Jerash Feasibility Report Draft Final Submission

`
JERASH WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FEASIBILITY
STUDY REPORT - FINAL
VOLUME I
Water/Wastewater
Infrastructure Project
Prepared by CDM International for

United States Agency for International
Development under
Global Architecture and Engineering IQC
USAID Contract No. EDH-I-00-08-00023-00
Task Order 02
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

Ministry of Water and Irrigation
Water Authority of Jordan (WAJ)
September 2011
This Publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International
Development. It was prepared by CDM International Inc.
Jerash Wastewater Treatment

Feasibility Study Report Draft
Prepared by: J.M Harwood, M. Sutari, G. Roy, C. Lancaster Date: May 2011
Reviewed by: D.G. Doran Date: May 2011
Approved by: R.E. Minkwitz Date: May 2011
Reviewed by WAJ Technical Committee Date 21 July 2011
Revised by J.M Harwood, D.G. Doran Date August 2011
Resubmitted R.E. Minkwitz Date 15 September 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
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... VII
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................. XI
LIST OF UNITS ............................................................................................................ XIII
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... I
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1

 1.1 SUMMARY OF THE WATER/WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT (WIP) .. 1
 1.2 BACKGROUND TO TASK 3 ................................................................................... 1
 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
 1.3.1 Scope of Work ............................................................................................. 4

 1.3.2 Study Area and Design Horizon ................................................................... 4
 1.3.3 Objectives .................................................................................................... 4
 1.3.4 Feasibility Study Activities ........................................................................... 4
 1.4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................... 5
 1.5 REPORT ORGANIZATION ..................................................................................... 5
SECTION 2 - SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER FLOWS AND LOADS ................................... 7

 2.1 PROJECTED POPULATION AND FLOW FOR ALL OF JERASH ................................. 7
 2.1.1 Projected Population Estimates................................................................... 7

 2.1.2 Projected Average Flow Estimates for All of Jerash ..................................... 8
 2.1.3 Projected Maximum and Peak Flows for All of Jerash ................................. 8
 2.2 HISTORICAL WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS FOR EAST JERASH ...................... 9
 2.3 CURRENT WASTEWATER CHARATERISTICS FOR EAST JERASH .......................... 10
 2.3.1 Projected Pollutant Concentrations for All of Jerash ................................. 11

 2.4 EAST JERASH CATCHMENT – PROJECTED WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS .... 12
 2.5 WEST JERASH CATCHMENT – PROJECTED WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS .. 13
SECTION 3 - WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EVALUATIONS ................................ 14

 3.1 EAST JERASH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ............................................. 14
 3.1.1 Description of Existing Facility ................................................................... 14

 3.1.2 Assessment of Existing Design Criteria ...................................................... 17
 3.1.3 Structural and Mechanical Condition ........................................................ 17
Water/Wastewater Infrastructure Project
Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report i
Table of Contents
 3.1.4 Operation and Maintenance ..................................................................... 21

 3.1.5 WWTP Modeling ....................................................................................... 24
 3.1.6 Evaluation of Historical Performance and Process Capacities ................... 25
 3.1.7 Ability to Meet Future (2035) Conditions .................................................. 30
 3.2 WEST JERASH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT............................................ 30
 3.2.1 Description of Existing Facility ................................................................... 31

 3.2.2 Process Design Criteria .............................................................................. 32
 3.2.3 Assessment of Existing West Jerash WWTP Design Criteria ...................... 32
 3.2.4 Ability to Meet Future (2035) Conditions .................................................. 33
SECTION 4 - TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS AND EFFLUENT STANDARDS ................... 36

 4.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 36
 4.2 HISTORICAL DISCHARGE STANDARDS ............................................................... 36
 4.3 JORDAN EFFLUENT AND SLUDGE DISPOSAL STANDARDS ................................. 37
 4.3.1 Standards for Wastewater Discharges and Effluent Reuse ....................... 37

 4.3.2 Total Nitrogen Treatment Requirements and Concerns ............................ 39
 4.3.3 Industrial Effluent Standard ...................................................................... 40
 4.3.4 Jordanian Standards for Treated Sludge and Sludge Disposal (JS1145:2006)40
 4.4 CURRENT DISPOSAL PRACTICES AND CONSIDERATIONS .................................. 41
 4.4.1 Current Sludge Disposal Practices ............................................................. 41

 4.4.2 Sludge Reuse Considerations ..................................................................... 42
 4.4.3 Wastewater Reuse Considerations ............................................................ 42
SECTION 5 - ASSESSMENT OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES ...................................... 44

 5.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 44
 5.2 RECOMMENDATION FOR PRIMARY TREATMENT ............................................. 44
 5.3 SECONDARY TREATMENT OPTIONS .................................................................. 45
 5.3.1 Oxidation Ditch .......................................................................................... 45

 5.3.2 Conventional Activated Sludge .................................................................. 46
 5.3.3 Sequencing Batch Reactor ......................................................................... 47
 5.3.4 Assessment and Recommendations for Treatment Technology ................ 48
 5.3.5 Final Treatment Process Recommendation for East Jerash ....................... 51
 5.4 PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL METHODS AND RECOMMENDATION ....................... 52
 5.5 BIOSOLIDS TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES ........................................................... 52
 5.5.1 Biosolids Thickening .................................................................................. 53

 5.5.2 Dewatering Technology............................................................................. 57
 5.5.3 Sludge Stabilization Technologies ............................................................. 61
 5.5.4 Summary of Biosolids Treatment Recommendations ................................ 64
 5.6 BIOSOLIDS DISPOSAL ........................................................................................ 64
 5.7 SEPTAGE RECEIVING AND TREATMENT ............................................................ 65
SECTION 6 - EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................. 66

Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report ii
Table of Contents
 6.1 TREATMENT SCENARIOS ................................................................................... 66
 6.2 BASIS OF CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES ..................................................... 67
 6.3 EVALUATION OF WEST JERASH EXPANSION OPTIONS ...................................... 68
 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
 6.4.1 Scope of Work ........................................................................................... 77

 6.4.2 Environmental and Reuse Impacts ............................................................ 77
 6.4.3 Conceptual Costs ....................................................................................... 78
 6.5 ALTERNATIVE NUMBER 2 – UPGRADE EXISTING EAST JERASH WWTP ............. 78
 6.5.1 Scope of Work ........................................................................................... 79

 6.5.2 Performance Criteria ................................................................................. 79
 6.6 ALTERNATIVE NUMBER 3 – UPGRADE, EXPANSION, AND/OR REPLACEMENT OF EAST
JERASH WWTP ........................................................................................................ 81
 6.6.1 Alternative 3A – Upgrade and Oxidation Ditch Expansion ........................ 81

 6.6.2 Alternative 3B – Facility Replacement on Existing Site with Oxidation Ditch86
 6.7 ALTERNATIVE 4 – FACILITY REPLACEMENT AT NEW LOCATION ....................... 89
 6.7.1 Scope of Work ........................................................................................... 90

 6.7.6 Further Review of Alternative 4 ................................................................. 94
 6.8 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION OF EAST JERASH ALTERNATIVES........ 95
MEMORANDUM ......................................................................................................... 98
SECTION 7 - SUMMARY OF TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS............................... 107

 7.1 EAST JERASH CATCHMENT.............................................................................. 107
 7.1.1 Headworks............................................................................................... 108

 7.1.2 Lift Station ............................................................................................... 110
 7.1.3 New Primary Clarifiers ............................................................................. 110
 7.1.4 Aeration System ...................................................................................... 110
 7.1.5 RAS/WAS Splitter and Pumping Station .................................................. 111
 7.1.6 Secondary Clarifiers ................................................................................. 111
 7.1.7 Existing Lagoons ...................................................................................... 112
 7.1.8 Disinfection .............................................................................................. 112
 7.1.9 Biosolids Conveyance, Treatment and Disposal ...................................... 112

Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report iii
Table of Contents
 7.1.10 Odor Control System.............................................................................. 113

 7.1.11 New Ancillary Processes and Support Systems ...................................... 113
 7.1.12 New Buildings ........................................................................................ 114
 7.2 MAINTENANCE OF PLANT OPERATIONS (MOPO) ........................................... 114
 7.3 PHASING OPTIONS .......................................................................................... 114
SECTION 8 - FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ................................................. 115

 8.1 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 115
 8.1.1 POPULATION & HOUSEHOLDS CONNECTED, WASTEWATER FLOWS AND

VOLUMES BILLED.............................................................................................. 115
 8.1.2 INVESTMENT COST ESTIMATES ............................................................... 116
 8.1.3 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O & M) COST ESTIMATES .................. 118
 8.1.4 WASTEWATER TREATMENT REVENUE ESTIMATES ................................. 122
 8.1.5 NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV) AND DYNAMIC PRIME COST (DPC) ANALYSIS124
 8.1.6 COST RECOVERY ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 127
 8.1.7 PROJECT FINANCIAL PROFITABILITY ANALYSIS (FIRR & FNPV) ................ 128
 8.1.8 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 3B ................... 132
 8.1.9 TARIFF AFFORDABILITY ANALYSIS ........................................................... 147
 8.1.10 FINANCIAL RISK ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 150
 8.1.11 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS ..................................................... 150
 8.2 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 151
 8.2.1 Water Resources and the Role of Wastewater ........................................ 151

 8.2.2 Part II: Methodology ............................................................................... 157
 8.2.3 Part III: Economic Analysis of the Proposed Jerash WWTP ...................... 162
SECTION 9 - IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM FOR THE RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS

.................................................................................................................................. 168
 9.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 168
 9.2 PREPARATION OF DETAILED DESIGN AND TENDER DOCUMENTS .................. 168
 9.2.1 Land Acquisition ...................................................................................... 168

 9.2.2 Topographical Survey and Soil Investigations ......................................... 168
 9.2.3 Department of Antiquities Approval to Proceed...................................... 169
 9.2.4 Ministry of the Environment Approval to Proceed .................................. 169
 9.2.5 Basis of Design/Design Report................................................................. 169
 9.2.6 Detailed Design Development ................................................................. 170
 9.2.7 Preparation of Tender Documents .......................................................... 170
 9.2.8 Engineer’s Cost Estimates........................................................................ 171
 9.2.9 Pre-qualification Documents ................................................................... 171
 9.2.10 Project Summary Report........................................................................ 171
 9.2.11 Phase II Implementation Schedule ........................................................ 171
 9.3 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PROCUREMENT AND CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION
.............................................................................................................................. 172

Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report iv
Table of Contents
 9.3.1 Prequalification of Contractors................................................................ 172

 9.3.2 Pre Contract Services ............................................................................... 172
 9.3.3 Evaluation of Bids and Award of Contract ............................................... 172
 9.3.4 Construction ............................................................................................ 173
 9.3.5 Commissioning ........................................................................................ 173
BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................... 174
APPENDIX A - WASTEWATER TRANSFER SYSTEM ......................................................... 1
APPENDIX B - BASIS OF COST ESTIMATES ..................................................................... 1
Volume II
APPENDIX C - FINANCIAL ANALYSIS BACKUP DETAILS ............................................... C-1

Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Jerash Wastewater Collection Networks ........................................................... 2
Figure 3-1 Existing Process Flow Diagram for East Jerash WWTP ....................................15
Figure 3-2 Jerash WWTP Maintenance Schedule .............................................................. 23
Figure 3-3 Jerash Air Temperature Correlation ................................................................ 25
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 5-1 Oxidation Ditch Schematic ............................................................................... 45
Figure 5-2 Conventional Activated Sludge Schematic ....................................................... 47
Figure 5-3 Sequencing Batch Reactor Process Schematic ................................................. 47
Figure 5-4 Gravity Belt Thickener ...................................................................................... 53
Figure 5-5 Gravity Thickener ............................................................................................. 54
Figure 5-6 Rotary Drum Thickener .................................................................................... 55
Figure 5-7 Dissolved Air Flotation Thickener ..................................................................... 56
Figure 5-8 Dewatering Screw Press................................................................................... 58
Figure 5-9 Dewatering Centrifuge..................................................................................... 59
Figure 5-10 Belt Filter Press ................................................................................................ 60
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
Figure 6-4 Schematic of Oxidation Ditch Expansion.......................................................... 74
Figure 6-5 Schematic of an Oxidation Ditch Expansion..................................................... 82
Figure 6-6 Alternative 3A Conceptual Site Layout Plan ..................................................... 83
Figure 6-7 Schematic of WWTP Replacement with Oxidation Ditches..............................86
Figure 6-8 Alternative 3B Conceptual Site Layout Plan ..................................................... 87
Figure 6-9 Site Layout for Alternative 4 at Site B .............................................................. 92
Figure 7-1 Process Flow Diagram for Recommended Alternative ...................................108
Figure 9-1 Phase II Implementation Schedule ................................................................. 172

Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Current and Projected Connected Population in Jerash .....................................7
3
Table 2-2 Projected Average Wastewater Flow (m /d) in Jerash ......................................8
3
Table 2-3 Projected Maximum and Peak Flow (m /d) for Jerash.......................................8
Table 2-4 Historical Flows and Loads for East Jerash Catchment ......................................9
Table 2-5 East Jerash WWTP Sampling Results ............................................................... 10
Table 2-6 Raw Influent Ratios .......................................................................................... 11
Table 2-7 Anticipated Changes in Pollutant Concentrations............................................12
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 3-1 Existing WWTP Design Criteria ........................................................................ 15
Table 3-2 Existing Process Design Criteria ....................................................................... 15
Table 3-3 Design Criteria versus Historical Influent Characteristics.................................17
Table 3-4 Summary of Refurbishment Cost Estimates .................................................... 21
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 3-9 West Jerash WWTP Design Parameters........................................................... 34
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 5-1 Oxidation Ditch Advantages and Disadvantages .............................................46
Table 5-2 Conventional Activated Sludge Advantages and Disadvantages .....................47
Table 5-3 Sequencing Batch Reactor Advantages and Disadvantages ............................49
Table 5-4 Matrix Assessment for Recommending East Jerash WWTP Technology..........52
Table 5-5 Gravity Belt Thickeners Advantages and Disadvantages ................................54
Table 5-6 Gravity Thickeners Advantages and Disadvantages .......................................55
Table 5-7 Rotary Drum Thickeners Advantages and Disadvantages ..............................56
Table 5-8 Dissolved Air Flotation Advantages and Disadvantages .................................57

Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report vii
Table 5-9 Screw Presses Advantages and Disadvantages............................................... 58
Table 5-10 Centrifuges Advantages and Disadvantages ................................................... 59
Table 5-11 Belt Filter Presses Advantages and Disadvantages..........................................60
Table 5-12 Drying Beds Advantages and Disadvantages................................................... 61
Table 5-13 Aerobic Digestion Advantages and Disadvantages .........................................62
Table 5-14 Anaerobic Digestion Advantages and Disadvantages .....................................63
Table 5-15 Drying Bed Stabilization Advantages and Disadvantages ...............................63
Table 5-16 Alkaline Stabilization Advantages and Disadvantages ....................................64
Table 6-1 Combined East and West Jerash Average Wastewater Flow and Load
Projections ....................................................................................................... 66
Table 6-2 Breakdown of Construction Cost by WWTP Units ............................................68
Table 6-3 Unit Capital Costs for Comparisons of Alternatives .........................................68
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 6-10 Capital Cost Estimate for Option A .................................................................. 73
Table 6-11 Operating Parameters and Design Criteria - Oxidation Ditch Expansion .........74
Table 6-12 Effluent Water Quality – Oxidation Ditch Expansion .......................................75
Table 6-13 Capital Cost Estimate for Option B .................................................................. 75
Table 6-14 Operating Parameters and Design Criteria - Modified Process Operations .....76
Table 6-15 Effluent Water Quality - Modified Operations ................................................. 76
Table 6-16 Capital Cost Estimate for Option C................................................................... 76
Table 6-17 Capital Cost Estimate Summary for West WWTP Expansion Options ..............77
Table 6-18 Capital Cost Estimate for Alternative 1 ............................................................ 78
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 6-24 Capital Cost Estimate for Alternative 3A..........................................................85
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 6-27 Capital Cost Estimate for Alternative 3B .......................................................... 89

Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report viii
......................................................................................................................... 91
......................................................................................................................... 93
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 81-2 Investment Cost Estimates (Excluding Renewal / Replacement / Replenishment

of M & E Equipment) of Alternatives (At 2011 Constant US$ Prices) .............118
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 8-15 FNPV and FIRR of the Alternatives ................................................................. 132
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

Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report ix
Table 8-19 Financing Options of Initial Investment Costs of Alternative 3B Covering 2011-
2014 Period (Discount Rate of 5%) ................................................................ 139
Table 8-20 Credit Terms and Conditions .......................................................................... 140
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 8-31 Categorization of WTTP ................................................................................. 158
Table 8-32 Tracking the Path of Wastewater .................................................................. 160
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 8-35 Market Prices of Mineral Fertilizers in Jordan................................................ 161
Table 8-36 Agricultural Areas in East and West Jerash Irrigation Command Areas
(Immediate Downstream) and Water Requirements .....................................163
Table 8-37 Irrigated crops in the Jordan Valley – in Hectares..........................................164
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
Table 8-41 Summary of Key Economic Parameters ......................................................... 167

Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ADF Average Daily Flow
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BOT Build Operate and Transfer
CAS Conventional Activated Sludge
CCTV Closed-Circuit Television
COD Chemical Oxidation Demand
Dia. Diameter
DCF Discounted Cash Flow
DIP Ductile Iron Pip
DO Dissolved Oxygen
DoS Department of Statistics
DLS Department of Land and Survey
DPC Dynamic Prime Cost
EAS Environmental Assessment Study
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EL Elevation
FIRR Financial Internal Rate of Return
FNPV Financial Net Present Value
FOG Fat, Oil and Grease
GBT Gravity Belt Thickener
GIS Geographic Information System
GoJ Government of Jordan
GPS Global Position System
HC Household Connection
HDPE High Density Polyethylene
HGL Hydraulic Grade Line
H2S Hydrogen Sulfide
I/I Infiltration/Inflow
Inv. Invert
IIR Internal Rate of Return
JD Jordanian Dinar
JS Jordanian Standard
KAC King Abdullah Canal
KTD King Talal Dam
KTR King Talah Reservoir
MH Manhole
MLE Modified Ludzack-Ettinger
MLSS Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids
MoE Ministry of Environment
MoMA Ministry of Municipal Affairs
MWH Montgomery Watson Harza
MWI Ministry of Water and Irrigation
NPV Net Present Value

Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
NWMP National Water Master Plan

NRW Non-Revenue Water
O&M Operation & Maintenance
p.a. Per annum
PF Peaking Factor
PMU Project Management Unit
PS Pump Station
PSP Private Sector Participation
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RAS Return Activated Sludge
RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe
RFTOP Request for Task Order Proposal
SBR Sequencing Batch Reactor
SCADA Supervisory Control Data Acquisition
SPC Special Purpose Company
SRT Solids Retention Time
SVI Sludge Volume Index
SWD Side Water Depth
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
T-N Total Nitrogen
T-P Total Phosphorus
TSS Total Suspended Solids
USAID The United States Agency for International Development
UV Ultra Violet
VOCs Volatile Organic Carbons
VAT Value Added Tax
VSS Volatile Suspended Solids
WAJ Water Authority of Jordan
WAS Waste Activated Sludge
WIP Water/Wastewater Infrastructure Project
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report xii
LIST OF UNITS
cm centimeter
o
C degrees Celsius
d, D day
Dunum 1,000 square meters
ha hectare (10,000 square meters)
h, hr hour
JD Jordanian Dinar
kg kilogram
km kilometer
kPa kilo Pascal
kV kilovolt
kVA kilovolt ampere
L, l liter
Lpcd, Lpcd liters per capita per day
L/s, l/s liter per second
m meter
2
m square meter
3
m cubic meter
3
m /d cubic meter per day
3
m /h cubic meter per hour
3
m /s cubic meter per second
m/s meter per second
MCM million cubic meters
MCM/y million cubic meters per year
mg milligram
min minute
ML/d megaliters per day
mm millimeter
Pa Pascal
s second
Y, y, yr year

Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report xiii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
CDM International was retained by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
to undertake the Water/Wastewater Infrastructure Project (WIP) for the purpose of improving the
utilization of limited water resources in Jordan for the next 25 years and bring about urgently needed
enhancements to the water and wastewater systems.
The following specific tasks have been identified within the project.
 Task 1. Feasibility Study and Design of Zarqa Wastewater Treatment Facilities. This task has
subsequently been deleted.
 Task 2. Assessment of Greater Amman Water and Wastewater Systems.
 Task 3. Feasibility Study and Design for Expansion of Jerash Wastewater Treatment Plant.
 Task 4. Assessment of the Water and Wastewater Systems of Tafilah and Ma’an
Governorates
 Task 5. Construction of the Reuse Knowledge Centre in Wadi Mousa/Petra. This Task is
currently on hold pending the determination of responsibility for the operation and
maintenance of the facilities.
 Task 6. Feasibility Studies, designs, tendering and construction management of small scale
water and wastewater project as identified under the project. Currently feasibility studies are
in progress for Wadi Rum site sewerage handling, Hisban wells, Awyan wells and solar
energy farming.
This Feasibility Report focuses on the requirements of Task 3 and future wastewater treatement and
disposal in the City of Jerash. East and west catchment areas divide the City into two distinct sewer
networks, one older system in the East and the other recently constructed in the West. Additional
sewer areas that will connect to both existing networks have been designed, but yet to be
implemented. This report makes estimates for future wastewater characteristics in these areas,
provides treatment and disposal options, and recommends improvements to meet the City’s needs in
2035.
The scope of the feasibility study includes an assessment of the wastewater treatment facilities within
the catchment areas served by the existing East Jerash WWTP and the newly constructed West Jerash
WWTP. This report also presents options for providing wastewater treatment for flows and loads
from the study area, up to the design horizon of 2035. Different alternatives for the expansion of
treatment facilities at East and West Jerash within the study area were developed and the most
feasible solutions to meet the Task objectives are presented.
Meeting the wastewater treatment needs of Jerash in 2035 can be accomplished by considering and
implementing various alternatives for expansion and/or upgrade of existing WWTPs. The feasible
alternatives are explored, evaluated, and analyized to arrive at a recommended alternative. Financial
and socio-economic analyses and proposed implementation schedules are also present to fulfill the
required scope of the Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study.

Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report I
Executive Summary
JERASH WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS

The first step in planning any wastewater infrastructure improvements is to define current and
projected wastewater characteristics. The following are the analyses performed and parameters defined;
 Current and future population estimates and percentage of the population served
 Water consumption and wastewater generation rates per person
 Historical characteristics of wastewater tributary to the East Jerash WWTP
 Current characteristics of wastewater entering the East Jerash WWTP
 Current and projected wastewater flow rates and pollutant concentrations and peaking factors
The following table summarizes the current and future, population and flow data, for all of Jerash.
Table E-1 Current and Projected, Population and Flow Data
Parameter East Jerash West Jerash Total
Current (2010) Population Served 51,461 0 51,461
Projected (2035) Population Served 100% 100% 100%
Projected (2035) Population Served 118,637 113,655 232,292

3
Current (2010) Average Flow (m /d) 3,499 0 3,499
3
Projected (2035) Average Flow (m /d) 9,491 9,092 18,583
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.
ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT IN JERASH

As previously mentioned, Jerash has two treatment facilities with one serving the East Catchment and
the other serving the West Catchment. The following paragraphs describe the current treatment
infrastructure within these catchments, along with existing design criteria, assessment of existing
conditions, and ability to meet wastewater treatment requirements in 2035.

Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report II
Executive Summary
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.
ALTERNATIVES FOR FUTURE WASTEWATER TREATMENT IN JERASH

Alternatives for future wastewater treatment and disposal in Jerash are numersous because of the two
catchment system and the need to expand the service of West Jerash WWTP from 2025 to 2035. All
options have been considered and include the following general criteria:
• Upgrade of an existing treatment facility
• Expansion and upgrade of an existing treatment facility
• Construction of a new facility on the same site as the existing

• Construction of a new facility on a new site, and

Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report III
Executive Summary
• Transfer of flow from one catchment to another.

Before alternatives were developed, a treatment technology screening and selection were performed
which recommended the liquid and solids process train. The recommendation is for typical preliminary
treatment systems, followed by primary clarifiers, oxidation ditches, secondary clarifiers, and ending
with disinfection. Sludge treatment will include gravity thickeners, aerobic digesters and mechanical
dewatering with the option for using drying beds. High strength influent wastewater creates the need
for primary clarifiers and digesters are provided for the most feasible method of stabilization. For the
alternatives presented below, the same technologies and process trains were compared.
Alternatives focused on the East Catchment with secondary consideration for improvements required at
the West Jerash WWTP. In addition, options for catchment flow transfers are included. 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, or complete on-site replacement, 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.
The 3rd alternative has two sub-alternatives for upgrade with expansion (3A), or replacement (3B) of the
existing East Jerash WWTP, all in an effort to meet design criteria in the year 2035. Both sub-
alternatives are for work to be performed on the existing site.
Along with treatment alternatives for the East Catchment, three options were considered to increase
capacity of the existing West Jerash WWTP to successfully treat influent wastewater in 2035 which
would be required in some form in all cases. The options include:
Option A: Installation of primary clarifiers with a sludge treatment capacity expansion
Option B: Installation of a third oxidation ditch, and
Option C: Modification of the operating procedures to increase treatment capacity or a reduction in
the soilds retention time and increase solids treatment capacity.
All alternatives and options are compared in Section 6 using qualitative critieria including
contructablility, reliability, flexibility, required maintenance, space requirements, odors, process
performance, noise level, public impact, energy use, capital cost, and O&M costs. A balanced scoring
system was used to rank each alternative and a summation of scoring was used to select the most
desirable alternative. A summary of the alternatives, future flow capacities, and approximate capital cost
are presented in Table E-2.

Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report IV
Executive Summary
TableE-2 Summary of Alternative Features and Estimated Capital Cost Impacts

Alternative for
Treating East Jerash WWTP West Jerash
WWTP New
Jerash Transfer or Total
Wastewater New New Estimated 1
to Projected Changes to Changes or Conveyance Capital Cost
Facilities on Facilities at Added Systems
2035 Flows Existing
Existing Site New Site Facilities
and Loads
Alternative 1 –
Decommission Expand from
3
East WWTP and Decommission 10,000 m /d to
NA NA 3 $2,067,000 $18,577,000
Transfer all $500,000 18,583 m /d
Flow to West $16,010,000
WWTP
Alternative 2 –
Upgrade
Existing East Upgrade to Expand from
3
WWTP to Meet treat 2,600 10,000 m /d to
3 NA NA 3 $1,880,000 $18,050,000
Effluent Quality m /d 15,983 m /d
and Transfer $1,560,000 $14,610,000
Remaining Flow
to West WWTP
Alternative 3A
– Upgrade
Expand in 2024
Existing East Upgrade to Process
from BOD load
WWTP and treat 6,000 Expansion of
3 3 NA of 7,500 kg/d NA $18,171,000
Construct m /d 3,500 m /d
to 12,123 kg/d
Expansion $3,600,000 $13,480,000
$1,091,000
Facilities on
Existing Site
Alternative 3B
–
Expand in 2024
Decommission New Facilities
from BOD load
Existing East Decommission to treat 9,500
3 NA of 7,500 kg/d NA $16,866,000
WWTP and $500,000 m /d
to 12,123 kg/d
Construct New $15,275,000
$1,091,000
Facilities on
Same Site
Expand in 2024
Alternative 4 – New WWTP
from BOD load
Construct New Decommission at Site B for
NA 3 of 7,500 kg/d $3,200,000 $20,911,000
WWTP at a New $500,000 9,500 m /d
to 12,123 kg/d
Site $16,120,000
$1,091,000
1
Capital costs in US dollars and for construction only.
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.

Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report V
Executive Summary
Figure E-1 Process Flow Diagram for Recommended Alternative

The recommended treatment plant contains many processes common to other treatment facilities
throughout Jordan. The plant is very similar to the West Jerash WWTP with the exception of primary
clarifiers and the need for aerobic digestion to provide the potential for sludge reuse. The modern
facility will contain simplistic process procedures with performance that exceeds Jordanian standards.
A financial analysis of the various alternatives and an assessment of the recommended alternative is
presented in Section 8 along with socio-economic analyses. The financial viability of the plan is
presented with the effects on local tarrifs 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.
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.

Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report VI
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 SUMMARY OF THE WATER/WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
PROJECT (WIP)
CDM International was retained by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
to undertake the Water/Wastewater Infrastructure Project (WIP) for the purpose of improving the
utilization of limited water resources in Jordan for the next 25 years and bring about urgently needed
enhancements to the water and wastewater systems.
The Water/Wastewater Infrastructure Project covers engineering infrastructure improvements
identified by USAID in cooperation with the Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI), the Water
Authority of Jordan (WAJ), public sector water companies such as Miyahuna and the Aqaba Water
Company, the various municipalities, and the Ministry of Environment (MoE). The program provides
engineering services to carryout assessments, studies and design and construction management for
water, wastewater and environmental projects.
The following specific tasks have been identified within the WIP.
 Task 1. Feasibility Study and Design of Zarqa Wastewater Treatment Facilities. This task
has subsequently been eliminated.
 Task 2. Assessment of Greater Amman Water and Wastewater Systems.
 Task 3. Feasibility Study and Design for Expansion of Jerash Wastewater Treatment
Plant.
 Task 4. Assessment of the Water and Wastewater Systems of Tafilah and Ma’an
Governorates
 Task 5. Construction of the Reuse Knowledge Centre in Wadi Mousa/Petra. This Task is
currently on hold pending the determination of responsibility for the operation and
maintenance of the facilities.
 Task 6. Feasibility Studies, designs, tendering and construction management of small
scale water and wastewater project as identifies under the project. Currently feasibility
studies are in progress for Wadi Rum site sewerage handling, Hisban wells, Awyan wells
and solar energy farming.
This Feasibility Report focuses on the requirements of Task 3 and future wastewater disposal in the
City of Jerash. East and west catchment areas divide the City into two distinct sewer networks, one
older system in the East and the other recently constructed in the West. Additional sewer areas that
will connect to both existing networks have been designed, but yet to be developed. This report
makes estimates for future wastewater characteristics in these areas, provides treatment and disposal
options, and recommends improvements to meet the City’s needs in 2035.
Development of this report was conducted in parallel with the Jerash Wastewater Master Plan Report
and the Technical Memorandum Water/Wastewater Forecasts, Tasks 1-4, which documents estimates
for future population, water demand and wastewater generation.
1.2 BACKGROUND TO TASK 3

The existing and currently proposed wastewater collection networks for Jerash are shown in Figure 1-
1 and described in the following sections.

Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report 1
Section 1 - Introduction
Figure 1-1 Jerash Wastewater Collection Networks

Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report
2
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.
1.2.3 Proposed Wastewater Networks

A scheme to provide 80 km of new sewers to an existing unsewered area of Jerash has been designed by
Orient Engineering Consultancy and Design. This system will serve areas in both the east and west
catchments. A small pumping station located near the archaeological site will serve the Daher Al Sero
area. The force main will discharge into a new gravity sewer system. A second pumping station at Al
Jbarat collects flows from Al Jbarat and Amma plus the flows from the first pumping station. The
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.
1.2.4 Mukhayyam Gaza Proposed Sewerage

Wastewater within Mukhayyam Gaza (Gaza Refugee Camp) drains to a system of open channels which
discharge untreated wastewater to the wadi which passed adjacent to the West Jerash WWTP. The
West Jerash wastewater collection network has been designed to receive this flow. A sewer system to
serve the camp has been designed, but construction requires funding from the UN. This funding is not
yet available.
1.3 FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR JERASH WASTEWATER TREATMENT

AND COLLECTION
1.3.1 Scope of Work
This feasibility study examines wastewater treatment and collection needs identified in the Master Plan.
Deficiencies in treatment processes and network capacity throughout the design period are evaluated
and quantified.
The scope of the feasibility study includes an assessment of the wastewater treatment facilities within
the catchment areas served by the existing East Jerash WWTP and the newly constructed West Jerash
WWTP at West Jerash.
This feasibility report presents options for providing wastewater treatment for flows and loads from the
study area, up to the design horizon. Different alternatives for the expansion of treatment facilities at
East Jerash are developed and the most feasible solutions to meet the Task objectives are presented.
The following studies are part of the WIP deliverables or will be prepared separately:
 The Jerash Wastewater Master Plan
 The Environmental Assessment Plan
 The Effluent and Biosolids Reuse Study
 The Organisational Review of the Jerash Water Department
The Master Plan includes the evaluation of the existing primary wastewater network which includes all
pipes of 300mm diameter and above and those pipes of 200mm diameter considered to form part of the
main trunk sewer
1.3.2 Study Area and Design Horizon

The study area includes Jerash City and all the surrounding communities that drain or could be served
by the existing East Jerash WWTP and the newly constructed West Jerash WWTP.
The design horizon of this project is year 2035.
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.
1.3.4 Feasibility Study Activities

The activities carried out as part of the feasibility study are described as follows:

 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.
1.5 REPORT ORGANIZATION

The remainder of this report is organized as follows.

