Assessment of Data Availability and Evaluation of Compliance Status of Wastewater Treatment Facilities Along Hilutungan Channel

University of San Carlos – Department of Chemical Engineering
ChE 523NL FORM-1-Undergraduate Research Paper Template v2017-1
ChE 523NL FORM-1:

Undergraduate Research Paper Template
Endorsement Sheet
Term/Academic Year:
Department of Second Semester AY 2018-2019
Chemical Engineering
Talamban, Cebu City, Philippines 6000
Research Paper Endorsement and Approval
I/we have read and agreed to the findings contained in the research manuscript entitled
ASSESSMENT OF DATA AVAILABILITY AND EVALUATION OF COMPLIANCE

STATUS OF HOTEL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES ALONG
HILUTUNGAN CHANNEL
Prepared and submitted by
Bernados, Raniel Simone S.
Maningo, Aira Jean S.
Rojas, Kaye D.
I/we affirm that the same complies with the standards prescribed for the research paper requirement.
In view thereof, I/we hereby endorses the said research paper for review and oral defense.
Endorsed By:
Engr. Patrick U. Tan

Name and Signature of Adviser Date Endorsed
Name and Signature of Co-Adviser Date Endorsed

ChE 523NL FORM-1:

Undergraduate Research Paper Template
Approval Sheet
Term/Academic Year:
Department of Second Semester AY 2018-2019
Chemical Engineering
ASSESSMENT OF DATA AVAILABILITY AND EVALUATION OF COMPLIANCE

STATUS OF HOTEL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES ALONG
HILUTUNGAN CHANNEL
REVIEW
Engr. Victoria F. Napisa Engr. Luis K. Cabatingan

Name and Signature of Reviewer Name and Signature of Reviewer
Dr. Angelo H. Cabije Engr. May V. Tampus

Dr. Ian Dominic F. Tabañag Engr. Ramir L. Jarabis

Date of Review
APPROVAL
Engr. Victoria F. Napisa

Name and Signature of Primary Reviewer Date Approved
Dr. Angelo H. Cabije

Dr. Ian Dominic F. Tabañag

USC Chemical Engineering Student

Research Annual 2019
Volume X, xx-xx
Department of
Chemical Engineering Environmental Sustainability
0 Assessment of data availability and evaluation of compliance status

