You are on page 1of 41

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

CLEA DEVELOPMET MECHAISM


PROJECT DESIG DOCUMET FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD)
Version 03 - in effect as of: 22 December 2006

COTETS

A. General description of the small scale project activity

B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology

C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period

D. Environmental impacts

E. Stakeholders comments

Annexes

Annex 1: Contact information on participants in the proposed small scale project activity

Annex 2: Information regarding public funding

Annex 3: Baseline information

Annex 4: Monitoring Information

1
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

Revision history of this document

Version Date Description and reason of revision


Number
01 21 January Initial adoption
2003
02 8 July 2005 The Board agreed to revise the CDM SSC PDD to reflect
guidance and clarifications provided by the Board since
version 01 of this document.
As a consequence, the guidelines for completing CDM SSC
PDD have been revised accordingly to version 2. The latest
version can be found at
<http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Documents>.
03 22 December The Board agreed to revise the CDM project design
2006 document for small-scale activities (CDM-SSC-PDD), taking
into account CDM-PDD and CDM-NM.

2
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

SECTIO A. General description of small-scale project activity

A.1 Title of the small-scale project activity:

>> Project Title: Laguna de Bay Region Community Waste Management Project: Methane Recovery
From Wastewater
PDD version 01
Date of the document: 25 November 2007

A.2. Description of the small-scale project activity:

>> Description

The objective of the Laguna de Bay Region Community Waste Management Project is to implement a set
of bundle on small scale waste management projects in the Laguna de Bay watershed, a watershed that is
heavily degraded and has-ever increasing environmental pressures from more than 10 million people and
thousands of industries that produce largely untreated solid and liquid wastes. The continued degradation
has resulted in increasing greenhouse gas emissions from waste, and through the waste management
interventions under the project, both environmental degradation and greenhouse gas emissions will be
reduced.

Wastewater treatment: The purpose of this activity is to reduce organic water pollution in the watershed
while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The project consists of two components: (i) methane recovery and combustion and (ii) methane
avoidance through substitution of anaerobic systems with aerobic systems. These activities are covered
under the small scale methodology AMS-III.H.-Methane recovery in wastewater treatment and AMS.III.I
Avoidance of methane production in wastewater treatment through replacement of anaerobic lagoons by
aerobic systems.

The wastewater treatment project includes four small municipalities, Teresa and Taytay in the province
of Rizal and Nagcarlan and Santa Cruz in the province of Laguna. These municipalities both own and
operate slaughterhouses. As with all the municipal slaughterhouses in the Laguna de Bay region, they do
not have effectively functioning wastewater treatment systems. Through the project, the slaughterhouses
will construct and operate biogas wastewater treatment systems that will recover the methane emissions
from the existing wastewater disposal systems. The project will also include one small scale privately
owned pig farm Cerdorado Farming Inc. and a cluster of medium-sized and much smaller piggery
operations including backyard piggeries which will be managed by the Pagsanjan-Lumban River Basin
Management and Development Foundation Inc (PLBRMDFI) which includes seven municipalities
namely; Majayjay, Cavinti, Pagsanjan, Lumban, Magdalena, and Luisiana, in Laguna, and Lucban,
Quezon.

The Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) will have performance contracts with these
municipalities and the private entities to operate the treatment systems, collect and combust the methane
emissions to meet emissions reduction targets and to undertake associated monitoring. Payments to the
municipalities and private firms will be based on the achieved CERs.

3
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

Contribution to sustainable development

In the Philippines, the Laguna de Bay watershed is a priority watershed for environmental sustainability
goals since it contains 13 percent of the population of the Philippines and the lake and its tributaries
support fisheries, recreation, domestic water supply and provide aesthetic value for the many small,
historic towns in the area. Current water quality in the lakes tributaries is very poor especially in the
town centers and even more pronounced in the west bay. The pollutant loading from wastewater in these
areas has reduced the water quality in many of the lakes tributaries to levels such that it cannot support
most fish species and has contributed to water borne diseases in the region (Laguna Lake Environment
Monitor, 2005). The project will contribute to the environmentally sustainable development of the area
by reducing water pollution loading to the tributaries.

The project also provides new sources of financing to increase and improve the effectiveness of public
investments. Through carbon finance, the project will provide revenues for operation and maintenance.

Through the participatory planning and implementation process, the project will also provide an avenue
for participation in watershed planning and management with specific attention made for inclusion of
marginalized groups (e.g. women, indigenous peoples) in the process. Disclosure of municipal
performance on environment projects will also be enhanced since the performance of the wastewater
system and associated emissions reductions during implementation will be made available to these
groups and to the general public. As part of the process, the project will also provide training
opportunities of a wide group of stakeholders in watershed planning and management.

A.3. Project participants:


>>
Table 1. Project Participants
ame of Party involved (*) Private and/or public Kindly indicate if the Party
((host) indicates a host party) entity(ies) project participants involved wishes to be
(as applicable) considered as project
participant (Yes/o)
Government of the Philippines Laguna Lake Development No
(host) Authority
Government of Italy IBRD as a Trustee of Yes
Community Development
Carbon Fund (CDCF)
(*) In accordance with the CDM modalities and procedures, at the time of making the CDM-PDD public
at the stage of validation, a Party involved may or may not have provided its approval. At the time of
requesting registration, the approval by the Party(ies) involved as required.

The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) as a Trustee of Community
Development Carbon Fund (CDCF) will be the focal point for communication with CDM EB with regard
to issuance and forwarding of CERs.

(See Annex 1 for the list of project participants and their contact information.)

A.4. Technical description of the small-scale project activity:

4
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

A.4.1. Location of the small-scale project activity:


>>
Table 2. Location of Project Province Barangay where Detailed description
ActivityMunicipality/Privat plant is located of plant location
e Entities
Teresa Rizal May Iba 143408.9N
1211240.1E
Taytay Rizal San Juan 143240.0N
1210733.8E
agcarlan Laguna Palayan 140818.5N
1212421.3E
Santa Cruz Laguna Palasan 141434.6N
1212504E
Cerdorado Farming, Inc. Laguna Banca-Banca 141050.9N
agcarlan 1212253.5E
Pagsanjan-Lumban River
Basin Management and
Development Foundation,
Inc.
Lucban
Quezon Igang 34.0037E
Lucban 156.2959N
Quezon Ayuti 34.2601E
Majayjay 156.1029N
Laguna Botocan 33.7896E
Majayjay 156.5823N
Laguna Piit 33.8006E
Luisiana 156.3788N
Laguna San Diego 33.8390E
Pagsanjan 156.8859N
Laguna Pinagsanjan 33.3715E
Magdalena 157.7153N
Laguna Tipunan 141142.1N
Lumban 1212544.0E
Laguna Balubad 141730.6N
Cavinti 1212743.4E
Laguna Lumot 1579718N
340506E

A.4.1.1. Host Party(ies):

>> The host Party is the Republic of the Philippines.

5
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

A.4.1.2. Region/State/Province etc.:


>>
The Laguna de Bay Region is part of the Southern Tagalog Region. Subprojects are in the provinces of
Laguna, Quezon, and Rizal.

Figure 1. Map of the Laguna de Bay Region showing the participating Municipalities.

A.4.1.3. City/Town/Community etc:


>> Laguna de Bay Region Community Waste Management Project: Methane Recovery From
Wastewater : Teresa,Taytay , Nagcarlan, Sta. Cruz, Majayjay, Pagsanjan, Lumban, Lucban,
Cavinti, Magdalena, and Luisiana.

A.4.1.4. Details of physical location, including information allowing the


unique identification of this small-scale project activity :

>> Detailed information is provided in Table 2 above.

A.4.2. Type and category(ies) and technology/measure of the small-scale project activity:

6
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

>> The proposed project activity consists of two components that are eligible under the type III projects
of simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM projects since both components reduce less
than 60 ktCO2-e of emissions per year throughout the whole crediting period.

AMS.III.H/Version 4- Methane Recovery in Wastewater Treatment. The project qualifies under


category III.H. as wastewater treatment activities will recover methane from biogenic organic matter in
wastewaters by introducing a methane recovery and combustion system to an open anaerobic treatment
system without methane recovery.

