Lebanon Water Project Context Appropriate Sanitation Solutions Phase I – Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potenial Sanitation Projects

LEBANON WATER PROJECT CONTEXT APPROPRIATE SANITATION SOLUTIONS PHASE I – STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATIONS AND IDENTIFICATION OF POTENIAL SANITATION PROJECTS

OCTOBER 2017

This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by DAI Global LLC.

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects 1

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects i

LEBANON WATER PROJECT

CONTEXT APPROPRIATE SANITATION SOLUTIONS

PHASE 1- STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATIONS AND IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL SANITATION PROJECTS PHASE I – IDENTIFICATION AND STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATIONS FOR POTENTIAL SANITATION PROJECTS

PHASE I – IDENTIFICATION AND STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATIONS FOR POTENTIAL SANITATION PROJECTS

Program Title: Lebanon Water Project

Sponsoring USAID Office: Lebanon Contract Number: AID-268-N-15-00001 Contractor: DAI Global LLC (DAI)

Date of Publication: October 24, 2017 Author: Lebanon Water Project

DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects ii

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects iii

Contents

TABLE OF FIGURES ...... V

ACRONYMS...... VI

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

SCOPE OF WORK ...... 2

LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 3 BACKGROUND ...... 3 INITIAL LIST OF SITES ...... 3 WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES ...... 4 wastewater treatment systems and selection criteria ...... 4 Natural systems ...... 4 Lagoons ...... 4 CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS ...... 6 Septic Tanks ...... 7 Conventional systems ...... 10 Rotating Biological Contactors ...... 10 Trickling filters ...... 10 Activated sludge ...... 10 Extended aeration ...... 11 Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor ...... 11

CONSULTATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS ...... 12 BACKGROUND ...... 12 CONSULTATIONS WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR ...... 12 CONSULTATIONS WITH MOEW ...... 13 CONSULTATIONS WITH RWES ...... 14 CONSULTATIONS WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES ...... 15 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ...... 21

APPENDIX I: INITIAL LIST OF POTENTIAL SITES PER RWE ...... 22

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects iv

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Cross Section of an Aerated Lagoon ...... 5

Figure 2. Schematic Cross-section of a Horizontal Flow CW (Morel & Diener. 2006) ...... 6

Figure 3. Schematic Cross-section of a Vertical Flow CW (Morel and Diener, 2006) ...... 7

Figure 4. Schematic Cross-section of a Septic Tank (Morel & Diener, 2006) ...... 8

Figure 5. Typical Septic Tank Detail Drawing Provided by the Lebanon Ministry of Environment ...... 9

Figure 6. First Shortlist of Potential Sanitation Projects ...... 14

Figure 7. Second Shortlist List of Potential Sites ...... 15

Figure 8. Final List of Potential Sites ...... 17

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects v

ACRONYMS

BOD Bacterial Oxygen Demand BWE Beqaa Water Establishment BMLWE Beirut and Mount Lebanon Water Establishment CW Constructed Wetland HFSW Horizontal Flow Constructed Wetlands HSF Horizontal Subsurface Flow LRI Lebanon Reforestation Initiative LWP Lebanon Water Project MBBR Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor MoE Ministry of Environment MoEW Ministry of Energy and Water NLWE North Lebanon Water Establishment O&M Operation and Maintenance PE Population Equivalent RWE Regional Water Establishment SLWE South Lebanon Water Establishment

SWWTP Small Wastewater Treatment Plant

ST Septic Tank UNICEF United Nations Children's Emergency Fund UNIFIL United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon USAID United States Agency for International Development VF Vertical flow VFCW Vertical Flow Constructed Wetlands VSB Vegetated Submerged Bed WW Wastewater WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects vi

INTRODUCTION

The Lebanon Water Project (LWP) is a five-year activity funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) with the overarching objective of increasing access to clean, reliable, and sustainable sources of drinking water for Lebanese Citizens. LWP is focused on improving Lebanon’s capacity in the management of water resources, enhancing the efficiency and sustainability of the public water utilities, and addressing water challenges arising from the impact of the Syrian Refugee influx into Lebanon. The project provides technical and capital assistance to relevant stakeholders and counterparts in order to enhance the performance of the water sector in Lebanon. LWP also promotes better water governance as means to help ensure long-term preservation of the Lebanon’s water resources. The Government of Lebanon has several projects to improve wastewater collection and treatment, yet very little wastewater is actually treated before being dumped into the Mediterranean Sea, rivers, or dry wells. While Law 221 dictates that, the Regional Water Establishments (RWE) s manage wastewater collection and treatment, only the North Lebanon Water Establishment (NLWE) has assumed responsibility due to the significant investment in systems in the north. In the Beqaa, there are 15 wastewater treatment plants in operation, but nearly all are under the management of municipal governments. LWP conducted an assessment on twelve (12) small wastewater treatment plants selected by LWP team as a sample. The purpose of this assessment was to develop case studies for existing small-scale wastewater treatment plants to compare success under different operating conditions, technical and operational challenges, and effectiveness of treating the wastewater. The assessment provided an update on the status of these selected 12 SWWTPs and extracted lessons learned from the field. The results of the analysis of the 12 SWWTPs forms an integral part of the formulation of LWP strategy of intervention in low cost sanitation solutions. Working with the Ministry of Energy & Water (MoEW), RWEs, and municipalities/unions of municipalities in each region, LWP will identify at least two sites per region suited to low-cost sanitation solutions. The team then will organize consultations with the MOEW, RWEs, and municipal governments to review sites and seek feedback. This will result in reaching agreement on selecting at least one site per region and working with local stakeholders through the design and construction process.

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects 1

SCOPE OF WORK

The LWP was tasked with the identification and selection of context appropriate sanitation solutions at selected locations/sites requiring such solutions. To obtain the required solutions, the Scope of Work was divided into two phases. Phase I includes stakeholder consultations and identification of potential sanitation projects. Phase II is the recommended low cost wastewater projects based on Phase I findings. Phase I includes a literature review that focuses on the following:  Wastewater projects identified under masterplans and from other available sources.  Treatment technologies that can potentially be used as sanitation solutions in Lebanon. The literature review served as starting point for consultations with stakeholders for the selection of possible sites needing wastewater treatment plants and a review of wastewater treatment technologies that fit the selected sites. Phase II includes identification of the final list of sites and sanitation solutions. Phase II will be presented in a separate report.

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

BACKGROUND

As indicated in the scope of work above, a literature review using wastewater masterplans, information on planned and ongoing projects, and other available sources of information resulted in the development of an extensive list of projects in approximately 300 localities. Parallel to site identification, LWP team reviewed wastewater treatment technologies that suit the local context. Consultations were organized with private companies specialized in wastewater treatment to confirm the availability of these technologies in Lebanon and the capacity of the companies to build and/or operate such plants. The extensive list of sites in conjunction with the list of selected wastewater treatment technologies served as background documentation during consultations with stakeholders (e.g., MoEW, RWEs and local authorities).

INITIAL LIST OF SITES

The initial list of sites was defined after the literature review to identify potential locations requiring sanitation solutions. The literature review covered multiple sources including but not limited to:

 Design drawings (MoEW1).  Completed and ongoing wastewater masterplans (Beqaa, North, and South Lebanon Water Establishments).  Studies and reports for completed or ongoing projects (MoEW).  Other documents mentioned in relevant sections of this report. A preliminary list of approximately 300 potential sites was developed by LWP. In order to further filter out potential sites, a population size criterion was applied. The population size of 2,500 was adopted as a ceiling in order to ensure that only small sizes villages are considered and low cost investments are required. All villages in the preliminary list that exceeded 2,500 inhabitants were dropped resulting in a pre-selected short list of villages for every RWE. Appendix I provides the initial list of potential sites per RWE reflecting a total of 57 sites distributed as follows:  BWE: one potential site  SLWE: three potential sites  BMLWE: 16 potential sites  NLWE: 37 potential sites Those lists will be discussed with concerned stakeholders as described in the consultation section of this report. The population size was limited to 2,500 inhabitants as a 2040 projected growth in order to take into account population in the design of the solution.

1 Personal communication with

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects 3

WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

Several technologies exists on the local and international markets. These solutions can be used as standalone systems or in combination (called a treatment train) to achieve the required effluent quality as per adopted effluent discharge standards. Effluent quality requirements vary according to the end use of the treated effluent. Treated wastewater can be discharged into a receiving environment, such as the sea and rivers, or reused in irrigation and industry; the quality standards will vary according to the end use. This report presents multiple wastewater treatment technologies. The final technology choice will be context appropriate and selected based on the aforementioned criteria. Following the technology selection, technical and financial studies will determine final feasibility. In addition to sanitation solutions, this report identifies locations where solutions could be implemented. The selected locations will be based on an identification process including a review of masterplans, discussions with stakeholders, and field visits. The reviewed localities will be restricted to those that have a maximum population of 2,500 (as estimated in 2040). WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS AND SELECTION CRITERIA Wastewater treatment technologies can be categorized into natural and conventional systems. Natural systems rely on natural, non-mechanical processes for wastewater treatment and require no or minimal energy input. However, they typically require large amounts of available land. Natural systems are low technology and need minimum operator knowledge. Conventional systems rely on mechanical equipment for wastewater treatment of wastewater. They typically require high-energy input, but their land footprint is small. Conventional systems require skilled operators. Most systems can achieve secondary treatment and tertiary treatment when combined in a treatment train. An example can be the addition of a constructed wetland to remove nitrates and phosphates from the secondary treated effluent of an activated sludge plant. An important advantage of natural systems is their capacity to accept point loading (e.g., from wastewater tankers). In addition, and as long as it is equal or below their max loading and flow capacity, natural systems can accommodate a wide range of fluctuations in loading and flow. The case is critical in rural areas with seasonal variations in population. NATURAL SYSTEMS

The following describes three natural treatment systems that are applicable to Lebanon. Lagoons Defined as constructed or earthen ponds of various depths. Stabilization/Facultative Lagoon The process is based on aerobic-anaerobic digestion. Lagoons treat wastewater through passive aerobic and anaerobic processes that are achieved through a series of lagoons with varying depths. Deep lagoons create anaerobic conditions, while shallow lagoons create aerobic conditions with natural air exchange. The following provides the advantages and disadvantages of this type of treatment. Advantages

 Low capital cost.  Low operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.  No energy input except for pumping under grade sewers.  Low technical manpower requirement.  Removes up to 70% of solids and bacteria.  High removal of Helminth eggs.  High nutrient and low pathogen content effluent.

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects 4

 Easy to operate and maintain. Disadvantages

 Requires a large area of land.  May produce undesirable odors.  May require periodic removal of excess solids.  Mosquitos and insects can be a problem. Aerated Lagoons Surface aerators are used to maintain and enhance aerobic conditions in aerated lagoons (Figure 1). Controlled aeration is provided by mechanical means using different aerator types, such as turbines, ejector pumps, microbubbles, etc. These lagoons are typically easy to operate and maintain, and are considered very effective for wastewater treatment with an efficiency that reaches 96 to 99% of bacterial removal. The advantages and disadvantages of aerated lagoons are described below. Advantages

 Require a smaller land area.  Produce few undesirable odors.  Remove up to 70% of solids and bacteria.  High nutrient and low pathogen content effluent.  Medium level skills required to operate and maintain. Disadvantages

 Require mechanical devices to aerate the basins.

 Produce effluents with a high suspended solids concentration.

 Electricity service must be uninterrupted and replacement parts available to prevent extended downtimes that may cause the pond to turn anaerobic.

 Mosquitos and insects can be a problem.

 Odor may be a problem.

 Sludge accumulation is higher in cold climates. Figure 1. Cross Section of an Aerated Lagoon

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects 5

CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS Constructed wetlands (CW) follow the same principles as lagoons with the addition of aquatic plants and, in some cases, substrate. In a CW, the ponds are lined with an impermeable membrane filled with gravels of different grades and planted with selected species of aquatic plants such as Phragmites australis and Typha latifolia. Organic components are removed by microbiological aerobic and anaerobic processes; and colloidal particles are removed by sedimentation or adsorption. Nitrogen is removed to a certain degree through the process of ammonification, nitrification, and denitrification. Phosphorous is trapped in the filter material and the biomass vegetation. There are two main types (horizontal flow and vertical flow) of CWs based on the flow direction used in the wetland design. Horizontal and vertical flow CWs are described below. Horizontal Flow Constructed Wetlands (HFCW) The two types of horizontal flow constructed wetlands are described in the following:  Horizontal Open Surface. This CW allows water to flow in open air and direct sunlight. As the water flows openly, physical, chemical, and biological processes filter solids, degrade organics, and remove nutrients from the wastewater.  Horizontal Sub-Surface Flow (HSF). This CW uses a gravel bed planted with wetland vegetation. Water is maintained below the gravel surface and flows horizontally from the inlet to the outlet. Wastewater is treated as it flows through the gravel media and around the roots and rhizomes of the plants. HSF wetlands treat primary effluent to reach tertiary treatment standards. Figure 2 provides a typical cross section for an HSF CW. Figure 2. Schematic Cross-section of a Horizontal Flow CW (Morel & Diener. 2006)

Vertical Flow Constructed Wetlands (VFCW) Vertical Flow (VF) CW distributes water across the surface of a sand or gravel bed planted with wetland vegetation as shown in Figure 3. Water percolates down through the plant root zone. This technology requires piping systems including pumps to sprinkle water throughout the vegetation.

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects 6

Figure 3. Schematic Cross-section of a Vertical Flow CW (Morel and Diener, 2006)

Constructed Wetlands for Sludge Drying Constructed wetlands can be used to dry sludge produced by wastewater treatment plants. They are multiple times more efficient than conventional drying beds. The reeds are planted into relatively shallow waterproofed concrete basins. The drainage form the basins is sent back to the wastewater treatment plant for treatment. The basin lifecycle before cleaning is approximately 5 years depending on loading. Once cleaned, the basin can be reused. Advantages

 Removes up to 90% of solids and bacteria.

 Capital cost varies with land cost

 Low O&M requirements and costs.

 Easy to operate and maintain.

 Reduced odors.

 Able to handle variable wastewater loadings (low and high flows), which occurs in rural areas with variable seasonal populations.

 Provides wildlife habitat.

 No sludge residues.

 Provides tertiary treatment by removing nitrates and phosphates.

 Almost no sludge production

 Can be used as sludge drying beds with much higher efficiency than normal sludge drying beds.

 Can be used for individual households. Disadvantages

 Requires large land area. 3-4 m2/population equivalent (PE) for HFCW and 2 m2/PE for VFCW for wastewater treatment.

