Waste Water Masterplan Mombasa West Mainland

REPUBLIC OF KENYA
COAST WATER SERVICES BOARD
WATER AND SANITATION SERVICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT –

ADDITIONAL FINANCING (WaSSIP - AF)
Consulting Services for Wastewater Master Plan for Mombasa and

Selected Towns within the Coast Region
Contract No. CWSB/WaSSIP-AF/C/10/2012
FINAL WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN REPORT FOR

MOMBASA WEST MAINLAND
VOLUME 1: PART 3 OF 3 – MOMBASA WEST MAINLAND
REPORT
In Association with:
MARCH 2017
Water and Sanitation Service Improvement Project – Additional Financing (WaSSIP - AF) FINAL MASTER PLAN REPORT
Wastewater Master Plan for Mombasa and Selected Towns within the Coast Region - MOMBASA WEST MAINLAND
“DOCUMENT CONTROL”

ADDITIONAL FINANCING (WaSSIP – AF)
Wastewater Master Plan for Mombasa and Selected Towns within

the Coast Region
EMPLOYER:
Coast Water Services Board

(CWSB)
DOCUMENT TITLE: FINAL WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN REPORT – MOMBASA WEST

MAINLAND
RECORDS FOR REVISION
Version DATE: DESCRIPTION/PURPOSE OF ISSUE: PREPARED BY: CHECKED APPROVED

BY: BY:
FINAL WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN
01 01-04-2017 NJN/EOA/NMM TSM MSB
REPORT– MOMBASA WEST MAINLAND
MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH


ADDITIONAL FINANCING (WaSSIP – AF)
Wastewater Master Plan for Mombasa and Selected Towns within

the Coast Region
FINAL WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN REPORT– MOMBASA WEST

MAINLAND
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
E1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THIS STUDY ................................................................................. 1

E2 OBJECTIVES OF THIS REPORT.................................................................................................. 1
E3 STUDY AREA AND DEMOGRAPHY ........................................................................................... 1
E4 WATER DEMAND FORECAST .................................................................................................. 2
E5 WASTEWATER FLOW PREDICTIONS ........................................................................................ 3
E6 ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ...................................................... 4
E7 MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS AND REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES ................................ 6
E8 PROJECT COSTS ..................................................................................................................... 7
E9 FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE SELECTED DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY ................ 8
E10 CONCLUSION OF THE MASTER PLAN..................................................................................... 10
1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND....................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THIS STUDY ....................................................................................... 1-3
1.2 EXECUTION OF THE STUDY ........................................................................................................ 1-3
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THIS REPORT ..................................................................................................... 1-3
2.0 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 LOCATION AND ADMINISTRATION .............................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 STUDY AREA ......................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 CLIMATE .............................................................................................................................. 2-3
2.4 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................................................................... 2-3
2.5 ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................. 2-3
2.6 EXISTING WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION SYSTEMS ...................................................................... 2-3
2.6.1 Water Supply ............................................................................................................. 2-3
2.6.2 Sanitation System ...................................................................................................... 2-4
2.7 IMMEDIATE MEASURES FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF SANITATION SYSTEMS ........................................... 2-4
2.7.1 Ablution Blocks .......................................................................................................... 2-4
2.7.2 Implementation Cost for Immediate Measures ........................................................... 2-8
3.0 DEMOGRAPHY, LAND USE AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ....................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Previous Population Trend ......................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.2 Population Growth Scenarios ..................................................................................... 3-2
3.1.3 Projected Population for Mombasa West Mainland .................................................... 3-3
3.2 LAND USE AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................ 3-4
3.2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3-4
MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH i
3.2.2 Existing Land Use ....................................................................................................... 3-4

3.2.3 Land Use Planning and Policy ..................................................................................... 3-6
3.2.4 Land Use Requirement per Land Use Zone .................................................................. 3-7
4.0 WATER DEMAND FORECAST ................................................................................................ 4-1
4.1 ANALYSIS OF WATER CONSUMPTION RATES ................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS ................................................................................................. 4-3
5.0 WASTEWATER FLOW PREDICTIONS ...................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.1 Principal References................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.2 Sewerage Collection System ....................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.3 Sewage Generation .................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.4 Peak Flow Factor and Sewer Capacity ......................................................................... 5-3
5.2 PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS .............................................................................................. 5-4
6.0 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SEWERAGE SYSTEM AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS ............ 6-1
6.1 DESIGN OF SEWERS................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.1.1 Minimum Size of Sewer.............................................................................................. 6-1
6.1.2 Hydraulic Design Criteria ............................................................................................ 6-1
6.1.3 Self-Cleansing Gradients and Velocities ...................................................................... 6-2
6.1.4 Sulphide Generation .................................................................................................. 6-2
6.1.5 Ventilation of Sewers ................................................................................................. 6-3
6.1.6 Depth of Sewers ........................................................................................................ 6-3
6.1.7 Manhole Spacing and Sizes......................................................................................... 6-4
6.1.8 Pipe Materials............................................................................................................ 6-4
6.1.9 Property Connections................................................................................................. 6-6
6.2 DESIGN OF SEWAGE PUMPING STATIONS ..................................................................................... 6-6
6.2.1 Sewage Pumps ........................................................................................................... 6-6
6.2.2 Sewage Pumping Stations .......................................................................................... 6-6
6.2.3 Siting of Sewage Pumping Stations ............................................................................. 6-7
6.2.4 Capacities of Sewage Pumping Stations Components .................................................. 6-8
6.3 DESIGN OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS ............................................................................. 6-9
6.3.1 Selection Criteria for Treatment Process / Technology ................................................ 6-9
6.3.2 Alternative Wastewater Treatment Processes / Technologies ................................... 6-11
6.3.3 Identification of Site for Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)................................. 6-18
7.0 FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES .............................................. 7-1
7.1 JUSTIFICATION OF STUDY AREA .................................................................................................. 7-1
7.2 DELINEATION OF DRAINAGE AREAS............................................................................................. 7-1
7.3 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SCHEMES .............................................. 7-3
7.4 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SCHEMES ................................................. 7-7
8.0 PROJECT COSTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SCHEMES ................... 8-1
8.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 UNIT COSTS FOR CAPITAL INVESTMENTS ...................................................................................... 8-1
8.2.1 Basis of Cost Estimates ............................................................................................... 8-1
8.2.2 Land Acquisition ........................................................................................................ 8-1
8.2.3 Construction Cost....................................................................................................... 8-1
8.3 UNIT COSTS FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE .......................................................................... 8-5
8.3.1 General...................................................................................................................... 8-5
8.3.2 Equipment Maintenance and Repairs ......................................................................... 8-5
8.3.3 Power Charges ........................................................................................................... 8-5
MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH ii
8.3.4 Chemical Costs ........................................................................................................... 8-5

8.4 CAPITAL AND OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE SCHEMES .............................. 8-6
8.4.1 Capital Costs .............................................................................................................. 8-6
8.4.2 Operations and Maintenance Costs ............................................................................ 8-6
8.5 AVERAGE INCREMENTAL COSTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE SCHEMES ......................................................... 8-7
8.6 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 8-7
9.0 MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS AND REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES.............................. 9-1
9.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE ADOPTED CRITERIA .................................................................................. 9-1
9.1.1 Methodology of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) .................................................... 9-1
9.2 WASTEWATER TREATMENT TRAIN SELECTION ............................................................................... 9-2
9.2.1 Objective Description ................................................................................................. 9-2
9.2.2 Parameters ................................................................................................................ 9-2
9.2.3 Alternative Wastewater Treatment Trains .................................................................. 9-3
9.2.4 Hierarchy Decision Model .......................................................................................... 9-4
9.2.5 Parameter Matrix and Weighting ............................................................................... 9-4
9.2.6 Ranking of Alternatives Wastewater Treatment Trains ............................................... 9-6
9.2.7 Recommendation for Wastewater Treatment Train .................................................... 9-7
9.3 SITE IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION .......................................................................................... 9-7
9.3.1 Criteria for Site Selection............................................................................................ 9-7
9.3.2 Candidate Sites .......................................................................................................... 9-8
9.3.3 Evaluation of Candidate Sites ..................................................................................... 9-8
9.4 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SCHEME SELECTION ANALYSIS............................................................ 9-8
9.4.1 Objective Description ................................................................................................. 9-8
9.4.2 Parameters ................................................................................................................ 9-8
9.4.3 Alternative Wastewater Management Schemes ......................................................... 9-9
9.4.4 Parameter Matrix and Weighting ............................................................................... 9-9
9.4.5 Ranking of Alternatives Wastewater Treatment Trains ............................................. 9-12
9.4.6 Recommendation for Wastewater Treatment Train .................................................. 9-12
10.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF SELECTED STRATEGY .................................................................. 10-1
10.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 10-1
10.2 SEWERAGE SYSTEM .............................................................................................................. 10-1
10.2.1 Aerial Photographic surveys ..................................................................................... 10-1
10.2.2 Sewer Alignments .................................................................................................... 10-2
10.2.3 Sewerage Network Analysis Model........................................................................... 10-2
10.2.4 Model Output .......................................................................................................... 10-4
10.2.5 Model Reliability...................................................................................................... 10-5
10.2.6 Proposed Sewerage Network for Mombasa West Mainland ...................................... 10-5
10.2.7 Phased Investment Schedule for Sewerage Network ................................................. 10-7
10.3 PUMPING STATIONS ........................................................................................................... 10-10
10.3.1 Siting of Pumping Stations...................................................................................... 10-10
10.3.2 Pumping Station Details ......................................................................................... 10-10
10.3.3 Pump Configurations ............................................................................................. 10-10
10.3.4 Schedule of Pumping Stations ................................................................................ 10-10
10.4 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS ........................................................................................ 10-14
10.4.1 Treatment Technology Selection ............................................................................ 10-14
10.4.2 Treatment Plant Location ....................................................................................... 10-14
10.4.3 Design Considerations ............................................................................................ 10-15
10.4.4 Wastewater Treatment Plant Details ...................................................................... 10-17
10.5 PHASED INVESTMENT SCHEDULE FOR WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT ........................................ 10-20
10.5.1 Medium Term Plan (2021 – 2025) ........................................................................... 10-20
10.5.2 Long-Term Plan (2026 -2040) .................................................................................. 10-20
MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH iii
10.5.3 Implementation Costs for Phased Investment on Waste Water Treatment Plant ..... 10-21
10.6 WASTEWATER REUSE .......................................................................................................... 10-22
10.6.1 Justification for Wastewater Reuse ........................................................................ 10-22
10.6.2 Types of Wastewater Reuse Applications ............................................................... 10-22
10.6.3 Fit-for-Purpose....................................................................................................... 10-24
10.6.4 Selection of Wastewater Reuse Applications .......................................................... 10-25
10.6.5 Conveyance and Storage System of wastewater for Reuse ...................................... 10-27
10.6.6 Implementation Costs for the Industrial Wastewater Reuse Scheme ....................... 10-30
11.0 FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FOR SELECTED DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY ................ 11-1
11.1 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................... 11-1
11.1.1 Water and Sanitation Sector Organization Structure ................................................. 11-1
11.1.2 Tariffs ...................................................................................................................... 11-3
11.1.3 Mombasa West Mainland Wastewater Management Scheme Development Costs .... 11-5
11.2 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 11-6
11.2.1 Key Assumptions ..................................................................................................... 11-6
11.2.2 Methodology for Financial Analysis .......................................................................... 11-7
11.2.3 Project Revenues ..................................................................................................... 11-7
11.2.4 Project Financial Statement...................................................................................... 11-8
11.2.5 Cost Benefit Analysis ................................................................................................ 11-8
11.2.6 The Net Present Value (NPV) .................................................................................... 11-9
11.2.7 Financial Internal Rate of Return .............................................................................. 11-9
11.2.8 Sensitivity Analysis................................................................................................... 11-9
11.2.9 Conclusion of Financial Analysis ............................................................................... 11-9
11.3 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 11-9
11.3.1 General.................................................................................................................... 11-9
11.3.2 Methodology ......................................................................................................... 11-10
11.3.3 Key Assumptions ................................................................................................... 11-10
11.3.4 Capital Development Cost ...................................................................................... 11-10
11.3.5 Project Expenditures .............................................................................................. 11-10
11.3.6 Conversion to Economic Prices ............................................................................... 11-11
11.3.7 Water and Wastewater projections ........................................................................ 11-11
11.3.8 Future without project situation............................................................................. 11-12
11.3.9 Valuation of benefits.............................................................................................. 11-12
11.3.10 Results of Economic Analysis .................................................................................. 11-12
11.3.11 Conclusion of Economic Analysis ............................................................................ 11-16
12.0 RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT AND MONITORING PROGRAM ................................................. 12-1
12.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 12-1
12.2 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES AND WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES ....................................... 12-1
12.3 MONITORING PROGRAM DESIGN ............................................................................................. 12-1
12.3.1 Water Flows ............................................................................................................ 12-1
12.3.2 Water Quality .......................................................................................................... 12-1
12.4 DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORTING ............................................................................................. 12-3
13.0 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS AND RESETTLEMENT ACTION ................................ 13-1
13.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 13-1
13.1.1 Environment Screening ............................................................................................ 13-1
13.1.2 Screening for Resettlement Impacts ......................................................................... 13-1
13.2 GUIDING LEGISLATION AND POLICY........................................................................................... 13-2
13.2.1 Kenyan Legislations.................................................................................................. 13-2
13.2.2 World Bank Policies and Guidelines .......................................................................... 13-2
13.3 SCOPING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS .................................................................. 13-3
MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH iv
13.3.1 Alternative Sites ...................................................................................................... 13-3

13.3.2 Selected Site ............................................................................................................ 13-4
13.4 ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL IMPACT SCORING AND RATING CRITERIA ............................................... 13-4
13.5 POSITIVE IMPACTS DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE ................................................................. 13-5
13.5.1 Creation of Employment and Business Opportunities ................................................ 13-5
13.6 POSITIVE IMPACTS DURING OPERATION PHASE ........................................................................... 13-5
13.6.1 Increased Water Availability through Re-Use ............................................................ 13-5
13.6.2 Reduction of Terrestrial and Marine Pollution .......................................................... 13-5
13.6.3 Improved Hygiene and Sanitation in the Project Areas .............................................. 13-6
13.6.4 Reduced Cases of Water Related Diseases ................................................................ 13-6
13.6.5 Reduced Water and Sanitation Burden to Women .................................................... 13-6
13.6.6 Increased Land Values in the Project Area ................................................................ 13-6
13.7 NEGATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE ......................... 13-7
13.7.1 Negative Impacts to the Biophysical Environment and Mitigation Measures ............. 13-7
13.7.2 Negative Impacts to the Socio-Economic Environment and Mitigation Measures ....... 13-9
13.7.3 Negative Impacts on Occupational Health and Safety and Mitigation Measures ...... 13-11
13.8 NEGATIVE IMPACTS DURING OPERATION ................................................................................. 13-12
13.9 PROJECT RESETTLEMENT IMPACTS .......................................................................................... 13-13
13.9.1 Objectives of RAP................................................................................................... 13-13
13.9.2 Guiding Legislations and Policies ............................................................................ 13-14
13.9.3 Identified Project Resettlement Impacts ................................................................. 13-14
13.9.4 Eligibility for Compensation and ‘Cut-Off’ Date ....................................................... 13-14
13.9.5 Livelihood Restoration ........................................................................................... 13-15
13.9.6 Vulnerable Groups ................................................................................................. 13-15
13.9.7 Grievance Management ......................................................................................... 13-18
13.9.8 RAP implementation Arrangements ....................................................................... 13-18
13.9.9 RAP Monitoring and Evaluation .............................................................................. 13-19
14.0 ASSETS MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................................................. 14-1
14.1 INTRODUCTION TO ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANNING .................................................................... 14-1
14.2 ASSET INVENTORY ................................................................................................................ 14-2
14.3 LEVELS OF SERVICE................................................................................................................ 14-2
14.4 CRITICAL ASSETS .................................................................................................................. 14-3
14.5 ASSET LIFE CYCLE COSTS ........................................................................................................ 14-3
14.6 LONG-TERM FUNDING AND CLASSIFYING EXPENDITURE ................................................................. 14-4
14.6.1 Operational Expenditure .......................................................................................... 14-4
14.6.2 Maintenance Expenditure ........................................................................................ 14-4
14.7 FUNDING PLAN .................................................................................................................... 14-5
14.8 ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................... 14-5
14.9 CWSB ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN SITUATION ........................................................................... 14-6
15.0 RISK MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 15-1
15.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 15-1
15.2 ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS ......................................................................................................... 15-3
15.2.1 Climate Change ........................................................................................................ 15-3
15.2.2 Risks from Construction ........................................................................................... 15-4
15.2.3 Public Health Risks ................................................................................................... 15-4
15.2.4 Operational Hazards ................................................................................................ 15-5
15.3 ECONOMIC RISKS ................................................................................................................. 15-5
15.3.1 Multi-Criteria Evaluation and Risk Analysis of Proposed Investment Scenarios .......... 15-5
15.3.2 Key Issues and Recommended Actions ..................................................................... 15-6
15.3.3 Priority Areas in Need of Financing ........................................................................... 15-7
15.3.4 Strategies / Action for Cost Reduction ...................................................................... 15-7
MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH v
15.4 RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN ...................................................................................................... 15-8

16.0 CONCLUSION OF THE MASTER PLAN .................................................................................. 16-1
MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Location Plan for the Project Towns ............................................................................... 1-2
Figure 2.1: Study Area of Wastewater Masterplan .......................................................................... 2-2
Figure 2.2: Schematic Layout of the existing Water Supply within Mombasa County ....................... 2-4
Figure 2.3: Typical Site Layout Plan for an Ablution Block ............................................................... 2-6
Figure 2.4: Typical Plan, Views and Sections of an Ablution Block ................................................... 2-7
Figure 3.1: Projected Populations based on Growth Rate Scenarios ................................................. 3-3
Figure 3.2: Existing Land Use Plan ................................................................................................... 3-5
Figure 3.3: Projected Land Use Year 2040 ....................................................................................... 3-8
Figure 4.1: Water Demand Projection ............................................................................................. 4-4
Figure 5.1: Comparative Projected Wastewater Flows up to Year 2040 ............................................ 5-5
Figure 6.1: Capital cost for wastewater treatment technologies ...................................................... 6-9
Figure 6.2: Land Requirements for wastewater treatment technologies ........................................ 6-10
Figure 6.3: Layout of Waste Stabilization Ponds ............................................................................ 6-12
Figure 6.4: Sectional View of a Circular Biofilter ............................................................................ 6-12
Figure 6.5: Schematic Showing SBR operational cycle .................................................................... 6-14
Figure 7.1: Proposed Drainage Areas .............................................................................................. 7-2
Figure 7.2: Alternative Scheme 1 .................................................................................................... 7-4
Figure 7.3: Locations of Alternative Waste Water Treatment Plants ................................................ 7-6
Figure 7.4: Locations of Alternative Waste Water Treatment Plants ................................................ 7-8
Figure 8.1: Unit cost for sewer excavation with Depth ..................................................................... 8-3
Figure 9.1: Hierarchy Decision Model used in the AHP..................................................................... 9-4
Figure 10.1: Detailed Layout of the Sewerage System – Mombasa West Mainland ......................... 10-6
Figure 10.2: Layout Plan of the Phased Implementation of Sewerage System for the Study Area .... 10-9
Figure 10.3: Typical Layout Plan and Sections of a Screw Pumping Station ................................... 10-12
Figure 10.4: Typical Layout Plan and Sections of a Centrifugal Pumping Station ........................... 10-13
Figure 10.5: Site Layout Plan of the proposed Waste Water Treatment Plant ............................... 10-19
Figure 10.6: Types of Aquifer Recharge ....................................................................................... 10-23
Figure 10.7: Level of wastewater quality ..................................................................................... 10-24
Figure 10.8: Layout Plan of the Conveyance and Storage System for Industrial Wastewater Reuse –
Mombasa West Mainland .......................................................................................................... 10-29
Figure 11.1: Institutional Set-up of Water Act 2002 ....................................................................... 11-1
Figure 13.1: Kipevu Site ................................................................................................................ 13-3
Figure 14.1: Core Aspects of Asset Management Framework ......................................................... 14-2
Figure 14.2: Life Cycle Asset Management .................................................................................... 14-4
Figure 14.3: Where the AMP Fits In............................................................................................... 14-5
MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: Project Selected Towns.................................................................................................. 1-1
Table 2.1: Sub-locations and Study Area ........................................................................................ 2-1
Table 2.2: Implementation Costs for Immediate Measures – Ablution Blocks................................... 2-8
Table 3.1: Intercensal Population Data (1979 – 2009) for Mombasa West mainland ......................... 3-1
Table 3.2: Previous Intercensal Annual Population Growth Rates .................................................... 3-1
Table 3.3: Summary of the Projected Population ............................................................................ 3-3
Table 3.4: Summary of Existing Land Use ....................................................................................... 3-4
Table 3.5: Existing Land Use and Projected Land Requirement ........................................................ 3-7
Table 3.6: Adoptive Standards for Urban Planning .......................................................................... 3-9
Table 4.1: Comparison of Water Consumption Rates ....................................................................... 4-2
Table 4.2: Adopted Housing Categories & per Capita Water Consumption ....................................... 4-3
Table 4.3: Water Demand for Medium-Term Plan Horizon - Year 2025 ............................................ 4-4
Table 4.4: Water Demand for Long-Term Plan Horizon - Year 2040 .................................................. 4-4
Table 5.1: Portion of Water Used that ends up as Wastewater ........................................................ 5-2
Table 5.2: Nairobi City Council Manual Peak Flow Factors ............................................................... 5-4
Table 5.3: Common Formulas used to calculate Peak Flow Factor .................................................... 5-4
Table 5.4: Projected Wastewater Generation up to Year 2040 ......................................................... 5-4
Table 5.5: Sewer Connectivity adopted for Realistic Wastewater Generation Projection .................. 5-5
Table 5.6: Water Supply Status adopted for Realistic Wastewater Generation Projection ................ 5-5
Table 6.1: Friction Factor for Manning’s Formula ............................................................................ 6-1
Table 6.2: Minimum Sewer Depths and Pipe Protection ................................................................. 6-3
Table 6.3: Guideline to manhole diameter and spacing ................................................................... 6-4
Table 6.4: Descriptive Comparison of Wastewater Treatment Technologies / Processes ................ 6-17
Table 7.1: Summary of Sewage and BOD5 Generated per Drainage Area .......................................... 7-1
Table 7.2: Alternative Scheme 1 – Pumping components and Treatment Technology ....................... 7-3
Table 7.3: Alternative Scheme 2 – Pumping components and Treatment Technology ....................... 7-5
Table 7.4: Summary of Alternative Wastewater Management Schemes .......................................... 7-7
Table 8.1: Unit Costs for Sewer Lines and Manholes ........................................................................ 8-2
Table 8.2: Unit Cost for Trench Excavations for Sewer Lines ............................................................ 8-3
Table 8.3: Unit Cost for Earthworks ................................................................................................ 8-4
Table 8.4: Unit Cost for Concrete and Mortar .................................................................................. 8-4
Table 8.5: Unit Cost for Formwork .................................................................................................. 8-4
Table 8.6: Unit Cost for Steel Reinforcement ................................................................................... 8-4
Table 8.7: Unit Cost for Masonry and Block Walling ........................................................................ 8-4
Table 8.8: Unit Cost for Miscellaneous ............................................................................................ 8-4
Table 8.9: Unit Cost for Electro-Mechanical Works .......................................................................... 8-5
Table 8.10: Capital Costs of the Alternative Schemes ...................................................................... 8-6
Table 8.11: Annual Operations & Maintenance Costs of the Alternative Schemes (Year 1) ............... 8-7
Table 8.12: Net Present Values and Average Incremental Cost of BOD Removal............................... 8-7
Table 8.13: Summary of Sensitivity Analysis of the Alternative Schemes .......................................... 8-8
Table 9.1: Scale for Pairwise Comparison ........................................................................................ 9-2
Table 9.2: Resultant Matrix of Parameters’ Pairwise Comparison .................................................... 9-4
Table 9.3: Analysis of Simplicity of Operation & Maintenance Weights against other Parameters .... 9-5
Table 9.4: A summary of the Priority Vectors for Parameter Matrix ................................................. 9-5
Table 9.5: Summary of Parameter Weighting against Alternative Wastewater Treatment Trains ...... 9-5
Table 9.6: Decision Variable Matrix based on Environmental Impact ............................................... 9-6
Table 9.7: Decision Variable Matrix based on Simplicity of Operation & Maintenance ..................... 9-6
Table 9.8: Decision Variable Matrix based on Net Present Value ..................................................... 9-6
Table 9.9: Weighted Totals for the alternative wastewater treatment trains ................................... 9-6
Table 9.10: Evaluation of Candidate Wastewater Treatment Plant Sites .......................................... 9-8
Table 9.11: Alternative Wastewater Management Schemes ............................................................ 9-9
MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH viii

Table 9.12: Resultant Matrix of Parameters’ Pairwise Comparison ................................................ 9-10

Table 9.13: Analysis of Simplicity of Operation & Maintenance Weights against other parameters 9-10
Table 9.14: A summary of the priority vectors for Parameter Matrix ............................................. 9-11
Table 9.15: Summary of Parameter Weighting against alternative schemes ................................... 9-11
Table 9.16: Decision Variable Matrix based on Environmental Impact ........................................... 9-11
Table 9.17: Decision Variable Matrix based on Land Acquisition .................................................... 9-12
Table 9.18: Decision Variable Matrix based on Simplicity of Operations & Maintenance ................ 9-12
Table 9.19: Decision Variable Matrix based on Net Present Value.................................................. 9-12
Table 9.20: Weighted Totals for the alternative schemes .............................................................. 9-12
Table 10.1: Adopted Design Criteria.............................................................................................. 10-3
Table 10.2: Schedule of Sewerage System - Phase 1 Mombasa West Mainland .............................. 10-7
Table 10.3: Schedule of Sewerage System - Phase 2 ...................................................................... 10-8
Table 10.4: Summary of Details of the Sewage Pumping Stations ................................................ 10-11
Table 10.5: Details of Waste Water Treatment Plant – Year 2040 ................................................ 10-17
Table 10.6: Details of Additional Units at the Waste Water Treatment Plant: Long-Term Plan ...... 10-18
Table 10.7: Details of Additional Units at the Waste Water Treatment Plant: Long-Term Plan ...... 10-20
Table 10.8: Implementation Cost for Waste Water Treatment Plant: Medium-Term Plan ............. 10-21
Table 10.9: Implementation Cost for Additional Units at the Waste Water Treatment Plant: Long-Term
Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 10-21
Table 10.10: Types of Reuse appropriate for Increasing Levels of Treatment ................................ 10-25
Table 10.11: Details of Land for Re-use Application (Year 2040). .................................................. 10-26
Table 10.12: Capital Cost for Industrial Wastewater Reuse Scheme ............................................. 10-30
Table 10.13: Annual Operations & Maintenance Costs ................................................................ 10-30
Table 11.1: Current and Proposed water and sewerage Tariffs – MOWASCO ................................. 11-4
Table 11.2: Other charges............................................................................................................. 11-5
Table 11.3: Summary of Project Capital Development Costs .......................................................... 11-5
Table 11.4: Schedule of Annual Project Expenditures .................................................................... 11-6
Table 11.5: Summary of Project Revenues .................................................................................... 11-7
Table 11.6: Projected Financial Statement of the Project ............................................................... 11-8
Table 11.7: Summary of Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................. 11-9
Table 11.8: Schedule of Capital Development Costs .................................................................... 11-10
Table 11.9: Schedule of Project Expenditures .............................................................................. 11-11
Table 11.10: Projected Water and Wastewater conditions .......................................................... 11-12
Table 11.11: Summary of Cost Benefit Cash flow ......................................................................... 11-14
Table 13.1: Site Description- Kipevu ............................................................................................. 13-3
Table 13.2: Site Description- Miritini ............................................................................................ 13-3
Table 13.3: Environment Impact Scoring and Rating Criteria ........................................................ 13-4
Table 13.4: Impact Rating for Creation of Employment.................................................................. 13-5
Table 13.5: Impact Rating for Increased Water Availability ............................................................ 13-5
Table 13.6: Impact Rating for Elimination of Pollution ................................................................... 13-5
Table 13.7: Impact Rating for Improved Hygiene and Sanitation .................................................... 13-6
Table 13.8: Impact Rating for Reduced Water Related Diseases ..................................................... 13-6
Table 13.9: Impact Rating for Reduced Burden to Women............................................................. 13-6
Table 13.10: Impact Rating for Increased Land Values .................................................................. 13-7
Table 13.11: Impact Scoring for Destruction of Vegetation Cover .................................................. 13-7
Table 13.12: Impact Rating for Contamination of Water Resources ............................................... 13-8
Table 13.13: Impact Rating for Soil Erosion ................................................................................... 13-8
Table 13.14: Impact Rating for Pollution by Solid Wastes .............................................................. 13-8
Table 13.15: Impact Scoring for Air Pollution and Dust Generation ................................................ 13-9
Table 13.16: Resettlement Impacts ............................................................................................... 13-9
Table 13.17: Impact Scoring for Resettlement Impacts ................................................................ 13-10
Table 13.18: Impact Rating for Disruption to Public Utilities ........................................................ 13-10
Table 13.19: Impact Rating for Increased Transmission of HIV/AIDS ............................................ 13-11
MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH ix
Table 13.20: Impact Rating for Noise and Excessive Vibrations .................................................... 13-11
Table 13.21: Impact Rating for Risk of Accidents at Work Sites .................................................... 13-12
Table 13.22: Environment and Social Risk during Project Operation ........................................... 13-12
Table 13.23: Project Resettlement Impacts for Master Plan Projects ........................................... 13-14
Table 13.24: Entitlement Matrix ................................................................................................. 13-16
Table 13.25: Monitoring Indictors During and After Compensation Payments .............................. 13-19
Table 15.1: Definition of Project Hazards and Risks ....................................................................... 15-2
Table 15.2: Identified Environment and Social Risks and Mitigation Measures ............................. 15-8
Table 16.1: Details of the Ablution Blocks – Immediate Sanitation Measures ................................. 16-1
Table 16.2: Details of the Sludge Handling Facility – Immediate Sanitation Measures .................... 16-1
Table 16.3: Summary of Implementation Cost: Medium-Term Plan Plan (2021 -2025) .................... 16-1
Table 16.4: Summary of Implementation Cost: Long-Term Plan Plan (2026 -2040) ......................... 16-2
MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH x

List of Abbreviations
CES - Consulting Engineers Salzgitter GmbH
CWSB - Coast Water Services Board
DWF - Dry Weather Flow
EIA - Environmental Impact Assessment
EA - Environmental Audit
ESIA - Environmental & Social Impact Assessment
GoK - Government of Kenya
IDA - International Development Association
M&E - Mechanical & Electrical
MWI - Ministry of Water and Irrigation
MIBP - Mangat, I.B. Patel & Partners
MOWASCO - Mombasa Water and Sanitation Company Ltd.
ToR - Terms of Reference
SoK - Survey of Kenya
WB - World Bank
WRMA - Water Resources Management Authority
WSB - Water Services Board
WSP - Water Service Provider
WSS - Water Supply and Sanitation
WSTF - Water Services Trust Fund
WWTP - Wastewater Treatment Plant
MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
E1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THIS STUDY
Goals and objectives are defined in the ToR (Paragraph 7.3) as, “The main goal of the Master Plan
is to identify a sound and rational strategy for the development of sewerage services in Mombasa
and selected Towns over the next twenty-five (25) years to improve the quality of effluent to
rivers, Indian Ocean and groundwater and to safeguard the health of the city’s residents.”
The key objective of the proposed Master Plan for Mombasa West Mainland is to come up with
a phased investment programme for Immediate / Short Term Plan (2015 – 2020), Medium Term
Plan (2021 – 2025), Long Term Plan (2026 – 2040) and recommend a treated effluent disposal /
reuse strategy for the effluent in Mombasa West Mainland.
E2 OBJECTIVES OF THIS REPORT
The Final Wastewater Master Plan Report presents the outputs of the Feasibility Study, the
Selected Development Strategy and the Preliminary Design of the planned infrastructure for the
Sanitation System of Mombasa West Mainland.
The components of this Report include the following;
 Present Sanitation Situation in the Study Area & Proposed Immediate Interventions
 Future Sewerage System / Coverage Area Expansion
 Analysis of Sewage Generation and Network Analysis
 Formulation of Alternative Wastewater Management Strategies
 Detailed Evaluation of the Alternative Wastewater Management Strategies including
Wastewater Treatment, Social / Environmental Assessment, Economic and Financial
Analysis and Multi-Criteria Analysis
 Description of Selected Wastewater Management System Development Strategy
 Investment and Financial Management Plan
 Proposed Implementation / Development Schedule
 Conclusion of the Master Plan
E3 STUDY AREA AND DEMOGRAPHY
The jurisdiction of Mombasa West Mainland covers six sub-locations namely; Kwa Shee, Birikani,
Changamwe, Chaani, Miritini, Jomvu Kuu and Port Reitz. The study area for the Wastewater
Master Plan covers all these sub-locations.
The sub-locations forming Mombasa West Mainland and total coverage areas as well as the study
area is given in Table E1 below;
Table E1: Sub-locations and Study Area
Sub-locations Total Area (km²) Coverage in the Study Area (km²)
Kwa Shee 3.79 2.92
Birikani 2.35 0.12
Changamwe 3.81 3.74
Chaani 4.21 1.92
Miritini 10.39 5.84
Jomvu Kuu 21.25 13.21
Portreitz 8.04 5.08
Total 53.84 32.83
Figure E1 on Page E-2 shows the coverage of the Study Area of Wastewater Master Plan for
Mombasa West Mainland.
MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH E-1

Figure E1: Study Area of Waste Water Master Plan for Mombasa West Mainland
From the analysis of previous demographic data obtained from Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS),
the average annual growth rate for the Study Area of West Mainland in the last inter-censal
period (1999 - 2009) is 8.1%. This is expected to decrease within the service area as the housing
densities approaches High Density Status.
Based on a medium growth rate scenario, annual population growth rate taken as 3%, the
population for the Study Area has been projected.
A summary of the projected population of the Study Area is given in Table E-2 below.
Table E2: Summary of Population Projection within the Study Area

2009 Projected Population
Sub-location
Population 2015 2020 2025 2040
Kwa Shee 30,242 36,111 41,862 48,530 75,607
Birikani 1,572 1,877 2,176 2,523 3,930
Changamwe 9,114 10,883 12,616 14,625 22,786
Chaani 52,440 62,616 72,589 84,151 131,104
Miritini 21,559 25,743 29,843 34,596 53,899
Jomvu Kuu 33,077 39,496 45,786 53,079 82,695
Portreitz 61,718 73,695 85,432 99,039 154,300
TOTAL 209,722 250,421 290,304 336,543 524,322
E4 WATER DEMAND FORECAST

Based on the regular / unsuppressed water consumption rates, projected populations, proposed
future land-use (health, industrial, institutional, commercial and residential zones) and assuming
full coverage of water distribution in the study area, the projected water demand for each of the
service areas of Mombasa West Mainland has been determined.
Figure E2 below shows the projected trend in the combined water demand for the study area up
to year 2040.
Figure E2: Water Demand Projection

E5 WASTEWATER FLOW PREDICTIONS
The total wastewater generated with each of the service areas in the study has been determined
by the wastewater generated from the water consumed (sewage generation factor of 80%),
infiltration into the sewers and splash flows. Assuming a regular water supply condition, the
projected combined wastewater flow for the entire study area in the year 2040, is approximately
62,200 m³/day.
However, achieving conditions of regular / unsuppressed water supply and full sewer connections
in a Town with Sewerage System is nearly impossible. This is occasioned by limited development
of water resources, inadequate water distribution networks and the use of on-plot sanitation
systems due to topography, affordability, unplanned settlement, etc.
To consider the above situation in the formulation of realistic wastewater generation projection
for the study area, the factors of Sewer Connectivity and Water Supply, given in Tables E3 below
and E4 on Page E-4 have been adopted.
Table E3: Sewer Connectivity adopted for Realistic Wastewater Generation Projection
Sewer Connections
Population Category Based on Income Levels
2021 – 2030 2031 - 2040
High Income 20% 80%
Medium Income 100% 100%
Low Income with Individual Water Connection 60% 80%
Low Income without Individual Water Connection 30% 40%

Table E4: Water Supply Status adopted for Realistic Wastewater Generation Projection
Water Supply Status as a % of Regular
Population Category Based on Income Levels Water Supply
2021 – 2030 2031 - 2040
High Income 50% 80%
Figure E3 below shows the comparative trends of wastewater flow generation for the study area
under Ideal condition (100% Sewer Connections and Regular Water Supply) and Realistic
conditions;
70,000
65,000 With Projected Built-out of Sewer
60,000 Connections and Suppressed Water
Supply
Dry Weather Flow, m³/day
55,000
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
-
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Year
Figure E3: Comparative Projected Wastewater Flows up to Year 2040

From Figure E3 above, the projected wastewater generation based on the projected build-out of
sewer connections and suppressed water supply at the Years 2025 and 2040 is 14,050 m³/d and
44,290 m³/d respectively.
The design of Wastewater Management Scheme Components i.e. Sewerage System and Water
Treatment Plants, has been based on the wastewater flow generation developed from the
projected build-out of sewer connections and suppressed water supply.
E6 ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
The Final Wastewater Master Plan for Mombasa West Mainland describes the development
strategy for the long-term water-borne sanitation system comprising of a wastewater collection
/ conveyance system and the treatment / proper disposal of treated effluents. However, this
long-term sanitation strategy is not planned for immediate implementation.
In consideration of the current sanitation systems and the growing sanitation needs, an
immediate intervention is urgently required. Thus, Immediate Sanitation Measures have been
developed. These measures rehabilitation of the Kipevu Wastewater Treatment Plant & the
existing sewer lines and the construction of 2Nr Ablution Blocks at selected public.
As a long-term strategy, two alternative Wastewater Management Schemes have been
formulated for Mombasa West Mainland and are briefly described below;
a. Alternative 1: Centralized Scheme with a Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) at Kipevu

Site
b. Alternative 2: Decentralized Scheme with 2 Nr. WWTPs at Kipevu and Miritini
The locations of these WWTP are shown in Figure E4 below;
Figure E4: Locations of the Alternative Waste Water Treatment Plant

A summary of the two proposed schemes for Mombasa West Mainland is given in Table E5 below.
Table E5: Summary of Alternative Wastewater Management Schemes
Conveyance System Wastewater Treatment Plants

Alternative Secondary No. of Design Land
Scheme Treatment
and Trunk Pumping Location Capacity Required
Technology
Sewers (km) Stations (m³/day) (Ha)
 Existing - Oxidation Ditch

4Nr. with a
1 40 Kipevu (TW 1) 44,300 9
 Proposed - Chlorination
5Nr. System
Oxidation Ditch
with a
 Existing - Kipevu (TW 1) 35,600 7.5
Chlorination
4Nr.
2 45 System
 Proposed -
Waste
4Nr.
Miritini (TW 2) 8,700 Stabilization 21
Ponds

E7 MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS AND REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES

In the Multi-Criteria Analysis, alternative treatment trains and schemes have been evaluated to
determine the most suitable wastewater treatment scheme for Mombasa West Mainland.
A summary of the weighted totals for the alternative wastewater treatment trains is given in
Table E6 below.
Table E6: Weighted Totals for the alternative wastewater treatment trains
Simplicity of
Net
Operations Environmental Land Institutional Weighted
Present Rank
and Impacts Requirement Strength Total
Value
Maintenance
Waste
Stabilization 0.486 0.548 0.456 0.052 0.410 0.244 3
Ponds
Composite
0.11 0.23 0.26 0.09 0.13 0.113 4
Biofilters
Oxidation
Ditches with 0.108 0.136 0.141 0.192 0.085 0.335 1
Chlorination
Long Sea Outfall 0.30 0.08 0.14 0.66 0.37 0.308 2
Similarly, a summary of the weighted totals for the alternative schemes developed for Mombasa
West Mainland is given in Table E7 below.
Table E7: Weighted Totals for the alternative schemes
Simplicity of
Net Potential
Operations Environmental Land Land Weighted
Present for Rank
and Impacts Acquisition Use Totals
Value Reuse
Maintenance
Centralized
Scheme with 1Nr
0.67 0.75 0.33 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.58 1
Oxidation Ditch
System
Decentralized
Scheme with 1 Nr
Oxidation Ditches 0.33 0.25 0.67 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.42 2
& 1Nr WSP
System
From the Multi-Criteria Analysis, a Centralized Wastewater Management Scheme at Kipevu
comprising of Oxidation Ditches with Chlorination/ De-Chlorination Facility is the most suitable
and is recommended for Mombasa West Mainland Sanitation Strategy.
Table E8 on Page E-7 gives a summary of the details of this recommended Wastewater
Management Scheme.

