Regional Siting of Fecal Sludge Treatment Facilities - St. Elizabeth, Jamaica PDF

REGIONAL SITING OF FECAL SLUDGE TREATMENT FACILITIES:
ST. ELIZABETH, JAMAICA
A thesis
submitted by
Ana Martha Fernandes
In partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of
Master of Science
in
Civil and Environmental Engineering
TUFTS UNIVERSITY
August, 2005
ADVISERS: Dr. Paul Kirshen and Dr. Richard Vogel

by
Ana Martha Fernandes
Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of Master of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering
ABSTRACT
In the developing nation of Jamaica 70% of the population depends on on-site sanitation
systems (OSS) which can provide an effective and low-cost option for rural wastewater
treatment. However, there are serious environmental and human health effects associated
with their mismanagement and deterioration. Herein we describe a methodology to
determine suitable areas for fecal sludge (FS) treatment systems and to select an optimum
combination of FS treatment options for the region. Historically, fecal sludge management
has been studied and addressed as a localized problem, while the following research was
aimed at developing a systematic analysis of regional sludge management.
A regional
decision model of FS treatment was developed which incorporated treatment alternatives to

hauling or pumping to existing treatment systems.
The problem is formulated as a mixed-integer programming model which selects the
optimal combination of treatment options and locations for the region based on a variety of
social, economic, and environmental constraints. Particular effort was focused on
incorporating the number of citizens that might be potentially affected by the construction
and operation of a treatment facility in a given region. The constraint method of optimization
was employed to develop a tradeoff curve between the number of people negatively affected
and the cost of a given management plan. A sensitivity analysis was performed to determine
model sensitivity to both increases in required travel times for hauling and to capital cost
variation amongst potential treatment sites.
Applicability of the model to this region was then addressed through a discussion of the
results obtained and the challenges faced in model development. The potential for
ii
replication of the model in other regions requiring fecal sludge management is presented
along with other potential management schemes. Presentation of the model to the Ministry
of Health, local parish officials, and citizens of St. Elizabeth is planned, in order to facilitate
the discussion of management and collaboration in St. Elizabeth.
iii
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
All of my family, friends, and colleagues have been so supportive (and inquisitive) from
the time that this idea was born in my head last winter until today, it is hard to imagine where
I would have been without their help and guidance. I feel fortunate to have been afforded the
opportunity to pursue this research and my Masters degree at Tufts and am truly grateful to
all those that helped me over the past two years and well before.
Thank you to all of the individuals who welcomed me in Jamaica over the summer of
2004 and made my trip so productive and interesting: Jason Henzell, Delroy Brown, Errol
Campbell, Basil Fernandez, Parris Lyew-Ayee, and everyone else who took the time to meet
with me. To everyone in Parrotte, particularly the Simms family, who welcomed me with
open arms and took care of us with fried chicken and plenty of company. I look forward to
seeing you all again.
Thank you to my advisors, Paul and Rich, for all of your support over the past two years
and for exposing me to a wide variety of people and experiences I wouldnt have otherwise
known. I am honored that I was invited to be a part of the WSSS program and look forward
to collaborating with the program in the future. Thank you for all of your time and energy in
supporting my research goals.
Thank you to Yelena Ogneva-Himmelberger for your help with GIS and Idrisi and for
joining my committee. Tufts is lucky to have found you.
To all of my classmates, I look forward to learning about all of the amazing work Im sure
you will do in the future. Thank you for all of your support and good luck with everything
you pursue.
Thank you to Michele and Kristina for listening to me. Im sorry that you both got stuck
next to me in the office but dont know what I would have done without you to talk to (and
spin with).
To Jim Limbrunner, thank you so much for your insight and for always taking time away
from your own work to think through mine. You are extremely generous with your thoughts
and I truly appreciate it.
To Lisa, thanks for being a great roommate and best friend over all of these years. You
have been so busy yourself, but were always there to pick me up. I wouldnt have made it
through without you to talk to and laugh with.
Thank you to all of my friends for your support and understanding during the past two
years.
To Dave, thank you for introducing me to St. Elizabeth and Jamaica, for welcoming me
into your world there, for supporting me in pursuing this research, and for listening to me
think out loud for the past year.
There is no one I would rather spend a swampy Caribbean
summer with.
To my family, words cannot express my gratitude for your support, trust, and inspiration
over the past two years and always. You taught me to remember how fortunate I am for
everything I have been given and nothing reminds me more than thinking about you all.
The work described herein was made possible through the generous support of the Water:
Systems, Science, and Society (WSSS) Program, Tufts University, Boston Society of Civil
Engineers, John R. Freeman Fund and the Tufts Institute of the Environment (TIE), Tufts
University.
vi
CONTENTS
Abstract. ii
Acknowledgements v
1. Introduction
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Background: St. Elizabeth, Jamaica .
1.3 Fecal Sludge..
1.4 Literature Review on Mathematical Programming and Fecal Sludge..
2
4
4
7
2. Integrated Assessment of Fecal Sludge Management Options

2.1 Co-treatment of Fecal Sludge with Sewage..
2.2 Construction of Regional Wastewater Treatment Plants..
2.3 Construction of Fecal Sludge Treatment Facilities..
2.4 Sludge Drying Bed Design...
2.5 Land Application and Biosolids Reuse
9
10
11
12
15
3. Spatial Analysis for Determination of Parameters

3.1 Treatment Site Identification
3.2 Site Prefeasibility..
3.3 Population Data.
3.4 Calculation of Travel Time...
3.5 Calculation of Affected Population..
3.6 Survey of Households and Guesthouses in St. Elizabeth.
16
16
18
20
22
24
4. Decision Model Formulation

4.1 Problem Statement.
4.2 The Principle of Expediency..
4.3 Model Scenarios.
4.3.1 Scenario 1: Optimal Location of a Single Treatment Facility..
4.3.2 Overall Model Structure: Objective Function..
4.3.3 Decision Model Structure: Constraints
4.3.4 Model Results- Scenario 2: Allowing for Construction at
Various Sites..
4.3.5 Model Results- Scenario 3: People Affected vs. Cost..
4.4 Analysis of Model Sensitivity to Treatment Site Costs.
25
27
29
30
31
36
37
39
41
5. Analysis of Results and Conclusions

5.1 Other Management Options..
5.2 Analysis of Results ..
5.3 Recommendations and Conclusions.
43
44
47
Appendices...
51
vii
CONTENTS Cont.
References...
viii
69

1. Introduction
1.1 Introduction
In the developing nation of Jamaica 70% of the population depends on on-site sanitation
facilities such as septic tanks, soak-away pits or pit latrines for wastewater treatment. Fecal
sludge (FS) is defined as the sludge of variable consistency collected from on-site sanitation
systems and is comprised of varying concentrations of settleable or settled solids (Heinss et
al., 1998).
Uncontrolled and indiscriminate dumping of FS removed from on-site systems is
commonplace in many regions of Jamaica. Such mismanagement creates the potential for
human health risks through human contact with untreated FS and the potential for drinking
water contamination (VanHoven, 2004). In the parish of St. Elizabeth (approximately 1,200
km2) no FS treatment facilities exist and the distance to existing facilities outside the parish
renders hauling cost-prohibitive. When the sludge from on-site sanitation systems is
emptied, there is general uncertainty as to its ultimate disposal.
The Ministry of Health (MoH) of Jamaica recently began a study of island-wide septage
management and is in the process of developing guidelines for the licensing of cesspool
operators. The MoH also plans to develop a framework for licensing haulers and regulations
for the dumping of fecal sludge (Personal Contact, Richard Chmielewski, 2004).
To this end, the following study was conducted from the perspective of the St. Elizabeth
Parish Council, with the goal of determining suitable areas for local FS treatment systems
and ultimately selecting an optimum combination of FS treatment options for the region.
The model was developed to be used in conjunction with a management plan developed by
the Government of Jamaica and might also be expanded to enable island-wide FS
management.
Figure 1. St. Elizabeth, Jamaica

The regional decision model of FS treatment developed for St. Elizabeth incorporated
treatment alternatives to hauling or pumping to existing centralized systems. The overall
methodology introduced here involves the following three steps: First, an Integrated
Assessment of existing FS management practices in Jamaica was implemented which
considered economic, social, and environmental factors in addition to technical options.
Next a spatial analysis of wastewater treatment options in Jamaica was compiled using a
Geographic Information System (GIS) and land use information. Finally, using the
integrated assessment and spatial analysis, a systems optimization model of FS treatment in
Jamaica was developed and optimum combinations of FS treatment options were determined
for St. Elizabeth for several possible scenarios. The constraint method was used to develop
multi-objective tradeoff curves, with the goal of developing tools to be used in the planning
regional sludge management. Each of these steps is summarized in greater detail in the
following sections.
1.2 Background: St. Elizabeth, Jamaica

The island nation of Jamaica, West Indies is located in the Caribbean Sea approximately
160 km south of Cuba. The island is approximately 10,830 square kilometers and consists of
predominantly mountainous terrain, with narrow and discontinuous coastal plains. Jamaica
is comprised of 14 parishes and St. Elizabeth is located on the southwestern coast of the
island (Figure 1.1 above). Approximately 5.6% of the national population (In the 2001
Census, 146,391 people) resides in St. Elizabeth, with 69% in rural areas of the parish and
31% in the major towns and cities (Statistical Institute of Jamaica, 2001). According to the
Pan Americana and World Health Organizations only 5.6% of the parish population is
connected to a centralized sewage system, as would be expected in a predominantly rural
area, making approximately 94% of the population of St. Elizabeth dependant on on-site
systems for sanitation (Pan American Health Organization/World Health Organization,
2001).
As in most small island states, the economic livelihood and social well being of the
Jamaican people depends heavily on its fresh and salt water resources, a majority of
Jamaicas foreign exchange is earned through tourism and agriculture for primary
production. In addition, fishing from rivers, inland ponds, and the Caribbean Sea is a
significant source of income in Jamaica, particularly in the parish of St. Elizabeth (Brown,
2003).
1.3 Fecal Sludge
The physical characteristics of fecal sludge (FS) vary significantly due, among other
factors, to climate, tank emptying technology and pattern, storage duration (months to years),
performance of tank, additional components of FS including grease, kitchen/solid waste, and

potential groundwater intrusion (Montangero and Strauss, 2002). Fecal Sludge is a highly
variable, organic material with considerable levels of grease, grit, hair, and debris. In
addition to its variable nature, FS tends to foam upon agitation, resists settling and
dewatering and serves as a host for many disease-causing viruses, bacteria, and parasites
(USEPA, 1999).
The helminth eggs, ammonium, and organic and solids concentrations in fecal sludge are
typically higher by a factor of ten or more than in wastewater (Montangero and Strauss,
2002). The criteria and procedures for the treatment of fecal sludges, therefore, differ from
those used for domestic wastewater. As fecal sludge contains a variety of fertilizers,
including nitrogen and phosphorus and is low in chemical contaminants, it tends to lend itself
well to agricultural use. Prior to disposal of fecal sludge or land application for agricultural
use, however, it must be stabilized to reduce levels of pathogenic organisms, lower the
potential for putrefaction, and reduce odors (CWRS, 1999). The most widely used and
practical methods of fecal sludge stabilization are outlined in Table 1.1 below.
The use of Alkali Stabilization for fecal sludge treatment in the region was not considered a
currently viable option. A lack of experience in Jamaica with Alkali stabilization methods,
the maintenance requirements for lime feed and mixing equipment, along with the
uncertainty in alkaline material availability would make alkali stabilization a difficult option
to implement immediately. The high capital costs, maintenance requirements, and uncertain
market for methane gas also render anaerobic digestion an infeasible option for the region of
St. Elizabeth. Similarly, as composting also results in high operating and materials handling
costs, it was not considered a feasible treatment option.
Table 1.1 Summary of Fecal Sludge Stabilization Options (Reproduced from CWRS, 1999)
Method
Description
Advantages
Disadvantages
Alkali
Staibilization
Lime or other alkaline