 Requires periodic removal of excess plant material. Septic Tanks A septic tank (ST) consists of a settling tank in which two processes take place: the partial removal of organic substances and anaerobic sludge stabilization. The deterioration of the effluent is caused by

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects 7 sludge digestion. STs are usually multi-chambered with openings protected by a scum board. STs can remove up to 60% of the organic matter through settling. Figure 4 presents a schematic cross-section of a basic, two-compartment septic tank. Figure 5 presents the typical septic tank detail drawing provided by the Lebanese Ministry of Environment (MoE). This ST includes upgrades such as chlorination and filtration through leach fields. The septic tank advantages and disadvantages are provided in the following. Advantages

 Can be used by individual households or larger groups, depending on capacity.  Easy to operate and maintain.  Can be built in rural areas. Disadvantages

 Is a primary treatment method; it provides a low treatment efficiency.  Must be emptied periodically.  Requires treatment for periodic disposal of sludge and seepage which may be treated in leach field.  Can negatively affect groundwater quality in karst areas.

Figure 4. Schematic Cross-section of a Septic Tank (Morel & Diener, 2006)

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects 8

Figure 5. Typical Septic Tank Detail Drawing Provided by the Lebanon Ministry of Environment

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects 9

CONVENTIONAL SYSTEMS

Conventional wastewater treatment systems are described in the following. Rotating Biological Contactors Rotating Biological Contactors rely on suspended biological growth to treat wastewater aerobically. A series of constantly rotating discs are partially submerged in wastewater. The rotation process serves to aerate the bacterial growth creating an anaerobic treatment environment. Several variations on the theme exist. The rotating discs can be engineered in different shapes and form depending on the design of the whole plant. Advantages  Plug and play systems requiring just the placement of a pre-packaged plant on site and its connection to the sewer influent and effluent networks.  Easy to operate.  Can be used for small populations.  Easily expanded from current to future populations.  Can be portable and moved to different locations especially for non-permanent dwellings.  Easy to operate and maintain  80-95% bacterial oxygen demand (BOD) removal.  Can be expanded when needed with the addition of new modules.  Acceptable costs. Disadvantages  Bearings and shafts require consistent maintenance to avoid problems.  Odor problems when open (can be covered). Trickling filters A trickling filter consists of a tower filled with composite material or stones on which a bacterial biofilm grows. Wastewater is delivered on top of the tower and trickles to the bottom over the media where it is treated. Advantages  Small footprint allowing for construction were minimal land is available.  BOD removal can reach 85%.  Can be used for single dwellings or several households. Disadvantages  Needs consistent operator presence.  Performance efficiency might vary depending on O&M and loading. Activated sludge Activated sludge is the most common mechanical wastewater treatment system used worldwide. It uses suspended growth to treat wastewater. Aeration systems maintain an aerobic environment in the main tank where bacteria will consume organic matter. A sludge return system ensures that the bacterial population in the activation tank is kept at required levels for treatment. Activated sludge systems can

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects 10 achieve tertiary treatment levels if required. BOD removal can reach 95%. Other contaminants, such as N, P, and microorganisms, can also be removed in the system. Extended aeration

Extended aeration is a modification of activated sludge where the primary settlement phase is replaced with longer aeration times. Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor Moving Bed Biofilm Reactors (MBBR) are a variation of activated sludge where suspended growth is replaced with attached growth on composite material added in the main aeration tank. Attached growth increases the efficiency of the plant and greatly reduces its footprint. No return sludge is needed. MBBRs can come as prepackaged plants that can be upgraded with the addition of modules to accommodate an increase in population.

Advantages  Small to very small footprint.  High treatment levels.  Low odor levels.  Socially and politically most accepted and understood.  MBBRs can be modular.

Disadvantages  High capital and operating expenses.  Requires skilled technicians to operate.  Does not function well with extreme flow fluctuation, a typical case in rural areas.  Operation generates noise from mechanical equipment.

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects 11

CONSULTATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS

BACKGROUND

Consultations followed the literature review phase in order to reach a better understanding of treatment technologies available, and any particular limitations to a project at a specific site. Consultations come to further enhance the findings and provide updated guidance on real needs in the field. As indicated previously, the short list of potential sites and the variety of treatment technologies were used as a basis for consultation with the different stakeholders. This allowed LWP to narrow down the number of identified sites in the RWEs. The stakeholders consulted included the private sector, MoEW, RWEs, and local authorities represented through municipalities and mayors.

