Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
JERASH WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FEASIBILITY
STUDY REPORT - FINAL
VOLUME I
Water/Wastewater
Infrastructure Project
September 2011
This Publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International
Development. It was prepared by CDM International Inc.
Prepared by: J.M Harwood, M. Sutari, G. Roy, C. Lancaster Date: May 2011
Disclaimer
The author's views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United
States Agency for International Development or the United States Government
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume I
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... VI
1.2.1 East Jerash Wastewater Treatment Plant and Tributary Sewer Network ... 3
1.2.2 West Jerash Wastewater Collection and Treatment Plant and Tributary Sewer
Network................................................................................................................ 3
1.2.3 Proposed Wastewater Networks ................................................................. 3
1.2.4 Mukhayyam Gaza Proposed Sewerage ....................................................... 4
1.3 FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR JERASH WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND COLLECTION 4
6.3.1 Expansion of West WWTP for Flow Transfers from East Jerash Under Alternatives
1 & 2 ................................................................................................................... 69
6.3.2 Expansion of West Jerash WWTP to Meet Projected West Catchment Flows and
Loads Under Alternatives 3 and 4 ...................................................................... 71
6.4 EAST WWTP ALTERNATIVE 1 – DECOMMISSIONING EXISTING EAST JERASH WWTP 77
MEMORANDUM ......................................................................................................... 98
Volume II
APPENDIX C - FINANCIAL ANALYSIS BACKUP DETAILS ............................................... C-1
Figure 3-1 Existing Process Flow Diagram for East Jerash WWTP ....................................15
Figure 3-4 Ekama Design and Operating Chart with Capacity of East Jerash Clarifiers ....28
Figure 3-5 Process Flow Diagram for West Jerash WWTP ................................................ 33
Figure 6-1 Cost Curve for New Activated Sludge WWTP ................................................... 67
Figure 6-2 Schematic of New Oxidation Ditch near West WWTP .....................................70
Figure 6-3 Schematic of New Primary Clarifiers with Existing West WWTP .....................72
Table 2-4 Historical Flows and Loads for East Jerash Catchment ......................................9
Table 2-8 Projected Flows and Loads for East Jerash Catchment in 2035 .......................12
Table 2-9 Projected Flows and Loads for West Jerash Catchment in 2035 ......................13
Table 3-5 WWTP Water Quality (mg/L) versus 1995 Expansion Limits ...........................29
Table 3-6 Historical Flow and Loading versus 1995 Expansion Design Criteria ...............29
Table 3-7 East Jerash WWTP - Assessment of Average Process Design Criteria ..............30
Table 3-8 East Jerash WWTP - Assessment of Maximum Month Process Design Criteria
......................................................................................................................... 30
Table 3-10 West Jerash WWTP - Assessment of Average Process Design Criteria ............34
Table 3-11 West Jerash WWTP - Assessment of Maximum-Month Process Design Criteria
......................................................................................................................... 35
Table 4-1 Current Effluent Standards for East Jerash WWTP ..........................................36
Table 4-2 Effluent Standards for Design of West Jerash WWTP Improvements ..............36
1
Table 4-3 Characteristics of Effluent to be Used for Irrigation of Crops (Category 3) ....37
Table 4-4 Allowable Limits for the Characteristics of Effluent for Wadi Disposal, Aquifer
Recharge & Irrigation ...................................................................................... 38
Table 4-5 Maximum Concentrations Allowed in Sludge .................................................. 40
Table 4-6 Annual Application Rates and Maximum Accumulation Limits in Soil .............41
Table 5-4 Matrix Assessment for Recommending East Jerash WWTP Technology..........52
Table 6-1 Combined East and West Jerash Average Wastewater Flow and Load
Projections ....................................................................................................... 66
Table 6-4 Future West Jerash WWTP Process Design Criteria (West Catchment Flows and
Loads) .............................................................................................................. 69
Table 6-5 Operating Parameters and Design Criteria – New Oxidation Ditch WWTPs ....70
Table 6-6 Effluent Water Quality – Oxidation Ditch Expansion .......................................71
Table 6-7 Capital Cost Estimate Summary for new West WWTP Alternative 1 for Flow
Transfers .......................................................................................................... 71
Table 6-8 Operating Parameter and Design Criteria - New Primary Clarifiers with
Oxidation Ditch ................................................................................................ 73
Table 6-9 Effluent Water Quality - New Primary Clarifiers with Oxidation Ditch ............73
Table 6-11 Operating Parameters and Design Criteria - Oxidation Ditch Expansion .........74
Table 6-14 Operating Parameters and Design Criteria - Modified Process Operations .....76
Table 6-17 Capital Cost Estimate Summary for West WWTP Expansion Options ..............77
Table 6-19 Operation Parameters and Design Criteria - Upgraded East Jerash WWTP ....79
Table 6-20 Effluent Water Quality – Upgraded Existing East Jerash WWTP .....................80
Table 6-22 Operation Parameters and Design Criteria – New Oxidation Ditch Expansion 84
Table 6-23 Blended Effluent Water Quality - Upgrade with Oxidation Ditch Expansion ...84
Table 6-25 Operating Conditions and Design Criteria - Replacement with Oxidation Ditch
......................................................................................................................... 88
Table 6-26 Effluent Water Quality - Replacement with Oxidation Ditch ...........................88
Table 6-30 Effluent Water Quality - Replacement with Oxidation Ditch ...........................93
Table 6-32 Summary of Alternative Features and Estimated Capital Cost Impacts ...........95
Table 6-33 Summary Scoring for the Five Alternatives (Highest Score is Preferred
Alternative) ...................................................................................................... 97
Table 8-1 Population & Households Connected, Annual Total Wastewater Flows and
Volumes Billed in Selected Years .................................................................... 116
Table 8-3 O & M Cost Estimates of Alternatives (At 2011 Constant US$ Prices) ...........121
Table 8-4 O & M Cost Estimates of Alternatives (As Percentage of Discounted Total Cash
O & M Costs) .................................................................................................. 122
Table 8-5 Wastewater Tariff Revenues and Sewerage Connection Fees (80% Share of
Wastewater Treatment Services) in Selected Years (US$) .............................124
Table 8-6 Undiscounted and Discounted (At 5% Discount Rate) Total Wastewater Tariff
Revenues and Sewerage Connection Fees (Share of Wastewater Treatment
Services) Between 2015 and 2035 (US$)........................................................ 124
Table 8-7 Residual Value of New Investments As of Year-end 2035 (US$) ....................125
Table 8-8 NPV and DPC of Jerash Wastewater Treatment Services (US$) .....................126
Table 8-9 Cost Recovery of Jerash Wastewater Treatment Services (US$) ....................127
Table 8-10 Incremental Wastewater Tariff Revenues and Sewerage Connection Fees (80%
Share of Wastewater Treatment Services) Due to the Project in Selected Years
(US$) .............................................................................................................. 128
Table 8-11 Undiscounted and Discounted (At 5% Discount Rate) Total Incremental
Wastewater Tariff Revenues and Sewerage Connection Fees (Share of
Wastewater Treatment Services) for the Period of 2015 and 2035 (US$) .....129
Table 8-12 Cash O & M Costs of Existing Jerash WWTP For the Year 2010 (Total
Wastewater Flow in 2010 = 1,311,549 m3) ................................................... 130
Table 8-13 Existing Jerash WWTP O & M Costs Estimated For Selected Years (US$) Table
8-13 Existing Jerash WWTP O & M Costs Estimated For Selected Years (US$)
....................................................................................................................... 130
Table 8-14 Undiscounted and Discounted (At 5% Discount Rate) Total Existing Jerash
WWTP O & M Costs Between 2015 and 2035 (US$) ......................................131
Table 8-16 NPV and DPC of Wastewater Treatment Services of Alternative 3B Covering
2011-2035 Period at Discount Rates Between 0% and 10% ..........................133
Table 8-17 Sensitivity Analysis on the Discounted Total (NPV) and Unit (DPC) Costs of
Wastewater Treatment Services of Alternative 3B Covering 2011-2035 Period
at Discount Rate of 5%................................................................................... 135
Table 8-18 Financial Net Present Value (FNPV) and Financial Internal Rate of Return
(FIRR) of Alternative....................................................................................... 137
Table 8-21 Total Debt Service Obligations of Financing Option-1 and Financing Option-2
Covering 2013-2035 Period (US$) (Discount Rate of 5%)...............................140
Table 8-22 Profit (-Loss) Projections of Jerash Wastewater Treatment Services for
Financing Option-1, Financing Option-2 and Financing Option-3 Covering
2013-2035 Period (US$) ................................................................................. 141
Table 8-23 Cash Flow Projections of Jerash Wastewater Treatment Services for Financing
Option-1, Financing Option-2 and Financing Option-3 Covering 2013-2035
Period (US$) ................................................................................................... 143
Table 8-24 Grants Required for Jerash Wastewater Treatment Services for Financing
Option-1, Financing Option-2 and Financing Option-3 Covering 2011-2035
Period (US$) ................................................................................................... 146
Table 8-25 Current Water / Wastewater Bill Per Household and Per Capita (Average
Household Size: 6 persons/household) (Specific Water Consumption: 90 Lpcd)
(US$) .............................................................................................................. 147
Table 8-26 Financial Performance Ratios of Jerash Wastewater Treatment Services for
Financing Option-1, Financing Option-2 and Financing Option-3 (Average of
the 2015-2035 Operation Period Based on Discounted Values) (%) ..............147
Table 8-27 Tariff Affordability Analysis For Residential Customers Table 8-27 Tariff
Affordability Analysis For Residential Customers ...........................................148
Table 8-28 Affordable Residential Water and Wastewater Tariff Levels At Tariff
Affordability Ratios of 5%, 4% and 3% ........................................................... 149
Table 8-29 Financial Risks and Risk Mitigation Measures ............................................... 150
Table 8-30 Top Twenty Countries Using Wastewater for Irrigation ................................154
Table 8-33 Average values (mg/L) for N, P and K in the Jordan Valley ............................160
Table 8-34 Amounts of Nutrients Found in the Irrigation Water Sources in the Jordan
Valley ............................................................................................................. 160
Table 8-36 Agricultural Areas in East and West Jerash Irrigation Command Areas
(Immediate Downstream) and Water Requirements .....................................163
Table 8-38 Adjustments and Assumptions Related to Project Costs and Benefits ...........164
Table 8-39 Cost Effectiveness Analysis Work Sheet (Investment and O&M Costs) – US$ M
....................................................................................................................... 165
Table 8-40 CBA Worksheet for Investment Alternative 3B - East Jerash WTTP ...............166
When calculating projected flow rates, an individual water consumption of 100 lpcd was used with an
80 percent return as wastewater. This results in 80 lpcd of wastewater generated per person.
Based on historical water quality, specific characteristics can be summarized and used to predict future
conditions. The following are summarized from historical conditions:
The relationship (peaking factor) between average and maximum flows
The relationship (peaking factor) between average and maximum loading
The ratio of BOD to other pollutants
These site specific wastewater characteristics were used to estimate the future flows and loadings for
the different pollutants of concern, which are summarized in Section 2. It is important to note that the
methods used (herein) to predict future wastewater characteristics in the West Jerash Catchment, differ
from those used by the designers of that facility. They assumed that wastewater concentrations would
be much less than those currently observed in the East Catchment. CDM took a different approach and
assumed that future wastewater characteristics in the West Catchment would be similar to current
wastewater characteristics in the East. This approach is slightly more conservative.
The projected wastewater characteristics for the East Jerash Catchment and West Jerash Catchment are
summarized in Table 2-8 and Table 2-9, respecitively. Data provided in these tables encompass the
design criteria for making future wastewater recommendations.
The existing East Jerash WWTP was constructed in 1982 and then expanded in 1992 to its current
3
capacity of 3,750 m /d and BOD load of 2,415 kg/d. A combination of two different biological treatment
processes (oxidation ditch and conventional aeration tanks) is not able to meet the performance
requirements and effluent standards. The mixture of mechanical challenges, lack of sufficient tank
volumes, and operation complications result in effluent water quality exceeding effluent standards by
greater than 200 percent of the current limits. A rehabilitation of this facility with some process
improvements could occur but would provide far less capacity than needed in the future. A plant
expansion with an upgrade has the potential to meet these needs and has been included as one
alternative for future treatment in the East Catchment.
Construction of the existing West Jerash WWTP was completed in late 2010 and operation began soon
3
there after. The plant was designed to operate through 2025 with an average flow rating of 10,000 m /d
and BOD loading of 7,500kg/d. This is a modern facility with treatment processes to provide a high
quality effluent which meet current Jordanian discharge standards. Although, the objective of this
Feasibility Report is to provide planning for all of the existing service areas of Jerash through 2035,
including the West plant and flows tributary to that facility. It has been determined that the existing
facility lacks the capacity to operate reliably through the design year and would require an upgrade or
expansion in approximately 2024. The hydraulic capacity is suffient, but there lacks adequate loading
capacity to treat BOD, COD, TSS, and nitrogen after 2024.
TREATMENT OBJECTIVES
The objectives of wastewater improvements in Jerash are to provide facilities that can produce an
effluent (liquid and solid) that meets current Jordanain standards and optimizes wastewater and sludge
reuse for agricultural and other potential uses.
The Jordanian Standards (JS893/2006) for Category A, dedication for irrigation of cooked vegetables,
parks, playgrounds, and urban roadsides was selected as the basis of design for defining wastewater
treatment requirements. The particular pollutant limits are provided in Tables 4-3 and 4-4 of this
report. The intent of the recommendations presented herein is to exceed the discharge requirements,
including the low nitrate-nitrogen limit of 6.8 mg/L. For reasons presented in Section 4.3.2, this limit
conflicts with the desire to optimize wastewater reuse and is not in balance with anticipated effluent
total nitrogen. CDM is currently designing to the low limit but has requested a variance, which would
increase nitrate-nitrogen to 10 mg/L. If accepted, appropriate modifications to process design will be
made during the Design Report development.
To maintain compliance with the objective for reuse, advanced treatment will be required to meet the
Second Class standards for sludge disposal. If particular conditions are met, this quality of sludge can be
used for soil conditioning but not direct application for vegetable crops. The Jordanian Standards
(JS1145:2006) are presented in Table 4-5 and require volatile suspended solids reduction of 38 percent or
greater. This requirement influences the selection of processes for liquid and solids treatment. Sludge
stabilization recommendations are made that promote future reuse of sludge, as a market for this
product becomes more abundant.
RECOMMENDED PLAN
The following is the recommended plan for future wastewater treatment and disposal in Jerash:
Proceed with Alternative 3B and construct a new wastewater treatment plant on the existing
East Jerash WWTP site.
At a future date, modify operation at the West Jerash WWTP (lower SRT) and install greater
solids treatment capacity.
Do not install a catchment transfer system.
3
A new oxidation ditch treatment plant with a capacity of 9,500 m /d is recommended to be constructed
while the existing WWTP remains in operation. A preliminary site layout was developed to confirm that
the existing sludge drying beds and or polishing lagoons could be abandoned and the space then used
for the new process tanks. The existing East WWTP would be demolished and the resulting space used
for ancillary facilities for the new WWTP. The recommended process flow diagram for the new East
Jerash WWTP is present in Figure E-1.
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES
Upon official approval of the feasibility study findings by USAID and WAJ, the implementation program
(Phase II) will start. This phase will include the preparation of a detailed engineering design for the
construction of the wastewater treatment improvements based on the selected alternative in the
feasibility study. The implementation program currently included in WIP comprises the following main
activities;
Preparation of the Basis of Design Report
Preparation of Detail Design Documents and Cost Estimates
Preparation of Tender Documents including Prequalification Documents for construction
contractors and Soil Investigation Request for Proposals
As part of the detailed design development, alternative site layouts will be provided to determine the
most appropriate use of the exiting site, while minimizing impacts to the existing treatment system.
SUMMARY
Presented herein is a justified plan for providing reliable wastewater treatment and disposal for all of
the Jerash study area through the planning year of 2035. The plan promotes water and sludge reuse,
meets Jordanian effluent standards, and provides a robust but simplistic treatment system. Alternative
3B is the most economically feasibile option with responsive improvements to satisfy the concerns of
local residents. Most importantly, it provides methods to protect the environment while optimizing
water resources.
1.2.1 East Jerash Wastewater Treatment Plant and Tributary Sewer Network
Jerash City is located about 45 km north of Amman. The existing wastewater system consists of a
wastewater treatment plant located to the south of the city centre, with about 150 km of existing sewer
networks. The wastewater treatment plant was constructed in 1982 with a design capacity of 1,155
3
m /day and a BOD5 concentration of 800 mg/L. The plant was upgraded in 1992 to its current capacity
3
of 3,750 m /d. Extended aeration was adopted as the treatment process in the plant.
Currently the plant is working at approximately 88 percent of the hydraulic design capacity. However,
the biological load is nearly double the design load and the effluent is not meeting the Jordanian
effluent standard for wadi discharge. Section 3 provides an assessment of actual plant performance, in
greater detail.
The construction of sewers in the East Catchment began in the early 1980’s in the Jerash old town areas.
Subsequently, the network was expanded, on an ad-hoc basis, to serve newly developed areas. A major
expansion of the sewer system began in 1995 to serve the communities of Suf, Dayr Al Liyyat, Muqbila,
Mukhayyam Soof and their neighborhoods. Later expansions in scattered or newly developed areas have
been constructed, again on an ad hoc basis. The existing sewer system comprises networks ranging in
diameter from 200-500 mm and about 8,000 house connections of 150mm diameter.
All existing sewer pipes are fabricated of concrete or reinforced concrete. In urban areas, the manholes
chambers are of pre-cast concrete sections built on cast in-situ reinforced concrete bases. In wadi areas,
the manholes are made of cast in-situ reinforced concrete, and extend 1 to 2 meters above the wadi bed.
The sewer network includes two interceptors: Jerash town interceptor (250-500 mm diameter) and Soof
interceptor (300-500 mm diameter). The interceptors are independent of each other, although they run
parallel along the same road for about 1.6 kilometers.
CDM carried out an assessment of the Soof interceptor sewer system in 2004 in order to evaluate the
network capacity and to study its pollution effect on the water resources within Jerash City as part of
the Watershed/Water quality Management Program Project. The assessment revealed some problems
within the wastewater network, mainly with the Suf trunk line. It was recommended to replace the line
in part, to reduce the infiltration during the rainy season and the outflow during the dry season.
This recommendation is being implemented at the moment. The contract of one year duration started
on 25 August 2010. The work involves about 8.5 km of uPVC and HDPE pipe in diameters ranging from
300mm to 500 mm.
1.2.2 West Jerash Wastewater Collection and Treatment Plant and Tributary
Sewer Network
The West Jerash WWTP (Al Me’rad) is located about 2.5 km to the southwest of the East Jerash WWTP.
The plant has recently been commissioned by the contractor and as of March 2011 was receiving about
3
2,000 m /d. Increases in flow will be realized as more house connections are made in the West
Catchment. The project provides wastewater treatment and sewerage to the towns of the west Jerash
area (Sakeb, Raimoon, Ketteh, Nahleh and Mukhayyam Gaza). Currently, Mukhayyam Gaza is not
sewered, but a system has been designed. The project includes sewer networks, and a pumping station
at Ain Deek and the West Jerash WWTP. The design capacity of the new treatment plant is 10,000
3
m /day with a BOD load of 750 mg/L. The minimum flow being received does not allow an adequate
assessment of the current BOD loads and may be strongly affected by septage loads.
proposal recommends that the flows are pumped to the West Jerash WWTP. Sewerage of the Nabi
Hood area of Jerash is included in these proposals and will discharge by gravity for treatment at the East
Jerash WWTP.
1.3.3 Objectives
The objectives of the feasibility study are to assess and evaluate the ability of the wastewater treatment
plants and the wastewater networks to meet the demands forecast up to the design horizon, to identify
alternatives to provide the required capacity and to evaluate and recommend the most feasible option
to handle the flows during the design period.
Available data from the wastewater treatment plants regarding influent and effluent both
quantitative and qualitative have been collected. Additional tests deemed necessary to
perform the study have been carried out.
Alternatives for the rehabilitation, upgrading, and expansion of wastewater treatment and
reuse /disposal facilities for the Project Area throughout the design horizon have been
identified. The existing treatment plant units have been assessed to determine the extent of
rehabilitation needed. Enhancements and improvements for the rehabilitation and upgrade
of the current plants have been made. Suitable sites for expansion have been identified.
Treatment technology to achieve effluent quality for different uses has been identified and
the appropriate technology suitable for the possible use in accordance with the Jordanian
standards has been recommended.
The effect of adding a tanker septage disposal facility in the plant has been studied and the
appropriate disposal facility recommended.
Modes of operation of the wastewater facilities have been studied and evaluated and
improvements recommended. Operational maintenance procedures have been prepared.
For the recommended schemes on wastewater treatment plant expansion, a feasibility
analysis (this report) of the different options to meet wastewater needs for the project area,
up to the year 2035, based on updated population estimates and projected wastewater
generation has been prepared. The feasibility study describes and compares alternative
technologies and site locations, phasing options, provides cost estimates for each
alternative option, and recommends the most appropriate and suitable option. An
economic, financial and socio economic analysis of the project’s recommended option will
also be prepared.
An investment program, including preliminary design and more detailed cost estimates for
the recommended construction projects will be prepared when the feasibility report is
approved.
The operational aspects of the project, including its specific implications on the Water
Authority and other public sector entities have been assessed and described.
Possible scenarios for financing the proposals have been evaluated.
1.4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
During preparation of this report, CDM received support and assistance from many individuals within
WAJ. CDM would wish to recognize the Assistant Secretary General of WAJ for Technical Affairs and
his staff for their support and assistance during the preparation of this feasibility study.
In particular CDM would wish to thank the following personnel:
The Jerash Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager and his staff for their assistance during our
site visits and during the sampling program and site surveys carried out for the study.
The Wastewater Treatment Plant Technical Advisor for assistance in providing historical flow
and water quality data for the Jerash WWTP and for advice and guidance on current sludge
reuse and disposal considerations.
Engineer Odi Al Khateeb, our Wastewater Treatment Engineer on secondment from WAJ, who
deserves special mention for compiling and analyzing the historical flow and laboratory
information.
3
Table 2-2 Projected Average Wastewater Flow (m /d) in Jerash
The historical wastewater generation is 68 Lpcd. However, the rate of generation adopted for the
feasibility study is 80 Lpcd, in accordance with the Policy Note (See WAJ letter reference 7/2/10742
dated 3 October 2010)from the Secretary General of WAJ. 80 Lpcd represent a population equivalent
rate of wastewater returned to the network and includes an allowance for industrial wastewater. No
allowances have been made for infiltration and inflow of groundwater or stormwater. It should also be
noted that non-residential flow contributions have not been separately quantified. The 80 Lpcd
comprises all discharges to the collection system including industrial, commercial, municipal, and
institutional and any infiltration. Inflow is typically considered part of the peak flow and infiltration is
negligible because of an absence of groundwater entering through pipe defects. Although infiltration is
currently occurring in the Soof trunk sewer, this should become negligible after completion of the
replacement construction with better pipe material.
3
Table 2-3 Projected Maximum and Peak Flow (m /d) for Jerash
3
Present and Future Peaking Factors and Flows (m /d)
Maximum Month Maximum Day Peak
Wastewater Flow Average
Flow Peak Factor Flow Peak Flow Peak Flow
Factor Factor
Present Flows (East) 3,499 1.31 4,584 1.38 4,829 2.13 7,453
Future Flows (East) 9,491 1.31 12,433 1.38 13,097 2.5 23,728
Future Flows (West) 9,092 1.31 11,911 1.38 12,547 2.5 22,730
The peaking factor for peak flow has been increased from the historical rate of 2.13 to 2.5, which is more
common for treatment plant design criteria in Jordan. These peak rates will be used to size the
hydraulic conveyance capacity of new or expanded treatment plants.