material is added to liquid
septage to raise pH to 12.0
for minimum of 30
minutes
Very simple; minimal

operator attention.
Low capital and O&M
costs.
Provides temporary
reduction in vector
attraction.
Reduces EPA site
restriction
requirements for land
application
Increases mass of solids

requiring disposal.
Handling of lime may
cause dust problem.
Lime feed and mixing
equipment require regular
maintenance.
Aerobic
Digestion
Septage is aerated for 15d

to 20d in an open tank to
achieve biological
reduction in organic solids
and odor potential. (Time
requirements increase with
lower temperatures).
Relatively simple
Can provide a
reduction in odors.
Anaerobic
Digestion
Septage is retained for 15d

to 30d in an enclosed
vessel to achieve
biological reduction in
organic solids.
Generates methane gas,

which can be used for
digested heating or other
purposes
Composting
Liquid Septage or septage

solids are mixed with
bulking agents (e.g. wood
chips, sawdust) and aerated
mechanically or by
turning. Biological
activity generates
temperatures sufficiently
high to destroy pathogens.
Final product is
potentially marketable
and attractive to users as
soil amendment
High power costs to

operate aeration system (if
aerated mechanically).
Large tanks or basins
required.
Cold temperatures require
much longer digestion
periods.
Requires skilled operator
to maintain process
control.
High maintenance
requirements for gas
handling equipment.
High capital costs.
Generally not used except
for co-treatment with
sewage sludge.
Costly materials handling
requirements
Requires skilled operator
process control.
High odor potential.
High operating costs.
As this research and model were focused on determining the most direct and immediate
treatment options, physical separation of solids and liquids along with liquid polishing in
facultative ponds was determined to be the most feasible treatment option for fecal sludge in
the region. In particular, sludge drying beds and facultative ponds, discussed further in
Section II, were determined to be the most viable treatment option. Whereas active aerobic
digestion uses power to operate aeration systems, the simple drying bed and facultative-pond
system chosen takes advantage of the high ambient temperature and sunlight common
throughout Jamaica, reducing organic solids content and potential odors.
1.4 Literature Review on Mathematical Programming and Fecal Sludge

In the past, the treatment and disposal of fecal sludge removed from onsite sanitation
systems has been addressed as a localized problem. Few examples exist in the literature of a
systematic analysis applied to sludge management and this research appears to be the first
study to develop a systems model for management of sludge removed from on-site sanitation
systems.
A literature review, therefore, was focused in the area of mathematical
programming used for similar systems, including wastewater sludge and solid waste disposal
and planning of centralized wastewater treatment systems.
Systematic analyses of centralized water and wastewater systems generally employ some
form of Material Flow Analysis (using the principle of conservation of mass) in conjunction
with Optimization and Heuristic Algorithms. Jeppson and Hellstrom (2002), for instance,
used a material flow analysis approach and life cycle assessment evaluation in a systems
analysis model of urban water and wastewater systems Computer-based mathematical
material flow models, such as ORWARE (ORganic WAste Research Model) have also been
developed to optimize wastewater systems (Nybrant et al., 1996). The highly variable nature
of fecal sludge in time and space does not appear to facilitate the use of detailed material
flow analysis for FS management, particularly at the regional level for which this model is
being constructed.
Crohn and Thomas (1998) used a mixed-integer program to minimize the costs of sewage
sludge management by various land application technologies for a county in California.
Options included digestion, biosolids storage, trucking, composting, and landspreading. The
model was constrained by conservation of mass and capacity assurance; Cumulative
capital investments [had to] be sufficient to manage themanagement demands during each
year of system operation (Crohn and Thomas, 1998). For example, as Crohn and Thomas
describe, the number of trucks purchased had to be able to supply the necessary number of
hours of transport. Similar constraints were incorporated in the model developed herein for
both hauling truck purchase and treatment system capacity.
Crohn and Thomas incorporate various treatment methods and, hence, variable capital,
operation, and maintenance costs, in order to determine the distribution of sludge to be sent
to digesters, compost, or landspreading. The Jamaican model herein incorporates only the
treatment method found to be most feasible.
For other, similar modeling endeavors in the field of wastewater network planning, the use
of optimization and heuristic algorithms has been extensive (Mandl, 1981). McConagha and
Converse (1973) employed a heuristic design and cost allocation algorithm. The models
objective was to determine the number and location of wastewater treatment plants and the
sewer networks required, using a hypothetical region along one river. The model included a
non-linear cost function, exhibiting economies of scale.
Ellis and Tang (1991) used a non-linear mixed integer programming model to optimize
wastewater treatment, incorporating technical, economic, environmental, social, and cultural
factors as indicators. Subjective parameters that affect the operation of wastewater treatment
plants were incorporated by developing a hierarchy of objectives and alternatives. The
model was then tested with data from several countries. A lack of plot-level data and the
uncertainty in sludge composition in this research prevented the use of a hierarchical
structure of decision variables, central to Ellis and Tangs work.
Like Crohn and Thomas, Phillips et al. (1982) and Leighton and Shoemaker (1984) both
used integer programming models to design and update wastewater treatment systems.
Although the literature exists, as previously discussed, for wastewater sludge and wastewater
management, the variable and uncertain nature of the management needs, which exist as a
result of the lack of plot-level information, inherent uncertainties in pumping frequency and
sludge quality, and a lack of information surrounding the variable costs of sludge treatment,
render the problem of regional fecal sludge management an anomaly.
After reviewing existing optimization models and algorithms for wastewater treatment
planning, a mixed-integer linear programming approach was decided upon to select the
optimal combination of treatment options and locations for the region. The formulation and
level of detail incorporated in the model most closely resemble that of Crohn and Thomas
(1998) on land application systems and Phillips et al. (1982) on area-wide wastewater
management.
2. Integrated Assessment of FS Treatment Options

2.1 Co-treatment of Fecal Sludge with Sewage
In order to develop the possible treatment schemes for FS in the St. Elizabeth region, cotreatment of fecal sludge with the sewage or sewage sludge at wastewater treatment plants
was considered. Approximately twenty-two of the one-hundred and twenty-seven public and
privately owned wastewater treatment plants island-wide were operating to standards in 1998
(Environmental Control Division of the ministry of Health, 1998). There are two wastewater
treatment plants designed to accept fecal sludge for treatment on the island (Union Street in
Montego Bay and Greenwich Plant in Kingston). Union Street is no longer accepting FS and
while the Greenwich plant continues to accept FS from various haulers, it is clear from
talking to parish leaders that FS removed from systems in the region is not being hauled to
either of the existing plants, as the distance is cost-prohibitive (VanHoven, 2004 and personal
contacts, July 2004). The remaining wastewater treatment plants on the island, particularly
those in St. Elizabeth and surrounding parishes, are not designed to accept additional waste.
Were these plants operating to standards, the possibility of updating them to handle FS at
their influents would be considered. From initial review of the publicly owned plants in the
region, however, it appears that none are operating to standards and it would not be feasible
to upgrade the systems to accept more solids.
In addition to the limits of existing wastewater treatment plant infrastructure, fecal sludge,
unlike sewage sludge, is rarely contaminated with toxic chemical compounds and is
considered a type of organic waste. From a sustainability standpoint, therefore, it could be
argued that as an organic waste it should not be added to a sludge with potentially high
chemical contamination, as such a process would render it unsuitable for reuse (Klingel et al.,
2001).
2.2 Construction of Regional Wastewater Treatment Plants

In addition to hauling fecal sludge to the existing wastewater treatment plants, the potential
for construction of new regional wastewater treatment plants was considered. The cost for
building a wastewater treatment plant and installing sewers for each of the census areas to
10
convert on-site systems into one, centralized wastewater system was assumed to be
prohibitive. Construction of a Regional Wastewater Treatment plant to service the parish of
St. Elizabeth was not considered a feasible treatment option.
2.3 Construction of Fecal Sludge Treatment Facilities

The construction of new FS treatment systems was considered the only viable option for
current fecal sludge management needs in the region. As previously discussed, aerobic
digestion systems were deemed most feasible for fecal sludge treatment. Such systems
include sludge drying beds/ponds, constructed wetlands, sedimentation/thickening tanks,
waste stabilization points and co-treatment ponds for wastewater and fecal sludge
(Montangero and Strauss, 2002).
Sludge drying beds and ponds closely resemble the fecal sludge treatment facilities
currently used in other areas of Jamaica (Personal Contact, Erol Campbell). They are
relatively simple systems which can produce a solids product that can be reused as fertilizer
or soil conditioner if the system is designed and operated correctly. Drying beds employ the
processes of gravity percolation and evaporation in separating the solids from the liquid in
sludge (Montangero and Strauss, 2002). Approximately 50-80% of the volume applied to
drying beds emerges from the system as drained liquid, or percolate, which must
subsequently be treated in facultative ponds. Secondary facultative ponds, ponds that receive
settled wastewater, are constructed in series with sludge drying beds and drain into an
adjacent leaching field. A general design plan and cross section of the sludge drying beds
and facultative ponds is shown below in Figure 2.1.
If land application of biosolids removed from drying beds is chosen, nematode eggs
11
should be used as indicators to determine hygienic quality and safety (Montangero and
Strauss, 2002). Compared to the viruses, bacteria, and protozoa found in fecal sludge,
nematodes tend to be the most persistent pathogens, the bulk of which end up in the biosolids
generated from sludge drying. As sludge is dried and, in turn, total solids content increases,
nematode egg concentrations are typically reduced. High average ambient temperatures in
the tropical climate of Jamaica provide an added advantage to the aerobic digestion process,
as they yield high levels of drying relatively quickly (Montangero and Strauss, 2002).
Construction of a drying bed and facultative pond system will require testing of the biosolids
produced for nematode egg count to determine suitability for use as soil conditioner or
fertilizer.
Drying Bed
Facultative Pond
Leaching
Field
Drying Bed
Figure 2.1 General Treatment Facility Design