Table E8: Details of recommended Wastewater Management Scheme – Decentralized Scheme

Conveyance System Wastewater Treatment Plant
Alternative Land
Scheme Secondary and No. of Pumping Treatment
Location Required
Trunk Sewers (km) Stations Technology
(Ha)
Oxidation Ditches
 4Nr Existing with Chlorination /
1 40 km Kipevu (TW 1) 9
 5 Nr Proposed De-Chlorination
Facility
E8 PROJECT COSTS
The Capital Cost of the selected Wastewater Management Scheme for Mombasa West Mainland
has been worked out on the following basis;
a) Project Implementation planned to be carried out in two phases i.e. Medium-Term Plan
(2020 -2025) and Long-Term Plan (2026 - 2040)
b) The Cost of Civil Works constitute the following fraction of the components total costs;
 Wastewater Treatment Plant – 95%
 Pumping Station – 60%
 Sewers – 100%
Summary of the Capital Costs for the recommended Schemes is given in Table E9 below;
Table E9: Capital Costs for the Selected Scheme
S/No. Component Alternative 1 Alternative 2
1 Land Acquisition (Kshs) 30,000,000 1,226,731,860
2 Civil Works (Kshs) 7,121,603,056 7,214,060,417
Wastewater Treatment
2.1 5,355,968,760 5,827,319,231
Plant (Kshs)
2.2 Pumping Stations (Kshs) 115,561,134 105,207,110
2.3 Sewers (Kshs) 1,650,073,162 1,281,534,075
Electro-Mechanical Works
3 358,933,849 376,839,086
(Kshs)
3.1 281,893,093 306,701,012
Plant (Kshs)
Total Capital Cost (Kshs) 7,510,536,905 8,817,631,362
Total Capital Cost (USD) [1] 72,917,834 85,608,071
A summary of the Phased Investment cost for Mombasa West Mainland Wastewater
Management System is given in Tables E10 below and E11 on Page E-8;
Table E10: Costs for Medium-Term Plan (Year 2020 – 2025)
S/No. Component Cost (Kshs Costs (USD)
1 Land Acquisition 30,000,000 291,262
2 Sewerage System 1,707,679,513 16,579,413
3 Wastewater Treatment Plant 635,854,457 6,173,344
Total 2,373,533,970 23,044,019

Table E11: Costs for Long-Term Plan (Year 2026 – 2040)

S/No. Component Cost (Kshs) Costs (USD)
1 Sewerage System 134,995,539 1,310,636
2 Wastewater Treatment Plant 5,002,007,396 48,563,179
Total 5,137,002,935 49,873,815
The Operations and Maintenance Costs have been worked out on the following basis;
a) Electricity Costs at the Pumping Stations has been assumed to increase annually at 4.6%
p.a. (same as population) due to increased sewage flow from the increased connections
b) Annual Maintenance Costs of the Schemes have been calculated as the sum of 1% of the
Costs of the Civil Works and 5% of the Electro-Mechanical Works
c) Replacement of the Electro-Mechanical Items to be carried out every 10 Years with repair
works planned for every intermediate 5 years between the replacement schedule
A summary of the Annual Operations & Maintenance Costs in the first year of operation of the
Scheme is given in Table E12 below;
Table E12: Annual Operations & Maintenance Costs (Year 1)
1 Maintenance Costs (Kshs) 89,161,677 90,982,558
2 Electricity Costs (Kshs) 64,208,669 69,851,008
3 Staff Costs (Kshs) 15,465,773 20,105,505
Total O&M Cost (Kshs) 168,836,118 180,939,071
[1]
– Exchange Rate: 1 USD = 103 Kshs
E9 FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE SELECTED DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
To provide indicators of economic viability and sustainability of the proposed sanitation system,
it is important to carry out financial and economic analysis. Financial and economic analysis is
used to produce standardised information on Projects, as a basis for making investment decision.
The importance of economic analysis in an investment is to help select a Project that contributes
to the welfare of a region or a country. On the other hand, financial analysis evaluates Project
liquidity and profitability.
The Capital Costs for the Investment Phases and their associated Operations and Maintenance
Costs have been used to project the Annual Project Expenditure as summarized in Table E13
below;
Table E13: Schedule of Annual Project Expenditures
Year Project Cost, Ksh O&M, Ksh Depreciation, Ksh Total Cost, Ksh
2021 593,383,492 - 593,383,492
2022 593,383,492 46,022,311.08 639,405,804
2023 593,383,492 168,836,118.27 69,033,466.62 831,253,077
2024 593,383,492 169,713,893.71 92,044,622.15 855,142,008
2025 - 170,579,987.69 92,044,622.15 262,624,610
2026 513,700,294 175,732,140.13 104,812,068.24 794,244,502
2027 513,700,294 180,535,398.78 124,733,143.74 818,968,836
2028 513,700,294 185,052,299.51 144,654,219.24 843,406,812
2029 - 189,328,666.93 144,654,219.24 333,982,886
2030 770,550,440 193,399,269.18 174,535,832.49 1,138,485,542
2031 1,027,400,587 196,624,788.07 203,475,892.52 1,427,501,268
2032 1,284,250,734 199,740,985.01 242,376,490.31 1,726,368,209
2033 513,700,294 202,758,275.29 251,395,474.84 967,854,044

2034 - 205,685,518.47 240,493,383.87 446,178,902
2035 - 208,530,325.49 240,493,383.87 449,023,709
2036 - 211,299,291.95 238,208,922.40 449,508,214
2037 - 213,998,178.24 228,770,831.52 442,769,010
2038 - 216,632,050.47 219,332,740.63 435,964,791
2039 - 219,205,392.28 219,332,740.63 438,538,133
2040 - 221,722,194.50 205,175,604.31 426,897,799
2041 - 221,722,194.50 205,175,604.31 426,897,799
2042 - 221,722,194.50 205,175,604.31 426,897,799
2043 - 221,722,194.50 205,175,604.31 426,897,799
2044 - 221,722,194.50 205,175,604.31 426,897,799
2045 221,722,194.50 153,266,104.45 374,988,299
2046 221,722,194.50 153,266,104.45 374,988,299
Assuming adoption of the proposed tariffs and attainment of the projected sewer connections,
the projected financial statement has been determined and summarized in Table E14 below;
Table E14: Projected Financial Statement of the Project
Project Income and expenditure Financial statement (Kshs.)
Total Project Billings Not Net Project Operations & Annual Total
Year Net Revenue
Revenue Recovered Revenue Maintenance Depreciation Expenditure
2023 460,050,906 46,005,091 414,045,816 168,836,118 69,033,467 237,869,598 176,176,218
2024 460,050,906 46,005,091 414,045,816 169,713,894 92,044,622 261,758,529 152,287,287
2025 529,072,996 52,907,300 476,165,697 170,579,988 92,044,622 262,624,623 213,541,073
2026 766,111,799 76,611,180 689,500,619 175,732,140 104,812,068 280,544,222 408,956,397
2027 766,111,799 76,611,180 689,500,619 180,535,399 124,733,144 305,268,557 384,232,063
2028 766,111,799 76,611,180 689,500,619 185,052,300 144,654,219 329,706,533 359,794,086
2029 766,111,799 76,611,180 689,500,619 189,328,667 144,654,219 333,982,901 355,517,718
2030 1,387,967,728 138,796,773 1,249,170,955 193,399,269 174,535,832 367,935,117 881,235,838
2031 1,387,967,728 138,796,773 1,249,170,955 196,624,788 203,475,893 400,100,696 849,070,259
2032 1,387,967,728 138,796,773 1,249,170,955 199,740,985 242,376,490 442,117,491 807,053,464
2033 1,387,967,728 138,796,773 1,249,170,955 202,758,275 251,395,475 454,153,767 795,017,189
2034 1,387,967,728 138,796,773 1,249,170,955 205,685,518 240,493,384 446,178,919 802,992,036
2035 1,387,967,728 138,796,773 1,249,170,955 208,530,325 240,493,384 449,023,727 800,147,229
2036 1,387,967,728 138,796,773 1,249,170,955 211,299,292 238,208,922 449,508,232 799,662,723
2037 1,387,967,728 138,796,773 1,249,170,955 213,998,178 228,770,832 442,769,028 806,401,927
2038 1,387,967,728 138,796,773 1,249,170,955 216,632,050 219,332,741 435,964,810 813,206,146
2039 1,387,967,728 138,796,773 1,249,170,955 219,205,392 219,332,741 438,538,152 810,632,803
2040 2,414,926,596 241,492,660 2,173,433,936 221,722,194 205,175,604 426,897,818 1,746,536,118
2041 2,414,926,596 241,492,660 2,173,433,936 221,722,194 186,299,423 408,021,637 1,765,412,299
2042 2,414,926,596 241,492,660 2,173,433,936 221,722,194 162,704,195 384,426,410 1,789,007,526
2043 2,414,926,596 241,492,660 2,173,433,936 221,722,194 153,266,104 374,988,320 1,798,445,616
2044 2,414,926,596 241,492,660 2,173,433,936 221,722,194 153,266,104 374,988,320 1,798,445,616
2045 2,414,926,596 241,492,660 2,173,433,936 221,722,194 153,266,104 374,988,321 1,798,445,615
2046 2,414,926,596 241,492,660 2,173,433,936 221,722,194 153,266,104 374,988,322 1,798,445,615
Besides the above revenue collected, the following additional direct/indirect benefits have been
considered in the economic analysis:
 Cost savings to customers in terms of health benefits

 Cost savings in terms of safe sewage disposal to the environment

The results of the cost-benefit analysis confirm that the project has favourable BC ratios of
between 1.49 to 1.96. The financial analysis confirms that the project has positive NPVs of Ksh
6,251,034,284 at 5% cost of capital and Ksh 3,008,596,882 at 8% cost of capital and Financial
Internal Rates of Return (FIRR) of 19.70 %.
Sensitivity analysis of the financial analysis indicated that the scheme’s viability is not affected by
10% and 20% shocks in net income.
On the other hand, the results of the economic analysis after including other economic benefits
showed that the project have a positive NPV of Kshs 3,202,840,996 at 10% of cost of capital and
Ksh. 2,163,009,676 @ 12% cost of capital and EIRR of 34% for both 12% and 10% cost of capital.
It is therefore concluded that the Project is both financially and economically viable.
E10 CONCLUSION OF THE MASTER PLAN
At present, Mombasa West Mainland has a Sewerage System that covers approximately 40% of
the area. This sewerage system is malfunctional and the sewage is treated at the existing Kipevu
Wastewater Treatment Plant and disposed of into the Indian Ocean.
The rest of West Mainland currently uses on-plot sanitation means such as septic tanks and pit
latrines and lacking a proper sludge management and disposal facility is a health hazard to the
residents and an environmental risk.
As an immediate intervention, construction of Ablution Blocks at designated Public Places is
necessary. It is equally important to ensure procurement of Exhaust Vehicles to provide desluging
and transport services. A summary of the Immediate Sanitation Measures and their costs
estimates are given Tables E15 and 16 below.
Table E15: Details of the Ablution Blocks – Immediate Sanitation Measures
Details of each Ablution Block Total Capital Cost
Number
Proposed No. of No. of Shower Max. Daily
Ksh. USD
Toilets Rooms capacity
2 6 2 720 31,000,013 300,971
Table E16: Details of the Sludge Handling Facility – Immediate Sanitation Measures
Total Capital Cost
S/No. Component Details
Ksh. USD
Exhaust Discharge  Minimum 1 Nr (Either owned by
1 - -
Tanker MOWASCO or Private Providers)
To provide a sustainable sanitation system, a centralized wastewater management system

comprising of a gravity sewage conveyance system with limited pumping (9 Nr Pumping Station)
and Oxidation Ditches with Chlorination / De-Chlorination Facility system based Wastewater
Treatment Plant (ultimate capacity – 44,300 m³/d) at Kipevu has been selected from the
developed alternative schemes. The implementation of this strategy is to be carried out in 2
phases i.e. Medium Term Plan (2021 -2025) and Long Term Plan (2026 – 2040).
The implementation details of the selected Wastewater Management Scheme in the 2 Phases
are given in Tables E17 and Table E18 on Page E-11.

Table E17: Summary of Implementation Cost: Medium-Term Plan Plan (2021 -2025)
S/No. Component Details Cost (Kshs) Cost (USD)
1 Sewers  225 – 525mm Dia; Total length 16.7km
 5 Nr New
2 Pumping Stations
 4 Nr Rehabilitated 2,373,533,970 23,044,019
Waste Water  Chlorination /De-chlorination Facility
3
Treatment Plant (capacity 17,000 m3/day)
Table E18: Summary of Implementation Cost: Long-Term Plan Plan (2026 -2040)
1 Sewers  225 -375 mm Dia; Total length 22.4 km
 Oxidation Ditches with Chlorination
Waste Water 5,137,002,935 49,873,815
2 /De-chlorination Facility (capacity
Treatment Plant
27,300 m3/day)

MAIN REPORT
1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Government of Kenya (GoK) through the Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI) has received
“credit” from International Development Association (IDA) to undertake the Wastewater Master
Plan for Mombasa and Selected Towns within the Coast Region.
Coast Water Services Board (CWSB) is a parastatal (Government Owned and Autonomous) and
operates under the Ministry of Water and Irrigation. CWSB covers six Counties which are
Mombasa, Kwale, Kilifi, Taita-Taveta, Lamu and Tana River.
The primary outcome of this Study will be to obtain the agreement of all major Stakeholders to a
preferred Sewerage Development Strategy most applicable to their needs.
In August 2010, Kenya enacted a new constitution. The Constitution of Kenya 2010 has
dramatically altered the administrative structure of the Government from the initial 8
Administrative Provinces to 47 Semi-autonomous Counties. This autonomy of the Counties vest
powers and privileges in each County especially on the provision of essential public services such
as Water, Sanitation, Education and other Social Services.
The WaSSIP-AF therefore targets the built-up areas of Towns in six Counties in the Coastal Region
as follows:
Table 1.1: Project Selected Towns
S/No. County Urban Centre
1. Mombasa County Mombasa including Island, West Mainland, South Mainland / Likoni
and North Mainland
2. Kwale Kwale, Ukunda / Diani and Part of Mariakani.
3. Kilifi Malindi, Kilifi, Watamu, Mtwapa and Part of Mariakani
4. Taita Taveta Voi and Taveta
5. Lamu Lamu Island
6 Tana River Hola
The Terms of Reference (ToR) included seven Towns but in the course of the study five upcoming
Towns (Mariakani, Taveta, Ukunda/Diani and Watamu) were added as an addendum.
It is therefore required that the formulated Program shall be aligned to respect and respond to
the requirements of the new Constitution. A key benchmark of the new Constitution is stipulated
under Chapter IV-BILL OF RIGHTS, paragraph 45(1) (b) and (d) which stipulates: “Every person has
the right to (b)............reasonable standards of sanitation and (d) clean and safe water in
adequate quantities.”
A Location Plan for the twelve Project Towns is given in Figure 1.1 on Page 1-2.
MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH 1-1

Figure 1.1: Location Plan for the Project Towns

1.1 Goals and Objectives of this Study

Goals and objectives are defined in the ToR (Paragraph 7.3) as, “The main goal of the Master Plan
is to identify a sound and rational strategy for the development of sewerage services in Mombasa
and selected Towns over the next twenty-five (25) years i.e. up to Year 2040, to improve the
quality of effluent to rivers, Indian Ocean and groundwater and to safeguard the health of the
residents of the Study Areas.”
The key objective of the proposed Master Plan for Mombasa West Mainland is to come up with
a phased investment programme for Immediate / Short Term Plan (2015 – 2020), Medium Term
Plan (2021 – 2025), Long Term Plan (2026 – 2040) and recommend a treated effluent disposal /
reuse strategy for the effluent in Mombasa West Mainland.
1.2 Execution of the Study
To meet the goals and objectives of the Study, the following reports have been submitted:
 D1 – Inception Report
 D2 – Report on Condition Survey and Environmental Audit of the Existing Facilities,
 D3 – Immediate Urgent Works Report / Final Design Report,
 D4 – Detailed Designs and Tender Documents for Immediate Urgent Works,
 D5A – Technical Note 1 – Socio Economic Conditions, Mapping & Land Use,
 D5B – Technical Note 2 – Waste Water Flow Predictions & Formulation of Sewerage
Development Strategies,
 D7 – Preliminary Design Report for Medium Term Works including Phased
Investment Schedule for Sewers and Waste Water Treatment Plants,
 D8 - Preliminary Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) & Preliminary
Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for the Preferred Development Strategy
The Final Master Plan Report presents the outputs of the Feasibility Study, the selected
Development Strategy and the Preliminary Design of the planned infrastructure for the Sanitation
System of Mombasa West Mainland.
 D9 – Final Master Plan Report
1.3 Objectives of this Report

The Tasks to be addressed in the Final Master Plan Report include the following:
 Present Sanitation Situation in the Study Area
 Future Sewerage System / Coverage Area Expansion
 Analysis of Sewage Generation and Network Analysis
 Preferred Sewerage System Development Strategy
 Detailed Evaluation of the Preferred Development Strategy including Waste Water
Treatment, Social / Environmental Assessment, Economic and Financial Analysis, Multi-
Criteria Analysis
 Resolution of Issues raised by the detailed Evaluation including Preliminary Risk
Management Plan
 Investment and Financial Management Plan
 Proposed Implementation / Development Schedule
 Conclusion of the Master Plan

2.0 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION

2.1 Location and Administration
Mombasa is the second largest city and major seaport of Kenya, located in south-eastern part of
the country. It is located between the latitudes 3° 80´ and 4° 10´ S and longitudes 39° 60´ and 39°
80´ E.
Mombasa is the most important port city in East African Region. In the national context, after
Nairobi (the capital city), Mombasa acts as a natural magnet for urban-rural migration due to its
location, economic opportunities and administrative role within Kenya. The other main urban
centres/ towns surrounding Mombasa are Mtwapa, Malindi, Kwale, Kilifi, Lamu, Mariakani and
Voi.
Administratively, Mombasa is a County comprising of four distinct Service Areas that are
physically separated by the creeks that surround Mombasa Island. The four Service Areas are
Mombasa Island, North Mainland, South Mainland and West Mainland.
Mombasa County is divided into six sub-counties/constituencies namely Changamwe, Jomvu,
Kisauni, Nyali, Likoni, and Mvita. Changamwe and Jomvu are situated in Mainland West, which is
the industrial hub of the city. Kisauni and Nyali are situated in North Mainland, which is the most
populous. Likoni is situated in Mainland South and Mvita is situated in the Island, which houses
the most developments per unit area.
The water supply and sanitation systems in Mombasa County including Mombasa West Mainland
is managed by Mombasa Water and Sewerage Company Ltd. (MOWASCO).
2.2 Study Area
The jurisdiction of Mombasa West Mainland covers seven sub-locations namely; Chaani, Birikanii,
Changamwei, Miritini, Kwa Shee, Portreitz and Jomvu Kuu. The study area for the Wastewater
Master Plan does not covers all these sub-locations in full due to remoteness from the core urban
centre of West Mainland, low population density /less intensive Land-use and unsuitable hilly
terrain.
The Study Area has been demarcated in consideration of the location, projected land use plans
for years 2025 and 2040 for the core urban centre of Mombasa West Mainland and the nature of
development and population densities in this service area in comparison to adjacent core urban
centres.
The sub-locations forming Mombasa West Mainland and total coverage areas as well as the study
area is given in Table 2.1 below;
Table 2.1: Sub-locations and Study Area
Coverage in the Study
Sub-locations Total Area (km²)
Area (km²)
Kwa Shee 3.79 2.92
Birikani 2.35 0.12
Changamwe 3.81 3.74
Chaani 4.21 1.92
Miritini 10.39 5.84
Jomvu Kuu 21.25 13.21
Portreitz 8.04 5.08
Total 53.84 32.83
Note: Sub-locations not covered by the Waste Water Master Plan have been excluded in Table 2.2 above.
Figure 2.1 on Page 2-2 shows the coverage of the Study Area of Wastewater Master Plan for
Figure 2.1: Study Area of Wastewater Masterplan

Water and Sanitation Service Improvement Project – Additional Financing (WaSSIP - AF) FINAL WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN
2.3 Climate
Climatic condition in the County of Mombasa vary as a result of SE Monsoon winds (blowing
between April and September) and the NE Monsoons (October to March) and oceanic influence.
The rains occur during the inter-monsoonal period and in two seasons, with the long rains
starting from March to June, and the short rains from October to December.
The mean rainfall in the coast region ranges from 1,397 mm in the south decreasing to 889 mm
in the north.
Mombasa is generally hot and humid all year round. The mean daily temperature ranges
between 22°C to 29.5°C. Average relative humidity along the coastal belt is 65% but decreases
towards the hinterland. The lowest temperature is experienced during the long rains season.
2.4 Topography, Geology and Soils
Mombasa County is situated in the coastal lowland with extensive flat areas rising gently from
8 meters to approximately 100 meters above sea level in the west. The County can be divided
into three main physiographic belts, namely, the flat coastal plain, which is approximately 6
kilometres wide, and includes the Island Division, Kisauni on the North Mainland and Mtongwe
to the South. Next, are found the broken, severely dissected and eroded belt that consists of
Jurassic shale overlain in places by residual sandy plateau found in Changamwe division. Finally,
there is the undulating plateau of sandstone that is divided from the Jurassic belt by a scarp
fault.
Nearer the sea, the land is composed of coral reef that offers excellent drainage. Along the
coastline there are beautiful beaches, which together with a variety of coastal resources and a
rich biodiversity, has made Mombasa a favourite tourist destination.
2.5 Economic Activities
Industrial activities are the predominant economic sector in Mombasa West Mainland with a
significant number of industries. Commercial activities are also evident along the main roads.
2.6 Existing Water Supply and Sanitation Systems
2.6.1 Water Supply
At present, the following bulk water supply sources serve Mombasa West Mainland;
 Tiwi Water Supply System from Tiwi Boreholes Serving the West Mainland partly through
Kaya Bombo Reservoirs, and
 Marere Water Supply System from Marere, Votia and Mwaluganje Springs in Kwale
(Shimba Hills National Park); serving parts of the West Mainland and now augmenting
the Tiwi System in the South Mainland through Changamwe and Kaya-Bombo Reservoirs
A Schematic Layout of the existing Water Supply System is shown in Figure 2.2 on Page 2-4.

Figure 2.2: Schematic Layout of the existing Water Supply within Mombasa County
2.6.2 Sanitation System
The Service Areas of Mombasa County with reticulated sewerage system are West Mainland and
Mombasa Island. At present, approximately 40% of West Mainland have reticulated sewerage
systems.
The sewerage system in West Mainland was constructed in 1952 and has continually been
expanded to date. The sewerage system on West Mainland is served by a Wastewater Treatment
Plant located at Kipevu (17,000m3/day capacity), adjacent to Kilindini Harbour. The WWTP
comprises of Inlet Works, Oxidation Ditches, Settling Tanks, Sludge Drying Beds and an Outfall
Sewer. The areas covered by the sewerage system comprises of Miritni, Mikindani, Changamwe,
Portreitz, Chaani and EPZ area.
2.7 Immediate Measures for the Improvement of Sanitation Systems
The Final Wastewater Master Plan for Mombasa West Mainland describes the development
strategy for the long-term water-borne sanitation system comprising of a wastewater collection
/ conveyance system and the treatment / proper disposal of the treated effluents. However, this
long-term sanitation strategy is not planned for immediate implementation.
In consideration of the current sanitation systems and the growing sanitation needs, an
immediate intervention is urgently required. Thus, Immediate Sanitation Measures have been
developed. These measures include construction of Ablution Blocks in selected Public Places and
a Sludge Handling Facility as described in the following sub-sections.
2.7.1 Ablution Blocks
Ablution Blocks are essential in Mombasa West Mainland for improved access to sanitation
facilities especially in public places e.g., markets, bus stops, etc. They are important to market
vendors, market customers, long distance travelers, bus operators and the general public. Their
locations in Mombasa West Mainland will be selected in consultation with the CWSB and the
Mombasa County Government
Considering the population densities and the number of public utilities, a total of two (2) Ablution
Blocks is proposed for construction in Mombasa West Mainland. Each Ablution Block comprises
of six (6) toilets and two (2) Shower Rooms with equal number for each gender i.e. Ladies and
Gents. The allocated number of toilets in each Ablution Block ensures provision of sufficient
service levels for the target population. It is estimated that on average, a user spends 5 minutes
in the facility. Thus, for a single facility with 6 toilets and 10 hours of operation in a day, a
maximum number of 720 persons can be served in a day.
Each section (ladies and gents) is provided with a toilet fitted with special amenities for use by
disabled persons. The “Gents” are provided with separate urinals to increase the service levels
especially during the peak hours
The shower rooms are equipped with a dressing area and hand-wash basins. In addition, a
spacious common area with hand-wash basins, hand driers and wall mounted mirrors is provided.
Each of the units is fitted with coat hangers behind the doors for convenience. To enhance natural
lighting within the facility, transparent polycarbonate roofing material have been incorporated in
the design. Proper ventilation is ensured by the louvered windows and gap between the ring
beam and the roof. The gap is fitted with louvre blocks and plastic coated coffee tray wires to
prevent insect entry.
A septic tank with a holding capacity of 16 m3 is provided at the facility for storage and partial
treatment of sewage. The septic tank will require desludging after every 3 months with septage
disposal at the proposed Sludge Handling Facility, to be implemented as part of the immediate
sanitation intervention. In addition, a 5,000-litre water tank mounted on a 3.5m high reinforced
concrete tower within the facility provides a 3-day storage of clean water.
Other services provided at the site include; electricity for use at night and for security lighting,
and security / controlled access through chain link fence and a 4m wide metallic gate.
Permission to use the facility is to be on a pay-per-use basis. This is an effective model used in
many parts of the country to raise money required for operation and maintenance. A personnel
office complete with a storage room shall be provided at the entrance of the facility with grilled
opening for ease of payment before use.
A typical Site Layout, Plan and Elevations of the proposed Ablution Block are given in Figures 2.3
and 2.4 on Pages 2-6 and 2-7 respectively.

Figure 2.3: Typical Site Layout Plan for an Ablution Block

Figure 2.4: Typical Plan, Views and Sections of an Ablution Block

2.7.2 Implementation Cost for Immediate Measures

Engineer’s Cost Estimate determined for the Immediate Measures for Improvement of Sanitation
Systems in Mombasa West Mainland is based on the unit costs of the respective components of
the Works obtained from recent contracts of similar scope and nature.
Detailed Unit Costs and their derivations are discussed in Chapter 8 of this Report.
A summary of the Implementation Costs is given in Table 2.2 below.
Table 2.2: Implementation Costs for Immediate Measures – Ablution Blocks
Number to be
S/No. Component Cost, Kshs. Cost, USD
Provided
1. Ablution Blocks 2 31,000,013 300,971

3.0 DEMOGRAPHY, LAND USE AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Demographic data from Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) for the intercensal periods between
1979 to 2009 have been analysed to establish demographic trends in terms of population size and
inter-census growth rates and help develop future population projection patterns in Mombasa
West Mainland.
3.1.1 Previous Population Trend
From the analysis of the previous Kenya Population and Housing Census data, it is construed that
between intercensal periods the existing sub-locations are split to form new sub-locations and
the areas covered by such sub-locations vary between the intercensal period.
A summary of previous intercensal population data for Mombasa West Mainaland is given in
Table 3.1 below.
Table 3.1: Intercensal Population Data (1979 – 2009) for Mombasa West mainland
(Census)
1979 1989 1999 2009

Sub-location
Pop. Density Pop. Density Area Pop. Density Area Pop. Density
Pop. Area (km²) Pop. Area (km²) Pop. Pop.
(person/km²) (person/km²) (km²) (person/km²) (km²) (person/km²)
Chaani - - - - - - - - - 58,238 4.2 13,866.19
Changamwe 12,908 4 3,227.00 10,632 16 665 11,346 3.8 2,985.79 11,013 3.8 2,898.16
Portreitz 24,316 8 3,039.50 41,962 4 10,491 54,084 9.6 5,633.75 63,441 8.0 7,930.13
Miritini 4,895 8 611.88 5,616 8 702 15,172 8.9 1,704.72 25,934 10.4 2,493.65
Jomvu Kuu - - - - - - 16,123 21.4 753.41 38,776 19.0 2,040.84
Kwashee - - - - - - 20,689 4 5,172.25 35,257 3.8 9,278.16
Birikani - - - - - - 11,796 2.4 4,915.00 17,520 2.3 7,617.39
Total 42,119 20 6,878.38 58,210 28 11,857 129,210 50.1 21,164.92 250,179 51.5 46124.52
Population data is dependent on the coverage considered; for the same Location and time, a
larger area gives a higher population. The use of population figures to establish intercensal
population growth rate in a sub-location with varying coverage areas between intercensal period
is inaccurate due to the variability of coverage area. It is therefore prudent to adopt the use of
population density as a measure of demographic trend where sub-location coverage varies
between intercensal period, as is the case in Mombasa West Mainland.
The previous intercensal annual population growth rates based on the population densities for
the sub-locations covered by Mombasa West Mainland are given in Table 3.2 below.
Table 3.2: Previous Intercensal Annual Population Growth Rates
Intercensal Period
Area of Interest
(Sub-location) 1979 - 1989 1989 - 1999 1999 - 2009
Chaani 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Changamwe -15% 16.2% -0.3%
Portreitz 13.2% -6.0% 3.5%
Miritini 1.4% 9.3% 3.9%
Jomvu Kuu 0.0% 0.0% 10.5%
Kwashee 0.0% 0.0% 6.0%
Birikani 0.0% 0.0% 4.5%
Mombasa West Mainland 5.6% 6.0% 8.1%

From Table 3.2 on Page 3-1, the annual population growth rate for Mombasa West Mainland in
the last intercensal period (1999 to 2009) is 8.1%. This is quite high when compared with the 4.2%
projected for urban growth rate under Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s) by 2015.
The above population dynamic refers to the resident category. The non-resident category
comprising of tourists / visitors is considered under the respective contributory Land-Use
activities.
3.1.2 Population Growth Scenarios
Population trends are influenced by factors such as fertility, mortality and migration levels and
patterns as well as the national socio-economic development momentum.
Continued rapid growth is expected in the study area, considering the infrastructural
developments planned for Mombasa West Mainland in the Integrated Development Plan for
Mombasa County and the potential of Mombasa West Mainland for further growth. These factors
will result to future immigration and urbanization.
As at the last census (2009), the population within Mombasa West Mainland was 209,722. To
forecast the future population of the study area up to the design horizon (year 2040), the
following factors have been considered:
 Previous Demographic Trends in Mombasa West Mainland and Mombasa County
 The dynamics of Land Use and Trends of development
 The correlation of water demand and income / type of housing, population density etc
 Integrated Strategic Urban Development Plan for Mombasa County developed in Year
2015.
Three population growth rate scenarios have been formulated for the population projection in
the study area based on the data obtained from Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, Census
Reports and other relevant planning documents. These scenarios are briefly described below;
High Growth Rate: This growth rate scenario is based on an assumption that the population will
grow at an average growth rate of 5% in twenty-five years (2015-2040) i.e. the overall natural
growth will continue and in-migration will gradually increase due to intensive investment. Thus,
population of Mombasa West Mainland will grow to 951,728 by year 2040.
Medium Growth Rate: This scenario is based on an assumption that the population will grow at
an average growth rate of 3% in twenty-five years (2015-2040) and that improved medical / health
facilities will result in decrease in mortality rate and increase in life expectancy. It is presumed
that with economic growth, employment opportunities and improved infrastructure (especially
speed transport connectivity) will work in balancing migration. Thus, population of Mombasa
West Mainland will grow to 524,322 by year 2040.
Low Growth Rate: This scenario is based on an assumption that the population of Mombasa West
Mainland will grow at an average growth rate of 1% in twenty-five years (2015-2040). It is
assumed that population growth (both natural growth rate and in-migration) will reduce
considering that population deflection will take place and the flow of return will be diverted to
the development of new areas. Therefore, the population in horizon year 2040 will be 285,501.
This can happen only, if strict measures are taken to control population both in terms of natural
growth and in-migration. Based on the experience in the developing world, it requires intensive
efforts by government in terms of educating people and promoting population control measures
on one hand and to provide ample economic opportunities in the region in order to combat in-
migration.
Projected populations for the above population growth rate scenarios are given in Figure 3.1 on
Page 3-3;

1,000,000
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
Population
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000 High Growth Rate

Medium Growth Rate
100,000 Low Growth Rate
-
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Year
Figure 3.1: Projected Populations based on Growth Rate Scenarios

From Figure 3.1 above, it can be deduced that population forecast is highly sensitive to population
growth rate; high growth scenario results to 82% more the projected population in the medium
growth rate scenario while low growth rate results to 54% less the medium growth rate
population forecast.
3.1.3 Projected Population for Mombasa West Mainland
The medium growth rate scenario considered under the population growth scenario, is the most
probable scenario for the future population projections of Mombasa West Mainland up to the
2040 design year. It considers the demographic dynamics between Mombasa West Mainland and
the other Sub Counties within Mombasa County, possible trends in fertility, mortality and
migration levels and patterns as well as the socio-economic development. Besides, it has minimal
risks associated with under-utilization or overloading of the proposed sanitation system within
the design horizon.
Table 3.3 below gives a summary of the projected population for Mombasa West Mainland up to
the design horizon of year 2040, based on the adopted medium growth rate of 3.0% p.a.
Table 3.3: Summary of the Projected Population
2009 Projected Population
Sub-location
Population 2015 2020 2025 2040
Kwa Shee 30,242 36,111 41,862 48,530 75,607
Birikani 1,572 1,877 2,176 2,523 3,930
Changamwe 9,114 10,883 12,616 14,625 22,786
Chaani 52,440 62,616 72,589 84,151 131,104
Miritini 21,559 25,743 29,843 34,596 53,899
Jomvu Kuu 33,077 39,496 45,786 53,079 82,695
Portreitz 61,718 73,695 85,432 99,039 154,300
TOTAL 209,722 250,421 290,304 336,543 524,322

3.2 Land Use and Urban Development
3.2.1 Introduction
Mombasa City began as a trading port in the 12th century. It has served as a key node in the
complex Indian Ocean trading networks and played a pivotal role in development of Kenya and
East Africa.
Mombasa County has transformed from clustered traditional settlements in the colonial era to
now a vibrant Coastal City. With this rapid urbanization, planning efforts have been superceeded
by the development rates thus sprouting of informal settlements and un-planned developments.
The city’s main planning efforts trace back as far as the early settlements of the native swahilis to
the modern geometric planning of regular grids and urban blocks. The city lies the Island and
extends to the surrounding mainlands.
The island is separated from the mainland by two creeks: Tudor Creek and Kilindini Harbour. It is
connected to the mainland to the north by the Nyali Bridge, to the south by the Likoni Ferry, and
to the west by the Makupa Causeway. The Mainlands include North Mainland, West Mainland
and South Mainland. Mombasa West Mainland has been analysed as a seperate zone.
3.2.2 Existing Land Use
The total area of Mombasa West Mainland is approximately 6,419.90 ha.
The main active land-use typologies are Residential, Transportation and Industrial. In terms of
coverage areas, the active land-use type with the largest land coverage is Residential while the
least is Recreational.
Approximately 48% of land in Mombasa West mainland is classified as undeveloped.
Table 3.4 below shows a summary of existing Land Use of Mombasa West Mainland.
Table 3.4: Summary of Existing Land Use
Land Use Area Covered (Ha) Coverage (%)
Agriculture 152.00 2.37
Commercial 30.00 0.47
Education 64.60 1.01
Heavy Industry 118.80 1.85
Medium Industry 29.40 0.46
Light Industry 594.50 9.26
Public Purpose 63.70 0.99
Public Utility 18.00 0.28
Recreational 2.60 0.04
High Density Residential 1,070.00 16.67
Medium Density Residential 113.60 1.77
Low Density Residential 21.70 0.34
Undeveloped 3,100.00 48.29
Creek 423.00 6.59
Future Developments - -
Oblique Social Forestry - -
Transport 618.00 9.63
TOTAL 6,419.90 100

Figure 3.2: Existing Land Use Plan

The main drivers of Mombasa West Mainland are as follows:

i) Export Processing Zone (EPZ)
The Export Processing Zone creates employment opportunities to the local community and is
also among the main sources of government revenue at the coastal region of Kenya.
ii) Standard Gauge Railway (SGR)
It’s a flagship project which will play a key role in achievement of Kenya’s vision 2030. The
SGR is expected to connect Mombasa to Malaba. Construction of the railway line will create
employment opportunities to the local community. It will also contribute to growth of
iii) Key infrastructure improvements
A Key example is the construction of the Ndongo Kundu Bypass. The road will connect
Mombasa’s West Mainland to the South Coast (South Mainland).
Upon completion, the project is expected to boost tourism and promote growth of the
housing sector due to enhanced accessibility and mobility within Mombasa County.
Construction of the road will also create employment opportunities to the local community
hence play a key role in minimizing the level of poverty. Upgrading of the A109 road will also
contribute to growth of Mombasa West Mainland.
iv) Agriculture
It creates employment opportunities, attracts investments into the area and is also a source
of government revenue.
3.2.3 Land Use Planning and Policy
All Land-Use activities depend on the regulations and practices that govern land ownership. Land
allocation and ownership require proper planning for optimal utilisation.
Land-use planning encompasses the systematic social and economic assessment of land and
water potential including the alternative land-uses for the selection and adoption of the best land-
use options. It seeks to regulate land-use in efficient and ethical way and prevent land-use
conflicts. Land-use planning is practiced to manage the development of land within jurisdictions,
plan for the needs of the community and safe-guard the natural resources. Land-use planning
often lead to land-use regulations, which typically encompasses zoning.
Zoning regulates the type of activities that can be accommodated on a piece of land, as well as
the amount of space devoted to those activities, and the ways that buildings may be situated and
shaped. Conventional zoning does not regard the way buildings relate to one another or the public
spaces around them, but rather provide a pragmatic system for mapping jurisdictions per
permitted land use.
The primary purpose of zoning is to segregate uses that are thought to be incompatible. In
practice, zoning is used to prevent new developments from interfering with the existing land-use
activities and to preserve the “character” of an area. Zoning is commonly controlled by the local
governments such as County Governments, though the nature of the zoning regime may be
determined or limited by the national planning authorities or through enabling legislation.
Zoning may include regulation of the kinds of activities which will be acceptable on particular plots
(such as Open Spaces, Residential, Agricultural, Commercial or Industrial), the densities at which
those activities can be performed (from Low-Density Housing such as Single Family Homes to
High-Density such as High-Rise Apartment Buildings), the height of the building etc.
The projected populations including 524,322 in Year 2040 (Refer to Table 3.3 on Page 3-3) are
proposed to be accommodated within the coverage of Mombasa West Mainland. It is also
proposed that the existing undeveloped land be utilised (including a small part of agricultural land

and part of hilly terrain at low height where the slope is gentle and favourable) for development
and accommodating part of the projected population.
3.2.4 Land Use Requirement per Land Use Zone
Land requirement in zoning depends on projected population and proposed density.
In most Towns, Residential Land-use has the highest land requirement. The current coverage of
Residential Land-use is 1,205 ha. To absorb the projected year 2040 population of Mombasa West
mainland, the additional total coverage required for the High-Density, Medium-Density and Low-
Density Residential Land-use is 740 ha.
The proposed population densities for each category of Residential Land-use have been worked
out based on the projected population, land available for future development, the potential of
the developed areas for densification and experience in Towns of similar nature and keeping
sufficient room within the current planning boundary for future urban expansion i.e. beyond
year 2040.
Details of existing Land use and projected land requirement are given in Table 3.5 below.
Table 3.5: Existing Land Use and Projected Land Requirement
Existing Land Use 2015 Projected Land Requirement 2040
Land Use
(Area, ha) (Area, ha)
Agriculture 152.00 98.00

Commercial 30.00 127.00
Education 64.60 176.60
Heavy Industry 118.80
Medium Industry 29.40 1132.00
Light Industry 594.50
Public Purpose 63.70 197.70
Public Utility 18.00 43.60
Recreational 2.60 129.80
High Density Residential 1070.00
Medium Density Residential 113.60 1945.00
Low Density Residential 21.70
Undeveloped 3100.00 293.00
Creek 423.00 393.00
Future Developments - 604.70
Oblique Social Forestry - 684.00
Transport 618.00 695.00
TOTAL 6,419.90 6519.40
In the proposed Land Use Plan, Mombasa West mainland is expected to have sustainable urban
development. Residential Land Use will be the most dominant Land Use Type with Integrated
Education facilities for improved access to education. With implementation of the Year 2015
Mombasa County ISUDP, the projected Land-use can be attained. The ISUDP should also aim at
enforcing development control, establishing adequate, decent and affordable housing,
conservation of the green spaces and the environment and also provide a road map for provision
of services and facilities.
Layout Plans showing the Proposed Land Use are given in Figure 3.3 on Page 3-8.
Table 3.6 on Pages 3-9 to 3-12 shows a summary of adoptive standards for Urban Planning

Figure 3.3: Projected Land Use Year 2040

Table 3.6: Adoptive Standards for Urban Planning

Zone O: Residential
Types of
Proposed Land Minimum
Zone Development BCR PR Density of Development No. of Dwelling Units Other Requirements
Use Plot Size
Allowed
Residential Bungalows 35 25 0.4 Ha Low Density Single Dwelling Units
Residential Bungalows 35 25 0.4 Ha Low Density Single Dwelling Units Cottage industry may be practised
A Secondary School may be developed in
Residential Bungalows 35 25 0.4 Ha Low Density Single Dwelling Units
appropriate site
Residential Bungalows, 25 25 0.2 Ha Medium density Single Dwelling Units
Residential Bungalows, 25 25 0.2 Ha Medium density Single Dwelling Units
Maisonettes 50
Two residential units Shops allowed on plots fronting 9 M
Residential 50 0.1 Ha Low Medium density
Town houses allowed per plot roads
50
Duplexes
Maisonettes 50
50
duplexes
0
Maisonettes 50
50
duplexes
Town houses
0.03
Duplexes
Mixed Multiple residential Shops allowed on plots fronting 9 M
Swahili houses 65 65 - High Density
developments units allowed roads
Guest/Boarding
0.045
houses
Town houses
Duplexes
Mixed
Multiple residential Shops allowed on plots fronting 9 M
developments Swahili houses 65 65 0.045 High Density
units allowed roads
Guest/Boarding
houses

Town houses
0.03
Duplexes
Mixed Flats - Mixed house types Upgrading areas

65 65 High Density
developments allowed
Swahili houses -
Guest/Boarding 0.045
Zone 1: Industrial
Types of
Proposed Land
Zone Development BCR PR Min Plot Size Density of Development No. of Dwelling Units Other Requirements
Use
Allowed
Industrial Industrial plant 50 150 0.2 N/A N/A
Repair Workshops,
Hardware stores Garages, furniture
Light Industry Furniture Makers 50 75 0.045 N/A and welding
1 small tin smiths, Re- workshops allowed
use Industries
Garages, furniture
Godowns, warehouse,
Light Industry 50 75 0.045 N/A and welding
hardware stores
workshops allowed
Zone 2: Educational
Types of
Proposed Land Density of No. of Dwelling
Zone Development BCR PR Min Plot Size Other Requirements
Use Development Units
Allowed
Nursery Sch. 0.1
Storeyed buildings recommended for
Classes, offices and Pri. school 4.0 effective use of space
2 Educational dormitories 10 30 Sec. School 4.5 N/A N/A Sharing of recreational facilities
Sanitation block College 10.2 recommended
Institutional Housing allowed
University 50.0
Zone 3: Recreational
Types of
Allowed

Conservation/
Recreation
Green Park
Conservation/
Recreation
Green Park
3
Conservation/
Recreation
Green Park
Zone 4: Public purpose
Types of
Allowed
Civic offices: - County
government; local
authorities, Spatial compactness
Government
4 parastatals, trade Public parking
Headquarters
unions, political party Accessibility
offices, library
entertainment, etc.
Zone 5: Commercial
Types of
Allowed
Densification and diversification
recommended
5 Commercial Compatible mixed use 75 600 0.045 N/A Commercial Flats and high rise buildings
recommended
Future commercial core
Zone 6: Public Utilities
Types of
Allowed
6
Zone 7: Transportation

Types of
Allowed
To be developed through public private
Lorry park N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A
7 partnership
Bus park To be developed by County Government
Zone 8: Hospitality Zone
Types of
Density of No. of Dwelling
Zone Future Land Use Development BCR PR Min Plot Size Other Requirements
Development Units
Allowed
H
Zone 9: Agriculture
Types of Development Density of No. of Dwelling
Zone Future Land Use BCR PR Min Plot Size Other Requirements
Allowed Development Units
Single Dwelling
Residential Bungalows 35 25 0.4 Ha Low Density Agriculture may be practised
Units
Single Dwelling
LD Residential Bungalows 35 25 Low Density Agriculture may be practised
0.4 Ha Units
Single Dwelling
Residential Bungalows 35 25 0.4 Ha Low Density Agriculture may be practised
Units
Single Dwelling
Residential Bungalows 25 25 0.2 Ha Medium density
Units
Residential Bungalows 25 25 0.2 Ha Medium density Single Dwelling

Units
Single Dwelling
Residential Bungalows, 25 25 0.2 Ha Medium density
Units
Maisonettes 50 Two residential

MLD Low Medium Shops allowed on plots fronting 9 M
Residential 50 0.1 Ha units allowed per
Town houses density roads
50 plot
duplexes
Maisonettes 50 Two residential

Low Medium Shops allowed on plots fronting 9 M
50 0.1 Ha units allowed per
Residential Town houses density roads
50 plot
duplexes

4.0 WATER DEMAND FORECAST

Water demand is defined as “the volume of water different categories of consumers can afford
to consume in a context of unrestricted supply”. The water demand of an area is dependent on
the climate, economic considerations, sanitation facilities, industrial and commercial
requirements.
The total water demand can be expressed as follows;
Total water demand
=𝐃𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝 + 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝 + 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝
+ 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝 + 𝐓𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝
For a more accurate determination of the total water demand, it is important to adopt accurate
water consumption rates for each of the water demand categories.
4.1 Analysis of Water Consumption Rates
The Design Manual for Water Supply in Kenya (MWI, 2008) gives guiding values of water
consumption rates for the various categories of Water Demand. However, from individual studies
and in consideration of various local conditions, several Consultants have adopted varied water
consumption rates for the determination of Water Demand in Malindi Town.
A summary of the Studies / Designs prepared by the various Consultants for Water Supply in
Mombasa West Mainland and the other Coastal Towns is given below:
 Tahal Group and Bhudia Associates finalised the Water Supply Master Plan for Mombasa
County and selected Towns including Malindi in year 2013
 Egis/bceom/Mangat JV finalised the Detailed Design of Rehabilitation and Expansion for
Mombasa Water Supply and Sewerage System in year 2011
 Gauff JBG/ Ingenieure finalised Detailed Design Report for Malindi Water Service
Provider, October 2010
 Suereca / Mangat finalised Second Mombasa & Coastal Water Supply Project, Final
Design Report, January 1998
 Kittelberger Consult GmbH Consulting Engineers Joint Venture with Mangat, I.B. Patel &
Partners finalised Malindi Sanitation & Hygiene Education Feasibility Study in year 1994
 Norconsult A.S. Consulting Engineers finalised the Malindi Sewerage Master Plan and
Preliminary Design Storm Water Feasibility Study
A comparison of water consumption rates adopted in the above Studies / Designs including those
recommended in the Practice Manual for Water Supply Services in Kenya is given in Table 4.1 on
Page 4-2.

Table 4.1: Comparison of Water Consumption Rates

Domestic Water Institutions Water Consumption Commercial Industrial
consumption (l/c/day) Water Water
Consultant Name of Report Low Medium High Boarding Day Schools Regional Consumption Consumption
Density Density Density Schools with WC Hospitals (l/head/day) (l/Ha/day)
(l/head/day) (l/head/day) (l/bed/day)
Tahal Group / Bhudia Water Supply Master Plan for
Associates Mombasa and other Towns – 250 150 75
August 2013
Egis bceom / Mangat Rehabilitation & Expansion of
Mombasa Water Supply &
250 100 60 6 25.000
Sewerage Project – Final Design
Report – July 2011
Gauff JBG/Ingenieure
Detailed Design for Malindi Water
200 120 60 100 20 365 83 30,000
Service Provider – October 2010
Seureca /Mangat Second Mombasa and Coastal

Water Supply Project Final Design 200 80 70 50 25 700 5 20,000
Report – January 1998
Kittelberger Consult
GmbH Joint Venture Malindi Sanitation and Hygiene
with Mangat, I.B. Education Feasibility Study – 300 150 75 50 25 400 25 29,400
Patel & Partners March 1994
Norconsult S.A Malindi Sewerage Master Plan

Consulting Engineers and Preliminary Design Storm
300 150 75 50 25 400 - 15,000
Water Feasibility Study –
November 1978
Ministry of Water &
Irrigation Practice Manual for Water Supply
250 150 75 50 25 400 - 20,000
Services in Kenya – October 2005

After analysis of the water consumption rates indicated in Table 4.1 on Page 4-2, the following
water consumption rates have been adopted in the Study:
a) Residential Water Demand
From the findings by different Consultants, it is evident that the type of housing and mode of
water supply are relevant indicators for classifying domestic consumers.
Based on per capita demand observed in similar socio economic and climatic context but
without restriction of water supply, the Consultant adopted the following water consumption
rates for the various categories of domestic consumers as summarised in Table 4.2 below.
Table 4.2: Adopted Housing Categories & per Capita Water Consumption
Consumption
Category Description Rate
(l/c/d)
Low Density Residential Houses and Maisonettes 200
Medium Density Flats and Estates 120
Traditional Houses (Informal Settlements and
High Density 60
Swahili
b) Institutional Water Demand
The institutional water demand has been determined based on the following commonly
accepted demand criteria by type of institution:
 Boarding Schools - 50 l/head/d
 Day School with WC - 25 l/head/d
 Regional Hospital - 200 l/bed/day plus 5000l/day
 Dispensary and Health Centre - 5,000 l/day
 Administrative Offices - 25 l/head/day
c) Commercial Water Demand
The commercial water demand has been determined based on the following commonly
accepted demand criteria by type of commercial facility:
 Shops - 100 l/day
 Bars - 500 l/day
d) Industrial Water Demand

The following criteria has been adopted for the industrial water demand based on commonly
accepted demand criteria: -
 Intensive industrial activity - 25,000 l/day/ha
 Small scale industrial activity - 600 l/day/ha
e) Tourism Water Demand
The following criteria has been adopted for tourism demand based on commonly accepted
demand criteria:
 Four and five star hotels - 600 l/occupied bed/ day
 Other hotels - 300 l/occupied bed/ day
 Tourist cottages complexes - 200 l/occupied bed/ day
4.2 Water Demand Projections
The water demand for Mombasa West Mainland is anticipated to increase over the design period
(up to 2040) due to the projected increase in population, commerce and industrialization. Some
of the major drivers for this projected improvement include the robust tourism industry, planned
improvements of the infrastructural network and the potential for new settlements.