1 of hotel wastewater treatment facilities along Hilutungan Channel
2
3 Raniel Simone S. Bernadosa, Aira Jean S. Maningoa, Kaye D. Rojasa, Patrick U. Tana,*
4
5 a
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of San Carlos, Talamban, Cebu City 6000, Philippines
6 *Corresponding author: Telefax +63 32 344 6783, Email: putan@usc.edu.ph
7
8 Abstract
9
10 Assessment of data availability and evaluation of compliance status of hotel wastetwater treatment facilities along
11 Hilutungan Channel was conducted in this study. Assessment of availability was conducted for the following data:
12 wastewater characteristics, employed treatment technologies in the WTFs, hotel occupancy, water consumption, and
13 water generation. Data for 14 establishments were sourced from DENR records (self-monitoring reports, engineer’s
14 reports, DENR laboratory results, and discharge permits), from interviews conducted and from observations made
15 during establishment visits. The data types assessed were found to have varying degrees of availability. Data on
16 effluent levels of generated wastewater were compared with DENR standards. It was found that some establishments
17 were noncompliant for most of the relevant parameters for accommodation and food services industry. Noncompliance
18 may be attributed to several causes such as operator incompetence, poor maintenance of the facility, or suboptimal
19 operating conditions.
20
21 Keywords: wastewater, data availability, compliance status
1
22 1. Introduction
23
24 Rich coastal waters contribute to the Philippine economy through tourism industry, specifically in
25 the areas of hotel and accommodation, transportation and other activities related to the tourism sector [1].
26 One of these coastal waters in the Philippines is the Hilutungan Channel, a deep-water channel along Lapu-
27 lapu City and Cordova, Cebu that separates the islands of Mactan and Olango. The Hilutungan Channel’s
28 current direction is reversing. During the flood tide current direction is northerly, while during the ebb-tide
29 it is south-west [2]. The reversing action has a great impact in the dispersion of any substances in the water
30 body [3]. Substances then may take more time before they can be swept away from the water channel.
31 There is a need to maintain the water quality of the Hilutungan Channel for the survival of the
32 different aquatic species residing there. The islands situated within its boundaries are filled with sanctuaries
33 necessary for the survival of its biodiversity. Its surrounding area has a species richness of 27 species per
34 500 square meters and a 357 fish density per 500 square meters [2]. This makes the Hilutungan Channel a
35 popular diving spot for tourists who usually stay in hotels situated along its shores. The Hilutungan Channel
36 is concentrated with approximately 30 hotel and resort properties and condominium residences [4,5]. Other
37 beneficial uses of the Hilutungan Channel include primary recreational activities such as bathing and
38 swimming, making it a Class SB water body as classified by the Department of Environment and Natural
39 Resources – Environmental Management Bereau (DENR-EMB) [6].
40 The beneficial uses that the Hilutungan Channel offers coupled with the rise of establishments that
41 accommodate and cater to the needs of tourists make the Philippines, specifically Mactan Island, an
42 attractive tourist destination. In fact, the number of international tourist arrivals in the Philippines has been
43 flourishing in the recent years, increasing by 9.7% to 4.3 million visitors for January-July 2018, as
44 compared to the same period in the previous year [7]. In Central Visayas alone, the number of tourist arrivals
45 reached approximately 6.9 million in 2017, exceeding the region’s target by 10% [8].
46 The increase in tourist arrivals in the Philippines can significantly contribute to the increase in
47 amount and strength of generated wastewater, making the compliance to standards on effluent discharge
48 more challenging. A study on Hilutungan Channel showed that the nitrate, ammonia, phosphate, and total
49 and fecal coliform content of the water samples taken exceeded the limits set by DENR [9,10]. Common
50 sources of these excess compounds include improperly treated industrial and household wastewaters [9].
51 DENR, through EMB, has called upon the hotels and resorts to commit to complying with
52 environmental laws and guidelines, especially now that new effluent standards on nutrient levels are in
53 place. The DENR’s Department Administrative Order (DAO) 2016-08 in particular specifies effluent
54 standards on relevant parameters for accommodation and food services industry, which include BOD, fecal
55 coliforms, ammonia, nitrate, phosphate, oil & grease, surfactants, and TSS [5,6].
2
56
57 Table 1.1 Effluent standards for Class SB water body (accommodation and food services industry) [6]
Parameter Unit Class SB Effluent Standard
Nitrate as NO3-N mg/L 20
Phosphate PO4-P mg/L 1.0
Ammonia as NH3-N mg/L 0.5
BOD mg/L 30
TSS mg/L 70
Surfactants mg/L 3
Oil & Grease mg/L 5
Fecal Coliform MPN/100 mL 200
58
59 To determine the appropriate actions that can be done to comply with effluent standards, baseline
60 data on hotel wastewater treatment facilities (WTFs) is required in order to guide key players or
61 stakeholders (government, hotels and resorts, and environmental consultants) in future decision-making.
62 Baseline data is defined by literature as a set of information, which serves as the starting point for
63 other researches. Consulting companies and researchers often need a broad data set where different
64 conclusions, findings, and hypothesis can be drawn to move forward in their studies or to be able to develop
65 deeper research studies [11]. Establishing baseline data involves gathering information from existing
66 sources and collecting field data. The existing sources of information (secondary data) may include
67 databases, reports, and local community. Primary data is generated through field works, which include
68 monitoring and surveys [12].
69 This research focuses on establishment of baseline data for the evaluation of existing WTF. This
70 baseline data encompasses wastewater characteristics, employed treatment technologies in the WTFs, hotel
71 occupancy, water consumption, and water generation. The said data are defined by literature studies as
72 important data in monitoring and evaluating and retrofitting WTFs [13–16].
73 Evaluation of an existing WTF involves understanding the major unit processes involved
74 (employed treatment technologies) in wastewater treatment. This includes the descriptions and diagrams of
75 the unit processes involved such as activated sludge, SBR, RBC, etc. [15]. Effective retrofitting of WTFs
76 also include the assessment of the characteristics of the area such as geography and geology, water source,
77 water usage and hourly wastewater flow and variations. Additionally, it is helpful to know the age of the
78 plant, dates of latest upgrades, and the characteristics of the receiving water body [15,17].
79 A necessary step in evaluating a wastewater system require the generation of a baseline data that
80 comprise necessary parameters such as influent and effluent quantity and quality, upon which the design of
81 a WTF is based [18]. The characteristics of industrial wastewater are generally reported in terms physical,
82 chemical, and biological qualities.
83 The ability of WTF to perform at required levels becomes a challenge when water effluent quality
84 standards become more stringent. The treatment level that must be achieved serves as the basis of the design
3
85 of the facility in terms of performance. In the Philippines, the general effluent standards is prescribed in
86 the DAO No. 2016-08. Listed in DAO 2016-08 are important parameters that need to be monitored for the
87 accommodation and food services industry category, which include BOD, fecal coliform (FC), Ammonia,
88 nitrate, phosphate, oil and grease, and surfactants.
89 Wastewater characteristics in terms of effluent levels can be used to determine the status of
90 industries in terms of compliance to DENR standards. Knowing the currently employed treatment
91 technologies also gives idea on which technologies are most appropriate for the local setting and which
92 technologies were not able to meet the standards and may need further investigation and follow through
93 should be made to verify why these WTFs failed to comply with EMB disposal requirements. Wastewater
94 generation rate data is important because it will determine if the establishment’s treatment facility has
95 enough capacity to accommodate the generated wastewater, or it may be used as a basis for future WTF
96 design given the estimated amount of wastewater generated [19,20].
97 Establishment of baseline data depends significantly on availability of data. Data are known facts
98 or things used as basis for inference or reckoning. Specifically, the type of data assessed in this study are
99 numerical data. Numerical data, as defined by Cuesta, are values or observations that can be measured [21].
100 Data is considered available if they exist, if they can be measured and if they can be collected. Furthermore,
101 they can be accessed by researchers for the purposes of analysis and reporting. However, data is not always
102 made available to the public or to researchers. In the Philippine setting, legal constraints involved in the
103 access of data include the “List of Exceptions (Non-Disclosure of Information)” of the Freedom of
104 Information (FOI) Manual of the DENR [22]. Additionally, often times there is not enough data to be able
105 to establish an organized information which may serve as a baseline data. Assessment of availability of
106 existing data must therefore be conducted to identify data gaps and consequently identify appropriate
107 actions to be taken in order to address these data gaps.
108 Data are collected from different documents from EMB archives and water sampling results.
109 Documents are self-monitoring reports (SMRs), engineer’s reports, DENR laboratory results, and discharge
110 permits (DPs). SMR is a report where an establishment measures the concentration of their pollutant
111 emissions, discharges, and or performance parameters for compliance monitoring purposes [23]. Engineer’s
112 report is a detailed layout of the existing WTF. DENR laboratory results refer to results of analyses
113 conducted by the DENR Laboratory. The samples analyzed are obtained from water sampling conducted
114 by the EMB personnel, or from third parties who wish have their wastewater samples analyzed. DP is a
115 permit which allows an establishment to discharge its generated wastewater to a water body, as defined in
116 Republic Act No. 9275 or the Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004. It includes data on wastewater treatment
117 technologies used by the establishment and the wastewater generation. All of these documents are used by
118 the DENR to monitor the compliance of different establishments.
4
119 The ultimate aim of the treatment technologies used by the different establishments is to maintain
120 a ‘clean’ wastewater discharge—wastewater whose effluent level is compliant to DENR standards, in order
121 to preserve the receiving water body. The achievement of this aim is challenging, especially due to the
122 newly mandated standards on nutrients. The noncompliance of an establishment to DENR effluent
123 standards may be due a number of reasons, such as lack of monitoring on the operation of the treatment
124 technology, or insufficiency of the treatment technology itself in treating the strength and concentration of
125 the wastewater generated by the establishment. Thus, an evaluation on the causes of noncompliance is
126 important to determine the areas to focus on in future actions geared towards compliance to the standards.
127 A complete set of information or set of data aids significantly in the examination on the possible
128 causes for the WTF’s noncompliance and identify which aspects of the treatment process need
129 improvement. These aspects may include untrained operators, management support, and machine
130 maintenance, among others.
131 Baseline data can be used in determining which wastewater quality parameters are not complied by
132 the establishments, and consequently identify which parameters should be given focus during optimization
133 and adjustment of operating conditions, or through retrofitting of the facility itself. This is done by
134 comparing the DENR standards for effluent quality and the effluent values from each establishment. A
135 Pareto chart is used to determine which parameters has the most number of noncompliant establishments,
136 and must consequently be given focus in further studies.
137 Baseline data on the commonly used wastewater treatment technologies and their performance with
138 respect to the DENR standards can help recommend more practical and appropriate treatment technologies
139 to be used, since noncompliance to standards may also be caused by inappropriate use of treatment
140 technology. Baseline data provides information on nature of the wastewater to be treated, the treatment
141 requirements, and the performance of the existing wastewater treatment facility, all of which are hinge to
142 the choice of appropriate treatment technology [13–16].
143 Estimation of wastewater generation is important because this is where design of a facility is based,
144 since an establishment’s wastewater treatment facility must be able to accommodate its wastewater
145 generation [18].
146 This research focuses on the assessment of the availability of data necessary for establishment of
147 baseline data on wastewater characteristics, employed treatment technologies, hotel occupancy, water
148 consumption, and wastewater generation. Additionally, an evaluation of compliance to the standards is
149 done to give an idea on what and where problems arise. This research can be used as a springboard to the
150 formulation of possible corrective actions and future decision-making.
151
5
152 2. Methods
153
154 2.1. Industry selection
155
156 Sample selection falls into two categories: probability and nonprobability sampling.
157 Nonprobability sampling method of selecting samples is based on particular objectives to be achieved of
158 the research. This type of sampling method is not a product of randomized selection process, unlike its
159 counterpart, probability sampling [24].
160 The approach to industry selection applied in this research was the nonprobability sampling,
161 specifically convenience sampling. Convenience sampling selects cases based on their availability for the
162 study [24]. The samples selected based on convenience sampling are those samples which passed the
163 requirement presented as follows:
164 1. Accommodation establishment is located along the coast of Hilutungan Channel.
165 2. Accommodation establishment is equipped with a wastewater treatment facility.
166 3. Accommodation establishment has data which can be sourced from DENR/EMB records or
167 willing to participate in the study for data gathering.
168
169 Table 2.1 Establishment selection table
Requirement I: Requirement II: Requirement III:
Accommodation Accommodation establishment Accommodation establishment has data
Hotel code establishment is located is equipped with a wastewater which can be sourced from DENR records
along the coast of treatment facility. or willing to participate in the study for data
Hilutungan Channel. gathering.
A ✔ ✔ ✔
B ✔ ✔ ✔
C ✔ ✔ ✔
D ✔ ✔ ✔
E ✔ ✔ ✔
F ✔ ✔ ✔
G ✔ ✔ ✔
H ✔ ✔ ✔
I ✔ ✔ ✔
J ✔ ✔ ✔
K ✔ ✔ ✔
L ✔ ✔ ✔
M ✔ ✔ ✔
N ✔ ✔ ✔
O ✔ ✔ ✖
P ✔ ✔ ✖
Q ✔ ✔ ✖
170
6
171 The establishment must be able to meet all requirements to be included in this research. Based on
172 a list obtained from EMB, there are 17 establishments along the Hilutungan Channel. Table 2.1 shows a
173 checklist applying the set requirements for screening the 17 establishments.
174 Based on the requirements for convenience sampling and data obtained during Phases III and IV,
175 three hotel establishments where not able to meet all the requirements. Thus, the number of establishments
176 to be included in the study were narrowed down from 17 establishments to 14 establishments.
177
178 2.2. Data gathering
179
180 The data considered in this study are sourced from site visits and existing EMB records which
181 include self-monitoring reports (SMR), engineer’s reports, DENR laboratory results, and discharge permits
182 (DP), including attached documents to DP applications. The data considered are the most recent data
183 submitted by the establishments which fall within the period January 2018 – April 2019.
184 Figure 2.1 shows a flowchart of the data gathering process that transpired in the actual conduct of
185 this research. The data gathering consisted of four phases. In Phase I, a letter was sent to EMB detailing the
186 request of a list of all hotel establishments located along the coast of Hilutungan channel. A letter response
187 was given by EMB after two weeks, together with a list of 17 establishments. Calls were made to the
188 corporate offices of these 17 establishments, asking about how to obtain permission for establishment visit
189 and data gathering. From the responses of the persons-in-charge, e-mails and/or hard copies of letters
190 addressed to the establishments’ pollution control officers (PCOs) or hotel managers were sent. Seven
191 establishments denied request for site visit and data gathering, while ten did not respond.
192 While waiting for the response of the establishments, a letter was sent to EMB detailing the request
193 for access to information on wastewater treatment facilities, and data on wastewater characteristics of the
194 17 establishments. The request was denied. A request for reconsideration was made twice, first in-person
195 and second through call. The request was denied both times. Taking the advice of one of the EMB
196 personnel, an appointment with the EMB-7 regional director was set, for presentation of research and
197 request for assistance on establishment visit and data gathering. Approval from the regional director was
198 obtained, which granted the proceeding of Phase III. Additionally, a Memorandum of Undertaking (MOU)
199 was drafted and submitted to EMB, detailing the conditions of the arrangement between researchers and
200 EMB.
7
Start
A letter was sent to EMB requesting list of hotels that Phase 1

have wastewater treatment facilities and are
discharging to Hilutungan Channel.
A letter for permission of site visit was

A letter was sent to EMB requesting
sent to the hotels through emails and
access of data for data gathering.
hard copy letters.
The request was

denied three times.
Of the 17 number
of hotels, 7 denied
request, while 10
did not respond. Appointment was set with the EMB-7 Regional
Director, Engr. William Cuñado, to relay the
research objectives as well as request for access
of data.
Permission
granted.
Sourcing of data from EMB records

through laboratory results, engineer s Phase 2
reports, discharge permits, and SMR.
An MOU was drafted

and submitted.
Phase 3
Site visits to establishment with
assistance of EMB.
Only 5 establishments were

visited, EMB personnel
declined to further help
researchers to visit other
establishments.
A revisit to one establishment for

further data gathering and clarifications
Phase 4
through sampling was done.
End
201
202 Figure 2.1 Process flowchart for data gathering
8
203 In Phase III, sourcing of data for the 17 establishments selected was conducted from existing EMB
204 records. These records cover self-monitoring reports (SMR), engineer’s reports, DENR laboratory results,
205 and discharge permits (DP), including attached documents to DP applications. Additionally, with the
206 assistance of EMB employees, visits to five of the 17 establishments were conducted for the period further
207 data gathering and filling up of Table A, which may be found in the Appendix. A compilation of the data
208 gathered from all these sources may also be found in tha Appendix. The attachments are noted and signed
209 by the assisting EMB personnel, and certified true, correct, and accurate by the EMB7 Regional Director.
210 In Phase IV, researchers contacted the establishments once again, to continue gathering the lacking
211 data. Only one reconsidered and approved request for site visit and wastewater sampling. This
212 establishment was Hotel H. The wastewater samples obtained were analyzed by a DENR accredited
213 laboratory. Copies of the test reports from the said laboratory is found in the Appendix.
214 Data gathered from different establishments are considered accurate. This research does not include
215 the confirmation or verification of laboratory results and data gathered from engineer’s reports, SMRs, and
216 discharge permits.
217
218 2.3. Data processing and analysis
219
220 Presented in Figure 2.2 is the process taken for the data processing and analysis of the gathered
221 data to achieve objectives of the study.
222
9
Hotel Establishment Yes Yes Yes