2.4 Sludge Drying Bed Design
Sludge drying bed systems are designed using the expected volume and total suspended
solids concentration of the fecal sludge to be treated (Montangero and Strauss, 2002). The
volume of fecal sludge to be treated is calculated from the total population of St. Elizabeth in
2001, 146,391 people. For each census area, the volume of fecal sludge to be treated, Vi, is
calculated as a function of population. An emptying rate of approximately every 6 years is
assumed to account for those households/businesses that empty more or less frequently for
12
various reasons including system failure or the tendency for businesses and guesthouses in
the region to empty more frequently than private households. Therefore 16% (0.16) of the
fecal sludge produced annually is treated.
A value of 300L/capita/year (Klingel et al., 2001 and Center for Water Resources Studies,
1999) is used to approximate the volume of fecal sludge produced per person per year (Vi) as
follows:
= (300) (0.16) Pi
(1)
where Pi represents the population of census area i (Kottatep et al., 1999 and CWRS, 1999).
Operators throughout the island use 1,200-1,800 Gallon pumping trucks for hauling of fecal
sludge (VanHoven, 2004). Based upon the total volume of sludge to be treated in St.
Elizabeth annually and the largest truck size typically available (1,800 Gallons),
approximately 1,035 truckloads of fecal sludge would require treatment each year (See Table
2.1 below). The model is not designed to account for the volume of sludge already
accumulated in on-site systems in the region. Rather, it addresses management from this
point forward.
Table 2.1 Population and Septage Production in St. Elizabeth (STATIN, 2001)
Annual Volume to
Fecal Sludge
Annual Volume to be be treated
Year
Population (ML/Year)*
treated (L/Year)**
(truckloads/year)**
2001
146,391
43.92
7,026,768
1,035
*300 L/capita/year
**16% of volume produced annually
Very little data surrounding fecal sludge quality, in particular total suspended solids
concentration (TSS), in Jamaica are available. Recently, however, fecal sludge samples were
taken at 7 different locations throughout Western Jamaica (Stewart, 2004). The results,
13
detailed in Appendix 2.3, show a range in TSS concentration from 228 mg/l to 24,350 mg/l.
For the purposes of design calculations, it was assumed that the total suspended solids
content of fecal sludge in the region was 20,000 mg/L. This value falls in the range of
typically reported values and was used by Montangero and Strauss (2002) in their design
calculations for sludge drying beds in Accra, Ghana (USEPA, 1999 and CWRS, 1999).
The Swiss Federal Institute for Science and Technology (EAWAG) has found, through
experiments with pilot- and full-scale systems, a range of 100-200 kg TS/m2-year for total
solids loading in sludge drying beds. Using the value of 20,000 mg/L for total solids
concentration and maintaining a loading rate of 150 kg TS/m2-year (the average value in the
range) a bed area of 938 m2 (.09 hectare/.23 acres) was calculated. Each .09 hectare (.23
acre) system would be capable of treating 1,035 truckloads per year: all of the waste
generated throughout the parish (see Table 2.2 below for results and Appendix 2.3 for sample
calculations).
Table 2.2 Calculation of Maximum Drying Bed Size
Volume of
Volume of
Septage
Septage
(gal/Truckload) (L/Truckload)
1800
6804
Assumed
TSS of
septage
(mg/L)
20000
TSS
(kg)
136
Truckloads/year
1035
Drying
Bed
Area
(m2 /
acres)
938 / .23
Drying
bed
loading
rate
(kgTSS/m2
yr)
150
Facultative ponds which receive settled wastewater are designed for particular BOD
loading rates and are typically approximately half the area of the drying beds themselves.
Each system capable of treating 1,035 truckloads per year, therefore, would have a drying
bed and pond area of approximately .36 acres. It was assumed that a leaching field would be
added to the system for further treatment of the percolate and the total system area was
14
assumed to equal .404 hectares (1 acre). In order to account for biosolid storage, equipment,
and other potential space needs, an area three-times larger was assumed necessary, or 1.2
hectares (3 acres).
2.5 Land Application and Biosolids Reuse

After stabilization through aerobic treatment in a drying bed and facultative pond facility,
biosolids removed from the beds can be used as fertilizer or soil conditioner, depending on its
final characteristics. The World Resources Institute (WRI) reports that the country of
Jamaica imported approximately 24,000 metric tons of fertilizer containing the nutrients
nitrogen (N), potash (K2O), and phosphate (P2O5) (WRI website, 2005). Construction of a
pilot-scale drying bed and pond treatment facility will allow for the typical characteristics of
fecal sludge to be tested and, in turn, the biosolids removed from the facility can be tested for
land application suitability and nitrogen and phosphorus content.
In future analyses of island-wide fecal sludge management in Jamaica, spent Bauxite mines
should also be considered potential sites for treatment facility location. Plot-level
information on spent bauxite mines was not available for analysis in this model, however
such information should be included in future management plans. In May, 2004, Ernest
Smith, opposition spokesman on mining, appealed to Jamaicas Bauxite companies to
improve the quality of their land. Among other things, Smith suggested that rich topsoil
from the construction of Highway 2000 and the North Coast Highway should be transferred
to mined-out sites and used in the production of fruit-tree crops such as avocados, breadfruit,
pineapples, and other produce (Jamaica Information Service, May 19, 2004).
The potential for land reclamation, particularly given the concern over land quality, should
15
be considered in the development of sites for fecal sludge treatment. The facilities would
consume a small fraction of the bauxite land and the biosolids produced could then be reused
onsite as soil conditioner.
3. Spatial Analysis for Determination of Parameters

3.1 Treatment Site Identification
Land parcels owned by the parish government (Parish Council) were considered
potential sites for the construction of local FS treatment facilities. GIS information regarding
parish-owned land parcels was gathered from the Parish Council of St. Elizabeth (Delroy B.,
August 2004). A map of parish-owned land parcels can be found in Appendix 3.1. For the
purposes of this model, only land parcels currently owned by the parish were considered
potential treatment sites. The cost of land in the region, therefore, was not considered a
factor in site selection. In future analysis of the regional treatment options, other sites might
be considered depending on their feasibility, as discussed below.
3.2. Site Prefeasibility

Several parameters were used to determine areas suitable for the construction of fecal
sludge treatment facilities. Parameters included topography (land slope), soil type, and
possibility/probability of flooding (GIS data including flood occurrence, soil type, and
contours were obtained from the Water Resources Authority and from P. Lyew-Ayee)
(Personal Communication, 2004).
As the drying bed and facultative pond treatment systems would not exceed 1 acre in
area, parcels larger than 3 acres were considered to be suitable sites (to allow some additional
16
area surrounding the system(s)). The restriction on parcel size narrowed the potential
treatment sites to 12 locations. Using ArcMap, the twelve sites were then overlaid with other
data gathered in GIS. The digital elevation map-based contour file for the parish was used to
calculate ground slope throughout St. Elizabeth. Parcels with a ground slope larger than 15%
are not considered feasible sites. None of the twelve potential sites were located in areas of
high ground slope. A soil map was also overlaid over the land parcel file. Although the
proposed treatment facility would be lined with either concrete blocks or plastic lining
(depending on the final design) the Prefeasibility study ensured that none of the remaining
potential treatment locations would be situated on inappropriate soil. None of the twelve
treatment sites were located on clay, swamp or mangrove soil, all considered inappropriate
for construction of a treatment facility. Flood data was obtained from the Water Resources
Authority of Jamaica (WRA) in order to determine if any of the sites had been recently
flooded or were in regions with a propensity for flooding. Using the three criteria of land
slope, soil type, and flooding, all of the twelve potential treatment sites were deemed feasible
locations. Prior to final planning and design, more detailed site information will be necessary
before any treatment facilities are planned. The suitable land parcels (polygons in ArcGIS)
were assigned point values (latitude-longitude values). The map of feasible facility locations
can be found in Figure 3.1. The ArcGIS file of suitable treatment sites was cut into twelve
separate point files representing each of the treatment sites and each of the twelve treatment
sit files were transferred into a raster file in Idrisi Kilimanjaro for use in calculating the
distance matrix, discussed below. It is important to note that while this pre-feasibility
analysis identified twelve potential treatment sites, with further planning, more detailed, plotlevel data would be necessary to ensure each site has appropriate soil-type, is not prone to
17
flooding, and has a suitable land slope (or land slope can be changed accordingly). With the
data available only an estimate of suitability is implemented in this study.
3.3 Population Data

Population data from the 2001 Census was obtained from the Statistical Institute of
Jamaica (STATIN). An ArcMap line file of roadways in St. Elizabeth was obtained from
Parris Lyew-Ayee of Mona Informatix Ltd. Three-hundred and eight census tracts were
studied with respect to housing density and land use information. From the overlay of
housing density, census tracts, and roadway files, one location was selected to represent the
center of the population. In areas with a high population density and little outlying
dwellings, for instance, the population was placed as a point in the center of the highly
populated region, close to a main road. In areas where dwellings were dispersed throughout
and there were few main roads accessible, the population point was placed at what appeared
an average distance from a secondary road in order to generalize the distance from main
roads that haulers would have to travel to reach dwellings in the region. A sample area
showing census areas, corresponding population points, and land use maps is shown in
Figure 3.2. These population points and the roadway line files were converted from ArcMap
point and vector files to raster format using Idrisi Kilimangaro.
18
Figure 3.1 Feasible Treatment Facility Locations
19
3.4 Calculation of Travel Time

In order to develop a matrix of travel times between the three-hundred and eight census areas
and the twelve treatment sites, the Idrisi Cost function was used to create cost files for each
of the twelve treatment sites. A weighting system was established, in order to represent the
difficulty inherent in hauling sludge from rural areas, areas with less access to main roads,
and swamp and mangrove areas. Roads were given a weight of one, areas off-road a weight
of two, and water bodies were given a weight of one hundred.
The Cost function was then run twelve times to represent the weighted time value of
traveling from any of the census raster cells within the parish to a given treatment location
(one of the twelve cost files can be seen below in Figure 3.3).
The raster files created in Idrisi each contained 1000 x 1000 cells and had a resolution of
42,600 x 45,400 m, resulting in a diagonal distance of approximately 45 m (.045 km) per
cell. Given a distance of .045 km per cell and the assumption that hauling trucks travel on
average approximately 30 km/hr, it was assumed that a hauling truck could travel
approximately 667 pixels per hour.
For example, if a weighted time value of 150 was calculated, the corresponding time
value would be approximately .225 hours (using the average on-road speed assumed to be
30/km). This value could correlate to traveling along the road for 150 pixels or, traveling
off-road for 50 pixels then on a road for 50 pixels (see Appendix 3.4 for Calculation of
Travel Time).
The Extract function in Idrisi was used to calculate the time required to travel between each
of the three-hundred and eight census points and the twelve treatment sites. Using the above
20
described calculation, the Idrisi weighted time values were converted into actual time values
by dividing each by 667 pixels per hour (a sample portion of the travel time matrix can also
be found in Appendix 3.4).
Figure 3.2 Example Census Area Points
21
Figure 3.3 Sample Cost File

3.5 Calculation of Affected Population
In order to gain a sense of the area surrounding each treatment site along with the entire
area of the parish, land use maps were obtained from the National Land Agency (NLA) of
Jamaica. During the summer of 2004, using a GPS locator, small trips were made throughout
the parish to ground-truth the land-use maps.
The maps were in .jpg format and could, therefore, not immediately be used in ArcMap
for analysis. Using the .jpg files, hospitals, schools, community centers, churches, and other
public buildings were all assigned point locations. The resulting map of public buildings can
be found in Appendix 3.5.
For each of the treatment sites, it was assumed that construction
and operation of a fecal sludge treatment facility would have an area of influence of
approximately 3.14 square kilometers (using a radius of influence of 1km). Using ArcMap
the population density was spatially averaged from the population densities in the census
22
areas intersecting the radius of influence. An example of radius of influence can be seen
below in Figure 3.4. The map also depicts the public buildings in the region.
While the treatment facilities provide a service to the public, it is important to note that
each of the treatment sites is contained within a community and the construction and
operation of a facility could potentially have negative effects on the surrounding population.
For this reason, consideration of the population immediately surrounding treatment sites was
included in the optimization algorithm. The number of people potentially affected by a
facility, within the assumed 3.14 km2 area was calculated using the spatial average of
population density. In addition to the spatially averaged population density a weight of 25%
was given to the density for each public building within the area (See sample calculation for
Treatment Site 1. in Appendix 3.5). The affected population results can be found below in
Table 3.1.
23
Figure 3.4 Radius of Influence Example

Table 3.1 Characteristics of Areas Surrounding Treatment Sites (See Figure 3.1 for locations)
Treatment
Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Location
Bellevue
Santa Cruz, Friendship
Santa Cruz, Lacovia
Pepper
Goshen
Meribah, Leeds PA
Barbary Hall, Malvern PO
YS and Ipswich, Maggotty PO
Balaclava, Balaclava PO
Berkshire, Pisgah PA
Bellevue, With School
Black River, Log Wood Ave
Population
Density
(people/km2)
347
586
497
217
295
194
133
33
153
156
384
349
No. of Public
Buildings within 1km
Radius
3
9
7
2
3
4
3
6
2
2
11
Calculated
Affected
Population /
3.14 km2 area
1905
5979
4292
1023
1622
1217
730
103
1204
736
1809
4108
3.6 Survey of Households and Guesthouses in St. Elizabeth