The water demands for Mombasa West Mainland have been calculated based on the projected
population and proposed Land-use Plans. Summary of the water demands by sub-location in the
Design Horizons Year 2025 and Year 2040 are given in Tables 4.3 and 4.4 below.
Table 4.3: Water Demand for Medium-Term Plan Horizon - Year 2025
Water Demand (m3/day)
Sub-location
Domestic Health Education Recreational Commercial Industrial Total
Kwa Shee 6,506.2 161.6 181.3 28.5 25.9 2,272.2 9,175.8
Birikani 223.8 5.6 6.2 1.0 0.9 78.2 315.6
Changamwe 2,632.8 65.4 73.4 11.6 10.5 919.5 3,713.1
Chaani 6,427.5 159.6 179.1 28.2 25.5 2,244.7 9,064.8
Miritini 3,534.1 87.8 98.5 15.5 14.0 1,234.2 4,984.1
Jomvu Kuu 6,518.6 161.9 181.7 28.6 25.9 2,276.6 9,193.2
Portreitz 9,800.2 243.4 273.1 43.0 38.9 3,422.6 13,821.3
Total 35,643 885 993 156 142 12,448 50,268
Table 4.4: Water Demand for Long-Term Plan Horizon - Year 2040
Water Demand (m3/day)
Sub-location
Domestic Health Education Recreational Commercial Industrial Total
Kwa Shee 10,136.5 248.6 281.3 43.9 34.9 2,692.0 13,437
Birikani 348.7 8.6 9.7 1.5 1.2 92.6 462
Changamwe 4,101.8 100.6 113.8 17.8 14.1 1,089.3 5,438
Chaani 10,013.9 245.6 277.9 43.4 34.5 2,659.5 13,275
Miritini 5,506.0 135.0 152.8 23.9 19.0 1,462.3 7,299
Jomvu Kuu 10,155.8 249.1 281.8 44.0 35.0 2,697.1 13,463
Portreitz 15,268.4 374.5 423.7 66.2 52.6 4,054.9 20,240
Total 55,531 358 405 63 50 3,874 73,613
The water demand for Mombasa West Mainland is shown in Figure 4.1 on below.
Figure 4.1: Water Demand Projection

5.0 WASTEWATER FLOW PREDICTIONS

5.1 Design Criteria
The determination of the wastewater flows adopted in the design of the Sewers, Pumping
Stations and Wastewater Treatment Plant for Mombasa West Mainland has been guided and
based on the Standard design criteria described in the following sub-sections;
5.1.1 Principal References
In Kenya, it is a standard practise to refer to the Design Manuals prepared by the Ministry of
Water and Irrigation for the design of Sanitation Projects.
The principal References used to formulate the design criteria for Mombasa West Mainland are
as follows;
 Practice Manual for Sewerage & Sanitation Services in Kenya, December 2008 –
Ministry of Water & Irrigation
 Selection and Design Criteria for Sewerage Project, Report No. 9 – World Health
Organisation (WHO Report No. 9)
 Nairobi City Council – Sewer Design and Construction - Parameters for Adoptive
Standards, 1974 (Nairobi City Council Manual)
 The Design of Small Bore Sewer Systems by Richard J. Otis and D, Duncan Mara (1985)
 Domestic Wastewater Treatment in Developing Countries by D. Duncan Mara (2003)
The Criteria outlined in these principal References have been evaluated in the context of the
Consultants experience, knowledge and complemented with local and internationally accepted
design standards.
5.1.2 Sewerage Collection System
As outlined in WHO Report No. 9, there are three forms of sewerage collection systems, namely;
 Separate Systems: Storm water and wastewater are collected and transported in two
separate systems. Ideally, no storm water is allowed into the sanitary sewers
 Combined Systems: Storm water and wastewater from premises are collected and
transported in one system. In this system, only one network of pipes is provided and
those pipes are designed to carry both wastewater flows and storm water
 Partially Separate Systems: With these systems, the sewerage collection system is
designed to carry all the wastewater together with some storm water. The bulk of the
storm water is collected in an independent system of pipes and open drains
From the TOR “Neither CWSB nor the WSPs have the responsibility for the provision or
maintenance of storm water drainage systems and so the study and review of those facilities is
not included in this Wastewater Master Plan Study. All sewers shall be designed for separate
systems.”
In line with the TOR, a separate sanitary sewer system has been proposed for the design of the
Trunk and Secondary Sewers in Mombasa West Mainland.
5.1.3 Sewage Generation
Wastewater collected in the Sewerage System is generated from;
 Domestic, institutional and Commercial consumers
 Industrial Effluent
 Infiltration and Inflow into the Sewerage System
5.1.3.1 Domestic and Commercial Consumers Sewage Contribution Factor

Not all the water supplied to a premise will reach the sewers as wastewater. The flow of
wastewater leaving premises is dependent on following;
 Quantity of water supplied to the building

 Characteristics of the housing type
 Climate with higher losses associated with arid conditions
 Ground conditions with higher losses associated with high ground porosity
Sewage contribution factor varies from 75% to 85% of water supplied, depending on the
different categories of consumers as outlined in WHO Report No.9 and summarised in Table 5.1
below.
Table 5.1: Portion of Water Used that ends up as Wastewater
Wastewater generated as a Percentage
S/No. Category
of water supplied
1 High Income Housing 75
2 Medium Income Housing 80
3 Low Income Housing 85
4 Communal ablution/ latrine block 85
5 Day schools, shops and offices 85
6 Other Institutions 80
The Study adopts an overall figure of 80% for the sewage contribution factor in consideration
that it has become a standard practice to adopt 80% in the design of Sewerage Systems for other
Towns in Kenya.
5.1.3.2 Industrial Effluent
Industrial effluent generation varies from industry to industry and therefore, each individual
factory on a Sewerage System must be considered separately. However, for areas designated
for future industries whose type is not known, WHO Report No. 9 recommends a rate of 25,000
l/ha/day. This has been adopted in the Study.
5.1.3.3 Infiltration and Inflow
The design of the sewers is based upon the concept of a separate Sewer System, i.e. sewers that
are designed to carry only the anticipated sewage flows with only a nominal allowance in the
pipe capacity for infiltration and storm-water inflow. If significant amounts of water from these
other sources are allowed into the sewers, then the sewers will be ‘robbed’ of their carrying
capacities, treatment plants of their process performance capabilities, and the pumping costs,
where they apply, will increase significantly.
Infiltration is defined as the water entering a Sewer System from below ground level through
such means as defective pipes, joints, connections, or manholes.
The rate of infiltration into sewer pipes depends generally on the depth of the water table, the
sub-soil conditions, the workmanship during construction, the age and condition of the pipes,
and the frequency of occurrence of improper connections. Another significant factor is the
condition and depth of manholes; where covers are damaged or missing, or where the ground
surface level is above cover level, then surface water runoff enter the sewer as inflow.
For the design of the sewers in Mombasa West Mainland, it is intended to use an infiltration
allowance that is based upon the area contributing to the sewer. This Study adopts the
recommendation of Nairobi City Council Manual of a constant infiltration rate of 0.0025 l/s/ha
within the design coverage.
Inflow/Splash is defined as the storm water discharged into a Sewer System from above ground
from such sources as roofs/ yards through inspection chambers within premises, open/loose
manhole covers, cross connections from storm drains, etc.
In addition to infiltration, Nairobi City Council Manual also recommends the use of a “Splash
Allowance”, which is in effect, make an allowance for unavoidable storm water entry and for
authorised drainage of open industrial and commercial areas, i.e. “inflow”. This allowance is
taken as a percentage of the domestic wastewater flow and ranges from 5% to 30% depending
upon the predominant housing type i.e.
 30% for low income housing
 15% for medium income housing
 10% for high income housing
A conservative value of 5% of the total wastewater flow has been adopted in this Study for the
determination of Splash flow contribution.
5.1.4 Peak Flow Factor and Sewer Capacity
A sewer should be designed to handle the peak sewage flows that occur due to daily, diurnal
and seasonal fluctuations. A peak factor, which refers to an estimated ratio of maximum to
average sewage flow, is applied on the average wastewater flow to determine the peak flow.
Sewers are normally designed to flow half full at peak flow, where peak dry weather flow is
defined as:
Peak Dry Weather Flow, PDWF = FR (DWF-I) + I
Where:
PDWF = Peak Dry Weather Flow (l/s)
FR = Peak Factor
DWF = Dry Weather Flow (Design Flow) (l/s)
I = Infiltration Rate (l/s)
The Dry Weather Flow (Design Flow), which includes allowance for inflow and infiltration can be
calculated from:
Px G 1+SA E x AE
DWF = SF [( ) x( )+ + IR (AP + AE )]
86400 100 86.4
Where:
SF = Sewage Reduction Factor (%)
P = Population (no. of persons)
G = Water Consumption (litres per person per day)
SA = Inflow/Splash Allowance as % of P x G (litres per day)
E = Industrial Wastewater Flow (m3 /ha/day)
AE = Industrial Drainage Area (Ha)
IR = Infiltration Water Flow Rate (l/sec/ha)
AP = Domestic Drainage Area (Ha)
The daily peak flow in a sewer is a function of the area contributing to the sewer, which, in turn,
determines the contributing population and, hence, the size of the pipe. An increase in the
contributing area results in a lower peak factor, hence large trunk sewers have lower peaks than
small branch sewers.
Many methods and formulae are used to predict peak factors in sewers. The factors derived by
Nairobi City Council in the 1960s, after a comprehensive survey of the Capital City's sewers, are
shown in Table 5.2 on Page 5-4.

Table 5.2: Nairobi City Council Manual Peak Flow Factors

DWF (litres/sec) Peak Factor
 6.0 7.5
 12.0 6.6
 60.0 5.5
 120.0 5.0
 600.0 3.8
 600 3.1
These Peak Flow factors are considerably higher than those resulting from the empirical
formulas commonly used. Some of the commonly used formulas are given in Table 5.3 below.
Table 5.3: Common Formulas used to calculate Peak Flow Factor
6.51
Legg Formula, for population < 7,000 Persons 𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 =
𝑃𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 0.38
5
Babbit Formula, for population < 7,000 Persons 𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 =
𝑃𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 0.2
14
Harmon Formula, for population > 7,000 Persons 𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 = 1 +
4 + 𝑃𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛0.5
Recent studies of the flow records in Nyeri Town carried out by the Nyeri Water & Sewerage
Company indicate that the Babbitt Formula gives peak factors that more accurately correspond
to the measured peaks in the Sewerage System.
The empirical formulas adopted in the computation of peak flows for Mombasa West Mainland
are as follows;
 Babbit formula for populations less than 7,000 persons
 Harmon Formula for populations greater than 7,000 persons
5.2 Projected Wastewater Flows
The total wastewater generated within a service area is determined by the drainage area from
the water consumed (sewage generation factor of 80%), infiltration into the sewers and splash
flows. A drainage area refers to a natural boundary within which the topography permits
convergence of surface water flow to a single point at a lower elevation
Based upon the above components, the projected wastewater generation for each of the
drainage areas sub-locations within the study area, assuming a regular / unsuppressed water
supply and full coverage of water distribution network, has been determined. A summary of the
projected wastewater generation is given in Table 5.4 below;
Table 5.4: Projected Wastewater Generation up to Year 2040
Area Wastewater Generation (m3/d)

Sub-location
(Ha) 2009 2015 2020 2025 2040
Kwa Shee 379 2,723 3,129 3,599 6,519 11,344
Birikani 235 94 108 123 224 390
Changamwe 381 1,103 1,266 1,456 2,638 4,591
Chaani 421 2,691 3,091 3,555 6,440 11,207
Miritini 103.9 1,480 1,699 1,955 3,541 6,161
Jomvu Kuu 212.5 2,729 3,135 3,606 6,531 11,365
Portreitz 80.4 4,103 4,713 5,420 9,820 17,085
Total 1812.8 14,923 17,140 19,715 35,714 62,143
However, achieving conditions of regular / unsuppressed water supply and full sewer
connections in a Town with Sewerage System is nearly impossible. This restraint is imposed by
the limited development of water resources, inadequate water distribution networks and the
use of on-plot sanitation systems due to topography, affordability, unplanned settlement, etc.
To consider the above situation, the factors of Sewer Connectivity and Water Supply, given in
Tables 5.5 and 5.6 below, have been adopted for the formulation of realistic wastewater
generation projection for the study area.
Table 5.5: Sewer Connectivity adopted for Realistic Wastewater Generation Projection
Sewer Connections
Population Category Based on Income Levels
2021 – 2030 2031 - 2040
High Income 20% 80%
Table 5.6: Water Supply Status adopted for Realistic Wastewater Generation Projection
Water Supply Status as a % of
Population Category Based on Income Levels Regular Water Supply
2021 – 2030 2031 - 2040
High Income 50% 80%
Figure 5.1 below shows the comparative trends of the wastewater flow generation for combined
study area of Mombasa West Mainland under the Ideal condition (100% Sewer Connections and
Regular Water Supply) and Realistic condition (with projected build-out of Sewer connections and
suppressed water supply);
70,000
65,000 With Projected Built-out of Sewer Connections
and Suppressed Water Supply
60,000
With 100% Sewer Connections & Regular Water
55,000 Supply
Dry Weather Flow, m³/day
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
-
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Year
Figure 5.1: Comparative Projected Wastewater Flows up to Year 2040

From Figure 5.1 on Page 5-5, the projected wastewater generation based on the realistic
conditions of water supply and sewer connections at the Years 2025 and 2040 is 14,050 m³/day
and 44,300 m³/day respectively.
The design of Wastewater Management Scheme Components i.e. Sewerage System and Water
Treatment Plants, has been based on the wastewater flow generation developed from the
projected build-out of sewer connections and suppressed water supply.

6.0 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SEWERAGE SYSTEM AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT

PLANTS
6.1 Design of Sewers
6.1.1 Minimum Size of Sewer
Many sewer blockages in urban areas occur in the first length of small diameter sewer with less
than five house connections. Because of this observation, Nairobi City Council Manual
recommends a minimum diameter of 200mm for new sewers. Individual house connections of
150mm diameter is however sufficient.
This recommendation is comparable to that of WHO Report No. 9; 225mm minimum diameter
for Trunk and Branch Sewers and 100mm – 150mm for Property Drains.
To reduce the tendency of blockages, 200mm diameter has been adopted as a minimum sewer
size for Mombasa West Mainland Sewerage System. However, at the upper ends of sewer lines,
the expected flows would not achieve self-cleansing velocities except at rather steep sewer
gradients. Thus, 150mm diameter sewers shall be adopted in the upper lengths of the sewers to
alleviate this situation.
6.1.2 Hydraulic Design Criteria
The two most commonly used and recommended formulae for hydraulic design of sewers are:
 Colebrook-White Formula: The Darcy Weisbach Formula, combined with the Colebrook
White formulation of the friction factor, has long been regarded as the formula that closely
relates both pipeline theory and observed pipeline losses. The main disadvantage is the
cumbersome iterative calculations necessary for its solution. However, with the advent of
computers and published Design Charts this limitation has been overcome and the formula
universally used as the basis for most computer programs used in the design of sewers.
 Manning Equation: The Manning equation is widely used because of its simplicity. Although
it is empirical, it gives an accurate answer, given the uncertainties associated with the flows
generated (population projections, connected population, water consumption per person,
etc.). The formula is as follows:
R0.67 x S0.5
V=( )
n
Where:
V = velocity of flow, (m/s)
n = pipe roughness coefficient
R = hydraulic radius, (m)
S = slope of the pipeline, (m/m)
Table 6.1 below shows the Manning’s Pipe roughness coefficients for different pipe materials and
diameters.
Table 6.1: Friction Factor for Manning’s Formula
Pipe Material Pipe Dia, mm Friction Coefficient, n
<=300, <600 0.015
Spun Concrete
>= 600 0.014
Cast Concrete All sizes 0.018
uPVC All sizes 0.013
Pitch Fibre 100 & 150 0.014

In this study, manning equation has been adopted for the design of gravity sewers. It has been
complimented by Design Tables and Charts for the Colebrooke-White Equation, developed by the
Hydraulic Research Station in UK.
6.1.3 Self-Cleansing Gradients and Velocities
The velocity of flow in a gravity sewer depends on its gradient; the steeper the gradient, the
higher the velocity and for the same discharge volume, the shallower the depth of flow in the
sewer.
A minimum velocity is required in a sewer to ensure settling of solids do not occur. A velocity of
0.75 m/s is considered as the ‘self-cleansing’ velocity that will keep solids including silt in
suspension. It is important that this velocity is achieved at least once a day. This is ensured by
laying sewers at a gradient that will give a velocity of 1.0 m/s at full bore flow. The Nairobi City
Council’s Adoptive Standards recommends that velocities in sewers should exceed 0.75m/s when
flowing full.
Sewer velocity is more important in tropical climates such as in Mombasa West Mainland since it
has been noted that at high temperatures, increased biological activity rapidly reduces the
dissolved oxygen content of the sewage and can result to build-up of hydrogen sulphide gas.
Without oxygen, sulphate reducing bacteria break down the sulphates always present in sewage
and hydrogen sulphide gas is produced which turns into sulphuric acid. Hydrogen sulphide gas is
known to cause odour and corrosion problems. A velocity of 1.0 m/s is considered necessary in
tropical climates, (WHO Sectorial Report No 9) to deal with this problem.
This requirement is more important for trunk sewers and is inappropriate for house connections
or the secondary sewers for Mombasa West Mainland where flows may be intermittent and
retention times short. A minimum velocity of 0.75m/s has been adopted with exception of some
critical circumstance where a velocity of 0.6m/s has been allowed.
In areas where ground slopes are flat, the adoption of a minimum velocity of 1.0m/s places a
severe constraint on the design of the upper reaches of systems due to the steep gradients
required. Thus, flatter gradients have been adopted to decrease the resultant sewer depths and
to reduce the number of pumping stations. Regular flushing of sewers should be carried out at
the flush manholes to be provided at the upper sewer sections to prevent silting.
The Ministry of Water and Irrigation Practice Manual for Sewerage and Sanitation Services in
Kenya (2008) explains that maximum flow velocities were previously specified to reduce
possibilities of erosion in the pipe internal linings through scouring effects. Such effects were said
to occur at flow velocities exceeding 4.0 m/s. But studies have shown that erosion effects
observed at velocities greater than this threshold value are minimal and hence no upper limit of
flow velocity is recommended.
The following velocity guidelines have been adopted in the design:
 Minimum velocity at peak flow 0.75 m/s
 Minimum velocity in exceptional circumstances 0.6 m/s
 Maximum velocity 3.0 m/s
 Maximum flow in exceptional circumstances 6.0 m/s
6.1.4 Sulphide Generation
Hydrogen sulphide is the main source of corrosion in sewer pipes, particularly with high ambient
temperatures and long retention times. Aerobic bacteria on the sewer walls above the sewage
level oxidise the hydrogen sulphide gas to sulphuric acid which attacks the wall of sewer pipe and
result to corrosion of ferrous and concrete walls causing their rapid deterioration.
The onset of Hydrogen sulphide attack depends upon many variables including;
 Sewage strength and sulphate content
 Dissolved oxygen concentration

 Velocity of flow – at low velocity, anaerobic conditions result through silt and sludge
accumulation. Natural oxygen recovery from the atmosphere is also low at low velocities
 Temperature – sewer corrosion is more frequent and intensive in in warm climates as
compared to temperate areas
A well-designed and constructed Sewerage System is the best way of preventing occurrence of
sulphide attack. It is considered that the relatively short sewer lengths proposed in Mombasa
West Mainland Sewerage System, together with adequate gradients, make the onset of sulphide
attack unlikely. HDPE/ uPVC pipes will be used as much as possible in flatter gradients.
In Pumping Mains, sewage retention time less than 30 minutes has been provided to avoid
anaerobic conditions and generation of hydrogen sulphide. Injection of air into the main by a
compressor is proposed where retention times exceed 30 minutes. Where there is high flow
volume with turbulence and splashing, hydrogen sulphide will easily be generated. Proper design
of gradient changes in manholes, especially back drop manholes should prevent this.
Flushing of sewers prevents hydrogen sulphide generation because sulphides generation result
from slime and sewage deposits.
6.1.5 Ventilation of Sewers
Sewers must have adequate ventilation to:
 Remove odorous gases released from the sewage
 Remove explosive and poisonous gases produced in the sewage
 Maintain adequate supply of oxygen in sewers and prevent hydrogen sulphide
generation
To ensure adequate ventilation, ventilation columns with extensions should be installed at all
house connections, Pumping Stations and Manholes where pumping mains discharge. Manhole
covers should also be provided with ventilation slots. Forced ventilation using compressors
should be used where necessary.
6.1.6 Depth of Sewers
Sewers are designed to flow as much as possible in the direction of the natural ground slope.
They should also be laid at depths that permit connection to the existing and future properties
within the sewered area. Besides, adequate cover to the sewers is required to ensure protection
against damages from live loads transiting on the overburden cover surface.
Nairobi City Council Manual recommends minimum depth of sewers of 1200mm in roads and
900mm in all other areas. Adopting this recommendation at the upstream sewer sections in flat
areas lead to unnecessarily deep sewers. However, additional protection can be provided at the
upstream section of sewers if shallow depths are adopted to limit sewer depths and result to
savings from deep excavations of entire sewer length.
The minimum sewer depths and recommended pipe protection measures in the various
circumstances are shown in Table 6.2 below.
Table 6.2: Minimum Sewer Depths and Pipe Protection
Depth Range Pipe Protection
0 - 750 mm Concrete bed & surround or granular bed & surround
In Open Spaces
Over 750 mm Protection governed by factors other than depth
0 - 1200 mm Concrete bed & surround
In Roads
Over 1200 mm Protection governed by factors other than depth
The depth of sewers in Mombasa West Mainland has been dictated by the constructability of soil
conditions given the flat topography, loose sandy soils, depth of the water table and economic
considerations.

Standard details for backfilling sewers and its surround have been provided to ensure protection
of sewers from unnecessary damages and overburden.
6.1.7 Manhole Spacing and Sizes
Manholes permit the inspection and cleaning of sewers and the removal of blockages. They
should be provided on sewers at all changes of direction, sewer change of gradient, at every
junction, where pipe size changes and generally throughout the sewerage system at intervals
sufficiently close to ease sewer cleaning.
Manhole spacing and size for the various sewer pipe diameters have been adopted based on the
guidelines of the Nairobi City Council Manual as shown in Table 6.3 below.
Table 6.3: Guideline to manhole diameter and spacing
Sewer Pipe Size Manhole Spacing Manhole Diameter
(mm) (m) (mm)
225 - 375 60 1050
450 - 600 80 1200
675 – 900 100 1500
Greater than 900 100 1500
Most sewer blockages occur in the smaller diameter sewers. Thus, for pipe diameters smaller
than 225 mm, it is proposed to reduce the manhole spacing to 40m for ease of cleaning and
maintenance. The spacing of intermediate manholes in the Sewerage System for Mombasa West
Mainland has been guided by the proposed Sewer Layout Plan.
6.1.8 Pipe Materials
The choice of pipe material is influenced by:
 Hydraulic and structural design; in consideration of whether it is gravity or forced sewer
 Resistance to chemical and biological processes internally and externally e.g. Corrosion
 Physical properties of the pipe material i.e. strength (to prevent abrasion)
 Types of joints; in view of water tightness which affects infiltration
 Availability of required sewer diameters and necessary fittings
 Cost of materials and installations
Due to the various requirements in the Sewerage System for Mombasa West Mainland,
combination of various pipe materials, which are manufactured locally to internationally
recognized standards, have been considered. These include;
i. Pre-cast Concrete Pipes
Spun concrete pipes are manufactured locally by several companies in Kenya. They are the
most commonly used for sewer pipes.
Flexible jointed pipes are manufactured in sizes ranging from 150mm to 975mm diameter and
are connected using rubber rings. They are vertically cast in vibrated moulds. They are the
most commonly used type of concrete pipes.
Rigid jointed pipes are rarely used for sewers. They are connected using tarred hessian and
cement mortar. Ogee jointed pipes, commonly used for surface water drainage systems, are
available in sizes from 100 mm to 1525 mm diameter.
Concrete pipes are usually laid on a concrete bed and provided with a haunch and surround
or reinforcement to meet the loading requirements.
Larger sizes and higher strength classes can be manufactured on order.
The disadvantages of using concrete pipes include their high friction coefficient and
susceptibility to corrosion due to the generation of hydrogen sulphide gas especially at high
ambient temperatures and long retention time.

ii. uPVC Pipes

Un-plasticised PVC pipes are manufactured in Kenya in metric sizes up to 450 mm diameter.
The pipes are manufactured in accordance with KS 06-149 and both rubber ring jointed and
cement jointed pipes are available.
Their main advantage is the low costs associated with the purchase, transportation, handling
and laying. Most contractors are also experienced in handling uPVC pipes. In addition, uPVC
pipes are resistant to attack from corrosive atmosphere, soils or wastewater conditions.
However, exposure to strong sunlight over a long period can cause brittleness of uPVC sewers.
This is less common with modern pipes. There has also been reservation regarding the quality
of the locally manufactured large diameter uPVC pipes and the ability of Contractors to lay
these large dimeter pipes. Their use has therefore generally been limited to diameters less
than 300 mm. Despite of the high cost, it is customary to specify the use of Class 41 uPVC pipes
(with thicker walls) for sewers to provide the additional safeguard against corrosion attacks
and overburden.
iii. HDPE Pipes
HDPE pipes are ideal for many different applications including municipal, industrial, energy,
geothermal, landfill and more. HDPEs pipe are strong, durable, flexible and light weight. When
fused together, HDPE has a zero-leak rate because the fusion process creates a monolithic
HDPE system. HDPE pipes are also a more environmentally sustainable option as they are non-
toxic, corrosion and chemical resistant, have long design life, and are ideal for trenchless
installation methods owing to their flexibility.
With manufacture of HDPE Pipes gaining momentum in the country and considering its rapid
use by most Water Service Providers, the benefits of using HDPE pipes in Sewerage Systems
including reduction in the number of manholes required, ease of use in confined spaces and
resistance to corrosion in the coastal towns, make HDPE Pipes the ideal sewer pipe material.
iv. Steel Pipes
Steel pipes are manufactured in Kenya. In the sewerage system, they are used for exposed
locations such as river crossings or in pumping mains. However, protection against corrosion
is required internally and externally. This is provided using bitumen sheathing with external
sheathing reinforced and glass fibre windings. Alternatively, modern proprietary epoxy
coatings can be used. Joints are bolted flanges, flexible couplings, or spigot and socket joints.
From field investigations, it has been found that when steel pipes are exposed to the strong
sunlight, the external protective bitumen coating become brittle and crack, thus become
susceptible to the atmosphere. There are also cases where the pipe couplings, and even the
pipes, have been vandalised and stolen for recycling purposes. The high cost of steel pipes also
discourages their use in other normal conditions.
All the foregoing four pipe materials have been used in the construction of the existing
Sewerage Systems countrywide successfully.
Considering performance, cost and availability, HDPE and concrete pipes are the most
appropriate pipes for use in large diameter sewer construction in Kenya. For smaller
diameters, uPVC sewer pipes are more cost effective. Steel pipes are inevitable for aerial river
crossings, pumping mains, high impact resistance and bridging ability; either spun iron or mild
steel pipes can be used. Standardisation of pipe materials and fittings within the jurisdiction
of MOWASCO has also been considered.
The Gravity Sewers for Mombasa West Mainland will consist of HDPE/ uPVC pipes and
socket & spigot concrete pipes while Pumping Mains will comprise of Steel Pipes. Shallow
sewer sections or those laid on road crossings shall consist of flexible jointed concrete pipes
protected with reinforced concrete raft slab.

6.1.9 Property Connections

As the designed Sewer Network will comprise Trunk Sewers and Secondary Sewers, only those
properties that are adjacent to the sewers will easily / directly connect. Other properties will need
to be connected, either by MOWASCO’s tertiary sewers or by individual plot owners. It is not
feasible at the construction stage to allow for all individual property connections, but, wherever,
possible, 160 mm diameter Y-junctions shall be provided on the secondary sewers to facilitate
connections.
6.2 Design of Sewage Pumping Stations
6.2.1 Sewage Pumps
The standardization of pumping stations and their equipment is very desirable. It simplifies
design, maintenance and repair, and the training of operatives; it also reduces considerably the
amount of spare parts which must be kept in store against breakdowns.
As per the Final Practice Manual for Sewerage and Sanitation Services in Kenya (MWI, 2008), the
following types of pumps are considered most suitable for sewage works in Kenya: -
i. Solids diverters (flows of 360 l/min or less),
ii. Submersible pump-sets incorporating centrifugal pumps (450 - 2,500 l/min),
iii. Centrifugal pumps (2,500 – 18,200 l/min),
iv. Mixed -flow pumps (above 18,200 l/min).
However, where the public can be excluded, screw pumps are considered suitable for sewage
“lift” stations. Wherever electricity is available, it is recommended that pumps be driven by
electric motors; elsewhere, diesel engines are considered the better alternative type of prime
mover.
Apart from solids diverters, submersible pump-sets and screw pumps, it is recommended that all
sewage and sludge pumps should be protected against blockage by screens; for the smallest
pumps, 40 mm clear opening screens are required, but 100 mm openings are suitable for the
larger centrifugal and mixed-flow pumps.
6.2.2 Sewage Pumping Stations
There are two basic types of sewage pumping stations, “lift” stations and stations which discharge
into pumping mains. In the lift station, sewage is merely raised from a low to a higher level, for
subsequent gravity flow.
The design of a pumping station is, considerable extent, dictated by the type of plant. Thus, a
station for a screw pump simply houses the prime movers, and the buildings for ejectors or
diverters are essentially partly-buried boxes giving access to the equipment and its control gear.
Roto-dynamic pumps require more sophisticated stations, which can be roughly categorized as
either at Wet Well or Dry Well. Both types of station normally comprise a substructure below
ground level and superstructure, containing special equipment mainly the electrical control
panels, which could be damaged by flooding, above the ground surface.
Sewage pumping stations can be broadly classified as follows;
a) Wet Well Stations (Submersible Pumping Stations)
b) Dry Well Stations (Wet Well / Dry Well Pumping Stations)
c) Packaged Pumping Stations e.g. Screw Pumping Stations
Wet Well Stations
At such stations, the pumps are installed in the substructure or Wet Well which contains sewage.
This arrangement ensures that the pumps are always primed. Usually, the prime movers are
located in the superstructure and the drive is via cased shafting in case of vertical-shaft pumps.

In a Wet Well installation, pump maintenance, and especially the removal of blockages, is a
constant problem as the pumps usually should be withdrawn to gain access. For this reason, new
sewage pumping stations of this type are rarely constructed.
In recent years, several manufactures have started to produce watertight, submersible, portable
pumping sets suitable for sewage, each comprising a centrifugal pump set (centrifugal pump and
electrical motor). It is preferable to have the compact control equipment above ground level and
the remaining unit lowered into underground chamber. This system considerably reduces capital
costs and simplifies maintenance as within minutes, a standby unit can replace a faulty set, which
can then be transported to a workshop for repair.
It is considered that such installations are suitable in Kenya, for pumping capacity within the range
450 – 2,500 l/min. This guideline has not been stringently followed in this study.
Dry Well Stations
The substructure of such stations comprises two compartments, a Dry Well to house the pumps
and a sewage sump to store the sewage, sludge or effluent to be pumped.
The capital costs of such stations are more expensive than Wet Well stations of similar pumping
capacity, but it is considered that the ease of maintenance provided by this arrangement
compensates for the differences. It is recommended that all larger sewage pumping stations in
Kenya (> 2,500 l/min) should be of this type.
Dry Well sewage pumping stations usually house centrifugal pumps (horizontal or vertical
centrifugal pump sets). In general, horizontal centrifugal pumps are cheaper and easier to
maintain than vertical pumps. However, vertical pump sets have advantage that the prime mover
can be installed above ground level, so that it is protected from flooding caused by heavy rain or
a burst on the pipeline. In such installations, the prime mover and pump are connected by
shafting with universal joints. It is recommended that, when centrifugal pumps are used, vertical
sets be adopted.
Reciprocating sludge pumping sets may also be installed in Dry Well Stations. These small sets,
which include the prime mover, are usually located on the floors of the Dry wells to reduce the
suction heads on the pump; otherwise the station resembles one housing a centrifugal pump.
Packaged Pumping Stations
These self-contained, factory-built units are recent development. They operate by electricity and
are fully automated. Usually, a unit is installed underground and comprises pumping sets
enclosed in a protected steel substructure. Most are designed as Dry Well stations except that
electric motors are usually close-coupled to vertical pumps so that they are also at bottom.
6.2.3 Siting of Sewage Pumping Stations
The sewerage system dictates the approximate locations of all pumping stations. However, the
sites for Sewage Pumping Stations should preferably be constructed away from residential
property and should always be readily accessible.
Sewage Pumping Stations are mostly sited in low-lying areas, where flooding may be a risk. As a
precaution, the floor of superstructure to the Pumping Station should always be elevated above
the highest recorded flood level.
Electrical supply and mechanical failures are common occurrence at Sewage Pumping Stations.
All Sewage Pumping Stations should therefore be so located that resulting sewage overflow
causes minimum hazard to public health and environment. Where possible, a screened overflow
pipe, for use only during emergencies should be provided to convey sewage by gravity to a
retention ditch or pond.

6.2.4 Capacities of Sewage Pumping Stations Components

Pumping and Station Capacities
When a Sewage Pumping Station has roto-dynamic pumps, its total pumping capacity should be
compatible with peak flows in the sewerage system it serves; if the sewers are not operating at
their design capacities, then the installed pumping capacity should be correspondingly reduced.
It is relatively simple and inexpensive to change or add pumping sets, and thereby increase the
pumping capacity of a station, if the building is sufficient for future installations. It is reasonable
to install pump sets to serve for 5 to 10 years, depending upon the rate of increase of sewage
generation in future. Buildings and other ancillary works should have design period of 20 years.
Sewage Pumping Stations with screw pumps or diverters cannot be designed in this way, as once
initial installation is complete, the pumping capacities can only be increased by duplicating the
installation. Where such types of stations are provided, it is considered reasonable to design them
for either the maximum flow the sewerage system served can produce or 50 per cent more than
the peak wet weather flows anticipated, whichever is lesser.
If, in the case of diverters, this formula results in design flows of 450 l/minute or more, then
centrifugal pumps rather than diverters should be installed.
Stand-by Units
In the smallest sewage pumping stations, the pumping equipment should be duplicated and
should be so sized that either one of the two pump sets, working alone, can deal with the peak
inflow to the station; that is, there should be 100 % standby.
The percentage of standby may be reduced as the number of pump sets installed in a station
increases; for example, for a station which should deal with a peak inflow of 1,800 l/min, it may
prove cheaper to have three pump sets each rated at 900 l/min rather than two sets each with a
capacity of 1,800 l/min; in this case, the provided standby is only 50 %.
It is recommended that the percentage standby never drops below 33 %; that is, the total number
of pump sets in larger stations should be such that about three-quarters of pumps can deal with
peak flows, with the remaining pump(s) held in stand-by.
Wet Wells and Sewage Sumps
The rate of inflow to Sewage Pumping Station normally varies throughout the day. As the installed
pump-sets will each have finite capacities, rather than variable, a sewage sump providing storage
is required to deal with the inflow fluctuations; in the case of Wet Well type of pumping station,
the terms “Wet Well” and “Sewage Sump” are synonymous.
Effectively, the capacity of sewage sump is the volume between the highest level at which the
pumps start and the lowest level at which they stop. Usually, the highest level will be just below
the invert of lowest incoming sewer, to help prevent surcharging of the sewerage system.
A Sewage Sump’s capacity should be related to the rate of inflow and the pump capacities, to
reduce wear on the mechanical and electrical equipment in the station by minimizing the number
of pump starts. Each pump should be limited to about six starts during any hour; the maximum
number of starts occurs when the station inflows is equal to half the pumping capacity of one
pump. On the other hand, if sewage sumps are too large, sewage will tend to become anaerobic
during its retention.
It is recommended that the capacity of the sewage sump in a Pumping Station be calculated
following the formula given below;
V =300Q
Where; V is the capacity of the sewage pump in litres
Q is the maximum rate of sewage inflow during dry weather in litres per second.

The capacity of the sewage sump given by the above formulae represent the sum of the capacities
of the individual compartments if multiple sumps are provided at a Sewage Pumping Station.
At least two compartment of sewage sump is necessary, to facilitate cleaning of the wells and
pipe work and repairs to pumps. These compartments should be interconnected by orifice
through the dividing walls which can be closed by penstocks, when necessary, to isolate a
compartment.
6.3 Design of Wastewater Treatment Plants
6.3.1 Selection Criteria for Treatment Process / Technology
Wastewater treatment technology has been selected after taking due consideration of the
pertinent technical, operational and economic factors, limitations and constraints. In this regard,
the technologies have been evaluated based on the following key factors:
i) Nature and Strength of Wastewater
The physical, chemical and biological treatment processes are primarily governed by the
nature of pollutants to be removed and their strengths in the wastewater. The treatment
technology selected has ensured the attainment of required pollutant removal
efficiencies.
ii) Cost
The least cost treatment technology in terms of the both the capital and operation costs
has been given preference.
To simplify the evaluation process for the various treatment technologies, the Consultant
calculated the dynamic unit cost as average cost/m³ of wastewater treated for different
treatment technologies as summarised in Figure 6.1 below;
Figure 6.1: Capital cost for wastewater treatment technologies

iii) Physical Constraints - Land
Land required for installation of treatment plant is the principal physical constraint due
to the availability and acquisition cost. Land available at the selected site in consideration
of the site topography and terrain for the hydraulics at the WWTP has been assessed for
adequacy for the selected treatment technology.
Figure 6.2 on Page 6-10 shows the land requirements for the various treatment
technologies.

Figure 6.2: Land Requirements for wastewater treatment technologies
iv) Operational Skills

Treatment technologies whose skill requirement for operation and maintenance can be
obtained locally, with minimum training of operators, has also been given preference.
v) Sludge Production
Different technologies generate varied amounts of sludge during wastewater treatment
process. The amount of sludge generated and its disposal or reuse has a huge impact on
the capital cost, operational cost and land requirement. The selection of wastewater
treatment technology has considered minimal production of sludge and its safe disposal.
vi) Energy Recovery
Methane gas is usually generated during wastewater treatment process. Some
technologies such as the Activated Sludge have dominant anaerobic digestion processes
involving sludge which produces substantial amounts of methane. Energy production can
also be achieved through direct incineration of sludge.
It is ideal to collect and utilize the produced methane gas for the generation of power and
thereby reduce the cost of energy at the WWTP. However, this is only economically and
financially viable for treatment technologies with high calorific value in sludge and
methane gas.
vii) Fertilizer Recovery
The presence of nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium makes sludge a
valuable fertilizer resource after stabilization. Natural and mechanical composting can be
practised for conversion of sludge into fertilizer.
viii) Sludge Handling
In the absence of energy and fertilizer recovery, generated sludge (mostly liquid) must be
disposed of in a safe and sound manner to the public and environment at the Sludge
Dump Site. Dewatering of sludge by use of Sludge thickeners, Sludge Drying Beds, etc.
prior to transportation is necessary. Some of these techniques are labour and land
intensive and involve mechanical equipment.
ix) Sludge / Solid Waste Dump Site
After dewatering, solid sludge is easily transported to the Sludge Dump Site for final
disposal. The sludge may also be combined with grits and screenings from the Plant for
dumping. The Sludge Dump site shall preferably be developed near the Wastewater

Treatment Plant site to reduce the hauling distance and to minimize cost of
transportation. The dumped sludge is compacted with bulldozer and covered with a thick
layer of clean soil to minimize nuisance through odour and flies.
Site evaluation and selection of the Sludge Dump Site have been carried out based on
following key factors:
 Topography of the land and its potentials for erosion and runoff
 Soil Characteristics
 Soil depth to ground water
 Accessibility & proximity to critical areas
Availability of clean earth for covering the dumped sludge / solid waste have been
considered to minimize hauling distance and transportation cost.
x) Mechanical Equipment
The selected system shall be such that minimum mechanical equipment needs to be
provided. Unnecessary mechanical equipment has been avoided. The system has been
designed such that maximum of the mechanical equipment is of local make.
xi) Nuisance
The degree of colour, odour and noise shall be below the nuisance thresh-hold, especially,
regarding the proximity of the Wastewater Treatment Plant to the build-up areas.
6.3.2 Alternative Wastewater Treatment Processes / Technologies
The following biological Wastewater Treatment Technologies have been analysed in detail using
the criteria listed in Sub-section 6.3.1:
i) Waste Stabilization Ponds
Waste Stabilization Ponds (WSPs) are large basins enclosed by earth embankments in
which raw wastewater is treated by entirely natural processes involving algae and
bacteria. Since these processes are unaided, the rate of oxidation is slower, and thus
hydraulic retention times are longer than in conventional wastewater treatment. WSPs
are the preferred method of wastewater treatment in developing countries where
sufficient land is normally available and where the temperature is most favourable for
their operation.
There are three principal types of WSP: anaerobic, facultative and maturation ponds
which are linked in series. Anaerobic ponds and facultative ponds are designed for BOD
(biochemical oxygen demand) removal, and maturation ponds are designed for faecal
bacterial removal. Some removal of faecal bacteria (especially of Vibrio cholerae) occurs
in anaerobic and facultative ponds, which are also responsible for most of the removal of
helminth eggs; and some removal of BOD occurs in maturation ponds, which also remove
some of the nutrients (N and P).
A typical layout of Waste Stabilization Pond is given in Figure 6.3 on Page 6-12.

Figure 6.3: Layout of Waste Stabilization Ponds

The advantages of WSP are that they are simple, low-cost, highly efficient and robust.
The disadvantages of WSP include high land requirements and odour release.
ii) Trickling Filters
A trickling filter is a fixed-bed, biological reactor that operates under (mostly) aerobic
conditions. Pre-settled wastewater is continuously ‘trickled’ or sprayed over the filter
using sprinkler as shown in Figure 6.4 below.
Figure 6.4: Sectional View of a Circular Biofilter

As the water migrates through the pores of the filter, organics are degraded by the
biofilm covering the filter material. They produce high quality effluents (e.g. <20 mg
BOD/l and <30 mg SS/l) without requiring large areas of land or consuming vast quantities
of electricity. In many situations in developing countries they are much more appropriate
than activated sludge. Trickling Filters comprise a 2 – 3 m deep bed of 50 – 100 mm rock.
The trickling filter is filled with a high specific surface area material, such as rocks, gravel,
shredded PVC bottles, or special pre-formed plastic filter media. A high specific surface
provides a large area for biofilm formation. Organisms that grow in the thin biofilm over
the surface of the media oxidize the organic load in the wastewater to carbon dioxide
and water, while generating new biomass.
The advantages of trickling filters are;
 High quality effluents at small footprint & less electricity
 Efficient nitrification
 Operation at a range of organic and hydraulic loading rates
The disadvantages include;
 High capital costs
 Skilled personnel for operation and maintenance,
 Constant source of electricity and wastewater flow

 Problems associated with flies and odour
iii) Oxidation Ditch / Extended Aeration
Oxidation ditches are a direct modification of conventional activated sludge. Their

essential operational features are that they receive raw wastewater (after preliminary
treatment) and provide longer retention times: the hydraulic retention time is commonly
0.5 – 1.5 days and that for the solids 20 – 30 days. The latter, achieved by recycling >95
per cent of the activated sludge, ensures minimal excess sludge production and a high
degree of mineralization in the small amount of excess sludge that is produced. Sludge
handling and treatment is almost negligible since the small amounts of waste sludge can
be readily dewatered without odour on drying beds. The other major difference is in
reactor shape: the oxidation ditch is a long continuous channel, usually oval in plan and
2 – 3 m deep.
The ditch liquor is aerated by several aerators, which impart a velocity to the ditch
contents of 0.3 – 0.4 m/s to keep the activated sludge in suspension. The ditch effluent
is discharged into a secondary sedimentation tank to permit solids separation and sludge
return and to produce a settled effluent with low BOD and SS. Removals consistently >95
per cent are obtained for both BOD and SS.
Currently, there are few oxidation ditches in developing countries since Waste
Stabilization Ponds are usually more favourable, both in terms of costs and faecal
bacterial removal; although where there is a reliable electricity supply but insufficient
land for ponds Oxidation Ditches are increasingly being used.
The advantages of Oxidation ditches include;
 Resistance to organic and hydraulic shock loads
 High reduction of BOD and pathogens (up to 99%)
 High nutrient removal possible
The limitations / disadvantages of using oxidation ditches include;
 High energy consumption
 Constant supply of energy
 High capital and operating costs
 Require operation and maintenance by skilled personnel
iv) Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR)
The Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) is an activated sludge process designed to operate
under non-steady state conditions. An SBR operates in a true batch mode with aeration
and sludge settlement both occurring in the same tank. The major difference between
SBR and conventional continuous-flow activated sludge system is that the SBR tank
carries out the functions of equalization aeration and sedimentation in a time sequence
rather than in the conventional space sequence of continuous-flow systems thus smaller
footprint (see Figure 6.5 on Page 6-14).