Flow Analysis
3 Peaking
Item m /d Factor
Average Day 3,378 1.00
BOD mg/L 1366 821 1087 130 568 195 379 155 157 64 108 29
BOD, mg/L 684 358 490 93 NA NA NA NA 74.1 31.1 46 12
soluble
TSS mg/L 1200 564 925 205 219 136 160 40 197 83 115 32
Average concentrations for various parameters were used to assist in determining the various fractions
of an influent wastewater .This characterization is used to determine what is degraded through the
plant, what passes through the plant, and what is returned to the front of the plant from side stream
processes.
It is assumed that all soluble biodegradable COD is degraded within the process and the soluble COD in
the effluent is exclusively non-biodegradable. Therefore, effluent soluble COD equals influent soluble
non-biodegradable COD. However, the effluent sampled at East Jerash had measurable concentrations
of soluble BOD (~50 mg/L), which is a component of soluble COD. In order to then back-into the
soluble non-biodegradable COD, the soluble biodegradable COD was calculated assuming a COD:BOD
ratio of 2.04, and then subtracting the soluble biodegradable COD from the soluble COD. With an
effluent soluble COD concentration of 214 mg/L, and an effluent soluble biodegradable COD
concentration of 94 mg/L (46 mg/L x 2.04), the effluent soluble non-biodegradable COD equals 10
mg/L. It is also assumed that all soluble biodegradable organic nitrogen has been removed in the
biological process, and any remaining soluble organic nitrogen is therefore non-biodegradable.
The average concentration of soluble non-biodegradable organic nitrogen in the effluent is around 12
mg/L, which is three times higher than is typical for domestic wastewater in North America. This
relatively high concentration might be a result of poor process performance, or it may truly be specific
to the characteristics of the wastewater to the plant.
The COD:BOD ratio indicates the component of organic matter that is biodegradable and is necessary
for modeling purposes. The TSS:BOD ratio is a basic influent parameter that indicates the solids
content of wastewater. The VSS:TSS ratio is important for modeling purposes, as it identifies the inert
suspended solids (ISS) fraction. TKN:BOD ratio is an indicator of the ability to denitrify, as it
demonstrates how much carbon is available for nitrate reduction. If this number is high, supplemental
carbon is usually required to sufficiently denitrify. The TP:BOD ratio provides one approach for
estimating the influent phosphorus concentration, as phosphorus typically is not measured at the plant.
The relationships between various constituents in raw influent establish a frame of reference and are
important for various process considerations. . The wastewater constituent relationships for the East
Jerash Plant determined during the 2 week sampling are presented in Table 2-6. The average ratios in
this table are used later in this section for estimating various pollutant characteristics.
sampling program. These concentrations are uncommonly high and are attributed to the numerous
cottage-type industries of yogurt manufacturing and chicken slaughtering. Pollutant concentrations for
2035 are provided in this table and will be used to project average loadings from future flows.
Table 2-7 Anticipated Changes in Pollutant Concentrations
Projected (mg/L) 23 - -
2
T-P 2
Projected (kg/d) 218 277 303
Table 2-9 Projected Flows and Loads for West Jerash Catchment in 2035
Parameter Average Maximum Month Maximum Day
3
Projected (m /d) 9,092 11,911 12,547
Flow
Peaking Factor 1 1.31 1.38
1,170
Projected (mg/L) - -
As assumed for the East Jerash Catchment, the per capita discharge rate is expected to increase to 80
liters per capita. In addition, the future loading estimates for the design year of 2035 assume that the
entire population is connected to the municipal sewer system. The above table provides the future
wastewater characteristics to be used in evaluating the West Jerash WWTP and its ability to extend
performance capacity from 2025 to 2035. This assessment is provided in Section 3.2.
Figure 3-1 Existing Process Flow Diagram for East Jerash WWTP
kg/d 2,415
Average BOD
mg/l 644
kg/d 2,854
Average TSS
mg/l 761
The report of findings (CDM, September 2010) details the plant operation and maintenance, describes
in detail the condition of the process units and provides recommendations for bringing the existing
plant and equipment up to an acceptable operational condition.
Implementing these recommendations will only tackle the backlog of maintenance work that has built-
up over the years. Although some improvement to effluent quality would occur, the effluent standards
will not be achieved without considerable reduction in the flow to the plant and/or significant
investment in additional process capability.
The findings and recommendation of the report are summarized in the following sections.
Screens
The concrete structures are all in good condition. There are two bar screens, one is mechanically raked.
The other screen, in a by-pass channel, is raked by hand. The mechanical screen is not efficient as the
screen rake does not make contact with the bars. Material accumulates on the screen. The electrical
control panel for the screen is uncovered and exposed to the weather.
Recommendation. Overhaul/replace mechanical screen including electrical panel and control.
Grit Removal
The two manually cleaned grit channels are structurally sound. However the channels are full of debris
and the drainage pipes are blocked.
Recommendation. Drain and clean grit channels. Make valves and penstocks operable. Clear drain
channels.
Flow Measurement
The flow is measures by a Parshall Flume with a throat width of 6 Inches. The flume and associated
concrete channels are in good condition. The depth of flow is determined by an ultrasonic level detector
which transmits readings to the display in the electrical panel room. The flow readings have been
checked manually with a dip stick ruler and the readings are accurate. The recorder/totalizer is accurate
but the chart recorder needs to be serviced and made operable.
Recommendation. Replace the existing flow meter and recorder with up to date equipment. This will
be a more cost effective option than to repair the existing.
Oxidation Ditch
There is one activated sludge aeration ditch. The ditch is structurally sound. Four of the six aeration
rotors are working. The mechanical and electrical equipment is in need of a thorough
overhaul/replacement.
Recommendation Drain the ditch, inspect structural condition and repair concrete as necessary.
Remove accumulated sludge, silt and grit. Overhaul/replace all mechanical and electrical equipment
Secondary Sedimentation
There are two secondary sedimentation tanks. The tanks are structurally sound. However, flow is not
distributed equally to the two tanks. Weirs and scum boxes on both tanks need some adjustment.
Electrical and mechanical equipment is in need of a thorough overhaul/replacement.
Recommendation Drain tanks, inspect structural condition and repair as necessary. Wash down and
remove any accumulated grit and silt. Overhaul/replace scraper bridges and central supports as
required. Adjust weirs and scum removal plates. Examine and rearrange flow splitting chamber to
ensure equal distribution of flows to the two tanks.
Maturation Ponds/Lagoons
There are three substantial maturation lagoons with a capacity equivalent to approximately 10 days dry
weather flow. The lagoons have ‘L’ shaped reinforced concrete retaining walls. The lagoon bottoms are
of compacted earth fill and the lagoons are lined with high density polyethylene sheeting which extends
over the top of the walls. The lagoons are full of sludge and are of doubtful effectiveness.
Recommendation. Drain lagoons and inspect structural condition. Make repairs as necessary. Remove
accumulated sludge, silt and grit. Replace/refurbish valves and penstocks.
Chlorination
The chlorine system is currently functioning but needs to be thoroughly over hauled.
Recommendation. Rebuild/replace the existing equipment
Operational Maintenance
Operational maintenance is the care and minor maintenance of equipment using procedures that do
not require detailed technical knowledge of equipment function or design. Operational maintenance
normally consists of cleaning, inspecting, servicing, lubricating, and making adjustments as required.
Such maintenance may also include minor parts replacement that does not require the person
performing the work to be highly skilled.
As the term implies operational maintenance is performed by the operator of the equipment. The main
purpose is to make the operator aware of the general condition and state of the equipment. An
additional benefit is that the operator can develop a sense of ownership and responsibility for the
equipment under his charge.
The operator should report all equipment defects and irregularities to the maintenance department
promptly so that the defects can be corrected as soon as possible.
Approach
Using process modeling software for evaluating possible operating scenarios or future process
configurations typically requires some level of calibration in order to establish how reliable the results
are. Calibration involves comparing known performance with model results from a given period,
typically anywhere from a few months to a few years. Dynamic calibrations are best, although steady-
state calibrations have value as well.
Generally, there are four levels of calibration: 1) using model defaults and assumptions only; 2) using
historical data; 3) incorporating the results of additional onsite testing and/or wastewater
characterization; 4) performing direct kinetic parameter measurement (Melcer, 2003). Each successive
Water/Wastewater Infrastructure Project
Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report 24
Section 3 - Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluations
level of calibration builds on lower levels of calibration, and there is an increasing level of refinement
with the level of calibration.
The calibration effort for East Jerash was somewhat unique in its approach. East Jerash historical
influent and effluent data is limited compared to typical modeling efforts, consisting only of TSS, BOD,
and COD values monitored about six times per month, although daily flow rates are monitored. In
addition, the plant performs poorly. While a detailed two-week sampling program was conducted in
order to determine the influent wastewater characteristics and to establish some general relationships
between known and unknown parameters (TKN:BOD, VSS:TSS, etc.), many assumptions were made for
such as basin DO concentrations, influent temperature, and influent nitrogen concentrations. The
calibration effort for this project is essentially a level 1 calibration with the benefit of some historical
data and a detailed sampling campaign to determine wastewater characterization and plant
performance.
Software implementation consists of building a representation within the model environment. The
graphical user interface (GUI) allows the user to drag and drop ‘elements’ that represent tanks, inputs,
outputs, clarifiers, pipes, etc. and align them according to how they are configured in real-life. Criteria
within each element (size, flow rates, concentrations, DO set points, % solids removal, etc.) can be
entered into each element. Once a configuration has been established, the simulator is run and either a
dynamic or steady state solution is found.
An accurate minimum temperature is important to the quality of output from the model. Figure 3-3
presents the average air temperature for Jerash. The wastewater temperature is usually higher than the
air temperature by 3 – 4 oC. Therefore, the assumed minimum monthly temperature used for process
o
analysis in Jerash is 16 C.
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
The return flow (return activated sludge, or RAS) is not flow paced or adjusted from a constant
3
setpoint of 3,000 m /day (or at least this is the value documented in the monthly average
reports).
An average-monthly F/M (food to mass ratio) is reported, but no indication is given that MLSS
concentrations are measured or documented or how F/M is calculated. Presumably this
monthly value is an average of the six-or so data-points per month that are at least documented
for influent BOD5.
Waste sludge (waste activated sludge, or WAS) rate is presented in terms of a total monthly
3
value. It is pumped to the gravity thickeners at a fairly constant rate (reported as 80-100 m /d).
WAS concentration is not determined or documented.
Sludge age is reported as a monthly average starting in 2008, but it is unclear how this value is
determined. Values range from 8 to 10 days.
The monthly average influent BOD5 load and the F/M were used to calculate the sum of the
mass of solids in the aeration tanks and the oxidation ditch. The monthly average MLSS
concentration was then determined, assuming concentration is uniform between the aeration
tanks and the oxidation ditch. These concentrations should be the same if the flow split
between the aeration tanks and the oxidation ditch is even.
The monthly average MLSS concentration was then used to calculate the RAS/WAS
concentration, as MLSS and RAS concentration are related by a mass balance around the
clarifiers – X = Xr/((Q/Qr)+1).
Solids residence time (SRT), or sludge age, considering the mass of total solids in the two
3
aeration tanks and one oxidation ditch (total volume of 4,600 m ), was calculated by the
following equation: SRT = [MLSS*Tank volume]/{[WAS concentration*WAS flow]+[Effluent
TSS+Effluent flow]}. As only monthly WAS rate was documented beginning in 2009, only one
year’s worth of monthly average SRT values could be calculated this way. For this period, the
monthly average SRT was 22 days, with a range from 10 to 28 days. These values are nearly three
times the values presented as monthly average sludge ages in the monthly reports.
Based on the fact that both the above calculation approach for SRT and the provided data on
sludge age are in excess of 4.5 days, the plant should be fully nitrifying at all times. However,
the plant seems not to be nitrifying at all, as the average plant effluent data for three years has
an average ammonia concentration of 114 mg/L-N and an average nitrate concentration of less
than 1 mg/L - N. As neither influent TKN nor ammonia are measured, it is unclear if any
nitrification is occurring. Any nitrate that is generated from the nitrification that does occur
would be reduced via denitrification in the areas where DO was insufficient for aerobic
oxidation such as the oxidation ditch, so the presence of little nitrate is not necessarily an
indicator of no nitrification. Oxidation ditches are typically designed to provide simultaneous
nitrification/denitrification, which could be occurring at a very limited capacity. While
something inhibitory to nitrifiers may be present in the influent, it is likely that the failure of
the plant to nitrify is a result of insufficient oxygen supply.
The single Oxidation Ditch is also currently limited in oxygen transfer ability by the fact that
only 4 of the six brush aerators can be operated.
Section 3.0. The RAS flow rate is recorded daily and is presumably to be the rated capacity of RAS
pumps.
Figure 3-4 shows the same conditions in an Ekama chart which relates solids loading rate, return ratio,
MLSS concentration, and underflow rate, essentially representing the full range of possible state-point
analyses. In this sense it is a design and operations chart. The evaluation point represents the condition
determined via the SPA above. If the evaluation point is under a MLSS curve, the condition is under
loaded, while if it is over a MLSS curve, the condition is overloaded and the capacity of the clarifiers is
exceeded. Figure 3-4 shows that at the overflow rate of the maximum-daily flow, the allowable MLSS
concentration could be higher (perhaps 5,000 mg/L) if the RAS ratio could be increased (to 1.0, or about
3 2 3
12 m /m /d) However, as the RAS capabilities are unknown, 3,000 m /d will be the assumed RAS rate
limit, and an allowable MLSS concentration of 4,330 mg/L will be assumed to be the capacity of the
plant.
Given the data provided, the calculated MLSS concentrations in 2009 have all been 7,000 and 10,000
mg/L, which far exceed the capacity of the clarifiers. Note that the actual SVI may be lower and the
actual MLSS may be lower. Regardless, the average of the average monthly effluent TSS over the three
year period exceeded 100 mg/L, which not only violates the effluent standards, but indicates that the
clarifiers are overloaded.
Figure 3-4 Ekama Design and Operating Chart with Capacity of East Jerash Clarifiers
A design manual for the New England states of the USA(New England Interstate Water Polution
Control Commission, 1998)) recommends that secondary clarifiers with diameter of 18 meters to have a
minimum side water depth of 4.7 meters. The East Jerash WWTP clarifiers do not meet this
requirement since they have a side water depth of 2.4 and 1.8 meters. This document also recommends
a minimum bottom slope of 1:12 for systems without primary treatment. The existing clarifiers have that
exact slope and are therefore in compliance with this standard.
Table 3-5 WWTP Water Quality (mg/L) versus 1995 Expansion Limits
1 1995 Expansion
Parameter Historical Influent Historical Effluent Limits
BOD 1,087 68 30
TKN 130 NA NA
NH3-N NA 113 NA
NO3-N NA 0.4 NA
PO4-P 22 17 NA
1. Concentrations are from recent WWTP influent sampling (See Table 2-5).
Table 3-6 makes a comparison of historical influent loading versus the design loading for the existing
WWTP. Even though historical flow is less than the design criteria, the influent loading is significantly
higher than what the facility is designed to treat. These heavy loads and some operation procedures
contribute to the discharge in excess of the current limits.
Table 3-6 Historical Flow and Loading versus 1995 Expansion Design Criteria
1995 Expansion Design
Average Influent Parameter Historical Influent
Criteria
3
Flow (ADF m /d) 3,378 3,750
Table 3-7 East Jerash WWTP - Assessment of Average Process Design Criteria
Parameter 2035 Design Criteria Existing1 Capacity
(average) WWTP Deficit
3
Flow (m /d) 9,491 3,750 5,741
Table 3-8 East Jerash WWTP - Assessment of Maximum Month Process Design Criteria
Parameter Existing1 Capacity
(Maximum-Month) 2035 Design Criteria WWTP Deficit
Flow (m3/d) 12,433 4,913 7,520
Inlet Works
The inlet chamber includes an overflow weir to allow 4 times the average daily flow to enter the plant
while bypassing the rest of the flow to the wadi by means of a bypass pipe.
Flow Measurement
A Parshall flume is installed downstream of the grit removal unit and of the equalization tank overflow.
A non-contact flow measuring device (ultrasonic flow meter) is provided. The Parshall flume throat
3
width is suitable to measure flows up to 1,000 m /h.
Secondary Treatment
Secondary treatment units operate in an extended aeration biological process which has characteristics
similar to the conventional activated sludge process, except that it operates in the endogenous phase of
the microorganism’s growth curve that requires low organic loading and long detention time.
The extended aeration processes do not require primary settling. Raw wastewater is led to the aeration
tank where oxygen is supplied by mechanical aerators.
The modified extended aeration system is characterized by three zones:
1. Anaerobic zone where biological phosphorus removal takes place.
2. Anoxic zone where denitrification takes place.
3. Aerobic zone where oxidation of biodegradable organic matter and ammonia nitrification takes
place.
The anoxic anaerobic stage and anaerobic selector consists of a tank where phosphorus removal takes
place. The anoxic and aerobic zones are included in one basin in the shape of an oxidation ditch
(modified oxidation ditch, or MOD). The reactor is of the closed loop type, so that a continuous recycle
of mixed liquor takes place.
The aerobic stage is equipped with fine bubble air diffusers. It can be possible to vary the extent of
anoxic verse an aerobic zone by just starting up or shutting down part of these diffusers, mixing being
always ensured by the submerged mixers.
The produced sludge from processes like this has good settling property, free of bad odors, reduced
volume and is well stabilized.
The effluent from the aeration tanks is conveyed to the settling tanks where the sludge is separated and
recycled to the aeration tanks (anoxic zones) and the surplus sludge is pumped to the thickeners.
There are three circular settling tanks of 23 m diameter and 2.70 m side wall height.
Tertiary treatment
Secondary effluent quality is in full compliance with BOD5, TSS, nitrogen and phosphorus standards.
The design BOD5 concentration in the effluent is ≤ 30 mg/L, complying with the standard required for
effluent reuse for irrigation and TSS concentration is also expected to be 30 – 35 mg/l, a much better
value compared with the standard for irrigation (50 mg/l).
The said standards call for a Faecal Coliform (FC) content of 100 MPN/100 mL, which is quite a severe
constraint. Secondary treatment can reach a coliform removal efficiency of 98 – 99 % only, so that a
residual FC content of 500,000 MPN/100ml in the secondary effluent can be considered as an average
reference value.
This plant is equipped with 6 (six) gravity sand filters. Each filter structure consists of a rectangular
concrete basin containing filter media, i.e. sand and three layers of gravels, fine on top and coarse at the
bottom, a bottom pipe system for filtered water collection, and other appurtenances.
The gravity filtration consists of self-washing rapid sand filters, which are directly backwashed with
filtered effluent, exploiting a suitable difference of hydraulic level and do not require automatic valves,
pumps and blowers.
Disinfection
Chlorination for disinfection is provided after filtration and prior to effluent delivery and distribution to
reuse areas or discharge to a wadi.
The process flow diagram from the design report (C. Lotti & Associates, April 2005) is shown in Figure
3-5.
Pollutant Concentrations
T-P mg/L 40
Pollutant Loads
Table 3-10 West Jerash WWTP - Assessment of Average Process Design Criteria
Parameter 2035 Design Criteria Existing1 Capacity
(average) WWTP Deficit
3
Flow (m /d) 9,092 10,000 None
Table 3-11 West Jerash WWTP - Assessment of Maximum-Month Process Design Criteria
Parameter Existing1 Capacity
(Maximum-Month) 2035 Design Criteria WWTP Deficit
3
Flow (m /d) 11,911 13,100 None
Based on the predicted performance criteria in the above tables, an upgrade and/or expansion of the
existing West Jerash WWTP will be required in about 2024 to extend reliable treatment to 2035. Note
that a flow capacity increase is not required and hydraulic modifications would not be necessary at the
WWTP. The data does show that additional loading treatment may be necessary for the plant to
operate past 2025 and through 2035. Section 6 describes the alternatives and recommendations for
expanding this treatment capacity. Monitoring of increases in flows and loads in the future should
provide better estimates of when upgrades or expansions will be needed.
BOD mg/L 30 45
TSS mg/L 30 45
SS mL/L 1 1
pH 6-9 6-9
Table 4-2 provides the current discharge limits used for design of the existing West Jerash WWTP.
These limits are very similar to the current standards for effluent reuse for cooked vegetables, as
described in Section 3.
Table 4-2 Effluent Standards for Design of West Jerash WWTP Improvements
BOD mg/L 30
TSS mg/L 50
NO3 mg/L 30
T-N mg/L 45
T-P mg/L 15
Irrigation
DO >2 - - >2
Total-N 45 70 100 70
PO4 as PO4 30 30 30 30
FOG 8 8 8 2
Nematodes (eggs/L) ≤1 ≤1 ≤1 ≤1
1. Source: Jordanian standard JS893/2006 issued on 13 November 2006
Table 4-4 Allowable Limits for the Characteristics of Effluent for Wadi Disposal, Aquifer
Recharge & Irrigation
Allowable Limit
Iron Fe mg/L 5 5 5 5
2.5
Lithium Li mg/L 2.5 2.5 (0.075 for 0.075
citrus crops)
Manganese Mn mg/L 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Zinc Zn mg/L 5 5 5 5
Boron B mg/L 1 1 1 1
Even though there are concerns regarding the low limit for nitrate, the wastewater treatment
options discussed herein have the ability to meet the current nitrate discharge limit for cooked
vegetables of 30 mg/l as the ion.
Arsenic As 41 75 75
Cadmium Cd 40 40 85
Chromium Cr 900 900 3000
Copper Cu 1500 3000 4300
Mercury Hg mg/kg 17 57 57
Molybdenum Mo Dry Weight 75 75 75
Nickel Ni 300 400 420
Selenium Se 100 100 100
Lead Pb 100 840 840
Zinc Zn 2800 4000 7500
Table 4-6 Annual Application Rates and Maximum Accumulation Limits in Soil
Annual application Maximum accumulation
Parameter Symbol rate limits in soil
kg/ha/Year kg/ha
Arsenic As 1 20
Cadmium Cd 1 20
Chromium Cr 25 500
Copper Cu 35 700
Mercury Hg 0.85 17
Molybdenum Mo 0.9 18
Nickel Ni 5 100
Selenium Se 2 40
Lead Pb 11 220
Zinc Zn 50 1000
Analysis of reuse options suggests that significant opportunities exist for the agricultural
reuse of treated effluent.
Although the treated effluent will generally meet Jordan Standards (JS893/2006) for cooked
vegetables, parks, playgrounds, and side roads within the city limits, due to expected
elevated TDS and Boron levels, the use must be managed and application limited to crops
moderately sensitive to salinity and semi tolerant to Boron.
Ideal cropping pattern should include both perennial and winter crops to balance effluent
use. Crops identified include fruit trees (olive and pomegranate), vegetables (eggplant,
cauliflower, and squash), and winter grains (wheat and barley).
Economic analysis of crops indicates that much higher returns can be gained on vegetables
and fruit trees as opposed to winter grains and alfalfa.