A survey of household and guesthouse sanitation systems was conducted during the
summer of 2004. Volunteers from the Youth Service Organization were enlisted to conduct
surveys in households just outside of Black River, St. Elizabeth in the communities
surrounding Black River and Brompton. Approximately 150 households filled out the
surveys (attached in Appendix 3.6). From the surveys the households average monthly
water bill was calculated to be J$1,480 (US$ 24, approximately J$60 / US$1) and the fee
paid for tank or pit emptying was approximately J$4,730. This value falls in the middle of
the range of emptying fees throughout the country from J$1,500-J$9,000, as shown in
Appendix 3.6 (VanHoven, 2004.)
24
In addition to hauling fee values obtained from the survey, residents answered questions
about maintenance and emptying frequency of their systems. The household survey revealed
that residents in the regions surveyed rarely call a hauler to empty their sanitation systems. If
systems were emptied the pumping was performed once in 5-10 years.
The limited survey of guesthouses in the southern, tourist region of Treasure Beach
revealed that the small businesses in that region empty their systems approximately every 6
months to one year. While the survey was limited to seven of the regional guesthouses,
through personal contact with other business owners in the region, there appears to be a need
for a regional option for sludge treatment. In all cases, residential and business, when haulers
are called to empty systems, owners are unsure of where the sludge is ultimately left. In
several cases, the business owners mentioned that sludge haulers require that they find
another business or household in the region that would require emptying at the same time, in
order to ensure that hauler trucks run full. All business owners expressed interest in having a
facility at which they knew the ultimate fate of sludge. An attempt was made to include all
of the survey results in the course of the design model development.
4. Decision Model Formulation

4.1 Problem Statement
In order to develop the decision model of fecal sludge treatment in St. Elizabeth, the
structure of hauling and treatment had to be defined. Using the results of the survey and
personal contacts in the St. Elizabeth region, assumptions were made concerning hauling
frequency and distribution. As it is impossible to determine which households and
businesses will need their systems emptied in a given year and when, it was assumed that the
25
system would function like others in similar regions of Jamaica.

In the nearby parish of Clarendon, a cesspool operator is called approximately once a week
by a business or homeowner (Personal Contact, Errol Campbell, 2004). Haulers also require
homeowners to find a neighbor or neighbors to empty their tanks on the same day, in order to
ensure that hauling trucks are not running half-empty. It was assumed that the operator(s)
would coordinate pick up with businesses and homeowners as is currently the case in other
parishes, and that the treatment facility owner would work to develop a means of advertising
this service to the citizens of St. Elizabeth. Trucks are assumed to haul only full loads of
waste, therefore throughout the model volume is measured in truckloads. This assumption
was made as a result of speaking with clients in the region, several of whom mentioned that,
if their tanks or pits will not fill the truck, haulers require they find a neighbor who will have
their tank or pit emptied simultaneously.
O&M Costs
Hauling Costs and
Operator Salary
Capital Costs
(Hauling Truck and
Facility)
Fecal Sludge
Treatment
Hauling Fee
Biosolid Sales
(Partially Recreated from Steiner et al., 2003)
Figure 3.5 Flow of Costs and Benefits
26
It was also assumed that one institutional entity would incur all costs associated with the
management plan and would receive all resulting benefits from fees and biosolid sales. In
addition, it is assumed that the owner would hire one truck operator for each truck purchased.
Figure 3.5 outlines the projected costs and benefits associated with fecal sludge management
in the region.
In the planning process and through collaboration between government agencies (including
the Ministry of Health (MoH), Water Resources Authority (WRA), and the Parish Council
members) and community members, other cost flow and/or management structures might be
employed. There are many other potential fiscal structures in fecal sludge management,
other than that outlined in Figure 3.5. (see Steiner et al. 2003). The fiscal structure (shown
in Figure 3.5) was chosen as it most closely resembles existing private sludge treatment
businesses throughout Jamaica (although the sale of biosolids remains speculative). The
potential for government subsidies of the hauling and treatment businesses, the tax structure
surrounding management, along with the separation of the hauling and treatment entities
were not considered in this model.
4.2 The Principle of Expediency

In areas such as St. Elizabeth, where centralized sewerage is for the most part unaffordable,
on-site sanitation systems, compared with no sanitation coverage, have provided substantial
improvements in health and environmental quality (VanRyneveld and Fourie, 1997). While
provision of sanitation improves health and environmental conditions, there remain public
27
health and environmental risks associated with on-site systems. The potential and actual
risks associated with public health are site and case-specific and depend on the following:
That either an infection dose of an excreted pathogen reaches the field or surface
water body, or the pathogen multiplies in the field or surface water body to form an
infective dose;
That this infection reaches a human host;
That this host becomes infected; and
That this infection causes disease or further transmission. (Strauss, 2003)
The first three elements constitute a potential risk and the final element an actual risk to
public health (Strauss, 2003). Like many aspects of environmental regulation and planning,
it is extremely difficult to quantify the potential risks to human and environmental health
inherent in improper disposal of fecal sludge.
In 1948 Earle Phelps recognized that most environmental regulatory decisions are made
using the principle of expediency which he described as the attempt to reduce the
numerical measure of probable harm, or the logical measure of existing hazard, to the lowest
level that is practicable and feasible within the limitations of financial resources and
engineering skill (Vesilind, 2000). Vesilind describes how this theory was used by the
United States EPA in their reaction to the regulations set by the 1972 Clean Water Act, by
which they were mandated to develop health-based regulations for sludge disposal. The
problem with regulating wastewater sludge was that, like fecal sludge, it has unknown and
dynamic properties and behaves differently in different environmental media (Vesilind,
2000).
In the absence of epidemiological information on the effect of fecal sludge on human
health and the uncertainty in transport pathways, the principle of expediency was used as the
28
framework within which the following model was developed. As Vessilind states (2000),
the principle of expediency is an ethical model that calls for a regulator to optimize the
benefits of health protection while minimizing the costs within the constraints of feasibility.
The model of fecal sludge management described herein attempts to replicate such an ethical
standard in the development of a regional treatment scheme.
4.3 Model Scenarios

To provide regulators and citizens with several alternatives for management, and in
keeping with the principle of expediency, the model was developed considering several
potential scenarios. In order to minimize haulage distances, prevent the uncontrolled
dumping of sludge, and keep land requirements for individual treatment schemes modest
Carr (2001) suggest that collection, hauling and treatment strategies should focus on
decentralized solutions. Here a decentralized approach is implemented by allowing for
treatment construction in a variety of locations throughout the parish. It was first assumed
that any management plan would start with the purchase of one truck and the construction of
one treatment facility. The model objective in the first scenario was to site one small
treatment facility in order to minimize overall hauling distances (and in turn minimize overall
hauling costs) and treat all waste.
The second scenario attempts to meet the objective of treating the entire volume of FS
produced, allowing for a range of treatment facility sizes. The second scenario considers
treatment of the total volume of fecal sludge produced, in which case several trucks may be
purchased and treatment facilities may be built at any one of the twelve treatment sites.
29
The third scenario considers a multiobjective model in which the cost of treatment and the
number of people affected by treatment facility construction are both minimized. This
scenario employed the constraint method of multiobjective programming to develop a
tradeoff curve between the number of people negatively affected by a given management
plan and the cost of the plan. Finally, sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the
effects of variable capital costs associated with the treatment sites. Throughout the scenarios
and analysis the same symbols are used to represent variables (see Appendix 4.3 for Symbol
List). Each of the scenarios is described in further detail in the following sections.
4.3.1 Scenario 1: Optimal Location of a Single Treatment Facility

The first scenario attempts to site a single treatment facility in the St. Elizabeth region, to
handle the entire annual volume of sludge produced (1,035 truckloads) which would require
approximately 1.2 hectares (3 acres) of land. As all of the twelve sites could potentially
accommodate the entire volume of sludge, the objective here is to site one 1.2-hectare facility
on any of the sites shown in Figure 3.1. The objective function is to minimize the overall
travel costs, Z, given by:
308
Z = Min d ij
i =1
(2)
where dij is the Idrisi weighted time value associated with traveling from census area i to
treatment site j (calculated in hours). The optimal solution to (2) is to build a single facility
at Treatment Site 3, Lacovia, Santa Cruz, in order to minimize the hauling time required (see
Figure 3.1). Using the cost data and decision model described later in section 4.3.2, the total
30
cost of management for one system built in Lacovia, Santa Cruz would be approximately J$
7,029,401 and approximately 1.24 trucks would be necessary.
These results is expected as Lacovia is located in the central region of the parish, close to
more densely populated areas. There are, however, seven public buildings within a 1km
radius of the site and the 3.14 km2 area surrounding the site has approximately five-hundred
people. As compared to the other potential treatment sites, it appears that construction at Site
3 might negatively affect a significant number of people. This will be addressed further in
Section 4.3.5.
4.3.2 Overall Model Structure: Objective Function

The development of Scenarios 2 and 3 was carried out using GAMS IDE Software
(GAMSIDE, 2000). The costs to be minimized are now defined as the difference between
the costs incurred from fecal sludge management actions taken (construction of a treatment
system, operation and maintenance, and hauling costs) and the revenues derived from hauling
fees and biosolid sales. The benefits and costs are represented by present values, assuming
an interest rate of 8.5% and a life of ten years. In summary, the net costs Z are given by:
Z=CB
(3)
where C = costs = Present Value [Hauling Costs + Construction/Operation and

Maintenance Costs + Hauling Truck Cost]
and
B = benefits = Present Value [Service Fees Levied + Biosolids Profit]
31
Net Benefits
The profit potential from fees levied or from government subsidies, as well as the
potential market for re-use of the biosolids produced were included in the objective function
as the benefits, B as follows:
12
B = ( Tj ) S
j =1
(4)
Where the variable S denotes the unit-benefit value per truckload ($J/truckload) of
sludge treated (as a result of fees levied for the service and biosolids sales) and Tj is the
volume of Sludge treated at Site j (truckloads). Although the market for biosolids as organic
soil conditioners is not certain, current examples of biosolids sales and the use of organic soil
conditioners and fertilizers island-wide were assessed. In the course of the survey conducted,
described in Section 3.6, the average hauling fee for those surveyed in the region is
approximately J$4,730. While this value fell within the range of island-wide hauling fees
reported by VanHoven in 2004 (J$1,500-J$9,000), in order to be conservative, the lower
value of this range was assumed the hauling fee, approximately J$1,500.
In addition to this fee for each truckload hauled, it was assumed that some revenue
(depending on the market) could also be made from the sale of biosolids. A bag of fertilizer
in Jamaica costs approximately J$500. It was assumed that approximately one bag of
marketable fertilizer would be produced from each truckload treated. In order to be
conservative and as a result of the inherent uncertainties, J$500 was added to the hauling fee
to account for the potential additional profit from biosolid sales. In all, therefore, the
potential benefits from both hauling fees and biosolid sales was assumed to be approximately
J$2,000 (S=J$2,000/truckload).
32
Net Costs
The objective function also includes the costs associated with: hauling sludge, treatment
facility construction, and the purchase of hauling trucks, C as follows:
308 12
12
C = (Uh Pij Vi d ij ) + ( (Tj * 6852)) + (HT Cht)
i =1j =1
j =1
(5)
Where Uh is the unit cost of transporting one truckload ($J/truckload/hr) which includes fuel
and maintenance, dij is the Idrisi weighted time value associated with traveling from census
area i to treatment site j in hours, Pij is a binary variable (1 if sludge is hauled from i to j, 0 if
it is not), Vi is the volume of Sludge originating from area i (truckloads), Tj is the volume of
Sludge treated at Site j (truckloads), the scalar 6852 represent the linear relationship
calculated between truckloads treated and treatment facility cost (explained further in this
section) , HT is the number of hauling trucks and Cht is the present value, annualized cost of
a hauling truck (10-year life assumed, 8.5% discount rate) ($J).
Hauling Costs
The unit cost of transporting one truckload of sludge (Uh) was calculated using the assumed
fuel efficiency and diesel prices in Jamaica. Although no data were available for specific
fuel efficiency of hauling/pump trucks, data for garbage trucks (as they are similar in size and
weight to pump trucks) were obtained. The average fuel efficiency of 1.276 km/liter (or 3
miles/gallon) was assumed, as this value was listed for large trucks including garbage trucks.
During the summer of 2004, diesel prices in Jamaica were at approximately J$35/liter (US$
0.58 /liter, US$2.21/gallon). In order to account for maintenance, this value was increased to
33
J$50/liter. Using the fuel efficiency of 1.276 km/liter, a price of J$50/liter, and assuming an
average speed (including idling and slow-moving traffic) of 20 km/hr, the cost of traveling
for one hour was calculated to be J$784. See Appendix 4.3.2 for source information and
calculation of fuel efficiency and cost of travel.
A hauling truck operators hourly salary was also included in the calculation of hauling
cost. Skilled laborers in Jamaica charge approximately J$ 1,500 /day. Assuming
approximately 5 hours of work each day, a salary of J$ 300 / hour was calculated. The total
hourly cost of hauling one truckload, Uh, was calculated to be J$1084/hour (the sum of the
costs of fuel and operator salary).
Facility Construction and O&M Costs