Figure 6.5: Schematic Showing SBR operational cycle

There is a degree of flexibility associated with working in a time rather than in a space
sequence. The duration, oxygen concentration, and mixing in these periods could be
altered per the needs of the Treatment Plant.
SBRs require controls to reduce energy consumption and enhance the selective pressures
for BOD, nutrient removal, and control of filaments. This range from a simplified float
and timer based system to a more complex PC based systems. An appropriately designed
SBR process is a unique combination of equipment and software. Working with
automated control reduces the number of operator skill and attention requirement.
SBRs does not include primary settling tanks; screening of solids and oil / grease removal
should be accomplished prior to the activated-sludge process. Flow equalization is also
critical where significant variations in flow rates and organic mass loadings are expected.
A plant utilizing an influent equalization basin will be able to have a true batch reaction.
v) Sub-marine Outfall
This is a submarine pipeline or tunnel that discharges wastewater under the sea surface.
In the case of municipal wastewater, effluent is often being discharged after having
undergone no or only primary treatment, with the intention of using the assimilative
capacity of the sea for further treatment.
The main advantages of marine outfalls for the discharge of wastewater include:
 Natural dilution and dispersion of organic matter, pathogens and other pollutant,
 Ability to keep the sewage field submerged due to deep discharge points
 Greater die-off rate of pathogens due to the greater distance they should travel to
shore
 Less expensive than advanced Wastewater Treatment Plants i.e. not energy-
intensive
For effective operation of outfall and its diffusers, preliminary treatment of wastewater
is important. The combined capital and operation cost of preliminary treatment is about
one tenth that of conventional biological treatment and require much less land.
However, sub-marine outfalls for partially treated or untreated wastewater remain
controversial. The design calculation and computer models for pollution modelling
have been criticized, arguing that dilution has been overemphasized and that other
mechanisms work in the opposite direction, such as bioaccumulation of toxins,
sedimentation of sludge particles and agglomeration of sewage particles with grease.
Outfall materials include polyethylene, stainless steel, carbon steel, glass-reinforced
plastic, reinforced concrete, cast iron or tunnels through rock. Common installation
methods for pipelines are float and sink, bottom pull and top pull.
For final polishing of treated effluent (pathogen reduction) before disposal into the environment,
the following processes have been considered to formulate Wastewater Treatment Trains:
 Maturation Ponds
 Chlorination
 Sea outfall
Preliminary Treatment
Regardless of the Wastewater Treatment technology considered, it is important to have a
preceding preliminary Treatment Process at the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Wastewater contains large solids and grit that can interfere with treatment processes through
accumulation of solids, frequent blockages, abrasion of mechanical parts and increased
maintenance on wastewater treatment equipment. To minimize potential problems and extend
the life of sanitation infrastructure, these materials require separate handling. Preliminary
treatment removes these constituents from the influent wastewater.
Some of the preliminary treatment processes are briefly described below;
a) Screening
Screening is the first unit operation used at Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs). It
removes coarse objects such as rags, paper, plastics, and metals to prevent damage and
clogging of downstream equipment, piping, and appurtenances. These screens can be
cleaned either manually or mechanically.
Manually cleaned screens require little or no equipment maintenance and are suitable
for small WWTPs with few screenings. However, they require frequent raking to avoid
clogging and high backwater levels that cause build-up of solids mat on the screen. The
increased raking frequency increases labour costs.
Mechanically cleaned screening systems are popular in modern WWTPs because they
reduce labour costs and improve flow conditions resulting from screen capture.
However, they have a high equipment maintenance costs. A screening compactor is
usually situated close to the mechanically cleaned screen and compacted screenings are
conveyed to a dumpster or disposal area. Plants utilizing mechanically cleaned screens
should have a standby screen to put in operation when the primary screening device is
out of service.
Coarse screens and fine screens are available for use at the WWTPs. Coarse screens
remove large solids, rags, and debris from wastewater, and typically have openings of
6mm or larger. Fine screens are used to remove materials that may create operation and
maintenance problems in downstream processes, particularly in systems that lack
primary treatment. Typical opening sizes for fine screens are 1.5 to 6 mm.
b) Grit Removal
Grit includes sand, gravel, cinder, or other heavy solid materials that have higher specific
gravities than the organic biodegradable solids in the wastewater. Removal of grit
prevents unnecessary abrasion and wear of mechanical equipment, grit deposition in
pipelines and channels, and accumulation of grit in anaerobic digesters and aeration
basins. Removal of grit is carried out in a channel or chamber, where the velocity of the
incoming wastewater is adjusted to allow settlement of sand and grit. Grit removal
facilities typically precede primary clarification, and follow screening to prevent large
solids from interfering with grit handling equipment. In secondary treatment plants
without primary clarification, grit removal should precede aeration (Metcalf & Eddy,
1991).
Many types of grit removal systems exist, including;
o Aerated grit chambers
o Vortex-type (paddle or jet induced vortex) grit removal systems
o Detritus tanks (short-term sedimentation basins)
o Horizontal flow grit chambers (velocity-controlled channel)
o Hydrocyclones (cyclonic inertial separation)
Various factors must be taken into consideration when selecting a grit removal process,
including the quantity and characteristics of grit, potential adverse effects on

downstream processes, head loss requirements, space requirements, removal efficiency,

organic content, and cost.
c) Flow Control and Overflow
Flow control requires that a flow control device be incorporated at the inlet works to
restrict the forward flow to treatment i.e. to avoid hydraulic overloading of the
subsequent treatment units.
A summary of the descriptive comparison of the above wastewater treatment technologies /
processes is given in Table 6.4 on Page 6-17.

Table 3.3 - Descriptive Comparison of Alternative Wastewater Treatment Methods
Operation & Civil

Treatment Standard of Process Process Land M&E Sludge Environmental
Maintenance Construction
Process Treatment Reliability Complexity Requirements Equipment Production Considerations
Requirements Requirements
MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH

Almost Limited sludge
none, production.
Waste Good, except Very good, but Extremely High
Very limited Large areas of except, Sludge is stable
Stabilisation for nutrient climate simple. No Very simple environmental
and simple land needed. possibly, at and requires no
Ponds removal dependent skills needed acceptance.
the inlet further
works treatment
Good, but Limited sludge
Apart from
Good, except partly subject High land production.
Very simple. the inlet Moderate
Aerated for nutrient and to power Limited and requirements, Sludge is stable
No skills Very simple works, only environmental
Lagoons bacterial outages and straightforward but not as and requires no
needed. the surface acceptance.
removal. mechanical large as WSPs further
aerators
failure treatment
Good, but
Very good, Sludge from
subject to Moderate Some aspects
except for Simple. Complicated primary &
Biological power outages Moderate, but Moderate land degree of need further
nutrient and Limited skills RC structural secondary
Filters and straightforward requirements M&E plant environmental
bacterial required. requirements. settlement
mechanical needed. consideration.
removal. needs treatment
failure
Good, but
Very good, Complex. Sludge from
subject to High Very High input of Many aspects
except for Highly primary &
Wastewater Master Plan for Mombasa and Selected Towns within the Coast Region
Activated power outages requirement Minimum land complicated M&E need further
nutrient and skilled secondary
Sludge and for O&M and requirements. RC structural equipment environmental
Water and Sanitation Service Improvement Project – Additional Financing (WaSSIP - AF)
bacterial manpower settlement

mechanical skilled staff requirements. needed consideration.
removal. needed needs treatment
failure
Good, but Limited sludge
Very good,
subject to Moderate Moderate production. Some aspects
except for Simple. Moderate
Oxidation power outages requirement Moderate land degree of Sludge is stable need further
nutrient and Limited skills construction
Ditch and for skilled requirements. M&E plant and requires no environmental
bacterial required. requirements.
-
mechanical O&M staff needed. further consideration.

removal.
failure treatment
Notes:
1. All treatment processes except waste stabilisation ponds will require additional treatment, such as sand filtration and disinfection or maturation ponds, to achieve
bacteriological reduction.
2. All the treatment processes considered will require additional process units to achieve nutrient removal.
Table 6.4: Descriptive Comparison of Wastewater Treatment Technologies / Processes
3. The activated sludge process and the oxidation ditch most easily lend themselves to nutrient reduction using the Modified Activated Sludge (MAS) process.
6-17
MOMBASA WEST MAINLAND
FINAL MASTER PLAN REPORT
6.3.3 Identification of Site for Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)

The location of the proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant(s) is identified after the selection of
wastewater treatment technology and determination of the land required for the installation of
the various units of the WWTP. Possibilities of future extension of the WWTP is also considered.
The factors considered in the selection of WWTP location are briefly discussed below.
i. Land-Use
In the Land-use Map, different areas of Mombasa West Mainland have been assigned varied
existing and proposed uses. Areas earmarked for residential, industries, agriculture, forests and
social amenities are considered less suitable for the location of a Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP). On the other hand, public utility or undeveloped Agricultural Land located away from
the sensitive residential areas are preferred.
ii. Distance of Effluent Discharge Point
The distance from the WWTP site to the final receiving environment such as the river and ocean,
is an important consideration in site selection. Preference is given to the sites that require shorter
lengths of Outfall Sewers.
iii. Topography of the Sewered Area
An ideal WWTP site should be located on a low-lying area of the sewerage system for gravity
conveyance. Otherwise, pumping stations become necessary thereby increasing both capital cost
and the operation and maintenance requirements of the sewerage system.
iv. Topography of Site
The slope at an ideal site should permit the gravity flow within the WWTP without requiring
excessive excavations for the structures. Slopes less than 1:20 are preferred.
v. Geological Conditions
A site with low water table and whose soils are impermeable is considered ideal with respect to
geological considerations. For instance, silt or clay soils are suitable for pond construction.
More often, the geological formation within an area is fairly similar. For instance, all the candidate
sites in Mombasa West Mainland comprise of a mixture of well drained, deep, dark red to reddish
brown, friable, sandy clay loam to sandy clay, with top soil of loamy sand and well drained, very
deep, yellowish red, very friable, fine sandy loam to fine sandy clay loam. These soils are suitable
for WWTP (Waste Stabilization Ponds) construction.
vi. Existing Infrastructure
Proximity to infrastructural systems such as roads, electricity and portable water is sought for
while siting for a WWTP location. It reduces cost of construction and operation & maintenance
requirements of the WWTP. Sites that are closer to existing infrastructure are preferred.
vii. Potential for reuse of treated wastewater
Treated wastewater can be reused for beneficial purposes such as agricultural irrigation,
industrial processes, ground water recharge, etc. Proximity to the potential re-use application
and relative elevation difference (for gravity conveyance) is preferred in siting of WWTP. For
instance, downstream arable land would make a WWTP site ideal for agricultural irrigation.
viii. Land Acquisition
In this criterion, preference is given to sites owned by government agencies such as Ministries,
County Governments, etc. This ensures that the project affected persons are kept to a minimal
and reduces the cost of resettlement and compensation.

7.0 FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES

7.1 Justification of Study Area
It is proposed in the World Health Organisation (WHO) Report No. 9 that by the year 2000 all
urban areas with population density greater than 124 persons per hectare should be connected
to sewerage system. The intention of this criterion was to define the extent which sewerage
projects can be prioritized as a sanitation measure in developing nations.
The nature of settlements and Land-Use in each of the two service areas have been studied
distinctly to determine the coverage of the study area. WHO guideline of threshold population
density has also been considered.
The present estimated mean population density for the entire service area of Mombasa West
Mainland (year 2016) has been determined as 55 persons per hectare while the projected year
2040 population density is 112 persons per hectare. The highest projected population density in
year 2040 is recorded in Chaani sub-location at approximatively 500 persons per hectare. These
conservative densities have been adopted for the design of Sanitation System for Mombasa West
Mainland.
These estimated population densities have been adopted for the design of Sanitation System for
the study area in consideration of the WHO recommendation
7.2 Delineation of Drainage Areas
The Sewerage System for Mombasa West Mainland has been developed based on drainage areas.
A drainage area refers to a natural boundary within which the topography permits convergence
of surface water flow to a single point at a lower elevation.
A total of twelve (12) drainage areas have been formulated in Mombasa West Mainland.
Based on the projected land use, population and water demand (including suppressed conditions)
as detailed in the previous Chapters, the sewage generated (Dry Weather Flow) at the various
design horizons by Drainage area including BOD5 is given in Table 7.1 below.
Table 7.1: Summary of Sewage and BOD5 Generated per Drainage Area
Drainage Coverage Year 2025 Year 2040
Area (Ha) DWF (m³/d) BOD₅ (mg/l) DWF (m³/d) BOD₅ (mg/l)
1 247 3,027 697 4,955 652
2 643 9,946 671 18,216 637
3 141 1,108 726 1,748 675
4 485 2,728 680 4,504 640
5 375 2,561 670 4,331 633
6 133 519 663 869 628
7 388 1,594 655 2,736 624
8 494 571 691 858 644
9 172 2,173 678 4,041 641
10 120 761 672 1,277 634
11 41 318 703 514 656
12 42 150 688 242 645
Mean - - 688 - 642
Total 3,281 25,455 - 44,290 -
The Projected Dry Weather Flow for the study area of Mombasa West Mainland at the Design
Horizon (Year 2040) is approximately 44,300 m³/day.
A layout Plan showing these drainage areas is given in Figure 7.1 on 7-2.

Figure 7.1: Proposed Drainage Areas

7.3 Description of Alternative Wastewater Management Schemes

Two Alternative Wastewater Management Schemes have been formulated and evaluated to
serve the sanitation needs of Mombasa West Mainland up to Year 2040 as briefly described
below;
i) Alternative 1 – Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant
This Alternative Scheme involves a centralized Waste Water Treatment Plant (capacity
44,300m³/d). The centralized Waste Water Treatment Plant has been sited at Kipevu,
where an existing Waste Water Treatment Plant (17,000m³/d capacity) is located. This
location has been selected due to the existing wastewater conveyance system to the site,
housing and associated ancillary works. Expansion and modification works to handle
increased inflow will be required.
Under this Alternative, waste water will be conveyed to the Centralized Treatment Plant
by a series of gravity sewer system with limited pumping. The Conveyance System will
comprise of 5Nr. new pumping stations in addition to the existing 4Nr. Pumping Stations.
At the Treatment Works, a combination of Oxidation Ditch with a Chlorination System
has been adopted for the treatment of wastewater. The treated effluent will be
discharged into the sea.
A summary of the pumping components and Treatment Technology for Alternative 1 is
given in Table 7.2 below.
Table 7.2: Alternative Scheme 1 – Pumping components and Treatment Technology
Rising Main Wastewater
Details of Each Pump Treatment
Pumping Station Plants
Ref. No. Design Pumping Power
Length Dia. Flow, Q Head, H Requirement, TW1
(m³/h) (m) P (kW)
170 200 P1 104 57 23
Oxidation Ditches with Chlorination / De-

1,520 350 P2 365 85 121
395 350 P3 292 37 42
Chlorination Facility
358 350 P4 382 30 44
580 400 P5 738 63 180
Mikindani
115 200 1,080 31 130
Pumping Station
Miritini Screw
- - 512 4 7
Pump
Port Reitz
610 250 1,538 53 319
Pumping Station
Miritini Pumping
329 200 41 48 8
Station
A detailed Layout Plan for Alternative Scheme 1 is given on Figure 7.2 on Page 7-4.

Figure 7.2: Alternative Scheme 1

ii) Alternative 2 – De-centralized Wastewater Treatment Plants (2 Nr)

This Alternative Scheme involves 2Nr Wastewater Treatment Plants for the treatment of
wastewater generated in West Mainland. Expansion of the Existing Kipevu Wastewater
Treatment Plant has been considered (total capacity of 35,600m³/d) in addition to a
proposed Waste Water Treatment Plant at Miritini (capacity 8,700m³/d).
Miritini site has been selected due to availability of land for acquisition for development
of the proposed Treatment Plant.
waste water will be conveyed to the Centralized Treatment Plant by a series of gravity
sewer system with limited pumping. The Conveyance System will comprise of 4Nr. new
pumping stations in addition to the existing 4Nr Pumping Stations.
A combination of Oxidation Ditch with a Chlorination System has been adopted at the
Waste Water Treatment Plant at Kipevu due to the constraint on land available.
A Wastewater Treatment Plant, comprising of Waste Stabilisation Ponds has been
adopted at Miritini Site considering availability of land, costs of land acquisition, capital
costs and low operation and maintenance requirements. The main components of the
Wastewater Treatment Plant at Miritini Site include:
 Inlet Works
 Waste Stabilization Ponds (Anaerobic, Facultative and Maturation Ponds)
 Sludge Drying Beds
 Staff Houses and Administration Buildings
 Site and Ancillary Works
A summary of the pumping components and Treatment Technology for Alternative 2 is
given in Table 7.3 below.
Table 7.3: Alternative Scheme 2 – Pumping components and Treatment Technology
Rising Main Wastewater
Details of Each Pump Treatment
Pumping Station Plants
Ref. No. Design Pumping Power
Length Dia. Flow, Q Head, H Requirement, TW1 TW2
(m³/h) (m) P (kW)
170 200 P1 364 73 146
Oxidation Ditches with Chlorination /
1,520 350 P2 103 56 32

Waste Stabilization Ponds
De-Chlorination Facility
395 350 P3 310 36 57

580 500 P4 425 27 60
Mikindani
115 200 341 26 49
Pumping Station
Miritini Screw
- - 508 5 56
Pump
Port Reitz
610 250 138 60 40
Pumping Station
Miritini Pumping
329 200 41 40 9
Station
A detailed Layout Plan for Alternative Scheme 1 is given on Figure 7.3 on Page 7-6.

Figure 7.3: Locations of Alternative Waste Water Treatment Plants

7.4 Summary of Alternative Wastewater Management Schemes

A summary of the two proposed Alternative Wastewater Management Schemes for Mombasa
West Mainland is given in Table 7.4 below.
Table 7.4: Summary of Alternative Wastewater Management Schemes
Conveyance System Wastewater Treatment Plants
Alternative Secondary No. of Design Land
Scheme Treatment
and Trunk Pumping Location Capacity Required
Technology
Sewers (km) Stations (m³/day) (Ha)
 Existing -
Oxidation Ditch with
4Nr.
1 40 Kipevu (TW 1) 44,300 a Chlorination 9
 Proposed -
System
5Nr.
Oxidation Ditch with
 Existing - Kipevu (TW 1) 35,600 a Chlorination 7.5
4Nr. System
2 45
 Proposed -
Waste Stabilization
4Nr. Miritini (TW 2) 8,700 21
Ponds
The locations of the Candidate Wastewater Treatment Sites considered in the considered
Alternative Schemes are shown in Figure 7.4 on Page 7-8.

Figure 7.4: Locations of Alternative Waste Water Treatment Plants

8.0 PROJECT COSTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER

N MANAGEMENT SCHEMES
8.1 Introduction
This Chapter describes the Project Costs of the Alternative Wastewater Management Schemes
formulated to serve the sanitation needs of Mombasa West Mainland up to year 2040, including
the methodology used to derive them.
The unit costs are based on recent contracts of similar nature in Kenya (2016), supplemented by
quotations from various manufacturers and suppliers. All the unit costs are inclusive of relevant
duties and taxes but not Preliminary and General Items, Contingencies and Consultancy Fees.
The accuracy of cost estimates is generally plus or minus 20%; which falls within the criteria for
estimated costs based on Preliminary Design. However, larger variations are expected for
individual works or items, or in places where average costs are used.
8.2 Unit Costs for Capital Investments
8.2.1 Basis of Cost Estimates
Capital costs represent the total expenditures incurred in the implementation of the
infrastructural components of a Project. It includes the cost of land acquisition, construction and
installation, construction contingencies, engineering services, legal and administrative services
and financing expenses.
The unit costs of the construction and installation components have been determined from the
market prices of the various material, labour costs, transport and Contractor’s overhead and
profit. The market prices of the materials have been obtained from various suppliers while labour
rates have been obtained from the Joint Building Council of Kenya. All the rates derived have
been compared with tender prices for other similar contracts implemented in the recent past. In
general, the labour costs have been limited at 20% of the material costs while the Contractor’s
overhead and profit have been assumed to be 20% of the total costs (i.e. cost of material + labour
cost).
In this Master Plan, it has been assumed that construction of sewers and the Wastewater
Treatment Plant in an implementation phase will be included under a single contract for the
benefits which result from the resulting economy of scale; this is more significant on items such
as management and site supervision costs.
8.2.2 Land Acquisition
The cost of land at various locations within Mombasa West Mainland depends on the proximity
to services and market forces. The Consultant collected information of the costs of land around
the areas of interest from registered land valuers and recent land buyers. The average costs of
land adopted for the Wastewater Master Plan is Kshs. 40,000,000 per ha.
As earlier described, the proposed sewer routes have been aligned with the public roads,
easements or right-of-way and river wayleaves in some sections. Therefore, land acquisition will
only apply in the few instances where sewer alignment goes beyond the easements into private
land.
In cases where encroachment of structures will be identified on the proposed sewer alignment
within the public easements, demolishing of structures for passage of sewers shall be carried out
without need for compensation or land acquisition.
8.2.3 Construction Cost
This cost includes cost of materials, equipment, labour and services necessary to construct the
Sewerage System (Sewers, Manholes, Pumping Stations) and Wastewater Treatment Plant(s). It
covers taxes and duties, and contractor’s overhead and profit.
The unit costs for installation of new sewer lines comprises of the following components:
Site Clearance and Excavation

Supply of all materials to site
Pipe lay, joint with rubber rings, granular bedding, test and backfill of trench for
flexible-jointed Concrete Pipes
 Pipe lay, joint with rubber rings, granular bedding, test and backfill trench for Steel
pipes
 Construction of manholes on the sewer lines
 Contractor’s overheads and profits
Table 8.1 below shows the unit cost for different sizes of flexible jointed sewer lines, manholes
and steel pipelines including taxes, duties and contractor’s overheads and profit.
Table 8.1: Unit Costs for Sewer Lines and Manholes
Item Description Unit Unit rate (Kshs)
A Flexible jointed precast concrete pipes excluding excavation
-225mm dia. S&S m 1,800
-300mm dia. S&S m 2,040
- 375mm dia. S&S m 2800
- 450mm dia. S&S m 4,900
- 525mm dia. S&S m 5800
- 600mm dia. S&S m 7,200
- 750mm dia. S&S m 10,500
B Steel Pipe – NP 10
- 100mm nominal dia. m 2,911
Manholes - 1200mm dia. Precast rings with triangular heavy
C duty concrete filled mild steel covers
- Depth n.e. 1.0m Nr 104,000
- Depth n.e. 2.0m Nr 118,000
- Depth n.e. 3.0m Nr 148,000
- Depth n.e. 4.0m Nr 173,000
- Depth n.e. 5.0m Nr 198,000
- Depth n.e. 6.0m Nr 224,000

Since the depth of excavation for sewer lines varies considerably, depending on several factors
like ground slopes, flow, velocity, etc., the cost of excavation has not been built in the above unit
rates.
To consider the variation of trench excavation for different depths, the cost of excavation has
been taken separately as shown in Table 8.2 below. Cost for extra-over excavation in soft and
hard rock has also been given.
Table 8.2: Unit Cost for Trench Excavations for Sewer Lines
Unit Rate (Kshs)
Pipe Diameter (mm) Depth Not Exceeding
1.0m 2.0m 3.0m 4.0m 5.0m 6.0m
225 243 365 609 937 1205 1473
300 278 417 696 1071 1377 1683
375 313 469 782 1205 1549 1894
450 348 522 869 1339 1721 2104
525 383 574 956 1473 1894 2314
600 417 626 1043 1607 2066 2525
675 452 678 1130 1741 2238 2735
750 487 730 1217 1874 2410 2946
825 522 782 1304 2008 2582 3156
900 556 835 1391 2142 2754 3366
Hard rock – Kshs. 3200/= per cubic metre
Soft rock – Kshs. 1800/= per cubic metre
Figure 8.1 below shows variations of unit costs for sewer trench excavation for various diameters
of sewers.
4000
3500
900mm
3000 825mm
Cost (Kshs/m)
750mm
2500
675mm
2000 600mm
525mm
1500
450mm
1000
375mm
300mm
500
225mm
0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Maximum Depth (m)
Figure 8.1: Unit cost for sewer excavation with Depth

Unit costs considered in the development of rate for Manholes or for any Pumping Station
forming part of the Sewer Network are given in Tables 8.3 to 8.9 on Page 8-4 to Page 8-5.

Table 8.3: Unit Cost for Earthworks

Item Description Unit Rate (Kshs)
Mass Excavation
1) Excavate to spoil m3 297
2) Excavate and fill m3 320
3
3) Excavate in soft rock (E.O) m 1800
4) excavate in hard rock (E.O) m3 3200
5) Imported fill m3 450
Table 8.4: Unit Cost for Concrete and Mortar
Design Mix Unit Rate (Kshs)
1. Grade 25 (1:1.5:3) m3 19,965
2. Grade 20 (1:2:4) m3 15,255
3
3. Grade 15 (1:3:6) m 13,965
4. Blinding, 75mm m2 1,050
Table 8.5: Unit Cost for Formwork
Item Unit Rate (Kshs)
2
1. Wrought Formwork m 1,750
2. Rough Formwork m2 1,200
Table 8.6: Unit Cost for Steel Reinforcement
1. Mild Steel 12mm dia. and less kg 125
2. Mild Steel 16mm dia. and less kg 125
3. High Tensile Steel 12mm dia. and less kg 125
4. High Tensile Steel 16mm dia. and over kg 125
5. B.R.C Type A142 (2.22 kg/m2) m2 750
Table 8.7: Unit Cost for Masonry and Block Walling
Block Walling (Metric)
90mm Blocks m2 1,940
Table 8.8: Unit Cost for Miscellaneous
1. Staff Houses (High Grade) m2 28,000
2. Staff Houses (Medium Grade) m2 24,000
3. Staff Houses (Low Grade) m2 22,000
4. Main Electricity Supply Line km 1,600,000

5. Chain link fencing on Concrete Poles

m 3,250
(1.8m high)
6. Metal Gate (4.0m wide) Nr 92,000
7. Access Road including side drain and
footpath (5.5m wide bitumen standard, km 60,000,000
kerns, channels, etc.)
8. -Ditto- (double seal) km 45,000,000
Table 8.9: Unit Cost for Electro-Mechanical Works
Cost of Electro-Mechanical Works
Treatment Technology
as a % of Total Construction Cost
1. Waste Stabilization Ponds 5
2. Biofilters / Trickling Filters 20
3. Activated Sludge 35
4. Long Sea Outfalls 10
5. Activated Sludge 30
8.2.3.1 Pumping Stations
Pumping stations comprise of the three main components of urban schemes; (a) Civil Works (b)
Electrical Works (c) Mechanical Components i.e. pumps, valves, etc.
The size of the pumping station depends on the designed flows and head and the type and
specification of the pumps and motors to be installed.
For preliminary cost estimates, the unit cost of pumping stations has been based on contractor’s
rates of recent projects. Where possible, quotations obtained from renown suppliers have been
used.
8.3 Unit Costs for Operation and Maintenance
8.3.1 General
The cost of Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of each viable alternative scheme is a very
important factor in the selection of the recommended alternative. The component of the
Operation and Maintenance costs includes:
1. Equipment maintenance and repairs e.g., pumps, motors, etc.
2. Power / Electricity charges,
3. Staff wages and salaries,
4. Cost of Chemicals.
8.3.2 Equipment Maintenance and Repairs

The cost of equipment maintenance and repairs can be estimated as a percentage of the initial
capital costs. In the development of this Wastewater Master Plan, it is assumed that annual
maintenance cost is 1% of the capital cost for Civil Works components and 5% of the capital cost
for the Electro-mechanical Works components.
8.3.3 Power Charges
The cost of power consumed has been calculated using unit cost rate of Kshs. 18 per kilo watt-
hour (kWh).
8.3.4 Chemical Costs
Where applicable, the cost of chemicals such as chlorine to be used at the Wastewater Treatment
Plant has been calculated as a percentage of the overall operation and maintenance cost.

8.4 Capital and Operations & Maintenance Costs of the Alternative Schemes
8.4.1 Capital Costs
The Capital Costs of the three Alternative Schemes formulated for Mombasa West Mainland have
been worked out on the following basis;
a) Project Implementation planned to be carried out in two phases i.e. Medium-Term Plan
(2020 -2025) and Long-Term Plan (2026 - 2040)
 Wastewater Treatment Plant – 95%
 Pumping Station – 60%
 Sewers – 100%
A summary of the Capital Costs of the Alternative Schemes is given in Table 8.10 below;
Table 8.10: Capital Costs of the Alternative Schemes
1 Land Acquisition (Kshs) 30,000,000 1,226,731,860
2 Civil Works (Kshs) 7,121,603,056 7,214,060,417
2.1 5,355,968,760 5,827,319,231
Plant (Kshs)
2.3 Sewers (Kshs) 1,650,073,162 1,281,534,075
Electro-Mechanical Works
3 358,933,849 376,839,086
(Kshs)
3.1 281,893,093 306,701,012
Plant (Kshs)
Total Capital Cost (Kshs) 7,510,536,905 8,817,631,362
Total Capital Cost (USD) [1] 72,917,834 85,608,071
8.4.2 Operations and Maintenance Costs

The Operations and Maintenance Costs of the three Alternative Schemes formulated have been
worked out on the following basis;
a) Electricity Costs at the Pumping Stations has been assumed to increase annually at 4.6%
p.a. (same as population) due to increased sewage flow from the increased connections
b) Annual Maintenance Costs of the Schemes have been calculated as the sum of 1% of the
Costs of the Civil Works and 5% of the Electro-Mechanical Works
works planned for every intermediate 5 years between the replacement schedule
A summary of the Annual Operations & Maintenance Costs of the Alternative Schemes in the first
year of operation is given in Table 8.11 on Page 8-7;

Table 8.11: Annual Operations & Maintenance Costs of the Alternative Schemes (Year 1)
Maintenance Costs
1 89,161,677 90,982,558
(Kshs)
2 Electricity Costs (Kshs) 64,208,669 69,851,008
3 Staff Costs (Kshs) 15,465,773 20,105,505
Total O&M Cost (Kshs) 168,836,118 180,939,071
Total O&M Cost (USD) [1] 1,639,186 1,756,690
[1]
– Exchange Rate: 1 USD = 103 Kshs
8.5 Average Incremental costs of the Alternative Schemes
Net Present Value (NPV) is a one of the commonly used criteria for comparing economic viability
of projects / Schemes. When the unit NPV of a scheme is derived for the unit of performance
indicator, incremental cost (marginal cost) is obtained.
The Net Present Values of the Alternative Schemes have been worked out on the following basis;
 Discount Rate / Cost of Capital – 5%
 Economic Life of Scheme – 30 years
 10 Years Asset Renewal Period for the Electro-Mechanical components
 Substantial completion of the scheme expected at the end of the 2nd year of
Implementation of the Medium-Term Plan Works (2022) and thus, scheme operation to
commence in the 3rd year (2023)
From the respective NPVs, Average Incremental Costs have been calculated in consideration of
the following factors;
 Treated Wastewater to increase from 5,700 m³/d in year 2023 to 12,200 m³/d in year
2040
 BOD removal as the key performance indicator (kg/year)
 Average Influent BOD5 of 500 mg/l and Effluent BOD5 of 30 mg/l; thus, BOD5 removal of
470 mg/l
Average Incremental Cost of BOD removal within the economic life of the Infrastructure is an
alternative measure of economic viability.
The Net Present Values and the Average Increment Costs of BOD removal of the Alternative
Schemes are given in Table 8.12 below;
Table 8.12: Net Present Values and Average Incremental Cost of BOD Removal
Average Incremental Cost of BOD
Alternative Scheme NPV (USD)
Removal (USD / ton of BOD removed)
Alt Scheme 1 97,565,573 1,021
Alt Scheme 2 111,122,132 1,163
8.6 Sensitivity Analysis

To ascertain the susceptibility of the ranking of the Alternative Schemes based on the Net Present
Values, sensitivity analyses of the Schemes has been carried out by varying the Capital
Expenditures (CAPEX) and Operation Expenditures (OPEX).
A summary of the Sensitivity Analysis is given in Table 8.13 on Page 8-8;

Table 8.13: Summary of Sensitivity Analysis of the Alternative Schemes

NPV (USD)
Alternative No Variation Change in CAPEX (Capital Change in OPEX (Operations
Scheme in CAPEX & Expenditures) Expenditures)
OPEX -20% +20% -20% +20%
Alt Scheme 1 97,565,573 81,387,027 113,744,119 91,627,832 103,503,313
Alt Scheme 2 111,122,132 94,689,812 127,554,453 104,516,143 117,968,176

9.0 MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS AND REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES

9.1 Introduction to the Adopted Criteria
Selection of an appropriate Wastewater Treatment Train and Wastewater Management Scheme
is an important stage in the design of Wastewater Collection and Treatment System. Multi
Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) techniques are generally enabled to structure the problem
clearly and systematically for the decision makers’ to easily examine and scale the problem in
accordance with the priorities identified.
This chapter presents an application of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) for the selection
of the most suitable Wastewater Treatment Train and Wastewater Management Scheme for the
prevailing conditions in Mombasa West Mainland.
The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), has been adopted to perform the Multi Criteria Analysis
because it permits objective focused discussion of the stakeholders’ concerns. AHP is a system
analysis technique introduced by Professor T.L.A.
Saaty of the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
9.1.1 Methodology of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Traditionally the selection of the optimum treatment train or scheme from a number of
alternatives is carried out by comparing objectively economical and technical parameters such as
Capital Costs, Net Present Values, Dynamic Costs and Technical Considerations of the treatment
train /schemes.
To carry out multi-criteria analysis in the development of Mombasa West Mainland Wastewater
Master Plan, the economic, technical and environmental parameters of interest have been
categorized for ease of comparison. These categories include Ease of Operation and
Maintenance, Net Present Value, Environmental Impacts, Land Requirement and Institutional
Strength.
AHP is a mathematical process which acts as a tool to simplify the various complex issues through
a pairwise comparison of parameters and provides a rationale for ranking parameters thus
prompting consensus on the selected alternative. The mathematical process is based on deriving
weights for a set of parameters per importance.
A summary of the major steps in carrying out Multi Criteria Analysis by AHP Model is given below.
Step 1
A parameter matrix ‘B’ is constructed by the pairwise comparison of the relative importance of
the parameter with respect to the principle objective of selecting the optimum alternative
Wastewater Treatment Train.
The scale for the pairwise comparisons is given in Table 9.1 on Page 9-2.
Step 2
A n x n decision matrix is constructed for each of the parameters. In the construction of each of
the decision variable matrices, pairwise comparisons are carried out between the decision
variables with respect to the parameter under consideration.

Table 9.1: Scale for Pairwise Comparison

Intensity of
Relative Definitions Explanation
Importance
Two activities contribute equally to the
1 Equal importance
objective
Moderate importance of one over Experience and judgement slightly favour
3
another one activity over the other
Experience and judgement strongly favoured
5 Essential or strong importance
one activity over another
An activity strongly favoured and its
7 Demonstrated importance
dominance is demonstrated in practice
The evidence favouring one activity over
9 Extreme importance another is of the highest possible order of
affirmation
Intermediate values between the two
2,4,6,8 When compromise is needed
adjacent judgements
Reciprocals If any activity has one of the above
of above numbers (e.g. 3) compared with a
non-zero second activity, the second activity has
numbers the reciprocal value (i.e. 1/3) when
compared to the first
Step 3
The priority vectors x1, x2, ...x4 for the decision variable matrices are calculated. The priority
vectors are taken as the column to form a composite matrix ‘C’ such that
𝐶 = (𝑥1 𝑥2 … … 𝑥4 )
The composite priority vector xc is obtained by multiplying the composite matrix C by the priority
vector xb of the parameter matrix i.e xc = c * xb.
From xc, the relative weights of the decision variables i.e. Alternative Wastewater Treatment
Train is obtained. The optimum alternative is the one with the highest weight.
9.2 Wastewater Treatment Train Selection
9.2.1 Objective Description
The principal objective of this study is to select the ‘most suitable wastewater treatment train for
Mombasa West Mainland. This is the core consideration in the formulation of the parameters
used in AHP.
9.2.2 Parameters
To meet the principal objective, several parameters (subordinate objectives) have been
formulated which must be fulfilled. These parameters are identified in the subsequent
subsections with their influence on the Treatment Train selection and their characteristics briefly
discussed.
9.2.2.1 Simplicity of Operations and Maintenance
This parameter defines the relationship between the level of operation and maintenance skills
required and the capability of the local labour pool and service industry.

This factor is very important in consideration of the constraints in the availability of trained
manpower, availability of spare parts and the need to prioritise the use of limited financial
resources.
Decision variables that can be sustained with the use of affordable and locally available skills have
been given higher weights.
9.2.2.2 Net Present Value (NPV)
This is an indicative parameter of the total monetary outlay required by a treatment train. It
incorporates the Capital Costs and Operations & Maintenance Costs of the Project. A 20 year
period has been used in the determination of NPV.
Using the scale for pairwise comparison of decision variables the treatment train with the lowest
NPV is assigned the highest weight.
9.2.2.3 Environmental Impact
In the selection of the most suitable treatment train, it is important to analyse the effect on the
environment. The degree of odour and noise from the treatment train should not exceed the
nuisance threshold. This is achieved by such means including provision of a buffer zone planted
with trees.
Lower weight is assigned to the treatment trains with greater negative impact.
9.2.2.4 Land Requirement
The Land requirement for the treatment train should include allowance for provision of future
expansions works has been put into consideration under this parameter. Land requirement
should also include a buffer zone between the location of the treatment train and adjacent lands.
A wastewater treatment train with the less land requirement have been given higher weight using
the subjective scale of weighting.
9.2.2.5 Institutional Strength
The capacity of the utility provider such as manpower, requisite skill of staff, operation &
maintenance equipment etc. should correspond to the treatment train adopted for efficient daily
running of the treatment facility.
Alternatives which require a lower degree of management effort are weighted higher.
9.2.3 Alternative Wastewater Treatment Trains
Alternatives treatment trains considered in the AHP are listed below:
 Alternative 1 - Waste Stabilization Ponds
 Alternative 2 - Composite Biofilters (Trickling Filters) System (Anaerobic Ponds +
Trickling Filters + Maturation Ponds)
 Alternative 3 - Oxidation Ditch System and Chlorination
 Alternative 4 - Long Sea Outfall

9.2.4 Hierarchy Decision Model

The model of AHP developed in the Multi-Criteria Analysis is shown in Figure 9.1 below.
Principal Subordinate Alternative

Objective Objectives Wastewater Treatment
Trains
Simplicity of Operations Alternative 1 - Waste

and Maintenance Stabilization Ponds
Net Present Value Alternative 2 -

Composite Biofilters
system
Most Suitable Environmental Impact
Wastewater

Treatment Train Alternative 3 -
Oxidation Ditches and
Land Requirement Chlorination System
Institutional Strength Alternative 4 - Long Sea

Outfall
Figure 9.1: Hierarchy Decision Model used in the AHP

9.2.5 Parameter Matrix and Weighting
In accordance with the methodology, a pairwise comparison has been made on the parameters
by addressing the question; “Which parameter /subordinate objective contribute more to the
principal objective?”
The subordinate objectives which by cognizance pose greater importance have been assigned
higher scales in the Intensity of Relative Importance. A summary of the resulting matrix of the
Parameters is given in Table 9.2 below.
Table 9.2: Resultant Matrix of Parameters’ Pairwise Comparison
Simplicity of
Net Present Environmental Land Institutional
operation and
Value Impacts Requirement Strength
Maintenance
Simplicity of
Operation and 1 1 1/3 1/4 1/2
Maintenance
Net Present Value 1 1 1/3 1/3 1/2
Environmental
3 3 1 1/2 1
Impacts
Land
4 3 2 1 1
Requirement
Institutional
2 2 1 1 1
Strength

To illustrate the interpretation of the scales of Intensity of Relative Importance, the weights of
Simplicity of Operation and Maintenance against other parameters have been analyzed and
summarized in Table 9.3 below.
Table 9.3: Analysis of Simplicity of Operation & Maintenance Weights against other Parameters
Pairwise Comparison Weighting Explanation
Simplicity of Operation and
1 Equal Importance
Maintenance against NPV
Simplicity of Operation and Environmental Impacts is moderately more
Maintenance against 1/3 important Simplicity of Operation and
Environmental Impacts Maintenance
Simplicity of Operation and Simplicity of Operation and Maintenance is
Maintenance against Land 1/4 moderately more important than Land
Requirement Requirement
Simplicity of Operation and Simplicity of Operation and Maintenance is
Maintenance against 1/2 moderately more important than Institutional
Institutional Strength Strength
A priority vector analyses the comparative weights of all the parameters for ranking purposes. A
summary of the priority vectors and ranking for the parameters is given in Table 9.4 below.
Table 9.4: A summary of the Priority Vectors for Parameter Matrix
Decision variable Priority Vector % Best Ranking %
Simplicity of Operation and Maintenance 0.092 9% 5
Net Present Value 0.097 10% 4
Environmental Impacts 0.238 24% 2
Land Requirements 0.340 34% 1
Institutional Strength 0.233 23% 3
From Table 9.4 above, it can be deduced that Environmental Impact is the most significant
parameter in the selection of the most suitable wastewater treatment train. Simplicity of
Operation & Maintenance and Net Present Values also have pronounced significance.
However, Land Requirement has least influence in the selection of most suitable treatment train.
Table 9.5 below gives a summary of the parameters’ strengths against the alternative wastewater
treatment trains.
Table 9.5: Summary of Parameter Weighting against Alternative Wastewater Treatment Trains
Simplicity of Net
Environmental Land Institutional
Operations and Present
Impacts Requirement Strength
Maintenance Value
Waste Stabilization
Good Excellent Excellent Poor Good
Ponds
Composite
Fair Good Fair Fair Fair
Biofilters
Oxidation Ditches Excellent Fair Good Good Excellent
Long Sea Outfall Fair Poor Fair Excellent Fair
Based on these strengths, decision variable matrices for each of the five parameters have been
prepared.