 Section 2 - Summary of Wastewater Flows and Loads

 Section 3 - Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluations
 Section 4 - Treatment Requirements and Effluent Standards
 Section 5 - Treatment Process Alternatives
 Section 6 - Evaluation of Alternatives
 Section 7 - Summary of Treatment Recommendations
 Section 8 - Economic and Financial Analysis of the Recommended Option
 Section 9 - Implementation Program

SECTION 2 - SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER FLOWS AND
LOADS
This section define the historical population and wastewater flow, and then makes estimates for
wastewater characteristics to be expected in the design year of 2035. The service area is limited to that
shown in Figure 1-1 and is comprised of the East and West Catchments within the City of Jerash. The
East Catchment is tributary to the existing East Jerash Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and the
West Catchment is tributary to the newly constructed West Jerash WWTP. There is an existing
wastewater collection network in the east and a new catchment in the west was recently constructed
3
and is being developed as new user connections are made. As of March 2011, approximately 1000 m /d
of wastewater is received at the West WWTP.
2.1 PROJECTED POPULATION AND FLOW FOR ALL OF JERASH

The following sections describe how projected wastewater characteristics are estimated for the design
year of 2035. Future population and wastewater generation per person can be use to predict future
flows. Details regarding these calculations are provided below.
2.1.1 Projected Population Estimates

As part of the Water/Wastewater Infrastructure Project, CDM developed a technical memorandum
(CDM International, December 2010) which summarizes population, per capita water consumption,
and wastewater return rates through the design year of 2035.
The 2010 populations in localities in or adjacent to the East Jerash wastewater catchment is
approximately 69,000. Of these approximately 76% are connected to the wastewater network and
hence, the WWTP. The remaining population lies outside the natural catchment area (there are no
pump stations in the East Catchment), or are not connected to sewers by choice or because local
sewers are not available. It is anticipated that 100% of those able to obtain service will be connected to
the system by 2015.
The population connected to the West Jerash WWTP in 2010 is low (see Section 2.5) and is expected
to increase over the years until the population is fully connected by 2035.
These forecast populations are presented at 5 yearly intervals in Table 2-1.The estimates of future
flows and loads are based on these population forecasts.
Table 2-1 Current and Projected Connected Population in Jerash
Total Population East Catchment West Catchment
Year Connected Connected Connected
2010 51,461 51,461 0
2015 103,576 74,583 28,993
2020 135,995 86,357 49,638
2025 171,829 97,276 74.553
2030 201,182 108,034 93,148
2035 232,292 118,637 113,655

Section 2 – Summary of Wastewater Flows and Loads
2.1.2 Projected Average Flow Estimates for All of Jerash

Future (or projected) flows and loads provide the design criteria to assess and size upgrades to the
existing treatment facilities. Table 2-2 presents the estimated future flows for the east and west
catchments, based on the connected populations provided in Table 2-1.
Wastewater generation is based on 80 percent return of 100 Lpcd water consumed for all of Jerash, or 80
Lpcd. No allowances are included for dry weather infiltration and inflow.
3
Table 2-2 Projected Average Wastewater Flow (m /d) in Jerash
Year Total Flow East Catchment West Catchment
2010 3,499 3,499 0
2015 8,286 5,967 2,319
2020 10,880 6,909 3,971
2025 13,746 7,782 5,964
2030 16,095 8,643 7,452
2035 18,583 9,491 9,092
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.
2.1.3 Projected Maximum and Peak Flows for All of Jerash

Table 2-3 presents a summary the present and future peaking factors and the respective flow rates. It
has been assumed that the new discharges in the West Jerash Catchment will have the same hydraulic
(and loading) characteristics as the east. Therefore, the same peaking factors were used for both
catchments. The maximum peaking factors were held consistent for the present and future flow
estimates.
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.
2.2 HISTORICAL WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS FOR EAST JERASH

Several years of historical data was analyzed to define wastewater characteristics from the existing East
Jerash collection system. Information such as peaking factors, pollutant concentrations, and pollutant
relationships (fractions) are used to predict future wastewater characteristics for all of Jerash in 2035.
The following paragraphs first characterize historical wastewater and then apply certain factors to
predict future conditions. In the end, projected flows and loads are provided for both the East and West
Catchments in Jerash for use in assessing future wastewater treatment needs.
CDM routinely evaluates a minimum of three-years’ of recent plant influent data to determine average
pollutant concentrations and flow variations. In addition, pollutant loading relationships are
determined for average day, maximum month, and maximum day conditions. Maximum day loads are
used for aeration and hydraulic criteria, while maximum month conditions are used for process sizing.
Maximum week sludge values are used for sludge process design and peak flows are used for hydraulic
conveyance sizing.
Three years of WWTP records were reviewed to characterize wastewater tributary to the East Jerash
WWTP. The analysis does not include total flow from peak days because influent flow in excess of 8,600
3
m /d is diverted to the wadi through an overflow pipeline upstream of the plant flow meter. The
overflow is not gauged and therefore, there is no data to estimate the true peak flow tributary to the
WWTP.
Historical flow and load data are based on a 30 day rolling average of data between 1 February 2008 and
30 September 2010. The 95 percentile of the data was used to calculate the historical flows and loads for
East Jerash as presented in Table 2-4.
Table 2-4 Historical Flows and Loads for East Jerash Catchment
Load Peaking Concentration
Item kg/day Factor (mg/L)
BOD Analysis
Average Day 4,487 1.00 1,376

Max Month 5,698 1.27
Max day 6,255 1.39
Max Week 6,147 1.37
COD Analysis
Average Day 8,937 1.00 2,741
Max Month 13,227 1.48
Max day 13,983 1.56
Max Week 13,495 1.51
TSS Analysis
Average Day 3,931 1.00 1,205
Max day 5,543 1.41
Max Week 5,385 1.37
Flow Analysis

3 Peaking
Item m /d Factor
Average Day 3,378 1.00
Max day 4,662 1.38

Max Week 4,527 1.34
2.3 CURRENT WASTEWATER CHARATERISTICS FOR EAST JERASH

This section presents the results of the two week sampling performed at the East Jerash WWTP to
characterize raw influent wastewater. The intent of the sampling was to determine typical wastewater
fraction relationships between various constituents. This includes fractions of COD, nitrogen, and
phosphorus, and the relationship between other constituents such as TKN and BOD or the relationship
between TP and BOD. While flows and concentrations vary over time, the fractions and relationships
generally can be assumed to remain constant. These fractions are used in estimating pollutant
characteristics where no historical data exists. They are also used in developing the process model to
assess the existing WWTP and make estimates for new and improved WWTPs.
Sampling at the East Jerash WWTP was conducted in October 2010. Over a two week period, composite
samples were taken of influent and effluent streams every 30 minutes and grab samples periodically
collected from other areas in the process.
Samples were collected and analyzed by The Royal Scientific Society, under the direction of CDM.
Maximum, minimum, and average values with a standard deviation of influent and effluent are
presented in Table 2-5.
Table 2-5 East Jerash WWTP Sampling Results
Influent Recycle Effluent
Parameter
Max Min Avg. Std Max Min Avg. Std Max Min Avg. Std
Dev Dev Dev
Flow ML/D 3.96 2.64 3.50 0.36 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
COD mg/L 3031 176 2220 380 NA NA NA NA 481 322 375 45

9
COD, mg/L 1319 665 837 176 NA NA NA NA 282 171 214 32
soluble
COD, ff mg/L 1033 531 674 142 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
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
TVSS mg/L 942 452 733 160 NA NA NA NA 155 70 96 24

TKN, mg/L 201 99.5 130 25 NA NA NA NA 128 104 113 6
dissolved,
Ammonia, mg/L 126 82 108 12 NA NA NA NA 109 100 103 3
as N
Nitrate, as N mg/L NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.38 >1 1.88
TKN, as N mg/L 242 138 179 25 NA NA NA NA 138 118 127 6

Orthophosp mg/L 19 11 14 3 NA NA NA NA 8 4 6 1
hate
Total mg/L 27 19 22 2 NA NA NA NA 18 16 16 1
Phosphorus
Alk. (as mg/L 861 635 779 62 NA NA NA NA 945 841 904 37
CaCO3)
pH - 7.43 7.06 7.24 0.13 NA NA NA NA 8 7.56 7.78 0.15

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.
Table 2-6 Raw Influent Ratios

Period COD:BOD TSS:BOD VSS:TSS TP:BOD TKN:BOD
Maximum 2.44 1.21 0.83 0.023 0.20
Minimum 1.75 0.64 0.71 0.017 0.12
Average 2.04 0.85 0.79 0.020 0.17
Std Deviation 0.23 0.17 0.03 0.002 0.02

Typical domestic
2.0-2.2 0.6-1.2 0.7-0.9 NA 0.18-0.24
wastewater
2.3.1 Projected Pollutant Concentrations for All of Jerash

The future loadings are typically calculated from the projected average daily flow and the historical
average concentration for a particular pollutant. This method was not used for Jerash since water
consumption is anticipated to increase and result in an increase in wastewater generation from 68 to 80
liters per capita. As this rate increases, the average concentration will decrease, while the overall loading
(per capita) remains constant. The anticipated changes in per capita flow, per capita loading, and
catchment area average concentration, are presented in Table 2-7. Pollutant concentrations for 2010
given in Table 2-7 are derived from the historical Jerash plant influent data and not the short duration
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
BOD COD TSS

Year average average average
conc. Lpcd gram/cd conc. Lpcd gram/cd conc. gram/cd gram/cd
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
2010 1,376 68 94 2,741 68 186 1,205 68 82
2035 1,170 80 94 2,325 80 186 1,025 80 82
2.4 EAST JERASH CATCHMENT – PROJECTED WASTEWATER

CHARACTERISTICS
Table 2-8 lists the projected (2035) flows and loads for the East Jerash Catchment. Historical peaking
factors are used to estimate future characteristics for average, maximum month and maximum day
conditions.Nitrogen and phosphorus are based on BOD ratios defined for each in Section 2.3. The ratio
of T-N to BOD is 0.17 and ratio of T-P to BOD is 0.02. The loading peaking factors for BOD have been
used for both nitrogen and phosphorus.
Table 2-8 Projected Flows and Loads for East Jerash Catchment in 2035
Parameter Average Maximum Month Maximum Day
3
Projected (m /d) 9,491 12,433 13,097
Flow
Peaking Factor 1 1.31 1.38
Projected (mg/L) 1,170 - -
BOD Projected (kg/d) 11,104 14,103 15,435
COD Projected (kg/d) 22,067 32,659 34,425
TSS Projected (kg/d) 9,728 12,355 13,716
Projected (mg/L) 199 - -

1 1
T-N Projected (kg/d) 1,889 2,399 2,626
Projected (mg/L) 23 - -
2
T-P 2
Projected (kg/d) 218 277 303

1. Assuming a T-N:BOD of 0.17
2. Assuming a T-P:BOD of 0.02

2.5 WEST JERASH CATCHMENT – PROJECTED WASTEWATER

CHARACTERISTICS
As previously mentioned, the amount of wastewater flow being conveyed to the existing West Jerash
WWTP is relatively minor. This prohibits an analysis of historical water quality data from the West
Catchment. Therefore, CDM has assumed that wastewater characteristics in the West Catchment will
be similar to the East Catchment.
Table 2-9 lists the projected (2035) flows and loads for the West Jerash Catchment. Historical peaking
factors are used to estimate future characteristics for average, maximum month and maximum day
conditions. Nitrogen and phosphorus are based on BOD ratios defined for each in Section 2.3. The ratio
of T-N to BOD is 0.17 and ration of T-P to BOD is 0.02. The loading peaking factors for BOD have been
used for both nitrogen and phosphorus.
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
1,170
Projected (mg/L) - -
BOD Projected (kg/d) 10,638 13,510 14,787

2,325
COD Projected (kg/d) 21,139 31,286 32,977

1,025
TSS Projected (kg/d) 9,319 11,835 13,233

199
1
T-N Projected (kg/d) 1,809 2,297 2,515

23
2
T-P
Projected (kg/d) 209 265 291

1. Assuming a T-N:BOD of 0.17
2. Assuming a T-P:BOD of 0.02
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.

SECTION 3 - WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
EVALUATIONS
3.1 EAST JERASH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
The following paragraphs provide a summary of the existing East Jerash WWTP and its current
condition. Of concern is its ability to perform reliably into the future and meet the needs of Jerash
through the design year of 2035. This section will provide the basis for making any recommendations
for future treatment at this facility.
3.1.1 Description of Existing Facility

The existing East Jerash WWTP was first constructed in 1982 and had a treatment capacity of 1,155
3
m /day and 924 kg/day of BOD. The existing oxidation ditch was installed to provide suspended
growth activated sludge treatment, along with one clarifier, and a lagoon for polishing. The plant also
has an influent diversion chamber with a plant bypass, screens, grit and oil removal, chlorine
disinfection, a gravity thickener and sludge drying beds. The WWTP has no primary treatment or
sludge dewatering capability. The discharge is to the Wadi Jerash and eventually the Zarqa River
which flows to the King Talal Dam Reservoir.
In 1992, the WWTP was upgraded based on the planning provided in the design report(Arabtech
Consulting Engineers & GWE Consulting Engineers, 1991). This report recommended a capacity
3
upgrade to 5,000 m /day with a BOD loading of 3,000 kg/day. The biological treatment
recommendation includes the installation of three suspended growth aeration tanks and two new
secondary clarifiers. Only parts of these improvements were eventually constructed in 1992 and
included two aeration tanks with one clarifier. One aeration tank and one clarifier were not included
in the upgrade.
The 1991 design report did not clearly define the design criteria for a partial upgrade. However, it did
provide sufficient design information to interpolate these criteria. In general, all three existing
3 3
aeration tanks are designed with the same volumes (2,300 m ), flows (1,250 m /day), and BOD loading
(805 kg/day). The report also evaluated the existing oxidation ditch and determined that its capacity
would be equal to one new aeration tank. Since the current plant has the original oxidation ditch and
3
two aeration basins, then the rated flow is 3,750 m / day and BOD load is 2,415 kg/day. The design
3
report defines the peak hydraulic capacity of the East Plant as 8,600 m / day. Flow in excess of this
3
rate is conveyed to the existing wadi overflow, which has a capacity of about 41,400 m /d. This
overflow is located at the beginning of the headworks with a weir structure that will discharge to an
800 mm diameter pipe that drops down the side of Wadi Jerash.
The two-500 mm trunk sewers that feed the East Jerash WWTP have a peak carrying capacity of
3
approximately 140,000 m /d, when flowing full. This is much greater than the peak flow based on
3
peak flows during storm events in February 2011 of about 45,000 m /d. However, some sections of
trunk sewers in the East Catchment were identified in the draft Jerash Master Plan(CDM
International, February 2011) as needing replacement.
The process flow diagram shown in Figure 3-1 defines the different treatment trains and technologies
as they currently exist. The plant’s activated sludge process is currently operated as extended
aeration.
The design and process criteria for the existing plant are presented in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. As
mentioned above, there is no clear definition of the criteria since the processes constructed to date do
not match those recommended in the Design Report. Adjustments have been made to these criteria
to account for the difference in processes installed.

Section 3 - Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluations
Figure 3-1 Existing Process Flow Diagram for East Jerash WWTP
Table 3-1 Existing WWTP Design Criteria
Influent Parameter Unit Value

3
Average Daily Flow m /d 3,750
3
Peak Flow m /d 6,375
kg/d 2,415
Average BOD
mg/l 644
kg/d 2,854
Average TSS
mg/l 761
Table 3-2 Existing Process Design Criteria

Structure/Parameter Unit Value
Activated Sludge Design Criteria
Sludge Volume Index (SVI) mL/g 100

3
BOD Loading kg BOD / m /d 0.35
Sludge Loading Rate kg BOD / kg 0.07
MLSS /d
3
MLSS kg/m 4 -5
SRT (based on TSS) days 25
RAS Rate percent 100
Oxidation Ditch
3
Average Capacity m /d 1,250

Structure/Parameter Unit Value

Number No. 1
Length m 59.6
Width m 14.4
Depth m 4
Water Depth m 3.2
3
Volume m 2300
No. of Rotors No. 6
Capacity Each Rotor kW 30
Design BOD5 treatment capacity kg/day 805
Aeration Tanks
3
Average Capacity m /d 1,250
Number No. 2
Length m 32
Width m 16
Depth m 5
Water Depth m 4.5
3
Volume m 2300
Design BOD5 treatment capacity kg/day 805
No. of Aerators each tank No. 2
Design O2 Production Each Aerator kg/day 1875
Capacity Each Aerator(1st Speed) Kw 40
Capacity Each Aerator(2nd Speed) kW 60
Clarifier No.1
2
Surface Area m 255
Side Water Depth m 1.8
Diameter m 18
Detention Time (at ½ ADF) hrs 5.9
Clarifier No.2
2
Surface Area m 255
Side Water Depth m 2.4
Diameter m 18
Detention Time (at ½ ADF) hrs 7.8
Polishing Lagoons
No. of Lagoons No. 2
3
Total Volume m 30,000
Depth m 4.5

Table 3-3 Design Criteria versus Historical Influent Characteristics

Influent Parameter Design Historical
3
Average Daily Flow (m /d) 3,750 3,505
BOD (mg/L) 644 1,376
TSS (mg/L) 761 1,205
3.1.2 Assessment of Existing Design Criteria

This section provides a general assessment of the design criteria for the existing facility. The intent is to
reveal design concerns, understand prior decisions, and use this information in selecting future design
criteria.
Table 3-3 provides a comparison of the anticipated and actual influent wastewater characteristics. The
flow prediction is highly accurate but pollutant concentrations were grossly underestimated. The
predicted and actual concentrations are high when compared to other parts of the world, but are
expected for the arid climate in Jordan. In addition, the influent characteristics are greatly impacted by
discharges from the numerous cottage-type yogurt and labneh industries prevalent in Jerash. The
(almost) doubling of the design pollutant concentrations places an unexpected strain on process
performance and explains the inability to met current discharge limitations. The higher pollutant
concentrations are used in the prediction of future wastewater characteristics and in defining
infrastructure improvements.
The original and upgraded East Jerash WWTP does not have primary clarifiers even though influent
loadings were predicted to be excessively high. Clarifiers have the ability to significantly reduce the
loading on the secondary treatment system and allow for efficient biological treatment performance.
The design intent for the existing plant is to operate in extended aeration mode, which will provide
solids reduction but insignificant pollutant removal at the current flows and loads. The lack of primary
clarifiers and the resulting performance are instrumental in the decision making for future
improvements in Jerash.
Advancements in the methods for designing wastewater treatment facilities supersede those used for
the existing East Jerash WWTP. More precise tools and methods will be used to make
recommendations in this Feasibility Plan. For example, a computer model will be used to predict BOD
treatment capacity rather than a removal rate based on other facilities of similar type.
3.1.3 Structural and Mechanical Condition

Introduction
CDM and WAJ staff conducted a facility assessment inspection of the East Jerash Wastewater
Treatment Plant on 23 August 2010.
The purpose of the inspection was to:
 Examine the general site area.
 To inspect treatment processes.
 Inspect the mechanical and electrical equipment.
 Inspect the condition of the buildings on the site.
The site was in full operation at the time of the inspection and it was not possible to view the tanks
below the water surface.

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.
General Site Area

The site is adequately and securely fenced to prevent casual unauthorized access. However, the general
level of safety fencing and handrails within the site is poor. The site areas are untidy and seasonal
growth of vegetation needs to be cut back for safety and aesthetic reasons and also to discourage
vermin. Access roads and footpaths are sound but do need to be cleared of vegetation and debris.
Areas of debris have been allowed to accumulate and cleanings from tanks and chambers are left on
footpaths and adjacent areas and not always disposed of properly.
The condition of safety hand railing, gratings and covers is poor. Some are missing or badly corroded.
Recommendation General areas, roads and footpaths should be cleared of debris and seasonal
vegetation. Hand rails, gratings and covers should be repaired, replaced, cleaned and painted as
necessary. All metal work should be repaired, scraped back and painted.
Valves and Penstocks

Throughout the site, most valves, penstocks, washout and drains are in poor condition. Many have not
been operated or serviced for some time.
Recommendation. All valves, penstocks, etc. throughout the site, should be cleared, cleaned, greased
and generally made operable. Items that are broken or not repairable should be replaced.
Inlet Chamber and Wet Weather Overflow

The inlet chamber is structurally sound. A basket screen has been placed in the inlet channel at the
point where the two incoming sewer lines enter the chamber. The wet weather overflow is an integral
part of this chamber. Debris in the form of rocks and gravel has been allowed to accumulate in the
overflow chamber and channels.
Recommendation. Remove debris and clean basket screen.
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.
Scum/Grease Removal Tanks

Structurally, the two scum separation tanks are in reasonable condition. However, the floating solids
draw-off is damaged and needs to be repaired. The tanks are not capable of decanting surface scum due
to the broken telescoping valves.
Recommendation. Drain chambers and remove accumulated deposits. Clean tank walls.
Repair/replace telescoping valve.
Activated Sludge Tanks (2 No)

There are two activated sludge tanks, with 2 aerators each, providing aerobic treatment. The tanks are
structurally sound. However, the bridges supporting the aerators are subjected to excessive vibrations
when the aerator motors are run at full speed. The mechanical and electrical equipment is in need of a
thorough overhaul/replacement. All iron work and fitting needs to be cleaned and painted. Handrail
and walkways need attention.
Recommendation Drain tanks, inspect structural condition and repair concrete as necessary. Remove
accumulated sand and grit. Overhaul/replace aerators and motors. Replace/rebuild the access bridge to
a more rigid design.
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.

Chlorine Contact Channels

There are two chlorine contact channels after the maturation lagoons. The channels are structurally
sound. Metal and hardware items are corroded and need to be replaced.
Recommendation. The concrete tanks appear to be in acceptable condition but should be inspected
by a structural engineer after being dewatered. It is likely that these tanks can remain but might have to
be expanded.
Effluent/Plant Outfall
Effluent from the plant discharges to Wadi Jerash through a steep pipeline. Velocities are high and there
is some erosion of the wadi banks at the discharge point.
Recommendation. Monitor the condition of the wadi at the point of discharge and take action as
necessary to ensure the stability of the banks.
Chlorination
The chlorine system is currently functioning but needs to be thoroughly over hauled.
Recommendation. Rebuild/replace the existing equipment
Return Sludge Pumping and Waste Sludge Pumping

Although the structural condition is reasonable the overall appearance of these facilities is poor.
Chambers and wet wells need to be emptied and cleaned out. A number of pumps are not working. It is
likely that the specification of the installed pumps does not meet the required duty. Electrical
equipment is in need of attention.
Recommendation. Empty and clean wet wells. The mechanical and electrical equipment should be
refurbished with items replaced as necessary with correctly sized units.
Gravity Sludge Thickening

The tank is structurally sound, however the sludge gravity thickening system as a whole is not
performing satisfactorily.
Recommendation. The tanks need to be emptied and cleaned.
Sludge Drying Beds

2
There are 30 sludge drying beds, with an area of 3,600 m . These are not being used at the moment. The
beds could be converted to hard bottom sludge dewatering /evaporation beds.
Recommendation. Review sludge handling and drying arrangements.
Administration Building and Laboratory

Although the building is sound it is in need on some general maintenance and painting. Most of the
laboratory instruments are out dated, some are not functioning and other have not been calibrated
within the last 5 years.
Recommendation. Review the laboratory processes and procedures and reassess the need particularly
in consideration of the newly provided facilities at West Jerash WWTP.
Electrical Panels and Cabling

The electrical equipment is functioning satisfactorily; however, the equipment is showing signs of age
and poor basic maintenance.
Recommendation. Examine the electrical equipment, panels and cables and controls. Repair/replace
as necessary. Perform regular electrical checks on all equipment.

Summary of Condition and Recommendations.

Routine operational maintenance has been neglected for many years. Process tanks and the maturation
lagoons are heavily loaded with sludge and gritty deposits. The overall efficiency of the treatment
process is being significantly reduced because of the high volumes of sludge being retained within the
process tanks.
Most of the mechanical and electrical equipment is original and has been repaired on a failure basis. For
most items of equipment the normal design life of twenty years has been passed and the equipments are
due for major overhaul or replacement.
Safe and efficient replacement or overhaul of the mechanical and electrical equipment would require
the process tanks to be isolated, drained, thoroughly cleaned and de-sludged.
Recommendation. As stated earlier, implementing these recommendations will only tackle the
backlog of maintenance work that has built-up over the years, some improvements to effluent quality
would occur, but the effluent standards will not be achieved without a considerable reduction in the
flow to the plant and significant capital investment. Refurbishment will only bring the plant back to
near its original design condition, but still will not allow it to meet the current discharge limits with the
influent pollutant loads.
The tanks and chambers should by drained and cleaned. This activity would need to be carefully
planned and executed. The plant would need to continue to operate during the cleaning process. Large
volumes of heavily polluted liquor and wet sludge will be produced. An environmental management
plan for the work would need to be developed and implemented.
Appendix B includes a detailed cost estimate for the above recommended refurbishment items for the
East WWTP to near original plant design conditions. A summary of these cost estimates is presented in
Table 3-4.
Table 3-4 Summary of Refurbishment Cost Estimates
30% Total
Item Estimated Contingency Estimated
Cost US$
US$ Cost US$
Desludge Tanks etc. 175,000 52,500 227,500
Supply Equipment 455,000 136,500 581,500
Installation and Commissioning 135,000 40,000 175,000
Miscellaneous 120,000 36,000 156,000
Total of Refurbishment 885,000 265,000 1,140,000
3.1.4 Operation and Maintenance

Maintenance activities are subdivided into groups or categories in several different ways, for example
operational/technical, preventative/corrective, and overhaul/repair.
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.
Recommended Operational Maintenance Schedule for Jerash

Figure 3-2 shows a recommend operational maintenance schedule for the existing Jerash WWTP. The
work is organized according to the particular item of plant or equipment and the frequency i.e., daily,
weekly, monthly, annual etc. at which the maintenance task is to be carried out.
The chart can be used as a simple check sheet where the task can be ticked on completion. By looking
at the sheet the supervisor can see if maintenance task are being carried out as required. Site
inspections will identify that the work is being done to the required standard.

Jerash WWTP Maintenance Schedule
Figure 3-2 Jerash WWTP Maintenance Schedule

3.1.5 WWTP Modeling

Expectations and Limitations
This project uses BioWin process modeling computer software (Version 3.0.1.833, EnviroSim Associates,
Ltd.) to simulate wastewater treatment processes. Wastewater process modeling represents the
industry’s best understanding of the complex relationships between the chemical, physical and
biological processes that affect successful wastewater treatment. Nearly 50 years of research have gone
into scrutinizing and characterizing the behavior of the approximately 60 most important known
processes that are intricately related and non-linear.
The numerical models that have been developed to describe observed phenomena related to these
processes continue to evolve as understanding of these processes improves. In the last 5 years,
significant revisions have been made to the theories supporting the fundamental processes of settling,
nitrification, denitrification and chemical phosphorus removal. Such revisions require that the
numerical models also be refined. Some processes are avoided altogether, either because they are too
complex, they do not add value to the modeling effort or not enough is known about them. For
example, biological inhibition, filamentous organisms and non-ideal mixing are not specifically
addressed in today’s process models.
Models are perfect calculators and therefore great for quickly determining mass balances around
complex configurations of many different processes. However, the accuracy of any model to represent
reality will be dependent on the quality of the inputs. Preeminent professionals in the industry would
argue that the ability to accurately measure conditions at a wastewater treatment plant is currently the
weakest component of modeling, as analytical accuracy is typically limited to +/- 10 percent, and
sampling accuracy might be limited to +/- 20 percent or more. Average values (24-hour composites or
monthly averages) introduce inaccuracies that increase with increasing sample period simply due to the
non-linear interdependence of the chemical, physical and biological processes that are involved.
Accurate flow measurement also plays an important role.
The uncertainty inherent with sampling and analysis at wastewater treatment plants suggests that
models might not always match what is measured at a plant. This is often the case, despite the best
efforts of the modelers. Good agreement between model results and plant data is only possible if the
reliability of the data is thoroughly verified and vetted by identifying any and all inconsistencies in
sample collection and analyses. Without such time and labor-intensive scrutiny, models should not
necessarily be relied on to predict an absolute result (say, an average effluent total phosphorus
concentration of 0.54 mg/L).
That being said, without such scrutiny, models are still excellent tools for planning and assessing
waterwater treatment alternatives. They provide a complete picture of relative process performance that
allows for a better understanding of how a plant is operating. They can point out when and where
sampling, analysis and even data entry may be biased or erroneous. They can demonstrate behavior
related to dynamic conditions or changes in operation. Of most value is that they provide the ability to
evaluate relative differences between proposed treatment alternatives and future flow and load
scenarios.
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
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.
Average Air Temperature for Jerash

(oC)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 3-3 Jerash Air Temperature Correlation
3.1.6 Evaluation of Historical Performance and Process Capacities

General Observations
The plant is not operating at its optimum potential. Anecdotal evidence indicates the microbiology is
impaired, there is a lot of grit in the sludge, and insufficient air is being supplied to the process. Limited
data is collected or was provided from the plant with regard to process control. The following are a few
observations of current performance and operation at the East Jerash WWTP:

 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.
Preliminary Treatment and Capacity Analysis

Preliminary treatment at the East Jerash WWTP includes an influent diversion chamber, screens, grit
tanks and oil separator. The following is a brief review of these processes and their ability to continue
operation through the design year of 2035.
The diversion chamber appears to be in acceptable physical and operational condition. Some
modifications may be necessary to improve the basket screen. The oil separator is in poor condition but
might not have a critical function in the process train. Repair or replacement of these units needs
further investigation.

Manual and Mechanical Bar Screens

The influent channel splits and conveys flow to two bar racks. The mechanical unit is a fine screen and
the manual unit is a bar rack with larger bar spacing. The mechanical screen rake teeth are not catching
and removing materials accumulated on the vertical bars. This screen has exceeded its useful life and
should be replaced. The existing manual bar rack should also be replaced with a new mechanical fine
screen, similar to the other new unit.
The ability to remove screenings from current and future influent flow should not be a challenge for
newly install screens. It does need to be confirmed that the screen and channel dimensions are
adequate to convey future flows. The existing screen channels have a combined peak capacity of 8,600
3
m /d, as defined on Sheet A-4 of the design drawings(Arabtech Consulting Engineers & GWE
Consulting Engineers, 1991). Both screen channels are 0.8m deep and 0.6cm wide, and can convey this
peak flow. Depending on what’s allowed for future plant bypass, the existing screen channels can
3
convey greater than the maximum month flow (5,510 m /d), while the majority of the peak flow will be
conveyed directly to the wadi through the overflow.
Continued use of the overflow needs to be confirmed so that these recommendations can be finalized.
Grit Removal. Grit is removed by parallel flow through channels. These units are not functional and
need to be replaced with a modern grit removal system. This is important because of the fine sand
content in the influent and the detrimental effect this material has on downstream equipment. In
addition, there are no primary settling tanks to remove fine solids that might pass the grit system.
Activated Sludge Tanks and Oxidation Ditch Capacity Analysis

The two Activated Sludge Tanks and the Oxidation Ditch are both limited in ability to
maintain sufficient DO levels for the required biological processes. The two surface aerators
in each of the Activated Sludge Tanks are supported by structural bridges that are
inadequate for the mechanical forces generated by the aerators when operated at high speed.
Excessive vibration and movement when the aerators are in high speed forces the operators
to only operate them at low speed. This reduces the oxygen transfer to the mixed liquer in
the tanks.
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.
Secondary Clarifier Capacity Analysis

There are currently two secondary clarifiers with design criteria listed in Table 3-2. These are center
feed clarifiers with inboard effluent weirs at the tank circumference. The sludge collection mechanisms
include two rotating sludge collection arms with squeegee blades. All sludge is drawn into a sludge
hopper locate in the centre of the clarifier and removed by a suction pipe.
The theoretical capacity based on current conditions of the secondary clarifiers was determined with
state-point analysis (SPA) and the Ekama (1984) approach. Such a capacity determination assumes the
clarifiers are performing optimally, with no problems with flow distribution, short circuiting, etc. CDM
recommends designing for a maximum-day flow rate and incorporating a 1.3x safety factor. Sludge
Volume Index (SVI) is used when determining Vesilind constants for calculating settling velocities
needed to perform a SPA. CDM uses the Daigger (1995) relationship between sludge settling and SVI,
and assumed 200 ml/g when no data is available from the plant.
3
State-point analysis indicates that at the current maximum-day flow of 4,653 m /d (as presented in
3
Section 2) with an SVI of 200 mL/g, a RAS rate of 3,000 m /d and two clarifiers online, the limiting
MLSS concentration is 4,330 mg/L. This leaves no allowance for redundancy, as this requires that both
clarifiers be online. The current maximum-day influent flow rate was determined and presented in

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.

3
Based on the (existing) design maximum (or peak) flow of 6,375 m /d and both clarifiers in service, the
3
overflow rate is approximately 12.5 m /d per square meter. For a MLSS concentration of 3,000 mg/L, TR-
3
16 suggests that the maximum over flow rate should not exceed 20 m /d per square meter. At current
3 3
maximum design (6,375 m /d) and historical maximum flows (9,000 m /d), the clarifiers are in
compliance with industry standards. Although, a lack of desired depth may reduce the over flow rate
3
standard and cause the clarifiers to not operate as expected. A flow in excess of 10,200 m /d would cause
a process failure of the clarifiers.
The existing clarifiers currently have sufficient hydraulic capacity but exceed loading limitations. There
are no process improvements that can be made to improve this problem. Although, changes to process
operations can reduce the loading strain on the clarifiers and potentially get them in compliance with
industry standards.
Due to the interdependency between process operation, load, and flow in determining clarifier capacity,
and complicated by the facts that the existing plant Might be modified, the operating conditions
changed, and/or new train(s) added, the portion of the future flow that will be treated by the existing
(modified) trains is yet to be determined at this point. The clarifier capacity determined here for the
current max-day flow in terms of MLSS concentration will not be valid for future conditions. The
3
maximum MLSS of 4,330 mg/L at a maximum-day flow of 4,653 m /day is only valid for the current flow
and load. The capacity of the existing clarifiers based on the modified existing process receiving a
portion of the future flow for the future design condition will be determined in section 3.1.7, below.
Evaluation of Process Performance

Historical WWTP influent quality, effluent quality, and current effluent limits are compared in Table 3-
5. The data clearly shows high removal efficiency of conventional pollutants but not to the required
discharge limits.
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
COD 2,220 293 NA
TSS 925 103 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
BOD (kg/d) 4,487 2,415
TSS (kg/d) 4,406 2,854

3.1.7 Ability to Meet Future (2035) Conditions

The previous paragraphs describe the design criteria and current performance capacity for the East
Jerash WWTP. The following compares the existing design capacity to that required in 2035.
Tables 3-7 and 3-8 present the future (2035) design criteria for East Jerash Catchment, all tributary to
the East Jerash WWTP and taken from Section 2. Design criteria for the existing facility are taken from
Tables 3.1. Since average conditions only exist for these design criteria, the maximum month data is
calculated using peaking factors developed in Section 2 for the East Jerash WWTP.
Based on the predicted performance criteria in the below tables, an upgrade, expansion and/or
replacement of the existing East Jerash WWTP will be required to extend reliable treatment to 2035.
Section 6 describes the alternatives and recommendations for meeting the requirements in the design
year.
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
BOD (kg/d) 11,101 2,415 8,686
COD (kg/d) 22,114 12,727 9,387
TSS (kg/d) 9,728 2,854 6,874
T-N (kg/d) 1,889 411 1,478
T-P (kg/d) 218 48 170

1
Existing COD, T-N and T-P loadings are based on ratios from Section 2.
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
BOD (kg/d) 14,103 2,753 11,350
COD (kg/d) 32,659 15,145 17,514
TSS (kg/d) 12,355 3,254 9,101
T-N (kg/d) 2,399 469 1,930
T-P (kg/d) 277 55 222

1
Existing criteria is based on peaking factors developed in Section 2.
3.2 WEST JERASH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

The following paragraphs provide a summary of the existing West Jerash WWTP and its current
condition. Of concern is its ability to perform into the future and meet the needs of Jerash through the
design year of 2035. This section will provide the basis for making any recommendations for future
treatment at this facility.