Requirement I Requirement II Requirement II
Start A
met? met? met?
There are 14
establishment included
in the study.
Hotel not included

No
in the study.
Number of
Construct Pareto
establishments that are
chart (See Figure
noncompliant for each
Data on effluent characteristics 3.9)
significant parameters
of each establishment
No
Establishment effluent level Possible causes
C
A exceed standard? for non compliance
Observations made Construct Ishikawa
Effluent standards for Class SB
during site visit Diagram (See Figure
receiving water body
interviews 3.10)
Yes Compliant (See Figure 3.8)
Number of hotels with data Percentage of hotels with data

on technology on technology

on effluent characteristics on effluent characteristics
Percentage of hotels with available data on [data] = (number of

hotels with data / total number of hotels)*100
on wastewater generation on wastewater generation
B
A [Data] may refer to the following data types: technology,
Number of hotels with data effluent characteristics, wastewater generation, number of Percentage of hotels with data
on number of rooms rooms, water consumption, and percent occupancy. on number of rooms

on water consumption on water consumption

on percent occupancy on percent occupancy
Apply scoring system (See Scores of each data types Rank data availability according
B End
Table 2.3) to score (See Figure 3.1)
C
223
224 Figure 2.2 Information flow diagram for achieving objectives
225
10
226 2.3.1. Assessment of data availability

227
228 In this study, data is considered available if they exist, if they can be measured and if they can be
229 collected. Furthermore, they can be accessed by researchers for the purposes of analysis and reporting.
230 Table 2.2 shows a checklist of available data gathered for the 14 establishments included in this
231 research.
232
233 Table 2.2 Checklist of available data
Data type
Hotel Hotel occupancy
Water Wastewater
code Technologies Effluent Number of Percent
consumption generation
rooms occupancy
A ✔ ✖ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✖
B ✔ ✖ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✖
C ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✖ ✖
D ✔ ✖ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✖
E ✔ ✖ ✖ ✔ ✖ ✖
F ✔ ✔ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖
G ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✖ ✖
H ✔ ✖ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✖
I ✔ ✖ ✖ ✔ ✖ ✖
J ✔ ✖ ✖ ✔ ✖ ✖
K ✔ ✔ ✖ ✔ ✔ ✖
L ✔ ✖ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✖
M ✖ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✖ ✖
N ✔ ✔ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖
✔ - Data is available, ✖ - Data is not available
234
235 Check mark indicates that the specific type of data is available for the establishment, while “x”
236 mark indicates that data is not available for that establishment. Table 2.2 shows that most hotels have data
237 available on employed technologies since 13 out 14 establishments are marked check for the said data. It
238 also shows that all establishments are marked “x” for data on percent occupancy, which means there is no
239 data available on percent occupancy from all hotels.
240 A scoring system is adapted from a study on evaluation of data availability by Costa et.al. [25].
241 Scores ranging 0-1 is applied, wherein a score of 1 means that the data is available for all the 14 hotels
242 considered, and a score of 0 means data is not available for all the hotels. Presented in Table 2.3 is the
243 scoring system used to assess the availability of data.
244
11
245 Table 2.3 Scoring system used to assess data availability

Score Percentage of hotels with available data on [data]*
1 100%
0.8 80-99%
0.6 60-79%
0.4 40-59%
0.2 20-39%
0.1 1-19%
0 0%
246
247 *[data] may refer to the following data types: technology, effluent characteristics, wastewater generation, number
248 of rooms, water consumption, and percent occupancy
249
250 A checklist presented in Table 2.2 is used to show which data are available from each hotel. The
251 percentage of hotel with available data is then computed using the equation below.
252
𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑎 Eq 1
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑎 𝑜𝑛 [𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑎] = (100)
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑠
253
254 [Data] may refer to the following data types: technology, effluent characteristics, wastewater
255 generation, number of rooms, water consumption, and percent occupancy.
256
257 2.3.2. Evaluation of compliance status
258
259 All data gathered are organized in a table based on the types of data. The following sections
260 expound the types of data gathered:
261
262 Number of rooms, percent occupancy, water consumption and wastewater generation.
263
264 Data on number of rooms and occupancy, water consumption and wastewater generation are
265 considered necessary to give a general idea on the amount of generated wastewater from hotels. These data
266 which are obtained from some of the hotels are tabulated.
267
268 Wastewater treatment technologies.
269
270 The currently employed treatment technologies of 13 out of 14 establishments is classified to
271 primary, secondary, or a tertiary stage of treatment. Tables allow for the summarization of data with
272 different units, and easier comparison of quantitative information [26,27]. As these data are not directly
12
273 used in determining if the establishment is compliant or not, the researchers have opted to present them in
274 tabular form.
275
276 Wastewater effluent characteristics.
277
278 The range of effluent parameters gathered from 12 out of 14 establishment is tabulated. These
279 values would show the general idea of the status of compliance of the different establishment. Another table
280 shows in further detail the effluent values for each establishment, which are then compared with the DENR
281 standards for effluent quality to assess the establishment’s compliance.
282
283 Compliance with DAO 2016-08 standards.
284
285 The compliance status of the 14 hotel establishments to the effluent standards on significant
286 parameters is presented through a 100% stacked bar graph. A 100% stacked bar graph is used to compare
287 percentages for each category [27]. For the 100% stacked bar graph presented in this study, the categories
288 are the effluent quality parameters, with the subcategories being the percentage of hotels that are either
289 compliant, noncompliant or has no data to each significant parameter. This graph is used to show an
290 overview of the current status of the hotel establishments in terms of compliance to the effluent standards.
291 Ranking of the parameters (Pareto chart) is also presented by graphing the number of hotel
292 establishments that are noncompliant to each parameter. A Pareto chart is a bar graph that visually shows
293 which problem areas are the most significant. The bars in a Pareto chart represent the frequency with which
294 a problem occurs, and they are arranged left to right from the longest to the shortest for easy viewing [26].
295 The Pareto chart will be used to identify which parameter is mostly not complied by the hotel
296 establishments, and consequently be given focus.
297 An inventory of the number of technologies which are employed in secondary stage of treatment
298 that are are compliant, noncompliant, or has no data on the significant parameter is also presented. The
299 inventory shows which technologies were able to achieve compliance to effluent standards.
300
301 Root cause analysis.
302
303 A generation of possible reasons for noncompliance was conducted through a root cause analysis
304 based on interviews conducted and observations made during facility site visits.. Root cause analysis was
305 carried out with the use of the fishbone diagram or Ishikawa diagram. The Ishikawa diagram is most
13
306 commonly used to identify the possible causes for a certain problem or effect. The process for the creation
307 of the Ishikawa diagram is adapted from Tague and is further detailed below [26]:
308 1. Identify the problem statement. For this study, the specific problem statement is effluent levels
309 exceed the standards set by the DENR for a Class SB receiving water body.
310 2. Identify categories of causes and write them as branches of the diagram. For this study, a
311 variation of the 4Ms of operation were considered: Man, Methods, Machine, and Measurement.
312 3. Identify possible causes and write them as branches of each category.
313 Using the information gathered during interviews conducted and observations made during facility
314 visit, possible causes of noncompliance were identified and are organized in a fish bone diagram.
315
316
317 3. Results and Discussion
318
319 3.1. Industry selection results
320
321 Based on the requirements for convenience sampling and data obtained during Phases III and IV,
322 three hotel establishments where not able to meet all the requirements. Thus, the number of establishments
323 to be included in the study were narrowed down from 17 establishments to 14 establishments.
324
325 3.2. Assessment of data availability
326
327 Assessment of availability of existing data is conducted to identify data gaps and challenges in
328 acquiring data. Consequently, appropriate actions can be taken in order to address these data gaps and
329 challenges.
330
331 3.2.1. Challenges encountered during data gathering
332
333 In the data gathering process, the following challenges were encountered: (1) reluctance of the
334 EMB to disclose some of the requested information, (2) dependence of data gathering on the schedule and
335 workload of the supervising EMB personnel, and (3) unwillingness of establishments to participate.
336 One of the challenges identified and experienced during data gathering was the reluctance of the
337 EMB to disclose some of the requested information. The initial request to the EMB for wastewater data
338 was denied because the said information was classified as “trade secrets" by the EMB personnel-in-charge,
339 who quoted: “List of Exceptions (Non-Disclosure of Information)” of the Freedon of Information (FOI)
14
340 Manual of the DENR which states that any “information pertaining to trade secrets and commercial or
341 financial information submitted by a natural or juridical person obtained in confidence or covered by
342 privileged communication, and/or filed in connection with an application in a government agency, the
343 revelation of which would prejudice the interests of such natural or juridical person in trade, industrial,
344 financial or commercial competition” must not be released to the public [22]. EMB allowed the researchers
345 to access data only under the condition that names of the establishments be withheld. Site visits may be
346 made but must be under the supervision of EMB personnel. During the site visits, the researchers’ identities
347 as students were not disclosed, instead going as EMB probationary employees.
348 Another challenge is the dependence of data gathering on the schedule and workload of the
349 supervising EMB personnel. After visits to five establishments, EMB personnel declined to further aid the
350 researchers, citing additional workload on their part.
351 The establishments, on the other hand, either approved, declined, or did not respond to the
352 researchers’ request for site visit and data gathering. The establishments that declined gave the following
353 reasons: (1) establishment’s wastewater treatment facility was under construction or rehabilitation, or (2)
354 there was no “technical” person available to explain about the facility because they were busy or because
355 the establishment’s WTF was managed by a third party. Additionally, the establishments logged as “did not
356 respond” referred the researchers from one person-in-charge to another until the establishment no longer
357 replied.
358
359 3.2.2. Data availability
360
361 To assess the availabilty of data, different data types are scored and ranked. Ranking of the data
362 availability is presented in the form of a bar shown in Figure 3.1 to show which data is most available, as
363 well as the data that is least available.
364
15
Technologies
Effluent characteristics
Wastewater generation
Data
Number of rooms
Water consumption
Percent occupancy
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Score
365
366 Figure 3.1 Ranking of data availability
367
368 As observed in Figure 3.1, the most available data is the technologies employed in the
369 establshments’ WTFs, while the least available data is the percent occupancy of the hotels. Information on
370 technologies are easily accessed because they are found in DPs, which are public documents that may be
371 obtained from EMB.
372 Data on percent occupancy is challenging to obtain. During site visits to the five establishments,
373 the hotel’s percent occupancy was asked but persons-in-charge were unsure about exact values, and were
374 not inclined to validate the said values. Thus, there were no data obtained for hotel percent occupancy.
375 The data obtained in this study were gathered during site visits and from SMRs, DENR laboratory
376 results, and DPs. A more detailed breakdown of the data sources are found in Table 3.1. Names of the
377 establishments are withheld and replaced with hotel codes as part of the conditions stipulated in the MOU.
378
16
379 Table 3.1 Data sources