The decision matrices for the significant parameters of Environmental Impact, Simplicity of
Operations & Maintenance and Net Present Value are given in Tables 9.6 to 9.8 below.
Detailed decision matrices for all the parameters is given in Volume 2: Master Plan Annexes –
Chapter 9.
Table 9.6: Decision Variable Matrix based on Environmental Impact
Waste Stabilization Composite Oxidation Ditches Long Sea
Ponds Biofilters with Chlorination Outfall
Waste Stabilization Ponds 1 3 2 3
Composite Biofilters 1/3 1 1/2 1
Oxidation Ditches with
Chlorination 1/2 2 1 1
Long Sea Outfall 1/3 1 1 1
Table 9.7: Decision Variable Matrix based on Simplicity of Operation & Maintenance
Waste Stabilization Ponds 1 4 1/3 2
Composite Biofilters 1/4 1 1/4 1/3
3 4 1 2
Chlorination
Long Sea Outfall 1/2 3 1/2 1
Table 9.8: Decision Variable Matrix based on Net Present Value

Waste Stabilization Ponds 1 2 2 5
Composite Biofilters 1/2 1 1 3
1/2 1 1 3
Chlorination
Long Sea Outfall 1/5 1/3 1/3 1
9.2.6 Ranking of Alternatives Wastewater Treatment Trains

The composite matrices derived from decision variables when multiplied with the corresponding
priority vectors result to weighted totals of the alternatives under consideration. A summary of
the weighted totals for the alternative wastewater treatment trains is given in Table 9.9 below.
Table 9.9: Weighted Totals for the alternative wastewater treatment trains
Simplicity of
Net
Operations Environmental Land Institutional Weighted
Present Rank
and Impacts Requirement Strength Total
Value
Maintenance
Waste
Stabilization 0.486 0.548 0.456 0.052 0.410 0.244 3
Ponds
Composite
0.11 0.23 0.26 0.09 0.13 0.113 4
Biofilters
Oxidation
Ditches with 0.108 0.136 0.141 0.192 0.085 0.335 1
Chlorination
Long Sea Outfall 0.30 0.08 0.14 0.66 0.37 0.308 2

9.2.7 Recommendation for Wastewater Treatment Train

From the Multi-Criteria Analysis, it has been found out that Land Requirements, Environmental
Impacts and Institutional Strength are the main determinants in the selection of wastewater
treatment train.
On this basis, Oxidation Ditches System is the most suitable wastewater treatment train and is
recommended for Mombasa West Mainland Wastewater Management Scheme.
9.3 Site Identification and Selection
An ideal site for a Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is one with the minimal environmental
effects and associated with low capital costs and operation & maintenance requirements.
Several parameters describe the requirements of such ideal WWTP sites and a systematic and
unbiased analysis is necessary for an objective and robust site selection.
9.3.1 Criteria for Site Selection
Parameters considered in the site selection for WWTP in Mombasa West Mainland are briefly
described below;
9.3.1.1 Land-Use
9.3.1.2 Distance of Effluent Discharge Point
The distance from the WWTP site to the final receiving environment such as the river and ocean,
is an important consideration in site selection. Preference is given to the sites that require shorter
lengths of Outfall Sewers.
9.3.1.3 Topography of the Sewered Area
An ideal WWTP site should be located on a low-lying area of the sewerage system for gravity
conveyance. Otherwise, pumping stations become necessary thereby increasing both capital cost
and the operation and maintenance requirements of the sewerage system.
9.3.1.4 Topography of Site
The slope at an ideal site should permit the gravity flow within the WWTP without requiring
excessive excavations for the structures. Slopes less than 1:20 are preferred.
9.3.1.5 Geological Conditions
A site with low water table and whose soils are impermeable is considered ideal with respect to
geological considerations. For instance, silt or clay soils are suitable for pond construction.
More often, the geological formation within a Town is fairly similar. For instance, all the candidate
sites in Mombasa West Mainland comprise of a mixture of well drained, deep, dark red to reddish
brown, friable, sandy clay loam to sandy clay, with top soil of loamy sand and well drained, very
deep, yellowish red, very friable, fine sandy loam to fine sandy clay loam. These soils are suitable
for WWTP (Waste Stabilization Ponds) construction.
9.3.1.6 Existing Infrastructure
Proximity to infrastructural systems such as roads, electricity and portable water is sought for
while siting for a WWTP location. It reduces cost of construction and operation & maintenance
requirements of the WWTP. Sites that are closer to existing infrastructure are preferred.
9.3.1.7 Potential for reuse of treated wastewater
instance, downstream arable land would make a WWTP site ideal for agricultural irrigation.
9.3.1.8 Land Acquisition
In this criterion, preference is given to sites owned by government agencies such as Ministries,
County Governments, etc. This ensures that the project affected persons are kept to a minimal
and reduces the cost of resettlement and compensation.
9.3.2 Candidate Sites
Two WWTP sites have been analysed and selected for the construction of WWTPs for Mombasa
West Mainland. A brief description of these sites is given below;
9.3.2.1 Kipevu Site
This is a conventional sewerage treatment plant located on the mainland to the West of
Mombasa Island within Kenya Oil Refineries Limited area and Kenya Pipeline Cooperation. The
plant can be accessed from Mombasa to Nairobi A109 Highway at the Airport round about
using Changamwe road, Magongo or Port Reitz roads. The Plant was commissioned in 2003
and was constructed by Kenyan Government though the support of funds from Saudi Fund.
9.3.2.2 Miritini Site
The Site is located within Miritini Sub-Location. It is located within residential area and is
owned by individuals. The plot is currently vacant.
9.3.3 Evaluation of Candidate Sites
The above sites have been evaluated based on the listed criteria to determine the suitability
ranking. A summary of the evaluation is given in Table 9.10 below.
Table 9.10: Evaluation of Candidate Wastewater Treatment Plant Sites
Distance of
Effluent Topography Potential for Project
Topography Geological Existing
Land use Discharge of Sewered Wastewater Affected
of Site Conditions Infrastructure
Point from Area reuse Persons
the WWTP
Kipevu Site        
Miritini Site      ×  ×
Multicriteria Analysis of the candidate sites has been incorporated in the analysis of the
Alternative Schemes in the subsequent section.
9.4 Wastewater Management Scheme Selection Analysis
9.4.1 Objective Description
The principal objective of this study is to select the most suitable wastewater management
scheme for Mombasa West Mainland.
9.4.2 Parameters
To meet the principal objective, several parameters (subordinate objectives) must be fulfilled.
These are listed below with brief description of their influence and characteristics.
9.4.2.1 Simplicity of Operations and Maintenance
This parameter defines the relationship between the level of operation and maintenance skills
required and the capability of the local labour pool and service industry. It is an important
parameter in consideration of constraints in the availability of trained manpower and spare parts
and the need to prioritise the use of limited financial resources.

Decision variables that can be sustained by affordable and locally available skills have been given
higher weights.
9.4.2.2 Net Present Value (NPV)
This is an indication of the total monetary outlay for scheme incorporating the capital cost and
operation and maintenance requirements. A 20 year-period has been used for NPV calculation.
Using the scale for pairwise comparison, a decision variable with lower NPV has been assigned a
higher weight.
9.4.2.3 Environmental Impact

Environmental impact of the scheme is important in the selection of the most suitable
wastewater management scheme. The degree of odour and noise should not exceed nuisance
threshold.
Lower weights are assigned to schemes with greater negative environmental impact.
9.4.2.4 Potential for Wastewater Reuse

instance, downstream arable land would give a scheme a higher ranking with respect to
agricultural irrigation.
9.4.2.5 Land Acquisition
In this criterion, preference is given to schemes whose land requirements lie on sites owned by
government agencies such as Ministries, County Governments, etc. This ensures that the project
affected persons are kept to a minimal and reduces the cost of resettlement and compensation.
9.4.2.6 Land use
These have been considered in the selection of the wastewater management scheme.
9.4.3 Alternative Wastewater Management Schemes
Four alternatives Wastewater Management Schemes formulated for Mombasa West Mainland
are summarized in Table 9.11 below:
Table 9.11: Alternative Wastewater Management Schemes
Alternative Description
Scheme
Centralized Scheme with 1 Nr. Wastewater Treatment Works at Kipevu (ultimate capacity
Alternative 1 44,300 m³/d), comprising of Oxidation Ditches and Chlorination System & 9 Nr. Pumping
Stations
De-centralized Scheme with 1 Nr. Wastewater Treatment Plants at Kipevu comprising of

Alternative 2 Oxidation Ditches (ultimate capacity 35,600 m³/d) and Mikindani Site comprising of
Waste Stabiliztion Ponds (ultimate capacity 8,700m³/d) 8 Nr. Pumping Stations
9.4.4 Parameter Matrix and Weighting

In accordance with the methodology, a pairwise comparison has been made on the parameters
by addressing the question; “Which parameter /subordinate objective contribute more to the
principal objective?”

The subordinate objectives which by cognizance pose greater importance have been assigned
higher scales in the Intensity of Relative Importance.
A summary of the resulting matrix of the Parameters is given in Table 9.12 below.
Table 9.12: Resultant Matrix of Parameters’ Pairwise Comparison
Simplicity of Net Potential for

Environmental Land Land
operation and Present Wastewater
Impacts Acquisition Use
Maintenance Value Reuse
Simplicity of
operation and 1 2 1/2 3 1/2 2
Maintenance
Net Present
1/2 1 1/2 3 1/2 3
Value
Environmental
2 2 1 4 2 3
Impacts
Potential for
Wastewater 1/3 1/3 1/4 1 1/4 1/3
Reuse
Land
2 2 1/2 4 1 2
Acquisition
Land Use 1/2 1/3 1/3 3 1/2 1
To illustrate the interpretation of the scales of Intensity of Relative Importance, the weights of
Simplicity of Operation and Maintenance against other parameters have been analyzed and
summarized in Table 9.13 below.
Table 9.13: Analysis of Simplicity of Operation & Maintenance Weights against other
parameters
Pairwise Comparison Weighting Explanation

Simplicity of Operation and Simplicity of Operation and Maintenance is slightly more
2
Maintenance against NPV important NPV
Environmental Impacts is slightly more important Simplicity
Maintenance against 1/2
of Operation and Maintenance
Environmental Impacts
Simplicity of Operation and Maintenance is moderately
Maintenance against Potential 3
more important than Potential for Reuse
for Reuse
Land Acquisition is slightly more important than Simplicity
Maintenance against Land 1/2
of Operation and Maintenance
Acquisition
Simplicity of Operation and Simplicity of Operation and Maintenance is moderately
2
Maintenance against Land Use more important than Land Use
A priority vector analyses the comparative weights of all the parameters for ranking purposes. A
summary of the priority vectors and ranking for the parameters is given in Table 9.14 on Page 9-
11.

Table 9.14: A summary of the priority vectors for Parameter Matrix

Decision variable Priority Vector % Best Ranking %
Simplicity of Operation and Maintenance 0.175 17.50% 3
Net Present Value 0.153 15.30% 4
Environmental Impacts 0.301 30.10% 1
Potential for Reuse 0.050 5.00% 6
Land Acquisition 0.227 22.70% 2
Land Use 0.094 9.40% 5
From Table 9.14 above, it can be deduced that Environmental Impact is the most significant
parameter in the selection of the most suitable Wastewater Management Scheme. Land
Acquisition, Simplicity of Operation & Maintenance and Net Present Value also have pronounced
significance.
However, Potential for Treated Wastewater Reuse and Land Use Pattern have the least influence
in the selection of most suitable Wastewater Management Scheme.
Table 9.15 below gives a summary of the parameters’ strengths against the alternative schemes.
Table 9.15: Summary of Parameter Weighting against alternative schemes
Simplicity of
Net
Operations Environmental Potential Land Land
Present
and Impacts for Reuse Acquisition Use
Value
Maintenance
Centralized Scheme
with 1Nr Oxidation Good Good Poor Good Good Good
Ditch System
Decentralized Scheme
with 1 Nr Oxidation
Fair Poor Fair Fair Fair Fair
Ditches & 1Nr WSP
System
Based on these strengths, decision variable matrices for each of the five parameters have been
prepared.
The decision matrices for the significant parameters of Environmental Impact, Land Acquisition,
Simplicity of Operations & Maintenance and Net Present Value are given in Tables 9.16 below
and Table 9.17 to 9.19 on Page 9-12.
Detailed decision matrices for all the parameters is given in Volume 2: Master Plan Annexes –
Chapter 9.
Table 9.16: Decision Variable Matrix based on Environmental Impact
Centralized Scheme with 1 Nr Decentralized Scheme with 1 Nr

Oxidation Ditches System Oxidation Ditches & 1Nr WSP System
Centralized Scheme with 1Nr Oxidation 1 1/2
Ditch System
Decentralized Scheme with 1 Nr 2 1
Oxidation Ditches & 1Nr WSP System

Table 9.17: Decision Variable Matrix based on Land Acquisition

Centralized Scheme with 1Nr Oxidation
1 2
Ditch System
Decentralized Scheme with 1 Nr
1/2 1
Table 9.18: Decision Variable Matrix based on Simplicity of Operations & Maintenance

1 2
Ditch System
1/2 1
Table 9.19: Decision Variable Matrix based on Net Present Value

1 3
Ditch System
1/3 1
9.4.5 Ranking of Alternatives Wastewater Treatment Trains
The composite matrices derived from decision variables when multiplied with the corresponding
priority vectors result to weighted totals of the alternatives under consideration. A summary of
the weighted totals for the alternative schemes is given in Table 9.20 below.
Table 9.20: Weighted Totals for the alternative schemes
Simplicity of
Net Potential
Operations Environmental Land Land Weighted
Present for Rank
and Impacts Acquisition Use Totals
Value Reuse
Maintenance
Centralized
Scheme with
0.67 0.75 0.33 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.58 1
1Nr Oxidation
Ditch System
Decentralized
Scheme with 1
Nr Oxidation 0.33 0.25 0.67 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.42 2
Ditches & 1Nr
WSP System
9.4.6 Recommendation for Wastewater Treatment Train
From the Multi-Criteria Analysis, it has been found out that Environmental Impacts, Land
Acquisition, Simplicity of Operations & Maintenance and Net Present Value are the main
determinants in the selection of Wastewater Management Scheme.
On this basis, a centralized Wastewater Treatment Plants at Kipevu Site comprising of
Oxidation Ditches and Chlorination/ De-Chlorination System is the most suitable Wastewater
Management Scheme and is recommended for the Mombasa West Mainland Sanitation
Strategy.

10.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF SELECTED STRATEGY

10.1 Introduction
Mombasa West Mainland currently lacks adequate water-borne sanitation system to safeguard
the health of its residents and the environment in general. The use of on-plot sanitation systems
is prevalent. Part of the West Mainland service areas presently have piped sewerage systems.
The sewerage system whose construction started in 1952 has been continually expanded until its
current coverage which is 40% of the developed Service Area. The sewerage system on West
Mainland is served by a Wastewater Treatment Plant located at Kipevu (17,000m3/day capacity),
adjacent to Kilindini Harbour. The areas covered by the sewerage system comprises of, Miritni,
Changamwe, Portreitz, Chaani and EPZ area.
Based on the TOR, a new sanitation system to supplement the existing System has been proposed
for Mombasa West Mainland i.e. Sewerage System and Wastewater Treatment Plant, to serve
for 20 years (2021 – 2040).
From the Multi-Criteria Analysis (See Chapter 9), the most suitable Wastewater Management
Scheme for Mombasa West Mainland comprises of a centralized Waste Water Treatment Plant
and a collection and conveyance system incorporating Trunk Sewers, Secondary Sewers and
Pumping Stations.
Oxidation Ditch and Chlorination / De-Chlorination System has been selected as the most
appropriate treatment technology at these proposed Waste Water Treatment Plants.
The main components of the proposed sanitation system include;
 Reticulation Sewerage Network within the service (study) area,
 Trunk Sewers conveying sewage to the New Wastewater Treatment Plant,
 Sewage Pumping Stations at localized low points along the Sewerage Network,
 Wastewater Treatment Plant (Oxidation Ditch with Chlorination System) comprising
of Inlet Works, Aeration Ditches, Clarifiers, Sludge Thickening Tanks, Sludge Return
Pumping Stations & Sludge Drying Beds,
 Administration Building with Laboratory and Store,
 Guard House and Grade 9 Staff Houses, and
 Associated Ancillary Works e.g. Access roads, water reticulation, drainage etc.
The proposed sanitation system has been proposed for implementation in phases for economic
considerations and optimal use. In general, the implementation of the proposed system
comprising of Sewerage System and Waste Water Treatment Plant will be carried out as follows;
a. Medium-Term Plan; Year 2021 - 2025,
b. Long-Term Plan; Year 2026 - 2040.
10.2 Sewerage System
10.2.1 Aerial Photographic surveys
To determine the alignment of the proposed Trunk and Secondary Sewers, a reconnaissance visit
was carried out along the potential sewer routes before conducting aerial photographic survey
and preparation of Preliminary Layout Plan of the sewer lines.
The aerial photographic survey covered the entire study area of West Mainland and generated
features including contours at 2m interval. Other data gathered during the Survey include the
locations of settlements, roads, surface water bodies and drains, telephone and power lines,
permanent structures etc. which are essential for the determination of sewer alignment.

10.2.2 Sewer Alignments

Proper design and construction of new sewers in a developed urban area such as Mombasa West
Mainland involves identification and overcoming of the unique challenges associated with
working in confined conditions.
While selecting the sewer alignment, preference has been given to positioning of main sewers
within the road reserves where adequate space for construction can be obtained with ease and
where minimum interference with Water Mains, Permanent Structures, Powerlines, etc. is
expected. These locations also permit ease of access for future connections and maintenance.
Minimum road crossings have been permitted along the proposed alignment at locations where
it is necessary and preferably on roads without bitumen surfaces. At the road crossing, extra
ground cover beyond the minimum requirement and concrete surround where required have
been provided for pipe protection.
In circumstances where illegal structures were identified along the proposed sewer alignment
and within the road reserves, provision for demolishing of such structures have been considered
and associated costs included in the Bills of Quantities.
Because of the need to share wayleave with other public utilities such as telephone and electricity
lines, communication cables, etc. it will be crucial to liaise with the relevant utility providers at
the commencement of the project to help in identification and relocation of affected utility line.
The Utility Providers shall also be required to provide details and locations of their utility network
within the Project Area to reduce accidental damages. Provisional items have been allowed in the
Bills of Quantities for any requisite works for relocation of the existing utilities.
10.2.3 Sewerage Network Analysis Model
The analysis of the proposed Sewerage Network for Mombasa West Mainland has been carried
out using a Hydraulic Network Model developed by the Consultant on a Microsoft Excel platform.
The benefit of adopting a simplistic and universally recognized platform such as Microsoft Excel
for the development of the Sewerage Network Analysis Model is the ease with which the analysis
can be carried out by manipulation of design parameters without compromising the reliability of
the output / results.
Microsoft Excel is a spreadsheet application that allows one to manipulate, manage and analyse
data thereby assisting in design by making use of the inbuilt tools and methodologies. The
advantages of Excel are wide and varied. The main advantages of this platform include:
 Easy availability and Familiarity; Ms Excel is part of Microsoft office which comes with
most Personal Computers. It is easily available and requires no purchase. It is easy to install
and can be run by most people owing to its familiarity of its commands. It is an all in
one programme and does not need the addition of analysis subsets or scripts.
 Powerful analysis of large amounts of data - Recent upgrades to the Excel spreadsheet
enhance analyse of large amounts of data. With powerful filtering, sorting and search tools
one can quickly and easily narrow down the criteria that will assist in the analysis. This is in
addition to the inbuilt formulas and other analysis tools available on Ms Excel.
Details of the Model is given in the subsequent sub-sections;
10.2.3.1 Model Structure / Mathematical Basis
This Hydraulic Network Model is a deterministic model. A deterministic model is one whose
outcomes are precisely determined through known relationships among states and events,
without any room for random variation. In deterministic models, a given input will always
produce the same output. In comparison, stochastic models use ranges of values for variables in
the form of probability distributions.
This Model has been prepared to design for critical parameters required for a sewer to convey
peak wastewater flow generated between sections (manholes) of the sewer profile by gravity
based on Manning’s equation and other known relationships as briefly described below. All the
quantities are entered in the indicated SI units.
 Manning Equation: It is widely used because of its simplicity. Although it is empirical, it
gives an answer that is within the accuracy required, given the uncertainties associated
with the flows generated (population, water consumption per person, etc.).
The formula is as follows:
R0.67 x S 0.5
V=( )
n
Where:
V = velocity of flow, (m/s)
n = pipe roughness coefficient
R = hydraulic radius, (m)
S = slope of the pipeline, (m/m)
 Discharge Formula: Discharge through the pipe is determined by the equation;
Q=VxA
Where:
Q = Discharge (m³/s)
A = Sectional area of flow (m²)
Other standard formulae such as for determining peak factors (See sub-section 5.1.4) and other
geometric formulae have also been incorporated in the Model.
The assumptions of this Model relate to the formulas on whose basis it is formulated. For
instance, it is assumed that the pipe roughness will remain constant for the entire lifespan of the
sewer and a fixed roughness co-efficient adopted. A conservative value for ‘n’ has been adopted
to take care of anticipated deterioration of the pipe smoothness.
The Model evaluates the adequacy of sewer diameter and slope for the peak flow while meeting
the requirements spelt out under the design criteria such as sewage flowing approximately half-
bore and resulting velocities within the permissible range.
A summary of the adopted design criteria for Mombasa West Mainland Sewerage System as
detailed in Section 6.1 is summarised in Table 10.1 below.
Table 10.1: Adopted Design Criteria
Description Adopted Criteria

Type of Sewerage System Separate System
Sewage Contribution 80% of the water supplied to consumers
Factor
Infiltration Infiltration Rate of 0.0025 l/s/ha
Splash Allowance 5% of the wastewater flows
Peak Flow Factor Based on Babbit and Harmon Formulas
Minimum Size of Sewer 200mm Diameter
Hydraulic Design Criteria Manning’s Equation with the following design parameters:
 Pipe roughness coefficient, n - 0.013
 Minimum velocity at peak flow - 0.75 m/s
 Minimum velocity in exceptional circumstances - 0.6 m/s
 Maximum velocity - 3.0 m/s
Depth of Sewers Depths range from 0.4m to 6.0m
Spacing of Manholes 60m maximum spacing between manholes
Pipe Materials  HDPE/ uPVC Pipes

 Socket and Spigot Concrete Pipes
 Steel Pipes with internal and external epoxy coating
10.2.3.2 Model Parameters / Input Data Requirements
The input data required by the Model are explained below and in the indicated units;
i. Manhole Details
The location and number of manholes for each sewer line are determined based on the
guidelines indicated in sub-section 6.1.7 – Manhole Spacing and Sizes.
Each manhole is assigned a reference number and the chainage worked out from the last
manhole. The manhole reference number, chainage and elevation are entered into the
Model to determine length of sewer section being designed and the average ground
slope.
ii. Population Equivalent (persons)
The population equivalent served by the sewer section is based on both the domestic
wastewater contribution as well as that generated by the land-use activities within
coverage area.
It has been assumed that the wastewater generated by one person is approximately 80
l/day.
iii. Wastewater flow (l/s)
This refers to the total wastewater flow generated within a given sewer section. It
depends on the number of connections on the sewer and the quantities discharged by
each premise/ connection.
The wastewater flow adopted in the sewerage analysis is based on the projections of
wastewater flows (See Section 5.2).
iv. Proposed Sewer Slope (m/m)
The contours generated within the Study Area from the Digital Terrain Model have been
used to generate sewer line profiles.
The slope of the sewers is determined by the natural ground slope and levels of adjoining
sewers. The sewer slope is modified in the Model accordingly to ensure the outputs meet
the adopted design criteria especially self-cleansing velocity.
v. Proposed Pipe Diameter (mm)
The model calculates the internal pipe diameter required for the flow of sewage at full
bore conditions between a sewer section. The resultant diameters are not standards sizes
and the designer is required to enter a standard pipe diameter of a larger dimension.
10.2.4 Model Output
This Model analyses the gravity conveyance of the indicated wastewater flow for the sewer
section at Peak Flow and Dry Weather Flow Conditions. The output is checked against the
adopted design criteria.
Some of the main output of this Model include;
i. Proportion of sewage flow to the full-bore capacity (Qp/Qfull),
Sewers are usually designed to flow half full or at worst at three-quarter depth for big
diameter pipes (diameter > 500mm). This is a critical output which determines the pipe
diameter selection at a given slope.
ii. Velocity of flow at full bore,

Velocity of flow in a sewer should not be less than 0.75 m/s to ensure attainment of self-
cleansing conditions. On the other hand, the velocity should not exceed 3 m/s to reduce
the abrasion effect of the contained solids.
Sewer Slope and diameter are adjusted accordingly to ensure velocity of sewage flow
within this range.
10.2.5 Model Reliability
As earlier stated, this is a deterministic model whose output for similar conditions is constant.
The formulas on whose basis it has been developed have been carefully entered and outputs run
for known conditions.
Manual calculation of the sample condition (known situation with details of pipe diameter, slope,
wastewater flow and the resulting velocities and fraction of sewage flow in the pipe) have been
carried out to test the correctness of the outputs given by the Model.
The Model produces more precise outputs owing to the ability of Microsoft Excel to carry out
computations to the highest accuracy possible.
10.2.6 Proposed Sewerage Network for Mombasa West Mainland
Sewerage Analysis Model indicates that the range of diameter for the Sewers in Mombasa West
Mainland is 225 – 525 mm. The large diameter sewers are for the Trunk Sewers while the small
diameter of 225 mm is used for the secondary sewers.
A Layout Plan of the proposed Sewerage Network for Mombasa West Mainland is given in Figure
10.1 on Page 10-6.

Figure 10.1: Detailed Layout of the Sewerage System – Mombasa West Mainland

10.2.7 Phased Investment Schedule for Sewerage Network

The Proposed Wastewater Management Strategy for Mombasa West Mainland entails
construction of new Waste Water Treatment Plants and Sewerage System comprising of
Pumping Stations, Trunk and Secondary Sewers.
The Sewerage Network proposed for Mombasa West Mainland Study Area has been studied with
the aim of developing a Phased Investment Schedule.
The criteria adopted in the formulation of the implementation phases for the Sewerage System
includes;
 Core Commercial Zone of Mombasa West Mainland i.e. Central Business District,
 Population Densities – High Density and Medium Density Residential Zones, and
 Land-Use Plan – Water Intensive Activities i.e. Industrial Zones
The two implementation phases formulated for Mombasa West Mainland are described below;
10.2.7.1 Phase 1 (2021 – 2025) – Medium Term Plan
The Sewerage system classified under Phase 1 comprises of the following;
 Trunk Sewer connecting the core service area to the proposed Waste Water Treatment
Plant Site,
 Secondary Sewers serving the core Central Business District (core Commercial Zones),
 Secondary Sewers serving Residential Zones with High Density and Medium Density
Housing situated near the core CDB of West Mainland or adjacent to the WWTP, and
 Secondary Sewers serving Industrial Zones and other Water Intensive Land-Use Zones
situated near the core CDB of West Mainland or adjacent to the WWTP.
Summary of the Phase 1 Sewerage components is given in Table 10.2 below.
Table 10.2: Schedule of Sewerage System - Phase 1 Mombasa West Mainland
Sewer Line
S/No Dia (mm) Length (m) Pipe Material
Reference No.
1 Trunk Sewer -TS 1 300 781 Concrete S&S
2 -Ditto- 225 1083 Concrete S&S
3 Pumping Main -1 200 240 Steel Pipe
9 -Ditto- 400 448 Steel Pipe
10 -Ditto- 500 984 Steel Pipe
10.2.7.2 Phase 2 (2026 – 2040) – Long Term Plan
The other parts of the Mombasa West Mainland Service Area with Low Density Housing or lacking
Water Intensive Land-Use activities (Industrial or Commercial Zones) but are earmarked for
future utilization by these activities / settlements have been proposed for Sewerage
Implementation in the latter phases i.e. under Long-Medium Term Plan
Summary of the Phase 2 Sewerage components is given in Table 10.3 below.
Table 10.3: Schedule of Sewerage System - Phase 2
S/No Sewer Line Reference No. Dia (mm) Length (m) Pipe Material
1 Trunk Sewer -TS 3 375 2,200 Concrete S&S
2 Secondary Sewers 225 22,000 uPVC
A Layout Plan of the proposed Sewerage Network for Mombasa West Mainland showing each of
the Sewerage Implementation Phases is given in Figure 10.2 on Page 10-9.
Detailed calculation sheets for the proposed Trunk Sewers based on the Sewerage Network
Analysis Model is given in Volume 2: Master Plan Annexes – Chapter 10.
Layout Plans and Longitudinal Sections (Profiles) of the Trunk Sewers are given in Volume 2:
Master Plan Annexes – Chapter 10.

Figure 10.2: Layout Plan of the Phased Implementation of Sewerage System for the Study Area

10.3 Pumping Stations

10.3.1 Siting of Pumping Stations
The pumping stations for the Sewerage System for Mombasa West Mainland have been
necessitated by low-lying points along the sewage conveyance routes. Some proposed stations
lie close to residential properties and as such mitigation measures have been incorporated to
ensure minimum hazard to public health and environment, especially during periods of electrical
or mechanical failures.
A provision has been made at each proposed pumping station to have a screened overflow pipe,
for use only during emergencies leading from a high point in the pumping station well to an
adjacent ditch or stream.
10.3.2 Pumping Station Details
Two types of Pumping Stations have been proposed for the Sewerage System of Mombasa West
Mainland, namely;
 Screw Pump Stations (1Nr), and
 Dry Well Station type (8Nr) with separate Sewage Sump for temporary storage of
conveyed sewage.
Screw Pump Station have been adopted in circumstance where lifting of sewage is required
within heads less than 10m and where topography of the Sewerage alignment permits
construction of such station. Where Screw Pumps have been found to be unsuitable owing to
topography or high boosting head requirement, Dry Well Station has been adopted. This type of
pumping station has been adopted for the ease of operation and maintenance of the pumps.
In the Dry Well Station Type, the Sewage Sump is to be housed in the sub-structure of the
Pumping Station while the Vertical Centrifugal Pump(s) and Motor(s) are to rest on the Super-
structure including the control panels and the other associated equipment.
Each pumping station has been provided with a Preliminary Treatment Unit comprising of Screens
and Grit Removal Structure. In addition, emergency overflow for use during pump failure has
been incorporated from the Sewage Sump. A stand-by generator has also been provided in each
Pumping Station.
It is proposed that the construction of Pumping Station be carried out in one phase i.e. with floor
area adequate to house the ultimate number of pump-sets and multiple sumps required for the
ultimate flows. The pump and motor plinths are to be constructed in the initial phase to allow for
the installation of the additional pumps at later phases.
10.3.3 Pump Configurations
The pumping capacity for each pump-set of Vertical Centrifugal Pumps has been designed
compatible with the peak flows in the specific sewerage section. The percentage of stand-by unit
in the proposed Pumping Stations vary depending on the economic analysis of the pump
configuration. However, the reduction of the stand-by unit provision for the pumps in each
Pumping Station at any implementation phase has been limited to 33%.
10.3.4 Schedule of Pumping Stations
In addition to the 4Nr Existing Pumping Stations which are planned for Replacement and
Rehabilitation under the Immediate Urgent Works, the proposed Pumping Station for the
Sewerage System have been designed based on the adopted criteria explained in sub-sections
6.2.1 to 6.2.4.
Table 10.4 on Page 10-11 gives summary of details of the Proposed Pumping Stations in
Mombasa West Mainland respectively.

Table 10.4: Summary of Details of the Sewage Pumping Stations

Implementation
Details of Each Pump
Pumping Phase
Pumping Station Pump
Station Design Pumping Power
Ref. No. Type 2021 – 2026 -
Type Flow, Q Head, H Requirement,
2025 2040
(m³/h) (m) P (kW)
P1 Dry Well Centrifugal 104 57 23  
Mikindani
Dry Well Centrifugal 1080 31 130  
Pumping Station
Miritini Screw
Screw Screw 512 4 7  
Pump
Port Reitz
Pumping Station
Miritini Pumping
Station
Figures 10.3 and 10.4 on Pages 10-12 and 10-13 show the Layout Plan and Sections of a screw
Pump Station and Layout Plan and Section of a Centrifugal Pump Station respectively.
Figures 10.2 on Pages 10-9 shows the Location Plan of the proposed Pumping Stations in the
Sewerage System.
Detailed Calculation Sheets for the Pumping Station Components including Sump and Pump are
given in Volume 2: Master Plan Annexes – Chapter 10.

Figure 10.3: Typical Layout Plan and Sections of a Screw Pumping Station

Figure 10.4: Typical Layout Plan and Sections of a Centrifugal Pumping Station

10.4 Wastewater Treatment Plants

10.4.1 Treatment Technology Selection
A summary of the comparison of the various locally available treatment technologies have been
presented on Table 6.4 on Page 6-17 to establish the context of comparison of the available
technologies and to re-affirm the conclusions reached.
Reference to the technology comparison in Table 6.4 shows that the advantages of using Waste
Stabilization Ponds (WSPs) in Kenya over other technologies are so significant that they cannot
be ignored. However, in the view of the limited land available at Kipevu site, the use of Waste
Stabilization is not feasible.
Alternative suitable treatment technology for use at Kipevu is activated sludge treatment option.
Oxidation Ditch System, the main treatment technology in the existing WWTP, has been
selected with a provision for Chlorination / De-chlorination System for pathogen reduction
(final polishing). Oxidation ditch is a modified activated sludge biological treatment process that
utilizes long solid retention times (SRTs) to remove biodegradable organics. They are typically
complete mix systems, but they can be modified to approach pug flow conditions.
The main advantage of the Oxidation Ditch system is the ability to achieve removal performance
objectives with low operational requirements and operation and maintenance costs. Some
specific advantages of Oxidation Ditches include:
 An added measure of reliability and performance over other biological processes owing to
a constant water level and eliminates the periodic effluent surge common to other
biological processes
 Long hydraulic retention time and complete mixing minimizing the impact of shock load or
hydraulic surges
 Produce less sludge than other biological treatment process owing to the extended
biological activity during the activated sludge process
 Energy efficient operations result in reduced energy costs compared with other biological
treatment processes
The main handicap of Oxidation Ditch is the relatively high effluent suspended solid
concentrations which requires further sedimentation units such as secondary clarifiers and
Sludge Thickening Tanks.
10.4.2 Treatment Plant Location
A centralized Waste Water Treatment Plant is proposed for West Mainland at the site of the
Existing Waste Water Treatment Plant in Kipevu (569830 m E, 9553759 m N). The location of the
Wastewater Treatment Plant is shown on Figures 10.1 and 10.2 on Page 10-6 and 10-9
respectively.
This site has been evaluated considering the existing Waste Water Treatment facilities on it and
based on a check-list for site selection prepared in consideration of the pertinent physical,
environmental and economic factors including the ease with which the wastewater generated in
West Mainland can be conveyed to the sites by minimal pumping, limited land availability in the
study area and the safe distance away from built-up areas. The land adjacent to the existing
Wastewater Treatment Plant at Kipevu where the additional units are proposed was earmarked
for expansion Works of the Waste Water Treatment Plant.
Based on the recommended treatment technology (Oxidation Ditch and Chlorination / De-
Chlorination System), ultimate projected wastewater flows based on the suppressed water
supply and projected build-up of sewer connections (Ultimate Design Capacity – 44,300 m³/d;
Refer to Subsection 5.2) and limited availability of land at the site, the land required for a
centralized WWTP at Kipevu site to serve the sanitation needs of the study area (West Mainland)
up to the ultimate horizon of year 2040, is approximately 11 Ha. The WWTP will include the
existing WWTP with an installed capacity of 17,000 m³/d and additional units to be constructed
under expansion Works with additional capacity of 27,300 m³/d.
The site is owned by the County Government of Mombasa and thus land acquisition is
unnecessary. It lies close to the shores of Port Reitz of the Indian Ocean and treated effluent can
be discharged directly to the ocean through a short length of outfall sewer.
This site slopes towards the ocean with sufficient slopes to permit an adequate hydraulic profile
through the units without incurring excessive earthworks.
Kipevu site is accessible via the access Road to the Kenya Ports at Kipevu off Mombasa – Nairobi
Highway (A109). The site also has services such as electricity and water.
10.4.3 Design Considerations
The design criteria and philosophy adopted in the design of the Oxidation Ditch has been based
mainly on the Publication and Standards by United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), EPA 832 -F-00-013, September 2000 and the Ministry of Water and Irrigation – Final
Practice Manual for Sewerage and Sanitation Services in Kenya, 2008.
General
Preliminary treatment such as bar screens and grit removal, normally precedes the oxidation
ditch. Primary settling prior to an oxidation ditch is sometimes practiced, but is not typical in this
design. Tertiary treatment may be required after clarification, depending on the effluent
requirements. Disinfection is required and reaeration may be necessary prior to the final
discharge. Flow to the oxidation ditch is aerated and mixed with return sludge from a secondary
clarifier.
Design Parameters
Screened wastewater enters the oxidation ditch, is aerated and circulated at about 0.25 to 0.35
m/s to maintain the solids in suspension (Metcalf & Eddy, 1991). The Return Activate Sludge (RAS)
recycle ratio is from 75% - 150% and the mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentration
ranges from 1,500 – 5,000 mg/L (Metcalf & Eddy, 1991). The oxygen transfer efficiency of the
oxidation ditches ranges from 1,500 – 2,100 g/kW/hr (Baker Process, 1999).
The design criteria are affected by the influent wastewater parameters and the required effluent
characteristics, including the requirements to achieve nitrification, denitrification, and/or
biological phosphorus removal. Specific design parameters for Oxidation Ditches include;
(i) Solids Retention Time (SRT):
Oxidation Ditch volume is sized based on the required SRT to meet effluent quality requirement.
The SRT is selected as a function of nitrification requirements and the minimum mixed liquor
temperature. Design SRT values vary from 4 to 48 or more days. Typical SRTs required for
nitrification range from 12 to 24 days.
(ii) BoD Loading
BoD loading varies from 160 mg/l to more than 40,000 mg/l. A BoD loading rate of 600 mg/l has
been adopted as the design loading rate. However, the BoD loading rate is not typically used to
determine whether nitrification occurs.

(iii) Hydraulic Retention Time

Although rarely used as a basis for Oxidation Ditch design, Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) within
the Oxidation Ditch should range from 6 - 18 hours for most Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Plants.
(iv) Shape and Mixing
The dimension of each independent mixed liquor Aeration Tank (Oxidation Ditch) or Return
Sludge Re-Aeration Tank should be such as to maintain effective mixing and utilization of air when
diffused air is used. Liquid depth should not be less than 3m or more than 10m except in special
design cases. For plug-flow conditions using very small tanks or tanks with special configuration,
the shape of the tank and/or the installation of aeration equipment should provide for
elimination of short-circuiting through the tank.
(v) Number of Units
Multiple tanks capable of independent operation may be required for operability and
maintenance reasons, depending on the activated sludge process, size of plant, and the reliability
of the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
(vi) Inlet and Outlet Controls
Inlets and Outlets for each Aeration Tank (Oxidation Ditch) in multiple tank system should be
suitably equipped with valves, gates, stop plates, weirs or other devices to permit control of flow
and to maintain reasonably constant liquid level. The hydraulic properties of the system should
permit the maximum instantaneous hydraulic load to be carried with any single aeration tank
unit out of service. And for hydraulics, provisions should be made to divide the flow even to all
Aeration Tanks in service and then recombine the flows and to divide the flow evenly to all
Secondary Clarifiers in service.
(vii) Freeboard and Foam Control
Aeration Tank should have a freeboard of at least 450mm. Freeboards of 600mm are desirable
with mechanical aerators.
Consideration should be given for foam control devices on the Aeration Tanks. Suitable spray
systems or other appropriate means will be provided.
Construction
Oxidation Ditches are commonly constructed using Reinforced Concrete, although other
materials such as butyl rubber, asphalt and clay have been used.
The adopted process design parameters for Oxidation Ditch system is given in Table 10.5 on Page
10-17.

Table 10.5: Details of Waste Water Treatment Plant – Year 2040

Design Parameter Unit Quantity
Aeration Ditches with Aerators
Number of Aeration Ditches No. 3
Dimensions of each Aeration Ditch m. 132 (Length) x 14 (Width)
Depth of each Aeration Ditch m 3
Free-board m 0.6
Solid Retention Period (SRT) days 12
Hydraulic Retention Period hrs 18
Final Settlement Tanks
Number of Settlement Tanks No. 3
Internal Diameter of each
m 28
Settlement Tank
Sidewall Depth m 2.5
0
Floor Angle 7.5
Retention Time hrs 2
M /m2/
3
Surface Loading 30
day
Sludge Thickening Tanks
Number of Sludge Thickening
No. 2
Tanks
Internal Diameter m 17
Sidewall Depth m 4
0
Floor Angle 7.5
The design of the aeration and other electro-mechanical equipment (including oxygen and mixing
requirements) shall be included in the Detailed Design
10.4.4 Wastewater Treatment Plant Details
The Oxidation Ditch system has been designed to serve the sanitation needs of Mombasa West
Mainland up to the ultimate design horizon of Year 2040, for the wastewater generation based
on realistic conditions of water supply and sewer connections and in consideration of the design
consideration described in sub-section 5.3 above.
Table 10.6 on Page 10-18 shows a summary of details of the Waste Water Treatment Plant
designed to serve the sanitation needs of up to Year 2040.

Table 10.6: Details of Additional Units at the Waste Water Treatment Plant: Long-Term Plan
Free-board m 0.6
0
Floor Angle 7.5
M3/m2/
Surface Loading 30
day
No. 2
Tanks
Sidewall Depth m 4
0
Floor Angle 7.5
The Site Layout Plan of the proposed Waste Water Treatment Plant is given in Figure 10.5 on
Page 10-19.
Detailed calculation sheets of the Waste Water Treatment Plants (Year 2040) are given in Volume
2: Master Plan Annexes – Chapter 10.

BUFFER ZONE
Figure 10.5: Site Layout Plan of the proposed Waste Water Treatment Plant
MIBP/ CES/BOSCH 10-19

10.5 Phased Investment Schedule for Waste Water Treatment Plant

Since the wastewater generated within the study area is expected to increase with the population
and more land-use utilization, it is prudent to phase the implementation of the Waste Water
Treatment Plant i.e. Medium-Term and Long-Term Plan.
10.5.1 Medium Term Plan (2021 – 2025)
From Figure 5.1 on Page 5-6, the projected wastewater flow for year 2025 is approximately
14,050 m³/d, based on realistic conditions of water supply and sewer connections.
Medium Term Plan include construction of a Chlorination /De-chlorination Facility (capacity
17,000 m3/day) and optimising the existing Kipevu Waste Water Treatment Plant to its installed
capacity of 17,000 m3/day to serve the sanitation needs of Mombasa West Mainland beyond
2025 (up to year 2027). The installed capacity of the existing WWTP (17,000 m3/day) is adequate
to provide an additional capacity during the implementation of the second phase (Long-Term
Plan; 2025 - 2040).
10.5.2 Long-Term Plan (2026 -2040)
The second phase of the implementation schedule involves construction of the additional units
to augment the existing Waste Water Treatment Plant to handle the increased ultimate
wastewater generation of year 2040 i.e. 27,300 m³/d, based on realistic conditions of water
supply and sewer connection.
Details of the additional Units to be constructed under the Long-Term Plan at the Waste Water
Treatment Plant is given in Table 10.7 below.
Table 10.7: Details of Additional Units at the Waste Water Treatment Plant: Long-Term Plan
Dimensions of each Aeration Ditch m. 132 (Length) x 14 (Width)
Free-board m 0.6
Internal Diameter of each
m 28
Settlement Tank
0
Floor Angle 7.5
M /m2/
3
Surface Loading 30
day
No. 2
Tanks
Internal Diameter m 17
Sidewall Depth m 4
0
Floor Angle 7.5

10.5.3 Implementation Costs for Phased Investment on Waste Water Treatment Plant
The estimated implementation costs for the Waste Water Treatment Plant to serve both the
Medium-Term (Year 2021 – 2025) and Long-Term (2026 – 2040) sanitation needs of Mombasa
West Mainland is summarised in Tables 10.8 and 10.9 below.
Table 10.8: Implementation Cost for Waste Water Treatment Plant: Medium-Term Plan
S/No. Components No. Cost (Kshs) Cost (US$)
Chlorination / De-chlorination
1 1
Facility 467,224,625 4,536,161
Sub-Total 1 467,224,625 4,536,161
Add 7.5% of Sub-Total 1 for Preliminary and General 35,041,847 340,212
Sub-Total 2 502,266,472 4,876,374
Add 10% of Sub-Total 2 for Physical Contingencies 50,226,647 487,637
Sub-Total 3 552,493,119 5,364,011
Add 10% of Sub-Total 3 for Price Contingencies 55,249.312 536,401
Sub-Total 4 607,742,431 5,900,412
Add 10% of Sub-Total 4 for Consultancy 60,774,243 590,041
GRAND TOTAL INCLUDING PRELIMINARY AND GENERAL,
668,516,674 6,490,453
CONTINGENCIES, DUTIES AND TAXES & CONSULTANCY FEES
Table 10.9: Implementation Cost for Additional Units at the Waste Water Treatment Plant:
Long-Term Plan
S/No. Components No. Cost (Kshs) Cost (US$)
1 Inlet Works 1 60,606,965 6,060,696
2 Aeration Ditches with Aerators 3 848,497,509 84,849,751
3 Final Settlement Tanks 3 515,159,202 51,515,920
4 Sludge Thickening Tanks 3 515,159,202 51,515,920
5 Electro-mechanical Works including
Item 1,030,318,404 103,031,840
pumps, aerator etc.
6 Chlorination / De-chlorination Facility 1 641,166,905 64,116,691
7 Staff Houses 2 4,500,000 450,000
8 Site and Ancillary Works Item 60,606,965 6,060,696
Sub-Total 1 3,676,015,152 367,601,514
Add 7.5% of Sub-Total 1 for Preliminary and General 275,701,136 27,570,114
Sub-Total 2 3,951,716,289 395,171,629
Add 10% of Sub-Total 2 for Physical Contingencies 395,171,629 39,517,163
Sub-Total 3 4,346,887,918 434,688,792
Add 10% of Sub-Total 3 for Price Contingencies 434,688,792 43,468,879
Sub-Total 4 4,781,576,710 478,157,671
Add 10% of Sub-Total 4 for Consultancy 478,157,671 47,815,767
GRAND TOTAL INCLUDING PRELIMINARY AND GENERAL,
5,259,734,381 525,973,438
CONTINGENCIES, DUTIES AND TAXES & CONSULTANCY FEES
Note: 1 US$ = 103 Kshs
10.6 Wastewater Reuse

10.6.1 Justification for Wastewater Reuse
The Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) for Mombasa West Mainland comprising of
Oxidation Ditch System (ultimate design capacity of 44,300 m3/day) is to be sited at the existing
WWTP site in Kipevu area.
Mombasa West Mainland where the Wastewater Treatment Plants are to be located has
suppressed water supply considering the population borne and urbanization being experienced.
Some of the water-uses does not require water of potable quality standards making the cost
incurred in treating water consumed by such uses unjustified. Besides, the implementation and
operation of the proposed Wastewater Management Scheme in the Master Plan involves
incurring of costs which would require further revenue collection to ease operation and give
additional returns for investment.
Water reuse from Wastewater Treatment Plants is recommended for potable and non-potable
applications if the water quality requirements are attained. It’s thus important to evaluate the
feasibility of reusing wastewater in Mombasa West Mainland.
10.6.2 Types of Wastewater Reuse Applications
The main wastewater reuse applications are described below;
10.6.2.1 Agricultural Reuse
The Coastal region of Kenya is an important agro-ecological zone and a water scarcity area. The
climatic conditions are of hot lowland humid tropics. The crops commonly cultivated in Mombasa
West Mainland include; Mangoes, Cashew nuts, Coconuts, Copra, Cotton, Vegetables, Citrus
Trees, Bananas, Macadamia Nuts, etc.
However, commercial farming is not viable mainly because of water scarcity, unproductive soils
and unfavourable terrains. With wastewater reuse and its associated nutrient benefits, it is
expected that increased productivity of agriculture can be realized.
10.6.2.2 Industrial Reuse
Industries accounts for a significant fraction of water use for a Water Supply Project. The exact
amount of industrial water use depends on the use, scale of industry and type of processing use
(whether water intensive or not).
For industries with water-intensive processes, suppressed water supply can limit the productivity
or increase operation costs if the target production is to be attained. Over the past few years,
industries have embraced wastewater reuse for purposes ranging from process water, boiler feed
water, cooling processes water, etc. Thus, reuse of treated wastewater is an alternative source
of non-potable industrial water applications.
10.6.2.3 Urban Reuse
A large percentage of public water supplied to premises constitute of non-potable water uses
which does not require the potable water requirements. To reduce the cost incurred in treating
bulk water for public supply, dual distribution systems comprising of separate pipes for potable
water and non-potable water have been utilized in some developed countries. This system
contributes to the conservation of limited water resources.
Wastewater treated by secondary processes and followed by sand filtration and disinfection is
commonly used for non-potable purposes such as car washing, garden watering, and firefighting.
These urban applications are not cost effective owing to the inherent high Capital Expenditures
(CAPEX) and Operation & Maintenance Expenditures (OPEX) which would translate to exorbitant
tariffs and consequently reduce the affordability of urban wastewater reuse.