Type III.I/Version 4-Avoidance of methane production in wastewater treatment through replacement of


anaerobic lagoon by aerobic system. The project qualifies under category III.I as it substitutes the
anaerobic lagoon with aerobic system removing additional methane from its treated wastewater.

The project will introduce an anaerobic system with methane recovery as the primary means of
wastewater treatment. The system includes a dome bioreactor with gas recovery piping followed by an
anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR) and an aerobic planted gravel filter in the case of municipal slaughter
houses while in the case of pig farms, a septic tank or deep pond may be used in lieu of ABR . Recovered
gas is flared and/or used as fuel heat for the slaughterhouses scalding operations or domestic heating
applications in piggery farms. Sludge from the system will be removed every 2-3 years and will be
treated by the municipalities through their aerobic composting operations or will undergo windrow
composting in the case of pig farms.

The schematic diagram of the proposed biogas system which is the primary wastewater treatment
equipment that will be used by all the participating entities is shown in Figure 2. The biogas system will
utilize a low cost locally-designed dome-shaped concrete biogas digester with fixed limited volume for
gas storage. It will have a flaring system to efficiently burn unused excess methane. The digesters head
space acts as methane storage while hydraulic head of wastewater effluent in the discharge chamber
provides the necessary gas pressure.

Aside from the biogas system, all participating entities will also employ the aerobic planted gravel filter
as a final treatment. This system is a type of wetland system similarly applied in treating mine tailings.
The existing treatment equipment of the participating entities will form part of the proposed projects
wastewater treatment system. These include septic tank, open ponds and anaerobic baffled reactors
(ABR).

7
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board


Biogas for
heating Flaring Apparatus

Inffluent Combustion
Chamber Fixed Volume gases
Gas Holder

Wastewater Wastewater
Influent Effluent

Anaerobic
Digester
Hydraulic
Pressure Tank
Figure 2: Schematic diagram of proposed biogas system for project. Formatted

Table 3. Wastewater Treatment Facilities


Wastewater Treatment Technologies
Treatment Biogas Anaerobic Aerobic Open Pond Septic Tank
Facilities Reactor Baffled Gravel Filter
Reactor
Santa Cruz x x x
Slaughterhouse
Nagcarlan x x x
Slaughterhouse
Taytay x x x
Slaughterhouse
Teresa x x x
Slaughterhouse
Cerdorado x x x
Piggery Farm
PLRBMDFI x x x x
Piggery Farms

A.4.3 Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period:
>>
The chosen crediting period is from 2008 through 2029. Estimated emission reductions shown in table 3
below.

Table 4. Estimated ERs over the first 7-crediting period


Years Annual estimated emission reduction

8
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

in tones of CO2e
2008 389
2009 394
2010 400
2011 405
2012 411
2013 417
2014 429
Total estimated reductions, (t-CO2-e) 2,845
Total no. of crediting years 21 (7 x 3 renewable)
Annual average over the first 7-crediting 407
period of estimated reductions (t-CO2-e/yr)

A.4.4. Public funding of the small-scale project activity:


>>
Public funding has not resulted in the diversion of official development assistance and is separate from
and not counted towards the financial obligations of Parties included in Annex I of the Kyoto Protocol.
(all public funding sources listed in Annex 2)

A.4.5. Confirmation that the small-scale project activity is not a debundled component of a
large scale project activity:
>>
None of the small-scale project activities or their aggregate bundle are debundled components of a large
project activities because within the last 2 years there is not a registered small-scale CDM project activity
with the same project proponents, in the same project category and technology/measure within 1 km of
the project boundaries of the projects. (Based on Annex C of Decision 21/CP.8).

SECTIO B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology

B.1. Title and reference of the approved baseline and monitoring methodology applied to the
small-scale project activity:
>>
The proposed project activity applies two approved small scale methodologies.

AMS.III.H. Methane Recovery in Wastewater Treatment- Version 4 as of 23 December 2006

AMS.III.I. Avoidance of methane production in wastewater treatment through replacement of anaerobic


lagoon by aerobic system version 4 as of 23 December 2006

B.2 Justification of the choice of the project category:


>>
Justification of the choice of the methodologies and why they are applicable to the project activity:

The project bundle qualifies as a type III small scale activity as it reduces greenhouse gas emissions and
emissions reductions of less than 60 ktCO2-e/yr for the entire crediting period. The project will apply
small scale methodology AMS.III.H/version 4 as it meets the applicability criteria 5 as provided below. It

9
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

falls under scenario (vi) of AMS III.H which includes introduction of wastewater treatment with methane
recovery and combustion to an existing wastewater treatment system without methane recovery as a
sequential stage treatment step for the wastewater that is presently being treated in an anaerobic lagoon
without methane recovery.

The project also applies approved small scale methodology AMS.III.I/version 4 as it meets the
applicability criteria under this methodology as it avoids the production of methane from biogenic
organic matter in wastewaters by substituting the baseline anaerobic system with aerobic planted gravel
filter system removing the remaining methane from the wastewater.

The project activity will also result in reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through the displacement of
fossil gas fuel and fuel wood used for heating in slaughterhouse operations and small scale and backyard
piggery farms. However, they are not considered in the project emissions reductions.

B.3. Description of the project boundary:


>>
The project boundary is the physical, geographical site of the project activity where the wastewater
treatment and sludge treatment, as well as the fuel combustion take place. In the case of the
slaughterhouse waste treatment project, it includes: (i) the wastewater and sludge treatment with methane
recovery and combustion system, (ii) the receiving body of water, and (iii) the composting and soil
application of the sludge produced from the system. This is shown in Figure 3.a. On the other hand, the
small scale and backyard piggery farm project, the project boundary also includes the pig pens, as shown
in Figure 3b.

Figure 3a. Project boundary of slaughterhouse treatment system

Composting and soil


application of sludge Receiving
water body

Anaerobic Baffled
Biogas Reactor (ABR)/ Planted
Slaughterhouse Reactor Septic Tank Gravel Filter

Combustion
equipment in
Scalding operation

Figure 3b. Project boundary of piggery farm wastewater treatment system

10
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

Receiving
Composting and soil water body
application of sludge

Gas Stove for


cooking

Biogas ABR/Septic Tank/


Planted
Reactor Deep Pond
Gravel Filter

Piggery Farm

B.4. Description of baseline and its development:

>>
The participating municipal slaughterhouses either newly constructed or existing, were originally
designed to have different technologies.

Both Nagcarlan and Santa Cruz have constructed new slaughterhouses that were designed using the
baseline technology that includes a treatment plant with a series of anaerobic tanks (one covered
followed by 3 uncovered) that are 2.4 meters deep. In the case of Santa Cruz, the wastewater treatment
system was constructed and will be changed under the project while for Nagcarlan , the decision to
change the technology was made before the original design was implemented and therefore the project
technology will substitute for the baseline technology in the original design. In both cases due to the
CDM, the projects will not use the original baseline technology they were designed for and instead will
capture and flare the methane produced in the anaerobic reactor and will replace the secondary anaerobic
lagoon with an anaerobic baffled reactor. This corresponds to scenario (vi) in AMS.III.H paragraph 6 and
the baseline scenario paragraph 4 of AMS.III.I. On the other hand, The existing Taytay and Teresa
Slaughterhouses have septic tanks and will consider them as baseline treatment systems.

On the other hand, the participating Piggery Farms will consider their open ponds or septic tanks as
baseline treatment scenarios.