CONSULTATIONS WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR

The LWP team met with three main companies: EMCO, Aquarius, and Aquatherma. All three companies have experience in wastewater treatment in Lebanon and abroad. They have installed and operated several different wastewater treatment technologies. The purpose of these consultations was to confirm that the wastewater treatment technologies discussed in this report are available in Lebanon. The companies were presented with the context related to the work of LWP on wastewater treatment including the choice of population size, locations, and general guidelines for technology selection. Emphasis was placed on low capital and O&M costs, while trying to identify technologies that can meet the Lebanese affluent discharge standards. EMCO recommended the use of MBBR as a new technology with a very small footprint that saves on land use and cost. The operational advantage of MBBRs is the removal of the sludge return line found in activated sludge systems. MBBRs can meet the needs of small populations and are available in modular form that allows expansion of the treatment plant with the expansion of the network and served population. The EMCO MBBR systems are almost plug and play requiring a very short installation time. The company has already installed two MBBRs in Lebanon. Aquarius recommends conventional activated sludge being the most used technology in Lebanon and globally. It is a technology that operators use in Lebanon, which can achieve tertiary treatment with the addition of extra modules in the treatment train. Activated sludge can be used for population sizes ranging from a few households to entire cities. Aquarius also proposed the use of constructed wetlands for sludge drying. The company has installed the system in the UNIFIL headquarters in South Lebanon. Aquarius has installed and operated several activated sludge plants in Lebanon. Aquatherma proposed extended aeration as a simple technology to treat municipal wastewater. The technology is easy to operate, but might require a large footprint. Aquatherma had previous experience with anaerobic package plants for wastewater treatment. However, their recommendation is not to use these systems as they do not achieve required treatment levels. With the exception of constructed wetland, the Lebanese companies consulted have designed, installed, and operated wastewater treatment plants using most of the technologies listed in the literature review of this report. Accordingly, Lebanese expertise in wastewater treatment does not constrain the selection of the treatment technology.

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects 12

CONSULTATIONS WITH MOEW

Consultations were held with MOEW to get an update on the status of wastewater planning and implementation in the RWEs. The initial list (provided in Appendix I) resulting from literature review and the population size filter of villages below 2,500 in population was the basis for the consultations with MoEW. The consultations clarified the status of wastewater treatment at the different RWEs:  In North Lebanon Water Establishment (NLWE), masterplans for Bcharreh, Zgharta, and Minieh- Danieh are still in the process of being developed and have not been approved by MoEW.  In South Lebanon Water Establishment (SLWE), the construction of WWTPs in Saida, Tyr, Nabatiyeh, and Marjeyoun are covered by organizations other than LWP. These WWTPs are expected to address substantial inland wastewater needs with no significant potential sites for LWP consideration with the exception of the village of Roum that was suggested by the Union of Municipalities in Jezzine and will be described later in this report.  In Beirut Mount Lebanon Water Establishment (BMLWE), major WWTPs were constructed in urban coastal areas. Rural areas under the authority of BMLWE have benefitted from small WWTPs that were implemented under a previous USAID-funded project.  In Beqaa Water Establishment (BWE), the MoE has developed a Roadmap for the Litani River and the Qaraoun Lake protection. This Road Map covers wastewater solutions for the area. For areas outside this Roadmap, LWP will not be providing any wastewater treatment solutions because the size of the population for these areas exceeds the LWP population parameter of 2,500 according to the 2013 BWE wastewater master plan. One exception would be the village of Majdal Balhiss that was suggested to LWP by the Lebanon Reforestation Initiative (LRI - USAID funded project) with reuse potential in reforestation activities as described later in this report. Based on the above, the initial list was narrowed down to 18 villages that constitute the first short list of potential sanitation projects.

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects 13

Figure 6. First Shortlist of Potential Sanitation Projects

Wastewater Forecasted Number Area Population generation Villages Caza Location population of villages (RWE) (2016) m3/day served in 2040 served (2040) BMLWE Jbeil Laqlouq 1,034 1,574 255 1 Laqlouq BMLWE Jbeil Haqel 559 851 138 1 Haqel BMLWE Jbeil Lehfed 1,781 2,711 440 1 Lehfed BMLWE Keserwan Yahchouch 1,588 2,417 392 1 Yahchouch BMLWE Keserwan Al Hussein 364 554 90 1 Al Hussein BMLWE Keserwan Bazaal 911 1,386 225 1 Bazhal Nahr El Nahr El BMLWE Keserwan 317 482 78 1 Dahab Dahab Ain El BMLWE Keserwan 230 350 57 1 Ain El Delbe Delbe Wata Al BMLWE Keserwan 309 470 76 1 Wata Al Jozz Jozz BMLWE Metn Zabbougha 578 880 143 1 Zabbougha Kfertay, Wadi el Wadi el BMLWE Metn 358 544 88 3 Karm Karm, Deir Zinaya NLWE Akkar Deir Janine 601 915 148 1 Deir Janine NLWE Akkar Menjez 1,142 1,739 282 1 Menjez NLWE Batroun Mar Mama 220 335 54 1 Mar Mama NLWE Batroun Sghar 390 594 96 1 Sghar NLWE Koura Ijdaabrine 922 1,403 228 1 Ijdaabrine SLWE Jezzine Roum 1,494 2,273 369 1 Roum Majdel Majdel BWE Rachaiya 1,491 2,269 368 1 Balhiss Balhiss