10.6.2.4 Environmental Reuse

Environmental reuse includes natural/artificial streams augmentation, fountains, recreational
features, wetlands and ponds. With increased population and urbanization in Mombasa West
Mainland, green spaces which serve as natural conservancies and groundwater recharge points
are getting depleted. The drastic reduction in green spaces and conservancies has resulted in
reduced infiltration to recharge groundwater resources and increased flooding.
It is thus necessary to explore possibilities of environmental wastewater reuse for Mombasa West
Mainland.
Compared to conventional surface water storage, aquifer recharge has negligible evaporation,
little secondary contamination by animals, and no algal blooming. Aquifer recharge is also less
costly because no pipeline construction is required. In the Kenyan Coastal region, wastewater
reuse for aquifer recharge will protect groundwater from saltwater intrusion by barrier formation
A figure showing three common types of aquifer recharge is given in Figure 10.6 below.
Figure 10.6: Types of Aquifer Recharge

The aquifer recharge types are briefly explained below:
a) Recharge Basin
This requires a wide area with permeable soil, an unconfined aquifer with transmissivity, and
an unsaturated (or vadose) zone without restricting layers. With this system, the vadose zone
and aquifer work as natural filters and remove suspended solids, organic substances,
bacteria, viruses and other microorganisms. In addition, reduction of nitrogen, phosphorus
and heavy metals can also be achieved. This process is called soil-aquifer treatment.
b) Direct Injection
This recharge type can access deeper aquifers through an injection well. Direct injection is
utilized when aquifers are deep or separated from the surface by an impermeable layer. This
method requires less land than the recharge basin methods, but it costs more to construct
and maintain.
A well-wall is susceptible to clogging by suspended solids, biological activity or chemical
impurities. In this method, the soil aquifer treatment effect is not observed. The method

requires advanced pre-treatment of applied water, including sufficient disinfection. Without

treatment, the injected wastewater may pollute the aquifer.
c) Vadose Zone Injection
This is an emerging technology that provides some of the advantages of both recharge basins
and direct injection wells. It is used when a permeable layer is unavailable at a shallow depth,
and a recharge well has relatively large diameter.
Aquifer recharge is important in Mombasa West Mainland for the prevention of groundwater
level decline and preservation of the groundwater resource for future use.
10.6.3 Fit-for-Purpose
Based on the adopted wastewater treatment technology and level of treatment process
developed, the wastewater effluent characteristics will determine the type of reuse application
that is fit-for-purpose. While reuse of treated wastewater poses additional financial, technical
and institutional challenges, a range of treatment options are available such that any level of
water quality required by any reuse application can be achieved.
An illustration of how the level of water treatment affect the water quality is given in Figure 10.7
below.
Figure 10.7: Level of wastewater quality

To optimize wastewater reuse and cost reduction potential, appropriate technology and its
availability should be selected.
The types of reuse technology appropriate for increasing levels of wastewater treatment are
summarized in Table 10.10 on Page 10-25.

Table 10.10: Types of Reuse appropriate for Increasing Levels of Treatment

Increasing Levels of Treatment
Description Filtration and
Primary Secondary Advanced
Disinfection
Chemical coagulation,
Activated carbon, reverse
biological or chemical
Level of Biological oxidation and osmosis, advanced
Sedimentation nutrient removal,
Treatment disinfection oxidation processes, soil
filtration, and
aquifer treatment, etc.
disinfection
Surface irrigation of Landscape and golf
orchards and vineyards course irrigation
Non-food crop
Toilet flushing
irrigation
Restricted landscape Indirect potable reuse
Vehicle washing including groundwater
impoundments
No Uses recharge of potable
End Use Groundwater recharge
Recommended Food crop irrigation aquifer and surface water
of non-potable aquifer reservoir augmentation
Wetlands, wildlife Unrestricted and potable reuse
habitat, stream recreational
augmentation impoundment
Industrial cooling
Industrial systems
processes
Human
Increasing Acceptable Levels of Human Exposure
Exposure
Cost Increasing Levels of Cost
The wastewater treatment technology selected for Mombasa West Mainland is the Oxidation
Ditches System. The Oxidation Ditches System comprises of the following functional units;
a. Inlet works
b. Oxidation Ditches
c. Final Settlement Tanks
d. Sludge Thickening Tanks
e. Sludge Drying Beds
f. Wash Water pumping station
g. Outfall sewer (For discharge to receiving environment)
These treatment processes are predominantly physio-biological and entails wastewater
treatment up to the secondary level.
Potential wastewater reuse for effluent treated up to secondary treatment level as shown in
Table 10.10 above include;
 Surface irrigation of orchards and vineyards
 Non-food crop irrigation
 Wetlands, wildlife habitat, stream augmentation
 Restricted landscape impoundments
 Groundwater recharge of non-potable aquifer
 Industrial cooling processes.
10.6.4 Selection of Wastewater Reuse Applications
In the selection of the reuse application, it is important to consider the Land-use Maps to guide
on the proposed activities and their land allocations. For financial considerations, only those land-

use activities which are within proximity to the Wastewater Treatment Plant are to be considered
for wastewater reuse.
A layout plan showing the proposed land use for Mombasa West Mainland is given in Figure 3.3
on Page 3-8.
Based on the proposed Land-Use Plan and the Level of Wastewater treatment proposed at the
Wastewater Treatment Plant, only three main wastewater reuse applications can be considered
in Mombasa West Mainland, i.e., Agricultural, Industrial and Environmental.
Details of proposed area allocated for Agricultural, Industrial and Environmental land uses in the
year 2040 for Mombasa West Mainland are given in Table 10.11 below.
Table 10.11: Details of Land for Re-use Application (Year 2040).
Land Use Area Allocated (ha)
1. Agricultural 98
2. Industrial 1142
3. Environmental 814
4. Airport 352
Based on Table 10.11 above, the following conclusion can be drawn:
 Land-use allocated for agriculture is relatively small in Mombasa West Mainland and located
approximately 10 km from the WWTP in Kipevu. Therefore, due to high pumping and pipeline
construction cost, wastewater reuse for agricultural will be uneconomical in Mombasa West
Mainland.
 Industrial production is the predominant economic basket for Mombasa West Mainland.
Based on the 2040 Land Use Map, industries have been allocated the largest Land Use areas
compared to agricultural and environmental Land Uses. The existing and proposed areas for
Industrial Zones are evenly distributed in West Mainland. Therefore, wastewater reuse for
industrial purposes will be highly economical considering the benefits accrued by augmenting
potable water sources. On the contrary, high concentration of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in
treated wastewater from the Oxidation Ditches Systems might render the wastewater
effluent unfit for industrial cooling reuse applications based on the possibilities of scale
formation and associated blockage effects on the conveyance conduits. However, industries
will be advised on the suitable tertiary treatment required to improve the wastewater
effluent quality before use.
 The total area allocated for environmental purposes is considerably greater than that
allocated for agriculture. Recycling treated wastewater to rehabilitate and maintain
environmental/conservation areas can improve the Green Space in Mombasa West
Mainland.
 Moi International Airport covers 352 ha in Mombasa West Mainland. The airport, which falls
under Commercial Land use, is located within the Industrial zone. Therefore, treated
wastewater conveyed for industrial purposes can also be supplied to the airport to augment
their potable water demand.
In conclusion, Industrial application is the most suitable for wastewater reuse considering the
benefits accrued by augmenting the potable water supply in Mombasa West Mainland.
The volumetric water requirement for Industrial wastewater reuse will be evaluated from
Industrial Water demand in Mombasa West Mainland.
The following criterion was adopted for the industrial water demand based on commonly
accepted demand criteria: -
 Intensive industrial activity - 25,000 l/day/ha
 Small scale industrial activity - 600 l/day/ha

The airport will be considered as a small scale industrial activity.

Hence, the industrial water demand will be determined as follows;
Intensive Industrial water demand = 25000 l/ha/day x 10-3 x 1142 ha
= 28,550 m3/day
Small Scale Industrial water demand = 600 l/ha/day x 10-3 x 352 ha
= 211 m3/day
Total Industrial water demand = (28,550 + 211) m3/day
= 28,761 m3/day
= Approx. 28,800 m3/day
To establish the net industrial water demand, the following assumptions have been made;
a. 40% of Industries within the proposed area for Industrial wastewater reuse will adopt
this technology. This can be achieved if aggressive public education and awareness
campaigns are conducted on proper handling of the wastewater.
b. Only 80% of the treated wastewater will be available for Industrial reuse in consideration
of the losses due to evaporation, seepage and transmission losses
Thus, Net Water Available for Industrial reuse = 28,800 m3/day x 0.4
= 11,520 m3/day
Gross treated wastewater to be pumped from Kipevu WWTP before transmission losses;
11,520 𝑚³/𝑑𝑎𝑦
=
0.8
= 14,400 m3/day (Pumping Capacity)

Storage Reservoir Capacity
The storage reservoir for treated wastewater will be an open lined pond of depth, 1.5 m. Due to
Land acquisition and resettlement constraints, the storage reservoir will be sized for a quarter
day storage (6 hrs).
Therefore, the storage capacity of the reservoir will be given by;
Storage capacity = 11,520 m3/day x 0.25
= 2,880 m3/day
2,880 𝑚³/𝑑𝑎𝑦
Surface area of the Reservoir =
1.5 𝑥 10,000
= 0.19 ha (Approx. 0.2 ha)

The surface area of the reservoir will be factored by 2.0 for provision of space for Ancillary works.
Thus, Total surface area = 0.2 ha x 2
= 0.4 ha
A layout plan showing the proposed Industrial wastewater reuse area is shown in Figure 10.8 on
Page 10-28.
10.6.5 Conveyance and Storage System of wastewater for Reuse
To cover the potential area earmarked for Industrial re-use, the treated water will be conveyed
from the WWTP site at an elevation of 6 m asl to a Storage Facility at an elevation of 67 m asl by
pumping means. The distance between these points is approximately 7.2 km.
The Conveyance and Storage system shall comprise of the following components;

a) Pumping Station at the WWTP

 Pump Discharge – 1,200 m3/hr
 Pumping Head - 86 m
 Power requirement - 402 kW.
b) Rising Main
 Pipe Material - Steel pipe
 Diameter – 600 mm
 Length – 7.2 Km.
c) Lined Storage Pond;
 1.5-m deep well compacted Earth Pond lined with
Precast Concrete Slabs (Capacity 2,880 m3)
 Proposed site; co-ordinates 565828 m E, 9558018 m S
 Land requirement – 0.4 ha
d) Overflow Sewer & Manholes
 To connect Lined Pond to the Tudor Creek.
 Pipe Details - 750-mm diameter concrete pipe
 Length - approximately 0.3 Km
A layout plan showing the Conveyance and Storage system is shown on Figure 10.8 on Page 10-
29.

Figure 10.8: Layout Plan of the Conveyance and Storage System for Industrial Wastewater Reuse – Mombasa West Mainland

10.6.6 Implementation Costs for the Industrial Wastewater Reuse Scheme

10.6.6.1 Capital Cost
The Capital Costs for the Industrial Reuse Schemes formulated for Mombasa West Mainland have
been worked out on the following basis;
a) Project Implementation to be carried out within the 2040 design horizon
 Pumping station – 60%
 Rising main – 100%
 Lined Pond (Reuse water reservoir) – 100%
A summary of the Capital Costs for the Industrial Wastewater Reuse Scheme is given in Table
10.12 below.
Table 10.12: Capital Cost for Industrial Wastewater Reuse Scheme
S/No. Component Cost, Kshs Cost, USD
1 Land Acquisition 2,970,000 28,835
2 Civil Works 366,628,570 3,557,632
2.1 Pumping Station 37,833,719 367,318
2.2 Rising Main 279,132,145 2,710,021
2.3 Overflow Sewer & Manholes 18,170,226 176,410
2.4 Storage Pond 31,300,000 303,884
3 Electro-Mechanical Works 25,222,480 244,878
3.1 Pumping Stations 25,222,480 244,878
Total Capital Cost 394,628,570 3,831,345
10.6.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs
The Operation and Maintenance Costs for the Scheme have been worked out on the following
basis;
a) Electricity Costs at the Pumping Stations assumed to increase annually with increase
sewer connections (same rate as population growth rate)
b) Annual Maintenance Costs of the Schemes calculated as the sum of 1% of the Costs of
the Civil Works and 5% of the Electro-Mechanical Works
works planned for every intermediate 5 years between the replacement schedule.
A summary of the Annual Operations & Maintenance Costs for the Scheme in the first year of
operation is given in Table 10.13.
Table 10.13: Annual Operations & Maintenance Costs
S/No. Component Cost, Kshs Cost, USD [1]
1 Maintenance Costs 6,294,834 61,115
2 Electricity Costs 13,014,466 126,354
3 Staff Costs 960,000 9,320
Total O & M Cost 20,269,300 196,789
[1]
– 1 USD = 103 Kshs

10.6.6.3 Net Present Value

Net Present Value (NPV) is one of the commonly used criteria for comparing economic viability of
projects/Schemes. When the unit NPV of a scheme is derived for the unit of performance
indicator, incremental cost (marginal cost) is obtained.
The Net Present Values of the Scheme has been worked out on the following basis;
a) Discount Rate/Cost of Capital – 5%
b) Economic Life of Scheme – 20 years
c) 10 Years Assent Renewal Period for the Electro-Mechanical components
d) Substantial completion of the scheme expected at the end of the 2nd year of
implementation of the Medium-Term Plan Works (2023) and thus, scheme operation to
commence in the 3rd year (2024)
The Net Present Value for the Industrial Wastewater Reuse Scheme for Mombasa West Mainland
is Kshs. 720,556,682.
10.6.6.4 Additional Cost for Wastewater Reuse Scheme
Treated wastewater for reuse in Mombasa West Mainland will be conveyed to the Industrial reuse
site without any advanced tertiary treatment.
However, additional costs are to be incurred besides the costs of wastewater conveyance and
treatment.
This additional cost has been determined as follows;
 NPV of the Scheme for 20-year period = Ksh. 720,556,682
 Gross volume of reuse water pumped from the WWTP per day = 14,400 m³/d
 Gross volume of reuse wastewater conveyed during 20-year period = 105,120,000 m³
720,556,682
 Unit additional cost incurred during 20-year period = 105,120,000
= Ksh 6.85 per m³

Based on the information above, the additional Cost of Conveying and Storing wastewater for
Industrial reuse in Mombasa West Mainland is; Ksh 6.85 per m3.
10.6.6.5 Conclusion
The following conclusions are derived from the assessment of Wastewater Reuse in Mombasa
West Mainland;
a) Industrial is the most suitable wastewater reuse applications in Mombasa West Mainland
b) Additional cost for conveyance and storage of Industrial Wastewater Reuse is lower than
that of treating and conveying potable water as described below;
i. Additional unit cost for conveyance and storage of Industrial Wastewater Reuse
in Mombasa West Mainland is approximately Ksh. 6.85 per m3
ii. Unit cost of abstracting, treating and conveying potable water is Ksh. 13.62 per
m³ (Feasibility Study for Kapsoya Treatment Work – 2015).
c) Detailed studies/research should be carried out to address the following salient issues;
i. Tariffs for wastewater reuse;
 Affordability of Industrial Wastewater Reuse by farmers
 Cost of irrigation systems and conveyance to the Farms
ii. Establishment of reuse policy and qualitative guidelines
iii. Awareness and cultural acceptance on wastewater reuse through public outreach
and education programs.
iv. Development of Industrial Wastewater Reuse Management Plan which will
include system assessment, quality control and monitoring.
d) Institutional arrangement is vital among CWSB, MOWASCO, organized community
groups and private sector for the success of the Industrial Wastewater Reuse System.
11.0 FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FOR SELECTED DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

11.1 Background
This chapter provides results for financial, economic and social analysis for the investments
associated with the Mombasa West Mainland Wastewater Management Scheme (Project). The data
used in the financial analysis has been sourced from the various studies undertaken in the
development of this Master Plan and other relevant Reports.
11.1.1 Water and Sanitation Sector Organization Structure
11.1.1.1 Existing sector policies
Prior to 2002, the performance of the water and sanitation sector in Kenya faced various challenges.
Some of the key challenges include;
 lack of a comprehensive policy, institutional and legal framework
 centralized decision making
 lack of adequate financing mechanism
Water Sector reforms were initiated to overcome these challenges and their implementation started
in 2001. The reforms have been enforced through enactment of the Water Act 2002 which was done
in March 2003.
The Water Act 2002 separated water resources management and water services provision;
separated policy and regulation; and decentralized service provision with greater autonomy to the
water sector institutions. It gave rise to the institutions such as Water Services Boards (WSBs), Water
Service Providers (WSPs), Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA) and Water Services
Regulatory Board (WASREB).
The institutional set up under the Water Act 2002 is shown in the Figure 11.1 below:
Water Appeal
Board
WAB Water Services
Trust Fund
WSTF
Formulation
Policy
MWI
National level
MWRMD
45
Water Water
Resources Services
Management Regulatory
Regulation
Authority Board
WRMA WSRB
Catchment Areas Water
Regional
level
Advisory Services
Committees Boards
CAACs WSBs
Provision
Water Resources Water Services

Services
User Associations Providers

WRUAs WSPs
Local level
Water Resources Management Water and Sewerage Service

Consump-
tion, Use
Consumers, Users
* Details in new institutions flyer

Source: WSRS
Figure 11.1: Institutional Set-up of Water Act 2002

In this set-up, the relationship between WSB and WASREB is governed through a license issued by
WASREB while that between WSB and the WSPs is governed through a service provision agreement
in which targets are set for the WSPs.
In the New Constitution dispensation (CoK 2010), water and sanitation services are part of the
devolved functions of the 47 county governments. Thus, Water Act 2002 has been reviewed into a
new legislation, as Water Act 2016, to be in accordance to the new constitution. Under the New
Water Act 2016, Cabinet Secretary is empowered, in consultation with county governments to
provide a national water sector investment and financing plan aggregated from the county
government plans which shall provide details such as the time frames and the investment programs
for the Plans.
The Act also requires the Water Service Boards to be transformed into Waterworks Development
Agencies by notice in the Gazette by the Cabinet Secretary.
The powers and functions of the proposed Waterworks Development Agency include:
a) Undertaking the development, maintenance and management of the national public
water works within its area of jurisdiction;
b) operating the waterworks and provide water services as a water service provider, until
such a time as responsibility for the operation and management of the waterworks are
handed over to a county government, joint committee, authority of county governments
or water services provider within whose area of jurisdiction or supply the waterworks is
located;
c) providing reserve capacity for purposes of providing water services where pursuant to
section 103, the Regulatory Board orders the transfer of water services functions from a
defaulting water services provider to another licensee;
d) Providing technical services and capacity building to such county governments and water
services providers within its area as may be requested; and
e) Providing to the Cabinet Secretary technical support in the discharge of his or her
functions under the Constitution and this Act.
11.1.1.2 Status of Water and Sanitation Coverage
Kenya is a water stressed country with a low per capita annual freshwater endowment. Access to
water and sanitation is low because of limited water resources development and ageing/dilapidated
infrastructure. Access to water and sanitation falls below the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG)
targets of universal access. However, some parts of the Country have improved access than others.
Despite increased investments and improvements in levels of access in the last 5 years, the rapid
population increase, urbanization and economic growth strain the existing water resources and
infrastructure and hinder efforts towards achieving the sector SDGs. Furthermore, catchment
degradation has increased the country’s vulnerability to climate change with the high inter-annual
and intra-annual rainfall variability resulting in frequent and severe droughts and floods. Water
security is hence crucial to attainment of Vision 2030 aspirations and sustained economic
development.
11.1.1.3 Sector Strategies
After enactment of Water Act 2002, the Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI) developed strategic
objectives. These include:
i. Accelerating the implementation of water sector reforms
ii. Improving the sustainable management of water resources
iii. Improving the provision of water and sewerage services
iv. Improving utilization of land through irrigation and land reclamation
v. Strengthening institutions in the ministry and the water sector
vi. Mobilizing resources and promoting efficiency in their utilization
vii. Improving the management and access to water resources information

MWI also developed the Water Sector Strategic Plan (WSSP; 2010 – 2015) to ensure that water
resources are protected, harnessed and sustainably managed for all competing uses and Strategic
Plan (2013-2017) to increase access to clean, safe water and sanitation services.
In addition, the National Water Resources Management Strategy (NWRMS 2010-2016) aims to
increase the per capita water storage levels in Kenya from 5.3m3 to 25m3 by 2030.
11.1.1.4 Regulation
Among the sector institutions, WASREB is mandated to set rules and enforce standards that guide
the sector towards ensuring that consumers are protected and have access to adequate, efficient,
affordable and sustainable services. They undertake tariff reviews to ensure cost-recovery for
institutions to meet future demands. In efforts of promoting the commercialization of water service
delivery, they have permitted private operators to run the urban water utilities.
WRMA issues water permits to the WSBs and monitors their compliance.
11.1.1.5 Coast Water Services Board
The Coast Water Services Board (CWSB) was established through a Gazette Notice No. 1328 of 27th
February 2004 to undertake the mandate of WSB in the jurisdiction of the coastal area. CWSB has
contracted the Mombasa Water Company (MOWASCO), Kilifi-Mariakani Water Company
(KIMAWASCO), Kwale Water Company (KWAWASCO), Malindi Water Company (MAWASCO), Lamu
Water Company (LAWASCO), Taita-Taveta Voi Water Company (TAVEVO) and Tana Water and
Sanitation Company (TAWASCO) with the dedicated mandate of water services provision in their
respective areas.
The main responsibilities undertaken by CWSB include asset development and supervision of the
WSPs. In addition to these, CWSB is currently operating the Bulk Water System while awaiting
setting-up and operationalization of Bulk Water Company.
11.1.1.6 Mombasa Water and Sewerage Company Limited
Mombasa Water & Sewerage Company Ltd (MOWASCO) was established on 24th December 2004 as
a limited liability company. At present, the company is owned by the Mombasa County Government.
The mandate of the company is to provide cost effective and affordable quality water and sanitation
services in the area of jurisdiction. The Company’s mandate includes;
a) Provide quality and economical water and sanitation services to consumers
b) Billing for water and sanitation services and ensure timely collection of revenues
c) Routinely maintain water and sanitation services infrastructure (depending on size of pipe)
d) Ensure compliance with standards and licensing requirements set by CWSB (as stipulated by
Service Provision Agreement - SPA)
11.1.2 Tariffs
11.1.2.1 Introduction
Water Tariffs are identical for all the Water Service Providers under contract with CWSB. In cases
where the tariff has been increased, approval by WASREB is mandatory. WASREB can also mandate
WSB to formulate tariff adjustment.
In February 2010 water tariff adjustment was implemented. Where there is a sewer connection, a
surcharge of 75% of the relevant water tariff applies. Other charges associated with tariff include
meter rental, septic tank exhaust services etc.

11.1.2.2 Tariff Adjustments

It is the responsibility of the Water Service Boards (WSBs) and Water Service Providers (WSPs) to set
/ adjust tariffs in accordance with the costs of operation and maintenance. This is formulated in
consideration of the commercial orientations, transparent accounting, long term investment
programs, and social and equity aspects.
Tariff adjustments are crucial for full cost recovery of Projects and facilitation of long term
infrastructure requirements as envisaged in the vision 2030 e.g. target water and sewer connections.
The tariff adjustment proposed for the WSP should also meet the objectives of economic efficiency,
equity, fairness, resource conservation, ease of implementation and political acceptability.
There are three types of tariff adjustments, as described in the Tariff Guidelines:
(i) Regular Tariff Adjustments based on the WSP’s business plan
(ii) Extraordinary Tariff Adjustments when the cost structure undergoes significant changes
(iii) Automatic Tariff Adjustments every 12 months which might be part of a service provision
agreement with a WSP
In 2008, an Extraordinary Tariff Adjustment was granted to all WSPs as an interim measure to assist
them meet their operation and maintenance costs. Sewer Tariffs are part of the tariff adjustments
and is aimed at ensuring full cost recovery for sewerage projects. However, full cost recovery tariffs
result to higher sewer tariffs which make the service provision unaffordable for many households.
CWSB has proposed a tariff adjustment in 2017 to cater for the increase in operations costs and to
allow servicing of the loans used for implementing the infrastructure developments. A more
conservative approach would be to increase the sewerage tariff to the level of the water tariff.
The current and proposed tariffs are given in Table 11.1 below and Table 11.2 on Page 11-5.
Table 11.1: Current and Proposed water and sewerage Tariffs – MOWASCO
Current Tariff Proposed Tariffs
[2023 – 2025] [2026 – 2040]
Water Water Sewer
Consumption Consumption Water Tariff Sewer Tariff
Tariff Tariff Tariff
Block (m3) 3
Block (m ) Kshs/m3 Kshs/m3
Kshs/m3 Kshs/m3 Kshs/m3
Domestic/Residential
0-6 55 0-6 78.00 62.40 86.67 69.34
7-20 75 7-20 90.29 72.23 130.00 104.00
21-50 97.5 21-50 130.00 104.00 169.00 135.20
51-100 120 51-100 159.34 127.47 208.00 166.40
101-300 165 101-300 185.89 148.71 260.00 208.00
>300 220 >300 200.00 150 280.00 224.00
Commercial/Industrial/Government Institutions
0-6 55 0-50 75.00 56 83.34 66.67
7-20 75 85.00 64 122.38 97.91
21-50 97.5 105.00 79 136.50 109.20
51-100 120 51-100 140.00 105 182.75 146.20
101-300 165 101-200 180.00 135 251.76 201.41
>300 220 >200 200.00 150 280.00 224.00
Public Boarding Schools/Universities and Colleges
0-600 40 0-600 85.00 63.75 94.45 75.56
600-1200 50 600-1200 100.00 75 143.98 115.18
>1200 90 >1200 240.00 180 312.00 249.60
Community
35 150 112.5 195.81 156.65
Water Supply
Water Kiosks 35 35 26.25 48.95 39.16

Table 11.2: Other charges
Service Charge in Kshs

Connection fee ½ to 1 inch 2,500
Connection fee 1.5 inch to 3 inches 7,500
Connection fee above 3 inches 15,000
500.00 & double deposit for every default to a max of 2.5

Reconnection fee – normal
time the bill
5000 and double deposit or the cost of reconnection

Reconnection fee – at mains
whichever is higher
Illegal connection-Commercial,
30,000 and double deposit
Industry, Construction (Fraud)
Illegal connection (Fraud) – Domestic 15,000 and double deposit

2,500 per tanker supplied within the Mombasa West
Tanker – 8000 litres
Mainland
Replacement of stolen or damaged
100% of the market cost of the meter
meters
5,000 for other customers and 4,000 for informal

Exhauster services
settlements
11.1.3 Mombasa West Mainland Wastewater Management Scheme Development Costs

11.1.3.1 Capital Development cost
The implementation costs of the proposed Mombasa West Wastewater Management Scheme
include construction of sewerage system (sewers and pumping stations) and Wastewater Treatment
Works (ultimate capacity at year 2040 - 44,300 m³/d). A summary of the capital development cost of
the project is given in Table 11.3 below.
Table 11.3: Summary of Project Capital Development Costs
Medium term (2021 Long-term (2026 –
Component Total, Ksh
– 2025), Ksh 2040), Ksh
Land 30,000,000 - 30,000,000
Sewerage System 1,707,679,513 134,995,539 1,842,675,052
Waste Water Treatment Plant 635,854,457 5,002,007,396 5,637,861,853
Total 2,373,533,970 5,137,002,935 7,510,536,905
The above costs include Physical and Price Escalation Contingencies, Taxes and Duties and
Preliminary and General Items and Construction Supervision Fees. The total investment for the
project is Ksh. 7,510,536,905.
11.1.3.2 Operation and maintenance Costs
The Operations and Maintenance costs comprise of Salaries / Wages, Replacement costs, and
Electricity Charges. The Operation and Maintenance costs have been determined annually and
includes annual increase due to increased sewer connections.
11.1.3.3 Annual Project Expenditures
Considering the Capital and Operations / Maintenance Costs of the Project, a schedule of Annual
Project Expenditures has been formulated and is given in Table 11.4 on Page 11-6.

Table 11.4: Schedule of Annual Project Expenditures

2021 593,383,492 - 593,383,492
2022 593,383,492 46,022,311.08 639,405,804
2023 593,383,492 168,836,118.27 69,033,466.62 831,253,077
2024 593,383,492 169,713,893.71 92,044,622.15 855,142,008
2025 - 170,579,987.69 92,044,622.15 262,624,610
2026 513,700,294 175,732,140.13 104,812,068.24 794,244,502
2027 513,700,294 180,535,398.78 124,733,143.74 818,968,836
2028 513,700,294 185,052,299.51 144,654,219.24 843,406,812
2029 - 189,328,666.93 144,654,219.24 333,982,886
2030 770,550,440 193,399,269.18 174,535,832.49 1,138,485,542
2031 1,027,400,587 196,624,788.07 203,475,892.52 1,427,501,268
2032 1,284,250,734 199,740,985.01 242,376,490.31 1,726,368,209
2033 513,700,294 202,758,275.29 251,395,474.84 967,854,044
2034 - 205,685,518.47 240,493,383.87 446,178,902
2035 - 208,530,325.49 240,493,383.87 449,023,709
2036 - 211,299,291.95 238,208,922.40 449,508,214
2037 - 213,998,178.24 228,770,831.52 442,769,010
2038 - 216,632,050.47 219,332,740.63 435,964,791
2039 - 219,205,392.28 219,332,740.63 438,538,133
2040 - 221,722,194.50 205,175,604.31 426,897,799
2041 - 221,722,194.50 205,175,604.31 426,897,799
2042 - 221,722,194.50 205,175,604.31 426,897,799
2043 - 221,722,194.50 205,175,604.31 426,897,799
2044 - 221,722,194.50 205,175,604.31 426,897,799
2045 221,722,194.50 153,266,104.45 374,988,299
2046 221,722,194.50 153,266,104.45 374,988,299
11.2 Financial Analysis

11.2.1 Key Assumptions
The following assumptions have been made in the financial analysis:
 The project has an economic life of 30 years
 Two Phases of Implementation: Medium Term (2021 - 2025) and Long-Term (2026 - 2040)
 Project costs incurred based on a disbursement schedule (See Volume 2: Master Plan
Annexes – Chapter 11.);
 Cost of capital (discount factor) assumed to be 5 %
 Main source of revenue is sewer billings
 Sewer connections will increase with the water connections
 80% of water consumed is converted into wastewater
 Annual increase in Operations and Maintenance Costs throughout the project life
 Assumed Revenue collection efficiency of 90% throughout the period of analysis
 Annual population growth rate of 3.0% up to year 2040
 Average of 6 members per household
 About 60% of health expenditure in Mombasa County is due to waterborne diseases
 Health expenditure per capita per year assumed to be USD 13 (Ksh. 975).
 By year 2040, the Wastewater Treatment Plant will have treated a cumulative volume of
229,686,612 m3
 Tourists and Visitors to Mombasa will increase by 0.1% and result to increase in revenue due
to tourism by 0.1% of the current amount generated by tourist per annum.
 Investment comprises 82% civil works and 18% electromechanical.

 Depreciation is on straight line basis, with civil works having a useful life of 40 years and
electromechanical 10 years’ useful life.
11.2.2 Methodology for Financial Analysis
The financial analysis has been undertaken using project based financial model developed for
modelling the financial performance of a Sewerage Project. The Microsoft excel based model
incorporates all the important variables of financial performance and spans for a period of 26 years.
Its main components include: Investment Cost, Revenue Generated, Operating and Maintenance
Cost and other Economic Factors such as Projected Water Demand and Population.
The outputs for the model include the, Project Financial Statements and Financial Ratios /
Performance Indicators.
In determining the financial viability of the Mombasa West Mainland Wastewater Management
System the following activities were undertaken:
(i) identifying and quantifying the costs and revenues
(ii) calculating the project revenues
(iii) Estimating the average incremental financial cost, financial net present value and
financial internal rate of return (FIRR)
FIRR is the rate of return at which the present value of the stream of incremental net flows in financial
prices is zero. If the FIRR is equal to or greater than the financial opportunity cost of capital, the
project is considered financially viable. Thus, financial benefit-cost analysis covers the profitability
aspect of the project.
11.2.3 Project Revenues
The projects gross revenues are calculated as the total revenues from sewerage services less billings
not recovered while net incomes are calculated as the difference between gross revenues and costs
(capital development and O&M costs). A collection efficiency of 90% has been adopted in the
analysis.
A summary of the Project Revenues is shown in Table 11.5 below.
Table 11.5: Summary of Project Revenues
Year Revenue Generated, Kshs. Collection Efficiency Average Revenue, Kshs.
2023 460,050,906.24 90% 414,045,816
2024 460,050,906.24 90% 414,045,816
2025 529,072,996.43 90% 476,165,697
2026 529,072,996.43 90% 476,165,697
2027 766,111,799.38 90% 689,500,619
2028 766,111,799.38 90% 689,500,619
2029 766,111,799.38 90% 689,500,619
2030 1,387,967,728.04 90% 1,249,170,955
2031 1,387,967,728.04 90% 1,249,170,955
2032 1,387,967,728.04 90% 1,249,170,955
2033 1,387,967,728.04 90% 1,249,170,955
2034 1,387,967,728.04 90% 1,249,170,955
2035 1,387,967,728.04 90% 1,249,170,955
2036 1,387,967,728.04 90% 1,249,170,955
2037 1,387,967,728.04 90% 1,249,170,955
2038 1,387,967,728.04 90% 1,249,170,955
2039 1,387,967,728.04 90% 1,249,170,955
2040 2,414,926,596.07 90% 2,173,433,936
2041 2,414,926,596.07 90% 2,173,433,936
2042 2,414,926,596.07 90% 2,173,433,936
2043 2,414,926,596.07 90% 2,173,433,936
2044 2,414,926,596.07 90% 2,173,433,936
Year Revenue Generated, Kshs. Collection Efficiency Average Revenue, Kshs.

2045 2,414,926,596.07 90% 2,173,433,936
2046 2,414,926,596.07 90% 2,173,433,936
11.2.4 Project Financial Statement
The projected Income and expenditure statement for the project is summarized in Table 11.6 below.
Table 11.6: Projected Financial Statement of the Project
Project Income and expenditure Financial statement (Kshs.)
Total Project Billings Not Net Project Operations & Annual Total
Year Net Revenue
Revenue Recovered Revenue Maintenance Depreciation Expenditure
2023 460,050,906 46,005,091 414,045,816 168,836,118 69,033,467 237,869,598 176,176,218
2024 460,050,906 46,005,091 414,045,816 169,713,894 92,044,622 261,758,529 152,287,287
2025 529,072,996 52,907,300 476,165,697 170,579,988 92,044,622 262,624,623 213,541,073
2026 766,111,799 76,611,180 689,500,619 175,732,140 104,812,068 280,544,222 408,956,397
2027 766,111,799 76,611,180 689,500,619 180,535,399 124,733,144 305,268,557 384,232,063
2028 766,111,799 76,611,180 689,500,619 185,052,300 144,654,219 329,706,533 359,794,086
2029 766,111,799 76,611,180 689,500,619 189,328,667 144,654,219 333,982,901 355,517,718
2030 1,387,967,728 138,796,773 1,249,170,955 193,399,269 174,535,832 367,935,117 881,235,838
2031 1,387,967,728 138,796,773 1,249,170,955 196,624,788 203,475,893 400,100,696 849,070,259
2032 1,387,967,728 138,796,773 1,249,170,955 199,740,985 242,376,490 442,117,491 807,053,464
2033 1,387,967,728 138,796,773 1,249,170,955 202,758,275 251,395,475 454,153,767 795,017,189
2034 1,387,967,728 138,796,773 1,249,170,955 205,685,518 240,493,384 446,178,919 802,992,036
2035 1,387,967,728 138,796,773 1,249,170,955 208,530,325 240,493,384 449,023,727 800,147,229
2036 1,387,967,728 138,796,773 1,249,170,955 211,299,292 238,208,922 449,508,232 799,662,723
2037 1,387,967,728 138,796,773 1,249,170,955 213,998,178 228,770,832 442,769,028 806,401,927
2038 1,387,967,728 138,796,773 1,249,170,955 216,632,050 219,332,741 435,964,810 813,206,146
2039 1,387,967,728 138,796,773 1,249,170,955 219,205,392 219,332,741 438,538,152 810,632,803
2040 2,414,926,596 241,492,660 2,173,433,936 221,722,194 205,175,604 426,897,818 1,746,536,118
2041 2,414,926,596 241,492,660 2,173,433,936 221,722,194 186,299,423 408,021,637 1,765,412,299
2042 2,414,926,596 241,492,660 2,173,433,936 221,722,194 162,704,195 384,426,410 1,789,007,526
2043 2,414,926,596 241,492,660 2,173,433,936 221,722,194 153,266,104 374,988,320 1,798,445,616
2044 2,414,926,596 241,492,660 2,173,433,936 221,722,194 153,266,104 374,988,320 1,798,445,616
2045 2,414,926,596 241,492,660 2,173,433,936 221,722,194 153,266,104 374,988,321 1,798,445,615
2046 2,414,926,596 241,492,660 2,173,433,936 221,722,194 153,266,104 374,988,322 1,798,445,615
The Key outputs of the Financial Analysis Model include the Benefit Cost (BC) ratio and Discounted
Measures such as Net Present Value (NPV) and Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR). A summary
of these key outputs is described in the subsequent sub-sections while the detailed results for the
analysis are presented in Volume 2: Master Plan Annexes – Chapter 11.
11.2.5 Cost Benefit Analysis
The benefit cost (BC) ratio of the project was computed using the following formula:
BC Ratio = present value of the project revenues/ project investment cost
From the analysis, the BC ratio for the project is 1.96 with an assumed discounting rate of 5%.
However, at discounting rates of 8% and 12% the resulting BCs are 1.65 and 1.49. These BC ratios
are greater than 1 and indicate that the project is financially viable

11.2.6 The Net Present Value (NPV)

From the Financial Analysis, the NPV values for the project are Kshs. 6,251,034,284 at 5% cost of
capital and Kshs. 3,008,596,882 at 8% cost of capital. The positive NPVs suggest that the project is
financially viable at a cost of capital less than 12%.
11.2.7 Financial Internal Rate of Return
The Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR) for the project is 19.70% This FIRR is greater than the
assumed cost of capital of 5% and confirm project viability.
11.2.8 Sensitivity Analysis
The project’s financial ratios have been subjected to sensitivity analysis as follows:
Scenario 1: 20% shocks
 20% increase in investment cost;
 20 % decrease in revenues;
 20% increase in operation and maintenance costs.
Scenario 2: 10% shocks
 10% increase in investment cost;
 10 % decrease in revenues;
 10% increase in operation and maintenance costs
A summary of the Sensitivity Analysis is given in Table 11.7 below
Table 11.7: Summary of Sensitivity Analysis
Type of Variation NPV (KSHS) FIRR (%)
20 % shocks
Increasing the project cost by 20% 1,293,158,110 16%
Reducing the total net income by 20% 712,847,261 14%
Increasing O&M cost by 20% 1,350,529,867 17%
10 % shocks
Increasing the project cost by 10% 1,558,806,046 18%
Reducing net income by 10% 1,268,650,622 17%
Increasing O&M cost by 10% 1,598,262,928 18%
The results on Table 11.7 above show that the project’s viability is affected when subjected to
variations of 10% and of 20% in increase in project cost, reduction in net income and increase in
O&M cost.
11.2.9 Conclusion of Financial Analysis
The results of the cost-benefit analysis confirm that the project has favourable BC ratios of between
1.49 to 1.96. The financial analysis confirms that the project has positive NPV of Kshs. 6,251,034,284
at 5% cost of capital and Kshs. 3,008,596,882 at 8% cost of capital and Financial Internal Rates of
Return (FIRR) of 19.70 %. This confirms that the project is financially viable.
Sensitivity analyses also indicate that the project viability can withstand shocks of 10% and 20%
increase in O&M, net income and project costs.
11.3 Economic Analysis
11.3.1 General
This sub-section presents the economic analysis of the selected Wastewater Management Scheme
for Mombasa West Mainland. It is envisaged that the goal of the Project comprises of improved

health and living conditions, reduction of poverty, increased productivity and economic growth of
the Project Area.
The purpose of the economic analysis of projects is to inform a better allocation of scarce resources.
11.3.2 Methodology
The assessment is based on the analysis of the economic impacts and returns in the conventional
cost benefit approach i.e. the Capital and Operational and Maintenance Costs in economic terms
over the project life are compared to the Economic Benefits of increased Sanitation Services.
To assess the economic viability of the project, the following steps have been undertaken:
i. Costs and benefits were identified and quantified (in physical terms).
ii. Costs and benefits were valued to the extent feasible, in monetary terms; and
iii. Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) or Economic Net Present Value (NPV) discounted at
Economic Opportunity Cost of Capital (EOCC) of 5%, 10% and 12% by comparing benefits with
the costs
The EIRR is the rate of return for which the present value of the net benefit stream becomes zero, or
at which the present value of the benefit stream is equal to the present value of the cost stream. For
a project to be acceptable, the EIRR should be greater than the EOCC.
The weighted average cost of capital for the CWSB area is approximately 3%. The analysis has
adopted 5% as the minimum rate of return since the projects are assumed to have considerable non-
quantifiable benefits.
11.3.3 Key Assumptions
The assumptions considered under Financial Analysis applies for the Economic Analysis (Refer to Sub-
section 11.2.1).
11.3.4 Capital Development Cost
The capital development costs adopted in the economic analysis are summarized in Table 11.8
below:
Table 11.8: Schedule of Capital Development Costs
Distribution
Implementation Percentage of Sewerage Waste Water
of Land
Period Disbursement system Treatment plant
Investments
Medium Term
2021 25% 426,919,878 158,963,614 30,000,000

Investment
2022 25% 426,919,878 158,963,614 -

2023 25% 426,919,878 158,963,614 -
2024 25% 426,919,878 158,963,614 -
2026 10% 13,499,553 500,200,739 -
Long Term Investment
2027 10% 13,499,553 500,200,739 -

2028 10% 13,499,553 500,200,739 -
2030 15% 20,249,330 750,301,109 -
2031 20% 26,999,107 1,000,401,479 -
2032 25% 33,748,884 1,250,501,849 -
2033 10% 13,499,553 500,200,739 -
Total 1,842,675,052 5,637,861,853 30,000,000.00
11.3.5 Project Expenditures

The annual cash flows for the capital and O&M cost is summarized in Table 11.9 on Page 11-11.

Table 11.9: Schedule of Project Expenditures

Costs (Ksh )
Year Capital Cost O & M costs Total cost
2021 593,383,492 593,383,492
2022 593,383,492 - 593,383,492
2023 593,383,492 168,836,118 762,219,610
2024 593,383,492 169,713,894 763,097,386
2025 - 170,579,988 170,579,988
2026 513,700,294 175,732,140 689,432,434
2027 513,700,294 180,535,399 694,235,693
2028 513,700,294 185,052,300 698,752,594
2029 - 189,328,667 189,328,667
2030 770,550,440 193,399,269 963,949,709
2031 1,027,400,587 196,624,788 1,224,025,375
2032 1,284,250,734 199,740,985 1,483,991,719
2033 513,700,294 202,758,275 716,458,569
2034 - 205,685,518 205,685,518
2035 - 208,530,325 208,530,325
2036 - 211,299,292 211,299,292
2037 - 213,998,178 213,998,178
2038 - 216,632,050 216,632,050
2039 - 219,205,392 219,205,392
2040 - 221,722,194 221,722,194
2041 - 221,722,194 221,722,194
2042 - 221,722,194 221,722,194
2043 - 221,722,194 221,722,194
2044 - 221,722,194 221,722,194
2045 - 221,722,194 221,722,194
2046 - 221,722,194 221,722,194
11.3.6 Conversion to Economic Prices

The capital cost has been converted to their economic prices in real 2016 price terms. This excludes:
Sunk Costs, Working Capital, Transfer payments such as Taxes, duties and subsidies, External Costs
and Depreciation.
11.3.7 Water and Wastewater projections
Table 11.10 on Page 11-12 shows the projections of water demand and supply, and wastewater
generation under both ideal and realistic situations of water supply and sewer connections.