Key Information and data used in baseline determination


The basic assumptions of the baseline methodology under Category III.H and III.I., as applied to the
project activity according to the formulae shown in section B.6.1 are summarized below:
Table 5. Assumptions used in the baseline analysis
Item Amount Definition Source/Reference
Qy,ww (m3) See Annex 3 Annual volume of Based on projected

11
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

wastewater production and design


capacity
CODy,ww,untreated 0.003, slaughterhouses Chemical oxygen Based on design waste
(tonnes/m3) 0.006, piggery farms demand of wastewater loads expected from
entering the project facilities
activity methane capture
facility (that would emit
methane in the baseline)
Bo,ww 0.21 Methane generation IPCC default, as per SS
(kg CH4/kg COD) capacity of the treated III.H version 4
wastewater
MCFww,treatment 0.4 - 0.7 for Methane correction Based on baseline
slaughterhouse factor for the existing system of anaerobic
wastewater treatment tanks > 2 m deep or a
system to which the septic tank with some
anaerobic reactor will residual disposal in a
be introduced moderately polluted
river or creek

0.6 0.8 for piggery Based on composite


farms average of various
piggery farmsof
PLRBMDFI or deep
pond of Cerdorado

B.5. Description of how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are reduced below
those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered small-scale CDM project activity:

In accordance with attachment A to Appendix B of the simplified modalities and procedures for the
CDM small-scale project activities, the baseline emissions from the municipal slaughterhouse wastewater
and piggery farm wastewater in the project area would be higher in the absence of project activity due to
barriers in investment , technological and financial resources.

The baseline emissions will be higher than that of the project activity because the latter will recover and
combust methane emissions that would not have occurred anyway because of the following barriers:

Investment Barrier;
The anaerobic system with methane recovery and combustion represents a higher investment cost that the
baseline scenario of using simple open tanks. For both the slaughterhouses and the piggery farms, the
approach of using a series of open anaerobic reactors is more financially attractive compared to that with
methane recovery due to increased costs associated with enclosing the reactors and installing a methane
recovery system.

Technology Barrier:

12
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

Compared to the choice of adopting an open anaerobic system, a biogas reactor system is a technology
that is more complicated to operate, relatively new in the country, and completely foreign to all
municipal slaughterhouses and small/backyard piggery farms in the country except for a few that have
adopted the system. Open reactor systems need very little operational input while biogas systems add real
and perceived complexity in both managing the reactor system and the methane recovery system.
Municipal slaughterhouses and small/backyard piggery farms have other concerns in managing their
respective business operations and will take a risk in adopting an unfamiliar technology that may cause
them additional quality time and resources, the designing and operating their wastewater treatment
system represents a significant barrier to the adoption of a biogas system.

Financial Barrier:

Local governments and small/backyard piggery farm owners within the project area have very limited
resources for investments. In the case of local governments, competition for these limited resources is
tight and constructing and operating a wastewater treatment project for a slaughterhouse provide much
less municipal revenue, direct social benefits and political visibility compared to projects like municipal
markets, livelihood programs, community centers and the slaughterhouse itself. It is both financially and
politically more advantageous for them to either under-invest in these facilities (i.e no investment or a
simple open tank system) or adopt the cheapest technological solution. The biogas system to be applied
in the project represents neither of these baseline solutions. On the other hand, small and backyard
piggery farms have very limited available financial resources. They are more inclined to invest them to
projects that will result directly to significant increase in revenues like increasing the number of pig
population and expanding the pig housing capacity instead of investing on a biogas wastewater treatment
facility with methane recovery and combustion.

The emission reductions due to the project activity are estimated at 407 tCO2e annually.

Box 1: Policies related to wastewater methane recovery system: Wastewater regulations do not
require specific wastewater treatment technologies such as that with methane recovery and contain
no mandatory requirements for the collection and flaring of gas. Wastewater is regulated through
permitting, effluent standard, and pollution charge systems stipulated under the Clean Water Act of
2002. Overall monitoring and enforcement by government regulators has been limited to a small
industry groups.* Municipal slaughterhouses nationwide are generally non-compliant with effluent
standard and in the Laguna de Bay Region, there are no municipal slaughterhouses that meet the
effluent standards.**
* Nationally, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has only 3% of the firms on their database
and only a portion of them are inspected. Among the documented reasons for low compliance and lack of enforcement are
inadequate government resources and incomplete databases. Philippine Environment Monitor, DENR and World Bank
(2003-2005)
** Laguna Lake Development Authority, 2007.

B.6. Emission Reductions:

B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices:


>>

13
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

Estimation of Baseline Emission:

The baseline scenario is either an anaerobic wastewater treatment system (sequential settling tanks with
incomplete treatment), septic tank or deep open ponds, all of which without methane recovery to which
an anaerobic wastewater treatment system with methane recovery and combustion and an aerobic
treatment system will be added. This corresponds to scenario (vi) in AMS.III.H. paragraph 6 and AMS.
III.I. paragraph 4.

The following equation is used for calculation of baseline emissions:

BEy = Qy,ww*CODy,ww,untreated*Boww*MCFww,treatment*GWP_CH4

Where:

Qy,ww the flow of wastewater and/or sludge;

CODy,ww,untreated chemical oxygen demand of untreated wastewater:

Boww methane producing capacity of the wastewater (IPCC default value


for domestic wastewater, 0.21 kg CH4/kg COD)

MCFww,treatment Methane correction factor for the existing wastewater treatment to which the
anaerobic treatment step is being introduced.

In the case of slaughterhouse, MCFww,treatment was chosen to be a composite MCF of the baseline
treatment technology and that of the receiving bodies of water that are of moderate to poor quality. The
suggested MCF (IPCC Chapter 5, volume 5 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories) for anaerobic systems greater than 2 meters deep is between 0.8 and 1.0 or 0.5 in the case of
a septic tank, while the corresponding MCF natural river systems are between 0 and 0.2. Considering that
much of the BOD will degrade in the anaerobic settling tanks, an intermediate MCF of 0.7 and 0.4 were
chosen respectively.

On the other hand, in the case of piggery farms, the MCFww,treatment chosen were 0.8 and 0.5 for deep
ponds that are more than 2 m deep and septic tanks respectively as recommended in the approved
methodology. For the piggery farms participating in the project, treated wastewater is either recycled as
wash water or simply dissipated into the ground before reaching the bodies of water.

The value used for GWP_CH4 or Global Warming Potential for methane is 21.

14
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

Estimation of Project Emissions (PEy)

As outlined in AMS. III.H and AMS III.I, the following equation was used to calculate the project
emission:

PEy = PEy,power + PEy,ww,treated + PEy,s,final + PEy,fugitive + PEy,dissolved

Where:

PEy project activity emissions in year y (tonnes of CO2 equivalent)

PEy,power project emissions due electricity or diesel consumption in the year y

PEy,ww,treated project emissions due to degradable organic carbon in treated wastewater in the year y

PEy,s,final project emissions due to anaerobic decay of the final sludge in the year y

PEy,fugitive project emissions due to methane release in capture and flare systems in the year y

PEy,dissolved project emissions due to methane dissolved in treated wastewater

Figure 4: Project Activity showing sources of direct emissions

PEy,fugitive PEy,ww,treated

PEy,ww,AB PEy,ww,aer PEy,ww,eff


Gas for heating

Anaerobic Baffled
Reactor/Septic Tank/
Open pond

Effluent

Dome biogas Anaerobic Baffled Reactor/ Aerobic Planted


reactor Septic tank/Anaerobic Deep Gravel Filter
Pond

15
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

I. Project emissions due to degradable organic carbon in treated wastewater, PEy,ww,treated

The treated wastewater from the anaerobic biogas reactor equipped with biogas capture and flaring
system subsequently flows through two additional stages of treatment before final disposal. The methane
emission from this wastewater was determined by adding emissions due to each of subsequent treatment
stages and final disposal using the equations from AMS. III.H and AMS. III.I given below:

PEy,ww,treated = PEy,ww,AB + PEy,ww,Aer + PEy,ww,eff

(1) PEy,ww,AB : Project emission from wastewater from anaerobic baffled reactor (tonnes CO2/yr)

PEy,ww,AB = Qy,ww*CODy,ww,treated,AB*Boww*MCFww,AB*GWP_CH4

Where:

Qy,ww the flow of wastewater treated in year y (m3)

CODy,ww,treated,AB chemical oxygen demand treated in anaerobic baffled reactor or septic tank or
open pond in the year y (tonnes/m3)