3.2.1 Description of Existing Facility

The West Jerash WWTP is a new plant recently constructed and commissioned. It was completed using
modern standards and the latest technology in wastewater treatment. The existing plant has the
following processes:
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.
Coarse and Fine Screens

Two coarse screens provide protection of downstream units from large objects. They are manually
o
cleaned, and installed in two channels. Coarse screens have 60 slope angle and 75-50 mm bar spacing.
There are two mechanical and one manual (bypass) fine screen. The two mechanical screens are capable
3
of handling plant maximum flow, i.e. 1,611 m /h (445 L/s).
Aerated Grit and Grease Removal

The aerated grit and grease channels are intended to remove grit efficiently, to remove floating
materials and to re-establish a suitable level of dissolved oxygen in sewage.
Septic Tank Waste Receiving Station

The receiving station for this type of waste are designed and implemented as follows:
 N° 1 reinforced concrete receiving basin, max capacity 1 day
 N° 1 paved area for discharge of road tankers; this area will allow the contemporary presence
and operation of 5 (five) tankers as a minimum.
 N° 1 waste pump station (N° 1 centrifugal duty pump + N° 1 standby pump installed in a dry
3
well), capacity of the duty unit 20 m /h.
Flow Control and Equalization Tank

A storage tank can hold the flow in excess to Peak Dry Weather Flow (PDWF) for, at least, the first 2.0
3
hours of excess flow is included in plant design. The volume is 2,500 m . The flow to the equalization
tank is controlled by using an overflow weir installed after the grit chambers. Return of the wastewater
3
to treatment is made by pumping during low flow periods. Pumping rate should not exceed 100 m /h.
Tank contents are mixed and conventually aerated by coarse bubble type air diffusers.
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.
3.2.2 Process Design Criteria

The process design criteria as presented in the Final Design Report(C. Lotti & Associates, April 2005) for
this plant are summarized in Table 3-9.
3.2.3 Assessment of Existing West Jerash WWTP Design Criteria

An assessment of the existing West Jerash WWTP was based on the review of the Final Design Report.
1. The design was made to serve equivalent population of 81,500 through year 2025. The design
does not include the ability to readily facilitate the expansion treatment plant on the existing
site.

o
2. The design temperature is 20 C, while the design should be made for the coldest month
o
average temperature of about 16 C.
3. The design SRT is 20 days, but the calculated actual SRT, based on the volume of the aeration
units and the quantity of excess sludge, is only 13 days. To achieve a SRT of 20 days would
require a significant increase in the volume of the aeration units.
3.2.4 Ability to Meet Future (2035) Conditions

The previous paragraphs describe the newly constructed West Jerash WWTP and its design criteria
though 2025. The following summarizes whether the existing capacity is sufficient to extend service
through 2035.
Tables 3-10 and 3-11 present the future (2035) design criteria for West Jerash Catchment, all tributary to
the new West Jerash WWTP and taken from Section 2. Design criteria for the existing facility are taken
from the Design Report(C. Lotti & Associates, April 2005), Table 1.3 Projected Influent Loads at the
Proposed WWTP. Only average conditions are provided in this report. Therefore, maximum month
data is calculated using peaking factors developed for the East Jerash WWTP in Section 2.
Figure 3-5 Process Flow Diagram for West Jerash WWTP

Table 3-9 West Jerash WWTP Design Parameters

Value
Parameter Unit Year 2025
Flows
3
Average Flow m /day 10,000
3
Peak Dry Weather Flow(Pdwf) m /h 625
3
Peak Wet Weather Flow(Pwwf) m /h 1,667
Pollutant Concentrations
BOD5 mg/L 750
COD mg/L 1,350
TSS mg/L 810
T-N mg/L 142
T-P mg/L 40
Pollutant Loads
BOD5 kg/day 7,500
COD kg/day 13,500
TSS kg/day 8,100
T-N kg/day 1,420
T-P kg/day 400
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
BOD (kg/d) 10,634 7,660 2,974
COD (kg/d) 21,139 13,500 7,639
TSS (kg/d) 9,319 8,320 999

2
T-N (kg/d) 1,809 1,450 359
2
T-P (kg/d) 209 430 None
1
Existing WWTP average criteria taken from Table 2.10 of the C. Lotti and Associates Design Report
for the West Jerash WWTP.
2
2035 design criteria for T-N and T-P are based on East Jerash pollutant ratios of T-N/BOD = 0.17
and T-P/BOD = 0.02. Exiting WWTP ratios are based on the Lottie design criteria.

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
BOD (kg/d) 13,510 8,732 4,778
COD (kg/d) 31,286 16,065 15,221
TSS (kg/d) 11,835 9,485 2,350

2
T-N (kg/d) 2,297 1,653 644
2
T-P (kg/d) 265 490 None
1
Predicted capacities at 15 days from model simulation presented. Peaking factors are based on those
developed for East Jerash WWTP since the C. Lottie Design Report did not provide maximum month
wastewater characteristics.
2
2035 design criteria for T-N and T-P are based on East Jerash pollutant ratios of T-N/BOD = 0.17
and T-P/BOD = 0.02. Exiting WWTP ratios are based on the Lottie design criteria.
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.

SECTION 4 - TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS AND EFFLUENT
STANDARDS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This section defines the future treatment objectives in Jerash by listing the effluent wastewater and
biosolids standards to be met. It also outlines the standards used for the design of existing facilities.
In the end, the wastewater effluent design criteria are defined along with the sludge characteristics to
be met, all with the intent of maximizing reuse.
4.2 HISTORICAL DISCHARGE STANDARDS

The following describes the effluent standards used in the design of the existing East and West Jerash
WWTPs. The Design Report (Arabtech Consulting Engineers & GWE Consulting Engineers, 1991)
mentions that the upgraded East Jerash WWTP shall meet the discharge requirements presented in
Table 4-1.
Table 4-1 Current Effluent Standards for East Jerash WWTP
Parameter Unit Monthly Average Weekly Average
BOD mg/L 30 45
TSS mg/L 30 45
Fecal Coliform pn/100mL 200 400
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
Parameter Unit Value
BOD mg/L 30
COD mg/L 100
TSS mg/L 50
NO3 mg/L 30
T-N mg/L 45
T-P mg/L 15
E.Coli MPN/100 mL 100
Intestinal Helminth Eggs Egg/L <=1

Section 4 – Treatment Requirements and Effluent Standards
4.3 JORDAN EFFLUENT AND SLUDGE DISPOSAL STANDARDS

4.3.1 Standards for Wastewater Discharges and Effluent Reuse
The third edition of the Jordanian standard JS893/2006 issued on 13 November 2006 contains standards
for reclaimed domestic wastewater. It lists a wide range of parameters that must be achieved for various
reuse options.
The standard divides the reuse into three categories:
 Category 1. The discharge of reclaimed effluent to streams and reservoirs.
 Category 2.The discharge to ground water (recharge).
 Category 3. The reuse for irrigation of crops.
The standard requires different levels of treatment depending on the end use of the treated effluent.
Category 3, dedicated for the irrigation of flowers as presented in Table 4.3 requires the highest level of
treatment. These standards forbid the use of reclaimed effluent for the irrigation of crops that can be
eaten raw.
Table 4-3 includes the parameters which could be controlled by biological treatment (BOD, COD, TN
etc) and Table 4-4 contains the majority of parameters not affected by biological treatment (Heavy
metals, TDS, Phenol etc).
The design intent for treatment upgrades and improvements in Jerash is to meet Category 3 (A) quality
standards dedicated for irrigation of cooked vegetables, parks and playgrounds.
1
Table 4-3 Characteristics of Effluent to be Used for Irrigation of Crops (Category 3)
Irrigation
Cooked Vegetable, Fruit trees, Field Crops,

Parameter Unit Industrial
Parks, & Green Areas Products, Flowers
Playgrounds
A B Forestry
C
BOD5 30 200 300 15
COD 100 500 500 50
DO >2 - - >2
TSS 50 200 300 15
NO3 as NO3 mg/L 30 45 70 45

+
NH4 - - - -
Total-N 45 70 100 70
PO4 as PO4 30 30 30 30
FOG 8 8 8 2
E.Coli (MPN/100 mL) 100 1000 - <1.1
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
Parameters Abbreviation Unit Irrigation

Wadi Aquifer
Discharge Recharge A+B+C Cut
Categories Flowers
Phenol Phenol mg/L <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
Detergent MBAS mg/L 25 25 100 15
Total Dissolved Solids TDS mg/L 1500 1500 1500 1500
Chloride Cl mg/L 350 350 400 400
Sulfate SO4 mg/L 300 300 500 500
Bicarbonate HCO3 mg/L 400 400 400 400
Sodium Na mg/L 200 200 230 230
Magnesium Mg mg/L 60 60 100 100
Calcium Ca mg/L 200 200 230 230

Sodium Adsorption
SAR - 6 6 9 9
Ration
Aluminum Al mg/L 2 2 5 5
Arsenic As mg/L 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.1
Beryllium Be mg/L 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Copper Cu mg/L 0.2 1.5 0.2 0.2
Fluoride F mg/L 1.5 2 2 2
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
Molybdenum Mo mg/L 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Nickel Ni mg/L 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Lead Pb mg/L 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Selenium Se mg/L 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Cadmium Cd mg/L 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Zinc Zn mg/L 5 5 5 5
Chrome Cr mg/L 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.1
Mercury Hg mg/L 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.002
Vanadium V mg/L 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Cobalt Co mg/L 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Boron B mg/L 1 1 1 1
Cyanide CN mg/L 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

4.3.2 Total Nitrogen Treatment Requirements and Concerns

As shown in Table 4-3, the nitrate discharge limit for cooked vegetables is 30 mg/L as NO3, which is
equivalent to 6.8 mg/L for nitrate as nitrogen (NO3-N). This limit is not practical when selecting the
required treatment process and also attempting to optimize the reuse intent of this project. The
following are the challenges with this limit and conditions which make this limit questionable:
 A nitrate-nitrogen limit of 6.8 mg/L is the approximate treatment limit for typical biological
nutrient removal technologies. Anything lower would require consideration of advanced
nutrient removal such as de-nitrification filters with carbon addition. This level of treatment is
common in many countries for direct discharge to water bodies but not where effluent reuse is
practiced.
 The Jordanian Reuse Standards (JS 893:2006) for effluent total nitrogen (TN ≤45 mg/L) and
nitrate-nitrogen (6.8 mg/L) are not consistent with each other. For a WWTP that achieves
complete nitrification, the total nitrogen in the effluent is comprised of nitrate-nitrogen,
nitrite-nitrogen (negligible amount), and non-biodegradable organic nitrogen. Since the limit
for TN is 45 mg/L and NO3-N is 6.8 mg/L, then the remaining 38.2 mg/L would be non-
biodegradable organic nitrogen. Analysis of wastewater characteristics in Jordan indicates that
such a high concentration of non-biodegradable organic nitrogen is not correct. The required
adjustment to the discharge limits would be an increase in the NO3-N limit or a decrease in
the TN limit.
 The 1995 version of the Jordanian Effluent Quality Standard defined a nitrate-nitrogen limit of
25 mg/L and a total nitrogen limit of 50 mg/L for discharge to wadis and catchment areas.
These limits are more in balance with expected discharges from a WWTP.
 The Jordanian drinking water standard for NO3 is 50 mg/L while the wastewater discharge
limit for irrigation of cooked vegetables is 30 mg/L. Since the potable water limit is higher, the
wastewater treatment facility may have to reduce nitrogen in the effluentbefore it is
discharged to the wadi. If 50 mg/L of nitrate is considered acceptable for human consumption,
then it would be appropriate for the reuse standard to be at the same or higher limit.
 A low effluent limit for nitrate results in added construction and operation cost for new or
upgraded wastewater treatment facilities. Greater denitrification volume is required to oxidize
nitrate and to provide an effluent with less than 30 mg/L of NO3. Since this feasibility report
complies with this standard, there will be added cost to achieve such a low limit.
 Other wastewater treatment plants in Jordan have been recently constructed to meet higher
NO3 limits and have also been designed for water reuse of the effluent. For example, the new
West Jerash Wastewater Treatment Plant has been designed to meet a NO3 limit of 132 mg/L
as the ion, rather than 30 mg/L as defined in the Jordanian Standards. The WWTO designers
assumed that the Jordanian Standard of 30 mg/L is for nitrate as nitrogen (NO3-N) and not
nitrate (NO3). This is a significant difference and appears to be more applicable with the intent
for water pollution control and reuse in Jordan. Other recently constructed or under
construction WWTPs have also been designed for higher limits on nitrate (Shobak WWTP –
30 mg/L NO3-N, North Shouneh WWTP – 15.5 mg/L NO3-N).
 Designing a WWTP for such a low nitrate limit contradicts the intent of providing quality
effluent that farmers can use for irrigating certain crops. High concentrations of nitrate are
detrimental to the health of water bodies but are invaluable to farmers since it provides the
nutrients need to promote plant growth. If nitrate is unnecessarily removed at the treatment
plant, then farmers may be required to add fertilizer to supplement their needs. This presents
a financial burden to the farmers while contradicting the intent of reusing wastewater effluent.

 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.
4.3.3 Industrial Effluent Standard

Industrial effluents are controlled by JS 202/2007 which specifies the quality of industrial effluent to be
used for irrigation or disposal to streams and rivers. In addition the Water Authority of Jordan (WAJ)
issued regulations for the characteristics of industrial effluent to be discharged to the public sewer
system.WAJ regulations require maximum pollutant concentrations of 800, 1,100, 50, 50 and 2,100 for
BOD5, TSS, TP, FOG and COD respectively.
4.3.4 Jordanian Standards for Treated Sludge and Sludge Disposal

(JS1145:2006)
The Jordanian standard for treated sludge specifies the conditions that the sludge produced from
domestic wastewater treatment plants should meet in order to be used to improve soil characteristics or
as organic fertilizer for agriculture or to be disposed in solid waste sites.
The standard divides the sludge into three classes according to the end use and level of treatment:
 First Class is allowed to be used for all applications.
 Second Class is allowed to be used for soil conditioning.
 Third Class is only allowed to be disposed to solid waste sites.
The standard prohibits the use of sludge on vegetable crops regardless of the level of sludge treatment.
Producing first class sludge requires advanced treatment methods to comply with the required
microbiological quality and disinfection.
The standard specifies the maximum concentration of trace metals and pathogens and the annual
application rates and maximum accumulation limits.
With regard to treatment levels, a volatile suspended solids reduction of 38% is required for the first
and second class. Recommended treatment methods include heated aerobic digestion, anaerobic and
aerobic digestion. Treatment methods for the third class includes thickening up to 3% solids.
Tables 4-5 presents the maximum allowable concentrations. Table 4-6 presents the annual agricultural
land application rates and maximum accumulation limits.
Table 4-5 Maximum Concentrations Allowed in Sludge
Parameters and Concentration

Other Symbol Unit
Conditions First Class Second Class Third Class
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

Parameters and Concentration

Other Symbol Unit
Conditions First Class Second Class Third Class
Moisture level % 10% 50% -

Total Fecal
TFCC MPN/gm 1000 2000000 -
coliform
Salmonella 3 - -
Nematode egg/4gm dry 1 - -
Virus unit/gm dry 1 - -
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
4.4 CURRENT DISPOSAL PRACTICES AND CONSIDERATIONS

4.4.1 Current Sludge Disposal Practices
WAJ currently prohibits the collection and utilization of dry sludge for soil stabilization or as fertilizer if
standard requirements are not met. At the As-Samra WWTP, the largest in Jordan, where heated
3
digestion was installed for sludge stabilization and approximately 3,000 m /day of digested sludge is
produced at 3% solids. Sludge stabilization in anaerobic digesters and drying on the old waste
stabilization lagoon beds is the current process employed. The cake sludge complies with the second
class and is stockpiled at the old plant site without utilization. There are discussions regarding
utilization of the cake at a cement factory for fuel, but this potential beneficial reuse, or any other reuse,
has not proceeded any further.
Liquid sludge from central WWTPs in Jordan is transported by tankers to Ain Ghazal Pretreatment
plant where it is conveyed through 40 km pipeline to the As-Samra WWTP for treatment. Northern
WWTPs, including the East Jerash WWTP, currently transport liquid sludge to the Al-Ekeder dumping
site. Dry sludge is also transported to Al Ekeder dumping site, Lajoon dumping site, and Greater
Amman Municipality dumping site from northern, central, and southern WWTPs respectively.
Even though there remains a desire to reuse sludge, beneficial reuse remains limited in Jordan.

4.4.2 Sludge Reuse Considerations

As mentioned in Section 4.3.3, there are three classes of sludge as defined by sludge quality and
required biosolids treatment. It is the intent of this section to select the most reasonable sludge
classification so that the appropriate biosolids treatment is recommended later in this report.
Based on current sludge disposal practices, it is unlikely that advanced sludge treatment processes can
be justified given the current restrictions on sludge utilization. It is expected that the sludge produced
from the future Jerash WWTPs will continue to be disposed of at solid waste dumping sites, with some
potential for use in soil conditioning. Therefore, the level of sludge treatment at Jerash will be dictated
by environmental factors (odors, etc) in addition to volume and mass reduction to minimize
transportation cost.
It is unreasonable to recommend treatment for First Class or Second Class sludge since there exists no
current reuse options or market demand. For these reasons, the basis of design for sludge treatment will
be to meet Third Class requirements, but will also reduce the volatile suspended solids (VSS) by 38% for
odor and vector control. If beneficial reuse becomes desired, Second Class sludge could be produced by
further air drying of the dewatered sludge cake.
The Jordanian Standards for Bio-Solids Reuse and Disposal (JS 1145/2006) describe treatment options
and conditions that meet Second Class sludge. They include:
 Aerobic digestion: sludge is mixed in an aerobic environment for a period of 40 days at 20
degrees Celsius. Volatile suspended solids reduction must reach 38 % at least.
 Air drying: sludge is left to filtrate or to dry in sand basins so that the depth of sludge is
not more than 25 centimeters, sludge must be kept in the basins for at least 30 days, and
volatile suspended solids reduction must reach 38 % at least.
 Anaerobic digestion: this method is carried out by incubation of sludge in an anaerobic
environment for 15 days at 35-55 degrees Celsius. Volatile suspended solids reduction must
reach 38 % at least.
 Other methods must be able to reach treatment levels such as the above methods.
These methods and conditions are considered in Section 5 when recommending the most appropriate
biosolids treatment system.
4.4.3 Wastewater Reuse Considerations

CDM conducted a detailed field survey in December 2010 to explore land availability for effluent reuse
downstream of the East and West Jerash WWTPs.
The results of this study are given in a draft effluent reuse report(CDM International, February 2011).
The purpose of this study was to evaluate alternative uses for the WWTP effluents, investigate
expansion of irrigation in the area, and to recommend the most beneficial uses.
The study indicated that currently, fruit trees are the dominant crops, representing 80.3% of the total
cultivated area in Jerash in 2009. The dominant fruit crops are olives (90.5%, grapes (2.2%), apricot
(1.7%), and citrus (1.7%), and represent about 96.13% of the total area of the fruit trees.
The East WWTP discharges effluent directly into Wadi Jerash. The flow is diverted into an earth (later
concrete) channel and various outlets distribute the effluent to farm lands. Locally derived spring water
is also used to irrigate farm land in the wadi area.
Agricultural land use downstream of the West Jerash WWTP (Wadi Amamah) is similarly dominated by
olive and fruit trees, and again spring water is also used for irrigation. Farming is limited by the
availability of spring water for irrigation.
The primary findings of the reuse study are as follows:

 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.

SECTION 5 - ASSESSMENT OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The intent of this section is to review different treatment technologies and narrow down to a select
few for consideration in expansion or replacement of the existing East Jerash Wastewater Treatment
Plant.
As discussed in previous sections, to treat the projected wastewater flow through the year 2035, new
or upgraded wastewater treatment processes need to be selected to replace the existing process. This
process should provide for nitrification/denitrification and produce an effluent that meets the
Jordanian effluent discharge standards (See Section 4.1). Methods of treatment in which removal of
contaminants is accomplished through chemical or biological reactions are known as unit processes.
Unit processes are grouped to provide preliminary, primary, secondary and tertiary treatment.
Preliminary treatment is intended to remove solids, ranging from large objects to fine sand, from the
influent flow stream. Screening, settling and sometimes grinding are used to remove this solid
material. Primary treatment provides sedimentation to remove floating and settleable solids from the
wastewater. In secondary treatment, biological and/orchemical processes are used to remove organic
matter from the influent wastewater. Tertiary treatment is considered when contaminants that are
not significantly reduced by secondary treatment need to be removed.
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 accomplished in a three-step process:
thickening, dewatering, and stabilization. Treatment technologies will be assessed in this section for
these process steps.
The following discussion elaborates further on each treatment process and options within each
process that were considered for treating projected wastewater in Jerash.
5.2 RECOMMENDATION FOR PRIMARY TREATMENT

An objective of primary treatment is to reduce suspended solids content in the incoming wastewater,
with the added benefit of some BOD removal. The trend in Jordan is for wastewater treatment plants
to be constructed without primary clarifiers. In place of this process, plants have larger bioreactors
with higher solids retention time (SRT). This is commonly referred to as extended aeration. Solids are
eventually removed through waste activated sludge discharges and by volume reduction (digestion)
achieved by the extended detention time of the biomass.
Extended aeration can be very successful for influent wastewater of low to medium strength (mg/L)
but can be a challenge when highly concentrated wastewater is being treated. This is evident by the
existing East Jerash WWTP which was designed for extended aeration but with half the current
loading. As a result, there is insufficient tank volume to properly treat this flow and discharge limits
are continuously exceeded.
It is CDM’s opinion that future treatment recommendations should include primary clarifiers in any
upgrade, expansion or replacement scenarios for East Jerash. There will be the some challenges with
processing primary sludge but the advantages favor adding these tanks for the following reasons:
 Lower SRT and smaller bioreactor volumes
 Better process control and flexibility
 Will limit influent loading to design conditions for the bioreactors

Section 5 – Assessment of Treatment Technologies
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.
5.3 SECONDARY TREATMENT OPTIONS

Secondary treatment processes are used to convert the dissolved organic matter in wastewater into
settleable biological and inorganic solids that can be removed in secondary clarifiers. The process is also
used for biological nutrient removal. The following discussion identifies options for secondary
treatment in Jerash,
5.3.1 Oxidation Ditch

Oxidation ditches are a suspended-growth type activated sludge system, which provide BOD
reduction similar to conventional aeration systems. This process type is very common in Jordan and
exists at the East and West Jerash wastewater treatment plants. A standard oxidation ditch has the
ability to fully nitrify and also provides some denitrification. Some vendor systems actually provide
simultaneous nitrification and denitrification. With slight modifications, an oxidation ditch can also
be designed to provide high levels of denitrification.
Typically, mechanical mixing and aeration devices are provided and in some cases diffused air
system are installed. Several varieties of mechanical equipment are commonly used, including
horizontal brush rotors, rotating discs, or mechanical aerators, all of which should provide
comparable performance. Flow is continuously moving in a circular motion around these tanks as
influent is fed and effluent diverted off. A typical process flow schematic is shown below in Figure 5-
1.
Figure 5-1 Oxidation Ditch Schematic
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,
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.
Table 5-1 Oxidation Ditch Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages Disadvantages
o Excellent effluent quality  High maintenance cost for mechanical
aerators
o Jerash operators have familiarity with the
oxidation ditch process  High operation cost (Mechanical aerators
have low aeration efficiency.
o Simple operational requirements
Supplemental aeration may be required to
 High ability to absorb phosphorus, especially keep the dissolved oxygen level
during peak loadings adequate.)
 Provides good buffering for peak flows and  Not as easily expandable
variations in loading
 Can provide simultaneous

nitrification/denitrification
 Proven technology
5.3.2 Conventional Activated Sludge

Conventional activated sludge (CAS) is the most commonly used method for accomplishing secondary
treatment. Figure 5-2 provides a simplified schematic of the CAS process. CAS consists of a biological
reactor or aeration basin where a mixture of microorganisms (referred to as mixed liquor suspended
solids or MLSS) converts the BOD to carbon dioxide and water. The activated sludge is then settled out
(separated from the treated wastewater) in final settling tanks (secondary clarifiers). Treated effluent
from the secondary clarifiers is transferred to disinfection while settled biological solids are pumped
back to the aeration basins as return activated sludge (RAS). The RAS serves as biological seed and
helps maintain a MLSS concentration that is nearly 20 times greater in concentration than would
otherwise occur. A portion of the RAS is pumped to thickening and other solids handling processes.
This waste flow stream is referred to as produced biosolids or waste activated sludge (WAS).
Important parts of a CAS facility include an aeration system consisting of air blowers and diffusers used
to supply oxygen. The most efficient CAS design includes the use of fine bubble air diffusers and high-
speed turbo blowers to minimize energy requirements. The aeration basin may be divided into
biological regions or compartments referred to as selector zones which provide both anoxic (Ax) and
oxic (Ox or aerobic) conditions. Important design choices with CAS include the geometrical shape
(rectangular or circular) of the secondary clarifiers, aeration basin side water depth (SWD), MLSS
3
concentration and organic loading rate (kg BOD/d/m ). For CAS other criteria to consider are the mean
cell residence time (MCRT), hydraulic retention time (HRT) and the secondary (2nd) clarifier solids
loading rate (SLR). See Table 5-2 for typical advantages and disadvantages of conventional activated
sludge.

Figure 5-2 Conventional Activated Sludge Schematic
Table 5-2 Conventional Activated Sludge Advantages and 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
 Flexible operation  Higher O&M costs due to large recycle

and aeration requirements
5.3.3 Sequencing Batch Reactor

The sequencing batch reactor (SBR) is a fill-and-draw activated sludge system for biological treatment.
Figure 5-3 provides a simplified schematic of the SBR process. In this system, wastewater is added to a
“batch” reactor, in which equalization, aeration, and clarification steps of activated sludge process, can
be achieved in a single complete mix reactor. In order to maintain continuous flow, at least two batch
reactors are used in a predetermined sequence of operations. SBRs are typically used at flow rates of
3
19,000 m /d or less, and have often proven to be a relatively low-cost biological treatment alternative for
small facilities.
Figure 5-3 Sequencing Batch Reactor Process Schematic

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.
5.3.4 Assessment and Recommendations for Treatment Technology

There are four options described in the paragraphs above to achieve secondary treatment at an
expanded or replaced East Jerash Wastewater Treatment Plant. The intent of this section is to narrow
down the options to the most appropriate for consideration in the sections to follow.
The primary criteria for recommending a treatment technology include:
 Fits on the existing site,
 Familiarity with technology,
 Can meet the treatment objectives, and
 Is simple to maintain and operate.

Table 5-3 Sequencing Batch Reactor Advantages and 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
 Cold weather and freezing become

problematic
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
3 Process components of alternative always achieve required treatment under
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
3 A high level of flexibility and expandability is anticipated

 Operability – The difficulty of operating a process will be considered. Some processes are
complex and require a lot of attention for proper operation. Some processes require special
skills and extensive training for the operators. Alternatives are ranked by these criteria:
1 Processes difficult to operate or requiring special skills
2 Processes that require average attention and some additional staff and training
3 Less complex processes
 Required Maintenance — Some processes require greater maintenance and attention
than others. For example, required maintenance for brush aerators is more easily observed
than that for a diffused aeration system. Where resources are limited, high maintenance
can represent future challenges. Alternatives are ranked by these criteria:
1 Intensive maintenance requirements
2 Maintenance is likely to be average
3 A low level of maintenance is anticipated
 Space Requirements — The CAS and oxidation ditch processes use the most process
footprint. The SBR process use the least amount of footprint, because of the vertical
configuration and sequencing use of one tank.
1 A large quantity of space required for the suggested alternative
2 Space required is likely to be average
3 Minimal space is required of the alternative
 Environmental Impacts – The environmental impact of alternatives include chemical
usage, sludge production, odor, noise pollution and other public health impacts associated
with construction and operation. Alternatives are ranked by these criteria:
1 Greater environmental impacts
2 Moderate environmental impacts
3 Minimal affect on environmental impacts
 Reuse Potential –Proposed alternatives are to include reuse potential for the wastewater
effluent and if possible, the dewatered solids. Liquid reuse would be favorable where
greater application for agriculture is provided. Sludge stabilization would promote solids
reuse rather than landfill disposal. Alternatives are ranked by these criteria:
1 Little to no reuse potential
2 Reuse is likely to be average
3 High reuse potential is anticipated
 Process Performance — All of these alternatives would provide secondary effluent water
quality that meets Jordan’s discharge standards for agricultural reuse. Some processes can
more easily meet these performance standards than others. Alternatives are ranked by
these criteria:
1 Processes that struggle to meet the discharge standards
2 Average process performance
3 High process performance

 Solids Treatment Requirements – Some alternatives require substantial changes to

sludge processing. The quantity of sludge and methods for treatment will have to change if
certain alternatives are selected. Alternatives are ranked by these criteria:
1 Significant changes to sludge treatment systems
2 Upgrades to existing sludge treatment with minimal increase in processing
capacity
3 Minimal impact on sludge treatment systems
 Capital Cost — These are the present day costs to construct the recommended facilities in
US dollars and do not include planning or O&M costs. Different processes require
variations in tank dimensions and mechanical equipment. Both impact construction cost
which is a highly valued criteria in ranking the different alternatives. Alternatives are
ranked by these criteria:
1 High construction cost estimate
2 Medium cost when compared to other alternatives
3 Low construction estimate
 O&M Cost — O&M cost includes general maintenance, labr, supplies and mostly power
requirements. Mechanical equipment with high horsepower demands results in high O&M
costs. The assessment for these criteria is based on the estimated annual cost without
inclusion of significant repair and replacement costs. Alternatives are ranked by these
criteria:
1 High O&M estimate
2 Medium O&M when compared to other alternatives
3 Low O&M estimate
Table 5-4 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 3 is provided with 3 being
the most desirable. The alternative with the highest total score is the recommended plan for secondary
wastewater treatment in East Jerash.
5.3.5 Final Treatment Process Recommendation for East Jerash

The process scoring in Table 5-5 ranks oxidation ditch as the most desirable choice for future
wastewater treatment in East Jerash. This is the obvious choice since SBRs have little tolerance for
shock loads and peak flows, and conventional activated sludge process is more complex to operate and
has higher O&M costs. For the alternatives discussed in Section 6, oxidation ditch will be the
technology considered.

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
Flexibility and Expandability 3 3 3
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
Solids Treatment Requirements 3 3 3
Capital Cost 2 2 3
O&M Cost 3 1 1
Total Score 32 28 8
5.4 PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL METHODS AND RECOMMENDATION

The Jordanian discharge (reuse) standard for total phosphorus (TP) is 15 mg/L and the historical
average influent concentration at the East Jerash WWTP is 17 mg/L. Since there’s little difference
between the two, minimal treatment is required to reduce phosphorus concentrations to meet the
effluent limit.
There are two common methods used to treat TP where discharge limits are not excessively low. These
include chemical addition to enhance TP settlement in primary solids and the other is biological
phosphorus removal. Chemical addition is a relatively simple process while biological treatment
requires more sophisticated treatment.
For chemical phosphorus removal, a coagulant such as Ferric Chloride is added to the primary clarifiers
to provide chemically enhanced primary treatment, or CEPT. The flocculent will capture the suspended
portion of TP and settle it out for removal with the primary sludge.
Biological phosphorus removal is more complex and typically requires additional anaerobic process
tanks before denitrification. There are other innovative and fairly new technologies which are not being
considered because they strive for effluent TP less than 1.0 mg/L.
Since influent TP concentration is relatively close to the effluent limit, a biological treatment system is
not practical. A simple chemical addition system could be installed and would only be used when
influent characteristics reveal the need for this treatment. For the alternatives being considered in
Section 6, a chemical storage and feed system will be included for phosphorus removal.
5.5 BIOSOLIDS TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES

The following paragraphs describe a series of treatment processes with alternatives, to meet sludge
treatment requirements. The objective is to provide a feasible, economical and simple method to
generate Second Class sludge with some reuse potential. Section 4 contains a description of the
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.
5.5.1 Biosolids Thickening

Sludge thickening is the process of increasing solids content from about 1 percent to approximately 5
percent solids by removing the liquid portion. This represents a five-fold decrease in the sludge volume.
The volume reduction is beneficial to subsequent dewatering process by reducing capacity of tanks and
equipment required.
Thickening is achieved by physical means. There are many different methods and process technologies
for thickening sludge. The assessment is further complicated where two sludge types are generated at a
facility. Technologies discussed below are applicable for these conditions and the most appropriate
thickening process is recommended.
Gravity Belt Thickeners

Gravity belt thickeners (GBTs) have become common practice for thickening sludge at wastewater
treatment facilities. Gravity belt thickening arose from the application of belt presses for sludge
dewatering due to the thickening that occurred in the gravity drainage portion of the presses. GBTs are
typically used for thickening secondary sludge or a combined sludge, and not primary sludge alone. An
example of a GBT is shown in Figure 5-4.
Figure 5-4 Gravity Belt Thickener

Process Description
A gravity belt thickener consists of a belt driven over rollers by a variable speed drive unit. Polymer
addition is required to condition the sludge. Polymer conditioned sludge is distributed from a

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.
Table 5-5 Gravity Belt Thickeners Advantages and Disadvantages

- Space requirements are minimal
- Excessive Housekeeping Needs
- Control capability for process performance are
- Polymer dependent
flexible
- Moderate operator attention requirements
- Relatively low capital cost
- Odors
- Relatively low power consumption
- Building corrosion potential
- High solids capture
- Not used for primary sludge alone
- High thickened concentrations
- Need to be located in a building
- A very simple process
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. .
Figure 5-5 Gravity Thickener
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.
Table 5-6 Gravity Thickeners Advantages and Disadvantages

- Effective for all types of sludge
- Polymer independent
- Significant odor issue if not covered
- Relatively simple and reliable equipment
- Space requirements
components
- High capital cost
- Low power requirements
- Can operate continuously
Rotary Drum Thickeners

Rotary drum thickeners (RDTs) are not common but are very effective for small treatment facilities.
Drum sizing limitation reduces the maximum through put, which explains the applicability for small
treatment systems. An example is shown in Figure 5-6. These thickeners are typically used for
secondary sludge, a blended sludge, but not primary sludge alone.
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.
Figure 5-6 Rotary Drum Thickener
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.
Table 5-7 Rotary Drum Thickeners Advantages and Disadvantages

- Relatively simple and reliable equipment
components and operation
- Has throughput limitation
- Good odor containment
- Need to be located in a building
- Limited space requirements
- Polymer dependent
- Low power requirements
- Relatively low capital cost
Dissolved Air Flotation

Sludge thickening by dissolved air flotation (DAF) l has particular advantages and should be considered
for future thickening at the East Jerash WWTP. These thickeners are typically used for secondary sludge
and not primary sludge. An example is shown in Figure 5-7.
Figure 5-7 Dissolved Air Flotation Thickener
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.

Table 5-8 Dissolved Air Flotation Advantages and Disadvantages

- Large building requirement
- Relatively high power cost

- Effective for WAS
- Odor issue
- Will work without conditioning chemical at
- Moderate operator attention
reduced loadings
- Building corrosion potential
- Requires large quantity of recycle water
Thickening Summary and Recommendations

Selecting the most appropriate thickening treatment technology is based on the assessment above and
also includes the operation conditions for thickening. A continuous (24hr/7days) operating thickening
process requires equipment and conveyance that can perform reliably without operator attention. The
alternative would be to perform thickening for one shift during the 5 day work week.
For this feasibility report, the most appropriate recommendation is to provide for continuous
thickening capability. Therefore, most appropriate technology must be selected for continuously
thickening both secondary and primary sludge, together or separately.
Both GBTs and RDTs could thicken a blended sludge but are not reliable for continuous operation. An
equipment failure of either, during unmanned hours, would create significant problems. Both the DAFs
and GTs can operate reliability but only the GT can thicken a blended sludge. For these reasons, and the
many advantages presented above, it is recommended that future thickening for both primary and
secondary sludge be accomplished by new gravity thickeners. Both tanks must be covered and
ventilation provided to an odor control system.
The recommended design should include two thickener tanks, each sized for half the maximum weekly
flow of a blended sludge. Should one tank require maintenance, piping should be provided to convey
secondary sludge to the primary settling tanks in the interim.
5.5.2 Dewatering Technology

Sludge dewatering is the process of increasing solids content from about 5 percent to greater than 25
percent. There are many different methods and process technologies for dewatering sludge. The
different technologies are discussed below and the most appropriate dewatering process technology is
recommended.
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.

Figure 5-8 Dewatering Screw Press
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.
Table 5-9 Screw Presses Advantages and Disadvantages

-Low through put requires more units and larger
-Enclosed system provides good odor containment footprint
-Easy start up and shut down, can run automated -Typically, % cake solids expected to be lower
-Low power consumption than centrifuge
-Low maintenance requirements -Typically, polymer dose expected to be slightly

higher
-Very simple process
- Not effective in dewatering digested sludge
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.

Figure 5-9 Dewatering Centrifuge
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.
Table 5-10 Centrifuges Advantages and Disadvantages

-High degree of dewatering achievable -Polymer consumption is higher than other
comparable technologies evaluated
-Centrifuges can handle higher than design loading
rates and percent solids recovery can be maintained -Experienced operation of equipment required
with a higher polymer dosage to optimize performance of centrifuge
-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
- -Start-up and shut down may take up to an hour

to gradually bring centrifuge up to operating
-Compact design minimizes floor space required to speed and slow it down for clean out prior to
install shut down.
- Can dewater a digested sludge -High capital cost
Belt Filter Presses

Dewatering of wastewater sludge by belt filter presses is less common at larger facilities, but is still a
viable alternative. The technology is similar to that of a gravity belt thickener but with greater belt
length and rollers which squeeze liquid out of the sludge.
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.

Figure 5-10 Belt Filter Press
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.
Table 5-11 Belt Filter Presses Advantages and Disadvantages

-Odor emissions during operation require
adequate ventilation and/or odor control system
-Maintenance is relatively simple and belt to maintain air quality in dewatering room
replacement simple
-Increased housekeeping requirements
-High solids loading capacity and throughput (not as
- Sensitive to varying sludge characteristics
high as centrifuge)
-Requires approximately 1 hour of manual wash
-Dewatering operation is able to be started up or
down and cleanup at the end of each operating
resumed nearly immediately after a shutdown thus
shift
permitting intermittent operation
-Requires increased ventilation rates in order to
-Relatively low polymer consumption compared to
maintain air quality during dewatering operation
other dewatering technologies evaluated
-Requires special containment curbing and floor
- Low energy requirements
drains to collect filtrate and wash water
- challenge dewatering a digested sludge
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
-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
Dewatering Summary and Recommendation

The ideal dewatering scheme is what currently exists at the new West Jerash WWTP. Drying beds are
used in conjunction with mechanical dewatering (centrifuges). Having available land and funding made
it possible to provide this sludge processing scheme.
For the East Jerash WWTP, the existing, and preferred, method for sludge dewatering is by drying beds.
Although, recommendations for liquid treatment could possibly require removal of the existing beds for
construction of other processes structures. When considering future WWTP upgrade, expansion or
replacements, the plan for dewatering should first consider drying beds where possible. This method, in
combination with a mechanical method for dewatering in the winter months, would be ideal.
When considering mechanical dewatering, there are the three options presented above. Centrifuges are
believed to be the best choice for mechanical dewatering. They provide the following advantages:
 Higher solids output (highest of all)
 Capable of dewatering digested sludge
 Produces a cake with high solids content
 Odor containment (which BFP does not)
In summary, the recommendation for future dewatering at East Jerash would be a combination of
sludge drying beds with mechanical dewatering equipment. Existing or new drying beds would be
required, along with a dewatering building to house two new centrifuges with a polymer system. The
intent is not to provide drying beds for the full volume of sludge but to construct what might be allowed
by available land. This would provide dewatering alternatives and the option of using low cost drying
beds during the summer months.
5.5.3 Sludge Stabilization Technologies

Sludge is stabilized to reduce pathogens, eliminate offensive odor and eliminate or reduce the potential
of putrefaction or decay. The objective of the stabilization process is to produce a sludge that meets the
second class sludge standard as discussed in Section 4.2.
As was the case with other sludge treatment process, there are several options for sludge stabilization
that are widely in practice. The following is a discussion of few common alternatives that can be
considered.
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.
Table 5-13 Aerobic Digestion Advantages and Disadvantages

- Works well for secondary sludge
-Produces a lower BOD supernatant -O&M cost high due to aeration requirement
-Easy to operate -Reduces sludge dewaterability
-Low capital cost -Not ideal during cold weather
-Will produce a Second Class sludge
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.
Table 5-14 Anaerobic Digestion Advantages and Disadvantages

-Slow rate of bacterial growth
-Safety concerns
-Low operating cost -Easily experiences process upsets
-Produces a renewable energy source Is a challenge to operate
-Will produce a Second Class sludge -High capital cost
- Will release biologically
removed phosphorus
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.
Table 5-15 Drying Bed Stabilization Advantages and Disadvantages

-Excessive odors
-Low operating costs
-Large land requirements
-Simple operation
-Not effective during cold months
-High solids content under ideal conditions
-Requires higher volatile solids
-Will produce a Second Class sludge
reduction than others
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
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
-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
Sludge Stabilization Summary and Recommendations

The selection for the most appropriate stabilization process can be made by deducting alternatives that
are not appropriate. Alkaline stabilization is clearly not an option because it does not provide a reusable
sludge cake. Drying beds are a consideration but would not be reliable in the cold months. Anaerobic
digestion is a complicated process with a high capital cost. In the end, aerobic digestion is the most
appropriate sludge stabilization option for the East Jerash WWTP. It meets all the project objectives, is
simple to operate, has a reasonable capital cost, and can operate year round.
5.5.4 Summary of Biosolids Treatment Recommendations

In summary, the biosolids process recommendations include the following:
 Gravity Thickeners for both primary and secondary sludge
 Aerobic Digestion to condition the sludge and provide treatment to the Jordanian Standard
required for Second Class
 Centrifuges and Drying Beds for combined dewatering
This process scheme allows for continuous biosolids processing in the thickeners and digesters, while
dewatering would occur during the primary work shift. Separate polymer systems should be considered
for both the gravity thickener and centrifuges. The process scheme does not require intermediate
sludge storage. The end product will be a sludge cake, which meets the Jordanian reuse standards for
soil application.
5.6 BIOSOLIDS DISPOSAL

As described in Section 4.4, there currently is no formal beneficial reuse of WWTP sludge in Jordan.
This may change in the future as greater understanding of the benefits and acceptance of this byproduct
by agricultural users is gained. Second Class sludge that meets the Jordanian Standard is an appropriate
soil conditioner for the sandy-silty soil prevalent in many parts of Jordan. It would improve the soil
ability to maintain moisture content for plant use. However, before a beneficial reuse program is
encouraged, WAJ will need to develop the institutional mechanisms for permitting, regulating,
monitoring, and testing to ensure that the public safety and health are protected
Until such time as a formal program and institutional support system is in place, stabilized and
dewatered sludge from Jerash should continue to be disposed of at the Al-Ekeder landfill site as Third
Class Sludge. The cost of dewatered sludge cake transport will, however, be reduced from the current
situation of hauling the much larger volume and weight of semi-thickened liquid sludge
5.7 SEPTAGE RECEIVING AND TREATMENT

Septage collected in Jerash is currently intended for disposal at the Al-Akedar treatment facilities about
60 km north near the Syrian border. The newly constructed West Jerash WWTP includes septage
receiving stations that discharge to the plant headworks and will provide treatment of septage. It is
recommended that this facility be utilized to provide the capacity for septage collected in all of Jerash so
that the long haul distance to the Al-Akedar site will no longer be needed.

SECTION 6 - EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
6.1 TREATMENT SCENARIOS
This section provides recommendations for wastewater treatment improvements to the existing East
Jerash Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), with a focus on the East Jerash Catchment area. As
required by some of the alternatives being considered, there are also recommendations for
enhancements to the existing West Jerash WWTP. The intent/focus of this section is to identify the
improvements to meet future treatment objectives defined in the Jerash Master Plan for this
catchment and to evaluate the alternatives. The alternatives being considered for the East Jerash
Catchment wastewater treatment improvements are:
1. Alternative 1: Decommissioning of the existing East WWTP and transfer all East Jerash
catchment wastewater for treatment at the West Jerash WWTP.
2. 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.
3. Alternative 3: Upgrade and expansion, or complete on-site replacement, of the existing East
Jerash WWTP facility to meet current effluent discharge limits and future (2035) East Jerash
Catchment influent flow and load conditions.
4. 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.
Alternative 1 would require that all wastewater flow from the East Jerash Catchment be transferred to
the west catchment. Alternative 2 would require partial flow transfer along with upgrade of the
existing East Jerash WWTP to operate at its maximum potential. The 3rd alternative is the more
complex and is the primary focus of this section. It has two sub-alternatives that would need to be
evaluated. It considers the options for upgrade with expansion, or replacement of the existing East
Jerash WWTP, all in an effort to meet design criteria for the year 2035. Alternative 4 evaluates the
option of designing a new WWTP to be constructed at another site downstream of the current East
Jerash WWTP site.
Current and future flows and loads are presented in Section 2 and an assessment of the existing
facility capacity is in Section 3. Table 6-1 provides the future flows and BOD loads for all of Jerash,
which are used in the assessment of the different alternatives.
Table 6-1 Combined East and West Jerash Average Wastewater Flow and Load
Projections
East Catchment West Catchment Total Jerash
Year
Flow (m3/d) BOD BOD (kg/d) Flow (m3/d) BOD (kg/d) Flow (m3/d) BOD (kg/d)
(mg/L)
2010 3,499 1,376 4,815 0 0 3,499 4,815
2015 5,967 1,170 6,979 2,319 2,713 8,286 9,691
2020 6,909 1,170 8,080 3,971 4,645 10,880 12,725
2025 7,782 1,170 9,102 5,964 6,976 13,746 16,078
2030 8,643 1,170 10,109 7,452 8,716 16,095 18,824
2035 9,491 1,170 11,101 9,092 10,634 18,583 21,735

Section 6 – Evaluation of Alternatives
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.
6.2 BASIS OF CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES

The following provides a brief explanation for cost estimating used in comparison of the different
alternatives. Details regarding the development of these costs are provided in Appendix B of this report.
Costs are based on historical estimates and are provided in US dollars per process capacity or size. All
capital costs are for construction only and do not include planning, design, inspection services during
construction, increases for inflation, local municipal costs, land acquisition costs, or contingency. The
conceptual cost estimates provided within this section are not intended for financial planning of
selected alternatives but rather a means of comparing the different alternatives.
There are two sources of cost estimating provided in this section. The first is a cost curve for
construction of a new wastewater treatment plant and the second is a table containing unit pricing for
other types of construction recommended herein. The cost curve provides greater accuracy since it
provides cost variations with changes in plant capacity. The unit prices are fixed costs based on work of
similar size and complexity.
Figure 6-1 presents a cost curve for the construction of new suspended growth, activated sludge
wastewater treatment plants. The costs are inclusive of all work required to construct a new and
modern facility to meet the objectives of this feasibility plan. For each alternative where a new WWTP
is recommended, the anticipated flow is used to select a construction cost from this curve.
Table 6-2 provides a breakdown of WWTP costs by units as a percentage of the total cost.
New Activated Sludge WWTP

11,000
10,500
10,000
9,500
9,000
8,500
8,000
7,500
7,000
Cost( $/m3)
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
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
Construction Item Percentage of Total

Cost
Misc Chambers and Buildings 32
Headworks 10
Aeration Units 28
Secondary and Primary Settling 4
RAS & WAS Pumps 4
Final Effluent Disinfection 7
Sludge Processing 15
Total 100
Table 6-3 Unit Capital Costs for Comparisons of Alternatives
Work Items Capital Cost Source
3 Biological Nutrient Removal Processes and

Secondary Process Upgrade to MLE $600/m /d
Costs, USEPA, June 2007, EPA-823-R-07-002
See Appendix A for development of
WWTP Decommissioning $500,000
decommissioning unit cost.
See Appendix A for development of land
Land Purchase (without irrigation) $15,000/Du
purchase pricing
See Appendix A for development of
New Roads $100/m
roadway pricing
6.3 EVALUATION OF WEST JERASH EXPANSION OPTIONS

As concluded in Section 3.2.4, the existing West Jerash WWTP treatment capacity will only be sufficient
to meet projected flows and loads from the West Catchment to about 2024. Furthermore, both
Alternatives 1 and 2 for East Jerash wastewater treatment options would require transfer of flow from
the East Catchment to the West WWTP and as a result, would overload the existing plant much earlier.
Both Alternatives 1 and 2 would require an immediate implementation of expansion of the West
WWTP.
Based on the projected flows and loads for both the East and West Catchments, transfer of all flow from
the East Catchment to the West Jerash WWTP under Alternative 1 would result in overloading that
plant in 2013. This would require the immediate design and construction of an expanded West WWTP.
It is estimated that Alternative 2 would provide minor relief as the potential capacity of the existing East
WWTP when rehabilitated and operated to achieve the discharge goals is estimated to be about 2,600
3
m /d, which would require the remaining projected flow and load to be treated at the West WWTP. The
combined flows and loads under this scenario would overload the West WWTP capacity in about 2015-
2016.. These expansions are discussed in the respective sections detailing each alternative.
This section describes the options being considered to meet the future wastewater treatment
requirements within the West Catchment only and not considering flow transfers from the East Jerash

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
BOD (kg/d) 7,500 8,550 10,634 13,510
COD (kg/d) 13,500 16,065 21,139 31,286
TSS (kg/d) 8,500 9,690 9,319 11,835
T-N (kg/d) 1,420 1,619 1,809 2,297
T-P (kg/d) 405 462 209 265
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.

Figure 6-2 Schematic of New Oxidation Ditch near West WWTP
Table 6-5 Operating Parameters and Design Criteria – New Oxidation Ditch WWTPs
Parameter Value Unit
3
Total Average Flow 9,500 / 6,900 m /d
Total SRT 20.6/20.8 Days
Aerobic SRT 10.7/10.8 Days
WAS Solids 7,538/5,452 kg/d
MLSS 4,315/4,718 mg/L
Number of New Ditches 2/2 #
3
Volume per Ditch 18,000/12,000 m
Channel Width 16.0/13.0 M
Length per Ditch 192/156 m
Depth 3.0/3.0 m
Number of secondary clarifiers 2/2 m
Diameter per clarifier 25/25 #
3
Channel Width 16.0/13.0 m

Table 6-6 Effluent Water Quality – Oxidation Ditch Expansion
Parameter Predicted Effluent Reuse Discharge Limit

(mg/L) (mg/L)
Total Average Flow 9,500 / 6,900 m3/d
BOD 5.8/6.2 30
COD 95/95 100
TSS 17.9/19.5 50
NO3-N 0.1/>0.1 6.8 (30 NO3)
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.
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
Land Purchase 16 dunum @ $15,000/Du $240,000
Electricity supply and transformer Transformer and overhead line $50,000
Offsite roads 200m @ $100/m $20,000
Site Preparation Lump Sum Allowance $500,000
Total for Alternative 1 $16,010,000

1
Transfers
1
Work Items Calculation (Reference) Capital Cost (US$)
3 3
Alternative 2, New 6,900 m /d WWTP $2,000/m3/d * 6,900 m /d (Figure 6.1) $13,800,000
Site Preparation Lump Sum Allowance $500,000
Total for Alternative 2 $14,610,000

1
6.3.2 Expansion of West Jerash WWTP to Meet Projected West Catchment

Flows and Loads Under Alternatives 3 and 4
As previously described, the capacity of the existing West WWTP would only be sufficient to handle the
projected flows and loads up to about 2024. Therefore, and expansion of this facility would be required
even if all the East Catchment flows and loads were treated elsewhere. This section describes some

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.
West WWTP Option A – Addition of Primary Clarification

The existing facility has no primary treatment and relies on the secondary process units for solids
reduction and removal. Option A considers the addition of primary clarifiers at the existing West Jerash
WWTP to settle out pollutants and reduce the burden on the secondary treatment units. Primary
clarifiers have proven to reduce suspended solids from 50 to 70 percent and BOD from 25 to 40
percent(Metcalf & Eddy, 2004). This loading reduction would extend the useful life of existing
secondary treatment units and eliminate the need for a biological process expansion to meet 2035
treatment requirements.
Figure 6-3 is a schematic view of the existing West Jerash WWTP with new primary clarifiers for this
option. The new clarifiers would be incorporated into the existing facility with the intent of not
requiring hydraulic lift. The headworks effluent would be diverted to the new clarifiers and then re-
introduced to the flow stream, at the influent to the anaerobic selectors. Addition of these clarifiers
changes the biosolids treatment requirements. The current single sludge system would need to be
modified to process a primary sludge in addition to the secondary sludge. A separate system for
conveyance and thickening of the primary sludge may be necessary. All thickened sludge would be
combined and then dewatered. Option A would include an expansion of biosolids treatment for the
processing of primary sludge.
Figure 6-3 Schematic of New Primary Clarifiers with Existing West WWTP
The work of this alternative includes:

 Two new primary clarifiers
 Minimal conveyance modifications at headworks
 Primary sludge conveyance, storage and thickening
 Scum collection and removal
The design criteria for the new primary clarifiers at the existing West Jerash WWTP are provided in
Table 6-8. They are sized to treat future peak flows with both tanks in service.
Table 6-8 Operating Parameter and Design Criteria - New Primary Clarifiers with
Oxidation Ditch

3
Total Average Flow 9,092 m /d
Number of Primary Clarifiers 2 #
Diameter per Primary Clarifier 13 m
Depth of Primary Clarifier 4.3 m

3 2
Design Overflow Rate 86 m /m -d
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
NO3-N 4.47 6.8 (30 NO3)
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)
Total Cost of Option A $2,764,000

1
Capital cost in US dollars and for construction only.
West WWTP Option B – New Biological Process Train

This option considers the addition of more biological process trains without installation of new primary
clarifiers. Extended aeration would continue as the mode of operation (20 day SRT) and all pollutant
removal would occur in the secondary process systems. Currently there are two new oxidation ditches
and it has been assumed that this process would be most feasible technology for a process expansion.
Process modeling indicates that installation of a new oxidation ditch would require the addition of one
new secondary clarifier. No other biological treatment technologies are being considered or
recommended.
Figure 6-5 is a schematic view of the existing West Jerash WWTP with a new oxidation ditch process
train.
Figure 6-4 Schematic of Oxidation Ditch Expansion

 One new oxidation ditch
 One new secondary clarifier
 Minimal conveyance modifications at headworks Splitter box and RAS/WAS pump station
modifications
The design criteria for the oxidation ditch expansion at the existing West Jerash WWTP are provided in
Table 6-11.
Table 6-11 Operating Parameters and Design Criteria - Oxidation Ditch Expansion
3
Total SRT 19.8 days
Aerobic SRT 11 days
WAS Solids 7,120 kg/d
MLSS 4,845 mg/L
Number of new Ditches 1 #

3
Volume for new Ditch 9,600 m
Width for new Ditch 20 m
Channel Width for new Ditch 10 m
Length of new Ditch 100 m
Depth of new Ditch 5 m
Diameter of New Sec Clarifier 23 m
Table 6-12 lists the blended effluent quality for the expanded plant with the new oxidation ditch. As

Table 6-12 Effluent Water Quality – Oxidation Ditch Expansion

Parameter
(mg/L) (mg/L)
BOD 6.4 30
COD 95 100
TSS 20.0 50
NO3-N 0.02 6.8 (30 NO3)
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 6-13 Capital Cost Estimate for Option B

1
Work Items Calculation/Reference Capital Cost (USS$)
3
Secondary Process Expansion, $1,600 * 9,092 m /d * 28% (Table 6-
$4,073,000
Oxidation Ditch 2)
3
Secondary Clarifier $1,600 * 9,092 m /d * 4% (Table 6-2) $582,000
Total Cost of Option B $4,655,000

1
West WWTP Option C –Process Operation Modifications

Option C considers process modifications and resulting improvements that might be necessary. It is
suggested that the design SRT of 20 days (Final Design Report, page 36-4) be reduced to enhance
loading reduction. This will approximately double sludge production and possibly require an expansion
to the existing biosolids treatment systems.
There are no changes affecting the liquid process flow diagram. Therefore, a process flow diagram and
site layout drawing are not provided.
 New sludge pumps and storage
 One new gravity thickener
 One new centrifuge
This option is designed to meet the 2035 wastewater disposal needs for the West Jerash Catchment. The
design criteria for the oxidation ditch expansion at the existing West Jerash WWTP are provided in
Table 6-14.
Table 6-15 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 6-16 presents the work items for Option C and the approximate capital cost.

Table 6-14 Operating Parameters and Design Criteria - Modified Process Operations
3
Total SRT 10.8 days
Aerobic SRT 6.8 days
MLSS 4,400 mg/L
Table 6-15 Effluent Water Quality - Modified Operations

Parameter
(mg/L) (mg/L)
BOD 7.2 30
COD 95 100
TSS 18.5 50
NO3-N 6.0 6.8 (30 NO3)
T-N 23.3 45
T-P 1.5 15
Table 6-16 Capital Cost Estimate for Option C

1
Work Items Calculation/Reference Capital Cost (US$)
3
Sludge Processing Upgrade (50% $1,600 * 9,092 m /d * 15% *50%
$1,091,000
increase & 50% cost) (Table 6-2)
Total Cost of Option C $1,091,000

1
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$)
Option A – Add Primary Clarification $2,764,000
Option B – Additional Oxidation Ditch $4,655,000
Option C – Modify Operation $1,091,000

1
6.4 EAST WWTP ALTERNATIVE 1 – DECOMMISSIONING EXISTING

EAST JERASH WWTP
This alternative includes the abandonment of the East Jerash WWTP and the transfer of all existing and
future flows to the West Catchment. The West Jerash WWTP would treat this flow for part of the
planning period but would soon require a plant expansion. Section 6.2 estimated that the West WWTP
would be overloaded by about 2015. This however depends greatly on the flow buildup in the West plant
as new house connections are made. This plan would also require the construction of a flow transfer
system, composed of a pumping station and force main or a siphon and pump station.
3
The West Jerash WWTP has an average daily flow capacity of 10,000 m /d and a BOD load capacity of
7,500 kg/d. Based on wastewater flow projections for the combined East and West Catchments in Table
6-1, the capacity of the West Jerash WWTP would be reached before 2015. At the time of this study, the
3
West WWTP is receiving about 1,080 m /d. Therefore, a plant expansion of the West Jerash WWTP will
be required early in the planning period to treat all Jerash wastewater by increasing the average daily
3 3
flow from 10,000m /d to an eventual capacity of 18,583 m /d. This expansion would allow the plant to
treat flow from the east and west catchments, through the design year of 2035.
6.4.1 Scope of Work

The first work to be completed will be the transfer system, which will include a pumping station with
3 3
hydraulic capacity of 9,491 m /d and 23,728 m /d for average and peak flow, respectively. A 400 mm
force main and 500 mm siphon/gravity sewer is proposed from the new pump station to the headworks
of the West Jerash WWTP as described in Appendix A.
An expansion of treatment capacity in West Jerash would be required to increase flow from 10,000 m3/d
3
to 18,583m /d. This would entail the construction of a new WWTP in the general area of the existing
WWTP. Also, it has been assumed that the required capacity increase of the existing West Jerash
WWTP would be combined into the treatment loading of the proposed West Jerash WWTP. Details
regarding the work required in the west are provided in Section 6.3.
The scope of work would be completed by the decommissioning of the existing East Jerash WWTP.
6.4.2 Environmental and Reuse Impacts

The environmental and reuse impacts of this alternative are provided below.
Advantages:
 Rather than having two plant discharges in Jerash, there would be one which provides better
pollution control and reduces operation and maintenance costs.
 This alternative has positive reuse implications since the predicted effluent quality will meet
the limits set for Irrigation for Cooked Vegetables, Parks, Play Grounds as defined by the
Water Authority of Jordan.

 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.
6.4.3 Conceptual Costs

Table 6-18 presents the work items for Alternative Number 1 and the approximate capital cost.
Table 6-18 Capital Cost Estimate for Alternative 1
1
Work Items Calculation/ (Reference) Capital Cost (US$)
Decommissioning East Jerash WWTP Appendix A $500,000
Transfer Conveyance System Appendix A, Option A1 $2,067,000
New WWTP in West Table 6-7 $16,010,000
Total Cost of Alternative No.1 $18,577,000

1
6.5 ALTERNATIVE NUMBER 2 – UPGRADE EXISTING EAST JERASH

WWTP
As part of Alternative Number 2, the existing East Jerash WWTP would be upgraded to perform at its
maximum treatment potential. The approach to assessing this upgrade was to maintain the existing
processes (no new primaries), limit improvements to only the biological treatment system, and attempt
to maintain current operating procedures (solids retention time).
In general, the existing bioreactors would be modified to optimize performance by increasing BOD
treatment and providing some nutrient reduction. The solids retention time (SRT) is a performance
parameter that can be adjusted to gain variations in this performance. An increase in the SRT results in
a decline in solids volume, but also requires an increase in bioreactor volume. The existing East Jerash
WWTP has a 20 day SRT which is considered an extended aeration process, intended to reduce solids
volume through sludge digestion within the biomass. An upgrade of the East Jerash WWTP was
assessed for a SRT similar to the existing (20 days) to maintain current biosolids treatment.
In addition, an upgrade was considered with the minimum SRT at 12 days, which resulted in 31 percent
increase in sludge production, as compared to the higher SRT upgrade. Since this would require a
significant upgrade to the existing sludge treatment processes, it was decided that the extended
aeration option (SRT 20 days) would only be considered.
The predicted performance of an upgraded East Jerash WWTP would be capable of treating 2,600 m3/d
of average daily flow. The balance of wastewater treatment, required through the design year of 2035,
would be provided in the West Jerash Catchment. The West Jerash WWTP has the capacity to treat
some of this additional flow. Although, a capacity increase in the west would be necessary in the near
future. This plan would also require the construction of a flow transfer system, comprised of a pumping
station and force main.
3
The West Jerash WWTP has an average daily flow capacity of 10,000 m /d and an upgraded East Jerash
3 3
WWTP would result in a new capacity of 2,600 m /d. The combined treatment capacity of 12,600 m /d
will be reached in year 2023. This is based on wastewater flow forecasts for all of Jerash(CDM
International, December 2010). Treatment capacity in the west would be required to increase by 6,900
3 3 3 3
m /d (9,500 m /d – 2,600 m /d), for a total of 15,983 m /d.
6.5.1 Scope of Work

The first work to be performed is an upgrade of the existing East Jerash WWTP.
The upgraded WWTP would have the treatment capacity to meet all future discharge limits. The
upgrade will include:
 Improvements to the existing oxidation ditch, mixing/aerators
 Biological nutrient removal improvements to the aeration tanks including new zones, aerators,
mixers and internal recycle
 New blower building with blowers
 Secondary clarifier influent splitter box improvements or replacement
The second part of the work includes the construction of a transfer system, which will include a
3 3
pumping station with an average and peak hydraulic capacity of 6,900 m /d and 17,250 m /d,
3
respectively. This is the difference between the 2035 East Jerash flow estimate of 9,500 m /d and the
3
predicted capacity of the upgrade plant of 2,600 m /d.
The final work would include an expansion of treatment capacity in West Jerash, which would increase
3 3
flow from 10,000 m /d to 15,983 m /d. This would entail the construction of a new WWTP in the general
area of the existing WWTP. Also, it has been assumed that the required capacity increase of the existing
West Jerash WWTP would be combined into the treatment loading of the proposed West Jerash
WWTP. Details regarding the work required in the west are provided in Section 6.3.
6.5.2 Performance Criteria

With a transfer system and expansion of the West Jerash WWTP, this alternative is designed to meet
the 2035 wastewater disposal needs for the East Jerash Catchment. The design criteria for the upgraded
East Jerash WWTP is provided in Table 6-19.
Table 6-19 Operation Parameters and Design Criteria - Upgraded East Jerash WWTP

3
Average Flow for Expansion 2,600 m /d
Total SRT 20.2 days
MLSS 5,832 mg/L
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
Parameter (mg/L) (mg/L)
BOD 8.6 30
COD 95 100
TSS 26.2 50
NO3-N 0.03 6.8 (30 NO3)
T-N 16.9 45
T-P 11.7 15

Advantages:
 Maintains use of an existing site asset.
 Upgraded WWTP will be provided with new odor control facilities.
 Maintains discharge of treated effluent to Wadi Jerash for agricultural irrigation.
 This alternative has positive reuse implications since the predicted effluent will meet limits set
for Irrigation for Cooked Vegetables, Parks, Play Grounds as defined by the Water Authority of
Jordan.
Disadvantages:
 Requires operation and maintenance of two WWTPs in Jerash.
 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.
 Will somewhat alleviate hydraulic overflows to Wadi Jerash.

1
Existing Jerash WWTP, Secondary Process 3 3

$600/m /d * 2,600 m /d (Table 6-3) $1,560,000
Upgrade to MLE
Transfer Conveyance System Appendix A, Option A2 1,880,000
New WWTP in the West Table 6-8 $14,610,000

1

6.6 ALTERNATIVE NUMBER 3 – UPGRADE, EXPANSION, AND/OR

REPLACEMENT OF EAST JERASH WWTP
Alternative Number 3 assumes that all flow will remain in the East Jerash Catchment, with no transfer
of wastewater to the West Catchment, and that the existing site of the East WWTP would be utilized.
This alternative is comprised of two sub-alternatives, which define different improvement plans for
meeting the future treatment needs. A combination of options being considered includes an existing
plant upgrade and expansion of new facilities, or a complete replacement with new facilities. An
upgrade would entail improvements and modifications to the existing East Jerash WWTP and an
expansion includes the addition of process trains to the existing facility. A replacement is the complete
abandonment of the existing facility and construction of a new plant to handle the entire flow into the
future.
An expansion of the existing facility would include an upgrade of the existing treatment plant, as
detailed under Alternative Number 2. The existing WWTP would be upgraded to perform at its
maximum treatment potential and the new process train (expansion) would provide the additional
treatment capacity required. The following paragraphs describe option being considered for an
expansion of the existing plant.
As recommended in Section 5, the oxidation ditch process is the preferred treatment process. Other
processes were considered but were found not feasible for further deliberation.
The follow paragraphs describe the multiple sub alternatives for upgrade, expansion or replacement of
the existing East WWTP and are conceptualizes as:
 Alternative 3A – Construct new expansion facilities while maintaining existing plant in
operation. Following commissioning of new facilities, upgrade the existing plant.
 Alternative 3B – Construct new expansion facilities for full capacity while maintaining existing
plant in operation. Following commissioning of new facilities, decommission the existing
plant.
The overall intent is to cover all improvements necessary to treat flows and loads throughout Jerash in
2035, Therefore, the improvements necessary to extend treatment in West Jerash from 2025 to 2035
must be included under alternative 3 and 4 in order to be comparable to Alternatives 1 and 2.
6.6.1 Alternative 3A – Upgrade and Oxidation Ditch Expansion

Scope of Work
This alternative describes an expansion and upgraded of the East Jerash WWTP. The expansion shall
include the installation of two new oxidation ditches followed by the rehabilitation and upgrade of the
3
existing plant. The upgraded plant and two new oxidation ditches will have capacities 6,000 m /d and
3 3
3,500m /d, respectively. The entire WWTP will have a total capacity of 9,500 m /d. This alternative
includes the addition of primary clarifiers before all secondary process tanks. This allows for plant
operation at a lower SRT which provides for smaller bioreactors. It also allows the upgraded existing
plant to operate at a higher flow rate than Alternative 2.
Figure 6-5 Is a schematic view of the plant expansion while Figure 6-6 provides a site plan layout for
this alternative.

Figure 6-5 Schematic of an Oxidation Ditch Expansion
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

Figure 6-6 Alternative 3A Conceptual Site Layout Plan

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

3
Average Flow for Expansion 3,500 m /d
Number of New Ditches 2 #

3
Average Flow per Ditch 1,750 m /d
Total SRT 14 days
Primary Solids (at MM) 2,380 kg/d
WAS Solids (at Max Month) 1,320 kg/d
MLSS 5,200 mg/L

3
Total Volume 3,900 m
3
Volume per Ditch 1,950 m
Width per Ditch 10.6 m
Channel Width 5.3 m
Length per Ditch 63.6 m
Depth 3.0 m
Number of Secondary Clarifiers 2 #
Clarifier Diameter 18 m
Table 6-23 lists the blended effluent quality for the upgraded plant with the new process trains. As
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
NO3-N 3.7 6.8 (30 NO3)
T-N 32.8 45
T-P 14.2 15

Environmental and Reuse Impacts

Advantages:
 Eliminates need for transfer system and potential disturbance to sensitive areas and creation
of new pollution sources such as a force main failure or pumping station overflow
 Upgraded and expanded WWTP will be provided with new odor control facilities.
Jordan.
Disadvantages:
 Expands use of existing site near city center.
Conceptual Costs
Table 6-24 presents the work items for Alternative Number 3A and the approximate capital cost.
Table 6-24 Capital Cost Estimate for Alternative 3A

1
3 3
Existing Jerash WWTP, Secondary Process $600/m /d * 6,000 m /d (Table
$3,600,000
Upgrade to MLE 6-3)
Upgrade Existing West WWTP Option C (Table 6-16) $1,091,000

3
$3,300 * 3,500 m /d * 28%
Secondary Process Expansion, Oxidation Ditch $3,234,000
(Table 6-2)
3
$1,600 * 9,500 m /d * 4% (Table
Two New primary clarifiers $608.000
6-2)
3
$3,300 * 3,500 m /d * 4% (Table
Two New Secondary Clarifiers $462,000
6-2)
3
$1,600 * 9,500 m /d * 15%
Sludge treatment system $2,280,000,
(Table 6-2)
3
$3,300 * 3,500 m /d * 4% (Table
RAS/WAS Splitter Box and Pump Station $462,000
6-2)
3
$1,600 * 9,500 m /d * 32%
Miscellaneous chambers and buildings $4,864,000
(Table 6-2)
3
$1,600 * 9,500 m /d * 10%
New headworks $1,520,000
(Table 6-2)
Total Cost of Alternative No.3A

1

6.6.2 Alternative 3B – Facility Replacement on Existing Site with Oxidation

Ditch
Scope of Work
Replacement of the existing East WWTP is proposed by the installation of two new oxidation ditches on
3
the existing East WWTP site. The new plant would have a capacity of 9,5000 m /d. It is recommended
that the new plant operate at a low SRT and include primary clarification. Following startup and
commissioning of the new facilities, the existing plant would be decommissioned and that portion of
the site would be utilized for new administration and laboratory building and other site accessories.
Figure 6-7 is a schematic view of the plant replacement while Figure 6-9 provides a site plan layout for
this alternative.
Figure 6-7 Schematic of WWTP Replacement with Oxidation Ditches
The primary components of this alternative include the following:

 Decommissioning of the existing WWTP
 Two new oxidation ditches
 New headworks
 New administration building
 New sludge conveyance, storage, and treatment systems
through 2035

Figure 6-8 Alternative 3B Conceptual Site Layout Plan

Performance Criteria

3
Total SRT 14 days
Primary Solids 6,863 kg/d
MLSS 4,383 mg/l

3
Number of Ditches 2 #
3
Channel Width 9.4 m
Depth 3.0 m
Secondary Clarifier Diameter 25 m
Table 6-26 lists the effluent quality for the new WWTP. As shown the anticipated performance exceeds
the future discharge criteria.
Table 6-26 Effluent Water Quality - Replacement with Oxidation Ditch

Parameter
mg/L) (mg/L)
BOD 4.5 30
COD 95 100
TSS 8.8 50
NO3 >0.1 6.8 (30 NO3)
T-N 14.9 45
T-P 14.4 15

Environmental and Reuse Impacts

Advantages:
 Eliminates need for transfer system and potential disturbance to sensitive areas and creation
of new pollution sources such as a force main failure or pumping station overflow
 Expanded WWTP will be provided with new odor control facilities.
Jordan.
Disadvantages:
 Expands use of existing site near city center.
Conceptual Costs
Table 6-27 presents the work items for Alternative Number 3B and the approximate capital cost.
Table 6-27 Capital Cost Estimate for Alternative 3B

1
3 3
New Oxidation Ditch WWTP $1,600/m /d * 9,500 m /d (Figure 6.1) $15,200,000
Decommissioning Existing WWTP Appendix A 500,000
Total Cost of Alternative No.3B $16,866,000

1
6.7 ALTERNATIVE 4 – FACILITY REPLACEMENT AT NEW LOCATION

An assessment was made to determine the feasibility for relocating the East WWTP to another site in
the same general area as the existing WWTP. The following sighting criteria were used in the search:
 Being down gradient of the existing WWTP to avoid pumping
 Having suitable topography for construction
 Having sufficient land to construct a new WWTP
 A parcel easily accessible
 Away from large population centers or touristic sites
Potential locations were assessed for the following consequential criteria:
 Maintaining optimum effluent reuse potential
 Public nuisance potential
 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.
6.7.1 Scope of Work

Replacement of the existing East WWTP under Alternative 4 is proposed by the construction of a new
WWTP at Site B that would include two new oxidation ditches and associated process facilities and
3
administration buildings. The new plant would have a capacity of 9,500 m /d. It is recommended that
the new plant operate at a low SRT and included primary clarification. Following startup and
commissioning of the new facilities, the existing plant would be decommissioned and that portion of
the site could be utilized for other purposes by WAJ or other government agencies.
This alternative is similar to Alternative 3B and the schematic view of the plant was shown on Figure 6-
8. Figure 6-10 provides a site plan layout for this alternative.
 Decommissioning of the existing WWTP
 Two new oxidation ditches


 New headworks
 New administration building
 New sludge conveyance, storage, and treatment systems
through 2035
 Transfer system to convey flow from the old East Jerash WWTP to the new site

3
Total SRT 14 days
MLSS 4,383 mg/l

3
3
Channel Width 9.4 m
Depth 3.0 m

Figure 6-9 Site Layout for Alternative 4 at Site B



3
Total SRT 14 days
MLSS 4,383 mg/l

3
3
Channel Width 9.4 m
Depth 3.0 m
Table 6-29 lists the blended effluent quality for the upgrade plant with the new process trains. As
Table 6-30 Effluent Water Quality - Replacement with Oxidation Ditch
Parameter mg/L) (mg/L)
BOD 4.5 30
COD 95 100
TSS 8.8 50
NO3 >0.1 6.8 (30 NO3)
T-N 14.9 45
T-P 14.4 15


Advantages:
 Could potentially serve additional areas in Jerash on both sides of the Zarqa River.
 Moves WWTP away from City and touristic sites.
 New WWTP will be provided with new odor control facilities.
Jordan.
Disadvantages:
 Requires new land acquisition and disturbances.
 Requires long conveyance pipeline down Wadi Jerash.
 Eliminates treated effluent discharge by gravity for agricultural irrigation in Wadi Jerash.


1
3 3
New Oxidation Ditch WWTP $1,600/m /d * 9,500 m /d (Figure 6.1) $15,200,000
Decommissioning Existing WWTP Appendix A 500,000

Conveyance Pipeline from East WWTP
Appendix A, Site B 3,200,000
site to Site B
Landscaping and site preparation Site preparation, retaining walls, etc. $500,000

1
6.7.6 Further Review of Alternative 4

The WAJ Technical Review Committee for the Jerash Wastwater Treatment Study asked CDM to give
further consideration to the the alternatives identified under Alternative 4. In particular, CDM were
asked to include the potential to connect communities that are at present not served with wastwater
treatment facilities and bring these into the evaluation.
Alternative 4 has some benefits. The wastewater network proposed by Orient collects flows from the
localities of Daher As Srou and Al Jbarat at the pumping station. Orient PS2 The wastewater is then
pumped through a force main to West Jerash WWTP. Under Alternatove 4 it would be possible to
eliminate this pump station and force main and drain the areas by gravity into the Alternative 4 trunk

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.
6.8 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION OF EAST JERASH

ALTERNATIVES
This section provides a quantitative and qualitative method for ranking the five alternatives and a
means for making a recommendation. In the end, the most appropriate recommendations are made for
future wastewater treatment and disposal in East Jerash, with necessary improvements to the West
Jerash WWTP.
Table 6-31 summarizes the flows and loads for the evaluated alternatives along with the estimated
capital cost to construct. This table provides a simplified method for comparing the cost and flows for
each alternative.
Table 6-32 Summary of Alternative Features and Estimated Capital Cost Impacts
Alternative
for Treating East Jerash WWTP West Jerash
WWTP New
Jerash Transfer or Total
Wastewater New New Estimated 1
to Projected Changes to Changes or Conveyance Capital Cost
Facilities on Facilities at Added Systems
2035 Flows Existing Existing Site New Site Facilities
and Loads
Alternative 1 –
Decommission Expand from
3
East WWTP and Decommission 10,000 m /d to
NA NA 3 $2,067,000 $18,577,000
Transfer all $500,000 18,583 m /d
Flow to West $16,010,000
WWTP
Alternative 2 –
Upgrade
Existing East Upgrade to Expand from
3
WWTP to Meet treat 2,600 10,000 m /d to
3 NA NA 3 $1,880,000 $18,050,000
Effluent Quality m /d 15,983 m /d
and Transfer $1,560,000 $14,610,000
Remaining Flow
to West WWTP
Alternative 3A
– Upgrade Expand in
Existing East Upgrade to Process 2024 from
WWTP and treat 6,000 Expansion of BOD load of
3 3 NA NA $18,171,000
Construct m /d 3,500 m /d 7,500 kg/d to
Expansion $3,600,000 $13,480,000 12,123 kg/d
Facilities on $1,091,000
Existing Site
Alternative 3B
– Expand in
Decommission New Facilities 2024 from
Existing East Decommission to treat 9,500 BOD load of
3 NA NA $16,866,000
WWTP and $500,000 m /d 7,500 kg/d to
Construct New $15,275,000 12,123 kg/d
Facilities on $1,091,000
Same Site

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
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
Date: 23 June 2011
Subject: Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report
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
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
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.
Alternative 3B – Replacement of Existing East Jerash WWTP on the

Existing Site
The following is the recommended plan for future wastewater treatment and disposal in
Jerash as stated in the Draft Feasibility Study:
 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 to convey wastewater from the east to
the west.
A new oxidation ditch treatment plant with a capacity of 9,500 m3/d is recommended to
be designed and 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.
Alternative 4 – Facility Replacement at New Location

Two potential sites were identified in the Feasibility Study for a wastewater treatment
plant downstream of the existing east Jerash plant. Under Alternative 4, it was proposed
to replace the existing East WWTP with the construction of a new WWTP at either site that
would include two new oxidation ditches, and associated process facilities and
administration buildings. Wastewater from the East Catchment would be conveyed by
gravity to either site. The new plant would have a capacity of 9,500 m3/d. It is
recommended that the new plant operate at a low SRT and included primary clarification.
Following startup and commissioning of the new facilities, the existing plant would be
decommissioned and that portion of the site could be utilized for other purposes by WAJ
or other government agencies. This alternative is similar to Alternative 3B with the
exception of the WWTP location and the need for a long gravity conveyance system to the
new site.
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.

23 June 2011
Page 100
As stated in the Feasibility Study, if Site A would be seriously considered as a location for
a new WWTP, it should be assessed for flooding potential due to its proximity and
relatively low ground elevation near the Zarqa River. This could have a significant impact
on the cost of site development.
Site A would require an 8,200 m long, 600 mm diameter, gravity conveyance pipe to bring
wastewater from the existing East WWTP to Site A. This site, however, could provide
service to a wider area of Jerash Governorate on either side of the Zarqa River. The
estimated cost for the conveyance pipeline to this site is US$ 4,100,000, exclusive of land
acquisition costs for the site or pipeline route, or land improvements required for
protection from flooding and site access. The last section of the pipeline would need to
cross the river, either by siphon or bridge. Without more detailed design effort, it is
difficult to estimate the cost of site development for flood protection. Land acquisition
costs are also difficult to estimate. However, these costs are expected to be between
$500,000 and $1,000,000.
Site B
From the Feasibility Study, Site B is Government land, with approximately 40 dunums
area, located very close to the main Jerash Road, and adjacent to the desalination plant.
The site is east of Wadi Jerash near the land owned and used as nurseries by the Ministry
of Agriculture. Site B is located at an average elevation of 260 m.a.s.l. and currently
planted with some olive trees. Site B would require a 6,400 m long, 600 mm diameter,
gravity conveyance pipe. The estimated cost for the conveyance pipeline to this site is US$
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.
Further Review of Alternatives 3B and 4 Sites

In consideration of the ability of Alternative 4 sites to serve more localities within the
Governorate by gravity, a review of the Master Plan discussions and further analysis of
this potential was undertaken with the intent of providing a broader, yet equal,
comparison of these alternatives.
Reference is made to Figure 6.1 attached at the end of this memorandum for locations of
the additional unsewered areas adjacent to the East Catchment that could be connected.
Also attached is a table of population and flow projections by localities for the Jerash
Governorate. To provide a fair comparison of the alternatives, we have identified and
estimated the conceptual cost for conveyance methods to connect these areas to either the
East WWTP site or to the sites for Alternative 4. The localities considered are Al Ryashi
(E08), Um Qontara (E09), Al Rashaydeh (E10), and Al Majar (E02). The estimated
population and wastewater flow for these areas are 7,183 people and 575 m3/d,
respectively.
In addition, under Alternative 4, the conveyance pipeline from the East WWTP location
could also serve a part of the Orient design for flows tributary to Pump Station 2 and

23 June 2011
Page 101
eliminate the pump station and force main to the West WWTP. An analysis and summary
of these further reviews is presented below.
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.

23 June 2011
Page 102
This additional wastewater flow under this scenario would result in a WWTP to treat
10,800 m3/day under Alternative 4. Additionally, it would reduce the contributory flows
and loads to the West Jerash WWTP that would delay the need for any expansion due to
biological loading until after 2031.
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

23 June 2011
Page 103
The comparison costs for Alternatives 3B, 4A, and 4B were re-examined and updated to
incorporate the impacts of directing wastewater flow from the Orient PS2 to either
Alternative 4A or 4B, and for the potential for addition flow from adjacent unsewered
areas. The attached table presents the revised comparison of costs for these alternatives.
The comparison of cost table also presents the estimated per capita cost for wastewater
conveyance and treatment that may help in evaluation of these alternatives. The marginal
cost of adding in the flows from the four unsewered areas is also shown and indicates that
there may be lower cost methods of providing wastewater service to these areas.

23 June 2011
Page 104

23 June 2011
Page 105
WWTP Locality Population Wastewater Flow, m3/day
2009 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Soof 13,638 14,094 16,338 18,648 21,006 23,329 25,619 1,127 1,307 1,492 1,680 1,866 2,050
Deir Al-Liyyat 2,835 2,930 3,396 3,876 4,367 4,850 5,326 234 272 310 349 388 426
East WWTP
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
Al-Hazeah 303 313 363 414 467 518 569 25 29 33 37 41 46

Amamah 178 184 213 243 274 304 334 15 17 19 22 24 27
Sheikh Mfarrej 96 99 115 131 148 164 180 8 9 11 12 13 14
Al-Juneidiyyeh 821 848 984 1,123 1,265 1,404 1,542 68 79 90 101 112 123
Al-Fayha' 498 515 597 681 767 852 935 41 48 54 61 68 75
Al-Msheirfeh Al-Gharbiyyeh 2,040 2,108 2,444 2,789 3,142 3,490 3,832 169 196 223 251 279 307
Mashtal Faisal 395 408 473 540 608 676 742 33 38 43 49 54 59
Al-Mastabah 4,046 4,181 4,847 5,532 6,232 6,921 7,600 334 388 443 499 554 608
Marsa' 3,651 3,773 4,374 4,992 5,624 6,245 6,858 302 350 399 450 500 549
Jubbah 3,835 3,963 4,594 5,244 5,907 6,560 7,204 317 368 420 473 525 576
Tale't Ar-Ruz 940 971 1,126 1,285 1,448 1,608 1,766 78 90 103 116 129 141
Al-Rahmaniyyah 639 660 766 874 984 1,093 1,200 53 61 70 79 87 96
Al-Rayah 639 660 766 874 984 1,093 1,200 53 61 70 79 87 96
Burma 5,217 5,391 6,250 7,134 8,036 8,924 9,800 431 500 571 643 714 784
Al-Mansourah 1,224 1,265 1,466 1,674 1,885 2,094 2,299 101 117 134 151 168 184
Al-Jazzazeh 1,376 1,422 1,648 1,881 2,119 2,354 2,585 114 132 151 170 188 207
Al-Majdal 720 744 863 985 1,109 1,232 1,353 60 69 79 89 99 108
Alaymoon 613 633 734 838 944 1,049 1,152 51 59 67 76 84 92
Hamta 1,061 1,096 1,271 1,451 1,634 1,815 1,993 88 102 116 131 145 159
Al-Fawara 772 798 925 1,056 1,189 1,321 1,450 64 74 84 95 106 116
Al-Hooneh 117 121 140 160 180 200 220 10 11 13 14 16 18
TOTAL 55,741 57,603 66,777 76,218 85,856 95,351 104,709 4,608 5,342 6,097 6,868 7,628 8,377
JERASH Governorate 179,400 185,392 214,920 245,305 276,324 306,883 337,000 14,831 17,194 19,624 22,106 24,551 26,960

23 June 2011
Page 106

SECTION 7 - SUMMARY OF TREATMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 EAST JERASH CATCHMENT
This section summarizes the recommendations made for future wastewater treatment and disposal in
the East Jerash Catchment. Recommendations focus on the existing East Jerash Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP).
Section 6 provides a recommendation for Alternative Number 3B, which includes replacement of the
entire existing WWTP with a new plant having oxidation ditches and an average daily flow of 9,500
3
m /day. Figure 6-10 provides a site layout of the general plant components while the following
paragraphs provide greater detail regarding the specific parts of this new plant. Suggestions are made
for some process requirements while other sections within this report have justified the
recommended technologies. For most processes, a technology analysis will be performed in the Basis
of Design Report to following this feasibility report.
The new facility will be design to have the following:
 Headworks with wadi overflow structure and flow metering, screenings, grit removal,
 Lift station (to be confirmed follow development of a hydraulic profile),
 Primary clarifiers with primary sludge pumping,
 Oxidation ditch activated sludge and secondary clarification,
 WAS and RAS conveyance systems,
 Disinfection,
 Sludge thickening,
 Sludge dewatering,
 Sludge stabilization be aerobic digester,
 Odor control,
 Yard piping,
 Site work including all utilities,
 Power supply system,
 Administration building with maintenance, laboratory, and operations,
 Instrumentation and control systems.
Figure 7.1 presents a process flow diagram of the recommended new facility in East Jerash. The
diagram includes the liquid and solids process flows.
The following provides minimal design criteria for the different process components listed above.
Details provided will guide the development of the Design Report.

Section 7 – Summary of Treatment Recommendations
Figure 7-1 Process Flow Diagram for Recommended Alternative
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.
Wadi Overflow Structure

The new WWTP will maintain use of an existing overflow which conveys peak influent flows in excess
of the WWTP hydraulic capacity directly to the wadi. The future peak hydraulic capacity for the new
plant has been capped (2.5 x average flow) and flow in excess will be diverted to the overflow. A new
overflow structure will be constructed and connected to the existing outfall leading to the wadi. The
3
peak hydraulic capacity of the overflow will remain at 41,400m /d.
Parshall Flume
Number of Units: 1
Throat width: 0.6 m
3
Allowable flow range: 1,000 to 30,000 m /day
Flow from the Parshall Flume is then directed to two channels furnished with coarse bar screens and
then mechanically operated fine screens.
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.

Manual Bar Screen

Number of units: 2
Type: Manually cleaned bar rack
3
Capacity per unit, m /d: 30,000
Bar spacing (clear), mm: 90
Bar width, mm: 10
Bar depth, mm: 0 to 40
o
Angle from horizontal: 75
Operation: 1 duty and 1 standby
Fine Screens
Number of units : 2
Type: Mechanically cleaned vertical bar screen installed directly in
the channel
3
Clear spacing, mm: 15
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
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.
7.1.2 Lift Station

The need for an intermediate lift station will be determined following the development of a hydraulic
profile. Details regarding this pump station are provided in case there becomes the need. The station
would lift preliminary treatment effluent and convey it to primary influent.
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
7.1.3 New Primary Clarifiers

Primary clarifiers are recommended for the new facility to reduce the loading impact on the
recommended biological treatment system. Typically, a circular or rectangular shaped clarifier will be
considered. An analysis of the two alternatives will be conducted as part of the Design Report. For this
report, circular clarifiers are being considered.
Primary Clarifiers and Sludge Pumping

Number of tank: 2
3
Dimensions (dia & depth): 15 m and 4.3 m
3
Tank volume per unit, m : 1,518
2
Surface area, m : 177
3 2
Hydraulic loading rate: 85 m / m /d
Sludge removal: Scrapper and hopper
3
Primary sludge pumps: Screw Centrifugal, 7 m /hr
7.1.4 Aeration System

Flow to the aeration system is by gravity from the primary clarifiers. Two oxidation-ditch type aeration
3
tanks will be constructed to treat a total average flow of 9,500 m /d. Redundant treatment capacity is
not recommended and the combined capacity is designed to treatment future maximum month
conditions.

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
7.1.5 RAS/WAS Splitter and Pumping Station

A sludge pumping station will serve to convey RAS back to the aeration basins and to pump WAS to the
sludge processing. The pumping station structure will be sized to handle the sludge for the planned
future treatment plant capacity. Pumps will have hard-pipe suction from the secondary clarifiers to
provide precise and equal sludge return.
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
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
7.1.6 Secondary Clarifiers

A total of two clarifiers will be constructed, each sized for one-half the maximum month flow. There are
multiple types of secondary clarifiers which will be assessed during preparation of the Basis of Design
Report.
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)
3
Capacity, m /hr: 3.0
Type: Submersible, solids handling
Operation: Intermittent
7.1.7 Existing Lagoons

The existing lagoons are used for effluent polishing prior to disinfection. It is proposed that they remain
part of the treatment, but may need desludging. However, this decision will be re-addressed during
preparation of the Basis of Design Report.
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:
Chlorine Contact Tank

Number of tanks: 2
Contact tank detention time: 15 minutes
Chlorination System with Chlorine Gas

Number of chlorinators: 2, 1 duty and 1 standby
Number of scale: 1
Capacity of scale: 2-cylinder, hydraulic
No. of ton cylinders in storage: 5
Number of booster pump: 2, 1 duty for the initial phase
Capacity of booster pump: 150 L/min
Number of analyzer: 1
7.1.9 Biosolids Conveyance, Treatment and Disposal

A new biosolids will be installed to efficiently process primary and secondary sludge. A new Sludge
Processing Building is proposed and would contain sludge dewatering and polymer equipment. Cake
quality is intended to meet Second Class Jordanian standards and will provide reuse potential. The
following are the primary components of the biosolids treatment system.
 Gravity thickeners for primary and secondary sludge
 Polymer system for both thickening and dewatering (if required)
 Aerobic digesters
 Centrifuges for winter dewatering
 Sludge drying beds for summer dewatering
 Cake hauling systems
The thickening and digester systems are designed for continuous operation (24/7/365). Dewatering will
occur during the primary work shift, for five days a week.
Gravity Thickeners
Primary sludge feed, %: 1 to 2
Secondary sludge feed, %: 0.7
Number of tanks: 2
Tank Diameter and SWD, m: 20 and 4

3
Tank Volume, m : 1,256
Thickened sludge %: 5%
2
Solids loading rate, kg/m /d: 29 to 49
3 2
Hydraulic loading rate, m /m /d: 16 to 33
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
7.1.10 Odor Control System

Odor control is proposed for the Headworks Building, Sludge Processing Building, Gravity Thickeners
and Sludge Storage Tank. Current technologies include biofilters and scrubbers. Since available space is
limited, a new odor control scrubber system is recommended. If greater space becomes available, then
biofilters will be considered.
Odor Control Units

Number of Units: 1
Type: Two-stage
3
Capacity, m /minute: To be determined
7.1.11 New Ancillary Processes and Support Systems

The following ancillary equipment and support systems are required for the construction of the new
East Jerash WWTP:
 Plant water system,
 Chemicals feed systems for alkalinity and phosphorus, if required

 Process control gauges and meters

 Limited SCADA system,
 Electrical service and distribution,
 Fire protection and alarm, lightening system, security system,
7.1.12 New Buildings

The following new buildings will be required:
 Administration Building for manager and staff offices, operations room, public reception
and meeting rooms, locker rooms, laboratory
 Headworks Building for screening, grit and grit processing
 Sludge Process Building for polymers, centrifuge dewatering and cake trucking.
 Utility Building for emergency generator and main motor control center
 Disinfection Building for chlorinators and cylinder storage.
7.2 MAINTENANCE OF PLANT OPERATIONS (MOPO)

It will be a requirement of the tender documents for the contractor to maintain operation of the
existing East Jerash WWTP until commissioning of the new WWTP is complete. MOPO will be
complicated during the transfer of flow from the old to new plants. MOPO of sludge processing and
disposal will also be complicated because of the desire to abandon the drying beds for process tanks. A
new and independent power supply will be required from the beginning so not to overload the existing
supply during commissioning of the new plant.
7.3 PHASING OPTIONS

Phasing options for the replacement of the East Jerash WWTP are limited but could include any of the
following:
 Option 1: Keep the existing WWTP in operation while the entire new plant is constructed.
Demolish the old WWTP when construction of the new is completed.
 Option 2: Keep the existing WWTP in operation while one new oxidation ditch is
constructed. Operate both the existing WWTP and one new oxidation ditch until the
second ditch is required.
 Option 3: Keep the existing WWTP in operation while one new oxidation ditch is
constructed. Demolish the old WWTP and run new WWTP until the second oxidation
ditch is required.
During preparation of the Basis of Design Report, a thorough assessment of the above options will be
made and the preferred option recommended. The Tender documents will detail the requirements for
phasing and maintenance of plant operations for the construction contract.

SECTION 8 - FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
8.1 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The main objective of the financial analysis is to estimate the investment and operating costs and to
demonstrate the capability of Jerash wastewater treatment services to generate revenues over the
economic lifetime of the Project to be able to cover the expenses, at least partially (e.g. cash O & M
costs excluding depreciation expenses) in accordance with the “polluter pays” and "user pays"
principles. Financial assessment of each of the five investment alternatives will be conducted based
on the Dynamic Prime Cost (DPC), Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR) and Financial Net
Present Value (FNPV) calculations by considering phasing of investments. Annual Profit (-Loss) and
Cash Flow Projections will be prepared by taking possible financing scenarios of investment
expenditures into account (soft loans, investment subsidies (grants), internally-generated funds)
together with financial performance ratios to be able to assess the long-term financial sustainability of
the Project. Sensitivity and risk assessments will be conducted to evaluate the impact of significant
assumptions, parameters and risks on the investment.
In addition, the sustainable level of water/wastewater tariffs will be determined by taking household
affordability into account with the objective of generating incremental revenues to be able to cover
the Project-related incremental costs as much as possible. Consequently, the Project is targeted to be
financially viable while remaining within the affordability limits of households, especially low income
households.
Financial analysis covers the economic lifetime of the Project which is between 2011 and 2035. The
financial analysis period is taken to be 25 years by taking into account the technical reasons requiring
amortization of assets and the financial reasons of demonstrating sustainable operations, cost
recovery and debt repayment capability throughout the maturity of assumed soft loans for the partial
financing of initial investment costs to be incurred between 2011 and 2014 (principle repayments of
the credits will take place during the 2016 - 2035 period). Thus, cash flow projections and financial
viability of the Project covering the 2011 – 2035 period is evaluated. Initial investments of the Project
shall be incurred between 2011 and 2014 whereas the new assets will be put into operation starting
from the beginning of 2015. Thus, the operation period of the Project will cover years from 2015 to
2035.
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.
8.1.1 POPULATION & HOUSEHOLDS CONNECTED, WASTEWATER FLOWS

AND VOLUMES BILLED
Estimates of population and households connected to the sewerage network in Jerash and,
consequently, the annual total wastewater flows for treatment and wastewater volumes billed are
needed for the estimation of wastewater treatment operations and maintenance (O & M) costs and
wastewater tariff revenues in the operation period 2015 - 2035.

Section 8 – Financial and Economic Analysis
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.
8.1.2 INVESTMENT COST ESTIMATES

The following investment cost related assumptions and parameters are the same in each of the five
investment alternatives:

 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.