Table 11.10: Projected Water and Wastewater conditions

2009 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040
Scenario
m³/d
Projected Water Demand 29,254 34,930 40,494 46,943 54,420 73,136
Projected Water Supply 14,627 11,818 13,701 15,883 29,460 51,882
Wastewater Generation
with Regular Water Supply 25,282 30,050 34,724 40,141 46,422 62,143
& 100% Sewer Connections
Wastewater Generation
with projected build-out of
- 10,636 12,217 14,050 25,455 44,290
Sewer Connections and
Suppressed Water Supply
In the Economic Analysis, the projected wastewater generation with the projected build-out of Sewer
Connections and Suppressed Water Supply has been adopted.
11.3.8 Future without project situation
Mombasa West Mainland currently lacks a functional water-borne sewerage system. If the proposed
wastewater management strategy is not implemented, the service area will continue to rely on the
on-plot sanitation systems such as septic tanks and latrines. These systems are unsustainable and
pose hazard to both the public health and the environment resulting to pollution of water bodies
(ocean and rivers) and increased occurrence of water-borne diseases.
11.3.9 Valuation of benefits
11.3.9.1 Improvement of water bodies (non-use value)
Tourism is the main economic activity in Mombasa West Mainland. At present, raw sewage is
released into the environment including water bodies such as the ocean beaches. The
implementation of the proposed wastewater management system will ensure proper treatment and
disposal of wastewater and result to clean and more attractive beaches with the effect of boosting
the economy of Mombasa West Mainland through increased number of visiting tourists and
investors.
It has been assumed that the tourists and visitors to Mombasa West Mainland will increase by 0.1%
and increase the revenue for the beaches by 0.1% of the tourist spend per annum.
The resulting benefits have been calculated based on the following variables & their assumed values;
 Number of Tourists and Visitors Per Month (N) - 50,000
 Average expenditure per day in in USD - 200
 Exchange rate USD to Kshs (E) - 101
 Number of Month in a year (M) - 12
 Percentage contribution - 0.10%
Total expenditure by tourists & visitors = (50,000*200*101*12) *0.1% = Ksh. 12,120,000 p.a.
11.3.9.2 Health Benefits
Improved sanitation systems are expected to generate significant health benefits to be measured by
the reduction in waterborne sickness and thereby reduced household expenditure in health, reduced
work day losses from sickness or by having to care for the sick family members.
In the economic analysis, it has been assumed that about 60% of health expenditure in Mombasa
West Mainland results from waterborne diseases and health expenditure per capita per year is USD
13 (Kshs. 975).
11.3.10 Results of Economic Analysis
The Key outputs of the model are the Cost Benefit Cash Flow, Net Present Value and Economic
Internal Rate of Return (EIRR). Details of these outputs are given in following sub-sections.

11.3.10.1 Cost Benefit Cash Flow Summary

Results of Cost and Benefit Cash Flows are presented in Table 11.11 on Page 11-14.

Table 11.11: Summary of Cost Benefit Cash flow

Investment Costs (Kshs) Monetary value of Benefits (Kshs)
Improvement of Cost Savings in Population
Year Sewerage Incremental Net economic Net economic
O & M costs Total cost water bodies terms of Health Total Benefit Served
Capital Cost Revenue benefits 12% benefits 10%
(non-use value) Benefits
- -
2021 12,120,000 122,676,701
593,383,492 - 593,383,492 - 134,796,701 458,586,791 458,586,791 209,704
- -
2022 12,120,000 126,357,002
593,383,492 - 593,383,492 430,607,648 569,084,650 24,298,842 24,298,842 215,995
- -
2023 12,120,000 130,147,712
593,383,492 168,836,118 762,219,611 430,607,648 572,875,361 189,344,250 189,344,250 222,475
- -
2024 12,120,000 134,052,144
593,383,492 169,713,894 763,097,386 495,212,325 641,384,468 121,712,918 121,712,918 229,149
2025 12,120,000 138,073,708
- 170,579,988 170,579,988 717,080,644 867,274,352 696,694,365 696,694,365 236,023
2026 12,120,000 142,215,919
513,700,294 175,732,140 689,432,434 717,080,644 871,416,563 181,984,130 181,984,130 243,104
2027 12,120,000 146,482,397
513,700,294 180,535,399 694,235,692 717,080,644 875,683,041 181,447,349 181,447,349 250,397
2028 12,120,000 150,876,869
513,700,294 185,052,300 698,752,593 717,080,644 880,077,513 181,324,920 181,324,920 257,909
2029 12,120,000 155,403,175
- 189,328,667 189,328,667 1,299,137,793 1,466,660,968 1,277,332,301 1,277,332,301 265,646
2030 12,120,000 160,065,270
770,550,440 193,399,269 963,949,709 1,299,137,793 1,471,323,063 507,373,354 507,373,354 273,616
2031 12,120,000 164,867,228
1,027,400,587 196,624,788 1,224,025,375 1,299,137,793 1,476,125,022 252,099,646 252,099,646 281,824
- -
2032 12,120,000 169,813,245
1,284,250,734 199,740,985 1,483,991,719 1,299,137,793 1,481,071,038 2,920,680 2,920,680 290,279
2033 12,120,000 174,907,642
513,700,294 202,758,275 716,458,569 1,299,137,793 1,486,165,436 769,706,867 769,706,867 298,987
2034 12,120,000 180,154,872
- 205,685,518 205,685,518 1,299,137,793 1,491,412,665 1,285,727,147 1,285,727,147 307,957
2035 0.0 12,120,000 185,559,518
208,530,325 208,530,325 1,299,137,793 1,496,817,311 1,288,286,986 1,288,286,986 317,196
2036 0.0 12,120,000 191,126,303
211,299,292 211,299,292 1,299,137,793 1,502,384,097 1,291,084,805 1,291,084,805 326,712
2037 0.0 12,120,000 196,860,092
213,998,178 213,998,178 1,299,137,793 1,508,117,886 1,294,119,708 1,294,119,708 336,513
2038 0.0 12,120,000 202,765,895
216,632,050 216,632,050 1,299,137,793 1,514,023,689 1,297,391,638 1,297,391,638 346,608
2039 0.0 12,120,000 208,848,872
219,205,392 219,205,392 2,260,371,294 2,481,340,166 2,262,134,774 2,262,134,774 357,007
2040 0.0 12,120,000 215,114,338
221,722,194 221,722,194 2,260,371,294 2,487,605,632 2,265,883,438 2,265,883,438 367,717

Investment Costs (Kshs) Monetary value of Benefits (Kshs)

Improvement of Cost Savings in Population
Year Sewerage Incremental Net economic Net economic
O & M costs Total cost water bodies terms of Health Total Benefit Served
Capital Cost Revenue benefits 12% benefits 10%
(non-use value) Benefits
2041 0.0 12,120,000 215,114,338
221,722,194 221,722,194 2,260,371,294 2,487,605,632 2,265,883,438 2,265,883,438 367,717
2042 0.0 12,120,000 215,114,338
221,722,194 221,722,194 2,260,371,294 2,487,605,632 2,265,883,438 2,265,883,438 367,717
2043 0.0 12,120,000 215,114,338
221,722,194 221,722,194 2,260,371,294 2,487,605,632 2,265,883,438 2,265,883,438 367,717
2044 0.0 12,120,000 215,114,338
221,722,194 221,722,194 2,260,371,294 2,487,605,632 2,265,883,438 2,265,883,438 367,717
2045 0.0 12,120,000 215,114,338
221,722,194 221,722,194 2,260,371,294 2,487,605,632 2,265,883,438 2,265,883,438 367,717
2046 0.0 12,120,000 215,114,338
221,722,194 221,722,194 2,260,371,294 2,487,605,632 2,265,883,438 2,265,883,438 367,717
NPV 2,163,009,676 3,202,840,996
ERR 34% 34%

11.3.10.2 The Net Present Value (NPV)

The NPV values for the project with resource savings (economic benefits included) at 10% and 12%
cost of capital are Kshs. 3,202,840,996 and Kshs. 2,163,009,676 respectively. These suggest that the
project is economically viable.
11.3.10.3 Economic Internal Rate of Return
Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) for the project while considering the resource savings results
to an economic rate of return (EIRR) of 34% for both 12% and 10% discount rates. These confirm
that the project is economically viable.
11.3.11 Conclusion of Economic Analysis
The results of the economic analysis after including other economic benefits showed that the project
would have a positive NPV of Kshs 3,202,840,996 and EIRR of 34% at 10% cost of capital. These
confirm that the project is economically viable.

12.0 RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT AND MONITORING PROGRAM

12.1 Introduction
The proposed Wastewater Management Scheme for Mombasa West Mainland involves
collection and conveyance system for the wastewater and a centralized Wastewater Treatment
Plant at Kipevu. After treatment, the effluent discharge is proposed to be conveyed to the Indian
Ocean, which is part of the future receiving environment of the proposed Wastewater Treatment
Plant (WWTP).
The aims of this Chapter include to:
 Describe the background condition of waterways in the receiving environment,
including a description of key ‘background’ (i.e. without impacts from the proposed
discharges) water quality characteristics
 Describe the environmental values (EVs) and water quality objectives (WQOs) with
respect to NEMA Standards of the receiving environment
 Identify and describe the extent of any adverse environmental impacts to local
environmental values
 Monitor any changes in the receiving water
The most recent and relevant surveys of the receiving environments were undertaken as a part
of the Preliminary Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA). The ESIA involved survey
of the selected site for the Wastewater Treatment Plant and the receiving waters for aquatic
habitat, water quality, macrophytes, and fish.
12.2 Preliminary Environmental Values and Water Quality Objectives
The list of preliminary environmental values (EVs) that apply to the receiving environment is:
 Aquatic ecosystem (slightly to moderately disturbed)
 Stock watering
 Drinking water
 Primary, secondary and visual recreation
 Cultural and spiritual values
Confirmation of the EVs for the receiving environment will be sought during the Detailed
Environment and Social Impact Assessment Studies.
12.3 Monitoring Program Design
Three monitoring locations in the receiving waters / environment (Indian Ocean) will be set i.e.
at the immediate discharge point and its environments, during the Receiving Environment
Monitoring Program (REMP). Flows, water quality, sediment quality, macrophytes and fish will
be the key indicators for monitoring.
12.3.1 Water Flows
The volume of water released at the discharge location will be measured and recorded. The flow
measurement device will be installed at the Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant.
12.3.2 Water Quality
Water quality at the receiving environment and background site will be monitored throughout
the duration of the REMP. It is intended that sampling for water quality analysis be carried out
twice per year in the wet season at the proposed monitoring locations (notionally in the wet
season and post-wet season). Two replicate samples will be collected per location.
Analysis of water quality will only be carried out for the parameters that are consistent with the
NEMA Guidelines.
At each location and during each sampling event, physical water quality measurements will
be collected in situ using a hand-held water quality meter.

The following variables will be recorded at the three locations at 30 cm depth:

 Water temperature (°C)
 pH
 Conductivity (µS/cm)
 Dissolved oxygen (DO, mg/L), and
 Turbidity (NTU).
In addition, two replicate water samples will be collected from each site for analysis of the
following parameters in accordance with the indicators currently monitored by NEMA:
 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) (mg/L)
 Water hardness (mg/L)
 Major Cations (Ca, K, Mg, Na) and Anions (Cl, SO4, alkalinity) (mg/L)
 Carbonate, bicarbonate and hydroxide (m/L)
 Fluoride (mg/L)
 Nutrients (total nitrogen and total phosphorus (unfiltered) and ammonia (as N),
nitrate (as N), nitrite (as N) (filtered) and filterable reactive phosphorus (FRP) (as P))
(mg/L)
 Metals and metalloids (Al, As, Ba, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Pb, Ni, Zn, B, Co, Mn, Mo, Se,
Ag, U, V) (dissolved (filtered) and total (unfiltered) in µg/L)
 Chlorophyll-a (µg/L)
 Blue green algae (cyanobacteria) (cells/mL)
 Organochloride and organophosphate pesticides (OCPs and OPPs) (µg/L)
 Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), benzene, toluene, ethylene and xylene (BTEX)
and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (µg/L)
 Sodium absorption ratio (SAR) (mg/L)
 Colour (Hazen units)
 Silicon (mg/L)
 Faecal coliforms / e-coli (CFU/mL), and
 Methylene blue (MBAS) (mg/L)
Grab samples will be collected at each site, 30 cm below the water’s surface, by hand or by a
sampling pole with clamp if required for safety reasons.
Two samples will be collected for analysis of nutrients and metals and metalloids. The first
sample will be un-filtered and will be used for analysis of total nitrogen, total phosphorus and
total metals. The second sample will be filtered in the field through a 0.45 µm filter, and will
be used for the analysis of ammonia, nitrate, nitrite and dissolved metals.
Sediment Quality
Sediment quality will be monitored in conjunction with water quality monitoring.
Two replicate sediment samples from the bed will be collected and analysed for the parameters
currently monitored by NEMA and other relevant government agencies.
The following parameters will be monitored;
 particle size distribution (sieve and hydrometer)
 pH
 major cations (Ca, K, Mg, Na) and anions (Cl, SO4, alkalinity) (mg/kg)
 sodium absorption ratio (SAR)
 fluoride (mg/kg)
 nutrients (total nitrogen, total phosphorus, ammonia (as N), nitrate (as N) nitrite (as
N)) (mg/kg)
 total metals and metalloids (Al, As, Ba, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Pb, Ni, Zn, B, Co, Mn, Mo,
Se, Ag, U, V) (mg/kg)
 organochloride and organophosphate pesticides (OCPs and OPPs)
 silicon (mg/kg), and

 cyanide (total) mg/kg.

Where the water is shallow (<0.5 m deep), replicate sediment samples will be collected from
the top 0.30 m of sediment on the bed using a stainless-steel trowel, with the sediments
transferred directly into the sampling jar provided by the analytical laboratory.
Where the water is deep or the sediment is too soft to walk in, surface sediment from the bed
(to 0.30 m depth) will be collected using a stainless-steel corer. The sample will be emptied
into a bucket or other intermediate container, which has been thoroughly washed with
ambient site water, and the sediment mixed and placed into the sample jar using a stainless-
steel trowel.
Macrophytes
Macrophyte communities and algae abundance will be monitored twice per year: notionally in
the pre-wet season and the post-wet season at the proposed monitoring locations.
At each site, macrophytes and algae will be surveyed along three 50 m by 1 m belt transects. The
percent cover of floating, emergent and submerged macrophytes will be visually estimated by
species, noting listed threatened and exotic (and declared noxious) species.
Fish
Fish communities will be monitored twice per year: notionally in the wet season and the post-
wet season at the proposed monitoring sites.
Fish communities will be surveyed using a combination of backpack or boat electrofishing
(depending on the nature of the waterway being sampled), seine and set nets, baited traps and
dip nets. At each site, the species present and the abundance of each species by life history stage
(juvenile, intermediate, adult), the length, frequency distribution for each species, and the
apparent health of individuals will be recorded.
Onsite Observations
General physical observations will be recorded at each site during each sampling event, to
provide an ‘early warning’ of potential adverse impacts. In particular, algal blooms, unusual
deposits of sediment and floating objects (debris, oil and grease), dense growth of attached
plants and insects, any evidence of chemical precipitation, any evidence of erosion and the
presence of dead aquatic fauna (odour) will be recorded. If these are detected, this will trigger
further investigations of recent releases, and of water and sediment quality results.
12.4 Data Analysis and Reporting
Interim reports will be provided after each survey event, and will provide a preliminary
comparison of the results to relevant NEMA and other standards, and a preliminary discussion of
potential impacts to the receiving environment.
Annual reports will also be prepared, and will include comparison to the relevant NEMA and other
standards, and an assessment of potential impacts to the receiving environment.

13.0 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS AND RESETTLEMENT ACTION

13.1 Introduction
This Chapter focuses on the potential environment and social impacts that are likely to be
triggered during implementation of the proposed Wastewater Management System for
Mombasa West Mainland. The social safeguards in this context include Project resettlement
impacts.
The proposed Project components include rehabilitation and construction of;
 Rehabilitation of Kipevu Waste Water Treatment Plant of capacity 17,000 m3/day
located within the existing Kipevu Wastewater Treatment Plant on LR No .2549/VI/MN
which is Government Land.
 Expansion of existing Kipevu WWTP by adding capacity of 27,300 m3/day
 Trunk, secondary and tertiary sewer lines within Mombasa West Mainland.
 Installation of Five (5 Nr) New Sewage pumping stations and Rehabilitation of Four (4
Nr) Sewage pumping stations within Mombasa West Mainland to enhance conveyance
of waste water to proposed WWSP site located at existing Kipevu Waste Water
Treatment Plant
Once commissioned, the scheme, hereafter referred to as the Project will provide sustainable
water-borne sanitation system to Mombasa West Mainland as a solution to the existing
sanitation systems comprising of on plot sanitation systems such as pit latrines and septic tanks
and inadequate sewerage system and Wastewater Treatment Plant.
13.1.1 Environment Screening
This process is critical in the assessment of environment for a project as it ensures early
management of environmental risks through identification of potential environmental impacts
and proposal of mitigation measures. The process also helps in establishment of Project’s
Environmental Assessment (EA) Category (A, B, C or FI) as required by the World Bank OP 4.01
and ranking of Project (high, medium and low risks) as required by Environmental
Management and Co-ordination Act (EMCA) 1999 amended in 2015.
The environmental components of the Project have been determined and appropriate
mitigation measures proposed. The environment components assessed include;
 Natural environment (air, water, land)
 Human health and safety
 Physical cultural resources
 Social issues which include involuntary resettlement
This Project has been classified based on the type, location, sensitivity, nature and reversibility
of environmental impacts identified at screening stage as Category A and High Risk as per OP
4.01 and EMCA 1999 respectively.
This implies that the adverse environmental impacts associated with the Project are broad,
diverse, beyond local site and trigger resettlement. Thus; a full Environmental and Social
Impact Assessment (ESIA) should be carried especially at the Detailed Design Stage.
13.1.2 Screening for Resettlement Impacts
The purpose of this stage / process is to identify social and resettlement risks and propose
appropriate measures to manage the risks.
The Project has a potential of triggering Resettlement impacts. Thus, the Land Act 2012 and

the World Bank Operational Policy OP 4.12 have been adopted as the main policy documents
to guide on mechanisms for preparation of Resettlement Action Plan.
The main principles of the Policy include:
 To prevent or minimize involuntary displacement whenever possible;
 To design and implement resettlement as a sustainable development program;
 To pay for lost assets at replacement cost;
 To restore peoples’ capacity to earn a living and their community ties;
 Components necessary to realize project objectives are covered regardless of the
source of financing;
 Resettlement costs are considered part of project costs.
The Project components described above will trigger resettlement impacts as listed below;
 No RAP impacts are anticipated with the existing Kipevu Waste Water Treatment Plant.
However, RAP impacts are anticipated to be triggered by other Project components as
illustrated in bullets below.
 Loss of business and residential structures lying along the sewer alignments and its
wayleave and at the proposed WWTP site during construction period
 Loss of crops and trees lying along the sewer alignments and its wayleave and at the
proposed WWTP site during construction period
13.2 Guiding Legislation and Policy
Based on the scope, EMCA 1999 requires that Project activities under the proposed
Wastewater Master Plan for Mombasa West Mainland be subjected to an Environmental and
Social Impact Assessment (ESIA).
The World Bank under Operation Policy OP 4.01 also requires that Environmental Assessment
(EA) be carried out for Projects of such magnitude.
The development of such Infrastructural Projects require compliance to the guiding
legislations, guidelines and policies, both under the Kenyan context and the World Bank. These
have been dealt with under several laws, by-laws, regulations and Acts of parliament, as well
as policy documents. The relevant guidelines are summarized in the following sub-sections;
13.2.1 Kenyan Legislations
 The Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA), 1999 and subsequent
regulations
 Coast Development Authority Act (Cap 449)
 Forest Act 2005
 Marine Zones Act Cap 371 of 1989
 Water Act 2016
 County Government Act No. 17 of 2012
 Physical Planning Act 1996 (286)
 Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA 2007)
 The Public Health Act (Cap.242)
13.2.2 World Bank Policies and Guidelines
The Project has been assessed against the following Safeguards Policies;
 Environmental Assessment OP 4.01
 Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12)
 Forestry (OP4.36, GP4.36)
 OP/BP 4.04 (Natural Habitats)
 Physical Cultural Resources(OP/BP4.11)

 World Bank Group Environmental Health and Safety Guidelines on Water and
Sanitation
13.3 Scoping for Environmental and Social Impacts
The process of scoping for environmental and social impacts has been undertaken on all
components of the proposed Project. The purpose of scoping is to identify significant
environmental and social risks that are likely to be triggered by the Project.
The process enabled determination of the appropriate issues within the scope and extent of
the Project. The aspects considered during scoping include;
a. Relevant issues to be considered in an ESIA
b. Appropriate time and space boundaries of the ESIA
c. Information necessary for decision-making
d. Significant effects and factors to be studied in detail
13.3.1 Alternative Sites
The scoping for environment and social impacts has been carried out for all the alternative
WWTP sites considered in the Master Plan. A summary of the finding for the alternative sites
based on the scoping is presented in Tables 13.1 and 13.2 and Figures 13.1 below.
Table 13.1: Site Description- Kipevu
Environment and Social Parameters Remark
 No anticipated significant impact to natural  Detailed ESIA required at detailed
environment design
 No significant impact to Health and Safety of the  Full RAP required at detailed design
community  Site ideal for establishment of the
 No significant impact to social environment, Oxidation Ditches with Chlorination /
however OP 4.12 is triggered due to potential of De-Chlorination Facility from an
sewer lines traversing though private property Environment and Social perspective
Figure 13.1: Kipevu Site

Table 13.2: Site Description- Miritini
Environment and Social Parameters Remark
 No anticipated significant impact to natural  Detailed ESIA required at detailed
environment design
 No significant impact to Health and Safety of the  Full RAP required at detailed design
community  Site ideal for establishment of the
 No significant impact to social environment (Land WSP from an Environment and Social
Acquisition and Resettlement) perspective
 No significant impact to social environment,
however OP 4.12 is triggered due to potential of
sewer lines traversing though private property

13.3.2 Selected Site

In consideration of the evaluated environmental and social factors, the most appropriate site
for development of the Wastewater Treatment Plant is the Kipevu Site.
It presents the least significant environment and social risks which can be mitigated by
undertaking an Environment Assessment and Resettlement Action Plan.
The subsequent sub-section summarizes the Environmental and Social Impact, Resettlement
Impacts and their proposed mitigation measure with respect to developing Wastewater
Treatment Plant at the selected site and implementing the selected Wastewater Management
Strategy in general.
13.4 Environment and Social Impact Scoring and Rating Criteria
In carrying out the environmental and social assessment, a standard impact rating criteria has
been adopted for the evaluation of the significance of environment and social impacts
associated with the proposed Project components (both during construction and operation).
The impacts have been analysed based on their severity, scope and duration as summarized in
Table 13.3 below.
Table 13.3: Environment Impact Scoring and Rating Criteria
Severity of Impact Rating Scoring
Insignificant / non-harmful/less beneficial -1/+1 Very Low
Small/ Potentially harmful / Potentially beneficial -2/+2 Low
Significant / slightly harmful / significantly beneficial -3/+3 Medium
Great/ harmful / beneficial -4/+4 High
Disastrous/ extremely harmful / extremely beneficial -5/+5 Very high
Spatial Scope of the Impact Rating Scoring
Activity specific -1/+1 Very Low
Right of way specific -2/+2 Low
Within Project area 5km radius -3/+3 Medium
Regional / County -4/+4 High
National -5/+5 Very high
Duration of Impact Rating Scoring
one day to one month -1/+1 Very Low
one month to one years -2/+2 Low
Within Project construction period -3/+3 Medium
within the Project life -4/+4 High
at decommissioning -5/+5 Very high
Example of Cumulative Impact Scoring

1. +3,+2,+5,+4, +4,+1=+4 (the weight that occurs more becomes the overall rating)
2. +2,+2,+5,+4, +4,+1=+3 (if two scores or more tie, then an average of the scores shall be
adopted)

13.5 Positive Impacts During the Construction Phase

13.5.1 Creation of Employment and Business Opportunities
It is anticipated that the Project construction will create new employment opportunities in the
form of skilled and unskilled labour, Suppliers and Sub-Contractors, etc. This will reduce
unemployment, improve income status of the local workers’ household and increase revenue.
The Impact Rating for Creation of Employment and Business Opportunities is given in Table
13.4 below.
Table 13.4: Impact Rating for Creation of Employment
Severity of Impact +4
Spatial Scope of the Impact +3
Duration of Impact +3
Overall score +3
Impact Rating Medium – Beneficial
13.6 Positive Impacts During Operation Phase
13.6.1 Increased Water Availability through Re-Use
Treated effluent from the Wastewater Treatment Plant is a potential source of re-charge to
the water bodies. If found economically viable at a later stage, the effluent from the
Wastewater Treatment Plant can be re-used for industrial and other non-portable uses.
The impact rating for increased water availability is presented in Table 13.5 below.
Table 13.5: Impact Rating for Increased Water Availability
Overall score +3
13.6.2 Reduction of Terrestrial and Marine Pollution
Once commissioned, it is expected that the Project will reduce both terrestrial and marine
pollution caused by discharge of untreated sewerage into the mangrove swamps, Sea grass
bed and coral reefs. Pollution of open storm water drains and water resources within
Mombasa West Mombasa Mainland due to improper disposal of wastewater will also be
minimized.
The impact rating for reduction of pollution is presented in Table 13.6 below.
Table 13.6: Impact Rating for Elimination of Pollution
Overall score +4
Impact Rating High – Beneficial

13.6.3 Improved Hygiene and Sanitation in the Project Areas

Good Hygiene and Sanitation Standards are linked to provision of sanitation infrastructure.
Mombasa West Mainland will benefit from improved hygiene and sanitation from the
Wastewater Management Scheme if implemented.
The impact rating for improved Hygiene and Sanitation in the Project Area is summarized in
Table 13.7 below.
Table 13.7: Impact Rating for Improved Hygiene and Sanitation
Overall score +4
13.6.4 Reduced Cases of Water Related Diseases
Cases of water borne disease in Mombasa West Mainland are likely to reduce with improved
sanitation infrastructure. This will effectively reduce related medical expenses among the
residents with extended long term increased social productivity.
The impact rating for reduced water borne related diseases in the Project Area are summarized
in Table 13.8 below.
Table 13.8: Impact Rating for Reduced Water Related Diseases
Overall score +4
13.6.5 Reduced Water and Sanitation Burden to Women
The socio-economic survey undertaken in the Project Area found that the burden of collecting
water and solving sanitation problems in a household is mainly the responsibility of women.
The same applies to caring for the sick who suffer from water related illness. Improved
sanitation system will lessen this burden and ensure enhanced family health.
The impact rating for reduced burden to women due to improved water and sanitation system
is shown in Table 13.9 below.
Table 13.9: Impact Rating for Reduced Burden to Women
Overall score +3
13.6.6 Increased Land Values in the Project Area
Provision of the sanitation infrastructure to Mombasa West Mainland will result to
appreciation of land value due to improved access to proper sanitation facilities.
The impact rating for increased land values is shown in Table 13.10 below.
Table 13.10: Impact Rating for Increased Land Values
Overall score +3
13.7 Negative Impacts and Mitigation Measures during the Construction Phase
13.7.1 Negative Impacts to the Biophysical Environment and Mitigation Measures
(i) Destruction of Vegetation in areas covered by the Project Components
From site visit, it has been realized that most parts of the Mombasa West Mainland are less
vegetated except for isolated coastal vegetation. Therefore, less significant impact of the
Project to vegetation is anticipated.
The impact rating for destruction of vegetation cover is shown in Table 13.11 below.
Table 13.11: Impact Scoring for Destruction of Vegetation Cover
Severity of Impact -3
Spatial Scope of the Impact -2
Duration of Impact -3
Overall score -3
Impact Rating Low Negative
Mitigation Measures
 Site clearance and construction activities will be limited within the Project dimension to
minimize destruction to vegetation cover
 Reinstatement of the Project sites to their original state once construction works are
completed to allow vegetation growth
 Vegetation and trees damaged during construction to be replaced / reinstated if
possible, after completion of the Works
(ii) Contamination of Water Resources
The proposed Wastewater Management Scheme entails collection of wastewater within the
drainage area of Mombasa West Mainland, conveyance to the proposed WWTP for treatment
and discharge of treated effluent to Indian Ocean.
During the construction period, effluents from construction plant and equipment (oils, grease,
hydro-carbonates) are potential point pollutants of water resources. These effluents originate
from activities such as cleaning, repair of the equipment as well as through leakages during
normal operation. As a result of surface run-off, these effluents will be conveyed to the Ocean
through natural drains, streams and rivers, resulting to contamination of water resources.
The impact rating of contamination of water resources is shown in Table 13.12 on Page 13-8.

Table 13.12: Impact Rating for Contamination of Water Resources

Overall score -2
Impact Rating Low – Negative
Mitigation Measures
 Risk of water resources pollution by discharges from Construction Equipment is low;
however, it will be further minimized by ensuring Construction Equipment is well
maintained and serviced per manufacturer’s specifications to prevent oil leaks.
 Cleaning / repair of Construction Plant and Equipment to be carried out at designated
yards and the Contractor to have designated storage areas for oils, fuels etc. that is
protected from rain water and away from nearby surface water courses.
(iii) Soil Erosion Resulting to Loss of Top Soil
Site clearance, excavation and ground levelling activities during construction of the Project
Components loosen the top soil and make it susceptible to erosion agents (wind and water).
The impact rating for soil erosion is shown in Table 13.13 below.
Table 13.13: Impact Rating for Soil Erosion
Overall score -2
Impact Rating Low – Negative
Mitigation Measures
The risk of soil erosion is low as the design of the sanitation infrastructure has incorporated
measures to minimize this risk through provision of erosion prevention structures i.e. gabions,
scour checks, etc. in areas susceptible to soil erosion such as river banks.
(iv) Solid Wastes Pollution (Construction Activities)
Construction activities and Contractor’s Camps will generate solid wastes such as plastics, used
tires, metal parts, biodegradable materials, etc. Such wastes if poorly disposed of can lead to
pollution of nearby water courses and blockage of drainage and sewerage systems.
The impact rating for pollution by solid wastes is shown in Table 13.14 below.
Table 13.14: Impact Rating for Pollution by Solid Wastes
Overall score -3
Impact Rating Medium – Negative
Mitigation Measures
 Construction wastes (residual earth, debris and scrap materials) to be collected at
designated points and Contractor to dispose to designated Solid Waste Dumping Sites
approved by the Local Authority.
 Environmental Management, Health and Safety Training Programmes to be conducted
for Contractor’s Staff to create awareness on proper solid wastes management
(v) Air Pollution and Dust Generation
Air Pollution will result from dusts and emissions from Construction Plant, Equipment and
Vehicles. Dusty conditions result due to unpaved roads and tracks, exposed and non-vegetated
surfaces, etc. Project borrow pits and quarries are also potential sources of dust.
Impact rating for air pollution and dust generation is shown in Table 13.15 below.
Table 13.15: Impact Scoring for Air Pollution and Dust Generation
Overall score -3
Impact Rating Medium – Negative
Mitigation Measures
 Contractor to comply with the provisions of EMCA 1999 (Air Quality Regulations 2014)
 Workers to be trained on management of air pollution from vehicles and machinery and
construction machinery maintained and serviced in accordance to manufacturer’s
specifications
 Removal of vegetation to be avoided until clearance is required and exposed surfaces
re-vegetated or stabilized as soon as possible
 The Contractor shall not carry out dust generating activities (excavation, handling and
transport of soils) during times of strong winds
 Vehicles delivering construction materials and vehicles hauling excavated materials shall
be covered to reduce spills and windblown dust
 Water sprays shall be used on all earthworks areas within 200 metres of human
settlement especially during the dry season.
13.7.2 Negative Impacts to the Socio-Economic Environment and Mitigation Measures
(i) Land Acquisition and Impacts to Assets and Sources of Livelihood
The Project implementation require minimal land acquisition as the site proposed for the
development WWTP is owned by the government and can be made available for the Project
at Kipevu. Preliminary field assessment indicated that a few households and crops cover the
site. However, the Pumping Stations require land acquisition.
This triggers application of World Bank OP 4.12, which requires that a Resettlement Action
Plan (RAP) be prepared at the Detailed Design Stage.
Table 13.16 below presents a summary of Resettlement Impacts identified for the project;
Table 13.16: Resettlement Impacts
Category of Loss Extent and Magnitude of
Site Name Ownership of Land
identified Loss
Oxidation Ditches  NO RAP impacts Oxidation ditches Parcel No.2549/VI/MN
with Chlorination 44,300m3/day land - No records found
/De-Chlorination requirement 9Ha
- Government land
Facility – Kipevu

 Loss business To be determined

Trunk, secondary Road reserves land and
structures
and tertiary sewer river riparian land
lines  Loss of crops and trees
 Loss business To be determined
Pumping Stations Public / Private land
structures
 Loss of crops and trees
The Impact Rating for Resettlement Impacts is shown in Table 13.17 below.
Table 13.17: Impact Scoring for Resettlement Impacts
Overall score -4
Impact Rating High – Negative
Mitigation Measures
 A Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) need to be prepared and implemented prior to
commencement of construction activities.
(ii) Disruption of Public Utilities
The proposed Project will affect other public utility infrastructure including existing data
cables, plot access culvers, existing water and sewerage infrastructure, access roads and storm
water drainage channels. This impact will be more significant during the construction of sewers
which are located along road reserves.
Impact rating for disruption of public utilities is shown in Table 13.18 below.
Table 13.18: Impact Rating for Disruption to Public Utilities
Overall score -3
Impact Rating Medium - Negative
Mitigation Measures
 Contractor to carry out piloting to locate services such as pipes and cables along the
Pipeline Route before commencing excavation works.
 Relevant Services Providers and Agencies (KeNHA, KURA, KeRRA, Kenya Power, etc.) to
be notified prior to commencement of Works so that any relocation works can be carried
out before commencement of the pipeline construction.
(iii) Increased Transmission of HIV/AIDS
The Project is expected to attract new people to the Project area seeking employment during
the construction period. This has a potential of increasing transmission of HIV/AIDS and other
sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).
Impact rating for increased transmission of HIV/AIDS is as shown in Table 13.19 on Page 13-11.

Table 13.19: Impact Rating for Increased Transmission of HIV/AIDS

Overall score -3
Mitigation Measures
 HIV/AIDS Awareness Program to be instituted and implemented as part of the
Contractor’s Health and Safety Management Plan to be enforced by the Supervisor.
This will involve periodic HIV/AIDS Awareness Workshops for Contractor’s Staff
 Access to Contractor’s Workforce Camps by outsiders to be controlled
 Contractor to provide standard quality condoms to personnel on site
13.7.3 Negative Impacts on Occupational Health and Safety and Mitigation Measures
(i) Noise and Excessive Vibrations
Noise and excessive vibrations are caused by operation of construction plant and equipment
and activities during excavation and rock breaking. This impact poses a health and safety risk
to the communities living in the Project area and construction workers.
Impact rating for noise and excessive vibrations is shown in Table 13.20 below.
Table 13.20: Impact Rating for Noise and Excessive Vibrations
Overall score -3
Mitigation Measures
 Contractor to comply with provisions of EMCA 1999 (Noise and Excessive Vibrations
Regulations of 2009)
 Contractor to keep noise level within acceptable limits (60 Decibels during the day and
35 Decibels during the night) and construction activities shall, where possible, be
confined to normal working hours in the residential areas
 Hospitals and other noise sensitive areas such as schools shall be notified by the
Contractor at least 5 days before construction is due to commence in their vicinity
 Complaints received by the Contractor regarding noise to be recorded and
communicated to the Supervising Engineer for appropriate action
(ii) Risk of Accidents at Work Sites
Most accidents during construction result due to failure to use Personal Protective Equipment
(PPE) by workers on site and unrestricted access to the sites by members of public; resulting
to injuries or death.
Impact rating for risk of accidents at work sites is shown in Table 13.21 on Page 13-12.

Table 13.21: Impact Rating for Risk of Accidents at Work Sites

Overall score -3
Mitigation Measures
 Construction Workers and the Supervising Team to be provided with Personal Protective
Equipment including gloves, gum boots, overalls and helmets. Use of PPE to be enforced
by the Supervising Engineer
 Fully stocked First Aid Kits to be provided at the Sites, Camps and in all Project Vehicles
 Contractor to provide a Healthy and Safety Plan prior to the commencement of works to
be approved by the Supervising Engineer.
 Camps and Work Sites to be fenced off and Security Guards tasked to restrict access by
members of the public.
13.8 Negative Impacts During Operation
The Project once commissioned has the potential of triggering negative impacts associated with
operation and maintenance as summarized in Table 13.22 below.
Table 13.22: Environment and Social Risk during Project Operation
Impact Summary of Mitigation
Risk of environmental  Routine sampling & analysis of effluent to ensure compliance to the
pollution and requirements of the Third Schedule (Standards for Effluent Discharge
eutrophication by effluent into the Environment) of the Water Quality Regulations of 2006.
from the Wastewater  Routine inspection of the Wastewater Treatment Plant for any
Treatment Plant. blockages or overflow of raw sewerage into the environment.
 Repair and maintenance of mechanical installations at the inlet
works of the Wastewater Treatment Plant
Risk of pollution and  De-sludging of ponds be undertaken as indicated in O&M Manuals
eutrophication of  Adequate drying of sludge to create a pathogen and odour free
environment by leachates product.
from sludge drying beds  Avoid de sludging the ponds during rainy seasons to limit the risks of
leachates flowing into the environment
 Sludge shall be tested for chemical quality with aim of establishing
possibility of re-use on farms
Risk of encroachment and  Mapping and installation of beacons which illustrate the width of the
construction of structures pipeline reserve
on sewer wayleaves  Regular inspection of the pipeline corridor for encroachment.
 Prosecution of encroachers as required by county by laws on way
leaves and road reserves maintenance.
Risk of illegal connection  Conduct public sensitization programs on importance of not
to the sewer pipeline interfering with the sewer pipeline and the need to seek official
sewer connection from Mombasa Water and Sanitation Company
(MOWASCO).
Risk of Sewer blockage and  Awareness rising among community members not to dump solids in
overflows to the manholes and to report any blockages to MOWASCO
environment  Regular cleaning of grit chambers and sewer lines to remove grease,
grit, and other debris that may lead to sewer backups
 Design manhole covers to withstand anticipated loads and ensure
that the covers can be readily replaced if broken to minimize entry
of garbage and silt into the system
Impact Summary of Mitigation

 Ensure sufficient hydraulic capacity to accommodate peak flows and
adequate slope in gravity mains to prevent build-up of solids and
hydrogen sulphide generation
Risk of invasion of birds,  Keep the WWTP clean to limit the attraction of birds which scavenge
rodents, mammals and for insects and maggots from the ponds and sludge beds
associated reptiles to  WWTP should be protected from wildlife encroachments by
Wastewater Treatment providing secure barriers.
Plant  The quality of treated effluent before discharge into the river be an
important parameter for the control of the river eutrophication.
 Continuous generation and sharing of sewage quality data on pre-
scheduled monitoring programmes will be necessary
Risk of Vandalism of the  Manhole covers and step irons where made of steel become prone
infrastructure (Manhole to vandalism and pilferage
covers and man hole step  Manhole covers and manhole step bars should be made of
irons) alternative materials such as high density plastic which has low scrap
resell value.
Air pollution from odour  Plant trees especially bamboos and eco-friendly indigenous trees
from WWTP around WWTP for odour control and breaking wind.
 Ensure appropriate covering/ventilation of the pre-treatment unit;
 Ensure appropriate handling and removal of grit/grease;
 Ensure proper sizing and alignment of the lagoons
 Ensure scum is appropriately disposed of or properly stabilized;
 Ensure that the pond series have adequate water flow and aeration
to reduce the potential of odour formation;
 Construct roof over Sludge Drying Beds to protect drying sludge from
precipitation
 Appropriate disposal to reduce odour emanating from wet sludge
Land and Soil  MOWASCO to attend to sewer bursts promptly;
Contamination  Provide high risk areas with appropriate drainage for effective
channelling of burst sewage spills;
 Encourage land owners along sewers to maintain vegetated belts
along the pipeline to control any overflows flows and trap soil. This
should include protection of sewers;
 Install marker posts along the pipeline alignment for ease of
identification and protection by the adjacent landowners
13.9 Project Resettlement Impacts
This section presents preliminary Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for Project-Affected Persons
(PAPs) in the Project Area (PA) who will be affected by the planned implementation of Project
components presented in the Wastewater Master Plan for Mombasa West Mainland.
The Project components involved include;
 Trunk, secondary and tertiary sewers
 Pumping Stations
13.9.1 Objectives of RAP
The RAP aims to ensure that all affected parties are compensated and assisted in restoring their
livelihood.
The main objectives of the Preliminary RAP are:
(a) To identify PAPs and their properties and determine the extent of involuntary
resettlement/displacements and restricted access impacts associated with the Project
implementation and put in place measures to minimise and/or mitigate such impacts;

(b) To set out strategies for the preparation of detailed RAP and implementation of the RAP,
including the process through which to acquire the necessary land and easements for the
implementation of the Project activities; and
(c) To carry out consultations with community members and other stakeholders, including
PAPs, and make them aware of the project and to obtain their concerns regarding the
economic and social impacts of the proposed Project and mitigation measures.
This Preliminary RAP defines the procedures and methodology for identifying the PAPs and spells
out the compensation entitlements for PAPs, the socio-economic profiles of the Project areas,
the legal and institutional framework that impacts on resettlement and compensation.
13.9.2 Guiding Legislations and Policies
The assessment identified that both community land and private land will be acquired either as
easement or permanently for construction of the Project. Land acquisition will be carried out
as stipulated in the Land Act 2012, Land Registration Act 2012, National Land Commission Act
2012 as well as the World Bank Operation Safeguard Policy OP 4.12 on Involuntary
Resettlement as presented below;
 World Bank OP 4.12
 Land Act 2012
 Land Registration Act 2012
 Valuation Act
 National Land Commission Act
 The Constitution of Kenya
13.9.3 Identified Project Resettlement Impacts
In general, the assessment determined that the Project will result to the following impacts:
 Land acquisition for establishment of the proposed Projects Components
 Potential Project Impacts on people’s assets and sources of livelihood
 Potential Project Impacts on the environment
A summary of preliminary Project impacts in terms of type, nature and ownership of potential
assets to be affected for the Master Plan is given in Table 13.23 below.
Table 13.23: Project Resettlement Impacts for Master Plan Projects
Land Requirement WWTP Land
Project Component Category of Loss
(Ha) Ownership
 NO RAP impacts
Wastewater Oxidation ditches - Parcel No.2549/VI/MN -
Stabilization Pond 44,300m3/day land No records found
(WSP) – Kipevu requirement 9Ha
“Government land
 Loss business structures To be determined
Trunk, secondary and Road reserves land and
tertiary sewer lines  Loss of crops and trees river riparian land
 Land acquisition
Pumping Stations
required Varied locations;
0.75
 Loss business structures
Public / Private land
 Loss of crops and trees
13.9.4 Eligibility for Compensation and ‘Cut-Off’ Date
The affected persons, irrespective of their status, are eligible to some form of assistance if they
occupied the land or engaged in any livelihood income-generating activity at the affected sites
before the entitlement ‘cut-off date’. This date will be determined at detailed RAP stage for
each of the identified Project in the Master Plan.
The following categories will be eligible for compensation under the RAP;
 People who own land at the identified sites for the Projects
 People whose houses/structures (commercial or residential) will be affected by

acquisition of land for the Project
 People who rent structures (tenants) and are doing business and whose structures are
to be temporarily removed or relocated
 Mobile traders within the identified Project sites
 People whose crops and trees will be affected by acquisition of Project or the physical
project activity implementation
13.9.5 Livelihood Restoration
Livelihood restoration is an important aspect in ensuring that the PAPs livelihood is totally
restored even after compensation is done. In a bid to ensure that livelihoods are improved and
restored to full replacement levels, the Preliminary RAP has made provisions which will be fully
determined at detailed RAP stage. This will be achieved through the following:
 Determination of average monthly income and compensation for loss of income for a
period of three months to cushion PAPS during transition period before source of
income is restored
 Payment of compensation cash to the PAPs prior to implementation of Project
activities
 Compensation for structures, crops and trees has incorporate disturbance allowance
of 15% the value of structure and right of salvage
 Sensitization of PAPs on the impacts of the project to their assets / sources of
livelihood and mitigation measures put in place;
 Provision of ample time for affected person to remove and reconstruct structures
away from the Project route and sites prior to commencement of construction work
 Implementation of a monitoring programme to ensure that the PAPs have well re-
established their structures and business away from Project routes and sites
 The RAP implementation team at CWSB will ensure that the spouses of affected asset
owners are included in the RAP implementation process in a bid to enhance safeguard
of the family’s livelihood upon compensation
 A grievance redress mechanism will be established to provide the PAPs with a system
to channel their complaints and seek redress during compensation and re-
establishment phase. This measure will be ensured by the GRM committees identified
in this RAP
 Implementation of a Financial Management Training to be provided to the PAPs prior
to disbursement of cash compensation. This Training will be outsourced by CWSB to a
suitable Financial Training Organization. The Financial Training Organization will
develop a suitable Training Curriculum and deliver the Training to PAPs under
supervision of CWSB
13.9.6 Vulnerable Groups
The preliminary RAP recognizes that there are vulnerable groups among the PAPs. These are
social and distinct groups of people who might suffer disproportionately or face the risk of being
marginalized as a result of resettlement compensation and specifically:
a. Female-and child-headed households
b. Disabled household heads
c. Households where the head is unemployed
d. Households headed by elderly persons with no means of support.
The list of properties and owners (PAPs) will be identified at detailed RAP stage. These
categories of PAPs will be entitled to adequate compensation as presented in the Entitlement
Matrix on Table 13.24 on Page 13-16.