Forty-three alternative cropping patterns with and without storage were analyzed. The
results of this analysis suggest that areas of cultivation can be increased from 185 to 456
percent with vegetables as the main crop, doubled with fruit trees, and 161 percent with
winter grains as the main crop if storage is used. The value of crop yields could be increased
from 345 to 409 percent with squash, alfalfa, olive and eggplant as the main crop and 168 to
275 percent for cauliflower, alfalfa, winter grains, pomegranate, citrus, and date palm.
Of the crops incorporated into the trial cropping patterns, citrus, alfalfa, eggplant, and
cauliflower will require soil leaching as part of an overall treated effluent irrigation
management plan.
Based on crop selection criteria, the agronomical and economical recommended crops are
olive, pomegranate, eggplant, cauliflower, and squash.
Available suitable agriculture land within Wadi Jerash and downstream of the East WWTP,
that can be irrigated by using effluent, is limited to about 369 du. There is very little, if any,
opportunity to expand agriculture areas within the wadi to utilize all available (at present)
effluent. Therefore, the increasing effluent quantities from an expanded plant at the East
site will not find the opportunity to be utilized in Wadi Jerash.
Available suitable agriculture land within Wadi Amamah that is downstream of the West
WWTP, that can be irrigated by using effluent, is limited to about 917 du. The same as in
the East WWTP case, there is very little, if any, opportunity to expand agriculture areas to
utilize the future increasing effluent by year 2020.
Unused (excess) effluent from both East and West WWTP flows downstream about 4-6 km
and merges with Seil Az Zarqa and eventually discharges into the King Talal Dam
Reservoir. This water storage reservoir is used for agricultural irrigation in the Jordan
Valley. Therefore, even without further development of agricultural reuse areas in Jerash,
the benefit of a high quality effluent for irrigation will still be achieved.
Based on facts provided in this section, primary clarification will be included in the assessment of
expansion and replacement alternatives being considered. The following provides general information
for preliminary sizing of primary tanks for the East Jerash plant location:
3
Design overflow rate of 80 m /m2-d, (M&E page 398)
Minimum required surface area is 314 m2
Provide two tanks, each capacity of one-half peak flow
Minimum tank depth of 4.3 m (M&E page 398)
Removal of 25 to 40 percent of the influent BOD and
Removal of 50 to 70 percent of the TSS
The above design criteria are used in Section 6 for comparing different alternatives for future
wastewater treatment in East Jerash.
An oxidation ditch, operating as extended aeration, will generate less overall sludge and provide good
buffering for peak flows and variations in loading. Because of the long sludge age, a larger tank is
required compared to conventional activated sludge. Oxidation ditches have very simple operational
requirements, and thus can be more favorable for smaller communities. However, because the process
utilizes larger aeration tanks and requires longer solids retention time than the conventional process,
Water/Wastewater Infrastructure Project
Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report 45
Section 5 – Assessment of Treatment Technologies
the capital cost of the treatment structure is increased. In addition, depending on treatment
requirements, oxidation ditch facilities may require supplemental aeration to the mechanical aerators
to avoid low dissolved oxygen levels in the treatment unit. Oxidation ditches can also be designed to
operate at a lower SRT, but with the need for additional treatment provided by primary clarification.
Table 5-1 contains a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of the oxidation ditch activated
sludge process.
Provides good buffering for peak flows and Not as easily expandable
variations in loading
Proven technology
Advantages Disadvantages
Proven technology Sophisticated process (DO) control
required
Low odor potential
Can struggle without primary clarifiers
Provides nitrification and denitrification
and in extended aeration mode, with
Produces low turbidity effluent high influent loading
The fill-and-draw principle consists of the following six steps: Mixed Fill, Aerated Fill, React, Settle,
Decant and Idle, as discussed in the following.
Mixed Fill - Wastewater enters a partially filled reactor containing biomass. Bacteria
biologically degrade the organics and use residual oxygen or alternative electron acceptors,
such as nitrate. It is during this period that anoxic conditions are utilized for the selection
of biomass with better settling characteristics.
Aerated Fill - The influent flow continues under mixed and aerated conditions.
React - Influent flow is terminated and directed to the other batch reactor. Mixing and
aeration continue in the absence of raw waste. BOD absorption and removal that was
initialized during mixed and aerated fill is completed and nitrification can be achieved.
Settle - The aeration and mixing is discontinued after the biological reactions are complete
and the biomass settles under quiescent conditions. Excess biomass can be wasted at any
time during the cycle. The settle time is adjustable during operations to match prevailing
process needs.
Decant – After solid/liquid separation is complete during the settle period, the treated
effluent is removed through a decanter. The reactor is then ready to receive the next batch
of raw influent.
Idle - The length of this step varies depending on the influent flow rate and the operating
strategy.
A crucial feature of the SBR system is the control unit, including the automatic switches and valves that
sequence and time the different operations. Since the heart of the SBR system is the controls, automatic
valves, and automatic switches, these systems require more sophisticated maintenance than a
conventional activated sludge system.
An important consideration for the SBR system is that the effluent discharges only intermittently and
therefore will greatly affect the size of the downstream process units. The decant rate is substantially
higher than the plant inflow, hence requiring either downstream equipment with large capacity or a
post-equalization tank to even out the flow.
Advantages and disadvantages of the SBR activated sludge system are shown in Table 5-3.
Advantages Disadvantages
o Small footprint due to common walls and the higher operational complexity
combined react and settling in one tank (no
High decant rate necessitates over-sizing
need for clarifiers).
downstream process units or installing an
o Less prone to toxicity shocks than plug flow equalization basin
reactors
Scheduling of maintenance is more difficult
o Can nitrify and denitrify since the tanks cannot be easily taken
completely offline
o Proven technology
Little process knowledge in Jordan
The following factors provide a qualitative method for ranking the treatment technologies and a means
for making a recommendation. The following are the assessment criteria and rationale used in
performing the comparison of technologies:
Constructability—There are clear variations in the magnitude of construction required
between the different alternatives being considered. For example, construction on an
existing site, rather than a new site, presents greater challenges. Those alternatives which
require a flow transfer or have many processes to maintain in operation during
construction would be a challenge to implement. The constructability includes the degree
of construction difficulty, duration, scheduling and compatibility with existing facilities,
structures, piping, and similar issues. Constructing the unit processis is also influenced by
the degree to which staging is required. Alternatives are ranked by these criteria:
1 Excessively difficult construction is expected
2 Construction difficulty is likely to be average
3 A low level of construction difficulty is anticipated
Reliability — This would be the reliability of the alternative, not just the biological process
recommendation, to operate with minimal chance of failure through the design year. To be
considered are the anticipated years of operation, size of facilities, history of operation and
maintenance, potential problems, and process performance as measured by expected
effluent water quality. Alternatives are ranked by these criteria:
1 Process components of alternative struggle to achieve required treatment under
similar site conditions and at a number of different installations
2 Process components of alternative usually achieve required treatment under
similar site conditions and at a number of different installations
3 Process components of alternative always achieve required treatment under
similar site conditions and at a number of different installations
1. Flexibility and Expandability —Assessment of these criteria depends on the alternatives
ability to allow for future expansion. Process limitations and site restrictions might not
allow for an alternative to be flexible. Alternatives are ranked by these criteria:
1 Very little flexibility and expandability is expected. This would include no site
space remaining following implementation of the alternative
2 Flexibility and expandability are likely to be average
Water/Wastewater Infrastructure Project
Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report 49
Section 5 – Assessment of Treatment Technologies
Table 5-4 Matrix Assessment for Recommending East Jerash WWTP Technology
Conventional Sequencing
Criteria Oxidation Activated Batch Reactor
Ditch (OD)
Sludge (CAS) (SBR)
Constructability 3 2 3
Reliability 3 3 2
Operability 3 2 2
Required Maintenance 3 2 1
Space Requirements 1 2 3
Environmental Impacts 2 2 3
Reuse Potential 3 3 2
Process Performance 3 3 2
Capital Cost 2 2 3
O&M Cost 3 1 1
Total Score 32 28 8
different sludge classifications in Jordan and the justification for selecting Second Class sludge cake for
the design criteria.
Sludge resulting from wastewater treatment operations is usually in a liquid or semi-solid liquid form
and contains from 0.25 to 12 percent solids by weight depending on the wastewater operation (Ref:
Wastewater Engineering, Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Third Edition, Page 765). Sludge treatment essentially
involves reducing the water and organic content of the sludge and rendering it suitable for final disposal
or reuse. Typically, this is a three step process; thickening, stabilization, and dewatering. Alternative
treatment processes for each step are defined below, followed by the recommended processes.
The biological treatment processes have been established in previous sections. Primary clarification is
required to achieve the treatment goals. Therefore, there will be primary and waste activated sludge
requiring treatment through the biosolids treatment system.
feed/distribution box onto the belt. A series of plow blades along the belt create ridges and furrows in
the sludge to facilitate the drainage of water through the belt. The removal of the thickened sludge from
the gravity belt is followed by a wash cycle for the belt.
Process Assessment
Some of the primary advantages include a high through put with minimal foot print requirements. The
units need to be located in a building and typically have intermediary sludge storage before and after
the unit. A GBT can be expected to provide thickened sludge of 4 to 8 percent solids with a typical
capture rate of 95%. See Table 5-5 for typical advantages and disadvantages of gravity belt thickeners.
Gravity Thickeners
Gravity thickeners are very similar to a clarifier where there is a center feed well, a liquid overflow, and
sludge scrappers with a thickened sludge hopper. These are usually circular, concrete tanks (Figure 5-5)
and can be provided with covers to contain odors. Gravity thickeners are used to process primary,
secondary, or a combined sludge mixture. .
Process Description
Sludge is fed to a center well and is allowed to settle and consolidate, while thickened sludge is removed
from the sloped bottom of the tank. A liquid overflow, or filtrate, falls over a circumference weir at a
rate greater than the minimum required to maintain optimum performance and prevent sludge
spoiling.
Process Assessment
Some of the primary advantages include simplified operation and the ability for continuous operation
with minimal operator attention. A gravity thickener can be expected to provide thickened sludge of 4
to 8 percent solids with a typical capture rate of 95%. See Table 5-6 for typical advantages and
disadvantages of gravity thickeners.
- Polymer independent
- Significant odor issue if not covered
- Relatively simple and reliable equipment
- Space requirements
components
- High capital cost
- Low power requirements
Process Description
The secondary sludge is pumped to a conditioning tank where a polymer is added and mixed with the
sludge. The sludge flows by gravity into a slow turning perforated drum, which rolls the solids to the
opposite end. The filtrate passes through the perforations and is conveyed back to the liquid process
flow stream. RDTs are similar to centrifuges but at lower speed and not based on centrifugal forces.
Process Assessment
Some of the primary advantages include simple operation with low power requirements. The units will
need to be located in a building and typically have intermediary sludge storage before and after the
unit. A RDT can be expected to provide thickened sludge of 4 to 8 percent solids with a typical capture
rate of 95%. See Table 5-7 for typical advantages and disadvantages of rotary drum thickeners.
Process Description
Flotation thickening uses the formation of air bubbles to carry solids to the top, where they are
skimmed from the flotation tank. The basic equipment necessary for DAF is an air dissolution tank, the
flotation tank with skimmer, and the associated pumping equipment.
Process Assessment
There are several advantages and disadvantages for DAFs. Some of the primary advantages include
process simplicity and ability for continuous operation without operator attention. The DAF tanks and
ancillary equipment need to be located in a large building. See Table 5-8 for typical advantages and
disadvantages of dissolved air flotation.
Screw Presses
Screw Presses are not common when dewatering sludge but perform ideally for certain size WWTPs.
Use of this technology is unknown in Jordan and there are limited installations in the United States, but
it is more common outside of these areas. They have proven successful in providing reliable dewatering
of municipal sludge.
Process Description
A screw press is a very simple, slow moving mechanical device. Dewatering is continuous and is
accomplished by gravity drainage at the inlet end of the screw and then by reducing the volume as the
material being dewatered is conveyed from the inlet to the discharge end of the screw press. Proper
screw design is critical, as different materials require different screw speeds, screw configurations, and
screens in order to dewater to a high outlet consistency while maintaining an excellent capture rate.
Process Assessment
These presses are known to be very quiet, odor limited, and require low maintenance. A disadvantage is
that this technology produces cake of less percent solids than the other alternatives. Screw presses can
be expected to provide cake of 25 to 27 percent solids with a typical capture rate of 95%. See Table 5-9
for typical advantages and disadvantages of screw presses.
Centrifuges
Dewatering of wastewater sludge by centrifuges is common practice at many facilities around the world.
This process is common to Jordan as new centrifuges have been installed at the West Jerash WWTP.
Process Description
Centrifuge dewatering uses forces developed by the rotational movement of a bowl to separate the
sludge solids from the liquids. Conditioned sludge is pumped through a central pipe into a rotating
solid wall bowl. The sludge hugs the inside walls of the bowl due to centrifugal force. The heavier
particles move to the outside, while the lighter liquid remains pooled in the center of the bowl. A screw
conveyor inside the centrifuge moves sludge cake out one end of the unit. The centrate flows out of the
other end.
Process Assessment
This process is known to be adjustable to variations in sludge, odor limited, average maintenance, but
also noisy. Centrifuges can be expected to provide cake of 25 to 32 percent solids with a typical capture
rate of 95%. See Table 5-10 for typical advantages and disadvantages of centrifuges.
-Odor emissions are minimized as dewatering -High power consumption and noisy to operate
process is fully contained. -Special structural considerations must be
-Operators have low exposure to pathogens, considered due to vibration and dynamic loading
aerosols, hydrogen sulfide, and other odors concerns associated with centrifuge
Process Description
Belt filter presses are designed based on the concept of pressing sludge between two tensioned porous
belts passing over and under a series of rollers of varying diameters. For a given belt tension, an
increased pressure is exerted on the sludge as roller diameter decreases, thereby separating water from
the sludge. Belt filter presses include four basic features including polymer conditioning zone, gravity
drainage zone, low pressure zone, and high pressure zone. Belt filter presses remove free water from
sludge suspensions by several different mechanisms including gravity separation (similar to the gravity
belt thickeners), compression (the sludge is compressed between two fabric belts, squeezing out free
water), and shear (as two fabric belts pass around horizontal rollers with the sludge compressed
between them). Dewatered sludge drops onto a hopper from which either an enclosed screw or a
conveyor belt moves the dewatered material to final disposal.
Process Assessment
These presses are known to have several moving parts, can be odorous and have low power
requirements. Belt filter presses can be expected to provide cake of 15 to 30 percent solids with a typical
capture rate of 95%. See Table 5-11 for typical advantages and disadvantages of belt filter presses.
Drying Beds
Drying beds are very common in Jordan because of the arid climate, which is ideal for sludge
dewatering outside of the winter months. There are many existing treatment plants in Jordan with
drying beds.
Process Description
In drying beds, sludge is pumped or placed in layers (100 to 250 mm thick) on a bed of sand and allowed
to dry. The sludge dewaters by evaporation and drainage through the sludge and into the drainage layer
below. Sludge is then removed when it is sufficiently dried and the liquid is typically piped to the
headworks of the WWTP.
Process Assessment
This method of dewatering is ideal where land is plentiful, and climate is arid. Sludge drying in colder
regions is not efficient and odors can be excessive. A cake with 40 percent solids can be achieved after 10
to 15 days of ideal conditions. See Table 5-12 for typical advantages and disadvantages of drying beds.
Table 5-12 Drying Beds Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages Disadvantages
-Low operating costs -Excessive odors
-Simple operation -Large land requirements
-High solids content under ideal conditions -Not effective during cold months
- Less sensitive to sludge variability - Sludge removal is labor intensive
Aerobic Digestion
Aerobic digestion is a bacterial process occurring in the presence of oxygen. A digester tank(s) would
receive thickened sludge and provide treatment necessary to achieve Second Class cake produced from
dewatering. Sludge is mixed in an aerobic environment for a period of 40 days, at a minimum
temperature of 20 degrees Celsius. The intent is to achieve a minimum volatile solids reduction of 38
percent. The process is used to manage sludge volume and create a marketable sludge cake.
Process Description
Under aerobic conditions, bacteria rapidly consume organic matter and convert it to carbon dioxide.
Once there is a lack of organic matter, bacteria die and are used as food by other bacteria. This stage of
the process is known as endogenous respiration. Solids reduction occurs in this phase.
Sludge mixing and the addition of air are required. Sludge can be mixed by mechanical mixers, diffused
air, sludge recirculation, or a combination of these methods. Course bubble air diffusers can be placed
on the tank bottom or air can be injected into a sludge recirculation system. The intent is to maintain a
residual dissolved oxygen concentration of 1 to 2 mg/l.
Process Assessment
Aerobic digestion offers the advantage of an odorless and biological stable end product while retaining
basic fertilizer values in the sludge. The operating costs are typically much greater for aerobic digestion
because of energy costs for aeration needed to add oxygen to the process, and the process can be
affected by variations in temperature. See Table 5-13 for typical advantages and disadvantages of
aerobic digestion.
Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic digestion is a series of processes in which microorganisms break down biodegradable
material in the absence of oxygen. A digester tank(s) would receive thickened sludge and provide
treatment necessary to achieve Second Class cake produced from dewatering. Sludge is mixed in an
anaerobic environment for a period of 15 days, at a minimum temperature of 35 degrees Celsius or 60
days at a minimum temperature of 20 degrees Celsius. The intent is to achieve a minimum volatile
solids reduction of 38 percent. The process is used to manage sludge volume, release energy and create
a marketable sludge cake.
Process Description
Anaerobic digestion is a bacterial process that is carried out in the absence of oxygen. The process can
either be thermophilic digestion in which sludge is fermented in tanks or mesophilic. Thermophilic
allows for shorter retention time, smaller tank requirements but can be more expensive if greater
energy is required for heating the sludge.
Anaerobic digestion is widely used as a renewable energy source because the process produces a
methane and carbon dioxide rich biogas suitable for energy production, helping to replace fossil fuels. It
may be used to both heat the tank and run engines or microturbines for other on-site processes.
The digestion process begins with bacterial hydrolysis of the input materials in order to break down
insoluble organic polymers such as carbohydrates and make them available for other bacteria.
Acidogenic bacteria then convert the sugars and amino acids into carbon dioxide, hydrogen, ammonia,
and organic acids. Acetogenic bacteria then convert these resulting organic acids into acetic acid, along
with additional ammonia, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide. Finally, methanogens convert these products
to methane and carbon dioxide.
Process Assessment
The methane generation is a key advantage of the anaerobic process. Its key disadvantage is the long
time required for the process and the high capital cost. In addition, they require a high level of technical
expertise to maintain ideal digester performance. They are also known for high capital costs and low
process efficiencies. See Table 5-14 for typical advantages and disadvantages of anaerobic digestion.
Drying Beds
Drying beds can achieve both sludge stabilization and dewatering. Process description for drying beds is
provided in the section describing dewatering alternatives. Sludge must remain on a sand bed to filtrate
and dry at a depth of not more than 25 centimeters. The sludge must stay in the bed for at least 30 days
and reach a minimum volatile solids reduction of 60 percent.
Process Assessment
Some of the primary advantages are the low operating cost and simple operation. See Table 5-15 for
typical advantages and disadvantages of drying beds for stabilization.
Alkaline Stabilization
Alkaline stabilization can be used to produce a Second Class sludge but compromises the objective for
sludge reuse. The potential classification of an alkaline stabilized sludge is defined in the document
Water Environment Federation, MOP 8, page 25-232, which states “Alkaline-stabilized biosolids can be
beneficially used in many ways, depending on the particular quality requirements and associated
standards. Traditional lime stabilization is classified in the U.S. EPA’s Standards for the Use of Disposal
of Sewage Sludge as a Class B process (PSRP) (U.S. EPA, 1999b). Many of the advanced alkaline
stabilization technologies meet U.S. EPA’s definition of a Class A process (PFRP).” The Jordanian
Standards for Second Class sludge match those for US EPA Class B sludge. Therefore, alkaline
stabilization should meet the Second Class standards.
Process Description
Sludge is stabilized by mixing lime, cement kiln dust, or fly ash to the thickened or dewater sludge to
raise the pH. The mixture is stored for 72 hours (after dewatering) at a pH of 12 and maintained at a
temperature of 52 degrees Celsius or higher. A lime slurry can be mixed with the thickened sludge or a
Water/Wastewater Infrastructure Project
Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report 63
Section 5 – Assessment of Treatment Technologies
pug mill is used to combine the slurry with sludge cake. The mixture will neutralize or destroy
pathogens and microorganisms. Both methods are effective but also have advantages and
disadvantages.
Process Assessment
Alkalinity stabilization can be effective but does not comply with the project objective to generate a
sludge that could have a beneficial reuse. This process would elevate that pH to a level which would
prohibit the Second Class reuse of soil stabilization. Therefore, this option for stabilization should not
be considered. See Table 5-16 for typical advantages and disadvantages of alkaline stabilization.
Table 5-16 Alkaline Stabilization Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages Disadvantages
-Low capital cost -High pH eliminates the reuse potential for the
-Simple operation cake
-Improves dewaterability of sludge -Raw materials are messy and in limited
-Will produce a Second Class sludge supply in -Jordan
The required treatment objectives are defined in Section 4. The combination of data from these sections
is used to define the new treatment objectives discussed in this section for the entire facility. These
objectives will consider future influent characteristics and new discharge limitations.
6,500
6,000
5,500
5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Flow ( Thousand m3/d)
Figure 6-1 Cost Curve for New Activated Sludge WWTP
Table 6-3 is used for alternatives where costs are required for portions of a new, expanded or upgraded
WWTP, This table provides an estimate for the proportion of plant work, to the overall cost of a new
Water/Wastewater Infrastructure Project
Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report 67
Section 6 – Evaluation of Alternatives
facility. Using the overall plant capacity, the total cost is taken from Table 6-1 and then the appropriate
percentage of cost is applied to get the estimated cost for that item of work.
Table 6-2 Breakdown of Construction Cost by WWTP Units
Headworks 10
Aeration Units 28
Sludge Processing 15
Total 100
Catchment.Table 6-4 summarizes the existing treatment capacity (from Table 3.14 and 3.15) for the
West Jerash WWTP and future treatment requirements for only the West Jerash Catchment in 2035.
Table 6-4 Future West Jerash WWTP Process Design Criteria (West Catchment Flows and
Loads)
Original WWTP Capacity CDM Estimated Design Capacity
Parameter 2025 Design Criteria 2035 Design Criteria
Average Max Month Average Max Month
3
Flow (m /d) 10,000 13,100 9.092 11,911
The figures shown for “Original WWTP Capacity 2025 Design Criteria” in Table 6-4 are taken from the
Final Design Report (C. Lotti & Associates, April 2005) and the maximum month values are based on
peaking factors developed for the East Jerash Catchment and summarized in Section 2. As shown in this
table, the existing WWTP has sufficient hydraulic capacity but lacks the required ability to treat future
loadsExpansion of West WWTP for Flow Transfers from East Jerash under Alternatives 1 & 2
6.3.1 Expansion of West WWTP for Flow Transfers from East Jerash Under
Alternatives 1 & 2
For East Jerash WWTP Alternatives 1 and 2, the West Jerash WWTP would be overloaded in about 2013
to 2014 from the combined projected flows and loads from the East and West Catchments. This would
require an immediate implementation of design and construction of an expanded West Jerash WWTP
or new WWTP that would basically double the hydraulic capacity and more than double the BOD
loading of the existing West Jerash WWTP.