Boww methane producing capacity of the treated wastewater (IPCC default value,
0.21 kg CH4/kg COD)

MCFww,AB methane conversion factor for anaerobic baffled reactor (or septic tank or open
pond) based on the type of treatment and discharge pathway of the wastewater
(fraction)

GWP_CH4 Global Warming Potential for methane (IPCC value is 21)

(2) PEy,ww,aer : Project emission from wastewater from aerobic gravel filter (tonnes CO2/yr)

PEy,ww,Aer = Qy,ww*CODy,ww,treated,Aer*Boww*MCFww,Aer*GWP_CH4

Where:

Qy,ww the flow of wastewater treated in year y (m3)

CODy,ww,treated,AB chemical oxygen demand treated in aerobic planted gravel filter in the year y
(tonnes/m3)

Boww methane producing capacity of the treated wastewater (IPCC default value,
0.21 kg CH4/kg COD)

MCFww,Aer methane conversion factor for aerobic systems based on the type of treatment
and discharge pathway of the wastewater (fraction)

GWP_CH4 Global Warming Potential for methane (IPCC value is 21)

16
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

(3) PEy,ww,aer : Project emission from wastewater from effluent wastewater (tonnes CO2/yr)

PEy,ww,eff = Qy,ww*CODy,ww,treated,Eff*Boww*MCFww,Eff*GWP_CH4

Where:

Qy,ww the flow of wastewater treated in year y (m3)

CODy,ww,eff chemical oxygen demand in effluent wastewater after final treatment in aerobic
planted gravel filter in the year y (tonnes/m3)

Boww methane producing capacity of the treated wastewater (IPCC default value,
0.21 kg CH4/kg COD)

MCFww,Eff methane conversion factor for aerobic systems based on the type of treatment
and discharge pathway of the wastewater (fraction) (MCF higher value in Table
III.H.1 for sea, river and lake discharge i.e. 0.2)

GWP_CH4 Global Warming Potential for methane (IPCC value is 21)

The table below summarizes the terms that apply at the different subprojects. Bo is a default value based
on AMS. III.H.1 and AMS. III.I. On the other hand, annual wastewater flow rates, Qy,ww as shown in
Annex 7 and COD values were based on design parameters in the feasibility study. Also, MCFww,Eff was
based on final disposal in a natural body of water that has some anaerobic activity due to poor water
quality.

II. Project emissions due to anaerobic decay of the final sludge, PEy,s,final

This was neglected since the final sludge will be composted or sent to a composting facility and the
product to be used in soil application

III. Project emissions due to methane release in capture and flare systems, PEy,fugitive

PEy,fugitive = PEy,fugitive,ww + PEy,fugitive,s

Where:

PEy,fugitive,ww fugitive emissions due to methane capture and flaring inefficiencies in the anaerobic
wastewater treatment in the year y (tonnes CO2 equivalent)

PEy,fugitive,s fugitive emissions due to methane capture and flaring inefficiencies in the anaerobic
sludge treatment in the year y (tonnes CO2 equivalent)

17
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

The following equations were used:

1) PEy,fugitive,ww, : Fugitive emissions due to capture and flaring inefficiencies in the anaerobic
wastewater treatment

PEy,ww,Aer = (1-CFEww)* MEPy,ww,treatment*GWP_CH4

Where:

CFEww capture and flare efficiency of the methane recovery and combustion equipment
in the wastewater treatment

GWP_CH4 Global Warming Potential for methane (IPCC value is 21)

MEPy,ww,treatment methane emission potential of the untreated wastewater in the year y (tonnes)
calculated using the following equation:

MEPy,ww,treatment = Qy,ww*CODy,ww,untreated*Boww*MCFww,treatment

Where:

Qy,ww the flow of wastewater treated in year y (m3)

CODy,ww,untreated chemical oxygen demand of the wastewater entering the anaerobic treatment
reactor system with methane capture and combustion in the year y
(tonnes/m3)

Boww methane producing capacity of the untreated wastewater (IPCC default


value, 0.21 kg CH4/kg COD)

MCFww,treatment methane correction factor for the wastewater treatment system that will be
equipped with methane recovery and combustion

The table below also summarizes the terms applicable to the different sub-projects. Bo is a default value
as per AMS III.H. Also, wastewater flow rate and COD were based on design parameters. MCF value
was chosen as 1.0 based on the anaerobic condition of the of the project activity wastewater treatment
system as suggested in Table III.H.1

(2) PEy,fugitive,s, : Fugitive emissions due to capture and flaring inefficiencies in the anaerobic sludge
treatment

This was considered zero since the anaerobic treatment technology does not include a separate sludge
treatment system.

IV. Project emissions due to dissolved methane in treated wastewater, PEy,dissolved

PEy,dissolved = Qy,ww*[CH4}y,ww,treated*GWP_CH4

18
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

Where:
Qy,ww the flow of wastewater treated in year y (m3)

[CH4]y,wwtreated dissolved methane content in the treated wastewater (tonnes/m3). The IPCC
default of 0.0001 was used.

GWP_CH4 Global Warming Potential for methane (IPCC value is 21)

V. Project emissions due electricity or diesel consumption, PEy,power

This was also neglected since the biogas reactor, the anaerobic baffled reactor and the aerobic planted
gravel filter will not consume power for their operations.

Estimation of Leakage

No leakage calculation is necessary since none of the wastewater treatment technologies are transferred
from another activity and none of the existing equipment is transferred from another activity.

Estimation of Emission Reduction

As outlined in AMS. III.H and AMS. III.I, the following equation was used for the estimation of emission
reduction of the project:

ERy = Bey (PEy + Leakage)

Where:

ERy Emissions reduction in year y (tonnes CO2ee)

Bey Baseline emissions in year y (tonnes CO2ee)

PEy Project emissions in year y (tonnes CO2ee)

Leakage Emissions due to leakage in year y (tonnes CO2ee)

B.6.2. Data and parameters that are available at validation:

Data / Parameter: Qy,ww


Data unit: m3
Description: Annual volume of wastewater

19
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

Source of data used: Based on projected production and design capacity


Value applied: See details in Table A.3.1
Justification of the Based on actual systems
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
and procedures
actually applied :
Any comment:

Data / Parameter: MCFww,treatment


Data unit: N.A.
Description: Methane correction factor for existing wastewater treatment system (baseline)
to which the anaerobic reactor will be introduced and methane correction factor
for the anaerobic biodigester
Source of data used: 2006 IPCC Guidelines Chapter 6, volume 5
Values applied: 0.4 - 0.8 (baseline)
0.5 - 1.0 (project)
Justification of the Based on the baseline system s treatment pathway/s as provided in the 2006
choice of data or IPCC Guidelines Chapter 6, volume 5. For baseline treatments undergoing two
description of sequential treatments, an intermediate MCFs were applied.
measurement methods For project treatments, Recommended MCFs in the approved methodology
and procedures were strictly adopted whenever available
actually applied :
Any comment:

Data / Parameter: MCFww,AB


Data unit: N.A.
Description: Methane correction factor for anaerobic baffled reactor or septic tank or
Anaerobic Deep Lagoon system that will be introduced
Source of data used: 2006 IPCC Guidelines Chapter 6, volume 5
Value applied: 0.5 Anaerobic Baffled Reactor
0.5 Septic Tank
1.0 Anaerobic Deep Lagoon
Justification of the The anaerobic baffled reactor is an unsealed reactor that allowed some oxygen
choice of data or getting in and therefore the number was based on intermediate value between
description of anaerobic reactor without methane recovery (MCF=1.0) and shallow anaerobic
measurement methods lagoon (MCF = 0.30) as per Table III.H.1 in category III.H.
and procedures
actually applied :
Any comment:

Data / Parameter: MCFww,aer


Data unit: N.A.
Description: Methane correction factor for aerobic system that will be introduced
Source of data used: 2006 IPCC Guidelines Chapter 6, volume 5
Value applied: 0.1

20
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

Justification of the Based on value provided for well managed systems as per Table III.H.1 in
choice of data or category III.H
description of
measurement methods
and procedures
actually applied :
Any comment:

Data / Parameter: PEy,power


Data unit: tCO2e/yr
Description: Emission due to electricity and diesel consumption in the year y
Source of data used:
Value applied: 0
Justification of the Based on project design which needs no electricity or fuel input.
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
and procedures
actually applied :
Any comment:

Data / Parameter: CODy,ww,untreated


Data unit: tonnes/m3
Description: Chemical oxygen demand of the wastewater entering the anaerobic treatment
reactor/system with methane capture in the year y
Source of data used: Based on design waste loads expected from facilities
Value applied: Slaughterhouse wastewater: 0.003
Piggery farm wastewater: 0.006
Justification of the Based on project design parameters. Slaughterhouse wastewater influent COD
choice of data or value taken from feasibility study and represents the average between
description of Nagcarlan and San Pablo slaughterhouse wastewater CODs. Piggery farms
measurement methods influent COD was based on the average COD value of Maya Farms.
and procedures
actually applied :
Any comment:

Data / Parameter: CODy,ww,treated


Data unit: tonnes/m3
Description: Chemical oxygen demand of the wastewater treated in the anaerobic reactor/
with methane capture in the year y
Source of data used: Based on design incoming wastewater COD and reactor design treatment
efficiency of 70%
Value applied: Slaughterhouse treated wastewater: 0.0009
Piggery farm treated wastewater: 0.0018
Justification of the Project specific design data.
choice of data or
description of

21
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

measurement methods
and procedures
actually applied :
Any comment:

Data / Parameter: CODy,ww,AB


Data unit: tonnes/m3
Description: Chemical oxygen demand of the wastewater treated in the anaerobic baffled
reactor in the year y
Source of data used: Based on design incoming wastewater COD and reactor design treatment
efficiency of 70%
Value applied: Slaughterhouse wastewater: 0.00027
Cerdorado Piggery farm wastewater: 0.00054
PLRBMDF Inc Backyard Piggery Farms: N.A. (facilities do not include
anaerobic baffled reactor)
Justification of the Project specific design data.
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
and procedures
actually applied :
Any comment:

Data / Parameter: CODy,ww,aer


Data unit: tonnes/m3
Description: Chemical oxygen demand of the wastewater treated in the aerobic planted
gravel filter in the year y
Source of data used: Based on design incoming wastewater COD and reactor design treatment
efficiency of 70%
Value applied: Slaughterhouse wastewater: 0.00008
Cerdorado Piggery farm wastewater: 0.00016
PLRBMDF Inc Backyard Piggery Farms: 0.00016
Justification of the Project specific design data.
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
and procedures
actually applied :
Any comment:

Data / Parameter: MCFww,final


Data unit: N.A.
Description: Methane conversion factor based on the type of treatment and discharge
pathway of the wastewater (fraction)
Source of data used: SSC Table III.H.1
Value applied: 0.2
Justification of the MCF was based on disposal in a natural water body that has some anaerobic

22
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

choice of data or activity due to poor water quality


description of
measurement methods
and procedures
actually applied :
Any comment:

Data / Parameter: CFEww


Data unit: Fraction
Description: Capture and flare efficiency of the methane recovery and combustion
equipment in the wastewater treatment
Source of data used: IPCC default value for SSC III.H.
Value applied: 0.9
Justification of the IPCC default value was used since no local value was available
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
and procedures
actually applied :
Any comment:

Data / Parameter: MCFww,treatment


Data unit: N.A.
Description: Methane correction factor for the wastewater treatment system that will be
equipped with methane recovery and combustion
Source of data used: SSC Table III.H.1
Value applied: 1.0
Justification of the MCF was based on the anaerobic conditions of the project activity wastewater
choice of data or treatment system
description of
measurement methods
and procedures
actually applied :
Any comment:

Data / Parameter: PEy,fugitive,s


Data unit: tCO2e/yr
Description: Fugitive emissions due to capture and flare inefficiencies in the anaerobic
sludge treatment in the year y
Source of data used:
Value applied: 0
Justification of the Based on project design which needs no electricity or fuel input.
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
and procedures
actually applied :

23
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: [CH4}y,ww,treated


Data unit: tonnes/m3
Description: Dissolved methane content in the treated water
Source of data used: SSC Table III.H
Value applied: 0
Justification of the Final stage of treatment is aerobic planted gravel filter, thus default value is
choice of data or zero.
description of
measurement methods
and procedures
actually applied :
Any comment:
B.6.3 Ex-ante calculation of emission reductions:
>>
1. Santa Cruz Slaughterhouse

YEAR CODy,ww, MEPy,ww CODy,ww,


CODy,ww, CODy,ww,
Year Qy,ww untreated treatment treated AB Aer
(m3) (kg/m3) tonnes CH4 (kg/m3) (tonnes/m3) (tonnes/m3)
2008 5854.60 3.00 3.7 0.90 0.27 0.08
2009 6147.33 3.00 3.9 0.90 0.27 0.08
2010 6454.70 3.00 4.1 0.90 0.27 0.08
2011 6777.43 3.00 4.3 0.90 0.27 0.08
2012 7116.30 3.00 4.5 0.90 0.27 0.08
2013 7472.12 3.00 4.7 0.90 0.27 0.08
2014 7845.72 3.00 4.9 0.90 0.27 0.08
Ave. 6809.74 3.00 4.29 0.90 0.27 0.08

Py,ww,treated
PEy,ww, PEy,ww, PEy,ww, [CH4}y, Py, Py,fugitive, Py, Total Proj.
Year AB aer effluent ww,treated Total power ww dissolved Emissions
tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e
2008 8.13 0.49 0.42 0.00 9.04 0.00 7.75 0.00 16.78
2009 8.54 0.51 0.44 0.00 9.49 0.00 8.13 0.00 17.62
2010 8.97 0.54 0.46 0.00 9.97 0.00 8.54 0.00 18.51
2011 9.41 0.56 0.48 0.00 10.46 0.00 8.97 0.00 19.43
2012 9.89 0.59 0.51 0.00 10.99 0.00 9.41 0.00 20.40
2013 10.38 0.62 0.53 0.00 11.54 0.00 9.89 0.00 21.42
2014 10.90 0.65 0.56 0.00 12.11 0.00 10.38 0.00 22.49
Ave. 9.46 0.57 0.49 0.00 10.51 0.00 9.01 0.00 19.52

24
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

2. agcarlan Slaughterhouse

CODy,ww, MEPy,ww, CODy,ww, CODy,ww, CODy,ww,


Year Qy,ww untreated Treatment treated AB aer
(m3) (kg/m3) tonnes CH4 (kg/m3) (tonnes/m3) (tonnes/m3)
2008 8201.17 3.00 5.2 0.90 0.27 0.08
2009 8611.23 3.00 5.4 0.90 0.27 0.08
2010 9041.79 3.00 5.7 0.90 0.27 0.08
2011 9493.88 3.00 6.0 0.90 0.27 0.08
2012 9968.57 3.00 6.3 0.90 0.27 0.08
2013 10467.00 3.00 6.6 0.90 0.27 0.08
2014 10990.35 3.00 6.9 0.90 0.27 0.08
Ave. 9539.14 3.00 6.01 0.90 0.27 0.08

Py,ww,treated
PEy,ww, PEy,ww, PEy,ww, [CH4}y, Py, Py,fugitive, Py, Total Proj.
Year AB aer effluent ww,treated Total power ww dissolved Emissions
tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e
2008 8.13 0.49 0.42 0.00 9.04 0.00 7.75 0.00 16.78
2009 8.54 0.51 0.44 0.00 9.49 0.00 8.13 0.00 17.62
2010 8.97 0.54 0.46 0.00 9.97 0.00 8.54 0.00 18.51
2011 9.41 0.56 0.48 0.00 10.46 0.00 8.97 0.00 19.43
2012 9.89 0.59 0.51 0.00 10.99 0.00 9.41 0.00 20.40
2013 10.38 0.62 0.53 0.00 11.54 0.00 9.89 0.00 21.42
2014 10.90 0.65 0.56 0.00 12.11 0.00 10.38 0.00 22.49
Ave. 9.46 0.57 0.49 0.00 10.51 0.00 9.01 0.00 19.52