Table 81-2 Investment Cost Estimates (Excluding Renewal / Replacement / Replenishment

of M & E Equipment) of Alternatives (At 2011 Constant US$ Prices)
A. Undiscounted Total Investment Costs for Period of 2011-2035
Investment Cost Items Alt-1 Alt-2 Alt-3A Alt-3B Alt-4
Total Physical Investment Costs

22,921,250 22,262,500 22,713,750 21,082,500 25,863,750
- Civil Works
14,871,188 14,167,500 13,590,750 12,843,250 16,930,750
- Mechanical / Electrical Works
8,050,063 8,095,000 9,123,000 8,239,250 8,933,000
Total Non-physical Investment Costs
3,915,275 3,875,750 3,662,825 3,564,950 4,071,825
- Land Purchase / Expropriation
240,000 240,000 0 0 220,000
- Feasibility Study
800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000
- Design and Pre-tender Documents
1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
- Construction Supervision
1,375,275 1,335,750 1,362,825 1,264,950 1,551,825
Total Investment Costs
26,836,525 26,138,250 26,376,575 24,647,450 29,935,575
- Total Between 2011-2014
26,836,525 26,138,250 24,931,000 23,201,875 28,490,000
0 0 1,445,575 1,445,575 1,445,575
B. Discounted Total Investment Costs (At 5% Discount Rate) for Period of 2011-2035
Investment Cost Items Alt-1 Alt-2 Alt-3A Alt-3B Alt-4

19,411,819 18,864,362 18,746,407 17,358,611 21,518,529
- Civil Works
12,614,186 12,029,556 11,215,450 10,572,251 14,132,882
- Mechanical / Electrical Works
6,797,633 6,834,806 7,530,957 6,786,360 7,385,647
3,525,253 3,492,406 3,267,642 3,184,374 3,633,515
- Land Purchase / Expropriation
217,687 217,687 0 0 199,546
- Feasibility Study
761,905 761,905 761,905 761,905 761,905
- Design and Pre-tender Documents
1,380,952 1,380,952 1,380,952 1,380,952 1,380,952
- Construction Supervision
1,164,709 1,131,862 1,124,784 1,041,517 1,291,112
Total Investment Costs
22,937,073 22,356,768 22,014,049 20,542,985 25,152,044
22,937,073 22,356,768 21,228,264 19,757,200 24,366,259
0 0 785,785 785,785 785,785
8.1.3 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O & M) COST ESTIMATES

The following operation and maintenance (O & M) cost related assumptions and parameters are the
same in each of the five investment alternatives:
 All O & M costs are estimated on an annual basis in the operation period of 2015 - 2035 at
year 2011 constant US$ prices.
 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
O & M Cost Items Alt-1 Alt-2 Alt-3A Alt-3B Alt-4
Salary Cost of New WWTP

4,766,004 3,190,466 2,776,887 2,776,887 2,776,887
Salary Cost of Existing WWTP
0 1,752,787 3,032,912 3,032,912 3,032,912
Electricity Cost for Wastewater
Treatment 11,047,756 11,047,756 11,047,756 11,047,756 11,047,756
Pumping 708,983 473,491 0 0 0
Chlorine Consumption Cost
246,602 246,602 246,602 246,602 246,602
Polyelectrolite Consumption Cost
3,124,337 3,124,337 3,124,337 3,124,337 3,124,337
Sludge Disposal (Transportation) Cost
2,181,936 2,181,936 2,181,936 2,181,936 2,181,936
Repair/Maintenance Cost of New
WWTP 4,942,501 4,887,488 5,146,179 4,696,517 5,417,079
Repair/Maintenance Cost of Existing
WWTP 2,315,933 2,315,933 2,315,933 2,315,933 2,315,933
General Administration Cost
476,600 494,325 580,980 580,980 580,980
Total Cash O & M Costs
29,810,652 29,715,119 30,453,521 30,003,859 30,724,421
Annual Average Total Cash O & M
Costs (US$/Year) 1,419,555 1,415,006 1,450,168 1,428,755 1,463,068
Total Depreciation Costs
21,800,407 21,535,577 22,000,711 20,715,065 23,282,821
- New Investments
16,266,230 16,001,400 16,466,534 15,180,888 17,748,644
- Existing Jerash WWTP
5,534,177 5,534,177 5,534,177 5,534,177 5,534,177
Total O & M Costs
51,611,059 51,250,697 52,454,232 50,718,924 54,007,242
Annual Average Total O & M Costs
(US$/Year) 2,457,669 2,440,509 2,497,821 2,415,187 2,571,773
B. Discounted Total O & M Costs (At 5% Discount Rate) for the Period of 2015-2035
Salary Cost of New WWTP

2,352,187 1,574,605 1,370,489 1,370,489 1,370,489
Salary Cost of Existing WWTP
0 865,061 1,496,846 1,496,846 1,496,846
Treatment 5,087,478 5,087,478 5,087,478 5,087,478 5,087,478
Pumping 335,994 219,770 0 0 0
Chlorine Consumption Cost
113,560 113,560 113,560 113,560 113,560
Polyelectrolite Consumption Cost
1,438,753 1,438,753 1,438,753 1,438,753 1,438,753
Sludge Disposal (Transportation) Cost
1,004,779 1,004,779 1,004,779 1,004,779 1,004,779
WWTP 2,482,546 2,454,914 2,565,773 2,339,914 2,701,842
WWTP 1,163,259 1,163,259 1,163,259 1,163,259 1,163,259
General Administration Cost
235,219 243,967 286,734 286,734 286,734
14,213,775 14,166,145 14,527,672 14,301,813 14,663,741

Annual Average Total Cash O & M
Costs (US$/Year) 676,846 674,578 691,794 681,039 698,0273
Total Depreciation Costs
11,146,562 11,013,514 11,187,395 10,542,182 11,831,498
- New Investments
8,165,292 8,032,244 8,206,124 7,560,912 8,850,227
- Existing Jerash WWTP
2,981,271 2,981,271 2,981,271 2,981,271 2,981,271
Total O & M Costs
25,360,338 25,179,659 25,715,067 24,843,995 26,495,239
Annual Average Total O & M Costs
(US$/Year) 1,226,814 1,199,031 1,224,527 1,183,047 1,261,678
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)
Salary Cost of New WWTP 16.55% 11.12% 9.43% 9.58% 9.35%
Salary Cost of Existing WWTP 0.00% 6.11% 10.30% 10.47% 10.21%

35.79% 35.91% 35.02% 35.57% 34.69%
Treatment
2.36% 1.55% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Pumping
Chlorine Consumption Cost 0.80% 0.80% 0.78% 0.79% 0.77%
Polyelectrolite Consumption Cost 10.12% 10.16% 9.90% 10.06% 9.81%
Sludge Disposal (Transportation) Cost 7.07% 7.09% 6.92% 7.03% 6.85%

17.47% 17.33% 17.66% 16.36% 18.43%
WWTP
8.18% 8.21% 8.01% 8.13% 7.93%
WWTP
General Administration Cost 1.65% 1.72% 1.97% 2.00% 1.96%
Total Cash O & M Costs 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Total Depreciation Costs 78.42% 77.75% 77.01% 73.87% 80.69%
- New Investments 57.45% 56.70% 56.49% 52.87% 60.35%
- Existing Jerash WWTP 20.97% 21.05% 20.52% 20.85% 20.33%
Total O & M Costs 178.42% 177.75% 177.01% 173.71% 180.69%
8.1.4 WASTEWATER TREATMENT REVENUE ESTIMATES

The following assumptions and parameters are used for the estimation of wastewater treatment and
sewerage connection revenues and are the same in each of the five investment alternatives:
 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$)
Revenue Items For Wastewater Treatment 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Total Wastewater Tariff Revenues 595,315 781,647 987,607 1,156,317 1,335,119
- Residential Customers 364,639 478,770 604,924 708,261 817,780
- Non-residential Customers 230,676 302,877 382,684 448,056 517,340
Total Sewerage Connection Fees 392,542 244,068 269,831 221,017 234,124
Total Wastewater Revenues 987,857 1,025,715 1,257,438 1,377,334 1,569,244
Annual total wastewater revenues are estimated to increase cumulatively by 58.85% from US$ 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
- Non-residential Customers 7,912,140 376,769 3,706,322 176,492 30.23

Total Sewerage Connection
5,238,644 249,459 2,695,307 128,348 21.98
Fees
Total Wastewater Revenues 25,657,825 1,221,801 12,260,362 583,827 100.00
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
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).
Table 8-7 Residual Value of New Investments As of Year-end 2035 (US$)

A. Residual Value of New Investments as of Year-end 2035
Residual Value of New Investments Alt-1 Alt-2 Alt-3A Alt-3B Alt-4

16,272,848 15,907,400 16,374,925 15,101,813 18,131,625
3,070,513 3,050,150 2,627,266 2,520,125 3,166,056
Total Residual Value As of Year-end
2035 19,343,361 18,957,550 19,002,191 17,621,938 21,297,681

B. NPV (At 5% Discount Rate) of Residual Value of New Investments as of Year-end 2035
Residual Value of New Investments Alt-1 Alt-2 Alt-3A Alt-3B Alt-4

4,805,417 4,697,499 4,835,561 4,459,607 5,354,319
906,731 900,718 775,839 744,200 934,945
Total Residual Value As of Year-end
2035 5,712,148 5,598,217 5,611,400 5,203,807 6,289,264
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
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$/M )
Unit Investment and O & M Costs
(DPC) Alt-1 Alt-2 Alt-3A Alt-3B Alt-4
Residual Values 0.5130 0.5048 0.4970 0.4725 0.5446
0.2600 0.2591 0.2657 0.2616 0.2682
Value + Cash O & M Costs) 0.7730 0.7639 0.7628 0.7341 0.8128
Since the same discounted total wastewater volume billed covering the 2015-2035 period discounted at
3
5% (54,668,244 m ) is used to divide the NPV of total costs in all alternatives, the lowest unit cost (DPC)
3
also belongs to Alternative 3B which has the lowest total NPV value being 0.7341 US$/m of which

3 3
0.4725 US$/m is the unit investment cost (net of residual values) and 0.2616 US$/m is the unit O & M
cost.
Therefore, Alternative 3B is financially the preferred alternative having the lowest total and unit
wastewater treatment costs.
As demonstrated by the DPC analysis, the average unit cost of the wastewater treatment services over
3
the planning period of 2011 – 2035 is 0.7341 US$/m (per cubic meter of wastewater volume billed and at
100% collection rate) which should be recovered from the customers in Jerash, on the average, to ensure
full cost recovery of the service expenses. If investment expenditures are assumed to be completely
subsidized by the Government of Jordan and/or international financing institutions, at least unit O & M
3
cost of 0.2616 US$/m should be recovered from the customers. Thus, current average wastewater tariff
3 3 3
of 0.175 US$/m (0.1522 US$/m for residential customers and 0.7062 US$/m for non-residential
customers) is sufficient to cover 66.9% of O & M costs only. With the current average wastewater tariff,
3
only 23.8% of total unit wastewater treatment service provision cost of 0.7341 US$/m can be recovered.
8.1.6 COST RECOVERY ANALYSIS

The cost recovery ratio is calculated by dividing the discounted total wastewater treatment revenues
(please refer to Section 8.1.4 above) by the discounted total investment and O & M costs for service
provision (please refer to Section 8.1.5 above) covering the whole planning period of 2011 - 2035. While
wastewater treatment revenues are the same for all alternatives, investment and O & M costs differ in
each of the five alternatives.
As presented in Table 8-9 below, with the expected discounted wastewater treatment revenues of US$
12,260,362 calculated by assuming no tariff increases throughout the whole planning period not more
than 30.55% (Alternative 3B) of wastewater treatment service costs could be recovered. At least, total
discounted amount of US$ 27,873,458 need to be subsidized. Only 85.73% of cash O & M costs can be
recovered by wastewater treatment revenues estimated.
Table 8-9 Cost Recovery of Jerash Wastewater Treatment Services (US$)

Total Investment and O & M Alt-1 Alt-2 Alt-3A Alt-3B Alt-4
Costs
DISCOUNTED COSTS
(At 5% Discount Rate)
28,046,974 27,594,667 27,172,111 25,832,007 29,772,314
Residual Values
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 42,260,749 41,760,812 41,699,782 40,133,820 44,436,055
Costs)
DISCOUNTED REVENUES
(At 5% Discount Rate)
Total Wastewater Tariff Revenues 9,565,055 9,565,055 9,565,055 9,565,055 9,565,055
Total Sewerage Connection Fees 2,695,307 2,695,307 2,695,307 2,695,307 2,695,307
Total Wastewater Revenues 12,260,362 12,260,362 12,260,362 12,260,362 12,260,362

Overall Cost Coverage Amount
-30,000,387 -29,500,450 -29,439,420 -27,873,458 -32,175,693
(Revenues - Costs)
Overall Cost Coverage Ratio
29.01% 29.36% 29.40% 30.55% 27.59%
(Revenues / Costs)
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.

8.1.7 PROJECT FINANCIAL PROFITABILITY ANALYSIS (FIRR & FNPV)

The main purpose of the Project Financial Profitability Analysis is to assess the financial viability /
sustainability of the wastewater treatment services to be provided in Jerash between 2011 and 2035 by
using the discounted cash flow (DCF) method. While conducting Project Financial Profitability
Analysis, only the annual cash flows are taken into account; non-cash accounting items like
depreciation are not included in the DCF analysis.
Only wastewater treatment related incremental (additional) revenues and expenditures in relation to
new investments of each alternative to be materialized between 2011 and 2035 are taken into account.
Consequently, differences between wastewater treatment revenues and costs "with Project" and
"without Project" have to be calculated.
Incremental (additional) cash flows due to the Project are considered in the year in which they occur
and over the whole planning period of 2011 – 2035. All costs and revenues are expressed in 2011 constant
US$ prices. The NPV of the residual value of investments as of 2035 is also taken into account since the
actual economically useful life of the Project assets exceeds the planning period considered mainly due
to their economic life of 50 years for civil works and 20 years for mechanical and electrical works.
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
- Residential Customers 183,471 297,602 423,755 527,092 636,612
- Non-residential Customers 116,066 188,267 268,074 333,446 402,730
Total Sewerage Connection Fees 197,514 151,864 189,153 164,520 182,373
Total Wastewater Revenues 497,051 637,733 880,982 1,025,059 1,221,714

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
- Non-residential Customers 5,505,335 262,159 2,497,419 118,925 31.07

Total Sewerage Connection
3,514,350 167,350 1,741,641 82,935 19.83
Fees
Total Wastewater Revenues 17,722,192 843,914 8,186,831 389,849 100.00
Similarly, Project-related investment / reinvestment expenditures and additional operation and

maintenance expenses to be incurred as a result of new schemes to be put into operation in 2015 are
incremental costs that need to be taken into account in the Project Financial Profitability Analysis.
To be able to estimate incremental cash O & M costs due to the Project, cash O & M costs of the East
Jerash WWTP as of 2010, which are presented in detail in Table 8-12 below, are taken as basis. For
incremental cash O & M cost calculations of wastewater treatment services in Jerash it is assumed that
annual fixed costs are comprised of salaries and water and telephone bills (US$ 59,838). Unit variable
costs are directly proportional to the wastewater inflows treated including electricity, sludge
3
transportation. All costs other than those categorized under fixed costs (0.0892 US$/m ) shall be
reflected as already committed given costs to each year of the operation period of 2015-2035. Thus,
existing Jerash WWTP O & M costs for each year of the operation period are calculated as follows as
being the same for all alternatives:
 Annual Fixed O & M Costs = US$ 59,838
3 3
 Annual Variable O & M Costs = 0.0892 US$/m * Total Wastewater Inflow (m /year)
 Annual Total O & M Costs = Annual Fixed Costs + Annual Variable Costs

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$/m3 % of Total
Salaries 58,616 0.0447 33.14
Electricity 46,525 0.0355 26.31
Oil and Grease 410 0.0003 0.23
Phone Bill 650 0.0005 0.37
Water Bill 572 0.0004 0.32
Chemicals for Laboratory 215 0.0002 0.12
Materials for Laboratory 226 0.0002 0.13
Diesel 1,271 0.0010 0.72
Gasoline 35 0.0000 0.02
Electrical Spare Parts 45 0.0000 0.03
Mechanical Spare Parts 2,429 0.0019 1.37
Sludge Transportation 50,771 0.0387 28.71
Chlorine 11,853 0.0090 6.70
Others (Dry Sludge Transport) 3,234 0.0025 1.83
TOTAL O & M COST 176,853 0.1348 100.00
FIXED COSTS 59,838 0.0456 33.83
VARIABLE COSTS 117,016 0.0892 66.17
As presented in Table 8-13 below, the total existing Jerash WWTP O & M costs is estimated to increase
from US$ 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
Fixed Costs 59,838 59,838 59,838 59,838 59,838
Variable Costs 269,837 354,295 447,650 524,120 605,166
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 %
Fixed Costs 1,256,589 59,838 631,166 30,056 12.71
Variable Costs 9,255,342 440,731 4,335,524 206,454 87.29

TOTAL EXISTING JERASH WWTP
10,511,931 500,568 4,966,691 236,509 100.00
O & M COSTS
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).
Table 8-15 FNPV and FIRR of the Alternatives

FIRR and FNPV of the Project Alt-1 Alt-2 Alt-3A Alt-3B Alt-4
Financial Internal Rate of Return
-4.44 -4.48 -5.06 -4.86 -4.60
(FIRR) of the Project (%)
Financial Net Present Value
(FNPV) of the Project (At 5% -21,022,703 -20,522,766 -20,461,736 -18,895,774 -23,198,009
Discount Rate) (US$)
NPV of Total Incremental
Wastewater Revenues of the
8,186,831 8,186,831 8,186,831 8,186,831 8,186,831
Project (At 5% Discount Rate)
(US$)
NPV of Total Incremental
Investment & Reinvestment Costs
-19,962,450 -19,510,143 -19,087,586 -17,747,483 -21,687,789
Less Residual Values of the Project
(At 5% Discount Rate) (US$)
NPV of Total Incremental Cash O
& M Costs of the Project (At 5% -9,247,085 -9,199,455 -9,560,981 -9,335,122 -9,697,050
Discount Rate) (US$)
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.
8.1.8 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 3B

A detailed financial analysis of the financially preferred Alternative 3B is conducted to assess the costs,
revenues, cost recovery, financing options and financial performance (profit (-loss) and cash flow
projections and financial ratios) of the Alternative..
Discounted Total (NPV) and Unit (DPC) Costs

The Net Present Value (NPV) of investment and O & M costs over the lifecycle of the Project (2011 –
2035) is calculated by taking the residual value at year-end 2035 (Undiscounted Total Residual Value At
Year-end 2035: US$ 20,509,334 of which US$ 17,621,938 is for new investments and US$ 2,887,397 is for
West Jerash WWTP) into account (as negative investment cost; i.e. asset sales revenues) at different real
discount rates ranging between 0% and 10% to be able to assess the impact of unexpected increases in
costs (financial risks) and wastewater volumes billed (commercial risks).
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 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%
I. NPV of Costs (US$)

21,677,530 25,254,954 25,832,007 25,456,922 24,805,369
Residual Values
Total Cash O & M Costs 30,003,859 18,956,403 14,301,813 9,694,948 7,638,612
51,681,389 44,211,357 40,133,820 35,151,870 32,443,980
Value + Cash O & M Costs)
Discounted Total Wastewater Volume

3 116,704,060 72,975,943 54,668,244 36,665,651 28,688,023
Billed (m )
3
II. DPC (US$/m )
0.1857 0.3461 0.4725 0.6943 0.8647
Residual Values
Total Cash O & M Costs 0.2571 0.2598 0.2616 0.2644 0.2663
0.4428 0.6058 0.7341 0.9587 1.1309
Value + Cash O & M Costs)
Based on discounted total wastewater volumes billed in the 2015-2035 operation period, the DPC is
3 3
calculated to increase from 0.4428 US$/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.
Sensitivity Analysis Of Discounted Total (NPV) and Unit (DPC) Costs

Sensitivity Analysis on the discounted total (NPV) and unit (DPC) costs is conducted by changing the
following key parameters which have significant impacts on costs:
 Investment contingencies which also have impact on annual repair and maintenance
expenses (25% in the Base Case Scenario)

 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
Investment Contingency (%) 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 0.0
Change in Salary Cost (% p.a.) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Change in Electricity Cost (% p.a.) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Change in Chlorine Cost (% p.a.) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Change in Polyelectrolite Cost (% p.a.) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Change in Sludge Disposal
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
(Transportation) Cost (% p.a.)
NPV - Total Costs (US$) 40,133,820 39,400,281 38,666,742 37,933,203 36,466,125
NPV - Investment Costs Less Residual
25,832,007 25,192,065 24,552,122 23,912,180 22,632,295
Values (US$)
NPV - Cash O & M Costs (US$) 14,301,813 14,208,216 14,114,620 14,021,023 13,833,830
3
DPC - Total Costs (US$/m ) 0.7341 0.7207 0.7073 0.6939 0.6670
DPC - Investment Costs Less Residual
3 0.4725 0.4608 0.4491 0.4374 0.4140
Values (US$/m )
3
DPC - Cash O & M Costs (US$/m ) 0.2616 0.2599 0.2582 0.2565 0.2531
Change in Total Cost With Respect to
0.00% -1.83% -3.66% -5.48% -9.14%
Base Case (%)
Change in Investment. Costs Less
Residual Values With Respect to Base 0.00% -2.48% -4.95% -7.43% -12.39%
Case (%)
Change in Cash O & M Costs With
0.00% -0.65% -1.31% -1.96% -3.27%
Respect to Base Case (%)
Scenarios 6 7 8 9 10

0.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
25,832,007 25,832,007 25,832,007 25,832,007 25,832,007
Values (US$)
3
3 0.4725 0.4725 0.4725 0.4725 0.4725
Values (US$/m )
3

-2.41% 2.72% 5.81% 9.30% 13.25%
Base Case (%)
Residual Values With Respect to Base 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Case (%)
-6.76% 7.64% 16.29% 26.09% 37.19%
Scenarios 11 12 13 14 15

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0
25,832,007 25,832,007 25,832,007 25,832,007 25,832,007
Values (US$)
3
3 0.4725 0.4725 0.4725 0.4725 0.4725
Values (US$/m )
3
0.71% 1.34% 0.03% 0.38% 0.26%
Base Case (%)
Residual Values With Respect to Base 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Case (%)
1.99% 3.76% 0.08% 1.06% 0.74%
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

Change in Polyelectrolite Cost (%
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
p.a.)
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
FIRR of the Project (%) -4.86% -4.80 -4.74 -4.67 -4.52
FNPV of the Project (At 5% Discount
-18,895,774 -18,162,235 -17,428,696 -16,695,157 -15,228,079
Rate) (US$)

0.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
p.a.)
0.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-17,928,406 -19,989,061 -21,225,972 -22,626,725 -24,214,402
Rate) (US$)
Scenarios 11 12 13 14 15

1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0
p.a.)
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0
-19,180,323 -19,433,990 -18,907,787 -19,047,983 -19,002,072
Rate) (US$)

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
USAID Grant 1,250,000 1,050,000 0 0 2,300,000 2,142,857
Investment Grant 0 0 0 0 0 0
Foreign Credit 0 0 10,169,375 10,732,500 20,901,875 17,614,343
TOTAL FINANCING 1,250,000 1,050,000 10,169,375 10,732,500 23,201,875 19,757,200
Financing Option-2
USAID Grant 1,250,000 1,050,000 0 0 2,300,000 2,142,857
Investment Grant 0 0 5,084,688 5,366,250 10,450,938 8,807,171
Foreign Credit 0 0 5,084,688 5,366,250 10,450,938 8,807,171
TOTAL FINANCING 1,250,000 1,050,000 10,169,375 10,732,500 23,201,875 19,757,200
Financing Option-3
USAID Grant 1,250,000 1,050,000 0 0 2,300,000 2,142,857
Investment Grant 0 0 10,169,375 10,732,500 20,901,875 17,614,343
Foreign Credit 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL FINANCING 1,250,000 1,050,000 10,169,375 10,732,500 23,201,875 19,757,200
Credit Terms and Conditions Assumed

Terms and conditions assumed for the credits to be used in Financing Option-1 and Financing Option-2
are presented in Table 8-20 below. Soft loan terms and conditions are assumed: grace period of three
years, repayment period of 20 years, interest rate of 3% p.a. (fixed), commitment fee of 0.25% (over
undisbursed portion of the credit), and management fee of 0.50% (over total credit amount). Based on
assumed timing of credit disbursements and debt service obligations, effective overall cost of credit is
estimated to be 3.1033% p.a.
Debt service obligations are assumed to be paid semi-annually at the end of June and December. First
debt service obligation payment comprised of financing expenses only (interest expenses, commitment
fees and management fees) are assumed to be made in June 2013. Due to grace period of three years, no
principle repayments shall be made until June 2016; thus, only financial expenses shall be paid between
June 2013 and December 2015.

Table 8-20 Credit Terms and Conditions

Credit Terms and Conditions Unit Description
Initial Credit Disbursement Year Year 2013
Final Credit Disbursement Year Year 2014
Fixed Interest Rate % p.a. 3.0
Commitment Fee (over undisbursed portion of credit) % 0.25

Management Fee (over total credit amount; flat payable at credit
% 0.50
agreement signing)
Grace Period Year 3
Principle Repayment Period Year 20
Number of Semi-annual Installments No. 40
First Year of Principle Repayment Year 2016
Last Year of Semi-annual Installments Year 2035
Effective Cost of Credit % p.a. 3.1033
Credit Debt Service Obligations

Debt service obligations (2013-2035) of foreign credits assumed to be used (2013-2014) in Financing
Option-1 and Financing Option-2 are presented in detail in Appendix C-6 and summarized in Table 8-
21 below.
Out of the discounted total debt service obligations covering 2013-2035 period, 68.5% is for principle
repayments, 30.59% for interest expenses, 0.30% for commitment fees and 0.61% for management fees.
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
Total Financing Costs 7,673,696.09 4,692,353.33 3,836,848.05 2,346,176.66
Interest Expenses 7,516,228.13 4,556,878.43 3,758,114.06 2,278,439.21
Commitment Fees 52,958.59 45,195.77 26,479.30 22,597.89
Management Fees 104,509.38 90,279.13 52,254.69 45,139.56
Total Debt Service 28,575,571.09 14,897,137.70 14,287,785.55 7,448,568.85
Profit (-Loss) Projections

Profit (-Loss) Projections of the Jerash wastewater treatment services covering the 2013-2035 period for
Financing Option-1, Financing Option-2 and Financing Option-3 are presented in detail in Appendix C-
7 and summarized in Table 8-22 below.

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
Total Cash O & M Costs 30,003,859 30,003,859 30,003,859
Total Depreciation Costs 20,715,065 20,715,065 20,715,065
Total O & M Costs 50,718,924 50,718,924 50,718,924
OPERATING PROFITS (-LOSSES) -25,061,098 -25,061,098 -25,061,098
OPERATING PROFITS (-LOSSES) + DEPR. COSTS -4,346,033 -4,346,033 -4,346,033
Total Financing Costs 7,673,696 3,836,848 0
Interest Expenses 7,516,228 3,758,114 0
Commitment Fees 52,959 26,479 0
Management Fees 104,509 52,255 0
PROFITS (-LOSSES) FOR PERIOD -32,734,794 -28,897,946 -25,061,098
PROFITS (-LOSSES) FOR PERIOD + DEPR. COSTS -12,019,730 -8,182,882 -4,346,033
B. Discounted Totals (At 5% Discount Rate) Covering 2013-2035 Period (US$)
Profit (-Loss) Projections Financing Financing Financing

Option-1 Option-2 Option-3
Total Wastewater Treatment Revenues Billed 12,260,362 12,260,362 12,260,362
Total Depreciation Costs 10,542,182 10,542,182 10,542,182
Total O & M Costs 24,843,995 24,843,995 24,843,995
OPERATING PROFITS (-LOSSES) -12,583,633 -12,583,633 -12,583,633
OPERATING PROFITS (-LOSSES) + DEPR. COSTS -2,041,451 -2,041,451 -2,041,451


Profit (-Loss) Projections
PROFITS (-LOSSES) FOR PERIOD -17,275,986 -14,929,809 -12,583,633
PROFITS (-LOSSES) FOR PERIOD + DEPR. COSTS -6,733,804 -4,387,627 -2,041,451
C. Discounted Totals Covering 2013-2035 Period (% of Total Wastewater Treatment Revenues)
Profit (-Loss) Projections Financing Financing Financing

Total Wastewater Treatment Revenues Billed 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Total Cash O & M Costs 116.65% 116.65% 116.65%
Total Depreciation Costs 85.99% 85.99% 85.99%
Total O & M Costs 202.64% 202.64% 202.64%
OPERATING PROFITS (-LOSSES) -102.64% -102.64% -102.64%
OPERATING PROFITS (-LOSSES) + DEPR. COSTS -16.65% -16.65% -16.65%
Total Financing Costs 38.27% 19.14% 0.00%
Interest Expenses 37.17% 18.58% 0.00%
Commitment Fees 0.37% 0.18% 0.00%
Management Fees 0.74% 0.37% 0.00%
PROFITS (-LOSSES) FOR PERIOD -140.91% -121.77% -102.64%
PROFITS (-LOSSES) FOR PERIOD + DEPR. COSTS -54.92% -35.79% -16.65%
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 Flow Projections

Cash Flow Projections of Jerash wastewater treatment services covering the 2011-2035 period for
Financing Option-1, Financing Option-2 and Financing Option-3 are presented in detail in Appendix C-
8 and summarized in Table 8-23 below.

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$)
Cash Flow Projections Financing Financing Financing

CASH INFLOWS
Total Wastewater Treatment Revenues Collected 25,657,825 25,657,825 25,657,825
Total Financing Sources of Investment Costs 23,201,875 23,201,875 23,201,875
USAID Grant 2,300,000 2,300,000 2,300,000
Investment Grant 0 10,450,938 20,901,875
Foreign Credit 20,901,875 10,450,938 0
TOTAL CASH INFLOWS 48,859,700 48,859,700 48,859,700
CASH OUTFLOWS
Total Investment Costs 32,802,825 32,802,825 32,802,825
Total Debt Service 28,575,571 14,287,786 0
Total Credit Repayments 20,901,875 10,450,938 0


TOTAL CASH OUTFLOWS 91,382,255 77,094,469 62,806,684
CASH SURPLUS (-DEFICIT) -42,522,555 -28,234,769 -13,946,983

CASH INFLOWS
Total Wastewater Treatment Revenues Collected 12,260,362 12,260,362 12,260,362
Total Financing Sources of Investment Costs 19,757,200 19,757,200 19,757,200
USAID Grant 2,142,857 2,142,857 2,142,857
Investment Grant 0 8,807,171 17,614,343
Foreign Credit 17,614,343 8,807,171 0
TOTAL CASH INFLOWS 32,017,562 32,017,562 32,017,562
CASH OUTFLOWS
Total Investment Costs 22,951,290 22,951,290 22,951,290
Total Debt Service 14,897,138 7,448,569 0
Total Credit Repayments 10,204,784 5,102,392 0
TOTAL CASH OUTFLOWS 52,150,240 44,701,671 37,253,102
CASH SURPLUS (-DEFICIT) -20,132,678 -12,684,109 -5,235,540
C. Discounted Totals Covering 2011-2035 Period (% of Total Cash Inflows / Outflows)
Cash Flow Projections Financing Financing Financing

CASH INFLOWS
Total Wastewater Treatment Revenues Collected 38.29% 38.29% 38.29%
Total Financing Sources of Investment Costs 61.71% 61.71% 61.71%
USAID Grant 6.69% 6.69% 6.69%


Investment Grant 0.00% 27.51% 55.01%
Foreign Credit 55.01% 27.51% 0.00%
TOTAL CASH INFLOWS 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
CASH OUTFLOWS
Total Cash O & M Costs 27.42% 31.99% 38.39%
Total Investment Costs 44.01% 51.34% 61.61%
Total Debt Service 28.57% 16.66% 0.00%
Total Credit Repayments 19.57% 11.41% 0.00%
Total Financing Costs 9.00% 5.25% 0.00%
Interest Expenses 8.74% 5.10% 0.00%
Commitment Fees 0.09% 0.05% 0.00%
Management Fees 0.17% 0.10% 0.00%
TOTAL CASH OUTFLOWS 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
CASH SURPLUS (-DEFICIT) -38.61% -28.38% -14.05%
Grants (Subsidies) Required

Grants (subsidies) required to ensure sustainable provision of wastewater treatment services in Jerash in
the 2011-2035 period for Financing Option-1, Financing Option-2 and Financing Option-3 are presented
in Table 8-24 below. Grants sources are 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 grants for the financing of investment costs in 2013 and 2014 (different in
the financing options) and grants (subsidies) for operating deficit finance between 2013 and 2035
(different in the financing options).
Grants (subsidies) are needed to ensure sustainable operation of Jerash wastewater treatment services
for both investment finance and operating deficit finance as a result of cash operating losses and debt
service obligations. However, the timing and nature of grants (subsidies) change due to Financing
Option selected. In Financing Option-1, no grants for investment finance in 2013 and 2014 shall be
allocated due to 100% credit financing which will necessitate subsidies for operating deficit finance to
be able to meet debt service obligations especially starting from 2016 onwards when principle
repayments will start. However, in Financing Option-3, 100% grant financing of investments are
assumed in 2013 and 2014 which will eliminate debt service obligations completely since no credits will
be utilized. Therefore, subsidy requirements shall be front-loaded in Financing Option-3 (70.48% of
total subsidies needed to be allocated in 2013 and 2014 to finance investment costs) leaving lower
subsidy needs to finance operating deficits between 2015 and 2035 (20.95% of total subsidies).
Since the financial discount rate of 5% is considerably higher than the assumed effective cost of foreign
credit of 3.1033%, utilization of credits as much as possible (given that the all-in effective cost of credit is
less than 5% p.a. in US$ terms) will result in less subsidy allocation based on discounted values. For this
reason, discounted total amount of grants (subsidies) required is the lowest in Financing Option-1 with
100% credit financing and no grant financing in 2013 and 2014 (US$ 22,275,535) and the highest in
Financing Option-3 with no credit financing but 100% grant financing in 2013 and 2014 (US$
24,992,749).
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$)
Grants (Subsidies) Required Option-1 Option-2 Option-3
Grants For Investment Finance 0 10,450,938 20,901,875
USAID Grant For Investment Finance 2,300,000 2,300,000 2,300,000
Grants (Subsidies) For Operating Deficit Finance 42,522,555 28,234,769 13,946,983
Total Grants (Subsidies) Required 44,822,555 40,985,707 37,148,858
Grants (Subsidies) Required Financing Financing Financing

Grants For Investment Finance 0 8,807,171 17,614,343
USAID Grant For Investment Finance 2,142,857 2,142,857 2,142,857
Grants (Subsidies) For Operating Deficit Finance 20,132,678 12,684,109 5,235,540
Total Grants (Subsidies) Required 22,275,535 23,634,137 24,992,740
C. Discounted Totals Covering 2011-2035 Period (As % of Total)

Grants (Subsidies) Required Option-1 Option-2 Option-3
Grants For Investment Finance 0.00% 37.26% 70.48%
USAID Grant For Investment Finance 9.62% 9.07% 8.57%
Grants (Subsidies) For Operating Deficit Finance 90.38% 53.67% 20.95%
Total Grants (Subsidies) Required 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
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)
Water 0.5077 8.22 98.70 16.45
Wastewater 0.1522 2.47 29.59 4.93
Total Water + Wastewater 0.6599 10.69 128.29 21.38
Financial Performance Ratios

Financial Performance Ratios covering the 2015-2035 period for Financing Option-1, Financing Option-2
and Financing Option-3 are presented in detail in Appendix C-9 and summarized in Table 8-26 below.
The ratio of Total Operating Losses and Total Cash Operating Deficits to Total Wastewater Treatment
Revenues Billed in the 2015-2035 period is 102.64% and 16.65%, respectively, for all three financing
options. The share of Total Financing Costs of Total Wastewater Treatment Revenues Billed is
estimated to be 32.97% in Financing Option-1, 16.48% in Financing Option-2 and 0% in Financing
Option-3.
Due to deficits expected to be generated neither financing costs nor debt service (financing costs +
principle repayments) could be covered in both Financing Option-1 and Financing Option-2 where
foreign credit utilizations are assumed.
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
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)
8.1.9 TARIFF AFFORDABILITY ANALYSIS

To be able to assess the affordability of water / wastewater tariffs by residential customers as of 2011 in
Jerash the following assumptions are made:
 Specific residential water consumption: 90 Lpcd
 Average household (HH) size: 6 persons/household