3
Alternative 1 and 2 would require capacity increases at West Jerash WWTP of 9,491 m /d and 6,900
3 3 3
m /d, respectively. The existing capacity is 10,000 m /d would have to increase to 18,583 m /d or 15,983
3
m /d. This can be accomplished by providing a plant expansion of the existing or construction of a new
plant adjacent to the existing. If an expansion is chosen, then many changes would be required to the
existing facility including an increase in conveyance capacity through channels and pipes, headworks
expansion, an increase in biosolids processing, and many other modifications. It is not feasible to
provide an expansion of the existing WWTP where duplication in existing capacity is required.
Therefore, the recommendation would be to install a new WWTP, adjacent to the existing, with a
3 3
capacity of 9,491 m /d d or 6,900 m /d. If located on the same site, there remain many features of the
existing WWTP that could be utilized including administration laboratory, maintenance, common
outfall and possibly other infrastructure.
The recommendation where all flows are transferred to West Jerash includes the construction of a new
oxidation ditch WWTP adjacent to the exiting. Figure 6-2 is a schematic view of the new WWTP.
This alternative is designed to meet the 2035 wastewater disposal needs for the West Jerash Catchment.
The design criteria for the two new oxidation plants in West Jerash WWTP are provided in Table 6-5.
Table 6-6 lists the blended effluent quality for the expanded plant with the new oxidation ditch. As
shown the anticipated performance exceeds the future discharge criteria.
Table 6-5 Operating Parameters and Design Criteria – New Oxidation Ditch WWTPs
3
Total Average Flow 9,500 / 6,900 m /d
3
Volume per Ditch 18,000/12,000 m
Depth 3.0/3.0 m
3
Channel Width 16.0/13.0 m
BOD 5.8/6.2 30
TSS 17.9/19.5 50
T-N 15.7/15.8 45
This alternative is designed to meet the 2035 wastewater disposal needs for all of Jerash. The design
criteria for the new oxidation ditch WWTP will be similar to the existing West Jerash WWTP. Table 6-7
provides the construction costs for new WWTPs in West Jerash to accommodate flow transfers from
East Jerash. Unit costs are taken from Figure 6.2.
Table 6-7 Capital Cost Estimate Summary for new West WWTP Alternative 1 for Flow
Transfers
1
Work Items Calculation (Reference) Capital Cost (US$)
3 3
Alternative 1, New 9,500 m /d WWTP $1,600/m3/d * 9,500 m /d (Figure 6.1) $15,200,000
options that could be considered at that time. Development of a more detailed analysis at this time is
not warranted since the projected flows and loads through 2035 may not be achieved in the time period.
Various options are considered for the potential expansion of the West WWTP to treat wastewater
flows and loads from only the West Catchment area. These are:
Option A – Addition of Primary Clarification
Option B – Additional Biological Process Train
Option C – Modify Process Operations
These options are explored in more detail below with an analysis, evaluation, and recommendations.
Figure 6-3 Schematic of New Primary Clarifiers with Existing West WWTP
Table 6-8 Operating Parameter and Design Criteria - New Primary Clarifiers with
Oxidation Ditch
Table 6-9 lists the effluent quality for the modified West Jerash WWTP with primary clarifiers. As
shown, the anticipated performance exceeds the future discharge criteria.
Table 6-9 Effluent Water Quality - New Primary Clarifiers with Oxidation Ditch
Predicted Effluent Reuse Discharge Limit
Parameter
(mg/L) (mg/L)
BOD 5.7 30
COD 95 100
TSS 14.6 50
T-N 21.7 45
T-P 10.3 15
Table 6-10 presents the work items for Option A and the approximate capital cost.
Table 6-10 Capital Cost Estimate for Option A
1
Work Items Calculation/Reference Capital Cost (US$)
3
$1,600 * 9,092 m /d * 4% (Table
Two new primary clarifiers $582,000
6-2)
3
Sludge Processing Upgrade (50% increase & $1,600 * 9,092 m /d * 15% * 50%
$2,182,000
50% cost) (Table 6-2)
Table 6-11 Operating Parameters and Design Criteria - Oxidation Ditch Expansion
Parameter Value Unit
3
Total Average Flow 9,092 m /d
Table 6-12 lists the blended effluent quality for the expanded plant with the new oxidation ditch. As
shown the anticipated performance exceeds the future discharge criteria.
COD 95 100
TSS 20.0 50
T-N 17.5 45
T-P 1.5 15
Table 6-13 presents the work items for Option B and the approximate capital cost.
Table 6-14 Operating Parameters and Design Criteria - Modified Process Operations
3
Total Average Flow 9,092 m /d
COD 95 100
TSS 18.5 50
T-N 23.3 45
T-P 1.5 15
A summary of the capital cost estimates for the three options for expanding the West WWTP to only
meet the wastewater flows and loads to 2035 projects is presented in Table 6-17. As seen, the
recommended approach would be to modify the plant operation parameters for SRT and provide
facilities to handle and treat the additional biosolids that would be generated. However, as previously
stated, it is estimated that the plant will provide sufficient capacity up to 2024. WAJ will need to
monitor the influent flows and loads over the next 10 – 12 years to gain a better estimate of when and if
an expansion is needed. In addition, the recommended option for expansion may change at a later date
depending on the influent load characteristics and other factors.
For the purposes of providing a cost estimate for expanding the West WWTP under the East WWTP
improvement alternatives, Option C has been selected and the cost carried forward to the following
analyses for Alternatives 3 and 4.
Table 6-17 Capital Cost Estimate Summary for West WWTP Expansion Options
1
West WWTP Expansion Option Capital Cost (US$)
Removes the East WWTP per se as a local nuisance, in matters of odor, residential land value,
agricultural land value, permissible leafy vegetables and herb crops
Would avoid contaminating the groundwater in Wadi Jerash which feeds springs.
Disadvantages:
East Jerash discharge removal will eliminate an irrigation water source downstream of the
discharge
Construction of the transfer system will disturb sensitive areas and create new pollution
sources such as a force main failure or pumping station overflow.
Increases wastewater discharges to the Wadi Amamah.
Does not at all alleviate hydraulic overflows.
Table 6-20 lists the effluent quality for the upgraded East Jerash WWTP. As shown, the anticipated
performance exceeds the future discharge criteria.
Table 6-20 Effluent Water Quality – Upgraded Existing East Jerash WWTP
Predicted Effluent Reuse Discharge Limit
Parameter (mg/L) (mg/L)
BOD 8.6 30
COD 95 100
TSS 26.2 50
T-N 16.9 45
T-P 11.7 15
The work of this alternative includes all the items described under Alternative Number 2 for the East
Jerash WWTP, with the addition of the following:
Two new primary clarifiers
Upgrade existing East Jerash secondary process for MLE
Two new oxidation ditch tanks
Abandonment of one polishing lagoon
Two new secondary clarifiers
RAS/WAS Splitter box and pump station
New sludge treatment systems
New miscellaneous chambers and buildings
New headworks
New chemical feed system for phosphorus removal
Eventual upgrade (2024) of West WWTP to meet West Catchment projected flows and loads
through 2035
Performance Criteria
This alternative is designed to meet the 2035 wastewater disposal needs for the East Jerash Catchment.
The design criteria for the new oxidation ditch process trains is provided in Table 6-22.
Table 6-22 Operation Parameters and Design Criteria – New Oxidation Ditch Expansion
Depth 3.0 m
Clarifier Diameter 18 m
Table 6-23 lists the blended effluent quality for the upgraded plant with the new process trains. As
shown the anticipated performance exceeds the future discharge criteria.
Table 6-23 Blended Effluent Water Quality - Upgrade with Oxidation Ditch Expansion
Parameter Predicted Effluent Reuse Discharge Limit
(mg/L) (mg/L)
BOD 8.1 30
COD 95 100
TSS 17.6 50
T-N 32.8 45
T-P 14.2 15
Conceptual Costs
Table 6-24 presents the work items for Alternative Number 3A and the approximate capital cost.
Performance Criteria
This alternative is designed to meet the 2035 wastewater disposal needs for the East Jerash Catchment.
The design criteria for the new oxidation ditch process trains is provided in Table 6-25.
Table 6-25 Operating Conditions and Design Criteria - Replacement with Oxidation Ditch
Number of Ditches 2 #
3
Volume per Ditch 6,300 m
Depth 3.0 m
Table 6-26 lists the effluent quality for the new WWTP. As shown the anticipated performance exceeds
the future discharge criteria.
COD 95 100
TSS 8.8 50
T-N 14.9 45
T-P 14.4 15
Conceptual Costs
Table 6-27 presents the work items for Alternative Number 3B and the approximate capital cost.
3 3
New Oxidation Ditch WWTP $1,600/m /d * 9,500 m /d (Figure 6.1) $15,200,000
Environmental impacts
Potential land acquisition costs/impacts
An investigation of potential sites down gradient of the East WWTP revealed that there were no
potential sites within Wadi Jerash. Two potential sites along the Zarqa River which met these
requirements and had minimal impact on consequential criteria, however, were located and evaluated.
These sites are shown on Figure A-2 in Appendix A of this report which provides details of the
wastewater transfer and conveyance facilities needed under each alternative for treating the East Jerash
wastewater. Both sites are considered to have sufficient land area.
Site A would require a 8,200 m long, 600 mm diameter, gravity conveyance pipe. This site, however,
could provide service to a wider area of Jerash Governorate on either side of the Zarqa River. This site is
adjacent to the Zarqa River near a large bend and downstream of the Jerash Bridge. Site investigations
reveal that:
The topography is level, but with a high potential for flooding during the winter months. Site
improvements would require raising the land level and/or construction of flood protection
berms and stormwater pump station.
Land ownership is in private hands with multiple small parcels that would require acquisition.
Current use appears to be winter grains agriculture,
An access bridge over the Zarqa River would be required.
Site B is at the southern end of Wadi Jerash and near the Zarqa River bridge. It would require a shorter,
6,400 m long, 600 mm diameter, gravity conveyance pipe. It is also located near the Zarqa River, but
protected from flooding by being at a higher elevation and surrounding hills. An investigation of this
site reveals:
A topography that rises about 20 m from west to east.
Land ownership is government hands – the Ministry of Agriculture has a building adjacent to
the land.
Current use is agriculture with orchards of citrus and olives.
Access is available from the Jerash road near the desalination plant.
In consideration of the above findings, Site B was selected as the preferred site for a potential new
WWTP.
Table 6-28 Operating Conditions and Design Criteria - Replacement with Oxidation Ditch
Parameter Value Unit
3
Total Average Flow 9,500 m /d
Number of Ditches 2 #
3
Volume per Ditch 6,300 m
Depth 3.0 m
Number of Ditches 2 #
3
Volume per Ditch 6,300 m
Depth 3.0 m
Table 6-29 lists the blended effluent quality for the upgrade plant with the new process trains. As
shown the anticipated performance exceeds the future discharge criteria.
Table 6-30 Effluent Water Quality - Replacement with Oxidation Ditch
Predicted Effluent Reuse Discharge Limit
Parameter mg/L) (mg/L)
BOD 4.5 30
COD 95 100
TSS 8.8 50
T-N 14.9 45
T-P 14.4 15
Landscaping and site preparation Site preparation, retaining walls, etc. $500,000
sewer for treatment at Alternative 4 facilities. This transfer would also defer the expansion of the West
Jerash WWTP to beyond 2030.
Also the communities of Al Ryashi, Um Qontara and Al Rashaydeh and unsewered areas of An Nabi
Hood, Al Majar and East Jerash could also be connected to the alternative 4 facilities. .
The additional analysis of alternative 4, including a comparison of costs was presented to WAJ in
Technical Memo dated 23 June, 2011. This memo is attached to this feasibility report at the end of this
section.
Expand in
Alternative 4 – New WWTP 2024 from
Construct New Decommission at Site B for BOD load of
NA 3 $3,200,000 $20,911,000
WWTP at a $500,000 9,500 m /d 7,500 kg/d to
New Site $16,120,000 12,123 kg/d
$1,091,000
1
Capital costs in US dollars and for construction only.
The analysis includes the estimated capital and O&M cost of each alternative, and the qualitative
criteria for:
Constructability and Implementability — How easy or difficult would it be to construct the
alternative given the site conditions.
Reliability — Consider any differences in the reliability of the plant to perform and meet
discharge limits.
Flexibility and Expandability — Do the site locations offer flexibility for future expansions.
Required Maintenance — Consider any differences in the maintenance needs of the plant sites.
Space Requirements — Consider total land area needs/availability and land acquisition
requirements.
Odor — Odors are seldom a problem in properly operated secondary treatment systems.
Methods for biosolids treatment, storage and disposal will influence scoring of this criteria.
Odor control is recommended
Process Performance — All of these alternatives would provide secondary effluent water
quality that meets Jordanian standards. Some are able to accomplish this better and easier
than others.
Noise Level — Consider the proposed locations and potential for disturbances to abutters from
noise
Public Impact — Consider the potential and perceived impacts to abutters, nearby neighbors,
and public at large.
Energy Use — Consider any differences in energy requirements for the considered alternatives.
Table 6-32 summarizes all criteria into a matrix for ease in comparing the different alternatives. Each is
graded for the potential response to the respective criteria. A ranking of 1 to 5 is provided with 5 being
the most desirable. The alternative with the highest total score is the recommended plan for wastewater
treatment in East Jerash.
Based on the summary of scoring for the five different alternatives, Alternative Number 3B, Oxidation
Ditch Replacement at the existing East WWTP site, and future (2024) expansion of the West WWTP is
recommended for future wastewater treatment in Jerash. There may be some resistance from local
residents, but this alternative is the most financially and logistically feasible solution for future
treatment. It has many advantages including the current influent pipes and outfall to a wadi which
already receiving wastewater. The site improvements of a new treatment facility with abandonment of
the existing aging WWTP will reconcile any concerns local residents might have.
Table 6-33 Summary Scoring for the Five Alternatives (Highest Score is Preferred Alternative)
WWTP
Decommissioning Upgrade Existing Oxidation Ditch Oxidation Ditch Replacement at
Criteria Expansion Replacement
Alternative No.1 Alternative No.2 Alternative No.3A Alternative No.3B New Location
No.4
Constructability &
3 3 4 4 2
Implementability
Reliability 4 3 3 5 4
Flexibility and
3 3 2 3 4
Expandability
Required Maintenance 4 2 2 5 5
Space Requirements 2 4 3 4 2
Odor 4 3 3 4 4
Process Performance 3 3 3 5 5
Noise Level 4 3 3 4 4
Public Impact 4 3 4 4 2
Energy Use 2 2 4 5 5
Capital Cost 3 3 3 5 2
O&M Cost 5 3 3 5 5
Total Score 41 35 37 53 44
Memorandum
To: Task 3 File
From: R Minkwitz
Introduction
The purpose of this Memorandum is to respond to the verbal request of the WAJ
Technical Committee reviewing the subject report. CDM has been asked to consider
further the alternatives identified in the report under Alternative 4 and to compare them
with Alternative 3B.
Background
The Draft Jerash Wastewater Feasibility Study Report was submitted on 18 May 2011 and
considered four alternatives for wastewater treatment which focused on the East
Catchment with secondary consideration for improvements required at the West Jerash
WWTP. The alternatives considered for the East Jerash Catchment wastewater treatment
improvements are:
Alternative 1: Decommissioning of the existing East WWTP and transfer all East Jerash
catchment wastewater for treatment at the West Jerash WWTP.
Alternative 2: Upgrade of the existing East WWTP to operate at a flow rate that will meet
effluent discharge limits, but not to handle future (2035) flows and loads – the balance
would be conveyed to the West Jerash WWTP through a transfer system.
Alternative 3: Upgrade and expansion (3A), or complete on-site replacement (3B), of the
existing East Jerash WWTP facility to meet current effluent discharge limits and future
(2035) East Jerash Catchment influent flow and load conditions.
Alternative 4: Decommissioning of the existing East Jerash WWTP, and construction at
another site of a new WWTP facility to meet current effluent discharge limits and future
(2035) East Jerash Catchment influent flow and load conditions.
A financial analysis of the above alternatives and an assessment of the recommended
alternative along with socio-economic analyses was performed. The financial viability of
the plan is presented with the effects on local tariffs and the estimated value of effluent
reuse. The socio-economic analysis considers the quantifiable and non-quantifiable
benefits that would be achieved by the project.
Jerash WWTP Feasibility Study File
23 June 2011
Page 99
Alternative 3B was recommended as the most economically feasible option with
responsive improvements to satisfy the concerns of local residents. A brief summary of
alternatives 3B and 4 are presented below.
Site A
Site A is private land in multiple ownership along the Zarqa River with an area of
approximately 80 dunums and located 1.5 km downstream of the Jerash Bridge near a
large bend in the river. This site is near the downstream end of Wadi Amamah, the treated
effluent route for the West Jerash WWTP. It is located at an average elevation of 220 masl.
Site B
From the Feasibility Study, Site B is Government land, with approximately 40 dunums
area, located very close to the main Jerash Road, and adjacent to the desalination plant.
The site is east of Wadi Jerash near the land owned and used as nurseries by the Ministry
of Agriculture. Site B is located at an average elevation of 260 m.a.s.l. and currently
planted with some olive trees. Site B would require a 6,400 m long, 600 mm diameter,
gravity conveyance pipe. The estimated cost for the conveyance pipeline to this site is US$
3,200,000, exclusive of land acquisition for the site or the pipeline route. This site could
also serve areas on both sides of the Zarqa River, but to a lesser extent than Site A. The last
section of the conveyance pipeline may require to be siphoned.
Alternative 3B
The feasibility study for Alternatives 3B included the localities shown in the attached table
to determine the wastewater flow for 2035 entering the East Plant. These localities were
considered in total, whether additional pump stations and collection systems would need
to be provided to convey the wastewater flow to the East Plant or to the new sites. For
Alternative 3B site, the Master Plan determined that 1 new pump station would be
required to convey flow from currently unsewered areas within the localities for the
remainder of An Nabi Hood, Al Majar and East Jerash.
Additionally, the localities of Al Ryashi (E08) and Um Qontara (E09) could be served by 1
pump station to pump to the An Nabi Hood PS for further pumping to the East Plant and
that another pump station could serve Al Rashaydeh (E10) to pump to the East plant. The
flows from these 3 localities were not included in the East Plant capacity of capacity of
9,500 m3/d. Additional capacity of 575 m3/day at the existing site would be required to
include the localities of Al Rashaydeh, Al Majar (E02) , Al Ryashi, and Um Qontara.
Alternative 4 Sites
Either of the 2 sites under Alternative 4, if selected, would require a conveyance pipeline
to be constructed within Wadi Jerash or near the wadi. For a pipeline in the wadi bed, an
access road and provisions for secure cast-in-place manholes constructed to 2 meters
above the wadi bed would be required. A pipeline route within or near the Wadi would
require land acquisition and suitable permits. In the case of Site A, unless other suitable
pipeline routes are determined, the manhole construction within the Zarqa River area
would need to be at an elevation above the flood levels and design for the pipeline would
need to consider potential for washouts during flood conditions.
The Feasibility Study, in sizing the proposed facility under Alternatives 3B and 4,
considered the estimated 2035 wastewater flows from the east catchment areas of 9,500
m3/day. For Alternatives 3B and 4, this wastewater flow considers all villages and Jerash
City in the East catchment as shown on Figure 1-1 in the study.
For Alternative 4, a further consideration would be to look at the Orient design for the
localities of Daher As Srou and Al Jbarat. The proposed design has the wastewater system
collecting flows from these 2 localities and directing the flows to Pump Station 2 where the
flow is then pumped through a force main to the West Jerash WWTP. Under Alternative 4
it would be possible to eliminate the pump station and force main in the Orient design and
instead connect directly to the conveyance pipeline required in Wadi Jerash from the
existing East WWTP. The contributory wastewater flows from the localities of Daher As
Srou and Al Jbarat, when added to the east catchment, results in an additional estimated
population of 16,424 and a wastewater flow of 1,300 m3/day in year 2035.
Site A
As stated in the Feasibility Study, Site A is still considered to be of concern due to the need
for land acquisition from multiple private owners, the potential for flooding from the
Zarqa River, the conveyance pipeline routing and length, and subsurface conditions that
would need further investigation. The final design report for the Raising of the King Talal
Dam identified the 100 year frequency peak flood of the Zarqa River in the vicinity of the
proposed site at 1222 m3/sec.
However, Site A would allow gravity connection for additional unsewer areas with
populations of about 7,183 people and allow deleting Pump Station 2 and the force main
from the current Orient design. There is also the potential that Site A could serve some
areas in the governorate that are on the south side of the Zarqa River. The practicality of
this is in question due to the terrain and distance and has not been consider in further
analyses.
Another advantage to this site is that a conveyance pipeline from the West Jerash WWTP
could be connected to this site in lieu of expansion of the West plant. This possibility
should be considered in the final design if Alternative 4, Site A was selected.
Site B
This site is closer to Wadi Jerash and requires a shorter conveyance pipeline from the East
WWTP site. The site is also situated at a higher elevation and unlikely to be affected by
any expected flood stage at the Zarqa River. Another advantage to this site is that it is
owned by the Ministry of Agriculture and should be easier and less expensive to acquire.
However, if Site B is to be considered further, WAJ will need to begin preliminary
discussions with the Ministry of Agriculture to obtain their commitment to transfer the
land before any design work proceeds.
Similar to Site A, Site B would allow gravity connection for additional unsewer areas with
populations of about 7,183 people and allow deleting Pump Station 2 and the force main
from the current Orient design. There is also the potential that Site B could serve some
areas in the governorate that are on the south side of the Zarqa River. The practicality of
this is in question due to the terrain and distance and has not been consider in further
analyses.
A disadvantage to Site B is that it would not provide gravity service without tunneling to
any wastewater flow from the West Jerash WWTP as the location is upstream of where
Wadi Ammanah joins the Zarqa River.