The cost for drying bed/facultative pond facilities of different sizes was calculated using
estimates for material, labor, and construction costs. Facilities capable of treating 52, 208,
and 416 truckloads per year were found to cost approximately J$ 429,265, J$ 1,182,614, and
J$ 1,975,455, respectively. These cost calculations were preliminary, using costs for
materials such as blocks, cement, sand, gravel, stone, piping, and chlorinator, and liner,
backhoe excavation and cleanup, as well as construction costs for both the drying bed and the
pond. A design fee of 10% and contingency addition of 25% were also incorporated in the
estimated costs (see Appendix 4.3.2 for Calculation of Treatment Facility Cost).
In addition to the capital costs for system construction, annual maintenance costs were
included in the analysis. The annual maintenance costs incurred by the cesspool operator
interviewed in Clarendon Parish totaled approximately J$ 75,000 per year. In order to be
conservative this value was increased to J$ 100,000. Using the present-worth formula for
34
annual payments, the present-worth cost for each facility size (including the O&M costs) was
calculated (see Appendix 4.3.2 for present-worth calculations).
A quadratic relationship was calculated between present-worth cost of facilities and
volume treated as shown in Figure 4.1, using the three points (shown as squares) representing
the present-worth costs of the various sized treatment facilities discussed above. Using this
Quadratic equation, a linear relationship between cost (y) and the total volume of sludge
treated (x), Tj was calculated and included in the cost function, as shown above in Equation 5
(y=6851.8x).
While treatment facilities typically exhibit economies of scale, smaller wastewater systems
often miss economies of scale (Rocky Mountain Institute, 2004). In the case of this model,
cost calculations were preliminary and assumed a linear relationship between operation and
maintenance costs and facility size.
$3,000,000
y = 6851.8x
$2,500,000
347
Cost (J$)
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Facility Capacity (Truckloads)
Figure 4.1 Facility Capacity vs. Cost
35
350
400
450
500
The triangular point shown in Figure 4.1 represents the point at which the model goes from
assuming a higher unit cost per truckload treated (at facility sizes less than 347 truckloads) to
assuming a lower unit cost per truckload treated (at facility sizes greater than 347
truckloads).
Hauling Truck Cost

While no specific data were available for pump truck costs in Jamaica, data for used pump
trucks being sold in the United States was found. Large, used pump trucks (2,500 gallons)
are currently being sold for approximately J$3,600,000 (or US$60,000). Assuming a
smaller, 1,800 gallon truck would be purchased in Jamaica the cost of each truck was
assumed to be J$ 6,000,000 (or US$ 100,000). The present worth of purchasing one hauling
truck, Cht, was calculated for a 10-year lifespan at a discount rate of 8.5%, to be J$ 914,400
(source information, sample truck costs, and present worth calculation can be found in
Appendix 4.3.2).
4.3.3 Decision Model Structure: Constraints

Calculation of the total volume treated at each treatment site j, Tj, was included in the
constraints of the model, in order to include the cost of all facilities constructed. The total
volume treated at each treatment site j was set equal to the sum for all census areas i, of the
product of the binary variable Pij (1 if sludge is hauled from i to j, 0 if it is not) and Vi, the
volume of sludge originating from area i (truckloads).
308
T = ( Pij Vi )
j
i =1
36
(6)
To ensure that all waste is treated, the sum of the volumes originating from each census
area i, multiplied by the binary variable representing the transport of sludge from all census
areas i to treatment site j , must be greater than or equal to the volume of sludge being
produced in a given census area i, as follows:
12
( Pij Vi ) Vi
(7)
j=1
Where Pij is the binary variable (1 if sludge is hauled from i to j, 0 if it is not) and Vi is the
volume of Sludge originating from area i (truckloads).
There is an upper bound on the distance a hauling truck can travel in one year. This
constraint was based upon the assumption that hauling trucks would operate approximately 5
hours per day (not including time required for filling and emptying the hauling truck), 5 days
per week, and 52 weeks per year. Assuming these values, it was calculated that one hauling
truck can travel approximately 1,300 hours each year. The model was further constrained as
follows, in to ensure that an adequate number of hauling trucks, HT, were purchased:
12 308
HT ( ((.00149 d ij ) Pij Vi 2) / 1300)
(8)
j=1 i =1
where dij is the Idrisi weighted time value associated with traveling from census area i to
treatment site j calculated in hours, Pij is the binary variable (1 if sludge is hauled from i to j,
0 if it is not), Vi is the volume of Sludge originating from area i (truckloads), the scalar of 2 is
added as a truck must travel out and back to haul and treat one truckload, and the scalar 1,300
represents the maximum number of hours one truck can travel annually (hr/year) (see
37
Appendix 4.3.3 for calculation of the time one truck can travel annually). HT was allowed to
be a non-integer value, as it was assumed that if, for instance, only 1.3 trucks were needed,
haulers would find another marketable use for the remaining 0.7 truck hours.
4.3.4 Model Results- Scenario 2: Allowing for Construction at Various Sites

The second scenario attempts to manage the total volume of fecal sludge produced each
year in St. Elizabeth, allowing for construction of facilities at various sites. While within the
next two years it is likely that only one system will be built (Scenario 1), the goal embedded
in the second scenario is to provide the infrastructure to allow for the treatment of the entire
volume of sludge.
The second scenario attempts to determine the optimal location of treatment facilities if
the cost of land was not an issue (the twelve potential treatment sites are located on land
already owned by the parish government) and the number of treatment plants is a variable.
This allowed the model to determine whether one, large, centrally located facility should be
built, as opposed to several small facilities throughout the parish. The models objective was
to minimize the overall cost of treatment. The model determined that a treatment facility
should be built at each of the twelve sites, with capacities as shown in Table 4.1 below. The
total net cost was calculated to be J$5,853,055, purchasing 0.513 hauling trucks.
It is interesting to note that while the results of Scenario one suggest the construction of a
treatment facility at Site 3, as shown in Table 4.1, in Scenario 2, Site 3 would collect a
relatively small portion of the total fecal sludge volume. Additional results from Scenario 3
and the sensitivity analyses suggest the same; that while Site 3 results in the smallest total
38
hauling time requirements (in Scenario 1), it is not favored in the output of the other model
structure. This will be further addressed in the following sections.
The model could also be run to determine the unit-benefit value, S, resulting in a net cost
of zero. By adding the scalar variable S and running the model, varying the value of S, it
appears that the unit-benefit value of approximately J$ 7,600 results in a total net cost of
zero. While this value does not represent an exact calculation of the net-benefit value
required to break-even, the model might eventually be used to grossly calculate such a
value. Some citizens in Jamaica, mainly in the capital city of Kingston, already pay as much
as J$ 9,000 to have their systems emptied. It would, therefore, be of interest to planners that
the calculated break-even value for hauling fees falls within the range of current fees
charged island-wide.
Table 4.1 Scenario 2: Treatment of Total

Fecal Sludge Volume
Treatment Site
Truckloads
Treated Annually
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
145
38
98
61
11
65
101
140
114
60
61
141
Total Treated
1,035
4.3.5 Model Results- Scenario 3: People Affected vs. Cost
39
The model was also run using the constraint method of multiobjective optimization. The
first objective, as discussed in the previous two scenarios, was to minimize the net costs of
hauling and treatment. The second objective considered was to minimize the number of
people affected in the region of treatment facility construction. A tradeoff curve between net
cost and people affected was then developed by varying the acceptable number of people
negatively affected. The affected population at each treatment site (shown above in Table
3.4.1) was included in the GAMS model and the acceptable number of people was
constrained as follows:
12
N
j =1
a j 250 to 5000
(9)
Where Nj is the binary variable (1 if facility is built at j, 0 if it is not) and aj is the number of
people affected by construction of facility at j. The model was run while varying the
acceptable population affected between 250 to 5000 people.
The GAMS model layout for this scenario is in Appendix 4.3.5. As mentioned previously,
the potential number of people affected has little physical meaning with respect to the
population in the surrounding areas immediately outside the 1km radius. The tradeoff curve
illustrated in Figure 4.2 provides a first step in discussions surrounding facility construction.
When the number of people in the vicinity of the treatment sites is limited to either 250 or
500 people, the model suggests that the construction of one large facility at Treatment Site 8
(YS and Ipswich, in Maggotty, St. Elizabeth) would be optimum. Due to the location of this
site, hauling trucks would be required to service the entire parish and the net present-worth
cost would be approximately J$ M7.63 (or US$ M1.27).
40
Each of the model runs produces a unique cost and/or facility construction and, hence,
hauling management plan (as shown in Table 4.2). The cost of treatment plans ranges from
$J M6.15 to $J M7.63, from the purchase of .697 to 1.615 trucks. Treatment sites 7, 8, and 9
feature prominently in the model output, as a result of the relatively low population density
within a 1 km radius of those sites. For planners, it is interesting to note that while Site 3 was
determined to require the least total hauling time, it did feature in any of the model output
from this third scenario, constrained by the number of people affected.
Table 4.2 Scenario 3 Model Run Results

Population
Affected
250
500
1000
1500
2000
2300
2500
2600
3400
3600
4100
4600
COST (J$)
7636365
7636365
6508411
6508411
6508411
6307747
6307747
6307747
6196919
6196919
6196919
6149926
Trucks
1.615
1.615
0.918
0.918
0.918
0.794
0.794
0.794
0.726
0.726
0.726
0.697
Facility and Volume of Sludge to be

Treated
t8 1035
t8 1035
t7 622, t8 413
t7 625, t8 410
t7 622, t8 413
t7 581, t8 315, t9 139
t7 581, t8 315, t9 139
t7 581, t8 315, t9 139
t6 270, t7 338, t8 301, t9 126
t6 270, t7 338, t8 301, t9 126
t6 270, t7 338, t8 301, t9 126
t6 322, t8 314, t9 126, t11 273
41
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.2
Cost (J$)
7
6.8
6.6
6.4
6.2
6
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Number of People Affected
3500
4000
4500
5000
Figure 4.2 Tradeoff Between Cost and Number of People Affected
4.4 Analysis of Model Sensitivity to Treatment Site Costs

