Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COTETS
D. Environmental impacts
E. Stakeholders comments
Annexes
Annex 1: Contact information on participants in the proposed small scale project activity
1
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03
2
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03
>> Project Title: Laguna de Bay Region Community Waste Management Project: Methane Recovery
From Wastewater
PDD version 01
Date of the document: 25 November 2007
>> 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
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.
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.)
4
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03
5
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03
Figure 1. Map of the Laguna de Bay Region showing the participating Municipalities.
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
>> 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.
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
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
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.
8
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03
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.4.5. 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).
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.
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
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.
Anaerobic Baffled
Biogas Reactor (ABR)/ Planted
Slaughterhouse Reactor Septic Tank Gravel Filter
Combustion
equipment in
Scalding operation
10
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03
Receiving
Composting and soil water body
application of sludge
Piggery Farm
>>
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.
11
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03
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
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.
13
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03
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.
BEy = Qy,ww*CODy,ww,untreated*Boww*MCFww,treatment*GWP_CH4
Where:
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
As outlined in AMS. III.H and AMS III.I, the following equation was used to calculate the project
emission:
Where:
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,fugitive PEy,ww,treated
Anaerobic Baffled
Reactor/Septic Tank/
Open pond
Effluent
15
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03
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:
(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:
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)
(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:
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)
16
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03
(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:
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)
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
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
1) PEy,fugitive,ww, : Fugitive emissions due to capture and flaring inefficiencies in the anaerobic
wastewater treatment
Where:
CFEww capture and flare efficiency of the methane recovery and combustion equipment
in the wastewater treatment
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:
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)
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.
PEy,dissolved = Qy,ww*[CH4}y,ww,treated*GWP_CH4
18
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03
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.
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.
As outlined in AMS. III.H and AMS. III.I, the following equation was used for the estimation of emission
reduction of the project:
Where:
19
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03
20
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03
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:
21
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03
measurement methods
and procedures
actually applied :
Any comment:
22
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03
23
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03
Any comment:
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
2. agcarlan Slaughterhouse
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
25
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03
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
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
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
27
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03
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
2. Baseline Emissions
28
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03
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
29
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03
30
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03
31
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied:
QA/QC procedures to Potential error is low.
be applied:
Any comment:
>> 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
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.
C.2.2.2. Length:
>>
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
>> 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.
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
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
Annex 1
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
37
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03
Annex 2
38
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03
Annex 3
BASELIE IFORMATIO
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
39
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03
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
40
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03
Annex 4
MOITORIG IFORMATIO
-----
41