Data type
Hotel
code Water Wastewater Effluent Number of
Technologies
consumption generation characteristics rooms
Engineer’s report ND DP Laboratory results Engineer’s
report
A 1/3/2018 NA 10/12/2018 2/12/2019 1/3/2018
Site visit ND Site visit Site visit Site visit

B
2/20/2019 NA 2/20/2019 2/20/2019 2/20/2019
SMR SMR SMR SMR ND
C
1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 NA
D
2/20/2019 NA 2/20/2019 2/20/2019 2/20/2019
DP ND ND DP ND
E
7/27/2018 NA NA 7/27/2018 NA
DP SMR ND ND ND
F st st
1 quarter 2018 1 quarter 2018 NA NA NA
DP SMR SMR Laboratory results ND
G
2/10/2015 7/2/2018 7/2/2018 1/24/2019 NA
H
4/24/2019 NA 4/24/2019 4/24/2019 4/24/2019
DP ND ND Laboratory results ND
I
6/13/2016 NA NA 2/12/2019 NA
DP ND ND Laboratory results ND
J
2/28/2019 NA NA 4/6/2018 NA
Site visit Site visit ND Site visit Site visit
K
2/27/2019 2/27/2019 NA 2/27/2019 2/27/2019
L
2/27/2019 NA 2/27/2019 2/27/2019 2/27/2019
ND SMR SMR SMR ND
M
NA 1/17/2018 1/17/2018 1/17/2018 NA
DP SMR ND ND ND
N
5/22/2018 4th quarter 2018 NA NA NA
ND – No Data
NA – Not Applicable
DP – Discharge Permit (including attached documents in DP applications)
SMR – Self-Monitoring Report
380
381 To better visualize the distribution of data according to source, the information in Table 3.1 is
382 presented in a series of pie graphs as shown below. Figure 3.2 – Figure 3.6 show which type of data source
383 is most readily available, as well as which types of data sources are not complied by the hotel establishments
384 considered.
385
17
7%
Discharge Permit
43% Engineer's Report
36% Self-Monitoring Report
Site Visit
No Data
7% 7%
386
387 Figure 3.2 Percentage of data gathered according to technology
388
36%
Self-Monitoring Report
Site Visit
57% No Data
7%
389
390 Figure 3.3 Percentage of data gathered according to water consumption
391
18
7%
21%
Discharge Permit
43%
Site Visit
No Data
29%
392
393 Figure 3.4 Percentage of data gathered according to wastewater generation
394
7%
14%
Discharge Permit
29% DENR laboratory results
Site Visit
36% No Data
14%
395
396 Figure 3.5 Percentage of data gathered according to effluent characteristics
397
19
7%
Engineer's Report
36% Site Visit
57% No Data
398
399 Figure 3.6 Percentage of data gathered according to number of rooms
400
401 As observed in Figure 3.2 – Figure 3.6, most of the data were obtained during site visits. There was
402 no available data on percent occupancy. It is important to note that site visits must be accompanied by EMB
403 personnel. Otherwise, establishment may not accommodate inquiries.
404 Ideally, data on wastewater consumption, wastewater generation, and effluent charactacteristics
405 can be obtained from SMRs. Only five out of the 14 establishments submitted SMRs during the period of
406 time considered in this study, so the lacking data were gathered from other sources.
407
408 3.3. Presentation of gathered data
409
410 The following sections present the data obtained in this study which will be used for the evaluation
411 of compliance status of hotels. Consequently, possible causes of noncompliance are identified to determine
412 the areas to focus on in future actions geared towards compliance to the standards.
413
414 3.3.1. Number of rooms, percent occupancy, water consumption and wastewater generation
415
416 Data on hotel occupancy and water consumption can be used in the prediction and estimation of
417 wastewater generation. Wastewater generation rate data is important in order to determine whether
418 generated wastewater exceeded facility’s capacity, or it may be used as a basis for the capacity of the
419 design of a WTF given the estimated amount of wastewater. Presented in Table 3.2 are the data on number
420 of rooms, water consumption and wastewater generation obtained in this study. There was no data on
421 percent occupancy obtained.
20
422
423 Table 3.2 Number of rooms, water consumption and wwt generation of selected establishments
Water consumption Wastewater generation
Hotel code Number of rooms
(m3/day) (m3/day)
A 30 ND 24
B 481 ND 840
C ND 146.47 273.86
D 86 ND 80
F ND 525.69 ND
G ND 1,167.58 1,497.64
H 163 ND 250
K ND 20-23.33 ND
L 14 ND 3
M ND 1,016.76 1,829
N ND 8.6 ND
424 ND- No Data
425
426 3.3.2. Wastewater treatment technologies
427
428 Presented in Table 3.3 are the treatment technologies employed by 13 existing WTFs of hotels,
429 which are classified into three stages of wastewater treatment.
430
21
431 Table 3.3 Treatment technologies employed by selected hotel establishments

Hotel Primary Treatment Secondary Treatment Tertiary Treatment
A Holding Tank and Pre- Activated Sludge (Aeration Chlorination/Disinfection
Aeration Tank Tank + Clarifier + Settling
Tank)
B Grease Chamber/Trap Sequencing Batch Reactor Chlorination/Disinfection
C Grease Chamber/Trap Four-chambered Anaerobic Chlorination/Disinfection
Tank + Aeration Tank
D Mixing Tank Rotating Biological Contactor Chlorination/Disinfection
E Anaerobic Digester None None
F Holding Tank Trickling Filter + Rotating Multimedia Filter +
Biological Contactor Chlorination/Disinfection + Settling
Tank
G Mixing Tank Sequencing Batch Reactor + Chlorination/Disinfection
Aeration Tank
H Three-chambered anaerobic Settling Tank + Aeration tank Ultraviolet Treatment
tank electrolysis electrodes
I Equalization Tank Aerobic Digestion Tank + Multimedia Filters
Deactivation Tank + Settling
Tank
J Anaerobic Digestion (Septic Rotating Biological Contactor Filtration Tank
Tank) + Cyclonic Grease
Stripping Column
K Bar Screen + Equalization Sequencing Batch Reactor Chlorination/Disinfection
Tank + Grease
Chamber/Trap
L Sedimentation Tank + None None
Dosing Pump + 1SF +
Mixing Tank (Chemical
Treatment) + OGF +
Microfiltration + Reverse
Osmosis
N Three-chambered anaerobic None None
tank
432
433 From Table 3.3, 12 out of the 13 facilities employ biological process in their wastewater treatment.
434 Figure 3.7 shows the percentage of hotels using anaerobic process alone, using aerobic process alone, and
435 using combination of both.
436
22
27%
Aerobic
Anaerobic
18% 64% Aerobic+ Anaerobic
437
438 Figure 3.7 Percentage of hotels using biological processes which are aerobic alone, anaerobic alone, or a
439 combination of both
440
441 Figure 3.7 shows that aerobic biological processes are the dominant type of biological process in
442 hotel wastewater treatment facilities. A similar case can be seen in a baseline assessment study on
443 wastewater management of hotels in Jamaica, where aerobic biological processes comprise 90% of WTFs
444 employed. The most common treatment technology used by the hotels is the extended aeration, with 36%
445 of the hotels using this technology [12]. For this research, the most common treatment technologies are
446 sequencing batch reactor (SBR) and rotating biological contactor (RBC), each of which is employed by
447 23% of hotels.
448 As for the tertiary treatment employed by the establishments in this study, it is worth noting that
449 most of them are disinfection steps, and none are geared towards removal of nutrients.
450
451 3.3.3. Wastewater effluent characteristics
452
453 The wastewater characteristics of effluent from an existing wastewater treatment facility may be
454 used to determine which parameters do not meet the standard and must be targeted in optimization or
455 retrofitting works. Presented in Table 3.4 is the result of wastewater characterization of 12 of the hotels
456 selected in this study.
457
23
458 Table 3.4 Characteristics of effluent from existing hotel wastewater treatment facilities
Parameter Unit Range of values Class SB Effluent Standard
BOD5 (mg/L) 1.0-272.0 30
TSS (mg/L) 3.0-62.0 70
NH3-N (mg/L) 0.02-28.72 0.5
NO3-N (mg/L) 0.036-24.8 20
Phosphates (mg/L) 0.19-14.7 1.0
O&G (mg/L) 1.0-25.0 5
Surfactants (mg/L) 0.29-7.23 3
pH (mg/L) 6.4-8.0 -
7
FC (MPN/100Ml) 1.8-2.2x10 200
459
460 As shown in Table 3.4, the upper limits of BOD5, NH3-N, NO3-N, phosphates, O&G, surfactants,
461 and FC exceed the DENR standards for effluent to a Class SB water body. Thus, some establishments
462 selected in this study may need to further investigate their WTFs to determine reasons for noncompliance
463 to these parameters. Areas for further investigation include WTF process, maintenance, and operation. The
464 actual wastewater effluent values together with corresponding remarks are presented in Table 3.5
465
24
466 Table 3.5 Wastewater effluent values and corresponding remarks with respect to compliance with DENR standards
TSS NO3-N O&G
BOD5 (mg/L) NH3-N (mg/L) Phosphates (mg/L) Surfactants (mg/L) pH FC (MPN/100Ml)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Eff Rem Eff Rem Eff Rem Eff Rem Eff Rem Eff Rem Eff Rem Eff Rem Eff Rem
A 1.0 P 29 P 1.29 F 1.08 P 0.28 P 25 F 15 F 6.4 F 240 F
B 4.4 P 22 P 0.02 P 24.8 F 4.2 F 1.09 P 0.29 P 7.6 P 930 F
C 33 F 8.0 P ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.18 P ND ND 7.63 P ND ND
D 10 P 49 P 16.27 F 0.48 P 2.82 F 7.0 F ND ND 8.0 P 2.4x103 F
E 10. P 3.0 P ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 7.5 P 1.8 P
G 3.0 P 4.0 P 0.08 P 0.61 P 0.19 P 1.0 P ND ND 7.4 P ND ND
H 272 F 62 P 11.5 F 0.036 P 9.05 F 5.96 F 7.23 ND 7.26 P 2.2x107 F
I 1.0 P 13 P 2.61 F 10.05 P 10.29 F 10 F ND ND 7.2 P 9.2 x103 F
J 76 F 20 P 0.10 P ND ND 14.70 F ND ND ND ND 7.19 P ND ND
K 75 F 62 P 28.72 F 1.75 P 4.28 F 11 F ND ND 7.5 P 2.4 x104 F
L 43 F 22 P 27.69 F 1.42 P 3.84 F 4.0 P ND ND 7.4 P 2.4 x104 F
M 21 P 46 P 3.3 F ND ND 1.73 F ND ND ND ND 7.0 P ND ND