An attempt was then made to incorporate varying treatment site conditions in the model,
although detailed physical data on each potential site were not available. While the
prefeasibility analysis suggested that each of the twelve sites were suitable for facility
construction, as previously discussed in Section 3.2, there may be other factors that render
one site (or several) less expensive than others. Land slope, for instance, appeared as though
it would not pose a problem at any of the sites, but because of the gross scale of the GIS
elevation file used to calculate slope, it is still possible that significant fill or excavation is
needed to level the site for construction. Such leveling would be an additional cost to
construction at any site. Other physical site variables might include any demolition, soil-type
changes, and other site remediation necessary.
In addition to physical site variability, the model developed considered only land parcels
already owned by the parish council as potential treatment sites. In the event that land was
purchased in other regions of St. Elizabeth for treatment facility construction, cost might vary
depending on the type and location of the site.
42
In order to test the models sensitivity to cost variation among the twelve treatment sites (in
the absence of physical data), weights were added to the three preferable sites from the
Scenarios 2 and 3 (Sites 7, 8, and 9). Weights of 1.2, 1.5, and 2 were added to Sites 7, 8, and
9 respectively in order to test the models sensitivity to variable treatment site costs. The
cost increased from the second scenario (J$5,853,035) to J$6,135,491, .654 trucks. The
increase in cost at three preferable sites resulted in an increase in net cost of approximately
J$282,456, or 4.8% of the original overall cost. The resulting management plan did not
include any of the three of the preferable sites (7, 8, and 9); it suggested construction at all of
the remaining nine treatment sites.
IV. Analysis of Results and Conclusions
5.1 Other Management Options

A variety of assumptions were made in the course of model development as previously
mentioned. Assumptions were all a result of the surveying process, meetings in Jamaica and
throughout the integrated assessment. As a result, this model represents only one method of
structuring the sludge management process in the region. Other model structures, however,
might also be considered.
One such structure might be the so-called command-and-control system, in which it is
assumed that the government of Jamaica would require each household or business to empty
their systems regularly (once every 6-10 years). If this were the case, hauling and treatment
could be done sequentially in several regions of the parish. One system might be built in the
northeast, for instance, operated for one year and everyone within a certain distance of that
location would empty their systems during that time. The treatment facility could then be
43
moved to another region of the parish and the households and businesses in that area would
be required to have their systems emptied.
Additional variations in management plans might include the construction of a treatment
facility in another nearby parish with the provision of hauling services throughout the parish
of St. Elizabeth or the development of a hauling service dedicated solely to businesses in the
parish. These and other management plans were not considered feasible due to the nature of
current sludge management needs and practices in the region.
The goal of this model was to provide a service, and potentially a small business, so that
citizens and businesses in the region have a more reliable and structured option for fecal
sludge treatment.
5.2 Analysis of Results

While the results from each of the scenarios (summarized in Table 5.1) and the sensitivity
analysis provide a starting point for discussions of sludge management, they might best be
analyzed by considering what supplemental information would be necessary to enhance the
model and to address a wider array of management and planning questions.
Table 5.1 Model Results Summary
Scenario
1
2
3a
3b
Description
Construction of one Facility, minimizing
hauling time
Construction at Various Sites, without
consideration of population affected
Constrained to affect approximately 0.1% of
the population of St. Elizabeth
Constrained to affect approximately 3.1% of
the population of St. Elizabeth
Scenario 1: Optimal Location of One Treatment Facility

44
Total
Cost (J$)
7,029,401
5,853,055
7,636,365
6,149,926
The first scenario addressed the question of where to site a single treatment facility, with
the objective of minimizing the travel time from each of the three-hundred and eight census
areas to that site. Using limited GIS data (the roadways, population data, treatment site, and
water body files in Idrisi Kilimanjaro) a matrix of weighted, approximate traveling times was
developed. This matrix was used to calculate what the minimum annual hauling time would
be between the three-hundred and eight census areas and Site 3, Lacovia, Santa Cruz. This
method of calculating approximate travel time might be replicated for any region with data
on roadways and population distribution using Idrisi Kilimanjaro or any GIS program with a
similar Cost function. Idrisi Kilimanjaro software also provides the capability of mapping
the pathways from each of the census areas to the treatment sites. In the event a management
plan is established, such pathway data would be an asset to haulers and treatment facility
operators alike.
With the goal of minimizing the total hauling time requirements, the cost of the first
scenario was approximately J$ 7,029,401, including purchasing 1.24 hauling trucks. It is
interesting to note that while Site three minimizes the total hauling distance, the cost of
hauling only to that site is higher than most of the other scenarios and Site three is not a large
part of the results of any of the other scenarios.
This first scenario provides a starting point for discussions surrounding fecal sludge
management in the region; If only one site were to be built in the region and sludge was
hauled from throughout the parish, which site would minimize hauling time? From a
planning perspective, however, it appears that other costs and benefits must also be
associated with the treatment of fecal sludge. The second scenario, therefore, was aimed at
incorporating all costs and allowing for the construction of facilities at various sites.
45
Scenario 2: Allowing for Construction at Various Sites

In the second scenario hauling, hauling truck, operator salary, treatment facility capital,
operation, and maintenance costs were all added to the model. The potential benefits of
hauling fees and biosolid sales were also included in order to calculate the net costs. The
model output suggested the construction of a facility at each site and a hauling plan for
sludge from each of the three-hundred and eight census areas.
As previously mentioned in Section 4.3.2, economies of scale were not incorporated in
the model. While this is often the case with small-scale wastewater projects, the model
might be improved with their incorporation. More detailed and reliable cost, operation, and
maintenance values would provide a better sense of economies of scale. This, in turn, would
provide a better understanding of the nature of the capital costs of treatment relative to the
other costs and benefits associated with sludge management.
Scenario 3: People Affected vs. Cost

While the model provides a first step in the development of a tradeoff curve between the
number of people negatively affected and the cost of management, sound and detailed
information about the immediate surroundings of each of the treatment sites is lacking.
Before including any site in the model, significant time should be devoted to gaining a
thorough understanding of each one. As with many models that seek to quantify the social
costs and benefits of engineering and planning decisions, it would be impossible to determine
the cost of affecting each citizen of St. Elizabeth. It is therefore important, that planners
46
collaborate with community members surrounding potential treatment sites, and engage in a
discussion of the potential detrimental affects of fecal sludge treatment facilities.
Analysis of Model Sensitivity to Treatment Site Costs

Variations in treatment site costs should also be incorporated in the model, as discussed
above in Section 4.4.2. The consideration of other potential treatment sites might also be
incorporated. This land might already be owned by the parish or the cost of land can readily
be incorporated in the model. Depending on the degree of variation, the relationship between
the marginal costs of treatment and those of hauling truck purchase will vary, changing the
nature of the model and its results. If variations in construction and site-specific costs are
found to be significant, they can be readily incorporated in the model structure.
5.3 Recommendations and Conclusions

Due to the size of the parish of St. Elizabeth, lack of detailed plot-level treatment site
information, absence of economies of scale, and uncertainty surrounding the biosolids
market, among other components, additional information is required. Application of this
model will, therefore, require the collaboration of local businesses, citizens of St. Elizabeth,
the Ministry of Health, the Parish Development Committee, and other groups and individuals
dedicated to providing the services associated with sludge management.
In addition to collaboration among the parties involved, in future analyses of island-wide
fecal sludge management in Jamaica, spent Bauxite mines should also be considered
potential sites for treatment facility location. Land reclamation should be added to the
objective function as a potential benefit.
47
Development of the model and analysis of model results provided insight into the value
of a systematic approach to the problem of fecal sludge management, as well as the problems
one might face in using this model for planning purposes. In particular, the scale of the
model and a lack of detailed site data were the most significant drawbacks to the model.
The model developed herein may better serve a larger region. In the case of the St.
Elizabeth region, up to two trucks would be required to serve the entire population. A larger
region would require more trucks and, in turn, a more rigorous calculation of travel time and
routing for sludge hauling. The size of the region allowed for the calculation of relative
traveling times among the treatment sites and the census areas. If the model were to be used
in a larger region, however, more detailed travel time information and routing data would be
required. Thorough collaboration with haulers and treatment facility owners would be
required to better develop the routing model for a larger area. A larger model would benefit
from a more robust calculation of truck scheduling and routing.
In addition to model scale, development of the model suggested that this type of systematic
approach to sludge management would require more reliable and detailed treatment site data
and more comprehensive construction costs, in order to distinguish potential treatment sites
from each other. The variable nature of the potential treatment sites should, therefore, be
incorporated in the objective function.
Future analysis should include more detailed cost calculations and potentially the
incorporation of non-linear cost functions in the model. While this might not be possible
with the software chosen herein, because facility construction represents a significant portion
of the resulting net cost, a change in the cost function might result in a large change in the
objective function and should be addressed.
48
It is our hope that through discussions with, and input from, all parties, the model might
prove to be a springboard for collaboration and the basis for discussions surrounding
tradeoffs, potential treatment sites, money-flow options, capital treatment costs, and other
model components. Further study of the region and collaboration with the afore-mentioned
groups and individuals might provide the information necessary to render the model a
working tool. In other instances and regions, where all the necessary data are readily
available, the model could easily be suited accordingly.
This research appears to be the first to take a systematic approach to fecal sludge treatment.
While fecal sludge management has historically been studied and addressed as a localized
problem, there are benefits to taking a systems approach, particularly in instances such as
this, where government agencies are focused on developing guidelines and policies for
management. As arguable as the assumptions and numbers herein might be, systems models,
like this one, immediately provide structure to the discussion.
49
APPENDICES
50
Appendix 2.3 Fecal Sludge Tests, 2004

Fecal Sludge Tests for TSS, Jamaica*
Date Tested
Sample Sources
TSS (mg/l)
13-Aug-04
Vault at Security Company, Montego Bay
5,550
26-Aug-04
Cesspool at Hotel, Rose Hall
25,350
26-Aug-04
Vault in Montego Bay
1,230
6-Sep-04
Septic Pit in Montego Bay
1,520
28-Sep-04
27-Oct-04
Unknown Source in St. Elizabeth

Pit at Trelawny
12,150
458
27-Oct-04
Pit at Hanover
228
* All samples were tested at the sewage treatment plant located on Bevin Avenue.
Each sample was caught during the first, middle, and last portion of the truck
unloading process in an attempt to represent the entire truckload
51
Appendix 2.3 Drying Bed and Facultative Pond Design Calculations

Table 2.2 Calculation of Maximum Drying Bed Size
Assumed
Volume of
Volume of
TSS of
Septage
Septage
septage
(gal/Truckload) (L/Truckload) (mg/L)
1800
6804
20000
TS
(kg)
136
Truckloads/year
1035
Unit Conversions
1 square meter = 0.0002471 acre
1 gallon [US, liquid] = 3.7854118 liter
L
VolumeperTruckload := 6804
truckload
NoTruckloadsperYear := 1035
AssumedTSS := 20000
truckloads
mg
L
TotalSolidsperTruckload := AssumedTSS
VolumeperTruckload
1000000
TotalSolidsperTruckload = 136.08 kgTS

kgTS
DryingBedLoadingRate := 150
m
DryingBedArea :=
TotalSolidsperTruckload NoTruckloadsperYear
DryingBedArea = 938.952
DryingBedLoadingRate
2
DryingBedAreaAcres := DryingBedArea .0002471

DryingBedAreaAcres = 0.232
TotalArea := DryingBedAreaAcres ( 1.50)
TotalArea = 0.348
52
Drying
Bed
Area
(m2 /
acres)
938 / .23
Drying
bed
loading
rate
(kgTS/m2
yr)
150
Appendix 4.3.2 Calculation of Treatment Facility Cost

