastewater treatment?
12. Is the plant adhering to the stipulated standards?
13. Is the technology effective and efficient in the delivery of its operational mandate?
138
Section 3
14. What are the operational challenges faced by Soapberry?
15. What are the measures undertaken to alleviate the prevailing challenges?
16. How do you rate your preliminary treatment at Nanse Pen?
17. What are the challenges faced in the preliminary treatment?
18. What are the effects of deficiencies in preliminary treatment?
19. Is there a pretreatment mechanism at the Greenwich Town Plant?
20. Is there an overall maintenance plan?
21. Is there adherence to the maintenance plan?
22. How many employees are currently employed?
23. What is the level of competence of workers?
24. Are there capacity building programs for staff?
25. Are there subcontractors employed?
Section 4
26. What is the current operating capacity of the plant?
27. What is the effect(s) of operating below design capacity?
28. How has the connection of Darling Street Pump Station affected the operation and final
effluent quality?
29. What is the projected effect of the Portmore connection on the operation and final
effluent quality discharge of the plant?
30. Is there any plan to construct phase 2 of the project?
139
31. What is the average operating temperature at Soapberry?

32. What is the range of temperature changes?
33. Is the operation of Soapberry affected by variations in temperature?
34. What is the average net evaporation?
35. Are net evaporation and temperature variations factored into the analysis of final effluent
data?
140
Appendix D Laboratory Results Abstracted From February 2014 Operational Report
141
Appendix E
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Interview of L. Walter, Engineer at Fluid Systems Enginering Ltd. & C. Burgess, Engineer/
Owner at CEAC Solutions Co. Ltd.
1. What are the advantages/ disadvantages of using waste stabilization ponds for treatment
of municipal wastewater?
2. What are the design flaws/strengths of recirculation oxidation systems such as
Soapberry?
3. What are the causes of poor nutrient and pathogen removal by WSPs?
4. What are the corrective measures for improved nutrient and pathogen removal?
5. What are the causal effects of poor nutrient and pathogen removal?
6. What are the design/operating deficiencies of the Soapberry plant?
7. What are some of the challenges faced in the operation of WSPs?
8. What are the implications of variation in influent flowrate?
9. What is the potential for alternative energy generation?
10. What is the potential for re-use (restricted/ unrestricted) of treated effluent?
142
Appendix F
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Interview of A. Keren, Manager at Gore Developments Ltd., New Harbour Village III Project,
St. Catherine, Jamaica
1. What are the operational challenges faced in operation waste stabilization ponds?
2. What are the measures undertaken to alleviate the challenges?
3.
How do you rate your preliminary treatment?
4. What are the challenges faced in the preliminary treatment?