467 F-Failed P-Passed
468 ND-No Data Rem- Remarks
469 Eff- effluent level
470
25
471 3.4. Evaluation of compliance status

472
473 3.4.1. Compliance with DAO 2016-08 effluent standards
474
475 Figure 3.8 shows the compliance of wastewater effluent from various hotels with respect to
476 significant parameters stated in DAO 2016-08.
477
100
90
Percentage of hotels (%)
80
70
60
50
40 No data
30 Failed
20
Passed
10
0
Parameters
478
479 Figure 3.8 Percentage of hotels along Hilutungan Channel meeting DAO effluent standards
480
481 Figure 3.8 shows that 86% complied with the TSS standards, which tells us that most
482 establishments did not have problems in terms of TSS removal. Most establishments were also compliant
483 to the standards on nitrates in which 50% of them passed. However, 35%-60% of the establishments had
484 problems in complying with some relevant parameters such as BOD5, ammonia, phosphates, oil & grease,
485 and fecal coliform. An important point also taken from the figure is the need for monitoring on the surfactant
486 levels since 79% of establishments lack data. Nutrient levels, oil & grease, and fecal coliform also need
487 more monitoring, as these are relevant parameters of which 20%-45% of the establishments lack data.
488 Figure 3.9 shows a ranking of the parameters (Pareto chart) based on the number of noncompliant
489 establishments. The parameters with noncompliant establishments are those targeted by the secondary
490 treatment step, specifically the nutrients. Results from the gathered data show that despite the employment
491 of appropriate technologies for nutrient removal, some establishments were still not able to comply with
492 the standards. It is then imperative that further investigation of the causes of noncompliance be done.
493
26
Number of establishments
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Parameter
494
495 Figure 3.9 Number of establishments noncompliant to the DAO 2016-08 effluent standards
496
497 Based on Figure 3.9, the parameter with the highest number of noncompliant establishments is
498 phosphate, followed by ammonia and fecal coliform. The high fecal coliform levels in the effluent may be
499 due to the inadequate dosage of disinfecting agent, which depends on the concentration of fecal coliform in
500 the effluent.
501
502 3.4.2. Inventory of technologies with emphasis on compliance
503
504 Table 3.6 presents the compliance status of the different WTFs employed by 13 of the
505 establishments with respect to effluent standards in DAO 2016-08, emphasizing the newly added
506 parameters: nitrates, ammonia, and phosphates.
507
27
508 Table 3.6 List of technologies with respect to compliance to certain standards
Number of establishments
Technology used for treatment
Ammonia* Nitrate* Phosphates* BOD5* O&G*
Sequencing Batch Reactor 2/1/0 2/1/0 1/2/0 2/1/0 1/0/0
(SBR)
Rotating Biological Contactor 1/1/1 1/0/2 0/2/1 1/1/1 0/1/1
(RBC)
Anaerobic Tank 0/0/2 0/0/2 0/0/2 1/0/1 1/0/1
Anaerobic Digester 0/0/1 0/0/1 0/0/1 1/0/0 0/0/1
Activated Sludge 0/1/0 1/0/0 1/0/0 1/0/0 0/1/0
Aerobic Digestion System 0/1/0 1/0/0 0/1/0 1/0/0 0/1/0
Electrolysis 0/1/0 1/0/0 0/1/0 1/0/0 0/1/0
No secondary treatment step 0/1/0 1/0/0 0/1/0 0/1/0 1/0/0
(Filtration setup)
Grease Chamber - - - - 1/1/0
Cyclonic Grease Stripping - - - - 0/0/1
Column
509
510 *compliant / noncompliant / no data
511
512 Total Nitrogen. The removal of ammonia in wastewater involves the process of nitrification, the
513 oxidation of ammonia to nitrite then to nitrate. The removal of nitrate involves the process of denitrification,
514 the reduction of nitrate to nitrogen gas [28,29]. Literature data shows that SBR, RBC, and electrolysis has
515 a capability to remove total nitrogen [28,30,31] while AS can only moderately remove total nitrogen
516 [28,32,33].
517 Phosphates. Phosphates are removed from wastewater either through chemical or biological
518 processes. Biological phosphate removal involves the help of phosphorous accumulating organisms which
519 use them for their microbial growth [28,29]. Literature data show moderate removal of phosphate for
520 activated sludge [28,32,33] and SBR can greatly remove phosphates [34].
521 BOD5. Most of the WTFs were designed to meet the previous effluent standards detailed in DAO
522 1990-35, which includes BOD5. However, there are still some who are noncompliant. The most common
523 technology employing aerobic process that was able to comply is the SBR. Literature data have shown a
524 high removal of BOD for SBR [28], AS process [28,32,33,35,36], and RBC [28,33].
525 Oil & grease. Oil & grease (O&G) removal is a liquid/solid separation procedure and is usually
526 done through flotation methods. It is recommended that grease removal be employed at source or before it
527 is discharged to the treatment facility.
528 Fecal coliform. In the removal of the fecal coliform in wastewater, disinfection steps are usually
529 employed either through radiation, chlorination, etc. [28,29]. This step is usually the final process before
530 the wastewater is discharged to the water body and the dosage that is discharged to the wastewater is usually
531 determined through laboratory testing or field results from known plant locations [29,37]. The five
28
532 noncompliant establishments, out of eight, employing chlorination/disinfection steps show a need to
533 reestablish or monitor the exact dosage needed for the concentration present in its wastewater discharge.
534 Despite the ability of these technologies to remove particular parameters, still Table 3.6 shows that
535 there are establishments employing these technologies that are noncompliant with the effluent standards for
536 nutrients, BOD5, and oil & grease.
537
538 3.4.3. Root cause analysis
539
540 To determine appropriate actions in order to comply with effluent standards, possible causes that
541 lead to noncompliance must be identified. Based on interviews conducted and observations made during
542 site visits, a fishbone diagram is presented below showing the possible reasons that lead to noncompliance
543 with the DENR standards. The diagram is used to identify the possible problems and root causes that may
544 have led to the noncompliance of the WTFs. Also through this diagram, the probable solutions can be
545 gleamed through the root causes identified or the challenges encountered [26]. These reasons are discussed
546 in further detail on the succeeding paragraphs.
547
29
Influent exceeds WTF capacity Technology insufficient to treat influent load

Malfunctioning flow meter
No flow control
Damaged equipment
Operating conditions not optimal No scheduled maintenance
Schedule maintenance not followed