Comparison of Costs
Muqbileh 1,939 2,004 2,323 2,651 2,987 3,317 3,642 160 186 212 239 265 291
Asfoor 899 929 1,077 1,229 1,385 1,538 1,689 74 86 98 111 123 135
Mukhayyam Soof 12,446 12,862 14,910 17,018 19,170 21,290 23,380 1,029 1,193 1,361 1,534 1,703 1,870
Jerash 30,301 31,313 36,300 41,432 46,671 51,832 56,919 2,505 2,904 3,315 3,734 4,147 4,554
An-Nabi Hood 1,098 1,135 1,315 1,501 1,691 1,878 2,063 91 105 120 135 150 165
TOTAL 63,156 65,265 75,660 86,357 97,276 108,034 118,637 5,221 6,053 6,909 7,782 8,643 9,491
Daher As-Srou 6,662 6,885 7,982 9,110 10,262 11,397 12,515 551 639 729 821 912 1,001
Sakeb 11,952 12,351 14,318 16,343 18,409 20,445 22,452 988 1,145 1,307 1,473 1,636 1,796
Ketteh 6,826 7,054 8,178 9,334 10,514 11,677 12,823 564 654 747 841 934 1,026
West WWTP
Raimoon 7,336 7,581 8,788 10,031 11,299 12,549 13,781 606 703 802 904 1,004 1,102
Nahleh 3,674 3,797 4,401 5,024 5,659 6,285 6,902 304 352 402 453 503 552
Al-Haddadeh 2,598 2,685 3,112 3,552 4,002 4,444 4,880 215 249 284 320 356 390
Mukhayyam Gaza 16,611 17,166 19,900 22,713 25,585 28,415 31,204 1,373 1,592 1,817 2,047 2,273 2,496
Manshiyat Hashem 2,758 2,850 3,304 3,771 4,248 4,718 5,181 228 264 302 340 377 414
Al-Jbarat 2,086 2,156 2,499 2,852 3,213 3,568 3,919 172 200 228 257 285 313
TOTAL 60,503 62,524 72,483 82,730 93,191 103,498 113,655 5,002 5,799 6,618 7,455 8,280 9,092
Kufr Khall 6,557 6,776 7,855 8,966 10,100 11,216 12,317 542 628 717 808 897 985
Baliela 5,798 5,992 6,946 7,928 8,930 9,918 10,891 479 556 634 714 793 871
Qafqafa 4,258 4,400 5,101 5,822 6,558 7,284 7,999 352 408 466 525 583 640
Kfeir 2,061 2,130 2,469 2,818 3,174 3,526 3,872 170 198 225 254 282 310
Zaqreet 390 403 467 533 601 667 733 32 37 43 48 53 59
Al-Rashaydeh 1,752 1,811 2,099 2,396 2,699 2,997 3,291 145 168 192 216 240 263
Um Rameh 121 125 145 165 186 207 227 10 12 13 15 17 18
Eneibeh 96 99 115 131 148 164 180 8 9 11 12 13 14
Jaba 578 597 692 790 890 989 1,086 48 55 63 71 79 87
Um Az-Zaitoon 619 640 742 846 953 1,059 1,163 51 59 68 76 85 93
Al-Husseiniyat 373 385 447 510 575 638 701 31 36 41 46 51 56
Um Qontara 616 637 738 842 949 1,054 1,157 51 59 67 76 84 93
Najdeh 300 310 359 410 462 513 564 25 29 33 37 41 45
Al-Majar 790 816 946 1,080 1,217 1,351 1,484 65 76 86 97 108 119
Al-Abbarah 381 394 456 521 587 652 716 31 37 42 47 52 57
Jamla 875 904 1,048 1,196 1,348 1,497 1,644 72 84 96 108 120 131
Qrei' 283 292 339 387 436 484 532 23 27 31 35 39 43
Dibbeen 46 48 55 63 71 79 86 4 4 5 6 6 7
Al-Ryashi 666 688 798 911 1,026 1,139 1,251 55 64 73 82 91 100
Not served
7.1.1 Headworks
The new plant will require similar preliminary processes to the existing facility, including an influent
flow overflow structure, flow measurement, screening, and grit removal. For most of these, there are
different technologies to consider. Screening and grit removal are processes with technology options,
which will be assessed in the Basis of Design Report. A Headworks Building is recommended and would
contain flow measurement, screening and grit processing. The building will also provide a means to
contain odors which are to be conveyed to an odor control system.
The following provides a few technical details regarding the different processes being considered for the
new headworks system.
Screening
It is recommended that two screening channels be constructed, each with a capacity for the peak flow
3
of 30,000 m /d. This provides full redundancy at peak flow in the event that maintenance is required on
one of the screens. There are many screening technologies which include belt/band screen, center-flow
screen, step-style screen, rotary-arc fine screen, and vertical bar screen. Each has advantages,
disadvantages and applications for specific site characteristics, which will all be assessed as part of the
Basis of Design Report. For this report, the vertical bar screen is recommended. This is a fine screen
which will be preceded by a manual coarse bar rack.
Fine Screens
Number of units : 2
Type: Mechanically cleaned vertical bar screen installed directly in
the channel
3
Capacity per unit, m /d: 30,000
Clear spacing, mm: 15
Operation: 1 duty and 1 standby
Screenings Containers
No. of screening containers: 2
3
Volume, m : 3 to 5
Grit Tanks
Number of tanks: 2
Type: Vortex with mixer
Flow velocity, m/sec: 0.6 to 1.0
Minimum velocity, m/s: 0.15
Detention time, seconds: 30 (average flow)
Tank diameter, m: 3.05
3
Capacity per unit, m /d: 30,000
Operation: 1 duty and 1 standby
Grit Pumps
Number: 2 duty and 2 standby
Type: Top mounted flooded suction
Flow range, L/sec: 16 to 18
Grit Classifiers
Number of units: 2, 1 for each grit tank
Type: Inclined screw with washer
Grit Containers
Number of grit containers: 2
3
Volume, m : 3 to 5
Odor Control
Ventilation will be provided for the headworks area, with some air directed to an odor control
treatment system. Most of the headworks area will be maintained under a negative pressure relative to
the outdoors so as to minimize the release of odorous air.
Pumps Station
Pump station type: Dry/wet pit
Number of Units: 3 (2 duty and 1 standby)
3
Pump capacity each, m /d: 15,000
Operation: Continuous per static wet well level
Type: Dry pit, centrifugal
Drive: Variable Frequency Drive
Aeration Tanks
Number of tank: 2
3
Tank volume per unit, m : 6,000
Type of aeration: Fine bubble diffused
Wastewater temperature 16°C
DO concentration in MLSS: 2 mg/L
Air supply: 4, turbo blowers
SVI: 200 mL/g
pH Range: 7-9
RAS Pumps
Number of Units: 3 (2 duty and 1 standby)
RAS Return: 100 percent of maximum month flow
3
Capacity each, m /hr: 300
Operation: Continuous
Type: Dry pit, centrifugal
Drive: Variable Frequency Drive
WAS Pumps
Number of units: 3 (2 duty and 1 standby).
3
Capacity each, m /hr: 9.0
Operation: Intermittent and suction from WAS line
Type: Dry pit Centrifugal
Drive: Variable Frequency Drive
Secondary Clarifiers
3
Capacity each, m /d: 6,200
Number of units: 2 (2 duty)
Diameter, m: 25
Side water depth, m: 4.9
Scum Pumps
Number of units: 2 (one duty, one standby)
Water/Wastewater Infrastructure Project
Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report 111
Section 7 – Summary of Treatment Recommendations
3
Capacity, m /hr: 3.0
Type: Submersible, solids handling
Operation: Intermittent
7.1.8 Disinfection
A chlorination system with chlorine gas will be used for disinfection. Chlorinators will create a solution,
which will be conveyed to the injection point at the new chlorine contact tanks. The design criteria for
the chlorine disinfection system are as follows:
Gravity Thickeners
Primary sludge feed, %: 1 to 2
Secondary sludge feed, %: 0.7
Number of tanks: 2
Water/Wastewater Infrastructure Project
Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report 112
Section 7 – Summary of Treatment Recommendations
Aerobic Digesters
Number of tanks: 2
Tank Diameter and SWD, m: 20 and 4
Volatile solids reduction, min %: 38
3
Tank Volume, m : 1,256
Hydraulic detention time, days: 15 to 20
Mixing/Aeration: Jet mix with entrained air
Centrifuges
Number of units: 1 duty and 1 standby
Sludge cake solids, %: 25 to 35%
Solids Capture, %: 95
Polymer Systems
Number of systems: 2
Servicing: Thickeners and centrifuges
Type: Liquid
Capacity, kg/hr: 13.0
3
Mix tank, m : 4.0
3
Age tank, m : 4.0
A 5% real financial discount rate (opportunity cost of capital) in US$ terms is applied for the Net
Present Value (NPV) calculations which is reasonable for environmental infrastructure projects.
Financial analysis is conducted at constant 2011 US$ prices without taking the impact of US$ inflation
into consideration due to uncertainties involved. Value Added Tax (VAT) on investment and O & M
costs (as well as on revenues) are not taken into account as financing requirement throughout the
whole planning period of 2011 - 2035 since VAT is considered to be a local issue to be settled between
the Jerash Water Utility and the Government of Jordan. No taxes and duties on imports are foreseen
in the procurement of assets on the assumption that these will be waived by the Government of
Jordan.
The following assumptions and parameters are used for the estimation of population and households
connected to the sewerage network and wastewater flows and volumes billed applied to both east and
west catchment areas in Jerash:
Average household size in Jerash is taken to be 6.0 persons/household in each year of the
operation period.
Overall specific water consumption in Jerash including residential, public, commercial and
industrial customer groups is assumed to be 100 liters per capita and day (Lpcd) in each
year of the operation period.
Wastewater generation rate (discharge of water consumed to the sewerage network) is
taken to be equivalent to 80% of water consumption (i.e. 80 Lpcd) in each year of the
operation period.
Overall specific wastewater volume billed in Jerash including residential, public,
commercial and industrial customer groups is assumed to be 90 Lpcd in each year of the
operation period based on the assumption of 10% commercial/administrative water losses
prior to billing (water consumption measured by meters is the basis for wastewater billing
as well, consequently, wastewater volume billed is taken to be equivalent to water volume
billed which is measured on a monthly basis).
As presented in detail in Appendix C-1 and summarized in Table 8-1 below, total population connected
to the sewerage network in Jerash is estimated to grow cumulatively by 124.27% from 103,576
inhabitants in 2015 to 232,291 inhabitants in 2035 with an annual average growth rate of 4.12% p.a. Since
the development of the sewerage network in the west catchment area of Jerash is estimated to be
started from scratch in 2011, the annual average growth rate of population connected in the west
catchment area is estimated to be 7.07% p.a. compared to 2.35% p.a. in the east catchment area where
the current sewerage connection rate is around 70%. Based on assumed average household size of 6.0
persons/household, the total number of households connected to the east and west catchment
sewerage networks in Jerash is estimated to increase from 17,262 households in 2015 to 38,714
households in 2035 with an annual average growth rate of 4.12% p.a.
Table 8-1 Population & Households Connected, Annual Total Wastewater Flows and
Volumes Billed in Selected Years
Population & Households Connected,
Wastewater Flows and Volumes Billed 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Population Connected To Sewerage Network
103,576 135,995 171,829 201,182 232,291
(inhabitants)
Households Connected To Sewerage Network
17,262 22,665 28,637 33,529 38,714
(nos.)
3
Annual Total Wastewater Flow To Be Treated (m ) 3,024,419 3,971,054 5,017,407 5,874,514 6,782,897
3
Annual Total Wastewater Volume Billed (m ) 3,402,472 4,467,436 5,644,583 6,608,829 7,630,759
Based on overall specific water consumption of 100 Lpcd and wastewater generation rate of 80%, annual
3
total wastewater flow in Jerash is estimated to grow cumulatively by 124.27% from 3,024,419 m in 2015
3
to 6,782,897 m in 2035.
Based on overall specific wastewater volume billed figure of 90 Lpcd, the annual total wastewater
3
volume billed in Jerash is estimated to increase cumulatively by 124.27% from 3,402,472 m in 2015 to
3
7,630,759 m in 2035.
All investment costs are estimated on an annual basis in the initial investment period of
2011 - 2014 (applicable to all five alternatives) and upgrading / extending the West Jerash
WWTP in 2022 - 2023 (applicable to Alternative 3A, Alternative 3B and Alternative 4) at
year 2011 constant US$ prices.
Physical investment costs are estimated separately for the construction of WWTPs, transfer
conveyance systems (applicable to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 and Alternative 4), electrical
supply, offsite road, site preparation, land purchase, preparation of feasibility study (US$
800,000 for all alternatives) and preparation of design and pre-tender documents (US$
1,500,000 for all alternatives).
Physical investment costs are broken down into civil works and mechanical / electrical
works components. Civil works are assumed to be all local costs whereas mechanical /
electrical works are itemized separately as local and foreign costs so that import taxes and
duties on the foreign (imported) goods and services costs may be applied if appropriate.
Contingencies, as a percentage of the investment cost, are taken to be equivalent to 25% of
base investment cost for both civil works and mechanical / electrical works.
Construction supervision fees as a percentage of the investment cost are taken to be
equivalent to 6% of base investment cost for both civil works and mechanical / electrical
works.
Import taxes and duties as a percentage of investment cost are taken to be equivalent to 0%
of base investment cost for both civil works and mechanical / electrical works assuming
that they will be waived by the Government of Jordan.
Renewal / replacement / replenishment investments of mechanical and electrical (M & E)
equipment are assumed to be materialized after 20 years of operation in 2035.
The economic life of civil works is taken to be 50 years since they comprise construction
activities and durable materials. On the other hand, the economic life of M & E works is
assumed to be 20 years.
Investment cost estimates (excluding renewal / replacement / replenishment investments of M & E
equipment to be materialized in 2035) covering 2011-2035 period for each of the five alternatives are
presented at 2011 constant US$ prices in Appendix C-2 in detail and summarized in Table 8-2.
The lowest investment cost (financially the most preferred) alternative is Alternative 3B with
discounted total investment cost of US$ 20,542,985 covering the 2011-2035 period.
Alternative 3B is the best alternative financially. The discounted total investment cost of Alternative 3A
is 7.16% higher, Alternative 2 is 8.83% higher, Alternative 1 is 11.65% higher and Alternative 4 is 22.44%
higher.
B. Discounted Total Investment Costs (At 5% Discount Rate) for Period of 2011-2035
Average monthly gross salary cost of managers and skilled workers is taken to be 650
JD/Month (918.08 US$/Month) which is assumed to increase by 1% p.a. in real terms each
year starting from 2016 onwards.
Average monthly gross salary cost of unskilled workers is taken to be 350 JD/Month (494.35
US$/Month) which is assumed to increase by 1% p.a. in real terms each year starting from
2016 onwards.
The number of WWTP operating staff varies in investment alternatives as follows:
o Alternative 1: Decommission East Jerash: (i) Total of 26 staff at the West WWTP (10 -
Managers and Skilled Workers / 16 - Unskilled workers); (ii) the East WWTP will not
be operated.
o Alternative 2: Upgrade East Jerash: (i) Total of 18 staff at the West WWTP (6 -
Managers and Skilled Workers / 12 - Unskilled workers); (ii) Total of 11 staff in East
WWTP (2 - Skilled Workers / 9 - Unskilled workers).
o Alternative 3A: Upgrade East Jerash: (i) Total of 16 staff at the West WWTP (7 -
Managers and Skilled Workers / 9 - Unskilled workers); (ii) Total of 15 staff at East
WWTP (6- Skilled Workers / 9 - Unskilled workers).
o Alternative 3B: Upgrade East Jerash: (i) Total of 16 staff at the West WWTP (7 -
Managers and Skilled Workers / 9 - Unskilled workers); (ii) Total of 15 staff in East
WWTP (6 - Skilled Workers / 9 - Unskilled workers).
o Alternative 4: Upgrade East Jerash: (i) Total of 16 staff at the West WWTP (7 -
Managers and Skilled Workers / 9 - Unskilled workers); (ii) Total of 15 staff in the
East WWTP (6 - Skilled Workers / 9 - Unskilled workers).
The annual total gross salary costs are calculated by multiplying the monthly gross salary
cost (total number of managers and skilled workers * average monthly gross salary cost of
managers and skilled workers + total number of unskilled workers * average monthly gross
salary cost of unskilled workers) by 12.
3
Unit electricity consumption for wastewater treatment is taken to be 1.60 kWh/m of
wastewater volume treated. This takes account of the abnormally high concentration of
pollutant typical of the Jerash area.
3
Unit electricity consumption for wastewater pumping is taken to be 0.18 kWh/m of
wastewater volume transferred. This is applied to Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 only due
to wastewater transfers involved (no electricity consumption for pumping is required in
Alternative 4 as a result of transfer by gravity).
3
Unit chlorine consumption for wastewater treatment is taken to be 0.005 kg/m of
wastewater volume treated.
Unit polyelectrolyte (polymer) consumption for wastewater treatment is taken to be 0.003
kg per kg of dry wastewater sludge produced.
3
Unit sludge production in wastewater treatment is assumed to be 0.994 kg per m of
wastewater treated.
Annual total dry wastewater sludge produced is estimated to be 3,006,758 kg in 2015,
3,947,854 kg in 2020, 4,988,118 kg in 2025, 5,840,206 kg in 2030 and 6,743,299 kg in 2035.
Unit electricity cost is taken to be 0.05932 US$/kWh (0.042 JD/kWh) which is assumed to
be increased by 1% p.a. in real terms each year starting from 2016 onwards.
Unit chlorine cost is taken to be 0.42373 US$/kg (0.03 JD/kg) which is assumed to be
increased by 1% p.a. in real terms each year starting from 2016 onwards.
Unit polyelectrolite (polymer) cost is taken to be 9.0 US$/kg (6.372 JD/kg) which is
assumed to be increased by 1% p.a. in real terms each year starting from 2016 onwards.
3
Unit sludge disposal (transportation) cost is taken to be US$ 3.77119 (JD 2.67) per m of
sludge which is assumed to be increased by 1% p.a. in real terms each year starting from
2016 onwards.
Annual electricity and chemicals costs are calculated by multiplying annual consumption
estimates (in kWh and kg per year) with the unit costs.
Annual repair and maintenance costs for new investments and the West WWTP are
estimated as a percentage of the investment costs by assuming 0.5% for civil works
annually and 2% for machinery and equipment.
Annual repair and maintenance cost for the West Jerash WWTP is estimated by
multiplying the civil works cost of US$ 6,015,410 (JD 4,258,910) by 0.5% and M & E works
cost of US$ 4,010,273 (JD 2,839,274)) by 2%. Consequently, annual repair and maintenance
cost for West Jerash WWTP is calculated to be US$ 110,283 (civil works: US$ 30,077; M & E
works: US$ 80,205).
Annual general administration cost is assumed to be equivalent to 10% of annual total gross
salary cost.
Annual depreciation cost of new investments is estimated by dividing the accumulated
investment costs (gross asset values) by the assumed economic life of 50 years for civil
works and 20 years for M & E works.
Annual depreciation cost of West Jerash WWTP is estimated by dividing the total
investment cost of US$ 10,025,684 (JD 7,098,184) (of which civil works component is US$
6,015,410 (JD 4,258,910) and M & E works component is US$ 4,010,273 (JD 2,839,274)) by the
assumed economic life of 50 years for civil works and 20 years for M & E works.
Consequently, the annual depreciation cost of West Jerash WWTP is calculated to be US$
320,822 (civil works: US$ 120,308; M & E works: US$200,514) between 2011 and 2029 and US$
120,308 (civil works: US$ 120,308; M & E works: US$ 0) between 2030 and 2035.
O & M cost estimates of wastewater treatment services differ in each investment alternative due to
differences in operating staff numbers, wastewater pumping costs and repair & maintenance costs
calculated as percentage of investment costs.
O & M cost estimates of wastewater treatment services in Jerash covering 2015-2035 operation period for
each of the five alternatives are presented at 2011 constant US$ prices in Appendix C-3 in detail and
summarized in Table 8-3 below.
The lowest O & M cost (financially the most preferred) alternative including depreciation costs is
Alternative 3B with discounted total O & M of US$ 24,843,995 covering the 2011-2035 period.
The discounted total O & M cost of Alternative 2 is 1.35% higher, Alternative 1 is 2.08% higher,
Alternative 3A is 3.51% higher and Alternative 4 is 6.65% higher than the financially best Alternative 3B.
Table 8-3 O & M Cost Estimates of Alternatives (At 2011 Constant US$ Prices)
A. Undiscounted Total O & M Costs for the Period of 2015-2035
B. Discounted Total O & M Costs (At 5% Discount Rate) for the Period of 2015-2035
Undiscounted and discounted annual average total O & M costs of the financially most preferred
Alternative 3B are US$ 2,415,187 and US$ 1,183,047, respectively.
In the total discounted O & M cost of the financially most preferred Alternative 3B, the highest share
belongs to electricity consumption costs (35.57%) followed by repair / maintenance costs (24.49%),
salary costs (20.05%) and polyelectrolite consumption costs (10.06%) as presented in Table 8-4 below.
Total amount of depreciation costs, which is a non-cash cost item, in Alternative 3B, is equivalent to
73.87% of total cash O & M costs.
Table 8-4 O & M Cost Estimates of Alternatives (As Percentage of Discounted Total Cash O
& M Costs)
O & M Cost Items Alt-1 Alt-2 Alt-3A Alt-3B Alt-4
All revenues are estimated on an annual basis in the operation period of 2015 - 2035 in year
2011 constant US$ prices.
3
The ratio of the volume of residential wastewater billed (m ) to the total volume of
3
wastewater billed (m ) is taken to be 88%.
3
The ratio of the volume of non-residential wastewater billed (m ) to the total volume of
3
wastewater billed (m ) is taken to be 12%.
Average water and wastewater tariffs for residential and non-residential customers are
3 3
based on the currently applied tariff for 18 m /month consumption (0.100 m / person /day
* 6 persons/ household * 30 days / month) as follows:
3 3
o Water tariff of residential customers: 0.5077 US$/m (0.3594 JD/m ).
3 3
o Water tariff of non-residential customers: 1.4124 US$/m (1.00 JD/m ).
3 3
o Wastewater tariff of residential customers: 0.1522 US$/m (0.1078 JD/m ).
3 3
o Wastewater tariff of non-residential customers: 0.7062 US$/m (0.50 JD/m ).
Annual wastewater tariff revenues are calculated by multiplying annual wastewater
volumes billed to residential and non-residential customers by the corresponding
wastewater tariffs. The share of wastewater treatment revenues in total wastewater tariff
revenues is taken to be 80% based on an assumed cost split between wastewater treatment
and wastewater collection (sewerage) services (80/20). Thus, 80% of total wastewater
revenues billed is assumed to be allocated for the Project to cover the wastewater treatment
costs.
Average sewerage connection fee per square meter of building area is taken to be 2.8249
2 2 2
US$/m (2.0 JD/m ) (assuming property value of 8 JD/m multiplied by 25% for sewerage
connection).
2
Average area of new residential units is taken to be 100 m for newly connected buildings to
sewers.
Annual sewerage connection fees are calculated by multiplying the number of new
connections with the average sewerage connection fee and new residential unit area (100
2
m ). The share of wastewater treatment revenues in total sewerage connection fees is taken
to be 80% based on an assumed cost split between wastewater treatment and wastewater
collection (sewerage) services. Thus, 80% of total sewerage connection fees are assumed to
be allocated for the Project to cover the wastewater treatment costs.
No wastewater service revenues other than wastewater tariff revenues and sewerage
connection fees are assumed to be generated. No sales revenues from the sale of treated
effluent and sewage sludge are considered since there is no such market currently available
(such revenues are assumed to be the subject of economic analysis not of financial
analysis).
No increase in tariffs and sewerage connection fees are assumed for the whole operation
period of 2015 - 2035 as a conservative approach. Thus, wastewater tariffs and sewerage
connection fees charged as of 2011 are assumed to be applied until the end of the planning
period of 2035 without making any changes.
Revenue collection ratio is assumed to be 100% (i.e. all revenues billed in a specific year are
assumed to be collected in cash in the same year).
The same wastewater tariff revenues and sewerage connection fees are estimated to be generated in
each of the five investment alternatives as presented in detail in Appendix C-4 and summarized in
Table 8-5 and Table 8-6 below since the same wastewater volumes billed and new sewerage
connections are applied to all alternatives.
Table 8-5 Wastewater Tariff Revenues and Sewerage Connection Fees (80% Share of
Wastewater Treatment Services) in Selected Years (US$)
Revenue Items For Wastewater Treatment 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Annual total wastewater revenues are estimated to increase cumulatively by 58.85% from US$ 987,857
in 2015 to US$ 1,569,244 in 2035 mainly due to the increase in wastewater tariff revenues resulting from
increase in wastewater volumes billed since tariffs are not raised. The annual average growth rate of
total wastewater revenues is estimated to be 2.34% p.a. the growth rate of wastewater tariff revenues is
4.12% p.a. with sewerage connection fees decreasing by 2.55% p.a. as a result of decreasing number of
new sewerage connections towards the end of operation period.
The undiscounted and discounted (at 5% discount rate) total wastewater revenues expected to be
generated between 2015 and 2035 are US$ 25,657,825 and US$ 12,260,362, respectively. Yearly average
undiscounted and discounted total wastewater revenues are estimated to be US$1,221,801 and US$
583,827, respectively. The share of wastewater tariff revenues and sewerage connection fees in total
wastewater revenues is 78.02% and 21.98%, respectively.
Table 8-6 Undiscounted and Discounted (At 5% Discount Rate) Total Wastewater Tariff
Revenues and Sewerage Connection Fees (Share of Wastewater Treatment
Services) Between 2015 and 2035 (US$)
Revenue Items For Undiscounted Undiscounted Discounted Discounted Discounted
Yearly Yearly
Wastewater Treatment Total Average Total Average %
Total Wastewater Tariff
20,419,181 972,342 9,565,055 455,479 78.02
Revenues
- Residential Customers 12,507,041 595,573 5,858,734 278,987 47.79
Even though non-residential wastewater volume billed accounts for 12% of total wastewater volume
billed, non-residential wastewater revenues comprise 38.75% of total wastewater tariff revenues since
3
average non-residential wastewater tariff (0.7062 US$/m ) is 4.64 times the average residential
3
wastewater tariff (0.1522 US$/m ).
8.1.5 NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV) AND DYNAMIC PRIME COST (DPC) ANALYSIS
The Net Present Value (NPV) of Jerash wastewater treatment investment and O & M costs over the 2011
– 2035 period are calculated for each of the five alternatives by taking the residual values of existing
Jerash wastewater treatment plant and new investments at year-end 2035 into account (as negative
investment cost; i.e. asset sales revenues, a cash inflow item) at a financial discount rate of 5% which is
Water/Wastewater Infrastructure Project
Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report 124
Section 8 – Financial and Economic Analysis
reasonable for environmental infrastructure projects. The alternative with the lowest NPV over the 2011-
2035 period shall be the financially preferred alternative because of its lowest present value of the sum
of investment / reinvestment / replacement (less residual value at year-end 2035) and cash O & M costs.
The Dynamic Prime Cost (DPC) (alternatively, named as the “Levelised Unit Cost”) is the best proxy of
long-term average unit cost, i.e. the average cost per cubic meter of wastewater billed, for the services
provided. Ideally, this cost should be borne by the beneficiaries of the services in accordance with the
principles of the “polluter pays” and “full cost recovery”.
The Dynamic Prime Cost is calculated by dividing the NPV of the sum of total investment and
reinvestment (replacement of M & E equipment at the end of their economic life of 20 years in 2035 for
the new investments to be materialized between 2011 and 2035) costs net of residual asset values as of
year-end 2035 and cash O & M costs incurred between 2015 and 2035, by the discounted total of annual
wastewater volumes billed between 2015 and 2035.
Residual value of the West Jerash WWTP at year-end 2035 is calculated as follows:
Construction Cost of West Jerash WWTP as of 2010 (current asset value): US$ 10,025,684
(of which Civil Works: US$ 6,015,410 and M & E Works: US$ 4,010,273)
Annual Depreciation Cost of Existing Jerash WWTP Between 2011 and 2029: US$ 320,822 (of
which Civil Works: US$ 120,308 and M & E Works: US$ 200,514)
Annual Depreciation Cost of West Jerash WWTP Between 2030 and 2035: US$ 120,308 (of
which Civil Works: US$ 120,308 and M & E Works: US$ 0)
Accumulated Depreciation Cost of West Jerash WWTP as of Year-end 2035: US$ 7,138,287
(of which Civil Works: US$ 3,128,013 and M & E Works: US$ 4,010,273)
Net Asset (Residual) Value of Existing Jerash WWTP as of Year-end 2035: US$ 2,887,397 (of
which Civil Works: US$ 2,887,397 and M & E Works: US$ 0)
Residual values of new investments as at year-end 2035 are presented for each alternative in Table 8-7
below. Since the lowest investment costs are foreseen in Alternative 3Bthe residual value will also be
lowest being US$ 17,621,938 as of year-end 2035 (NPV of residual value: US$ 5,203,807).
B. NPV (At 5% Discount Rate) of Residual Value of New Investments as of Year-end 2035
The results of NPV and DPC calculations for the Jerash Wastewater Treatment Services covering 2011-
2035 period are presented in Table 8-8 below. The investment and O & M costs and residual values of
the assets used for the provision of Jerash Wastewater Treatment Services do not include those for
wastewater collection (sewerage) services. The wastewater treatment services are provided by the
existing Jerash WWTP and the new schemes to be developed by new investments in the alternatives.
The lowest NPV of total wastewater treatment service costs (including investment and O & M costs) are
for Alternative 3B with US$ 40,133,820 at 5% discount rate making Alternative 3B the financially
preferred alternative. A 5% financial discount rate in real terms can be used as an indicative benchmark
for public environmental investment projects. This reflects the opportunity cost of capital (foregone
return on the best alternative project), the NPV of the investment (net of residual values) and O & M
costs is calculated to be US$ 25,832,007 and US$ 14,301,813, respectively. While the share of investment
costs in total wastewater treatment service costs is estimated to be 64.36%, the share of cash O & M
costs is 35.63%.
NPV of total wastewater treatment service costs of Alternative 3A is 3.90% higher, Alternative 2 is 4.05%
higher, Alternative 1 is 5.30% higher and Alternative 4 is 10.72% higher than the financially best
Alternative 3B.
Table 8-8 NPV and DPC of Jerash Wastewater Treatment Services (US$)
A. NPV (At 5% Discount Rate) of Jerash Wastewater Treatment Services in the 2011-2035
Period (US$)
Total Investment and O & M Costs Alt-1 Alt-2 Alt-3A Alt-3B Alt-4
Total Net Investment Costs Less
Residual Values 28,046,974 27,594,667 27,172,111 25,832,007 29,772,314
Total Cash O & M Costs
14,213,775 14,166,145 14,527,672 14,301,813 14,663,741
Total Costs (Investments - Residual
Value + Cash O & M Costs) 42,260,749 41,760,812 41,699,782 40,133,820 44,436,055
B. Dynamic Prime Cost (DPC) of Jerash Wastewater Treatment Services in the 2011-2035
3
Period (US$/M )
Unit Investment and O & M Costs
(DPC) Alt-1 Alt-2 Alt-3A Alt-3B Alt-4
Total Net Investment Costs Less
Residual Values 0.5130 0.5048 0.4970 0.4725 0.5446
Total Cash O & M Costs
0.2600 0.2591 0.2657 0.2616 0.2682
Total Costs (Investments - Residual
Value + Cash O & M Costs) 0.7730 0.7639 0.7628 0.7341 0.8128
Since the same discounted total wastewater volume billed covering the 2015-2035 period discounted at
3
5% (54,668,244 m ) is used to divide the NPV of total costs in all alternatives, the lowest unit cost (DPC)
3
also belongs to Alternative 3B which has the lowest total NPV value being 0.7341 US$/m of which
To be able to recover O & M costs and total costs (investment + O & M costs) fully, wastewater
treatment revenues need to be increased by at least 16.7% and 227.4%, respectively, which can only be
achieved by tariff increases in real terms assuming that the wastewater volumes billed will not change.
Project Financial Profitability Analysis is conducted with the objective of calculating Financial Internal
Rate of Return (FIRR) and Financial Net Present Value (FNPV) by taking all Project-related incremental
investment and O & M costs and incremental revenues into account. No credit financing and subsidies
are assumed for the funding of investment costs in this analysis. Investments are assumed to be cashed
out at residual value in 2035 (assets are assumed to be sold and proceeds are taken into account as cash
inflows at the end of the planning period of 2035).
Incremental revenues due to the Project are taken to be the same for all alternatives and are estimated
based on the additional volume of wastewater to be billed by taking the differences between estimated
wastewater volumes billed in each year between 2015 and 2035 and the actual wastewater volume billed
3
in 2010 (1,690,494 m ). Consequently, incremental total wastewater volumes billed due to the Project is
30.4% less than the total wastewater volumes estimated to be billed in Jerash between 2015 and 2035.
Similarly, incremental sewerage connection fees are estimated by multiplying the unit sewerage
connection fees per customer and the differences between the estimated number of new sewerage
connections in each year between 2015 and 2035 and actual number of sewerage connections made in
2010.
The same amount of incremental wastewater tariff revenues and sewerage connection fees are
estimated to be generated in each of the five investment alternatives as presented in Table 8-10 and
Table 8-11 below since the same wastewater volumes billed and new sewerage connections are applied
to all alternatives.
Table 8-10 Incremental Wastewater Tariff Revenues and Sewerage Connection Fees (80%
Share of Wastewater Treatment Services) Due to the Project in Selected Years
(US$)
Incremental Revenue Items For Wastewater 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Treatment
Total Wastewater Tariff Revenues 299,537 485,869 691,829 860,539 1,039,341
The annual total amount of incremental wastewater treatment revenues is estimated to increase
cumulatively by 145.79% from US$ 497,051 in 2015 to US$ 1,221,714 in 2035 mainly due to the increase in
wastewater tariff revenues. While the annual average growth rate of total incremental wastewater
revenues is estimated to be 4.60% p.a. that of incremental wastewater tariff revenues only is 6.42% p.a.
with decreasing sewerage connection fees of 0.4% p.a. as a result of decreasing number of new sewerage
connections towards the end of operation period.
The undiscounted and discounted (at 5% discount rate) total incremental wastewater revenues
expected to be generated between 2015 and 2035 are US$ 17,722,192 and US$ 8,186,831, respectively. The
yearly average undiscounted and discounted total incremental wastewater revenues are estimated to be
US$ 843,914 and US$ 389,849, respectively. The share of incremental wastewater tariff revenues and
sewerage connection fees in total incremental wastewater treatment revenues is 80.17% and 19.83%,
respectively.
Table 8-11 Undiscounted and Discounted (At 5% Discount Rate) Total Incremental
Wastewater Tariff Revenues and Sewerage Connection Fees (Share of
Wastewater Treatment Services) for the Period of 2015 and 2035 (US$)
Undiscounted Discounted
Incremental Revenue Items Undiscounted Discounted Discounted
For Wastewater Treatment Total Yearly Total Yearly %
Average Average
Total Wastewater Tariff
14,207,842 676,564 6,445,190 306,914 80.17
Revenues
- Residential Customers 8,702,507 414,405 3,947,771 187,989 49.11
Table 8-12 Cash O & M Costs of Existing Jerash WWTP For the Year 2010 (Total Wastewater
Flow in 2010 = 1,311,549 m3)
Jerash WWTP O & M Cost Items US$ US$/m3 % of Total
As presented in Table 8-13 below, the total existing Jerash WWTP O & M costs is estimated to increase
from US$ 329,674 in 2015 gradually up to US$ 665,003 in 2035 due to the variable costs increasing in
proportion to wastewater inflows since fixed costs are taken to be the same in each year in the amount
of US$ 59,838.
Table 8-13 Existing Jerash WWTP O & M Costs Estimated For Selected Years (US$) Table
8-13 Existing Jerash WWTP O & M Costs Estimated For Selected Years (US$)
Existing Jerash WWTP O & M Costs 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
TOTAL EXISTING JERASH WWTP O & M COSTS 329,674 414,132 507,487 583,958 665,003
As presented in Table 8-14 below, undiscounted and discounted total existing Jerash WWTP O & M
costs between 2015 and 2035 is estimated to be US$ 10,511,931 and US$ 4,966,691, respectively. The share
of variable costs in total existing Jerash WWTP O & M costs is 87.28%. Undiscounted and discounted
(at 5% discount rate) yearly average existing Jerash WWTP O & M costs is anticipated to be US$ 500,568
and US$ 236,509, respectively.
Table 8-14 Undiscounted and Discounted (At 5% Discount Rate) Total Existing Jerash
WWTP O & M Costs Between 2015 and 2035 (US$)
Existing Jerash WWTP O & M Undiscounted Undiscounted Discounted Discounted Discounted
Yearly Yearly
Costs Total Average Total Average %
Incremental O & M costs due to the Project are calculated separately for each alternative by taking the
annual differences between total cash O & M costs estimated for wastewater treatment services in
Section 8.1.3 above (different for all alternatives) and the existing Jerash WWTP cash O & M costs as
described above (costs already been committed without Project) whose variable portion increases in
line with growing wastewater inflows (same for all alternatives).
5% financial discount rate in real terms is used in financial profitability analysis which is assumed to
reflect the opportunity cost of capital for public environmental infrastructure investment projects.
FNPV and FIRR are calculated by using the following Annual Net (Free) Cash Flow streams for the 2011
– 2035 Planning Period:
2011 <= t < 2035: (Annual Net Cash Flow)t = (Total Incremental Project Revenues)t - (Total Project
Investment & Reinvestment Costs)t - (Total Incremental Cash O & M Costs)t
t = 2035: (Annual Net Cash Flow)2035 = (Total Incremental Project Revenues)2035 - (Total Project
Investment & Reinvestment Costs)2035 - (Total Incremental Cash O & M Costs)2035 + (Total Residual
Value of Project Investments)2035
where; (Total Incremental Cash O & M Costs)t = (Total Cash O & M Costs of Wastewater Treatment
Services)t - (Total Cash O & M Cost of Existing Jerash WWTP)t
From financial analysis point of view, the Project should be implemented if the sum of the NPVs of the
incremental Project-related revenues would be able to cover the sum of the NPVs of the incremental
Project-related investment / reinvestment costs (net of residual values) and cash O &M costs. Financial
Net Present Value (FNPV) is defined as follows:
FNPV = Sum of the NPVs of the Annual Project-related (Incremental) Wastewater Treatment Revenues
- Sum of the NPVs of the Annual Project-related (Incremental) Wastewater Treatment Investment /
Reinvestment Costs - Sum of the NPVs of the Annual Project-related (Incremental) Cash O &M Costs +
NPV of the Residual Values of Project-related (Incremental) Investment / Reinvestment Costs As of
Year-end 2035
Thus, the Project is financially viable and sustainable if FNPV is positive (>0) at the selected
opportunity cost of capital (discount rate). If FNPV is negative (<0), then the Project is financially not
feasible and should not be implemented from financial analysis point of view. If FNPV is positive (>0),
then FIRR is greater than the selected opportunity cost of capital (discount rate) which means financial
profitability threshold limit is exceeded and the Project is financially feasible.
However, even though a Project is evaluated to be financially not feasible, the Project can be
economically feasible from an economical point of view as a result of additional economic benefits
(public health, environmental, social, employment and growth benefits for the region specifically and
for the country generally) leading to a decision for implementation. Therefore, the results of the Socio
Economic Analysis of the Project, provided in Section 8.2, below are vitally important for the decision
on project implementation.
When project alternatives are taken into account it is observed that all five alternatives are not
financially viable and sustainable as evidenced by negative FIRRs and negative FNPVs as presented in
detail in Appendix C-5 and summarized in Table 8-15 below. With the expected discounted total
incremental wastewater revenues of US$ 8,186,831 covering the operation period of 2015-2035 calculated
by assuming no tariff increases throughout the whole planning period, FIRR of the Project is around
minus 5% and FNPV of the Project is negative for all alternatives.
FNPV is negative (US$ - 18,895,774) and FIRR is also negative and less than the opportunity cost of
capital of 5% (-4.86%) even in the financially preferred lowest cost Alternative 3B due to the negative
net annual cash flows generated during the operation period (except for 2035 when residual value of
investments are assumed to be cashed out and considered as revenues).
In summary, all Project alternatives have negative FNPVs implying that they are all financially not
feasible and should not be implemented from the financial point of view.
However, as presented in detail in Section 8.2 below, the Project is economically feasible from the
economical point of view and, thus, should be implemented for the benefit of the region and the
country.
. The Unit cost of the Project is calculated at discount rates of 0%, 3%, 5%, 8% and 10% by dividing the
NPV of total costs by the NPV of the total wastewater volumes billed in the operation period of 2015-
2035.
The results of NPV and DPC calculations are presented in Table 8-16 below. The total NPV of costs
varies between US$ 51,681,389 at 0% discount rate and US$ 32,443,980 at 10% discount rate. At 5%
discount rate in real terms, which can used as an indicative benchmark for public environmental
investment projects and which reflects the opportunity cost of capital (foregone return on the best
alternative project), the NPV of the investment and cash O & M costs is calculated to be US$ 40,133,820
of which 64.36% is for investment costs (net of residual value) (US$ 25,832,007) and 35.64% is for cash O
& M costs (US$ 14,301,813).
Table 8-16 NPV and DPC of Wastewater Treatment Services of Alternative 3B Covering 2011-
2035 Period at Discount Rates Between 0% and 10%
Discount Rate 0% 3% 5% 8% 10%
Based on discounted total wastewater volumes billed in the 2015-2035 operation period, the DPC is
3 3
calculated to increase from 0.4428 US$/m at 0% discount rate to 1.1309 US$/m at 10% discount rate
since the higher the discount rate the higher the risk coverage to ensure full cost recovery. At 5% real
discount rate, total DPC of the Jerash wastewater treatment services (unit average cost) calculated by
3 3
using discounted total wastewater volumes billed is 0.7341 US$/m where 0.4725 US$/m is the unit
3
investment cost and 0.2616 US$/m is the unit cash O & M cost.
To be able to ensure full cost recovery of the wastewater treatment services in Jerash, the current
3 3 3
average wastewater tariff of 0.175 US$/m (0.1522 US$/m for residential customers and 0.7062 US$/m
3
for non-residential customers) needs to be increased by 319.5% to the average level of 0.7341 US$/m
assuming 100% collection efficiency. If investment expenditures are to be subsidized fully by the
Government of Jordan and/or international financing institutions, then the current average wastewater
3
tariff should be increased by 49.5% to 0.2616 US$/m to recover cash O & M costs only.
Real change in monthly salary cost per employee with respect to the previous year (1% p.a.
starting from 2016 onwards in the Base Case Scenario)
Real change in unit electricity cost (tariff in US$/kWh) with respect to the previous year
(1% p.a. starting from 2016 onwards in the Base Case Scenario)
Real change in unit chlorine cost (US$/kg) with respect to the previous year (1% p.a.
starting from 2016 onwards in the Base Case Scenario)
Real change in unit polyelectrolite (polymer) cost (US$/kg) with respect to the previous
year (1% p.a. starting from 2016 onwards in the Base Case Scenario)
3
Real change in unit sludge disposal (transportation) cost (US$/m ) with respect to the
previous year (1% p.a. starting from 2016 onwards in the Base Case Scenario)
The results of Sensitivity Analysis on discounted total (NPV) and unit (DPC) costs are presented in
Table 8-17 below. Scenario-1 is the Base Case (Original) Scenario with investment contingencies of 25%
and real salary, electricity, chlorine, polymer and sludge disposal (transportation) unit cost increase of
1% p.a. starting from 2016 onwards. One or more out of six key parameters are changed in each scenario
to be able to assess their impact on costs others remaining the same.
Due to the dominance of investment costs (the share of investment costs in total costs is 64.36% in the
Base Case Scenario) changes in estimated investment costs have considerable impact on total
wastewater treatment costs.
Scenarios 1 to 5 show the effect of reducing the percentage of investment contingencies from the base
case level of 25 % in scenario 1 to 0% in scenario 5, while the O& M costs remain constant. For example,
reducing the percentage of investment contingencies from the Base Case level of 25% to 20% and 10%
will cause the total NPV and DPC to decrease by 1.83% and 5.48%, respectively.
Scenario 6 shows the effect of assuming that O&M costs remain constant through the period 2015 to 20
35. In this scenario cash O & M costs will be reduced by 6.76% and total costs will reduce by 2.41% with
respect to the Base Case Scenario.
Scenario 7 shows the effect of allowing all O&M costs to increase by 2% p.a. starting from 2016 onwards.
In this scenario , the cash O & M costs will increase by 7.64% and total costs will grow by 2.72% .
Scenarios 8, 9 and 10 show the effect of allowing O&M costs to increase at 3% , 4% and 5% per annum
Scenarios 11 through 15 show the effect of allowing one element of unit cost to increase while other
elements are kept the same. The analyses show that electricity cost increase will have the highest
impact on cash O & M and total costs followed by salary cost and polyelectrolite cost.
For example, Scenario 12 shows that if the unit cost of electricity increases by 2% p.a. instead of 1% p.a.
as in the Base Case Scenario, the cash O & M costs will increase by 3.76% and total costs will rise by
1.34% (Scenario-12).
Table 8-17 Sensitivity Analysis on the Discounted Total (NPV) and Unit (DPC) Costs of
Wastewater Treatment Services of Alternative 3B Covering 2011-2035 Period at
Discount Rate of 5%
Scenarios 1 (Base) 2 3 4 5
Scenarios 6 7 8 9 10
Scenarios 6 7 8 9 10
Change in Total Cost With Respect to
-2.41% 2.72% 5.81% 9.30% 13.25%
Base Case (%)
Change in Investment. Costs Less
Residual Values With Respect to Base 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Case (%)
Change in Cash O & M Costs With
-6.76% 7.64% 16.29% 26.09% 37.19%
Respect to Base Case (%)
Scenarios 11 12 13 14 15
In summary, costs are highly sensitive to the changes in investment, electricity, staff and polyelectrolite
(polymer) costs. Thus, controlling and, if possible, reducing investment, electricity, staff and
polyelectrolite costs will decrease the overall wastewater treatment costs in Jerash and will also reduce
the pressure on tariff increases for cost recovery as well as subsidies for investment and deficit
financing.
Based on the incremental wastewater treatment revenues and expenditures of Alternative 3B, FNPVs
and FIRRs of 15 scenarios are presented in Table 8-18 below. Negative FNPVs and FIRRs are generated
in all scenarios making Alternative 3B financially infeasible. The highest FNPV is obtained in Scenario-5
(again a negative value of US$ - 15,228,079). This scenario has the lowest investment cost due to
investment contingency being 0%.
Table 8-18 Financial Net Present Value (FNPV) and Financial Internal Rate of Return
(FIRR) of Alternative
Scenarios 1 (Base) 2 3 4 5
Scenarios 6 7 8 9 10
Scenarios 11 12 13 14 15
Assuming no increase in incremental revenues, FNPV will become positive and FIRR will exceed 5%
making Alternative 3B financially feasible, if NPV of total cost of Jerash wastewater treatment services
could be reduced by 47.08% from US$ 40,133,820 to US$ 21,237,857 by decreasing NPV of total
investment costs from US$ 25,832,007 to US$ 9,347,092 and NPV of total cash O & M costs from US$
14,301,813 to US$ 11,890,765. Since such high levels of cost decreases are not realistically achievable
Alternative 3B can become financially feasible by reducing costs only.
All costs remaining the same, Alternative 3B will become financially feasible (FNPV>0; FIRR>5%) if NPV
of total incremental revenues could be increased by 230.8% from US$ 8,186,831 to US$ 27,082,620 which
is also not realistic to achieve.
Consequently, reasonable levels of cost decreases and revenue increases cannot make Alternative 3B
financially feasible necessitating considerable amount of grants for investment financing.
Financing Options
The following financing sources for investment financing are taken into account while analyzing
financial profitability and sustainability:
USAID Grant: Investments in 2011 and 2012 comprised of consultancy service fees for the
preparation of the feasibility study (US$ 800,000 in 2011) and design and pre-tender
documents (US$ 450,000 in 2011 and US$ 1,050,000 in 2012) will be financed completely by
the USAID Grant.
Investment Grant: Partial grant financing of investments (grants from Government of
Jordan and / or international financing institutions) in 2013 and 2014 depending on
financing scenarios (between 0% and 100%).
Foreign Credit: Partial credit financing (US$-denominated foreign soft loans) of
investments in 2013 and 2014 depending on financing scenarios (between 0% and 100%).
Internally Generated Funds from Wastewater Treatment Services: Financing of all WWTP
extension investments in 2022 and 2023 (US$ 722,788 in 2022 and 2023 each) and
replacement investments in 2035 (US$ 8,155,375).
The following three investment Financing Options are developed for the financing of initial investment
costs in 2013 and 2014 (assuming 100% USAID Grant financing in 2011 and 2012):
Financing Option-1: 100% Foreign Credit Financing;
Financing Option-2: 50% Foreign Credit Financing and 50% Investment Grant Financing;
Financing Option-3: 100% Investment Grant Financing.
The amount of financing required in each of the three Financing Options for the initial investment
costs to be incurred between 2011 and 2014 in Alternative 3B are presented in Table 8-19 below.
Undiscounted and discounted (at 5% discount rate) total of USAID Grant financing is taken to be US$
2,300,000 and US$ 2,142,875 in all three financing options comprising 9.34% of total discounted
investment costs.
Table 8-19 Financing Options of Initial Investment Costs of Alternative 3B Covering 2011-
2014 Period (Discount Rate of 5%)
Investment Financing 2011 2012 2013 2014 Undiscounted Discounted
Options Total Total
Financing Option-1
Investment Grant 0 0 0 0 0 0
Financing Option-2
Financing Option-3
Foreign Credit 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 8-21 Total Debt Service Obligations of Financing Option-1 and Financing Option-2
Covering 2013-2035 Period (US$) (Discount Rate of 5%)
Financing Financing Financing Financing
Option-1 Option-1 Option-2 Option-2
Total Debt Service Obligations Undiscounted Discounted Undiscounted Discounted
Total Total Total Total
Total Credit Principle Repayments 20,901,875.00 10,204,784.37 10,450,937.50 5,102,392.18
Due to the same amounts of wastewater treatment revenues generated and operating costs incurred,
Profits Before Interest Expenses, (Operating Profits (-Losses)), are the same in all three Financing
Options.
Undiscounted and discounted Operating Losses are estimated to be US$ 25,061,098 and US$ 12,583,633,
respectively, being equivalent to 102.64% of total wastewater treatment revenues billed. Even only total
cash O & M costs is 16.65% higher than the total wastewater treatment revenues billed resulting in
undiscounted and discounted total operating cash deficits (Operating Profits (-Losses) + Depreciation
Costs) of US$ 4,346,033 and US$ 2,041,451, respectively. Thus, even cash O & M costs cannot be covered
by the wastewater treatment revenues estimated by assuming no tariff increases generating operating
cash deficits being equivalent to 16.65% of wastewater treatment revenues. Consequently, both
operating cash deficits and total financing costs need to be subsidized.
Table 8-22 Profit (-Loss) Projections of Jerash Wastewater Treatment Services for
Financing Option-1, Financing Option-2 and Financing Option-3 Covering 2013-
2035 Period (US$)
A. Undiscounted Totals Covering 2013-2035 Period (US$)
Financing Financing Financing
Profit (-Loss) Projections Option-1 Option-2 Option-3
Total Wastewater Treatment Revenues Billed 25,657,825 25,657,825 25,657,825
Since 100% credit utilization is assumed for the financing of investment costs in 2012 and 2014, the
highest total financing costs (interest expenses + commitment fees + management fees) will be incurred
in Financing Option-1 with undiscounted and discounted total (2013-2035) of US$ 7,673,696 and US$
4,692,353, respectively, being equivalent to 38.27% of total wastewater treatment revenues.
Consequently, the highest Losses will be generated in Financing Option-1 with undiscounted and
discounted total of US$ 32,734,794 and US$ 17,275,986 being equivalent to 140.91% of total wastewater
treatment revenues. No financing costs shall be incurred in Financing Option-3 since 100% grant
utilization is assumed for the financing of investment costs between 2011 and 2014 in this option.
When non-cash depreciation costs are disregarded, overall discounted cash deficits (Profits (-Losses) +
Depreciation Costs) are estimated to be US$ 6,733,804 in Financing Option-1, US$ 4,387,627 in
Financing Option-2 and US$ 2,041,451 in Financing Option-3 which all need to be subsidized.
Cash inflows are comprised of wastewater treatment revenues collected (taken to be equivalent to
wastewater treatment revenues billed due to 100% collection ratio assumed) and investment cost
financing sources (USAID Grant in the undiscounted amount of US$ 2,300,000 for the preparation of
the feasibility study, design and pre-tender documents in 2011 and 2012 (same for all Financing
Options); investment grant and foreign credit for the financing of investment costs in 2013 and 2014
(different in the financing options)). Despite the different financing mix of investment costs, total cash
inflows expected to be generated between 2011 and 2035 are the same in all the financing options
(undiscounted total: US$ 48,859,700; discounted total: US$ 32,017,562) because the wastewater
treatment revenues collected and investment financing requirements are the same. The shares of total
wastewater treatment revenues collected and total financing sources of investment costs in total cash
inflow to be generated between 2011 and 2035 are estimated to be 38.29% and 61.71%, respectively.
Cash outflows are comprised of cash O & M costs, investment costs and debt service obligations. Even
though cash O & M costs and investment costs are the same in all three financing options, debt service
obligations differ due to the different financing mix assumed in the Financing Options.
There is no financial sustainability since cumulative cash deficits are expected to be generated in each
year of the planning period in all Financing Options. As a result of the of the highest credit amount for
investment financing in 2013 and 2014, the highest total cash deficits are expected to be generated in
Financing Option-1 with undiscounted and discounted total (2011-2035) of US$ 42,522,555 and US$
20,132,678, respectively. However, the lowest total cash deficits are anticipated in Financing Option-3
due to the 100% grant financing assumed in 2013 and 2014 with undiscounted and discounted total of
US$ 13,946,983 and US$ 5,235,540, respectively. Inevitably, cash deficits generated in all three Financing
Options have to be financed by grants (subsidies) to be provided by the Government of Jordan unless
tariff increases are made to reflect the actual costs of service provision to the beneficiaries.
Table 8-23 Cash Flow Projections of Jerash Wastewater Treatment Services for Financing
Option-1, Financing Option-2 and Financing Option-3 Covering 2013-2035 Period
(US$)
A. Undiscounted Totals Covering 2011-2035 Period (US$)
CASH OUTFLOWS
CASH OUTFLOWS
CASH OUTFLOWS
Table 8-24 Grants Required for Jerash Wastewater Treatment Services for Financing
Option-1, Financing Option-2 and Financing Option-3 Covering 2011-2035 Period
(US$)
A. Undiscounted Totals Covering 2011-2035 Period (US$)
Financing Financing Financing
Grants (Subsidies) Required Option-1 Option-2 Option-3
Grants For Investment Finance 0 10,450,938 20,901,875
Based on population connected to the sewerage networks in Jerash, the annual average subsidy (grant)
amount required per capita is calculated to be 11.5 US$/(capita*year) in Financing Option-1, 12.2
US$/(capita*year) in Financing Option-2 and 12.9 US$/(capita*year) in Financing Option-3.
Assuming specific water consumption of 90 Lpcd and average household (HH) size of 6 persons, the
3 3
average residential water consumption is estimated to be 16.20 m /(month*HH) (194.40 m /(year*HH).
3 3
Based on the currently applied residential tariffs in Jerash (0.5077 US$/m for water; 0.1522 US$/m for
wastewater), the yearly water/wastewater bill per household and per capita is calculated to be 128.29
US$/(Year*HH) and 21.38 US$/(Year*Capita) as shown in Table 8-25 below. The wastewater bill share of
the total water/wastewater bill is 29.59 US$/(Year*HH) and 4.93 US$/(Year*Capita) comprising 23.06%
of the total bill.
Thus, the average annual subsidy required per capita between 2011 and 2035 to Finance Option-1 is 2.33
times the current wastewater bill of 4.93 US$/(Year*Capita). The Subsidy requirement multiple is 2.47
times the current wastewater bill to Finance Option-2 and 2.62 times to Finance Option-3 which are all
very high. Therefore, raising tariff levels need to be considered seriously to ensure cost recovery and
financial sustainability.
Table 8-25 Current Water / Wastewater Bill Per Household and Per Capita (Average
Household Size: 6 persons/household) (Specific Water Consumption: 90 Lpcd)
(US$)
Monthly Yearly
Residential Yearly Water/WW
Water / Wastewater Bill Tariff Water/WW Bill Water/WW Bill Bill Per Person
3 Per HH Per HH
(US$/m ) (US$/Month*HH) (US$/Year*HH) (US$/Year*Capita)
Table 8-26 Financial Performance Ratios of Jerash Wastewater Treatment Services for
Financing Option-1, Financing Option-2 and Financing Option-3 (Average of the
2015-2035 Operation Period Based on Discounted Values) (%)
Financial Performance Ratios Financing Financing Financing
Option-1 Option-2 Option-3
PROFITABILITY RATIOS
Total Operating Profits (-Losses) / Total Wastewater Treatment
-102.64 -102.64 -102.64
Revenues Billed
(Total Operating Profits (-Losses)+Depreciation) / Total
-16.65 -16.65 -16.65
Wastewater Treatment Revenues Billed
Total Financing Costs / Total Wastewater Treatment Revenues
32.97 16.48 0.00
Billed
Total Profits (-Losses) For Period / Total Wastewater Treatment
-135.60 -119.12 -102.64
Revenues Billed
(Total Profits (-Losses) For Period+Depreciation) / Total
-49.62 -33.13 -16.65
Wastewater Treatment Revenues Billed
DEBT SERVICE AND FINANCING COST COVERAGE RATIOS
(Total Profits (-Losses) + Financing Costs + Depreciation) / Total
-14.33 -28.66 0.00
Debt Service (Debt Service Coverage Ratio)
(Total Profits (-Losses) + Financing Costs + Depreciation) / Total
-50.51 -101.02 0.00
Financing Costs (Financing Cost Coverage Ratio)
Table 8-27 Tariff Affordability Analysis For Residential Customers Table 8-27 Tariff
Affordability Analysis For Residential Customers
Tariff Affordability Analysis 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Specific Residential Water Consumption (Lpcd) 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0
Average Household Size (Persons/HH) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Average Household Water Consumption
3 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.2
(m /(HH*Month)
3
Residential Water/Wastewater Tariff (US$/m ) 0.6599 0.6599 0.6599 0.6599 0.6599 0.6599
Residential Water/Wastewater Bill
10.69 10.69 10.69 10.69 10.69 10.69
(US$/HH*Month)
Estimated Real Increase in Household Income (%
1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
p.a.)
Monthly Household Income (US$/HH*Month) 466.10 485.03 509.77 535.77 563.10 591.83
Tariff Affordability Ratio (Monthly Water &
2.29% 2.20% 2.10% 2.00% 1.90% 1.81%
Wastewater Bill / Monthly HH Income)
Affordable residential water and wastewater tariff levels that can be applied in Jerash by assuming tariff
affordability ratios of 5%, 4% and 3% are shown in Table 8-28 below. Current residential water+
3 3
wastewater tariff level of 0.6599 US$/m can be increased by 118% to 1.4386 US$/m according to
internationally accepted tariff affordability threshold limit of 5%. Even at the tariff affordability ratio of
3% which is 40% lower than the internationally accepted limit, residential water+wastewater tariff can
3
be increased up to 0.8632 US$/m by 30.8%.
Water/Wastewater Infrastructure Project
Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report 148
Section 8 – Financial and Economic Analysis
Since the first year of operation after the implementation of the Project is 2015 when O & M costs will
grow substantially, tariffs should be increased before 2015 to ensure coverage of at least the cash O & M
costs. The conclusion of the financial analysis is to recommended that the residential tariff is raised
3 3 3
gradually, at least, up to 1.0 US$/m (water tariff: 0.77 US$/m ; wastewater tariff: 0.23 US$/m ) by 2015,
which will increase the affordability ratio slightly above 3.3%, to cover the cash O & M costs and to
provide some excess funds for new investment financing and debt servicing.
Table 8-28 Affordable Residential Water and Wastewater Tariff Levels At Tariff
Affordability Ratios of 5%, 4% and 3%
Affordable Tariff Levels 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Monthly Wastewater Bill (US$/(HH*Month) 5.38 5.59 5.88 6.18 6.49 6.83
Affordable Water + Wastewater Tariff
3 1.4386 1.4970 1.5734 1.6536 1.7380 1.8266
(US$/m )
3
Affordable Water Tariff (US$/m ) 1.1067 1.1517 1.2104 1.2722 1.3371 1.4053
3
Affordable Wastewater Tariff (US$/m ) 0.3318 0.3453 0.3629 0.3815 0.4009 0.4214
Increase in Water + Wastewater Tariff with
117.99% 126.85% 138.42% 150.58% 163.36% 176.80%
respect to 2011 Tariff Level (%)
Tariff Affordability Ratio (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Monthly Water + Wastewater Bill
18.64 19.40 20.39 21.43 22.52 23.67
(US$/(HH*Month)
Monthly Water Bill (US$/(HH*Month) 14.34 14.93 15.69 16.49 17.33 18.21
Monthly Wastewater Bill (US$/(HH*Month) 4.30 4.48 4.70 4.94 5.20 5.46
Affordable Water + Wastewater Tariff
3 1.1509 1.1976 1.2587 1.3229 1.3904 1.4613
(US$/m )
3
Affordable Water Tariff (US$/m ) 0.8854 0.9213 0.9683 1.0177 1.0696 1.1242
3
Affordable Wastewater Tariff (US$/m ) 0.2655 0.2763 0.2904 0.3052 0.3207 0.3371
Increase in Water + Wastewater Tariff with
74.40% 81.48% 90.73% 100.46% 110.69% 121.44%
respect to 2011 Tariff Level (%)
Tariff Affordability Ratio (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Monthly Water + Wastewater Bill
13.98 14.55 15.29 16.07 16.89 17.75
(US$/(HH*Month)
Monthly Water Bill (US$/(HH*Month) 10.76 11.19 11.77 12.37 13.00 13.66
Monthly Wastewater Bill (US$/(HH*Month) 3.23 3.36 3.53 3.71 3.90 4.10
Affordable Water + Wastewater Tariff
3 0.8632 0.8982 0.9440 0.9922 1.0428 1.0960
(US$/m )
3
Affordable Water Tariff (US$/m ) 0.6640 0.6910 0.7263 0.7663 0.8022 0.8432
3
Affordable Wastewater Tariff (US$/m ) 0.1991 0.2072 0.2178 0.2289 0.2405 0.2528
Increase in Water + Wastewater Tariff with
30.80% 36.11% 43.05% 50.35% 58.02% 66.08%
respect to 2011 Tariff Level (%)
It can be concluded that there is considerable room to increase residential water/wastewater tariff from
3 3
its current level of 0.66 US$/m up to 1.50 US$/m by 2015 without causing considerable burden on low-
income households to improve cost recovery and to generate excess funds internally to contribute
investment financing and debt servicing.
1
Adapted from MWI web site: http://www.mwi.gov.jo/sites/en-
us/SitePages/Water%20Policies/Waste%20Water%20Policy.aspx
most of the townships and cities of the country, some 240 MCM per year of wastewater are expected to
be generated.
Since 1980 and during the International Drinking Water and Sanitation Decade (1980-1990), the
Government of Jordan carried out significant and comprehensive plans with regard to the different
issues of wastewater management primarily related to the improvement of sanitation. About 75% of the
urban population and 52% of the total population (at the time) gained access to wastewater collection
and treatment systems. This has raised the sanitation level, improved public health, and strengthened
pollution control of surface and groundwater in the areas served by wastewater facilities. Presently,
there are 16 treatment plants serving most of the major cities and towns in the country. Ten facilities are
conventional mechanical treatment plants and six employ waste stabilization ponds. Another two
treatment plants are under construction. About 2 million people (nearly 50% of the population) are
served by sewerage systems and the effluent quantity is estimated at about 60 million cubic meters per
year.
The characteristics of wastewater in Jordan are somewhat different from other countries.
The average salinity of municipal water supply is 580 ppm of TDS, and the average domestic water
consumption is low (around 70 Lpcd country wide), resulting in very high organic loads and in a higher
than normal salinity in wastewater. This is particularly applicable to wastewater treated in waste
stabilization ponds where part of the water is lost through evaporation, thus increasing salinity levels in
the effluents. In addition, high organic loads impose operational problems where the plants become
biologically overloaded before they reach their design hydraulic loads.
Given the low level of industrial discharges to sewage treatment plants, wastewater in Jordan is
comparatively low in toxic pollutants such as heavy metals and toxic organic compounds. It is estimated
that 10% of the biological load comes from industrial discharges.
The major receiving streams for wastewater have very low flow with wastewater comprising a significant
portion of stream flow. These streams are not used for bathing or fishing. Much of Amman's wastewater
treated effluent is discharged in the Zarqa River and is impounded by the King Talal Dam where it gets
blended with winter storm water and is subsequently released for irrigation use in the Jordan Valley.
The increased supply of water to Jordan's cities came at the expense of reducing the flows of springs
discharging into such streams as the Zarqa River, Wadi Shueib, Wadi Karak, Wadi Kufrinja and Wadi
Arab. The flow of freshwater in these streams dried up as a result of increased pumping from the
aquifers, and the flow was replaced with the effluent of treatment plants, a process that transformed the
ecological balance over time.
Varieties of crops are grown using irrigated wastewater including citrus, vegetables, field crops and
bananas. Soil characteristics vary widely from sand to clay. Principal concerns in the use of wastewater
for irrigation include its salinity, chloride concentrations, and the health risks. Mainly due to the low
industrial base in the catchments area, heavy metals are believed not to cause a public health concern.
2
Reference is being made here to both treated and untreated (raw sewage).
Water/Wastewater Infrastructure Project
Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report 152
Section 8 – Financial and Economic Analysis
Wastewater reuse contributes to all of above three elements. Wastewater reuse can provide alternative
sources of water, reduce pollution load to water environment by less discharged wastewater. Moreover
wastewater reuse in agriculture and industry enable more efficient water withdrawal for other purposes
because freshwater withdrawal for agriculture and industry constitute a large share of global water
usage and account for 67% and 20% of total use respectively. Therefore, wastewater reuse has a
3
significant potential to bring about environmental, economic and financial benefits .
3
GESAP Water and Wastewater Reuse – web page - http://nett21.gec.jp/GESAP/themes/themes2.html
4
Water and Wastewater Reuse:
http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/publications/water_sanitation/wastewater_reuse/index.asp
either involves the direct use of untreated wastewater or the indirect use of highly polluted waters from
rivers and streams. Farmers seldom have other water sources, and unplanned wastewater use is their
only means to irrigate when investments in wastewater treatment do not keep pace with urban growth,
and/or no other measures are undertaken for a more controlled use of wastewater. In higher income
countries where wastewater irrigation occurs, it is normally planned use with treated wastewater.
According to a recent World Bank assessment, Jordan ranks number 13 (Table 8-30) in the world in
wastewater use for irrigation, and generates some 225,000 cubic meters of wastewater per day destined
to agricultural use. This is equivalent to some 82 MCM per annum. Given that an estimated 80% of the
wastewater is generated and treated in the Amman-Zarqa Basin, the amount of wastewater that
ultimately finds its way to the King Talal Dam, and eventually to the agricultural fields in the Jordan
Valley amounts to some 64 MCM per annum. Under the assumption of one-to-one freshwater blending
ratio, the irrigation use frontier turns out to be some 130 MCM per annum, which translates into some
12,000 ha of irrigated crops in the Valley. The Jerash WWTP share in the overall waste water balance in
the Amman-Zarqa Basin is small but not insignificant. At full development (i.e., full capacity use of
9,500 cubic meters per day) the proposed Jerash WTTP would contribute some 3.5 MCM per annum
(some 5.5% of the undiluted 64 MCM).
One of the most important advantages in the use of treated wastewater is that it can help mitigate
environmental problems of discarding it directly into adjacent water bodies. Thus, considerable
5
quantities of fresh water can be saved, or rather conserved, for human consumption . As discussed
above, growing water scarcity remains a major concern in Jordan. Using treated wastewater in
agriculture has already been recognized as potential alternative resource that may improve production
conditions in farming systems while simultaneously saving fresh water for domestic use. Knowledge
about the determinants of farmers ' acceptance of treated wastewater is a prerequisite for the
formulation of programs for the support of an unobstructed transition from the current situation to the
expected management of water resources in the future.
Being one of the most water-deprived countries of the Middle East, Jordan has some of the highest
groundwater depletion rates. To meet growing water demands, around 10 percent of the total national
water supply, is being reused either directly or indirectly each year. The majority of reclaimed water is
generated in the Amman-Zarqa Basin, where the proposed Jerash WWTP will be located. Treated
effluent from the As Samra WWTP is discharged to the Wadi Zarqa that in turn flows into the King
Talal Reservoir. Irrigation water taken from the Wadi is considered indirect use of reclaimed wastewater
and is controlled as such. Water from the reservoir, however, is blended with other irrigation sources
and is no longer considered reclaimed wastewater, and not subject to similar control 6.
The As-Samra plant is one of the largest wastewater treatment plants in the geographical area. It is a
biological/mechanical treatment system serving about half the population of the country. The benefits
of this system have been well described in the literature. For example, eggplant yields under drip
irrigation using effluent from the system were twice as high as the Jordanian average under freshwater
irrigation using conventional fertilizers. However, much of the effluent is transported over long
distances and is blended with rainwater stored in a reservoir. So, indirect use of treated wastewater also
takes place.
A second point concerns the effectiveness of the treatment plants. Some treatment plants are clearly
overloaded and the effluent from such plants could at best be called ‘partially treated’ if it is directly
used. The current East Jerash WWTP falls in this category. The effluent that is transported over some
distance from overloaded plants receives a form of additional unintended natural treatment. There is no
information on water quality from nationwide assessments so it is suggested that a very simple
categorization that includes ‘treatment, but largely dysfunctional’ is a possibility.
Jordan has worked to manage irrigation with wastewater for several decades. Since the early 1980s the
general approach has been to treat the wastewater and either discharge it to the environment where it
mixes with freshwater flows and is indirectly reused downstream, or to use the resulting effluent to
irrigate restricted, relatively low-value crops. Given the diminishing per capita freshwater supply, the
increasing dominance of effluent in the water balance, the overloading of wastewater treatment plants,
local riparian water rights, and the need to protect domestic and export produce markets, effectively
managing water reuse, including enforcement of existing regulations, has become increasingly
challenging.
Jordan is in the process of rehabilitating and expanding its wastewater treatment plants, and exploring
options for smaller communities. Reclaimed water, appropriately managed, is viewed as a major
component of the water resources supply to meet the needs of a growing economy. Appropriate
5
Moazzam Ali Khan et al, Economic Benefits from Irrigation of Maize With Treated Effluent,
http://www.pakbs.org/pjbot/PDFs/40(3)/PJB40(3)1091.pdf
6
McCornick et al. 2004; Bahri 2008a,b; Kfouri et al. 2009,
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWAT/Resources/ESWWastewaterAg.pdf
standards and guidelines for water reuse are an important requirement. The previous water reuse
standards were reviewed, a working framework developed, stakeholder participation sought, and input
provided to the formal process for adopting the new standards. The revised standards allow for a wide
range of water reuse activities including, where economic conditions allow, highly treated reclaimed
water for landscapes and high-value crops, and for lower cost smaller-scale treatment and reuse
7
activities with restricted cropping patterns .