3
 Monthly average residential water consumption: 16.20 m /(HH*month)
3 3
 Residential water tariff: 0.5077 US$/m (0.3594 JD/m )
3 3
 Residential wastewater tariff: 0.1522 US$/m (0.1028 JD/m )
3 3
 Residential water+wastewater tariff: 0.6599 US$/m (0.4672 JD/m )
 Monthly residential water+wastewater bill: 10.69 US$/(Month*HH) (7.57 JD/(Month*HH)
 Monthly household income is estimated by taking a conservative approach to reflect the
disposable income of low-income households: There is only one wage earner in the
household comprised of 6 members and no additional income is earned by the household.
As stated in the Poverty Report (2011) of the Department of Statistics (DOS) of the
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Poverty Line Income (2008) in Jordan is JD 323.19 per
month per household. For this reason, low-income households are assumed to have
disposable income of JD 330 (US$ 466.10) per month per household as of 2011. Despite real
GDP growth rate of 4.4% between 2003 and 2010, monthly household income is estimated
to increase by 1% p.a. starting from 2012 onwards.
The Tariff Affordability Ratio, calculated by dividing the monthly water/wastewater bill by the monthly
household income, is estimated to decrease from 2.29% in 2011 to 2.20% in 2015, 2.0% in 2025 and 1.81%
in 2035 as shown in Table 8-27 below due to 1% p.a. real increase in household income assumed and no
change at currently applied residential water/wastewater tariff.
The Internationally accepted threshold limit on tariff affordability is 5%, i.e. maximum 5% of disposable
household income of low-income households shall be allocated for the water/wastewater bill. The
current tariff affordability ratio of 2.29% in Jerash is less than half of the internationally accepted
threshold limit. Thus, even if the current residential water/wastewater tariff applied in Jerash be
doubled, low-income households will not face difficulties in paying their water/wastewater bills on the
basis of the internationally accepted threshold. .
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%.
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
Tariff Affordability Ratio (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Monthly Water + Wastewater Bill
23.31 24.25 25.49 26.79 28.16 29.59
(US$/(HH*Month)
Monthly Water Bill (US$/(HH*Month) 17.93 18.66 19.61 20.61 21.66 22.77
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 (%)
18.64 19.40 20.39 21.43 22.52 23.67
(US$/(HH*Month)
3 1.1509 1.1976 1.2587 1.3229 1.3904 1.4613
(US$/m )
3
3
74.40% 81.48% 90.73% 100.46% 110.69% 121.44%
13.98 14.55 15.29 16.07 16.89 17.75
(US$/(HH*Month)
3 0.8632 0.8982 0.9440 0.9922 1.0428 1.0960
(US$/m )
3
3
30.80% 36.11% 43.05% 50.35% 58.02% 66.08%
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.
8.1.10 FINANCIAL RISK ANALYSIS

The financial risks and associated mitigation measures are presented in Table 8-29 below.
Table 8-29 Financial Risks and Risk Mitigation Measures

No. Financial Risks Risk Mitigation Measures
Government of Jordan/WAJ gets the necessary decisions on
Failure to allocate grants and/or secure foreign
1 investment financing and identifies specific financing sources by the
credits for investment financing
end of 2011 to enable project completion by the end of 2014
Government of Jordan/WAJ commits to raise tariffs to ensure
Failure to allocate sufficient funds to ensure
2 recovery of at least the cash O & M costs before the start of
sustainable operations of the project facilities
operation period in 2015
Government of Jordan/WAJ monitors costs regularly through an
Unexpected increases in O & M cost items due efficient cost accounting system and commits taking all necessary
3
to inflation or other external factors measures to ensure sustainable operations including tariff increases
and temporary fund allocations
Failure to materialize the necessary sewerage Government of Jordan/WAJ gets the necessary decisions on
development investments which will reduce investment financing and identifies specific financing sources in due
4 population connected and wastewater volumes time to enable completion of sewerage network extension
to be billed decreasing wastewater treatment investments as foreseen, especially in the west catchment area of
revenues estimated Jerash
Government of Jordan/WAJ commits to disconnect water supply of
Failure to achieve 100% collection performance late- or non-paying water customers and conducts court follow up
5
on wastewater treatment revenues estimated action to accelerate collections without making any undue
discrimination among customers
8.1.11 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions can be drawn from the financial analysis:
 Alternative 3B is the financially preferred alternative having the lowest total (NPV) and unit
(DPC) cost (investment + O & M costs) over the planning period of 2011-2035 of all five
alternatives, .
 Based on incremental project revenues and expenditures analysis, Alternative 3B (like all
five investment alternatives) has negative FNPV and FIRR making it not feasible financially,
and thus, the project should not be implemented from a financial point of view. Therefore,
the economic benefits on public health, environment, employment, tourism and growth
need to be assessed to determine the extent of external economic benefits on the regional
economy not captured in the financial analysis so as to be able to decide on the project
implementation from an economical point of view.
 Based on current tariffs, estimated revenues and costs, of both the implementation (2011-
2014) and operation (2015-2035) of the project cannot be materialized sustainably without
allocating considerable amount of subsidies (grants) for the investment and operating
deficit finance. The specific sources of such subsidies (grants) need to be identified
beforehand.
 Total project costs are highly sensitive to the changes in investment, electricity, staff and
polyelectrolite (polymer) costs due to their relatively higher shares in the cost structure.
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.
 Since the effective cost of foreign soft loans that can be raised from international financing
institutions currently (around 3% p.a.) is considerably lower than the opportunity cost of
capital for public environmental infrastructure projects (5% p.a.), it is recommended to

finance the project investment costs by foreign-currency denominated soft loans as much
as possible.
 Even cash O & M costs of the Jerash wastewater treatment services will not be covered by
expected wastewater treatment revenues at currently applied wastewater tariff levels. For
this reason, it is recommended to increase the current water/wastewater tariff by at least
30% gradually until 2015 to ensure cash O & M cost recovery and to generate excess funds
internally to contribute to investment financing and debt servicing. Based on
internationally accepted standards of affordability this will not cause a burden on low-
income households..
 Tariff increases to ensure full cost recovery in accordance with the "user pays" and "polluter
pays" principles need to be made to guarantee sustainable operations in the long-term.
8.2 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

8.2.1 Water Resources and the Role of Wastewater
Overview of Jordan’s Water Resources 1
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is an arid to semi-arid country, with a land area of approximately
2
90,000 km . The current average population growth is about 3.5% due to both natural and non-
voluntary migration. Despite declining population growth rates, the expanding population will continue
to exert enormous pressures on water resources. About four fifths of the population is located in urban
areas concentrated in four Governorates: Amman, Balqa, Zarqa, and Irbid.
Jordan has been experiencing an imbalance in the population - water resources equation. Its per capita
share of renewable water resources is among the lowest in the world, and continues to decline with
3
time. It is projected to fall from the current 180 m /capita/year (in fact, estimates vary from 150 to 200
3
m3/capita/year) to some 90 m /capita/year by 2025.
Background on Jordan’s Experience with Wastewater

Water resources consist primarily of surface and ground-water resources, with treated wastewater being
used on an increasing scale for irrigation, mostly in the Jordan Valley. Renewable fresh water resources
are estimated at about 850 million cubic meters (MCM) per year. About 125 MCM/ year are expected to
be available from fossil aquifers and through desalination by the year 2005, making the annual
freshwater stock about 975 MCM per year.
Treated wastewater generated at sixteen existing wastewater treatment plants is an important
component of Jordan's water resources. Due to the terrain and the concentration of the urban
population above the Jordan Valley escarpment, the majority of treated wastewater is discharged into
various watercourses and flows to the Jordan Valley where it is used for irrigation. Large amounts of
treated wastewater (to be discussed in greater detail later) are effectively discharged into the
watercourses or are used directly in irrigation. Wastewater quantity is increasing with the increase of
population, increase in water use, and the development of sewerage systems. Thus, by the year 2020
when the population is projected to be about 10 million, and when the percentage of the population
with sewerage service will have increased from the current 50 percent today to levels that will cover
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.
Reuse of Wastewater 2 and Current Practices in the World

Water scarcity and water pollution are among the most crucial issues in the world. In order to reduce
the impact of water scarcity and pollution policy makers have to expand water and wastewater reuse.
Access to water supply and improved sanitation is one of key factors in improving health and economic
productivity. In order to increase access to water supply the following three elements are especially
important: (a) development of new water sources; (b) prevention of water resource degradation; and
(c) improvement in efficiency of water consumption.
2
Reference is being made here to both treated and untreated (raw sewage).
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 .
Range of Possibilities for Reuse of Wastewater

In urban areas like Jerash, it is becoming increasingly more difficult for the authorities to manage water
supply and wastewater. Possibilities exist for wastewater reuse in (a) agriculture, (b) industry, (c) urban
uses, and (d) environmental water enhancement including groundwater recharge. Agricultural reuse of
wastewater represents the most significant opportunity in Jordan. However, it should be noted that
supplementary measures are vital to ensure some degree of success in this respect, such as reinforcing
policy-making capacity, institutional strengthening, adopting appropriate financial mechanisms,
4
awareness campaigns, and stakeholder participation .
Reuse of Wastewater in Agriculture in the World

It is reported that globally about 20 million hectares of agricultural land is irrigated with polluted water.
The methods involve direct use of raw or untreated wastewater, direct use of treated wastewater, as well
as indirect use of untreated wastewater, as explained below.
Given the importance of wastewater reuse for agricultural purposes, various attempts have been made
to provide a broad typology of wastewater reclamation and use in agriculture or a more restricted
typology for wastewater irrigation in developing countries. The following definitions and distinctions
are generally adhered to:
Direct use of treated (or reclaimed) wastewater is the use of reclaimed water that has been transported
from the point of treatment or production to the point of use without an intervening discharge to
surface water or groundwater body.
Direct use of untreated wastewater is the use of raw wastewater from a sewage outlet, directly disposed
of on land where it is used for crop production.
Indirect use of untreated wastewater is the abstraction of usually diluted wastewater (or polluted stream
water) for irrigation. This is common downstream of urban centers where treatment plants are limited.
Farmers might or might not be aware of the water quality challenge.
Planned wastewater use is the conscious and controlled use of wastewater either undiluted (direct) or
diluted (indirect). Most use of untreated wastewater is unplanned and indirect. Within the category of
planned wastewater use for irrigation, two subcategories are important: (a) restricted irrigation is the
controlled use of wastewater to grow crops that are not eaten raw by humans; and (b) unrestricted
irrigation is the controlled use of treated wastewater to grow crops that are normally eaten raw.
About 10% of the world's irrigated crops - from lettuce and tomatoes to mangoes and coconuts – are
watered by sewage, and much of that sewage is raw and untreated, gushing direct from sewer pipes into
fields at the fringes of the developing world's large towns. The estimates suggest that the extent of
unplanned wastewater irrigation, with direct and indirect use of untreated wastewater, is an order of
magnitude greater than planned wastewater use with direct use of treated water and some indirect use
of untreated water. In lower income countries, wastewater irrigation is predominantly unplanned and
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).
Table 8-30 Top Twenty Countries Using Wastewater for Irrigation

Wastewater Used in Wastewater Used in
Country 3 Country 3
Irrigation (m /d) Irrigation (m /d)
Mexico 4,493,000 Iran 422,000
Egypt 1,918,000 Chili 380,000
China 1,239,000 Jordan 225,000
Syria 1,182,000 UAE 200,000
Spain 932,000 Turkey 137,000
USA 911,000 Argentina 130,000
Israel 767,000 Tunisia 118,000
Italy 741,000 Libya 110,000
Saudi Arabia 595,000 Qatar 80,000
Kuwait 432,000 Cyprus 68,000

Source: Scheirling et al, Improving Wastewater Use in Agriculture: An Emerging Priority,
World Bank, 2010,
http://elibrary.worldbank.org/docserver/download/5412.pdf?expires=1304707429&id=id&accname=gues
t&checksum=7F39BE257E325B4351F852CF915390BA
Wastewater Use in Irrigated Agriculture in Jordan

Treated wastewater from treatment plants (WWTP) and waste stabilization pools (WSP) has been
shown to be as effective as the inorganic fertilizer and provides good yield for crops. Since the treated
wastewater is rich in NPK nutrients, the cost of inorganic fertilizer can be spared. This is a distinct
benefit which has monetary value.
Additional environmental benefits of using treated wastewater besides cost savings include aquifer
recovery and less demand on freshwater are the safe disposal of treated waste water generated from the
treatment plants and the reduced usage of chemical fertilizers that contribute to various environmental
hazards.

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.
The Policy Context

Below are selected headings from Jordan’s wastewater policy pertaining to (a) wastewater collection and
treatment, and (b) reuse of effluent and sludge.
Aspects Concerning Wastewater Collection and Treatment
 The existing level of services shall be sustained and promoted. Where it is necessary to meet
public health and environmental objectives, treatment shall be improved.
 Wastewater shall be collected and treated in accordance with WHO and FAO Guidelines as
the basis for effluent quality requirements for reuse in irrigation.
 Priority shall be given to protecting public health and water resources from chemical and
microbiological pollutants.
 Where possible, gravity flow shall command the collection and conveyance lines.
 Treatment plants shall be located away from any potential population growth. Location
selection shall be coordinated and approved with the concerned governmental agencies.
 Due consideration shall be given to interact with landowners and adjacent communities.
 The transfer of advanced wastewater treatment technologies shall be endorsed and
encouraged with due consideration to operation and maintenance costs and energy savings, in
addition to their efficiency in attaining and sustaining quality standards.
 Innovative approaches to wastewater treatment, particularly for the small municipal systems
have to be considered. Design criteria, performance specifications and guidelines for such
systems shall be adopted and generalized.
 Design and performance specifications of wastewater treatment plants shall be studied and
standardized.
 Septage from unsewered areas shall be treated either in municipal or in well monitored and
maintained facilities designed to receive septage.
7
McCornick et al - http://www.idrc.ca/openebooks/112-4/#page_153

Aspects Concerning Reuse of Treated Effluent and Sludge

 Treated wastewater effluent is considered a water resource and is added to the water stock for
reuse.
 Priority shall be given to agricultural reuse of treated effluent for unrestricted irrigation.
 Blending of treated wastewater with fresh water shall be made to improve quality where
possible.
 Crop nutrient requirements shall be determined taking into consideration the prevailing
effluent quality. Overuse of nutrients shall be avoided.
 Accumulation of heavy metals and salinity shall be monitored, managed and mitigated.
Leaching of soils shall be advocated by the irrigation authorities.
 Farmers shall be encouraged to determine the rate of water application needed for different
crops, taking into consideration the value of nutrients in the treated water and other
parameters.
 Farmers shall be encouraged to use modern and efficient irrigation technologies.
 Treated effluent quality should be monitored and users alerted to any emergency causing
deterioration of the quality.
 Studies should be conducted and projects designed and implemented to store the excess
treated wastewater in surface reservoirs or in groundwater reservoirs through artificial
recharge techniques.
 Plans and studies for power generation from sludge, if proven technically, economically and
financially feasible, shall be made with due attention to environment impacts.
 Sludge produced from the treatment process would be processed so it may be used as fertilizer
and soil conditioner.
 Whenever possible, other end uses of treated effluents; such as recycling, cooling, power
generation, etc ... shall be considered.
8.2.2 Part II: Methodology

Cost Benefit Analysis and Financial Analysis
The primary purpose of Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) is to justify proposed economic activity or project.
It basically answers the question whether total expected benefits are greater than the total costs. CBA
analysis has its own peculiar methodology, which was originally crafted by engineers (U.S Corps of
Engineers), but subsequent methodological depth and scope was imparted to it by economists. By
contrast, Financial Analysis (Section 8.1) seeks answers for questions whether the proposed investment
is financially feasible (i.e., would the banks be willing to loan funds to support this effort), and who
actually covers the investment and operating expenditures and how.
So, financial and economic analyses are quite different, but they are complementary. Economic cost
benefit analysis (CBA) looks ahead because only future “uncommitted” resources can meet alternative
needs. Past investments are “sunk” costs. For instance, parts of the East Jerash WTTP, which may get
scrapped or decommissioned, are sunk costs. Benefits and costs are measured in constant prices,
without inflation. By contrast, financial analysis investigates both past and future recorded monetary
transactions, whereby revenues and expenses are measured in current prices, with inflation.
Economic cost benefit analysis (CBA) tries to maximize benefits (meeting needs) of the entire country,
or even the world, such as when proposing action to prevent environmental degradation, which has
cross boundary implications.

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.
Table 8-31 Categorization of WTTP

General Benefit
Category Benefits That Can be Quantified
Reduced incidence of water related diseases and associated
Health
savings.
Reduction of contaminants in surface water, and possibilities of
Resource substituting freshwater used in agriculture with treated
wastewater
Eco-system Likely changes in river water quality
Social Generally not quantified, but described verbally
Wider Such as employment
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.
How to Quantify Health Benefits

WWTP investments offer significant health benefits to the beneficiaries due to avoided sick time and
medical costs. While it is very difficult methodologically to isolate and estimate all health related
benefits connected with the treatment aspect alone, we do have some data from the EU and other
countries on the monetary value. Largely based on the EU accession countries’ experience, the Nevsehir

8
Wastewater Treatment Project in Turkey has come up with an estimate of EUR 8 per person per year
(US$ 12) in direct benefits that can be attributed to the treatment aspect.
The greatest benefit of a WWTP can only become apparent if one is not built. Hence, we are truly
speaking of avoided costs here. Without a WWTP, a hazardous a situation would prevail with
incidences of contagious disease, some of which would result in death and disability. Since Jordan has
been rather active in adopting WWTP technology as of the 1980s, such occurrences are rare, but there is
a real possibility of re-emergence of disease unless we keep on building WWTPs for an expanding
population as the needs arise.
Various authors report figures on per household health benefits associated with wastewater treatment.
These figures range from EUR 1,200 to 3,000 per household per year on the high side, and some EUR 4
9
to 23 per person per year on the low side . Although it is hard to fully justify a figure for Jordan on this
basis, it can be argued that a figure such as EUR 12 per person per year would perhaps constitute a very
low and conservative health benefit estimate for the Jerash case.
How to Quantify Irrigation Benefits

It is generally quite difficult to quantify irrigation related benefits from wastewater treatment projects.
Using all the incremental treated wastewater undiluted (not blended with freshwater) from East Jerash
3
WWTP (9,500 m /d), only some 315 ha some can be irrigated assuming annual water requirements at
3
11,000 m /ha for plants. Under a one-to-one blending ratio scenario (each cubic meter of wastewater
leaving the plant gets mixed with one cubic meter of fresh water), the target irrigation area can at best
be doubled to some 630 ha of irrigated land. The target area would shrink if we were to factor in losses.
This constitutes too small a scale to justify a WWTP investment on the basis of irrigation alone. That is
why to justify a WWTP investment one needs to take into account several sources of potential benefits
and duly quantify these benefits. It is well established that the local wastewater reuse potential in the
immediate vicinity of the project is limited, because of lack of land and rough terrain. Therefore, much
of the effluent is expected to end up in the natural watercourses lying downstream (Zarqa River, King
Talal Dam, and then into the farmers fields in Jordan Valley). As for sludge, it is hard to image any
economically significant use and valuation at this time. Hence, we will ignore the potential benefits
connected with the use of sludge.
In order to fully appraise how irrigation benefits would accrue, it is necessary to track the wastewater
after it leaves the WWTP. Evidently, the first and foremost use occurs in the immediate vicinity of the
WWTP in the upstream locations. Any treated wastewater not used in the immediate vicinity (i.e.,
excess effluent) continues downstream, and gets mixed with other sources of water before ending up in
the agricultural fields in the Jordan Valley.
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

Table 8-32 Tracking the Path of Wastewater

Use of Treated Waste
Water Upper Stream Wastewater in transit Lower Stream
Limited unless additional
investments are Cannot be ascertained:
undertaken such as most likely in the middle
New Irrigation Mixed with water in the
adoption of double and southern parts of the
Zarqa River, impounded
cropping and water Jordan Valley
by the KTD and diverted to
storage facilities
the Jordan Valley by
Cannot be ascertained:
Carriers I and II, and King
More reliable and better more likely to be in the
Abdullah Canal
Improved Irrigation quality water delivery will southern parts of the
enable improved irrigation Jordan Valley where there
is greater water scarcity
Value of Nutrients in Treated Wastewater and Potential use as Fertilizer 10
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 8-33 Average values (mg/L) for N, P

and K in the Jordan Valley
Water Source NO3-N + NH4-N PO4-P K
KTR 18.6 3.9 26.1
KAC-south 18.4 3.1 26
KAC-north 1.4 0.23 10.5
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
KAC-south 18.4 7.05 31.3
KAC-north 1.4 0.52 12.7
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

Table 8-35 Market Prices of Mineral Fertilizers in Jordan

Name Formula Percent of Nutrient JD/ ton
Ammonium Sulphate (NH4)2 SO4 N (21%) S (24%) 380
Potassium nitrate KNO3 K (46%) N (13) 1100
Urea-phosphate H3PO4 CO(NH2)2 N (13%) P (44%) 1700
Urea (NH2)2CO N (46 %) 650
20-20-20 compound N (20%), P2O5(20%), K2O (20) 750-1200*
20-10-20 compound N (20%), P2O5(10%), K2O (20) 900-1500
20-10-30 compound N (20%), P2O5(10%), K2O (30) 1000-2000
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.
Intrinsic Value (Opportunity Cost) of Saved Water in Jordan

11 3
A study by USAID has estimated the intrinsic value of saved fresh water in Jordan at JD 0.424 per m
(same thing as the opportunity cost of water). A study titled “The Water Perspective in the Jordanian
Agricultural Export Competitiveness - An Analysis of Selected Products in Jordan Valley” likewise
evaluated at the opportunity cost of water and concluded that it is about JD 0.45 per cubic meter.
However, as practiced in major cities in Jordan, fresh water is sold by private vendors through tankers
especially during summer at an average price of JD 1.75 per cubic meter. This is another benchmark
for assessing the true value of water.
12 3
Meanwhile, the actual costs of delivering water to consumers are estimated at $ 1.14/m for municipal
3
purposes and $ 0.32/m for irrigation in the Jordan Valley. Studies conducted on this topic suggest that
the government of Jordan has been subsidizing these water services in amounts exceeding $70 million
annually because of low tariff structures.
In the Jordan Valley, and in stark contrast with its intrinsic or true value, water is charged according to
the principle of price discrimination. Water block structure is divided into four slides depending on the
level of water usage. The farmers' payment depends on total water consumption, and ranges from
3 3 3
$0.0114/m to $0.05/m . The farmers pay on average $0.027/m . To control groundwater pumping and
reduce over-abstraction, above the save yield, the government is now charging an extra amount on
3
groundwater withdrawal exceeding 150,000 m /year.
13
Municipal water and sewer services in Jordan are hence heavily subsidized. The revenue covers only
part of the operation and maintenance costs. The tariff system is an increasing-block system, under
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.
8.2.3 Part III: Economic Analysis of the Proposed Jerash WWTP

Upstream Irrigation Potential: The existing East Jerash WWTP is located at the southern side of Jerash
3
City. The WWTP was constructed in 1982 with a design capacity of 1,155 m /day. The plant capacity was
3
expanded in 1995 to its current level of 3,750 m /day. After treatment, the wastewater is being
discharged into Wadi Jerash. Currently the plant is working close to its hydraulic design capacity, while
the biological load is higher than the design load. As such, the effluent does not meet the Jordanian
effluent standards for Wadi Discharge. The proposed new WWTP will produce a high quality effluent,
and therefore irrigation based utilization will constitute a primary avenue for effluent reuse, given the
limitations imposed by scarcity of crop land.
Under ideal conditions, the cropping pattern should include both perennial and winter crops to balance
effluent use across the seasons, and to minimize excess effluent and/or storage capacity. In the
immediate vicinity of the WWTP potential future crops identified include fruit trees (olive and
pomegranate), vegetables (eggplant, cauliflower, and squash), and winter grains (wheat and barley).
In an earlier study involving agricultural potential in the vicinity of the WWTP, forty-three alternative
cropping patterns with and without water storage facilities were investigated. The results suggested that
areas of cultivation can be significantly increased under double cropping and availability of appropriate
water storage facilities. Likewise, crop yields could be increased significantly with squash, alfalfa, olive
and eggplant as the main crop and to a lower extent with cauliflower, alfalfa, winter grains,
pomegranate, citrus, and date palm. These predictions are premised on the delivery of extension
services to the farmers to modernize and intensify agricultural activity and be able to build the
necessary additional infrastructure, such as inter-farm and on-farm distribution networks (hydrants),
drip irrigation systems and storage facilities.
The existing cropping pattern includes citrus (277 du) and olives (92 du) in the vicinity of the East
Jerash WWTP; and olives (789 du), winter grains (118 du), and vegetables (10 du) downstream of the
West Jerash WWTP. There is very little, if any, opportunity to expand agricultural areas to utilize the
effluent from the WTTPs. Therefore, increased effluent quantities from an expanded and modernized
plant at East Jerash cannot be utilized by the farmers in the Wadi Jerash, and hence will eventually find
its way to the Jordan Valley. This necessitates that we track the route of the effluent till it is used by
other farmers elsewhere in Jordan.
Existing crops in the East Jerash WWTP command area under the current cropping pattern (which
seems rather inflexible due to the presence of tree crops) require some 0.5 MCM per annum. Chances
are less effluent will be used due to farmer’s propensity to blend the effluent with freshwater from
existing springs. Water demand peak period occurs in July. Significant amounts of effluent are lost due
to leaks and breaks in the conveyance lines, and evaporation for which 20% allowance has been made.
This loss factor should also be considered in future water allocation toward satisfying water demand for
crops. The concrete lined canal should be rehabilitated and maintained to reduce losses.

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
Total Crop Area 369 390,699 917 882,940

Transmission Losses 20% 20%
Net Water Needs 488,374 1,103,675
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.
User Profile Downstream

Since the effluent from the Jerash WTTP will be mixed with water from many other sources, limited
specific information is available on the typology of eventual users and their cropping patterns.
Meanwhile, much is known about the general conditions in the Jordan Valley, where the reuse of
treated water will occur.
Because of the hydraulic characteristics (the natural flow direction is south and water draining into the
Dead Sea), it is expected that all of the wastewater from the King Talal dam will be used in the Middle
and Southern Jordan valley, including the effluent from the Jerash WWTP, where there is some 15,000
ha being irrigated as presented in Table 8-37. Hence, the excess wastewater from East Jerash will
contribute to this pool when it is eventually reused.

Table 8-37 Irrigated crops in the Jordan Valley – in Hectares

Crops Northern JV Middle JV Southern JV Jordan Valley
Field Crops 600 280 72 952
Vegetables 3,100 6,520 5,060 14,680
Citrus trees 3,590 830 220 4,640
Other trees 630 483 1,631 2,744
Total (ha) 7,920 8,113 6,983 23,016
Ministry of Agriculture (2006), data referenced in:
http://www.anthonyturton.com/admin/my_documents/my_files/926_Dissertation_v4_AF20091211.pdf
As seen from the table, a good part, some 63%, of the cropping pattern consists of vegetables in the
Jordan Valley, and the intensity of vegetables gets even greater – 73 % - in the targeted impact zone of
Middle and Southern JV.
Basic Parameters and Assumptions Driving Economic Analysis

The planning horizon is assumed to be 25 years from 2011 to 2035, and the opportunity cost of capital
(also called the discount rate or hurdle rate) is assumed 5%. Investments are assumed to be spread over
the first five years, with the proposed WWTP being in operation as of 2015. A number of other
assumptions and parameters are also adopted. These are listed in Table 8-38.
The project team has prepared five distinct alternatives, all having one common denominator. This
common denominator is the plant capacity of 9,500 cubic meters per day.
The number of beneficiaries (i.e., the total population) is another common denominator. In East Jerash
it is 56,000 in 2011 and projected to reach 117,000 in 2035 – more than two-fold increase over the next 25
years.
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

Parameter Levels Comments

3 At full development and
9,500 m /day or 3.47 MCM per
Wastewater Generated corresponding to actual plant
annum
capacity
Population 56,000 in 2011, and 117,000 in 2035 Only for East Jerash
Cost Effectiveness Analysis

Below is the cost effectiveness analysis for all five scenarios labeled Alternative 1, 2, 3A, 3B and 4. The
calculations are based upon project costs net of price contingencies and depreciations, and discounted
at 5%. It is observed that Alternative 3B appears as the most cost effective option yielding some
3
US$3,476/m /day in discounted unit cost, while other options are higher. Since figures are rather close
to one another, this result needs to be supplemented with judgment and other analyses.
Table 8-39 Cost Effectiveness Analysis Work Sheet (Investment and O&M Costs) – US$ 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

Cost Benefit Analysis of the Preferred Alternative – 3B

The below Table 8-40 (some columns were suppressed to fit into the page) demonstrates that the
preferred technical alternative - 3B – displays a favorable project profile, Table 8-41 presents the key
parameters showing the ERR (Economic Internal rate of Return) of 12%, Cost-Benefit Ratio of 1.77 and a
positive NPV of US$ 14.4 million.
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$
2011 56,085 1,457,537 1,213,592 (1,213,592)
2012 60,710 1,637,473 989,726 (989,726)
2013 65,334 1,817,707 9,306,419 (9,306,419)
2014 69,959 1,997,657 9,535,687 (9,535,687)
2015 74,583 2,177,824 3,639,054 1,030,631 2,608,422
2016 76,938 2,246,590 3,753,959 1,064,968 2,688,991
2017 79,292 2,315,326 3,868,815 1,099,917 2,768,898
2018 81,647 2,384,092 3,983,720 1,135,494 2,848,226
2019 84,002 2,452,858 4,098,626 1,171,705 2,926,920
2020 86,357 2,521,624 4,213,531 1,208,560 3,004,971
2021 88,541 2,585,397 4,320,092 1,249,086 3,071,006
2022 90,725 2,649,170 4,426,654 2,020,623 2,406,032
2023 92,909 2,712,943 4,533,216 2,070,104 2,463,112
2024 95,093 2,776,716 4,639,778 1,390,041 3,249,737
2025 97,276 2,840,459 4,746,291 1,433,515 3,312,775
2026 99,428 2,903,298 4,851,291 1,471,735 3,379,556
2027 101,579 2,966,107 4,956,243 1,510,607 3,445,636
2028 103,731 3,028,945 5,061,243 1,550,146 3,511,097
2029 105,883 3,091,784 5,166,243 1,590,358 3,575,885
2030 108,034 3,154,593 5,271,195 1,631,251 3,639,944
2031 110,155 3,216,526 5,374,683 1,674,554 3,700,129
2032 112,275 3,278,430 5,478,122 1,718,594 3,759,528
2033 114,396 3,340,363 5,581,610 1,763,382 3,818,228
2034 116,517 3,402,296 5,685,097 1,808,927 3,876,171
2035 118,636 3,464,171 5,788,488 1,855,237 3,933,251

Table 8-41 Summary of Key Economic Parameters

Economic IRR 12%
C/B Ratio 1.77
NPV 14.93 MUS$

SECTION 9 - IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM FOR THE
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
9.1 INTRODUCTION
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 comprises the following main activities;
 Preparation of Detailed Design Documents
 Preparation of Tender Documents
 Construction Contract Procurement
 Construction and Construction Supervision
9.2 PREPARATION OF DETAILED DESIGN AND TENDER

DOCUMENTS
The subtasks in this activity include:
 Land Acquisition (if required)
 Topographical Survey and Soil Investigations
 Department of Antiquities Approval to Proceed
 Ministry of The Environment – Approval to Proceed
 Preparation of Basis of Design/Design Report
 Detailed Design Development
 Preparation of Bid Documents
 Preparation of Engineer’s Cost Estimate
 Preparation of Pre-Qualification Documents
 Project Summary Report
Formal reviews and approvals from USAID and WAJ will be obtained according to the timescale laid
down in the contract. However, CDM will simplify and expedite the approval process by involving
WAJ engineers in all stages of the design process and in the intermediate review stages where ever
possible.
9.2.1 Land Acquisition

CDM will assist WAJ in preparing documents and drawings required for land acquisition, if needed.
Certified parcel drawings will define the land required for purchase. WAJ will have full responsibility
for acquiring any land including negotiations and services of counsel that may be required. If land
acquisition is required, it will need to be secured prior to moving forward with any other subtasks.
9.2.2 Topographical Survey and Soil Investigations

The extent of the topographical survey and soil investigation needed for the designs will be
determined at an early stage of the implementation Program. The soil investigation will include
drilling boreholes or excavating test pits with depth and coverage equal to or exceeding the
requirements of the relevant Jordanian code.