Irregular sampling
Effluent levels
exceed standard
Error in analysis
Contaminated sample
548
549 Figure 3.10 Possible causes of noncompliance in effluent nutrient levels
550
30
551 Methods
552
553 From the observations made during site visits, some WTFs are not equipped with flow controls
554 which are important, most especially when wastewater generation exceeded capacity of WTF.
555 Persons-in-charge usually have no idea on performance of WTF since regular sampling and
556 analysis on wastewater effluent is not observed, as well regular monitoring on process conditions e.g.
557 aeration rate, etc., which may be operating past its optimal operating condition. A WTF is designed for a
558 set of conditions, and deviation from these conditions contribute to poor WTF performance.
559 It was also observed during site visits that some establishments have no operator onsite or PCO on
560 duty to accommodate inquiries, even while WTF is in operation. Operators on standby are very important
561 so that any unexpected situation in the operation can be remedied immediately.
562
563 Machines
564
565 Existing WTFs were designed for the previous set of standards, which explains why compliance to
566 the new set of DENR standards remains a challenge. Existing WTFs were not designed for the removal of
567 the nutrients present in wastewater. There may be technologies that are more efficient and more capable of
568 achieving compliance with a lesser cost than their currently employed technology.
569 Some equipment were also observed to be in poor condition due to wear and tear, which are very
570 much visible to some equipment. Poor equipment condition may lead to its incapability to reach its designed
571 performance. This also shows lack of monitoring and poor maintenace of the facility. Damages incurred in
572 past operations may not have been given significance as long as effluent passed the standards.
573
574 Man
575
576 An outright problem relating to people involved in the WTF is the lack of operator/PCO knowledge.
577 Some PCOs were not able to answer simple questions such as maintenance practices and maintenance cost.
578 The problem may also be reflected to the EMB’s standards in terms of PCO certification, which may need
579 to be reviewed or reassessed. Poor condition of WTFs may also be due to operators’ negligence or lack of
580 knowledge on WTF operation.
581 Lack of man power and lack of management support are also identified as one of the main causes
582 of noncompliance. During interviews conducted, some PCOs complain about heavy work load and that
583 their job was mistaken to be easy by the establishment’s board of directors. One PCO was in charge of three
31
584 different branches of the same establishment, making it difficult for her to focus on one establishment.
585 Moreover, some PCOs were responsible for multiple jobs aside from being a full-time PCO, i.e. landscape
586 supervisor, etc. This emphasizes the lack of man power for the operation of WTF and that the management
587 does not recognize the difficulties of being a PCO.
588
589 Measurement
590
591 It was observed during site visits that proper sampling protocol, such as use of sterilized bottles for
592 FC test or filling of bottle to the brim and absence of bubbles for BOD test, were not strictly followed by
593 some establishments. This negligence to standard operating procedures is identified as one cause for
594 noncompliance.
595
596
597 Conclusions, Generalizations, and Recommendations
598
599 Assessment of data availability was conducted in this study. Ninety-three percent of the
600 establishments have available data on treatment technologies employed. Information on employed
601 technology is easy to acquire since they are found on discharge permits which are made available to the
602 public when requested from the EMB-DENR office. Other data types assessed were found to have varying
603 degrees of availability such as 43% of hotels have available on water consumption and number of hotel
604 rooms, 57% on wastewater generation, 85% effluent characteristics. No data were available on the percent
605 occupancy since hotels were not inclined to disclose data. The challenges encountered during the data
606 gathering process are the following: (1) reluctance of the EMB to disclose some of the requested
607 information, (2) dependence of data gathering on the schedule and workload of the supervising EMB
608 personnel, and (3) unwillingness of establishments to participate.
609 An evaluation of compliance status showed that there are some establishments which are
610 noncompliant with the effluent standards. Fifty-seven percent of establishments are noncompliant with
611 standards for phosphate, 50% for ammonia and fecal coliform, 36% for BOD5 and oil & grease, and 7% for
612 nitrate. Seventy-nine percent of establishments have no data for surfactants. Initial investigation through
613 interviews and observations during site visits show that noncompliance is attributed to operator/PCO
614 incompetence, poor maintenance of the facility, or suboptimal operating conditions.
615 As a generalization from the gathered data, there are still effluent characteristics that are still not in
616 compliance with the EMB standards. Thus, there is a need to strictly enforce the consequences of this
32
617 noncompliance for first or repeating offenders. EMB can also help the establishment on what possible steps
618 they can take to make it easier for the establishment to comply to the new standards.
619 SMR is a quarterly report showing the effluent characteristics of the establishment that they are
620 likely to either recycle or discharge to the environment. This monitoring report can be used by the EMB to
621 check the monthly compliance of the establishment. Failure to submit this report has a great risk to the
622 environment and the society as there is no indication whether the establishment is discharging wastewater
623 that are within the EMB standards. Thus, it is highly recommended that quarterly submission of SMRs be
624 more strictly enforced by DENR so that establishments will duely comply, since data on wastewater
625 consumption, wastewater generation, and effluent charactacteristics can be obtained from SMRs.
626 Suggested future studies must also include further investigation on the reasons for noncompliance
627 of employed technology to standards on several parameters by looking into the maintenance and operation,
628 including operator/PCO knowledge.
629
630
631 Acknowledgements
632
633 We would also like to express our deepest gratitude to the Environmental Management Bureau –
634 Region VII, especially to EMB VII Regional Director Engr. William P. Cuñado, and to Senior
635 Environmental Management Specialist Cory Lyn E. Estavillo, for assisting us in obtaining the data required
636 in this study.
637 We would also like to express our appreciation for our parents, our family, and friends, for
638 supporting us all throughout our academic journey and life in general.
639 Lastly, we would like to thank the Almighty God for all the blessings that He has showered upon
640 us, and for helping us become who we are today.
641
642
643 References
644
645 [1] World Bank Group. Coastal and Marine Resource Management. Philippines Environment Monitor 2005
646 2005.
647 [2] Mapalo A. Vulnerability assessment of Olango Island to predicted climate change and sea level rise.
648 Vulnerability Assessment of Two Major Wetlands in Asia-Pacific Region to Climate Change and Sea Level
649 Rise 1998:75–144.
650 [3] Park I, Song CG. Analysis of two-dimensional flow and pollutant transport induced by tidal currents in the
651 Han River. J Hydroinformatics 2018;20:551–63. doi:10.2166/hydro.2017.118.
652 [4] Cacho KO. HRRAC: Cebu resorts comply with rules. SunStar Philippines 2018.
653 [5] Environmental Management Bureau. EMB7 leads talk for protection of Hilutungan Channel. 2017.
654 [6] Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Water Quality Guidelines and General Effluent
33
655 Standards of 2016 2016.

656 [7] Department of Trade and Industry. Tourist Arrivals 2018. https://www.dti.gov.ph/resources/statistics/tourist-
657 arrivals (accessed October 30, 2018).
658 [8] Lorenciana CS. Tourist arrivals in Central Visayas hit 6.9 million last year. Freeman 2018.
659 [9] Fresco MCO. NRCP - Minimum acceptable limits for toxicants in Boracay, Cebu waters still high – NRCP
660 Visayas CONFAB. 2018.
661 [10] Bunanchita J, Codilla M. EMB notes poor water quality in some major rivers in Cebu. Cebu Dly News
662 2015.
663 [11] Simister N, Giffen J. Baselines. INTRAC Assoc 2015:1–3.
664 [12] Silva H. Baseline Assessment Study on Wastewater Management. GEF CReW Proj Belize 2015.
665 [13] A. Elsheikh M. Approach in Choosing Suitable Technology for Industrial Wastewater Treatment. J Civ
666 Environ Eng 2013;02. doi:10.4172/2165-784X.1000123.
667 [14] Cheremisinoff NP. Handbook of water and wastewater treatment technologies. 2002. doi:10.1016/B978-
668 075067498-0/50000-0.
669 [15] Hegg BA, DeMers L, Barber J. Retrofitting POTWs EPA-625-6-89-020.pdf 1989.
670 [16] EPA. Optimizing water treatment plant performance using the composite correction program 1998.
671 [17] Metcalf E, Eddy H. Wastewater engineering: treatment and reuse. Tata McGraw-Hill Publ Co Limited, 4th
672 Ed New Delhi, India 2003:1819. doi:10.1016/0309-1708(80)90067-6.
673 [18] Stephenson RL, Blackburn JB. The Industrial Wastewater Systems Handbook. Boca Raton, Florida: 1998.
674 [19] World Health Organization. Clean Water and Sanitation. 2018.
675 [20] Benefield LA. Residential Flow Rates. 2002.
676 [21] Cuesta H. Practical Data Analysis. Birmingham B3 2PB, UK: Packt Publishing Ltd.; 2013.
677 [22] Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Freedom of Information Manual 2016.
678 [23] Department of Environment and Natural Resources. DENR Administrative Order No. 2003-27 2003.
679 [24] [Fink A. The Survey kit: How to sample in surveys. SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2003.
680 doi:10.4135/9781412984478.
681 [25] Costa C, Freitas Â, Stefanik I, Krafft T, Pilot E, Morrison J, et al. Evaluation of data availability on
682 population health indicators at the regional level across the European Union 2019:1–15.
683 [26] Tague NR. The Quality Toolbox. Second Edi. Milwaukee, WI: American Society for Quality; 2005.
684 [27] Knaflic CN. Storytelling with Data: A Data Visualization Guide for Business Professionals. Hoboken, NJ:
685 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2015.
686 [28] Henze M, Van Loosdrecht MCM, Ekama GA, Brdjanovic D. Biological wastewater treatment Principles,
687 Modelling and Design. IWA Publishing; 2008.
688 [29] Jeyanayagam S. True Confessions of the Biological Nutrient Removal Process. Florida Water Resour J
689 2005:37–46.
690 [30] Li L, Yao J, Fang X, Huang Y, Mu Y. Electrolytic ammonia removal and current efficiency by a
691 vermiculite-packed electrochemical reactor. Sci Rep 2017;7:1–8. doi:10.1038/srep41030.
692 [31] Oliveira SC, von Sperling M. Performance evaluation of different wastewater treatment technologies
693 operating in a developing country. J Water, Sanit Hyg Dev 2011;1:37. doi:10.2166/washdev.2011.022.
694 [32] Veenstra S, Alaerts GJ, Bijlsma M. Technology Selection. Water Pollut Control - A Guid to Use Water Qual
695 Manag Princ 1997:39.
696 [33] Choi SS, Yoo YJ. Removal of phosphate in a sequencing batch reactor by Staphylococcus auricularis
697 2000:1549–50.
698 [34] Vítěz T, Ševčíková J, Oppeltová P. Evaluation of the Efficiency of Selected Wastewater Treatment Plant.
699 Acad Journals 2012;21:173–80.
700 [35] Colmenarejo MF, Rubio A, Sánchez E, Vicente J, García MG, Borja R. Evaluation of municipal wastewater
701 treatment plants with different technologies at Las Rozas, Madrid (Spain). J Environ Manage 2006;81:399–
702 404. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.11.007.
703 [36] Bureau of Safe Drinking Water. Module 5 : Disinfection and Chlorination 2016.
704
705
34
Appendices
Table A. WTF detail and wastewater characteristics inquiry form