5. What are the effects of deficiencies in preliminary treatment?
6. Is there an overall maintenance plan?
7. Is there adherence to the maintenance plan?
8. How many employees are currently employed?
9. What is the level of competence of workers?
10. Is there capacity building program for the workers?
143
REFERENCES
American Public Health Association (APHA). (1995) American Water Works Association
Arafeh, G.A. (2012). Process monitoring and performance evaluation of existing wastewater
treatment plants in Palestinian rural areas / West Bank. Birzeit University, Faculty of
Engineering
Arar, A. (1988). Background to treatment and use of sewage effluent. In: Treatment and use of
Sewage Effluent for Irrigation (eds Pescod M.B. and Arar, A.) Butterworth, Sevenoaks,
Kent.
Atta, A.M. (2003). Treatment system in oxidation ponds. Civil Engineering Department Public
Works Engineering. Ain Shams University Faculty of Engineering.
Awuah, Esi, (2006). Pathogen removal mechanisms in macrophyte and algal waste
stabilization ponds: Academic Board of Wageningen University and the Academic
Board of the UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Netherlands.
(AWWA), Water Environment Federation , (2012). Standard methods for the
examination of water and wastewater. 22th edition. Washington, DC: American Public
Health Association.
Barjenbrach, M. and Erler, C. (2005). A performance review of small German WSPs
identifying improvement options, Water Sci. Technol., 51(12): 43-49.
Bartone, C. R. (1991). International perspective on water resources management and wastewater
reuse - appropriate technologies. Water, Science & Technology, 23: 2039-2047.
144
Bernhard, C. and Kirchgessner, N. (1987). A civil engineers point of view on water tightness
and clogging of waste stabilization ponds. Water Science and Technology 19 (12), 365
367.
Boller, M. (1997). Small wastewater treatment plants A Challenge to Wastewater Engineers,
Wat. Sci. Technol. 35: 1-12.
Bracho, N., Lloyd, B. and Aldana, G. (2006). Optimization of hydraulic performance to
maximize faecal coliform removal in maturation ponds. Water Resources 40: 16771685.
Burgess, C. (2015, April 24). Interview on design and operation of waste stabilization pond
systems. Managing Director at CEAC Solutions, Jamaica.
Campos, H.M. and Von Sperling, M. (1996). Estimation of domestic wastewater characteristics
in a developing country based on socioeconomic variables. Water Science and
Technology, 34 (3/4), 71-77.
Central Wastewater Treatment Company Limited (CWTC) (2013). Tariff Application
Submission to the Office of Utilities Regulation (OUR) for Sewerage Treatment Provided
to the National Water Commission 2013/14 2018/19.
Christian, R., Sabine, W. and Arnulf, M. (2003). A combined system of lagoon and
constructed wetland for an effective wastewater treatment. Wat. Res., 37: 2035-2042.
Clean Water Act (CWA), Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
Council of the European Communities. (1991). Council Directive of 21 May 1991
concerning urban wastewater treatment (91/271/EEC). Official Journal of the European
Communities, L135/40 (30 May).
145
CPCB (1996). Pollution Control Acts, Rules and Notifications Issued Thereunder, 4th edition.
New Delhi: Central Pollution Control Board.
Colman, W. G. (1989). State and Local Government and Public-Private partnerships: A PolicyIssues Handbook. New York: Greenwood.
Droste, R.L. (1997). Theory and practice of water and wastewater treatment.
Emanuel, E. (2010). Situational Analysis Regional sectoral overview of wastewater
management in the wider caribbean region.
Farzadkia, M., Ehrampoush, M., Sadeghi, S., Kermani, M., Ghaneian, M., Ghelmani, V. and
Mehrizi, E. (2014). Performance evaluation of wastewater stabilization ponds in YazdIran. Environmental Health Engineering and Management Journal 1(1), 712
Finney, B. & Middlebrooks, E. (1980). Facultative waste stabilization pond design. Journal of
the Water Pollution Control Federation, 52(1): 134-147.
Gary, M.A. (2004). Determination of hydraulic and treatment characteristics of three wastewater
stabilization ponds in Jamaica. A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the
University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree. Georgia,
USA
Gawasiri, C.B. (2003). Modern design of waste stabilization ponds in warm climates:
Comparison with Traditional Design Methods. MSc thesis. University of Leeds, UK
146
Ghannam, M., (2006). Performance Evaluation of Gaza Wastewater Treatment Plant. Islamic
University-Gaza Deanship of Graduate Studies, Faculty of Engineering Water Resources
Management.
Gray, N. (2004). Biology of wastewater treatment: University of Dublin, Ireland.
Groves, T. (2015, March 23). Interview on design/ operating characteristics, operational
challenges and flow variation implications. Manger/ Process Engineer of Soapberry
Wastewater Treatment Plant, St. Catherine, Jamaica.
Hartley, T.W. (2006). Public perception and participation in water reuse, desalination. 187 (1
3), 115126.
Haydeh, H., Mohammadreza, D., and Mohammadhossein, S. (2012) Performance Evaluation of
Waste Stabilization Pond in Birjand, Iran for the Treatment of Municipal Sewage. Civil
and Environmental Engineering Department, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran;
Published online March 2013
Heidrich, E., Curtis, T., and Dolfin, J., (2011). Determination of the internal chemical energy of
wastewater. Environmental Science and Technology, 2011, Vol. 45.
Heilman, J. and Johnson, G. (1992). The Politics and Economics of Privatization: The Case of
Wastewater Treatment. The University of Alabama Press Tuscaloosa, Alabama 354870380.
Keren, A. (2015, April 15). Interview of operational challenges encountered at New Harbour
Village III Sewage Plant. Manager at Gore Developments Ltd.
147
Leedy, P. and Ormrod, J. (2010). Practical research: planning and design. Library of Congress
Cataloging-in-Publication. 9th Edition.
Lloyd, B.J., Leitner, A.R., Vorkas, C.A. and Guganesharajah, R.K., (2003). Underperformance
evaluation and rehabilitation strategy for waste stabilization ponds in Mexico. Water
Science and Technology 48 (2), 3543.
http://www.iwaponline.com/wst/04802wst048020035.htm