3. Taytay Slaughterhouse

CODy,ww, MEPy,ww CODy,ww, CODy,ww


Year Qy,ww untreated treatment CODy,ww,treated AB ,aer
(m3) (kg/m3) tonnes CH4 (kg/m3) (tonnes/m3) (tonnes/m3)
2008 3541.23 3.00 2.2 0.90 0.27 0.08
2009 3718.29 3.00 2.3 0.90 0.27 0.08
2010 3904.21 3.00 2.5 0.90 0.27 0.08
2011 4099.42 3.00 2.6 0.90 0.27 0.08
2012 4304.39 3.00 2.7 0.90 0.27 0.08
2013 4519.61 3.00 2.8 0.90 0.27 0.08
2014 4745.59 3.00 3.0 0.90 0.27 0.08
Ave. 4118.96 3.00 2.59 0.90 0.27 0.08

25
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

Py,ww,treated
PEy,ww, PEy,ww, PEy,ww, [CH4}y, Py,fugitive, Py, Total Proj.
Year AB aer effluent ww,treated Total Py,power Ww dissolved Emissions
tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e
2008 4.46 0.27 0.23 0.00 4.96 0.00 4.25 0.00 9.21
2009 4.69 0.28 0.24 0.00 5.21 0.00 4.46 0.00 9.67
2010 4.92 0.30 0.25 0.00 5.47 0.00 4.69 0.00 10.15
2011 5.17 0.31 0.27 0.00 5.74 0.00 4.92 0.00 10.66
2012 5.42 0.33 0.28 0.00 6.03 0.00 5.17 0.00 11.19
2013 5.69 0.34 0.29 0.00 6.33 0.00 5.42 0.00 11.75
2014 5.98 0.36 0.31 0.00 6.65 0.00 5.69 0.00 12.34
Ave. 5.19 0.31 0.27 0.00 5.77 0.00 4.94 0.00 10.71

3. Teresa Slaughterhouse

CODy,ww,untreat MEPy,ww,treate CODy,ww,treat CODy,ww, CODy,ww,


Year Qy,ww ed ment ed AB aer
(m3) (kg/m3) tonnes CH4 (kg/m3) (tonnes/m3) (tonnes/m3)
2008 3541.23 3.00 2.2 0.90 0.27 0.08
2009 3718.29 3.00 2.3 0.90 0.27 0.08
2010 3904.21 3.00 2.5 0.90 0.27 0.08
2011 4099.42 3.00 2.6 0.90 0.27 0.08
2012 4304.39 3.00 2.7 0.90 0.27 0.08
2013 4519.61 3.00 2.8 0.90 0.27 0.08
2014 4745.59 3.00 3.0 0.90 0.27 0.08
Ave. 4118.96 3.00 2.59 0.90 0.27 0.08

Py,ww,treated
PEy,ww, PEy,ww, PEy,ww, [CH4}y,ww, Py, Py,fugitive, Py, Total Proj.
Year AB aer effluent treated Total power ww dissolved Emissions
tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e
2008 4.46 0.27 0.23 0.00 4.96 0.00 4.25 0.00 9.21
2009 4.69 0.28 0.24 0.00 5.21 0.00 4.46 0.00 9.67
2010 4.92 0.30 0.25 0.00 5.47 0.00 4.69 0.00 10.15
2011 5.17 0.31 0.27 0.00 5.74 0.00 4.92 0.00 10.66
2012 5.42 0.33 0.28 0.00 6.03 0.00 5.17 0.00 11.19
2013 5.69 0.34 0.29 0.00 6.33 0.00 5.42 0.00 11.75
2014 5.98 0.36 0.31 0.00 6.65 0.00 5.69 0.00 12.34
Ave. 5.19 0.31 0.27 0.00 5.77 0.00 4.94 0.00 10.71

26
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

5. Cerdorado Piggery Farm

MEPy,ww
CODy,ww,untreat CODy,ww, CODy,ww, CODy,ww,
Year Qy,ww ed Treatment treated AB aer
(m3) (kg/m3) tonnes CH4 (kg/m3) (tonnes/m3) (tonnes/m3)
2008 10512.00 6.00 13.2 1.80 0.54 0.16
2009 10512.00 6.00 13.2 1.80 0.54 0.16
2010 10512.00 6.00 13.2 1.80 0.54 0.16
2011 10512.00 6.00 13.2 1.80 0.54 0.16
2012 10512.00 6.00 13.2 1.80 0.54 0.16
2013 10512.00 6.00 13.2 1.80 0.54 0.16
2014 10512.00 6.00 13.2 1.80 0.54 0.16
Ave. 10512.00 6.00 13.25 1.80 0.54 0.16

Py,ww,treated
PEy,ww, PEy,ww, [CH4}y,ww, Py,fugitive, Py, Total Proj.
Year PEy,ww,AB aer effluent treated Total Py,power ww dissolved Emissions
tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e Tco2e tCO2e
2008 29.21 1.75 0.00 0.00 30.96 0.00 27.81 0.00 58.77
2009 29.21 1.75 0.00 0.00 30.96 0.00 27.81 0.00 58.77
2010 29.21 1.75 0.00 0.00 30.96 0.00 27.81 0.00 58.77
2011 29.21 1.75 0.00 0.00 30.96 0.00 27.81 0.00 58.77
2012 29.21 1.75 0.00 0.00 30.96 0.00 27.81 0.00 58.77
2013 29.21 1.75 0.00 0.00 30.96 0.00 27.81 0.00 58.77
2014 29.21 1.75 0.00 0.00 30.96 0.00 27.81 0.00 58.77
Ave. 29.21 1.75 0.00 0.00 30.96 0.00 27.81 0.00 58.77

6. PLRBMDFI Piggery Farms

CODy,ww, MEPy,ww, CODy,ww,


Year Qy,ww untreated treatment treated CODy,ww,AB CODy,ww,aer
(m3) (kg/m3) tonnes CH4 (kg/m3) (tonnes/m3) (tonnes/m3)
2008 9855.00 6.00 9.7 1.80 0.54 0.08
2009 9855.00 6.00 9.7 1.80 0.54 0.08
2010 9855.00 6.00 9.7 1.80 0.54 0.08
2011 9855.00 6.00 9.7 1.80 0.54 0.08
2012 9855.00 6.00 9.7 1.80 0.54 0.08
2013 9855.00 6.00 9.7 1.80 0.54 0.08
2014 9855.00 6.00 9.7 1.80 0.54 0.08
Ave. 9855.00 6.00 9.75 1.80 0.54 0.08

27
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

Py,ww,treated
PEy,ww, PEy,ww, [CH4}y,ww, Py,fugitive, Py, Total Proj.
Year PEy,ww,AB aer effluent treated Total Py,power ww dissolved Emissions
tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e
2008 27.38 1.64 0.55 0.00 29.58 0.00 26.08 0.00 55.65
2009 27.38 1.64 0.55 0.00 29.58 0.00 26.08 0.00 55.65
2010 27.38 1.64 0.55 0.00 29.58 0.00 26.08 0.00 55.65
2011 27.38 1.64 0.55 0.00 29.58 0.00 26.08 0.00 55.65
2012 27.38 1.64 0.55 0.00 29.58 0.00 26.08 0.00 55.65
2013 27.38 1.64 0.55 0.00 29.58 0.00 26.08 0.00 55.65
2014 27.38 1.64 0.55 0.00 29.58 0.00 26.08 0.00 55.65
Ave. 27.38 1.64 0.55 0.00 29.58 0.00 26.08 0.00 55.65

B.6.4 Summary of the ex-ante estimation of emission reductions:


>>
1. Project Emissions

Santa Cruz Nagcarlan Taytay Teresa Cerdorado PLRMDFI Tot. Project


Year Slaughterhouse Slaughterhouse Slaughterhouse Slaughterhouse Piggery Farm Piggery Farms Emissions
tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e
2008 16.78 21.33 9.21 9.21 58.77 55.65 170.95
2009 17.62 22.39 9.67 9.67 58.77 55.65 173.78
2010 18.51 23.51 10.15 10.15 58.77 55.65 176.75
2011 19.43 24.69 10.66 10.66 58.77 55.65 179.86
2012 20.40 25.92 11.19 11.19 58.77 55.65 183.14
2013 21.42 27.22 11.75 11.75 58.77 55.65 186.57
2014 22.49 28.58 12.34 12.34 58.77 55.65 190.18
Ave. 19.52 24.81 10.71 10.71 58.77 55.65 180.18

2. Baseline Emissions

Santa Cruz Nagcarlan Taytay Teresa Cerdorado PLRMDFI Tot. Project


Year Slaughterhouse Slaughterhouse Slaughterhouse Slaughterhouse Piggery Farm Piggery Farms Emissions
tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e
2008 54.22 68.89 17.00 17.00 194.70 208.61 560.42
2009 56.93 72.33 17.85 17.85 194.70 208.61 568.27
2010 59.78 75.95 18.74 18.74 194.70 208.61 576.52
2011 62.77 79.75 19.68 19.68 194.70 208.61 585.19
2012 65.90 83.74 20.66 20.66 194.70 208.61 594.27
2013 69.20 87.92 21.69 21.69 194.70 208.61 603.81
2014 72.66 92.32 22.78 22.78 194.70 208.61 613.85
Ave. 63.07 80.13 19.77 19.77 194.70 208.61 586.05

28
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

3. Emissions Reduction
Santa Cruz Nagcarlan Taytay Teresa Cerdorado PLRMDFI Tot. Project
Year Slaughterhouse Slaughterhouse Slaughterhouse Slaughterhouse Piggery Farm Piggery Farms Emissions
tCO2e/y tCO2e/y tCO2e/y tCO2e/y tCO2e/y tCO2e/y tCO2e/y
1 37.44 47.56 7.79 7.79 135.93 152.96 389.47
152.96
2 39.31 49.94 8.18 8.18 135.93 394.49
152.96
3 41.27 52.44 8.59 8.59 135.93 399.77
152.96
4 43.34 55.06 9.02 9.02 135.93 405.33
152.96
5 45.50 57.82 9.47 9.47 135.93 411.13
152.96
6 47.78 60.70 9.94 9.94 135.93 417.24
152.96
7 50.17 63.74 16.13 10.44 135.93 429.36

Ave. 43.54 55.32 9.87 9.06 135.93 152.96 406.68

B.7 Application of a monitoring methodology and description of the monitoring plan:

B.7.1 Data and parameters monitored:

Data / Parameter: Qy,ww


Data unit: m3/yr
Description: Wastewater flow
Source of data to be Monitored monthly by municipality and private for each project in bundle
used:
Value of data NA
Description of Measured using flow meter on site
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied:
QA/QC procedures to Procedures will include regular calibration of flow meters.
be applied:
Any comment:

Data / Parameter: CODy,ww,untreated


Data unit: Tonnes/m3
Description: COD of influent
Source of data to be Sampling and measurement to be undertaken by an accredited laboratory
used:
Value of data NA
Description of Measured by laboratory analysis
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied:
QA/QC procedures to Use of accredited lab for sampling and measurement. Using multiple samples
be applied: representative of the daily variations in slaughterhouse activities.
Any comment:

29
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

Data / Parameter: CODy,ww,treated


Data unit: Tonnes/m3
Description: COD of effluent
Source of data to be Sampling
used:
Value of data NA
Description of Measured by laboratory analysis
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied:
QA/QC procedures to Use of accredited lab for sampling and measurement. Using multiple samples
be applied: representative of the daily variations in slaughterhouse activities.
Any comment:

Data / Parameter: [CH4]y,ww,treated


Data unit: Tonnes/m3
Description: Effluent dissolved methane
Source of data to be
used:
Value of data NA
Description of Measured by laboratory analysis
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied:
QA/QC procedures to Anticipated error is extremely low. None.
be applied:
Any comment:

Data / Parameter: Amount of methane recovered and fueled or flared.


Data unit: m3
Description:
Source of data to be
used:
Value of data NA
Description of Monitored by municipality using meters. Measured by continuous flow meters.
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied:
QA/QC procedures to Potential error is medium. Regular calibration of flow meters.
be applied:
Any comment:

Data / Parameter: Fraction of methane in the gas


Data unit: m3
Description:

30
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

Source of data to be Monitored by municipality for each project.


used:
Value of data NA
Description of Measured periodically taking into account temperature and pressure of gas.
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied:
QA/QC procedures to Potential error is low. Use of accredited lab for measuring of methane.
be applied:
Any comment:

Data / Parameter: DAFcomp


Data unit: Km
Description: Distance for sale of compost materials
Source of data to be Monitored by municipality for each project in bundle.
used:
Value of data NA
Description of Monitored based on the average distance travelled for compost sale using a
measurement methods sampling of users in each municipality.
and procedures to be
applied:
QA/QC procedures to Anticipated error is low. Procedures will ensure a representative sampling of
be applied: end users.
Any comment:

Data / Parameter: Temperature and pressure of gas


Data unit: Degrees C and Pa
Description: Monitoring of temperature and pressure of gas to calculate density of methane.
Source of data to be Monitored by municipality for each project in the bundle.
used:
Value of data NA
Description of Monitored by municipality.
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied:
QA/QC procedures to Anticipated error is low. Regular calibration of instruments.
be applied:
Any comment:

Data / Parameter: Flare efficiency


Data unit: Fraction
Description: Will use default of 90% and measure temperature and biogas flow rate in
accordance with manufacturers specifications
Source of data to be Measured by each municipality in bundle and cross checked by LLDA.
used:
Value of data
Description of

31
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied:
QA/QC procedures to Potential error is low.
be applied:
Any comment:

Data / Parameter: End use of final sludge


Data unit: NA
Description:
Source of data to be Measured by LLDA annually for a sample of municipalities.
used:
Value of data Confirmation of procedures.
Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied:
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
Any comment: Will confirm placement of sludge in composting system and use of compost
for soil application.

Data / Parameter: [CH4]y,ww,treated


Data unit: Tonnes/m3
Description: Presence/absence
Source of data to be To be measured by LLDA on a quarterly basis
used:
Value of data
Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied:
QA/QC procedures to Potential error is negligible. No special procedures will be employed.
be applied:
Any comment:

B.7.2 Description of the monitoring plan:

>> The Monitoring plan for the small scale CDM project includes the operation and management
structure for monitoring and involves both LLDA and the municipalities and private firms. The LGUs
will be provided with project operation and monitoring manual to undertake the monitoring of project
operations and report to LLDA, who will undertake data checking and site visits. For laboratory sampling
and measurements for determination of gas characteristics, LLDA will undertake monitoring themselves
as they have their own laboratory facilities and are able to quality control the analysis through their
standard procedures. LLDA will also be responsible for aggregating the data, undertaking any necessary
calculations and reporting the data to the DOE.

32
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

B.8 Date of completion of the application of the baseline and monitoring methodology and the
name of the responsible person(s)/entity(ies)
>>25/11/07, Clarissa C. Cabacang (DARUMA) and Romeo M. Cabacang.

SECTIO C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period

C.1 Duration of the project activity: Formatted

C.1.1. Starting date of the project activity:


>>January 2008

C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the project activity:


>>30 years

C.2 Choice of the crediting period and related information:

C.2.1. Renewable crediting period


>>3 x 7 years
C.2.1.1. Starting date of the first crediting period:
>>January 2008

C.2.1.2. Length of the first crediting period:


>>7 years

C.2.2. Fixed crediting period:

C.2.2.1. Starting date:


>>

C.2.2.2. Length:
>>

SECTIO D. Environmental impacts

D.1. If required by the host Party, documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts
of the project activity:

>> The subprojects comply with the Environmental Impact Assessment Law (Presidential decree 1586
and DAO 2003).