Company name :
A. WTF Detail
1. Components of WTF
2. Date installed
𝑚3
3. Design capacity ( )
𝑑𝑎𝑦
4. Operating hours
5. Cost of WWTP
6. Annual Maintenance Cost
𝑚3
7. Wastewater generation ( )
𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑚3
8. Total volume of effluent discharge ( )
𝑑𝑎𝑦
B. Wastewater characteristics
Sampling Date:
Parameter Influent Effluent
BOD5 (mg/L)
COD (mg/L)
DO(mg/L)
TSS(mg/L)
TDS(mg/L)
NH3-N(mg/L)
NO3-N(mg/L)
Phosphates(mg/L)
O&G(mg/L)
Surfactants(mg/L)
pH
FC(MPN/100Ml)
TC (MPN/100Ml)
35
Table B.1 WTF detail and wastewater characteristics inquiry form

Company name : A
A. WTF Detail
1. Components of WTF Holding tank and Pre-Aeration + Aeration Tank +
Clarifier + Settling tank + Chlorination
2. Date installed April 2008
𝑚3 30
𝑑𝑎𝑦
4. Operating hours -
5. Cost of WWTP Php 1,000,000.00
6. Annual Maintenance Cost -
𝑚3 24.0
𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑚3 -
𝑑𝑎𝑦
Sampling Date (MM/DD/YYYY): 9/7/2016 2/12/2019
Parameter Effluent Effluent
BOD5 (mg/L) 3.0 <1.0
COD (mg/L)
DO(mg/L) 4.8
TSS(mg/L) 3.0 29
TDS(mg/L) -
NH3-N(mg/L) 1.29
NO3-N(mg/L) 1.08
Phosphates(mg/L) 0.28
O&G(mg/L) 2.0 25
Surfactants(mg/L) 15
pH 4.95 6.4
FC(MPN/100Ml) 240
TC (MPN/100Ml) -
Temp/ Temp change (oC) 25.3 24.6
Color (TCU)
36

Company name : B
A. WTF Detail
1. Components of WTF Grease Chamber + Chemical Disinfection + SBR
2. Date installed September 2018
𝑚3 -
𝑑𝑎𝑦
4. Operating hours 8
𝑚3 840
𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑚3 -
𝑑𝑎𝑦
BOD5 (mg/L) 84.800 4.400
COD (mg/L) 181.000 22.500
DO(mg/L)
TSS(mg/L) 16.000 22.000
TDS(mg/L)
NH3-N(mg/L) 1.620 0.0158
NO3-N(mg/L) <0.159 24.800
Phosphates(mg/L) 12.600 4.200
O&G(mg/L) 3.900 1.090
Surfactants(mg/L) 0.857 0.293
pH 7.570 7.600
FC(MPN/100Ml) 1.67x107 930
TC (MPN/100Ml) >1.67x107 2100
Color (TCU) - -
37

Company name : C
A. WTF Detail
1. Components of WTF Grease Chamber/Trap + Four-chambered Anaerobic
Tank + Aeration Tank + Chlorination/Disinfection
2. Date installed -
𝑚3 -
𝑑𝑎𝑦
5. Cost of WWTP -
𝑚3 -
𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑚3 -
𝑑𝑎𝑦
BOD5 (mg/L) 6.0 33
COD (mg/L) - -
DO(mg/L) 6.0 -
TSS(mg/L) 8.0 8
TDS(mg/L) - -
NH3-N(mg/L) - -
NO3-N(mg/L) - -
Phosphates(mg/L) - -
O&G(mg/L) - 2.18
Surfactants(mg/L) - -
pH 7.99 7.63
FC(MPN/100Ml) - -
TC (MPN/100Ml) - -
Color (TCU) - -
38

Company name : D
A. WTF Detail
1. Components of WTF Pre-reaction mixing tank+ RBC+ Chlorine contact tank
2. Date installed 2010
𝑚3 100
𝑑𝑎𝑦
4. Operating hours 8
5. Cost of WWTP -
6. Annual Maintenance Cost Php 20,000.00
𝑚3 80
𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑚3 -
𝑑𝑎𝑦
Sampling Date (MM/DD/YYYY): 4/17/2018 1/10/2019 2/20/2019
Parameter Effluent Effluent Effluent
BOD5 (mg/L) 29 49 10
COD (mg/L) - 134 -
DO(mg/L) 0 - 4.4
TSS(mg/L) 39 16 49
TDS(mg/L) - - -
NH3-N(mg/L) 17.07 - 16.27
NO3-N(mg/L) - 1.44 0.48
Phosphates(mg/L) 1.54 1.77 2.82
O&G(mg/L) 4.0 2.0 7.0
Surfactants(mg/L) - - -
pH 7.8 6.8 8.0
FC(MPN/100Ml) - - 24 x 102
TC (MPN/100Ml) - <1.8 -
Temp/ Temp change (oC) 25.0 - 24.3
Color (TCU) - - 30
39

Company name : E
A. WTF Detail
1. Components of WTF Anaerobic Digester
2. Date installed -
𝑚3 -
𝑑𝑎𝑦
5. Cost of WWTP -
𝑚3 -
𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑚3 -
𝑑𝑎𝑦
Sampling Date (MM/DD/YYYY): 10/01/2018
Parameter Effluent
BOD5 (mg/L) 10
COD (mg/L) 19
DO(mg/L) -
TSS(mg/L) <3
TDS(mg/L) -
NH3-N(mg/L) -
NO3-N(mg/L) -
Phosphates(mg/L) -
O&G(mg/L) -
Surfactants(mg/L) -
pH 7.5
FC(MPN/100Ml) 1.8
TC (MPN/100Ml) 1.8
Temp/ Temp change (oC) -
Color (TCU) -
40

Company name : G
A. WTF Detail
1. Components of WTF Mixing tank+ SBR Aeration tank+ Chlorine contact tank
2. Date installed -
𝑚3 -
𝑑𝑎𝑦
5. Cost of WWTP -
𝑚3 -
𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑚3 -
𝑑𝑎𝑦
Sampling Date (MM/DD/YYYY): 01/08/2018 07/02/2018 01/24/2019
Parameter Effluent Effluent Effluent
BOD5 (mg/L) - - 5.0
COD (mg/L) 14 17 -
DO(mg/L) - - 5.0
TSS(mg/L) - - -
TDS(mg/L) - - -
NH3-N(mg/L) - - 0.08
NO3-N(mg/L) - - 0.61
Phosphates(mg/L) - - 0.19
O&G(mg/L) - 4 <1.0
Surfactants(mg/L) - - -
pH 7.3 8.1 7.4
FC(MPN/100Ml) - - -
TC (MPN/100Ml) - - -
Temp/ Temp change (oC) - - 25.0
Color (TCU) - - 10
41

Company name : H
A. WTF Detail
1. Components of WTF Three-chambered anaerobic tank+ Aerobic Digestion
Tank + Deactivation Tank + Settling Tank+ Multimedia
Filters
2. Date installed February 2019
𝑚3 200-250
𝑑𝑎𝑦
4. Operating hours
5. Cost of WWTP
6. Annual Maintenance Cost Php 50,000.00
𝑚3 250
𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑚3
𝑑𝑎𝑦
Sampling Date (MM/DD/YYYY): 02/27/2019 04/24-25/2019 04/24-25/2019
Parameter Effluent Influent Effluent
BOD5 (mg/L) 160 221 272
COD (mg/L) - - -
DO(mg/L) 0 - -
TSS(mg/L) 109 104 62
TDS(mg/L) - - -
NH3-N(mg/L) 41.20 17.5 11.5
NO3-N(mg/L) 0.50 <0.036 <0.036
Phosphates(mg/L) 5.77 10.3 9.05
O&G(mg/L) 17.0 3.16 5.96
Surfactants(mg/L) - 4.66 7.23
pH 6.8 7.42 at 17.4oC 7.26 at 17.6oC
FC(MPN/100Ml) 24 x 104 2.4 x 106 2.2 x 107
TC (MPN/100Ml) - 2.4 x 106 2.2 x 107
Temp/ Temp change (oC) 25.0 - -
Color (TCU) - - -
42

Company name : I
1. Components Equalization Tank+ Aerobic Digestion Tank + Deactivation Tank + Settling Tank+ Multimedia
of WTF Filters
A. Wastewater characteristics
Sampling Date 04/20/2016 07/20/2016 09/07/2016 02/20/2018 10/31/2018 11/13/2018 11/21/2018 02/12/2019
(MM/DD/YYYY):
Parameter Effluent Effluent Effluent Effluent Effluent Effluent Effluent Effluent
BOD5 (mg/L) <1.0 5.0 6.0 - 2.0 - 3 <1.0
COD (mg/L) - - - - - - - -
DO(mg/L) 6.0 7.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 3.8
TSS(mg/L) 8.0 18.0 13 13 18 97 15 13
TDS(mg/L) - - - - - - - -
NH3-N(mg/L) - - - 1.32 0.83 2.32 1.6 2.61
NO3-N(mg/L) - - - - - 4.75 12.05 10.05
Phosphates(mg/L) - - - - - 9.47 7.63 10.29
O&G(mg/L) 2.0 1.0 1.0 <1.0 - 19.0 5.0 10
Surfactants(mg/L) - - - - - - - -
pH 7.55 7.38 6.91 7.2 7.2 7.5 7.3 7.2
FC(MPN/100Ml) - - - - - 240 79 92x102
TC (MPN/100Ml) - - - - - - - -
Temp/ Temp
change (oC) 24.3 24.8 24.6 24.6 24.5 24.2 24.4 24.0
Color (TCU) - - - - - 25
43