Li, F. T., Wang, H. T., and Mafuta, C. (2011). Current status and technology demands for water
resources and water environment in Africa, in research on water resources of African
typical areas (Ed.: L.F. Ting), Science Press, Beijing.
Mantilla, G., Moeller, G., and Flores, R. F. (2002). The performance of waste stabilization
ponds in Mexico. In pond technology for the new millennium, 6973. Auckland: New
Zealand Water and Wastes Association.
Mara, D. and Pearson, H. (1998). Design manual for waste stabilization ponds in
Mediterranean Countries, Leeds Lagoon Technology International Ltd. Leed, U.K.
Mara, D.D. (2001). Low-cost, high performance wastewater treatment and reuse for public
health and environmental protection in the 21st century. 10th Annual CWWA conference
on Innovation Technologies in the Water and Wastewater Industries for the 21st century,
Grand Cayman October 2001.
Mara D. (2004). Domestic wastewater treatment in developing countries. Earthscan, USA
148
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. (1991). Wastewater Engineering: Treatment Disposal and Reuse, third
edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mohamed, A. (2002). Treatment system in oxidation ponds: Ain Shams University, Faculty of
Engineering.
Ministry of Land and Environment, Government of Jamaica. (2005). Paper on Provision of
Sewerage Services.
Ministry of Water, Government of Jamaica, (1999). Jamaica Water Sector Policy
Mozaheb, S., Ghaneian, M., Ghanizadeh, G., and Fallahzadeh, M. (2010). Evaluation of the
stabilization ponds performance for municipal wastewater treatment in Yazd, Iran.
Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 6: 7682
Naddafi, K., Hassanvand, M.S., Dehganifard, E., Faezi Razi, D., Mostofi, S., Kasaee, N.,
Nabizadeh, R., and Heidari, M., (2008). Performance evaluation of wastewater
stabilization ponds in Arak-Iran. Iran. J. Environmental Health Science Engineering,
2009, Volume 6, No. 1, pp. 41-46
National Enviroment and Planning Agency (1995). Jamaicas National Environmental
Action Plan (JANEAP).
NEPA., (1995). Jamaican National Trade Effluent Standards.
NEPA., (1996). Jamaican National Sewage Effluent Standards.
NEPA. (2004). Jamaicas National Programme of Action for the Protection of the Coastal
and Marine Environment from Land-Based Sources of Pollution, 2005 2010.
149
Operator Training and Certification Unit, (2010). Training manual for operators of wastewater
stabilization lagoons. State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources &
Environment.
Pano, A. and Middlebrooks, E.J. (1982). Ammonia nitrogen removal in facultative wastewater
stabilization Ponds. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 54(4), 344-351.
Pearson, H. W., Mara, D. D. and Arridge H.M. (1995). The effluence of pong geometry and
configuration of facultative and maturation waste stabilization pond performance and
efficiency. Water Science Technology, Vol. 31 No.12, pp.129-139.
Pearson, H. W., Mara, D. D., Crawley L.R., Arridge H.M. and Silva S.A. (1996). The
performance of an innovative tropical experimental waste stabilization pond system
operation at high organic loadings. Water Science Technology, Vol. 33 No.7, pp.63-73.
Pena, M.V. and Mara , D., 2004, "Waste stabilization pond, School of Civil Engineering",
University of Leeds. Leeds, UK.
Quin, A., Balfors, B., and Kjellen, M. (2011). How to Walk the Talk: The perspectives of
sector staff on implementation of the rural water supply programme in Uganda. National
Resource Forum, 35 (4), 269 282.
Reed, S.C. (1985). Nitrogen removal in wastewater stabilization Ponds. Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, 57 (1), 39-45.
150
Shaw, V.A. (1962).An assessment of the probable influence of evaporation and seepage on
oxidation pond design and construction. Journal of the Institute of Sewage Purification,
(4), 359-365.
Shilton A. (2001). Studies into the hydraulics of waste stabilization ponds. Ph.D. Thesis.
Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Shilton A. and Harrison J. (2003). Guidelines for the hydraulic design of the waste stabilization
ponds. Institute of Technology and Engineering, Massey University, Palmerston North,
New Zealand.
Silva, C. and von Sperling, M. (2011). Performance evaluation of different wastewater
treatment technologies operating in a developing country.
Tchobanoglous, G., Burton, F. and Sense, H.D. (2003). Wastewater engineering: Treatment and
reuse, 4th ed. McGraw-Hill Company, New York, NY.
Tchobanoglous, G. and Leverenz, H., (2009). Impacts of new concepts and technology on the
energy sustainability of wastewater management. Greece Conference on Climate Change,
Sustainable Development and Renewable Resources.
Thompson, K. (2014, July 30). Scientist pushes for treated effluent to be part of water resources.
Jamaica Observer. Retrieved January 17, 2015, from
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/environment/-Let-s-use-wastewater_17266702
151
Varn, M.P. and Mara, D. (2004). Waste stabilisation ponds. International Water and Sanitation
Centre.
Von Sperling, M. (1996). Design of facultative pond based on uncertainty analysis. Water
Science and Technology, 33 (7), 41-47.
Walter, L. (2015, April 17). Interview of design and operation of waste stabilization ponds.
Engineer at Fluid Systems Engineering Ltd.
Wang, H. T., Omosa, I. B., Keller, A. A., and Li, F. T. (2012). Ecosystem protection, integrated
management and infrastructure are vital for improving water quality in Africa, Environ.
Sci. Technol.
Wang, H., Wang, T., Zhang, B., Li, F., Toure, B., Omosa, I.B., Chiramba, T., Abdel-Monem, M.,
and Pradhan, M. (2013). Water and wastewater treatment in Africa Current Practices
and Challenges. Received: April 5, 2013; revised: August 27, 2013; accepted: September
18, 2013.
Water Quality Act of 1987 (WQA) (Amendment of the CWA)
Wiley, P., Brenneman, K., and Jacobson, A. (2009). Improved algal harvesting using suspended
air flotation. Water Environment Research, 81(7): 702-708
Yu, H., Tay, J. and Wilson, F. (1997). A sustainable municipal wastewater treatment process for
tropical and subtropical regions in developing countries. Water, Science & Technology,
35 (9): 191-198.
152