Section 9 - Implementation Program for the Recommended Improvements
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.
9.2.3 Department of Antiquities Approval to Proceed

The East Jerash WWTP is located within 1 km of one of the most important archeological sites in
Jordan. All Construction activity will be carried out with due regard for the Jordanian Laws of
antiquities.
The Jerash offices of the Department of Antiquities are responsible for reviewing and approving
proposals for construction projects in the area. If the proposed work will be carried out entirely within
the existing, the review process will be relatively simple. If other sites for the WWTP facilities are
needed, the Department of Antiquities will need to review the potential for disturbance of archeological
artifacts. The following steps are anticipated:
 CDM/WAJ will submit the scope of work, and general details of the proposals to the Jerash
Office of the Department of Antiquities. The details will include an outline of the
recommended option, location maps and expected duration of construction.
 The Department of Antiquities will access the risks to antiquities from the construction,
make recommendations and define special conditions to be included in the contract.
 Department of Antiquities approval must be obtained before tenders are invited.
 At the construction stage, the contractor will need to submit security form for all
employees on the contract.
9.2.4 Ministry of the Environment Approval to Proceed

All construction activities will be carried out with due regard to the Environmental Protection Laws of
Jordan and in particular Law No. 52/2006. The Ministry of the Environment (MoE) is responsible for
assessing the environmental impact of construction and approving the proposals. If the proposed work
will be carried out entirely within the existing site, the review process will be relatively simple. This will
simplify the review process. If other sites for the WWTP facilities are needed, the MoE will need to
review the potential for adverse environmental impacts and recommend additional mitigation
measures. The following steps are anticipated:
 WAJ/CDM will submit the Environmental Scoping Statement for the project, together with
the scope of work, and general details of the proposals. The details will include an outline
of the recommended option, location maps and expected duration of construction.
 The Environmental Assessment Committee of the MoE will review the documents and
either approve the proposals or make comments and recommendations which will need to
be addressed.
 The final stage is to submit the Environmental Assessment Report for the project to the
Ministry of the Environment who will then issue an approval for the proposed works.
9.2.5 Basis of Design/Design Report

The Basis of Design/Design Report will consist of a number of technical memoranda giving an overview
of particular aspects of the design; for example detailed design criteria, flows and loads, discussion and
selection of process stages, detailed process design, etc. The compiled Basis of Design will be reviewed
by a Technical Review Committee independent of the WIP design team. The Technical Review

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.
9.2.6 Detailed Design Development

All designs will comply with Jordanian, CDM, and industry standards and best practices. Multi-
discipline design teams will be created to ensure that each aspect of the design is developed with due
regard to all engineering disciples. WAJ designers and operational engineers will be invited to
participate in the design development.
Technical Committee Workshops will be held at the 30% and 60% completion to review the designs.
The final design review will take place at 90% completion.
The design will take account of environmental factors and the need to maintain a high degree of
treatment capability during the construction period.
A system of change control will be introduced to manage the evolution of drawing and records as the
design process proceeds.
The design drawings and technical specifications will be provided with sufficient time to allow
tenderers to fully understand the nature and scope of the work and to enable them to prepare accurate
estimates of the costs.
9.2.7 Preparation of Tender Documents

The bid documents will consist of three volumes:
1. Volume I: Tender Requirements, Contract Forms, and Conditions of Contract
2. Volume II: Technical Specifications
3. Volume III: Drawings
4. Volume IV: Soil Investigation Report
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.
9.2.8 Engineer’s Cost Estimates

Detailed bills of quantities will be prepared from the drawings and specification and will form part of
Volume I, the Tender Requirements. These bills of quantities will be used to prepare the Engineer’s Cost
Estimate which will be confidential to the CDM project managers, USAID, and WAJ.
Variations between the Engineer’s Cost Estimate and earlier estimates provided at the 10%, 30%, and
60% design stages will be reported and explained.
9.2.9 Pre-qualification Documents

The prequalification documents will be prepared before the end of the detailed design process. The
prequalification and tendering procedure will depend on funding agency requirement. For example,
USAID funded project will utilize Host Country Contract Procurement procedures. WAJ direct funding
procurement will use prequalified Class A contractors.
9.2.10 Project Summary Report

The project Summary report will be prepared at the end of the detail design and tender preparation
stage. It will detail the background to the project and describe how the project has developed from
inception to preparation of the final design and tender documents. Technical and financial information
will be presented in sufficient detail to ensure that the proposals can be independently assessed. The
environmental impacts of the project will be presented together with the estimated cost of the works.
9.2.11 Phase II Implementation Schedule

Figure 9-1 presents the implementation schedule for the major tasks for Phase II – Detailed Design and
Tender Document preparation.

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
Figure 9-1 Phase II Implementation Schedule
9.3 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PROCUREMENT AND

CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION
Construction contract procurement and construction supervision do not currently form part of the
scope of work for Task 3 under WIP. The steps involved in the contract procurement are summarized
below assuming that USAID procedures are adopted and CDM are retained for the Contract
Procurement. CDM will assist WAJ in preparing letters and reports necessary to obtain USAID’s formal
approval on each stage of the tendering process in accordance with USAID and GoJ regulation.
9.3.1 Prequalification of Contractors

Invitations and advertisements of the proposed works will be prepared to bring the details of the
proposed project to the attention of construction contractors. A pre-qualification questionnaire will be
prepared in accordance with USAID and WAJ requirements and guidelines.
The pre-qualification applications will be evaluated by CDM, WAJ and USAID. Queries will be resolved
with applicants and the results and recommendation of the prequalification process will be presented.
9.3.2 Pre Contract Services

Site visits and pre-bid meetings will be arranged for prequalified contractors in coordination with WAJ
and USAID. The arrangements include scheduling and participating in meetings, facilitating meetings,
and providing explanations and details of the project to bidders. Concerns and issues that need special
attention will by highlighted.
Responses to questions and queries from bidders about the tender documents will be recorded, and any
addenda needed to modify the contract documents in response to these questions and queries will be
made in consultation with WAJ and USAID.
9.3.3 Evaluation of Bids and Award of Contract

Bids will be evaluated according to the criteria laid down in the contract. A draft tender evaluation
report will be prepared for review by WAJ and USAID, after which the final tender evaluation report will
be prepared.

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.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arabtech Consulting Engineers & GWE Consulting Engineers. (1991). Expansion and Upgrade
of the Wastewater Treatment Plant at Jerash, Design Report.
C. Lotti & Associates. (April 2005). Final Design Report for West WWTP.
CDM International. (February 2011). Draft Jerash Effluent Reuse Study.
CDM International. (February 2011). Jerash Wastewater Master Plan (Draft).
CDM International. (December 2010). Technical Memorandum, Water and Wastewater

Forecasts, Tasks 1-4.
CDM. (September 2010). Jerash Wastewater Treatment Plant Assessment.
Federation Internationale des Ingenieurs Conseils. (4th Edition). Conditions of Contract

(International) for Works of Civil Engineering Construction.
Melcer, H. D. (2003). Methods for Wastewater Characterization in Activated Sludge Modeling.

Alexandria, VA: Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF).
Metcalf & Eddy. (2004). Wastewater Engineering, Treatment and Reuse, 4th Edition. McGraw
Hill.
MWI. (October 2010). Water Allocation Policy.
New England Interstate Water Polution Control Commission. (1998). Guides for the Design of
Wastewater Treatment Works, TR-16.

APPENDIX A
WASTEWATER TRANSFER SYSTEM

Report Title
APPENDIX A - WASTEWATER TRANSFER SYSTEM
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.
A.2 ALTERNATIVE TRANSFER ROUTES & DESIGN FLOW

Three transfer options for treatment Alternatives 1 and 2 have been identified and designated A, B
and C. These options are described in general terms below. The diameters of the pipelines described
will vary depending on the particular treatment alternative selected. Figure A-1 shows the route and
general arrangement of these options.
Option A: Pump(s) at the existing East Jerash WWTP deliver flows through a force main to
the high point on the route. Flows then pass through a siphon and gravity sewer terminating
at or near the West Jerash WWTP.
El Concord Construction Co. (ELCC), the construction contractor for the West Jerash WWTP has
prepared designs and cost estimates for transferring part of the flows from Jerash to West Jerash. The
proposal includes a pump station upstream of the Jerash WWTP and a 250 mm diameter force main,
3,200 m long. In the original ELCC design, the force main discharges at the headworks of the west
plant.
CDM has suggested modifications to this design. These modifications require a shorter force main of
1,190 m to the first high point. The force main would discharge to a manhole, followed by a siphon to
a second high point and discharge manhole. Wastewater will then flow by gravity to the headwork of
the west plant as in the design provided by Orient.
Option B: Pump(s) at the existing East Jerash WWTP deliver flows through a short force
main followed by a gravity sewer that discharges to the pumping station proposed by Orient.
This option requires the construction of a pump station upstream of the East Jerash WWTP, similar
to Option A. The force main will be 400 m long and deliver to a 270 m long gravity sewer connecting
to the gravity sewer proposed by Orient at the Jerash Road. The flow will be collected at the Orient PS
2. The capacity of the Orient pumping station and its associated force main will need to be increased.
Option C: A Siphon transfer system from the existing East Jerash WWTP to the gravity sewer
feeding the proposed Orient pumping station.
Preliminary topographical survey work indicates that a siphon 1,375 m long can be constructed from
the East Jerash WWTP to the gravity sewer leading to the pumping station PS2 in the Orient design.
The pumping station could then be designed to convey all flows from Daher el Sero and Jbarat plus
flows not treated at the East WWTP to the West WWTP.

Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report A-1
Appendix A – Wastewater Transfer System
Figure A-1 Transfer Option Routes

Tables A-1 and A-2 Show the transfer system design flows for wastewater treatment Alternative 1 and 2
respectively.
Table A- 1 Alternative 1 Transfer System Design Flow

Peak Factors Transfer System 3Design Peak
Average Flow Flow m /h
Year Population 3
m /Day Dry Weather Wet Weather Dry Weather WetWeather
Flow Flow Flow Flow
2010 51,461 3,499 2.5 4 365 583
2015 74,583 5,967 2.5 4 622 994
2020 86,357 6,909 2.5 4 720 1151
2025 97,276 7,782 2.5 4 811 1297
2030 108,034 8,643 2.5 4 900 1440
2035 118,637 9,491 2.5 4 989 1582
Table A- 2 Alternative 2 Transfer System Design Flow

Transfer System
Hydraulic Peak Factor Design Peak Flow
Total
Average Treatment Transferred 3
m /h
Year Population Capacity for Average
Flow
3 East Jarash
3
Flow m /Day Dry Wet Dry Wet
m /Day 3 Weather Weather Weather Weather
m /day
Flow Flow Flow Flow
2010 51,461 3,499 2,600 0 2.5 4 0 0
2015 74,583 5,967 2,600 3,367 2.5 4 351 561
2020 86,357 6,909 2,600 4,309 2.5 4 449 718
2025 97,276 7,782 2,600 5,182 2.5 4 540 864
2030 108,034 8,643 2,600 6,043 2.5 4 629 1,007
2035 118,637 9,491 2,600 6,891 2.5 4 718 1,148
A.3 TRANSFER SYSTEMS COMPONENTS & COST ESTIMATE

The following transfer options will be considered for assessment:
Treatment Alternative 1: Abandon East WWTP and Transfer flow to West WWTP.
 Transfer Option A.1 – Pump/siphon/gravity direct to West Jerash
 Transfer Option B.1 – Pump/gravity via Orient PS2 to West Jerash.
 Transfer Option C.1 – Siphon via Orient PS2 to West Jerash.
Treatment Alternative 2: Upgrade East WWTP to operate at its potential and transfer excess flow to
West WWTP.
 Transfer Option A.2 - Pump/siphon/gravity direct to West Jerash
 Transfer Option B.2 - Pump/gravity via Orient PS2 to West Jerash.
 Transfer Option C.2 - Siphon via Orient PS2 to West Jerash.
Tables A-3 through A-8 show the Components and capital cost estimate for transfer option A.1, A.2,
B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2 respectively.
Table A- 3 Estimated Cost for Transfer Option A.1

Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price
US$ US$
Mechanical & Electrical Works for Pumps
- Static Head 32 m
- Total Head 47 m
3
- Pumps Capacity 989 m /h (Two pumps
operating)
- Two duty, one standby pumps LS LS 370,204 370,204
- Rated power for each pump 105 kW
3
- Power Consumption 0.18 kWh/m
- 400 mm Rising Main
- Gate & Check Valves and Other Piping
Accessories.
Standby Diesel Generator 400 kVA LS LS 175,000 175,000
Pumping Station Civil Works LS LS 70,000 70,000
400 mm Dia. DI Force Main m 1190 300 357,000
400 mm Dia. DI Siphon m 1390 580 806,200
Siphon Appurtenances LS LS 20,000 20,000

500 mm Dia. HDPE Gravity Sewer to the West
m 520 270 140,400
Plant(J5)
600 mm Dia HDPE Gravity Sewer to the West
m 400 320 128,000
Plant (J5)
Option A.1 Total Cost 2,066,804
Table A- 4 Estimated Cost for Transfer Option B.1

US$ US$
Mechanical Works for main Pumping Station
Static Head 30 m
Total Dynamic Head 33 m
3
Two pumps capacity 989 m /h
Two duty, one standby pumps
LS LS 370,204 370,204
Rated power for each pump 105 kW
3
Power Consumption 0.16 kWh/m
400 mm Rising main
Including Gate & Check Valves and
Other Piping Accessories
Standby Diesel Generator for Main
LS LS 175,000 175,000
Pumping Station 400 kVA
Main Pumping Station Civil Works LS LS 70,000 70,000
400 mm Dia. HDPE Gravity Sewer (up to line J) m 270 240 64,800
400 mm Dia. HDPE gravity Sewer (line J) 80 240 19,200
400 mm Dia. HDPE gravity Sewer(line J) m 1400 240 336,000

Orient Pump Station
Static Head 38 m
Total Head 46 m
3
Two pumps capacity 1,144 m /h. LS LS 370,204 370,204
Two duty, one standby pump
3
LS LS 175,000 175,000


US$ US$
Orient Pumping Station Civil Works LS LS 70,000 70,000
3
Emergency 1000 m Tank LS LS 150,000 150,000
500 mm Dia DI Force Main from PS1 to the
m 460 450 207,000
gravity sewer feeding the west plant.
m 400 270 108,000
Plant (Line J5)
600mm Dia HDPE Gravity Sewer to the West
m 520 320 166,400
Plant (line J5)
Option B.1 Total Cost 2,401,809
Table A- 5 Estimated Cost for Transfer Option C.1

US$ US$
500 mm Dia. DI Siphon m 1375 700 962,500
400 mm Dia. HDPE Gravity Sewer (J) m 30 240 7,200
500 mm Dia. HDPE Gravity Sewer (J) m 330 270 89,100

Orient Pump Station
Static Head 38 m
Total Head 46 m (one pump operating)
3
Two pumps capacity 1,144 m /h. LS LS 370,204 370,204
3
Standby Diesel Generator 400 kVA LS LS 175000 175,000
Civil Works for PS LS LS 70,000 70,000

3
Emergency Tank 1000 m Capacity LS LS 150000 150,000
500 mm DI Force Main from PS1 to the gravity
m 460 450 207,000
sewer feeding the west plant.
500mm Dia. HDPE Gravity Sewer to the West
m 520 270 140,400
Plant(J5)
m 400 320 128,000
Plant (J5)
Option C.1 Total Cost 2,329,404

Table A- 6 Estimated Cost for Transfer Option A.2

US$ US$
Mechanical & Electrical Works for Pumps
Static Head 32 m
Total Head 41
3
Two Pumps capacity 718 m /h
LS LS 306,294 306,294
3
300 mm Rising main
Gate & Check Valves and
Other Piping Accessories
Pumping Station Civil Works LS LS 70,000 70,000
400 mm Dia. DI Siphon m 1390 580 806,200

m 520 270 72,900
Plant (J5)
m 400 320 128,000
Plant (J5)
Option A.2 Total Cost 1,880,394
Table A- 7 Estimated Cost for Transfer Option B.2

Unit Price Total Price
Description Unit Quantity
US$ US$
Pumps for Main Pumping Station
Static Head 30 m
Total Dynamic Head 37 m
3
Two pumps capacity 718 m /h
One duty, one standby pump
LS LS 316,864 316,864
3
300 mm Rising main
Gate & Check Valves
and Other Piping Accessories
LS LS 120,000 120,000
Main Pumping Station Civil Works LS LS 70,000 70,000
400 mm Dia. DI Force Main m 400 300 120000
400 mm Dia. Gravity Sewer(To Line J) m 270 240 64,800
400 mm Dia. HDPE Gravity Sewer(Orient Line J) m 80 240 19,200
500 mm Dia. Gravity Sewer(Orient Line J) m 1400 270 378,000

Orient Pump Station
Static Head 38 m
Total Head 43 m
3
Two pumps capacity 873 m /h LS LS 341,014 341,014
3


US$ US$
Pumping Station Civil works LS LS 70,000 70,000
3
Emergency 1000 m tank LS LS 150,000 150,000
m 460 450 207,000
500 mm Dia/ HDPE Gravity Sewer to the West
m 920 270 248,400
Plant (Orient Line J5)
Option B.2 Total Cost 2,225,278
Table A- 8 Estimated Cost for Transfer Option C.2

Unit Price Total Price
Description Unit Quantity US$ US$
400 mm Dia. DI Siphon m 1375 600 825,000
400mm Dia. HDPE Gravity Sewer (J) m 360 240

Orient Pump Station
Static Head 38 m
Total Head 43 m
3
Two pumps capacity 873 m /h LS LS 341,014 341,014
3
Pumping Station Civil works LS LS 70,000 70,000

3
Emergency 1000 m tank LS LS 150,000 150,000
m 460 450 207,000
m 500 240 120,000
Plant(J5)
m 420 270 113,400
Plant (J5)
Option C.2 Total Cost 1,976,414
A.4 TRANSFER OPTIONS ANALYSIS

Table A-9 presents a summary of capital costs for all options, indicates that Transfer Option A has the
least cost for both treatment alternatives. Therefore it is the recommended transfer system option.
Table A- 9 Summary of Estimated Cost for Transfer Options in US$
Transfer Option
Description
A B C
Treatment Alternative 1 2,066,804 2,401,809 2,329,404
Treatment Alternative 2 1,880,394 2,225,278 1,976,414

A.5 WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE PIPES TO THE PROPOSED

DOWNSTREAM TREATMENT SITES
Two potential sites are identified for a wastewater treatment plant downstream of the existing east
Jerash plant. Site A is private land, with area of approximately 80 dunums, located 1.5 km downstream
of the intersection of Jerash Bridge with Zarqa River near a large bend. It is located at an average
elevation of 220 masl. Site B is Government land, with approximately 40 dunums area, located very
close to the main Jerash Road, and adjacent to the desalination plant 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.
It is to be mentioned that if Site A would be seriously considered as a location for a new WWTP, it
should be assessed for flooding potential due to its proximity and relatively low ground elevation near
the Zarqa River.
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. The
estimated cost for the conveyance pipeline to this site is US$ 4,100,000, exclusive of land acquisition
costs for the site or pipeline route, or land improvements required for protection from flooding.
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.
Figure A-2 presents location map for Sites A and B and the route of the wastewater conveyance pipes.

Figure A-2 Potential New WWTP Sites and Conveyance Pipeline Routes
APPENDIX B
BASIS OF COST ESTIMATES

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.
B.2 UNIT RATES FOR PIPE LAYING

Unit rates for pipe laying in various ground conditions are presented in Table B-1. These rates are all
inclusive for supplying the pipe, excavation, lay, bedding and surround, backfill and compaction,
manholes, surface reinstatement, and contractor’s overhead, profit and risk.
B.2.1 Rates for Concrete and Ductile Iron Pipes.

The details of 31 contracts have been obtained from WAJ contract department for construction of
wastewater pipelines since 2007. The contracts have been carried out over a number of years and
during different economic situations. Rates for reinforced concrete and ductile iron pipe in asphalt
roads, dirt roads and wadi have been examined. The contract rates have been adjusted to year 2011
prices by inflating the rates by 4% per year which represent the more varied and volatile nature of
pipe laying construction.
These rates are taken to be typical rates for the whole of Jordan and will be adjusted to take account
of local circumstances and conditions when particular projects are valued. For example the rates will
be increased for heavily trafficked urban areas or where ground conditions are difficult. The rates
include Table B-1 summarizes pipe laying rates for reinforced concrete and ductile iron pipes. The
data for reinforced concrete pipes is presented graphically in Figure B-1 and data for ductile iron
pipes is presented graphically in Figure B-2. The rates for reinforced concrete pipes included the cost
of manholes.
B.2.2 Rates for uPVC and HDPE pipes.

The use of uPVC and HDPE pipes is relatively new in Jordan and little contract data is available for
analysis. The unit rates for uPVC and HDPE in Table B-1 have been built up from the basic linear
meter cost of the pipe with allowances added for installed cost, including construction of manholes.
The rates will be revised as more details become available.

Jerash Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study Report B-1
Appendix B – Basis of Cost Estimates
Table B- 9-1 Unit Rates for Pipe Installed (US$/LM)
Pipe Diameter (mm)

Pipe Type Laid in
160 200 225 250 300 315 400 450 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Pipes in Asphalt
- 188 - - 235 - 292 - 364 454 566 705 879 1095 1364 1700
Road
Concrete
Pipes in Dirt Road - 138 - - 174 - 219 - 276 347 437 550 692 871 1096 1380
Pipe
310
Pipe in Wadi - 170 - - 208 - 254 - 379 462 565 690 843 1029 1257
Pipes in Asphalt
- 307 - - 386 - 486 - 612 770 970 1220 1536 1933 2433 3062
Road
Ductile Iron
Pipes in Dirt Road - 290 - - 357 - 441 - 544 671 828 1021 1260 1554 1917 2365
Pipe
Pipe in Wadi - 218 - - 283 - 367 - 475 616 799 1039 1345 1744 2262 2933
Pipes in Asphalt
166 183 - 215 - 243 302 347 398 532 - - - - - -
Road
uPVC Pipe Pipes in dirt Road 156 171 - 201 - 227 282 325 372 498 - - - - - -
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.
Figure B- 1 Unit Rates for Laying Reinforced Concrete Pipes
Figure B- 2 Unit Rates for Laying Ductile Iron Pipes

B.3 ACTIVATED SLUDGE WWTP COST

B.3.1 Cost of Construction
The construction costs of 13 activated sludge plants constructed in Jordan, between 1981 and 2010 have
3 3
been analyzed. The capacities of the facilities range between 1,155 m /d and 37,500 m /d. The details are
summarized in Table B-2. The actual construction costs have been inflated to year 2011 by applying an
annual inflation rate of 3% which represents the current conditions of a less volatile nature of
construction.
Table B- 1-2 Construction Costs for Activated Sludge WWTPs in Jordan

Original Original Estimated Year 2011
Operating
Plant WWTP Type Year Design
3
Construction Construction Cost -
Flow m /d Cost - Million US$ Million US$
Fuhis Activated sludge 1997 2,400 7.883 11.92
Wadi Arab Activated sludge 1999 22,000 26.31 37.51

Wadi Activated sludge /
2001 3,400 8.77 11.78
Mousa Nitrogen removal
Wadi
Activated sludge 2001 1,600 9.81 13.19
Hassan
Alramtha Activated sludge 2002 5,400 8.88 11.59
Aqaba Activated sludge 2006 12,000 16.00 18.554
Madaba Activated sludge 2006 7,600 7.32 8.49
Almirad Activated sludge 2010 10,000 9.94 10.24

Al Jeezah &
Activated sludge 2009 1,200 13.54 14.37
Talbyyeh
Under
Al Shallalah Activated sludge 37,500 58.57 58.57
Construction
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.
B.3.2 Activated Sludge Plants Operating Costs

The latest available (January to December 2009) annual costs operating for all WWTPs in Jordan have
been obtained from WAJ. The operating costs of the activated sludge plants have been extracted and
the results are shown in Table B-3. The figures are for actual costs incurred and actual wastewater
volumes measured as reported by WAJ.

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
Flow ( Thousand m3/d)
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

B.4 COST OF WASTEWATER PUMPING STATIONS

B.4.1 Construction Costs
The constructions costs of five wastewater pump stations constructed in Jordan have been obtained
from WAJ and are summarized in Table B-4 and shown graphically in Figure B-5. The pump stations
are either recently constructed or still under construction and the cost are current.
Table B- 1-4 Construction Costs of Wastewater Pump Stations in Jordan
3 Total Cost
Project Flow (m /d) Power (kW)
(US$)
P 2-Karak Pumping Station 2,445 20 638,722
P 4-Karak Pumping Station/ Adnaniyyeh , Merwed 2,851. 27 932,610
P 2-Karak Pumping Station 5,702. 36 715,764
Jerash Pumping Station/ Ain Al-Deek 6,048 88 1,140,551
West Jerash WW pump Station 2,073 34 571,347
Total Construction Cost for Pumping Stations ($)

1,600,000 y = 548553e 9E-05x
R² = 0.6531
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
Cost $
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Design Flow (m3/d)
Figure B-5 Total Construction Costs of Wastewater Pump Stations in Jordan
B.4.2 Operating Costs

Annual operating cost for 5 WAJ wastewater pumping station for the year January to December 2009
have been analyzed Some WAJ expenditure heads have been merged to simplify the data, The figures
are for actual costs incurred and actual wastewater volumes measured as reported by WAJ. The data are
shown in Table B-5 and graphically in Figure B-6.

Table B- 1-5 Operating Costs for Wastewater Pump Stations in Jordan

Elec & Spare Total Annual Unit Daily Unit
Salary Fuel Parts Other Cost Influent Cost Influent Cost
Pump
3
Station 3 3 m 3
JD/Yr JD/Yr JD/Yr JD/Yr JD/Yr m /Yr FILS/ m US$/ m
/Year
Ain
19,450 12,958 480 910 33,798 544,500 62.1 1,492 0.09
Basha
Fuheis 21,760 4,361 150 763 27,034 168,549 160.4 462 0.23
Wadi
9,000 9,760 1,600 630 20,990 390,210 53.8 1,069 0.08
Hassan
Azmi
Mofti 9,000 5,920 690 460 16,070 162,350 99.0 445 0.14
Camp
Operating Cost for Pumping Stations

0.25
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
Figure B-6 Operating Costs for Wastewater Pump Stations in Jordan
B.5 ESTIMATED COST OF PARTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF WASTEWATER

TREATMENT PLANTS
Some of the alternatives identified in the feasibility study require a partial extension to existing
treatment facilities. The following analysis shows how costs for partial extension of facilities have
derived.
The bills of quantities for the recently constructed Karak WWTP have been examined. The total
construction cost for the new plant was JD 12.85M. The cost includes JD 2.4M for the construction of an
off-site effluent pipeline. The net cost of the WWTP is therefore JD 10.45M.
The bills of quantities for the construction have been broken down into treatment processes and other
costs, and the breakdown is shown in Table B-6. The data have been simplified by rounding.
The table also shows the percentage split of the various items of cost. For example, miscellaneous
chamber and buildings account for 32% of the total construction cost, while biological treatment
accounts for 28%.

Table B- 1-6 Breakdown of Construction Cost by Treatment Processes

Percentage of Total
Construction Item Cost (JD)
Cost
Misc Chambers 660,000 6
Buildings 2,700,000 26
Headworks 1,100,000 10
Biological Units 2,900,000 28
Secondary Settling 460,000 4
RAS & WAS Pumps 350,000 4
Final Effluent 680,000 7
Sludge Drying Beds 650,000 6
Mechanical Dewatering 950,000 9
Total 10,450,000 100
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$21M.
Table B- 1-7 Breakdown of Cost for a 10,000 m3/d WWTP
Construction Item Cost (US$) Percentage of Total

Cost
Misc Chambers 1,320,000
32
Buildings 5,400,000
Headworks 2,100,000 10
Biological Units 5,880,000 28
Secondary Settling 840,000 4
RAS & WAS Pumps 840,000 4
Final Effluent 1,470,000 7
Sludge Drying Beds 1,260,000 6
Mechanical Dewatering 1,890,000 9
Total 21,000,000 100

B.6 EAST JERASH WWTP DETAILED ESTIMATES OF REHABILITATION

COSTS
The following tables show details of the estimated costs of rehabilitating the existing East Jerash
WWTP. Current contractor market rates are used for plant and labor items. Machinery rates are based
on quotations from suppliers and comparisons with similar items from previous contracts.
B.6.1 Cleaning and Desludging Tanks, Chambers, and Lagoons

This work would be carried out based on a Fixed Value, day work contract with indicative quantities.
The estimate for cleaning tanks, chambers, and lagoons are presented in Table B-8
Table B-8 Estimated Cost for Cleaning Tanks, Chambers and Lagoons
Item Quantity Unit$ Rate $ Total $
Inlet Chamber 1 No. - Clean under flow condition
Back Hoe 2 Day 350 700
Dump Truck 2 Day 150 300
Labor: 4 men 2 Day 350 700
Sub Total Carried to Collection 1,700
Grit Channels and Scum Removal – Isolate, drain, and remove deposits
Back hoe,/loader 10 Day 350 3500
Sludge pump 10 Day 20 200
Vacuum Tanker 10 Day 150 1500
Labor: Foreman plus 4 men 10 Day 350 3500
Aeration Tanks - Isolate, drain, dig out, cart away to tip on site.
Grab Excavator 20 Day 350 7000
Sludge Pump 20 Day 20 400
Foreman plus 4 men 20 Day 350 7000
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

Item Quantity Unit$ Rate $ Total $

Valves and Penstocks - Make operable/refurbish replace as required
Excavator 2 Day 350 700
Maturation Lagoons - Isolate, drain, remove sludge
Excavator 90 Day 350 31500
Labor: Foreman Plus 4 Men 90 Day 350 31500
Total of Works 162,700
Preliminaries, welfare etc. 12,300
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.
Table 1-9 Estimated Cost for New Process Equipment Supply

Description - Size/Rating No Unit Cost Total Strip Total $
$ out
Mechanical Bar Screen 1 25,000 25,000 2,500 27,500
Scum/Fat Removal 2 10,000 20,000 2,500 22,500
Aerators and Motors - 40/60 kW 4 40,000 160,000 5,000 165,000
Brush Aerators and Motoros - 30 kW 6 20,000 120,000 7,500 127,000
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

Table 1-10 Cost Estimate for Installation, Testing, and Commissioning

Item Unit Rate $ Quantity Total $
Engineer Per Day 250 90 22,500
Fitter Per Day 140 180 25,200
Electrician Per Day 140 30 4,200
Labourers Per Day 80 360 28,800
Crane 20 Tonne Per Day 500 90 45,000
Small tools and equipment Per Day 0 90 300
Transport Per Day 100 90 9,000
Total 135,000
Table 1-11 Estimated Cost for Miscellaneous Items

Other Items Unit Rate $ Quantity Installation Total $
Access Bridges to Aeration Tanks Item 20,000 4 Included 80,000
Miscellaneous valves and fittings Item 20,000 1 Lot Included 20,000

Supply, fix and
Flow meter and recorder Item 20,000 1 20,000
commission
Total 120,000
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
Estimated 30% Total

Item Contingency Estimated
CostUS$ US$ Cost US$
Desludge Tanks etc. 175,000 52,500 227,500
Supply Equipment 455,000 136,500 581,500
Installation and Commissioning 135,000 40,000 175,000
Miscellaneous 120,000 36,000 156,000
Total of Refurbishment 885,000 265,000 1,140,000


Jerash Feasibility Report Draft Final Submission

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Jerash Feasibility Report Draft Final Submission

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

`

Prepared by CDM International for

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

Jerash Wastewater Treatment

Reviewed by: D.G. Doran Date: May 2011

Approved by: R.E. Minkwitz Date: May 2011

Reviewed by WAJ Technical Committee Date 21 July 2011

Revised by J.M Harwood, D.G. Doran Date August 2011

Resubmitted R.E. Minkwitz Date 15 September 2011

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... VII

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................. XI

LIST OF UNITS ............................................................................................................ XIII

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... I

SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1

 1.2 BACKGROUND TO TASK 3 ................................................................................... 1

 1.3.1 Scope of Work ............................................................................................. 4

 1.5 REPORT ORGANIZATION ..................................................................................... 5

SECTION 2 - SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER FLOWS AND LOADS ................................... 7

 2.1.1 Projected Population Estimates................................................................... 7

 2.3 CURRENT WASTEWATER CHARATERISTICS FOR EAST JERASH .......................... 10

 2.3.1 Projected Pollutant Concentrations for All of Jerash ................................. 11

 2.5 WEST JERASH CATCHMENT – PROJECTED WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS .. 13

SECTION 3 - WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EVALUATIONS ................................ 14

 3.1.1 Description of Existing Facility ................................................................... 14

 3.1.4 Operation and Maintenance ..................................................................... 21

 3.2.1 Description of Existing Facility ................................................................... 31

SECTION 4 - TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS AND EFFLUENT STANDARDS ................... 36

 4.2 HISTORICAL DISCHARGE STANDARDS ............................................................... 36

 4.3 JORDAN EFFLUENT AND SLUDGE DISPOSAL STANDARDS ................................. 37

 4.3.1 Standards for Wastewater Discharges and Effluent Reuse ....................... 37

 4.4.1 Current Sludge Disposal Practices ............................................................. 41

SECTION 5 - ASSESSMENT OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES ...................................... 44

 5.2 RECOMMENDATION FOR PRIMARY TREATMENT ............................................. 44

 5.3 SECONDARY TREATMENT OPTIONS .................................................................. 45

 5.3.1 Oxidation Ditch .......................................................................................... 45

 5.5 BIOSOLIDS TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES ........................................................... 52

 5.5.1 Biosolids Thickening .................................................................................. 53

 5.7 SEPTAGE RECEIVING AND TREATMENT ............................................................ 65

SECTION 6 - EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................. 66

Water/Wastewater Infrastructure Project

 6.1 TREATMENT SCENARIOS ................................................................................... 66

 6.2 BASIS OF CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES ..................................................... 67

 6.3 EVALUATION OF WEST JERASH EXPANSION OPTIONS ...................................... 68

 6.4.1 Scope of Work ........................................................................................... 77

 6.5.1 Scope of Work ........................................................................................... 79

 6.6.1 Alternative 3A – Upgrade and Oxidation Ditch Expansion ........................ 81

 6.7.1 Scope of Work ........................................................................................... 90

SECTION 7 - SUMMARY OF TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS............................... 107

 7.1.1 Headworks............................................................................................... 108

Water/Wastewater Infrastructure Project

 7.1.10 Odor Control System.............................................................................. 113

 7.3 PHASING OPTIONS .......................................................................................... 114

SECTION 8 - FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ................................................. 115

 8.1.1 POPULATION & HOUSEHOLDS CONNECTED, WASTEWATER FLOWS AND

 8.2.1 Water Resources and the Role of Wastewater ........................................ 151

SECTION 9 - IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM FOR THE RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS

 9.2 PREPARATION OF DETAILED DESIGN AND TENDER DOCUMENTS .................. 168

 9.2.1 Land Acquisition ...................................................................................... 168

Water/Wastewater Infrastructure Project

 9.3.1 Prequalification of Contractors................................................................ 172

BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................... 174

APPENDIX A - WASTEWATER TRANSFER SYSTEM ......................................................... 1

APPENDIX B - BASIS OF COST ESTIMATES ..................................................................... 1

Water/Wastewater Infrastructure Project