CONSULTATIONS WITH RWES

BWE and SLWE are both covered by EU/World Bank funds and MoEW funds respectively as confirmed by MoEW. That is why LWP did not hold any further consultations with BWE and SLWE and the selection was limited to Majdel Balhiss and Roum, respectively. BMLWE and NLWE consultations were held to seek their input on the first short list of potential sites and the selection process. The meetings focused on parameters necessary to ensure the feasibility, viability, constructability, and sustainability of the wastewater sanitation solutions at the selected sites. These parameters included, but were not limited to:  Availability of WW networks or availability of related studies/designs including historical data.  Readiness and commitment of BMLWE and NLWE to take over operation and maintenance (O&M) of new facilities. Based on the above parameters, new locations were identified and replaced some of the locations originally selected. BMLWE agreed on the 11 preselected sites located in areas under its jurisdiction, and expressed particular interest in further investigating the Zabbougha and Wadi el Karm locations. These two locations are

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects 14 adjacent to and at higher elevations than the top of the Bekaata Dam. The dam is currently under construction and will supply water to the Metn area. According to BMLWE’s management, a WW treatment solution for these two locations would solve the issue of potential contamination to the water contained by the dam. Following its review of the first short list of potential sites, NLWE advised LWP to consider Aayoun el Ghezlane in Akkar instead of Minjez in Akkar and Mar Mama, and Sghar in Batroun. According to NLWE’s management, Minjez, Mar Mama, and Sghar are not priority sites due to the low number of inhabitants, the lack of land/space area, and the lack of WW networks. The number of potential sites in the North was reduced to four based on LWP’s discussions with NLWE. The outcome of the consultations with RWEs is provided in Figure 7 Figure 7. Second Shortlist List of Potential Sites

Forecasted Wastewater Number Area Population Caza Location population generation of villages Villages served (RWE) (2016) in 2040 m3/day (2040) served

BMLWE Jbeil Laqlouq 1,034 1,574 255 1 Laqlouq BMLWE Jbeil Haqel 559 851 138 1 Haqel BMLWE Jbeil Lehfed 1,781 2,711 440 1 Lehfed BMLWE Keserwan Yahchouch 1,588 2,417 392 1 Yahchouch BMLWE Keserwan Al Hussein 364 554 90 1 Al Hussein BMLWE Keserwan Bazaal 911 1,386 225 1 Bazhal BMLWE Keserwan Nahr El Dahab 317 482 78 1 Nahr El Dahab BMLWE Keserwan Ain El Delbe 230 350 57 1 Ain El Delbe BMLWE Keserwan Wata Al Jozz 309 470 76 1 Wata Al Jozz BMLWE Metn Zabbougha 578 880 143 1 Zabbougha Kfertay, Wadi el BMLWE Metn Wadi el Karm 358 544 88 3 Karm, Deir Zinaya NLWE Akkar Deir Janine 601 915 148 1 Deir Janine Aayoun el Aayoun el NLWE Akkar 286 71 1 Ghezlane Ghezlane NLWE Koura Ijdaabrine 922 1,403 228 1 Ijdaabrine SLWE Jezzine Roum 1,494 2,273 369 1 Roum BWE Rachaiya Majdel Balhiss 1,491 2,269 368 1 Majdel Balhiss

CONSULTATIONS WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES

The LWP Water Resources Management and Civic Engagement Teams met with the municipalities and/ or mayors of the villages identified and shortlisted during the consultations with relevant authorities as presented in Figure 7 above. The purpose of the meetings was to:  Explain the selection process.  Check the on the existence of available land for a wastewater treatment facility. Municipalities/mayors and LWP visited and inspected potential sites that could be suitable for the construction of a wastewater treatment plant or any other suitable sanitation solution. The majority of municipal councils were receptive and had no major objections to the idea of a WWTP, even a CW. They were all very helpful in providing information pertaining the status of WW in their

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects 15 villages. In addition, they were instrumental in confirming land availability and in many cases their willingness to consider expropriation of land. Figure 8 below summarizes the findings and outcomes of the consultations with local authorities. The LWP team was contacted by LRI about the construction of a WWTP, preferably a CW in the village of Majdel Balhis where LRI is planting trees. The treated effluent from the CW could be used to irrigate the recently initiated reforestation efforts in the region. LRI organized a meeting between the LWP team and the Municipality of Majdel Balhis. A site visit followed the meeting and a suitable land area and location was identified for the installation of a CW that would serve the irrigation purposes of LRI. LWP was contacted by the Union of Municipalities of Jezzine for the installation of a CW in the village of Roum. The LWP team visited the site and met with the municipality of Roum. The proposed land is owned by the municipality and is of sufficient area to accommodate a CW. Roum has a wastewater network that discharges near the identified plot. The Union of Municipalities of Jezzine has secured the consent of the MoEW for the installation of the CW in Roum. The outcome of the site visits to the above-mentioned localities and the consultations made with the local authorities is summarized in following Figure 8.