Regarding the policy front, there has been a steady evolution of the wastewater policy framework in
Jordan (next section) as standards have been adapted to the needs of a severely water-constrained
nation. Standards governing wastewater use have gone through four iterations. Initial standards were
introduced in 1982 but were replaced in line with the 1989 WHO Guidelines; and in 1995 with a more
comprehensive set of standards dealing with wastewater use and environmental discharges. Again, in
2003, more stringent standards were promulgated following a multi-year consultation process with
stakeholders. Finally, in 2006, further restrictions were defined and additional reuse categories
developed. Under the new standards, groundwater recharge is permitted, but not for potable use.
Jordan’s experience demonstrates that wastewater use has great potential in water-scarce areas; but that
planning for wastewater use must be integrated coherently with water resources planning,
environmental management, and financial arrangements.
7
McCornick et al - http://www.idrc.ca/openebooks/112-4/#page_153
Financial analysis concerns the financial health of one firm or project. Environmental degradation (from
say logging) may be profitable for one firm but bad for the country. Discharge of pollution in
international waters may seem profitable for upstream users (or countries), while downstream users
(countries) suffer. In such instances, the objective of economic analysis is to ensure that the society at
large (or a country in a watershed) does not risk enduring losses as a consequence of interventions by
any proposed project.
There are two basic types of economic analysis. The first one is full blown cost--benefit analysis (CBA)
where all costs and most benefits are quantified, valued, and analyzed. The second one is cost
effectiveness analysis (CEA), which is performed where CBA is difficult to frame, undertake, or justify.
CEA uses cost data for the most part. The benefit aspect has little role to play other than defining a
target to be achieved. CBA strives to estimate IRR, NPV and C/B ratios. The objective of CEA is to find
the best (least cost, as implied by the term effectiveness) solution among competing alternatives. In this
context the term “competing alternative” carries special weight because the CEA must be a result of
comparisons among possible courses of action. In this study we will attempt both CBA and CEA.
General Categorization of WWTP Benefits: Qualitative knowledge of the benefits associated with
WWTP projects does not directly lead to an ability to quantify these benefits. Part of this is due to lack
of data, part is due to methodological limitations and limitations of scientific knowledge, and part due
to the difficulty of attributing a benefit to a particular cause, as often there are multiple causes for a
benefit. Table 8-31 below presents a scheme for categorizing WWTP benefits.
As illustrated above, most benefits that accrue to WWTP type investments fall in the realm of avoided
costs, such as reduced costs of having to cure ill health that may affect the society (due to outbreaks of
cholera for instance), reduced freshwater used in irrigation, and avoided pollution. There is one
particular case, which does not figure in the above table. It is the savings in fertilizer costs (still another
case of avoided costs) that occur as a result of using treated wastewater in irrigation, which we will
elaborate on in the next section.
8
Nevsehir Wastewater Treatment Plant Project Feasibility Report, Envest Planners, 2006 (unpublished EU
funded project document)
9
ECOTEC Research and Consulting Division, The Benefits of Compliance With the Environmental
Acquis for the Candidate Countries, 2001, www.ecotec.com
Treated wastewater (TWW) used for irrigation in the central and southern Jordan Valley contains
dissolved nutrients, which can be utilized by plants. Table 8-33 shows the average values of Nitrogen,
Phosphorus and Potassium, three major nutrients (mg/L) for the years 2003-5 for two major TWW
sources, King Talal Reservoir (KTR) and King Abdullah Canal-South (KAC-south). For comparison the
nutrient content of (fresh water) King Abdullah Canal-North (KAC-north) is also shown.
Table 8-34 presents the nutrients expressed in their weight equivalent of commercial fertilizers. The
nutrients in KTR and KAC-South are close to the ratios of commercial NPK fertilizers where we find 10
kg N, 20 kg P2O5 and 30 kg K2O per 100 kg of packaged weight. The rest is filler or inert material. The
3
average commercial fertilizer price in Jordan is 1,500 JD per ton (Table 8-35). As 1,000 m treated
wastewater contains almost the same amount of nutrients as the 100 kg package weight of commercial
fertilizers, it is equivalent to a value of JD 150. Hence, we estimate that one cubic meter of treated
3 3
wastewater contains fertilizers worth some JD 150/1000 m (0.15 JD/m ).
Table 8-34 Amounts of Nutrients Found in the Irrigation Water Sources in the Jordan
Valley
Water source N (kg/1000
3
P2O5 3 K2O 3
m) (kg/1000 m ) (kg/1000 m )
KTR 18.6 8.9 31.4
10
Amani Alfarra, Treated Wastewater for Irrigated Agriculture in the Jordan Valley, 2009,
http://www.anthonyturton.com/admin/my_documents/my_files/926_Dissertation_v4_AF20091211.pdf
It is noteworthy that the value of dissolved fertilizer in the effluent turns out to be greater than the
municipal billing price for freshwater in the cities destined for drinking purposes and domestic use,
whereby the price of one cubic meter is JD 0.12 for the first 22 cubic meters. This observation underlines
the discrepancy in water pricing in Jordan, highlighting that possibilities exist for more realistic pricing
of water in the country, which would result in better resource allocation.
11
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNACP592.pdf
12
http://ressources.ciheam.org/om/pdf/b52/05002254.pdf
13
Adapted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Jordan
which users pay a higher tariff per cubic meter if they consume more water. The tariff system
distinguishes between Amman, where tariffs are higher, and the rest of the governorates.
The Ministry of Water and Irrigation plans to set municipal water and wastewater tariffs at a level
which could recover at least operation and maintenance (O&M) costs and to establish different prices
according to water quality and end use. In September 2009, the Government declared that water tariffs
would not be increased. However, in June 2010 the first tariff increase since 1997 was announced,
emphasizing that low-volume consumers would not be affected because the tariff in the first block
remained unchanged. The tariff increase of 9% for volumes beyond the first block has become effective
in January 2011.
The intermittent water supply leads many users to rely on bottled or tanked water, which is about 8 to
10 times higher than piped water, so that total household expenditures are often much higher than the
utility bill.
Table 8-36 Agricultural Areas in East and West Jerash Irrigation Command Areas
(Immediate Downstream) and Water Requirements
East Jerash WWTP West Jerash WWTP
Per Dunum (Wadi Jerash) (Wadi Amamah)
Water
Fruit Trees Requirement Overall Water Overall Water
Area Requirement Area Requirement
3 3 3
m /du dunum m dunum m
Citrus 1079 277 298,883 -
Olives 998 92 91,816 789 787,422
Wheat (indicative) 746 - 118 88,028
Eggplant (indicative) 749 - 10 7,490
The cultivated area on the east side of Wadi Jerash and above the effluent canal on the west side are
irrigated from Qairawan and Wadi Jerash springs through other concrete channels constructed to serve
this area.
Existing crops downstream of the West Jerash WWTP have a water demand estimated at 1.1 MCM/year.
Water demand peak period occurs in June. Agronomical recommended crops for future consideration
are olives, pomegranate, eggplant, cauliflower, and squash. Available agriculture land downstream of
the East and West WWTPs is essentially suitable for most crops. The only limitation is its rough
topography and steep slope.
As is the case with the East Jerash WWTP, there seems very little, if any, opportunity to expand
agriculture areas to utilize the future increasing effluent by year 2020. Therefore, unused (excess)
effluent from both East and West WWTP flows downstream about 4-6 km and merges with Seil Az
Zarqa and ultimately drains into the King Talal Reservoir. The water from the dam (details in the
attachment to this report) is destined for agricultural irrigation in the middle and southern Jordan
Valley.
The ideal irrigation application system for vegetables (eggplant, cauliflower, and squash) and orchards
(olives, pomegranate, citrus, and date palm) is via drip irrigation.
Table 8-38 Adjustments and Assumptions Related to Project Costs and Benefits
Parameter Levels Comments
Removed about 10% from the
Econ analysis includes physical
investment costs by discounting the
Price Contingency contingencies but excluded price
investment cost stream by
contingencies (inflation)
compounded 3% per annum
Depreciation Fully ignored all depreciation costs Per CBA methodology
Project Benefits
3 Estimated by literature review and
Shadow price of fresh water US$ 0.75/m
analysis
1 cubic meter for direct replacement
of freshwater with treated
wastewater (substitution effect),
2 cubic meters for every cubic meter
Fresh water savings and 1 cubic meter of freshwater
of wastewater used in agriculture
saved by preventing pollution via the
WWTP investment (environmental
effect).
Savings of avoided health
US$ 12/person Project Costs /year Estimated from ECO study
expenditures
3
JD 0.15/m for blended wastewater,
3 for unblended wastewater , it should
Mineral fertilizer cost savings due to US$ 0.30/m for unblended effluent
be doubled to JD 0.30, and reduced
using wastewater for agriculture from the WTTPs
to some US$ 0.30 to maintain a
conservative stance
8 to 9% of water volume is lost to
Losses of wastewater during
removal of sludge, and, and another
treatment and en route to water 30%
10% lost due to inefficiencies in
courses
conveyance
Other Key Features
Table 8-39 Cost Effectiveness Analysis Work Sheet (Investment and O&M Costs) – US$ M
Year ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3A ALT 3B ALT 4
2011 1.2136 1.2136 1.2136 1.2136 1.2136
2012 1.8654 1.8654 0.9897 0.9897 1.8840
2013 11.7825 11.6527 10.3856 9.3064 13.2776
2014 9.5357 9.0412 10.0242 9.5357 9.5357
2015 1.0258 1.0215 1.0520 1.0306 1.0649
2016 1.0607 1.0563 1.0864 1.0650 1.0993
2017 1.0961 1.0917 1.1213 1.0999 1.1342
2018 1.1322 1.1278 1.1569 1.1355 1.1698
2019 1.1689 1.1645 1.1931 1.1717 1.2060
2020 1.2063 1.2018 1.2300 1.2086 1.2429
2021 1.2473 1.2428 1.2705 1.2491 1.2834
2022 1.2890 1.2846 2.0420 2.0206 2.0549
2023 1.3315 1.3270 2.0915 2.0701 2.1044
2024 1.3748 1.3703 1.4115 1.3900 1.4244
2025 1.4188 1.4143 1.4549 1.4335 1.4678
2026 1.4576 1.4530 1.4931 1.4717 1.5060
2027 1.4970 1.4924 1.5320 1.5106 1.5449
2028 1.5371 1.5325 1.5716 1.5501 1.5845
2029 1.5779 1.5732 1.6118 1.5904 1.6247
2030 1.6194 1.6147 1.6527 1.6313 1.6656
2031 1.6633 1.6586 1.6960 1.6746 1.7089
2032 1.7079 1.7032 1.7400 1.7186 1.7529
2033 1.7533 1.7486 1.7848 1.7634 1.7977
2034 1.7995 1.7948 1.8303 1.8089 1.8432
2035 1.8464 1.8417 1.8766 1.8552 1.8895
Cost Effectiveness Analysis Calculation
NPV @5% 35.08 34.52 34.59 33.03 37.63
3
Q (m /day) 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500
3
US$/m 3,693 3,633 3,640 3,476 3,960
Table 8-40 CBA Worksheet for Investment Alternative 3B - East Jerash WTTP
Gross Total Investment
Population Wastewater Benefits and O&M Cost Cash Flow
3
UNIT persons m /year US$ US$ US$
If the expand/rehabilitate option is selected for the new wastewater treatment facilities, the soil survey
will be limited in scope to the existing site. If a new location is selected, the soil survey will include the
new location and the route of the conveyance necessary to transfer the flow to the new location.
The topographical survey and the results of the soil investigation will be incorporated into the Basis of
Design report to be available to the designers of the works. The soil investigation report will also be
incorporated into the tender documents for the bidders’ and construction contractors’ consideration of
subsurface conditions.
Committee will rigorously examine and test all aspects of the Basis of Design to ensure compliance with
Jordanian, CDM, and industry best practices and standards.
The Project Design Report will be produced following the Technical Review Committee’s approval and
acceptance of the components of the Basis of Design. The Design Report will also include a conceptual
cost estimate based on the details provided in the Design Report.
This phase of the implementation Program, from preparation of the Basis of Design to the approval of
the Design Report, will take 8 weeks and constitute 10% of Phase II progress.
The detailed design will begin when the design report is approved by USAID and WAJ.
Conditions of Contract
The conditions of contract form part of Volume I of the Bid Documents and define the duties,
obligation and rights of the parties during the execution of contract.
The governing conditions of contract shall be the FIDIC standard for Civil Engineering Construction
Contracts (Federation Internationale des Ingenieurs Conseils, 4th Edition)
If USAID will fund the project, then the 1983 version of the FIDIC Conditions of Contract will be used. If
GoJ or other donors will fund the construction, then the 1999 version will be used.
The Conditions of Contract will be in two parts, Part I will contain the General Conditions and Part II
will contain Conditions of Particular Application to the proposed work. The Conditions of Particular
Application will contain specific clauses required by WAJ and the GoJ. If USAID will fund the project,
the Conditions of Particular Application will also contain specific clauses relative to source and origin,
packaging and shipping, signage, and other USAID requirements.
The form of contract will be customized to take account of the funding agency requirements. For
example, a USAID funded project will follow host country procurement procedures. Other donor
funding or WAJ direct funding will require their own particular condition to be incorporated into the
condition of contract and contract forms. Before Volume I of the tender documents can be prepared,
CDM will need guidance from USAID and/or WAJ as to the funding arrangements to be adopted.
Technical Specifications
Volume II of the Tender Documents contains the Technical Specifications, both general and specific, for
the works and materials necessary for the construction project. The specification will provide
intelligence to the construction drawings; specify common standards, deviations accepted, materials
accepted, and the required testing for materials. The specification will include references to
construction standards and codes. Specifications will contain specific requirements for site
development, architectural features, building mechanical, instrumentation and control, electrical,
process mechanical, plumbing, structural, and any other disciplines required to complete the work.
Drawings
Volume III will contain all plans and drawing necessary for the construction of the works. A system of
change control will be introduced to manage the drawing and records as the design process proceeds.
Drawings will contain specific requirements for site development, architectural features, building
mechanical, instrumentation and control, electrical, process mechanical, plumbing, structural and any
other disciplines required to complete the work.
Geotechnical Report
Volume IV will contain the soil investigations report, and test pit and boring logs for the tenderers’
information.
MONTH
TASK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Phase I - Selected Alternative Approved
Phase II - Detailed Design and Tender Documents
Topo Surveys & Soil Investiagations
Prepare Basis of Design Report
10% TRC Workshop
Draft Basis of Design Report
USAID/WAJ Review
Submit Final Basis of Design Report
Assist in Land Acquistion Needs
Preliminary Design
30% TRC Workshop
Detailed Design
60% TRC Workshop
Pre-Final Design
90% Design Review
Pre-Contract & Tender Documents
Submit Tender Documents
Task 3 Summary Report
Copies of the contract documents will be prepared for signing and an inauguration ceremony will be
organized.
9.3.4 Construction
It is estimated that the construction duration will be 24 months from the date of the signing of the
contract. The construction phase will terminate with plant commissioning, acceptance, and turnover to
WAJ. Acceptance and/or beneficial occupancy will start the defects liability period.
9.3.5 Commissioning
The contractor shall be responsible for commissioning and wet testing all components of the
constructed facilities and be responsible, for operation and maintenance of the facilities for a period of
one year after the signing of the certificate of completion. The cost of the operations and maintenance
shall be included in the contractor’s construction costs for the works.
C. Lotti & Associates. (April 2005). Final Design Report for West WWTP.
Metcalf & Eddy. (2004). Wastewater Engineering, Treatment and Reuse, 4th Edition. McGraw
Hill.
New England Interstate Water Polution Control Commission. (1998). Guides for the Design of
Wastewater Treatment Works, TR-16.
A.1 INTRODUCTION
Three wastewater treatment alternatives for flows and loads from the East Catchment in Jerash have
been identified that would require flow transfer or conveyance systems to discharge these flows to
another location. These alternatives are discussed in detail in this section.
Treatment Alternative 1. Decommission the existing East Jerash WWTP and transfer all flow to
West Jerash for treatment.
Treatment Alternative 2. Upgrade the East Jerash WWTP to operate at its potential, and transfer all
flow above this quantity to West Jerash for treatment.
Treatment Alternative 4. Decommission the existing East Jerash WWTP and convey all flows by
gravity to a new WWTP site along the Zarqa River.
Treatment Alternatives 3A and 3B would not require transfer or conveyance systems since new
facilities would be provided at the existing East WWTP site to treat all flows from the East
Catchment.
Tables A-1 and A-2 Show the transfer system design flows for wastewater treatment Alternative 1 and 2
respectively.
400 mm Dia. HDPE Gravity Sewer (up to line J) m 270 240 64,800
Transfer Option
Description
A B C
Figure A-2 Potential New WWTP Sites and Conveyance Pipeline Routes
Water/Wastewater Infrastructure Project
Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report A-9
APPENDIX B
BASIS OF COST ESTIMATES
B.1 INTRODUCTION
This Appendix summarizes CDM’s work to determine the rates to be used to estimate the cost of
works proposed in the feasibility studies. This study covers construction of wastewater collection
projects and wastewater treatment plants. At this stage, the work is not fully comprehensive and is
limited to those elements of construction necessary to produce comparative cost estimates for the
feasibility study. The scope of the analysis will be extended to cover other construction activity as the
project develops.
Bid data from actual contracts have been obtained from WAJ. These data have been tabulated and
analyzed and rates for the following types of work have been determined:
Unit rates for laying reinforced concrete and ductile iron pipes located in roads, unpaved
areas and Wadis.
Unit rates for laying HDPE and uPVC pipes (these rates are built up from the basic unit
cost of the pipe).
Construction costs for activated sludge treatment. plants
Operating costs for activated sludge treatment plants.
Construction costs for wastewater pumping stations.
Operating costs for wastewater pumping stations.
Typical breakdown of total construction cost by process elements.
Pipe in Wadi 161 177 - 208 - 235 292 336 385 515 - - - - - -
Pipes in Asphalt
- - 177 - 300 - 238 - 283 328 - 436 520 593 - -
Corrugated Road
HDPE Pipe
Pipes in dirt Road - - 159 - 197 - 223 - 265 307 - 408 486 555 - -
(Profile
Type
Pipe in Wadi - - 171 - 185 - 230 - 274 318 - 422 503 574 - -
The rates are typical for the whole of Jordan and will be adjusted to take account of local circumstances
and conditions when particular projects are valued.
The above facilities have been constructed under different economic conditions over the past 14 years,
but are representative of actual construction contract costs for wastewater treatment plants in Jordan.
Extended aeration is employed as the treatment processes at each location. However, technologies have
developed to become more sophisticated over the years with modern facilities treating wastewater to
higher standards including nutrient removal, odor control, and mechanical sludge treatment. As such.
the results are indicative and for comparison only. These costs are not intended to represent accurate
cost estimates of work and should not be used for budgeting purposes.
These data have been plotted graphically in Figure B-3 which shows the construction cost per cubic
meter of installed capacity. For example, the graph shows that the construction cost of a typical WWTP
3 3
with a design capacity of 10,000 m /d would be $2,100/m , or $21M.
The figure clearly demonstrates the economies of scale available. The construction cost of building two
3 3
5,000 m /d facilities would be $35M, or 66% more costly than one plant of 10,000 m /d.
11000
10500
10000
9500
9000
8500
8000
7500
7000
Cost( $/m3)
6500
6000
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
3
Figure B- 3 Activated Sludge WWTP Costs per m /d Capacity
The operating cost data from Table B-3 are shown graphically in Figure B-4 which shows the unit cost
3
for treating one cubic meter per year of wastewater. For example, the cost of treating 1 m of wastewater
3 3
at a treatment plant with an average actual flow of 10,000 m /d would be $0.08/m . This is equivalent to
an annual cost of $292,000. Economies of scale are again apparent, for example the cost of operating
3
two separate WWTP of 5,000 m /d average daily flow would be $365,000, 25% more costly than the cost
3
of operating one 10,000 m /d plant.
0.450
0.400
0.350
0.300
Cost ($/m3)
0.250
0.200
0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Flow (m3/d)
Figure B- 4 Operating Cost for Treating Wastewater in Jordan
Table B- 1-3 Operating Costs of Activated WWTPs in Jordan (January - December 2009)
Electricity Spare Lab. Annual Daily
Salary and Fuel Parts Chemicals Sludge Services. Other Total Cost Influent Flow Unit Cost. Unit Cost
WWTP
3 3 3 3
JD/Year JD/Year JD/Year JD/Year JD/Year JD/Year JD/Year JD/Year m /Year m /d FILS/ m $/m
Irbid 122,980 89,335 3,890 8,950 35,630 1,090 7,171 26,9046 3,014,855 8,260 89 0.062
Salt 105,200 95,075 6,745 9,102 81,168 2,500 62,345 36,2135 1,784,595 4,889 203 0.142
Jerash 50,499.6 31,315.6 3,100 13,501 36,475 640 2,783 13,8314 1,177,125 3,225 118 0.082
Abu -
81,855 45,746 10,000 7,000 33,000 1,000 2,860 18,1461 935,714 2,564 194 0.136
Nuseir
Fuheis 70,972 56,648 3,000 5,400 14,339 100 3,117 15,3576 750,440 2,056 205 0.143
Fuheis PS 21,760 4,361 150 0 0 0 763 2,7034 168,549 462 160 0.112
Wadi Arab 100,000 244,000 25,000 1,500 70,000 1,134 10,500 45,2134 4,449,679 12,191 102 0.071
Wadi
110,000 76,900 19,800 4,200 9,200 800 3,730 22,4630 383,141 1,050 586 0.410
Hassan TP
Tall- Al
37,000 11,231 820 0 0 1,410 2,131 5,2592 109,850 301 479 0.335
Montah
Average 77,807 72,735 8,056 5,517 31,090 964 10,600 20,6769 1,419,327 3,889 237 0.166
1,200,000
1,000,000
Cost $
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0.2
COST IN $/m3
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
DAILY INFLUENT IN m3
Buildings 2,700,000 26
Headworks 1,100,000 10
These percentage splits will be used to estimate the cost of partial expansion of existing treatment
facilities.
3
Table B-7 shows the breakdown of the total cost for a WWTP of 10,000 m /d, which from Figure B-3
3
would have a construction cost of $2,100$/m and a total cost of US$21M.
Headworks 2,100,000 10
Table B-8 Estimated Cost for Cleaning Tanks, Chambers and Lagoons
Item Quantity Unit$ Rate $ Total $
Inlet Chamber 1 No. - Clean under flow condition
Grit Channels and Scum Removal – Isolate, drain, and remove deposits
Aeration Tanks - Isolate, drain, dig out, cart away to tip on site.
Oxidation Ditch - Isolate, drain, dig out, cart away to tip on site
Final Settling Tanks - Isolate, drain, dig out, cart away to tip on site
Total 175,000
Table B-9 details the estimated cost for providing new process equipment and Table B-10 details the
estimated cost for installation, testing, and commissioning the new equipment. Allowances are
provided for striping out old equipment and disposal. Table B-11 identifies some miscellaneous cost
items.
Settling Tank Scrapers and Drives - 18m dia. 2 25,000 50,000 5,000 55,000
Return Activate d Sludge Pumps and Motors 6 4,000 24,000 5,000 29,000
Waste Activated Sludge Pumps and Motors 6 4,000 24,000 5,000 29,000
Total 455,000
Total 135,000
The summary of estimated cost of refurbishing the existing site is shown in Table B-12. The highly
volatile nature of rehabilitation and refurbishing of an existing WWTP facility behooves the inclusion of
a substantial contingency amount to cover unknown conditions that can only be ascertained when the
work is implemented. Therefore, a contingency of 30% is added to the estimated costs to allow for
unknown conditions.
Table B- 1-8 Summary of Estimated Refurbishing Costs