Appendix
3.1 Parish-Owned
Land Parcels
Drying
Beds (Example
for 52 truckloads/year,
50.4 sqm)
Item
TOTAL FACILITY COST: $429,265
Qty
Units
500
50
11
20
26
EA
Bags
CY
CY
CY
EA
EA
EA
EA
Material
Blocks
Cement
Sand
Gravel
Stone
Rebar
4-in PVC pipe
4-in PVC tee
4-in PVC elbow
20
15
5
Cost/unit
J$
38
380
1,100
750
500
Cost
J$
19,000
19,000
12,100
15,000
13,000
640
230
200
12,800
3,450
1,000
$95,350
Excavation
Backhoe
Cleanup
12
1
hr
day
2,000
1,200
24,000
1,200
$25,200
Labor
Construction
118,600
Subtotal
Contingency
25%
Design Fee
10%
TOTAL DRYING BEDS
Pond
Item
Material
Liner
Liner Import and shipping
Chlorinator
Sand
Qty
Units
602
1
1
2
ft2
EA
EA
CY
Cost/unit
J$
25
14,812
5000
1100
$118,600
$239,150
$59,788
$23,915
$322,853 J
$5,381 US
Cost
J$
$14,812
$14,812
$5,000
$2,200
36824.436
Excavation
Backhoe
Cleanup
5
2
hr
day
2000
1200
$10,000
$2,400
$12,400
Labor
Construction
29600
Subtotal
Contingency
0.25
Design Fee
0.1
TOTAL POND
53
$29,600
$78,824
$19,706
$7,882
$106,413 J
$1,774 US
Appendix 3.4 Calculation of Travel Time, Sample Calculations

1000 by 1000 cells Grid Cells
42.6 km by 45.4 km Distance
Approximately .045 km per grid cell
Example Calculatoin of Corresponding Distance from Idrisi Cost Function:
AverageSpeedonRoad := 30
hr
km
CellSize:= .045
Cellsperhour :=
km
cell
AverageSpeedonRoad
CellSize
Cellsperhour = 666.667
pixels
hr
Samplecost := 150
TimeCost :=
Samplecost
Cellsperhour
TimeCost = 0.225
hr
54
Appendix 3.4 Travel Time Matrix (hours)
Community
SW 23
SW 22
SW 20
SW 21
SW 16
SW 18
SW 19
SW 12
SW 10
SW 9
SW 14
SW 11
SW 13
SW 17
SW 24
SW 28
SW 15
SW 29
SW 30
SW 25
SW 26
Time to
T1
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.6
1.2
1.2
Time to
T2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.6
1.2
1.2
Time to
T3
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.6
1.1
1.2
Time to
T4
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.8
1.7
1.9
2.0
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.7
2.1
1.6
1.7
Time to
T5
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.7
1.9
1.8
1.9
2.0
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.7
2.2
1.7
1.7
Time to
T6
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.1
1.6
1.1
1.1
55
Time to
T7
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.2
0.9
0.9
1.1
0.9
1.3
0.9
0.9
Time to
T8
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.1
0.6
0.6
Time to
T9
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.9
2.0
2.2
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.7
2.0
1.9
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.3
1.8
1.8
Time to
T10
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.1
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.4
0.9
0.9
Time to
T11
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.1
1.6
1.1
1.2
Time to
T12
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.1
0.1
Appendix 3.5 Public Buildings Map
Appendix 3.5 cont. Calculation of Affected Population

PopDensity := 347
people
2
km
NoPublicBuildings := 3
AffectedPop := PopDensity [ 1 + .25 ( NoPublicBuildings) ] 3.14

3
AffectedPop = 1.907 10
The affected population in the 3.14 km surrounding treatment site 1 was calculated to be approximately
1,907 people.
57
Appendix 3.6 Emptying Charges in Other Areas of Jamaica
Septic Tank Emptying Charges in

Other Regions of Jamaica
Location
Cost (J$)*
Kingston
1500-2000
Mandeville
7000
Maypen
2800
Montego Bay
6500
Ocho Rios
9000
Spanish Town
4000
*Costs are estimates. Actual cost will

vary depending on location
(VanHoven, 2004)
58
Appendix 4.3 Symbols Used in the Model

___________________________________________________________________________
Uh = Unit cost of transporting one truckload 1km ($J/truckload/hr) includes gas and wear
and tear
dij = Idrisi cost value associated with traveling from census area i to treatment site j
calculated in hours
Pij = Binary variable (1 if sludge is hauled from i to j, 0 if it is not)
Nj = Binary variable (1 if treatment facility is constructed at site j, 0 if it is not)
Vi = Volume of Sludge originating from area i (truckloads)
Tj = Volume of Sludge treated at Site j (truckloads)
HT = Number of hauling trucks purchased
Cht = Cost of one hauling truck (10-year life assumed) ($J)
aj = Number of people affected by construction of facility at j
S =
Unit-benefit from biosolid sales and hauling fees (J$/truckload)
59
Appendix 4.3.2 Pricing/Cost Sources

Fuel Efficiency of Trucks
Source: http://www.informinc.org/pr_ggt.php
2.8 miles per gallon, 12-14 year lifespan

Source: http://driversmag.com/ar/fleet_equipment_trends_specing/
The average garbage truck travels 25,000 miles and uses about 8,600 gallons of fuel a year,
getting under 3 mpg.
Assume 3mpg and the gas price of J$.35 per liter
Appendix 4.3.2 Cost of Hauling Truck

Source: http://www.pumper.com/TruckStop.html
Sample used pump truck prices and information:

2002 Sterling Acterra: 33 GVW, Cat 230 hp., 7-spd., 78K miles, FM, CD, A/C, air brakes,
Lely 2500 gal. aluminum tank, Masport H75W pump, 4" in, 6" out. $59,950.
1995 Camel/Ford: 10-yard, 1,000 gallons, new 65 gpm pump, Roots 624. Excellent
condition. Ready to work. $60,000.
The final cost of the hauling truck (including hauler salary) was assumed to be J$ 6,000,000.
60
Appendix 4.3.2 cont. Calculation of Fuel Efficiency / Cost of Travel Time

1 gallon [US, liquid] = 3.7854118 liter
1 mile = 1.609344 kilometer
Assume 3 miles per gallon and J$35 per liter, for depreciation, the cost/km was rounded to J$50
Jamaicandollars
FuelCost := 50
Efficiency :=
liter
3 1.6093
3.785
Efficiency = 1.276
km
liter
km
AvgSlowSpeed := 20
FuelConsumption :=
hour
AvgSlowSpeed
Efficiency
FuelConsumption = 15.68
liters
hour
Costperhour := FuelConsumption FuelCost

Costperhour = 783.985
Jamaicandollars
hour
61
Appendix 4.3.2 cont. Present-worth Calculations of Annualized truck cost:

P1 := 6000000
n := 10
i := .085
A 1 := P1
i ( 1 + i) n
( 1 + i) n 1
5
A 1 = 9.144 10
A 1 := 914400
The annualized cost of a M J$ 6 hauling truck is approximately J$ 914,400.
62
Appendix 4.3.2 Calculation of Facility Cost

Drying Beds (Example for 52 truckloads/year, 50.4 sqm)
Item
TOTAL FACILITY COST: $429,265
Qty
Units
500
50
11
20
26
EA
Bags
CY
CY
CY
EA
EA
EA
EA
Material
Blocks
Cement
Sand
Gravel
Stone
Rebar
4-in PVC pipe
4-in PVC tee
4-in PVC elbow
20
15
5
Cost/unit
J$
38
380
1,100
750
500
Cost
J$
19,000
19,000
12,100
15,000
13,000
640
230
200
12,800
3,450
1,000
$95,350
Excavation
Backhoe
Cleanup
12
1
hr
day
2,000
1,200
24,000
1,200
$25,200
Labor
Construction
118,600
$118,600
Subtotal
$239,150
Contingency
25%
$59,788
Design Fee
10%
$23,915
TOTAL DRYING BEDS $322,853 J
$5,381 US
Pond
Item
Material
Liner
Liner Import and shipping
Chlorinator
Sand
Qty
Units
602
1
1
2
ft2
EA
EA
CY
Cost/unit
J$
25
14,812
5000
1100
Cost
J$
$14,812
$14,812
$5,000
$2,200
36824.436
Excavation
Backhoe
Cleanup
5
2
hr
day
2000
1200
$10,000
$2,400
$12,400
Labor
Construction
29600
$29,600
Subtotal
$78,824
0.25
$19,706
Contingency
Design Fee
0.1
$7,882
TOTAL POND $106,413 J
$1,774 US
63
Appendix 4.3.2 cont. Total Cost for Three Facility Sizes (Calculated as shown above)
64
Appendix 4.3.2 cont. Present-Worth Calculations

The sludge drying bed life was assumed to be approximately 10 years , conservatively. The first
cost (of construction) occurs at time 0 and varies according to the system's capacity (number of
truckloads per year). Additional costs included annual operation and maintenance costs,
projected based upon costs incured by exiting operator in Claredon (assumed J$ 100,000). O&M
costs were assumed to be approximately the same, regardless of the system's capacity .
52 truckloads per year
C := 429265
A 1 := 100000
n := 10
i := .085
Pf := A 1
( 1 + i) n 1
+C
i ( 1 + i) n
The present worth of the project with a ten year lifespan was
calculated to be $JA 1,085,000 .
Pf = 1.085 10
C := 1182614
i := 0.085
A 1 := 100000
n := 10
P := A 1
( 1 + i) n 1
i ( 1 + i) n
5
P = 6.561 10
Pf := P + ( C)
Pf = 1.839 10
65
Appendix 4.3.2 Present-Worth Calculations cont.

C := 1975455
i := 0.085
A 1 := 100000
n := 10
P := A 1
( 1 + i) n 1
i ( 1 + i) n
5
P = 6.561 10
Pf := P + ( C)
6
Pf = 2.632 10
Appendix 4.3.2 Linear Cost Relationship

$3,000,000
y = 6851.8x
$2,500,000
347
Cost (J$)
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Facility Capacity (Truckloads)
Cost Relationship
Quadratic Equation: Cost = 187937 x (Truckloads)0.434

Linear Equation: Cost = 6852 x (Truckloads)
66
450
500
Appendix 4.3.4 GAMS Multiobjective Model Scenario 2
All sets, including census areas (set i) and treatment sites (set j) are listed above this point
(they were omitted from this section for space purposes)
All data, including V(i), volume of sludge produced in each census area, a(j), population
affected at each treatment site, and d(i,j), time between census areas I and treatment sites j
are listed above this point (they were omitted from this section for space purposes)
---------------------------------------------------------------------Variables
Z
Total Cost Objective Function in dollars
N(j) Indicator Variable
P(i,j) Build Facility at j
T(j) Calculate Volume Treated at j
HT
Calculate the Number of trucks needed;
Binary Variable P;
Binary Variable N;
Integer Variable HT;
Equation
CalcTrucks
CalcT(j)
Defobj
TreatAll(i)
DefineN(i,j)
PeopleAff(i)
CalcTrucks..
CalcT(j)..
Defobj..
TreatAll(i)..
DefineN(i,j)..
'Calulate the number of trucks needed'

'Calculate volume treated at j'
'Define Objective Function'
'Constrain that at least one of the binary variables coming from each
census area is 1'
'Define Parameter for Site 1'
'Constrain the number of people affected by the facility';
HT=g=((sum(j,(sum(i,((.00149*d(i,j))*V(i)*P(i,j)*2)))))/1300);
T(j)=e=sum(i,(P(i,j)*V(i)));
Z =e=
(1084*((sum(j,(sum(i,(((.00149*d(i,j)))*(V(i))*(P(i,j)))))))))+(sum(j,(6
852*T(j)))+(HT*914400)-(2000*(sum(j,T(j))));
sum(j,(P(i,j)*V(i)))=g=V(i);
P(i,j)=l=N(j);
Model FSManagement /all/;

Solve FSManagement using mip minimizing Z;
67
Appendix 4.3.5 Multiobjective Model (Scenario 3)
All sets, including census areas (set i) and treatment sites (set j) are listed above this point
(they were omitted from this section for space purposes)
All data, including V(i), volume of sludge produced in each census area, a(j), population
affected at each treatment site, and d(i,j), time between census areas I and treatment sites j
are listed above this point (they were omitted from this section for space purposes)
---------------------------------------------------------------------Variables
Z
N(j)
P(i,j)
T(j)
HT
Total Cost Objective Function in dollars