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects 16

Figure 8. Final List of Potential Sites

)

y of y of

it it

Vis

ion

works

il il

n et

ab ab

e of

Wat

ort

ead

ail ail

Area (

Av Av

R N oc h Mun s Summer Winter

Laqlouq BMLWE 8-Dec-16 No Yes Yes 20,000 130 10 Yes The design for a WW network is available at the MoEW.

Haqel BMLWE 20-Oct-06 No Yes No Not 85 85 No Land could potentially be available from the wakef of religious Available orders/church. The total area is 19,000 m2 of which 5,000 m2 could be used for the construction of a wetland. There is no municipality in Haqel

Lehfed BMLWE 20-Oct-16 No Yes No Not 380 40 Yes

Available

Yahchouch BMLWE 27-Oct-16 No Yes Yes 7,000 450 450 Yes The need for a WW solution is pressing because Yahchouch is located above Al-Madiq water project and its septic tanks could potentially contaminate this water source. The municipality is willing to get the appropriation/ eminent domain of an area of approximately 7,000 m2, in order to provide land and speed-up this lengthy process to avoid costly delays.

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects 17

)

y of y of

it it

Vis

ion

works

il il

n et

ab ab

e of

Wat

ort

ead

ail ail

Area (

Av Av

R N oc h Mun s Al Hussein BMLWE 24-Oct-16 No Yes No Not 100 100 Yes

Available

Bazhal BMLWE 24-Oct-16 No Yes No Not 250 250 No There is no municipality

Available

Nahr Ed BMLWE No Yes No Not 80 30 No There is no municipality in Nahr Ed Dahab Dahab Available

Ain El Delbe BMLWE No Yes No Not 100 0 No There is no municipality in Ain El Delbe. Available

Wata Ej Jaouz BMLWE 24-Oct-16 No Yes No Not 288 30 Yes Note: A new WWTP will be constructed in Mairouba, a neighboring Available village. This planned WW treatment plant should be able to treat 50% of the WW generated in Wata Ej Jaouz. The other 50% will remain untreated until a treatment solution/option is found.

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects 18

)

y of y of

it it

Vis

ion

works

il il

n et

ab ab

e of

Wat

ort

ead

ail ail

Area (

Av Av

R N oc h Mun s Zabbougha BMLWE No According to information gathered by and Wadi el LWP after meeting BMLWE, there is Karm an existing plan for a WWTP included in the Bekaata Dam project and suitable land has been allocated for it. This WWTP could treat WW generated in Zabbougha and Wadi El Karm.

Deir Janine NLWE 9-Nov-16 No Yes No 0 100 30 Yes The Deir Janine location is being handled by UNICEF.

Aayoun el NLWE 16-Nov-16 No Yes Yes 4,113 48 48 Yes Ghezlane

Ijdabrine NLWE 17-Nov-16 No Yes Yes 400,000 150 150 Yes

Roum SLWE Yes Yes Yes 10,000 428 428 Yes Network available. The wastewater is being collected and then discharged into the valley with no treatment. A treatment solution will help removing the pollution and create a potential reuse of the effluent to irrigate the forest.

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects 19

)

y of y of

it it

Vis

ion

works

il il

n et

ab ab

e of

Wat

ort

ead

ail ail

Area (

Av Av

N oc h Mun s Majdel Balhis BWE No Yes Yes 15,000 300 270 Yes Potential reuse of the effluent to irrigate the reforestation project implemented by LRI.

Network in the village is not available. Despite the natural gravitational slope, the internal road network in the village are very narrow raising a challenge in implementing a WW network.

The current practice is a suction tank that evacuate the cesspits and discharges immediately into the Litany river

A possible solution for the village could be to discharge directly at the treatment facility.

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects 20

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

RWEs and municipal authorities want to address the environmental impact of openly discharging wastewater. They want to find solutions that they can afford and are willing to make land available for treatment facilities. They understand the financial burden associated with implementing new treatment facilities and the actions needed to make them sustainable. Potential locations for low cost wastewater solutions were found in each of the RWEs. Ten (10) sites were identified in the BMLWE, three in the NLWE, and one in each the SLWE and BWE. However, available resources at the central and regional levels are not sufficient to support new wastewater treatment facilities. A new tariff structure will need to be put in place to pay for O&M and for any required expansion in the future. Any new facilities should be low cost and easy for the local government or RWE to maintain. During the course of developing this report, it was apparent that the RWEs and municipalities are ready to address the wastewater challenges facing them now and in the future. Their level of understanding pertaining to the problem and willingness to take action should be taken advantage of now. LWP will carry on with Phase II - “Identification of Potential sites for LWP Intervention” of this task to make sure the challenges mentioned are taken into consideration while analyzing the short of localities presented in the Figure 8 above. While meeting the objective of finding two projects per RWE remains challenging, LWP will recommend a final list of sanitation projects for consideration in Phase II.