Performance Evaluation of A Central Wastewater

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance Evaluation of A Central Wastewater

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance Evaluation of A Central Wastewater

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the thesis about?

What is the thesis about?

What wastewater treatment technology is being evaluated?

What wastewater treatment technology is being evaluated?

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF A CENTRAL WASTEWATER

TREATMENT PLANT IN JAMAICA

The University of Technology, Jamaica

2.3.2 Existing Legal Framework in Jamaica ............................................................................. 36

4.4.6 Removal of Phosphate...................................................................................................... 90

5.3.2 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) .......................................................................... 107

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

1.0 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview of Study

1.2 Statement of the Problem

1.3 Study Area

The approximate location of the Soapberry Wastewater Treatment Plant is 17 59 50.81

Figure 1.0- Layout of Ponds at Soapberry

1.4 Aim of Study

1.5 Objectives of Study

1.6 Research Questions

1.7 Significance of Study

1.8 Definition of Terms

1.9 Key Performance Indicators

1.9.1 Overview of Waste Stabilization Pond (WSP) Systems

1.9.2 Organization of Research

Chapter four presents the results of methodological investigation as outlined in chapter

2.0 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE

2.2 DESIGN PARAMETERS/ STANDARDS OF WASTE STABILIZATION PONDS

2.2.1 Loading Rates Design Approach

Filtered BOD (non-algal BOD)

India Effluent Standards

2.2.2 Design Parameters of Waste Stabilization Ponds

Otherwise, a reliable estimate can be computed from established mathematical

2.2.3 Operational Characteristics

NH+4) removal in individual facultative and maturation ponds for

2.2.4 Critique of Application of Waste Stabilization Ponds

2.3 IMPACT OF REGULATIONS ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT

2.3.1 Existing Policy Framework in Jamaica

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;

Protection of public health against disease vectors and from pathogens;

Ensuring sustainable water use and ecosystem protection on a long-term basis;

Implementing the polluter pays principle.

2.3.2 Existing Legal Framework in Jamaica

2.3.3 Performance Evaluation of Sewage Treatment Plants

of verification of monitoring visits by NEPA/ NRCA staff in addition to the self-monitoring

2.3.4 Public Private Partnership (PPP) in Wastewater Sector

deficiency the policy direction should be so channeled to escalate competitiveness and

2.3.5 NEPA Sludge Policy (2013)

2.3.6 Existing Institutional Framework in Jamaica

2.4 CHALLENGES IN OPERATING A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

and financially to be responsible to municipal facilities so as to act decisively in improving water

2.4.2 Hydraulic Loading

2.4.3 Importance of Flowrate Measurement

2.4.4 Variations in Wastewater Flowrates

2.5 IMPLICATIONS OF VARIATIONS IN WASTEWATER FLOWRATES

2.5.1 Summary of Reviewed Literature