Indicator Variable
Build Facility at j
Calculate Volume Treated at j
Calculate the Number of trucks needed;
Binary Variable P;
Binary Variable N;
Integer Variable HT;
Equation
CalcTrucks
CalcT(j)
Defobj
TreatAll(i)
DefineN(i,j)
PeopleAff(i)
CalcTrucks..
CalcT(j)..
Defobj..
TreatAll(i)..
DefineN(i,j)..
PeopleAff(i)..
'Calulate the number of trucks needed'

'Calculate volume treated at j'
'Define Objective Function'
'Constrain that at least one of the binary variables coming from each
census area is 1'
'Define Parameter for Site 1'
'Constrain the number of people affected by the facility';
HT=g=((sum(j,(sum(i,((.00149*d(i,j))*V(i)*P(i,j)*2)))))/1300);
T(j)=e=sum(i,(P(i,j)*V(i)));
Z =e=
(1084*((sum(j,(sum(i,(((.00149*d(i,j)))*(V(i))*(P(i,j(sum(j,(6852*T(j)
))+(HT*914400)-(2000*(sum(j,T(j))));
sum(j,(P(i,j)*V(i)))=g=V(i);
P(i,j)=l=N(j);
sum(j,N(j)*a(j))=l=5000;
Model FSManagement /all/;

Solve FSManagement using mip minimizing Z;
68
REFERENCES
Brill, Jr., E. Downey, Chang, S., and Hopkins, L. D. (1982). "Modeling to Generate
Alternatives: The HSJ Approach and an Illustration Using a Problem in Land Use
Planning." Management Science, 28(3), 221-235.
Brown, Delroy. (2004) Personal Contact, Black River, St. Elizabeth, July/August 2004.
Brown, Julia. (2003) Wastewater Treatment: The Experiences of the Scientific Research
Council in Jamaica. Kingston, Jamaica. October 23, 2003.
Campbell, Erol. (2004) Personal Contact, Clarendon, Jamaica.
Carr, Richard. (2001). Excreta-related infections and the role of sanitation in the control of
transmission, World Health Organization (WHO). Water Quality: Guidelines,
Standards and Health. Edited by Lorna Fewtrell and Jamie Bartram. Published by IWA
Publishing, London, UK. Chapter 5.
Center for Water Resources Studies (CWRS), Dalhousie University. Septage Management
and Treatment Final Report: Domestic Septage Management Review, 1999.
Chmielewski, Richard, P.E. and Peace Corps Volunteer, Ministry of Health/Jamaica, March
23, 2005 Email.
Crohn, D. M., and Thomas, A. C. (1998). "Mixed-Integer Programming Approach For
Designing Land Application Systems At A Regional Scale." Journal of Environmental
Engineering, 124(2), 170-176.
Ellis, K. V., and Tang, S. L. (1991). "Wastewater Treatment Optimization Model For
Developing World I: Model Development." Journal of Environmental Engineering,
117(4), 501-518.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2004). FAOSTAT on-line
statistical service. Available on-line at http://apps.fao.org.
Gaber, A., Antill, M., Kimball, W., and and Wahab, R. Abdel. (1993). "Planning Replicable
Small Flow Wastewater Treatment Facilities in Developing Nations." Wat.Sci.TEch.,
28(10), 1-8.
GAMS IDE Software, GAMS 2000, GAMS Development Corporation, Washington, D.C.
Heinss, U., Larmie, S. A., and Strauss, M. (1998). "Solids separation and pond systems for
the treatment of fecal sludges in the tropics." Rep. No. SANDEC report 5/98, EAWAG,
Switzerland, http://www.eawag.ch/publications_e/e_index.html (February 5, 2005).
Heinss, U., and Strauss, M. (1999). "Co-Treatment of Fecal Sludge and Wastewater in
Tropical Climates." EAWAG, SANDEC Publications,
http://www.eawag.ch/publications_e/e_index.html (February 5, 2005).
Idrisi Kilimangaro, Clark Labs, Worchester, MA.
Jeppsson, U., and Hellstrom, D. (2002). "Systems analysis for environmental assessment of
urban water and wastewater systems." Water Science and Technology, 46(6-7), 121129.
Jimemez, B., Barrios, J. A., Mendez, J. M., and Diaz, J. (2004). "Sustainable sludge
management in developing countries." Water Science and Technology, 49(10), 251258.
Klingel, F., Montangero, A., and Strauss, M. (2001). "Nam Dinh-Planning for Improved
Fecal Sludge Management and Treatment Presented at the Vietnam Water and
Sanitation Association's yearly conference, Hanoi.".
69
Koottatep, T., Oanh, N. T. K., and Polprasert, C. (1999). "Preliminary Guidelines for Design
and Operation of Constructed Wetlands Treating Septage Presented at the International
Seminar on Constructed Wetlands: A Promising Technology for Septage Management
and Treatment, Bankok, Thailand." EAWAG, SANDEC.
Lauria, D. T. (1979). "Desk Calculator Model for Wastewater Planning." Journal of the
Environmental Engineering Division, 105(1), 113-120.
Leighton, J. P., and Shoemaker, C. A. (1984). "An Integer Programming Analysis of the
Regionalization of Large Wastewater Treatment and Collection Systems." Water
Resources Research, 20(6), 671-681.
Lyew-Ayee, Parris. Mona Informatix, Kingston, Jamaica.
Mandl, C. E. (1981). "A Survey of Mathematical Optimization Models and Algorithms for
Designing and Extending Irrigation and Wastewater Networks." Water Resources
Research, 17(4), 769-775.
McConagha, D. L., and Converse, A. O. (1973). "Design and cost allocation algorithm for
waste treatment systems." Journal WPCF, 45(12), 2558-2566.
Montangero, A., and Strauss, M. (2002). "Fecal Sludge Treatment." Swiss Federal Institute
for Environmental Science (EAWAG), SANDEC.
Pan America Health Organization (PAHO) and the World Health Organization (WHO),
Technical Report Series No.7: Disparities in Access, Use and Expenditure in Drinking
Water in Latin America and the Caribbean, Jamaica, 2001.
Parkinson, J., and Tayler, K. (2003). "Decentralized wastewater management in peri-urban
areas in low-income countries." Environment & Urbanization, 15(1), 75.
Phillips, K. J., Beltrami, E. J., Carroll, T. O., and Kellogg, S. R. (1982). "Optimization of
area-wide wastewater management." Journal WPCF, 54(1), 87-93.
Rock Mountain Institute, (2004). Valuing Decentralized Wastewater Technologies: A
Catalog of Benefits, Costs, and Economic Analysis Techniques.
Steriner, M., Montangero, A., Kone, D., and Strauss, M. (2003). "Towards More Sustainable
Fecal Sludge Management Through Innovative Financing Selected Money Flow
Options." Swiss Federal Institute for Environmental Science and Technology
(EAWAG), Department of Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries (SANDEC).
Stewart, Ed, Us. Peace Corps. Memo to Mark Barnett, National Water Commission of
Jamaica (NWC), Subject: Septage Solids, November 6, 2004.
Strauss, M., Larmie, S. A., and Heinss, U. (1997). Treatment of Sludges From On-Site
Sanitation- Low Cost Options. Wat.Sci.Tech., 35(6), 129-136.
Tang, S. L., and Ellis, K. V. (1994). Wastewater Treatment Optimization Model for
Developing World. II: Model Testing. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 120(3),
610-624.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Decentralized Systems
Technology Fact Sheet, Septage Treatment/Disposal. Document EPA 932-F-99-068.
Office of Water, Washington D.C., September, 1999.
VanHoven, D. (2004). Septage in Jamaica: An Assessment of the Situation and an
Evaluation of Treatment Alternatives, Report for the Ministry of Health.
70
Van Ryneveld, M. B., and Fourie, A. B. (1997). "A strategy for evaluating the environmental
impact of on-site sanitation systems." Water SA, 23(4), 279-291.
Vesilind, P.A. (2000). Sludge Disposal: Ethics and Expediency. Water Science and
Technology. 42(9), 1-6.
Whitlatch, E. E. (1978). "Heuristic Algorithm for Wastewater Planning." Journal of the
Environmental Engineering Division, 104(5), 1051.
World Resources Institute Website: www.wri.org.
Yang, J., Jaillet, P., and Mahmassani, H. (2004). Real-time multi-vehicle truckload pickup
and delivery problems. Transportation Science, 38(2).
(http://www.jis.gove.jm/development/html/20040519T1900000500_2645_JIS_BAUXITE_COMPANIES_URGED_TO_IMPROVE_LAND_RECLAMA
TION_EXERCISE.asp)
71

Regional Siting of Fecal Sludge Treatment Facilities - St. Elizabeth, Jamaica PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Regional Siting of Fecal Sludge Treatment Facilities - St. Elizabeth, Jamaica PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

REGIONAL SITING OF FECAL SLUDGE TREATMENT FACILITIES:

ST. ELIZABETH, JAMAICA

Ana Martha Fernandes

In partial fulfillment of the requirements

ADVISERS: Dr. Paul Kirshen and Dr. Richard Vogel

REGIONAL SITING OF FECAL SLUDGE TREATMENT FACILITIES:

decision model of FS treatment was developed which incorporated treatment alternatives to

There is no one I would rather spend a swampy Caribbean

2. Integrated Assessment of Fecal Sludge Management Options

3. Spatial Analysis for Determination of Parameters

4. Decision Model Formulation

5. Analysis of Results and Conclusions

REGIONAL SITING OF FECAL SLUDGE TREATMENT FACILITIES:

Figure 1. St. Elizabeth, Jamaica

1.2 Background: St. Elizabeth, Jamaica

performance of tank, additional components of FS including grease, kitchen/solid waste, and

Lime or other alkaline

Very simple; minimal

Increases mass of solids

Septage is aerated for 15d

Septage is retained for 15d

Generates methane gas,

Liquid Septage or septage

High power costs to

1.4 Literature Review on Mathematical Programming and Fecal Sludge

A literature review, therefore, was focused in the area of mathematical

2. Integrated Assessment of FS Treatment Options

2.2 Construction of Regional Wastewater Treatment Plants

2.3 Construction of Fecal Sludge Treatment Facilities

Figure 2.1 General Treatment Facility Design

2.5 Land Application and Biosolids Reuse

3. Spatial Analysis for Determination of Parameters

3.2. Site Prefeasibility

3.3 Population Data

Figure 3.1 Feasible Treatment Facility Locations

3.4 Calculation of Travel Time

Figure 3.2 Example Census Area Points

Figure 3.3 Sample Cost File

For each of the treatment sites, it was assumed that construction

Figure 3.4 Radius of Influence Example

3.6 Survey of Households and Guesthouses in St. Elizabeth

4. Decision Model Formulation

system would function like others in similar regions of Jamaica.

Figure 3.5 Flow of Costs and Benefits

4.2 The Principle of Expediency

That this infection reaches a human host;

That this host becomes infected; and

That this infection causes disease or further transmission. (Strauss, 2003)

4.3 Model Scenarios

4.3.1 Scenario 1: Optimal Location of a Single Treatment Facility

4.3.2 Overall Model Structure: Objective Function

where C = costs = Present Value [Hauling Costs + Construction/Operation and

B = benefits = Present Value [Service Fees Levied + Biosolids Profit]

Facility Construction and O&M Costs

Facility Capacity (Truckloads)

Figure 4.1 Facility Capacity vs. Cost

Hauling Truck Cost

4.3.3 Decision Model Structure: Constraints

HT ( ((.00149 d ij ) Pij Vi 2) / 1300)

4.3.4 Model Results- Scenario 2: Allowing for Construction at Various Sites

Table 4.1 Scenario 2: Treatment of Total

4.3.5 Model Results- Scenario 3: People Affected vs. Cost

Table 4.2 Scenario 3 Model Run Results