D.2. If environmental impacts are considered significant by the project participants or the host Party,
please provide conclusions and all references to support documentation of an environmental impact
assessment undertaken in accordance with the procedures as required by the host Party:

33
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

SECTIO E. Stakeholders comments


>>
E.1. Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled:

>> The Stakeholders Consultation of the identified eligible CDM subprojects for the wastewater
treatment was scheduled separately for each Municipality. The invitations were sent to the stakeholders
being affected by the project including the officials of the Cities and Municipalities involved in the
project. The topics presented in the consultation were the presentation of the carbonshed project of
LLDA, the project activity to be implemented, and open forum to address the issues and concerns about
the project.

E.2. Summary of the comments received:

Summary of Issuses/Concerns addressed in the Stakeholders Consultation:


Issue Response/Recommended Measures to
address and solve those issues
1. How to control and remove bad odor Bad odor coming from the piggery can be
coming from the piggery? controlled or removed substantially through
proper housekeeping and use of enclosed waste
treatment equipment like the biogas digester
and the septic tank. For bigger piggeries,
planting trees around the farm to create a wind
break will prevent residual odor from reaching
the neighborhood.
2. How to operate the biogas? The biogas digester is very simple to operate.
Just feed continuously or intermittently with
wastewater influent. The treated wastewater
discharges automatically by volume
displacement. Biogas is emitted continuously
from the top and the methane gas being
captured can be used for cooking.
3. How the methane gas be utilized for Methane gas can be utilized for cooking in the
cooking? same manner as LPG. Extend a tube and install
a cooking stove near the area.
4. How the LGU get their incentives For a limited period, LGUs can get their
from CER? incentives from LLDA.

5. What should the community do to The community can divert their own piggery
make the project successful? wastes in case the biogas digester is under
utilized or patronize use of biogas for cooking
in case there is a surplus supply.

34
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

6. Who will be benfited from the The project proponent or the LGUs will
CERs to be generated from the benefit from CERs but this incentives will be
project? used for their operation and maintenance of the
project thus, to maintain the methane capture
as prescribed in the sERPA in a given period
and to improve the watershed in the Laguna de
Bay region.

E.3. Report on how due account was taken of any comments received:

>> During the open forum, every participant had identified their name, what company or barangay they
are presenting and then stated their query. The comments or issues being raised was provided with
answers and explained further how actions were being taken and resolved those issues.

35
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

Annex 1

COTACT IFORMATIO O PARTICIPATS I THE PROJECT ACTIVITY

Organization: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development as a Trustee


of Community Development Carbon Fund (CDCF)
Street/P.O.Box: 1818 H street NW
Building: MC
City: Washington
State/Region: DC
Postfix/ZIP: 20433
Country: USA
Telephone: 1202 473 9189
FAX: 1202 522 7432
E-Mail: IBRD-carbonfinance@worldbank.org
URL: www.carbonfinance.org
Represented by:
Title: Manager, Carbon Finance Unit
Salutation:
Last Name: Chassard
Middle Name:
First Name: Joelle
Department: ENVCF
Mobile:
Direct FAX:
Direct tel:
Personal E-Mail:

Organization: DNA Italy


Street/P.O.Box: Via C. Colombo, 44-00147
Building:
City: Roma
State/Region:
Postfix/ZIP:
Country: Italy
Telephone:
FAX:
E-Mail: pia-sdg@minambiente.it
URL:
Represented by: Director General of the Department for Global Environment, International and Regional
Conventions
Title: Mr.
Salutation:
Last Name: Clini

Middle Name:
First Name: Corrado
Department: Ministry for the Environment and Territory, Department for Global Environment,
International and Regional Conventions
Mobile:

36
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

Direct FAX: (39-06) 5722 8175


Direct tel: (39-06) 5722 8101/02/04
Personal E-Mail:

Organization: Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA)


Address: Rizal Provincial Capital Compound, Pasig City, Philippines
Contact Person: Mr. Edgardo Manda
Telephone: 623 637-9748
FAX:
E-Mail: www.llda.gov.ph
Web Address:

37
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

Annex 2

IFORMATIO REGARDIG PUBLIC FUDIG

There will be no public funding involved in this project.


.

38
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

Annex 3

BASELIE IFORMATIO

Table 1. IPCC default values for Methane Correction Factor (MCF)


Type of wastewater treatment and discharge pathway or MCF Lower MCF Higher
system Values Values
Discharge of wastewater to sea, river or lake 0.0 0.2
Aerobic treatment, well managed 0.0 0.1
Aerobic treatment, poorly managed or overloaded 0.2 0.4
Anaerobic digester for sludge without methane recovery 0.8 1.0
Anaerobic reactor without methane recovery 0.8 1.0
Anaerobic shallow lagoon (depth less than 2 meters) 0.0 0.3
Anaerobic deep lagoon (depth more than 2 meters) 0.8 1.0
Septic System 0.5 0.5

Table 2 . Baseline Data of Pagsanjan-Lumban River Basin Management and Development Foundation
Inc. (PLRBMDFI) Piggery Farms
Piggery Farms Heads Wastewater Influent Baseline Baseline
Volume COD Treatment MCF
Lucban, Quezon
Barangay Igang 65 1560 6000 Deep Pond 0.8
Barangay Ayuti 6000
60 1440 Septic Tank 0.5
Majayjay, Laguna
Barangay Botocan 650 15600 6000 Septic Tank 0.5
Barangay Piit 6000 Deep Pond
109 2616 0.8
Luisiana, Laguna 25 600 6000 Deep Pond 0.8

Pagsanjan, Laguna 96 2304 6000 Deep Pond 0.8

Magdalena, Laguna 86 2064 6000 Septic Tank 0.5


Cavinti, Laguna 13 312 6000 Abondoned 0
Rice Field
Lumban, Laguna 22 528 6000 Deep Pond 0.8
Total/Average 1126 27,024 6000 0.6

39
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

Table 3 . Baseline Data of Slaughterhouse and Piggery Farm Waste Treatment Facilities
Treatment Facilities Wastewater Influent Baseline Baseline
Volume per day COD Treatment MCF
Santa Cruz Slaughterhouse 16.04 3000 Deep Pond 0.7
Nagcarlan Slaughterhouse 20.38 3000 Deep Pond 0.7
Septic Tank
Taytay Slaughterhouse 8.8 3000 0.4
Teresa Slaughterhouse Septic Tank
8.8 3000 0.4
Cerdorado Piggery Farm Deep Pond
28.8 6000 0.8
Deep Pond /
(PLRBMDFI) 27.0 6000 Septic Tank 0.6

Table 4 . Project Activity Data of Slaughterhouse and Piggery Farm Waste Treatment Facilities
Treatment Facilities Treatment Inffluent Effluent
Pathway COD, kg/m3 COD, kg/m3 MCF
Santa Cruz Slaughterhouse Biogas Digester 3.0 0.9 1.0

Anaerobic Baffled Reactor 0.9 0.27 0.5

Aerobic Planted Gravel Filter 0.27 0.81 0.1

Nagcarlan Slaughterhouse Biogas Digester 3.0 0.9 1.0

Anaerobic Baffled Reactor 0.9 0.27 0.5

Aerobic Planted Gravel Filter 0.27 0.81 0.1

Taytay Slaughterhouse Biogas Digester 3.0 0.9 1.0

Septic Tank 0.9 0.27 0.5

Aerobic Planted Gravel Filter 0.27 0.81 0.1

Teresa Slaughterhouse Biogas Digester 0.9 1.0


3.0
Septic Tank 0.27 0.5
0.9
0.27 0.81 0.1
Aerobic Planted Gravel Filter
Cerdorado Piggery Farm Biogas Digester 1.8 1.0
6.0
Anaerobic Baffled Reactor 1.8 0.54 0.5

Aerobic Planted Gravel Filter 0.54 0.16 0.1

(PLRBMDFI) Biogas Digester 6.0 1.8 1.0

Deep Pond/Septic Tank 1.8 0.54 0.5

Aerobic Planted Gravel Filter 0.54 0.16 0.1

40
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board

Annex 4

MOITORIG IFORMATIO

-----

41