Evaluation of Septic Tank and Subsurface Wetland for

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Preface This report was prepared from research conducted at the National Water Commission laboratory in Bogue, St. James, Pisgah All Age School in St. Elizabeth and Retrieve All Age School in St. James, Jamaica during the latter half of 2004. Permission was granted from the National Water Commission Western Division Quality Assurance Manager, Richard Meggo; Eastern Division Quality Assurance Manager, Don Streete; the Principal of Pisgah All Age School, Ms. Simms; and the Principal of Retrieve All Age School, Mr. Scott. Research and field work was coordinated with the following people: my advisor, Dr. Jim Mihelcic of Michigan Technological University; my supervisor, Richard Meggo of the National Water Commission; engineer Jason Excell and logistics coordinator Neville Williams both of the Ridge To Reef Watershed Project. iv
Acknowledgments Major funding was provided by the United States Agency for International Development through the Government of Jamaica’s National Environment and Planning Agency Ridge To Reef Watershed Project. Special thanks to the following people: Richard Meggo, National Water Commission Don Streete, National Water Commission Terrence Wilmot, National Water Commission Steve Smith, National Water Commission Sharleane Williams, National Environment and Planning Agency Jason Excell, Appropriate Technologies Inc. Neville Williams, Ridge to Reef Watershed Project Mr. Scott, Retrieve All Age School Ms. Simms, Pisgah All Age School Dr. Jim Mihelcic, Michigan Technological University Dr. Bob Baillod, Michigan Technological University Dave Watkins, Michigan Technological University Becky Skutt and Lance Snider v
Page 1 and 2: Evaluation of Septic Tank and Subsu
Page 3: Abstract Locally designed wastewate
Page 7 and 8: Chapter 6 - Costs ……………
Page 9 and 10: Table 5-6 Parameters Influencing Bi
Page 11 and 12: The predominant geological formatio
Page 13 and 14: plants discharging a volume of 20m
Page 15 and 16: lack access to acceptable excreta d
Page 17 and 18: Critical design parameters for sept
Page 19 and 20: Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetland
Page 21 and 22: inging larger rock from a distant q
Page 23 and 24: Chapter 3 - Site Descriptions Figur
Page 25 and 26: Wetland inlet sample point Flush to
Page 27 and 28: Figure 3-4 Pisgah wetland beds befo
Page 29 and 30: times over a two-week period, grew
Page 31 and 32: Figure 3-7 Retrieve youth in front
Page 33 and 34: Chapter 4 - Methodology Field Data
Page 35 and 36: out (see Figure 4-2). Locating the
Page 37 and 38: Figure 4-3 Media porosity measureme
Page 39 and 40: Laboratory Water Quality Analysis A
Page 41 and 42: NEPA laboratory also does not test
Page 43 and 44: Since evapotranspiration decreases
Page 45 and 46: The water level in the middle of th
Page 47 and 48: BOD was determined to be 53% at Pis
Page 49 and 50: solids than a sample point that pul
Page 51 and 52: Table 5-4 Ammonia (NH3-N) for Pisga
Page 53 and 54: Table 5-5 Nitrate (NO3-N) for Pisga
Page 55 and 56:
o Alkalinity Nitrification and deni
Page 57 and 58:
system were measured to be 3.3 mg/l
Page 59 and 60:
coliform by 88%. The Retrieve septi
Page 61 and 62:
Chapter 6 - Cost of Pisgah and Retr
Page 63 and 64:
The septic tanks will have to be pu
Page 65 and 66:
Jamaica may refer to the hydraulic
Page 67 and 68:
Chapter 8 - References APHA (Americ
Page 69 and 70:
Pennant, Joseph, (2005), Assistant
Page 71 and 72:
Chapter 9 - Appendices Appendix 1 -
Page 73 and 74:
7-Dec- 2004 SET FIVE Sample BOD TSS
Page 75 and 76:
Appendix 3 - Determination of 90% C
Page 77 and 78:
Appendix 4 - Conductance of Water C
Page 79 and 80:
Appendix 6 - Total Dissolved Nitrog
Page 81 and 82:
Appendix 8 - Evapotranspiration Det
show all

Evaluation of Septic Tank and Subsurface Wetland for

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?