Water, Sewage & Effluent March April 2019 | Page 19

www.waterafrica.co.za
Two case studies are presented based
on IPRDP funding awarded by the DST to
Chris Hani DM (May 2014) and Umjindi LM
(July 2015). In both cases, the awarded
funding was managed by signature to a
memorandum of agreement between the
Water Research Commission (WRC) and
EBRU, represented by the University.
Case Study 1
Funding (R8.5-million) was awarded for a
proposal titled “The Establishment of an
Integrated Algal Pond System (IAPS) for
the Treatment of Municipal Wastewater”
with a planned project start date of 1
October 2014. This project progressed
to ‘preliminary design’ stage with an
estimated total cost of R27.3-million and
written commitment from the DM to
provide the necessary counter-funding
Water Sewage & Effluent March/April 2019
17
The IPRDP projects
The above notwithstanding, a technical re-
evaluation of this wastewater treatment
technology was commissioned and
confirmed that IAPS, when configured and
operated correctly, and with appropriate
tertiary treatment, yield a final effluent
that meets the general authorisation
limit values for either irrigation or
discharge to a water resource that is not
a listed water resource (Water Research
Commission TT 649/15). Furthermore, life
cycle assessment (LCA) modelling, to
map both energy flows and greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions, revealed that a
500 PE system would yield minus (–) 0.16
tonnes CO 2e /ML wastewater treated,
indicating a technology with an ability
to mitigate climate change. However, as
had been determined earlier by Royal
HaskoningDHV, this study confirmed the
existence of large knowledge gaps in
terms of technology familiarity and status,
design and process operation, and cost
of construction within the local South
African context.
By comparison, IAPS (and variations
thereof) were recognised globally as a
contemporary WWT technology and had
been implemented at pilot, demonstration,
and full commercial scale. Furthermore,
the HRAOP component of IAPS was and
remains the subject of intensive study
aimed at increasing both WWT efficacy
and the production of biomass. The latter
is of particular importance given current
global interest in the water-energy-food
nexus, algae-to-energy systems, CO 2
sequestration and the mitigation of climate
change, and as a source of commodity
products for economic growth and
development (see, DST Strategic Plan for
the Fiscal Years 2015–2020). Thus, motive
and opportunity appeared still to exist in
South Africa for the implementation of
commercial-scale IAPS by both district
and local municipalities. To this end, IAPS
was listed as one of the demonstrator
technologies available for funding within
the Innovation Partnership for Rural
Development Programme (IPRDP), a
R143.5-million initiative funded by the
Department of Science and Technology
(DST) and aimed at targeted local and
district municipalities to achieve value
addition in response to prioritised needs.
innovations
Re-evaluation of the
wastewater treatment
technology
“The basic question arises whether
it was sensible to invest in a
demonstration project while the
intended market spin-off for this type
and size of treatment facility in South
Africa would be hard to achieve.
Chances of a successful upscaling of
the demonstration project, one of the
main objectives, would be minimal.”
One-hectare High-Rate Algal Ponds at the Cambridge Enhanced Pond System (EPS).
For over 30 years, oxidation ponds have been used to treat wastewater in small and
medium-sized communities. The conventional ponds work well at removing suspended
solids and lessening biochemical oxygen demand. They are cost-effective and require
little maintenance.
Because of the apparent increasingly
unattractive business case for IAPS
in South Africa (that is, small market
and difficult to access) and, after due
consideration of risks associated
with implementation of demonstrator
projects locally, Royal HaskoningDHV
took the decision together with its
partners to terminate the project and
concluded as follows:
“Because of the delays incurred in
the start-up of the project [by this
time the project was 1.5 years behind
schedule],
Royal
HaskoningDHV
undertook a review of the viability of the
demonstration project. This included
a confirmation of the business case
underlying the project. The original
business case, prepared in August
2009, recognised two major inhibitions
for a market introduction: uncertainty
of the effluent quality and unfamiliarity
of municipalities (potential clients) with
the IAPS system. Royal HaskoningDHV
… came to the following conclusions:
1. To ensure that IAPS-based
treatment meets the stringent
South African effluent
regulations, tertiary treatment is
required which undermines the
financial competitiveness of the
technology.
2. ...project history shows that
municipalities are very reluctant
to invest, not only because of …
uncertainty about the credentials
of IAPS, but also because of the
budgetary constraints they usually
face. This is a major obstacle
to entering this market of small
municipal wastewater treatment
plants.
3. The original business case
assumed … supply both design
and procurement services. The
latter appears not to be possible
under current South African
procurement regulations for public
entities such as municipalities.
This reduces potential margins
on the realisation of IAPS plants
significantly making the business
case even less attractive.”
costs. Royal HaskoningDHV summarised
the situation as follows: