Patricia Green | Stop development of public health hazards

Centrally collected sewage is piped to the Soapberry Treatment Plant in St Catherine and undergoes tertiary conversion for environmental discharge into the Kingston Harbour. This fulfils national determination to prevent pollution of ground water resources.

The Daily Observer on January 16, 2019, published an article that said Soapberry was operating at 83 per cent of its daily capacity, and questioned the possibility of irrigating crops with it tertiary water. However, it needed a disinfection unit with a chlorinator and/or ultraviolet lights for irrigation purposes.

The December 20, 2021, judgment over development at #10 Roseberry Drive in Acadia highlighted “…area designated for their private sewage disposal … that should the complex be able to access the National Water Commission’s (NWC) main sewage line on Evans Avenue, the private sewage treatment plant (reed-bed system) would not be necessary…”.

A reed-bed is termed a constructed wetland, and in Jamaica a subsurface flow is recommended to reduce mosquito breeding, states Volume 3, Section 4 of the Ministry of Health – Environmental Health Unit (EHU) ‘Minimum Requirements of Waste Water Treatment Systems and Excreta Management in Jamaica’. The reed-bed receives the effluent from a Biodigester Septic Tank (BST) “…utilises the anaerobic technology to treat sewage and other wastewater … its by-products are biogas (a mixture of methane, carbon dioxide and trace amounts of other gases such as hydrogen sulphide) and liquid effluent containing nutrients...” states the EHU. These greenhouse gases must be harnessed because they are harmful to the environment. The BST offloads into a nutrient removal technology – evaporation bed, wetland [reed-bed], pond, or tile field.

The court revealed #10 Roseberry increased from 24 granted to almost 45 habitable rooms, and my personal extrapolation may be that approximately 135 persons would inhabit it. What was the technical specification of the reed-bed system at #10? Would it accommodate any increased habitable rooms? Is there adequate distance between the reed-bed system and adjacent neighbours to prevent leeching next door?

GRAVE CONCERNS

Environmental engineers are expressing grave concerns that developments unattached to central sewerage may be creating environmental health hazards. From their perspectives, these developments should each have independent treatment plants.

It is appearing that the current practice tends to compromise the design criteria of the private sewerage systems in favour of maximising on returns. The space required for layout of an effective system instead is sometimes replaced by three or four units.

The Scientific Research Council (SRC) says that up to ten years ago, development teams consulted them for technical design of biodigesters and reed-beds. Years ago, I collaborated with the SRC for a home on Sandhurst Crescent, St Andrew, where they used the methane generated from the biodigester for cooking. Their garden produced the tastiest bananas.

I connected with SRC for some calculations over a scenario. If my multifamily development has 30-habitable rooms, conservatively at two persons per room totals 60 persons. Therefore, from bathrooms, the waste would travel to:

(1) Biodigester sized 100 metres cube that I placed as five metres wide x five metres long x four metres deep;

(2) Reed-bed 120 metres cube that I made 13m wide x 13m long x 0.7m deep;

(3) Chlorinating chamber septic tank one-metre cube [1m x 1m x1m], which must be chlorinated at least once per week;

(4) Soakaway pit 40 metres cube/for irrigation use on landscaping /if excess, into storage tanks minimum size 50 metres cube for holding for three days to water plants only.

Overall allowable area for this sewerage tertiary treatment scenario would be minimum 300metres square for 60 persons. Note the area for the layout of this sewerage system is equivalent to the size of a three-bedroom unit.

UNINFORMED

In the interest of public health, citizens are asking the Ministry of Health and Wellness to indicate to them what types of developments have been permitted in their neighbourhoods. They have written and lobbied without success, for information about various approvals and permits. Citizens remain uninformed during the process and prior to any issuance of development approvals and/or building permits. Consequently, they are forced to employ the Access to Information (ATI) Act and incur expenses for lengthy legal proceedings.

Will the Ministry of Health-EMU engage neighbourhood concerns on potential public health issues related to these following projects:

The National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) 2017 Provisional Development Order (PDO) Barbican Local Planning Area#1 “…The planning authority will seek to ensure the coordination of development with the provision of sewage services…”

• Acadia Citizens’ Association – six: lots less than half-acre – Evans Avenue #9; Evans Avenue #12; Nicks Avenue #15; Roseberry Drive #9; Roxburgh Avenue #4; Roxburgh Avenue #6.

• Liguanea Local Planning Area#7 “…some sections are serviced by the National Water Commission’s (NWC) central sewerage system…”

• Citizens of Edgecombe and Gainsborough Avenues – four: – Barbican Road #35; Edgecombe Avenue #20; Edgecombe Avenue #22; Widcombe Avenue #24.

• Sandhurst Citizen Association – three: – East Kings House Avenue #20; Sandhurst Crescent #43; Sandhurst Crescent #80.

• Papine University District Local Planning Area#11 “…multifamily developments may be considered in centrally sewered areas…”.

•Charlemont Drive Neighbourhood Watch and Citizens’ Association (CDNW & CA) – four: – Charlemont Drive #13; Charlemont Drive #15; Charlemont Drive #32; Salisbury Avenue #33. The CDNW & CA has suffered continuously from roadway excavations through various consecutive sewerline connections lacking coordinated management by responsible agencies, including the Ministry of Health.

• Red Hills Local Planning Area#14 “…hilly terrain susceptible to rock falls and soil subsidence … not be in excess of 75 habitable rooms per hectare (30 per acre) for multifamily developments due to the physical constraint…”.

• Forest Hills Civic Association – eight: – Forest Way #5A; Forest Way #5B; Kirkland Crescent #1; Kirkland Crescent #48D; Mayfair Avenue #200; Mayfair Avenue #20; Red Hills Road #147; West Kirkland Heights #4.

• Leas Flat Citizens Association – three: – Leas Flat #1; Leas Flat #15; Leas Flat #21B.

• The Greater Jacks Hill Citizens’ Association has four. Why, when their hilly terrain falls outside of any Local Planning Area of the NEPA 2017 PDO? – Billy Dunn, Lot #98; Kingsale Avenue #5; Kingsale Avenue #5C; Temple Mead #31.

• Also falling outside any Local Planning Area is Havendale/Meadowbrook Citizens’ Association, having two – Roehampton Drive #13; Roehampton Drive #19.

The 2017 PDO projected that with an annual population growth rate of 0.9 per cent in the Development Order Area, Soapberry would be sufficient until approximately 2020-2030, adding “…permission will not be granted for any new development, redevelopment or extensions within a sewered area unless they are being connected to the central sewerage system and may not permit but phase the timing of development based on availability and capacity of sewage collection systems…”.

Who will take responsibility for this apparent rush on multifamily developments outside sewered areas, thereby heightening public health hazard possibilities across neighbourhoods?

- Patricia Green, PhD, is a registered architect, and former head of the Caribbean School of Architecture in the Faculty of the Built Environment at University of Technology, Jamaica. Send feedback to patgreen2008@gmail.com.