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects 21

APPENDIX I: Initial List of Potential Sites per RWE

LIST OF PROPOSED WWTP IN BWE Size of Wastewater Number the generation of Villages Caza Location population m3/day villages served 2040 (2040) served Deir el Rachaiya Deir el Aachayer 1,771 323 1 Aachayer LIST OF PROPOSED WWTP FOR SLWE Wastewater Size of the Number of generation Villages Caza Location population villages m3/day Served 2040 served (2040) El Arab el Marjaayoun 473 103 1 Wazzani Louaize village El Aaichiye & Nabaa and Dellafa Jezzine Aaichiyeh 1,989 280 3 which are the suburbs of El Aachiyeh village Mathanet el Kaoukaba Hasbaya 2,329 329 1 jaouze village

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects 22

LIST OF PROPOSED WWTP FOR BMLWE Wastewater Size of the Number generation Villages Caza Location population of villages m3/day served 2040 served (2040) Jbeil Kerkraya 23 4 1 Kerkraya Jbeil Laqlouq 242 42 1 Laqlouq Jbeil Haqel 434 75 1 Haqel Mazraat al Chouf WWTP1 720 119 1 Mouhtekra Keserwan Yahchouch 874 131 1 Yahchouch Keserwan Al Hussein 891 134 1 Al Hussein Metn Zabbougha 1,130 186 1 Zabbougha Keserwan Bazaal 1,313 197 1 Bazaal Nahr El Nahr El Keserwan 1,313 197 1 Dahab Dahab Ain El Ain El Keserwan 1,571 236 1 Delbe Delbe Kfertay, Wadi el Wadi el Metn 1,700 281 3 Karm Karm, Deir Zinaya Jbeil Tartej 1,746 304 1 Tartej Small local Kleileh - Aaley- Treatment 1,900 320 2 Rwaisat el Baabda Plants Numan Jbeil Lehfed 2,164 376 1 Lehfed Jbeil Ehmej 2,292 399 1 Ehmej Wata Al Wata Al Keserwan 2,550 383 1 Jozz Jozz

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects 23

LIST OF PROPOSED WWTP FOR NLWE

Size of Wastewater Number the generation of Villages Caza Area population m3/day villages served 2040 (2040) served Daher Ani Daher Ani Batroun 153 25 1 Yaghi Yaghi Batroun Massrah 153 25 1 Massrah Minieh- Tourbol 162 27 1 Tourbol Danniyeh Srar Akkar 169 28 1 Srar WWTP Mar Batroun 191 31 1 Mar Mama Mama Minieh- El Qarri, El Qarri 194 33 2 Danniyeh Aassaymout Batroun Jrebta 218 35 1 Jrebta Aamriye Akkar 253 41 1 Danke WWTP 2 Batroun Sghar 380 62 1 Sghar El Barde Akkar 506 83 1 El Barde WWTP Minieh - Rihanie 759 124 1 El Rihanieh Daniyeh Koura Kaftoun 810 132 1 Kaftoun Koura Ijdaabrine 818 133 1 Ijdaabrine Sfinet el Sfinet el Akkar Draib 839 138 1 Draib WWTP Koura Btaaboura 908 148 1 Btaaboura Qornet el Minieh- Jairoun 932 153 2 Birqawiyeh, Danniyeh Jairoun Chikhlar Akkar 1,012 166 1 Chikhlar WWTP Deir Akkar Janine 1,012 166 1 Deir Janine WWTP Dabbabiye 50% Akkar 1,096 179 1 WWTP 1 Dabbabiye Dabbabiye 50% Akkar 1,096 179 1 WWTP 2 Dabbabiye Charbila Akkar 1,181 193 1 Charbila WWTP Zgharta Zgharta El Koura El 1,335 218 1 Mtaouileh Mtaouileh Koura Mejdel 1,417 231 1 Mejdel Koura Btaaboura 1,424 232 1 Btaaboura Koura Kaftoun 1,427 232 1 Kaftoun Minieh- Bcheneta, Aaimar 1,462 239 2 Danniyeh Behouaita

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects 24

Size of Wastewater Number the generation of Villages Caza Area population m3/day villages served 2040 (2040) served Fraidis Akkar 1,527 249 2 Fraidis,Kassir WWTP Qatlabe Akkar 1,687 275 1 Qatlabe WWTP Mazraat En Mazraat Nahriye, En 25% Akkar 1,855 302 2 Nahriye Aaidmoun WWTP 2 (Moghraq and Jdeide) Houaich 30% Akkar 1,973 322 1 WWTP 2 Houaich, Kfar Kfar Akkar Noun 2,024 331 2 Noun,Rmah WWTP en Nahriye Aaouinat Akkar 2,024 331 1 Aaouinat WWTP Mouanse Akkar 2,024 331 1 Mouanse WWTP Darine Akkar 2,169 354 1 Darine WWTP Minieh- Btermez 2,176 355 1 Btermez Danniyeh (II) Ain ez 50% Ain ez Akkar Zeit 2,277 371 1 Zeit WWTP Menjez Akkar 2,530 413 1 Menjez WWTP

Phase 1- Stakeholders Consultations and Identification of Potential Sanitation Projects 25