Table 13.24: Entitlement Matrix

Type of Loss Unit of Entitlement persons Entitlements
A. Loss of Residential/Commercial/Industrial Land
 100% Cash compensation for loss at replacement cost
 15% cash top up in compulsory acquisition
a) Titleholder  Cash compensation for standing assets
 Administrative charges, title fees, or other legal transaction costs
 Money Management training
Partial loss of land  Cash compensation for standing assets
1 b) Tenant
but residual is viable  Administrative charges or other legal transaction costs
 One-month notice to vacate
c) Lease holder
 Cash compensation for standing assets
d) Informal Settlers  One-month notice to vacate
 100% Cash compensation for entire land holding at replacement cost
 Replacement cost for standing assets erected by the Land Owner
a) Owners  15% cash top-up in compulsory acquisition
 Administrative charges, title fees, or other legal transaction costs
 Replacement cost for standing assets
Entire loss of land or
b) Tenant (either residential or  Administrative charges or other legal transaction costs for registered leases
2 partial loss where
business)  One-month notice to vacate
residual is not viable
c) Lease holders  Money Management training
 Relocation assistance
 Replacement cost for standing assets
 Land grant where possible alongside relocation and assistance with livelihood restoration
d) Informal Settler
B. Loss of Structures
 Cash compensation at replacement cost calculated on market value without depreciation
a) Legal User with valid titles  Repair costs for unaffected structure or cash equivalent to 25% of the compensation
Partial loss but
 Right to salvage material plus relocation costs.
3 residual viable
 Cash compensation at replacement cost based on market value without depreciation
b) Owner without titles  Repair costs for unaffected structure or cash equivalent to 25% of the compensation
 Right to salvage material plus relocation costs
Type of Loss Unit of Entitlement persons Entitlements

 Cash compensation at replacement cost based on market value without factoring depreciation
 Repair costs for unaffected structure at 25% compensation
c) Informal user of building
 Right to salvage material plus relocation costs
 Where possible suggest and/or provide alternative business areas
 Cash compensation at replacement cost of the affected unit based in market value without
depreciation plus a house building allowance at 25% of compensation
a) Land owner with valid title  Right to salvage materials without deduction from the compensation package
Fully affected/part
affected and
4  Relocation assistance
remaining structure
 Cash compensation for remaining lease/deposits
is non-viable
 Right to salvage materials
b) Tenant/Lease Holder
 Relocation assistance
C. Movable / Mobile structures
 Cash Compensation of comparable replacement sites
5 Kiosks or Stalls  Cash Compensation of replacing improvements (such as foundations), and relocation expenses
or other transaction costs.
D. Loss of Crops and Trees
 Cash compensation for lost trees and crops at full replacement cost valued at market rate
6 Trees and crops Trees and crops owners  Allowed adequate time to harvest the crop and trees.
 3-month notice to the PAPs of intention to use the site
E. Loss of Business / Income
 Cash compensation based on a calculated average loss of income over an appropriate period
Business operators
(normally 3 months)
 Livelihood restoration measures as identified in section 5.3 (above)
Landlords  Cash compensation based on average loss of income over an appropriate period ( 3 months)
 Compensation as per national legal provisions (formal employees)
Employees  Informal employees: one-month minimum wage
 Casual, day to day labourers will receive advance notice that businesses will be removed
F. Loss of Community
Local Community  In kind replacement for affected community resources/property
Proprietary Resources
G. Assistance to Vulnerable  CWSB to consider other assistance over and above compensation package to cushion them
Vulnerable Groups
Groups against impact. To be treated on merit basis
Individual graves  Negotiated reimbursement for translocation costs including option for physical translocation
H. Graves
Communal graveyards  Negotiation of available options

13.9.7 Grievance Management

The Project provides for simple and accessible extra judicial mechanism for managing grievance
and disputes based on explanation and mediation by third parties. Each of the affected parties
will be able to trigger this mechanism while still being able to resort to the judicial system
 The Grievance management provides for two tiers of amicable review and settlement,
with the first tier at the site level1
 The second level will integrate a mediation committee in case the grievance cannot be
solved at first level.
 Finally, there will be an option for each of the complainant to resort to the Court of
Law (third level) in case there is no resolution of the grievance with the mechanism
Detailed Grievance redress mechanism is provided in the Preliminary RAP Report prepared as
a separate assessment under this Consultancy.
13.9.8 RAP implementation Arrangements
All PAPs will be compensated before their structures are demolished, implying that
compensation will be paid before project works start at a specific site/in a specific area as per
the contractor’s work schedule. Coast Water Services Board (CWSB) will be the lead agency in
the RAP implementation and will work together with the County and The National Lands
Commission (NLC) to implement the RAP.
In this Project, CWSB will establish a RAP Implementation Unit (RIU)), to implement this RAP.
The unit will be responsible for ensuring that PAPs promptly access their compensation
entitlements and that their livelihoods are restored after resettlement. The RAP
implementation team will be responsible for:
 Liaison with National Lands Commission (NLC) on matters related to RAP
implementation
 Delivery of the RAP compensation and rehabilitation measures to identified PAPS
The RAP Implementation Team and NLC will develop the schedule for the implementation of
RAP activities which will include:
 Target dates for the start and completion of compensation payments
 Timetables for and the place of compensation payments
 Target dates for fulfilling the prerequisites for compensation payments and other legal
requirements by PAPs
 The time table for special assistance to vulnerable groups
 Dates for vacant possession of the acquired land from the PAPs (this date must be after
the payment of all compensation)
 The link between the RAP activities to the implementation of the overall sub-project
components
1
A site in this context implies areas where the PAPs are concentrated under various Project components.
13.9.9 RAP Monitoring and Evaluation

The purpose of monitoring and evaluation is to report on the effectiveness of the
implementation of the RAP and the outcomes and impact of compensation on the PAPs in
relation to the purpose and goals of the RAP. The general objective of the M&E system is to
provide a basis for assessing the overall success and effectiveness of the implementation of the
resettlement and compensation processes and measures.
Several Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVIs) will be used to monitor the impacts of the
compensation and resettlement activities. These indicators will be targeted at quantitatively
measuring the physical and socio-economic status of the PAPs to determine and guide
improvement in their social wellbeing.
The M&E will be undertaken at two levels:
 Internal monitoring: undertaken regularly by the RIU/Monitoring Officer
 External evaluations (or end-time of RAP implementation): Evaluations will be
undertaken by an independent consulting firm hired by CWSB. Evaluation will be
necessary to ascertain whether the livelihood and income restoration goals and
objectives have been realised
Details of RAP monitoring indicators during and after Compensation Payments is presented in
Table 13.25 below.
Table 13.25: Monitoring Indictors During and After Compensation Payments
Post-resettlement Compensation Payment
Resettlement Compensation Payment Period
Period
 Number of PAPs compensated  Number of PAPs with successfully restored
livelihoods and assets,
 Number of PAPs who have acquired legal
papers to new property  Number of PAPs who have maintained social
and cultural ties,
 Number of PAPs who have restored their
livelihood enterprises  No of PAPs whose grievances have been
resolved or otherwise,
 Number of PAPs who have registered
grievances with the GO  Number of vulnerable groups assisted and
restored livelihood enterprise and assets.
 Number of PAPs whose grievances have
been resolved
 Number of vulnerable PAPs or groups
identified and assisted during compensation
payments
Detailed RAP process has been provided in a separate Report presented as D8: Preliminary
Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) & Preliminary Resettlement Action Plan
(RAP) for the Preferred Development Strategy.

14.0 ASSETS MANAGEMENT PLAN

14.1 Introduction to Asset Management Planning
This Chapter describes the purpose and requirements of an Asset Management Plan for a
Wastewater Management Infrastructure based on current international best practice that is
applicable to CWSB and MOWASCO.
Asset Management is described as:
“The combination of management, financial, economic, engineering and other practices, applied
to physical assets with the objective of providing the required level of service in the most cost
effective manner”.
It can also be described as: “maintaining a desired level of service provided by assets at the lowest
life cycle cost.” Lowest lifecycle cost refers to the best appropriate cost for rehabilitating,
repairing or replacing an asset. Asset Management is implemented through an asset
management programme that usually includes a living document in a written Asset Management
Plan (AMP). In summary, an AMP identifies the assets that owned by the entity, presents the
whole life cost of managing those assets to a specified level of service and allows the entity to
more effectively meet its objectives.
The challenges faced by a Water Services Provider includes:
 Determining the best (or optimal) time to rehabilitate / repair aging assets
 Increasing demand for services
 Overcoming resistance to increasing tariffs
 Diminishing resources
 Rising expectations of customers/ consumers
 Increasingly stringent regulatory requirements
 Responding to emergencies due to asset failure
 Protecting assets
The benefits that result from the practice of Asset Management are:
 Prolonged asset life and aid in the rehabilitation/ replacement decisions through
efficient, focussed and planned operation and maintenance
 Meeting consumer demands with a focus on system sustainability
 Setting tariff rates based on sound operational and financial planning
 Budgeting focused on activities critical to sustained performance
 Meeting service expectations and regulatory requirements
 Improving response to emergencies
 Improving security and safety of assets
There are five core aspects that need to be considered in implementing asset management. These
aspects are illustrated in Figure 14.1 on Page 14-2.

Figure 14.1: Core Aspects of Asset Management Framework

This framework covers all the major activities associated with asset management and can be
implemented with a level of sophistication applicable to any given water supply system and
situation. These five core framework aspects provide the foundation for asset management.
14.2 Asset Inventory
The first step in Asset Management is having an inventory of assets, knowing their current state
and remaining useful life. Asset inventories need to be regularly updated to reflect on the status
at the time and allow for assets that are rehabilitated, repaired, added or removed from service.
An Asset Inventory includes information such as: ownership, location, age/ condition, useful life
and value (original cost, depreciated value and replacement value) with assets grouped and
subdivided into components and elements with similar base lives. Each component or element
should be allocated a unique Identity (ID) in the Asset Inventory.
International best practices on Asset Inventory include:
 Recording the details and physical location of each asset in the asset database that is
categorised in a manner which can be easily searched and manipulated e.g. by type,
location, condition etc.
 Mapping the system with spatial data stored in a GIS with multiple levels and layers
showing the different components
 Developing a condition assessment and rating system for all assets
 Assessing the remaining useful life of assets through projected useful life tables and asset
decay curves, and determining asset values and replacement costs.
14.3 Levels of Service
Knowing the required level of “sustainable” service helps in the implementation of an Asset
Management Programme and to communicate the AMP objectives with stakeholders. It is a
defined service standard driven by legislation and regulation and customer expectations and
against which service performance can be measured. Quality, reliability and environmental
standards are all elements that define the level of service and associated performance goals for
a sanitation system, both short-term and long- term.
Defining level of service requirements can be carried out based on the use of information about
customer demand, from MOWASCO and CWSB reports and stakeholders involved in the service
provision and consumption.

The sustainable level of service needs need to be updated periodically to account for changes
due to future growth in supply and demand, regulatory requirements and technology
improvements.
Questions that need to be answered in determining the level of service cover include:
 What level do stakeholders and customers demand?
 What are the regulatory needs of the environmental agencies?
 What is the actual system performance?
 What are the physical capabilities of the assets?
Best practices undertaken in addressing the above questions include:
 Analysing current and anticipated customer demand and satisfaction with the system
 Allowing for the current and anticipated regulatory requirements
 Writing and communicating to the public, a level of service “Agreement” that sets out
the systems performance
 Using level of service standards to track system performance over time
14.4 Critical Assets
It is necessary to determine which assets are critical to the sustainable performance of the
system. Because assets fail, how are the consequences of failure best managed? Not every asset
presents the same risk of failure, or is equally critical to the wastewater management system’s
performance. Critical assets are those that are classified as having a high risk of failing (through
being old, in poor condition etc.) and which have major consequences if they do fail (major
expense, system failure, safety concerns etc.). This type of analysis is also carried out in the
vulnerability assessment.
Aspects for determining critical assets threshold are covered by addressing the following
concerns:
 How can assets fail
 How do assets fail
 What are the likelihoods (probabilities) and consequences of asset failure?
 What is the cost of repair or replacement?
 What are the other costs (social, environmental etc.) associated with asset failure?
Best practices in the analysis of critical assets include:
 Listing assets in the inventory in accordance to how crucial they are to system operations
 Conducting a failure analysis root cause analysis, failure mode analysis
 Analysing failure risk and consequences
 Using asset decay curves to determine their economic life
 Reviewing and updating the systems vulnerability assessment
14.5 Asset Life Cycle Costs
Asset Management enables a system to determine the lowest cost options for providing the
highest level of service over time. Typically for Utility Companies (WSPs) responsible for the
wastewater management, the expenses for operation and maintenance, personnel and capital
budget make up around 85% of annual expenses. An appropriate Asset Management Programme
helps to make risk-based decisions for choosing the priority projects based on a time schedule
and sound reasons.
Important issues to be addressed include:
 What alternative strategies exist for managing O&M, personnel and capital budget
accounts?
 What strategies are most feasible?
 What are the costs of rehabilitation, repair and replacement for critical assets?
Best practices include:
 Applying predictive maintenance rather than reactive maintenance

 Knowing the costs and benefits of rehabilitation compared to replacement
 Applying lifecycle cost analysis, especially for critical assets
 Allocating resources based on asset conditions
 Analysing the cause of asset failure to develop specific response plans
Lifecycle Asset Management focuses on management and strategies considering all relevant
economic and physical consequences from initial planning through to disposal, as are depicted in
Figure 14.2 below.
Figure 14.2: Life Cycle Asset Management

14.6 Long-Term Funding and Classifying Expenditure
Sound financial decisions and developing an effective long-term funding strategy are critical to
the implementation of an AMP. Knowing the full financial costs and revenues generated by the
wastewater management system enables managers to produce reliable forecasts and budgets,
which helps to decide changes needed for the long-term funding strategy to meet the AMP. The
funding plan shows the relative magnitude of the different expenditure categories, which are
usually broadly divided into operating and capital expenditure.
Annual expenditure can further be classified into the following categories:
14.6.1 Operational Expenditure
This is expenditure associated with the day to day running of the assets. They are those that
generally consume resources such as manpower, energy and materials.
14.6.2 Maintenance Expenditure
This is expenditure required for maintaining an asset to achieve its design life. Maintenance
expenditure can be planned (proactive/predictive) or unplanned (reactive). This cost excludes
asset rehabilitation or renewal. The application of regular and timely maintenance can have a
significant effect on the performance and life of the asset.
14.6.2.1 Renewal Expenditure
Expenditure associated with works for the rehabilitation or replacement of existing assets with
those of equivalent capacity or performance. Having provisions for this type of expenditure is
crucial for all facilities including new ones and is typically planned for 5 – 10 years after the
construction or installation of the assets.
Deterioration curves or asset decay curves are used to calculate the life of an asset and decide
the appropriate time for asset renewal instead of spending increasing amounts on annual
maintenance and repair.

14.6.2.2 Capital Expenditure

Expenditure used to create new assets, or to increase the capacity of existing assets beyond
their original design capacity or service is classified as capital expenditure.
14.7 Funding Plan
The preparation of accurate budgets and forecasts in a funding plan show whether the entity
has sufficient funding to maintain the assets to the required level of service, and ultimately are
the tariffs sufficient to meet the long-term needs.
Strategies to consider to meet this objective include:
 Revising the tariff structure
 Funding a dedicated asset renewal reserve fund from current revenue to provide for future
needs (creating an asset annuity)
 Financing asset rehabilitation, repair and replacement through borrowing or other financial
assistance.
14.8 Asset Management Plan Implementation
An AMP is a “living document” that constantly requires updating and revision by managers to
accommodate changes to the asset inventory resulting from the rehabilitation, replacement and
addition of assets. Deficiencies in AMP can be detailed in the improvement programme through
its updates.
Where AMP fits into the operational, facilities’’ management and strategic sectors of the entity
is as shown in the Figure 14.3 below.
Figure 14.3: Where the AMP Fits In

14.9 CWSB Asset Management Plan Situation

Currently CWSB or MOWASCO does not have a comprehensive Asset Management Plan in place
along the lines of the AMP structure described above. There is thus an urgent need to prepare an
Asset Management Plan for MOWASCO with respect to water and sanitation services
The main aspects that need to be addressed while developing an AMP include;
 Define sustainable levels of service to customers
 More specifically determine critical assets and asset life cycle costs
 Define O&M, asset rehabilitation and renewal costs with a long-term funding strategy for
the AMP
 Define the resources needed for implementing the AMP in terms of manpower,
equipment, spare parts, training, outsourcing, etc.
 Define the process of incorporating the AMP into the business plan and operational
procedures of AWSB and WSPs and procedures for the regular updating and modification
of the AMP in the future as needs and infrastructure changes.

15.0 RISK MANAGEMENT

15.1 Introduction
Risk management is the identification, assessment, and prioritization of risks followed by
coordinated and economical application of resources to minimize, monitor, and control the
probability and/or impact of unfortunate events or to maximize the realization of opportunities.
Risk management’s objective is to assure uncertainty does not deflect the endeavour from the
project goals.
Risk management in Water Supply and Sanitation Systems is crucial.
Water is a finite and vulnerable environmental resource essential for life, social and economic
good. The allocation of scarce water resources among competing uses has fundamental effects
on the ecosystems and national economic development in terms of employment and the
generation and distribution of income and poverty alleviation. Such policies can also have a
significant impact on land use planning and the movement of population from rural to urban
areas. The access to suitable amounts of water for basic human needs is therefore essential to
be incorporated in the formulation and implementation of economic policies for resource
development and allocation. Decreasing availability of usable water supplies, coupled with
increases in demand can potentially lead to the inefficient and unsustainable use of water
resources with significant economic, social, and environmental consequences.
Wastewater handling, treatment, disposal and re-use (where applicable) is important in
determining the quality of the environment, water resources and public health.
Therefore, the environment and water natural resources should be safeguarded from all risks
including monitoring the quality of effluent from Wastewater Treatment Plants which is normally
discharged into natural water courses.
A risk is considered as an uncertain event or condition that, if or when it occurs, has a positive or
negative effect on a project’s objectives or outcome. Risks are inevitable and a component of any
Project. Project managers should regularly assess risks as standard practice and develop or
modify plans to address them.
The active Project level risk management plans should include an analysis of potential risks,
including those with both high and low impact, as well as proposed mitigation strategies to help
in counteracting negative consequences should problems arise.
Risk Management Plans should be periodically reviewed (preferably every 5 years, if not more
frequently) by the Project team to avoid having the analysis becoming stale and not reflective
of actual potential Project risks. In practice, the levels of risk involved in a specific course of
action are compared to expected benefits to provide evidence for decision making.
Hazards and risks can be more elaborately defined as follows in Table 15.1 on Page 15-2.

Table 15.1: Definition of Project Hazards and Risks

Hazard A situation or biological, chemical or physical agent that may lead to harm or cause
adverse effects.
Risk The potential consequence(s) of a hazard combined with their

likelihoods/probabilities. The likelihood or probability of an adverse outcome or
event.
Risk The process of evaluating the consequences of hazards and their likelihoods or
Assessment probabilities. For example, the failure of a technology may result in economic loss
and associated risks. Environmental Risk Assessment is a process that evaluates the
likelihood or probability that adverse effects may occur to environmental functions,
as a result of human activities. Risk assessment provides a mechanism for
communicating forecasted risks associated with decisions to the public and the
stakeholders.
Risk The process of appraising options for responding to risk and deciding which to
Management implement. Risk management require periodic /continual re-assessment.
Environmental An aspect of the environment that is important because of its ecological, economic
Value or social significance to an ecosystem, the potential consequences of its loss, and/or
its economic or social importance, including for example the ability of the
environment to support agriculture, and to support tourism, or the human health
hazards associated with deterioration in environmental services.
Risks are complex and may result from a variety of factors, including uncertainty in financial
markets, project or business failures, legal liabilities, credit risk, accidents, and natural causes or
disasters. Importantly, risks may also derive from unintended or unrecognised consequences of
developments associated with individual projects, not necessarily directly connected to the
programme under consideration, and from the cumulative impacts of a variety of factors.
Assessing a risk involves an analysis of the consequences and likelihood of a potential hazard
being realised. In decision-making, low-consequence or low-probability risks are typically
perceived as acceptable and therefore only require monitoring. In contrast, high-consequence or
high-probability risks are perceived as unacceptable and a strategy is required to manage the risk.
A strategy would include structured risk assessment to better understand the features that
contribute most to the risk, and to assist with the development of countermeasures. In the long-
term, education and training in risk assessment and management should be considered for
managers dealing with the wastewater management sectors. Furthermore, the precautionary
principle should be adopted when considering and assessing risks, particularly where hazards
have long environmental lifetimes or accumulative or irreversible consequences.
In the wake of the recent global economic problems, risk management is increasingly seen as an
important executive-level issue and a process that needs to be incorporated in day-to-day
decision making for long-term profitability and competitive advantage.
In general, risk management is considered to include the following elements:
1. Identify, categorise and assess potential threats.
2. Assess the vulnerability of critical components or assets to specific threats or to
combinations of different threats.
3. Determine the risk and consequences of specific threats.
4. Identify mechanisms whereby those risks may be reduced.

5. Prioritise risk reduction measures, and include regular reviews of all threats as an integral
component of programme management, ensuring that risk management is dynamic and
responsive to change.
Potential hazards or risks can be categorised as either environmental or economic risks even
though inevitable overlaps and linkages exist.
15.2 Environmental Risks
A range of potential environmental risks are expected in the construction and operation phases
of the Wastewater Management Scheme such as from the effluent discharge into the natural
water courses from the proposed Wastewater Treatment Plants.
The expected environmental and socio-economic impacts result from:
a. Resettlement and compensation,
b. Construction of Sewerage System (Sewers & Sewage Pumping Stations),
c. Construction of Wastewater Treatment Plants,
d. Operation of the Constructed Sanitation Systems.
Potential categories of risks include:
 Changes in precipitation and temperature as a result of climate change
 Hazards resulting from construction of the project components. Risk management
procedures need to be incorporated in the detailed designs and operating procedures.
 Discharge of inadequately treated effluent to natural water course may result to
increased health risks for downstream communities or households.
 Changes in local groundwater regime as a result of increased downstream flows after
discharge of treated effluent.
 Hazards and risks encountered during the operation of the sewerage system.
Environmental impacts resulting from construction are considered as short-term impacts and can
be managed with the adoption of recommended mitigation measures.
15.2.1 Climate Change
Global climate is predicted to change substantially, with changes in temperature, precipitation
and frequency of storms, and with subsequent effects on hydrology especially in the drier areas.
A global rapid rise in temperatures in the likely range of 1.1 to 6.4°C is expected. Precipitation
patterns are expected to change significantly, and extreme weather events (severe storms,
floods, droughts, and heat waves) are expected to become more intense and frequent. From the
sanitation (public health) and environment (water resources) perspective, the increased
incidence of drought periods represents a potential critical risk.
Agricultural output is predicted to be impacted by increased temperatures and changes in
precipitation and runoff. It is considered that many countries in Africa may suffer productivity
losses of more than 25 percent (World Bank, 2011)2. Such losses are projected to be acute in the
Sahel, the Horn of Africa, and in East and South-West Africa – areas that are projected to
experience significant decreases in precipitation and increases in temperature. Further work
focussed on Kenya also confirms that global warming will have adverse effects on agriculture
(Kabubo-Mariara and Karanja, 2007)3. Thus, the ability to provide water for downstream
environments and for irrigation purposes is likely to be of increasing importance, especially when
coupled with the increasing food requirements of an increasing urban population.
2
World Bank (2011). Africa’s Water Resources in a Changing Climate: Toward an Operational Perspective.
Summary Report. Africa Region, Sustainable Development Department, The World Bank.
3
Kabubo-Mariara, J. and Karanja, F.K. (2007). The Economic Impact of Climate Change on Kenyan Crop
Agriculture: A Ricardian Approach. World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper 4334.
Most models confirm projected changes in precipitation and temperature. Whilst the actual
extent of changes in precipitation are currently uncertain, models do indicate that changes will
occur. This will have inevitable implications for water and food security.
The risks from climate change can therefore be summarized as follows:
 Most parts of East Africa are projected to experience an increase in consecutive dry days
 There will be an increase in temperatures
 Water demands are expected to increase. Crop water requirements are expected to be
higher for both rain-fed and irrigated crops as temperatures rise. Similarly, livestock are
likely to require more water.
 Water-related public health could also be compromised by climate change. Hydrologic
and temperature change may modify the natural habitat boundaries of disease vectors
such as mosquitoes, and other water borne diseases.
Given the difficulties of averting global warming, adaptation to climate change is considered
essential to counter the expected impacts of long-term climate change. Improved management
and conservation of available water resources, protection of the water sources from potential
pollutants, water harvesting and recycling of wastewater are likely to play important roles.
Risk Management procedures need to include a regular assessment of the current climatic
situation and water and sanitation related issues (public health).
15.2.2 Risks from Construction
Potential negative impacts expected from construction of the project components, are detailed
in the Preliminary ESIA for the Selected Wastewater Management Schemes.
In general, the impacts related to such construction activities are minor, can be understood and
planned for and mitigated against. The major risks would therefore result from pre-construction
phase and construction phase environmental management plans not being fully prepared in
advance and not being followed and activities monitored in detail.
An important component of risk management in the pre-construction phase will be to set up a
series of important long-term monitoring systems that will provide the important information
required during the construction phase and during the subsequent operational phase.
At construction, the disposal of excavated material represents a potential hazard if not planned
and carried out to result in minimal social, economic and environmental impact. It is
recommended that instead of considering the excavated material as “spoil” requiring disposal, it
should be used as raw material for a range of activities such as road repair and construction, and
for use as building material, including the making of bricks for buildings.
15.2.3 Public Health Risks
Public health depends on factors including the quality / quantity of water supply and sanitation
systems adopted in an area. Proper sanitation entails safe handling of wastewater and proper
disposal of the treated effluent and sludge.
The quality of the raw water in potential water resources should be good enough to produce
domestic water supplies of a safe and acceptable standard when treated. These sources should
be consistent in terms of quantity and quality. In many cases, it is cheaper to protect the water
resources from pollution than to provide requisite treatment after contamination to ensure
achieve acceptable standards. Contaminated and poorly managed water resources contain
chemical, microbiological or radiological hazards which are health hazard.
The preventive measures that should be incorporated in risk management procedures include:
 Regular and comprehensive monitoring, to decide if and where contamination of the
water is occurring especially when contamination of the water sources is most likely.

Ideally, monitoring should be 200m downstream of effluent discharge point and 200m
upstream.
 Proper operation and maintenance of the Wastewater Management Schemes to ensure
proper conveyance and treatment of sewage including safe disposal of sludge
 Detailed knowledge of where the catchment (surface water) or re-charge zones
(groundwater) of the water sources are, and the nature of the land and all the land use
and/or land cover in these areas.
 Identifying protection zones for the sources, so that possible sources of contamination
that require to be managed can be identified. This could for example, include the legal
establishment of a series of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs) within the watersheds.
As an integral component of risk management procedures, water quality data of the water
resources need to be analysed and made available on a regular basis to all authorities involved in
the management of water resources and related issues.
15.2.4 Operational Hazards
Several hazards are inevitable during the operation of the Wastewater Management Scheme
System such as:
 Blockages of sewers
 Sewer leakages and bursts; leading to ground infiltration
 Microbiological contamination of water sources and natural water courses from raw
sewage or unpolished effluents
 Contamination of drainage channels and downstream water sources as a result of
poorly or inadequately treated wastewater.
Risk management plans will need to take account of such operational hazards and incorporate
risk reduction strategies.
15.3 Economic Risks
The use of pricing policies and other economic instruments are essential for the effective and
equitable allocation of resource considering social and economic criteria as well as basic human
needs. Economic evaluations need to consider positive and negative impacts on health, human
and ecosystems. Inadequate economic policies have often contributed to the poor performance
of wastewater utilities thus decreasing their ability to attract financial resources from the public
and private sector as well as the international community.
While the public sector has traditionally played a major role in financing wastewater utilities
development, there is an increasing recognition of the need to involve other stakeholders (private
sector and community based organisations) for financial sustainability.
Financial support for the collection, processing and dissemination of timely, reliable and demand-
oriented information is essential to the effective management of wastewater management
schemes.
15.3.1 Multi-Criteria Evaluation and Risk Analysis of Proposed Investment Scenarios
The Least Cost Analysis for the economic evaluation of alternative schemes of satisfying the
sanitation needs of Mombasa West Mainland up to year 2040, considered the capital and
operational costs and their investment schedules.
The Least Cost Analysis determined the most economically efficient means of providing
Wastewater Management System to meet the projected demand, through a normalisation
process allowing for the options different configurations, to show the Average Incremental cost
of BOD5 Removal (AIC) for each option expressed as US$/m3 of BOD5 removed. Sensitivity analysis
to test the effect of changes in the key parameters – capital costs, O&M costs, and discount rate
was also carried out.

Following the Least Cost Analysis, a Multi-Criteria Analysis was carried out (See Chapter 9)
considering six key sustainability issues taking account of natural resources, economic
performance, technical issues, environmental issues and social sustainability. Each aspect was
scored and weighed according to its importance and the overall score used to determine the best
option and strategy.
The Multi-Criteria Analysis allowed for other factors affecting the risk and sustainability of the
development option that were not fully reflected in the economic Least Cost Analysis which uses
the monetised capital and O&M costs. Risks were accommodated in the Multi-Criteria Analysis
by considering several factors, particularly on the operation and maintenance, schemes technical
complexity and number of management entities involved; susceptibility to prioritisation and;
multiplicity of the Wastewater Treatment Plant (Phasing).
The results of the Multi-Criteria Analysis reflect the preferred option and strategy for meeting
future water demand that is best suited to manage the potential risks.
15.3.2 Key Issues and Recommended Actions
a. Wastewater Management Scheme must be integrated into the national economy,
recognising it as a social and economic good, vital for ecosystem functioning and applying
economic instruments in its management. As such, economic policies must consider
"intangibles" such as social and environmental values of dealing with wastewater as well as
the special conditions in non-monetary sector economies.
b. Actions should be oriented towards applying demand based management approach taking
into account the notion of users' willingness and ability to pay. Resources must help in the
collection, dissemination and transfer of international experiences in economic evaluation
and financial management of wastewater schemes. Where possible, support should be
provided to strengthen private sector, community based participation as well as the
development of appropriate and low cost technologies. Also, assistance should continue in
favour of public institutions in improving their role.
c. Efficiency, transparency and accountability are keys to sustainable financial management of
wastewater management schemes. For these, information should be made public including;
performance indicators, procurement procedures, pricing policies and components, cost
estimates and revenues. Determination and allocation of subsidies, cross-subsidies, and
charges should be transparent in order to maintain confidence and improve investment
revenues in the sector. Instruments such as auditing could help achieve this goal.
d. Integrated wastewater management requires closed partnership between public and private
sectors. As such, a clear definition and distinction should be made of the role of both central
and county governments, the private sector and other stakeholders, where appropriate to
local situations. This is expected to create more conducive institutional and legal
environment for private sector investment and the emergence of local water service
providers. Particular attention has to be given to financial and economic risk assessment.
e. Regardless of policies, financial sustainability is a prerequisite for sustainable integrated
wastewater management. Therefore, it is a necessity to facilitate a gradual transition towards
full cost recovery, criteria for financial burden sharing and the development of financial and
regulatory instruments. Also, measures needed include adapted financial policies for the
poor and rural areas who might not have access to the water-borne sanitation system when
carrying tariff studies. Emphasis should be placed on participation of users, training of local
entrepreneurs and the diversification of sources of funding. Furthermore, a strong link should
be made with the de-centralisation process.
f. At the same time, it is important to ensure adequate financing of the wastewater
management schemes. Related issues in this case concern the adequacy of absorptive
capacity and availability of financial resources within the sector, the lack of political

awareness and will to implement strategies aimed at recovering costs as well as the
requirements of external funding sources which limit the flows of resources to the sector.
Thus, actions should be aimed at improving donor-recipient dialogue on financing, the
creation of national fund for financial resources mobilisation and allocation in the water
resources sector. The international community and Governments (donors and recipients
alike) should be urged to maintain and be encouraged to increase their assistance to the
water resources sector in a predictable manner and targeted to solve specific problems.
Value can be added by improving communication and co-operation among sources of
financing as well as the mobilisation of largely untapped community financing resources and
through the provision of credit mechanisms which foster self-help efforts by individuals. This
includes the mobilisation of innovative source of funding.
g. The frequency of extreme events has increased in recent decades. Therefore, provision
should be made for economic costs analysis of these events and for the management
measures for chronically prone areas to flooding and drought. Several main actions may be
concurred to achieving this goal. The creation of mechanisms of regional consultation,
regional solidarity funds, drought and flood preparedness programs and early warning
systems, mitigation plans at local and national levels, regional emergency funds and
insurance programs for extreme events could be considered.
h. In a broader perspective, several priority activities should be financed including institutional
and capacity building, integrated wastewater planning and management. Particularly, local
support should be provided for sustainable solutions to communities, associations, local
authorities and emerging local private sector.
i. Finally, financial resources can be best attracted to the sector when efforts are made to
increase financial accountability and to reduce cost in particular. For this, specific actions
could include restructuring of existing institutions, improving existing management through
demand management/leak reduction, promoting competition in service provision, data
collection and creating financial incentives, participation as well as the use of low cost
technologies.
15.3.3 Priority Areas in Need of Financing
Areas in need of financing are grouped into the following divides:
 Institutional capacity building/support to policy and legislation
 Integrated wastewater Management
 Data collection, monitoring and integrated information management systems
 Local support for sustainable solutions to communities, associations, local authorities
and emerging local private sector
 Investment to areas without access to basic needs
15.3.4 Strategies / Action for Cost Reduction
Several strategies and actions are recommended to address economic and financial issues related
to wastewater Management. Such measures include:
 Restructuring of existing institutions to reduce cost
 Improving existing management such as demand management/leak reduction
 Promoting competition in service provision
 Improving existing data collection network
 Provision of financial incentives e.g. tax exemption for equipment and to private sector;
 Investing in under privileged areas
 Reliance on low cost systems and appropriate technologies including indigenous
technologies
 Increasing accountability in system management

15.4 Risk Management Plan

An important component of the risk management will be the establishment of a set of systems
for monitoring and recording relevant information.
General Risk Management Plan for Identified Environment and Social Risks are given in Table
15.2 below
Table 15.2: Identified Environment and Social Risks and Mitigation Measures
ACTIVITY PARAMETER MITIGATION MEASURES CHECKLIST
0. General Notification (a) The local construction and environment inspectorates and
Conditions and Worker communities be notified of upcoming activities
Safety
(b) The public be notified of the Works through appropriate
notification in the media and/or at publicly accessible sites
(including the site of the works)
(c) All legally required permits obtained for construction and/or
rehabilitation
(d) Contractor formally agrees that all work be carried out in a safe
and disciplined manner designed to minimize impacts on
neighbouring residents and environment.
(e) Workers’ PPE comply with international good practice (always
hardhats, as needed masks and safety glasses, harnesses and
safety boots)
(f) Appropriate signposting of the sites to inform workers of key rules
and regulations to follow.
A. General Air Quality (a) Construction debris kept in controlled area and sprayed with
Rehabilitation water mist to reduce debris dust
and /or
(b) During project construction, dust should be suppressed by
Construction
ongoing water spraying and/or installing dust screen enclosures
Activities
at site
(c) The surrounding environment (sidewalks, roads) be kept free of
debris to minimize dust
(d) No open burning of construction / waste material at site
(e) No excessive idling of construction vehicles at sites
Noise (a) Construction noise be limited to restricted times agreed to in the
permit
(b) During operations, the engine covers of generators, air
compressors and other powered mechanical equipment be
closed, and equipment placed as far away from residential areas
as possible
Water Quality (a) The site establishes appropriate erosion and sediment control
measures such as e.g. hay bales and / or silt fences to prevent
sediment from moving off site and causing excessive turbidity in
nearby streams and rivers.
Waste (a) Waste collection and disposal pathways and sites be identified
management for all major waste types expected from demolition and
construction activities.

ACTIVITY PARAMETER MITIGATION MEASURES CHECKLIST
(b) Mineral construction and demolition wastes be separated from

general refuse, organic, liquid and chemical wastes by on-site
sorting and stored in appropriate containers.
(c) Construction waste be collected and disposed properly by
licensed collectors
(d) Records of waste disposal be maintained as proof for proper
management as designed.
(e) Whenever feasible the contractor to reuse and recycle
appropriate and viable materials (except asbestos)
B. Individual Water Quality (a) The approach to handling sanitary wastes and wastewater from
wastewater building sites (installation or reconstruction) must be approved
treatment by the local authorities
system
(b) Before being discharged into receiving waters, effluents from
individual wastewater systems be treated to meet the minimal
quality criteria set out by national guidelines on effluent quality
and wastewater treatment
(c) Monitoring of new wastewater systems (before/after) will be
carried out
(d) Construction vehicles and machinery will be washed only in
designated areas where runoff will not pollute natural surface
water bodies.
C. Physical Cultural (a) If the facility is to be constructed within a designated historic
cultural (s) Heritage structure, very close to such a structure, or located in a
designated historic district, notification shall be made and
approvals/permits be obtained from local authorities and all
construction activities planned and carried out in line with local
and national legislation.
(b) It shall be ensured that provisions are put in place so that
artefacts or other possible “chance finds” encountered in
excavation or construction are noted and registered.
In addition, there are a series of potential risks that are related to or linked with Climate Change.
These are, for example, likely to alter or increase the water requirements of downstream
communities, as well as the requirements for agriculture, and for other water related sectors of
the economy. The relevant sectors are likely to include: Agriculture, Energy, Health, Biodiversity
and Ecosystems, as indicated above under the section on Climate Change. Risk management
related to Climate Change will need to be carried out in conjunction and collaboration with the
new Climate Change Authority, established by Bill of Parliament and signed into law in May 2016.
Similarly, there are long-term risks associated with the onset of Peak Oil, and predicted increases
in crude oil prices, resulting in increased costs and changes to sectors of the economy. Current
trends in the international crude oil prices, based on daily price data from the year 2000 to the
present, indicate a trend towards a doubling of current crude oil prices by the year 2018. Such
cost increases may result in changes in the tendency for population increase in the major urban.
Such changes would modify the demands for wastewater services. Risk management therefore
needs to be aware of this potential situation and the possible requirements for changes in the
wastewater management schemes.

16.0 CONCLUSION OF THE MASTER PLAN

At present, Mombasa West Mainland has a Sewerage System that covers approximately 40% of
the area. This sewerage system is malfunctional and the sewage is treated at the existing Kipevu
Wastewater Treatment Plant and disposed of into the Indian Ocean.
The rest of the West Mainland currently uses on-plot sanitation means such as septic tanks and
pit latrines and lacking a proper sludge management and disposal facility is a health hazard to the
residents and an environmental risk.
As an immediate intervention, construction of Ablution Blocks at designated Public Places and a
centralized Sludge Handling Facility is necessary. It is equally important to ensure procurement
of Exhaust Vehicles to provide desluging and transport services. A summary of the Immediate
Sanitation Measures and their costs estimates are given Tables 16.1 and 16.2 below.
Table 16.1: Details of the Ablution Blocks – Immediate Sanitation Measures
Details of each Ablution Block Total Capital Cost
Number
Proposed No. of No. of Shower Max. Daily
Ksh. USD
Toilets Rooms capacity
2 6 2 720 31,000,013 300,971
Table 16.2: Details of the Sludge Handling Facility – Immediate Sanitation Measures
Total Capital Cost
S/No. Component Details
Ksh. USD
Exhaust Discharge  Minimum 1 Nr (Either owned by

1 - -
Tanker MOWASCO or Private Providers)
To provide a sustainable sanitation system, a centralized wastewater management system

comprising of a gravity sewage conveyance system with limited pumping (9 Nr Pumping Station)
and Oxidation Ditches with Chlorination / De-Chlorination Facility system based Wastewater
Treatment Plants at Kipevu with ultimate capacity of 44,300m3/day has been selected from the
developed alternative schemes.
The implementation of this strategy is to be carried out in 2 phases i.e. Medium Term Plan (2021
-2025) and Long Term Plan (2026 – 2040).
The implementation details of the selected Wastewater Management Scheme in the 2 Phases
are given in Tables 16.3 below and Table 16.4 on Page 16-2.
Table 16.3: Summary of Implementation Cost: Medium-Term Plan Plan (2021 -2025)
1 Sewers  225 – 525mm Dia; Total length 16.7km
 5 Nr New
2 Pumping Stations
 4 Nr Rehabilitated
2,373,533,970 23,044,019
Waste Water  Chlorination /De-chlorination Facility
3
Treatment Plant (capacity 17,000 m3/day)

Table 16.4: Summary of Implementation Cost: Long-Term Plan Plan (2026 -2040)
1 Sewers  225 -375 mm Dia; Total length 22.4 km
 Oxidation Ditches with Chlorination
Waste Water 5,137,002,935 49,873,815
2 /De-chlorination Facility (capacity
Treatment Plant
27,300 m3/day)
Financial analysis of the selected Wastewater Management Scheme presented the following
Financial Ratios / Performance Indicators;
 Benefit – Cost (BC) Ratio; 1.49 - 1.96
 Net Present Values (NPV); Ksh. 6,251,034,284 @ 5% cost of capital
Ksh. 3,008,596,882 @ 8% cost of capital
 Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR); 19.70%
On the other hand, economic analysis presented the following Performance Indicators;
 Net Present Values (NPV); Ksh. 3,202,840,996 @ 10% cost of capital
Ksh. 2,163,009,676 @ 12% cost of capital
 Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR); 34%

Sensitivity analysis of the financial analysis indicated that the scheme’s viability is not affected by
10% and 20% shocks in net income.
Thus, it can be concluded that the selected scheme is both financially and economically viable.

Waste Water Masterplan Mombasa West Mainland

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Waste Water Masterplan Mombasa West Mainland

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Waste Water Masterplan Mombasa West Mainland

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

COAST WATER SERVICES BOARD

WATER AND SANITATION SERVICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT –

Consulting Services for Wastewater Master Plan for Mombasa and

FINAL WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN REPORT FOR

WATER AND SANITATION SERVICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT –

Wastewater Master Plan for Mombasa and Selected Towns within

Coast Water Services Board

DOCUMENT TITLE: FINAL WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN REPORT – MOMBASA WEST

RECORDS FOR REVISION

Version DATE: DESCRIPTION/PURPOSE OF ISSUE: PREPARED BY: CHECKED APPROVED

MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH

WATER AND SANITATION SERVICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT –

Wastewater Master Plan for Mombasa and Selected Towns within

FINAL WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN REPORT– MOMBASA WEST

E1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THIS STUDY ................................................................................. 1

3.2.2 Existing Land Use ....................................................................................................... 3-4

8.3.4 Chemical Costs ........................................................................................................... 8-5

13.3.1 Alternative Sites ...................................................................................................... 13-3

15.4 RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN ...................................................................................................... 15-8

MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH vi

MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH vii

MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH viii

Table 9.12: Resultant Matrix of Parameters’ Pairwise Comparison ................................................ 9-10

MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH x

MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH xi

MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH E-1

Table E2: Summary of Population Projection within the Study Area

E4 WATER DEMAND FORECAST

Figure E2: Water Demand Projection

MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH E-3

Figure E3: Comparative Projected Wastewater Flows up to Year 2040

a. Alternative 1: Centralized Scheme with a Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) at Kipevu

Figure E4: Locations of the Alternative Waste Water Treatment Plant

Conveyance System Wastewater Treatment Plants

 Existing - Oxidation Ditch

MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH E-5

E7 MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS AND REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES

MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH E-6

Table E8: Details of recommended Wastewater Management Scheme – Decentralized Scheme

2 Civil Works (Kshs) 7,121,603,056 7,214,060,417

2.3 Sewers (Kshs) 1,650,073,162 1,281,534,075

Total Capital Cost (Kshs) 7,510,536,905 8,817,631,362

Total Capital Cost (USD) [1] 72,917,834 85,608,071

MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH E-7

Table E11: Costs for Long-Term Plan (Year 2026 – 2040)

MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH E-8

MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH E-9

 Cost savings in terms of safe sewage disposal to the environment

2 6 2 720 31,000,013 300,971

To provide a sustainable sanitation system, a centralized wastewater management system

MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH E-10

MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH E-11

3. Kilifi Malindi, Kilifi, Watamu, Mtwapa and Part of Mariakani

4. Taita Taveta Voi and Taveta

5. Lamu Lamu Island

6 Tana River Hola

MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH 1-1

Figure 1.1: Location Plan for the Project Towns

MIBP/ CES/ BOSCH 1-2