Company name : J
A. WTF Detail
1. Components of WTF Anaerobic Digestion (Septic Tank) + Cyclonic Grease
Stripping Column+ Rotating Biological Contactor +
Filtration Tank
2. Date installed
𝑚3
𝑑𝑎𝑦
4. Operating hours
5. Cost of WWTP
6. Annual Maintenance Cost
𝑚3
𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑚3
𝑑𝑎𝑦
Sampling Date (MM/DD/YYYY): 08/16/2017 10/05/2017 11/23/2017 04/06/2018
Parameter Effluent Effluent Effluent Effluent
BOD5 (mg/L) 57 5 - 76
COD (mg/L) - 47 - -
DO(mg/L) 0 - - 4.45
TSS(mg/L) 49 3 - 20
TDS(mg/L) - - - -
NH3-N(mg/L) 2.61 - - <0.1
NO3-N(mg/L) - - - -
Phosphates(mg/L) 10.26 - - 14.7
O&G(mg/L) - 1.73 - -
Surfactants(mg/L) - - - -
pH 7.8 - - 7.19
FC(MPN/100Ml) - - <180 -
TC (MPN/100Ml) - - 680 -
Temp/ Temp change (oC) 24.5 - - -
Color (TCU) - - - 10
44

Company name : K
A. WTF Detail
1. Components of WTF Bar screen + Equalization tank + Grease Trap + ESTI-
SBR + Chlorine Contact Chamber + Aerobic Sludge
Digester
2. Date installed 2012
𝑚3 178
𝑑𝑎𝑦
6. Annual Maintenance Cost Php 20,000.00/month
𝑚3 600-700
𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ
𝑚3 -
𝑑𝑎𝑦
A. Wastewater characteristics
BOD5 (mg/L) 190 75
COD (mg/L) 271 -
DO(mg/L) - 8.7
TSS(mg/L) 76 62
TDS(mg/L) - -
NH3-N(mg/L) 29 28.72
NO3-N(mg/L) - 1.75
Phosphates(mg/L) - 4.28
O&G(mg/L) 6.83 11.0
Surfactants(mg/L) - -
pH 7.0 7.5
FC(MPN/100Ml) <18 24X104
TC (MPN/100Ml) - -
Temp/ Temp change (oC) - 24.2
Color (TCU) - -
45

Company name : L
A. WTF Detail
1. Components of WTF Sedimentation tank + Dosing pump + Mixing tank + 1SF
+ OGF + MF + Reverse Osmosis System
2. Date installed October 2018
𝑚3 100
𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑚3 100
𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ
BOD5 (mg/L) 3.13 43
COD (mg/L) - -
DO(mg/L) - 0
TSS(mg/L) - 22
TDS(mg/L) - -
NH3-N(mg/L) 0.0003 27.69
NO3-N(mg/L) 3.8 1.42
Phosphates(mg/L) <0.275 3.84
O&G(mg/L) <0.97 4.0
Surfactants(mg/L) 0.11 -
pH - 7.4
FC(MPN/100Ml) - 24X103
TC (MPN/100Ml) - -
Temp/ Temp change (oC) - 24.3
Color (TCU) - -
46
Table C.1 Site visit information and observations

Company Name: B February 20, 2019
Observations Y N NA Remarks
No reported
1. Are the self-monitoring reports (SMRs) submitted
✔ data on DENR
quarterly and on time?
database
WTF newly
2. Is the WTF in good condition during sampling? ✔
installed
3. Is the WTF under construction or undergoing
✔
rehabilitation?
4. Is the WTF in operation during sampling? ✔
5. Odor perceived at WTFs perimeter? ✔
6. Person-in-charge or PCO has undergone training and
✔
received certification?
7. Is the operation of the WTF supported by the
✔
management?
8. Is WTF able to accommodate generated wastewater? ✔
9. If the answer in no. 7 is No, is there any control
devices installed, (e.g. flow control, flow gauge ✔
meter)?
WTF not yet
10. Is the WTF properly and consistently maintained? ✔ in full
operation
WTF not yet
11. Is the WTF properly and consistently monitored? ✔ in full
operation
Wastewater
samples are
12. Are the methods of analysis used for effluent samples
tested by
in accordance with prescribed methods of the ✔
DENR
Department?
accredited
laboratories.
47

Company Name: D February 20, 2019
No reported
✔ data on DENR
database
The
2. Is the WTF in good condition during sampling? ✔ surrounding
area is messy.
✔
rehabilitation?
✔
PCO is
overloaded
✔ with other
management?
managerial
works
meter)?
The
equipment
10. Is the WTF properly and consistently maintained? ✔
appears
damaged parts
11. Is the WTF properly and consistently monitored? ✔
Wastewater
samples are
tested by
DENR
Department?
accredited
laboratories.
48

Company Name: L February 27, 2019
No reported
✔ data on DENR
database
✔
rehabilitation?
✔
✔
management?
meter)?
Wastewater
samples are
tested by
DENR
Department?
accredited
laboratories.
49

Company Name: K February 27, 2019
No reported
✔ data on DENR
database
The
2. Is the WTF in good condition during sampling? ✔ surrounding
area is messy.
✔
rehabilitation?
PCO is not
able to answer
✔ questions
about the
WTF
✔
management?
meter)?
Wastewater
samples are
tested by
DENR
Department?
accredited
laboratories.
50

Company Name: H February 27, 2019
No reported
✔ data on DENR
database
WTF in
rehabilitation
3. Is the WTF under construction or undergoing WTF in
✔
rehabilitation? rehabilitation
5. Odor perceived at WTFs perimeter? ✔ Bad odor
✔
PCO is
overloaded
✔ with other
management?
managerial
works
meter)?
WTF in
rehabilitation
Wastewater
samples are
tested by
DENR
Department?
accredited
laboratories.
51

Assessment of Data Availability and Evaluation of Compliance Status of Wastewater Treatment Facilities Along Hilutungan Channel

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Assessment of Data Availability and Evaluation of Compliance Status of Wastewater Treatment Facilities Along Hilutungan Channel

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

University of San Carlos – Department of Chemical Engineering

ChE 523NL FORM-1-Undergraduate Research Paper Template v2017-1

ChE 523NL FORM-1:

Research Paper Endorsement and Approval

ASSESSMENT OF DATA AVAILABILITY AND EVALUATION OF COMPLIANCE

Prepared and submitted by

Bernados, Raniel Simone S.

Maningo, Aira Jean S.

Engr. Patrick U. Tan

Name and Signature of Co-Adviser Date Endorsed

ChE 523NL FORM-1:

ASSESSMENT OF DATA AVAILABILITY AND EVALUATION OF COMPLIANCE

Engr. Victoria F. Napisa Engr. Luis K. Cabatingan

Dr. Angelo H. Cabije Engr. May V. Tampus

Dr. Ian Dominic F. Tabañag Engr. Ramir L. Jarabis

Engr. Victoria F. Napisa

Dr. Angelo H. Cabije

Dr. Ian Dominic F. Tabañag

USC Chemical Engineering Student

0 Assessment of data availability and evaluation of compliance status

A letter was sent to EMB requesting list of hotels that Phase 1

A letter for permission of site visit was

The request was

Sourcing of data from EMB records

An MOU was drafted

Only 5 establishments were

A revisit to one establishment for

Hotel Establishment Yes Yes Yes

Hotel not included

Yes Compliant (See Figure 3.8)

Number of hotels with data Percentage of hotels with data

Number of hotels with data Percentage of hotels with data

Percentage of hotels with available data on [data] = (number of

Number of hotels with data Percentage of hotels with data

Number of hotels with data Percentage of hotels with data

226 2.3.1. Assessment of data availability

245 Table 2.3 Scoring system used to assess data availability

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

379 Table 3.1 Data sources

Site visit ND Site visit Site visit Site visit

431 Table 3.3 Treatment technologies employed by selected hotel establishments

18% 64% Aerobic+ Anaerobic

A 1.0 P 29 P 1.29 F 1.08 P 0.28 P 25 F 15 F 6.4 F 240 F

B 4.4 P 22 P 0.02 P 24.8 F 4.2 F 1.09 P 0.29 P 7.6 P 930 F

C 33 F 8.0 P ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.18 P ND ND 7.63 P ND ND

D 10 P 49 P 16.27 F 0.48 P 2.82 F 7.0 F ND ND 8.0 P 2.4x103 F

E 10. P 3.0 P ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 7.5 P 1.8 P

G 3.0 P 4.0 P 0.08 P 0.61 P 0.19 P 1.0 P ND ND 7.4 P ND ND

H 272 F 62 P 11.5 F 0.036 P 9.05 F 5.96 F 7.23 ND 7.26 P 2.2x107 F

I 1.0 P 13 P 2.61 F 10.05 P 10.29 F 10 F ND ND 7.2 P 9.2 x103 F

J 76 F 20 P 0.10 P ND ND 14.70 F ND ND ND ND 7.19 P ND ND

K 75 F 62 P 28.72 F 1.75 P 4.28 F 11 F ND ND 7.5 P 2.4 x104 F

L 43 F 22 P 27.69 F 1.42 P 3.84 F 4.0 P ND ND 7.4 P 2.4 x104 F

M 21 P 46 P 3.3 F ND ND 1.73 F ND ND ND ND 7.0 P ND ND

471 3.4. Evaluation of compliance status

Influent exceeds WTF capacity Technology insufficient to treat influent load

Schedule maintenance not followed

655 Standards of 2016 2016.

Table A. WTF detail and wastewater characteristics inquiry form

Table B.1 WTF detail and wastewater characteristics inquiry form

Table B.2 WTF detail and wastewater characteristics inquiry form

Table B.3 WTF detail and wastewater characteristics inquiry form

Table B.4 WTF detail and wastewater characteristics inquiry form